I´m Icelandic and there for a living offspring of the vikings. For example I am related far back to Leifur Heppni who found america about 500 years before Columbus and to his father, Eiríkur Rauði, who found Greenland around the year 1000.
@theingabritt I understand you posted your comment along time ago, and that the Swedish Viking were feared. What I would like to know was; did they all type in caps like you, or is that a modern interpretation?
Basic sword fighting: guy advances his foot and you slice his instep up. Fight over. Guy tries overhead cut you let shield take it and pick where you want to foin (stab) him. At end of vid guy on left causes guy on right to blind himself by raising his shield over brow height. Fight over.
To those talking about samurai, come Tokugawa they were basically servants who acted as thugs. Ask any old Japanese person what they think of the samurai and it won't be pleasant. (I've lived and studied in Japan for 7 years, I have some ground to stand on in this regard)
In terms of Samurai spirit, that is simply "win by any means necessary". The core of the Samurai code was servitude. How one wins is irrelevant so long as the order was carried out. Poison, deception, all are permissible.
Does it not make the warrior vulnerable when the opponents weopon is stuck in his shield?? (assuming there are more opponent) So he kills his opponent since his weapon is immobil in the shield, but what to do with the other opponents? I think by the time I clean my shield someone else would chop me into pieces. So frammed shields might be have a great advantage. Just a thought.
@Attilahollo9 yeah thats why u don't clean your shield unless u just have the time. the battle itself will clean it for u. in real time this goes so fast that cleaning your shield is no priority. u r on to the next one to survive the battle
@Attilahollo9 chopping your enemy with a weapon means your weapon might get stuck , its just one of little risks you have to take . Plus i dont see how disarming your opponent would ever make your vulnerable .
@Attilahollo9 It definitely would make the shield unwieldy and a liability to its owner, its the same concept as the Roman Pilum which was designed to penetrate and bend on impact with a shield making both the pilum and the shield unusable
finally a viking ighting video thats not embaressing to view. (Im sorry, I dont mean to be rude but watching two people throwing thei swords at eachother a couple of times for then to stare at eachother for 30 seconds before they repeat the same exact thing is indeed boring. This seemed to be serious and I actually learned something from this.
I initially thought he was using a high guard stance, but it seems he's modified it, bring his arm lower, down behind his shield. Very interesting.....
@Metalheadyup I dont think anyone is sure where the name comes from, but the term is used as a verb to. They said (on runestones) that "they went on viking" or "died on (during) viking" so A viking simply meant someone who went abroad for trade, plunder or conquest...
@Metalheadyup The suffix -ing tells much about the word. In the Scandinavian languages, -ing is a suffix used when referring to a person who fits the adjective or noun preceding it. For example, "riking" ("rich" + -ing)=rich person. "Tulling" ("nonsense" + ing)=imbecile. "Viking" ("bay"/"inlet" + -ing)=viking. Someone who comes from the bays/inlets/fjords. That's the etymology of the word. But the specific meaning, even back then, had to do with raiding.
@OenghusLok We all miss Mr Reinhardt. It was so awesome to see his input in the Reclaiming the Blade DVD by Galactia Films. Sad he died but comes to all of us I guess.
@hawwhaw Samurais are boring because they are slaves and they have no freedom; vikings are never boring because they have the freedom to go where ever they want.
@zombiekiller117 No I'm not racist and I don't hate Asians nor do I hate Black. I hate samurai because they are so bound to that fucking honor code that they are merely slaves to it. In other terms samurai don't have much freedom despite the fact they are so called nobles and were born of a higher class. Personally I prefer the warriors of Southeast Asia plus they are better fighters than samurai or viking put together. I have some friends who are black and oriental and I treat em with respect.
@DaddyWarbucks452 The samurai had their codes of honour, and the vikings had their codes of honour. There is no qualitative difference there. The samurai frequently went against their code of honour, and the vikings frequently went against their codes of honour. No qualitative difference there, either. Japanese history is just as full of tales of treachery and deceit as European history - the samurai were just as human as the next man.
Everyone is dissing tSamurai because they are very much over-rated by both media and the general public. Great warriors, yes. Invincible Übermensch warriors at the pinnacle of all melee combat ways, definitely not.
@00Jose00 Do I need to mention that Vikings did not actually discover the Americas? Besides, becoming a Viking was ridiculously easy to do. All you had to do was join some random king's hirð (pronounced heerth) and they would hand you a shield, spear, and iron cap and let you go about your way. I think your confused because Asian Nomads discovered the Americas first. They crossed between Russia to Alaska when the tide was low and it presented them with a bridge to the other side.
@00Jose00 i dont think that they found america but they did find some of it. there is like 3 others that found it. but the vikings are very strong warriors. i come from barbaric blood cause of bein mostly german i love barbarians and i love the vikings and normans. they all are very powerful warriors. the samurai can say they are the best but when it comes to fighting these warriors would kil lthe samurai. gladiators are even badass to.
I have to say I am impressed by the steel nerves of Mr. Reinhardt (spelling?). I would be pretty nervous letting someone with a sharp hack into the shield I was holding with no other protection. accidents do happen after all. still excellent points made by Hank although I feel his example of a feignt was to complex of a move to be al that effective it would need to be made more efficient I think, even though the theory was correct. thank you for posting this excellent video.
There are a few factors in winning a large battle, how big your army is compared to the enemy, how well its trained to fight in units, and the skill of the leaders/comanders to know how to use them. And a good amount of luck
Vikings used the phalanx style of fighting they called it the shield wall Gilmaris obviously knows nothing of history and is just trying to argue with so called facts from wiki,. The vikings also had taken part in massive battles and did not just run away!.They also developed a technique to break a phalanx called the pig snout a tight triangle formation with a suicidal front man who would take the full force of his men smashing him into the enemy.
"Vikings used the phalanx style of fighting they called it the shield wall"
A shield wall is very, very different from a phalanx - the phalanx being a SPEAR wall. Also, the "pig snout" or "svinefylking" is not something the vikings invented. It is the good old wedge formation, designed to split up formations (not specifically phalanxes, and would indeed be very BAD against phalanxes due to the great frontal strength of the phalanx).
If the only advantage of the phalanx was the bronze front of the shields, explain the long sarissas. Better yet, explain why, when the phalanx had its renaissance (in the Renaissance), they simply dropped the shield altogether, and why the Japanese also found phalanx formations to be effective without shields.
You see, when engaged in melée, the shield is of very little value to the phalanx. They used shields to protect against missiles only: YOU try and use a shield with a 20' spear.
The main weapon for a viking and any other warrior of the day was the SPEAR!!.every man had one for hunting. Wood for the shaft was free as it was for the axe but a spear head was cheaper and easy to make. Any man would rather fight at a distance the spear is the logical choice to any sane man, only an idiot would attack with a sword or axe first!! these were just backup weapons, And as with all the richer more powerful man would have better spear heads,swords or axes!!.
