Deadliest Warrior – Pirate vs. Knight Controversy
Television — By trench on May 4, 2009 at 4:19 am | 2,891 VisitorsI’m just curious to see what everyone else thinks about it. I myself thought the Knight would win based on superior armor and close range weaponry. In a one on one duel to the death, I really thought the armor + chainmail + shield would be enough to survive the long range attacks of a pirate. I don’t even recall them testing the chainmail which is pretty significant if you ask me.
Do you think they gave too much credit to the Blunderbuss? I have embedded the full video on the Pirate versus Knight Aftermath for your viewing pleasure. You may also check out the huge debate between fans of the show over at spike.com.
Have you voted on our weekly poll for the winner of next weeks Deadliest Warrior. Make your votes here.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
RSS FeedAuthor: trench (689 Articles)
I have mixed heritage of Chamorro, Filipino, and Japanese and I currently reside on the beautiful island of Guam. My interests include critiquing films, eating out, import cars, gaming, web design, MMA, and bodybuilding. I'm also a die-hard fan of both the Los Angeles Lakers and San Francisco 49ers. I hate bandwagon fans!
25 Comments
I thought the exact same thing you did Trench! I thought the Pirate’s firepower was ineffective and innaccurate against the knight’s armor. Every demo showed the armor standing up to the flintlock pistols and I’m sure it would stand up to the blunderbuss just as well. Not to mention the superior weaponry of the knight.
I thought the same thing.
That is sooo stupid! The pirate deserved to win. The blunderbuss did penetrate the nights armor and in the video the pirate only used the pistol to kill the hore and kill the night by pulling up the shade over the nights eyes (the week spot). Also the knights sword and the pirates cutlass where equal closs range. And besides is you give the knight his horse then you should give the pirate his ship. Pirates deserved to win
I noticed one error in the bluderbuss vs knight armor. They did not take into account the chain mail worn under the plate armor. The design of the mail would have not only provided for a more difficult protective charecteristic for the blunderbuss rounds to penetrate but also due to its design would have allowed the impact to have been spread over a larger area there by reducing the blunt force trauma as well.
hmm, never thought bout the hores!
Good eye. So far I have picked all the victors correctly. The pirate beating the knight was totally unexpected and I am still unconvinced. The knights were elite. I don’t think the show takes into account the training certain warriors go through. For instance, the Samurai would have had zero trouble with the Viking. The skills and practices of warriors like the Norsemen (Viking) and the Pirates are exaggerated by movies. They were simply just raiders. The best match up thus far was the Spartan vs Ninja. I chose the Spartan for two reasons. The Ninja would never engage in such a manner, but if he did he would lose. The other reason is for PC purposes. I initially thought that the Deadliest Warrior was going to be a tournament. And I predicted that it would come down to the Samurai vs Spartan (An Asian vs a European)
It may just become a tourney by the shows end. That would be a great way to conclude the seasaon. This Mafia versus Yakuza gang rivalry sucks though.
Damn i crashed out right when they were testing the molotov so I missed who won. I picked the Yakuza to take it though. Who won??
Call it luck or whatever, but I’ve picked all the winners so far. What’s the next match after yakuza vs. mafia?
check the latest polls on the right side Polaris.
i really think the knight should have won. what ever happened to the spear thing?(dont remember name)
WTF how the hell did the spetznov win. They outnumbered the Americans and there where no snipers. The green bureas shuold have won
I thought the knight would win, because of the natural brutality of their weapons, as well as the armor. I find the video simulations of the fights are a bit over dramatic. Like in the battle between the Apache and the Gladiators, the Gladiator had the Apache like, knocked out on the ground, while he had the spiked glove on. Yet he ran back about 15 feet, then ran forward and tried to punch him, allowing the Apache to get up and therefor, win the battle. =\
Give me a break the knights had no chance of winning the pirates have guns which can pierce armor. Have some common sense people
Did you even watch the show. The blunderbuss at close range was able to pierce armor, but it wasn’t accurate. The pirate would have to be at very close range and have enough time to get the damn thing out to get it to work. The knight would have chopped his arms off by then. The handgun was not able to do any damage to the armor. There is also no reload.. Its one and done!
