As the title says, I'm trying to make something that combines Deadliest Warrior, the World Cup, the Nasuverse, and Soul Eater all in one show.

What I mean is that ancient and modern warriors all over the world fighting it out in a World Cup tournament format for the right to be called the deadliest warrior in the world.

Here are the nations with legendary warriors that I am aware of at the time of writing. Bolded nations satisfy Format B, while italicized ones have a Sword and Sorcerer pairing.

• Asia-Pacific (10)
  • Japan (Ninja/Samurai)
  • South Korea (Hwarang)
  • China (Martial Strategist)
  • Philippines (Kali Warrior)
  • Iran (Persian Immortal)
  • India (Rajputs)
  • Nepal (Gurkha warrior)
  • Iraq (Assyrian warrior)
  • Mongolia (horse archer)
  • New Zealand (Maori)

• Europe (12)
  • Greece (Hoplite)
  • Italy (Roman Legionnaire)
  • France (Gendarme)
  • England (Longbowman)
  • Scotland (Highlander)
  • Israel (Hebrew)
  • Russia (Cossack)
  • Germany (Teutonic Knight)
  • Ireland (Celtic)
  • Iceland (Vikings)
  • Turkey (Ottoman Janissaries)
  • Macedonia (Ionioi Hetairoi)

• Americas (5)
  • USA (Apache)
  • Canada (Inuit)
  • Mexico (Aztec)
  • Peru (Incan)
  • Guatemala (Mayan)

• Africa (5)
  • Egypt (Pharaoh's Guard)
  • South Africa (Zulu)
  • Sudan (Kassite)
  • Mali
  • Ghana

Completed the 32 nations at last. Whew.

Many thanks.

edited 17th Jun '15 3:14:53 AM by judasmartel

Couldn't you use the Cossacks (or to be more specific, the Cossack Cavalrymen) for Russia (or perhaps another slavic nation, such as Ukraine)? Spetsnaz seems a little too recent for the kind of thing you're making and the Cossack were legendary warriors up to the early 20th century (The Soviet Union disagreed).

You could also use for Germany the Teutonic Knights (who are more specific than Knight in Shining Armor), who are firmly rooted in the German nation and military tradition (General Manstein of the Wehrmacht, perhaps German's best tactical genius in World War Two, had Teutonic ancestry).

Other suggestions:

• Sweden - Carolean Soldier
• Switzerland - Swiss Mercenary
• Finland - Hakkapeliitta.
• Canada - York Militiaman (of the not-so-famous War Of 1812).
• Netherlands - Dutch Pikemen.
• Brazil - Since that's my country, I'll give you more than one option: The Smoking Snakes or BOPE for recent ones, while you could use the Braziliam Imperial Cavalry or Pernambucano Swordsmen for older ones.

Just need to mention that the Mayas are not Chilean. At all. You're hundreds of miles off. The Mayas comprised part of the same territory of the aspect and most of Guatemala and Honduras.

I'll second the guy who mentioned that the Mayans are not from Chile. At all. Which makes me question some of your other choices as well.

If you're using Austria, look up the Holy Roman, Austrian, and Austro-Hungarian empires. There'll be something in there for you. You should also check out the Ottoman Empire's jannisaries.

I'll also note that Deadliest Warrior which ran on Rule of Cool and Popularity Power (an episode where the Spartan wins, right as 300 came out? Gasp!) is a dreadful model.

edited 1st Sep '14 10:11:11 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

You'd also have to work hard to avoid the problem that plagued The Deadliest Warrior - the arbitrary "oh, let's just say that this weapon/fighting style has this kill factor and compare it with something completely different with that kill factor."

@Aszur Thanks for the correction.

Hmm, I guess I'll just limit the list to ~32 warriors, including select few modern armies such that of the United States. Israel can also be included into the "modern warriors" list, because their ancient warrior has a massive Game-Breaker called Divine Providence (see The Bible).

Looking for more African and Oceanian warriors at the moment.

Thanks. Please keep this up.

P.S. I will start the Group Draw any time soon. For now, which four nations you would like to see in the same group?

re the Ancient Jewish Warriors, the Game-Breaker was nullified if the enemies used iron chariots - also see The Bible.

Or if they sinned against God. They eventually beat those guys with the iron chariots when they returned to Him.

BTW, any other ancient warrior suggestions, preferably from Africa and Oceania? Group stage suggestions are also welcome.

Many thanks.

Oceania: Māori

Weapons were wood or stone but quite effective - knowing how they traditionally used them is key, though.

The taiaha looks like a wooden spear with a point at one end and the other end widened and flattened. The fact is, the point is not the dangerous bit, it's largely decorative and there are feathers tied near it. It's thrust or flourished at the enemies eyes to cause a blink/flinch and before they can recover, the flattened end cracks into the side of their skull - generally cracking the skull badly enough that you can take the top of it off with a twist of the wrist on the taiaha.

