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

Mature Amateur

Share Button


  1. I know that this video is over a year old, and you've received quite "diverse" comments from the weaboos, the stereotype-lovers, and the ones who actually know proper history of this type of things (most honourable), I just want to one thing to you, You are a shallow, dumb dipshit in this video. Honestly, shame on you…

  2. whoa there so much people that think samurai are stupid then how come you train in karate which is samurai fighting skills so really everyone crying saying "OMG MATT PAT DOES ZERO RESEARCH BLA BLA" they need to shut up he smarting then all of you all of you guys are just mad because you don't like Japan or anything

  3. Armor isn't as heavy as you think. True, they do add plenty more weight, a French Knight from 1100 AD could sprint, do push ups, Jumping Jacks, even roll. Let's also remember that France has access to the Atlantic Ocean, British Channel, and Mediterranean Sea, so going by the Viking Armor Logic, the French would have to ditch their metal weapons and armors too. While We're at it, let's throw out the Japanese Samurai equipment out as well, as they too, are metal.

    Still, I don't agree with under handing the Norsemen. They had something call a "VIKING SWORD" to accompany their tomahawks, axes, so on and so forth.

    But, we are looking at a video game, not a true "What If"

  4. So you use the 1% of one faction, but use the common soldiers of the other. I'm talking about the samurai vs knight.
    The knights win if you did it fairly…. Also the knights had wait for it… Kite shields, that's the deciding factor. A full body shield meant for blocking everything especially an arrow. I don't see the knight falling down because of that. Read it and weep matpat. You forgot about the knights primary advantage, a shield design literally to be the best at stopping arrows. Also if you are using the samurai, which was the 1% of soldiers in the fight, I will go ahead and use the full armor of my knight (also 1%), which was practically impossible to kill. And the type that they used would not be too SLOW, look it up, their armors weighed the same, and one was WAY better quality, including the samurai's was much more restrictive. Now finally the weapons, I will let you have katana, and I will use the Pole-arm. Once the samurai realizes his bow cannot get past the shield, and even less the armor, he will switch to fighting with katana. Now the knight will have the range advantage, along with the better weapon advantage as it can use brute force, thrust, and slice. The katana would only be better if the samurai got in close, which is really hard. The katana could not cut the knights armor, as no blade can. He would have to try an strike the armors weak points, while fighting for his life because his own armor has bigger weak points, less mobility, and generally weaker. In short again like I said I rank the knights 1st, Vikings a close 2rd, because in history the vikings were on par with knights, but lacked the funds for the full armor the majority of the time(probably 0.5% had it), they did however have as good if not better weapons, and they used the same type of equipment. The samurai are 3rd, due to their equipment being the worst, their strategy not working against their opponents, and the only way they stand a chance is if the knights, and vikings ditch their superior tactics and equipment. Talk about bad research.

  5. Don't ever again insult the power of scandinavia Fatpat! IF you do, Don't be surprised Why you are struck by lightning from Thor! Vikings are steel-though and some silly arrow or sword Will ever Crush a brave Viking! P.s. Go train some abs and then you can start complaining. P.S. You are still better than "Scream"-Austin

  6. You've got vikings all wrong, Pat. I don't know your sources, but 1. Leather armor wasn't really the thing in medieval period. Gambesons were. And thick enough gambeson could stop arrow from almost any bow, save english longbow. 2. They had chainmails and weapons on par with the rest of Europe. Those guys controlled nearly 80% of XI century England and while they hadn't had sophisticated siege equipment, they lay siege upon castle until starved defenders out. And they sure as hell didn't suck at melee combat. What they lacked in training, was compensated by fearlesness, brutality and ability to scare their opponents. Fear is important factor in real life combat, often ignored in games.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *