William Wallace VS. Maximus

confused.gif
 
Totally different stories, totally different backgrounds, but I believe they would probably have teamed up. Sorry Shankman.
 
Lets see, they both wore skirts, and ... (what's the question again?)
 
Hey, they both made it chic to accessorize with dirt...

Just in the spirit of the post, though, while the characters were pretty evenly matched, bada$$-wise, Russell Crowe is WAY cooler than Mel. Sorry...it's just that he's got that very "Average Joe" coolness that isn't quite so conscious of self. That, and if you ever watched The Quick and the Dead (terrible movie, except for Russell Crowe and the fact that Leonardo di Caprio gets gutshot and dies slowly, crying like a wench...), you gotta admit, the man has style!

So, I'd have to give it to Maximus...nominally.


------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with ketchup...
 
Originally posted by Kalindras:
if you ever watched The Quick and the Dead (terrible movie, except for Russell Crowe and the fact that Leonardo di Caprio gets gutshot and dies slowly, crying like a wench...)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I liked that part too, kinda the same when I saw Van Damme get his A$$ kicked by some Brandon Lee look a like....Good ending to a stupid movie.
tongue.gif


But my vote goes for William Wallace(and not Mel Gibson) who for all intents and purposes was an actual historical figure.
 
If the two were to fight in one on one combat, Wallace would win. He had an advantage in reach, the real Wallace was probably 6'3", based on his swords length, and he used a claigh mor.

Besides that, Wallace could just have a freind play the bag pipes and Maximus would have his hands over his ear to much to fight, especialy if the piper was bad
smile.gif


------------------
Joshua, aka Feneris,'Destroyer of Whisky' of the Terrible Ironic Horde
But doom'd and devoted by vassal and lord.
MacGregor has still both his heart and his sword!
-MacGregor's Gathering, Sir Walter Scott
 
From the movies, I would go with Maximus, since he appears to have a lot more experience. Plus I like his style a lot more. And he sharpened his sword so it could cut and not just be a huge club like Mel's. But Braveheart had more women.

Why not just lump the Patriot, Gladiator, and Braveheart together as three of the greatest movies of all time and leave it at that.

------------------
"I am not, really."
 
William Wallace....gotta go with the Scottish Redneck/Hero on this one!

Best Regards,

William Wallace Fennell IV
 
Wallace has the advantage of size and strength, though it seems Maximumus was the greatest Roman gladiator of all time - killing many people at the same time with little effort..

But Wallace cuts people "like Moses and the red sea.." so who knows?

I wouldn't mind fighting along each one of them.
 
id give it to maximus. did anyone see wht way he used 2 swords in the gladiator pit?
the scotsman's weapon may have been bigger but he was probably untrained, or atleast not as trained as a roman officer who carved his way up the ranks like maximus.

my money is on the death-dealer of the pheonix regiment, maximus!
 
Hmm... better trained? As far as I know, Wallace killed many an Englishman, and who knows who else. So I doubt that. But, one on one, I'd have to give it to Wallace!!!! Maximus would try to close in with his gladius while wallace was swinging away with his GIANT claymore. IF maximus got inside the claymore, Wallace would pull out his 17" dirk and have at Maximus. Plus there is the matter of that little Skein dubh tucked away.... Yep, Wallace was a knife nut, so i'd give it to him. Maximus was cleaner and them Romans were snappy dressers, but the Celts did have Rome at her knees once upon a time, and a few centuries later the Romans built a wall to keep the Scots OUT of their empire!! Wallace all the way!

------------------
"Come What May..."
 
Wallace is the man. And I dont say this just because of the whole heritage thing, but rather because of reach of the sword, and the man. Plus Wallace may have not escaped his execution, but he went out like a true clansman. Anyway Maximus was a bad ass but lets face it he was fighting with an iron pigsticker compared to a Claymore. Wallace was trained in the use of the sword as well, along with speaking French, Latin and Italian (that wasnt a movie enhancement).

------------------
SSgt Christopher Wardlow
USAF Security Forces
425th ABS Izmir Turkey
 
Wallace would have had two big advantages:

1) The 6" steel spike sticking out the middle of his shield and...

2) The one or two 17" dirks he'd have strapped to the inside of that shield. One of which may have been used in-hand as a paired weapon to the sword in the strong hand.

Both would have had a smaller backup knife.

Wallace probably did NOT use the "big Claymore", the monster two-handed piece shown in the film used with no shield. There was a smaller "Claymore" that was one-handed, single edge and somewhat heavy...see also the movie Rob Roy for extensive scenes featuring this type. The later "Naval Cutlasses" of the late 19th century were fairly similar, at least functionally.

The Scots had a very unusual tradition of "every man armed and a warrior". THAT was why the Romans had to build a wall clear across the top of England to keep the Highlanders out.

Then again...I'm biased. I'm 1/4th Clan MacIver, at least 60% genetically Celtic...
smile.gif


Jim
 
Jim,
From what I understand the baskethilted claymore is a fairly recent invention. Here is a page written by a historian from the Isle of Skye, it has a picture of a stained glass windo that represents Wallace, it clearly shows him carrying the full size claymore members.aol.com/Skyewrites/falkirk1.html
If you,ve got some time, explore the rest of the site. It's worth the time.

------------------
Joshua, aka Feneris,'Destroyer of Whisky' of the Terrible Ironic Horde
But doom'd and devoted by vassal and lord.
MacGregor has still both his heart and his sword!
-MacGregor's Gathering, Sir Walter Scott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top