Yeah, totally agree about their choreography. But keep in mind the "experts" are most likely not really that good at killing people...masher said:
Deadliest warrior: Alexander the Great vs. Attila the Hun WTF!?!?!?
- Thread starter arbiter592
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There were a number of other decisive factors then just the weaponry. First off, The Zulu forces greatly outnumbered the British.Davrel said:
The British weren't prepared for the attack. They had a lack of munitions and they were too far spread out.
Finally, these are two large armies going against one another. Not a 1 on 1 fight. It was largely unfair for Shaka to win with most of his weapons when William Wallace was carrying a Claymore that was rather large (I can't remember the exact number, but I believe that it was somewhere around 8 feet to 12 feet). Way to big of a gap for Shaka Zulu to Spit poison or even get close with some of his weaponry.
I think they gave him a Ballista... But they also gave them both like 10 men to fight with, although I think all of them die within like a minute into the fightDarkDain said:
Didnt the pirate win? I havent seen alot of the episodes, but a friend told me the pirate opened up the knight's faceplate and shot him..carpathic said:
EDIT: Sorry, I read that wrong.
erm that guy said vikings ruled to the middle east and cited stamford bridge as an example of viking military prowess, yes maybe 1 viking did manage to kll 40 people but the rest of his army didnt do to well considering the army that they where facing defeated them then went on to fight in the battle of hastings very shortly afterwards. although i do agree with him about the over romantisised abilitys of the samuraiZeetchmen said:
I didn't like the Spetznaz vs Green Berets. The scout knife with a suprise giving the final kill makes sense though, but just...bleh... I enjoy the show though.
Also gotta remember, there's the computer limitations, what a person could carry on him, etc etc. The only thing that honestly would be better is if they actualy get two people trained in the ways of the actual fighters, and they fight to the death. But there'll never be actual human testing. :/
Also gotta remember, there's the computer limitations, what a person could carry on him, etc etc. The only thing that honestly would be better is if they actualy get two people trained in the ways of the actual fighters, and they fight to the death. But there'll never be actual human testing. :/
The fuck? Alexander The Great was known for being an excellent strategist not a face smashing warrior, why the hell would he win a fight against some barbarian who had practiced eating babies since he was a baby.
I don't see what was so bad about that. Attila was quite clearly a badass, they said the majority of the kills came from excellent Mongol archery too...which is believable. Including siege weapons was more than likely just an excuse to use them.
It's a silly show, but it's fun. The results are almost never decisive. Out of 1000 simulations, the winner almost always wins marginally...slighlty more than half of the time. You can't draw any real conclusions from that, and nor should you.
It's a silly show, but it's fun. The results are almost never decisive. Out of 1000 simulations, the winner almost always wins marginally...slighlty more than half of the time. You can't draw any real conclusions from that, and nor should you.
I didn't watch this show but didn't the Mongols have siege engines and such too, they couldn't have conquered a huge portion of Europe and Asia without them I bet. The only one I agree with is the spartan vs ninja and maybe the Mobsters just because the firepower the American Weapons they used.
Going off of my limited historical knowledge I am fairly certain that Vlad was a warlord and prince so he likely had rudimentary combat training at the very least although I still don't think it is a very good idea.Czargent Sane said:
I can enjoy the show for entertainment and a look at the use of ancient weapons, but I wouldn't take anything from it as fact.
Why would they think that anyone would want to listen to them being uninteresting for 50 minutes? I'm not saying the show is anything more than enjoyable fluff. But I don't believe for a second that they show you every little bit of testing they do, or that those 3 guys make all the decisions on their own. My guess would be that they are little more than presenters picked on the assumption that they would make the thing more watchable...I would be surprised if they were genuinely masterminding the thing.NeutralDrow said:
...things are rarely as they seem on television.
Ok but still a ballista isnt something you just point and shoot, it was really accurate but its not like they had crosshairs for them, they'd have to shoot it once just to figure out where it hits, then leave it like that until someone walks into that spot, thats how they were used ._.austin9993 said:
Depends on who it is fighting as a person, and now what they are. Any fight could go either way regardless of their faction and styles.martin said:
Makes good entertainment. I suppose.
Err, William Wallace lived in the Dark Age, not the Iron Age. Iron Age was before even the Roman Empire, and W.W. was after.maddawg IAJI said:
Jessy James is a famous train robber, not so much an expert marksman.
And the fat man has something the robber doesn't; automatic weaponry.
Though in fairness, the show is all ridiculous and should never be taken seriously under and circumstances.
