You guys see this show on Spike called deadliest warrior? They pin two types of warriors from different parts of the world and test their equipment and style to see who would win in a battle.

Ive seen all of them but the one I dont agree with is Gladiator vs. Apache. In the show Apache won...COME ON. Apache's style of fighting is shoot and run. Gladiators were brutes who did not stop fighting til they were dead and werent scared of anything, and the Romans fought more fierce warriors and won than the apaches. Heck our militia killed almost all of them off during the revolution. What do you guys think, Gladiator or Native American Apache?

I think: Spetsnaz.

I don't agree with any of them. The situations are so terribly contrived

I don't agree with any of them. The situations are so terribly contrived

I agree with some of them, in all honesty the Spetsnaz are killing machines compared to the green barets. Also William Wallace vs. Shaka Zulu I knew William Wallace would win.

Hmmm let's see. Though I find the show entertaining I don't agree with it at all. Because all these machines do is measure they don't have human intellect. Which would bring about a different answer as opposed if it were done in real life.
I'll give you an example. I knew these two guys in high school that wrestled with me. One of them, according to paper, was better than the other one. So they wrestled for their spot on the team and the guys who was better lost. Next week came and they wrestled again and the guy that was supposed to be better lost again. This happened for about the whole wrestling season. So though they input it into the computer on what would happen and what weapon is stronger doesn't mean that one guy would beat another guy just means that the computer came to that conclusion. But it doesn't make it a fact since we wouldn't know. Unless you actually take pros and have them fight against each other with the weapons but not to the death.:lol::lol:

But a fun show on the other hand.haha

I agree with some of them, in all honesty the Spetsnaz are killing machines compared to the green barets. Also William Wallace vs. Shaka Zulu I knew William Wallace would win.

What I mean is the circumstances are so contrived as to be useless. To me its like asking who would win @ poker? A gymnast or a swimmer? In order to imagine the fights, they have to take each warrior far outside the elements said warriors were equipped and trained for.

But if you look at it each region's army mastered their terrain. It'll be like pinning up England's Navy vs. the Armies Marines and having them both fighting in the jungles of Africa. Both of their weapons and tactics aren't for that terrain.

Hmmm let's see. Though I find the show entertaining I don't agree with it at all. Because all these machines do is measure they don't have human intellect. Which would bring about a different answer as opposed if it were done in real life.
I'll give you an example. I knew these two guys in high school that wrestled with me. One of them, according to paper, was better than the other one. So they wrestled for their spot on the team and the guys who was better lost. Next week came and they wrestled again and the guy that was supposed to be better lost again. This happened for about the whole wrestling season. So though they input it into the computer on what would happen and what weapon is stronger doesn't mean that one guy would beat another guy just means that the computer came to that conclusion. But it doesn't make it a fact since we wouldn't know. Unless you actually take pros and have them fight against each other with the weapons but not to the death.:lol::lol:

But a fun show on the other hand.haha


The computer they have does a 1,000 simulated battles and in the end it gives a percentage of wins and losses. I agree with what your saying but the show I think gives account to who had more deadly weapons and how they used them. They dont specify what they put in the computer so you dont really know how much data is really inputed though.

Ive seen all of them but the one I dont agree with is Gladiator vs. Apache. In the show Apache won...COME ON. Apache's style of fighting is shoot and run. Gladiators were brutes who did not stop fighting til they were dead and werent scared of anything, and the Romans fought more fierce warriors and won than the apaches. Heck our militia killed almost all of them off during the revolution. What do you guys think, Gladiator or Native American Apache?Not all gladiators were Romans... many were subjects of the Roman Empire, but they came from all across the known world, not just Rome (or Italy).

Second, if the Apache style of fighting is "shoot and run", and the every gladiator's style of fighting was to "fight till they were dead", the Apache would obviously win... meaning, for the Apache to "shoot", they have the advantage of distance. It doesn't matter if the gladiator is a "brute" who wasn't "scared of anything", if he can't reach his opponent (the Apache), then there's no way he could win.

The computer they have does a 1,000 simulated battles and in the end it gives a percentage of wins and losses. I agree with what your saying but the show I think gives account to who had more deadly weapons and how they used them. They dont specify what they put in the computer so you dont really know how much data is really inputed though.


Yeah I know I watch the show myself. But what I am getting at is numbers aren't much. Human intellect can only be shown. Here is another example.

I like playing the game street fighter 4. When I play against the computer on the hardest mode I can get away with using the same move on my opponent several times, consecutively, but when I play on xbox live I can only get away with the move once in awhile.

Though they say it took them 4 years to create their program I wouldn't care if it took them 400 years they cannot get human intellect. Any military leader will say a robot couldn't take the place of a humans mind on the battlefield.

Not all gladiators were Romans... many were subjects of the Roman Empire, but they came from all across the known world, not just Rome (or Italy).

Second, if the Apache style of fighting is "shoot and run", and the every gladiator's style of fighting was to "fight till they were dead", the Apache would obviously win... meaning, for the Apache to "shoot", they have the advantage of distance. It doesn't matter if the gladiator is a "brute" who wasn't "scared of anything", if he can't reach his opponent (the Apache), then there's no way he could win.

It depends on the environment, you put apache in a Colosseum with Gladiators and the apache are dead meat. They were given guns and still were slaughtered by the american revolution soldiers back then. Even in the show the one Apache said "theres no such thing as a fair fight to an apache because they always need to out number their opponent or they wont fight". They are wimps. Gladiators are true warriors and face death with bravery.

They are wimps.

Lets see... men who were bred for hunting, fighting, and wilderness life since they were able to walk. Men who could run tirelessly well past the point most modern day armchair warriors would have fell to the ground wailing for their mommies. Wimps? For real? For really real?

Lets see... men who were bred for hunting, fighting, and wilderness life since they were able to walk. Men who could run tirelessly well past the point most modern day armchair warriors would have fell to the ground wailing for their mommies. Wimps? For real? For really real?

Compared to the average everyday american man, no..Compared to Gladiators of the Colesseum..yes. If you notice the apache never used armor, you know why? Because they never stuck around long enough to use it! They hide, shoot, and run. Heck I can do that. Face off one on one with someone with nothing but a sword and shield knowing your going to die, now thats impressive. All I'm saying is stick some apaches and some Gladiators in a ring and lets see who wins..(mind you, that you cant run away in the colesseum, fight or die.)

Compared to the average everyday american man, no..Compared to Gladiators of the Colesseum..yes. If you notice the apache never used armor, you know why? Because they never stuck around long enough to use it! They hide, shoot, and run. Heck I can do that. Face off one on one with someone with nothing but a sword and shield knowing your going to die, now thats impressive. All I'm saying is stick some apaches and some Gladiators in a ring and lets see who wins..(mind you, that you cant run away in the colesseum, fight or die.)

Stick some Apaches and Gladiators in the woods and lets see who wins. Some people, as you, are impressed by brute force. Then some people, like me and HISLEAST, like more technical thinking and strategy in battle.

I take this all from a martial arts background I know how it is to have a mindset of brute strength in a fight setting and then using technique in a battle.

So brute force doesn't surprise me. Though I know that gladiators had skill but not strategy. They just sought after their opponent until either one was dead.

An Apache on the other hand they would strike from different angles at different times to scare their enemy.

Though you should respect each fighter you shouldn't call them a wossy or say that they are cowards because the Apache risked their lives in battle and also during their hunting they relied on tribes where it wasn't an empire that bred their own food or livestock they were constantly moving and hunted food to eat.

But on the other hand gladiators were trained to kill or be killed and were peasants and slaves that trained constantly to fight and kill. The Apache trained constantly but didn't train just to kill but to also hunt.

I think the victory percentage for the Apache was 61% versus 39% for the Gladiator. This was due ,in large part, to the Apache's ability to strike at a distance with the bow and arrow. Makes sense to me.

Compared to the average everyday american man, no..Compared to Gladiators of the Colesseum..yes. If you notice the apache never used armor, you know why? Because they never stuck around long enough to use it! They hide, shoot, and run. Heck I can do that. Face off one on one with someone with nothing but a sword and shield knowing your going to die, now thats impressive. All I'm saying is stick some apaches and some Gladiators in a ring and lets see who wins..(mind you, that you cant run away in the colesseum, fight or die.)

Or more likely they didn't have sufficiently advanced metallurgy. To build armor would require a society familiar with mining, in close proximity to accessible ore, close proximity to fuel, and secure enough to set up immobile forges. As a good number of Apache people were mobile, armor (and the infrastructure to make it) would be a hindrance even if they had the resources.

Its got nothing to do with "wimpyness", but rather a maximization of resources and cultural potential.

