Long pointy stick didn’t work too well at protecting Scottish Lowlanders from English arrows at Falkirk. I reckon spear and shield would be better then pike.
@@lowlandnobleman6746 This video was about a *duel* so as long as you manage to avoid getting shot in the head or torso right off the bat you can probably rush an archer and finish them off. On a battlefield you still want longer spears than the opponent has _in addition_ to shields but yes, good shields in combination with _any_ stabbing weapon are vital against projectiles.
@@lowlandnobleman6746 There's a reason he banned shields in the video. Although that does pose the question, if you were allowed to use _any_ shield, would you use a very large or strapped one or a smaller more nimble option such as a boss-gripped roundshield? And do you use a one-handed spear or a more hefty and versatile cut&thrust weapon such as a gladius, arming sword or the like as the shield can negate enemy reach advantage? Basically if you have a shield you might want to rush an enemy spearman at which point the greater damage potential of a cutting blade would be valuable, but if the opponent is wearing plate armour (with polearm, with or without shield) you're still pretty doomed.
Blunt weapons, I’ve come to find, are very underrated. You can get the fanciest, most expensive, most durable armor money can buy, but all it takes to shut you down is some peasant with a particularly thick branch.
Thick spikes, like cones, they wont get stuck, but they concentrate all the force in one point, with armour, and without armor, it could crack your skull or some bones
Well when the Dutch fought the Spanish empire in the late 16th and early 17th century, the - always with war accompanying - famine had much less of an impact because of a new 4 field crop rotation system.
A mace is still perfectly effective even without armor, one blow from a mace against an unarmored opponent would shatter bone if it hits bone. Blunt weapons can only do more damage against an unarmored opponent than against an armored opponent.
@@alexanderthompson7164 The problem with a mace is that it's slow and unwieldy compared to a sword, or the majority of other weapons. So if your opponent just so happens to use a sword you're at a disadvantage regardless of their armor.
true, padding and mail can displace some of the force, but the only difference would be plate. perhaps damaging plate which could put pressure on the chest to not breath properly or effect mobility. piercing is lethal but unless something vital is hit the fight could continue for minutes and slashing could remove a limb or the head, but I think by statistical probability blunt weapons would offer a game changing or fight ending strike more easily and quickly. he really should have elaborated more on maces or morning stars because he shows images of both but calls them all maces. you can definitely thrust with a morning star, if need be...and who says you can't thrust with a mace..? you can't pierce with a mace thrust, but that would hit hard to the face opening bleeding that could effect vision or damage a helmet visor, when your life is on the line everything is versatile...
@@lordsesshoumaru8596 The word "morningstar" is complex to use because the meaning is not really fully agreed upon. Some people (and culture/languages) concider only a flail with a spiky ball a morningstar, others call any mace that is ballheaded and spiky a morningstar as examples. But that is not my main topic. There is a misconception that is very common that i like to adress here. You touch it in your comment so i would like to "fill out the gaps" so to speak: People in general seems to be fixated with the ability to kill in a weapon, even the need to kill in a battle scenario. There is no special use in killing in a battle, just put them out of action is enough. Death can be delivered after the fighting is over. So to but a hole in someone might be deadly tomorrow but useless right now. Here the blunt weapon makes much more sense i believe: A hit that cruches muscles, breaks bones and is immediately very painful is, Most likely, more effective "right now" especially when the wielder will hit again and again and again... To recieve a hit with a mace WILL make you loose focus, you can´t directly counter, it might even shift your balance slightly. That "stagger effect" gives the mace wielder time to recover and hit again. A good hit on plate transfer a lot of force into the body within. That is the reason blunt weapon was prefered against plated foes. There is no need to dent or poke a hole in the plate, the force goes through anyway. Just like the "toy" called Newtons Cradle. I hope you understand that i am not criticising you i am just elaborating.
My opinion is the anti-armor weapons should be ranked higher. If the opponent doesn't have armor, odds are they aren't a professional soldier and thus your choice of weapon carries less weight. If you pick a mace and it turns out you're fighting some unarmored farmer, you may not kill him as efficiently as if you had chosen a falchion, but you'll still win. However, if it turns out you're fighting a knight and you hadn't picked on anti-armor weapon, you're dead.
One thing he doesn't mention as well is that blunt damge to the body can **only** increase when less armour is placed between the weapon and the opponent. He tries to claim that a mace would be less effective at killing an armoured opponent, but the thing is without armour in the way you can only do more damge. A direct hit to an opponent's cheekbone for instance (or any bone for that matter) would **always** for more damage then hitting the armour between it.
Usually good weapon againist unarmored opponents are easier to carry around, wich makes them better suited to carry around 24/7. It's the same reasoning on why people carry handguns instead of assault rifles.
I personally feel that the mace deserved a little more love in terms of damage to unarmoured opponents because it almost doesn't matter where you hit said opponent, you would be able to deliver at least a debilitating blow. I might just be cocky but I imagine a full power strike would certainly break bone which even in the arm or shoulder would critically hamper their ability to offend or defend.
Yea the idea that blunt weapons are somehow ineffective against someone who isn’t armored is dumb. The only perk slicing has is blood loss and cutting muscles/tendons which would cause complete debilitation of the body part. Blunt force is still very deadly as you can easily break bone and rupture organs. A mace strike to the torso can be potentially lethal and will likely take the person out of the fight just from the shock of the hit. It’s even a technique used in hand to hand combat. Watch Bas Rutten. He is a famous fighter known for punching his opponents in the liver which is one of the most painful spot to be hit. Even ruptured a guys liver in a fight just from his punch
@@clownworld4655 liver punch’s are devastating and it doesn’t even take a lot of power to completely rupture the liver with an accurate hit the problem is that it’s pretty hard to get an accurate liver shot in real combat
@@tannermeche7968 not really. Watch Bas Rutten’s fights. With some training and basically knowledge of anatomy it is pretty simple in a hand to hand fight
If a blow is abe to kill\debilitate a guy in armour, it's hard to imagine that same blow not doing at least as well if the armour isn't there. In a low armour situation, it might not be as good as a sword, but you'll have a chance, no matter what your opponent goes with. Can't say the same for a falchion.
Sorry, but I think a pike would be a terrible 1 vs 1 weapon. Any range advantage gets negated by the fact that you have no leverage at all at three meters, your enemy can literally just grab your pike by the shaft (kinky). It takes very little strength to move the point of a pike out of the way, anyone that doubts this, try it out for yourself with a blunt 3 meter stick. Once you are past the point, the whole weapon is useless because it is way too heavy and cumbersome to retract it quickly like a spear. It's also nearly impossible to thrust accurately at such a distance. Sure, the pike could theoretically get into the weak points of enemy armor, but you're not gonna be able to hit them at that distance, so it's not really an anti armor weapon. If the enemy has a weapon, he can swat your pike away with no risk to himself. There's a reason pikes were only used in massed formations, the drawbacks I mentioned don't really come into play when you have to get through 3 rows of dozens of pikes in front of you to even get to the first pikeman. You can't knock them all away, their accuracy doesn't mean shit when there's so many. And if you get past the first row of points, there are more behind it. I mean spears, yeah sure, but anything longer than 2.5 meters seems kind of impractical.
I'm with you on this. Have trained with lots of different weapons, including pikes. It isn't that difficult to get past ONE pike ... unfortunately, pikes allow close formation, which means you are going to get skewered before reaching the holder of the one you dealt with. But 1 vs 1 ... yeah, you're toast. In the SCA, I mastered the fine art of parrying and spinning in with a polearm against both spears and pikes ... unless they had backup, it was essentially game over.
Truly. If I didn't know what my opponent would be wearing I'd never in my life pick a single handed sword. Even a two handed one, for that matter. A poleaxe, since they have both a point and a blunt end, would be perfect.
I agree, the Warhammer and Mace were HIGHLY underated, per say, if you hit an unarmored aponets head with a mace, he is going to die... And also, he stated that the warhammer can not cut, this is outright false. It could impale, cut, hit you on the head with a sometimes spiked hammer. Warhammers were VERY versitile.
@@acecrimson2393 even if you get hit in the arm, i assume few people would be able to keep fighting with a broken(probably shattered) arm. Mace should be much higher up on the list
@@acecrimson2393 I see this alot. It's not the damage they do when landing a blow that makes them "bad" it's simply the fact that landing any telling blow with a shortish blunt weapon against a nimble and fast opponent is just very very difficult. Ofcourse if you hit someone over the head with a mace he is going to die. But you need to get very close and put yourself in danger to do this. So yes the damage is there if you land a blow but the problem is that your blows are quite slow since you need a swing which is slower than a jab/thrust plus you need to put yourself in considerable danger because of the short range to be able to land this blow. This mistake is made mostly because the other way around it does mostly only revolves around damage. A cutting weapon just doesn't do damage to armor which is why its bad against armor. But it is not that a blunt weapon doesn't do damage to unarmored that it's bad against unarmored it that it is just really fucking hard to get a hit in with a short, slow, momentum based weapon against a fast and nimble opponent.
@@Glo0ze To put it simply, If your an armored Knight, going up against an "un armored nimble aponet" chances are you would be able to hit him without much fuss. You talk as if the warhammer weighs 50 pounds, which it did not. There are versions of the warhammer that have long shafts like a polearm for powerful and longer reach. I don't see your point..
@@tanks608 because he is super safe, over tuned and has huge turtle potential and over all, very unhealthy for the game. Just because he has no super viable opener, dosen't mean hero is weak. Especialy in game where defence is more powerful/rewarding that offencive. Overtuned parry punishes: parrying is one of the easiest mechanics in the game( both l and h parry). Crutchbringer has 50dmg l parry which is around ~42% of most heroes health pool. Heavy parry is 40dmg (10impale+30 heavy) if there is wall in front (usualy is because thats how maps are designed). Basicly lawbringer gets over reward for simple action. Sobe on red" from shove on block to shove on red. Shove has super low recovery means he can punish players that try to punish his punish (only certain heroes like tiandi or shaman can punish sobe on prediction. Hell, lb can parry most dodge attacks that are used against sobe (50-40dmg). Sobe had also early hyper armor (like pre nerfed hito ) meaning it can be used most chain based offencive with litle risk. Safest chain offecive: lb may not have viable opener but he has one of the safest chain offecive in the game. options are top 400ms light that can be delayed, side enhanced lights or unpunishable 500ms shove. Strongest 4v4 hero: lb is the strongest 4v4 hero by multipe reasons. He is the king of mid lane which is the most important point (both renown gain and objective point gains are incorrect (b is actualy around 1.5 score per s and unboosted zone is 0.8, boosted one is 1.6 not 2.) Because low recovery zone, high health pool and really strong feat/perk combinations. Lb is also strong ganker (long arm, impale) and can hold zones long long time. Lb is also top 3 strongest duel/brawl heroes. And cheery at the top, lb health pool is highest in the game (+30hp more than most of the cast), meanig he can sobe trade his way to victory. 400ms top light from neutral is also strong shutdown tool and neutrals many heroes openers (kensei, valkyrie, nuxia ect).
Ilari Hiltunen ok parry is literally what the class is designed around so he should have a strong parry punish since that is the one thing he is designed to do. I would also say the large health pool makes up for the extremely low amount of hyper armor on anything but the shove. I will admit the shove on block was cheesy as hell and was happy to see it go. Our chain offense might be safe but it is also super predictable as well.
