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.
Yeah Spartans were all about the phalanx, whereas samurai would often train and fight 1v1 even on the battlefield in my understanding. I would agree with your assessment.
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
So, don’t bring a bronze sword to an armored, steel sword/ longbow/ gun fight?
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
The ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny
