"Viking Berserker vs Japanese Samurai" A Response to Infographic's Video
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 11. 2020
- While at work today I was sent this video and asked to debunk it. After watching it, I realized...yeah, I might just have to. I have no ill will towards Infographics nor do I condone harrassment or mistreatment. I make this video only to clarify and to correct, not to shame or to harm.
I do hope ya'll enjoy this video and I ask that you comment, like, and subscribe!
You can see the original video here: • Viking Berserker vs Ja...
THANK YOU SO MUCH! - Hry
Appreciate your in depth knowledge and feedback. Learned a lot of lessons from you. Thank you. Will do better in the future! and will consider points you brought up.
You do me too much honor. Thank you for your comment on my video. Know that I meant you no ill intent in this video. I find your channel both entertaining and informative.
@@RavenKnightYT @infographics THIS is how CZcams commentary is done! Well done on both sides! This history teacher enjoys what you do, keep up the great work.
I ship it
Okay, to be completely honest and putting an opinion that should have been made months ago out there, a viking or a berserker, nonetheless, would not have grown taller than 6 ft. Why? Because of their condition and food intake. The vikings would not have as good food (UNLESS BROUGHT FROM A RAID), thus making them and their children a lot smaller than you mentioned. The average viking OR berserker would have grown no taller 6 ft *at most*.
Sure, a samurai would not have been as strong in some cases, but they had ways of conditioning themselfs through doing what they were meant to do; *wage war and fight* (as a basic principal). They also had good food, but not a lot of it had a lot of calories, depending on the average amount of food. They weren't skinny or weak in full melee, just less rageful. A well-trained and seasoned samurai would have most likely stayed calm in a 1v1 against a raging berserker, if they weren't unknown to eachother.
I would like to say though, pain resistance and endurance is critical in a long fight. As a martial artist myself, I would know. One boxing match, consisting of three 4 minute rounds, made me feel like I just ran a marathon or fought 10 men at the same time. It all comes down, in my opinion, who prepared the most for the fight.
And dont forget the samurai usually carry 3 swords the katana the wakizashi and tanto...... Katana is rarely used in brawl wakizashi is mostly used as it is shorter and can easily pierce through armor....... And for their homarble suicide they use tanto.... Ty
I still think it’s unfair to compare soldiers from different times in history it’s just a futile effort. in the future they will be comparing modern solders and ww1 soldiers
Thats so funny becuase they compared a nazi to modern day navy seal
That’s funny because a former SS Man was one the original developers of US Special Forces in Vietnam.
m.czcams.com/video/GwqLJyvoI4c/video.html
To be fair, WWII soldiers would beat the shit out of a modern soldier in H2H.
Christ man Raven "GUNS" is more american than two party system
My best friend is Japanese and they paint a very different picture about the Samurai. Many Samurai constantly betrayed their lords and extorted many shopkeepers, extorted nobility, bullied lower class citizens, etc. And yes this person IS from Japan.
To be fair, I have friends from America who say George Washington totally chopped down a cherry tree, and Abraham Lincoln signed the Declaration of Independence. Being from a country does not make one an authority on a past they were not present for. I dated a girl from Japan for a long time and she said the samurai were famous for loyalty above death or failure. She wasn’t around to see it herself, but she was Japanese…so who is more right?
With that said, you’re right! Some samurai did betray each other, some were extortionists, and some were bullies…but that is not the collective as a whole.
Fair point. I've learned recently how true your reply is. Most Americans don't even know how this country was founded. Never trust what only one source says I suppose? Anyway, my apologies if my initial comment came across as rude
Heh. The image of a guy in a barrel stabbing a dude in the butt brings me endless amounts of chuckles.
Nuts. Not butt. Even worse XD
They also forget to mention that berserkers mostly did wear armor (chainmail) under the pelts its just that all that was visible was well the pelts... I do agree that a Berserker is more likely to win. I do appreciate you mentioning how they made it seem like Zerkers weren’t skilled. I agree with most of what you said, however not all Vikings were sex offenders it depended on the clan cause some honorable clans were against that stuff but let’s be honest in those time Vikings weren’t the only warriors that had apples doing no no things like that.
lol you could molest a women in those days, and her horse, and still not be considered a "sex offender" - those kind of concepts didn't exist until religions like Christianity or Islam domesticated people. So it had nothing to do with honour - consider that many people in dark ages Europe were literally cannibals, ethics is a more modern concept that developed over time as we had more time and resources to think about it
@@burnsbislin4253 you could do that but you’d be punished for it. Also they weren’t really cannibals, some around sure.
Ehhh you're conflating Norseman with Viking. I guarantee most Vikings, in other words, pirates, were in fact rapists.
All I need to say to prove the samurai (and by extension the knight) are superior: horses.
@@genghiskhan6809 the Norse also used horses as well in all fairness.
You are also forgetting about the chainmail hauberk that some berserkirs would have. Even in some of the sagas they explain that some berserkirs had chainmail. Especially the Ulfhednar.
Put them in a fair battle, only main weapons, no witches or black magic
Man infographics really tore at the samurai’s self esteem
My friend is a historian with a focus on the viking era. I've been very curious about that era myself and have learned a LOT through his knowlege. The berserker warriors were indeed very well trained warriors, they were the "elite". They commonly used battle axes AND shields, though from what i know the roundshield was the common one. They were mostly very large and extremely powerful men and often experts at throwing spears at incredible distances. One not well known account i've heard through my historian friend is of a Norwegian viking warrior, who he claims was a berserker, killing a man with a spearthrow at a staggering distance of 100 meters. Thats more than the current world record, if its true. We also have the insane saga of Egil Skallagrimsson, a warriorpoet and a berserker who split the skull of a guy way older than him when he was just seven, then preceding to kill the guy's brother. Egil is well known for being a complete madman in combat though, and would most likely win one-on-one fight with just about anyone.The large stature of the vikings is in my mind a very great advantage. They were surely physically much stronger than a samurai, and the adrenaline frenzy from the drugs would make them even stronger. I think pitting a samurai vs a berserker with only CQ weapons would be like pitting a raging bull vs deer. I cant see how the samurai even stands a chance in that scenario tbh. And at longer ranges the advantage would go to the samurai, but its not that obvious as in CQ, as the berserkers were apparently expert spearthrowers. And though the gun would be a clearly superior ranged weapon, those early guns took a long time to reload, so the samurai would need to hit on the first shot. The only way i can see a samurai winning with ease is on horseback. The vikings did indeed have horses too but from descriptions they were mainly used for farming and a means for comfortable transportation. There are less accounts of them being used in battle, while the samurai are famous for their horseback oriented combat.
This is from what i've learned from my friend and from reading a lot of history.
I don't claim to be an expert, this is just how i think it would go down.
Im no expert either but I think that a highly skilled samurai could kill a berserker on CQC, but it depends. But I doubt an ashigaru would win. A well trained samurai might be able to kill a berserker with a naginata/yari or an ono axe, but a katana wouldn't be able to kill an armored viking but maybe an unarmored berserker.
@@Kurt20051YT Depends on the berserker, depends on the samurai, depends on the Ashigaru, and depends on the era.
There were some points in time in which ashigaru could reasonably be expected to be relatively well-armed and well-armored and well-armed. There were also periods in which, albeit rarely and only when under a ruler who understood the importance of rewarding merit (such as Oda Nobunaga), an ashigaru could become a samurai.
Are we just forgetting that Kanabo exist as anti-armor and that wealthier samurai could afford full iron kanabo?
I think the berserker would win as well,even though im slightly biased as a norwegian. Lol.
People just straight up ignored the kanabo and the samurai's armor being not made of wood
Also Samurai were trained to use the least amount of energy when fighting. They were trained to conserve energy. So ignoring pain will not work since the Samurai was trained to use less strikes in weak places
Also the original vid didn't mention how slowed down a shield would make you.
First: guns
Didn’t realise samurais had guns thought it would be dishonourable or something so Thame that out of the equation then the real fight begins after the samurai uses the bow if the berserker is still alive which is completely possible then things do start to go down hill for the samurai the armour did have some massive advantages but did hinder them not as much as the video made it out to be the berserker and oils be better able to carry the armour thanks to massive size advantage and most likely extensive combat experience and some form of adrenaline so apart from guns I would go the berserker but barley
His point that he made for who held the most coin was early samurai and they started as mercs they became samurai later on they served daimyo after and was loyal all that crap was later but not early samurai.
Yeah. During the Kamakura period, samurai were originally warriors hired by the emperor and the nobility...until around the 13th century. After that they began swearing loyalties to regional lords, the shogun, or governors. Now if he had specified the time period of samurai we’re looking at, then it’d be fine. If he said “we’re only looking at the early Samurai” then you’d be right. But he did not specify, so I’m looking at the samurai as they existed for the majority of their reign.
@@RavenKnightYT Right? Plus putting them in iron armour would imply that these are NOT early iterations of the Samurai. You can't take a group of warriors that would literally kill themselves due to honour and equate them with mercenaries. That is exactly why Ronin were looked down upon so strongly.
We do know actually that Berserkers used shields. We know this because there are both accounts of and artefacts that suggest them having chewed on their shields when they were entering the state of berserkergang.
What these almost certainly would NOT have been, however, were kite shields. While the kite shields are believed by some to share ancestry with the shield most commonly seen by vikings, and I believe there may be SOME merit to this, because of the fact that it was used both among the Normans and the Kievan Rus' (alongside the HRE and early Spain). Athough it is much more likely that it was simply parallel evolution, from earlier Western-European shields (such as the scutum, or wooden Celtic shields, which would likely have still been around in some form, or at least still in public knowledge), as there is not really any historical evidence POINTING to it having Norse ancestry in that way, I don't necessarily think that it is worth disregarding entirely, because such a relatively small portion of the past survives, at all.
I kinda want to see you do breakdowns like this I feel like you would bring so many other things into play to compare the contenders
I think they are not aware that Japanese spears varies in length also the fact that a katana is a dueling sword and used as a last resort, there are other swords that were designed for battlefield use such as the tachi and the odachi
So basically he kinda left out so much and dissed both sides
It's not fair to compare two kinds of warriors from so different places, times (of ruling) , both made mistakes with their clothes ( too heavy clothes for East where is warm & not enough clothes on the cold North)
After all, why would they fight against each other, when they could make some kind of union? Ok, union in some anime or game maybe, it's 21st century after all.
Amazing video, nice knowledge of the topic, my 2 cents would go for the berserker
We dont know much about Berserkers and Many sources about them are very unreliable. It does Not make Sense to use them for these types of Videos.
25 inches? Some tachi were over 30" in blade length. The fact that the minimum length for a long sword was 2 shaku (around 24 inches) the example given is clearly exceptionally short.
"its that timne again" chimed in with the begging of deadz by migos... oddly specific but it is needed
One common misconception people have is the correlation between height and strength. Height beyond between 5’5 and 5’9 does not correlate with greater strength. The biggest deciding factor in strength is training, which to a lesser is degree followed by genetics. As an aside to genetics, the heights infographics gave the berserkers has a low likelihood of being right as sources from the time and surrounding countries state common and average heights as being between 5’6 and 5’9. 6 feet would’ve been extraordinary back then as it is today as even today, in countries such as Britain, France, and the US, only about 20% of males +/- are 6 feet or taller.
The main thing that correlates positively with the strength of a blow is the *total mass* of the wielder. This is because when you do a full powered swing with a weapon, you commonly twist your hips and sometimes even stepping forward thus adding the mass of your body to the mass of the swing, and force equals mass X acceleration. With no armor and going off what infographics said, the berserker would inherently weigh more as fit men 6’ tall usually weigh about 200 lbs but the samurai can easily close this gap or even exceed the berserker with their armor as men between 5’2 and 5’5 (these are also inaccurate numbers anyway) usually weigh between 140-170 lbs, which when 55-65 lbs are added matches at the low end or noticeably exceeds the berserker at the high end.
English plate armor is known to be heavier and u can run and jump with no issue this man hurts my brain
He do be spitting straight fax
Armor and weapons are well off on both, as you mentioned Raven.
Vikings as a whole wore the best armor they could afford just like everyoneelse. A berserker who would most likely be apart of the Jarl's private guard(or the private guard for the byzantine emperor) . They wore gambason, chain mail, and even scale mail armor. They always wore helmets. Usually the bear pelts were worn on top of the armor. These guys were professional soldiers who had just as much training as any other professional soldier. Why does this guy never mention the Dane axe? Or bearded axes which where often worn in pairs. Most vikings were expert axe throwers as well as spear throwers. Swords were a status symbol just like their Japanese counterparts. Obviously the shield is wrong. Vikings used large centergrip round shields, these would usually cover from the knee to the neck when in a proper fighting stance. The only vikings who used kite shields where of the varagyian guard. And last but least of not all a viking would normally carry a seax, a large knife with an aggressive tip. Which for anyone who knows anything about armored combat, a dagger was the most lethal tool on the battlefield in armored fights. Most fights would end with the two men wrestling on the ground stabbing at each other with daggers. The Samurai were no stranger to this, and neither were professional vikings.
