Who would win?
Legionary because samurai has
>no shield
Without any kind of expertise, I'd put my money on the samurai.
Why? Because steel, even if it is folded nippon garbage, is way better than bronze.
>>28528
One on one? Samurai.
In an actual battle? Legionaries.
>>28528
Samurai
>longer steel sword
>experience/training in 1 on 1 combat
>not trained to fight in big units like Roman troops
Of course in a battle between large units of both the legionaires would win
>>28528
Samurai were extremely well prepared and highly capable of war against other Samurai. Legionaries were well prepared and capable of war against a wide range of enemies with different tactics, weaponry and armor. Take a guess.
>>28540
Shields are overrated. There are reasons why shields got smaller and smaller until they fully disappeared from the battlefield in the late middle ages.
>>28688
>>28799
The Samurai, on a battlefield, would use a spear and a bow. The sword became their primary weapon only through the decadent peace of the Edo period, when their practical battle potential was subverted with the introduction of the highly ritualized forms of swordsmanship.
A 17th-century samurai would do poorly against a legionary. First of all, he is equipped unlike any of his usual opponents. Second of all, he fights dirty.
The legionary has a pretty good shot if he gets to use a thrown spear at the Samurai. If the Samurai has a sword, he is at a disadvantage, but if he has a bow and naginata he could easily win.
I don't know which armor is better as neither are particularly good at deflecting blows, but a shield should be quite effective against a katana.
>>29044
Samurai has better armor. The Romans stopped using lorica segmentata in favor of mail. The samurai has plate.
People with better armor stopped using shields since they weren't as good as their armor. Instead they used two handed weapons or wrestling and daggers.
Samurai throws the legionary to the ground and stabs him in the face.
>>28528
Depends on what era samurai. Heian era warriors had shields. Most Ashikaga samurai fought with bows and spears. Hell, there were samurai with guns. Samurai win if you don't make the distinction because they have technological superiority.
>>28528
how many?
in one by one I think the samurai wins, but in, say, 100 vs 100, the legions had their formations and stuff, I dont know about the samurai and thier tactics
>>28528
Let me tell you why this is degenerate.
In no event would they find them selves in a 1v1 fight. And since im already here, it wouldnt take more than 2 legions to absolutely destroy entire Japan, they would only be able to stand up to rome when gunpowder became prominent in the boshin war. So all in all it would take them 1600 years of advantage to be able to stand up to Europeans.
>>28528
If pre-gunpowder, legionary. If not, samurai.
>>28528
The samurai shoots the legionary from horseback with his teppo and then rides around victoriously with the head of the Roman.
>>29957
There was already relations between China and Japan, so if the Romans ever found themselves attacking Japan they would have to deal with China, too, which was the most technologically advanced civilization on the planet at the time. Rome gets BTFO.
>>30097
>implying the roman wouldnt shoot him with a balista first
>>28528
Katanas were designed to kill someone with one slash against no armor. So anyone with armor of a shield always wins.
>>30274
Chinks included.
>>28528
Legionaries were good in large formations which was the standard Roman tactic. The samurai would win in a 1vs1 though.
>>30225
This is what everyone seems to be ignoring.
Katana are good CUTTING weapons, they are shit piercing weapons. Good shield usage and a good armor puts anyone using a katana at an enormous disadvantage.
On the other hand, Samurai had other weapons and the katana wasn't even the preferred one. The japanese used spears in their melee combat in big battles.
>>30213
If we allow siege weaponry, the samurai has acces gunpowder cannons, so gg.
Samurai obviously because Oda Nobunaga has the leader trait of having his units fight with the same strength despite being injured
all legionnaires do is BUILD ROAD
>>28540
Samurai because the legionary has
>no gun
>>30245
Because by the time of the Ming dynasty, and indeed for much of Chinese history, there was simply no competition to drive the nation to further exploration and colonization. It was the undisputed center of the Asian world. Europe rose to prominence due to internal competition
Pic related; a comparison between the ships of the explorer Zheng He and Columbus.
