74 comments on “Deadliest Warrior Reviewed: More Nonsense From People Who Wouldn’t Know Better

  1. I have to challenge your own knowledge of history by stating that there were no Samurai during World War II; the Samurai were abolished by 1876.

    I think that what you are forgetting is, quite unfortunately, that the opportunity for such a situation or encounter between these two warriors had never–or as far as history has been recorded–been presented whatsoever. In that respect, I believe that your shallow attempt to degrade an entire people, let alone their culture, based on the outcome of a simple television show that was originally based on the premise that it would be showcasing other specious “facts” that you seem to have discovered (and some by use of the internet, no less), sometime during your distasteful fit of anger.

    Quite frankly, I’m not pleased with your comments (the likes of which border the line of racism, if not treading through it), and I can’t say that I agree with you one-hundred-percent. The fact of the matter is that the situation never happened and it was highly unlikely to ever happen; hence, the reason why it did not happen in the first place; which thus brings us back to the main point: that your “feverish disappointment” is for a ridiculous reason that never made sense in the first place.

    I can only suggest that you think long and hard about why it is that you feel so strongly against people, and I hope that you will realize who it was, exactly, that was trying to express their own inflated and ultimately undeserved sense of superiority, toward the end of the second World War.

    • Samurai as class were gone by then, but only an idiot would think that meant much. Even with the “extinction” of the Viking people, their traditions are carried on through their descendants and historians who studied them. If you did your research, sword training was still a part of military practices of the Japanese during World War II, and during the Pacific campaign, many Americans fought Japanese soldiers carrying katanas. These weapons couldn’t slice through gun barrels (as Mythbusters showed) and all that training proved rather ineffective as desperate young men armed with rifles and bayonets fought them off. World War II history is a hobby of mine, so don’t challenge someone who knows far more than you do…

      Have you spent anytime outside the USA? Have you spent anytime in Asia? Do you even understand how they view us over there? I can tell you I have never experienced that kind of racism before, and I am part German. Nazi references were common place in junior high. Having spent time in China, I can tell you that arrogance, as demonstrated by the “Samurai Experts” on Deadliest Warrior, is common. They didn’t bother sticking to facts, the completely ignored test results, and all they did was act like they were somehow better than everyone else. You want to talk about culture? LIVE IT! Women are second-class citizens over there, something which is highlighted by their view of what a good wife was back then. You want to speak about racism? LIVE IT! You can’t imagine the way they tried to cheat foreigners, and it isn’t just in China. They think that since we are white and don’t speak their language, that somehow we are stupid. Have you ever spent any serious time around some of these people? Are you simply too politically correct to realize that racism exists and thrives outside our borders? Pathetic…

      Sure these two warriors didn’t fight, but as I outlined in my article (which you obviously didn’t read), when you compared armour, weaponry and physical attributes of these fighters, let alone list off their conquests (Vikings nearly ruled the world, expanding through to the Middle East and beyond), you see what would have happened. I find it funny that you didn’t bother mentioning that in your post. On top of that, if Samurai armour and weapons were so good, why were many buying European equipment during the 16th century? I find it a hoot that those who could afford it choose to ride in covered in chainmail and plated armour, carrying a double edged sword. What does that tell you about a battle between these two warriors? Obviously you don’t get it, seeing how your answer had very little to do with what I was saying. You spent your entire comment calling me a racist… NEWSFLASH, that doesn’t fly here…

      My best friend in high school was Afghani, my best friend in university was Filipino, and another who was Vietnamese. My first two girlfriends were also Vietnamese, and the last girl I dated was Chinese. I have had a love for Japanese art and animation since I was small, and I would still love to travel to Japan, especially Osaka and see the various castles in the historical district. Race isn’t the issue, it is about what is practiced by and individual, cultural or otherwise. You can’t imagine the abuse I saw in China, even in places like Shanghai, and we continue to hear stories about sexual assaults in Japan on the subways, so much so that authorities have given entire sections of the train to women. I would imagine that your head would explode even being witness to a fraction of it. You are just like those wimps who couldn’t stomach the abuse and left before the end of the teaching contract. None of this has to do with what I wrote, which you, once again, obviously didn’t read. You found something small I said, taken it completely out of context, and used it to attack me. You opened the door though, you didn’t like having to even stomach the smallest dose of reality, so I guess you are going to lose your mind after hearing this…

      Look at how the Japanese treated Westerners during World War II, look at how the samurai treated the peasantry before that, and you will see there is nothing there to defend. I will say that there country has progressed significantly since then, but there are still issues I have with them. Looking at the way they treat foreign born Japanese bothers me (David Suzuki has made mention of this a few times) and tell me that that attitude to outsides is not to be criticized. I have a great respect for these people, I understand that they are a hard working and very determined people, but just like us, they are flawed. Those “Samurai Experts” were simply the embodiment with all that is wrong with Japanese culture, and the way they insulted my people was beyond offensive…

      I am allowed to get mad, political correctness can’t take that away from me, and neither can your ignorant and idiotic comments… Unless you have something meaningful to say, PISS OFF!

  2. That was never the point. I never disputed the fact that the katana was one type (among many) of blades used in World War II by Japan. There is a fact that you don’t seem to understand–a simple thing to miss–and that is that most of the blade weapons were generally entirely seperate from the katana category and all were ultimately irrelevant to the Samurai class. If I am not mistaken, you mentioned that the soldiers of Japan were “Samurai”; I was stating that that is simply not true in any way and I will also be elaborating on that specific quote in a minute.

    But considering the supposed fact that you are an educated expert on the details surrounding the Second World War, I have not a doubt that you will remember that they [blades] were not the primary weapon used in combat–that they were drawn by officers before an assault in what was a similar fashion to the Georgian era officers of the West; that they were used when coreographing or orchestrating an ambush–but certainly not through the entirety of the war. These are facts–not opinions–and that is why I find it hard to believe that you clearly understand what you are trying to say to me.

    In the case that you have forgotten exactly what happened between China and Britain during the Opium Wars, I have to remind you that there is likely to be a certain amount of tension or skepticism stored within some native residents of China. And no, I can’t say that I support the continuity of skepticism like that in any way; but, I can also say that I can understand why those feelings are present. Entirely aside from that, people are generally not keen on speaking to unfamiliar people and you are going to experience that no matter where your plane lands. The fact is that it is an international dilemma.

    The primary reason for what is commonly misconceived as “rude behaviour” specifically entailored to tourists in China is that regardless of who you are, that is typically how the residents live; a tourist visiting for the weekend is unlikely to notice this. How you were treated is likely to be the same way that even another native Chinese person from even just a different part of the city could have been treated. Again, it all comes down to culture. It is generally not personal in any way and many people don’t seem to realize it. That is ignorance on their part.

    On my claims of possible racism, I can’t entirely take that back. In my eyes you are still expressing some form of insult even in your second post, where it is both undeserved and senseless. In the first post you referred to the soldiers of the Second World War as “Samurai”–if that was meant to mock them, then that only attributes to the insult that you are spreading. You refer to China in your second post when China does not have any involvement with the situation. You also say that women are “second-class There”, but since I can’t tell where exactly you are talking about I can only say that in the case of Japan, that simply is not true. While that may not be classified as racism by you, it makes me believe that you are at least generalizing people of Asian descent. Again, that isn’t right.

    In reply to your comments on the civil problems of Japan and China, all that I can say is that there is crime no matter where you are and there have been situations in the West that have not differed much at all from those that take place in Japan, although I can say that some of the things that I hear on the news are much worse than what I hear in Japan. But this is not the time nor place to debate over these issues. The fact is that you cannot target a nation based on what their own bad bunch of people do when you have similar, if not worse, cases in your own country.

    Now, I watched the episode and I cannot see where your claims of the “insult to your people” are originating from. Anybody who has seen the show will agree that the entire series is a little more dramatic than it should have been and that both sides had a definite degree of attitude; which of course they expressed to one another (as has been the custom of the show since the very first episode). I don’t think that you realize that it is in part for those very things that they are even on the show. It is highly likely to have been encouraged even, and I believe that you are reading a little more into it than you should, and are in turn adopting some rather unsavoury traits.

    Finally, do not assume that you know more than I. It may make you feel better to solidify in your mind the idea that you really do know more than somebody, but when you actually express that opinion it does not stress your point or get it across in any way that does not make you seem to be juvenile and unwise. By telling me to “piss off” you are indirectly saying to me that you have not matured enough to understand the true depths of your speech, and that you are incapable of conducting an informative, lucrative exchange between two people.

    On a sidenote, the Vikings never “ruled” most of Europe; they “attacked” most of Europe. They did loot and trade in the Middle East, but they never established rulership as you seem to be insinuating. I will admit that evidence suggests that the Samurai may have been at a considerable disadvantage, and that the outcome may have been different from that of the show’s. But the fact is that you can’t clearly know. It boils down to circumstance, and getting worked up over a silly thing like that is in itself ridiculous, because when circumstance is involved there is always going to be more than one outcome.

    • “Straw Man” arguments don’t work with me, and you obviously don’t know what you are talking about.

      1. As I said, soldiers were “Samurai trained” in that they had instruction on the proper use of a sword. With this said, you would have to be an idiot to think I was saying Japanese soldiers didn’t carry guns. During many of the Pacific War battles, Japanese made a point at striking at night. They didn’t just do this with aircraft, but on the field of combat, they would ambush American troop positions when it was dark. The early fights of Guadalcanal were the place where many Americans were first introduced to close range combat. Japanese troops would jump into the trenches/cover positions, pull out their swords and try to overpower the soldiers in these troop positions. The tactic was terrifying, but more often then not, it proved ineffective. The sword couldn’t cut through a gun barrel, and after blocking a strike, the Americans would knock them down (probably with the rifle’s butt) and stab them with the bayonet (mounted on the rifle’s barrel). Now, if an ill-trained soldier with what was essentially a “steel covered pitchfork” could defeat a “Samurai”, then I don’t see how a Viking, who is physically superior, well trained and well armed, couldn’t simply slaughter these people. That wasn’t meant to mock or insult them, it was simply to show that their style of combat, and the weapons they used to fight, were not as superior as many believe, including you. You obviously refuse to acknowledge that point because I hit a nerve with this article, a soft spot which has made me the target of your ignorant badgering…

      2. Huh? Opium Wars? Excuse me, but I doubt China’ conflict with Britain created the racist beliefs held by many in Asia. This is not saying Chinese, Japanese, etc are racist, but in my travels, and the travels of my friends and associates, there is a far bit of animosity towards foreigners. With Japan in particular, you had the brutal treatment of prisoners and civilians during the Second World War. Before that, the barbaric treatment of the Japanese people by ruling classes, like the Samurai. Even now, some of that hatred remains. Many in Japan still haven’t “forgiven” the Americans for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and this attitude is passed down from generation to generation. You see this in China too, as the hatred for the Japanese is passed down by those who lived through the brutality of the Second World War. You can’t imagine how “black and white” this can be. You would never see this kind of treatment in the North America, and I was dumbstruck by how “politically incorrect” even the Chinese were. No matter how you look at it, racial tension still exists, and will most likely be around till everyone carries mixed blood within them. This wasn’t and will never be, the purpose of my article, but you have turned a discussion about the combat effectiveness of two warriors into some perverted look at my racial beliefs. NEWSFLASH, race means nothing in terms of what someone believes, and I have not, and will not, criticize a person based on the colour of their skin. You are a complete and total moron to think otherwise…

      3. No, it wasn’t simply a show of “attitude”, these “Samurai Experts” and even Max Geiger crossed the line in how they treated the Viking enthusiasts and how they portrayed Vikings in general. Seeing how you both didn’t pay attention to what I said in my article, and ignored what was said on Deadliest Warrior, I am going to have to educate you. For starters, YES the Vikings “ruled” Europe for three hundred years. When I say “ruled” I don’t mean that they had truly conquered the lands. Vikings didn’t have that kind of mentality, they set up trading hubs, they sacked countries, extending their power right through to the Middle East and beyond, but when they got on their boats after “raping and pillaging”, regional authorities were usually left in place. The royalty of Europe actually paid Vikings off, kept them from destroying their kingdoms because they knew they couldn’t risk a battle with these warriors. In that respect, because they went unchallenged by any power within Europe, they had free reign of the continent, thus “ruled it”. And why were they so good? Because they were far more than brutes and thugs, they were engineers and tacticians on top of being axe-wielding, skin-wearing giants. Deadliest Warrior refused to show that, instead portraying the Vikings as stupid oafs, while feeding the audience the fiction of the “Legendary Samurai”. These are my people, and I am proud of my ancestors, and I take deep offense to people simply saying that them, along with Western civilization are somehow inferior to the Japanese or Native Americans. As politically correct as you appear to be, you completely missed this point… Are you simply picky about what you pay attention to, or do you feel that Westerners deserve to be kicked around by everyone with an “axe to grind”?

