who are the better warriors? if you took a group of say 500 Samurai warriors on horseback to raid a large force of Commance warriors?

I think the Samurai were better warriors and they would cut the Commanches to pieces [:\]

But what if the Comanches were zombies?

Samurai Schmamarai.

I am SOOO sock of the worship of the Samurai bullshit in US pop culture.  The existed in isolation - only fought each other or unarmed peasants. OK, occasionally fought the Dutch and Spanish - but lost every time.

They were an overprivileged class of social moochers.

The Commanche warriors would DESTROY them.  Heck, the Commanches gave the US Army a run for their money, and we had repeating firearms by then.

Well, which kind of zombie?  The slow moving Dawn of the Dead type or the fast moving 28 Days Later type?

Kind of a heavy cavalry vs light cavalry argument.  Samurai would win the first charge and then Commanche would start riding circles around them.  Hit hard and heavy using the advantages of their armor and greater weight, but once it became a general melee the tide would shift.  Cavalry lost it's usefulness in the assault once infantry gained repeating arms, however as scouts, quick reaction, pursuit and exploitation arms they retained their missions.

Could Samurai live off the plains and in a desert environment like the Commanche?  But the Samurai may have been better mounted archers.

But what if during the fighting a Roman phalanx (non zombie) came over the hill?

You mean Greek?

How about we add a tribe of Scottish highlanders to the mix, just for shits n giggles?

The Jeep Comanche would run circles around the Suzuki Samurai.

Due to the time period mentioned, I was indeed referring to Samurai at the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate.  If my language was a little harsh, it is because the latest Tom Cruise movie has had too many people spouting off as if the Samurai were some sort ultimate warrior.

The Samurai did not make the Navy you speak of - the modernization came DESPITE the Samurai, and it shattered their delicate class structure.

You could possibly argue that the new modern Japanese military that was so dominant did adopt "Bushido" - so was "sort of" Samurai-like.  At that point though, it was more of a warrior code than a class code.

It is difficult to fully equate "Bushido" with "Samurai," too, in that the codification was not until ~1600s - Samurai had been around hundreds of years prior to it.

Is Ditka driving the bus?

Full-sized Ditka or Mini-Ditka?

Samurai were a dime a dozen in Japan.

Samuri hands down!

Better weapons, better training, better tactics, and better armor.

The Greeks came up with the phalanx but the Romans improved it but then abandoned it because of it's lack of mobility.  I didn't want to throw the later Roman Legion in the mix because they would have kicked everybodies ass, including the Scots. [:D]

You mean Macedonian?

What about Ninja's? Huh?
Come on, Ninjas would FLY circles around them!

How about Roman Cataphracts VS everybody?

You folks know anything about Texas Indian Tribes?
Karankawa are the bunch I definitely not want to meet the first time.  They were nice and cannabalistic.

Ya want tough...bring on the Persian Deghans..or the immortals....

Oh yeah...you are all a bunch of history geeks...
My name is Scott....I am a history addict...

What about Pink Fluffy Bunny Zombies?

You know what I'd like to see? A Comanche raid on Barton Creek mall.  Only no cavalry this time.

The rape of Nanking was in part due to that Bushido code and Japanese arrogance.  Anyone that is not Japanese and definetly not of the warrior class were subhuman to them.  For them to chop up a few Chinese meant as much someone shooting a rabbit.

Give me 500 Hun warriors and its a different story.  They would ride circles around the Comanches. Talk about mounted archers. But the Comanches would have had some rifles that may turn the tide.  Traditional weapons only and the Gengis would rip the samurai and indians up.

The indians would win, because they would not fight on the enemy's terms.  

the other thing is the indians, village vs. village, would annihalate (sp) the samuri.    In the indian village, nearly every man was able to fight.    Sure there were champions, but they ALL had to have skills.    I doubt the same could be said for the samuri

I think Maximus and his Romans would have smoked them both - remember the opening fighting scene from Gladiator? Good Lord...those Dagos sure had it down.

