Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:30 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: deadliest warrior
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 473
Location: worcester, ma
i was wondering if anyone else saw the show on the history channel. it "scientificaly" put a ninja against a spartain.
i had a lot of issues with it. i feel it was more about ratings then reality. i am not surprised by that but the question is interesting.

yeah i know there are a lot of variables but in general who might have been the better warrior a ninja/ samurai or a spartain?

i am more interested in what "we" think about it then a tv show.


steve


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 3558
Location: Valhalla
I watch the show and I see it as no difference from a style versus style debate. Both were trained to fight in a certain way which worked for them we assume at the time.
It is fun to see the weapons used against those various blood filled heads and all.

My thought is it comes down to the warrior not the style.

F.

_________________
Sans Peur Ne Obliviscaris
www.hinghamkarate.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 473
Location: worcester, ma
i agree Fred, in a one on one engagement most of the time it comes down to the fighter.
but then there are thngs like the technology of the time. the whole brass VS steel thing in that episode.
but then thinking about the tactics like a phalanx army of the spartians VS the samurai foot soldier and mounted warrior, that really makes me think. it is no longer a one on one. so it is interesting to ponder.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 3558
Location: Valhalla
With armies you get into the ability the Spartans obviously had to adapt to the fighting styles of different countries. As far as I know the samurai only fought the other clan on their island with the same rules of engagement.

Have to give the edge to the Spartans, much as I like the Samurai culture and history.

_________________
Sans Peur Ne Obliviscaris
www.hinghamkarate.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 473
Location: worcester, ma
Fred that is a very good point. i am not an expert on the spartains way of fighting so i would have to ask ...did they always use the same strategy and tactics? they may have faced other forces but i am making the assumption they only used phalanx type tactics. of course this would work well against barbarian cultures but the Japanese were by far more orginized in there strategy and tactics. they had a very good communication system and fought in a style of regimens.

a few examples of strategy...
Nobunaga when facing the warrior monks, surrounded mount Heiai ( imagine that surrounding a mountain) and burned the mountain with them on top. he knew the monks had the advantage of the high ground.

Hideyoshi on the other hand had surrounded a castle in a valley and built a damn, re directed a river and drowned them.

moral of the story , the japanese were not direct force on force when they new the odds were against them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2009 2:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 473
Location: worcester, ma
i am at work and dont have any referance material availible so i know i will be spelling this wrong, but at the battle of "Thermopole" where the spartains fought the persians. the persians only had wicker type shields if my memory is correct and they wore no armor. from that stand point it was not that difficult to get the results they did.
the samurai on the other hand had steel plate armor. including helmets, chest, shoulder ,arm, groin and leg protection. from my perspective they had much more area covered then the spartains and it was steel not bronze.
samurai did not have shields of course.
another question in my mind is , were all of the weapons of the spartians made of bronze if so , i wonder how effective they would have been on the samurai steel armor?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Spartan V Ninja
PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2009 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 2427
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
By the end of the Pelopenissian War, the Spartan Hoplite had divested himself of all armor save his shield, helm and cloth loin coverering.

He retained his "spike" "looks like "sting" sword and his 8 foot "Dory" double ended spear.

The Greeks of this time frame were indifferent horsemen, out of choice and lack of decent horseflesh.

I theorize that the defeat of the Persians eventually left enough horses (the Best referred to as "Nisaen" in Harold Lamb's Book: 'Cyrus the Great"=perhaps a precirsor of the Arab breed, i don't know.) for Phillip to decently mount and train his trademarkd "Companion" Cavalry.

In an event comparion a hoplite to a Ninja is comparing apples to oranges.

Like the imaginary battles in the Hoplologists mind, such as the Mongols vs. the Roman Legions, I hope neither would pit themselves against the other.

Although the Huns did fight like Mongols to some extent, the Classic Imperial legion Had disappeared as had, it seems, the vast pool opf manpower that Rome could draw upon.

Plague, loss of loyalty, a continuing inability to reform meant that the Roman Pwer basis had to shift from the Italian Peninsula.

_________________
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Yipes!!!
PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 2427
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
Sorry i let this one slip by. A Spartan Hoplite against a ninja!!!

The mind boggles.

At the time of the battle at the Pillars of Fire, the Hoplite, Spartan or Phocian, would have been preety much armored with a "boiled Leather cuirass" Military kilts (that the romans called pteruges and also used by them).

Stealth was not a Spartan virtue, at least if you had been trained in the Agoge as a Hoplite.

The deployment of the whole Army did not take place at Thermopylae, and was normally deplyed in line of three phalanxz abreast.

The never Changing weapons of the Spartan hoplite was the Heavy "Hoplon" the two ended "dory" and a "sting like" appearing sword.

Normally, at the time of Thermopylae, greaves would have also been 'de riguer".

A conical helmet was normal.

But the Armed hoplite of the Spartans evolved greatly from the time of the Persian Wars to the time of the demise of the Lakadaemon Spartan Hoplite.

But at the ti,e of the Peloponessian War, or at least at the end thereof, the Spartan Hoplite fought in hos "spolas" and only a loin cloth, helmet and the pretty much unchanged "Dory". "Hoplon" and "xiphos" in tow.

Also the Greeks throughthe time of Alexander deployed the rather unusual "Peltast".

These were skirmishers. To the best of my knowledge the soldier were expected to pick up their missiles on the march (ie: appropriately sized rocks) The peltasts, common among all city state armies normally had a smallish crescent shaped shield.

I will post pictures tomorrow.

As to the Persian Army, already morphed from the horse archers of Cyrus's time, to the light hoplte, the Wicker shielded 10,000 immortals and so many warriors from tributary states it would be impossible to describe them all.

I will re-read the posts and venture forth further later.

But rest assured the notion of the Ninja or samurai regiments fighting the Hoplite would have been a bit like a fox and lion attacking a for mation of porcupines.

A nice fairy tale thought to mullover perhaps-but no more.

_________________
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Promise
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 2427
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
I promise to startanother thread and analyze the two types of warriors. Would you please specify what version of the Greek Hoplite or Macedoniian Phalangite and approximately what version of Ninja Of Samurai You would like to compare.

There is a comparison of a force of Samurai engaging a Mongol Army (not those blown out to sea by the kamikaze I assume, in one of Turnbulls' books, which I can pass on as soon as hoshin or who ever wishes it, asks me to transcibe it.

I will give you this, the Samurai edge out any other group in persoanly discipline and loyalty, although some of them did go rogue (Ronin) and continue their way or life after they were banned by the Emporer Meiji.

J

_________________
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group