I will have to place my vote on Wallace as well. The wins on this show are always decided by superior weaponry. Considering that Wallace's weapons were far superior to Shaka Zulu I would have to give it to Wallace. The Claymore may be a big heavy weapon, but Wallace was a large man who could easily wield this weapon and the preview had the Wallace expert handling the large weapon with speed and grace.
That wasn't even a fair match, william wallace carried a sword that was 4.5 feet long, and shaka zulu carried a cow hide shield, rock solid logic will tell you who wins. I think maybe Hannibal v William Wallace would have been more of a fair match up.
Report Abuse
Deadliest Warrior William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu?II dont care how big that claymore, was shaka zulu was just too fast and that poision mist would have made the fight one sided. William Wallace even with all those advanced weapons would have got mopped by somone lees superior than him. The show should be called "Deadliest Weapons" not "Warrior."
Report Abuse
Deadliest Warrior William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu?I researched both men and I think it was a better and more interesting matchup than a lot of people might think. Both were leaders of their people and both were extremely tall and strong. Shaka had many youthful feats, just like Wallace. I don't think the Claymore won - it was Wallace's shield.
Report Abuse
I think it is real funny to be honest, people who know nothing about the Zulu weapons are already predicting that they are going to lose and will turn around and critize the show as being reverse racist when they expose the shaka zulu actually had superior weapons technology.
William Wallace died in 1305 and Shaka died in 1828. So on earth do some people think william had better technology other than the assumption they have that all non-whites are backwards. It is like saying I think that a medeival knight from 500 years ago had better technology than the Nigerian army who has all kind of guns and helicopters and planes.
The episode will stiry controversy up against people who are already racist or racist but don't think they are racist.
The warrior who is best at mid range usually wins and there is a good chance that
I think almost all of these match ups have some kinda racial controversy. But this will take the cake, its two leaders/warriors fighting off the english whom both are somewhat legendary and hyped up more then what they probably were.
I would have to say though that William Wallace will probably win due to the technological advantage. Since their chain mail would prevent the spears from piercing their bodies, and the Huge claymore sword that can cut through almost anything, it would be hard to believe wallace losing.
But. . . . if they were to make all weapons neutral I would say shaka zulu hands down. I mean while wallace was large and strong, speed always wins, so it would be no contest.
What they need to do though is start comparing more similar warriors such as the Knight vs. Samurai which were pretty much the same thing only ones east others west. I would say the knight would win due to the impenetrable body armor, the shield which may slow them down but once the samurai slashes at the knight and his sword bounces off they are open for attack.
Some big misconceptions and innacuracies are being said here. First off, Shaka Zulu NEVER fought against the British on any large scale or at all. The Zulu as a people did later on in the 1870's, but this was 50 years after Shaka's death. Shaka Zulu fought civil wars with the indigenous peoples of the Zulu regions in an effort to unite these warring people, which he was successful. Firearms were frowned upon and were not really used during his reign. and contrary to what they'll have on the show, it was considered a great dishonor to throw away a spear. Shaka believed this was an idiotic tactic as it disarmed oneself, this was an act punishable by death. As far as William Wallace is concearned, the idea that he was some giant maneating scotsman, was just an exaggerated myth that was alluded to in the film Braveheart. He was a legend in Scotland, and it wasn't uncommon for someone of such high status to be percieved as a giant back then. Looking at it now, I'd say it's kinda one sided, but we don't know what weapons are going to be brought to the table yet. I think Wallace will probobly win, but I wouldn't be surprised if Shaka won. They claymore is huge, and a missed swing with it could leave you off balance big time. A nimble Zulu could take full advantage of that. I'll go with the underdog and say Zulu pulls it off.
The shoddiness of the spreadsheet not withstanding (I mean, the shaolin monk only won like, 700 compared to what should've been at least 900+), Wallace wins. I would find it utterly comical if they gave shaka zulu a muzzle load, considering that the zulu had trouble firing them and could at most fire 1 shot, ever, and went back to using spears. Wallace on the other hand should have at least chain mail, since he wasn't a poor average high lander.
its going to be william wallace. he WAS indeed a rather large man, not smallish like in Braveheart, which by the way was 75% fiction. Wallace wasn't as kind in real life as he was in that movie. He was renowned for being a bloodthirsty savage on the battlefield, even turning one of his enemies into a belt. shaka zulu will defintley have the advantage of speed over wallace, but from what i've seen of the preview of the show, where the scottish claymore was shown decapitating three heads with one 180 degree swing of the sword, i find it hard to believe that zulu will win.
Thats a tough one but I'm probably going to go with William Wallace on the basis of his weaponry such as The Claymore which was renound for dismembering. Some say its too heavy of a weapon but in the right hands it and with the right skill which Wallace had it would have been devastating. Wallce was a skillful tactitian as well he didn't face of English monarchy for nothing
I enjoy this show but this time I think they made a mistake. In all the shows thus far two anonymous soldiers from different army鈥檚 are picked to fight.
This time they picked two real people. Like using stats to see who would win a match between Muhammad Ali and Rocky Marciano. I think it would have been better if they just chose a Zulu Warrior vs. a Scottish Knight. Wallace was a big man with a big sword and Shaka could run 50 miles a day and had fire arms acquired from the Brits. This topic is sure to get all the hate mongers all fired up if their man doesn鈥檛 win. Poor choice on this match up but great show other wise.
My record so far has been 4-3 with my bets on the show.
Both are pretty fierce individuals and although Wallace may have better materials at his desposial, they don't factor in enviornment. I mean put a ninja on a pirate ship or the Yakuza in the jungle. There are many things not factored in. So...will they fight in open plains? Or on grassy marsh?
Anyway, I think Zulu will give Wallace a run for his money.
This might help your decision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka_Zulu
A fully-prepared William Wallace would probably win.
(The human wave Zulu charge only works in a wide open desert)
Shaka Zulu would win most definitley he is a more uniqiue warrior.
I'm not quite sure what controversy you're worried about. Shaka Zulu was a decent leader yes, but William Wallace is a legend. An African wearing cloth and perhaps reed or wooden armor is not going to last long against a 6 ft tall, pissed off Scot in steel armor (Yes, contrary to Mr. Gibson's excellent but innaccurate movie, Wallace wore steel armor and probably never wore a kilt. His face was never painted.) swinging a sword as big as himself. In the 1700's, most of the African slaves taken from Africa by the Europeans were shorter by genetics. Wallace was a giant in Scotland, so if the regular Europeans were taller than the Africans, he is going to tower of Shaka Zulu. And while Shaka Zulu is noted for his military prowess, it is never mentioned about his fighting skill. He probably was just a mediocre fighter. Wallace, on the other hand, was compared to Ulysses in his strength, sweeping aside his enemies, and reportedly dismembering a horse with one stroke of his sword at the Battle of Stirling Bridge.He also killed a whole patrol of English soldiers by himself in his younger days, first only using a dirk (A somewhat long knife), but then picking up one of the slain Englishmen's swords.The only reason he was captured was by treachery and by the English threatening to kill his best friend, Kurley (I believe that was his name). His fighting prowess was a legend. I really do not think it's going to be much of a contest. A knight who fights in steel armor and has learned to swing a 60lb+ claymore fast enough to be effective while wearing that armor is not going to have much trouble beating an African using a hide shield, a spear which would most like break against the steel armor and not penetrate it. (a bodkin arrow and a thrust in between the joints were usually the only ways an actual blade killed a knight. Swords were usually used to actually bludgeon the enemy to death. Spears are only really useful for keeping distance between the enemy and yourself and against horses. Since Wallace has a 6 ft. claymore, I doubt Shaka's reach is going to be effective). Wallace beat back the "unstoppable" English onslaught, defeating heavy cavalry by implementing footsoldiers for the first time in the Medieval Age. Shaka Zulu probably didn't even know what a horse was, much less how to fight a trained knight on one. Yes, the Shakan Zulu forces defeated the British, but they defeated the British who were drafted, given a crappy muzzle-loader, and sent into the fight, not the battle-hardened warriors of Wallace's time. So, in my opinion, Shaka Zulu is going to get taken down. Hard. William Wallace isn't going to go down easy.
And as for the guy above me, that's crap. It's only a 300 year difference, and the Zulus were way behind on technology anyways. So no, it'd be more like the Scots fighting a crappy form of the Aztecs, not the Nigerian Army, who suck anyway. Shakan Zulus used hide shields, thrusting spears, and throwing spears. They tried using the crappy muzzle loaders like once. And I doubt Shaka Zulu would use a gun. He'd use traditional Shakan weapons. And would get killed.
No comments:
Post a Comment