Deadliest Warrior (Season 1, Episode 1) Discussion - Apache vs. Gladiator

[zarx]

bugrimmar said:

zarx said:

Obviusly the gladiator would duck down as the apache was firing then after the projectile hit look above the sheild if the apache tries to flank it's easier to turn on the spot than run around. Also there is a massive difference between a long bow that could fire an steel tiped arrow over 228 m (249 yds) and a short bow firing a plain wood or possibly stone tiped arrow. I think you are over estimating the range and penetration power of such a weapon. 

Apaches were fearless worriors up against a military force that was trained to line up into rows and fire inacurate muskets that took longer to reload than a bow, and used cannons that took ~ a minute to reload and aim and wore no armor, and were conscripts. And the apache still lost even with the advantage of hit and run tactics and an unprodictable nature. The colonial forces tactics and weaponry was actually very poorly suited to combat the apache.

Gladiators on the other hand often have nothing to lose, are battle hardened against every different oponent imaginable, and lived a life where every day was a battle of life and death. 

You are right tho in a forrest situation where there is plenty of cover the apache has a massive advantage but so does the gladiator in a wide open battlefeild. 

i'm aware that longbowmen had better arrows and better bows, but knights also had far better armor than a gladiator. it's the same comparison. high tech bow vs. high tech armor and primitive bow vs. primitive armor that only covers certain parts of the body.

you're trying to say that the colonial armies were less equipped than the natives? that's crazy. guns won that war. for sure. history has shown us that over and over. the reason that every single native populace was demolished by europeans is because of guns and artillery. therefore, whether you think they're bad weapons or whatnot, they were still effective. you can't argue with history.

gladiators were slaves. as such, they were literally given no choice but to fight for survival. but whatever your motivation is, you can't stop an arrow just from willpower. range will always win against someone without any range whatsoever. this is the truth in every single battle that has ever been fought in mankind's history. look it up. from the dawn of mankind, the army with the better range weapons has always won. this is why guns changed the world. it delivered an effortless means of dealing death at a distance. it has always been this way and it will never change.

There were actually very fer knights running arround in full plate mail as it was expensive and heavy, the vast majority of medevil armies were comprised of chain mail wharing (at best) men at arms and peasent militia. Full plate would actually turn aside arrows that were not stright on direct hits. 

Guns are superior to bows for several reasons, they allow larger amounts of ammo to be carried, they are easier to use (bows take real skill to use well) and most importantly they have greater penetrating power than most bows and arrows. A british long bow actually had a longer kill range than a colonial musket. The point I was making was that taking on a heavly drilled army with hit and run garilla tactics was actually the best way to combat the colonial army.

The Roman scutum was designed specifically to protect soldiers from vollies of arrows protecting a soldier from arrows is what they do, the apche on the other hand has a hunting bow and has no experiance fighting against armor or sheilds.