Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Hopefully I can keep from being as overzealous as some of the other posters when I say that the arguement "Deadliest Arsenal" doesn't really fly with me. They actually are testing out the skills of the men using the weapons, putting those same results into the sim. Also, any idea what they're gonna do with all the other weapons tests they run on the show?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** Just because you don't like it doesn't make the argument "annoying" or "whiny". The simple fact of the matter is you can't make a fair comparison between heavy infantry and spies/assassins. And you ''certainly'' can't declare that one is objectively more "deadly" than the other. BOTH are useful and deadly when in their native element. Take one of them ''out'' of their native element and it's no wonder that they get trounced. Also, the RuleOfFun does not apply here. The frustration of watching these idiots make the same obvious mistakes over and over again completely negates whatever fun might otherwise be derived from this show. It would be one thing if they were just doing this for fun and they made it clear that nothing they say has any real basis in reality, but the hosts go out of their way to portray this as a serious, objective, and ''fair'' comparison between two different warriors. That was, after all, the original basis of the show's appeal. The tagline is "'''Who. Is. Deadliest?'''" not "Who would be the most fun to watch in a choreographed fight scene?". You can't claim to be realistic on one hand and then say "realism doesn't matter, it's all just for fun" when someone points out a glaring flaw in your method.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
** Because the nunchaku is actually a very effective close-quarters weapon that a well trained Yakuza enforcer would use to great effect. The problem, however, is with the way the Yakuza vs. Mafia episode portrayed the nunchaku. They portrayed it as a pure blunt-force weapon, essentially a glorified cudgel. And while the nunchaku can and often was used as a blunt force weapon, only the Filipino nunchaku styles emphasize striking. Traditional ''Okinawan'' nunchaku styles (the styles a Yakuza would most likely be trained in) emphasized gripping and locking over striking. They didn't even try to factor this into their tests. If they had, it might well have given the Yakuza the edge in the short-range weapons tests.
****** I agree, but that's really the problem, isn't it? The premise of the show is that they're attempting to objectively define which of two selected warriors is "deadliest", but they ''repeatedly'' make unfair comparisons between warriors in the process. Warriors who fought in massed units or regimented formations simply CANNOT be fairly compared to elite one-on-one warriors. No matter what permutation you use, one side or another gets gypped. If you make it squad-on-squad the Samurai loses. If you make it one-on-one the Viking loses. The fact that one single factor can have such a profound effect on the outcome of the battle pretty much proves that the comparison is inappropriate on its face.
Changed line(s) 163 (click to see context) from:
* Why does David Wenham use a pseudonym on this show? It's clearly him doing the narrating; who does he think he's kidding?
to:
* Why does David Wenham use a pseudonym on this show? It's clearly him doing the narrating; who narrating. Who does he think he's kidding?
Added DiffLines:
*** That's a common misconception. Spartan hoplites were expected to be able to fend off the enemy and recover their phalanx formation in the unlikely event that their lines were broken. To that purpose, Spartan military training focused just as much on wrestling and single-combat sparring as the phalanx. In a one-on-one battle against a close combat warrior like the Apache the Spartan would either discard his shield and spear and resort to his xiphos short-sword or keep his shield and resort to [[StoneWall turtling]]. Not a guaranteed win for the Spartan, but, not a guaranteed win for the Apache either.
Added DiffLines:
** I guess the logic is that raging ambition and bloodthirst count for more in a fight than the mere desire to defend your home. I'm not sure I agree with it but, there it is...
Added DiffLines:
** Because their stupid computer program is apparently too simplistic to take differing tactics into account. All it can do is calculate the "kill quotient" of any given piece of equipment.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Still, the Nunchaku were ineffective, showy weapons at best. As shown in the tests, the nunchaku took three strikes to get a lethal hit in. The baseball bat took one. Had the nunchaku been, say, a ''bokken''...
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** It doesn't matter, as Wallace was still primarily supported by Highlanders, whereas the Lowlands generally sat around and did nothing during the Wars of Independence.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
****Atilla the Hun did end up with a Lasso in return.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
****On Spartan/Ninja: The argument above is one of the more annoying and whiny ones around (Since it '''is''' a theoretical show, and having one on one fight like these is definitely a RuleOfFun deal). As for weapons comparisons, even if the show were being more realistic with them, it's unlikely that all weapons could be slotted into neatly compared categories, and as a result, odd comparisons like these will stick around. (Which still leaves the issue of how, say, alternative uses aren't considered when picking edges.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
* The face that the Flintlock pistol got the edge and more kills than the Ming three-barreled cannon. Sure the flintlock penetrated the armor, while the cannon didn’t, but it is extremely unreliable and takes a very long time to reload. The Ming weapon on the other hand, is wayyyyyyyyyyy more reliable and also it has 3 barrels so it takes a lot less to reload, and the armor thing is not an issue, as the weapon is accurate enough to hit the guys neck.
