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

greetings I'm shad and Matt Pat over from the game theorist channel has recently made a video on who would win Knights samurai or Vikings based off the video game for Honor now as you can imagine I have a lot to say about this because this is kind of my forte my specialty medieval arms and weapons and all that stuff now I want to say that generally I like Matt's content okay this isn't meant to make a disparagement against as an individual but it is very not well not only clear it's obvious it's factual that he has gotten some facts very wrong and so it behooves me to clear up some of the gross misconceptions that exists in his video not to say everything he says is wrong and I have been just as capable as anyone for getting things wrong as well one of the differences that I actively go out of my way to do is that when I am proven wrong I happily admit it and also make a video telling you guys the facts that I've gotten wrong so you are more accurately informed so I do not think any less of him as a person for getting some of these facts wrong I've done it you do it it happens and this also does not mean that he doesn't make great content he does okay Matt's assumption that the Vikings wore no armor at all Vikings as if going for maximum machismo were practically nothing for protection from either people or the threat of I calls to the crotch now there are some cases that I know of and it wasn't actually attributed to the Vikings so you know there could be something that I'm unaware of what the Vikings did of certain Warriors sorry the old Galls and such going into battle naked but in regards to Vikings not wearing armor at all that is only partially correct I've never heard of any accounts of Vikings going into battle full-blown naked many did just wear Woolen tunics but wealthier Vikings did have male so the idea that they they didn't because they were afraid that the sea salt would rust it to death is no wrong and even though there's no archaeological evidence for padded armors like gamerson well we wouldn't expect to find any archaeological evidence for these armors because they're organic material they simply rot away and break down over a certain length of time so even though that's the case there are good chances that the Vikings had some type of padded Armament for the less wealthy Vikings now the misconceptions about gamas in armor and what people that play video games role playing games I'm one of them okay I used to have this misconception as well uh they would think of this as padded armor and then attribute its Effectiveness to the effectiveness that video games and Dungeons and Dragons Proclaim it to be one of the lowest levels of armor which is absolute bull okay tests have been done on gamerson to show that depending on the layers of linen that are in these quilted garments and and if you wanted a gamerson that was properly defended real thing you know armor it would have a lot of layers and doing tests against these things they can stop arrows okay from longbows so not only is it likely that Vikings wore gamerson like armor in the early medieval period gamerson were used in the high medieval period as well and even a bit later gambers were just amazing and they have been used by so many different cultures not just Vikings through so many different periods in history why because it was so effective I have a whole video discussing the truth about gambison and leather armor as well Link in the description if you want to go watch that now even addressing the fact that Vikings did wear armor on occasion I'm not going to disagree with maton regards that you know he feels Vikings would not win against Knights or Samurai of this period it's a much closer battle okay trying to assess all the things that I've studied about history and stuff like that than what Matt is implying but the real Clincher that makes Vikings fall off in this regards is not their lack of armor but the fact that they did not use horses okay Knights and samur are classically mounted Warriors which gives them a massive and profound Advantage so that is the reasons why the Vikings would lose in this scenario okay Matt Pat says that huge castles became the Norman because I can only assume he's referring to the 11th century here I have to call him out on this no no no no no no no castles did exist but they were not huge in fact the type of castles that are around in the 11th century were the mot and Bailey style castles which were more predominantly wooden structures now having said this during this time there were a small number of stone keeps okay not full-on stone walls where everything was Stone okay they would generally have a wooden Palisade around the middle and on top of the primary Earthworks there would be a what is called a Norman keep which is a square Stone structure and again these keeps nowhere near as big as people think on the inside there's only enough room for literally one room on each level and I'm referring to this period later on Square style keeps did get bigger and accommodate for more rooms but in this period the square Stone keeps only big enough for one room on each level and I have many videos dedicated to the finer points of Castle design structure and defenses here on my YouTube channel and with castles came nights no it was with local fragmented governments of the early medieval period that came Knights you see with the land divided and ruled over by lesser local Lords in a feudal system it was requisite upon these local rulers to train soldiers that would serve them because they couldn't rely on the state for military defense now these soldiers that these local Lords needed were actually pretty well equipped because no these Lords didn't have enough money to you know raise an army of 200 but they could equip maybe 15 to 20 men really really well to the best technology that was available of the time but they weren't going to give just the average Joe this really good equipment no they were going to make sure these men would be totally loyal to them in fact they made them swear loyalty and these men would become their bondsmen or Bond servants and funny the name for bondsmen or Bond servants is connect which later came to be spoken as kn there's another addition to this concept of how the Knight actually truly came to be which was not because of castles and it comes back to the fact that these local Lords wanted to equip these Soldiers with the best gear that was available and one of the most effective styles of combat