I think a whole battery of Elf archers could take 'em all.




... er wait... Oh we're dealing with reality here? Well then it's NO contest -- my dad could kick their dads' asses any day.

Sorry but using that logic they would have run the white invaders off their lands.

The 1876 Plains Indians were a Stone Age people with some captured and acquired technology without the ability to support or build on that technology they were doomed from the start.

They might have had some limited success but against a sustained and persistent modern opponent they stood no chance. Against a Samurai using even 15th Century Japanese technology they stood no chance with out major outside (modern help).

Stone Age people meet Steel they get beat 99.9% of the time… unless you give Custer command.



The modern romantic myth. The average plains Indian live a brutal borderline existence, on the verge of starvation with an average life span of well under 30 years.

Stone Age people meet Steel they get beat.

I disagree.  The Comanche were absolute experts of mounted warfare and were a driving force in forcing US Army Cavalry to lighten up and change their tactics.  Their arrowheads and lances used STEEL, and they used them VERY effectively.  If you read up on any of the Texas Ranger or US Cavalry history fighting those guys, you will see that they were a formidable enemy.

The Samurai would have been slaughtered.

The Samurai would have won, no question. They had better weapons and armor. The sword, when used properly, is almost invincible.

what about a one on one fighting match between
the best SAMURAI vs. the best COMMANCHE WARRIOR? each could use the weapons of their choice, but no firearms only traditional weaponry and hand to hand fighting skills?

the Samurai's as individuals were definitely superior fighters compared to an individual
Commanche warrior.

it would take ten ordinary Commanches to fight a single Samurai with traditional weapons.

Barring projectile or throwing weapons, the Samurai, in four moves maximum. What would the Commance fend off a well-trained katana with?

The Samurai would SLAUGHTER the Comanche.

Just asking that question shows you don't know much about either group.  The Comanche's strength was in their skills with the horse and bow, their lightning fast tactics and the shear distance over which they could move for an operation.  Putting a barely clothed Comanche armed with even a lance up agains a Samurai in hand to hand combat would serve no purpose and reveal nothing.

Screw the Elves!  Men on Oliphants, supported by Urk Hai and Trolls...
Wait!  They were defeated by the Rohirrim on horseback.  That is where my money is.

Now back to reality.

Bilster

1. The Comanche were OK at hit and run tactics NOT mounted warfare. They could not sustain an attack or repel a sustained attack just run from it leaving behind their families.

2. The Comanche only had the Steel given or traded to them … STEEL arrowheads they got in trade from the whites. They had no technological base and without this trade did not have steel.

3. The Comanche never stood and fought any kind of pitch battle because they did not have the ability to win in a pitched battle.

The very tactics and assets that supposedly made the Comanche “expert” mounted warriors were their weakness they COULD NOT protect their homes woman and children.

Texas Rangers… it is a telling fact the Comanche could not defeat the small number of Rangers they faced. The Plains Indian tribes were never any appreciable long-term threat to the US they were doomed before any sustained contact was ever made.

The myth and romance of the Plains Indian warrior may be a nice fantasy to play with but the simple FACT is the Comanche nor any other Plains tribe COULD halt or even slow down much a sustained attack on them. When the US military decided to finish an Indian opponent they were military done in a matter of months if not weeks. There might be some guerilla clean left up but no real threat.



Nope... the Indians would have attacked untill real loses were incurred then withdrew leaving anyone not able to run at the mercy of the Samurai.

This is what happens when stone-age people meet a technologically advance foe.

The whole point is the US Army could change their tactics to adapt if needed the Comanche were frozen into what the could do and that was it.

The Comanche were brave but that is no substitute for technology their military weaknesses far outweighed their strengths.

Max_Mike:

While I agree in part with your assessment of weaknesses in the Comanches, I just don;t understand how the saem could not be said for the Samurai.