YOUR WORDS HAVE NO VALUE , YOU HAVE WRE WRITTEN THE HISTORY OF THE COD WARS AT LEAST 4 TIMES
TO DESCIPE ICELANDERS AS COWARDS (DOES UK DECORATE COWARD WITH MEDALS FOR BRAVERY)? YOU MAKE THINGS UP AND TWIST EVENTS IN SUCH A RIDICULOUS WAY THAT IT SHOWS WHAT A IGNORANT FOOL YOU ARE BUT also DEMINISING YOUR OWN NAVY
Flick cuts, turning the sword so it is palm down in the last 1/8th of the movement so it attacks with the back edge of the blade, come around most prepared defenses and would be very surprising to a samurai who had not encountered a weapon without a back edge. From what I've seen the chinese jian which is the only other back edged weapon a samurai might have encountered is not used in ths way. I've cut through 2.5 inch green wood in this way with my own viking sword, head and knee height.
so bearing that in mind a head height back edge cut would instantly kill an opponent, stiking anywhere between the shoulder point and bottom of the helmet rim. A hamstringing leg cut in this manner would take the leg off at the lower thigh cutting up through and behind the armour. Whether chain coat or samurai this area of the leg is usually unarmoured for mobility. Only really the 15th+ cent knights and mail chausses armoured here. Also those aren't the only blows in a viking arsenal.
often shields were reinforced several inches in from the edge besides the main grip reinforcing strip. the sutton hoo shield is a fine example of this, though most would have had simpler shield fittings that this king's shield. A shield like this provides security of a reinforced disc some 25 inch in diameter that is resistant to breaking as well a a soft edge presented endgrain on to most righthander VS righthander attacks. easily allowing for the torsion of the shield against a sword blade
Jeyerd, about your question of the source, this is Hank Reinhardt and the people of Hurstwic, in a video called "Viking sword", edited by Paladin Press.
The only way you could tell the difference between the edge of European swords and that of a katana is by testing it on paper. It would make absolutely no practical difference in real combat, except that the katana may come out horribly chipped if the edge accidentally touches anything other than unarmored foe. The slightly softer edge of European swords could be repaired with a stone the same as one would do with a nicked wood axe.
Thanks for posting this! I believe the source would be "How to Use the Viking Sword in Real Combat" with Hank Reinhardt, having I believe being the fellow with the blau tunic.
Besides. Take a Viking whose weight is about 80-90kg and a Japanese Samurai - short man weighting about 50-60 kg. Viking with his brute raging attacks would crush this little Samurai in a second. It's a myth that Samurai swords were so awesome. During Middle ages Samurai sword were really poor quality. I bet that Samurai stand no chance against a Viking.
That is something I totally forgot about. Yes, most katanas would have been shit. They were pumped out of multi-man forges 100 per day during war time. The good ones with the famous edge would have been possessed only by rich, high ranking samurai who specially ordered them from renowned smiths.
"They were pumped out of multi-man forges 100 per day during war time. "
This was only ever true of WWII. Swords were never mass produced before, as spears and bows were the preferred battlefield weapon. And even if they wanted to, there is no way to stamp out 100 swords per day without modern tools. Hell, even WITH modern tools, you'd have to have a large, dedicated facility. With traditional methods, you cannot make a battleworthy blade in less than... 3-7 days? And that's for a low-end blade.
a team of bladesmiths could definitely accomplish this. We are talking about bars of steel sharp enough to kill a man (bear in mind that a club can kill a man), not weapons capable of shearing through leather armor and human bodies over and over again while maintaining a sharp edge. It is pretty simple: hammer out a bar of steel, hone something of an edge onto it, add simple handle and sheath and BAM, you got a sword worthy of an expendable conscript. I could do that if I had the steel.
The problem is, the Japanese didn't have the steel. The quality of their iron was so poor it had to go through laborious purification processes to produce tamahagane, and this was very rarely wasted on "slab of steel" swords (maru). A homogenous blade is actually a very GOOD sword construction if you have very pure steel, which is why many high quality blades today are made by stock removal. But this was not available back then.
The most common sword construction back in the day was honsanmai, a laminate of three different steels in terms of hardness. Here you have the soft steel for the core and the spine, the medium steel for the sides and the hard steel for the edge. This was by far the most common type of sword construction after the Japanese got good at swordmaking, and although it isn't as hard to make as it perhaps sounds, it's not something one can mass produce as such.
Theoretical arguments aside, there is simply no evidence of the "100 swords a day" stamping out of swords except one period, and that's WWII. And it is for this reason that WWII swords, or gunto, are banned in Japan. No other swords are banned on account of quality.
It also wouldn't make any sense to stamp out 100 crappy swords (and they would be so crappy as to be useless on that scale) a day when there wasn't ever a demand for that many swords. On the battlefield, spears dominated.
Hence why they probably DIDN'T WASTE TAMAHAGANE ON MASS PRODUCED FOOT CONSCRIPT SWORDS! HURR DURR! A sharpened piece of crude iron will kill a man pretty darn dead, not that it matters when their primary weapon was the spear anyway.
If you knew anything about the quality of their iron, you'd know that a sharpened piece of iron would be worse than useless. You couldn't even rely on it to survive the first blow. This has to do with the extreme impurities in Japanese iron, and why it was essential that tamahagane was used for swords. Tamahagane varies in quality, too, and you do indeed have many poor quality swords, but none as poor as being able to be produced by the hundreds per day. No machine tools, remember.
Every Japanese soldier had a crappy sword. We are talking about thousands of men here. Tamahagane was elite steel, so I'm sure it was not used for all of their swords. Any piece of iron can be made fairly homogenous and sturdy by repeatedly hammering and folding out the impurities, which was an industry unto itself. Remember that the Japanese were insanely, even oppressively industrious. Remember also that ancient barbarian tribes often used crude iron swords, which evidently did the job fine.
"Any piece of iron can be made fairly homogenous and sturdy by repeatedly hammering and folding out the impurities"
And this is extremely time consuming, and not really worth the trouble if the impurities are too great. What you do then is mix the mediocre iron (which you have in significant quantities) with good iron (which is in very limited supply), in order to get carbon migration going and you end up with tamahagane.
So what are you saying? That the Japanese somehow provided all of their soldiers with quality tamahagane swords? They are more industrious than I thought! It's pretty smart to waste good steel on poorly trained conscripts isn't it?
I'm not the one saying they stamped out hundreds of swords. In point of fact they did not. They produced a LOT of swords during the sengoku jidai, yes, but never on an industrial level. Most swords weren't of the best quality, but certainly no sword could be produced in a matter of hours. That is physically impossible with those days' technology.
"Remember that the Japanese were insanely, even oppressively industrious."
If by this you mean they were hard working, then yes. The way they got things done was by having lots and lots of people work really really hard.
If you mean to say they had a good industry of ANYthing going, however, then no. Before McArthur brought in new schools of thought by Deming and others, Japan was terribly inefficient when it came to industry. Japan's modern industrial fame has American roots.
They fought agains't people who were always unprepared for combat and they were just peasants
Early in the VIKING age they did but not in the middle or late VIKING age
No the vikings wouldn't get annihilated, I would give the norsemen the advantage since they came into contact with MANY more cultures and fighing tactics than samurai, Samurai met what 4 maybe (Chinese, mongels, Koreans) beat some got trashed by others just like the Norsemen.
I agree with Thunar, The Viking's were a very tough and hardy race, it takes alot to kill a man that has lived in such a harsh climate and braved the many winters and Famines that Vikings had to go through, they lived a constant struggle and adapted to it, I just don't think the Samurai could handle them.
To say that vikings had contact with many more cultures... well yeah, if you lump the collective experiences of all vikings into one. But most vikings only had experience in fighting against people of more or less the same culture they themselves came from. Only *very* few Norsemen, such as Harald Hardråde, would have what one might consider vast experience. For the most part, vikings chose their victims well, and didn't get involved in even matches if they could possibly avoid it.
True that. Every warrior dreamt of glorious victory over superior forces, but every warrior sought to win, first and foremost. If that meant subterfuge, subversion, treachery or whatever, then that is what was done. Whether in Japan or anywhere in Europe. What Yamamoto said in commenting the attack on Pearl Harbour demonstrates the attitude: "A military man can scarcely pride himself on having smitten a sleeping enemy. It is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one sleeping."
