By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bugrimmar on 02 July 2011
Edit Thread
zarx said:
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.


there's no such thing as 100% chance of blocking. there's always a chance of something getting through. even a knight's full plate armor + shield had some weaknesses that arrows could get through to. if you want proof of this, it's very simple. look up medieval warfare, and look up how english longbowmen were so feared by all armies of the western world. if 100% blocking was possible, why didn't the knights just walk up to them and kill the archers? the answer is it isn't possible. arrows are unpredictable. it's impossible to cover everything. the gladiator's shield is no comparison against a knight obviously. it can't cover the legs if he's covering his chest. he can't cover his chest and head if he covers his legs. if he ducks down, as you suggested, then the apache can just sit and wait for him to stand up, or run around him to shoot him from his side.

your suggestion for him to just duck down... why would the apache waste arrows on a shield right in front of him? that's utter foolishness. of course he'd run around it and flank him. lets face it. you're trying to find a very unreasonable solution to the bow and arrow problem. there is no solution aside from getting your own range weapon to counter. this is what armies have been doing for years. if you don't have archers in your army, you lose. it's plain and simple. genghis khan actually ran over almost the entire world behind just arrows on horseback.

all that aside, the gladiator can, yes, possibly block much of it or the apache could miss. but this is only possible in a coliseum. outside of it, in a real world battle situation, the gladiator stands no chance. can he predict where the arrow will come from if he can't even spot the apache? can he use his shield to block every possible angle?

aside from that, i agree that gladiators were professional athletes. but think about it. have they been at war with enemies that have far superior weaponry? the apaches were up against colonial infantry armed with guns and cannons. i think that's far stronger competition than a fellow sword wielding guy. sure, they were athletes. but apaches were soldiers who fought for a cause. therefore they were far more motivated.