So what? The Romans fought lots and lots of battles in which they were outnumbered, and they won more of them than they lost. They won when they kept their careful tight formations and training. Once they were out of formation, the Germans ripped them to shreds, and the terror factor of the giant screaming barbarians helped carry the day. Livy and the other historian go on at great length about how giant, scary, and physically powerful these Germans were. They do that because it mattered.
I wouldn’t go that far; Rome lost at Teutoburg as they were ambushed by superior numbers when strung out in column formation and trusted the wrong man - one who had knowledge of their tactics. Likewise the Gauls at Burdigala and Arausio used ambush tactics to great effect. How much impact the individual physical strength of the German I think is negligible.
After all, the Carthaginians and their allies weren’t hulking giants and yet Hannibal tore the Republic a new one, most notably at Cannae were again he used an ambush to catch the Romans off-guard. If the NFL players have a Hannibal Barca or an Arminius to direct them that’s the only chance they have, relying on sheer strength against a Roman line was the last mistake of many of Rome’s enemies.
I’ve skipped a bunch of this thread, so perhaps I’ve missed it, but wouldn’t a modern athlete be orders of magnitude stronger than even the best gladiators?
I’ve seen houses constructed in 1000 AD and the ceilings are super-low. I suspect (with no proof) that the average Roman would be something like 5’ tall.
Wouldn’t a 6’9" 330 pound man who can move quickly almost be a different species during gladiatorial times?
I don’t dispute that the fighters would have massive advantages in terms of skill and experience, just that a modern athlete would be awe-inspiringly huge.
The OP is about the adavantage of size.
The German were bigger tan the Romans.
However, in Teutoburg, war-trained hobbits would still have destroyed the legions because the decisive factors were strategical and tactical, not force.
If at Teutoburg you get 20,000 Junior Seaus without any experience, followin gthe same battle plan, I don’t think you get the astonishing rout wioth 3 destroyed legions.
The average height of a Roman soldier would range from 5’5" to a little over 5’7" depending on the time period. Nobles or the wealthy in the upper echelons probably averaged a bit taller thanks to the increase of protein in their diet.
So there’s no doubt a modern athlete would be much larger. I don’t know if “orders of magnitude” is very accurate, but they’d certainly be stronger. Faster? Well that depend son the athlete. On of those huge NFL guys? Probably not. Probably a lot slower, but a track and field guy? Yeah, definitely.
In terms of pure physical attributes they would have an incredible advantage in hand to hand combat. However, without the skill to use the period weapons, that advantage diminishes considerably.
With swords and spears, against a veteran, I give our guy a few seconds to live. Without weapons, the Roman soldier better be really good at combatives - I’d definitely think our guy would have a decent chance in that case.
Medieval Longbowman were trained from a very, very young age, it was obligatory by law for all citizens,(In England) a side effect of this was though short by todays standards they had incredibly wide shoulders and had to be very, very strong to be able to pull the drawstring.
When called up for a war they also received extra training in what we’d call dirty fighting.
Knights also were trained from, almost from birth on a very regular basis.
Whether it was Medieval times or Classical times, armies had to regulary march long distances, on a comparatively poor diet and then fight hour after hour, maybe without water replenishment.
Try swinging even a light weapon for hours it is incredibly fatiguing and the muscles are in PAIN after a while, but theres no relief, they fight until they win, die, or runaway (which is slightly delayed death), and they know this each and every time they fight.
Poor morale causes fatigue in itself .
Anyone who has actually done hand to hand training in modern times, knows that in no way is it even slightly comparable to training from birth, or for decades.
Apart from the sheer physical toughness of the ancient soldiers, there is the mental toughness.
The ever present threat of death to yourself and your mates, incidental deaths along the way from disease etc.(The English army at Agincourt were mostly suffering from dysentery, though still had to march long distances pretty much in touch with the enemy all of the way before the battle) enduring extremes of temperature with protection that would be considered laughable today, and of course the fact that they’re going to kill over and over again close up and personal.
Reference the above, the Battle of Towton Moor was fought in a snowstorm, in strong winds, and both sides declared before the battle, that no quarter would be asked or given, so it was literally to the death .
(And was fought over, I believe 12 hours, but I’m ready to be corrected on that one as I working from memory here)
NFL athletes probably wouldn’t even have the endurance to actually get to the battle in the first place, let alone fight in it.
If they were by luck already in place, and didn’t run for it knowing that there is a good chance that they’re going to die, then they would probably be too tired to fight for even a significant portion of the battle and get annihilated when they were spent .
(Also they would be expected to fight on with injuries/wounds, no substitutions, and no medevac)
(That’s supposing that their skill at arms training kept them alive for very long in comparison with those who had been trained for decades, if not most of their lives).