      You want to debate these irrelevant points, go ahead, but this is far beyond the scope of the argument I presented in my blog post. You obliviously haven’t step outside your politically correct bubble to see what goes on beyond your borders. Having been to China, having been outside the safety of Canada, I can tell you that not everyone thinks the way you or I do. Gender equality, for example, is very much a product of Western society, and through dealings with Western nations, these principles are spread. I don’t need to read a news article to know that, but it seems you can’t get these ideas through your thick skull… Once again, you stupidity isn’t welcome here, PISS OFF!

      • This not a “Straw Man” argument. This is a situation in which a person has quite clearly expressed his offensive point of view and utterly insulted somebody of Asian descent in a fit of ridiculous claims, that will not admit that he may have been offen if you THINK you were not being offensive, what you DID was degrade and attack a specific group of people without caring or thinking about the possibility that it may have been insulting, and it only seems to become worse as you continue to post. Whether you realize it or not, you have effectively upset somebody because of your ignorance.

        You have attacked my intelligence on more than one account, and my knowledge of the material that I have been taught by relatives who were physically a part of or descended from those involvedwith the war, and you continue to insult me with your ignorance and arrogance toward Asian culture, that even after living in China you still clearly don’t understand. I never once insisted on “bashing” Western culture and that is in part because I was, as a matter of fact, born in Canada–the problem is you, my friend. I don’t know where you are getting this I “hate inferior Western civilization” vibe, but it seems like you are taking something that was barely personal to begin with and putting it under a wider and unnecessary scope.

        I simply do not see how you can be upset over a bit of a hyperbolic detail that was put into a television show that was based on the premise that it would showcase fictional encounters, and that has been previously used in many other pieces of material before even the concept of the one in question; Geiger and the Japanese experts are not the problem, because many shows and sources have essentially labeled the Vikings as “barbarians” before; do not act like this is is not true. It was “Creative Licensing” put to use and it was used to make the show seem more entertaining, but only ended up with a distasteful “aura” in the end, yet you choose not to acknowledge this. Educated people would have known the truth of the matter, so why bother making a fuss?

        I never meant to appear as though I was labeling you directly as an “unsavoury” type of person, so to speak; I was concerned with your choice of words and was offended, and I still very much am after your new posts. But there is no point to this, as you won’t open up and understand my point of view and I’m through with it. But I was never the one to take the context of your post out of hand, it was your blatant show of arrogance that did it from the very moment that you wrote it. You undermined your post from the beginning, so don’t make me out to be the bad guy.

      • Reply to paratoxiclogic

        *****

        That is it, THIS ENDS NOW!

        I do my best to allow comments to be read, no matter how stupid the person writing them is, but you have crossed the line. Your accusations of racism are not only offensive, but slanderous, bordering on libel. Not once did you mention what I said that was offensive, and you have ignored every explanation I have given and repeated, hoping to get it through your thick skull. You want to go around and call anyone who disagrees with you a racist, that’s your business, but I will not tolerate it here, and I don’t care if you are Canadian born, you attitude is disgraceful. If you were simply ignorant, that could be forgiven, but you are extremely offensive and downright rude. If you knew as much about Asian culture as you claim, you would know not to disrespect someone in their own house, especially not after being invited in. That is exactly what you did, I gave you the chance to make an intelligent and well supported argument, and you have stooped to calling me a racist… Pathetic…

        Vikings might be considered “barbarians”, but any historian who has studied them knows that this is an ignorant generalization of a people who were the military power in Europe for three hundred years. These were tacticians and engineers, dominating their opponents with a sharp mind as well as brute force. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this, or even consider the possibility that they weren’t the “stupid, smelly oafs” that they are constantly portrayed as, tells me you hold the belief that Western culture is somehow inferior to others… It is Canadians like you who try to rewrite our history, remove God from our society, and even ban the national anthem in our schools… You’re pathetic…

        Don’t tell me that you were not trying to label me, I have read three posts where you accuse me of being a racist. DO I LOOK STUPID TO YOU? You refuse to even consider that maybe what I am saying, as politically incorrect as it is, is the truth. I can tell you that I have FAR MORE KNOWLEDGE on Asian cultures, especially since I spent the last year living in China, not Beijing or Shanghai, but Nantong, a city which hasn’t been overtaken by Western influences. I don’t care if you consider your sources “reliable”, seeing as how they are a filter for any information you get, they hold a bias which you obviously have taken as your own. How else could someone be so offended by a post which painted Samurai as less than “legendary”. I am not a racist for believing that the Samurai were not as Japanese portray them to be, and I am not a racist for pointing out the arrogance of those who believe the Akira Kurosawa depiction was historically accurate. Samurai were no different than European Knights, and to say that isn’t racist either…

        You are the “bad guy” here, you refuse to let me have my say and not be called slanderous names. In return, I am removing your right to comment on my blog from this point on. You not only refused to read the entry in question, not only did you refuse to identify what it was that I wrote that was “racist”, but you have wasted my time and turned a forum of discussion and facts into a sterilized void for your ignorance and intolerance. These are my thoughts, and if you don’t like them, if you find them offensive, I really don’t care. I am not here NOT to offend people, but you don’t understand that do you? You are a pathetic individual, unable to take pride in your own culture, so you hijack another and then attack those who disagree with you. Get a life… and PISS OFF!

      • I’m going to put something out there Lancop, you are a very angry boy. Don’t take it the wrong way it’s merely an observation not an insult.

        Paratoxiclogic clearly misread what you wrote in your article, I didn’t spot any hatred towards those of Japanese descent. However you misread him as well, no where in Para’s first reply to your article did he call you a racist. He merely stated that he believed your comments could be perceived as such (and was obviously taken as such by Paratoxiclogic). No where does Para use the word racist to describe you, and if we are talking libel (which you had brought up) then you could easily be implicated.

        Just calm down and walk away next time, turn off the computer for a bit. It will be better for your health.

      • Quite frankly, I’m not pleased with your comments (the likes of which border the line of racism, if not treading through it), and I can’t say that I agree with you one-hundred-percent.

        Misreading what was said? That does sound pretty clear to me. His first comments offended me because a) he obviously didn’t read the article, and no where did he provide proof for this accusation, and b) when you read between the line, he is trying to hint at racism on my part.

        In that respect, I believe that your shallow attempt to degrade an entire people, let alone their culture, based on the outcome of a simple television show that was originally based on the premise that it would be showcasing other specious “facts” that you seem to have discovered (and some by use of the internet, no less), sometime during your distasteful fit of anger.

        And this was just his first comment. By the time he gets to his last one, he is really coming out and saying it, not trying to hide his feelings behind a veil of “politeness”.

        …what you DID was degrade and attack a specific group of people without caring or thinking about the possibility that it may have been insulting, and it only seems to become worse as you continue to post.

        So ya, I am angry. I don’t like having my own ancestors insulted by a computer geek with the common sense of a child (once again a five minute Google search would have shown their take on Vikings to be complete bullshit), and then to be further insulted by someone who’s hatred of his own culture has forced him to adopt one that was obviously foreign to him, a reader who didn’t read what I said, only spurted off insults because I didn’t share Max Geiger’s ill-conceived views. If I shouldn’t be angry at that, then what should I be angry about?

        Am I not allowed to show frustration? No, according to you now I have said something that borders on libel. Really? Like what? Unless you have something to back up that claim, and proof that my words were meant to sabotage the reputation of someone to the point where it hurts their livelihood, keep those comments to yourself. You think this is bad? During the election I had some people threaten to kill me for what I wrote…

        Now that is criminal, not what is going on here…

  3. Pingback: Geiger throws a fit; Deadliest Warrior hits a new low « Northern Thoughts And Reflections

  4. Pingback: Still Here; A look at recent events after a blogging break « Northern Thoughts And Reflections

  5. Yes, the katana could not slash through chailmail armor, but it could thrust through it. Katanas could be used for slashing, as well as thrusting.

    • And how easy do you think that would have been? European blades became far thinner to deal with chainmail armour, geared towards stabbing, while the katana was designed primarily for slashing. But that isn’t the point is it?

      As I wrote previously, the katana was NEARLY useless, not entirely. Please make sure to read the article before making obvious statements.

  6. I read both your blogs about deadliest warrior, and though I don’t agree with everything you said in samurai vs. Viking, you make a lot of good valid points. I’m glad to see one person out there has some sense. I’ve been studying martial arts and samurai for 8 years, and the only time I’ve seen a kanabo was in a video game! When I clicked the wikipedia link I found out why…”It was more of a mythical weapon”.

    I love martial arts, and I LOVE reading about warrior cultures, samurai, vikings, and knights being the highest on my list. As interesting as the samurai are, I know (as they were human and therefore fallible) that they were NOT invincible and not always fearless. I also know the vikings weren’t retarded. I remember hearing, I believe on the history channel show you mentioned, that they captured birds that flew out of one city, and attached burning twigs or something to them, so when they flew in they burned the place down. One of the things that annoys the hell out of me is how arrogant and rude the *cough* “Experts” are, and like you said, the samurai “Experts” demonstrated the bad side of japanese culture.

    The thing about the deadliest warrior that angers me the most, is that they think that by running some tests on dummies and pig corpses, giving it a number and running it through a computer program (that was designed for a video game and most reasonably bright 5 year olds can tell you video games aren’t real) that they can determine the outcome of a fight that never happened. That just kinda trivializes martial arts, and is quite insulting to me.

    • It isn’t simply the trivialization of martial arts, it is the entire format of the show. My father and I talked about this when the show came on, and seeing how facing one warrior off against another which they didn’t fight before to see who would win, is just stupid. There are two ways to do this show; You either examine one warrior per episode or you square off two warriors that DID fight each other historically.

      Also, you find weapon selection balancing which absolutely doesn’t make sense, especially in the Viking versus Samurai episode where both warriors had bows (why not test the range and accuracy of each of their bows?). Add in the fact that Geiger bases his program off a Dungeons and Dragons design (plus he has say over what weapons do what in this program) and it is about as accurate as flipping a coin. History Channel had a program which properly tested weapons in combat, not this garbage you see on the show.

      I hope you keep reading my blog, I have been working on a much longer and much more researched post about this garbage show I hope to put out sooner or later. Thanks for the comment.

      • Thank god for sensible people…
        I have quite a mix of ancestry, mostly the “barbaric” groups of europe, such as the Celts, germanics, norse, picts, etc. I always found deadliest warrior to not only be really stupid (like most versus shows) but just fanboyish. The so called “experts” are mostly video game designers and enthusiasts who have barely done any research.
        In the first place, the show just has to be biased to work. They present a fictional battle that never happened, with warriors of different nations or peoples and completely different fighting styles and mindsets, then subjectively assume things about what they would do to each other in a fight. Then they presumptuously declare a winner. To make it worse, they barely do the minimal in research, basing a lot of information on urban legend and popular opinion. I thought the one about the Celtic warrior vs the persian was insulting.
        Like you said, either they show a battle between two warriors that actually did fight each other, explaining why one beat the other using historical FACTS, or just do each warrior individually, giving real history.

      • Agreed. When I first watched the show, I was hoping for something with substance. The problem is, however, you have two groups of fan boys saying their warriors is the greatest and a host who’s bias was easy to identify. Couldn’t stand the show after that became clear. If another ‘Deadliest Warriors’ show does come around, here’s hoping it examines one warrior at a time without the fan boy nonsense.

  7. I do agree that this show is pretty full of crap and is pretty much garbage. However, I do like it for the entertainment value. I do not see harm in the entertainment. I do have a problem when people start taking this show seriously thinking that it’s actual science. I’d be perfectly fine if the show had a disclaimer that said “warning, show is highly based on objective and is no way based on actual fact”

    With that said, I’d like to comment on the Vikings VS Samurai.