The halberd is merely ornamental, it was spear that was generally used in battle, all those youtube videos about using halberds are a sham, it merely denoted modern technology not necessarily effectivity.
@@meyes1098 It was not widely used but those paintings were meant to impress people. Like we showcase tanks, while M-18's and RPG's do most of the fighting.
The Halberts problem: in a surprise encounter on the road, you would likely not carry it. That's where the swords come in: they were much more likely to be available, since they are easier to carry.
@@vast634 and lighter than a mace with a better defence and better offense to unarmoured opponents but if someone shows up perfectly armoured you're dead
ye we have to disliek this videobecasue he completely disregarded the range advantage pommels give you even over the longest mentioned here dependign on the shape of the pommel you can choose between extreme speed, mass or a bleeding condition applier on hit to finish off your opponent ..also.. why hasnt he mentioned crossbows? honestly category range.. yep... medieval?.. sure works against armored and unarmored.. yea.. kinda.. not a guaranteed one shot kill but.. it is an medieval weapon after all^^
Actually some Maces and warhammers (one handed hammers) had metal "rods" and something like a small handguard and weapons like these would totally devastate an unarmored opponent. Usually warhammers have a spike on the other side and some maces were either spiked or had like sharpened blades. Also these would be more capable of breaking bones than swords. Imagine hitting someone in a chest, head or even his spine, that would be devastating. Broken ribs can damage some internal organs, headshot could mean basically instant death, spine could "paralize" someone, even hitting a limb could break them which could immobilize enemies.
Pretty much what I'm thinking, maces will deal a lot of blunt damage, if that energy can go through an armored/padded opponent it will be efficient vs someone unarmored. Though I agree that it is less forgiving if you miss anything.
I think the idea is how well it would be in the given scenario. If an opponent had a pole axe and was unarmored (therefore free to move quickly) a mace is almost as good as holding a stick.
@@guyguy7953 Yeah, even a good club can kill someone with the right hit. The problem is delivering the hit. The warhammer is a devastating weapon, but it's also short and unbalanced.
Guys you don't get the point, clubs and maces are not only have less range than the arming sword(yes, I checked) and slowet due to being head-heavy, even with a handguard, people would be swinging and redelivering that same slash at you mulitple times before you get to attack. You will get decapited or cut and get some major infections, broken bones and inbleeding is definitely serious but unless it's the ribs or the head, which to be honest is the hardest thing to strike on the enemy (except when you're using a polearm), decapitation and/or open wounds are much more lethal
I feel as though you're giving maces a bum rap, honestly. I'd rather be cut by a blade any day of the week than potentially have my bones shattered by a club/mace. Armor or no armor, they're effective.
I agree. All the broken knuckles, or ribs, or collarbones, or knees... Worst come to worst, shattered bones stabs you from within your own body. Imagine that.
@@ITBEurgava internal bleeding indeed, plus even a light tap with a mace can be painful. I have a bronze spiked mace head from Tod's workshop that I mounted. I let it once gently fall from a few inches onto the top of my gloved hand, hurt like a mother fucker, can't imagine getting hit with it in anger.
Maces look great and are fun to swing, but once you've had to detangle clothing, skin, womens' hair, guard dogs, harps, venetian blinds, bicycle tires, extension cords, saltwater taffy and the innards of VCR tapes from the head of one, you realize that they're just such a hassle.
i have to disagree with the inclusion of the pike. a spear is good, or my favorite, a glaive, is good for this spot in the list, but pike is a weapon used in a battlefield, in a war. in a war scenario its really really effective, but in a 1 vs 1 duel, its not as effective as the spear because a pike is much bigger and thus harder to maneuver and because of it your opponent can get past the tip much more easily than they would against a spear. and once your opponent is past the tip, you are completely defenseless.
Absolutely agree with this. Rush in, control the tip, and the pike is useless. That's a strategy that all the other weapons can do, so the pike would lose and doesn't belong on this 1v1 list imo. Especially if the person rushing has armor.
Getting past the tip is not that easy unless you have a shield. The pike pack alot of thrust so knocking it to the side is far from easy, and even if you succeed an experienced polearm user will retract his weapon before you're in a position to push any advantage. The speed that you can circle the tip at is really fast and varying between high and low thrust will keep any sword or axeman on constant defence. The dynamic changes greatly is you throw in a shield tho. Basically any competent swordsman/axeman will beat a pole user 1v1 with a shield. But they would get slaughtered in a group fight. The shield is the real mvp in a 1v1.
a loaded crossbow from midrange willnot give an armored opponet reaction time to dodge n can defeat armor or stun with a head shot and if you miss can be effective as a club and bolts are still effective against armor when you have tackled them and are on top of them as they act like a dagger getting through gaps sad that metatron did not include ranged weapons but did include pikes. silly actually as the weight of a 3 to 6 meter pike gives such littler control and they still only have an actual 1 meter thrust range ie I can stand just with a pikes range paryy it and essentially walk or jog downthe length of the weapon with no fear of it after I have parried the point or grabbed the shaft . ie the pike is a horrible weapon for a duel .
7:07 "According to real historical artworks, there were actually warriors with their hands swapped. They would eventually have been defeated by the people with the hands we know today."
After watching a *LindyBeige* video on duelling, I've seen that using a spear two handed is the best duelling weapon for anyone who hasn't had extensive sword training(either/both you or opponent) or if your opponent hasn't got a shield. Since this scenario doesn't allow you to know if your opponent has armour, but does let you know he can't have a shield, I think either a spear or some other stabbing polearm would be best.
The mace part of the pollaxe was more frequently used as a feint, where you brought it down and thrust with the spear, because it was very hard to hit with it, and had so much power that they would have to either dodge, or block.
I was in the middle of a political debate Raph, but I got the notification and obviously I'm like. "Listen mate, Metatron is talking about swords, so your political mumbo jumbo can wait"
It’s also very important to note with blunt weapons the effect of hydrostatic shock which below 2800fps won’t cause instant incapacitating effects (that’s why rifles do way more damage than pistols) but will cause effects that will be incapacitating over time (internal bleeding that kind of thing) in actual fact for the most part bladed weapons are significantly worse at actually flat out incapacitating someone when compared to a heavy blunt weapon it’s like comparing a shotgun to a handgun both are deadly but one has way more power
Hydrostatic shock is a very dubious theory, moreover, I've seen an article on this subject in which it argued that pistols would also be capable of causing hydrostatic shock. However, the effectiveness of the rifles does not come from the hydrostatic shock, but rather from the effect of the temporary cavity and the elastic limit of the tissues, so it seems when a projectile reaches around 2000 FPS (it is certainly known that this phenomenon occurs when the projectile has a speed of at least 2200 FPS) the temporary cavity expansion is so fast that make the tissues break causing even greater damage (no wonder rifles usually have an exit hole larger than the entry hole, even though they not usually use hollow point ammo).
Personally, I think artillery was the great decider of the middle ages. It ended the hundred year war in France's favour and it made previously unconquerable castles vulnerable and ended simple mass attacks easy advantage.
I would expect the hammer to be a bit higher. Especially since there is evidence that many were 2 handed. Many of the examples on display we're rehafted in the 19th century with no consideration to the original configuration.
I am a big fan of 1.Mace 2.Pole Axe How I would have made it better: Mace:Use some mechanics like -Add some spikes that if you rotate the head of the club it will release them to make it No Armour effective and If you rotate the head of the club again spikes go in and make it Armour effective. Also close corder combat at the handle you can rotate it to make it from 80 cm to 50 cm ect. Haldebier it's pretty balanced.
Nah - spears lost out to both polearms and pikes. Spears *generally* require formations; in a 1-v-1 against polearms, they tend to lose. Pikes pretty much *require* formations, in which setting they trump both spears and polearms, due to the reach advantage. While the spear is teh dominant battlefield weapons throughout most of history, polearms & pikes beat them during the eras they co-existed.
@Rex Francorum I like your analogy. Spears are the bog-basic weapon. Bills are poor man's halberds (but still very good). Lucern hammers / bec de corbins were the ultimate refinements, being made for (rich) men wearing heavy armor, to be used against men wearing heavy armor.
@@skystorm569 Nope. A spear is primarily thrusting, with the option of slashing. Polearms - glaive, halberd, etc - have both thrusting and slashing, but also have a much heavier head, allowing for impact swings (similar to axes, hammers and maces).
@@LeslieMRichardson Well it generally agreed that a person using a sword needs to be much more skilled than a spear user based purely on the advantage that reach gives. So in this case with two equally skilled opponents if you don't know your opponents arms or armor a spear would be a safe bet.
Pollaxe does not behave like an axe, but more like a rich man’s quarter staff. It is by far the most complicated fighting system out of all pole arms because it uses leverage: you generally hold it with the pointy butt end toward the enemy, then you commit with your head end and try to use leverage to tackle down your opponent or to jab the head end through the weak points (mostly armpit and inside of upper arm as far as modern sparring goes). I recommend one to checkout videos of pollaxe demo or pollaxe lesson by Arne Koets.
isn't that the armoured poleaxe vs poleaxe system? What prevents you from using it in a halberd framework if facing someone who doesn't have a polearm/is unarmored?
Jack Vernian good point. I imagine the baiting technique works quite well too (both armored or not) - you swing it over your shoulder while within striking range of your opponent, suggesting him to take advantage of your vulnerability. If he commits, you move our of range with footwork and swing down your pollaxe, which should just reach him because you are holding it like an axe.
I’m a big fan of the common Claw Hammer, similar to the Mace. Another of my favourites is the Hatchet. Short throw and weight gives a good incapacitating blow and I have one near my front door to this day, always.
During mideval times in China there was something called the fire lance, which is basically firecrackers atached to a spear. You can use it to burn your opponent, and they'll try to keep themselves away from you due to the heat.
The wings on a partisan are not for deflecting sword blows.Unless I am very mistaken, it is to prevent your opponent (or better, a boar or bear) from coming all the way down your spear to reach you after sticking you. Look at the difference between a standard spear and a boar spear. I could be wrong, but that is what I was always taught.
If I had my private medieval army I would have train them for 3 years gymnastics Cardio and Strength and also Fencing which helps them a lot. Weapons I would have used which existed back then would have been: -Maces -Pole Axe -Shields Range weapons -English Longbow Cavalry -Haldeblier for every type of cavalry Heavy weapons: -Heavy Crossbow -Catapult -Trebuchet IT would make them all Elite soldiers
The best thing to do to your army back then was to treat them right and good And your people or kingdom too Because your armys Loyalty Was the most important thing Some times armies switch sides Or kill they own leaders
personally would 100% choose a Bec de Courbin or the Billhook. I feel like you under emphasized the actual cutting and armor penetrating ability of the billhook in particular, since that's what it was designed for - it was a foot-soldiers only weapon frequently and they were renowned for mowing down foot-soldier and knight alike.
This is kinda late, but I think I would place the mundane spear at the top spot, and halberd as second. My reasoning for this is how easy it is to train someone to use a spear. Someone who's never touched one before can be trained to be competent at using a spear both alone and as part of a formation in a single day (thrusting, slashing), whereas I imagine the halberd would take a bit more time to master all of the techniques (thrusting, slashing, hacking, entangling, pulling, unentangling).
I would choose a Lucerne Hammer/bec d' corbin. All the blunt force trauma of a warhammer, with the added reach of a polearm/poleaxe with some stabby bits.
