The dumbest thing I've ever seen? Pretty much.
Well, that’s an hour I’ll never get back.
It’s not like I wasn’t warned. My comrades at the Robert E. Howard forum dismissed the Spike TV show “Deadliest Warrior” as specious right from the get-go. The concept itself is kinda silly — pick two historical warriors or warrior cultures and pit them against each other in a who-would-kick-who’s-ass fight. Yeah, I know.
But last night’s feature was “Crazy Horse vs. Pancho Villa”.” In the interest of frontier partisan cultural studies, how could I not watch? Yeah, I know.
First, the scientific research team tested the two warriors’ weapons. And they got the weapons wrong. They had Crazy Horse using an 1860 Henry; by 1876 he was using an 1866 Winchester Yellowboy. The show never bothered to mention that Crazy Horse was noted for dismounting to fire, which, of course, improved his accuracy.
The Pancho Villa rifle was far more egregious. They had him using a Winchester carbine in .44-40 (which supposedly gave him a logistical edge because it was the same caliber as his revolver ammunition).
Sigh. Villa doubtless occasionally used a lever-action rifle, but it would have been a Winchester 1894 in .30-30 — the AK-47 of the Mexican Revolution. However, he was generally armed with a 7mm Mauser. They did get the pistol right. Villa did, in fact, carry a Colt Bisley, a single-action model configured for target shooting.
For some reason they posed the close-quarters weapons as war club vs. bolo knife. The war club is the real deal, but a bolo knife? A bolo knife is a Filipino knife, guys. Mexicans of the revolutionary period did often carry machetes, but I’ve never read anywhere of Villa using one as a close-quarters weapon. Whatever.
The scientific team accounted for so-called x-factors like disease and medical care, logistics and supply. They made a big deal out of Villa’s supposed Rheumatoid arthritis. Now, Tomas Urbina, one of Villa’s generals and a compañero of bandit days was nearly crippled by arthritis, but not Villa. He probably had his share of creaks and aches and pains from bandit life and a decade of hard campaigning, but I’ve never seen anything to indicate that his vigor was in any way inhibited by arthritis.
The show’s examination of tactics was rudimentary and unenlightening and the final battle was just silly. I will say that I did sort of enjoy the actual effectiveness testing of the weapons. Sort of.
I generally appreciate it when frontier partisans get a little pop culture recognition. But no more “Deadliest Warrior.” Ever.
Paul McNamee says
Yup.
At least this season they started taking tactics into account. Last season they seemed to base everything on weapon damage alone.
I saw the cable guide last night. For their season finale, they were airing two new episodes. “French Foreign Legion vs. Gurkhas” = ok. “Vampires vs. Zombies” = jumped-the-shark. (it’s not even October)
Gordon says
I am so glad you posted this. I’ve hated this show from the start, but like a train wreck I kept coming back to see how much worse it could get. I watched the ‘George Washington vs. Napoleon’ and ‘Teddy Roosevelt vs. Lawrence of Arabia’ episodes and was troubled by the fact that historians participated in this show in a feeble attempt to lend it some legitimacy. In my view, their appearances only served to shame themselves and the history profession.
Greg Walker says
Jim,
I HATE this show.
Thanks for the great commentary on it’s lack of pretty much everything.
I did watch the episode about the IRA vrs the Taliban. I don’t know which side to feel the most sorry for 🙂
“Deadliest Warrior” is pure gruel for the armchair commando. Again, thanks for dismembering its attempt at being taken seriously.
Greg
yuehan allum says
what other weapons did pancho villa use aside from waht was on the show I’m also interested in the types of blades (knives, machetes, bayonets, and sabers) used by Villa y las villistas
JimC says
Villa was known to carry a Bisley Colt (target) revolver, probably in .45 caliber. There is a picture of him with his Dorados carrying a sporterized Mauser; he is also pictured with a standard military Mauser and several with Winchester .30-30 rifles. I believe he owned a cavalry sabre, but I’ve never seen any indication that he carried one in battle. Machetes were more commonly found among the Zapatistas in south-central Mexico, though I’ve seen some saddle scabbards for machetes that are attributed to Villistas. Doesn’t seem that the bayonet was much in use at all in the Mex Rev. Osprey Publishing’s Mexican Revolution book is a good resource.
Hope that helps.
Jim
Chuck Jones says
I echo JimC’s comments above. Several statues of Villa in Mexico depict him with a 1894 Winchester. Proximity to the US and the fact it was a US made weapon may have been important. War in Europe, WW1 interferred with obtaining EU arms at times. His fortunes went up and down like a yo-yo, at different times I’m sure he used different weapons.