Login or register

x

FunnyJunk Notification

Conflicting Philosophies

antibronywiseman

Channel: polandball

Favorite Comment

✖ Prev Top Next Comment

Conflicting Philosophies. . so I asked surrender, and gem savages surrendered that is “W wrong, sorensen! no piety for coward's why kill them? they know they is

so I asked surrender, and
gem savages surrendered that is “W wrong,
sorensen! no piety for
coward's
why kill them? they know they
is inferior so they don' t fight!
I spared life
I they ash me their ancestors
where I getting slaves if they die? must
like honorable samurai
spare!
kill]
spar% kill!
gratis! o' lltg-

...

+311

Views:	19621
Favorited:	16
Submitted:	12/27/2015

Share On Facebook

submit to reddit

+Favorite Subscribe to antibronywiseman Subscribe to polandball

Comments(89):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs

Anonymous comments allowed.

89 comments displayed.

+117

#1 - ostby (12/28/2015) [-]

Rome would probebly win.

+6

#51 to #1 - ranoche (12/28/2015) [-]

samurais were mostly nobles and politicians. They used bows and crossbows. it was only after the advent of guns when the bow was made obsolete that samurai started talking about thier bitchin samurai swords that they totally used to behead a thousand men in a single night.
If it's far away, I'd say samurai. Up close centurion all the way

+3

#58 to #51 - arandomanon ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

A samurai would probably win against a legionary. Thing is, a legoinary is the basic unit and in japanese armies, ashigaru's were the basic unit and they were basically garbage (most of times). Legions work altogether, in formation and samurais don't. A samurai sword won't cut through a tetsudo.

0

#87 to #58 - donfailed ONLINE (12/30/2015) [-]

Nor would their arrows piece it.

+7

#22 to #1 - pillowcasebandit (12/28/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

+15

#37 to #1 - donfailed ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

Probably? As long as he's not just running around in his birthday suit and at least has a shield he's golden. Katanas and Naginatas weren't made to deal with armor thicker than a fingernail, and samurai armor itself was mostly leather and wood with some steel. They're probably gawk at a full bronze chest piece. On top of that, the Japanese would definitely lose to the sheer amount of experience the Roman empire has with large scale war. There's a thing called hyperbole that people usually forget about.

+14

#38 to #37 - homestuckxplain ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

That’s it. I’m sick of all this “Naginatas” ******** that’s going on in the d20 system right now. Gladius deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I’m talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Gladius in Rome in the 3rd Century for 314612 Denarii (that’s about 400.000 Antoninianus) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my Gladius.
Roman smiths spend years working on a single Gladius and stab up to a million Germanic Savages to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Gladiuses are thrice as sharp as Japanese katanas and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a katana can cut through, a Gladius can cut through better. I’m pretty sure a Gladius could easily bisect a Samurai wearing his very honorable armour.
Ever wonder why Japan never bothered conquering Rome? That’s right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Roman army and their Gladiuses of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the Gladiuses first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Gladiuses are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for the Gladius:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of the best Roman weapon in existence, don’t you think?
tl;dr = The Gladius need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

+14

#40 to #38 - othymer (12/28/2015) [-]

"Cutting power" You disgust me you filthy plebeian. You STAB with a gladius. Not cut. Not slash. Not whatever the **** you're doing with a real legionnaire's weapon. You ******* stab with it. Go the **** back to the Etruscans.

+14

#42 to #40 - homestuckxplain ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

IHaveShamedMyCenturion.mosaic

IHaveShamedMyCenturion.mosaic

+1

#69 to #42 - ascartes (12/28/2015) [-]

Comment Picture

+40

#6 to #1 - anon (12/28/2015) [-]

1 vs. 1 I say it's the samurai's fight. every single samurai trained very specifically for one-on-one duels, and thus I assert that even a well-seasoned centurion would have difficulty facing a competent samurai, especially if he was equally well seasoned.

however, in a 100 vs. 100 battle the victory easily goes to the Romans. at long range, Japanese archers would not be able to pierce the shields that rank-and-file legionares carried. at a somewhat closer range the whole Roman century would start throwing spears, which no self-respecting Samurai would carry a shield to defend against. and at close range, rather than engaging in individual duels the Romans would use their customary formations to bulldoze through any remaining Samurai, as most would see group warfare as a foreign concept. The best advantage the Japanese might have would be cavalry, but rather than granting victory this would only make their defeat less embarrassing. The Roman Legion encountered cavalry often enough to have formations that helped counter the advantages that horses give to their riders, and given the chance would doubtlessly dig their heels into terrain that horses find difficult or impassable.

