An additional thought I would like to add is this. Why is everyone assuming that horses can be dropped by an arrow so easily? I think taking out a horse with a cavalry bow would be a much, much, harder thing than everyone is assuming. A huge volley by hundreds of archers would do the job as we saw in the battle of Agincourt, but we are talking about a 1v1 scenario. The samurai would have to circle, slow (though they can still move fast, just not in a full blown gallop), and aim to shoot. I see them getting off three, maybe four shots at most against the knight before the knight closes the distance with his lance/spear as the knight would be charging at top speed. These arrows could not penetrate deep enough to hit a horse's vital organs, horses have a lot more muscle that arrows need to penetrate after all. The only way I see an arrow dropping a horse in it's tracks is a shot through the eye. At a distance while moving this is a one in a million shot. *It's not going to happen*. And though the horse might get hurt by a few arrows in it's neck or legs, as soon as that distance is closed the samurai will be run through by that mounted charge which is nearly always deadly. Jousting became a prominent sport for a reason. Would a knight risk his horse to win? Absolutely as not dying is a good trade and horses can heal. Shooting the rider strikes me as more effective than shooting the horse. I mean why was the no-dachi developed by the samurai to take out horses if arrows could do it so easily? The issue is if the rider has adequate armor to protect him from arrow fire, what then? No-dachi time, that's what! But the No-dachi didn't exist in the eleventh century. . .
Shadversity in your opinion who would win a hypothetical fight between a Vikingr and a Samurai on foot? The only reason I'm not including the knight in this question is I personally believe the Knight would have a significant advantage over both the Samurai and Vikingr in that match up. Just newly subscribed after this response video.
i dont think horses have very high pain tolerance. they'd probably throw the knight down when they get hit from an arrow. though thats just a thought. obvioulsly i didn't test it.
i am not sure if people in the middle ages were good in breeding certain breeds of animals. i am not an expert by any means but i dont think that the horses were much better genetically.
@@tarambukis-c2q makes sense, its thin sheets of metal, modern soldier equipment especially the bullet proof vest features a giant ceramic brick inside it.
Modern troops can carry a shit-ton of miscellaneous stuff When you say body equipment, are you referring to the ammo, weapon and protection exclusively, or that + backpacks/comms/survival equipment?
Actually, our armor is significantly lighter since we only have torso and head protection (Assuming you're comparing with the full body plate armor). Even with shoulder and groin adapters max weight would be about 40 pounds. Knights just didn't carry assault packs or ruck sacks into battle haha. Plus, all our equipment is concentrated on the shoulders, theirs is more distributed. Even then, it depends on the unit. Some allow plate carriers (Not really much lighter but a lot smaller haha). Others allow not wearing adapters (Neck, shoulder, groin, etc). Others have you wear everything... and that sucks haha.
When I first saw the video from MattPat in my newsfeed I was like, ''LET'S WAIT AND SEE THE HISTORIC AND MEDIEVAL PART OF TH-cam BLOW UP!'' While watching the video I was feeling like Trump, saying ''WRONG!'' At almost every damn points. lol
hard one cus ninjas arent combat related they were mostly just spies and messengers that would avoid combat at all cost, even if they were in a fight there only goal is defense and retreating
The real question is actually WHY is the ninja fighting pirates? The ninja would need a very good reason to even be in that situation. On the other hand, a pirate needs very little reason or explanation as to why he is a fight or attacking someone. A random encounter with a pirate happening upon a ninja and attacking him, the ninja is not likely to fight. The ninja will simply escape, and the pirate will probably survive. Why are interweb weebs always pitting pirates and ninja against each other?
After watching Skallagrim's and Metatron's video, this video is on par with there's. Great work man. And holy cow, you can that stuff with plate armor? Amazing.
Cornered Fox Sorry for my wording. I meant that what was left of them during the middle ages still had stonewalls. The fortresses of antiquity itself were quite formidable.
That's not comparable to actual plate armor with a single chest piece - also the material was way lower quality. Also, how widely the Lorica Segmentata was actually used is quite unclear.
Oliver H No it is clear. for a long time it was the standard armor of Roman legionaries. However it was hard to maintain and later replaced by chain mail. Also Roman hastati used bronze plate armor. Don't come argue with me about Roman history, it's one of my specialties.
Explains that the knights have shields over samurai. Explains that knights have faster/longer weapons than samurai. Explains that knights have superior armor against slashing and can move just as fast. I DON'T KNOW GUYS IT"S A REAAAAAL TOUGH CALL. C'mon man...don't be afraid to hurt the weebs' feelings.
Gotta love how the Samurai in For Honor love their super sharp slashers! ...that are completely worthless against characters like Lawbringer, Conqueror, Warden, dare I say centurion? Gladiator is just a gladiator, Peacekeeper...What armor does she even wear under that surcoat..Or whatever it is? She's looking a little thin, and vulnerable to Orochi ;-;
I hope everyone realizes that the samurai's armor in for honor are all made of wood.. it's not much of a contest if you have a wooden armored samurai against a metal armored knight..
Great vid. And I know I'm REALLY late seeing and replying, but there are cases given to us in the sagas of vikings battling naked. Berserkir and Ulfheðnar we're said to go into battle without armor, even biting and throwing away their shield "for fire and iron would not harm them." Thanks for your content! Keep up the good work!
Shadiversity shad there's going to be a for honor open beta on all platforms it starts tomorrow I was wondering if you get a chance to play it,what your thoughts on the art of combat is the way they fight with 3 directions like good game mechanics but not accurate especially with all there weapons that heroes have?
The amount of frenzy that talking about these 3 historical factions fighting incites is kind of historical. I think people will be arguing about their favorite band of 11th century warriors being the best indefinitely! All that aside, the actual gameplay looks frigging fantastic! -Nerdarchist Ryan
Scandanavian arms and armour was a lot art for nearly a millenia. Their armour was the best of the period even in the 11th Century. The Ulfbert Swords have puzzled historian as they are so well made that it took till the industrial revolution to replicate.
Autism is Uncontrollable he did. The battle went 'enter knkght and samurai. Samurai shoots knights horse, samuria shoots dtraight through knoghts chainmail. Samurai wins.'
But Samurai are superior in real life. UNLIKE the knight in shining armor of the late 1400s, early 1500s, the Samurai have made it to the 19th century, and had French bolt action rifles, English Rifled muskets, Grand Warships, (admiral was a Samurai) and more. FOOL!
Footman Of Lordaeron but the thing is..... they stayed because of pride. Look at the rebellion. They got slaughtered by newer gear. They got absolutely butfucked, because they would t let go of the old ways.
+@@JohnDoe-pt7ru And then they kicked muslims' arses more than once, also. Eventually kicking them so hard, the arab empires were reduced to today's middle east.
@@Gyvulys arab empires reduced to todays middle east not by knights but by mongols and timurids. After they too passed away ottomans came to power, restored and stabilised the region. Middle east got fucked like this after ww1. The knights had no part in it
@@JohnDoe-pt7ru because they were outnumbered by a fk ton 😂😂 Each knight was much more powerfull than Muslim warriors, hence why the arrival of a batallion of 100 knights was considered important.
@@rioulethebeats9717Yes, but remember that the samurai got their guns from the European Portuguese. Knights had guns LONG before the samurai did and they were VERY effective with them (look up the German Black Riders for an example).
I would like to add a point about the origional video. In the "Death Battle" portion of the video the samurai shoots the knights horse and immediatly downs it. I am a mild archery enthusiast and a hunter. In the video, the knight and samurai are heading toward each other and the samurai shoots the horse in the chest. Horse armor was not reintroduced to europe until the 12th century, but I can assure you that a head on shot against something even as small as a deer is not a good idea due to the heavy muscle mass, bone and non vital organs. On a massive horse a head on shot would more likely anger the horse than put it down. If you look at the horses on the Bayeux tapestry the horses were smaller than the destrier developed in the 14th century, but still far from a small animal. I hope this point is helpful.
look, not hate bro cause i agree but that was not meant to be taken literally it was just a visual i suspect that the mounted samurai would know the advantages of their own mount.
Fridtjof Johan Olderheim no hate as well but MatPat isn't in the death battle. In a death battle if you have range at the beginning you can at least weaken the opponents.
SniperGaming HD1 yes, of course. What I meant with what I said wasn't that matpat was in the deathbattle, but he didn't take into account how hard it actually is to kill a horse, therefore simplified the battle way too much. Because of that there's a big chance that the outcome would be different than matpat thought. (and by the way! I'm not hating on matpat. I'm actually subscribed to almost all his channels,and love his content
I stopped following him years ago when he was a much smaller channel because i tried pointing out a lot of errors he made concerning Japanese culture in a video and he actually responded telling me how much he didn't care and how it wasn't important to him if he was wrong. I haven't checked in on his channel in a long while but it's disappointing to read he still has that attitude even now that his channel is so much larger.
You know in pop culture it seems like the medieval period was like 100 years, but it was closer to 1000. Really weird. And how much it changed in that time is insane
I honestly don't know where you heard that... even in pop culture its pretty well known that the medieval time lasted for 1000 years. The thing that could make you say that is the fact that most pop culture representation of the medieval time are always in the 11th or 12th century
I honestly don't know where you heard that... even in pop culture its pretty well known that the medieval time lasted for 1000 years. The thing that could make you say that is the fact that most pop culture representation of the medieval time are always in the 11th or 12th century
And even more eventful if you extend it to European countries nobody considers like Russia, Spain, Portugal, Poland, etc. and non-European places like Japan, China, the Arabian Peninsula, Mali, Ethiopia, Pre-Columbian North America, Mesoamerica, and Pre-Colonial Australia. Who knows what sort of awesome stories were lost to time simply because Native American and Australian Aboriginal histories were dismissed unfairly?
Destroyer Inazuma Well, if you are going to pick a late period Samurai who had the most advanced tech of their time, you’d have to do the same for the knights.... who had perfected armor to the point that men were tanks. Only reason we don’t use armor wasn’t used to even the 19th century is simply because the cost of armor was ridiculously expensive. Not every single foot soldier could just wear what fighter jets cost the US today (in which the us also limits the number of because of the budgetary issue... and that’s saying a lot considering nearly 40% of tax goes to the military). A knight outfitted in the most pristine and best crafted armor would laugh at a samurai before cutting them down after a carefree walk towards the samurai uselessly wasting numerous bullets. Heck, at that time knights had weaponry themselves that would take down even the best of armor the samurai had crafted before dying out.
@@DaWishard the US doesn't limit the number of fighter jets it has or uses based on cost, it's limited because of the number of trained pilots (there are quite literally hundreds of aircraft in the arsenal that aren't flown because unit strength limitations and lack of pilots prevent this).
the reason samurai kept losing was because of their yee yee ass haircuts. If they had gotten that wavy knight hair or thick viking beard, their efficiency would've gone up drastically.
@@bakisha8564 naginata and kanabo were used too, the kanabo being probably their best weapon, a studded club strong enough not just to break bones, but also break katanas.
Also Katans points of the blade were not very affective at piercing. They were meant for slashing. Well plate armor basically blocks almost all blade slashes.
Granted, one of the more effective ways to dispatch knights is to knock them off their feet-not because they are too encumbered to get back up-because then they can overwhelm said knight in numbers and pick at his openings.
I can’t get that comparison out of my head now cause whenever I look at the box art of the raider, the warden and kensei side by side, I just see them now.
Shad: Kite Shield debuffs opponent with historical corrections Skall: Nordic Sword Weakens enemies and buffs allies with armor analysis Metatron: Nodachi gets on a horse and uses his bow only using the nodachi when charging
Modern Shad: Armed with 100 pound warbow, kite shield, and short sword. Can fire 9 armor-piercing arrows per minute with the technique of firing from the outside of the bow. Armored with brigantine chest piece, shoulder pads, and arm guards over gambeson.
lol, I love japanese culture and weapons martial arts, but I have to objectively give the edge to the knights, technology is king in war, and unfortunately Japan's isolationism was a huge source of their disadvantages.
Japanese isolationism didn't really kick in until much later, like, in the 17th century. They had a lot of outside influence from east Asia before this, most notably from China. So no, isolationism wasn't the source of their disadvantages, different culture was.
Bernardo Heusi Overly Sarcastic Productions sent me here. Try giving Blue's videos a look and see if you like what he has to say. He reeeeaally likes them Greeks.
About a specific military formation and a group of 3-6 thousand legionaries? Not sure I get the comparison, you want to see a tactic/strategy against a number? I think that you actually need to learn what a word means before you use it in conversation.
This is a good video. I saw a lot of negative feedback on the theory and Reddit, which is natural, but a lot of people were very hostile and aggressive about it. I glad to see someone have some well thought out criticism against the theory.
Well... that's the problem with the Internet. Everyone speaks their crazy mind without considering that people actually read those comments. I was actually pretty shocked while watching MatPats video about this topic and some points actually angered me. For example that Vikings had no armor at all and Knightarmor is as good as butter in the face of arrows, or the fact that shields played no role whatsoever. But the reception that video got were quite shocking. Constructive criticism and pointing out what's wrong with the video are fine and all... but some really let themselves go. It's no wonder how depressed he was with the W.D. Gaster video that came out a few days earlier. The average TH-cam comment section is really hard to swallow.
Surely not all of them? I really do feel its an exception not a rulle. Mattpat is usually very good in his pedantry. It;s like he never even bothered to use even wikipedia as a basic reference, let alone read a book!
David Ribeiro Ah yes thanks for that. Was recalling what it was they were using in one moment of that show. Where they put it on the character the camre was focusing on while having the background characters use the real chain mail. making it more noticeable.
Well actually they didn't even have any chainmail on the Vikings, or hauberks or helmets for Christ sakes. Just some gay leather armour that looks sort of cool but realistically never happened and overseas no protection.
well nope O.o lets take a knight with 1 year experience in constant war against a samurai with 10 years of experience in war, the samurai would be better at addepting to the fighting style of the knight so he would not get near to the pommel lol, even if he would not get through to the full plate (since he has no heavy weaponary at hand" he would try to wear the night out (heavy armore needs more stamina) and kill him after that. on the other hand a if the experiences switch, the night would probably not even need to go in as far as to pommel the samurai, more experience means better movements and descision making, the fight would end in the knight preserving his stamina and taking every error the samurai makes therefore taking his life rather fast. it depends on the situation, environment and equipment as well, if it was a large scale battle on an open field with charging knights wearing chainmail they would most probably falter in front of the ranged attacks of the samurai, at the other hand if it were two small groups in a forest, full plate knights against basic equiped samurai chances are high samurai would lose. so no "just pommel and all good" XD
@@thonex8787 1: you missed an obvious joke 2: why do they have to have such a disparity in experience? If you want to compare them then they should have similar experience. 3: your theory of the samurai wearing out the knight realistically requires the samurai to have too much information. Such as, the difference in weight of their arms and armour, the physical strength of the knight and and the stamina of the knight relative to the samurai. Without all this information (and more) attempt to wear out your opponent is a terrible strategy as you could easily end up wearing yourself out first. Wearing out your opponent over time is also most likely going to take more stamina from you, and if you have to continue fighting afterwards than you would want to conserve as much stamina as possible.
@Füćč Ñï99å I'd say in this situation, it's better to wear some epic armor so that what kills you is required to be something powerful, rather than, as you say, being able to be killed by a relatively weak attack.
I have always said that knights were vastly underestimated when it comes to warfare and same with the Vikings. You can even say the the entertainment industry and the modern Cavalry was directly affected because of the knights. Another thing that infuriates me is that the concept of the dark age had a negative impact on technology in Europe. Don't get me started on that one.
@@Blanksmithy123 i hate that presumption from our academics. We live in a academics taught society. Academics have no respect for other forms of education. The medieval world were professionally taught. Much like our apprenticeships programs. They were highly educated just not by our standards. Much of our today's technology is from either Romans or fuedilsim Europe.
Thanks for destroying the argument instead of attacking matpat's persona. Also thanks for spreading the truth. Wish people who have watched your video (not all of them) were as mature as you are.
Nothing can stop the "end him rightly" combo strike ! I'm pretty sure thats why guns were invented in the first place. Because bullets are like miniature pommels being thrown. #cancerfuckyeah
This was WHY nobunaga was so, dangerous. He incorporated western European armor, and firearms and combat tactics in his army. It's what made him feared.
When that happens, you KNOW that they're about to basically blow everything that the original speaker said into a smoking red hot pile of disjointed letters.
@@jeffreygao3956 a knights armour was built for bigger men..so that means more material to protect the user meaning it would have been tougher to pierce than let's say a smaller man with slimmer armour, that whole myth about height not mattering is a myth, since knights in addition to being tall also weighed more so he would have had a huge advantage than a small samurai who weighed less and had slimmer armour....
Which ironically, brings the Vikings back into contention. Almost none if these comparisons seem to take the physical characteristics of the warriors into consideration. There's a reason that combat sports divide the athletes into weight classes.
I was hoping videos would be made about this. My comment is one of the top rated on his video for this reasoning: "Vikings had mailed armor and very functional shields. After many test were done and mainly by people trying to answer this question it was proven the katana nor the Japanese bow could pierce chainmail this was mainly because the katana and bow were designed to kill light or unarmored foes and had little to no armor penetration, when knights and vikings had weapons very proficient at penetrating armor. The fact that the knight would have also had a mailed horse Oslo seemingly slipped your mind, or that vikings successfully raided and captured walled cities like when they took over much of the land in the British Isles, or laid siege to multiple large cities in modern day France. Why did you pick the richest of Samurai but not the richest of knights (or even average one for the time) it actually seems like you just picked an average armored European foot soldier, and vikings that sounded like they were out of the starting days of the viking era, centuries before, when they were inexperienced and untested? Really? You claimed you wanted to stick to the time period but one of many examples shown that knights were using halberds which are from the 14th-15th centuries not the 11th century as claimed. There are an unbelievable number of critical flaws in this video and this fight was not given the justice it deserved it seemed liked a rushed product likely because this is sponsored content. I hope to see a less bias video from you in the future."
i know im late to the party as ive only discovered Shadiversity two months ago, but i feel this was the most polite correction of Matpat ive ever seen.
abucket14 MangaKamen was quite polite yet MatPat dismissed him as “a hater” undermining the fact that he completely debunked one of his most popular theories. God I really dislike his attitude.
@@thecollector4332 this i did not know. i personally like Game theory as a show and like their side stuff like GTLive, but that being said i don't like Matpat's uncritizicable ego. (also i have no clue who Mossbags, Skall, Metatron, or Mangakamen are so forgive me for not replying to anyone else about the subject-matter.)
Black Jack even if you were right let's say the samurai and knight did fight, all that skill is sure going to pay off when they swing their heavy katana and not even hurt the knight. That knight will crush the samurai in almost every fashion
Northern European here. I do find this comparison odd. You take the Knight, a dedicated soldier and compare him with the Samurai, another dedicated soldier and then you compare them to the Viking......... Not to disrespect my ancestors but a Viking was a person going on a Viking or Raid. Some of them were dedicated soldiers no doubt but it's a bit generalized since a lot of them were merely seasonal fighters with limited equipment and experience. Maybe the more correct wording would be. Knight, Samurai and......Blátönns bodyguards? ;)
Agree with this. Jarls had men close to them who were loyal and swore fealty, just as a knight did. They were given gifts and paid well, including mail and swords. They would be a accurate equivalent to a Knight or Samurai, not the average raider. The average Viking would be equivalent to a lord's local militia pulled from the commoners.
@@LordCaric so the vikings and these bodyguarda were the equivalent for ashigarus to samurais? Also you can't compare the samurais as well, they were horse archers!
I would still give the edge to mounted shock charges - Remember men on viking were raiders, looking to get in and out quickly. Their combat tactics reflected this, the shield wall in particular was excellent for skirmishes against the type of army Shad explains that nobles would have - when the noble recieves word that there are raiders, they would have already gone - the only resistance they would have faced is those right there at the time, probably one knight and the peasants of the land. Against this kind of resistance, not having to maintain a horse, having large, but round shields that can overlap, axes to shatter wooden weapons that the peasents were most likely to have is absolutely perfect. Knights were not the counter to Viking raids, they were for war, for large scale battles which took place with a period of preparation beforehand. This is why the Norsemen were so successful in those initial years - in exactly the same way that modern militaries have had to adapt since the first world war to a style of fighting that they were not used to - remember the WW1 cavelry wearing plumes and white gloves charging machine gun encampments, or Vietnam, or even Somalia against an insurgent population where you can't distinguish between civilian and combatant - these are all shifts in how to wage war effectively that have taken years to figure out. So it was with viking raids, they were initially highly successful, but as soon as the raiders started to settle in the countries they were raiding, suddenly they were vulnerable to knights, who could pull up at your encampment, spend the day preparing then attack. The raider style of combat just wasn't cutting it anymore, so they also adapted. Remember the kite shields (tower shields he calls them) shad mentions were so useful to knights - they are synonymous with Norman knights. Who are Norman knights, well in the style of Shad, lets look at the etymology. Norman is a bastardisation of Northmen - the term used to describe those raiders from the North. Normans were vikings who evolved to the new situation. When Vikings settled the lands they were plundering, they didn't overcome the local knights, they became knights themselves, because their raiding tactics no longer worked and war tactics prevailed, of which the knight was the ultimate. I, like Shad have very little knowledge of the Japanese, but I don't doubt that a Samurai was the way he was because of the situation he was in and the type of war he was waging. Pop a group of European settlers down in 11th C Japan and I have no doubt that within years, they would start to look exactly like the Samurai they faced.
Also have to chime in here. The Norse (Viking is not a culture by definition, but raiding bands in general) often traveled by sea, rarely voyaged over a few days march from their ships(which used river systems to move inland with ease), and simply couldn't transport horses. It's a quartermaster's nightmare, keeping horses healthy and fed on a sea voyage, AND caring for your men. Cavalry DO have some disadvantages, which the Norse would exploit: setting up camp and attacking from wooded areas, keeping the high ground, night guerilla attacks (mostly the germanic Harii tribe, they're just SCARY), preparing a set battlefield (hedgehogs, tripwires, green-wood spring traps), and the use of longspears placed strategically behind shield walls. The Norse usually relied on mobility and surprise, scouting out an area well in advance, planning the advance (and strategic retreat if need be), and even concealing several small forces which would spring into action after the advancing forces had exposed their flanks and committed to establishing a front, only to fall back as the enemy turned in their direction (see the Ulfheddin's tactics). Overall Norse tactics are SEVERELY underrated. Why? Until they became the land-borne Norman culture, they didn't leave as many records behind for us to find. On a side note: Thank you Shad for pointing out that Gauls and Celts were the tribes that fought primarily with little to no armor. I very much appreciate that mention.
@@rdes32d45 Who said that in the first place? I mean, is right, but I didn't say that MatPat is a weeb for watching one anime. I really doubt that that he has watched only one.
It's a shame MatPat wasn't able to consult with you when they were making that video, huh? I think that would have been pretty cool. He's a good guy; it's just sad the backlash he gets for making mistakes on his theories. It would be nice if people could be more constructive in their feedback like you. Also thank you for being a wonderful individual and making this video to just correct misconceptions and not bash on another person for being misinformed (though I know that's not you're nature from watching your channel). Too often, people just make videos out of anger or spite because what somebody says is wrong or goes against their views, and it's nice getting to watch a video without that. So since I don't think it's said enough, thank you for being a kind, considerate, and respectable person.
Totally! Hey, if it isn't too much of a bother, I'm thinking of writing a fantasy story set close to the 17th century in European culture and technology (with magic, but that's after I get the factual stuff done). Any "must watch/can't miss" videos off the top of your head you could suggest for the basics or a starting point?
"It's a shame MatPat wasn't able to consult with you when they were making that video, huh?" People like Shadiversity has a fan base who hate "weaboos" and protect Knights to the death. Everything related Knights is untouchable and perfect. So, I know What would happen if Matt did consult with Shadi. He would make the video by showing a Knight reaping 50 samurais at same time. Because Samurais are popular, and bashing something popular is so cool, that makes you "expert" in anything.
you should do a video on matpats video "lightsaber vs halo energy sword" at one point he uses olympic-style sport fencing as a basis for historical fighting
chainsawelliott44 i love me the energy sword, but in sheer practicality it is not nearly as good as the lightsaber. that gap between the blades is an enormous handicap that a lightsaber could use easily, plus a shitty reach in comparison.
Threeshades seriously? it looks elegant and what no, but in swordfight it literally gives a direct line to The hand. that would be horrible in a sword fight
Mikakarot23 but you could very easily just twist the energy sword while the light saber is coming down and very easily disarm them or at least stun them momentarily
As logan said his reasoning for believing it is an advantage is because it can be used to stop an attack. While yes you would have to be pretty fast in order to pull it off, assuming you could move or twist the energy sword fast enough in order to disarm the opponent or like logan said stun them momentarily thats a pretty big advantage.
Yes but what he neglected to mention was Vikings main strength is they were Superior sailors and I shot both Yumi bow and a viking longbow the Viking bow that I shot was 90 lb of draw weight compared to the Yume which was only 40 lb you also have to remember there is a considerable difference in strength and height when it comes to the difference between Vikings and Samurai average Vikings in those days would have been 5 ft 9 to 6 ft tall average Samurai you're looking more in the four foot range and what's so underrated about the ax is I don't have to crush the armor I just got a crust a little f***** inside it and hold your head with pride because the world's strongest man is of Norse descent not a Frenchman not an Englishman a German or Roman sure as hell isn't a Chinese or Japanese we've got Superior builds and had the whole of Scandinavia come together instead of bickering with each other there's a good chance we could have conquered the known world
@@flokistormborn4599 as an addendum, Thor is ONE of the worlds strongest men, currently that title belongs to the latvian Martins Licis. Thor was the 2018 strongest man.
Judging by the thumbnail of his video, yes he did. OR he was making sure that his braindead fanbase ABSOLUTELY KNEW that it was a viking's head in the thumbnail. Or both probably both
in a way they kind of didn't. mail armor was a luxury even in medeival europe where knights usually wore only a hauberk of the stuff, gloves, and some sort of head protection. vikings would be wearing much less mail than that, and usually their only other armor was leather or gambeson.
not really. for example while medieval knights would be wearing mail they weren't exactly most of the time wearing chain mail pants for example usually wearing a shirt, gloves, and a helmet over a chain mail coif or hood, and maybe chainmail socks. while vikings also had chainmail it was a bit of a class luxury as most couldn't afford much mail either and what mail was made was very poor quality, it had big holes in it because it used fewer and larger rings in the chains leaving plenty of room for piercing weapons to take advantage of. www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_mail.htm.
hmmm... from what era in their history, as an early jedi would be obliterated against a knight. Why? the proto-saber. It had a power pack, and a cord. and once the cord is severed, the jedi is defenseless. That being said, the jedi knew this, and would likely protect the cord at all cost. And if you are putting a knight from the eleventh century against a jedi, than the jedi would reasonably have to be using a proto-saber. The sith on the other hand, never had this issue, for 2 reasons. 1) The sith sword. The sith sword is evenly matched to a modern lightsaber, and was arguably more lethal than any lightsaber, because it didn't cauterize the wound. Aswell, the sith are the ones who pioneered the modern lightsaber, and therefore in my opinion, the modern lightsaber would not have been developed as quickly by the jedi, as my understanding of the purpose of creating such a weapon was ease of concealment, rather than actual effectiveness That being said, most if not all sith swords had no more than two cutting edges, which would be a sizable disadvantage against a circular plasma blade. And that is why I think that the Sith were better than the Jedi
I'm not a historian, so take this with a pinch of salt - but I am Norwegian, and more than casually interested in the subject, so I'd like to bring up a few more aspects to debunk the myth that vikings went into battle bare chested. For one, there are a lot of historical references to "brynje" armor, especially in Snorres saga of the Norwegian kings. St. Olav was wearing one when he was killed at the Battle of Stiklestad in 1030 (about 1,5 km from my house), or in more "fictional" sagas like Hrólfs Krakes saga that was written sometime in the 13th century. Due to most sagas being written a substantial amount of time after the events, these might not be accurate though - but this indicates that armor was something they knew about, and being a non-pacifist culture, likely was interested in obtaining. We do know that linen was produced in Scandinavia during the time period, so it's plausible to assume that they caught on to gambesons after fighting people with it for 300 years. Vikings existed before heavy cavalry though, so while they avoided fighting light cavalry by launching surprise attacks and using long boats to get close - the argument is kinda flawed because we don't know what tactics they might have discovered or employed if they'd been around long enough to face them. It's the same asking what roman legions would do against heavy cavalry if they faced them regularly. We don't know - but probably something clever because They Were Good At War (tm) What we do know is that every male adult in that time period was expected to be proficient and maintain their own weapon, thus we can also expect them to want to protect themselves from said weapons. It probably correlates well with the amount of people who own bulletproof vests that also owns guns. Another thing is that it's bloody Scandinavia - it's cold here, and at least most of the Norwegian vikings came from the fjords in the west - where it's cold and raining all the time. Walking around without something to protect you from the elements would lead to the viking being wet, cold and far from combat shape 11 out of 12 months of the year. We also need to remember that vikings where even more traders than raiders, and that anything you could buy around the mediterranean also were found in hands of vikings. The French king even banned selling swords to vikings eventually - probably sometime after they sieged Paris with catapults and battering rams - I think it is safe to assume that vikings also bought, or procured, armor. We do know that they fielded a 2000-4000 army in the Battle of Maldon, facing an unkown force of anglo saxons. For vikings to attempt regular warfare, I think it's safe to assume they had comparable weapons technology available. The last thing we have to consider is what defines the "Vikings" - do we also acknowledge the early Normans who were Viking settlers? Rollo, the first duke of Normandy (even though he never used that title) was a Dane or Norwegian, and it took a few generations before they were fully assimilated into continental culture. If so, we'll also assume that kite shields were not uncommon for Vikings either - especially for more permanent settlements and stationary armies as I think the classic round shield was more suited for raiding parties. Anyways - like your videos, especially the one with the gauntlet sword and the mancatcher (And I do agree that late medival knights would be better armed and armored than vikings).
