Informal polling on the subject of warriors and weapons

[trinityvixen]

So, 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!

Comments

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

The firearm's predecessor, the crossbow, was much the same way. It was the Great Equalizer--before that, archers were the only ones with any real range, and shooting a longbow took immense skill. Any fool could handle a crossbow, yet it could shoot through armor, thus ending the age of the knight. I certainly wouldn't consider someone a warrior just because they could use a crossbow.

As I mentioned the other day, I think pirates count as warriors not because of their firearms but because of their skill at fighting on a particular, difficult terrain: a ship. Plenty of people couldn't even walk properly on deck, but pirates could fight. That's real skill.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I like the crossbow analogy. It is particularly apt since an arguable warrior in this case--the knight--was allowed to use one as his range weapon. And yes, devastatingly effective, less kick-back than a gun, even, and simple to use to boot. Very much like cheating.

The "Pirate vs Knight" episode to my mind, before I saw it, seemed to me that it would be entirely decided by terrain (and whether or not the knight got to bring his horse into it). They took away the advantages of both--no ships to fight on (so no home court advantage for the pirate) and no horse (the knight started on one but fell off shortly). What surprised me most was how even the two were when it came to the sword. It shouldn't surprise you that, in a contest of long-, mid-, and close-range weapons, they do go through all of them (even though some of the range weapons do strike home in the mock battle at the start), so it did get down to swordplay. I don't know why their equivalence surprised me so much. At first, I thought the knight would have the advantage, due to being so dependent on that particular weapon in a fight (the edge of experience and muscle). Then I thought again and determined that a pirate had equal experience, the rough terrain (as you mentioned), and tended to be quicker with their swords for not being slowed down by armor and weight (a cutlass is less heavy than a broader sword). Turns out I was right. Both times.

And if you're not watching this, you're missing out on great stuff, by the by.

[slackwench.livejournal.com]

Any of the weapons wielded by medieval peasant armies would pretty much qualify as deadly but idiot proof. For example, a scythe. Or a shovel, for that matter.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I suppose? I dunno. I feel like the effectiveness of those weapons would still put a requirement of skill and strength to use them that a gun does not have in order to be lethally effective. Any peasant able to wield a scythe as effectively as the other most effective edge weapons of the period would be a singular creature indeed.

[negativeq.livejournal.com]

Don't you still need some strength to pull a crossbow? I've fired a couple, and was surprised that stringing it took effort.

[neo-leviathan.livejournal.com]

Loading a crossbow by hand takes a small amount of strength, but there were also winch-loaded crossbows that required absolutely minimal strength.

The crossbow really was a cheat...

[neo-leviathan.livejournal.com]

You're correct. Scythes etc were certainly dangerous, but a typical peasant had a lot of experience with them. Sure not as a weapon (usually), but in terms of muscle to wield it, knowing its balance, etc etc, plenty of experience.

Before the advent of Gunpowder, which added plenty of idiot-proof weapons, the Crossbow is the only other weapon I can think of that didn't require skill to use.

[neo-leviathan.livejournal.com]

Lol.
I just looked at their Wikipedia page.
Wow, flawed processes anyone?

Spartan Vs Ninja
"The Spartan's shield gave him the edge and the Victory"
If the Sartan gets to his shield, the Ninja has already failed. You dont send an assasin to go toe-to-toe with their victim.

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

Hand crossbows took FOREVER to load! They're only powerful if you have a whole fleet of crossbowmen.

[neo-leviathan.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, did I mention anything about reload time? I was talking about the *Strength* needed to load a crossbow, not the amount of *Time*.

The rate of fire of a crossbow was pretty bad, but when you could just round up a pile of peasants and go "Right you lot, point at enemy and pull trigger", they definitely fall into the "Deadly with no training" category.

That said "Forever" is a drastic exaduration. A standard "Put the bow end to the ground, put foot in lever, cock bow, insert quarrel" hand crossbow could be loaded, with no training, easily in ten seconds.

Probably seems like forever if you're in a combat situation, but hey...

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

You can call guns a cheat, but as a tech guy I'm more than happy with wars being won in the skunkworks rather than on the battlefield. Yes, the guy piloting a Predator drone from 2000 miles away will have something of an edge over the guy waving a sharp stick. No one said war had to be fair.

I should stop there, before this turns into yet another round of cavemen versus astronauts.

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

Damn, I see to be full of the internet fail right now. I was trying to look up a papal quote concerning the evils of the repeating crossbow. It reads like he's talking about WMD.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Well, for the time, the crossbow was so deadly and easy to use, I'm sure it seemed pretty much like the worst thing ever invented at the time. I don't blame him for thinking as much.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Oy! No spoilers you!