that had been proven in previous parts of History the Romans did this and even some cultures in The Classical period was impact Warfare or in other words shock Cavalry and would you know it I have a whole video talking about the origin of shock Cavalry so these local Lords wanted to give these men horses that cost money but they had money to do that and this is why Knights originally needed to swear filty to a higher Lord because these individual soldiers or indeed even mercenaries couldn't they didn't have the money to be a to train and then maintain a horse let alone the other expensive arms and armor now of course it was very important that these bondsmen these connects Knights needed to be good at riding a horse so therefore the craft of Mount combat was very very important now the word that means a warrior on Horseback in French is called a chavalier and the word that means the craft of mounted combat was called chevalerie just like the word that means a man who builds things with wood is Carpenter and the word that means the craft of making things out of wood is carpentry now this word chevalerie later came to be spoken as chivalry and this word was even adopted by the English because remember most of the English nobility spoke French so chivalry also became an English word that meant the craft of mounted combat and it was very important that Knights were good at chivaler or chivalry because that was their main style of combat now of course in later periods in history the horse became less significant for the Knight but other types of combat and indeed social behavior just pure expectations on what it was that made a KN good evolved to be very important to what a knight needed to do to be good at his craft well those things also came to be spoken as chevalerie or chivalry so when someone said a knight needs to be chivalrous it was them saying a knight needs to be good at doing the things that make a knight good it started off as being good on horse and then that evolved into so many other things and I've made a whole video on what those other things were and how they could be interpreted in my video the truth about chivalry and the night you see I've made a lot of videos about this stuff okay I've done my research not to say that I get everything right but as I mentioned when I find I got something wrong I correct myself and I tell you guys about it okay Matt Pat then says that Knights were all about swords and Spears that part is correct but when he goes on to says more specifically and more accurately long swords and polar arms well no not necessarily especially not for the 11th century now if you class Spears as poams then yes Spears were absolutely used by Knights on Horseback but long swords in the 11th century long swords did not even exist in the 11th century and maybe because matad is getting confused by the definition that is often spoken of in Dungeons and Dragons and other things like that as to what a long sword is in Dungeons and Dragons 3 and 3.5 and advanced in every Edition before then and might even be in fourth edition I'm not sure about fifth edition but they call a one-handed Medieval sword a long sword which is absolutely incorrect a long sword is the classic two-handed Medieval sword and many people would probably identify them as great swords but no great swords were their own Beast entirely as well but for people using role playing game type of definitions a one-handed sword is an arming sword a two-handed sword is a long sword and a massive monstrous two-handed sword is a great sword long swords became common place in the around the late 13th century and then into the 14th century and onwards there are a couple of cases of Swords with a bit longer handles before this period but they are not representative or common okay when you say the weapons that Knight used in the 11th century it was not the long sword and in regards to pole arms they were not the complex or elaborate pole arms that you see in later periods now I will mention Matt Pat does say that a lot of the Weaponry shown in for honor is not accurate to the 11th century but it really does seem like he is believing that Knights had long swords big two-handed swords in the 11th century which no absolutely incorrect the next thing that Matt Pat say that Knights their main armor was male chain maale which is true enough but then he says they only had male horber no Knights could actually be clad head to toe all right their legs covered included and hands in male and the other thing that he doesn't mention is that in a lot of cases Knights would also wear gamerson underneath now remember how I was saying that gamerson is phenomenally good far better than people think well combine that Effectiveness with male and when you do that you have a profoundly effective Armament one that would resist many types of Arrow fire in fact to get through this type of armor you need a very powerful bow we're talking War bow levels and I don't think the samurai bows were at that level I could be wrong okay cuz I'm not of an expert on the Japanese stuff but I will share the things that I do know now is the samurai body armor superior to the armor of the knights in this period or gee this is a very hard one to make a call on for for myself looking at it trying to be objective as I can and in fact regarding this and the final points of the Samurai equipment and stuff like that I would probably handball this to the Metatron the Metatron is a fabulous YouTuber good friend of mine and he is far more versed in Japanese arms an armor so if anyone has any questions in regards to the Japanese side of things I refer you to him the link to his YouTube channel is in the description below and so because of this uh it's too difficult for me to make a call because if the Japan if this is plate equivalent style armor that the Japanese have in this period Well that might have given the samurai an advantage if not for a very significant point that Matt Pat has neglected and this is my biggest gripe with Matt Pat's analysis he leaves out one of the most important defensive features that the Knights of this period had like seriously I can't believe he missed this this is one of the real this is really important for what the knights were like and in fact it's the thing that gives Knights huge protection even more so than their regular armor against Arrow fire and really anything and that is Shields the Knights of the 11th century used Shields and I'm not talking about you know the pretty little heater Shields I'm talking about big beasty kite Shields and would you know it I've made two whole videos on the kite Shield kite Shields could easily be the height of a full man okay and give full cover for the Knight they were not as heavy as people suppose it would give protection while the Knight was on Horseback and so the Knight is far more defended than Matt pad is saying in his analysis in fact these shields would not only protect the knights against Arrow fire to let them close the distance it would give them a massive advantage in melee combat as well because Samurai as I understand it okay I fully admit my knowledge on Samurai is less extensive than my knowledge of medieval knights weapons and armor but as I understand it mat pad is right that samaris were very much mounted Warriors of this time that preferred the bow the bow and Yumi or spear specifically now as a Metatron has pointed out in a wonderful video Shields did exist in Japan but by the time of the Samurai they fell out of practice meaning we can say with a fair level of accuracy that the samurai of the 11th century rarely ever used Shields and therefore if you were to take the standard Samurai he wouldn't have a shield because it was such a rare exception and also just to point out the shields that the Japanese did use that you know the Metatron points out in his video are much smaller okay the knights had massive kite Shields and like I mentioned in my kite Shields video I believe the kite Shield to be the king of the shields the best Shield that was ever designed out of all Shields that exist in history yes that's a bit of subjective opinion but I base that on my analysis of how effective they are they are just amazing so if we were to say that the samurai had the types of shields that did exist in Japan well their types of shields are far less effective than design and size than the kite shield now as bad as overlooking the fact that the knights have shields was this statement oh gee it's even worse the strength and increased mobility of the Samurai's armor and the addition of melee weapons would eventually overwhelm the slower more tank-like Knights so really I should say this statement is my biggest gripe with the video even though it's just a short brief comment oh my goodness there are so many misconceptions with this statement it's painful the samurai were not faster than the knights okay in every test that has ever been done by people wearing these armors and you could include male armor to the fullplate harnesses that Knights later wore in the 15th century their speeds are absolutely equivalent Samurai armor is actually heavier than many people think and medieval armor is much lighter than many people suppose one of the things that people Totally Miss about medieval armor when they're trying to weigh up everything is the fact that it's dispersed over the whole body and because this is dispersed over the whole body body it doesn't feel like there's a massive weight on your shoulder in fact it's very even and this is the thing full plate armor is objectively superior to the best types of Samurai armor so in this sense yes the knights are more tanky but they are not slower and this is the other thing there are so many examples of medieval style armor that's actually equivalent in weight and lighter than standed Samurai armor because there are so many variations and different combinations of what could comprise medieval armor Knights were not slower than Samurai now some of you who are willing to accept this might still think that Samurai are faster because the katana is a faster weapon oh my goodness that that concept is as misguided as the armor one for its size the katana actually s on the heavier side of standard sword weights that's not to say it's a heavy sword or is unreasonably heavy for its size it's just that there are many swords of same size that are much lighter than the katana and if you try and compare it directly to the long sword the weights are equivalent but the long sword has greater reach which actually means the speed of a long sword's tip when in rotation will always be moving faster than a katana also in general the point of balance of a long sword is closer to the hilt than that of a katana this makes redirecting the blade of the sword easier and therefore accelerating the blade and stopping it faster now what I've have just said runs so contrary to what pop culture likes to promote and and I have devoted so many videos onto this concept I have five videos going into massive depth about the katana and more recently I have posted a video comparing the katana and long sword completely so if you're going to try and argue me on this point please go watch my videos before you say I'm wrong so this changes up the comparison of who would win in the 11th century specifically Knights or Samurai in fact it makes it a very very hard comparison I'm not sure I could call make a call on who would win over the other but if I had to if I really had to I I've got to give the edge to the knights and the big most important tipping Factor are shields for me in any case now if you would like to hear my thoughts on who would win between Knights and Samurai in their peaks okay talking about 15th century Knights and Samurai when they had better armor better weapons well I've made made a whole video on that as well my video Knights verse Samurai and so there you go these are the corrections that I wanted to make to the game theorists or Matt Pat's video who would win Samurai Knight or Viking this was not made as a disparagement against Matt Pat I think is a great guy he makes wonderful excellent very entertaining content and like I mentioned at the beginning of this video I've gotten many things wrong in the past as well so I do not hold this against him and please anyone who watches this video Don't hold it against him either in fact if you're not aware of the game theorist Channel I really recommend you go check out his videos they're wonderful thank you very much for watching I hope to see you next time and until then farewell

Channel: Shadiversity

Views: 1,691,630

Keywords: for honor, the game theorists, matpat, knight, viking, samurai, fight, who would win, vs, versus, game of thrones, ninja, skyrim, rpg, roleplaying, game, video, ubisoft, shad, shadmbrooks, reply, review, dnd, d&d, sword, katana, shield, history, knight's, warrior, battle, lord of the rings, fighting, let's play, letsplay, Matt, theory, game theory, gametheory, debunk, debunked

Id: 18c3S7JiRNA

Length: 19min 52sec (1192 seconds)

Published: Wed Feb 08 2017