Deadliest Warrior

This is a Spike TV show. Its inspiration comes from drunk arguments or smoke pontifications. What would happen if two different types of historical warriors who never came into contact actually get into a fight? It's a fun idea. The audience is introduce to a minimal history lesson, a few weapons from each fighter, and a faux simulation of the fight. The history lesson is only interesting for the less-known fighters. The weapons testing is the most interesting section. There are a few really obscure weapons. I've never seen the Chinese repeating crossbow. The Rajput weapons are weird. They also get to blow up stuff, slice and dice, and play with guns. The last section is the simulation section. It's the section that one could skip over. It's LARPing.

The third season tries to personalize the warriors by pinpointing historical leaders. It gives some unnecessary personal data and battle strategy. If you're comparing Joan of Arc with William the Conqueror, the personal size difference is of little interest to me. The battle strategy is intriguing in theory but this show is unable to do an in-depth dive into that subject matter. The show is grasping at straws by this point and Vampires vs. Zombies is the definition of jumping the shark. It's a fun little show while it lasted.

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.

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.

This is a pretty entertaining show but a lot of the time it is pretty corny and the results don't add up in slightest. They make silling jokes on it ridiculous match ups and completely unfair testing. Even with all that though it still makes a decent watch if you are a fan of weapons. They test a wide variety of weapons and test their effectivness.

The only good part in the show pretty much is the testing even with how unfair and inaccurate the tests are. and some of the outcomes make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And some of the matches just make no sense at all. They are completely unfair and yet sometimes is ridiculous a oh lets say makes a 17 year old girl beat a 35 year old warrior

When I first saw the preview to this show a while back, I thought to myself, "I blame the whole PIRATE VS NINJA Internet Meme" for creating this bizarre show.

So, I watched the pilot, which was "Apache vs. Gladiator" and overall, I am biting my cheek right now because I recall watching something similar to this on Discovery Channel a few years back called "Animal Face Off" where "battle data" is taken from the contenders and put in a computer simulation. I actually, have an episode of that show titled "Hippo vs. Bull Shark" and the result of that fight still annoys me, but still I can't stop laughing about it. Another show, that similar that show is currently airing is "Jurassic Fight Club."

Anyway, "Deadliest Warrior" has a similar to motif to "Animal Face Off" and "Jurassic Fight Club", but instead of wild animals or dinosaurs, this show uses types of warriors.

I'm not sure if I should classify this as something in the realm of shows like "Human Weapon", "Fight Quest", "Weapon Masters", "Deadliest Art", "XMA: Extreme Martial Arts" or "Fight Science."

Overall, this show is pretty decent for all the corniness the show offers. It will irritate you, but at the same time make you laugh; thus pulling you as the viewer to watch the show for what its worth despite knowing how stupid it will eventually become as time goes on. But you just can't help yourself.

Man, I can just see something like "Deadliest Monster Face Off" in the future and it will feature stuff like "Mummy vs. Zombie vs. Werewolf vs. Vampire" or something bizarre like that.