Good & Bad Weapons: KLINGON Bat'Leth VS STICK! Response to Shadiversity

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ม.ค. 2025
  • Analysis of 'good' and 'bad' weapons is fraught with difficulty. This applies to a stick, a Klingon bat'leth or anything from history. Partly a response to Shadiversity's video ( • What makes BAD WEAPONS... )
    Patreon & Extra Videos: / scholagladiatoria
    Support & extra content on Subscribestar: www.subscribes...
    Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:
    / historicalfencing
    / scholagladiato1
    Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
    www.swordfight...
    Matt Easton's website and services:
    www.matt-easto...
    Easton Antique Arms:
    www.antique-sw...

ความคิดเห็น • 1K

  • @holyknightthatpwns
    @holyknightthatpwns 3 ปีที่แล้ว +328

    The stick is a far superior weapon to the batleth in terms of feeding a fire, and getting through a metal detector.

    • @scholagladiatoria
      @scholagladiatoria  3 ปีที่แล้ว +106

      Indeed, context. However, for fighting in armour, the stick shown here is almost useless.

    • @holyknightthatpwns
      @holyknightthatpwns 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@scholagladiatoria I think the only somewhat reasonable context where I'd prefer a stick is if for some reason I absolutely can't bear the weight of a Batleth. Maybe if I only had one arm, or something like that.

    • @kmarchery
      @kmarchery 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      I really like the technology separation in your quip .
      Shape the stick right and it's down right fashionable and no
      Bobbie/gendarme/police officer
      Would question it's presence on the street.
      Now that metal detector alarming batleth might raise more than just eyebrows

    • @silverjohn6037
      @silverjohn6037 3 ปีที่แล้ว +28

      "You wouldn't take away an old man's walking stick, now would you?"
      Gandolph.

    • @hellfish2309
      @hellfish2309 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      You’re all wrong: you put the stick through one of the gaps in the batleth then you twirl it around; that’s how Kahless did it #truestory 😉

  • @n0wheregrrl
    @n0wheregrrl 3 ปีที่แล้ว +349

    Clearly, this can only be settled by pitting Shad with a stick against Matt with a bat'leth in a battle to the death.

    • @mr.spider6859
      @mr.spider6859 3 ปีที่แล้ว +44

      Matt would destroy Shad even with his bare hands.

    • @outsideiskrrtinsideihurt699
      @outsideiskrrtinsideihurt699 3 ปีที่แล้ว +60

      Yeah that just wouldn’t be fair to Shad.
      Where can I get tickets for it?

    • @rainsmith4460
      @rainsmith4460 3 ปีที่แล้ว +21

      This is the way.

    • @rikospostmodernlife
      @rikospostmodernlife 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@mr.spider6859 (?) one puuuuuuuu

    • @mrkiky
      @mrkiky 3 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      @@shinobi-no-bueno Come on we've seen Shad spar and he's not that bad and he's not out of shape either, despite having a higher bf%. I'd still bed on Matt having more experience though. And the Batleth is pointier.

  • @Adam_okaay
    @Adam_okaay 3 ปีที่แล้ว +164

    One of my biggest points of contention with Shad over the years is that he comes up with arbitrary criteria, that is rather subjective, to determine whether something is "objectively good or bad." He used faster cars as an analogy without considering that certain cars are faster than others in certain contexts. When the Bugatti Veyron was the fastest road going production car it wasn't the fastest car around the Top Gear Test Track because it was insanely heavy and a few lighter nimbler cars were quicker.

    • @leoprzytuac3660
      @leoprzytuac3660 3 ปีที่แล้ว +81

      He also seems to attach too much ego to his oppinions. The belligerent and pompous way in which he exposes them and how he often ignores contextual factors.
      I love the guy, but lately it's just too irritating to hear him scream about things that seem stupidly obvious to him, even if I agree.

    • @kmarchery
      @kmarchery 3 ปีที่แล้ว +60

      Shad just throws videos out for views .
      This is a business for him .
      He like this stuff but it's not like matt where it's a passion he has studied beyond the first page of Google .
      Shad is a role play gamer he's more fiction/fantasy then history student .
      Matt is steeped in history
      Even skall has studied anthropology and archeology.
      He just started making his living making videos .

    • @abnunga
      @abnunga 3 ปีที่แล้ว +53

      He bases his theories on his imagination more often than training, experience or study. He doesn't make it clear which of his wild theories have sound backing, acts like they all do, and gets SO VERY offended when people call him out on his more wild theories. That ego, man.

    • @kevingooley9628
      @kevingooley9628 3 ปีที่แล้ว +29

      That's a good day example. Where I live, in a Colorado winter with snow and icy roads, my 4wd jeep will be subjectively faster and more agile than a Bugatti Veyron.

    • @Myzelfa
      @Myzelfa 3 ปีที่แล้ว +24

      Also, when I'm buying a car I'm not looking for the fastest. I'm looking for safety and fuel efficiency. Grading cars by speed in my case is not helpful.

  • @b.h.abbott-motley2427
    @b.h.abbott-motley2427 3 ปีที่แล้ว +70

    I think it's likely fair to call some historical weapon designs just bad. Various period sources clearly state certain weapons lacked in material or manufacturing quality. For instance, Sir Roger Williams complained about the naughty stuff many late-16th-century halberds & bills were made from. Qi Jiguang wrote that the armor of the Ming troops he commanded was inferior to that of his Mongol foes. Etc. We know from testing of extant pieces that some historical weapons & armor are poor-quality iron or steel, perhaps filled with slag or hardened poorly. We know from replicas, modeling, & period texts that some period bows & crossbow deliver very little kinetic energy. Given this, it's at least possible that historical people created low-quality designs along with low-quality examples of any particular design. Your point about the importance of context & tradeoffs applies in many cases, but sometime people also simply do a bad job for whatever reason. They might want to save on time or money. They might not know any better. Sometimes the only tradeoff is cost.

    • @Riceball01
      @Riceball01 3 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      I'd argue that poor construction or inferior materials doesn't necessarily make a wepaon bad, it just means that particualar weapon is bad but design wise, it's good.

    • @maxvarjagen9810
      @maxvarjagen9810 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@Riceball01 another complicating factor is that some designs require higher quality materials and craftmanship than others. One design might not be as effective in use as another, but far better logistically. Cost of production, cost of storage and transport are all relevant factors. Still, the idea that there is no good and bad is silly. A lamborghini is a better car than a nissan. Almost everyone would rather drive one over the other if they could, and with weapons its no different. Guns are better weapons than swords and bows. Rifles are better than muskets. Semi-auto is better than breach loading. We know because people stopped using one design when they got access to the other.

    • @blackdeath4eternity
      @blackdeath4eternity 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@maxvarjagen9810 id rather have the nissan, a lamborghini costs allot more to fix & i dont think they tend to like potholes which are common enough here lol.

    • @maxvarjagen9810
      @maxvarjagen9810 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@blackdeath4eternity So if you had a lamborghini, and I had a nissan, you would be willing to trade? Lol sounds like a deal

    • @blackdeath4eternity
      @blackdeath4eternity 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@maxvarjagen9810 more like id be willing to sell you the lambo & buy 5 nissans. :P

  • @padalan2504
    @padalan2504 3 ปีที่แล้ว +29

    The problem with this lies in a situation when you have two of anything within the same context. Say a guy brings his scottish broadsword on board, with everyone else having some kind of cutlass or whatever other weapon of the same period. So now they share the context and the technological level. Is the guy who brought a broadsword undermining himself because the weapon is not fit for combat within this environment and context?
    And similarly, is the guy who is using a bathleth undermining his options, ability, potential what have you, by using it within the universe. And it puzzles many people why would a bathleth be the go to weapon for a civilization like Klingons. And why is this weapon so popular among klingons when their civilization is so focused on military and combat. Surely they would have weapons comparable to ours and in such cases those weapons would undoubtedly outperform the bathleth... Or would they? And that is what the whole debate is about. And there are many others like it.
    It is not a debate on whether or not a weapon is better than no weapon, or whether X weapon is better than Y weapon, or how they compare to a stick. It is about answering a simple question, Why? Why would a weapon like this be better in this context? Does it make sense, does it not?
    So in short, it is not about whether bathleth is good. It's about why the bathleth is the best in that context and whether it is believable or just bs. And I'm not so sure if any of the channels get this.

    • @aneasteregg8171
      @aneasteregg8171 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Klingons aren't the Borg, they aren't all about fighting in the most efficient way possible. Their culture highly values personal honor and glory in combat, and fighting with a sword certainly feels more "honorable" than simply vaporizing someone with a disruptor. And the Bat'leth in particular holds an important place in Klingon culture.

    • @Ty-v6v-c4r
      @Ty-v6v-c4r ปีที่แล้ว +2

      ​@@aneasteregg8171 I disagree. Klingons have no problem wielding firearms and flying cloaked ships. Neither is the Bat'leth depicted as some ceremonial weapon with no place on the battlefield. The Klingons undoubtedly respect prowess in direct physical combat, so while that may not be the most efficient strategy, their weapons would be highly effective for that purpose (which is portrayed to be the case in the shows)
      @padalan2504
      You seem to imply nobody addressed your question, yet a quick view of scholagladiatorias other video on the Bat'leth and reading the comment section tells us that not only is it comparable to historical human weapons, there are plenty of speculation in agreement on when this fictional weapon would shine: close quarter grappling and armored combat. To me the answer is obvious: after a space battle when one ship has disabled another, the victorious party may wish to board the ship (as seen in tng during the klingon civil war). The confines of a Klingon bird of prey is extremely claustrophobic, especially with 24 armored klingons duking it out chest to chest in a tiny confined space, so getting out a ranged weapon may not be so advantages when considering friendly fire and the chaos of a grouped battle.
      This alone would make the klingon Bat'leth superior to certain historical weapons. It is no secret that grappling is an key component of armored combat, that heavy shorter polearms and halfswording are preferred in armored infantry combat, that shorter weapons are favored in chaotic large scale battles where there may not be enough space to use a longer one effectively, and thus for all those reasons a Bat'leth would be the superior weapons than certain contempory human ones in the context of fighting armored klingons in a ship (especially ones as narrow as a bird of prey), and shares many similarities to human weapons that DO specialize in this sort of scenario.
      Furthermore, take in the fact that klingon's have a backup for almost every system in their body and twice as many pair of ribs, and it makes sense that dedicated thrusters like the human rapier would be even more at a disadvantage. Something that causes bludgeoning damage and internal bruising on multiple organs would be far superior in this regard.

