If there were no guns still, would the Samurai be the best at battle, or the Romans, or whom ever. Who is the Greatest beast on the battle feild if today there were no guns...???
2007-05-20 15:45:13 · 6 answers · asked by MuayThaiDale 3 in Sports ➔ Martial Arts
The eternal question. This question is based on the belief that the samurai sword is the best sword ever built and therefore it cannot be defeated. But it has been defeated. The only time it happened I think was during the invasion of the mongols to japan. The mongols won but they did not realized they did so they retreated back into the sea. After that they where not able to go into japan again. The thing with swords is that it is a tool and like a tool there are good aplications for it and bad applications for it. Take a pirate for example. Their sword of choice was the cutlass. It was good short range weapon that was the right sized for ship on ship battle. So, when fighting in a ship a cutlass does a better job than the best crafted samurai sword because there is limited space to move freely.
Another thing is that battles are not only won by the particular weapon alone. I mean, having a superior weapon helps but having the right strategy is even better. I think that the romans at their hight of their might would have overtaken the samurai. The reason being that the Romans fought all sorts of people in all sorts of terrains. They love battle and they dedicated a great deal of time to strategy and the development of weapons. The romans conquered a great deal of the known world during their time. The Japanese only had their island. I put my vote of confidence on the one that has proof of greatness than on the one that could in theory be great but has no proof.
2007-05-20 15:56:48 · answer #1 · answered by mr_gees100_peas 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
there would be a lot less gun shot wounds. lol just had to say it.
It a depends on who and why there was fighting. every culture has its attributes, the Samurai were very good the but had flaws, the ninja the same thing. Greeks and Romans they were all great but like i said it just depends on the circumstances of the battle
2007-05-20 23:18:20 · answer #2 · answered by apisfl07 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the sword never ruled really. Even in the days of samurai they preferred mounted archery or spears. This is true for many pre- arquebus/matchlock armies. The sword is a backup weapon for very close-range fighting when the formation breaks up.
I'd say that any army that could get its hands on a reliable mass-produced crossbow would beat anyone else's army.
2007-05-22 10:59:52 · answer #3 · answered by R. Lee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's difficult question to answer. I think the victory in a full scale battle depend much of the battle ground condition, tactic employ by each generals, and weapon technology posses by each opposing army.
2007-05-21 04:13:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
One on One, Samurai
Full Scale pitched battle, Spartans and their phalanx.
2007-05-21 00:50:10 · answer #5 · answered by Lost Ranger 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Mongols were the best. There tactics were superior, no land based army will never equal or will ever equal what they did.
2007-05-22 02:17:04 · answer #6 · answered by teamjesus_ca 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