Who would win between
>13th Century Knights and Spartan Hoplites
>Roman legionaries vs Vikings
>Samuaris vs Roman legionaries
And i don't mean 1 v 1 duels, i mean equal units of say 300 men.
>13th Century Knights and Spartan Hoplites
Knights
>Roman legionaries vs Vikings
Roman
>Samuaris vs Roman legionaries
Roman
>>377820
>13th Century Knights and Spartan Hoplites
The knights, easily. More mobile, and vastly better arms and armor.
>Roman legionaries vs Vikings
Legionaires. Soldiers>Pirates.
>Samuaris vs Roman legionaries
Depends on era for what constitutes a "Samurai". But in general, I'd bet on the Nips; Samurai were horse archers in a lot of their incarnations, and the Romans tended to have trouble with that.
>>377834
>The knights, easily. More mobile, and vastly better arms and armor.
But the Spartans would just have to hold.
>>377838
Couched lance would rek them, m8, sorry.
>>377846
I am imagining dismounted Knights.
>>377854
That's even worst for the hoplites
>>377820
>>13th Century Knights and Spartan Hoplites
The Knights, if they had a combined arms approach.
>>Roman legionaries vs Vikings
Legionaries. Vikings were weak against people that actually know how to fight.
>>Samuaris vs Roman legionaries
When people think of Samurais, they think of Sengoku era samurais. In this case, samurais.
>>377854
Then they would still fuck their shit up
>>377838
Unless they're placed in a narrow confine where they can fill a gap and present front only, (and given that a traditional spartan phalanx was 8 deep, we're talking a space of less than 200 feet or so), the knights will maneuver around behind them and then the phalanx is in deep shit.
>>377854
Why? Horses are integral parts of knightly combat. The word "Chivalry" literally stems from the french for horse riding. You take their horses away and you take away almost all of their strength, most of knightly training was horsemanship.
>>377820
>13th Century Knights and Spartan Hoplites
Knights, easy
>Roman legionaries vs Vikings
Vikings a shit if they aren't fighting against old men, monks or women and children
>Samurais vs Roman legionaries
I suppose the Nips would fire their arrows, then proceed to charge them with Naginatas.
So I guess Romans?
>>377879
>Why? Horses are integral parts of knightly combat. The word "Chivalry" literally stems from the french for horse riding. You take their horses away and you take away almost all of their strength, most of knightly training was horsemanship.
Because its a hypothetical question thats why
>>377820
Btw the 81st guy was an italian they picked up on the way.
>>377879
>You take their horses away and you take away almost all of their strength
Shut up you idiot
>>377885
>I suppose the Nips would fire their arrows, then proceed to charge them with Naginatas.
They would fire their guns. With some snipers aiming at the guy with the fanciest armor.
>>377820
you should watch
"the deadliest warrior" just search it on youtube
you are welcome
>>377911
No thanks, im intended to create my own more historical version
>>377820
samurais had muskets by the 16th century, so...
>>377911
That show is shit. It's the Deadliest Warrior of history documentaries it's that bad.
>>377902
>samurai
>guns
hmmmm
>>377973
But I thought the samurai thought of the muskets the same way knights thought of longbows, dishonorable?
>>377820
Knights. Better armor and weapons, more versitality. Theyve got a plethora of weapons ranging from halberds and flails to swordes and lances, they'd win in any condition. Bronze age weapons cant melt steel armor.
as much as I love vikings, they werent exactly known for good organized fighting. I'd say it heavily depends on the roman leader. If the men are confident in their leader and he rallies them to the occasion, theyll fucking slaughter the vikings. If not, the vikings would have an easier time causing a panic from sheer barbarity and it would all go down from there.
romans would win against samurai I believe, assuming no horses, and no guns. Samurai would have a very difficult time maneuvering themselves and their weapons around in the tight melee the romans would surely try to make them fight in. And the pilum volley against an enemy with no shields would be pretty brutal as well.
I am wondering what other hypothetical battle or duel scenarios people can think of.
Knights
Legion
Depends on what samurai were talking here. They had guns for a while m8
>>377978
Not even remotely close to true. Heading into the 1600s Japan was producing muskets like nobody else on the planet.
