03-25-2008, 05:20 PM
please pardon my spelling here
first off, the major impression people have about samauri come from hero stories, which are often over-glorifying and fanciful. The major impression people have about the Roman legionaries, is just another cog in the machine. hardly glorifying to any particular person.
Samuri were not quite the sort or "warriors" people are thinking about, actually they were pretty much the local police or the henchman of their respective diamu. The samauri were pretty separated from each-other, and were therefore pretty hetrogenous.
The romans on the other-hand, were pretty much united and organized; they suffered less from domestic conflicts and were able to have the benefit of the experience from pretty much the entire roman empire in their training.
also, as far as 1v1 fighting goes, it all depends on who is the better fighter. Some legionaries can beat some samauri, and some samauri can beat some legionaries. This is true for all similar examples.
Now, i may not know near as much about actual historic fighting, but as a semi-larper (the dagohir/belegarth kind), my experience has shown me that a smaller, less clumsy weapon (such as the gladius, which was really seldom used anyway) is actually better used in a 1v1 fight, and longer weapons are better used when fighting as a team. The idea is that with a shorter weapon, you have to get closer and focus most all your attention on who you're fighting. In a 1v1 situation this works in your favor because it's easier to charge in to close range than to escape from it and long weapons are more unwieldy at closer range. But in a team fight, you want a longer weapon, so you have more choices for who you want to attack, and so you can be closer to your own friendly teammates, than to the hostile teammates of your target.
first off, the major impression people have about samauri come from hero stories, which are often over-glorifying and fanciful. The major impression people have about the Roman legionaries, is just another cog in the machine. hardly glorifying to any particular person.
Samuri were not quite the sort or "warriors" people are thinking about, actually they were pretty much the local police or the henchman of their respective diamu. The samauri were pretty separated from each-other, and were therefore pretty hetrogenous.
The romans on the other-hand, were pretty much united and organized; they suffered less from domestic conflicts and were able to have the benefit of the experience from pretty much the entire roman empire in their training.
also, as far as 1v1 fighting goes, it all depends on who is the better fighter. Some legionaries can beat some samauri, and some samauri can beat some legionaries. This is true for all similar examples.
Now, i may not know near as much about actual historic fighting, but as a semi-larper (the dagohir/belegarth kind), my experience has shown me that a smaller, less clumsy weapon (such as the gladius, which was really seldom used anyway) is actually better used in a 1v1 fight, and longer weapons are better used when fighting as a team. The idea is that with a shorter weapon, you have to get closer and focus most all your attention on who you're fighting. In a 1v1 situation this works in your favor because it's easier to charge in to close range than to escape from it and long weapons are more unwieldy at closer range. But in a team fight, you want a longer weapon, so you have more choices for who you want to attack, and so you can be closer to your own friendly teammates, than to the hostile teammates of your target.
