Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

ok who would win in a fight?

Yarg!

Yarg!

Platinum Membership gift from THE BOMB SQUAD!
a spartan
a roman legionaire
a japanese samurai
a mongol horse rider
a crusader
a biteme
or a viking?

hmm.. id say samurai just because they were agile and graceful whereas the other guys fought with more aggression, power and bad posting techniques.
 
Yarg! said:
a spartan
a roman legionaire
a japanese samurai
a mongol horse rider
a crusader
a biteme
or a viking?

hmm.. id say samurai just because they were agile and graceful whereas the other guys fought with more aggression, power and bad posting techniques.
Click to expand...

The one with the gun
 
roman legionaire's used their formations and discipline to prevail(think opening scene of gladiator)
similarily samurai's wouldn't stand a chance against a macedonian phalanx
 
a creed said:
how come the COTB's don't get any Karma anymore?

Has the COTB gone to the "Bargain Basemant"?
Click to expand...


Its in the Karma bank now invested in a a bond compounding much interest right now. I only wished my real bank account paid off 20% a month! Shit I would do nothing with my money other than shoveling it into savings. I would live out of my truck and eat top ramen watching myself get filthy stinking rich. What a great world this would be then.
 
When forensic anthropologists examined the site of The Battle of Teutoburg Forest, the site of one of Rome's greatest defeats, they discovered the height of the average legionaire was around 5'3" while the height of the average barbarian was 5'9 1/2" which is the average height of the modern American male. No wonder barbarians had such a fearsome reputation as warriors.

In the battle Rome lost three legions, six cohorts and three squadrons of allied cavalry, around 20k men. Upon hearing of the defeat the historian Suetonius claimed Emperor Augustus shouted "Quintili Vare, legiones redde!" ('Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!')
 
It is very hard to say the way the question is posed.

If we are having a tourny then each one has to face the other.

My picks, from least to most impressive...

Crusaders are the most unimpressive of this elite group.

I haven't read much about a roman legionaire. But i bet they are disciplined. Just out of ignorance i would say they don't impress me much.

A japanese samurai is overrated when put in a group like this. I am not sure of their armour.

The vikings ; my second best pick.

Mongols, are very fast, very lean, very smart and the most fierce of the group. They have no fear and have no mercy for anyone. They are referred to as the atom bomb of their time. They would have to share top place with the spartans though. They are crude, and have more experience in battle tactics than any other in this group.

Oh boy, i would like to hear some educated opinions on this.
 
a spartan - He would be very fit, motivated, high morale and have a lifetime of military training but primarily as a formation fighter not individual warrior. However, his armor would be outdated, his weapons designed for formation fighting and not condusive to individual combat.

a roman legionaire- Very similar to the above.

a japanese samurai- A lifetime trained warrior, skilled, high morale, fights from horseback and skilled at horse archery. A very strong contender but his armor is weak.

a mongol horse rider- Skilled horse archer and combatant almost born in the saddle, tough as nails from a harsh life. Another strong contender.

a crusader- (which crusad) A mounted fighter trained from birth to fight as a warrior, an individual. Heavily armored, mounted, high morale(fanatic Christian). A very strong contender.

a biteme- I only know his posting skills

or a viking?- Tough from a harsh life, fights as a warrior but poorly armored and his weapons are not effective against heavy armor.

Now, it has to go to the mounted warriors, a man on horseback has a distinct advantage. If you allow ranged combat the Samurai or mongol could get a lucky shot and kill or seriously wound the crusader or his horse before he closed. The Samurai beats the unarmored mongol as he is better protected. If it comes to close range the crusader has an advantage due to his heavier armor. Just my .02
 
JavaGuru said:
a spartan - He would be very fit, motivated, high morale and have a lifetime of military training but primarily as a formation fighter not individual warrior. However, his armor would be outdated, his weapons designed for formation fighting and not condusive to individual combat.

a roman legionaire- Very similar to the above.

a japanese samurai- A lifetime trained warrior, skilled, high morale, fights from horseback and skilled at horse archery. A very strong contender but his armor is weak.

a mongol horse rider- Skilled horse archer and combatant almost born in the saddle, tough as nails from a harsh life. Another strong contender.

a crusader- (which crusad) A mounted fighter trained from birth to fight as a warrior, an individual. Heavily armored, mounted, high morale(fanatic Christian). A very strong contender.

a biteme- a harsh life,bitter marriage, fanatical bad poster (high morale) physically fit- but not on the 400m track. raised on the dairy.. looks like james hetfield. highly regarded as possesing powerful 'decapitation' abilities. strong contender.

or a viking?- Tough from a harsh life, fights as a warrior but poorly armored and his weapons are not effective against heavy armor.

Now, it has to go to the mounted warriors, a man on horseback has a distinct advantage. If you allow ranged combat the Samurai or mongol could get a lucky shot and kill or seriously wound the crusader or his horse before he closed. The Samurai beats the unarmored mongol as he is better protected. If it comes to close range the crusader has an advantage due to his heavier armor. Just my .02
Click to expand...

i added a better analysis of biteme.

i once asked this question to a history prof, sword lover as to who would win in a 1 on 1 fight- crusader or samurai and he told me samurai. although they would both have started training at an early age, the samurais system of trianing was more systematic and planned (kendo /aido for sword, jujitsu for unarmed defense) and so it was more well thought out. also as high as a crusaders morale was, once wounded badly enough in battle he had a higher chance of retreat than a samurai who hardly even considers defeat. the sword of the samurai is also extremely nimble, and ridiculously sharp. it was not something that could be mass produced- each blade taking months and months to make and more customized towards the user. the crusader sword was more blunt and not as sharp, much more heavy and used blunt force to cut , maim or kill, whereas the samurai sword simply sliced.
 