Even after they shut the country down to foreigners they kept making firearms. The Boshin War and the Satsuma rebellion were both primarily fought with firearms. Even the "traditionalists"
>>378045
Vikings vs native americans.
That wouldve been interesting. It happened at least once and the vikings lost, but oh man, the history that couldve developed from more norse settling of the americas wouldve been very interesting.
Vikings had (poor) steel and other tech over the native americans but the natives had gome field advantage. Ahit wouldve been and interesting relatively even matched face off.
the resulting animism/paganism mixed beliefs to evolve out of the conflict wouldve been cool as fuck too
>>378090
That's a good one. I'd say Vikings win the end. Proper shields and weapons, even if helmets and armour were quite rare despite popular conception.
>>378094
I'd say native Americans due to far greater mobility. But it depends on the tribe and their particular style of fighting.
Aztecs versus Vikings would be fun.
>>377820
>13th Century Knights and Spartan Hoplites
Hoplites have better training and conditioning overall, but knights are far better trained and equipped for a flexible, loose skirmish. Even without the tech advantage the knights would probably win here.
>Roman legionaries vs Vikings
Legionnaires no contest. If it were a 1v1 then the Viking might have a chance, but the tech is close, the training favors the Romans, and Roman tactics eclipse everything pre-16th century. This is a very familiar fight scenario for a Roman unit.
>Samuaris vs Roman legionaries
I'll assume you're talking about a typical Sengoku era samurai with Yari. Probably the Romans, they bring a lot to this fight that the Samurai are unfamiliar with, but the Samurai aren't bringing anything the Romans aren't familiar with.
>>378077
Samurai didn't use Archubuses, Arcubusers used Archubuses.
>>378182
You must get your history from Total War games.
>>377820
knights: warhorses, better armor, a number of innovations the spartans didn't have
legionaries: professionals while vikings were a mix of professionals and part-time warriors
samurai: you probably mean 16th century samurai of popular imagination, so they would have polearms, lamellar armor, longbows and firearms
Who would win between mayans and abos?
>>377978
Thats a stupid fucking meme
>>378272
humanity
>>377838
Its fairly retarded to compare knights to spartans when knights have 1,500 years of technology more than spartans.
>>378120
>I'll assume you're talking about a typical Sengoku era samurai with Yari. Probably the Romans, they bring a lot to this fight that the Samurai are unfamiliar with, but the Samurai aren't bringing anything the Romans aren't familiar with.
Yeah, I'm sure the Romans were used to fighting armies with tons of guns.
>>378302
>armies with tons of guns
>I'll assume you're talking about a typical Sengoku era samurai with Yari.
Reading comprehension is not your thing.
How about anglo saxons vs japan around the same time? lets say, 10th century.
>>378672
For samurai that was around the time they were predominately horse archers so they'd have the edge id think.
>>378342
Uhhhh matchlocks were a big thing during the sengoku jidai
>>378832
It comes to mind that they were mostly used by ashigaru, disregard post i suck cocks
SAMURAI WEREN'T EQUIPPED IN ACCORDANCE TO STANDARDIZED EQUIPMENT, THEY BOUGHT THEIR OWN, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>378780
that depends on the terrain
>>378045
The Roman Legion VS. Han Chinese Army?
Indo-Iranians Horse Nomads VS. Altaic Horse Nomads (did happen tho).
HMS Victory VS. USS Constitution
IJN Yamato VS. USS Iowa
reactionaries vs nazis
>>378090
>Vikings vs native americans.
That already happened...
The Vikings had to leave their colonies because they kept getting attacked.
>>378940
>HMS Victory VS. USS Constitution
Thats not even a fair fight, Victory is a goddamn Man-o-War and the Constiution is a frigate.
>>378922
Blqck hole beats sun, christ beats balrog
Who doesnt know this?
Achilles vs Hercules
who wins the battle of the demigods
>>378971
>Implying christ is a strong enough wizard
>>378940
>Indo-Iranians Horse Nomads VS. Altaic Horse Nomads
We already know how this one goes, the Sakas & kin got BTFO hard
>>377820
That Lichtenstein factoid is probably utter shit. I've heard so many variations of it and nobody seems to know the actual source. I've heard it happened against the HRE as well as WWII Italy among others.