+21

#7 to #6 - kinginthenorth (12/28/2015) [-]

But every Roman soldier got Gladiator training, so they were also well versed in one-on-one fights. Centurions were officers commanding 100 soldiers, so they were already well seasoned, larger and stronger than the average Roman soldier.
The Roman Centurion is also considerably better equiped with heavy armor, a huge shield and both spear and gladius. I'd think the Centurion would use his large shield and stature to try and knock the samurai down and then just stab or slash him with the sword. Even if it came down to stamina, a roman soldier was better trained for long marches loaded with their equipment.

It'd be an interesting fight nonetheless. But i'd say the Centurion wins both one-on-one and in group.

+12

#11 to #6 - alcantara (12/28/2015) [-]

Most samurai were drunkards, gamblers, scholars, impoverished sell-swords who would resort to selling their daughters into a brothel - a well trained Roman soldier likely has the ability to outclass all but the upper echelons on the samurai class, but wven then superior armour would make up for any parity in skill (or gap in skill).

A lot of what is thought of when considering the samurai is a romanticised myth created by the Tokugawa in order to make reality conform to delusion; the samurai were meant to be upper class, but they were extremely impoverished, so the bakufu went out of its way to make their poverty a percieved "choice" and added a bunch of ******** like loyalty and piety around their poverty in order to give some sort of mythical significance to being poor.

I'd say at least 7/10 the Roman is taking down the Samurai, depending on the Roman, the Samurai, and the timeframe - in a full war, Romans all the way, their seige machines would completely **** their Japanese counterparts.

+2

#15 to #11 - brobyddark (12/28/2015) [-]

Also, most samurai used bows and spears because they were not particularly good at sword fighting. At most, the sword was for show or if they were challenged to a duel, in which case it would likely not be to the death. Somewhat correct me if I'm wrong.

+8

#26 to #6 - greyhoundfd (12/28/2015) [-]

Eh, no. Romans had shields, which the japanese never utilized since they had such limited resources. This means that in a one-on-one fight, the samurai has no defensive options, and his weak, often poorly made sword will be easily deflected, followed by a killing blow. Romans also had an institutional training program for their soldiers, with military philosophers and generals specifically working on ways for better combat, but the military program in Japan was largely unorganized and not designed for a sustained military force until far closer to the modern day. This is not to mention the fact that all Roman soldiers had armor, and upper class and older Romans had ******* impressive armor, that was well reinforced with leather and chainmail. Not to mention the gladius itself, which was well-designed, with good iron and reinforcement on the blade. It wouldn't just withstand a blow from a katana or naginata, it would probably bend the thing or even shatter it.

In conclusion: better training, better weapons, and better armor. The battle will always go to the Roman.

0

#59 to #26 - hieru (12/28/2015) [-]

Even well made Japanese swords were made for slashing not for hacking. Due to sharpness it would also easily dull while hacking or slashing at a simple chainmail or plate armour. Only chance samurai would have versus armored enemy is to go for sockets or other holes. But then again, rapier is better for that. If by some miracle Japanese warriors carried plate armour as well they would still loose since regular swords were made to hack at the armour but katanas weren't. Only way for Japanese to win with katanas vs Romans would be in a butt naked/no armoured fight since 'regular' swords were harder to swing around.

0

#77 to #59 - greyhoundfd (12/28/2015) [-]

Even then, Rome had, like I said, an institutional training program. Roman soldiers would spend probably full years of manhours over the course of their lives training in the basilicae to master melee and ranged combat in pretty much all situations. Even in a fight butt-naked with weapons, a roman soldier would still have been specifically trained to use his weapon as a way to get past an enemy soldier's without using either his armor or shield.

+16

#2 to #1 - stalini (12/28/2015) [-]

huge difference in time period though..

+6

#14 to #2 - beasert (12/28/2015) [-]

Romans had better armour and weapons though.

+5

#16 to #2 - fuckingtrolls (12/28/2015) [-]

better resources. Specifically human recources.

0

#41 to #2 - anon (12/28/2015) [-]

That doesn't matter when even the peak of Japanese weapons and armour were garbage compared to what a standard legionnaire would have.
Even if Romans before the first century, scale mail still trumps most of the japanese stuff.

0

#62 to #41 - erotictentacle ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

Well **** , out of **** soil you can only make **** resources.

-32

#4 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]

Japan would definitely win, even though I think Rome is more interesting.

+21

#5 to #4 - Endofzeeworld (12/28/2015) [-]

depends on what you mean. One samurai vs one centurion, almost definitely. All of Japan vs all of the Roman Empire, probably not.

-7

#10 to #5 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]

Well if relate what the balls are wearing, it seems to be an optio (not a centurion) from the 1st century A.D against a samurai from the 19th century A.D. This is at least a 1,800 year difference. Me just telling you that should explain why the Japanese would crush the Romans. Regardless, Japan's army at that time had roughly 6 million men, against what Rome's army had at the time, 450,000 men (which is being generous). Even with Rome's citizen infantry, they would be absolutely crushed. The samurai weren't men just wielding katanas and knives, they had advanced saddles, arguably more disciplined men, and most importantly, guns.
Tl;DR: Japan beats Rome easily.

+11

#13 to #10 - alcantara (12/28/2015) [-]

If you think the Samurai were disciplined in the 19th century, you obviously know nothing about the Samurai beyond what you saw in the Tom Cruise movie; by the 19th century, the Samurai had seen hundreds of years of peace, were more of a scholar class than a warrior class, were more well versed in indebtedness than swordsmanship and were more likely to sell their daughter into a brothel than sell their sword for service - and make no mistake, originally the Samurai were a hereditary form of sellswords, with much the same values.

Romanticisation of Samurai comes from the late Tokugawa, ironically the post-Samurai Japanese army was closer to the Western idea of Samurai than the Samurai themselves.

-3

#54 to #13 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]

Are you really trying to argue this?

+1

#60 to #54 - alcantara (12/28/2015) [-]

Given I literally just finished a University course that covered Japan 1600-1952, and thus know just how destitute the Samurai were by the 19th century, sure, I'm arguing the point.

0

#63 to #60 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]

So you think that because of how undisciplined the Samurai were, they'd lose against an army from the early Iron Age?

+1

#71 to #63 - ruderoody (12/28/2015) [-]

Dude I hate to tell you this but it's not just about time period, just because the Romans were from the first century doesn't mean **** you have to take account of training, equipment, the quality of said equipment, tactics, logistics, and whole slew of other things.

+1

#66 to #63 - alcantara (12/28/2015) [-]

I'm thinking that by the 19th century, most of them didn't bother to practice with a sword but rather spent their time studying and travelling to bring technology and medical knowledge back to Japan (particularly via Rangaku) and those who did try to maintain their warrior roots were often so drunk that they couldn't aim the primative firearms at their disposal - but then, they would likely have been in so much debt to the emerging commercial elite (effectively the merchant wing of the Chōnin) that they would have sold their sword, armour, stipend, place in the barracks and rather likely their daughter to a brothel in order to pay for their drinking and gambling habits (if not their indulgence in Ukiyo).

The Samurai would have had better equiptment, had they not sold it, but even if they had their equiptment most would be unable or ineffective in using it - they were lapse in their peacetime training whereas the Roman has the advantage of a pan-European conquest in which to harness their fighting capabilities. Were we to take the myth of the Samurai, then yes, the Samurai would win, but the myth is just that - a myth. And on technology, the Japanese got it from the West, we have no reason to believe a Roman could not take it from the Japanese.

0

#70 to #66 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]

You're right, the Samurai were definitely more laid back during their peace time in the 19th century. However, you're forgetting that most men fighting were infantrymen and that centurions were upperclass officers aswell. Not to mention what would just happen in battle. The Samurai were cavalry archers and would easily pick off the Romans like the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae. Also, they had weapons such as matchlocks, cannons, and even gatling guns.