to:
* The face fact that the Flintlock pistol got the edge and more kills than the Ming three-barreled cannon. Sure the flintlock penetrated the armor, while the cannon didn’t, but it is extremely unreliable and takes a very long time to reload. The Ming weapon on the other hand, is wayyyyyyyyyyy more reliable and also it has 3 barrels so it takes a lot less to reload, and the armor thing is not an issue, as the weapon is accurate enough to hit the guys neck.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** That's one of the biggest fallacies of this show. The hosts frequently (and I mean <i>almost every single episode</i>) mistake the very point and purpose of the weapons and the warriors being profiled. Example 1: Spartan vs Ninja. Ninja were spies and assassins whose primary defense was stealth. Spartan hoplites were regimented foot-soldiers who ALWAYS fought as part of a large unit with dozens or hundreds of other Spartans to back them up. The scenario depicted on the show ''would never happen in real life''. Even if you imagined an alternate reality where Japan and Sparta were somehow at war with one another, it would never happen. The Spartans would never send ''one'' fully armed and armored hoplite against a ninja. They would've sent a huge troop of hoplites capable of forming an impenetrable shield wall to hold off enemy soldiers. And the Japanese would never send a ninja out to challenge a heavily armed and armored enemy fighter in open combat. They would've sent the ninja to sneak into the Spartan camp at night and slit their commander's throat or poison their food and water supplies. The point is, BOTH are useful and effective warriors, but BOTH intended for completely different situations and can't be fairly compared to each other. Example 2: In Al Capone vs Jessie James they put a Winchester rifle up against a pineapple hand grenade (as part of the "special weapons" test, IIRC), ''completely disregarding the fact'' that no one would ever use a hand grenade in the same situation that you would use a rifle. The very idea that you can make a valid comparison between a firearm and an anti-personnel explosive device is ridiculous. Again, BOTH are useful and effective, but BOTH are used in entirely different situations and can't be compared. There are countless other examples (seriously, I could list at least one fallacious comparison from almost every episode of this show) but I think I've made my point.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Something I hadn't realized before is how the knight got cheated in the Back For Blood episode. They divided the warriors into two groups: those before gunpowder weapons and those after gunpowder. Okay, that's reasonable. But since the knight lost to the pirate (who used gunpowder) he wasn't included in the pre-gunpowder category. I think the knight [[ICouldaBeenAContender could have been a contender]] in the decision of deadliest ancient warrior.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Maybe. Hooking the edge of the shield and yanking it away would have been a very obvious tactic to someone trained in the use of twin-hook swords. Samurai armor would be a bit trickier, though.
Added DiffLines:
** Trash talk and cultural posturing. Simple as that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Because this wasn't early yakuza, this was yakuza after the invention/release/etc of nunchaku.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** It probably would have looked more comical if cowboys were robbing a bank in the 1920's. Plus Al Capone would have walked in and it would have looked like he was saving the day...probably not a good scenario. I thought the museum was pretty cool, and it looked like they were there to loot stuff, money in particular.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** My first thought was...''NightAtTheMuseum''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why exactly did they arm the yakuza with nunchaku, again? The yakuza have been around for centuries longer than mainland Japan even ''had'' nunchaku. Wouldn't the bokken have made more sense for a close-quarters weapon?
Added DiffLines:
******* Really, though, Samurai could ''easily'' neutralize Spartan shields. Horseback archery (their original tactics) just would have been an unfair advantage, I suppose, considering just how badly Spartan infantry historically did against mobile missile troops.
