how much tougher were ancient warriors compared to our MMA fighters today?

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by hsugh knight, Apr 25, 2008.

  1. hsugh knight

    hsugh knight Guest

    I saw on a BBC program that a typical Roman soldier had to march 20 miles a day with his full equipment and supplies.

    I've also read that the Mongolian Horde used a long bow that had a 160 lbs draw strength. basically the equivalent of pulling up 160 lbs with your index and middle finger back to your armpit. they did this every time they fired an arrow, and i'm pretty sure they fired lots of those in a battle.

    apparently they were also capable of hitting a target 500+ meters out (possibly on horseback).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_bow

    There are other impressive facts too, like how a fully armored knight was expected to fight for hours at a time in a pitched melee battle with heavy shield and sword. and yet when they had volunteers do it for a BBC program (these were policemen, soldiers, firemen, etc.) they literally couldn't last 30 seconds before sucking air.

    Obviously their environment made them this way. But it still fascinates me when you compare someone from times past and they seem like supermen (physically, and mentally) today.

    I suppose the closest thing that comes close to that today are professional athletes.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    both pictures are clickable

    discuss. :o
     
  2. Kotu

    Kotu OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    12,032
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    The MMA fighter will win a fight with any "ancient warrior". They have technique.
     
  3. Cheezoos

    Cheezoos New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    LBC/Vancouver
    Honestly it depends.
    I think an ancient warrior would be more vicious.
    Tougher Mentally and Physically.
    Not to say that fedor or Gsp or anderson silva aren't crazy mofos.
    But all depends on scenario....

    In a ring MMA FIGHTERs
    outside ring..anything goes? Ancient warriors..
     
  4. J_75

    J_75 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,769
    Likes Received:
    0

    How so?


    MMA fighters fight under certain circumstances, times, rules, safety precautions and medical facilities, etc.


    We know very little about how "ancient warriors" stack up against modern MMA fighters....apparently some were pretty damn tough. Others probably weren't. Without a doubt the ancient warriors had their lives on the lines when fighting because they were part of a military, not an entertainment group.....but does that make the modern MMA's better or worse or just different? I dunno.


    I'm curious why anyone would think MMA fighters having strong ground fighting and grappling skills makes them better than ancient warriors.
     
  5. energie

    energie I like to place an order.. the name? Situation the

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    5,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    oilcity alberta
    ancient warriors lived in harsher times, have less remorse and were in a dog eat dog world.


    comparing them to someonel ike fedor if u were to bring a warrior vs fedor fight

    depending on how it was done i think the warrior would win. Fedor fights in a controlled venue. warriors didnt have control of there surroundings.
     
  6. Flufeeh

    Flufeeh New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the environment and circumstances decides who wins.
     
  7. energie

    energie I like to place an order.. the name? Situation the

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    5,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    oilcity alberta
    if it was a mma fight in aring. MMA fighter vs there warrior in the same weight classs.


    warrior vs mma fighter in warrior enviroment warrior would win
     
  8. Kotu

    Kotu OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    12,032
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    We're talking hand-to-hand combat right?

    I'm imagining a soldier. These guys used weapons and they were good with their weapons. If we give them a sword then yea chances are they're gonna destroy our MMA guys. If we're talking hand-to-hand combat... no way the swordsman wins. Yea sure he probably could throw a punch. That's probably the extent of his hand-to-hand combat skills. He wouldn't stand a chance. Those MMA guys... hand-to-hand fighting is their life. It's all they do.
     
  9. Helios

    Helios New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    40,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nyc <> Amsterdam <> Paris
    The problem with a discussion like this is the details of the weaponry for the most part. But i'm inclined to go with the ancient warrior almost every time because of lifelong adaptation, both from a mental and physical standpoint. MMA fighters compete for 5 minutes at a time and take breaks, this hardly stands up to the warriors expected to fight for half an hour+ with their life on the line.

    Even though all in all I think MMA fighters are a bad modern-VS.-old example to use because of the endurance and comparable fighting discipline issue.
     
  10. To be fair, most ancient soldiers carried almost nothing. They were lucky to have armour and only carried a spear. Forget the bullshit in movies where they were all in heavy armour and carried a sword.

    And even if they did....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour#Composition
    While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel. This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier, and the weight is better distributed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword
    Weight avg. 1.4 kg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_sword
    Weight avg. 2.5 lbs. (1.1 kg)

    Not very heavy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
    Weight 8.5 lb (3.9 kg)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak47
    Weight 3.8 kg (8.4 lb) empty,
    4.3 kg (9.5 lb) loaded


    You'll find that a lot of shows will try and keep the myth going about just how tough ancient warriors were. No doubt some were, but they would've been freaks. Most of them would've been shorter than we are today, less healthy, etc.
     
  11. Asian bows, such as the Mongol bow and especially the Turkish bow had the longest range for ranged weapons until the invention of the modern breech-loading firearms in the early 20th Century.[5] Estimates for the Mongol bow give it a draw force comparable to the English longbow (41-81 kg / 90-180 lb) of about 45-70 kg (100-160 lb). However, due to a better design, the mongol bow has a range of 290-320 m (320-350 yards) or more,[6] a range longer than that of the longbow (225 m / 250 yards). A more contemporary review by Hildinger suggests that it was only accurate at up to 75 m (80 yards) when shot from horseback, but "shooting in arcade" (at 45 degrees) allowed for much greater ranges.[7] It is important to note that modern champion archers maintain that you cannot 'guarantee' a hit on an individual target at more than 80 yards with any bow whatsoever, but could always hit an army of thousands of individuals.



    Mmmmmmmmmm.
     
  12. Plus historians suggest that ancient battles had very little killing in them. Most ancient soldiers were hesitant about killing, not because they didn't want to, but because you had to put yourself in a lot of harms way in a battle to kill someone else. eg. Run up to them and shove a spear, sword, whatever, through them. That left you open to them doing it back to you. Nowadays you can just jump up above cover and snap off a round towards someone who has no idea you're there. Totally different.
     
  13. LuciferBowels

    LuciferBowels New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    MMA fighters took styles from different parts of the world and combined then into what is the most effective style hand to hand. If a warrior from the Philippines that was a muay thai master fought a Fedor...fedor would win because he has more experience versus different styles. Fedor has faced muay thai, Brazilian jujitsu, boxing, kick boxing and he implements those styles into his own fighting. I would guess that ancient warriors were masters of one particular style.

    But ancient warriors also used weapons so hand to hand comparisons arent fair.
     
  14. Emfuser

    Emfuser Nuclear Moderator Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    83,903
    Likes Received:
    457
    Location:
    Irmo, SC
    That's a pretty brash and ignorant statement to make if you consider that these people literally grew up to be warriors.
     
  15. Oh come on. Most ancient warriors were conscripted, given a big, pointy stick, and sent off to die.
     
  16. Negative Ions

    Negative Ions New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Do you guys ever get tired of hanging from your MMA fighter's nutsacks?
     
  17. Compared to modern day battles, casualties in ancient battles were very light.

    Yes, there were the exceptions, but they were exceptions.
     
  18. hsugh knight

    hsugh knight Guest

    MMA is still relatively new. just remember 10 years ago when everyone was being schooled by Royce Gracie and his jiu-jitsu :hsugh:

    I'm just saying that knowledge can be lost along the way. just think, what's more conducive towards a 'combat' culture: Fat people living in industrialized countries who mostly work desk jobs and jack off to porn or WoW, or in ancient Greece where people treated athletics as a spiritual experience with their gods, where pankration was one of their most popular sports. :cool:
     
  19. TheProwler

    TheProwler Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    98,907
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    in limbo
    For the bulk of history, I doubt any of the ancient soldiers were nearly as good as most people seem to think. Sparta is different, because their entire culture was based on warfare (e.g., Spartans, what is your profession?). As for everyone else, their nutrition was rarely as good as now, they were more likely to have disabling diseases, incompletely healed broken bones, etc. I think the average height has significantly increased in the past 500 years as well, so we're bigger now as well.

    Current fighters have the benefit of thousands and thousands of highly trained fighters who have gone before them. I'm not student of the arts, but I have to imagine that the number of moves that are still being invented is on the decline. Only so many ways to hold a guy down, and if you learn all the ways to break those holds, you have an advantage.


    And I doubt most of those tales about the Mongolian archers. People in general may have been tougher in many regards, because they'd never had a nicely grilled steak or slept on a nice mattress, and they were used to people dying a lot more often, but I don't know about tougher in terms of hand-to-hand combat.
     
  20. But they were in historical novels!
     
  21. red

    red New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    87,095
    Likes Received:
    0
    :dunno:

    Everyone's a specialist. I'm sure Fedor would get schooled if you dressed him up in chainmail and gave him a sword.

    Strip 'em down and let 'em fight it out? I'd put money on the MMA guy.
     
  22. LuciferBowels

    LuciferBowels New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    good point...The average height has been going up and up throughout history because of nutrition. Secular growth trend. I think the average WWI soldier was around 5-6 of 5-7 and 150lbs. That is considered tiny by todays standards. I think the average civil war union soldier was 5-8 and around that same weight. I'm 5-10 and feel short, back then I would have been a big broly dude.
     
  23. mkashew

    mkashew New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ancient warriors should have spent more time with technique than marching 20 miles a day.

    I also don't think ancient warriors knew Brazilian jiu jitsu.
     
  24. LuciferBowels

    LuciferBowels New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    ahh, we agree for once.

    Also, I would assume that the "warriors" were only trained in one type of hand to hand combat while MMA fighters are versed in multiple styles.
     
  25. hsugh knight

    hsugh knight Guest

    height and size fluctuates throughout history and is usually a product of the wealth of the society. I saw on the History Channel that during the dark ages in medieval europe a lot of peasants literally lived like Third World people and lacked nutrition. Their lords on the other hand grew much bigger than them. I also saw this thing on national geographic where they said the largest wrestlers in the ancient olympic games were around 300 lbs. kinda like Karelin I guess.

    in the 18th century the Great Plains Indian was the tallest population in the world.

    In the 19th century the Dutch were the shortest in Europe. now they are the tallest.

    there's also armor at Edinburgh castle that would fit a 7 foot tall knight.
    again, knowledge can be lost especially when you don't need it to survive. just look at how we can't build the pyramids.
    :o
     

Share This Page