    I do not feel that Viking would lose to a samurai as well but I have to admit it would still be a toss up. Both the viking and samurai scored really close kills but ultimately, the viking shown in the dramatized simulation was an idiot. No smart viking would stand there with his shield on his back while facing an archer. He would have hid behind the shield until the arrows stopped.

    The only way the Samurai could have had a chance was if the Kanabo actually existed. It may have been enough to destroy the shield. Seeing as how the Kanabo does not really exist… that point is moot further destroying the Samurai’s chance to win.

    But… here’s the kicker.

    The show was not specific on the Samurai. The show failed to mention that the samurai age lasted a LONG time. Long enough that later samurais actually had guns. Like you said, a simple google search would have shown that late Samurais indeed incorporated the arquebus, a matchlock gun in their arsenal. The game would have been completely different if the gun had entered the picture.

    The viking would not know what a gun is. They may not realize the destructive power of the gun before it’s too late. Although the gun can be unreliable and may not penetrate plate armor, it can and will do damage to mail armor.

    One shot from an army of samurais may be enough to decimate an army vikings.

    But so many of this show isn’t even worth watching. It’s all up to subjective comments and not really actual science.

    • I used to find it entertaining as well until it got offensive. The IRA versus Taliban episode could have been a recruiting video for America’s enemies if the fight went the other way, and that kind of irresponsibility is dangerous. How do you even justify that kind of nonsense? As for the Viking versus Samurai episode, that Japanese experts were downright racist, and I have no use a show that allows some uneducated intellectual inferior to berate my ancestors. As I have stated time and time again, a five minute Google search would have cleaned up more than half of that episode’s nonsense.

      Size and strength are usually, if not most of the time, the determining factor in these fights. It wasn’t simply the physical superiority, but also the superiority in weapons that would have given the Vikings the win in this fight. A heavier blade would have bent, if not broken a katana in combat, especially constant hammering against a defending Samurai warrior. Samurai armour was made to protect against glancing blows, not forcefully directed strikes like that of an axe. It isn’t just that though, Viking defenses were more than enough to protect against any Samurai weapon. Vikings had chainmail armour, meaning that this wasn’t a fight that would be determined by skill. As the tests done on the show demonstrated, Samurai slashing weapons, both the katana and naginata (many naginatas were actually made of broken katanas), were nearly useless against Viking chainmail. This is what really gets me is that Max Geiger ignore his own test results to push this fiction. No matter how skilled the Samurai is, he would have to get past the shield and the chainmail armour to kill the Viking, who would have most likely overwhelmed his Japanese adversary through sheer brute strength by this point. Samurais were trained to fight other Samurais, while Vikings had fought and defeated numerous armies throughout the known world (at that time).

      Let’s consider your point though about Samurai armies with matchlock guns. Here is my problem with early ballistic weapons, they are seen as primitive rifles, and because of this lack of understanding, are believed to be far superior to what they actually are. I have studied Canadian history for most of my life, and even the rifles used by the British and the French a few centuries after Japanese armies started using matchlock weapons, were horribly inaccurate and lacked any penetration power. There is actually a recorded battle between British and French troops in early Canadian history where the two forces squared off a little over a hundred yard from each other and spent an hour firing without either side hitting, let alone killing an enemy soldier. British retreated because the French had called in reinforcements and they believed this inaccurate and humiliating stalemate would soon end. What I think you mean is that one volley could have decimated a Viking force, but knowing how inferior these weapons were, I don’t agree. I could go on about how musket balls would get lodged in muscle tissue and bone, that soldiers would more likely die from infection than the single musket ball wound itself (depending were it struck), etc but there is more to this than simply the idea of early guns. Let’s not forget that while seen as inferior, bows and arrows were far more accurate and could out range these matchlock guns. As with the Pirate versus Knight fight, this isn’t a gun versus a bow contest. In this fight, the Vikings would have to be in fairly close range for these weapons to be effective, and they would have not rushed a Samurai line without softening it up first with arrows, javelins and axes (an average warrior could have tossed the throwing axe over sixty yards).

      I would also like to mention the whole Samurai bow demonstration while I am discussing long ranged weapons. While Geiger might have been impressed, considering that the dummy wasn’t that far away, I wasn’t at all surprised that anyone who spent time with a bow and arrow couldn’t call their shots and hit them. I did archery at sports camp when I was younger, and, once you get the hang of it, it isn’t difficult to put an arrow wherever you wanted it on a stationary target. Mind you, this demonstration ignores two key facts about the use of arrows in combat. Firstly, one archer wouldn’t be targeting a specific soldier, but you would have a line of archers firing into a line of enemies. Second, no soldier is going to stand there and let an enemy archer get a shot at him. In this fight, if the Samurai archer had found himself this close to a rushing Viking, he wouldn’t be standing there aiming his bow. By this time, the Viking would have probably had thrown his javelins and axes at this archer, either killing him, forcing him to retreat or at least forcing him to draw his sword. Once again, more nonsense from those who wouldn’t know better.

      Finally, the point about the kanabo is flawed I think. While it wasn’t used as the so-called experts claimed it was, even if it had been, I don’t think any Viking warrior would have given the Samurai enough time to swing it, or even positioned themselves to take the full force of the attack if they had. A rushing Viking would have parried the incoming blow, or even knocked the weapon out of the Samurai’s hands. A twenty to thirty pound club (the kanabo in the Spartan versus Samurai fight was smaller) is far too heavy to swing effectively, and one missed attack means death, especially for such a small warrior (Samurais didn’t have steroids, so that force test in the Viking versus Samurai episode was inaccurate to say the least). The whole concept of the use of the weapon is downright flawed and only an idiot like Geiger would have seen it any differently.

      Thank you for reading my post, I have two more Deadliest Warrior posts I think you should read if you enjoyed this one. Also, I am still researching and writing a far more comprehensive post that will examine the first few fights. If it does well (hit wise), I will continue writing others.

  8. I do a sport recreational foghting ina group called the SCA (Society for creative anachorism). Like I said, it is a “Sport fight” and not historically accurate. But as such, I do have a Viking Persona, and do have a reasonable facsimile of the weapons, armour, and shields used by Vikings.

    Vikings were a culture, and as such had thier own cultural acheivements, they pretty much perfected wirework and chainmail, thier sword crafting used a science that is arguably second only to the Japanese sword smiths, and they used tried and true tactics against all manner of opponent and weapons.

    They knew well the perils of the bow, and knew how to train and deal with the bow, and all the while while boarding or unboarding a ship. As a Viking set about to advance on thier chosen target, they were intelligent and prepared themselves with weapons accordingly. They knew Terror and warfare and how to use each effectively.

    The Viking “Experts” either are experts beyond compare, or really have no idea of what they are talking about and instead are Larpers pretending to be experts, as some of the stuff they said made me go “huh?” For example, I have never once heard of a two handed spear toss, except practiced in play in “stupid norse games” and a round shield would NEVER be strapped to an arm!.

    Tossing 2 spears like that leaves thier widest profile open for attack, and all thier vulnerable targets exposed. More likely, a Norseman would throw over his shield, using it to protect all the parts that would be exposed in a throw, as opposed to what ever the hell it was that that guy was demonstrating. It is a known fact that Vikings entertained dangerous games, such as toss the spear, and axe throwing… Hell, drunk people today do stupid things like that with modern instruments… and that is the only place I could see a viking throw two spears at once… when showing off.

    Round shields center bossed are meant to be mobile. They are supposed to occupy the space between you and your opponent as you you strike. Using a round shield requires a great deal of skill and is more of a “dance” than traditional strapped shields would be. When I use my round in a fight, I make sure that it s always between me and my opponent without blinding me, yet blinding him. the shield bash the guy used was also horrible, he led with his face, anyone in a fight would use that as an oppotunity to brain him and claim a quick kill. Using a shield in combat was done instead with the edge in a short thrust to the chops, throat, or knee caps, or a controlled swing to the temple. This is far more lethal than a thrust. The spiked bosses served one purpose… In a shield wall, the front men would press thier shields into thier opponents carving away with short weapons as the rearmen would use spear and press thier dull bossess into thier backs. A tried and true tactic for advancing in wall formation since the Spartan era. The Pointed Bosses at that time would be pressed against thier opponent causing discomfort, pain, and openings… It was a tool.

    Vikings were smart, they drilled, they fought in formation and in unit. They had experience, they trusted thier comrades, and they were sure that when they die they would have a honoured place in Valhalla, but they were not suicidal… if so, why would there be so many protection runes and knots?

    Viking Swords were tailor made to thier wielders and used the best alloys of the time, which changed as they conquered.

    I have no Idea what those “Eperts” were talking about… seriously, it makes no sense. And For that Pompous ass Max Geiger to dismiss weapons as innefective, I ask… WHY THE HELL WOULD A WARRIOR USE AN INNEFECTIVE WEAPON?!? Thier kit was a collage, a series of objects that created a masterpiece of battle.

    I dont know much about the Samurai… on an expert level that is… and I have very little experience with thier sword style. What i do know is that they were rude, condecending, and too full of thier superior skill. That Kanebo would be run of the mill to a viking, its why they would not strap thier shield… they would meet the blow and table thier shield (Tilting it in a direction of the blow, while stepping into the overtaxed samurais range and closing with an upper swing, possibly a pommel swing to the chin to offbalance the Samurai and set them up for a killing blow. The shield would survive, its like rolling with the blow in a fist fight, you just learn to move with it, not sit there and get hammered on.

    My rant almost concludes… this last point goes to all those people who think helmets reduce visibility and effectiveness… put one on and try and fight!, or better yet, come to a local SCA practice and watch a fight, you will find that you learn to work around any deficiencies until there are none and that you lose nothing wearing one.

    • I couldn’t have said it better myself. For my piece, I had a hard time digging up information on Viking combat. I watched a few documentaries, ran around the internet to examine whatever I could. You have obviously shown yourself to be far more knowledgeable than myself in this matter, and while I did know about some of what you said, I don’t like putting up points without hard facts to link to.

      The reason I wrote this blog post was that I found this episode not only uninformed, but downright offensive. With a five minute Google search, I dug up enough information to disprove what had been said about the Vikings in this episode. What get’s me is that Max Geiger gave the Samurai free reign to push whatever nonsense they wanted. I knew Vikings were experts in combat, and that they were a very effective fighting force. Even a single Viking warrior was a threat, as proven by that brave Viking at Stamford Bridge who bested forty Saxons himself before being killed (these are Saxon accounts mind you, so they wouldn’t embellish who they got their butt whooped by one Viking for so long). I mean, how can you simply write off a people who not only accomplished feats like that, but dominated Europe for so long?

      While the Viking experts didn’t show your level of expertise, I would say that their depiction of their warrior was more realistic than the Samurai experts’ depiction of the Japanese combatant. Can round shield be used as a ram? Of course, but as you pointed out, you wouldn’t charge an enemy like that unless you could get away with it. Such an attack would leave the Viking vulnerable if he missed. I will say that, along with the point you made about slashing with the shield, it wouldn’t surprise me if their were Viking tactics associated with the shield concerning knocking the opponent off his feet. I will let you be the judge of that since I believe a shield does make an effective battering weapon.

      I can’t really say anything else. You have pretty much covered what I wanted to discuss. Thanks for your comment and I hope you can read and comment on my other two Deadliest Warrior posts.

      P.S. I did some research on the Samurai and suffice to say I wasn’t impressed. They didn’t have the wartime experience Vikings did, they never fought an enemies who didn’t either use similar weapons or a similar style of fighting (not a versatile style), and their weapons and armor, though marvels of engineering, were inferior to their Western counterparts. Matter of fact, those who could afford it, bought European armor for its superior protection. What does that say eh?

  9. Sorry, Edit to my post…

    When I said

    “What i do know is that they were rude, condecending, and too full of thier superior skill”

    What I meant to say is…

    “What I do know is that THE EXPERTS were rude, condecending, and all too full of thier superior skill”

  10. You can bash with a shield, it is effective, but I would only bash with a shield if I had a clear opening. Center Bossed round shields take a lot more skill to use than a strapped shield, you need to be careful not to blind yourself when using it, it you throw a shield up in someones face, you best have your next shot lined up and be able to watch points of your opponent, like thier heels, hips, or elbows, (places where muscle movement from a shot is generated from or travels through) because you just blinded yourself too. a Solid punch works well, but its not really a kill shot to someone in armour, but can be used to offbalance your opponent and setup for a better kill shot.

    Like I said, I am in a sport fighting group, most of what I say in the post is from personal experience, training, and some armchair research into tactics. We do have real Experts in the SCA though, people who really know thier stuff. One such expert is the Spartan Expert, he is also in the SCA, Or at least his post on our forums said so 😉 and from those I know who know him (Unlike myself), he backs what he says with hard facts and research… something I am not so able to do.

    In some cases, I think they creatively edit out some stuff the experts say in order to back thier results. The Gladiator one really chewed me up… I know for a fact that you can effectively fight in a helm like that and not be at a dsadvantage, and those Apache guys just seemed like school yard bullies and punks…

    Basically, every episode has one “fact” or another they present that you can really tear into.

    Suprisingly, despite the glaring stupidity of thier comparison on the Viking Vs Samurai… I actually agree with taht one. Not on any facts presented, but because they both were skilled warriors whos’ gear could scale to the situation, and it would really just come down to skill… It would be a close call, and the next thousand battles could easily play to the vikings’ favour instead.

    That and those Kendo guys, (with a little experience against a shield) can really kick your shielded armoured butt if you dont find a way to halt thier momentum right away. Onec again though… that is in a sport fight, which is not like a live steel fight.

    • Sorry for the late reply, been busy with other things…

      You agree with the outcome to Viking versus Samurai? That is where you and I differ. As I pointed out in the article, it was unfairly unbalanced to the point where mythical weapons were being used in an actual combat scenario. Aside from the Viking armour which would have made two of the weapons useless (many naginatas were made from broken katanas, so if the katana can’t breach the chainmail armour, the naginata couldn’t either), the Viking weapons were by far superior. Let’s take the katana for example…

      This image shows that a heavier European blade would damage, if not destroy the katana if the two connected with enough force. It all goes back to how each weapon was handled, as well as its design. The European style had warriors follow through with their attacks, which demanded sturdy weapons which could not only cut through armour but defend against other blades of similar make and size. Katana strikes are glancing blows, where the object isn’t to overpower an opponent, but outmaneuver them, to get a clean slice which would disable them to allow for the following kill strike. Samurai armour also helps demonstrate this as it wasn’t effective at providing protection against direct forceful attacks, but against glancing blows. Why do you think those who could afford European armour bought it? Sure their was this advancement in Japanese weapons and armour development, but after a thousand years, it became stagnant. It wasn’t until it was trading with European nations that Japan had begun to once again develop, and move towards more “modern” combat with rifles and what not.

      Once again, even with the tests showing Viking dominance, Max Geiger purposely altered the results when plugging the information into his “Dungeons and Dragons” style program for the outcome he wished. We could also discuss the sheer size and strength advantage the Viking would have over the Samurai, something which would be a determining factor in this fight, but I think I have made my point.

      Good comment either way.

  11. I would agree to a certain amount. What I was more getting at was that in this contest we have 2 highly skilled warriors in combat. I dont doubt that at first encounter a samurai would get a lesson in humility, but, warriors are trained to be adaptive, even the samurai, or else they would not have adopted European arms.
    My point was more that I agreed with the fact that it was more or less even. I think that if the battle wasn’t over within the first few exchanges, both opponents would have a game plan to defeat the other and then it would be a fair fight.
    I try not to boil it down to gear vs gear or risk becoming just like the “Experts” in that show when it comes to the final decision. The Japanese made excellent equipment for thier purpose, and the samurai had some advantages unmentioned in the show.
    They had a longbow designed for horseback use, they had Kote forearm guards which could parry, defelct, or absorb incoming attacks, and thier armour was designed to deflect blows from below (As if they were on horseback) as opposed to on foot.
    If a samurai met a viking on horseback they contest may go differently. Also not all vikings could afford chain, many had brigandine, leather, or padded armour.

    What it all boils down to for me is that Max Geiger is a numbers monkey without organic thought, and the rest of the experts are showmen like Dr.Phil… Even if they had a clue, they tend to lose it for whats going to wow the viewers. They dont look at all the facts and make quick decisions for the sake of entertainment. So its impossible to make a valid arguement either way unless all avenues are explored, which they cannot do. Yes, In my opinion, and like I said, I am a huge viking fan myself, it is a contest of skill at the end of the day for these two and I dont think equipment really factors. All weapons and armour has its uses and ad=vantages/disadvantages here.

    PS, sorry if my post isn’t as well thought out as earlier ones are… I am at work and sneaking in this reply… >:)

  12. The Samurai had steel plate armor, which had a large advantage over Viking chainmail. Furthermore the average Viking was around 5’6 – 5’7, whereas the Samurai maybe an inch or two shorter – there would not have been a significant difference in strength. In the video, even the viking great axe could only barely dent the samurai helmet. And the vikings historically mostly fought villagers and unarmed monks – they rarely fought unified states during the Dark Ages when they reigned. There were a few notable exceptions, but the majority of Vikings were raiders first and warriors second. If you’re comparing your average Samurai to your average Viking, samurai wins hands down.

    Finally stop whining, the Viking had 48% and Samurai had 52% of the wins – basically a tie.

    And the sheer ignorance and ridiculousness of rant about East Asia astounds me.

    As for his travels in Japan…apparently Japan is the only country in the world with sexual harassment problems right? Nobody in Canada or Germany has even heard of the word rape because it doesn’t exist, right?

    As for his “travels to China” – yes, apparently he got scammed a few times, so apparently all of China are run by criminals. By the way, I’m sure clancop realizes that mainland China is:
    1. COMMUNIST
    2. A developing 3rd world country
    3. The average person in China makes 1/3 the money of a person in MEXICO.

    And China doesn’t treat women as equals to men – but everyone else in the world treats womens as equals, right? Because apparently women’s rights is only a Chinese problem, and the women’s civil rights movement never existed in the Americas. Maybe even the Judeo-Christian religion isn’t patriarchal, doesn’t tell women to be obedient to their husbands, doesn’t say Eve (woman) was created from Adam’s (man) ribs. I’m sure spouse abuse never happens in countries such as Caanda. Because to the author, only East Asian societies have problems such as womens rights issues.

    The sheer amount of generalization that exists in this article is a sad reminder of people who judge people based on stereotypes and ignorance.

    • The Japanese armour wasn’t made entirely of steel, if at all. Much of it was bone plate, with only the shoguns being able to afford entire armour suits of steel, and even then, it was very light steel. Talk about your preference for plate armour all you want, as the Deadliest Warrior tests themselves showed, the chainmail armour the Vikings wore was more than sufficient to stop a katana. And if you want to discuss Japanese swords and how they are supposedly better than European ones, look to the gif I posted previously.

      Yes, there would be an identifiable difference in size and strength. The average European was 5’6, 5’7 while the average Viking, according to many historical accounts, was 6+. Japanese, in fact Asians on average are 5’5, 5’6 give or take. Add in the hard living of the Viking, the constant conflicts, etc and you have a FAR stronger warrior than a Samurai who had, in contrast, a relatively easy existence. As for your comment on Viking battles, WRONG! While the earliest recorded Viking raid was against a defenseless Church, Vikings spent much of their time in combat against other Viking tribes, even against members of their own tribe for status, as well as the various militias they encountered while raiding Europe. Samurais were the ones who spent much of their time in mock duels and shaking down peasants for their lords.

      As for who would win, the Viking with ease. Samurai style combat is dependent on quick slashing attacks, but seeing how the katana itself is incapable of breaking Viking chainmail, as well as not being strong enough to match the heavy and denser European swords (as the gif demonstrates), and seeing how the Viking shield was completely ignored for the purpose of the Deadliest Warrior tests, there is no other possible outcome in my mind. Longer and heavier weapons, better armour, with additional protection from the use of a shield, wield by a larger and far stronger experienced warrior. Simply outmatched!

      As for the fight results themselves, they aren’t even worth considering as the test results were ignored and the weapon selection was not only biased in favour of the Samurai but historically inaccurate.

      As for Japan, where should I start? The overtly sexual culture (here as well) the mistreatment and subjugation of women or the rape simulation videogames that are so popular there? Other countries have their problems, but nothing in comparison to Japan.

      China run by criminals? Wow, that is a gross exaggeration of my words. China may be “communist”, but it is far from Cuba as it has adopted capitalism, becoming the leading exporter of goods. Much of China does resemble a third world country, but what of it? Go to the major cities like Beijing and Shanghai and you will find them to be on par with any Western city I can think of, even exceeding them in certain areas like public transit. The average person may make a third of the money a Mexican makes, but the cost of living in China is also far lower than Mexico. On $800-$1000 a month, I lived extremely well.

      You attempt to tear my article apart by making generalizations and yet you have no proof to back up any of your claims. You have two more comments I must address, but they are obviously as ill-informed as this one… Pathetic…

  13. btw, I see in your info that you’ve spent a year in China, and visit Japan.

    Well, I’ve spent at least 5 years in East Asia, and I can assure you that the actions of a few doesn’t mean you should use sweeping generalizations to describe the entire country or culture.

    • I deleted another comment you made as it was an exact repeat of the last comment. As for sweeping generalizations, say what you will about my opinions on China, I think what I have said is a fair assessment. Behaviour deemed immoral by Western society is rather frequent there, from cheating on exams to stealing, but in a country of 1.6 billion people, it is hard to fault them for doing what they can to “keep their head above water”.

      Where did you spend your five years? I would honestly like to know since, if it was a major city, you lived sheltered from REAL society. My time in Beijing over the Christmas holidays was great, but I knew this wasn’t how the average Chinese person lived. My friend who invited me to visit her there admitted as much when she said those with money don’t generally leave the larger cities unless they have an important reason to do so. Don’t pretend that living in Beijing, Tokyo, Bangkok, etc gives you an accurate view of how the average citizen lives.

      Once again, do you have any proof to disprove what I said? Obviously not… Pathetic…

  14. http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/vikheight.shtml

    11th century Viking skeletons are on average 5’6-5’7, nowhere near 6 foot tall as myth hold them out to be. Vikings were only slightly taller (1-2inches) than your average European, but they were still short compared to people of today.

    And in the test, their weapons didn’t do squat against the Samurai either. Furthermore, the samurai was armored from head to toe – so the Viking may have had a shield, but he only had body and head protection from chainmail and the helmet.

    As for China, according to the CIA world factbook, their GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity is only $6500, while Mexicans make $13,500. So even if you take into account price differences and living standards, your average Mexican is still 2x richer than your poor-as-hell Chinese.
    Go to any other country with a GDP per capita of 6500, and I guarantee you you will be robbed blind the moment you step out of the plane. Does this mean robbing people is their culture? No, it just means they are poor and desperate. Looting post Hurricane Katrina and the Nashville flood is a good example of crime that occurs everywhere due to the cirucmstance

    As for Japan and their rape-porn, etc – they may have more liberal sex attitudes, but that stuff is considered tolerated, and certainly not the norm. BSDM and sadomasochism is tolerated and quite prevalent in many countries – but that by no means is the norm.

    • Her results are based on the average height of the people of Scandinavia, and not all Scandinavians were Vikings. As discussed in History Channel’s Lost Worlds: The Vikings, not everyone in Nordic societies were Vikings. Viking warriors were recruited for their size and fighting prowess, having to prove themselves in combat before being allowed into the war party. As for six-foot-tall Vikings being a myth, the site you cite says that skeletons of Vikings have been found which are more than six-feet-tall. Even the skeletons found side by side in a single grave, pointing back to the site which you cite, the Viking’s slave was the average 5’6 with the warrior himself being 5’9. While not six-feet-tall, he is taller than average. What do you say about that? Any evidence to dispute the claims made on the site you cite?

      The weapon’s test on Deadliest Warrior actually disproves what you claim. While it didn’t shatter the Japanese armour, it did severely damage it, and the force exerted on the helmet by the Viking axe was more than enough to give any warrior a serious concussion. Didn’t do squat? Were you even watching the show? Viking chainmail covered the whole body (torso, arms, legs), and the shield provided additional protection, as well as a strategic weapon that could not only block strikes, but be used to strike back. Once again, did you watch the show?

