Game Theory: Who Would Win -- Samurai, Knight, or Viking? (For Honor) 

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.

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

sounds like islam...

It is.

kinda

Because it's Europe-islam

valhalla isn't really a heaven. It's an endless war for vikings to enjoy, but do you really think endless dying is wining?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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...

Knights

Samurai

Vikings

Wulin

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.

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

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.

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

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...

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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 RU-vidrs 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

Saw that vid to😅

Your about to be converted to Christianity.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qzTwBQniLSc.html

@@i_love_starwarshookers693 Loved the backflips

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

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?

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.

Samurai didn't even HAVE chainmail. They didn't have the metal for it.

@@The360MlgNoscoper The existence of Kusari-gosuko would disagree.

@@jeffreygao3956loser

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!!!

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.

+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.

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.

@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

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

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

Yep

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

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

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.

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.

Yes sir, yes sir! The Scandinavians had some of the very best metalurgical processes in the world at the time, and may have been the original inventors of case-hardened steel. They were quite a bit more intelligent than they were given credit for. Probably because the majority of their histories were written by people butthurt about getting their asses kicked. The author of this video for some reason just decides that they didn't have good steel because their countries were too cold. Which is stupid on top of stupid. On top of their helmets (minimal) armor and weapons being made of very high quality steel, their bows were quite powerful for the era, and their shields were one of the very first examples of composite materials being used by anybody for anything. The shields were designed to catch the blades of axes, spears and any kind of thrusting weapon like a short sword or dagger. This would essentially disarm their opponents who had to choose between trying to wriggle their weapon free or ditching it altogether. They were also very large, providing an excellent defense of vital areas from archers.

jaret217 true, but matpat is right, not during the 11th century

jaret217 "The Scandinavians had some of the very best metalurgical processes in the world at the time" Yet i'm swedish and my metal foundry malfuncioned a bit and went up to around 3000 degrees celsius and there poured out lava and molten metal from its parts... you can see my fail on my channel

That's because you're not a true Scandinavian, Milton

Before anyone saying Ulfberht is wootz. Ulfberht swords lack tungsten and vanadium in content but it has high amounts of phosphate inclinations in it. So there's that. Also this is Damascus under the microscope: www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.fig.1b.lg.gif This is Ulfberht and other Frankish swords under the microscope: www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_b/illustr/ulfberht_frankish_microstructure.jpg From what we can see here is that the crystalline structure is more homogenous in the Ulfberht, but it is made from the same steel as the other Frankish swords. The homogenous crystalline structure is due to correct quenching and tempering methods, what we see on later High Medieval European swords but without the phosphate inclinations and instead we see a far more homogenous steel base. From what I have seen is clear evidence that they used the same forging methods as seen in other Frankish swords, with the same steel but the quenching method was different. We know sand and oil was very common. Water quenching makes harder steels as it cools faster. But Ulfberht swords aren't very hard, at most 550 Vickers at the edge but it varies from 200-550 from sword to sword. Maybe wet sand? Now the wet sand is just a hypothesis (which MatPat confuses for theory).

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?

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

Skullagrim vs. MatPat in a DeadLock that would be interesting ;)

Dont forget the other two large medieval RU-vid channels, Metatron and Shadiversity!

eh I'd give him a 4/10 maybe a 5/10 at least he got the part about Samurai being mainly archers correct. Most people go 'Katana oh mer gerd!"

Darkgeasss Nope check metatron's video on this.

reniorjd I have

reniorjd metartron has stated in multiple videos hat the samurai were bow users. I'm not saying that matpat got many things right, but he did have he presence of mind to realize that samurai did use bows

He got ONE thing right, how is this a 4/10?

DEUS VULT

hl3? /s

Ave Maria Deus velit,

But why let a little historical accuracy get in the way of a good crusade.

D E U S V U L T !

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.

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

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.

