Clearly the ultimate sword consists of a handle with no blade, but instead a threaded pommel at either end. There would be no opponent that could ever face that sword without being ended...and rightly so...
Wait, technically a gun is a bladeless sword that throws pommels, they are even rotating (as in unscrewing) when they leave the weapon and move towards the opponent.
Back to the whole sci-fi technology not being used deal. Why hasn't anyone just made a Cortosis-weave crossguard on a lightsaber? The one in force awakens looks like a quick way to stab yourself with your own weapon.
I think reach is the most underestimated feature in any weapon, even through it gives you an enormous advantage in combat... After all that's the reason of why the rapier is designed as it is... xD
@@fredstead5652 reach is incredibly important. As someone who is quite short I can't tell you how much just the difference in arm length impacts a fight because quite simply an opponent can hit you while you can't hit them. And the length of a sword would make a much bigger difference than the length of an arm.
runkurgan lightsabers have no hand protection. Until we see how this lightsaber crossguard performs in real fight, this leaves the user's hand vulnerable.
runkurgan Lols! so would a regular lightsaber win, or one with a crossguard? what about two handed lightsabers vs one handed, or darth mole's double lightsaber, or a regular sword that a lightsaber can't cut through, made out of those non cannon materials in the star wars extended universe and, and. . . 0.o I better stop before I give myself an aneurysm
I am Shad Dear Sir, you've just made a bunch of katana-freaks mad as hell :) Having said that you've said VERY IMPORTANT thing, so it's the context that matters. Weapons were made to get through the armor currently used. Katana was quite good in Japan but would not be of much use in Europe. Thumbs up obviously :) Cheers Kuba
How about hand protection? Reach? Usefulness when parrying other swords? At the end of the day, being able to stab deeper under ideal, laboratory circumstances is much less useful than being able to inflict wounds on an opponent while remaining unscathed.
+Noah Weisbrod Kriegmesser, it's basically the perfect sword. Great center of balance, great handling, great cutting, alright thrusting and decent recovery from the swing, as well as having a great handguard/interchangable, three prongs ya know?
But it's a knife. :P In all seriousness, I would agree that the kriegmesser is one of the best all-purpose swords, but versatility doesn't necessarily make it the best choice for any one situation.
Noah Weisbrod It makes it the best choice for every situation. That's why versatility is often the best, like a jack of all trades and master of some. Sure it won't beat the rapier in a thrust, but it has so much more going for it.
Viability vs armor, short-term/long-term durability, and maybe even sword hardness/edge-holding are other potential aspects. Another important point to consider is that not only would the swords have to be rated in the 3 (very generalized) categories, as well as any of the other categories determined to be essential for a sword, but these categories themselves kind of need to be ranked. It's entirely possible that thrusts are more effective at killing than cuts, or that certain kinds of cuts are more useful than others. The contexts of armored vs unarmored, duel vs battlefield, open vs enclosed spaces, and 1v1 or asymmetrical all change the relative importance of the requirements so greatly that the best sword, while not being truly impossible to find, might be practically so.
The best sword at hacking is an axe. The best sword at thrusting is a spear. Why is there no bashing category? I don't want a perfect sword that can't stand up to me using it to just bash stuff. What about the fact that the point always beats the edge? What weight should you give to the thrust category over the others?
@@TheCompleteMentalNow you see why the first guy's argument falls flat lol. And this video could have been summed up as "the english longsword, it was designed to be dominant to other swords on a battlefield." No one cares what is most effective against unarmoured targets or from horseback or when dueling, they want the #1 scariest sword to see on a battlefield and everyone knows it was a knight in armour with the big boy in his hands.
But then you have to keep your humanity up, so only better in a physical test. Also, there is the chaos zweihander which, in my experience, beats the furysword every time.
The sword to which you are referring that performs consistently well in all three categories you've outlined (what I call a "default" sword because it's not the best in any one category, but isn't the worst in any category) would be a leaf shaped blade. The dimensions are: 40 inches overall. Ten inch handle. Thirty inch blade. The base of the blade should be no more than two inches. The maximum of the convex should be no more than three inches, and the maximum of the convex should be at twenty inches up the blade, after which it tapers to the point. There should be a gentle fuller, and the guard should be oval shaped like an elongated tsuba with an upward curve on both sides. The pommel should be slightly ovular as well to facilitate emergency gripping, but not so narrow the lower hand can slip. The tang should be almost nearly full, but slightly encased on all sides by a soft wood and no more than two holes to secure the handle. A textured grip with a braiding of cloth should also be on the handle to reduce slippage due to sweat. The guard and pommel should be of bronze or brass. Ideally there would be a fair amount of flex similar to a well forged broadsword, not as rigid as a katana that can chip or deform, nor as flexible as a rapier as too much flex negates a deep cut.
Yeah, is approach makes sense, but because of the nature of metric spaces there is no best swords and you can prove it given the following assumptions: -There is at least one parameter of the sword you can chose arbitrarily (for example the length) -The scoring metric is continuous (that means a small change on the sword doesn't change the score by much, or if you drew a chart of score and any given parameter there would be no jumps) The parameter space is open (because you could choose one from all the [natural, whole, rational, real...] numbers), so the set of all the scores must be open, too. Thus there is no best sword, because no matter what sword you pick, there will be a better one. If you didn't get it (don't blame you, it's university maths), try to read a bit about open/closed sets (in metric spaces) and about continuity/continuous functions (in topological spaces)
Skallagrim does a pretty good approach towards it, and almost reaches the same conclusion although his opinion did rest on the longsword I'm fairly sure, but getting a second opinion was worth it
@@JK03011997 But that's math, not sword fighting. The best sword imo is one that has the most versatility while still being effective regardless of all the circumstances the other swords might be catered for, and that's obviously the Longsword. Every other sword needs to be put into context way more than the Longsword does, it simply performs well in most everything and has the unique ability to also be used as a blunt weapon. That's not even counting the fact that Longswords have perhaps the most variety out of any sword that I've ever seen which simply adds to this. It's going to do virtually everything rather well and some other things unique to itself that it excelled at.
I actually think the way the point is at the back, at the spine of the sword, the shape of it's Arc actually makes a Katana's thrust very powerful and sturdy
surely hand protection is an important factor. Crossgaurds, basket hilts etc.. because I would like my sword hand to be protected and feel it is an important aspect of sword evolution. Also we must think of the sword uses in context, yes some swords were designed to be used with a shield and some were not, completely changing their designs and features. The tests here however seem not to take this into account but rather only focus on the independent swords performance which will favor swords designed to be used independently.
It's the main problem I see with the katana. Being a shorter sword than longswords, blade contact is almost inevitable, when you pair that with a poor guard, there's trouble.
I like your scientific approach, and I think this is worth some evaluation. There are a number of things to think about how to set it up, though: For a start lets just stay in your system of performance in cut (C), hack(H) and thrust(T) and suppose we could measure representative values here. How do you combine them? Would you just add them up to get an overall rating R = C+H+T ? That would imply, that you would in a fight hit with all three types of attacks at the same probability and the damage would add up linearly. Or would you treat it like the dimensions of a vector and say R^2=C^2+H^2+T^2 ? That would imply that in an actual fight, you would not necessarily perform any of exactly these attacks, but perhaps something in between a hack and a cut, and the damage done behaves as a combination of the extremes. Or, perhaps, one could say that if one type of attack is obviously the one favored by this sword, then we would mostly use this type of attack, and we should count that higher that the others. Then we could calculate it like electrical resistors in parallel: 1/R = 1/C + 1/H +1/T . (This last method would by my preference/best suggestion.) But now to some general problems with the system. You already mentioned, that there are more parameters. So lets list some: -maneuverability: weight and point of balance* -One-handed/Two-Handed -Reach -Specialization against type of target (unarmored/padding/leather/paper/steel/mail) .... and there will surely be more.... [*Suggestion: To numerically measure this, one could measure the rotational inertia of the sword at the point of the grip.] So how could we make a system that works. Well your suggestion is good for a "normalized damage output per hit", so we can build on that. I think the target material can be integrated, as you implied, by a clever measurement of the C/H/T parameters. Reach and maneuverability do not really come into that, but they are undouptedly important. So speaking in video game terms, the "normalized damage" (lets keep calling it R) would be the damage rating, and we could introduce an agility rating (lets call it A) to complement that. So while one type of attack is enough for us, we definitely need both reach (L) and maneuverability (M). So how do we combine those? I suggest A^2 = L^2+M^2 . I would generally consider one handed and two handed swords seperately, because one handed weapons were usually wielded with something in the off-hand, and that is kinda important ;) So now we have a damage rating R and an agility rating A that tells us, how likely i will hit with the sword. We can treat this as a weighed probability and give an overall sword-rating of: O=R*A = sqrt(L^2+M^2)*(1/C+1/H+1/T)^(-1) With O: Overall sword rating R: Normalized hit damage rating A: Maneuverability/Agility rating L: Bladelength M: Moment of inertia measured at grip C: Cutting damage rating H: Hack damage rating T: Thrusting damage rating I propose this as a rating of the swords OFFENSIVE capabilities. What do you guys think of this model?
+Robin Mate, this is bloody amazing. Well done. I've been mulling over a possible model for sword evaluation for a while now and you have some truly awesome suggestions. I particularly loved your suggestion about counting the sword's favored attack method higher than the others. I'm actually intending to build a sword cutting rig to do these tests in the future but it's a long term goal. My hope is give each individual sword a rating out of a hundred. I would break down the sword into its different qualities and set a minimum and max value for each quality which represents 0 and 100. The maximum value would be determined by the sword test themselves. Whatever result happens to be the best becomes 100. zero will always be zero as to reach or cutting depth. Every result becoming a percentage in between. This means there will always be a sword holding the 100 score for a specific sword quality. If a sword test results in getting a better score then the sword currently holding the max, it will replace the place holder and each rating would be updated accordingly. I plan to do this by recording all the results on a working spreadsheet programmed to update all the percentage scores if say, a newly tested sword performed better in the cut then all others. This would update what score represents the 100 value and each percentage would update accordingly. Once I’ve measured each value I would try and combine them to make an average overall. The problem I run into here is in determining the value of each specific sword quality as compared to another. A score of 83 in reach doesn’t necessarily equate to the same value as a score of 83 in cutting and therefore making an average out of them without adjusting the value wouldn’t work. This value adjustment would have to be based in the most educated decision regarding which offers more advantage over another but in the end will be arbitrary. I’m thinking to try and make an interactive website where people can adjust the value of a sword quality as opposed to another and have the spread sheet calculate accordingly. Of course there’s other problems, such as hoe to make a score out of a hundred for hand protection. Yes the amount of coverage would come into play but then how to factor in for the specific type of guard protects from different angles of attack. So yes, I’ve been casually thinking about this for a while and any help will be appreciated. I’ll also be doing a video about this, proposing this ratting method and asking for feedback and thoughts, eventually.
There is a big problem with the scores and that is that the "normalized hit damage rating" is depended on the target. Will you measure against an unarmoured target or one wearing mail or full plate? If you want to asses the best sword for every possible situation, then I think the far more important value is not which sword is the best, but which is "good enough" so that you survive. e.g. a katana is probably not good enough against someone wearing plate amour, and maybe best against unarmoured opponents. a longsword is good enough against plate amour AND good enough against unarmoured opponents. If you don't know the situation in which you need the sword, the second option would then be the best. I guess you could extend the formula to include cutting without armour, cutting against mail, cutting against plate. And "not good enough" would automatically score zero in a category instead of just a lower number.
Hi Shad, somehow I only read your reply now. Its nice to see you actually read through such a long comment ;-) I like your normalization Idea. But rather that normalizing it to the best performance (which will likely be some specialized sword that no one can really refer to), I suggest taking a really common weapon as a reference, so your results are easily reproducible. Also, you save yourself the trouble of recalculating everything once a new record comes in (And communicating this change to everyone who wants to use your system). "This cuts 1.7 times as good as a regular arming sword" also is a lot more intuitively understood than "This has a cutting power of 83% compared to this one special sword I found to be the best cutting sword." Another Idea that I kinda read out of your suggestion (alternative to my normalization idea suggested above) would be to give an overall rating for the sword in combination with a fighting style. This way, you don't have "The best sword" in general, but "The best Weapon for German Fencing" or "The best weapon for Escrima" and so on. So I study engineering. We learn to make a linear model for everything in a first approach. So here is a very simple vector-model: Step one: Make a weapon rating for all the parameters. Normalize these to something that has all properties near average (important because we linearize) and is very common (i.e. reproducible). I guess you will know better than me which sword to reference. An arming sword perhaps. Make a vector out of these properties. (Cutting, slashing, reach, defence, balance, hand protection...) So our arming sword will be (1,1,1,1,...1), but a longsword might then have a 1,5 in reach and a 1,2 in slashing and so on. Step two: Make a vector of weights to describe the fighting style. Now we decide how important a parameter is for the style in which I use the weapon. We rate this on an arbitrary scale (be in percent) and then normalize the whole vector to one (sum over all vector elements = 1), so that our overall weapon rating will be normalized to the arming sword again. Finally, multiply both vectors with a normal vector product (c = a1b1+a2b2+...) to arrive at a weapon rating for a specific style. As you can see, I really like making up systems like these ;-) If you want to discuss more abut it you can write me a message (does that work on youtube? I think but im not sure. Ill look at the notifications more regularly now anyways). Regards, RObin
Robin. I like you comment but I think your missing the point a little. if you think of a sword simple as cuting tool then you can paer down the your testing facters. the best sword has little to do with how effective it would be in combat . it simple how effective the sword is as a cutting , trusting and chuping tool. aka all facters found in the sword its self. i think your idea adding things like the mass or if the sword was 1 or 2 handed. i was use this testing facters f force on target D deth if intre then avrange the numders to set a bar and then pick the most bar in all 3 facters
How to best sword in 5 steps: Step 1: build a robot (something like terminator) Step 2: give him a sword Step 3: make army - people in varied armors Step 4: measure efficiency - how man people will it kill in set time or how much time does it take to kill set amount of people (Step 4.5: test the pommel) Step 5: pick the winner.
To find the ideal sword I think these things would need to be tested, 1. Cutting 2. Thrusting 3. Chopping 4. Ease of use, how does it handle, weight, etc 5. Durability, edge and overall durability 6. Good for use from horseback? These are what I've come up with but tbh I think there would still be a strong case to be made for having speacialized swords. For example, in a world with plate armor you'd probably want the best thrusting sword you can have so you pick the Estoc because it's both an excellent thruster and it's great from horseback.
The perfect sword is the one you have when you need it. This goes for any tool outside of a perfect situation (a weapon being a form of tool, with a very specific purpose). I do really like your idea of a rating system though. I think durability and edge keeping are important factors to rate as well.
The katana is a great cavalry weapon, and has most likely been used in such a way multiple times. Best sword? Depends on context obviously, who are you fighting? what are they wearing? What weapon and skillset do they possess? If I did not know of these things I would personally use something like a german greatknife (grosse messer).
+Level 58 Death Knight Most backup weapons used by the cavalry are, just look at the pick weapons used by the medieval knights and all the different kind of warhammers. And no I dont, it was merely speculation and opinion.
+Hachi Roku tachi is more or less a katana mounted differently, they are both generally the same size. katana faces up, tachi faces down. the katana rests in a saya and the tachi has two rings that attach to a belt
Ooh, I love it when pure math comes into the play. :) What you've done in this video is you've represented each sword as a vector in a three-dimensional space (the dimensions being thrust, cut and chop), and then defined the space's norm - basically, a way to reduce the coordinates of a vector to one number (with a few additional rules which I'm not going to get into). Your norm in this case is the sum of the vector's coordinates, which is a mere one way of defining a norm in this space (the so-called "first norm"). The two other popular choices are: to pick the maximum value (the "infinite norm"), and to take the square root of the sum of the squares (the "second norm"). These are just three out of infinitely many ways to define a norm in this space. So even if by some ultra-scientific way you get true values for each sword, there's still the question of how to process the data. Cheers for making a nice video!
Here's another one: resistance to bending and breaking. If you fight in armour with swords, you have to half-sword. This often involves using your sword as a crowbar to lever your opponent onto the ground. Swords have to be pretty tough to survive this, otherwise they will bend or break.
If you were only allowed to choose one sword to use in 20 duels against other swordsmen, which would you choose? Your opponents' swords will be various designs. Some opponents may dual wield. Neither you nor your opponents have armor or shields. The duels are to kill/disable. You will have plenty of time to recover between duels. You and your opponents have equal skill and physical attributes.Does the answer change if your opponents are not limited to swords, but may be using any meelee weapon?What if the duels are first blood instead of kill/disable?What if you and your opponents wore gambesons?What if you and your opponents wore mail?What if you and your opponents wore plate?
If you can only chose one sword (no sword and daga or two swords or anything), it would probably be a two handed sword for all cases. The main advantage of a one handed sword is that it frees one hand so you can carry a shield/dagger/another sword/something, so if it is only one sword, is probably going to be two handed. I would go for a long sword, because great swords movements are very telegraphed, and I personally prefer them over hand and half swords and katanas. If your opponent wears armor, the longsword will be more focused on thrusting (as cuts will be pretty much useless). I wouldnt change my option if the opponent goes for other melee weapons. Just my thoughts. Yours?
Handling and balance are good ones, also durability(against armor) I think it would be between a Roman made Gladius, British made Longsword or Japanese made Katana. It's important where they're made because then the balance will be right, production swords are rarely balanced right.
Hello, I am a math major and I am very good at thinking outside the box. I have given it some thought, and I might have some ideas that can help you along. 1. use ballistic gel for The Cutting substance. specifically a stack of relatively thin Wafers of ballistic gel, where the top ones are softer in the bottom ones are firmer. 2. track the blade with lazers as it goes down. get a series of laser sensors say that when the blade passes between them, the device that's measuring everything will know where it is. 3. track force output over time. paired with the position information at certain points in time from the laser array, this will tell you how much force it took the sword to cut through each wafer of ballistic gel. 4. only worry about the blade stuff for now. everything else can be developed later. 5. develop this further and name it "Shad blade effectiveness scale" also: track points on a scale, each wafer is worth different amounts of points, depending on how difficult it is to cut through, and each blade gets points based on how many of the layers it is able to cut through,/ number determined by how much force is required for that blade to cut through it.
In terms of fantasy, if you had some kind of transforming sword made of malleable magical steel or something, that would probably be the ultimate sword because you could change it on the fly to become the perfect tool for any given job.
+Marcus Grunnesjö What about recovery, technique of its regarded school and might I add, weight. Unless you meant agility as an umbrella term for all things manuerable. But all in all, I think the Kriegsmesser wins.
Another very important factor : hand and forearm protection. Sorry, katana fanboys, but on that point european renaissance swords simply drive over the katana. Now, I'd say that a late medieval or renaissance "cut & thrust" european sword would be the best overall sword. First, hand protection becomes excellent. Weight is well balanced, allowing for fast attacks. Cutting is good, thrusting is very good, and a nice length of blade. Yes about cutting, not that important IMO. You don't need much cutting power to severely harm unarmored enemies, and you don't cut at metal armor anyway.
***** Yeah the lack of hand protection on the katana is a big flaw. I too think the cut and thrust sword (sidesword) would really be a contender in this monolithic competition ^_^
Depends on where you are of course, if youre having a one on one fight in a field itll still be pretty effective :P Also, id rather half sword a greatsword than fight somebody off with a knife.
My gut usually tells me that the “best” sword is probably some kind of cut and thrust sword. My rationale is that even if it’s not as good at cutting as the best cutting sword, not as good at thrusting as the best thrusting sword, and so on and so forth, it should be able to perform each of those tasks well enough to get the job done, thus allowing you to accomplish all of the same things as the more specialized swords but with more available options at any given time.
A perfect sword means you could beat any other sword type with it. You can beat any swordsman if you have a gun That means the ultimate sword is a gun.
The best sword is kind of like the best car: It depends very much on what you need it for. Do you want to win a race, sit in it hours upon hours or even days on the interstate, do you need to carry all your material to the construction site or your wife and all your five children at a time? And how much are you able and willing to pay? Do you live in an ordinary neigbourhood or is the nearest paved street 15 miles away? Do you see it as a mere mean of transport or as something that should be enjoyable to use as well? Are you OK with manual transmission or do you need the other hand for the shield? Does the other party in your accident wear armour, and if yes, what kind? Will you mostly be sitting on a horse while driving?
GOD FUCKING DAMMIT SHAD,WHY COULDNT YOU JAVE MADE THIS VIDEO WHEN MY HISTORY CLASS WAS HAVING DEBATES ON SWORDS,I COULD HAVE DESTROYED THOSE STUPID KATANA FANATICS
I actually totally agree with you on this video, normally I take on a little of what is said and use that in adjusting my opinion, but every point you bring up in this video makes sense to me.
My favorite sword is Bastard sword and therefore I consider it the best sword. But if someone likes Katana and if he knows what Katana is, I won't argue with him. (I personally don't class Katana as a sword)
Daniel Taylor Ah but did Sir Easton get permission to use this word from the almighty wordsmithing man. I went on a mighty quest to find this man and he gave me permission, so I'm safe. I just hope Matt has done the same for the wrath of the wordsmithing man is beyond comprehension, he has curses ready to insult you with that ear has never heard and tale is that when you do hear these mythical profanities your head would EXPLODE. And yeah I'm sure I got a little inspiration from The Incredibles ^_^
Daniel Taylor "Context" should be any scholar's favourite word. Matt Easton has a background in archaeology, as do I. And "context" is perhaps _the_ most important word in archaeology. After all, an archaeological artefact only has value insofar as it can tell us something about the past, and so the context of the find is extremely important. To historians, context is no less important. I really don't know why people have gotten so hung up on Matt's use of the word. I never reacted to it myself, and have by no means found him to use it excessively.
