The Spoony Experiment

Deadliest Warrior

by Spoony on April 9, 2009 · View Comments

Oh man, this show is hilarious.

I never intended to watch this show, but my brother was recording The Ultimate Fighter, and I was working on SWAT videos, too busy to change the channel. So Deadliest Warrior comes on, and immediately I’m captivated, because the whole thing is narrated by David Wenham, the same guy who played the Storyteller Dilios in the movie 300. That right there is worth the price of admission, because he’s basically narrating the show in the EXACT SAME way, right down to the melodramatic, throaty tone of voice, dripping with foreboding and menace as he describes everything in grandiose prose, like “the stealthy Apache, fearless and swift.” It takes everything you’ve got not to do your own running commentary in the same voice: “And we brave few Spartans stood vigil at the gates of Hell! We 300 pitted against legions of brutal Apache warriors! And lo, did King Leonidas, King of Sparta, stand fearless, spear and shield in hand.”

Hey, if I were David Wenham I’d just call people up and do that. “We Spartans desire a pizza, rich in sauce and deep of crust. Showered in decadent sausage and mushrooms. Their honor rode upon a simple pledge, much revered in Sparta: pizza within 30 minutes, else be cast out as a filthy, lowly wretch…”

Anyway, the whole show is based in some bizarre Chris Sims-ian premise that basically sounds like the brainchild of two stoners after a rousing session of SoulCaliber. “What if, like, a gladiator fought an Apache?”

And that’s the entire show. Seriously. It’s one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever heard, sort of like the Anachronism collectible card game brought to life.

But anyway, they go balls-deep into the ludicrous concept, bringing in “experts” in the respective weapons and fighting styles, and letting them argue about whose cock 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 bullshit 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 shit, 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 styles– the Apache with stealth, ambush, hit-and-run tactics, and gladiators in A FUCKING 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.

I’m just waiting for the inevitable Pirate Vs. Ninja episode.

  • Share/Bookmark
  • Starhawk64
    Yeah, this show is kinda dumb, but I find it highly entertaining and the 300 guy is what really gives it charm.
  • xatm092
    This show sounds hilarious. They assume a fair fight, which is highly unlikely to be the case in a lot of of the conflicts I've heard they've done.

    Anyway, I love your reviews spoony, keep it up.
  • Sebastian
    I saw a "fiht" between a spartan and a ninja... It was all bullshit. The spartan won... I don't really know how, becuase spartans were trained to fight in a phalahanx, not one to one battles, which the "ninjas" (well, ninja is kind of a strange word, ninjas were usually samurais who were going to assasinate somebody, and no, they didn't allways dress in black. Much better to dress as the enemy...) trained at. Besides the ninja use at steel katana or perhaps a shorter sword, still steel anyway, wich should give him a huge advantage. So, the ninja should win, but fuck no, cause THIS IS SPARTA! In a big battle the spartans would have kicked ass, but not in a duel.

    I remember Spetsnaz vs Green Berets also. Wtf? Spetsnaz is NOTHING. ISpetsnaz means "troops with special porpuse", so every soldier that do anything special is spetsnaz (yes, this is how russia use the term). It was probably the GRU spetsnaz in the show, but they shouldn'tbe compered with the green berets, rather Delta Force, DEVGRU or SAS, much better.

    Fuck this
  • Wow, way to Not Get It.
  • rosu9801
    Logically the most recent warrior/weapon should be better then the previous.
    So comparing a gladiator with an apache or a viking vs a samurai the more recent warrior should have a big advantage and win more often.
    Just compare a US marine vs a soldier from the WW2 and they are just 50 years apart not 500+ as in the other cases.
    Would be interesting to see how they would do if they fought a 1000 battles each if they could use their own tactic and strategy.
  • jason
    Well too bad it isn't pirates vs ninja, but it's pirates vs Knight and Spartans vs Ninja
  • Altorin
    the discussion about roman soldier vs apache is the whole reason this show exists... Yes, the facts are a little off, but it boils down to (quite literally in the case of the samurai, viking, and apache) "My great great great great great granddad can kill your great great great great granddad" :P

