Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Deadliest Warrior - Ming Warrior


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Swampthing500

Swampthing500

    County Magistrate (Xianling 县令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 9 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Byzantine history

Posted 07 July 2010 - 10:42 PM

So, inspired by the Sun Tzu weapon thread, what did you think of Musketeer vs Ming warrior?

I long ago abandoned any thought of accuracy when it came to the match-ups, especially since the Musketeers were an elite and the Ming Warrior was part of an larger force, and was meant to have fought as a group.

The weapon demonstrations are very interesting, though.

#2 ghostexorcist

ghostexorcist

    Ape Immortal (Yuanxian 猿仙)

  • Super Moderator
  • 1,600 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:America
  • Interests:Asian and Judeo-Islamic cultures, evolutionary biology, primatology, art, folklore, martial arts, drawing, historical research
  • Languages spoken:English and a little Chinese (emphasis on little)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese-Jews, Yue Fei, Shaolin

Posted 07 July 2010 - 11:44 PM

So, inspired by the Sun Tzu weapon thread, what did you think of Musketeer vs Ming warrior?

I long ago abandoned any thought of accuracy when it came to the match-ups, especially since the Musketeers were an elite and the Ming Warrior was part of an larger force, and was meant to have fought as a group.

The weapon demonstrations are very interesting, though.

I've lost all faith in that show. It is not always accurate and the badmouthing between both sides makes it seem like I'm watching a soap opera.

#3 Mei Houwang

Mei Houwang

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 1,957 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Art of War
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Military History and Chinese Art of War

Posted 07 July 2010 - 11:57 PM

I was surprised with the results. Usually Deadliest Warrior favors weapons with maximum overkill(instead of effectiveness). The chosen weapons for the Ming warriors all fit that description. None of the Musketeer weapons fit that description, except perhaps the grenade. Who would win in a real fight? I have no idea, it probably depends on individual skill. But for Deadliest Warrior you can guess the outcome for each episode pretty accurately if you look at a weapon's reload time and overkill potential, which is pretty much all Deadliest Warrior factors into the equation. I guess this recent episode was an exception, which surprised me.

Anyway, I say it's a good show worth watching as long as you want to see weapons at work, instead of historical accuracy.

#4 Swampthing500

Swampthing500

    County Magistrate (Xianling 县令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 9 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Byzantine history

Posted 08 July 2010 - 01:40 AM

I was surprised with the results. Usually Deadliest Warrior favors weapons with maximum overkill(instead of effectiveness). The chosen weapons for the Ming warriors all fit that description. None of the Musketeer weapons fit that description, except perhaps the grenade. Who would win in a real fight? I have no idea, it probably depends on individual skill. But for Deadliest Warrior you can guess the outcome for each episode pretty accurately if you look at a weapon's reload time and overkill potential, which is pretty much all Deadliest Warrior factors into the equation. I guess this recent episode was an exception, which surprised me.

Anyway, I say it's a good show worth watching as long as you want to see weapons at work, instead of historical accuracy.


I actually approve of the show because it can actually get people interested in the different civilizations and perhaps to start researching them.

#5 Gan

Gan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None really.

Posted 08 July 2010 - 12:26 PM

I actually approve of the show because it can actually get people interested in the different civilizations and perhaps to start researching them.


I wish that was true but most people aren't interested in further research. They'll end up taking these generalizations as they are and start forming opinions of how great they were...even though the battle wasn't real.

#6 Gan

Gan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None really.

Posted 08 July 2010 - 12:35 PM

I was surprised with the results. Usually Deadliest Warrior favors weapons with maximum overkill(instead of effectiveness). The chosen weapons for the Ming warriors all fit that description. None of the Musketeer weapons fit that description, except perhaps the grenade. Who would win in a real fight? I have no idea, it probably depends on individual skill. But for Deadliest Warrior you can guess the outcome for each episode pretty accurately if you look at a weapon's reload time and overkill potential, which is pretty much all Deadliest Warrior factors into the equation. I guess this recent episode was an exception, which surprised me.

Anyway, I say it's a good show worth watching as long as you want to see weapons at work, instead of historical accuracy.


Well, the show's host said at the end he was surprised as well and the armour was the deciding factor. I kinda figure the same. The Bee's nest and the reloading time/misfires of the two firearms of the Musketeers would kind of indicate it would come down to a sword fight. I'm not convinced by people talking about the versatility or thrusting vs slashing argument. Trained fighters do have to adjust to one another. I've read comments by people saying the Musketeers never used a grenade. There was a unit form just for that.

Anyways, like ghost exorcist said, there's no reason to take Deadliest Warriors seriously. Some of the other match ups they had would have been dead even results as well. Plus, in reality, Ming era fighters handle their European counterparts well enough. I don't know about one on one though, it's hard to say.

#7 Gan

Gan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None really.

Posted 09 July 2010 - 10:20 PM

I probably have too much time on my hands and think too much regarding this.

I kinda linked myself to certain comment boxes on facebook, Spike TV and other sites. So, I get notices whenever people replied to a certain post. Lately, I've been responding to many comments which pretty much generalizes China = weakling type of statements. Basically, I just stayed calm and said first, the show is not historically accurate and second, Ming had enough weaponry to handle their counterparts from other parts of the world. Real history shows this. Some people bring out some historical examples, and I balanced it out with more details. I even had to say the painfully obvious comment that no real fight would happen like it did in any simulation for any match up.

It's kind of tiring, to be honest. It may sound a little bias on my part for sort of "defending" Chinese history but that's because I like it. I would do the same for the Romans, Central Americans and South Asians, if I had enough knowledge in those areas.

This relates to a previous comment I made regarding how most people aren't interested in further research. I guess that's the power of media you can say.

BTW, I watched another demonstration by a British documentary on the Nest of Bees. The arrows exploded when it touch it's target (intended or not I wasn't sure). Pretty much a mini-rocket. I would have thought that wouldn't be worth it, since the flare could have exploded on its path. Do you all know if this actually happened? If so, did the Ming military added something to the arrows to make that possible or you think the target most likely had something flammable?

#8 Gan

Gan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None really.

Posted 13 July 2010 - 01:22 PM

http://www.spike.com...math-ming/38744

I post under the name I_love_women. Some comments from other people are quite far out that I don't bother replying.

#9 ghostexorcist

ghostexorcist

    Ape Immortal (Yuanxian 猿仙)

  • Super Moderator
  • 1,600 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:America
  • Interests:Asian and Judeo-Islamic cultures, evolutionary biology, primatology, art, folklore, martial arts, drawing, historical research
  • Languages spoken:English and a little Chinese (emphasis on little)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese-Jews, Yue Fei, Shaolin

Posted 13 July 2010 - 05:51 PM

Well, the show's host said at the end he was surprised as well and the armour was the deciding factor. I kinda figure the same. The Bee's nest and the reloading time/misfires of the two firearms of the Musketeers would kind of indicate it would come down to a sword fight. I'm not convinced by people talking about the versatility or thrusting vs slashing argument. Trained fighters do have to adjust to one another. I've read comments by people saying the Musketeers never used a grenade. There was a unit form just for that.

Anyways, like ghost exorcist said, there's no reason to take Deadliest Warriors seriously. Some of the other match ups they had would have been dead even results as well. Plus, in reality, Ming era fighters handle their European counterparts well enough. I don't know about one on one though, it's hard to say.

I recently read an article in SPADA which talk about how the many thrust-heavy sword fighting styles of the west were based on a misreading of ancient Roman army training manuals. The manual commented on the superiority of the thrusting motion in combat, but what the European sword masters did not realize is that the manual was geared towards armored combatants with shields. Roman soldiers had to thrust past shields with short, wide blades designed for the battlefield. This is completely different from unarmored combatants facing each other with long, thin blades a 1,000 years later in the Renaissance period. The authors of the article show several examples of fencing manuals from the 16th and 17th centuries in which western fencing masters blatantly plagiarized parts of the Roman manual as their own.

Both techniques obviously have merit. Even the Roman manuals mentions slashing at the calves and the like.

Edited by ghostexorcist, 13 July 2010 - 06:04 PM.


#10 Gan

Gan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None really.

Posted 13 July 2010 - 11:25 PM

I recently read an article in SPADA which talk about how the many thrust-heavy sword fighting styles of the west were based on a misreading of ancient Roman army training manuals. The manual commented on the superiority of the thrusting motion in combat, but what the European sword masters did not realize is that the manual was geared towards armored combatants with shields. Roman soldiers had to thrust past shields with short, wide blades designed for the battlefield. This is completely different from unarmored combatants facing each other with long, thin blades a 1,000 years later in the Renaissance period. The authors of the article show several examples of fencing manuals from the 16th and 17th centuries in which western fencing masters blatantly plagiarized parts of the Roman manual as their own.

Both techniques obviously have merit. Even the Roman manuals mentions slashing at the calves and the like.


I saw some ancient Chinese swords (warring states era) that look similar to what the Romans used in their fighting. The short, wide blades. Maybe their fighting techniques were similar.

#11 Gan

Gan

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 504 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Any chinese-related stuff
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    None really.

Posted 14 July 2010 - 12:08 AM

There's a few shows I watch time to time that's a little similar to Deadliest warriors (but less dramatic). The history channel's Warriors...Battles BC....world elite cops.

There's a bit more substance and meaning, not that much trash talking or awe over who makes the bigger bang. Warfare is seen much more realistically as well.

I saw some ancient Chinese swords (warring states era) that look similar to what the Romans used in their fighting. The short, wide blades. Maybe their fighting techniques were similar.


Sorry, I mean shorter swords. The blades weren't that wide.

#12 ghostexorcist

ghostexorcist

    Ape Immortal (Yuanxian 猿仙)

  • Super Moderator
  • 1,600 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:America
  • Interests:Asian and Judeo-Islamic cultures, evolutionary biology, primatology, art, folklore, martial arts, drawing, historical research
  • Languages spoken:English and a little Chinese (emphasis on little)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese-Jews, Yue Fei, Shaolin

Posted 18 July 2010 - 09:18 PM

There's a few shows I watch time to time that's a little similar to Deadliest warriors (but less dramatic). The history channel's Warriors...Battles BC....world elite cops.

There's a bit more substance and meaning, not that much trash talking or awe over who makes the bigger bang. Warfare is seen much more realistically as well.

Sorry, I mean shorter swords. The blades weren't that wide.

I've never seen that show, but I will definitely look it up now!

#13 Freddy1

Freddy1

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 457 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Religion
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Cultural Anthropology

Posted 10 October 2010 - 07:51 PM

BTW, I watched another demonstration by a British documentary on the Nest of Bees. The arrows exploded when it touch it's target (intended or not I wasn't sure). Pretty much a mini-rocket. I would have thought that wouldn't be worth it, since the flare could have exploded on its path. Do you all know if this actually happened? If so, did the Ming military added something to the arrows to make that possible or you think the target most likely had something flammable?

I think that it could be possible if only the rockets had two stages linked with a fuse. The first stage would carry the arrow. When the first stage is about to burn out it would ignite the fuse to the final stage. Which would have gone boom! :clapping:

#14 Mei Houwang

Mei Houwang

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 1,957 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Art of War
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Military History and Chinese Art of War

Posted 10 October 2010 - 11:43 PM

I think that it could be possible if only the rockets had two stages linked with a fuse. The first stage would carry the arrow. When the first stage is about to burn out it would ignite the fuse to the final stage. Which would have gone boom!


It's an interesting idea, and the Ming dynasty actually had a similar rocket. However, instead of going "boom", the "second stage" was used as another propellant used to propel the rocket even further. This type of rocket was called the "huo long chu shui", meaning "Fire dragon coming out of the water".

BTW, I watched another demonstration by a British documentary on the Nest of Bees. The arrows exploded when it touch it's target (intended or not I wasn't sure). Pretty much a mini-rocket. I would have thought that wouldn't be worth it, since the flare could have exploded on its path. Do you all know if this actually happened? If so, did the Ming military added something to the arrows to make that possible or you think the target most likely had something flammable?


They probably rigged the test. The Ming military did NOT have explosive rockets(unless you count rocket-propelled grenades). They did have explosive cannonballs though.

Edited by Mei Houwang, 11 October 2010 - 12:06 PM.


#15 Dulahan

Dulahan

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Dakota
  • Interests:Anything prior to about 1750 in Chinese history and culture.
    Wuxia. Literature. Myth and Folktales.
  • Languages spoken:English, VERY rudimentary Mandarin, Mongolian, and Spanish. Can read French.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Mongol Empire (MA Level), Three Kingdoms (Hobby study), Wuxia

Posted 24 October 2010 - 02:02 PM

Personally, while it's fun to watch for the demonstrations. The comparisons are... iffy at best.

Short of iconic groups like Roman Legions or Musketeers they always seem to choose creative 'gimmick' weapons with very specific battlefield roles instead of the battlefield mainstays.

Just look at this one, Musket vs Nest of Bees? Are you kidding me? They didn't have anything even close to a similar role on the battlefield. Far more apt would have been comparing the Musket to either a Crossbow or a Bow (Most likely a Mongolian style recurve in this era - which was still quite superior to muskets in virtually every way but training required to use it). For one, the Nest of Bees is not a skirmish weapon, it's a shock weapon meant to be used by many soldiers at once to do a ton of damage to a formation. Against tightly packed troops of the era's warfare, it would be absolutely devastating on the first volley. It didn't need to be accurate, it needed to have a tightly packed mass advancing, and then a few hundred lit off at once, and a bunch of people die. Compare to the Musket, which in volley was effective, but was used in a different fashion and was a skirmish weapon.

Often, even when comparing similar weapons they don't even use the same test. Like a Spetznats vs Navy Seal (Or was it Ranger?) episode, the way they tested their grenades were completely different. With the US guys just throwing there's into the middle of a room and seeing how many dummies it killed. And the Russians detonating theirs from inside a Dryer?

And also agree on the "Elite" vs "Soldier" aspect. They should have had the Musketeer versus the Brocade Guard or one of the Frontier Units to be a more apt comparison.

And then there's the competition aspect, which actually seems to favor the first one that goes on some tests. As the other side knows what they have to do, but again, sometimes loses out because of timing. Again, the Russian vs American Special Forces one, a pistol test in the dark with night vision. The Russian goes through, slow, methodical, doesn't miss a shot. Then the American knows how much time he needs to beat, so rushes it. He does it in half the time, but misses a couple shots. so the Russian was given the 'best weapon' based on that.

There's also some amusing matchups like the Vlad Tepes vs Sun Tzu one. What was so *** to me about this? Some of Sun Tzu's weapons were quite anachronistic.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users