After reading a few books on the subject I can't see any soldiers better man for man.
What force can take on such a massive army(Persian), without breaks or relief and inflict such punishing casualties. Outnumbered at best 20-1.
Very fascinating society these Spartans.
I agree, the Spartans were great warriors, but they had the advantage of terrain at Thermopylae (until they were betrayed!) The best warriors IMO were the Roman legions when they became professional under Marius. (See Caesar's siege of Alesia for details). I don't think they were equalled until Napolean's time.
"It is better to die once, than to live in constant fear of death."
you guys are a couple of *beep* spartans are pussies, one jedi would destroy any 20 spartans
shareWow, so a pair of guys talking about true life historical figures are pussies. Meanwhile you bring fictional characters to the table. Brilliant! Your powerful intellect overwhelms us! </sarcasm>
shareJedis are fantasy people who wear stupid brown dresses and wave long colorful torches and go around saying "May the force be with you" and all that crap. Bring them to the time of the Spartans and they'll be comparable only with a piglet.
The Spartans were true men of honor.
~Hector of Troy and the Phantom of the Opera. Two great legends in history... to me.~
Wow...you actually took his post seriously...
---sig---
My Good Guys Are The Stereotypical Bad Guys
Well, the Trojans sure did.
But yes, I agree, Spartans are amazing. Although I say that samurais/ninja and knights were another class of great warriors, the Spartans were the greatest of them all.
~Hector of Troy and the Phantom of the Opera. Two great legends in history... to me.~
Great yes, but they used the phalanx and the first army to continuously defeat the phalanx? Yes, the Roman legion.
"It is better to die once, than to live in constant fear of death."
Remember that there is a big difference between "warriors" and "soldiers". Warriors fight individually, often along tribal lines with lots of notice and personality even. Whereas soldiers are professionals employed by the state who are indistingushable from the man on their left and right, often fighting as a team.
I'd term the Spartans and Romans (who I would rate as the greatest soldiers of all time) as soldiers. Warriors in my mind would include Homeric heroes, samurai, medieval knights, Native American braves, Egyptian charioteers, and Zulu.
Doesn't mean that Spartans couldn't fight individually nor samurai as a team, its just that the common cause and teamwork is emphasized for soldiers. Warriors fight in many cases for their own reputation and reasons as much as for any particular cause.
Anyway that's my opinion :)
"Layeth the Smacketh Down!!"
Come on... how can you compaire spartans to samurai? its just not feasable. especially when you are just talking about combat skills. for a start the fighting styles are completely different!
In one on one combat, your averagee spartan uses a short sword or a spear, whereas the samurai uses a larger, higher quality sword. no matter how good the spartan was he probably wouldnt get clse enough to strike. also, samuarai were trained to go against OTHER samurai, so on a level field (ie same weapons) the samurai porbably wouldnt know how to react to any of the spartans attacks... Ninja's were warriors who were more like.. well, terrorists really, speciallising in assassinations and attacks from the shadows, not one oon one combat.
Iv got no idea about teutonic knights, havent studied them before so i cant honestly comment, But its not right to compare soldiers from any army and from any time period purely on fighting style... a spartan solider may be the best soldier in the world in hand to hand combat but put him against an english bowman from agincore (no idea about spelling sorry) and the guy would be dead beofre he gets within 100 yards.
the zulu's were just as ruthless as the spartans in combat too, and being able to march for much longer than any other army of the time with out stopping.
you just cant simply say who was the better soldier, noone really knows. and besides. its not just about the soldiers, its also the men that lead them. would you die for a total prat who sits at the back of the army giving orders (like the persian king?) or would you rather fight along side your king who only asks of you to do the same as him? putting himself first into battle, like leonartis... i kow who id rather fight for... and i know who'd get the better results.
iv rambled enough. read, and bitch some more...
Can't help noticing that this thread is full of historical errors.
First of all, man for man a Spartan isn't much of a soldier. He wears a huge, heavy shield and spear for weapons and so in close combat a "warrior" with a sword or axe made of iron or steel (where the Greeks still used bronze) would easily defeat him. The strength of the Spartans as well as any hoplites and legionnaires lies in their unit coherence. As a unit they can't be defeated.
Second, like I said the hoplite uses a long (21-foot/7 meter) spear, so the one not being able to get into range would be the Samurai. This was an error of the movies; the spear used was that of earlier Greek wars like the Trojan war, before the development of hoplite tactics. By the way, a samurai is nothing but a feudal knight of European history and thus he has no mystical powers whatsoever other than his lifetime spent at perfecting his trade. Ninjas are assassins and as far as I know they have nothing to do with warfare.
Third, the first to beat the hoplite formations repeatedly were not the Romans but the Theban hoplites, who used a tactic of a strong and a weak wing where the strong wing would in due course envelop the enemy line of hoplites. The Romans on the other hand managed to make the entire hoplite way of war obsolete by using mentioned sowrdsmen with iron weapons and greater unit flexibility.
Fourth, I don't know why the Teutonic knights are suggested here to be supreme warriors man for man, since knights are utterly useless in battle. Any unit of spearmen will force them to turn around or meet their doom; cavalry is vulnerable to light infantry, to arrow fire and to heavy infantry alike. A Teutonic knight in full battle armour would slay a lot of pagans but he's not so tough when presented with a trained and well-led enemy. This is why the knights of whatever religious order never accomplished much. In close combat their heavy armour and huge swords wouldn't serve them well either.
