DanCo Fails to Compare Knights and Samurai (A Response Video)
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 12. 2023
- Thanks for Watching! Don't forget to Subscribe!
Wanna Support the Channel?
My Teespring: the-ravens-roost.creator-spri...
My Patreon: / ravenlord
Wanna support my Friends?
Hannah’s Instagram: / hooked_rose
Jay’s Instagram: / theartistj1993
Don't forget to check out the second channel!
/ @ravenswritingroom
And join the Discord while you're at it:
/ discord
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know nothing about DanCo or his channel...so this isn't a video specifically to criticize him...but this video of his was absolutely terrible. I couldn't resist taking a shot at it. I hope you guys enjoy.
CZcamsr: posts a video with very little research about knights and samurai
Raven knight: "You came into MY home... And you brought your armies... What did you think would happen?"
If I could say it with Apollyon's voice too, that'd be the ultimate win!
"That I wouldn't cross-reference your discussion points? That isn't how the world works!"
This whole "who would win" sounds like something me and my friends would argue over when we were still kids, lol.
To maybe educate here: Danco plagarases a great deal of his content and probably got this battle from a wiki and didnt actually do the reasearch himself. He does this for 95% of his videos about vs battles,list and or topics. If you want proof of this. Watch a guy Named Tylearn and watch his video.
Why is it so hard for CZcamsrs to just make the bare minimum effort? I mean really, fucking WIKIPEDIA? Reminds me of when that one dude who threw a hissyfit over female space Marines not being a thing got exposed for being a fraud lore channel who soley used Wikipedia for all of his channel info lmfao.
Long story short - It depends on the era.
Context, there is not a easy answer tô this but wow this vídeo deserve the response It got
For the most part. I mean, as soon as you give the samurai their musket/rifle and the knight plate armor that could deflect shots from early muskets, things will get very hard to choose by then.
totally agree @@mkdemigodzillawarrior
I think we are seeing a case of overcorrection, before it was the Katana/Samurai being mystical in legend and with overcorrection now they were just trash that breaks easily or bad warriors
I believe there can be something said about the katana and how it was not as good as people say, or easier to break. But that's to discuss iron quality and how poor it was. Along with the folding process and where its limits were. A fine, beautiful weapon and not to ever be discounted.
I'd still use a katana for self defense gladly and rely on it. Just because Japanese iron sucked doesn't mean that's going to be the only factor.
Anyone else notice how DanCo sound like a 5th graders giving a slidshow presentation or is that just me? The would video screams "I dont known what the hell im doing, but im to far in to stop."
Yeah from what I looked on their channel, their videos are all about comparing and contrasting characters from various franchises with about the same quality as this video.
Bravo to the editor who shown Vikings in the background, I guess they forgot to mention who was better a bribing Vikings to aid them in battle. Jokes aside Happy New Year
Happy new year Raven! I always hated these comparisons that people try to make. Honestly, both groups are respectable and reputable enough that we should look up to them, and learn from their experiences. Not ask “hurr durr, wHo WoUlD wIn In A fIgHt??”
"Who would win?" Is still interesting, but other stuff is good too.
Hey man recently you not see Blu eyes samurai. That's show is really is a master piece I recommended.
Say what you will about the old show Deadliest Warrior, but I saw a Kanabo shatter a viking shield with one good swing.
Honestly I've love to see Raven cover that show
@@26th_Primarch Meh, what is there much for Raven to talk about?
The Deadliest Warrior was riddled with many inaccuracies and showed flagrant bias. Not a reliable source of information at all.
@brothatscrazy3418 yeah probably. Still doubting I'd want to try to block a Kanab swing
@brothatscrazy3418
I don't think accuracy really matters when the question is if a Kanobo club can either shatter a shield, or at the very least break the arm of the person behind it. It's a fucking Kanobo club. Try and block a full force swing from one and tell us later if you arm is OK from it.
Yee been waitin for this one 😈
I have always found that the most important questions to ask when comparing groups is to ask who is fighting, when are they fighting, where they are fighting and why they are fighting. If one can't answer those then the debate is pointless.
That seems pretty stupid
@@brreakfastYT If it works it ain't stupid
A kanabo would wreck a knight's entire day with a quickness. Crushing weapons might not outright kill, but dented or punctured plate, plus broken bones would take you out of the fight for good. Same could be said for any maces or a morningstar... Or a warpick or hammer. Polaxe, halberd... They were pretty much meant to be a counter to plate. Also thinner swords like rapiers could more easily exploit gaps, hence why they came into favor as well.
On a battlefield, knights and samurai are fairly level with each other truth be told.
Also, while it is true the longsword has a double edged blade, and there are plenty of false edge cutting techniques that exist, the prinary purpose (at least from my own reading) seems like it was more meant as a back up cutting edge in the event that the true edge is damaged or loses its sharpness due to wear.
Also, are we gonna see a Deadliest Warrior breakdown? That'd be hilarious.
Personally I disagree. If they are on the battlefield or in a duel scenario and have relative, skill, weapons and armor for the time then I'd say that Knights generally have the advantage in a straight 1v1. Mainly coming from the fact that the Japanese were roughly 200 years behind when it came to war based technology. Even if you adjust for time between the two their weapons would relatively be on par with each other but the armor is still a large factor. As European Plate armor generally provided superior coverage and that honestly just comes down to availability of materials. Japan didn't have massive Iron deposits and relied mainly on Iron sand until they started to regularly import steel much later, almost after the Samurai were forced into extinction. Had they not had that limitation their armor would have been more comparable.
Also this is not me saying that Plate Armor is invincible or anything like that, cause that's not the case.
True. However, 16th century plate still offered much better protection than any other metal armor ever. And beating it, even with picks, maces and halberds, was definitely not physically easy. Most of the time it required you to floor the opponent and then finish them on the ground.
Thinner swords came into favor with the advent of widely available guns, which made armor increasingly obsolete, which meant people did not wear it that much, which in turn made people carry weapons that would be completely useless against armor. The strange thing is, this was the golden era of swordsmanship - from civilian longsword fencing through the rapier all the way to the cavalry sabre.
True and false edges were used for cutting pretty equivalently, especially in longsword. This can be attested both in Fiore, who advises us to cut all the mandritto cuts with the true edge and all the roverso cuts with the false, and in KdF, where two out of the five mastercuts from the strong side, one from the weak side and the streich are all thrown with the false edge. All of this only concerns unarmored fighting - against armor, all cuts are pretty useless, and longword is not really a "battlefield weapon". In fact, some swords (i.e. the estoc) did not have a cutting edge at all.
What knights and what samurai? 19th century rifle armed samurai would easily kill a 12th century crusader knight, but a 15th century knight in plate armor would probably crush a 16th century Sengoku era samurai in most situations.
Raven knight DANce is notorious for being wrong and about just everything he does. he usually does comic book characters and characters from movies and does breakdown on fights
Personally I think it comes down to era the warriors are from. But I think its also slightly unfair to compare a knight from Europe due to the variance of what a knight would run into compared to a Samurai. There was just far more diversity in Europe compared to Japan. This is not me saying there was no diversity in Japan, its that it was just to a far lesser degree.
I mean, Europe had a lot more regional diversity because there were a lot more regions in Europe than in the island, Japan, which spaned a far smaller surface area
@@Wanderer-nw2so My point exactly.
@@Wanderer-nw2sonot to mention Europe bordered or interacted with a number of lands potentially hostile, like Russia and the Middle East you never know WHAT could come over those hills! Japan was mostly insular and dealing with what was in their own cultural region.
Okay I don't know what you mean by variances, talking about armor,weapons or tactics because that's underestimated in Japan because that's highly underestimated in Japan and a bit overestimated in Europe.
It's not as if knights were constantly sending themselves all over the place all the time.
@@KristopherPrimenot sure but wasn't Russia mostly dealing with the Middle East rather than Russia acting as the aggressor itself? Besides a few instances it's mostly Eastern Europe (especially the Byzantine empire) that had a deal with the Middle East not most of Western Europe.
Japan actually dealt with pirates coming from other areas and Japanese mercenaries with great success.
Have a happy new year Raven!
Your debunking videos are always a treat to be had.
Hey Raven happy new year!
For Honor is still alive!
Happy new year from Italy!!!
28:09 I mean, gamborson(depending on the thickness)can block bladed weaponry unless it was super sharp and the thicker side Could even block longbow arrows and it's made up of stiffen layers of fabric so absolutely not long stories were not designed to cut through armor if you cannot go through a padded jacket effortlessly It is not designed to go through any type of armor
Thank you for the great videos. Have a Happy New Year.
Great response video Raven.
Happy New Year to you Raven! It’s almost Midnight at the time of writing this. Just wanted to say that I am glad to be a part of your many subscribers. I know I may have been a bit defensive and angry in a lot of my comments in your videos and I regret that so I hope that next year will be a better one. Stay safe and be happy. Hope all is well.
Happy 2024!!!!
One thing I always find comment to such videos is that all of them speak of war like a video game. Like ancient people go to war to just win a game not a war and they're absolutely broke every knowing human role and code to win
DanCo’s video is one of the many reasons why I always dislike videos regarding the “deadliest warrior” type discussions. Not only is it far more complicated that requires a lot of research that will eat up most of your time, even if you did find a conclusive answer, there’s always another thing overlooked that will change the perception of the fight. Do you make the fight fair or realistic? What terrain are they fighting in? What era? Etc etc! I wish people would stop making these for clickbait. The truth is, there is no winner because you would have to sacrifice a lot of things just to make one warrior better than the other, and that wouldn’t be fair.
I think I would be interested to see Landsknecht vs samurai as samurai were up to 19th century and 16th century Europe revolved around pikes, guns and greatswords with stronger armor just not as much of it
I think an interesting comparison would be both knights and samurai once they had adapted to the use and countering of the firearms of their time, and using tactics which would historically have been used against relatively reasonable counterparts. For example, horse archers were potentially quite dangerous for heavy cavalry, but for a lot of the same reason they were good against them, they were in many ways outclassed by foot archers. Famously, the armies of the crusaders largely countered Turkish horse archers with crossbowmen. This arms race eventually led to horse archers largely, albeit not entirely as it held out in the East, being phased out of Eurasian warfare. The same concept would later see a resurgence with the proliferation of firearms, through things like carbineers, black riders, and dragoons (the last of which is, admittedly, more highly-mobile infantry than true cavalry).
The Samurai, on the other hand, have had limited conflict with foreign cavalry, their most notable engagements with other countries before the Early Modern era having been the Koreans, and Koreans who were currently "under the management of" the Mongols, and neither of these are really informative enough to help here, due to complicating factors regarding the naval aspect before they could even come into play. Further, even the foreign cavalry they fought usually had armor pretty similar to theirs, as lamellar armor was effectively the "norm" for heavy cavalry as far West as Eastern Europe. Looping back into the gunpowder age, we see this would also be the case with the knight(s), as Japanese armorsmiths had begun making armor to comparable specs to contemporary European armors.
So to who I think would win, personally, considering their full arsenals at their most potent;
1v1 (pre-gunpowder age): samurai. The extra range here is king. It's effectively shock cavalry vs shock cavalry, but only one has a truly reliable ranged weapon.
1v1 (post-gunpowder age): I'd say knight. Better horses, better horse armor, and the fact that many late knights and late samurai alike would have carried firearms, yet both would have themselves been resistant to them, means the deciding factor here is who can ground the other first.
army vs army (pre-gunpowder age): knight. specifically because we can point to a specific way medieval armies tended to counter cavalry archers, and Feudal Japan's awful track record at non-domestic war.
army vs army (post-gunpowder age): really could go either way, and is genuinely just hard to predict. Both sides had plenty tactics and weapons designed to counter pretty similar threats to the enemy and his army's composition.
