#1 Posted by _Beastmaster_ (1515 posts) - - Show Bio

Welcome,my thankful followers,to another great episode of Deadliest Warrior,Back for Blood Unlimited.

 
 

Today's match places The Spartan,ancient warrior of Greece....Against The Knight,famous Human Tank of the Medieval Ages....

 
 

WHO

 

IS

 

DEADLIEST?

    
  
 
 
Spartan's Weapons-
Short Sword
Spear
Shield
Javelin 
(Bronze Armor)

Knight's Weapon's
Broadsword
Morningstar
Crossbow
Halberd
(Plate Armor and Shield)
 
 

Personal Opening Views-

What I see right now are two massive tanks,more so to the Knight,but yes,both are tanks.What I first see is obviously the Knight's superior armor,covering the whole body.But ever sword has it's other edge,the armor weighs a ton,and from what I know from the end of the Knight's battle,it lead to his end against a Pirate.When a Knight falls down,it's VERY hard for him to get up.I'm sure a Spartan can muster enough force to knock down a Knight,then simply do what Pikeman do.But,at the same time,I don't see the Spartan being able to do much else to the Knight.This should be an very interesting battle.Also,I just wanna say that the Spartan being declared "The Deadliest of Season One" doesn't mean much anything considering the Knight wasn't part of that specific Episode,before anyone comes using ABC logic.
 
 
 

Re-running's of the Final Battles-

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkCnjLgtBk8&feature=related
  
  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RFkDtRiXus
  
  
 
 
After Re-Watching Episodes,I have Decided.....
 
I have re-watched the whole episodes,not just the videos I posted,just to get this message clear.I have decided that,from watching the show,that the Knight managed to get up at least twice.The show could obviously have stretched the truth,but they can still pick themselves up.The one time the Knight had trouble was when he had taken multiple gunshots.From what I have seen,it is close,but I personally say the Knight should come out victorious. 

If you would like to argue against me,go ahead.This is just my opinion.
 
 
 

Scenario for Battle-

 
The battle takes place in a Canyon,similar to the one seen in the Movie 300.The Knight rides from the Beach on horseback while the Spartan is standing guard.There is 1000 feet between the Knight's starting point and the Spartan's starting point.The Spartan is out for simple defence,the Knight is out to slaughter him and his "Non-Pure Idiocy".
#2 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

The Spartan is vastly more manoeuvrable and vastly more skilled than the knight. I don't see him getting past that shield which the Spartan treats as an extension of his body.

Moderator
#3 Posted by Snowscorpion (337 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deranged Midget: A Knight isn't exactly a slouch in combat sir.Vastly more skilled is a bit of a overstatement.I personally don't see a Spartan bypassing the Armor of a Knight,aside from potential Chainmail stabs.
#4 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@Snowscorpion: Oh yes, they are vastly more skilled. Since the age of 7, Spartans went through more pain and rigiorous training than any other warrior in the world.

Oh and just for classification, real Knights never wore all that armour in real battle, it was more for celebratory and honorary events. Do your history homework.

Moderator
#5 Posted by Snowscorpion (337 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deranged Midget: Insulting my knowledge isn't going to get you anywhere in a debate,friend.
 
Do you have a link to a credible source that proves they wore no armour?
#6 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@Snowscorpion: Wasn't insulting you bud, I was correcting you and stating a fact. Knights more than anything else, have been exaggerated in how they engage in combat and what armour they wear. You can find it anywhere.

Moderator
#7 Edited by Snowscorpion (337 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deranged Midget: Yes,there is OBVIOUSLY no way "Do your history homework" could be taken as an insult.
 
Credible Link?everything I find through search engine's is telling me I'm correct.
#8 Posted by The Stegman (23918 posts) - - Show Bio

i'm leaning toward the Knight..but this is a really good fight...y'know what the next fight inevitably will be right?....Pirate vs Ninja

#9 Posted by Shadow_Thief (2509 posts) - - Show Bio

@Snowscorpion: My problem is that the term "knight" is a lot broader than the classification of Spartan soldier. A pampered nobleman who only donned his gear to strut about for the ladies and score points with the king would be in trouble, but someone like a Teutonic knight, who combined rigorous training, the best weapons and armor of the time, and the mindset of a religious zealot, would give any Spartan a run for his money.