      So you first said Mexicans make three times the amount of their Chinese counterparts, and now you say twice as much? So which one is it? Did you take into account that the average income in Mexico is severely offset by the income sent home by illegal immigrants working in the United States? In 2006, $45 billion were sent home by illegal immigrant workers, with another estimated $35 billion sent back through obfuscation. Why do you think Mexico is so insistent on keeping the American border open for illegal immigration? Didn’t think that one through did you?

      As for being “robbed”, while I did have my laptop stolen (I was in Beijing visiting a friend from university when a worker at the college in Nantong stole it), I quickly learned how to haggle with even the shrewdest Chinese salesman. As for my comments on immorality within Chinese society, my students were the children of prominent Communist Party members, so NO!, they weren’t poor or desperate. One of my students had her cellphone stolen by a the son of a well-off family (he stole the phone then sold them to make extra pocket change). While there is a fair bit of theft due to the fact that these individuals were “poor and desperate”, such actions were definitely not limited to the lower class.

      As for your argument about rape games, while they are tolerated in Japan, they are banned in the Western world. I also notice how you didn’t address the Shinto rituals I linked to where Japanese communities worship giant wooden sculptures of penises which nude women ride. What was that I said about Japanese sex culture?

      If you want to continue this nonsense, know that my patience only goes so far… Pathetic…

  15. The Viking answer Lady IS an expert, what she posts on her site is correct and accurate, and trust me, many people have tried to debunk her over the years. She does well to post facts and backs up everything as either fact, or stated as myth, opinion, etc… when its not fact.
    That being said, she is also the first google result if you do most searches about vikings like “How tall were vikings”. There are other studies out there, and no I have no references to post, which contradict those findings. This is common in science in general, however, and I personally would go with her voice on this one.
    Suffice it to say, the Northmen were BIG, there is a reason why the Byzantine emperor made them his personal guard and that the myths spread so far and wide from numerous accounts. If you think about it, people who are big also tend to look taller, if you row a boat across oceans, you will have large upperbodies and probably be quite imposing. My theory on this is to do with thier shield wall. Thier Shields were bigger than those of smaller people, they could also hold them higher and longer. If you were facing a large shield held high and all you could se was eyes and the top of a helm… you would feel small. not to mention that when facing them with your smaller and lower shield, the impressiveness of it would become more pronounced. I have also heard that the boats had low sills to allow for easy embarking and disembarking, which would make the vikings in the boat near you look taller as they stand higher over the “rails”.
    All that as it is they were not much taller, but if someone outweighs you by quite a bit… especially if they are in shape… size is size.
    I am 6’6 and I have met people who look taller than me, yet are actually a few inches shorter than me. This is usually because their eyes are higher in thier head than mine (always a point of reference for people) or that they are bigger than me. Since I have gained more weight and have broader shoulders… I find that I actually look larger still than those same people who once had the illusion over me. That being said… in a fight… some of my oponents may be a lot shorter than me, but because of thier superior skill or ferocity, they look far larger than life.

    Viking armour would protect, head, neck (with camail… not always present), sleeves, thighs, and torso. This is a well eqiuipped viking mind you, the average viking would be no better equipped than what they could afford. But please, not for an instant, dont dismiss the shield as a POWERFUL defensive weapon. A shield in the right hands, especially a properly trained center-boss wielder, can use that shield to never be exposed, covering all vulnerable spots during an attack. The shield also keeps opponents at a distance and is more than adequate protection when facing an archer. Archers were deadly in combat in numbers or with surprise, if you face off an archer, you can easily… and I know this from experience, ward yourself from arrow fire and close the distance. Against arrows, shields act as an umbrella and arrows do fly in an arc, which makes the umbrella that much more effective.

    Against a Samurai, the viking had many ways to damage him, the shield would be of primary concern to the samurai being unfamiliar with a skilled shield wielder with such a solid sheild, and the spear. I doubt the viking would throw the spear like shown on that crappy show, and definately not 2… thats just utter nonsense… they hunted boars with spears, fought ship to ship with spears, and trained extensively in thier use as a primary weapon. A spear could peirce Samurai armour which also would not be lamilar metal like shown, but more probably Bamboo and other materials laminates to protect against cuts and weak thrusts.

    What we have is two schools of thought in battle. Samurai trained against light quick weapons and lightly armoured foes. Vikings relied on power, force, and agression when confronting foes. Vikings also knew armoured and unarmoured foes alike.

    If we are going to compare “Average” warriors from each culture, I still maintain that it would be a fight of skill, not arms. In the scenario depicted with the armament brought to bear though… the ONLY reason that THAT Viking would lose is if he was marooned for being a dumbass and useless in a fight, and even then, he would probably have been left with only his sword, so that he could seek an honourable death from his useless life.

    Hmm… about the other comments, I dont know about the chinese or Japanese cultures of today, but my good buddy was given a box of schoolgirl panties worn by a school girl with her bio on the box from a vending machine in Tokyo… the friend who gave him them thought it was a good novelty gift and took pictures of said vending machines nestled on a busy street amonst food and pop machines. The pictures of which I also saw.

  16. Well, the Byzantine emperor made them his guard out of loyalty more than any other reason. It was after he made them his guards, did they see significant combat and then gain their fame. He had distrusted his own soldiers and thus looked to mercenaries like the vikings.

    I will say that the Viking is at least a samurai’s equal or better for much of the samurai’s time frame. After the samurai adopted better armor and weapons from mainland East Asia however, I see that as outweighing the viking shield and initial chain-mail advantage. When the samurai did adopt weapons and new armors, they also had to fight each other, and thus adopt ways to defeat armored opponents.

    And as you mentioned the fighting styles were different – vikings relied more on the power of their weapons, whereas samurai probably relied more on precision strikes.

    As for a fight of skill, the average samurai vs the average viking, I’d give it to the samurai since the later was probably a farmer for most of his life. For the upper class samurai vs upper class full-time warrior viking, I’d say give it to the vikings if the samurai doesn’t have metal armor.

    All in all, the Deadliest warrior result wasn’t that bad – it was 48 to 52, basically a tie.

    As for Japan, yeh, parts of their country have crazy stuff like that due to a more liberal sex attitude. Like Vegas

    apologies for the tone in the earlier comments, I’ve read too many post-SamuraivsViking discussions that contained too many cultural and racial stereotypes.

    • Samurai armour and weaponry might have been superior to that of surrounding nations, but considering the gif I previously posted, along with the fact that those who could afford it, bought European armour, your opinion is more fiction than fact. Time and time again I have read about the inferiority of Japanese steel, and yet Viking steel was among, if not the finest in Europe. Though the land they lived in was harsh, the iron ore it provided, along with the innovative techniques used to forge it, gave Vikings an edge in weaponry.

      The Viking fighting techniques are far from “power”. Various videos found on Youtube demonstrate a very deep and refined combat style which is still practice today. The use of the shield in tandem with either a spear, axe or sword makes the Viking a well defended warrior capable of quick counters, as well as deceptive strikes. Some Vikings even took the metal rim off their shields to allow their opponent’s sword to catch in them. Once stuck, the Viking would lop off his opponent’s sword arm or head.

      Deadliest Warrior was biased in favour of the Samurai. Vikings weren’t allowed the use of bows, nor were their opponent called on their historical inaccuracies (ex: the kanabo was rarely, if ever, used in combat). Last time I checked, Samurai were steroid-abusing body builders and allowing such an individual to perform the tests involving the strength gauge dramatically skewed the results.

      You want to talk about stereotyping, what about the portrayal of Vikings as “stupid and smelly oafs”? Pathetic…

  17. btw, my main problem is how the author generalizes entire groups of people based on the actions of a few. In this topic thread and among others, he clumps entire nations together under a stereotypes solely based on his experiences with a few people in a single city or so.

    And ID and Malkins are both hilarious.

    • Malkins are hilarious? Excuse me, but considering that her book, Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies, spent six weeks at the top of the New York Time’s Best Seller’s List (Hardcover Non-Fiction). There is nothing hilarious about that, nor is it hilarious that she has made herself the “Queen of the blogosphere” through years of hard work. As for Intelligent Design, the site I linked to was that of a friendly commenter. Seeing how I was receiving thousands of hits during the last American Presidential election, I wanted to help him get hits for his blog by linking to it. While I do believe in evolution, I do find that intelligent design makes some interesting points. There is nothing hilarious about providing a place for debate on this subject.

      You want to accuse me of generalizing, YOU BETTER DAMN WELL HAVE PROOF! Not all Japanese are sexual deviants, nor do all Chinese act immorally, BUT IN MY EXPERIENCE, I have seen far too much of both to simple disregard these trends as being that of a minority. You want to lose your right to comment on my blog, KEEP THAT BULLSHIT UP!

  18. A fighter is a fighter, unfortunately… Some exceptions occur, such as dedicated warriors like Spartans, Marines, etc… Samurai were also trained to be artists, poets, sculptors, etc… well not so much trained I would think as encouraged. Thier life was training, yes, but not all about training for battle.
    An average viking surviving a series of raids would probably have more practical fighting experience than the Samurai from an Island that knew little of invasion. THats why I maintain that the average viking vs Samurai is a toss-up. Samurai would on average be better equipped and have better muscle memory and theory, but Vikings would have more experience and practical skill. Plus the size and strength difference would make a difference in the ability to attack and the samurai to defend.

    Going back to size though, I am 6’6 I know many people 6′ plus, but we are still not the average. I think our average male in North America is still around 5’8-5’10 last time I checked. The Graves exhumed in the studies done were viking graves, so they could extrapolate if there was a noticeable difference in the social castes.

    Visby in Gotland was one such grave where most were rural folk massacred, but there were also viking graves tehre too. By the time of the Mongol Empire, the Baltic was a trading center for the Mongol empire and the West and much interbreeding with Easterners and Westerners in that region took place, so the average eastern viking and Rus by that time would have a shorter gene pool introduced, as opposed to the British Isles, Swedish, or Icelandic Stock. BTW… Ireland was pretty much a Viking Colony by the end of the era, as well as Northern Scottish Isles, like Orkney. Many Irish were Exported to Icelnd to start thier colony… so Later period vikings outside Isolated Scandinavia (Norway and Sweden) were no longer strict Norse Stock anyways.

  19. Power is different than brutality. Power is the ability to strike fast and hard, it uses select muscle groups which need to be trained… like with Plyometrics and medicine balls. Using the term “Power” is by no means a slander or a means to spoof the ability of warriors using that technique. The Spartan “300” training Regime was designed to instill power and a realistic avarage of an in shape warrior. It just so happened they trained to be ripped also, but thier actual ability to deliver a blow was real. Successful MMA fighters use power to drive home shots and light quick shots to throw opponenets off balance.
    Bottom line… anyone can swing an axe… Not anyone can swing an axe and recover effectively from it or swing it in combat. That requires strength and power in order to control the combat and not overextend.

    • Describing a fighting style as being “power dependent” is a remark on how it isn’t one based on skill or strategy. For example, boxing is constantly being referred to as a “power” based style. While boxing under Don King has become focused on steroid-abusing body builders simply pounding on each other, watch Olympic boxing and see how “power” takes a back seat to skill and strategy as the goal is points and not simply a knockout. Matter of fact, boxers who depend on “power” in the Olympics are usually the ones who don’t win as such recklessness gives their opponents easy points.

      Is there something to be said about the importance of “power”? Of course. An axe or sword strike is far more effective when it is done by someone with considerable strength, but there is a far bit of technique that goes into getting that weapon past an enemy’s defenses. Many of the videos on Youtube discuss how Viking warriors would aim for wounding strikes instead of simply going for the “killing blow”. As I stated previously, one has to admire the sheer inventiveness of the Viking warriors who took the metal rim off their shields so that they could catch an opponent’s blade, allowing them a strategic edge.

  20. I never once argued that they didn’t have skill… My point was that they are more the warrior for using power instead of ignoring it. Throwing a shot is power generation, if you have natural power already, you know how to throw a harder shot. Besides I also illustrated that quick shots are used to throw people off balance. I am quite familiar with traditional viking combat. First lesson learned… how to throw a shot clean and make it powerful.

    And any boxer I know would still either give me a run for my money or outright kick my ass, and I know how to fight.

    • No no, my comment wasn’t directed at you. It was directed at the other commenter who was trashing me and post earlier. While you and I have a different view on “power”, his use of said word was as I described. This is the kind of thinking we saw with Deadliest Warrior’s Viking versus Samurai episode. It is this stereotyping of Viking warriors and their fighting style. You and I know the facts, and yet these so-called experts continue to dismiss them.

