One will protect you. The others will try to kill you

The Scissor is the scariest. Legitimately looks like the psycho killer from an horror movie.

Also, how are the others supposed to compete without armor ?

A net catches many fishes.

The choice is obvious.

The one with a horse, obviously. Worst case, even if he dies I can use his horse to run away.

Look at the size of the shields. They reach from their helmets to the shin guards. The rest of the body is free and grants a good amount of mobility.

Scissor has retarded weaponry, it's supposed to flail around in a chainmail that weighs him down considerably more than the medium armoured armoury with a shield. Shields are incredible tools, the arch deflect blows better than the chainmail, which will bruise the wearer inevitably.

Best choice seems equestrian imo, horses are always valued highly against infantry.

There were classes of gladiator? Did they ever try mixing classes, and how did that go?

>tfw no ancient Rome horror movie

I feel like the Equite or the Reciario are the best choices, because spears. The horse helps for mobility but it's also a big target and as soon as it gets taken down, the rider is fucked, so I dunno.

The classes were supposed to be roleplaying romans or the enemies of Rome. They were often used to re-enact battles.

Reciario this nigga going out in a simple shoulder piece and net. He ain't afraid

Look at OP's chart, and yes they sometimes had different types fight

I heard from a Nat-Geo Docco that Equites are actually well off/rich Romans who guest-star in the Arena for just one fight- usually versus other Equites- like some form of proto-Jousting.

Was that true?

>There were classes of gladiator?
They would have been grouped according to the amount of armor they were wearing: heavier armored gladiators tended to fight other heavier armored gladiators while lightly armed ones fought each other

> Did they ever try mixing classes, and how did that go?
It would have gone about as well as putting a heavyweight boxer in a ring with a lightweight: the lightweight would have been at an extreme disadvantage and the heavier armored guy almost certainly would have won.

But for novelty's sake sometimes they mixed things up just for a change of pace. Like this user said: sometimes they would reenact famous battles, once flooding the entire coliseum for a naval battle. Sometimes they would do things like pit a female gladiator against a dwarf gladiator, or a single heavily armored gladiator against an army of dwarves or cripples. Sometimes they would have slapstick fights which were non violent and meant to be amusing.

I choose TRIARII!

Provocator. Except for the Scissor, he appears to be the best armored.

>going to the triarii

you already lost

I won.

Reciario is the underrated class, so him.

I choose.... Crupellarius

Whats the deal with the secutor, provocator, tracio and murmillo? looks like they would all fight in the same way, wheres the fun in that?.

Equite. He can kite those faggots all day and pick them off one by one assuming they're separated.

The horse is an easy answer since they're always going to be good against infantry untill someone throws shit at you and hits.

I'd say the Secutor. Has the most practical helmet that can't get caught on anything and has decent eye-holes in addition to the largest shield. If he's tall he has a good chance against pretty much anyone - his shield reach would make it a solid weapon.

seems to be slight differences in armor (>implying all people in that category wore the exact same armor) or probably some difference i background or way of fighting. That's what happens when you hav the picture but not the text accompanying it.

Look at their weapons they are meant to fight other opponents.

>secutor, provocator, tracio and murmillo?
The key is the size of the shield

Secutor and Murmillo were heavy armor types who typically fought each other and Retiarius. While Retiarius literally means "fisherman" and Murmillo literally means "fishman", the secutor had an advantage in that their helmets were smooth and less likely to get entangled in the Retiarius's net, but the murmillo's helmet would have been much less restrictive, plus more protective. So while the Murmillo would have to fight heroically to win against a Retiarius, he would probably beat the Secutor, who would in turn have a much easier time dealing with the Retiarius.

Provocators were a class of heavy that wore a breastplate and typically fought other provocators. These evolved from the garbs worn by Roman legionaries

Thracians and hoplomachus were descendents from prisoners of war who supplied their own equipment. Later these were typically a medium class gladiator, fighting with a small shield, helmet, and greaves.

>protect

Male gladaitors are fucking shit mate
i choose the Gladiatrix of course

underrated

he looks how a 10 year old would draw a roman knight

If Romans had the means to dress a lowly gladiator in full plate armour, why didn't they supply their troops with the same or better armour? Surely they must have seen the advantage of having fully armoured cavalry like the knights of the middle ages even then?

Even the typical lorica segmentata doesn't cover the whole body like the Crupellarius in your picture.

>Picking any choice other than equite

Wrong.

A much debated fact nowadays is the body of gladiators.
After the find of gladiators diet it was insisted they were straight out fat. The thicker skin was able to take cuts eith as little damage as possible, granting the better show. Others claim that the full day of excercise burned calories significantly and that every extra pound was a hit on the athleticism of said athletes. With the fact that Graeco-Roman's had a clear view of what the peak body was supposed to be like.

Now imagine either a fat women or a skinny, not as capable gladiatrix.

That's shit taste mate

One word: logistics

arming a single guy for a widely publicized duel taking place within the city itself is one thing. Arming tens of thousands of soldiers and then sending them to the frontier where replacement parts had to be shipped hundreds of miles from its manufacturing base in Rome is another thing entirely

Keep in mind that full plate knights came well over a thousand years later. Romans simply didn't have the capacity to produce Lorica Segmentata alone, much less the peripheral parts like manicles and greaves in numbers to be used for anything but shock troopers. And Romans lacked the metallurgical know-how to make the intricate parts that you see in later suits of armor, which doesn't leave the straps holding it all together on the outside of the armor, waiting to be hacked at.

Sure, the mail shirt is cumbersome, doesn't distribute the weight well, and doesn't do much to protect you from blunt force trauma, but any two bit- camp blacksmith can rivet together a few iron rings and patch it, plus the friction of the rings rubbing against each other protects it from rust, so a mail shirt could easily last many decades, while the segmentata was lucky to make it halfway through a campaign without needing extensive repairs.

Also, heavy cavalry really wouldn't become more than situationally useful until the invention of the stirrup allowed the driver to brace his lance against the momentum of the horse itself and significantly improve the damaging potential of a charge. And heavy cavalry was prone to being kited around by much nimbler horse skirmishers

...

>A much debated fact nowadays is the body of gladiators.
It probably depended on the type of gladiator: a heavy weight like a Murmillo would have been bear mode while a Sagittarius or samnite was probably thinner as they spent a lot of time maneuvering around.

And female gladiators would have been a novelty sideshow, like how professional wrestlers have skimpy female mud wrestling in between the main events. It would have more been for their amusement than to actually inspire them the way that the main event gladiators would have done. It was considered such a disgraceful, tawdry display that female gladiators were banned in 200 AD

Well played

Whilst the weight difference in different disciplines is still pure speculation, since we don't have sources stating such.
Personally, I feel like this is a valid thesis.

I wholeheartedly agree on the women being a novelty act.

This still is in line with my statement about female gladiators, with you even elobrating why it is.

Well done.

I think the picture is a little inaccurate as instead of full plates crupellarius had more of a chainmail full body armour

Romans didn't have stirrups, bro. He's just as likely to fall off that horse as he is to kill anyone with that lance.

Reciario. If I don't choose him, he's going to incapacitate whoever I go with an poke him in the ass with that trident.

Also, it never said I can't help defend myself. If he incapacitates and kills even one guy, I can grab the weapon and try to use it myself and we can watch each other's backs. I think we'd stand a slightly better chance that way.

Nah mate, because hot female amazons would make acrobatics and are faster than their male counterparts like the new wonder woman movie puts it, and they would kill all men while being sexy and empowered

The whole concept of a superhero is pathologically stupid, male or female, if you actually try going up against a bunch of other people at once you're going to get your shit pushed in.

>what is a saddle

>They would have been grouped according to the amount of armor they were wearing: heavier armored gladiators tended to fight other heavier armored gladiators while lightly armed ones fought each other

they were not separate by the amount of armor, rather, they fought depending on the type of shield

Scutiarii = large shield(Scutum)
Parmularii = small shield(parma)

they did mix it up often though, the Murmilo which used a scutum often fought the Thraex which fought with a parma. The Secutor was meant to fight the Retiarius, hence his smooth dome helmet, and so on, the contest of heavy weapons and armor vs agility and stamina were popular.

Hoplomachus, meant to resemble a Greek Hoplite didn't have a set adversary, they might have fought anyone with a sword. Provocators were meant to fight eachother in completely equal terms which is what made them stand out.

Crupellarius are said to be based off fully plate-armored soldiers deployed by the gauls, which Roman legionaries had trouble getting their swords through, so they resorted to ganging up on them, knocking them to the ground and bating them to death with axes and maces.

basically what you'd expect would happen to fully armored soldiers in a massive confusing battle, and why they weren't attempted again for a millenia.

Recario. He's the only one without the fuck tarded helmet that in reality impeded 90% of your peripheral vision.
youtube.com/watch?v=nRf42bh-BlE

*Some Romans
FTFY

You aren't winning 7 on 2 regardless of who you choose. Go with equite and run away.

this lady's weirding me out

Yeah, she's pretty gross looking and weird but her documentaries on the Romans called : Meet the Romans, are pretty good tier. Interesting since you don't often see many women historians who do research on all aspects of Ancient Rome using hard evidence.
youtube.com/watch?v=rggk_H3jEgw&list=PLjwa-Kvwm02s1fnDvoUz9pEZzWQfJk73g

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

There was one made in the 1960s called "Rome Against Rome," I believe. It was OK for what it was.

One net for one throw only, after that you're dead fish

Those sandals crack me up. It just looks so ridiculous.

>Choose the equite
>Hop on his horse, ride double
>fuck off somewhere else
>Safety achieved

Only choice, really.

this would look better with literally any other helmet.

though particularly the one that's closer to an actual legionary helmet.

have you ever rode a horse?

it's actually pretty hard without those sumbitches