engima571 I first saw this show in 2009 when it first came out, and was quite excited.It promised to deliver interesting outcomes from hypothetical battles between some of the most famous warriors of all time. I was perfectly happy watching it in '09, but when I caught up with it in '12, it looked just plain awful. This show was clearly written with the most casual military/weapon enthusiast in mind, because it quite honestly has little to no credibility or realism. Many of the so-called "experts" are shown handling their weapons as if they were toys, keeping their fingers on the triggers and waving the muzzles at the cameras, generally having little respect for the weapons they're holding. Many of the actors representing the various armed forces lack even basic training in the use of firearms (See: Viet Cong vs. Waffen SS) and are sometimes shown with a complete misrepresentation of the weapons, gear, and uniforms issued to those forces (See: Green Beret vs. Spetsnaz and Viet Cong vs. Waffen SS). On top of that, incorrect data is often shown when displaying the weapons during the show's trials, further demonstrating the lack of attention to detail that goes into this show's production. The biggest problem that I have with this show overall is that it completely misrepresents how a conflict would have turned out between any two forces, particularly because the only factors that are utilized in choosing the "victors" are the show's dismal understanding of weapon specs and poorly-informed personal opinion on the part of the hosts. The value of a weapon or a piece of equipment is determined chiefly by the skill of the operator, and this show completely ignores this critical area in favor of Call of Duty-style showboating, bad special effects, and bunch of idiots attempting to figure out how weapons work. I enjoy this show (and I use that term very loosely) when there is literally nothing else on TV, but otherwise, I'll pass on it.

gs20 First, let me say that I think revisionist historians and their ilk are some of the worst criminals on the face of the earth. Anyone who contributes to anything related to revising historically known facts are contributors to those who would lie about history. It is bad because it causes all sorts of problems that we won't get into here.These guys need an archaeological historian in a major way. we stopped watching after the samurai vs spartan thing because there is a reason for the progression from bronze to iron to steel in history. when you find something new that is better, one stops using the older inferior thing............simply, when bronze weapons are used against the finest steel weapons ever produced, the bronze weapons snap like twigs .......we know, we tried it.The other suspicious thing about that particular travesty was the "Japanese" expert......as far as we could find, he was born in England and lives and works in Canada.........we found no evidence that he has any martial arts training or that he has any education in the history or sciences of ancient weaponry.......oh wait, he did study dancing in Japan.........not my idea of an expert suited to the task ..........we didn't actually care for his "technique" with the katana especially .........it's a sword, not a club or a baseball bat............and the most glaring error in the chosen weaponry had to be......naginata instead of the YARI, an amazing spear used by the samurai right up to the Edo period...........the naginata being more the weapon of priests, women, very under trained troops shanghaied from farms and oh yes, Kabuki dancers.The naginata was not very popular with the samurai and the YARI would have been a more realistic choice but we can only guess why they didn't want to try a carbon steel straight blade with edges like razor blades, made with the same steel as a katana against an (LOL) animal hide shield with a bronze covering (like a hot knife through butter, perhaps?)All in all, we can't begin to tell you how many, from a historical standpoint, gross errors and mistakes these guys have made but we can tell you to PLEASE don't use any thing they say in school.......if you do, speaking for those that may grade you, you will fail. These are just a few of the reasons we no longer watch this foolish cartoon of a show...........we won't even get into how foolish the ninja/viking thing was as well, among other oblique fantasies these people have foisted upon us.

Peter Hendriks I love history, mythology, legendary warriors and the ancient arts of war a lot. Once i noticed this show i was very much looking forward to it. And since i watched the entire first season in one day i can conclude that it kept my interest. But i also love science. Accurate, fair and logical sounding science. That part frustrated me a lot. So in total what was the show like?Lets start with the thing i loved the most. The weapons! Of course we know a lot about the 'Tommy Gun', William Wallace's insane sword and the weapon of weapons: the legendary Katana. But seeing them do their job in power testing action was surprisingly interesting. The pure impact of some weapons was absolutely astonishing. Also the effect on the gel torso's, pigs, skulls, pieces of wood and other test objects was captured pretty well from a cinematographical (?) perspective. But when the show got to its point of comparison i found myself swearing a lot. It felt really suggestive, hardly consistent, accurate or logical most of the time. Its like the challenges in Top Gear on the BBC. They seem to be planning everything to be very close. It felt hugely scripted, hardly accurate and hardly proper scientific. I don't know if im right but it looked like agility and supporting weapons had no effect in the system whatsoever. Pure muscle seem to win most of the time. That just didn't make sense.Example: 'Spoiler' Ninja vs Spartan We all know that the effect of pepperspray is pretty intense right? I saw people hyperventilating, puking etc. The ninja seem to use something like that, but also pulverised glass for the eyes. Would a Spartan warrior really blink his eyes one time and go on fighting? Just because he was trained to have physical pain? That just sounds rubbish. Out of a 1000 battles the ninja could these sort of tricks over and over again. Why? Because the spartan warrior was made just like a roman warrior to fight entire armies. To work in a group, forming one big shield and deal devastating attacks to huge and not agile moving masses of flesh. The ninja is a one on one specialist. But according to the system he looses 65% of the time due to heavy damage the spartan can deal. But leaving a man cripple on the ground as the effect of glass or pepper in your eye will lead to the same thing. A ninjato in you neck, which is an instant kill. I got the feeling the system did not counter these sort of combo attacks, if you could call i that.There seem to be a lot more of these plot holes. Which at times can get really frustrating. But when your looking for good fun and the effect that some weapons have, do watch. You'll enjoy it!