[also as a side note; though everyone says Samurai didn't use personal, handheld shields, this is abjectly false. They were not common in the most stereotypical period of the samurai, but were fairly common both in the earlier and later periods of Feudal Japan; at first they were effectively replaced by heavy armor except in rare cases, much like the knights. Later, they saw a resurgence with the advent of gunpowder, because they were an effective method of protecting against shot in close quarters or from horseback.]
0:28 question ever heard of the old show by the name of Deadliest warrior that I believe aired on Spike TV.
If a katana is too brittle for proper use then wouldn't the same go for odachi? The really long swords they used for cavalry?
Nice Video. Thank you.
What i want to know....have you already watched blue eye samurai on netflix? Maybe worth a Video? :)
And btw. Happy New year and greetigns from germany :)
Blue Eyed Samurai is a badass show, I'm looking forward to future episodes 😁
@@Christopherson2006 I fully agree
When I first watched the video I was like "Okay this is starting to sound a lot like Knoggin."
Happy New Year Raven appreciate everything you do God bless you and your family in the name of Jesus our Lord and Savior
DanCo has a bad track record of straight up bullshitting on his vs videos and even downright plagiarizing content from other creators.
I would love to see a review of Deadliest Warrior done by you
Can anyone tell me what the clip at 29:32 is from?
I have an opinion on this arguement and it is, assuming similar armor and weapons, say, a longsword vs. Katana or No-Dachi (just go with it) and assuming both are 'fully trained' (wrestling/jujustsu, swordsmanship, etc). I hold Knights, on average would be taller, stronger, faster due to higher beef/meat diets and average height and weight of the respective nationalities (say, Western Europe France or British during the 100 years war) the European Knight will, generally, be in a higher weight class and we know what that means in a combat situation.
It All comes down to who has the better weapons and IQ
Hi! I stumbled upon this video by chance as I tend to avoid them since they are quite toxic. I think you did a good reply highlighting the ridicolous biases the other video claimed, although I personally disagree with your final conclusions.
In recent times, the historical figure of the medieval knight, its role and weaponry have been discussed extensively on various platforms by different degree of experts. The same cannot be said for the Japanese samurai, which is either used as a scape goat to debunk all sort of claims associated with anime and the like, while dismissing entirely the side of Japanese military history, or it is examined through the lens of an outdated orientalism, which is equally as bad.
The parallels are many but ultimately, it was the "original sin" of Japanese historiography to claim some sort of equivalence between European knights, Feudalism and western history and the Japanese Samurai, the Bushidan and Japanese history. Reducing one figure into the other (the Japanese knights or the European samurai) is an excercise of bad history and futility, and it often turns out to be a "analysis" á la Deadliest warriors. The differences on how these two different elite warriors lived, fought and died in their respective societies is far greater than one could expect, especially through different ages.
From a personal point of view, I have been interested in Japanese arms&armors for a while and built a presence on the web for about 10 years by now. With that being said, I can confidently say thay people on average are dismissive of Japanese arms and armors, their capabilities and their functions. Japanese literature and sources are either left out or ignored, and the features of these items is lost in favour of some fantasy and pop culture misconception that is repeated over and over again as a mantra.
I am working on an essay/paper on the development of Japanese plate armor associated with the Kantō and the Go Hōjō, hopefully this will help to get a better source out there to explain Japanese arms&armors.
As a note, there were few mistakes I think worth notice on the Japanese side.
1) The katana as a weapon can be used on horseback. The earliest form of uchigatana that are described in the Heiji monogatari or the Azuma Kagami are essentially daggers and were used to stab enemy horsemen when they got to close. This is described both in few monogatari as well as artwork. While it is usually shorter than the Tachi sword, it is not always the case - the Nagoya Musem Tōken website discuss it in an article named
データで見る太刀と打刀の長さ - ホームメイト.
