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

TheOgreMan

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

I imagine that the designers of the show are using the most idealized and well-known of the different warrior-classes. A pirate with his firearm, sword, hat, and compass vs. a knight with sword, shield (maybe), and plate armor. I suggest no vehicle because a ship > a horse any day.

I also don't think that full plate was in use into the 1800s; it really stopped during the late 1600s. Some generals wore it, but they were hardly knights and always risked getting shot with a gun. A breastplate was common but certainly not how you describe armor (the mounting with help ended pretty quickly as they, as you said, had no personal defense).
 

Johnny

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

So if pirates get to use guns, do knights get to use their horses? Idk, maybe bows, crossbows and guns should not be counted.
In the video the knight did use a horse and gave the pirate some serious trouble but then the pirate threw a gunpowder grenade which tossed the knight off the horse.



 

Dirty_Zulu

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

They're going to have a few weird match up:

Episode 5: Mafia vs Yakuza

Episode 6: Green Beret vs Spetsnaz

If a Knight gets a horse as one of his crucial tools, does the Mafia get to use the Tommy Gun? And the Green Beret gets to use an AR-15?
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

If a Knight gets a horse as one of his crucial tools, does the Mafia get to use the Tommy Gun? And the Green Beret gets to use an AR-15?
Right, stop that! It's silly. Very silly indeed. Started off as a nice little idea about old ladies attacking young men, but now it's just got silly. His hair's too long for a vicar too. And you can tell those are not proper keep left signs. Clear off, the lot of you! (points at screen) You, come with me.

Right! Now let's see something decent and military. Some precision drilling.





 

bladesyz

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

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.
Including the phalanx...

{Livy}
Umm... aren't you just confirming most of what I said? The Romans borrowed most of their military knowledge from the greeks, but improved upon the weaponry and tactics.

As for Sparta's strategic abilities, yes, I am putting it in historical context. Sparta was a tiny city-state that ultimately lost to a bunch of liberal-democrats. Their vaunted military society never even made it off their tiny peninsula. Meanwhile, far to the East, some guy named Sun Tzu was already writing a book about warfare, and the First Emperor was already sporting combined-arms armies, including crossbowmen and cavalry. This, all in about the same historical period, mind you.



 

Spinns

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

The samurai were notorious for having ****ty stee
Are you FREAKING kidding me? Japanese steel is some of the best steel in the world
 

TheOgreMan

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Are you FREAKING kidding me? Japanese steel is some of the best steel in the world
No. Japanese steel was great in its working, but not in quality. They had to fold the steel in order to get strength out of really impure stuff. While that was smart of them, their steel was really some of the worst in the world.



 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Umm... aren't you just confirming most of what I said? The Romans borrowed most of their military knowledge from the greeks, but improved upon the weaponry and tactics.
Over centuries, sure. But what I'm calling you out about was the Spartans not being professional in nature; they were the only Greeks that I recall as espousing a professional military - all the others were citizen-soldier types who kept their arms & armor but were strategically much more along the lines of the feudal military model.
No. Japanese steel was great in its working, but not in quality. They had to fold the steel in order to get strength out of really impure stuff. While that was smart of them, their steel was really some of the worst in the world.
Pretty sure I've heard this confirmed previous to this discussion.



 

BobCox2

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

All Steel is Iron and Carbon. Some Damascus made blades did come from trace ores that could make it Superior
but the techniques for its making died out around 1700 after the principal sources of special ores needed for its production were depleted.
Those sources contained trace amounts of tungsten and/or vanadium which other sources did not but other than that it's mostly all the same really.
The only difference is how much iron to carbon and how you work it.

For sword building the Japanese just used a better method, two of them really.
Sword makers could make steel very hard so that it would hold a sharp edge. However, making steel very hard also made it very brittle and often in battle a sword would be broken if hit just right against another sword or object. The sword makers knew how to make soft steel that would be less brittle and would not break in battle. However soft steel would not hold a sharp edge and it would quickly dull in battle and would not be able to cut through armor or hack of limbs and heads as a good sword was expected to do.

One way the Japanese sword makers solved the problem was to hammer together layers of steel of varying hardness welding them into a metal sandwich. This sandwich of metal layers was then reheated, folded back on itself and hammered out thin again. After this had been repeated about a dozen times, the steel consisted of thousands of paper-thin laminations of hard and soft metal. When it was ground to a sharp edge the hard metal stood out and resisted dulling, while the soft steel kept the sword from breaking.

