NEW PRODUCT: HHMODEL & HAOYUTOYS: 1/6 Empire Legion-Hunting Ground Fighter Silver Edition/Gold Edition (HH18034/5)

No opinion or much knowledge on this, just want to remind you I enjoy it when discussions get historical here.

For what it's worth, the general discussion of Gladiators transposed to a war/army situation should take into account that this guy, the Scissor, would be the absolute least likely one.  An axe, or a hammer, or a gladius sword is something you can momentarily put down, but this guy (whether we take his weapon to be a tube as IRL, or a prosthetic as HY apparently have it) is pretty permanently stuck being Edmundus Scissorhands.  Once his other hand is holding a shield, he's pretty limited in what he can do. Which is fine for a half hour fight in the arena, but a pretty awkward set up for a soldier's entire day.

Well they would be used as shock troops on the flanks not for long fighting also not so organized just all out charge so the scissores could use that and a gladius no shield for offensive close to dimacheri style.

kelo1 wrote:Well they would be used as shock troops on the flanks not for long fighting also not so organized just all out charge so the scissores could use that and a gladius no shield for offensive close to dimacheri style.

Wait, would they? How do we know? The Romans did not employ bersekers, and orderly formation and proper armor and equipment were pretty much their go to modus operendi. There were archers and slingers for other stuff.

GubernatorFan wrote:

kelo1 wrote:Well they would be used as shock troops on the flanks not for long fighting also not so organized just all out charge so the scissores could use that and a gladius no shield for offensive close to dimacheri style.

Wait, would they? How do we know? The Romans did not employ bersekers, and orderly formation and proper armor and equipment were pretty much their go to modus operendi. There were archers and slingers for other stuff.

I believe that would be entirely right.  Not only "orderly formation and proper armor and equipment," but really the whole supply and support system of the Roman army would make it grossly wasteful to include some whole contingent of troops that only participated in a not so organized quick charge, and just leeched off resources all the rest of the time.  Particularly, remembering most Roman army battles were on foreign territory with limited resupply options or living off the land.

Also, absolutely one of the chief characteristics of that orderly formation and proper armor and equipment was a heavy reliance on the shield. not as an individual but a group formation (testudo) making a wall.  So a bunch of exposed no shield berserkers would be more an unwarranted vulnerability than anything else, even immediately in the field, and much more so afterwards if you had to feed, carry and supply a bunch of invalids and wounded.  (Maybe that's how these HY Scissors got prosthetic arms, buccaneer style).

Well they did use ally troops as auxiliary that din not fight in a close formation like barbarians from diffrent tribes or thracians, dacians and others.

kelo1 wrote:Well they did use ally troops as auxiliary that din not fight in a close formation like barbarians from diffrent tribes or thracians, dacians and others.

You didn't have to feed and supply ally troops, all the way from Rome to Gaul, and if allies were wounded or made invalid, that wasn't a burden on Roman medical resources (and in some cases Romans even retired their invalid soldiers with a stipend). In the long run of a real campaign, having a bunch of dimachaeri going nuts with two swords and no shield probably would do you way more harm than immediate good.

All of this discussion really emphasizes the difference between Gladiators fighting and actual Roman soldiers in a field of war. What the Gladiators did was entertainment -- it was deadly serious to them of course, and they suffered real wounds, or really died, but for all that, it was about as artificial as modern wrestling. The aim of something like dimachaeri style was drama for the crowd, in the most sensational victory of a half hour fight, in a way that was visible all the way to the top seats. Very different considerations would apply to legions of men campaigning for months or years to overwhelm a foreign country.

Using gladiators would be like using WWF wrestlers. They work as bodyguards because they are big and intimidating but useless as soldiers.

Spartacus would say something else gladiators were good vs legions it was all about who leads them and the tactic if they did not argue could have taken Rome itself and their army was made of only few gladiators most were freed slaves trained by gladiators if we had a full army of gladiators the roman army would have a real hard time.

kelo1 wrote:Spartacus would say something else gladiators were good vs legions it was all about who leads them and the tactic if they did not argue could have taken Rome itself.