Their large size would, just make them easier targets, and I doubt very much that they’d have the “kill crazy” mindset some have mentioned when actually fighting to the death, not playing a game, in fact dread would be the most likely thing on their mind
And as for Gang Bangers, not even the footballers chance…
:smack:
I want to write this long essay about the process that players go through to reach the NFL. How millions, literally, of kids dedicate their lives to their high school program each year. They train everyday: weight training, sprint training, and yes, long distance running. Those millions are whittled down to 1000’s who spend 4 more years training and competing against the best of the best to be whittled down to 100’s of the Strongest, Fastest and most intelligent among them. And of those 100’s a handful of them with have a NFL career.
They are exceptional.
They are fast; Terron Armstead is 306 lbs and ran a 4.65 40 yard dash at the scouting combine. And the ones that would like to keep their $1 000 000 contracts have incredible endurance.
but I don’t think anything that I can point out is going to sway the NFL haters from their position that these exceptional men drawn from a starting pool of millions can’t compete physically with average men from 2000 years ago.
<slow clap>
It would be helpful if the op had been more fleshed out.
I have no military experience but have played football and gained a healthy respect for the advantages of height, weight, superior reflexes and speed. (Everything else being equal in a collision, the guy with 30 extra pounds is not the one who will go flying backwards.)
In one on one combat, I could see a lifetime of developing skills in lethality being a major advantage.
But picture a shield wall. Skill would be minimized by the limited actions available. Strength would be a valued premium when a weak link would cause the wall to part letting the opposition behind you.
Give the NFL athlete the minimal training involved to not be a liability, and I would think any squad from antiquity would want a rock like that anchoring the wall ( Or busting through it).
I’m not saying the athlete would survive ( If war weren’t dependent on the resolution of random events, there’d be no need to go through the motions ), but they could have a huge impact on which way the piles moving.
Personally I’m no NFL hater, but I am a realist when comparing a present day sportsman to people from a very brutal age who were hardened to death, killing, privation and endurance on a daily basis for most, if not all of their lives.
Its like comparing Ballet Dancers with Cage fighters.
Ballet Dancers are very well trained, fit and yes tough in their way.
But in a fight I’d back the Cage fighter every time.
Except that fighting men in history were a hell of a lot harder, tougher and well trained then ANY 21c sportsman, no matter how large the original selection pool is for the athletes.
No, cooperation would be at a premium. It doesn’t do the shield wall much good if one part is much stronger or much weaker than the rest. You want it to be as nearly uniform as possible.
Sure, if possible, you want your entire wall to be comprised of disciplined, strong, tough veterans.
But having a single guy anchoring one part of that shield wall isn’t any real advantage. It’s actually antithetical to the concept behind a shield wall - that a group of men working together is better than individually awesome warriors.
Okay, anchoring a shield wall there might be questionable utility, but what about breaking one?
I want a citation on the “millions of kids” part. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the Fall of 2012, there were 14.8 million kids in grades 9 through 12.
Present day military seem competent enough at desensitizing new “soft” recruits. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to allow for a period of orientation and training for our time tripping physical marvel.
A shield wall’s dream, actually. Your single guy breaks through, gets stabbed repeatedly (while the rest of the enemy army stays disciplined and nearly lockstepped), and your shield wall now has a gaping hole, as a result.
You are essentially describing how barbarian tribes failed against Roman forces. They tried repeatedly to break shield walls with big tough guys. The results were rarely pretty.
Well 1.1 million in 2011… I guess you got me… there isn’t 2 million kids playing… How about over a million instead of millions…
If only football didn’t exist. We probably would of cured cancer by now.
I fully understand that a NFL player who lives in the comforts of the 21st century is not as “hard” as someone living in an ancient civilizations military. Or that they are not psychologically prepared for warfare fought with blades. Although many men have left the NFL in times of need and served in the military… Men like Jack Lummus, Maurice Britt and Rocky Bleier…
What I take issue with is the idea that physically they would not be as fast or have the endurance, both muscular and cardiovascular, as someone from 2000 years ago. These are exceptional human specimens who have trained their bodies over many years to be at peak physical shape for their body type whether they are a WR or OL. The idea that they are going to be outclassed in terms of speed or endurance by anyone but the most exceptional specimens from what ever time they step out of the hot tub during… just doesn’t make sense to me… do you think a guy like Jason Taylor is going to be struggling to keep up???
Even when considering toughness, which is a pretty broad term, I think people are discounting the amount of pain that an NFL player can endure, both from external sources and internal sources…
Discount their intelligence if you would like. But they wouldn’t be “curing cancer” in the legion… A quick look at google sees mention of a NFL survey that puts the % of graduates at 46%… thats as deep a site as I am going to dig for in a debate about transporting a NFL player back in time… but I would believe you would be hard pressed to find a professional sport with more college graduates… so if the survey is accurate about half of them would have officer level education.
Are you assuming for some reason that the NFL player could not train?