Spartan0941 it doesn't matter if a samurai has a bow or not. A samurai's bow wouldn't have the power to let an arrow penetrate the armor easily at all. Also, knights didn't really carry bows in battle but either way a Knight would have had the most probable chance of winning
Ilsu chainmail is good armor and even then they would wear a padded gambeso/aketon underneath that, wich if properly thickened, could even stop a longbow arrow, not to mention a 60/70lbs yumi bow
But in continental Europe there were divisions of specialized mercenary crossbowmen. Knights often profited from the covering fire of large crossbowmen divisions.
Typicly gamberson aka bio degradable armour(leather being most commen do to if it was properly layered you can be shot with a long bow and not even be scratched) and what ever armour they took from rhe slain...aka chain mail, plate mail and steel weapons...compared to a samurai whos swords were never steel only iron do to poor forging techniques...and whos bows would never be able to even hurt a viking let alone scratch him.
@@tylerdeath3759 Yeah, this is definitely filled with misinformation. Firstly, yes, japanese swords are steel. They aren't on par with the quality of late european spring steel, but it's still fine quality steel that could be used to make adequate weaponry or armour if you were able to afford it. Plus let's not forget that Europeans of the early middle ages practiced folding steel and pattern welding. Two, that last statement depends as the draw weights of war yumi varied, and we basically don't know the actual draw weight of an 11th century Yumi. Plus the viking period had warbows which were mostly for both use for war and hunting. So you'd get bows around the 90lbs range.
@@tylerdeath3759 Oh, also you're forgetting type of armour worn, the distance, and other factors. For example, a foot archer is typically used at long distance whereas mounted are a lot more closer, and able to pack a bigger punch at closer distance.
First came Shad, and in his glory, he stood with the knights of old. Then came Metatron, with his discipline and skill, he stood with the samurai of legend. Hark! Upon the horizon! The mighty bearded leader of the savage northmen! *Skallagrim* *****and also Snap, Shad's young squire. He was there too.
@@ydi7438If you scroll through the comments you can clearly see literally everybody calling him out on it and many have made videos debunking this video.
this entire video is Matpat grasping at straws to make the samurai seem better and that statement was the final nail in the coffin. Call me crazy but last time I checked an atlas of Earth, Skyrim wasn't shown on there. Maybe due to it being a fictional country
I don't want to go r/iamverysmart, but horned helmets would've just made it easier to get knocked off, or if they were attached something nice to hold on to as they slit their throat. Also, there isn't any evidence of horned helmets anyway, so...
@@rederen3350 Yes, there usually isn't evidence of fictional characters doing things. I don't want to go r/Iamverysmart, but fictional means not real. Maybe it would be a disadvantage, but it is heavily implied in Skyrim that those iron helmets are a traditional nordic thing many of their warriors have had.
All things I know for a fact are wrong Vikings -quilted cloth is actually pretty effective you you'll be hard pressed cutting through it -Chainmail and Iron helmets were worn by norse warriors - quality swords and dane axes were used by norse warriors Knights -Don't show butted chainmail, please just don't, they wore rivetted mail -knights wore helmets Samurai -Best armour except the huge gaps aurond the armpits -European mail is more mobile and lighter than 11th century samurai armour - I'm not sure but i don't think 11th century samurai armour was made of iron except for the helmet but I'm totally not sure about this one Deathbattle -you think a horse will go down from one arrow? historically they could take a musket shot and keep going -We know rivetted mail could stop saracen arrows wich were shot from similar draw weight bows as the samurai -Knights in the 11th century had shields so they would be able to stop the arrows Seriously this video is so poorly researched it makes me doubt every other video you made If you want sources on any of these facts I'll be glad to give them to you if you comment
You are wrong about the bamboo armour stuff, in the 11th century, japanese samurai had plenty of acces to iron. and no one had acces to full platemail. Europe being 400 years ahead of asia in the 11th century is completely unsubstantiated. You do know that china inventer gunpowder around the 9th century and the use of gunpowder spread to europe and japan at around the same time (12th century). I do however agree that an arrow could not pierce chainmail with a gambeson underneath.
The Yumi or samurai bow was not close to the bow of a European war bow, only 30 or 70lbs. The long bow was 150lbs and gambeson could even stop a longbow's arrow.
Arthayx L Yeah, but both the knight and samurai have horses, so basically all the samurai has to do is run around the Viking and strike him endlessly with arrow. the knight has a spear, so there you go, Viking is dead anyways
Even so, in that hypothetical, since range is a samurai's strong point, while of course not infinite, they would have plentiful arrows. And while the horse wouldn't have infinite stamina, it would have more than a person, as they're more often than not, a prey animal in the wild. Used to fleeing rather than fighting. even if they were to turtle mode perfectly and block, what I would imagine to be, around a hundred arrows... the time spent moving to block properly would be taxing. But this is all just speculation.
The Vikings aren't outmatched, how else did they become personal bodyguards of the Byzantium Empires Emperor? Magic mushrooms can give one great insight into the weakness of the enemies strength and let me say, The Vikings were masters of the Merry ways lol xD
well hes on horse back so he can just go in circles around the knight, firing his bow . the knight ist to slow with his heavy armor to block every singel arrow , so he dies at the end
It's a shield. The arrow hit is back. The Knight probably reached for is shield to protect himself from the arrows. But the shield wasn't on his back...
"Hey guys, the knights only have Hauberks because proper armor costs money. That's why the samurai win, because they somehow have money the knights don't have. Also the knights don't use shields." Okay MatPat.
I know right! He never even bothered to bring up Kite shields or the fact that Knights wore some light armor under their chain mail (forgot what it's called but still come on Mat Pat!)
Darek Baird they wore gambisens under there chainmale which combine with chainmale can stop arrows people under estimate chainmale a sword can't cut through it its impossible
You really should check out Skallagrims reply to this video, along with others like him in the historical arms and armour/historical combat youtube community. You brought this channels conversation into their wheelhouses and they've brought up some really interesting points that kinda disprove this video. Again, you should really check him out and through him the other youtubers that are also replying.
Yeah, it's a bad time to be putting out poorly researched stuff like this and claim it's a historical analysis. There are actually people who really do understand this time period. There are several major TH-camrs who do exactly this kind of thing. So they can point out all the bad information in here (as can their viewers). I don't know what it is about medieval arms and armor that makes every gamer think they know what they're talking about. No. For people who actually know this stuff you can check channels like Scholagladiatoria (my favorite for swords and weaponry), Knyght Errant (the best for armor), Skallagrim (the most popular), Metatron (I'm not as familiar with him but he does some good work on Japanese arms and armor).
+DoktorWeasel I completely agree with that, and if someone is ever thinking about doing a video on these kinds of subjects it would only be smart to consult/chat with people who know their stuff forwards and backwards. And thanks for introducing me to Knyght Errant, I'm going to be checking him out later :)
I find it funny how in the game proper, Knights and Vikings are seen with horses, and the Samuai aren't. What's more it appears that they live in a swampish area in the game so they probably don't have any horses with them.
Well the thing this theory really underestimates is just how dangerous axes actually are in combat. Battle axes in addition to being able to be wielded with only 1 hand could EASILY deliver enough sharp force to seriously damage chain mail armour and it could easily grapple shields leaving those using a broad shield especially vulnerable to attack. Samurai's and Knights would use swords but I guarantee they would not rely on them in battle, if you use a sword your main aim is decapitation (or to cut flesh, not armour) so your primary weapon would be a polearm or spear variant such as a trident. Then there's the addition of Crossbow's which were extensively used by knights while shortbows were often used by Samurai. To put it simply... The Viking has the means of doing the most damage but the other 2 combatants are capable at keeping their targets at a distance with their primary weapon choice. Between Samurai and Knight the final factor would be a matter of endurance and stamina from the Knight vs Mobility from the samurai but either way it''s likely the looser would die to multiple internal injuries after such a battle.
Actor Adam Anouer there's a video that shows a person in full plate doing somersaults and cartwheels. There's a lot more mobility in plate armor than people believe. But what I think it and agree is that it does boil down to stamina, luck, the individual fighter, and just who knows how to hit where. A samurai is awesome, I love the knight for I crusade for Holy God, and I admire the Vikings. But as Skallagrim says, there's so much to take into account. You'll never really get a solid answer try as you might.
Robert Harden Shows how much he cares about it. He should at least fix it in the comments. The better way and probably most wanted is that he makes a update video. Or what also often got requested is that he deletes the video.
Kind of lost some respect for his channel (got nothing against him personally), he does this sell out videos, and he (or his team) dosen't even do proper research. I guess Ubisofts money was better then some integrity. What a shame.
Eduardo Lopes Gee some guys in here even defent him calling guys who call him out haters. I mean really I am one of the oldest gametheory fans and I call him out when he goof up, or in this case make the whole video wrong
As an archaeologist this video clearly demonstrates to me the importance of education and involvement of the public about history and our archaeological finds.
@@kissme1518 Aaaaand your usage of "prefer" in an issue as complex issue as this earns you the Retard Award 2023! :) Congratulations!!! YOU are RETARDED! :)
@@kissme1518 I mean, you gotta pick where you trust which. Genetic research is useful at times, but not when you have to find out what sort of equipment vikings had.
Of course you use shields on horses wtf is wrong with you? You even have special shields designed for better mounted combat! Not that you need a special shield to be honest because almost any shield will do, especially the king of all shields, the kite shield which was used by both mounted and dismounted knights.
Pretty much everyone in the world that used cavalry also used shields prior to the development of early firearms. The only historical period when professional warriors who weren't archers did forego carrying a shield was the european late renaissance, when bows became obsolete after the refinement of full plate armor. For Honor does not seem to be inspired by renaissance-era warfare (except for the samurai armors and european longswords).
Actually, everything in this video makes sense. The knights and the vikings obv forgot their shields at home, and the samurai were clearly firing advanced HEAT arrows that can penetrate up to 300mm of steel, so it doesn't matter that their bows only were capable of only 70ish lbs.
@@Human_traain Matpat is effectively saying that knowing history helps you win historical games. In spite of this during his video his presentation and research of the history was poor, meaning he probably doesn't win historical games a lot by merit of his own reasoning that historical knowledge helps win historical games. Sorry for saying historical so much lol. Was trying to get it more in layman's terms
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest vikings ever wore cuir bouilli, and the wealthiest of them tended to wear.. you know. The armour of the time period. Mail. I don't actually understand where the idea that they wore hardened leather even comes from, because the materials certainly would not survive long enough to turn up as archaeological evidence, and we've had a hard time finding *any* examples of widespread use of leather as armour. I legitimately want to find out what he researched that he could come out the other end with that kind of misconception.
Who historically wore mail and carried swords at their wealthiest, rather than being so poor as to barely be able to afford a seax, which by the way, being knives were rather ubiquitous at the time. The idea that leather was the height of their armor is pretty laughable considering almost no one historically used leather as armor, and that there is no evidence to support that assertion.
The 11 century is near the end of the viking period so at this point they've already spent 200 years fighting the european, so it would be insanely weird if they didn't know and follow the common military trends of the time
I figured out the faction war schedule of who wins, firstly knights win less often than Samurai's despite their large presence, a high number of Samurai players play Knight characters however so it's quite random to figure out or pin point knights specific victory frame. Samurai's have more chances of winning faction wars much more during a holiday or weekly/monthly event or around the end of the year, i don't know how. But my theory is that Knights and Viking players are played by people with less time on their hands during the holidays compared to the Samurai's. Vikings commonly win everytime.
+CobaltBlue The katana was a good sword, it's just not the god of swords like people make out. It had a really good cut, in some cases reported to kill in 1 hit and take down many people with GUNS! But it has many downsides, no handgaurd, no pommel, quite comberson, can't stab and rather short.
+Living Lifeform You are almost as bad as Matpat in terms of accuracy. I will say it ONCE as a sword enthusiast and mechanical engineer-in-the-making: 1) Taking down people with guns as a swordsman is not the quality of the sword, but the wielder; or more likely, the incompetence of the gunners. Practically any sword can kill in one hit, if the opponent is not wearing armor. 2) It has a handguard, it doesn't have a crossguard; this is important because many European longsword techniques rely on the use of the crossguard for leverage. 3) Not having a pommel means absolutely nothing in quality. It means the sword is not peened, and that the point of balance is not affected by the pommel. For this exact reason, the katana's point of balance if relatively off to the tip, and the blade behaves a lot like a stiff, two handed machete. 4) Cumbersome? Dude, it weighs at most 1.2 kgs! If you meant its point of balance, you are right. But it is by no means heavy. Generally weapons are light. 5) Can't stab? Bullshit. 6) rather short - first time you are completely right! It IS short. Now, what was the ACTUAL problem with a katana: It was made out of pattern welded high and low carbon steel. However, low carbon steel can't be heat treated, which is a process that ultimately makes the blade harder, more resilitent, and most notably, spring. I don't want to go too deep into metallurgy, the point is, the katanas's high carbon edge was neither homogenous (is was fitted inside the softer socket like the maya's obsidian swords - small pieces, one at a a time), nor able to ensure the required elasticity of the blade. So, in short, the katana BENDS when sideways forces apply to it (which is about any strike onto hard material, like dirt, armor, other swords, shields, etc). Modern katana replicas are homogenous steel, and thus don't suffer from these shortcomings, but historically, it is not unheard of that a katana breaks or bends irreparably during a duel, simply due to shitty forge welding or bad materials.
Knights' armor made them slow? Phillip Augustus was pulled off his horse at the battle of Bouvines by enemy infantry and beaten by their weapons (which couldn't pierce his armor) until his men drove them off before, in the words of a contemporary chronicler, "with his great strength, (launching) himself back onto his horse."
Well if they would have hammered him for long enough (for about 10-15 minutes) he might have died. But it was pretty much required for any knight to be able to vault upon his (or any) horse in full harness.
Sam Whoreston I practice HEMA I have worn gear for normative combat (though not mine but it fit me anyway oh and normative combat gear is a good 5-10 kgs heavier than actual field gear) and it's bad in the first few hours but it didn't feel heavy at all. It's hot and uncomfortable but hey it protects you from death. But for example we read Giacomo Di Grassi's opinion on what feats a knight should have we see such as to be able to run fast and for long in harness, vault upon horses, be very quick both on foot and on horse and in general be well exercised. Not necessarily strong as an ox but to be as fit as possible.
