Who would win in a fight, a Gladiator, or a Samurai?

Question: Who would win in a fight, a Gladiator, or a Samurai!?

!.!.!. and why!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Money on the samurai on 9/10 rounds!. Most of the gladiators were specialists in a particular style of fighting, and the styles of fighting were taught in order to put on a show, not to train a gladiator in how to efficiently kill an opponant!. After all, if the gladiators offed their opponants too quickly, the crowd missed out on enjoying a spectacle!. The samurai, however, fought to kill, and kill often and quickly!. The gladiators simply weren't well equipped to deal with such an enemy!. They made good thugs and strong arm men as Freemen, but gladiators could not even fare well against most legionaries!.
One possible difference would be the Retiarii, the "net and trident" men!. Their armament was sufficiently unusual, and their fighting style, like the samurai, favored agility, so the fight might not be so one sided!.
The other issue is how much armor we're talking about the contestants wearing!. A fully equipped, upper class samurai's armor would most likely protect him long enough to avoid any serious harm!. A more lightly armorred samurai might be vulnerable, also, while we're talking about the samurai sword as the traditional weapon, the samurai did have other weapons in their arsenal, including a rather wicked longbow, the yari/spear, and the naginata, essentially a sword blade mounted at the end of a spear shaft!. Most of these would give the samurai longer reach, again favoring them!. I'm disregarding more esoteric weapons because most samurai wouldn't have access!.
In armor the gladiators again would suffer!. Most classes of gladiator fought with some form of helmet, depersonalizing the gladiator and not coincidentally restricting their field of vision!. While some carried large shields, most gladiators fought with half-armor or less!. This would leave one or more of the traditional striking points of a samurai vulnerable to a disabling or fatal blow!.
In short, it's not because of any mystical or superhuman abilities that the samurai would win!. But a combination of factors would favor even an average samurai over most gladiators, even the rare champions!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Samurai!. Sword is longer and better made!. Even though the gladiator might have a shield, the samurai moves faster with a blade that can sever a human neck with one stroke!.

The samurai also has a lower regard for human life than a gladiator!. You might think that wrong, but think again!. Gladiators fought to win knowing they would die eventually!. The samurai fought for honor and superiority!. Those who faced them, unless they were another samurai, were inferior and deserved to die!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The samurai would win, the fight would last all of 20 second (mainly because the gladiator would need about 18 second to bleed out ) !. the movement of the japanese sword is pure simple efficency, most combat is decided in one/two moves !.!.the average gladiator ,even the long trained professional ones ,not the consripted criminals or whatever, was out there to slowly hack at his opponent with a semi sharp sword, to amuse a crowd,against a discipline like the japanese sword, the fight would start and an instant later the gladiator would either be opens across the middle,or his head rolling in the sand,probably both ,in two lightning quick seamless moves!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The Samurai of his time would annihilate the Gladiator of his time!. The reason - better swords!. The Japanese discovered the art of lamination centuries before others!. With a few dozen overlapping strokes of the blacksmith's hammer, the Japanese created 100s of separate layers of steel in a lighter, far sharper and vastly stronger sword that would literally have severed the weapons of any Roman-era bronze age warrior of the time, leaving him defenseless against one of the finest-trained warriors in history!. No contest!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

if the weapons were made of the same type of steel i will say a gladiator!. samurai were awesome fighters but their fighting style is based on strong cuts basically power full but slower attacks!. gladiators attacked fast and with precision!. the gladius (roman sword) is considered by many historians to be the most lethal hand weapon ever!. also smaller swords are more maneuverable!. i really don't think many ppl here know much about gladiators or samurai other than what they have seen in movies!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Samurais don't deserve all the hype they get!. The Mongols kicked their *** in the skirmishes/battles they had before the Divine Wind and attempted invasion of Japan!.

There's no way to evaluate or characterize how good or bad a gladiator would fight!. It is probably safe to assume that their swords were inferior to Japanese swords a thousand years later!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

They existed during two entirely different periods, some 500 to 1000 years apart, so it's a bit like asking who would win a battle between a platoon of soldiers from the American Revolution, and one from World War II; just the fact that one existed in a later time period meant they have a huge advantage in equipment and weapons, training, military science, etc!.
That being said, all weapons equal, the samurai would win by the nature of his discipline; the gladiator fought for external rewards, whether it be fame, money, freedom, or just his own survival; the samurai engaged in battle as an end to itself, meaning his entire life had a sort of deadly focus and discipline which would put him on an entirely different plane of effectivenessWww@QuestionHome@Com

Both were trained in some way and both have advantages and disadvantages!. It would really depend on what exactly the gladiator was armed with!. If the gladiator had some sort of a spear, the samurai is dead meat!. Otherwise, the samurai is better!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Equally skilled in their own disciplines: a samurai of course!.

The samurai would kill the gladiator in the first blow, but if he missed, then it would be advantage: gladiator!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

samurai, obviously!. samurai has far more armour than a gladiator, is much faster and has a waaay better sword!. samurais are also way cooler!. oh yeah!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Samurai obviously!. Hes super crazy fast and has a long sword!. Like Samurai Jack!. Samurai Jack would own any gladiator!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

A true Samurai Could take 5 Gladiators by sheer speed not to mention a lifetime of training and weapons
Gladiators were not good fighters they were just prisoners forced to fight for the most part some were X soldiers but no matchWww@QuestionHome@Com

Samurai had more advanced fighting styles and steel!. But even if you took the advantage of weaponry away, the samurai would winWww@QuestionHome@Com

we will never know, its like putting a wrestler against a boxer or an apple compared to an orange!. Im sure a lot would depend on the individual and his skillWww@QuestionHome@Com