err .. did the romans apply the regulations at the time for the gladiators
Gladiator fights were all about gory entertainment, and what is gore without blood?
Gladiators, not all of them were the same too, often used just a helmet and plated protection of their sword-wielding arm.
Bear in mind that gladiators are just a general term, they can be really subcategorized into like 5 or 6 classes which all used different weapons and protection. The lowest (aside from just slaves who were killed in the arena for fun) was just a person wearing a loincloth with no protection whatsoever, not even a helmet, armed with a trident and a net. They usually fought slaves, and they were almost never set up against top rank gladiators with a shield, a sword and half a body armor a soldier uses, because he would almost surely lose and it would be bad for the show.
yup, forgot to mention the thing about armor…
The torso and the legs of all gladiators were almost always exposed because the audience wanted to see blood. For that same reason gladiators almost never stabbed each other, they slashed, slashes are not as dangerous and the blood was flowing.
The only stab was usually at the end of the fight to finish the losing glad, by stabbing him in the throat.
And obviously the weapon wielding arm and the head must be protected because injuries to those parts would make the glad unable to continue the fight.
.Eli. wrote:
yup, forgot to mention the thing about armor…
The torso and the legs of all gladiators were almost always exposed because the audience wanted to see blood. For that same reason gladiators almost never stabbed each other, they slashed, slashes are not as dangerous and the blood was flowing.
The only stab was usually at the end of the fight to finish the losing glad, by stabbing him in the throat.
And obviously the weapon wielding arm and the head must be protected because injuries to those parts would make the glad unable to continue the fight.
yea it was what i practically somewhat had in mind.. I only wondered if It was fixed by roman officials to prolong the fights .. as i said before.. whence barefisted fights went into padded fights (ref. movie: undispuited -maybe false but true nuff for me) yet the gladiator won by plenty over the apache.. which made no sense cuz they have the talent for sneak n surpise in a open battle.
Never take what you see in movies as facts.
Who would win realistically between a glad and an apache? Apache would win because they had the nifty throwing tomohawks :3 that sharpened stone edge of the throwing axe would smash through the thin bronze plating of the gladiators armor and he would be finished.
nuff said.. helmuts and bare *** make bloody fun but no match for Apache stealth
A more interesting scenario - who would win: Apache Vs Berserker
Now that would be interesting :3 both fast, both with no armor, apache stealthy and relatively clever, berserker mindlessly charges forward and smashes everything and everyone till he’s either victorious or dead.
My bet would be on berserkers :3 since they practically ignored wounds from arrows which was the weapon of choice for most indians.
and who exactly is the “berserker”, one who dies after x2 power w/ trample ;P
You also really need to take account that while the deadliest warrior does have some interesting points, its actually mostly crap :P - they are matching weapon on weapon by rounds, based on a skill that they can’t actually replicate - they are /trying/ to be fair doing it in rounds rather than as a fight - ranged v ranged etc but its making combat.. fair for want of a better word, and combat is never fair ;)
Hey ho! we all have to start our knowledge on a subject somewhere though, and as a start point deadliest warrior isn’t that bad - just make sure you never think that it is definitive - because its most definately not :D
.Eli. wrote:
A more interesting scenario - who would win: Apache Vs Berserker
Now that would be interesting :3 both fast, both with no armor, apache stealthy and relatively clever, berserker mindlessly charges forward and smashes everything and everyone till he’s either victorious or dead.
My bet would be on berserkers :3 since they practically ignored wounds from arrows which was the weapon of choice for most indians.
There’s an account of the Inuit cleaning the clocks of some Vikings who came to Greenland . . . don’t know the numbers involved, but the Vikings clearly lost!
Vikings with their seriously limited ranged combat ability and heavy (for the time) armour vs light infintry with lethally strong ranged weapons and the home field advantage?
The poor vikings had /no/ chance :P
(that said - hadn’t heard that story! to the googles!)
Vikings were great warriors, but they were not invincible. Just a few weeks before being defeated by William the Conqueror, King Harold Godwinson defeated a Viking Force under Harold Hardrada at Stamford Bridge in England.
.Eli.
SlightlyUnique
The Sherlockian