[cowofzot]

They finally got hip to the shield. As we saw in the Thrand link, the shield was decisive. Would be no different with Viking vs Samurai, with exception to armor protection, armor being less for "most" Vikings.

I know, just a tv show. The theme of this particular show was to determine who was the greatest ancient warrior, ( they do IRA & Spetnatz & other modern type shows also).

[pugsville]

Well how do you account for the record of the Catalan Almughavrs, particluarly of the Grand Catalan company, they did not use shields and manged to beat up all takers, there is one historicl account of almughavar beating a knight with full armour and horse in a duel?

[Oxymoron]

Let me get this straight a Spartan beat the Samurai but the Viking couldnt? That is rather retarded.

[cowofzot]

That's about right.

Here again is Thrand.

& here doing chain mail vs Katana & broadsword vs Samurai armor.

[Lensky1917]

That show is fucking lame.

I saw an episode where Jesse James beat Al Capone.

[cowofzot]

Thats funny, machine gun vs pistol. I saw a docu about him where he supposedely put his cousins body in his casket & kafed his death. They had an old man with the same bullet scar in his ear & even some of Jesse's jewelery.

[danholo]

Jesse James was probably a better shot with his gun then Al Capone with a machine gun, which are known to be inaccurate.

[BurrsWogdon]

The strength of the Spartan (shield) was in the phalanx. Shield or no shield, I see the Samurai win in single combat. For single combat I suppose kyuba and bushido serves better than agoge. The shield might even be a problem in single combat with the samurai. Also, Danes, to my knowledge, fought in the shield wall . In single combat the discipline and sword craft of the Samurai wins IMO. I think the Samurai employed a relatively long (8 ft.) bow as well. They could shoot it from horseback. I think Vikings mostly used bows for hunting and in small quantity in combat. I don't know about Spartans. I am aware of the Thermopylae "fight in the shade thing" but I'd say as a rule organized long bows are a force multiplier. I believe it was the geography that made the difference there.

[Bramlow]

^ This.

Spartans were principally strong in their phalanx. I'm sure they were pretty mean one-on-one, but that wasn't their focus, particularly as far as a shield is concerned.

Samarui would use a spear or bow before they'd whip the sword out, very often.

Also, we frankly know too little about the intricacies of the training for these types of fighters, and other 'qualitative' factors that would have made a difference.

[JohnRawls]

It is funny how you compare a spartans (BC soldiers untill ? When did they stop being spartants i don't know.) and samurai (AD soldiers , after 1000ad + untill around 1860-1870).

In 1000-1870 , samurai should be compared to red coats. Who would win red coats or samurai ?

[Smilin' Dave]

Given the Samurai's hey-day came to an end thanks in part to the emergence of gunpowder weapons (somehow I don't think socio-economic factors would work well in this show's format ), I would assume the red coat. Although the red coat, like the Spartan, tends to fight in formation rather than alone, making it a poor comparison.

[BurrsWogdon]

In 1000-1870 , samurai should be compared to red coats. Who would win red coats or samurai ?

In single combat? Still the Samurai IMO. Maybe with greater ease. A green coat or "rifleman" might stand a better chance.

[Little von]

Hoplite are warriors of Sparta. Samurai are warriors of Japan. It was not really called "Spartan vs Samurai," was it?

[BurrsWogdon]

The couch potatoes are only tuning in because they saw 300. Confusing them with pedantry is bad for the business model. Anyway, couldn't an Athenian technically be a hoplite?

[Little von]

Yep, most all the Greek city-states had hoplite armies back in the day.