who do you think were better warriors?

Question

the samurai or the spartans?

i really don't know. i just have two friends who have said each is better.
maybe describe first singly and then as a whole. i mean if there was a one on one battle between warrriors or a full on war between the two.

Answer 1

Spartans for sure!!!!!!

Answer 2

Well, this is what I think, if it was just a samurai versus a spartan, I think the samurai would win. But if it was a lrage battle, it could go either way. Both are great warriors and it would be hard to tell which one would win.

Answer 3

I'd go with the Samurai. The Japanese warrior elite was very refined. They had excellent weapons and armor. Also the swordsmanship was a refined art developed over hundreds of years. The thing that made Sparta stand out was their warrior code and lifestyle. The Samurai had the same sort of code and lifestyle, so that advantage is gone. But I think the Samurai had a slight edge there.

But really, the edge goes to the Samurai for one very simple reason, two thousand years of technology and refinement. Let's face it, a bronze sword against Japanese armor and a finely honed katana? No contest really.

Answer 4

You're comparing apples and oranges.
Ancient Greek warfare was naked men with bronze swords and shield crashing into each other in strict formation. Calvary was non existent, archery was short range at best, and there was no catapults.
Japanese medieval warfare was all about lightly armored troops backed by archers and armoured Samurai (with steel weapons that wouldn't break) on horse.
While there are romantic tales of Samurai fighting with just their swords and without armour, it was rare at best. Even then, they were trained their entire lives (just like the Spartans) and their equipment was better. They Samurai were even trained as expert archers.
But put them naked with only the implements of the Spartans...
But like I said, apples and oranges. The best comment would probably be that each group was the best at their style of warfare for their time and place.

Answer 5

Spartans

Answer 6

I know I'll be lambasted for this, but the Nazi's were excellent warriors, routinely beating opposing armies with two-to-one or greater kill ratios. That's why it took the whole world to put em down.

But to answer ur question, I think the Spartans would kickass on the Samurai.

Answer 7

If you pitted a single samurai against a single spartan the samurai would win but if you put the samurai and his army of armed peasants against a skilled and disciplined army of spartan warriors they would win.

Answer 8

Would skill defeat determination? Very difficult notion to debate. Would the samurai concede for the sake of honor against a foe so determined to win that his very life did not matter? So, I answer your question with yet another question. How strong is your demeanor and fortitude young Spartan?

Answer 9

the samurai would win in an open field. they could use archers then flank the spartan phalanx box position with cavalry and surround them with infantry. in a closed field like the battle of thermopylae except the samurai were the 250,000 persians, the spartans would win.

Answer 10

The Spartans were bigger, stronger, not as poised as the Samurai, and they drank animal blood, and stole from people, and went through horrific, disgusting tests and training. The Samuri are poised, patient, fast, and articulate warriors. So my money would be on the Spartains, they were Way Bigger and were taught to kill or die, but don't come back as forfeiters

Answer 11

It all depends on which one you like...In all honesty I would like to see the Samurai win simply because everyone thinks the Spartans are the greatest thing to hit the planet since the meteor that took out the dinosaurs.