Is my perception wrong that most historians don't care or look down upon the aspects of history addressed in 'Deadliest Warrior' and 'Weapons That Made Britain'?

by KennethGloeckler

Both 'Deadliest Warrior' and 'Weapons That Made Britain' (Mike Loades) focus on enthusiastic descriptions of weapons and warriors.

It's probably a guilty pleasure of mine to directly see what kind of damage a weapon inflicts on some animal carcass.

There are very popular TV shows and Youtube channels which are devoted to that kind of historical study. I don't know of any serious history book (maybe something like The Knight and the Blast Furnace?) or academic that is devoted to the same field of inquiry.

Is the study of weapons or warriors maybe discouraged in academia?

DBHT14

The study of how people fought and what they fought with is an active and wide ranging academic discipline.

But shows like "Deadliest Warrior" are not academic in the least. Rarely have true academic or authoritative guests. And do a poor job of using any sort of rigorous method to come to their assertions. There is a reason "what if" questions are against the rules of this sub, they rarely can be answered with anything approaching authority.

IIRC Bad History even had had a great post destroying the terrible Napoleon v Washington episode they had.