That said, yes, there are problems with certain match-ups here. The Ninja probably being the worst since it's not a warrior clan mentality the way the rest are, but more of a hitman/terror squad. Then again, the Spartan was fighting alone whereas Spartans usually fought together as a unit. There was some leveling in that, though not much.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem with guns is that the ease of killing removes the responsibility for killing that would go hand-in-hand with the more warrior-esque types. Like, if you're any number of these warriors, you had a code to follow that you had to follow or you couldn't be in that warrior class. (There are exceptions, of course, but that was the general idea--soldiers/warriors are what they are.) No one takes away your gun if you're not a warrior. In fact, we fight to the death to keep guns available to all, regardless of skill and almost entirely indifferent to mental state.

The issue is technology compensating for lack of preparation, training, and mental focus. I think someone who hones his or her body into being a weapon is far more of a warrior than someone with gun. Period. Doesn't mean they will win (and often, they don't), but it doesn't change the fact that the gun is still cheating.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

Perhaps the test, then, is he well a gun-toting warrior fares when he's in less-than-optimal circumstances. In close quarters, without time to aim, while in motion, etc. "Trick shooting" is considered a sport, and gun-based superheroes are usually notable for their inerring ability to aim perfectly regardless of circumstances.

Hypothetical example is Marine vs. Ninja: The marine wins as long as he isn't caught by surprise. Is he good enough that the ninja can't surprise him?

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Very good question. Next week is Green Beret vs Spetznaz, wherein they put two commandos against each other. If I learn anything about their stats that is relevant to this question, perhaps I can comment then.

But I agree with your theory in principle--if you're really good at shooting shit, are you still capable of defense when you're not shooting shit? Or do you rely on the gun? That is part of why the pirate surprised me because I didn't really consider that he was so equally skilled without his pistols as with them. (And that's even before getting into the sorts of has-incredible-balance stats as gryphonrose mentioned above.)

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

Even if gun versus not-gun is cheating, two guys with comparable guns but different sorts of training would be "fair" and presumably as educational as comparing two guys with swords and different sorts of training. I mean, a sword is cheating too if your opponent is unarmed, which I assume is why they do "pirate versus knight" instead of "pirate versus...that guy". Similarly, a guy with a gun isn't much of a match for a guy in a tank or attack helicopter.

I agree that killing "someone" with a gun requires almost no skill, but killing a similarly-equipped enemy before he kills you with HIS gun will almost certainly come down to a question skill (or circumstances, as I'm sure something like pirate versus knight must. I mean, each is equipped for a totally different field of battle...but I think this was all discussed in your last post on this show.)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Different fields of battle and chance are dealt with in the show by a) repeating the battle scenarios multiple times to allow for and correct outliers in terms of chance, and b) placing both sets of fighters at something of an equal disadvantage if necessary. Then it becomes about whether weapons used for different fields of battle/different kinds of enemies would still enable the champions of their day to triumph.

The problem with guns is two-fold in this respect. You can't compare old guns to new--by and large, newer guns = better, more lethal guns. So there's no point in facing off a pirate with his guns versus even the mafia dudes with theirs. The second issue is that there is no real scenario wherein having a gun place you at a disadvantage unless, as I noted with the pirate example, you have non-modern guns. A gun is always useful as a killing weapon on just about every kind of terrain. The only way to handicap a gun is to make it not work or have limited shots. Even still, you can do a damn lot of damage with one clip in a modern handgun (or even a six-shooter of old).

I guess the real thing that bugs me about guns? They're not "cultural." In the pirate's case, he'd come from a nation that had been using guns for a while, which skates (but barely). But in the mafia/yakuza/green beret/etc. scenarios, none of their "cultures" really grew up around or developed the gun into a weapon. The Mafia didn't train their kids on proto-guns or have blacksmiths forging tommy guns. Whereas the Spartans, Samurai, Ninjas, et al. did. Their weapons were extensions of practices and evolution of weaponry within their clans/nations. Guns are just something available to one and all and made by everyone and no one as a result. (A great example from the show: the Yakuza put forward the Walther pistol as one of their weapons. It is, in fact, a German hand gun that they assimilated as a gang weapon after WWII. It's not something inherent to the mob in Japan. That's only the most glaring example because of the name, but you can bet that the tommy guns/submachine guns employed by the Mafia and the Yakuza probably weren't theirs to begin with either.)

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

Sure, but I think that old versus new is true of any weapon. Long before guns, people forging iron beat the tar out of people who only had bronze. Newer technology is always going to give more advantages than disadvantages, or they wouldn't continue to use it. It may seem more obvious when the guy with the assault rifle goes against the guy with the flintlock pistol, as compared with steel sword versus bronze sword (clearly skill is more important in that sword battle), but I think that's just because modern technology advances faster than ancient technology.

