|
Post by betahat on Apr 19, 2009 19:52:10 GMT -5
I stumbled across this show the other day. I really like the idea, although the execution is a little weird. The idea is that each week they pit two different deadly warriors from different cultures and eras against each other in combat. Most of the show is demonstrating the different weapons and fighting techniques using science and human anatomy to study the effects. They also do some computer simulation in the end using the data from the experiments to calculate who would win.
So far they have had: week 1: Apache versus Gladiator (Apache wins) week 2: Samurai versus Viking (Samurai wins)
Next week in Spartan versus Ninja.
So far the non-Europeans are 2 for 2, though I suspect the Spartan will defeat the ninja. Anyway, I find this show more entertaining than mixed martial arts, which is a little too homoerotic with all the grappling and ground moves.
Who do you think would win in those match-ups? Is the idea of the show stupid, since there are so many variables - skill level of the fighters, one on one versus multiple combatants, situations (i.e. distance at which the combatants begin, terrain)? Is it just an excuse for grown men to hack animals and dummies to pieces? Are non-Western fighting styles over-rated because of movies (historically, Europe probably saw more combat and warfare than most other parts of the world due to population density and fractured states and empires)?
|
|
|
Post by moralhazard on Apr 20, 2009 9:40:38 GMT -5
Good, the Apache won. At least in a simulated game he lost neither life or land.
Don't think that it's stupid. Just morbidly interesting.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Apr 20, 2009 15:26:48 GMT -5
Is this on one of Discovery networks? Sounds like the natural TV evolution of Animal Face-off--where science becomes another vulgar spectator of the Colosseum. Perhaps fencing deserves a rematch under strict scientific scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Apr 20, 2009 15:56:43 GMT -5
It's on "Spike" which is the "Men's network." And yes, it reminds of those type of shows (I think I've seen Animal Face-off before, where they have CGI simulations of animal fights). I remember one "Man versus Beast" which ran on Fox, and featured: " * Professional eater Takeru Kobayashi lost a hot dog eating contest against a Kodiak bear. * Scott Helvenston, a US Navy SEAL, won a race against a chimpanzee through an obstacle course. * A group of 44 dwarves lost a race against an Asian elephant to see which could pull a commercial jet a certain distance first. * Shawn Crawford, a world-class sprinter, won a 100 meters against a giraffe but lost against a zebra. * A Sumo wrestler lost a tug-of-war against a large, female orangutan.
Unfortunately the animal rights crowd shut down the show. My question is, if they shut this down, why is the Westminster dog show still running and why is horse-racing still broadcast? Is the exploitation there just not blatant enough to be offensive?
[Adding animals to the mix of this show could be pretty interesting. Maybe they'll do it for next season, though I doubt the Polar Bear stands much of a chance against a Green Beret, Yakuza, or Taliban]
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Apr 21, 2009 7:41:14 GMT -5
It's garbage in my opinion. Just for entertainment but not for research/simulation etc. Big man vs small man, skilled man vs inexperienced man, favourable terrain vs infavourable terrain, are better factors of simulation. A knife can be a lot more effective then a trident (1st episode) if used right, a spear can penetrate and impale a shield unlike an arrow (though yeah samurai didn't use shields) etc. There's an infinite amount of possibilities, which is almost impossible to simulate or even estimate with real life or death matches. Even so, it seems typically non-western martial arts are always given the favor in it. Doesn't smell like science at all. All martial arts globally have a distinct style but potential for deadliness is depended on the individual and situation, hands down. Only 'who would win' simulation thing I would believe in are sparring matches between swordsmen using different fighting styles. Best combination for a swordsman is sword/shield, two weapons/two-handed weapons/one-handed weapons just can't compare. Check it out if you want, you'll see the obvious advantage. Either then that, meh, it's just fun to watch the last bits of the episode with the battles. I reckon Mythbusters is way better
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Apr 21, 2009 14:36:09 GMT -5
^Big man vs small man, skilled man vs inexperienced man,
To be fair I think they do take those things into account, at least to some extent. Unfortunately they never reveal the algorithm for their simulation.
^There's an infinite amount of possibilities, which is almost impossible to simulate or even estimate with real life or death matches.
