Just wanted to bring this up, there are 'aftermath' videos where the crew have a roundtable discussion about the episode. You can find the one for Pirate vs Knight here as well as the other episodes. I haven't watched it yet but apparently they go into a bit of depths about what happened and why.

I recently watched a few episodes after which, I came here and put together a hefty wish list of books of around 600 bucks worth o.O. I was always interested in history but this show just insults ones intelligence and spurs me on to learn more and take a few classes at the local college so I guess I owe that much to the show. See something good came of it lol!

It's not a bad show....It even caught my Kids attention and It did create several major discussions in our house and at work, especially the Viking Versus Samurai, and the Knight versus the Pirate. Having a bit of live steel experience, plus 10 years in the SCA, I found some of the victories questionable, but the series did demonstrate the effectiveness of the weapons of the times. The only outcome that everyone agreed with was the IRA versus the Taliban, and I believe that was due to our Irish heritage! :D

Just watched Attila vs Alexander...I've tried to catch-up to the present season. One thing I have noticed about these comparisons...they are only numbers based. Time, observable damage, force of impact(psi), depth of penetration, accuracy and so forth to determine lethality. These are very important factors for obvious reasons but leave out the human element exclusively. These factors cannot be quantified to be entered into whatever fight equation generator Slitherin studios has developed. While they have talked about 'Bushido' and the 'Spartan warrior culture'(who BTW were pankratiasts) they cannot typically include these in a truly empirical study that concludes with any accuracy of who beats who.

My other complaint is where the hell do they find the 'weapons experts'? Most I have NEVER heard of which is no surprise in itself but when it comes to ancient weapons(i.e. pre-1200 AD) is there really anyone who can say that they are an expert in the use of the kopis/machaira? I don't think so, though those individuals might believe so...anyhow, I'm repeatedly disappointed by the comparisons and not because my favorite didn't win (I'm a fan of the Spartan). It is the very limited scope of determination and the use of sub-par weapon users with the exception of some(the hungarian archer was excellent) that leaves me feeling cheated and that truly objectively real answer has not truly been determined.

In regards to Alexander vs. Attila...the most glaring probelem was the was the inequality of the the horsemen. Alexander would have been an excellent horseman for his time...and would have been far more effective than that pitiful character who used the kopis. I have owned kopis and cut with them...that fellow needs more practice...alot more. The Hungarian fellow was a far more skilled rider than the other so it is no surprise he used his 'sword of mars'(LOL!) with better skill. Not at all empirical nor does it prove anything about who would be the better warrior.

I actually feel that the modern comparisons have a more plausible comparisons. The SWAT/GSG-9 show was better done in my opinion as these guys are actually 'experts' in their given disciplines...though the IRA/Spetznaz comparison was laughable in that the IRA representative was no where nearly trained as the Spetnaz representative. He was more of a historian than an IRA operator.

I also wanted to add why is it that just about any warrior with a shield doesn't use it, especially against missile weapons. Ridiculous! Which of course is why the show is a complete farce!

I must concur that the show is an entirely farcical load of road-apples, or as my friend said "a fanboy's wet-dream".I bet that like the rest of you my hopes were lifted up for a terrible disappointment. I did not at all like the manner of "experts" they brought in, the way the weapons were tested, especially against armor (more specifically pirate vs. knight), AND that load of hoopla where a guy for whom a shield in INTEGRAL to his fighting style NEVER uses it :evil: I got fed up halfway through the first season and quit watching.

Now, I know they aren't exactly fantabulous when it comes to accuracy, but if the History Channel ever picked up something like this, I admit I'd be more intrigued, if only because they wouldn't be held under Spike's ridiculous Macho-Man Action Flick pretensions.

I write this from the viewpoint of a graduate level history student. In my opinion, "Deadliest Warrior" is a load of festering garbage. Comparing a Viking to a Samurai is completely and utterly ridiculous. It is nothing more than media's manifestation of the age old uber-dork debate "which is better, the Katana or the Longsword?" Pointless comparisons like this are a waste of time and is something that every self respecting academic or martial artist should make a point to avoid. It's despicable to see good and interesting history so shamelessly exploited. But then again, what more do you expect from the "frat-boy" channel?

A couple of my is favorite silly moments are from pirate vs. knight episode.

First is when they allowed the pirate's deadly blunderbuss a second chance after the pirate could not keep the blunderbuss primed in a nice safe test environment. What would be the pirate's chances when he is being cased down by an murderous upper class psychopath with a sword and the intent of lopping off pirate heads?

