What makes BAD WEAPONS objectively bad?
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 01. 2022
- There is an objective metric that exists to determine how good a weapon is, and it seems that too many people are either unaware of it, or disingenuously ignore it.
My novel, Shadow of the Conqueror Audio Book affiliate links:
US: www.audible.com/shadbrooks
UK: www.audible.co.uk/shadbrooks
CA: www.audible.ca/shadbrooks
AU: www.audible.com.au/shadbrooks
Ebook, Paperback and Hardcover available from most major book retailers, here are a few of the main ones:
Amazon affiliate link (be sure to navigate to your country's amazon site):
amzn.to/2XErUaR
Barnes and Noble:
www.barnesandnoble.com/w/shad...
Kobo:
www.kobo.com/au/en/ebook/shad...
If you like the content and want to support the channel, you're welcome to do so through patreon or subscribe star:
/ shadiversity
www.subscribestar.com/shadive...
Awesome Shirts and chainmail print clothing: teespring.com/en-GB/stores/sh...
Visit Calimacil for the best replica foam swords and LARP weapons: calimacil.com?aff=38
Buy my sword IMPERIOUS from Calimacil: calimacil.com/products/imperi...
Come check out my new channel KNIGHTS WATCH: / @knightswatch
Community run discord server: / discord
My official website: www.shadmbrooks.com/
Enough people in the comments have missed a very important point of context that I stated in the video at 9:48 which addresses many of their comments regarding things like grenades, suicide planes, and the context of a weapon's use.
I bring it up because it is key to this discussion, literally every comparison I'm talking about is in the context of things made for the same purpose, I repeat this point several times trying to make it clear. This most definitely applies to the purpose of the historical period, or modern period, in which the weapon was made, but more importantly, how it is intended to be used such as ranged, self defence, battlefield and so on. Is a sword intended to be used the same as a grenade? Do they have the same purpose? There is a general purpose of a weapon, to increase a person's damage potential, but I was also clear that we must always compare it against other weapons made for the same specific purpose, like when I mentioned the nunchucks. I wasn't comparing the nunchucks to a gun to prove that they are bad, I was comparing them to other weapons that can be use for the same purpose, and be used in the same context. Yes, we can compare a gun to a sword and the answer is obvious which is better, but this doesn't make the sword a bad weapon for the purpose it was intended. We determine if it is bad by comparing it to other weapons meant for the same purpose, that could be used in the same context, which I did my very best to make clear in the video, even repeating the point.
What about a 3 Section Staff? How effective are they?
"Think about it: a weapon originally designed to convert a musket into a pike, and it's still around when we're going to war in starships." - Capt John Christian Falkenberg, 501st provisional battalion, Co-Dominium Line Marines. "Because it's useful".
Both a semi truck and a formula 1 car are far more powerful than your average SUV... and yet there are a lot more SUVs on the road. They're better for their task, but the SUVs are better for generic tasks.
(relax; I'm agreeing with you)
A question popped up while reading the comment.
You think we should also count in the easy of crafting of the weapon? I think its different enough for it to be a 7th if it does matter.
'Maintaining' can go into the '6th duability' and I think 'avaliability' goes into the '2nd easy of use'.
Your pretty balanced in your criticisms. I agree that they should be compared to similar weapons etc. Though as a former combat soldier i can say that a gun isnt always better than a blade. When things get up close & personal a gun becomes less effective. The fact that i carried a large combat knife saved my life. When someone's on top of you trying to stab you in your face getting your guns barrel on line isnt that easy.
For the nun-chucks, aren't they more of an agricultural tool than a weapon much like the Sai? Because I believe Okanawa had a "weapons ban" for those not of the Warrior caste, so people had to improvise weapons much like how a spade is a tool, but can be employed as a weapon when needed.
I've started using a more specific, but simpler rule of thumb to determine if a weapon is good or not. If a stick of similiar length would be a better weapon, then it's a bad weapon. I call it the Stick Rule, od the Shad Rule.
If it can't beat a stick or a rock it's not even worth considering as a weapon.
A less general rule would be:
If putting more work into creating the weapon makes it worse than the source or a weapon with less effort put into it's a bad weapon.
Also a weapon requiring extensive training is not as good as one who requires very little even if you get slightly better results with the heavy training one.
Great rule, im gonna start using it.
@@LCInfantry That’s a hoax that’s been discredited for decades. It’s embarrassing for you that you actually still fell for it in 2022. You are spreading misinformation. That’s not okay.
@@jasperzanovich2504 People would flip when they realise crossbows are better than longbows with this metric.
There's actually some fun storytelling potential in a skilled warrior or monk deliberately selecting a terrible weapon, either as a statement that they practice martial arts more for self improvement than aggression, or as an intentional handicap to humiliate their opponent, etc.
Or, more likely, intimidation through flair.
Most the kicks in taekwondo are pointless.
Check out The Chronicles of Riddick, there's a nice scene on a prison planet in that vein.
I lived through such an experience.
Yeah, That was how the batlh 'etlh or "Honor blade" was originally written.. A bladefor ceremonial dueling... Sadly, later writers picked it up as a go-to weapon and ruined its narrative value.
So basically Jax from League of Legends, who got bored beating everyone with real weapons so he uses a short gnarled wooden lampost as a weapon.
I would add a 7th metric, but perhaps not an "objective" one: easy to manufacture/create. This has been seen in history a lot of times, weapons with good concepts or even advanced for their time but the costs of manufacturing them is to high to mass produce and are forgotten until technology can make them cheaper or facilitates its manufacturing.
Not to mention, a stick is easier to create/manufacture than nunchucks of similar weight/length.
Indeed! Cost. So important.
This is actually an example of Shad not considering certain things in the way that he was complaining about others doing. He is specifically only considering combat effectiveness, rather than availability. Yes, a sword is objectively a better weapon than a stick. But when you need to arm an army, I'd take 1,000 footmen with sticks vs 100 with swords.
I was thinking of that as well. Though I would call it "Availability and Affordability". That sounds abtract enough to also include both individuals and larger collectives of fighters.
@@bryanweatherston5367 He literally mentions availability in the video multiple times.
Skallagrim: "The batleth isn't the best weapon, but considering the purpose it was designed for, it's not really a bad weapon either. It's a lot like deer horn knives, but bigger and requiring more skill to use."
*one day later*
Shad: "The batleth sucks."
Also shad 4 years ago: "The bat'leth sucks."
Dont forget Scholagladiatoria
Except deer horn knives are actually pretty effective in their role as concealed weapons which are hard to steal and use against the wielded while being effective when used by anyone who thinks about it for a minute.
In what context would it be a decent weapon?
The middle is a straight edge, so you're going to be limited in cutting. The prongs don't effectively capture a weapon. The holes where the hands go aren't protected enough, and when paired with another batleth would drive the weapon towards the hands. It doesn't extend reach.
Meanwhile anything with length will outclass it hands down. But let's say we can't have length, well it performs pretty equivalent to an axe, honestly, and an axe still outclasses it as the axe won't expose the users hand and can also hook and pull a batleth better than the batleth can hook an axe.
I can't find any measurement where it would excel or counter another weapon unless I severly handicap the other combatant. For example, it may perform better than someone wielding ONLY a shortsword and no shield. But why would someone do that. A basic wooden plank would be a sufficient shield against a batleth.
It's good as a sport, I don't doubt. If you pair them off, it can definitely have it's own sport associated with it and would be very entertaining, because it covers a lot of different styles of combat in one weapon, but it combines them in such a useless way.
@@XaadeTheBlade Klingon culture is all about showing how much honor and glory you have by besting others in combat. The bat'leth is designed to be more difficult to use effectively, because if they can defeat you with a "bad" weapon they're clearly the much better and more glorious warrior, and because of that it's decent for what it's supposed to do. It's literally meant to be a handicap for the Klingons to show how badass they are.
Since they're also used in honor duels, it gives Klingons a massive advantage against non-Klingons who have no idea how to use the weapon.
Start with a stick. Free to pick one up, easy to use, lethal. It's a good standard from where to start. Is the weapon better than a stick or worse than a stick? Easy to use like a sword? Harder hitting (or cutting) like a hatchet? Longer range like a bow? Okay, that's something to work with. If it isn't any of those things it's objectively worse, like a nunchucks. Okay, on to the video.
