The whole frozen wasteland thing did make me laugh. I do live in sweden. in the north part. up at the arctic circle. That is further north than the south shore of iceland where Reykavik is, And well in a way yeah its a frozen wasteland during the winter. almost no daylight at all temperatures that can go below -40 degrees celcius (thats below -40 Fahrenheit to) But during the summer it is warm. and the sun is up 24 hours a day. we dont have a "night" in well over a month. The most of the summer it never gets dark at all. So we actually have a lot more sun hours during the summer than they have in central europe. The animals do not freeze to death here. you can tile the earth to get food, you can hunt and fish. and the vikings did in general not live this far up. they mostly lived further south in scandivavia. so that "frozen wasteland" is just a freaking silly myth :)
im swedish, (från och enbart bott här i stockholm) you forgot to mention the winter days, its fucking dark here in stockholm that time around at 15-17 or something. depressing as hell. One time I went outside in January month, and it was like a night sky around 16. must have really fucked with people back in the days, who didnt use a clock. oh and as a ethnical scandinavian, living in sweden, (only done family research back to 1600 here though) I would as well say that I would bet my money on the knights over samurai or vikings. with that said, ofc it depends on the warrior and experince, plenty of knights and samurais who were just using the title without living as a warrior and training as one.
yeah the days are short during winter. I did mention that in my post. Even shorter up here where i live. I live in Norrbotten and partially in lappland. But then as i said we have daylight 24 hours a day during the summer. During june an july it never gets dark at all During the 11th century i think it would be hard to say who would win between a vikign and a knight as they could have pretty much that same armor and weapon. so what difference would it be? only personal skill and both knights and vikings could be very skilled
its hard to know, I mean, viking farmers were probably some of the hardestr working people, and strongest because of it, not only just because rowing a god damn boat is very good for your muscles and stamina. with that said, an armored knight was basically a walking tank, and unless you can pull him down on the ground, you would be pretty much fucked. It has been speculated btw, that the "forts" in denmark, all over the country, that was raised during viking age, was actually forts to prepare vikings for the war and invasion of England. And if so, they actually was training like a warrior class, beside just having a father/uncle or veteran teaching you in the village, they went almost professional then.
Comparign a viking farmer with a knight is not realistic. for once it would be a scandinavian farmer. if he is a farmer and dont go "viking" he would not really be a viking :) If we are to compare them we have to compare an a knight with a vikign that is atleast somewhat experienced in battle. A viking warrior. not a scandinavian farmer :) And also "an armored knight was basically a walking tank" as we here are talking about knights and vikings from the 11th century. So the knights would Not be wearing plate armor. They would wear maille armor and a steel helmet. What would the viking wear? well maille armor and a steel helmet so the difference in armor would be VERY small. What weapon would a knight use? a sword and shield. maybe an axe, specially if he is a norman knight. possibly some poleweapon like a large axe or a spear. What weapons would the viking use? well a shield and a sword or axe or a spear or a dane axe. So what difference would it be between them? when it comes to armor and weapons?
well scandinavian was under ice 10.000 years ago, because of ice age from the north. there are "hällristningar" from people back 1000´s of years, 3000 + years that seem to show our ancestors having a hard time living here. but under viking age, it was actually a summer climate almsot. it was really warm in the summers.
yeah but, outside my window today there is snow everywhere. I think vikings up here had to experience that as well. the diffrence between nborthern europe and southern is our dark winterdays. not only do we have snow and cold climate, but its dark very quickly.
The Stoned Videogame Nerd question to the armor. why isnt the face properly protected? or did they just gave that up because its impossible to have one protected vs bullets and also breathing/seeing at the same time. also armor got obsolete in symetric war. once the powder was potend enough it would take too much metal and money to have armored forces. rather take the money and make more guns.
The knights. Larger and stronger than the samurai with a more diverse weapon selection and better armored than the Viking, also the Samurai rarely if ever used shields.
