Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.
Ultimately the show was cashing in on the ninja vs pirates memes that got generated everywhere on Facebook, and SpikeTV being the channel for things us dumb men like to argue about after watching "generic Hollywood blockbuster", they came in at just the right time.
The weapons showcases were somewhat interesting, but were really just shallow presentations for impact: OMG that pigs head exploded LOL #crushedswine
There were plenty of instances where the weapons "experts" were obviously misrepresented, or had to be steered in a certain direction for the purposes of the show.
Yeah you'd think they'd start with more plausible and relatable topics like sword vs mace. I mean it's not like the vast majority of people in the world will find that uninteresting.
I mean ultimately any X v. Y debate will eventually revolve around weapons so why not just start there?
To be fair it does come down to skill too.
One thing that show doesn't do well is when it talks about the spartans or the roman legionaries it takes them in the context of how a single warrior would do against a single one of an opponent which is pointless because they were designed to fight in a unit. How a formation based soldier holds up in single combat tells us virtually nothing about who is the better warrior.
Equally they don't leave room for things like terrain and they insist on all of them being judged on their potential as infantry even when the unit is designed to be mounted (like mongols or huns for example) and then there is also the fact that they have a tendency to talk about things like the ninja or pirates but the stuff they talk about assumes that these warrior types were based upon folklore and ignores the reality of these figures from history for example pirates didn't have a unified military dogma and had no standardisation of weapons of any kind beyond what was available to them at the time and ninja (or shinobi) not only didn't use the weapons the show suggests they did but at the same time weren't actually warriors so the show is essentially using a Hollywood creation for the match up which if you think about it is kinda crazy, they might as well face roman legionaries off against orcs or something.
Hmm, good point about soldiers being trained to fight in a unit (so the one-on-one thing is pointless). Perhaps a better illustration of one-on-one is considering how different types of gladiators would fare against each other? Not only are - say - secutors and murmillos from the same historical period, they were also trained and expected to fight one-on-one. So it's quite fair to consider how well they would do against each other.
As for "Deadliest Warrior" not considering the terrain - that's hardly new. Shows like this rarely do - and even if they do, they rarely consider the weather, another factor that's rarely thought of but that can have decisive and devastating results. See the rainstorm at Teutoburger Wald, the kamikaze wind that stopped the Mongol invasion of Japan, or the cold snap that trapped The Netherlands' ships and allowed Revolutionary French cuirassiers to take them over (true story). The weather wins - or loses - more battles than people suspect or expect.
As for judging cavalry units' effectiveness when they become infantry - hmm, this is not unheard of. Charles Martel, at the Battle of Tours, tried a similar tactic by dismounting his cavalry and forming a tight shield wall to repel the Muslim raids. Henry V did a similar thing at Agincourt. Having said that, insisting that all cavalry units must be judged at how effective they are when they fight as infantry is ludicrous.
As for recreating a "warrior" and basing him/her/its fighting ability on Hollywood-ish stereotypes, I'm not even going to bother. The whole idea is preposterous.
"There is nothing wrong with nepotism, provided you keep it all in the family."
--Winston Churchill
Hmm, good point about soldiers being trained to fight in a unit (so the one-on-one thing is pointless). Perhaps a better illustration of one-on-one is considering how different types of gladiators would fare against each other? Not only are - say - secutors and murmillos from the same historical period, they were also trained and expected to fight one-on-one. So it's quite fair to consider how well they would do against each other.
As for "Deadliest Warrior" not considering the terrain - that's hardly new. Shows like this rarely do - and even if they do, they rarely consider the weather, another factor that's rarely thought of but that can have decisive and devastating results. See the rainstorm at Teutoburger Wald, the kamikaze wind that stopped the Mongol invasion of Japan, or the cold snap that trapped The Netherlands' ships and allowed Revolutionary French cuirassiers to take them over (true story). The weather wins - or loses - more battles than people suspect or expect.
As for judging cavalry units' effectiveness when they become infantry - hmm, this is not unheard of. Charles Martel, at the Battle of Tours, tried a similar tactic by dismounting his cavalry and forming a tight shield wall to repel the Muslim raids. Henry V did a similar thing at Agincourt. Having said that, insisting that all cavalry units must be judged at how effective they are when they fight as infantry is ludicrous.
As for recreating a "warrior" and basing him/her/its fighting ability on Hollywood-ish stereotypes, I'm not even going to bother. The whole idea is preposterous.
Yeah there's a lot of factors, if they could standardise the battlefield so both are fighting on a slightly overcast day with no wind on a flat grass land we could comment more on this stuff.
Very good point on the weather too, I'd like to see their imaginary pirate make best use of his array of matchlocks and fused grenados in a downpour.
Yeah I appreciate there are some forces expected to be close to equivalent on horse or off of it particularly some of the mounted nobility in the European medieval period but it's baffling to me that horse cultures are subject to this really because arguing how good a mongol or a hun is as a warrior without considering his mount is basically ignoring what is essentially their primary weapon on the battlefield and the main thing that made them able to be so formidable that they were in the show in the first place.
I'm not sure if you mean it's preposterous me suggesting they do it or if you mean it's preposterous that they do actually do it but I assure you there are definitely examples of it. I'm sorely tempted to go back and watch that episode and outline each thing he says I can reliably refute about the things he talks about but I feel nobody other than me would get much enjoyment out of me dissecting it haha.