Ayo you forgot about spears
Standard sticks 5/10
Good bonk
@@user-ip9fp8ug5y :)
Shads video is overcomplicated. Just compared it to stick and stone. If it can kill better, it's a good weapon
Shadiversity should try to find a real world Bladed weapon that is objectively worse than the Bat’leth.
The value of a weapon can depend on the specific perpose. The best sniper rifles are typically crap for breaching a house. The most effective bomber is typically absolute trash as a fighter. A good assassin's weapon is usually awful for a cavalry soldier
With relevance to purpose satisfied, some still end up garbage mall ninja weapons.
That's comparing a pike too a dirk as well. It's a question of reach vs manuverability. Bolth are good but for different reasons, and guns allow that difference to become much more pronounced than melee weapons.
I made a similar post using rapier as my example. Great in civilian situations, bad on a battlefield.
@@somerando1073 naw, rapier gets out classed by smallsword on a regular basis. It's one of my favorite weapons but it is amoung the least effective swords.
@@greygoblin9491 apparently a rapier is a really good dualing weapon. Just what I've heard though.
I thought the bat'leth was more of a ceremonial weapon that was rarely used in combat, other than ritualized combat with it's own rules, especially by Klingons of this time period. I thought it was more of a badge of office or a symbol of honor/ social standing, rather than an actual weapon used in "modern" combat. I don't recall seeing it very often in boarding actions and other combat situations. This lends credence to Shad's argument.
I remember in ds9 when the Klingon empire went to war with the cardassians and federation they used Bath'leths as military weapons when boarding the federation space station ds9.
You are both right. It was originally used as a ceremonial and ritual dueling weapon only... And after a while idiot writers abused and debased it and made it a general melee weapon, so that the invasion of DS9 would fail without high causualities looking too stupid and unbelievable.
I believe that the Klingons would use it despite its effectiveness. They are a very traditional people. The pure cultural significance of carrying a Bat’leth into battle would be worth it in the eyes of a Klingon who doesn’t care about dying.
It was so bad that the writer eventually replaced it with the Mek'Leth, a much superior weapon.
@@captainpiggz6391 Could certainly see the attraction of defeating an enemy with a weapon which isn't optimised and needing you to show more skill to use.
Then you have the fact that pretty much any opponent they might possibly face in the Star Trek universe are lacking any melee weapon of their own. They are literally choosing to take a knife to a gunfight at which point does it really matter.
I think the main value a weapon should be evaluated for is Consistency. Jamming guns, user-damaging weapons are simply the worst. We also have Historical Context, a mace can be crap today but there's a reason why it was popular.
Eh, weapons like the flail were used historically and while they CAN damage the user, if the user had experience and skill with it, (the peasants who wielded flails had used them as tools for threshing for years) that unwieldy mess could be mitigated, and expose that the weapon itself was very useful for getting around shields, mitigating shock to the hand, and as a mounted weapon.
It could be argued that the distance from the target is the defense of projectile weapons, especially if you can use them from a point of cover.
Correct, a machine gun for example would have massive defensive capabilities due to deterrance, if you supress the enemy a lot, you are extremely safe. So yeah I think defence should be both how the weapon can protect you directly and indirectly
Yeah I was thinking that when he was talking about guns, like... you can shoot from cover, and the whole point of a gun is to keep someone farther away than any other held weapon type can.
As he said it’s all about context, a machine gun has terrible defensive capabilities in hand to hand combat and a sword has terrible defensive capabilities at range. Comparing ranged weapons defense at range a machine gun would definitely be better than a hand gun and both would be better than a crossbow. If we are talking about killing a target fairly close without being detected than the crossbow wins cause guns are, ya know, really freaking loud even with a suppressor.
Yah I think shad was basicly doing shadnastics to avoid putting firearms as the best in every single category
The defensive property is actually the cover not the weapon itself.
Guns can be used as part of a defensive position but are not defensive items themselves.
Gun positions can be taken out by artillery, airstrikes/drones, snipers or even infiltrators with knives if they are careless enough.
The thing I have noticed when people go on about guns is they fail to take into account that a gun is either a first strike or retaliatory strike item.
You either shoot first or hope you survive to shoot back.
They are not defensive items as they have no chance to increase the user's chance of survival in the circumstances of being shot..
Would you pick a gun over basically any melee weapon ? Certainly yes.
If a weapon like a shield has the ability to quite literally produce a impenetrable shield, well, you are immortal in combat, so anything else doesnt matter, which kind of blows the entire classification out of the water.
If you could choose a remote combat drone to fight as your weapon, thats somewhat hard to use, but it doesnt put you in any danger, so that safety is again much more valuable.
Some criteria dialed up to an extreme just outweigh a lot of negatives.
Somewhat similar to your point about the shields. I like the personal shields from the Dune universe. They aren't impenetrable but energy weapons will create a feedback loop killing both the shieldbearer and the weapon user. It also stops/slows down high spead objects, allowing the shield bearer to dodge out of the way of projectile weapons such as guns.
This led most people to favor bladed melee weapons since they can be used slow enough to pass through the shield.
he covers your drone example at 12:41
In a "toilet stall" fight, a dagger might be the better weapon. So when there is extremely limited space. Or in a completely dark environment, a sword would be more more useful (gun has to be pointed at the target, whereas the sword can cover a large area by simply swinging.
I wanted to say the same thing about nuclear warheads. Complicated? As hell. Range? None unless you have a silo. Danger to self? Laughably so. Ergo, nukes are terrible weapons.
I think it is kind of a situation where the various metrics need to be multiplied together, adding infinity to any stat will permit it to overpower other deficiencies (some stats like safety and durability are logically capped at or near one, but can be less) situational context can then be added like armored opponents reducing the effect of sharp edged weapons (gets messy if/when armor piercing gets involved though)
More often than not, I tend to run into people over-hype or undersell certain aspects of a weapon and forget about the overwhelming factor of "good enough". My experience is more in the firearms end (no combat experience thank God) so I can't speak to blades very much. And this is provided the argument isn't about taking something and placing it where it really isn't meant to be in the first place.
Some may argue that the bat’leth is cool or honorable, but as Worf said “In battle, nothing is more honorable than victory”. The bat’leth is a cool sci-fi weapon, but don’t think Klingon’s would actually use it.
The Bat'leth is a gladiator weapon, it is there for show. Tridents are cool, we have a lot of lore about them. Look at Posidon, but they are not good weapons due to how easy it is to get them stuck. Yet they got used in Gladiator matches because they looked cool. The only time Bat'leths come out is in duels and a few moments when the writers had Warf use it instead of a phaser.
@@SoralTheSol And when the Klingons are attempting to board Deep Space Nine in "Way of the Warrior."
I can't remember a single episode where there was a serious attempt of using a bat'leth in any 'real' situation.
I mean Phasers and Disintegrators are more effective than any fucking sword or close combat weapon.
They use it in rituals, plays/reenactments, training/kata and to look badass during duels.
They are the Klingon equivalent of Boxing Gloves most of the time.
I really like Shad's take on, that it is designed to be more difficult to use specifically so it can reign in the Klingon's natural aggression
@@mishatestras5375 In quite a few DS9 episodes when it's about Worf and Jadzia. They've even hunted down a Klingon traitor with a small group of Klingons, they sometimes even use them against the Jem'Hadar and they discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the various weapons. So sadly no, they do think it's a propper choise in battle.
It would be better if and add to the believability of the world they're so carefully creating if they would treat them purely as ceremonial weapons or duel weapons but even then they don't look very "Klingon" since they look very defensive but not something you would attack with, win or die a glorious battle...
I feel that the bat'leth being an awkward, inefficient, weapon actually makes for better storytelling, when you consider it is primarily used in duels of honor, rather than in the battlefield. it does seem that the Klingons understand its shortcomings, and have more proper weapons in their arsenal. More functional weapons, including swords, are also seen hanging from Klingon walls, and I do recall that Duras used a sword in his duel with Worf, which befits him being a known pragmatist. In summary, the bat'leth is a ritualistic weapon with mythological origins, one that requires absurd skill to use effectively and is functionally a handicap compared to more conventional weapons, and therefore demonstrate the user's prowess and awards him honor, which Klingon culture greatly revolves around.
Or the Star Trek writers/costume makers just wanted something that just looked strange and alien. No logical thought whatsoever, just a desire to instill a WTF moment for the viewer.
It's almost as if context matters. LOL! All good points for sure. Klingons seek glory above all, at least devout ones do, so they make dumb choices based on subjective qualities (feelings and preferences) versus objective ones (measurable repeatable demonstrable reality). Basically what this whole discussion is all about. You can value something for it's subjective attributes, but that will never change the objective reality of how well it performs its given task, or fulfills its reason for existing. Unless the object exists for purely subjective reasons, and even then there are times when, usually because of quality of workmanship or materials, the subject is still objectively bad. Beyond that, you come up against the problem of the lack of precision in language, and our ability to objectively describe the qualities of an object in the first place.
@@captaindunsel2806 "um actually" haha the orginal designer for the Batlthe (or however it is properly spelled) used the Chinese Deer horn blades because he studied Chinese weapon martial arts.
@@captaindunsel2806 The Bat'leth was designed by martial arts expert (and visual effects producer) Dan Curry, who also helped develop the intricate dancelike movements associated with its use.
--The Star Trek Encyclopedia
I agree, it was designed to be a bad weapon for the purpose of showing skill and discipline in a warrior, proof that they can control their rage and bloodthirst. It almost makes me wonder if Kahless met a Vulcan at some point.
I wish now that a skilled craftsman will makes this bat'leth redesigned by Shad (the Shad'leth ?) so we can watch actual fencers testing it.
Zero durability tho
Sounds like it could be a smaller version of a Tibetan Shovel spear.
It has a sharp shovel on one end and a double sided quarter-moon blade on the other end.
Skallagrim has a physical redesigned bat'leth that shares some if not all of the features of Shad's design.
@@Farquaad3rd Yes I saw that, but it wasn't the case when I commented this.
I was thinking the same thing. I would love to see a battle ready Shad'leth. And a blunt version for sparing to see how it does against other weapons.
Improvised Weapons are "improvised" "weapons" for a reason: You don't have anything else available.
Repurposing farming tools as "improvised weapons" as was done numerous times throughout history, was simply done out of lack of actual weapons. You can use any object as an "improvised weapon", however, that always is diminished in effectiveness, ability to wield, safety for the user, and further categories in some combination or other. Kama are just farming scythes, but they have blades, so they can be used for combat in a limited fashion, just like scythes. Flails are used to flail wheat to get the seeds out (see nun-chucks). You can still whack someone with them and make some flashy intimindating looking moves, but in the end, there are always better weapons than that; and so the list goes on.
A pitchfork for moving hay is a a long stick with pointy ends, not made for combat and thus not excelling at it, but still dangerous and deadly.
There is also the fact that a weapon that has weaknesses can useful when paired with another weapon that complements it. From the military stand point grenades are excellent in certain situations such as trench or room clearing but you don't have soldiers equipped with nothing but grenades (even WW 1 "bombers" were still given pistols). But used in combination with a rifle the two complement each other. Likewise, historically, a halberdier or bowman would carry a short weapon for times when they got into a clinch with an enemy that managed to rush them.
Like a shield?
Combat gear is always a package of specialized tools to cover as many scenarios you can think of that you most likely will have to overcome.
If you know its winter and cold, you really want to have some means to not die in the cold.
You want to have some equipment and food, water with you, if you know you are in combat for a long time.
A single combat encounter is one thing, a prolonged warfare is a massive number of problems that each want their own solutions.
I don't know about WW1 aircraft, but WW2 bomber pilots carried pistols to shoot their own flight computers, so that the Axis powers couldn't replicate them. Not, as you suggested, in case they crashed.
@@A._Person he was talking about WW1 bombers not WW2 aircraft.
@@A._Person if they cared about the tech id think giving pilots a thermite charge would of worked better than a pistol since i feel like bullets would ricochet in the cockpit possibly killing the pilot
If the weapon hurts the wielder more then the one is supposed to hurt, then it's probably a bad weapon.
If a weapon is difficult to use, that chance exists all the time.
If a explosive weapon can just explode in your hand and kill you, thats bad, but the damage potential is simply too big to disregard that fact (and properly used you can ensure you dont blow yourself up, so its a difficult weapon).
Any weapon with a sharp edge can cut the wielder, while any blunt weapon doesnt have that problem ... but you might accidentally drop the weapon and it crushes your foot or something ...
Even a simple stone might have a sharp edge and cut you badly if you just pick it up.
The potential to harm yourself exists in basically any weapon.
A nunchuck might hurt you badly, but you probably dont die from it unless you go super crazy.
@@ThisNameIsBanned getting hit from your own nunchuck can let the enemy get an advantage on you though and its extremely common to get hit by your own nun chucks in an actual combat situation vs other weapons
Any weapon can hurt the user I think It is more a matter of probablity, and How much more hurt than you your enemy can get.
Yes rule 1
Not if you dont care about the wielder! say you send tons of expendable slaves to battle just to entangle and harm the enemy elites with toxins and flamables.
3:00 good to hear you stick to your morals. Honesty might not always win you praise, but it educates those who care to listen.
Your metric makes sense to me, especially when you use it to compare other things in daily life. If you're looking for a winter boot, there are tons of options but some are better winter boots than others. Some winter boots are seriously not good winter boots. Same goes for car tires, alcohol, watches (I've had one that got off by around an hour each day, and the knob to adjust it just didn't work half the time), and more.
I feel people misunderstands a weapon being bad with "it shouldn't exist/be used" in terms of fiction (and some of these IRL as well) there's plenty of reasons why a worse weapon would be used, be it technological difference(including time period), culture, preference, part of a duel, being trained in it or morale boosting (like being a characters personal preference or the weapon being a symbol to a religious or cultural group)
yeah, but even if its morale boosting to wield a sword with a blade for a handle so it stabs your palm and digs deeper with every swing, created to signify your culture sacrificing blood to your gods for victory over your enemies, that you trained to use since you could walk, doesn't make said sword of self harm a good thing to use.
i agree on the time period thing, if something is straight up unavailable because you can't acquire one anything less powerful but available would beat it. duels also make sense since they are less combat and more honor things. you aren't trying to kill the guy as much as kill him in a specific way that justifies a point of some sort, but morale or training can't make up for plain bad design.
Don't forget cost!!!
Another reason to add to that would be cost. If you can't financially afford a better weapon becasue it would be too expensive, a cheaper and worse weapon is still better than nothing. Sometimes being cheaper makes it more viable, especially as a mass-produced battlefield weapon for an army, because you can make more of it to arm more soldiers.
Now, cheaper doesn't always mean worse, but usually if something is better it would be considered more valuable and it would make sense for it to cost more.
@@_chew_ Granted though, there tends to be very cheap options that are very viable so you don't have to pick bad ones
We don't need nunchucks or homemade guns
Because clubs and millions of surplus rifles are just as easy and far better
Very true. Probably the best example is the tie fighter. Objectively a terrible ship, even in universe it's only advantage over bassically everything else is that its pretty fast and agile. But, it is employed en mass by the empire, because having a million tie fighters at your disposal is significantly better than having only a 100000 Xwings.
It does get taken to the realms of being utterly stupid at times, such as with the tie tank, a tank that takes all the disadvantages of a tie fighter, capitalises on them, then removes all the advantages.
I love the history of arms and armor because it measures technology through the honesty of people with given resources and constraints..... wanting... not... to... die. :-)
Yeah, that's exactly why if it doesn't look like a weapon you're familiar with from history... It's almost certainly a really terrible weapon. It's easy to imagine stuff... Figuring out what would actually work, on the basis of your imagination and probably very little relevant experience is not so easy.
I think it also important to differentiate between "trained" and "mastered" when it comes to ease of use, as I have heard arguments made that's based on martial art sayings or old concepts like "it takes a decade to master the spear/staff and only a year to master the bow". The thing is we already know pikeman gets barely any training before being sent into the battle, and as inefficient as they are, they still worked.
I feel like another important metric is ease of creation. The ability to mass produce a weapon is very important to its use to an army
Yeah, many times the economics are a deciding factor. Ten men with sticks will beat up one guy with a sword, all else being equal.
If you can't afford the weapon, it's a garbage weapon, because you can't use it.
Mass production pretty much uses "Quantity over quality". It's a metric on the strategic warfare level than individual weapons.
British Sten guns were objectively horrible guns, but they were easy to mass produce, and did the job of giving the soldiers guns to use.