>>30245
Define "global." Imperial China did at times extend right up to the edge of Persia, and they did get influential in Central and Southeast Asia when they weren't busy either being isolationist or splitting apart into different states and fighting each other.
>>30355
>chinese ship can't get further then indonesia
>columbus's can travel over half the world
>>30327
but the scutum and gladius are specifically designed to fight against barbarians who charge straight at you w/o shields and with longswords, so you can stab them in the abdomen while hiding behind your shield
2 inches in the right places > 6 inches in the wrong
>>30327
That samurai doesn't have a gun.
So we can assume it's before the introduction of fire arms
>>30414
/k/ is about firearms you mongoloid, this is directly related to history
>>28528
Samurai because they would be mounted on horseback and were expert archers. They wouldn't even need to dismount, the Romans were never able to really counter horse-archers and were raped by the Parthians for the same reason.
>>30434
/k/ is weapons in general you fucktard. Please go back to whatever website you came from.
>>30434
correction, weaponry*
my point still stands
>>30386
Did you not read my post? Zheng Hu's expeditions were a display of strength through known waterways, Columbus' was actually meant to explore uncharted territories.
>>30461
and how exactly does this belong on /k/?
the OP never said or implied that the discussion was to be about the weapons of each it was about which one would stand better in a fight
>>30474
It's based on a false premise
The meme
>china never invaded anyone because they were the best always
is bullshit
They tried to invade people all the time and got their shit slapped
>>30502
Because these threads are literally posted all the time on /k/. This is an established /k/ topic, and this is very obviously a shallow discussion of two different warriors based on their arms and armor.
>>30519
rome didn't make anime. therefore the romans would win. god would not allow the people responsible for the animabomination to win. i refuse to accept the possibility.
>>30543
it's still relevant to /his/ though fuckboy
why don't you try post it on /k/ and see how many people tell you to fuck off back here?
>>30532
I never said they did not invade anyone. I said that there was no real competition to drive it to advance further, unlike Europe. What you're doing is the equivalent of plugging your ears. You have to admit that Chinese civilization was on par, if not more advanced than, the west for a long while.
Swordsman replacer vs longswordsman
Stupid comparison.
Legionaires because they can make roads instead gay fishing boat.
>>28528
There are alot of back and forth arguments, but I feel like the samurai would have a better chance, considering the legionary would be better at formation drills, rather than one on one combat.
>>30532
>china never invaded anyone because they were already big
Ftfy.
The most serious invasion attempt by China was the Southern Expansion. Of the many Southeast Asian races that lived in what is now Southern China, only Vietnam managed to be independent. And they were held for 1000 years.
In the steppes most of their shitfights were defensive or pre-emptive largely because WHAT THE HELL are you going to conquer in those empty places. Yaks?
>>30571
They wouldn't have said that less than 24 hours ago. Also shows that even /k/ is sick of this retarded debate.
>>28984
Tojo doesn't even have many strips of steel, it's more made of tiny linked plates and lacquered leather/wood.
>>30519
They started carrying javelins after the phalanx system was dropped in favor of the more flexible maniple system.
>>30696
>They wouldn't have said that less than 24 hours ago
Isn't it the point of having the board? To have the /his/ related threads here?
>>28688
The Romans had steel, you absolute retard.
>>28528
What era legionary vs what era samurai?
A battle between two battalion or 1 vs 1 ?
>>28918
>what are pavise crossbowmen
guess those giant ass shields were for show?
Three ways to do this
>One man against another
Samurai are much better at one man combat
>A group of legionaries versus a group of samurai of equal size
Legionaries are infinitely better in numbers and the line tactics were better than samurai
>An army vs an army
depends entirely on the generals
>>30843
A javelin would never have the range of a horseback archer, and the Samurai would be able to constantly keep it's distance.