Patu are smaller hand-held clubs of wood or stone that are broader than they are thick. Like the business-end of the taiaha, they taper towards the edges.

Not sharpened to a cutting edge but they don't need to be, the narrow edge is enough of a force concentrater to do serious damage.

Brave, fearsome, fearless. Their war chants were/are terrifying (for pity's sake watch a proper Māori cultural group performing the haka, not those useless twats in the All Blacks)

edited 2nd Sep '14 9:08:37 PM by Wolf1066

For Africa, Shaka's Zulu warriors might be worth looking into.

Limiting it to just 32 seems a shame. So many good nations not used (namely every single suggestion I've made).

and From what countries are the Maori and the Zulu? No time to research, we're still having our exams today.

There's always two options: a) zone qualifiers first before the world stage, and b) expand the selection to more than 32. We can even go for 48 or 64 nations if I feel like it.

The Maori are from New Zealand and the Zulu are from southern Africa, with the highest numbers in South Africa.

You just beat me to it. Bloody

On rereading the OP, for a lot of the choices "One Warrior per nation" wouldn't cut it, as the strengths of many of them lie in their teamwork and tactics.

For example: The Roman Legion. As a massed group working in concert, very impressive. Their tactics and organisation worked quite well against the Celtic warriors' ferocious, but disorganised, attacks.

One Roman against one Celtic warrior, however, and the chances are pretty good that the Roman's head is going to be decorating a fence post somewhere. Unless the Roman is particularly good at single combat or bloody lucky.

What weapons would everyone be using? Because I can see that someone with a firearm is going to literally wipe out anyone armed with a sword, and forcing everyone to use the same weapons would disadvantage those unfamiliar with them.

The Fighter, Mage, Thief group makes little sense as there have been no Real Life battles in which people have successfully used magic in combat, making any spiritual/religious/magical person basically a non-combatant that just stands around praying or muttering incantations while the fighter does all the work. As to the thief, is it combat or is it a dungeon crawl where they have to pick locks and disable traps?

edited 3rd Sep '14 7:40:52 PM by Wolf1066

Nah, I'm just thinking Yu Yu Hakusho, Flame Of Recca, and Soul Eater here, so I am less inclined to make this project as realistic as possible.

We've seen a lot of ancient and contemporary warfare in Real Life, and thus we already know a lot about that, so physical combat (in fiction or in Real Life) will still be the main attraction of this project.

I was only thinking, how about matches between the best spellcasters from several mythologies around the world? Say, for example, how does a Japanese Onmyouji match up with a Western Wizard Classic a la Merlin?

P.S. So I eventually decided in favor of one team of at least 3 warriors per nation OR group of nations. What do you think.

P.P.S. About the groups, I think I want England, Korea, Iran, and Greece in one group.

edited 3rd Sep '14 8:36:07 PM by judasmartel

Updated the nations. See first post.

Forced to merge Asia and Oceania into one region because I can't find any Oceanian ancient warrior other than the Maori and the Samoans.

So there it is. The first ever Ancient Warriors World Cup is about to begin. So, which ancient warriors do you think should be placed in the same group?

Suggestions for group draws are now open.

EDIT: Oh, well.

edited 17th Jun '15 3:15:33 AM by judasmartel

Here we are for the first iteration of the Deadliest Warrior World Cup. This is a pure draw, meaning not all continents may be well-represented in each group.

Group A

• USA (Apache)
• Philippines (Kali)
• South Africa (Zulu)
• New Zealand (Maori)

Group B

• Macedonia (Ionioi Hetairoi)
• Mexico (Aztec)
• Peru (Inca)
• Iran (Persian Immortal)

Group C

• Germany (Teutonic Knight)
• England (Longbowman)
• Mongolia (Horse Archer)
• India (Rajputs)

Group D

• Canada (Inuit)
• Turkey (Ottoman Jannissary)
• Ghana (Ghana warrior)
• France (Gendarme)

Group E

• Mali (Sundiata)
• South Korea (Hwarang)
• Ireland (Celtic)
• Iraq (Assyrian)

Group F

• Italy (Roman legionniare)
• China (Shaolin)
• Israel (Hebrew)
• Russia (Cossack)

Group G

• Iceland (Viking)
• Sudan (Kassite)
• Japan (Ninja / Samurai)
• Nepal (Gurkha)

Group H

• Greece (Hoplite)
• Scotland (Highlanders)
• Guatemala (Mayan)
• Egypt (Pharaoh's guard)

There you go.

edited 21st Jun '15 5:59:29 PM by judasmartel

First set of matches for today:

Group A

• USA (Apache) vs Philippines (Kali)
• South Africa (Zulu) vs New Zealand (Maori)

Group B

• Macedonia (Ionioi Hetairoi) vs Mexico (Aztec)
• Peru (Inca) vs Iran (Persian Immortal)

Group C

• Germany (Teutonic Knight) vs England (Longbowman)
• Mongolia (Horse Archer) vs India (Rajputs)