...As for recreating a "warrior" and basing him/her/its fighting ability on Hollywood-ish stereotypes, I'm not even going to bother. The whole idea is preposterous.
I'm not sure if you mean it's preposterous me suggesting they do it or if you mean it's preposterous that they do actually do it but I assure you there are definitely examples of it. I'm sorely tempted to go back and watch that episode and outline each thing he says I can reliably refute about the things he talks about but I feel nobody other than me would get much enjoyment out of me dissecting it haha.
Rest assured, I mean that the preposterous thing is the whole idea of recreating a "warrior" and basing him/her/its fighting ability on Hollywood-ish stereotypes. It's like, "Ooh, I know!! Let's have a samurai only fight with those long curved swords, 'cause that's the only thing you see in Hollywood!! And he's going to fight against a knight, only the knight will be wearing REALLY HEAVY ARMOUR and holding a REALLY LONG LANCE, 'cause Hollywood!!!"
Oh, gods... the stupidity. *facepalm + headdesk*
"There is nothing wrong with nepotism, provided you keep it all in the family."
--Winston Churchill
I quit hoping that show had any accuracy when the guy who took a katana against some chain mail on a stand didn't apparently know how to actually wield a friggin' katana. He didn't put any hip, shoulders, or stancing into his blow... it was just an all arms swing... not even a good one. No technique at all. They also attacked a breastplate with a falcata (wtf?) and also failed to strike properly.
Their "experts" were anything but. They did have a few who knew what they were doing, though. But yeah, that show is for entertainment... not accuracy.
KRYTEN: I'm some kind of robot who's fighting this virus, and none of
this exists, it's all in a fever, except for you guys, who really do
exist, only you're not really here, you're really on some space ship in
the future. Hell, if that's got to make sense I don't want to be
sober!
Comments
- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeThe weapons showcases were somewhat interesting, but were really just shallow presentations for impact: OMG that pigs head exploded LOL #crushedswine
There were plenty of instances where the weapons "experts" were obviously misrepresented, or had to be steered in a certain direction for the purposes of the show.
Please view the Total War Forum: Terms and Conditions.
Buttons the Kitten needs your help. Click here to save a kitten today.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeBah, humbug! Bah, I say!
--Winston Churchill
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeOne thing that show doesn't do well is when it talks about the spartans or the roman legionaries it takes them in the context of how a single warrior would do against a single one of an opponent which is pointless because they were designed to fight in a unit. How a formation based soldier holds up in single combat tells us virtually nothing about who is the better warrior.
Equally they don't leave room for things like terrain and they insist on all of them being judged on their potential as infantry even when the unit is designed to be mounted (like mongols or huns for example) and then there is also the fact that they have a tendency to talk about things like the ninja or pirates but the stuff they talk about assumes that these warrior types were based upon folklore and ignores the reality of these figures from history for example pirates didn't have a unified military dogma and had no standardisation of weapons of any kind beyond what was available to them at the time and ninja (or shinobi) not only didn't use the weapons the show suggests they did but at the same time weren't actually warriors so the show is essentially using a Hollywood creation for the match up which if you think about it is kinda crazy, they might as well face roman legionaries off against orcs or something.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeAs for "Deadliest Warrior" not considering the terrain - that's hardly new. Shows like this rarely do - and even if they do, they rarely consider the weather, another factor that's rarely thought of but that can have decisive and devastating results. See the rainstorm at Teutoburger Wald, the kamikaze wind that stopped the Mongol invasion of Japan, or the cold snap that trapped The Netherlands' ships and allowed Revolutionary French cuirassiers to take them over (true story). The weather wins - or loses - more battles than people suspect or expect.
As for judging cavalry units' effectiveness when they become infantry - hmm, this is not unheard of. Charles Martel, at the Battle of Tours, tried a similar tactic by dismounting his cavalry and forming a tight shield wall to repel the Muslim raids. Henry V did a similar thing at Agincourt. Having said that, insisting that all cavalry units must be judged at how effective they are when they fight as infantry is ludicrous.
As for recreating a "warrior" and basing him/her/its fighting ability on Hollywood-ish stereotypes, I'm not even going to bother. The whole idea is preposterous.
--Winston Churchill
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeVery good point on the weather too, I'd like to see their imaginary pirate make best use of his array of matchlocks and fused grenados in a downpour.
Yeah I appreciate there are some forces expected to be close to equivalent on horse or off of it particularly some of the mounted nobility in the European medieval period but it's baffling to me that horse cultures are subject to this really because arguing how good a mongol or a hun is as a warrior without considering his mount is basically ignoring what is essentially their primary weapon on the battlefield and the main thing that made them able to be so formidable that they were in the show in the first place.
I'm not sure if you mean it's preposterous me suggesting they do it or if you mean it's preposterous that they do actually do it but I assure you there are definitely examples of it. I'm sorely tempted to go back and watch that episode and outline each thing he says I can reliably refute about the things he talks about but I feel nobody other than me would get much enjoyment out of me dissecting it haha.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeOh, gods... the stupidity. *facepalm + headdesk*
--Winston Churchill
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeTheir "experts" were anything but. They did have a few who knew what they were doing, though. But yeah, that show is for entertainment... not accuracy.
- Report
1 · Disagree Agreehttp://m.imdb.com/title/tt0364843/
this exists, it's all in a fever, except for you guys, who really do
exist, only you're not really here, you're really on some space ship in
the future. Hell, if that's got to make sense I don't want to be
sober!
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree