Posted by whitecracka23 (69 posts) - - Show Bio

Striking-Knock-out wins the match

Grappling-Submission wins the match

Striking and Grappling-Submission or Knock-out wins the match

Weapons[standard equipment(wooden) respectable to each warrior]-One thrust, three slashes, thirty cuts, or five hilt buts can win the match.

All of them fight each other in 1 on 1 bouts

They wear nothing at all to make it fair

Place of Battle is Venice, Italy.

Guest referee is Altair

Announcer is Al Mualim.

Winner of all four matches gets this prize: His/her standard equipment(arms and armor) will be made of Uru/Adamantine mesh.

The rest will still win a prize: Their standard equipment(arms and armor) will be made of Vibranium/Adamantium mesh. Even if everyone else loses, they still win. Yay!

#1 Edited by Sethlol (1296 posts) - - Show Bio

Training: Spartan

Armor: Knight

Speed: Samurai

Centurion is already out of this.

I'm thinking Samurai still if all that is required is just getting many different hits on the opponent. The standard heavily armored knight's speed could not compete. Between a spartan and samurai, the spear from the spartan would be interesting but I think the sam would find a way around it.

If this was to the death, then the ballpark is changed completely.

#2 Edited by Strider92 (16094 posts) - - Show Bio

Striking-Knock-out wins the match:

-Spartan. They should be physically superior to the other ones here.

Grappling-Submission wins the match:

-Again most likely the Spartan. Wrestling was a Greek sport after-all and played a hell of a lot.

Striking and Grappling-Submission or Knock-out wins the match:

-Spartan again. This is just the 2 first ones mashed into one. It won't change the outcome.

Weapons[standard equipment(wooden) respectable to each warrior]-One thrust, three slashes, thirty cuts, or five hilt buts can win the match:

-Samurai. Their gear is lighter, their training is better and more advanced than any one here.

All of them fight each other in 1 on 1 bouts:

-Samurai>Spartan>Roman>Knight

#3 Posted by 7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning (3578 posts) - - Show Bio

The Knights are the weakest despite their armor. No one remembers the Mongol Invasion of Europe during 1222-1242?

The Knights got slaughter by a hand full of Mongolians. What I mean by hand full is by about 3,000 Mongols (The Mongols were stretched fighting off the Persians too) against 30,000 allied knights from different European countries.

The Knights were too slow!! and had horrible point-of-view peripheral vision.

Even the Persians did better. And the Samurai is the closest thing to a Mongol back in the east.

Mongol > Samurai > Spartan > Indian Warriors (from India) > Centurion > Persian > Knight

#4 Edited by The_Timely_Assassin (133 posts) - - Show Bio

What kind of Knight? 12th century? 16th century Gothic? French Lancer? Gendarmie? The term Knight means a lot of things. A 16th century Gothic Knight or Lancer would butcher the other three with contemptuous ease, you will not find a better melee warrior all of history. 16th Century Gothic Armor was impenetrable to anything short of high powered gunpowder weapons. Even the Katana would be unable to do anything but glance off of it, while the Mace would crush the armor of the others. Not to mention, 16th century Gothic Plate Armor is so well made you can do cartwheels and somersaults in it with ease.

Finally, Medieval German Knights were huge people, easily the largest of the four here, I'm talking about two meters on average if not taller, and they were muscle bound and highly trained and disciplined by the 16th century. The Centurion would be slaughtered with ease, the Spartan would find his shield ripped away by a warhammer and then his skull gets bashed in, and the Samurai's Katana would glance off the armor, followed by the warhammer impaling the Samurai's helmet and skull.

#5 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (16014 posts) - - Show Bio

@whitecracka23 said:

They wear nothing at all to make it fair

lol what do you mean?

#6 Posted by The_Timely_Assassin (133 posts) - - Show Bio

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@whitecracka23 said:

They wear nothing at all to make it fair

lol what do you mean?