Two reasons I would say the pollaxe still beats it: the spike/hammer on the striking ends of the lucerne hammer or bec-de-corbin are both primarily anti-armor weapons, while the axe/hammer on the pollaxe are alternately good against unarmored and armor, so it has better versatility. Second, the pollaxe tends to be made a bit shorter than most polearms, so while they're specialized for fighting in formation and clumsier in single combat, it's specialized to a maneuverable length for dueling a single opponent like in this scenario. There's still some variation depending on whether you and/or your opponent are armored, of course (perhaps if you're unarmored [and thus need to keep your opponent at distance] and your opponent is armored, the hammer is better), but I think the pollaxe is better in a larger range of scenarios.
Those two are classed as the same weapon. A pollaxe doesn't need an axe blade to be a pollaxe. Medieval fight manuals didn't differentiate between then.
Langes messer just means long knife in german and it was invented because the poor folk wasnt allowed to wear a real sword so they just made long knife s.
I would guess the most versatile weapons such as the spear or longsword would do the best. If it's a duel the weapon has to be nimble or possibly be able to be wielded for a prolonged period of time. Heavier weapons would require more strength and stamina. The spear and long sword have decent range, are good against unarmoured, can kite shorter ranged axes or machetes and might be ok against armour. With a spear you can thonk a guy to the helmet a couple of times.
Whilst being able to use the weapon for a long period of time gives you advantage during a drawn out duel, if you pick a longsword or esker intending a long, drawn out duel, and they come along with a poleaxe (pollaxe for some) intending to crush your skull within the first five minutes, you're at a huge disadvantage. Or, if you pick the same weapons and the opponent simply has more stamina than you, when you're exhausted, he'll be less exhausted and able to press the advantage more.
Reminds me of that old video Metatron did on longsword vs sword and shield. If I remember right, he said when he spars with sword and shield against longsword, he usually does better. That was a while ago though.
@@anonymous5t565 A mace would be easy to carry as well, but a bow or halberd would not. The problem with bows is that they are generally quite large, and you should carry quite many arrows and a quiver (but even then you should not rely on the bow as your only weapon, you should carry a backup, probably a sword, in which case just carry the sword), and the halberd is impractical to carry around "just in case".
@@PayneMaximus I have no mace but I have similar weapons. I think if I was wearing armor I'd have no problem. But I'm talking about every day life if there were no war at the time. For self defense I'd probably just carry a broadsword.
@@anonymous5t565 Sure, I was also talking about normal life. I think a sword or mace would be a good choice for an EDC weapon, unlike a bow, halberd, or even a spear.
@@PayneMaximus however I cannot carry a sword without scarring my neighbors. I've already scared them from my backyard while working on form. I still can carry my knives. I've got a crkt minimalist, crkt ceo, and crkt shuffle 2.
If you read Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series, Vimes always mentions that farmers and common people are well armed. The bill developed from an agricultural implement for example. The Lance became effective only after after the stirrup was invented during the Dark Ages. Before that mounted troops could be unhorsed easily. The Romans didn’t have stirrups.
Oh man if you hit 20 guys with pikes... pikes flying everywhere. Hitting people as they fly off. Bodies smashing into each other. That formation doesnt work very well to shouts
Polearms generally have a counterweight on the bottom of the pole to counterbalance the head, making it easier to use. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm fairly sure a nice counterweight is pretty similar to an ULTRA POMMEL, meaning a polearm is more effective than a standard pommel.
In a year, where everyone is converted to the halberd by Seki Sensei, I watch this older video and appreciate the wide factors in making this list. It's soo much more complicated given armors used, formations, and training factors.
Just wanted to mention that even though I agree with everything on this list I would have put the mace and war hammer in the armored and unarmored zone because regardless if your are in full plate armor or a gambeson if you get hit with a pointed solid steel block your going down.
7:32 I just realised what this Painted Seen is. Its about the Battle of David and Goliath from the Bible. Told By Medieval Artists. :) It's a Nice find.
>You can’t have a shield >You’re in a one-on-one duel for your life >There are no specialized weapons allowed >But the top weapons are unwieldy, long polearms that were intended to be used in a military formation with other people (ie: the pike) against cavalry (the bill) or primarily from horseback (the ordinary glaive/ polearm.) A javelin would be one thing, but do you think you are Darth Mail or something??? Or, is this duel happening in the world’s most narrow hallway, where you can’t simply slip past an opponent’s PIKE and gut the pig? Ridiculous...
@@duchessskye4072 I beg to disagree completely, unless you're talking full plate. In that case, yes, only neck/head/shoulder/foot strikes count, otherwise it would be a glancing blow.
Metatron, are you ever going to make a "followup" to this video where you're doing the exact same thing BUT taking a shield into account? Also you could make 3 tiers for a total of 10 entries, based on the type of shield (small like buckler, medium like a round shield or kite, and large like a scutum).
I like how the (almost) whole point of medieval weaponry is, if you hit hard enough and in a good spot you can win almost every time until your weapon breaks.
One utility he didn't mention which I think needs to be said is the safety advantage of a thrusting orientated weapon. Thrusting a weapon obviously requires a backwards wind-up to increase momentum, which if you have the range of a spear or bill, or even a longsword, means you don't have to give up your defence for. With a slashing weapon like a glaive or a falchion, or any weapon that requires outwards wind-up to be effective (like an axe or mace) you are opening yourself up, casting away defence for improved offence. Plus thrusting has advantage over slashing regardless of armour (not to say thrusting is capable of piercing any armour it's just better at penetrating than slashing).
But slashing wounds are more debilitating to the opponent. You cut tendons, arteries, muscle,etc. A puncture wound needs to be in certain particular places of the body to be effective. A puncture to an arm or leg will not stop an opponent, but a slash might, as it hits tendons, muscle, etc.
@@Biden_is_demented You are aware that swords are not needle thin, right? A thrust from a sword can sever tendons, arteries etc. To say otherwise is foolish on your part.
They are not needle thin, but the wounds are nonetheless punctures. Especially from swords designed to go through armor, that are very pointy. To sever an artery your thrust needs to hit the immediate vicinity of the artery, and even then it is up to luck. A slash has more surface area, making it easier to hit a vital point. If you slash across a leg, you are bound to cut something important. You will be hard pressed to make a sword thrust strong enough to go through the stomach from front to back like in the movies. Even if it did, in an unarmored opponent, you would be left with internal bleeding, and a very slow death. While a slash across the stomach will leave you holding your entrails. It only takes a cut an inch deep to open your entire stomach area (unless you are a fat ass). It doesn´t take a genius to see which wound is the more debilitating. Just make a thought exercise. Imagine you are run through by a long sword, and imagine if you were able or not to continue the fight in any capacity. And then do the same, but this time picture your insides are pouring out, and you are bleeding much faster. Will you continue the fight, or use your hands to keep your feet from tripping on your intestines? If you say the former, you are a damn liar, and i need not waste my breath any further.
I am reminded of an infomercial where the emcee try to demonstrate the sturdiness of the sword and started banging it against the table and the sword breaks at the hilt, bounces back at the emcee and cuts him.
A pole arm although great when used in formation could be problematic when used by a single combatant due to the fact that if the point or head of the weapon is deflected or grabbed it's very easy to then counter and rush in on a vulnerable and largely defenseless opponent. I'd go for the long sword myself, very nimble which aids in both offense and defense and it's not particularly cumbersome, definitely the most versatile for the given scenario.
TH-cam expert due to lindybeige( really know nothing just going to basically parrot his video which you can watch) It’s hard to deflect a spear with a sword because the spear has more leverage and in general will win that fight. Swords win if you get inside the spear point quickly but that’s easier said than done and you can move the point back and use it close range too. General rule I’ve learned is two handed spear beats sword on average without shield. Sword and shield beat spear 1 on 1 and lose in formation.
@@jeremymullens7167 First hand accounts of combat say otherwise, charles ewart at waterloo parried a few lances but he was using a backsword. Medieval swords are thin in width near the end.
@@chroma6947 there is an account of a quarterstaff user beating more than 4 swordsmen. Long sticks beat short sticks in most situations, all things being equal. The only way to beat the long stick is to have a big board accompanying your short stick. Or throw your pommel. Pommel-throw always works.
Yeah, I use poles a lot. The only reason to use it in a duel is having fun dying. You get one free shot then they get 10 free shots. If they have a shield you dont even get a shot. Slightly longer than their range is all you need. Sword op
@@jeremymullens7167 it's fairly difficult to time a block for a spear thrust. Its incredibly easy if you have a shield. Idfk what he meant about leverage, because it works against you with a spear. Just like any bind, the spear is using the weak end, and the sword gets to use the strong, right next to the handle. The lever is useful for swinging big shots. It's horrible for trying to manipulate enemy weapons. Source: doing it.
Where on earth do people get the idea that swords were expensive, they weren't. In the medieval era anyone who wanted a sword could get one, owning your own sword was even one of the requirements to be a lowly archer in Henry V's army.
@@EvidensInsania Archers weren't lowly. It took many years of training to be a longbowman for example, or to shoot from horseback. Archery is very hard and extremely tiring, because to inflict any damage you need a bow with enough draw weight. Longbowmen could shoot more than 6 arrows a minute at draw weights of 140 pounds or even more, that takes enormous endurance and strength. Archers were valuable. In fact one of the reasons the crossbow was so popular is simply because it was easier to use than a bow. But yeah I agree that munitions grade swords probably were pretty cheap, just like some armor in the later middle ages. The cheap stuff just didn't survive to the present day, partly because of the bad quality, it was made to be expendable. But also because noone kept cheap swords as heirlooms for example and looked after them, like they did with the high quality decorated arms and armor of the rich nobility. Noone cared about that stuff, for most people they were just tools.
@@Doodoofart725 And who was getting paid the least in Henry V's army? It was the archers. Did I ever say that being an archer didn't take skill? No, because I'm not a moron and do archery myself. But the simple truth is that they were just lowly peasants of a much lower social standing than the men-at-arms and obviously the knights. Proving my point that swords were not a luxury weapons when even the lowest paid soldiers in an army are required to have their own swords. I don't know why you take such offence to the word lowly.
Hi Metatron, I really love your videos on historical weapons. Thanks for sharing them with us. I would like to ask if you can make a video on the concept of the elements associated with weapons. For instance which weapons best suit the essence of fire (i.e. aggressive slashes); which best suits the essence of lightning (i.e. speedy thrusts); which best suits the essence of stone / earth (i.e. strong blows), etc. Thanks in advance!
cant realy imagine how u gonna fight with 4m pike against longsword , one parry ,dodge and the guy is almost next to you .its great in phalanx but 1vs1 cant be good at all
Are you stupid a 4m pike would absolutely fucking destroy you, do you know how hard it is to fight against that much reach, the longsword was a secondary sword because polearms were kings, one stab youre dead one slash you're dead and you can do alot of that in a 4m reach
@@wisewigga7129 Dude, good luck maneuvering a 12 foot pole in 1v1 combat. Huge pikes are made for infantry, formational warefare, not single combat. Using a 4 meter pike against a single opponent would a death sentence for anyone but Halfthor Julius Bjornsson. Do me a favor, go outside, pick up a 12 foot long branch and see just how well you can quickly, and adeptly maneuver it.
