Who would win? Roman Legions from two thousand years prior, or Toranaga-sama with his Samurai nearly 2000 years later (no Western weapons allowed).
Who would win?
Who would win? Roman Legions from two thousand years prior, or Toranaga-sama with his Samurai nearly 2000 years later (no Western weapons allowed).
Technology didn't evolved much between those periods so Roman based on tactics alone.
However 50 modern navy seals easily destroy both armies combined.
More like having modern weapons easily destroy both armies. The Gravy Seals aren't shit without their tech and support.
>derp humans are no good without weapons!!!1!
No shit?
well ceaser would definetly win if he had air support...
And in empty hand combat the Roman and Japanese soldiers would put aside their differences to buck break the Amerimutts.
The Delta guys did have weapons tho. Didn't stop them from being mobbed. This is purely a battle between soldiers. They get whatever they carry, but nothing more. They don't get satellite imagery or gunship support, so the fifty navy seals expend their ammo, and then get swarmed and chopped up.
its obviously a different hypothetical to include all of the manpower necessary to give air support to those 50 navy seals.
50 green berets would absolutely defeat them- IF they stuck to their skill set of training the local populace. There's too much differences in mindset and modern knowledge on insurgency, training, and warfare that's completely independent of your technology level.
Delta got mob killed by Somalians and then had their naked bodies dragged through the streets. “Elite” soldiers ain't shit without modern air support and intel.
Seals would get murked
>50 modern navy seals easily destroy both armies combined
with no western weapons? lol
7 hajis with outdated weapons destroyed a whole platoon of SEALs.
legions easily. The japanese have no strategies besides politcal meddling.
samurais were terrible soldiers and would get demolished- Japs got rolled by koreans for fricks sake
>wood/leather armor
>no shields
>no great siege engines
Legions mog 9/10 engagements
>weebs think it’s even a contest
Exactly superior Nippon steel folded 1000 times. Cut threw them, they are rightweight.
>Caesar vs _____
Caesar
Alexander the Great?
Napoleon? (Without cannons)
Where are they fighting?
But the japanese have superior armors, bows, spears and guns, so they win.
Roman legionnaire regularly got their ass handed to them by barbarian in the backwoods.
>no western weapon
If you means gunpowder based weapon, Japanese blacksmiths were already capable of producing hand cannons, arbeques and small caliber cannon/swivel guns
They only rely on european foundries for larger guns.
The Romans would lose by the sheer resolve of the Samurai. Two handed swords wielding kamakazis with zero fricks given whether they live or die. Westerners will never understand what it means to be on the receiving end of a blade of a fearless enemy, Westerners prefer a Hearth over Duty.
I know it's bait but samurai didn't even use swords in battles. it was spears or bows, and mostly on horseback.
Romans would absolutely steamroll them
And both would get their shit pushed in by any uof the big Chinese dynasties.
>Chinese dynasties
Yes at the cost of ten Chinese for every legionary.
10 to 1 mind. Be honest where did you both get this meme from?
Anyway, that only happened to China when it tried to invade through really harsh climates for campaigns, that's why dynasties tended to reach out as far as the same geographic constraints in every direction each time.
Mongol conquest of China. Any of the Britain vs Chinese wars, or the Japs vs Chinese.
Did you both listen to the same popular history podcast together jesus
i accept your concession Black person
happened all the time agaisnt mongols. Like
at Yehuling
Chinese regularly lost while outnumbering their foe 10:1.
>And both would get their shit pushed in by any uof the big Chinese dynasties.
It's hilarious reading about the Three Kingdoms era and realizing battles involved armies the size of the entire roman legion on both sides.
I don't believe historical accounts when it comes to numbers. They are completely absurd alot.
Apparently the Roman's had the biggest naval battle in history just 20 years after creating their navy and losing half of it in storms twice in the two years prior
Ok
>I don't believe historical accounts when it comes to numbers
You shouldn't. Cao Cao claimed to have 800 000 troops during the battle of Chibi but even his contemporaries assumed that was just him bullshitting.
Like you said though, Romans fricked around with numbers as well. Nobody is particularly reliable and you can basically only draw conclusions on what you think might have been the truth.
Japs had guns and triple barrage tactics, they win by default.
Fricking Nobunaga in 1560 came up with using barricades to stop cavalry and alternating riflemen shooting while the other guy reloads in 3 rows, so there's constant firing.
As per hand to hand combat, maybe Japs had the upper hand due to using short spears rather than unwieldy pikes or fricking gladii.
Oh I forgot about the fricking cannons, Sengoku Japan had those too.
Samurai have guns, so them obviously.
this is moronic a bunch of ways. nips had gunpowder at that point, plus their terrain is all fricked up and one nation or the other has to make it across the water
Japan is a tiny island and they weren't very good mariners, the thing that kept them safe from European rapist hordes was distance. They were still using wooden armor up until like the 19th century.
They had shit iron so there wasn't much of a choice
Yeah it's not really their fault but it's also just the truth. They'd probably have gotten bodied by any western civilization if they werent oceans away from them.