History Headscratchers / DeadliestWarrior

18th Jun '17 10:48:15 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Horses and the arquebus(or tempo, by it's Japanese name) were common things that the Samurai used, and your whole argument is "that doesn't count". But for the sake of argument, let's say the Samurai got into his armor, grabbed his spear and bow, but not an arquebus for whatever reason and left his horse because he just felt like going for a walk with all of that stuff that day. The Samurai would still defeat the Spartan he came across. I've listed my reasons why, if you looked into Sojutsu you'd know that there are several ways to get around the Spartan's defense. The stuff I'm telling you here isn't obscure, it's right there on ThatOtherWiki if you want. Or if you're a huge wikipedia naysayer there's a book I can recommend "Weapons and Fighting Techniques of the Samurai Warrior" by Thomas D. Conlan. I will gladly give you one point though "this show's focus was never meticulous historical accuracy", you're right, it wasn't. This is one of the least accurate shows on television. Scroll down a little, look at what people have already said and try to find a retort for all of it. This show isn't about historical accuracy, if it was it wouldn't be on Spike. But without historical accuracy, these aren't warriors they're portraying but loose characitures thereof. And given the overall accuracy of this show, the Spartan portrayl is likely about as accurate as the Samurai one, i.e. ''not''. Your point about "this is the Deadliest Warrior", no, they've only ever paid mind to the weapons not the warriors themselves, and the use of the horse and arquebus makes the Samurai more deadly in a one on one fight, that's just the way it is. Anyway, this has gone on for a lot longer than it needed to, if you have anything further to say it would be in both our best interest for you to PM me instead.

to:

*** Horses and the arquebus(or tempo, by it's Japanese name) were common things that the Samurai used, and your whole argument is "that doesn't count". But for the sake of argument, let's say the Samurai got into his armor, grabbed his spear and bow, but not an arquebus for whatever reason and left his horse because he just felt like going for a walk with all of that stuff that day. The Samurai would still defeat the Spartan he came across. I've listed my reasons why, if you looked into Sojutsu you'd know that there are several ways to get around the Spartan's defense. The stuff I'm telling you here isn't obscure, it's right there on ThatOtherWiki Wiki/ThatOtherWiki if you want. Or if you're a huge wikipedia naysayer there's a book I can recommend "Weapons and Fighting Techniques of the Samurai Warrior" by Thomas D. Conlan. I will gladly give you one point though "this show's focus was never meticulous historical accuracy", you're right, it wasn't. This is one of the least accurate shows on television. Scroll down a little, look at what people have already said and try to find a retort for all of it. This show isn't about historical accuracy, if it was it wouldn't be on Spike. But without historical accuracy, these aren't warriors they're portraying but loose characitures thereof. And given the overall accuracy of this show, the Spartan portrayl is likely about as accurate as the Samurai one, i.e. ''not''. Your point about "this is the Deadliest Warrior", no, they've only ever paid mind to the weapons not the warriors themselves, and the use of the horse and arquebus makes the Samurai more deadly in a one on one fight, that's just the way it is. Anyway, this has gone on for a lot longer than it needed to, if you have anything further to say it would be in both our best interest for you to PM me instead.
9th Apr '17 8:25:57 PM OctoberRaven
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:


* Less test, more result but... it seemed like the simulator favored bladed weapons over bludgeons. The most glaring example of this was Celts vs Persians; the Celt burda club, which cracked skulls every single swing, scored single digit kills, while the Chariot scythe, that was shown as a weapon that couldn't deliver lethal trauma even -when- it hits, somehow racks up a triple digit killcount. Just... how?
21st Mar '17 6:14:24 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** My first thought was...''NightAtTheMuseum''.

to:

** My first thought was...''NightAtTheMuseum''.''Film/NightAtTheMuseum''.
10th Nov '16 10:12:28 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The Vikings in episode 2 were viewed as raiders who fought for quick booty, but in reality they were just likely to be soldiers who fought for the control of the entire country, or served as a bodyguard to a chief or an emperor. Their main chose of short range weapon wasn't just an axe, it was also a sword. As long range weapons they didn't just use spears, they were just as likely to use bows with penetrating arrows, or even rocks thrown with deadly force. Their skills were underestimated, since they trained at fighting at least once every day, usually with experienced Vikings as teachers. They didn't just fight for a chance to go to Valhalla when they died, many Vikings were Christians and they were still just as BadAss.