Samurai of the same time frame rarely wore metal armor. But if going for the time period the armor suggests, they would be on horseback, they would have a rifle, or bow. A yari or naginata (yari was much more common), and most likely a kanabo strapped to their saddle. I dont think the Kanabo would do much in this match up because the centergrip shield is design to deflect blows not tank them. Imo the Yari/rifle is what kills the berserker. But if you're shooting for the same time frame like the video originally stated. The Samurai would win 9/10 times when mounted and lose 8/10 time when on foot.
Ah the Samurai vs the Berserker with one being from a time period so vast and another from a specific time period. Not to mention Samurai could also be mounted warriors as well which gives a massive mobility advantage. Since Infographics fails to give specific time period. Then a 19th century Samurai could have access to steel armor rather than earlier periods like lacquered and iron plated armors. Have that armor better distributed than an animal pelt or mail hanging from the shoulders and cover much of the body. They could have the latest firearms such as modern percussion based firearms which not only is a gun but also a club and if a bayonet is attached a spear as well, battlefield weapons of edged, pointy and bladed variety such as the Kanabou which could be made entirely from iron, the Yari, and larger battlefield swords such as the Oudachi/nodachi which gave a much better reach than the Daishou combination that served as a back up weapon. A Samurai might also be of sounder mind if the theory is true about the Berzekers being on substances making them think on impulse.
There were NO guns or cannons in the medieval age
I’m afraid that’s incorrect. There were indeed cannons and firearms by the late medieval period. In Japan, they had firearms as early as the late 15th century. Oda Nobunaga was famously shot twice by them. I provided visual evidence of early guns of the samurai era. So…yeah. Japan had access to them.
@@RavenKnightYT Late medieval Europe as well. The arquebus.
Ohh cause at first I thought that guns and cannons were first used in the early renaissance , but now I realize that these weapons were first used in the late medieval age
Those would be 1 shot, I need time from fighting to re-load guns...
Even if that's the case one good shot would most likely tear thought a Viking "kite" shield and either hit the man behind it or would send wood shrapnel into the guy, either way one good shot is still a great advantage.
What about conquistador vs samurai
As Raven mentioned Infographic didn't mention/specify which era this samurai is belong to and cause of that it's kind of futile to compare it between them. Yes in movies and novels they depict "firearm" for samurai is seen as dishonorable but in reality during the late years of "samurai era" they had pistols and flintlocks in their arsenal of weapons. Yes in close combat samurai will have disadvantages depending on location/environment but at the same time it can be reverse. its highly unlikely 2 warrior come up to each other in open space with no obstacles or such. Samurai has more advantage in my opinion depending on situation and environment they are in , if their fight is starts at let's say 150 meters apart from each other and berserkers has bastard sword and some shield with full pelt of bear and chain armor underneath it and samurai has his bow spear and katana (lets take out firearm for a second) and has typical leather/iron plated armors they had before they got firearms. in that situation samurai has advantage of range if there is no obstacle in their path to each other, i mean samurais were trained to shoot arrows on horse back meaning they were master marksman with bows most of time so its not entirely impossible to injure berserkers during their advance toward samurai and then cause of adrenalin or drugs they used berserkers have high tolerance for such pains like arrow on hand or legs etc but that would still render them to some degree when in close combat and if berserkers are in frenzied stance ofc samurai would be keeping his distance and whittle down his opponent (they are not mindless NPCs of games) . same goes to berserker if he closes distance and uses his advantages of higher reach and bigger body and overwhelm them with their attacks they will win for sure but sometimes having bigger frame is not only advantage it can be disadvantage too.
That or either way their acting like with the shield the berserker would just sit back and go on a defensive attack, no the berserker would use that shield as a battering ram, and let say the berserkers would use drugs to enhance their rage, Samurais still wore terrifying mask to put fear in other soldiers like the famous oni mask that we see in pop culture so if those drugs make him seem like man with bear power...how would he see the samurai especially if the samurai is wearing mostly red dyed armor
Bahahahah! The guns part was perrrrrfect 😆
I love this video
Wait…. What did he say about swords 😑
Yes
I feel like he was being favorable to the Viking & not being fair to the Samurai
Man did they make the Vikings abnormally big in this. I mean, it's like they think the Berserkers could break through anything due to their rage, which does not make logical sense. Plus, considering this and Gnoggins's video, it does feel like people are biased with European warriors since they think they are the superior warriors compare to the samurai. I mean, if this is a knight, I would agree, but a Viking Berserker...eh, not so much.
Also, I'm pretty certain they didn't include guns, even if it is pretty period accurate based on the armor they gave the samurai, because it would be "dishonorable" for a samurai to use a gun against an "inferior" foe who never seen or use guns. I'm pretty certain that you're currently the only one who gave the Samurai their guns in your comparison video.
Also, just to add this in, but the Infographic channel is pretty wrong with almost every comparison video they made regarding real life warriors. Like, they say a Spartan would beat a Modern day soldier and a WW2 Nazi soldier would beat a Modern day soldier at long ranges. Seriously? How the heck did they get to that conclusion?! Bullets can easily pierce bronze and an assault rifle is much better than a bolt action rifle!
@RadTheLad Right.
In his video about honor he explains why he chose to gave the guns to the samurai
@@Hadras7094 I know that.
8:50 But didn't they need to find employment from local lords ?
A mercenary works for money and for pay. A samurai serves a daimyo and his whole family will swear their loyalty. One samurai family might serve the same lord for generations.
It’s crazy how much they left out for the samurai but give the berserkers every leg up they could
Probably because people are more biased but also know more about Samurai’s but highly underestimate “Viking” warriors while also not really knowing anything of them besides Hollywood stereotypes and demonization the christians made of them.
Funny how they confused the Berserker with the Úlfhéðnar or Wolf skins. Difference ? Berserkers where royal guards who wore armor and carried a Sword, Shield and Dane Axe and often times had longbows because their primary job was to protect their lord or king on the battlefield. They also worked in units of 12.