In a previous post someone (?) made a distinction between "warriors" and "soldiers" which is really useful here. If we're looking for the perfect soldier, unit for unit, then the Spartans as well as the Roman legionnaires are high up on the ladder. If we're looking for warriors, then the Knight/Samurai would score higher but definitely not top notch next to guys like the Saxon Housecarls, the Varangian Guards and other stuff of legend.
Alright, am I the only one who's studied how hard any of these people actually trained? At birth, if there were any percieved defects, the child was left to die on a mountainside. At about the age of five, Spartan boys were taken away from their parents and were made to begin training for the miltary. For about twelve or thirteen years, they were schooled in the intellectual and militaristic aspects of life. I'm not talking just some straight-up military school where if you followed orders you were fine. They weren't given enough food for the entire group to survive, and those who couldn't get food legitimately had to steal it, which was completely acceptable as long as you weren't caught doing it. In fact, it was encouraged, as long as you were smart enough not to get caught. They were drilled daily, learned tactics, and how to read as well. They were trained to fight as a group, or individualy. Fighting was encouraged to make the boys stronger, but grudges were not. After twelve or thirteen years of training, they were exiled to the wilderness for two years to live on their own. If they survived, they could finally become Spartan soldiers.
At which point, they joined a sort of warrior clan, with whom they would eat all of their meals, and train daily. Their training included individual fighting skills, group formation and fighting, tactics, acrobatics. Acrobatics was very important to the Spartans, and they generally enjoyed it very much. They trained every day, unless they were lined up for battle. They loved battle because wartime was the only time they weren't training. They would form up on their lines and do acrobatics, comb their hair, just kind of screw around until the fighting started (which was generally quite unsettling to enemy forces, most of which were scared of hell whether or not they'd survive the battle or not).
Finally, at the age of sixty, a Spartan was allowed to retire, if still alive. Of course, they weren't forced to retire, and were usually still in just as good shape as they were at twenty, if they had made it that long.
I'll admit, the Samurai were pretty bad, but even they didn't train that long and that hard. Also, don't say that the martial arts give them some sort of uncanny advantage. The martial arts (judo and the like, that the Samurai used at their height) are just combat movements that trained you how to react to certain events. Every culture ever has had them, including the Greeks, and though generally Asian martial arts are more refined and wide-reaching than western martial arts, military training does the same thing martial arts does. It conditions your body to be prepared for combat. Individualy, an average Spartan could go toe-to-toe with a Samurai, regardless of equipment. Admitadly, equipment can make all the difference (it's what made Teutonic Knights, and all of the other Knights useless). First of all, every Spartan male (not their slave-race, but the actual Spartans) had this training. Even though there were more people in Sparta than the Spartans, they still vastly outnumbered the Samurai. In a head on war between the Spartans and the Samurai and their armies, the Spartans would overwhelm the standard Japanese foot soldiers due to sheer superiority (Regular Japanese foot soldiers were not much different than any other foot soldier of any time, and their equipment wasn't even near the quality of that of the Samurai, what made the Japanese armies were the Samurai who led them), and the Samurai would fall because their numbers were limited.
In a one-on-one fight, you can't even take equipment into account because you're putting the quality of one warrior against the quality of another. So, the best way to put them on even-ground is a hand-to-hand fight. That way, you can't say, "Well, the samurai had better swords, and didn't know how to properly utilize a Spartan sword, likewise a Spartan wouldn't know how to utilize a Katana or Wakazashi, or the like", because technologically, they were from different times (if we're talking about Samurai at their strongest). They were both, however, trained how to fight hand to hand. In a hand to hand fight, it's hard to say who would be the victor; however, the Spartans trained hand-to-hand every day, no rest, unless they were waging war, when they were getting hands-on experience. The Samurai, having reached the level of Samurai, also had state-duties to attend to, as well as having to keep political favor with the shogunate, the emperor, or the other Samurai, depending upon the time and place, and therefore, had significantly less time to train each day. Not that some didn't. Also, a 'good' Samurai arose each morning and spent hours grooming. If you've ever read the Hagakure, the Book of Five Rings, or other books written by actual or former Samurai, physical appearance was very important. The Spartans only cared about their physical appearance if they were fighing a war.
So, personally, I would pick the Spartans. Even the Romans didn't train all of their soldiers that harshly. Not to mention that the Spartan 'officers' were among the first into combat out of honor.
Another point to look at is philosophy. That the Spartans would crush the standard Japanese foot soldiers is a no-brainer if you've read up on the standard Japanese foot-soldier of the time, and on the Spartans. But what did the Samurai do when they were about to be overwhelmed? Sepuku, Hari Kari, and the likes. To a Spartan the most honorable death was to fall on the swords of the enemy. A Spartan knew when it was time to advance, fall back, or retreat. To a Samurai and his army, retreat was typically unacceptable, and dishonorable, so if the battle looked bad, they'd end up killing themselves to avoid the dishonor of living to fight another day.