I believe he's trying to neutralize any advantage in equipment, as this means a late period Knight would stomp.

#7 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (16014 posts) - - Show Bio

@The_Timely_Assassin said:

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@whitecracka23 said:

They wear nothing at all to make it fair

lol what do you mean?

I believe he's trying to neutralize any advantage in equipment, as this means a late period Knight would stomp.

I get it.. just kidding around a little.. ;)

#8 Posted by The_Timely_Assassin (133 posts) - - Show Bio

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@The_Timely_Assassin said:

@PrinceAragorn1 said:

@whitecracka23 said:

They wear nothing at all to make it fair

lol what do you mean?

I believe he's trying to neutralize any advantage in equipment, as this means a late period Knight would stomp.

I get it.. just kidding around a little.. ;)

But honestly, these warriors were defined by their equipment. Without them you might as well pick up MMA fighters.

#9 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

Even the Persians did better.

Yeah, how did that siege of Baghdad go again?

@The_Timely_Assassin said:

But honestly, these warriors were defined by their equipment. Without them you might as well pick up MMA fighters.

This. You can't judge people who've spent their entire lives training with a certain weapon and armor by removing their weapon and armor. It's like taking an expert sniper, dumping him in a gladiatorial arena and then calling the gladiator a superior fighter.

Although,

@The_Timely_Assassin said:

Finally, Medieval German Knights were huge people, easily the largest of the four here, I'm talking about two meters on average if not taller,

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. There was no period or group in human history were two meters was the norm. While probably still the largest of the four, the knights were as tall or shorter than modern day people.

#10 Posted by The_Timely_Assassin (133 posts) - - Show Bio

Now in terms of army vs army; the Romans should win by the simple fact that they can bring far more troops to bear than anyone else unless you mystically unite Catholic Europe. Sparta would bite the gravel hard. Not to mention that whenever Sparta and Rome fought, Rome repeatedly curbstomped Sparta and made utter fools of them, although it's worth noting that by then Sparta had definitely seen better days. The Roman Maniple system was simply a more flexible one than the Greek Hoplite or Macedonian Phalanx system. As for Europe, how the Europeans fought depended on what era you're talking about. Pike-shot Era europe would be liable to soundly defeat the Romans until they could reverse engineer the system and exploit it's weaknesses.

I'm not entirely sure about how large scale Japanese warfare worked; but I can comfortably say that they wouldn't be able to bring the numbers Rome could.

#11 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32689 posts) - - Show Bio
@Strider92 said:

Striking-Knock-out wins the match:

-Spartan. They should be physically superior to the other ones here.

Grappling-Submission wins the match:

-Again most likely the Spartan. Wrestling was a Greek sport after-all and played a hell of a lot.

Striking and Grappling-Submission or Knock-out wins the match:

-Spartan again. This is just the 2 first ones mashed into one. It won't change the outcome.

Weapons[standard equipment(wooden) respectable to each warrior]-One thrust, three slashes, thirty cuts, or five hilt buts can win the match:

-Samurai. Their gear is lighter, their training is better and more advanced than any one here.

All of them fight each other in 1 on 1 bouts:

-Samurai>Spartan>Roman>Knight

Striking and Grappling should be won buy the Samurai given that they where trained in Jujitsu and Judo 
Online
#12 Edited by The_Timely_Assassin (133 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh boy, Spartan and Samurai wank. Need you all be reminded how Spanish Knights devastated the Aztecs and Inca?

#13 Posted by laflux (14130 posts) - - Show Bio

@The_Timely_Assassin said:

What kind of Knight? 12th century? 16th century Gothic? French Lancer? Gendarmie? The term Knight means a lot of things. A 16th century Gothic Knight or Lancer would butcher the other three with contemptuous ease, you will not find a better melee warrior all of history. 16th Century Gothic Armor was impenetrable to anything short of high powered gunpowder weapons. Even the Katana would be unable to do anything but glance off of it, while the Mace would crush the armor of the others. Not to mention, 16th century Gothic Plate Armor is so well made you can do cartwheels and somersaults in it with ease.