I think the Vikings would probably adapt the technology and win, securing trade routes, conquering what is now Russia, Sicily, Normandy, and England itself, discovering lands across the ocean, etc. They say the Vikings died out in the 11th century but I'd argue that the Scandinavians simply didn't have to go raiding anymore. Because they won.
Very well put. The Saxons of Britain in the 11th Century fought the Vikings and Normans consecutively. The armour and weapons of the Saxons and Vikings was comparable as was their tactics. The Heavy Cavalry Charge famed at Hastings did not break the Saxon Shield Wall it was the Norman infantry assaulting it who did, the Cavalry then swept in and mopped up. This is the common tactic of using cavalry that lasted until WW1. You do not push through infantry using cavalry as the infantry will hold and massacre them. Cavalry harass and flank the infantry, hit the opposing cavalry and only go after infantry when they break formation or flee. William tried 9 times to charge the Saxons and fled each time. The Saxons kept close formation and employed specialists called Huscarls to move beyond the wall and swing large axes capable of bringing down a horse. Britain was under Viking rule for nearly 2 Centuries and still has a proud Viking heritage. Harald Hadrada had the best claim to the throne in 1066 in my opinion. One thing that most people seem to forget is that Scandanavians are generally large people and were even in those days. Size does make a difference in combat.
You forgot one major factor. According to the Eddas and the Völsung some Vikings were known to assume animal form (bear, wolf) when going into battle. So, the accuracy of your video is way off until you consider the viking as a bear-wolf-man imbued with giant's blood wielding an axe.
he made a theory how it would be in the real world if they fought. but based everything on mmo game mechanics wtf. Anime fights are not the real world! silly matpat!
Unfortunately not. But then you see shit like mordhau grips and anime looks more realistic lmao. I was watching anime for a good while before I first saw half wording and went "that's like how we hold metal in my dad's welding shop when its fresh, that makes sense!".
@BuggsPray Watch "Sword of the Stranger", "Samurai Champloo" and "Rurouni Kenshin" (which you may have seen already). Best samurai/sword fighting animes that are way more realistic than other anime.
Just watched the game theory, I thought he had made some errors myself so I looked up replies on youtube, and have since discovered, Shad, Metaron and Skalligrim, Goodbye life.
I think a constant bombardment of media stereotypes has swayed a lot of us on how we view these varying warriors. Thanks to films when I think of samurai I immediately think fast and agile, and knights as slow and cumbersome. I know it's not at all accurate but media has given me so many visual references of this that it's what my brain automatically pictures. I feel like Matpat might have confused this mental imagery as realism. Glad to see yourself, Skall, Met and others making really informative videos countering this game theory.
People may say that the Media 's job is to "educate and inform", but what is the point of entertaining and informing an audience that has fallen asleep or left the theater?
I mean, a lot of media doesn't really inform, it just entertains. Most films, TV and games don't tend to be too historically accurate, favouring imagery and entertainment value over what's actually true. I can understand why they do it, it's just up to us to remember that what we see is for fun and not for education.
Spam When I think Knights I see fun musicals and debating of air velocities of European and African swallows as well as falling into pits after failing questions
pretty good counter-video, I am so glad you debunks many misconceptions about knights and samurai. Also as much as I like samurai, I have a hard time with matpat's conclusion on how samurai are the winner while I think the knights have more advantages in warfare.
Croz Raven its hard case how the two are glorified. both were isolationist in more backwater areas. its like testing a kitten vs a puppy and forgetting about the dominant forces of the time like the Islamic and Mongolian empires who actually destroyed other peoples and not just themselves
Tane Gurnick are we just going to ignore the crusades? we can argue the effectiveness of the Knights in those campaigns but they were not isolationist. they fought islamic and moorish warriors for gods sale
JenkinsHTTK not a single but a similar. Its just like you would lump the Chinese into a single culture even though there are many and China is as big as Europe. The knights lost in Israel, the Byzantine empire was destroyed. Tell me what power can compare to the Islamic empire from Europe?
in the middle east the nights didn't win a lot of ground that is treu but in spain and portugal the knights pushed the moors out of europa. these 2 campains do not have the same scale but it shows that the knights did not do under for the muslims. also the muslims in that ties power was not ther military strengt but there knowlege and ther understanding of sciens. sorry for the bad grammer
It's design makes it easier to draw and their quick draw techniques are pretty amazing, but it's only effective against unarmored opponents. I'd give it the edge if all parties were unarmored and the longsword and katana were sheathed. But if everyone is fully armored and all weapons are drawn, then the longsword has the edge as its more versatile and has range advantage, weapon swing speed is comparable for both so basically negligible.
The katana were engineered to be blazing flast on the draw. I had to write an entire paper on this for my history class. Katana was first based on the chineese short sword, then evolved to have a super fast draw, and were refined to have a quick draw, sharp edge, and strong spine.
@@capablanc you are right, in battle it made no difference, but you would carry your sword with you everywhere. Not just in battle, which is why kendo trains you to draw and strike in 1 move, both in sitting and standing position.
gotta thank MatPat for making such an inaccurate video, and thank Skall for making a video about that, because that's how I found your channel and now I'm subbed :)
Daniel S I wouldn't call Matpat inaccurate per-say, just this dude is nitpicking. Mat talks about castles, and this dude nitpicks how stone castles didn't exist, Matpat says how with castles comes knights, this dude nitpicks how knights actually came about, even though Matpat was technically correct, given how somebody has to defend the castle. IDK, I think that this whole video is pointless and nitpicky, the only part that was an actually contribution was how knights had shields and how much armor weights.the rest was absolutely fluff. I don't really care, For Honor is fun AF though. Edit:You have to remember, Matpat bases videos on video game logic, which isn't always correct. For example, a Skyrim guard wouldn't be able to walk if they took an arrow to the knee, and a Minecraft Steve would never be able to carry that much gold in his inventory at once, even Vsauce 3 gets things wrong because of how they base it in a Video Game logic.
Derpy Duck matpat based the for honor theory on 11th century combat because that's the time period when knights, samurai and vikings were all running around at the same time. pretty sure the 11th century actually existed, not just in videogames. shad pointed out that in the 11th century, you can't just hide in a castle because castles were basic wooden walls and maybe a small stone tower with a wooden door. does wood protect against people who were particularly fond of the "burn" part in "rape, burn and pillage"? and saying "all he added were shields and a correction on weight" is a pretty big point in melee combat. if i told you "this guy has armour that weighs a 100 pounds and a hammer that weighs 50 and he's gonna fight this guy who has no armour and a dagger, bet on who's gonna win", it would probably be a pretty big deal that the weight of the dude's armour isn't 100 pounds, both have armour, the hammer is actually a bow, both are on horseback and one has a shield and a lance, not a dagger.
Yal Rathol Yes, but I can always say The guy with the dagger has been fight for 25 years and the guy with armor has never fought in his life, different now. I think fights are more up to skill and how you use your defense/offense and not about how much you have The wooden castle thing was completely irrelevant because he almost never talked about castles also, this dude doesn't know grammar very well, mat said Vikings wore "practically nothing for protection" and he said how they had some protection, which enforces the point of the word *practically* nothing for protection
Derpy Duck right. it's almost as if having accurate information when claiming who will win a fight is important. but hey, i guess i should call you out on nitpicking their skill level, right? the "wooden castle thing" showed that in actual 11th century combat, the vikings stood a hell of a better chance than matpat gave them. they weren't going to be washed away like a sandcastle like matpat implied. again, almost like having accurate info is important or something. ...right. mail hauberks, metal helms, plank shields and padded leather that can stop longbow fire as well as basic protective clothing and a tunic and shoes is "almost nothing". it's like when you go outside each day "almost nude". i mean, you're only wearing underpants, shirt, pants, socks, shoes, maybe a jacket and hat, perhaps a watch or jewlery if that's your thing, you're basically an exibitionist. "almost nothing".
I am by no means an expert but just putting a thought out there. Also, wouldnt an experienced European knight also have more experience fighting different styles of armies then Samurai? Samurai mostly fought other clans with the same armor and techniques as their own, unlike knights which had to adapt to all kinds of different fighting styles across Europe and the Middle east and Asia. Please correct if I’m wrong on this front.
The japanese were fighting each other for a long period of time, but that didn't stop them from engaging effectively against unknown fighting styles; it only made them perfectionate their own fighting style. Take, for example, the japanese invasion of Korea (not the most recent one). They utterly destroyed them on land, no doubt. They only lost because, since they fought mainly on land, their ships were crap, specially compared to the korean sea units, people that were accostumed to being attacked constantly by pirates. So, they were too specialized on land war, if the japanese were to use that to their advantage, it wouldn't suppose a problem, unless they fought coast countries or islands, like England or Italy. Of course, the europeans had their stuff too, but my brain kind of died after writing all of that, lol.
@@Burn_Angel I'd also like to point out that Japan didn't lose because of an inferior navy, they lost because two typhoons decided to show up as soon as Japan tried to invade both times. Also, these clans might have different fighting styles, but they wouldn't contrast nearly as much as say; A Christian knight and a Muslim soldier, or a viking and a Saxon soldier. Given that equipment would be generally the same, the actual fighting styles literally could not contrast as much given the use case.
Even as an Asian myself, I gotta hand the victory in this match up over to you Westerners. The practicality in Western armaments is undeniably high and it's hard to dispute over something that has been proven to work.
I also feel that the Japanese were at an inherent disadvantage due to there natural resources. Europeans, just by virtue of having far more land, had access to better grade materials
Yeah and Samurai swords and normal one or two handed swords are so different that you shouldn't really compare them, the katana for example were used for slashing the enemies arteries, like armpits, throats, thighs and behind your knee and that wouldn't work against a knight. Knights didn't even use swords against other knights, they used mauls or warhammers to cause blunt damage to the armor and breaking bones in the process. The japanese never used mauls and such so they would technically lose.
@@finnish_hunter I mean the Japanese did have Kanabo which is basically large baseball bats but with studs in them, but I don’t think they used em much for actual fighting and the things are more associated with Oni than actual samurai…
Eric Downing for reference, water isn’t wet, it makes things wet. It’s like saying air is wind. But yeah MatPat is good at theories so it’s entertaining to say the least.
@@swcsomeonewhocares8707 For reference, the actual experts on water who have studied it for decades say that water is wet because water is nothing like air or fire and the use of hydrogen's unique tetrahedral bonding effectively makes water "wet air". Basically, strong tetrahedral hydrogen bonding makes water wet. The full article that explains it can be found here: nautil.us/issue/25/water/ingenious-richard-saykally
dude, he did, he just said " horse archers would win in a 11th century fight" and he's right, we dont have to guess, the mongols are there as proof, they smashed knight, footmen adn anything that stood in their way.
Thank you so very much for this video, Shadiversity! And to you, Skallagrim, for your input! And to you, Metatron, for you input! Three awesome Tubers!
yep, sadly though, mat pat's repeat offenses make sane replies hard, especially as he break rules of logic and reason, and i try to be a patron of logic and reason
One thing I always have to consider is that he's making these videos for entertainment purposes. Logic helps, but entertainment is first and foremost. I can be entertained, even if I know the theory makes little to no sense. Mostly because it gets me thinking about the subject. If he wants people to be really happy with his theories, he should be a little more careful, though. Perhaps air it to a smaller test audience that can tell him if it generally makes sense? More expert opinion would be helpful too. Honestly, he could have reached out to Shadiversity or someone else for advice. Even if they didn't want to be in the video, they could have given him tips or places to go for research.
my kids went to the library today to get some books. one book they brought home was all about vikings and Normans. it covers the fact they wore mail and some believe padded gambeson. it also covers the same thing about where the word knight came from when it talks about the Normans. guess mat should have picked up a children's book and would have learned something.
Plus during Harald hadradas conquest of england, he lost becasue his army was ambushed at nighttime while his troops were sleeping so they did not have enough time to put on their armour.
Sean Macguire his persona 4 video was entirely wrong. basically he assumed that teddie was yu narukarmis shadow based on loose evidence that already have explanations or are there for gameplay reasons. hell, yu not having a shadow was even explained in the game! there may be more, but i don’t watch game theory that much so i don’t know.
@@soupperson280 He's wrong about a lot of things. He half asses his research and makes ties where there are none to fill in his theorys. They fun to think about, but when it comes to accuracy, he's very misguided a lot of the time.
Over the years I've started to believe that Game Theory is the sole reason people think the word "theory" means "random ideas and opinions loosely held together by other opinions".
You do know that evolution is a theory right? Everything in science is a theory, based on faith. The Scientific Method basically states that we cannot know how things work, we can only hold assumptions and hypothesis that can explain why events occur. Every year things we thought were ironclad are being proved wrong. Science and faith (NOT RELIGION) are VERY closely intertwined. For a deeper explanation look up Extra Credits - God Does Not Play Dice.
You're mixing up a theory and a hypothesis. A hypothesis is what you described - just an idea based on assumptions. In order for it to be upgraded to a theory, you need evidence and/or years of observation and study until you have data that supports the hypothesis. The reason it's called a theory is because one of the most fundamental principles of science is that we don't know everything. It's the whole fucking reason we have science to begin with. So, since we don't understand everything, there's always the small possibility that the theory may be wrong or that it's partially correct and becomes a part of a bigger theory that explains things better. Also, the stuff that's disproved is usually pretty new stuff, usually in the fields of molecular biology, computing and quantum physics. You know, fields that are relatively new and sparse in data. Because that's what theories are based on - data. Let's imagine a bit of knowledge as a circle. Your data are dots along it. First people find something very basic, a single dot and have no idea what to make of it. Then they find another, get a line and realize there's something there. Then a third dot and they start to hypothesize that it's a triangle, which is disproved by the discovery of a 4th dot, which changes the theory to a square, then a pentagon, hexagon and so on. And as more and more data is gathered, the theory is constantly updated until eventually someone goes "Hold on, this isn't a fuckload-agon, it's a circle.", even though they don't have all the dots yet. Yes, there are assumptions, but they're not ungrounded or blind faith, they're based on data, which supports it. Sure, it's possible to misinterpret the data, fuck it up or just get unlucky, but those things aren't all that common, because one of the easiest ways of getting scientific fame is to disprove someone's theory and you can bet your ass there's a thousand guys in labcoats looking for a flaw in your theory so they can be on the cover of some science magazine that 20 people in the country actually buy. So if there's a hole in your theory, it's not gonna last very long. In short, no, science is not based on faith. Theories are not based on assumptions. They're based on data and facts. And don't give me that philosophical "but what if the facts are wrong and everything we know is wrong?" shit. If that were the case, someone would have disproved it by now. People have been doing that shit since ancient times. Eratosthenes proved the earth wasn't flat by calculating it's circumference all the way back in 200 BC. So if something we consider a fact is wrong, people will gladly prove it wrong, so their stupidly long greek name will end up in a history book.
Random well said but theories aren't the same as full blown actual facts. but like i said very well said. (side note: idk why people get so angry over theories like this guy did or matpat its all just mostly for entertainment)
@@Lampost_Binbag_Official and the ender dragon is almost impossible to hit while flying around, and the wither just kind of follows you while shooting at you.
@@Lampost_Binbag_Official yes, but with the ender dragon if you die you can just go back to the end, a wither can and will destroy your bed if it's nearby, thus making it almost impossible to find again unless you spawned it right next to the world spawn
In order to get the Samurai to beat the Knight, MatPat had to literally nerf the Knight to such an extent that it was little more than a generic soldier, completely leaving out that true Knights, like Samurai, were generally wealthy noblemen.
This is why I love Shad, the dude is so wholesome!!! Corrects the guy and recommends his channel!!! You are awesome and I know you might never see this comment (as this video is old) but, I hope you are doing well! You and your Family stay safe!!!
It;s not like the north sea is famous for it's abundance in fish or anything, or that the norse were respected traders and mercenaries aside from the raiding. edited
Kaakoo Nakto Sure they reached america before the other europeans but to call it "cross the atlantic", I dont know.. Columbus actually sailed across the atlantic. The "vikings" went smaller distances in the north. Look at a map and you will see it.
An additional thought I would like to add is this. Why is everyone assuming that horses can be dropped by an arrow so easily? I think taking out a horse with a cavalry bow would be a much, much, harder thing than everyone is assuming.
A huge volley by hundreds of archers would do the job as we saw in the battle of Agincourt, but we are talking about a 1v1 scenario. The samurai would have to circle, slow (though they can still move fast, just not in a full blown gallop), and aim to shoot. I see them getting off three, maybe four shots at most against the knight before the knight closes the distance with his lance/spear as the knight would be charging at top speed. These arrows could not penetrate deep enough to hit a horse's vital organs, horses have a lot more muscle that arrows need to penetrate after all. The only way I see an arrow dropping a horse in it's tracks is a shot through the eye. At a distance while moving this is a one in a million shot. *It's not going to happen*. And though the horse might get hurt by a few arrows in it's neck or legs, as soon as that distance is closed the samurai will be run through by that mounted charge which is nearly always deadly. Jousting became a prominent sport for a reason.
Would a knight risk his horse to win? Absolutely as not dying is a good trade and horses can heal.
Shooting the rider strikes me as more effective than shooting the horse. I mean why was the no-dachi developed by the samurai to take out horses if arrows could do it so easily? The issue is if the rider has adequate armor to protect him from arrow fire, what then?
No-dachi time, that's what! But the No-dachi didn't exist in the eleventh century. . .
Shadversity in your opinion who would win a hypothetical fight between a Vikingr and a Samurai on foot? The only reason I'm not including the knight in this question is I personally believe the Knight would have a significant advantage over both the Samurai and Vikingr in that match up. Just newly subscribed after this response video.
Please make a video about mount and blade warband game.Plss Plss begging you milord its almost harvesting season.
Shadiversity please do a video with him , metatron, and skalagrim please !
i dont think horses have very high pain tolerance. they'd probably throw the knight down when they get hit from an arrow. though thats just a thought. obvioulsly i didn't test it.
i am not sure if people in the middle ages were good in breeding certain breeds of animals. i am not an expert by any means but i dont think that the horses were much better genetically.
“The slower tank like knights.”
*Full plated knight cartwheels toward you*
This made me chuckle aloud
He's about to convert you into christianity
Fun fact, full plate weighs less than a modern Soldier's equipment. :eyes:
@@tarambukis-c2q makes sense, its thin sheets of metal, modern soldier equipment especially the bullet proof vest features a giant ceramic brick inside it.
Giving me some Dark Souls vibes with this post.
Nobody:
Shad: Full-plate knight parkour
Paladin and rogue multiclass is a thing, somehow
@@lau_taro0037 Vaxildan....
Taro
FATHERRRR
I TEJECT MY HUMANITY JOJO
r/uselessnobody
@@ElenaAideen wait he's a multiclass?
fun fact: the modern body equipment of us troops on average weighs more than full plate armor.
The more you know.
For foot patrols, certainly.
Modern troops can carry a shit-ton of miscellaneous stuff
When you say body equipment, are you referring to the ammo, weapon and protection exclusively, or that + backpacks/comms/survival equipment?
+SinerAthin all equipment.
Actually, our armor is significantly lighter since we only have torso and head protection (Assuming you're comparing with the full body plate armor). Even with shoulder and groin adapters max weight would be about 40 pounds.
Knights just didn't carry assault packs or ruck sacks into battle haha. Plus, all our equipment is concentrated on the shoulders, theirs is more distributed.
Even then, it depends on the unit. Some allow plate carriers (Not really much lighter but a lot smaller haha). Others allow not wearing adapters (Neck, shoulder, groin, etc). Others have you wear everything... and that sucks haha.
They also help stop bullets :)
knew this was gonna come lol. guessed it as soon as I finished his video. either you or skall were gonna completely refute it.
my bet was shad would be the first to jump on the video. but i'm loocking forwart to what the rest of the gang has to say.
can't wait for Metatron!
Skall will probably weigh in in a day or two, though I'd like to see Lindybeige weigh in more
When I first saw the video from MattPat in my newsfeed I was like, ''LET'S WAIT AND SEE THE HISTORIC AND MEDIEVAL PART OF TH-cam BLOW UP!'' While watching the video I was feeling like Trump, saying ''WRONG!'' At almost every damn points. lol
Skall's announced on FB that he's gonna light him up as well.
Make death to misinformation into a shirt
I support this idea
I also support this idea
I further support this idea.
@@notsae66 Yay XD
I also suppport support this idea supportedly.
Damn shad, you're fast
That's what his ex said.....sorry
FanBoy *Slow, unimpressed clapping proceeds*
Actually
Twas what she proclaimed!
Everyone knows the real question is who would win: Pirates or Ninjas?
hard one cus ninjas arent combat related they were mostly just spies and messengers that would avoid combat at all cost, even if they were in a fight there only goal is defense and retreating
@@Bag1911 they were also assassins I think. But my money is on the pirates
My money's also on the pirates, probably cuz of their guns
Pirates becuase they have guns
The real question is actually WHY is the ninja fighting pirates? The ninja would need a very good reason to even be in that situation. On the other hand, a pirate needs very little reason or explanation as to why he is a fight or attacking someone. A random encounter with a pirate happening upon a ninja and attacking him, the ninja is not likely to fight. The ninja will simply escape, and the pirate will probably survive. Why are interweb weebs always pitting pirates and ninja against each other?
After watching Skallagrim's and Metatron's video, this video is on par with there's. Great work man. And holy cow, you can that stuff with plate armor? Amazing.
To be fair, most of the former Roman settlements had some Form of stone walls.
Wasn't plate armor, also chainmail was far better that's why Romans adopted it as well.
Cornered Fox Sorry for my wording. I meant that what was left of them during the middle ages still had stonewalls. The fortresses of antiquity itself were quite formidable.
Reed W Um Romans don't have plate armor? Have you heard of Lorica Segmentata?
That's not comparable to actual plate armor with a single chest piece - also the material was way lower quality. Also, how widely the Lorica Segmentata was actually used is quite unclear.
Oliver H No it is clear. for a long time it was the standard armor of Roman legionaries. However it was hard to maintain and later replaced by chain mail. Also Roman hastati used bronze plate armor. Don't come argue with me about Roman history, it's one of my specialties.
Explains that the knights have shields over samurai. Explains that knights have faster/longer weapons than samurai. Explains that knights have superior armor against slashing and can move just as fast. I DON'T KNOW GUYS IT"S A REAAAAAL TOUGH CALL. C'mon man...don't be afraid to hurt the weebs' feelings.
Gotta love how the Samurai in For Honor love their super sharp slashers!
...that are completely worthless against characters like Lawbringer, Conqueror, Warden, dare I say centurion? Gladiator is just a gladiator, Peacekeeper...What armor does she even wear under that surcoat..Or whatever it is? She's looking a little thin, and vulnerable to Orochi ;-;
@@adorablecenturion8436 Also, katanas can't even thrust, half-sword/murderstroke, block with the crossguard or END THEM RIGHTLY.
I hope everyone realizes that the samurai's armor in for honor are all made of wood.. it's not much of a contest if you have a wooden armored samurai against a metal armored knight..
Great vid. And I know I'm REALLY late seeing and replying, but there are cases given to us in the sagas of vikings battling naked. Berserkir and Ulfheðnar we're said to go into battle without armor, even biting and throwing away their shield "for fire and iron would not harm them." Thanks for your content! Keep up the good work!
4:42 hey it's Rochester, I live basically next door
Knights would win regardless because ‘tis only a flesh wound.
Tis but a scratch
@@fedrikrose2277 A scratch? Your arms off *points at your severed arm with my longsword*
@@shroudthewolf1105 no it isn't
@@khajiitkorner918 Well what's that then *point at severed arm*
@@shroudthewolf1105 ive had worse
For Honor style refutations: Shad = Knights, Skallagrim = Vikings, and Metatron = Samurai. With Meta's new intros alone this is gonna be fun
There's more truth to your summaries than I first thought ^_^
Shadiversity shad there's going to be a for honor open beta on all platforms it starts tomorrow I was wondering if you get a chance to play it,what your thoughts on the art of combat is the way they fight with 3 directions like good game mechanics but not accurate especially with all there weapons that heroes have?
The amount of frenzy that talking about these 3 historical factions fighting incites is kind of historical. I think people will be arguing about their favorite band of 11th century warriors being the best indefinitely! All that aside, the actual gameplay looks frigging fantastic! -Nerdarchist Ryan
thats not really necessary due to the producers saying their "Art Of War" combat system is based on theatre combat (what you see at festivals)
too bad no hoplites and redcoats (or Indian swordman if ya like eastern one), otherwise lindy & matt would joined as well XD
Vikings: Nice armor you got there....
*Pulls out ancient swedish furniture*
Vikings: But do you have this?
I K E A
Noice
Why did I imagine some viking pulling a chair from offsceen and being like "ehhh? Ehhhhh???" With his expressions.
*Pulls out ancient Swedish chair*
Vikings: Parry this you fucking casual.
Scandanavian arms and armour was a lot art for nearly a millenia. Their armour was the best of the period even in the 11th Century. The Ulfbert Swords have puzzled historian as they are so well made that it took till the industrial revolution to replicate.
For some reason I feel like shadversity doesn't live in a house but a castle.
Even if he did live in a house he would be sure that it had PROPER MACHICOLATIONS!
Jaren Bure nonono, a *keep* , *norman keep*
Why, of course a Lord lives in a caste. Where else would he live, knave, with you in your knave abode?
All it takes for something to count as a castle is for it to be a fortified home.
he has a castle in his back guarden
Honestly, I think the historical versions of Knights and Samurai are even more badass than the video game versions.
Kafazy ShortHop exactly
Mostly because they were slaughtering Peasants rather than fight each other.
and to that i agree
Viking fan boys are the same.
Historical knight armor looks 10x better than the edgy shit in For Honor.
Let me guess, Mat Pat said that the Samurai are superior
EDIT: Fucking called it.
Autism is Uncontrollable yup
Autism is Uncontrollable he did. The battle went 'enter knkght and samurai. Samurai shoots knights horse, samuria shoots dtraight through knoghts chainmail. Samurai wins.'
But Samurai are superior in real life.
UNLIKE the knight in shining armor of the late 1400s, early 1500s, the Samurai have made it to the 19th century, and had French bolt action rifles, English Rifled muskets, Grand Warships, (admiral was a Samurai) and more.
FOOL!
Footman Of Lordaeron but the thing is..... they stayed because of pride. Look at the rebellion. They got slaughtered by newer gear. They got absolutely butfucked, because they would t let go of the old ways.
Footman Of Lordaeron
I don't remember a world spanning japanese empire...
Its almost as if knights were the dominant force on the medieval battlefield for hundreds of years or something.
That's because they were.
Edit: I know this comment is supposed to be a joke, I just commented that for shits n giggles
Among their own, yes. They got their asses kicked more than once by the Muslims.
+@@JohnDoe-pt7ru
And then they kicked muslims' arses more than once, also. Eventually kicking them so hard, the arab empires were reduced to today's middle east.
@@Gyvulys arab empires reduced to todays middle east not by knights but by mongols and timurids. After they too passed away ottomans came to power, restored and stabilised the region. Middle east got fucked like this after ww1. The knights had no part in it
@@JohnDoe-pt7ru because they were outnumbered by a fk ton 😂😂 Each knight was much more powerfull than Muslim warriors, hence why the arrival of a batallion of 100 knights was considered important.
Game Theory: “And with castles came knights”
Shadiversity: NO
Ibexing I mean, it’s not wrong
@@CyberMonkey03 it's not correct either
Then what is it?!?!??! We have a paradox here lads.
knights came with the nobles who gave their equipment to their sons.
And Normandy came from the norse
Game theorist: *says Knights are slower than Samurai*
Shadiversity: Amazing, every word of what you just said was wrong.
Taco lover 44
It’s true tho
@@hampton_the_one5419 15:57
foot fetish
I thought he said Knights are faster than samurai 🤣🤣 I’m so fuckin stupid thanks tho
Its actually wrong tho
@@ttchme9816 No lah. I'm faster lmau
MatPat entirely forgot shields existed, it’s insane.
I get that you're being satirical, but this fills me with so much rage
@skullpull 101 Thats so triggering :D .
@skullpull 101 As an actual weeb... gas those weebs
skullpull 101 have you not seen the matrix movies bro? a katana can cut through a car with ease never mind a european sword
The thing is that the katana was not made in this time period dang it people not every Japanese sword is a katana
Thank fucking god someone is correcting him, this is the most disappointed i've ever been with Matpat.
Damn it you beat me by 5 seconds. Same with disappointment though
watch his tf2 vs overwatch video if you wanna be disappointed
Seen it, this was more disappointing
SickBangerzM9 This and the clickbait pandering livestreams.
Yea, same! MatPat is cool but he was wrong with this imo
Samurai: The knights can never beat our arrows!
Knight: *Has a shield *
I don't know I don't think Samurai's will be tonight but it's very hard to beat a gun
@@rioulethebeats9717Yes, but remember that the samurai got their guns from the European Portuguese.
Knights had guns LONG before the samurai did and they were VERY effective with them (look up the German Black Riders for an example).
I would like to add a point about the origional video. In the "Death Battle" portion of the video the samurai shoots the knights horse and immediatly downs it. I am a mild archery enthusiast and a hunter. In the video, the knight and samurai are heading toward each other and the samurai shoots the horse in the chest. Horse armor was not reintroduced to europe until the 12th century, but I can assure you that a head on shot against something even as small as a deer is not a good idea due to the heavy muscle mass, bone and non vital organs. On a massive horse a head on shot would more likely anger the horse than put it down. If you look at the horses on the Bayeux tapestry the horses were smaller than the destrier developed in the 14th century, but still far from a small animal. I hope this point is helpful.
look, not hate bro cause i agree but that was not meant to be taken literally it was just a visual i suspect that the mounted samurai would know the advantages of their own mount.
DJ Volkner well yes he would, but matpat wouldn't
Fridtjof Johan Olderheim no hate as well but MatPat isn't in the death battle. In a death battle if you have range at the beginning you can at least weaken the opponents.
SniperGaming HD1 yes, of course. What I meant with what I said wasn't that matpat was in the deathbattle, but he didn't take into account how hard it actually is to kill a horse, therefore simplified the battle way too much. Because of that there's a big chance that the outcome would be different than matpat thought. (and by the way! I'm not hating on matpat. I'm actually subscribed to almost all his channels,and love his content
and i'm not defending matpat particularly im just saying the animation had no actual weight, it meant nothing it was just a visual
god I hope matpats does a follow-up video in response to this :)
Jay15951 lets link it to his video to show people
He rarely does, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is leveled against him in the commentary.
I stopped following him years ago when he was a much smaller channel because i tried pointing out a lot of errors he made concerning Japanese culture in a video and he actually responded telling me how much he didn't care and how it wasn't important to him if he was wrong. I haven't checked in on his channel in a long while but it's disappointing to read he still has that attitude even now that his channel is so much larger.
are u talking about matpat or shad ?
Gilded Gaming matpat
this guy is literally the definition of "while you were playing games, i was studying the blade"
This comment is criminally underrated.
Yeah pretty much
if you get the reference...
good job you get the reference
Except he actually does study blades
The videos are interesting, but I can guarantee I would hate this guy in real life, literally the definition of "Um actually".
You know in pop culture it seems like the medieval period was like 100 years, but it was closer to 1000. Really weird. And how much it changed in that time is insane
I honestly don't know where you heard that... even in pop culture its pretty well known that the medieval time lasted for 1000 years. The thing that could make you say that is the fact that most pop culture representation of the medieval time are always in the 11th or 12th century
I honestly don't know where you heard that... even in pop culture its pretty well known that the medieval time lasted for 1000 years. The thing that could make you say that is the fact that most pop culture representation of the medieval time are always in the 11th or 12th century
@@s8theninjawarrior916 that’s why I say it seems, kind of an impressionist painting of the medieval era timeline
And even more eventful if you extend it to European countries nobody considers like Russia, Spain, Portugal, Poland, etc. and non-European places like Japan, China, the Arabian Peninsula, Mali, Ethiopia, Pre-Columbian North America, Mesoamerica, and Pre-Colonial Australia. Who knows what sort of awesome stories were lost to time simply because Native American and Australian Aboriginal histories were dismissed unfairly?
During the Crusades there are reports of english soldiers having 5-10 arrows stuck into their coats and still marching on.
*577 /450 Frankish* also not 5-10 but enough to be called a hedgehog or a pincushion.
That’s just because they were English
11. Century propaganda. :)
I could see a Templar doing that
all hail the gamberson!
Samuri: I think we might win this we have horses and bows what are they gonna do *block our arrows*
Knights: well yes but actually yes
Late period gunner Samurai might stand a chance :)
Destroyer Inazuma Well, if you are going to pick a late period Samurai who had the most advanced tech of their time, you’d have to do the same for the knights.... who had perfected armor to the point that men were tanks. Only reason we don’t use armor wasn’t used to even the 19th century is simply because the cost of armor was ridiculously expensive. Not every single foot soldier could just wear what fighter jets cost the US today (in which the us also limits the number of because of the budgetary issue... and that’s saying a lot considering nearly 40% of tax goes to the military).
A knight outfitted in the most pristine and best crafted armor would laugh at a samurai before cutting them down after a carefree walk towards the samurai uselessly wasting numerous bullets. Heck, at that time knights had weaponry themselves that would take down even the best of armor the samurai had crafted before dying out.
@@DaWishard i mean, if the us has budget issues with the military.... maybe reduce it a bit more? i mean.... its quite huge
@@DaWishard the US doesn't limit the number of fighter jets it has or uses based on cost, it's limited because of the number of trained pilots (there are quite literally hundreds of aircraft in the arsenal that aren't flown because unit strength limitations and lack of pilots prevent this).
@@Helperbot-2000 Don't worry, that's not even remotely accurate. It's actually only around 3.5% of GDP or 15% of tax income.
My money is still on the Viking. He’s got the best beard of anything I’ve learned is true
The knights have premium mustaches though.
@@randomredpyro164 You make an excellent point.
the reason samurai kept losing was because of their yee yee ass haircuts. If they had gotten that wavy knight hair or thick viking beard, their efficiency would've gone up drastically.
@@randomredpyro164 yes, but Vikings also had that thick wavy hair
Introducing *the Ainu*
But did the samurai have the TREBUCHET?
You misspelt *POMMEL*
@@jacket6213 Does the Kashira (aka katana pommel) count?
@@greehead225 *nervous Pepe face*
DIO DA BEST JOJO You misspelled misspelled.
*laughs in Ballista*
Skall, Shad, and Metatron, the holy trinity of historical combat.
Cornered Fox They are the squires and trainees.
Steven Wang not schola.
Steven Wang so uhhh, whose the royal fools?
Will Brown really no School of Historical Fencing or Schoolofgladitoria
What about Lindybeige?!
And what about Dragons? :-)
More importantly, katanas didn't have pommels they could throw to end the knights rightly.
It is the ultimate flaw with the samurai, even in game.
And they don't have my ignis
Katana wasn't main weapon to samurais it was bow or spear,but katanas were common
@@bakisha8564 naginata and kanabo were used too, the kanabo being probably their best weapon, a studded club strong enough not just to break bones, but also break katanas.
Also Katans points of the blade were not very affective at piercing. They were meant for slashing. Well plate armor basically blocks almost all blade slashes.
Metatron sent me here...Skallagrim sent me to metatron...lol
w3g3l same
Same here also
I had the opposite. I saw Skallagrim first. Then I found Shadiversity. Now I have to go check out Metatron.
For me the circle is backwards. :/
TheAsvarduilProject exactly
Same
Gotta love how metatron, shad, and skallgrim represent each of the factions in for honor. Does that mean matpat would be apollyon?
Rich M dun dun dun I thin matpat is apollyon I mean he made a some thing which caused shad meta and skall to destroy what he has created (or repair
Only shit you just blew my mind!!!!!!!!
Huge sword and tin plate armor. Yea
Apollyon? Is that the same as Abaddon? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding just unsure if I'm thinking the same thing as what you mention.
Mark Torres the Abaddon you are talking about is in dota 2? or no?
Common soldier: "Haha! We knocked him off his horse, there's no way he's getting up-
Immediately tackled by said Knight.
MISSERUM!
Granted, one of the more effective ways to dispatch knights is to knock them off their feet-not because they are too encumbered to get back up-because then they can overwhelm said knight in numbers and pick at his openings.
"Congratulations, you turn a fast tank into a walking tank"
I can’t wait for Skall, Shad, and Metatron to be playable in For Honor
I can’t get that comparison out of my head now cause whenever I look at the box art of the raider, the warden and kensei side by side, I just see them now.
Shad:
Kite Shield
debuffs opponent with historical corrections
Skall:
Nordic Sword
Weakens enemies and buffs allies with armor analysis
Metatron:
Nodachi
gets on a horse and uses his bow only using the nodachi when charging
@@kriegundimperium8945 Shad's weapon is definitely a _pommel of mass destruction_
Shad: 100% samurai resistance
Modern Shad:
Armed with 100 pound warbow, kite shield, and short sword.
Can fire 9 armor-piercing arrows per minute with the technique of firing from the outside of the bow.
Armored with brigantine chest piece, shoulder pads, and arm guards over gambeson.
lol, I love japanese culture and weapons martial arts, but I have to objectively give the edge to the knights, technology is king in war, and unfortunately Japan's isolationism was a huge source of their disadvantages.
RedZen826
Well in the end they produce their own gun after trading with portugal and Dutch
@@randomblacktemplar738 And there's the key. *trade*. Isolation is not a very good cultivator of innovation.
Japanese isolationism didn't really kick in until much later, like, in the 17th century. They had a lot of outside influence from east Asia before this, most notably from China. So no, isolationism wasn't the source of their disadvantages, different culture was.
@@DarthDionius agree maine issue for japan was natural resources or lack of them (there iron was abysmal)
@@randomblacktemplar738 and they were superior
i love how there are 3 youtube channel, each more versed in the different warriors.
Now we just need two that talk about phalanxes and legions
Bernardo Heusi Overly Sarcastic Productions sent me here. Try giving Blue's videos a look and see if you like what he has to say. He reeeeaally likes them Greeks.
Romans for life,
Form... *TESTUDOOOOOO!!!!*
About a specific military formation and a group of 3-6 thousand legionaries? Not sure I get the comparison, you want to see a tactic/strategy against a number? I think that you actually need to learn what a word means before you use it in conversation.
Bernardo Heusi There is the Megatron, actually.
Samurai: *Fires an arrow at the knight*
Knight: *pulls it out like nothing*
Samurai: *NANI*
Knight: glad i wore my gamberson today
Knight: *Tu es déjà mort.*
@@MK_ULTRA420 translation?
@@shroudthewolf1105 It's French for "You're already dead." 😅😅😅
@@MK_ULTRA420 Thanks 😁
Knight: Thou art already dead!
Samurai: Nani!?
This is a good video. I saw a lot of negative feedback on the theory and Reddit, which is natural, but a lot of people were very hostile and aggressive about it. I glad to see someone have some well thought out criticism against the theory.
The comments in this video though...ehhhh not so much again.
People, and especially "Fans" are pure Evil. People get offended so easily and dont know how to discuss without insulting each other.
Well... that's the problem with the Internet. Everyone speaks their crazy mind without considering that people actually read those comments. I was actually pretty shocked while watching MatPats video about this topic and some points actually angered me. For example that Vikings had no armor at all and Knightarmor is as good as butter in the face of arrows, or the fact that shields played no role whatsoever. But the reception that video got were quite shocking. Constructive criticism and pointing out what's wrong with the video are fine and all... but some really let themselves go. It's no wonder how depressed he was with the W.D. Gaster video that came out a few days earlier. The average TH-cam comment section is really hard to swallow.
Nick den dunnen nice spelling bro
I've always found Matpat's video's to have inaccuracies, but this is by far the worst.
Surely not all of them? I really do feel its an exception not a rulle. Mattpat is usually very good in his pedantry.
It;s like he never even bothered to use even wikipedia as a basic reference, let alone read a book!
Lewis Conroy ever seen overwatch vs tf2
Did you saw the video about magneto at Film Theorist? That was even worse...
Have you seen his Star Wars theories? They are fucking horrible.
Yes. Especially the "Lightsaber vs Halo Plasma Sword" one. He really didn't do any research beyond the movies for that one.
I cant believe MattPat uses pictures from the tv series vikings as evidence for whatever ludicrous claim he makes.
Didn't that show use tin foil armor or something like that and try to pass it off as chain mail?
Wool painted in some kind metallic ink, actually.
David Ribeiro
Ah yes thanks for that. Was recalling what it was they were using in one moment of that show. Where they put it on the character the camre was focusing on while having the background characters use the real chain mail. making it more noticeable.
Well actually they didn't even have any chainmail on the Vikings, or hauberks or helmets for Christ sakes. Just some gay leather armour that looks sort of cool but realistically never happened and overseas no protection.
Really? Wow.
Talk about being a shill MattPatt.
