This was one of the most BS episodes I have seen on Deadliest warrior. Let's give Alexander a siege weapon in a 1v1 fight, while we give Attila a freakin warhammer! Post what you guys thought about this and indeed any other Deadliest Warrior episode you disagree on.
Spartans and Samurais would never be fighting alone.
How does a computer calculate bombs that needs to be planted BEFORE the battle and the odds of an enemy walking over said bomb?
Ninjas would never be fighting face to face.
Probably the one I disagreed with the most though was William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu. Yes, lets give the guy who lives in the iron age a Claymore and the man who lives in a Tribe in the middle of Africa some poisonous spit. I don't know, something about that fight just seemed unfair to me.
Edit: I'm also not looking forward to next weeks episode which is Al Capone Vs Jessy James. Yes, let's take a fat man and put him up against an expert marksman.
Yeah it was BS. What was that "gastrophetes"? Thats a volley weapon wtf against a long bow,thats like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
These weapons shouldnt be pitted against each other. We as humans design weapons to conflict with the weapons of the enemy not something made hundreds of years ago.
The whole show is completly unbalanced but they know people will watch it and thats what they want.. Ratings.
hey why you complainin they gave alexander the siege weapon sure, but atilla gots the sword of MARS. YOU CANT FIGHT FLAVOR OF THAT MAGNITUDE. either way atilla still won so, ya. ALso i hate that the samurai lost, but ill admit the spartan shield is nuts. i was also really happy the rajput won
I find it stupid that the ancient duels are all one on one, while modern uses groups.
If you want to test a fucking Roman centurion, their greatest strength came from fighting in a unit.
Also, stop bringing fucking artillery to a one on one! The Centurion already had a ranged weapon, the pilum! Make his special weapon his damn tower shield. It was retarded when the guy threw away his best protection to fight with an axe.
Yeah it was BS. What was that "gastrophetes"? Thats a volley weapon wtf against a long bow,thats like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
These weapons shouldnt be pitted against each other. We as humans design weapons to conflict with the weapons of the enemy not something made hundreds of years ago.
The whole show is completly unbalanced but they know people will watch it and thats what they want.. Ratings.
Spartans and Samurais would never be fighting alone.
How does a computer calculate bombs that needs to be planted BEFORE the battle and the odds of an enemy walking over said bomb?
Ninjas would never be fighting face to face.
Probably the one I disagreed with the most though was William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu. Yes, lets give the guy who lives in the iron age a Claymore and the man who lives in a Tribe in the middle of Africa some poisonous spit. I don't know, something about that fight just seemed unfair to me.
Edit: I'm also not looking forward to next weeks episode which is Al Capone Vs Jessy James. Yes, let's take a fat man and put him up against an expert marksman.
They don't actually do any simulations I suspect. They just decide who they want to win and then get actors to play the part. The "Computer" bit is thrown in to add some flimsy credibility to it.
Though I am entertained by the show.
Oh and Shaka Zulu was around WELL after Sir Wallace's time. From memory, William Wallace was 800s and Zulu was 1700/1800s.
I still think knight should have won because the pirates only had one good weapon against the knight, the blunderbuss, and even that misfired a lot. And how did broadsword and cutlass get a tie when the knight is wearing freaking armor!?
Yeah it was BS. What was that "gastrophetes"? Thats a volley weapon wtf against a long bow,thats like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
These weapons shouldnt be pitted against each other. We as humans design weapons to conflict with the weapons of the enemy not something made hundreds of years ago.
The whole show is completly unbalanced but they know people will watch it and thats what they want.. Ratings.
This was one of the most BS episodes I have seen on Deadliest warrior. Let's give Alexander a siege weapon in a 1v1 fight, while we give Attila a freakin warhammer! Post what you guys thought about this and indeed any other Deadliest Warrior episode you disagree on.
Although the sight of Alexander and Attila charging towards each other with a few henchmen each was funny.
...the melee fight towards the end, especially when both were disarmed. They spent ages during the episode going on and on about Alexander's intimate knowledge of pankration (the martial art), and yet Attila completely wiped the floor with him.
maddawg IAJI said:
Spartans and Samurais would never be fighting alone.
While Spartans were famous for their phalanx, they trained one-on-one, and were highly-skilled when it came to personal combat.
As for the samurai... I didn't even know that they were famous for formation fighting... then again, I don't know a lot about them.
The ninja initially tried to ambush the Spartan, and failed... should he have run away?
maddawg IAJI said:
I'm also not looking forward to next weeks episode which is Al Capone Vs Jessy James. Yes, let's take a fat man and put him up against an expert marksman.
I still think knight should have won because the pirates only had one good weapon against the knight, the blunderbuss, and even that misfired a lot. And how did broadsword and cutlass get a tie when the knight is wearing freaking armor!?
The armour is irrelevant to the testing of an attack weapon.
However, considering the broadsword more easily cut through the body of swine, it probably should have received the edge.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