Úlfhéðnar where scouts and shock troops who worn nothing but a Wolf skin as armor and worked in packs of up to 18.
Jöfurr where front line troops basically heavy infantry and shock troops. They wore armor as well.
Historians are human and thus lazy at times. They seem to have clumped these distinct warrior organizations into one group and called them all berserkers.
Only two of them even devoted themselves to the same god. Berserker's and Úlfhéðnar worship Odinn. Jöfurr worship the goddess Freyr . So yeah a lot of misconceptions and miss information has been so commonly spread about Berserker's that its difficult to separate facts from myths. Compounded by the fact that most surviving writings about them where written centuries after the Viking age.
@@thewidowskiss7675 because we all know samurai would win
@@John2r1 its almost like it doesn't matter
@@reggielacey2235 nope, Vikings are more likely to win
Y’all say something about GUNS?
Fun Fact:Kasurigama and Shurikens are Samurai weapons not Ninjas they give too much attention
Infographics video missed more than a few points and your video missed a few points for the berserkers as well. It’s a fundamentally flawed fight to begin with cause there can be such huge time gaps in between a berserker and samurai and time periods were never specified in the original video. If you’re looking at the latest berserkers vs the earliest samurai(about the same time period) then the berserker wins every time. The Ulfheðnar were the most elite of the berserkers and wore wolf pelts which would be even lighter than bear pelts and were also known to wear chain Mail and use spears as their go to weapon. You seem to underestimate and overlook points in the berserkers favor and the original video overlooked a lot for both warriors.
I overlooked nothing. I worked within the confines the video gave me.
You say I underestimate the berserkers, but my goal here was not to prove who would win or wouldn't. My goal was to debunk the obvious bias and lacking of information presented in the video.
Firstly: As you said, they do not specify what time period of samurai and berserkers we're looking at. Because of this, we can only use the information provided to us in the video. As you'll notice in the video, I pointed this out.
Second: You say 'the berserker wins every time.' General statements like that are dangerous, because factors are being excluded, such as training, equipment, terrain, location, and weapons. You say they the Ulfheðnar wore wolf pelts which were lighter than bear pelts. True. They also weren't nearly as protective. Samurai of the 11th century (the time period shared by vikings and samurai) then the samurai were wearing o-yoroi and domaru armor which was not only light, but effective for both mounted warfare and battle on foot. Now does that mean they automatically get the advantage? Of course not, but the truth is that absolutes are often dangerous in discussing "who would win" scenarios. Various factors must be considered.
Finally: I acknowledge the skill of the berserkers. I acknowledge also that they were elite warriors and would certainly give the samurai of their time period a run for their money. I never said otherwise. So I don't understand why you assume I'm underestimating anything when all I did was take what Infographics provided and explained the issues with it. I mean, let's be real, they were awful about their information presentation. They even admitted it in a comment to this response video. I did my due diligence in this case.
@@RavenKnightYT the samurai did have an armor advantage but it’s not as clear cut as that when the berserkers are known for feeling no pain in battle and only succumbing when their human body’s are pushed past their limits. I also didn’t mean the berserkers win literally every time it’s just tone doesn’t come across over the internet.
Overall I found your video interesting because while I do know a lot about berserkers I don’t know much about samurai besides the basics and your video did teach me more about them which is cool. I’ve been watching your other response videos and actually have been liking them cause some of the dickheads out there make this infographics video look good
We’re basically saying the same thing which is the infographics video sucked and left out so much information that you can only respond to what they said which means your response is also open to a lot of interpretation
both of you are wrong on one thing, the katana wasn't a "last-ditch" weapon, it was also used in more confined areas, like in buildings. Sure, you could fight with a spear indoors, but the chance of you whacking something and leaving yourself are pretty open, it's very easy to disarm a spear when you know the guy can only really thrust.
A katana is sword, sturdy, and simple. You can stab, you can slash, and you could probably snap a spear in half with some of the more specialized heavier katana.
A katana is hardened, like VERY hardened, and could probably smash off some chainmail as well as stab effectively if enough force was put in.
katanas suck against longer weapons though
As far as the indoor part is concerned, yes. But that's what we call a situational exception. The location of the fight changes the tools and weapons necessary. In a close space, the katana is the preferred weapon, for sure. But in open battle, it was the fall back weapon.
As for the katana knocking off chainmail? Unfortunately I doubt that. Katana can stab, but they are primarily a cutting weapon, and chain mail is designed with the exact purpose of stopping slashing attacks. I doubt a katana would do much damage to chainmail other than knick a few of the links in the chain.
I'm not saying the katana is a bad weapon by any means. But I want to keep all things honest.
It wasn't a bad video and it did get the point general across, even tho we all know the samurai would sweep
IMPERAL! FORCE DEFIED! FACING 500 SAMURAI!
Take any given time in history and the Norse would win.
900 AD the Viking golden age, the Norse ruled the seas and even tested new continents across oceans. The Japanese were barely a known entity and had no ships of note and barely any iron. I will note that excellent Katana were made in the 1100s but katana have been proven weak against chain mail and shields.
Fast forward to the golden age of Samurai (1500s) the Japanese still can't build decent ships, have excellent unit control and strategy but still do not employ shields or have plate steel armour. Guns were fairly well distributed but purchased from Europeans. Siege tactics weren't as advanced as Europe and the castles were inferior.
The swedes at this time had steel as good as the Japanese or better, had advanced cannons and ships. The fact that European weapons were continually imported until the Tokugawa shogunate says it all!
After that, the long isolation ensured Japan fell behind the West, so much so that a small American expedition brought down the entire system.
….you pointed out how in the golden age of the samurai Europe was superior, but what were the Vikings doing at that time? They were gone. The video is about Viking berserkers vs samurai. So if we take both warriors, at their golden age, and give them their best weapons…and that includes guns…now kindly establish who would win. This is not a matter of “time period match ups,” this is “warrior match ups.”
Well if we want to get real specific Vikings weren’t a people. They were called Norse. Viking was an activity. So no, Vikings didn’t disappear. They continued to impact Europe as Swedes, Danes, Norwegians and Lithuanians. They formed the Kievian Rus and settled Iceland and Greenland. How do you figure they disappeared?
On the other side of the coin the samurai were a class not necessarily a warrior class. Many served as bureaucrats and couldn’t fight out of a paper bag. The average samurai was a specialist and wouldn’t have access to any weapon he wanted. One on one there would have been absolutely no contest.
In the west there is this feeling that the samurai were skilled swordsmen. This is not true for most. This is more Hollywood than reality. At one point they could be characterized as good horse archers, which is more practical than swordsmanship in battle. Again, one on one no contest. The Norse use of shields mail and axes was far more useful than a katana anyways. There is a great video somewhere on the net of a katana trying to cut through mail. It fails badly.
@@eightdragonkings your response did a fine job dodging the point. The video title is “Viking Berserker vs Japanese Samurai. Who Would Win?” It did not say “Norsemen or Samurai, who would win?” It was quite specific.
And you say the samurai were a class…not a warrior class. My friend it seems you don’t know the duties of a samurai. A samurai WAS a warrior class. You say “many couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag,” but we’re not talking about the general rule or the non warriors. We’re talking warrior vs warrior. You are, again, dodging the point of the discussion.
You then argue they were not great swordsmen and it’s all Hollywood while also saying they may have been good horse archers. Well, leaving aside the part where you’re actually factually wrong, let’s pretend you’re right…so a horse archer is no match for a standing Viking? You also left out spears, clubs, and guns the samurai had access too.
You need to stop throwing out platitudes and red herrings and answer the actual question at hand. Don’t tell me “not all samurai were warriors,” because then I could tell you not all Norsemen were Vikings. Don’t tell me “Norsemen were more advanced than samurai in the samurai golden age,” because the debate isn’t about Norsemen but Vikings.
Take a Viking from their golden age and a samurai from their golden age, both warriors, both armed with their best gear and equipment, and both very trained. Now who wins?
Heck, the famed Samurai couldn’t even control any territory outside their homeland. They couldn’t even subdue the Ainu in Hokkaido or Okinawanans until the Meiji period (1800s). They failed in Korea and couldn’t even beat the peasant trained by Europeans during the restoration. They discovered and conquered nothing.
The Norse settled Scotland, Ireland and England, discovered Iceland (first democracy) and North America. Created settlements in Sicily and France. Founded Normandy, Russia and Baltic states. Japans best couldn’t even hold Korea.
@@eightdragonkings ....Are you going to answer the question or keep dodging it? I get it. You've got a hard on for the Norse. But that isn't what was asked.
"ThE gUN"
Vikings were really strong, big sized and skilled in combat, but Samurais were much better when it comes to intercepting and countring because of the martial arts techniques they had, however when it comes to swords .. katana has proved to be the best sword in history because of its shape, light weight and its design that helped the user to fight his enemy like a shadow and apply the Budo techniques easily, on contrary vikings had hummers, big axes on best condition heavy sword.
I believe a viking would have no chance against a skilled samurai who was dedicated in practicing the way of sword, also when it comes to war tactics Japanese were ahead.
Lol, bullsheet.
Guns after 1700. Not in 100AD.
Actually Japan had guns as early as the 13th century, so it was way earlier than the 18th century. And yes, pre guns? Vikings have a good chance. But the Infographics team did not specify the era of samurai we were comparing. So without that specificity, I must include access to all samurai tools and weapons.
GUNS!!
You could pay and or tried to convince the daimyo to fight alongside your cause I've done everyone under him would have to follow
Who the hell pays the daimyo?! He owns the land and the people!!
Its like today's less admirable "bath salter" 😅
Hehehe
Viking Win!
Mmmmm...Nope.
@@RavenKnightYT vikings 4eva, I actually fight like a berserker, and I am pretty lethal, even unarmed
Samurai4Life
Ahem.
*GUN*
@@merkavamkivm3373 Guns did not exist back then, so they don't count
I think the gun point kinda misses the point. “Viking berserker vs Samurai, but he has a glock”
The point of the video was close quarter combat, that’s why guns were forgone. I do agree that they never mentioned other weapons and the effectiveness of the armor but no one wants to see guns in the comparison. I think the skill of the samurai would come more into play however as he would have used the berserking against the Viking. Who would have won? I don’t know but I would love to see it.
Not to mention the shield itself was used as a weapon.
Okay...if the point was close quarter combat, then why did they mention the Yumi bow of the samurai? Why did they acknowledge that the samurai have the advantage at range at all if they were just going for close quarters combat? Seems odd to even reference ranged weapons at all if the goal was close quarters combat.
But let's ignore the guns for just a minute and acknowledge that they barely mention any other weapons outside the katana and yari spear, when there are plenty of other weapons the samurai could fall back on. Plus they attribute kite shields to vikings...which is odd, because kite shields were not commonly used by viking warriors, and used even less so by berserkers, who were likely so blood hungry, they would abandon conventional shields in favor of more deadly weaponry.
@@RavenKnightYT conceded but guns really. It kinda goes without saying no guns. That’s not what anyone wants to see. Everyone knows what would happen if they were used. The obvious here guy the obvious.
Tbh a samurai with a warbow on his horse... yeah that viking better run boi
Edit: 13:07 ight... ight hang on that's cheating.
Except the Berserkers or bear skins wore chainmail.
Úlfhéðnar or wolf skins didn't wear armor.
Second the likelihood that individual warrior on the bridge was a Berserker is actually very likely as the Berserkers where the lord or kings bodyguard. Modern historians often put the Berserker , Úlfhéðnar and Jöfurr into one class and call them all Berserker's.
There is a story about a champion translated from French to Old Norse in which the author uses the word Berserker in place of the word champion. So yeah lazy historians overlapped the difference groups into one and thought Berserker sounded cool.
So an actual berserker aka royal guard of a Norse king or lord would be skilled with sword, axe & shield , Longbow , Spear and Dane Axe.
And yes the Berserker could afford an Ulfberht. But the fun secret is the sword was a backup weapon even for the Berserker.
The gun's of the Samurai was a battlefield weapon. If they randomly came across each other the Samurai likely wouldn't have his gun loaded. Not to mention muskets are not as accurate at longer ranges. The typical effective range of a musket is about 50 yards that you will hit a target. The effective range of a longbow is about 200 yards. So there is a reason bows where still in use at the time. Which was the Tanegashima effective range was shorter than the effective range of a bow of the time period.
People automatically assume that guns are better than bows. Especially people who have never fired a muzzle loading musket or matchlock. Hint a good marksmen with cover can get off 3 rounds in a minute. A skilled archer can get off 10 to 12 arrows in the same amount of time and hit longer range targets than someone firing a musket or matchlock. So at the time Bow beats Gun in terms of range and rounds per minute.