Very much the case. The video is only considering tactical considerations but not strategic although the edge taken off by the repeated use of "when they have the option". To take the heavily mentioned stick, on a strategic/logistical basic the stick is wonderfully available weapon (unlike money, sticks do grow on trees). We are looking at this from the General's viewpoint while Shad is taking this from also valid but different viewpoint of the Private
The biggest problem that i have encounter is most people dont know how separete what they like and what is good , they just assume that if they like it has to be good and that inst true .
it's like the Rambo movie. we all like it, but it is trash
As a diletant statistician, I am quite perplexed by the counter-intuitive nature of your graph's axis. The lowest amount should sit in the bottom left, not bottom right. Besides that headache, cool video.
I dun get it
You mean the bottom "ease of use" axis right?
Easiest to the right and hardest to use on the left. It's intuitive to me...?
The lowest amount of ease of use would be impossible to use. His graph is right according to your standards. It’s ok we all have our “brain farts”
It is in the bottom left though.
Wow GREAT video, awesome editing, good job to Shad and his crew.
Wow I didn't watch any of your videos for a while and I can see your production value has exploded in this one, congratulations! Every frame was entertaining. You rock!
a wise Ork once said "Dis needs ta be MOAR KILLY"
thats a pretty good metric in my humble opinion
Dose Eldar is always muckin about makin dere weapons all shiny an fancy when dey should be makin em MOAR KILLY! Dats why dey is always gettin stomped an Orks is doin da stompin!
My belief on this is that a bad weapon is one where training to be proficient in the weapon is more work than the weapon's actual usefulness. Nunchucks are the best example being a difficult weapon to train, with limited usefulness.
Nunchucks give diminishing returns I like the idea lol
Good part of Nunchucks is if you get disarmed, the opponent is more likely to hurt themselves with them.
I'm still wondering if they were ever used as an actual weapon in an actual battle
@@ThisNameIsBanned You could just challenge your opponent to a nunchuck dance off.
@@brawlyaura5799 well I was saying they seem completely unnefective but they were improvised weapons so they exist because at some point that was the best someone could use in a given situation, that doesnt make it a good weapons, if you're in danger and the only thing you find is a pan, you can use it as weapon but it's not a good weapon by design. Though a pan is arguably a better weapon than nunchakus
Thanks for going back to this style of video, it is a lot more enjoyable to watch! I found the discussion very interesting. The only thing I'd have to add is that there isn't anything objective about the concept of "good". By definition, what is "good" depends on what we collectively decide to consider "good". To some people, that could be effectiveness, to others it could be style. Perhaps it would be more productive to talk about effective/ineffective, which are arguably more objective concepts, weapons instead of good/bad, which are inherently subjective.
You're confusing objectivity with specificity. Good can mean lots of different things, but each of those things is on some level objective (even subjective desirability depends on something that actually exists, namely the fact that people desire it). Part of the difficulty is that many of these things can't be quantified, or at least we haven't figured out how, and most of the time we combine many factors on a weighted scale that we also can't really quantify or describe to others. In short, the choice of which objective scale to use is subjective and cannot really be communicated to others, so we oversimplify and say that goodness is subjective.
mmmmmm, no. good is objective.
example: this movie was good!
did I have good writing? well no.....
was it well choreographed? not really.....
was the plot good? meeeeeh....
then no, it isn't good.
but I liked it!
okay....... that doesn't mean its good.
an example of this would be the Witcher and Mandalorian show. both are pretty bad shows, cause there are TOOOOOOOOOOOONS, LOOOOOOTS of issues. but you are allowed to still LIKE it. but you liking it doesn't make it good, it just means you like it.
good is a measurable, objective standard. liking is a personal, subjective standard.
@@scorpionlord9175 The fact that lots of people like both shows means that, in terms of their ability to achieve their primary purpose (entertaining people and/or producing revenue for the producers), they are good because they succeed very well. That is an objective fact. Also, when listing reasons why a show might be good, you forgot worldbuilding (which the Mandalorian at least also did poorly in), character arcs, ability to produce investment in the world and/or characters, and emotional impact on audience.
@@samueldimmock694 so here is why your wrong.
Your trying to mix objective and subjective.
The emotional response of an audience is irrelevant if the movie/show is good. That's subjective.
Objective is world building, writing, acting, ect ect. Measurable things.
Subjective deals with emotions, feelings. Did I like this show/movie?
Just because someone likes the movie/show doesn't mean it's good.
Example: I love the prequel star wars. I love the phantom menace and I even like jar jar(I know I know, get the heavy flamer brother!). But I still fully admit they are poorly written, bad movies, regardless of my feelings on them.
So you see, I'm not saying they are one and the same, cause they aren't.
Subjectivity is irrelevant to if it's good or not. The entire point of objectivity is to set your emotions aside and look at something rationally.
As for revenue.......it's Disney and star wars. Of course it did well, that's irrelevant and separate from if it's good or not.
Your entire comment is trying to bring subjectivity as an argument and say that's proof of objectivity when no. They are not the same and they are separate.
@@scorpionlord9175 Emotional responses are actual psychological phenomena, and since the brain is something that physically exists and brainwaves can be measured--though we run into the problems of low resolution and poor understanding of what a given signal actually means--that means emotions are things that objectively exist.
The counter-argument is that they vary between people, so a statement based on the response which a movie produces in me is as much a statement about me as it is about the movie, and the two factors cannot be separated. That is true; my opinion is subjective when used to describe the movie itself. However, if I do a survey of a large number of people, using proper statistical methods, you can effectively eliminate the influence of individuals and get a pretty good view of the movie's effect on the general population. Of course, you can't really quantify such things very well, but the same is true for many phenomena that are widely acknowledged as objective.
In summary, when talking about something's effect on you in particular, emotions and preferences are absolutely objective, though our ability to tell what they are may be limited by physical or cognitive constraints. When talking about the thing itself, divorced from any particular person, the emotions and preferences of an individual are subjective and hold no objective weight, but when large numbers of subjective data points are combined using valid statistics, the result is objective. Saying I like the movie is either an objective statement about me or a subjective statement about the movie. Saying that I am 95% confident that 80% of people like the movie is objective (and can be objectively false)
As for your statement about revenue, all that means is that Disney knows what it's doing and that certain properties of the movie being a Star Wars movie make it objectively better than other movies in terms of its ability to generate revenue.
Last point. Saying something is good in a particular way doesn't mean it's good in any other way, and certainly does not mean it's good in general. Overall goodness is a difficult concept, because it's a combination of all relevant kinds of goodness, and different people give different weight to different factors. For example, you seem to give very little weight to revenue-generation, whereas many people in Disney would give it more weight than any other factor. You also give very little weight to a movie's or TV show's emotional impact, whereas I think it's pretty important. This decision of what weight to give to different factors is subjective--unless we're talking about statistics, which we currently aren't--which makes communication difficult, but the individual judgements are objective ones, and generally correct ones.
I’m glad you’re going by a scientific standard. Could have given us a demo with the bat’leth, might have been fun. Liked the “improved” version. Makes sense. Kind of like what Skallagrim came up with on his channel. I would also advocate for a review of the mek’leth and/or the Jem’Hadar kar’takin weapon. It might be a more practical weapon that meets your criteria.
You have to compare the weapon to others that are readily available. The rapier was a great weapon in its day. But compared to an AK-47 it is not.
I would also say if we compared to weapons of the time against a skilled bowman the rapier was nothing, but I guess that's why it was a self-defense or duel weapon.
@@zhaoliang4217 Many more fancy weapons were mostly for dueling - rapiers, sword breakers, parrying daggers, etc. On a proper battlefield you'd definitely want some more range (so spears, halberds and many other polearms), with something like an arming sword/axe as a backup. Extra dagger/knife wouldn't hurt either. Oh, and don't forget some kind of shield too!
@@zhaoliang4217 I'd duel a man with an AK
@@confusedturtle55 An AK is a multi-weapon. It sends high velocity metal sicks out of one end, it can be a club (a stick) and has a place to attach a bayonet (pointy, bladed metal stick) to make it a sub-standard spear (pointy stick).
Sticks were pretty much always available, so for a weapon to be good, it has to compare favorably to a stick.
The principle virtue of the nunchuck is that of a training tool. It teaches you to be aware of the position of your hands, arms, body and the ends of the nunchuck. It also punishes you if you lose concentration on these things. This makes it a great tool for training many aspects of combat; it just doesn't make it a good tool for actual combat. I suspect that this is why it became a thing in martial arts.
It's pretty intimidating if you're really good with them
@@machomanalexyt5736 Kind of a very limited scenario.
Preach. I wish your comment could be pinned.