>>379040
He banished demons all the time.
He had a hard time with their physical form though so hed probably die to the wraith king.
>>379446
>balrog was a non physical demon
>wraith king isnt
>>377834
The Samurai also had guns for a good chunk of time, so that would skew the odds against even the toughest of legions.
who would win, a regiment of Vietcong or a regiment of ISIS?
>>378940
>yamato vs Iowa
One of these two almost got rekt by a few destroyers and destroyer escorts off samar.
>>377831
>Samurai vs Roman Legionnaire
>Roman wins
Nice fantasy.
>>380023
Could have been the same the other way around. Battleships were on their way out for good reason.
>>380049
Weeb spotted.
Samurai were overrated af. Their gook 'discripine' was nothing compared to that of the Romans. Plus the Romans can actually fight as a unit.
>>380049
Bunch of uncivilized twats with shit armor, specialized in fighting other twats in shit armor is going to win against a group of men who fight in full plate armor and against almost any tactic at the time, yes it is a nice fantasy because it is most likely correct
>>380054
>roman testudo
>get shot
What were you saying?
>>380054
>Weeb.
Not even once.
>"Gook"
Nice to see you here, /stormfront/.
>"discipline"
What discipline is there in a 1 on 1 fight to the death?
>Plus the Romans can actually fight as a unit.
Unless I'm missing something the OP is specifiying duels to the deaths, not mass formations. And Samurai hail from many different eras which includes having muskets, other forms of firearms, mounted horsemen, katanas, and metallurgy techniques that vastly eclipse Roman equivalents as well as yari spears and halberds.
The Roman is fucked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo
>>380060
>Nip shoots Roman in the face
What were you saying?
>>380066
>And i don't mean 1 v 1 duels, i mean equal units of say 300 men.
Still, Romans gonna get shot.
>>380074
Romans got frequently fucked by cataphracts, so yeah. Especially if they are using yari spears, naginatas, muskets, and their katana is far more advanced to cut through Roman cuirass pretty easily.
>>380051
Much less likely, it was the radar controlled gun directors that let the destroyers pummel the superstructures while the Japanese had a hard time hitting anything.
Granted, it was torpedoes that forced the yamato north so you're probably right. I'd still bet on the Iowa though.
>>377870
How so? I'm thinking that'd be pretty rough for the knights, even with their armor.
>>380098
Destroyer caliber turrets hardly did fatal damage to any battleship's hull.
>>380098
I wasn't aware of that, and thus spoke out of turn. my apologies.
>>377820
>1200A.D. Knights
Knights had more armor and better weaponry.
Knights had rigorous training based on combat not specifically soldiery or the Spartan idea of soldiery.
Armour and mobility.
Hoplites go foward or they go forward.
Knights are known for their mobility (L).
Not to mention Norman knights were renowned for their physical prowess. German knights for their height, strength, and general terrifying presence.
>Romans
Vikings got whooped by organized armies.
I don't think they ever won a major victory over any army, besides viking 'armies' were bands of men never really exceeding 6,000 most were about 50-1,000.
Roman legions
>professional army
>5,000 legionaries
>600 cavalrymen
Vikings suck against cav...
And general organization.
Basically if your not a reclusive hermit monk or a random peasant you could probably take on a viking.
Again
>Rome
Samurais didn't have large armies nor did they have good logistics, literally no way to test this as japan is not a large area.
Romans have logistics and tactics.
Samurais need space to swing their swords, Romans don't, Romans like tight compact fights, samurais would get creamed in any engagement.
Samurais are few, and generally are used to complement lower quality troops.
Rome has a high quality standardized soldier.
Rome would win simply because it is an empire and is suited to the samurais' weaknesses.
>>380114
Yeah, that's why you always screen your battleship with destroyers.
Battleships role, as they had late in the war, was shore bombardment, and long range artillery support. But they were basically in the mode of carriers being a big thing that wrecks shit when properly deployed, but is still vulnerable without he support of an entire fleet.
