History Headscratchers / DeadliestWarrior

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.
4th Feb '16 2:31:25 PM StormKensho
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** 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.
4th Feb '16 7:44:57 AM StormKensho
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** A quick Google search of the word "saud technique" doesn't reveal anything of substance regarding steelwork, so I'll have to call shenanigans on that. Meanwhile, the technique of folding the blade over multiple times over to remove impurities and forge a steel comparable to European steel has been proven to be effective by modern research. The only steel that one could consider objectively better is ''Damascus'' steel, which makes sense considering that modern examinations of Damascus steel revealed ''carbon nanotubes'' in their makeup.
18th Dec '15 7:10:04 PM CockroachCharlie
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** While I can't argue the statement about how many owned a sword (it really depended on a crews success rate), it is true that most likely did not know how to use them PROPERLY. However, a cutless really wasn't a finesse weapon in the hands of a pirate. Mostly it was a case of hacking blows at whatever non-friendly was nearby (above decks at least, below they would switch to boarding axes, my own weapon of choice). So the results were fairly accurate in this matchup with the cutlass. It would have gotten few kills, but there is the chance of a lucky blow to the right section.
18th Dec '15 7:00:41 PM CockroachCharlie
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** I own a blunderbuss and have fired it on many occasions. Never once have I had it explode in my hands. Nor has anybody else I know that uses one. They weren't nearly as volatile as you make them out to be (nor as misfire prone as the blog claims).
18th Dec '15 1:36:21 PM CockroachCharlie
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

***To be fair. In the earlier season they were trying to pair up unlikely and mismatched opponents. It wasn't until later in the show that they really started getting characters who were more alike as a common thing.
14th Dec '15 1:54:42 AM Freshmeat
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** If they really cared about political correctness, then they wouldn't have had IRA vs. Taliban or Waffen-SS vs. Viet Cong. And by the way, in the latter matchup, the Nazis won.
This list shows the last 10 events of 341. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.DeadliestWarrior