The Norse very much worshipped the fight, honor, glory and heroic deeds.
Their very religion castes cowards to Hel (one L) and hero's to Valhalla.
And the fact that Norse blood sits/sat on the thrones of England, France, Russia and other influential European countries. I'd say they did very well for themselves against "organized adversaries". Not bad for a people history deems "barbarians".
Sagas are glorified versions of history, and should always be taken with a grain of salt. And regardless of their religion, vikings were not any more keen on dying than anyone else, as indeed even the sagas tell us. Every warrior in every culture has wet dreams about dying gloriously in battle, but they would much rather survive the battle and enjoy victory. Failing that, the next best thing is to survive the battle and live to fight another day.
Sure, you have stories of exceptional valour, but the key word is exceptional. And even though we read in Håvamål, "the wretch thinks he'll live forever if he shuns battle; but old age gives no man peace, though spears have spared him", why would this even be mentioned if they did not have "wretches" in their midst?
Of corse sagas should be taken with grain of salt, all histrory documention should.a sagas are literature, no dry documens.. You mention Egils Saga before? Actually the very same arguments some historians used to proof it as nonsense is now proof of how acurate it is... Egill had a rare syndrom, bone thickening ... the saga descripes this great details the descriptions are almost clinical .... American medical specialist stumbelet on this some years years back
They have been puplished as any other books,depenting on what languise you prefer to read them in, they ar awalable as paperbacks.awell as had cover .If I remember correct a company named penguin have puplished many sagas in , I do not think its proplem for you to get your hands on such a book..there are also internet sides. I dont like to read from a screen,, but if you prefer it thats fine,,, i can send you links to qoulaty internet sides .. if you like
sgnewa: Hello friend,thanks for the answer. Well I can read in english and spanish so that wouldn´t be a problem. Yes please send me a link of this I would like that =D
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Icelandic gun boats continually rammed British vessels that were unsuitable for playing dodgems.When similar British tugs rammed the gun boats back they opened fire on them. Even though they were unarmed.Still you say you won the cod war. Lol Youre like little children repeating things you wish to be true. As we can see from the Icesave scandal. But on the bright side Britain will ruin your economy for generations to come so I will sit back and enjoy the screams from your bankrupt island
telstar9: just shut up you weak womanly bretton and go watch other videos. What do you gain from coming overhere talking shit about Iceland? nothing, so get a fucking life and get out of your mothers house you damn virgin
Thank you for trying to correct this man, he is really strange, he found out Icelandic sagas exists about 1 week ago ,he is already expert in the issue
he claims they are non important fairytales
, he as world expert in Saga research has come to this profesional conclusion,,
, what a big fool this man is..
claming me saying British sailors are bad
I have never said this,, howewer he atemts to wre write the cod wars history twist events or make then up to glorify hes homeland
@ condor89 Ill tell you what I get from posting on these videos, satisfaction and revenge!. I`m sick to death of listening to these wankers from Iceland slagging my country off. So I will continue to post for as long as they keep attacking the UK. I have come to realise Iceland is country that exists on lies and bullshit. Its history is basically fairy stories and half truths. The Danes are true Vikings they enslaved these wankers for hundreds of years , they know the truth.
satisfaction and revenge from talking on the computer? I´f you want revenge and satisfaction, I suggest you get intside a bar,get drunk and pick a fight there. You´ll get a fight for sure ;) lol
He really is a clown.the reason he comes to the conclusion Danes where are so great is he says they are hes forfathers and therefor it has to be so
. this is also a man of very low moral fibre the fact he harrases Icelandic kids is the prof for this,telling 16 year old kid his homeland is worthless made no contribution to the world etc is a classic..If he represents the british population they deserve to be rippet of.. what he calles slagging of his country are repyes to dicusting comments
I don´t know too much about Iceland, but I never heard of Icelanders having conflics with anybody. Why would icelanders have any poblems with danes if they are the same people anyway right? you´re like blood brothers
We have no conflicts with the Danes he comes to the conclusion that becose Iceland used to be in the Danish kingdom we where slaves owned by Danes if we where slaves to Denmark is it not strange that many of this slaves served in the royal guard where in control of inportant historical reacerch and holding high possisions would it not be really unike in the history of slavery? this man is srange..
For the record. I have never said British where bad sailors, he says Icelandic seamen are, cowards when pointed out that those "Cowards" saved shipwrecked brits he diregards it, says its only laws of the sea.like.this where some Icelanders on a pleasure trip and picked them up on the way those he calls he calls cowards often put there life in huge risk when saving shipwrecked lets take the rescue the crew of Dhoon it is called rescue achievement of the century,
The Icelandic sagas are fiction . Its been proved countless times. A seven year old boy making his first kill. what a load of shite!(killed a fly maybe lol)
As a matter of fact, the sagas many people believed to be just fiction are provent to be very correct! They talk about voyages to the new world and more..
@hobogasm You are so smart, if I shall ever seek knowledge on history, I will ask you. Of course the New World refers to another planet and not the Americas
considering they didn't specify which of the norse danes swedes or Norwegians they are talking about plus Norse did exchange with each other as well and all and all I still say they would be would have more experience than samuai
Samurai were destroyed by Mongol brutes on horses the first time they invaded. The Japanese did adapt their methods and hold off a second time, but that goes to show you that unfamiliarity with attacks and tactics from other cultures can lead to devastating losses.
Actually I am not 100% certain Mongols brought their horses with them across the sea, but regardless the Mongol's tactics threw off the samurai who weren't prepared and did horribly against their first invasion.
Not neccessarily. Norse warriors fought other warrior cultures and also British soldiers and knights. The Samurai would have a hard time getting the chainmail of the Vikings, because they used mostly light slashing-weapons, where the Viking swords and axes were still razor sharp and heavy enough to make it through samurai armour. The vikings also used a solid shield, which is basically the best item you can use for defense. The Samurai used no shields, because they saw them as a sign of weakness
The Samurai have been taught not to fear anything even pain its self, Not many soldiers obtain that kind of mindset today and no soldier would go down in a fight that way.
The Samurai were unique because of their disipline and inner body mind control.
And the Vikings would be assisnated in their sleep because they drunk a lot of rum at the time and then do their pathetic celtic dance then have sex with their women during the nights.
Go to kultofathena or some other retailer of high quality swords and compare the weight of Viking style and other European swords to Katanas. You may be surprised. Also factor in the double edge and pommel counterbalance. Now which is the superior sword?
umm, samurai had a good deal of heavier weapons, case in point their spears, the yari to me shows a VERY interesting design, very sturdy, almost armour piercing but i realise itd have problems. like any other. as for 'halberds' most people think of the naginata. id actually say the REAl one to watch for are spears like the cross shaped (jumonji) yai, the kama yari etc
The samurai had a lot of good weapons, and were terrific warriors, I won't argue against that. .Yari are very good weapons, but not significantly improved upon a regular spear. It would make it through chainmail, but the Vikings were used to spears; they were their preferred weapon, and a warrior carried up to four into battle. The naginata is a good weapon, but also a light polearm with a slashing emphasis, which would have difficulty defeating chainmail.
which is why i personally think your in beter stead with the almost halberd looking yari spears. which essentially, if you look them up, they have blades extending perpendicularly from the base of the head, the jumonji yari would look like a partizan almost.
You're thinking about javelins, I'll wager. Spears were indeed very common with vikings (as indeed they were in any civilization), though the axe was perhaps even more common. Vikings never developed phalanxes, though, like the Japanese did, with spears the length upwards of 20 feet sometimes.
