Do y’all remember that show “Deadliest Warrior” where they would use “science” (read: an excel spreadsheet) to determine which of two kinds of historical soldier was best? It was fake AF but it was super fun to watch. I loved the little fights they put at the end of each episode.
Also OP, to answer your question, it depends on the circumstances. 1v1 it’s probably the samurai since they lived into the early industrial age and therefore had access to way better armour and weapons (and also nutrition) than the bronze age Spartans. But if it’s a 30v30 formation battle, the Spartans probably take it because spear and shield tactics are OP as heck.
Shit, you’ve just unlocked the deepest memories of those guys cutting down ballistic gel mannequins and shit.
Weird. I’d forgotten that existed.
There was an Xbox arcade game of it and it was super unbalanced. The spartan and the native American both had a weapon you could throw that would be a one shot kill but was super rng. We used to just spam it at the start of the fight and restart it no one died.
Who would win in a fight? A half-naked militiaman with a bronze sword or a soldier in full armor with a steel katana?
Don’t get me wrong, Greek hoplites were great in formation for their time period, but the individual spartan was basically just a decently fit dude
soldier in full armor with a steel katana?
If they also have their yumi (longbow) & any amount of distance, that hoplite or spartan is a dead man.
Samurai also had straight up guns. For centuries. They bought them off of Portuguese traders and developed a local industry
Technically we are talking about Spartans not hoplites. The Spartans had bows, javelins, and slings too. But ranged weapons aren’t great against steel armour. And their bronze armour would have caved like butter if hit by basically any of the steel weapons and ammunition the samurai used.
Samurai came later and were better armored / also capable of dueling whereas hoplites were squad fighters and had, at best, iron armaments.
Are we talking 1 on 1? I’m no expert, but didn’t Spartans usually fight in groups with interlinked shields? So perhaps that type of shield wouldn’t help much in this situation. I guess whoever could get a jab in between the armour of their opponent faster. My money would be on the samurai, but I think it would be a close fight.
Also, Spartans fought on foot and Samurai were mounted warriors. Spears aren’t enough for a cavalry charge, you need a line of pikes.
Neither, a ninja is actually hiding in the Spartan’s shadow waiting to kill them both but then all three get killed by a pirate who swung down on a rope with a sword in one hand and a knife in his teeth
