Apache vs. Gladiator

Oldest first Newest first Comments (305)

• 
  +15

  1. drodmetalhead Posted on Apr 7 '09 at 10:07 PM

  what the hell man the gladiator should have owned that apache. I mean the apache indian tribe are like wolves, they are strong in numbers and great with tactics but one on one they should have no chance with a brute guy like chuck lidell, look at what happened to that cow. I am a medieval fight reinactor in florida. I would really like to know who would win in a fight a ninja or a pirate.

  30 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -11

  2. bobjones35 Posted on Apr 7 '09 at 11:05 PM

  I kind of agree, gladiator should have won, but only because they took the Apache off his horse. On horseback though very few "warriors" could match an Apache warrior, or any other Midwest tribe for that matter.

  11 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -7

  3. LashingMr.x Posted on Apr 7 '09 at 11:08 PM

  Gladiator Would have won!

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -10

  4. laxdude92 Posted on Apr 7 '09 at 11:08 PM

  the gladiator would have won because they have the composite bow witch is a far better bow than a regular bow and the scorpion witch is like artillery
  
  so the gladiator should have won by far

  5 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +11

  5. debdibdub Posted on Apr 7 '09 at 11:12 PM

  They made the Apache win because they had the most wins in the 1000 simulations the computer program created. I thought it was a fair fight, but I leaned more towards the Apache.
  
  Can't wait for the next episode!

  2 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +13

  6. Kelvet Posted on Apr 7 '09 at 11:14 PM

  This was silly.
  
  
  
  The gladiators were not the warriors of Rome, they were entertainers. Many of their weapons were based on mythic encounters and to build suspense and theatrics. If you want to compare warriors actually choose 2 warriors. How about Apache vs Roman soldier.
  
  
  
  Second, you put them in the apache environment in which the bow gets a huge advantage which would be greatly nullified in an arena.
  
  
  
  Third, Gladiators would have had access to bows. In fact the velocity of roman composite bows was greater than any of the native American bows.
  
  
  
  Last, For close in combat, why not choose the Gladius. The weapon the gladiator is named after.
  
  
  
  All you showed is that if you take a warrior, equip him with his cultures mediocre weapons, and set him in his enemies preferred battle field with his best weapons, the result is as expected.
  
  
  
  I hope this is not what the show is going to be every episode.

  23 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +10

  7. Kratoz Posted on Apr 7 '09 at 11:16 PM

  I could see the Apache winning due to the speed and agility over the Gladiator. Yes the gladiator has the brute strength but what good is all that power if your opponent can get behind you before you even know where he went. Remember also that the helmet appeard to block most of the fighters perifieral vision making it hard for him to track the Apache. But I did like how the sling had 1 kill haha. And even the WarClub which lost the edge to the Scizzor (which I think was pretty wicked) Still got more kills than a few of the Gladiators weapons (i beleive it was 60).

  2 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +7

  8. Zealot951 Posted on Apr 7 '09 at 11:19 PM

  I feel the Gladiator should have used his shield much more effective (not on his back) - armor is supreme (the army/marines still use helmets & body armors). Remember "300"? The shield allows the Gladiator to go all offense with his sword, the Apache would have to decide between defense or offense. In a closed arena - the Galdiator is king, open terrain - the Apache would have the advantage. Good comparison though.

  10 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -12

  9. anahiemer92 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 12:03 AM

  the pirate fighting stlye is like fencing which is fast and quick with long distince reach but the ninja only rely on stealth in darkness to kill thier opponent and the ketana is their sword answer: ninja remember all cultures have a different and unique of fighting. i agree the gladiator wins but apeaches beat thier enemies withs guns all he did is simply did is rely on nature to do its parts to defeat this gladiator.
  
  EX: Romans are known to fight in colums like infantery,skirmishers,archers,artillerty,caverly vs the huns that fought on horseback with just lasso,hunnic bow,steppe spear,sword, and hit and run tactics basically the huns win according to auetius an roman commander historically speaking...

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -8

  10. Royalz Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 1:42 AM

  History shows that the Apache were not great warriors. If they were as good as they are making them seem we would all be speaking anouther language. The Apache would probably think the gladiator was a god. After all, thats what happened when they found the spanish.

  22 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -6

  11. babystancho Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 5:30 AM

  This was a cool show but I definitely think the Gladiator would have won.

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +6

  12. Cousan Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 5:37 AM

  I think the Apache rightly won. The gladiator had an advantage in some areas, but the Apache had its bow and arrow. And the gladiator would not have been able to use a composite bow or a siege weapon like a scorpion like that guy commented, since they were slaves and had to fight in an arena. The bow and arrow had a lot to do with the Apache winning. But it was still an amazing show.

  3 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -11

  13. Ravage32 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 5:56 AM

  Apache are weak. Bows? who had bows in an arena? Who threw knives from 3 feet? Weak If you ask me? Gladiators in hand to hand combat without any weapons would RAPE Apache!!!! Sorry for the two guys on the show who have committed there lives to showing how great Apache are...but thats why there almost extinct.....they blow......

  4 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -2

  14. Ravage32 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 5:58 AM

  Apache BLOW

  3 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -3

  15. jb286501 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 7:35 AM

  1. not every apache was a 3 time winning knife fight specialist or a 5 mark black belt special force man! they were very stealthy fighters, given. they were organized to a somewhat degree (small tribe) but come on.
  
  
  
  2. they attacked the unexpecting.
  
  
  
  Gladiators were trained face to face killers, they were the biggest and toughest that is why they stayed alive. if an apache saw a gladiatior one on one they would have ran their ass off and never would have fought him, both apaches said that if you run you can fight another day, they only fought when they outnumbered you and when you werent looking.
  
  
  
  face to face the gladiar would have smoked the apache because they didnt fight like that they stabbed you when you werent preparred!

  5 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +4

  16. wigwamking Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 7:41 AM

  I agree that the apache won, just because he is ranged. However, the gladiator was meant for show and there were over 20 differnt kinds of gladiator, each with different armor and weapons. But, does anyone know what the program they are using and how to get it? They called it slitherin but i couldnt find it.

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -1

  17. starscr3am Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 8:07 AM

  Did anybody think that the Apache guys were douche bags? I agree with Royalz, if they were so good how come they are not a factor anymore? Wiped out....the only reason we know about them is because it happened relatively recent.

  4 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +2

  18. Hystorical Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 9:21 AM

  This quote below was written by Cornelius C. Smith, Jr - Thirty year US Army veteran of the Indian wars (he fought Apache, Comanche, Lakota etc.) and the Moro campaigns.
  
  Smith received a Congressional Medal of Honor for gallantry against the Sioux. For his gallantry he was sent to Mindanao to fight the Moros in the Philippines.
  
  ¿In hand to hand combat our soldiers are simply no match for the Moro. If our first shot misses the target, we rarely have time to get off another.¿
  
  Cornelius Smith did not believe the Apaches were the best edged weapons fighters, coming from a man who fought and documented his opinions in newspaper during that time.

  2 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +3

  19. Faredawg Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 9:33 AM

  With the limited weapons they used for their data gathering, the Apache is the winner by far. Not saying the weapons they used were fair to determine the victor, but thats what they used. The enviroment was also a big factor. The Gladiators that fought in the arena's did not often use the bows available to Roman soldiers. They did not take into their data gathering the damage of the Gladiator's shield as an offensive weapon, as it was used in the movie "300", so it was not a true factor for the Gladiator, other than to reduce damage from long and mid ranged damage. I do not understand why they didn't use the "scissor" they showed us as damage data for their calculations, I do think that would have made a huge different in the defense and damage of close ranged attacks. The armor the Gladiator used was almost useless against the Apache knives. I do think in an actual, oneon one battle, the Gladiator would win, but that is just my opinion. two of the Apache's greatest weapons were stealth and numbers. They were, as stated, guerilla fighters, those were not a factor so much in this fight. I don't see how the gladiators could lose with their swords, scissors, and shields in close combat, where the Apache seemed to get most of their kills. But what a cool Fin show! I loved the crap talking and the visuals they used/showed for their data gathering. can't wait for more! (also, their are no living Gladiators to offend with the decision, where the Apache are alive and were actually used for the data gathered here. I wonder if that was a factor at all?)

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -1

  20. RadRad13 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 9:37 AM

  I agree with the outcome. Considering both were armed by "experts" (although some of you guys seem to know more about Gladiators than these professionals lol) an Apache's sPeed and maneuverability would give him a tactical advantage over a helmeted and therefore narrow-sighted Gladiator. EsPecially considering the latter's exposed legs and torso. Between the arrows, tomahawks and knives flying at him from all angles, a Gladiator would be dead before it reached the Apache.

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +2

  21. wesamess Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 10:26 AM

  this experiment is scetchy at best. I can think of 50 variables right off the bat. too many variables = inaccurate results. It's funny how an american will spin anything any which-way to prove their cultures are superior to european cultures. I was really looking forward to this show, only to be let down by politics. Also, this is like pitting a pit-bull with a show poodle. The gladiator was equipped with dramatic weapons for show, not functionality, and they were prisoners. And growing up in New Mexico, the Apache Indian's home turf, I have to say, the majority of this societies killing was done with stolen guns on horseback or hiding in the weeds. A cowardly people in the history of combat.
  
