Personally, I prefer the show's concept of pitting warriors that would never have really encountered each other.Mikey wrote:I'd still rather see contemporaries, such as a centurion versus a Gallic warrior or Goth.
Not only that but the typical Roman squaddie, especially one experienced enough and good enough to reach Centurion, was a skilled fighter in his own right. The Legions certainly relied on discipline and teamwork to achieve what they did, but individual skill was crucial. Indeed, the formation wasn't designed to work as a single block, but as mutually supporting individuals. They didn't even form a shield wall, as that would have inhibited individual freedom of action, but left enough space around each legionary to allow him to fight his own battles while staying close enough to his colleagues to support them and be supported himself.Sionnach Glic wrote:Quite true, that could easily swing it for the Roman.
The common use of the testudo (tortoise) formation would sort of contradict that:Captain Seafort wrote:They didn't even form a shield wall
The testudo was an assault formation - I'm talking about their typical formation in a pitched battle between armies.Mikey wrote:The common use of the testudo (tortoise) formation would sort of contradict that:
As did the Romans. The legionaries have become stereotyped as successful solely due to their discipline and formation which, while largely true, isn't the whole story. Individual prowess in battle was both encouraged and rewarded, so long as it worked to further the collective success rather than against it.I'm not sure individual skill would be a determinant in this case anyway. Remember that the typical Goth or Vandal warrior spent his life developing, and based his manhood and reputation, on fighting prowess.
Certainly, but the individual skill would also play a great role. I'm simply trying to counter the common tendency to see the legionaries as kit, discipline and formation, and not much else.Rather, I believe the difference would be kit - the pilum as I mentioned, as well as better armor and more role-specific weaponry.
Why? Outnumbered, with coordination breaking down and with more and more foreigners incorporated into the army to maintain numbers, it's not surprising that the Empire fell apart despite the skill of the individuals. There's also the issue, again, of who we're talking about - the legionaries from the height of the Empire, with the lÅrÄ«ca segmentÄta and curved shield that form the popular public image of the legions, or the somewhat differently attired legionaries of the latter Imperial period, with chain mail and oval shield.Historically, the difference was in coordination and leadership, until that broke down for Rome. If the individual skill of the Roman legionnaire was superior, they wouldn't have ended up paying a yearly ransom and ceding Hungary to Attila.
Very well. I read this:Captain Seafort wrote:I'm talking about their typical formation in a pitched battle between armies.
Captain Seafort wrote:They didn't even form a shield wall, as that would have inhibited individual freedom of action, but left enough space around each legionary to allow him to fight his own battles while staying close enough to his colleagues to support them and be supported himself.
Captain Seafort wrote:Individual prowess in battle was both encouraged and rewarded, so long as it worked to further the collective success rather than against it.
Oh, I agree with you. My point is just that I don't think individual martial skill would be significantly one-sided toward either a Goth or a Roman legionnaire.Captain Seafort wrote: I'm simply trying to counter the common tendency to see the legionaries as kit, discipline and formation, and not much else.
Well, that's sort of my whole point. Individual skill of a Roman soldier couldn't have dropped off markedly enough to effect that change - rather, the difference (and therefore significant impact) was in coordination, leadership, and ultimately internal politics.Captain Seafort wrote:Why? Outnumbered, with coordination breaking down and with more and more foreigners incorporated into the army to maintain numbers, it's not surprising that the Empire fell apart despite the skill of the individuals.
They did use it at the Battle of the Hornburg.The piman wrote:could this testudo formation be compared to the technique used by the Urak-Hai in the Two Towers during the battle for Helm's Deep?
Remember, the final fight you see is the combined effects of 1000 simulated fights. In fact, the glass egg was a large part of the Ninja's successful kills. Another problem was the range needed meant that the Ninja would use the "Glass egg attack" at the same time as the Spartan used a spear, sword or shield "attack". The tests are meant to be simo.Tsukiyumi wrote:I just watched the Spartan vs Ninja episode, and I have to say: nobody on earth ever could fight effectively after having glass thrown in their eyes. I have to call bullsh*t on that. The chili eggs, maybe, but glass? It would blind you within seconds, I don't care how tough you are.
I'm betting on Alexander. Both are great horsemen, both are skilled fighters, Alexander has the advantage in armor.Mark wrote:Attila the Hun vs. Alexander the Great,
Al Capone, we're talking tommy's vs six-shooters.Jesse James Gang vs. Al Capone Gang,
Celt, powerhouse of bloodshed vs a warrior who've I've never been impressed with.Persian Immortal vs. Celt,
Roman Centurion, the best of what Roman had to offer as far as superior heavy infantry. Though I think a lot of it will come to the ranged weapons and if the Rajput can get past the Roman shield.Roman Centurion vs. India's Rajput Warrior,
Sun Tzu, the man who designed modern combat doctrine. I've never heard anything to make me believe Vlad could even touch him.Vlad the Impaler vs. Sun Tzu,
This is hardly fair but I'd say the Musketeer. He could get several shots off before the Ming Warrior could even get to him. Even after that, Musketeers were no joke with sword fighting.Ming Warrior vs. Musketeer,
If it were just a ranged fight I'd give it to the Mongol but I doubt it will stay a ranged fight. Up close I'd bet on the Comanche.Comanche vs. Mongol
Mongol is f*cked, up close or at a distance.Mark wrote:Comanche vs. Mongol