to:

* The Vikings in episode 2 were viewed as raiders who fought for quick booty, but in reality they were just likely to be soldiers who fought for the control of the entire country, or served as a bodyguard to a chief or an emperor. Their main chose of short range weapon wasn't just an axe, it was also a sword. As long range weapons they didn't just use spears, they were just as likely to use bows with penetrating arrows, or even rocks thrown with deadly force. Their skills were underestimated, since they trained at fighting at least once every day, usually with experienced Vikings as teachers. They didn't just fight for a chance to go to Valhalla when they died, many Vikings were Christians and they were still just as BadAss.badass.
17th Aug '16 7:37:43 PM Ferot_Dreadnaught
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Or maybe TheyJustDidntCare and wanted to show a sword fight like any other swrod fight on the show: the two warriows bash their swords together until one person hits the other.

to:

** Or maybe TheyJustDidntCare and they wanted to show a sword fight like any other swrod fight on the show: the two warriows bash their swords together until one person hits the other.
8th Aug '16 2:08:41 AM StormKensho
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Dominated is a bit strong of a word. It was closer to a stalemate, as the samurai fighting against the Mongols the second time used a coastal wall and mixed-unit tactics of samurai leading small units of ashigaru footmen to skirmish with the Mongolian landers, who were unable to bring their devastating cavalry to bear as a result. The Battle of Takashima Bay, which was the last battle before the second kamikaze storm sank the Yuan fleet, ended with a Mongolian victory and with them establishing a foothold on the beaches of Kyushu, meaning the samurai would have to fight them in force. That said, even if the Mongols had been able to take Kyushu, it would have been an uphill battle for them to take Honshu and the rest of the Japanese islands. And considering that civil unrest set in for the Mongolian Empire shortly afterward, it's very doubtful that the Mongols would have been able to conquer all of Japan before having to pull back and leave Japan to its own devices.
19th Jun '16 8:24:58 PM Temporary14
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** Season 3's superior testing may have provided an answer to this admittedly long-winded argument: An armor comparison between Chingiz(Genghis) Khan and Hannibal Barca showed Hannibal's armor to flat-out fail..two things to keep in mind: 1. Chingiz's armor and weaponry are roughly in the same league as the Samurai, but probably inferior, and 2. Hannibal was the leading statesman and general in Carthage, a state which had wealth and resources that Sparta couldn't ''begin to dream about''. So at the very least, his armor will equal that of the Spartan's, and will probably exceed it in quality. So, the comparison is valid. As far as the horse goes...it's a fair question. In this troper's opinion, the show needs to strike a fair balance between a fair fight and historical reality; if we are going to ask "who can beat who", then we need to acknowledge that some warriors will have advantages that others will not..in some ways, the above statement shaped the world we live in.
*** Hannibal's armor did ''not'' "flat-out fail." His bronze chest-plate stopped a thrust from reaching deep enough to injure him, and the statistics for the fight showed that it was only penetrated 4.22% of the time. That is, it failed one time out of every twenty-three or twenty-four strikes to the armor. The only part of his armor that had a significant rate of failure was his helmet, which was not the same helmet that the Spartan used and was made of brass instead of bronze. The Samurai's naginata, being a cutting and piercing weapon, would not have the sheer force behind it to break through solid metal armor, even primitive varieties like the Spartan's or Hannibal's, and would probably achieve a similar result as the Turko-Mongol Saber.
*** Again, wrong. For one, they never attempted to pierce the Spartan chestplate with the naginata during the re-test. Naginata were perfectly fine for thrusting like a spear, and steel is three times as strong as bronze, bar none. The fact that the steel-age samurai lost to the bronze-age Spartan is ridiculous at best and downright comical at worst. The fact that the Spartan's sword didn't immediately break on contact with the samurai katana shows DW's commitment to "accuracy." Even with the shield, the Spartan's inferior armor would have done him in immediately.
*** You're still stuck on the misconception that steel being stronger means that it will automatically cut through bronze like it's made of butter. Bladed weapons do not pierce armor well, armor was made for the express purpose of keeping them out. Having a sword/naginata made out of a stronger material will not change the fact that you're trying to pierce or cut through solid metal. You could dent it, pierce a tiny distance in, and chip a weaker sword, but the battle will be over before you could cherry tap the bronze to failing point. Again, look at the Turko-Mongol saber's effect on Hannibal's bronze breastplate. What are you arguing, that they used a cheap replica instead of a real steel sword, since it didn't match your perception of steel going cleanly through any bronze in its path?
*** It's not a "misconception" at all. There's a reason that bronze was dropped in favor of iron-forged weapons as soon as ironworking techniques were developed. And it was because steel was a far superior metal that could destroy bronze weapons and armor without much effort.
*** More misconceptions and exaggerations. Bronze armor continued to be forged and used for centuries after the iron age began (which was when the Spartan actually lived and wore bronze armor), and was in fact stronger than early ferrous metals. It was iron's comparative cheapness that allowed it to replace bronze, not quality. As for steel, no one here argued that bronze was as strong as steel or that it wouldn't fail first in an endurance test, but saying that steel weapons would destroy bronze without much effort is absurd. Look at the Hannibal vs. Genghis test: all of Hannibal's bronze armor held strong, with only his brass helmet failing by any significant margin, and Genghis's steel weapons certainly didn't destroy his armor with ease. Look at [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjMtzJ6xgQ&list=PLzSWL0AFS86IU7ducPes3lkhEkVBe8Qol this video]]. Even after repeated strikes from a sword made of modern steel--much stronger than medieval steel from an infamously iron-poor region--all it left was a few nicks on the bronze blade that didn't even stop it from cutting effectively, ''that's all.'' The blade wouldn't have been halfway sheared even if the nicks had gone four times as deep. So yeah, steel is stronger than bronze and much more durable, but the bronze would never wear out fast enough for it to have a serious effect on a one-on-one fight, and certainly not for the Spartan's armor and weapons to shatter on contact. Go ahead and complain about reality not matching your fantasies all you want, but every piece of evidence repeatedly proves that the strength difference between bronze and steel is not nearly as large as you're making it out to be and it's entirely possible for a warrior in bronze to defeat one in steel if the circumstances are right.