As for "sticking some apaches in the ring with some Gladiators"... this is exactly the kind of thing that makes brings my palm to my face every time I see Deadliest Warrior on TV. Completely ridiculously contrived situations. And thats before I point out that by putting the Apaches in a ring with gladiators you're totally stacking the odds in favor of gladiator.

But even if we do contrive such a situation, if I had to bet between a group of men conditioned for savage wilderness living since birth facing off against former slaves, debtors, and the condemned... I'lltake the wilderness men thanks.

The Spetnatz vs Special Forces episode was lame, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of the Actors were either Spetnatz or Special Forces soldiers. I mean, seriously, if your whole thing comes down to an E-Tool vs Bayonet fight, what's the point? A real soldier would have reloaded, found his enemy with his back to a wall and moved the selector switch from "Safe" to "Burst" squeezed the trigger a few times, then go back to the FOB / Camp / Whatever and watch "Friends" or something.

The Spetnatz vs Special Forces episode was lame, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of the Actors were either Spetnatz or Special Forces soldiers. I mean, seriously, if your whole thing comes down to an E-Tool vs Bayonet fight, what's the point? A real soldier would have reloaded, found his enemy with his back to a wall and moved the selector switch from "Safe" to "Burst" squeezed the trigger a few times, then go back to the FOB / Camp / Whatever and watch "Friends" or something.

Yeah my brothers and I were laughing at the video kinda cheesy.haha We also came to the conclusion that it undermined the actual skill that each side had and if you have your enemy on the floor you're going to pull out your pistol and shoot. You're not going to bring out ur shovel.haha

So show entertaining though not at all accurate.:lol::lol:

Stick some Apaches and Gladiators in the woods and lets see who wins. Some people, as you, are impressed by brute force. Then some people, like me and HISLEAST, like more technical thinking and strategy in battle.

I take this all from a martial arts background I know how it is to have a mindset of brute strength in a fight setting and then using technique in a battle.

So brute force doesn't surprise me. Though I know that gladiators had skill but not strategy. They just sought after their opponent until either one was dead.

An Apache on the other hand they would strike from different angles at different times to scare their enemy.

Though you should respect each fighter you shouldn't call them a wossy or say that they are cowards because the Apache risked their lives in battle and also during their hunting they relied on tribes where it wasn't an empire that bred their own food or livestock they were constantly moving and hunted food to eat.

But on the other hand gladiators were trained to kill or be killed and were peasants and slaves that trained constantly to fight and kill. The Apache trained constantly but didn't train just to kill but to also hunt.

Of course they had strategy, but they fought one on one which makes it an even fight, something the apaches hate. Take a Native American off his horse, take away his bow and arrow and have him fight like a man one on one and he will lose.

Or more likely they didn't have sufficiently advanced metallurgy. To build armor would require a society familiar with mining, in close proximity to accessible ore, close proximity to fuel, and secure enough to set up immobile forges. As a good number of Apache people were mobile, armor (and the infrastructure to make it) would be a hindrance even if they had the resources.

Its got nothing to do with "wimpyness", but rather a maximization of resources and cultural potential.

As for "sticking some apaches in the ring with some Gladiators"... this is exactly the kind of thing that makes brings my palm to my face every time I see Deadliest Warrior on TV. Completely ridiculously contrived situations. And thats before I point out that by putting the Apaches in a ring with gladiators you're totally stacking the odds in favor of gladiator.

But even if we do contrive such a situation, if I had to bet between a group of men conditioned for savage wilderness living since birth facing off against former slaves, debtors, and the condemned... I'lltake the wilderness men thanks.

What do you mean? There are tons of African Tribes who use armor, maybe not Gladiator substantial, but armor. Also its called deadliest warrior, if apaches dont want to use armor or dont have it too bad they lose. Also the apaches won only because of the bow and arrow. I'm talking about a one on one fight, not a hit and run. Deadliest warrior, not deadliest drive by.

Of course they had strategy, but they fought one on one which makes it an even fight, something the apaches hate. Take a Native American off his horse, take away his bow and arrow and have him fight like a man one on one and he will lose.

Apaches would also have to fight when they were down in numbers. Don't take everything you see on tv to truth. Now lets look a gladiator weighing on an average of 170 to 210, let's just say, considering on their size. Armor and weapons of about 15-30lbs weapons of a shield spear and a short sword. Apache average weight of 125-155 light clothing and several knives and a bow and arrow.

Apache fighting as a coward? Interesting. I didn't know that fighting without armor was being a coward.

And again each warrior was trained to their specific battlefield scenario!!!

If you put a thai boxer in the ring with a ju-jitsu fighter and say no hitting only submissions count. The thai boxer wouldn't know how to defend hisself and if you switch it and say only striking the ju-jitsu guy would lose since he doesn't know how to defend himself.

What do you mean?
I thought what I meant was pretty clear. Your assertion was that the Apache were wimps because they didn't use armor and fought with guerrilla tactics, which is simply absurd. You somehow fault them for not being like gladiators, when the culture, terrain, conditioning, resources, and tactics of the opposing force required a mode of warfare completely different.


There are tons of African Tribes who use armor, maybe not Gladiator substantial, but armor. Also its called deadliest warrior, if apaches dont want to use armor or dont have it too bad they lose. Also the apaches won only because of the bow and arrow. I'm talking about a one on one fight, not a hit and run. Deadliest warrior, not deadliest drive by.
Spoken like a true sportsman.
War of course, isn't a sport like boxing or mma with contrived rules . At the end of the day, the deadliest warrior is the one who gets to go home to his wife and children. A vastly outnumbered English force taught this lesson to the French at Agincourt, where the common man's bow won the day against the pretty french armor.

If you're talking about a 1 on 1 fight, you're talking about a contrived situation purpose built to give the gladiator the best chance at winning. On top of this you begrudge the Apache the use of their tactical advantage. All this contrived scenario and bemoaning the enemy's advantage and you're calling the Apache's wimps?

Oooook.

If I had to choose, I would fight the Gladiator. Why? Because he's static, predictable, and ultimately limited in what he can do.

Also, the typical Roman style gladiator armor wasn't much to talk about. A shoulder pad here, a helmet there, maybe some forearm banding, and that's about it. It was that way for a reason, and these different styles were slowly standardized to various forms and kits.

I thought what I meant was pretty clear. Your assertion was that the Apache were wimps because they didn't use armor and fought with guerrilla tactics, which is simply absurd. You somehow fault them for not being like gladiators, when the culture, terrain, conditioning, resources, and tactics of the opposing force required a mode of warfare completely different.


Spoken like a true sportsman.
War of course, isn't a sport like boxing or mma with contrived rules . At the end of the day, the deadliest warrior is the one who gets to go home to his wife and children. A vastly outnumbered English force taught this lesson to the French at Agincourt, where the common man's bow won the day against the pretty french armor.

If you're talking about a 1 on 1 fight, you're talking about a contrived situation purpose built to give the gladiator the best chance at winning. On top of this you begrudge the Apache the use of their tactical advantage. All this contrived scenario and bemoaning the enemy's advantage and you're calling the Apache's wimps?

Oooook.

The apache style of fighting was to come in when you were sleeping and cut your throat...wow what real men. They dont act like warriors, they act like theives and thugs. Maybe you disagree but they wont fight if they are out numbered, they sneak in your place when its dark to kill you, they shoot arrows on their horses and take off. Sounds like a bunch of criminals rather than someone looking for a fair fight dont you think? Think about it in battle terms, imagine a row of Gladiators with roman shields, swords and armor vs. a row of apaches with no armor at all and some knives, heck even with their bows they are not penatrating those shields. And the reanactment in the show was a joke, the Gladiator had the apache pinned down and was beating him to death, then Gladiator just got up and stopped..really?..come on. In real life Gladiator would have won.

The apache style of fighting was to come in when you were sleeping and cut your throat...wow what real men. They dont act like warriors, they act like theives and thugs. Maybe you disagree but they wont fight if they are out numbered, they sneak in your place when its dark to kill you, they shoot arrows on their horses and take off. Sounds like a bunch of criminals rather than someone looking for a fair fight dont you think? Think about it in battle terms, imagine a row of Gladiators with roman shields, swords and armor vs. a row of apaches with no armor at all and some knives, heck even with their bows they are not penatrating those shields. And the reanactment in the show was a joke, the Gladiator had the apache pinned down and was beating him to death, then Gladiator just got up and stopped..really?..come on. In real life Gladiator would have won.

Hmmm... The SAS and Royal Marine Commandos were reknown in WW2 for their ability to sneak into German camps and kill every occupant with their knives during night time. They were also known for firing a few shots at long range, then driving off in their vehicles. To look at it another way, who is the real man? The one who goes against his opponent armed very lightly, or the one who has to gear up with every conceivable thing? If your fantasy Roman-Everything equipped Gladiator in fact existed, why is he such a wimp that he needs to be clad head to toe in heavy banded mail wielding a giant tower shield, and some *other* weapon?