@@Steven-mk4gg yes my comment was retarded I agree i underestimated how long 4m is lmao why tf did i sound like a jerk in my last comment I apologize and yeah imagine strongmen like hafthor in plate Armour lmfao a mace hit and bam u dead
I think you skipped over one very important factor: What armour am I wearing? When I look at poleaxe techniques it looks as though there's little you can do with a poleaxe to parry swift cuts from a sword or thrusts from a spear, especially to the arms, which matters very little if you're wearing full plate, but could be a huge problem if you're just wearing normal clothing. Now I'm not saying the poleaxe is a bad defensive weapon, as it can clearly parry pretty much any strike that would still pose a threat to a knight in armour, but it doesn't seem to be that good at parrying those swifter cuts that an armoured knight could ignore anyway. Also, I haven't held a poleaxe myself so I might be wrong here, but based on how it is usually held it looks as though the poleaxe is the one polearm that doesn't actually have (much of) a reach advantage over something like a longsword, as you seem to use the pole more for leverage than for range. If I know I'm going unarmoured into this fight, the poleaxe would go down a few spots on my list as I feel I would be at a major disadvantage against the longsword and spear if even the list and swift cuts and thrusts pose a serious threat, the longsword would go a couple steps up for it's parrying capacity and the fact that it would stil pose a decent threat against an armoured foe, a polearm along the lines of the bill or halberd would occupy number 1 followed by the spear (assuming all those polearms share n1) as their reach and speed would be essential to keeping me alive and I would throw the mace completely off of this list if only I knew what other weapon would take its place as I feel like it would throw defense out the window to use a mace (or warhammer and axe for that matter) without the armour or shield to compensate for it's lackluster defensive capabilities. If I am going to be decently armoured (gambeson and/or mail) but my arms/hands are still exposed, spear would go down a bit as the safety of its reach and speed is no longer as necessary and poleaxe would go up a few steps, but still not back to n1. I am still most likely to pick a bill-like polearm followed by a longsword, both of which I would have slightly more faith in should my opponent be wearing armour while neither leaves my arms too exposed. Maces and company would be back on the list, but they'd still be pretty low as the arms would still be in danger with their short reach and lack of hand protection. If I know I'm going to be fully armoured, screw speed and reach I'm going for the hardest hitter I can get my hands on: the poleaxe is back to n1 in all its glory. As I stated above I could still use it to defend against any major blows that might still put me at risk, and in fact I believe the poleaxe due to it's weight and leverage is more suited than anything other than a shield for parrying those heavy strikes, but I would also have the offensive power to take out my oppenent with *relative* ease regardless of what armour he might or might not be wearing. Maces axes and warhammers would also be higher than swords and maybe even spears on the list in this case, as their lack of defensive ability won't matter nearly as much, and it would be a serious threat against any opponent, while the sword and spear's ability to deflect even those swift cuts to your hand with decent reliability as well as their reach would be made largely obsolete due to the armour. Lastly, if I also (for whatever reason) don't know what armour I will be wearing I would just assume the worst and choose my weapon as though I were unarmoured. tl'dr: in addition to your ratings for effectiveness against (un)armoured, I think you should also have ratings for effectiveness when the wielder himself is (un)armoured as some weapons are far more dependent on their wielder wearing armour than others.
Thank you very much for providing an extra clean and clear analysis on something which should absolutely be taken into account. Your explanation is more than enlightening. One of the greatest comments out there, pretty well said!
First thing love the video. Second, I agree with about 95% of what was displayed. But I also believe that how a person is trained also has a hole lot to do with it. Because I can use my off hand, I personally would rather have a long handled hammer / axe. 90% of 1V1 competition's are in a ring or boarded arena. This will limit the use of the polearm. If we are in an open field I agree the a 6' wide pole poleaxe is optimal. Have a great day and thanks for the video.
"the axe" like which one, theres just as much diversity in axes as sword. look at a dane axe then tomohawk. completely different also axes are better than swords imo because obviously the opponent will take armor and axes are pretty much hammers at that point
Not only that the axe is a versaltile weapon, it is also the among the first choices for peasant infantries as close quarter weapon, mainly because it's an axe - it's a tool the peasant use everyday, so it is the weapon they are most familiar with which allow them to utilize it, unlike the sword that require long training time. Axes can also be used to break enemy's shield because that's essentially the reason to pick the axe - to break enemy defense and overwhelm them.
![[TH] RNT vs SPG - VCT Ascension Pacific - Day 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RUTkf8Detj8/mqdefault.jpg)
Whole list in nutshell:
Do you want to protect yourself, or deal some damage?
Long pointy stick: "why not both?"
Long pointy stick didn’t work too well at protecting Scottish Lowlanders from English arrows at Falkirk. I reckon spear and shield would be better then pike.
@@lowlandnobleman6746 This video was about a *duel* so as long as you manage to avoid getting shot in the head or torso right off the bat you can probably rush an archer and finish them off. On a battlefield you still want longer spears than the opponent has _in addition_ to shields but yes, good shields in combination with _any_ stabbing weapon are vital against projectiles.
True, but a skillful opponent could get past the pike, so I’d still personally want spear and shield for that extra safety and versatility.
@@lowlandnobleman6746 There's a reason he banned shields in the video. Although that does pose the question, if you were allowed to use _any_ shield, would you use a very large or strapped one or a smaller more nimble option such as a boss-gripped roundshield? And do you use a one-handed spear or a more hefty and versatile cut&thrust weapon such as a gladius, arming sword or the like as the shield can negate enemy reach advantage?
Basically if you have a shield you might want to rush an enemy spearman at which point the greater damage potential of a cutting blade would be valuable, but if the opponent is wearing plate armour (with polearm, with or without shield) you're still pretty doomed.
When you are fighting a knight in full plate, a can opener can be mightier than the sword.
I have one of those !!!!!
or...fight near water if possible.
Or use a spear edged with can operner
the can opening spear!
Can opener on a stick
Imagine humanity in the future, taking about guns the way we talk about medieval wepons
Ever heard of the wild west partner
@@chillycoldchomper9389 oh yeah, I guess you're right. Well played partner.
People already do that with WWII weapons
I don’t imagine guns getting much better 🤔
@@RealRagnar816 Well imagine them getting obsolete, they are better ways to sling slugs of metal at each other than gunpowder
Anyone who's spent any time on historical youtube saw the pole-axe coming from a mile away.
Indeed
I really see the halberd at the top tbh.
I figured it would've been the bill tbh, but I had the top 3 correct
I was leaning towards rapier, but if your opponent might be armored and you're not allowed a shield...yeah, poleaxe all the way
I was thinking about the halberd the whole vid but k
Most effective medieval weapon? Obviously the holy hand grenade.
I believe you mean the Pommel of Mass Destruction lol
Please don't skip 3 when doing the count down though!
The most effective weapon in human history was always the pen.
No, you are all mistaken, it was just the dangerous bunny. No knight can win against such beast.
Eh, the Plague?
God's wrath?
Starvation?
Blunt weapons, I’ve come to find, are very underrated. You can get the fanciest, most expensive, most durable armor money can buy, but all it takes to shut you down is some peasant with a particularly thick branch.
"BuT It's NoT EfFeCtIvE AgAnIsT UnArMoUr eNeMy"
Armour or not you're going to get beat the sh*t out of you
Also get back to work
Well It's still better to be hit by a blunt weapon while wearing armor rather then being hit with it while unarmored.
Get you a weapon that can do both. Most poleaxe had a chisel or hammer on the back. Spicy
Thick spikes, like cones, they wont get stuck, but they concentrate all the force in one point, with armour, and without armor, it could crack your skull or some bones
An army marches on its stomach, so clearly the most effective weapon was PASTA
@Rex Francorum Or you could just use your brain and summon the flying spaghetti monster. Obviously.
An army marches on patriotism.
Well when the Dutch fought the Spanish empire in the late 16th and early 17th century, the - always with war accompanying - famine had much less of an impact because of a new 4 field crop rotation system.
*poison
**laughs in rice**
A mace is still perfectly effective even without armor, one blow from a mace against an unarmored opponent would shatter bone if it hits bone. Blunt weapons can only do more damage against an unarmored opponent than against an armored opponent.
@@alexanderthompson7164
The problem with a mace is that it's slow and unwieldy compared to a sword, or the majority of other weapons. So if your opponent just so happens to use a sword you're at a disadvantage regardless of their armor.
true, padding and mail can displace some of the force, but the only difference would be plate.
perhaps damaging plate which could put pressure on the chest to not breath properly or effect
mobility. piercing is lethal but unless something vital is hit the fight could continue for minutes and
slashing could remove a limb or the head, but I think by statistical probability blunt weapons would
offer a game changing or fight ending strike more easily and quickly.
he really should have elaborated more on maces or morning stars because he shows images of both but
calls them all maces. you can definitely thrust with a morning star, if need be...and who says you can't thrust with
a mace..? you can't pierce with a mace thrust, but that would hit hard to the face opening bleeding that could
effect vision or damage a helmet visor, when your life is on the line everything is versatile...
Wrong
@@lordsesshoumaru8596 The word "morningstar" is complex to use because the meaning is not really fully agreed upon. Some people (and culture/languages) concider only a flail with a spiky ball a morningstar, others call any mace that is ballheaded and spiky a morningstar as examples.
But that is not my main topic.
There is a misconception that is very common that i like to adress here. You touch it in your comment so i would like to "fill out the gaps" so to speak: People in general seems to be fixated with the ability to kill in a weapon, even the need to kill in a battle scenario. There is no special use in killing in a battle, just put them out of action is enough. Death can be delivered after the fighting is over. So to but a hole in someone might be deadly tomorrow but useless right now. Here the blunt weapon makes much more sense i believe: A hit that cruches muscles, breaks bones and is immediately very painful is, Most likely, more effective "right now" especially when the wielder will hit again and again and again... To recieve a hit with a mace WILL make you loose focus, you can´t directly counter, it might even shift your balance slightly. That "stagger effect" gives the mace wielder time to recover and hit again.
A good hit on plate transfer a lot of force into the body within. That is the reason blunt weapon was prefered against plated foes. There is no need to dent or poke a hole in the plate, the force goes through anyway. Just like the "toy" called Newtons Cradle. I hope you understand that i am not criticising you i am just elaborating.
@@meyes1098 not if your strong enough to swing it hard
warhammer: **scores low**
*HERESY*
Keep in mind, if you're not trying to murder someone, it's far more ideal
@@Raigosai i mean its not like you wont murder them if you hit them with any form of commitment
If shields were allowed the warhammer would have place much higher. Roran will have his due.
Russians:it's a klevec(literally "pecker").
IT IS HERESY AGAINST HIS MOST HOLY GOD-EMPEROR OF MANKIND
The moment you said "no shields" my immediate response was "poleaxe!"
@@alexanderthompson7164 there’s a difference? maybe i’m slow
exactly.. "Gimme some distance"
Well that's like the weapon right before guns, so yeah. Glaives, two handed axes, partisans, a big two-handed sword, ect.
Mine was "Why? That's a dumb rule"
@@alexanderthompson7164 the poleaxe was also modular while the halberd was made from one piece of steel
Poleaxe, Yes!
Also honorable mention to a rock in a sock.
Matthew Doye What about a sock wrapped around a rock?
Where is swordstaves? How'bout Finnish's "Good day Sir!"?
the weapon of choice for woman on duel trial during talhoffer´s time.
@@andrewbatist6355 precisely
a rock in a sock is a shitty flail and a flail is a shitty mace
I like that he says everything like we seriously are gonna do it irl
those heated arguments about top 10 ranking...
@@RW77777777 fr
You aren't?
Very funny.
My opinion is the anti-armor weapons should be ranked higher. If the opponent doesn't have armor, odds are they aren't a professional soldier and thus your choice of weapon carries less weight.
