If a NFL player was transported back to ancient times, how well would he fare as a warrior?

I think you significantly overstate the endurance of NFL players who train for explosive speed and strength. They’re incredibly strong and fast, but only for six to seven seconds at a time. Without months of training there’s no way they can route march for 18 miles with a full pack, day after day. And unless you’ve done some serious hiking I doubt you could have done so in your twenties either.

The OP set the parameters of the discussion, so I went with NFL linebackers.

As Valgard points out above you’re wrong about Pheidippides, 186 miles in three days is very different from 26 in 1.

As for your last argument, the best athlete at my high school went on to play 54 tests for the All Blacks at flanker, and I’d wager had a lot more endurance than any NFL linebacker. And while I know he used to run with a loaded backpack as part of his personal fitness training, I’m not sure he could have marched 18 miles loaded down with kit day after day.

Pat Tillman seemed to do O.K. as a warrior. (Well, until he got shot by his own team, that is.) He played strong safety, IIRC, not LB, though he did play it in college. Close enough for Gov’t, I suppose. Anyway, the U.S. Army Rangers have been known to hike 30km with a full pack from time to time.

I did appreciate the Vegetius links earlier in the thread.

WAG, the toughest part for our ‘NFL LB in Caesar’s Palace’ will be a tie between coping with the drastically lower level of sanitation and medical care and learning the implements of his soldierly craft. How long does it take to become proficient at the use of edged weapons and armor? Anyone from SCA wanting to take a shot?

My impression of modern sports athletes is that they’re all over-muscled delicate machines which are prone to breaking at the joints. Without the maintenance and support that modern medicine, supplements and drugs give them, I doubt they’d be able to support their current physiques for long in the past, or easily shrug off the myriad little tears and strains that ice and physiotherapy render trivial today.

They are cheetahs, not wolves. Built for little bursts of energy, not the chase. I can’t see them manoeuvring in armour the way a trained fighter would. And even then, injuries are common, if my SCA experience is anything to go by.
Gray Ghost, it varies by aptitude and build and what you intend by “proficient”, but IME, several years to get any good, and at least several months to get passably proficient (as in, actually occasionally hit someone who is good). That’s with training 2-3 times a week, adjust as needed I suppose although you’ll hit diminishing returns pretty quick I reckon.

A linebacker would be a sensation in the Coliseum.

They’d put him in a bearskin, give him a bloody great club or heavy battle axe and bill him as some Germanic Neanderthal from the Black Forrests. They’d match him against a scrawny guy in a loin cloth armed with a net and short dagger.

The scrawny runt plays duck & weave as the LB tries to land the killer blow he has in his armory. Our LB might get lucky, or might get played like a fish until he trips, gets tangled in the net or simply becomes exhausted. I’d put my denarius on the runt.

He will be dead in a week from some illness, disease or parasite from which he has no natural immunity.

If I’m reading that portion of the article correctly, Romans divided the day in to 12 hours…which would actually mean that they were required to march 20 miles in 10 hours.

That’s not a great feat at all.

I don’t follow sports, but when I hear about the criminal activities of athletes in the news it seems like it’s usually things like drunken brawls, domestic violence, drug offenses, and the odd dogfighting ring. None of these seem like good preparation for real combat in what would be basically Third World conditions. Even NFL players who’ve spent time in prison must have had access to clean drinking water, indoor plumbing, and three meals a day. (The Romans did of course have aqueducts, but I assume these didn’t extend to the battlefield.)

It’s also my impression that the modern military at least doesn’t really want vicious hotheads. I would think that the commander of a legion would prefer to have a soldier who remained calm under pressure, obeyed orders, and looked out for his comrades than one who’d completely flip out at the slightest provocation. Most football players are presumably used to keeping their cool and looking out for their teammates in the context of a game, but while there is always the risk of injury on the field a football game is a controlled environment where everyone knows the rules (and the rules are enforced) and no one is actually trying to kill them. They also have plenty of Gatorade, can take a hot shower afterwards, and get a fat paycheck for their troubles. Going into battle as a legionary would be a lot dirtier and more stressful, uncomfortable, and dangerous.

We have to distinguish between the barbaric style of fighting, which emphasized individual champions and loose battle order, and the Roman/Hellenic style, where soldiers fought in close order.

The Roman routinely slaughtered hordes of barbarians that were individually larger, stronger, and better armed. They did this by never, ever fighting the way Hollywood teaches us that ancient battles happened. If the fight came down to a bunch of guys running around like crazy hacking at every enemy they see, that’s when the Romans would have already lost.

The Romans won battles by standing shoulder to shoulder, each man protecting the man to his left with his shield, while standing ready to do an underhand stab with his short sword past the shield of the guy to his right. If a mob of barbarians came screaming and charging, each barbarian champion would face two or three or four Romans, and if one Roman fell another guy behind him would move up to take his place. The whole point of Roman tactics was to avoid one-on-one duels between champions.

To be a good soldier by Roman lights was to be able to march day after day week after week carrying a heavy pack, make a fortified camp every night, live off bread and wine, stand in a line with your buddies, march forward on order, stab with your gladius when the enemy closed, and stand fast in formation even when your buddies are dying all around you.

Individual prowess in a fight was all well and good, but irrelevant to winning battles and winning wars. Battles are won before they are fought by logistical preparation. A scrawny guy that can carry his supplies and march to where he is needed is worth two hulking warriors who can’t or won’t.

You guys seem to be seriously underestimating pro athletes. Like this:

Really? The main role of a LB is to track and tackle guys who are much more elusive than a runt dragging a net.

The comparison with knights is a little better but keep in mind that knights were towers on the battlefield (assuming they weren’t stuck in mud with English longbowmen in the weeds).

The biggest problem is that an NFL LB is only one out of thousands and wouldn’t have much effect (unless he was a leader who inspired his troops into combat). Create a legion out of pro athletes, however, and give them 6 months of training? They haul ass.

A lot depends on position. Many receivers, quarterbacks, defensive backs and other positions that depend on speed aren’t necessarily physically large.

They’re probably over 6’, and weight between 190 and about 230, which isn’t enormous by any standard, even if they’re in terrific physical shape.

Linemen, linebackers and tight ends, on the other hand, play positions where physical size and bulk are important, much like height and size are important in basketball for centers.

An average NFL lineman is probably in the 6’4"-6’6" range, and anywhere from 280 on the light side, through somewhere near 330 on the heavy side, and that’s not 330 lbs at 45% body fat either; they’re truly huge men.

I think a shield wall works best if you are roughly the same height as the people on either side of you. Being vastly taller than your comrades would not necessarily be an advantage.

NFL players train to run 100-yard sprints. Roman legionaries trained for endurance. Different set of muscles.

Seeing how many times you see a WR or RB getting an oxygen mask after a couple of sprints makes me doubt as to their endurance.
NFL guys complain about Denver when football players in Peru routinely play double that (Cusco, Huancayo) in a game where you don’t stop every five seconds and wait for 30.

Explosive strength yes, but day-after-day endurance. NFL players complain about playing a Thursday after a Sunday and then no play until the following Sunday.

The day was divided into 12 hours, so summer hours were 75 minutes max.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_timekeeping

18.4 miles in 6 hours

Yeah, probably this, especially since so many of the NFL “big guys” are Pacific Islanders these days. They would have no shot against Iron Age European diseases.

To be honest I’ve never watched very much NFL, so this is going to be quite a naive question. Who are the big blokes on the sidelines who need oxygen masks?

Usually the running backs or wide receivers. Those are so-called “skill position” players, and they’re usually the fastest sprinters among the offensive players. As such, they usually do a lot more sprinting and running up and down the field than the other players. So, they often get spelled and will occasionally get oxygen, especially after a particularly long or hard run.

Most other players don’t use oxygen.

When teams play in Denver (elevation ~5000ft), there’s often little time to acclimate to the change in elevation, so several more players than usual may be huffing on oxygen during the game.

ETA: But yeah, NFL players aren’t exactly endurance athletes. They admit it, and it’s something of a thing that some people claim NFLers can’t run marathons. It’s not strictly true (there are players who can do it), but it’s not far off from true, either. It’s also a bit of a tradeoff. The players who have that kind of endurance generally aren’t the big, strong ones and the big, strong ones generally don’t have that kind of endurance.

Incidentally, I’ll recommend this book, Legionary, written as if it were an orientation manual for those just joining the Roman Army. Good stuff, and very interesting: http://www.amazon.com/Legionary-Roman-Soldiers-Unofficial-Manual/dp/0500251517/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1371852947&sr=8-2&keywords=legionary

NFL players have no stamina. The NFL game does not require it, so they don’t train for it. They’d probably crush their first few opponents (assuming they were trained to use their weapons, and didn’t have to march to the battle) and then be killed easily.

In nature you can run very fast for a brief time, or at a modest speed for a very long time. Generally, the ones that run fast are otherwise easily beat up when they get caught. The slowpokes you just don’t want to mess with.

No reason athletes should be seen any differently.

Two things first:

  1. NFL players are frakking huge. The biggest person I’ve seen in real life was a quarterback at a local university. He brought his great dane in to my family’s dog grooming shop. The dog came up to my waist, it was just above this guy’s knee. He was about two of me wide. I’m right smack in the middle of the height bell curve. Quarterbacks are often the smallest guys on the field. I looked like a little kid next to him.

NFL players are fast. Even those big fat dudes on the front line can accelerate like Olympic sprinters. Most of them have absurdly fast reflexes too.

Remember that these guys are selected from a few thousand of the hopefuls that try out from high school and college teams over the entire US. Remember how the star player at your high school was huge and talented and made even most of the other players look slow and awkward? He’s the small fish that got thrown back before he even made the draft.

  1. Depending on when and where you’re talking about (not all time periods and locations are the same), the people would probably be smaller than the average for now, but would probably be stronger for their size and more able to withstand hard work and deprivation than modern people.

The guys who usually ended up fighting in medieval times were two tiers: levies, and landed gentry on up. Knights and above were bigger than most of the peasants and yeomen due to better nutrition. They did stuff for fun that was basically warfare-lite: hunting, riding, etc. They were, for all intents and purposes, the medieval equivalent of modern professional athletes. They knew their weapons and equipment inside out. Most of them could kick the living shit out of even our MMA fighters because they trained to kill and maim people, not just beat them up, and they were probably about as well conditioned — if not as specialized — as a modern dedicated fighter.

Levy troops were semi-conscripts. Participation in military training and action was more or less a kind of tax. Members ranged from peons to yeomen / free farmers. They would have had much less training, poor equipment, and a wider range of health and conditioning. But even so they probably weren’t starveling wretches, or they would have been rejected for service and someone else taken in their place. All of them would have experience with rough and tumble fighting, and some even actual life and death fights with criminals, bandits, or wild animals.

In ancient times (Babylonian, Greek, Phoenician etc. armies) there were no full-time professional soldiers outside of a handful of nobility. Just about everyone put in some time in the military, particularly the “middle class” equivalent landed non-nobility, which made up the central hoplite corps upon which most Greek tactics depended. Most of those philosophers you read about, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, were veterans of several campaigns, which means they were pretty much badasses. Nutrition and lifestyle were pretty good too, better than most times and places in medieval Europe, actually.

Roman soldiers, however, were professionals. They served up to 20 years. They fought in strict formation, and carried a bunch of gear. Anyone capable of humping 30–40 kg daily over an average of 20–30 km a day, and then setting up camp with a palisade and trenches before bedding down for the night is someone capable of kicking most modern men’s asses even without special training.

They were trained well, and fed pretty well too. There’s a reason besides excellent logistics that Roman armies steamrolled over half the civilized world; their training, discipline, and procedures were insanely good compared to their foes. The Germanic armies in particular were noted as fighting heroically, and the stature of many of the men was described as being greater than any individual Roman, but they still got the shit kicked out of them by the little dark buggers.


So, how would an NFL player fare as a warrior?

Advantages: Size; strength; good starting health (maybe, depending on injuries); superior reflexes; should be a very fast learner of physical skills.

Disadvantage: Size; calorie requirements; relatively low endurance and tolerance to hardship; no skills with the weapons and armor of whatever time and place he ends up.

Aside from single combat, being a big bugger isn’t much of an advantage in the kind of warfare we’re talking about. Most of the men in the army might have been training, even sporadically, with the weapons since they were kids. And that’s the levy troops in medieval times, or the bulk of the ancient Greek and Romans. The knights and nobles would have been doing it since they were old enough to walk, and training for war as a more or less full time job since they hit puberty. His physical attributes wouldn’t offset his lack of skill at first. Even having a strong talent for learning physical skills wouldn’t help much when he’s years behind the curve.

You might stick him in the middle of a formation, once you get him kind of trained, but chances are he’d get killed in the first couple of engagements. Worse, he might panic and run, ruining the morale of your infantry and leading to a rout. He’s too frigging big to really support his shield mates well, so it might be better to stick him on the end of a line and hope he doesn’t fuck things up too badly.

The biggest limiting factor is that he would have no experience with the mindset of ancient warfare. Even gangbangers who grew up getting shot at in their 'hood have next to no experience with getting up close and personal. Infantry combat in ancient and medieval war meant walking forward in formation while arrows or other missiles rain down around you and on you, and every so often some poor bugger gets one in a gap in his armor or through an opening in the shield wall, and he goes down messily dead or seriously wounded.

It means being shoved up so close to your enemy when the lines make contact that you smell his bad breath and slip in his shitty guts after stabbing him to death and being soaked in his blood, while several hundred of his friends in the crowd try to do the same to you. The men behind you threaten to trample you underfoot if you don’t keep pushing forward, and a group of noble arsewipes charge by on horses that seem half the size of an elephant from your perspective, not really giving half a fuck if they squish you or some poor bastard on the other side.

The closest modern equivalent I can think of would be like being in the most violent mosh pit you’ve ever encountered at a concert, except everyone is armored and beating on you with sharp, pointy and/or crushing things, with occasional heavy equipment rolling by at full speed and equipment raining down from the scaffolding. A foul weather game in the winter in Minnesota might feel like a vacation on a beach in Bora-Bora by comparison.

Honestly, if he was actually accepted into the army, I’d be shocked if he lived past the first battle. If he did survive a year or so he’d be somewhat of a veteran and would probably be as likely to live as any other soldier. But there’s no way he would be considered a valuable warrior for a loooooong time. Unless, of course, he happened to have taken a degree in medieval history, practical chemistry, metallurgy, or some other useful field at university; knowledge is always very valuable.