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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shad gets a bit long winded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context helps us understand why a weapon is the way it is, but that doesn't make it good. Being adequate or functional doesn't make a weapon good.

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

There were many valid criticisms you could have made against Shad's video. And many people in your comments have done just that. You, however, didn't do that, you simply wilfully misrepresent Shad to defeat a strawman. I am utterly disappointed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, you can argue all day about how the bat'leth is possibly designed for some other context in an alien culture.. Ok. fine. But what context? How specific do we have to get before the bat'leth becomes useful? Yes, your example of a cutlass was made for a specific purpose under specific constraints. But it is still a good weapon because it was not only effective for THAT purpose, but it was also effective in other contexts. A person could take that cutlass off the ship and still use it on land, in the city, up against a guy with a different sword, and still be capable. If a bat'leth is ONLY effective in a highly specific circumstance, then it is not a good weapon in general.

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

So a weapon (sort of) designed to deal with an armoured opponent at close range is going to be good at dealing with nimble, unarmoured opponents in the confined halls of a space-ship or space station? Nah, not seeing it. As a ritual/duel weapon the Bat'leth is okay, but as the primary (hah!) melee weapon in a scifi context, no, no it's a terrible weapon.

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

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

My immediate response to shad's video was that he was wrong, because he explicitly stated that if a weapon isn't designed to deal maximum damage to kill the opponent, it's not a weapon. This is not true in any context, because anything that is used for any kind of engagement is a weapon, including "less-than-lethal" weapons of the modern era. A rubber bullet gun IS a weapon, and ONLY a weapon. Mace is a weapon. They don't need to kill, or be the best at killing in their situation, but they are designed for engaging opponents, so they are weapons.

A stick is better than no stick .

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

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

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

I think that your inability to properly compare weapons and describe how and why such weapons excel in such areas, is a detriment to your overall argument. You could be very descriptive and picky about how these weapons differ and actively look for faults in each design. The ability to compare and contrast designs of the weapons, like people actually had to do when they were designed originally, is an important ability for anyone speaking to large crowds for the purpose of educating and banishing ignorance.

With Shad it basically boils down to "I don't like it, therefore it is a bad weapon". Admitably he does break things down in a hilarious way (I've not watched his 45 minute video, yet) but as some might have noticed when he starts making his own version of weapons he doesn't own , he get's things wrong. Like his home made nunchucks were way too long, same with Assassin Creed Hidden Blade being massively oversized compared to the games versions. Or he tries to use them in ways they are not meant to be used and when they don't work he denounces them as useless. With regards the Bat'leth, when I first saw that in action I was a kid and just thought it looked odd, but saw it clearly worked well in the confines of the show. When I started martial arts training I also learned some staff fighting techniques, and I could then see some ways to cross over the staff techniques over onto the Bat'leth. In that regard I've always thought of the Klingon weapon as a sort of hybrid between a short staff and sword. There are ways to use it both one handed and two handed, even using the hand guard section to strike with. And there are various videos online of people using Bat'leths for sparing, one step, forms and so on,all done rather well too. Except the one guy who's practising some spins and so on in his living room and accidentally takes out his over head lights... One thing I just realised regarding what we know about the dimensions of the Bat'leth. The only time I can recall hearing them was when Jadzia had a sparing session on the DS9 holosuite, and called out to the computer with her specifications. Thing is there was already someone else training in there with a Bat'leth so the simplest thing she had to do was just ask for the computer to give her one. But she called out and gave specific instructions on how long it should be, what it should weigh and so on. Thinking about this I think she was doing so to prove a point to the Klingon that she knew a thing or two about the weapon, but it might be she called out for her own preferences which could mean Bat'leths do vary in lots of different ways, according to each users preferences.

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

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

The worst part of Matt doing response videos to Shad is that I feel obligated to at least skim Shad's video.

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

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

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

Disclaimer: I'm a simple man who likes pointy metal things. I have no training. I don't have an education that goes further than high school, and my knowledge of weapons is purely based on watching videos like yours and Shads on YT. I will also say that at the time of making this comment I have seen shads original video, I just finished your video. I have not seen Shads response video too you because I wanted too come too your video with an open and unbiased mind. Or at least as unbiased as I can be. The first thing I wanna say is did you actually listen too Shad's video, or did you just hear what he said. There is a difference between listening too analyze and hearing just too say "i watched the video and this is my argument," because there are SEVERAL points you make that he, at least in my opinion, flat agreed with or that you have taken out of context for a video that is made on context... Usually talking about context is very important. As a fan of stand up comedy, Context. Is. Everything. So coming in to this video I was looking forward too a hearing a devils advocate side of the conversation. But the problem is watching Shads videos who makes it clear that the context is meant to be a general situation. Or the idea of removing context. We just talk about the weapon. We don't talk about skill, we don't talk about where the combat takes place, we don't talk about time period, or area of the world the weapon was used in. The context is how effective can someone pick up and use the weapon effectively against someone who has just as much knowledge and skill. Now I don't know if you play video games or do tabletop RPGs (d&d), but that was an absolutely trash comparison. That's like someone talking about cars and you bring up motorcycles. Not only are they bad comparisons, but the assumptions you made about them are all massively flawed. Massively flawed. Too the point that the comparison in of itself makes your argument look worse. Its a net negative too trying too prove your point. The reason is that the only time situations like this exist in video games and D&D is because of a preset rule or program that says sword xyz MATHMATICALLY has higher stats than axe abc. While as a human I can go take roids, you cant pick up a guandao and a halbred, hold them up and say "the halbred has a 25 attack and the guandao has a 17 attack. In fact this idea is flat out wrong. Let's take a popular weapon based games. Monster hunter. As a weapon channel I know you have heard of it probably a time or two, and while peoples personal preferences might sway them (charge blade master race) ALL OF THE WEAPONS. All of 14 of them. Are equally viable over the course of the game. Yes they all have mechanical differences in numbers but that is purely based on the hunter level you're at. It is technically more complicated once we start talking movement values and such, but even those could be argued too actually correlate too the real world. After all it makes sense using the small sword and shield would swing faster then a great sword that is taller than the character. I refuse too acknowledge your point of comparing pokemon cards other than its existence. I know this is harsh too say but someone has too be honest and blunt with you. That statement made you look flat out ignorant too someone who understands those IPs, and im guessing your fan base, current and potential future, is going too be built on those people. It was a trash comparison. Period. Maybe I'm doing the same here with my limited knowledge of weapons. Maybe. Id wager I specifically know more about weapons than you specifically know about the pokemon card game. I mean this comparison would be like you talking about a flashlight in a conversation about cars. Again, im sorry this is harsh but someone has too tell you. I might be the only person who feels this way but that specific comparison is the reason why i refuse too look at any of your other videos. If you felt that made for good conversation in talking about a perspective, I wouldn't wanna hear or listen too your perspective on anything. After getting this far im really trying too find something positive too add too this but honestly this entire video made little sense. Its like adding fish sauce on a steak. Im sure someone likes it but in general it is unnecessary. I do hope your channel grows but this... this ain't it my guy. You gotta do better if you're trying too have a proper back and forth conversation on a topic Edit: I waa going too give you props for your bit on armors vs unarmored combat in this edit but even shad debunks that when talking about how ineffective a nunchaku would be in armored combat