** I'm didn't say that blog was 100% accurate and the Word of Truth, just that it was a good place to start. There were a lot of issues that were very real, like how the grenado was even going to be used in a one-on-one fight at all, how the crossbow would have likely eliminated the pirate before he got close enough to fire any of his weapons, and the overwhelming advantage of the knight in close-quarters combat due to his armor.

to:

** I'm didn't say that blog was 100% accurate and the Word of Truth, just that it was a good place to start. There were a lot of issues that were very real, like how the grenado was even going to be used in a one-on-one fight at all, how the crossbow would have likely eliminated the pirate before he got close enough to fire any of his weapons, and the overwhelming advantage of the knight in close-quarters combat due to his armor.
19th Jun '16 7:10:36 PM Temporary14
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Season 3's superior testing may have provided an answer to this admittedly long-winded argument: An armor comparison between Chingiz(Genghis) Khan and Hannibal Barca showed Hannibal's armor to flat-out fail..two things to keep in mind: 1. Chingiz's armor and weaponry are roughly in the same league as the Samurai, but probably inferior, and 2. Hannibal was the leading statesman and general in Carthage, a state which had wealth and resources that Sparta couldn't ''begin to dream about''. So at the very least, his armor will equal that of the Spartan's, and will probably exceed it in quality. So, the comparison is valid. As far as the horse goes...it's a fair question. In this troper's opinion, the show needs to strike a fair balance between a fair fight and historical reality; if we are going to ask "who can beat who", then we need to acknowledge that some warriors will have advantages that others will not..in some ways, the above statement shaped the world we live in.
*** Hannibal's armor did ''not'' "flat-out fail." His bronze chest-plate stopped a thrust from reaching deep enough to injure him, and the statistics for the fight showed that it was only penetrated 4.22% of the time. That is, it failed one time out of every twenty-three or twenty-four strikes to the armor. The only part of his armor that had a significant rate of failure was his helmet, which was not the same helmet that the Spartan used and was made of brass instead of bronze. The Samurai's naginata, being a cutting and piercing weapon, would not have the sheer force behind it to break through solid metal armor, even primitive varieties like the Spartan's or Hannibal's, and would probably achieve a similar result as the Turko-Mongol Saber.
*** Again, wrong. For one, they never attempted to pierce the Spartan chestplate with the naginata during the re-test. Naginata were perfectly fine for thrusting like a spear, and steel is three times as strong as bronze, bar none. The fact that the steel-age samurai lost to the bronze-age Spartan is ridiculous at best and downright comical at worst. The fact that the Spartan's sword didn't immediately break on contact with the samurai katana shows DW's commitment to "accuracy." Even with the shield, the Spartan's inferior armor would have done him in immediately.
*** You're still stuck on the misconception that steel being stronger means that it will automatically cut through bronze like it's made of butter. Bladed weapons do not pierce armor well, armor was made for the express purpose of keeping them out. Having a sword/naginata made out of a stronger material will not change the fact that you're trying to pierce or cut through solid metal. You could dent it, pierce a tiny distance in, and chip a weaker sword, but the battle will be over before you could cherry tap the bronze to failing point. Again, look at the Turko-Mongol saber's effect on Hannibal's bronze breastplate. What are you arguing, that they used a cheap replica instead of a real steel sword, since it didn't match your perception of steel going cleanly through any bronze in its path?
*** It's not a "misconception" at all. There's a reason that bronze was dropped in favor of iron-forged weapons as soon as ironworking techniques were developed. And it was because steel was a far superior metal that could destroy bronze weapons and armor without much effort.