Also, an interesting thought that has nothing to do with the battle, Spartan women had a remarkable amount of freedom compared to women of the time. Because the men were constantly training, the women pretty much ran the home, did all of the shopping, and so-on. They were also trained to read and write, and in acrobatics. Amazingly advanced culture, by the standards of the time. Well, enough of my rantings. Later
"At about the age of five, Spartan boys were taken away from their parents and were made to begin training for the miltary. For about twelve or thirteen years, they were schooled in the intellectual and militaristic aspects of life. I'm not talking just some straight-up military school where if you followed orders you were fine. "
7 not 5
Spartans Vs Samurai and la,de,la,de,la - Nonesense
Besides... if your talking about 1 on 1 combat then I know what could beat the Allstars team, as in:
1x The Samurai
1x The Spartan
1x Roman Legionaire (pardon spelling)
1x Viking Huscarl
1x Zulu
1x Teutonic Knight
1x Eastern Heavy Cataphract (Pardon Spelling)
1x Braveheart
and!!! for talks sake:
1x Darth Vader
yeah....
Give me 1x Armoured War Elephant with a Pikeman and a Archer onboard, and place your bets as to whos likely to win every time ^_^ in fact come to think about it, an Armoured War Elephant could probably fight all of them at the same time and win.
The force wouldnt be with Darth Vader, the diorhea most certainly would be.
Well you can't bas the fight on the equipment because there wasn't only one type of Spartan soldier. Sure Spartan Hoplites carried the huge Aspis shield and heavy armor, but there were also Ekdromos who carried smaller shields and wore less armor, and Skiritai who wore no armor. There were also Psilos, and Peltasts and light cavalry. Its all very different. Also don't forget that the Samurai and knights didn't exist until many many centuries after the Spartans did. And the Roman Legions, yes they were good, but not because their idividual man was a super warrior, but because they fought well as a team and had better equipment than most enemies they encountered.
This comparison is unfair to make because its like saying who would win in a fight, a modern day US Marine Force Recon Sgt. or a Sumerian spearman. It compares things that are too far apart to fairly compare them.
The only way to compare these people fairly would be to compare them based on their mental toughness, motivation, morale, and just how hardcore their willpower was.
In that case the Spartans win hands down, with Samurai close behind
Do not forget that a Spartan would not, under ANY circumstance show his back to the enemy or surrender. Samurai did not adapt this ideology until after they more-or-less stopped fighting each other and Tokugawa took over Japan. Also, while knights were not supposed to surrender, they did, on numerous occasions.
PS, this post isnt meant to be negative or rude, i am sorry if offends anyone. Please excuse my poor grammar.
The Spartans did use a tactic when the situation was right to turn and run, drawing a larger force, then turn and other Spartans flank the opposing force and surround the force and hack them to pieces. These weren't stupid fighting men, they wore red to hide wounds in combat. The Spartans weakness was not having or using the bow and arrow. The Trojans weren't great but nobile and respected. They used a bow and it was in the compound configuration. The history of Greece stated the 300 Spartans were facing Xerxes army of 180,000 men. The pass they held was 3 meters wide and it was estimated Leonidas and his 300 killed 20,000 possibly 30,000. The Spartans tried to squeeze the pocket so the persians in the second line couldn't lower their spears. The Persians were hacked to pieces. These Spartans truly knew what cold bronze or steel could do.
shareI thought they were chosen closer to one year old and the officials whom chose them only looked for physical qualities like 5 toes, fingers etc. then took them to the mountains where they were kept in a room with their sex. Boys had a room girls had a room. And they had 1 set of clothes i think for special times but otherwise they were naked. They had to do stuff like run 70 miles. Then in each of the rooms the officials would look for the most aggresive boy/girl and choose that one to be the leader of them. I cant remember tho.
share[deleted]
Zulu I think counted more as soldiers.
These cartoons are truly bizarre and frightening!
http://www.lungsfilms.cjb.net/
Probably the best army in the ancient world was that of Alexander the Great, most of the credit for which goes to the innovations of his father Philip. In terms of individual soldiers, generals, and combinations of forces, this army was unbeatable. A close second would perhaps be the army Hannibal, for pretty much same reasons. Continously defeat is somewhat of a relative term, as the Romans were often defeated by the Macedonian phalanx, but were always able to rebound from the defeat. The great achievement of the Romans was that an individual defeat meant nothing in itself, they were always able to send more armies, no one else had the manpower resources to fight them. As soldiers, as Polybius relates, they were far from the best, merely the most savage. And as far as the best soldiers in history go, it probably goes to the modern American special forces who can achieve unbelievable feats, albeit with the aid of technology. No soldier has been as effective in history.
share[deleted]
I don't a lot about Spartans, except that from around age 7 they were trained to become warriors, and they were all homosexuals (forced, correct me if I'm wrong). That their whole life they are trained to become killing machine's. I don't know much about their spiritual, or extracurricular practices.
Now Samurai on the otherhand were also trained warriors. That has been there for for about 1000 years until around the 1860's, when Emperor Meiji took power again. They have accepted and are more than prepared to die at any time, even if their master wishes it. You might call that crazy or psychotic, but that is discipline. I dont' know how Spartans felt about death, or where their loyalty was, or what they even fought for. The samurai would train every day perfecting their skills, and their job was to fight war or "serve" their liege lord.
As for weaponry. Japanese swords were and are the best in the world. hands down , no comparison. It's like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Honda Civic, when comparing Katana's, to any other sword ever manufactured in history. Creaing the sword was an artform. My brother has a katana made in the late 19th century, and everybody who played with it has been cut. The sword hasn'tbeen sharpened in a long time, yet it is still razor sharp.
