Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Saxman on April 25, 2009, 10:04:39 PM
-
"Deadliest Warrior" on Spike.
I just watched their episode on "Samurai vs. Viking" and they screwed SO MUCH stuff up it wasn't funny. They had the Viking just STAND there with his shield on his back while the Samurai was shooting arrows at him. WTF?
-
:rofl, They were testing if the viking has natural armour.
-
I would say that title goes to that show "Chuck" you're always talking about. ;)
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/smilies/scared0016.gif) Getting ready to run....
-
"Deadliest Warrior" on Spike.
I just watched their episode on "Samurai vs. Viking" and they screwed SO MUCH stuff up it wasn't funny. They had the Viking just STAND there with his shield on his back while the Samurai was shooting arrows at him. WTF?
I saw that Saxman. The pissing match aspect to the show is childish and asinine. The forensic tests on the weapons are kind of interesting sometimes. It amused me when they tested the katana on the mail-shirt...not so much that it didn't cut, no surprise there, but that these geniuses were *surprised* that steel doesn't slice through steel... :rofl Why they had this assumption that the Norseman would be "slow" is beyond me, especially since the practicioner they had demonstrating "Viking" sword technique showed more speed than the guys demonstrating Japanese sword technique. And the the Japanese armor weighs more than a helm and mail shirt. An sparring match between the practicioners would have been more telling...the weapon+shield combo is a hell of a difficult problem for *any* single sword style to solve, especially your "standard" length katana which would lack a reach advantage. (A tachi or no-dachi more equivalent in size to a longsword vs. the shield would be more of a fair match). Of course, I would have been more impressed by the "Viking" practicioners if their technique had borne any resemblance whatsoever to the style shown in I.33.
-
Dude, viking's do not need shields, they are arrow proof.
Ask around.
-yes that was a joke-
-
longsword vs. the shield
Speaking of one of my problems with their "research...."
THAT WAS NOT A LONGSWORD!!!!!
The longsword dates to the VERY late-12th century at the earliest. Blade is typically 36-42 inches long with a hilt designed for two hands. 99% of the fighting style is for TWO HANDS. Some longswords were light enough to use one-handed with a shield, but this was NOT COMMON.
The "Viking" sword was a transition between the Migration-period sword and the classic arming sword, with blades rarely more than 30" long, typically with parallel edges (until very late in the Viking period when you started to get more taper) of high-quality steel welded to a core of pattern-welded iron (beautiful swords, btw).
Also, that was a REALLY poor-quality shield. A Germanic warrior who could afford both mail AND a sword (that was prohibitively expensive at the time, this guy would have been a PRO) would probably have a shield made of several layers (I think they used 3-5) of wood. The planks of each layer would have been laid crosswise (so layer one up and down, layer two left to right, etc) and the whole thing would have been both backed and faced with linen (the shield in the episode was bare wood). In addition to the iron boss there would have been straps of iron across the face to help hold the planks together (as on the TV shield). The shield would have more often been edged with leather. The leather rim would have been soaked in water then allowed to shrink tight around the shield, which helped hold the whole thing together. Tests performed on a shield made in this fashion was EXTREMELY durable, to the point that even if the planks WERE broken or shattered, the linen facing and backing and the leather rim would hold the whole thing together and keep it usable for the duration of the engagement.