Added DiffLines:
*** Ninjas didn't wear black, even at night. You just stand out in silhouette to anyone with their eyes adjusted. Dark blue was the color of choice.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**But thats just it... Mano y Mano fights are POINTLESS. It severely under powers people like the Spartan. Plus, I have no problem with special forces units or criminal syndicates fighting is small squads, but when you've got a group that requires team cooperation a large scale (Spartans, Centruions, Pirates) then the fights just come off as pointless. Plus, how am I suppose to know that the simulation is accurate? They never show the program. Squad battles just plain don't work in ancient warfare simulations, case in point, Attila VS Alexander. The point of the huns is that they rode around on horses and bombarded you with arrows , keeping out of range of their enemy and running at the sign of trouble, and the point of alexander the greats men was that they formed phalanxes with 12 foot pikes to kill everything in front of them as they marched forward. In the actual simulation, they use siege weapons even though those are designed to siege cities, and have the huns only fight on the ground.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
***** They gave the Gladiator, the Celt and the Aztec a sling, and Alexander and the Centurion a ballistic weapon. The Wheellock is nothing compared to that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** He wouldn't have used Celtic weapons- there's roughly a thousand year gap (give or take a century) between Celtic Britain and the time of the Scottish Wars of Independence (which Wallace fought in). My understanding is that the standard weapon of a Scottish infantryman at the time was a long pike roughly twice the hight of a man. This would be used by infantry in a tight circular formation called a "schrillton", with the pikes being held facing outward. This was a highly effective defence against mass cavalry charge (which English tactics of the time where largely built around, in conjunction with heavy support from massed ranks of longbowmen). Of course, such a weapon, being effectively an unwieldy lump of wood would be all but useless in a one on one Deadliest Warror style fight. Hand-weapons used by the Scottish at time time where largely similar to those used by the English (so think standard medeival weapons like those used by the knight- arming-swords, warhammers etc). Oh, and Wallace wasn't a highlander- he was born in lowland Scotland.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 168 (click to see context) from:
*Recently, the Deadliest Warrior got a LITTLE better in my book, due to more squad battles. But why don't they actually have a fight like an army vs an army? Would it really cost that much money to hire that many actors? Look, just hire about 15-20 guys for each side, it will make the show way better. It wont be completely realistic, but it will be a lot more realistic than a 1 on 1 fight, and it will let them take tactics into account. Why are they always so concerned with a 1 on 1 fight anyway when, as explained earlier, a one on one fight is pointless, especially when some warriors (like the Spartan) are specifically designed to fight in an army.
to:
*Recently, the Deadliest Warrior got a LITTLE better in my book, due to more squad battles. But why don't they actually have a fight like an army vs an army? Would it really cost that much money to hire that many actors? Look, just hire about 15-20 guys for each side, it will make the show way better. It wont be completely realistic, but it will be a lot more realistic than a 1 on 1 fight, and it will let them take tactics into account. Why are they always so concerned with a 1 on 1 fight anyway when, as explained earlier, a one on one fight is pointless, especially when some warriors (like the Spartan) are specifically designed to fight in an army. army.
** I'm going to disagree that an army vs. army fight would be better. The squad battles put a reasonably sized amount of warriors into a fight and present a realistic situation. Not every warrior even fights in groups that large, such as the Navy [=SEALs=]. For other warriors that might have fought in larger groups, there doesn't need to be 15 guys when 5 is just fine. One-on-one battles aren't pointless when they're tested 1,000 times, and besides, the show is supposed to be about mano-a-mano, UltimateShowdownOfUltimateDestiny fights anyway.
** I'm going to disagree that an army vs. army fight would be better. The squad battles put a reasonably sized amount of warriors into a fight and present a realistic situation. Not every warrior even fights in groups that large, such as the Navy [=SEALs=]. For other warriors that might have fought in larger groups, there doesn't need to be 15 guys when 5 is just fine. One-on-one battles aren't pointless when they're tested 1,000 times, and besides, the show is supposed to be about mano-a-mano, UltimateShowdownOfUltimateDestiny fights anyway.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 168 (click to see context) from:
*Recently, the Deadliest Warrior got a LITTLE better in my book, due to more squad battles. But why don't they actually have a fight like an army vs an army? Would it really cost that much money to hire that many actors? Look, just hire about 20 guys for each side, it will make the show way better. Why are they always so concerned with a 1 on 1 fight anyway when, as explained earlier, a one on one fight is pointless, especially when some warriors (like the Spartan) are specifically designed to fight in an army.
to:
*Recently, the Deadliest Warrior got a LITTLE better in my book, due to more squad battles. But why don't they actually have a fight like an army vs an army? Would it really cost that much money to hire that many actors? Look, just hire about 20 15-20 guys for each side, it will make the show way better.better. It wont be completely realistic, but it will be a lot more realistic than a 1 on 1 fight, and it will let them take tactics into account. Why are they always so concerned with a 1 on 1 fight anyway when, as explained earlier, a one on one fight is pointless, especially when some warriors (like the Spartan) are specifically designed to fight in an army.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*Recently, the Deadliest Warrior got a LITTLE better in my book, due to more squad battles. But why don't they actually have a fight like an army vs an army? Would it really cost that much money to hire that many actors? Look, just hire about 20 guys for each side, it will make the show way better. Why are they always so concerned with a 1 on 1 fight anyway when, as explained earlier, a one on one fight is pointless, especially when some warriors (like the Spartan) are specifically designed to fight in an army.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Geoff Desmoulin's big fat mouth. Thankfully he only does this during testing.
--> ''[[ThisIsSparta "THREE! TWO! ONE!]]'' '''''[[NoIndoorVoice LIGHT 'EM UP!!!"]]'''''
