RSS Feed MenuSpike TV’s series Deadliest Warrior is presumably aimed at a demographic that’s fairly young and mostly male. The show investigates such questions as who would win in a fight to the death between a Spartan and a Ninja, or Navy SEALs versus Israeli commandos—and in the relevant weapons testing splatters some pig carcasses or head-shaped gelatin models.
But that’s not to say it’s a frivolous show. It’s actually quite thought-provoking, offering insights into military history, strategy and philosophy, while giving a sense of the power (and limits) of scientific empirical testing and of computer simulations. That Deadliest Warrior is fun and sometimes tasteless should not distract from its intellectually stimulating content.
Each episode involves a hypothetical showdown between two types of combatants (or occasionally, specific individuals) drawn from past or present. Thus, during the first two seasons there have been episodes about, to name a few, Ming Warrior vs. Musketeer, Vlad the Impaler vs. Sun Tzu, Comanche vs. Mongol, and Jesse James vs. Al Capone (actually it was their respective gangs shooting it out).
The show subjects the combatants’ weaponry and techniques to lab and field tests, often involving the above mentioned slabs of meat or gelatin models designed to replicate the density of human tissue. Guests with expertise in one side or the other wield the weapons and serve as advocates for the respective warriors, and the test data are fed into a simulation program that runs 1,000 fights between the combatants. (The multiple iterations are so some lucky blow doesn’t yield a misleading outcome.)
Each episode ends with a dramatic recreation, using actors but based on the simulations. At the end, one side will be dead or approaching death (mercy and negotiation have not entered into any of the episodes I’ve seen), and the winner typically shouts exultantly with fist raised in triumph.
Does all this glorify war? The sensibilities of antiwar activists on left and paleo-right would no doubt be offended by this show, if they could bring themselves to watch it (and the military recruitment ads that sometimes run in the commercial breaks would reassure them not at all). However, I think the program promotes a healthy soberness about war. For one thing, seeing modern or ancient weapons wreak havoc on plausible stand-ins for the human body helps convey the realization that war is a deadly serious, intensely horrible business and not some bloodless video game.
Moreover, the arts and sciences of war, as gruesome as they may be, are part of the necessary knowledge of civilization. A society too squeamish to look at the recreated violence of, say, Attila the Hun will have trouble protecting itself against modern-day Attilas. And, some of the combatants shown on the program are America’s enemies today, such as the Taliban (shown in a matchup with the IRA, an episode I didn’t see but which I’m told sparked some ridicule in the United Kingdom) and Somali pirates (who are depicted fighting the Medellin drug cartel).
I suspect some readers are curious about the outcomes of some of the contrived conflicts mentioned above. I will not give away any endings, lest I spoil anyone’s TV viewing, but Wikipedia has a list of the first two seasons’ episodes, complete with tabular results.
“Deadliest Warrior” has been evolving. Whereas the first season focused on one-on-one combat between two warriors, the second season has branched out into conflicts between groups of say five each (with a running tally onscreen helpfully showing how many fighters are alive on each side). This makes sense, in that the cohesion and efficiency of a unit is often a crucial factor.
Perhaps future seasons will branch out further from individual and small-unit warfare to display entire armies clashing. In any event, there is no shortage of material for future episodes of “Deadliest Warrior,” and one may as well make peace with that somber but undeniable fact about our world.
showme // Aug 6, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I’ve seen a few of these. The show’s strength is the weapon comparisons. Unfortunately the history is very lightweight and often misleading. There was an episode comparing the waffen SS to the viet cong and almost everything they said about the waffen SS was factually incorrect.
SkepticalIdealist // Aug 6, 2010 at 6:03 pm
I love how the author has so many assumptions about “the sensibilities of antiwar activists on [the] left and paleo-right” who he suggests would be offended by this show. Let me just say this, I’m opposed to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I’ve watched every episode of deadliest warrior. I also happen to love horror movies, call of duty, the collected works of Quentin Tarantino, and anything that involves a hatchet flying directly into the crown of a zombie’s skull. Fictionalized violence and media depictions of sex do not offend me. The ironic thing is that the same is not true for social conservatives who often lead the crusade against violent television, even though that phenomena is a direct result of the free market system they support, which knows blood equals ratings, and that places money above decency and tradition.
Krom // Aug 6, 2010 at 6:46 pm
I think the show is informative, but it has absolutely been “energized” to make it appealing to modern audiences in a way that tends to glorify the act of war. War is an unfortunate reality of the human condition, but it’s not nearly as “cool” as the show hints at. I’ve seen a couple of their “simulated match-ups” at the conclusion of the show, and they’ve been totally absurd.
a.n. // Aug 6, 2010 at 7:39 pm
I find the explanation of why Deadliest Warrior might be beneficial to society extremely flimsy. I still like the show though.
Anyways, SkepticalIdealist, that was a really stupid post.
First, your description of your personality doesn’t entail that the author has made an unwarranted assumption. The argument “John Smith writes that most people in group x think y, but I am in x and don’t think y, so his claim is wrong” rests on anecdotal evidence, and is therefore a flagrant non-sequitur. In any case, I for one find it plausible that many people in the “buying my son a cap gun is just wrong” demographic would be more turned off than the rest of the population by Deadliest Warrior. If you wish, that group can stand in as an analogue for the author’s “anti-war activists on the left.”
Second, I don’t really see where you got your claim that “social conservatives… lead the crusade against violent television.” Since when? If anything, they lead the crusade against sex and profanity on TV, and the violence thing is more or less evenly populated by people of various political stripes. In all honesty I don’t remember a significant violent television crusade in recent years in American politics, but if it was anything like the violent video games crusade of the last decade, it was led by people like Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, and Joe Lieberman.
Third, social conservatives only support the “free market” incidentally (unless they are economic conservatives too), and violent television shows aren’t a result of the “free market” any more than apples, overcoats, Jeeps, or DVD players are. If a demand for violent television creates a supply of violent television programs, that might indicate the existence of a “free market,” but only of the kind that virtually everyone in the US believes in, and not something nefarious.
easton // Aug 6, 2010 at 9:41 pm
No, I agree with skeptical about this: “The sensibilities of antiwar activists on left and paleo-right would no doubt be offended by this show” For one, who cares? And two, why state that qualifier is so generalized a fashion targeted at 2 specific groups? Look, obviously some people will be offended by the show, but the review is not targeted for them. And a.n. is not anecdotal if a person implies that everyone who fits that description would be offended, it is refutation. And anti war people are not necessarily the same as “buying my son a cap gun is just wrong” There are many types of Anti war people, from outright pacifists like the Amish to isolationists who would be happy to nuke the hell out of anyone who tried to invade us.
Anyway, enough about this quibble. I have not seen the show yet, did not even know of it. If the history is flimsy, forget about it, but if not I would watch it.
I do like that show where they put elite combat soldiers through grueling conditions and then have them perform war like activities, where most people would fall apart these soldiers often do better. That is great stuff.
ktward // Aug 7, 2010 at 12:14 am
Once my youngest left for college over a year ago, I quickly dropped cable with nary a regret. After reading this piece, still no regrets.
showme echoes one of my main issues with the supposed ‘intellectual’ cable channels: they are notoriously deficient in accurate, factual representation. History channel? Interesting themes, to be sure, but too often I found their historical recounts deficient not only in fact, but downright misleading at times in terms of perspective. Discovery channel? The Learning channel? These morphed into sensationalized and/or voyeuristic abominations. Gag me.
a.n.’s correct: SoCons aren’t all that concerned with violence, gratuitous or otherwise. Their issue is mostly just sex; let their adolescent sons play grisly violent TV games all they want–a la Doom and GTA– but god forbid they should see a chick’s breast or [gasp!] two dudes going in for a smooch. (a sign of the downfall of human civilization, dontcha know.) It’s mostly the Left that takes issue with media-venerated/generated violence. Remember Tipper Gore’s crusade?
easton’s correct: who the hell cares who might be ‘offended’ by this Spike show?
FWIW, I’m profoundly against media censorship of any kind. Just like everyone else, I’m perfectly capable of turning the channel or turning the crap off altogether. Free-market consumer demand at its very best: parents today have every kind of media-control mechanism at their ready disposal to help them restrict & monitor their kids’ activities, according to their own parental sensibilities. Tech advancements have virtually eradicated the ‘victim of media’ argument. That violin simply doesn’t play anymore.
