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![]()
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![]()
x2
Big Romani Fan
Die ManschaaftSpoiler Alert, click show to read:
Der Rekordmeister
Ultimately whoever rides a camel will win.
“The majestic equality of the laws prohibits the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread.” - Anatole France
"The law is like a spider’s web. The small are caught, and the great tear it up.” - Anacharsis
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.
![]()
![]()
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
-Abraham Lincoln
Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
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.
Originally Posted by Drone
Originally Posted by TinCow
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?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
- Proud Horseman of the Presence
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...
"Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."
-Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
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.
Last edited by Fragony; 01-07-2010 at 14:24.
Spartans.....
just think of the 300.....
ShadesWolf
The Original HHHHHOWLLLLLLLLLLLLER
Im a Wolves fan, get me out of here......
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...
R.I.P. Tosa...
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.
ShadesWolf
The Original HHHHHOWLLLLLLLLLLLLER
Im a Wolves fan, get me out of here......
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:
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Bookmarks