Why are Sotaroas cheaper than Toxotai?

[Drunk Clown]

A "regular fattie" can't jump as high as someone who isn't carrying an extra load that doesn't contribute anything but weight. A gladiator or professional soldier of antiquity would be much like a professional sportsman of today, like a rugby player, for example.

False, that wouldn't be practical, if the gladiators would wound themself during sparring/training(whatsoever) they wouldn't be able to perform in the arena in a short period. That's why they were a bit fat so they would heal quicker and be able to fight again.

By the way being able to jump isn't relevant, e.g. if an elephant would jump (if he's able ? dunno about that) he would break all of his legs, but that doesn't make him weak. Try moving a man/woman who's 130 kilos, you have to be strong to do that, if they try to move a normal/average weighted man they would succeed without even trying that hard. The mass has an important role.

The gladiator in this painting is how I believe they looked like. Not that muscular but with a little bit of fat. (Nowhere as how a professional sportsman of today would look like)


Now this is running a bit too far from the original topic, so if you want to react do so by P.M. me or something.

[QuintusSertorius]

False, that wouldn't be practical, if the gladiators would wound themself during sparring/training(whatsoever) they wouldn't be able to perform in the arena in a short period. That's why they were a bit fat so they would heal quicker and be able to fight again.

This is a nonsense. Having more or less fat has nothing whatsoever to do with healing. Roughly speaking and for the purposes of this discussion, your body is composed of four types of tissue arranged in layers. At the top the skin cells (to keep out infection and seal everything inside). Underneath those fat cells (for insulation and padding). Underneath that muscle cells (for articulation) and lastly bone cells (for structure and support). Each regenerate or repair differently, the presence of another type makes no difference to the others.

Now having some fat can act as padding against blunt force traumas (including anything striking armour). That's why rugby players, in addition to being very muscular, don't work to strip away all their body fat. However it's of no use whatsoever against anything sharp that lacerates or punctures the skin. Furthermore, fat alone isn't sufficient padding without the bulk of developed muscles underneath them. Just being fat, without being muscular isn't going to be of much use. Just being fat won't make you as strong as someone who actually works on developing their strength.

By the way being able to jump isn't relevant, e.g. if an elephant would jump (if he's able ? dunno about that) he would break all of his legs, but that doesn't make him weak. Try moving a man/woman who's 130 kilos, you have to be strong to do that, if they try to move a normal/average weighted man they would succeed without even trying that hard. The mass has an important role.

We're talking about human beings here, an elephant is completely irrelevant. Elephants have different skeletons, different musculatures and attachments, and precisely nothing that is applicable to this discussion of human strength. Not even apes count, given their attachments and musculature are different to humans.

Being able to jump is a simple measure of strength. I'm 65 kilos, I've run with a 100 kilo man on my back. Not far (shuttles back and forth across a hall with squats at either end) but it wasn't simply picking him up and putting him down again. I can leg press 150 kilos, so I'm confident I could move a 130 kilo man. Especially if I'm applying strength with some intelligence, rather than simply trying to go power on power. There is no linkage between fat and strength, that two things might sometimes occur together doesn't mean one causes the other.

There are fat people who are strong, but in modern societies there are a lot more fat people who are weak because they are sedentary.

There is no way someone who is training at the level a gladiator or professional soldier is wouldn't be muscular, regardless of how much fat they might have. The human body is now as it was two or more millenia ago, eat correctly and train it hard, and you develop muscles.

The gladiator in this painting is how I believe they looked like. Not that muscular but with a little bit of fat. (Nowhere as how a professional sportsman of today would look like)


Now this is running a bit too far from the original topic, so if you want to react do so by P.M. me or something.

That painting was by Jean-Léon Gérôme, who created that in 1872. He had no idea what a gladiator actually looked like, he's just gone with what was a contemporary notion of how a strong man might look. Since he probably used a model who looked like that.

[Ca Putt]

why all this hassle? nobody claims fat people are stronger, just that an extra layer of fat(over the muscles) helps when you in melee as you're slightly padded and have more mass when "bouncing" towards someone^^, provided offcource that you're trained enough that you don't tire too fast that is.
thinking that gladiators would've had some fat over their muscles is not too far off as modern counterparts(not sprinters or boxers but hammertossers, wrestlers, weightlifters) often have a thick fat layer over their humongous muscles. probably some gladiator classes generally had less body fat(like the guy with the net) as they had to be agile.

i don't think anyone here claims gladiators were utter fatsoes that role into the arena rather than entering it on foot

[Arjos]

I remember some roman mosaics depicting gladiators with a little belly...
The muscles of today are fruit of dietary help, either chemical or "natural"...
I think during the late 19th century there was a man who was considered the first bodybuilder and he was a little bigger than the average greek kuros...

[antisocialmunky]

The gladiators ate a diet that helped them accumulate dense brown fat for padding.

[Drunk Clown]

This is a nonsense. Having more or less fat has nothing whatsoever to do with healing. Roughly speaking and for the purposes of this discussion, your body is composed of four types of tissue arranged in layers. At the top the skin cells (to keep out infection and seal everything inside). Underneath those fat cells (for insulation and padding). Underneath that muscle cells (for articulation) and lastly bone cells (for structure and support). Each regenerate or repair differently, the presence of another type makes no difference to the others.

