Basically this show, tries to compare different "fighters" from different times in history, and through testing and simulation, determine who would win in a battle. It may sound a bit cheesy, but the show itself is really great, they do so much awesome things, and you get a good look into the different fighting styles.
They test 5 different weapons from each fighting style, and also dividing them into long range, close range, medium range.
So far, 4 episodes have been broadcasted, and I have seen 3 of them, and looking forward to watching the fourth tonight. So far, this different matchups are
Spartan vs Ninja Samurai vs Viking Gladiator vs Apache Knight vs Pirate
So if you are into basic discovery programs, and like to see different weapons implemented on defenceloss simulationdolls, then this is the program for you, almost like mythbusters.
Looking at the IMDB page, this show will have 8 episodes, so there are still 4 more matchups to be revealed, I really do wonder what they will be.. nm, IMDB episode list tells me
5: Yakuza vs Mafia 6: Green Beret vs Spetnaz this I think will be a cool one 7: Maori warrior vs Shaolin Monk 8: William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu (I have no idea who he is) 9: Taliban vs IRA
I really do wish they would compare the winners, into the simulation program, to determine the "ultimate" fighter
Basically, they were really barbaric. I am a norseman myself, and I love the vikings, but quite frankly im not surprised they lost. The Samurai are MUCH more disciplined in combat then the vikings. The vikings best weapon was causing fear, by charing in screaming and slamming their shields. Some of the Vikings also called "Berserkers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker Basically they would get them self into a stage of rage and frenzy, and then just go wild. The Vikings fought mostly peasants on their raids, and not that much organized resistance, since they came, they plundered and they left, allthough there were Viking settlements all over England and Ireland, so they did settle, and they did well in "normal" combat as well.
Those saying samurai were "more disciplined" than vikings...where are you getting this information?
You do realize that there was no formal standardized training for samurai in any sense similar to that of, for example, the professional roman army.
Yeah it seems as though they are picking categories where there would have been a high degree of variation from individual to individual and from period to period. Presumably they want as much room as possible to fill the show with BS to please the lowest common denominator.
This show may be a lot of fun, but I really hope no one who enjoys it allows him/herself to be convinced that any conclusions drawn on the show are valid to ANY extent. If you want low quality entertainment this show is perfect - if you want to learn about military history go to a library. At least then you can make educated conjecture about who would beat whom.
Well you have to realize that during that time, Samurai's sword was incredibly advanced, sharp, lightweight and great for techniques. Not to mention that Samurai probably had the highest level of swordsmanship (i.e. sword skill) the world has seen. The only way Viking would have been able to beat a Samurai is if Samurai lost his sword, or if Viking's axe clashed with Samurai's sword and broke it. (But advanced sword skilled Samurai would not simply clash their sword with a heavy axe anyway)
Samurai also wore light weight armor so they can move around faster. Vikings were slowed down by their armor and their heavy axes. By the time Viking swung an axe, the Samurai would have already 1) moved out of the way 2) changed directions 3) sword almost about to slice the Viking for counter
But some of these fights are stupid
For example, who cares about Mafia vs Yakuza?
And the only way I see a pirate beating a knight is because they have a gun.
On May 05 2009 06:01 AzureEye wrote: Well you have to realize that during that time, Samurai's sword was incredibly advanced, sharp, lightweight and great for techniques. Not to mention that Samurai probably had the highest level of swordsmanship (i.e. sword skill) the world has seen. The only way Viking would have been able to beat a Samurai is if Samurai lost his sword, or if Viking's axe clashed with Samurai's sword and broke it. (But advanced sword skilled Samurai would not simply clash their sword with a heavy axe anyway)
Wait...so what time period exactly? You should look that up. Also...greatest sword skill? Where is this coming from? That is pop culture nonsense. I'm sure there have been plenty of fantastic swordsmen from Japan, but there is precious little to suggest that they were any better than the elite of other countries.
You should do some serious academic research and then decide if the conclusions you're drawing are in any way remotely valid.