    • @astrotrek3534
      @astrotrek3534 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Why did the Japanese military issue Katanas in WW2 when there were better swords (and of course guns)? Because it's a very traditional, honor based society. The Klingons are basically Japanese Vikings.

  • @patrickmccurry1563
    @patrickmccurry1563 3 ปีที่แล้ว +165

    Like how a hammer isn't the best tool just, because it's useful in more situations than a wrench. When you need a wrench, you need a blasted wrench.

    • @captin3149
      @captin3149 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      @Martin Seliger Ah! a student of Jeremy Clarkson I see.

    • @Adam_okaay
      @Adam_okaay 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@captin3149 he just needs to shout "SPEEEEEEEED!!!!!"

    • @Dennis-vh8tz
      @Dennis-vh8tz 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      When I need a wrench, I prefer one that hasn't been blasted! :)

    • @driver8sk
      @driver8sk 3 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      All tools are hammers if you believe in them :)

    • @moreparrotsmoredereks2275
      @moreparrotsmoredereks2275 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      But, a wrench can make a good hammer.

  • @TimFromWinfield
    @TimFromWinfield 3 ปีที่แล้ว +44

    My personal belief of the 'Modern Bat'leth" is that it is a weapon altered to fit a role where it's use is not as a weapon alone, but as a symbol of honor, and a demonstration of prowess, which is why they are different from the ancient ones. Like a dueling weapon now, because they have other weapons with which to wage war. And you know what, even though I have been taught single stick kali, and also bo and jo, I think I would take a Bat'leth over a stick too.

    • @JIMMYtheB0B
      @JIMMYtheB0B 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      This, it's like how you wouldn't take an Olympic fencing epee into battle over an assault rifle, now, the modern Klingons are keeping it up for ritualistic reasons while their actual weapon of choice for warfare is now different

    • @darcraven01
      @darcraven01 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      there is no "ancient" bat'leth... the first bat'leth was created for kahless to fight molor... and shortly after kahless's death klingons had warp drive (if not before).. so the bat'leth was created in a time were they had tech far more advanced than what we currently have on earth.

    • @SpiderboyN2Jesus
      @SpiderboyN2Jesus 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@darcraven01 that's not what "ancient" means. It has nothing to do with tech levels. It just means "a really really long time ago". A thousand years from now, we will be considered ancients, as will our technology.

  • @docstockandbarrel
    @docstockandbarrel 3 ปีที่แล้ว +39

    I felt like context was covered in Shad’s video in that if you would pick a different weapon for the same purpose. So if you would choose something else for breaching a door, for assaulting a castle, for fighting in close quarters, for killing a large number of opponents at once? If you would always choose other weapons over that specific weapon - rubbish.

    • @Komatik_
      @Komatik_ 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@sowianskizonierz2693 Seems pretty standard for Easton, sadly.

    • @shepherd2148
      @shepherd2148 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      There's still no context for enemy types, their armor, their weapons, castle layouts, door layouts, etc because we don't know who the Klingons are fight and shads subjective opinion about what a better weapon would be doesn't take any of that into account. Skall came to the same conclusions and the Batleth has been shown to beat other weapons routinely

    • @shepherd2148
      @shepherd2148 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@Komatik_ nah what's standard for Shad is that he apparently knows more about archery than champion archers, more about throwing knives than champion throwers, and more about HEMA than Matt, the guy who co-created it. Shads never wrong, ever.

    • @sackofclams953
      @sackofclams953 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@shepherd2148in fairness, if the champion archers say you can’t fire accurately with the arrow on the right side, and then you do it, then their credentials don’t really matter. Experts CAN be wrong, you just have to prove it.

  • @dohtje5029
    @dohtje5029 3 ปีที่แล้ว +44

    Soooo..
    This is a weapon that has been designed by a highly technological advanced race, (time of Kahless, around the time the Klingons developed warp speed)
    So.. My question to Matt is: with all the BLADED weapons of similar length you have in your arsenal, when would you pick the bath'let over the ones you own, that were all developed in low technological advanced humanity. If it's like more often then half of those weapons you could consider it a good weapon, but I asume you would hardly ever choose the completely unbalanced and overweight crap'leth over a sword, axe or anything similar

    • @synthemagician4686
      @synthemagician4686 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Skallagrim made a video with a decent point on that actually in his video about the Fuck'less and it kinda makes sense, especially with the star trek fan's comments about the lore. Basically Klingons like a challenge, and the name of the weapon translates to honor blade, so it's a thing about sure we could use a better weapon, but let's challenge ourselves and rely on the honor system because it's more fun to nerf ourselves rather than wreck everyone.

    • @dohtje5029
      @dohtje5029 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      @@synthemagician4686 yes and that would actually make sense, challenge yourself, honor among warriors etc etc, I mean they choose to use a crap'leth eventhough they have disruptors.
      Doesn't make it less of a shit weapon though, hahaha
      He even said in his own vid he would change parts of it. Wich means it inherently is crap, if you have to change it (fe would you change a long sword ar an arming sword, no you wouldn't couse it's a good, well thought out and balanced weapon hehehe)

    • @atmo-sphere6799
      @atmo-sphere6799 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@dohtje5029 I don't think it's fair comparison with a longsword or an arming sword because they are very simple designs. Meaning every modification would only turn them into a different type of sword. Make them curved, you get a scimitar, make them thin, you get a rapier, give them hooks, you get Chinese hook sword. Imo a more fair comparison would be "would you change the halberd?" instead.

    • @dohtje5029
      @dohtje5029 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@atmo-sphere6799 really? Think its a perfect comparison. Couse they use the bath leth as a sword/axe... But its inefficient in the way its used... So comparing it with a simple design sword or axe is pretty accurate couse it's an efficient design for the purpose it was created. Wich the bathlet is not. It was only designed this way 'couse it looks cool' just like all those crappy fantasy swords and daggers, wich are all too bulky and thrash

    • @atmo-sphere6799
      @atmo-sphere6799 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@dohtje5029 My point is that you cannot modify the longsword or the arming sword without it turning into a different type of sword, which what makes it an unfair comparison. If you are asking "would people modify the longsword/arming sword?" Yes, yes they would. The rapier, the messer, the scimitar, the hook sword, etc.
      You wouln't change the longsword because you don't have to. In order to fit your need or preference you don't modify the longsword, you simply pick a different type of sword. More slashing? scimitar. More thrusting? rapier.
      I'm saying the halberd is a better comparison for the question because you cannot do the same thing, as the sword, with the halberd. Putting it in a similar place, in this context, to the bat'leth. It's more fair because a modified bat'leth is still a bat'leth, a modified halberd can still be a halberd, but a modified longsword or arming sword will change into a different type of sword.
      I am not defending the bat'leth, I am saying that your analogy could be better.

  • @zappodude7591
    @zappodude7591 3 ปีที่แล้ว +49

    7:53 Personally, I always prefer games where weapons are exactly as you describe - rarely worse or better than each other, just better in different contexts. "Different" weapons that are used the exact same way with some numbers adjusted have turned me off of many games.

    • @rileyernst9086
      @rileyernst9086 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      I would agree and add that i do not like the propensity for more powerful weapons or armour sets to look more ugly is off putting as well. Also if everything is good in its own context you don't just quest for the most powerful weapon in the game(which is a habit i find myself trapped in), you learn what weapons and armour suit your playing style, what you like and don't like.

    • @mrkiky
      @mrkiky 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Having weapons be described by just DPS stat is just bad game design. Give it a variable damage range, attack speed, different types of damage, magical properties, improved effectiveness against vampires, undead, werewolves, ghosts, etc, make certain characters more effective with it. Now suddenly it's not obvious what the best weapon in the game is and context starts to matter a lot and it's far better and more interesting game design.

    • @zappodude7591
      @zappodude7591 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@mrkiky I would caution game designers to avoid certain arbitrary advantage, such as specific damage bonuses, since said bonus is still a number that can be variably applied to otherwise identical weapons. I prefer advantages that flow naturally from how the weapons actually handles, range and swing speed being elements of that.

    • @mrkiky
      @mrkiky 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@zappodude7591 Well you know, fantasy and all that. The point of games isn't necessarily to be as close to real as possible.

    • @zappodude7591
      @zappodude7591 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@mrkiky I'm just talking in terms of game design, though. "How a weapon handles" in game terms can mean charging meters, action points, special abilities... not realistic in the slightest, but more interesting than +50% damage against whoever.

  • @brandonabbott9817
    @brandonabbott9817 3 ปีที่แล้ว +67

    The Klingon 'Sword of Honor' makes so much sense in setting. It is a highly ritualized weapon of cultural identity. It very well could have been a five or six foot long anti-armor weapon that, once established in the mythos of the culture, got shorter for ease of carry and use in martial arts systems that evolved as it's use as a main battle weapon faded. It's mostly carried by the officers, even if everyone has one for dojo use.
    This is almost identical to the evolution of the katana, and I'd argue similar to the factors that lead to the rise in popularity of the spadroon.
    Keep using the less than optimal melee weapon after melee weapons have been relegated to backup? Sure, because most of the fighting will be done with ranged weapons and the soldiers. Would a knife or dagger make more sense for actual fighting and ease of carry when your main weapon is first the systems you're operating (like artilery or ship's guns) and then personal ranged weapons (like a combat rifle)? Yes. And that's EXACTLY what the Klingons do too with basically everyone carrying a D'k tahg at all times (a trusting dagger with a spiked pommel).
    All of the drawbacks and design elements that could be changed to make it a better battlefield weapon simply have no pressures to make them change. When one is using it it will either be in honor duels against similar weapons, against knives and daggers, or against opponents with ranged weapons only.
    It is a very modern human mindset to believe that changes to 'improve' something even if there is no real need to will just happen and gain popularity. It's weird to deny that a lot of things we do are from cultural ideas, not raw efficiency. Yes, this includes the very 'American' idea that evolution is not contextual, and things evolve to be 'better' all around, rather than 'better suited to the specific CONDITIONS' it is in. Even in our modern weapon designs we add elements that are there to appear to be the most functional, most efficient, but are essentially jewelry advertising the 'tactical' as the value being signaled.
    Sorry, long rant. I really need to make the 'what swords would a modern soldier use' videos and post them up!

    • @patrickmccurry1563
      @patrickmccurry1563 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Also biologically, klingons are kind of armored compared to humans. So it makes sense for weapons to tilt toward designs that would be overkill compared to ours. Our dueling weapons went longer, thinner, faster, because one good poke is all it takes to kill someone.