Group D

• Canada (Inuit) vs Turkey (Ottoman Jannissary)
• Ghana (African warrior) vs France (Gendarme)

Group E

• Mali (Sundiata) vs Korea (Hwarang)
• Ireland (Celtic) vs Iraq (Assyrian)

Group F

• Italy (Roman legionniare) vs China (Shaolin)
• Israel (Hebrew) vs Russia (Cossack)

Group G

• Iceland (Viking) vs Sudan (Kassite)
• Japan (Ninja / Samurai) vs Nepal (Gurkha)

Group H

• Greece (Hoplite) vs Scotland (Highlanders)
• Guatemala (Mayan) vs Egypt (Pharaoh's guard)

I feel like you need to put a little more research into this. "Military Strategist" is not a warrior. "Hebrew", "Apache", "Celtic", "Mayan" or "Aztec" aren't warriors either, they're just the people who lived there. Giving Ghana a simple "African warrior" sounds like something straight out of a turn of the century pulp novel, and assigns to one country an entire continent's varied martial traditions, just because you couldn't be assed to do the research. It would be like giving Portugal the "European Warrior" then ignoring the rest of Europe, except it's worse because Africa is easily THREE TIMES as big as that glorified peninsula. Also, calling the Apaches the "USA Team" would be a bit insulting to the Apaches themselves, considering they got their reputations as great guerrilla warriors trying to preserve their independence from the USA. It would be like grabbing the WW 2 French Resistance and calling them the representatives for Germany, same with "Assyrians" and Iraq (which is where the Kassites should be, not Sudan) It just makes no sense.

edited 7th Jul '15 2:07:22 AM by PadurKaril

Also Sundiata is a historical empire-building leader, not a class of warriors.

edited 7th Jul '15 7:15:02 AM by editerguy

The Celtic peoples of Europe and the Isles had numerous types of warriors over the years - those who fought naked armed only with a spear, those who used a sword, those who wore mail, those who fought on foot, those who threw spears from their fast-moving wicker chariots.

And that's just one of the categories you've mentioned. Which one of the multitudes of possible warriors from that ethnic group are you referring to?

edited 7th Jul '15 8:13:44 PM by Wolf1066

I do admit, I haven't quite invested myself in researching the nations for some time.

As for Sundiata, yes, I know he's a powerful king in Ancient Africa and not an army soldier's name, I just don't know what his soldiers are called.

Maybe you guys could suggest something else from Africa and Oceania, at least for Version 2?

I have already made the groups so it's too late to back out on this now.

Looking over your list, you're already repeating one of the actual Deadliest Warrior's worst problems—namely pitting people from different time periods against each other. It may not look it, but there is a world of difference between what a suit of bronze armour can do, versus what a suit of iron armour (or even iron chainmail), or god forbid, steel armour can do. If a fifteenth century knight in full plate confronts a Greek hoplite, I don't need to do any research to figure out how this is going to turn out, and neither do you. Training, skill, none of it matters when a bronze spearhead is literally incapable of penetrating steel plate.

If you want to make this more interesting, and more fair, I'd highly recommend breaking it up along the basis of time period/technology group.

I don't really get the list. If you know essentially nothing about Sundiata's army and you have groups as continent-spanningly vague as 'African warrior', how can you judge how they will do against other groups?

A quick web search got me info about Ghana's actual historical warriors, the asafo companies.

Yeah, this list doesn't make much sense, and as I said before, falls afoul of the actual show's trend for pitting people from different time periods/technology levels against each other. There also doesn't seem to be a lot of appreciation for the sheer number of societies and cultures out there.

Example given—why is an Apache representing the USA/Native American culture? In addition to the criticism already leveled by somebody pointing out that the Apache of the time period you're referencing hated the USA, the choice, given the sheer number of Native American tribes, culture groups, confederacies, etc, seems rather random. Despite what many people seem to believe, the Apache were not, in fact, the most badass Native American group to ever exist—not that such a thing can be quantified, but still. The Comanche and Sioux were better horsemen (and the Comanche actually bested the Apache and pushed them into what was, at the time, Mexico), the Shawnee, Miami, etc, better infantry. In fact, the Apache preference to act as mounted infantry and guerrilla raiders, while undeniably effective in a full scale military operation, renders them a less than ideal selection for this sort of one-on-one combat. I can't help but think that they're there because the original show used them.

Or how about the decision to have the Inuit represent Canada? I mean, seriously? That's stereotyping at its absolute worse. It's also a flat out poor choice, because the Inuit as a collective (not that they were a collective at all) were not a highly militarized society. And to pit them against a jannisary? That's beyond one-sided. Speaking as a Canadian, there's a whole volume of better choices out there, including the Iroquois and the Huron (both of whom operated out of what's now the USA and Canada), as well as various British and French organizations, like the Quebecois Voltigeurs, who decisively beat American infantrymen during the War of 1812.

I think the choices listed here need to be reexamined. I also think some thought should be given to coming up with historically and thematically appropriate match-ups.