Gilmaris I agree with you everything you said about Matt Easton. I was just joking with Shad, you might say trying to be witty. I however forgot to arm myself and entered battle unarmed:)
As an engineer, who has made and used many well-designed estimation formulae, I’d say the basic concept is sound but have a few observations. 1. The “total effectiveness terms” eff_hack, eff_slash, eff_thrust, plus whatever other factors you want to add into the analysis should themselves be functions of several variables-at least one variable based on the context of the fight (level of armor, distance of initial engagement, whether a duel or a melee), and another based on the skills/preferences of the wielder. This allows you to re-run the simulation under a variety of contexts to establish which is the most versatile overall or simply optimize it for one particular matchup you are anticipating/dreading. And there is pretty much no context where hacking, slashing, and thrusting will all be equally useful techniques, so having all terms scaled equally doesn’t really make sense. The basic formula you need is then a simple linear equation: eff_net = eff_s + eff_t + eff_h +... where eff_i = bwe_i*us_i*cu_i and where bwe_i = the base weapon effectiveness score in dimension i us_i = user skill factor in modelling how effective the user is at getting the most out of dimension i and cu = the contextual utility factor, modelling how that dimension is in the given context. You could of course go progressively more detailed but part of the art of modelling is knowing how deep to go to get an estimation that captures all the dimension that will have a major effect on your answer while ignoring those that don’t and combing as much of the stuff that’s left into black box catch-all fudge variables that give a general impression of what they do without killing your computer. 2. Cut “cut”, and use the less ambiguous “slice” or “slash” instead. Technical terms exist to reduce ambiguity, so it is always best to use terms that have only one interpretation. “Cut” in the layman’s register can mean either a chop or a slice, so using the term can lead to unnecessary confusion. 3. my thoughts on the most important other variables to account for are overall defensive ability (fudging together parrying, guard, and line-of-attack denial), reach (a simple variable, but one of the few where the context factor might be negative-reach becomes a liability in close quarters), and ease of use (fudging together maneuverability in the hand, recovery, how forgiving it is when the user has poor edge alignment, comfort of wearing, exhaustion in holding up for extended periods of combat).
Look at the Ulfbert swords used by the vikings, they were made of a significantly better steel that what the Japanese used in the katanas. The steel was a crucible steel with all of the impurities removed, drawn out and folded several times. There was a fuller in the blade giving further strength without making the entire blade brittle. It was balanced for single hand use with a large weighted pommel to give it more control and "feel light" in the hand. The edges were hardened to hold a razor edge, the tip had a nice point just as hard and sharp, but the center where the fuller runs the metal is not hardened to the same extent as the edges, granting some flexibility and protecting the blade from fracture. I am only speaking of one particular style of sword, not all viking blades were remotely capable of standing up to the Ulfbert blades. Cheers
Material: ballistic gel. How: with a machine that allows you to simulate controlled thrusts and cuts. Cuts will need to be calibrated on the 'chopping point', the one measured making the sword bounce on a wood block, if i remember correctly. How to measure: we will have to get swords with the same weight but different shapes but coherent ratios, and having them dropped on the ballistic gel to measure the thrusting power, and having them fall in an arc to measure the cutting power. Ballistic gel: cube of 10xcm, assigning 1 point for every mm of cut/penetration. ...theoretically all this should work.
another important point about a blade is how it is tempered. its not as important for thicker, broader cutting blades but a lot of modern reproductions of swords designed for thrusting or even just meant to be able to thrust well enough to be effective(ex. some longswords , rapiers, and estoks) have blades that are just way too flexible to be able to be effective. of course you don't want it so hard that its likely to shatter but you don't want it so flexible that it just bends under the force of your thrust rather than concentrating it into the target. in fact, a blacksmith's greatest point of pride used to be their ability to find that perfect amount of flexibility - flexible enough to not break, but stiff enough to actually penetrate the target.
I say the Longsword is generally the best sword. Mainly for the utility that it has, it clearly is outperformed in many aspects such as with the Katana that excells at Cleaving and chopping. Clearly outperformed by an Estoc when it comes to thrusting/piercing, but the Longsword generally can be held in one hand, both sides are sharp, it can be used two-handed, it weighs around 1kg, have a good guard, and if need be can be used for blunt attacks. So where it ain't the best in particular aspects, the utility of it wins in my eyes, even though I love Katanas, I strongly disagree to them being the best swords.
The katana is either a dedicated cutter, or a cut and thrust sword, depending on the design. A katana with a shallow curve will have excellent penetration in the thrust, but if we take reach into consideration, the longsword is certainly better - and if we take balance into consideration, dedicated thrusters are definitely better. I see many people (in this comment section, as well) assume that the disc guard - the tsuba - is inferior because it is so small. Well, it certainly gives inferior protection to basket hilts, and to European swords sporting rings on both sides in addition to cross guard. But as far as protection is concerned, it is superior to swords with cross guards alone. Yes, the cross guard protrudes further - but not out of need for protection. Thumb rings, for example, protrude no further than the tsuba does. Nor does the Messer's Nagel. The tsuba is as big as it needs to be to provide ample protection - after all, if it wasn't big enough, there is no reason whatsoever why the Japanese wouldn't have simply made it bigger. Ditto with the clamshell guards of smallswords, which are no bigger than Japanese tsuba.
Aye, but that's not really a unique thing about the katana, though--very rarely were swords of *any* sort a weapon of first resort in warfare. Pikemen in Europe carried swords as sidearms; English archers in the HYW often carried a sword (and sometimes also a buckler) to use if the enemy weathered their arrows and came upon them. It's generally my opinion that even the best swords will falter in the hands of one not well versed in their use. The degree of said faltering may be greater or lesser depending on how forgiving the design *is*, though.
not only we need to test different attacks (cut, thrust, hack), but also: - different materials (unarmored, gambeson, mail, full plate...); - defense properties (handguard, weight distribution, handling...); - how long does it take to learn how to get the best from your sword? in both offense and defense; - should one-handed and two-handed swords go in different categories or not? two handed swords will, on average, be better than one-handed swords in all types of attacks, but one-handed sword provides you with an option to use a shield. but what if you're equipped in a full plate armor? of course, no matter what set of properties you concider and test, and how you combine the scores, there will always be a sword, or a few swords, that get on top. but depending on the properties you choose and rules of testing and final scoring, different ones will get on top it is kinda the same as trying to determine the best car. it totally depends on the rules of testing, and it's pretty difficult, if not impossible, to determine which set of rules you should choose
Thoughts... Are we assuming this is the best sword *for unarmored fighting* or simply, the ultimate sword? If the latter, in addition to a consistent flesh substitute as you said, we'd need to run the test against various armors: Gambeson, mail, and plate, at the least. Asides from poking, chopping, and slashing, would we want to measure concussive force as well? Both of the above have me thinking that the test so far greatly favors large swords. A greatsword is going to massively outdamage other swords in most areas. In a controlled test, a zweihander will probably inflict more trauma in piercing than a rapier, simply because it's so big. But is a humongous claymore really the best stabbing sword? It seems there needs to be scores assigned for characteristics other than simply damage, like speed, wieldability, tip control, parrying usefulness, whatever. We'd need some part of the algorithm to describe: 1.) How easy is it to actually hit a target quickly and accurately with the sword? And 2.) How useful is the sword in warding off blows? Finally: What about portability? In the world of modern personal defense, you don't necessarily carry around the largest pistol that you can effectively use. Is this relevant to the 'ultimate sword'?
you could also distinguish the cutting types by using the method with which they hit or sever: percussion cut (hack) or friction cut (cut). Not technically accurate of course, but to those who don't know the difference it can be used to describe the motion pretty well
I would even add qualities like hand comfort, guard coverage, blade durability, edge durability, and length to the equations because those and other factors can all effect a sword in practical use.
Things you're missing: ability to withstand impact forces (Chipping, breaking, bending), ability to withstand constant force/pressure against the blade (tensile strength, perhaps), ability to pierce through harder materials (leather, metal, etc), ability to slice or tear flesh after penetration (via slashing or piercing), ability to slash/hack through harder materials, edge retention, overall weight/mass, and piercing/slashing ability per weight/mass (Cm of penetration per Kg). (Note: All the talk of penetration, piercing, impact forces, etc are not intended to constitute a pun.)
Definitely a good place to start. Basically comes down to a really good compromise cut and thrust blade. But then things like specific shape and hand protection come into play. A saber can be excellent at thrusting and cutting, but doesn't have good dimensions for dealing with armor. A later medieval arming sword can also be a good cut and thrust combination, and would be shaped for fighting armor, but lacks hand protection and probably isn't quite as good at cutting. So imo, a type 15-17ish blade with a complex guard for hand protection is best unless you can guarantee unarmored opponents.
I'd suggest hand protection, but then again, swords would be used with shields/bucklers/armour so I'm unsure as to whether that's an actual point. Great video as usual, mate.
I do realize this is old video but still few things to consider: - Do we only care for these 3 aspect you speak in video? - How easy would it be to learn to use that certain sword? - What is reach/size/weight/material and so on in that weapon? - Would it be effective against other opponent? - How about blocking, would this ultimate sword be able to do that allso? - What would other opponent / target have, knight in full plate top of horse or maybe just extremely fast and angry tiger? - Do we think only historical swords or pretty much any object, like chainsaw?
Length or reach are also very important. You'd have to count the actual length for thrusting but for cutting you'd have to define if you want to use the part where it starts to be effective or where it cuts best. Also hand protection and a weapon you'd be likely to pair it with like sword and buckler or rapier and dagger.
The perfect anything is something that is built for your specific context. If your particular training relies on more thrust than cuts or hacks a sword primarily for thrusting is your best pick and so on and so forth
I think a Scottish broadsword might have a reasonable rating like that. Because there's less taper along its length than other blade designs it carries the weight forward for a better chop, the width of the blade would keep it a reasonable slicer, and it still has a reasonable point for the thrust. Giving good hand protection with a basket hilt is good too.
The perfect sword is the one that fits you. After you get past the blade single sided or double sided, metal material, spring steel, stainless, Damascus, etc. Handle single, double. You come to the guard now thats the important part, it is a flexible range weapon which means sometimes you might be in close range where you need to use your hands and sometimes you might be in long range where you need to close the gap and touch swords, and sometimes you might actually be in the flexible range where you're going to need to use sword techniques. So that's the quwingkedink. In the end you end up using what you have and making it fit.
I would also include values for reach and defense, because a rapier can reach much further than an arming sword, but a broadsword has a better guard than the rapier does. This is important because a 19th century British military sabre would have roughly the same numbers for cuts, chops, and thrusts as a Medieval arming sword, but the sabre is better defensively because of the more complex guard. The reach advantage speaks for itself.
So... factors that'd need to be tested for would be; -Hacking -Cutting -Thrusting -Handling -Reach -DESIGN Durability (I stress the design as while any weapon could technically be made of any material, certain shapes - such as the triangle - are simply more durable than others. This aspect could potentially be very expensive to test as it'd require making exact replicas of each weapon in the same material and hitting said replicas until they break at various angles.) -Versatility (Is it a sword + some other benefit like the hook sword, or is it specifically a sword? Is it a two-handed weapon or can you wield something else or use a shield with it? Can you make moulinets with it without getting it stuck in the floor?) -Weight and Balance (kind of overlaps with handling but well...) -Carry-ability (Overlaps with weight, balance and reach somewhat, but can you carry this weapon while sheathed, can you unsheathe it conveniently, etc?) -Self-harm Potential (How easily could you hurt yourself UNINTENTIONALLY with it? Obviously this would impact the final score negatively) -Contextual Value (Negligible in the actual quality of the weapon, but a broke warrior is a hungry warrior and thus not in ideal fighting shape, so it's worth considering how much said weapon costs or - rather - cost at the time of its peak usage.) Those would all need to be factored in to find the ULTIMATE sword.
I like this. this would be a great Mythbusters episode. To me, since a sword is designed for battle, the ultimate and best sword would be the type that a master in it would be able to defeat almost any other master most if not all of the time, and also be one that fairly enhanced the likelihood of victory in a novice as well. Reach would also be another factor to consider. unless it could simply be designed to excell in all your criteria. Given their historical popularity, I would think the arming/longsword or katana, or scimitar or rapier to be the top contenders.
the side sword, one on the longer side, something like a schoavonna, which has a better hilt than most broadswords for tip control and thrusting, but it has better hand protection than a Claymore, and almost as much blade reach as a longsword. It's catshead pommel coupled with a basket more open at the bottom means two hands CAN be used, though not ideally, but fighting with a dagger or buckler it would likely be more effective than a long sword anyways.
Personally, I think the military/war rapier (oppose to the civilian rapier) would have the overall best score. Nimble yet sturdy. Very long for a single-handed sword. Can be paired with bucklers, parrying daggers and such. Decent cut. Superb thrust. Exceptional hand protection. Well-balanced and excels in both offense and defense.
In terms of the individual variable pertaining to the wielder of the swords in question, you could try to put together a panel of seasoned swordsmen and have each one go through the motions and then aggregate the individual scores to come to some sort of consensus score. It is flawed, but there's not way to do it that isn't flawed or skewed in some way.
I think, the most important point is how a sword fits to the user. For example - someone sold a one handet sword because he didn't liked it and he said he can't handle it in the way he wants. So he made me a accepteble price and i really love it in combination with my buckler. So the perfekt sword can't be found by any kind of test - it depends a lot on how the weapon feels in the owners hands.
You would also have to throw in material, and the quality of the blade sharpness. This question would also come down to the training of the hypothetical warrior using the weapon. It’s fair to say that someone who uses a weapon for enough time, they will find out how to use that weapon in any of your three main areas. But I would love to see a test manufactured that could measure a sword in those categories. I would love to have an actual conversation about this, I feel like it would be an endless pit of debate😂
You should also take into account the following: range, effectiveness against light armor (leather, cloth), effectiveness against heavy armor (mail, plate), effectiveness against another sword, effectiveness against a blunt weapon, effectiveness against polearms, defensive usability. There's too much to take into consideration to make a sound call.
So what we are looking for is the optimal sword, and it would also be the most versatile sword and the best of the versatile ones. Not too heavy, not too light, not too long, not too short, great handling, good at cutting, stabbing and chopping. It works fine in tighter spaces, but is long enough to be used against the longer swords. It's defensive capabilities are also very good. Hmm... The lightsaber wins in all of these I think if you put on a turning wheel to regulate it's length xD Maybe if someone invents a box cutter version of a sword?
Answer: light saber. Instead of single or double edge it's Omni edge. The technique to use such a thing vs the technique used for single and double is the same as comparing the technique to use a staff or short staff vs a single or double edge of the same length. It's lightweight and would seemingly weigh only as much as its hilt. The negative side of having less weight (mostly not enough force generated in a swing to give enough psi on contact) is averted by its (unless you look other than the original trilogy) ability to cut through anything except another light saber. The cutting through anything, because it's a fucking laser sword, means that it scores 100 in all categories. So it's 300.
I first want to say I found this a very good and fair video on both clarifying that there is likely no perfect sword, just as there is no perfect melee weapon period. (or any weapon actually, even if Ranged weapons trumped Melee the majority of the time, they are often shown to be disadvantaged at least in any engagements that start out close from the onset.) Every weapon is designed and often refined over time to be optimised based on great variety of factors. (Some of them are even non-combat related such as material availability, the Inca Macuahuitl for example.) I agree with other comments here that when rating the combat effectiveness of a weapon you would need to consider the environment and more specifically the targets you intend to utilise them against. You could even consider factoring in weapon longevity to any rating as I am sure many weapons designed to operate at a peak efficiency in combat may not endure the stresses that other simpler tools might. I think that you could even offer an argument that the marriage of weapon to wielder is perhaps the most important factor, the weapons that would suit people of certain builds and musculature would likely not be as ell suited to those of different dimensions.
Great topic. I believe a 4th measurable quality could be added: Agility/ Speed in accomplishing the 3 other actions. Your Rig (machine) could be designed so that it uses inertia, rather than a set speed to do the other 3 actions. Therefore a Hack may take longer on a slightly heavier sword so it's Speed (time to complete the hack) would make it score slightly poorer for that quality because of the reduced acceleration, but the heavier blade would score higher for the hack quality because it would hack deeper. I have further thoughts on this but my post is already too long.
I have to say that I have liked the katana for a long time, since I was a kid. For me it did everything I wanted, the slicing was smooth and natural, it can chop (I hate to chop with it but it does chop) and it stabs better than people think(not through armor). I also love the fact that it could be two handed or single handed depending on what you are doing. my only problem is the guard (I like the look but I prefer a cross guard for fighting) did not protect the hand enough. however what really make the katana so cool is the process used to make it since the iron in japan was substandard.
If you were to take a Rapier and redesign it to remove most of one of the blades, leaving just enough to ensure it's sharp tip, then tempered the non bladed side to be quite resilient, (blades are made strong, yet brittle when backs are made lest sturdy to absorb shock) and widen the blade for durability, while reducing the blade's angle, I think you could manage a sword that could be a good contender for each of your three categories. However, the issue is that each sword of the past was made for one reason in mind. Such as, certain barbaric tribes had swords that were heavier and less sharp that was made more for piercing and the smashing of bones. The Rapier was made for one to one duels. The average Knight Sword was made to defend in the army against attackers. etc. So the idea of making the "Ultimate" sword was not as we think of it now, but of "Build the best sword that will serve this need" I am reminded of the Sword Shaving scene that Antonio Banderas performed in 7 soldiers, where he was unable to use the massive sword until he turned it into an arabian style sword, able to cut wood out of sharpness instead of might. This makes me think that the ultimate sword is not "THE" sword for everyone, but the one that serves you the best.
Also I was given to understand that the katana was made from pig-iron (hence the folding to try and remove the excess carbon) and was prone to shattering when not used in a certain manner.
Clearly the ultimate sword consists of a handle with no blade, but instead a threaded pommel at either end. There would be no opponent that could ever face that sword without being ended...and rightly so...
You're talking about gun. No blade and full handle of pommels.
muskets are the ultimate rightly ender
No the best sword is joergsprave's pommel launcher
Wait, technically a gun is a bladeless sword that throws pommels, they are even rotating (as in unscrewing) when they leave the weapon and move towards the opponent.
ATS rocket launcher but it shoots pommels
you don't need complicated tests. clearly the lightsaber is best at cutting, hacking and thrusting...
Clearly.
only problem is the vulnerability of the wrist, if only there were a similar weapon that protected the hand...
Back to the whole sci-fi technology not being used deal.
Why hasn't anyone just made a Cortosis-weave crossguard on a lightsaber?
The one in force awakens looks like a quick way to stab yourself with your own weapon.
TheSYLOH Because reasons.
TheSYLOH I don't think cortosis is canon anymore but I just assumed that such a guard would weaken the blade.
There are 3 really important factors that you're forgetting and should be taken into account...
1- Reach
2- Hand protection
3- Toughness/Fragility
Diego De León Absolutely! thanks mate!
I think reach is the most underestimated feature in any weapon, even through it gives you an enormous advantage in combat... After all that's the reason of why the rapier is designed as it is... xD
Toughness depends on the material and or the maker of it so that would be an individual sword reach isn't that important either
I must correct you. You forgot the ability to take the pommel off and end your opponent rightly.
@@fredstead5652 reach is incredibly important. As someone who is quite short I can't tell you how much just the difference in arm length impacts a fight because quite simply an opponent can hit you while you can't hit them. And the length of a sword would make a much bigger difference than the length of an arm.
just make some sort of darth maul lightsaber with a katana on one side and a rapier on the other side
that is a really good sword to be honest, and inferno is wrong
ha you are a weakling, just what I thought
get proved wrong again
+InfernoPrince i like how 2 and 3 are the same, and u actually take this serious
InfernoPrince yes I was being stupid
inferno is fun at parties
So the general understanding is that there's no such thing as the perfect, best or ultimate sword, but is this really the case?
I am Shad Lightsabres will be a reality someday so you might as well consider them for the test and declare them winner!
runkurgan lightsabers have no hand protection. Until we see how this lightsaber crossguard performs in real fight, this leaves the user's hand vulnerable.
runkurgan Lols! so would a regular lightsaber win, or one with a crossguard? what about two handed lightsabers vs one handed, or darth mole's double lightsaber, or a regular sword that a lightsaber can't cut through, made out of those non cannon materials in the star wars extended universe and, and. . . 0.o I better stop before I give myself an aneurysm
Touche
I am Shad Dear Sir, you've just made a bunch of katana-freaks mad as hell :)
Having said that you've said VERY IMPORTANT thing, so it's the context that matters. Weapons were made to get through the armor currently used. Katana was quite good in Japan but would not be of much use in Europe.
Thumbs up obviously :)
Cheers
Kuba
How about hand protection? Reach? Usefulness when parrying other swords?
At the end of the day, being able to stab deeper under ideal, laboratory circumstances is much less useful than being able to inflict wounds on an opponent while remaining unscathed.
And the sturdiness of the sword
+Noah Weisbrod Kriegmesser, it's basically the perfect sword. Great center of balance, great handling, great cutting, alright thrusting and decent recovery from the swing, as well as having a great handguard/interchangable, three prongs ya know?
But it's a knife.
:P
In all seriousness, I would agree that the kriegmesser is one of the best all-purpose swords, but versatility doesn't necessarily make it the best choice for any one situation.
Noah Weisbrod It makes it the best choice for every situation. That's why versatility is often the best, like a jack of all trades and master of some. Sure it won't beat the rapier in a thrust, but it has so much more going for it.