Matpats video was so bad. "Frozen wasteland?" Really? Norway and Sweden are quite pleasant in the summer (not that this is even relevant to the question at hand anyway). Then, he featured pictures from the "viking" television show. Just insult to injury.
Himura Kenshin this damn stereotype as stupid, as "All Russians lives in Siberia in wooden small houses and don't know about world around them" stereotype.
Thank god, finally a youtuber who doesn't give a long-winded disclaimer about how much they enjoy MatPat's videos in general and how he is entertaining and well-researched. It is so obvious that it's just to pander to MatPat's fanbase.
eeh, I've always thought that was just a local ritual before you criticize someone else's point. Or, some sort of anti-drama disclaimer (considering 2016 you tube trends). but that is just my IMHO.
Well, I am pretty sure 2016 will go down on RU-vid as the year of the drama. with all those prank/review/useless channels getting into constant RU-vid wars with each other. People fighting and so on and so on. Huge channels dedicated to just reviewing who called out who (*cough* scarce *cough* dramaalert *cough*) And then you come into this RU-vid community, (metatron, skall, etc. etc.) and everybody is just nice to each other. And there is no drama, just constructive criticism.
Eh, I wouldn't be surprised if most of those disclaimers are honest. The channel certainly is big, and talking purely from a gaming context, the videos are of decent quality. i can see how someone would enjoy the stuff, even if I don't personally. Besides, nothing wrong with being polite. We're talking about a youtube video here, no need to get all militant about it.
Metatron and Shad have also made responses - Raff focuses on the samurai and Shad focuses on the knight. Matt Easton has made an interesting video comparing the seax and the bowie knife.
You mentioned Norman's wearing the same armor as the Vikings or Scandinavian . Well that's for an obvious reason which is... Norman's are descendents of the Vikings . And if it isn't broke don't fix it.
I agree in a way but maille was not a new armor it had already been around for about 1000 years.. If i am not wrong there evidence mail was used atl least 300 years BC But otherwise i do agree on the spreading of armor and weapons. if you fight or trade with someone you will be inspired by them if they have a weapon or armor that is really great it is natural that other people begin to use the same or making their own versions inspired by it
Sral Neman Yes, it was thick, folded paper that acted a lot like gambeson as far as stopping arrows and blades, but it was bulkier than gambeson, and heavier. It's pretty good stuff.
Frozen wasteland with crap weapons? The Vikings were patern welding steel swords 200 years before the Japanese. Also, I don't know what good a slashing sword design like the katana would do against chain mail or medieval steel plate armour...great informative video here.
LMcAwesome A katana is a curved blade with no notable point. It's about as useful against riveted chainmail as a scimitar is. A straight longsword has an advantage in that it may make tip cuts, or stabbing breaches.
Merl Ball That would seem to be the case. However Thrand has done some tests with a Katana against gambeson etc and it is at least capable of thrusts. Not sure what you mean by "no notable point"? Thats the bit on the end, right? Many swords dont have very thin tips. Similarly tip cuts are possible. However, i wouldnt expect a katana to be especially effective against mail since it is primarily a sabre type weapon and thus better for slashing - something which is particularly ineffective against mail. When he did his european straight sword tests against mail, Thrand had a lot of trouble even hacking a few links out while specifically aiming for them. Similarly thrusting, while more effective than slashing, was not especially useful. Simply, mail works.
Matt patts knowlege about historical arms and armour is the same as that of roughly 80% of the world, full of misconceptions and lies. Most people dont care about the reallity of medival combat and thouse who care are a small minority. Im trully thankfull, that chanels like yours exist since your vids helped me to reducate quite a few of my friends^^
Yes! Thank you! I was waiting for you to debunk that video the moment i heard Matt talk about the viking, i was surprised, even Deadliest Warrior did a better research than him.
