Do more. Go nuts. Axes, maces, flails, polearms, messers, etc. I would watch every single one.

I've been playing Hades and just heard Achilles say that the hand is the greatest weapon of them all since it is the only one which can wield all others. I like that.

Skallagrim: "Torches and pitchforks!" Me: (expecting to see the stats for torches and pitchforks)

Total points shown for each weapon, in order from worst to best: 6. Dagger 27 5. Bat'Leth 29 4. Katana 29-30 3. Tachi 30.5 2. Longsword 31 1. Spear 32 We have found the best weapon; Pokey Stick!

When it comes to daggers and armor, it always reminds me of something Ambrose Bierce wrote. “MISERICORDE, n. A dagger which in mediaeval warfare was used by the foot soldier to remind an unhorsed knight that he was mortal.” The double meaning of the last part is superb.

4:45 That’s actually a brilliant weapon, just allow the enemy to disarm you that way they hurt themself with it

I’m in a LARP (weekend-long camping trip with 70 other people, fantasy outfits and foam weapons) and I feel that bit about spears in everyday life. Everyone loves when the spear-person shows up to defend the town, but only 3 people carry them around all day because they weigh a ton and people keep tripping over them in the tavern.

6:40 is the best analysis I've heard. Many glance over or ignore that a weapon is part of a larger kit. A lot of medieval weapons had poor defense because they were intended to be used in conjunction with a shield. The same is true about using a weapon while wearing heavy armor or with a gauntlet.

I would be really interested to see this rating system used with the added criteria of how greatly skill affects its efficiency or deadliness. For example: A club vs a sword. Not necessarily how deadly something is without training, but more how large of a skill gap there is between novice and master.

Pommel Damage: 7 (Not only does it end the opponent, but it ends them rightly, thus rubbing salt into the wound) Anti-Armor: 7 (The Noble Pommel simply disregards armor, as armor is only used by cowards who cannot end their opponents rightly) Durability: Infinite (The Pommel is eternal. No mundane thing like wear, tear, rust, or time can tarnish it) Speed: 300,000 k/s (The pommel is light, but powerful, enabling it to go the speed of light) Reach: 7 (Nobody can escape the reach of the pommel) Defense: 6 (Okay, I know I'm being overly nit-picky with this one, but it doesn't have a cross-guard, so it can't universally defend against literally everything both real and imaginary) Adaptability: 5 (Again, don't crucify me, but the pommel can't do literally everything. It still hasn't filed my taxes, and my dog still died) Affordability: 1 (This is "debatably" its weakest point, as only the worthy can wield the true pommel)

I recommend changing “damage” to “force” ie, how much force is required to produce a lethal strike. Because truthfully all weapons that have a sharp edge have a very, very similar amount of damage potential, same goes for pointy and blunt. The only real difference is in quality and upkeep. A poorly maintained longsword with a dull edge will do less damage than a sharp steak knife. So, using the force required to kill or maim something as the metric and assuming all weapons can reach that target given it is of good quality and well kept, to me makes more sense.

I kind of liked how "Deadliest Warrior" categorized. Close range, short range, medium range, etc. So much in WW1 was about long range, but then the trench raiders were custom making surprisingly short weapons.

Obviously the best weapon is the one that can defeat the armor that can defend against the most weapons...a giant can opener

Nuclear-capable eight engine strategic bomber: Damage: easy 6. It's meant to level entire cities. Anti-Armor: easy 6. One of the reasons these have an argument for use over missiles is that they can penetrate bunkers. Durability: 3. On the one hand, at least it is reuseable, and with sufficient air superiority it is hard to attack and can take moderate amounts of punishment. On the other hand, there are all manner of things that will damage or destroy it and it has a khgjillion moving parts. Speed: 4. Despite being able to move almost the speed of sound, it's not actually all that fast to deploy, especially compared to missiles or troops that are already nearby and don't need ginormous paved runways. Reach: 5. These things compete with ICBMs. Defense: 1. it's a sitting duck. The only real defensive option is to bomb troops coming to its position or to flee to another large airbase. It can't effectively defend itself in the air either. Nor can it really be a primary defensive weapon to protect a base. Adaptability: 2. There are two settings, genocide and nuclear genocide. They are decidedly unsubtle weapons that don't really work very well outside of total war. Affordability: 1. Not only them but everything related to them costs huge amounts of resources to build, own and use.