I don't know where you get your info, but spears were by far more common among the Vikings. They did fight in formation. Axes served mainly as close-quarters melee weapons when formation broke for people who could not afford a sword. Phalanx combat is too specialized. The Vikings, protected by their shields and wielding axes and swords could have hacked through any phalanx easily and suffered minimal losses.
"Axes served mainly as close-quarters melee weapons when formation broke for people who could not afford a sword."
Axes were by far the most common weapon, because everybody owned one. Not everybody owned a spear. Everybody had to own a weapon of some sort, and an axe was just fine. And these would constitute the bulk of a Norse army.
"The Vikings, protected by their shields and wielding axes and swords could have hacked through any phalanx easily and suffered minimal losses."
We weren't even touching on the subject of "viking vs. samurai", so I don't know why you would even bring that up. The samurai who were contemporary to the vikings were mounted archers, anyway. The emphasis on closed ranks and long spears emerged around 1400.
actually, the viking shield wall, and/or a viking charge would fall before a phalanx. as long as the phalanx had protected flanks, as was ensured by skirmishers and other phalanxes. The macedonians and greeks alike faced such shield wall and charge tactics many times, and were victorious many times. though they werent viking they fought similiarly. celts = sword+round shield (or oval...w/e)...
looks like robert low
EDCgearJUNKIE 3 weeks ago
Barbarian retards thinking there cool. Fuck the germanians!!
aznien9 1 month ago
I´m Icelandic and there for a living offspring of the vikings. For example I am related far back to Leifur Heppni who found america about 500 years before Columbus and to his father, Eiríkur Rauði, who found Greenland around the year 1000.
Heidinnensamtekki 3 months ago
@theingabritt I understand you posted your comment along time ago, and that the Swedish Viking were feared. What I would like to know was; did they all type in caps like you, or is that a modern interpretation?
RevNTheogen 3 months ago
Funny how people often mention spain and vikings when talking about the discovery of America. And not the indians :P
jankuiper3422 5 months ago
I didnt know that because im a complete foul in history. thx for pointing it out to me!...
bieberMAN93 5 months ago
im always suspicious if i hear americans talke about (european) history :D
bieberMAN93 5 months ago
@bieberMAN93 Americans were originally europeans.
JESUSISGREATEST 5 months ago
@JESUSISGREATEST But they were the europeans who failed in Europe.
Pommes1983 5 months ago
I tend to prefer the roman sword and sheild
Lvl60Slayer 5 months ago
This guy looks like a guy I would trust on everything he says
EdTheBadass 6 months ago
This is Hank Reinhardt and Whit and Allen Williams from a video called "Viking Sword" and can be purchased from Paladin Press.
twinwolfproduction 6 months ago
@twinwolfproduction I'm getting that DVD ASAP!^^ Thanks a million, buddy!
TheScandinavianOne 6 months ago
This is Thrand!!!
Good job!!!
ThegnThrand 7 months ago
this is the late hank reinhardt
BuscoBeast 7 months ago
@BuscoBeast The Grey Wolf, himself, yes. I know folks that knew him; wish I had.
leekellerking 6 months ago
Awesome video! learned so much in two minutes
Wiinajamizzi 7 months ago
Does this guy remind anyone else of Colonel Sanders?
ANZACJugger0 7 months ago in playlist Medieval Stuff
Comment removed
JESUSISGREATEST 7 months ago
@mrchockuls viking ninja, ftw fucks
whannes 8 months ago
RIP Hank Reinhardt. You have left a strong legacy of living history. The sword survives today because of you.
eacortes 10 months ago 10
Basic sword fighting: guy advances his foot and you slice his instep up. Fight over. Guy tries overhead cut you let shield take it and pick where you want to foin (stab) him. At end of vid guy on left causes guy on right to blind himself by raising his shield over brow height. Fight over.
lebarosky 10 months ago
Very interesting video, this oldman knows his stuff well.
Vikings rule =)
Schildschmied 10 months ago
To those talking about samurai, come Tokugawa they were basically servants who acted as thugs. Ask any old Japanese person what they think of the samurai and it won't be pleasant. (I've lived and studied in Japan for 7 years, I have some ground to stand on in this regard)
In terms of Samurai spirit, that is simply "win by any means necessary". The core of the Samurai code was servitude. How one wins is irrelevant so long as the order was carried out. Poison, deception, all are permissible.
Tsumanne 10 months ago 2
why the hell are no viking styles on soul calibur?!
sinbd 11 months ago
@sinbd
Because no other accurate sword style is on Soul Calibur.
(It was most likely done by Theatrical Fencers, whom are pretty-much agreed upon as glorified dancers rather than actual swordsman.)
HipposHateWater 6 months ago
Hey, that's Hank Reinhardt!
IngenieurAerospatia 11 months ago
The sword held by the older man didn't seem to look like a Viking sword hilt...
victorwongvw 1 year ago
Comment removed
Attilahollo9 1 year ago
Does it not make the warrior vulnerable when the opponents weopon is stuck in his shield?? (assuming there are more opponent) So he kills his opponent since his weapon is immobil in the shield, but what to do with the other opponents? I think by the time I clean my shield someone else would chop me into pieces. So frammed shields might be have a great advantage. Just a thought.
Attilahollo9 1 year ago
@Attilahollo9 yeah thats why u don't clean your shield unless u just have the time. the battle itself will clean it for u. in real time this goes so fast that cleaning your shield is no priority. u r on to the next one to survive the battle
osotrari 1 year ago
@Attilahollo9 chopping your enemy with a weapon means your weapon might get stuck , its just one of little risks you have to take . Plus i dont see how disarming your opponent would ever make your vulnerable .
sewagedweller 1 year ago
@Attilahollo9 It definitely would make the shield unwieldy and a liability to its owner, its the same concept as the Roman Pilum which was designed to penetrate and bend on impact with a shield making both the pilum and the shield unusable
tullyDT 11 months ago
finally a viking ighting video thats not embaressing to view. (Im sorry, I dont mean to be rude but watching two people throwing thei swords at eachother a couple of times for then to stare at eachother for 30 seconds before they repeat the same exact thing is indeed boring. This seemed to be serious and I actually learned something from this.
Leisis1 1 year ago
I initially thought he was using a high guard stance, but it seems he's modified it, bring his arm lower, down behind his shield. Very interesting.....
PantherReignsSupreme 1 year ago
SWEDISH VIKINGS . HELL YEAH WE PEOPLE FROM SWEDEN ARE REAL VIKINGS LONG TIME AGO EVERYONE WAS AFRAID OF SWEDISH VIKINGS
TheIngabritt 1 year ago
@TheIngabritt
Viking = a norseman from Viken in Norway (at least that's what many experts deem correct). But hey, Scandinavia is a Viking peninsula ^^
Metalheadyup 1 year ago
@Metalheadyup I dont think anyone is sure where the name comes from, but the term is used as a verb to. They said (on runestones) that "they went on viking" or "died on (during) viking" so A viking simply meant someone who went abroad for trade, plunder or conquest...
Hopefulfilment 1 year ago
@Hopefulfilment
Of course, no one has all the answers ^^ What I wrote is one of the theories. I personally think that Viking means a voyage, raid etc.
Metalheadyup 1 year ago
@Metalheadyup The suffix -ing tells much about the word. In the Scandinavian languages, -ing is a suffix used when referring to a person who fits the adjective or noun preceding it. For example, "riking" ("rich" + -ing)=rich person. "Tulling" ("nonsense" + ing)=imbecile. "Viking" ("bay"/"inlet" + -ing)=viking. Someone who comes from the bays/inlets/fjords. That's the etymology of the word. But the specific meaning, even back then, had to do with raiding.
Gilmaris 8 months ago
this guy is so knowledgeable thank God for his indep reseach
NewZealfighter 1 year ago
I never thought of using a shield this way.
8stepsifu 1 year ago
There's my next mount and blade character.
Antiks72 1 year ago
Good ol' Hank. I miss him.
OenghusLok 1 year ago
@OenghusLok We all miss Mr Reinhardt. It was so awesome to see his input in the Reclaiming the Blade DVD by Galactia Films. Sad he died but comes to all of us I guess.
tgillies101 11 months ago
fuck samurais, vikings rule!
DaddyWarbucks452 1 year ago 89
@DaddyWarbucks452 but knight is the best
luce504 1 year ago
@DaddyWarbucks452 fuck you... you don't even know what the true spirit of samurais is
hawwhaw 1 year ago
@hawwhaw Samurais are boring because they are slaves and they have no freedom; vikings are never boring because they have the freedom to go where ever they want.
DaddyWarbucks452 1 year ago
@DaddyWarbucks452 Samurais were nobles they weren't slaves... vikings were simple peasents
hawwhaw 11 months ago
@hawwhaw When I mean slaves I mean slaves to their honor code and just so you know, I hate nobles. It is the noble who is the real pig fucker.
DaddyWarbucks452 11 months ago
@DaddyWarbucks452 At least they knew what true honor was and were real fighters...
hawwhaw 11 months ago
@hawwhaw Whatever man still I fucking hate nobles.
DaddyWarbucks452 11 months ago
@DaddyWarbucks452 You may hate them but you hate them with no reasons because they protected the people and were like the "police" of Japan...
hawwhaw 11 months ago
@DaddyWarbucks452 Do you also hate black people and asians,or do you ONLY hate White children for happening to be born into a particular family ?
You are Anti-White
zombiekiller117 10 months ago
@zombiekiller117 No I'm not racist and I don't hate Asians nor do I hate Black. I hate samurai because they are so bound to that fucking honor code that they are merely slaves to it. In other terms samurai don't have much freedom despite the fact they are so called nobles and were born of a higher class. Personally I prefer the warriors of Southeast Asia plus they are better fighters than samurai or viking put together. I have some friends who are black and oriental and I treat em with respect.
DaddyWarbucks452 10 months ago
@DaddyWarbucks452 The samurai had their codes of honour, and the vikings had their codes of honour. There is no qualitative difference there. The samurai frequently went against their code of honour, and the vikings frequently went against their codes of honour. No qualitative difference there, either. Japanese history is just as full of tales of treachery and deceit as European history - the samurai were just as human as the next man.
Gilmaris 8 months ago 3
@hawwhaw
Simple peasants? Sure, some of them were, but a lot of them were dedicated warriors.
Metalheadyup 11 months ago
@DaddyWarbucks452 thats the corniest shit ive ever read
JRMK969 10 months ago
@JRMK969 Well fuck you stupid otaku bitch; you and your fucking gay shit anime shows.
DaddyWarbucks452 10 months ago
@DaddyWarbucks452 your mother and i watch anime together every night while she jacks me off.
JRMK969 10 months ago
@JRMK969 Yeh I know she does it by hacking your little pecker off.
DaddyWarbucks452 10 months ago
@DaddyWarbucks452 hahaha what can i say, i know what turns her on
JRMK969 10 months ago
@DaddyWarbucks452 why do you have to dis samurai??
JESUSISGREATEST 7 months ago
@JESUSISGREATEST
Everyone is dissing tSamurai because they are very much over-rated by both media and the general public. Great warriors, yes. Invincible Übermensch warriors at the pinnacle of all melee combat ways, definitely not.
HipposHateWater 6 months ago
@DaddyWarbucks452 You don't have to dis samurai if you don't like them idiot.
JESUSISGREATEST 7 months ago
@DaddyWarbucks452 sure but so do samurais
PARTYORWHAT 4 months ago
Great video if you like this one please look my videos up on youtube.
ThegnThrand 1 year ago
I like this mans voice. More please.
Gratch2222 1 year ago
Vikings first discovered the Americas, screw Christopher Columbus. Vikings deserve the credit. They are badass.
00Jose00 1 year ago 42
@00Jose00 Why did you think the vikings didn't settle in America?
JESUSISGREATEST 7 months ago
@00Jose00 (citation need)
1465225568 6 months ago
@00Jose00 Do I need to mention that Vikings did not actually discover the Americas? Besides, becoming a Viking was ridiculously easy to do. All you had to do was join some random king's hirð (pronounced heerth) and they would hand you a shield, spear, and iron cap and let you go about your way. I think your confused because Asian Nomads discovered the Americas first. They crossed between Russia to Alaska when the tide was low and it presented them with a bridge to the other side.
TheOenghus 6 months ago
@00Jose00 i dont think that they found america but they did find some of it. there is like 3 others that found it. but the vikings are very strong warriors. i come from barbaric blood cause of bein mostly german i love barbarians and i love the vikings and normans. they all are very powerful warriors. the samurai can say they are the best but when it comes to fighting these warriors would kil lthe samurai. gladiators are even badass to.
lycan0105 5 months ago
@lycan0105 Barbarians are fuck up people
JESUSISGREATEST 5 months ago
@JESUSISGREATEST im not even gona comment on this cause soemtimes people say that as good comments or bad. but yea.
lycan0105 5 months ago
I have to say I am impressed by the steel nerves of Mr. Reinhardt (spelling?). I would be pretty nervous letting someone with a sharp hack into the shield I was holding with no other protection. accidents do happen after all. still excellent points made by Hank although I feel his example of a feignt was to complex of a move to be al that effective it would need to be made more efficient I think, even though the theory was correct. thank you for posting this excellent video.
Ianflaer 1 year ago
Weapons and armour are just a evolving fact of warfare to cope with the enemies,
wiking31 1 year ago
There are a few factors in winning a large battle, how big your army is compared to the enemy, how well its trained to fight in units, and the skill of the leaders/comanders to know how to use them. And a good amount of luck
wiking31 1 year ago
Vikings used the phalanx style of fighting they called it the shield wall Gilmaris obviously knows nothing of history and is just trying to argue with so called facts from wiki,. The vikings also had taken part in massive battles and did not just run away!.They also developed a technique to break a phalanx called the pig snout a tight triangle formation with a suicidal front man who would take the full force of his men smashing him into the enemy.
wiking31 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Vikings used the phalanx style of fighting they called it the shield wall"
A shield wall is very, very different from a phalanx - the phalanx being a SPEAR wall. Also, the "pig snout" or "svinefylking" is not something the vikings invented. It is the good old wedge formation, designed to split up formations (not specifically phalanxes, and would indeed be very BAD against phalanxes due to the great frontal strength of the phalanx).
Gilmaris 1 year ago
DID not say they INVENTED the "pig snout" but they DEVELOPED it..the only advantage the eastern phalanxes had was there sheilds had a bronze front
wiking31 1 year ago
If the only advantage of the phalanx was the bronze front of the shields, explain the long sarissas. Better yet, explain why, when the phalanx had its renaissance (in the Renaissance), they simply dropped the shield altogether, and why the Japanese also found phalanx formations to be effective without shields.
You see, when engaged in melée, the shield is of very little value to the phalanx. They used shields to protect against missiles only: YOU try and use a shield with a 20' spear.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
with a spear wouldn't it be called something else? Like a pike formation?
effigytormented 1 year ago
@effigytormented
The pike formation is simply a renaissance of the phalanx, sans shield.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
@Gilmaris - You're over simplifying. Generalizations are not good in a discussion.
effigytormented 1 year ago
@effigytormented
How on earth is that an oversimplification? It was the sarissa what made a phalanx a phalanx, ie. the pike.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
The main weapon for a viking and any other warrior of the day was the SPEAR!!.every man had one for hunting. Wood for the shaft was free as it was for the axe but a spear head was cheaper and easy to make. Any man would rather fight at a distance the spear is the logical choice to any sane man, only an idiot would attack with a sword or axe first!! these were just backup weapons, And as with all the richer more powerful man would have better spear heads,swords or axes!!.
wiking31 1 year ago
i realy prefer a mezoamerican/Andean fight,why dont,huh?
ryu174 1 year ago
Wow, really a cool video. Thanks!
Arian297 2 years ago
YOUR WORDS HAVE NO VALUE , YOU HAVE WRE WRITTEN THE HISTORY OF THE COD WARS AT LEAST 4 TIMES
TO DESCIPE ICELANDERS AS COWARDS (DOES UK DECORATE COWARD WITH MEDALS FOR BRAVERY)? YOU MAKE THINGS UP AND TWIST EVENTS IN SUCH A RIDICULOUS WAY THAT IT SHOWS WHAT A IGNORANT FOOL YOU ARE BUT also DEMINISING YOUR OWN NAVY
sgnewa 2 years ago 2
@sgnewa
You`re the only person in the world that would slag off British sailors(Navy and Fishermen). Most countries regard them as the best in the world.
telstar9 2 years ago
@sgnewa learn to steer.
effigytormented 1 year ago
Flick cuts, turning the sword so it is palm down in the last 1/8th of the movement so it attacks with the back edge of the blade, come around most prepared defenses and would be very surprising to a samurai who had not encountered a weapon without a back edge. From what I've seen the chinese jian which is the only other back edged weapon a samurai might have encountered is not used in ths way. I've cut through 2.5 inch green wood in this way with my own viking sword, head and knee height.
LutefiskSavage 2 years ago
so bearing that in mind a head height back edge cut would instantly kill an opponent, stiking anywhere between the shoulder point and bottom of the helmet rim. A hamstringing leg cut in this manner would take the leg off at the lower thigh cutting up through and behind the armour. Whether chain coat or samurai this area of the leg is usually unarmoured for mobility. Only really the 15th+ cent knights and mail chausses armoured here. Also those aren't the only blows in a viking arsenal.
LutefiskSavage 2 years ago
often shields were reinforced several inches in from the edge besides the main grip reinforcing strip. the sutton hoo shield is a fine example of this, though most would have had simpler shield fittings that this king's shield. A shield like this provides security of a reinforced disc some 25 inch in diameter that is resistant to breaking as well a a soft edge presented endgrain on to most righthander VS righthander attacks. easily allowing for the torsion of the shield against a sword blade
LutefiskSavage 2 years ago
guy reminds me of a turtle
Drizzlerman 2 years ago 3
After that one I've started to use that fake attack! :) It's VERY effective :)
Haszczu87 2 years ago
Cooool.
insertoriginaluser 2 years ago
Jeyerd, about your question of the source, this is Hank Reinhardt and the people of Hurstwic, in a video called "Viking sword", edited by Paladin Press.
(I own a copy n_n)
Nec0byte 2 years ago
The people of Hurstwic had nothing to do with the making of this video. In fact, I think the video predates the formation of Hurstwic.
thorleifr 2 years ago
The only way you could tell the difference between the edge of European swords and that of a katana is by testing it on paper. It would make absolutely no practical difference in real combat, except that the katana may come out horribly chipped if the edge accidentally touches anything other than unarmored foe. The slightly softer edge of European swords could be repaired with a stone the same as one would do with a nicked wood axe.
Matunaagah 2 years ago 2
There is something scary about this guy.
Matunaagah 2 years ago
Man I swear some of you people are either 13 years old or really stupid.
maddog793 2 years ago 2
Check out my video Viking vs. Samurai : Thrand's aftermath part 1,2,3 and fighting bonus video on youtube. great video :p
ThegnThrand 2 years ago
Why wouldn't it be Knight vs Samurai? Vikings and Samurai makes no sense.
Ieatbabyseals 2 years ago
I didn't know the man, but have a lot of respect for him.....R.I.P. Mr. Reinhardt.
SWORDSofJUSTICE 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this! I believe the source would be "How to Use the Viking Sword in Real Combat" with Hank Reinhardt, having I believe being the fellow with the blau tunic.
Entheobotany 2 years ago
I meant to say Hank should be the guy in blau.
Entheobotany 2 years ago
Besides. Take a Viking whose weight is about 80-90kg and a Japanese Samurai - short man weighting about 50-60 kg. Viking with his brute raging attacks would crush this little Samurai in a second. It's a myth that Samurai swords were so awesome. During Middle ages Samurai sword were really poor quality. I bet that Samurai stand no chance against a Viking.
staregry 2 years ago
That is something I totally forgot about. Yes, most katanas would have been shit. They were pumped out of multi-man forges 100 per day during war time. The good ones with the famous edge would have been possessed only by rich, high ranking samurai who specially ordered them from renowned smiths.
Matunaagah 2 years ago
"They were pumped out of multi-man forges 100 per day during war time. "
This was only ever true of WWII. Swords were never mass produced before, as spears and bows were the preferred battlefield weapon. And even if they wanted to, there is no way to stamp out 100 swords per day without modern tools. Hell, even WITH modern tools, you'd have to have a large, dedicated facility. With traditional methods, you cannot make a battleworthy blade in less than... 3-7 days? And that's for a low-end blade.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
a team of bladesmiths could definitely accomplish this. We are talking about bars of steel sharp enough to kill a man (bear in mind that a club can kill a man), not weapons capable of shearing through leather armor and human bodies over and over again while maintaining a sharp edge. It is pretty simple: hammer out a bar of steel, hone something of an edge onto it, add simple handle and sheath and BAM, you got a sword worthy of an expendable conscript. I could do that if I had the steel.
Matunaagah 1 year ago
"I could do that if I had the steel."
The problem is, the Japanese didn't have the steel. The quality of their iron was so poor it had to go through laborious purification processes to produce tamahagane, and this was very rarely wasted on "slab of steel" swords (maru). A homogenous blade is actually a very GOOD sword construction if you have very pure steel, which is why many high quality blades today are made by stock removal. But this was not available back then.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
The most common sword construction back in the day was honsanmai, a laminate of three different steels in terms of hardness. Here you have the soft steel for the core and the spine, the medium steel for the sides and the hard steel for the edge. This was by far the most common type of sword construction after the Japanese got good at swordmaking, and although it isn't as hard to make as it perhaps sounds, it's not something one can mass produce as such.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
Theoretical arguments aside, there is simply no evidence of the "100 swords a day" stamping out of swords except one period, and that's WWII. And it is for this reason that WWII swords, or gunto, are banned in Japan. No other swords are banned on account of quality.
It also wouldn't make any sense to stamp out 100 crappy swords (and they would be so crappy as to be useless on that scale) a day when there wasn't ever a demand for that many swords. On the battlefield, spears dominated.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
Hence why they probably DIDN'T WASTE TAMAHAGANE ON MASS PRODUCED FOOT CONSCRIPT SWORDS! HURR DURR! A sharpened piece of crude iron will kill a man pretty darn dead, not that it matters when their primary weapon was the spear anyway.
