Deadliest Warrior? Really?

I’m just not buying this “Deadliest Warrior” show.  Pitting the greatest warriors in history against each other… showing the weapons… detailing the strengths… and then drawing the totally wrong conclusions.

Roman Centurion vs. Rajput…. The Centurion was a force of nature.  A man who came up through the ranks of the legion the hard way… by dishing out industrial strength murder at every turn.  And they say he lost to a Whirly bird with a frisbee and a tape measure?  That doesn’t even make sense.

An Apache vs a Gladiator…. The Gladiator lived for single combat, facing his adversary down toe to toe and then ripping his limbs on and force feeding it to him while feeling nothing but the thrill of carnage and roar of the crowds… and they say he lost to a guy who’s main strength was burglary?  Sneaking up on some unsuspecting ranch hand?  That’s laughable.

This show is good entertainment, I’ll give you that.  But even my 3 year old called BS on the show.



20 thoughts on “Deadliest Warrior? Really?”

  1. Have you seen the Sun Tzu vs Dracula episode? I heard one description which put as “Sun Tzu get’s buttraped by Dracula”

    1. Sun Tzu was an impressive General… he wrote the book on Warfare. But Vlad the Impaler actually went out and slaughtered people by the hundreds. Yeah, that’s not even a contest.

  2. They bring up some interesting stuff, but they don’t really have anyone on there who knows shit about actual combat or fighting.

  3. Yea, the show is intertaining, and full of BS, none moreso than ranking a cheap switchblade
    above a bowie knife, but…

    Your take on the gladiator is a bit off. Roman gladiators actually followed rules.
    Much of their armor was designed to hamper their preformance more than protect them.
    The gladitorial games turned combat into sport, murder sport, mind you, but sport nonetheless.

    The Apache could have taken a gladiator… Centurians, not so much. The roman meat grinder
    would have chewed them up and spit them out, given the right terrain.

    That brings us to one of the problems with the show. Soldiers V.S. Warriors.

    Individual combat is the realm of the warrior. Unit combat is the world of the soldier.
    Which is more dangerous ? That depends on a lot of factors, with terrain being one
    of the most important.

    Over the centuries, warriors and soldiers have defeated one another, back and forth, in
    many diffrent battles. There are lots of examples for both sides.

    The two are not mutually exclusive. Be both.

  4. My sisters husban watches that show or did last year not really sure. But he said in his mind a few of the “fights” seemed bias.

  5. Mac from Future Weapons is joining the cast this season. We’ll see how that goes. I actually enjoy the show quit a bit for its entertainment value.

  6. Popcorn fair for slow evenings, nothing more. I enjoy the weapons evaluations though. I think somebody is still smarting over the Green beanies vs. Russian Spensnoz. Russians won and the screeching began…the guys on the show were visibly nervous around the ex Russian Spl Forces killer, Sonny, who’s matter of fact statements about how they trained and fought, that they willingly take 10% casualties in TRAINING shook them.

    1. That was another episode I disagreed with…the Afghani fighters said that Specnaz were equivalent in skill to regular US troops…Green Berets were on another level entirely.

      There were two more episodes (at least) I took serious issue with; the Viking vs. Samurai and the Pirate vs. Knight.

      The Viking had superior armour and superior weapons, even taking the time difference into account: a katana won’t do anything against mail, and the viking’s shield will make combat completely one-sided. The only way the Samurai won that fight is they cheated, plain and simple. They gave the Samurai the kanabo – a rarely used weapon – as the Special Choice. The Viking? He got a shield. Apparently, standard equipment counts as a “Special Weapon.” (and back to the Roman Centurion – they completely discounted his scutum. WTF) Not only that, but they deliberately weaken the shield: instead of two layers of wood, it had only one, and it didn’t have the strengthening room. And you know what? The kanabo still did barely anything! Half the studs flew off, and it only broke off a bit of the shield. Against a real viking shield it would’ve been useless.