If you want a really badass sharp bladed weapon and can't decide between a sword and a spear, consider the wickedly effective Zulu assegai. Double-edged, long, wide, cutting sharp, pointy, agilely handled with both one and two hands, robust enough to parry, with a wide variety of effective ranges and even usable as a balanced piercing projectile, it does it all!

PLEASE do more. I really liked this and hope that you can classify the weapons in melee and ranged

Really like this presentation and agree with pretty much all of the ratings. Maybe this could be a mini-series ranking specific weapons of each type in every episode.

When you mentioned a poorly designed firearm with failure to feed and eject, you instantly reminded me of the Zip .22, in which failure to feed and eject is the main feature

When it comes to self-defense, my brother has a saying, which he heard from some instructor - "Your fist/hand gets you to your knife. Your knife gets you to your gun." Basically, you always want to keep your distance from the other guy whenever possible. Also, if the other fella really wants to fight unarmed, don't drop your weapon - they probably know what they are doing in that case, or are just that crazy.

Love that affordability is a criterion here! The best weapon is always the one that you can get to the most people in your army. Being able to arm and armour your army is a super necessary factor to see considered. Love the content thank you!

I'd say adaptibility has to be higher on a dagger, its a weapon that has been used basically since forever and it is still used, like a fairburn-sikes dagger in modern military.

Tbh, a small series where you go through weapons of all types (historical or modern) using this judging criteria would be pretty fun to watch.

Yeah I need an hour version of you rambling about everything, different polearms, axes, maces, I could listen to this for days

Btw don't forget that the pointy stick also doubles as any other stick. Like a walking stick, which makes it perfect for travel. And you always have your weapon literally in hand too. The effectiveness in confined spaces depends on many factors, try fighting a pointy stick in a narrow hallway, you might find it difficult to approach without getting skewered.

Actually I too try to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Finding out the best melee weapons is one of those mysteries lol

6:35 - In addition to its use with a large shield, the gladius is also supposed to exist as a part of a weapon system with the pila (throwing spear or heavy javelin). The pila provides the flexibility of being used as either a throwing weapon that may partially disable the enemy's shield, or be used as a 7 foot thrusting spear.

Superb video. Love how you continuously mention that the context and circumstance is the main determinant of what's "best"

One brutally efficient and under-appreciated weapon is the Roman legionary sword or "Gladius" shorts word. I'm glad he mentioned it. In close combat it's ferocious and deadly. Hard to break, good armor piercing capabilities (for that period). Rapiers came about after muzzle-loading firearms when plate armor would be as expensive as it is useless. By then, people weren't really wearing armor anymore because it just made you slow and a cannon or musketeer formation would blast you dead ... or some drunk guy in a tavern with a flintlock pistol 5ft away. So once armor was out, rapiers were in. A long, thin thrusting sword was perfect. It can reach far and pierce, and can even cut a bit if you sweep someone with it. Weapons have to be analyzed like this, and this guy does a great job. Says the same thing about spears I've often said, that they make a thousand peasants into a deadly army. The Viking sword was made for a time when people fought in close formations with heavy shields, thick leather armor and mail. It was built like a heavy cleaving machete that wouldn't break when beating it against wooden shields and pieces of steel. A katana is a totally different design for a different sort of use and fighting. They each dominated the battles of their own time and place. Imagine having to use a katana in a Viking vs Saxon battle, or having to use Viking gear in feudal Japan ... you'd die very quickly ...

Context is key indeed. The best weapon would be a shape shifting mass changing artifact you can change into anything for every given context, and stuff like that only exists in the fantasy stories like the one I'm writing 😂. Jokes aside I do understand some weapons are more versatile than others that's all it comes down to but, you have to think about the context. Some versatile aspects of a given weapon may not be needed by a given culture or situation because their way of fighting or defending will be oriented to a specific strategy and aim. HAMAA member warriorsesh explains this in his new video in brief response to Shad.

I made one of these once, but with more of a consideration for the average Jo here in the States carrying/using weapons. It went something like Lethality Handleability Collateral potential Complexity Practicality and Personality Lethality was equivalent to your damage criteria. Handleability was sort of like your adaptability. Collateral potential is essentially how dangerous the weapon is to anything aside from your intended target (so anything from a flail with a long chain to a hand grenade). Complexity is how many parts, components, or required accessories the weapon needs in order to function (a firearm would have more than a baseball bat). Practicality is a combination of how easy the weapon is to get a hold of, how many places you can legally or realistically carry, own, or use it, and how much effort you would need to put into being able to fight well with it. And personality is essentially how you are going to be perceived (for better or for worse) if you carry this weapon around, own it, or use it.

Your video quality has come so far, man. I'm really impressed with the technical quality of your videos. It's never been bad, but dang, dude this video is top notch.

Brilliant video! Would love more of this for other weapon types or armours!

Also, I ran some calculations based on the prop for Worf's bat'leth. A high-carbon steel version would probably weigh about 4.5 kg. Which isn't nearly nearly as bad as the 5.2 kg canon, but it is still ridiculously heavy, so I suspect it would need some varied thickness to shave off some weight.

I'm on team lindybeige: spear. It's super easy to use, huge reach, very intimidating. And you can teach a small group of people to effectively use it in like an hour. In an alley (if it's narrow enough) it's still great because no one wants to rush into it. Which is also its defense property. You can keep people at range without too much effort. And the shaft can block swords and axes without too much trouble. Vs other stabby weapons... Hmm... Less great. For everyday carry as personal defense? Well it probably scares people off 😂

Definitely wanna see more of this, I would love to see this become a series actually. I suggest discussing the katar and the pata, they might seem like one to ones of the dagger and long sword, but I think there are some nuances that warrant discussion all the same.

Very cool and fun. Can you another one with axes and stuff? What about polearms? And let's not forget about the BIG STICK ENERGY.

I love that you and Matt actually talk about the different aspects and context that really determine how effective a weapon is. Comparing different weapons with different purposes doesn’t work well, and knowing that is so important. A weapon that’s good at stabbing but not at cutting isn’t bad, it’s just specialized. Some people don’t seem to really understand that, and that’s kinda saddening

When designing any kind of scale, I'd recommend trying to look at the extreme edge cases. For reach, that is either the pike or something like a whip, depending on how you define "melee weapon", and probably knuckle dusters (or just your hands). You explored a pretty slim range of weapon types, so once you look at things like a military flail, glaive or pollaxe, the defense and damage ratings you gave the swords may seem a bit weird. Also, to rate melee weapons, I'd probably go with use cases rather than..."attributes". Something a bit like: * Usability in battle formations / group fighting * Usability with one hand (body positioning + shield use) * Usability to control opponent (hooking weapon + sweeping attacks) * Usability at close distances I'd keep these, because they're just too generally useful, depending on opposition: * Anti-armor ("Usability against armored opponents") * Reach ("Usability at long distances") Note that most warriors, and certainly all with the budget for it, carried more than a single weapon, if nothing else then certainly a knife or a dagger on your belt. Both for the case of losing/breaking your main weapon, but also for the case of your opponent getting too close for your main weapon (well, and general utility - a belt knife is still a good tool to have). These have me in a bit of a quandary: * Training and experience needed for proficient use * Everyday carry (legality + practicality) * Durability They're definitely things I'd look at for something "my adventurer" would carry, but they depends a bit too much on context and what we actually mean by "best or worst melee weapon". A lance is basically supposed to break, making it a feature. For a single fight/battle, sword hilts eventually starting to rattle (probably) won't become an issue, provided good manufacturing. Everyday carry isn't relevant when choosing a weapon for either a duel or a battle. If we're assuming "best weapon for fully proficient users", ease of training isn't relevant, either.

More of this! I love holistic breakdowns that take a weapon out of a narrow mindset and into its broader more historical place.

Probably my favorite video of yours I have seen. Really would love to see more of these.

havent watched the movie yet, it just started. But I remember several years ago you talked about eating disorders and getting back on track... I would like to congratulate you on the progress bro, you are really looking healthier and better than before, not to mention eyes being more awake. I dont know how you are feeling mentally but physically there is a massive improvement, maybe getting to this point in this comment will mirror the change in mind too, keep up the good work bro.

How to rate weapons objectively: First, determine a scenario in which the weapon will be used. This context is absolutely crucial for establishing criteria for objective evaluation. Second, establish the ideal capability and functions for a weapon in the given scenario. Also, be sure to rank the functions to know which ones are most crucial. Third, compare all available weapons that fullfil the established criteria. Give extra consideration to those that can perform the crucial functions. In the even of an objective tie, use the rule of cool.

Love the outdoor walk to begin video. Thank you for a enjoyable time.

I really enjoyed this video, i just thought it was too short!!!! All of a sudden, 30 minutes went by and i still wanted more! I like your categories and your explanations for each weapon. Im not sure what the bedt word to describe Adaptability is, but i feel what you wanted it to encompass and agree its a good category to represent things that are hard to represent. Like how hard it is to just carry a spear around verse a dagger

Skall, honest question. Would the Messer (either 2h or 1h) be closer to a Longsword or a Katana in Stats?

I'd like to see a Part 2 some day. I'm curious how the humble Arming Sword would measure up.

Holy, ive been loving your content even more as for late, sire, continue this type of format

Nice content skall , you shine on those type of video

I would personally say that a mace (or something similar) is your best melee option. It is easy to carry, very effective in dealing damage, simple in construction, easy to maintain, it deals with armor relatively well, and it leaves your offhand open for whatever you want. I think its strongest point is its simplicity. You do not have to worry about sharpening and maintaining an edge on your mace. There are no nicks and breaks you need to worry about the same way you do bladed weapons. The metal part of the weapon is pretty much always ready to go in a good state. The shafts are also cheap and easy to replace. Their usage is also relatively simple, as you don't have to worry about edge alignment and fancy things like that. You bonk people and it's gonna hurt. Now lets watch the video.

This is an interesting topic, and I believe should be expanded. I think you're giving the oportunity to other youtubers (schola gladiatoria, shad, etc.) to talk about, say, the morningstar, axes, flails, quarterstaffs and such.

Great video idea, please keep up and please rate the spear sword, like the zombie tools one that you reviewed

Loved this video and would really love to see more of this. Like some other people have commented, i think a sort of "skill level" or "profeciency" rating would be good, as some weapons are easier to wield effectively than others (ex. club vs sword). Also, to me the "Adaptability" rating would be split between "environmental" which would have factors like environment and ease of carry, and "matchups" which would be their effectiveness against different weapons (both offense and defense).

You could throw the axe and therefore for sacrificing the weapon you gain the reach that these other melee weapons lack. I made tomahawks with my dad and we'd throw them often. Fun times.

Sorry, but you can't just disregard the truly objective facts, like for example, that the spear, due to its superior precision, can aim at individual targets, instead of just at a general are-no, wait, that's the Bren gun vs. the spandau. ( -.-)

Fun stuff. I liked the editing flourishes.

Great vid Skall, love these fun comparisions making it like a video game RPG stat sheet! On the Japanese sword LOVE that you included the tachi, but what I would ALWAYS add is that the production length katana (and tachi) you see are close to what the Japanese now term "normal" length. Legally they could be up to around 34 inches in EDO, and many tachi or uchigatana fit tachi in the muromachi (longsword contemporary) could be anywhere between 24 and 38 inches or so. 36 inches plus is getting into odachi territory, and nodachi even longer. So VERY much the same situation as the longsword, what type of Japanese sword? I mean the uchigatana also was often a 60cm or so blade, making them VERY similar to a messer. Tachi you could easily compare to calvary sabres as depending on the size would be a one handed mounted sword. Heavier thick tsuba with o-seppa (spacers) could shift the balance point closer to the hand. I have a repro tachi at around 33 inches long with habaki, and it's surprisingly lively in one hand as it has pronounced fumbari (profile taper) combined with a bo-hi (groove). Many "katana" would have been more one hand oriented than we like to think. Large tsuba were common on the uchigatana mounts as well. Armor ability would be higher as well than you rate, just because the blade profiles were all over the place just like longswords. Does it have niku (blade meat or appleseed edge geometry) or hira niku (flat edge)? A long kissaki that is reinforced? Kissaki got longer during the Mongol invasions in the Kamakura period specifically to aid in piercing ability. Most reproductions do not have any niku to speak of as tamashigiri is popular, reinforced tips aren't super popular these days on repros, but where on Hanwei blades. Also their edges would have been less brittle than the reproduction market typically does. Complex laminations also. So more complex and tougher (but probably a bit more bend likely). Grass cutters would be great for unarmored combat, but not armored, and a blade with heavy niku would be more suited for armored combat. Japanese had some pretty gnarly armor, just they never really "closed the gaps" completely like the Europeans did, although for a bunch of years you could consider their shoulder armor as shields...

I loved this. PLEASE do more. We need axes, polearms, warhammers, maces...

I've been thinking about my own criteria for a while. I came to a similar conclusion as you did, but "Intimidation" was one that I was torn about. The best weapon is one that avoids the need to fight, but at the same time, I think it's too context-dependent.

I find your assessments of these weapons spot-on, honestly.

I'm very excited for more of these if they come!

I’d like to see him or shad discuss the Gaffi Stick. It’s a stick with flanges, a spike and a pommel

21:50 i personally think a katana should rank a point lower on durability since its made extremely hard so is likely to break especially if you whack an armored opponent with the flat or the spine of the sword

I really like this. As people already stated below: do more of this and go nuts! Thanks for the vid!

Your experience with weapons far exceeds my own, really there is no comparison. In combat though I have found that speed and reach and prediction or anticipation can be sumerized collectively as intiative. Speed is well speed Quick is the ability to complete the distance from point a to point B For example A compact Boxer can complete the kinetic chian earlier than a longer Boxer The extension is Compressed Where it is to the advantage of a long Boxer to enforce a favorable range and keep tight footing Position is important because the center of gravity may more easily be disturbed and without good training the muscles and reflexes may not adapt or recover from an attack i.e. clumsy from short Boxer who more naturally can create initiative by keeping tight foot work allowing for a kinetic chain be initiated more rapidly, whethercattack feint jab and or move to a better angle of attack a better position. A short Boxer will be able to step inward and be positioned well with a controlled center point of gravity and connected to the ground (that center point of gravity planted) to hopefully deliver a kinetic chain movement from the ground (point A to the target (point) also from strong offensive position to a weak defensive position: An unstable opponent ideally running their head into your strike. Awareness of both center points of gravity is very important and training is very important to protect and recover the vector of the kinetic chain and prevent it from used against you, which inevitably one will lose at least some control. Also I've liked to think of weapons as tools, one needs the right tool for the job. Like a golfer picking out the right putter club driver or whatever I think. So weapon initiative And weapon quickness (recovery setup transfer of energy) Idk. I'm curious as to what you think about this