If you pick a mace and it turns out you're fighting some unarmored farmer, you may not kill him as efficiently as if you had chosen a falchion, but you'll still win. However, if it turns out you're fighting a knight and you hadn't picked on anti-armor weapon, you're dead.
obviously skill between opponents is the same in rating these regardless of armor.
One thing he doesn't mention as well is that blunt damge to the body can **only** increase when less armour is placed between the weapon and the opponent. He tries to claim that a mace would be less effective at killing an armoured opponent, but the thing is without armour in the way you can only do more damge.
A direct hit to an opponent's cheekbone for instance (or any bone for that matter) would **always** for more damage then hitting the armour between it.
When getting really up close and personal, mace wouldn't work. It's time for dagger to shine
Wrestling works well vs armored, as long as you can close. With a shield it's easy.
Usually good weapon againist unarmored opponents are easier to carry around, wich makes them better suited to carry around 24/7. It's the same reasoning on why people carry handguns instead of assault rifles.
I personally feel that the mace deserved a little more love in terms of damage to unarmoured opponents because it almost doesn't matter where you hit said opponent, you would be able to deliver at least a debilitating blow. I might just be cocky but I imagine a full power strike would certainly break bone which even in the arm or shoulder would critically hamper their ability to offend or defend.
Yea the idea that blunt weapons are somehow ineffective against someone who isn’t armored is dumb. The only perk slicing has is blood loss and cutting muscles/tendons which would cause complete debilitation of the body part. Blunt force is still very deadly as you can easily break bone and rupture organs. A mace strike to the torso can be potentially lethal and will likely take the person out of the fight just from the shock of the hit. It’s even a technique used in hand to hand combat. Watch Bas Rutten. He is a famous fighter known for punching his opponents in the liver which is one of the most painful spot to be hit. Even ruptured a guys liver in a fight just from his punch
@@clownworld4655 liver punch’s are devastating and it doesn’t even take a lot of power to completely rupture the liver with an accurate hit the problem is that it’s pretty hard to get an accurate liver shot in real combat
@@tannermeche7968 not really. Watch Bas Rutten’s fights. With some training and basically knowledge of anatomy it is pretty simple in a hand to hand fight
If a blow is abe to kill\debilitate a guy in armour, it's hard to imagine that same blow not doing at least as well if the armour isn't there.
In a low armour situation, it might not be as good as a sword, but you'll have a chance, no matter what your opponent goes with. Can't say the same for a falchion.
@@clownworld4655 This. Even just watch Rutten's highlights, the man is a liver aimbot.
10 Mace 1:06
9 Warhammer 3:24
8 Axe 4:13
7 Falchion 5:50
6 Arming Sword 7:26
5 Longsword 8:42
4 Estoc 10:14
3 Bill 12:13
2 Spear 13:43
HM Lance 14:53
1 Pole Axe 15:37
thank you
@@ian-rr9to my pleasure
Thanks this tells me it is an incomplete list
Thank you very much!
Bill must be One hell of a unit of a man to Score 3rd place
Sorry, but I think a pike would be a terrible 1 vs 1 weapon. Any range advantage gets negated by the fact that you have no leverage at all at three meters, your enemy can literally just grab your pike by the shaft (kinky).
It takes very little strength to move the point of a pike out of the way, anyone that doubts this, try it out for yourself with a blunt 3 meter stick. Once you are past the point, the whole weapon is useless because it is way too heavy and cumbersome to retract it quickly like a spear. It's also nearly impossible to thrust accurately at such a distance. Sure, the pike could theoretically get into the weak points of enemy armor, but you're not gonna be able to hit them at that distance, so it's not really an anti armor weapon. If the enemy has a weapon, he can swat your pike away with no risk to himself.
There's a reason pikes were only used in massed formations, the drawbacks I mentioned don't really come into play when you have to get through 3 rows of dozens of pikes in front of you to even get to the first pikeman. You can't knock them all away, their accuracy doesn't mean shit when there's so many. And if you get past the first row of points, there are more behind it.
I mean spears, yeah sure, but anything longer than 2.5 meters seems kind of impractical.
I'm with you on this. Have trained with lots of different weapons, including pikes. It isn't that difficult to get past ONE pike ... unfortunately, pikes allow close formation, which means you are going to get skewered before reaching the holder of the one you dealt with. But 1 vs 1 ... yeah, you're toast. In the SCA, I mastered the fine art of parrying and spinning in with a polearm against both spears and pikes ... unless they had backup, it was essentially game over.
Imagine having a duel inside a castle with pikes...
@@mielivalta
It'd quickly turn into wrestling.
The eternal question, can you stab him before he stabs you?
PIkes could be, and historically were, customizable in length by cutting the bottom end to the length you wanted so there you go. :)
I feel like a mace and a Warhammer would do much better against unarmored opponents than a Falchion would against armor.
Truly. If I didn't know what my opponent would be wearing I'd never in my life pick a single handed sword. Even a two handed one, for that matter. A poleaxe, since they have both a point and a blunt end, would be perfect.
I agree, the Warhammer and Mace were HIGHLY underated, per say, if you hit an unarmored aponets head with a mace, he is going to die... And also, he stated that the warhammer can not cut, this is outright false. It could impale, cut, hit you on the head with a sometimes spiked hammer. Warhammers were VERY versitile.
@@acecrimson2393 even if you get hit in the arm, i assume few people would be able to keep fighting with a broken(probably shattered) arm. Mace should be much higher up on the list
@@acecrimson2393 I see this alot. It's not the damage they do when landing a blow that makes them "bad" it's simply the fact that landing any telling blow with a shortish blunt weapon against a nimble and fast opponent is just very very difficult. Ofcourse if you hit someone over the head with a mace he is going to die. But you need to get very close and put yourself in danger to do this. So yes the damage is there if you land a blow but the problem is that your blows are quite slow since you need a swing which is slower than a jab/thrust plus you need to put yourself in considerable danger because of the short range to be able to land this blow. This mistake is made mostly because the other way around it does mostly only revolves around damage. A cutting weapon just doesn't do damage to armor which is why its bad against armor. But it is not that a blunt weapon doesn't do damage to unarmored that it's bad against unarmored it that it is just really fucking hard to get a hit in with a short, slow, momentum based weapon against a fast and nimble opponent.
@@Glo0ze To put it simply, If your an armored Knight, going up against an "un armored nimble aponet" chances are you would be able to hit him without much fuss. You talk as if the warhammer weighs 50 pounds, which it did not. There are versions of the warhammer that have long shafts like a polearm for powerful and longer reach. I don't see your point..
"I prefer thrusts over cuts". Glad to see that ancient Italian tradition is alive and well!
most versatile weapon? Pole axe
lawbringer laughs in *versatility*
GNAPPO REDZ ad mortem
Pole arm, the most versitale weapon is used by overpowered/overtuned turtle.
Ad morten shobe on red
Ilari Hiltunen how on earth is the law bro op? We have no opener at all and can only turtle and/or parry.
@@tanks608 because he is super safe, over tuned and has huge turtle potential and over all, very unhealthy for the game. Just because he has no super viable opener, dosen't mean hero is weak. Especialy in game where defence is more powerful/rewarding that offencive.
Overtuned parry punishes: parrying is one of the easiest mechanics in the game( both l and h parry). Crutchbringer has 50dmg l parry which is around ~42% of most heroes health pool. Heavy parry is 40dmg (10impale+30 heavy) if there is wall in front (usualy is because thats how maps are designed). Basicly lawbringer gets over reward for simple action.
Sobe on red" from shove on block to shove on red. Shove has super low recovery means he can punish players that try to punish his punish (only certain heroes like tiandi or shaman can punish sobe on prediction. Hell, lb can parry most dodge attacks that are used against sobe (50-40dmg). Sobe had also early hyper armor (like pre nerfed hito ) meaning it can be used most chain based offencive with litle risk.
Safest chain offecive: lb may not have viable opener but he has one of the safest chain offecive in the game. options are top 400ms light that can be delayed, side enhanced lights or unpunishable 500ms shove.
Strongest 4v4 hero: lb is the strongest 4v4 hero by multipe reasons. He is the king of mid lane which is the most important point (both renown gain and objective point gains are incorrect (b is actualy around 1.5 score per s and unboosted zone is 0.8, boosted one is 1.6 not 2.) Because low recovery zone, high health pool and really strong feat/perk combinations. Lb is also strong ganker (long arm, impale) and can hold zones long long time.
Lb is also top 3 strongest duel/brawl heroes.
And cheery at the top, lb health pool is highest in the game (+30hp more than most of the cast), meanig he can sobe trade his way to victory. 400ms top light from neutral is also strong shutdown tool and neutrals many heroes openers (kensei, valkyrie, nuxia ect).
Ilari Hiltunen ok parry is literally what the class is designed around so he should have a strong parry punish since that is the one thing he is designed to do. I would also say the large health pool makes up for the extremely low amount of hyper armor on anything but the shove. I will admit the shove on block was cheesy as hell and was happy to see it go. Our chain offense might be safe but it is also super predictable as well.
If I was facing Matt Easton then my weapon of choice would be my bare hands, so that I'd have as little as possible weighing me down when I run away.
Run around the arena until he dies of a heart attack.
*unscrews the pommel*
The Halberd: Do you want to do literally EVERYTHING to your opponent? Cut, slash, chop, stab, whack, that is a five in one deal! (Ye olde QVC)
The halberd is merely ornamental, it was spear that was generally used in battle, all those youtube videos about using halberds are a sham, it merely denoted modern technology not necessarily effectivity.
@@magatism
It appears in way too many historical paintings to not have been used in battle.
@@meyes1098 It was not widely used but those paintings were meant to impress people.
Like we showcase tanks, while M-18's and RPG's do most of the fighting.
The Halberts problem: in a surprise encounter on the road, you would likely not carry it. That's where the swords come in: they were much more likely to be available, since they are easier to carry.
@@vast634 and lighter than a mace with a better defence and better offense to unarmoured opponents but if someone shows up perfectly armoured you're dead
Top 10 Most Effective Medieval Weapons:
1. Pommels
Come on Metatron when we going to get that Top 10 Pommel video
ye we have to disliek this videobecasue he completely disregarded the range advantage pommels give you even over the longest mentioned here
dependign on the shape of the pommel you can choose between extreme speed, mass or a bleeding condition applier on hit to finish off your opponent
..also.. why hasnt he mentioned crossbows?
honestly category range.. yep... medieval?.. sure works against armored and unarmored.. yea.. kinda.. not a guaranteed one shot kill but.. it is an medieval weapon after all^^
Irish ring pommel is the best. It’s hollow so you can put smaller pommels inside it for extra stopping power
You cant end him rightly otherwise.
1. Holy hand Grenade
"You can't thrust with a mace"
> Total War wants to know your location
u r confusing video games with reality ..
@@Bizasbusiness Was a joke my dude, I know you can't thrust with a mace.
you can thrust with a mace and that shit would hurt if unarmored. it would basically be a pomel strike.
You can, not as well as with a sword or spear though, unless the mace has a spike on its top, which at least some did.
Or just have a spike on top of the mace.
I agree. The pole axe at least gives you stand-off distance from your opponent who, statistically, is riddled with the Black Plague.
The most effective weapon all time is the hug! Turns enemies into friends.
Also, you can stab them in the back!
But what if they don’t want to be friends and stab you
@@legendaryplayz394 You hug first and hold them until they starve.