I guess you can't really compare the two different warriors. But if they were to go head on, I'd go with Samurai. (Maybe I'm biased because I'm asian, although most 1st generation Koreans don't like Japanese) No nation had ever EVER conquered Japan during medieval times, because of their superior fighting force. And no nation would even dare try to invade, except Genghis Khan (and he would have conquered Japan easily). Luckily taifun's destroyed the Mongol's Navy, not once, but twice. Although I heard the Roman's never attempted to conquer Sparta out of respect.
the Samurai and the katana are subject to a huge po-culture mythology around them, fabulous warriors and great sword, but not the ultimate warrior or weapon, ive long been an admirer of the katana's form and functions, but the truth is it was not hugely better than european swords of the same period. Spartans were trained killers, although correctly pointed out that they fought as a phalanx and were therefore soldiers this is simply not the case, they were trained with all the weapons spartans had knowledge of, sword and light shield, hopla (large shield) and pike, and even more specialised weapons like an early form of a pole arm, by the time rome defeated the phalanx it was already in decline, it is utter conjecture to say who would win between a roman legion or a phalanx in its prime under the spartans or alexander, but it would be an interesting fight, two quite tactically inflexible formations duking it out, although i believe the revised phalanx and heavy cavalry used by alexander could destroy a post-marian roman legion.
share but t hespartan one was beaten and the macedonian one was killed by pre marian troops .
mitridates used macedonian ones and they got anhiliated by marianones .
I have read alot of the phalanx and their spears. The spartans used spears but the Macedonians were the first ones to literally double the length. So the Spartans were still fighting a form of hand-tohand combat. Secondly, the Spartans after the Hellenization period really lost their strength as an military power and suffered some defeats that in the Archaic and Classical periods were unheard of.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Roman Legion.
More mobile than any Phalanx, plus there was a Legion called Caesars Hammer that could take on any enemy force even at 5-1 Odds against.
Spartans vs Persians (OP of 20-1 odds)
Still equals about: 300 spartans vs 6000 Persians
Legion vs anyone (5-1 odds)
Equals about: 4000 Legion troops vs 20000 enemy troops
So tell me who is better?
Spartans being outnumbered by 5700 troops (aprox) and winning
or
Legions being outnumbered by 16000 troops (aprox) and winning
Well shows how much you know about that battle, 6000 Persains? The Immortals that are shown in the film in real life was a force of 10,000. Kept at that number constantly, all sick, wounded, old, or dead, were immedialy replaced by applicants of either Persian or Median birth. And as for the rest of the regular troops Herodotus claims a total strength of somewhere around 3 million. So lets do the math on that one...Three Million divided by 300...and you come out with Ten Thousand...So Ten Thousand to One. Now lets throw that number back at your precious Legion example of 4000. And you come up with 40,000,000 Your Legion may be tough but there is no way in hell they are taking on 40 Million and winning. And honestly whose to say that they were defeated? While a technical victory for the Persians, the enormous casualties caused by the Spartans was a significant blow to the Persian army. That and it gave the Greeks the balls to face the Persian onslaught. The simultaneous naval Battle of Artemisium was a draw, whereupon the Greek navy retreated. The Persians had control of the Aegean Sea and all of Greece as far south as Attica; the Spartans prepared to defend the Isthmus of Corinth and the Peloponnese, while Xerxes sacked Athens, whose inhabitants had already fled to Salamis Island. In September the Greeks defeated the Persians at the naval Battle of Salamis, which led to the rapid retreat of Xerxes. The remaining Persian army, left under the charge of Mardonius, was defeated at Plataea by a combined Greek army again led by the Spartans. (And I know that half of you are probably saying "but the Spartans all died at Thermopylae!!!" That couldn't be farther fromt he truth. Not even close to all the Spartans fought at Thermopylae. King Leonidas selected his men on one simple criterion: he took only men who had fathered sons that were old enough to take over the family responsibilities of their fathers because he knew the likely out come fo the battle.) So anyway im getting sick of typing do some research on your own people.
Herodotus CLAIMS a total strength of 3.4 Million but modern sources now concludes it at around 170-200 Thousand. On the Original post it says atleast 20-1 which is still 6000 against 300 troops whether you like it or not.
shareHerodotus claim many things .
like the athenians defeated a 600,000 persian army on marathon that is imposible just because is not enough space .
the best unit of the ancienttimes with a record of victorys not matched was :
Cesar X legion . proved to be themost brutal powerfull fearsome and ....
not enough words to what those mans acomplished.
The most effective killing machine ever were probably the spartans. Yes, the stories of their deeds in Thermopylae are vastly exagerated (they were not alone, they did not fight one million persians, and they had a huge tactical advantage). But still, they were trained in every kind of weapon known to the greeks, which makes them more flexible than any other warrior, really.
A roman was trained with a short sword and a pilum, and they were defeated many times (just as the spartans) so you can't claim that they are invincible.
The samurai only fought other samurai and rarely other people. Their swords were finely crafted, but there's nothing to suggest that it was actually superior to the swords forged in germany during the middle ages.