And yet we do simulate these all the time. Simulations tend to be more at the tactical or strategic level though - there doesn't seem to be any warfare or fight simulator (i.e. game) that tries to realistically depict one on one combat, even though there are numerous ones for other kinds of combat. They vary a lot in the degree of realism, but I think they are certainly doing their best. Given that militaries around the world use computer simulations, they probably have some use (even if theirs are all based on technology and tactics than individual swordplay).
^Doesn't smell like science at all.
I think the weapon demonstrations are pretty scientific and the most interesting part of the show. The simulations are obviously no more realistic than a computer game, and subject to a lot of subjective inputs (though no more than a "realistic" computer game). I think of the simulation part as a little bit like "Who is the greatest Starship Captain of all time, Kirk or Picard?" There is no right answer, but the debate about it is still fun.
^Best combination for a swordsman is sword/shield, two weapons/two-handed weapons/one-handed weapons just can't compare.
Is that based on personal experience, or military history? From the comments it looks like tactically, shield walls, mounted troops with lances (that can break shield walls) and pikemen formations (that could beat mounted troops) were the most dominant tactics, but it's not always clear how that translates into one on one combat. It looks like sword and shield is the way to go in general, except that swords are not too effective against armored opponents and it is possible to nullify a shield using a spear or javelin that you can lodge into a shield rendering it useless. It does kind of make you wonder why some enterprising Japanese samurai (or commoner) never introduced shields to their fighting and conquered the whole island. Maybe because mounted troops and archers were dominant tactically, even in Medieval Japan?
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Apr 21, 2009 14:36:41 GMT -5
Mythbusters is great too, who has never wondered whether there was really a trace of urine in Corona?
|
|
|
Post by ~MangO_O~ on Apr 21, 2009 14:54:22 GMT -5
Swordsman aren't necessarily best with sword/shield... If that was the case, I think every pre-gunpowder military would have exclusively developed that kind of soldier. But that isn't the case, you can't exclusively say a swordsman with a shield would be better than a two handed swordsman. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, sure on grand scale warfare, they will favor using a shield but that is to increase survivability of skilled fighters (so they can block their side when surrounded). But then again, you can say lances are better in clashes. Weapon selection is basically just a large scale rock paper scissors game. And this show seems to counter that by selecting different weapons of the warriors to extrapolate data.
|
|
|
Post by ChickenSoda on Apr 21, 2009 16:02:32 GMT -5
who has never wondered whether there was really a trace of urine in Corona? Just a trace? Could've fooled me.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Apr 21, 2009 23:08:34 GMT -5
Unfortunately the animal rights crowd shut down the show. My question is, if they shut this down, why is the Westminster dog show still running and why is horse-racing still broadcast? Is the exploitation there just not blatant enough to be offensive? The double standard is that only humans are allowed to perform/mutilate each other for money, sex, and drugs. But I'm sure a goose would rather take his chances on TV rather than be forced fed until his liver exploded--which is worse than any hot-dog eating contest. Warriors are more renowned for their willingness to die rather than their personal skill. Man for man, most accounts will tell you, they were no better than any other soldier. Take away that and we're just comparing specs on a PC. We can explain, but we really can't predict.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Apr 22, 2009 4:07:58 GMT -5
It just seems they take the weapons and a few individuals skilled in those weapons and try to simulate it. Hehehe... Soldier: General, the enemy has broken through our lines! They've overrun our flank, we will be surrounded in 15 minutes! General: Wh... WHat?! This didn't happen in the simulation!!! Heh its fun true, I do like the numerous weapons they come up with as well, and it's always nice to see a fight scene no matter whether it's realistic or not Not on a grand scale battle is the sword/shield combination universally superior. Of course, one's individual skill is still taken to account, but the advantage is always given to the one with sword/shield over two-weapons or two-handed weapons. Not only did I learn this from re-enactments and sparring duels between competent swordsmen, but I experienced it firsthand. When I was younger I loved martial arts, both unarmed and armed. I even forged my own two-handed sword at high-school metalworking classes - though the teacher said it obviously can't be sharp - nonetheless it was already as deadly as a sledgehammer hehe. I wielded it both one-handed and two-handed. However I learnt historians insist that two-handed swords are impracticable because it's supposedly slower. Pffft, now