    • @brandonabbott9817
      @brandonabbott9817 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      @@patrickmccurry1563 Yup! It's also worth pointing out that Klingon belief is that the Bat'Leth remained popular into the 'modern' (the them) age in part because it's a challenging weapon to master.
      Like some of the Chinese weapons it is similar too.

    • @DesigningDan
      @DesigningDan 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      In my mind the bat'leth is a dueling weapon made to prove that you are such a badass that you can defeat your opponent with a disadvantage, killing someone with a "good" weapon is easy, winning with a ridiculous silly weapon gives you greater honor!

    • @ishill85
      @ishill85 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      my theory is that the real advantage of the bat'leth is social and related to it's inherently defensive nature, it's a sword and a shield at once almost. I think that this made their duels less lethal, meaning they had more surviving warriors come time for war, which was really primarily performed with very long weaponry anyway.

    • @SonsOfLorgar
      @SonsOfLorgar 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Well, as a modern part time soldier who also collects blades.
      My personal choise for a sword would be something like a seax, gladius or copis.
      A short chop and thrust sword carried horizontally in a scabbard across the waist suspended from straps or casrabiners at the lower end of the webbing belt so that it has some allowance for moving with my body and not snag on the webbing, get in the way of accessing the mag dump or pockets while also beeing fast and easy to access and draw if needed.

  • @DeHerg
    @DeHerg 3 ปีที่แล้ว +28

    Shad already stated that bad or good was meant relative to other weapons.
    Relative to the majority of armor defeating melee weapons on earth the Bathlet is worse (you wouldn't choose it over the others in almost every situation).
    The iron tomahawk is flat out better than the stone one. Not having access to the better option is irrelevant.
    If ammunition supply is available the AR15 is the better weapon than a longsword.

    • @mohammadtausifrafi8277
      @mohammadtausifrafi8277 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      And Matt Easton himself said that a Bat'leth is clearly better than a stick, so yeah, some weapons are definitely better than others, which was the basic point of the original video he is responding to.

    • @Blondie42
      @Blondie42 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      In terms of use by a real world human. The bat'leth was created for a sci-fi show for a race of aliens who are vastly physically superior to humans. In that fantasy universe of a potential future that weapon is just fine. Is it inferior to phasers? Obviously. Do the Klingons still like to train with them? Yes.
      Most of the episodes I watched they mostly were using them for ceremonial purposes. And were either using their special daggers or phaser pistols 🔫
      Is the bow and arrow 🏹 inferior to a firearm? Yes. Do people still like to use both traditional wooden bows and modern metal bows? Yes.

    • @mohammadtausifrafi8277
      @mohammadtausifrafi8277 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Blondie42 But bow and arrow were optimal before modern guns, how could bat'leth ever be optimal? Physically superior beings will be able to use it faster than humans, but the weight is not the only issue, the design of bat'leth is still pretty bad for weapons for humanoids, no? I think it is more like using nunchucks today than using bows and arrows, but yeah some people actually use nunchucks.

    • @Blondie42
      @Blondie42 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@mohammadtausifrafi8277 Nun chucks are better than a staff, polearm, spear in the hands of someone who knows how to use them. They make for an excellent grappling tool, and can be deadly if he/she has two. Same with Shad's hated chain flail weapons.
      Your dismissal of the bat'leth is the same as Shad's. Ignoring the fact that it's made and used by a race of, fictional, beings superior to humans.
      I do not care about the real world applications of the weapon in the fantasy setting that Star Trek created. A Klingon is strong enough to weild two at once.
      Micheal Dorn's character Worf once killed a frail little human with just an accidental headbutt. The human's neck snapped like a twig where Worf barely felt anything.
      Shall we talk about the impossibility of lightsabers, next?

    • @mohammadtausifrafi8277
      @mohammadtausifrafi8277 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Blondie42 Is there any evidence that nunchucks are better than polearms and spears?

  • @datpolakmike
    @datpolakmike 3 ปีที่แล้ว +20

    As i commented on shad's video, i don't think the batleth is "good", but i think it makes sense in the context of dueling for dominance (unarmored) in the cramped spaces of the bridge of a spaceship. In that context, a weapon with catching prongs and a lot of grip for blocking, shoving, and binding, makes sense. The batleth, for it's context, is better than naysayers (including my former self) give it credit for. However, once you take it onto a battlefield (even a pre-gun battlefield) i do think it falls apart a lot.

    • @ivanprihhodko2278
      @ivanprihhodko2278 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      i would agree with Commander Worth here, batleth is overstated. Just use a short sword for close quarters combat, and shoot people that are further away.

    • @ivanprihhodko2278
      @ivanprihhodko2278 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@shinobi-no-bueno They can just use a mek'leth.

    • @shaider1982
      @shaider1982 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Still fails in the ease of use metric.

  • @Alvarin_IL
    @Alvarin_IL 3 ปีที่แล้ว +30

    Nice to see the judicial shields here :D
    I said on Shad's video that "Batleth is more a judicial shield than a montante"

    • @Puchacz81
      @Puchacz81 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Except it is not a shield.

    • @Broockle
      @Broockle 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      is it tho?
      Sounds like a meme

    • @Alvarin_IL
      @Alvarin_IL 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@Puchacz81 Not exactly, but from what I know of it, the Bat'leth is designed to fight in tight spaces and appears to be much more defensive, than offensive implement.

    • @Alvarin_IL
      @Alvarin_IL 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Broockle It isn't either of the two. But much closer to former, than latter.

    • @Broockle
      @Broockle 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Alvarin_IL
      eh sure, but super stretching it.

  • @COctagons
    @COctagons 3 ปีที่แล้ว +26

    If I were to call a weapon "bad", it would have to have a glaring impracticality or weakness that impedes its intended usage or pose a risk to the user greater than is reasonable or than you would have from any other option during normal use.

    • @didack1419
      @didack1419 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Maybe like the key sword(? lol

    • @mahrcheen
      @mahrcheen 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      You mean like too much weight, reduced angles of movement, bad handles, no side hand guards, small reach, etc?

    • @COctagons
      @COctagons 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@mahrcheen Depending on the weapon, yes. Different weapons requiring different things, it all comes down to whether a given attribute is optimal or even suitable for the scenario the weapon would be used in. So, for example, if someone designed the rapier as a battlefield weapon, for that purpose it's objectively a bad weapon, as would it be for naval warfare beneath the decks of a ship. It all depends on how well it performs the task it was built for, and how well (not necessarily how easily) it can be used by a skilled wielder.

    • @Cyricist001
      @Cyricist001 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      A spear is clearly inferior to a glave or ranseur, a mace is clearly inferior to a warhammer with a spike, a daneaxe is clearly inferior to a halberd, a katana is inferior to a saber via reach and protection, don't know how tomahawk would compare to a francisca but a good wooden club superior to a bat'leth against chain or plate armor.

    • @COctagons
      @COctagons 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@Cyricist001 A lot of dumb things were just said. A ranseur IS a type of spear, but it has a different use case to a pike or a lance, also types of spear. A sabre has less force behind it than a karana, and is a lighter sword used in a different way; a katakana is more comparable to a bastard sword in its use and weight class; nobody uses sabres for combat in full armour, either (or they really shouldn't). Again, as Matt says, CONTEXT is everything.
      This includes impractical weapons like the rapier or bat'leth: both are designed solely for duelling, and in the case of the Klingon weapon, designed to be hard to use and train in, because honour; a club might be more effective, as long as you don't overswing, but should both duellists survive, Mr. Klingon gets the points for honour.
      Before you go saying "X is objectively better", ask "in what scenario or use case?"

  • @Philistine47
    @Philistine47 3 ปีที่แล้ว +57

    The Force arguably works _better_ the less writers try to explain it. Nothing devalues your Galaxy-Wide Mystical Energy Field quite like quantifying it based on microorganisms in the bloodstream.

    • @NieroshaiTheSable
      @NieroshaiTheSable 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Unless your universe gets so big that handwaving just doesn't cover it anymore.

    • @didack1419
      @didack1419 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Maybe, but there's so much you can do with something without giving it depth.
      Unless the Force is just meant to be a tool that the characters use, which means that there's not gonna be any plot centered on the Force, which is kind off boring because it's the defining feature of the world, and it's interesting to see the characters interacting with the mysteries of it.
      One solution would be to not have an extremely large metaverse of stories. Just a concise plot.

    • @mohammadtausifrafi8277
      @mohammadtausifrafi8277 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@NieroshaiTheSable Explaining it biologically certainly makes it non-mystical, no?

    • @Intranetusa
      @Intranetusa 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      Yeh, I don't like how they went from basing the force on Eastern philosophies like Chi/Qi (which everyone has and must practice to master) to turning it into a weird magic microorganisms midi-chlorians that becomes more exclusive/segregatory because some "chosen" people have high concentrations of it.

    • @didack1419
      @didack1419 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@mohammadtausifrafi8277 I think Nieroshai was referring to the idea that you can just simply pretend that the Force is very mysterious and unknowable in such an extremely big setting that they have established, not to the specific way it was implemented.
      _Explaining it biologically certainly makes it non-mystical, no?_
      Subjectively, for most/many modern people, it does, but not necessarily in concept. Given that many New Agers (and many other people through history) believe that psychedelics (and other substances) allow them to have mystical experiences and that there's theistic philosophers that claim that the _hyperactive agency detection device_ was implemented by God (or something).
      [And more generally that people didn't understand nature and the supernatural as separate in all cultures and all times.]
      Those two are biological conduits for mystical things, not really unlike the midichlorians.
      If they discovered that they have a mystical connection with all the living beings in the Galaxy through a 'field', one that allows them to experience mystical things that are provably true, I don't know why the fact that there's a biological conduit would make it any less mystical.

  • @matthewsuchomski2593
    @matthewsuchomski2593 3 ปีที่แล้ว +32

    I think both he and shad make good points. However, I’m fairly certain that most of the Chinese weapons that the bat’leth was based on were intended more for martial arts exhibition and dueling than for battles, but that seems to be how the Klingons use the bat’leth anyway.

    • @Subutai_Khan
      @Subutai_Khan 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Exactly, I am not that familiar with Star Trek but surely they have advanced ranged weaponry when its needed right?

    • @metagen77
      @metagen77 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@Subutai_Khan In the video he even shows three klingons standing there each armed with a disruptor AND a batleth. They use it on the show when entering another ship

  • @johnharrison6745
    @johnharrison6745 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    What people who criticize the bat'leth seem to fail to realize is, it's a lot more like an ax (a MULTI-HEADED ax) than a sword, while HAVING the long cutting-edge of a sword.

  • @JosephKerr27
    @JosephKerr27 3 ปีที่แล้ว +65

    Your calm, open-minded reasoning exemplifies why I've watched you for years yet quit watching Shad's content.