#10 Posted by Snowscorpion (337 posts) - - Show Bio
@The Stegman: If you want to do that,fine.Sure,I'll debate that.
@Shadow_Thief
I'm thinking a Knight's Templar,there normally who I think of.
#11 Posted by Shadow_Thief (2509 posts) - - Show Bio

@Snowscorpion: They were certainly no slouches. The Templar were the deciding factor on more than a few battlefields. In fact, if I recall my history correctly, the ending narration of Braveheart should have read "They fought like warrior poets; they fought like Scotsmen, and they won their freedom...after the Templars arrived and charged into the rear of the English lines."

#12 Posted by Snowscorpion (337 posts) - - Show Bio
@Shadow_Thief: Good to know.So your personal opinion is?
#13 Posted by Shadow_Thief (2509 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd say it would be painfully close...but if I had to pick, I'd probably give a slight edge to the Templar. The Spartan may be more of a pure fighting machine, but I think the Templar's armor would effectively negate a bronze sword and spear. The best bet for the Spartan to get a kill shot would be to hit the Templar with a shield swing and snap his neck. Most of the Knight's weapons, on the other hand, would likely have no trouble penetrating bronze armor. It'd be pretty much the reverse of how the Knight's battle with the Pirate played out: the Spartan may have been the better professional warrior, but I don't feel it would be enough to overcome the Knight's technological advantage.

#14 Posted by Snowscorpion (337 posts) - - Show Bio
@Shadow_Thief: Great to know your opinion.A Spartan's armor isn't exactly best for pure protection,I believe they relied a bit on their shields.Do you think the Templar would be able to bypass it?
#15 Posted by Shadow_Thief (2509 posts) - - Show Bio

In this case, I would have to say yes. A bronze shield isn't going to be nearly as effective against steel weapons. Now, give our Spartan steel armor and weapons, and I think any Knight would be in trouble.

#16 Posted by Snowscorpion (337 posts) - - Show Bio
@Shadow_Thief: Ehh....They tested a Spartan's Shield against multiple steel weapons,it took the damage dealt to it.I'm just saying the Knight isn't going to slice through it like butter.
 
You watch the show,right?I'm taking requests for these debate things.
#17 Posted by Shadow_Thief (2509 posts) - - Show Bio

Love the show. Haven't seen much of the new season, though.

I do believe the shield would be the Spartan's ace-in-the-hole, but I'm not convinced it would be enough of a difference to give him the win, statistically speaking.

#18 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@Snowscorpion: Quit taking everything so seriously, I'll leave it up to you to do the research yourself. But here's a few facts. Only the richest knights could afford plate armour resembling what you've seen in the Deadliest Warrior match-up. Even though it allowed for maximum protection, it would mostly be seen in jousting arena's and rarely on the battlefield due to restricted mobility and vision. You'd probably only ever see the King wearing all this armour or perhaps a few of his lieutenants. Most knights, could barely even afford chainmail and a helmet. If lucky, they would have armour for their arms and legs, but it usually just consisted of the former.

Now, on to the battle. Yes, I agree that if the Knight was wearing the plate armour, the Spartan would have much trouble penetrating it due to weaker weapons. So the Knight has the advantage in weapons and armour, but the Spartan is still much more skilled than the Knight, which unless he can disarm, will do him no good.

So yes, the Knight would most likely win this encounter if he was fully armoured.

Moderator
#19 Posted by Rainy (1222 posts) - - Show Bio

Dam vampires wiped out the zombies like commandos.

#20 Posted by Snowscorpion (337 posts) - - Show Bio
@Rainy: No zombies or Vamps here,friend lol.
#21 Posted by SilverGalford (3260 posts) - - Show Bio

the spartan gets stomped , the knight has too much protection.

#22 Posted by _Beastmaster_ (1515 posts) - - Show Bio
@SilverGalford: I've decided to limit the Knight to a chestplate and Chainmail,due to naggs about it.
#23 Posted by _Cain_ (23666 posts) - - Show Bio

@Deranged Midget:i feel like the halberd EASILY gets rid of that shield and turns the spartan into a Greek shush-ka-bab

#24 Posted by SilverGalford (3260 posts) - - Show Bio

@Night_Rake said:

@SilverGalford: I've decided to limit the Knight to a chestplate and Chainmail,due to naggs about it.

LOL! that's unfair .

#25 Posted by _Beastmaster_ (1515 posts) - - Show Bio
@SilverGalford: Why?A Knight's Templar were some of the greatest warriors ever imagined,and they are seen as wonders of warfare.
@shadowknight666
Please tell me your joking cain lol.
 
This has been changed to a Chainmail-clad Knight's Templar.
#26 Posted by _Cain_ (23666 posts) - - Show Bio

@Night_Rake: i'm saying that the halberd was designed for A.making Calvary soldiers look like b!tches and B. disarming enemies it's my belief that the REALLY big fork can get rid of the large weapon that only has a reach of the opponents arm

#27 Posted by _Beastmaster_ (1515 posts) - - Show Bio
@shadowknight666: Well,now it's suddenly a stomp in the Knight's favor? :)/
#28 Posted by _Cain_ (23666 posts) - - Show Bio

@Night_Rake: after further analyzation i deem that after a hard fight knight wins due to after the shield is gone the spartan can't really do anything the knight can't due better however if the spartan gets ONE shield blow it's game over plus i say that like the other guy in training and fighting skill i give to spartan however that won't save him from a halberd in his @$$

#29 Posted by whitecracka23 (69 posts) - - Show Bio

The spartan doesn't just have weapons to use. If the knight gets close enough, the spartan can take him down and apply an arm bar.

#30 Posted by TimothyLoh (11 posts) - - Show Bio

@Snowscorpion: Oh yes, they are vastly more skilled. Since the age of 7, Spartans went through more pain and rigiorous training than any other warrior in the world.

Oh and just for classification, real Knights never wore all that armour in real battle, it was more for celebratory and honorary events. Do your history homework.

Some knights began intense physical training at 6. As for training difficulty: the Maori, some Samurai, the Oathsworn Champions of the Gauls, and the Knights of the Crusading Orders (Knights of Santiago, Knights of the Temple, Knights of St. John, and Knights of the Noble Orders of the Teutons) were all forced to enter mandatory training. Additionally, in the Hundred Years' War, professional armoured cavalry (AKA knights) were known to train 7-8 hours a day, daily, in full armour, lifting weights and practicing swordsmanship for hours on end. It was not uncommon for Iberian, Arabic, and steppe-nomads to offer their services as riding tutors.

What made the agoge special was that it was enforced through the laws of Lycurgus; without it, one could not have the full rights of a Spartan citizen. One thus had social status depending both on martial skill and documented training. The emphasis of Spartan training was collective discipline and individual reliability, not on individual prowess.

My advice as a minor in the probabilities of UCTR (unconventional collective tactical results), or just science in general, is not to make absolute statements. There are always outliers, or incorrect data collection. It's alright to make generalisations, but don't stereotype. The line of best fit is almost never followed all throughout (when it is, hallelujah, take a picture).

Depends on the knight; we talking a wandering adventurer, the son of a king, the son of a baron, or the son of a knight? The French and Gothic knights certainly did wear advanced full-suits of heavy plate, whether on foot or mounted. True, such armour weighs from 30-70 lb., but that's about the same weight as the modern USA infantryman's FBO.

@Snowscorpion: Quit taking everything so seriously, I'll leave it up to you to do the research yourself. But here's a few facts. Only the richest knights could afford plate armour resembling what you've seen in the Deadliest Warrior match-up. Even though it allowed for maximum protection, it would mostly be seen in jousting arena's and rarely on the battlefield due to restricted mobility and vision. You'd probably only ever see the King wearing all this armour or perhaps a few of his lieutenants. Most knights, could barely even afford chainmail and a helmet. If lucky, they would have armour for their arms and legs, but it usually just consisted of the former.

Now, on to the battle. Yes, I agree that if the Knight was wearing the plate armour, the Spartan would have much trouble penetrating it due to weaker weapons. So the Knight has the advantage in weapons and armour, but the Spartan is still much more skilled than the Knight, which unless he can disarm, will do him no good.

So yes, the Knight would most likely win this encounter if he was fully armoured.

I didn't see the match-up… but it really depends on the time period. In the Hundred Years' War, almost every knight was expected to have plated greaves, vambraces, gauntlets, and a plate cuirass, not to mention a plated, angular helm. However, in the Third Crusade, knights were clad in chain-mail and pothelms mostly.

As I said… 'much more skilled' is a very tentative term. Remember, knights tended to be descended from Germanic noble warriors, who were regarded as the best and strongest. The Spartans all had to go through the agoge. In terms of natural talent and stature, the knights have the advantage, and some knights did start their training at 5-6.

@SilverGalford: Why?A Knight's Templar were some of the greatest warriors ever imagined,and they are seen as wonders of warfare.

@shadowknight666:

Please tell me your joking cain lol.

This has been changed to a Chainmail-clad Knight's Templar.

The Knights of Solomon's Temple were certainly great warriors… but perhaps not the greatest. I do remember accounts of the Battle of Legnica, though, where Mongols surrounded the Templars and wore them down one by one. At one point, they unleashed a group of a hundred men to deal with twenty-something exhausted Templars, and those hundred men decided to close the distance and engage with swords. It… didn't end well. Each knight slew 3-5 Mongol veterans before succumbing. The Golden Horde mandate from then on was: "Knights aren't invincible… but never engage them in close combat."

As to the actual fight:

Neither should really have much of a noticeable advantage in skill; if we're pitting the average Franco-German Ritterbruder against a Spartan hippeis (best on best), then we'd have to go with the Ritterbruder by quite a lot. Both are highly trained men at their prime. The knight would definitely have a size/strength advantage, but the Spartan is trained for short-duration high-intensity shoving wars, so I'd give the Greek a sprint advantage.

Both have a pole-arm; the knight's weakness is that he can't use his shield and the halberd at the same time, whilst the Spartan can use both spear and shield together. The halberd is a one-hit KO without shields; it was made as an armor-piercing weapon, and was used in conjunction with pikes against knights and condottieri by the Swiss. The spear is less powerful, and lacks the hacking/thrusting/hooking versatility of a halberd, but the jabs are fast and it is lighter. It then comes down to shield and sword. Here, we see the weakness of the hoplite: its focus on phalanx combat means that the Spartan's reflex is to directly interpose his shield, and, while much more skilled than the average Athenian hoplite at the sword, he isn't too much of a swordsman compared to a Roman/German sword-fighter (this is how the Romans beat the Greco-Macedonian phalanx; break cohesion, engage the individuals with swords). Knights were trained more for individual combat, and would be trained in tilting and deflecting the shield, as well as more advanced sword techniques.

In terms of armour, they're both fairly evenly matched. Assuming we're now using chain-mail for the knight, that is. If he's wearing half-plate or full-plate, the knight has a massive advantage.

At the end of the day, the knight would probably win, even with chain-mail. However, certain Spartans might be skilled enough to triumph; on the other hand, some knights would also be so exceptionally skilled as to demolish the Spartan. We're working off averages here.

Ultimately, it comes down to 3 things: the training, and the back of the warriors, as well as the ideals.

Knightly training focused on individual prowess, fitness, and potency. Spartan training focused on immense discipline and logistical resourcefulness. Knights were trained to be individually exceptional, whilst Spartans were trained to keep their army together against all odds (and then Leuctra happened…). In a one-on-one combat… one was trained directly for it.

Knights were chosen based on genetics, albeit accidentally. The ancestors of a knightly house tended to be the best Germanic warriors, and those genes of fitness get passed down. All Spartans were picked from the citizenry; those who could afford it and were already in the city, picked by circumstance instead of natural advantages. Knights were very well-fed, and the nutrition showed in their stature, whilst Spartan youths were starved to teach them to be economically resourceful.

Finally, the ideals.

Knights were meant to protect the weak and uphold the strong. It didn't matter as to his individual patriotism or loyalty to the state; what was treasured was his individual honour and prowess. Spartans, on the other hand, were meant to protect the city-state, right or wrong. What was treasured was that he would never break the formation. Spartans were raised in the shadow of the king, Lycurgus, who commanded them to follow these orders. Knights were raised in the shadow of their ancestors, who had gathered together to fend off the Magyars and Vikings, and were forced to this by necessity.

Not all knights/Spartans were this way, of course; as I said there are always outliers.

#31 Posted by TimothyLoh (11 posts) - - Show Bio

The Spartan is vastly more manoeuvrable and vastly more skilled than the knight. I don't see him getting past that shield which the Spartan treats as an extension of his body.

And the manufacturing requirement for a Milan or Munich suit of plate required a) the knight who owned it to be able to perform 5 somersaults, ten cartwheels, and 15 pull-ups in the armour, and b) the armour to be able to take point-blank shots from arbalests and primitive gunpowder weapons.

#32 Posted by Racob7 (5540 posts) - - Show Bio
#33 Posted by TimothyLoh (11 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh… um, sorry, is that a faux pas? I only come here sometimes to protest against people who make stereotypes on ancient warfare, so I honestly don't know much about the social workings.

I just felt like adding my piece of pie to this.

#34 Posted by Wolfrazer (6472 posts) - - Show Bio

The Knights of Solomon's Temple were certainly great warriors… but perhaps not the greatest. I do remember accounts of the Battle of Legnica, though, where Mongols surrounded the Templars and wore them down one by one. At one point, they unleashed a group of a hundred men to deal with twenty-something exhausted Templars, and those hundred men decided to close the distance and engage with swords. It… didn't end well. Each knight slew 3-5 Mongol veterans before succumbing. The Golden Horde mandate from then on was: "Knights aren't invincible… but never engage them in close combat."

What an embarrassment.

#35 Edited by TimothyLoh (11 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolfrazer: Reminds me of a Halo game I played a while ago… my three friends were shooting at a guy with a gravity hammer (my friends are not the best shots in the world). The hammer-wielding enemy had his shields knocked out, but right then my friends had used up every bullet in the magazines of their rifles. They decided to run up close and melee him…

Next thing I know, I'm just flying around on a Banshee and I see three bodies flying from the top of a building. (I then killed the hammer guy, but still, it was pretty funny.) Three-on-one, and they had to get up close to a guy with a huge hammer. Kinda what happens when one challenged veteran knights in close combat.

@stormdriven: No, we were Sangheili Elites. The other guy was, too. :) Honestly, your opinion is your own. If real Spartans fought like they did in 300, then of course the Spartans. But the thing is, Spartans fought more like the Roman legionnaires in Scott's Gladiator. Knights, on the other hand, were actually expected to have fought like the Spartans in 300; a mix of brutal economy with flair and glorious emphasis on individual prowess. An elite bodyguard Spartan might stand a better chance; however, bringing in elites is just unfair.

It's not absolute, though. As I said, there are outliers in every single experiment/conflict. I've never graded my students on their abilities to perfectly replicate results as long as they understand the theoretical and have a good grasp of the required procedures.

Both were capable of the other's defining characteristic, though. The medieval battaille is still famed today as a fully articulated formation that allowed Normans, Crusaders, and professional armoured cavalry to outmanoeuvre and outmuscle larger forces; and Spartiates were famed in both Hellas and the Peloponnese for carrying on the traditions of training men in the use of the ceremonial swords, which came in handy whenever the spears started breaking.

Still, though, believe what you will on this matter. There are far stupider opinions to hold, and it's not an unreasonable belief.

@stormdriven Crud, post limit reached.

I'm not sure what your 'What?' is about, actually. If it's about the last stanza, no offence meant. I'm just saying that the statistics suggest the knight would win; but it's not a stupid thing to say that the Spartan would. War is annoyingly unpredictable, and exceptions abound. Some Spartans would indeed triumph over knights.

#36 Posted by Stormdriven (4816 posts) - - Show Bio

Still Spartans

#37 Posted by Wolfrazer (6472 posts) - - Show Bio

@timothyloh: That's not as bad as having to send 100 guys against exhausted 20 something Templars though. But humorous.

#39 Posted by Stormdriven (4816 posts) - - Show Bio
#40 Posted by Penderor (1573 posts) - - Show Bio

Knight murder slaughter stomps him lol.