I voted Viking simply because they are the epitome of manly warriors. Would they win? I don't know, and I don't care. Vikings are simply more awesome.
EDIT: I thought I'd post Noah Antwilers' opinion of the show Deadliest Warrior (The whole uncensored thing can be found here.)
But anyway, they go ****-deep into the ludicrous concept, bringing in "experts" in the respective weapons and fighting ****, and letting them argue about whose **** is bigger. In this case, they brought a Native American knife specialist who trains U.S. special forces and some chunkhead who apparently knows a lot about gladiatorial fighting. The whole thing is overseen by a scientist who provides them with ample analogues for the human body to stab and brutalize, lots of skeletal remains encased in ballistics gelatin, lots of martial arts practice dummies. But despite all of these experts, none of them seem able to point out that, geographical impossibilities notwithstanding, Roman gladiators were first and foremost showmen who rarely fought to the death. Their weapons were made primarily for wounding and effect, their armor specifically fashioned for dramatic effect, most of the time with the chest and arms exposed to showcase bloody injuries. Only criminals were usually left to die in the arena.
But whatever. The bulk of the show is showcasing the various common weapons and doing some **** evaluation of which ones are "better," depending on range, utility, and overall deadliness. What it all boils down to is, some big guy picks up the sword, hits a side of beef, and the doctor looks over the damage, scratches his chin and says "Yup, that could kill you!" Well no **** Doc. It's a good thing you're here, to tell me that a bow and arrow could kill you.
The scientist also has a simulator. Ostensibly, he's collecting a ton of data that he feeds into his computer (full of SCIENCE) that will eventually tell us who was more badass. Never mind that both sides had completely different fighting ****- the Apache with stealth, ambush, hit-and-run tactics, and gladiators in A **** ARENA. We couldn't have just pitted the Apaches against Roman legions?
I think the funniest part was how dismissive the gladiator side was of the Apache guys. They were totally in love with the gladiator's sica, trident and net, and scissor weapons, and were wholly unimpressed with the Apache's comparatively smaller weapons like the knife, war club, and tomahawk. Never mind that the special forces guy they brought in could kill you about twelve times in three seconds with that knife alone, especially with you wearing a gladiator's helmet that obscures all but 40% of your vision and no armor over your chest or legs. The weapon they brought in to counter the tomahawk was the cestus (a spiked gauntlet), even going so far as to bring Chuck Liddell in to demonstrate how hard he could punch with it. That's neat. You go ahead and punch the guy while he shanks you in the heart with one hand and splits your crown with a tomahawk in the other hand.
Even the Apache guy says "I don't know why we're talking about a fair fight, because the Apache never fought fair."
The best part is actually the ending where they stage a surprisingly well-choreographed battle between the two actors dressed in warrior garb- in this case, an Apache and a gladiator wandering around the American forests. It's ridiculous, of course, but it's still a good fight. It's just too bad that this show isn't educational. In fact, most of the time it's downright WRONG. Early in the show, the supposed gladiator expert gets on the camera and says "the gladiator lived for only one thing: to kill!" Most of the time, I think the gladiator lived either to make money or to win his own freedom. We learn the names of the weapons and armor, but not their significance or utility. Instead of being focused on choosing a winner, perhaps it would be more interesting to simply tell us what scenarios favor each side, and what weapons each side would choose.
Log in to comment