The second is when the knight rides down the pirate and cracks him in the back of head with the spiked flail. Somehow the pirate manages to get up and keep running. This was interesting, as earlier in the show it had been shown that a strike to the head with the spiked flail takes the top of the skull off and scoops the brain out. This left me to conclude that if the pirate was not brainless, the show certainly was.

Since this topic has been bumped with the recent season of this show, I feel the need to add a reminder. Please don't forget where you guys are posting. Say your opinions but don't stray from being an adult about it. We expect our members to be professional even in their critique of television programming intended for a lower common denominator. (This applies to me, too)

you can say a lot of this show, but I actually enjoyed watching it! You just have to keep in mind that the show is about hollywood cliche's and that the most of the people who are watching this don't have a clue about what they're talking about.


.... and actually... to be honest... since I was a kid, I wondered how a battle between a knight and a pirate should look like..

As far as I'm concerned the show's only merit is watching the actual weapon tests against the pigs/ballstics gel torsos and armor. I mean yeah, sure they're not necessarily conducted in a scientific fashion, but there is something satisfying about watching a Danish axe or Greatsword cleaving a torso in twain or a head off of a shoulder. The actual comparisons are absolute rubbish.

Edit: removed something mentioned earlier

I haven't gotten a chance to read the whole thread so if this has already been asked just ignore me, but how accurately do those ballistic gel men represent a human body, and would the adition of clothing change the outcome of the results? Just something I've been wondering that someone more experienced in cutting things might know.

Yeah, I think most of us are just peeved at the way the show touted itself as being "scientific" when it was ultimately just a bunch of statistics being piled against each other with no appreciation for the "art" aspect of the martial arts involved. They might as well have used D&D character sheets and a D20 to resolve their match-ups.

however, I must admit that I did giggle like a fat kid in an ice-cream parlor every time they hit a dummy with the weapons

I watched Knight vs. Pirate for LOLs - one thing they didnt mention and I would very much like to know is, how deep was the wound from the penetrating blunderbuss pellet.

Having some experience with programming, I bet their "cutting edge computer simulation" just throws out random numbers xD

Tim Hall wrote:

I haven't gotten a chance to read the whole thread so if this has already been asked just ignore me, but how accurately do those ballistic gel men represent a human body, and would the adition of clothing change the outcome of the results? Just something I've been wondering that someone more experienced in cutting things might know.

Ballistic gel approximates muscle tissue - skin and clothes add more resistance against bullets than one might expect, particularly if the clothes are padded as they would be under plate armor.

Obviously some of the comparisons cannot be equitable. A perfect example in last nights episode. Interestingly we have yet to see a comparison of modern era war fighters that are disparate in era...the latest being the SWAT GSG-9 comparison. I would have thought the comparison would have been something like a WWII British Commando vs GSG-9. I'm sure I'll follow this season just to see what the match ups will be...and how ridiculous they turn out.

An observation made by the Computer programmer during a DW: Aftermath discussion is that mail armor isn't any good as armor. I almost choked on the taco i was eating! The sample they claimed to have used in tests was likely butted mail which for obvious reasons doesn't represent a realistic test.

Ultimately it will be a field day shooting holes in the 'data' and the results.

I decided to watch a bit of this show. I'm disappointed because the wasted potential. The study of historical weapons could significantly benefit from well-conducted capability tests. With regards to armor and the English bow, Alan Williams and Matthew Strickland have provided this. However, we lack solid data in other areas, particularly on the force delivered by hand weapons. The Deadliest Warrior crew seems to have the equipment to produce accurate numbers, but their methodology could hardly be worse. In order gain a true understanding of the power of historical arms, one would need to measure the efforts of a number of people wielding faithful reproductions in the period styles. Only looking at one to three attacks from single individual tell us little. Finally, all modern experiments have to be balanced against primary sources.

One interesting figure I gleaned from the Viking vs. Samurai episode was the kinetic energy of the thrown spear. (It looked more like a partisan thank a Viking spear to me, but that's neither here nor there.) Their subject supposedly threw the six-pound projective at 30-34 mph, giving it around 270 J. This aligns with 360 J quoted for Olympic-level javelin throwers. Either that guy really knew what he was doing or a heavier projective allows for a lot more energy transfer.

I laughed when I saw the Google add at the bottom of this very page: