Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree? der=0

[Dirty_Zulu]

Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Apache vs Gladiator -- winner Apache
Samurai vs Viking -- winner Samurai
Ninja vs Spartan -- winner Spartan
Pirate vs Knight -- TBD

I agree with Samurai and Spartan as the deadlier of the match up. But Apache? He's just a hunter with a tomahawk running around with a loin cloth. A Gladiator using nets and tridents who just trains in a yard all day should beat an Apache easily.

 

[Amra]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

I haven't seen it. Were they fighting in an arena or out in the wilderness?

 

[Dirty_Zulu]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

In the wilderness for the previous match ups.

I haven't seen the Pirate vs Knight. It's too weird to put the Pirate on land fighting out of his comfort zone.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Have you seen this BS? Did that ninja use vanish?

 

[bladesyz]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Have you seen this BS? Did that ninja use vanish?

rofl, that's a retarded video. If a ninja met a Spartan in the wilderness, he'd just stay out of the Spartan's sight and reach and stalk him until the poor greek falls exhausted, and the ninja finishes him off with a poison dart from the blowgun.

Heavy armor and large shields are nigh useless outside of direct melee clashes. That's why societies with a civilian martial history don't use them.

 

[stillman]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Zulu, sounds interesting; is there a link for more details or just TV show?

From what I've read, the outcome of battles in history eventually came down to which side had the best armor. Armor determined the victor. Of cousre, this was for large scale warfare (armies and such), not one-on-one. I think you would obviously need a lot of subjects to really find an answer. Like, 100 samurai and 100 vikings and have them fight one on one and record the results. But if you're going to have that many subjects, why would they fight one on one instead of army vs army?

What I'm saying is: the results of the show would not matter. What matters is which army wins. And the winner will be the army with the most advanced armor for the time. So imo: Knights (from 1700-1800's) would win over all other adversaries.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

rofl, that's a retarded video.

Moreover, it's a retarded show - but it's still fun to watch, if for the weaponry alone (watching Chuck Liddell use the scissor on the side of beef was fab).

The proposition is basically heavy infantry types versus light infantry types in a stand-up brawl. This way, the primary strengths of both are frequently tossed out the window: with the Spartan, knight, and samurai there is no massed force, and with the Apache and Ninja there is no stealth.

But just as the Apache was identified as basically a hunter, the Ninja was basically a peasant or ronin with some neat tricks. The hyperbole regarding their capabilities (particularly the modern ninjutsu "experts" :crazyeyes: ) stems from shows like the Shogun miniseries bringing them back into the public eye.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Garbage in Garbage out - thats what I think of this, some are one on one type fighters, some are meant for massed battles, etc etc, the factors here are semi scientific and the analysis is garbage.
It's crap.

 

[bladesyz]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Zulu, sounds interesting; is there a link for more details or just TV show?

From what I've read, the outcome of battles in history eventually came down to which side had the best armor. Armor determined the victor. Of cousre, this was for large scale warfare (armies and such), not one-on-one. I think you would obviously need a lot of subjects to really find an answer. Like, 100 samurai and 100 vikings and have them fight one on one and record the results. But if you're going to have that many subjects, why would they fight one on one instead of army vs army?

What I'm saying is: the results of the show would not matter. What matters is which army wins. And the winner will be the army with the most advanced armor for the time. So imo: Knights (from 1700-1800's) would win over all other adversaries.

Umm... you haven't heard about the Mongols, have you? FYI, they whupped European Knights asses.

No, in medieval warfare, the army with the best discipline, training, and leader won, not the ones with the heavier armor.

Saladin destroyed an army of crusaders, and the Turks had mostly light cavalry. Light and heavy infantry/cavalry each have their own uses. Victory goes to the ones who can best make use of their resources.

Furthermore, military warfare is an entirely different matter from personal fights. In battles of 10,000 soldiers or more, personal combat prowess is often the least determinant factor.

 

[pancakeman]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

I think someone already said it, but you can't have a Spartan fight a Ninja in the wilderness! Spartan warriors were definitely amazing fighters, but the true strength of Sparta's army was in having thousands of soldiers who are all good at fighting. So without a phalanx, the Spartan would be next to useless.
Conversely, the ninja's strength was in his stealth, so if the Spartan knows he is coming, or if the wilderness in question doesn't have many trees, or whatever, the ninja would lose his big advantage.

Now, in that matchup, the Spartan would win, because of his weapons and the fact that he has no concept of "give up".


Seems like a stupid show, you can't compare Pirates and Knights. It doesn't work, I tried it on Empire Earth. The Pirates glitched and the Knights f***ed them up bad.

 

[nicro tower]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

My pirates have machine guns and speedboats.
Hope they realize pirates are modern now.

 

[bladesyz]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

I think someone already said it, but you can't have a Spartan fight a Ninja in the wilderness! Spartan warriors were definitely amazing fighters, but the true strength of Sparta's army was in having thousands of soldiers who are all good at fighting. So without a phalanx, the Spartan would be next to useless.
Conversely, the ninja's strength was in his stealth, so if the Spartan knows he is coming, or if the wilderness in question doesn't have many trees, or whatever, the ninja would lose his big advantage.

Now, in that matchup, the Spartan would win, because of his weapons and the fact that he has no concept of "give up".