Jeho Cho Lets have good hearted debate, ok? >Later in the video states that vikings also wore light armour. > Was that made durring the 11th century? >I think Matpat tries to use the avg. viking warrior in this battle. >Sheilds can only help so much when double teamed. >Irrelevant within the context of this battle. >Yes on the horns. >Irrelevant within the context of this battle. >Never said the knight in the arena used a longsword. >Still had a hard time against a repeated arrow strikes >I think Matpat tries to use the avg. knight in this battle. >Weight payed little factor in the battle. >The samurai never brought their body guards to the battle. So why should the knight? >Superman always beats Goku. Kirby beats everything. >Average knight most likley could not affor armour for their horse. >The knight fell off of their horse. Probably lost their Shield when they fell. >Repeated arrow strikes

Jeho Cho also matpats equivalent to plate mail for the samurai was made of wood

99smartperson He says the wealthiest viking used leather and the average used quilted fabric whilst showing a picture of a viking in a long sleeved T-shirt. Where in reality the wealthiest used mail and the average had a mix of mail, gambeson and leather. Also not every broad category of armour is equal, mail was used for over a thousand years and there were large developments in metallurgy, and armour design throughout the ages. As for metallurgy the Japanese were over 400 years behind the west in the 11th century, so maybe their "plate" is worse than good quality mail. It isn't like the west couldn't make plate, the romans had it 1000 years prior. They just preferred mail for whatever reason.

The difference is that, in the 11th century, "knight" wasn't a term of nobility. That sense of "sir whatever" being a special title didn't come until the late 12th century or thereabouts. At the time of our battle royale, "knight" is basically a synonym for "mercenary", "servant soldier". The sense of "knight" to mean "mounted warrior" doesn't come about until the Hundred Years' War. Samurai, on the other hand, was already a title of nobility.

this is a sponsored video

please dont

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]

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.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qzTwBQniLSc.html Proof knights can be fast as hell

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

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.

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.

Ian Freeman one could say it was a greavous mistake

.......... Thumbs down for the awesome pun.......

Hard to believe he plays medieval games and has not once noticed the difference between gauntlets, lower arm protection; and greaves, lower leg protection. Could google it and you would get the proper answer.

You appear to have spelled "up" wrong my dear sir.

No, actually, he is not. I have not seen a single video where actual historical facts are presented or calculations are correct for about 1.5 years now from him :(

Optimistically though, the amount of fact checking in the comments is refreshing.

he was acurate you know...

Its almost kinda fascinating...

Yes Diego, accurately misinformed!

No he wasn't. Knights and Templar's outclass Samurai in every way. Even Vikings could have taken Japan easily. The weapons and armor of knights far outclassed the samurai's iron sand and wood. The steel from Japan's iron sand is extremely weak and fragile. A Katana wouldn't cut through ring-mail, let alone chain-mail or plate armor. Knights would have broken and bent the weapons of the Samurai with ease. Quality and Quantity over having poor equipment at the start.

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

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

Special thanks to Ubiso....samurai for sponsoring this video.

This video is brought to you by the Weeaboo Foundation for Misplaced Japanese Youth (jk they're american but don't say it to their faces they get all creepy and angry)

Totally. Mat is smart but got a little ignorant.

Ov Wall a little?

Over all, yeah.

Yes, you are

You just had to be that one guy didn't you 😂😂😂

@@boreman_rides Deus vult

@@witchhunter6755 ?

@@boreman_rides yees?

You gust mad 😂

​@@christinahoelscher9029 insulting but can't spell is sad

Matpat knows history he just had alot of inaccuracies, so soft you are...

Thats interesting I've never heard that before. Worth looking into!

Scott Petersen. Any chance that you are danish? If yes then 'Hvordan går det?' If not, your last name is defernetly skandinavian.

Scott Petersen Well good thing he didnt focus on that but in the arrow shooting

Peter Jacobsen I just spent the last 5 minutes trying to find out what "hvordan går det" translates to (^__^)

You're welcome. 'How's it going?'

Well they would loose in a straight up fight against these two. However, they would make for a terrifying opponent in a long time war. One thing we do know about the vikings, be it knights or Samurai they beat both in causing terror and raiding the heck out of your lands.

the only reason the viking woulde lose woude be beacouse that the other two hade horses but it certanly wouldent be as quick and easy as mat pat shows but if they were on foot in thise senario the first to fall woulde probably be the samurai then it can go ither way i say thise video was more of a game over than a game theory.

well the viking had the same armour as the knight at that time

Jesus, I'm reading these comments; and nobody can spell "since"

+max billgren well if Viking are pillaging after every victory they would use same armor and weapons as the other two

He never speaks up as it makes things worse its not like he doesn't admit his faults

Leave him alone

TrentMax Bell no we wont leave him alone, since he is spreading false information. its not like he mistook one thing, he just flat out lied for most of the video

FancyMarine what did he lie about when it came to video, I have watched some of the debunked videos and to me, he did make some mistakes, like the weapons and situation, but he spoke about a certain kind of Viking, not the Normans, but the one who attacked England, and focused on speed and intimidating.