Are you actually suggesting that a man having a well distributed weight of 15 to 25 kg on his body could be capable of such feats in Medieval times? What a blunder! Next thing you'll say is that modern soldiers are carrying similar, if not bigger, weight and are still expected to walk more than 3 miles without complaining. And even if you do, surely you understand that 15 kg of armour obviously weighs at least 30 kg. Because its armour. Its heavy. And never was designed with ability to move your joints and perform any kind of physical feats. Because knights only fought on tournaments, tied to the horses so they didn't fall. And occasionally died to Black Plague.
Vikings wore mail, no, not butted mail that you can rip apart with your hands. They wore riveted mail, which if you would've done your research, you would know protects them very will. Riveted mail is extremely strong. Arrows or swords can't really pierce it. Dont believe me? Just watch a video on youtube testing how strong riveted mail is, or, you could just do research. Just a theory.
the legitimatly may have told him to dismiss the vikings, I mean from what i see, most of the youtubers and streamers go viking, and in game its had a big effect on the battle with vikings winning 66% of the time on the map
"When you start to peel back the myths and legends around these warriors and actually look at the facts around them" That one didn't age quite so well considering all the historical inaccuracies in this video.
"Their weapons were generally garbage" No. Just no. The Norse were importing steel from Damascus as early as the 8th century, giving them access to the best steel of the time. Your research on this episode is what is garbage. And the Norse did not raid for their entire living, they traded, usually furs, to people farther south. They also apparently made great cheese, as noted by the Viking Cheese making village in Andalusia. Also, the norse did wear god damn armor. They had chain and lamellar (The same basic type of armor the samurai used), both were serious forms of defense for their time. Did you do *any* research? Apparently not since the norse also did have god damn swords. For instance, the Ulfberht, which were definitely not knives. Also, if we are considering from the same time frame, the Knights of the time did not just slaughter the Viking raiders, in fact the Vikings in 867 were laying waste to the Anglo-Saxons in Britain and setting up their own kingdoms. The Saxons had Knights. They still lost.
7 ปีที่แล้ว +18
Accuracy rating: "The Turks are the heirs of Rome"
The Norse- Normans were the First to employ as a standard Heavy horse or armored horse. Likely from there travels as mercs to middle east. Persians had been using Armored horse or Catchphraks for 100s of years. Most western European kingdoms were still using light or only the man was armored not the horse.
I`ll just ad one small thing, the Vikings did in fact use a small sword called a seax, it was in many way just a sidearm that they used almost exclusively in the shield wall, the Roman gladius is in fact a really nice weapon to compare it with. But in this video it is stated that it was a weapon for the rich and that is wrong, it was a really common weapon for all Germanic tribes through out the immigration era and early medieval ages and historians and the Saxons was especially famous for using it.
Morten Ringdalen A Sax or Seaxe (Old English) was a tool first before it became a weapon like most barbarian weapon, A Sax can be compared to Bowie Knife about the same length. But the Sax was used for cutting . The Word Sax or Saxon is french. The Germanic word means to cut "Sachsen"
I started laughing when he said that Vikings only wore cloth armour and then he put a picture of a Viking wearing mail and a helmet with a big round shield :) :)
I realize this video is four years old, but there's a few points I'd like to add regarding Vikings. First, take away the horse, making everyone even in that regard (if they weren't raiding, they could ride horses into combat). Wealthy Vikings used mail and swords just as often as Knights. The average Viking didn't often wear mail, but neither did the average foot solider a Knight or Samurai would be leading into combat. A Jarl and his loyalists (the same as a Knight is to a Lord) would have used mail, helmets and well-crafted swords. A Jarl paid his men well and gave them gifts. Also, a few successful raids were often enough to purchase these items. They had sturdy, solid shields and were very good at using them. Vikings used bows quite often in combat, as well as spears and javelins. The average soldier was expected to carry a bow and spear when called to war. A Viking could just as easily shoot their opponent or the horse. Good mail can stop arrows and is often worn with padding or a gambeson underneath, which is another layer of protection and better than most people believe. This video discounts the Viking as easily defeated, but I disagree. If Samurai and Knights are wealthy and able to afford better gear, then you must compare a wealthy Viking and not the average farmer going on a raid. A similarly wealthy Viking is vastly superior to what is described here. There's a reason they almost conquered England. Another quick point, Ō-yoroi was not light.
So you're saying a samurai would go through chainmail with an arrow but a Viking wouldn't with all his strength put onto an axe?... By the way didn't Vikings have bows too?
@@pacesettenbrino2065 nah. The longbows are stronger overall. The thing is that people wore armour that could stop arrows so really with a setup like this a knight probably would have won due to having a better weapon. Samurai would get fucked up by the virtue of technology of year 10k b.c. (thick clothing) so a spear with s rage advantage has the highest chance of winning.
"Vikings didn't wear armour and their weapons were terrible" Ummmm "All food and Animals in Scandinavia instantly frozen, so the Vikings had to raid" What? Where the hell did you learn that? "The Yumi bow could easily penetrate a knights armour" .....what...... "Knights didn't wear any head protection" Ok, pls stop, This is getting embarrassing
Hope you know that the neck and under the shoulders, elbows, and knee's were all weak points in the knights armor during that time frame. During that time period also Samurai's did excel at archery. The arrows were not shoddily made either. The knights didn't tend to wear helms unless they were of the Lord class (the ones protecting a Lord). Those knights were fairly more trained and they were not as common. I will say though that the Vikings originally reason for raiding was due to not having plentiful things within their own lands but it later on became something they enjoyed over time so they kept doing so.
Dear Comments, Let me hop down here and clear up something: Saying that we didn't do research is simply INCORRECT. Both Austin (from THE SCIENCE) and I did plenty of research into the "average" weaponry for each of these three types of warriors around the year 1000. That said, I openly welcome and look forward to watching your videos outlining your research debunking our work -- I'm not above admitting that we make mistakes. But I am sensitive to claims that we didn't research...we do a lot for each episode...but admittedly what we can teach ourselves in about ten days or reading and page hopping pales in comparison with people who have studied this material for years. This is actually a big reason why I often avoid history episodes -- not because I don't enjoy them, but because history as a study is so massive and oftentimes, imprecise depending on the source. Thanks for letting me explain myself. Now, if you'll excuse me...BACK TO GASTER! MatPat
agreed! also you have to take into account history also depends on perspective. For example in wars, there are different perspectives on who's the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' based on which side you choose will give you different thoughts of the enemy and of the allies. I love learning about history of different cultures and this is probably one of my fav theories yet. I commend your work mat!
Watching Skal's, Shad's, Meta's, and of course The Sword's Path's videos about this has been fantastic. So I guess this served some purpose, even just as fertilizer.
Hypnotic Elf 10 they were used to wearing that so it felt to them as if they weren't wearing anything. Also all the weight was focused on the hips so it felt like less
Full plate armor does not restrict movement or slow you down at all. You can get onto a horse in seconds in full plate and even do back flips. Mail and gambeson is even lighter and still able to block 150 lbs war bows. The bows that samurai used were about 70 lbs.
Im guessing he just thought you could only be a samurai if you had these sorts of luxuries, but in reality, many samurais didnt actually fight nor were they wealthy by any means
Knights were GIVEN the BEST ARMAMENT and TRAINING their lord could afford in exchange only for their loyalty. No need to worry about the price of a sword when your boss buys it for you.
This video's logic: Vikings - Clueless bandits with no tactic or combat training. Knights - Wear metal armor for no reason and shields that are useless. Samurai - Invincible dragon warriors who use swords that are more effective than cannonballs.
Hat Skeleton! Honestly people forget that Vikings actually wore armor they weren’t running around naked and Knight steel plate armor is hardly limiting at all and they where layers or gambison and chain mail that can stop arrows plus a shield and they trained from age 7 so basically this battle is complete bs and the samurai would not win in a land slide if anything I’m thinking a knight would definitely win
liamvshobos why would he be salty about that? You can change at any time unless your half brain dead. Also he was trying to prove who would win with true historical facts but got it all completely wrong.
Tygogaming as of talking of 1000 time period, knights were broke af as they were just mercenaries hired to protect castles until the government made them an official army
To be considered a knight in England you needed 40 pounds of yearly income. To put things in context a full suit of armour would cost you around 5-10 pounds depending on where you buy. The full equipment of a knight cost him around 20-25 pounds with shields, armour, horses and weapons.
"And past episodes here have shown that knowledge of cultural history can help you win games". Matpat would loose every fight with his bias of samurai, they aren't faster, and knights aren't slower.
gladomi OP used the phrase pal, not me. Besides, if you internet warriors are gonna call someone out for something, call them out on something that matters like the theories he does on science, the world of technology and more recent history that still matters.
Mark VI Gaming He's generally not incorrect when it comes to most of his videos so no one can "call him out" on those. When someone gets their facts mixed up then yes it should be corrected as to not spread falsehoods.
@The Anti-CHAD yes but in that time you had only one lord in your environment who has good weapons and his soldiers where just boys with sticks the vikings where succesfull, but that has also to do with their number, their weapons , their opponent and their scaryness . i dont know if they fought good in like big big battles
Raiding the poor is vikings strong suit...but war...ehhhhh, there's a reason viking lost *All* their territory in England and Ireland. Their army's were too small and less better equipped compared to what the fyred (hope I spelled that correctly) system that Alfred the great astablished...making half of the population ready for war and with some of the best equipment for the time.
@@daan626 they did, the only thing stopping vikings are their lack of siege equipment and lack of reinforcements. Also their armies are small bc scandinavia is not that densely populated
He says 'I know that we live in a day and age, where people are afraid to be wrong' to say thank you to people who apologized to him about the Gaster video, but never once even mentioning this video and its inaccuracies.
We may not know for sure everything, but we know a lot. And MatPat got every single thing wrong in his video that is approved in academia or martial arts communities.
So you’re not gonna mention at all how much stronger and heavier knights swords were? Or that they wore helmets like the samurai? Or that many had kite sheilds that covered from the torso to the knees. The whole reason a shield exists is to protect from swords and arrows. You also disregarded the shield for the Vikings.
@@fransthefox9682 they really weren’t. Swinging 40 inch 4 pound pieces of metal is pretty hard especially with the greatsword which weighed 10 pounds with armor. Katanas are shorter and weigh 3 pounds. Also most knights didn’t even carry Longswords they’d carry maces which usually weigh 10 ibs and are about 3 feet long which is still longer than a katana which is a huge advantage. Also the weight is also a huge advantage. Katana weren’t even used by the samurai they’d use long bows and spears which still wouldn’t be able to get through the shields of the knights or armor
@@Unknown_Meliodas Except most longswords are 3lbs on average, with a little under 3 and 3.5 being an acceptable range. Very few actual longswords are 4lbs or higher. The heaviest sword is the Zweihander, and it weighs at most 7.5lbs. Furthermore, this video is comparing the three groups as of their 11th century variations. In which knights were using arming swords which are somewhere between 2-2.5lbs. Maces don't weigh 10lbs and are usually much smaller than three feet, in fact I can't recall a mace at three feet so I would be very interested in the one where you get that number from, so send me a source/link if you can! Lastly, the main weapon of a knight, throughout their existence but especially in the 11th century, is the lance. Knights are like Samurai in that they are elite cavalry usually whom can fight on foot if needed. Maces, swords, rocks, battleaxes, warhammers, and other weapons are generally sidearms to be used once the lance is out of reach, broken, or no longer effective due to range. Now, I do agree with you that swinging around a sword of any size or make is incredibly exhausting. This is coming from someone who trains and practices with real swords frequently. However, the Japanese and Europeans really wouldn't be very different from each other strictly due to sword strength. Cheers!
@@conor6607 although this is true the long sword and even arming swords are leagues better than the katana. Arming swords were double edged and and still longer than the katana. Arming swords were used with shields which is an even bigger advantage.
Kids, never do this at home alone, even if it's just a pommel of your plastic sword, since pommel itself can cost ten times the destruction of an atomic bomb when thrown rightly. So, be safe, do it with your parents.
Longswords... In the 11th century??? Way wrong. The earliest ones were 13th century. They had one handed swords. 11th century knight defeated by arrows? Wrong. They wore padded armor that stopped arrows, mail that stopped everything else, and most importantly; they freaking had shields! You know, those things were specifically used for not getting hit by arrows for nearly 4,000 years? Not withstanding that their equipment was meant to stop actual warbows, with draw weights often over 100lbs, and samurai bows were very weak so that they could be used from horseback and rarely exceeded 60lbs draw weight. Samurai wearing 15th century armor in the 11th century? Nope. Vikings not wearing iron armor? They had mail hauberks, steel helmets, and even some lamellar plate! Seaxr expensive weapons? Wrong! Seax were used by even the poorest warriors, and going raiding was an upper class pastime, so they tended to be the richest of the rich, just like knights and samurai. Not so much as a mention of their swords, polearms, or padded armor? Someone failed to do their research. Still enjoyed the video though!
Also, Vikings did not depend on shock and intimidation for victory. They often went against trained armies, and often won. And while he's right samurai preferred to fight from horseback while protected by their servants, they were by no means afraid to fight in a melee. In fact, they and their servants typically formed a sort of triangle, with the samurai at the front, and while the servants used pole weapons to control enemy weapons, the samurai would take them out with a spear or koto.
I agree completely but please for theorists sake, please correct in a matter where we have "slight(I know he was a way off)" errors and not a bumbling idiot.
@@m.m2594 its not sure Ragnar even existed but ok.... You are doing the same as matpat and getting your info from media, but the vikings did raid Paris many times.
@@gar0th650 Rollo the Walker did exist and he didn't raid Paris but he did form Normandy towns and his off spring a mean like 4-5 generations later had got putt on the British thrown
Matpat: Vikings were terrible *Harold Hardrada, Viking King of Norway 1046-1066:* *[Laughs in Money]* *[Laughs in Experience from fighting Arabian Pirates in the Mediterranean, fighting for the Kievan Rus, Fighting for the Byzantines, fighting in the Holy land and much, much More]* *[Laughs in CHAINMAIL ARMOUR]*
Why do tell, how did his tale end? Did he die peacefully at an old age surrounded by wealth or did he die a hero's death? Oh wait, wasn't he shot through the neck using a narrow.....
@@gipsy_3o3 Bit late reply but that is largely a myth, they only took drugs when they wanted to party, berserkers did probably gnaw on their shields and get wasted before a battle tho, lol. They did drink a lot more milk though which meant they were a bit taller and healthier.