Yarg! said:
i added a better analysis of biteme.

i once asked this question to a history prof, sword lover as to who would win in a 1 on 1 fight- crusader or samurai and he told me samurai. although they would both have started training at an early age, the samurais system of trianing was more systematic and planned (kendo /aido for sword, jujitsu for unarmed defense) and so it was more well thought out. also as high as a crusaders morale was, once wounded badly enough in battle he had a higher chance of retreat than a samurai who hardly even considers defeat. the sword of the samurai is also extremely nimble, and ridiculously sharp. it was not something that could be mass produced- each blade taking months and months to make and more customized towards the user. the crusader sword was more blunt and not as sharp, much more heavy and used blunt force to cut , maim or kill, whereas the samurai sword simply sliced.
Click to expand...
There has always been a bias for the Samurai due to the Eastern Mystique. If a modern martial artist saw the surviving manuals for the use of staff weapons by knights he would recognize everything taught. A crusader, take a Templar for example, in one incident after being captured was offered a reprieve or execution and all he had to do was renounce his faith..every last one chose death. Now, a Samurai had armor made of wood and the katana was developed based on that fighting culture. A crusaders broadsword was as much a club as a cutting weapon. In a knight on knight swordfight blunt trauma would have been the most likely cause of incapacitation. A katana is very sharp and capable of slicing through wood armor but chainmail is VERY good at stopping slash attacks(katana) and piercing weapons. There have also been some very outrageous claims made by people about the capabilities of a katana, once again based on eastern mysticism. Remember, the samarai rarely fought in life and death combat but one reason the pope called the first crusade was because Europeans were killing each other and he wanted to direct the conflict outward. I'll take a tried and tested combat veteran over a dojo master everytime. Just my .02.

edit..It should also be noted that Western hand to hand martial arts pre-date Asian martial arts.
 
I'm gonna have to say the samurai.
 
Tres Huevos said:
I would bet on the Mongolian he would tear down your shitty wall every day until you just got tired and gave up.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! There's like an entire continent of people walking around with some of the Khan's genetic material. . .he was equally prolific as a killer and a reproducer. . .
 
Hell, if were not making all things equal (i.e. armor) then give me the modern day Marine with full body armor and assault riffle. :evil: :destroy: :rasta:
 
marvelous54 said:
Hell, if were not making all things equal (i.e. armor) then give me the modern day Marine with full body armor and assault riffle. :evil: :destroy: :rasta:
Click to expand...

Yup. . .Brad "Iceman" Colbert. . .Marine 1st Recon. . .
 
KillahBee said:
bbf
Click to expand...

I don't know what you've heard about me... but a bitch can't get a doller out of me.. cause I'm a mothafuckin P I M P...
 
I can take their head off with a single punch, so I'm the winner.
 
JavaGuru said:
There has always been a bias for the Samurai due to the Eastern Mystique. If a modern martial artist saw the surviving manuals for the use of staff weapons by knights he would recognize everything taught. A crusader, take a Templar for example, in one incident after being captured was offered a reprieve or execution and all he had to do was renounce his faith..every last one chose death. Now, a Samurai had armor made of wood and the katana was developed based on that fighting culture. A crusaders broadsword was as much a club as a cutting weapon. In a knight on knight swordfight blunt trauma would have been the most likely cause of incapacitation. A katana is very sharp and capable of slicing through wood armor but chainmail is VERY good at stopping slash attacks(katana) and piercing weapons. There have also been some very outrageous claims made by people about the capabilities of a katana, once again based on eastern mysticism. Remember, the samarai rarely fought in life and death combat but one reason the pope called the first crusade was because Europeans were killing each other and he wanted to direct the conflict outward. I'll take a tried and tested combat veteran over a dojo master everytime. Just my .02.

edit..It should also be noted that Western hand to hand martial arts pre-date Asian martial arts.
Click to expand...


Just an interesting side note about katana blades they are freakisly, freakisly sharp and I wouldn't be the least surprised if they could cut through some light metal armor. I forget what show it was, possibly mythbusters but they shot a pistol at the katana and it split the bullet in half without damaging the blade. It also cut through several machine gun rounds before the blade was destroyed.
 
marvelous54 said:
Hell, if were not making all things equal (i.e. armor) then give me the modern day Marine with full body armor and assault riffle. :evil: :destroy: :rasta:
Click to expand...
Yep. I gotta agree. Plus, they would look better doing it.
 
JavaGuru said:
When forensic anthropologists examined the site of The Battle of Teutoburg Forest, the site of one of Rome's greatest defeats, they discovered the height of the average legionaire was around 5'3" while the height of the average barbarian was 5'9 1/2" which is the average height of the modern American male. No wonder barbarians had such a fearsome reputation as warriors.

In the battle Rome lost three legions, six cohorts and three squadrons of allied cavalry, around 20k men. Upon hearing of the defeat the historian Suetonius claimed Emperor Augustus shouted "Quintili Vare, legiones redde!" ('Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!')
Click to expand...
and later on the barbarians built tanks
not even really good ones
they utilized fear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PICK3
The official comprehensive (and final) Rocky IV quote thread
Replies
33
Views
6K
wootoom
wootoom
M
N2-BULK!! Exclusive to MRSUPPS!!
Replies
39
Views
8K
MrSupps.com
M
N
  • Locked
Natural post cycle therapy. Holistic cycle support . The drug and steroid user Bible
Replies
70
Views
410K
Fitstitch
Fitstitch
B
Bin Laden's letter to Amerca ------- good read
Replies
19
Views
3K
hanselthecaretaker
hanselthecaretaker
PICK3
Mock NFL Draft has 4 L.S.U. Tigers going in the 1st round!
Replies
2
Views
707
gotmilk
gotmilk
Top Bottom