Rome vs Japan

[Magnus]

Virilis said: "One thing. Legionary is physically stronger than samurai. Look at the japanese people and compare their muscle mass to th europeans."

Were 1st Century Italians or anywone else we're using as our example of a Legionary that much bigger or stronger than the japanese? Are there any studies which have rated feudal japanese men's strength in some way? That's a tough one to figure out without any scientific evidence.

Tarbi..."What happened to the glued layer of linen to bind the plywood, a possible layer of felt, and then a layer of rawhide on top?"

The scutum he made had linen glued on both the front and back, IIRC, as well as a brass rim. There's pictures of the demo and a movie I think floating around...I think there are links to it on Matt Amt's site. Plus there are written historical references to the falx cleaving scuta...the naginata will have more speed and weight behind it, thus giving it more power. Same with the nagamaki.

EDIT: here are some pics:
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/falxcut1.jpg

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/soup.jpg

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/falxcut3.jpg (I'm in the backround here, far left with the camera up to my face )


"Exactly. Legionary throws down scutum taking samurai's weapon with it, and launches at the samurai with gladius already in hand, no need to draw another weapon. And if the samurai was allowed to use his spear then the legionary was allowed to use his pilum to start with, which in practice has a far longer reach than the handheld spear, and against an unshielded opponent. "

First, one component of samurai training that they practiced daily was fast draw and cutting, or Iai. I think unless they were right on top of each other, the samurai could at the very least get one of his sidearms drawn.

However, if they were close, and it came to grappling, did the legionary have any of these skills?

I wasn't ignoring the legionary's training, but it should be noted that the samurai had a larger variety of it, at least from what we know, and trained from a much earlier age.

But you also bring up a good point about the katana quality during the warring states period. Most of those swords were mass produced, making them less in quality than ones we see today considered to be "art swords". However, this doesn't mean the steel was in anyway lacking in quality, time can be saved by simple polishes, fittings and what not.

I think regardless of army/era/culture there were examples of some blades doing very well throughout the course of it's service life, and others breaking in one battle. Depends on all the variables.

The one thing you can say for sure is that the katana probably held a better cutting edge than it's roman counterpart, simply due to the type of steel being used. That can mean the difference between a shallow and a deep flesh wound.

I think that if you compare both warriors, the samurai has an advantage in each area. Thus statistically on paper he'll come out on top more.