On May 05 2009 05:49 Freyr wrote: Those saying samurai were "more disciplined" than vikings...where are you getting this information?
You do realize that there was no formal standardized training for samurai in any sense similar to that of, for example, the professional roman army.
Yeah it seems as though they are picking categories where there would have been a high degree of variation from individual to individual and from period to period. Presumably they want as much room as possible to fill the show with BS to please the lowest common denominator.
This show may be a lot of fun, but I really hope no one who enjoys it allows him/herself to be convinced that any conclusions drawn on the show are valid to ANY extent. If you want low quality entertainment this show is perfect - if you want to learn about military history go to a library. At least then you can make educated conjecture about who would beat whom.
They had different way of fighting, allthough they have some similarities. Both the Samurai and the Vikings thought that dying is combat was great. For Vikings, dying in combat, meant that you got to enter "valhalla" basically the Vikings "Heaven" One of the great Norwegian kings, actually ordered his own men, to stab him to death, when he was about to dye from age, ensuring that he wouldnt end up in "hel", the norse equievelent of Hell.
The vikings way of fighting, aimed greatly on causing fear, and I doubt that would work too well on a skilled Samurai. Samurais were as mentioned, faster and more drilled in swordfighting then the vikings. Ofcource the conclusions arent "valid", but its a thought experiment, you gotta take it for what it is. Its like getting pissed off after watching the Matrix, claiming that what happened there was simply impossible.
Important factor is also that the percentages arent that bigfavored towards one side in any of the current matchups, so for instance in the Viking vs Samurai question in this program, out of a 1000 fights, samurais would win 522, basically being around 52.2% Ofcource this could go either way.
It seems to miss different era comparisons and not much is noted about the ground they are fighting on, but at least they had quite a many matches simulated (hundreds of kills) it pretty much shows who has the overall advantage in such combat and the final "simulation" is made based on kill-count.
Thanks OP for informing about the series, even with the lack of some stuff it's really enjoyable.
The show's complete bs, but it's a hell of a lot of fun to watch and the premise is ridiculous/ hilarious enough (2 guys from completely different eras see each other in the woods and have the sudden urge to kill one another... who wins?) to make it worth watching.
The Spartan vs. Ninja episode was just stupid though. + Show Spoiler +
In single combat ninja would win every time without breaking a sweat. Get yourself a phalanx of spartans (i.e. a group of soldiers who were only effective in groups) and a bunch of ninjas and you have yourself a battle.
especially when it came to the samurai vs. viking match. it was just a collage of lolstereotypes, i.e. samurais are smart while vikings are barbaric, mostly leather armor with bits of metal compares with chain mail and shield, and the worst of them all is the samurai's superior speed advantage.
If the viking was decked out in full plate mail, then sure, the movement restriction would be more noticeable; but come on, he was in chain mail.
The advantage of a shield should not be understated. The bald guy even demonstrated the strength and maneuvers of a shield and the "simulation" just ignores all this. The viking literally threw away a perfectly good shield, wtf?
The others were less cringe worthy. The pirate one was hilarious. I should just analyze less and enjoy the cheesiness.
On May 05 2009 06:31 vnlegend wrote: These episodes are available at Spike.com, the website of SpikeTV, the show's producer. There are around five 15-30 second commercials breaks.
unfortunately they only have the pirate vs knight episode up right now :[ some of these matchups are pretty strange, gladiator vs apache, spartan vs ninja, WTF?
Just rewatched the pirate episode again and it's still great. I especially liked how the pirate survived 2-3 hits to the head with a morning star which is basically a 1 hit KO to an unarmored opponent.
On May 05 2009 06:59 passby20 wrote: The show's complete bs, but it's a hell of a lot of fun to watch and the premise is ridiculous/ hilarious enough (2 guys from completely different eras see each other in the woods and have the sudden urge to kill one another... who wins?) to make it worth watching.
The Spartan vs. Ninja episode was just stupid though. + Show Spoiler +
In single combat ninja would win every time without breaking a sweat. Get yourself a phalanx of spartans (i.e. a group of soldiers who were only effective in groups) and a bunch of ninjas and you have yourself a battle.
I totally don't agree
I really think that one would be a tossup. Sure the spartan may train mostly for group combat, but he's bigger and stronger than the ninja. he has armor and a shield.
i do think that the ninja should come out ahead but spartans were pretty badass.
On May 05 2009 07:20 Spike wrote: Just rewatched the pirate episode again and it's still great. I especially liked how the pirate survived 2-3 hits to the head with a morning star which is basically a 1 hit KO to an unarmored opponent.
If I'm not mistaken you can just search "deadliest warrior (# of episode you want to see) stream" on Google and for me the first result every time is some forum that has the whole episode uploaded
The only problem for this method with me is that it appears to only allow you to watch 75ish mins per day, on the upside no commercials which is sweet.
I really don't think that you can compare the two in single combat in the woods, during the sunlight, because there would be NO POINT to the ninja doing that. The ninja has the initiative. He can force the enemy to keep alert for hours and even days and tire him out. There is NO REASON to attack him in that scenario. Shit, at least wait for darkness.
Now, even if the ninja is on the defensive, he can just run away. He has no armor and given similar fitness, he should be able to outrun the Spartan. So in either case, the ninja would probably have the initiative.
So, the ninja attacks from cover. Instead of using poisoned ranged weapons (that he can supposedly throw with great accuracy and if it lands, is a OHKO), he decide to jump out of his hiding and MANLY attack the spartan with his sword. Alright, maybe he might miss sometimes, but the ability to choose the place to attack is a huge advantage to maximize your odds of killing the guy right away. And yes, the neck was vulnerable.
Then, the ninja decides to try and stand toe to toe with the spartan. With an armored guy. What the hell. Like I said, why not just run away and pick a better spot? Instead of taking advantage of the Spartan wearing armor, he increases its usefulness by attacking him. Even if he didn't run away at first, after the Spartan missed with his spear throw, why not run away THEN?
The scenario was so skewed towards the spartan that it was ridiculous. Hopefully they explained why they made that simulation the way that they did somewhere and it made sense. Because otherwise, you're taking a light infantry/skirmisher type fighter from one era and pitting him against a heavy infantry fighter from another era and forcing them to do close combat with each other.
I'm really surprised this would be considered historical at all. Some of these matchups are ridiculous! Pirate versus Knight? Are we talking about the regular men at arms knights or the actual French elites? Because the knight archetype that most associate with "knights" (full armor, horse, weapon, etc) were very very few but will completely destroy a pirate. Think medevil tank, that's essentially what knights were. Similarly, since most "ninjas" were actually considered to be glorified brigands, (ignoring the few that actually were retainers of royals) I don't see how a Spartan would lose. Similarly, "Vikings" were a race of people, "Samurai" is not. I don't even need to go into detail about that. Sounds like an amusing fantasy simulation rather than anything historical ... The big historical debate that I know of has always been samurai versus knights, all of which studies proved inconclusive as both the elites of either caste have their own merits.
Edit: Didn't notice it was on Spike. Ignore rant on historical accuracy >.<.
This show seems kinda stupid in execution. All they're doing is comparing the weaponry of the two combatants. For instance, why would you pit a ninja against a Spartan in a straight fight? The primary purpose of a ninja is to infiltrate places, spy, and to assassinate people. So why would a ninja engage in fair combat? The point of the Spartans having better weaponry is moot if the ninja has the element of surprise.
Also, I cringe every time somebody speaks. It's like you can boil everything they say down to "HOLY SHIT I'M HARDCORE!"
All I know is that the apache vs gladiator was extremely biased. First of all they didn't compare proper timelines, they choose the lowest gladiator retarius. The Apache didn't have the wheel, horse or bow and arrow during the gladiator games. For example the apache went with bow and arrow against slingshot of the gladiator lol.
And the vikings were not undisciplined drunkards. How the hell do you reach Canada without discipline? they were capable of great craftmanship.