But to produce their best blades, the swords that are sought after by collectors today, the Japanese sword makers used a much more intricate process. For the core, or interior, of the blade, they used a comparatively soft, laminated metal that would resist breaking. The blade's exterior and edge, however, were made of different grades of hard steel welded together in a sandwich that was folded and hammered out as many as 20 times or more, giving it more than a million laminations! This outer "skin" of steel could be made even harder by first heating the sword and then suddenly cooling it. As a final step the master swordsmith would cover the roughly finished blade with a thick layer of adhesive material, mostly clay, leaving only the edge exposed, and heat the blade until the glowing metal reached the right shade of color. The best way to judge this crucially delicate stage was to work in a darkened room. The exposed edge cooled instantly while the rest of the blade, protected by the clay, cooled slowly and remained comparatively soft. The final result was a sword blade of soft non-brittle metal enclosed in a thin layer of hard steel. About one fifth of an inch of its edge was made of metal so hard that it held a razor sharpness during repeated use in battle.
 
Last edited:

Johnny

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

Did anyone see that show where a guy replicated a Japanese sword in a modern workshop in a day and it had about 97% of the cutting strength unpolished as the traditionally crafted polished Japanese sword
 

Stoutwood

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Comparing modern metallurgy to that ancient Japanese stuff is ridiculous. A Japanese sword was a modest improvement over most techniques available at the time. Anyone who glorifies the Japanese sword has been watching too much anime.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Comparing modern metallurgy to that ancient Japanese stuff is ridiculous. A Japanese sword was a modest improvement over most techniques available at the time. Anyone who glorifies the Japanese sword has been watching too much anime.
What, you mean that 12' long nodachi shaped like giant butchers' cleavers <weren't> the weapon of choice for any self-respecting samurai? :coffee:



 

Galabab

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Western technology and tactics had a large range of sources of inspiration, history, different lands, trade, barbarians from everywhere.
The problem with far eastern technology and tactics however is that japan and even china for that matter were relativly isolated from the rest making them fall behind.

The shield alone is so significant it would deside 90% of the battles.
I would rather prefer to take a shield and a sharp stick into battle than one high quality katana.
 

Johnny

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

Although the Japanese swords did cut cloth and flesh well, are there any records of how well it worked against armour?

How was the quality of the samurai armour and their composition?


As I understand it the crusader swords where far superior when it came to striking against armour and metals as long as the sword didn't strike with the side.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

The problem with far eastern technology and tactics however is that japan and even china for that matter were relativly isolated from the rest making them fall behind.
Too broad a brush, IMO. Japanese, I'd grant - but there were also many cultural issues at play rather than purely technological ones. The adaptation of the musket by Japan is a topic all on its own; they had a much greater cultural problem regarding the concept of a musket in the hands of a peasant being able to kill a samurai than Europeans had with the same issue (regarding crossbows).

Likewise, the Samurai <did> have shields, but since such protection was regarded as cowardly, about the only variety that saw employment outside of sieges was some weird fan-like arrangement that would deflect arrows coming from the flank or rear.
Although the Japanese swords did cut cloth and flesh well, are there any records of how well it worked against armour?

How was the quality of the samurai armour and their composition?
This site seems to provide a pretty good overview. There was a lot of wood and leather involved; it was nowhere near as sturdy as plate armor. Also, I recall the part about the silk making it too heavy to use when wet from several sources.

Here's the episode that will probably never be produced: samurai vs. knight.



 

Johnny

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

I'm surprised the japanese managed to suppress firearms as long as they did. Isolation must have been key though because in some western countries such "honor codes" where attempted when it came to the crossbow. The idea that a noble blooded knight spending his whole life training could be brought down by a commoner with a crossbow was considered repulsive (the longbow was a different matter because the upper body strength and skill required to use one required a near life time of training aswell) but what did that help when you faced a vast enemy force all weilding crossbows and making pin cucions of your precious knights. Evolution forces change.

Maybe some of the westerners trying to sell guns to the Japanese should have contacted smaller warlords interested in increasing their power instead and sold them gund. Then be prepared to sell to the bigger warlords when they start to feel the heat.
 

Galabab

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

@Johny:
sorry a little OT.
I watched that link in your signature and wantet to tell you in germany there are those chocolate-coated marshmallow treats called "negerküsse" which means n***** kisses :D
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Spike TV's analysis of The Deadliest Warriors: do you agree?

Maybe some of the westerners trying to sell guns to the Japanese should have contacted smaller warlords interested in increasing their power instead and sold them gund. Then be prepared to sell to the bigger warlords when they start to feel the heat.
And that, of course, is the sort of thing that happened. The Dutch, in particular, wanted to play that game - and IIRC there was a brutal suppression (of European interests) because of the concerns regarding European combat power. {EDIT - Yes, I know I'm oversimplifying drastically} That Tom Cruise crap took a poor snapshot of some serious issues occurring at a much later date, not the least of which was the emergence of the merchant class and the weakening of the samurai/feudal lord model.
I watched that link in your signature and wantet to tell you in germany there are those chocolate-coated marshmallow treats called "negerküsse" which means n***** kisses :D
Dickmanns rock!



 
Last edited:
Top