A teutonic knight would probably be the closest thing that could match a spartan. Their armour was brilliant, and could stop even the sharpest of blades (even a katana). They had large shields, like the romans, and were trained in a variety of weapons: Even horseman ship. In a one-on-one fight, it's quite possible that the knight would defeat the spartan. But in a battle, the spartans would probably wind due to the fact that knights were more warriors than soldiers.
If we're going to "rate" the soldiers, this is my list:
1. Spartan
2. Knight
3. Roman Legionaire
The samurai are not on the list, because they varied immensly (as did the knights, really). And the only records of them fighting, are amongst themselves. So it's tough to actually categorize them, or say that they are great. That's just myths. In reality they could have been utter crap.
Through the samurai's long history, they did fight other people and fought outside Japan. They fought two Mongol invasions in 1274 and 1281, against Mongols, Chinese and Koreans troops in both land and sea battles.
In 1543 the Portuguese brought the gun to Japan and changed samurai warfare. Missionaries also brought Christianity. A Japanese mission of Christian samurai went to Europe from 1582-1590. Christian samurai armies even fought each other in Japan. Waving banners showing the Virgin Mary, crosses, angels and the Blessed Sacraments with battle cries of 'Jesu', 'Santa Maria' and 'Sant Iago'. In 1592 Christian samurai armies joined nine divisions of 158,800 men in the terrible invasion of Korea.
From 1592 to 1598 samurai armies ravaged the Korean peninsula. One division crossed the Chinese border and defeated the Manchu, future founder of the mighty Qing Dynasty. The samurai won most land battles against Korean armies and against massive reinforcements of Chinese Ming Dynasty armies. Samurai were well-armed with firearms and their battle-tested tactics gave them the edge. It was in naval battles that the Korean navy outclassed the samurai navy. The samurai navy used ranks of arquebusiers and boarding tactics, but the Korean and Ming navy were armed with cannons and rockets and fought at a distance. The Korean campaign ended in 1598 when the samurai withdrew.
Samurai mercenaries fought overseas in Thailand, Burma, Cambodia and the Philippines, valued as arquebusiers. 6,000 in the Philippines served Spain and took part in the Spanish invasion of Cambodia in 1595. In 1605 they helped put down a Chinese rebellion against Spanish rule in Manila. In 1606 samurai in Portuguese service fought off the Dutch navy in Malacca. In Thailand 500 samurai served with the Siamese army of King Naresuan the Great, against Burmese and Laotian invasions. At the Battle of Nong Sarai 1593 samurai fought in a battlefield dominated by war elephants used by both Siamese and Burmese armies. 80 Samurai served as bodyguards of Siamese Kings. Eight samurai were put in command of 500 Siamese troops and 8 war elephants carrying cannons. They defeated and drove off a fleet of Javanese pirates in 1633 and was the last battle of overseas samurai mercenaries.
16th century samurai armies evolved to use similar tactics to European 'shot and pike' with cavalry. Ranks of arquebusiers formed the vanguard supported by large formations of pikemen, ashigaru armed with 18-foot nagaeyari moving as one. Cavalry of mounted lancers were the main offensive arm, but declined with the increase in firearms. As arquebusiers increased in numbers, pikemen decreased. On their own the samurai developed rotating volley fire used by Europeans. In 1575 at Nagashino 3,000 arquebusiers helped break the charge of mounted samurai. Many mounted samurai would later replace the lance with the gun and dismounted to fight like European dragoons. Many wore 'bullet-proof' armor using parts of European armor (namban do), or modern bullet-proof armour of Japanese design (sendai-do). The katana was a secondary close-combat battlefield weapon. The yari (spear) was the prime battlefield weapon for close-combat. Used on foot or horseback, scaling walls or on board ships. They came in various sizes. Short ones for close-quarter fighting indoors to the pikemen's nagaeyari up to 18 feet long. Some mounted samurai wielded 14 foot lances against pikemen.
Samurai battle formations were similar to those of other cultures. Charging samurai formed into 'Hoshi' Arrowhead, similar to the wedged-shaped formation of Alexander the Great's cavalry. The 'Gyorin' was a 'blunted arrowhead' used by an outnumbered army with the wings pulled back to avoid being outflanked and was similar in appearance to Alexander's battle formation at the Battle of Gaugamela. The 'Kakuyoku' Crane's Wings was designed to outflank and envelop an enemy. In action it resembled the Zulu's classic Buffalo Horns.
The last battle between samurai armies took place outside Osaka castle in 1615. A massive Shogunate army faced a large rebel samurai army that included large contingents of Christian samurai. Out of the 300,000 engaged 100,000 fought as arquebusiers. Cavalry were ordered to dismount and fight on foot. Both sides had European cannons. The battle saw the first use of land mines and bombardment by cannons mounted on Japanese ships. Osaka castle and its outlying forts were set ablaze by cannonfire. Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu was victorious and annihilated the rebel army, their severed heads displayed stretched from Kyoto to Fushimi.
Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu (1542-1616) was a perfect example of a Sengoku period samurai. As a boy his family gave him as a hostage to a powerful warlord. He assumed command of his clan at age 14. As a young man he fought as a mounted lancer and was trained to use the sword and bow on horseback. He also fought on foot with spear, sword, gun and bow. He was brave and reckless. At age 21 he engaged in single combat on the battlefield where two bullets penetrated his armour. During a desperate rear guard action he fought as an arquebusier. At the battle of Mikata-ga-Hara 1572 he was daimyo (warlord) armed as a mounted archer. He led from the front and was wounded several times. At the Battle of Sekigahara 1600 over 85,000 of the finest samurai was his to command. He fought his last battle at Osaka 1615 as Shogun at age 73 and survived being speared in the kidneys. Unlike most of his contemporaries, he died peacefully in bed at 74.
