Maverick from Italy -

Besides ninjas and assassins weren't exactly meant for straight on battles. Stealthy killing and all.

NiteKrawler wrote:

...Do you know Ezio Auditore?

XD

Ghost Leader wrote:

NiteKrawler wrote:

Am I the only one that wishes Deadliest Warrior would do an Assassin vs. Templar episode? I mean...it would be very one sided though. An Assassin armed with not but a cloak and dagger (maybe poisoned) and the Templar with great training, armor, shield, and a sword and more...But still...

You could probably reference the Spartan vs Ninja episode for an accurate depiction of how that battle would play out.

I'd say you're right. I'm astonished that the Spartan didn't win by a greater margin really. Have you seen the episode that pitted the Spartan against the Samurai?

@Mcghie: You are very right, but if we are speaking in terms of the Deadliest Warrior series, because they cannot accurately measure stuff like using surroundings and stealth and all that, the computer would say the Templar wins. They sometimes try to account for an "X factor" for each side, but it is hard to do. Also, if we are talking of a one on one fight, you have to agree that the Templar is much better suited defensively and offensively and if the Assassin loses his element of surprise, he's dead.

NiteKrawler wrote:

I'd say you're right. I'm astonished that the Spartan didn't win by a greater margin really. Have you seen the episode that pitted the Spartan against the Samurai?

Yeah. The Samurai "expert" (I still have a lot of doubt about some of the so-called experts' credibility) talked real big about honor and respect, yet he showed very little of either toward his opponent. I loved the look of utter disbelief on his face when that big club thing of his didn't even put so much as a dent in the Spartan's shield, though. I'm watching that and I'm like, "yeah, how 'bout THAT shit, bitch!"

Quote :

@Mcghie: You are very right, but if we are speaking in terms of the Deadliest Warrior series, because they cannot accurately measure stuff like using surroundings and stealth and all that, the computer would say the Templar wins. They sometimes try to account for an "X factor" for each side, but it is hard to do. Also, if we are talking of a one on one fight, you have to agree that the Templar is much better suited defensively and offensively and if the Assassin loses his element of surprise, he's dead.

You're both thinking of Templars as in the Knights Templar, when the Templars (at least in the AC universe) are an organization and have access to a whole wealth of different types of soldiery. They could easily have something that's a more even match against an Assassin. Indeed, even the Assassin Order most likely has access to heavy infantry and/or cavalry that could match an armored knight in one on one combat.

Haha. Those Samurai douche bags made me so mad. I literally laughed out loud when the one said that rubbish about a shield being a "manifestation of weakness." Man was he proven wrong. And what is the big deal about katanas? They are a slashing weapon. Almost exclusively! Something as simple as chain mail can make that obsolete, let alone full plate armor! And yes, I'm not thinking in terms of the AC universe. I'm talking about the historically accurate Templars and Assassins. I mean, they have indeed met before in history as they were formed and destroyed at nearly the same time.

NiteKrawler wrote:

Haha. Those Samurai douche bags made me so mad. I literally laughed out loud when the one said that rubbish about a shield being a "manifestation of weakness." Man was he proven wrong.

It kind of evens out since Samurai use bows and arrows, which Spartans viewed as unmanly.

Quote :

And what is the big deal about katanas? They are a slashing weapon. Almost exclusively! Something as simple as chain mail can make that obsolete, let alone full plate armor!

Historically speaking, Samurai weren't geared toward prolonged melee combat. It was typical for duels between Samurai to last only a few seconds at most. Compare that to the Spartans, who were the best at staying put and slugging it out until the opposing force broke. So much like Spartan vs Ninja, Spartan vs Samurai was somewhat of a mismatch. The Viking and the Gladiator would have been more even matches.

I'm still holding out that they'll do Pirate vs Ninja one day and settle that damn debate. :p

Ummm ninja, der.

Pirates have guns. Pirates win.

NiteKrawler wrote:

Pirates have guns. Pirates win.

That drunk bastards only got one shot.

ninja wins. gray fox can block bullets with his sword anyway.

Pff. Not when you carry 5 or 6 pistols and a blunderbus.

NiteKrawler wrote:

Pff. Not when you carry 5 or 6 pistols and a blunderbus.

nobody carries that many pistols sucka.

how bout a pirate armed with a single pistol and a sword versus a ninja armed with a sword.

ninja wins. and thats the bottom line, son.

No pirate is going to carry a single pistol. Contrary to popular belief, pirates were not stupid.

Didn't any of you ever see Ninja Assassin and how a Europol strike team armed with assault rifles and submachine guns wiped out an entire clan of ninja?

So yeah, guns trump swords.

NiteKrawler wrote:

No pirate is going to carry a single pistol. Contrary to popular belief, pirates were not stupid.

hmmm.

@gl, how about a single pirate with a single sword versus a single ninja with a single sword.

NINJA WINS.

In the end, both pirates AND ninja can F off, because this is the greatest warrior the ancient world has ever known.

S.Winters wrote:

What if the pirate is a master swordsman?

He's not, trust me.

@gl, i cant take that seriously unless you got a pic of gerard butler, not a generic cosplay geek in a spartan outfit.

Mcghie wrote:

This sounds dumb but the Spartans where Roman where they not ?

No, they were Spartan, from Sparta. That's why they call themselves "Spartans".

Spike991 wrote:

@gl, i cant take that seriously unless you got a pic of gerard butler, not a generic cosplay geek in a spartan outfit.

That's exactly the type of equipment they used in reality (at least in the 6th and 5th centuries BC). I haven't the faintest idea why you supposedly can't take it seriously. What do you expect me to do, go back in time and take a picture of a real one?

Ghost Leader wrote:

What do you expect me to do, go back in time and take a picture of a real one?

Yes'm.

idk, it just looks....cheesey. did i use the word cosplay.

War isn't pretty. Besides, it served the phalanx well for hundreds of years. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Ghost Leader wrote:

War isn't pretty. Besides, it served the phalanx well for hundreds of years. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

If you say so, but i prefer my war to be more modern, or if it is in the past, fiction or otherwise, that gear just isnt very appealing to me.

i myself have always enjoyed Bonds covert sneaking gear, like brosnan's in all the games. particularly Everything Or Nothing.

btw, i just bought a Walther P99 with a compensator the other day. pellet single shot of course, but it still looks pretty awesome.

Um...Covert equipment is not for war. It is for...covert missions. And you have to be kidding me if you think armor and weaponry from fiction comes close to real life ancient armor and weaponry. I have some sweet fantasy swords and I love them, but any warrior from the past that went into real war would laugh at me holding one of them.