Missing the context | Reply to Scholagladiatoria, good and bad weapons

A reply to Matt Easton of Scholagladiatoria on his misunderstandings of what I've said about good and bad weapons.
Matt's original video: • Good & Bad Weapons: KL...

[@gregoryfloriolli9031]

Skal in his video where he tested a Bat’leth, not surprisingly, concluded that the best way to use the weapon was to hold it at the bottom and swing it like a sword. You know what is better to hold at the bottom and swing like a sword? Literally any sword ever made designed for cutting.

[@jonathanryals9934]

Not exactly the best way... That is the way to generate the most forceful strike. (Also increases range). It is the best way to utilize that specific tactic with the implement. But say you are in a klingon battle cruiser fighting in the dark corridors you might prefer two hands and a defensive grip.

[@RiskOfBaer]

@@jonathanryals9934So, they want a sword and shield?

[@adrewadrew5860]

@@RiskOfBaermore like disruptor

[@gordyrroy]

yeah. But even if a sword is more effective. For a fantasy/ science fiction I'd always go for the exotic design. Because it's way more interesting than seeing the same type of weaponry again and again. Star Trek was brave in that regard, and I really liked the outcome.

[@askiia8713]

@@gordyrroy Well...yes, but that's not at all what everyone is discussing about. We're not discussing creativity or originality here, but practical usage in real life scenarios

[@ionlycomment5187]

The pollaxe was an effective weapon in the context of armored combat in the middle ages. The bat'leth is a very effective weapon in the context of being entertaining on television.

[@MrSimpsondennis]

in the context of being entertaining on television, Nunchuks must be king :p Either for the videos of "cool" moves or for the videos of people hitting themselves in the face with them whilst trying to perform said "cool" moves :p

[@edwinball985]

@@MrSimpsondennis This is why I'm with Shad on nunchuks. They're in a special category of bad weapon where user with little or no training are more likely to hurt themselves than the opponent.

[@samuelhagberg3694]

So you are saying that it makes a good prop, but not weapon

[@IHateUniqueUsernames]

@@samuelhagberg3694 If I use the nun-chucks to scare away opponents and dissolve a fight before it begins, is it a good (psychological) weapon?

[@AudraT]

Yeah. It looks cook. Cutco sells a cheese knife that looks like it could be a Klingon dagger.

[@penthief83]

Interestingly enough, in star trek, the only real time they used the bat'leth was in ritual duels.... I think shad accidentally created some solid lore that could be used as Canon... the klingons deliberately mastered it as a bad weapon to signify their prowess in combat... sounds fitting and poetic.

[@Fuzzycat16]

Fits the Klingons.

[@triumphant39]

That's not quite correct, more like only used in traditional or ritualistic circumstances, like it's also used in attacks, not duels. Like when warf killed durass, potentially also used in assassinations, and used in general combat, for example before warfs wedding, in the holodeck, and in numerous other circumstances. So eh.

[@shadowx3benz117]

@@triumphant39 they use it in other situations as a mark of honor and because they spend literally their entire lives training with it, if i started training with nunchucks at 4 years old and had never used another weapon, guess what I would pick in a fight, even if someone with less training in a better weapon could still win.

[@ever-openingflower8737]

I think Klingons mostly fall into three camps. The ones who above all want to be effective warriors, survive without serious injuries for as long as possible and act rationally in combat - they would in almost all circumstances pick the disruptor pistol/rifle or whatever other energy beam weapon they can get a hold of. Secondly, the Klingons who are absolute weeaboos about traditional weapons and the traditional Klingon way of life - they would pick the bat'leth. The third group are the civilians who just want to live their lives, scientists, engineers, child-rearers, teachers, lawyers, restauranteurs - of course we rarely get to see them on Star Trek. But in this regard, I think it's quite fitting that Shad paired the nunchucks with the Bat'leth in his video. Because the people who are the most vocal about how awesome and very effective and very good the nunchucks are, those people (mostly Earthers) are exactly the type of person that would pick a cumbersome Bat'leth over disruptors as main weapon and dagger to assist as melee weapon. From the rational standpoint, the only reason to ever switch to a melee weapon would be close-range only if (1)re-loading of energy weapons was an issue - and if we go by 99% of fight scenes shown in Trek, that is a non-issue, as re-load times for energy weapons are very very short, plus the effect would be minimised in any squad of more than one person. (2) If energy weapons became unuseable. Only in those cases would they ever pick a melee weapon. Like I said, for close-range, a typical Klingon dagger would be way more versatile than a large Bat'leth. There's this paradox about the Bat'leth that perfectly mirrors the same disadvantage of the nunchucks! If you consider the Bat'leth as your main weapon regardless of context, you would be a complete buffoon, because energy beam weapons like the disruptor pistol are ranged weapons that can kill instantly. So, if you aren't completely suicidal (which, as a matter of fact, many Klingons are in fact) then you would only pick the Bat'leth for close quarters. Then, however, you get this paradox, where to increase the range, you would have to make the weapon larger, but you would also need to change the whole design entirely. Similarly to the nunchucks. There's no way to increase the range of the nunchucks without changing the entire design of the nunchucks. Similarly, just like Shad tried to show in his video. If you try to increase the range of the traditional Bat'leth, you have to alter its design so much to the point that it mirrors a sword that you might as well just pick a proper sword instead. And at the same time, even within close quarters, a simple dagger would be faster and more versatile. In that regard, the nunchucks fans and the Bat'leth fans are a match made in heaven. Literally the only people who wouldn't pick a more effective - a better - weapon, those are the guys that are the most vocal defenders of these two weapons. I mean, keep in mind how Worf grew up for crying out loud (pun intended)! He lost his parents and then was raised on Earth by humans, among humans. But he came to embrace traditional Klingon in a big big way. Got dishonored and regained his honor. Got left without a Klingon house and then got a good rank in a different Klingon house. Spends his free time in the holo suite or holo deck practicing his Bat'leth combat and he even attends the annual Bat'leth championships. People like him are exactly the kind of person who would love to defend nunchucks. Klingon culture just reinforces that kind of behaviour. That's why they are such a vocal group. But don't forget that a lot of Klingons just want to be effective soldiers and the remaining Klingons just try to get by doing honest work to make a living.

[@TheRezro]

"I think shad accidentally created some solid lore that could be used as Canon" He did not, because that literally always was a thing. All those people offended by claim that Bat'leth is a bad weapon, most likely are fanboys who also think that Red Shirt thing was real. No. In actual Trek lore, Bat'leth was always a ritualistic weapon, designed by Kahless specifically to be finesse weapon hard to use with aggressive swings and by extend providing them training in focus and is used because Klingons are religion and like needlessly ornamented weapons. On top of that in most actual combat scenarios Klingons typically use Disruptions instead. And going back to Red Shirt thing, it was during TOS color of security and emergency personnel. As such they typically ended in more hosticle situations, to which they were trained and by extend they did have higher chance of survival. In opposition to other Divisions, who also did died, but typically in less dramatic circumstances. As such Red Shirts are a joke, not a fact. And fanbous should grow up, because blind denial only harm they "favorite" franchise.

[@bigbird4481]

Just finished the video, and shad I want you to know that I found your channel when trying to learn about swords and I love the honesty here and the fact you admit to being wrong when you are. Love from America ❤️

[@V4zz33]

Look up Metatron, Skallagrim, ThegnThrand, Tod's Workshop, Lindybeige as well! Have fun! Oh, and Scholagladiatoria of course!

[@ThisNameIsBanned]

There is a GENERAL "good/bad" for a universal purpose that is unknown (like pick a weapon, you dont know the purpose beforehand), and then there is specific purpose "good/bad" , if you know beforehand what you will go up against. So if you have no idea what the circumstances will be, you pick the most reliable weapon for as many scenarios that you deem to be likely to happen. That means a weapon can be "good/bad" for a specific purpose and arguably better or worse at a specific job, so comparing them for that gives you a ranking of usefulness. Taking more details into account, like the cost of producing that weapon or any other requirements come on top of that.

[@thomasmorato5098]

@@valandil7454 And when we come into those situations, then we can compare which is objectively good or bad. Matt keeps saying "context", but Shad here is saying that within the context he actually gave, you can indicate if a weapon is good or not. In this case, the weapon it is being compared to in a specific purpose. For example, in an open field area, one has a dagger, the other has a longsword. Both weapons are used in purpose of stabbing the opponent to produce lethality. Of course the dagger is a RUBBISH weapon in an open field area when compared to the weapon it is facing. That is what Shad is saying. I get what Matt is saying that you cannot just say a weapon is good or not if you dont have any context, but there is context here.

[@thomasmorato5098]

@@valandil7454 And when we come into those situations, then we can compare which is objectively good or bad. Matt keeps saying "context", but Shad here is saying that within the context he actually gave, you can indicate if a weapon is good or not. In this case, the weapon it is being compared to in a specific purpose. For example, in an open field area, one has a dagger, the other has a longsword. Both weapons are used in purpose of stabbing the opponent to produce lethality. Of course the dagger is a RUBBISH weapon in an open field area when compared to the weapon it is facing. That is what Shad is saying. I get what Matt is saying that you cannot just say a weapon is good or not if you dont have any context, but there is context here.

[@willparry530]

@@thijmstickman8349 That again comes down to, purpose. If the purpose is just to look a certain way, sure, the guy with the sword on his wall probably has the most aesthetically pleasing weapon, and therefore the best weapon. Shad is talking specifically about judging the use of a weapon _as a weapon_ however, so it's disingenuous to then say 'but what if' and describe using the weapon for display instead. Because putting a weapon on a wall isn;t using it as a weapon, it's using it as decoration.

[@kylewilliams6091]

@@valandil7454 I would prefer to take a multi screwdriver head set instead of a single screwdriver with one head .

[@zaferoph]

@@thijmstickman8349 Well no, it's not Shads arbitrary definition of a weapon unlike "hanging it on a wall" and what colour it is. Objectively or as one might say, scientifically, a weapons functionality according to the purpose of every weapon is not affected by its colour or how well it hangs on a wall. Think of any weapon, what do you think of? Probably an object with which you can attack your enemies or defend yourself. A blue painting is great for hanging on a wall and terrible to use for attack or defense relative to anything else that could be used as a weapon. What do I mean by the word weapon? Weapon by definition of vast majority of everyone reading this or any modern dictionary of the english language I could find would accept a weapon to mean a tool used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage or a tool meant to defend oneself or gain advantage in conflict or contest. We are specifically looking at physical conflict or contest here. This is the basic assumption for the word "weapon" to mean anything at all unless that meaning changes in culture. Words are only as useful as their effectiveness at communication. If you wanna play the weakest semantics game I've seen then be my guest to be objectively wrong.

[@NathanielHarari]

Matt: “Sticks are ineffective weapons.” Shad: “Them’s fightin’ words…”

[@eliasbram3710]

You know shad respects Matt when he is clearly controlling himself to not say "Mate" in the Aussie menacing way

[@brijekavervix7340]

We use 'mate' in a friendly way too, just saying

[@TGPDrunknHick]

@@brijekavervix7340 same as a certain C word that'll get you banned. Australia is wonderful place where Mate can be threatening and the C word a compliment. truly a splendiferous paradise of verbage.

[@brijekavervix7340]

@@TGPDrunknHick well it's more the tone in which we say them rather than the words themselves. And it's not just those two. Variations of 'fuck' are often used in casual conversation too with both positive and negative connotations.

[@TGPDrunknHick]

@@brijekavervix7340 I'm well aware. that's kinda of my point.

[@eliasbram3710]

@@TGPDrunknHick thats very cool to know lol didn't knew that. the "Mate" i actually did, but not the C one lol

[@janehrahan5116]

Just started this but on his china point, one of the many reasons China fell to the mongols is the Confucian burecrats didn't prioritize their army, including giving them inferior weapons and armor. So a large part of why some horse tribes crushes the largest wealthiest nation I'm the world was poor weapon choice.

[@kikisartjourney4265]

It didn't help that they were too busy infighting with each other making themselves even weaker.

[@janehrahan5116]

It's the pre modern world, everyone is always infighting, multiple Turkish/byzantine campaigns ended because BOTH sides started infighting at roughly the same time.

[@janehrahan5116]

But yeah China being broke again instead of whole again was a hinderance to be sure.

[@tandemcharge5114]

Inferior weapons and body armor is only one of the factors as to why China fell to Mongols. It doesn't help that the country is separated into different factions who are fighting each other

[@melfice999]

Also Mongols had rather excellent quality bows too as compared to the underfunded Chinese army of the time.

[@moody1320]

rewatching this vid and now noticing something very odd, matt's defence is basically "oh don't be mean, all weapons are special and valuable, we should never bring up or acknowledge their shortcomings, it's rude" same thing happened when people went off defending nunchucks and brought up how it's insensitive to insult it because of where the item originated, it's amazing how even in a category of weapons that only involve brutality and violence it has sunk to that, weapons are still just tools each with specific functions, a wrench can hammer a nail but not as well as a hammer just the same as you can grab the sword upside down to hit with the crossguard against an armored opponent still wouldn't work as well as a mace or warhammer

[@Dovenchiko]

In addition to what you said objects are objects. Just like the universe, they don't care if you shake your fists at them and they won't hurt you any more or less if you decide to do so. People however, are not objects. Calling someone stupid for learning a hard to use weapon is like calling a chemist stupid for going to school. Yes chemistry and learning how to use nunchucks is hard but it was picked for reasons outside of your understanding. Even explaining exactly why anyone one likes the things they do is difficult so so disproving that would be equally as hard or harder so what's the point of judging them.

[@alexgmplays8222]

Yeah, you're right, i noticed that too. When comparing weapons, tools or whatever, i always picture a big empty room with only two people, each one with a different weapon (but with the same level of skill as their opponent) and try to imagine who would win in a theoretical fight, based on the advantages and disadvantages of each weapon. If i want, i can imagine different places in order to figure out if one weapon has an unique advantage due to the environment it's in (for example, a great sword almost always will win against a knife in open spaces but a knife has an advantage in tight spaces). Whichever weapon wins in most scenarios, therefore is the superior weapon

[@aramondehasashi3324]

The funny thing about when Matt talks about context and when certain weapons were used if we use that for the Bat'leth and the context it's in, it is a horrible weapon when you have lazer guns.

[@Underworlddream]

Split the difference and attach the laser to the Bat'leth, like a reverse bayonet.

[@Merennulli]

Except it isn't. They only use the bat'leth ceremonially unless magic energy fields make non-bladed weapons stop working. And invariably they aren't even carrying a bat'leth until that happens. Sort of like a "guns don't work, raid the museum for swords" moment if we tried to use a similar plot contrivance in the modern world. They also have a religious affinity for the weapon, not because it's hard to use, but because Kahless supposedly used one. So the only place it needs to make sense is in Kahless's hands. And we only see his bat'leth once, as a blatantly post-conquest design. So it could be entirely a ceremonial weapon originally made to look cool with that origin lost, or more likely a weapon of special circumstance. We know he is said to have tilled a field with it, so the most plausible origin is a farmer slaying an oppressive king with a farm tool and then glorifying it as part of his own empire building mythos.

[@ardynizunia9709]

"I personally would make a few RELATIVELY SMALL CHANGES to its design." *Proceeds to change the length, thus changing REACH, one of, if not THE most important combat metric* *Also proceeds to change the weight, heavily influencing the moves you can perform without leaving yourself too open from having to recover and also extending the time you can use it for, not to mention, making it LONGER and ALSO lighter?! Yeah, very "small" change"* *ALSO proceeds to change the curvature, thus changing the moves you can use with it DRASTICALLY, changing the way you would handle it FUNDAMENTALLY!* Yeah, what Matt called small changes are honestly such huge, fundamental changes that make it literally a completely seperate, different weapon.

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

Both Matt & Skal end up talking about weapons that differ dramatically from the canonical bat'leth as described in DS9, 116cm & 5kg. It's hard to argue that would be a good weapon for a human or even the significantly stronger Klingons. Someone should make a 116cm, 5kg bat'leth for sparring & see how things go.

[@MaMastoast]

yes.... most things that affect a weapon's properties as a weapon are important... But a drastic change would be to fundamentally change the design of the weapon, this is why Matt called them small changes. Seems like an odd hangup to get upset with.

[@ardynizunia9709]

@@MaMastoast If you sad it's an off hangup, sorry, but you really don't understand weapons at all. Smaller changes make them dramatically different. For example, the katana vs the european longsword. A katana that weighs the same as a longsword is usually shorter and has a different curvature of course. It is considered as a different weapon by everyone. Noone would confuse a katana with a european longsword. They are vastly different in their category of weapons. They still fulfill the same purpose, but their effectiveness in each detailed area differs. The changes Matt proposed would be far greater than the difference between a katana and a longsword, as he wanted to make it longer, less curved AND make it lighter while adding lenght somehow. The change in curvature would also affect the handles curvature, making the handling vastly different. Those details really take up A LOT of importance. Look at all sorts of polearms or arrow tips. TINY differences between them already make it so that they are categorized as different weapons. What Matt proposed makes the bat'leth into a very different weapons with very different properties. There is simply no other way to put this. They are NOT small changes. For example, lets say we look at a two handed axe. And I say: "I just want to make it a little longer and extend the iron at the top of the axe a bit into a spike. Just small changes." You know what I just made? A Halberd. That's not an axe anymore. If I were to invest more time I could come up with better comparisons but this should illustrate the point well enough for you to understand, "small changes" can DRAMATICALLY change a weapon. You said "But a drastic change would be to fundamentally change the design of the weapon". And let me tell you, extending the reach, changing the curvature AND lessening the weight, those ARE fundamental changes. Make a spear longer, you have a pike, not a spear anymore. THAT'S JUST ONE "small" CHANGE MATT PROPOSED. And it already made it into a different weapon.

[@buttkingsley1403]

@@MaMastoast he changed the length, weight, and shape of the weapon. How is that not fundamental?

[@adambielen8996]

@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 the 5kg bit is super weird, as I believe Skallagrim or Matt talks about. Because a steel Bat'leth wouldn't reach that weight if properly shaped. So it sounds like a writer just threw that in because reasons rather than them actually doing a bit of research. So unless Klingons are using some super dense fantasy metals then Bat'leths (which could be the case although stupid) would be lighter than that.

[@SirLancelot3086]

I gotta tell you Shad...in just about every video of the type of your original video, you clarify your point over and over again. So often such that I think "Okay Shad, we get the point. Move on with the video"...and then someone clearly misunderstands your point anyway. So, keep beating the dead horse, I guess!

[@HighlyRegarded420]

Yeah its undertsandable once you see how often Shads arguments are misinterpreted (intentionally?)

[@scottphillips6005]

@@HighlyRegarded420 I think it comes down to people hearing something they disagree with early on (often because they are missing the context) which causes them to stop listening properly to anything that comes after. I don't think it's intentional, just something that a lot of people do because once they make a judgement on something, that judgement doesn't waver or change and it colors everything else they see or hear. I don't know why people do that, but virtually everyone does it at least some of time.

[@Go-ah-oold]

@@HighlyRegarded420 I sometimes wonder the same way. There are now and then a thing I think shad misses, however, they are never (what I can remember) the main, core, thing of the video, more like the example here that he said he was wrong (some minor sidethought about the batleth). For someone to disagree the main, core, talking point in Shads video is mindboggeling to me, especially with someone that themselves should know better. Here I also wonder, was this missunderstanding intentional?

[@egoalter1276]

I dont think the point is being misunderstood. I think its being refuted.

[@scottphillips6005]

@@egoalter1276 In order to refute a point you actually have to address it, which is not what Matt did. Matt's criticism did not actually account for the argument Shad was making - he did not even once acknowledge that Shad was talking about comparisons of weapons between weapons made for the same purpose. Matt's comparison in his video of an AR-15 to a longsword is an example. They're both weapons, but they aren't made for the same purpose. As a ranged weapon, obviously a sword is a terrible choice. That doesn't make a sword a bad weapon because that isn't what a sword is made for. An AR-15 is a poor melee weapon. Doesn't make it bad. However, if the sword was supposed to be a ranged weapon, then compared to a gun, it's pathetic. You can compare weapons made for different purposes under different specific contexts or standards, but that's not at all what Shad was talking about. His standard is for determining if a weapon is good at it's intended purpose, and thus if it is a good weapon relative to other weapons in the same class of weapon. I'm not gonna compare a Barrret 50cal to a Colt Python to determine which one is a "better gun" because that relies entirely on the context in which the gun is being used and both guns are tailored for different uses. But, I can compare a Barret 50cal to a SVD Dragunov to determine which is a better sniper. I could also compare a Colt Python to a Ruger New Vaquero on the grounds of which one is a better revolver. I can't compare a sword to a revolver on the grounds of finding out which one is the better revolver.

[@wompa70]

“Good enough” is sometimes good and sometimes not good. If I recall correctly, the purpose of the bat’leth is for bat’leth duels. Therefore, the bat’leth is the perfect weapon for that purpose.

[@mryellow6918]

Could be lore wise a bad weapon because it makes for good show and would truly show how good a fighter is

[@basteala525]

@@mryellow6918 I don't know if that's actually the case (I haven't seen enough TNG Klingons in a melee) , but I LOVE that as an idea. Culture wise that feels very Klingon.

[@samuelhagberg3694]

I mean, the javelins that are used in the olimpics were actually altered a number of times to make them not go as far. Great for competitions where you only have so far before the audience, but an objectively worse weapon than the unaltered version of javelins. Might be a great tool for dueling, but still a bad weapon

[@an3582]

@@mryellow6918 i know nothing of Star Trek but I always asumed the Bathleth was so bad because The Kilngons could brag about Using a weapon with such a high skill cap and difficulty of use and still come out on top. Now that I know whats not even the case, im convinced the shows creator just thought it looked cool.

[@AudraT]

I always got the impression from Star Trek that the bat’leth was supposed to be a good dueling weapon against any other similar weapon. So, sword vs bat’leth, we've seen that on Star Trek. I also got the impression that, like the sword was a good sidearm for the knight, the bat’leth was a good sidearm for the Klingon. Besides the dagger and the phaser, bat’leth was supposed to be effective against all kinds of dueling weapons.

[@justthinkingoutloud2538]

It’s funny how many people use the very standards you described subconsciously ALL the time in all the sorts of contexts, but as soon as you articulately define the metrics we use, everyone freaks out, because how dare you suggest there exists such a thing as objective quality!

[@BattleBro77]

What, you mean everyone doesn’t actually constantly view the world in a relativistic fashion? How dare you REEEEEE

[@spamhonx56]

I think people have a problem with calling it objective, when it's actually an extension of subjectivity. A good example i can think of is that recently, Drachinifel did some comparisons of world war 2 battleship main guns- range, elevation, armour penetration etc., and tried to rank the guns from best to worst. The main problem he ran into was that he could only come up with subjective ways to value these objective measures. Likewise with shad, his criteria are objective, but selecting them is a subjective process. To claim that the results are objective is to lend them a veneer of correctness when really, it cannot ever be so clear cut.

[@davul01]

@@spamhonx56 That is not true. One thing you are missing is that if someone says something that is objectively objective than he is correct objectively. And we people arriver at heaps of concepts that are objective by our subjective minds because we are able to abstract and help logic to correct what has been done wrong by them. To explain; 1+1 of anything is 2 objectively and yet it was stated by my subjective mind. So shad might be objectively right in his criteria but might be missing some other. And having purpose and achieving it (which is the main criteria he gives) creating a hierarchy is not subjective in any way. What you are wrong is, is that there are those objective standards on which you would base it. And the objectivity exists. But I would agree that Shad either might be missing some metric or made some mistake, but that would be an error in logic not the fact that you can say one weapon is objectively better provided you are omniscient. Subjective criteria would mean that anyone can have their criteria and they would all be valid... no there is logical objective criteria that exist (noone might know them though). And just to note, comparing something is really hard and everyone will be unable to distinguish two things in terms of quality if the difference is for example small as 1 atom. Yet one is objectively better or they are objectively the same, if the one atom does not change anything.

[@fisharepeopletoo9653]

@@spamhonx56 Objectively, it depends. But it doesn't depend on subjectivity, it depends on objective situational circumstances. For instance, can the sword that is too long even be wielded by a person? It could be too heavy, unbalanced, or unwieldy. A sword too short would almost certainly at least be easier to actually use, but then you have more circumstances, such as your intent with the weapon or how your opponent fights/opponent's weapon choice. Even though these variables can change and would effect the objective answer, they can still be objective circumstances. Just because we don't have enough knowledge to make a snap objective conclusion doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer. Edit: Just want to add that the hardest thing about answering this question objectively is your subjective terms. "Too long" and "too short" are subjective terms, and it may be that a sword that is considered too short by one person is the perfect sword for another. If we had objective definitions of what those terms meant then we could more easily come to an objective conclusion.

[@JoRoq1]

@@spamhonx56 That is a poor question, because it is in itself subjective and cannot be answered with any objectivity. What is the context - battle or self defense? What are the circumstances - open field or narrow alley? What is the baseline blade length that measures “too long” or “too short”? Your question provides no objective point of reference to begin a valid comparison. Shad’s original video was not about comparing, say, a two-handed Scottish claymore to a Roman gladius. They are very different weapons apart from both beings swords, with different purposes and different uses. The claymore would only be objectively compared against other two-handed swords of similar design and intent of use, and the gladius would only be compared against other one-handed swords of similar design and intent of use.

[@mysticmarbles]

I gotta agree with Shad (and I normally don't) about the idea of comparing weapons. You absolutely can compare weapons made for a similar context and it was done historically. Militaries in the 19th century were constantly experimenting with swords and updating their models. They went back and forth on cut vs thrust, there are accounts of soldiers literally comparing weapons saying the old model of sword was better than their current one, etc. British soldiers deployed in India commented on how the Talwar was more effective than their current model of sabre and some soldiers used Talwars taken from fallen opponents. We have fencing masters such as George Silver comparing which weapons were better than which in a duel. Comparing weapons is both historical and practical.

[@markwebb7179]

I agree, but I also think Shad missed part of the point of the video he was replying to and therefore a chance to demonstrate that they don't disagree as much as they appear to. If we want to steelman Scholagladiatoria's video and state the main point more clearly, we might say that video wanted to add another metric on Shad's system that explicitly considers context. In particular, the context he kept hinting at, but never actually stated, was the broader context of battlefield tactics in use at the time the weapon was implemented. If you're asking about which shield is better, it's a good idea to know first whether you're talking about jungle fighting, or whether you're going to be fighting in a phalanx. Show up with the wrong one in the wrong context and you're going to lose the fight. Now, that doesn't mean we can't discuss those underlying tactics, and which were superior to others. In the case of the phalanx, we have historical examples of when it triumphed over other methods, and those where it collapsed in the face of a better approach. Yes, we can consider whether one weapon is better for its intended purpose than another, but we should consider the phrase "for its intended purpose" more broadly than just the warrior wielding the weapon. A battlefield is more than just one soldier, so considering the appropriate weapon is not as simple as just asking whether THAT soldier should choose that weapon in that context, as Shad insist on many times. A supposedly 'superior' tank that costs five times as much to build and takes five times as long might still lose to five tanks converging on it all at once. Yet if you asked individual tank operators which tank they'd prefer to drive they'd all pick the bigger, meaner tank. And in the process, they would lose the battle (and possibly the war). Then again, if you're short on trained tank operators it's better to build fewer good tanks that can take a beating, than a lot of weaker tanks. The broader context - tactical, economic, etc. - matters.

[@Archimedes.5000]

@@markwebb7179 he didn't say it outright, but he hinted at it clearly enough considering it's absolutely obvious (especially when talking about armor): Things can be compared only under the same conditions for both, and change of conditions can change the results

[@mysticmarbles]

@@markwebb7179 That probably is closer to what Matt meant…but it’s not what he said in that particular video. He made it sound like comparing two weapons is pointless because every weapon is good in a certain context. Which ignores the possibility that two weapons were designed for the same or very similar contexts, and that one is more effective than the other. If what he really meant was “don’t compare weapons designed for wildly different contexts” then he should have framed it that way. The real problem is that the two of them are communicating differently. Matt is focusing on the fact that Shad didn’t outright state that his method ranking of weapons would take context into consideration. Shad meanwhile feels that point is obvious and doesn’t always need stating. I think the real answer lies somewhere in the middle. Shad can still say that a weapons is generally bad, with the caveat that it effective in this certain context (which he usually does IIRC).

[@TimParker-Chambers]

I agree, it's certainly possible to compare weapons of similar contexts and types. But where Shad went wrong, was by comparing the bat'leth to swords, and then saying that the bat'leth wouldn't be any good for thrusting like a sword, thus, not a good weapon. Other than the fact that bladed edges are involved, the sword and that bat'leth are wholly different types of weapons, and the armed-shields and pole-arms which Matt referenced in his video, are way more comparable to a bat'leth in terms of handling and uses ^_^

[@mysticmarbles]

@@TimParker-Chambers Maybe he did but I didn’t watch the batleth video and don’t really care about the batleth. Shad misses key details like that a lot so I believe you. To me the interesting part of this discussion is wether it’s valid to compare weapons or not. Matt’s response focused was focused on that idea and that’s the real topic here. Perhaps Matt was annoyed by Shad comparing two weapons of wildly different contexts but if so he framed his argument badly and made it about the validity of comparing weapons in general, which to me is a much more interesting discussion.

[@LeonidasSparta-Fun-History]

I must say, I love how these two can disagree but still be friends. It is very refreshing to see lol!

[@bigbird4481]

Politicians should learn this

[@zzodysseuszz]

@@bigbird4481 you imply politicians learn anything

[@DinnerForkTongue]

@@bigbird4481 You need to elect better politicians.

[@bigbird4481]

@@zzodysseuszz one can hope

[@bigbird4481]

@@DinnerForkTongue I've never voted I'm just now of age

[@kraigthorne3549]

30:54 It looks like he does not know American history, because the stone head tomahawk was used in North America until the 19th century and whenever the Native Americans could get their hands on an iron head tomahawk, they used it instead of the stone head one.

[@M.M.83-U]

That's exactly the point: context. The stone head become bad only after the arrival of the steel ones, before it was wonderfull, both were secondary to guns.

[@williamchristy9463]

@@M.M.83-U The stone blade didn't somehow become worse. It's quality remained the same throughout.

[@dallenhumpherys7911]

So, Matt said the Bat'leth could make sense in armored combat. And I am not a Star Trek fan, so feel free to correct me, but I am under the impression that they don't use ancient or medieval style armor in Star Trek. Also, I know that this is a common fantasy and sci-fi trope, but this weapon is being used by people with access to laser guns and super advanced technology. So, other points aside, this weapon does not make sense for the CONTEXT that it is in.

[@akumabito2008]

The actual context is that it's a ritual weapon, almost exclusively used in a sort of judicial combat. So it kinda makes sense in that context.

[@triumphant39]

They do use armor though, it's just not shown to do much for plot reasons, I guess. They also fight alien species that use much more impressive looking armor, however again, characters are only ever killed within the plot, and the equipment they use is often irrelevant unless it relates to the plot.

[@adambielen8996]

Remember that the Bat'leth is an ancient Klingon weapon. It continued to be used due to tradition and religious reasons long past the time when Klingons would have abandon most of their armor due to technology.

[@morrigankasa570]

But Lasers can get overheated/run out of charge so a melee weapon backup is important. Additionally the hallways in the Spaceships and caves on planets can be rather narrow so the Bat'leth could be more effective then other weapon choices.

[@samuelhagberg3694]

@@akumabito2008 yeah, you honestly don't want a weapon that is too easy to use for dueling if you want "the better warrior" to win. If it was easy to use, any random person could kill a highly skilled warrior if they just got a little lucky

[@thorthewolf8801]

If I have somebody tied up, sure, I can carve out their heart using a spoon, but would that make it effective? No, absolutely no. I would have been better off using a knife. Just because people in the past used something and succeeded with it, doesnt mean that something is/was good.

[@EtherSword]

Right, not sure why people aren't pointing this out more.

[@Beardshire]

A spoon isn't a weapon though, a stick can be used for all sorts of things. You can poke a tied up man to death eventually with a blunt stick, lets put a speartip on it. There is far to much gray area for this to have a winner in objectively good or bad weapons unless a time frame is given specifically. but a stick alone is a terrible weapon in warfare. so it's objectively bad in that setting, is it objectively bad in every instance? No, just like everything else.

[@thorthewolf8801]

@@Beardshire Is a rock a weapon? It can be used as one, just like a spoon. However just because it can be used as one doesnt mean it is good. You can also sit on a table, however that wont make it a good chair just because you can fulfill the same purpose.

[@Beardshire]

@@thorthewolf8801 Never said it did, but the nuance is to great when you start getting into different aspects of micro comparing

[@thorthewolf8801]

@@Beardshire You said that a spoon isnt a weapon, however it is, if it used for that purpose. Definitions are fluid and dont restrict objects from meeting the standards of that definition even if that object meets the standards of another definition. Thats why we can say a spoon is a bad weapon, or that a table is a bad chair.