    • @Ilyas-ty6cy
      @Ilyas-ty6cy 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Well, Shad also can become really calm when he back and focus to explaining context, his obnoxious act mostly means only entertainment purposes and can be also a funny person like a true geek he was, make him kinda more famous compare to another historical channel. I mean I understand not everyone is into that. But at the same time with his way he attracts and opens a lot of people, to start to care into historical content with a common-sense view.
      Even though in expertise Matt is more superior to him, but because of him that is why I know who Matt Easton is. Since Shad is also a really diligent person that likes to share another Historian's channel like him like Skall, Metatron, Matt, and more, so it makes his viewer can see another Historian enthusiast's view beside him.

    • @Kwijiboz
      @Kwijiboz 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Yeah, i quit watching Shad a long time ago, then i found out he is a Mormon and all made sense to me

    • @coolsenjoyer
      @coolsenjoyer 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@Kwijiboz He's a mormon? Finally a logical explanation why his book was as badly written as Twilight, if not worse.

    • @Hu3hn3rschr3ck
      @Hu3hn3rschr3ck 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      This, so much this

    • @mak2-j6d
      @mak2-j6d 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      wow just look at the comments nothing but insults to shad, basic if [person] is [thing] i hate them/ i grew up indoctrinad in [inset name] so i can tell you if don't leave it gets worse trust me bro

  • @lasselen9448
    @lasselen9448 3 ปีที่แล้ว +41

    In my opinion, taking a given weapon in its intended context: if you can, with the circumstances (technology, materials, knowledge) at the time in the same culture, improve the design to make it more attractive to use (usability, defence, damage and so on), then it's a bad weapon. In the real world, weapons evolve to be optimised in the current context. Fantasy/sci-fi weapons, on the other hand, tend to focus on the "cultural" (exotic looks) aspect and usually sacrifice effectiveness and practicality. After all, you and Skal' did admit that you'd rather change a few things to the Bat'Leth's design, and Shad also listed more things that could make it as good as the circumstances allow (while retaining a very typical look).
    I agree that trying to asses whether a historical weapon is good or bad is pointless, because all weapons that were made in more than a handful of instances went through this refinement process until they became optimal for their intended use in their intended context, hence "good". Made-up pop-culture/fantasy/sci-fi weapons, on the other hand, weren't field-tested and are not the product of any kind of practical evolution. I believe it's perfectly fine to wonder how good they are; same thing with unique historical weapons (like the sword-hammer Tod crafted).
    To me, there's actually one (if only one) "Shad point" in which a stick is better than a Bat'Leth, and that's the amount of training required to use it. If you give me the choice between fighting with a stick or one of these, I'll pick the stick; I might deal a lot more damage swinging that piece of metal, but what's the point if I can't hit anything to begin with? It doesn't take a genius to poke hard with a staff, but I wouldn't even know how to hold a Bat'Leth, much less hit something with it. That's just nitpicking though, regarding your "the stick is worse in every way" statement.
    And finally, a big issue with the context... Can someone explain how a non-energy, cumbersome melee weapon can be considered good in a sci-fi setting where guns are readily available? Klingons have space ships, which most likely have guns, but their infantry doesn't? I understand the need for melee combat (boarding action for instance), but in this case small one-handed weapons like the Asian punching blades featured in the video would make a lot more sense. You can keep those on your belt during firefights and pull them out once things get close and personal. Good luck carrying a Bat'Leth without holding it. I know very little about Star Trek though, so if Klingons have a good reason to not use firearms, I'd love to read it.
    In advance: "It's cultural" isn't a good reason. Cultures that are stuck using obsolete military techniques tend to be wiped out very quickly.
    In the same vein, are there any historical records of nunchuks being used in actual combat, against armed opponents? Or are these weapons a pop-culture invention?

    • @NevisYsbryd
      @NevisYsbryd 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Neither for nunchaku. They were very much real weapons, although they appear to be for something more like an unarmed edc context. th-cam.com/video/UpXxw1dnhkU/w-d-xo.html

    • @dony2852
      @dony2852 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      Most opponents fight with only firearms in Star Trek, including the Klingons. While it is used in boarding actions alongside pistols, Klingon opponents normally are not skilled in melee nor do they carry melee weapons themselves. In the case of Federation ships, it isn't common for anyone except security to carry phasers. In contrast, Klingons pretty universally train in the Bat'Leth since it is used in duels of honor which may as well be their version of a national pastime. Since using firearms in ships isn't always safe and they all train to use a Bat'Leth, it isn't entirely unreasonable for them to use them in various situations since they are commonly available.

    • @shiyotso1
      @shiyotso1 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@NevisYsbryd ask the karate nerd jesse enkamp

    • @temperededge
      @temperededge 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      There a famous quote about how "wars are fought by human beings". While your disdain for weapons of cultural significance might be valid, (the Klingons lost against the humans, after all) it doesn't mean people won't do it nor continue to do it in the future. The Japanese famously had their banzai charges, waving samurai swords at lines of American Garands. While it may seem pointless to us, those suicide charges were important to the Japanese soldiers and kept them fighting a war they already lost all the way until the bombs finally fell on hiroshima and nagasaki. Perhaps it was the same with the Klingons.
      As for nunchucks, I've no idea on historical records, but there were plenty of nunchuck assaults during that 90s that left people with broken faces (no, they didn't break their own face with their nunchucks). A quick google search shows a one or two in more recent times, both with victims requiring serious medical treatment afterward. Nunchucks are basically long clubs that you could fold to less then half their length and easily conceal on your person. Probably not the best weapon you could deploy in a streetfight but I'd certainly not take a person using one against me lightly.

    • @mahrcheen
      @mahrcheen 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Lasselen 100%agree

  • @colbunkmust
    @colbunkmust 3 ปีที่แล้ว +26

    Tod better get on making that hajítóbárd for his weird weapons series.

  • @BaldorfBreakdowns
    @BaldorfBreakdowns 3 ปีที่แล้ว +33

    So, there's lots of good reasons to compare weapons to figure out which are most effective...
    Also, a Longsword is a bad weapon, when compared to an ar-15. Ever heard the term, don't bring a knife to a gun fight? Not because a knife is a bad weapon, but because it's bad compared to a gun.
    This applies to other areas too.
    It was extremely important to compare weapons back in medieval times. That's how they learned things like spears on horses was super effective against infantry with swords. Or that makes were more effective against armor.
    But I guess that's silly and pointless...
    What an ass take.

  • @ShaunCKennedyAuthor
    @ShaunCKennedyAuthor 3 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    My head canon has always been that the bat'leth was speculative as to what would have happened if the infantry weapons had evolved from the sickle instead of the knife.

    • @littlekong7685
      @littlekong7685 3 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      More or less. In the soft lore the batleth was designed for guerrilla fighting farmers against polearm and two handed sword wielding soldiers. It was made to be defensive, and force the user to temper their rage for control (because the user was usually a much smaller, weaker farmer against a much larger, younger/tougher brute).

    • @darcraven01
      @darcraven01 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@littlekong7685 no. the first bat'leth was the "Sword of Kahless" and first used to fight Molor and the Fek'Ihri who ruled the planet. Kahless used it to help free and unite the planet and become the first emperor... and klingons had warp drive at least shortly after kahless's death if not before as they made a monastery on a distant planet after kahless's death, so they had high tech than what we have now when the bat'leth was made (likely having disrupter weapons at the time)

    • @XSilver_WaterX
      @XSilver_WaterX 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Considering nowadays Klingons are mindless berserkers who are functionally hypocritical about warfare while corrupting ANY species view on warfare against them. ST: TOS should have ended the franchise as a whole.

  • @darcraven01
    @darcraven01 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    but... shad didn't say a stick was better than a bat'leth... he said a stick is better than nun-chucks and that a sword or axe was better than a bat'leth...
    12:20 also, we kinda do know the context of the bat'leth... according to the lore within startrek, the bat'leth was made by (or at least for) kahless to fight Molor and the fek'ihri hoard. given that they made a monastery on a distant planet not to long after kahless's death, its clear that the bat'leth was made in a time well past the klingon medieval period.. closer to (or even after) the time they had disrupter weapons. also given the way we see it being used in the series, most of the time fighting 1v1 duels, its obvious that the bat'leth was designed as a dueling weapon in an age of laser guns and is meant to be more of a test of skill and strength and honor and less of a practical battlefield weapon

  • @jjkrayenhagen
    @jjkrayenhagen 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    At what point in time would one be willing to fight to the death, whether in battle or a duel, with a bat'leth? Assuming one could have the same amount of time mastering the bat'leth or a weapon of said period.

    • @jdraven0890
      @jdraven0890 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      The Bat'leth is like a solution looking for a problem.

  • @sb792079
    @sb792079 3 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    I know this probably isn’t his intention but
    Matt just associated himself with the academia of history and archaeology, and Shad with the “modern video game-minded simplistic audience”
    Hope Shad doesn’t see this and take it as Matt’s word, because it might be my biased interpretation…
    But that would be a hell of a burn

    • @kmarchery
      @kmarchery 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Shad is a shill for modern video game entertainment platforms.
      It's how he makes his living .
      Same with Matt , skall,and Lindy .
      I don't watch shad ,won't watch him .
      I like matt's presentations better ,but it's still just video content to fit between paid ads
      I just like it more .
      Cheers

    • @goransekulic3671
      @goransekulic3671 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Again, CONTEXT. Are you looking for a nerdy take? For a possible explanation of D&D whatever? Shad's your guy. Are you looking for historical appraisal and tons of HEMA experience? Yeah, go Matt.
      It's...yeah. The only thing I don't like about Shad is video length. It's just not a "fire up and watch" material. And, yeah, believe it or not, but even Joseph Anderson and Mauler fit that "plug and play" criteria(because their vids are nicely segmented). Shad is like ... 30 - 45 minutes of ... fun, entertaining material, but that length is really unfortunate.

    • @havtor007
      @havtor007 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Well, Matt here also associated himself with all of hema being wrong as the context and nuances are not there.
      Matt also associated himself with the idea that reviews are worthless because you can never know enough.
      He just basically said that his whole youtube is pointless because context means he can not know enough to say anything about anything.
      This is a rabbit hole you do not want to go down because it leads to only one conclusion it is not trustworthy, it lacks context.
      There are good reasons why you make educated guesses even though you might not have all the context in fields like archaeology.