On May 05 2009 06:01 AzureEye wrote: Well you have to realize that during that time, Samurai's sword was incredibly advanced, sharp, lightweight and great for techniques. Not to mention that Samurai probably had the highest level of swordsmanship (i.e. sword skill) the world has seen. The only way Viking would have been able to beat a Samurai is if Samurai lost his sword, or if Viking's axe clashed with Samurai's sword and broke it. (But advanced sword skilled Samurai would not simply clash their sword with a heavy axe anyway)
Wait...so what time period exactly? You should look that up. Also...greatest sword skill? Where is this coming from? That is pop culture nonsense. I'm sure there have been plenty of fantastic swordsmen from Japan, but there is precious little to suggest that they were any better than the elite of other countries.
You should do some serious academic research and then decide if the conclusions you're drawing are in any way remotely valid.
I guess time period is really irrelevant because we're comparing the prime time of each category but if you want a specific date, anytime before the Meiji Restoration before the dominance of gunpowder should be good. Just because you're a Samurai doesn't mean you're deadly but some of them are trained in old traditional sword schools that have been perfecting swordmanship for generations.
But realistically speaking, even if I believe that Japanese samurai swordmanship was one of the best, there is no way I can prove it. I do know that Vikings were not completely iron armored, full plate mail like Knights, more like chainmails, and they won't give you enough protection from the Katana. Meaning, they were both vulnerable to each other's weapons but a Katana let you become more lightweight, faster, and versatile in the techniques of your attacks. Not to mention it has slightly longer range
On May 05 2009 06:01 AzureEye wrote: Well you have to realize that during that time, Samurai's sword was incredibly advanced, sharp, lightweight and great for techniques. Not to mention that Samurai probably had the highest level of swordsmanship (i.e. sword skill) the world has seen. The only way Viking would have been able to beat a Samurai is if Samurai lost his sword, or if Viking's axe clashed with Samurai's sword and broke it. (But advanced sword skilled Samurai would not simply clash their sword with a heavy axe anyway)
Wait...so what time period exactly? You should look that up. Also...greatest sword skill? Where is this coming from? That is pop culture nonsense. I'm sure there have been plenty of fantastic swordsmen from Japan, but there is precious little to suggest that they were any better than the elite of other countries.
You should do some serious academic research and then decide if the conclusions you're drawing are in any way remotely valid.
I guess time period is really irrelevant because we're comparing the prime time of each category but if you want a specific date, anytime before the Meiji Restoration before the dominance of gunpowder should be good. Just because you're a Samurai doesn't mean you're deadly but some of them are trained in old traditional sword schools that have been perfecting swordmanship for generations.
But realistically speaking, even if I believe that Japanese samurai swordmanship was one of the best, there is no way I can prove it. I do know that Vikings were not completely iron armored, full plate mail like Knights, more like chainmails, and they won't give you enough protection from the Katana. Meaning, they were both vulnerable to each other's weapons but a Katana let you become more lightweight, faster, and versatile in the techniques of your attacks. Not to mention it has slightly longer range
Wait so your suggesting that chainmail is ineffective against a katana? Where are you getting this information? Are you a high rank in Iaido? Have you ever practiced Iaido or any bona fide koryu? Most relevantly, have you ever tried tameshigiri on chain mail? I hope you have a lot of spare swords if you intend to do so.
As I said, I'm sure there were plenty of fantastic Japanese swordsmen, however, what makes you think other nationalities were not similarly skilled? Again, that is all based off of pop culture nonsense.
On May 05 2009 05:49 Freyr wrote: Those saying samurai were "more disciplined" than vikings...where are you getting this information?
You do realize that there was no formal standardized training for samurai in any sense similar to that of, for example, the professional roman army.
Yeah it seems as though they are picking categories where there would have been a high degree of variation from individual to individual and from period to period. Presumably they want as much room as possible to fill the show with BS to please the lowest common denominator.
