For Honor = Mat Patt vs The World

[ArlEammon]

Shadiversity, Metatron, Skallagrim debunks Matt Patt's "Samurai Wins" argument about 11th century warfare between Samurai, Knights and Vikings.



Matt Patt, Vikings wore chain mail. I know this. I am not a Medieval Expert.
Matt Patt, Viking weapons were nowhere near garbage. They were high quality. Matt Patt, Ulfbehrt swords were superior than just about any swords that were available in the age of swords, bows and spears, Viking weapons were not garbage.
Matt Patt, Vikings had shields.

Matt Patt, Knights had shields.
Matt Patt, Knights had gambison armors and leather to compliment their chain mail.
Matt Patt, Vikings were not incompetent warriors who just barely knew how to use a sword.

Vikings often fought people who "knew what they were doing".

Matt Patt, you are confusing Picts with Vikings. Picts fought naked, sometimes. Vikings did not fight naked. They lived in cold climates with unforgiving winters. Why would they fight naked?

[Dienekes]

Eh. To be fair here. Vikings were recorded going into battle shirtless.

The poor guys. Who couldn't afford equipment.

Also. Fun game. Not historically accurate at all. But fun.

[ArlEammon]

I'm sure not all Picts went into battle naked either, but the point is, the Vikings had armor.

[Armok]

I think there's also a few problems with how he portrays how these ancient warriors would have fought one another. There's one specific part where, just to prove his point about Vikings, the samurai "shoots him in the back".

Now, I'm no historical scholar on the practices of historically accurate samurai, but wouldn't that kind of go completely against their code of bushido?

And we also have to consider that unlike his presented scenarios, it's not a 100% chance that their arrows will hit. What happens when the samurai misses and a javelin is thrown at their horse? What happens if their shot is only a glancing blow against the knight's chain mail or shield and they charge in on their steed into close range with their lance leveled to strike?

In fact, I think the result of either of those would be why the samurai adopted close range arms such as the katana in the first place. 'Cause relying entirely on archery... doesn't work so well up close.

But hey... that's just a theory. A GAM-

[Mith]

From what I know, Bushido was developed after Samurai lost their status in society as a romanticization of the previous era. Same as the sword only gaining significance in that time period.

[Dienekes]

I think there's also a few problems with how he portrays how these ancient warriors would have fought one another. There's one specific part where, just to prove his point about Vikings, the samurai "shoots him in the back".

Now, I'm no historical scholar on the practices of historically accurate samurai, but wouldn't that kind of go completely against their code of bushido?

And we also have to consider that unlike his presented scenarios, it's not a 100% chance that their arrows will hit. What happens when the samurai misses and a javelin is thrown at their horse? What happens if their shot is only a glancing blow against the knight's chain mail or shield and they charge in on their steed into close range with their lance leveled to strike?

In fact, I think the result of either of those would be why the samurai adopted close range arms such as the katana in the first place. 'Cause relying entirely on archery... doesn't work so well up close.

But hey... that's just a theory. A GAM-

Samurai practiced Bushido about as often as knights were chivalrous. Were there some? Yes, definitely. Was it even a majority? Probably not.

Though, for the record, Bushido came about during the Tokugowa Shogunate, way after the 11th Century. Though, it likely drew from earlier honor codes. Most warrior societies have some form of honor code or another, but considering how many times we can read about the Japanese shooting at retreating enemies, I don't think it was against their code in any real way. They may have had different versions, such as fight duels in a certain way (face to face, no backstabbing, don't be cheap) while fighting in a battle different (shoot 'em with arrows!)

[Mith]

Good to know. Most readings I have state that Bushido was developed after the decline of the samurai. But it does make sense that the code existed in some form at the time.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Now, I'm no historical scholar on the practices of historically accurate samurai, but wouldn't that kind of go completely against their code of bushido?

Bushido and a quarter will get you a gumball, and you can keep the bushido.

And if that guy over there doesn't die, he's gonna kill you, and then there is no bushido.

[Razade]

Mat Patt's theory videos are all rather shoddy. Like the one time he told the creator of Five Nights at Freddy's (after the creator flat out said Mat Patt's theories on the series were 100% wrong) that for his theories to be wrong, the creator would have had to intentionally change the games. Otherwise he'd be right. The rest of his theories are the sort of stuff you'd find on reddit. So not surprised that he's wrong once again.

[ArlEammon]

Mat Patt's theory videos are all rather shoddy. Like the one time he told the creator of Five Nights at Freddy's (after the creator flat out said Mat Patt's theories on the series were 100% wrong) that for his theories to be wrong, the creator would have had to intentionally change the games. Otherwise he'd be right. The rest of his theories are the sort of stuff you'd find on reddit. So not surprised that he's wrong once again.

That's immature. -_-

[digiman619]

He also picked a rather annoying time period. Let's pick an era where the Vikings were in decline, the knights' greatest defenses (i.e., plate mail) hadn't been invented yet, and the Samurai were at the height of their influence. Yeah, that seems fair.

Pity it wasn't the 12th century, or we could have seen the truly greatest warriors of the ancient world: the Mongol. Though admittedly, the hit and run tactics the mongols were famous for and their powerful horsemanship and highly accurate shortbows would probably be super annoying to fight against in an FPS, so their exclusion is understandable.

[Dienekes]

He also picked a rather annoying time period. Let's pick an era where the Vikings were in decline, the knights' greatest defenses (i.e., plate mail) hadn't been invented yet, and the Samurai were at the height of their influence. Yeah, that seems fair.

Pity it wasn't the 12th century, or we could have seen the truly greatest warriors of the ancient world: the Mongol. Though admittedly, the hit and run tactics the mongols were famous for and their powerful horsemanship and highly accurate shortbows would probably be super annoying to fight against in an FPS, so their exclusion is understandable.

Even the mongols who were great, got wrecked a few times. Almost always because of positioning though.

Their horse archery required open terrain to work effectively. In the few battles that they were engaged in a heavy melee against an armored opponent they tended to not do as well.

But the times the Mongols actually had this happen to them was rare. They were really, really good at picking terrain to force confrontations.

[digiman619]

Even the mongols who were great, got wrecked a few times. Almost always because of positioning though.

That and suspiciously well-timed natural disasters.

[Maryring]

Why is this even a thing? Game Theory got something wrong? That's like saying that water's wet. Something that everyone who's had experience with it would know to be true. The show is a constant string of unprovable assertations presented as facts, or cherry-picked arguments presented as sole facts. Amusing as a diversion at best, but you shouldn't get too hung up on it being wrong.

[Cespenar]

These kinds of theories are almost always senseless anyway. Even if you put people who existed in the same time periods and fought together, there'd a million parameters that you can't even hope to get right.

Unit fights or army fights might make a bit more sense to simulate. And we have Total War for that anyway.