Finally, Medieval German Knights were huge people, easily the largest of the four here, I'm talking about two meters on average if not taller, and they were muscle bound and highly trained and disciplined by the 16th century. The Centurion would be slaughtered with ease, the Spartan would find his shield ripped away by a warhammer and then his skull gets bashed in, and the Samurai's Katana would glance off the armor, followed by the warhammer impaling the Samurai's helmet and skull.

This much is true. When Firearms were made, they used to proof the Armor by firing Flintcock's at it at close range. But yes the Spartan's do get wanked ;)

#14 Edited by The_Timely_Assassin (133 posts) - - Show Bio

@laflux :

People seem to forget that Rome in the end conquered Sparta with ease. I'm of the Opinion that if logistics aren't a problem, Rome could crush any other Iron or Bronze age civilization short of the Mongols or Timurids.

#15 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@The_Timely_Assassin said:

@laflux :

People seem to forget that Rome in the end conquered Sparta with ease. I'm of the Opinion that if logistics aren't a problem, Rome could crush any other Iron or Bronze age civilization short of the Mongols or Timurids.

...Logistic was the entire foundation of Rome's power. If it weren't for logistics Rome would have fallen after Cannae.

#16 Posted by The_Timely_Assassin (133 posts) - - Show Bio

@AtPhantom said:

@The_Timely_Assassin said:

@laflux :

People seem to forget that Rome in the end conquered Sparta with ease. I'm of the Opinion that if logistics aren't a problem, Rome could crush any other Iron or Bronze age civilization short of the Mongols or Timurids.

...Logistic was the entire foundation of Rome's power. If it weren't for logistics Rome would have fallen after Cannae.

What I meant that if Rome and say the Han Dynasty weren't so far apart that logistics made it impossible for Rome to enact a conquest, Rome would have conquered the Han in time.

#17 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@The_Timely_Assassin said:

What I meant that if Rome and say the Han Dynasty weren't so far apart that logistics made it impossible for Rome to enact a conquest, Rome would have conquered the Han in time.

I seriously doubt that. They had trouble with Parthians, Sasanids, Germans, Picts, and so on. The Romans were good, but they had their limits.

#18 Edited by The_Timely_Assassin (133 posts) - - Show Bio

@AtPhantom said:

@The_Timely_Assassin said:

What I meant that if Rome and say the Han Dynasty weren't so far apart that logistics made it impossible for Rome to enact a conquest, Rome would have conquered the Han in time.

I seriously doubt that. They had trouble with Parthians, Sasanids, Germans, Picts, and so on. The Romans were good, but they had their limits.

The Parthians are an interesting case, they won most every field battle with Rome but lost every recorded siege battle with Rome. Rome eventually decided better of trying to play to games where Parthia's maneuverability held the advantage, so instead forced them to commit to a fixed point where their substandard infantry would be slaughtered and their cavalry's usability would be seriously mitigated. As for the Germans, until the Germans started romanizing and the Roman legions declined in quality, Rome tended to do quite well. Against the Barbarians the quintessential problem was that most any Barbarian horde would break and route after five minutes of battle with Romans (to paraphrase somebody), but the Legion had to survive those five minutes. The Sassanids are more of the same with the Parthians.

There's a very long thread on the subject of Rome vs China debated by military geeks here.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60983

#19 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@The_Timely_Assassin said:

The Parthians are an interesting case, they won most every field battle with Rome but lost every recorded siege battle with Rome. Rome eventually decided better of trying to play to games where Parthia's maneuverability held the advantage, so instead forced them to commit to a fixed point where their substandard infantry would be slaughtered and their cavalry's usability would be seriously mitigated. As for the Germans, until the Germans started romanizing and the Roman legions declined in quality, Rome tended to do quite well. Against the Barbarians the quintessential problem was that most any Barbarian horde would break and route after five minutes of battle with Romans (to paraphrase somebody), but the Legion had to survive those five minutes. The Sassanids are more of the same with the Parthians.