This was a sponsored video. I died inside when we started talking about Samurai. I feel like Ubisoft did the research for him or gave him all the info.
It's alright. I was one of the people who trusted Matpat with this information but then immediately noticed the debunked videos in the recommended list next to this video and got properly caught up. It should be alright. Maybe
MatTwat will never admit to his faults, in fact I think I remember not long after being called out he actually insulted the ppl who called him out on his historical accuracy before he quickly deleted the post so as to not look like the uninfomed immature egotistical moron he is
@@theapproachingstorm2133 matpat being factually incorrect is not the problem here. What is really bad is that apperently matpat couldn't accept that he was providing false facts and therefor lashed out on people who were trying correcting him. Its embarrassing how childish matpat initially handled the issue.
@@samasterchief Yeah, but it's also childish to deal with it in the manner you're dealing with it, in the end none of it matters, he made the video, for debunked, was a bit childish, so what? It legit doesn't affect anyone
@@theapproachingstorm2133 oh definitely. This video was 2 years ago, most people don't really care much anymore about what happened in this video and just joke about it. I was talking about your statement and tried to justify why people didn't like how matpat handled the situation.
He got the armor part wrong too, for the Vikings at least. I'm something of a fan of those guys (don't ask why I just like 'em) and researching about them had me learn they DID in fact wear chainmail. And although they did thrive in intimidation, they were adept at warfare as much as any other "warrior race" out there.
Actually we have found viking swords from roughly that time period that were made from steel that was stronger than any other type of steel from that time.
so accurate the first 3 vids I see in the suggested videos are debunking videos by historical YT channels, Skallagrim, Metatron and Shadiversity for respectively Vikings, Samurai and Knights. Sorry Mat, this is a mess.
Not sure I would trust their information anymore than Mat's, except maybe Skallagrim, if only because he uses common sense in the actual function of these weapons and armor than any actual knowledge of how this stuff worked a thousand years ago.
Christopher Flores that doesn't make a bunch of stereotypes any more credible. Shadiversity and Metatron have given a verifiable take on the argument, as did Skallagrim. I've studied medieval history and those claims that Matpat made on knights made me cringe so hard... Vikings and samurai too, but my knowledge there gets a bit less accurate and only driven by personal research.
@@witchhunter6755 Vikings had the same aromor as knights in that period + Vikings had better sword, VIkings shields is very good if not better then that period kite shield
@@Бћчешц kite shields were better at horse back, round shields are better at infantry but both surpass samari, I personally would choose kite as it is larger and more protective, though round shield is still very protective, but not as protective as kite
@@witchhunter6755 round shiled have centar grips that are much more advantage then kite shiled, i would always go rather for round the kite but still both are great .
@@Бћчешц ye, one huge andvantege was the grip and center shield boss, if a heavier arrow hit since it's a grip not a strap then it most likely won't hit your arm, though against a Yumi, I don't think one should worry about arrows penetrating
Pretty much every faction at this stage wore chain mail, which was hard to prenetrate anyway by slashing. So vikings did have armor. They weren't these people with no chest plates on winter. I think overall Knights were the best. Best technology at the time. Especially with the castles.
Well they are historians or what you would call medieval TH-cam channels that made their research to try to give accurate historical information about their preferred field of history. They picked it apart due to the point that this video made so many misconceptions placed in Hollywood and the media.
Also, don’t forget Samurai and Ninja are two entirely different things. Samurai didn’t like the type of combat the Ninja’s used. They thought it was dishonorable and below themselves. Calling Batman a Samurai is wrong, not only because the movie is called Batman Ninja. But also because Batman’s style of fighting is more akin to that of a Ninja’s. Batman uses stealth and strikes from the shadows. Striking fear into his opponents.
Oof 1. Vikings used mail armor 2. They also had shields (That were good) 3. It wasn't a cold barren wasteland 4. They had horses, good weapons, amazing hand to hand combat, and if rich actually got a sword 5. The weapons were notably made of some of the best steel found. 6. They bows 7. They varied from size 8. Have a good day
Firstly, where is he from? Is he Germanic, Italian, French? Is the knight using plate, maille, or something in-between? Is the knight using anti-armor weapons? Is the samurai pre or post Waring States? Because that matters a lot. Is the samurai wearing leather armor or plate? Is he mounted? Has he dropped his polearm? Is the viking a Dane, a Sweed, or Finn? Is he particularly wealthy? Pre or post Viking Invasion? Please remember, pretty much everyone in this period used polearms. Spears are important. All of this is necessary. Sincerely, a fan of; Ian Matt Llyod Skall Metta
Kevin O'Neal This comment encases all of the issues with the knight section of this video. Also we have to remember that vikings did wear mail armor ( at least to my knowledge). Noice job mayne
Kevin O'Neal also a major part of Finland isnt scandinavia, atleats we dont want to be called that instead we want to be call "The Nordic" aka Sweden,Norway,Denmark,Iceland and Finland Ja torilla tavataan
You forgot the super-effective technique the knights used-- unscrewing their pommel and throwing it towards their enemy. The Samurai wouldn't stand a chance.
Mate, in real life an arrow in the Middle Ages would probably have been a death sentence: an arrow in the shoulder or knee would cut an artery, an arrow in the gut would be deadly, the head would, for obvious reasons, be deadly, and anywhere else would’ve significantly weakened them or killed them through infection
@@smiledonnice I get it, but samurai were great horseback archers. A Viking shield wouldn’t have been very big, and they can only outrun a horse for so long. Saying a Viking might win is objectively wrong, even considering the fact that they had chainmail (which means matpat is wrong) and shields, since they would just get get run loops around by a samurai on horseback, who could just take potshots with a bow
@@smiledonnice that’s not how horseback archery works, and running loops around someone is a metaphor. How do you think the Mongols conquered most of the known world at the time?
@@mayoandbananasandwich6527 mongols are accurate because they lived as horseback archers and hve centuries of experience against china... the japanese barely even had horses and were isolated for the most part
Matt, please watch Skallagrim, Metatron, Shadiveristy and Snap Jelly's videos. Then think about what you said. Then make a new video. I'd say the viking would have it. Viking bows outshoot japanese yumi, their chainmail was just as good as that of 11th century knights, and their roundshields not only make archery useless, but were also very effectively used in melee to counter and parry weaponds with little to no effort, thanks to the centre grips.
vikings have 3 major disadvantages over the other 2 factions though 1 vikings had little to no cavalry 2 no only did they lack cavalry of their own they also lacked measures to deal with those who did have it (the viking long spear is one thing they had against it) and maybe a good volly of arrows will help but if shock cavalry lives through their arrow volleys and get pased thier longspears, its pretty much game set match 3 a severe lack in siege works, i coudnt find much of vikings using siege works as they rarely had them, that said its true 11th century castles needed little of those, however if we looked at it like all factions were in their golden age, well, vikings (as for as i know) never had plate, and knights would have the massive stronghold castles we know pretty well, which were nearly impossible to take without proper siege works 4 that said though in a golden age scenario samurai would win no doubt as they'd have basic firearms and cannons
but if shock cavalry lives through their arrow volleys and get pased thier longspears and get pased thier longspears this hardly ever happends, it's suiside for cavalry
Vikings beat Samurais (from that period), and they both are beaten by Knights. Knights and vikings from that period are pretty much the same, with little difference, that include shield type (knight's kite centergrip vs viking's round centergrip), cavalry (knights had some, vikings none), ships (vikings had better) aaaand that's about it. I like 'em all, pretty much equally, but I do have to admit, that it's the knights that have the advantage.
@@celtic7029 I'm mildly disappointed that he is just portraying the Vikings as mindless brutes, while the Knight doesn't even gets much of mention. And then starts fanboying over Samurais. I almost started laughing at the end of the video.
well, i believe it does get intense when youtubers, who study history get involved. personally i don't know a lot about samurai or viking culture or knights, but i do study medieval weaponry and A) people didn't go bare chest in a fight. especially with the raiders. Please let it be noted, that i love matpat and his vids, but as a guy who studies history and myths, this was one of his worst one. No offense, my fellow fans.
Mat Pat, I usually respect your research and logic in your videos except this time I disagree. While the other factions' armor is more or less accurate, the viking armor worn in this game is an awful representation. It was rare for a viking to wear chainmail but in the 11th century during the end of their influence I'd bet a horse they would have had substantial armor. The bones and furs they wear is purely fictional. Berserkers on the other hand would have purposefully worn no armor as they were shock troopers meant to scare and panic the enemy. You clearly didn't take into account any tactics of any factions. The samurai as well would have worn mostly wood and leather rather than metal which would be used later. The vikings do have a disadvantage because their time of influence was earlier than both the samurai and knights but at in the 11th century, vikings and knights would be almost identical in armor, tactics, and weapons. In fact, the photo you used for the background of the knights were the normans. Normandy is a province of France founded by the vikings. Lastly, the comment about the vikings inability to take castles really got me going. Examples of vikings taking castles and fortified cities: Siege of Paris (both times), Danelaw (almost all of England), Constantinople, Athens, etc. The influence of vikings greatly eclipsed those of both knights and samurai and there is no bloody way to disrespect them like that. Uplike so that he can read this. thanks
Quick read of History of armor (Wikipedia) supports Matpat. While Vikings might have had the equivalent of heavy gambesons or boiled leather, that's still not enough to keep arrows out, considering that the knight and samurai are both cavalry and had access to heavy-pull bows. Medieval Europe (and especially the 11th century Europe) does not seem notable for the heavy use of horse archery. Remember that the starting central assumption is that the three warriors must come from a time all three were actually active, and would embody that time period's version of each archetype.
Luke Van Horn samurai never used wood armor, wood armor existed in Japan but it was before samurai, wood armor faded out long before the samurai, like horn helmets on vikings, but don't take my word for it take Raphael's down on the metetron channel he actually has accurate videos on knight and samurai, but the viking stuff go to scall for
So kids remember. 1. Shields don't exist 2. Vikings lived in a wasteland and could not survive without raiding 3. Vikings went into battle naked 4. Samurai are the only people in the world to have used bows 5. Samurai arrows can go through machine guns and reach the sun 6. Katanas are the greatest ever and can cut tanks in half 7. Viking weaponry was put together by a drunk 4-year-old 8. Knights had swords heavier than Thor's hammer 9. Mail is basically butter 10. BERSERKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hate that everyone thinks that large swords are heavy, the bigger greatswords are like 3kg, and can be swung almost as fast as a katana because they generate so much momentum.
You are wrong on so many levels.but it's ok matpat is the one to blame ps I like him a lot but he just chose a time period were vikings practically didn't exist
shield cant protect your horse from arrows,and in combat the one that stays on his horse wins regardless of weapon,true viking had cloths,mostly leather(fur) to keep them warm,but not much protection.And yea chain mail is butter when it comes to protection from longbows,in truth if you stacked paper instead of chain mail of same thickness that paper would provide better protection from arrows and i mean way better.Also if anyone thinks you can block arrows as they come then that guy is idiot,by the time warrior falls from horse and gets his balance back another arrow is already on its way.When it comes to combat,archers on horseback are superior to any other unit,why do you think Chinese built that wall?Archer on horseback are superior to even full armored templar knight,because there is no way for knight in full plate armor to ever get in melee range of archer,and reason for that is simple,archers use lighter armor which is less strain on horse which in turn lets horse be faster and can run longer.You can put all 3 of these against one mongolian archer and he would probably win.
we're talking 12th century here. Full plate armor came much MUCH later. Gambeson + Chain Mail is more than enough to withstand 12th century Japanese arrows.
It’s only off by a bit, but it was unbalanced cuz the Vikings weren’t as poor as MatPat said, the Samurai got a horse, and the Knights were correct. In reality, the Samurai would die first, followed by either Vikings or Knights. It would go either way.
As a scandinavian myself, I need to point out that you are wrong. We have alot of wildlife, deers, boars, etc and it's always been like that. I'm from Sweden, but I live in iceland atm, so the Vikings are my ancestors and I do alot of research on them on my spare time. Primarily, the Vikings were merchants and farmers, and secondary they were plunderers. Let's make an example, iceland. We are an island, thus surrounded by water. The Vikings did have knowledge about fishing, and whale hunting has been a thing since prehistoric times. Yes we did Plunder, but the main reason was for treasures, not for food. You should be more weary about your sources. I know it was a joke, but still. The Vikings created alot of trading ports in current Estonia and other areas of eastern europe. some of them lived as mercenaries and body guards for Turkish kings of old. And to talk about the arms for the Vikings, you are wrong there aswell. Vikings used both riveted chainmails and Lamellar armour. Either that they traded, plundered or manufactured themselves. It's true that not every Viking wore these kinds of armor, but some did. And if I know my history correctly, which I'm pretty sure I do, Samurais also wore Lamellar armor. And Viking spears were not made for throwing, they were made to stab while standing on a distance. They even had Atgeir, (Predecessor of the French Halberd) also called chopping spear. You seem awfully partial on this matter. Read too much manga? ;)
Very nice comment!! I just disagree on one thing: 1. Vikings *did* have spears for throwing. If I remember correctly, Anders Winroth in his book _The Age of The Vikings_ (I highly recommend it, but first watch a lecture with Anders and see what you think), stated that their bigger spears were for throwing and their shorter ones for stabbing; however, Marjolein Stern and Roderick Dale in *their* book, _Vikings: Culture, Raids, Legacy_ (great reference book), stated the opposite: the bigger spears were for stabbing and the shorter ones for throwing. Either way, though, they did have spears for throwing and for stabbing. You're, I'm sure, familiar with the Norse god Odin. Odin's sacred weapon was the spear, which is why he had Gungnir (his spear). The way sacrifices were made to Odin involved spears (I won't go into detail). Because of this, sometimes before battle, a Viking would throw his spear over the enemy army shouting, _"Óðinn á yðr alla!",_ meaning "Odin owns ye all!" It was a kind of symbolic sacrifice. In this description, a spear was thrown. Also, spears were, according to multiple sagas, generally thrown at the beginning of a duel, and then the swords were drawn.
Jack Yeah I think you're right there. My point was not to deny that the Vikings were carrying spears to throw, but to point out that they were mainly used as a stabbing weapon. I admit that I worded that sentence poorly. However I do believe that a Viking (let's say in a Lamellar armour) would stand a chance against a samurai (which is wearing Japanese Lamellar armour) They have similar armour, both know how to wield a bow and arrow, however the Viking also have a sword or an axe in his arsenal. The samurai fires an arrow, but hits the Vikings shield. The Viking drops his shield and draws his bow. He fires it and hits the horse that the samurai is mounted upon and the horse falls over, trapping the samurai under it. The Viking then rush over, and hits him with the axe. What do you think of this scenario?
Oh, OK then. I agree; I think a Viking would stand a chance against a Samurai. I'm rootin' for him all the way and I won't cover up my bias. Maille would probably be better than lamellar, though, because it wouldn't have to have points of connection and is probably as protective while exceeding in range of motion. They would both know how to wield a bow and arrow, but the Samurai would know to use that better, as the bow is typically the Viking's fourth weapon, meaning he may not even carry it, as carrying that many weapons is kinda abnormal :D. I think scenarios in general are difficult to come up with simply because of how many factors to take into consideration. Given you gave the short version of the story, I think it's, taking that into account, a decent scenario. Of course, there is still the Knight to consider, so a new scenario would be needed even if just for that :D. There's one thing that a lot of people seem to think and I don't think I'd agree with: horses going down with one arrow. I think it's possible, but not plausible. I've read that even if a person's heart stops, they can keep going for 10 seconds. Even if you could manage to shoot accurately, penetrate all that muscle, and hit the heart dead on, there are a few things to keep in mind. Firstly, the arrow itself would plug the wound. The Mongols did something with some of their arrows (I think this is brilliant), where they would design the arrow so that when it hits the target, it works its way back out and the person can bleed out. I don't think Vikings had those arrowheads, though. With that in mind, even if the Viking shot straight into the horse's heart, it could probably still keep going for a while, at least. I think that if he shot it in the eye it would be, first of all a really impressive feat, second of all probably that horse.exe would stop working. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I think scenarios are just difficult to come up with. I would say even Death Battle does only a pretty OK job, but even then I think the question is flawed. Here's what I say on this matter: don't ask, "Who would win?" Instead ask "Who has better equipment?" I think that would probably be a fairer question to ask because "Who would win" takes into consideration completely, 100%-unanswerable questions such as, "Where are they fighting," "Who are the individuals," etc. Obviously, if it were Conor McGregor VS a 5-year-old with a pocket knife, Conor would win, but seeing how these warriors considered are said to be equally-skilled and we don't know how that would play out, I think we should consider their armament. Sorry for the essay *facepalm* I do it every single time, darn it...
The Samurais are original and primarily an archer cavalry very similar to the mongol and the Huns because they all practice asiatic warfare, So that being said just look at the history, the Huns designate the roman legionaries and the the Mongol butchered the Europeans knights that outnumbered them 10 to 1 in their expedition in Europe. The asiatic archer cavalry warfare is unparalleled only the invention of firearms saw its end
@@karlmarx3947 that's very misleading to say that honestly. Because the mongols and huns fought the Europeans and Roman's in different manners than the samurai would of. They had a "coward" fighting style that involved tricking into ambushes and forcing falls charges. Saying that the samurai would fight this same way is simply wrong in my opinion, when you look at the mongol invasions of Japan and they did this very strategies to beat the samurai as well.
*Distant sound* Did you hear that? *Sound flies closer* It can't be...... *Pommel flies by, grazing my beard hair* SKALLAGRIM : Nay! t'is peasant Mat giveths to thou blastphamous wordings! By the grace of Odin thou Mat shalt be perish'ed, thou naughty mushrump!
Ugh! "Alternative facts" is just a better word for intentionally misleading lies. The worst you could say abut this video is that it's honest but inaccurate. There are worlds between the two terms.
@Drace90 Dude you are trying waaay too hard to defend Matt. You can't even call the video honest cause he claims this is a historical analysis and there are MANY details that are just wrong and don't make sense.
Mat, you seem to have mixed up common medieval warriors and knights. If we are talking for honor, then knights are the equivalent of these rich samurais
Hell the only difference btween early knights and vikings were the helmets and sometimes in later periods, the shields, not to mention that all three are the elite of their society if we wnt the best of the best lmao
The Historical Accuracy dropped faster than the French Nobility at the Battle of Agincourt...
DAYUM burn
Ahhh Agincourt...
Yeah, treating them like Pork Hedgehog was wrong.... Like this VIDEO!!!
But most of them survived and got killed after the battle.
NoxMortem dam son
>Extensive research
>Wearing Greaves on your arms
Pick one
I laughed for a solid minute at this!
Wargle I didn't even notice omg that's great
Wargle research
204 likes , 0dislikes, 4 reply. S Logic
I don't get it
"he's got a bow!"
"you idiot, we've all got bows!"
Hauberk, that is what knights used, good against swords, bad against arrows.
Spartan0941 it doesn't matter if a samurai has a bow or not. A samurai's bow wouldn't have the power to let an arrow penetrate the armor easily at all. Also, knights didn't really carry bows in battle but either way a Knight would have had the most probable chance of winning
Ilsu what is bad against arrows?
Ilsu chainmail is good armor and even then they would wear a padded gambeso/aketon underneath that, wich if properly thickened, could even stop a longbow arrow, not to mention a 60/70lbs yumi bow
But in continental Europe there were divisions of specialized mercenary crossbowmen.
Knights often profited from the covering fire of large crossbowmen divisions.
"Viking didn't wear armour"
I think chainmail is some type of armour
Thank you and he allowed the knights to stay even though they both used chainmail
In general, they had a fine assortment of armors.
Typicly gamberson aka bio degradable armour(leather being most commen do to if it was properly layered you can be shot with a long bow and not even be scratched) and what ever armour they took from rhe slain...aka chain mail, plate mail and steel weapons...compared to a samurai whos swords were never steel only iron do to poor forging techniques...and whos bows would never be able to even hurt a viking let alone scratch him.
@@tylerdeath3759 Yeah, this is definitely filled with misinformation. Firstly, yes, japanese swords are steel. They aren't on par with the quality of late european spring steel, but it's still fine quality steel that could be used to make adequate weaponry or armour if you were able to afford it. Plus let's not forget that Europeans of the early middle ages practiced folding steel and pattern welding. Two, that last statement depends as the draw weights of war yumi varied, and we basically don't know the actual draw weight of an 11th century Yumi. Plus the viking period had warbows which were mostly for both use for war and hunting. So you'd get bows around the 90lbs range.
@@tylerdeath3759 Oh, also you're forgetting type of armour worn, the distance, and other factors. For example, a foot archer is typically used at long distance whereas mounted are a lot more closer, and able to pack a bigger punch at closer distance.
Did buzzfeed do your research?
Felix silverberg BURN
Felix silverberg oooh, so good
that would explain why the only non white male won the fight
ay lmao
whoever wants medium rare can turn around now cus this is a full on roast BOO YAAAAAAHH!!!! good one mate
"These warriors seem mythological but that's because mythology is all people really know"
And that folks is how you DO NOT do a research
Put it on 500 for ya. I hate unclean numbers lol.
With that logic, how can he expect anyone to take him seriously?
Sorry but have to take that like away.
First came Shad, and in his glory, he stood with the knights of old.
Then came Metatron, with his discipline and skill, he stood with the samurai of legend.
Hark! Upon the horizon! The mighty bearded leader of the savage northmen!
*Skallagrim*
*****and also Snap, Shad's young squire. He was there too.
Skallagrim wielding 1000 pommels!!!
Kevin O'Neal
Hehehehe! Classic!
Kevin O'Neal poor SnapJelly, so easily forgotten.
He shalt end them all rightly like the icelandic sagas foretold!
**and also Snap, Shad's young squire. He was there too.
so painful to watch. Sad part is people will watch this and believe all the things this video got wrong.
I did when I first saw it and then through this discovered so much about arms and armour throughout history
Indeed.
@Kalina Ann sad thing is no one will call him out for his false information and pseudoscience based videos.
@Kalina Ann 😂 well said
@@ydi7438If you scroll through the comments you can clearly see literally everybody calling him out on it and many have made videos debunking this video.
"Even Skyrim got it wrong"
*The entire internet shows up at his house*
this entire video is Matpat grasping at straws to make the samurai seem better and that statement was the final nail in the coffin. Call me crazy but last time I checked an atlas of Earth, Skyrim wasn't shown on there. Maybe due to it being a fictional country
Skyrim is a fantasy game. The nords are based off of vikings but they *aren’t* vikings so they can wear horns because it’s fictional.
This was probably one of the weirdest things in his video, actually made me mad
I don't want to go r/iamverysmart, but horned helmets would've just made it easier to get knocked off, or if they were attached something nice to hold on to as they slit their throat.
Also, there isn't any evidence of horned helmets anyway, so...
@@rederen3350 Yes, there usually isn't evidence of fictional characters doing things. I don't want to go r/Iamverysmart, but fictional means not real. Maybe it would be a disadvantage, but it is heavily implied in Skyrim that those iron helmets are a traditional nordic thing many of their warriors have had.
All things I know for a fact are wrong
Vikings
-quilted cloth is actually pretty effective you you'll be hard pressed cutting through it
-Chainmail and Iron helmets were worn by norse warriors
- quality swords and dane axes were used by norse warriors
Knights
-Don't show butted chainmail, please just don't, they wore rivetted mail
-knights wore helmets
Samurai
-Best armour except the huge gaps aurond the armpits
-European mail is more mobile and lighter than 11th century samurai armour
- I'm not sure but i don't think 11th century samurai armour was made of iron except for the helmet but I'm totally not sure about this one
Deathbattle
-you think a horse will go down from one arrow? historically they could take a musket shot and keep going
-We know rivetted mail could stop saracen arrows wich were shot from similar draw weight bows as the samurai
-Knights in the 11th century had shields so they would be able to stop the arrows
Seriously this video is so poorly researched it makes me doubt every other video you made
If you want sources on any of these facts I'll be glad to give them to you if you comment
i love you. thank you
horses also wore armour
Gloin79 also the horses of the knights where faster than japanese horses as the knights horses are from arab breeds that are bigger and faster.
You are wrong about the bamboo armour stuff, in the 11th century, japanese samurai had plenty of acces to iron. and no one had acces to full platemail.
Europe being 400 years ahead of asia in the 11th century is completely unsubstantiated. You do know that china inventer gunpowder around the 9th century and the use of gunpowder spread to europe and japan at around the same time (12th century).
I do however agree that an arrow could not pierce chainmail with a gambeson underneath.
The Yumi or samurai bow was not close to the bow of a European war bow, only 30 or 70lbs.
The long bow was 150lbs and gambeson could even stop a longbow's arrow.
i feel like matpat completely forgot that shields could be used to block arrows
Arthayx L Yeah, but both the knight and samurai have horses, so basically all the samurai has to do is run around the Viking and strike him endlessly with arrow. the knight has a spear, so there you go, Viking is dead anyways
Simple solution.... Stay in a forest. Horses and forest isn't a good mix. People take Vikings for some stupid cavemans.
Shields and gambesons. Thick enough cloth armor can block arrows and most swords. Light armor - suck in fiction, awesome in real life.
Even so, in that hypothetical, since range is a samurai's strong point, while of course not infinite, they would have plentiful arrows. And while the horse wouldn't have infinite stamina, it would have more than a person, as they're more often than not, a prey animal in the wild. Used to fleeing rather than fighting. even if they were to turtle mode perfectly and block, what I would imagine to be, around a hundred arrows... the time spent moving to block properly would be taxing.
But this is all just speculation.
Well That's true.
"The vikings are CLEARLY outmatched"
That did NOT age well
You got me
considering it happened a thousand years ago, its more like it cant age well. its simply incorrect
The Vikings aren't outmatched, how else did they become personal bodyguards of the Byzantium Empires Emperor? Magic mushrooms can give one great insight into the weakness of the enemies strength and let me say, The Vikings were masters of the Merry ways lol xD
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 he's taking about the campaigns in the game
Yeahhhhhhh I think Vikings are beat when the win every faction war
Skallagrim and Shadiversity: I'm about to ruin this mans whole career
Metatron join the chat
They destroy this man career with the pommels
For real
Burger Power they will do it rightly.
@@billyng8482 rip samurai then
actually why wouldn't the knight block the arrows with his shield?
because thats racist.
Orthodox35 I under stand if they see it but if they didn't it's rip
well hes on horse back so he can just go in circles around the knight, firing his bow . the knight ist to slow with his heavy armor to block every singel arrow , so he dies at the end
It's a shield. The arrow hit is back. The Knight probably reached for is shield to protect himself from the arrows. But the shield wasn't on his back...
It's a fight to the death. People don't think that fast.
"Hey guys, the knights only have Hauberks because proper armor costs money. That's why the samurai win, because they somehow have money the knights don't have. Also the knights don't use shields."
Okay MatPat.
i think im going to have a stroke, lmfao.
I know right! He never even bothered to bring up Kite shields or the fact that Knights wore some light armor under their chain mail (forgot what it's called but still come on Mat Pat!)
Darek Baird they wore gambisens under there chainmale which combine with chainmale can stop arrows people under estimate chainmale a sword can't cut through it its impossible
A sword cant even cut through a well made wooden shield. lol
Charging in, falling with great force, supposedly dazed, then shoot in the face. Yeah, mobile firepower beats this guy.
Man, I wonder which faction MatPat likes the most?
Knights
Samurai
Vikings
your mother,
You really should check out Skallagrims reply to this video, along with others like him in the historical arms and armour/historical combat youtube community. You brought this channels conversation into their wheelhouses and they've brought up some really interesting points that kinda disprove this video. Again, you should really check him out and through him the other youtubers that are also replying.
Yeah, it's a bad time to be putting out poorly researched stuff like this and claim it's a historical analysis. There are actually people who really do understand this time period. There are several major TH-camrs who do exactly this kind of thing. So they can point out all the bad information in here (as can their viewers). I don't know what it is about medieval arms and armor that makes every gamer think they know what they're talking about. No.
For people who actually know this stuff you can check channels like Scholagladiatoria (my favorite for swords and weaponry), Knyght Errant (the best for armor), Skallagrim (the most popular), Metatron (I'm not as familiar with him but he does some good work on Japanese arms and armor).
Iron Druid Shadiversity debunked the knights skallagrim the Viking and Metatron the samurai
+Logan Smith Thanks for letting me know. I bookmarked them already and will be sure to give those video's a watch when I have the time :)
+DoktorWeasel I completely agree with that, and if someone is ever thinking about doing a video on these kinds of subjects it would only be smart to consult/chat with people who know their stuff forwards and backwards. And thanks for introducing me to Knyght Errant, I'm going to be checking him out later :)
***** Yw bro
so shields dont exist, vikings inhabit an unihabitable wastland, knights don't own horses, and the game isn't set like it is, unless you're a samurai
I find it funny how in the game proper, Knights and Vikings are seen with horses, and the Samuai aren't. What's more it appears that they live in a swampish area in the game so they probably don't have any horses with them.
Haos51 camargue lifestyle amiright.
Well the thing this theory really underestimates is just how dangerous axes actually are in combat. Battle axes in addition to being able to be wielded with only 1 hand could EASILY deliver enough sharp force to seriously damage chain mail armour and it could easily grapple shields leaving those using a broad shield especially vulnerable to attack. Samurai's and Knights would use swords but I guarantee they would not rely on them in battle, if you use a sword your main aim is decapitation (or to cut flesh, not armour) so your primary weapon would be a polearm or spear variant such as a trident. Then there's the addition of Crossbow's which were extensively used by knights while shortbows were often used by Samurai. To put it simply...
The Viking has the means of doing the most damage but the other 2 combatants are capable at keeping their targets at a distance with their primary weapon choice. Between Samurai and Knight the final factor would be a matter of endurance and stamina from the Knight vs Mobility from the samurai but either way it''s likely the looser would die to multiple internal injuries after such a battle.
vikings also had spears and bows, and their bows had much greater range.
they used chain-mail too.
Actor Adam Anouer there's a video that shows a person in full plate doing somersaults and cartwheels. There's a lot more mobility in plate armor than people believe. But what I think it and agree is that it does boil down to stamina, luck, the individual fighter, and just who knows how to hit where. A samurai is awesome, I love the knight for I crusade for Holy God, and I admire the Vikings. But as Skallagrim says, there's so much to take into account. You'll never really get a solid answer try as you might.
what's scariest to me is the lack of comment from matpat recognising his mistake . would respect him alot more if he owned up
HobbsyYT He actually got salty about it and said he did research until he deleted the comment.
Robert Harden Shows how much he cares about it. He should at least fix it in the comments. The better way and probably most wanted is that he makes a update video. Or what also often got requested is that he deletes the video.
Kind of lost some respect for his channel (got nothing against him personally), he does this sell out videos, and he (or his team) dosen't even do proper research. I guess Ubisofts money was better then some integrity. What a shame.
Eduardo Lopes Gee some guys in here even defent him calling guys who call him out haters.
I mean really I am one of the oldest gametheory fans and I call him out when he goof up, or in this case make the whole video wrong
can someone tell me what this thread is talking about? what mistake? what deleted comment?
As an archaeologist this video clearly demonstrates to me the importance of education and involvement of the public about history and our archaeological finds.
well game theory is just entertainment ... he doesnt have a degree on this stuff
I prefer genetic research rather than word of historians.
@@kissme1518 Aaaaand your usage of "prefer" in an issue as complex issue as this earns you the Retard Award 2023! :) Congratulations!!! YOU are RETARDED! :)
@@kissme1518 I mean, you gotta pick where you trust which. Genetic research is useful at times, but not when you have to find out what sort of equipment vikings had.
@@OverlordZephyros but still he should at least get his facts straight
did you just forget that shields exist or what?
Jay Red you don't use shileds on horses
Of course you use shields on horses wtf is wrong with you? You even have special shields designed for better mounted combat! Not that you need a special shield to be honest because almost any shield will do, especially the king of all shields, the kite shield which was used by both mounted and dismounted knights.
redeagle pro gaming that's why you have armoured horses
Pretty much everyone in the world that used cavalry also used shields prior to the development of early firearms. The only historical period when professional warriors who weren't archers did forego carrying a shield was the european late renaissance, when bows became obsolete after the refinement of full plate armor. For Honor does not seem to be inspired by renaissance-era warfare (except for the samurai armors and european longswords).
Knights used shields on horseback
Actually, everything in this video makes sense. The knights and the vikings obv forgot their shields at home, and the samurai were clearly firing advanced HEAT arrows that can penetrate up to 300mm of steel, so it doesn't matter that their bows only were capable of only 70ish lbs.
And we cannot forget that the Glorious Nippon Steel Folded Over 1000 Times can cut throught anything.
1000 degree arrow vs knight
The katana was actually folded over 16 times. It had 1000 layers - it had not been folded 1000
Either way, the samurai are still BADASS!!
I mean 16 times not over 16
lol! Good troll. Have a cookie.jar
I can hear Skalagrim screaming from here.
you mean you can hear him.... battlecrying.
The Pommel!
That's what Mat forgot! The age old technique of ending him rightly!
I hope Skallagrim, Shad, Metatron, and others rip this apart. Bout time Game Theory was taken down a notch
My ears are already hurting from it...
“And past episodes here have shown that knowledge of cultural history can help you win games.”
You don’t win much in historical games do you matpat?
Fallout tactics yeah?
YOU AGAIN?
Elaborate
He never won any historical challenge, he thought Harold goswinson was a modern military solider
@@Human_traain Matpat is effectively saying that knowing history helps you win historical games. In spite of this during his video his presentation and research of the history was poor, meaning he probably doesn't win historical games a lot by merit of his own reasoning that historical knowledge helps win historical games.
Sorry for saying historical so much lol. Was trying to get it more in layman's terms
"The wealthiest vikings wore hardened leather." Mattpat. Where did you do your research?
Malcolm Wright ikr rich Vikings wore gambisens with chainmale and shield and they even had swords
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest vikings ever wore cuir bouilli, and the wealthiest of them tended to wear.. you know. The armour of the time period. Mail.
I don't actually understand where the idea that they wore hardened leather even comes from, because the materials certainly would not survive long enough to turn up as archaeological evidence, and we've had a hard time finding *any* examples of widespread use of leather as armour. I legitimately want to find out what he researched that he could come out the other end with that kind of misconception.
Matpat meant the Viking FROM 11 century
Who historically wore mail and carried swords at their wealthiest, rather than being so poor as to barely be able to afford a seax, which by the way, being knives were rather ubiquitous at the time. The idea that leather was the height of their armor is pretty laughable considering almost no one historically used leather as armor, and that there is no evidence to support that assertion.
The 11 century is near the end of the viking period so at this point they've already spent 200 years fighting the european, so it would be insanely weird if they didn't know and follow the common military trends of the time
Matt: The vikings die instantly
Vikings: go on to win every single faction war
@Demiclea But majority of them
This video aged like the Samurai do in faction war
I figured out the faction war schedule of who wins, firstly knights win less often than Samurai's despite their large presence, a high number of Samurai players play Knight characters however so it's quite random to figure out or pin point knights specific victory frame.
Samurai's have more chances of winning faction wars much more during a holiday or weekly/monthly event or around the end of the year, i don't know how. But my theory is that Knights and Viking players are played by people with less time on their hands during the holidays compared to the Samurai's.
Vikings commonly win everytime.
Yes
It actually how you play the game an how good you are so it doesn’t matter because I win more when I play samurai
This video: *exists*
Skallagrim, Shadiversity & Metatron: So you have chosen death...
I see your a man of culture
@@sirhoward. Indeed
Check matt eastons video, thats a beatdown from hell
Not once did he bring up the pommel throw, 100% bullshittery and beta
Uhm all Historians
Matpat after video: I think I did... okay.
The history section of the internet: *Cowabunga it is.*
Accurate.
Did...did Matpat forget that SHEILDS exist?
+Black haxoros
Not in the timeline they're in. Samurai would have had poor armour back then.
+CobaltBlue
The katana was a good sword, it's just not the god of swords like people make out. It had a really good cut, in some cases reported to kill in 1 hit and take down many people with GUNS! But it has many downsides, no handgaurd, no pommel, quite comberson, can't stab and rather short.
Living Lifeform katana can stab
sinister 692 Katana can stab...but can it stab through a kite shield?
+Living Lifeform You are almost as bad as Matpat in terms of accuracy.
I will say it ONCE as a sword enthusiast and mechanical engineer-in-the-making:
1) Taking down people with guns as a swordsman is not the quality of the sword, but the wielder; or more likely, the incompetence of the gunners. Practically any sword can kill in one hit, if the opponent is not wearing armor.
2) It has a handguard, it doesn't have a crossguard; this is important because many European longsword techniques rely on the use of the crossguard for leverage.
3) Not having a pommel means absolutely nothing in quality. It means the sword is not peened, and that the point of balance is not affected by the pommel. For this exact reason, the katana's point of balance if relatively off to the tip, and the blade behaves a lot like a stiff, two handed machete.
4) Cumbersome? Dude, it weighs at most 1.2 kgs! If you meant its point of balance, you are right. But it is by no means heavy. Generally weapons are light.
5) Can't stab? Bullshit.
6) rather short - first time you are completely right! It IS short.
Now, what was the ACTUAL problem with a katana:
It was made out of pattern welded high and low carbon steel. However, low carbon steel can't be heat treated, which is a process that ultimately makes the blade harder, more resilitent, and most notably, spring. I don't want to go too deep into metallurgy, the point is, the katanas's high carbon edge was neither homogenous (is was fitted inside the softer socket like the maya's obsidian swords - small pieces, one at a a time), nor able to ensure the required elasticity of the blade. So, in short, the katana BENDS when sideways forces apply to it (which is about any strike onto hard material, like dirt, armor, other swords, shields, etc).
Modern katana replicas are homogenous steel, and thus don't suffer from these shortcomings, but historically, it is not unheard of that a katana breaks or bends irreparably during a duel, simply due to shitty forge welding or bad materials.
Mat, watch Skullagrim, and Shadiversity, as well as Metatron. They might have something to say on your argument.
Skullagrim vs. MatPat in a DeadLock that would be interesting ;)
Dont forget the other two large medieval TH-cam channels, Metatron and Shadiversity!
Knights' armor made them slow? Phillip Augustus was pulled off his horse at the battle of Bouvines by enemy infantry and beaten by their weapons (which couldn't pierce his armor) until his men drove them off before, in the words of a contemporary chronicler, "with his great strength, (launching) himself back onto his horse."
Well if they would have hammered him for long enough (for about 10-15 minutes) he might have died. But it was pretty much required for any knight to be able to vault upon his (or any) horse in full harness.
That's my point exactly. Armor is much lighter than you would think. Watch Shadiversity's video on it.
Sam Whoreston I practice HEMA I have worn gear for normative combat (though not mine but it fit me anyway oh and normative combat gear is a good 5-10 kgs heavier than actual field gear) and it's bad in the first few hours but it didn't feel heavy at all. It's hot and uncomfortable but hey it protects you from death.
But for example we read Giacomo Di Grassi's opinion on what feats a knight should have we see such as to be able to run fast and for long in harness, vault upon horses, be very quick both on foot and on horse and in general be well exercised. Not necessarily strong as an ox but to be as fit as possible.
Are you actually suggesting that a man having a well distributed weight of 15 to 25 kg on his body could be capable of such feats in Medieval times? What a blunder! Next thing you'll say is that modern soldiers are carrying similar, if not bigger, weight and are still expected to walk more than 3 miles without complaining. And even if you do, surely you understand that 15 kg of armour obviously weighs at least 30 kg. Because its armour. Its heavy. And never was designed with ability to move your joints and perform any kind of physical feats. Because knights only fought on tournaments, tied to the horses so they didn't fall. And occasionally died to Black Plague.
Legiro [citation needed]
The knight is a slow tank like fighter.
Knight cartwheels towards you in full plate armor...
Saw that vid to😅
Your about to be converted to Christianity.
th-cam.com/video/qzTwBQniLSc/w-d-xo.html
@@i_love_starwarshookers693
Loved the backflips
Sounds like you got your information from Deadliest warrior lol.
Vikings wore mail, no, not butted mail that you can rip apart with your hands. They wore riveted mail, which if you would've done your research, you would know protects them very will. Riveted mail is extremely strong. Arrows or swords can't really pierce it. Dont believe me? Just watch a video on youtube testing how strong riveted mail is, or, you could just do research. Just a theory.
Even deadliest warrior got more right than he did.
WiffyLight ,
WiffyLight deadliest warrior is a great show. Unlike this mess of inaccuracies
but is it a poorly researched game theory?
I hope I'm not the first person to point out how completely and factually Shad of Shadiversity destroyed this video.
And Skallagrim as well
Exactly
Don't worry, you're not.
We have nearly the same profile pic
@@captaincaribbean9792
We literally do have the same profile pic, mate. They're just centered differently.
"In partnership of Ubisoft"
Unless Ubisoft told him to make the samurai win, then no it was not.
the legitimatly may have told him to dismiss the vikings, I mean from what i see, most of the youtubers and streamers go viking, and in game its had a big effect on the battle with vikings winning 66% of the time on the map
DunkMaster Funk what game were you playing where there isn't a sea of green?
"When you start to peel back the myths and legends around these warriors and actually look at the facts around them"
That one didn't age quite so well considering all the historical inaccuracies in this video.
Yep
"Their weapons were generally garbage"
No. Just no. The Norse were importing steel from Damascus as early as the 8th century, giving them access to the best steel of the time. Your research on this episode is what is garbage. And the Norse did not raid for their entire living, they traded, usually furs, to people farther south. They also apparently made great cheese, as noted by the Viking Cheese making village in Andalusia.
Also, the norse did wear god damn armor. They had chain and lamellar (The same basic type of armor the samurai used), both were serious forms of defense for their time. Did you do *any* research?
Apparently not since the norse also did have god damn swords. For instance, the Ulfberht, which were definitely not knives.
Also, if we are considering from the same time frame, the Knights of the time did not just slaughter the Viking raiders, in fact the Vikings in 867 were laying waste to the Anglo-Saxons in Britain and setting up their own kingdoms. The Saxons had Knights. They still lost.
Accuracy rating:
"The Turks are the heirs of Rome"
The Norse- Normans were the First to employ as a standard Heavy horse or armored horse. Likely from there travels as mercs to middle east. Persians had been using Armored horse or Catchphraks for 100s of years. Most western European kingdoms were still using light or only the man was armored not the horse.
I`ll just ad one small thing, the Vikings did in fact use a small sword called a seax, it was in many way just a sidearm that they used almost exclusively in the shield wall, the Roman gladius is in fact a really nice weapon to compare it with. But in this video it is stated that it was a weapon for the rich and that is wrong, it was a really common weapon for all Germanic tribes through out the immigration era and early medieval ages and historians and the Saxons was especially famous for using it.
Morten Ringdalen A Sax or Seaxe (Old English) was a tool first before it became a weapon like most barbarian weapon, A Sax can be compared to Bowie Knife about the same length. But the Sax was used for cutting . The Word Sax or Saxon is french. The Germanic word means to cut "Sachsen"
Saxons never had knights. They came after the Norman invasion.
Skallgrim and Lindybeige will hear of this
Earl Grey Hot shadiversety to
Shadversity already made a response video
Earl Grey Hot Well Izanami and Izanagi will hear about this too
Fear not, for they shall end him rightly
Skallagrim already states in his latest video that he's working on a video about it.
I started laughing when he said that Vikings only wore cloth armour and then he put a picture of a Viking wearing mail and a helmet with a big round shield :) :)
Plus that pic wasn’t accurate to the timeline he was talking abt
@Duckervert knights were the 1% of Europeans and samurai were the 1% of the Japanese. An English peasant won't have mail or plate armor either.
@Duckervert there's no point in mentioning that most vikings didn't have that since we're comparing the top warriors from each culture.
@Duckervert based on informative history of sweden. Most vikings have shield.
@Duckervert the face you be making once ww3 starts
I realize this video is four years old, but there's a few points I'd like to add regarding Vikings. First, take away the horse, making everyone even in that regard (if they weren't raiding, they could ride horses into combat). Wealthy Vikings used mail and swords just as often as Knights. The average Viking didn't often wear mail, but neither did the average foot solider a Knight or Samurai would be leading into combat. A Jarl and his loyalists (the same as a Knight is to a Lord) would have used mail, helmets and well-crafted swords. A Jarl paid his men well and gave them gifts. Also, a few successful raids were often enough to purchase these items. They had sturdy, solid shields and were very good at using them. Vikings used bows quite often in combat, as well as spears and javelins. The average soldier was expected to carry a bow and spear when called to war. A Viking could just as easily shoot their opponent or the horse. Good mail can stop arrows and is often worn with padding or a gambeson underneath, which is another layer of protection and better than most people believe. This video discounts the Viking as easily defeated, but I disagree. If Samurai and Knights are wealthy and able to afford better gear, then you must compare a wealthy Viking and not the average farmer going on a raid. A similarly wealthy Viking is vastly superior to what is described here. There's a reason they almost conquered England. Another quick point, Ō-yoroi was not light.
Samurai didn't even HAVE chainmail. They didn't have the metal for it.
@@The360MlgNoscoper The existence of Kusari-gosuko would disagree.
@@jeffreygao3956loser
So you're saying a samurai would go through chainmail with an arrow but a Viking wouldn't with all his strength put onto an axe?...
By the way didn't Vikings have bows too?
Yeah and Viking bows were good, comparable to later English Longbows (the Kind that can go through improperly made full plate).
@@pacesettenbrino2065 nah. The longbows are stronger overall.
The thing is that people wore armour that could stop arrows so really with a setup like this a knight probably would have won due to having a better weapon. Samurai would get fucked up by the virtue of technology of year 10k b.c. (thick clothing) so a spear with s rage advantage has the highest chance of winning.
Vikings had pretty much the same equipment as the knights
And everyone had shields, so ugh, Vikings and Knights go down by something armor and a shield would stop?
Samuri are most likely to lose,The real match would be Vikings and Knights
"Vikings didn't wear armour and their weapons were terrible"
Ummmm
"All food and Animals in Scandinavia instantly frozen, so the Vikings had to raid"
What? Where the hell did you learn that?
"The Yumi bow could easily penetrate a knights armour"
.....what......
"Knights didn't wear any head protection"
Ok, pls stop, This is getting embarrassing
King In The North. Stark. "Thanks God you stop" XD
Lol
Agreed man.
But of course, in Scandinavia you eat snow and wood.
Hope you know that the neck and under the shoulders, elbows, and knee's were all weak points in the knights armor during that time frame. During that time period also Samurai's did excel at archery. The arrows were not shoddily made either. The knights didn't tend to wear helms unless they were of the Lord class (the ones protecting a Lord). Those knights were fairly more trained and they were not as common. I will say though that the Vikings originally reason for raiding was due to not having plentiful things within their own lands but it later on became something they enjoyed over time so they kept doing so.
Dear Comments,
Let me hop down here and clear up something: Saying that we didn't do research is simply INCORRECT. Both Austin (from THE SCIENCE) and I did plenty of research into the "average" weaponry for each of these three types of warriors around the year 1000. That said, I openly welcome and look forward to watching your videos outlining your research debunking our work -- I'm not above admitting that we make mistakes. But I am sensitive to claims that we didn't research...we do a lot for each episode...but admittedly what we can teach ourselves in about ten days or reading and page hopping pales in comparison with people who have studied this material for years.
This is actually a big reason why I often avoid history episodes -- not because I don't enjoy them, but because history as a study is so massive and oftentimes, imprecise depending on the source.
Thanks for letting me explain myself. Now, if you'll excuse me...BACK TO GASTER!
MatPat
MATPAT AWAY!!!!!!!!!!
agreed! also you have to take into account history also depends on perspective. For example in wars, there are different perspectives on who's the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' based on which side you choose will give you different thoughts of the enemy and of the allies. I love learning about history of different cultures and this is probably one of my fav theories yet. I commend your work mat!
Hi Good theory.
yo, mat these guys are just jealous hater bru XD
The Game Theorists tea
Watching Skal's, Shad's, Meta's, and of course The Sword's Path's videos about this has been fantastic. So I guess this served some purpose, even just as fertilizer.
repeat after me knights are not slow
DREADNOUGHT oh wear iron all over your body and try to say u r fast and flexible
Hypnotic Elf 10 they were used to wearing that so it felt to them as if they weren't wearing anything. Also all the weight was focused on the hips so it felt like less
Full plate armor does not restrict movement or slow you down at all. You can get onto a horse in seconds in full plate and even do back flips.
Mail and gambeson is even lighter and still able to block 150 lbs war bows. The bows that samurai used were about 70 lbs.
Knights are not slow
*Eurt Continues to chant this*
knights were not slow * (thats whats written in metatron's video)
This video:
All Vikings: armor too expensive
All Knights: good armor too expensive
All Samuri: only THE MOST EXPENSIVE ARMOR
here why don't I throw in an extra thousand for the Apple horse armor.
Im guessing he just thought you could only be a samurai if you had these sorts of luxuries, but in reality, many samurais didnt actually fight nor were they wealthy by any means
All Knights: only buy shields and swords
@@Hades-1021 they had a spear for cavalry
Knights were GIVEN the BEST ARMAMENT and TRAINING their lord could afford in exchange only for their loyalty. No need to worry about the price of a sword when your boss buys it for you.
This video's logic:
Vikings - Clueless bandits with no tactic or combat training.
Knights - Wear metal armor for no reason and shields that are useless.
Samurai - Invincible dragon warriors who use swords that are more effective than cannonballs.
Hat Skeleton! Honestly people forget that Vikings actually wore armor they weren’t running around naked and Knight steel plate armor is hardly limiting at all and they where layers or gambison and chain mail that can stop arrows plus a shield and they trained from age 7 so basically this battle is complete bs and the samurai would not win in a land slide if anything I’m thinking a knight would definitely win
And other people are forgetting this is a video game channel. xd you sure you aint just salty you picked the wrong class?
liamvshobos why would he be salty about that? You can change at any time unless your half brain dead. Also he was trying to prove who would win with true historical facts but got it all completely wrong.
Michael23 Brankin29 Yeah But Samurai secret weapon is
Running away with his fast horse
Hat Skeleton! I known right
Matt REALLY needs ta get his historical gnosis in check.
all of them would be pretty evenly matched.
The knight section was so painfully short, this whole video felt like matpat was fanboying over samurai
That would be because he was
yeah I thought so too
Ye
Ima be honest. I'm a samurai main
plate armour is superior to lamellar armour, and in some cases is lighter.
You should watch Shadiversity's reply to this.
^Upvote this guy
yep
Just watched it, and man, dude nails it.
Uglúk yah
Knights win...im predicting
Or the knights could use their SHIELDS.
Tygogaming as of talking of 1000 time period, knights were broke af as they were just mercenaries hired to protect castles until the government made them an official army
We are literally not talking about the 1000 period, we are talking about the 1100s. And knights weren't poor during the 1000s either for that matter.
@Nin Shuhood you sir are a moron
Shot in the leg, finished with a spear to the face. The end. ;)
To be considered a knight in England you needed 40 pounds of yearly income. To put things in context a full suit of armour would cost you around 5-10 pounds depending on where you buy. The full equipment of a knight cost him around 20-25 pounds with shields, armour, horses and weapons.
"And past episodes here have shown that knowledge of cultural history can help you win games". Matpat would loose every fight with his bias of samurai, they aren't faster, and knights aren't slower.
th-cam.com/video/qzTwBQniLSc/w-d-xo.html Proof knights can be fast as hell
Mat, you have Metatron, Skallagrim and shadiversity calling you out for inconsistencies. It's not just us nit picky viewers anymore.
bladedoodle just watched all their videos... awesome..
bladedoodle they're just nitpicky viewers with small channels, your point?
Mark VI Gaming Nitpicky must be another phrase for historically accurate.
gladomi OP used the phrase pal, not me. Besides, if you internet warriors are gonna call someone out for something, call them out on something that matters like the theories he does on science, the world of technology and more recent history that still matters.
Mark VI Gaming He's generally not incorrect when it comes to most of his videos so no one can "call him out" on those. When someone gets their facts mixed up then yes it should be corrected as to not spread falsehoods.
Vikings actually were more advanced than you portrayed them...seriously they were successful raiders.
Not in the 11th-
Yep they made the ulfbert (might be spelling that wrong) wait i am
@The Anti-CHAD yes but in that time you had only one lord in your environment who has good weapons and his soldiers where just boys with sticks the vikings where succesfull, but that has also to do with their number, their weapons , their opponent and their scaryness . i dont know if they fought good in like big big battles
Raiding the poor is vikings strong suit...but war...ehhhhh, there's a reason viking lost *All* their territory in England and Ireland. Their army's were too small and less better equipped compared to what the fyred (hope I spelled that correctly) system that Alfred the great astablished...making half of the population ready for war and with some of the best equipment for the time.
@@daan626 they did, the only thing stopping vikings are their lack of siege equipment and lack of reinforcements. Also their armies are small bc scandinavia is not that densely populated
I've been a huge fan of this series but seriously matpat you need to publicly apologize for all the misinformation in this video.
People here think they know whe none of us know for sure. It's all one big fad at this point.
He says 'I know that we live in a day and age, where people are afraid to be wrong' to say thank you to people who apologized to him about the Gaster video, but never once even mentioning this video and its inaccuracies.
We may not know for sure everything, but we know a lot. And MatPat got every single thing wrong in his video that is approved in academia or martial arts communities.
Yep, I have to agree. While he said he did research, its obvious that he didn't.
he needs to make a video crediting the people who corrected him and make a new verdict
So you’re not gonna mention at all how much stronger and heavier knights swords were? Or that they wore helmets like the samurai? Or that many had kite sheilds that covered from the torso to the knees. The whole reason a shield exists is to protect from swords and arrows. You also disregarded the shield for the Vikings.
Knight swords are actually light...
@@Monterey96 The majority of knight swords are pretty light.
@@fransthefox9682 they really weren’t. Swinging 40 inch 4 pound pieces of metal is pretty hard especially with the greatsword which weighed 10 pounds with armor. Katanas are shorter and weigh 3 pounds. Also most knights didn’t even carry Longswords they’d carry maces which usually weigh 10 ibs and are about 3 feet long which is still longer than a katana which is a huge advantage. Also the weight is also a huge advantage. Katana weren’t even used by the samurai they’d use long bows and spears which still wouldn’t be able to get through the shields of the knights or armor
@@Unknown_Meliodas Except most longswords are 3lbs on average, with a little under 3 and 3.5 being an acceptable range. Very few actual longswords are 4lbs or higher. The heaviest sword is the Zweihander, and it weighs at most 7.5lbs. Furthermore, this video is comparing the three groups as of their 11th century variations. In which knights were using arming swords which are somewhere between 2-2.5lbs. Maces don't weigh 10lbs and are usually much smaller than three feet, in fact I can't recall a mace at three feet so I would be very interested in the one where you get that number from, so send me a source/link if you can!
Lastly, the main weapon of a knight, throughout their existence but especially in the 11th century, is the lance. Knights are like Samurai in that they are elite cavalry usually whom can fight on foot if needed. Maces, swords, rocks, battleaxes, warhammers, and other weapons are generally sidearms to be used once the lance is out of reach, broken, or no longer effective due to range.
Now, I do agree with you that swinging around a sword of any size or make is incredibly exhausting. This is coming from someone who trains and practices with real swords frequently. However, the Japanese and Europeans really wouldn't be very different from each other strictly due to sword strength. Cheers!
@@conor6607 although this is true the long sword and even arming swords are leagues better than the katana. Arming swords were double edged and and still longer than the katana. Arming swords were used with shields which is an even bigger advantage.
The knight would have won because he would just throw his pommel and end him rightly.
I see we all enjoy Skallagrim once in a time ^^
Kackpuh the meme will never die.
Kids, never do this at home alone, even if it's just a pommel of your plastic sword, since pommel itself can cost ten times the destruction of an atomic bomb when thrown rightly. So, be safe, do it with your parents.
lol
Tommy Gun you sir are a hero
Just a warning to anybody who watches this and isn't very familiar with Medieval military history: this video is VERY inaccurate.
up you go.
It's a shame that MatPat seems to value entertainment and storytelling far above the actual truth these days...
true
Good Knight United So who would win in your opinion?
for someone who studies history mostly every sentence is a pain...