to:

*** Season 3's superior testing may have provided an answer to this admittedly long-winded argument: An armor comparison between Chingiz(Genghis) Khan and Hannibal Barca showed Hannibal's armor to flat-out fail..two things to keep in mind: 1. Chingiz's armor and weaponry are roughly in the same league as the Samurai, but probably inferior, and 2. Hannibal was the leading statesman and general in Carthage, a state which had wealth and resources that Sparta couldn't ''begin to dream about''. So at the very least, his armor will equal that of the Spartan's, and will probably exceed it in quality. So, the comparison is valid. As far as the horse goes...it's a fair question. In this troper's opinion, the show needs to strike a fair balance between a fair fight and historical reality; if we are going to ask "who can beat who", then we need to acknowledge that some warriors will have advantages that others will not..in some ways, the above statement shaped the world we live in.
*** Hannibal's armor did ''not'' "flat-out fail." His bronze chest-plate stopped a thrust from reaching deep enough to injure him, and the statistics for the fight showed that it was only penetrated 4.22% of the time. That is, it failed one time out of every twenty-three or twenty-four strikes to the armor. The only part of his armor that had a significant rate of failure was his helmet, which was not the same helmet that the Spartan used and was made of brass instead of bronze. The Samurai's naginata, being a cutting and piercing weapon, would not have the sheer force behind it to break through solid metal armor, even primitive varieties like the Spartan's or Hannibal's, and would probably achieve a similar result as the Turko-Mongol Saber.
*** Again, wrong. For one, they never attempted to pierce the Spartan chestplate with the naginata during the re-test. Naginata were perfectly fine for thrusting like a spear, and steel is three times as strong as bronze, bar none. The fact that the steel-age samurai lost to the bronze-age Spartan is ridiculous at best and downright comical at worst. The fact that the Spartan's sword didn't immediately break on contact with the samurai katana shows DW's commitment to "accuracy." Even with the shield, the Spartan's inferior armor would have done him in immediately.
*** You're still stuck on the misconception that steel being stronger means that it will automatically cut through bronze like it's made of butter. Bladed weapons do not pierce armor well, armor was made for the express purpose of keeping them out. Having a sword/naginata made out of a stronger material will not change the fact that you're trying to pierce or cut through solid metal. You could dent it, pierce a tiny distance in, and chip a weaker sword, but the battle will be over before you could cherry tap the bronze to failing point. Again, look at the Turko-Mongol saber's effect on Hannibal's bronze breastplate. What are you arguing, that they used a cheap replica instead of a real steel sword, since it didn't match your perception of steel going cleanly through any bronze in its path?
*** It's not a "misconception" at all. There's a reason that bronze was dropped in favor of iron-forged weapons as soon as ironworking techniques were developed. And it was because steel was a far superior metal that could destroy bronze weapons and armor without much effort.
9th Mar '16 4:19:25 PM Doug86
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* AlexanderTheGreat vs. AttilaTheHun. Dear ''God''...

to:

* AlexanderTheGreat UsefulNotes/AlexanderTheGreat vs. AttilaTheHun.UsefulNotes/AttilaTheHun. Dear ''God''...
29th Feb '16 11:34:27 AM Movienut376
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**Which is fine if you have a voice that isn't instantly recognizable, but come on...anyone who had seen 300 had Wenham pegged from the first episode.
This list shows the last 10 events of 347. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.DeadliestWarrior