Greatest Warrior

Hello everyone. I have been watching a bit more of Deadliest Warrior lately and decided that if the conclusion was actually based more on historical evidence then the idea would be a good one. Therefore I have decided to do something similair. Take too warriors from roughly similar eras, (similar being used in the broadest sense here) and pit them in a 1 on 1 battle. Currently catorgories that I am thinking about are weapons from a purely techincal stand point, being further subdivided into long/ missnle weapons, midranged (such as a spear or staff or sword over 4 feet) and melee weapon and a specialty weapon. Also as much as possible, skill comes into play for the the weapons. Other things such amount of amour and shield size along attitude would be taken in to account. Attitude would be comprisided of fighting style, whether it is all offensive, or defense, or a mixture of the two, and if the warrior would consider a major wound to be "nothing but a flesh wound" Still working out how to decide the winner of each catorgory and overall winner based on comments and who to pit against who so suggestions would be very welcomed please respond if you think this is a good idea
 
I think that one major fundamental problem is that the show simply doesn't understand that virtually all of their picks are not, "warriors." The Spartan vs. Ninja one, just to take an example. Spartans are not warriors. Spartans are soldiers. A Spartan without comrades is totally useless. Likewise, ninjas are not warriors. Ninjas are spy/assassins, who explicitly work in shadow. Their primary skill is stealth. A ninja who allows him to be caught in an extended fight is a very poor ninja.

There is also, of course, the problem of bias. A lot of times, things will just descend into fanwanking.
 
Agree 100% with you Zmflavius. But I am asking if you like the idea. And I would only really use soldiers against other soldiers
 
PLease leave a comment if you view this. Noticed that there are over 100 views and only other person as commented
 
I like the deal but in my opinion any "improved" deadliest warrior should be army versus army with a clear scenario in mind e.g Ottoman Janissaries under Suleyman The Magnificent are besieging a Fortress guarded by Athenian Hoplite or a Roman Legion or something (they don't need to be Shakespeare just give context and give an idea of What kind of fighting is going on) that would greatly improve the show and focus its testing which is key in my opinion since the real shows testing is fucking stupid and ignores the context in which people fought with those weapons.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, more realistic settings could make a better show.

My favourite example of this online would be Cataphract vs. Winged Hussar, actually. Look it up as an example.
 
Delvestius Then I do not lke how it usually works. HAve done something similar with armies before and was not too popular
 

Delvestius

Banned
Delvestius Then I do not lke how it usually works. HAve done something similar with armies before and was not too popular

I mean, I don't like how the fro-yo place down the street doesn't serve custard, but I mean, that's life... A rule of thumb here: If something's not too popular, there's usually a reason.
 
You know the rule of thumb is that you were allowed to beat your wife with a stick as long as it was not thicker than your thumb
 

Delvestius

Banned
You know the rule of thumb is that you were allowed to beat your wife with a stick as long as it was not thicker than your thumb

images
 
One my english teacher told me that two years ago, along with several other highly creidable sources have confirmed this. And I was just saying. But that's off topic. Still would appraite feed back on idea
 
Hello everyone. I have been watching a bit more of Deadliest Warrior lately and decided that if the conclusion was actually based more on historical evidence then the idea would be a good one. Therefore I have decided to do something similair. Take too warriors from roughly similar eras, (similar being used in the broadest sense here) and pit them in a 1 on 1 battle. Currently catorgories that I am thinking about are weapons from a purely techincal stand point, being further subdivided into long/ missnle weapons, midranged (such as a spear or staff or sword over 4 feet) and melee weapon and a specialty weapon. Also as much as possible, skill comes into play for the the weapons. Other things such amount of amour and shield size along attitude would be taken in to account. Attitude would be comprisided of fighting style, whether it is all offensive, or defense, or a mixture of the two, and if the warrior would consider a major wound to be "nothing but a flesh wound" Still working out how to decide the winner of each catorgory and overall winner based on comments and who to pit against who so suggestions would be very welcomed please respond if you think this is a good idea

Is spacebattles.net not working or something? This isn't a real POD, if you must do it in this forum do it in the ASB section.
 
Please do not get me started on that. Maybe it should go into ASB. So sue me. I do not care. I have done other stuff such as this before here and will do stuff like this again here. Does it really matter?
 
Hello everyone. I have been watching a bit more of Deadliest Warrior lately and decided that if the conclusion was actually based more on historical evidence then the idea would be a good one. Therefore I have decided to do something similair. Take too warriors from roughly similar eras, (similar being used in the broadest sense here) and pit them in a 1 on 1 battle. Currently catorgories that I am thinking about are weapons from a purely techincal stand point, being further subdivided into long/ missnle weapons, midranged (such as a spear or staff or sword over 4 feet) and melee weapon and a specialty weapon. Also as much as possible, skill comes into play for the the weapons. Other things such amount of amour and shield size along attitude would be taken in to account. Attitude would be comprisided of fighting style, whether it is all offensive, or defense, or a mixture of the two, and if the warrior would consider a major wound to be "nothing but a flesh wound" Still working out how to decide the winner of each catorgory and overall winner based on comments and who to pit against who so suggestions would be very welcomed please respond if you think this is a good idea
we oughta just resurrect that "Deadliest Warriors Done Right" project from earlier this year
 
I liked the show at first, until they completly messed up the Celt vs Persian. I am not even getting started on that one. the very thought just makes my blood boil XD
 
I liked the show at first, until they completly messed up the Celt vs Persian. I am not even getting started on that one. the very thought just makes my blood boil XD
I agree. Celt is the far superior warrior, while the Persian are better soldiers. One on one the Celt would anhilate while even as few as 10 on 10 the Persians would have a riddiculus advantage
 
Top