Longswords... In the 11th century??? Way wrong. The earliest ones were 13th century. They had one handed swords. 11th century knight defeated by arrows? Wrong. They wore padded armor that stopped arrows, mail that stopped everything else, and most importantly; they freaking had shields! You know, those things were specifically used for not getting hit by arrows for nearly 4,000 years? Not withstanding that their equipment was meant to stop actual warbows, with draw weights often over 100lbs, and samurai bows were very weak so that they could be used from horseback and rarely exceeded 60lbs draw weight. Samurai wearing 15th century armor in the 11th century? Nope. Vikings not wearing iron armor? They had mail hauberks, steel helmets, and even some lamellar plate! Seaxr expensive weapons? Wrong! Seax were used by even the poorest warriors, and going raiding was an upper class pastime, so they tended to be the richest of the rich, just like knights and samurai. Not so much as a mention of their swords, polearms, or padded armor? Someone failed to do their research. Still enjoyed the video though!
Also, Vikings did not depend on shock and intimidation for victory. They often went against trained armies, and often won. And while he's right samurai preferred to fight from horseback while protected by their servants, they were by no means afraid to fight in a melee. In fact, they and their servants typically formed a sort of triangle, with the samurai at the front, and while the servants used pole weapons to control enemy weapons, the samurai would take them out with a spear or koto.
Ethan Dunn you sir summed up all my gripes about this half assed "theory". A cookie to you my good man!
ARROWS GO RIGHT THROUGH GAMBESON LOOK UP "GAMBESON VS LONGBOW"
I agree completely but please for theorists sake, please correct in a matter where we have "slight(I know he was a way off)" errors and not a bumbling idiot.
Padded armors is a lie.
Matpad: its unfair to compair a 15th century knight in full armor with a viking
Also: 11th century knight with longsword.
9:16 You know that if vikings want to invade such a place they would bring siege weapons right?
@@m.m2594 its not sure Ragnar even existed but ok.... You are doing the same as matpat and getting your info from media, but the vikings did raid Paris many times.
No BeCaUsE tHeY aRe ToO sTuPiD
tO fIgUrE oUt AnYtHiNg AnD tHe TrEeS wErE fRoZeN lOl
@@gar0th650 Rollo the Walker did exist and he didn't raid Paris but he did form Normandy towns and his off spring a mean like 4-5 generations later had got putt on the British thrown
Matpat: Vikings were terrible
*Harold Hardrada, Viking King of Norway 1046-1066:*
*[Laughs in Money]*
*[Laughs in Experience from fighting Arabian Pirates in the Mediterranean, fighting for the Kievan Rus, Fighting for the Byzantines, fighting in the Holy land and much, much More]*
*[Laughs in CHAINMAIL ARMOUR]*
Plus didn't Vikings take drugs to enhance there strength also didn't they take pain killers before battles
He overlooked Hardrada, one of the Vikings that had one of the coolest names ever
Why do tell, how did his tale end? Did he die peacefully at an old age surrounded by wealth or did he die a hero's death? Oh wait, wasn't he shot through the neck using a narrow.....
@@gipsy_3o3 Bit late reply but that is largely a myth, they only took drugs when they wanted to party, berserkers did probably gnaw on their shields and get wasted before a battle tho, lol. They did drink a lot more milk though which meant they were a bit taller and healthier.
@@cruelfish4824 ohhhh great clear up thanks
The amount of people who are now thoroughly misinformed is kinda sad.
This was a sponsored video. I died inside when we started talking about Samurai. I feel like Ubisoft did the research for him or gave him all the info.
Noobazzah he did his reserch tho
Gerardo Mendez no, he did not. So many things were outright incorrect. For instance, Scandinavia wasn't (and isn't) a frozen wasteland.
It's alright. I was one of the people who trusted Matpat with this information but then immediately noticed the debunked videos in the recommended list next to this video and got properly caught up.
It should be alright. Maybe
Matpat: and the winner is the samurai
Historians: allow us to introduce ourselves
please dont
So a knight - Shadiversity
A viking - Skallagrim
And a samurai - Metatron
Walk into a bar
Matpat: i got all facts wrong
MatTwat will never admit to his faults, in fact I think I remember not long after being called out he actually insulted the ppl who called him out on his historical accuracy before he quickly deleted the post so as to not look like the uninfomed immature egotistical moron he is
@@GenericUsername-qp1ww Then we have the other egotistical pricks like you, he got stuff wrong oh well, why do you think it's called a theory
@@theapproachingstorm2133 matpat being factually incorrect is not the problem here. What is really bad is that apperently matpat couldn't accept that he was providing false facts and therefor lashed out on people who were trying correcting him. Its embarrassing how childish matpat initially handled the issue.
@@samasterchief Yeah, but it's also childish to deal with it in the manner you're dealing with it, in the end none of it matters, he made the video, for debunked, was a bit childish, so what? It legit doesn't affect anyone
@@theapproachingstorm2133 oh definitely. This video was 2 years ago, most people don't really care much anymore about what happened in this video and just joke about it. I was talking about your statement and tried to justify why people didn't like how matpat handled the situation.
wait wouldn't Vikings and knights have shields?
you're right! Knights have shields but not too sure about vikings.
MuumiLimu Vikings used shields as much as knights did
ok. thanks!
Viking's shield were pretty durable because of the wood
He got the armor part wrong too, for the Vikings at least. I'm something of a fan of those guys (don't ask why I just like 'em) and researching about them had me learn they DID in fact wear chainmail. And although they did thrive in intimidation, they were adept at warfare as much as any other "warrior race" out there.
Remember when MatPat used empirical evidence and not stereotypes?
Those were good times.
i member
Yeah this was before he became Ubisoft's bottom bitch.
No. That never happened.
pepperidge farms remembers...
indeed, his logic has always been scewed and his premisses have often been straight up false
5 years later and I’m still waiting for a follow up video, taking the characters as they are into account - and also now including the wu lin
matpat: vikings didnt wear armor
documented proof of viking mail armor: am i a joke to you?
Yes, you are
You just had to be that one guy didn't you 😂😂😂
@@boreman_rides Deus vult
@@witchhunter6755 ?
@@boreman_rides yees?
Actually we have found viking swords from roughly that time period that were made from steel that was stronger than any other type of steel from that time.
Also they were NOT a raider society. Most of them were farmers and traders.
Plattfisken and They had these things called shields to block arrows
You are confusing vikings with nords. Vikings were raiders, but not the nords.
Plattfisken Crucible steel?
Plattfisken even experienced warriors spent most of their lives not fighting
Ah yes. That glass horse. They take one arrow and flop. My favorite type of horse.
@@haaaah7 feeling pain and being struck with a disabilitating or killing blow are not the same thing and that goes quite so for horses
Have any of you taken an arrow?
@@isaacshefton5835 I have during an archery lession
@@the_knightcatTTv whered ya take it?
They can still run into battle
“He’s got a bow”
“You idiot, we’ve all got bows”
Shield : im about to end this whole mans theory
Yeah ikr, vikings be like sheild wall bitch
@Bug Man That was during the Norwegian invasion of England. Sadly, they lost, but some of them were glorious.
so accurate the first 3 vids I see in the suggested videos are debunking videos by historical YT channels, Skallagrim, Metatron and Shadiversity for respectively Vikings, Samurai and Knights.
Sorry Mat, this is a mess.
Not sure I would trust their information anymore than Mat's, except maybe Skallagrim, if only because he uses common sense in the actual function of these weapons and armor than any actual knowledge of how this stuff worked a thousand years ago.
they do better resarcg, they know their stuff their aire hisory geek
Christopher Flores that doesn't make a bunch of stereotypes any more credible. Shadiversity and Metatron have given a verifiable take on the argument, as did Skallagrim. I've studied medieval history and those claims that Matpat made on knights made me cringe so hard... Vikings and samurai too, but my knowledge there gets a bit less accurate and only driven by personal research.
JacquesdeJef well, yeah, pretty much. There is verifiable material one can consult to test those claims and they clearly know a lot of it.
What is this resarcg you speak of?
matpat: vikings will be dead because they have bad amor
me: do you think they carry shield for looks
And the knight had kite shields, very good shields
@@witchhunter6755 Vikings had the same aromor as knights in that period + Vikings had better sword, VIkings shields is very good if not better then that period kite shield
@@Бћчешц kite shields were better at horse back, round shields are better at infantry but both surpass samari, I personally would choose kite as it is larger and more protective, though round shield is still very protective, but not as protective as kite
@@witchhunter6755 round shiled have centar grips that are much more advantage then kite shiled, i would always go rather for round the kite but still both are great .
@@Бћчешц ye, one huge andvantege was the grip and center shield boss, if a heavier arrow hit since it's a grip not a strap then it most likely won't hit your arm, though against a Yumi, I don't think one should worry about arrows penetrating
Pretty much every faction at this stage wore chain mail, which was hard to prenetrate anyway by slashing. So vikings did have armor. They weren't these people with no chest plates on winter. I think overall Knights were the best. Best technology at the time. Especially with the castles.
Yeah, just watched a Skallgirm video, followed by Shad and Metatron, they all debunked a lot of what you said. You may want to look into their videos.
we both know he wont. Like a lot of TH-camrs, once they get famous their arrogance level skrockets *cough* Crinja *cough*
And every single medieval warfare enthusiast on TH-cam systematically picked apart the claims made in this video.
Well they are historians or what you would call medieval TH-cam channels that made their research to try to give accurate historical information about their preferred field of history. They picked it apart due to the point that this video made so many misconceptions placed in Hollywood and the media.
Brent Kelley can ya be a bit more specific
and oh boy it was glorious
He brought up batman calling him “samurai batman,” but didn’t say anything about him being called the dark knight.
there is a whole movie about batman being a samurai 😂 - Batman Ninja
Matthew it’s a pun
@@pizzatime1107 was I not adding to it?
Matthew no?
Also, don’t forget Samurai and Ninja are two entirely different things. Samurai didn’t like the type of combat the Ninja’s used. They thought it was dishonorable and below themselves. Calling Batman a Samurai is wrong, not only because the movie is called Batman Ninja. But also because Batman’s style of fighting is more akin to that of a Ninja’s. Batman uses stealth and strikes from the shadows. Striking fear into his opponents.
Oof
1. Vikings used mail armor
2. They also had shields (That were good)
3. It wasn't a cold barren wasteland
4. They had horses, good weapons, amazing hand to hand combat, and if rich actually got a sword
5. The weapons were notably made of some of the best steel found.
6. They bows
7. They varied from size
8. Have a good day
Firstly, where is he from? Is he Germanic, Italian, French? Is the knight using plate, maille, or something in-between? Is the knight using anti-armor weapons?
Is the samurai pre or post Waring States? Because that matters a lot. Is the samurai wearing leather armor or plate? Is he mounted? Has he dropped his polearm?
Is the viking a Dane, a Sweed, or Finn? Is he particularly wealthy? Pre or post Viking Invasion?
Please remember, pretty much everyone in this period used polearms. Spears are important.
All of this is necessary.
Sincerely, a fan of;
Ian
Matt
Llyod
Skall
Metta
Kevin O'Neal This comment encases all of the issues with the knight section of this video. Also we have to remember that vikings did wear mail armor ( at least to my knowledge).
Noice job mayne
Also, *MAILLE CAN STOP ARROWS*!
Kevin O'Neal I don't know why, but these medieval combat videos seem to be matpats worst researched videos.
Hans Kekhoffer it doesn't matter what they all had, they could only use the things that they had in the 11th century
Kevin O'Neal also a major part of Finland isnt scandinavia, atleats we dont want to be called that instead we want to be call "The Nordic" aka Sweden,Norway,Denmark,Iceland and Finland
Ja torilla tavataan
You forgot the super-effective technique the knights used-- unscrewing their pommel and throwing it towards their enemy. The Samurai wouldn't stand a chance.
Lemons & Listerine they would end the samurai rightly.
Lol The Pommel of Mass Destruction!
thats how they bombed Hiroshima
or they can use a shield
END HIM RIGHTLY!
«They had nothing to protect them from arows»
shield: am i a joke to you
Yes, yes you are
It's shield* 😁
Yeah like what happened to those? With the shield the knight would have been able to block attacks while trying to take down the horse
@@gamingtriscuit9200 as would the Viking
@@gamingtriscuit9200 Also knights used horses but Matpat is too stupid to know better
Cant believe it's been 4 years. Matpat, stick to film and game theories. Leave historical accuracy to the pros.
Says you wear greaves on your arms
*TRIGGERED*
IT'S GAUNTLETS
i think
Crawmerax correct
This quite literally triggered me when I heard it
Or vambrace. Though Im not sure if that term would fit in the time line. Still, a common name for armour of that area of the body.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. --Attributed to Winston Churchill.
Matthew thinks that arrows are one-shots at literally anything.
Well they are, depending on where they hit.
Mate, in real life an arrow in the Middle Ages would probably have been a death sentence: an arrow in the shoulder or knee would cut an artery, an arrow in the gut would be deadly, the head would, for obvious reasons, be deadly, and anywhere else would’ve significantly weakened them or killed them through infection
@@smiledonnice I get it, but samurai were great horseback archers. A Viking shield wouldn’t have been very big, and they can only outrun a horse for so long. Saying a Viking might win is objectively wrong, even considering the fact that they had chainmail (which means matpat is wrong) and shields, since they would just get get run loops around by a samurai on horseback, who could just take potshots with a bow
@@smiledonnice that’s not how horseback archery works, and running loops around someone is a metaphor. How do you think the Mongols conquered most of the known world at the time?
@@mayoandbananasandwich6527 mongols are accurate because they lived as horseback archers and hve centuries of experience against china... the japanese barely even had horses and were isolated for the most part
Matt, please watch Skallagrim, Metatron, Shadiveristy and Snap Jelly's videos. Then think about what you said. Then make a new video. I'd say the viking would have it. Viking bows outshoot japanese yumi, their chainmail was just as good as that of 11th century knights, and their roundshields not only make archery useless, but were also very effectively used in melee to counter and parry weaponds with little to no effort, thanks to the centre grips.
I agree but there's no real reason for a new video, because the answer is just "depends on the fighter"
dabombdigity34 But he could at least update the description saying that he was wrong so people aren't misinformed
vikings have 3 major disadvantages over the other 2 factions though
1 vikings had little to no cavalry
2 no only did they lack cavalry of their own they also lacked measures to deal with those who did have it (the viking long spear is one thing they had against it) and maybe a good volly of arrows will help but if shock cavalry lives through their arrow volleys and get pased thier longspears, its pretty much game set match
3 a severe lack in siege works, i coudnt find much of vikings using siege works as they rarely had them, that said its true 11th century castles needed little of those, however if we looked at it like all factions were in their golden age, well, vikings (as for as i know) never had plate, and knights would have the massive stronghold castles we know pretty well, which were nearly impossible to take without proper siege works
4 that said though in a golden age scenario samurai would win no doubt as they'd have basic firearms and cannons
but if shock cavalry lives through their arrow volleys and get pased thier longspears
and get pased thier longspears
this hardly ever happends, it's suiside for cavalry
Vikings beat Samurais (from that period), and they both are beaten by Knights. Knights and vikings from that period are pretty much the same, with little difference, that include shield type (knight's kite centergrip vs viking's round centergrip), cavalry (knights had some, vikings none), ships (vikings had better) aaaand that's about it. I like 'em all, pretty much equally, but I do have to admit, that it's the knights that have the advantage.
Matpat: vikings only had shields and axes as weapons
The ulfberht : am i a joke to you
You're the first person I've seen in the comment section, who mentioned about Ulfberth
@@amartyabiswas4972 yeah well
I've done my homework about history
@@celtic7029 same here. This theory was disappointing
@@amartyabiswas4972 heh
Tell me about it
@@celtic7029 I'm mildly disappointed that he is just portraying the Vikings as mindless brutes, while the Knight doesn't even gets much of mention. And then starts fanboying over Samurais. I almost started laughing at the end of the video.
I think you forgot to do your research Sir Mat
jack storm I don't understand the hate on this video. (I haven't seen the whole video yet)
Alot of historian youtubers came forward to point out that almost everything in the video is wrong.
well, i believe it does get intense when youtubers, who study history get involved. personally i don't know a lot about samurai or viking culture or knights, but i do study medieval weaponry and A) people didn't go bare chest in a fight. especially with the raiders. Please let it be noted, that i love matpat and his vids, but as a guy who studies history and myths, this was one of his worst one. No offense, my fellow fans.
he didn't forget it. he saw that it didn't serve his purpose and slowly but steadily killed it by burying it alive.
BloodyValentineJoke
i like this guy, this guy is nice
Mat Pat, I usually respect your research and logic in your videos except this time I disagree. While the other factions' armor is more or less accurate, the viking armor worn in this game is an awful representation. It was rare for a viking to wear chainmail but in the 11th century during the end of their influence I'd bet a horse they would have had substantial armor. The bones and furs they wear is purely fictional. Berserkers on the other hand would have purposefully worn no armor as they were shock troopers meant to scare and panic the enemy. You clearly didn't take into account any tactics of any factions. The samurai as well would have worn mostly wood and leather rather than metal which would be used later. The vikings do have a disadvantage because their time of influence was earlier than both the samurai and knights but at in the 11th century, vikings and knights would be almost identical in armor, tactics, and weapons. In fact, the photo you used for the background of the knights were the normans. Normandy is a province of France founded by the vikings. Lastly, the comment about the vikings inability to take castles really got me going. Examples of vikings taking castles and fortified cities: Siege of Paris (both times), Danelaw (almost all of England), Constantinople, Athens, etc. The influence of vikings greatly eclipsed those of both knights and samurai and there is no bloody way to disrespect them like that.
Uplike so that he can read this. thanks
Quick read of History of armor (Wikipedia) supports Matpat. While Vikings might have had the equivalent of heavy gambesons or boiled leather, that's still not enough to keep arrows out, considering that the knight and samurai are both cavalry and had access to heavy-pull bows. Medieval Europe (and especially the 11th century Europe) does not seem notable for the heavy use of horse archery. Remember that the starting central assumption is that the three warriors must come from a time all three were actually active, and would embody that time period's version of each archetype.
Jason Barkey Ok, now go out and do some more research on this topic, Wikipedia is a good place to start, but you shouldn't quote from it
Luke Van Horn samurai never used wood armor, wood armor existed in Japan but it was before samurai, wood armor faded out long before the samurai, like horn helmets on vikings, but don't take my word for it take Raphael's down on the metetron channel he actually has accurate videos on knight and samurai, but the viking stuff go to scall for
One Minor correction, Samurai did not have any Wooden Armor, their is Wooden Armor in Japan but that Predates Samurai.
"That's just a theory."
ahem.
So kids remember.
1. Shields don't exist
2. Vikings lived in a wasteland and could not survive without raiding
3. Vikings went into battle naked
4. Samurai are the only people in the world to have used bows
5. Samurai arrows can go through machine guns and reach the sun
6. Katanas are the greatest ever and can cut tanks in half
7. Viking weaponry was put together by a drunk 4-year-old
8. Knights had swords heavier than Thor's hammer
9. Mail is basically butter
10. BERSERKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hate that everyone thinks that large swords are heavy, the bigger greatswords are like 3kg, and can be swung almost as fast as a katana because they generate so much momentum.
You are wrong on so many levels.but it's ok matpat is the one to blame ps I like him a lot but he just chose a time period were vikings practically didn't exist
This made my day. And you should edit/change "guys" into "kids". That would be hilarious XD
shield cant protect your horse from arrows,and in combat the one that stays on his horse wins regardless of weapon,true viking had cloths,mostly leather(fur) to keep them warm,but not much protection.And yea chain mail is butter when it comes to protection from longbows,in truth if you stacked paper instead of chain mail of same thickness that paper would provide better protection from arrows and i mean way better.Also if anyone thinks you can block arrows as they come then that guy is idiot,by the time warrior falls from horse and gets his balance back another arrow is already on its way.When it comes to combat,archers on horseback are superior to any other unit,why do you think Chinese built that wall?Archer on horseback are superior to even full armored templar knight,because there is no way for knight in full plate armor to ever get in melee range of archer,and reason for that is simple,archers use lighter armor which is less strain on horse which in turn lets horse be faster and can run longer.You can put all 3 of these against one mongolian archer and he would probably win.
we're talking 12th century here. Full plate armor came much MUCH later.
Gambeson + Chain Mail is more than enough to withstand 12th century
Japanese arrows.
*WARNING!!!!*
The next video contains misleading information, only watch it as a mean of entertainment.
It’s only off by a bit, but it was unbalanced cuz the Vikings weren’t as poor as MatPat said, the Samurai got a horse, and the Knights were correct. In reality, the Samurai would die first, followed by either Vikings or Knights. It would go either way.
@@DystopianDustin No, it's actually of by quite a bit. There are multiple videos debunking this video, dude lol
Matpat ignoring that knights were often lords of their own feifdoms with plenty of money to spare
And being able to hire militia as grunts to help them
Ahhh. No
@@patricklevens4751aah yes but of course, because blankly stating that something is wrong without explanation, obviously makes you correct.
All lords where knights but most knights where not lords.
@@Waftey That wouldn't have changed anything, since he didn't include the samuri's grunts either in the battle
As a scandinavian myself, I need to point out that you are wrong. We have alot of wildlife, deers, boars, etc and it's always been like that. I'm from Sweden, but I live in iceland atm, so the Vikings are my ancestors and I do alot of research on them on my spare time.
Primarily, the Vikings were merchants and farmers, and secondary they were plunderers.
Let's make an example, iceland. We are an island, thus surrounded by water. The Vikings did have knowledge about fishing, and whale hunting has been a thing since prehistoric times. Yes we did Plunder, but the main reason was for treasures, not for food.
You should be more weary about your sources. I know it was a joke, but still.
The Vikings created alot of trading ports in current Estonia and other areas of eastern europe. some of them lived as mercenaries and body guards for Turkish kings of old.
And to talk about the arms for the Vikings, you are wrong there aswell. Vikings used both riveted chainmails and Lamellar armour. Either that they traded, plundered or manufactured themselves. It's true that not every Viking wore these kinds of armor, but some did. And if I know my history correctly, which I'm pretty sure I do, Samurais also wore Lamellar armor.
And Viking spears were not made for throwing, they were made to stab while standing on a distance. They even had Atgeir, (Predecessor of the French Halberd) also called chopping spear. You seem awfully partial on this matter. Read too much manga? ;)
Very nice comment!! I just disagree on one thing:
1.
Vikings *did* have spears for throwing. If I remember correctly, Anders Winroth in his book _The Age of The Vikings_ (I highly recommend it, but first watch a lecture with Anders and see what you think), stated that their bigger spears were for throwing and their shorter ones for stabbing; however, Marjolein Stern and Roderick Dale in *their* book, _Vikings: Culture, Raids, Legacy_ (great reference book), stated the opposite: the bigger spears were for stabbing and the shorter ones for throwing. Either way, though, they did have spears for throwing and for stabbing.
You're, I'm sure, familiar with the Norse god Odin. Odin's sacred weapon was the spear, which is why he had Gungnir (his spear). The way sacrifices were made to Odin involved spears (I won't go into detail). Because of this, sometimes before battle, a Viking would throw his spear over the enemy army shouting, _"Óðinn á yðr alla!",_ meaning "Odin owns ye all!" It was a kind of symbolic sacrifice. In this description, a spear was thrown. Also, spears were, according to multiple sagas, generally thrown at the beginning of a duel, and then the swords were drawn.
Jack Yeah I think you're right there. My point was not to deny that the Vikings were carrying spears to throw, but to point out that they were mainly used as a stabbing weapon. I admit that I worded that sentence poorly.
However I do believe that a Viking (let's say in a Lamellar armour) would stand a chance against a samurai (which is wearing Japanese Lamellar armour)
They have similar armour, both know how to wield a bow and arrow, however the Viking also have a sword or an axe in his arsenal.
The samurai fires an arrow, but hits the Vikings shield.
The Viking drops his shield and draws his bow. He fires it and hits the horse that the samurai is mounted upon and the horse falls over, trapping the samurai under it. The Viking then rush over, and hits him with the axe.
What do you think of this scenario?
Oh, OK then.
I agree; I think a Viking would stand a chance against a Samurai. I'm rootin' for him all the way and I won't cover up my bias. Maille would probably be better than lamellar, though, because it wouldn't have to have points of connection and is probably as protective while exceeding in range of motion.
They would both know how to wield a bow and arrow, but the Samurai would know to use that better, as the bow is typically the Viking's fourth weapon, meaning he may not even carry it, as carrying that many weapons is kinda abnormal :D.
I think scenarios in general are difficult to come up with simply because of how many factors to take into consideration. Given you gave the short version of the story, I think it's, taking that into account, a decent scenario. Of course, there is still the Knight to consider, so a new scenario would be needed even if just for that :D. There's one thing that a lot of people seem to think and I don't think I'd agree with: horses going down with one arrow. I think it's possible, but not plausible. I've read that even if a person's heart stops, they can keep going for 10 seconds. Even if you could manage to shoot accurately, penetrate all that muscle, and hit the heart dead on, there are a few things to keep in mind. Firstly, the arrow itself would plug the wound. The Mongols did something with some of their arrows (I think this is brilliant), where they would design the arrow so that when it hits the target, it works its way back out and the person can bleed out. I don't think Vikings had those arrowheads, though. With that in mind, even if the Viking shot straight into the horse's heart, it could probably still keep going for a while, at least. I think that if he shot it in the eye it would be, first of all a really impressive feat, second of all probably that horse.exe would stop working. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I think scenarios are just difficult to come up with. I would say even Death Battle does only a pretty OK job, but even then I think the question is flawed. Here's what I say on this matter: don't ask, "Who would win?" Instead ask "Who has better equipment?" I think that would probably be a fairer question to ask because "Who would win" takes into consideration completely, 100%-unanswerable questions such as, "Where are they fighting," "Who are the individuals," etc. Obviously, if it were Conor McGregor VS a 5-year-old with a pocket knife, Conor would win, but seeing how these warriors considered are said to be equally-skilled and we don't know how that would play out, I think we should consider their armament.
Sorry for the essay *facepalm* I do it every single time, darn it...
#1:PILLAGE DA BLOODY TOWN!
#2:STEAL DA GOLD!
#3:RAPE DA WOUMAN!
Sucess
What the hell with all these essays in the comments
matpat : I know who would win between a knight a samurai and a viking!
Shadaversity, Skallagrim and Metatron: So you chose death.
(so you have chosen death, i belive, sry for nitpicking)
The Samurais are original and primarily an archer cavalry very similar to the mongol and the Huns because they all practice asiatic warfare, So that being said just look at the history, the Huns designate the roman legionaries and the the Mongol butchered the Europeans knights that outnumbered them 10 to 1 in their expedition in Europe.
The asiatic archer cavalry warfare is unparalleled only the invention of firearms saw its end
@@karlmarx3947 that's very misleading to say that honestly. Because the mongols and huns fought the Europeans and Roman's in different manners than the samurai would of. They had a "coward" fighting style that involved tricking into ambushes and forcing falls charges. Saying that the samurai would fight this same way is simply wrong in my opinion, when you look at the mongol invasions of Japan and they did this very strategies to beat the samurai as well.
@@karlmarx3947 actually the european knights performed well against them, it's just that the mongols had superior commanders and tactics
The holy trinity of the three classes of warrior.
1)Knights were also the 1 percent.
2)SHIELDS!
3)You forgot to account for the Japanese Great bow and how low quality of iron they had.
*Distant sound* Did you hear that?
*Sound flies closer* It can't be......
*Pommel flies by, grazing my beard hair*
SKALLAGRIM : Nay! t'is peasant Mat giveths to thou blastphamous wordings! By the grace of Odin thou Mat shalt be perish'ed, thou naughty mushrump!
Insatiable Chaos *claps*
Omfg I'm picturing that scene right now and it is priceless! Also, I'll have you know that Skallagrim did indeed end Matpat _very_ rightly
Insatiable Chaos I love you.
I love this
We've got some serious alternative facts going on here...
Sverdhugr Kveykva hilarious, but not true
Ugh! "Alternative facts" is just a better word for intentionally misleading lies. The worst you could say abut this video is that it's honest but inaccurate. There are worlds between the two terms.
@Drace90 Dude you are trying waaay too hard to defend Matt. You can't even call the video honest cause he claims this is a historical analysis and there are MANY details that are just wrong and don't make sense.
Just because its wrong doesnt mean its dishonest. If I honestly believe 1+1=3, then me saying 1+1=3 is not a lie.
Jen Provo because Gods not real you freakin mormon!!!
Mat, you seem to have mixed up common medieval warriors and knights. If we are talking for honor, then knights are the equivalent of these rich samurais
Hell the only difference btween early knights and vikings were the helmets and sometimes in later periods, the shields, not to mention that all three are the elite of their society if we wnt the best of the best lmao
5:00 "the mythology is all people really know"
You included, clearly lmao
Nah he doesn't even know mythology, only the stereotypes.