FancyMarine do you know the meaning of theory?

PFCSnafu i now right ?

PFCSnafu I think it's a bit sensationalized and discredits a bit but overall I agree with him, look at the Mongols, they took archery to an extreme and smashed villages to bits with their bows on horseback.

What you fail to see is that the Eastern Asian countries were rarely depicted with any kind of traditional sheild equipment, they had plates yes but the why they are descriped a well place arrow would go through them due to their functionality. Vikings and Knights were all about sheilds and sheild walls and defensive formations, and they also had bows its not like they would be caught off guard by seeing a bow. If the Mongols were the ones int his situation then that mite have some truth to it, while the Samurai were mostly fighting eachother, Mongols were fighting everyone around them, and would pick up more on their Gurella [[cant spell]] Warfare in order to combat them.

Except that if you go watch Skall's video on the topic the best he could find in reference to samuri era bows their range teetered out at around 50m while viking longbows had a range of almost 200m. Also vikings used shield wall tactics while in open battle.

You ask the question and give no answer or even reply to your question. Easy to fake knowledge when you dont give it!

^ That guy is just crazy, am I right?

You said it friend. He's bonkers.

Trigger Bot you forget that he isnt analising them in for honor, he is judt picking up a samurai, knight and vikinh from the 11yh century and making them fight, in game the knights would win for sure

Man, you're awesome.

Trigger Bot *intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes

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.

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.

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.

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

we both know he wont. Like a lot of RU-vidrs, once they get famous their arrogance level skrockets *cough* Crinja *cough*

Wow, I think, that only writing that in the description isn't enough anymore. TB cited a legal case in the US on that if I remember correctly.

You're correct, the FTC also requires sponsorship disclosures be included in the video itself and appear as easy-to-read text or in simple, unambiguous spoken language, as when videos are shared to other outlets the description is not always included. This video violates the law regarding sponsorship disclosure. Until I read this comment I didn't even know it was a sponsored video. Source: mediakix.com/2016/09/ftc-social-media-guidelines-2016/#gs.LKdNabM

I think it's just a metaphor of what RU-vid is.

JasonPlays sponsors probably saw this video and thought "wtf have we done"

yes, especially in the Viking department the information about the Viking were a bit incorrect watch Skallagrim's video if you want to know what the Vikings really carried and how they were armoured.

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

Guillaume Poissant I still think it's still Samurai because they would fight till they have no breath left in their body. And they had good tactics and good armoury

I know more about knights than samurais, and I guess that you know more about samurais than about knights. Something I know about knights, is that they are not the clumsy retarded warriors with no spirituality movies and video games picture them to be (when they are compared to the samurais). Just like the samurais, most knights did give their lives for a cause. Another point I'd like to bring, is that even though really wealthy samurais did have good armor, it was rare. Japan doesn't have a lot of iron in its grounds so armors were really bloody rare. Also, europeans and scandinaves had superior smelting techniques, making their arms and armors better quality.

watch Metatron video, he'll explain more about the Samurai in 11th century in short: no, the samurai in 11th century won't be able to even penetrate or harm the knight in the slightest their armor at the time were very heavy and unbalanced -> moving is difficult (plus mounted archery wasn't a thing back then) meanwhile, the knight wear gambeson (padded armor) and a layer of riveted chain armor and then full plate armor forget harming them, even bruising them is hard enough to do as their armor is just way too damn thick

the knight would fight to the last breath as the samurai with the same reason: to protect their lord, their vows and their banner

+Bleu IceJay Your first statement is so subjective and is in no way some sort of "standard" principle of behavior for Samurai. As for good tactics and armor (I'm going to use the phrases "effective and well proven" because just saying "good" sounds odd to me, and instead of "tactics", I'm going to use "martial arts" because that's more precise and accurate to what's being compared here; "tactics" is a more encompassing term than just "Man to Man"), the martial arts practiced by Medieval Knights was far more sophisticated and effective than what is portrayed in popular culture, the media, or what the average person thinks. Centuries of warfare kind of warrants progression and a "fine tuning" of the martial arts. They weren't dumb brutes just screaming "Chaaarge!", they were well-trained (often from childhood) experts of an effective and sophisticated system of martial arts.

@@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

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

this! yes, please! About 75% of what is said in this video is plainly false :(

I'm not questioning you, but since you did state what matt said was wrong, I'm curios, what did he say that was untrue?

