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.
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
+@@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.
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.
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
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).
@@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).
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.)
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I think the big misconception about katanas comes from the iaijutsu, or fast-draw technique, that samurai learned in order to defend themselves against assassins while in ceremonial attire. A samurai would practice for weeks on end the quickest way to draw a katana into a blocking position to prevent a knife or farming tool from embedding itself in his chest. But this wasn't an offensive technique, and once drawn the katana's weight would no longer be supported primarily by the sheath, making it far heavier and slower to move or stop.
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
@@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.
And another thing that Matpat mentioned, is that the samurai can easily shoot the knight with an arrow, but multiple tests have shown that riveted mail cannot be penetrated by arrows, not even from a close distance.
Very much depends on the bow in question. I have seen riveted mail and gamberson deeply penetrated by a 160 lbs longbow from 25 meters. Of course, lower poundage bows can be stopped by gamberson alone.
@@erupter76500 most yumi (Samurai bows) were "3-5 men" bows, i.e. it took 3 to 5 men (depending on the bow) to string it. This translates to about 70-200 lbs drawweight, very similar to English longbow. You may be right that the heavier bows may have been primarily fired after dismounting, I have no idea how riding a horse affects how much you can pull.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
Jimmy's buzzard Advent everybody gets it wrong unless they do research or go to a renaissance festival and are put in their place. Personally I prefer an arming or long sword, can go either way since I have practiced both. Though I still need to work on my shield play.
Same, honestly. More because I can't find a shield that's big enough for me... Six-foot tall guy running around with a heater shield that barely covers his arm is kinda awkward...
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.
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!
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…
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.
I am a huge fan of Japanese culture, and slightly prefer samurai over knights, though I love both of them. I wish I could say that the samurai would win, but you are absolutely right. I have watched Matpat's video as well as Skallagrim and Metatron's videos on the subject. I have thought about this before, and you are the only person to verbally bring up (agreeing with me) that the deciding factor of the fight is the shield.
Catholic Weeaboo I think the deciding factor (which also is in favor of the Knights) is that war was a yearly exercise in dark/middle age Europe, so they had to continually upgrade their arms and armor faster than Samurai.
@@evannibbe9375 Samurai were also in the same circumstances that you mentioned Knights were in. If the Knights had any real advantage, I'd argue it'd be the shield like Shadi states but even then, circumstances, tactics etc may throw that out the window. Especially as the Yumi is quite powerful and one does not need to put the horse down completely to unhorse someone.
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
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.
I would say the Knight has the advantage based on the fact that their arming swords can thrust, meanwhile Katanas generally only slice. Slicing at chain mail is not very effective, but thrusting a pointed sword through armor is very effective.
Knights didn't just use swords, they also used spears and maces. Later on, they started using polearms such as pollaxes, and lucernes. Media generally likes to show samurai as being primarily swordsmen but they were primarily archers. They also used polearms as well such as spears and naginatas.
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.
I'm glad you mentioned that "much slower and tankier knight" line that he said. Out of the entire misinformed video, that one line triggered me so hard cause it immediately showed how hard he favors the katana "dimension cutter" hollywood samurai.
depends on your folded steel. Damascus steel has always been one of the higher quality medieval-era steels. Damascus, however, was NOT invented in Japan (at least not solely, it may have developed there independently) , it can be traced back to the Arabs and to 500 A.D. India. From the Middle East it spread to other parts of Europe (and possibly to Japan via China) Properly made folded steel was strong for the same reason that concrete is enforced with re-bar, with bands of harder steel and softer steel, it is possible to make a strong and flexible blade. Modern damascus steel is stronger than it was in medieval times because we now have a better understanding of metallurgy. However, you will not ever find a Damascus blade chopping through a forged blade, just like Katanas do not slice european swords in half. The difference in steel quality, while noticable, is not that extreme.
excuse me, but my glorious Nippon steel swung vertically could slice through a knight's shield and armor and body and their horses body all in one swing.
A Highly Sophisticated Gentleman No sword can cut trough steel plated armor Not specifically the katana, NO SWORD can cut trough steel plates, doesnt matter how well done it is
As a German, I find it very funny that the word Knight comes from the word Knecht, because in Germany the word Knecht is still a common insult. (Even though I am aware that it had a different meaning at the time and that is probably where the word Landsknecht was derived from).
The problem with plate armor is not that it slows you down much, but that a minute or two of strenuous exercise or fighting becomes totally exhausting if you aren't in excellent physical shape.
Wearing armour will test your stamina more than fighting without, but not by that much. Just imagine what might happen if you were to gain 40-60 pounds. Would you be as fast as you are now? Could you fight for as long? No, but you wouldn't be useless after your first minute either. Armour also helps you maintain your stamina in that you don't have to dodge or block incoming attacks as much. There is a very limited repertoire of weapons and tactics that can threaten you in full plate armour, and anything else you can pretty much shrug off.
Much less in fact unless we're talking commando or light scout equipment only. See, modern fully equipped soldier carries enough gear to put roman legions to shame. He is supposed to shed most of this support load from the backpack when entering assault or direct combat unless surprised or long marching. The combat gear on its own is pretty comparable even counting for the heavy ballistic and frag armor, potential camouflage and engineering gear, multiple weapons and basic ration (esp. water). You get to 8-10kg on the armor and basics alone. Until you get to the guns. Heavy guns are not called heavy because they weigh little, but even a main rifle like M16, H&K G3 or AK74 is not that heavy unless you're carrying many reloads. It is much heavier than a longsword though, few kilograms vs
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.
@@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
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)
Shad I commented this before on another one of your videos, but please stop equating a gambeson worn as a stand-alone piece of armour with a gambeson intended to be worn under mail. Although both of these garments can be referred to as "gambeson", they are in fact very different from one another. A gambeson that is strong enough to stop arrows is way too thick and heavy to be worn under a mail shirt, while a gambeson intended to be worn under mail is way to light to function as stand-alone armour. One piece of legislation from 15th century France mentions that a gambeson that was to function as a stand-alone piece of armour was to be made of a least 25 layers of linen. Such a garment would weigh as much as, if not more than, a hauberk of equivalent size. It would also be far less flexible. Gambesons intended to be worn under mail were far lighter and more flexible. We don't have much evidence as to how many layers of linen were used in these garments in Europe, but we have examples of mail backed with textile from the Middle East, India and Japan. These garments typically consisted of about 4-5 layers for the body, and 2-3 layers for the arms.
Shadiversity Thanks for the response. if you ever feel like researching textile armours for a video, then I would be happy to point you towards some good information.
I think shad assumes most people are inreligent enough to know this stuff without it being spelled out to them The same way we do not feel the need to mention you can wear lighter padding under full plate It's the 'well duh'; stuff Then again people think a katana can cut through a machine gun barrel so....might be best to spell it out yeah
+Shadiversity To ad to what Stephen said in Arms and armour of the medieval knight" the author states that while terms like aketons and gambesons where sometimes used interchangebly, it seems like aketons in general used for garments worn underneaths mail armour and gambesons for those that where worn on top of other armour or as stand alone armour (the latter type was i the late middle ages sometimes called jacks).
James J well it might seem obvious to some, but I can think of many times that I've had to explain this to people. Even in Shad's gambeson video, the impression that I got is that he believes that his gambeson is on the heavier end of the spectrum, when in fact, back in the day this would have been considered fairly light. Shad mentioned that his gambeson weighs about 3kg. I know of a person who made a garment of 27 layers of linen, and the thing weighs over 11kg. This is what it takes stop arrows like in the Mike Loades documentary.
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.
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
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
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".
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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).
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? :-)
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*
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
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.
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!
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 :)
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"
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?
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...
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.
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!?
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.
I love this! Skallagrim does a video on Vikings, Shadiversity does a video on Knights, and Metatron does a video on Samurai!
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 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
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.
"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.
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.
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*
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
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
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.
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!
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.)
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."
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.
"Samurai quick, Knight slow"
**Knight proceeds to jump and parkour the streets of europe**
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
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.
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
"Knights are slow"
Knights: **starts breakdancing**
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.
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.
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
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!
I think the big misconception about katanas comes from the iaijutsu, or fast-draw technique, that samurai learned in order to defend themselves against assassins while in ceremonial attire. A samurai would practice for weeks on end the quickest way to draw a katana into a blocking position to prevent a knife or farming tool from embedding itself in his chest. But this wasn't an offensive technique, and once drawn the katana's weight would no longer be supported primarily by the sheath, making it far heavier and slower to move or stop.
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
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?
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
And another thing that Matpat mentioned, is that the samurai can easily shoot the knight with an arrow, but multiple tests have shown that riveted mail cannot be penetrated by arrows, not even from a close distance.
There are accounts of yeoman stating that their arrows would only stun knights in chainmail, not pierce or kill.
@@karoljones7455 Which funny enough is exactly what they wanted. Knights would fetch a handsome ransom.
Very much depends on the bow in question. I have seen riveted mail and gamberson deeply penetrated by a 160 lbs longbow from 25 meters. Of course, lower poundage bows can be stopped by gamberson alone.
@@harmonicarchipelgo9351 you're out of your mind if you think you're shooting a 160 pound bow from horse back.
@@erupter76500 most yumi (Samurai bows) were "3-5 men" bows, i.e. it took 3 to 5 men (depending on the bow) to string it. This translates to about 70-200 lbs drawweight, very similar to English longbow. You may be right that the heavier bows may have been primarily fired after dismounting, I have no idea how riding a horse affects how much you can pull.
Damn shad, you're fast
That's what his ex said.....sorry
FanBoy *Slow, unimpressed clapping proceeds*
Actually
Twas what she proclaimed!
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.
Samurai: Bro I am way faster!
Knight: *Cartwheels at the samurai *
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
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 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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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
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
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)
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.
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.
“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
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.
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.
So I didn't know about the long sword thing and now I'm baffled by how many games get that wrong.
Jimmy's buzzard Advent everybody gets it wrong unless they do research or go to a renaissance festival and are put in their place. Personally I prefer an arming or long sword, can go either way since I have practiced both. Though I still need to work on my shield play.
Same, honestly. More because I can't find a shield that's big enough for me... Six-foot tall guy running around with a heater shield that barely covers his arm is kinda awkward...
It seems kind of obvious now that I think about it. I mean, they're literally called LONG swords. Of course the real ones are long.
Also broadswords are actually the basket-hilted kind, what people think a broadsword is, are actually arming swords
@@shadoweddragonfilms4424 also kite shields are comparable to Roman scutums in size
Shad: ... KITE SHIELD!
Me: Yes, this is truely a Shadiversity video, his waifu entered.
it is his waifu huh
"DEATH TO ALL MISINFORMATION!" That I can get behind.
Bow chicka bow wo-oah wait! No!
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.
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.
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"
"death to all misinformation" is a t-shirt I would wear
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
I am a huge fan of Japanese culture, and slightly prefer samurai over knights, though I love both of them. I wish I could say that the samurai would win, but you are absolutely right. I have watched Matpat's video as well as Skallagrim and Metatron's videos on the subject. I have thought about this before, and you are the only person to verbally bring up (agreeing with me) that the deciding factor of the fight is the shield.
Catholic Weeaboo I think the deciding factor (which also is in favor of the Knights) is that war was a yearly exercise in dark/middle age Europe, so they had to continually upgrade their arms and armor faster than Samurai.
@@evannibbe9375 Samurai were also in the same circumstances that you mentioned Knights were in. If the Knights had any real advantage, I'd argue it'd be the shield like Shadi states but even then, circumstances, tactics etc may throw that out the window. Especially as the Yumi is quite powerful and one does not need to put the horse down completely to unhorse someone.
Catholic Weeaboo Ew, filthy weaboo!
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 love kite shields
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.
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.
I would say the Knight has the advantage based on the fact that their arming swords can thrust, meanwhile Katanas generally only slice. Slicing at chain mail is not very effective, but thrusting a pointed sword through armor is very effective.
Knights didn't just use swords, they also used spears and maces. Later on, they started using polearms such as pollaxes, and lucernes.
Media generally likes to show samurai as being primarily swordsmen but they were primarily archers. They also used polearms as well such as spears and naginatas.
@@alephkasai9384 yea pop culture kinda ruins some stuff
I'm not saying that a samurai could win against tonight cuz I do believe a night can win I'm just saying it's kind of hard for a night to be the gun
Katanas can stab; Just not through armor.
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.
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.
I'm glad you mentioned that "much slower and tankier knight" line that he said. Out of the entire misinformed video, that one line triggered me so hard cause it immediately showed how hard he favors the katana "dimension cutter" hollywood samurai.
katanas are shit, only weebs think they are good.
the katana was an ingeniously created sword, but definitely not on par with european blades (folded steel is never as good as forged blades)
depends on your folded steel. Damascus steel has always been one of the higher quality medieval-era steels. Damascus, however, was NOT invented in Japan (at least not solely, it may have developed there independently) , it can be traced back to the Arabs and to 500 A.D. India. From the Middle East it spread to other parts of Europe (and possibly to Japan via China) Properly made folded steel was strong for the same reason that concrete is enforced with re-bar, with bands of harder steel and softer steel, it is possible to make a strong and flexible blade. Modern damascus steel is stronger than it was in medieval times because we now have a better understanding of metallurgy. However, you will not ever find a Damascus blade chopping through a forged blade, just like Katanas do not slice european swords in half. The difference in steel quality, while noticable, is not that extreme.
excuse me, but my glorious Nippon steel swung vertically could slice through a knight's shield and armor and body and their horses body all in one swing.
A Highly Sophisticated Gentleman No sword can cut trough steel plated armor
Not specifically the katana, NO SWORD can cut trough steel plates, doesnt matter how well done it is
As a German, I find it very funny that the word Knight comes from the word Knecht, because in Germany the word Knecht is still a common insult. (Even though I am aware that it had a different meaning at the time and that is probably where the word Landsknecht was derived from).
I learn so much. I also thought the knight was really slow because of heavy armour. Thank you for the great brain stimulated information.
The problem with plate armor is not that it slows you down much, but that a minute or two of strenuous exercise or fighting becomes totally exhausting if you aren't in excellent physical shape.
Wearing armour will test your stamina more than fighting without, but not by that much. Just imagine what might happen if you were to gain 40-60 pounds. Would you be as fast as you are now? Could you fight for as long? No, but you wouldn't be useless after your first minute either.
Armour also helps you maintain your stamina in that you don't have to dodge or block incoming attacks as much. There is a very limited repertoire of weapons and tactics that can threaten you in full plate armour, and anything else you can pretty much shrug off.
You have to remember, a Knight would haven been trained and used to fighting in armor since he was a teen.
a set of plate mail would weigh about as much as all the equipment a modern soldier wears.
Much less in fact unless we're talking commando or light scout equipment only.
See, modern fully equipped soldier carries enough gear to put roman legions to shame. He is supposed to shed most of this support load from the backpack when entering assault or direct combat unless surprised or long marching.
The combat gear on its own is pretty comparable even counting for the heavy ballistic and frag armor, potential camouflage and engineering gear, multiple weapons and basic ration (esp. water). You get to 8-10kg on the armor and basics alone. Until you get to the guns.
Heavy guns are not called heavy because they weigh little, but even a main rifle like M16, H&K G3 or AK74 is not that heavy unless you're carrying many reloads. It is much heavier than a longsword though, few kilograms vs
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!
Anybody: "literally anything"
Shad: i made a whole video about this
Popular youtube channel: "spews unhistorical bullshit"
Shadiversity: let me correct you
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
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)
Shad I commented this before on another one of your videos, but please stop equating a gambeson worn as a stand-alone piece of armour with a gambeson intended to be worn under mail.
Although both of these garments can be referred to as "gambeson", they are in fact very different from one another. A gambeson that is strong enough to stop arrows is way too thick and heavy to be worn under a mail shirt, while a gambeson intended to be worn under mail is way to light to function as stand-alone armour.
One piece of legislation from 15th century France mentions that a gambeson that was to function as a stand-alone piece of armour was to be made of a least 25 layers of linen. Such a garment would weigh as much as, if not more than, a hauberk of equivalent size. It would also be far less flexible.
Gambesons intended to be worn under mail were far lighter and more flexible. We don't have much evidence as to how many layers of linen were used in these garments in Europe, but we have examples of mail backed with textile from the Middle East, India and Japan. These garments typically consisted of about 4-5 layers for the body, and 2-3 layers for the arms.
Yes, this is very true. I'll try and be more specific in the future ^_^
Shadiversity Thanks for the response. if you ever feel like researching textile armours for a video, then I would be happy to point you towards some good information.
I think shad assumes most people are inreligent enough to know this stuff without it being spelled out to them
The same way we do not feel the need to mention you can wear lighter padding under full plate
It's the 'well duh'; stuff
Then again people think a katana can cut through a machine gun barrel so....might be best to spell it out yeah
+Shadiversity
To ad to what Stephen said in Arms and armour of the medieval knight" the author states that while terms like aketons and gambesons where sometimes used interchangebly, it seems like aketons in general used for garments worn underneaths mail armour and gambesons for those that where worn on top of other armour or as stand alone armour (the latter type was i the late middle ages sometimes called jacks).
James J well it might seem obvious to some, but I can think of many times that I've had to explain this to people.
Even in Shad's gambeson video, the impression that I got is that he believes that his gambeson is on the heavier end of the spectrum, when in fact, back in the day this would have been considered fairly light. Shad mentioned that his gambeson weighs about 3kg. I know of a person who made a garment of 27 layers of linen, and the thing weighs over 11kg. This is what it takes stop arrows like in the Mike Loades documentary.
I really like this video because its not completely one sided like so many other videos tip of the old cap to you Shadiversity
Matpat: makes medieval style video
The entire sword community: YOU UNDERESTIMATE OUR POWER