    • @natehammar7353
      @natehammar7353 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@goransekulic3671 I’ve lost interest in Shad’s material because it just seems to be rage vids now. I started watching him early when he was doing many castle vids or his fantasy rearmed vids, but since he brought on more than just his editor, his material has turned into pure money rage bait junk. And yes, it is too damn long mostly because he talks in circles.

    • @LWolf12
      @LWolf12 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Depends on how you want to look at it, Matt pulled out his HEMA, history and archelogy connections. Shad pretty much just gave his views and opinions based on criteria he came up with. Which, I think Matt misrepresented in some respects. Since Shad did not say the stick was a superior weapon than the bat'leth, he did talk bout how he joked about it, and he did say the stick was better than nunchucks. However, I don't recall and I've listen twice, him saying the stick was better than the bat'leth. He said gave ideas on how the bat'leth would be better improved.

  • @DontKeeptheFaith
    @DontKeeptheFaith 3 ปีที่แล้ว +29

    Consider the Bazookaleth. It's a rocket-propelled grenade launcher for space faring orcs.

  • @leppeppel
    @leppeppel 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    As a fellow commenter once pointed out on one of these videos, if a weapon's not from Medieval or early Renaissance Europe, it's utter garbage... at least according to Shad. That guy needs to take his Big Stick out of his ass and cop that he's full of it.

  • @jakobrosenqvist4691
    @jakobrosenqvist4691 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    I have always considered the Bat'Leth a bit of a ceremonial weapon. One on one duels seems rather fitting for a species like the klingon.

  • @BlazingOwnager
    @BlazingOwnager 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    *Shows Scholagladiatoria the Discovery version of the Bat'leth which point the blades at the user because they are a 'defensive species'*
    Now, I think in any context, we can decree this is a BAAAAD weapon.

  • @mwhyte1979
    @mwhyte1979 3 ปีที่แล้ว +22

    Personally I'm thinking that if you have a large annoyed Klingon Warrior in front of you that hitting him with a stick instead of a pointy Batleth falls under the category of "a bad idea".

    • @_XR40_
      @_XR40_ 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Which only demonstrates that you've never been hit with a good stick...

  • @happynihilist2573
    @happynihilist2573 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    1:20 "Thinking about weather a weapon is good or bad is good or bad is really silly"
    So thinking critically abut the subject you're interested is rally silly?
    Is trying to to understand a weapon's strengths and weaknesses and how it comers to other weapons really silly?
    Matt, please don't *ever* argue against critical thinking on *any* subject especially by dismissing it as 'silly' it makes you sound closedminded stupid.

  • @ndalby187
    @ndalby187 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I like that you mentioned the Katana/Tachi and Dao. I recently picked up a new sword, loosely based on examples from the Han Dynasty. Not sure how historically accurate it is, but I like it better than any of my Katana.

  • @iDEATH
    @iDEATH 3 ปีที่แล้ว +33

    I love a civil disagreement that gives me things to think about!
    It's a split for me with Shad's opinions. I'm with him on the nunchaku, where I think it's best feature is that it's kind of a folding stick, thus allowing one to conceal it or just carry it easier. If your know you're going to be in a street fight against unarmoured opponents it's at least as good as an easily concealable knife (it's about trade offs here, sharp v. reach) and you don't want to visibly armed it's going to be better to have a nunchaku down the back of your pants and under your shirt than to hope for a decent improvised weapon opportunity to avail itself. Or some similar scenario. It'd also always be better than being caught bare handed! But I still agree with Shad overall, because aside from the concealability I'd rather pick a solid stick.
    I disagree with him on the bat'leth. I have long thought (even before you and Skall both mentioned it) that it's a decent design for tight quarters, like ship boarding. The way you could use it across your own body, sharp edge and pointy bits curving towards your opponent is a fair bit of threat while still providing decent defense, I'd think. Getting around that in a corridor against a trained and armoured user could be pretty tough.

    • @ndalby187
      @ndalby187 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      Hate to break it to you, but a knife is categorically an objectively more effective weapon than nunchucks. The former is highly lethal in the hands of someone with absolutely no combat training, and the latter is almost never lethal even in the hands of a master of the art. Nunchucks are effectively a lightweight wooden flail with almost no leverage with which to do damage. I've trained with Nunchucks, and early on you're constantly hitting yourself full force in the head, groin, ribs, etc., It kind of hurts.

    • @littlekong7685
      @littlekong7685 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      @@ndalby187 A knife is a much harder weapon to avoid killing your opponent with. In a schoolyard street brawl where you want to hurt or scare the opponents, but avoid maiming/killing them for fear of the police/reprisals, then a knife is a contextually bad weapon and nunchucks are a contextually great weapon (they look flashy, make the user seem competent as a fighter, and are tough to get past without training or skill, and rarely risk maiming the opponent).

    • @NevisYsbryd
      @NevisYsbryd 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      His stance on nunchaku is one of his _most_ incorrect takes. Nunchaku are quite practical for the context in which they are designed.
      th-cam.com/video/UpXxw1dnhkU/w-d-xo.html

    • @ndalby187
      @ndalby187 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@littlekong7685 yes, they're contextually a better weapon for altercations in which you cannot legally use a weapon. Legitimately, you'd be better off striking with your elbows and knees.

    • @iDEATH
      @iDEATH 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@ndalby187 If your opponent is armed, two sticks on a string is almost certainly better than being unarmed. I would much prefer to have nunchaku in hand even if I was facing someone who was only armed with a simple rock. At least I'd have that reach advantage, you know?
      (it's all over if your opponent is armoured, though; throw your nunchaku at their face and hope they flinch so you can run away!)
      I do also really hate the "...in the hands of the untrained..." thing. People _do_ practice and train, and even though I agree on much of the impracticalities of nunchaku, if you have a person who's an expert with them against and untrained person with...I dunno, let's say a machete, I don't think it's clear victory for the machete. Now if they are both untrained, then yeah, I'll put my money on the machete every damn time. If you're raising an army of peasants then yes, go for simple weapons, of course! If you're a professional fighter, mercenary, man-at-arms, samurai, whatever, then maybe you have the training time to take advantage of the unique properties of a more complex weapon (not talking about the nunchaku here, just complex weapons in general).
      To me, if you're trying to measure the efficacy of a weapon, the real question is expert to expert, people who can each get the most out of their weapon, even if you have them each armed with different weapons. That, of course, is also very limited, as a test between duelists isn't going to tell you how a weapon made for the battlefield will fully function in a mass combat, with soldiers trained to fight in formation and such. That's just off the top of my head and there's ton's of other permutations to consider. Unlike how MMA has been able to give us a real comparison of unarmed combat styles, that doesn't work with weapons. These comparisons are really difficult to make without a lot of death.
      Context!

  • @rjly
    @rjly 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    All I heard was; "A spadroon is no worse than any other sword." - Matt Easton

  • @christopherpurches2774
    @christopherpurches2774 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    For the sake of humor:
    The Longsword was functionally the AR-15 of its day. A good number of people had them, they had interchangeable parts to adjust their functions and fine-tune them to a given user, and the maker could prepare them as a status symbol for their intended owner.

  • @keyem4504
    @keyem4504 3 ปีที่แล้ว +29

    To me the Bat'Leth always seemed to be designed to be useful in close quarter combat, e.g. on starships, but also have some reach if necessary. Taking this into consideration makes it quite useful.

    • @Verbose_Mode
      @Verbose_Mode 3 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      Same, though I thought it probably got its start in the tunnels of Klingon structures. Kinda like a room-to-room weapon at ranges where a phaser or disruptor is no longer reliable to get that shot on target. Basically: it's the Klingon equivalent of a cutlass in task, but gained katana-like cultural status. Sure, the era of pushing through the tunnel-like halls of enemy castles shoulder-to-shoulder with your brothers was gone, but it's so culturally important that you might take it just for the chance you get to brag that you killed a strong foe in melee with the iconic weapon rather than a knife.

    • @shaider1982
      @shaider1982 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It fails on the usability though with that end that you could cut yourself if not careful

    • @keyem4504
      @keyem4504 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@shaider1982 This holds true for all kinds of swords.

    • @mnk9073
      @mnk9073 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Reach is overrated in the cramped narrow corridors of a (space) ship. Think of the harrowing accounts of British soldiers getting cut down in confined alleys by indians who used their very curved tulwars so close to their bodies that it was more a pushing and slicing than hacking and striking.

    • @Verbose_Mode
      @Verbose_Mode 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@shaider1982 - That problem kinda disappears in the context were proposing, though: holding it like a staff, for close-in work.

  • @rotwang2000
    @rotwang2000 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    These stories about the best weapon remind me of this guy in the US who couldn't settle on the best self defense knife. He sent a letter to the editor asking about their opinion, he had this long, complex list of features he had examined including his height, weight, average arm reach, reflex speed, the quality of the steel, the blade type, the slickness of the grip, barometric pressure, the axial tilt of the planet and his horoscope. The gun mag answered "Get a .44 magnum 240 grains hollowpoint."

  • @mindstalk
    @mindstalk 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Now that I've watched your and Skallagrim's videos about the bat'leth... y'all may sound more positive on the concept than Shad did, but you end up proposing similar improvements, especially Skallagrim, as Shad did. All three of you propose going to one big grip hole, for a slideable grip. Skallagrim proposes making it asymmetric, with an absent or much shorter hook at one end, for user safety, similar to Shad's idea. (Or maybe Shad was inspired by Skallagrim's ideas.) At which point it approaches a forward-curving bastard sword with a very long guard rail/edge.

  • @daeraedor
    @daeraedor 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I agree it's silly to compare weapons as better or worse...in a 19th century industrial-era context.
    In all seriousness though, I think backgrounds and specialties are what lead to these disagreements. Small is into testing weapons, Shad is into speculating and writing situations where radically different weapons might meet, and Matt is into telling us why two swords made 10 years apart are importantly different and still equally valid to have been made and used in war. All very educational and entertaining!

  • @jatelitherius9842
    @jatelitherius9842 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    ‘There is no objective reality, only various contexts’
    Objective reality is probably really important to deadly combat. You want THE BEST chance of victory

  • @ridyreshuffs1822
    @ridyreshuffs1822 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Discussions like this are great entertainment and fuel for the "My weapon trumps yours for... reasons" as you said. But I think your last point in the video is the ultimate trump card for these types of debates. Its all fiction. In the context of the realm they were created in, who knows why its shaped the way it is. Your first video did a good job with that as well. Ultimately you can create a valid reason why any fictional weapon is created the way it is which is what makes it so much fun!
    P.S. As a die hard fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars I do have one more point. My lightsaber would cut through your Bat'Leth like a hot knife through butter. So in all things, the Lightsaber wins! LOL.