>>377834
>Samurai were horse archers in a lot of their incarnations, and the Romans tended to have trouble with that.
Romans had trouble in Carrhae because they didn't expect to be in a situation where infantry was rendered useless by the sand and the infinite (the Parthians literally had camel trains carrying nothing but arrows) Arrowstorms flying at them for three days straight.
Statistical outlier.
Romans could dominate horse archers with their armored auxillaries that came a dime a dozen.
Thing was, The Republic didn't have the luxury when Crassus needed them.
>>380123
Romans were god awful horsemen.
>>380140
the funny thing about the scenario is that it doesn't allow the forces that complemented each respective force into the scenario.
Romans relied heavily on auxiliaries and the sengoku era samurai relied heavily on ashigaru.
>>378032
>causing a panic
You do realize legionaries were famed for never backing down.
Centurions were the most feared.
If you fight the enemy you might die you might live, you disobey within your century, you die, or you die, or you suffer then die
>>378090
>Skraelings
>>380169
>You do realize legionaires were famed for never backing down.
That's a whimsical romanization. There are plenty of times Roman soldiers were broken, retreated, or routed even at the Roman Empire's peak by capable enemies. Its like saying "all knights followed a code of chivalry and honor" which is patent bullshit.
>>378110
You called ?
>>378094
Vikings relied on their deciding of the time and place.
The Natives fought at 8:00 A.M. 9:00 P.M. 2:00 A.M.
Natives came at them whenever they could constantly harassing them.
Natives were also very very numerous.
PreColumbian there were 90 million.
Think about a band of 50 Men all strong, fast, hardened woodsmen, hunters since they were children, skilled in stealth, evasion, and tracking.
Attacking every hour.
It would be like a wave survival game, except its not a game, and you can never win, and you barely make it to round one.
And you cant attack.
You don't know where they are, they can disappear in an instant and reappear literally at your base without you even knowing.
>>378288
>le honorabur samureye
>>380140
The Romans lost to the Parthians at more than just Carrhae. You had the Atrophane campaign, Rhanderia, Caracalla's attemtps way later, probably others that I'm not aware of. It wasn't some one off thing.
>>380054
Samurai at their best were mounted archers, which the Romans were fucking awful at dealing with.
>>378333
Scipio.
The Scip and his cadre trained in Spain for a number years studying Spanish war theory in order to beat Hannibals superior Spanish cavalry.
Although perhaps that was the reason for victory, because Scip had a specialist army.
Shu-han Army was more of an all around type army, with general military theory applied, at least chinese military theory.
I guess you would want to weigh out Spanish theory vs Chinese theory, examine weaknesses strengths etc.
Assume each knows his enemies weakness and strengths.
>>377894
>italians
>bro tier
Pick both
>>380140
Roman humiliation and defeats against horse archers, cataphracts, and heavy cavarly are well known and constant throughout both the Roman and Byzantine Empire's histories.
Its not an outlier. Hell Cannae heavily involved Hannibal's small units of horsemen routing Roman equiates and finishing the encirclement that annihilated the single largest Roman army in history till the Battle of Edessa.
>>377978
No what happened was nips get muskets from the portugese, then the whole island spent 100-200 fucking each other in the asses untill they banned all guns and went back to glorious nip steel. So if you were comparing samurais to romans you might as well compare the most recent incarnation which in the case of samurais were barred from guns. Honestly samurais are overrated too, the only wars they won against another country were against bumfuck korean peasents and mongols the second one only on technicality as a thyphoon did more then them to stop the mongol advance. Plus the average samurai was a lord and rarely saw battle besides from the back of their horse as they literally did no actual fighting on the battle field.
>>380235
At the same time, so was the opposite. Romans dealt the Parthians many defeats during the Principate, and the Romans won quite a few battles against the Sassanians as well. It was hit-or-miss, but to say that Roman defeat was constant is outright false. And, again, Persian logistics providing arrows definitely helped their horse archers out, so that they could maintain the maneuver throughout the battle between the melee forces.
>>380282
>many defeats during the Principate
Which happened during the Arsacids period of decline while they were facing increased upheavals, societal anarchy, internal conflict, and civil wars from their own confederation of allied noble houses.
