This match up I think is unfair and doesn't exactly represent each fighter. It would hands down be the Japanese soldier. The only exceptions I could think of is if the Legionnaire was a really good fighter. The armor and shield he uses are designed to be used in formations, with a sword for thrusting from a group of shielded men, not for one on one combat.

The french swordsman might be very skilled, but the rapier could not get through all the armor, and the brute force would win out. A rapier was not used in war as far as i know except for someone on horseback leading. There are many more effective European swords used in combat, perhaps a bastard sword would be better. Or a poleax, or a ghuttentagh, or one of the many other ingenius weapons that were developed by the west.

I know, thats why they are matched up. Controversy brings answers and explanation. Technically its horribly matched up, as the naginata and fencing were originally created for women to use in defense. Its like placing civilians in an arena with soldiers. But again, there is always an exception to the rules.

Zulu tribesman with a spear , at Isandlwana in 1879 a small army of zulu (1000 i think) with spears and cowhide shields fucking pawned a british army (1200 strong) complete with muskets and cannons.

Practical fencing (18th century dueling) is MADE for combat against single opponents. I think the fencer would dominate. Didn't they also do some discovery channel thing based on this?

Does the roman get his metal armour though? Both the other cultures involved don't exactly have weapons that're made to break through metallic armours. Japenese always used leather, duelist era fencers used thick wool and chainmail which, ironically, is probably the best armour to use against slashing weaponry out of any armour these guys might have?

There is no match for my Gumdo, i will defeat everyone, and the world shall fall victim of my blade!

Fuck off asshole.

out of all of them i still think the japanese dude would win