Also, Gladiators didn't use or wear "Roman shields, swords and armor". Even if they did, arrows would pierce a Lorica Hemetata (chainmail to you barbarians), the most common form of armor worn by Roman line soldiers, quite easily. Chains are great for cuts, not so great for stabbing or piercing. The Scutum would provide a good degree of protection, and in the off-hand chance that one of your slave-warriors had some Army experience and a Gladius, he could very well make a good show of himself wading into the sea of barbarians...provided he was backed up by a century of like-trained and equipped warriors.

The problem here is that the gladiator is an individual fighter, and the Roman strength was in outstanding physical conditioning, group fighting, excellent understanding of the role of the chain of command as a motivator vs just-another-fighter-in-the-ranks, and the willingness to outright steal ideas from conquered foes. None of these strengths actually transfer to the gladiator who, at best, had some kind of training and or experience pre-slavery, and could be expected to carry with him a weapon capable of killing if used correctly; at worst, the gladiator is just a terrified fool who irritated some minor pontificate and is thrust into a small regional cage with a rusted out, barely functional weapon vs a similar terrified fool.

I think the re-enactment in every show has been a joke.

Hmmm... The SAS and Royal Marine Commandos were reknown in WW2 for their ability to sneak into German camps and kill every occupant with their knives during night time. They were also known for firing a few shots at long range, then driving off in their vehicles. To look at it another way, who is the real man? The one who goes against his opponent armed very lightly, or the one who has to gear up with every conceivable thing? If your fantasy Roman-Everything equipped Gladiator in fact existed, why is he such a wimp that he needs to be clad head to toe in heavy banded mail wielding a giant tower shield, and some *other* weapon?

Also, Gladiators didn't use or wear "Roman shields, swords and armor". Even if they did, arrows would pierce a Lorica Hemetata (chainmail to you barbarians), the most common form of armor worn by Roman line soldiers, quite easily. Chains are great for cuts, not so great for stabbing or piercing. The Scutum would provide a good degree of protection, and in the off-hand chance that one of your slave-warriors had some Army experience and a Gladius, he could very well make a good show of himself wading into the sea of barbarians...provided he was backed up by a century of like-trained and equipped warriors.

The problem here is that the gladiator is an individual fighter, and the Roman strength was in outstanding physical conditioning, group fighting, excellent understanding of the role of the chain of command as a motivator vs just-another-fighter-in-the-ranks, and the willingness to outright steal ideas from conquered foes. None of these strengths actually transfer to the gladiator who, at best, had some kind of training and or experience pre-slavery, and could be expected to carry with him a weapon capable of killing if used correctly; at worst, the gladiator is just a terrified fool who irritated some minor pontificate and is thrust into a small regional cage with a rusted out, barely functional weapon vs a similar terrified fool.

I think the re-enactment in every show has been a joke.

Specifically referring to the show, its called deadliest warrior, not deadliest and tactful group of people. The show wants to know whos better in a one on one scenerio which they play out at the end. You can not sneak in and cut throats on a one on one battle. Also most gladiators did not wear chainmail that did not catch on or was used until the 1700's. Gladiators used iron stips attached by leather straps not penatrable by arrows. Also in the show almost every weapon could not penetrate any of the Gladiators armor. As far as a Gladiator who is a "petrified fool", for the most part your wrong. Gladiators were chosen based on strength, skill, and reason for punishment. They were all mostly brutes and some were even ex-Roman Soldiers. Others were so good at being Gladiators that they stayed a Gladiator their whole life. Also think about it, Apache's go everywhere together, they wouldnt know what to do if they were alone. Where as a Gladiator fights by themselves every day just to live to see the next day, so the ones that survive are some of the deadliest people of all time. Also for apache's being so deadly they sure all got killed off pretty quickly and you cant say it was because of the use of the gun because apache's used guns shortly after we brought them over.

