Its a show on the History channel, I started watching it on the internet think it was going to be like battle BC (which is unbearably bad) or like deadliest warriors (enough said).

Its actually a pretty good show, what are your opinions?

I have found that it's pretty accurate in most respects. My favourite episode so far would have to be the one about the Knights of Malta, they conducted tests on how effective a bullet would be against a cuirass. I really do like the show, but I guess it depends on the person. It's really quite different from "Deadliest Warrior".

Ya, malta showed the narrators personal knowledge

Terry Shapert is pretty good on his history, knowledge of military fundamentals, unarmed combat. What he lacks is understanding of the use of pre-modern weapons and armor. He feeds into outdated stereotypes of western martial arts, in part because he dosn't know/practice any. Listen to his description of the 'medieval longsword' he gives in the knights of Malta episode. For the most part, he does let the people who do understand them do the explaining, but then he goes and ruins it by calling the longsword a 'hacking' weapon as if it were used to like an axe to chop wood (actually chopping wood isn't even 'hacking' a skilled wood chopping is quite fluid and nuanced). Clearly he's unfamiliar with finesse that's involved in longsword combat.

Go watch the episode about English Knights HC has online. He say he looked up to English Knights as a kid like 'King Arther and Lancelot'. Then he acts totally surprised by the Brit that hands him a gnarly beating with plastic wasters. After hammering him for a bit, the guy lets down his guard and Terry gets a single weak thrust in. That's one shot landed out of at least twenty in the episode. Most of the other WMA styles are also shown in a similar light, excepting of course the Romans.

I think he could really use some WMA training and he needs to get a more accurate picture of European History. He speaks with awe about the Japanese sword construction but said nothing about similar quality weapons being found in Europe during the Viking era. I think he needs some education from the professional folks that post on this site.

Other than that, he is a good story teller and you can tell that he is honestly enthusiastic about the history and understanding the 'feel' of what it was like to be a medieval warrior.

Funny coincidence, I have actually started to watch this show last week and trying to get all the episodes. I found the Viking one pretty interesting although with an over enthusiasm on the “warrior culture” aspect (as much as I can respect their fighting techniques I do have some moral qualms with their modus operandi)
I saw the knight one just yesterday and enjoyed it. I was quite impressed with the sword handling of the man with the plastic swords (would not be surprise if he was a member of this forum).
But as mentioned in the post above, I do have some issues with the narrator. First I have the feeling that perhaps his knowledge of history is fine for a layman but not enough to carry a program like this. It seems he gets data about the theme for each week (which makes sense, of course) but when it is coming out it just does not click together entirely. I also think his obvious martial physical skills play against him as there seems to be always a sense of “ok, this weapon is fine but we do soooo much better in the Green berets” (except for the fight in the English knight episode where he really seemed to realize just how much above him he medieval British fencer was)
But, personally and from a totally biased point of view, my main problem is his very colloquial style. There are too many “bros” and “awesome” thrown in for my taste.

I think this show is excellent really, and I especially like the fact that the host hasn't got anything to do with stage combat or any renaissance fair type activity honestly. :)

out of the shows on now i really enjoy this one. i find that i can respect the shows host and actually listen to him rather than look for whats "wrong with this picture". the fact that he was given the 2 bokkens and watch him well up with tears showed me he knew the respect and meaning the gift implied.

I rather like the show, though I've had some quibbles with some of the things said.

While Mr. Schappert's enthusiasm is sometimes annoying, it is, most of the time, quite entertaining, and I like the fact that he's pretty good about actually listening to (and learning from) the guests. He's also quite obviously enjoying himself, which is also a plus.

Well, Spike TV it ain't. ;)

The host's colloquialisms don't seem to be forced; they are a part of him. And I think the producers decided to keep that, instead of making him talk in a phony manner. They were probably happy that it would endear him to the younger crowd (and Californians).:)

I actually think this show is pretty dumb. I enjoyed the episode where he trys "test-cutting" using a re-enactment blunt against some butted chain mail on a wood stand, verry realistic ;) . I liked the show WEAPONS THAT MADE BRITIAN way better they should bring that back!!!! Battles BC is pretty phony but reminds me of Last Stand Of The 300 by Frank Muller or whoever.

