Deadliest Warrior

I must first say about this series that the premise is outstanding, and one that has crossed my mind on numerous occasions. What would happen if a medieval knight met up with a samurai? Who would be victorious in battle?

The show then attempts to determine whom is the better warrior amongst two different kinds in history - in many cases two warriors that are separated by many centuries. The arms and armors available to these warriors are demonstrated, both in their lethal potential or in their stopping power in the case of armor. The demonstrations are fascinating, including weapons experts that strike or fire their weapons at ballistics gel encased, and presumably reproduction skeletons. A physician or medical specialist then examines the footage, or the dummy in some cases, and describes the type of trauma inflicted. At the end, we get a well choreographed fight between two re-enactors dressed in costume to simulate the potential outcome of such a contest, as well as a statistics model that determines the winner in 1,000 contests. I like this concept because despite the advantages a particular warrior might possess over another, the randomness of combat will ensure that even the presumably better warrior will lose at least a percentage of the time.

The problems with the show are many, however, and seriously challenge the credibility of the participants. As others have pointed out, a warrior is more than the sum of his weapons and armor, which the show spends the most amount of time demonstrating. I think the premise could be dropped and have the show focus on weapons demonstrations only. Although the mindset, culture, tactics, and goals of each warrior are mentioned, these descriptions are brief and superficial. In addition,the hypothetical combats displayed are all duels. Most of the warriors portrayed would rarely, if ever, be faced with a duel situation, instead fighting in a unit of many soldiers/warriors. The worst part for me has to be the banter or trash talk between the weapons experts representing each respective warrior. It reminds me of a WWE matchup or a pre-boxing/MMA trash session instead of a presumably serious and/or scientific look at a hypothetical combat situation.

At any rate, I do enjoy the show because it has many good aspects. But the flaws do not make for "must-see" TV. If they would focus a little more on the tactics, drop the banter, and perhaps consider tactical unit combat instead of duels, I believe the show would be much improved. The producers are obviously trying to cater to a younger, action thirsty crowd, perhaps in an effort to make history more interesting. I applaud this rationale if nothing else, but the more discriminating viewers with a desire for logical and factual history, such as myself, are often left wanting.

If any wish for a superior show with similarities to DW, check out an earlier History Channel series called "Conquest" with Peter Woodward. The latter is more mature, yet still with some light hearted moments. It covers nearly every criticism I have for DW and then some (see my review).

EDIT: I had not seen Season 3 prior to this original review, and S3 does cover some of my criticisms for the first two Seasons. The banter here has been toned down substantially and the combats all consist of units fighting each other. The warrior's mindsets, values, and motivations are explored with the addition of Richard Machowicz. I also liked the addition of the "X Factors" as well, or somewhat intangible characteristics such as mental health or physical fitness which could positively or negatively impact a side's performance. Overall the changes added a more serious and scientific component to the show that was a substantial improvement IMO.

There are still a few problems that I saw, particularly with the tendency to match two opponents who were not a very good matchup to begin with. Hannibal and Genghis Khan was a good example, as they were separated by nearly 1,400 years and Khan's armor and weapons technology was far superior. Same could be said of William the Conqueror and Joan of Arc. It was a little silly to see a unit of five men firing a heavy artillery piece at each other as well. The elite modern soldiers did not have weapons that they most likely would have carried. I am particularly thinking about the Rangers/North Korea and Gurkha/French Foreign Legion in that all these soldiers would have probably carried hand grenades and a pistol of some kind. Roosevelt/Lawrence of Arabia or even Washington/Napolean would have probably had pistols as well. Oddly enough, only Pancho Villa/Crazy Horse were depicted carrying pistols.

In general, the format changes in S3 were an improvement and I enjoyed it quite a bit more than the previous seasons.

I've watched the first 2 episodes 1. Gladiator vs Apache Warrior and 2. Viking vs Samurai and was very impressed. The show uses a lot of the high tech data devices like Sports Science and goes as in-depth as possible in the shows time slot. It uses multiple factors in deciding who would win the fights. That range from distance to weapons used. The use of modern day experts in the cultures make for great trash talking. Other fights to look forward to include Spartans, ninja's and pirates. If your interested in the history of warriors throughout time and can believe in the science deciding the winner then this show is a must watch.

As others have stated there are certain problems with each separate episode. As an example Al Capone vs. Jesse James. There were no handguns used by Al Capone which was inaccurate. The use of the Chicago typewriter had all ammunition used in one continuous burst -- which action could be questioned. The Chicago typewriter could have been fired in shorter bursts to allow more accurate along with more sustained firepower without reloading.

In this episode Al Capone could have carried a Colt .45 1911 or other handgun. There would have been a difference in the amount of handgun firepower between a Colt .45 1911 and a Colt .45 Peacemaker revolver.

Also either side could have been armed with a 10 or 12 gauge shotgun which could have also made a difference in the outcome. In my opinion all avenues were not explored or considered.

In other episodes there seems to be questions in regards to individual combat vs. warriors who are used to fighting in groups. There are many differences in methods used during these confrontations, which should be taken into consideration along with an individual person's ability.

Don't get me wrong. This ranks up there with my other low brow comedy shows on Spike like "1,000 ways to die." It's great for something to relax to, and watching people get splattered makes it all the more fun. But accurate it is not.

Their firearms knowledge is ludicrous. For example, on the Yakuza vs. Mafia episode they stated the Yakuza used the Walther P-38 pistol. Yet the graphics they showed were of a P-08 Luger. These are two totally, totally different looking pistols designed close to half a century apart. They had the IRA carrying a Boer War period .455 Webley revolver and they touted its reliability over a Makarov. I own both. There is no comparison between the Makarov and the Webley. You can't hit the broad side of a barn with a Webley.

They do not test uniformly. In the Yakuza vs. Mafia episode, the Mafia had six machine gun targets they had to hit with the Thompson. The Yakuza only had four they had to hit with a Sten. That gave the Sten an easier score. Worse still, they used completely different ways of testing the Russian hand grenade and the US hand grenade. Why not do something logical - put three pig carcases up in an enclosed room and see how each grenade does? It's a uniform test? I shouldn't expect too much from Spike. It's unabashedly guy TV, and I like that. But they could do a lot better job with a little more care.

Basic Story Guide:

Everyone has asked the question: If such-and-such fought this guy, who would win? Well, this show puts these fighters to test. Two fighters from both the pre-gunpowder and gunpowder eras, they have their weapons tested, and then in a simulation run over 1000 times, the winner is the one with the highest score.

Verdict:

I kind of enjoyed this series for a while. I really did. I enjoyed the series because it was fun, not because I am a history major, or ancient weapons expert, but because of what I am looking for when watching T.V. which is entertainment. I don't care about the logic behind the stunt, as long as the stunt is good. I'll throw the B.S. flag if I have to, but I'll continue watching the movie. Kind of a round about way to say I just want to be entertained.

But I really hate the announcer who does the whole David Wenham from 300 narration of the weapons. Overly exaggerating the weapons. Like saying "The Such-and-such spear, a three foot instrument of death." Two episodes later, "The some-screwed-up-tribes-name trident, a four foot razor sharp spear for maximum slaughter."

But if that is not bad enough, the guys who wield the weapons for their fighter are just annoying. Pardon my language, but they are constantly pissing and moaning, complaining that their weapon is better. God, it is so annoying. Some muscle bound jock who is either a member of the army, or just some know-it-all, arguing that an ax beats their sword, or that a gun is more effective than the other guys gun.

Either way I used to enjoy it, now it's just gotten annoying. And don't me started on season 3.

5/10