Hey ThegnThrand, really good video, just wanted to add a constructive suggestion based on what you said about bows, Antony Cummins did a video recently on warbows used by the samurai and he established that nobody actually knows how powerful the bows were historically. There are theories but that's all we've got to go on.
HamsterPants522 , Considering the distinct lack of good armor and shields in Japan, it's a pretty safe bet that they did not need or use very powerful bows.
Ehh, I wouldn't say armor in Japan was necessarily terrible. I mean if layers of cloth can stop longbow arrows, whose to say people in japan didn't use layered cloth armor too? Is there no evidence of it? I'm genuinely curious.
Japanese Longbows are generally less powerful then European longbows Has to do with Japanese Longbows being designed for Horsemen being able to fire while mounted while European Longbows were design for infanty
I have read that it was approximately 110 ibs at least in 1800s which is pretty similar to other nations. Plenty of bows survive from that era and even Europeans handled them after the country opened so I have no idea why people would assume that there isn't any knowledge. But people get hung up on draw weight. Effective archery was more about the arrows landing where there wasn't armour and any draw weight can be as effective(ineffective) at that.
Great video as always :) I think that comparing these three warrior types in the 11th century might be a little problematic. It depends on what we even call a knight, viking, or samurai. I don't know exactly what kind of arms and armor a samurai would use in the 11th century, but I know what we typically think of as samurai are from later period. The same goes for a knight too, a Norman knight is almost a mounted viking. Both the knight and samurai look like they are supposed to be from later periods than the 11th century and the viking looks completely removed from reality. It really irritates me to see the viking stereotype as some sort of fantasy barbarian instead of the technologically and societally advanced elite warriors that they often were. Once again, mail never receives the respect that it should have. It seems like if they were going to portray vikings like that, they should just have made it a fantasy setting and used orcs or something.
Well the games plot involves a huge cataclysm that destroys most of the world leaving the Japanese, European and Norse peoples the only ones alive and living in close proximity to each other...pretty clear fantasy there.
Matt Evans I can say he's good at editing and just making videos overall. However, there are plenty of channels with people who know far more. Pretty much his channel is the RU-vid equivalent of "historical" TV documentaries. Though I can sat he knows more than they usually do. I in no way hate Skallagrim, but he's far from the best HEMA / History / Weapon channel.
Kjartan The Viking! Lol your right, I do believe this guy is a tad less entertaining than skal. Shad from shadiversity is pretty good for plain facts and is funny. Got any I should check?
+Rev Raptor Aren't plate carriers usually solid plates rather than a bunch of small plates though? I'd put it closer to a cuirass, though "dragon skin" is pretty obviously brigandine inspired
I wouldn't say that, cuirass is a pretty broad term, there is ww1 armor based on the cuirass but it's very different. Modern armor is an evolution from the flack jacket and the flack jacket was based on the idea of a brigandine. If we wanted to be picky we could say modern armor is like a coat of plates but the brigandine is just a more evolved version of a coat of plates as is plate armor, the evolution kinda split there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirass
preach brother. sick and tired of the common misconceptions of western history, same as the katana is a godlike sword vs the EU longsword being blunt and clumpsy
exactly. The use of "Vikings" by the original RU-vidr isn't used as a group of profession, the term "pirate", but instead a group of warriors from Scandinavia, which include all those types of Norse warriors (e.g. Varangian Guard, Housecarls, Hirdmen, etc.)
Yeah imagine Hardrada coming back after serving in the Varangian guard, he was a rich man, and he already reportedly had somewhere around 500 men already when he moved to the Byzantine Empire. He probably would have come back even more rich, too bad he was apparently killed by an arrow ''trough the windpipe'' must have had a loose coif or something, or the man who shot him got really really REALLY lucky.