Seems like a stupid show, you can't compare Pirates and Knights. It doesn't work, I tried it on Empire Earth. The Pirates glitched and the Knights f***ed them up bad.

Spartans are so overrated. Bronze shortswords and cuirass? Oh please! A longbow or a crossbow would punch through a Spartan armor long before the Spartan got within javelin range. 1000 man phalanx? Just a bigger target for the longbow archers or crossbowmen. A hundred medieval knights in heavy armor, or Mongol horse archers would slaughter those 1000 Spartans with ease.

Spartans might've been impressive bronze age warriors, but they were just that: Bronze Age warriors. They were not professional soldiers. They might've been disciplined and didn't fear death, but their knowledge of tactics and strategy was dubious at best. Greek phalanxes got their asses handed to them by Roman Legionnaires, even though the Romans borrowed most of their weapons and armor from the Greeks.

A Spartan fighting a Ninja or a Samurai one on one would still get his *** handed to him. The Spartan has no hope of even getting within melee range of the Ninja, or even see him for that matter. The Samurai would be armored in steel laminated armor, and wielding a steel tempered katana, both of which owns the Spartan's short spear and bronze cuirass.

 

[bladesyz]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Oh, and the only way an Apache could win against a Gladiator would be if that Apache was an attack helicopter.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

I like the part where the samurai shots arrows through the eyes of the target dummy, a fixed target from a short range and then winns the ranegd category for instant kill hits.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Spartans might've been impressive bronze age warriors, but they were just that: Bronze Age warriors. They were not professional soldiers. They might've been disciplined and didn't fear death, but their knowledge of tactics and strategy was dubious at best.

Gotta disagree here - Spartans <were> a professional army, by contemporary lights. Didn't you watch "300", with the scene where Leonidas asks about professions? Spartan society was statist, and geared towards military service unlike those of other Greek nation-states. Additionally, tactics and strategy <were> important to Spartan society, but you have to place the techniques in the historical context.

Greek phalanxes got their asses handed to them by Roman Legionnaires, even though the Romans borrowed most of their weapons and armor from the Greeks.

Including the phalanx...

"(The Macedonians) were armed with round shields and long spears, the Romans had the large shield called the scutum, a better protection for the body, and the javelin, a much more effective weapon than the spear whether for hurling or thrusting. In both armies the soldiers fought in line rank by rank, but the Macedonian phalanx lacked mobility and formed a single unit; the Roman army was more elastic, made up of numerous divisions, which could easily act separately or in combination as required."

{Livy}

 

[TheOgreMan]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

First off the pirates versus knights: pirates win, hands down. The pirates I'm sure they are referring to are the commonly thought of pirates. They have guns. An armored knight has nothing against a gun; firearms are one of the main reasons that plated armor fell out of use. A bullet easily penetrates the armor, then bounces around inside and causes lots of damage. Easy victory for the pirates on land. At sea it's easier: cannonade.

Spartan vs. ninja: I'd give it to the Spartan. They might be (slightly) overrated largely because of 300 but they were still skilled fighters. They weren't just "warriors"; Spartan generals were highly advanced with tactics, battlefield positioning, and fighting techniques. Ninjas had very few weapons that would be able to really get past a Spartan's defenses, the crossbow being the main one. But crossbows take a while to reload and if they missed or didn't manage to severely wound the Spartan then the ninja is pretty much gone. That, and the fact that ninjas are FAR more overrated than Spartans. Honestly any japanese warrior (including samurai) are overrated by weeaboos.

I don't know much about Apaches but I find it hard to believe they would win against a good gladiator. The good ones were very skilled at killing and surviving; the regular ones...well, it would be a decent fight.

I'd go with vikings over samurai, but that may be bias. The samurai were notorious for having ****ty steel and the superior nutrition of the vikings give them health benefits a japanese warrior wouldn't have.

 

[Dirty_Zulu]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

There should have been two categories of analysis: single combat and army.

The armies that have generally did well in history have tactics and artillery on their side. Those are Spartans, Romans, Mongols, etc...

The first battle scene in Gladiator is an example of a great tactic. Weaken the enemy first with the long range artillery, then long bow. Push forward with the phalanx and footmen. When the enemy scatters, outflank them with the cavalry.

In a one on one combat, the Roman soldier who relies fighting within an army would lose against the Samurai or the Spartan.

My pirates have machine guns and speedboats.
Hope they realize pirates are modern now.

Now we have the US Navy seal sharp shooters.

Navy Seal Sniper > 19 year old skinny Somali with an AK.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

firearms are one of the main reasons that plated armor fell out of use.

They actually do a test in the video and the pirate age pistol could not penetrate the plate armour.

 

[TheOgreMan]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Pirates didn't only use pistols.

 

[stillman]

Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Ogreman, not sure if it's Ok to bring gunpowder into the already complex mix. If weaponry is alowed to go to that etreme, then I take it the knights can do likewise. IIRC, in the 1800's with the invention and use of gunpowder, knights' armor became so heavy it could actually stop musket balls. The knights had to be lifted onto their horses with a crane and if they were dismounted, anyone could just go over with a stelleto and kill the knight because the armor was so heavy he could not even sit up!

So if pirates get to use guns, do knights get to use their horses? Idk, maybe bows, crossbows and guns should not be counted.