Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Gladius VS Katana - Roman and Japanese Warfare Compared" video.

In the 1 vs 1 situation, especially if you remove the scutum, you should probably give the gladium to a gladiator. A warrior much more used to 1 vs 1 fights. For the formation fight, it would be important to know the samurai to legionaries ratio. Infact you are right saying that legionaries were comparable to elite units, and that's precisely the matter. Romans could field a huge number of trained soldiers. Samurais instead were elite units, while the bulk of a Japanese army was composed of armed peasants, the kind of infantry the legionaries loved to tear apart.
4
Katana vs gladius alone: katana wins, unless the gladius wielder manage to parry a sufficiently powerful blow, in this case the gladius will probably break the katana. Katana's metal tend to be stiff and brittle. It's perfect to cut meat, but it doesn't cope well with hard objects. The gladius metal is softer and the blade is broader. . It will. have a big indentation in the cutting edge, but that will not diminish it's lethality (instead the indentation will aid the gladius to break the katana, acting as a sword breaker.
1
Gladius was designed to be preferably used with the scutum, but it was a sword anyway, is not that it was impossibie to fence with it alone. In this case the katana wielder was obviously favoured, but his victory was not a given thing, also cause, as said, katanas were fragile.
1
There was a class of gladiators that used two swords. Having lost the scutum, the legionary will probably take the pugio in his left hand.
1
In Japan that coincided with the final Jomon and early Yayoi periods.
1
In a katana vs gladius clash, the gladius would probably broke the katana. At the price of a big indentation in it's cutting edge, but it will not make it less lethal. To be very sharp, the steel of the katana tend to be very stiff, and so very brittle. It doesn't cope well with hard objects.
1
And we have not talked about heavy ranged weapons. Romans used a wide range of ballistas in their campaigns. For the Samurais would be a surprise to be hit more than a km away. For the numbers, it was a question of economy. Even before the Romans, the Mediterranean civilization had a developed commercial network that allowed the goods to be produced were it was easier, and paid in gold (When we think about ancient treasures, we tend to think about China and India, but Europe was the real gold producer of the antiquity). the Romans could extract gold from Spain and import wheat from Egypt to feed their army. Much of their goods were mass-produced. All that was lost in the middle age, cause there were no more the technology and organization to extract precious metals in quantity and mantain the Roman road network. A medieval feud had to be largely self-sufficient, and so the production was less efficient, and more peasants and artisans were required to feed and equip fewer soldiers.
1
Yeah. We have had examples in the Gallic wars. After Gergovia Caesar harshly reprimended his legionaries, telling them that it was up to the commander and the officers, and not them, to estabilish the tactic (exactly cause the legionaries on first line couldn't have an exact vision of the developement of the battle), but at Alesia he personally brought the reinforcements to a falling line, taking care to dress the mantle that made him recognizable, cause the legionaries would have fight harder to protect him.
1