So stop harping on the more complicated and at the time less effective without cover weapon. 1v1 the Samurai might shoot the Berserker one time before he closes the distance because step 1 is loading while this 6ft tall dude is sprinting at you or firing arrows which is much more likely and hitting you with them while moving in. 10 -12 rpm >3rpm. In either case we have plenty of confirmed cases where soldiers have been shot and didn't even notice until someone told them. And the Tanegashima being a smoothbore matchlock musket is not the most accurate firearm in history.
Firstly, okay, sure, the bearskins might have worn chainmail, but I never argued they didn’t. It was Infographics who said they didn’t wear chainmail. So that doesn’t bother me.
Secondly, while it may be likely that the viking on Stanford bridge was a berserker, it’s all just theory. We have no evidence of that outside of speculation and the supposed laziness of modern historians, but until actual evidence is given that this viking was actually a true to life berserker, I’m not going to apply theory to fact.
Third, the ulfberht was not a major discussion point for this video. But thanks for sharing that tidbit. I was unaware that it was a back up weapon. Cool facts.
Now…onto the guns discussion.
“the samurai would likely not have his gun loaded.” Well…the word “likely” is not helpful. If the gun is a matchlock, it IS loaded….the wick might not be lit.
“The typical musket range is 50 yards.” Okay, but according to some estamets, the tanegashima matchlock had a range of 200 yards. medium.com/@harunakahoshino/japanese-tanegashima-musketry-2e60b1726d48
“there’s a reason the bow was still commonly in use for the time period.” Well, which time period are you talking about? For that matter, which time period is Infographics talking about? They never specify an era…which is why I bring up the guns at all…if they had said which time period, I’d not be making a big deal out of this. But, if we really are looking at samurai in a general sense…then why not give them the percussion caped rifles that they gained access to during the late Edo period in the 19th century? Far more accurate, and having far more range than even the tanegashima. But see…they never specify anything.
“Bows beat guns in terms of range and rounds per minute.” But not armor penetrating capacity. I highly doubt the Vikings had access to the armor penetrating arrows that were available centuries AFTER their age had ended. Odds are they don’t have a draw strength strong enough to penetrate the steel armor that the samurai had. You and Infographics fail to mention the armor strength of the samurai, and that is just as bad as neglecting to mention the Vikings armor strength. Also, if you’re talking about speed of fire, you’re throwing out accuracy. Can you guarantee perfect accuracy when firing 10 to 12 arrows per minute? In medieval army combat, the warriors are used to arrow volleys (so were the matchlocks, not neglecting that). This reality means that he has to either slow down his shots to be more accurate, or he has to sacrifice accuracy for more shots. Not to mention, if the bow DOES have enough power to penetrate the armor, it will have a seriously hard draw strength to deal with, which will make repeated firing at rapid intervals very difficult. This is why, with the exception of England, many medieval armies preferred crossbows.
“So stop harping on the more complicated and at the time less effective without cover weapon.” I’m not harping on these guys just for the guns. I’m harping on them for leaving out so much information and details about the samurai. They cared so little about being accurate with these two warriors, they couldn’t even get the time period down that they wanted to use for the samurai. For that reason, I am free to point out that the samurai had steel armor. Had guns that were (by the 19th century, the twilight years of the samurai) were percussion capped and highly lethal. And they had far more weapons than Infographics is mentioning, including weapons like the kanabo which was a bludgeoning weapon which they admitted was the “only thing to put down a berserker.” You’re right that bows might have advantageous that the guns do not, but that’s not the only argument I’m making.
“1v1 the Samurai might shoot the Berserker one time before he closes the distance because step 1 is loading while this 6ft tall dude is sprinting at you or firing arrows which is much more likely and hitting you with them while moving in” You are underestimating the power of a musket ball. These things could be as high as 75 calibur bullets. To put this in perspective, even if the viking is drugged up to avoid pain, these could leave golf ball sized holes in their target. They would stop a viking in their tracks if not kill them outright. One shot may be all he needs, especially since the Vikings arrows probably won’t puncture the samurai armor AND the viking is not wearing anything more protective than, at most, chainmail.
“10 -12 rpm >3rpm.” Yes, I know basic math. I also know that we don’t use bow and arrows anymore. Why? It’s not because of rounds per minute…it’s because of ease of use, and because of stopping power. If a viking and a samurai both fire their weapons at the same time at each other, both within the effective range of each other, the samurai still has stronger armor. The viking does not, and the viking is being hit with a weapon designed to put down people far bigger than the one with the gun.
“In either case we have plenty of confirmed cases where soldiers have been shot and didn't even notice until someone told them.” Yes, in the case where the calibur is a small calibur round and the person is on an adrenaline rush. In this case? The calibur is around 75 calibur. It will leave a massive hole in wherever it makes contact, and I doubt the viking would just ignore that.
“And the Tanegashima being a smoothbore matchlock musket is not the most accurate firearm in history.” Never claimed it was…..but by that same token: a drugged up, battle crazed berserker is not the most accurate archer in history. In fact, I’m pretty sure archery is not what they’re known for.
@@RavenKnightYT First part was just adding to the conversation.
Second the max possible range against infantry formations is not the same as hitting a single human size target accurately. The Tanegashima was smoothbore meaning the ball bounces around inside the barrel making it less accurate with distance. Hence why i said Effective Range.
By the time they get in range they would be well within bow range for both of them. The reasons for bows still being better for this is longer effective range against a single target. Granted this would normally not be a duel as Berserkers fought in units of 12. So 12 vs 1 is not at all fair. Even if the Samurai had a few light infantry with him citizen militia rarely does well against veteran warriors.
So at the actual effective range not the max range but effective. The first problem is loading before the berserker is driving a dane axe throwing the Samurais face. Besides that if this where in the context of a duel as the infographic show is presenting it. The Samurai wouldn't be carrying his Tanegashima he would likely have a bow if he's out hunting because he felt like it and possibly a Yari . Of course also carrying his Katana and wakizashi and tantō which despite popular belief the tantō was most commonly used as a dagger as a last ditch defense on the battlefield.
Like wise a Berserker would be carrying a longbow of a round 150lbs draw weight, a Dane Axe mostly using it like a walking stick if he's traveling. He would also have his sword possibly an Ulfbert depending on how much he wanted to spend on a good sword. Additionally he would probably have a standard axe because well it's more useful for other things and a knife or seax which was a general purpose knife if various lengths my personal one is 8.5 inches overall with a 4in blade obviously not intended to be a weapon but there are longer ones . Seax basically means knife.