that's crap, I can swing it as fast and as powerfully as a one-handed sword, you just have to learn how to manage momentum and weight balance. I read books which taught me about the different styles of Hungarian, Germanic and Japanese two-handed sword-handling. So I was quite competent though not officially trained I must admit. When I was challenged for a friendly duel against someone who had his own sword/shield I readily accepted. Of course we borrowed one of my mates' kendo equipment for it. But we trusted each other not to do anything stupid while sparring, we were using weighted swords and a shield after all. During the duel I have to admit, sword/shield has the advantage, it's a lot more flexibility, more solid defense, and faster strikes. Not to mention how many times he smashed his shield into my headgear. The weight of my sword managed to push him off balance when I wielded it one-handed with the momentum but that's all it can do. It was just impossible to get through his shield. Oh well, I still love my own personally forged zweihander even though I got my ass kicked. Ne ways, this is just one duel, and blunt weapons, so who knows eh? The fencers/duelists I met in my time do believe also in sword/shield superiority however. Those guys got it made, seriously it's a completely original idea, and very successful because it also answers the questions everyday people wish to know The sword/shield superiority isn't based on tactical large scale battles. It will be foolish to field an army of these against a heavy cavalry force for example. The famous Swabian zweihander swordsmen were used against pikemen. I'm talking more one on one.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Apr 22, 2009 13:00:07 GMT -5
Well, the Spartan owned the Ninja yesterday, with most of the advantage coming from the shield. Not really a fair fight, since the Ninja is an assassin/stealth fighter and not a straight ahead warrior. I think you're right about the simulations though. It looks like they mostly input weapons damage to various human organs and tissues, although I think they do adjust for the size of the fighter (in the sense that they get modern Japanese to test the samurai/ninja weapons who tend to be smaller than the Scandinavians or Westerners who are Spartans or Gladiators or Vikings). There is no way to adjust for skill or tactics though. Like it or not, people do use battle simulators all the time. The whole point is that they are "simulations" - they allow you to play out thousands of different scenarios, to try different tactics for both sides, etc. I agree that this is probably more useful for modern warfare than ancient warfare, as technology and numbers matter way more than individual skill these days. [It's also better for simulating actual battles than post-invasion outcomes, as the Iraq war and occupation have shown] www.peostri.army.mil/PRODUCTS/CBS/Next week it's Pirate vs. Knight which will be ridiculous. They should have the knight go up against another mounted warrior - maybe a Mongol Horse Archer?
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Apr 22, 2009 14:54:39 GMT -5
Pretty much, Ninja would own the Spartan on assassination duties obviously however. Shields are nasty.
Heh they don't, they focus entirely on specific skills and weapon proficiencies. Heh to be honest if you see a 5'3 man even with a sword, you won't be very intimidated. Were the Japanese really that small? Having travelled to Japan recently I really doubt it. In all martial arts one critical factor is a steady stance - so a bigger man will always have an advantage from height and weight over a smaller man.
Well battle-simulators do tend to be more accurate then what this show tries to simulate - one on one battles between distinct cultures.
On the steppes, the horse archer rules supreme. So there's the obvious terrain factor which is impossible to use in a show such as this. However Mongol light cavalrymen have no chance against a heavily armored warrior in close combat. Example in the battle of Mohi, large numbers of light cavalrymen were cut down by a disciplined and desperate group of heavily armored knights who stood while others fled (and was ridden down). Wasn't until the heavy dudes were called in that the knights were killed.
Heavy cavalrymen during Ogedei Khan's invasion of Europe won at Liegnitz against German Teutonic Knights but these were armored/armed specifically to engage armored enemies such as knights themselves. Weapon of choice is the eight-headed mace, unlike the standard sabres used by 60% of the army which consisted on horse archers.
|
|
|
Post by ~MangO_O~ on Apr 23, 2009 8:55:00 GMT -5
Oh man the Ninja vs Spartan episode aired yesterday, results are kinda stupid. Black egg was way under estimated.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Apr 23, 2009 12:36:49 GMT -5
What I don't understand is why the Ninja didn't put poison in everything, including the black egg. Exploding shards of glass laced with blowfish poison? That would be the ultimate pre-gunpowder weapon, a medieval chemical weapon if you will.
A shield is great against most weapons, but against something with a blast radius (that you can throw at the feet of a Spartan or other relatively exposed area) that only needs to graze the skin, it's not as useful.
|
|