Deadliest Warrior

[JagFarlane]

So I was bored...and waiting for some things to dry so flicked through the tv. Spike Network was running this show called "Deadliest Warrior". Apparently they take the weapons, armor, and tactics of warriors from various cultures and do computer simulations of how each warrior would fare in an all out battle. Ok kinda interesting, though for my appeal it was more learning about the different weapons used.

Kind of interesting one today...Gladiator vs Apache. Some cool things learned.

For those curious...Apache won 667 simulations out of 1000

 

[cloudy]

The other day it was the Samurai vs. the Vikings.

Samurai kicked ass.

(not surprising about the Apache - they were fearless and even other tribes called them "savage.")

 

[Guest]

Love this show!

Tuesday is the next installment - Spartans meet Ninjas!

 

[cloudy]

I really, really wish they would do Pirates vs. Ninjas.

 

[Leeboytoy]

I'm already a firm fan of it over the past few days, it's a great show. I'm betting on the Spartans kicking some Ninja ass though.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Roman Legions vs. anybody!

Until the advent of gunpowder, of course. And putting the English longbow into play might just change the dynamics, as well.

 

[Leeboytoy]

U.S. Marine with M16 vs. Apache with a bow and arrows.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

U.S. Marine with M16 vs. Apache with a bow and arrows.

Now that's just silly. Unless, of course, the Marine is on the Apache's home turf!

 

[cloudy]

Now that's just silly. Unless, of course, the Marine is on the Apache's home turf!

It would still be stupid. The whole point of the show is to take two groups that could be, hypothetically, evenly matched.

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

It may be the geek in me but I want to know how the quantified weapon effectiveness, fighting styles, and all the other variables. Endurance, climate, there's so many variables, how to make them match up would be quite the undertaking.

But given a proper system..... I'm thinking some big surprises could be found.

 

[Guest]

It may be the geek in me but I want to know how the quantified weapon effectiveness, fighting styles, and all the other variables. Endurance, climate, there's so many variables, how to make them match up would be quite the undertaking.

But given a proper system..... I'm thinking some big surprises could be found.

But that's the point of the show. You must watch!

They have technicians - weapons experts - computer geeks - a doctor to certify validity of death blows, etc.

They research the weapons, the fighting styles, the training , the terrain and the type of warriors these people were.

Expert warriors use real weapons on pig carcasses and body torso mockups made of ballistics gel. (And filled with red stuff - ick - when the weapons crush heads it's sort of creepy.)

They input all the data and then run 1000 computer simulated battles to determine the most probable outcome.

It's sort of a Mythbusters meets History Channel meets The Art of War.

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

But that's the point of the show. You must watch!

They have technicians - weapons experts - computer geeks - a doctor to certify validity of death blows, etc.

They research the weapons, the fighting styles, the training , the terrain and the type of warriors these people were.

Expert warriors use real weapons on pig carcasses and body torso mockups made of ballistics gel. (And filled with red stuff - ick - when the weapons crush heads it's sort of creepy.)

They input all the data and then run 1000 computer simulated battles to determine the most probable outcome.

It's sort of a Mythbusters meets History Channel meets The Art of War.

Oooh ok I'll try to catch a few episodes. Though the idea of Kari Byron discussing Sun Tzu just made me tingling in my happy places

 

[Guest]

Oooh ok I'll try to catch a few episodes. Though the idea of Kari Byron discussing Sun Tzu just made me tingling in my happy places

Oh - and the narrator? Very wise choice - David Wenham, who was Dilios from the 300.



(and wonders more about Sal's happy tingling places . . .)

 

[voluptuary_manque]

What channel is this on? History?

 

[cloudy]

What channel is this on? History?

Spike TV.

 

[oggbashan]

Roman Legions vs. anybody!

Until the advent of gunpowder, of course. And putting the English longbow into play might just change the dynamics, as well.

The English (originally Welsh) longbowman was unequalled for accuracy, rate of discharge, range and penetration until the invention of the bolt-action rifle with metallic cartridges in the late 19th Century.

However it took many years to train an archer and constant practice.

Archers were only one of the arms on their battlefields. The armoured knights were the spearhead. The men-at-arms (archers were men-at-arms as well when their arrows were exhausted or the enemy got close) and later the gunners were also important.

The problem with this sort of programme is that it concentrates on the individual. Gladiators fought in stylised combat to entertain. Roman legions relied on their discipline and close order, rarely fighting except in serried ranks. The different sorts of fighter evolved for their age and their commander's mode of battle.