Spartacus was only successful initially because there were no legions near Rome. They were tied up with a Hispanic revolt and the Third Mithridatic war. When the Senate took the revolt seriously, Spartacus didn't last long.

He had mostly slaves and not many true gladiators still he defeated several legions and they had to send Crassus and Pompei legions against them so the numbera were on the roman side.

If you set loose, motivated, and equipped 40,000 WWF wrestlers, all of them extremely fit and athletic men, you'd have a powerful force, that would legitimately threaten a few city halls; but you could never say they are militarily superior to Seal Team 6.

kelo1 wrote:He had mostly slaves and not many true gladiators still he defeated several legions and they had to send Crassus and Pompei legions against them so the numbera were on the roman side.

Spartacus had around 70,000 followers when the Senate started taking him seriously. The first army was led by Gellus and Clodianus, who had one legion each, which was a max of 10,000 legionaries. These 10,000 men defeated 30,000 rebels led by Crixus. The remainder of those 10,000 legionaries was subsequently defeated by 40,000 led by Spartacus.

The next army (8 legions or a max of 40,000 legionaries) was given to Crassus. He had around 30,000 of them when he fought Spartacus. Again, the rebels outnumbered the legions and they lost.

He first ambushed half of their army led by Crixus the stronger half.

kelo1 wrote:Well they did use ally troops as auxiliary that din not fight in a close formation like barbarians from diffrent tribes or thracians, dacians and others.

Auxiliary troops did not necessarily differ much in terms of equipment and deployment than the citizen troops in the legions -- the heavy infantry was comparable across these, although there is some expectation that legionary troops were issued better weapons and equipment; it is not actually clear how much real difference there was. That said, auxiliary troops included units that were not heavy infantry, like the slingers, archers, cavalry (eventually special cavalry detachments were attached to the legions). Moreover, legions and auxiliaries were usually deployed in combination, meaning they had to be able to coordinate and fight effectively. On the whole, the most lightly armed and attired troops would be the slingers, and they did not run around the battlefield wearing the fantastical equipment of gladiators. No one did.

One of the first thing Spartacus and his deputies did as they moved around southern Italy during their revolt, was to target storehouses of weapons and equipment, arming and supplying themselves as closely as possible as regular troops. How much of their gladiator equipment remained in use I doubt we know, but they were fighting for their lives to get out of Italy and not putting on a show for an audience at the arena -- so I would not imagine seeing a lot of the "theatrical" outlandish equipment we associate with different kinds of gladiators on display.

Being a gladiator, being dressed as one, and serving in a military function are three different things.

I read it all and gave it some thought. Some interesting mind games here. I wonder how it would work out regarding the logistics, also depending on which country the Legion is attacking. The media coverage of that event would strain the infrastructure immensely, with multiple convoys riding along, not counting all the managers, sponsors and suppliers of protein drinks.

If they attack the North, how many WWE fighters are needed to whittle down a Patriotic Canadian Grizzly? How good are you prepared for the Canadian winter and terrain wearing only spandex?

And if the US invades Mexico, 40000 WWE wrestlers would be swimming across the Rio Grande in the cover of night. How will these muscular beings stay hydrated on their way through the Chihuahua desert? And if they use Monster Trucks, how will these stay fueled?

Also, regarding covert operations executed by amateurs,  I am pretty sure at some point, someone of those 40000 WWE Legionaires would make the mistake of loading up something on social media with their phone, giving away their position, making them vulnerable to artillery strikes. That's the difference between amateurs and professionals.

Of course a main trait of the WWE Legion is the soft power it could project.

Loyalty is a factor too.
With a mercenary army of 40000 WWE wrestlers backed by Chinese investors, General John Cena could take over Taiwan Trojan Horse style.

In conclusion we could say that the factor of 40000 WWE Wrestlers would definitely influence a military operation.

But seriously I never really understood WWE, it will always be a mystery to me.