[@Nickle_King]

Schola forgot one thing I have to remind people of all the time. Just because something is Better doesn't make it Good. A stubbed toe is Better than a kick in the balls, but that doesn't make it a Good thing. Another thing Shola forgot is in reference to many unique weapons in India or China. Historical context is needed there for the more odd weaponry. Usually, those more unique weapons weren't devised to be straight military application. They were usually farming implements modified to be weaponry. These improvised weaponry could be hidden away in normal looking tools, while also being very cost effective and accessible. And you can bet, if an arms dealer from the west came up to them giving out basic, outdated broadswords and spears, they would have thrown the nunchucks and the hand blades away in a heartbeat. Context in all things. Saying the Batleth is a good weapon because it's sharp and because Star Trek says it is lacks all critical thinking. It's not useless, but it's not good either. Personally, in regards to inter ship combat, the Batleth would be the last thing I would ever grab. I would go with a rapier and a laser pistol (whatever they're called in Star Trek, I can't remember). A good weapon for enclosed quarters, most (and I repeat MOST) boarding parties won't have armor meant to deal with piercing weaponry (much like how Kevlar doesn't do well against arrows, soldiers in Star Trek would probably be more worried about energy weapons), and I'd have a laser in the off hand to make sure long range is covered. But I wouldn't look twice at the Batleth unless it was my only option, and, even then, I'd probably replace it as soon as I could with a long piece of rebar.

[@TimParker-Chambers]

My personal theory (come up with yesterday, after watching Shad's first video) was that Kahless forged the first bat'leth from the Klingon-equivalent of a scythe, which would fit into your observation of weapons coming from modified farming implements. Also, bear in mind that Klingons have multiple 'organs', so now the two tines of the bat'leth make sense (many African swords are genital-shaped) I think the reason why Matt referenced the weapons from India and China, was because one of the most common dismissals of the bat'leth, is along the lines of 'if it's such a good design, how come no one thought of it historically??' when the fact is, that in some regions, some people did come up with something very similar, so even by that criteria, it's not an 'impossible to imagine' weapon ^_^ As for what I'd grab, if confined space is an issue, then a mek'leth would have a lot more range of motion than a bat'leth, but overall, I do really like the bat'leth, if for no other reason that it has such excellent defensive capabilities for blocking incoming sword strikes. That being said, I'd be firing my phaser until the power-cell ran dry, and then I'd start chopping...

[@YunoGasaiMC2012]

Laser pistols in Star Trek are called Phasers by the way, and they're not lasers, they're particle energy beams.

[@Nickle_King]

@@YunoGasaiMC2012 That’s right. Thank you.

[@AnotherDuck]

And Shad forgot the same thing: Just because one weapon is Worse doesn't make it Crap. Second place is worse than first place, but that doesn't mean any silver medalist is crap.

[@Nickle_King]

​@@AnotherDuck That assumes the Batleth is second place. It isn't. It wouldn't rank top 10 as melee weapons the Klingons could use instead of that inefficient axe. Shad says that in his video. Or are you another person who is commenting without watching?

[@letsplaysvonaja1714]

I did kinda get the impression in the original video that you're implying that while the klingons might certainly invent the bat'leth they wouldn't realistically keep using it because it's so suboptimal ...but I guess in that regard I'm not even sure, if klingons are still using it Outside of their duels they seem to favor phasers like pretty much every race in star trek and also often use daggers which are easier to carry, I guess

[@adambielen8996]

Also Klingons tend to be the only race actually carrying melee weapons. So it's not like those melee weapons have any competition to force change.

[@samuelhagberg3694]

His points have nothing to do with whether they would keep it or not. Especially since Startrek say that it was made to be difficult to use. They didn't make it to have an effective weapon, it is for dueling and ritualistic stuff. It is about having the skill to defeat your opponent using weapons that are too difficult to use for you to just get lucky

[@letsplaysvonaja1714]

@@samuelhagberg3694 I'm just saying that in the last video I got impression that he is saying the bath'leth is stupid, therefore no klingon would ever use it, if they have the choice

[@AudraT]

@@samuelhagberg3694 I am a Star Trek fan, but I'm definitely not an expert on Star Trek lore, but I never got the impression that the bat'leth was supposed to be a difficult and ineffective weapon to use. Whenever I think back to Klingons in TNG or DS9 training others in the bat'leth, they never made any reference to it being inferior or only meant for rituals or a challenging weapon. They seem to train with it as though it is a perfectly reasonable and effective weapon- in it's context when dueling against other with relatively comparable weapons. I'm not talking about a bat'leth vs a phaser :-)

[@Skhmt]

In DS9, a bunch of Klingons intentionally take bat'leths into combat. In context, there was a magic field that disabled energy weapons. But the point being, they intentionally chose bat'leths as their melee weapon of choice knowing they'd need a melee weapon for serious combat.

[@evilmandrake]

All weapons are subcategories of Sticks, therefore Stick is the greatest weapon.

[@tkbeds]

Club = blunt heavy stick, Sword = sharp edged pointy metal stick, Arrow = Stick launched flying pointy stick, Gun = Boomstick

[@xKinjax]

Saying "comparing things is silly" and "everything is effective because that culture/race used it" is silly. Shad, Matt, Skal and every other channel of this type have done countless videos outright bashing various fantasy or real weapons. Why is this FANTASY weapon somehow off limits or different? The Klingons only keep it around because of cultural significance, because it's seen as a very hard to master weapon and basically because they love killing and disruptors are boring when you can hack your enemy to a bloody pulp with a ridiculously looking weapon.

[@blackmoosev6833]

If the world builders of Star Trek really wanted to make a convincing culture, they would show the warrior race evolving to adopt a better weapon once they are introduced to it, not stubbornly holding onto an obsolete one because of "culture". If anything they would evolve the batleth into a sort of hybrid.

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

In general, combat in Star Trek makes no sense. There's way too much punching & fighting with edge weapons given all the effective ranged weapons that exist. Like other shows & films, the rule of cool dominates. Character shields & plot armor determine what happens more than the capabilities of the weapons & fighters involved. Lots of technologies appear only for an episode, without their implications being explored. For instance, that gun that shoots through walls thanks to a transporter from DS9 would trump most anything else for fighting anywhere there's cover.

[@xKinjax]

@@blackmoosev6833 In all fairness the Klingons have never been portrayed as smart. I always wonder how a race of overly aggressive assholes that keeps wanting to fight with melee weapons survives in a universe where overcharged disruptors and phasers can literally vaporize people through shields and body armor. It's all just silly plot armor and rule of cool.

[@TheImmortalBloodwolf]

@@blackmoosev6833 A sword simply has to function as a bladed weapon that Kills... The bat'leth was intended for klingon use and therefore has to force them to stop and think "How in the world do I use this" In order to increase their lethality Because klingon instincts are vastly different than human ones and normally get them killed... kahless Designed the bat'leth in universe To help curb those instincts so that klingons could be more effective Warriors

[@fluffywise686]

The Klingon weapon makes sense once you get into the lore a little. Klingon's have issues with anger and falling into your anger in a fight is a quick way to get yourself killed. A Bat'leth is a terrible weapon but it forces you to always think before you use it. Forcing the Klingon to give up his rage and think about combat.

[@RauMins]

Well, if we compare the bat'leth to other weapons in Star Trek, I would just pick a phaser.

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

The gun that shoots through walls from one episode of DS9 strikes me as the most effective person weapon from Trek, apart from Q weapons or whatever.

[@ArcticWolfGod]

Lol I didn't actually even realize that. Like bat'leth is already a bad weapon when compared to like medieval weapons, but in it's own context it's actually a completely awful garbage weapon. Like sure it possibly has ritual purposes for being the way it is, but that would at best make it a good ritual tool, not a good weapon.

[@LWolf12]

@@ArcticWolfGod Near as I remember, it was mostly used in Honor Fights, outside of a few handful of Klingon battles and boarding parties. Mostly though the Klingons also just used guns. Has been a while since I watched Star Trek though.

[@LWolf12]

@Atman Gotango Mhm, most used disruptors or other energy weapons. Until they got into a one on one fight. Which of course being a show, it would normally be main characters.

[@fsmoura]

32:10 I agree... it's a pretty good weapon, I'd just make a few relatively minor changes... make it a bit straighter, lighter, remove the extra spikes, leave just one spike at the tip, put a wooden shaft for a better grip, make it 8 foot long in total... yeah, a long wooden pole with one single straight bat'leth spike at the end, as light and strong as possible... see? I told you it was a good weapon! Just needs a few tweaks. 👍

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

I really want to see someone spar with the canonical 116cm, 5kg version.

[@3eve0n]

yeah, bat'leth is great once you turn it into a spear!

[@petersmythe6462]

Have fun using a spear in close combat in winding corridors then.

[@petersmythe6462]

Also you could pretty easily design a batleth carrier that goes on your back. Not so much with a spear... Taking a corner in a Jeffrey's tube carrying a spear sounds tough.

[@hdnfbp]

@@petersmythe6462 a spear is actually really good in a corridor

[@zzodysseuszz]

Love these reply videos. It’s always so respectful and I’ve never really seen any hostility or bad blood after one of them. Legitimately never seen a community do so many response videos to others in the community with nothing but shaking hands and friendly smiles. Really, it’s respectable. Keep it up my good sir. Keep the big stick energy

[@zzodysseuszz]

Sorry for the edits. Couldn’t decide on a way to phrase my comment. I’m sure you understand the sentiment regardless.

[@TOONYBOY]

@@zzodysseuszz You were itching to use that big stick line weren't you?

[@zzodysseuszz]

@@TOONYBOY that was in there originally…the itch to include it was so strong that I had planned to put it in there before I could even edit it.

[@zzodysseuszz]

@@johnnydee6335 what

[@imjustherewastaken]

Greek mythology

[@kikisartjourney4265]

This is a slightly unrelated question. Would you ever consider reviewing fan designs of weapons or castles? Like you do with the pop culture ones?

[@zzodysseuszz]

He’s already done that before If I’m not mistaken. Tho I wouldn’t mind seeing it more.

[@kikisartjourney4265]

@@zzodysseuszz might have missed it, I'm still trying to get through all his past videos. Thanks

[@TheAdarkerglow]

He did a video on Mall Ninja Weapons. Very funny.

[@ianesgrecia8568]

@@kikisartjourney4265 He did! His videos are great to make and create books and world building

[@jjkrayenhagen]

I think he's reviewed fan castles in Conan Exiles.

[@fsmoura]

Let's drop the pretense, the differences here are far too great. This can only be resolved in a _bat-leth_ duel. *_*music plays*_* (' o.o)

[@texasbeast239]

Today IS a good day to die! Ramming speed! Little?

[@temporaldisplacement]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l5rZmZywhZl-r5I

[@2nd_Directorate]

Is his argument really that your are not allowed to look back in retrospect and determine which would be a better weapon? An M-16 might (maybe) a good weapon, but if we had now access to a Plasmarifle with higher range, precision and destructive power we wouldn´t just dismiss it and say to ourself "This is fine, it´s good enough" while our comrades get blasted to slag left and right.

[@rainick]

Well there are rifles that fit all those categories that we don't use over the M-16/M4 today, but they're heavier, have heavier ammo (means you can carry less), but I am probably needlessly nitpicking. In any case I understand what you mean.

[@Appletank8]

@@rainick Shad does mention you need to compare weapons of a similar weight class. An M249 may have a larger magazine size and maybe RoF, it is also extremely heavy. Now, if someone found a magic rifle that let you carry 200 rounds in roughly the same size and weight of current 30 round ones, that'd be better.

[@rainick]

@@Appletank8 I wasn't talking about an M249, there are plenty of rifles that have a better range, precision, and power than an M16/M4, but there are more than just those considerations. That was my point.

[@Appletank8]

@@rainick that's fair

[@morrigankasa570]

But a Plasmarifle if runs out of charge or overheats then it's nearly useless. However if had infinite charge and never overheats then yes is best.

[@bjh2o]

Matt's reply was posted on the same exact day as Shad's original video. I think this is an unfortunate case of KZbinr syndrome: overlooking crucial information and making careless mistakes because of the tendency to act in haste because the algorithm isn't going to provide as many views otherwise.

[@phenix2403]

100% feels like his chasing shads views

[@Duranous.]

I can't help but see a complete lack of video comprehension and false humility, the guy is constantly refuting points that Shad did not make. He literally didn't say the stick was a good weapon, he was saying if a weapon was worse than a stick or a rock (which are the most crude and readily available weapons), it's probably a bad weapon. It doesn't even seem like he watched the original video, it sounds like he's addressing a poorly written list of points taken from the video. But I'm sure he'll be "reply-guying" like crazy in the comments (again) and tell me how I missed his point and really need to watch his video. I tried that, the videos are all painfully condescending and obtuse. Also, holy crap talk about missing the point with the stick, it's a damn meme, does the Chad video not lay it on hard enough for you?

[@huguesdepayens807]

I completely agree.

[@janehrahan5116]

Hard and long enough... like a stick.

[@vranlekhavran8294]

What I perceive has happened here is both gentlemen agreeing on the fact that to compare two (or more) weapons, one does indeed need proper context - or a proper point of reference, if you will. However, Matt seems to believe that this point is imoossible to objectively define, thus comparisons are pointless. Shad, on the other hand, is happy to make a relative comparison based on a set of parameters that fulfill the context criteria. I am with Shad on this one - making such relative comparison is completely valid with proper parameters. That something is relative does not mean it is not objective.

[@occultninja4]

Well, if it is relative it by definition can't be objective. Awkward gatcha there but that is a thing. But regardless of that hax, my thing is that if you try to force objectivity you're really just sweeping generalizations and assumptions and most of all, a weighing system under the rug and assuming they are both objective and fair. Like with the stick vs mace example. It is true that the mace out performs the stick in terms of damage, durability (depending on the type of wood) and likely other measures, but is it fair to leave out cost effectiveness and ease of aquisition and replacement? What perspective are you looking from and why? Whether or not you factor in cost can sway where these weapons end up, and considering that these are weapons used on conflicts and war, the material costs of a weapon being low can be the difference between arming your entire army and arming a quarter of them while the rest have nothing. Cost effectiveness can make a weapon "good" but we are choosing to rule this out why? If we are assuming infinite money, then are we also going to assume infinite time to master the weapon to? If so, then you get the absurdity of people gravitating towards difficult to use weapons with high effectiveness in the hands of a master when much easier to use alternatives exist. But then if we factor in time and difficulty of use and mastery but not money or cost to use the weapon, how is this still fair? You can argue that you can measure the parameters objectively but what parameters are you using and why not others? How are you weighing them compared to each other? There's then still even more stuff to dig into like the ease of bias to creep in when you frame it as "which weapon would you want instead" as we are just taking it on faith someone can weigh all the pros and cons perfectly in their head, some pros and cons they may not even be considering or even fully aware of. Never mind how hard it is to do anyway because just blsmketky saying "all contexts" of "most contexts" is someone actually going down a check list or are they BSing it, and if they are going down a check list if contexts, what made it on that list, or rather, what didn't and why? Which checks count more or less. If they all count the same, why? Basically, it really is impossible to do right, and *really* hard to do decently. You get tackled from the front by the sheer volume of stuff to consider and calculate, tackled from behind by the fact that someone can simply dispute your criteria you are using and invalidate the entire endeavor, and then tackled on both flanks by all the forms of bias that can creep in. Really where this explodes is trying to use "good", "bad", and "objective" in the same sentence. You need better tighter terminology. You can objectively measure a weapon's reach, measure it's sharpness. Measure it's blind force, measure how likely it is to kill someone upon successful hit, measure how deadly it historically has been, measure how many injuries it can cause on average, measure how long it takes to master, etc. Turning all this into some kind of objective composite score is the nightmare, especially when trying to do it in a 1 size fits all way. Does reach matter more than blunt force? Does deadliness matter more than cost? Does sharpness matter more than weight? If you think all of them count the same, why? If the a swer is that you don't know how else to do it, you must recognize that that is a flimsy explanation. It's hard xD just don't call it objective. Admit it's not perfect. You can and will still learn things from doing this stuff, but don't give it more weight than it has. Be specific, definite your terms, state your assumptions and acknowledge the flaws and biases and just go from there.

[@draketurtle4169]

Well yeah that’s why we used different styles of sword in different time periods, yes they had different flaws or had to deal with other weapons in that frame of time but they are still swords and thus can be compared. So for example in general a larger sword isn’t inherently better than the average sized, it weighs more so is harder to use, it’s less manoeuvrable, and you have a greater risk of harming yourself. Even though the extra reach and power could have offensive and defensive benefits it will loose practically. If you wanted the weapon with most reach you’d likely take the spear, if you wanted the most defense a shield, if you wanted to deal armour a blunt weapon, and concealment a dagger. Though if you take the average a sword can reasonably do the purpose of all of them without any of the massive cons.

[@bigbird4481]

I really hope this argument ends with everyone being as honest as possible while defending their argument

[@zzodysseuszz]

As always. Chad, I mean shad, has always been respectable and kind.

[@jacket6213]

No. It must end with one on one combat.

[@ovrair6340]

@@jacket6213 Matt would win, also yes.

[@fsmoura]

One-on-one combat, but both have to use bat'leths. In the end, the one who has hurt himself less wins.

[@bigbird4481]

@@fsmoura I love picturing them standing in a field for hours scared to move 🤣

[@cyberangel2787]

>says context matters >compares bat'leth to a stick You know, there's a limit to how much goodwill should be reasonably assumed. You stated pretty clearly, several times and in very hard-to-miss ways, that stick is NOT a good weapon, and yet this guy acts as if you did. I know strawmanning is a popular method for building arguments but it's a horrible one that should not be used in serious responses. And this is far from the first time that happens with him.

[@jjkrayenhagen]

It really felt like Matt didn't even watch Shad's video.

[@creativehorse7907]

@@jjkrayenhagen yea pretty much

[@Mikelgard]

Haven't once seen a reply video to Shad's stuff that doesn't end with Shads original points already covering the arguments. Seems a lot of folks don't actually absorb the information they're trying to debunk.

[@zaferoph]

Thing is, sometimes strawmen are unintentional. Well more that it can be easy to conflate a strawman and a genuine misunderstanding or a miss or forgotten sentence. People are not perfect. Another thing is that sometimes people think they're making a good analogy but it is just a strawman.

[@purpleguy319]

@@zaferoph there is a line between stupidity and malice. Most people piss on it.

[@jasonritner9662]

I want to just mention how much I appreciate Shad's dedication to sh*****g on nunchucks and how much content he has been able to dedicate to defending his conclusions to apologists of bad weapons. (Yes, weapons can be bad and still be cool. Just look at 99.9% all fantasy weapons. Just because they're cool looking doesn't mean they don't suck IRL)

[@brijekavervix7340]

Well I suppose 'cool' looking fantasy weapons are pretty subjective...

[@c6q3a24]

Yes, but, the context of fantasy weapons means that aesthetics are FAR more important than utility or function. The purpose of a fantasy weapon is to be seen, not used.

[@horridfuture3835]

I just don’t understand why so many people think nunchucks are so awesome.

[@darkflame9410]

@@horridfuture3835 TMNT probably holds a not insignificant amount of responsibility for that (who doesn't like Michelangelo?)

[@horridfuture3835]

@@darkflame9410 more of a Leonardo guy myself😂

[@bigbird4481]

I love how he said it's pointless to compare weapons and go's on to compare sticks as weapons

[@anthonybanderas9930]

It isn't pointless to compare weapons There is a reason why we have moved away from a spread to nuclear war head.

[@chasesiersema2466]

Also, he posted a sword review literally today.

[@alwayscensored6871]

Trekkers will know about Klingon weapons. They strike me as a ritual weapon for historical reasons. Ritualistic combat. Like bamboo sticks, fancy dress and face sheilds.

[@robert-joshuamcfaddin7041]

In a way, yes. But they can be very effective.

[@alwayscensored6871]

@@robert-joshuamcfaddin7041 I never trained on them myself, they gave me sticks that propelled little sticks very fast with a loud noise. That way it was possible to avoid getting jabbed by the short sharp sticks wielders. That Klingon one had bonus of extra sharp stick bits, nice if you like quiet sticks.

[@JoRoq1]

Within the Star Trek canon (developed in the TNG era), the Klingons used the bat’leth as a common personal and battlefield melee weapon as well as in ritual context. It comes from the legends around Kah’leth, the first Emperor who allegedly forged the first bat’leth using his own hair in a volcano.

[@daeraedor]

Do not remind us that Code of Honour exists!

[@DrygdorDradgvork]

I love Matt's content and I do think he's a good person, but it did not escape me that his video praising a Star Trek weapon was sponsored by a Star Trek mobile game... Just gonna leave that there.

[@Knight_Astolfo]

It actually vexed me that Matt was taking a very "pro-Bat'leth" stance, based on the weird ergonomics of some Indian weapons. Like, "oh, foreign thing look like other foreign thing, must be good for foreigner" which is getting dangerously close to "katana logic."

[@starcraft2own]

That's a very hilarious take on this which is also wholey true.

[@gamermanzeake]

I love this so much. Where's the Love button when you need it?

[@aramondehasashi3324]

Matt kept going on about the context in which weapons were used but when you look at the context in which the Bat'leth is used it's a horrendously bad weapon in Star Trek 🤣

[@Victor-dm4qv]

Matt just wasted his time, but was able to provide us some more content to watch from Shad.

[@APinchOfHistory]

These reply videos are really intruging. It's like reading someone exchange of letters while also learning something interesting. I hope you too will settle the argument, my gentlemen :)

[@seriousmaran9414]

This one is far too long, too repetitive, particularly at the end, and adds little.

[@APinchOfHistory]

@@seriousmaran9414 Yeah, these vids are kind of like that, they are way more casual, less consise.

[@creativehorse7907]

I feel as tho Matt's video could have been seperate to shads, this is a gentlemanly argument so all will be good. However I believe Matt would likely benefit with consulting Shad before his response to clear any misconception.

[@itiswho2]

This almost sounds like post-modernism for weapons. These swords, or whatever, are vaguely similar and thus each have their own truth.

[@chalysama4446]

If we use Matt's standard, then we can't really compare anything objectively. Are modern movies better than movies from the 60's? Is Harry Potter better than Twilight? They were all written in different context, by different people from different cultures. The whole comparison thing is really important, and for it to matter you must have clear standard in order to objectively judge the merit of art, weapons, etc...

[@scharnhorst_42]

Yeah, kinda like when someone says Apples to oranges and im like you can still compare them.

[@chalysama4446]

@@valandil7454 I mean not just that. We can even compare the weather when put in context. And for example, as a battlefield weapon a longsword is objectively better than a kriss. That comparison worked because we have the context and standards to use in this example

[@M.M.83-U]

Yes and no. To compare objectively and resaonably you need a context. Alternatively you are expressing your feelings, or you find that modern stuff is 90+% better than old stuff.

[@veldryn01]

Can't compare subjective matters objectively. It will always be bias one way or the other. And in the end neither perspective would be more accurate. Also, to prove the point, what if your taste of movies, books, foods or music changes. Does that make your previous statements about it wrong or invalid ?

[@chalysama4446]

@@veldryn01 not liking or liking something shouldn't impede you from recognizing whether ut is good or bad. Saying "I like something in no way equate to something is good or bad". Liking or preferring implies bias, but with objective standards and context, one can see the merits of something, disregarding subjectivity.

[@feroxdeus1998]

The lesson of this video: don't ignorantly challenge Shad's knowledge of weapons.

[@LordMajicus]

The context for the Bat'leth is "hundreds of years in the future where phasers exist", so how exactly is that context not damning for it being a poor weapon? You'd think after centuries of combat and technological advancement, they'd have invented a more effective weapon.

[@Knight_Astolfo]

I always wanted the Klingons to show up with plasma swords or big shields with plasma spears. Imagine a bunch of Klingons bust onto your ship, and they're sweeping the corridors in phalanxes with shields capable of resisting phaser fire, while poking your crew with plasma gouts emanating from a long STICK.

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

In general, combat in Star Trek makes no sense if you try to analyze it in real-world or gaming terms. Competitive dynamics & reasoned analysis of technical capabilities don't apply. Instead, like most shows & films, rule of cool, plot armor, & character shields determine who prevails.

[@arcticbanana66]

In-universe, the original bat'leths were used in tunnel fighting on the Klingon homeworld Qo'noS, and were thus specifically designed with narrow confines in mind, resulting in a weapon that primarily uses punching motions rather than swinging. Over time, the bat'leth took on a historical, almost religious significance to the Klingons, comparable to the katana's significance to the samurai. It's also actually been mentioned in-universe (for instance, Dax in Deep Space Nine) that the mek'leth is actually the better weapon, but that they generally prefer the reach of the bat'leth. Having been originally designed for tunnel fighting, they're also theoretically ideal for the narrow confines of starship corridors, which might explain why Klingon boarding parties always arrive with bat'leths in-hand and disruptors in holsters; the need to repel Klingon boarding parties may also possibly be an in-universe explanation why Star Trek ships and stations, particularly the Federation's, all seem to have such long, wide, straight, well-lit corridors with little to no cover. Interesting note, the Sword of Kahless, the original (in-universe) bat'leth forged by Kahless the Unforgettable, had some of the improvements people like Matt, Shad, and Skallagrim suggest: longer straighter spikes, one long handle instead of three, and a sharpened spike instead of a blunt unsharpened stretch in the middle. Also, all bat'leths are not identical; each Klingon House has their own design, it's just that Worf's is considered the "standard" because it's he one we see most on the show. Still not a terribly great combat weapon though.

[@TheAdarkerglow]

Obviously the Highland Basket Hilted Broadsword is the fancier and thus better of the two. Look at the luxuriously decorated hilt.

[@adambielen8996]

Bling is the only important consideration.

[@nemoexnuqual3643]

Among prisoners a sharpened toothbrush is a common weapon, is a sharpened toothbrush a good weapon anywhere other than prison yard? People have been killed with pillows, do you want to be running across the battlefield with a pillow to try to smother your enemy, is a pillow a good weapon against anything other than weak bedridden people? I like that this guy says the Klingon batleth would be better if it was longer and straighter. You mean like a sword, because that would be a good weapon. Also he brings up the plethora of weapons that have been developed, but as time progressed you see weapons generally evolve to become increasingly similar in their role. The last swords used in warfare really were of only a few blade designs.

[@davidhudson893]

ok Matt missed the point for some reason. I would also like to point out that many chinese and japanese peasant weapons were NEVER suppossed to be the optimal choice. They were often farm implaments that those people had access to since there were weapon restrictions and they were better than nothing. Nunchucks are a flail for beating rice not a combat weapon but if you were attacked by a bandit well thats what was available and training to use it for combat might save your life. If you could grab a sword you would definetly choose that. So that is the context for nunchucks. The batleth is just a dumb weapon as it's context is a hand to hand weapon vs lasers. It would also not stand up well to a large variety of others hand to hand designs. As a prop however it is fantastic. It functions just well enough as a weapon to be believable and its design is memorable and cool. Silly but awesome.

[@lightningpenguin8937]

As a prop it's pretty hard to deny it's greatness. I don't watch star trek, and I see it does it's job perfectly well.

[@rmsgrey]

But a nunchuk is an objectively bad weapon - so the peasant must have had something better available to use. It already being in their hands is objectively irrelevant because it's an objectively bad weapon and objectively bad weapons are objectively much worse than objectively better weapons objectively available in objectively the same context objectively. I'm not convinced that Shad is using "objectively" correctly...

[@yeetthegargantuanleviathan6216]

@@rmsgrey your point? It looks like you had a stroke more than.

[@Archimedes.5000]

@@rmsgrey what does objective quality *as a weapon* have anything to do with availability or any outside factors? I think you beat yourself up with that argument

[@rmsgrey]

@@Archimedes.5000 Shad's fundamental test for whether a weapon is "objectively good" is whether you'd choose to use it over other available weapons. Many peasant farmers chose to use their rice flails that were already in their hands and which they had many, many hours of experience using, over whatever else was around, so, for a Chinese or Japanese peasant farmer, a rice flail is, by Shad's own test, an "objectively good" weapon. If you don't consider availability, then it's fairly safe to assume that no weapons currently available are objectively good weapons because weapons that aren't (yet) available (because they haven't yet been invented) will be so much better. Shad is very clear and careful to specify that he's only talking about "objectively good" and "objectively bad" through comparison with other weapons that are also available to choose from.

[@David_J.E.]

This is a big ol' case of Sitches Law in action: "99% of arguments are arguments of definitions." -PSA Sitch

[@QlueDuPlessis]

Drinking game: Take a shot every time Shad says, "the fact is"

[@biggidousthethird2672]

Glad to see shads beard starting to return

[@captain_context9991]

A weapon being invented... And used in combat... I would challenge anyone to find a battle being fought using a nunchak. I think nobody knew what that was until Bruce Lee picked it out of thin air and used it in a movie. With iconic results.

[@janehrahan5116]

It was used in Okinawa. This is because the farmers there were not allowed real weapon, and even tools were limited heavily, so there was such a shortage of weapons better than rocks that rice threshers were re purposed.

[@malvulable4351]

@@janehrahan5116 Yeah and nowadays it's just used as an exercise/training tool and nothing more.

[@wlg2677]

@@janehrahan5116 Yes, exactly. It was an improvised weapon. Improvised weapons are always less efficient than dedicated weapons.

[@ThisNameIsBanned]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rl60iWRpapJmmZI Its basically started as a big "flail" and became a bad weapon after.

[@robert-joshuamcfaddin7041]

TMNT taught me about the nunchuck. I think TMNT is after Bruce Lee, so yeah, I can agree

[@jo-mi4966]

I always appreciate Shad's thoroughness in his analysis in weapons etc. He's so often right about his statements because unlike many people, he puts such a huge amount of thought into what he is saying and to looking at the subject from all sides which just reflects how much importance he places in accuracy and in producing clear and concise conclusions. For this reason, I love him. It's always a great pleasure to find like-minded people with an appreciation for the same way of thinking.

[@uptownkidd99]

The history content creators have my respect. I like how they all correct each other and respect each other opinions. Keep up the awesomeness 👌

[@williamjenkins4913]

You are both mostly right. Shad: Divorced from context you can compare all weapons and conclude which is best. Matt: In context there are so many different factors that it's impossible to honestly compare most weapons.

[@Stormeris]

I feel like the biggest argument here is peoples' definitions of what good and bad means. Kinda seems like if x > y, Shad will say that y is bad while Matt will say y is less good

[@ThisNameIsBanned]

Matt has a focus on context and specific usefulness in that context and time, so it limits the choices instead of picking from any available weapon. If you can pick from any weapon from any time period, you might always end up with futuristic sci-fi weapons, force-fields that make you immortal and weapons that produce miniature black-holes or something crazy. Some weapons are also used as tools, especially in the military if you are in need to survive in the woods, so simply having a cutting weapon is better than a club for that context. The "good/bad" scale would work better with defined metrics for specific purposes, then sum them all up and whatever has the higher sum is in general more useful if you dont know the specific context before (which is already somewhat highly theoretical, as you will always at least know where you are and have a broad understanding what you want to defend against).

[@leritykay8911]

@@ThisNameIsBanned Well, Shad defined in his video that you pick things "of similar size, weight, and purpose" in his original video. So, gun is better than sword, but in terms of "slicing weapons" you definetly can't pick a gun. And in the discussion, Shad was talking about real, actual weapons. And since the batleth doesn't seem to have any magic or tech, then it can be easily compared to real weapons

[@BaldorfBreakdowns]

@@ThisNameIsBanned But it's silly to analyze which weapons are good or bad. So it's silly to say a cutting weapon would be better than a club, even in a survival situation. Why would I waste my time trying to figure out which weapon would be better under different circumstances? If it works, it's good enough. If you can make a club work out in the woods, it's fine and a machete wouldn't be any better. You can't convince me otherwise. /s

[@williamjenkins4913]

You kind of summed up my problem with the original video. By definition you can't make an objective good/bad judgment using a relative scale. All Shad did was make a way to grade if something was less good. His whole premise was fundamentally flawed.

[@leritykay8911]

@@williamjenkins4913 Well, I don't think so. I mean, everything is relative, right? So, I think it's fair to say that if a weapon is worse than half of the other similiar weapons, than it's bad, and if it's better than the half of other similar weapons, then it's good

[@roccaflocca4312]

With Shad on this one, especially since so much of this relates back to nunchucks, with which I hurt myself regularly as a kid. And I had the opinion of the Bat'leth I have before Shad chimed in. There are objectively good and bad weapons.

[@MushroomMagpie]

It's funny that nunchucks are illegal in so many places, yet other weapons proliferate!

[@AudraT]

We have got some serious Star Trek and Jet Li fans who will defend their weapons TO THE DEATH! Objectively, you can definitely say these weapons are inferior, but if someone is a huge childhood fan, I guess it's hard to be objective. Also, Shad's videos are supposed to be fun. At least when comparing fantasy weapons to reality. Those are fun videos because you want to see if popular fantasy weapons would actually work well in real life, but some folks take those vids VERY SERIOUSLY!

[@roccaflocca4312]

@@AudraT Yeah, they do, and that doesn't mean that they aren't definitely wrong. A weapon that's at least as likely to hurt the user as the intended target isn't wise. If you're gonna talk nunchucks, there's so much focus you'd need to have at ALL times, it would be SO easy to screw with someone spinning them around and have them take themselves out, for example. Also, Bruce Lee really only wanted to use them because they look good on camera. Again, I liked nunchucks when I was a kid, too, and I'm looking back at how much work you have to put in just to be mildly safe PLAYING AROUND with them, it's just so silly.

[@MushroomMagpie]

@@AudraT Jet Li is the superior weapon! Discussion of the superiority or inferiority of nunchucks becomes irrelevant.

[@MushroomMagpie]

The bat'leth reminds me of deer rutting with antlers. It only makes sense from a ceremonial and ritualized perspective. In other words, a sport with rules to keep it locked in illogical play.

[@frankopanklaric]

People actually defended that klingon weapon? Dayum.....

[@MechaShadowV2]

Even Skall after testing it said it's not as bad as many like to say it is, just not that particularly good either.

[@GrizzlyHansen]

Making small modifications to a weapon does not make a weapon bad. The sawed-off shotgun does not make the shotgun a bad weapon, just like making the Bat'leth longer and straighter does not make the original bad. Peronalization to fit a person's preference does not make the original bad. American Pizza does not make Itailian Pizza bad.

[@justthinkingoutloud2538]

I don’t remember what it was about, but I want to say the last time Matt did a reply video to you he took you drastically out of context as well and prompted you to address his reply with one of your own. I’m not one of his followers, but it doesn’t sound like reply videos are his forte.

[@leritykay8911]

I think it was about Matt interpreting Shad's words as "Gun was invented and that's why everyone stopped using swords"

[@dithaingampanmei]

I think Matt is very academic in approach, which makes him very zoomed in when it comes to topics. Sometimes a professor has to use different phrases to help different students. Shad, on the other hand, is a writer and world builder, so he has developed an instinct to zoom out. I think there wasn't much theoretical disagreement here, but there's a disagreement of language. Cheers to both of them for making this content for us.

[@daver4435]

Hey Shad I don’t know how much interest you have in the 40k universe but one “good or bad weapon” debate I would be very interested in hearing your opinion on would be Titans. The main point of debate seems to be is worth the insane amount of resources that it costs to deploy, replace or even repair a single god engine when their strategic value is admittedly somewhat limited on the battlefield. Sure they carry weapons of near apocalyptic firepower that is largely unmatched in the universe but they are also an extremely limited resource for the IOM and their deployment to a battlefield is both labor and logistically intensive. I know it’s a little outside the types of weapons you normally discuss but it would be really interesting to hear your take on this.

[@jakefairbanks6155]

Are you implying that the god-emperor lacks the ability to supply his warriors? Sounds like heresy to me, you've been slated for servitorship.

[@DoctorProph3t]

Could ask the same question of nukes today, largely massively resource and power hungry, near apocalyptic effectiveness, but also just as dangerous and harmful to your own troops along with the enemy’s.

[@AndusDominae]

I can find an answer for this, I reckon. Play an Epic (is Epic still a thing?! 🤷) tournament without using any titans. Give us your results.

[@nk_3332]

@@DoctorProph3t Nukes are very useful, because they target the politicians and the generals first (decapitation strikes), that prevents larger scale wars because the parasi - I mean politicians can't abide with the idea that the sheep will continue without them. It's no longer, 10,000 of my peasants fight 10,000 of your peasants. It each of us with a gun, cocked and ready, pointed at each other's heads. That keeps the peace.

[@manchannel7003]

Titans are supposed to a kind of mobile nuclear missile bunker or a siege weapon, in the larger cases. The smaller ones are a kind obscene fire support. A warhound sprays leman russ shells from 2 giant rotary cannons where an imperator carries anti orbital weaponry. If you're facing a full on tyranid invasion, that vulcan mega bolter is looking pretty good but the orbital laser is a bit redundant. You've heard the saying "a sledgehammer to crack a nut" well titans are a drophammer. What i'm saying is, its all situational.

[@master_ace]

Matt keeps going on and on about how we shouldn't compare real worlds weapons because they were used in their unique circumstances and then applies that to imaginary weapons where context and circumstance is malleable and not set in stone. 'They used it effectively so it must be good (or good enough)' only works for historical weapons- it doesn't work for fiction. Since you can claim anything as fact even when, after analysis, that fact doesn't actually stand the test of logic. By this logic if the Klingons were written as having used tiny nerf swords then a tiny nerf sword is a good weapon of choice for the klingons, just because they were written as such. Kinda of a circular definition we end up with. Justifying a weapons worth by the fact that it was used doesn't work with fantasy since in fantasy all those previous uses are also made up.

[@Theodosius_fan]

Even though Matt is the more knowledgeable person on ancient weapoms in general he is just wrong here. It is not silly to compare weapons. If it would be modern weapon manufacturers could just stop testing and analyzing weapons and save billions of dollars

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

It definitely was done historically too. Many fencing manuals quite reasonably focus on skill & what to do any given situation with whatever you have rather than comparing weapons, but others do compare weapons. You see some of this in Pietro Monte, Antonio Manciolino, George Silver, Joseph Swetnam, etc. & military treatises even more so, as in that context the question of what to equip troops with matter a great deal. Bertrandon de la Broquière compared Turkish weapons to the European ones he knew. Machiavelli compared ancient weapons as he understood them to the popular Swiss/German ones of his day. Etc.

[@Theodosius_fan]

@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 exactly

[@hunterbarnett4893]

This was hard to watch, alot of it is basically “well that’s just silly why ever do that? Here’s a strawman that agrees!” And responding with what should be obvious within this context. You are a very respectful person and I hope that Scho realizes the very basic point to these comparisons…

[@TheReaper569]

There is an easier explanation: star trek writers fail badly when they try to write about matters relating to the military. They suck at it. I Don't need to show any examples to anyone who watched star trek as i did, because star trek universe has the most incompetent military organisations in fiction.

[@thearisen7301]

Basically, just because something was adequate or functional doesn't make it good or ideal. Sure you need context and tech level to make it a fair comparison but just because something can get the job done doesn't mean it's particularly good at it.

[@Plutouthere]

I have to say after watching both videos I think "Context" in the form of "History" is important and the main point Scholagladiatoria is trying to make is, there is "objective" things to be considered about both when put together.

[@guardiantree8879]

I think Matt’s point was calling a weapon that exists in the real world & was used to good effect should not be considered trash. The most effective or best no, but usable yes. Nunchucks still fail at that, but I think the Bat’Leth does make the cut (within the Star Trek universe). I mean ultimately your choice is a Bat’Leth , a hunting knife, nunchucks or five foot hefty stick in combat. If you consider the Bat’Leth over the others it isn’t trash.

[@beter21137]

Bald guy: the Nunchucks are a good weapon on its context Shad: Ok, what is the nunchucks context? Baldguy: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ---------- Better yet, I for a different example. For those who know about guns You have the option of 2 handguns, one is a P38 and the other a Nambu What would you choose? Both are handguns, made for the same purpose, and roughly the same time period. Would you choose the weapon that is normal or decent enough, in 9mm or a weapon that got 50% chance of getting jammed and 10% that it will explote on your hand?

[@skybattler2624]

"Sticks are not quite effective weapons" Welped, looks like the Majapahit Empire and those that killed Magellan beg to disagree... (Eskrima/Arnis is just two glorified stick that are surprisingly effective as clubbing weapons against certain armor thickness)

[@leritykay8911]

Yes, but the point is, sticks are not that good *compared* to weapons of similiar size and purpose. Yeah they *can* bash through armour... But Bats, Maces, Morning Stars and similiar things are undeniably better at that. Shad talked about this in the original video

[@skybattler2624]

@@leritykay8911 actually, the weird characteristic of the rattan used in those weapons makes them light enough to function as a club, yet durable enough for the purpose without needing a bulge to concentrate the force. Despite the fact that wood is plentiful in those areas (and there are Melanesian/Polynesian clubs with round heads), the inherent properties of rattan actually provides enough momentum without breaking like wood, and incredibly durable that they rarely snap, if at all.

[@_mwk]

Pitchforks and torches have historically been used by many a peasant to poke and revolt. Therefore, since those served their purpose, they are good weapons. Wait, that's dumb.

[@Gary_Nadeau]

Matt think it's pointless to compare...then procede to compare to prove his point....sure Personally, he lost all credibility by not seeing the point of comparing two weapons.

[@michaelmosesdodi860]

i'm imagining the mongolian army marching armed with nunchucks ready to ride against the enemy ... i wonder what's going to happen in that timeline..

[@JustTooDamnHonest]

It’s always good to have a chat between two weapon enthusiast really brings out the reason why they like them so much.

[@wouter12wpp]

The bat'leth is a very good weapon. The purpose is to look cool and unique to people who don't really know how weapons work. So it's a well designed weapon, fulfilling its purpose.

[@tjsho417]

Shad, both Matt and Skalla are HEMA practitioners for decades now. If you actually want to settle this then it’s really quite simple: you with an arming sword vs Matt with a batleth in a HEMA style match. Everything else is just posturing and ultimately utterly meaningless.

[@creativehorse7907]

I do love a gentlemanly debate or argument. I do however believe Matt should consult Shad before publishing and vis versa to insure a discourse without misconception.

[@Theodosius_fan]

Scholagladiatoria is a bit to much of a sceptic. Like yeah in the context of me being a blind dwarf and my opponent Fiori a pocket knife would beat a longsword, but does this mean it is silly to say that a longsword is a "better" weapon then a pocket knife?

[@Ramschat]

Saying that these types of comparison are 'irrelevant', 'silly' or 'a waste of energy' is in itself completely subjective. What is 'useful' or 'worthwhile'? It depends entirely on what goal you have. If the goal is to entertain, then yes. If the goal is to prepare you for modern warfare, then no.

[@c6q3a24]

Matt - "Given the opportunity to make a Battleth... I wouldn't, I would make something similar, but different in many ways."

[@AliasAlias-nm9df]

I think this hints to a deeper misunderstanding. Is context intrinsic or extrinsic to an objective measure? I would argue that it is extrinsic. As Shad said in his prior video on the Bat'Leth we can establish an objective standard to compare weapons. This statement is universal, it applies regardless of context, which means we can apply that standard for any specific context. We can establish any context and apply the same standard of comparison and so the method of comparison must exist independent of context. Of course every time you apply the standard to a context you will get a different result, however, the standard of comparison remains the same.

[@vsm1456]

I totally agree

[@Runegrem]

If I understand you correctly, this means that how you choose the context is subjective. Which means it's really hard to objectively say one weapon is better than another since you can usually manipulate contexts to your advantage.

[@Durakken]

I really hate that people do not get that context is key to objectivity. Objective means that if you void out human variability (which is one set of context) and rely solely on the facts, however minute or broad they may be. Subjective is when you take into account preference or perspective and personal opinion. Liking something and it being good are not synonymous. Objectively speaking, deciding what is the best weapon is simply throwing all weapons into a context map... or an ecosystem/environment and whichever one comes out on top in a niche is best in that niche. There is no "best", not because things aren't objectively better or worse, but because there is more than one niche where a different set of variables come out on top.

