Deadliest Warrior - Pirate vs Knight

Some thoughts on Spike TV's Deadliest Warrior series Pirate vs Knight episode.

Before it started my opinion was that if the pirate didn't win then there was either something wrong with the show's format or with history. The knight wore armor and was armed with a crossbow and hand weapons. The pirate didn't wear armor but had three gunpowder-based weapons (blunderbuss, pistol, and grenado).

The results were what I expected. The pirate's pistol could not penetrate the knight's armor but his blunderbuss and grenado could. Armor at the time was tested by shooting it with a pistol. If it couldn't stop a pistol ball then it was sent back to be strengthened. I was impressed that the blunderbuss and grenado penetrated the armor.

The knight's hand weapons were equal to or better than the pirate's. The knight was fighting other people in armor so he needed extra cutting power. The pirate didn't have to deal with armored enemies so his hand weapons could not pierce armor.

The introduction of the heavy musket in the early 17th century made armor obsolete. For a while, armies tried making the armor thicker and eliminating lower leg pieces in order to lighten it but this was impractical. By the mid-17th century armies had pretty much given up on armor.

So, by the late 17th century, pirates did not wear armor but they carried the weapons that had made armor obsolete.

But what about ninjas? Last week they had a ninja face off against a Greek warrior. The warrior's armor and shield gave him the advantage against the ninja. Based on the weapons that the pirate and ninja used, the pirate would still win. His blunderbuss, grenado, and pistol were all either deadlier or had longer range than the ninja weapons. The ninja might have a small advantage in close-in fighting but it would be small.