2) The katana can be used one handed. In the early 1500s it was rather popular to have what is known as katateuchi or 片手打 in Japanese. These are shorter katana, around 2 shaku in length or slighlty more (60-65 cm blade with +2.5 cm of habaki) and were fitted with a smaller nakago. You can find reference in art but also with surviving examples from the Muromachi period that are labelled as 片手打刀. If you are familiar with any Japanese swords related publication, they do show up as well.
3) I apprecciate you have covered the brittleness issue of Japanese swords, but it is worth highlighting that this was a specific problem of Shintō blades, made after the 17th century which used a very high carbon steel and untempered large and wavy hamon. Period 19th century smith Suishinshi Masahide famously wrote about them and the need to go back to older sword design and methods.
4) The Tatami armor was not necessarily used by the ashigaru. There are very few extant pieces from the Sengoku era, but it was an all steel armor therefore it was considerably expensive in its own right. Most pieces you find online are from the Edo period, where it got popular due to its ease of carry, storing and weight.
5) As a final note, I think the coverage of Japanese armor is highly underrated and under estimated. From 張大復 「東征献獲記」we can read that spears nor bullet can manage to easily penetrate it and accounts as found in the 明徳記 we read that a heavily armored warrior was not an easy feat to defeat, as they had to actively go through the armor gaps and/or damage the armor first to get an opening
You forgot to mention that a knight’s arming sword and long sword both also where both a status symbol and a side arm just the same function as a samurai’s katana would serve
If we use the "top" equipment comparison, they are quite literally almost the same warriors with a different visual style. The ONLY advantage in that situation could maybe be that Europeans are generally a bit larger.
The hole samurai vrs knight who would win, from what ive seen (granted ive havent done alot of research) either side could win, it just depends on what there bringing and the skill of the fighter and just the fight entirely, it could go either way. Thats my conclusion at least i might be wrong, please tell me if i am
Samurai wins because bullet to head. They use their Tanegashima and aim for the head. And if that doesn't work they have the Kanabo to break armor. The Yari to jab from range and if the fight is tuck at long range then the Yumi is used! There are so many options that both of them have that it would require the skills of the warriors to come into play! While I have my bias I'm willing to give both of them the full sets they would have.
Not really since Knights had been using firearms since the end of the 14th century and general technology surrounding firearms was more advanced in Europe compared to Japan by roughly 200 years.
@@brothatscrazy3418that is not the correct gunpowder weapons have already been used in Japan by that time as well, cultures like the Ming dynasty had access to both European and Japanese firearms with the Japanese ones were considered better, in addition knights did not even use guns and Japan has some exclusive firearms like Ozutsu.
Tho I think a match with no guns allowed would be better.
@@brothatscrazy3418
Beside the many inaccuracies here and there, could you please drop this "200 years ahead" thing? Seriously, it does not make any sense.
You are either claiming that by the end of the 16th century, Japan had only barely developed 14th century handgonnes as their topmost technological development in the field OR that Europe had the equivalent of late 18th century rifles as seen in the napoleonic wars, because that is the 200 threshold your suggesting and both cases makes 0 sense
@@lucanic4328 From the information I've gathered online(could obviously be incorrect) the japanese didn't start to use firearms commonly till roughly 1549 when they were introduced by Portugal sailors a few years prior. And they stayed behind
@@brothatscrazy3418 This still does not match your idea of 200 years behind.
Japan had been exposed to gunpowder weapons in the late 13th century during the Mongol invasion, and the first records of handgonnes/firelances is found in the Hekizan Nichiroku (碧山日録) from the 15th century. The European based firearms spread into Japan during the 1540-1560s, the most famous episode is the one narrated in the teppō ki of Tanegashima in 1543, but that is a later source written in the 1600s. Another source written in the 1600s, the Hōjō go daiki mentions similar devices being brought by a monk to Odawara in the 1520s, and the reality of the spread of matchlocks in Japan is not necessarilly only linked to European traders but rather to South East Asian pirates, including Japanese ones. In fact, the major centres of production were in Sakai and Negoro ji in the 1550s and 60s, not in Tanegashima nor Kyūshu. However, when these centres were established and guns became of common use, they had their own development with shooting techniques, standardization of the bore, creation of unique styles of arquebueses, devices to shoot in the rain and so on. It is a bit disingenuous that in this period, the gunpowder based technology was "200 years behind" as they were literally using similar technology and the Japanese made improvement of their own, with especially long wall guns capable of shoot at extensive distance like the one associated with Mori Takamasa.
