Deadliest warrior, show on bravo [uk tv]; samurai VS Viking!

[Amorphos]

Deadliest warrior, show on bravo [uk tv]; samurai VS Viking! earlier tonight.

I know you would all have had many discussions like this but anyway, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this… [sorry if a thread about the show has already been done]

In the show they test all the weapons used by the warriors of both varieties, which was pretty even. Although the samurai won slightly [according to a computer program] the katana didn’t hardly mark Viking armour, and also the mail was used without all its supporting ‘soft’ armour which would take a lot out of a blow. We didn’t get to see much of the samurai armour for comparison, but the helm deflected the Viking axe nicely. Obviously samurais were later, although as far as I know the basic armour etc had been around much longer, the Vikings were superseded by the chivalric knights also. I guess the samurai would win, but the Vikings were bigger and had shields, so my guess is that unless it was a top samurai with the very best of everything and most highly skilled, then the average Viking would kick them around the park.

On another show, they done Zulus vs. scots from the Wallace era, which I thought was funny, naked men with animal hide shields Vs an armoured scot with a claymore, nah I don’t think the Zulu would last long [and he didn’t].

Anyone else watch it?

[hellheaven1987]

...

I want to say something that may offense OP, but I decide to hold it.

[Pious Agnost]

...

I want to say something that may offense OP, but I decide to hold it.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

"Deadliest Warrior" is a travesty. Don't watch it.

[HansDuet]

Its still entertaining.

[Viking Prince]

Moved from VV to Alternate History. Let's try and keep these vs. threads out of the main forum. -- VP

[Razor]

Deadliest warrior, show on bravo [uk tv]; samurai VS Viking! earlier tonight.

I know you would all have had many discussions like this but anyway, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this… [sorry if a thread about the show has already been done]

In the show they test all the weapons used by the warriors of both varieties, which was pretty even. Although the samurai won slightly [according to a computer program] the katana didn’t hardly mark Viking armour, and also the mail was used without all its supporting ‘soft’ armour which would take a lot out of a blow. We didn’t get to see much of the samurai armour for comparison, but the helm deflected the Viking axe nicely. Obviously samurais were later, although as far as I know the basic armour etc had been around much longer, the Vikings were superseded by the chivalric knights also. I guess the samurai would win, but the Vikings were bigger and had shields, so my guess is that unless it was a top samurai with the very best of everything and most highly skilled, then the average Viking would kick them around the park.

On another show, they done Zulus vs. scots from the Wallace era, which I thought was funny, naked men with animal hide shields Vs an armoured scot with a claymore, nah I don’t think the Zulu would last long [and he didn’t].

Anyone else watch it?

Though possibly entertaining when nothing else is at hand such comparisons tell absolutely nothing whatsoever.

[A Demented Goldfish]

its cool but very unrealistic

[Poach]

A reasonably entertaining watch but has no basis in reality. When I watched the Spartan vs Ninja one I got the idea that most of their "evidence" was drawn from 300 and not actual history...

[Amorphos]

Well I thought maybe you chaps could provide more realistic stats, so we could have a bit of fun debating what never happened. ah well, I guess history buffs are too strong headed for mere speculation and entertainment.