Hardrada and his men were not wearing their chainmail that day. They were at the bridge to get hostages from the people of York who they had crushed mere days before. Harold Godwinson, with his huscarls and men of the fyrds, showed up seemingly out of nowhere, so great had been their speed travelling to the north of England. Hardrada's army could only have survived if they fled back to their ships to get the men and equipment they had left there. Say what you will of the traitor Earl Tostig, but he gave this council to Sigurdson. Harald instead ordered that a few riders would be sent to retrieve the men from the ships and that they would all die there, at stanford brua. Land Waster fell to the earth and only 27 ships of a great armada set sail for home. These warriors were flawed and cruel men, but they were brave. In death Hardrada was reunited with his brother, St. Olaf and Tostig with his brothers who would die at Hastings three weeks later.
He was a really rich man as a Varangian he had the unique right of polutasvarf ("palace pillaging") once the Byzantine Emperor died he could take as much loot from the imperial treasury as he could carry.
Like I said before, I love the unity of this RU-vidr community, because they all join together to talk about one topic and give more information together than they could apart.
I'm honestly impressed with your icelandic (or old norse if that's what you're shooting for) you do seem to have a bit of a problem with Ö but that's very understandible
The 11th century knight still has the advantage against vikings. 1) Knights trained for mounted combat at least as much as they trained for combat on foot. The lance and superior mounted combat skill gives a decided advantage to knights. 2) Knights were every bit as much dedicated to winning battle ideologically, as it was their sacred duty, vowed to God, and sworn before God to their king and their people to fight and win. 3) Not all vikings had decent mail armor, most vikings didn't have slaves and servants, and fighting on horseback was so rare among vikings as to be a virtual non-existant skill. A "knight" had to have decent armor, had to have a proper horse, had to be skilled fighting on horseback, and had servants. These things are literally what distinguished knights materially from every other type of mounted warrior throughout Europe. Vikings prevailed for centuries **before** the 11th century because they were superior infantry as a unit, implementing the shield wall, and they used the superior strategy of surprise, attacking by sea or river at unexpected locations. The common viking warrior was superior as infantry *by far* to the common warriors of every other civilization of pre-11th century history. They were not on par with knights, however, as knights were strictly elite warriors. Normans were vikings who adopted/incorporated knightly warfare into their armies. The Normans didn't change and become the most formidable fighting force in Europe because the viking style was superior, they changed away from viking style warfare to a new style that was superior to viking style warfare - primarily due to knights. They were not vikings any more than post 11th century Danes were vikings. Of Scandinavian descent? Yes. Vikings? No. The English defeated the vikings at Stamford Bridge because they had knights and because they were at least on par with vikings in martial capability, in addition to superior firepower and achieving surprise and taking surprise away from the vikings. Yes, the lone axeman viking who held the bridge is an excellent account of how formidable vikings could be. However, accounts from other battles of the period, such as the Battle of Hastings, also describe similar accounts of isolated warriors making honorable last stands. Vikings prevailed in the north on the coast and in the river ways of France and against England and Ireland. They did not press into the Holy Roman Empire because the Empire was prepared to defeat them the same way they defeated the vikings' pagan Saxon brethren in the time of Charlemagne - with knights.
I think basically you are right. The 11th c was the viking twilight. While it was something of continental Europe's dawn. I believe at this time knights were just as much skirmishers as lancers if I recall the battle of Hastings correctly. Like you said because of certain geographical features it was essential impossible for the vikings to have an equivalent force of cavalry to continental europeans or the japanese. Very interestingly though viking style arms and fighting lived on in the comparatively isolated environment of Ireland for several centuries longer.
It is refreshing to watch this channel and get actual accurate information that has been researched and TESTED so we can get a grasp on how it all worked in the past, great stuff.
The best part about Game Theory's video is that I then watched about a dozen other videos thoroughly debunking everything about it, and I found a whole bunch of interesting channels with great videos to subscribe to. So, all in all, everything turned out OK :)
Great video, this is probably the most in-depth coverage of the response videos. It's good to talk about the armor and the weapons but showing them is better :)
The problem with the theory about religion giving them an advantage is that by the 11th century Scandinavians had converted to Christianity. Hardråde was a devout Christian getting his claim to the Kingdom of Norway through Olav the Holy, a catholic saint.
11th century knights are characterized perhaps most prominently by the Normans' conquering the Anglo-saxons. And the Norman's basically WERE Vikings (even though viking is a verb, not really a noun).
@@Thrand11 Or one could even call them viking knights. There's nothing preventing someone from being both. A viking was just a Norse/Scandanavian who went on raids. While a knight was an armored mounted cavalry man. The Normans qualified on both fronts.
dropping truth bobs brothers! thank you for helping to stop the spread of misinformation. You 2 are a gift to the historical martial youtube community...thank you SKOL!!!
Very interesting, and confirmed what I tought about the origial video. I sensed very early in this video that you were dressed like a norman knight, but thats family abroard for you (Skandinavia - Normandy) :P I almost didn't watch the entire game theorist video, because it offended my norwegianess. Even norwegian kids now a days, would think the original video was full of faults. And it's very warm in the southern parts of Norway, Not like Florida (which I can compare since I have been there), but not like frozen thundra. I got so caugth offguard by the kid. So cute :P
The person behind the camera. When they started talking, it scared the fuck out of me. Lol. Damn headphones. Well done video, but I disagree with who would win. My answer would be that it's a toss up between the two non Japanese warriors.
Don't quote me on timeline contexts, but Vikings around the time have been famed for terrorizing Europe very easily. Sacking unsackable cities, brutalizing country sides, having some of the absolute best gear around making 1 warrior worth a few of Europe's, and having defences of their own that were near impossible to get through for others. For Honor likes to go through their whole "Knights have techmonolagies" binge, but Vikings were far more intuitive in combat.
Frozen wasteland? Yes, In the last ice age most of Scandinavia was covered in ice - half way down Jutland, the main Danish peninsula. But in the Viking Age the climate was different (warmer) than today. Also, most of the Norwegian fjords never ice over today because of warm sea streams. Take the Sognefjord where you can get 250 km inland from the coast. They grow fruit trees all along that fjord today. The climate along the norwegian coast and on the banks of the fjords are stable temperate raining from -5 (-10) to 20 (25) celcius. Denmark as well as southern Norway and southern Sweden have very fertile soil and lots of fish.
And I think he made the common mistake of reading the world and the history by looking out his vindow. The "North" was a sea territory were the seas and water ways were the main infrastructure and inhabitated by many different tribes that over time probably interbred and became much more homogenous + mixing as they took each other as slaves. A small boat was much more affordable than say a good riding horse. They (the tradesmen and the mercenaries) travelled a lot more than many probably think and more than many do today. You find examples of this all over with great similarities between army tactics, army weaponry, religion etc.
I like this video. Exactly. Finally one that understands how the Vikings reasonably worked. Thats right. Thumbs up for you. I live in Sweden. Games are games and have nothing to do with real facts.
Thrand, concerning the direction of overlap in the lamellar armor is that it would "appear" to be determined by whether the wearer was on horse or on foot. Overlapping upward being more advantageous for cavalry, & downward overlap being better suited for infantry. I do not know if that is borne out in archaeology, but it is a conventional conclusion that makes some sense. As for pagan vikings vs christian knights, i believe that this is really just your partiality towards the Nordic showing through! ;) But hands down the best part of the video is the toddler armed with sword, shield, & diaper at 22:06 ! Priceless!
I'm a subscriber to Game Theory and I usually enjoy their content. But boy was I hoping you would do a video on this. Thank you, you seriously made my day.
I don't know about the game, but vikings became knights. And samurai would lose to vikings or knights. So: knights>vikings>samurai. Easy enough for me. Good video. Thanks for sharing the upload.