@@machomanalexyt5736 someone swinging a normal stick at you can be intimidatingly too
@@machomanalexyt5736 It is, which is why it features so often in Hong Kong movies. Someone who knows what they are doing looks very intimidating and I admire the ability of people that have mastered them. That still doesn't make it better than, say, a stick in an actual fighting situation.
I love these redesigns! It's one thing to point out a problem but it's so much better when a solution is presented
Great video editing my man, made the journey to the content very enjoyable.
The spear. Cheap to manufacture. Easy to walk with. Long reach and easy to train people with. The spear is an example of a good weapon.
Easy to walk with is debatable, if you are not planning to fight, carrying a sword is better.
@@Madi_Ernar you can use a spear a walking stick
@@davidpratt7626 Up to a limit. Once it gets significantly longer than the carrier, it becomes cumbersome in that function. That's one reason why some pikes can be diassembled into parts of manageable length for easier transport.
@@davidpratt7626 Yeah and it occupies your hand. Sword is sheathed and leaves you with both your hands free.
@@Madi_Ernar of coarse everything is relative. I'm thinking of using it 1 handed Nordic walking style.
Hi Shad, I've noticed that you've been talking a lot about religion in Knights Watch recently. Might you do a video on the role of a cleric in an adventuring party? Your videos on inns/taverns and food for medieval adventurers were very interesting and it would be great to hear your take on how such people would handle their spiritual welfare during a quest.
I'm a devout atheist but cleric and paladin are 2 of my favourite archetypes. There's just something about desu vulting for the holy land that does it for me, and hey if there was clear evidence of gods I'd have no problem finding one whose cause matched me well like god of justice or tomboys or something. I'd also like to see it too, with the obvious discussion on priests weapons such as the traditional mace, and then the deites favoured weapons which came in later.
@@IanGerritsen well as a polytheist i can recommend Artemis, Athena & Skaði but i dont have any empirical evidence sadly
I like it
@@doktordanomite9105 No deist has so that is no problem. That is why it is called "faith" not knowledge.
@@davul01 i know just trying to be transparent
Shad, you are one of few creators i really love to watch, and you are also the one creator that shown me the truth, that the stick is often better than any other weapon (or at least most weapons). Thank u for trying so much to fight bias.
Ed: stick still better
Hi Shad, i would like you to test something i call "shield scabbard", like a scabbard but it is located on the shield, for one handed weapons primarily. I don't know if you already did a video on this, but if you didn't, i'd find it intresting for you to review this idea.
Sounds legit
This sounds interesting, but it also seems a bit like a solution looking for a problem. Side scabbards already work fine. This also reminds me of the gun sword problem: doing this adds more weigh to the shield which isn't useful in combat, it also adds more complexity and cost to the system. It also means you lose your scabbard if you lose your shield.
So for it to be useful, it's upsides would have to make up for the downsides. I don't know what the upsides would be so I won't make a prognostic, but basically it doesn't look good.
I like Objective weapons, what would be great objectivitely is how the Horse Bow shoots vs the Longbow. Hint Hint. Love you work thanks for keeping an old fart entertained.
Well the English or Welsh longbow isnt made to shoot off horse back, were as a Mongolian or Turkish Horse bow is. They are made for a specific purpose. Not to say you cant walk and shoot a horse bow or use a longbow from horse back. But I dont think they are fair to compare as they are intended for specific uses. Think maybe a crossbow from horse back vs a horse bow might be interesting. Though think youd have a heck of time reloading a cross bow on horse back.
@@samfisher1024 That is one benefit of a winch cocking device for the crossbow, allows reloading while riding or single handed loading while on foot
Lars Anderson has looked into this topic actually, should check him out ;)
what a silly concept.
Horses can't operate bows!
Glad to finally see someone who understands what "objective" actually means.
It's a societal shame though that you have to explain it to those who don't for 15 minutes lol.
On the bright side, those explanations benefit him economically and help us articulate our arguments.
So it remains a win win situation.
@@poetryflynn3712 what about Milani Fitness?
@@willparry530 Someone who utterly annihilated resident racist narcissism-driven McDojo-dropout.
Great Video!
Loved a bunch of the little jokes in the graphs! I think it would be great if in future weapon review videos, you use this format of the 6 Criteria to rate the weapon. Would give a lot of helpful structure, but may require more editing!
Excellent explanations. Would appreciate referencing these points in future critiques
Let's not forget that "objective standards" also imply an ideal or goal towards which the subject of assessment is measured.
So: the object can be a good tool but a bad weapon. Or may be a good prop, or deteriorating factor, but a bad weapon. Or can be a very good dagger but overall far from the good weapon.
So although standards are objective, that still allows for a plenty of points of views, depending what goal someone has in mind.....
Ps. Seems Shad concealed himself to prevent us from seeing his beard in yet-imperfect form.
While true and a common argument, this point ignores one simple thing - the very important is label that is being judged. A knife can be an objectively good knife but be an objectively bad weapon. If it's being judged on how good a knife it is (for either cooking, eating with, outdoors activities or other), then the fact it's an objectionable bad weapon has no impact. The reverse is also true. A knife can be an objectionably good weapon but a truly piss-poor knife in the non-weapon sense.
While a coat is a coat, we have such things as summer and winter coats. A good summer coat doesn't become a terrible coat just because it's not freezing outside, snow on the ground, and you'll be freezing if you chose to wear it when popping round to the shops.
It's less about points of view, and more about what category you're measuring something against, not what it COULD be measured against.
@@morlath4767 Thanks a lot for expanding! This is more or less what I had in mind: your last sentece is actually fully in line with what I wrote, as I did not said that you have to measure against all what it could be measured against.
@@midora588 Glad I could help. I actually misread your comment and thought you were advocating for the argument, but it's worked out in the end.
Shovel and nunchuks definitely fit into this. Pop culture scythe fails at being a weapon and its original purpose since the blade angle is changed.
@@indiana47 A sturdy shovel in the makeshift weapon category is actually pretty good.
I think the bat’leth kinda makes sense in the context of the universe. The Klingons being a prideful warrior species might be using it to make a statement: “I’m such a great warrior that I can defeat you with this obviously inferior ceremonial weapon.”
Yeah the reason the weapons are still being used in universe is for ceremonial fights and as a cultural identity everyone knows this, you don't need a melee weapon on a spaceship but when people see it they know something about Warf, the question for a batleth should not be how effective it is but is it something that could conceivably be created at one point as a serious weapon for a bipedal alien race and then continued to be used and modified as a ceremonial weapon by that species and i think the answer to that is yes
This statement and the batleth is a bad weapon can both be true though
@@beartankoperator7950 If you objectively look at Start Trek ship design when any component on the ship randomly explode when any energy is put to them a melee weapon really starts to make sense.
Bias is truly a big issues, not only in weapon judgment. Well done, very instructive video, Shad.
For the bat'leth I think in Shad's redesign I would may still include a smaller spike on the larger end but not have it protrude too far, just have it so you can use it to catch a strike and also prevent a blade from sliding down and cutting your hands
A gun is a great weapon for defending yourself from attacks with most other weapons.
As they say, "The best defense is a good offense."
Except for defending against the offense you don't see coming :P
Skallagrim did a video recently on the batleth and when it would be useful. The conclusion was small corridors like the caves on qonos, which has alot. He also referred to kahless' batleth to be the best design due to the ability to adjust your grip as it has one large grip hole. Though it does seem to a high level of training required to use it well his video made me think its not as bad of a weapon as I originally thought.
He also mentioned that the canonical batleth was far too heavy.
@@TheOnlyToblin oh yeah i forgot about that
@@TheOnlyToblin The one specifically called for by Dax was, but remember, everyone who has never picked up a sword thinks they are much heavier than they actually are.
@@TheOnlyToblin Klingon have fought Human Augments, who are five times stronger than a human.
Shad is wrong when he says Klingon have relative strength to humans.
@@natehammar7353 When I learned that swords are around 2-10 pounds I was shocked. Not because of reality, but it made many TV shows, movies and anime seem stupid.
Sometimes Characters act like they're 20 pounds, and fumble around with them.
Your modified bat'leth looks like a really wonky falx (totally underrated weapon BTW, would love an underappreciated weapon vid on them Shad), just with an extra strip of metal in front of the shaft. Just goes to show how all the ideas for functional melee weapons have already been done or at least considered and then rejected in our past.
Lol, that hidden slight against the juju goodluck face cloth neatly placed into video has me rolling even if I'm reading too much into it.