Dont get me wrong, I respect the Spartans immensely. My favorite quote is "the Spartans dont ask how many, but where they are". However, people on this post are inflating numbers to make their point. Xerxes probably had a force of about 200000 men, based on what they could do when Alexander attacked and based on what is logistically possible at the time. The Spartans also had only 300 men, BUT their courage inspired other Greeks to join! The Plateans alone sent 2000. Its estimated that the whole allied Greek force at Thermopolyea was 8000 Greeks strong, with the Spartans being the best soldiers (the commandos of the army) but not always taking the battle line, they rotated. When the secret path was discovered, Leonidas let the other Greeks go and stayed himself to fight to the death in a valiant last stand because an Oracle had said that a king would have to die to save Greece and he thought that applied to him. They were shot at with arrows and surrounded, and there was no way they could have won. The matter of respect is in their bravery. The Gauls had numbers and relatively good weapons on their side, but they would run like frightened rabits from a battle. The Spartans in their long history only surrendered once, otherwise they always fought to the death. It is for that reason why Sparta could have no walls and a very small male population yet no one had the balls to even try to conquer it until Phyrus. Now I havent seen this film yet, so some of this may have been mentioned, but I felt i needed to point it out. The main training of the Spartan was in discipline--any army prepared to fight to the death is an army that should be feared and respected. For arguments sake, I respect the Samurai for this too.
The Spartans, Teutonic Knights and samurai did finally meet their matches. They would both lose to a superior enemy from which they never recovered.
Hoplites without cavalry and missile troops were always vulnerable. At the Battle of Sphakteria 425 BC the Spartans were humiliated by unarmoured Athenian archers. The heavier Spartans were unable to come to grips with the more nimble archers. Staying in formation, they presented the archers with a big, fat, slow-moving target. Worn down by casualties and exhaustion, the Spartans did the unthinkable. They surrendered.
Spartan dominance and myth of invincibility ended forever at the Battle of Leuctra 371 BC. The Spartan line was broken and slaughtered by the Theban Sacred Band. Sparta never recovered from this disaster and Thebes became the dominant state. It would be the Theban Sacred Band who would later face the Macedonians led by King Philip and his son Alexander the Great at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC.
At Chaeronea the days of the Hoplite ended. Allied Athenian hoplites were routed and the Theban Sacred Band died to the last man. Macedonian phalanx and Companion cavalry would now dominate. These troop types would later face the rise of Rome and lose.
Teutonic Knights met their match with warriors from the East. Teutonic Knights were slaughtered by the Mongols at the Battle of Leignitz in 1241. In 1242 they were defeated in the 'Battle of the Ice' on Lake Peipus by a Russian army with Mongol allies led by Alexandre Nevskii. At the Battle of Tannenberg 1410 the Teutonic Knights were crushed by an allied army of Poles, Lithuanians and Mongols. The Teutonic Order never recovered from this disaster and its decline began. Their territories disintegrated in 1440. They lost again to the Poles at the Battle of Zarnowiec 1462. After 1466 the Teutonic Order surrendered every castle in Prussia to the Poles and swore fealty to the Polish King Casimir IV.
The samurai class was abolished by the Meiji Emperor in 1868. Samurai and peasants were to be equal. The last samurai rebels laid siege to the Imperial garrison in Kumamoto castle in 1877. Both sides were armed with modern weapons. The samurai rebels wore 'Western' style uniforms and had Enfield rifles and field artillery. Many of the rebel commanders had trained with French and Prussian military advisors and were familiar with current European tactics. The New Imperial army had ex-samurai fighting side by side with former peasants. These former peasants proved more than a match to the samurai rebels in close-quarter fighting with the katana, which took place whenever ammunition ran low.
Many samurai in both the rebel army and in the Imperial army had earlier fought together as comrades against the Shogun's army to restore the Emperor. Samurai rebel commander Saigo Takamori actually commanded Imperial troops earlier. Under his leadership outnumbered Imperial troops routed the Shogun's army in a 3-day battle. The Shogun's samurai and the samurai of the Imperial Army fought with modern weapons, both sides having trained under European military advisors. Former comrades in the Imperial Army would later become enemies in the Satsuma Rebellion.
The ex-samurai and ex-peasants of the New Imperial Army crushed the last samurai rebels and ended the Satsuma Rebellion in 1877. Rebel leader Saigo Takamori was grieviously wounded in the final moments and committed suicide, and the samurai passed into history.
You can't compare the Teutonic Knights to the mongols. The teutonics nearly won the battle of Liegnitz, and they were actually outnumbered. Remember, the mongols were all warriors (at least in this particular army). They were 30,000 horse archers, all trained from childhood to ride and fight with a bow (but they did fight admist the enemy, using their bow as a "close combat" weapon, of sorts).
The teutonic knights were much, much fewer. Perhaps not even numbering one thousand men. With them they had their peasants, squires and their polish knights.
