Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Toegoff. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
WHO would win V3; Who would win
Topic Started: Jul 23 2010, 06:21 PM (1,803 Views)
TheMonkZoolbs
I Just Got Nommed
Many types of gladiators don't have shields and if they do they are very small so there goes that idea..
 
Colt1245
Member Avatar
Big Sweaty Moose Bleepers
We already established that monk
 
AndMyAxe414
Member Avatar
Chicka Bow!
TheMonkZoolbs
Jul 26 2010, 03:52 AM
Many types of gladiators don't have shields and if they do they are very small so there goes that idea..

Get with the program :D
 
TheMonkZoolbs
I Just Got Nommed
Technically you said when competing... I said they don't period...sometimes :P
 
AndMyAxe414
Member Avatar
Chicka Bow!
Small technicality
 
Barras Galago
I Just Got Nommed
Haha i tied up the debate samuris ftw without a doubt
 
iPwnies
Member Avatar


romans were born to kick ass
samurai have... seppuku
 
ding161
Member Avatar
I Just Got Nommed
one on one? samurai.

army v army? romans.
 
Nathgrul
Member Avatar
I Just Got Nommed
Samurai were stuck on a very big long island. >.> This is why they didn't conquer half of europe like the romans did.
 
Nathgrul
Member Avatar
I Just Got Nommed
I just got the urge to dig up a civilization game or age of empires and try to run a demo of romans vs samurai..lets see what happens.....
 
iPwnies
Member Avatar


Nathgrul
Aug 17 2010, 03:15 PM
I just got the urge to dig up a civilization game or age of empires and try to run a demo of romans vs samurai..lets see what happens.....

I lost in civ 3 because my first settler got attacked by a barbarian
 
Nathgrul
Member Avatar
I Just Got Nommed
iPwnies
Aug 17 2010, 03:33 PM
Nathgrul
Aug 17 2010, 03:15 PM
I just got the urge to dig up a civilization game or age of empires and try to run a demo of romans vs samurai..lets see what happens.....

I lost in civ 3 because my first settler got attacked by a barbarian

>:(
 
Unfie
Member Avatar
Big Sweaty Moose Bleepers
iPwnies
Aug 17 2010, 03:33 PM
Nathgrul
Aug 17 2010, 03:15 PM
I just got the urge to dig up a civilization game or age of empires and try to run a demo of romans vs samurai..lets see what happens.....

I lost in civ 3 because my first settler got attacked by a barbarian

Ahahaha! Oh, I loved that game. But I also hated it. The battles were fun and all, but they sort of got me angry sometimes. For instance. I had an army of cavalry VS a regular cavalry unit. My army died... rotten luck.
 
Cormac250
Member Avatar
Big Sweaty Moose Bleepers
Trying to pull things back to where we were.

One on one a samuria would win. They would have a hard time getting through the iron armor of the roman, (in the late period), and getting around the shield but their cavalry prowess and archery skill versus a regular legionarrie who would probably just have the pilum for range gives them an unarguable advantage.

Army versus army I give it to the Romans
The romans had strick discipline, better tactics and formations that could counteract the samuria's skill with ranged weapons, namely the testudo.
In a straight melee fight, again roman disciplin in ranks and also their short swords are perfect for forming a great shield wall and stabbing between the shields while the katana would be too long to allow the samuria to stand close together and they would need to spread out lowering their combat effectivness.
If the romans used their spears to create a formation resembling the phalanx of Greece as they in fact did then the samuria would have an even harder time getting close though the Romans probably couldn't get close enough for their stabbing weapon to work effectively.

Though I think the samuria armor was way cool and yes their materials were better, but the roman's armor penetration makes the question of their weapons not able to kill mute, all you need is a sharp edge, not a pretty sword.
 
Monstarcookie
Member Avatar


Cormac250
Aug 22 2010, 10:29 PM
Trying to pull things back to where we were.

One on one a samuria would win. They would have a hard time getting through the iron armor of the roman, (in the late period), and getting around the shield but their cavalry prowess and archery skill versus a regular legionarrie who would probably just have the pilum for range gives them an unarguable advantage.

Army versus army I give it to the Romans
The romans had strick discipline, better tactics and formations that could counteract the samuria's skill with ranged weapons, namely the testudo.
In a straight melee fight, again roman disciplin in ranks and also their short swords are perfect for forming a great shield wall and stabbing between the shields while the katana would be too long to allow the samuria to stand close together and they would need to spread out lowering their combat effectivness.
If the romans used their spears to create a formation resembling the phalanx of Greece as they in fact did then the samuria would have an even harder time getting close though the Romans probably couldn't get close enough for their stabbing weapon to work effectively.

Though I think the samuria armor was way cool and yes their materials were better, but the roman's armor penetration makes the question of their weapons not able to kill mute, all you need is a sharp edge, not a pretty sword.

samurai* sorry...... :P
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debates · Next Topic »
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5