I enjoy Warriors quite a bit, and partially it's because the host is obviously having a great time. I've disagreed with some of the statements made (the entire Agincourt episode was problematic), but overall, the accuracy level has been pretty good. And the people he works with, the reenactors and researchers, seem to be pretty authoritative for the most part (for example, Tony Clunn in the episode with the Teutoberg Battle).
It's probably one of the best shows on ancient military history I've seen on the History channel (granted, that's not saying much...)

Far better than the previously mentioned Battles BC. The history itself isn't the problem (the historians seem to be well-versed in their subject matter), those horrible battle reenactments are. I know, they're in the mode of 300, but 300 has to be looked on as a fantasy piece, not an actual depiction of a historical battle. In this show, if they are attempting to show the history, they're doing it wrong.... and for me, it's a distraction....

Good show! There was another show he did about the Aztecs. He was using one of those clubs with obsidian blades running all along the edge and gashed the back of his leg on the follow threw. No crying, whining or panic. They rolled up the pant leg and treated the wound right there and went on with the show. It was a really nasty cut too! They used some sort of powdered coagulent to stop the bleeding and some butterfly bandages. It was about a two or three inch gapping wound. I have new found respect for obsidian bladed weapons after seeing the damage done. He's one tough bird too!

Guess all that needs to be said is that I've actually made it a point to arrange a couple of my Thursdays so that I could catch the show. Been a long (LONG) time since I've done that for anything. Especially for anything on History channel. I guess that must mean I like it a bit.

That said I have not made a concerted effort to see all the episodes...so good entertainment with a fun host but not epic by any stretch.

I watched yesterday the samurai episode. All in all, I enjoyed it but…

I lived in Japan for 10 years, went to university there and worked for a very large, very Japanese company for half that time. I believe I was quite inmerse in the country although I feel I left without getting to know as much as I would have liked about it. The funny thing, and the reason of my post, is that I was deeply in love with all things Japanese and specially its martial arts prior to move there. First thing I did the Sping I arrived was to join a Kendo club. I then tried other MA forms and found a very, very big gap in the instruction system used in the West and in Japan. Maybe it was a problem that came form me and not the system itself but lessons in most cases (be it kendo, karate, or any other form I tried, even Tai chi) were extremely boring.
I know this is a controversial thing to say and maybe it would be better to say: lessons were extremely repetitive to the extreme that one class was identical to the previous one, day after day. There was very little variation. I know that, outside of Hollywood, there are no “magical infallible attacks” and that the only way to do a good punch, kick or strike and make sure it hits, is to repeat the move over an over again. Repetition is basic for learning. But (and I think this is something a visitor to Japan may have noticed) I also believe Japanese dojos, same as companies or sport clubs or any other regular gathering, tend to be a microcosmos reflection of society at large and Japanese society I find very stratified and keen in having its members follow certain routines that set individuals in their corresponding places as well as a deeply rooted perception that practice makes perfection (even if variation, adaptation and practice of different scenarios are also a big step towards such elusive goal)
So after many years I ended up discovering western martial arts in Tokyo, of all places and finally finding my niche.
But again maybe it was a problem of mine rather than the system

So, very long introduction just to comment that it was very hard for me to get into the Japanese/samurai mystique that the narrator was very hard trying to convey (obviously because that was the resonance it had for him personally. I dont think his interest was faked at all). But behind the beautifully panelled dojos, the flowing hakamas and the serene gardens I just kept seeing that first Musashi kata with the throat attack being done ad nauseam during training sessions and thinking “looks great, maybe is not so much fun after a couple of years…”
So my impression is this, I admire the Japanese MA very much but I do think we westerners often commit the mistake of having a excessively romantic notion of much of it. I know I did

But I am sure there are other opinions…