dorotka24 I must first say about this series that the premise is outstanding, and one that has crossed my mind on numerous occasions. What would happen if a medieval knight met up with a samurai? Who would be victorious in battle? The show then attempts to determine whom is the better warrior amongst two different kinds in history - in many cases two warriors that are separated by many centuries. The arms and armors available to these warriors are demonstrated, both in their lethal potential or in their stopping power in the case of armor. The demonstrations are fascinating, including weapons experts that strike or fire their weapons at ballistics gel encased, and presumably reproduction skeletons. A physician or medical specialist then examines the footage, or the dummy in some cases, and describes the type of trauma inflicted. At the end, we get a well choreographed fight between two re-enactors dressed in costume to simulate the potential outcome of such a contest, as well as a statistics model that determines the winner in 1,000 contests. I like this concept because despite the advantages a particular warrior might possess over another, the randomness of combat will ensure that even the presumably better warrior will lose at least a percentage of the time. The problems with the show are many, however, and seriously challenge the credibility of the participants. As others have pointed out, a warrior is more than the sum of his weapons and armor, which the show spends the most amount of time demonstrating. I think the premise could be dropped and have the show focus on weapons demonstrations only. Although the mindset, culture, tactics, and goals of each warrior are mentioned, these descriptions are brief and superficial. In addition,the hypothetical combats displayed are all duels. Most of the warriors portrayed would rarely, if ever, be faced with a duel situation, instead fighting in a unit of many soldiers/warriors. The worst part for me has to be the banter or trash talk between the weapons experts representing each respective warrior. It reminds me of a WWE matchup or a pre-boxing/MMA trash session instead of a presumably serious and/or scientific look at a hypothetical combat situation.At any rate, I do enjoy the show because it has many good aspects. But the flaws do not make for "must-see" TV. If they would focus a little more on the tactics, drop the banter, and perhaps consider tactical unit combat instead of duels, I believe the show would be much improved. The producers are obviously trying to cater to a younger, action thirsty crowd, perhaps in an effort to make history more interesting. I applaud this rationale if nothing else, but the more discriminating viewers with a desire for logical and factual history, such as myself, are often left wanting.If any wish for a superior show with similarities to DW, check out an earlier History Channel series called "Conquest" with Peter Woodward. The latter is more mature, yet still with some light hearted moments. It covers nearly every criticism I have for DW and then some (see my review).EDIT: I had not seen Season 3 prior to this original review, and S3 does cover some of my criticisms for the first two Seasons. The banter here has been toned down substantially and the combats all consist of units fighting each other. The warrior's mindsets, values, and motivations are explored with the addition of Richard Machowicz. I also liked the addition of the "X Factors" as well, or somewhat intangible characteristics such as mental health or physical fitness which could positively or negatively impact a side's performance. Overall the changes added a more serious and scientific component to the show that was a substantial improvement IMO. There are still a few problems that I saw, particularly with the tendency to match two opponents who were not a very good matchup to begin with. Hannibal and Genghis Khan was a good example, as they were separated by nearly 1,400 years and Khan's armor and weapons technology was far superior. Same could be said of William the Conqueror and Joan of Arc. It was a little silly to see a unit of five men firing a heavy artillery piece at each other as well. The elite modern soldiers did not have weapons that they most likely would have carried. I am particularly thinking about the Rangers/North Korea and Gurkha/French Foreign Legion in that all these soldiers would have probably carried hand grenades and a pistol of some kind. Roosevelt/Lawrence of Arabia or even Washington/Napolean would have probably had pistols as well. Oddly enough, only Pancho Villa/Crazy Horse were depicted carrying pistols.In general, the format changes in S3 were an improvement and I enjoyed it quite a bit more than the previous seasons.