This show may be a lot of fun, but I really hope no one who enjoys it allows him/herself to be convinced that any conclusions drawn on the show are valid to ANY extent. If you want low quality entertainment this show is perfect - if you want to learn about military history go to a library. At least then you can make educated conjecture about who would beat whom.
They had different way of fighting, allthough they have some similarities. Both the Samurai and the Vikings thought that dying is combat was great. For Vikings, dying in combat, meant that you got to enter "valhalla" basically the Vikings "Heaven" One of the great Norwegian kings, actually ordered his own men, to stab him to death, when he was about to dye from age, ensuring that he wouldnt end up in "hel", the norse equievelent of Hell.
The vikings way of fighting, aimed greatly on causing fear, and I doubt that would work too well on a skilled Samurai. Samurais were as mentioned, faster and more drilled in swordfighting then the vikings. Ofcource the conclusions arent "valid", but its a thought experiment, you gotta take it for what it is. Its like getting pissed off after watching the Matrix, claiming that what happened there was simply impossible.
Important factor is also that the percentages arent that bigfavored towards one side in any of the current matchups, so for instance in the Viking vs Samurai question in this program, out of a 1000 fights, samurais would win 522, basically being around 52.2% Ofcource this could go either way.
Again, this "skilled samurai" BS. There was no standardized badass samurai training camp. There would have existed tremendously skilled samurai, and pretty crappy ones as well (just like everything else in life). You cannot make any generalized statements about the samurai because they were never a uniform fighting force and shared no common training regimen.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with thought experiments, but they are worthless unless there is some quality thought involved. Also, my guess is that the show is not exactly marketed as a 'thought experiment' which no one should consider remotely factual.
This kind of show could be fun and valuable if some real effort were put in. Here's an example of a scenario that's similar in spirit but provides more parameters: student of Araki ryu Kogusoku vs Roman Legionary under Trajan. Araki ryu is a koryu bujutsu (classical japanese martial school) founded around 1573, which is still practiced (albeit in diluted and modified form) today. Araki ryu would have been one of the zillions of different schools to have trained samurai. Why is this a better scenario? Because, obviously, it's specific enough such that we actually have real information as to how these two individuals would have trained. Both would have had distinct and identifiable modes of combat, and consequently it might be somewhat reasonable to speculate on how a duel might play out. However, it would still be totally ridiculous to try to draw actual conclusions as to the outcome.
Personally yakuza vs mafia was kind of dumb because you have sais losing to ice picks like that would ever happen and the Luger vs the 12 guage was just stupid imo.
Spetsnaz vs Green beret shouldnt have been as close but it was allright imo. Though i didnt like the draw between the M16?(m4?) and the Ak-74 since in reality the m16 is single shot or burst and couldnt compete with the AK which is auto or burst..M24 vs the SVD wasnt the best either because you can gun down more with the SVD than the m24 anyway ><
On May 05 2009 05:49 Freyr wrote: Those saying samurai were "more disciplined" than vikings...where are you getting this information?
You do realize that there was no formal standardized training for samurai in any sense similar to that of, for example, the professional roman army.
Yeah it seems as though they are picking categories where there would have been a high degree of variation from individual to individual and from period to period. Presumably they want as much room as possible to fill the show with BS to please the lowest common denominator.
This show may be a lot of fun, but I really hope no one who enjoys it allows him/herself to be convinced that any conclusions drawn on the show are valid to ANY extent. If you want low quality entertainment this show is perfect - if you want to learn about military history go to a library. At least then you can make educated conjecture about who would beat whom.
Samurai sword technique is no joke...and they were compared to vikings, not roman soldiers. I think when you compare the two in terms of discipline, it's not that hard to see the difference.
But yeah, I agree...it's not a great show, but it's dumb fun.
fucking hell didn't you guys watch 300? the Spartan kicked the living shit out of those crazy-fugly ass ninja's.. And they even let the little Greeks play with the ninja's when they got bored.
