| bugrimmar said:
about the homefield advantage: in a coliseum, there is no ambush, but the apache can still unleash arrows and do hit and run. therefore, there's still a good chance the gladiator will die from an arrow even with a scutum, because arrows are unpredictable. given that the arrows don't hit, eventually the gladiator will have to move in, where he will meet knives. if he gets past that, only then does he have a chance of winning. so even in a coliseum, the apache has good chances of hitting the gladiator before the fight even starts. when the fight does start, apaches have a good chance too because tomahawks are pretty good in close range. i do give a slight edge to the gladiator in a coliseum because of the straightforward combat, but not by much. in a forest or mountainous area, it's no contest. the gladiator will be picked apart by the apache from ambush and hit and run. there's nothing that the gladiator can do in the situation. all that gear will just be a burden to his fatigue level. so if we combine both situations, the apache is the better warrior because he can be effective in more than one kind of area or battlefield. the gladiator has a slight edge in a coliseum, but that's it. in a real battlefield where there is unpredictability, strategy, tactics, and ambush, the apache would always win. |
as long as the apache is infront of the gladiator the gladiator can just duck down and he is entirely covered by the sheild. That is an almost 100% chance of blocking then when the ammo runs out they are forced into close combat and then the gladiator has the advantage. The gladiator also would have a lot of experiance fighting a wide veriaty of opponents as Rome spaned half the world and used fighters and wild animals (including tigers, lions and elephants) from all over the world. Gladiators hey were also closest thing they had to profesional athletes and trined relentlessly.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