  The one thing any scientist would tell you about any experiment would be to limit, or at least explore as many variables as possible. Quite a half-ass scientific evaluation if you ask me, but I'd pay good money to get a set of those bleeding dummies!

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -8

  22. wesamess Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 10:31 AM

  Spike should leave the science to the history channel, and stick to the boobs and action flicks!

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +3

  23. Turnbull77 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 10:55 AM

  Apache = Speed and range. the Gladiator would take damage from the bow and arrow and be pumping blood even before his got in close.
  
  Gladiator = Great at man on man fighting and possibly better close range weapons. But you can only take so much damage at range before your close in fighting skills are lessoned. But then again the Gladiator was used in a arena, and not given a bow.
  
  I think the guys idea to have a Roman soldier fighting an Apache would have been a better fight. A Cohort soldier would have had a tower shield that would have blocked all of the Apache arrows, and got close enough to throw his 2 or 3 small spears and then got in close enough to split the apache open.
  
  But uhm to the opinion that the Apache was the best warrior on a horse... UHM nope, the Mongol warriors with their little Steppe-horses and composite bows controlled more land and killed millions....
  
  I can't wait to see the battle with the Samurai. Samurai will own all, Best short ranged weapons (Sword), best medium range weapon (Naginata) fairly better then average long range weapons (Bow, and crude rifles circa 1580s) and above average armor.
  
  Samurai for the WIN!!!

  2 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +1

  24. Sal_jediknight Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 11:03 AM

  WTF?
  
  What did the Apache do when they weren't fighting? Hunted, gathered, rode horses, carried on with their daily lives.
  
  What did the Gladiators do in their spare time? Fought, trained, and fought and trained some more.
  
  Yes, the Apache would have picked the Gladiator off with his bow, but up close the Gladiator would have dominated. Hands down. Professional fighter vs part time fighter. I guess training wasn't a factor in the computer simulation.
  
  They got the actor for the apache down good... cunning, aggresive, quick... but the Gladiator? Some steroid laced neandertal, 'D'uh, me get
  
  trident stuck in tree....' lol, maybe he was a rookie Gladiator who would have died in his first fight anyway.
  
  So go read some more books (unlike the actor portraying the Gladiator... to freaking stupid to read), take a few more facts into the simulation, have a rematch and get it right the next time!

  6 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +2

  25. genkle Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 11:08 AM

  I really hope this series picks up a bit more realiability and credibility. I can 't imagine for a instant that a poorly armoured individual with primitive weapons getting even in the same ball park as Gladiator and let alone defeat him. I really think the type of weapons were a mistake. Those of us who bow hunt with the bows we have have a hard time believing the accuracy and stopping power of this primitive weapon. I like the spoken comment that a Apache warrior could fire...15.... arrows per minute. yeah anyone can but to deliver a blow that would cause damage come on. I think the pure alterations of fact can't be apart of this series. Where this battle takes place and the reactions of both parties I found interesting. Apache warriors were group combatants and didn't fair well when they couldn't run away and regroup and a Gladiator who is to be one dimensional and not adaptable. History shows the Gladiators were versitle fighters in the arena and most were captured warriors from other cultures, slaves and criminals who had to fight or be killed on a routine basis. History was shown a great misjustice with this match up. I would have thought a more suitable match for the Apache would be a caveman. Atleast when the Apache is crown the victor, one could say yeah I can see that.

  2 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +2

  26. pnichols0008 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 11:34 AM

  the indian was a pussy he tried to attack the gladiator but when he couldnt he ran put them both in an arena and watch how long the indian lasts duh huh

  4 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -5

  27. pnichols0008 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 11:37 AM

  put a us army sniper up against the apache and see who wins
  
  boom 1 shot and its bye bye apache

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  0

  28. Atacit Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 12:07 PM

  Someone please pick up a damn history book! Please....The continent that the Romans come from has a much deeper and longer history of war. Warfare on a scale the Apache never saw or experienced. Then there is the messy thing about the Romans being much ... um...smarter? The roadsl.. math...armor...the WHEEL for Gods sake.The Apache had no "secret" guerrilla warfare, to suggest they did is niave. If someone tells you they did, they are trying to sell you something..like Mister Snake "please buy my training video"s " Blocker. Guerrilla warfare was practiced by all warring cultures as well as knife fighting. I had high hopes for this show, thinking it would study the weapons more but this "verses" bull really turned it into a joke. Scientists?? Not really, just adults with electronic toys trying to entertain. :(. Silly me...it is Spike.

  3 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +2

  29. mohicanuck Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 12:21 PM

  Apache all the way,gladiators are stupid and rely on brute strengh.athlectis is the Apaches life.Whens the last time you went toe to toe with a Native? war is way of live with conviction for self preservation.

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +3

  30. Lonewolf1 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 12:30 PM

  You all are just sad because Apaches dominate slow clunky gladiators. All there armour does is hurt them. What do you think the Apache is just gonna hit his head NO. As far as environment it doesn't matter out of a 1,000 fights 666 fights go to the Apache so most of the time small place or big place the gladiator is dead before he even gets close. And even at close range there more agile. Gladiators are tough but you show history Apaches are still here today. And this is one on one not 1,000,000 to 1,000 like it was back in history. So yeah they were GREAT warriors.

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -3

  31. oddjam Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 12:49 PM

  Honestly i think they underestimated the gladiator. The gladiator train everyday, all day, making him far more skilled in combat. They tried to make it seem like the gladiator was slow and lumbering or something, but that was not the case, in fact the gladiator had intense speed and agility training that far out matched anything the apace could accomplish. Also the presence of a shield would have made him practically invulnerable to the Apache's bow attacks (which is were most of his kills came from), this ignores the fact that his bow would also decimate the Apache. Simply put, the gladiator was chosen from the cream of the crop, bred to kill anything that stood against it, it was the ultimate killing machine and survival expert; if the Apache could defeat him then all gladiators would be trained with Apache type techniques, they weren't however. Honestly i think the just either misinterpreted the gladiator's skills, the program was bogus, or because there were actually live Apache's present they didn't want to insult them.. idk, whatever the case gladiator would have won hands down.

  2 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +4

  32. Osirak Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 12:51 PM

  if they did it in both environments then the results would have been differant

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +3

  33. paragonsub Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 1:42 PM

  The show was great! Yes, the apache had the advantage of "open ground" at the final battle...but that's where most battles will take place in real world situations. The gladiators performed in an arena, a simulated battle ground. The apache were the forefathers of guerrilla warfare...the best way to attack conventional tactics is with chaos. The simulation was based on hard numbers...argue all you want, the apache took home the gladiators scalp. Period.

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +3

  34. seanegan95 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 1:49 PM

  Good the Apache was the best option because of there speed and stelth

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -3

  35. Landoando Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 1:53 PM

  If i see this Stride AD one more time i'm going to Apache myself.

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +2

  36. kaindir Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 2:27 PM

  Its a really cool show , i learnt alot , i hope this show continues and doesn't get canned like alot of other science related onces... i look foward to future episodes

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -1

  37. bigred1988 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 2:30 PM

  Apache win's hands down. It doesn't matter if there isn't any damage to the helmet while using the club, the concussive force will screw you up. Apache has agility that is better hands down in an open area vs a guy carrying pounds of metal. Apache warriors don't rush unlike the gladiator.

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -2

  38. StuntmanTed Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 2:37 PM

  The Apaches were defeated not by superior warriors but by superior projectile weapons. History would have been a lot different if the pilgrims only had melee weapons, they never would have gotten off the dam boat.
  
  
  
  Anyways the apache would have owned a gladiator, bow reigns supreme. Gladiators never used bows. Period.
  
  
  
  I agree a Roman soldier MAY have put up a better fight but they were trained to fight as a unit, wearing a hundred pounds of armor and working behind a huge shield. Single combat was never what they were trained for and regular soldiers were never taught the use of bows, the ranged weapon of choice for infantry was the 1 shot deal Javelin.
  
  
  
  My prediction : Apache vs Roman soldier
  
  
  
  Apache will win everytime if the Roman misses his one and only throw with his javelin.
  
  
  
  Oh and if being outside is "Apache territory" well yes then the Gladiator is fubared.

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +7

  39. xxishimaruxx Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 3:58 PM

  How about spartan vs. roman solider?

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -1

  40. Mrsmash1 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 4:07 PM

  The Apache did more damage to slow the gladiator down and that shows that the bigger they come the harder they fall, and that gladiator was a eazy target for this deadly WARRIOR.

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +1

  41. dvasquez107 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 4:37 PM

  I think it was pertty awesome cause i think it could have gone either way but science proves that if they were to fight then the apache is surley to win in a far and close combat. Far combat cause of the bow and close combat cause of the speed. I hope there is going to be more shows like this fight.