"Knights are slow"
Knights: **starts breakdancing**
Wouldn't the knight just lob the pommel at the Samurai and end the rightly?
well nope O.o
lets take a knight with 1 year experience in constant war against a samurai with 10 years of experience in war, the samurai would be better at addepting to the fighting style of the knight so he would not get near to the pommel lol, even if he would not get through to the full plate (since he has no heavy weaponary at hand" he would try to wear the night out (heavy armore needs more stamina) and kill him after that.
on the other hand a if the experiences switch, the night would probably not even need to go in as far as to pommel the samurai, more experience means better movements and descision making, the fight would end in the knight preserving his stamina and taking every error the samurai makes therefore taking his life rather fast.
it depends on the situation, environment and equipment as well, if it was a large scale battle on an open field with charging knights wearing chainmail they would most probably falter in front of the ranged attacks of the samurai, at the other hand if it were two small groups in a forest, full plate knights against basic equiped samurai chances are high samurai would lose.
so no "just pommel and all good" XD
Whoosh? Don't you know the Pommel is a joke here? As far as I know it all started in Skallgrim Channel.
@@thonex8787
1: you missed an obvious joke
2: why do they have to have such a disparity in experience? If you want to compare them then they should have similar experience.
3: your theory of the samurai wearing out the knight realistically requires the samurai to have too much information. Such as, the difference in weight of their arms and armour, the physical strength of the knight and and the stamina of the knight relative to the samurai. Without all this information (and more) attempt to wear out your opponent is a terrible strategy as you could easily end up wearing yourself out first. Wearing out your opponent over time is also most likely going to take more stamina from you, and if you have to continue fighting afterwards than you would want to conserve as much stamina as possible.
LOL
So he is wrong, since it's a joke. huh? That's kinda stupid when one guy is saying seriously.
"I don't wear armour because if the gods willed it for me to die today, no armor could stop them"
*Laughs in plate armor* good one 😂👍
If the gods are a knight rushing at them with a spear then sure
Silly Gauls. My gladius laughs
@Füćč Ñï99å I'd say in this situation, it's better to wear some epic armor so that what kills you is required to be something powerful, rather than, as you say, being able to be killed by a relatively weak attack.
@Füćč Ñï99å Indeed. But putting on a badass defense means that only something producing a badass attack can be what kills you in your fated death.
I love this! Skallagrim does a video on Vikings, Shadiversity does a video on Knights, and Metatron does a video on Samurai!
I have always said that knights were vastly underestimated when it comes to warfare and same with the Vikings. You can even say the the entertainment industry and the modern Cavalry was directly affected because of the knights.
Another thing that infuriates me is that the concept of the dark age had a negative impact on technology in Europe. Don't get me started on that one.
Really?? I've always been taught that almost the entire population was uneducated during the dark ages
@@Blanksmithy123 i hate that presumption from our academics. We live in a academics taught society. Academics have no respect for other forms of education. The medieval world were professionally taught. Much like our apprenticeships programs. They were highly educated just not by our standards.
Much of our today's technology is from either Romans or fuedilsim Europe.
Ohh i understand that this is just a general statement not 100% true with all academics, historians
@@nathanieldavis1671 most couldn't read, monks were the most educated by our standards and most could read and write, most books were written by them.
Reading is not always an indication of how much knowledge you have. Today yes but back then it was profession
Thanks for destroying the argument instead of attacking matpat's persona. Also thanks for spreading the truth. Wish people who have watched your video (not all of them) were as mature as you are.
Did Mat just make it sound like the samurai armor was magically?
Forest elfranger how's that a new thing on the interner ?
you claim it was not?
you claim it can stop pommels? #spreadthecancer
Nothing can stop the "end him rightly" combo strike !
I'm pretty sure thats why guns were invented in the first place. Because bullets are like miniature pommels being thrown.
#cancerfuckyeah
Shit, I have not thought about it.
This was WHY nobunaga was so, dangerous. He incorporated western European armor, and firearms and combat tactics in his army. It's what made him feared.
Ren Farr yesssss, with an English samurai to tech him
@@fleckvii2403 Well, Oda was kinda of a dick...
@@SiriuzGrey He was a cool dick tho lol
@@fleckvii2403 Most great leaders are.
@@SiriuzGrey fair enough
When someone says that they like the person whose content they're about to talk about:
*Grabs popcorn*
When that happens, you KNOW that they're about to basically blow everything that the original speaker said into a smoking red hot pile of disjointed letters.
... BUT!
Misinformed person: but shad a katana can cut through any thing because the way their made makes them really sharp.
Shad: ahhhhhhhhhhh
As much as I love Katanas even I know they can't cut chainmail.
@@lowkeyarki7091 but what if I scream really loud when I do it
@@jacobheaton5135 They say bullshitting is easier when you are louder.
bUT FoLdeD SteAl.
@@an8strengthkobold360 But ThAt'S jUsT iRoN
You forgot to mention that your average samurai is 5’3
Size does not matter when you are flat on your back.
@@jeffreygao3956 Manlet alert
@@jeffreygao3956 a knights armour was built for bigger men..so that means more material to protect the user meaning it would have been tougher to pierce than let's say a smaller man with slimmer armour, that whole myth about height not mattering is a myth, since knights in addition to being tall also weighed more so he would have had a huge advantage than a small samurai who weighed less and had slimmer armour....
Which ironically, brings the Vikings back into contention.
Almost none if these comparisons seem to take the physical characteristics of the warriors into consideration. There's a reason that combat sports divide the athletes into weight classes.
Were the horses also short or something...?
I was hoping videos would be made about this. My comment is one of the top rated on his video for this reasoning:
"Vikings had mailed armor and very functional shields. After many test were done and mainly by people trying to answer this question it was proven the katana nor the Japanese bow could pierce chainmail this was mainly because the katana and bow were designed to kill light or unarmored foes and had little to no armor penetration, when knights and vikings had weapons very proficient at penetrating armor. The fact that the knight would have also had a mailed horse Oslo seemingly slipped your mind, or that vikings successfully raided and captured walled cities like when they took over much of the land in the British Isles, or laid siege to multiple large cities in modern day France.
Why did you pick the richest of Samurai but not the richest of knights (or even average one for the time) it actually seems like you just picked an average armored European foot soldier, and vikings that sounded like they were out of the starting days of the viking era, centuries before, when they were inexperienced and untested? Really? You claimed you wanted to stick to the time period but one of many examples shown that knights were using halberds which are from the 14th-15th centuries not the 11th century as claimed. There are an unbelievable number of critical flaws in this video and this fight was not given the justice it deserved it seemed liked a rushed product likely because this is sponsored content. I hope to see a less bias video from you in the future."
"Samurai quick, Knight slow"
**Knight proceeds to jump and parkour the streets of europe**
i know im late to the party as ive only discovered Shadiversity two months ago, but i feel this was the most polite correction of Matpat ive ever seen.
Yes
abucket14 mossbags was pretty polite
@@trashbomb Skall and Metatron as well
abucket14
MangaKamen was quite polite yet MatPat dismissed him as “a hater” undermining the fact that he completely debunked one of his most popular theories. God I really dislike his attitude.
@@thecollector4332 this i did not know. i personally like Game theory as a show and like their side stuff like GTLive, but that being said i don't like Matpat's uncritizicable ego.
(also i have no clue who Mossbags, Skall, Metatron, or Mangakamen are so forgive me for not replying to anyone else about the subject-matter.)
Funny enough, my first thought when finishing Matpat's video?
"I wonder who's going to correct this first. Shad, Skallagrim, or Metatron"
Ha ha ha, lol, you know us well ^_^
metatron was faster
...How was Metatron faster when he literally mentioned Shad's video (This video) in his own?
That would be impossible.
ask youtube. it does shoes up earlier in my feed. i cant be fucked to find out YT algorithm anymore.
You managed to sit through all of Matpat's video? You have nerves of steel, friend.
Knights had Pommels, GG Samurai, argument over.
A pommel does not a victory make
all the knight has to do to win is throw a pommel at the samurai to *end him rightly*
wintone DEUS VULT
Fellow Warden Mains!
Ready your throwing arms and pommel pouches!
It is time.
To *END THEM RIGHTLY!*
Black Jack even if you were right let's say the samurai and knight did fight, all that skill is sure going to pay off when they swing their heavy katana and not even hurt the knight. That knight will crush the samurai in almost every fashion
Northern European here.
I do find this comparison odd. You take the Knight, a dedicated soldier and compare him with the Samurai, another dedicated soldier and then you compare them to the Viking.........
Not to disrespect my ancestors but a Viking was a person going on a Viking or Raid. Some of them were dedicated soldiers no doubt but it's a bit generalized since a lot of them were merely seasonal fighters with limited equipment and experience.
Maybe the more correct wording would be. Knight, Samurai and......Blátönns bodyguards? ;)
Maybe a Jomsviking. Professional mercenary viking.
Well he compared those three because those three are the ones in for honor.
Haha knights go brrrrrrrrr
Agree with this. Jarls had men close to them who were loyal and swore fealty, just as a knight did. They were given gifts and paid well, including mail and swords. They would be a accurate equivalent to a Knight or Samurai, not the average raider. The average Viking would be equivalent to a lord's local militia pulled from the commoners.
@@LordCaric so the vikings and these bodyguarda were the equivalent for ashigarus to samurais?
Also you can't compare the samurais as well, they were horse archers!
17:00 me in Dark souls, rolling just under %70 weight capacity.
me in darksouls sorting out weight just before a roll while fighting darklurker
Just use havel armour
@@armaros848 wat r u? Casul?
@@Wuuff fashion souls for life
@@abuckarooboyo7104 Havels aint fashion my boy (in my opinion, wear what you want but you will be judged)
idk if everyone fogot but vikings also got shield's
Vikings were tossed out early on due to a lack of horses
I would still give the edge to mounted shock charges - Remember men on viking were raiders, looking to get in and out quickly. Their combat tactics reflected this, the shield wall in particular was excellent for skirmishes against the type of army Shad explains that nobles would have - when the noble recieves word that there are raiders, they would have already gone - the only resistance they would have faced is those right there at the time, probably one knight and the peasants of the land. Against this kind of resistance, not having to maintain a horse, having large, but round shields that can overlap, axes to shatter wooden weapons that the peasents were most likely to have is absolutely perfect.
Knights were not the counter to Viking raids, they were for war, for large scale battles which took place with a period of preparation beforehand. This is why the Norsemen were so successful in those initial years - in exactly the same way that modern militaries have had to adapt since the first world war to a style of fighting that they were not used to - remember the WW1 cavelry wearing plumes and white gloves charging machine gun encampments, or Vietnam, or even Somalia against an insurgent population where you can't distinguish between civilian and combatant - these are all shifts in how to wage war effectively that have taken years to figure out. So it was with viking raids, they were initially highly successful, but as soon as the raiders started to settle in the countries they were raiding, suddenly they were vulnerable to knights, who could pull up at your encampment, spend the day preparing then attack. The raider style of combat just wasn't cutting it anymore, so they also adapted. Remember the kite shields (tower shields he calls them) shad mentions were so useful to knights - they are synonymous with Norman knights. Who are Norman knights, well in the style of Shad, lets look at the etymology. Norman is a bastardisation of Northmen - the term used to describe those raiders from the North. Normans were vikings who evolved to the new situation.
When Vikings settled the lands they were plundering, they didn't overcome the local knights, they became knights themselves, because their raiding tactics no longer worked and war tactics prevailed, of which the knight was the ultimate.
I, like Shad have very little knowledge of the Japanese, but I don't doubt that a Samurai was the way he was because of the situation he was in and the type of war he was waging. Pop a group of European settlers down in 11th C Japan and I have no doubt that within years, they would start to look exactly like the Samurai they faced.
William Jones
how much time do you have? 60+ lines.. wow.....
Also have to chime in here. The Norse (Viking is not a culture by definition, but raiding bands in general) often traveled by sea, rarely voyaged over a few days march from their ships(which used river systems to move inland with ease), and simply couldn't transport horses. It's a quartermaster's nightmare, keeping horses healthy and fed on a sea voyage, AND caring for your men.
Cavalry DO have some disadvantages, which the Norse would exploit: setting up camp and attacking from wooded areas, keeping the high ground, night guerilla attacks (mostly the germanic Harii tribe, they're just SCARY), preparing a set battlefield (hedgehogs, tripwires, green-wood spring traps), and the use of longspears placed strategically behind shield walls.
The Norse usually relied on mobility and surprise, scouting out an area well in advance, planning the advance (and strategic retreat if need be), and even concealing several small forces which would spring into action after the advancing forces had exposed their flanks and committed to establishing a front, only to fall back as the enemy turned in their direction (see the Ulfheddin's tactics).
Overall Norse tactics are SEVERELY underrated. Why? Until they became the land-borne Norman culture, they didn't leave as many records behind for us to find.
On a side note: Thank you Shad for pointing out that Gauls and Celts were the tribes that fought primarily with little to no armor. I very much appreciate that mention.
Hehe, I know! It's a subject I am passionate about!
Went from Skallagrim, to metatron to now shadiversity. i'm working my way backwards through these debunks lol.
I started with Skal, came here and now on to have the metatron spread his wings
Talcor ™ same here now I'm going to gnogging don't know if I spelled it right so sorry if I didn't
same here
Talcor ™ Same.
Skallagrim, Shadiversity, and then Metatron. So yeah I was going about the world in an odd journey way sort of.
All weebs believe that everything that Japan makes is a supreme force, not really surprising at this point.
I hate weebs who say if you ever watched anime you’re a weeb. Its like saying if you ever held a knife you are a swordsman.
@@rdes32d45 Who said that in the first place? I mean, is right, but I didn't say that MatPat is a weeb for watching one anime. I really doubt that that he has watched only one.
ayyy lmao no not matpat. Some irritating anime channels says it and theyre fanbase.
@@rdes32d45 But towards who then? To Shad? Or in general?
ayyy lmao they say like if you watch anime you are a weeb towards everybody
nights sound OP, nerf them please history
joshua marti Nights were op? Huh what the storms
Because they are dark and full of terrors?
joshua marti
They didn't nerf the Knight but they did buff the cannon into a handheld weapon.
David M. I'm lvl 100 I can drop ghengis Khan with a m4 on a motorcycle
Lol
It's a shame MatPat wasn't able to consult with you when they were making that video, huh?
I think that would have been pretty cool. He's a good guy; it's just sad the backlash he gets for making mistakes on his theories. It would be nice if people could be more constructive in their feedback like you.
Also thank you for being a wonderful individual and making this video to just correct misconceptions and not bash on another person for being misinformed (though I know that's not you're nature from watching your channel). Too often, people just make videos out of anger or spite because what somebody says is wrong or goes against their views, and it's nice getting to watch a video without that.
So since I don't think it's said enough, thank you for being a kind, considerate, and respectable person.
It's my pleasure and I totally agree, I think Matpat seems like a great guy. I'm sure I would have a great time nerding out with him.
Totally!
Hey, if it isn't too much of a bother, I'm thinking of writing a fantasy story set close to the 17th century in European culture and technology (with magic, but that's after I get the factual stuff done). Any "must watch/can't miss" videos off the top of your head you could suggest for the basics or a starting point?
Ooh, 17th century, Nothing coming to mind. . . Sorry I can't help you there.
the movie Ogniem i mieczem is a good starting point for 17th century (eastern) europe.
"It's a shame MatPat wasn't able to consult with you when they were making that video, huh?"
People like Shadiversity has a fan base who hate "weaboos" and protect Knights to the death. Everything related Knights is untouchable and perfect. So, I know What would happen if Matt did consult with Shadi. He would make the video by showing a Knight reaping 50 samurais at same time.
Because Samurais are popular, and bashing something popular is so cool, that makes you "expert" in anything.
you should do a video on matpats video "lightsaber vs halo energy sword" at one point he uses olympic-style sport fencing as a basis for historical fighting
chainsawelliott44 i love me the energy sword, but in sheer practicality it is not nearly as good as the lightsaber. that gap between the blades is an enormous handicap that a lightsaber could use easily, plus a shitty reach in comparison.
Mikakarot23 funnily enough Matpat thinks that gap is an advantage for the halo sword.
Threeshades seriously? it looks elegant and what no, but in swordfight it literally gives a direct line to The hand. that would be horrible in a sword fight
Mikakarot23 but you could very easily just twist the energy sword while the light saber is coming down and very easily disarm them or at least stun them momentarily
As logan said his reasoning for believing it is an advantage is because it can be used to stop an attack. While yes you would have to be pretty fast in order to pull it off, assuming you could move or twist the energy sword fast enough in order to disarm the opponent or like logan said stun them momentarily thats a pretty big advantage.
Me: having studdied Vikings (And Pirates) since I was 6, practically crying over how bad MatPat butchered my boi's
Yes but what he neglected to mention was Vikings main strength is they were Superior sailors and I shot both Yumi bow and a viking longbow the Viking bow that I shot was 90 lb of draw weight compared to the Yume which was only 40 lb you also have to remember there is a considerable difference in strength and height when it comes to the difference between Vikings and Samurai average Vikings in those days would have been 5 ft 9 to 6 ft tall average Samurai you're looking more in the four foot range and what's so underrated about the ax is I don't have to crush the armor I just got a crust a little f***** inside it and hold your head with pride because the world's strongest man is of Norse descent not a Frenchman not an Englishman a German or Roman sure as hell isn't a Chinese or Japanese we've got Superior builds and had the whole of Scandinavia come together instead of bickering with each other there's a good chance we could have conquered the known world
@The Anti-CHAD yes
@@flokistormborn4599 as an addendum, Thor is ONE of the worlds strongest men, currently that title belongs to the latvian Martins Licis. Thor was the 2018 strongest man.
Don't worry I understand your frustration/irritation with that
Worst faction in the game
I seriously lost it when MattPat said Vikings wore no armour. Did he think their helmets had horns and they had thick fur coats too?
Judging by the thumbnail of his video, yes he did.
OR he was making sure that his braindead fanbase ABSOLUTELY KNEW that it was a viking's head in the thumbnail.
Or both
probably both
miazmatic ur an idiot he’s generally using the stereotypical Viking to allow the average viewer to see that it was in fact a Viking
in a way they kind of didn't. mail armor was a luxury even in medeival europe where knights usually wore only a hauberk of the stuff, gloves, and some sort of head protection. vikings would be wearing much less mail than that, and usually their only other armor was leather or gambeson.
There was quite a bit more mail than you might realize...
not really. for example while medieval knights would be wearing mail they weren't exactly most of the time wearing chain mail pants for example usually wearing a shirt, gloves, and a helmet over a chain mail coif or hood, and maybe chainmail socks. while vikings also had chainmail it was a bit of a class luxury as most couldn't afford much mail either and what mail was made was very poor quality, it had big holes in it because it used fewer and larger rings in the chains leaving plenty of room for piercing weapons to take advantage of. www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_mail.htm.
You forgot that you can throw your pommel at the enemy
To end him rightly.
Just carry a bag of pommels on you, and just Huck them at your opponents on the battlefield who needs a blade
Make sure to replace it to keep your weapon balanced.
@@NeiasaurusCreations man of culture
@@dejaquejarmeunrato686 Fact.
Nah, all wrong.The Jedi would definately win.
Timme Bouwmeester imma have to go with the sith on this one
laughs in pew pew
hmmm... from what era in their history, as an early jedi would be obliterated against a knight. Why? the proto-saber. It had a power pack, and a cord. and once the cord is severed, the jedi is defenseless.
That being said, the jedi knew this, and would likely protect the cord at all cost.
And if you are putting a knight from the eleventh century against a jedi, than the jedi would reasonably have to be using a proto-saber.
The sith on the other hand, never had this issue, for 2 reasons. 1) The sith sword. The sith sword is evenly matched to a modern lightsaber, and was arguably more lethal than any lightsaber, because it didn't cauterize the wound.
Aswell, the sith are the ones who pioneered the modern lightsaber, and therefore in my opinion, the modern lightsaber would not have been developed as quickly by the jedi, as my understanding of the purpose of creating such a weapon was ease of concealment, rather than actual effectiveness
That being said, most if not all sith swords had no more than two cutting edges, which would be a sizable disadvantage against a circular plasma blade.
And that is why I think that the Sith were better than the Jedi
But the Jedi lived a long long time ago, so in the eleventh century they would already have lightsabers and not proto-sabers.
@@timmebouwmeester9026 then they're extinct. the jedi are dead before it even started
I'm not a historian, so take this with a pinch of salt - but I am Norwegian, and more than casually interested in the subject, so I'd like to bring up a few more aspects to debunk the myth that vikings went into battle bare chested.
For one, there are a lot of historical references to "brynje" armor, especially in Snorres saga of the Norwegian kings. St. Olav was wearing one when he was killed at the Battle of Stiklestad in 1030 (about 1,5 km from my house), or in more "fictional" sagas like Hrólfs Krakes saga that was written sometime in the 13th century. Due to most sagas being written a substantial amount of time after the events, these might not be accurate though - but this indicates that armor was something they knew about, and being a non-pacifist culture, likely was interested in obtaining. We do know that linen was produced in Scandinavia during the time period, so it's plausible to assume that they caught on to gambesons after fighting people with it for 300 years. Vikings existed before heavy cavalry though, so while they avoided fighting light cavalry by launching surprise attacks and using long boats to get close - the argument is kinda flawed because we don't know what tactics they might have discovered or employed if they'd been around long enough to face them. It's the same asking what roman legions would do against heavy cavalry if they faced them regularly. We don't know - but probably something clever because They Were Good At War (tm)
What we do know is that every male adult in that time period was expected to be proficient and maintain their own weapon, thus we can also expect them to want to protect themselves from said weapons. It probably correlates well with the amount of people who own bulletproof vests that also owns guns.
Another thing is that it's bloody Scandinavia - it's cold here, and at least most of the Norwegian vikings came from the fjords in the west - where it's cold and raining all the time. Walking around without something to protect you from the elements would lead to the viking being wet, cold and far from combat shape 11 out of 12 months of the year. We also need to remember that vikings where even more traders than raiders, and that anything you could buy around the mediterranean also were found in hands of vikings. The French king even banned selling swords to vikings eventually - probably sometime after they sieged Paris with catapults and battering rams - I think it is safe to assume that vikings also bought, or procured, armor. We do know that they fielded a 2000-4000 army in the Battle of Maldon, facing an unkown force of anglo saxons. For vikings to attempt regular warfare, I think it's safe to assume they had comparable weapons technology available.
The last thing we have to consider is what defines the "Vikings" - do we also acknowledge the early Normans who were Viking settlers? Rollo, the first duke of Normandy (even though he never used that title) was a Dane or Norwegian, and it took a few generations before they were fully assimilated into continental culture. If so, we'll also assume that kite shields were not uncommon for Vikings either - especially for more permanent settlements and stationary armies as I think the classic round shield was more suited for raiding parties.
Anyways - like your videos, especially the one with the gauntlet sword and the mancatcher (And I do agree that late medival knights would be better armed and armored than vikings).
Vikings used weapons and armors very similar to those used in the rest of Europe at that time.
Wow you wrote an essay
I think the Vikings would probably adapt the technology and win, securing trade routes, conquering what is now Russia, Sicily, Normandy, and England itself, discovering lands across the ocean, etc. They say the Vikings died out in the 11th century but I'd argue that the Scandinavians simply didn't have to go raiding anymore. Because they won.
Very well put. The Saxons of Britain in the 11th Century fought the Vikings and Normans consecutively. The armour and weapons of the Saxons and Vikings was comparable as was their tactics. The Heavy Cavalry Charge famed at Hastings did not break the Saxon Shield Wall it was the Norman infantry assaulting it who did, the Cavalry then swept in and mopped up. This is the common tactic of using cavalry that lasted until WW1. You do not push through infantry using cavalry as the infantry will hold and massacre them. Cavalry harass and flank the infantry, hit the opposing cavalry and only go after infantry when they break formation or flee. William tried 9 times to charge the Saxons and fled each time. The Saxons kept close formation and employed specialists called Huscarls to move beyond the wall and swing large axes capable of bringing down a horse. Britain was under Viking rule for nearly 2 Centuries and still has a proud Viking heritage. Harald Hadrada had the best claim to the throne in 1066 in my opinion.
One thing that most people seem to forget is that Scandanavians are generally large people and were even in those days. Size does make a difference in combat.
You forgot one major factor. According to the Eddas and the Völsung some Vikings were known to assume animal form (bear, wolf) when going into battle. So, the accuracy of your video is way off until you consider the viking as a bear-wolf-man imbued with giant's blood wielding an axe.
MANBEARPIG I am very cereal about this.
But can the bear-wolf-man, a mere mortal, stand a chance against the legendary katana!? I think not!
Doesn't matter, the Knight would still end them rightly!
...I think it would actually be quite funny to watch a knight stop and throw his pommel at an angry bear charging at him.
now I want to see a bear end a knight rightly as the knight tries to end him rightly... lol
he made a theory how it would be in the real world if they fought. but based everything on mmo game mechanics wtf.
Anime fights are not the real world! silly matpat!
Unfortunately not. But then you see shit like mordhau grips and anime looks more realistic lmao. I was watching anime for a good while before I first saw half wording and went "that's like how we hold metal in my dad's welding shop when its fresh, that makes sense!".
@@coltonlong2223 well anime still not as accurate as reality
Anime has a girls that throws a weapons impossible for others to even lift.
Don't need a deep search, that anime fights are bullshit.
@Darth Ren I think you miss his argument dude.
@BuggsPray Watch "Sword of the Stranger", "Samurai Champloo" and "Rurouni Kenshin" (which you may have seen already). Best samurai/sword fighting animes that are way more realistic than other anime.
Shad: ... KITE SHIELD!
Me: Yes, this is truely a Shadiversity video, his waifu entered.
it is his waifu huh
Just watched the game theory, I thought he had made some errors myself so I looked up replies on youtube, and have since discovered, Shad, Metaron and Skalligrim, Goodbye life.
I think a constant bombardment of media stereotypes has swayed a lot of us on how we view these varying warriors. Thanks to films when I think of samurai I immediately think fast and agile, and knights as slow and cumbersome. I know it's not at all accurate but media has given me so many visual references of this that it's what my brain automatically pictures. I feel like Matpat might have confused this mental imagery as realism. Glad to see yourself, Skall, Met and others making really informative videos countering this game theory.
People may say that the Media 's job is to "educate and inform", but what is the point of entertaining and informing an audience that has fallen asleep or left the theater?
I mean, a lot of media doesn't really inform, it just entertains. Most films, TV and games don't tend to be too historically accurate, favouring imagery and entertainment value over what's actually true. I can understand why they do it, it's just up to us to remember that what we see is for fun and not for education.
No shit . 🙄
Spam When I think Knights I see fun musicals and debating of air velocities of European and African swallows as well as falling into pits after failing questions
Spam I think of Monty python and the black knight. Anyone else?
pretty good counter-video, I am so glad you debunks many misconceptions about knights and samurai. Also as much as I like samurai, I have a hard time with matpat's conclusion on how samurai are the winner while I think the knights have more advantages in warfare.
Croz Raven its hard case how the two are glorified. both were isolationist in more backwater areas. its like testing a kitten vs a puppy and forgetting about the dominant forces of the time like the Islamic and Mongolian empires who actually destroyed other peoples and not just themselves
Tane Gurnick are we just going to ignore the crusades? we can argue the effectiveness of the Knights in those campaigns but they were not isolationist. they fought islamic and moorish warriors for gods sale
Tane Gurnick
also, are you really going to lump the entirety of Europe into a single cultural group? that's beyond ignorant.
JenkinsHTTK not a single but a similar. Its just like you would lump the Chinese into a single culture even though there are many and China is as big as Europe. The knights lost in Israel, the Byzantine empire was destroyed. Tell me what power can compare to the Islamic empire from Europe?
in the middle east the nights didn't win a lot of ground that is treu but in spain and portugal the knights pushed the moors out of europa. these 2 campains do not have the same scale but it shows that the knights did not do under for the muslims. also the muslims in that ties power was not ther military strengt but there knowlege and ther understanding of sciens.
sorry for the bad grammer
Samurai: Bro I am way faster!
Knight: *Cartwheels at the samurai *
"Katana is a faster weapon" *LMAOOOO*
It's design makes it easier to draw and their quick draw techniques are pretty amazing, but it's only effective against unarmored opponents. I'd give it the edge if all parties were unarmored and the longsword and katana were sheathed. But if everyone is fully armored and all weapons are drawn, then the longsword has the edge as its more versatile and has range advantage, weapon swing speed is comparable for both so basically negligible.
The katana were engineered to be blazing flast on the draw. I had to write an entire paper on this for my history class.
Katana was first based on the chineese short sword, then evolved to have a super fast draw, and were refined to have a quick draw, sharp edge, and strong spine.
Katana is not just a slow weapon, though is not as fast as is in anime or games, obviously, it is quite fast
This is not a point of argument swords vary in size
@@capablanc you are right, in battle it made no difference, but you would carry your sword with you everywhere. Not just in battle, which is why kendo trains you to draw and strike in 1 move, both in sitting and standing position.
gotta thank MatPat for making such an inaccurate video, and thank Skall for making a video about that, because that's how I found your channel and now I'm subbed :)
Daniel S
I wouldn't call Matpat inaccurate per-say, just this dude is nitpicking.
Mat talks about castles, and this dude nitpicks how stone castles didn't exist, Matpat says how with castles comes knights, this dude nitpicks how knights actually came about, even though Matpat was technically correct, given how somebody has to defend the castle.
IDK, I think that this whole video is pointless and nitpicky, the only part that was an actually contribution was how knights had shields and how much armor weights.the rest was absolutely fluff. I don't really care, For Honor is fun AF though.
Edit:You have to remember, Matpat bases videos on video game logic, which isn't always correct. For example, a Skyrim guard wouldn't be able to walk if they took an arrow to the knee, and a Minecraft Steve would never be able to carry that much gold in his inventory at once, even Vsauce 3 gets things wrong because of how they base it in a Video Game logic.
Derpy Duck matpat based the for honor theory on 11th century combat because that's the time period when knights, samurai and vikings were all running around at the same time. pretty sure the 11th century actually existed, not just in videogames.
shad pointed out that in the 11th century, you can't just hide in a castle because castles were basic wooden walls and maybe a small stone tower with a wooden door. does wood protect against people who were particularly fond of the "burn" part in "rape, burn and pillage"?
and saying "all he added were shields and a correction on weight" is a pretty big point in melee combat. if i told you "this guy has armour that weighs a 100 pounds and a hammer that weighs 50 and he's gonna fight this guy who has no armour and a dagger, bet on who's gonna win", it would probably be a pretty big deal that the weight of the dude's armour isn't 100 pounds, both have armour, the hammer is actually a bow, both are on horseback and one has a shield and a lance, not a dagger.
Yal Rathol Yes, but I can always say The guy with the dagger has been fight for 25 years and the guy with armor has never fought in his life, different now.
I think fights are more up to skill and how you use your defense/offense and not about how much you have
The wooden castle thing was completely irrelevant because he almost never talked about castles
also, this dude doesn't know grammar very well, mat said Vikings wore "practically nothing for protection" and he said how they had some protection, which enforces the point of the word *practically* nothing for protection
Derpy Duck right. it's almost as if having accurate information when claiming who will win a fight is important. but hey, i guess i should call you out on nitpicking their skill level, right?
the "wooden castle thing" showed that in actual 11th century combat, the vikings stood a hell of a better chance than matpat gave them. they weren't going to be washed away like a sandcastle like matpat implied. again, almost like having accurate info is important or something.
...right. mail hauberks, metal helms, plank shields and padded leather that can stop longbow fire as well as basic protective clothing and a tunic and shoes is "almost nothing". it's like when you go outside each day "almost nude". i mean, you're only wearing underpants, shirt, pants, socks, shoes, maybe a jacket and hat, perhaps a watch or jewlery if that's your thing, you're basically an exibitionist. "almost nothing".
Same for me too.
I am by no means an expert but just putting a thought out there. Also, wouldnt an experienced European knight also have more experience fighting different styles of armies then Samurai? Samurai mostly fought other clans with the same armor and techniques as their own, unlike knights which had to adapt to all kinds of different fighting styles across Europe and the Middle east and Asia. Please correct if I’m wrong on this front.
The japanese were fighting each other for a long period of time, but that didn't stop them from engaging effectively against unknown fighting styles; it only made them perfectionate their own fighting style.
Take, for example, the japanese invasion of Korea (not the most recent one). They utterly destroyed them on land, no doubt.
They only lost because, since they fought mainly on land, their ships were crap, specially compared to the korean sea units, people that were accostumed to being attacked constantly by pirates.
So, they were too specialized on land war, if the japanese were to use that to their advantage, it wouldn't suppose a problem, unless they fought coast countries or islands, like England or Italy.
Of course, the europeans had their stuff too, but my brain kind of died after writing all of that, lol.
@@Burn_Angel I'd also like to point out that Japan didn't lose because of an inferior navy, they lost because two typhoons decided to show up as soon as Japan tried to invade both times.
Also, these clans might have different fighting styles, but they wouldn't contrast nearly as much as say; A Christian knight and a Muslim soldier, or a viking and a Saxon soldier. Given that equipment would be generally the same, the actual fighting styles literally could not contrast as much given the use case.
@@Malohdek Fair enough.
@@Malohdek other way around, the Mongols tryd to invade Japan two times but typhoon destroyed the Mongolian navy... Both times!
@@henry7703 Ah yes. I was remembering incorrectly.
Even as an Asian myself, I gotta hand the victory in this match up over to you Westerners. The practicality in Western armaments is undeniably high and it's hard to dispute over something that has been proven to work.
I also feel that the Japanese were at an inherent disadvantage due to there natural resources. Europeans, just by virtue of having far more land, had access to better grade materials
@@kreatona4219 And Japan is basically an iron dead zone.
Yeah and Samurai swords and normal one or two handed swords are so different that you shouldn't really compare them, the katana for example were used for slashing the enemies arteries, like armpits, throats, thighs and behind your knee and that wouldn't work against a knight. Knights didn't even use swords against other knights, they used mauls or warhammers to cause blunt damage to the armor and breaking bones in the process. The japanese never used mauls and such so they would technically lose.
@@finnish_hunter I mean the Japanese did have Kanabo which is basically large baseball bats but with studs in them, but I don’t think they used em much for actual fighting and the things are more associated with Oni than actual samurai…
I mean 3/4ths of western history can be summed up as "and then a war broke out"
Oh look, MatPat didn't do proper research again.
In other news, water is wet.
Eric Downing for reference, water isn’t wet, it makes things wet. It’s like saying air is wind. But yeah MatPat is good at theories so it’s entertaining to say the least.
@@swcsomeonewhocares8707
For reference, the actual experts on water who have studied it for decades say that water is wet because water is nothing like air or fire and the use of hydrogen's unique tetrahedral bonding effectively makes water "wet air".
Basically, strong tetrahedral hydrogen bonding makes water wet. The full article that explains it can be found here:
nautil.us/issue/25/water/ingenious-richard-saykally
Wow! That’s quite a read. Whelp you’ve changed my mind... until another scientist proves otherwise 🤣 Thanks for the knowledge.
dude, he did, he just said " horse archers would win in a 11th century fight" and he's right, we dont have to guess, the mongols are there as proof, they smashed knight, footmen adn anything that stood in their way.
@@cseijifja key word you yourself used, footmen, here we're talking about two mounted units, rather than one mounted and one not.
Thank you so very much for this video, Shadiversity!
And to you, Skallagrim, for your input!
And to you, Metatron, for you input!
Three awesome Tubers!
Tapio perälä Lindybeige too.
I really like that this is a fair and sane reply to Matpat's video. I felt like I learned a lot! Great job!
Vampirizian I know right? I love it when people attack ideas and research and NOT people.
yep, sadly though, mat pat's repeat offenses make sane replies hard, especially as he break rules of logic and reason, and i try to be a patron of logic and reason
One thing I always have to consider is that he's making these videos for entertainment purposes. Logic helps, but entertainment is first and foremost. I can be entertained, even if I know the theory makes little to no sense. Mostly because it gets me thinking about the subject. If he wants people to be really happy with his theories, he should be a little more careful, though. Perhaps air it to a smaller test audience that can tell him if it generally makes sense? More expert opinion would be helpful too. Honestly, he could have reached out to Shadiversity or someone else for advice. Even if they didn't want to be in the video, they could have given him tips or places to go for research.
"DEATH TO ALL MISINFORMATION!" That I can get behind.
Bow chicka bow wo-oah wait! No!
I love kite shields
my kids went to the library today to get some books. one book they brought home was all about vikings and Normans. it covers the fact they wore mail and some believe padded gambeson. it also covers the same thing about where the word knight came from when it talks about the Normans. guess mat should have picked up a children's book and would have learned something.
Woods Lore you have children and you're this triggered? Lol
Woods Lore I'm in 5th grade and I've seen a book for the knights that said how affective they're armor was and how they were against the Vikings
Plus during Harald hadradas conquest of england, he lost becasue his army was ambushed at nighttime while his troops were sleeping so they did not have enough time to put on their armour.
the OP is not triggered. he's just being brutally to the point.
Hippo Blob he's not triggered mate . Read again.
“Best shields ever made”
Romans look down from the afterlife in shame.
They would be proud of the advancement of gear and tactics
It had the magical power to turn your soldiers into invincible turtle
Darks Souls: Wearing heavy armor makes you slower, and unable to roll.
Real People: Hold my shield.
Depends on whats its made of really I mean no one is gonna be wearing havels or smoughs armor
im pretty sure you wouldn't be able to roll in armor made out of solid rock
It only makes you move slower if your character doesnt have good enough stats to do the better rolls.
@@le-mon exactly what I thought
Because I don’t need it due to my heavy armor.
Game theory was wrong? Wow who would've guessed
Not the first times
@@rollncast2740 what else was he wrong about?
Sean Macguire his persona 4 video was entirely wrong. basically he assumed that teddie was yu narukarmis shadow based on loose evidence that already have explanations or are there for gameplay reasons. hell, yu not having a shadow was even explained in the game!
there may be more, but i don’t watch game theory that much so i don’t know.
Sean Macguire half life theory.
@@soupperson280 He's wrong about a lot of things. He half asses his research and makes ties where there are none to fill in his theorys. They fun to think about, but when it comes to accuracy, he's very misguided a lot of the time.
Over the years I've started to believe that Game Theory is the sole reason people think the word "theory" means "random ideas and opinions loosely held together by other opinions".
He's certainly not helping.
You do know that evolution is a theory right? Everything in science is a theory, based on faith. The Scientific Method basically states that we cannot know how things work, we can only hold assumptions and hypothesis that can explain why events occur. Every year things we thought were ironclad are being proved wrong. Science and faith (NOT RELIGION) are VERY closely intertwined. For a deeper explanation look up Extra Credits - God Does Not Play Dice.
You're mixing up a theory and a hypothesis. A hypothesis is what you described - just an idea based on assumptions. In order for it to be upgraded to a theory, you need evidence and/or years of observation and study until you have data that supports the hypothesis. The reason it's called a theory is because one of the most fundamental principles of science is that we don't know everything. It's the whole fucking reason we have science to begin with. So, since we don't understand everything, there's always the small possibility that the theory may be wrong or that it's partially correct and becomes a part of a bigger theory that explains things better.
Also, the stuff that's disproved is usually pretty new stuff, usually in the fields of molecular biology, computing and quantum physics. You know, fields that are relatively new and sparse in data. Because that's what theories are based on - data. Let's imagine a bit of knowledge as a circle. Your data are dots along it. First people find something very basic, a single dot and have no idea what to make of it. Then they find another, get a line and realize there's something there. Then a third dot and they start to hypothesize that it's a triangle, which is disproved by the discovery of a 4th dot, which changes the theory to a square, then a pentagon, hexagon and so on. And as more and more data is gathered, the theory is constantly updated until eventually someone goes "Hold on, this isn't a fuckload-agon, it's a circle.", even though they don't have all the dots yet. Yes, there are assumptions, but they're not ungrounded or blind faith, they're based on data, which supports it. Sure, it's possible to misinterpret the data, fuck it up or just get unlucky, but those things aren't all that common, because one of the easiest ways of getting scientific fame is to disprove someone's theory and you can bet your ass there's a thousand guys in labcoats looking for a flaw in your theory so they can be on the cover of some science magazine that 20 people in the country actually buy. So if there's a hole in your theory, it's not gonna last very long.
In short, no, science is not based on faith. Theories are not based on assumptions. They're based on data and facts. And don't give me that philosophical "but what if the facts are wrong and everything we know is wrong?" shit. If that were the case, someone would have disproved it by now. People have been doing that shit since ancient times. Eratosthenes proved the earth wasn't flat by calculating it's circumference all the way back in 200 BC. So if something we consider a fact is wrong, people will gladly prove it wrong, so their stupidly long greek name will end up in a history book.
Random because game hypothesis doesn't sound catchy. :P
Random well said but theories aren't the same as full blown actual facts. but like i said very well said. (side note: idk why people get so angry over theories like this guy did or matpat its all just mostly for entertainment)
Samurai: “I will win any conflict!”
Knight: “Aww, so cute”
its a bit like comparing the Wither with the Ender Dragon from Minecraft: the Ender Dragon appears stronger, however the Wither has more health.
@@Lampost_Binbag_Official and the ender dragon is almost impossible to hit while flying around, and the wither just kind of follows you while shooting at you.
@@Anonymous-hx3pu yea but the wither can heal everywhere at almost any time while the dragon cant if you punch a few rocks
@@Lampost_Binbag_Official yes, but with the ender dragon if you die you can just go back to the end, a wither can and will destroy your bed if it's nearby, thus making it almost impossible to find again unless you spawned it right next to the world spawn
@@Anonymous-hx3pu my point is that the dragon seems harder to beat, but is easier than the wither, and you just helped prove my point
In order to get the Samurai to beat the Knight, MatPat had to literally nerf the Knight to such an extent that it was little more than a generic soldier, completely leaving out that true Knights, like Samurai, were generally wealthy noblemen.
Cornered Fox true
It’s nerf or nothin’
Smog Blazer, terrible. 😐
Knights are OP, pls nerf.
Cornered Fox
So were Knights in a way
I loved it when one of the castles you showed was Heddingham Castle. It is one of the ones local to me, which I love visiting.
This is why I love Shad, the dude is so wholesome!!! Corrects the guy and recommends his channel!!! You are awesome and I know you might never see this comment (as this video is old) but, I hope you are doing well! You and your Family stay safe!!!
Yea, I knew he was spouting bullshit a lot!
Especially about vikings having shitty boats and living of raiding.
It;s not like the north sea is famous for it's abundance in fish or anything, or that the norse were respected traders and mercenaries aside from the raiding.
edited
Matt didn't say anything about their boats, the heck are you talking about?
He spouts bullshit a lot in some of his videos where he doesn't have a good background knowledge of a subject.
Kobrag90 or the first to fucking Cross the Atlantic
Kaakoo Nakto Sure they reached america before the other europeans but to call it "cross the atlantic", I dont know..
Columbus actually sailed across the atlantic. The "vikings" went smaller distances in the north. Look at a map and you will see it.