Deadliest Warrior on SpikeTV

Last night I caught SpikeTV's new show called "Deadliest Warrior". It basically is a versus style comparison/contrast of various warriors throughout history. They pick two and use "science" to determine who would be the victor in a head to head match up.

They've only had two episodes so far, and they are full of a lot of filler, but overall it has some interesting, if infuriating, parts, and a lot of cheesy trash talk. The first episode was Apache vs. Gladiator. The second episode (on last night) was Samurai vs. Viking. Thanks to the glory of the stealerweb I found them on youtube. I'm linking to the first parts of the episodes.

part 1 of episode 1 - Apache vs. Gladiator:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNAZ6KVU_dc&feature=related

part 1 of episode 2 - Samurai vs. Viking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnjUdlvAI3o


Who do you think would have won in those matchups? I personally would have chosen the Gladiator over the Apache, and I am still not sure about Viking vs. Samurai. The Vikings are some big mother effers, but the Samurai had better steel and more discipline (plus better horsemanship, which was not mentioned). Still a toss up in my eyes.

Personally between Gladiator and Apache Warrior, I would have to say Apache Warrior in most cases. They were pretty savage and brutal warriors, even pre-gunpowder. The one exception I see in the Gladiator's favor would be the Retiarii, who fought with net and trident, as the Apache would likely have a hard time defending against this style of fighting...especially unarmored.
Between Viking and Samurai, I would have to say Viking. Samurai were pretty surgical with their fighting style, and were very well trained, but Vikings were known to use drugs to put themselves into a berserk rage where they could shrug off the pain of arrows and cuts. Plus, without shields, the Samurai is pretty vulnerable to a throwing axe.

That is odd, I have the complete opposite view in Gladiator vs. Apache. I think the Retiarius would be the most vulnerable to the Apache with their bows, hatchets, and knives. I think they'd have the best chance to take out the mostly unarmored Retiarius outside of the range of his net. However, against more heavily armored gladiators the Apache would have a tougher time. The Samnite, the Provacateur, the Secutor , and the Murmillo all had extremity armor and big shields, which I think would just wait for the Apache to shoot/throw all his stuff and wait for him to come in close. Even the smaller shielded Hoplomachi and Thracian would have a decent chance against an Apache. The shield plus the armor (especially helmets) would be fighting styles the Apache just weren't ready for. Sure a tomahawk and knife are fast and deadly, but they just aren't used to fighting shields and I think they'd fall victim to a good shield bash when they tried to make a cut, which may end up just bouncing off of armor anyway.

The show sets up a 1 vs. 1 scenario where the goal is they fight and one loses. Apaches were great guerrilla fighters, but I think they just wouldn't be ready for a 1 on 1 versus a gladiator where the scenario establishes that they can't run away and return another day. The gladiators, however, trained daily to fight in exactly this type of scenario.

However, if we are talking a battle or skirmish between group of Apaches against a group of gladiators, the gladiators will definitely lose, especially if the Apaches have horses. But that isn't the scenario they have set up.

I've got a friend who was an apache and think it all depends on the scenario since gladiators wouldn't really be fighting in the same situation or with the same motivation. Also i think samurai is a pretty cool guy, eh kills vikings and doesn't afraid of anything.