Let me start of with this,
You said this: "Having more or less fat has nothing whatsoever to do with healing."
Then later on you say this: " Each regenerate or repair differently"

Now, it's a fact that fat tissue heals quicker than muscular tissue because it's easier to treat. Also there runs no major bloodvessels through fat. So if a gladiator would get a cut wound from sparring or even in match which wasn't that deep he wouldn't:
A) Bleed to death
B) He would heal quicker because it's easier to treat; and in case of a match, if he survived, afterwards also.

Sure with a succesful stab it wouldn't mather having fat.

Now having some fat can act as padding against blunt force traumas (including anything striking armour). That's why rugby players, in addition to being very muscular, don't work to strip away all their body fat. However it's of no use whatsoever against anything sharp that lacerates or punctures the skin. Furthermore, fat alone isn't sufficient padding without the bulk of developed muscles underneath them. Just being fat, without being muscular isn't going to be of much use. Just being fat won't make you as strong as someone who actually works on developing their strength.

See it like this, having 20 kilos extra fat like binding 20 kilo of metal on to your body. Both makes you stronger.
So in gladiator cases, if they train enough and eat enough they're both.

We're talking about human beings here, an elephant is completely irrelevant. Elephants have different skeletons, different musculatures and attachments, and precisely nothing that is applicable to this discussion of human strength. Not even apes count, given their attachments and musculature are different to humans.

Now if I understand correctly, you don't understand that having a great mass gives you strength? We're talking about the mass, an elephant has that much fat that it would die on its back due to the heavy weight of his fat pressing on its organs. So alot of his weight comes from his fat, if that elephant wouldn't have that much fat he wouldn't be nearly as strong. He moves his weight to the direction he wants, when, for example, breaking down a tree. An elephant its power comes from his mass and not his anatomy.

Now if a human with lots of fat would do the same the outcome would be the same. It's not a mather of the anatomy but of forces (gravity).

Being able to jump is a simple measure of strength.

But how can you compare being able to jump to standing your ground or moving someone else? Completely different forces are used!

Sure if your mass is 130 kilo you would have to jump with more force than 1275,3 Newton and if you're 70 kilos only more than 686,7 Newton. But if you're able to stand with 1275,3 Newton pressing on you, you have to be stronger than when you only have 696,7 Newton pressing on you.

I'm 65 kilos, I've run with a 100 kilo man on my back. Not far (shuttles back and forth across a hall with squats at either end) but it wasn't simply picking him up and putting him down again. I can leg press 150 kilos, so I'm confident I could move a 130 kilo man.

And again different forces are used. How can you compare legpressing with pushing somebody away?! Your whole back is being supported! The forces are divided over the whole area of your back! Not only that if you legpress diagonally the forces are split! The biggest weight being legpressed ever was around the 1100 kilos! So 150 kilos isn't that much anymore. Same goes for the 100 kilo bloke on your back it's all spreads over that entire area.

A man who weighs 130 kilo has all the 1275,3 Newton pointing downward, spread out on the square centimeter the area his feet give. He wouldn't stand there doing nothing he would push back, where his mass comes in and will, eventually, overwhelm you. You only have the half of the newtons pointing downward for giving resistence.

Especially if I'm applying strength with some intelligence, rather than simply trying to go power on power.

What are you implying? Are fat people dumb? They would use there intelligence too you know.

There is no linkage between fat and strength, that two things might sometimes occur together doesn't mean one causes the other.

Okey, are you sure? Having weights of e.g. metal (or in your case a man) on your back helps increasing your muscles, but fat not? Why wouldn't that extra weight help?

There are fat people who are strong, but in modern societies there are a lot more fat people who are weak because they are sedentary.

So, according to you, 2 persons both 1.80 (6 feet). One is fat and weighs 100 kilos and the other one weighs 75 kilos. The slim one wins in a one to one brawl match?

There is no way someone who is training at the level a gladiator or professional soldier is wouldn't be muscular, regardless of how much fat they might have.

Ofcourse they would be muscular in that period, they would probably excel other people in muscularity. I have never said that they weren't muscular. I said they were pretty fat; you concluded (wrongly) that they weren't muscular, not me.

The human body is now as it was two or more millenia ago, eat correctly and train it hard, and you develop muscles.

Wrong, I'm 1.90 and I would have been a giant. They didn't know how to eat as correct as we do now!

That painting was by Jean-Léon Gérôme, who created that in 1872. He had no idea what a gladiator actually looked like, he's just gone with what was a contemporary notion of how a strong man might look. Since he probably used a model who looked like that.

Cuddos for you for knowing the artist. But you should have also noted that he was a historical painter and did research.

I quote: "Pollice Verso ("With a Turned Thumb"), an 1872 painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme, is a well known historical painter's researched conception of a gladiatorial combat."

And: "He had no idea what a gladiator actually looked like"
Well I think he did it quite well if he didn't know anything what a gladiator looked like.

[vartan]

So, according to you, 2 persons both 1.80 (6 feet). One is fat and weighs 100 kilos and the other one weighs 75 kilos. The slim one wins in a one to one brawl match?

You could be taller and heavier than me, but for a variety of reasons I could probably render you unconscious and/or you know what, before you had a chance to come close to throwing me on the ground (hypothetical). So weight and height are but two factors in a pool of factors. Don't forget that fighting is an art.

[Drunk Clown]

You could be taller and heavier than me, but for a variety of reasons I could probably render you unconscious and/or you know what, before you had a chance to come close to throwing me on the ground (hypothetical). So weight and height are but two factors in a pool of factors. Don't forget that fighting is an art.

Okey, let's say it's just a 1 on 1 pure force, without any fancy tricks.

[Ludens]

What are you implying? Are fat people dumb? They would use there intelligence too you know.

No, he's saying that, after a certain point, clever application of force is more important than sheer strength. I get the impression you equate momentum to force. This is true for elephants and sumo wrestlers, but other martial arts require speed and precision as well as strength. Speed obviously becomes more difficult when you have more mass to move.

Otherwise, I agree that fat can help healing and provide "padding", but this shouldn't be exaggerated. There's a reason that most martial artists do not look like sumo wrestlers.

[Drunk Clown]

No, he's saying that, after a certain point, clever application of force is more important than sheer strength. I get the impression you equate momentum to force. This is true for elephants and sumo wrestlers, but other martial arts require speed and precision as well as strength. Speed obviously becomes more difficult when you have more mass to move.

Otherwise, I agree that fat can help healing and provide "padding", but this shouldn't be exaggerated. There's a reason that most martial artists do not look like sumo wrestlers.

I have to make something clear, there are 2 things we discuss.

1) Fat people aren't strong, in which I dissagree.
2) Gladiators had a bit fat.

The first issue has risen from the second issue. I claimed that Gladiators had a bit fat, Quintus dissagreed because he thinks fat people are weak and gladiators aren't weak. So gladiators weren't a bit fatty, according to quintus.

So I came with the example of a fat man weighing 130 kilos and a average person of 70 kilos to move eachother. Intelligence, speed etc. were out of the question; just sheer force/strength. Then Quintus said he would use his intelligence to move the fat man, but the fat man can also use his brains (that's why the "What are you implying?" reaction, cos I found it a strange counter argument which wasn't really saying something about how strong fat people are). In this the fat man would win and so proven he is strong.

When I say a gladiator is a bit fatty I don't mean fat as in sumo wrestler, that's too much ofcourse. But as Vartan already said, I may have a different image in my head if I think about a fatty person, than you who live in a more obese country/city. Go back to page 1 of this thread and see the Pollice Verso painting; that guy there, having won the fight, is how I imagine a gladiator. And I call that a bit fatty, once again not as fat as a sumo wrestler, that image was just for the other issue that fat people weren't strong.

God, alot of "fat people are strong" :D

[FriendlyFire]

I like the earlier comparison to a modern rugby player: if you're going to be in a scrum, you want both mass and power, and you're prepared to put on fat as long as you also put on the muscle to move it around (I'm not talking about the little fly-half types who need to do the running and jumping, but the big hulks who drink them under the table in the bar afterwards). For the more heavily-armored charge-the-enemy fighters, this would seem to be the "best" body type. Another interesting comparison is to a modern soccer player, where speed and agility is more important than strength and mass, and you definitely don't want to put on any fat. This would seem to be a better body type for skirmishers, or for the gladiator types who relied on agility (e.g. the net users?).

Now I'm wondering if ancient gladiator school owners looked at new recruits and assigned them to fighting styles based on their body types

[Drunk Clown]

Another interesting comparison is to a modern soccer player, where speed and agility is more important than strength and mass, and you definitely don't want to put on any fat. This would seem to be a better body type for skirmishers, or for the gladiator types who relied on agility (e.g. the net users?).

But what if they get cut and well.... bleed to death? Wouldn't it be a safer bet to keep your gladiators alive so you get skilled gladiators who bring in big money? And again a bit fat won't get that much in the way of being agile!

Now I'm wondering if ancient gladiator school owners looked at new recruits and assigned them to fighting styles based on their body types

I am sure they would, big bulky men probably get the heavier weapons and the shorter and slimmer men 2 swords perhaps. They must have strived for a big variety of gladiators.

[vartan]

Why would anyone find it hard to believe that a gladiator in a Roman arena, any gladiator, would not be fat? Why would you even think that they couldn't be fat? The world doesn't know about every single gladiator that ever entered the arena. Maybe some. Maybe a lot. But I doubt we know of every single one. Or that we even could know. So for all we know, there could and probably were gladiators of all shapes, sizes, colours, what-have-you. They were, after all, people; and people don't come in one size, shape, and so on.

EDIT: I like how a cost comparison between two units in EB went to 1) a discussion of a Gallic man's strength vis-a-vis a Greek man's strength and ended up in 2) a discussion of gladiators and possible pot-bellies.