So all you martial arts wanabees still think a Samurai is better than a Spartan.....?

Question

I am afraid Samurais are all show just like other oriental martial arts and lack the lethality the mental edge, technology, and degree of dedication to the art of war that the spartans had.
Personally i think a Spartan woudl kill a Samurai with nothing more than his Shield.....

Answer 1

It is all an issue of personal skill. A well trained spartan warrior could beat a poorly trained samurai in most cases, but a well trained samurai will beat a poorly trained spartan warrior in most cases. Let me guess though, you just saw 300, or want to? Anyway, to address your other... points... a samurai is the ultimate dedicated warrior. Spartans are trained to survive torture if captured and to escape. Samurai are trained to have the dedication to their art to commit seppuku, ritual suicide, rather than be captured. As to technology, the Spartans had spears, short swords, and shield for close combat. In Japan you find the katana. A 40 inch long, razor sharp blade which is almost always worn with a wakizashi, a shorter companion sword. Finally I must address your comment on mental edge. Samurai are not merely warriors. An honorable samurai must also be a believer and practice Zen Buddhism and must write haiku. This may not seem like much, but remember the complexity of the Japanese letter system. In comparison most Spartans couldn't even read.

Answer 2

You should read "The Prince" by Niccola Machiavelli

You would be a moron to speculate such things just because you saw a new movie. If you study warfare, throughout history the side with the superior weapons or in the case the better steel wins %99 of all battles. A cavalry will defeat foot soldiers, archers will defeat a cavalry, etc etc. it's like chess. My example is no Roman army was ever able to defeat any Mongols on a battle field, so how would this be any different. Another example is the 2004 Olympics in Greece, A local Greek fighter made the gold medal fight against a Korean in Tae Kwon DO, they say the Korean guy kicked the Greek fighter so hard in the head that the guys helmet flew into the stands and was knocked out cold. Face it, Greeks are not really known as bad asses, just all hype. Alexander the Greats conquest never went into Hun territory, he just picked on Armenians and Indians.

Answer 3

1- personally I think you were dropped on your head as a child.

2- SEARCH FUNCTION NOOB!

3- a US marine will take them both out at the same time.

4- both samurai and spartans are HIGHLY overhyped.

EDIT: think about this too- without getting into style or technique too much. Spartans and many fighters in the ancient world achieved thier success from the use of the phalanx. Thier stregth was not in individual combat like the samurai, but in attacking as a unit.

And if we say that the spartans were bad ***, then the romans and greeks serving under alexander the great were 1000 times more bad ***.

Use logic to make your point. you cannot possibly know if a samurai would win or lose because it would depend on many many other factors than technique or skill. Size of the individual and conditioning just to name a few.

and if you want to play around in "frank miller's world" Marvin from sin city would have singlehandedly killed all 300 spartans and somehow found himself a new coat in the process.

Answer 4

They both live the warrior code, in different ways, but are both lethal. The samurai warrior had skill that rivals the spartan, and as far as training, they both worked just as hard, maybe the spartans had an edge on the fact that they started at a very young age. Technology is also comparable, the samurai armor was way ahead of it's time and was more effective than the spartan's armor. The spartans have an edge on tactics, with their superb formation. The samurai's sword (katana) is far superior to the spartans sword, so as far as one to one combat I wouldn't be so quick to judge them. They lacked the mental edge? they lived the BUSHIDO code, read about it and prepare to be impressed.

In a nutshell, both the spartans and samurai warriors were comparably fierce, adept and skillful, and I would NOT want to fight either want of them.

Answer 5

I can tell you are the type of person that speaks before they think.
First of all we are Asian, not Oriental. Oriental is in reference to rugs.

Second, if Spartans are so great then why did they not survive and conquer their land like the Samurai did? The answer is because they had no where near the discipline or training that Samurai had. Don't get me wrong, Spartans were tough, but were they disciplined?

Also, I think maybe you have been influenced by a recent Hollywood movie and not actual history.

Answer 6

MADNESS? THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAA lol great moive but u have to look at the facts the spartans were good soldiers and they were quite brave,but samurai's were strategic masters,they lived by honor and died by it,just like the spartans they were never afraid to die for their cause or their lands,and just like the spartans they went thru rigorous training to become like that,moreover they had much better technology and understanding of the human body so as much as i liked 300 (and i really really did) i would have to admit that samurais were a lot more liely to win (u can't judge spartans by a 2007 movie that would be biased)

Answer 7

The Samurai wins by shoving their Bushido into the Spartan's phalanx! = )
This question shows a lack of knowledge, mental competent, and has a degree of stupidity.
The Samurai is world class as far as ancient warriors at any point in history.
Next thing you know they'll be making a movie on how skilled, ruthless, and fierce Canadians are and someone would come up with a question like this again.
Have a nice day

Answer 8

Mongolians would have steam rolled them all, had they not declined.

Fin.

if anyone thinks a Spartiate could successfully duel a Samurai/ I take Greek studies/archaeology. Don't assume Spartiates would even want to duel, there is no archaeological evidence that justifies this claim. If the fight happened in Vegas I'd give Spartans 9-1 odds in a bones on bones. If it happened in the Mediterranean on the battlefield its even odds, because of Greek ferocity combined with the phalanx. In a duel its like comparing Ali vs. your next door neighbour [who just had his body cleaved from shoulder to crotch by a katana] There is no comparison to Samurai spirit/lethality in any melee class worldwide, unless you reach back to systems of fighting such as Indian kalaripayatuu, which later ran off into Kung fu and other martial arts. Greek strength however comes from the ambition of men, coupled with the fierceness of a people constantly at war with eachother.

Answer 9

No one knows. It depends on how skilled that individual spartan or samurai is.

BTW, the fancy stuff you saw the spartans do in 300, used filipino eskrima. Thats why their swords were odly shaped like a machete. Spartan swords and fighting styles were much different than that of the movie.

Answer 10

no.
Samurais fight for more than 5 years to qualify for war.

Spartans were usually slaves who just swong their swords around hoping to hit something.

Samurai's timed their blows and their blows were precise.

Samurais had lots of mental edge and a spartan was only good with muscle power.

Samurai swords were more precise than spartan swords.
A samurai will get wayyyy more hits on a spartan who fought with agression just swinging his sword around and a samurai always found a weakness in the opponent's attack and for example if a spartan swung the sword sideways, the samurai will keep blocking until the spartan gets tired or the samurai will wait for the spartan to swing first and wen the spartan's swing misses or is black the samurai will slash him apart.