Yes Trench You are right. But still The pirates are from the Medieval times and there are pirates now in the modern world(which means they are better). Knights are sad they wore armor but they still lost. Don’t say you know more than the people on the show cause sorry you don’t. But Pirate and knight was a cheap match up obviously pirate would win. It should have been Spartan and Knight.
knight should have beat pirate because
1.pirates guns are inaccurate
2. Pirate never reloaded his guns
3. At the end, knights are better trained at sword fighting, so he should have killed him
4. In the test the guns didn’t pierce the armor that much
5. Knights were elite fighters
6. Knights weapons were superior
But still, knight vs pirate WTF. It should have been knight vs spartan. This show is good, but sometimes the episodes are overdramatic and inaccurate. they don’t consider all the years of training
I feel the need to speak up for the Pirates here. Though I was originally skeptical of the results it wasn’t for the reasons mentioned by others. I feel the need to dissuade some of these errors.
1) The blunderbuss didn’t have to be accurate. It’s designed as scatter shot (meaning a wide range) that could in fact pierce the armor and went into the skin of the manikin behind it. (Remember the blood flow?) Only one of the several shots had to hit. Though a miss fire can and did happen; if the shot went off the knight would go down. Meaning a Pirate COULD cripple a knight from a distance.
2) Though Knights were trained in sword fighting they were only trained in ONE specific style of sword fighting. A pirate would –probably– have a blend of styles from the very nature of how they would have been trained. I.E. on the job.
2′) Also the pirates have a larger range of weapons at their disposal due to the nature of their plundering. They would confiscate and use any weapon that would happen to be on their enemies ships and would face a variety of weapons on a day to day basis. Knights in general, only fought other knights. This I would call an advantage in favor of the pirates.
3) The Elitist argument bothers me on a deep and personal level. Pirates were probably 1st trained as soldiers and sailors before they became Pirates. Though the Knights would have had the best training available to them, being nobles, Pirates were -by no means-completely untrained.
4) The Morningstar: I agree if the morningstar would have hit the pirate on the head or chest area it should/would have killed him. But I’m willing to bet that only an idiot wouldn’t try to roll out of the way of a ball of spikes. If it hit an arm or an leg (which I’m willing to bet would be more likely due to the pirate trying to stay the HELL away from him–as it is blatantly obvious that the Pirate has the range advantage) would have crippled but not incompasitated him.
5) It was concluded that the pistols, though not killing, would definitely stun the Knight for a few seconds and would also give the pirate a chance to find a weak spot in the armor. (say under the armpits or around the groin area) Should the pirate be unfortunate enough to be that close to the knight. (again misfires are very likely. Flint and match lock pistols not the most accurate of weapons.) Pirates were known to carry five or six preloaded pistols into battle with them so they wouldn’t have to waste time reloading.
5′) In order to use the crossbow at all, the knights would have to crank it. You can’t carry around a pre-loaded crossbow, and you would only get one shot. Though the crossbow would be a definite kill if it were to hit.
6) I think that the knight would be freaking out when he realizes that the boarding Pike could in fact pierce the helm. (should it be lucky enough to strike twice.)
7) The Knights biggest disadvantage is his lack of visibility, coupled with his lack of mobility. The Pirates biggest advantage then comes in with strategic use of his explosives. The Pirate only has to move a few feet to the right or left during the explosion for the knight to completely lose track of where the pirate is. Should the Pirate be able to sneak up on the Knight at this time and knock him over the Knight is dead. Though possible to get up in a full suit of metal armor; it is very difficult to do so with any speed what so ever. I would be willing to bet that the pirate would want to take advantage of what ever distance he had over the knight.