      Ah, but the Knight vs Pirate… that was a thing of beauty. First of all, they didn’t use a knight from, say, the early Crusades, wearing mail and iron helms: no, they used full-plate clad juggernaut. Then, they decided to nerf the Knight a little and gave him an iron breastplate – which the knights wouldn’t have been using in that timeframe. And the pirate’s blunderbuss didn’t work! What a surprise, seeing as one of the first tests armourers do when buildings a suit of armour is to shoot it. That’s where the term “bulletproof” comes from. The only way the knight lost the battle was – again – cheating, though this time in the final battle, where he basically does everything to prolong the fight except drop his weapons. Oh, and this is after the pirate somehow survived two direct flail-blows to the head.

      I’d also like to note that the Celt warrior and William Wallace were shortchanged; Wallace was wearing astonishingly primitive armor for the time period, and the Celt had no armor at all, even though Celt warriors had helm, mail, and sword so good that the Romans copied them.

      *phew* Sorry for the historian rant.

  7. The Green Berets Vs. Spetsnaz was sad. It came down to a shooting knife vs a shovel, if I remember correctly. Yikes.

  8. the problem is that it seems like people just bring random weapons (i.e. The Sun Tzu, gentleman’s sword) and they never really cover tactics, it’s just one simple thrust or slash. I really like the Squad on squad fights those are entertaining. What I really would like to see is the Navy seal vs. the Spetsnaz. that would be a real good fight, even though it’s off.

  9. Some of their weapons tests are a bit flawed too. In the Green Beret vs Spetsnaz episode, they declared the Makarov to be a better pistol than the Beretta. It is true that the Russian guy turned in a slightly better shooting performance in the episode, but that doesn’t mean he had better equipment. He just performed better than the other guy on the shooting challenge.

    Nothing wrong with the Makarov, but the Beretta holds a lot more rounds, and 9×19 is a little more powerful than 9×18. It’s clearly the better combat pistol.

  10. You have to look at the guys representing their “warrior” as the win or fail element. The choice of the Green Berets to use shovels instead of knives? Really? Thats gimmicky cool and gets interest points but is NOT going to be effective. Too often the guys going in expect to just steamroll the opponent with one or two weapons and so they pick the gimmicky ones to get interest up and it BACKFIRES. Rather than coming in with all out balls out weapons for fighting.

    I hope having Mac on the show will help a hair i.e. someone who’s (supposedly) BTDT.

    I’ll admit I was pissed at the outcomes of the William Wallace, Celt & Viking Episodes. Again its alot about what the representatives do. But I also admit its a complete guilty pleasure and I watch it.

  11. My favorite was when they compared a frag grenade to a flashbang used by the GSG9 and concluded that the frag was more lethal and as such the user of the frag was a better warrior….

  12. This show is a joke. As someone who digs living historical and archaeological reconstructions and testing, the problem I have is the testing media. Say they are comparing a wooden war club to a steel mace: they will test one weapon against a cow skull and the other against a cinder block. That infuriates me. Test them both against the same kind of target already and then compare! What’s more test them routinely against the opponents armor, or lack thereof, even but make it sensible…and scientific. Let MythBusters do the testing then; after the real science was done, they could get MB crazy and tear stuff up.

  13. Ok, I have to admit I DVR this show and watch every one of them. Do I agree with their outcomes? HELL no. George nailed it. The Centurion vs. Rajput example is perfect. The Rajput defended their boarder by making everyone laugh at what they called weapons. Their conclusions hit their target about 20% of the time and is total crap the rest. What I like is the tests they do. We do a lot of talk, in the gun culture, about gelatin tests. Yeah, it is a good substitute for flesh, muscle, and internal organs. A bullet still has to smash through a rib cage or a skull to get the the meat of what the gelatin is meant to resemble. The torso’s these guys make are damn near perfect for ballistic testing. The only thing I would change is the steel rod down the spine but then you couldn’t get the torso to stay upright. Their testing is what makes the show.

  14. Sarg, you are so right about the unfair tests. That drives me nuts too. I just want their torsos for our own testing.

    The real reason for the show came out in season two, I think. It’s the Deadliest Warrior video game. They used all their testing to make the freak’n game. Makes me sick.

  15. show is entertaining but a joke….sorry, the Romans kicked ass pretty much for a reason, they were that good at group combat…they got their but kicked when they stretched their logistical train like everyone else has over history..

    I would like to see the algorithm that their computer program uses to determine a winner…

    if knife=shooting then
    gosub kill everything
    else lose

    sorry, my programming days are long behind me…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *