Even after the trouble I dealt with following my post about this show’s episode on Vikings vs Samurai, I feel the need to post another. My brother, against my advice, decided to watch the latest farce, Knight vs Pirate. While peaking in and listen from next door, I found it rather hilarious that Max Geiger refused to listen to his co-host Geoff Desmoulin, even butting heads with him over test results. Most notably, when the flintlock musket couldn’t penetrate the Knight’s plate armour. Having seen his “nerd fantasy” destroyed by a test of his own design, he quickly jumped to the defense of “Pirate experts” everywhere, claiming that he himself would have been bested by this shot. Pretty pathetic…
While he was quickly slapped down for his bias by Desmoulin, the cat was definitely out of the bag on this show’s historical accuracy. Instead of coming to a reasonable conclusion, discussing the training of one warrior against the other, the weapons which said warrior would likely bring into battle, the tactics used with these weapons in battle, etc we see the Deadliest Warrior for what it is really, a complete and utter farce. The computer technology which this show clings to for legitimacy, is as reliable as match making software was years ago. Even if the program’s designer wasn’t skewing the results with his obvious bias, I highly doubt any software could properly simulate an actual battle between warriors. The only way to really have any definite answer to a “who would win” question, would be to have those two actually fight. Since this isn’t possible, a well informed discussion is the next best thing.
What I found funny with last night’s episode was that Pirate’s weapons had shown themselves to be highly unreliably in actual combat. Having studied Canadian history since high school, I should have remembered how “primitive” flintlock weapons were, not simply because of the way they are loaded, but how inaccurate and ineffective they are in actual combat. The standard musket was moderately effective, but nowhere near as useful as the even the most basic rifles of today are. The key issue here is the rifling of modern barrels, as well as the shape of modern projectiles. It is obvious that when deciding who was the winner, Geiger was ignorant to these facts that he didn’t take this into account. A rifled barrel spins the bullet, and it is this spin which gives it is accuracy. The shape of bullets themselves also helps with accuracy, as well as a greater ability to penetrate a target. Musket balls were not only inaccurate because of the way they sat loosely in the musket, but lacked this penetration power. Add in the fact that the ball would bounce around the barrel once fired, and you find that the projectile itself doesn’t have the same momentum leaving the barrel that it would have had fired from a modern gun. Because of this, even if a shot did find it’s mark, it wasn’t uncommon for the musket ball to not do fatal damage. Many soldiers died because of infections due to wounds sustained by projectiles which failed to penetrate. Even hit in the chest, there was a good chance the musket ball would become lodged in bone or muscle tissue. This was definitely not a “bringing a gun to a knife fight” situation when the weapon in question fails to meet the “gun standard.”
Comparing personal projectile weapons, the Knight actually surpassed the Pirate. As discussed above, muskets were highly unreliable, and even Deadliest Warrior’s blunderbuss tests showed that under the wrong conditions, such weapons could not only misfire, but not fire at all. While “primitive”, bows and crossbows were easy to operate and highly reliable. They were far more accurate at longer range than muskets were, and you wouldn’t have to depend on the sheer number of shots to hit a single target. While loading was an issue with the crossbow, a musket was far more cumbersome to operate. You probably would have seen a pirate carrying multiple muskets during a fight because of how time consuming reloading would be. Because of it’s superiority in this area, weapons like the English Longbow had the advantage in combat. It is conceivable that a trained Knight could take out a Pirate at range (especially with armour strong enough to protect from musket fire), easily firing four or five arrows before the musket could be reloaded and fired again. Why wasn’t this taken into account? These are the things Geiger didn’t take into consideration while designing his obviously flawed program.
I could go on and discuss how, much like the Samurai’s weapons, a standard Pirate sword would be ineffective against chainmail and plate armour. I could go on and discuss the tactical advantages of carrying a shield, and I could discuss how Pirates weren’t trained in combat like Knights were, but I think anyone with an internet connection and a five minute Google search could figure that out. I raised the previous points because the “Pirate experts” and Geiger refuse to even acknowledge the most basic form of common sense. Matter of fact, he threw fits and tried to sway his co-host’s opinion by making irrelevant points. No respectable historian would stoop to those lows to prove a point. Not only that, but just like the “Samurai experts” before them, these arrogant and ignorant representatives were given free reign by Geiger to push their fiction on the viewing audience, on top of being given the advantage in choice of weapons. While the “grenado” was a weapon employed by Pirates, it was found in Europe and Asia long before the days of Blackbeard, meaning that anyone could have access to such a simple explosive device. (UPDATE: Read a few comments on this point and I would like to clarify. While the “grenado” was used by Pirates, it isn’t unique to Pirates as this episode tried to suggest. It had been used for centuries by soldiers and sailors alike.) Not only that, but only an idiot would allow this weapon into a serious discussion of the outcome of a fight between these warriors. Covered in plate and chainmail from head to toe, the Knight is fairly protected, so if the Pirate did use this weapon against him, he would most likely do more damage to himself. It is getting to the point where you can predict which side will win in the first five minutes by simply watching which team of “experts” is given this advantage.
In any event, it isn’t just me who is seeing this. Many viewers are outraged, and are expressing that outrage on the Spike TV forum. It has gotten so bad that in a desperate act to salvage whatever credibility Deadliest Warrior has, they have created a online segment called ‘The Aftermath’, where the Geiger and Desmoulin try to address concerns the audience has with historical inaccuracies and the blatant mismatching of warriors. I said in my previous post that putting a Ninja in a fight with a Spartan was a BAD IDEA, and yet they went along with it anyways. Watching the first ‘Aftermath’ segment, I was dumbfounded by what Geiger had said. Aside from adamantly defending his flawed computer program, he pretty much admitted it was a bad idea to pair these two up, and then went out to criticize the viewers who were critical of the previous episode and it’s outcome. Excuse me, but what kind of moron insults his audience? It’s Geiger who is living in the world of fantasy. It is obvious to anyone who watched last night’s episode that he not only owns Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean series on Blu-ray, but goes around on Halloween dressed in the best Pirate costume he can find. Each episode is simply a fulfillment of his personal desires and bias, and even Desmoulin’s protests for common sense don’t seem to help keep this show focused.
I don’t think watching Geiger’s “nerd fits” is a great way to spend a Tuesday night. If he wants to push his fiction onto an ignorant audience, he should at least admit his own bias, the flaws of his program and treat those who disagree with his views with even the slightest bit of respect. If not, I hope this show is canceled before it starts making an effort to actually offend people… Pathetic…
I can say your posts on Deadliest Warrior are breathes of fresh air. After watching multiple episodes I felt the need to blow off some steam on how stupid these “tests” are. Reading this did much more then what I could have achieved on a youtube comment post. I mean show actually leads people to believe that what they say and do is true, and the “facts” they fabricate are accurate, and nothing makes me more angry then false information about real culture and history being fed to people who may believe it.
I wish I could write more posts on this show, but it is so much work to debunk all the nonsense presented. My first post, Samurai versus Viking, was a chore in itself to grab everything I could from around the internet, and even then there is a lot I missed. You’re right, however, that people need to get the facts before believing this nonsense. I mean, why bother researching the subject matter if making up nonsense was the way to go eh?
Anyways, thanks for you comment and I hope you keep reading my blog.
Since when did a French Knight train in and use a commoner weapon like the English Longbow, which was responsible for destroying Chivalry and the age of the Knights?
Excuse me? Since when did French Knights train with English Longbows? Why not English Knights training with English Longbows? There is no mention of what kind of Knight this is, thus not limiting the weapons available. My point is still valid though, even without the English Longbow, the French Knight would have the crossbow, which itself is far superior to the Pirate’s musket. As for destroying chivalry, I disagree. It wasn’t the bow and arrow, as Knights themselves were trained with these kind of weapons. It the decline in private military and the rise of the peasant army, those lack proper training and etiquette, that brought it to an end.
Anyways, thanks for the comment and I hope you keep reading my blog.
I find it funny how you’re complaining about how max geiger was throwing fits, being childish, and rigging the matches. When you have absolutely no proof that his software is defective, or that he was helping his side. Who’s being the real child here?
Philip Geiger? Are you related to Max Geiger? Could that be why you couldn’t see what everyone else saw? In any event, there’s a reason this post has received a thousands of hits. The problem is that Max couldn’t help but favour one side over another and, in my opinion, skew the numbers he input into his program to achieve the desired result. Not only this but a program based of a ridiculous board game system couldn’t possibly accurately simulate any of these battles. I have trouble believing this could simulate a school yard fight, let alone a proper battle between history’s greatest warriors.
Believe what you will, but, considering the thousands of hits the blog post has received, I think you and people who share your belief on this matter are in the minority.
Northern thoughts, I must admit reading your article and being an fan of Deadliest Warrior I was not expecting much as I was thinking “this guy is just looking to complain.” However, as I read through I found your article spot on, not only about Gieger but the match ups and “history” behind the matches. I, myself am not a fan of Max and am glad to see him go for Season 3. This might change the season, it might not. All in all, great work. I look forward to reading more of your work.
Thanks for the comment. I have been thinking about further Deadliest Warrior posts, but I really don’t know where to start. While I haven’t watched the show since it first aired, I have followed the results via Wikipedia. There are some outcomes I agree with (William Wallace versus Shaka Zulu was very predictable as the fight was extremely lopsided), while others are mind boggling. SWAT versus GSG9, for example, made absolutely no sense to me which is why I wrote a long post about it. Even some of the outcomes I agreed with I had trouble understanding. Take for instance last episode’s battle between George Washington and Napoleon Bonaparte. The United States was allied with France during the American Revolution, so why would you have these two generals battling, especially when Napoleon had the benefit of better technology? Guerrilla warfare only goes so far. With next week’s episode, considering that Joan of Arc herself and many Christians, including myself, believed God was assisting her in battle, how does one measure this divine intervention with a computer program? If not divine intervention, what about sheer dumb luck? Returning to Washington versus Bonaparte, many blame Napoleon’s poor health for his army’s loss at Waterloo. How does that factor into these equations? This is just one of the issues I have with this show.
Do you have any suggestions? Are there any battles you want broken down? Once again, thanks for the comment and I hope you keep reading my posts. I will try to put up another one soon.
I don’t think the producers could bear the thought of Washington losing. It’s an American show after all.
Maybe, maybe not. In any event, the battle itself was poorly executed. What more can we expect from Deadliest Warrior though? After Vampire versus Zombie, it’s clear that this is the same garbage with a new coat of paint.
first off, our last names being the same are purely coinincedental. second, I’m still coming back to the same point that you have no proof his computer program is flawed or that he is skewing the numbers. third I don’t care how many hits your blog got, I don’t care whether or not my view is the minority, or if you’re view is more popular, the amount of people who agree with a certain point of view doesn’t help to make it any more right or wrong. fourth you say max couldn’t help but favour a side. how does that make him incompetent or childish? whenever there are two sides going against eachother, and people are watching most of them are bound to pick a side they favour. that’s exactly what max did, and he expressed his choice by trying to defend his side which is something both you and me are doing right now.
Really? Is that all you can say? Pathetic…
Let’s start off with your last name, why should I believe you? I can tell you that almost everyone in Canada with my last name is related to me, and Geiger isn’t a common last name. If it was “Smith,” I might believe you, but your adamant defense of Max Geiger’s flawed program makes me wonder. For all I know, you are a distance cousin and are acting out of defense of our family’s “honour.”
Secondly, I did explain why it was flawed, but you weren’t paying attention. Many important factors are left out of the equation, including the combatant’s height, reach and weight. When you’re covered in armour and swinging a heavy weapon, those factors are key to determining how effective each blow is. Not only this, but how they measured the effectiveness of these weapons was seriously flawed. When a steroid-abusing “Samurai expert” is accepted as somehow representative of the actual historical warrior, and measurements taken with his significant physical advantage because of his obvious unnatural enhancement, there’s something wrong. Do you or do you not see this?
