Who would win in a fight?

[Mankin]

Hey guys. Obviously I have never posted on this particular subforum, which is surprising considering I love history, especially medieval and classical history.

Anyway, there is a certain show called Deadliest warriors which pits historical warriors like an Apache and Gladiator against each other. The show is of course somewhat historically inaccurate but I really like the concept.

With that thought, I'm going to present a battle scenario between two historical warriors that never met in battle and see who you think would win the battle.

Round 1
Norman Knight vs Roman Soldier

Roman Soldier's equipment and weapons
Gladius(24 inches long sword)
Scuta(shield)
Lorica Squamata(scale armor)
Pilum(heavy javelin)

Norman Knight's equipment and weapons
Hauberk(long chain mail tunic)
Mace(a short wooden handle with a spiked ball at the end)
Lance(long wooden spear with metal tip)
31 inch Sword
Steed

Here's a picture of both of these warriors in full uniform

Roman Soldier

IMO, the Norman Knight will be able to kill the Roman soldier with his lance. Due to the use of the stirrup, the force of the lance was far greater than any other heavy cavalry the Romans faced. What it will ultimately come down to is if the Roman can dismount the knight or kill him with his pillum. If the knight is dismounted(and manages to avoid breaking any bones) I think the Roman will have the edge while fighting on a level field mainly due to the Roman's superior shield and armor.

 

[Sphinx777]

As you point out, the knight is going to skewer the Roman.

His pilum would be ineffective against armour - it was designed to stick in a shield and bend, forcing an assailant to discard his shield. It wasn't much use against armour.

Legionaries were NEVER equipped with a long spear.

So, the Norman knight is going to win every time.

Even foot, his 2 handed sword is going to give him greater reach, the Roman wouldn't get close enough to use his gladius.

 

[Steezie]

The Roman is not an individual fighter and is at his best when fighting in a group. This is why many of the barbarian tribes of the time tried very hard to break up a Roman formation and turn group combat into individual combat because the Roman legionnaire was at a disadvantage in single combat.

The legion's greatest weapon was it's discipline.


By the way, this concept has already been explored
Deadliest Warrior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mankin]

I mentioned that in my OP. Good show although a bit historically inaccurate.


Here's another scenario

Persian Immortal vs. Gaullic Warrior

Immortal weapons
Composit bow
Scimitar
Short Cavalry Spear
Crescent shaped shield

Gaullic Warrior
Sling
Long Sword
Long rectangular shield
Spear

Neither of them wear any armor.

 

[Douger]

For your first scenario I'd go with the knight. The Roman infantry had a lot of trouble against Persian knights so there is historical precedent for the knight winning on a one vs one basis. Of course like Steezie said, en masse the Romans were incredibly formidable. With good leadership they even beat the Persians from time to time.

For your second scenario, I'd go with the Persian Immortal. The Persians of that time were not known for their tactical finesse or discipline, yet with their ferocity, strength and innovation they whipped the much more "civilized" armies of the Greeks, Babylonians, Lydians and Egyptians, not to mention a host of other nations.
Sure, they never fought the Gauls (correct me if I'm wrong) but they conquered plenty of people who were much more renowned for warfare than the Gauls.
And for the record, the Immortals wore scale metal armor.

 

[bigbadwilf]

Only really looking at your first scenario to begin with, one on one then it's the Norman every time (faster moving, longer reach etc) for the reasons that everyone else has given.

However, if the numbers were increased to form a testudo formation then it would be very difficult for the Normans to get their cavalry to charge through what amounted to a shield wall.

 

[Gracchus]

The Roman legion was a very effective weapon against bigger stronger foes swinging long iron clubs, like the Gauls and Germans, especially if they were on open ground where they could maneuver. A rain of pila was fairly effective at breaking up a charge of light cavalry, though less effective against the cataphract. Add to this the fact that the legionaire was usually smaller than his opponent and used a stabbing sword instead of swinging a long sword requiring plenty of room on each side, and it turns out that the Romans were usually fighting two against one. And they did find a way to deal with charges by elephants.