0

#72 to #70 - alcantara (12/28/2015) [-]

Now I know you're talking out of your arse; gatling guns were Meiji era, by which time the Samurai weren't the active warrior class of Japan and thus weren't the ones using the gatling guns (Meiji effectively abolished the Samurai in favour of an army in 1873, that army was the one that used modern western weapons and eventually wiped out the Samurai with ease in 1877).

0

#73 to #72 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]

I'll give you that but there have been reports of gatling guns being bought from the United States.

0

#74 to #73 - alcantara (12/28/2015) [-]

Yeah that was by the Meiji government for use by the army.

0

#75 to #74 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]

If you say so.

0

#65 to #63 - grovesimus has deleted their comment [-]

+24

#8 to #4 - KingRyan (12/28/2015) [-]

get out of here you filthy weeaboo.

-8

#9 to #8 - thejammer (12/28/2015) [-]

I hate anime.

+8

#3 - daIRONman (12/28/2015) [-]

This reminds me of the new fire emblem game. Europe vs Japan.

+6

#34 - taokami (12/28/2015) [-]

Rome would win.

With the sheer amount of soldiers at Rome's disposal, Japan wouldn't stand a chance.

+2

#44 to #34 - xgeneration (12/28/2015) [-]

and Romans honestly, work way better as a group

******* small dicked yellow men won't even last for a minute

0

#76 to #44 - taokami (12/28/2015) [-]

is the last part really necessary?

0

#78 to #76 - xgeneration (12/28/2015) [-]

yeah what are you
small dicked yellow man? my root is in the same place

+5

#12 - phlogistinator (12/28/2015) [-]

While Roman Centurions might not have been the super soldiers Spartans were, they were certinately no pushovers. Could go either way, but in 1v1 the Samurai has an edge.

While Roman Centurions might not have been the super soldiers Spartans were, they were certinately no pushovers. Could go either way, but in 1v1 the Samurai has an edge.

+3

#17 to #12 - theism ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

A samurai would be wearing enameled leather wielding a sword made of **** tier iron. Japanese warrior culture is a total joke and the only reason they weren't ever destroyed militarily was because nobody ever wanted to invade the island. If it came to all out war Japan would get ******* wrecked.

0

#18 to #17 - admiralen (12/28/2015) [-]

Chances are japan would win simply because they have a ******* island kingdom, its hard as balls to invade
They probably wouldnt succeed in invading, but they could outlast and win in a defensive war

+4

#20 to #18 - theism ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

Win in the sense that Rome wouldn't bother invading, however the actual war itself would be fairly simple as Japan wasn't properly unified and didn't have the resources or military strategy to win, of course neither would bother to invade the other as it would be nearly impossible to set up a supply line either way.

0

#21 to #20 - admiralen (12/28/2015) [-]

Theres a reason china couldnt take over japan you know
Invading island empires is ******* hard
And they would definitely cooperate when it comes to exterminating the invading outsiders since they are racist as ****
Also i should mention that they had guns during the samurai era

+1

#23 to #21 - theism ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

There's really very little motivation to conquer Japan, you're right an island is hard to conquer and Japan didn't have a lot of native resources to make it worth it to begin with.

Well yeah if you compare Japan 1000 years ahead of Rome they'd have a bit of an advantage, a navy seal would drop a European knight, although really early guns are just a more usable version of bows.

0

#24 to #23 - admiralen (12/28/2015) [-]

They penetrate metal and have great shock value not sure if the old crummy guns from back then could penetrate shields, but in general guns are really good for warfare

0

#25 to #24 - theism ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

For a few generations guns were inaccurate with horrible muzzle velocity, the only real advantage was noise to scare horses. You'd get off a few volleys before a charge could get you. Arrows could also penetrate armor (I'm not sure about Japanese bows).

0

#27 to #25 - admiralen (12/28/2015) [-]

I saw someone mention that with guns anyone can kill a trained veteran, just aim and shoot
So just give farmers basic training and you can have some op efficient troops
Not to mention as i said the shock value, the noice and the smoke are great in a battle since it ***** with the ones youre shooting at

0

#28 to #27 - theism ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

Depends on the time period. Guns were around for a hundred years before they were employed on the battlefield.

0

#29 to #28 - admiralen (12/28/2015) [-]

As i said before, the japanese used guns on the battlefield in the samurai era
Nobunaga Oda was pretty famous for his musketeers

+1

#30 to #29 - theism ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

Then it's not really a fair comparison if you're comparing two armies a thousand years apart.

