Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
****saud techniques? Discovered by the celts before it was discovered by the japanese, said techniques were then superceded by better metalurgy techniques. So the knights metal is still superior in addition to the fact that the splint mail armor of the samurai is similar to the armor that plate armor superceded in the west.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** This troper has seen a rapier wielder fight both a Kitana and a Dao wielder. At no point did he try and cross blades with either weapon, and, as is typical in master fighting, the matches ended within a few seconds. Not claiming the results would always be the same, but in both cases the rapier wielder used the speed of his weapon to score the victory.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
****** Over the course of the three seasons, there were 13 Asian warriors in 14 battles. Of those 14, the Asian warriors won 5 (Samurai vs. Viking, Shaolin Monk vs. Maori, Rajput vs. Centurion, Genghis Khan vs. Hannibal, and Foreign Legion vs. Gurkhas) and lost 9 (Spartan vs. Ninja, Spartan vs. Samurai, Yakuza vs. Mafia, Waffen SS vs. Viet Cong, Vlad the Impaler vs. Sun Tzu, Ming Warrior vs. Musketeer, Comanche vs. Mongol, Army Rangers vs. N. Korea Special Forces, and Saddam Hussein vs. Pol Pot).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The reason for the tie is that they were both equally ineffective in completing the purpose of the test: penetrating the armor.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 222 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** 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?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 42 (click to see context) from:
to:
******* This match wasn't helped at all that the Viking shield was treated like a weapon, right down to calculating how many "kills" it shield achieved (IIRC this was changed for later matchups where one combatant had a shield). This alone handicapped the Viking, as it was matched up against the CANABO. They should instead have treated the spear both as a missile AND as a melee weapon, because that's EXACTLY how the real weapons were used (''not'' that ridiculous dual-wielding spear throw): one spear would be thrown, the other used with the shield hand-to-hand.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Actually, if you think on it, the Kilij getting the edge is quite logical. The jian seems to be more of a thrusting/stabbing weapon, while the Kilij is a slashing/cutting weapon. [[ArsonMurderandJaywalking The katana and kilij are also both curved swords]]. However, on the comment of the kilij not being able to stab: You can very easily stab someone with a kilij's tip. The blade's edge would often extend to the end of the "weighted" area. There's also the fact of the kilij being a larger, heavier weapon compared to the jian. You try parrying/blocking something as big as that kilij[[note]]which was a lot bigger than most kilij, in terms of the blade's overall thickness[[/note]] with something as slender and slight as a jian.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
***** "MALE SAMURAI NEVER USED NAGINATAS!!" *cough* [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Tadakatsu Honda]] [[UsefulNotes/HondaTadakatsu Tadakatsu]], the deadliest warrior Japan ''EVER'' produced would like to differ about the Naginata comment. It was more common for women to use Naginata, yes. But an exclusively-female weapon? No.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Combat steel no, Japanese barley-even-worthy-of-being-considered-steel steel yes.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Added to the above, there wouldn't ''be'' any assassination, The Spartan woulda rounded up a bunch of his pals (Read: The spartan nation) and razed Japan down on end to the other and killed them all while the Ninja died like sheep because a Japanese man trying to pretend he's an Greek without modern technology would fall flat on it's ass.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** And even so, the nunchucks were given a poor shake in that episode, being depicted as pure-striking weapons. While the nunchucks ''could'' be used for strikes, their strength lay in grappling, as the chain was ''excellent'' in terms of getting leverage on your opponent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 218 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Except, y'know, Japanese forging techniques were developed specifically to purify the pig iron into proper steel. Meanwhile, most Japanese armors were made from a combination of steel and leather, cut/forged into strips and arranged in alternating patterns so as to increase flexibility without sacrificing protection.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 338 (click to see context) from:
* Outright stating that in the case of the Viet Cong vs. Waffen SS that both sides were "bad guys". I don't think anyone here is going to go and say that the Nazis were "good guys". But "fought against America" =/= Evil. We're not in the ColdWar anymore. Just because the Viet Cong fought to defend communism does not make them evil.
to:
* Outright stating that in the case of the Viet Cong vs. Waffen SS that both sides were "bad guys". I don't think anyone here is going to go and say that the Nazis were "good guys". But "fought against America" =/= Evil. We're not in the ColdWar UsefulNotes/ColdWar anymore. Just because the Viet Cong fought to defend communism does not make them evil.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** [[ComicallyMissingThePoint So wait? You're saying that even if the Samurai had a lightsaber the Spartan would still win!?! Damn that shield's tough...]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 405 (click to see context) from:
*** Similarly, in the Viking vs Samurai episode, they bring in someone based on the fact that he did some stuff for TheLastSamurai. Despite the fact that there are plenty of Japanese martial arts instructors who would've made better choices, Japanese martial arts have been perfectly preserved(Ninjutsu is a survival, assassination and espionage technique, and an effective one, but it's not a fighting style or martial art). When arguing the Samurai's abilities and weapons, particularly in comparison to a Viking's or Spartan's, would you rather have someone who did some coregrophy for TheLastSamurai? Or [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj1Jytiw8e0 this guy]]?
to:
*** Similarly, in the Viking vs Samurai episode, they bring in someone based on the fact that he did some stuff for TheLastSamurai.''Film/TheLastSamurai''. Despite the fact that there are plenty of Japanese martial arts instructors who would've made better choices, Japanese martial arts have been perfectly preserved(Ninjutsu is a survival, assassination and espionage technique, and an effective one, but it's not a fighting style or martial art). When arguing the Samurai's abilities and weapons, particularly in comparison to a Viking's or Spartan's, would you rather have someone who did some coregrophy for TheLastSamurai? ''Film/TheLastSamurai''? Or [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj1Jytiw8e0 this guy]]?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 95 (click to see context) from:
**** Another reason I offered to agree to disagree is because this is getting very long, I don't think either of us is going to convince the other, and you've said you're going to keep asking anyway [[hottip:* :Also, I'm kind of lazy and tired of checking every couple of days and typing long paragraphs. :P]]. This really needs to be snipped down--would you mind if I posted a snipped draft on your [[Tropers/XiVXaV Troper page]]? I'd really like to streamline this without missing one of your points or accidentally misrepresenting you. That way, people can still read the essence of complaints and responses without scrolling down through five and a half (or so, depending on your monitor size/resolution) screens' worth of text.
to:
**** Another reason I offered to agree to disagree is because this is getting very long, I don't think either of us is going to convince the other, and you've said you're going to keep asking anyway [[hottip:* :Also, [[note]]Also, I'm kind of lazy and tired of checking every couple of days and typing long paragraphs. :P]].:P[[/note]]. This really needs to be snipped down--would you mind if I posted a snipped draft on your [[Tropers/XiVXaV Troper page]]? I'd really like to streamline this without missing one of your points or accidentally misrepresenting you. That way, people can still read the essence of complaints and responses without scrolling down through five and a half (or so, depending on your monitor size/resolution) screens' worth of text.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 255 (click to see context) from:
** Ninja were screwed over like Vikings in this. There were multiple skills and weapons that were just ignored (battle planning, horseback fighting, meteorology, knowledge of the land, kunai, needles). The only reason they wore black was to be a surprise in plays as people usually ignore the Kuroko (you don't even notice them in [[SamuraiSentaiShinkenger Sentai]] unless theres something comedic).
to:
** Ninja were screwed over like Vikings in this. There were multiple skills and weapons that were just ignored (battle planning, horseback fighting, meteorology, knowledge of the land, kunai, needles). The only reason they wore black was to be a surprise in plays as people usually ignore the Kuroko (you don't even notice them in [[SamuraiSentaiShinkenger [[Series/SamuraiSentaiShinkenger Sentai]] unless theres something comedic).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** They already had stabby vs stabby via icepick vs sai (though even then I would've used a butterfly knife for the Yakuza), but a more appropriate match for a baseball bat would've been a bokken. Yes they're wooden swords, but they hurt like hell and Japanese street gangs have been known to carry them around.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 216,217 (click to see context) from:
**** 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 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.
to:
**** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It's only natural that people who are passionate about history, weaponry, and historical warriors would get very bent out of shape about a show that portrays all of them in such a wildly inaccurate way. Then of course there's the fact that the show purports to use ''real science'' to judge the different weapons and warriors, and then throws the scientific method completely out the window with every test. (I hope I don't have to explain why people get upset about that.) And I personally have seen people try to use the outcomes seen on this show as "evidence" in historical debates about ancient warfare. That's the part that bugs me most of all. The fact that the show is ''actively spreading misinformation''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 303 (click to see context) from:
*** So where most of the warriors featured. The Roman legionaries committed genocide in their crushing of the rebellion in Judea. The Spartans were essentially CommieNazis, yet we don't get constant reminders of how evil they were.
to:
*** So where were most of the warriors featured. The Roman legionaries committed genocide in their crushing of the rebellion in Judea. The Spartans were essentially CommieNazis, yet we don't get constant reminders of how evil they were.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** So where most of the warriors featured. The Roman legionaries committed genocide in their crushing of the rebellion in Judea. The Spartans were essentially CommieNazis, yet we don't get constant reminders of how evil they were.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
* In back to blood, the fact that the Spartan Spear and Naginata are even. This is is ridiculous. The Spear bends on contact with the armor, and is rendered useless, while the Naginata doesn't penetrate, but isn't broken. In the sim I think the spear has more kills which shows how stupid the sim is.