Thirdly, how is it that Max Geiger’s fits weren’t childish? Once again, if you were paying attention, you would have noticed such incidents like his adamant defense of the “superiority” of Pirate weaponry. When his co-host, Geoff Desmoulin has to not only correct him, but force him to accept the results of the tests he helped set up, there’s a problem. Seriously, did you even watch the show? It isn’t just me, or the thousands who visit my blog and read my posts about ‘The Deadliest Warrior’, it’s Spike TV management who replaced Max Geiger because of this kind of nonsense. If the show is supposed to be fairly evaluating a battle between historical warriors, childish favourtism must not be permitted. What amusing is that you admitted Geiger was biased, and yet that is somehow acceptable to you? You seriously undermine your argument with this kind of doublethink.
If you want to continue this discussion, I recommend you spend serious time considering your position. Your feelings on this matter can’t be substituted for hard facts.
ok, first off, it seems that you still can’t let go of the fact that me and max have the same last names. while I admit that geiger is not an extremely common last name, it’s not a rare last name. I know of many geigers across the u.s. that have absolutely no relation to me (unless you traced it back far enough.) You can take my word on this, or you can choose not to. Because I don’t care if you don’t believe me on this, since I know it’s true. Now onto the computer program. you’re saying that height and weight aren’t aren’t factored into this. Honestly, how do you expect anyone to calculate the correct height and weight for a group of people. In almost any fighting group there are going to be some who are tall, and some who are short, and some who are fat and skinny. The only time they calculate the exact height and weight in is when they have to specific people, such as william wallace vs. shaka zulu. you’re also talking about how they don’t calculate in things like how hard you can swing when you’re covered in armor. Now this I find funny, do you seriously think they don’t test these things? The tests they show are only the ones they think are important and they have time for during the show. They do hundreds of more tests that they just don’t have time to show. You also state that the guy on steroids gives his side an unfair advantage because of his unfairly gained strength. As I said before they do more tests off the air, using more than just one person. Now onto max. First of all, you keep talking about him throwing fits. I define throwing a fit as screaming, yelling, crying and other things of that nature. From what I can recall he did none of these things. You also say I undermine my argument by admitting that max was biased. Yeah I’m not afraid to admit that yes he was being biased, and yet I still fail to see how that makes him childish. Do you honestly think that none of the other hosts prefered one of the sides, in fact I’m sure that if you watched through the episodes you would find instances where one of the other hosts liked one of the sides better and tried to defend it. Once again i’m going to state it clearly. Max liking one of the sides better doesn’t make him childish, it just makes him a person willing to state what he thinks and then try and defend it against other peoples points of view.
You again? Fine, I will accept that you aren’t related to Max Geiger. That doesn’t mean, however, that you aren’t taking my comments personally. In fact, considering that this is the third round of our discussion, it is quite clear to me that my criticisms of Max have affected you on a deeper level, most likely because you and him share the same family name. Why else would you be so persistent about proving your point?
As for calculating the height and weight of each warrior, you would be surprised at what you can find during a Google search. Information on the genetic history of a group of people is fairly easy to find, and from their you can find out the estimated average physical statistics for any given people at a specific point in history. If you wanted to find information on William Wallace and Shaka Zulu, even if you lacked specifics, you could estimate their how their size by looking at the average size of Scotsman and Africans at their respective times. During my hours researching my Viking versus Samurai, post, I learned that the average height of a Japanese male was 5’1, 5’2, while the average Norse male ranged from 5’6 to 6′. That an INCREDIBLE physical advantage when you consider the that reach is proportional to height. From there you take into account the weapons and armour used by each warrior and the tactics they used, and consider how physically capable each needed to be. Vikings, for example, depended on speed and strength, to rush their opponents to quickly overwhelm them. You also examine historical accounts to see if your estimates are supported by facts. It might not seem like it to you, but I spent hours researching this kind of information while writing my posts. As a student of history, I know that every claim I make must be supported by facts. Max might still be working on ‘The Deadliest Warrior’ if he would have done the same.