    It taps into the little kid competition that plays out on schoolgrounds all over the world, and have since kids first started banging rocks together.
  • rocketman
    Ah Quik Quik--exactly where did you get your degree in archaeology? Want to match it against mine? As a matter of fact--singly or en mass the Roman soldier was the premier fighter in the world at the time. He had the best technology available in terms of weapons and armour and was trainied in it. Read your history--the scutae and the gladius is a knife fighters worst fear. In addition the Roman army was about the only force in the world that could advance into the teeth of bow fire suffering little to no casualties. Only the mounted parthian archers ever gave them a problem and only when some dickhead like Crassus walked them one hundred miles into the desert without water.

    Yes they lost---but usually when they were outnumbered--utterly surprised or lead by an inept leader--( Battle of theTeutoborgwald).

    A one on one versus an apache is arrow of of scutum. Tomahawk off of helmet. Gladius in the stomach.
  • Billy Blinks
    Well actually there's going to be a SPARTAN VS NINJA episode, so...
  • HeirofSparda
    I'm curious to know what you think of later episodes. I just watched the second episode and certain segments had me screaming at the TV from the "facts" they gave and how poorly done this episode's fight was.
  • While I was watching the second episode, I posted to Twitter my on going thoughts. Before long Max Geiger started following me on Twitter. Does that name sound familiar? It's the show's computer geek. Later on, I realized that he quit following me, having posted a reply to my criticism of the show's "program".

    If you want to see, check out my Twitter: http://twitter.com/VaughnOnMovies
  • BioSaber
    this show is awesome. i always love to see old fashion weapon into action. i just want to see a Spartan in battle.


    THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!!!!!
  • tommy
    I watched this shit thought. Is it stupid? Kinda, yeah. Is it entertaining? Yeah, I enjoyed it.
  • mightysamurai
    "Hey, mightysamurai, there are a few problems with your statements. First of all, Romans in general were not the most powerful or tactically ingenious of armies."

    Perhaps not by modern standards, but you can't discount the fact that even with their deficiencies in strength or tactical sense, they still conquered the entire Mediterranean and almost all of Europe and kept control over it for many, many years.

    Besides, the Apache weren't necessarily the most skilled individual melee warriors either.

    "One on one, a Legionnaire against an Apache warrior would be a quick and bloody affair against the Roman. The Roman would be walking along in his bright red uniform, and then the Apache would sneak up and stab him in his lungs, repeatedly, and then take the top of his head off."

    Sure, in a one-on-one battle the Apache would have a huge advantage. The Legionnaires were trained to fight as part of a group and not generally skilled at individual combat. But the original question was about Roman Legions, plural, vs. Apaches, plural. In that situation the more organized Legionnaires would have the advantage (although the Apaches certainly wouldn't be pushovers). That, in a sense, is illustrative of why these "who would win in a fight?" debates are pretty pointless. You can't take two different fighters who trained in two completely different combat styles designed for completely different environments with completely different intents and expect to figure out which one was the "better" fighter. In one set of circumstances one fighter might have an advantage, but in another set of circumstances the opposite might be true.

    I would suggest that the point of the Vietnam war was not to win battles, but to so heavily demoralize the US that they would pull out. This was in fact their actual strategy.

    Sure, but this was a discussion of tactics, not strategy. It's all about "who would win in a fight?" not "who would win a long and drawn out war?". The latter question is far more complex.

    By that standard, all other things being equal, a disciplined and organized army almost always has the advantage and history bears this out. Sometimes disorganized resistance movements have been successful in driving out an enemy over time, but an examination of individual battles generally shows that organization and discipline beats disorganization and disorder. Not to say that the outcome is always certain, but statistics and history are on the side of the organized army over the disorganized one.
  • mixmastermind
    Hey, mightysamurai, there are a few problems with your statements. First of all, Romans in general were not the most powerful or tactically ingenious of armies. The average Roman victory involved wearing their enemies down and demoralizing them. They were, however, exceedingly good at winning wars, due to the Romans' amazing ability to never even suspect that they could actually lose; it was simply a matter of throwing in more people.

    One on one, a Legionnaire against an Apache warrior would be a quick and bloody affair against the Roman. The Roman would be walking along in his bright red uniform, and then the Apache would sneak up and stab him in his lungs, repeatedly, and then take the top of his head off.

    I would suggest that the point of the Vietnam war was not to win battles, but to so heavily demoralize the US that they would pull out. This was in fact their actual strategy. It has been stated by the Vietnamese. I would suggest that while there was no chance of them winning in a straight-up fight, the Vietnamese had been so used to dying that it was mostly a force of habit. They'd been resisting violent foreign powers since the '40s, and after over 20 years they eventually just didn't care about the casualties. The US did, and the Viet Minh were counting on that.

    There's also a long history of a technologically and numerically advanced nation getting stomped by their "weaker" foe. The Albanian resistance against the Ottoman empire, everything involving the knights hospitallier, the De Boers resistance to the British, Ethiopian resistance to Italy, the Majority of the Anglo-Zulu wars, the three Anglo-Afghan wars, and Boudica's resistance to the Romans are all good examples.


    Sorry for that, History nut talking.
  • Quikquik
    I can only imagine what the second season of Deadliest Warrior will be like. By then, the producers will probably have episodes like these:
    Cro-Magnon warrior vs. U.S. Marine circa 2009
    Civilian hunter from Canada circa 1993 vs. Swedish Moose Cavalier
    Accountant circa 1999 vs. Samurai circa 1561
  • Cochise Rhone
    Hey man, great work. I love what you do with the whole pop culture thing you got going. Maybe you should read Chuck Klosterman if you have not already, he's good with breaking down American entertainment too.

    I teach English in Korea and this form of commentary just ain't popping here. I loved FF8, but your reviews have not changed my mind but they made me realize how wrong I was to praise it as highly as I did. I did think FF9 was hot trash and ass on a cold winter's night. Please do that one when you have time. Keep up the good work.
  • mightysamurai
    (apologies if this double-posts)

    "We couldn’t have just pitted the Apaches against Roman legions?"

    You could, but it'd probably be a pretty quick and disappointing slaughter in favor of the Roman Legions. Historically speaking, highly organized armies tend to beat the snot out of disorganized brawlers or guerilla fighters. There are exceptions of course, but those exceptions usually end up proving the rule in the end.

    For instance, people often cite the American militiamen in the Revolutionary War as an example of disorganized guerillas beating an organized army. Well not only is this simply wrong (the Continental Army was just as if not more responsible for America's victory over the British in the Revolution) the American militia didn't always win the fights they got into. Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, the Redcoats were not helpless against the superior tactics of the Militia and the Militia did not run rings around the British.

    Another example people cite is the North Vietnamese Army during the Vietnam War. But again, Hollywood deceives. While American casualties were extraordinarily high during Vietnam, the North Vietnamese had almost no significant victories under their belt. The reason America "lost" the Vietnam War was not because our military was beaten but because the American people had simply gotten sick of it. It was too long, too expensive, and too costly in American lives. But in every major battle, the US military beat the ever-livin' snot out of the North Vietnamese each time. Had we continued the war we could conceivably have won it, but not without incredible cost.
  • mightysamurai
    "What amazes me is what the next show will be. Does no one else see the stupidity of the katana versus a bastard (hand and a half) sword. I just hope that they find some awesome zen kendo/iaido master to silently sit and watch as the viking gets drunk and stumbles around in the pre-battle fight."