Specifically referring to the show, its called deadliest warrior, not deadliest and tactful group of people. The show wants to know whos better in a one on one scenerio which they play out at the end. You can not sneak in and cut throats on a one on one battle. Also most gladiators did not wear chainmail that did not catch on or was used until the 1700's. Gladiators used iron stips attached by leather straps not penatrable by arrows. Also in the show almost every weapon could not penetrate any of the Gladiators armor. As far as a Gladiator who is a "petrified fool", for the most part your wrong. Gladiators were chosen based on strength, skill, and reason for punishment. They were all mostly brutes and some were even ex-Roman Soldiers. Others were so good at being Gladiators that they stayed a Gladiator their whole life. Also think about it, Apache's go everywhere together, they wouldnt know what to do if they were alone. Where as a Gladiator fights by themselves every day just to live to see the next day, so the ones that survive are some of the deadliest people of all time. Also for apache's being so deadly they sure all got killed pretty quickly and you cant say it was because of the use of the gun because apache's used guns shortly after we brought them over.

The Romans were using Hamata a thousand years before the 1700s; the Hamata was the most common form of armor worn by the standard Republican-era Roman soldier, and survived the re-organizations put into place by Marius, Augustus, Constantine, and Diocletian. The Hamata consisted of a chain shirt, with a leather belt and leather shoulder protection.

It's funny that you say "chainmail wasn't used until the 1700s" because it was during that period that armor was completely phased out from the standard infantryman's kit, what with the widespread use of gunpowder weapons and all. I also didn't *say* they would be equipped with such things, you made the claim that Gladiators "Wore Roman Armor, used Roman Swords and Shields", I was simply refuting it, or explaining why the presence of "Roman Armor" doesn't protect the wearer from arrows.

I think your understanding of the gladitorial system is invariably flawed. Gladiators were not the overly romanticized celebrities that modern high school history textbooks make them out to be, their extremely high attrition rate eliminated the possibility of such things. The simple fact is that the vast majority of gladiators were men sentenced to the games and not meant to survive 1 to 2 bouts. The presence of a few such "career gladiators" doesn't represent the whole. I would never venture the idea that a gladiator is at any time "One of the deadliest people of all time," instead, I would give that title to any random 19-year old American with an assault rifle, parachuted behind enemy lines with minimal adult supervision.

Apaches traveled in groups because the wilderness is unkind to solitary types, being raised in an environment that teaches it's youth how to survive at all costs eventually finds it's way down to the individual level.

As for Apaches / Indians in general vs Colonial types, there are several factors. The diseases that eradicated the Mayans and Aztecs also did their work in North America. The existence of regimented professional or part-time soldiers worked the same wonders against North American barbarians as they did against European barbarians. Eventually, the tribes were completely outnumbered, and found themselves in complete competition against an ever-growing population of colonials, settlers, pioneers, whatever. And finally, the concept of "having" a gun does not equal the concept of knowing how to fight with said gun, nor does it automatically confer upon the individual or group the ability to use said weapon effectively.

As for the matchup, I think it's lame. "Gladiator vs Apache"? Really? What was the other one? Ninja vs something equally lame? At least Spetznatz vs Special Forces pitted comparable soldiers against each other.


Specifically referring to the show, its called deadliest warrior, not deadliest and tactful group of people. The show wants to know whos better in a one on one scenerio which they play out at the end. You can not sneak in and cut throats on a one on one battle.

That is a good point.


They were all mostly brutes and some were even ex-Roman Soldiers.

No, they were mostly criminals and slaves with a small, extremely small percentage of ex-soldiers. All of which I said in the post you quoted.

The Romans were using Hamata a thousand years before the 1700s; the Hamata was the most common form of armor worn by the standard Republican-era Roman soldier, and survived the re-organizations put into place by Marius, Augustus, Constantine, and Diocletian. The Hamata consisted of a chain shirt, with a leather belt and leather shoulder protection.

It's funny that you say "chainmail wasn't used until the 1700s" because it was during that period that armor was completely phased out from the standard infantryman's kit, what with the widespread use of gunpowder weapons and all. I also didn't *say* they would be equipped with such things, you made the claim that Gladiators "Wore Roman Armor, used Roman Swords and Shields", I was simply refuting it, or explaining why the presence of "Roman Armor" doesn't protect the wearer from arrows.

I think your understanding of the gladitorial system is invariably flawed. Gladiators were not the overly romanticized celebrities that modern high school history textbooks make them out to be, their extremely high attrition rate eliminated the possibility of such things. The simple fact is that the vast majority of gladiators were men sentenced to the games and not meant to survive 1 to 2 bouts. The presence of a few such "career gladiators" doesn't represent the whole. I would never venture the idea that a gladiator is at any time "One of the deadliest people of all time," instead, I would give that title to any random 19-year old American with an assault rifle, parachuted behind enemy lines with minimal adult supervision.

