|
Post by Spellca on Dec 11, 2010 18:58:22 GMT -5
As a history major focusing on Native Americans, I am going to see how the whole Apache vs. Roman went along.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 11, 2010 19:00:54 GMT -5
How much of Lu Bu's badassness is historically accurate? Very little, Romance of three kingdoms is very romanticized. What is true is that Lu Bu betrayed almost every ally he ever had, had success on the battle field. Beyond that Cao Cao actually had him hanged and he was universally hated and scorned for his actions during the era.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 11, 2010 19:01:32 GMT -5
As a history major focusing on Native Americans, I am going to see how the whole Apache vs. Roman went along. prepare for a joke.
|
|
spoilsport
Team Buster Ledger
I'm not mean, I'm a thousand years old and I've just lost track of my moral code.
Posts: 2,020
|
Post by spoilsport on Dec 11, 2010 19:03:24 GMT -5
They succeed in proving to me that whoever writes this show is a moron. nah, they're not stupid. this shit is all for the lulz apparently. they just make it look serious. it's some surprisingly intelligent trolling.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 11, 2010 19:06:40 GMT -5
nah, they're not stupid. this shit is all for the lulz apparently. they just make it look serious. it's some surprisingly intelligent trolling. they're morons. Everything in this show is done in a moronic faction and they they try to pass it off as smart.
|
|
spoilsport
Team Buster Ledger
I'm not mean, I'm a thousand years old and I've just lost track of my moral code.
Posts: 2,020
|
Post by spoilsport on Dec 11, 2010 19:10:25 GMT -5
well I guess it depends on how you look at trolling then.
|
|
|
Post by Spellca on Dec 11, 2010 19:10:50 GMT -5
As a history major focusing on Native Americans, I am going to see how the whole Apache vs. Roman went along. prepare for a joke. What I have seen so far was the introduction of the "experts", the Gladiator guys are experts in Roman warfare but, as a World History major focusing on natives, I know Rome fairly well. Gladiators weren't killing for the sake of bloodlust; it was a survival scenario - their exaggeration of the gladiator's annoyed me. Yes, gladiators were war criminals and murders - but their were also debters, slaves and others who never used weapons. Gladiators were only trained to survive long enough for entertainment and, enough so if they won - gamblers made money. The Apache experts I am looking forward to - both are Apache; that helps. But my fear is that they may be over-modernizing the techniques of the Apache - one of the guy's trains special forces Apache techniques. Is he showing us what the Apache did or what the military wanted to know? That is the question.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 11, 2010 19:13:59 GMT -5
Gladiators weren't killing for the sake of bloodlust; it was a survival scenario - their exaggeration of the gladiator's annoyed me. Yes, gladiators were war criminals and murders - but their were also debters, slaves and others who never used weapons. Gladiators were only trained to survive long enough for entertainment and, enough so if they won - gamblers made money. This is actually not how gladiators were except a very small subset of the gladiator population. I'm on my third term of roman history and the more I take classes the more I realize how untrue this popular belief was. As to the Apache, so much history and facts ignored, it is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Spellca on Dec 11, 2010 19:22:15 GMT -5
Gladiators weren't killing for the sake of bloodlust; it was a survival scenario - their exaggeration of the gladiator's annoyed me. Yes, gladiators were war criminals and murders - but their were also debters, slaves and others who never used weapons. Gladiators were only trained to survive long enough for entertainment and, enough so if they won - gamblers made money. This is actually not how gladiators were except a very small subset of the gladiator population. I'm on my third term of roman history and the more I take classes the more I realize how untrue this popular belief was. As to the Apache, so much history and facts ignored, it is ridiculous. I apologize for ignorence in Roman history...I am only working off a bit. In terms of the Apache, I was somewhat insulted by the arrogence of the Gladiator side. Apache's were hunters. Bowmen. A tomahawk is a great throwing weapon but there was a reason no bows were in the gladiatorial arena - an expert hunter with a bow they know how to use would down anything poorly armored from a far range. Also, I find it striking that they are putting a gladiator, a for all intention purposes, a pit fighter who deals with open melee combat up against a stealth expert. Apache vs. Ninja would have been better in my opinion but I don't run the show now do I.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Dec 11, 2010 19:25:09 GMT -5
Spellca: From what little I understand about real life ninjas, they pretty much sucked. Crom, correct me if I am wrong on that.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 11, 2010 19:28:24 GMT -5
I apologize for ignorence in Roman history...I am only working off a bit. There is no need to apologize, unless you study roman history or actively research on your own. A lot of misconceptions about gladiators are not evident. Gladiator games were not just pit fights in addition. They were athletic spectacle with many, many different types of combat and competition. Melee on melee itself actually had several different types of displays. As to the Apache, they were of the "plains" Amerindian cultural type. Thus their tactics were predicated on this. Plus their tribe changed a lot with European contact, especially in tactics.
|
|
|
Post by Spellca on Dec 11, 2010 19:29:08 GMT -5
But, I mean, when it comes down to it - it seems unfair. The Gladiator guy says "Their chest was a badge of honor..." I want to know why logic doesn't kick in that a hunter with a bow would down a Gladiator the second it gets into range.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 11, 2010 19:31:29 GMT -5
Spellca: From what little I understand about real life ninjas, they pretty much sucked. Crom, correct me if I am wrong on that. they didn't suck per say. They were useful and even necessary in times of war. Just like spies and information agencies are today. They just weren't warriors or used that way. They were infiltrators, assassins, spies, information gatherers, saboteurs and terrorists. Not warriors, the best ninja never actually had to draw a blade or engaged in a battle, they used tactics that required zero fighting. And because that kind of training is lengthily and takes time from martial training. They sucked at fighting.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 11, 2010 19:36:41 GMT -5
But, I mean, when it comes down to it - it seems unfair. The Gladiator guy says "Their chest was a badge of honor... First off that is bullshit and not how gladiators were. I want to know why logic doesn't kick in that a hunter with a bow would down a Gladiator the second it gets into range. Death was frowned upon and actually against the rules of gladiator combat. Gladiators were athletes who received a salary, held performances and fought as part of events. It was actually quite normal for gladiators to fight then retire. Death in the Arena required intervention of the Emperor or a dutiful representative with the right to administer it. And because all gladiators were technically owned by a stable, if a gladiator killed another in the arena, their master had to pay compensation to the owner of the dead gladiator. This in addition to the weapons and armors actually being suited to prolonging the spectacle and protecting vital organs. Only the small subset of condemned criminals specifically sent to the arena to die were actually expected to or specifically arranged to die.
|
|
|
Post by Spellca on Dec 11, 2010 19:37:24 GMT -5
As to the Apache, they were of the "plains" Amerindian cultural type. Thus their tactics were predicated on this. Plus their tribe changed a lot with European contact, especially in tactics. That I am greatly aware of. An Apache prior to Europeon "invasion" was hunter and warrior amoung themselves and other tribes. But hunting was the key - a tomohawk, a knife - that is all great for combat and, so called, guerilla warfare against Europeon camps or other tribes but a bow in the hands of a warrior hunter would be devestating to poorly armored targets. The show was extremely selective to maximize the Roman Gladiator's victory while limiting the Apache Warrior. I know this for a fact, the trident and net combination was most common in a specific gladiatorial combatant called the "retiarius". That warrior with a net and trident; along with their helmet could perhaps take on an Apache who is focusing on close-range with knives and tomohawks - but if someone tries to tell me that a "retiarius" gladiator would be able to handle an Apache with a bow; I would laugh at them.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 11, 2010 19:47:14 GMT -5
That I am greatly aware of. Just so were clear, I hope you didn't get condescension in my words. That is not the case.I I respect everyone here and do not think less of people for knowing less on a topic then me. and I also will happily admit when I know less about something then someone else. Which means you quite likely know a lot more about Amerindians then me. The show was extremely selective to maximize the Roman Gladiator's victory while limiting the Apache Warrior. the show presented the cartoon pop culture parody version of gladiator combat, that is all. That warrior with a net and trident; along with their helmet could perhaps take on an Apache who is focusing on close-range with knives and tomohawks - but if someone tries to tell me that a "retiarius" gladiator would be able to handle an Apache with a bow; I would laugh at them. There is a long history of armor versus arrow technology. But the armor they had on the gladiator was not at all suited for warfare, especially against archers. Not that the roman legions did not have armor and tactics to deal with archers with infantry, they did. Guerilla tactics were nothing new to them either.
|
|
|
Post by Spellca on Dec 11, 2010 20:00:19 GMT -5
Of course, but in my humble opinion. Native americans, specifically Plains natives, are greatly under estimated by those who don't look into it. The concept of the "savage" make them seem wild and unorganized - but even if any native people aren't building Roman cities; there is a reason they survive against nature, against animals and against each other.
The gladiator is an impressive warrior as are the Roman soldiers - you don't conquer and control territory unless you have numbers and skill. Roman soldiers would have been able to handle Apache forces in warfare for sure - they handled Gaul, they handled barbarians in the north around what is now Russia - just the sheer amount of power and military skill they had to display to subjugate and control all these different people is amazing. I respect the gladiator and the Roman forces a gtreat deal from the perspective of a up and coming historical scholar.
I don't respect those two "experts" for the gladiator side lashing out against the two Apache guys that much; the Apache guys did it back but it was just to even the score. I don't believe that those two Gladiator experts: one an Ancient Weapon expert (who I give credit for one statement saying Apache were good) and the Gladiator instructor; understood that those two Apache guys aren't just experts but actual Apache - they are part of the culture, the ethnic group and so forth. I just felt it was tad bit disrespectful in that sense.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 11, 2010 20:18:03 GMT -5
Of course, but in my humble opinion. Native americans, specifically Plains natives, are greatly under estimated by those who don't look into it. If Amerindians didn't know how to fight, the 16th and 17th century would have been very different for the french and the english. And just so you know, many of the alledged experts are actually actors with none of the credentials they claim to have and are actually not at all schooled on the topics they are talking about. Many don't even have any training in history. The weapon experts on the show on some occasion have been proven to not even be weapon experts but stuntmen and moderately competent, b and c grade actors.
|
|
|
Post by Spellca on Dec 11, 2010 20:24:04 GMT -5
I would hope the Apache were actually Apache... I found Snake Blocker - that episode's chapion knife fighter. www.lipanapache.org/Service/SnakeBlocker.htmlWhen it came down to the simulation, the Apache won. I believe that it was an accurate victory but I disagree with the acting of said simulation. It was P.I.S. for the Apache if you will - an Apache, according to their side's experts, could dish out 16 arrows a minute. During the time, the gladiator spent pulling out one arrow - two more should have gone into his chest. Apache, again going by their experts who are Apache, used the psychology of fear to kil their enemies - no experienced Apache would have been awestruck as a man pulled an arrow from their side: they would put two or three more into them.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 11, 2010 20:30:54 GMT -5
according to their side's experts, could dish out 16 arrows a minute. During the time, the gladiator spent pulling out one arrow - two more should have gone into his chest. as I've said, they use a lot of actors to pose as experts I can provide links for that too. They don't have historians onboard and it shows no factual basis or valid scientific method to their presentations. And being an apache doesn't automatically qualify you as an expert on apache culture or history either. This guy is a soldier not a historian, not at all. He has no actual qualification to speak on historical apache.
|
|