--> ''[[ThisIsSparta "THREE! TWO! ONE!]]'' '''''[[NoIndoorVoice LIGHT 'EM UP!!!"]]'''''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
* From Vlad vs. Sun-Tsu, the Flaming Arrow test was a joke. Simply because the only use for it was ignored because it was a one on one fight. Guess what? You can ''still light the ground on fire around a single opponent.' Or, my answer, because both were ''suppose'' to be military strategists. ''Make the whole test a Squad battle.''
to:
* From Vlad vs. Sun-Tsu, the Flaming Arrow test was a joke. Simply because the only use for it was ignored because it was a one on one fight. Guess what? You can ''still light the ground on fire around a single opponent.' '' Or, my answer, because both were ''suppose'' to be military strategists. ''Make the whole test a Squad battle.''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* From Vlad vs. Sun-Tsu, the Flaming Arrow test was a joke. Simply because the only use for it was ignored because it was a one on one fight. Guess what? You can ''still light the ground on fire around a single opponent.' Or, my answer, because both were ''suppose'' to be military strategists. ''Make the whole test a Squad battle.''
Added DiffLines:
***** Fine, different answer. Spartans wouldn't have given a second thought passing a 'ninja' on a road. The reason being mentalities. A spartan is a born and bred warrior culture, 'peasants' are 'beneath them' (such was said in the episode). A Ninja is a Japanese peasant who got fed up with being treated like crap, if a Ninja didn't do the all black dead of night assassination, they would, you guessed it, attack lords and troops on the road AFTER THEY PASS THE 'PEASANT' by. In a straight fight the Spartan is understandably better, but 'war' is not defined as needing a battlefield to be won. The easier, and smarter, answer for a weaker fighter is to attack your opponent at their weakest moment. A mentality the Spartans DIDN'T HAVE.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 163 (click to see context) from:
** [[InverseLawOfUtilityAndLethality Because there's more than one use for a shield?]] Did you see what the Spartan's shield could do? ''It could break necks and fracture skulls.'' Shields can be used offensively by hitting your opponent with the edge or bashing them off-balance with the flat side. Yes, a shield was primary used for defense; but as it turns out, big, heavy objects that you can hold in your hand are pretty good at killing. DidNotDoTheResearch, indeed.
to:
** [[InverseLawOfUtilityAndLethality Because there's more than one one]] [[BoringButPractical use for a shield?]] Did you see what the Spartan's shield could do? ''It could break necks and fracture skulls.'' Shields can be used offensively by hitting your opponent with the edge or bashing them off-balance with the flat side. Yes, a shield was primary used for defense; but as it turns out, big, heavy objects that you can hold in your hand are pretty good at killing. DidNotDoTheResearch, indeed.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** [[InverseLawOfUtilityAndLethality Because there's more than one use for a shield?]] Did you see what the Spartan's shield could do? ''It could break necks and fracture skulls.'' Shields can be used offensively by hitting your opponent with the edge or bashing them off-balance with the flat side. Yes, a shield was primary used for defense; but as it turns out, big, heavy objects that you can hold in your hand are pretty good at killing. DidNotDoTheResearch, indeed.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* I'll out this in here because I don't know where else it would go -- WHY DO THEY KEEP SHOWING SHIELDS BEING USED AS OFFENSIVE WEAPONS?? In [[RealLife real life]] shields are defensive weapons. You use them to keep the enemy's spear/sword/whatever out of your guts while you kill him. [[DidNotDoTheResearch They didn't use them as clubs! And you worked around it, not throwing it out to the side every time you took a swing or stab!]] Sorry but this just bugs me.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
** Heck, this troper is convinced that the Apache could have taken the Spartan. While great warriors, Spartans suffered from CripplingOverspecialization and were at their best in a shield wall. In any kind of situation involving movement and speed they were at a severe disadvantage and there are accounts where Spartan armies were cut to pieces by skirmishers armed with slings and javelins.
Changed line(s) 157 (click to see context) from:
** Is India no longer a part of Asia then? Because that was a pretty convincing win over the Rajput warrior.
to:
** Is India no longer a part of Asia then? Because that was a pretty convincing win over from the Rajput warrior.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 98 (click to see context) :
* Why do the warriors famous for conquering vast empires always say that "All [other side] wants to do is protect their homes/land/stay alive--[[MamaBear they don't]] [[PapaWolf have a]] [[KnightTemplarBigBrother REAL reason]] [[BadassFamily to fight]]?"
Added DiffLines:
* Why do the warriors famous for conquering vast empires always say that "All [other side] wants to do is protect their homes/land/stay alive--[[MamaBear they don't]] [[PapaWolf have a]] [[KnightTemplarBigBrother REAL reason]] [[BadassFamily to fight]]?"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why do the warriors famous for conquering vast empires always say that "All [other side] wants to do is protect their homes/land/stay alive--[[MamaBear they don't]] [[PapaWolf have a]] [[KnightTemplarBigBrother REAL reason]] [[BadassFamily to fight]]?"
