CaV:Zande(WarlordEternal) vs.Mongol(Jason_the_Chen) voting

Zande Warrior (WarlordEternal)

Mongol Warrior (Jason_the_chen)

Rules:

Anything goes

First to five votes wins

No prep, random encounter

Remember, this is sort of like Deadliest Warrior. No set location, try to debate why your warrior would win the majority of 1000 battles in 1000 different locations.

@jason_the_chen

@warlordeternal

WarlordEternal holds the floor.

@theshinygible: Oh, am I going first? If so then give me a moment to gather my knowledge.

@warlordeternal: let us begin!!!

The Zande people are a tribe of Ethiopia, They live primarily in the northeastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Southwestern part of South Sudan. The word Azande literally means "the people who possess much land", a reference to their history as conquering warriors, beating the living hell out of anyone who dared to try and take their home, or when they raided those of others. They were renowned for their military prowess, using deadly Iron Age weapons and psychological warfare to great effect in raids. For psychological warfare, the Zande sharpened their teeth to fang points to give the impression that they were cannibals. They would shout "yum yum" as a war chant, causing their enemies to flee out of fear of being devoured. The Zandes wore no armor other than a headdress and wicker shield allowing for fast and deadly efficient strikes. He would enter the battle field equipped with:

the Makraka curved knife

The Makraka is a 2 foot long sickle-shaped weapon that widens near the tip, with the cutting edge on the concave side of the blade. The handle is wooden covered in hide to increase the grip, making it possible to still effectively swing the weapon with bloodied hands. The Makraka was often used in executions, as demonstrated on Deadliest Warriors, where the blade took a head off with one clean blow. It could also serve as a secondary weapon in combat.

Makrigga Spear

The Makrigga was a multi-barbed 7 foot spear. It had an iron spearhead with a rounded tip and a narrow blade. The spearhead has numerous barbs on the iron head and shank. The backward pointing barbs made it much easier for the blade to enter the body than it was to withdraw, harvesting the organs and tearing out the victims guts when removed.

Kpinga throwing knife

The Kpinga had three projecting blades and a small, plant fiber handle. It can be up to 21 inches long and weigh 3.5 pounds. Like its distant cousin, the shuriken, it could be thrown overhead at an opponent, or sideways to take out an opponent's legs. Even the handle could do a lot of damage if it hit. It was one of the very few functional African throwing knives with considerable documentary evidence of their use in battle. The position of the blades increased the likelihood of impaling a victim when the weapon made impact. It is even capable of rolling around a shield without losing much if any of it's power.

Botto Bow & Pima Arrow

The Botto bow is made from polished wood with a length of twisted sinex for a bowstring. It was about 4 feet long. The Pima arrows were 2 feet long and made from cane shafts with iron heads. The Botto did not have as much stopping power as other similar sized bows; however, it's true strength came from the fact that the arrows were tipped with Benge, a red powder made from a type of forest creeper. The Benge contains strychnine, which is commonly used as a pesticide. This poison would cause the body to tense up and rapidly jerk and shake around uncontrollably almost like a censure, but you are alert while this is happening, which in my opinion is terrifying. Thats right, ladies and gentlemen... Chemical Warfare.

@warlordeternal: Nice start!

@jason_the_chen now has the floor.

The Mongolian warriors are a diverse group of people, but with the same idea: conquer everything. With that mindset, incomparable tactics and supreme armory, weaponry and mount, they were an army of fear. That's why they were the dominating army in the 13th century and conquered mass amounts of land.

Tactics: unlike many armies which win by sheer numbers, mongols used tactics and pshycological warfare to defeat larger, stronger armies. Mongols each fights with a quick advance, strike method, followed by a speedy retreat accompanied by the use of their composite bow and arrow.

Stirrups, composite bow and arrows: the mongols used the composite bow that was easy to carry, light to use, but deadly accurate. This was used with their main arrow with an iron head that penetrate ARMOR. If it can penetrate armor, it can easily break a zande shield made out of splitted reeds. STIRRUPS (a foot hold on a saddle) was an important part of the mongol warrior on a horse (which one usually had) because the addition allowed for the Mongolian warrior to balance on their moving steed and launch their deadly armor piercing arrow easily from 200 meters away. Further than any Kpinga can reach to be lethal. Imagine zande warrior helplessly trying to block out shield piercing arrows 200 meters away with deadly accuracy.

ARMOR: Mongolian warriors wear armies of hardened leather and with some vital areas enforced with high quality steel. The steel is used to block out deadly slashes, that is, if they ever so get slashed by a zande on foot. The result is an light but protective armor that gives a lot of maneuvariblilty because not all areas are enforced with the steel. The Mongolian armor and gear can easily block out the botto and Pima that can barely penetrate enforced cotton armor of the Aztecs, even if it did had poison (PFFT).

The Mongol SABER (sabre?): this one curved son of a gun, is a one hand blade that was super effective, on steed or foot, and can easily cut through armor and helms, wait, zandes DON'T have these, how convenient. This is of course short ranged, not as good or as well wielded as the makrakas or makriggas, but with a horse, you can easily get out of range of these weapons and can easily evade the weak botto and Pima and Kpinga (which can't reach as far or reach it as quickly as composite bow and arrow)

GLAIVE/Halberd (for higher classed mongols which this warrior could be): with the weak armory of a headress and a reed shield, one swoop from this bladed staff weapon can kill a zande warrior in no time, but of course that is if the Mongolian warrior can get close enough without getting hit by the makrakas or makriggas. even if it is a blow for a blow, Mongol has some kind of armor which gives it a better survival rate for a blow for blow (that's what she said, but that is irrelevant).

My point: Pshycological warfare you say? Mongols, who right huge armies with smaller numbers isn't afraid of some "yum-yum," let the superior speed, armor and tactics prove itself. Mongols doesn't need a battle cry to scare its opponents, it only needs its battle-hardened face with no fear, but swagger and power, prove itself.

*please excuse some spelling mistakes as their isn't any spell check and the lack of pictures. \(> ~ <)/

@jason_the_chen: Just by reading this response I know it will be a close debate. Also, in the states, it's generally spelled saber. In England it's sabre.

@warlordeternal holds the floor.

@warlordeternal: I've checked out some zande websites and you copied word for word a lot. Just pointing things out.

@theshinygible: @jason_the_chen: I got work shortly so I'm gonna have to continue this tomorrow (I work night shift).

So...? Did you expect me to be a historical expert? I took the Zandes because no one else would. I highly doubt I'm even going to get most if any of the votes as you debate very well. But I'll try.

@warlordeternal: Sure, state your rebuttal though.

@jason_the_chen Lets do this.

As raiders, The Zande warriors are extremely viscous fighters. Their enemies were not to be taken alive, and if there ever was a moment where they were, it was to kill them later during a game in which they would tie a noose around the head of the victim and the other end around a tree branch. They would then take the curved knife, decapitate him, and what as the tree tosses the head. Though also being raiders (highly successful ones at that) The Zandes would also have to know patience and were likely very skilled at stealth, capable of using tall grass or trees to their advantage, they would ambush enemies tribes and slave traders. This may prove useful in ambushing a Mongol.

The Mongol may have the Zande at an unfair horse advatage; however, as shown in Deadliest Warrior, the Kpinga was capable of slicing into cow legs. The largest blade at the top penetrated the flesh and was stuck in the bone. Given the opportunity, The Zande would strike at the horses legs, throwing the Kpinga and taking the horse out from under the Mongol. The one true weapon advantage is the composite bow and arrow (which is pretty awesome) but once the horse is taken out, the Mongol must face the wraith of the Kpinga, Makrigga, and/or Makraka.

@warlordeternal: Counter-rebuttal: Yes, the zandes were known as a brutal bunch of warriors, no arguing in that, but are you saying the only way to defeat a Mongol warrior is to cowardly hide and then ambush? That just proves how the "viscous" zandes have difficulty fighting mongols. If zandes can hide and ambush, the mongols can do the same to the zandes as well, but mongols are not known to be such cowards. Mongols are known to be people who had created a civilization, people who will punish anyone in their way, and take the defenseless children if their enemies and enslave them until death (a use better than being a practice dummy).

Remember that the composite bow can easily shoot 200 meters. This means encounters in areas that is not FILLED with vegetation will almost always mean instant death for the zande warrior. Even if you manage to to disable the horse, you've then revealed yourself to your enemy. Sure the makrakas can slice through meat, and the makriggas can deal a blow, so can the Mongol saber and the Mongol glaive. The difference now comes down to fighting skill and armory. For fighting skill, the Mongol and the zande seem to even out as they are both quite lethal with their weapons (except botto and pima). Now everything comes down to armory. The mongols had hardened leather (hard), reinforced with steel (even harder, lol) while the zandes has only...nothing, but a shield that made out of reeds. The reason that we are so focused on the offensive abilities of zandes reveals it's weakness. You saw was a blade can do to a person with no armor right? (Shown in deadliest warrior-zande blade) That would be how easy it is to cut and kill a zande while the Mongol warrior is equipped with armor that is shown to have blocked out blade attacks while still providing agility.

Even if the zande beat the odds to knock a Mongol off his horse, the zande has just jumped out of the searing pan, into the fire.

Your time to speak and this debate is now over! This one looks close!

T4V:
@masterkungfu, @shootingnova, @jedixman, @lukehero

@theshinygible: I can't keep debating? I still have more to say.

@warlordeternal: Well, it was supposed to be claim, counter-claim, rebuttal, counter-rebuttal...

I can't really allow another huge post but I'll let you have closing statements.

@theshinygible:Thank you.

@jason_the_chen: What do you mean cowardly. Only a fool immediately goes rushing head first into a fight. Especially when the enemy rides on horse back. Being highly successful raiders they would know better then to jump right into a fight with out accessing the situation. It's one of the major reason why they were never conquered by any colonial power (powers that used guns). As some of the most precise and deadly warriors to ever walk Africa, they would not immediately reveal themselves to their enemy, not all at once. Likely striking one at a time. Make them disoriented. Also in speaking of psychological warfare, after a battle, the Zandes would mutilate the corpses of their enemies and leave them where they lie, making it appear as if they are partially devoured.

I agree that areas not filled with vegetation would be the death of the Zande. So really if the fight was to take place say in Mongolia, the Zandes would be screwed; however, if the fight was to take place in the Congo that would be an entirely different story, as the area is covered in vegetation and tight corners, pretty much rendering the horses useless and bring the Mongol's in close enough for the kpinga.

IIRC some the Mongol's armor was more affective against slashing weapons and not necessarily piercing weapons, but I think that all depends on what he's wearing.

Also in Deadliest Warrior one of the major deciding factors as to why the Comanche beat the Mongul was that the Mongol was used to fighting in an army, while the Comanche was experienced fighting on his own or in large groups, something that can also be said for the Zande. They were individuals, capable of acting on their own or in large groups.

If you ask me I think this fight truly depends on the location.

Nice debating with you. You know your sh*t (same can't quite be said for me, but I do my best)

@warlordeternal: I never disagreed with the fact you shouldn't run in head first with a fight. That would undeed be foolish, but it's the cowardly way of doing things still.

Pshycological warfare is important. Tricking someone into thinking that the enemy are cannibals is terrifying, but Mongols are known to slay large amounts of people with smaller numbers, making it easy to scare their enemy, even without ever further manipulatin the body. Mongolian strategy was to split there soldiers up into goups of 10s, 100s, 1,000s, and so on. This way many things can be accomplished with a smaller army. The fact that they succeeded with this strategy was that they can do somewhat well even on their own. They are not mindless after all.

Also, the zandes weren't really known for their sneak attack abilities. They are just capable of doing so. In deadliest warrior, you literally see a zande warrior MARCH UP A HILL to go face to face with a Aztec jaguar.

This topic of best warriors is a very slippery slope I think, because there are so many different factors that comes into a battle, such as: level of common sense, personal skills, body type, and etc. Then again,

might be thinking too hard on this because this argument is very close. I am not like a "Mongolianologist"(not a word?) or something but by looking at their gears, experiences and the mongol's steed, it is safe to say that with speed, power and defense advantage, Mongolian warrior would win more, not much more, but more battles than the zande warrior.

This was a great and heated argument to be in. I think these two warriors are pretty close and you made some fine points. I had a lot of fun doing this, getting to debate, hope you did too.

VOTE FOR MONGOL FOR SWAG

Great debate!

Voting is now open!

@warlordeternal: lol

Melvin Ingram and Roger Goodell.

I'd prefer if there was a set location, but as is I guess I vote for monguls.

Mongol--1

Zande--0

@theshinygible: The gif is suppose to represent my respect for Jason.

@warlordeternal: I know.

Still a funny gif, though.

@theshinygible: Thanks.

vote to warlordeternal. I admire the effort by both debaters but the pics of their tools really helped me understand how the fight would go down.

Mongol--1

Zande--1

@warlordeternal: It sure was a hard fought battle.

WarlordEternal gets my vote. Information-wise, I can't say either side did a better job, so it was very close there, but the decider was WarlordEternal's superior layout, especially with the pictures.

Zande--2

Mongol--1

More votes?

@jason_the_chen: Hell yeah. That's the way we like it though. None of that easy stuff, we play this sh*t hardcore.

@warlordeternal:

Most definitely, that was really fun to watch.

I personally vote for the Mongol. It seems like the Mongol would win. So my vote goes to @jason_the_chen

Mongol--2

Zande--2

Anyone else want to vote?

Also, when should I terminate the vote and establish a winner, assuming no one gains more votes?

@theshinygible: But aren't we currently tied? By terminate the vote, do you mean you choose who wins? Idk, bit confused lol

@jason_the_chen: By terminate the vote, I mean say whoever has more votes at that time moves on. And yes, you are tied now, but I'm just saying hypothetically.

More voting callouts: @ironspiderchan45, @dboyrules2011, @just_banter...yes I realize you wanted to be tagged for ninja vs. samurai matchup and you haven't said anything about this one. But a man can try.

lol

@theshinygible: XD this will be okay.

So I vote for @warlordeternal: because I think the pictures helped me a lot. If the chemical arrow hits the Mongol and it pierces his skin well he's screwed and those iron arrows may be able to break through the leather cap.

Zande--3

Mongol--2

More votes?

@ironspiderchan45: As I have clearly stated in my debate, the zande arrow couldn't even pierce the cotton armor of the Aztecs. Please don't assume anything, that is rather biased.

@jason_the_chen: To be fair to the Aztecs, their armor was dipped in salt water brine, making it quite tough.

@jason_the_chen:

Clearly stated? Well then why are you losing three votes to two? I don't want to start an argument but c'mon, accept the fact that you could lose. I'm counting his vote.

@jason_the_chen: calm down man everyone forgets something every now and then :/ . Anyway because of him debunking the arrow thing I vote Jason.

Ok then.

Mongol--3

Zande--2