Gladiators VS Spartans. who will win??

well, I'm kinda Confused which "Mighty" warrior of the Ancient world will win
the Gladius, or the Xiphoss???
The Gladiators (or Roman Legionaires) or The Spartans
in Might, and Power, not tactics :skull:

Ultimately whoever rides a camel will win.

The tactics the Spartans used died out for a reason, on flat terrain the might stand a chance though. But on hills it's sluggish and clumsy compared to roman's legions

I'd probably say that in "might and power" the Spartans would win. They'd trained more of their lives and the individual Spartan would undoubtedly be in better physical condition as well as more mentally prepared, not to mention trained than the average legionnaire or gladiator. Though I don't see the point in defining the mightiest warrior if you separate them from the tactics used.

I doubt anyone can compare two warriors who never fought eachother (or someone similar) in real life with any amount of accuracy.

This isn't inspired on that god awful show where they compare 'ancient' 'mighty' warriors, I hope.

Gladiators are for spectacle. Legionaries and Spartans didn't fight solo. So unless this was a wrestling match, the comparison makes no sense.

Of course, it if was a wrestling match, it would still be debateable. Though a Spartan and a legionary would probably be compareable, I've heard that gladiators were actually quite massive, looking more like linebackers than boxers. Is this true?

The Roman Maniple beat the Phalanx, except when the Greeks had access to a good cavalry wing. Of which the Spartans neglected.

Man for man though, I'd say a Spartan was more than a match to a gladiator.

I dunno. The Spartans were above all formation fighters like all hoplites, whereas gladiators specifically trained for single combat. So all other things being equal it should follow that in organised mass combat the former win and in single combat the latter have an advantage...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

Though a Spartan and a legionary would probably be compareable, I've heard that gladiators were actually quite massive, looking more like linebackers than boxers. Is this true?

---

Hmm, we'd need to check the molds they both came out of, what with them both being uniform types of people and all. :shame:

I thought the OP was trollin', but then everbuddy comes and takes the guy seriously. Interestin'.

The Gladiators (or Roman Legionaires)

Think he believes it's the same thing, he's not European/USA no biggie.

Spartans.....

just think of the 300.....

I think we should compare the Roman legionares (Gladiators were the people fighting on the arena, not soldiers) and the Spartan hoplites. Well, the Romans win, if not by quality then with numbers. Numbers were the big problem for Sparta (their brutal selection after the birth of the children). When Sparta defeated Athens, it was simply impossible for them to keep their hegemony over Greece and were finally defeated by the Thebans (which borrowed some ideas from them, I think). Again numbers were the problem when they faced Philip of Macedonian and his phalanx...

I would agree stephen.

Over time Sparta become weak, as she couldnt replace her lost soldiers.

The pool of 'pure' spartans never really recovered, and she became a second rate power.

but man for man, i would still argue a spartan was worth x of any other, but overall numbers are so important, and a power with almost unlimited numbers would always win.

Just look a Pyrrhus, Rome kept sending army after army against him, and numbers in the end told.

The Greek formation simply had a weakness, it only works on flat terrain. The Romans found that out in their wars with the Samnites, where they used Greek tactics against what we now consider to be Roman tactics. They lost, eventually won, and learned.

The Flaming Pigs

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(Its a RTW joke...thats right a RTW joke)