There's a very long thread on the subject of Rome vs China debated by military geeks here.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60983

The fact that Augustus, at the time of Rome's greatest ascendancy, completely abandoned the idea of organizing Germania as a province seems to disprove the idea that Romans did particularly well.

Also I'm sure it's a nice thread but I have no intention of reading 100 pages of Rome vs China because I'm really not interested with that debate. I'm just taking issue the idea that Rome could anyone anytime.

#20 Posted by SNascimento (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@AtPhantom: Rome destroyed the germans after 9 AD. If they didn't occupy it it was because there was no reason to do so.

Anyway, Spartan, Samurai and Kinight all have the advantange they are better trained for this. Roman soldiers were not trained to 1x1.

Without equipment, it's hard to say who will win, it can go any way. With it, Samurai takes the lead.

#21 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@SNascimento: An expansive empire that occupied every corner of the world it could send a legion to didn't find a reason to do so? Come on. Germania was occupied. The province on the other side of the Rhine was extensively romanized and even thrived for years. They abandoned it after 9 AD because in spite of any punitive actions taken, they felt they could not maintain control over the province.

#22 Posted by SNascimento (438 posts) - - Show Bio

@AtPhantom: I'm afraid that you are implying that if the romans wanted to conquer Germania they wouldn't be able to do so.

#23 Posted by Vrakmul (23398 posts) - - Show Bio

@SNascimento said:

@AtPhantom: I'm afraid that you are implying that if the romans wanted to conquer Germania they wouldn't be able to do so.

Germania was a dirt poor province that was home to a mass of unwashed Barbarians that would comfortably outnumber the Celts before them. Rome could defeat the Tribes in turn, but there was no way they would be able to put the boot (or sandal) down on ALL of them. Additionally, the Germanics were much less tractable to being "civilized" than the Celts before them.

#24 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@SNascimento said:

@AtPhantom: I'm afraid that you are implying that if the romans wanted to conquer Germania they wouldn't be able to do so.

I'm not implying anything. The Romans wanted to conquer Germania, but the cost of doing so was two high. Of course had the Romans had the political will they possibly could have pummeled the Germans into submission, but the fact remains that Germania Magna is the first territory the Romans retreated from.

#25 Posted by whitecracka23 (69 posts) - - Show Bio

Lets stay on track here. Single warriors in single combat with no clothing on who fight with wooden weapons and their bare hands. That is what this thread was about. I would also like to say, "Thank you all for commenting and I hope to read more of your comments". Also, my previous threads are unanswered. Please feel free to do so.

#26 Edited by Vrakmul (23398 posts) - - Show Bio

@whitecracka23 said:

Lets stay on track here. Single warriors in single combat with no clothing on who fight with wooden weapons and their bare hands. That is what this thread was about. I would also like to say, "Thank you all for commenting and I hope to read more of your comments". Also, my previous threads are unanswered. Please feel free to do so.

You've taken away what makes these warriors what they are, their equipment. And now you have four sweaty naked dudes fighting to the death.

#27 Posted by Veitha (2895 posts) - - Show Bio

What kind of knight? From what Century? And have you ever seen a medieval sword? It's bigger and sharper and more resistant than any kind of katana or Roman sword, with a hit the knight should be able to kill his enemy.

And what kind of Roman soldier?? A limitaneus is different from a comitatum, and it also depends on what century he is from. Not every Roman soldier had good H2H skills, especially considering that many of them weren't trained, while much Spartans, Samurai and Knights were.

Then the place where the battle is set is very important. Venice was part of Roman Empire, but it was completely different from a Medieval Venice and even from the current Venice. Anyway, the place is a very difficult place to fight in.