  • @jwom6842
    @jwom6842 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    The stick obsession, all sticks are not born equal but much more important than any weapon Vs weapon argument, is the skill of the user. In a literal life or death situation who would realistically choose a stick over an axe and shield or buckler for example, I wouldn't and I have Jo, Hanno etc. The advantage of the stick is that you can call it a walking stick and it won't draw unnecessary attention, again it's context. I think sometimes Shad plays devil's advocate for the views, the chuck video being the all time classic, almost devoid of context completely. Some weapons are better than nothing options when you don't have anything else or are not allowed to carry anything else and need to conceal.For me, the stick fits into this category unless your a very famous samurai and have the skills to fight with whatever you want to. Horses for courses and all that.

    • @greygoblin9491
      @greygoblin9491 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@shinobi-no-bueno there are a few really good woods for sticks weapons. Straight hard flexible woods. If you can find a dead sapling and pull out the roots you get a really good knot on a 3/4 inch stick that's 3-6 ft long and that can be quite nice.

  • @cyrilgigee4630
    @cyrilgigee4630 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    Matt definitely seems to have, ironic as this unfortunately is, missed a small but vital piece of context in Shad's video, but both him and Shad make some very good points on the debate. I think its true that if you can think of obvious improvements to a particular weapon in the same usage and cultural context, it then literally could be better. But at the same time, sometimes weapons which could be better are really of no less importance from a historical standpoint, as they may have been a precursor to something better or just something a group made work because of a reason we might not agree with in the modern day, or even a cultural quirk. In any case, now I'm gonna go watch Shad's response to this video.

  • @ZSYme
    @ZSYme 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    Is a gun a better weapon than toothpick ? It's complicated. It depends on context. Who can say?

    • @samske101
      @samske101 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      What if you're in a dangerous battle between yourself and some food stuck in your teeth?

  • @bishop9757
    @bishop9757 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Yeah the context of the weapon is vital, otherwise all weapons from history fall on the bad side of the weapons list due to firearms. It's also of course worth remembering I've never seen a full list of all of the Klingons historical weapons. The Bat'Leth seems akin to our arming sword, not just combat use but also a sign of rank. Once in space with cramped conditions it would make a better weapon as well.

  • @vikingbushcraft1911
    @vikingbushcraft1911 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    1:30 Captain Context makes an unscripted appearance and stays for the remaining 😉 - great vid 👏

  • @Zwerchhau
    @Zwerchhau 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Is the flathead screwdriver, a better screwdriver, objectively, than the phillips head screwdriver.

  • @grudgemindless652
    @grudgemindless652 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    I've been Shad's subscriber since his first gambeson video I believe and this was his first video I had trouble finishing out of sheer annoyance. It's not so much the points he raised as the tone he raised them in frankly, but that's not to say that even all the points are rock solid.
    Often mentions how "objective" his system is and how it's impossible to disagree with it because its "objective truth" is just silly. For example, when he says that a weapon that fails his 6th point (durability) and can be used just once is objectively bad completely ignores staples of the modern military as hand grenades and land mines. Weapons that are made to be used once.
    I'm still a fan of his content but, in my opinion, the quality of it has waned in the last 6 months or so. It might be the workload or some behind-the-scenes stuff but I find a lot of his last videos lackluster.

    • @Maznator
      @Maznator 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      I've been having trouble with Shad videos for the last year. He's fun to watch when discussing medieval castles and such, but his OBJECTIVELY BAD rants aren't even fun anymore.

    • @NieroshaiTheSable
      @NieroshaiTheSable 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Didn't have trouble with the "all our hobbies and fandoms are ruined now" takes?

    • @grudgemindless652
      @grudgemindless652 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@Maznator I guess at the beginning I thought rants were just kind of naive, misguided at worst, but lately they really go to the point of being petty.

    • @vksasdgaming9472
      @vksasdgaming9472 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Failing sanity. Channel reaching it's peak and starting to wane. Someone else who actually knows about subject showing up to correct his claims.

  • @gregajohnson1985
    @gregajohnson1985 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    We've also seen Klingons using straight single sided swords, similar to a Dao in size and weight. they also use their Dak'Tag, daggers, which are spear pointed, and short, and straight(with hilarious spring out quillons). then we also see Worf in particular, use the Mek'Leth, which is like a machete, similar to the Maciejowski Bible Falchion. it's indicated that they also use spears for Targ hunting. from all of these points, i think it's fair to assume that the Klingon Empire, throughout history, has used a wider variety of weapons than we've seen.
    The Bat'Leth is symbolic to them, because it's the pattern of weapon invented by the first unifier of their planet, Kahless. It's as iconic to them as the Katana is to the Japanese, or the Cruciform sword is to the Teutonic Crusaders. The Sword of Kahless, is sought by Kor, Worf, and Dax, in an episode of Deep Space Nine, and it drives them mad when they obtain it. it's an almost magical item to their practical religion around it. coveted by all Klingons who believe they deserve it....and in the end, none of them do, and they reject it. possibly an allusion to Excalibur; "Take me; cast me away".

  • @kevinmalone7167
    @kevinmalone7167 3 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    I'm starting the get the sense of a sort of (hopefully friendly) rivalry developing between Shad and Matt. In regards to the topic, I think the use of Good/Bad should instead be effective/ineffective. Also, I think judging the weapons you mentioned by Shad's criteria would have them come out as mostly effective, but then I'm not an expert. Anyway, love the content of you both!

    • @overlorddante
      @overlorddante 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Barely a rivalry. Shad is a couple steps above an arm chair historian while Matt is a bonafide professional in the field.

    • @Adam_okaay
      @Adam_okaay 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@overlorddante Shad is also anti-formal education, he thinks it's some kind of liberal indoctrination.

    • @IanGerritsen
      @IanGerritsen 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@overlorddante When the arm chair historian is arguing FOR critical thinking and the professional is arguing against it, the profession might need to be cleaned out to start again.

    • @overlorddante
      @overlorddante 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@IanGerritsen critical thinking is a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused. Shad is a good example of this. Matt is thinking critically, idk where you're getting that. Also I didn't say Shad is an arm chair historian, I said he's a couple steps above it (meaning he's a bit better than one. I do have some respect for most of his work)

  • @cattraknoff
    @cattraknoff 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    The context of the batleth is that the Klingons are using it for melee combat on starships boarding against enemies who mostly do not have melee weapons of their own. In this context, if you've got an angry Klingon charging at you with a Batleth or a group of them and you've just got a phaser you might get one before they start to disembowel you. It's a fearsome weapon, and the injuries such a beast would inflict would be gruesome and terrifying particularly in ultra-civilized Star Trek society.

    • @pixelfairy
      @pixelfairy 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Today we have shotguns, flame throwers, fully automatic rifles, hand guns that can drop someone on pcp. We even have throwable pommels! We also have body armor that can tank those rifle rounds until you run out of plates. I get that it's fiction, but that's a stretch!

    • @cattraknoff
      @cattraknoff 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@pixelfairy I'll grant that Starfleet are morons for not using body armour, along with all the baddies, but that's how it be in Star Trek. In that universe full of people too dumb for armour the context does favour the Batleth though.

    • @pixelfairy
      @pixelfairy 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@cattraknoff crossover movie: "this is my boom stick"

    • @astrotrek3534
      @astrotrek3534 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@cattraknoff Starfleet doesn't have armor because it's not a military (and armor probably doesn't work against phasers)

  • @Mr_S8an
    @Mr_S8an 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    the thing I love about theese types of response videos, wether it be Skallagrim, Shad, or you, it's always in a sober tone. there is no mud throwing or personal attacks, and that's really refreshing on the internet theese days.

    • @Khornedevotee
      @Khornedevotee ปีที่แล้ว

      It just shows that they are adults, what adults should be like.

  • @Ksennie
    @Ksennie 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I've watched and enjoyed many a scholagladiatoria video, but never have I agreed with one more, and thought the topic of discussion more valid.

  • @HeliophobicRiverman
    @HeliophobicRiverman 3 ปีที่แล้ว +40

    Matt, you've just made a case for adding "fit for purpose within its temporal and geographical context" to Shad's long list of metrics 😉

    • @cp1cupcake
      @cp1cupcake 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      I also though cost was something that Shad should have put in his metrics. There are plenty of examples of cheaper weapons being more effective because it means you can have more weapons.
      if the number of weapons is your limiting factor, then would you rather be making weapons which are twice as good but three times as effective?

    • @Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang
      @Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      He did add the idea of context in his video, Go watch his reply, this is a terrible video where most points were addressed in the original video.

  • @RifterBlade
    @RifterBlade 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    I am actually grateful to the people who designed the bat'leth for the later Star Trek spinoffs, as they showed some sense and reason to the design, allowing for "fantasy weapons" with a bit more use than the various blades that Shadiversity referred to in his "mall ninja" video, where somehow adding 5 lbs and some inconveniently placed points was supposed to make a "barbarian" or "fantasy" blade! :) Even as a younger idiot, I had grown up using tools and knives and was never impressed by those. Now we geeks have something to hang over the over-sized ranger sword we got for Christmas after the LOTR movies came out! ;) Seriously, thanks for the thought and effort you put into your videos, always a pleasure to learn something new about weaponry! Good job.

  • @bartonbrevis3831
    @bartonbrevis3831 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Simple adage:
    The Best Weapon you can have is the one in your hand when your opponent is fallen, bleeding out, on the ground.

  • @elijahoconnell
    @elijahoconnell 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    “in this 15th century painting, we see our armoured knight using the bat’leth against the enemy knight during the chaos of the battlefield”

  • @mikemcginley6309
    @mikemcginley6309 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Shad gets a bit long winded

  • @southpawmoose
    @southpawmoose 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Which sword os best is like asking which riffle is the best...depends, what the mission? what is the terrain?

  • @arkadeepkundu4729
    @arkadeepkundu4729 3 ปีที่แล้ว +21

    Clearly some people haven't trained in Historical Klingon Martial Arts.

    • @maaderllin
      @maaderllin 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      You haven't trained in Historical Klingon Martial Arts until you have done it in the original Shakespeare.
      Wait...

    • @TomTasker
      @TomTasker 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@maaderllin LOL!!

    • @Kiytan
      @Kiytan 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      HKMA (or maybe HK'MA) does sound like a very klingon word

  • @robbowman1320
    @robbowman1320 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    A refreshingly sober and thoughtful approach ... a rarity in today's world!