One on one is not how an army fights effectively. Victory is seldom a matter decided by individual prowess. It has always been a matter of teamwork.

 

[Sphinx777]

As for the second battle scenario, Gallic warriors didn't use slings, adolescents and youths not yet old enough to fight as warriors in the front ranks used them occasionally.

Immortals generally used a longer, 8 foot long spear. Persian reliefs at Persepolis clearly show them grasping their spears with both hands, which means they must have been used for thrusting in battle and therefore were long spears.

The Immortal is going to win. Gauls didn't wear armour, so the Immortal is going to shoot him down by archery long before he gets close enough for hand to hand combat.

​

 

[Steezie]

As for the second battle scenario, Gallic warriors didn't use slings, adolescents and youths not yet old enough to fight as warriors in the front ranks used them occasionally.

Immortals generally used a longer, 8 foot long spear. Persian reliefs at Persepolis clearly show them grasping their spears with both hands, which means they must have been used for thrusting in battle and therefore were long spears.

The Immortal is going to win. Gauls didn't wear armour, so the Immortal is going to shoot him down by archery long before he gets close enough for hand to hand combat.

That depends ENTIRELY on terrain. If you were to match the Persians and Gauls off in ANY sort of terrain that would make bows impractical and horsemanship difficult, the Gauls would win.

 

[Sphinx777]

 

[NesterJones]

I didn't bother reading through all this stuff but the show is pretty awesome sometimes. However a lot of the fights are VERY imbalanced, perhaps if they did it tourney style and had a new season with the winners fighting each other....

Plus I don't really like it because it's based on weapons stats mainly. There's no human element involved which is a HUGE contributor to any fighters abilities. But it is interesting for what it is as a weapon's stats show.

 

[Steezie]

I didn't bother reading through all this stuff but the show is pretty awesome sometimes. However a lot of the fights are VERY imbalanced, perhaps if they did it tourney style and had a new season with the winners fighting each other....

Plus I don't really like it because it's based on weapons stats mainly. There's no human element involved which is a HUGE contributor to any fighters abilities. But it is interesting for what it is as a weapon's stats show.

That's something they should have made clearer in the actual show. In one of the follow-ups they did say they assigned stats for the fighters themselves to account for training etc etc.

 

[Douger]

That depends ENTIRELY on terrain. If you were to match the Persians and Gauls off in ANY sort of terrain that would make bows impractical and horsemanship difficult, the Gauls would win.

Why do you think the Gauls would win?
The Persians with their physical strength, dedication, and fierceness, and in spite of deficiencies in tactics, discipline and weaponry, conquered some very notable powers of their day.
I see no reason to believe the Gauls would succeed where the Greeks, Thracians, Babylonians, Lydians, Egyptians, Bactrians, and many others failed.

 

[jayem]

Another hypothetical match:

A champion gladiator, armed with the dagger, net, and trident vs. a champion samurai, armed with the dagger, traditional armor, and katana.

 

[Steezie]

Why do you think the Gauls would win?
The Persians with their physical strength, dedication, and fierceness, and in spite of deficiencies in tactics, discipline and weaponry, conquered some very notable powers of their day.
I see no reason to believe the Gauls would succeed where the Greeks, Thracians, Babylonians, Lydians, Egyptians, Bactrians, and many others failed.

If you look at WHY the Persians won, you see it was because their tactics worked extremely well on home ground which was generally flat and open. This terrain enables tactics such as mounted archers which are extremely effective against targets that cant chase you.

The Greek phalanx is an impressive tactic and brutally effective in the right circumstances, a phalanx can do very little against mounted archers.

Similarly, in places like Gaul, you have thick forests and mountains. This terrain is not suited to large armies of mounted warriors. During the Middle Ages, you had small scale battles between mounted knights but by and large most armies fought on foot. Granted this was partly due to economics, but terrain did play a role.