You claimed Carrhae was an outlier.
It was not.
Horsemen and especially horse archers and cataphracts have always been the Roman infantry's greatest hurdle and psychologically most intimidating foe. You know, like how a certain historian in the late Empire talks about Persians with heavy kontos lances that scattered heavy veteran Roman infantry in droves because they were known to easily pierce through multiple men with a single thrust despite their armor and shields.
>Persian logistics
And fyi, the Battle of Edessa wasn't a singular instance.
>Romans won quit ea few battles against hte Sassanians as well
Pre-Split? No they didn't do particularly well against the Sassanids. And my entire point was horsemen were the bane of the Roman armies.
They are shitty horsemen themselves, they always relied until the later periods on foedarti and foreign auxelleries or mercenaries to provide them with cavalry or mounted units.
>>380282
No one ever claimed Romans never had their victories over horsemen but Roman defeats in particular were largely more humiliating.
>Battle of Carrhae
>Antony's expedition into Armenia and failed invasion of the Parthian Empire
>Defeat of multiple Roman armies and garrisons in Syria
>Trajan's retreat from the East
>Volgases sacking of Roman Armenia and defeat of multiple Roman Legions throughout the Eastern Roman boarders
There are just a sample of Parthian victories over the Romans in turn.
Its kind of definitively supporting what the other guys are saying when the Arsacids/Sassanids were the Roman's greatest rivals for 720 years and their primary mode of warfare was through horse archery and heavy cavalry
>>380388
Of course their primary rival would be reliant on that method of warfare. Pretty sure no other method at the time could have been effective at fighting a Roman legion. My point is that the two powers were on roughly equal footing much of the time (I am not "muh outlier" anon). Especially in that terrain it was effective (which is probably why the Persians adopted it in the first place).
>>380146
Auxillaries..
>>380388
What have we learned?
Middle Easterners are stubborn and don't play fair.
>Rome
>Other Middle Easterners
>Crusading principalities
>USSR
>America
I think we can declare ALL Middle Eastern wars outliers.
It simply doesn't go down like other wars.
Why?
Middle Easterners are stubborn, there is literally nothing more to it than that.
>>380401
Gaulic and Celtic ones they brought to the East to fight the Parthians and Persians tended to get stomped very easily.
>>380204
Yea but I'm thinking of 50 natives vs 50 vikings, not 90 million natives vs 50 vikings
>>377820
>knights vs hoplites
knights charge a flank (mobility bonus, equal numbers, unsupported phalanx) or dismount and cut them up. They have a massive technology (armour and weapons) and training advantage
>legionaries vs vikings
definitely legionaries, if you say vikings (part-time raiders, practically a militia vs a professional army), but if you said legionaries vs huskarls (Norse noble retinues, professional warriors), I'm not sure who would have won.
>samurais vs legionaries
Samurai could mean a lot of things, from horse archers to heavy infantry. But I'd put my money on Rome because of better armour (Japanees armour is pretty shitty), training (only if we're talking about late samurais, who became mostly government officials. Otherwise the training would have been pretty much equal) and tactics
>>380974
how exactly do Knights have better training than Spartans
>>380978
Didn't catch Sparta, mea culpa domine. The tech advantage and the fact that the phalanx is unsupported (which defeats its primary purpose) would still be overwhelming, though.
>>377885
Japs were horse archers first, infantry second. Rome is fucked like its 53BC
>>380991
>>378090
Vikings probably lost because Vinland was a bitch to supply with longboats.
Injuns who had already dealt with European plagues 400 years before the conquistadors would have been super interesting though.
>>380996
https://en(dot)wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae
Turns out, you really can't move effectively in a testudo
>>381010
Carrhae went wrong because horse archers and cataphracts. Testudo works against just horse archers.
>>381010
You don't have to move.
>horse archers make Romans do a tetsudo, but are otherwise worthless
>Romans get rekt by cataphracts, the heaviest and best cavalry of their time, something Japs never had and is therefore irrelevant to this debate. Japs rode fucking ponies (well, close enough) until they could import good horses.