Estoc Damage: 3 Anti-Armour: 6 (Was used for penetrating gaps in armour) Durability: 6 (Was even used for boar hunting it was so durable) Speed: 3 Reach: 4 (Some were up to 130cm long) Defence: 3.5 Adaptability: 5 (Could easily be used with the mordhau grip, was also used as a lance) Affordability: 1

Great video. Context matters. I'm more of a firearm guy (California bans the carry of dirks, whatever those are, so we have to settle for handgun permits) but even with guns these arguments apply. I think the biggest problem is that people a apply their particular situation to other people that live in different circumstances and then invest emotion into their own personal preferences. If you like a different weapon than I do, you are obviously insulting me on a very personal level. Everyone needs to relax. Unless we are talking about nun-chucks then the gloves come off. Nothing is better than debating about a pair of sticks that have been tied together.

Lovely intro Skall, I wouldn't mind full blown videos filmed like that, whatever they may be about lol.

Very well thought out video. Informative and good editing to keep the viewer attention from drifting off. I especially liked the intro hiking in woods. It shows that you’re more than just eat ,sleep & dream about weapons. Ha ha ha ! Thank you.

The best weapon is the one you got when you need it.

i would love to see you class the one handed and two handed jian style swords by the same criteria. i am curious what you think about them and i think they are different enough from the japanese and european counterparts that they deserve to be talked about more. purely from a looks standpoint they are some of my favorites and they certainly be quite effective.

This is an amazing foundational video that you can build off of for future "objective" comparisons as it stand as an example of your rationale. This has become my favorite of your videos.

useful system you came up with acknowledging that a lot depends on circumstance and setting. different tools for different situations. i think the oft contested comparisons between long sword and katana was fair examining the strength and weakness of both. i hope you will do more comparisons in the future. the Batlav was quite a surprise.

Only two questions are needed to know if a weapon is good or not 1 does it have a pommel? 2 can it be unscrewed?

I was disappointed you didn't include a bo, or staff as it were it's nothing more than a walking stick. But it can have great results in combat. A staff in my case is a minimum of 6 ft long. I really enjoy you content. Keep it up. It makes me think of different situations, and applications.

Finally got the chance to sit down and watch this. Ive been trying since you released it. But i have to say, i really enjoyed it and have to applaud you for admitting bias... However i also agree there. Swords in general are pretty adaptable weapons and can be used in a huge variety of applications, both on their own and with shield or dual wielded with another weapon, when compared to other weapons. Its a sort of jack of all trades that is hard to beat when it comes to giving weapons a score.

I did this for a game I'm deciding. Great work! But I instead of adaptability, I did Concealability, basically how easy is it to carry around or carry it without it being noticed. The dagger is a wonderful weapon in that case.

This video is amazing and has a unique Skall style to it, great stuff.

Do any companies that make those composite type practice weapons make a Batleth? It would interesting to see you actually duel against a variety of other weapons.

Love this content and I hope you do more of it. The only flaw in your methodology that I noticed is that you seem to conflate damage with dismemberment and/or a weapon's capacity to chop, specifically when contrasting the Principe with thrust-centric swords. I'd argue that damage or deadliness doesn't solely correlate with mutilation capacity, as thrusts are arguably deadlier (though less "damaging") than cuts with bladed weapons (see Hugues Ravaton’s Chirurgie d’Armée, for example). Anyway, cheers!

The general direction of the rating is fine but id change some points which would make a difference. Usability/finesse is a factor to add. That clingon weapon even easier to use as a dagger in my opinion. Combination of weapons or shields with an empty hand is making it more complex but no ones holding a dagger with two hands so its not a fair comparison... Id like more videos of this! :)

I always assumed a lot of the spear's power was that spears coordinate with each other very well in group fights.

I was hoping you would address what happened to the Nunchuck video, why it got removed and if it will be uploaded elsewhere or through a private link on KZfaq. Maybe bring it up on your Community tab just to give us a heads up. I really liked that video and only got to watch it one time before it was removed :(

TLDR version: Axe, hammer (,spear) combos are great for battlefields. Swords are great for everyday carry/self defense My friends and I have often pondered this conundrum and and turned it into a bit of a game by asking "what medieval weapon would you bring if X" and then specifying what setting and situation we would be dropped into. After doing this a quite a few times we've noticed a trend in our favored weapons (though of course, we might be wrong). Essentially, for a battlefield we would have some sort of hammer-axe (-spear) combo (if we have access to enough armor to feel comfortable without a shield, then we would have a pole axe (so hammer+axe+spear) If not, then we would have a shield and a hand-axe (hammer+axe)). All with the distinction that if we specifically are to be fighting in a properly organized formation, then we would almost always pick whatever weapon the rest of the formation is using. Because while an axe is great, if you're the one guy in a formation of spears with an axe, then you'll most likely be singled out pretty easily. As for everyday carry/self defense, we would have a sword (the exact type of sword varied based on who you ask and where and when the hypothetical takes place). But again, this is the trend, not the perfect ideal. There are exceptions, but for me and my friends this is the default, and were we to be dropped into a historical setting where we would be expected to fight for our survival and were asked what equipment we would want to bring, we would first ask if we get armor, and then we'd ask for an axe, and a sword as backup.

What a truly fascinating and in-depth study. I have never seen anyone have this flexible a view.

I think part of why longsword did so well is that you gave it both the benefits of being an every day carry weapon with the benefits of being used with gauntlets, which didn't happen with the other weapons. As an every day weapon, you typically wouldn't have gauntlets, and suddenly it loses a bit on anti-armor because half-swording and murder stroke become more dangerous to yourself, and it arguably loses some on defense. It arguably could use separate scores for every day use and battlefield use, and that alone points to a high versatility that few other weapons have.

You're missing an important criteria: Status or Impressiveness. Specially for civilian weapons, they were not principally carried for defence (a king would never actually have to draw his sword to protect himself, there are bodyguards for that). But looking, impressive, fashionable and radiating status was critical. Of course, this is so highly context dependent (and individual item dependent) that it's basically unscorable. Which is also kind of the.

Love it. Like the use of combinations and environments.

These kind of video are so cool, would love to see other like this one

The problem with melee combat is that if you're outnumbered, 8 times out of 10 you've already lost. If you're going on an adventuring career, just learn how to be stealthy and use a bow. Don't fight, just murder.

Wouldn't a giant toothpick just be a wooden spear? 🤔

I'd love to see this with more weapons. It was fun watch.

That Castlevania SOTN colosseum Background. Thumbs up sir! You have great taste.

I like your general approach to debating the effectiveness of weapons, real or fictional. It's more about the fun and entertainment of it than a serious attempt at reaching some "objective" conclusion. At least, that's the impression I've gotten from you in previous videos.

For adaptability, you could set six arbitrary combat situations, each representing one point of scale.

I would definitely like to see more lists like this , you could do blunt weapons and type vs type

Great vid, razonable points, good stuff

My pick for top S tier (posting before watching)... Shield. Best defense, incredible versatility, surprisingly decent damage, works on the field and in duels and blunt force trauma works on armored and unarmored opponents. It's also very cheap. Downsides are reach (overcome by defense imo), portability (it's big), durability (most models were considered disposable but the low cost to make outweighs this) and relatively low damage . Post watch edit: Lol, I've been called out! I'm a sword and shield specialist so of course... That said I think it would stack up pretty well. Ok damage, good anti-armor, low speed, low reach, off the charts defense, great affordability and versatility. I also think weapon v weapon in a duel situation it would do well. Against a longsword you'd be fucked but I wouldn't be too scared against anything that has fewer angles of attack.

A war hammer would be fun to see. The first two categories would need more dots.

would honestly love to see more of this but the using different types of weapons per video, so rating a weapon in just its "family" of weapons and not with every weapon in mind, like not comparing a dagger with a longsword, but daggers with daggers

I like your rating/ stat system. Go nuts with it