At one time the Swiss were banned from being mercenaries, except for the Pope, because their pikemen were considered unbeatable. In their time, they were.

Og

 

[Guest]

Yes, my husband has some concerns about Spartans for the next show.

Focusing on just one warrior tends to eliminate the advantages shared by the group.

But it's still a bit of fun, with some history tossed into the mix.

 

[Belegon]

I need to check this out... not sure if we get Spike, will check on the web...

...and while I agree that solo combat is not necessarily gonna give you any way to extrapolate due to the strengths of some groups (the Spartans and Romans being excellent examples) I still find this an interesting concept.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Yes, my husband has some concerns about Spartans for the next show.

Focusing on just one warrior tends to eliminate the advantages shared by the group.

But it's still a bit of fun, with some history tossed into the mix.

It does make an excellent case for why warriors will always, eventually, be defeated by soldiers.

 

[Belegon]

The other day it was the Samurai vs. the Vikings.

Samurai kicked ass.

(not surprising about the Apache - they were fearless and even other tribes called them "savage.")

Hmmm... not so sure I would call 522-478 an ass kicking. I forget exactly how to do the statistics correctly, but I'm thinking that the advantage is about 3%.

in other words, the score in that basketball game would be 100-97.

I would not call that an ass-kicking.

I saw a lot of comments on their site about the "simulation" at the end and the tactics being used... people are idiots. The computer didn't plan the dramatization.

Pure speculation... if the two fight those 1000 times, it is the last effective battle out of either man more often than not. At least until the broken bones heal. And that is assuming the "winner" does not die from his wounds after killing his opponent.

I enjoyed it. It is thought provoking.

 

[R. Richard]

However it took many years to train an archer and constant practice.

Og

The common belief was that the training of an archer would properly begin with his grandfathers.

 

[oggbashan]

The common belief was that the training of an archer would properly begin with his grandfathers.

That was because the fathers were away fighting...

Og

 

[ishtat]

Roman Legions vs. anybody!

Until the advent of gunpowder, of course. And putting the English longbow into play might just change the dynamics, as well.

I would back Mongol cavalry particularly the mounted bowmen against either the Romans or the English long bow. However the programme seems set around the idea of close contact fighting which of course the Mongols realised was a dumb way to fight.

 

[ishtat]

The English (originally Welsh) longbowman was unequalled for accuracy, rate of discharge, range and penetration until the invention of the bolt-action rifle with metallic cartridges in the late 19th Century.

However it took many years to train an archer and constant practice.

Archers were only one of the arms on their battlefields. The armoured knights were the spearhead. The men-at-arms (archers were men-at-arms as well when their arrows were exhausted or the enemy got close) and later the gunners were also important.

The problem with this sort of programme is that it concentrates on the individual. Gladiators fought in stylised combat to entertain. Roman legions relied on their discipline and close order, rarely fighting except in serried ranks. The different sorts of fighter evolved for their age and their commander's mode of battle.

At one time the Swiss were banned from being mercenaries, except for the Pope, because their pikemen were considered unbeatable. In their time, they were.

Og

I have been told Og that the English/Welsh bowmen wounded many of their opponents with arrows and especially the horses which mostly only had head armour. However, after they had run out of arrows the archers followed up the cavalry and used their hammers (which they had previously used to drive protective stakes into the ground at the beginning of a battle) to kill their wounded or dismounted opponents.

I saw a programme in the UK a few weeks back in which a military historian claimed that the archers hammer was a much underrated weapon of significant psychological importance because the enemy usually the poorer French soldiery knew that even if only slightly wounded they would be slaughtered by the English bowmen.

Incidentally he claimed it was also the origin of the expression now largely used in Sports reports of "hammering" the opposition.

I had not heard of the suggestion that the hammer was so important in battle before and wondered if you could throw any light on it.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I would back Mongol cavalry particularly the mounted bowmen against either the Romans or the English long bow. However the programme seems set around the idea of close contact fighting which of course the Mongols realised was a dumb way to fight.

Donald Kagan in his On the Origins of War puts for the idea that the Mongols didn't actually fight their enemies, they hunted them in the same way that they did mass hunts of the animals of the steppe. Whether this meant that they considered the tigers, moose, elk, etc. of the hills and forests suitable foes or the other humans they encountered as game animals makes an interesting speculation. In either case, Ishtat is correct. Hand-to-hand combat is dumb! Call in the naval gunfire.