Silbur: Moreover, the arts and sciences of war, as gruesome as they may be, are part of the necessary knowledge of civilization. A society too squeamish to look at the recreated violence of, say, Attila the Hun will have trouble protecting itself against modern-day Attilas.
Utter nonsense!
Military strategists are the only people who need to review ‘gruesome’. Unless you are purporting that society-at-large should devolve back to the de-sensitized barbarism of Colosseum days, there is no modern mandate for civilians to see such grotesque human atrocities. Our military men (and now women) cannot avoid their potential long-term psychological damage as witness and participant to the horrendous acts of modern-day war; that civilians might also bear such profound weight provides zero constructive military end.
Look, Silbur. Watch whatever floats your boat. I’ll have your back on that.
But attempting to rationalize and justify this kind of Cable Crap as somehow meaningful–even necessary!– to the public at large is self-indulgent nonsense.
jakester // Aug 7, 2010 at 2:33 am
Face it there is a large chunk of media, including all the leftists in Hollywood and the TV who glorify this macho ninja gladiator hack em crap. This show just puts a technical spin on war like dozens of History Channel shows. Our culture has gotten totally bloodthirsty literally in pop media lately
Nanotek // Aug 7, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I like it and watch when I can … the cleverness is arresting in some of those ancient weapons
thijsvn // Aug 7, 2010 at 5:21 pm
No offense, but anyone taking the “research” in that series serious, must be at least twice removed from reality. It fits right alongside Fight Science and Animal Face-Off and shouldn’t be taken serious by anyone above the age of 16.
Rob_654 // Aug 7, 2010 at 10:18 pm
I like watching “Deadliest Warrior” – while it is not some deep thought provoking show – I enjoy the background of the weapons and fighting style overview of the “combatants”.
busboy33 // Aug 8, 2010 at 12:12 am
@showme:
“The show’s strength is the weapon comparisons.”
If by that you mean “watching experts smash and slice targets in awesome slow-motion as blood packets spray like Niagara Falls” . . . then yes.
I’m a little under-impressed with the forced rivalry between the teams, the bad acting at the end, the overly “no really, this totally scientific” stagecraft, etc.. But dudes spraying a car packed with dummies with a pair of mini-uzis or decapitating a gel skeleton with a gigantic axe is all good in my book.
showme // Aug 8, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Agreed, it is a very silly show. And let me stress, the history isn’t just weak, it’s wrong, wrong, wrong.
When I said “the show’s strength is the weapon comparisons” I meant that sometimes they shoot historical firearms and discuss their various strengths and weaknesses. That’s the part of the show that might have value (or maybe not, I’m not a weapons expert).
SkepticalIdealist // Aug 8, 2010 at 6:52 pm
a.n, your post displayed some world class idiocy. Easton already made most of the points I was going to be make, but just to be thorough let me say this: 1) The author made a broad generalization about two groups of people, one of which I happen to be a member of, and his generalization was wrong. 2) That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You attack me for using “anecdotal” evidence to disprove his unwarranted assumption about “the anti-war left and paleo right,” yet you give the author a free pass for making his statement on similarly subjective grounds. The reason you do is because you agree with the assumption, which is fine, but it certainly doesn’t have any empirical evidence to back it up and the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, not the other way around. 3) On your third point, it is regulatory commissions like the FCC that censor violence and keep pornography off non-pay-per-view television channels. The more “free” the television market becomes of this kind of regulation then the more sex and violence it’ll have because shows with provocative content generally get higher ratings, and higher ratings equals more money. That is the inherent contradiction of social conservatives supporting the free market. And even if it is as you say, and most social conservatives only support the free-market “incidentally,” it’s pretty much a package deal when you elect just about any conservative politician, so as far as votes are concerned, what is the practical difference between them and a economic conservative?
Lastly, I’m sure it could be proven empirically, and it’ll make a lot of sense to most people intuitively, that social conservatives have a high tendency to be economic conservatives as well. In fact, I’d say that in many cases it is probably because of their social conservatism that they become economic conservatives, but that is a subject for another time.