>>381025
>japanese have firearms and shoot the romans to bits.
>>381055
>depending on the period, really. Unspecified. If it is 16th-or-later century Japan (after they imported good European stuff), they would win. Otherwise, my money's on the Romans.
>>381071
>romans are from latium pre brennus.
>get shit stomped by japs on ponies
>>381084
>says legionaries in the thread
>>377820
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msFljrJ7M4A
>>381025
>Japs had ponies
Well this kinda works in two different ways.
Firstly, they didn't always have ponies. By the Sengoku Jidai they were importing larger, sturdier war horses, breeding, and selling them. Both Mikawa and Kai were known for the quality of their horses.
Secondly, even if they had only ponies here's the problem of testudo; The backs are open and you have limited mobility. When the samurai did have just ponies, they operated more like dragoons than standard cavalry. So getting pinned by archers only to have an infantry charge from behind is going to be just as disastrous.
>>380101
No. Spears are the worst thing you can use to fight dismounted guys wearing full maille armor with a coat of plate. Strikes to the breast, AKA where the organs are, will do no damage from a spear, all knights have to do is get under or pull out the spears and charge in. The Spartans aren't even using weapons (bronze/cheap iron swords) that will do anything to the knights unless they seriously fuckup.
I'd be amazed if even 5% of the Knights died. Causalities on the Spartan side would probably be enormous as I doubt they would hold in the face of some terrifying guys from a thousand years in the future or so.
>>380066
>saying something racist on 4chan now means you're from stormfront
i want /lit/ to leave
>>380123
>Samurais didn't have large armies nor did they have good logistics, literally no way to test this as japan is not a large area.
When they invaded Korea, they invaded with 225k people. By Sea.
This shows that they had large armies and good logistics.
So, you are full of shit.
The Samurai had guns. They would easily defeat the Romans. Only a very delirious white supremacist would think otherwise.
>>381633
Don't /pol/fags like the nips? Stormfaggery is very confusing to me.
The pic related show is great tho.
These matchups suck. The more technologically advanced will always win in a numerically equal fight. OP should stop being a faggot and post numbers that would equal out technological disadvantages, and state what years the soldiers come from.
>>378971
The light from a sun would make the black hole evaporate if it was bright enough
>>377820
These sorts of threads make me cringe... not only for the blatent ignorance of historical combatants, but also for reducing history down to "who would win in a fight".
>13th Century Knight
By this I'm assuming you're referring to the amoured and mounted soldier (pic related), which is the typical view of a "knight" to anyone who doesn't know what a knight is/was... which is why your arbitrary choice of 13th century is a bit annoying, as the plate armour characteristic to this view doesn't appear until the late 14th/early 15th century. But all that is petty. What really is annoying is the thought that a knight was exclusively a mounted warrior, and that simply isn't the case... a knight was an administrative and class term for a man who had been knighted by a king or baron... sort of like a reward, and it often came with land and peasants. One obligation to this honour, however, was the duty to supply, when called upon, one fully armed and armoured mounted warrior, which I assume is where the modern perception comes from. However, often this was not the knight himself - it was often one of his trusted servants or sons... who weren't knights.
As for their combat with hoplites, well I would think that this is fairly obvious... a group of well trained 13th century men, clad in steel, wielding piercing lances, and swinging devastating iron maces and steel swords... fighting (mostly) peasant farmers equipped with the family hand-me-down bronze armour (which would usually not fit properly), holding rugged bronze spears and chipped bronze swords...
how is this even a comparison?
Dismounting the "knights" would also work much more in their favour, as the very nature of hoplite warfare is effective against cavalry.
I would comment on the rest but it appears I'm running out of space
>>381693
/pol/ is a diverse board. There are idiots like that, but there are some people that are not ignorant. Sure, we are all right wing. But different flavors of right wing. Just like the left has those that support free speech and those that say they suffer trauma because people with different opinions exist.
>>381752
Jesus a sensible /pol/lack. It's like spotting a unicorn.
Do you exist, anon? Do I?
>>381765
We have roughly the same ideology.
But there is a difference between a Steve Sailer type (like him or not, he is a smart and cultured man) and your average Tea Partier.
