www.ditl.org

Deepcrush wrote:The terms of the show stated that they were allowed to use anything a Roman Gladiator could get in the arena and carry on his own.

Still, any particular gladiator could only obtain the specific equipment his type or nationality allowed him. However, even if we go with the show's loose terms, it sort of makes the whole match-up fairly useless, doesn't it?

Sionnach Glic wrote:The thraxes used a small square-shaped shield, IIRC. I'll look that up in a minute.

I believe you're correct, although I have no idea if that style was actually commonly used in war among the Thracians.

Sionnach Glic wrote:

kostmayer wrote:It was the guy with the catapult that had me confused.

WTF? I don't remember that!

About 1:40 in, just after the Taliban dude accidentally kills his comrade with a missile

I started learning Iaidō about 4 months ago - I say started to learn, I'm told it takes about 40 years to get the hang of it properly.

The Katana has definitely been portrayed as an ubersword by numerous films, comics and other media. In reality they shatter pretty damned easily. Its a slashing sword, rather then hacking, and not really designed for long duels. They're instruments of precision, not blunt force.

I got to use one tonight (blunt edged), after 4 months waving a piece of wood around, and I can tell you they're a bugger to handle - as I can imagine all swords are if you want to use them properly.

Mikey wrote:I believe you're correct, although I have no idea if that style was actually commonly used in war among the Thracians.

Most of what I've been able to find suggests a square shield. Wiki says that both square and circular shields were used (perhaps a change in fashion?), but then again, I trust Wikipedia about as far as you can throw its servers.

Was it actually used by Thracian warriors? No idea. Though its worth keeping in mind that gladiators weren't exact recreations of the people they represented.

Mikey wrote:Still, any particular gladiator could only obtain the specific equipment his type or nationality allowed him. However, even if we go with the show's loose terms, it sort of makes the whole match-up fairly useless, doesn't it?

The show isn't really meant for covering each different sub-class of Gladiator. Just like when they talked about the Samurai. There are many different types within the Warrior Class being covered. They have 45 minutes to cover as much ground as possible, while being entertaining and while not being made of total shit.

For me, it makes the show useless if you're going to reach as far as they do... and then just leave stuff out for the sake of it.

Deepcrush wrote:They have 45 minutes to cover as much ground as possible, while being entertaining and while not being made of total s**t.

Sounds like they've been a complete failure on that last point.

I think they'd do a lot better if they made it a bit more specific.

For example, a cataphractarius gladiator against one of the French knights from Agincourt. That'd allow full investigation of all the weapons used by both parties along with an examination of the tactics commonly used.

It'd certainly be a damn sight better than "stereotype 1 versus stereotype 2".

And add some random variety, such as the terrain.

I'd still rather see contemporaries, such as a centurion versus a Gallic warrior or Goth.

Sionnach Glic wrote:I think they'd do a lot better if they made it a bit more specific.

For example, a cataphractarius gladiator against one of the French knights from Agincourt. That'd allow full investigation of all the weapons used by both parties along with an examination of the tactics commonly used.

It'd certainly be a damn sight better than "stereotype 1 versus stereotype 2".

From what I hear on the website. That's exactly what they want to do for season two.

Mikey wrote:I'd still rather see contemporaries, such as a centurion versus a Gallic warrior or Goth.

Well, it wouldn't do much good since we can pretty easily look in a history book to figure out how those fights went.

I'd enjoy seeing a "Champion" match up. You know...match up the winners like the Apache vs the Sholin...the Samuri vs the Sparten.........and so on.

Mark wrote:I'd enjoy seeing a "Champion" match up. You know...match up the winners like the Apache vs the Sholin...the Samuri vs the Sparten.........and so on.

Apache would win due to ranged weapons. Spartan would win due to his shield.

Deepcrush wrote:

Mikey wrote:I'd still rather see contemporaries, such as a centurion versus a Gallic warrior or Goth.

Well, it wouldn't do much good since we can pretty easily look in a history book to figure out how those fights went.

We know how they went as far as battles and wars, not individual combat... and in the case of teh Goths, that was heavily influenced by internal Roman politics.

I do see what you're saying, though; perhaps "equivalents" would be better? Just pair up the matches better, along technological and cultural equivalencies, like "Maori v. Apache" or "daimyo-era samurai v. 16th-c. Saxon knight."

Those would be interesting.

This last series allways put a heavy fighter with a light fighter, for example Spartan vs Ninja. I would find Mikeys idea far more interesting.