  • @zukiginagato2215
    @zukiginagato2215 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Sorry, i dont mean any disrespect but 10 minutes of repeating that 'depends on the context' in many diff ways is tiring, there's no way i can hear the same stuff even one more minute.
    Was it even said what was the context that said weapon was good? Or is it speculation because all weapons have a context? Cause if the second there's still many flaws, like why continue using that weapon if there was no context it was better in the movie ya know? In my perspective the weapon simply followed the 'rule of cool' by the author and that's the context.

  • @ElDrHouse2010
    @ElDrHouse2010 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Other wierd weapons that I think could work but wouldnt be as good as the standard ones are twinblades, the pole with 2 sword ends on top and bottom it needs a longer pole tho and it needs to be less sword.

  • @frey7631
    @frey7631 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Honestly I think the best way to figure out the practical usefulness of the batleth would be to test it out some more against various other weapon types in actual combat (with reasonable savety precautions of course) Would love to see a video made about that Matt!

    • @xxxxSylphxxxx
      @xxxxSylphxxxx 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      He mentions in this video that this has been done quite a bit.
      I think you want to look about 9 minutes in to hear that part.

    • @frey7631
      @frey7631 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@xxxxSylphxxxx Yes, would love to see it directly as a sparring video!

  • @Kishandreth
    @Kishandreth 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Context is important. The bat'leth is a melee weapon that persisted into a time of space travel and energy weapons. The role of a bat'leth is a force multiplier when your disruptor/phaser/energy weapon isn't effective or if there is an honorable duel to decide the outcome.
    While I agree that one large hole for the handle is a much better design for the weapon, I don't think many other alterations are needed (other then weight depending on the user). I imagine that a lot of spaceships are a lot more cramped then the spacefairing cruise ships the federation uses. It would not surprise me to have security patrols fighting in mining vessels whose corridors feel more like current residential hallways (3 to 4 feet wide). Given how many innumerable situations a Klingon could find themselves in, a bat'leth is a good all around melee weapon when their energy based weapons fail/don't work/are lost.
    I think the bat'leth is similar to the English longbow. Completely absorbed in the culture. Without the culture practicing with either from a young age they would be quite ineffective as not many would be able to use them to their full potential.
    I'm not saying the bat'leth is the best weapon. If you take any 10 randomized combat scenarios in Star Trek, what weapon would you choose as your back up melee weapon? Assuming the bat'leth can be easily made to fit your personal specifications, it's actually a solid choice. It's not the best, but when you can't even imagine what you're about to fight against it works pretty darn well in every scenario.

  • @cp1cupcake
    @cp1cupcake 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    I agree Shad was missing a bit about purpose of the weapon, but I think he might have also missed reliability and cost. Just as some examples, the MK14 torpedo was a piece of crap because it had a major design flaw. A destroyer can do everything a destroyer escort can do, and do it better, but unless you if you can make do with the cheaper version then it is probably the better one.
    I kinda feel like he was trying to make a 'best weapon for every scenario' which would remove the overwhelming majority of them. It would mean that soldiers would only ever carry one weapon because its the best one available. So now secondary weapons, no mixed weapon units and tactics etc

    • @Rocketsong
      @Rocketsong 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      The Mk 14 torpedo didn't simply have a design flaw, it had many, MANY, overlapping design flaws. "Failure is like onions".

  • @AccessAccess
    @AccessAccess 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Always assumed that a bat'leth was more like a weapon modeled after a giant crab's claws or something similar that was used by klingons since their late stone age or something similar. Early bat'leth's could have been fashioned out of wood or bone with lots of pointy bits attached to the front, then evolved further as metal weapons started to be used. While it doesn't seem like an optimal weapon for combat against other klingons, we don't know much about ancient wildlife or threats that prehistoric klingons faced but if it was a dangerous place with lots of hostile creatures, this could have driven a lot of early weapon development.

  • @Pavlos_Charalambous
    @Pavlos_Charalambous 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Now we need Todd to forge a couple of sparing version of Klingon swords and test them in practice 🤟😁

  • @benjaminstevens4468
    @benjaminstevens4468 3 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    Someone from earth, did in fact, come up with the Klingon Bat-leth, for a martial tradition that was developed on earth, for use in the entertainment and LARPing spheres. It works wonderfully for that context.

    • @benjaminstevens4468
      @benjaminstevens4468 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Not designed to actually kill, obviously, (but that could be said regarding most modern martial arts,) but the Bat’leth is a weapon used in a tradition of fighting, and it was invented by us humans, and is used by us humans, here on earth.
      It is exactly the appropriate weapon to function in the context which it is being used in. It invokes imagination and fantasy, and that is it’s intended purpose. So it’s the right weapon for the job.

  • @stevenpremmel4116
    @stevenpremmel4116 3 ปีที่แล้ว +33

    There's a lot of subjectivity to whether a weapon is good or bad. Take my black fencer synthetic 1796 light cavalry sabre for example. To me it's a bad weapon because I find the grip to be uncomfortable and it comes loose in my hand (ooo-er Mrs!) when I do more than ten moulinets, but other people have no problems.

    • @1211-h1o
      @1211-h1o 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Weather or not a weapon is made to the correct proportions of the user is an objective standard. Just because it changes from person to person dose not mean it is subjective. A subjective standard is one that is not based on quantifiable data, for example if you where to say that your synthetic light cavalry sabre was bad because you said you didn't like it that would be a subjective standard.

    • @EvilLPS
      @EvilLPS 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      I guess that, what Shad said in his video was that good is a objective therm, no place for subjectivity (to like or dislike is subjectivity, finding the grip uncomfortable is subjectivity). The problem is that there are too many parameters and conditions (or contexts) that must be put to determinate what is a better or worse weapon making saying something is good must come along with all the parameters, therefore is not a practical or convenient to say and saying without them is too generic (and I guess that`s what matts said on his response).

    • @1211-h1o
      @1211-h1o 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@EvilLPS Good is a qualitative term not an objective one, whether or not something is objectively good depends on what the standard you are using to judge it by. For example the grip on a weapon being uncomfortable is objectively worse than one that is comfortable, because it is harder to use.
      As to it being to inconvenient or impractical to judge a weapon as good or bad because context, ignores the scenarios that we use to judge a weapons effectiveness e.g. armored vs armored, unarmored vs armored and unarmored vs unarmored. The only context you need in these scenarios is what armor and weapons they are using

  •  3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I was recently re watching DS9 and thought to myself: " I wonder how good a weapon the Batleth realy is" So I really appreciate the flurry of Videos on this topic :)

  • @alan_sylver
    @alan_sylver 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Shad himself has pointed towards context several times in the linked video, including the currently pinned #1 comment. So I don't think the examples given here hit the mark, at least if they were supposed to be arguing against Shad's system. The question is _not_ "is weapon 1 or two better"? But "is weapon 1 or two better given a certain situation, and in what way"? And only if you can't come up with a use case where weapon 1 is better, only _then_ is weapon 2 the better one.

  • @robwalker4452
    @robwalker4452 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    You have made a solid case, so people simply need to add context to these discussions, such as which weapon is better... while parachuting.

  • @calvinwade6574
    @calvinwade6574 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    Matt I think you missed the point Shad made. Unless I'm missing your point it seems that the only thing that determines if a weapon is good or bad is was it successful for fulfilling its job in its time? But you can be successful with bad tools. A person with weapons training and a bread knife could dispatch of someone not trained and with a combat knife. But that doesn't make the bread knife a good weapon. All things about the people fighting being equal, the combat knife will probably preform better because it's a better weapon. Shads argument is about just the weapon in different situations, yours seems to be more about the history of the weapons success despite its flaws. The tactics of the people who won doesn't inherently change its effectiveness as a weapon.
    And new weapons are generally better than old weapons, that's why they're invented because its an improvement for the situation. A stone tomahawk is now worse than a metal one generally speaking. At one point the stone tomahawk was the top of the line weapon and it WAS a good weapon but its not anymore. Just because it was good at one point doesn't mean it remains effective as time goes on.

    • @RevAnakin
      @RevAnakin 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      This is true. New weapons are "better" = more effective at killing people than old weapons. More people die from drone bombings than stone clubs sure. If this is the case, why make a video at all calling it bad? Literally, any ten year old will tell you a race car from 2022 is going to be "better" than 1922. Basic common sense.
      The point Matt is trying to make is that fundamentally the weapon itself is not bad. Compared to laser guns and even today's projectile firing firearms, ANY sword like bladed weapon is "worse."
      But why is it that today, American Marines still have dress swords? It is clearly a symbol. Why do we watch MMA when they could just shoot each other with drones? Why is fencing even a sport? All swords are "bad" weapons because guns and bombs are "better".
      Arbitrary opinion of good and bad associated with comparisons between technological advances literally provide no value to society, nor prove intelligence.
      $10 says any GenZer could tell us their iPhone from this year is "better" than our first smart phones... duh.

  • @ngVAT579
    @ngVAT579 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I would probably say that the weapon that fits into the most contexts with the most effectiveness would objectively be a better weapon than a weapon that is only of substantial effectiveness in one particular context. Great stuff. New subscriber.

    • @thomasfplm
      @thomasfplm 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I'd say that it depends if you have the possibility of changing weapons according to the situation or not.
      If I'm imagining an explorer that will need to stay months away going to various places and can't carry the more than one or two weapons, your criteria would make sense, but if you're imagining a soldier that goes to various missions and is able to choose the weapon according to the situation, then it doesn't.

  • @MagPel1
    @MagPel1 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    If you are going to suppose that every weapon is evolved to perfection within it's own context and you don't think there is any reason to compare weapons from different contexts to each other, you need to start deleting a whole bunch of your videos. I usually agree with you but i think you are taking your point and running with it way too far this time.

  • @colbycarreon9378
    @colbycarreon9378 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    If you need to straight out the ends, make it longer and make it lighter is it still a bat’leth.

  • @Churchx7x
    @Churchx7x 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    I love your content and I was really looking forward to your reply to Shad's video, because I feel there's more to discuss, but I think you either misunderstood or didn't fully watch his video. His main point was that if you have x y or z weapons and had to choose one, that no regular person would choose z. He specifically said that Z could still be a good weapon but in the context of weapon vs weapon it was lacking. That was his whole point. Just because a weapon works and can be effective does not make it a good weapon.
    Love your content! Please keep making videos. Love your videos with Tod and Drachinifel.

    • @1IGG
      @1IGG 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      But that's circular logic. The best weapon could be ignored because of biases and so people choose the wrong weapon. Determining objective results by going by majorities is rather silly. Or the most popular X would be the best, which it very rarely is. Usually the other way around.