Lol, I saw one of the episodes on YouTube. (Ninja vs Spartan) it was nicely made and everything, but seriously what the fuck is wrong with these people. After I saw the weapons and how they worked it took me like 10 seconds to figure out who would win in what situation.
Lock down a Ninja and a Spartan to a closed room where the Spartan can keep his eyes on the ninja, and ninja can't move around. Spartan will win hands down most of the time, unless the somehow lands the glass bomb or w/e it was, seriously blinding him. This again is hard with the Spartan shield, which is massive. In a small space where ninja can't move and hide, it doesen't stand a chance.
But if you put down a Ninja vs a Spartan in a forrest like it was in their ''simulation'' Ninja would win hands down. A Spartan can't catch a ninja, it only chance is to kill the ninja with it's ranged weapon, which showed to be quite in-accurate, especially against a agile ninja. The ninja had numerous ways to kill the Spartan silently in a forrest, which is open spaced, plenty of places to hide, plenty of places to take cover. A ninja would win here. He could basically just run, try to shoot him with a poison needle, if it fails, try again, no need to go close combat.
The simulation they had was just retarded, I wonder who scripted that fight, but he could have done a better job. First of all, the ninja attacks from behind but doesen't use the needle or a shuriken? He goes toe-to-toe against a Spartan willingly? Of course a Ninja wouldn't know what a Spartan is, but he can see the Spear, the heavy armor and the humongous shield. I didn't know ninjas were retarded. He goes toe-to-toe obviously he get's pushed back. He then retreats into the forrest after throwing glass into Spartans eyes, which the spartan just shrugs off. Then in the forrest, for some reason, the ninja jumps out from it's hiding place for no apparent reason, and THEN starts throwing shurikens towards the spartan, which of course, deflects all of them.
Sorry for the rant, it was just ridicolous lol.
Seriously, common sense would answer who wins that fight, no need for ''experts'' and ''state-of-the-art'' computers.
But yea, it's more for the entertaiment then actual facts.
Yea but they're just trying to see who's more 'deadly' not who would exactly win in a real-life fight. People with more deadly weapons win. Not the people with more training/etc etc so if you have a nuke you insta-win the fight.
On May 05 2009 05:49 Freyr wrote: Those saying samurai were "more disciplined" than vikings...where are you getting this information?
You do realize that there was no formal standardized training for samurai in any sense similar to that of, for example, the professional roman army.
Yeah it seems as though they are picking categories where there would have been a high degree of variation from individual to individual and from period to period. Presumably they want as much room as possible to fill the show with BS to please the lowest common denominator.
This show may be a lot of fun, but I really hope no one who enjoys it allows him/herself to be convinced that any conclusions drawn on the show are valid to ANY extent. If you want low quality entertainment this show is perfect - if you want to learn about military history go to a library. At least then you can make educated conjecture about who would beat whom.
Samurai sword technique is no joke...and they were compared to vikings, not roman soldiers. I think when you compare the two in terms of discipline, it's not that hard to see the difference.
But yeah, I agree...it's not a great show, but it's dumb fun.
Ok seriously what on earth do you really know about samurai, their swords, and their training? You are getting all your prejudices from pop culture samurai mystique. Why don't you do some serious historical research if you want to be able to discuss samurai or vikings in a knowledgeable fashion.
Glad you agree about the quality of the show though :p
This show sounds like that other show where they do animals fights or like dinosaur fights. If it is anything like those then it will suck serious dick.
Feudal Japan fought for hundreds of years, honing samurai skills to a fine point. In fact, without the 'mass training' thought or 'standardized training' that todays militaries employ, this allowed the Samurai to refine and create different styles and forms. They were deadly with the bow and sword, and their armor was incredibly flexible while at the same time deflecting blades very well.
Take for example, Musashi the greatest samurai to ever live. You think someone with 'standardized' training would be capable of the things he did? No. Samurai's trained over their whole lifetime, because for most of the samurai's time in Japan they were in constant state of war for hundreds of years.
Secondly, I haven't watched the show, but Samurai carried with them Bow, Katana, Wakizashi, Tonto's, etc. It wasn't some guy in cloth running around with a sephiroth styled Katana...
Freyr if you know anything about the training samurai went through (especially with the bow), you will know that Samurai were, if not still the most disciplined fighters in the entirety of human existence. No other soldier endured the constant state of wars for so long, and such long training tradition.
The vikings training was also focused on fighting big armies and fighting in groups. They could wall themselfs off by making a wall with their shields to protect everyone against incomming arrows (as seen in 300) and there was a lot of strategic shit involved.
Now you take one of these, and put him up against a fighter who is designed to kill people 1on1, and he wins 522 out of 1000 battles? Even if the viking lost, I still consider him superior, mostly because im norwegian.
Basically this show, tries to compare different "fighters" from different times in history, and through testing and simulation, determine who would win in a battle. It may sound a bit cheesy, but the show itself is really great, they do so much awesome things, and you get a good look into the different fighting styles.
They test 5 different weapons from each fighting style, and also dividing them into long range, close range, medium range.
So far, 4 episodes have been broadcasted, and I have seen 3 of them, and looking forward to watching the fourth tonight. So far, this different matchups are
Spartan vs Ninja Samurai vs Viking Gladiator vs Apache Knight vs Pirate
So if you are into basic discovery programs, and like to see different weapons implemented on defenceloss simulationdolls, then this is the program for you, almost like mythbusters.
Looking at the IMDB page, this show will have 8 episodes, so there are still 4 more matchups to be revealed, I really do wonder what they will be.. nm, IMDB episode list tells me
5: Yakuza vs Mafia 6: Green Beret vs Spetnaz this I think will be a cool one 7: Maori warrior vs Shaolin Monk 8: William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu (I have no idea who he is) 9: Taliban vs IRA
I really do wish they would compare the winners, into the simulation program, to determine the "ultimate" fighter
They did compare it somewhat in season 2 yeah, they selected the 2 best winners of the "ancient" warriors ( pre gunpowder) and matched them up, and did the same with the modern warriors. Was a fairly decent episode, allthough I miss the focus they had on ancient fighting styles. This season they have had some good matchups, like Zande warrior vs Jaguar aztec warrior, but also 2 less good epsiodes like Jesse James vs Al Capone and some stupid SWAt team matchup. Almost forgot, Attila the Hun vs Alexander the Great was also a good matchup.
Season 2, Episode 6: Nazi Waffen SS vs. Viet Cong Original Air Date—18 May 2010
Next US airings: Tue. May 18 10:00 PM SPIKETV Tue. May 18 11:00 PM SPIKETV Sun. May 23 9:55 PM SPIKETV Season 2, Episode 7: Roman Centurion vs. Rajput Warrior Original Air Date—25 May 2010 Season 2, Episode 8: Somali Pirate vs. Medellin Cartel Original Air Date—8 June 2010 Season 2, Episode 9: Persian Immortal vs. Celt Original Air Date—15 June 2010 Season 2, Episode 10: KGB vs. CIA Original Air Date—22 June 2010 Season 2, Episode 11: Vlad the Impaler vs. Sun Tzu Original Air Date—29 June 2010 Season 2, Episode 12: Ming Warrior vs. Musketeer Original Air Date—6 July 2010 Season 2, Episode 13: Comanche vs. Mongol Original Air Date—20 July 2010 Season 2, Episode 14: Navy Seal vs. Israeli Commando Original Air Date—27 July 2010
rest of the episodes. Im psyched for Vlad vs Sun Tzu and Immortal vs Celt and Centurion vs Rajput warrior. Rest looks like boring gunfight crap, much more fun to watch them chop up eachother then watching boring shooting at the shooting range.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://quilldevil.tripod.com/gattschan/gatts_side.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9PoEDn-_p4I/SbYVf3tGJzI/AAAAAAAAAe0/-VPo2B4x6iE/s320/samurai-x-rurouni-kenshin.jpg)
wish I had caught this show.
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/players/129.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7404/71863750.png)