Deleted line(s) 29 (click to see context) :
Added DiffLines:
****** Not really. Asians loose all the time see. Spartan vs Samurai(unjustified for the simple reason that the Spartan's spear broke on contact with the samurai's armor) Musketeer vs Ming Warrior, Comanche vs Mongol, Vlad vs Sun Tzu etc.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Plus, Japan's naturally crap iron deposits meant the armour of your average samurai was some of the most shit-tier protection ever devised. Often it was made primarily of bamboo and clay.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 308 (click to see context) from:
*** The steel crossbow hit twice as often (6/9 compared to 3/9) and killed four times as often (4/6 compared to 1/6) as the composite crossbow. Also, the composite crossbow only shot about three bolts in the time it took the steel crossbow to shoot one, 20 seconds versus 57 seconds. The steel crossbow was obviously the better killing weapon even without the range taken into account. Plus, it was mentioned in the aftermath that the steel crossbow's superior power made it better at defeating armor that the composite crossbow couldn't break through, which was probably why people ditched their composite crossbows in favor of steel ones.
to:
*** The steel crossbow hit twice as often (6/9 compared to 3/9) and killed four times as often (4/6 compared to 1/6) as the composite crossbow. Also, the composite crossbow only shot about three bolts in the time it took the steel crossbow to shoot one, 20 seconds versus 57 seconds. The steel crossbow was obviously the better killing weapon even without the range taken into account. Plus, it was mentioned in the aftermath that the steel crossbow's superior power made it better at defeating armor that the composite crossbow couldn't break through, which was probably why people ditched their composite crossbows in favor of steel ones. Furthermore, having more skilled operators who had much more training in using and reloading crossbows would have shortened the period of time necessary for the complicated reload significantly, whereas the composite crossbow's comparatively simple reload mechanism wasn't really hampered as much by the operator not being an expert.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 308 (click to see context) from:
*** The steel crossbow hit twice as often (6/9 compared to 3/9) and killed four times as often (4/6 compared to 1/6) as the composite crossbow. Also, the composite crossbow only shot about three bolts in the time it took the steel crossbow to shoot one, 20 seconds versus 57 seconds. The steel crossbow was obviously the better killing weapon even without the range taken into account, which is why people stopped using composite crossbows and started using steel ones. Not to mention, it was mentioned in the aftermath that the steel crossbow's superior power made it better at defeating armor that the composite crossbow couldn't break through, which was probably why people ditched their composite crossbows in favor of steel ones.
to:
*** The steel crossbow hit twice as often (6/9 compared to 3/9) and killed four times as often (4/6 compared to 1/6) as the composite crossbow. Also, the composite crossbow only shot about three bolts in the time it took the steel crossbow to shoot one, 20 seconds versus 57 seconds. The steel crossbow was obviously the better killing weapon even without the range taken into account, which is why people stopped using composite crossbows and started using steel ones. Not to mention, account. Plus, it was mentioned in the aftermath that the steel crossbow's superior power made it better at defeating armor that the composite crossbow couldn't break through, which was probably why people ditched their composite crossbows in favor of steel ones.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** The steel crossbow hit twice as often (6/9 compared to 3/9) and killed four times as often (4/6 compared to 1/6) as the composite crossbow. Also, the composite crossbow only shot about three bolts in the time it took the steel crossbow to shoot one, 20 seconds versus 57 seconds. The steel crossbow was obviously the better killing weapon even without the range taken into account, which is why people stopped using composite crossbows and started using steel ones. Not to mention, it was mentioned in the aftermath that the steel crossbow's superior power made it better at defeating armor that the composite crossbow couldn't break through, which was probably why people ditched their composite crossbows in favor of steel ones.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 291 (click to see context) from:
to:
** "A bit?" No, the difference between riveted mail and butted mail is like the difference between a real sharpened sword made out of high quality carbon steel, and a cheap replica with blunted edges. Butted mail is easily penetrated by even a weak thrust, whereas the rivets in proper mail hold the armor together and make it nearly impossible to force the rings apart. At most, a narrow-bladed weapon could get an inch or two inside, which would be made useless if leather or padded cloth was worn beneath the mail. The difference between armor that is nearly impossible to break with a thrust and armor that almost instantly fails when thrust at is not one that can be easily disregarded.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 215 (click to see context) from:
to:
**** 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 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.