0

#31 to #30 - admiralen (12/28/2015) [-]

Im pretty sure that japan wasnt even a thing when rome was around

0

#32 to #31 - theism ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

If you're talking about the established shogunate that didn't start until the 12th century, there were people in Japan although they didn't have the same political organization.

0

#79 to #17 - phlogistinator (12/28/2015) [-]

This post couldn't be more wrong. You don't have to be a historian to know that a samurai's sword is high quality tempered steel, not iron. You are either seriously lacking in terms of history, or most likely a troll.

This post couldn't be more wrong. You don't have to be a historian to know that a samurai's sword is high quality tempered steel, not iron. You are either seriously lacking in terms of history, or most likely a troll.

0

#88 to #79 - ashesllashes (01/03/2016) [-]

a katana is a bad sword, it is just to thin

0

#80 to #79 - theism ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

Steel is iron bruh, Japan has **** tier native iron and so the steel the samurai would be wielding would suck ass.

+1

#81 to #80 - phlogistinator (12/28/2015) [-]

Steel is an alloy of iron. I guess you need chemistry lessons too.

0

#82 to #81 - theism ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

Steel is iron with carbon added to fill the gaps in the crystal lattice, if you start with ****** iron you get ****** steel.

+1

#83 to #82 - phlogistinator (12/28/2015) [-]

Which is then heated, (tempered) to increase the toughness of the metal by removing the hardness and brittleness of the metal. Tempered steel is superior to plain old steel, and leagues ahead of iron. Romans also knew how to make steel, and their swords were made of steel, but it was just plain steel, nothing special about it other than differences of carbon between individual's swords. I personally prefer Roman culture over Japanese culture, but saying that they are pushovers couldn't be more wrong. A samurai would have as much as a chance, if not more due to their supperior 1v1 training.

0

#85 to #83 - theism ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

Although if you compare equipment Roman troops carried shields, wore metal armor and carried throwing spears in addition to their swords. Samurai didn't use shields and typically used spears and bows more heavily than swords. If the initial javelin was on target it would take out the samurai for sure. The lack of a shield would be a major disadvantage for the samurai and may be the clincher. Naturally the issue would be individual skill and luck making it hard to decide.

0

#86 to #85 - phlogistinator (12/28/2015) [-]

A shield is definitely a huge advantage for the centurion, and a samurai would have a hard time countering it. Javelins are difficult to aim, especially if the target is moving, so I would say that it would be unlikely to hit, but if it hit the right spot, it would kill. This is why bows are preferred by samurai's, as they are more accurate and they were deadly with them. Like you said, it would largely depend on individual skill and luck, along with terrain.

0

#84 to #83 - phlogistinator (12/28/2015) [-]

*suppiorier to steel in strength and cutting ability. Forgot to put that.

0

#47 to #17 - galanorth ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

Samurai armor was lacquered, not enameled, and was sometimes leather sometimes iron, usually a mix ( i.e. iron covering the abdomen and neck, leather everywhere else). But Samurai were Japan's elite, most soldiers were not properly armed for war and would get chewed up and spat out by even the lower grade legions. Even if it were elites vs. elites, Romans were still better equipped, and optimised to defeat arrow volleys and light infantry formations.

A knightly impact charge, however, would give Romans something to fear, as that was specifically designed to take out sword and shield walls. Impact charge beats scutum, pike formation beats impact charge, scutum beats pikes. Unfortunately for the Japanese, they had no proper impact charge, but did use pikes, which would make them hardly a challenge to the Romans.

+4

#61 - asmodeu (12/28/2015) [-]

I have a secret dream where Creative Assembly would do a game with the full map of our planet that allows you to pick between various civilizations across different periods of time and fight to conquer the planet.
Historical inconsistency is the least of my interests - for all I care they can let us pick Hawaii and start out in Antarctica with the borders of modern maps.

0

#89 to #61 - ashesllashes (01/03/2016) [-]

with dwarfs?

-1

#43 - sympathyfordevil (12/28/2015) [-]

Samurais are from 700AD -1800AD
And Romans from 700BC - 400AD

Basically Roman technology is inferior so it wouldn't be a fair fight.