      If this was simply a one on one conflict, I would pit the Viking Berserker against any Samurai warrior. The biggest and strongest Vikings, armed with the heaviest weaponry and clad in armour and animal hides, then sent into combat to instill fear in their enemies and break up tight formations. I don’t care how determined a Samurai is, such a sight would definitely terrify the Japanese warriors. Matter of fact the Berserkers even scared other Vikings since the Vikings knew that when the Berserkers had given into their bloodlust, they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between friend and foe.

  21. Just a note, most people who’ve studied medieval European swordsmanship and armed combat know that it’s pretty much impossible to penetrate a mail shirt with a sword cut. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t unarmoured areas that you can cut at. The wound marks on recovered skeletons at the Visby site bear this out: cuts to the extremities are greatly overrepresented. Disemboweling cuts to the abdomen wouldn’t leave much skeletal evidence, but then there’s the mail to get through.

    Additionally, the Vikings (as a rule) didn’t seem to combine the use of mail with heavy padding to attenuate the effects of blunt trauma, so you can still incapacitate and wound quite easily by striking at joints and bony areas. A hard strike to the helm will also ring your bells for several seconds even if it doesn’t bite into the metal.

    • Just a note to you, even with chainmail completely covering the body, a strong enough blow would leave gash marks. Heavier swords and maces became the weapon of choice as chainmail become abundant (cheap mail was available to lower classes). Even then, you are assuming that these people died while wearing mail. Although chainmail has become a staple on the battlefield, the majority of peasant recruits could only afford hard leather, if that at all. The facts you present don’t support the point you raised.

      Your comment on Viking chainmail use is speculation and assumption. With much of Viking history, culture and warfare practices lost, it is hard to say what is “a rule”. Some sites I have read states that the Viking Berserker wore no armour, and yet Eric the Red, who many agree was a Berserker, is depicted as wearing an entire suit of armour. Don’t quote “rules” without providing evidence.

      To address your comment on hard strikes, katana swordplay was based on quick precise slashes, not powerful swings. Even then, as rugged as the Vikings were, I would assume that there hard life and combat experience helped toughen them up to shrug off the many of those strikes. In bringing this up, you fail to address whether or not a Samurai’s could withstand such attacks. The documentary I discuss in the article points out that leather caps worn under Viking helmets would help protect against concussions, but, as demonstrated in Deadliest Warrior, the Samurai helmet did little to shield its wearer from such injuries.

      Interesting comment, but supposition and personal bias don’t make your beliefs right. Point of this article was to set the record straight on what the Deadliest Warrior misrepresented. Vikings weren’t lumbering oafs, and Samurai were far from these highly skilled and honourable warriors many would like to believe they are. In a straight fight, the Viking has all the advantages, especially with armour, as the episode demonstrated.

      • You’re missing my point. My contention was that it was still possible to wound and incapacitate a man clad in a mail shirt by delivering blunt trauma through the mail or by cutting to the unarmoured regions. Putting on mail doesn’t make you invulnerable, and it certainly doesn’t render you completely impervious to wounding from sword strikes. The Visby findings are ample evidence.

        falyar001 has elaborated on what I claimed in my post. To my knowledge, the Vikings had no equivalent for a padded garment used as a foundation for mail (though I have seen references to them being used as standalone defenses), they used a tough fabric garment like the Romans did. The padding does a great deal to mitigate the effects of blunt trauma.

        Katana swordplay isn’t as far removed from the use of the Viking sword as you’d think. Quick and precise slashes would be reserved for unarmoured civilian fighting, where a slice to the forearms can end a fight. A fight in armour is a different business entirely. If you have access to medieval fighting manuals, you can see this stark difference for yourself. If the Vikings were as rugged and hard as you claim, why wouldn’t a dedicated social and military elite be able to match them?

        I might say the same to you as well. Like I said earlier, bias doesn’t offset bias. Presenting a balanced viewpoint does more to convince a neutral reader than strident ranting. I’ve never claimed that Vikings were lumbering oafs, in fact I greatly respect their martial abilities. I respect them so much that I refuse to let their opposition be denigrated, lest their victory be cheapened.

        Personally, I think a more appropriate alternative to the Viking might have been an Anglo-Saxon huscarl (both the huscarl and samurai are military and social elites in their own periods), but it wouldn’t be as attractive to the target audience. ‘Viking’ brings up a very vivid mental image in the mind of the average viewer, whereas they’d struggle with the concept of the huscarl. I’ll match a dane axe against a kanabo, naginata or katana any day.

      • NO!, the Visby findings aren’t an example of that. You have yet to prove that those skeletons were of individuals covered head to toe in chainmail armour. Matter of fact, considering the lack of any definitive evidence demonstrating that a certain damaged skeleton belonged to a soldier wearing chainmail when he died (have a first-hand account or simply supposition?), all you have is guess work. As for missing the point, how about you changing it?

        That doesn’t mean that there aren’t unarmoured areas that you can cut at.

        As I specifically said, chainmail covers the wearer completely, and that while it didn’t offer complete protection (heavy weapon strikes could leave cuts and bruises beneath the armour), it was definitely more than enough to make the katana near useless. This is EXACTLY what the Deadliest Warrior tests showed, with katana strikes being unable to leave a mark on the pig carcass through the chainmail. Considering Max Geiger’s bias, citing those test results doesn’t show anywhere near “extreme bias” on my part.

        As for padded garments, quote “your knowledge” or lack thereof all you want, as I stated previously, as discussed in the documentary I link to, hard leather and cloth was used by the Vikings. You don’t wear chainmail over naked skin. Even by more dubious accounts, Vikings, especially Berserkers, wore very thick animal hide. How is that not enough to mitigate the effects of blunt trama?

        As for sword play, YES! is very far removed. The katana was a single edged weapon, meaning it only had one striking edge, meaning it wasn’t as versatile as a Viking sword, so it couldn’t be swung like a Viking sword. Not only this, but considering how fragile a katana is, wielding it as the Europeans wielded their swords, would cause serious damage to the blade. Samurais had to constantly care for their swords, sharpening them, oiling them, etc to keep them in perfect condition. Viking blades are heavier, more rugged, and having heavy pommel, made them vastly different to the katana. All swords are meant for slash, even rapiers which were designed specifically for stabbing. Any amateur can wield a sword like a knife, but only those training in sword combat can wield the blade as it is meant to be wielded. As for your claim about “matching”, considering that the Vikings held Europe hostage for several centuries, it would appear that very few, if any, were able to match them in one-to-one combat.

        Cheapened victory? Stating the facts doesn’t cheapen anything. It is like the rest of this nonsense we see in Deadliest Warrior, be it the Samurai or the Zulus, their is this belief that, while different, these warriors were somehow equal to the Europeans. NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH! That is my politically incorrect answer, and I am sticking to it. European military dominance was demonstrated time and time again throughout history, be it the Greek and Romans conquests, the Viking campaigns, the Crusaders (winning battles where they were not only outnumbered, but at a serious technical disadvantage), etc so don’t give me this nonsense. As glorified as the Samurais are, young and inexperience American soldiers, carrying only rifles with bayonets, defeated Japanese soldiers not only trained in their style of combat, but armed with the same weapons. If they can do it, why couldn’t battle hardened Vikings do it more efficiently?

        Kanabos are mostly fiction, which saw limited, if any, use within the Japanese military. Naginatas, although elegant, were proven inferior to the simple spear on the field of combat. As for katanas,

        You want to debate a few points, go for it, but don’t come on to my blog with this “your wrong, I’m right, here’s why” attitude. It is offensive and I will not tolerate it.

      • Hope you saved that last comment for posterity for it will no appear on this post. You manipulate facts, ignore points I have raised, as well as twist my words, all so that you can some how prove yourself “better” than the rest of us. I have put up with your nonsense, but now enough is enough.

        I don’t mind responding to questions, nor do I mind a debate on certain facts, but you come in here with this “I’m smarter than you attitude” and claim that my facts are simply bias. Were Japanese soldiers in World War II Samurai? Of course not, but they given similar training, armed with katanas and sent off into combat to prove “Japanese superiority”. The “greenest of green” American soldiers fought them through the Pacific, and what happened, especially during the Guadalcanal campaign, was that this style of warfare was far from “superior” as young men, carrying only rifles and bayonets, defeated them. Mythbusters has an episode demonstrating that a katana couldn’t cut through an World War II American machine gun, as so many Samurai devotees have claimed, so tell me where I am wrong?

        This is the point I have made time and time again, pointing to specific example of Samurai and those trained and armed with Samurai weapons, being defeated by the most inexperienced of fighters. Provide all the Youtube videos you want, they don’t prove anything about what would happen if Vikings and Samurai met on the battlefield. You deny your own quotes, erect “strawman arguments”, change the subjects, ignore what I am saying in my replies, to do what? To demonstrate my bias? To point the finger at me and say that I am not respecting Japanese culture by disproving Samurai myths? The point of this blog post was to criticize Max Geiger and the Deadliest Warrior television show for ignoring historical facts, as well as simple logic, and I don’t need someone who is going to tear me out for doing so. You want to support that kind of “Hollywood” nonsense, go for it, just don’t do it here.

        No more comments from, I am not going to tolerate this kind of idiocy on my blog.

  22. Also, the samurai armour isn’t bone, wood, or any other sort of organic material. They used iron and steel to make scale, lamellar and limited quantities of plate. We even have examples of Japanese mail, which shouldn’t be terribly surprising since every culture came up with the idea at one point or another.

    I also think you’re greatly overstating the victory of the samurai. The test results were statistically too close to call. When you consider the centuries of technological advancement that the samurai had on the Viking, I’d say that they acquitted themselves very well indeed.

    • Samurai iron and steel armour was ONLY available to those who could afford it, mainly the shogun. Bone, wood and other materials were more common in armour construction. Turtle shell is what is considered the most common material, but I would believe that this would be centuries ago before better materials came along. Even then, those with the money bought European armour. Look it up!

      I ignore the show’s “test results” as they were nothing more than Max Geiger’s bias made faux-reality. He input the data into his “dungeon and dragon-esk” program, he was the one who determined those values, so NO!, don’t give me this “test result” nonsense. Also, Samurai technology is overestimated, especially considering the low quality metal used to make it… Pathetic… (Correction: This belief in Samurai superiority is pathetic, not you. Sorry for the confusion)

      • I have, and we must really be using very different reference materials. Your assertions about organic armour can be easily disproved by looking up extant suits of armour. Lacquered metal may bear an uncanny resemblance to turtle shell, but their mechanical properties are quite different.

        I’m no katana plonker (In fact, I despise the breed. Fuck you, Ian Bottomley!), thank you very much. I’m just setting the record straight because you came across as being extremely biased. Bias doesn’t offset bias.

      • Reference material found through Google searches and on Wikipedia, as well as other sources. Since you don’t believe me,

        In the beginning, the armor was made from turtle shells that were fashioned together to form one piece of protection. Eventually the turtle shell was replaced with leather and then eventually with bronze.

        Making it up am I? Bone and other materials were used for armour construction by not just Japan, but China and Korea. History Channel’s Ancient Discoveries had an episode dedicated to ancient armours, showing off Chinese style armour which was used only a few hundred years ago. Am I saying that the Japanese used the EXACT same kind of armour? No, but considering that three powers were at war with each other for centuries, it is most likely that the Japanese, including the Samurai, used the same techniques and materials in creating their armour.

        As for bias, I might have come down hard on the Samurais, but my blunt approach wasn’t one ignorant of the facts. As you can see in this post, most points I make are linked to. Call it bias, but you better have proof that I purposely misrepresented the facts to push a “favourable” fiction. I don’t like pseudo-intelligentsia leaving comments about how I got the facts wrong when they themselves are ignorant.

  23. I would agree that Vikings probably didn’t use Gambesons or Akeytons, as in my personal studies I have never found a Norse word for that type of armour. I do know that the Vikings had rigid armour tunics made of thick felt like wool which acted as an abrasion barrier, padding, and warmth all in one. I know from personal experience the ability of padding to displace blows and lessen impact… at least against wooden clubs.