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +2

  42. xxishimaruxx Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 5:18 PM

  How about spartan vs. roman solider?

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +3

  43. jamesa1986 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 5:24 PM

  royalz-dumb comment 1: we out numbered the apache 10 to 1 in almost every situation.
  
  Zealot-dumb comment 2: the movie 300 was highly inacurate and historicly incorrect.plus they are talking about the roman gladiator not the spartan of sparta.
  
  kelvet-dumb comment 3:the gladiator did not have access to bows as hollywood would have you believe.
  
  laxdude_dumb comment 3:see above

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -2

  44. PlatinumInc Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 7:47 PM

  That was cool - but what if the Apache had to fight a grilled cheese sandwich with only one tomahawk (prison rules apply)?

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  0

  45. smokin_24 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 8:18 PM

  Personally, I think the Apache knife expert was really hung up on proving the Apache were great warriors and could kick anyone's butt. I think they should have put the Apache knife fighter and Chcuk Lidel in a ring and go hand to hand...no weapons. Let's see who would win. My money would be on Chuck with that punch of his. The show is ok and has entertainment value, but these "experts" they bring in need to get over themselves. They all believe there way is the only way. Enough already.

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -1

  46. rkamd Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 8:46 PM

  Has anyone here seen the movie gladiator? Maximus vs the apache and he would kick @$$. One other thing the gladiator had the apache down on the ground. He was just toying with him. He got up for a sec and the apache pulled a knife (lame). Also, half the battle the apache was running away.

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  -1

  47. innsomatic Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 9:10 PM

  its a mix of speed and strength, the gladiator has the ability overwhelm and control the weaker opponent. The Apache used speed, Surroundings...i agree with the win, apache's do have the lead on weapons, and the agility to dodge the gladiators heavier weapons. the gladiator winning a fight is like the lottery, he can only strike so fast without telecasting, And the apache has the ability to see, and dodge. Impressive show so far.

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  0

  48. Deacon2112 Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 9:25 PM

  If you want to have a really good warrior vs warrior comparison, put the real Roman Dog of of War against the Apache: the veteran Roman. Legionaire. Fully armoured, armed to the teeth, with experience in fighting in the varied conditions that existed throught the Empire from Northern Europe to the Middle East. In a contest between a battle hardened Legionaire and an Apache, the Apache would be one thing in short order: DEAD. The Gladiator would probably lose as well, unless he was a former Legionaire. Then it would be an interesting match.

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  +4

  49. UnGodly Posted on Apr 8 '09 at 11:26 PM

  To be honest, I loved watchin this showdown...Everyone says that a Gladiator should have fun and are complaining that they have armor and bows and what not...And really even though this show has seemed to make a statement sayin the Apache will always overcome the Gladiator, alls it's saying is that the Apache's fighting style and techniques are DEADLIER (hence the name of the show) than the Gladiators...Which i agree with..I'm not sayin the Gladiator should have lost, but based on what they were trying to prove based on fighting styles, and use of weapons, i think the Apache well deserved this victory with their advantages; such as their speed, and light weapons...And the enviornment they set the small battle in has nothing to do with who won...the only theme that was eviornmentally suggested was that a gladiator got his trident caught in branches (which showed to neither help or hurt him in the battle)...And if you still do argue about the enviornment, the colisseum is just as large as the area this fight took place in...and the two would still have a short time where they could use their ranged weapons, and still lots of space for the Apache to run around in...So really, the show served its purpose of figuring out who had the deadliest fighting style...and its not like the results were full proof, as in an apache would win everytime, it was all based off of who had more kills based on all the statistics used...

  1 reply Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

• 
  0

  50. StormBorn Posted on Apr 9 '09 at 12:00 AM

  Ok lets address the real problem here. The Apache was a hit and run fighter. A gladiator was an in your face brawler. These are two completely different styles of killing. Its comparing a tank and a jet fighter. Which is more effective? Depends on its usage and circumstance. If you want and true test of who would would be a better warrior why not compare two fighters with similar styles. Like an Apache and a Ninja. Or a Roman Gladiator and Nordic Berserk-er. This match was too unbalanced to be accurate or fair. They strait up state in the episode that the bow made all the difference for the Apache, and the Gladiator get no long range weapon? Remove that bow and the Gladiator would Destroy and we all Know it.

  0 replies Reply Flag comment as inappropriate

  This comment has been buried by our users. Reveal Comment

Saving your comment...

Leave a Comment

You must Log-in to leave a comment

You are commenting on: Apache vs. Gladiator

Flag this Content as Inappropriate