C
Cobra
Guest
Who would win if the Celtic Woad Warriors took on the Japanese Samarai and why? Both are very fearsome in war. Samurai carry long katanas. Celtics carry the claymores. So who would win and why?
The Katana was the superior weapon; however, the Celts were not bound by the Bushido code. I have zero knowledge of Celtic warrior codes; however, I'll guess they were not above cheating. The Celt wins.
Sean (www.iemat.com)
Sean (www.iemat.com)
OP
8253
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #3
Celts
Tony
Black Belt
Well I think the Samurai were very well trained and not just with weapons. I'm afraid I don't know much about the celts knowledge of unarmed combat but those samurai swords are very sharp! I think the Samurai would win!
The Samurai because the Samurai mostly won, but the Celts almost always lost - against the Romans and the Saxons.
The Celts suffered from lack of a command structure. Everybody was trying to be heroic. The idea of integrating archers, infantry and cavalry never really sank in with the Celts.
We always were a bunch of idealistic dreamers.
And now our languages are dying or dead.
The Celts suffered from lack of a command structure. Everybody was trying to be heroic. The idea of integrating archers, infantry and cavalry never really sank in with the Celts.
We always were a bunch of idealistic dreamers.
And now our languages are dying or dead.
Oh, make no mistake the Romans would have defeated the Samurai. The Only reason Samurai existed is because the chinese couldn't figure out an effective way to bring there million hordes to Japan. The Romans weren't above cheating either.Bod said:
Sean
loki09789
Senior Master
Samurai learned three primary weapon systems: Bow, lance/spear and sword/knife. Military doctrine was very ritualistic in both cultures but the road agents of the day were generally more like mobs of clans who ran into each other(or onto Roman pikes 
)
Samurai would win.
Mano y Mano, comes down to skill, experience, and personal fortitude (physical and mental)
)Samurai would win.
Mano y Mano, comes down to skill, experience, and personal fortitude (physical and mental)
OP
WLMantisKid
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #8
the Samurai weren't trained to fight more than one opponent at a given time... two celts attack one Samurai - one dead samurai.
loki09789
Senior Master
I beg to differ on this one. The point of the bow, lance and sword was to engage in mass combat with combined arms. That included coordinating groups of foot mobile samurai that trained to support each other in combat. Only later in the Empirial history did individualistic, ritualistic and sword based practices become the fashion of the day. When you discuss Samurai, remember that the term is representative of a warrior class that survived for a very long time and changed faces many times in that stretch. So, I guess it comes down to which period of "samurai" are you comparing to which period of "celtic" are you comparing.... some would say that the cattle rustling of the old west was just a modern adaptation of behaviors and skirmishes depicted in the days of Coolchulan and the Scottish days of Rob Roy... technology changes but the goals stay the same.WLMantisKid said:
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Celts would win.
Why...because I have always wanted to be a Celtic warrior! :knight:
Why...because I have always wanted to be a Celtic warrior! :knight:
Funny you should mention that, I always find myself rooting for the vikings when I hear tales of their exploits.Tulisan said:
Sean Wold :viking3:
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Touch'O'Death said:
The Jedi have you all beat.
:jedi1:
Yes, I forgot the science fiction aspect.Technopunk said:
OP
Cobra
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #14
How about William Walace vs. the Grand Master Samurai from of that era?
In a deul, the samurai; in battle, who the hell knows.Cobra said:
Sean
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Cobra said:
If we are talking like Musashi vs Wallace... My money would be on Musashi.
What was the number... like undefeated in 60 duels? Against various styles and weapons?
He died of old age in a cave...
someguy
Master Black Belt
William Wallace was a leader got people onto his side. He didn't fight by himself. He is more remembered for his rebeling not his swordsmanship. I'm not saying the wasn't a great swrodsman but Musashi was a great swordsman and was remembered for that. I'm not saying he wasn't a great stratagist because e was that as well. My point is Musashi was better than so many people in duels that is what I know him for most. William Wallace wasn't known for going and winning a bunch of duels.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
The Samurai had superior organized battle tactics. The one on one stuff was mostly pre-battle contest or one on one fights that were respected as contests of skill in the midst of battle. In Japanese battle there were mounted Samurai, foot soldiers (Ashigaru (SP?)), spearmen, archers etc. That for set battle were placed in array. The Celts, as someone else already said never really caught on to "combined arms" theory.
One on one its more "the man in the fight" but those Samurai weapons and armor were high-quality and many were highly trained. They also were retainers, they didnt have to worry about much else other than training and fighting.
One on one its more "the man in the fight" but those Samurai weapons and armor were high-quality and many were highly trained. They also were retainers, they didnt have to worry about much else other than training and fighting.