Viability vs armor, short-term/long-term durability, and maybe even sword hardness/edge-holding are other potential aspects.
Another important point to consider is that not only would the swords have to be rated in the 3 (very generalized) categories, as well as any of the other categories determined to be essential for a sword, but these categories themselves kind of need to be ranked. It's entirely possible that thrusts are more effective at killing than cuts, or that certain kinds of cuts are more useful than others. The contexts of armored vs unarmored, duel vs battlefield, open vs enclosed spaces, and 1v1 or asymmetrical all change the relative importance of the requirements so greatly that the best sword, while not being truly impossible to find, might be practically so.
The best sword at hacking is an axe.
The best sword at thrusting is a spear.
Why is there no bashing category? I don't want a perfect sword that can't stand up to me using it to just bash stuff.
What about the fact that the point always beats the edge? What weight should you give to the thrust category over the others?
The best sword at bashing is the warhammer
MetaKnight64 yep
saltypork101 Axes and Spears are not swords they have their own category. And swords can't bash.
It was a joke ._.
Actually, swords can bash. Ever heard of a Mordhau?
The best sword is the one that you, the wielded, can use most effectively.
Obviously, but what of the weilder weilded every sword with equal skill?
I swear I've heard this somewhere but i forgot where
@@TheCompleteMentalNow you see why the first guy's argument falls flat lol.
And this video could have been summed up as "the english longsword, it was designed to be dominant to other swords on a battlefield."
No one cares what is most effective against unarmoured targets or from horseback or when dueling, they want the #1 scariest sword to see on a battlefield and everyone knows it was a knight in armour with the big boy in his hands.
Queelag's fury sword is a good contender. Its fire damage scales with humanity.
But then you have to keep your humanity up, so only better in a physical test. Also, there is the chaos zweihander which, in my experience, beats the furysword every time.
the zweihander is a good one, it is a favorite and can be pretty deadly
personally i think the kriegsmesser might be a contender.
The sword to which you are referring that performs consistently well in all three categories you've outlined (what I call a "default" sword because it's not the best in any one category, but isn't the worst in any category) would be a leaf shaped blade. The dimensions are: 40 inches overall. Ten inch handle. Thirty inch blade. The base of the blade should be no more than two inches. The maximum of the convex should be no more than three inches, and the maximum of the convex should be at twenty inches up the blade, after which it tapers to the point. There should be a gentle fuller, and the guard should be oval shaped like an elongated tsuba with an upward curve on both sides. The pommel should be slightly ovular as well to facilitate emergency gripping, but not so narrow the lower hand can slip.
The tang should be almost nearly full, but slightly encased on all sides by a soft wood and no more than two holes to secure the handle. A textured grip with a braiding of cloth should also be on the handle to reduce slippage due to sweat.
The guard and pommel should be of bronze or brass. Ideally there would be a fair amount of flex similar to a well forged broadsword, not as rigid as a katana that can chip or deform, nor as flexible as a rapier as too much flex negates a deep cut.
Riptide in a nutshell.
Everybody is talking about pommels attached to the end of a sword, but nobody is talking about a pommel attached to the end of a polearm, or flail.
Finally someone that knows how to approach to the topic. You deserve more recognition, sir.
+Vlaasdelfuoconero Why thank you sir! you flatter me.
Yeah, is approach makes sense, but because of the nature of metric spaces there is no best swords and you can prove it given the following assumptions:
-There is at least one parameter of the sword you can chose arbitrarily (for example the length)
-The scoring metric is continuous (that means a small change on the sword doesn't change the score by much, or if you drew a chart of score and any given parameter there would be no jumps)
The parameter space is open (because you could choose one from all the [natural, whole, rational, real...] numbers), so the set of all the scores must be open, too. Thus there is no best sword, because no matter what sword you pick, there will be a better one.
If you didn't get it (don't blame you, it's university maths), try to read a bit about open/closed sets (in metric spaces) and about continuity/continuous functions (in topological spaces)
Skallagrim does a pretty good approach towards it, and almost reaches the same conclusion although his opinion did rest on the longsword I'm fairly sure, but getting a second opinion was worth it
@@JK03011997 But that's math, not sword fighting. The best sword imo is one that has the most versatility while still being effective regardless of all the circumstances the other swords might be catered for, and that's obviously the Longsword.
Every other sword needs to be put into context way more than the Longsword does, it simply performs well in most everything and has the unique ability to also be used as a blunt weapon. That's not even counting the fact that Longswords have perhaps the most variety out of any sword that I've ever seen which simply adds to this. It's going to do virtually everything rather well and some other things unique to itself that it excelled at.
Easy - a modern steel version of the Kriegsmesser!
+JUDAS Finally someone that knows what they're talking about!
MarkDNF
cheers
+JUDAS KRIEGSMESSERS MASTER RACE
Katana fanboys can jump ship, we're happy to take you
The Benny Hill of weapons experts.
+Patrick Boyle He he he, I'll take that title ^_^
+I am Shad That would require boob gags... :P
DON'T!!! if you do you'll have to mention the pork sword (chop 0 slice 0 thrust 100)...............M
I actually think the way the point is at the back, at the spine of the sword, the shape of it's Arc actually makes a Katana's thrust very powerful and sturdy
surely hand protection is an important factor. Crossgaurds, basket hilts etc.. because I would like my sword hand to be protected and feel it is an important aspect of sword evolution. Also we must think of the sword uses in context, yes some swords were designed to be used with a shield and some were not, completely changing their designs and features. The tests here however seem not to take this into account but rather only focus on the independent swords performance which will favor swords designed to be used independently.
It's the main problem I see with the katana. Being a shorter sword than longswords, blade contact is almost inevitable, when you pair that with a poor guard, there's trouble.
Fun fact: sword hilts weren't originally designed for hand protection
The perfect sword = whatever your best with.
IM BEST WITH A SHORT SWORD!
I’m better with an axe.
King Ammonite i'm better with my AR-15
I like your scientific approach, and I think this is worth some evaluation.
There are a number of things to think about how to set it up, though:
For a start lets just stay in your system of performance in cut (C), hack(H) and thrust(T) and suppose we could measure representative values here. How do you combine them? Would you just add them up to get an overall rating R = C+H+T ?
That would imply, that you would in a fight hit with all three types of attacks at the same probability and the damage would add up linearly. Or would you treat it like the dimensions of a vector and say R^2=C^2+H^2+T^2 ? That would imply that in an actual fight, you would not necessarily perform any of exactly these attacks, but perhaps something in between a hack and a cut, and the damage done behaves as a combination of the extremes.
Or, perhaps, one could say that if one type of attack is obviously the one favored by this sword, then we would mostly use this type of attack, and we should count that higher that the others. Then we could calculate it like electrical resistors in parallel: 1/R = 1/C + 1/H +1/T . (This last method would by my preference/best suggestion.)
But now to some general problems with the system. You already mentioned, that there are more parameters.
So lets list some:
-maneuverability: weight and point of balance*
-One-handed/Two-Handed
-Reach
-Specialization against type of target (unarmored/padding/leather/paper/steel/mail)
.... and there will surely be more....
[*Suggestion: To numerically measure this, one could measure the rotational inertia of the sword at the point of the grip.]
So how could we make a system that works.
Well your suggestion is good for a "normalized damage output per hit", so we can build on that.
I think the target material can be integrated, as you implied, by a clever measurement of the C/H/T parameters.
Reach and maneuverability do not really come into that, but they are undouptedly important.
So speaking in video game terms, the "normalized damage" (lets keep calling it R) would be the damage rating,
and we could introduce an agility rating (lets call it A) to complement that.
So while one type of attack is enough for us, we definitely need both reach (L) and maneuverability (M). So how do we combine those? I suggest A^2 = L^2+M^2 .
I would generally consider one handed and two handed swords seperately, because one handed weapons were usually wielded with something in the off-hand, and that is kinda important ;)
So now we have a damage rating R and an agility rating A that tells us, how likely i will hit with the sword.
We can treat this as a weighed probability and give an overall sword-rating of:
O=R*A = sqrt(L^2+M^2)*(1/C+1/H+1/T)^(-1)
With
O: Overall sword rating
R: Normalized hit damage rating
A: Maneuverability/Agility rating
L: Bladelength
M: Moment of inertia measured at grip
C: Cutting damage rating
H: Hack damage rating
T: Thrusting damage rating
I propose this as a rating of the swords OFFENSIVE capabilities.
What do you guys think of this model?
+Robin
Mate, this is bloody amazing. Well done. I've been mulling over a possible model for sword evaluation for a while now and you have some truly awesome suggestions. I particularly loved your suggestion about counting the sword's favored attack method higher than the others.
I'm actually intending to build a sword cutting rig to do these tests in the future but it's a long term goal.
My hope is give each individual sword a rating out of a hundred. I would break down the sword into its different qualities and set a minimum and max value for each quality which represents 0 and 100. The maximum value would be determined by the sword test themselves. Whatever result happens to be the best becomes 100. zero will always be zero as to reach or cutting depth. Every result becoming a percentage in between. This means there will always be a sword holding the 100 score for a specific sword quality. If a sword test results in getting a better score then the sword currently holding the max, it will replace the place holder and each rating would be updated accordingly. I plan to do this by recording all the results on a working spreadsheet programmed to update all the percentage scores if say, a newly tested sword performed better in the cut then all others. This would update what score represents the 100 value and each percentage would update accordingly.
Once I’ve measured each value I would try and combine them to make an average overall. The problem I run into here is in determining the value of each specific sword quality as compared to another. A score of 83 in reach doesn’t necessarily equate to the same value as a score of 83 in cutting and therefore making an average out of them without adjusting the value wouldn’t work. This value adjustment would have to be based in the most educated decision regarding which offers more advantage over another but in the end will be arbitrary. I’m thinking to try and make an interactive website where people can adjust the value of a sword quality as opposed to another and have the spread sheet calculate accordingly.
Of course there’s other problems, such as hoe to make a score out of a hundred for hand protection. Yes the amount of coverage would come into play but then how to factor in for the specific type of guard protects from different angles of attack.
So yes, I’ve been casually thinking about this for a while and any help will be appreciated. I’ll also be doing a video about this, proposing this ratting method and asking for feedback and thoughts, eventually.
There is a big problem with the scores and that is that the "normalized hit damage rating" is depended on the target.
Will you measure against an unarmoured target or one wearing mail or full plate?
If you want to asses the best sword for every possible situation, then I think the far more important value is not which sword is the best, but which is "good enough" so that you survive.
e.g. a katana is probably not good enough against someone wearing plate amour, and maybe best against unarmoured opponents.
a longsword is good enough against plate amour AND good enough against unarmoured opponents.
If you don't know the situation in which you need the sword, the second option would then be the best.
I guess you could extend the formula to include cutting without armour, cutting against mail, cutting against plate. And "not good enough" would automatically score zero in a category instead of just a lower number.
Hi Shad,
somehow I only read your reply now.
Its nice to see you actually read through such a long comment ;-)
I like your normalization Idea. But rather that normalizing it to the best performance (which will likely be some specialized sword that no one can really refer to), I suggest taking a really common weapon as a reference, so your results are easily reproducible. Also, you save yourself the trouble of recalculating everything once a new record comes in (And communicating this change to everyone who wants to use your system).
"This cuts 1.7 times as good as a regular arming sword" also is a lot more intuitively understood than "This has a cutting power of 83% compared to this one special sword I found to be the best cutting sword."
Another Idea that I kinda read out of your suggestion (alternative to my normalization idea suggested above) would be to give an overall rating for the sword in combination with a fighting style.
This way, you don't have "The best sword" in general,
but "The best Weapon for German Fencing" or "The best weapon for Escrima" and so on.
So I study engineering. We learn to make a linear model for everything in a first approach. So here is a very simple vector-model:
Step one: Make a weapon rating for all the parameters. Normalize these to something that has all properties near average (important because we linearize) and is very common (i.e. reproducible). I guess you will know better than me which sword to reference. An arming sword perhaps.
Make a vector out of these properties. (Cutting, slashing, reach, defence, balance, hand protection...)
So our arming sword will be (1,1,1,1,...1), but a longsword might then have a 1,5 in reach and a 1,2 in slashing and so on.
Step two: Make a vector of weights to describe the fighting style.
Now we decide how important a parameter is for the style in which I use the weapon. We rate this on an arbitrary scale (be in percent) and then normalize the whole vector to one (sum over all vector elements = 1), so that our overall weapon rating will be normalized to the arming sword again.
Finally, multiply both vectors with a normal vector product (c = a1b1+a2b2+...) to arrive at a weapon rating for a specific style.
As you can see, I really like making up systems like these ;-)
If you want to discuss more abut it you can write me a message (does that work on youtube? I think but im not sure. Ill look at the notifications more regularly now anyways).
Regards, RObin
Robin. I like you comment but I think your missing the point a little. if you think of a sword simple as cuting tool then you can paer down the your testing facters.
the best sword has little to do with how effective it would be in combat . it simple how effective the sword is as a cutting , trusting and chuping tool. aka all facters found in the sword its self. i think
your idea adding things like the mass or if the sword was 1 or 2 handed. i was use this testing facters
f force on target
D deth if intre
then avrange the numders to set a bar and then pick the most bar in all 3 facters
How to best sword in 5 steps:
Step 1: build a robot (something like terminator)
Step 2: give him a sword
Step 3: make army - people in varied armors
Step 4: measure efficiency - how man people will it kill in set time or how much time does it take to kill set amount of people
(Step 4.5: test the pommel)
Step 5: pick the winner.
To find the ideal sword I think these things would need to be tested,
1. Cutting
2. Thrusting
3. Chopping
4. Ease of use, how does it handle, weight, etc
5. Durability, edge and overall durability
6. Good for use from horseback?
These are what I've come up with but tbh I think there would still be a strong case to be made for having speacialized swords. For example, in a world with plate armor you'd probably want the best thrusting sword you can have so you pick the Estoc because it's both an excellent thruster and it's great from horseback.
The perfect sword is the one you have when you need it. This goes for any tool outside of a perfect situation (a weapon being a form of tool, with a very specific purpose).
I do really like your idea of a rating system though. I think durability and edge keeping are important factors to rate as well.
The katana is a great cavalry weapon, and has most likely been used in such a way multiple times. Best sword? Depends on context obviously, who are you fighting? what are they wearing? What weapon and skillset do they possess?
If I did not know of these things I would personally use something like a german greatknife (grosse messer).
+CruelFish Do you have a source for your claim that the katana is a great cavalry weapon? It's quite short.
+Level 58 Death Knight Most backup weapons used by the cavalry are, just look at the pick weapons used by the medieval knights and all the different kind of warhammers.
And no I dont, it was merely speculation and opinion.
+CruelFish generally Calvary used the Tachi as it was a longer version of the katana
+Hachi Roku tachi is more or less a katana mounted differently, they are both generally the same size. katana faces up, tachi faces down. the katana rests in a saya and the tachi has two rings that attach to a belt
Level 58 Death Knight They don't. Samurai prefers using the bow or the spear from horseback.
It's still fun to go back and watch these older videos..
And they're as informative as ever..
Ooh, I love it when pure math comes into the play. :)
What you've done in this video is you've represented each sword as a vector in a three-dimensional space (the dimensions being thrust, cut and chop), and then defined the space's norm - basically, a way to reduce the coordinates of a vector to one number (with a few additional rules which I'm not going to get into).
Your norm in this case is the sum of the vector's coordinates, which is a mere one way of defining a norm in this space (the so-called "first norm"). The two other popular choices are: to pick the maximum value (the "infinite norm"), and to take the square root of the sum of the squares (the "second norm").
These are just three out of infinitely many ways to define a norm in this space. So even if by some ultra-scientific way you get true values for each sword, there's still the question of how to process the data.
Cheers for making a nice video!
Here's another one: resistance to bending and breaking. If you fight in armour with swords, you have to half-sword. This often involves using your sword as a crowbar to lever your opponent onto the ground. Swords have to be pretty tough to survive this, otherwise they will bend or break.
If you were only allowed to choose one sword to use in 20 duels against other swordsmen, which would you choose? Your opponents' swords will be various designs. Some opponents may dual wield. Neither you nor your opponents have armor or shields. The duels are to kill/disable. You will have plenty of time to recover between duels. You and your opponents have equal skill and physical attributes.Does the answer change if your opponents are not limited to swords, but may be using any meelee weapon?What if the duels are first blood instead of kill/disable?What if you and your opponents wore gambesons?What if you and your opponents wore mail?What if you and your opponents wore plate?
rapturedmourning well what else could you do agsinst plate but to half sword... so.. a long sword??
If you can only chose one sword (no sword and daga or two swords or anything), it would probably be a two handed sword for all cases. The main advantage of a one handed sword is that it frees one hand so you can carry a shield/dagger/another sword/something, so if it is only one sword, is probably going to be two handed. I would go for a long sword, because great swords movements are very telegraphed, and I personally prefer them over hand and half swords and katanas. If your opponent wears armor, the longsword will be more focused on thrusting (as cuts will be pretty much useless). I wouldnt change my option if the opponent goes for other melee weapons. Just my thoughts. Yours?
Karolis Tomkūnas lightsaber in every scenario
Clearly yes.... the context of the opponent you face is the be all and end all of all arguments about which weapon you choose to go with...
Handling and balance are good ones, also durability(against armor)
I think it would be between a Roman made Gladius, British made Longsword or Japanese made Katana. It's important where they're made because then the balance will be right, production swords are rarely balanced right.
Hello, I am a math major and I am very good at thinking outside the box.
I have given it some thought, and I might have some ideas that can help you along.
1. use ballistic gel for The Cutting substance. specifically a stack of relatively thin Wafers of ballistic gel, where the top ones are softer in the bottom ones are firmer.
2. track the blade with lazers as it goes down. get a series of laser sensors say that when the blade passes between them, the device that's measuring everything will know where it is.
3. track force output over time. paired with the position information at certain points in time from the laser array, this will tell you how much force it took the sword to cut through each wafer of ballistic gel.
4. only worry about the blade stuff for now. everything else can be developed later.
5. develop this further and name it "Shad blade effectiveness scale"
also:
track points on a scale, each wafer is worth different amounts of points, depending on how difficult it is to cut through, and each blade gets points based on how many of the layers it is able to cut through,/ number determined by how much force is required for that blade to cut through it.
hello shad. i just came across this entry. to quote survivalists "the best sword is the one in your hand when you need it'
I was thinking that a point system like that would work. Judging them would be hard, but theoretically possible.
I love your videos, you put a lot of passion and research to them. Keep up the good work!!!!
In terms of fantasy, if you had some kind of transforming sword made of malleable magical steel or something, that would probably be the ultimate sword because you could change it on the fly to become the perfect tool for any given job.
the swords should be rated by hack, cut, thrust, reach, agility and hand protection
+Marcus Grunnesjö What about recovery, technique of its regarded school and might I add, weight. Unless you meant agility as an umbrella term for all things manuerable. But all in all, I think the Kriegsmesser wins.
@@MarkDNF Agility is a factor of weight
Another very important factor : hand and forearm protection. Sorry, katana fanboys, but on that point european renaissance swords simply drive over the katana.
Now, I'd say that a late medieval or renaissance "cut & thrust" european sword would be the best overall sword. First, hand protection becomes excellent. Weight is well balanced, allowing for fast attacks. Cutting is good, thrusting is very good, and a nice length of blade.
Yes about cutting, not that important IMO. You don't need much cutting power to severely harm unarmored enemies, and you don't cut at metal armor anyway.
it should be a new catagory: Guard
***** Yeah the lack of hand protection on the katana is a big flaw. I too think the cut and thrust sword (sidesword) would really be a contender in this monolithic competition ^_^
I am Shad In my opinion the relatively short blade makes a big difference in a one on one fight as well.
Nelson McGuigan sure, a massive greatsword/zweihander, although great in open field, is too cumbersome for self-defense.
Depends on where you are of course, if youre having a one on one fight in a field itll still be pretty effective :P Also, id rather half sword a greatsword than fight somebody off with a knife.
a very important and relevant quality to a sword in a historical sense: cost.
I'm quite fond of the Type 2 and Type 5C examples you had of the Falchion and Messer typology video.
My gut usually tells me that the “best” sword is probably some kind of cut and thrust sword. My rationale is that even if it’s not as good at cutting as the best cutting sword, not as good at thrusting as the best thrusting sword, and so on and so forth, it should be able to perform each of those tasks well enough to get the job done, thus allowing you to accomplish all of the same things as the more specialized swords but with more available options at any given time.
A perfect sword means you could beat any other sword type with it.
You can beat any swordsman if you have a gun
That means the ultimate sword is a gun.
***** Yes, Indianan Jones displayed this truth in a very definitive manner ^_^
***** >inb4 pistolswords
***** Gerard Thibault wrote a manual with techniques for defeating a gun with a sword.
What about a gun that shoots swords? D:
Floyd Keim III why not why not.
Style of combat is also a factor. General battle on foot, General combat on a horse, and one on one duels.
The best sword is kind of like the best car: It depends very much on what you need it for. Do you want to win a race, sit in it hours upon hours or even days on the interstate, do you need to carry all your material to the construction site or your wife and all your five children at a time? And how much are you able and willing to pay? Do you live in an ordinary neigbourhood or is the nearest paved street 15 miles away? Do you see it as a mere mean of transport or as something that should be enjoyable to use as well? Are you OK with manual transmission or do you need the other hand for the shield? Does the other party in your accident wear armour, and if yes, what kind? Will you mostly be sitting on a horse while driving?