Additionally, part of the Persian's strength was numbers. They could simply overwhelm their opponents with large numbers. They were not as unified as the Romans, but they were still accustomed to fighting as a group on foot.

The Gauls are far more individualistic warriors, they fight as a group of individuals. Their weapons are also difficult for the Persians to counter.

The standard shield for a Persian warrior is a woven wicker shield which will provide almost no protection against a blow from a heavy axe or a massive spatha precursor sword. The Persians also didnt wear much armor, the Immortals wore scale mail and that would have helped, but scale isnt strong enough to protect from the pure crushing force of a blow from a Gaulish weapon. The Roman lorica segmentata is strong enough to cushion a blow but scale is designed to protect against slashing weapons, not the brutal downward smashing force of an axe.

You also have the addition of the berserkers. Esprit de corps cannot be overlooked. The Gauls were massive men by the standards of the time (You'd HAVE to be to use some of their weapons) and to have a naked man hurling himself at you screaming like a demon with an axe that was probably as big as you were would be terrifying.

Thusly do I declare that the Persians would probably be defeated handily in Gaul itself. However on open ground, the Persians would probably win hands down.

 

[Mankin]

Another hypothetical match:

A champion gladiator, armed with the dagger, net, and trident vs. a champion samurai, armed with the dagger, traditional armor, and katana.

I'd give the edge to the Gladiator for the following reasons.
No 1: The shield. The Gladiotor's shield would definitely provide an extra layor of protection and it could also be used as an offensive weapon.

No 2: fighting style. The Gladiator will not fight fairly. Honor is a stupid and meaningless concept to him. He fights to win, and he'll use whatever is necessary to defeat his opponent.

 

[Douger]

If you look at WHY the Persians won, you see it was because their tactics worked extremely well on home ground which was generally flat and open. This terrain enables tactics such as mounted archers which are extremely effective against targets that cant chase you.

The Greek phalanx is an impressive tactic and brutally effective in the right circumstances, a phalanx can do very little against mounted archers.

Similarly, in places like Gaul, you have thick forests and mountains. This terrain is not suited to large armies of mounted warriors. During the Middle Ages, you had small scale battles between mounted knights but by and large most armies fought on foot. Granted this was partly due to economics, but terrain did play a role.

Additionally, part of the Persian's strength was numbers. They could simply overwhelm their opponents with large numbers. They were not as unified as the Romans, but they were still accustomed to fighting as a group on foot.

The Gauls are far more individualistic warriors, they fight as a group of individuals. Their weapons are also difficult for the Persians to counter.

The standard shield for a Persian warrior is a woven wicker shield which will provide almost no protection against a blow from a heavy axe or a massive spatha precursor sword. The Persians also didnt wear much armor, the Immortals wore scale mail and that would have helped, but scale isnt strong enough to protect from the pure crushing force of a blow from a Gaulish weapon. The Roman lorica segmentata is strong enough to cushion a blow but scale is designed to protect against slashing weapons, not the brutal downward smashing force of an axe.

You also have the addition of the berserkers. Esprit de corps cannot be overlooked. The Gauls were massive men by the standards of the time (You'd HAVE to be to use some of their weapons) and to have a naked man hurling himself at you screaming like a demon with an axe that was probably as big as you were would be terrifying.

Thusly do I declare that the Persians would probably be defeated handily in Gaul itself. However on open ground, the Persians would probably win hands down.

Good analysis Steezie. I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Blackguard_]

the show is pretty awesome sometimes

Yeah, when they're discussing and demonstrating the various weapons it's pretty neat.

I'd give the edge to the Gladiator for the following reasons.
No 1: The shield. The Gladiotor's shield would definitely provide an extra layor of protection and it could also be used as an offensive weapon.

Jayem specified a shieldless gladiator though. And if you're going to bring in any equipment a samauri or gladioator might use, remember the samauri were primarily horse archers.


I might give the edge to the gladiator as well, because the samauri helmets look like they're made to snag nets on, and the trident might give him a reach advantage.