word-katamari - Tumblr blog

word-katamari · 7 years

Text

matpat pls

I know, I know -- we’re all, to some extent, excited about For Honor, and with its release date so close, we’re all lapping up as many videos as we can and buying tickets aboard the hype train.

During my hype-routine, I stumbled across this video. As entertaining as it is, I can’t help but feel that it’s a treasure trove of misinformation, and that its central argument is inherently flawed.

Ordinarily, I’d let this go -- because, after all, it’s a video about Vikings vs Knights vs Samurai -- the premise is fucking batshit, and supposed to be merely a fun thought exercise, and hopefully, hilarious.

However, with the Game Theorist’s claim that they ‘treat old school yard debates with the seriousness of post-graduate dissertations’, one can’t help but feel that they intended to take the topic seriously, and present an informative and intellectual view to their general audience.

This does not seem to be the case.

While I’m sure Matpat and the Theorists had no ill-intentions with their poorly researched video, their points were presented confidently under scholarly pretenses; which, to me, is at best careless, and at worst, disingenuous.

Obviously, it wouldn’t be fair, nor constructive for me to simply leave it at that, so I will now correct and debunk this video.

Let it be known that while I do know a thing or two RE: this subject matter, I do not know everything, and (especially when you consider the sources available) cannot possibly know everything regarding Vikings/Knights/Samurai. Some things have been lost to history.

So, let’s get this started.

1. A FUCKIN’ SUMMARY: your argument is invalid

The Game Theorists, in an effort to come to a conclusion on the question of ‘who would win -- Vikings/Knights/Samurai?’ decided to ‘make the fight fair’ by ruling out any anachronistic armament/technology, and limiting the three factions to equipment/tactics/training that they’d have access to in the 11th century (1000-1100CE).

From this, they concluded that:

The Vikings would be eliminated immediately, due to their ‘poor equipment’

Samurai would defeat Knights due to their focus on the bow, and their ridiculous wealth (allowing them to purchase the best armaments and retainers)

I believe this conclusion to be incorrect because:

The Vikings did not have ‘poor equipment’

Wealth should be equalised in this scenario, much like armament/technology, due to the varied nature of individuals within the three competing groups

Kyuudou (mounted archery) does not confer as much an advantage as implied

Furthermore, as Matpat was unable to state the context of the battle (ie. whether we are talking about 100v100v100, or 1v1v1), it is unclear who the actual combatants are; as 100 fighters are fundamentally a different beast compared to 1.

While I understand that Matpat did explicitly use a 1v1v1 scenario to ‘play the fight out’, he also cited the Samurai’s ability to hire retainers/soldiers/bodyguards to cover his weaknesses as an advantage -- which would be irrelevant in a 1v1v1 scenario.

As such, I will be counter-arguing with a focus on 1v1v1, and only address team combat when appropriate (ie. when debunking Matpat’s claims).

Without further ado, here is why the Vikings would put up a better fight than claimed:

2. VIKINGS: badass for a damn good reason

Right off the bat, the video loses all credibility by positing that ‘vikings’ were ill-equipped, ‘defensive nudists’ with ‘garbage weapons’ and the ‘medieval equivalent of tissue paper’ for armour. They also make the meaningless claim that they would ‘easily crumble against someone who knew what they were doing’.

First, let me remind everyone that the Vikings were raiders, yes -- but they were also settlers, traders, mercenaries, and conquerors. They were an entire culture of people who had, by the 11th century, been from Thracia to the Americas; and not only that -- returned to Scandinavia with both goods and knowledge.

As such, it would be an insult to the Viking legacy to insinuate that they were nothing but nude barbarians.

Contrary to what the video states, the Vikings did have access to quality arms and armor.

For one, Viking armament was generally equivalent to that of their Western European counterparts, considering much of their armament was acquired from other European Kingdoms to begin with. It’s noteworthy that an entire classification of swords are named after the Vikings because a large portion of them were found in Viking graves!

Furthermore, there is a direct mention of armored Vikings in the Saga of Olav Haraldsson (47. OF THE BATTLE AT NESJAR). To quote it directly, it is stated that: “King Olaf had in his ship 100 men armed in coats of ring-mail, and in foreign helmets.” As the Battle of Nesjar happened in 1016CE, it’s quite clear that any determined/wealthy enough Viking would have access to a mail hauberk.

Not only that, but in the Saga of Harald Hadrade (97. SKIRMISH OF ORRE), it is stated that in the Battle of Stamford Bridge (1066 CE), Hadrade’s forces ‘threw off their coats of ringmail’, which resulted in heavy casualties. This is further evidence to 11th century Viking access to mail armour.

Additionally, ever since the 10th century, the Vikings consistently flocked to ‘Miklagard’ (aka. Constantinople, aka. the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire) to join the Varangian Guard (appropriate music); many of which returned home. Do you really think these crack shock troops of the Basileus himself would not return to Scandinavia with a few pieces of Roman gear with them; let alone their training and experience?

Matpat also seems to discount or not acknowledge the effectiveness of the shields employed in that era. Yes. Viking shields were made primarily of wood -- but that didn’t make them ‘shoddy’ or ‘poor quality’. In fact, wooden shields have been the norm across centuries -- and work just fine against most conventional medieval weaponry (like arrows).

All of this completely contradicts the basis of Matpat’s argument -- that the Vikings would be out of the running due to inferior equipment. That claim is blatantly untrue, and it’s clear that the Vikings would be on par with the Knights in terms of equipment -- if not identical.

I would also like to dismiss the claim that the Vikings ‘would easily crumble against someone who knew what they were doing’. This is a nonsensical claim that can be applied to any fighter. A Navy SEAL would easily crumble against someone who knew what they were doing. A child would easily crumble against someone who knew that they were doing. In martial arts and combat, there is always someone better.

To conclude this segment, I will now summarise and counter the duel which Matpat narrates:

The Viking charges in a display of bravery.

Why? What’s the purpose of charging into a fight without properly assessing the situation? They’re Vikings, not idiots.

And then he takes an arrow to the back.

If he were fighting smartly, he wouldn’t. He’d be behind his shield. Or loosing arrows back.

Blade to the side.

This implies that the Viking doesn’t know how to use their shield, or how to fight. Considering Matpat has the Knights use longswords (???), this seems unlikely. I’m a longsword fencer. I have difficulty fencing i.33 guys and gals with their teensy bucklers. A big, Viking round shield would provide an edge over a two-handed weapon, due to the fact that you can effectively close off entire lines of attack, while simultaneously striking.

The Viking’s desperate axe swing ‘rejected’... His rudimentary armaments no match...

A sturdy, wooden shield and a damn dinner knife can serve perfectly fine in a fight, as long as the fighter knows how to use them. I don’t thin, it’d be unreasonable to assume that the Viking in this scenario would know how to use his weapons.

3. WEALTH IS IRRELEVANT: seize the means of consumption!

Wealth is definitely important, when considering conflict -- but that’s like saying breathing is important when considering living.

Money means better equipment and training; but it’s also finite, and dependent on an individual’s factors.

Most Samurai would be able to afford expensive equipment, due to the fact that the Samurai class is a much smaller and more specific class than ‘Knights’ or ‘Viking’.

However, there were likely incredibly rich Vikings and Knights as well; just as how there were less-wealthy Samurai.

As such, I feel it would be more in the spirit of the scenario to consider that all three combatants were equipped with the best armaments they’d have access to in the 11th century.

4. WHY KYUUDOU ISN’T THAT EFFECTIVE: and why ringmail is so damn popular (even in Japan)

Let me start by saying that horse archery is effective -- against unarmored targets.

The moment you throw mail and shields into the mix (of which the Vikings and Knights had aplenty), those arrows suddenly fall off a cliff in regards to effectiveness.

Yes. Mail. Ringmail. Chainmail.

Contrary to popular belief, mail (riveted, not butted) was highly effective at preventing piercing damage. Don’t believe me? Here’s a video of a pilum being thrown full force at a properly made set of mail. Of course, Eldgrim explains that there’s still a lot of kinetic energy being transmitted through the armor, but with the gambesons (padded armor) that many wore beneath their hauberks, this would mitigate some of the impact.

Most videos you find on the internet that show mail being penetrated usually shows butted mail -- which is an absolutely useless form of armor.

The only type of damage that butted mail can effectively prevent is slicing. I don’t mean a chop or a swing of a sword -- I mean a sawing or a drawing motion, and let’s be real here -- a padded jacket can do that, and be much cheaper.

Riveted mail is a different beast entirely. While it’s not impervious to all piercing attacks, it is impervious to most -- and coupled with a gambeson, and a good helmet, the wearer will drastically reduce their vulnerability to a Samurai’s arrows.

Furthermore, in an arena setting, a Viking or a Knight could easily just turtle the fuck up behind their shield, and wait for the mounted Samurai to... Run out of arrows -- or come to them.

Matpat also brings up the mobility of ou-yoroi armor for some reason. I can only assume he brings this up to imply that the mail hauberks used in Western and Northern Europe in the 11th century were heavy and clumsy -- but considering that full sets of ou-yoroi weighed around 30kg, they aren’t particularly the lightest sets either.

Not only that, but their design and shape, compared to mail, makes their wearers less dextrous, and agile. The bulky pauldrons, arm guards... Etc.

Mail, by contrast, is flexible. It’s like wearing a shirt. Sure, it can be heavy if you let it hang from your shoulders, but if you tie a belt round your waist, all that weight gets evenly distributed along your core, and bam, it really is like wearing a shirt.

Therefore, ou-yoroi being designed to allow for the most mobility is a non sequitur. It’s made even more nonsensical when you consider that all armor (save for jousting armor) is made for mobility -- how the fuck else are you gonna fight in it, then?

Also, Matpat mentions that ou-yoroi covers more areas of a person’s body -- when in reality, 11th century ou-yoroi covered just as much as a mail hauberk. Upper body, upper legs.

5. OTHER MISCONCEPTIONS AND CONCLUSION

At around 9:30 of the video, Matpat introduces knights as having used Longswords during the 11th century. This is incorrect. Longswords became popular/in-use primarily during the 14th century. It is an anachronistic technology in this 11th century scenario.

He also tells us to look to the Warden class for some ‘really accurate knight weaponry’ but... idk man, that is probably the longest and bulkiest longsword i’ve ever seen... (distal taper, where?)

There are a few more that I’ll save for a later article -- but for now, I’ve downed way too much coffee to be healthy, and will now move to my conclusion:

If the best equipped and trained Viking, Knight, and Samurai were put into a battlefield -- there is no clear picture on who will win.

Also, do some damn research.

#for honor #history #game theory

1 note · View note