Deadliest Warrior!

[Robert Vermaat]

Souns like an immensely bad show full of bad science, bad politics and bad taste. So why does anybody watch it? One thing's for sure though - it does not warrant any serious discusssion. :evil:

[M. Demetrius]

Well, when they pit a Cro Magnon warrior against one of the Morloks, then we'll have something serious to talk about. But until then --

Went to a toy soldier expo where we had a display table of early 1st C people, lots of conversation, and some breads for sampling. People were talking about that series, saying how the Hoplite this or that, and the Samurai, etc., could --

I just smiled and nodded. We were guests, after all, and in their front yard. Sigh.

[Timotheus]

This show is back and it certainly has not gotten any better. The last one I saw was Attila the Hun against Alexander the Great. So we take two generals, one the greatest conquerer of the ancient world and the other little more than a murderous barbarian (really did Attila ever kill as many enemy soldiers on the field to match the civilians he butchered) and decided that Attila would win in a mock skirmish where they each bring along 2 guys for help.

I am not sure what is more annoying, the lousy science, horrible choice of weapons, or the pathetic smack talk from the inbred rejects they bring in to demonstrate the weapons used by their "descendents".

I am curious though. The Hungarian guy brought in to demo Attila's weapons said that in Hungary they consider Attila to be a national hero. Is this true?

[Robert Vermaat]

So we take two generals, one the greatest conquerer of the ancient world and the other little more than a murderous barbarian

I think you might want to read a bit more about both Alexander ánd Attila. Alexander's campaigns in Central Asia or India are not exactly what we might call a 'clean war'. And I don't doubt for a minute that Attila's forces killed far less Gauls than Julius Ceasr claimed to have killed. I think it's mainly a case of bad press and popular modern books. In terms of damage or ruthlessness, Alexander and Attila are quite comparable.

Of course I agree with you on the program. It's idiotic to take to general as examples of the warriors in their armies. If they'd make Alexander a macedonian hoplite, he'd be without a chance against a Hunnic horse-archer.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

This is, by far.........

THE..............



Deadliest Warrior!

M.VIB.M.

[Timotheus]

So we take two generals, one the greatest conquerer of the ancient world and the other little more than a murderous barbarian

I think you might want to read a bit more about both Alexander ánd Attila. Alexander's campaigns in Central Asia or India are not exactly what we might call a 'clean war'. And I don't doubt for a minute that Attila's forces killed far less Gauls than Julius Ceasr claimed to have killed. I think it's mainly a case of bad press and popular modern books. In terms of damage or ruthlessness, Alexander and Attila are quite comparable.

Of course I agree with you on the program. It's idiotic to take to general as examples of the warriors in their armies. If they'd make Alexander a macedonian hoplite, he'd be without a chance against a Hunnic horse-archer.

Alexander fought an empire to create his own empire. Given a choice he preferred the surrender of cities, when they refused that is another story. Attila is much more the traditional steppe warrior who I would be willing to bet preferred to hit an undefended city to rape and pillage than face an enemy army on the field of battle.

The difference in the two men is beyond compare. Alexander faced an organized foe. Attila decimated or conquered dozens of individual tribes that did not work together all that much. When Attila ran into someone who could form an organized defense against him he lost. Alexander only turned back when his men got sick of walking halfway around the world for him.

Either way its pointless to compare them as soldiers. I am sure both had hundreds of subordinate soldiers in their armies that could have easily killed them in single combat. So its doubtful they are the best example of their type of soldier.

But to me nothing is worse than the Viking versus Samurai episode. Lets show how bada$$ a samurai is by having the Viking stand there with his shield strapped to his back while he gets arrow shot at him. Uh yeah.....

[Robert Vermaat]

Alexander fought an empire to create his own empire. Given a choice he preferred the surrender of cities, when they refused that is another story. Attila is much more the traditional steppe warrior who I would be willing to bet preferred to hit an undefended city to rape and pillage than face an enemy army on the field of battle.

Sorry to have to say this, but your view of Alexnder is too positive and that of Attila not based on facts. Attila's army most certainly did not look anything like that of a traditional steppe army (more infantry than cavalry) and his campaigns into the Eastern and Western empires are in no way to be described as that he 'preferred to hit an undefended city to rape and pillage than face an enemy army on the field of battle'. That's nonsense frankly.

The difference in the two men is beyond compare. Alexander faced an organized foe. Attila decimated or conquered dozens of individual tribes that did not work together all that much. When Attila ran into someone who could form an organized defense against him he lost. Alexander only turned back when his men got sick of walking halfway around the world for him.

Haven't you read Jona Lenderings posts about Darius' army at Gaugamela? They were so demoralised, you can hardly call them 'orrganised'. Attila did not attack undefended foes, he attacked both parts of the Roman Empire. If you think of that enemy as 'not organised', you'll have some reading to do. Attila never 'lost' against the Romans, he either won, was bought off or reached a draw.

I'm not even a fan of Attila, and look what you're making me do - defend his reputation! hock:

Either way its pointless to compare them as soldiers.

I absolutely agree! :mrgreen:

[Lessa]

At least the corinthian helmet in the final battle looks historically accurate.
I wonder where i can buy it....

[caiusbeerquitius]

Deadliest warrior:




Because she has this:




:lol:

Or, maybe:

[hoplite14gr]

Cristian I agree with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBthoD68 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3A7J898 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpFDHO-t ... re=related

P.S.
My wife is an ace with the AK-47!

[ArthuroftheBritons]

The Alexander vs. Attila episode was a joke! For starters they gave Alexander hoplite muscle curaisses, when in fact he wore a kevlar-like armour made by taking linen, folding it a lot, and compressing it, and repeating that with three different layers of cloth. According to where I read about this it was enough to stop most sword strikes and deflect arrows, they even tested it. And for peats sake they gave Attila a Scythian axe. Not even close to being Hunnic! (I could be wrong though) They even allowed for his "Sword of Mars" to be made of Meteorite Iron and be shaped like a germanic migration period cavalry sword! Overall bad science. And the guys in my history class, delusioned by this show and the movie 300, believe that Spartans are the perfect warriors and get extremely emotinal if anyone says otherwise! Trust me, if I do see the show, I don't like what I see.