I'll re-watch it and make a list, give me a few minutes :)

Ghostbl33d The knights were not slow. Metatron did a test in the efficiency of the armors and they were equally matched

Ghostbl33d like it has been found out that rich vikings had swords that were better in every way than greatswords or katanas.

It's just mail. Not chainmail. Mail.

Corrupted Archangel Time line.

Corrupted Archangel Gotta feed the weeaboos

Check the Timeline. This after the defeats of the Vikings in Britain,and an era where the weapons of the Knights were lighter. Meanwhile, the Samurai were quickly rising.

Corrupted Archangel thank you for saying that i did expect better from Matt and yes i am from Sweden so i am a little bias but still if he gave this the justice it deserved then i would not be so peplexed and dissatisfied as i am now

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

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!

and a kite shield

Excuse me, are you talking about the Longbow that literally dominates The French that is FULLY ARMORED BY CHAINMAILS can't do it?

The Longow never "dominated" them. They killed the horses with arrows and the English knights did the rest. (not saying that no knight was killed by an arrow, but they had to get very, very close.)

He forgot the battle of argincourt

i did a basic google search and the answer i got was 'it depends'. It's not like ALL knights had standardized equipment, so whether a samurai bowman could take down a knight would depend on the person. And if we consider further that samurai seemingly did crowd control work on peasants it stands to reason that they wouldn't have much experience fighting armored targets and aiming for weak spots and likewise a knight would probably do their best to conceal them anyway. And the 'it depends' results were from close range. souce: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17451/does-chain-mail-protect-against-arrows

I felt bad when I watched your recent undertale video, seeing you hurt by your fans. But this video was more uninformed than your energy sword/lightsaber video. This is fanboyism at it's finest.

This!. like comparing basketball player to an NFL player and taking the basketball player from some schoolyard and the NFL player from, well NFL.

You missjudge the wealth of knights. Some were wealthy, but most of them were nothing more than better footsoldiers, depending on money from their lords to have equipment.

I had to unsub after this. first crying because he got hate for getting some undertale fact wrong and then following it up with obviously rushed cash in video sponsored by ubisoft. And he just decided to trash any real research and pander to the weeb audience to get a few extra dollars or more gossip or whatever.

Samurai also were not universally wealthy. In fact, quite the opposite. And they also generally had pretty crappy training on average.

Fishing is the most badass thing ever If I win the lottery, the bait n' tackle shop is going out of stock

ThunderAZ27 funny.

Wel.. more like 80% but still.. yes they were indeed mostly farmers

Now they are looked at as, ferocious warriors that are super tall (historically people did not get above 5’8 feet on average unlike nowadays) with their (iconic) horned helmets, but hey, I guess people just let their imaginations run

theItona86 But Scandinavians have been proven to be taller than most others back then. The fact of the horned helmets not being accurate is a well known fact. And it’s not to be taken seriously people obviously know they’re overdramatized. And why Vikings when both Knights and Samurai are actually less accurate in most fiction. And when it comes to The Elder Scrolls Skyrim it’s obviously based of Scandinavia and Norse mythology. But it’s Skyrim, not Sweden, not Norway, not Finland and not Denmark but Skyrim. The inhabitants are Nords not Scandinavians. I mean if we’re gonna jab on thoughts and fiction Samurai would be faaar more inaccurate etc. Besides why’d you comment on this the video is extremely old. The same could be said to me but hey.

indeed

If it wasn't on the internet and just a little conversation, he would be King Smarty-Pants.

its like he Googled who would win and clicked on all the samurai bits.

He's not cocky, you're just intimidated by his intellect and now that he's made this inaccurate video, you decided to jump at the chance to add to the hundreds of hate comments that plague this video. He made a mistake, get over it. He's human just like everyone else, we make mistakes. It's not wrong to correct him but just blindly hating on the guy isn't helping anyone.

>>intimidated by his intellect>add to the hundreds of hate comments

Yep and they definitely did not have mail or swords.

all they stealed was lettuce, right?

Yep, the ulfberht sword is a hoax.

Don't forget the fact that they lived in frozen wasteland, wore cloth to battle (or just went naked) and were powerless to bows. Ye, facts. /sarcasm

Ninjamanhammer Actually they did, the dude in the video was wrong

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?

(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.

I am. That is for sure.

Kaja G Yep, I find it funny how people get so angry about one video on the internet.

Kaja G yup

Yup, a month too late though. Watched all three other videos about this one

Any other videos like this one where I can feast one the hate?