Do you mean diplomacy?
@@fullmetalboomer8089 Not clingy enough!
Actually some Maces and warhammers (one handed hammers) had metal "rods" and something like a small handguard and weapons like these would totally devastate an unarmored opponent. Usually warhammers have a spike on the other side and some maces were either spiked or had like sharpened blades. Also these would be more capable of breaking bones than swords. Imagine hitting someone in a chest, head or even his spine, that would be devastating. Broken ribs can damage some internal organs, headshot could mean basically instant death, spine could "paralize" someone, even hitting a limb could break them which could immobilize enemies.
Pretty much what I'm thinking, maces will deal a lot of blunt damage, if that energy can go through an armored/padded opponent it will be efficient vs someone unarmored. Though I agree that it is less forgiving if you miss anything.
I think the idea is how well it would be in the given scenario. If an opponent had a pole axe and was unarmored (therefore free to move quickly) a mace is almost as good as holding a stick.
@@guyguy7953 Yeah, even a good club can kill someone with the right hit. The problem is delivering the hit. The warhammer is a devastating weapon, but it's also short and unbalanced.
Thing is, most hits where glancing blows.
Guys you don't get the point, clubs and maces are not only have less range than the arming sword(yes, I checked) and slowet due to being head-heavy, even with a handguard, people would be swinging and redelivering that same slash at you mulitple times before you get to attack. You will get decapited or cut and get some major infections, broken bones and inbleeding is definitely serious but unless it's the ribs or the head, which to be honest is the hardest thing to strike on the enemy (except when you're using a polearm), decapitation and/or open wounds are much more lethal
I would have to say; Light Saber.
After all that stuff happened a long time ago...
I feel as though you're giving maces a bum rap, honestly.
I'd rather be cut by a blade any day of the week than potentially have my bones shattered by a club/mace. Armor or no armor, they're effective.
I agree. All the broken knuckles, or ribs, or collarbones, or knees...
Worst come to worst, shattered bones stabs you from within your own body. Imagine that.
@@ITBEurgava internal bleeding indeed, plus even a light tap with a mace can be painful. I have a bronze spiked mace head from Tod's workshop that I mounted. I let it once gently fall from a few inches onto the top of my gloved hand, hurt like a mother fucker, can't imagine getting hit with it in anger.
unlike blade, mace won't turn you into a river of blood ending the fight in seconds.
@@jackvernian7779 Depends where the cut/stab lands. People can continue fighting while wounded after all.
@@jackvernian7779 true enough, but there exists period artwork depicting sword fights where both parties often have several cuts all over them
The real answer is a flail snail. That's why they were everywhere in art.
You watched that video about why knights fight snails didn't you?
I think those might be one of the first memes of history!
@@SrMikicas Humanity: shitposters springing eternal.
I'm still salty that the mace is so low on the list.
Maces look great and are fun to swing, but once you've had to detangle clothing, skin, womens' hair, guard dogs, harps, venetian blinds, bicycle tires, extension cords, saltwater taffy and the innards of VCR tapes from the head of one, you realize that they're just such a hassle.
@@crazylegoman Nah maces and warhammers should be at the top of the list.
...who brings VCR tapes with them onto the battlefield???
Near the battlefield to record the battlefields to record the fight maybe...
@@matthewwriter9539 My thoughts exactly.
Bruh the locater in Rattay killed me with a goddam flanged mace
#1: The Poleaxe
*laughs in Lawbringer*
Lawgiver laughs in incendiary, high ex, stun, tracer, rapid fire ect ect.
@@firelordsusan555 different reference.
Kensei 😠👊
Lawdaddy gang
laughs in a inbalanced weapon.
i have to disagree with the inclusion of the pike. a spear is good, or my favorite, a glaive, is good for this spot in the list, but pike is a weapon used in a battlefield, in a war. in a war scenario its really really effective, but in a 1 vs 1 duel, its not as effective as the spear because a pike is much bigger and thus harder to maneuver and because of it your opponent can get past the tip much more easily than they would against a spear. and once your opponent is past the tip, you are completely defenseless.
yep, right
Absolutely agree with this. Rush in, control the tip, and the pike is useless. That's a strategy that all the other weapons can do, so the pike would lose and doesn't belong on this 1v1 list imo. Especially if the person rushing has armor.
Getting past the tip is not that easy unless you have a shield. The pike pack alot of thrust so knocking it to the side is far from easy, and even if you succeed an experienced polearm user will retract his weapon before you're in a position to push any advantage. The speed that you can circle the tip at is really fast and varying between high and low thrust will keep any sword or axeman on constant defence.
The dynamic changes greatly is you throw in a shield tho. Basically any competent swordsman/axeman will beat a pole user 1v1 with a shield. But they would get slaughtered in a group fight.
The shield is the real mvp in a 1v1.
Could u make a new video on this. Most of these weapons got patched
Meh, who wants to get that close? Just stand off with a longbow.
a loaded crossbow from midrange willnot give an armored opponet reaction time to dodge n can defeat armor or stun with a head shot and if you miss can be effective as a club and bolts are still effective against armor when you have tackled them and are on top of them as they act like a dagger getting through gaps sad that metatron did not include ranged weapons but did include pikes. silly actually as the weight of a 3 to 6 meter pike gives such littler control and they still only have an actual 1 meter thrust range ie I can stand just with a pikes range paryy it and essentially walk or jog downthe length of the weapon with no fear of it after I have parried the point or grabbed the shaft . ie the pike is a horrible weapon for a duel .
@@markberlanga6375 crossbow bolts can't really go through armour all that well
Better trick a scorpion with a halberd loaded into it
Musket beats all!
@@deimos7784 *musket misses its only bulet* oh fuck
Sponsor: please advertise our bronze rings
Metatron: k
Also metatron: I LOVE BRONZE
I'm using the code myself to get myself more of their rings so 1 I do love bronze 2 the shop is really cool
@@metatronyt cool can't wait to see it later if you show it off
@Rex Francorum Ahahah he does indeed :)
7:07
"According to real historical artworks, there were actually warriors with their hands swapped. They would eventually have been defeated by the people with the hands we know today."
underrated comment
Rakshasa were real! :) hands swapped shape-shifters are among us !
After watching a *LindyBeige* video on duelling, I've seen that using a spear two handed is the best duelling weapon for anyone who hasn't had extensive sword training(either/both you or opponent) or if your opponent hasn't got a shield.
Since this scenario doesn't allow you to know if your opponent has armour, but does let you know he can't have a shield, I think either a spear or some other stabbing polearm would be best.
As well as just using it as a giant lever can get though armor due to how long it is
I mean, most polearms have a spike on the end at least. Halberd and pollaxe come to mind
Against Mat a good pair of running shoes would probably the only "weapon" that could save my arse.
The mace part of the pollaxe was more frequently used as a feint, where you brought it down and thrust with the spear, because it was very hard to hit with it, and had so much power that they would have to either dodge, or block.
When you showed the ring I thought you were getting married, almost had a heart attack
I was in the middle of a political debate Raph, but I got the notification and obviously I'm like.
"Listen mate, Metatron is talking about swords, so your political mumbo jumbo can wait"
Cringe is a timeless weapon.
@@borgue Saying Do you have a problem with something I said?
Politics is a massive red herring.
The point of my OP was the swords are more important.
@@londiniumarmoury7037 Let me guess, something about the British general elections 🙃?
It’s also very important to note with blunt weapons the effect of hydrostatic shock which below 2800fps won’t cause instant incapacitating effects (that’s why rifles do way more damage than pistols) but will cause effects that will be incapacitating over time (internal bleeding that kind of thing) in actual fact for the most part bladed weapons are significantly worse at actually flat out incapacitating someone when compared to a heavy blunt weapon it’s like comparing a shotgun to a handgun both are deadly but one has way more power
Won’t cause instant incapacitating effects, eh? I think that’s a bit subjective
Hydrostatic shock is a very dubious theory, moreover, I've seen an article on this subject in which it argued that pistols would also be capable of causing hydrostatic shock. However, the effectiveness of the rifles does not come from the hydrostatic shock, but rather from the effect of the temporary cavity and the elastic limit of the tissues, so it seems when a projectile reaches around 2000 FPS (it is certainly known that this phenomenon occurs when the projectile has a speed of at least 2200 FPS) the temporary cavity expansion is so fast that make the tissues break causing even greater damage (no wonder rifles usually have an exit hole larger than the entry hole, even though they not usually use hollow point ammo).
The poleaxe is my favourite medieval weapon and I always enjoy seeing it get mentioned!
Personally, I think artillery was the great decider of the middle ages. It ended the hundred year war in France's favour and it made previously unconquerable castles vulnerable and ended simple mass attacks easy advantage.
shooting a pellet and wait 5 minutes for recharging is VERY INEFECTIVE against a axe with a shield
Now, time to play dark souls armed with all this new knowledge
there are no pole axes in ds :(
He is like the gaming nerd great teacher.
@@gabredoro2 dont worry, the developer definetely gonna add it after watching this.
Crescent axe is exactly that isnt it?
Lothric longsword is all you need
"langes Messer" literally translates to "long Knife". It's German btw
Der kriegshammer auch
I would expect the hammer to be a bit higher. Especially since there is evidence that many were 2 handed. Many of the examples on display we're rehafted in the 19th century with no consideration to the original configuration.
1:51 And by that logic you'd also shatter arms/ribs/vertebrae with the thing. Seems like a pretty dope weapon regardless of armor.
I am a big fan of
1.Mace
2.Pole Axe
How I would have made it better:
Mace:Use some mechanics like
-Add some spikes that if you rotate the head of the club it will release them to make it No Armour effective and If you rotate the head of the club again spikes go in and make it Armour effective.
Also close corder combat at the handle you can rotate it to make it from 80 cm to 50 cm ect.
Haldebier it's pretty balanced.
Wouldn't history dictate that spears are the best weapon?
Nah - spears lost out to both polearms and pikes. Spears *generally* require formations; in a 1-v-1 against polearms, they tend to lose. Pikes pretty much *require* formations, in which setting they trump both spears and polearms, due to the reach advantage. While the spear is teh dominant battlefield weapons throughout most of history, polearms & pikes beat them during the eras they co-existed.
@@LeslieMRichardson spears typically ARE polearms.
@Rex Francorum I like your analogy. Spears are the bog-basic weapon. Bills are poor man's halberds (but still very good). Lucern hammers / bec de corbins were the ultimate refinements, being made for (rich) men wearing heavy armor, to be used against men wearing heavy armor.
@@skystorm569 Nope. A spear is primarily thrusting, with the option of slashing. Polearms - glaive, halberd, etc - have both thrusting and slashing, but also have a much heavier head, allowing for impact swings (similar to axes, hammers and maces).
@@LeslieMRichardson Well it generally agreed that a person using a sword needs to be much more skilled than a spear user based purely on the advantage that reach gives. So in this case with two equally skilled opponents if you don't know your opponents arms or armor a spear would be a safe bet.
I've always been fascinated by the Spear/pike and I'm so glad it made it tto number 2 on this list.
Pollaxe does not behave like an axe, but more like a rich man’s quarter staff.
It is by far the most complicated fighting system out of all pole arms because it uses leverage: you generally hold it with the pointy butt end toward the enemy, then you commit with your head end and try to use leverage to tackle down your opponent or to jab the head end through the weak points (mostly armpit and inside of upper arm as far as modern sparring goes).