Oh, and Vikings wouldn't have thrown both spears at the same time like that. I don't know WHERE the hell they got THAT idea. I've been in communication with someone who actually re-enacts Viking age warfare as research for a project I'm working on and who's written a couple books and even built a late-Viking age (c. 1000 CE) Anglo-Saxon mead hall. Based on conversations I've had with him (unrelated, but applicable) what that Viking would have done was to approach that Samurai with his shield raised to defend against the arrows. He'd have one spear ready while the other was gripped in his shield hand. As he moved in to range he'd throw his first spear, then take the second and throw that one (actually, he could have three or four MORE spears at hand altogether). Depending on how he approaches the fight, he might decide to hold on to the last spear and use it hand-to-hand (contrary to popular impression, the SPEAR was the primary weapon of the shield wall) to take advantage of the greater reach while still maintaining the defense of his shield. Either way, I would have pressed in on the attack to deny the Samurai room to use either his Naginata or Kanabo (big weapons need room to swing. Push in, you take away his room and leverage). The added advantage of the spear is that as a thrusting weapon:
1) It's a lot more maneuverable at extremely close quarters
2) There's a good chance of penetrating a gap in the armor
And saying the Samurai were more skilled is the perpetuation of a myth that is exasperating at best (someone in our fencing class visited a Kendo class where the instructor said something to the effect that Western martial arts were nothing but clumsy hacking. She shut him up REALLY quick :devil ). Weapons do NOT exist in a culture in the absence of an art to USE them. Your reference to I.33 (I've only learned small bits of it, as I focus more on the longsword--which btw, longsword has many cuts and guards similar to those used with the katana) is actually rather close to reality, as I.33 probably in part evolved from sword and round shield combat. However I.33 is designed for sword and buckler so while some techniques would have been applicable there's quite a bit that wouldn't have worked with a full-sized shield. A Viking warrior who could afford mail and a sword was a PROFESSIONAL--for that matter, the "Peasants with Pitchforks" imagery of Medieval warfare is horrendously flawed at best (the Germanic cultures of Northern Europe/Scandanavia and England had some of the BEST PROFESSIONAL INFANTRIES IN THE WORLD. There's a reason the Varangian Guard was legendary). He would have known EXACTLY how to use that equipment with just as much subtlety as the "nimbler" Samurai.
-
Have you not seen dogfights?
-
This is even WORSE.
-
Sax
By long-sword I specifically meant a langen-schwert, a two-handed blade of greater size. Although, I must tell you, I am not at all sure that the definition of the term is anywhere near as consistent in English as it is in the fechtbuchs. Silver gets the point across much more clearly when he writes "two-handed sword" than all those continental obfuscators IMHO. :D
IIRC, during the actual warring period in Japan longer swords than were typical during the Tokugawa shogunate were common. These would have been more appropriate and effective for a battlefield with armored opposition and mixed weapons. The length we associate with a typical "katana" these days is convenient in a sword that will be carried constantly on a day-to-day basis. The small-sword/court sword was eventually developed in Europe for similar reasons.
The reason I put "Viking" sword technique in quotes is NOT because I believe the Viking period Scandinavians lacked martial art, but because I don't believe there is anyone who can credibly say they know specifically "Viking" technique. It would be more honest to say "These are some techniques we've evolved by experimentation/studing I.33/Talhoffer's "dueling shield"/etc that are probably close to what the Vikings used with their shields because of the principle of convergent evolution and continuity in Western martial art" But I suppose they would have lost the average basic cable viewer right then and there. :D
IMHO, it would have been more interesting to compare a 15th century samurai to a 15th century knight, simply because the two warriors are closer to being equivalent in their societal role and because we have much more detailed information about the knight's martial art.
-
Ah, ok, I misread your use of longsword. But the PROGRAM DID make the mistake of calling the Viking sword a longsword. Right away they sacrifice any credibility right there.
Oh, and then there's the part that the Samurai only "won" by a RIDICULOUSLY narrow margin (something like 520 to 480). It's not a land slide victory and is close enough to say that their respective equipment is sufficiently balancing that it's going to STRICTLY come down to chance or the skill level of the individual warrior.
I did some independent reading and the kanabo they gave the Samurai was PRIMARILY a mythical weapon to begin with and INCREDIBLY rare on an actual battlefield.
-
Dudes, when I need a ninja attack, y'all are hired.
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3649/3475509615_17c7bd96a8.jpg)
-
The show is garbage. The first episode was an american indian vs a gladiator. At one point the indian gets punched in the face with spiked brass knuckles, then jumps back up and kills the gladiator.. really, really, stupid.
-
:rofl good one Moot :lol
-
It's not a land slide victory and is close enough to say that their respective equipment is sufficiently balancing that it's going to STRICTLY come down to chance or the skill level of the individual warrior.
I did some independent reading and the kanabo they gave the Samurai was PRIMARILY a mythical weapon to begin with and INCREDIBLY rare on an actual battlefield.
I actually disagree...speaking strictly of samurai's single weapon vs. a sword&shield, the samurai would actually be at a tremendous disadvantage. Especially considering that he would be unfamiliar with the shield. And a 15lbs club or anything else is absurd for a human being of normal physical strength, the blows easily avoided, deflected, or "choked up".
-
By balanced I meant the overall combination of the arsenals. The arrows DID have range on the thrown spear and the Naginata has a clear reach advantage over the long-axe (that was NOT a "great axe") however the Viking's shield (if it is actually USED) counters a LOT of the weaponry--and with the sort of weapons the two parties had, the Viking would have almost DEFINITELY used his shield for the duration of the fight.
And I agree on the kanabo. In fact, the kanabo was an unfair addition because as I said, MOST references to it as a weapon I could find suggest it was more a mythological than practical one. They may as well have let the Viking use Mjolnir. And the sort of swing the Samurai would need to make in order to break a properly-constructed shield with one solid blow would throw him horribly off-balance, and the construction of the shield doesn't even guarantee that it would be rendered useless. All the Viking would need to do is step aside and angle the shield that it deflects the strike away, (an experienced fighter probably wouldn't just BLOCK a heavy stroke like that, he'd angle his shield to redirect the energy of the blow somewhere else) then run up on him into close quarters where the weapon would be useless.
Now I'll admit that I'm not as familiar with the katana, but despite its cutting power, from a design standpoint it's EXTREMELY limited to slicing/slashing attacks. The curved blade greatly limits it's thrusting ability, which eliminates the sort of half-sword techniques longsword could apply against a shield (and thrusting is the best way for a sword to get through mail). The blade is single-edged, so the Samurai wouldn't be able to hook around the shield to deliver a short-edge cut. The hilt design also doesn't facilitate the sort of hooking techniques that a longsword could employ against the shield with its pommel or guard (one I'm learning is to hold the longsword in half-sword on the left side, hilt forward. Then in a windmilling motion, hook the top of the shield down with the pommel and rotate through to deliver a half-sword thrust downward over the top of the shield, into the chest or shoulder).
Of course, the fight at the end boiled down to katana vs. Viking sword with no shield. The katana WOULD have been slightly faster, (and little if ANY lighter) and had a bit better reach over a Viking-era sword, however at this point it would have been down ENTIRELY to the individual fighters and would have gone either way.
-
Vikings had bows, almost everyone had bows. If we wanted to make it a "stand off and shoot arrows at each other" contest, rather boring I say. :D
The katana WOULD have been slightly faster, (and little if ANY lighter) and had a bit better reach over a Viking-era sword, however at this point it would have been down ENTIRELY to the individual fighters and would have gone either way.
? I did some informal comparisons once, and European cutting swords averaged somewhat lighter in relation to their length than Japanese swords. Especially migration/Viking era blades. I'm talking ballpark ~2 lbs vs. ~2.5 lbs here for a sword compared against a katana of similar blade length. Nihonto have a thicker cross-section than is typical with a European cutting sword. Myths of god-like metallurgical prowess aside, most Japanese swords were not forged with the side-to-side resiliency to flex and return to true like a flatter European cutting sword.
-
Vikings had bows, almost everyone had bows. If we wanted to make it a "stand off and shoot arrows at each other" contest, rather boring I say. :D
Among the Norse proficiency with the bow in battle was as highly prized and glorified in the sagas as any other martial skill. Less so with the Anglo-Saxons, however.
-
I can also say that in more "informal" testing, back when I was doing this sort of thing, George Silver's method stacks up well against Kendo.
-
This is even WORSE.
Worse than dogfights?
I might have to watch it..
-
Dogfights is a joke :rofl I watched an episode one time where they were showing the stats on the 190a8(speed, turn performace, guns etc) and it actually said that the 190a8 was armed with 4 30mm guns.
-
Think Deadliest Warrior is more for those people who just want to watch dummies' heads chopped off. It's more based on the action and entertainment than the actual Science. Same with Dogfights.
-
Think Deadliest Warrior is more for those people who just want to watch dummies' heads chopped off. It's more based on the action and entertainment than the actual Science. Same with Dogfights.
Yup.. Very disapointed in dogfights.. Deadliest warrior is to military history what Britney Spears is to music..not for real history/military buffs.
-
I'd rather watch Deadliest Warrior than Wife Swap (have never seen either one yet). There are MANY programs worse than it.
-
I'd rather watch Deadliest Warrior than Wife Swap (have never seen either one yet). There are MANY programs worse than it.
Ya, can't even get thru 5 min of wife swap.
-
Wife swap sounds like something out of Al Jazeera's programme.
-
I'd rather watch Deadliest Warrior than Wife Swap (have never seen either one yet). There are MANY programs worse than it.
Of course there a ton of junk shows out there, but isn't wife swap another doap opera type show for women.
Deadliest Warrior was built up to be something it's not, instead it's an Epic fail.
-
Of course there a ton of junk shows out there, but isn't wife swap another doap opera type show for women.
Deadliest Warrior was built up to be something it's not, instead it's an Epic fail.
Again, you're preaching to the choir. Re-read what I typed and understand what I said.
-
I do... lol.. your better off reading a book. Or listening to floyd, or reading a book and listening to floyd. :salute
-
Some points on the Vikings....my ancestors. (Icelander). Oh,and they lived where I do. Part of the base education here as well.
- From ancient graves it has been concluded that the Viking people were rather on the big side. That means about the size of modern people, but much much stronger. Later (medievals) people went smaller. So, big strong guys, grown up to be tough.
- Viking tactics were mostly hit & run, since they were in essence raiders. Sometimes they fought in bigger armies, sometimes not. They would choose fierce close quarters combat, and prefer a possible exit.
- Vikings would avoid armies that were heavily armed, such as the armies on the mainland of i.e. France.
- The preferred main weapon was the axe and sword, sometimes both. Axe for the deadly hack, or even throwing it. Sword...as a sword, and the Bow as well.
- That said, Vikings were raiding all over, they went deep into Russia, all over the Baltic, down to Constantinopel, probably along the coasts of N-Africa as well. Their weapons were from ALL OVER. From my neighbourhood, a 1000 year old accessory from a Hun-Bow was excavated. That was the finest known bow at the given time. So their weapons were not all the same, and they were liberal in letting the individual use what he was best at.
Vikings vs Japanese....tough question. Probably would end up with everybody dead ....ARRRR
-
Go Vikings! :aok
-
Some points on the Vikings....my ancestors. (Icelander). Oh,and they lived where I do. Part of the base education here as well.
- From ancient graves it has been concluded that the Viking people were rather on the big side. That means about the size of modern people, but much much stronger. Later (medievals) people went smaller. So, big strong guys, grown up to be tough.
- Viking tactics were mostly hit & run, since they were in essence raiders. Sometimes they fought in bigger armies, sometimes not. They would choose fierce close quarters combat, and prefer a possible exit.
- Vikings would avoid armies that were heavily armed, such as the armies on the mainland of i.e. France.
- The preferred main weapon was the axe and sword, sometimes both. Axe for the deadly hack, or even throwing it. Sword...as a sword, and the Bow as well.
- That said, Vikings were raiding all over, they went deep into Russia, all over the Baltic, down to Constantinopel, probably along the coasts of N-Africa as well. Their weapons were from ALL OVER. From my neighbourhood, a 1000 year old accessory from a Hun-Bow was excavated. That was the finest known bow at the given time. So their weapons were not all the same, and they were liberal in letting the individual use what he was best at.
Vikings vs Japanese....tough question. Probably would end up with everybody dead ....ARRRR
What makes this complicated is that the Vikings were only PART of the Norse military. They were raiding parties, so of COURSE they didn't engage large armies or assault fortified positions if they could avoid it. However those same raiders could also band together into a FORMIDABLE invasion force or standing army (that's what happened in England for much of the early medieval period and what led to the Danelaw). The Vikings started as raiders, but later came with larger forces to stay for good. In fact, your typical "Viking" would in reality be indistinguishable from the average man of the fyrd.
Also, the Germanic culture (which includes the Norse and their Viking raiders, the Anglo-Saxons of England, as well as the Jutes and the other tribes of Germany) led to probably THE BEST professional infantry in Western Europe since Rome fell. And I mean that word: PROFESSIONAL. Everyone in the Germanic military trained to fight. The English SHOULD have won Hastings. The shield wall held against the best William could throw at them. It came down to Harold's death, and the younger, less experienced troops breaking from the wall to pursue a feigned retreat that led to their defeat.
And keep in mind that swords were PROHIBITIVELY expensive at that time. We're talking priceless, and were frequently passed down as family heirlooms for generations. The axe was more common, but the main weapon would STILL be the spear.(http://)
-
Man there is NO WAY a Samuri can beat a Viking, I meanjust LOOK!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwsntHcWiy4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwsntHcWiy4)
-
Vikings were all things but just Norse. And their culture spans hundreds of years. You are talking about an area from Iceland to the borders (or more) of Russia, and all the way down Denmark into modern Germany (?). Normans, what were they, or rather, where did they come from.
But well, go a bit narrower and define the more Scandinavian area as well as before Christianity, and you are ending the definition around 1000 AC. All depends, there were raids done well after that I belive. And battles.
Bringing us to Hastings, the English would have held if the troops hadn't been worn from the battles on the east coast.
BTW, there have been swords found near from where I live as well. And as a sidenote, from our sagas, the weapons of the best (the best would typically be those who had "gone viking", i.e. sailed away for fights and piracy and/or serving the Norwegian King) are often described as something that would be rather like a Pike or possibly a voulge. (sp etc). Stab or hack. At a good distance. Secondary weapons usually available.
-
Heh...they've tried this same type of show with both dinosaurs and animals before.
They all suck...
GORILLA VS LEOPARD!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4TcZ_XyWJ4
ELEPHANT VS RHINO!!!11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdIZhc8rmbg
edit: :rofl :rofl :rofl :lol :lol
-
SHARK VS SABERTOOTH??
-
Man there is NO WAY a Samuri can beat a Viking, I meanjust LOOK!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwsntHcWiy4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwsntHcWiy4)
hahaha that's awesome
-
That's a no-viking salamander with a waggly techno chest, pretending to be a Viking. Now where is the thing for puke. hmm. Well: :pray
-
The Deadliest Warrior is so bad and inaccurate that if they had an episode of Superman vs. Batman, they'd have Batman come up as the winner. Batman would snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by using his Batman utility belt.
I watched the episode of the ninja vs. the gladiator and I couldn't help but laugh after the gladiator shrugged off the crushed glass to the eyes. The doctor they have in the show even said an injury like that is very hard to just 'walk off' like the gladiator did during the fight re-enactment.
ack-ack
-
Have you not seen dogfights?
Hey atleast it has a historical base, so its better than most of the new stuff on the history channel
/barf ax men
-
By the way, in our language, "Viking" means "a seafaring pirate and merchant". To be a true Viking it means seafaring.
And seafaring....in those days....was tough.
-
I'm looking forward to next week's episode....Postal worker v UPS driver, whats gonna come out on top? the fast little maneuverable white truck or big hulking brown one?
shamus
-
Man there is NO WAY a Samuri can beat a Viking, I meanjust LOOK!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwsntHcWiy4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwsntHcWiy4)
:rofl
-
the worst show to features warriors, ever. Walker, Texas Ranger seems more plausible.
-
Heh...they've tried this same type of show with both dinosaurs and animals before.
They all suck...
GORILLA VS LEOPARD!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4TcZ_XyWJ4
l
ROFL,at 1:02 on that video, the Gorilla is totally about to make sweet love to the Leopard.
-Sik