New to the channel and know next to nothing about actual history (and have very limited viking knowledge despite living in sweden heh). When watching matpat's vid i had a very strong feeling that he was greatly undermining vikings and when scrolling through the comments that was confirmed but also that he got alot of other stuff wrong. Checked out other videos debunking Matpat and eventually came to this one. It was definately interesting listening and seeing a demonstration as you were talking. I know very little about history but will certainly be sticking around to learn more from you :)
Very well made video. I liked how you managed to cover so many points, and show some great excerpts from earlier videos you've made. That was very insightful and entertaining. I've been aching for a good Viking video game, but unfortunately there has never been one, as if no developer ever made a proper Viking action/adventure game. Unfortunately, For Honor doesn't seem hit the mark either. Well, except for one, though it was a Viking Mythology/fantasy action adventure game - named RUNE (yr 2000). That was the first and last Viking game I played and it was absolutely awesome! Hail!
I see nobody taking into account the average height of those people. Anybody who studied historical armors and tombs know that the medieval japanese would be considered midgets today, not much higher than 5 feet. In comparison, europeans were much taller and larger. At that point in time, Norse would have lost their advantage in height. It would probably be tied between knight and viking. The anglo-normands conquered Brittania in 1066 at Hastings, during Viking occupation. Since anglo-normands were descendants of vikings, I guess it could be argued it's a tie between vikings and knights (depends on the definition of both) with the samurai way, way behind on both physical prowess and gear.
The shortest I've ever seen was 160cm, and most were 170cm. They're shorter than most Europeans of the time and of today, but people aren't shorter than they were then. The Japanese are still much shorter, I tower over most of the people I've met at 185cm. But that's anecdotal.
The modern average Japanese man is 172cm, the average European about 177. Essentially the same thing if you go back. Native Americans were/are also a few cm shorter.
First, spot on that For Honor is fantasy and makes little attempt at historical accuracy. It's fun. The point about gambeson effectiveness was spot on as well. A proper gambeson could stop a arrow from a hunting bow( 50-70 lb draw).
paper actually works really well as armour. for example a phone book can be used very easily as a stab proof vest, just duck tape to your chest and unless they have a stilleto style dagger they will be very unlikely to pierce through, durability is an issue though. also 22:08 is possibly the cutest thing i have ever seen
ThegnThrand Yes I will. I have a question and hopefully you can answer it. I asked some otjer youtubers like Knyght Errant, Metatron and Skallagrim before but didn't get an answer. Now I'm interested in your opinion. It's about chainmail. Chainmail is made in a way the rings are set. Normally they go from up to down on the torso. Like this: O O O O O O O O O This goes on to the arms. But if you lay your chainmail down it looks like a t-shirt. So the direction of the rings are changed by 90°. Like this: OOO OOO OOO Wouldn't it be useful to change the direction of the rings by 90° so the will have the same direction like the torso. From up to down. Reason why I think about this topic are swords gliding much better on the torso from up to down than from left to right. Because they could tend more to hook up on the arms by strikes from up to down. The sharp blade could not glide over the rings surfaces rather than goes in between the rings. Sorry for my bad english, but it's really hard to describe that without showing pictures. I hope you understand my point and I hope you know an answering or do a video about this little topic sometimes. Thanks!
Well. What can I say? This is truly a good video. By far, I enjoyed, how everyone debunking matpat petty "Theory" about this subject. Not only he cut out most of the information and ignored most of it, but he also outright lied to people about knights armor, viking's appearance and samurai's weapons. Also, the major ingredient of every war is human factor. I hate, how matpat completely left it out.
A additional fun thing him say it was the paper armor of the time is that there was real paper armor made by the Chinese. While disposable in nature (it was rarely useful past one or two battles) it was as strong as some iron armors at the time. People really underestimate armor.
If all three had the best armour available in their respective culture, a knight wins every time. But if all three were using equal equipment to each other who knows.
One point for consideration. You have equated your test shoots with a 50 lbs bow to a yumi which might have similar draw weights. It's really hard to find good information on Medieval Japanese warbow archery. Everything is basically speculation but if we can assume that Medieval Japanese archers *also* used the same draw technique as modern Kyudo archers then that means that the draw length was immensely longer. The potential energy of the bow is proportional to its draw length and its draw weight. 50 lbs shot with a draw length of 28" will store 25% less energy than at 40" (that is a realistic draw length in kyudo, as crazy as it sounds). I think it would solve many mysteries if someone could authoritatively say what draw length and draw weight were used by Medieval Japanese archers and horse archers.
A Norse warrior would be at a disadvantage I'd think to both the Samurai and the Knight because either one of them had a horse and the Norse warriors fought mostly on foot in most accounts. They may have ridden horses to battle but they would then get into a shield wall. And though the shield wall did prove reasonably resilient to cavalry at Hastings, in a one on one situation, the guy with the horse and lance has a minor advantage. So would the Samurai to some extent but less due to the highly specialized weaponry.
Damn that outfit looks awesome. Is it like 9 centuary armor? IDK when that kind of coifs were used, but IDK that helmet and mail combination looks awesome on you.
I think there is a fundamental difference in the roles played by Vikings, Knights and Samurai. Knights and Samurai were pretty much elite, professional, full time soldiers in service to a lord or nobleman. As such they were at least partially supported by the lord and were able to spend a lot of time training and training with group tactics as well as actively engaging in military assignments. They were pretty much standing armies intended to defend or attack other large armies and take or defend ground. The typical Viking was a much more independant, casual warrior, more familiar with fast attacks and raids and a more independent way of fighting and never intended to take and hold land until much later on. Most had farms or fished or engaged in crafts to support themselves aside from a small core of bodyguards that the lord might or might not have and supported. Although they would most likely have allegiance to a local leader that would organize raids (go a Viking) and call for volunteers to go with him, and might train with other warriors with some basic tactics, they were not organized into standing armies.
Mike Loades' example of gambesons should be taken skeptically. We also have videos that make plate armour look like tinfoil, against arrows, and surely the plate armour held up better than a common gambeson from hundreds of years earlier. The metallurgy of the arrows, the strength of the bow, the thickness of the gambeson and angle of the hit, even small details with the arrow and whether you use ballistic gel leads to a huge difference. I haven't reviewed your test of the armour, but suffice to say it was worth its weight--or no one would've bothered wearing it. You need a really sharp sword and excellent cutting technique, if you want to defeat a gambeson effectively.
Maybe the outfits, armour etc in Vikings the TV series was off, but the first season was much better. Its only this last season you have shield maidens taking out armoured men with a slice cut causing instant death lol.
I’m not sure about who would win if they put there best Against each other but if they do the common Viking vs the ashgru samurai vs 15th century knight foot soldier. Then I would put my money on the Viking.
Now that I think about it for a while this is what I think would happen in different scenarios If they put their best each other then I would say that they would win because it’s better protective armor And if there was an all out war I just put it on the samurai because they used guns lot more. And also I just want to say are usually not put an army guns over an army of knights or samurai but the samurai included regular foot soldier and guns.
I don't think a modern kyudo yumi would be a good representation of historical yumi used by Japanese in battle.None of the accounts I know give precise draw weight of a yumi and are not from the 11th century, but none of them describe it as an weak bow. 大端倭、虜矢皆重，弓皆勁，發皆不遠，不輕發，發必中人，中者必斃，故人畏之。』 "More importantly, the arrows of the Japanese and nomads are heavy, and their bows powerful. (Their bows) do not shoot far, but they never shoot hastily, and every shot will find its mark. Those hit (by the arrow) will certainly die, thus people are afraid (of their bows and arrows)." This one was record by General Qi Ji Guang, who fought against Japanese pirates during the Ming Dynasty(16th century) 『弓長七八尺，矢長四五尺，鏃之鐵者如飛尾，鏃之竹者如長槍；城外隔河而射，中城內屋，釘瓦入椽，而沒鏃矢。』 "The (Japanese) bow is seven to eight chi in length, with four to five chi long arrow. Its iron arrowhead is like a flying (swallow) tail, (while its) bamboo arrowhead is like a long spear. Shot across the river from outside the city, (the arrows) hit the houses in the city, pierced through roof tiles and buried into the rafters." Another account from the MIng dynasty of the same period of General Qi , the author Cai JIu De was not an military leader,but a local scholar who recorded many raids of Japanese Pirate. The Japanese also describe the power of a bow by stating the amount of people require to string a yumi the highest amount that I know was five people to string Minamoto no Tametomo's bow, who happened to be from the late Heian period close to the time period that Mattpat was talking about.
Even in present Japan there are said to be exclusive kyudo-clubs that have 130# minimum limit. There is no technical reason why they could not have been heavier. Modern 80# limit is just for commercial reasons , most customers do not want anything heavier so the makers don't keep them in stock. Same as with modern compound bows.
Ian Heath's book on armies of the 19c japan lists it as having a 110 ibs draw which is based traveler accounts of the time. I have no idea if bow making changed between the two periods but that is a very credible war bow.
Hey nice video. one other thing to consider is size. it my understanding that the Vikings were a large people. so with all things being equal. the big dude often wins.
You sir, are getting a like and subscribe... I appreciate people like you and Skallagrim, who debunk idiots like MatPat. You deserve it man, keep up the videos. If you would like to message me, if you aren't too busy, I would love to hear a bit more about the habits of 11th century soldiers, and perhaps you can educate me further about them.
Hi Thrand! Any chance you could do a video on the differences between 16/18/20 gauge rings on mail, and the advantages/disadvantages...and which were used historically. ? :)
Correction: About 85lbs is the most common archaeological find, for yumi. I have heard of 60lb war yumi before, but not so much about 50lbs. The Japanese certainly could make more powerful bows, they once made a 200lb draw weight bow as a temple offering (though good luck finding someone to draw THAT monster). One thing we should consider in Japan's favour, is their amazing arrow heads. While Europe was using a lot of bad metal for their cheap arrowheads, Japanese nobles engraved their names into the arrowheads and reused them. They'd be what British Europeans called bodkin tips, bodkin meaning knife, like knife-steel.
Where there's fertile ground in Scandinavia, it tends to be very fertile. The climate is much like the Midwest, which is "America's breadbasket", the prime farmland of the US. Summers are warm, with many hours of sunlight. Once spring comes, all that "frozen wasteland" turns into water, ensuring a good start for crops. Along the coasts the sea is cold; in spite of the Gulf Stream, it's still colder than the Gulf -- considerably so. Cold water is oxygen rich, which makes for lots of fish, which makes for lots of whales. The Norse, especially the Norwegians, were both fishermen and whalers. Finally, as I said, where there was fertile ground, it was very fertile, but most of Scandinavia was (and is) forests and mountains. That makes for good hunting, grazing for sheep and cattle, and for reindeer herding. The Norse hunted, kept sheep and cattle, and traded for reindeer meat with the Sami. There wasn't starvation in Scandinavia. On the contrary, there was sufficient surplus to allow for a thorough militarization of society. People could become professional warriors, but even farmers had the surplus to train and equip themselves and their people for war. Norse societies could afford to train everyone's children for war, discovering every talent, as well as securing huge defensive forces of not-so-talented-but-well-trained-and-thus-decent warriors. The desire for more land, often cited as a motivation, wasn't because there wasn't food. It was because the population grew fast, but the number of farms barely grew, at all. Only the oldest son of a farmer would inherit land, but everyone, both younger sons and peasants, wanted to own land.
If it came down to a Viking and knight on door, it would go down to the skill level, however I favor the better leg protection of the kite shield, so I'd give the slightest advantage to the Knight.
