Deadliest Warrior Mongol vs Comanche *Spoilers*

[bfdd]

Anyone see this yet? WTF!?!?!?! They are totally getting an email from me over this episode.

 

[AndroidVageta]

Some of the episodes are whack...I think they base too many of their "fights" over the weapons and not the mentality and actual hand to hand fighting skills of most if not all the fighters. Ive seen one where it was like a ninja vs. a native American or some shit...in either case it was one of those where the ninja could have basically killed the other guy using his hands in 2 seconds but the other guy won cause of some specific weapon or some shit...

Hey, as long as Spartans keep winning...its all good.

 

[bfdd]

Eh most of the time I don't have a big problem with it, but this one sent me over the edge.

 

[AndroidVageta]

What was it that sent you over the edge if I may ask?

 

[bfdd]

How the hell did the Comanche win? Just how? I don't understand it at all. The only thing I can come up with is they drastically underestimated the fighting capabilities of the Mongols.

 

[AndroidVageta]

Exactly. Read my first post lol...they base it on weapons alone and nothing about skills/mentality of the fighters.

 

[Newbian]

I watched one episode where they fought a pirate against a knight and said the pirate won because he had a gun... and that was the only episode I watched.

 

[guyver01]

So it's the producers fault that the "experts" in the specific fighting style don't know how to accurately portray their supported character?

 

[bfdd]

So it's the producers fault that the "experts" in the specific fighting style don't know how to accurately portray their supported character?

Even with the way they were portrayed it makes no sense how the Comanche won.

 

[OCGuy]

Let me get this straight.

There is a show that is staging a theoretical fight between two different warriors from two different time periods, which anyone who is living has never witnessed fight before....

And people are mad about inaccuracies?

 

[bfdd]

Let me get this straight.

There is a show that is staging a theoretical fight between two different warriors from two different time periods, which anyone who is living has never witnessed fight before....

And people are mad about inaccuracies?

Yes.

 

[OCGuy]

Yes.

OK cool, just checking.

 

[bfdd]

OK cool, just checking.

It's actually a pretty cool show and most the time I don't put much weight into the final outcome, but damn for some reason this one pisses me off. GODDAMN MOGORIANS!

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLRNNnkkldw

 

[foghorn67]

Exactly. Read my first post lol...they base it on weapons alone and nothing about skills/mentality of the fighters.

To sum it up. Laughable. Mongol warriors destroyed everything in site.

Mongols:
-Can travel with their ponies alone for days. They drank blood from the horses by pricking the thighs, and drank the milk from the mares. This was a huge strategic advantage because they could move armies fast, well ahead of supply lines. And this is if they ran out of mutton that was kept below the saddle.
-They had the earlier/better version of the pony express. They could cover hundreds of miles a day.
-Their ponies could charge into infantry. Mongols could guide their horses with their legs, freeing their arms for their bow.
-Shooting from a bow, from a moving horse, was taught a very young age. We are talking kindergarten age. And they were awesomely accurate.
-They weren't sissies with the swords.
-Mongols adopted Chin armor, lances and later, siege weapons.

I couldn't think of a more bad ass warrior.

 

[OCGuy]

Anyone who hasnt seen "Mongol" should rent it.

 

[foghorn67]

Anyone who hasnt seen "Mongol" should rent it.

I saw it, and thought it was meh.
Read Conn Iggulden's books on Genghis. Much better.

 

[Newbian]

To sum it up. Laughable. Mongol warriors destroyed everything in site.

Mongols:
-Can travel with their ponies alone for days. They drank blood from the horses by pricking the thighs, and drank the milk from the mares. This was a huge strategic advantage because they could move armies fast, well ahead of supply lines. And this is if they ran out of mutton that was kept below the saddle.
-They had the earlier/better version of the pony express. They could cover hundreds of miles a day.
-Their ponies could charge into infantry. Mongols could guide their horses with their legs, freeing their arms for their bow.
-Shooting from a bow, from a moving horse, was taught a very young age. We are talking kindergarten age. And they were awesomely accurate.
-They weren't sissies with the swords.
-Mongols adopted Chin armor, lances and later, siege weapons.

I couldn't think of a more bad ass warrior.

Now if only they could get past their greatest weakness... a giant wall.

 

[lxskllr]

I think it was accurate when viewed as a 1v1, but the mongols make up the small weapon shortcomings with numbers. They could just wear the Comanches out on the battlefield.

 

[bfdd]

I think it was accurate when viewed as a 1v1, but the mongols make up the small weapon shortcomings with numbers. They could just wear the Comanches out on the battlefield.

I completely disagree, there is no possible way in hand to hand combat with what they showed of Comanche weapons that they could of beaten the Mongols.

 

[lxskllr]

I completely disagree, there is no possible way in hand to hand combat with what they showed of Comanche weapons that they could of beaten the Mongols.

The mongol weapons were too heavy. Precision, and the ability to move quickly's better than pure striking force.

 

[bfdd]

The mongol weapons were too heavy. Precision, and the ability to move quickly's better than pure striking force.

They had no speed problems with the sword or the mace and they were FAR FAR FAR more devastating than the Comanche weapons. I'm sorry, but if that mace is swung and it hits you in the arm you're going down, if it his you in the leg you're going down. If the sword touches you you're getting sliced. There is absolutely no reason the Comanche should of won and the fact that they just had some shitty guy represent the Mongols as horseback archers is lame. The Comanche are/were infants when it came to horseback riding compared to the Mongols.

 

[Phoenix86]

To sum it up. Laughable. Mongol warriors destroyed everything in site.

Mongols:
-Can travel with their ponies alone for days. They drank blood from the horses by pricking the thighs, and drank the milk from the mares. This was a huge strategic advantage because they could move armies fast, well ahead of supply lines. And this is if they ran out of mutton that was kept below the saddle.
-They had the earlier/better version of the pony express. They could cover hundreds of miles a day.
-Their ponies could charge into infantry. Mongols could guide their horses with their legs, freeing their arms for their bow.
-Shooting from a bow, from a moving horse, was taught a very young age. We are talking kindergarten age. And they were awesomely accurate.
-They weren't sissies with the swords.
-Mongols adopted Chin armor, lances and later, siege weapons.

I couldn't think of a more bad ass warrior.

Bolded everything a Comanche could do as well; techniques are different, sword for tomahawk for example. Armor vs. armorless is always a debate of defense vs. mobility. Comanche is exceptional skilled in mobile assaults vs exceptional defenses. Someone else mentioned mentality, are we really saying the Comanche weren't fierce fighters?!

The big thing I think people are missing is the scenario is a battle, not a war, so siege weapons are kinda moot.

Personally, I think the mongols would have won anyways.

 

[BassBomb]

cant stand show

 

[TuxDave]

The mongol weapons were too heavy. Precision, and the ability to move quickly's better than pure striking force.

That didn't save Shaka Zulu against William Wallace!