As for whether or not Max was behaving childishly, I guess it’s a matter of opinion. Having watched many documentaries and various historical shows, I have never seen a reputable host behave the way he did. I would imagine that was an issue for Spike TV management as the show’s credibility hung on how credible he appeared to be, especially when the show claimed to be unbiased. Max’s bias might not be a problem for you, but it was a liability to ‘The Deadliest Warrior’. I can tell you that, when watching Viking versus Samurai, I did my best to be unbiased. As I stated in my post concerning that episode, it wasn’t until the katana failed to penetrated the chainmail that I was convinced that the Viking should win. If Max can’t put away his bias and examine the facts, then he shouldn’t be co-hosting a show like ‘The Deadliest Warrior’.
If you want to continue this, I recommend that you try to raise points that you can support. Once again, your feelings on this matter can’t be substituted for hard facts.
I’m growing tired of this debate. From what I can see it’s no where near to coming to an end, and neither of us seem to be persuading eachother. How about we call it truce and say to each his own opinion.
If you want to call a truce, fine. Your opinion is your opinion, and I am not going to demand that you have mine. All I am trying to do here is present the facts, as how I see them, to you and others. I hope you at least took something away from this conversation. Thanks for you comments and I hope you keep reading my blog.
I think you take things to far; yes the actual events could only be accurately depicted in an actual combat situation. However, individual skill can overturn dramatic results regardless of the scenario. The best xxxx might beat the best xxxx but would the worst xxxx beat the best xxxx? It is impossible to tell, and the show to me is entertaining regardless of your crass ridicule. While i do want historical accuracy, the possibility of factoring everything into a proper equation than run threw a simulator will still not yield real results. Simulators are by definition mere predictions on intangibles at best. Theory and practice hardly ever work out and because you cannot realistic depict a battle between statistics the entire premise of the show lends itself to some faults.
Is his computer program misleading or flat out inaccurate? Likely, do you have a better one they can use instead? Cause if you do i think you’re a jerk for keeping it from the show. Are the ‘experts’ bias towards their focus? yeah it’s called pride, not like they are going to be like ‘yeah we wouldn’t win this fight’. All the hosts were leaning towards one or the other as well. As for miss-matches, the whole point is to pit people against each other that have no historical combat data to observe. Again it’s for entertainment purposes only that is why it’s on spike TV and not the history channel browski.
If the simulator proved anything it is that not a single side had 100% victories in the fights simulated. That means that any given day any of the warriors could prevail despite the thinking behind it. Such as the Viking chain mail, not every Viking wore full suits of armor. Not any warrior always came in to every battle 100% prepared for the situation. If the show had to account for all the possibilities that could exist it would not be able to cover them all and the show would never be ‘credible’ by that measure. If the history channel was producing this show i would take issue with historical inconsistency, but since its spike tv cut it some slack? or simply don’t watch? Either way it’s all good man, at least you are putting your opinions out there. It’s the same premise as those animated shows regarding the animal fights. They did not even test data on the show, just used pure data and animated the contests. It was for entertainment only.
Quick question, have you read my other posts on ‘The Deadliest Warrior’? Have you read the numerous comments posted by myself and others that answer these questions? Have you read the various forums around the internet discussing these very topics? I recommend that you do.
As I stated previously, Max Geiger’s program doesn’t take into account important information like the warrior’s size and tactics used. Instead of getting a well-conceived show, what we have instead is a glorified virtual battle between two soul-less machines. Though the weapon demonstrates are interesting, ‘The Deadliest Warrior’ fails to deliver on what it promises. There’s also no historical accuracy when the so-called “experts” demonstrate they are anything but. It took five minutes on Google to learn that the kanabo was rarely seen in combat, if ever. How come that fact was left out?
It isn’t the “experts” bias that concerns me, it is the bias of one of the show’s hosts. As I stated previously, Max’s bias might not be a problem for you or other viewers, but it was a liability to ‘The Deadliest Warrior’. No one trusts the outcome if they can’t trust the person inputting the data into the battle simulator. On the topic mismatches, who in their right mind would watch a one-sided battle? When the outcome is already known, all the buildup to the simulation is meaningless. You’re referring to Ninja versus Spartan right? Even Geiger himself admitted that battle was a mistake, and then he criticized those who had complained about it. Once again, Geiger’s lack of credibility hurt the ‘The Deadliest Warrior’. Since he couldn’t even act professionally and accept responsibility for his mistake without resorting to insults, it was obvious he didn’t deserve to be hosting the show.