Anyway, I'd say:

- Spartan vs Roman soldier: a Spartan soldier, if he's got a lance and a sword, would win H2H.

- Spartan vs Knight: I think that a knight would win after a good fight because of his equipment.

- Spartan vs Samurai: Spartan wins, the lance is a big factor here.

- Roman soldier vs Knight: knight takes this, better equipment and skills.

- Roman soldier vs Samurai: a Roman soldier has better equipment, while a Samurai has better skills, IMO. Samurai 6/10.

- Samurai vs Knight: Knight takes this, mostrly because of his better equipment.

#28 Posted by Bo88gdan (4393 posts) - - Show Bio

Knight>Roman>spartan>samurai

#29 Posted by UltimateHero0406 (2167 posts) - - Show Bio

Spartan, Samurai, Knight, Centurion.

Spartan has the best fighting tactic plus shield, Samurai has the best weapon, Knight has the best armor, and Centurion has...umm... a cool name...yeah...

#30 Posted by Spartan101 (2284 posts) - - Show Bio

spartan..but im gonna say that.

#31 Edited by TimothyLoh (11 posts) - - Show Bio

This is going to have to be a detailed answer… Bear with me.

Knight Analysis:

Advantages:

The knight, and the knight only, has the advantages of armour, size, and strength.

His armour, which we shall assume to be solid Gothic plate, is from 1453, backed by a full-body mail suit as well as much leather padding. Despite modern urban legend, the armour is, while slightly heavier than heavy Norman mail, is still manoeuvrable and balanced, allowing him to travel at, with adrenaline, 15 km/h should he need to.

He is the son of a rich lord, part Frank, part Norman in ancestry, with dark blonde hair; he's approximately 6' 6" in Roman feet (or roughly 6'1" in normal feet; pardon for any errors in conversion). He weighs approximately 250 imperial pounds unarmored.

Training:

His training begins from 5 years old, but at that point, consisted of running and strength exercises. At 6, he would pick up his first weighted, balanced wooden sword, and would have fairly loosely disciplined exercises just to get the feel for it and configure his style. A few months afterward, he would begin to train in unarmored fighting. This education would take up only about half of his time at this point, the other half devoted to education, the learning of manners, and play.

At 7, he would learn to ride and, in a pinch, care for a horse. He would spend much more of his time in the yard learning unarmored fighting, and would begin to use weights for training; also, he would begin learning to tilt with a quintain. This routine would continue until the lad was 11-12, or even as young as 10.

Once he began to enter puberty, he would enter a back-breaking regime for both endurance and strength, upgrading his weapon, which has so far been fairly neutral, to either a one-handed sword or a two-handed greatsword. An alternative would also be war hammers, maces, and axes. His life now was somewhat like a training montage. He would wake up before dawn and run, before the morning meal and training. He would get a little more education at this time, but it would be solely for managing the castle in case of siege, dividing resources, and basic tactics. The rest of the time would be spent in the yard. At this point, if he was a rich lord's son, he would have his own suit of plate crafted, and he would train for almost ten hours, only stopped by the midday meal.

He would learn how to fight multiple, heavily-armored men; how to stand in a shield wall and shove and thrust; how to balance on his horse wielding a bulky, 2.5 kg greatsword or blunt weapon; and, should he show talent, he would train with a swordmaster, who would educate him on many specific techniques made for fighting men of various sizes, temperaments, armaments, and armours. He would eat like a horse on eggs, meat, and vegetables; he needed the energy, but more than that he needed the proteins and vitamins.

When the lad reached 14-15, he might choose to continue his training, or to become a squire (a baron's son might well be able to attain knighthood right off the bat). After that, he would follow the knight in battle, help armor him, and fight tag-team with him. Here, he would continue his training, but would also get his first taste of battle, as well as how to care for his provisions should he become a knight. He could be knighted within a year, if he proved himself worth (or rich), or he might not. Some squires stayed squires their entire lives, usually disgracing their families by their lack of progress.

When he became a knight, the rest was up to him. But as son of a lord, he would have the riches and power to do one thing: continue his training. If he chose, he could well drive himself as hard as the Spartiates, just as it was when he entered puberty.

Weaponry:

He has weapons that are made for either solid impact or strong thrusts, ideal for fighting against heavy armour. He has trained with these specific weapons since he was about 11-12, perhaps younger; with the bastard sword, he has trained since he was about 6.

Temperament:

By training, he would be hard, and unwilling to show pain. Furthermore, he would be intrinsically motivated, determined to be the best, and to distinguish himself.

Disadvantages:

He's not exactly reckless, but he can be headstrong… he's not going to disobey orders, but he's also very eager to charge at people. Whilst he's not slow and cumbersome, the armour is still heavy, and so he'll be a little slower than the rest. His horse is the best there is in a melee fight and in a charge, but it isn't exactly made for speed, nor for minute controls needed for Parthian shots. His weapons, unlike common myth, are not slow and cumbersome, but he's not just going to be able to swing them around like a knife.

Next fighter would be...

Spartiate Analysis:

Advantages:

Shield and Discipline.

Weapons: 8-ft long doru spear, yard-wide shield, and 2-ft long kopis sword.

Armor: Bronze cuirass, greaves, and vambraces; leather kilt.

Training: 5-7 domestic training regime with father; 7-15, standard, hellish Agoge education, which teaches discipline, courage, survival skills, military history, and weapons skills; 15-20, specialised training; 20-30, army service; 30+, reservist, periodic training.

Temperament: Insane discipline, great courage, not very reckless, knowledgable in tactics.

Disadvantages:

He lacks his buddies, whose unity in the phalanx are what makes them famous. He has no ranged weapons, and his equipment is heavy.

Next fighter...

Samurai Analysis:

Advantages:

The Samurai has the advantage of his bow, and his willingness to do suicidal actions if there could be a greater payoff.

His bow is the only true long-ranged weapon in the entire fight. It has an long reach, a moderately quick capability to reload, and a reasonable power upon impact. The question is, what can the rest do? The Spartan's and Centurion's shields will be able to take the impact, but their armour just isn't thick enough. As for the knight, he is known for declining a shield… because his plate armour is thick enough to withstand the impact, and is fiendishly designed so as to allow anything but a direct hit glance off with a screech.

Weaponry:

He does, of course, have the bow. Moreover, he has a wakizashi short-sword and a long katana, but he can choose to ditch both for a nodachi. He has a long, thin lance, about 11-12 feet long, which, while longer than the Spartan's dour, is too long to be effective outside of a formation, or in a cavalry charge. These are weapons that are made for spectacular duels, as well as fighting peasant rebellions. As in, a horde of small people carrying rakes and hoes.

Armor: He is wearing the late-period, pre-gunpowder armour, which is made of lacquered bamboo. It is designed for deflecting glancing arrow shots and sword slashes, but isn't exactly made for direct thrusts or hammering blows.

Size/Genetics:

His father was a Samurai, as was his father before him, and all in his family ever since Japan first rose out of the waters. The body ideal for Samurai was a short, stocky, and muscular frame, capable of quick and powerful slashes at the torso or belly. He is 5'11" in Roman feet, or 5'4" by today's standards.

Training:

A daily regime, beginning at about seven. A boy would learn from his father how to duel with wooden swords, but before that, he would learn to ride and shoot. His training is not nearly as complex as the knight's, or the modern student's Kindergarten-College education, but was still tough and tried-and-true. He would learn how to wield the spear from horseback; how to single out opponents in a fight and duel them correctly; and how to fire that bow from horseback.

He would also learn bushido, the strict Samurai code of honour.

(Apologies, I don't know as much about Eastern warfare and training as much as I do about that of the West, even though I am Asian myself.)

Temperament:

Bushido is a code of utter honour. Like in DragonBall Z, the Samurai would be inclined and expected to be utterly respectful and loyal to their lord, and to single out opponents in a ritualised version of battle. This means he was actually trained for an environment similar to what we're plugging him into… but he's in for a rude awakening.

Disadvantages:

His weapons are made for, at best, dealing with medium-level armour. They're designed for dealing horrific, clean slash wounds, but thrusting is clearly not as efficient with those curved swords. Bushido will keep him from playing a little dirty… though he was educated along the lines of Sun Tzu's Art of War, and is not above psychological warfare. And his bow, while incredibly efficient, lacks the power to make heavy infantry/cavalry obsolete. Above all, he's a glory hound, and aims for him, and him alone, to truly be distinguished from the rest.

Next fighter...

Centurion Analysis:

Advantages:

Arguably, the most experienced commander among these; massive shield; unstoppable morale.

Disadvantages:

He's alone, without supporting artillery or men to command. He's trained as a group fighter, not a solo duelist.

Training: A year in legionary training; about 9-10 years of warfare.

Weapons: 7-ft long pilum, 2-foot long gladius, 3x5 ft^2 oaken shield with metal on the rim.

Size: He's about 5'8", or 6'2" in Roman feet; he weighs about 180 lbs.

Temperament: Hard, cruel, and insanely disciplined, with patriotism for Rome and great courage.

Mutual advantages:

The Knight has German steel, which is very well-made and from a source of excellent steel, while the Samurai has Japanese steel, which is extremely well-made, but from a source of bad steel. Both have weapons of equal quality. Both are also mounted.

The Spartiate and the Centurion both share immense discipline, and a big shield. Not to mention, they're dismounted.

Fight time:

Samurai vs Spartiate:

Both are harshly trained. The Samurai is mounted, with a long, thin spear, but the Spartiate possesses a stout infantry spear, the bane of cavalry, and also has enough morale to negate the dread in a cavalry charge. On foot, the Samurai has a great advantage in terms of skill… but the Spartiate is patient and tough, capable of allowing the Samurai to continually pummel him and exhaust himself while he slowly withdraws. Moreover, the Spartiate has a shield, which makes a great difference against the slashing of Japanese swords. Also, the Samurai's bamboo armour is slightly weaker than the Spartiate's. Finally, the Spartan is willing to fight dirty.

Winner: Spartan

Centurion vs Spartiate:

The centurion has a ranged javelin, the Spartiate has an long spear. The centurion's thrusts are more effective than the Greek's slashes against their contemporary armour, and the Spartiate is an excellent wrestler. The Roman has experience, the Spartiate has training. However, the Spartiate has been through much harder training. His shield is smaller, but easier to wield in formation. Lastly, he knows how to treat minor injuries (e.g. cuts, sprains, bruises, superficial gashes) within seconds, and then return to combat.

Winner: Spartan

Knight vs Spartan:

The Spartan's spear is shorter than the 13-ft lance of a knight, not to mention thinner. The knight's warhorse is armoured, and is able to take even good thrusts by a spearman. The knight is more heavily armoured, and is trained in a similar style of wrestling. Lastly, the knight is much bigger and stronger than the Spartiate, and his weapons are designed for dealing with heavy armour.

Winner: Knight

Samurai vs Centurion:

The Samurai's slashes can easily be negated by the Centurion's shield, as can the cavalry charge. The pilum can bring down the horse as well. The samurai, though, can bring down the centurion by hitting him repeatedly with arrows. The key, then, would be to keep his distance, stay out of javelin range, and continue to circle until the Roman is too tired to keep on turning to face him. However, the arrows will run out before the Roman's endurance, and then a close-up fight will begin. The shield is the single greatest obstacle to the Samurai; without it, the centurion would get cut down quickly. However, the Samurai would and could get close enough to wrestle with the Roman. Should he throw the Roman, it'll ultimately be a ground fight with daggers, or a shieldless, one-sword against one-sword duel. The Roman, probably a former street-fighter (partisan), would win the first. The Samurai would win the second. However, that's all if the Samurai gets to throw the Roman. If the Roman keeps his distance from the Samurai, allowing a pummelling on his shield, eventually he would be able to stab the Samurai after the Japanese had exhausted himself. Even then, his armour would be better suited against slashes than the Samurai's.

Winner: Centurion

Samurai vs Knight:

A cavalry charge occurs, lance on lance. The knight's lance, longer and thicker, would impact first and would do fatal damage. Even if both lances collided, one is adapted to taking cavalry charges with their bodies, the other isn't. Should the knight be mounted and the Samurai dismounted, the Samurai could dodge the lance and bring down the horse with nodachi… and then both he and the knight would end up hammering at each other with their two-handed weapons. The knight's armour is far better for taking that hammering, as is his training and brute strength. Lastly, the Knight's greatsword is much better at thrusting than a curved nodachi or katana, while his blunt weapons would crush the Samurai's armour. If the knight was dismounted and the Samurai mounted, the knight would, though, have a hard time against Parthian shots from the Samurai. The Samurai, though, would probably not have enough arrows to pierce all that armour and kill the knight. And then, he gets up close, and has to charge the knight; that, or risk a vulnerable trot to circle around the Franco-German. Unless the Samurai can bring enough arrows to the field, the Knight's winning this fight.

Winner: Knight

Knight against Centurion:

The Knight's armour would be able to take anything but a lucky hit from the pilum. Up close, the knight is better at wrestling, is much stronger, and is fully armoured, capable of taking any of the Roman's thrusts while hammering down or stabbing around/through that shield. A cavalry charge might even be able to smash through the shield and kill the centurion in a single hit.

Winner: Knight

So the evidence seems to say Knight seems to be reigning supreme in terms of individual quality.

However, it can be assumed:

If there was a competition on who could kill lightly armoured enemies the fastest, the Samurai would win, with his sharp swords and vicious slashes.

If there was a full scale battle, the Centurion could work together with his artillery and his troops to bring down the rest… not to mention he had the biggest army and empire.

And if you needed a bunch of troops to hold a line against a cavalry charge without doing anything stupid, the Spartiate reigns supreme.

As for the original rules of the fight, which asked for no armour…

There's no way to discern that kind of fight very well. Thanks to whitecracka23 for creating this thread, but these men were first and foremost warriors, who trained mostly with weapons and their own fighting styles, which was almost entirely based off equipment. We don't have enough data in terms of everyone's fighting styles to know what would happen in an unarmored fight, as none of these would show up naked in a fight. They simply never trained to be without equipment utterly. If I had to go with what I had, though:

The knight is superior in strike-knockout, due to his massive strength and longer reach.

The Spartiate is trained to bring his opponents to the ground, while Samurai martial arts are more for leaving them vulnerable, wherever that might be. So, Spartiate wins with grappling-submission/knockout.

The Knight wins with striking again, provided he keeps them at range.

And with weapons, the knight wins, with the longest sword, spear, and arm length. It's possible to get around them, but if a single thrust counts as a win, then the Knight's range and strength should be able to get at least one thrust in before the opponent comes within range.

The Samurai, though, would be able to equal the knight if everyone was naked and without shields.

The results depend on the conditions of the fight. And, this last part, as I said, is almost impossible to prove through history.

Thanks.

#32 Posted by DarthAznable (5810 posts) - - Show Bio

Spartan's Shield is OP.

#35 Posted by TimothyLoh (11 posts) - - Show Bio

@7am_waking_up_in_the_morning: No army ever contained 30,000 knights.

At the Battle of Legnica, there were 8000 fighters. About a fifth of which were knights.