The stagnation in terms of Japanese firearms technology happened in the later part of the 17th century, when the Sakoku policy was enforced and Japan closed its border. This is still partially true tho as there were people allowed to study western sciences and the like and produced air rifles and flintlocks based rifles before the Meiji restorations.
If I was him, I would give a more eclusive answer to the whole Knight Vs Samurai because yes there are multiple versions of each warrior so in the battle I would choose the Templar Knight and the Edo period Samurai because in my opinion these two are the best versions of their group (and when you say the word samurai and knight these are the two i quickly imagine)
Templar Knight- The armor he would use is the Chain mail breast plate combo, with a great helm and kite shield, The weapons he would use is a Lance, armed sword, dagger, and the cross bow
Edo Samurai- The armor he would use is the Kozane Dou Gusoku armor, the weapons he would use is Odachi, Tachi, Tanto and the Yumi
and for this battle I would give both of them their horses since they do have horse weapons
But the setting since why these warriors are fighting will matter too, In japan as the Europeans start to trade with the Japanese people, beliefs and religion will migrate over too, but as the knight is trodding on the roads of Japan he notices the respected Samurai is dressed up as an Oni, and he remembers through his travels the Japanese name demons or devils as Oni so to the knight dressing up as a demon is like blasphemy, he takes his crossbow and aims at the samurai (Fight)
I know its a far fetch reason why the would fight, but I wanted to show the two different honor systems in both cultures, Templar's were loyal to faith were Samurais Edo period were loyal to Families, but I would be interesting to see how they would react too
This was a good video. Although I think the knight does ultimately have the edge, the samurai and their weapons were by no means unsophisticated or incapable. My only criticism would be your use of the term 'plate mail'; this was a term invented by Dungeons and Dragons which is how it made its way into popular culture, but the correct or technical term for armour primarily consisting of large metal plates is just "plate" or "plate armour". "Mail" exclusively refers to armour formed by connected rings. Technically, even "chain mail" is an improper term for linked-ring armour, as historical sources and academics will refer to it simply as "mail". This means that "plate mail" is a term that combines two different words that refer to two completely separate types of armour.
Can you Build ademar
Further on the brittle katana claim... Since we already give them their "best" equipment, they would have brand new swords anyways. And they surely won't fight for weeks.
A small thing to think about with the wrestling aspect. Europeans would be bigger and heavier than the Japanese, which would give them an advantage in wrestling.
Legitimate question, assuming both sides had their peak armaments, wouldn’t knights be at a massive advantage? Lots of blades were used up until samurai were phased out. So would grappling really be their only saving grace? I mean axes also act as blunt damage I suppose
The Samurai at their peak could injure Knights, if not kill them, using Kanebo, Spear, Yumi, Muskets or Axes. Hope that helps answer your question.
No, at their peak Knights had superior armor and firearms compared to the Samurai. However we are talking firearms here so its going to come down to a bit of luck of whether or not a shot lands and is it fatal or not. However you also have to take into consideration the difference in time periods as well as there's essentially a 200 year gap in war based technologies in the favor of Europe.
@@brothatscrazy3418 The armour of common Knights really wasn't that much greater than Samurai. Both had access to steel armour iirc, but with the Samurai it came much later...
Templars had superior armour to Samurai, but most Knights weren't Templars.
@@Ganymede559 No, 16th/17th century Plate armor was far more advanced and provided superior coverage to anything the Samurai had developed by their end in the late 19th century. Yes they both had access to steel but Japan's access was for more limited due to it coming from refined iron sand. It was impractically to make a full suit of plate armor out of steel like you'd see in Europe for the Japanese until they started to import steel regularly.
And no, Templars did not have "superior" armor. The Knights Templar ended in the early 14th century. And in the 14th century Plate armor was still in its infancy compared to what it would later become.
@@brothatscrazy3418in no way was the 16th/17th armor Superior to armor of the late 19th century armor wasn't even common anymore, Japan did not have less access to steel at this time that's only true once we get to the industrial revolution where people were creating metal ships, a lot of plate armor in Europe was not even steel,iron sand was not even the only or most common used Japan had another source what is a solid iron ore comparable to the best ore In Europe. You don't hear about that much now because iron sand is more unique so it's more marketable.
There is also no 200 years in gaps in technology here currently.
Yes, yes I know I keep getting my own comments into this but seriously, a sword is only as useful as it's user If the user of a longsword doesn't know what they're doing, they're probably not going to win against a more skilled opponent
I'm not even a history expert and I know that the Katana is legendary but NOT magnificent, and was rather bat at thrusting and stabbing, and was sometimes considered a shameful thing to be good with a Katana, because that meant you were bad with a bow and had to close to melee range.
And more. Already. DanCo is a weeb hiding his weebness, or hiding his anti-weebness. Not sure which. Written about 10 minutes in.
It is dependant on my mood, whetehr I find ppl who have no idea about a subject, talking about a subject amusing or head-ache inducing. For real, guy has clearly no idea how warfare and evolution of equipment for its works in general, let alone individual weapons or armor pieces! XD
Or better yet why can't you show their greatest accomplishments, and use that as evidence of skill
as a romaboo i say gladius and scutum is way superior, heavy infantry is peak just nerf the goddamn parthian/hun horse archers with their unlimited ammo cheat code
clearly danco wonted the Samurai to fail considering the set up he gave them dude the Samurai are NOT weak. they lasted a lot longer then the knight did
God he is so bad XD the Main weapon of the Knight WAS BIG SUPRISE the Lance, and shield to block attacks from the shield arm side (left side) or to push an other lance attack to the side or To block Arrows, Heavy cav was a Super long time the Bane of the Battlefield that is Why Spears left the Battlefield and Pikes took there place and people Copied the Greeks again, On foot, after they where forced to dismount, they Used a Morningstar or a Cav hammer also with there shield, better something in the left hand then Nothing, that was the Main use, Polearms where Only used if they where not on Horseback. As Prooven by the Knights Templar and The Ordo Teutonicus, Knigts on horses are super Scary, and no one wants to mess with them. the Same with Samurai, there main Weapons where Yaris, Yumi, and Naginata (atleast somtime, because some saw the Naginata as a Womens weapon) the Katana saw almost NO use on the Battlefield it was a Duel or self defence weapon and a Weapon to show your Status. the battlefield Swords where the Tashi (the real Longsword that comes close to the Knight swords) or the Nodachi/Odachi (still dont know what the difference is look the same to me, could be cool if some one could explain it)
This "comparison" is a roller coaster of over exaggeration and short selling of the same side...
DanCo is the most infamously awful power scaler on the internet. He comically low-balls characters, takes obvious BS literally, and steals content from Vs Wiki, which is also bad.
Please do not use dnd terms like platemail, it's just called plate armor or white harness, platemail is a made up modern term. Also I found really weird how dissmissive of the well attested use of the katana one handed you were, be it from traditionnal katas or art showing them used with one hand holding something else in the other. This goes also for horseback, about which you somehow claim that samurai barely used their swords from, which is ludicrous, ofc they did. Be mindful of spreading these ideas yourself if your goal is making a takedown video against missinformation.
While my terminology about plate armor was admittedly off, I have seen no historical evidence to suggest katanas were used on horseback. If you have an academic source to refute this, please share it with me so I may be better informed. But from my research, the use of a katana from horseback, if ever done, was out of necessity and not design.