Apaches traveled in groups because the wilderness is unkind to solitary types, being raised in an environment that teaches it's youth how to survive at all costs eventually finds it's way down to the individual level.

As for Apaches / Indians in general vs Colonial types, there are several factors. The diseases that eradicated the Mayans and Aztecs also did their work in North America. The existence of regimented professional or part-time soldiers worked the same wonders against North American barbarians as they did against European barbarians. Eventually, the tribes were completely outnumbered, and found themselves in complete competition against an ever-growing population of colonials, settlers, pioneers, whatever. And finally, the concept of "having" a gun does not equal the concept of knowing how to fight with said gun, nor does it automatically confer upon the individual or group the ability to use said weapon effectively.

As for the matchup, I think it's lame. "Gladiator vs Apache"? Really? What was the other one? Ninja vs something equally lame? At least Spetznatz vs Special Forces pitted comparable soldiers against each other.

Gladiators did not use exactly the same armor the Roman soldiers did, most often times they only wore armor on their arms and head with an open chest to provoke their enemy. And if they did wear chest armor it was a bronze breast plate. Also they were trained at special schools originally owned by private citizens, but later taken over by the imperial state to prevent the build up of a private army. Gladiators trained like true athletes, much like professional athletes do today. They received medical attention and three meals a day. Their training included learning how to use of various weapons, including the war chain, net, trident, dagger, sword and shield. So they werent just a bunch of slaves holding a sword as you try to picture them as. And they chose which weapon suited them best and lived and breathed that weapon. They were trained very para-military style. Also, if there were weak slaves who were Gladiators, as you claim, then they would be killed off in a matter of days anyway. Im talking about the real Gladiators of their time. Also the Apache designed their weapons to kill animals and armorless men orginally. Sooo..what do they do when someone walks up with a cast iron helmet, body armor, shield and sword? They would proabably run, like always. The show even proved how the Apache weapons were almost useless against the average Gladiator.

Gladiators did not use exactly the same armor the Roman soldiers did, most often times they only wore armor on their arms and head with an open chest to provoke their enemy. And if they did wear chest armor it was a bronze breast plate. Also they were trained at special schools originally owned by private citizens, but later taken over by the imperial state to prevent the build up of a private army. Gladiators trained like true athletes, much like professional athletes do today. They received medical attention and three meals a day. Their training included learning how to use of various weapons, including the war chain, net, trident, dagger, sword and shield. So they werent just a bunch of slaves holding a sword as you try to picture them as. And they chose which weapon suited them best and lived and breathed that weapon. They were trained very para-military style. Also, if there were weak slaves who were Gladiators, as you claim, then they would be killed off in a matter of days anyway. Im talking about the real Gladiators of their time. Also the Apache designed their weapons to kill animals and armorless men orginally. Sooo..what do they do when someone walks up with a cast iron helmet, body armor, shield and sword? They would proabably run, like always. The show even proved how the Apache weapons were almost useless against the average Gladiator.

Oh my gosh. From thebeginning I said the Gladiators didn't wear the same armor as Roman soldiers, that was a claim you made here:


Think about it in battle terms, imagine a row of Gladiators with roman shields, swords and armor Before that I wrote:


Also, the typical Roman style gladiator armor wasn't much to talk about. A shoulder pad here, a helmet there, maybe some forearm banding, and that's about it. It was that way for a reason, and these different styles were slowly standardized to various forms and kits.Now, you are talking about a very small percentage of gladiators and making them out as if they were representative of the whole. The fact is, as you said, they were meant to die soon, that was the whole point! It wasn't like everyone who stepped into the arena was some glorious veteran of 1,000 fights who lived and breathed fighting. The vast vast vast majority were people who were going to die anyway and were forced to fight each other to the death for the amusement of a crowd. I suggest reading *a* book on the subject. The movie Gladiator is not a replacement for historical study.

As for the Apache facing a fully armed and armored warrior (which, even as you finally admit to, isn't the case here, anyways), so what if they run away? My point (and others) from the beginning is that the matchup is lame and designed to play to the strengths of one of the contenders while emphasis the weakness of the other.

I like the show a lot, but I wish they simulated the battles more closely with the numerical data. That way, we'd know they weren't just showing us the fight for the drama. For example, one of the French knight's more lethal weapons statistically was the halberd. In the simulation, I don't recall he ever even used it! Then in the Sicilian mafioso vs. the Japanese yakuza episode, the Sicilian kills the yakuza in hand-to-hand combat(!) with an icepick(!!). The icepick accounted for just 2.4% of kills by the Sicilian in a 1000 fight simulation. Why would they end the summarizing simulation fight this way?

Oh my gosh. From thebeginning I said the Gladiators didn't wear the same armor as Roman soldiers, that was a claim you made here:

Before that I wrote:

Now, you are talking about a very small percentage of gladiators and making them out as if they were representative of the whole. The fact is, as you said, they were meant to die soon, that was the whole point! It wasn't like everyone who stepped into the arena was some glorious veteran of 1,000 fights who lived and breathed fighting. The vast vast vast majority were people who were going to die anyway and were forced to fight each other to the death for the amusement of a crowd. I suggest reading *a* book on the subject. The movie Gladiator is not a replacement for historical study.

As for the Apache facing a fully armed and armored warrior (which, even as you finally admit to, isn't the case here, anyways), so what if they run away? My point (and others) from the beginning is that the matchup is lame and designed to play to the strengths of one of the contenders while emphasis the weakness of the other.

Some of them did have roman army gear, just not all of them. They got to choose what they wanted to wear and which weapon to use. But you make it to sound like Gladiators are a bunch of peasants with swords thrown into a ring. Thats a common myth. They had certain people who were just put in there to die, most often a criminals. But many of the true Gladiators that the Roman Empire came to see were in fact warriors and like i mentioned, they trained in fighting schools for many years until they earned their freedom. Some were so good though that they stayed. Just like we have really good, skilled, and dominant football players; so did the Gladiatorial games. Those were not just select few either, as you implicated. There had been many many famous warriors to step in the coleseum and stun the crowds with their fighting ability. Also, you cant exactly compare the movie Gladiator to a common Gladiator because in the movie he was a Roman General, despite much skill the Gladiators had I dont think any of them were quite that skilled due to his experience.

As far as running away..well i think thats weak. It means your scared, you know your going to lose, so you have to retreat.

I highly suggest you read Sun Tzu's "Art of War"... if even an abridged pocket version. Striking and running and other such guerilla tactics have been tools of victors since man discovered he had legs, and make no mistake that you would do the same if you thought it would give you an edge against an enemy that compelled you to war.

I find it rather contradictory that only a few posts back you remind us the show is called "Deadliest Warrior" yet you continually mock the tactics used by certain warriors to kill effectively given their terrain, resources, training, and opposition.

Some of them did have roman army gear, just not all of them. They got to choose what they wanted to wear and which weapon to use. But you make it to sound like Gladiators are a bunch of peasants with swords thrown into a ring. Thats a common myth. They had certain people who were just put in there to die, most often a criminals. But many of the true Gladiators that the Roman Empire came to see were in fact warriors and like i mentioned, they trained in fighting schools for many years until they earned their freedom. Some were so good though that they stayed. Just like we have really good, skilled, and dominant football players; so did the Gladiatorial games. Those were not just select few either, as you implicated. There had been many many famous warriors to step in the coleseum and stun the crowds with their fighting ability. Also, you cant exactly compare the movie Gladiator to a common Gladiator because in the movie he was a Roman General, despite much skill the Gladiators had I dont think any of them were quite that skilled due to his experience.

As far as running away..well i think thats weak. It means your scared, you know your going to lose, so you have to retreat.

I suggest doing a modicum of research outside of Hollywood.

I suggest doing a modicum of research outside of Hollywood.

I have, I have studied the Gladiatorial art a few years past which is why I was upset at the show. And for you guys who don't think that the gladiators were true warriors- read up on a man called Spartacus and the gladiator revolt.

Also, gladiators were mostly soldiers/warriors who had been captured in battle by the Roman legions. Very few times were they actually just a bunch of slaves and bums lying around like you guys like to portray them as. Most people who think that do so because they never really looked into it for themselves. They did what was for the best show, they captured enemies, and other warriors to fight. The gladiators were usually not ethnic Romans. They were Greeks, Huns, Goths, Galls, Franks, Britons, Persians, Assyrians, Hebrews, Carthaginians, etc. Not only were they already deadly and trained in warfare as a member of their own respective armies/warrior cultures, they were then trained as one-on-one killers in Roman gladiator training. They could do it all. The show didn't even scrape the surface on what was available to a gladiator as far as weapons and armor goes.

I think you should stop buying into everything you read online and do some real research, it would benefit you much.:D

I find that actually seeing people die in ways other than sleep greatly decreases my desire to do it. I guess I would be a bad Gladiator.