A viking at 50ft could probably close the distance however he's more likely to just shoot the Samurai in the face with his bow before the Samurai could load a Tanegashima . Now the bows are more fair to the Samurai because although the Yumi bow draw weight is only around 35lbs . The Samurai can nock quickly and fire on the Berserker. And at 50ft even though its not hitting with the force of a longbow those are still arrows if they hit a lucky spot they will kill the Berserker.
I've never seen anyone fight with an arrow in his eye. However the closer the Berserker gets the more difficult it will be to kill him.
A Dane Axe head can be swung at up to 60mph. I don't care what armor your wearing that's going to hurt if it hits you. And it is a versatile weapon . The heads actually relatively light considering its on a half 6ft long made of oak usually. And although most of the head is mild steel or treated iron basically to absorb the shock the actual blade is crucible steel forge welded to the the rest of the axe head.
The bad thing is it's pretty much game over if a Samurai is hit in the head with this weapon it will break bones through armor.
However i said Yuri for the Samurai for a reason. Spears have a better chance of pricing mail. Than every other actual battlefield weapon used by the Samurai. Of this went down to Katana vs Ulfbert and shied which it would likely never get to. Then the Samurai is screwed because thee is a reason shields where so popular. They are an extra layer of defense. And the Katana is not designed to pierce armor its primarily used for cutting which is useless against mail armor. Not to mention fighting a dude who is high on adrenaline , possiblity had a few drinks, doesn't feel pain at the moment and actually wants to die gloriously in battle so he can join his gods but also wants to take the Samurai with him as a sacrifice to his God's is not exactly where a Samurai wants to be.
Here's a video about the viking side of this. Because it was the show Deadliest Warrior that started this debate.
czcams.com/video/dAU4C0B11lI/video.html
And these are dane axe tests...
czcams.com/video/IipFm9M2adU/video.html
czcams.com/video/NEQ41xTUBMI/video.html
czcams.com/video/IOFHKIJTf00/video.html
The basic is Berserker where well trained elite guards of a lord or king and very well equipped and if your a Samurai or anyone else you don't want to be hit by a Dane Axe. It will severely injure and probably kill you depending on where it hits.
@@John2r1 “The Samurai wouldn't be carrying his Tanegashima he would likely have a bow if he's out hunting because he felt like it and possibly a Yari .” Why is the samurai just carrying a few light things while the viking is armed to the teeth? If both are just out for a stroll or hunting I doubt either are going to be packing some of their best equipment that isn’t necessary for hunting, let alone armor. Is this a fight with all possibilities or a random encounter? I don’t blame you for this confusion this is on infographics.
“Like wise a Berserker would be carrying a longbow of a round 150lbs draw weight,” I have a really hard time believing that number please share your source there the vast majority of longbows from the medieval era had a draw strength of between 80-100lbs. In fact, most bows from the Viking era would have been lucky to penetrate lighter armor like gambeson.
“Yumi bow draw weight is only around 35lbs” that’s the modern day sport Yumi the historical Yumi bows for dedicated archers could go as high as 110lbs.
“The bad thing is it's pretty much game over if a Samurai is hit in the head with this weapon, it will break bones through armor.” It depends where on the body you hit but you are correct heavier weapons like the Dane axe would transfer some of the force through armor. So the Dane axe is an effective weapon against the samurai but this logic has to be applied for the samurai’s kanabo. So both have armor penetrating capacity up close.
“Not to mention fighting a dude who is high on adrenaline , possibility had a few drinks, doesn't feel pain” Having a warrior on substances may not be the best thing in the world sure this may do wonders for pain tolerance but is going nullify what little capacity he has a range (using the longbow to get pin point precision is difficult enough as is) and could make him more sluggish in combat (in the case of alcohol).
“actually wants to die gloriously in battle” the samurai were also known to believe death in battle was a glorious affair so actually kind of a similarity there.
Not saying the samurai would win but I think he has a much better chance than you are giving him. That was the original problem with infographics show. You clearly know a great deal about the Viking berserker and I see where your confidence in them comes from. But the samurai stands a good chance of victory as well and there are a lot of factors up in the air (terrain, fatigue prior to fight, equipment brought, horses, reinforcements, skill, training, etc.) The way I see it the samurai has the best chance at range with consideration of the Yumi and the matchlock rifle ( I know its smoothbore and thus less accurate at greater distances but its stopping power has to be included) At close range things improve for the Viking as weapons like the dane axe are going to be more common than weapons like the kanabo so if the Viking can make it past the yari’s initial thrusting range he’s can bring it home with the dane axe.
@@legatelark6375 The Norse culture was much more war-like than the Japanese culture to start with.
Second aside from the sword , shield and Dane Axe, everything else he is carrying has multiple roles . The bow is for both hunting and combat. The standard one handed axe is used as a tool for cutting down small trees and making firewood out of them. The Seax was most commonly used for skinning and butchering animal's . Which is the same reason hunters carry knives today. So most of what the Berserker would be carrying are primarily used as common tools but in the hands of a trained warrior make an effective weapon.
So if this was a surprise encounter we have to trained warriors who came across each other while at least one of them was hunting. And don't mean for the other. Though I suppose a Samurai could be sent to find out who's been hunting on his lords land illegally. But in any case the gun would likely not be the weapon of choice for the Samurai here because simply put ammo is expensive and muskets are not that accurate to shot a single man size target beyond 50 meters.
The Samurai carrying his bow. A spear , his Katana , Wakizashi and Tantō.
If you actually count the weapons here....
Berserker :
1. Longbow.
2. Dane Axe.
3. Sword likely an Ulfberht.
4. One handed Axe.
5. Seax knife.
Samurai :
1. Yumi Bow.
2. Spear.
3. Katana.
4. Wakizashi short sword.
5. Tantō Dagger.
Each of them have 5 weapons. And yes I know a Viking round shield can be used for bashing an opponent. But it wasn't that common and the shields primary purpose was defensive so it doesn't count as a weapon.
Thus the Berserker doesn't have any more weapons than the Samurai does. Even if the Dane Axe is more effective than a spear when it hits. The skill of the wielder is more likely to determine the outcome.
