Deadliest Warrior (In a more sensical fashion)

[Liver Punch]

I think it's safe to say that this show has jumped the shark with the last season. It ended with zombies vs. vampires I think, but had a lot of other lousy and nonsensical shows along the way. Next season -if there is one, I'd propose : Dwight David Eisenhower vs. Genghis Khan, Stonewall Jackson vs. David Petraeus, Osama Bin Laden vs Hannibal Barca, Erwin Rommel vs. Mecha Ghidorah, and Chester Nimitz vs. Aquaman.

Ok, I got a little off-topic. Anyhow...my biggest complaint about the show in the first two seasons (the good ones) was that we saw soldiers who's tactics were based on individual battle like the late Samurai, vs soldiers who used group tactics in battle like the Classic Era Spartans. Beyond that, the huns were allowed to use horses, while nobody else was. Finally, there was a generalization of a specific class of warrior to have existed in only one time-period. Why weren't the Samurai allowed to use guns or horses, why didn't the "Knight" get to use a Harrier jet (both knights and jets still exist in the U.K.

Being that I'm a a bit of a nerd about military history, I'd much rather see a comparison of tactics, weapons, and training in group warfare, and a look at individual arms and armor in individual combat.

So, let's assume that we've got a group of people all trained equally in every weapon, are identically physically fit, and are otherwise perfectly equal. If we have this group of people and pit them in one on one combat, what weapons and armor would emerge as the best?

Examble I think that the Romans are probably among the elite in group warfare, but the tower shield would not necessarily lend itself to one-on once combat.

[Liver Punch]

Ok, so, I'll add some parameters. No animals, vehicles, gunpowder, artillery, or bows can be used. Javelins and other hand-thrown weapons are legal, as is any armor made from a pre-industrial metal or natural material. All swords, knives, spears, shields, helmets, and other such things are legal for discussion. For argument sake, this fight takes place on a 2 acre, grass covered, even terrained, field. Each person can be armored as much or as little as possible, and carry any amount of weapons, just as long as it's feasible for them to do it themselves.

[Groinstrike]

Still hard to argue against a samurai or a spartan.

The Samurai not being able to use a horse and a bow takes away slightly.

The spartan one on one takes away the phalanx which was a major weapon in group warfare.

[Liver Punch]

I'm not sure that the Samurai has the weapons or the armor to contend with let's say, a full-plate armored medieval knight.

Perhaps a katana could pierce the armor, but it's sharpness and polish would take a huge blow, not to mention that the curve does not lend itself the best to stabbing, but rather slashing. Whether or not the Samurai armor provides adequate protection against a broadsword, or other European bladed weapon is perhaps up in the air. A mace, battle axe, morning star...any heavy weapon that smashes - how that would have an affect is a question that I can't answer.

In regards to a Spartan - again, against a full-plate armored Knight, we've got lots of questions. What is the quality of steel or bronze that the spartan weapons provide. This is specifically in regards to their hardness and flexibility, which would be required to penetrate armor. Also, assuming they have equal weapons, the night is more heavily armored. In a face-to-face "shootout", I think this allows him a longer survival rate.

I'm not sure that we've even got to (or should) give our combatants one set of arms and armor. Perhaps an odd combination like chain mail shits, greaves, a samurai helmet, javelin, kite shield, and Xiphos provide the best combination? (probably not that combination, but maybe someone's "loadout" could have been improved upon?)

[MasterPain]

Something to consider with the European knight is his support staff. Given an equal number of people involved in a battle, you'd have 100 samurai against 50 knights and 50 squires.

[Liver Punch]

I'd given that some thought MP, however, let's imagine he doesn't have a squire to deliver him new weaponry or tend to horses - he's still left with a shield, a weapon, and a whole lot of metal.

[MasterPain]

At 70 degrees feren.. farein... 70 American degrees, and on flat dry ground I give advantage to plate-armored knights.In mud and heat, advantage goes to lighter armor for mobility and endurance.

[Liver Punch]

Given that scenario, what happens between a chain mailed knight with a decent sized shield and a sword and a greek hoplite or samurai?

Heck, let's go a step further. If able to piece together armor and weapons ranging from 1500 BCE to 1500 CE - within the parameters listed in the opening post, what would you put together?

[Liver Punch]

I don't think anything tops:

Hoplite-style Helmet

Chain Mail Aventail

Front Covering Steel-Plate Cuirass

Steel Plate Spaulder

Flexible Riveted Steel Faulds

Steel Gauntlets

Steel Vambraces

Greaves

Greek Shield with Cutout

Pilum

Thrusting Spear

Single Handed "Fatherless Child" Sword (censors)

[MasterPain]

I don't think anything tops:

Hoplite-style Helmet

Chain Mail Aventail

Front Covering Steel-Plate Cuirass

Steel Plate Spaulder

Flexible Riveted Steel Faulds

Steel Gauntlets

Steel Vambraces

Greaves

Greek Shield with Cutout

Pilum

Thrusting Spear

Single Handed "Fatherless Child" Sword (censors)

I can't argue with the armor, but against a heavily armored foe, I'd want a halbard and spiked hammer.