GOD FUCKING DAMMIT SHAD,WHY COULDNT YOU JAVE MADE THIS VIDEO WHEN MY HISTORY CLASS WAS HAVING DEBATES ON SWORDS,I COULD HAVE DESTROYED THOSE STUPID KATANA FANATICS
I am growing to like Your vidio more and more.
Lol, I like how there is a lightsaber amidst the swords.
I actually totally agree with you on this video, normally I take on a little of what is said and use that in adjusting my opinion, but every point you bring up in this video makes sense to me.
My favorite sword is Bastard sword and therefore I consider it the best sword.
But if someone likes Katana and if he knows what Katana is, I won't argue with him.
(I personally don't class Katana as a sword)
Mr.Vojtik Katana translates directly to "Sword," So yeah.. it's a sword.
Why the bastard sword? I do like the hand and a half aspect of them myself..
Did you get Sir Easton's permission to use his favorite word, context? Are you doing the little lady from the Incredible s at the end?
Daniel Taylor Ah but did Sir Easton get permission to use this word from the almighty wordsmithing man. I went on a mighty quest to find this man and he gave me permission, so I'm safe. I just hope Matt has done the same for the wrath of the wordsmithing man is beyond comprehension, he has curses ready to insult you with that ear has never heard and tale is that when you do hear these mythical profanities your head would EXPLODE.
And yeah I'm sure I got a little inspiration from The Incredibles ^_^
Touche good Sir, I bow before your magnificence! PS love the videos.
Daniel Taylor "Context" should be any scholar's favourite word. Matt Easton has a background in archaeology, as do I. And "context" is perhaps _the_ most important word in archaeology. After all, an archaeological artefact only has value insofar as it can tell us something about the past, and so the context of the find is extremely important. To historians, context is no less important.
I really don't know why people have gotten so hung up on Matt's use of the word. I never reacted to it myself, and have by no means found him to use it excessively.
Gilmaris I agree with you everything you said about Matt Easton. I was just joking with Shad, you might say trying to be witty. I however forgot to arm myself and entered battle unarmed:)
As an engineer, who has made and used many well-designed estimation formulae, I’d say the basic concept is sound but have a few observations.
1. The “total effectiveness terms” eff_hack, eff_slash, eff_thrust, plus whatever other factors you want to add into the analysis should themselves be functions of several variables-at least one variable based on the context of the fight (level of armor, distance of initial engagement, whether a duel or a melee), and another based on the skills/preferences of the wielder. This allows you to re-run the simulation under a variety of contexts to establish which is the most versatile overall or simply optimize it for one particular matchup you are anticipating/dreading. And there is pretty much no context where hacking, slashing, and thrusting will all be equally useful techniques, so having all terms scaled equally doesn’t really make sense. The basic formula you need is then a simple linear equation:
eff_net = eff_s + eff_t + eff_h +...
where eff_i = bwe_i*us_i*cu_i
and where bwe_i = the base weapon effectiveness score in dimension i
us_i = user skill factor in modelling how effective the user is at getting the most out of dimension i
and cu = the contextual utility factor, modelling how that dimension is in the given context.
You could of course go progressively more detailed but part of the art of modelling is knowing how deep to go to get an estimation that captures all the dimension that will have a major effect on your answer while ignoring those that don’t and combing as much of the stuff that’s left into black box catch-all fudge variables that give a general impression of what they do without killing your computer.
2. Cut “cut”, and use the less ambiguous “slice” or “slash” instead. Technical terms exist to reduce ambiguity, so it is always best to use terms that have only one interpretation. “Cut” in the layman’s register can mean either a chop or a slice, so using the term can lead to unnecessary confusion.
3. my thoughts on the most important other variables to account for are overall defensive ability (fudging together parrying, guard, and line-of-attack denial), reach (a simple variable, but one of the few where the context factor might be negative-reach becomes a liability in close quarters), and ease of use (fudging together maneuverability in the hand, recovery, how forgiving it is when the user has poor edge alignment, comfort of wearing, exhaustion in holding up for extended periods of combat).
Look at the Ulfbert swords used by the vikings, they were made of a significantly better steel that what the Japanese used in the katanas. The steel was a crucible steel with all of the impurities removed, drawn out and folded several times. There was a fuller in the blade giving further strength without making the entire blade brittle. It was balanced for single hand use with a large weighted pommel to give it more control and "feel light" in the hand. The edges were hardened to hold a razor edge, the tip had a nice point just as hard and sharp, but the center where the fuller runs the metal is not hardened to the same extent as the edges, granting some flexibility and protecting the blade from fracture. I am only speaking of one particular style of sword, not all viking blades were remotely capable of standing up to the Ulfbert blades. Cheers
Actually, Shad there is a perfect sword. It's the Spada da lato. (much as it pains me as a Francophile to admit)
+Elijah Talmud Ahh the side sword, this is actually my favorite sword.
My favourite sword
Any sword needs an unscrewable pommel.
Wait, you could have multiple pommels screwed into each other to end lots of people rightly
Material: ballistic gel.
How: with a machine that allows you to simulate controlled thrusts and cuts.
Cuts will need to be calibrated on the 'chopping point', the one measured making the sword bounce on a wood block, if i remember correctly.
How to measure: we will have to get swords with the same weight but different shapes but coherent ratios, and having them dropped on the ballistic gel to measure the thrusting power, and having them fall in an arc to measure the cutting power.
Ballistic gel: cube of 10xcm, assigning 1 point for every mm of cut/penetration.
...theoretically all this should work.
another important point about a blade is how it is tempered. its not as important for thicker, broader cutting blades but a lot of modern reproductions of swords designed for thrusting or even just meant to be able to thrust well enough to be effective(ex. some longswords , rapiers, and estoks) have blades that are just way too flexible to be able to be effective. of course you don't want it so hard that its likely to shatter but you don't want it so flexible that it just bends under the force of your thrust rather than concentrating it into the target. in fact, a blacksmith's greatest point of pride used to be their ability to find that perfect amount of flexibility - flexible enough to not break, but stiff enough to actually penetrate the target.
I say the Longsword is generally the best sword. Mainly for the utility that it has, it clearly is outperformed in many aspects such as with the Katana that excells at Cleaving and chopping. Clearly outperformed by an Estoc when it comes to thrusting/piercing, but the Longsword generally can be held in one hand, both sides are sharp, it can be used two-handed, it weighs around 1kg, have a good guard, and if need be can be used for blunt attacks. So where it ain't the best in particular aspects, the utility of it wins in my eyes, even though I love Katanas, I strongly disagree to them being the best swords.
but put a blade on top of a W54 nuke and you have the best sword. might have poor balance but you take out everybody near you
TL;DR the longsword is the Jack of All Stats of swords.
Ok which longsword.
The katana is either a dedicated cutter, or a cut and thrust sword, depending on the design. A katana with a shallow curve will have excellent penetration in the thrust, but if we take reach into consideration, the longsword is certainly better - and if we take balance into consideration, dedicated thrusters are definitely better.
I see many people (in this comment section, as well) assume that the disc guard - the tsuba - is inferior because it is so small. Well, it certainly gives inferior protection to basket hilts, and to European swords sporting rings on both sides in addition to cross guard. But as far as protection is concerned, it is superior to swords with cross guards alone. Yes, the cross guard protrudes further - but not out of need for protection. Thumb rings, for example, protrude no further than the tsuba does. Nor does the Messer's Nagel. The tsuba is as big as it needs to be to provide ample protection - after all, if it wasn't big enough, there is no reason whatsoever why the Japanese wouldn't have simply made it bigger. Ditto with the clamshell guards of smallswords, which are no bigger than Japanese tsuba.
Aye, but that's not really a unique thing about the katana, though--very rarely were swords of *any* sort a weapon of first resort in warfare. Pikemen in Europe carried swords as sidearms; English archers in the HYW often carried a sword (and sometimes also a buckler) to use if the enemy weathered their arrows and came upon them.
It's generally my opinion that even the best swords will falter in the hands of one not well versed in their use. The degree of said faltering may be greater or lesser depending on how forgiving the design *is*, though.
not only we need to test different attacks (cut, thrust, hack), but also:
- different materials (unarmored, gambeson, mail, full plate...);
- defense properties (handguard, weight distribution, handling...);
- how long does it take to learn how to get the best from your sword? in both offense and defense;
- should one-handed and two-handed swords go in different categories or not? two handed swords will, on average, be better than one-handed swords in all types of attacks, but one-handed sword provides you with an option to use a shield. but what if you're equipped in a full plate armor?
of course, no matter what set of properties you concider and test, and how you combine the scores, there will always be a sword, or a few swords, that get on top. but depending on the properties you choose and rules of testing and final scoring, different ones will get on top
it is kinda the same as trying to determine the best car. it totally depends on the rules of testing, and it's pretty difficult, if not impossible, to determine which set of rules you should choose
Thoughts...
Are we assuming this is the best sword *for unarmored fighting* or simply, the ultimate sword? If the latter, in addition to a consistent flesh substitute as you said, we'd need to run the test against various armors: Gambeson, mail, and plate, at the least.
Asides from poking, chopping, and slashing, would we want to measure concussive force as well?
Both of the above have me thinking that the test so far greatly favors large swords. A greatsword is going to massively outdamage other swords in most areas. In a controlled test, a zweihander will probably inflict more trauma in piercing than a rapier, simply because it's so big. But is a humongous claymore really the best stabbing sword? It seems there needs to be scores assigned for characteristics other than simply damage, like speed, wieldability, tip control, parrying usefulness, whatever. We'd need some part of the algorithm to describe: 1.) How easy is it to actually hit a target quickly and accurately with the sword? And 2.) How useful is the sword in warding off blows?
Finally: What about portability? In the world of modern personal defense, you don't necessarily carry around the largest pistol that you can effectively use. Is this relevant to the 'ultimate sword'?
Perfect sword? The Katana isn't the perfect sword? >:3 Mad Scientist this shit, Double Edged Katana >;3
Now that could do some damage
@@fredstead5652 Skallagrim recently did a video on this topic.
look, OBVIOUSLY the best sword is the one that you can screw the pommel off the fastest.
So you can end them rightly
you could also distinguish the cutting types by using the method with which they hit or sever: percussion cut (hack) or friction cut (cut). Not technically accurate of course, but to those who don't know the difference it can be used to describe the motion pretty well
It's a lightsaber.
Solid Structure only when we are drunk
No hand protection.
katanas are overrated
Very good comic bit at the end!
i love that Black Canary is in the front with the other JL heavy hitters, about time she got some recognition, kudos to you, Shad
the ultimate sword is the light sabor in all areas BAM!
+nicholas biddle * saber
but the lightsaber isn't even a saber
lightsaber is an stupid weapon
Watermeloon1416 why?
Watermeloon1416 it doesn't require any push or pull force to cut or thrust. You touch them and they die
I would even add qualities like hand comfort, guard coverage, blade durability, edge durability, and length to the equations because those and other factors can all effect a sword in practical use.
Things you're missing: ability to withstand impact forces (Chipping, breaking, bending), ability to withstand constant force/pressure against the blade (tensile strength, perhaps), ability to pierce through harder materials (leather, metal, etc), ability to slice or tear flesh after penetration (via slashing or piercing), ability to slash/hack through harder materials, edge retention, overall weight/mass, and piercing/slashing ability per weight/mass (Cm of penetration per Kg).
(Note: All the talk of penetration, piercing, impact forces, etc are not intended to constitute a pun.)
Choosing a sword was always like choosing a golf club for the task at hand.
Definitely a good place to start. Basically comes down to a really good compromise cut and thrust blade. But then things like specific shape and hand protection come into play.
A saber can be excellent at thrusting and cutting, but doesn't have good dimensions for dealing with armor. A later medieval arming sword can also be a good cut and thrust combination, and would be shaped for fighting armor, but lacks hand protection and probably isn't quite as good at cutting. So imo, a type 15-17ish blade with a complex guard for hand protection is best unless you can guarantee unarmored opponents.
I loved your ending it was hilarious
I'd suggest hand protection, but then again, swords would be used with shields/bucklers/armour so I'm unsure as to whether that's an actual point.
Great video as usual, mate.
I do realize this is old video but still few things to consider:
- Do we only care for these 3 aspect you speak in video?
- How easy would it be to learn to use that certain sword?
- What is reach/size/weight/material and so on in that weapon?
- Would it be effective against other opponent?
- How about blocking, would this ultimate sword be able to do that allso?
- What would other opponent / target have, knight in full plate top of horse or maybe just extremely fast and angry tiger?
- Do we think only historical swords or pretty much any object, like chainsaw?
Length or reach are also very important. You'd have to count the actual length for thrusting but for cutting you'd have to define if you want to use the part where it starts to be effective or where it cuts best. Also hand protection and a weapon you'd be likely to pair it with like sword and buckler or rapier and dagger.
The perfect anything is something that is built for your specific context. If your particular training relies on more thrust than cuts or hacks a sword primarily for thrusting is your best pick and so on and so forth
The end bit is fantastic and hillarious lol : ))
I think a Scottish broadsword might have a reasonable rating like that. Because there's less taper along its length than other blade designs it carries the weight forward for a better chop, the width of the blade would keep it a reasonable slicer, and it still has a reasonable point for the thrust. Giving good hand protection with a basket hilt is good too.
When it comes to versatility, just in terms of thrusting, chopping, and cutting, I think the best sword would possibly be a falchion or a messer.
The perfect sword is the one that fits you. After you get past the blade single sided or double sided, metal material, spring steel, stainless, Damascus, etc. Handle single, double. You come to the guard now thats the important part, it is a flexible range weapon which means sometimes you might be in close range where you need to use your hands and sometimes you might be in long range where you need to close the gap and touch swords, and sometimes you might actually be in the flexible range where you're going to need to use sword techniques. So that's the quwingkedink. In the end you end up using what you have and making it fit.
Very interesting question you raised here, I hope it can be answered one day.
You could do this with shields too. And I bet it would be a lot of fun to conduct these kind of tests on shields.
I would also include values for reach and defense, because a rapier can reach much further than an arming sword, but a broadsword has a better guard than the rapier does. This is important because a 19th century British military sabre would have roughly the same numbers for cuts, chops, and thrusts as a Medieval arming sword, but the sabre is better defensively because of the more complex guard. The reach advantage speaks for itself.
One quality you forgot is the size of the cross guard!!!
Shad: no sword is better at cutting, hacking, and thrusting than all other swords...
lightsaber behind him: am i a joke to you?
So... factors that'd need to be tested for would be;
-Hacking
-Cutting
-Thrusting
-Handling
-Reach
-DESIGN Durability (I stress the design as while any weapon could technically be made of any material, certain shapes - such as the triangle - are simply more durable than others. This aspect could potentially be very expensive to test as it'd require making exact replicas of each weapon in the same material and hitting said replicas until they break at various angles.)
-Versatility (Is it a sword + some other benefit like the hook sword, or is it specifically a sword? Is it a two-handed weapon or can you wield something else or use a shield with it? Can you make moulinets with it without getting it stuck in the floor?)
-Weight and Balance (kind of overlaps with handling but well...)
-Carry-ability (Overlaps with weight, balance and reach somewhat, but can you carry this weapon while sheathed, can you unsheathe it conveniently, etc?)
-Self-harm Potential (How easily could you hurt yourself UNINTENTIONALLY with it? Obviously this would impact the final score negatively)
-Contextual Value (Negligible in the actual quality of the weapon, but a broke warrior is a hungry warrior and thus not in ideal fighting shape, so it's worth considering how much said weapon costs or - rather - cost at the time of its peak usage.)
Those would all need to be factored in to find the ULTIMATE sword.
What is the best modern built sword with current metallurgy knowlegde and correcting the defects of historical swords?
Create a robot that strikes at the same strength would be a great idea
I like this. this would be a great Mythbusters episode. To me, since a sword is designed for battle, the ultimate and best sword would be the type that a master in it would be able to defeat almost any other master most if not all of the time, and also be one that fairly enhanced the likelihood of victory in a novice as well. Reach would also be another factor to consider. unless it could simply be designed to excell in all your criteria. Given their historical popularity, I would think the arming/longsword or katana, or scimitar or rapier to be the top contenders.
the side sword, one on the longer side, something like a schoavonna, which has a better hilt than most broadswords for tip control and thrusting, but it has better hand protection than a Claymore, and almost as much blade reach as a longsword. It's catshead pommel coupled with a basket more open at the bottom means two hands CAN be used, though not ideally, but fighting with a dagger or buckler it would likely be more effective than a long sword anyways.
Personally, I think the military/war rapier (oppose to the civilian rapier) would have the overall best score. Nimble yet sturdy. Very long for a single-handed sword. Can be paired with bucklers, parrying daggers and such. Decent cut. Superb thrust. Exceptional hand protection. Well-balanced and excels in both offense and defense.
In terms of the individual variable pertaining to the wielder of the swords in question, you could try to put together a panel of seasoned swordsmen and have each one go through the motions and then aggregate the individual scores to come to some sort of consensus score. It is flawed, but there's not way to do it that isn't flawed or skewed in some way.
Overlooked one of the most important aspects: how cool they look. 😉
I think, the most important point is how a sword fits to the user. For example - someone sold a one handet sword because he didn't liked it and he said he can't handle it in the way he wants. So he made me a accepteble price and i really love it in combination with my buckler.
So the perfekt sword can't be found by any kind of test - it depends a lot on how the weapon feels in the owners hands.
You would also have to throw in material, and the quality of the blade sharpness. This question would also come down to the training of the hypothetical warrior using the weapon. It’s fair to say that someone who uses a weapon for enough time, they will find out how to use that weapon in any of your three main areas. But I would love to see a test manufactured that could measure a sword in those categories. I would love to have an actual conversation about this, I feel like it would be an endless pit of debate😂
You should also take into account the following: range, effectiveness against light armor (leather, cloth), effectiveness against heavy armor (mail, plate), effectiveness against another sword, effectiveness against a blunt weapon, effectiveness against polearms, defensive usability. There's too much to take into consideration to make a sound call.
So what we are looking for is the optimal sword, and it would also be the most versatile sword and the best of the versatile ones. Not too heavy, not too light, not too long, not too short, great handling, good at cutting, stabbing and chopping. It works fine in tighter spaces, but is long enough to be used against the longer swords. It's defensive capabilities are also very good. Hmm... The lightsaber wins in all of these I think if you put on a turning wheel to regulate it's length xD
Maybe if someone invents a box cutter version of a sword?
Answer: light saber.
Instead of single or double edge it's Omni edge. The technique to use such a thing vs the technique used for single and double is the same as comparing the technique to use a staff or short staff vs a single or double edge of the same length.
It's lightweight and would seemingly weigh only as much as its hilt. The negative side of having less weight (mostly not enough force generated in a swing to give enough psi on contact) is averted by its (unless you look other than the original trilogy) ability to cut through anything except another light saber.
The cutting through anything, because it's a fucking laser sword, means that it scores 100 in all categories. So it's 300.
I first want to say I found this a very good and fair video on both clarifying that there is likely no perfect sword, just as there is no perfect melee weapon period. (or any weapon actually, even if Ranged weapons trumped Melee the majority of the time, they are often shown to be disadvantaged at least in any engagements that start out close from the onset.) Every weapon is designed and often refined over time to be optimised based on great variety of factors. (Some of them are even non-combat related such as material availability, the Inca Macuahuitl for example.) I agree with other comments here that when rating the combat effectiveness of a weapon you would need to consider the environment and more specifically the targets you intend to utilise them against. You could even consider factoring in weapon longevity to any rating as I am sure many weapons designed to operate at a peak efficiency in combat may not endure the stresses that other simpler tools might. I think that you could even offer an argument that the marriage of weapon to wielder is perhaps the most important factor, the weapons that would suit people of certain builds and musculature would likely not be as ell suited to those of different dimensions.
Great topic.
I believe a 4th measurable quality could be added: Agility/ Speed in accomplishing the 3 other actions. Your Rig (machine) could be designed so that it uses inertia, rather than a set speed to do the other 3 actions. Therefore a Hack may take longer on a slightly heavier sword so it's Speed (time to complete the hack) would make it score slightly poorer for that quality because of the reduced acceleration, but the heavier blade would score higher for the hack quality because it would hack deeper. I have further thoughts on this but my post is already too long.
I have to say that I have liked the katana for a long time, since I was a kid. For me it did everything I wanted, the slicing was smooth and natural, it can chop (I hate to chop with it but it does chop) and it stabs better than people think(not through armor). I also love the fact that it could be two handed or single handed depending on what you are doing. my only problem is the guard (I like the look but I prefer a cross guard for fighting) did not protect the hand enough. however what really make the katana so cool is the process used to make it since the iron in japan was substandard.
If you were to take a Rapier and redesign it to remove most of one of the blades, leaving just enough to ensure it's sharp tip, then tempered the non bladed side to be quite resilient, (blades are made strong, yet brittle when backs are made lest sturdy to absorb shock) and widen the blade for durability, while reducing the blade's angle, I think you could manage a sword that could be a good contender for each of your three categories. However, the issue is that each sword of the past was made for one reason in mind.
Such as, certain barbaric tribes had swords that were heavier and less sharp that was made more for piercing and the smashing of bones. The Rapier was made for one to one duels. The average Knight Sword was made to defend in the army against attackers. etc. So the idea of making the "Ultimate" sword was not as we think of it now, but of "Build the best sword that will serve this need"
I am reminded of the Sword Shaving scene that Antonio Banderas performed in 7 soldiers, where he was unable to use the massive sword until he turned it into an arabian style sword, able to cut wood out of sharpness instead of might. This makes me think that the ultimate sword is not "THE" sword for everyone, but the one that serves you the best.
Also I was given to understand that the katana was made from pig-iron (hence the folding to try and remove the excess carbon) and was prone to shattering when not used in a certain manner.