Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Spike TV is having comparisons of historical fighters:

Looks like Apaches beat gladiators
Samurai beat Vikings (did you see what the long sword did-wo)
Spartans exterminate ninjas.
I didn’t see the pirates vs. knights one.

I really would have liked to see
-Roman veteran vs. samurai
-I would have liked knight vs. samurai but we don’t have enough info on knight’s battle training.
-How many samurai could a Mongol horseman pwon before having to drink some mare’s milk.
-And of course-ninja vs. pirate!

Liked the show-the scientific tests of the weapons and armor are interesting:
*Katana brutal
*Surprisingly Viking longsword also brutal
*early Viking mail laughing at a katana strike
*Simple Apache war club being pretty effective
*Spartan shield uber alles.

I really would have liked to see a 1st Century Roman though.

http://www.spike.com/show/31082

Some one was telling me about this but i never saw it.

Was the spartan vs ninja 1 vs 1?

Yes, but, even in multiple on multipe, spartans would still win.

They were counting on the shields deflecting throwing stars and the fact that the spartan spears hurt a lot more than throwing stars.

Viking should've beaten samurai though.

Frazzled wrote:
I really would have liked to see
-How many samurai could a Mongol horseman pwon before having to drink some mare’s milk.

Well, actually, during Kublai Khan's reign, the Mongols did try to invade Japan. However, due to bad weather and poor nautical planning, they lost much of their army before arriving in Japan, and by that time, the Japanese were prepared and cut down the invaders.

Thing is, on a one-on-one match up, I would say that the samurai would have the advantage. Mongols were all very adept horsemen and were certainly capable and brutal fighters. However, their main strength lay in their mobility and archery skills. En masse, this was absolutely devastating as you'd have an entire army that could move around the battlefield quickly (for the most part, Mongol armies were all mounted) and shoot accurately even on the move or retreating. If you put a Mongol warrior one-on-one on the ground vs. a Japanese samurai, however, I would imagine that the Japanese discipline and training would prove far superior.

Yes, on the ground it would be samurai time.

To be clear I was thinking in their natural environment. You'd never fight a Mongol horseman on the ground.

They need to add a Zulu into the mix, and Bruce Lee with Nonchuks. A conquistador would be cool as well.

How about WWI Doughboy against Samura?
Bang!
next test.

Eh nvm Bruce Lee and nanchaku ,

have Jet Li instead since he is better with lethal weaponry.

Blasphemer! Sinner! Burn the Heretic!

Zulu warfare seemed silly up until the point of Shaka Zulu's reign.

Opposing sides meet in battle-field. Everyone's got their masai shields and spears. Everyone throws their spears. Rinse repeat until people decide to run or charge.

Shaka was smart - he thought, "wait guys, don't throw your spears yet......ok, now they have no spears, let's get them!"

Frazzled wrote:
How about WWI Doughboy against Samura?
Bang!
next test.

This is why Japan once decided not to pursue gun technology. It gave powerful
weaponry in the arms of peasants.

Pirate Vs. Knight kinda pissed me off.



The whole damn episode shows how massively ineffective pirate weaponry would be against a knight. Grenados don't do crap but stun and shake the Knight (Maybe unhorse him), flintlock pistols can't even penetrate platemail at point blank, and I need not go into how much of an advantage the Knight has in Hand to Hand (NO Pirate melee weapon can actually go through Knight armor, apparently). The only thing that actually did any damage to the Knight is the Blunderbuss. And even then, the damn thing misfired half the shots it took. All the Knight needs to do is land one good hit. BAM. Back to Davey Jones'.

Bah. I digress.

What I'd really like to see is a Ninja Vs. Apache, since the two have very similar fighting methods. Honestly, the Ninja didn't really stand a chance against a Spartan. I think most people forget that in all reality, a ninja is just a farmer using farming tools as weapons. The first thing I thought of when I heard "Ninja vs Spartan" is "Is it daytime? Is the Spartan awake? Well, the Ninja loses." Yeah, killing sleeping warlords. You are such a bad ass.

The next fight appears to be Mafia vs. Yakuza. Seems a pretty even fight, and pretty strange for them. Two guys with guns? Sounds like whoever gets the first shot wins. Though the Yakuza has a significant advantage in close combat. Sword Vs. Bat? No contest.

Let's bring out the Roman Legionaires! I don't care who they fight, it'll be interesting all the same.

Hrm. Maybe Swiss Pikemen. Or Welsh longbowmen! ... Ok those aren't exactly interesting match-ups. This show may not have alot of longevity... But they know they can't be cancelled until they do "Pirate Vs Ninja" so they're safe for now.

The Knight vs Pirate episode was pretty anti-climatic. The Knight was obviously superior in melee. The only thing the Pirate had going was his blunderbuss (they rated the Grenado pretty high, but I didn't agree with it vs an armored knight). I saw the Apache vs Gladiator match, and again, it was the Apache bow that made a big difference.

I'd much rather see them compare similar styles and eras. The pirate defeated the knight because he had gunpowder? Wow, like the last 600 years didn't prove that gunpowder trumps armored knight? And here, I thought the knight became obsolete because of tanks.....sigh.