I recommend one to checkout videos of pollaxe demo or pollaxe lesson by Arne Koets.
isn't that the armoured poleaxe vs poleaxe system? What prevents you from using it in a halberd framework if facing someone who doesn't have a polearm/is unarmored?
Jack Vernian good point. I imagine the baiting technique works quite well too (both armored or not) - you swing it over your shoulder while within striking range of your opponent, suggesting him to take advantage of your vulnerability. If he commits, you move our of range with footwork and swing down your pollaxe, which should just reach him because you are holding it like an axe.
Your mom gives me a quarterstaff
@Colin Cleveland different strokes for different folks
fight with a poleaxe: just stab with both hands and swing a mace with a VERY LARGE pole. DONT USE WHIT LEVERAGE. For that case, use a Halberd
I’m a big fan of the common Claw Hammer, similar to the Mace. Another of my favourites is the Hatchet. Short throw and weight gives a good incapacitating blow and I have one near my front door to this day, always.
During mideval times in China there was something called the fire lance, which is basically firecrackers atached to a spear.
You can use it to burn your opponent, and they'll try to keep themselves away from you due to the heat.
Everything changed when the firecracker nation attacked.
had to fight against matt easten LMAO, Definatly the pole hammer lol
How about a claymore? 😂
DUNMAGLASS!!!
What about Shugoki's club?
Dont forget the peacekeeper guy
EG RYFF YKKUR I BITTA
How about nuxia weapon lol
what about shinobi's weap-hahahah alright i'll stop
As a longtime fan of the guandao I am so so glad to see all the polearms/spears/large pointy sticks at the top of the list
I'm a fan of the Chinese halberd (ji), the one that combines a spear with a dagger axe.
The halbard has always been one of my favorites.
The wings on a partisan are not for deflecting sword blows.Unless I am very mistaken, it is to prevent your opponent (or better, a boar or bear) from coming all the way down your spear to reach you after sticking you. Look at the difference between a standard spear and a boar spear. I could be wrong, but that is what I was always taught.
#10 Mace
#9 War hammer
#8 Axe
#7 Falchion sword
#6 Arming sword
#5 Long sword
#4 Stocco sword
#3 Bill
#2 Spear
#1 Poleaxe
If I had my private medieval army I would have train them for 3 years gymnastics Cardio and Strength and also Fencing which helps them a lot.
Weapons I would have used which existed back then would have been:
-Maces
-Pole Axe
-Shields
Range weapons
-English Longbow
Cavalry
-Haldeblier for every type of cavalry
Heavy weapons:
-Heavy Crossbow
-Catapult
-Trebuchet
IT would make them all Elite soldiers
*Halberdier
Did Morningstarstars with the chains in em exists back then cause they would fit here well
So no spears?
The best thing to do to your army back then was to treat them right and good
And your people or kingdom too
Because your armys
Loyalty
Was the most important thing
Some times armies switch sides
Or kill they own leaders
How do you wield a halberd and hold the reins of a horse?
Metatron: Noble ones
Caps: Number ones
Me: Eh, same thing
personally would 100% choose a Bec de Courbin or the Billhook.
I feel like you under emphasized the actual cutting and armor penetrating ability of the billhook in particular, since that's what it was designed for - it was a foot-soldiers only weapon frequently and they were renowned for mowing down foot-soldier and knight alike.
Obviously the answer is a thrown Pommel, absolutely unfair weaponry.
the axe should also be covering range partly since it's easier to throw then a sword
Depends on the type of axe
And if you miss or don't kill you've disarmed yourself.
@@tristinanderson6320 Very risky strat for sure
That's only if you can do it well. And it's not your only weapon.
False! It all depends on your skills in throwing pommels.
This is kinda late, but I think I would place the mundane spear at the top spot, and halberd as second. My reasoning for this is how easy it is to train someone to use a spear. Someone who's never touched one before can be trained to be competent at using a spear both alone and as part of a formation in a single day (thrusting, slashing), whereas I imagine the halberd would take a bit more time to master all of the techniques (thrusting, slashing, hacking, entangling, pulling, unentangling).
Last time I was this early. Melotron was uploading daily!
I would choose a Lucerne Hammer/bec d' corbin. All the blunt force trauma of a warhammer, with the added reach of a polearm/poleaxe with some stabby bits.
fellow appreciator of long hammers I see
Lucerne Hammer - my Dark Souls reflex intensifies! :-D
i mean its hard to kill someone in armor with a blade, while its still easy to kill a guy with a metal stick.
Two reasons I would say the pollaxe still beats it: the spike/hammer on the striking ends of the lucerne hammer or bec-de-corbin are both primarily anti-armor weapons, while the axe/hammer on the pollaxe are alternately good against unarmored and armor, so it has better versatility. Second, the pollaxe tends to be made a bit shorter than most polearms, so while they're specialized for fighting in formation and clumsier in single combat, it's specialized to a maneuverable length for dueling a single opponent like in this scenario.
There's still some variation depending on whether you and/or your opponent are armored, of course (perhaps if you're unarmored [and thus need to keep your opponent at distance] and your opponent is armored, the hammer is better), but I think the pollaxe is better in a larger range of scenarios.
Those two are classed as the same weapon. A pollaxe doesn't need an axe blade to be a pollaxe. Medieval fight manuals didn't differentiate between then.
The mace could still crumple an unarmored enemy and the way you attack with it, getting a solid hit could easily be an instant kill.
Langes messer just means long knife in german and it was invented because the poor folk wasnt allowed to wear a real sword so they just made long knife s.
I would guess the most versatile weapons such as the spear or longsword would do the best. If it's a duel the weapon has to be nimble or possibly be able to be wielded for a prolonged period of time. Heavier weapons would require more strength and stamina.
The spear and long sword have decent range, are good against unarmoured, can kite shorter ranged axes or machetes and might be ok against armour. With a spear you can thonk a guy to the helmet a couple of times.
Whilst being able to use the weapon for a long period of time gives you advantage during a drawn out duel, if you pick a longsword or esker intending a long, drawn out duel, and they come along with a poleaxe (pollaxe for some) intending to crush your skull within the first five minutes, you're at a huge disadvantage. Or, if you pick the same weapons and the opponent simply has more stamina than you, when you're exhausted, he'll be less exhausted and able to press the advantage more.
Reminds me of that old video Metatron did on longsword vs sword and shield. If I remember right, he said when he spars with sword and shield against longsword, he usually does better. That was a while ago though.
The poleaxe can outnimble a sword with its queue.
I already knew poleaxe was gonna be #1, but its still nice to hear
A sword will always be the best choice, since it's the only one with which you can end your opponent rightly.
And it was generally easy to carry. I would never want to carry a bow, mace, halberd, etc unless I was going to war
@@anonymous5t565 A mace would be easy to carry as well, but a bow or halberd would not. The problem with bows is that they are generally quite large, and you should carry quite many arrows and a quiver (but even then you should not rely on the bow as your only weapon, you should carry a backup, probably a sword, in which case just carry the sword), and the halberd is impractical to carry around "just in case".
@@PayneMaximus I have no mace but I have similar weapons. I think if I was wearing armor I'd have no problem. But I'm talking about every day life if there were no war at the time. For self defense I'd probably just carry a broadsword.
@@anonymous5t565 Sure, I was also talking about normal life. I think a sword or mace would be a good choice for an EDC weapon, unlike a bow, halberd, or even a spear.
@@PayneMaximus however I cannot carry a sword without scarring my neighbors. I've already scared them from my backyard while working on form. I still can carry my knives. I've got a crkt minimalist, crkt ceo, and crkt shuffle 2.
“You can slice, you can dice, you can cut, and you can thrust. Order now and we’ll give you the chopping attachment for FREE.”
If you read Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series, Vimes always mentions that farmers and common people are well armed. The bill developed from an agricultural implement for example.
The Lance became effective only after after the stirrup was invented during the Dark Ages. Before that mounted troops could be unhorsed easily. The Romans didn’t have stirrups.
There is only one solution:
FUS RO DAH!
Oh man if you hit 20 guys with pikes... pikes flying everywhere. Hitting people as they fly off. Bodies smashing into each other. That formation doesnt work very well to shouts
@misota -chan :D
@The crazy weeb You, however, may shout "Shinra Tensei"
WHAT?! Pommel isn't no.1? What is this heresy?!
Exactly, against Matt Easton only the power of The Pommel can help us. :)
Polearms generally have a counterweight on the bottom of the pole to counterbalance the head, making it easier to use. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm fairly sure a nice counterweight is pretty similar to an ULTRA POMMEL, meaning a polearm is more effective than a standard pommel.
A pommel will pay for your child's college education.
In a year, where everyone is converted to the halberd by Seki Sensei, I watch this older video and appreciate the wide factors in making this list. It's soo much more complicated given armors used, formations, and training factors.
Just wanted to mention that even though I agree with everything on this list I would have put the mace and war hammer in the armored and unarmored zone because regardless if your are in full plate armor or a gambeson if you get hit with a pointed solid steel block your going down.
Pikes on formation is my favorite. Swiss pikes
In a formation yes, terrible 1vs 1 though. I like swiss pikes too!
@Rex Francorum Going against a pike formation while using a zweihänder is suicide.
I like how he presents the video as if we are consulting him for weapon advice in our own medieval conflicts
7:32 I just realised what this Painted Seen is. Its about the Battle of David and Goliath from the Bible. Told By Medieval Artists. :)
It's a Nice find.
thats very cool actually, I love how they show two parts of the scene like a proto comic book haha
Misconception that axes cut. Axes crush and wedge.
#Wedgie
>You can’t have a shield
>You’re in a one-on-one duel for your life
>There are no specialized weapons allowed
>But the top weapons are unwieldy, long polearms that were intended to be used in a military formation with other people (ie: the pike) against cavalry (the bill) or primarily from horseback (the ordinary glaive/ polearm.)
A javelin would be one thing, but do you think you are Darth Mail or something??? Or, is this duel happening in the world’s most narrow hallway, where you can’t simply slip past an opponent’s PIKE and gut the pig? Ridiculous...
imagine a full swing of a halberd against any armour, your getting a proper kilajoules hit to the body.
*tens of kilojoules easily.
It doesn't do much unless it is on the head.
@@duchessskye4072 I beg to disagree completely, unless you're talking full plate. In that case, yes, only neck/head/shoulder/foot strikes count, otherwise it would be a glancing blow.
I was talking plate.
@@duchessskye4072 full plate or partial?
Metatron, are you ever going to make a "followup" to this video where you're doing the exact same thing BUT taking a shield into account?
Also you could make 3 tiers for a total of 10 entries, based on the type of shield (small like buckler, medium like a round shield or kite, and large like a scutum).
Yeah I'm not going into a duel without a shield, and I hate shields.
I like how the (almost) whole point of medieval weaponry is, if you hit hard enough and in a good spot you can win almost every time until your weapon breaks.
One utility he didn't mention which I think needs to be said is the safety advantage of a thrusting orientated weapon. Thrusting a weapon obviously requires a backwards wind-up to increase momentum, which if you have the range of a spear or bill, or even a longsword, means you don't have to give up your defence for.
With a slashing weapon like a glaive or a falchion, or any weapon that requires outwards wind-up to be effective (like an axe or mace) you are opening yourself up, casting away defence for improved offence. Plus thrusting has advantage over slashing regardless of armour (not to say thrusting is capable of piercing any armour it's just better at penetrating than slashing).
You might have to argue some of the particulars of this scenario with Miyamoto Musashi.
But slashing wounds are more debilitating to the opponent. You cut tendons, arteries, muscle,etc. A puncture wound needs to be in certain particular places of the body to be effective. A puncture to an arm or leg will not stop an opponent, but a slash might, as it hits tendons, muscle, etc.
@@Biden_is_demented You are aware that swords are not needle thin, right?
A thrust from a sword can sever tendons, arteries etc. To say otherwise is foolish on your part.
They are not needle thin, but the wounds are nonetheless punctures. Especially from swords designed to go through armor, that are very pointy. To sever an artery your thrust needs to hit the immediate vicinity of the artery, and even then it is up to luck. A slash has more surface area, making it easier to hit a vital point. If you slash across a leg, you are bound to cut something important.
You will be hard pressed to make a sword thrust strong enough to go through the stomach from front to back like in the movies. Even if it did, in an unarmored opponent, you would be left with internal bleeding, and a very slow death. While a slash across the stomach will leave you holding your entrails. It only takes a cut an inch deep to open your entire stomach area (unless you are a fat ass). It doesn´t take a genius to see which wound is the more debilitating.
Just make a thought exercise. Imagine you are run through by a long sword, and imagine if you were able or not to continue the fight in any capacity. And then do the same, but this time picture your insides are pouring out, and you are bleeding much faster. Will you continue the fight, or use your hands to keep your feet from tripping on your intestines?
If you say the former, you are a damn liar, and i need not waste my breath any further.
@@Biden_is_demented Lol you're obviously wayyy to up your own arse to argue in any capacity. Have fun with that lie you're telling yourself though.
"You can slice, you can dice, you can cut... but wait there is more!"
😂😂😂😂 Nicer dicer ! (Tv shop)
I am reminded of an infomercial where the emcee try to demonstrate the sturdiness of the sword and started banging it against the table and the sword breaks at the hilt, bounces back at the emcee and cuts him.
I just got recommended the top 10 helmets.... Now this, praise the algorithm
A pole arm although great when used in formation could be problematic when used by a single combatant due to the fact that if the point or head of the weapon is deflected or grabbed it's very easy to then counter and rush in on a vulnerable and largely defenseless opponent. I'd go for the long sword myself, very nimble which aids in both offense and defense and it's not particularly cumbersome, definitely the most versatile for the given scenario.
TH-cam expert due to lindybeige( really know nothing just going to basically parrot his video which you can watch)
It’s hard to deflect a spear with a sword because the spear has more leverage and in general will win that fight. Swords win if you get inside the spear point quickly but that’s easier said than done and you can move the point back and use it close range too.
General rule I’ve learned is two handed spear beats sword on average without shield.
Sword and shield beat spear 1 on 1 and lose in formation.
@@jeremymullens7167 First hand accounts of combat say otherwise, charles ewart at waterloo parried a few lances but he was using a backsword. Medieval swords are thin in width near the end.
@@chroma6947 there is an account of a quarterstaff user beating more than 4 swordsmen.
Long sticks beat short sticks in most situations, all things being equal. The only way to beat the long stick is to have a big board accompanying your short stick.
Or throw your pommel.
Pommel-throw always works.
Yeah, I use poles a lot. The only reason to use it in a duel is having fun dying. You get one free shot then they get 10 free shots. If they have a shield you dont even get a shot. Slightly longer than their range is all you need. Sword op
@@jeremymullens7167 it's fairly difficult to time a block for a spear thrust. Its incredibly easy if you have a shield. Idfk what he meant about leverage, because it works against you with a spear. Just like any bind, the spear is using the weak end, and the sword gets to use the strong, right next to the handle. The lever is useful for swinging big shots. It's horrible for trying to manipulate enemy weapons.
Source: doing it.
Simply put
If your poor : The Spear , Hammer, bow and knife.
If your rich
A poleaxe
Mace
Sword
Crossbow
And
Dagger
For the meme
Unscrew the pommel
Where on earth do people get the idea that swords were expensive, they weren't. In the medieval era anyone who wanted a sword could get one, owning your own sword was even one of the requirements to be a lowly archer in Henry V's army.
@@EvidensInsania Archers weren't lowly. It took many years of training to be a longbowman for example, or to shoot from horseback. Archery is very hard and extremely tiring, because to inflict any damage you need a bow with enough draw weight. Longbowmen could shoot more than 6 arrows a minute at draw weights of 140 pounds or even more, that takes enormous endurance and strength. Archers were valuable. In fact one of the reasons the crossbow was so popular is simply because it was easier to use than a bow.
But yeah I agree that munitions grade swords probably were pretty cheap, just like some armor in the later middle ages. The cheap stuff just didn't survive to the present day, partly because of the bad quality, it was made to be expendable. But also because noone kept cheap swords as heirlooms for example and looked after them, like they did with the high quality decorated arms and armor of the rich nobility. Noone cared about that stuff, for most people they were just tools.
@@Doodoofart725 And who was getting paid the least in Henry V's army? It was the archers. Did I ever say that being an archer didn't take skill? No, because I'm not a moron and do archery myself. But the simple truth is that they were just lowly peasants of a much lower social standing than the men-at-arms and obviously the knights. Proving my point that swords were not a luxury weapons when even the lowest paid soldiers in an army are required to have their own swords. I don't know why you take such offence to the word lowly.
Hi Metatron, I really love your videos on historical weapons. Thanks for sharing them with us.
I would like to ask if you can make a video on the concept of the elements associated with weapons.
For instance which weapons best suit the essence of fire (i.e. aggressive slashes); which best suits the essence of lightning (i.e. speedy thrusts); which best suits the essence of stone / earth (i.e. strong blows), etc.
Thanks in advance!
I really like halberds because of that hook they’ve got. Hooking my opponent and potentially throwing them onto the ground is really appealing to me
Apart from my obvious choice, the crossbow with a huge range advantage 😂, I like your list very much. 👍
Ah yes a duel without shields you say? lemme just pick up mah crossbow real quick xD
Akimbo siege crossbows ftw
English long bowman enters chat
Who would win?
- A blade specifically crafted for combat and hurting people
- Farming tool on a pole
cant realy imagine how u gonna fight with 4m pike against longsword , one parry ,dodge and the guy is almost next to you .its great in phalanx but 1vs1 cant be good at all
Yea, I had to laugh. Hell, he can have a 4m pike and I will take bare handed over that. Wouldnt be too hard to get inside and sinch up a choke.
Are you stupid a 4m pike would absolutely fucking destroy you, do you know how hard it is to fight against that much reach, the longsword was a secondary sword because polearms were kings, one stab youre dead one slash you're dead and you can do alot of that in a 4m reach
@@Steven-mk4gg yeah sure if it's a 4 year old holding the pike
@@wisewigga7129
Dude, good luck maneuvering a 12 foot pole in 1v1 combat. Huge pikes are made for infantry, formational warefare, not single combat.
Using a 4 meter pike against a single opponent would a death sentence for anyone but Halfthor Julius Bjornsson.
Do me a favor, go outside, pick up a 12 foot long branch and see just how well you can quickly, and adeptly maneuver it.
@@Steven-mk4gg yes my comment was retarded I agree i underestimated how long 4m is lmao why tf did i sound like a jerk in my last comment I apologize and yeah imagine strongmen like hafthor in plate Armour lmfao a mace hit and bam u dead
I think you skipped over one very important factor: What armour am I wearing?
When I look at poleaxe techniques it looks as though there's little you can do with a poleaxe to parry swift cuts from a sword or thrusts from a spear, especially to the arms, which matters very little if you're wearing full plate, but could be a huge problem if you're just wearing normal clothing. Now I'm not saying the poleaxe is a bad defensive weapon, as it can clearly parry pretty much any strike that would still pose a threat to a knight in armour, but it doesn't seem to be that good at parrying those swifter cuts that an armoured knight could ignore anyway. Also, I haven't held a poleaxe myself so I might be wrong here, but based on how it is usually held it looks as though the poleaxe is the one polearm that doesn't actually have (much of) a reach advantage over something like a longsword, as you seem to use the pole more for leverage than for range.
If I know I'm going unarmoured into this fight, the poleaxe would go down a few spots on my list as I feel I would be at a major disadvantage against the longsword and spear if even the list and swift cuts and thrusts pose a serious threat, the longsword would go a couple steps up for it's parrying capacity and the fact that it would stil pose a decent threat against an armoured foe, a polearm along the lines of the bill or halberd would occupy number 1 followed by the spear (assuming all those polearms share n1) as their reach and speed would be essential to keeping me alive and I would throw the mace completely off of this list if only I knew what other weapon would take its place as I feel like it would throw defense out the window to use a mace (or warhammer and axe for that matter) without the armour or shield to compensate for it's lackluster defensive capabilities.
If I am going to be decently armoured (gambeson and/or mail) but my arms/hands are still exposed, spear would go down a bit as the safety of its reach and speed is no longer as necessary and poleaxe would go up a few steps, but still not back to n1. I am still most likely to pick a bill-like polearm followed by a longsword, both of which I would have slightly more faith in should my opponent be wearing armour while neither leaves my arms too exposed. Maces and company would be back on the list, but they'd still be pretty low as the arms would still be in danger with their short reach and lack of hand protection.
If I know I'm going to be fully armoured, screw speed and reach I'm going for the hardest hitter I can get my hands on: the poleaxe is back to n1 in all its glory. As I stated above I could still use it to defend against any major blows that might still put me at risk, and in fact I believe the poleaxe due to it's weight and leverage is more suited than anything other than a shield for parrying those heavy strikes, but I would also have the offensive power to take out my oppenent with *relative* ease regardless of what armour he might or might not be wearing. Maces axes and warhammers would also be higher than swords and maybe even spears on the list in this case, as their lack of defensive ability won't matter nearly as much, and it would be a serious threat against any opponent, while the sword and spear's ability to deflect even those swift cuts to your hand with decent reliability as well as their reach would be made largely obsolete due to the armour.
Lastly, if I also (for whatever reason) don't know what armour I will be wearing I would just assume the worst and choose my weapon as though I were unarmoured.
tl'dr: in addition to your ratings for effectiveness against (un)armoured, I think you should also have ratings for effectiveness when the wielder himself is (un)armoured as some weapons are far more dependent on their wielder wearing armour than others.
Thank you very much for providing an extra clean and clear analysis on something which should absolutely be taken into account. Your explanation is more than enlightening.
One of the greatest comments out there, pretty well said!
First thing love the video. Second, I agree with about 95% of what was displayed. But I also believe that how a person is trained also has a hole lot to do with it.
Because I can use my off hand, I personally would rather have a long handled hammer / axe. 90% of 1V1 competition's are in a ring or boarded arena. This will limit the use of the polearm. If we are in an open field I agree the a 6' wide pole poleaxe is optimal.
Have a great day and thanks for the video.
"the axe" like which one, theres just as much diversity in axes as sword. look at a dane axe then tomohawk. completely different
also axes are better than swords imo because obviously the opponent will take armor and axes are pretty much hammers at that point
Not only that the axe is a versaltile weapon, it is also the among the first choices for peasant infantries as close quarter weapon, mainly because it's an axe - it's a tool the peasant use everyday, so it is the weapon they are most familiar with which allow them to utilize it, unlike the sword that require long training time. Axes can also be used to break enemy's shield because that's essentially the reason to pick the axe - to break enemy defense and overwhelm them.
Probably, the type of axe used in combat.
Tomahawk and Franciska have more 'reach' than said pike :D And you can easily carry more than one.