It is true, that the mongols could easily kill the european heavy cavalry becuase they could just shoot their horses, and then ride them down. But when they went up against the heavy infantry of Europe, they were almost crushed. Only a spur of the moment (some sources say that the mongols used some kind of "gas" to litter the air with a foul stench, which scared the christians and gave the mongols back the upper hand) action made the mongols win the battle.
The Teutonic Knights, and knights in general, would later face their REAL match: Professional armies. The same thing happened to the samurai. In the invasion of Korea, it was not the samurai who were most effective on the field, it was the ashigaru. The koreans and chinese were experts, if not masters, at using the crossbow, a weapon that could devestate heavy cavalry. But against large masses of rifle-wielding ashigaru, it would be much less effective.
So you can't really use the Battle of Liegnitz OR the Invasion of Korea to prove the inferiority, or superiority of knights and samurai.
LATER period armies ALWAYS have the advantage over EARLIER period armies because of knowledge and information passed down that later generations could adapt, improve, and defeat. The Thebans knew Spartan tactics and defeated them. The Romans knew Hoplite and Macedonian tactics and devised ways to defeat them, making them obsolete. Ancient Japanese armies fought like hoplites, heavy infantry armed with spears and halberds, advancing in rank behind large shields. In 366 AD they invaded ancient Korea. Their first encounter with enemy mounted archers came as a rude awakening. In Japan 'hoplite-style' of warfare became obsolete. The Japanese would abandon heavy infantry and become mounted archers, the first samurai.
Mongols had the most advanced and sophisticated army at the time and created the largest land empire ever. Intelligence through a spy network extending far beyond their empire gave the Mongols a tactical edge. Mongols gathered information on geography, weather, trade, political situations, enemy battle tactics, and trained locals to spy for them. Mongols knew their enemy and the lay of the land they invaded. They had the information and flexibility to adapt to almost any foe or style of medieval warfare. At Leignitz classic Mongol tactics were almost flawless. The Teutonics were fooled by the feint retreat and their unwise charge lured them away from their infantry. Mongols had heavy cavalry, men and horse covered in armour, fighting with lance, mace, bow and sword. They met European knights on their own terms, charging in for close-combat fighting. In April 1241 at Leignitz and Mohi, Mongol heavy cavalry stood toe-to-toe with Teutonics, Templars, Hospitallers, German, Polish and Hungarian knights, and won. Mongol heavy cavalry were ALL-PURPOSE soldiers, and fought as mounted lancers and archers and as heavy infantry in siege warfare.
The Poles and Lithuanians had long suffered from the hands of Mongols and Teutonic Knights. Repeated conflicts with both enabled them to eventually overcome them. The Poles followed the Mongol example and became Europe's All-purpose soldiers, the Hussars. Armed as both knight and steppe mounted archer. They fought as knights against enemies in the West and switched to steppe tactics against enemies from the East like the Tartars and Cossacks, and do it with equal success. Polish Hussars had lance, bow, pistols, rifles, sabre, longsword, mace.
Contact with the Mongols also led the samurai to eventually evolve into all-purpose soldiers. They fought with sword, bow, glaive, lance and gun on horseback, on foot or aboard ships. Toyotomi Hideyoshi was an ashigaru sandal-bearer who became a samurai warlord and ruled all of Japan at the time of his death in 1598. He created the Separation Edict in 1591, officially making all ashigaru samurai. Fighting side by side, wearing the same gear, the distinction between samurai and ashigaru slowly diminished. Throughout the Korean campaign, samurai armies took orders from a former ashigaru Toyotomi Hideyoshi.
Spartans were 'ancient' and the Teutonic knights were 'medieval'. No ancient army had the advantage over a medieval one. Both would lose to superior 'contemporaries'. The Spartans to the Thebans and the Teutonics to the Poles. The samurai evolved through ancient, medieval and into the 19th century and adapted with the changing times, former samurai joined Japan's modern army.
Samurai might have adapted, but they still became obsolete by the time the korean invasion occured. Ashigaru, who may have worn the same armour as samurai, were the soldier of preference. They cost less, and were easier to equip.
It was the same in Feudal Europe. Squires and professional soldiers were eventually preferred over knights because they were easier to train and cost less to maintain.
The same thing happened in Europe and in Japan, altough at different time periods.
As for an ancient army not having a chance against a modern one: I disagree. Ever hear of the scots? The scots used a formation called a schiltron, which is essentially a phalanx, but will lower quality spears and no trained-from-birth soldiers. Yet they managed to defeat english armies with this formation more than once (but sometimes they were defeated as well, thanks to welsh bowmen).
So you see, just because the romans faced inferior commanders in Macedon (and they DID. Philip V and Perseus were both idiots who did not use their light infantry or cavalry) doesn't mean that the phalanx was obsolete. As long as it's taken care of, a Phalanx would never become obsolete (except when gunpowder comes into play).
The Scottish Schiltron was an old idea, but the 'medieval' English knights took a step BACKWARDS, by fighting 'ancient style' taking the schiltron in a frontal assault.
Old ideas work if people do not remember their history.
After Bannockburn, the schiltrons were less of a threat. The English knights learned and adapted, the Scots did not. The Scots reliance on the schiltron led to awful slaughter. Archers decimated the schiltrons and knights finished them off. At Flodden Hill 1513 the Scots still used the schiltrons. They were met by English billmen who were more than a match, they wielded the bill with devastating effect against the Scottish pikes. 10,000 Scots fell including their King James IV.
Old ideas on their own cannot last unless you adjust and improve.
The Romans knew the Macedonian phalanx lacked flexibilty. Romans penetrated through gaps in the pikes and attacked the pikemen directly who could not defend themselves at close quarters and were slaughtered. The superiority of the Roman system was demonstrated at Cynoscephalae 197 BC, Roman troops maneuvered and attacked the phalanx from three different directions. Having routed the left wing, Roman maniples swung back and attacked the flank and rear of the right wing. The now cumbersome phalanx could not maneuver to meet the threat. At Pydna 168 BC rough ground was enough to doom the phalanx. Romans absorbed enemy troops and their modes of fighting that impressed them, the phalanx was not one of them.
Medieval pikemen deployed in blocks with the flexibility of the Roman system. Unsupported pikemen were always vulnerable. Cavalry could outflank them, missile troops could shoot them to pieces, swordsmen could get past the pikes and wreak havoc. Pikemen were supported by billmen and halberdiers in front, arquebusiers in the front and flanks, and cavalry. 'Forlorn Hope' volunteers with longswords sliced gaps in the forest of pikes to expose the pikemen. Lessons learned from the Romans. Battles were often decided when cavalry attacked the pikes from the flanks and rear. Polish Hussars defeated Swedish pike head-on by charging with longer lances. Romans, English billmen, and men of the 'Forlorn Hope' got past the pike and went for the pikemen.
The 'Age of the Country at War' saw the samurai at the height of their existense. Mounted samurai often detached from the main army, operated without ashigaru support and appeared behind enemy lines. Toyotomi Hideyoshi led an all-samurai rapid-deployment cavalry force, left its ashigaru behind and caught the enemy by surprise at Shizugatake. At P'yok-je-yek 1593 samurai fought sword-to-sword with Chinese troops. Mounted samurai lancers outclassed Chinese and Korean cavalry, pulling riders off their horses with their cross-bladed lances then finishing them off with the point. Elite samurai units were in all clan armies. 'Tsukai-ban' elite mounted messengers and scouts, responsible for reconnaissance and command and control. The 'Go-umawari-shu' elite mounted guards, defended command posts frequently reached by enemy troops. At Nagashino they were temporarily 'deputised' to take command of the front ranks. The Ii 'Red Devils', vanguard of the Tokugawa army, were clad in red armour. Red Devil samurai led the charge when the Tokugawa army advanced. Daimyo Date Masamune's well-equipped army, all clad in state-of-the-art bullet-proof armour, fielded mounted samurai arquebusiers. At Sekigahara Shimazu mounted samurai broke out of the encirclement by cutting through the Tokugawa army. The 'Red Devils', Shimazu and Date samurai would fight as allies in the final battle at Osaka 1615 where ashigaru and samurai arquebusiers from both sides blasted away at each other. Peace and a united Japan would make the samurai obsolete.
How about a English/Welsh Longbow man?
Or a Gurkha
LOL
Although I heard the Roman's never attempted to conquer Sparta out of respect.
samurai.
shareDid you see the film Spartan, with Val Kilmer? He is an excellent warrior and soldier with dedication and uncanny ability to get the job done. The Film is not named Samurai, Teutonic Knight, or Legionairie (sp?), it's named Spartan. Perfect warriors are called Spartans even today.
shareI've not heard that. Where have you heard someone say "Oh he's a famous veteran of WW2, what a Spartan he was." People don't call other people Spartans today. And just because a film has the name Spartan doesn't mean that Spartans were THE best fighting force the world has seen. They were the best warriors of there time but in the span of history they were at the top yes but not the best. Yes they trained all their life just to fight but guess what the Samurai did too, and probably many other warriors too. One example would be the Hitler's Nazis, they were trained at a young age to kill anyone who wasn't a Nazi. But do we say that they were the best fighting force in the world? No.
share"People don't call other people Spartans today."
That's mostly because the majority of people today are misinformed uneducated goobs who couldn't explain the difference between a Spartan and an Athenian if their life depended on it.
People don't call other people Spartans today."
of course the US army called the greeks in korean war SPARTANS because of there bravness!!
HAVVE YOU SEEN the movie THE LAST SAMURAY --i thing tom cruise awnsering wat we surch here so much ,he told the samuray fighter in the movie about the story of the spartans and avter haering wat the spartans did he going to fight olso brave like the spartans :-)
so that makes the sprtans idoles for the samuray ,or?
This debate is pointless, a terminator would destroy them all
shareWHat the spartans did there at the pass was nothing special for the Northmen, they did theese kind of things all the time,, often greatly outnumbered.
1 vrs 1 any kind of spartan fighter would be killed instantly, simply by brute force.
Btw nerf mage PoM Pyro bullsheet,,, its getting out of hand =((
"A fundie to me would be anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible - "
if i remember correctly the spartans were crushed by the thebans at the Battle of Leuctra, because despite their trainning, the spartans were crap in what regarded creative strategy.
although in the battle of the thermopylae we see a fairly good tactic (facing an army used to fight in open spaces in a tiny corridor), the spartans had somewhat of a success (lets not forget they didnt defeated the persian army) mainly because xerxes decided to push forward to the rather obvious trap, even when it was clear that it wasnt breaking the lines of the spartans