[@Mohrrunkel]

@@Runegrem Exactly, there is no one answer to this question and I think that is what Matt was trying to say - that is if you don't put forth any rules (context). But for every subjectively chosen context you can then apply the same standard and will objectively come to the same conclusion every single time. Honestly, even the standard of comparison is subject to debate and not everyone would 100% agree with Shads list, so even that is subjective.

[@Runegrem]

@@Mohrrunkel And that's why I'd suggest to follow Skallagrim's usual approach to the subject and just do it for fun and entertainment rather than to pretend it's actually important.

[@Honeybadger_525]

Yes, you can definitely compare any 2 weapons or tools and conclude that Weapon A is more effective than Weapon B in a specific situation or for an intended purpose. However, if you take into account that Weapon A may be more costly to produce, maintain, or may be illegal or impractical to carry, then you may have no other choice but to utilize the inferior Weapon B? In the case of the English longbow, true it is not inherently superior to other contemporary bows available at the time. However, if you consider compared to contemporary composite bows and crossbows, the English longbow was easier to craft and less susceptible to delaminating in the humid English climate. In this context, it may actually make sense to compromise on the effectiveness of the weapon in question for practical or economic reasons, especially when your goal is to equip a large number of people? Also, the English had a long well-established archery tradition which made their archers so effective, not necessarily their equipment.

[@Shrapnel82]

Exactly . Almost every time the AK-47, and its variants, is reviewed/analyzed, the cost to produce and simplicity are brought up. Other guns could be more accurate, have a higher rate of fire, or other advantages, but if you can arm 100 people with AKs for the same cost of arming 10 people with AUGs, you'd probably choose AKs.

[@samuelhagberg3694]

An axe is actually much cheaper and simpler to produce, while being more effective than the Bat'leth

[@Draxynnic]

I think that was a point that Shad made in the longbow comparison videos - the longbow wasn't strictly better than shorter composite recurve bows with the same draw weights (I think the longbow did still have some advantages, as did the shorter high draw weight recurve, but it wasn't a matter of the longbow being clearly superior), but longbows WERE easier to manufacture and maintain. Which matters when you want to have a large force of infantry archers. Longbows can be clumsy to use on horseback, though, which is why cultures that focused more on mounted archery tended to go with composite bows. The Japanese yumi manages to combine both, being a composite bow with longbow-like length, but with an asymmetric design which make sit more usable on horseback.

[@Honeybadger_525]

@@samuelhagberg3694 Effective in what way exactly? As a battlefield weapon or for chopping down a tree an axe is absolutely better compared to a fictional weapon designed for specific purpose in a fictional sci-fi world. My point is there can be other reasons why you might choose to use a suboptimal weapon for reasons other than its ability to inflict damage.

[@Honeybadger_525]

@@Draxynnic What you say is true. My point is that with any weapon compromises are often made for better performance in a particular function/purpose and/or to better operate within certain constraints imposed on the the user of the weapon. These constraints can be practical, environmental or even societal but they all can influence the choice of weapon beyond performance alone.

[@Adam_okaay]

Not the best, or most optimized does not mean bad though. In your video you called the Bat'leth utter rubbish, Skall had even tested one (granted he says it was poorly made) but he cuts up all kinds of stuff. It's clearly effective to not be "objectively bad."

[@Donky_Kongs_Baby]

It does though in combat anything that is less effective or requires more work and training to use is bad thats why we moved to guns in the first place easier to use and train universal lethal but capable to wound and requires little effort to achieve results. Its an S tier weapon anything below A tier is a bad or mediocre weapon.

[@Donky_Kongs_Baby]

Weapons are designed for the most part to kill so if it is not as effective then something else then guess what...... I will never pick a sword over a 9m Beretta.

[@huaili3606]

Wasn't Shad's point that it's "objectively bad" if compared to other weapons meant to do the same thing for the same purpose?

[@Adam_okaay]

@@Donky_Kongs_Baby good enough gets the job done. I'm a combat vet, there's a reason we still do bayonet and CQC training. What if the M9 Beretta is out of ammo? You wouldn't choose a sword over that?

[@Donky_Kongs_Baby]

@@Adam_okaay As a vet and weapon enthusiasts myself no that was not the argument he was clearly saying if it was between X or Y weapon which would be a better choice if you lined up a bunch of swords, axes, and pole arms and then lined up a set of rifles, hand guns, and semi autos im taking guns as a first pick everytime. They are objectivly better weapons and even among the guns some rifles do better then others those would be subcategories. You can use everything as a weapon that doesn't mean its as good as a gun and I wouldn't choose it over a gun. That was his point.

[@lancemagmer9701]

Portability and legality are things to consider. Nunchucks are very portable, and very illegal in some places. Canes are legal everywhere

[@garnettkaruna8767]

When both men hold a weapon, one learns the fine skill of respect and polite!

[@Gapeagle]

I could argue half of human history and thus half of human innovation has stemmed from "is this weapon objectively better than that weapon?" and his point that any weapon was EFFECTIVE at its time is a lie. Sad to see a man say something so stupid with a smug smile on his face. Reasons like this are why I unsubbed from him long ago.

[@lightningpenguin8937]

After seeing the curse of Silverthorne, I find it hard to dislike Matt. You are just guys too likable now. Yes, this is an excuse to ask if you're planning to do a campaign again.

[@Captain-Axeman]

I for some reason always watch the original video after the respond video. If i didn't watch the original.

[@bigbird4481]

That's smart not to only listen to one side

[@Xion_Toshiro]

I think those 6 Metrics of what makes a Weapon good or bad is brilliant & insightful; & a good way to analyze what makes a Weapon good or bad - it certainly makes me take a step back & think: "does this Weapon meet the 6 Criteria & more?"

[@ChrisBryer]

Someone i know recently said not to take Shad as seriously as i do. And to be frank, i know Shad is not an academic but i normally dont find any issue with what Shad is saying, even if i dont fully agree. Most of the time, Shad makes good point, and even when he does not, there is a good reason to hold the point he has. So, seeing this video, a professional like Matt just shown to be wrong and misunderstanding the points of a youtuber sword nerd is... kind of crazy.

[@IanGerritsen]

When a "professional" argues against critical thinking, you know the rot has set in deep. It happens in many fields, where consensus is valued more than useful work to advance the field.

[@fsmoura]

There's no bad weapon, that can't be improved by adding more ｐｅｎｅｔｒａｔｉｏｎ.

[@marion_roberts]

This is just a healthy discussion. Regardless, I think we can all agree that nunchucks are awful. I'd rather use a crowbar.😆

[@brianknezevich9894]

I'd rather use just about any hand tool. Hammer... Screwdriver...

[@icantafford]

I would rather use my bare hands than nunchucks... I know I can actually do at least a little damage to someone other than myself with my hands

[@speakerthekidtherockpotent7406]

A crowbar is a metal stick, instant yes

[@Beardshire]

nunchuku isn't a weapon, it's for farming. A farming scythe is a bad weapon, cause it's not a weapon.

[@brianknezevich9894]

@@Beardshire and I'd prefer a sickle - well, as opposed to the scythes I've used. A sickle is at least vaguely weapon like, even if it's not optimized... I use one for hand trimming in flower gardens, but I've tested it as a weapon, and it's not entirely without merit. Not really saying much, any good large kitchen knife is pretty formidable, and a very good baseline for weapon comparison.

[@steffent.6477]

Feels like Shad just put the context section (with the bread knife) after every statement Matt made^^

[@shadiversity]

You have a point, I needed to use that clip multiple times because it singularly addressed several separate stamen's Matt made. I appreciate your patience with my pedanticness.

[@moody1320]

@@shadiversity yeah that made me think the vid was looping itself, ended up checking my phone every single time

[@michaelthomasen2190]

“Truth is ancient though it seems an upstart.” -G. Silver, “Paradoxes of Defence”

[@RamblerReb]

I had a feeling Schola would concentrate on the bat'leth. He made a (very complimentary) vid about them which was sponsored by Paramount.

[@andrewlonghofer9485]

I think that it's important to remember that Matt's background is largely from that of history and Archaeology, which goes pretty hand in hand with his primary occupations as a HEMA instructor and antique arms dealer. That's his frame of reference. And, as Shad has stated, humans tend to use the most effective tools for the job. And so, if, in history, something is used more frequently and for a longer time than something else available at that time, then there must be reasons for that to occur. And the general idea there is probably that it's because in that place and time for those people, that was the most effective tool for the job. Because of it wasn't, they would have found or designed something else to fulfill that role. Basically, Matt's approach is more hyper-focused on the exact historical contexts and whatnot. And that can make things seem more similar and more different at the same time, and thus complicates comparison. Whereas, Shad is looking at things a little more broadly and sticking firmly within his metrics.

[@LWolf12]

Well, a historian should know all about this kind of analysis as well then. To understand why a culture would shift and move from one advancement in technology as other technologies and developments evolve. It's a basic understanding of archaeology & living history. Understand why different type of practices develop, such as the multiple folding techniques of Japanese steel & such being born out of need do to the rather crap quality of Japanese iron. Again, context.

[@graveyardshift2100]

You literally said that "stick very good" is really just a meme.

[@TrueFork]

Miyamoto Musashi has entered the chat, carrying an oar

[@MravacKid]

I find you're both correct, you're just looking at the subject in different contexts. Matt is talking about historical (or fictional, as may be the case) usage of the weapons in their own time and place, while you're talking about practical concerns of the weapons compared to each other.

[@janehrahan5116]

No, matt is just wrong.

[@MravacKid]

But he's not... if you're on a deserted island and the only thing you have is a rock, it's the best weapon you can get.

[@2teepeepictures382]

There’s another thing that I believe people need to take into context. Analysis. If you take an analysis out of context then you will end up warping the intended message of the results. An analysis about what type of weapon would be good for an untrained person to use would have wildly different results than an analysis about somebody with prior training in a similar weapon. I personally loved the original video because it seemed like a very good tool to use from an author or content creator perspective. It is a tour that would help me design a weapon that a specific culture would likely use. You can intentionally design a bad weapon for the purpose of a story narrative. The bat-leth is a fantastic example of that. My favorite way to teach The concept of context changing the result is to ask the question “ if you wanted somebody to build you a deck which superhero would you get to do the job?” Asking this question forces the audience to consider context because it puts them into the situation. You can still use this to teach all of the same things that other analysis can but now The option to think about it in a bilateral good versus bad way as if one context applies to all contacts is taken away. It would be impossible to say that Batman would make a better deck than Iron Man but it is possible to say which one you would rather. Me, I am going for captain America because I don’t want to my deck to come with unnecessary bells and whistles. Give me a good strong solid hickory deck that will last for generations.

[@Skhmt]

at 26:00 Shad is talking about if the Klingons would use the Bat'leth in real (not ritual) combat... and from everything we've seen of Klingons, the answer is a resounding NO. They always bring up that the ultimate honor is in victory as to why they put cloaking devices on every ship they can fit one on. It stands to reason that if they'll literally hide their ships to perform sneak attacks or to gain an advantage in space combat, they'd use energy weapons in ground combat too. And that's basically what we see in Star Trek - they mostly just shoot everyone like any civilized species.