A bad weapons final straw is when it doesn't even looks cool. A weapon that is functional always looks cool. So if your weapon doesn't work, looking cool is all its got left.
Then i really don´t know why frost weapons spell in dragon age: origins and inquisition sucks so much! Probably not cool enough? : P
"A weapon that is functional always looks cool"
That's, like, your opinion, man
But no really, a functional weapon can be extremely plain and dull-looking, or just be a mundane item like a hefty stick
@@Koushakur Hey a hefty stick looks cool. It’s all in posing.
A weapon that looks cool does not become a good weapon.
it becomes a good bragging item.
maybe it’s cuz i don’t give a rats ass about star trek, but that batleth thing is REEEEEEEALLY stupid looking. that being said, i’ll never understand why people get so upset when someone tells them, “ya know, this fictional thing wouldn’t actually make sense irl.”. for instance, light sabers would be more dangerous than walking around everywhere with an rpg. i mean, at least you can touch the blade of a real sword, plus what if a light saber malfunctions? that plasma beam (or whatever it is) could go shooting all over the place. but even under normal conditions, anything that “blade” touches just absolutely disintegrates, so don’t ever accidentally drop it, or it’ll just burn down to the center of the dang planet. no wonder characters need magical powers just to use one, cuz otherwise no one would ever leave training with all their limbs.
You forgot an important category for when considering a weapon as good or not, although it doesn’t affect the end user much at all, and that’s cost. I’m a fan of firearm’s history and I am reminded many times where the cost of a new small arm is arguably the most important category the military considers. The US had access to a plethora of reliable cartridge firing breechloaders and even repeating rifles before the Civil War and even used some of them, but they chose to gerry rig a breech onto an obsolete muzzleloader instead of something better like a rolling block to save on cost because a few thousand of the best rifles money can buy won’t equip an army of hundreds of thousands of men across a continent. So cost is pretty important to consider whether a weapon is good or bad. You don’t want to end up like the Russians in WW1 where soldiers were told to just pick up the rifle their comrade dropped when they got shot.
I see your point, but I think that's more a matter of logistics and economics rather than the sheer effectiveness of a weapon, which is the focus here.
I'd love to see your take on the rope dart and kusarigama. Definitely low scores on ease of use and safety, however the range and versatility may make up for it... In trained hands.
Shitiversity lacks skill and patience to study.
@@vksasdgaming9472 they're just shit weapons
I'd love to get your input on a recommendation for a customized weapon that would make them even more effective practical weapons
I would add a 7th and 8th criteria:
7 - Somewhat related to durability, is Maintainability. How difficult is it to sharpen a bat'leth? As opposed to a sword? And for an even more extreme example, how much effort does it take to sharpen one of those fantasy sword-like objects, with all the extraneous flanges on it? Or that other single-handed Klingon weapon (the mek'leth, IIRC)? And further related to this is
8 - Availability, which includes manufacturing cost. A weapon might beat all others in your six criteria, but be so difficult to manufacture that it's never available under any but the rarest circumstances. A bat'leth, a weird fantasy pseudo-sword (let's call it a "psword"?), and even a pair of nunchucks are all more complicated in their design, and therefore more expensive to manufacture, than weapons made of the same material, but simpler in design. If there's a war coming soon, you need to supply your army with weapons ASAP. If it takes twice as long to make weapons for your army than it does for your enemy to make for his, you're going to lose. You either have an army of half the size, or half your soldiers go into battle unarmed, or with nothing more than sticks and rocks.
a batleth might be easy (though a bit wasteful) to be made with a CNC plasma cutter out of big weapons grade sheet stock, but boy just imagining a blacksmith having to hammer out a piece of barstock out to a suitable large flat piece and then driving in 3 holes for the handhelds and two spilts for separating the spikes at the ends gives me the shivers...
an option would be to forge the blade and the handle separately and then forgeweld the two pieces, but that would mean having four potential points for messing up the weld
@@TheScarvig Exactly! If a bat'leth can only be "invented" after more modern industrialization, such as by cutting it out of sheet metal, then you can't make the claim that it's an ancient, traditional weapon.
Well these two points aren't really relevant if we are purely basing on how good a weapon is and I think that was Shad's point. Even if Nunchucks rained from the sky it still does not make them any better if someone has made a mace or sword. Yes if were talking about manufacturing for large scale combat it would be needed to be taken into account but then I think we just end up moving what we are actually talk about. I think Shad's 6 criteria work very well but I might consider adding ease of carry and ease of readying as a 7th criteria, as both can be potentially very important. This could fall under ease of use but I feel like ability to wield and ability to merely walk around with such item are quite different
@@randomthorn9286 Well my point is that if two weapons are equal under all of Shad's six points, but one is easy to sharpen, and the other isn't, the first one is a better weapon. Or two guns: If one requires frequent cleaning and maintenance to remain effective, and the other doesn't, the second one is the better weapon.
And likewise, if two weapons are the same under Shad's six criteria, but one is expensive to produce and supply to your army, and the other is inexpensive and easy to get, the second weapon is better.
@@PhilBagels but it wasn't unvented by cutting out sheet metal, it was invented by forging a braid of a glorious hero's hair in the fires of hell (lol)
Seeing how the Bathleth is mostly a ritualistic weapon.. I´d say it falls in to that odd 1% rule of things that are made piss-poor and horrible difficult to use by design in order to serve a specific ritual. But that also downgrades it from a weapon to a tool... Much like how a thrashing tool somehow became considered a weapon. Both are still just tools, better than fists but not much else.
How is it different then let's say double spiked shields for judicial duels? It was widely used in german states and eastern Europe in the XIV-XVth century. Is it to be considered not a real weapon because Spanish knights didn't use them.
It wasn't used ritualistically though, as we see again and again Klingons use it as a close quarter weapon. When they try and board many are shown holding Bathleths.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 You make a good point, but then it comes down to 2 things:
1. Klingons tend to be stronger and are almost always much more durable than most humanoids.
2. They spend their entire lives training with the bat'leth, and their culture prides mastery of it over any other weapon
They also still carry disruptors on those raids, leaving the bat'leth in a battlefield war similar to a combat knife in modern war, only to be used in a very specific instance, and the primary will be the go-to.
@@piotrjeske4599 If you think it's like the double spiked shield, then that's proof of its awfulness. That shield is a bad weapon. At no point was one of those shields used on a battlefield, and I would bet my house on that. It was used specifically in duels likely by people who really didn't want to die in a duel and so made sure the weapon used was as terrible as legally possible like doing a judicial duel with a pool noodle. Alternatively, it might be for entertainment of the audience in public duels. Regardless, it's a terrible weapon on purpose, and it is entirely absurd to say the Bat'leth is a good weapon because it's the same as that mentioned terrible weapon.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 we are reminded again and again that one of the core reasons Klingons are failing is due to an overzealous worship of a traditional, honorable way of the warrior. A reverance to a Klingon past that never even truly existed. The bat'leth is part of this: Klingons carry bat'leths not because they're good weapons, but because they're seen as honorable and fundamentally Klingon. All the better to die with. I do mean that: I think many Klingons would far prefer dying with a bat'leth in hand than a disruptor or phaser.
Awesome video! You briefly touched appon this with mentioning how the stick has the advantage of just about always being available, but I do want to say for anyone doing world building; as a final category to consider is the ease of availability. This doesn't really affect how good the weapon is so much as it simply affects how your weapon in question might be utilized in the world. From my understanding of the swords early history it was as much a status symbol as it was a weapon because it was difficult to make and acquire, while later in history it became much more common for personal defense due to better and more affordable production. This is grossly simplified but it provides an example.
I love your videos shad.
I'm glad you at least acknowledged the metric of economics (How hard is it to get) of the weapons in question; weapons made of rarer and obscure metals/alloys or equipment made of more elaborately complex parts may be objectively better in all ways on paper, however obtaining let alone maintaining them become extremely cost inefficient once the question moves closer to reality.
I would wager a fair chunk of the bonkers weapons of the past that enthusiast day dream about wondering why these where not implemented fell foul to this
A good example of that is the Girandoni air rifle.
It's not just ancient weapons, either. There were a lot of bonkers superweapons proposed during the World Wars that never got beyond building them as a one-off because they were hideously expensive, like the Gustav Schwerer superheavy artillery piece and the Yamato battleship.
Others only got as far as having an engineer or finance minister laugh the project out of the room, like the Antipodal Bomber, a sub-orbital rocket plane, or the P-1000 'Ratte' Land-Cruiser, a tank so large they planned to use the turret left from refitting the Scharnhorst battleship.
@@tba113 I've long wondered if the Ratte was an elaborate scheme to embezzle funds in the hope that some mad man in power would approve the thing.
@@MediumRareOpinions Indeed. From what I understand, it was the head of the Krupp mfg company that suggested it to Hitler, so you might well be onto something. I think Albert Speer concluded more or less the same thing - that wasting resources was the only practical purpose of the Ratte - but being someone who had a more than passing understanding of things like production and logistics, he canned the project pretty much the instant the proposal landed on his desk.
If it hadn't come from the senior guy at Krupp, I might be inclined to imagine the Ratte was an _Allied_ plan to convince Hitler to waste an armored division's worth of production on an insane and mostly-useless vanity project like that. But Krupp's leadership were mostly true believers, so that isn't likely. The juicy-government-contract theory still holds up, though.
Have you seen the price of red metals these days? No way I'm buying a khopesh now.
The video is really interesting and I enjoyed it very much but I feel like when talking about the stick you're just undermining it's enormous power so that others won't use it and have a tactical advantage against unsticked people
I always appreciate someone supporting objective truth. Thank you. 🙌🏼 this was a very entertaining and informative watch.
so does the battle location also affect the weapon rating? between a open field and cave, weapon effective can change like the bath'leth as being created for alien living in tunnel and spaceship.
The Batleth seems like something where there was an original functional weapon of some sort that got turned into something ceremonial over time.
Right. And as a cool, flashy, prestigious weapon it ends up more stylized. Applying Shad's criteria, this even happens in-universe to an extent. The 'original' has a single handhold you can move your hands along (tho has other issues).
It was developed for a ritualistic dueling style between heavily armored fighters. It was also originally designed for blocks, parries, and locks.
That's pretty much what I was thinking myself. Take Shad's design, add a couple of parrying hooks to the front face (don't need to be longer than an inch or two, enough to catch an opponent's weapon or maybe the opponent directly in a close grapple without being as massive as the bat'leth's front spikes) and you've probably got something pretty close to what the practical predecessor to the bat'leth would have been.
Sort of like a "Viking" helmet with horns on it.
To me, its design looks too organic. Perhaps it was originally antlers from some space deer that were really tough and sharp, but later people got better metals and started making the same weapon out of metal.
my take on why the Bat'leth is shaped like this is because the Star Trek producers wanted the clingon to have melee weapons that looked "exotic" or "different from generic swords" with no regard whatsoever for actual weapon design.
Well, for that purpose it is a good weapon. It's unique, iconic, and it's reasonably believable as a weapon. That makes it a good weapon for a TV show. But that's the Doylist view of it.
@@AnotherDuck well, "believable".
@@dustyreductionist4637 It's believable for the vast majority of the audience.
You overlooked one aspect:
Feelings will always trump facts when it comes to convincing someone.
Nunchucks are cool and people will always automatically equate cool with good.
Nunchucks and the Bat'leth are wrapped up in years of nostalgia and sentiment and that alone is enough to deflect any objective analysis.
I was wondering about the 'availability' category of weapons, encompassing resource cost, size/weight and concealability. i.e. how easy is it to get it to the battlefield in the first place. Glad you covered some of that with the stick.
A defense of the (badness of the) Bat'leth: As a ceremonial weapon, demonstrating expertise with an objectively bad weapon is a superior demonstration of warrior prowess. The bat'leth isn't just bad, it's intentionally bad.
DS's "The Way of the Warrior" (part 2) sees Klingons using them as they board the station.
Damn right that’s why I only use gunchucks (nunchucks that are also guns) when trying to impress people at the range.
That's just the standard fan excuse when they can't deny how bad it is, it definitely was intended to be a proper weapon, just designed by someone who had no idea how to make one.
It makes zero sense for Klingons of all people to use a weapon this bad in actual combat, but they do anyway because it's far too late to give them something that actually works.
Shad's kinda disregarding A LOT of context to state his opinion, while presenting in an authoritive way
@@pegasBaO23 What's some context he's missing? If the Bat'Leth was intended to be a proper weapon from the start, it should be analyzed as such.
The main advantage Klingons have over humans isn't strength, it's stamina/endurance. They can fight longer than humans can.
This is gonna be interesting, the only way I’ve been able to tell is by looking at a weapon and think if it would be good or not
Love the MIB noisy cricket reference, LOL. Can't believe I still remember that movie after like 15 years.
Now I would really be interested in you taking the next step here: Finding actual numbers corresponding to your descriptions of what is good / bad for a multitude of weapons. You could further add weighting factors (basically sorting which of your six rating paramters is more important than the other) and then you could make a mathematical model to actually calculate a weapons "goodness" - ending in a list of the best weapons. That would be awesome!
Note: I am fully aware of the fact of how unrealisticly much work and efford would have to go in such a model. Most people would probably not even care for this to be worth it...
I also have a way to tell if a weapon is good, not as effective as what you presented but much quicker and easier perform on the fly. I call it the 4 step check:
Step 1: Would I use this over a sword
Step 2: Would I use this over a spear?
Step 3: Would I use this over a polearm?
Step 4: Would I use this over nunchucks?
If it passes at least one of the first three then I know the weapon's got some merit, step 4 is a catch all just in case it fails the first three. If it still fails that one.... then there is no saving it.
there's a reason why for thousands upon thousands of years the height of military technology was a long pointy stick. because it is incredibly effective.
I guess because we don't live like our ancestors did in ancient or even medieval times or whenever, we as modern people tend to focus only on coolness of a weapon based not on the weapon and its functionality and practicality, but because our favorite characters use those weapons. for example, someone like anime and everything anime relatedly so much that they are willing to disregard the functionality and practicality of the weapons that their favorite anime characters use solely because said person likes it. So if another person comes along and say that the weapon isn't cool or functional, the person takes it as a personal attack. Said person has developed a psychological attachment to whatever character (tv, movie, anime, game, etc). so much so, that it is their identity. The Bat'Leth is a handicapped swordspear like the nunchucks is a handicapped stick. Maybe extend the front spikes and get rid of the back spikes. Oh, you did that. Now, should the new design be double edged or single edged or both? Maybe make the smaller spike single edged and the larger spike double edged.
Its not just old weapons our ancestors used. Just look at the current day gun community. 9mm vs. .45, or AR-15 vs. AK47.
true my favorite weapon is a scythe is it cool? yes, do i think it as a all functional? god no, will i forever remember the time i made a scythe for Halloween and i was forced to leave it outside, not because there was a rule in the costume but because they considered it a real weapon? absolutely
@@grimmwolf9690 true, but I'm not too familiar with the gun community.
@@cgamejewels it sounds much the same as the historical weapons community. Lmfao 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
People living in luxury can afford to be that dumb.
Serious kudos for seeking and standing by objective truth, especially at cost to yourself. That alone made this video worth watching.
Preamble: I did read your pinned comment.
Those 6 metrics ... the 6th (durability) isn't always applicable, such as for single use weapons like grenades, or when choosing ammunition types. To say that durability is always used for comparison isn't quite true.
Perhaps change "durability" to "reusability" and when you talk about ranged weapons you might NOT want reusability; you may not want to arm your enemy if you can avoid it.
I'd love to see Shad's opinion on 3 sectional staffs. I think it would be funny.
U HAD STICK, STICK GOOD
Same. I see the completely outclased by those long, two handed war flails. You have a single flexible point conecting the long handle and a shorter striking end. Best of both worlds
Yeah, I've used them, fun but only good for intimidation. Also hard to master.
I can sense him getting triggered already
3 section staffs are probably better than nunchucks due to range.
Your the best Shad. You always make interesting content. Keep up the amazing work.
Is there a pun intended
I used to have the same pfp
42:38 I would also put a flat handguard like stuff where the handle ends on each side on the side of the user, something small but at least stops stuff from keep going.
I believe the Batleth was originally made as a farming tool, which in that case the extra spikes help in catching wheat stalks to cut them. Also I believe the Batleth is meant as a flex, like haha I beat you with a crap weapon
Very expensive farming tool, considering that its mostly metal.
this channel is so fun and gives me tons of D&D ideas
Yo same 🙏
there's also the terrible crossguard lightsaber used by emo vader in the horrible disney trilogy.
not only are its exposed metal parts easy to slice through, but they also make it incredibly easy to cut yourself which means the best way to use it is by awkwardly pointing it as far away from you as possible and leaning about with it
It would have been quite easy to put hand protector guards under the light guards.
@@SystemLordNemo what difference would that've made?
@@jerichamesclammay3107 One could use the weapon with more safe manner and you have light saber proof gross guard of course. But then again they did not do that. Also the hand protector guard could have been awesome telescopic system or something.
@@SystemLordNemo there's no such thing as lightsaber-proof metal. And no, beskar isn't canon.
Why does everyone criticize the metal bits of the lightsaber? It's not like there are different metals that can block lightsabers in-universe or anything.
A weapon's purpose. I would argue is not absolutely to increase lethality. It is so make the other person stop fighting. Now this is usually best done by increasing the lethality (dead opponents don't fight back) but not always. The weapons ability to cause surrender must always be taken into account. So both psychological aspects like intimidation do matter (for example artillery) and the ability to subdue with killing (for example, a net).
And another criteria. Access. This means the ability to bring the weapon to fight. It covers the cost, components, the logistics of supply of ammunition (if needed), or the item itself.
The ability to have the weapon when needed...a weapon that can pass into a restricted area shows up to a fight there and is thus better than weapon at the guard station...a weapon that you can carry is more available than one you have to go home to get...or a weapon that you can quickly pull from a farm tool is better than one that requires weeks of waiting to be made as the fight may be over by then. A weapon that can not show up to the fight is worse than one that can as fights themselves are never without their own larger contexts.
If you have two sides with the same inputs and one can bring 10 of weapon A to bear and the other side can bring 50 of weapon B weapon A has to be far more effective and not just a little or the B side will simply be able to overwhelm them.
I would add a forward protruding spike to the lower end of your re-designed Bathlet. For catching opponent's weapon, which was pointed out by Skallagrim as a benefit from the extra spikes. I think that would be useful enough to outweigh the, well, added weight while the already mediocre striking capability of the lower end would not be hampered too much.
It’s sad that this video needed to be made at all, but was explained amazingly, as usual.
Also, I would love to hear your thoughts on the Tuscans’ bantha stick.
It's a Polynesian Club (stick), mated to the thrusting point of a Maori Taiaha. It's a good smacky-stabby stick.
I think pointless is the wrong word to use when describing the forward edge protrusion on the bat'leth. If it was pointless, it'd be a better weapon. The point is the problem. =P
🤯
What I understand is that the Bat’leth was an improvised weapon made by Kahless. For whatever reason, it was a successful weapon. The reason why Klingons still use them might be pure for religious/cultural reasons. And I can see the Bat’leth might be good in attacking armored enemies (hooking them, dismantling the armor and giving a deathblow). Still an inferior weapon in other circumstances.
D: I can't believe my favorite weapon, the oversized anee may sword that looks like it weighs over 9000 pounds and is twice the size of the protagonist isn't viable! Lol.
This Video is just great. It explains perfectly why we usually don't use melee combat if we have the option to use a gun. It also explains perfectly why one should carry a knife even if you have a gun because you need to defend your gun at close range. Im not a big gun nerd but everybody who would bring a sword to a gun fight is either crazy or 2009 wade wilson. I especially love the categories and charts you put together. Makes it very easy to understand.
You forget Jack Churchill. He used a Sword, a Longbow, a Revolver and Bagpipes actively (and efficiently) in WWII. He is a true and certified Madlad.
One point in the Bat'leth's favor is the context of its use, the bat'leth is primarily used in starships and space stations, making the lack of reach less of a big deal.
Hey shad to you have a hall of shame for weapons?
If you do I nominate the double bladed axe head attached to chain like a mace.
27:24 I think that Miyamoto Musashi could be used as an example as an effective use of prepared stick over a sword in the duel context. I am not a historian but the stories/drawings about his win over Sasaki Kojiro sounds like legit ones.
By the way some time ago I have read Musashi novel by Eiji Yoshikawa, I know it is fictional one but it is a really great adventure book with some deeper thoughts. Really recommend it for book nerds :)
As a wise man once said "You had stick, STICK GOOD"
I just got hearted, this is the first time ever thank u shad
Well ****** it went away after thanking u
Pretty sure that's an automatic thing because you edited it. Keeps people from gaslighting the creator.
@@ZackofSpades makes sense to bad I didn't know 😭
@@lordegg2969 It's okay. I believe you :3
@@ZackofSpades ur a Saint
I will fight you over the Bathleth.
I think it is a specialised weapon, specifically an anti-armour weapon.
The extra spike seems very good as a "dagger" replacement to "break open" armour.
Furthermore, if you add the context that the are weapons used in confined spaces (like caves, or starship corridors) where reach is a detriment and grappling and controlling the opponent's weapons is far more important, I think in particular contexts which are not common on Earth but would have been common on Qu'onos, it becomes far more sensible than you say
Totally disagree. It is a very un-optimized ant-armor weapon. The two spikes are in fixed positions and therefore can't be moved to adapt to two openings in an opponent's armor because those gaps would rarely ever match the distance of the spikes. You cannot stab through proper plate armor. So more often when you manage to get one spike to hit a gap, the other will hit the flat plate and prevent the spike that hit to properly penetrate. It is an incredibly bad anti-armor weapon. It's too big and cumbersome to properly aim a spike through a gap, hence why proper anti armor weapons meant to go through gaps are shorter, like knives or you half sword to get more direction and better aim. Being edged it will transfer very little blunt force through armor. It would be objectively terrible as a grappling weapon as there are no effective catch points for the opponent's weapon. it would also be terrible in confined spaces because it's still a large weapon and on top of that, awkward, heavy and cumbersome.
Bat'leth's are complete garbage weapons.
@@shadiversity well, to be fair, I did kinda copy scholagladitoria's work on it. (Maybe a response to his work would be good to see vastly different opinions on these things 😉, maybe??) I only have passing knowledge on weird weapons, but I felt like weirder weapons were extremely commonly used in India and China. (Whip swords, sword gloves, crescent knives, you should make videos on this!)
Anyways, thanks for replying!
the shad'leth seems pretty weak along the length where it would likely be used to deflect incoming blows. It seems like if you remove the middle bit, you get a much more maneuverable weapon at a moderate cost to hand protection and edge length
Sorry just now finding this video but have watched for a while. Always like how you point out what is or could be good about something. As someone who has practiced the ole chucks for years I think people overlook or simply don't know that the free end does NOT stop moving when you hit your target. One of the first things you learn with chucks is how much it hurts to get hit by them JUST PRACTICING. Not only is there no real defensive use, but your attack is quite possibly going to hit you as well as your opponent. Still they are fun to practice with, but I wouldn't take them to a fight
Shad. I respect your logic, but since the longbow takes years of training to be used effectively I’m going to stick to throwing rocks.
Shad's logic in a nutshell. X'D
My favorite justification of bad weapons is the “Oh it’s a Ritual Weapon” or rather “It can be as shit as can be”
I would urge you to take a look at what absurd contraptions we ourselves have thought up to fight honor duels with.
Ritualistic weapons being utterly ridiculous and impractical is ver, much in line with observable reality.
@@egoalter1276 Nothing I say really go against what you say so I agree
Yeap they say that like some x factor that makes it better, it explains why it is used, not why its good.
Ask Gandalf if his stick was less effective?
The hidden perk to a stick is it's unassuming. You see a man walking around with a stick you think nothing of it. You see a guy walking around with a poleax you become suspicious or alerted to his activity/presence.
I agree! Historically nunchaku have been my favorite weapon. I am pretty good with them in terms of juggling. But I would NEVER want to use one for self defense. Flashy juggling isn't going to be effective in a fight. A stick is a much better choice. My current favorite weapon is a cane. That's largely due to legality. I know of no place that prohibits a person from bringing a cane. I am disabled; so if I am on my feet there is usually a cane in my hand. So it's a weapon I have ready access to. When I go out I use an electric wheelchair. My cane is on the side of the back of the wheelchair. So it's not the easiest to reach sitting in the chair. So I have a stinger whip on the left armrest. I can easily reach over and grab it. I also have pepper spray in my purse and a yoogo keychain on my keys. Not to mention my flashlight. So yea I carry multiple weapons. Medical facilities here have a no weapons policy. So I can't bring the stinger. But even with the xray machine at the ER entrance; I haven't had any problems with my other weapons.