Comments on: Deadliest Warrior

By: Starhawk64

Starhawk64 — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:29:07 +0000

Yeah, this show is kinda dumb, but I find it highly entertaining and the 300 guy is what really gives it charm.

By: xatm092

xatm092 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:49:05 +0000

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.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:27:10 +0000

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

By: The Poker Jerk

The Poker Jerk — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:36:22 +0000

Wow, way to Not Get It.

By: rosu9801

rosu9801 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:54:26 +0000

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.

By: jason

jason — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:00:45 +0000

Well too bad it isn’t pirates vs ninja, but it’s pirates vs Knight and Spartans vs Ninja

By: Altorin

Altorin — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:14:39 +0000

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.

By: rocketman

rocketman — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:04:10 +0000

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.

By: Squall Sucks

Squall Sucks — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:18:25 +0000

By: Billy Blinks

Billy Blinks — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:16:48 +0000

Well actually there’s going to be a SPARTAN VS NINJA episode, so…