The knights only chance at victory is to somehow lure the pirate in close enough range so that his tools would be effective. I.E. the Halebeard and the Morningstar. In a close range fight there is no contest– the Pirate would die. A lot.
Sword to sword I would guess that the advantage would have to go to the Pirates if only because they had access to a better quality of steel than the knights would have. Due to the smithing process not being invented until after the “traditional” knight’s extinction. But the Armor the knight where would make that particular advantage worthless because there isn’t enough weight on a short sword (what a pirate would use) in order to pierce the armor. Unless the pirate got a shot under the armpits or in the groin area.
i agree with u on the training part
How come the pirate did not get mortally wounded from the morning star strike! During the test of the weapon, it was a definite kill no doubt!
The pirate would win. Let’s not forget the advent of gunpowder was the reason armor was retired. The armor that they used is much higher in steel quality than the brittle iron armor of the 12th/13th century.
For a reference here, native Americans were able to shoot through the plate armor of 16th century(thats two to three centuries LATER) colonists in the new world, with only stone pointed arrows fired from bows. The armor, chain or plate, wouldn’t be able to stand up to what was,in the day of the buccaneer,modern strength black powder and fairly accurate weaponry.
Also, knights were meant as cavalry units, not ground units. Their armor wasn’t nearly as light and maneuverable as the stuff on the show was. On the ground they were simply a heavy, cumbersome walking can of sardines. Simply put, a 12th century knight would be outclassed by a 18th century carribean pirate.
im not here to argue that the knight and pirate fight was bs, even though i think it was. I just wanna say that i think the knight should have been considered in the season 1 recap thing where they had the ancient warrior battles. i think it should have been spartan vs knight at the end. and i think knight would have won. Knight should be declared the deadliest ancient warrior!!!!! its not fair and i do not like this show anymore because of it.
I have to say I was also a bit wondered by the outcome. To start, I betted on the pirate, not because I liked him better, but because he had gunpowder. Prior to the episode, however I did a little searching about and discovered that by 1450 a Knight would have already faced gunpowder weapons and that his armor (at least breastplate) was shot at at least once before final payment in a process known as ‘proofing.’ As I watched the episode, I leaned more and more towards the knight due to his armor’s ability to take most of the pirate’s weapons with relative impunity. The knight’s armaments are self-explanatory and their effects easy to calculate on an unamrmored opponant. The pirate’s weapons on the other hand were somewhat dubious. The flintlock was unable to peirce armor at less than 25 feet or accurately strike where the ‘expert’ called his shot. The blunderbuss misfired 3 times and successfully periced the knight’s breastplate. The boarding axe was inneffective in the sense that while it periced the helmet it was unable to gain the penetration necessary to even scratch the skull. And it was swung at a static target in two hands (not the way a two foot long weapon was ever used). The cutlass was not actually a cutlass (which were the size of a modern machete) and was demonstrated on an unarmored target. I saw consistantly sloppy tests (ignoring the chainmaille and steel sheild of the knigth vs firearms) and generally shoddy weapons on the pirate side. The pirate was often a trained soldier, yes, however it would have been (most likely) a low ranking navy grunt that wanted easier money and would have largely preyed upon other europeans while the knight was treined to kill from age 8 and had some knowledge of the mediterranian, middle eastern and near eastern fighting styles. In short, I pronounce the pirate victory bullshit.
The comparison of the effectiveness of the blunderbuss was not well thought out. The show did not take into account the chain mail worn under the plate armor which would have added an extra layer of protection. This was not shown in the demonstratio. the plate armor was against the torso with no chain mail behinf=d it. Also the very design of the chain mail is such that it would, in sense, act like modern balistic armor and spread the point of impact over a wider portin of the body mass thus reducing much of the blunt force trauma as well as well as providing a second layer of penetration protection much like the Armor on modern battle tanks.
I declare a REMATCH!