In S1E7, Maori Warrior vs Shaolin Monk, the whip-chain makes me wonder.
There are no sharp edges. A leather whip does maximum damage, from what I understand, when it rips back at the apex. If a strongly muscled Maori warrior steps into the sweep before the Chinese monk is ready, what would happen?
In every episode, I keep wondering how accurate this is. Napoleon vs Washington is a good example. In the beginning, they praise Napoleon's unsurpassed skill with artillery, and talk about how Washington's cannon were gimcrackery crap forged from scrap metal, and his supply lines were absolute shit. But guess who won, in this American produced show?
Washington was a winner. Napoleon was not. ;)
Shaolin warriors require heavy sound effects to be their deadliest.
That show is pretty uniformly shit.
The concept is okish, watching various weapons deal damage to analogues is always good fun from a scientific viewpoint, but the execution in the end is just terrible. It's like watching the equivalent of internet fanboys talk smack on a forum.
It's probably not *quite* as bad as Animal Face Off where they build mechanical analogues of the animal weapons, bust shit up in them (watermelons, TVs), and then go to a crappy animation of the battle. Make the analogues fight, dammit!
For the record, the Maoris were never conquered...
My main issue is just where do they get the numbers for the "value" they assign a weapon?
I recall an episode where they were testing the various submachine guns between the CIA and the KGB. They just had a bunch of dummys set up and had the guys jump out of the van and shoot. All they were really testing was how accurate the user was and it had nothing to do with the weapon itself.
Way too much of the human element involved, and way too much pandering to the "commando" kids that Call of Duty has created.
That's a good point. They should probably test the weapons with a *robot* arm against ballistics gel or something to keep the empirical data valid, instead of using an "expert" to swing a mace or something.
Or something.
Let's face it, Ghengis Kahn wins. It's not even a competition. Would have been a short series though I suspect.
Quote from: juansolo on May 15, 2014, 03:29:41 PM
Let's face it, Ghengis Kahn wins. It's not even a competition. Would have been a short series though I suspect.
Agreed 100%. Can't really argue with 'largest contiguous empire in history'.
He wasn't western though so British + US TV shows put him down the pecking order of histories general badasses/tyrants ;)
The science is on the order of the science in mythbusters. I always feel like there are too many unaccounted for variables, and anything they (mythbusters) do in relation to firearms/ballistics is just woeful.
I always keep in mind that these kinds of shows are entertainment, first and foremost. I'm a sucker for workplace-type reality shows: deadliest catch, ax men etc. but I'm always aware of the creative editing, scripting, staged scenarios. It's still fun to watch though! I most recently got pulled into duck dynasty. I can't even believe I watch it, it's so 100% scripted. Still, Si and Jase make me laugh.
They should just use the old dungeons and dragons die roll system.
It is a better concept than show. Haven't watched in a long time.
For any of those who don't already know about this site: http://www.badassoftheweek.com/ It's far more entertaining to me than any thing tv has had to offer on history. It's a bunch of profiles of historical figures written pretty hilariously.
Oh, I do like Comedy Central's drunken history series too.