But I think it can still be possible for one weapon to better than another in a different context, specially than a fictional one since it is not tested with using by people. Are stone age weapons as good as Bronze age weapons just due to being used in a different context? If they were, why did humans move from them to Copper and then to Bronze? There are objective standards, even if it is usually difficult to determine those.

It's hilarious to me that the instructor has to remind the writer that context is important.

Its just nice hearing someone reply with such an academic, studied response. Your knowledge of not only diverse weapons, but of the cultures they were used in, and being able to compare/contrast, is pretty damned impressive. I like Shad a lot. But you got him cold here, hands down.

I think this is another instance where people have misuderstood Shad's point. Shad's video talks about comparing two weapons of the same purpose, not about comparing two weapons with different purposes. When in the same context, there will be, objectively, a better pick. So if you take a weapon that is used because it is easy to conceal, you don't compare it to a weapon that doesn' t fulfill the purpose of stealth and concealing. You pit two weapons that are used in the context of stealth against each other, and then you use the metrics he proposed. If a weapon fails completely in one or more metrics, but the other weapon doesn't, then the first one certainly is considered a bad weapon in comparison to the second one. He did fail to properly acknowledge the own point he established when talking about Bat'Leths, since he compared it to swords and axes. But if Bat'Leths are used in armored combat, then you'd probably compare it to a warhammer or a bec de corbin. And I don't think Bat'Leths would stand a chance. His point is not even about "how to determine which weapon is better", it is about how to identify when a weapon is BAD for the purpose it was designed for. The same way YOU KNOW a car is bad when it doesn't have any breaks. So comparing a cutlass and a basket hilt broadsword, for instance, doesn't even make sense in the light of what he was talking about. Both cutlasses and basket hilt broadswords are good for what they were designed to do. If you wanted to know if a cutlass was a bad weapon, then you would compare it to another sword designed for the same purpose, not to a basket hilt broadsword. Which is why he compares a stick to nunchuks. They can both be used in the same context. But yeah, he did mess up his point when he started talking about Bat'Leths, since he started comparing it to weapons used in different contexts.

Interesting video. Good points. But it's still fun to compare things. Maybe you can't say that a weapon is objectively bad if it served its purpose well in its own historical context. But you can say it's bad compared to another weapon in a *theoretical* context. For example, in a theoretical battle where both swords and laser guns exist, the sword is a "bad" -- or, perhaps more accurately, "inferior" -- weapon. And I think most comparisons do presuppose a theoretical context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Splendid commentary. So much of general commentary and "analysis", one currently sees, is based upon one or two cherry-picked factors, with others ignored or hand-waved away. See the overuse of the GOAT lable, as well as the unending stream of "Top Ten/Bottom Ten" videos on KZfaq. People want easily digested sound bite "information, to the detriment of true understanding. Keep up the good work.

Who wouldn’t want an ABS sword? Imagine the parry capacity of a anti-lock braking system sword!

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

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

Battleth seems like a crowd control weapon. It could surround a couple ppl and make them back up

You pretty much summed it up. Context is always King.. or queen... I think people like to catogerize or rank up things, mostly to favour their own bias. But even more to get an easier view on things. Easy answers for complex questions. This happens to everyone, until we get past the surface of superficial knowledge on things. On one Hand, it can take some of the magic ot of things, on the other, it gives you much more into Hand to dig deeper into the matter. The thing i agree the most with, is the influence of videogames and movies on these topics. It is, or should be an old hat in my opinion, that these things are not depictions of reality, but somehow they influenced a lot of views and our understanding of things and how things work. The value of pure entertainment should not be the mesurement of accuracy or the claim of all k. owledge. This makes your Videos very valuable to get a better and wider perspective for these topics. So thank you very much.

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

Don’t mention Shad, he’s beneath you

I'm so glad you made this lol I literally stopped halfway through shads video because alot of These responses were bouncing around in my head

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

A bat'leth clearly IS a Stick. (according to Prof.Chad, in his comprehensive analysis of the subject of Sticks)

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

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

I really miss seeing how many dislikes are on videos.

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

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