As for “100% victories,” that’s not the issue. Even under the best circumstances, a simple miscalculation can be disastrous. Take for example the Battle of Stamford Bridge. King Hardrada and his army were unprepared for battle. Believing it was a simply prisoner exchange, only a small group of soldiers came ashore and they had left their armour in the boats. What viewers want is a best case scenario, but even then you don’t find that. The show’s format actually hurts its credibility. Rarely are there comparisons between similar kinds of weaponry. For example, in the Viking versus Samurai episode, for long range combat, they compared the Viking spear to the Samurai bow and arrow. Why didn’t they test the Viking’s bow and arrow. Considering it’s draw strength and range, I would imagine that outcome of that match up would have been very different.
If you’re going to watch it for the entertainment value alone, I don’t see a problem with that. If, however, you’re looking for a historically accurate show, I would look elsewhere. Thanks for you comments and I hope you keep reading my blog.
relax people, no need to get fired up over this sort of thing.
Ah yes, I remember this episode quite well. My (know it all) father and I began watching the series when it first aired, though we were admittedly disappointed with the show’s overall approach. As you mentioned, there were too many factors that weren’t taken into consideration that would have been critical to the outcome of any battle. After a few episodes, we stopped watching all together. It wasn’t until I heard the word “knight” in one of the previews that I decided to give the show one more go, and convinced him to watch with me. I’m a bit of a history buff, and have always had a great fondness for all things medieval. Despite my obvious bias, I was intrigued to see who would be taking on my knight in shining armor…
A pirate. My father then said, grimacing:
“Ah… this is a bizarre setup. I understand a pirate would be no pushover (depending on the origin and type, I suppose), but… let’s just see how they go about this…”
Things seemed pretty bleak as the show went on. Neither of us were impressed with the alleged ‘experts’, and when it came to the final battle, the both of us were annoyed to say the least. The knight’s shield hadn’t really been considered a weapon, the warhorse ran off (as I understand they were often trained to trample enemies on the battlefield), the pirate had suffered no long lasting effects after being hit in the forehead by a morning star, as well as the other factors that you were able to mention in your article. The episode and the outcome itself was enough to get the both of us all puffed up, but it was the fact that it felt so half-assed that really bothered me. As far as we’re both concerned, history is beyond value, but unfortunately, there are very few people out there that seem to have any appreciation for it at all anymore. When programs like this try to skew things to make it more interesting, it’s actually kind of sad. There are obviously tons of people who were quick to point out the flaws, but for all those commenting that “we’re taking this far too seriously”, you have to remember that there are tons more people out there who are lazy and ignorant enough to believe what they hear and take things at face value. Yes, I know that a pirate facing a knight, or a spartan vs. a ninja are all fantastic impossibilities (which is the whole premise of the show), but we are dealing with historic figures here. There are far more factors to consider than what the show addresses. I know it isn’t a Discovery/History channel program or anything, but if you’re going to do something, why not do it well?
The new series has only come out a few weeks ago, and I understand that Max Geiger has been replaced along with the battle simulator. My dad and I haven’t watched any of these new episodes yet, but I’m hoping it’ll turn out to be something we can just sit and enjoy instead of me glancing over and seeing him fume silently in the lazyboy, haha!
Agreed. Too few understand the importance of history, or the damage that could done by rewriting history and creating “facts” for one reason or another. You have politicians rewriting history to push their agenda, ignoring the lessons of the past in pursuit of some unobtainable utopia (but that’s a discussion for another time). With Deadliest Warrior, you see a glorification of history’s greatest villains. For example, the Irish Republican Army versus Taliban could have been used by either group for recruitment purposes. In the case of the pirate, these were thieves and cutthroats who, despite the glowing portrayal by Hollywood, weren’t role models. Knights, on the other hand, were. Instead of actually going through the facts, Max Geiger instead fulfilled his geeky Pirates of the Caribbean fantasy. It was pathetic…
As for the new season, where to start? A step in the right direction, but with all this emphasis on “x-factors,” the audience isn’t really being informed. How do these “x-factors” actually affect the outcome? Then there’s the match-ups. George Washington versus Napoleon Bonaparte? Considering that Napoleon benefited from better equipment and arguably superior tactics, how is it that he lost? On that note, considering that America had France’s assistance in the American Revolution, how would Washington’s forces compete with Napoleons? America and France against… France??? Explain that one to me. My father and brother made the mistake of watching that episode and, aside from the weapons demonstrations (which is the only reason anyone watches this show), they were confused and downright disgusted with how everything was calculated, as well as the outcome of the match. They need to do a lot more to fix this show, and a new coat of paint just won’t do.
Thanks for your comments and I hope you keep reading my blog.
Its meant for entertainment purposes
What’s even more questionable is that the pirate managed to get get kills with his close range weapons (the cutlass and the boarding ax) when it was shown that the ax could not inflict serious damage on the knight’s plate armor. In my opinion, the knight had the better weapons for a close quarters fight; and he should be better in it because that’s the type of combat he would have specialized in. The pirate would have lost a sword fight against a knight in plate armor.
As I said before, the pirate was outmatched at every range. Pirates also lack the years of intense training that knights have. This should have been a one-sided battle, but instead we get this “Pirates of the Caribbean” nonsense.
What’s most disappointing about this show is that the audience will think that the show is the final conclusion to great warrior versus great warrior debates. It is only until later that the audience finds out that the match-ups aren’t done with serious consideration and that the tests, although they look convincing, are really just a way to showcase weaponry.
I agree with everything you’ve said so far, though some of those I didn’t notice and now I want to go back and watch it again. I ALSO WANT TO KNOW why everytime anything American is pitted against anything else, the American ALWAYS wins. SWAT, SEALS, Mafia, Theodore Roosevelt, George Washington etc. Being a Marine I understand the pride, but There’s no way we can ALWAYS just happen to win. My best guess is that they don’t want ridicule from some crazy overly motivated great American rednecks. Any thoughts?
There is an American bias, granted, but in some cases, its hard not to give Americans the edge. Aside from their military prowess, both in technology and tactics, its hard to think of situations where America was actually confronted and defeated by a superior force. People point to Somalia, Vietnam, even some of the battles of World War II, but even then, these defeats came because of political failures, not military ones. In Somalia, Bill Clinton refused to commit to actually fighting a war. More troops would have leveled the insurgency there, but he didn’t want to risk the political fallout from a military escalation. In Vietnam, the Americans had defeated the Viet Cong, which, after it had been decimated during the failed Tet Offensive, were reabsorbed back into the North Vietnamese military because of their low numbers. Politicians, spurred on by poor and biased reporting, took steps to restrict the American military. You can’t fight a war with both hands (air force bombings were restricted and soldiers on the ground had to follow strict guidelines for engagement) tied behind your back. World War II, troops were deployed very quickly with little training and inferior equipment. The American military had shaken off the “dough boy” reputation of the First World War, and even when they were successful, like General Paton’s blood march through Italy, politics slowed down troop advancement, giving the Germans time to dig in and prepare.
As I have written, SWAT is no match for Germany’s SUPER SWAT, GSG9. Also, the Mafia shouldn’t have beaten the Yakuza, especially when the invention of witness by FBI protection pretty much destroyed the Mafia, with “loyal” foot soldiers turning on their bosses for a way out of a life they were either forced into through birth or accidentally got into in their rebellious youth. George Washington was another story, and after giving up on Deadliest Warrior, I don’t even know who Theodore Roosevelt was facing. It’s biased entertainment. If you want actual history, you’re not going to find it on that show.
I agree with everything you’ve said so far, though some of those I didn’t notice and now I want to go back and watch it again. I ALSO WANT TO KNOW why everytime anything American is pitted against anything else, the American ALWAYS wins. SWAT, SEALS, Mafia, Theodore Roosevelt, George Washington etc. Being a Marine I understand the pride, but There’s no way we can ALWAYS just happen to win. My best guess is that they don’t want ridicule from some crazy overly motivated great American rednecks. Any thoughts?