I understand what you're saying about culture, but I don't personally agree with it. If I'm going to be picking up arms and heading to a battlefield where it's kill or be killed, I'm damn sure going to want the best weapon I can get, whoever made it. Great for the Spartans if they're using the same weapons their ancestors have for generations, until they get mowed down by better-equipped opponents, and then there are no more generations to carry on the tradition. Aside from the fact that every culture assimilates things from others...the Yakuza decided to make the Walther a trademark weapon, and modern Americans tend to think ninjas are cooler than cavalry. (If they didn't, The Matrix would've been very different...Neo:"I know mounted charge maneouvres!") I don't see anything wrong with any of that. But then it sounds like the cultural argument is more of a subjective thing, so I also don't think you're wrong to see it that way.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I understand what you're saying about culture, but I don't personally agree with it. If I'm going to be picking up arms and heading to a battlefield where it's kill or be killed, I'm damn sure going to want the best weapon I can get, whoever made it.

That's the thing though--you're a mutt American. You don't have the luxury of being isolated by geography or lack of technology to develop a culture in the same way as the people in this series. You'd be going to war today as yourself. You're not even military, which is its own sort of culture. It's not just an issue of Spartans using their ancestors weapons; its a question of what they started with from said ancestors and how they developed/evolved the technology from their to the height of their power.

That's the thing: this series is purporting (regardless of however well it is actually doing) to represent warriors at their peak. Ostensibly, since there are no Samurai/Vikings/Mafia (well, maybe there are some of that last one) running around p'wning other civilizations, the cultures we're seeing are, for the most part, entirely dead. They did come up against something superior in terms of technology. But they never came up against the specific matches being examined on the show--the Spartans waned with the rest of Greece as Rome grew in prominence. So the question isn't just "bronze vs steel" but different methods/mentalities of warfare against one another, with differing levels of technological advancement impacting but not deciding the victor.

Guns just don't leave room for that, so, as I said in the beginning, they're exceedingly inelegant and they feel oafish and, well, cheating.

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

Guns just don't leave room for that

That's an extremely strong statement, and not the sort (including direct refutation) that I'd feel comfortable making based on my knowledge of weaponry and tactics. I expect expert marksmen would have something to say on the subject, though.

As I said, steel sword has an advantage over bronze sword, but not to the extent that skill isn't more important. Assault rifle may beat flintlock regardless of skill, but does assault rifle beat submachine gun? I don't know. My best guess is it would come down to skill around that point. (And helicopter versus tank? Always a classic.)

These various warriors were the pinnacle in their own place and time, and the point of the show is to compare those who are roughly equal in power; I get that. And while I'm sure that comparing "modern infantryman" to "ancient Spartan" is unfair in that respect, I don't see how "Mafioso" versus "Yakuza" is unfair, just because they both use guns. Seems if they both have the same "unfair" advantage, it's fair again. If it's simply less interesting, it's only unfair to the viewer. (I will say that I doubt either the Mafia or the Yakuza is full of truly exceptional marksmen, capable of feats that elevate the practice to an art form, so it probably was pretty lame. But I don't think that's inherent to any group that uses guns.)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

In the episode in question, the gun parts were easily the most boring part of the whole thing. I really didn't need a demonstration to show me that two kinds of submachine guns would basically kill the shit out of everything in their way. It was far more interesting to compare the up-close-and-personal devices that you'd have to rely on if your magical slaughtering machine (aka the machine gun) didn't do all the work for you. You'd be surprised how effective a weapon a baseball bat is, for instance.

Perhaps I stumbled upon the best way to describe my objection to guns just there: guns do all the work for you. That's why I feel they're cheating. Yes, you can get better/worse at them, but once you hit a threshold of, say, a semi-automatic, there's so little work you need to do to kill people that the weapon, itself, is a ridiculous thing to consider in a calculation of warrior-hood. This is why, despite the fact that there will be guns in "Green Beret vs Spetznaz" I think the individual fighting-machine-with-guns is more of a warrior than a bunch of mooks who had access to tommy guns.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

They often had cranks that you would use instead.

On a separate point, the longbow actually had more penetrating power than the crossbow -- it could pierce just about any armor used -- the problem was you pretty much had to be a Welsh sheep-herder who grew up using it if you wanted to be able to use it with any effectiveness. Also, you got nasty bone spurs all over your fingers, elbow, and shoulder. Because putting out over a hundred pounds of tension? With your arm?? Yeah.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

The use of the term "warrior" notwithstanding, I don't think there's a fair comparison between the combat of individuals and the combat of armies. A single knight would pwnz0r a pikeman. Put a 16th-century cavalry charge against a proper pike formation, and you have some Dutch burghers killing off half the French nobility...