The warrior you would add to Deadliest warrior.



  • I miss some native African or American warrior with weapons like blowguns, poison… maybe they could hide with some cool camuflage or somethin like that.



  • Personally I’d love to see a Musketeer or a fencer of some sort. Give it a rifle that works like pirate pistol and some different swords. Native American and Zulu warrior would be cool too.



  • @SgtCat:

    Personally I’d love to see a Musketeer or a fencer of some sort. Give it a rifle that works like pirate pistol and some different swords. Native American and Zulu warrior would be cool too.

    Then you get people like this with a really strange sense of history.



  • @lemonater47:

    But yes on the Internet as Xann said people who focus deeply on one part of history about a group of people they defend them patriotically almost. Like TheMightAtroll there lol. He loves the Romans so much he’s actually exaggerating the Romans.

    Hes probably a total war fan. All military history buffs all play total war games.

    Total War is wholly inaccurate, and as a result, I don’t care for it much. Total War games ALWAYS over-estimated the capability of cavalry, and ignored the importance of the infantry, if you talk to anyone that plays those games, they believe stirrups were sent to Earth by god himself, and that Lord of the Rings demonstrates proper/realistic usage of cavalry charges. (Always charge nothing but cavalry head first into gigantic compact blobs of heavy infantry with sharp long pointy things, it always works.)

    Also, I’m not exaggerating at all. Post-Marian Legions were the shit, yo. Rome was by far the most powerful, and culturally advanced civilization, on Earth. However, I’m also a big fan of the Egyptians and many of the Greek city states. Carthage… was a collection of idiots that had poor foresight, which I can conclude is the major reason behind their complete and utter destruction.

    Scipio Africanus was, and still is, the third greatest general in history, second/third only to Alexander of Macedon, and his father Philip, even with his pre-marian legions.



  • @Oy:

    Wait, you mean they didn’t have a giant pit to kick people into? Wtf Hollywood!

    Ok tell me something interesting about Vlad the Impaler.

    When the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II sent envoys to Wallachia, it is said that Vlad Tepes ordered their turbans to be nailed to their heads since they refused to remove them (as per their custom), which Vlad took to be a sign of disrespect.



  • @TheMightyAltroll:

    Total War is wholly inaccurate, and as a result, I don’t care for it much. Total War games ALWAYS over-estimated the capability of cavalry, and ignored the importance of the infantry, if you talk to anyone that plays those games, they believe stirrups were sent to Earth by god himself, and that Lord of the Rings demonstrates proper/realistic usage of cavalry charges. (Always charge nothing but cavalry head first into gigantic compact blobs of heavy infantry with sharp long pointy things, it always works.)

    Also, I’m not exaggerating at all. Post-Marian Legions were the shit, yo. Rome was by far the most powerful, and culturally advanced civilization, on Earth. However, I’m also a big fan of the Egyptians and many of the Greek city states. Carthage… was a collection of idiots that had poor foresight, which I can conclude is the major reason behind their complete and utter destruction.

    Scipio Africanus was, and still is, the third greatest general in history, second/third only to Alexander of Macedon, and his father Philip, even with his pre-marian legions.

    Hannibal didn’t face post marian legions didn’t he. That’s what you got all upset about when someone said Hannibal whipped Rome’s arse. Ask any military genius who was better between Hannibal Barca and Publius Cornelius Scipio and its the Carthaginian every time.

    The fact that almost all of Carthage’s history was written by Romans doesn’t strike you as it being slightly biased does it?



  • @lemonater47:

    Hannibal didn’t face post marian legions didn’t he. That’s what you got all upset about when someone said Hannibal whipped Rome’s arse. Ask any military genius who was better between Hannibal Barca and Publius Cornelius Scipio and its the Carthaginian every time.

    The fact that almost all of Carthage’s history was written by Romans doesn’t strike you as it being slightly biased does it?

    Hannibal’s victories were due to the incompetence of his opponents. He was fighting politicians leading militia. The very first organized and veteran legion he fought, we was devastated, despite outnumbering them. Why? Because he was fighting a superior commander, and a superior army. I respect Hannibal for his ability to lead an army of warriors that didn’t even speak his language across the alps. However, he was anything but an experienced commander. He was a good leader, a foolish man, and a grudge holder. His father was a better commander than he was.

    Also, Carthage’s history was written by many sources, including Lybians, and Iberians. Rome discredited Carthage early on, but there were also many fair historians to Carthage, such as Titus Livius on Hannibal. If you want to see bias, look at the records of Caesar’s campaign in Gaul. 90% of it, was written by Caesar.



  • @TheMightyAltroll:

    Hannibal’s victories were due to the incompetence of his opponents. He was fighting politicians leading militia. The very first organized and veteran legion he fought, we was devastated, despite outnumbering them. Why? Because he was fighting a superior commander, and a superior army. I respect Hannibal for his ability to lead an army of warriors that didn’t even speak his language across the alps. However, he was anything but an experienced commander. He was a good leader, a foolish man, and a grudge holder. His father was a better commander than he was.

    Also, Carthage’s history was written by many sources, including Lybians, and Iberians. Rome discredited Carthage early on, but there were also many fair historians to Carthage, such as Titus Livius on Hannibal. If you want to see bias, look at the records of Caesar’s campaign in Gaul. 90% of it, was written by Caesar.

    You mean the Romans finally learned after being beaten for 10 years how to defeat Hannibal. Took their bloody time.

    He was an intelligent commander who knew when to take risks. Scipio Africanus had studied Hannibal since he was 17. And by the time the battle of Zama happened he had brand new elephants who got freaked by the Romans because they dodged and threw things at them while poking them with pointy sticks. So the elephants turned and ran running over the Carthaginian forces in the process. So by the time they engaged the Romans were no longer outnumbered and the Carthaginian morale already crushed while the Romans were elated that they had seen the elephants off. And since they were on “home” turf they had somewhere to run to.

    Scipio was the Romans Hannibal. to defeat the Carthaginians he thought like Hannibal and did exactly what he did to him. Scipio had battles against Hannibal in two major battles before one of them being cannae which is simply known today as “the battle”. Like how the July 2013 patch is just considered “the patch” here the battle of cannae is just the battle.

    ALL roman generals were senators even into the imperial age. Pretty much the only way to secure being consul or even to be considered an heir for emperor when the current had no sons required you to be a military leader.



  • Was just making a suggestion on the part of the Carthaginians, give me a couple hours and I could dig up all kinds of crap about romans and spartans too :P Lol they would still be better than ninjas. ninjas had almost no world impact



  • @Oy:

    How do you nerds know all this shit? “I went to college and majored in Useless Ancient History”. No offence, but do you spend all day on Wikipedia?

    Lol it’s commonly known as high school :P thats where I learned this stuff. I am a Bio-Medical Engineering Major BTW lol.


Log in to reply