The Berserker is highly skilled and a very large dude. But Samurai did vary in skill level and some where likely more skilled than the average Berserker in some areas of combat.
Both of them where trained from childhood for their respective position's. The Berserkers training may have involved a fair bit more brutality and less administrative work. But that doesn't make the fight any easier depending on his opponents skill level.
Of course this is all hypothetical as we don't have any Berserker's around today to do tests with. And Samurai skills are broken up between various schools and not practiced for actual combat.
Besides that we do know what happened when the Portuguese arrived in Japan and that they weren't just killed on sight. So who can say that the two don't just look at each other and try to figure out a way to communicate. The Norse while Vikings where warriors they did also trade with people. Granted stealing things from a church and selling them elsewhere isn't a great way to make friends but yeah the Vikings where relatively accepting of others when they weren't robbing them. Just saying the vikings also traded goods. Sometimes the stuff wasn't even stolen . Like Norse artisans making jewel for example.
So this scenario is relatively unrealistic from the video itself. Because Vikings don't make it a habit of traveling alone. Berserker's were a lord or kings bodyguard's. The Wolfskins where scouts and operated in fairly large packs of up to 18 who would sub divide themselves into smaller units but never just 1 .
The Boar Warriors where heavy infantry. Without much being known of the cult. In any case you would never find one alone.
On the other side of the coin the Samurai where of noble rank so them being alone in the woods in the first place is a stretch of believability.
It is most likely one would be armoured as they are attacking and the other was caught by surprise as neither really announced ther attacks like “ hey where coming to kill you so get ready for a big fight!” Most likely they would stumble across eachother randomly and have no armour or weapons but even this is unlikely as they are from pretty much opposite sides of the world even so if they did meet randomly with no armour or weapons the Viking berserker would win doesn’t really matter if your well trained in hand to hand combat unless your better then Bruce lee which I doubt seeing as how much other weapon art and traditions these guys had they still would have been incredible hand to hand fighters the berserker would be almost if not more than a foot taller much stronger and in a form of lessened rage more battle frenzy than full on berserker rage
Comparing Berserkers and samurai is ridiculous to begin with.
Berserkers were a tiny subset of Norse society. Not the mainstream fighting force like the samurai were.
The Norse mainly fought to expand their territories and to further economic growth. The Samurai were private armies employed by local warlords that for the most party kept local populations in check. Which lead to the development of Okinawan Martial Arts, the unarmed farmers had to defend theirs from the armed government oppressors that were the samurai.
A better comparison would perhaps have been the Great Heathen Army or the Varangians to the Samurai. Comparing Berserkers alone against the samurai is more similar to comparing a single special forces unit to an entire army.
Both groups are skilled, dangerous, and good at what they did. But they did very different things.
Remember, Vikings primarily utilize recon, raids, and siege tactics. Samurai were more of a pitched battle force.
It’s like comparing WW2 USMC (a maritime assault force) to the Waffen SS (a deep ground invasion force) Both skilled, elite, dangerous and very different.
Infographic kinda sounds like a Weeb Apologist.
~The BEST Bow's, the Sharpest Weapons,
the MOST Fashionable Armour, The Most Disciplined & Honourable People~
borderline Simping. imo
Both highly trained from youth, viking would be bigger, viking was definitely more sneaky.
I mean yeah until you know they go into a rage start attacking anything that moves screams in rage etc etc
Viking age berserker vs Samurai from the same point in time.
Berserker wins any day off the week.
Ah, but they did not say samurai from that day and time. They were referring to general samurai. They even reference the armor of samurai during the Edo period and reference the samurai of the 19th century. So we’re not talking about same period warriors.
@@RavenKnightYT I would only ever compare warriors from the same period of time. Everything else is just stupid and skews the fight.
Viking age berserker vs same period Samurai.
The berserker wins.
@@madsnyrnberg3743 Yes. And I agree. But the video I’m responding to did not make that distinction, so I must use only the information and context provided in the video. The video never specified and it included samurai information that is well after the age of the Viking. So I’m merely staying consistent with the video.
@@RavenKnightYT I agree. The video should have taken taken 793-1066 AD Berserker and Samurai.
No point in using a Samurai from a point in time thats several hundreds of years after the vikings.
That’s like comparing a 17th century soldier to a 2021 soldier.
First: guns
Second: GUNS
But yeah apart from guns the berserker would win more often than not depending on what the samurai did
To be fair.....guns aren't exactly entertaining for conversation lol
disliked, berserker would win. often.
Sorry but in the 16th century, most men were not 6' to 6'5" tall. This is insane. The average European man was probably only a couple of inches taller than the average samurai.
But the Vikings depending on where they bailed from could reasonably be much larger
@@jamesoneill8555 well are they bailing from the aft or stern?
Actually orochi was another word to describe a ninja
Um...no. Orochi is the shortened version of “Yamata no Orochi” which was an 8 headed serpent in Japanese mythology.
Maybe a particular one. In the Naruto series
Shinobi is another word for ninja.... Tf you been smoking
I'm focking throwing my guts off, there's so many focking historical inaccurate evidences in that video
Infografic be simping on beserkers..... Maybe a japanese should make these videos and make the beserker with no amor since they beserk and some fight without armor and only a axe...... And give samurai full armor with yari... Katana does not come in one they have 3 swords katana is rarely use it is the longest in fighting they mostly use wakizashi as it is shorter and can easily pierce through armor
a samurai would've trained most of his life to kill and he would be heavily armored too, yeah madman berzerker would be dead, period.
So would of a viking. What a moot point...
I bet infografic really like beserkers hahah.... Where is their little sword he forgot it
Lmao Samurai stands absolutely no chance.
A highly skilled samurai might be able to, naginata or yari could possibly keep the berserker at a distance, and the samurai could prob win on horseback. Also a kanabo might be able to kill a berserker. But who knows.
@@Kurt20051YT oh ya for sure. There are definitely cases the Sam would win. And I'm not saying samurai weren't very skilled. It's just the armor and weapons unfortunately just don't match up against the berserkers well.
It would depend on the samurai if he had I don’t know GUNS he would probably win on horseback he would more often than not win but apart from those two situations berserker would be at a mild advantage and win more often than not
It's a game for God's sake it's not reality.
Um...what?
@@RavenKnightYT For Honor is a game, many think of it as if it'd be real fight.
@@kleomenis456 Well yes, but this video isn’t about For Honor. Just warriors in general
@@RavenKnightYT it's ok