• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Deadliest Warrior Mongol vs Comanche *Spoilers*

B

bfdd

Lifer
Anyone see this yet? WTF!?!?!?! They are totally getting an email from me over this episode.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
So it's the producers fault that the "experts" in the specific fighting style don't know how to accurately portray their supported character?
 
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?
 
OCGuy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
AndroidVageta said:
Exactly. Read my first post lol...they base it on weapons alone and nothing about skills/mentality of the fighters.
Click to expand...

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.
 
foghorn67 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now if only they could get past their greatest weakness... a giant wall. 😛
 
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.
 
lxskllr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bfdd said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
foghorn67 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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. 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top