I realize that this show is kinda old already (season 3 in a couple of days yay) but I just started watching this last week. I bought a dvd of the whole thing and went on a marathon. Anyway, just wanted to share my thoughts on this since it was FREAKING AWESOME. Anyone is welcome to share thoughts, ideas, and theories on how the fight should have gone or if you agree on the result. Lets limit the discussion to this fight only to avoid spoiling it for others who haven't watched the others yet. I'll make other threads on the other fights after this discussion is over.

Apache vs. Gladiator

Their decision: Apache
My decision (1v1): Apache - strongly agree
My decision (war): Apache

I agree simply because of the bow and arrow and knife throwing. Gladiatorial weapons were mostly purely melee and close up. If he can't close the distance, he'd be dead even before the fight begins. The sling is shit in one on one combat. It's too unpredictable and doesn't deliver a killing blow. Arrows at long distance, on the other hand, and throwing knives at medium distance, will automatically kill. In a war, a hail of arrows is also obviously far more effective. Aside from all that, Apaches were suited to guerrilla warfare, and therefore more adapted to more diverse fighting conditions. Gladiators were only suited for hand to hand combat in small groups and would absolutely fail if a large group were to fight in a battlefield.

shield & sword/spear > throwing knives

you can't hold all three (plus the net) at the same time. gladiators didn't commonly use shields. actually, the show didn't even showcase it as one of the weapons of the gladiator. they more commonly use the trident and net. if so, a knife thrown accurately (which is easy to do for an apache who has been doing it for his whole life) can just kill him easily even before the fight begins. there's nothing much you can do if you don't have any decent range weapons.

that's because the show is stupid, sheild tied to one arm carry the spear shethe the sword on the belt easy. 

what peice of equipment do all these pics have in common? Oh yes a shield and also armor, Throwing knife at mid to long range can be blocked by the sheid then the gladiator throws a spear ether skewering the apache or if dodged then charges knocking Apache to the ground stab and kick until death. Easy victory 

And yes every time you post one of these I will explain how the oposite worrior will win, this one was especially easy as the show seems to have deliberately let the Apache win by not giving the Gadiator the proper weapons, tho I guess you could replace the spear with a waighted net if you wish to stick closer to the show.

please do :) i love the show despite the fact that i recognize some inaccuracies. i'd love discussion of any kind :)

you're right about the shield that it can be tied to the arm. however, that can only protect a limited part of the body. the armor of the gladiator left a lot of parts exposed. you are right that the knives can be sort of blocked by the shield sometimes, but then arrows will always find a way to pass through. arrows can be shot from so far away and though the gladiator can block some of them, a few can easily go through. and then when he gets nearer, more stuff will be thrown at him that can possibly get through his shield. sure, when he gets close enough, that's when he can get some damage done.

unfortunately, if we play averages with arrows and knives thrown, some will get through. the shield and armor he has are incomplete and provide inconclusive protection. so if we run many battles with many apaches and gladiators, i have to agree that in majority of cases, the gladiator can't even get close enough to attack.

Well we could always give the gladiator a war chariot instead of a sheild, chop the apache's legs off with spinning blades etc. Also the type of bows apache used were short range as bows go. They used short bows that were good for hunting in forests where they would sneak up and they fire at a vital organ, or from horse back where they could ride up close, not like the composite or long bows. Ranged weapons also have limited amunition so if the gladiator had a standard Roman Scutum (long sheild ) which was designed to protect centurions from hails of arrows, wich is valid as many gladiators were ex soldiers and were often involved in recreated battles where one group would be equiped like centurions.

it would not be hard for a gladiator to block any shots before going in for the kill.

if we're going to include a war chariot and scutum, then we have to take into account stealth and fatigue as well. apaches were known for their ability to attack from ambush and hit and run tactics. we also have to take into account if the gladiator were to bring all that gear against a guy with very light gear, naturally the apache could just run and hide indefinitely, shooting arrows here and there, until the gladiator is forced into a position where his chariot wouldn't be helpful anymore. it's a wheeled vehicle so it can't really go to rocky areas or deep forests. all that running, of course, will make the gladiator tired in the end because he's carrying so much stuff with him. that scutum is heavy.

i stand by the point that since gladiators didn't have any reliable range weapons, they can be picked apart by someone who can shoot from afar. yes, the ammunition will eventually run out, but if an apache can attack from ambush where a gladiator isn't prepared, there won't even be a fight to begin with.

the chariot was a joke btw. 

As for stealth and ambush I guess we would have to agree on a battlefeild, giving the Apache the "home town" advantage of rocky or forested area seems unfair as would holding the fight in a coliseum. I would however accept a navel colliseum, because they are awsome.

and yes that is a coliseum filled with water in which they would hold navel battles, including ships with greek fire.

Edit: of corse a mounted battle would be viable, chariot vs horse.

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.

Isn't making the warriors be far from each other automatically give the Apache an advantage? Why can't I just say "let's make the hypothetical situation with both warriors being feet from each other." Then who wins? The show doesn't cover all the bases, even though it is admittedly entertaining. For instance, if Apaches are ranged specialists, do you think a Gladiator force would have went into battle against them without proper ranged units to help them?

The show can be messed up sometimes because it doesn't always really measure which warrior is "better". It's like, "today's show is Rifleman vs. Swordsman. SUSPENSE!" There's just a lot of hypotheticals and what if's, ya know?