    *ahem* The Vikings didn't use bastard swords. Viking swords went out of style in the 11th century and the bastard sword didn't come around till the 15th century. Also, the preferred weapon of most Vikings was the battle-axe or the spear, not the sword.
  • mightysamurai
    This excellent essay "The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai?" (http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm) illustrates pretty well why it's essentially impossible to say with any certainty which ancient fighter/fighting style was the "best".
  • Mike
    Im a fan of the show but i wish that they had more evenly matched people like if they made the gladiator fight the viking two guys with somewhat similar fighting styles if a gladiator went into a forest the apache would kill them before they knew what the hell was going on they really should take into account the geographical settings these warriors had before they make these matches
  • Andrew
    What amazes me is what the next show will be. Does no one else see the stupidity of the katana versus a bastard (hand and a half) sword. I just hope that they find some awesome zen kendo/iaido master to silently sit and watch as the viking gets drunk and stumbles around in the pre-battle fight.
  • Matthew
    I wish they had real gladiatorial experts in the show, and I wish the experts weren't so cocksure, I couldn't stand any of the experts on either side when they were talking to/about one another.. About the gladiator helmet.. That helmet was specifically designed to have its range of vision lowered, and not all gladiators used it (heck, a small fraction of them did), and when they did, it was equally balanced by having superior weaponry to the opponent, or some other handicap. Gladiator fights were also not always fights to the death.. They managed to hint at it, but in gladiatorial combat, if you killed your opponent when the emperor didn't ask you to by showing a downwards thumb, then you were killed, so it wasn't "Kill or be killed".. it's "Kill if the emperor wills it or be killed". Very few of the combats were to the death, because, like they said, it takes a lot of effort to train an entertaining gladiator, and if the emperor's favored lost a bout, he didn't want to see them unable to exact revenge at a later date.

    For that matter, many gladiators weren't even identified by name - like they also hinted at but never explained, gladiators were largely known by the weapons they used. Each weapon had cultural significance, and were mostly used to symbolize or reenact some famous battle or mythological fight. Yes, most gladiators were slaves and criminals, but they were a part of their society, and idolized those battles, and could experienced reflected glory unlike anyone other then the emperor himself, so it wasn't entirely a despicable environment.. If you played a long, there was a good chance you'd live to see another day unless the crowd and the emperor wanted your blood.. The real losers were the weakest of slaves and criminals, who were set upon by wild animals - also re-enacting mythological or famous battles.

    Gladiatorial combat was a show. It was bloody, and dangerous, and a little brutal, but it was similar to professional wrestling. If you think that professional wrestling is all hugging and soft slapping, then you don't know and might think it's a specious comparison. It's really not. The boasting, the violence, the rivalries.. professional wrestling mimics a lot of gladiatorial combat. Anyone who buys in to the gladiatorial boasting and chest thumping is just as misinformed as those who buy into professional wrestling.

    Oh, and did the Gladiator's use the Sling? The scenario showed a "gladiator" using a sling against some roman soldiers, but was that really a gladiatorial weapon? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.. Ranged combat of that type kind of flies entirely in the face of the showmanship of gladiators.. I think they threw it in there to give the bow SOMETHING to compete against.. it only got 1 kill in the data.. so it was a pretty silly weapon to even include.
  • It's on TV right now. Gotta love how that asshat's job descriptions is that he's a gladiator fighting consultant for Hollywood. Exactly what makes one an expert? As for the Apache, that guy was a badass straight up. I wonder what his credentials are? Hmmm, how about ACTUALLY BEING AN APACHE! I can see them having trouble finding better "experts" in later shows. They might be able to round up some Shaolin monks, but good luck finding a real life pirate or caveman.
  • It's silly, but quasi-educational show ideas are few. There isn't a sound scientific way to test any of this. The best that can be done is say, "yep, this guys weapon hurts more."
  • BlackHeart
    You got your matchups confused. The pirate will be facing off against a medieval knight and the ninja will be fighting a spartan.
  • Greymarch
    Next one is Vikings vs Samurai!
  • How about Batman versus A Guy With a Toboggan!
    "The toboggan can achieve speeds exceeding 30 miles an hour, but the batarang is capable of slicing through sheer wood."
  • DUDE. MAN. This show was RETARDED.
    GO APACHES!
    HOORAY!
  • Too bad it wasn't a Gladiator versus an Apache attack helicopter, now that'd be a cool fight... though admittedly short and one sided.
blog comments powered by Disqus