The Samurai diod not forge their own blades.  Where either side got their steel is inconsequential.

You keep speaking as if the Samurai were a "modern" foe - they hadn't really changed their weapons and tactics for hundreds of years!

The Comanche had access to firearms, but were generally more effective with bows from horseback.

I don't understand how they would have been disadvantaged technologically.

The culture that produced the Samurai could produce their swords and firearms. Firearms had been in widespread in Japan use from before 1600.

The Comanche could not produce steel… period.



This is a Western stereotype the Samurai. The Samurai adapted their tactics when needed and had in the preceding several hundred years. In the 1600s firearms were in widespread military use in Japan after their civil wars were largely settled they put them back on the shelf but they had the know how. Just look how quickly the Japanese adapted from 1860 to 1900 when they destroyed the Russian military. The Japanese adapted quickly to the modern world when needed the Comanche could not. In 25 years the Japanese went from a curiosity on the world stage to a world power.



From a technological standpoint even without firearms the Japanese were 3000 years ahead of the Plains Indians. The metallurgy that went in to the making of a Samurai was the peak of worldwide metallurgy until the 20th century.

The Japanese could support the advance technologic they used the Indians could not. If a firearm broke the Indians could not repair it, I they ran out of steel arrowheads they could not make their own.

You summed it up above without even knowing it:



This was not by choice but by necessity. The Comanche could not technologically support the use of firearms.

They could not make firearms or substantial replacement parts.

They did not produce ammunition… so could not be come very proficient in firearms use or come up with adequate supplies of ammunition for war. The Comanche were dependant on what they could trade for… DEPENDANT on outside sources.

The Comanche had access to firearms, but were generally more effective with bows from horseback…. Because they HAD to be not because they want to be. The Comanche could technologically support the bow not the firearm.

The Comanche were a Stone Age people and never stood or could have stood a chance against White Europeans or would have against Japanese. This in no way detracts from their courage but is just a fact of history.

Unfortunately for them the Plains Indian were really no more than a large scale nuisance to the settlement of the West.

There is an option to mix & match. How about Tokugawa vs. Blackfoot? Or Asano vs. Apache's?

This was all done in the 1600s, no?  From then until 1876 (hundreds of years) is what I am talking.  Reaching way back prior to that is reaching back to an entirely different group, IMNSHO.  The Samurai in the late 1800s were nothing like the Samurai in the earlier years.  If you go back THAT far, the Comanche wouldn't even HAVE horses, let alone be expert horesemen (and horse thieves).

I seriously doubt that Samurai during the last years of the Tokugawa shogunate could have put up any kind of organized fight against a mounted, mobile enemy with archery skills.

I will admit, if you want to go back to the 12th, 13th century, when the Japanese were fighting Mongols - or even to periods of more internal Japanese unrest or trade / conflict with Europeans, you can find Samurai who learned and adopted successful tactics and stretegies.  That was HUNDREDS (>250) years before the time we are discussing.  Even those more ancient Samurai got clobbered by Europeans, and they were in many ways better armed and trained than they would be in the 1800s.

Your last paragraph is exactly why I think the Samurai would not fair well - they had long before quit training for the kind of fight this would be.

Someone want to pass me a steaming mug of who gives a fig? [coffee]

Guilty.. but most people that meet me wouldn't consider me a geek by the way I look.  They don't realize it until they get to know me. [:D]

[CENTER][IMG]http://www.abovetopsecret.com/images/comanche.jpg[/IMG]

VS

[img]http://images.cardomain.com/member_images/1/web/313000-313999/313333_21_full.jpg[/img][/CENTER]

Hummmmm???  I wonder.

______________________________________________
[url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url]
[url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url]
[url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url]
[url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url]

Hey we are talking American soldiers here dude,not some Empirial nipos!

I'm going with the Apachies !

Or not    Bob [:D][booze]    happy birthday lumpy-drawers!