And of course, good ranged weapons carry the day. Not to pick on the poor European Knight, but the English longbow pretty much proved that point a long time ago.

So, to review:
1. Better technology helps you win.
2. Shooting a guy, who is only good at close range, from a distance also helps you win.

It's neat to see them get out the old weapons and test them on pigs and artificial human torsos. But, I think the 1 on 1 matchup is pretty weak. I would have much rather seen Samurai vs Knight (Gladiator vs Knight would have been okay, but heavy armor vs guy with bare chest seems pretty obvious). Pirate vs Apache would have been better too - gunpowder beats bow, but bow has higher rate of fire.

The Viking vs Samurai was pretty good. I think that's been their best matchup so far.

I'm just waiting for WWII Marine vs. Caveman with Club - gee, who will win?

Jin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I really would have liked to see
-How many samurai could a Mongol horseman pwon before having to drink some mare’s milk.

Well, actually, during Kublai Khan's reign, the Mongols did try to invade Japan. However, due to bad weather and poor nautical planning, they lost much of their army before arriving in Japan, and by that time, the Japanese were prepared and cut down the invaders.

Thing is, on a one-on-one match up, I would say that the samurai would have the advantage. Mongols were all very adept horsemen and were certainly capable and brutal fighters. However, their main strength lay in their mobility and archery skills. En masse, this was absolutely devastating as you'd have an entire army that could move around the battlefield quickly (for the most part, Mongol armies were all mounted) and shoot accurately even on the move or retreating. If you put a Mongol warrior one-on-one on the ground vs. a Japanese samurai, however, I would imagine that the Japanese discipline and training would prove far superior.

It did. The invasion did try to establish a beach head, but the Samurai assembled flattened the Mongols. This caused the Mongols to retreat to their ships. Bad weather came along, and suddenly, the Mongol army seriously regretted pressuring the Chinese to build their invasion fleet. You see, the Mongols didn't have much in the way of ship building skills. Instead, they used subjugated Chinese peeps to do it. Demanding more ships and faster, not to mention not exactly being the Ship Builders favourite peeps, the quote was fulfilled with River Barges. Flat bottomed, River Barges. This is why the site where the fleet sunk is marked by lots of Anchors all pointing in the same direction.

So yeah, combination of Samurai being dead hard, Bad Weather, and Pissed off enforced labour essentially scuppered them! And this is where the Japanese Kamikaze comes from, meaning literally Divine Wind. Combination of the humiliation and superstition put paid to another Mongol attempt!

This is, more or less as ever, from memory of a TV programme, so please forgive any abridging or inaccuracies!

AlexCage wrote:Pirate Vs. Knight kinda pissed me off.

Spoiler:

The Knight gives the pirate a sound trouncing, but then just gets shot in the face. Win: Pirate. Bull.

The whole damn episode shows how massively ineffective pirate weaponry would be against a knight. Grenados don't do crap but stun and shake the Knight (Maybe unhorse him), flintlock pistols can't even penetrate platemail at point blank, and I need not go into how much of an advantage the Knight has in Hand to Hand (NO Pirate melee weapon can actually go through Knight armor, apparently). The only thing that actually did any damage to the Knight is the Blunderbuss. And even then, the damn thing misfired half the shots it took. All the Knight needs to do is land one good hit. BAM. Back to Davey Jones'.

Yea this matchup doesn't work.
1. Knights on a ship, just push them over.
2. I don't believe plate is going to stop a .75 caliber flintlock.
3. A pirate would rake the deck with grapeshot (if they had it of course).
But yea a knight would terminate a pirate with extreme predjudice in HTH.

I'd proffer a 13th/14th century knight would do well against a similar age samurai on foot, if said knights actually trained. We don't have a lot on their actual training, so its the big if. If a knight is trained they could be quite tough. If they are fat pigs lording it over the peasants, not so much.

I think a Roman veteran would be a tough customer against anyone within 30 feet. Guys on horseback with bows were always their achilles heel not some dude waving a sword about.

It's a good premise, but I think they're going at it a bit sideways. The main problem I have with what I have seen is that both contestants go at it almost as if the fight is turn-based. Also, no mention is made to the preferred terrain of one fighter, i.e. the pirate's ship, which it seems rather silly to me that a pirate would randomly stroll on up to a knight and challenge him face to face, or allow himself to be challenged in a like manner. Or the ninja taking on a Spartan warrior in hand to hand and actually letting him get there, in terrain that so obviously favored the ninja? Foolish me, I was personally expecting a needle dart to the back of the neck or a vulnerable joint when the Spartan first started blundering into terrain that tied up his shield. Or, perhaps, the ninja was only baiting the Spartan away from what he was supposed to protect so a comrade could steal/assassinate/kidnap the objective. But then, that wouldn't have made for a good show I guess. I did agree with the Apache vs. Gladiator though. Archer trained for most if not all of his life to live and die by that bow both hunting and in combat against HtH fighter? Good game, sir.