I'm prepared to be proven wrong...but please provide the evidence.
As for "art holding a katana in one hand" I wouldn't trust Japanese art to show the correct usage of tools, as traditional Japanese art tends to exaggerate imagery often. And the modern katas we see today do not necessarily have their grounding in the real war sets of the feudal era.
It is possible the katana COULD have been used one handed, but again, I need academic evidence to prove it, and some arts and modern day kata simply isn't sufficient.
But I would be more than happy to be proven wrong.
I'm sorry Raven but I repeatedly cringe at your use of 'platemail' in reference to European style plate over chainmail armours.
#1 it's an TTRPG term rather than either a period or academic term.
#2 It's too close 'plated mail' where plates are incorporated into mail which is distinct from plate worn over mail (it's very common in Islamic cultures such as the Ottoman Empire and Mughal India)
I see. Well I'm sorry that upset you. I did not mean to get my medieval armor terminology off. However, I'm sure you knew what I was trying to say all the same.
But...while we're being pedantic: I object to you using the term 'chainmail' when it should just be 'mail' or 'maille' armor.
@@RavenKnightYT Ha ha, very clever... however...
(This became a bit of a wall of text, sorry for the inconvenience)
Chainmail isn't period like maille but is used academically (although there are people that do take issue with it) and is commonly understood unlike platemail which is fantasy rpg terminology, I mean, you say in the video most people understand platemail to mean the best quality armour used from the 15th to 17th centuries but that's not true, I'm willing to bet most people aren't familiar with the term (they probably wouldn't object to it but also wouldn't think to use it) and even most of those that are probably aren't thinking of that. (Could make for an interesting street interview video if someone were to ask random people which out of a selection of armours from different periods and regions they considered to be 'platemail')
Chainmail provides context, it is very specific as a term, you know you are talking about interlocking rings used as armour (Maille is more often used in refence to jewlery today and mail can mean the letters you receive in the post) while platemail can only makes sense if context is already provided. Does the person mean plated mail, plate over mail, mail armour with plate elements but can't be considered full plate (such as what would be common in the late 13th century to early 14th), lamellar, all of the above or one specifically. At best you know you are talking about armour of some kind.
So I will defend the honour of chainmail as a term as I caste down platemail and I don't consider myself hypocritical for this position.
Anyway, good job on the video aside from that.
It baffles me you still don't see the problem. If you had merely offered a polite correction, this wouldn't have been an issue.
What you did was you rushed to pedantry and stated that you 'cringed' every time I said something the wrong way.
You did not come off looking academic. You came off looking whiny.
If you take issue with my terminology, I take issue with how you chose to address my error. It came off insulting and pedantic...and THAT is my issue.
@@RavenKnightYT
I didn't intend to be impolite, cringe was just my earnest emotional reaction and I thought is was okay to express it here. It was what motivated me to write the comment. Even now I can see that you were insulted but I don't know 'why' exactly. It might be something super obvious to most people but I possibly have autism of some variety so that might be getting in the way of my social understanding in this instance.
I can how someone might see might comment as being pedantic (and whiny) but I don't see how I could make a terminology correction without it being pedantic. I expressed my issues with the term as best I could.
So I can see an alternate timeline where I made a comment that wasn't insulting (as my specific emotional reaction isn't necessary for the point, or I could have expressed it in a way that's more palatable) because the point of contention is what is pedantic. Unless you wanted me to just say it was incorrect without any reason as to why it might be.
Would "Hey Raven, 'platemail' is a term from D&D that isn't really used for historical armour so you should reconsider using it. There is something called "plated mail" where plates are incorporated into mail, but that is distinct from this topic" been acceptable?
Sorry for the wall of text again.
Since you brought up weapons with the Katana bit, I think once the Samurai saw how ridiculous Knight armor was we'd probably see them switch to Kaneobo Clubs more. The way these people act as if Japan didn't have weapons to deal with armor is honestly just plain silly lol.