+4

#49 to #43 - ashendashin (12/28/2015) [-]

Japan didn't really start advancing till they got exposed to the west. Before that their lack of resources kept their armor and weapons pretty **** so the romans would win so long as it's before the japs got guns

0

#52 to #49 - sympathyfordevil (12/28/2015) [-]

They did have cannons and matchlocks at 1500s.
But that was by the influence of Portuguese I suppose.

Still it shouldn't be excluded from the argument in my opinion.

0

#53 to #52 - ashendashin (12/28/2015) [-]

Yes, it shouldn't. But at that point my knowledge of japanese history fails me sooo... I'm going to boil it down to
If it's advanced samurai with guns - Japan wins
Otherwise romans win

+1

#55 to #53 - sympathyfordevil (12/28/2015) [-]

I just realised I was seriously trying to figure from which era Japan's helmet is in this picture..
Anyways I decided to let it be since I'm not in school or anything.

myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html

Here is an interesting page about Samurai armor incase you're interested in Samurai stuff.

+1

#56 to #55 - ashendashin (12/28/2015) [-]

Huh. I never really believed that their armor was such **** that it was partly made of wood but I never cared to look it up.
Thanks

+7

#36 - oxymoronking (12/28/2015) [-]

undertale in a nutshell

undertale in a nutshell

+6

#39 - thataussieguy ONLINE (12/28/2015) [-]

>TFW Romans got ****** by painted hairy men from the north

>TFW Romans got ****** by painted hairy men from the north

+2

#50 - Blasphemer (12/28/2015) [-]

ROME SHOGUN: TOTAL WAR

They can't possibly **** it up any worse then Rome 2
Yes, everybody knows those are two different time periods.

ROME SHOGUN: TOTAL WAR

They can't possibly **** it up any worse then Rome 2
Yes, everybody knows those are two different time periods.

+1

#68 - pentol (12/28/2015) [-]

most of the myths, truths and truisms about samurai come from ~1600, the highpoint in samurai history.
in 1543, the first european firearm reached japan, and is quickly taken into large scale import and replication, meaning the battlefields quickly become more and more dominated by ashigaru, lower class conscripts firing guns in formation. so if you look at Rome in it's prime, vs feudal japan in it's prime, the japs have quite superior technology. if you look at japan during the 500's, they are of course outclassed by miles.

if 1500-1600 japan was moved into the late classical era medeteranian, the reason japan would have lost a war with the roman empire, is their inferiority at sea. jap naval battles consisted mainly of boarding actions, where roman naval action revolved around sinking or setting fire to enemy ships

+1

#19 - admiralen (12/28/2015) [-]

You guys do know that the japanese had guns around the samurai period right?
The loved their muskets

0

#33 to #19 - taokami (12/28/2015) [-]

Yes, yes they did, during the sengoku period to the later years of the edo period.

0

#35 to #33 - admiralen (12/28/2015) [-]

It was more of a response to all the people going "the romans would **** the japanese up"
Its a stupid argument when they are a thousand years apart and one has guns

0

#45 to #19 - xgeneration (12/28/2015) [-]

So did the Chinese, but if i'm not wrong the firepower were a bit stronger/around the same as bows and arrows and soldiers would still be able to block a few shots with their shields. Not sure if right or not.

0

#46 to #45 - admiralen (12/28/2015) [-]

The guns are better than the bows from asia, they are weaksauce

0

#67 - nustix (12/28/2015) [-]

This is not even a question, the roman empire was an actual army, I doubt 20 samurais can properly fight side by side. It's not about the strength of an individual in war it's about the collective.

0

#64 - battletechmech (12/28/2015) [-]

The romans would beat the japanese ezpz

0

#57 - tarabostes (12/28/2015) [-]

Surely the Samurai's chakra would penetrate the centurion's armour!
Oh wait this isn't an anime

Surely the Samurai's chakra would penetrate the centurion's armour!
Oh wait this isn't an anime

0

#48 - anon (12/28/2015) [-]

romans showed no mercy for their enemies - rome grew into a large glorious empire
romans showed mercy and "le lets be peaceful xd" - rome was destroyed by hordes of *********** , *********** , ************* and mountain *******

Leave a comment

Top Content in 24 Hours

No entries found.

<

>

Friends (0)