    I personally dont overstate the Samurai victory, I agree its close and should be with the given scenario. My main issue, now especially made clear to me after the roman episode… is that the weapons and armour depicted are NOT the norm for the warrior like they claim. I highly doubt thet the Roman legionairre would carry a cavalryman’s sword, a single Pillum, a pick (which were rare finds by archaeologists to boot) and a Friggin Scorpion as the march with thier army! So I doubt that either the Samurai or Viking would be kitted in such a way.

    While we are on the subject of weapons technology though… The Vikings need to have recognition in this debate as superior metal smiths. The Samurai had access to inferior Iron which caused them to refine it and perfect thier way of smelting differing densities of ore in order to yield sharp and battle worthy blade. The Viking sword is considered by many experts to be on par to the Japanese Katana. Viking Swords were made of superior Iron forged for the individual. Vikings were also among the first eurpoeans making wire Jewlery and are attributed to the invention of Chain mail. Chain remained a potent armour until Fluted and fitted plate, and even then was good enough to protect the common soldier in the crusades era.

  24. I’m sorry man, there was nothing offensivve in spessmehreen posts. The only offence I have seen in this exchange is calling him pathetic for disagreeing with you.
    I will be removing myself from all future posts on this blog as I do not wish to be called pathetic or receive hostility also if I ever disagree with you.

    • I am not calling you pathetic, I was saying this belief that the Samurai are superior is pathetic. I was thought your comments were about that, which is what the previous comment was about. As for offending me, it was the other poster who was doing that, coming in here and saying I got it wrong. Listen, with the sheer amount of comments on this post it is easy to confuse one response with another. While I don’t agree with everything you say, I do value your opinion.

      This issue is that discussion of such a topic draws in a lot of undesirables who would like nothing but insults me, insult my post, insult the research I did, etc I had one poster who attacked me for not doing a correction soon enough on a previous post. This girl had gotten herself into trouble for joining a hateful group that had a member who look nearly identical to her. This other member went off on police at a demonstration and incidentally, due to confusion, got the other girl in a lot of trouble. This girl’s friend was running back and forth leaving cryptic comments and all this, and by the time the facts did come out, it was late in the day. I put up the correction and I apologized for making the mistake (to which this girl’s friend threatened me with legal action… what a twit he was), but right after that some commenter starts attacking me for having the “innocent” girl’s name on my post. How do you issue a correction, as well as set the record straight without mentioning who it is? You can’t, and it was frustrating.

      In any event, what you said wasn’t offensive, and NO!, you don’t have to remove yourself from commenting on this blog. You are by far one of the best posters I have had.

      • I have read both sides of this argument. I must say that beside the rage passing around, this has been very insightful. Just need to calm down people…

        This whole insulting ancestry is a very touchy subject that we all should avoid. Leave the dead alone please.

        Sure their legends are often exaggerated but who doesn’t want to be remembered for more than what they were. I am Chinese by birth and I am not that offended by what you said. I often get tricked by locals, especially cab drivers, on my visits back to China for speaking English, my third but most preferred language.

        However, I don’t think of my people any less. No matter what country there will always be a proportional number of bad apples. It’s unavoidable. I am not saying that we are the best , cause we’re not. China isn’t as strong as the press makes us believe, we too have a lot to learn and change.

        It is just rather unpleasant to be ridiculed and also makes it even harder for us to quietly accept our negative attributes.

        I am a gamer, and not proud or ashamed of it. Its what I do on my free time. I never thought of vikings as dirty or savage until reading your post. Actually favored them over the samurai, which i considered a bit more pampered.

        Give this argument a rest. That show is just a lot of flash. The so called “computer genius” is a simple game designer. The specialists they brought in for ninja weren’t even ninjutsu practitioner… One of them onlninjutsu practitioner has a red belt in taekwondo or something similar.

        As for the “simulation” only idiots would believe that’s real. It is like wrestling with weapons (for those I offended I am sorry, it is merely my insignificant opinion). The result and random 1-100 numbers they inputted to pretend as variables were probably generated in seconds.

        Notice the gaming alienware laptop that is probably running on windows platform not lynux, fast performance platform used by most research labs and professionals.

        We call make fun of them or be angry at them all we want. In the end, they made a show and money off of non-professional equipment and terribly uncontrolled environments.

        If they offended you then I will apologize for them. Don’t let their one little show cause so much frustration. This is my first post and it may be my last. I sincerely hope that you two will reach an agreement.

        I used to have anger management issues but now i just believe that feelings are unreasonable at times. Only fact based logic is real.

      • Anger management? Is it not reasonable to be angry with someone who accuses you of a variety things, including racism? If you can’t be angry then, then when are you allowed to be angry? It is entirely unreasonable to demand that, after all these attacks, that I be calm and composed. If you can’t understand that, then I will not waste my time discussing this issue with you.

        As for the Chinese people, what of them? Some of my closest friends have been Chinese, and considering what dating experience, I might very well end up married to a Chinese woman. With that said, that doesn’t mean I have delusions about Chinese attitudes towards “laowai.” The kind of racism I dealt with during my time in Nantong wouldn’t be tolerated in Western society. That isn’t to say, however, that the Chinese are the only people with these attitudes. Like I said previously, most people in North America couldn’t comprehend the kind of racism that exists beyond Canada and the United States’ borders. That statement might be offensive to some people, but it’s the truth.

        As for ‘The Deadliest Warrior’ and its accuracy, where to start? I have written at length about how inaccurate this show is. If you wish to know exactly what I think, I recommend you read my other posts concerning this farce.

        Thanks for your comments and I hope you keep reading my blog.

      • I never said you needed anger management. As for when to be angry, well that’s up to each of us. I can’t tell you whether you have a right to anything. It was merely an advice. It is easy to make an enemy, it’s harder to make a friend.

        As for racism? It exists equally everywhere. I have been called Chink, beaten for apparently being a communist and cheated for my accent. Its too easy to hate and rage at everyone who disagrees with you. Most educated Chinese that I’ve known do not feel superior to “lao wai”. We came to North America to do PhD and learn because it is better here.

        There are millions of us, Chinese, and it is a very common misconception that we’re all alike. “Seen one, seen it all” doesn’t apply here. I am sorry to hear that you lived among indecent examples of our people.

        Anger does not solve anything, as emotions are often illogical. I should know anger; my birthplace is Nanjing. My family tree has been almost completely diminished during world war two. Since the beginning of elementary school I was taught our history and hate.

        Sure, they have a right to do so. To be angry. To hate. But is an entire city of anger going to achieve anything? One of my closest friends is Japanese, even relating to military family. I don’t hate him, his family or his people now. It would just make unnecessary enemies.

        This is a whole new generation. Leave history be. There is no way to really know who would win. There is no point continuing a fight that will never end, therefore in turn cannot be won.

      • The way you were talking about my “rage,” as you put it, it sounded as you were implying anger management. If English is your third language, that would explain a lack of knowledge on the implications of using certain words. As for you comment about friends, it’s harder to make real friends online, so I don’t bother trying.

        Racism exists everyone? Yes, but not equally. Here in the West we pride ourselves on our attitudes towards racism. Racist remarks aren’t tolerated by the vast majority of society for that very reason. Just because you have dealt with people who refuse to adhere to these societal morals, doesn’t mean that is reflective of the rest of us. On the other hand, it wasn’t one or two people in Nantong who mistreated me because of my ethnicity, it was fairly common place. Even among the “educated elite,” I found such racism. For example, a few girls refused to spend time with me because I was a “laowai.” They even went into detail about how we would rape them, and that we had various sexually transmitted diseases. You would NEVER find that kind of nonsense here.

        Anger doesn’t solve anything? Obviously you have lived a sheltered life. Returning to my time in China, until I expressed my anger over my living conditions did my boss have repairmen sent to my flat. This also extended to simple things like the constant delays over having tests photocopied (they never could seem to get around to them until I became angry). Unless you demonstrate that there is a limit to how far you can be pushed, people will continue pushing you around.

        Finally, if you have a problem with my results, then say so. If you think my history needs correcting, then say so. Don’t sit there and tell me I shouldn’t be writing about my thoughts on a certain subject. Who do you think you are to tell me what I should and shouldn’t right?

        Instead of repeating empty nonsense about anger, racism, friendship, etc., why not think about what I have written before reply? At least that way you won’t come off sounding arrogant.

      • I have read what you have written. How else could I have replied? You claim to have pride upon your attitude towards racism but you were keen to point out my lacking English.

        As you have written, “Just because you have dealt with people who refuse to adhere to these societal morals, doesn’t mean that is reflective of the rest of us.” Does this not apply to everyone else as well? As I repeat myself, there are millions of us and you have only met a few.

        As for sheltered life? I have seen suffering everywhere, while volunteering around the world. There are many people in this world who have a better reason to be angry. Be thankful that you have the time and resources to blog and vent out random opinions.

        I may be wrong but I believe there is a English saying: “you catch more birds with honey than with stones.” If you have to get angry for things to be done then I feel sorry for you. For the record I apologize if I sounded arrogant. I first commented on this to stop some unnecessary hate.

        I never said anything bad about the thoughts on the original post. My break is about to end soon and this is just a temporary account for my attempt. So if you want to end it, and win…, by accusing me of being arrogant, ignorant or just plain terrible at English, go ahead. Sorry for wasting your time.

      • Quick question, being Chinese and having traveled abroad, your parents are members of the Communist Party right? Either they are or another close family member is. Am I right? I haven’t met anyone who is more sheltered than the child of Party members. You get some much in your life handed to you, including high-paying jobs after completing your education and returning to China. Honestly, when I was a teacher, it was very easy to tell who was and wasn’t the child of Party members. They were the ones who weren’t working hard. The students who weren’t privileged, were the ones working the hardest. That isn’t always the case, and I have known hard working students who were the children of Party members, but that wasn’t usually the case.

        As for your English, I was trying to point out that some of the words you used have a negative connotation to them. Reminds me of this girl I knew in Nantong who spoke English perfectly, but didn’t understand that the words she used, and the way she used them weren’t only rude, but very offensive. I took her out to dinner one night and after two hours with her, I was ready to explode. She implied that I wasn’t well educated, that I was stupid, as well as unattractive, and that she didn’t know any girl who would go out with me. She said all of this with a smile on her face, so it was obvious that she didn’t know how offensive she was being. Like I said previously, examine what you said. To me, at least, it sounds pretty arrogant.

        In any event, I am not trying to insult you or your English. I would just prefer that you pay attention to what you say and how you say it.

        P.S. The expression is “you catch more bees with honey than vinegar.” It’s okay though, I understand what you were trying to say.

  25. Why don’t you let the reader judge who’s in the right? Or are you so afraid of being proven wrong that you have to use your moderation abilities to filter out those who might be more knowledgeable than you? 😛

    • And you prove my point…

      What was that I said how you want to prove yourself “better” than the rest of us? I have no time to debate with someone who ignores my points, twists my words and LIES about what they themselves have said. I didn’t twist your words, I didn’t twist anything you wrote. I could, as moderator, edit all your comments, but I haven’t. I quoted what you wrote and yet you deny writing it. Why should I waste anymore time with you?

      I have spent far too much time already addressing your arrogance, and I am not in the mood to spend another minute debating your fact-less dribble… Get lost…

      • Find me an exchange where I twisted your words. All I did was to address your points individually and provide evidence to counter them.

        For example, when I said that the katana could still be used to wound someone clad in mail, you countered with the claim that mail covered the entire body. I disputed that and provided ample evidence to counter your argument. There are multiple references to warriors circumventing the protection of their opponents’ armour by striking around it in the sagas.

        This is a typical exchange in our argument, and I’m really not seeing what ‘twisting’ there is. I haven’t lied about anything I’ve said, and if I do I expect you to call me out on it, not deny an entire post just because you didn’t like it.

      • You said…

        That doesn’t mean that there aren’t unarmoured areas that you can cut at. The wound marks on recovered skeletons at the Visby site bear this out: cuts to the extremities are greatly overrepresented.

        There’s your quote, the one you denied saying. I replied…

        Just a note to you, even with chainmail completely covering the body, a strong enough blow would leave gash marks. Heavier swords and maces became the weapon of choice as chainmail become abundant (cheap mail was available to lower classes). Even then, you are assuming that these people died while wearing mail. Although chainmail has become a staple on the battlefield, the majority of peasant recruits could only afford hard leather, if that at all. The facts you present don’t support the point you raised.

        and…

        NO!, the Visby findings aren’t an example of that. You have yet to prove that those skeletons were of individuals covered head to toe in chainmail armour. Matter of fact, considering the lack of any definitive evidence demonstrating that a certain damaged skeleton belonged to a soldier wearing chainmail when he died (have a first-hand account or simply supposition?), all you have is guess work. As for missing the point, how about you changing it?

        Your argument was that A) chainmail didn’t cover the entire body, B) Visby is proof of the ineffectiveness of chainmail as skeletons showed damage to extremities (As I said chainmail covers the entire body, extremities included), and C) that Vikings didn’t have padded garments to protect against heavy blows. You’re all over the place, assuming a quite a few things. Let’s break this down point by point.

        Firstly, this idea that Vikings wouldn’t wear chainmail that covered the extremities, or that chainmail itself didn’t cover everything. You provide no evidence for this claim. I have read forum comments where people have criticized my post citing the Battle of Stamford Bridge as proof of Viking “inferiority”, if not the inferiority of Viking chainmail, obviously to the fact that King Harald II of Norway had order his troops to not only come ashore a few boats at a time, but leave their chainmail armour on the boats. He had assumed it was a simple prisoner exchange, and didn’t see the purpose in being ready for combat (a fatal mistake). Also, not all Vikings could afford chainmail, let alone swords. Much of the arms and armour they possessed came from the pillaging they did. Videos on Youtube demonstrating Viking martial practices, like attacking the extremities, assumes that both combatants are unarmed. Deadliest Warrior assumed that the Viking would be covered in chainmail, as many, if not the majority of later Vikings warriors were, like in King Harald III’s army. So either they weren’t wearing chainmail and would be cut down due to the lack of protection, or they would be wearing chainmail. Just because Vikings usually wore chainmail, and that many Vikings skeletons had cuts to the extremities, doesn’t mean that the Viking skeletons were of warriors wearing chainmail. Could it be that these Vikings were only wearing chainmail shirts? Sure, but, as per the Deadliest Warrior simulation, we are assuming that the Viking warrior is covered head to toe in chainmail, so his argument about “weak spots” is moot.

        You would see that the Battle of Visby, if you were as smart as you claim, does NOTHING to help your argument about Vikings or chainmail. King Valdemar IV of Denmark, by what I have read, WASN’T a Viking. He assumed the role of King of Denmark and, with his country in debt because of his predecessor, waged wars to conquer lost lands and gather gold from surrounding kingdoms. Why point to this battle if it has nothing to do with Vikings? Why not point to Waterloo, where there was neither Vikings nor chainmail? When Valdemar IV’s forces attacked Visby, slaughtering 800 to a 1000 soldiers in the peasant army which guarded the capital city of Gotland. Peasant farmers wouldn’t have had the money to afford chainmail. Sure the church in Visby was plundered, there were various treasures found during excavation, but I am not seeing this connection between the battle, the looting that followed and chainmail. Was it the skeletons of Valdemar’s soldiers which had the cuts? Knowing that his country was heavily in debt, that they had lost many lands under his predecessor, I am going to assume that all the soldiers in his army weren’t covered head to toe in chainmail. Returning to the Youtube videos demonstrating Viking fighting techniques, the reason the extremities are targeted is because they are protected by the Viking round shield, not because that is where the chainmail wouldn’t be (chainmail leggings right?). What was the point of this nonsense again?

        As for this idiocy about padded garments, Vikings had hard leather, as well as think animal furs. This is probably the best, if not only, padded protection available at the time. I said this previously, but you ignored it. My question is why would they have needed padding against Samurai anyways? Samurai weapons were for slashing predominantly, as well as stabbing. Are you referring to the kanabo? Where should I begin addressing that fiction? First off, the kanabo wasn’t widely used, IF AT ALL, mainly due to its sheer weight (twenty to thirty-five pounds) which made it rather useless in combat. Such a heavy weapons would exhaust its wielder quickly. In the Samurai versus Spartan match up, the tests failed to take into account that such an assault, the quick swinging of the club against a shield in rapid succession, would quickly drain the Samurai of stamina, leaving him rather defenseless. Even then, these “quick” strikes were rather slow and clumsy, easy for an experienced shield carrying warrior, Viking or otherwise, to parry. The truth is that the kanabo is a mythical weapon, not a practical one, carried by the terrifying Oni since they were the only beings strong enough to wield them. That’s the truth, not this Deadliest Warrior fiction. Knowing that, why would Vikings need padding when fighting Samurai? In fact, it should be the other way around. Viking war clubs, war hammers and even axes could be swung with enough force to not simply knock a warrior off his feet, but give them a concussion (as the Deadliest Warrior tests showed). Samurai weaponry couldn’t be used that way, as demonstrated in the gif I posted. These blades, the katana and naginata (many naginatas were made from broken katanas), contrary to popular belief, were fragile and couldn’t be used like clubs. The were light and flexible, not heavy and dense, so breaking was an issue (which is what the Samurai “experts” themselves inadvertently admitted while discussing the kanabo). In the tests, the katana couldn’t be swung with enough force to leave a mark on the pig carcass covered in chainmail alone, so how do you know it would leave a wound? All evidence shows otherwise. Once again, why is padding needed?

        You continue to ignore my points, twist my words and lie about what you have said (do I need to quote you again?). I allowed this comment through to prove a point; you don’t know what you’re talking about. Pretend to be smart and actually being smart are two different things, something which you have trouble understanding. GET LOST!

  26. Hello,
    I signed up on wordpress just to leave you this.

    I was born in Taiwan, lived in China for 10 years where I moved from coastal cities to in land towns. I have also studied in Japan for 3 years and now I live in South Africa, I’m proud to call these places my home.

    So believe me when I say that my home land is far from perfect, but which country is? Every country has its good side and bad, as well as traditions that might look strange or amoral to a foreigner.

    I understand that your experience in China may have jaded you like so many of my friends who went there and other far eastern countries to teach English, the way they were treated there was horrific to say the least (basically foreign labor).

    But Please don’t generalize us, especially when you’ve only seen a tiny facet of my culture. One thing I have leant since I moved to South Africa is that generalizations will never carry your argument further, it’ll only hamper it.

    I understand that you are frustrated that a entertainment show portrait your ancestors poorly but there is no need to put down others to drive your point across, by doing so, you’re basicly doing to others what the show did to you.

    Yes, what you said may be true, but every country has its fair shares of deviants and criminals and when there’s so many people like in China, naturally the rate of crime would be higher (you should see how bad it is in india).

    I sincerely apologize for your experience in my country, but I implore you not to judge us and other Asian countries and its people with such biased views.

    Anyway, as you’ve guessed by now English is not my first language so I apologize for my grammar. Hopefully in the future you’ll visit my home land again and have a much better experience. All I can say for now is that just ignore shows like the deadliest warrior, it intended only for entertainment.

    • I try not to generalize, but these are my experiences. Do I have a problem with the Chinese people? Not at all. Aside from some unsettling quirks, I find them very friendly, very hospitable and very dedicated. Amongst the hardest working people I know, and it is a shame that they lived under socialist economics system for as long as they did as “Red Capitalism” has benefited them greatly. As long as the Chinese people are “allowed” to work hard for good pay, “allowed” to strive for a better life than what they have now, I am sure things will improve.

      As for my experience, what of it? There was good and bad, but I have a hard time regretting my time there. I learned a lot, got great experience, and met many wonderful people I still talk with today. Some of my students even send me small gifts, so how could I say that is bad? My issue is that there were things I saw that upset me, serious social problems that need to be addressed, and I am not going to pretend that the majority of Chinese live a life which is comparable to us in the Western world. I think China is moving in the right direction, but I do wish it would do so at a faster pace.

      So I wouldn’t be concerned with my opinions on China. Japan is the same story as well, one I don’t want to spend time discussing right now. Just because someone ashamed of their own ethnic heritage attacks me for being proud of mine, doesn’t mean that I hate those people. I am a big fan of popular Japanese culture and, during my time in China, I actually picked up a few music J-Pop CDs because of it. I also watch a variety of Japanese Anime, and enjoy a slew of Japanese video games. That doesn’t mean, however, I believe all the nonsense about Samurai. One can enjoy Japanese culture without worshiping this “false idol”.

      Thanks for your comment and if you are concerned with what has been said on this post, I recommend you look at my other posts concerning China.

  27. Thank you for your reply,

    I can understand why you’re so pissed off about the show, recently I watched the Vlad the Impaler vs Sun Tzu episode (what a stupid match up by the way, it doesn’t even make sense). I too was horribly offended by the sheer amount of inconsistency and choice of weapons, it seems like they chose weapons that would look “cool” instead of practical.

    but I digress, it is entertainment after all. What I don’t get is that why do they need a computer expert on the show? Just exactly what kind of insight does he bring?

    when ever he chooses who gets the “edge”, it seems to me that he’s choosing the edge out of how cool it looked instead of how practical it is.

    I guess it’s my mistake for watching the show, now I feel like I need to go punch a baby. :p

    • That is the thing about Deadliest Warrior, the match ups sound interesting, but they are very ill-conceived and poorly executed. I could have told you the outcome of the Vlad the Impaler vs Sun Tzu episode before it begun, barring any “creative fiction” by Max Geiger or the Sun Tzu experts. Vlad the Impaler was a battle hardened warrior, while Sun Tzu, though originally a general, made a name for himself through military strategy. This was almost as bad as Spartan vs Ninja, where one warrior was the very definition of a warrior and the other was a stealthy assassin trained to avoid most combat.

      The thing about Geiger is that his understanding of history, military tactics, skill, etc is clouded by his immaturity and ignorance. He looks like a child throwing a tantrum sometimes as he refuses to acknowledge the most basic of common sense. That is why I stopped watching the show, but I will on occasion write a blog post about a battle depending on how poorly done it was, or how nonsensical the outcome was.

      Any event, I don’t recommend punching babies, but I would suggest finding a computer nerd who enjoys this nonsense and give him a sound beating, HAHAHAHA! Joking of course… Take care and thanks for the comments.

  28. This is Thrand!!!
    I agree with you totally and have contested this program for 2 years now with my Youtube Videos you can look them up under Thrand on Google under Videos 😛

    Enjoy be sure to watch all 3 parts to each 😛

  29. I will Also be apearring on Jay and Kirby’s Deadliest Warrior Pod Cast march 16th .

    Be sure to listen too
    The Pod Cast with Casey Hindershot(Stuntman)Viking experts who confirms every thing we said about this episode 😛

    http://www.jayandkirbyproductions.com/

    [audio src="http://www.jayandkirbyproductions.com/storage/casey-hendershot/CaseyFinal.mp3" /]

    • If I’m not mistaken, it had to do with the number of impurities found within it. Japanese steel, even after being worked, still contained non-metals like sand. This made it more brittle than European steel.

      • Wow; I actually never thought that Japanese steel was inferior to European steel. That’s because of those documentaries on t.v. I watched before basically saying that Japanese craftsmanship was superior to all. And I heard a lot of comments saying that the katana is the sharpest sword, that it can cut through anything, etc. A lot of comparisons between katanas and European swords are biased toward the Katana as well. Based on the short video I saw above, for me, the myth of the Japanese sword is busted.

  30. Purely opinion, but it seems that people are arguing a lot on weapons made by people today. No one here knows the strength of these same weapons when made during their time which, believe it or not, were with methods much more affective and timely than today. I’m not just saying this to try and help the katana, but rather any weapon ‘demonstrated’ today without proper craftsmanship or the training the wielder should posses. Still, throw whatever research you’d like at this post, because not everything you find is firsthand knowledge. In fact, nothing you find is firsthand knowledge on things as old as these.

    • You make a point, but I’m afraid it weakens your argument. With the technology and materials available to weapon smiths today, the quality of the katana in the test is probably of far superior to the weapons of the period. The same could be said about the broadsword too, but you must also remember that the quality of European steel far exceeded that of Japanese steel. In fact, as I pointed out before, those in Japan who could afford it, bought themselves European armor in part because of this reason.

      As for first hand or second hand knowledge, no pathetic semantics please. Historical accounts are first hand sources, sources which are quoted by the sources I use for my analysis. Thanks for the comment, but please spend more time thinking it through.

  31. This is Thrand!!! please check out all my new videos on Deadliest Warrior Viking Vs. Samurai !!!! my channel on youtube is.
    [http://www.youtube.com/user/ThegnThrand?feature=watch

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s