    • @Glimmlampe1982
      @Glimmlampe1982 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      But for the batleth he still missed some points. He just said the hooks are useless and detrimental. I disagree. They can be used for hooking. And the y shape can be used to catch a weapon, controlling it and open up new areas of attack.
      Which removes major criticisms and ads benefits, this completely changing it from crap to potential useful (how useful, I don't know, I don't own one ;) )

    • @Churchx7x
      @Churchx7x 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@1IGG I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just personally feel that the criteria Shad laid out were a solid start for an objective view on weapon vs weapon. He talks about the context, but his main point was that even if you put a weapon like the batleth in a context appropriate time period, an average person of normal skill level would not use it, preferring to choose either an easier to use weapon or a weapon that would do more damage.

    • @Churchx7x
      @Churchx7x 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@Glimmlampe1982 I agree with you. I feel he disregarded some potential useful points on the batleth, but I still believe his point about the batleth stands

    • @vetrean
      @vetrean 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      The problem is that if weapon A is better than weapon B in one context, and weapon B is better than weapon A in another context, there's no reason to think that either context is more "objective" or "good or bad" than the other. If working and being effective doesn't make something good, what does? Why should I care about your criteria for good more than my criteria for good?
      The only way to really look at things objectively, is not to think of your own criteria as being THE objective criteria.

  • @edwardstowers7272
    @edwardstowers7272 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    You are spot on I think. Disregarding the fact this is a fantasy weapon with no actual historical content, I think your points are quite cogent, Matt. While I am no expert on anything other than being me, I have done graduate level work on modern weapons and tactics at the USAF Weapons School, and while those weapons are fighters and bombers and not edged weapons, certain tactical truths are well-known to tacticians. The first is the only correct answer to generic questions like this question is “it depends.” Context is one huge variable as is individual skill in employing a weapon. A master staff fighter can probably employ a staff better than a beginner swordsman can a sword. In that case, better is relative to skill, not design. Which would you rather have in real-word combat, an M-60 machine gun or a medieval bastard sword? On the surface, the M-60 seems superior for penetration and range and it could be the superior weapon. But again, it depends. If you are out of ammo, the bastard sword is clearly superior in that context. This doesn’t make a weapon better or worse…except in a particular set of circumstances. Fun to argue academically, but meaningless if you can’t employ them. Unless we have masters of Klingon weapons in HEMA, which is not actual combat, getting any realistic data on this fantasy weapon is unlikely. Enjoyed the discussion though.

  • @asdfjoe123
    @asdfjoe123 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Can we stop talking about Shad? The dude has been dropping R-bombs on his videos and when called out on it, continues.

  • @danielflynn9141
    @danielflynn9141 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Matt, excuse me sir, but is that a new scabbard for the Windlass English two-handed sword you just flashed before the screen?!

  • @raphlvlogs271
    @raphlvlogs271 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    things that are bad in 1 context can be good in another1

  • @BertzTriscut
    @BertzTriscut 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I have a question:
    Why is it silly or pointless to compare weapons or analyze if they're good or bad? Wouldn't doing so help a warrior make a decision on how they approach battle and spend their money? As for us modern civilians, wouldn't it help us understand history and culture better? It's something I've had to do in Mordhau, and almost all of the weapons in that game are very viable (except the meme ones like the lute). Weighing the pros and cons of each weapon has helped me become a better player.
    Another thing that stood out to me as odd was the tomahawk example. Yes, natives from thousands of years ago didn't have access to steel. But you know who had access to both? Natives from post Euro contact times. And us. We have access to both weapons and neither are illegal in several countries, so it would be fair to analyze them to see what we would want to carry for personal use.

  • @binglebongle5986
    @binglebongle5986 3 ปีที่แล้ว +34

    Can't wait for Shad to leave a multi-paragraph screed in the comments walking back/conceding most of his points yet still phrasing everything like he's somehow correct

    • @SkinnyBlackout
      @SkinnyBlackout 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      Shadiversity in a nutshell. That's the reason I personally can't stand the guy and his content since he moved on from castles and historical stuff to cheap entertainment. And it's always responses, responses, responses...

    • @patrickmccurry1563
      @patrickmccurry1563 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      @@SkinnyBlackout I unsubscribed a while back due to his lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty.

  • @Fyrgon
    @Fyrgon 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    When talking about context:
    If you were on a ship in era Cutlass was used and you had opportunity to use either Cutlass or Broadsword while having same amount of practice with both... which would you choose?
    Other way around in era and place Broadsword was used, would you ever choose Cutlass over Broadsword if you had the same amount of training with both?
    Is there a context where would you would choose Cutlass if you also get option to use Broadsword?
    Of course there would be contexts where broadsword would not exist as an option or contexts where one would train with Cutlass but not a Broadsword but those doesn't seem fair comparison.
    Same with Longsword / Kris: would even Philippines use a Kriss if they could grab a Longsword for a duel?
    With those Tomahawks: of course it is relevant which is better if they both are lying before you to pick... Just bc there were no iron weapons in some areas and time doesn't mean iron weapons aren't better then stone ones.
    Also AR15 isn't better then any sword without bullets... even in modern context. XD Can't rly compare different categories...
    Also seems little disingenuous to compare bladed heavy weapon to short flimsy broom handle instead of at least a quarterstaff mainly after saying "it's a kind of polearm"... you should compare it to ANY other polearm then and say if you would feel safe with a Bat'Leth against those.
    You sure don't have know context for Bat'Leth history to watch a show but it is quite important if you want to say it is a GOOD weapon. Any culture can make a pit fight with a bundle of radishes but you can't say it would be a good weapon.

  • @BradfordTaylor
    @BradfordTaylor 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Thank both you for the robust and civil debate! We need more of this in our world.

  • @arc0006
    @arc0006 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    "The ABS sword..." Did you 3D print it? :)

  • @vytas5584
    @vytas5584 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Don’t mention Shad, he’s beneath you

  • @spacecadet35
    @spacecadet35 ปีที่แล้ว

    Whenever I use a boffer bat'leth in combat, it has difficulty against polearms, but against swords, I have to take it easy on the sword user. The thing to remember is that a Bat'leth is a warrior's weapon, not a soldiers weapon.

  • @harrykouwen1426
    @harrykouwen1426 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    The Bat'leth looks awesome and frightning, but it is a 2 dimensional weapon, designed for a 2 dimensional world; the comic book and fantasy world; it's mechanics are not logical at all; just the amount of handpower it takes to keep the blade pointed towards the enemy. If you apply a third dimension on it, it rotates quite easy in the hands. Like a sword with too much curve in the blade; it is too easy to rotate in your hands and therefor much harder to aim at the target, and becomes a sort of nunchaku; not knowing exactly where the business end goes.
    Like a sword blade with 90 degree hilt that is not an effective weapon at all off course due to the easy rotation in your hands.

  • @mjsuarez79
    @mjsuarez79 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    This reminds me of a previous video of yours. I don't remember though if this particular question was addressed. Considering your current context (your city, 2022) how would you design a bladed weapon?

    • @mjsuarez79
      @mjsuarez79 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Or weapon, in general. Lately, I've been fixated on the applicability of a trench gun in home defense, as an example.

  • @shinjofox
    @shinjofox 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    It is a lot like my dislike of people say X is the greatest (fill in the category). I don't think anything can be determined to be the greatest anything. There is always context. There is always a certain amount of subjectivity in the category and of course personal taste. People have favourites. One person favors a longsword another a katana and a third a poleaxe.

    • @didack1419
      @didack1419 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Conceivably, there could be a best sword (for example) for most people in most situations, but then it would not be optimised for many of them, which means that it would be worse than many other swords in those contexts.
      (as I said in other comment) I think Shad is overstating his standard as definitive when he hasn't shown that it is. At best, it's a general rule of thumb.

  • @nikkibrowning4546
    @nikkibrowning4546 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    New Crossover series with Tod: Strange Fantasy weapons applied?

  • @vadenummela9353
    @vadenummela9353 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    I really miss seeing how many dislikes are on videos.

    • @vadenummela9353
      @vadenummela9353 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Atheismo9760 they dont work based on current data, only on archive data about videos old enough to still have dislikes enabled at release.

  • @CZProtton
    @CZProtton 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I dissagree that you cannot compare swords or weapons... You are quite right that context matters and for example the katana was the best Japan could do and it was great for what they needed, but the longsword is just better if we compare them considering the same person is using it and the weapons are somewhat comparable, which the katana to the longswords are.
    Its about the same as comparing firearms nowadays, ofcourse an AKM variant is better for a less developed country to use because they could not make for example M4s well enough, fast enough and keep them working. It takes an incredibly complex chain of logistics to keep an army armed with M4s. But we can still compare them head to head.

    • @eagle162
      @eagle162 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Katanas pretty much can do what the long sword could do, Japanese swords were even imported across Asia having quite a reputation recognized even by Europeans.
      "Was the best Japan could do"
      I think I know what you're saying here recommend reading this.
      "Japanese Swords "Mythbusting" - Part 1" on Gunbai.

  • @scottphillips6005
    @scottphillips6005 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    One of Shad's metrics of comparison was "are there better weapons designed for a similar or the same purpose." As you say yourself in the broadsword vs. cutlass example, they are made for different purposes, so you cannot compare them directly. However, you can objectively compare them in each context that each sword was made for. A broadsword is objectively worse in the environment that a cutlass is designed for and vice versa. They are differently purposed weapons. So, in the context of what a Bat'leth is made for (which I presume to be dueling given the ceremonial value to Klingon's), are there better and easier to use weapons? Yes. Yes there are. So, is the Bat'leth a good weapon? Compared to nothing, yes. Compared to other weapons intended for the same purpose? No. The fact that it can be effective does not mean it's a great weapon. "Good" and "great" are relative words, which is a point Shad made early on in his video. To your point about historical weapons taking different forms - just because they exist does not mean they were good or that better, more effective weapons don't exist. So, is the Bat'leth realistic? Maybe, but that still doesn't mean it's a good weapon.

  • @KlausBeckEwerhardy
    @KlausBeckEwerhardy 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Captain Context hits again 😁 Just thinking about the Hägar-strip, in which he encounters a French soldier with a foil. At first he laughs at the 'toothpick' and then...

  • @briana7515
    @briana7515 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Can you talk about the Rope Dart as a weapon? Historically when where and why it was used?

    • @briana7515
      @briana7515 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      is it a reasonable weapon? is it viable weapon - I'd like to hear this topic.

    • @ellnino
      @ellnino 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It was used in ancient tournaments by members of the Shirai Ryu clan.

  • @silverdragon4344
    @silverdragon4344 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    What everyone would call a weapon, I call a tool. I am the weapon.