![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenSo, I've made no secret about being totally fascinated with the show The Deadliest Warrior. The past two weeks have featured two of the more ridiculous match-ups ever. The first was "Pirate vs Knight;" the second was "Mafia vs Yakuza." I balked at both when I read the episode descriptions. I've come around after seeing "Pirate vs Knight" (more on that later) but the show loses real interest for me when it's just ballistics versus ballistics. Perhaps it's too uncomfortably close to modern warfare. It's definitely less elegant than the combat of more edged-weapon-centric warriors, for all that the Mafiosos (pardon me, the "Mafia experts") claimed there was any kind of beauty in reaching around to hug a guy and slitting his throat at the same time.
For that matter, I sort of object to anyone with a gun being called a "warrior." The Yakuza have more claim to the title than do the Mafia, though I'm certain their claims to Samurai ancestors and disciplined training are probably somewhat more minor than advertised. Do I believe they were brutally loyal and self-disciplined? Sure. Do I believe they were modern-day bushido-practicing, training-every-day warriors? No, I'm not convinced of that. Again, when you introduce guns, especially sub-machine guns, you sort of lose an edge to you that would qualify you as a "warrior" to me. Guns feel like cheating. Lots of people who use guns may be effective killers, soliders, and, yes, perhaps even warriors, but they feel less so to me unless they are impressively so. (For instance, I would say the Navy SEAL sharpshooters who killed those Somali pirates are most definitely warrior material.) After all, any fool can shoot a gun (maybe not without hurting himself, but still). It takes real strength to even lift a sword, much less use one effectively, and so on.
Am I wrong? Are there other weapons, non-ballistic ones even, that are "cheating" in the same way? That are easy to use for the average idiot and that are potentially lethal with minimal training? When does the weapon stop being an extension of the killing force/will within the person and just being a shortcut to mayhem?
I said I'd come back to the "Pirate vs Knight" fight, and I think it applies. That one was interesting to me after my earlier skepticism because the issue of ballistics became important in the sense of a pirate's fighting ability. Because the ability to use guns (and the fairly awesome blunderbuss) was a major advantage the pirate had over the knight, but the weapons themselves were not so sufficiently advanced that they would make any fight a foregone conclusion. (The guns misfired, powder could get wet, and the knight wore a shit-ton of all-covering armor.) They also chose a knight that wouldn't just ride down the pirate on horseback (or be totally incapacitated by being knocked off his horse), so it didn't just come down to Machine Gun vs Tank or anything so hyperbolic. So, provided there are reasonable, period-appropriate reasons for mitigation of the stopping power of a gun, it seems more competitive in a match-up.
To me, at any rate. I'm sure the rest of you have opinions. Do share!
For that matter, I sort of object to anyone with a gun being called a "warrior." The Yakuza have more claim to the title than do the Mafia, though I'm certain their claims to Samurai ancestors and disciplined training are probably somewhat more minor than advertised. Do I believe they were brutally loyal and self-disciplined? Sure. Do I believe they were modern-day bushido-practicing, training-every-day warriors? No, I'm not convinced of that. Again, when you introduce guns, especially sub-machine guns, you sort of lose an edge to you that would qualify you as a "warrior" to me. Guns feel like cheating. Lots of people who use guns may be effective killers, soliders, and, yes, perhaps even warriors, but they feel less so to me unless they are impressively so. (For instance, I would say the Navy SEAL sharpshooters who killed those Somali pirates are most definitely warrior material.) After all, any fool can shoot a gun (maybe not without hurting himself, but still). It takes real strength to even lift a sword, much less use one effectively, and so on.
Am I wrong? Are there other weapons, non-ballistic ones even, that are "cheating" in the same way? That are easy to use for the average idiot and that are potentially lethal with minimal training? When does the weapon stop being an extension of the killing force/will within the person and just being a shortcut to mayhem?
I said I'd come back to the "Pirate vs Knight" fight, and I think it applies. That one was interesting to me after my earlier skepticism because the issue of ballistics became important in the sense of a pirate's fighting ability. Because the ability to use guns (and the fairly awesome blunderbuss) was a major advantage the pirate had over the knight, but the weapons themselves were not so sufficiently advanced that they would make any fight a foregone conclusion. (The guns misfired, powder could get wet, and the knight wore a shit-ton of all-covering armor.) They also chose a knight that wouldn't just ride down the pirate on horseback (or be totally incapacitated by being knocked off his horse), so it didn't just come down to Machine Gun vs Tank or anything so hyperbolic. So, provided there are reasonable, period-appropriate reasons for mitigation of the stopping power of a gun, it seems more competitive in a match-up.
To me, at any rate. I'm sure the rest of you have opinions. Do share!