Matunaagah 1 year ago
@Matunaagah
If you knew anything about the quality of their iron, you'd know that a sharpened piece of iron would be worse than useless. You couldn't even rely on it to survive the first blow. This has to do with the extreme impurities in Japanese iron, and why it was essential that tamahagane was used for swords. Tamahagane varies in quality, too, and you do indeed have many poor quality swords, but none as poor as being able to be produced by the hundreds per day. No machine tools, remember.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
Every Japanese soldier had a crappy sword. We are talking about thousands of men here. Tamahagane was elite steel, so I'm sure it was not used for all of their swords. Any piece of iron can be made fairly homogenous and sturdy by repeatedly hammering and folding out the impurities, which was an industry unto itself. Remember that the Japanese were insanely, even oppressively industrious. Remember also that ancient barbarian tribes often used crude iron swords, which evidently did the job fine.
Matunaagah 1 year ago
"Any piece of iron can be made fairly homogenous and sturdy by repeatedly hammering and folding out the impurities"
And this is extremely time consuming, and not really worth the trouble if the impurities are too great. What you do then is mix the mediocre iron (which you have in significant quantities) with good iron (which is in very limited supply), in order to get carbon migration going and you end up with tamahagane.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
So what are you saying? That the Japanese somehow provided all of their soldiers with quality tamahagane swords? They are more industrious than I thought! It's pretty smart to waste good steel on poorly trained conscripts isn't it?
Matunaagah 1 year ago
I'm not the one saying they stamped out hundreds of swords. In point of fact they did not. They produced a LOT of swords during the sengoku jidai, yes, but never on an industrial level. Most swords weren't of the best quality, but certainly no sword could be produced in a matter of hours. That is physically impossible with those days' technology.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
IIRC during the sengoku jidai the Japanese actually imported steel in order to supply the number of swords required.
mrbeast85 1 year ago
"Remember that the Japanese were insanely, even oppressively industrious."
If by this you mean they were hard working, then yes. The way they got things done was by having lots and lots of people work really really hard.
If you mean to say they had a good industry of ANYthing going, however, then no. Before McArthur brought in new schools of thought by Deming and others, Japan was terribly inefficient when it came to industry. Japan's modern industrial fame has American roots.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
By "industry" I mean lots of people slaving away at what society has decided their purpose is.
Matunaagah 1 year ago
And only an idiot responds to something someone said 4 months ago, you idiot.
Matunaagah 1 year ago
@Matunaagah
And we've got a newcomer to the internet, ladies and gents.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
Cmon people, The Vikings had it easy..
They fought agains't people who were always unprepared for combat and they were just peasants.
If the Vikings had fought the Samuarai they would of been anailiated.
Dimitri0809 2 years ago
Yeah easy...whatever
They fought agains't people who were always unprepared for combat and they were just peasants
Early in the VIKING age they did but not in the middle or late VIKING age
No the vikings wouldn't get annihilated, I would give the norsemen the advantage since they came into contact with MANY more cultures and fighing tactics than samurai, Samurai met what 4 maybe (Chinese, mongels, Koreans) beat some got trashed by others just like the Norsemen.
Thunar55 2 years ago
I agree with Thunar, The Viking's were a very tough and hardy race, it takes alot to kill a man that has lived in such a harsh climate and braved the many winters and Famines that Vikings had to go through, they lived a constant struggle and adapted to it, I just don't think the Samurai could handle them.
CrankItEveryDay 2 years ago
To say that vikings had contact with many more cultures... well yeah, if you lump the collective experiences of all vikings into one. But most vikings only had experience in fighting against people of more or less the same culture they themselves came from. Only *very* few Norsemen, such as Harald Hardråde, would have what one might consider vast experience. For the most part, vikings chose their victims well, and didn't get involved in even matches if they could possibly avoid it.
Gilmaris 2 years ago
After all, vikings were in it for the loot, not the fight. When engaged by organized adversaries, they lost as often as they won.
Gilmaris 2 years ago 2
Just like most armies and pirates would not just the vikings
Thunar55 2 years ago
True that. Every warrior dreamt of glorious victory over superior forces, but every warrior sought to win, first and foremost. If that meant subterfuge, subversion, treachery or whatever, then that is what was done. Whether in Japan or anywhere in Europe. What Yamamoto said in commenting the attack on Pearl Harbour demonstrates the attitude: "A military man can scarcely pride himself on having smitten a sleeping enemy. It is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one sleeping."
Gilmaris 2 years ago 2
You need to read Egil's saga.
The Norse very much worshipped the fight, honor, glory and heroic deeds.
Their very religion castes cowards to Hel (one L) and hero's to Valhalla.
And the fact that Norse blood sits/sat on the thrones of England, France, Russia and other influential European countries. I'd say they did very well for themselves against "organized adversaries". Not bad for a people history deems "barbarians".
norseman7088 2 years ago
Sagas are glorified versions of history, and should always be taken with a grain of salt. And regardless of their religion, vikings were not any more keen on dying than anyone else, as indeed even the sagas tell us. Every warrior in every culture has wet dreams about dying gloriously in battle, but they would much rather survive the battle and enjoy victory. Failing that, the next best thing is to survive the battle and live to fight another day.
Gilmaris 2 years ago
Sure, you have stories of exceptional valour, but the key word is exceptional. And even though we read in Håvamål, "the wretch thinks he'll live forever if he shuns battle; but old age gives no man peace, though spears have spared him", why would this even be mentioned if they did not have "wretches" in their midst?
Gilmaris 2 years ago
Of corse sagas should be taken with grain of salt, all histrory documention should.a sagas are literature, no dry documens.. You mention Egils Saga before? Actually the very same arguments some historians used to proof it as nonsense is now proof of how acurate it is... Egill had a rare syndrom, bone thickening ... the saga descripes this great details the descriptions are almost clinical .... American medical specialist stumbelet on this some years years back
sgnewa 2 years ago
where do you read these sagas from?
condorlegion89 2 years ago
They have been puplished as any other books,depenting on what languise you prefer to read them in, they ar awalable as paperbacks.awell as had cover .If I remember correct a company named penguin have puplished many sagas in , I do not think its proplem for you to get your hands on such a book..there are also internet sides. I dont like to read from a screen,, but if you prefer it thats fine,,, i can send you links to qoulaty internet sides .. if you like
sgnewa 2 years ago 4
sgnewa: Hello friend,thanks for the answer. Well I can read in english and spanish so that wouldn´t be a problem. Yes please send me a link of this I would like that =D
-gonzo
condorlegion89 2 years ago 7
do not take telstar serusly he has proplems
HE CAN NOT GET OVER THE FACT THAT BRITISH FRIGATES MANNED BY THE BEST MEN IN BRITISH NAVY
WHERE OUTMANUVERED TIME AFTER TIME BY TRAWLERS MANNED BY ICELANDERS
THOSE ARE FACTS IT IS STRANGE HE WANTS TO BRING THIS UP
sgnewa 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Icelandic gun boats continually rammed British vessels that were unsuitable for playing dodgems.When similar British tugs rammed the gun boats back they opened fire on them. Even though they were unarmed.Still you say you won the cod war. Lol Youre like little children repeating things you wish to be true. As we can see from the Icesave scandal. But on the bright side Britain will ruin your economy for generations to come so I will sit back and enjoy the screams from your bankrupt island
telstar9 2 years ago
telstar9: just shut up you weak womanly bretton and go watch other videos. What do you gain from coming overhere talking shit about Iceland? nothing, so get a fucking life and get out of your mothers house you damn virgin
condorlegion89 2 years ago 6
Thank you for trying to correct this man, he is really strange, he found out Icelandic sagas exists about 1 week ago ,he is already expert in the issue
he claims they are non important fairytales
, he as world expert in Saga research has come to this profesional conclusion,,
, what a big fool this man is..
claming me saying British sailors are bad
I have never said this,, howewer he atemts to wre write the cod wars history twist events or make then up to glorify hes homeland
sgnewa 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ condor89 Ill tell you what I get from posting on these videos, satisfaction and revenge!. I`m sick to death of listening to these wankers from Iceland slagging my country off. So I will continue to post for as long as they keep attacking the UK. I have come to realise Iceland is country that exists on lies and bullshit. Its history is basically fairy stories and half truths. The Danes are true Vikings they enslaved these wankers for hundreds of years , they know the truth.
telstar9 2 years ago
satisfaction and revenge from talking on the computer? I´f you want revenge and satisfaction, I suggest you get intside a bar,get drunk and pick a fight there. You´ll get a fight for sure ;) lol
condorlegion89 2 years ago 2
He really is a clown.the reason he comes to the conclusion Danes where are so great is he says they are hes forfathers and therefor it has to be so
. this is also a man of very low moral fibre the fact he harrases Icelandic kids is the prof for this,telling 16 year old kid his homeland is worthless made no contribution to the world etc is a classic..If he represents the british population they deserve to be rippet of.. what he calles slagging of his country are repyes to dicusting comments
sgnewa 2 years ago 2
I don´t know too much about Iceland, but I never heard of Icelanders having conflics with anybody. Why would icelanders have any poblems with danes if they are the same people anyway right? you´re like blood brothers
condorlegion89 2 years ago
We have no conflicts with the Danes he comes to the conclusion that becose Iceland used to be in the Danish kingdom we where slaves owned by Danes if we where slaves to Denmark is it not strange that many of this slaves served in the royal guard where in control of inportant historical reacerch and holding high possisions would it not be really unike in the history of slavery? this man is srange..
sgnewa 2 years ago
Yeah, pay no attention to the dissers of one´s history.
condorlegion89 2 years ago 3
For the record. I have never said British where bad sailors, he says Icelandic seamen are, cowards when pointed out that those "Cowards" saved shipwrecked brits he diregards it, says its only laws of the sea.like.this where some Icelanders on a pleasure trip and picked them up on the way those he calls he calls cowards often put there life in huge risk when saving shipwrecked lets take the rescue the crew of Dhoon it is called rescue achievement of the century,
sgnewa 2 years ago 2
The Icelandic sagas are fiction . Its been proved countless times. A seven year old boy making his first kill. what a load of shite!(killed a fly maybe lol)
telstar9 2 years ago
As a matter of fact, the sagas many people believed to be just fiction are provent to be very correct! They talk about voyages to the new world and more..
condorlegion89 2 years ago 19
Where they voyages led by a 7 year old boy? . Thats typical of the saga`s olde shite.
telstar9 2 years ago
@condorlegion89 new world? you mean they went into into space? bullshit, no way.
hobogasm 1 year ago
@hobogasm You are so smart, if I shall ever seek knowledge on history, I will ask you. Of course the New World refers to another planet and not the Americas
NoenHarTattMittNavn 1 year ago
@hobogasm Maybe? who knows ;)
condorlegion89 1 year ago
considering they didn't specify which of the norse danes swedes or Norwegians they are talking about plus Norse did exchange with each other as well and all and all I still say they would be would have more experience than samuai
Thunar55 2 years ago
Samurai were destroyed by Mongol brutes on horses the first time they invaded. The Japanese did adapt their methods and hold off a second time, but that goes to show you that unfamiliarity with attacks and tactics from other cultures can lead to devastating losses.
IncognitoQ 2 years ago
Actually I am not 100% certain Mongols brought their horses with them across the sea, but regardless the Mongol's tactics threw off the samurai who weren't prepared and did horribly against their first invasion.
IncognitoQ 2 years ago
Not neccessarily. Norse warriors fought other warrior cultures and also British soldiers and knights. The Samurai would have a hard time getting the chainmail of the Vikings, because they used mostly light slashing-weapons, where the Viking swords and axes were still razor sharp and heavy enough to make it through samurai armour. The vikings also used a solid shield, which is basically the best item you can use for defense. The Samurai used no shields, because they saw them as a sign of weakness
DreadXK7 2 years ago
The Samurai have been taught not to fear anything even pain its self, Not many soldiers obtain that kind of mindset today and no soldier would go down in a fight that way.
The Samurai were unique because of their disipline and inner body mind control.
Dimitri0809 2 years ago
Slow Power vs a thousand fast paper cuts.
Hmmmm, I think I know which would win.
Vikings lack precsion and accracy.
And the Vikings would be assisnated in their sleep because they drunk a lot of rum at the time and then do their pathetic celtic dance then have sex with their women during the nights.
Dimitri0809 2 years ago
Go to kultofathena or some other retailer of high quality swords and compare the weight of Viking style and other European swords to Katanas. You may be surprised. Also factor in the double edge and pommel counterbalance. Now which is the superior sword?
Matunaagah 2 years ago 3
You are a fucking idiot.
halfassedfart 2 years ago
umm, samurai had a good deal of heavier weapons, case in point their spears, the yari to me shows a VERY interesting design, very sturdy, almost armour piercing but i realise itd have problems. like any other. as for 'halberds' most people think of the naginata. id actually say the REAl one to watch for are spears like the cross shaped (jumonji) yai, the kama yari etc
elgostine 1 year ago
The samurai had a lot of good weapons, and were terrific warriors, I won't argue against that. .Yari are very good weapons, but not significantly improved upon a regular spear. It would make it through chainmail, but the Vikings were used to spears; they were their preferred weapon, and a warrior carried up to four into battle. The naginata is a good weapon, but also a light polearm with a slashing emphasis, which would have difficulty defeating chainmail.
DreadXK7 1 year ago
which is why i personally think your in beter stead with the almost halberd looking yari spears. which essentially, if you look them up, they have blades extending perpendicularly from the base of the head, the jumonji yari would look like a partizan almost.
elgostine 1 year ago
"and a warrior carried up to four into battle."
You're thinking about javelins, I'll wager. Spears were indeed very common with vikings (as indeed they were in any civilization), though the axe was perhaps even more common. Vikings never developed phalanxes, though, like the Japanese did, with spears the length upwards of 20 feet sometimes.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
I don't know where you get your info, but spears were by far more common among the Vikings. They did fight in formation. Axes served mainly as close-quarters melee weapons when formation broke for people who could not afford a sword. Phalanx combat is too specialized. The Vikings, protected by their shields and wielding axes and swords could have hacked through any phalanx easily and suffered minimal losses.
Matunaagah 1 year ago
"They did fight in formation."
When did I ever say they did not?
"Axes served mainly as close-quarters melee weapons when formation broke for people who could not afford a sword."
Axes were by far the most common weapon, because everybody owned one. Not everybody owned a spear. Everybody had to own a weapon of some sort, and an axe was just fine. And these would constitute the bulk of a Norse army.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
"The Vikings, protected by their shields and wielding axes and swords could have hacked through any phalanx easily and suffered minimal losses."
We weren't even touching on the subject of "viking vs. samurai", so I don't know why you would even bring that up. The samurai who were contemporary to the vikings were mounted archers, anyway. The emphasis on closed ranks and long spears emerged around 1400.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
actually, the viking shield wall, and/or a viking charge would fall before a phalanx. as long as the phalanx had protected flanks, as was ensured by skirmishers and other phalanxes. The macedonians and greeks alike faced such shield wall and charge tactics many times, and were victorious many times. though they werent viking they fought similiarly. celts = sword+round shield (or oval...w/e)...
smarzotais 1 year ago