>>381741
You're assuming singular. OP asked for groups of men against other groups, which is a lot more reasonable.
>>378090
;^)
>>382385
>You're assuming singular.
No I'm not. It's quite clear that I'm not if you actually read the post.
>>377911
Deadliest Warrior was biased as shit and often made matches that made no sense. They did shit like having one Centurion fucking around on his own as a hypothetical. If they knew anything about warfare they would know that the Romans' strength came from formations.
>>379007
Hercules. Smite taught me that Hercules always wins.
>>380013
Depends where they are. Jungle obviously goes to Viet Cong. Desert villages might go to ISIS. Also depends on the civilians around. Are they gooks or Arabs? A lot of their attacks come from using the civilians as well as blending in with them. The one that can't blend loses hard.
>>381741
>However, often this was not the knight himself
>Vassals are knights and knights are Vassals
Half true in word but not in implication.
>>381741
Hoplite warfare was useless against cav, you're just assuming
>Speas>Horses
No.
Hoplites only go two ways, forward or forward.
Horsemens mobility could smash them.
>>380418
>Syrian heavy archers
>Persian Auxillaries
>German Foederati Cav.
>>381633
>225k people
>225k PEOPLE
>PEOPLE
>NOT 225k SAMURAI
You're just trying to be retarded.
>>383101
You do understand that samurai only make up a small portion their armies, right? They're made up by a vast majority of peasants...
Of course they didn't invade with 225k samurai. I don't even think there were that many samurai in the entirety of Japan at the time.
Don't be fucking stupid.
>>383101
You implied the samurai didn’t have large armies and that they had poor logistics.
225k people is a large army. 225k people in a sea invasion in the late 16th century shows they had good logistics.
>>383093
>Rome
>Persian Auxillaries
Romans vs Dismounted knights?
>>379007
Heracles easily, not even close to a contest.
As a rule, each generation was weaker than the next, and Heracles was the fucking most OP shit he became a god because he was so ridiculously good at fighting,
>>380123
>Knights had rigorous training based on combat not specifically soldiery or the Spartan idea of soldiery.
What the fuck are you even talking about. Knights had no way near the level of training that a Spartan hoplite might have, jesus fuck.
The knights would win, but only if we assume they were on horseback and could just attack the Spartans from behind. Otherwise the better drilled hoplites would win.
>>377820
The Romans would just pay off the Vikings, forming them into the first actual politically reliable Guards since the time of Augustus.
>>378032
>hoplites
>bronze age
>>377978
Samurai loved their firearms.
>>383088
This is true. Nobody here understands the havoc a bunch of light thessalians could wreak upon a battle line. I doubt they have actually read classical histories.
>>380066
I hope you aren't seriously considering that video evidence.
>>384357
I wondered if someone would call him out on that.
I assume we are talking spartan hoplites at their height, so the Peloponnesian War sort of era? We are talking an incredibly well drilled, mobile disciplined professional army.
>>383088
Giving the knights horses does give them a bit of an unfair advantage.
>>384447
Well OP specified Spartans. Also it was the hoplite that defeated the Persians in the long run.
A more fun test might be different combined armed forces of the same size, say 1,000 or so.
>>384463
Well my point was hoplites weren't the end all to be all. Greek Ionian city-states and colonies all over Anatolia got decisively defeated due to Persian horsemen and archers rather then trying to meet them head on with infantry vs infantry fights.
>>384500
It's not like hoplite fought in isolation you know, the Greeks used combined arms too. The Greeks were always massively outnumbered by the Persians, plenty of factors went into them being able to fight them off at all in the end. The superiority of the hoplite was one of those factors.
>>384463
>it was the hoplite that defeated Persians
No it wasn't. Agesilaus tried that shit and failed, he was king of Sparta no less.
To be clear, it was the combination of Macedonian Phalangitai, and exceptional cavalry tactics that did in a weak Persia. Alexander himself was amazed at how poorly the Persians deployed their cavalry.
>>384513
Actually Herodotus says several times the Greeks outnumbered the Persians under Cyrus and Darius during the former's consolidation of former Lydian territory and the latter's putting down the Ionian Revolt.
>>384538
I was referring to the Greco-Persian Wars, ie the fucking 300 shit, not Alexander's conquest.
>>384629
You said that but I was talking about the Persians fighting the Greeks in the Ionian Revolt, not the invasion of Greece. Also if you want to get technical, the Greeks lost their entire mercenary army sent to aid the Egyptians against Cambyses army too.
The whole intent of this side-tangent was that the Hoplite as a whole is kind of overhyped and overrated.
>>384629
In that case, it was the Athenian navy that won the engagement. A holding force was defeated at Plataea, the main army had already left. Even then, they only won when Pausanius tricked the Persians into attacking them across the river, as they assumed the Greeks to be retreating. The Persians also had Greek allies on their side, including the Theban sacred band, the best hoplites north of the Isthmus.
I'm also going to assume you have no idea who Agesilaus was, so I'll link you a nice wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agesilaus_II
>>384686
I know who Agesilaus is, you don't have to be so fucking condescending.
Salamis was the decisive battle, but there were major land victories as well. I said "one" of the factors. The main one was probably geography.
>>384704
Are you even the same guy who said "hoplites were the reason." Because I don't disagree with anything you just said.
>>384764
I said the hoplites defeated the persians, to counter someone that used the Ionian revolt as an example of persian cavalry defeating greek hoplites. I was trying to make the point that it's not rock paper scissors (not very clearly apparently).
>>384808
Not the anon you're replying too but I already said here >>384649 that Hoplites can be easily defeated by cavalry. Hell during both Persian invasions of Greece, they were unable to use their cavalry because Greek terrain in general is far too condensed, rocky, and hilly for cavalry to be utilized.
I'll repeat, my only point was that Hoplites are not infallible.
>>384943
Yeah, I got you. This is one of those awkward 4chan arguments where both sides realise they agreed anyway and neither wants to resort to shitposting just for the sake of it, so I guess that's that.
>>380049
FOLDED ONE THOUSAND TIMES
>>380054
They have guns, crossbows, better horse technology, horse archers(samurais are horse archers first), and proto-grenades as well.
How the fuck are the roman infantry unit supposed to beat that.
You're living in a fantasy world breh.
>>384969
Are you doubting Yamato Damashii?
>>377846
If the Knights were on horses you mean, if a Knight charged on foot with a lance in his hand it would do much to the heavy ass shield the spartans carried, plus Spartans were very good at closing the distance, Knights fought long range, so a short sword like a spatha could fight in very close range and eventually slip in the joints of the armor.
>>385469
>Knights fought long range
What the fuck? Knights and plate armor was 100% dedicated to close range are you serious nigga? And knights almost always had a dagger and sword as a secondary so no, not even a little.
>>384342
>Knights had no way near the level of training that a Spartan hoplite might have
Knights were trained from birth
>>385663
It varied. Some knights would vigorously train their wards, others would just use them as a busboy. Obviously a shitty politically appointed knight wasn't a very good trainer. It all depended on who you squired with.
>>385663
Not that anon but the training of knights was not exactly set to universal standards in Europe.
>>380066
>muh 1000 folded steel
>>380066
>Unless I'm missing something the OP is specifiying duels to the deaths, not mass formations
You missed something
>And i don't mean 1 v 1 duels, i mean equal units of say 300 men.
>>380066
>I cant read
1000 Pacific Theater Veteran Marines vs 1000 Eastern Front Veteran Waffen-SS troops from any of the three elite Divisions (Liebstandarte, Das Reich or Totenkopf)
>>387372
Marines
SS weren't actually that good.
>>380996
The guys in the back: "Mine is in the wash."
>>387379
They weren't good in the early years, I agree, but the winter of 41/42 was their baptism of fire when the regular army used them as meat shields. The Waffen-SS went through Survival of the Fittest and what came out impressed the Wehrmacht finally. (IE Their actions during the Third Battle of Kharkov)
>>380060
>Romans
>full plate armour
Is this the start of an epic new meme?
>>377820
>Who would win
whoever is more skilled with their weapon
>>380060
>against a group of men who fight in full plate armor
>Roman Legionaries
>plate armor
