"Best" & "Worst" Melee Weapons? - How to Rate Objectively 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A lot of these don't seem to be ideal for melee. I think the best for melee is the Roman Gladius machete, because it can fight in tight spaces without collateral damage to allies, it gives quick multi-directional mobility, easy retention, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short answer: weapons are divided into two types, civilian and battlefield. Hard to swallow pill: all cultures have similar battlefield weapons. Spears, axes, shields, bows, polearms, swords, maces. That's it. There are some minor variations between cultures, but they're all basically the same. Examining the "best" *civilian* weapon, on the other hand, is a bit more interesting. Civilian weapons tend to vary quite a bit throughout different cultures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How would you rate a shovel? Edit: This is serious question.

12:30 it's gonna make your rolls have better i-frames

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

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

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

Imagine you find yourself with a vast selection of historical weapons in front of you. You are told you have to fight someone else who has the same choice of weapons. Which one do you pick?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. Very interesting. I was surprised to see that you considered the spear more affordable than the dagger. I was thinking the metal work would be kind of equal. With respect to the long sword, I wonder why adaptability is rated so much higher than the spear. I mention that one can carry it in all day live while the spear is denied it. Does the use together with a shield not equally apply to the spear, though I do recon that one is mostly limited to thrust attacks then? If a Bat'leth works so well, why was it not invented and used in the times when bladed weapons were the standard?

Cavern brawl? Lolz. My choice is a tempered steel machete and my ritual Aztec sacrifial knife. Why? The machete and knife work together extremely well. If someone hits you with a bat they can back each other up to parry. Heh...rapier and dagger...pretty much what I am saying. Ritual knife guts better and machete is much more sturdy than a rapier. Gut...slice...parry...block. Weird choice of weapons but years of testing has convinced me. You can get a tempered steel machete for $40 or a cheap one for $10. Ritual Aztec dagger...I paid $20...only one I have ever seen. Curved in a way meant to gut. No guard on the handle. Even though I have never had to use this combo...I swear by it. I think once you get the confidence to kill efficiently and protect yourself...bad people can smell it and stay away. Pro tip...look not rich but not poor...look a little crazy. But always be friendly...but have a weird look in your eye. And still always be armed and ready. I swear to Cthulu robbers can smell when someone is ready to kill. I can walk down the bad side of Chicago with no fear. Also be a fit 6'2 dude. That helps.

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

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

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

The best melee weapon is obviously a bayonet attached to an M1 Garand, because it works pretty well as a spear, and if that doesn't work for you, you can just shoot the enemy 8 times with .30-06 and get a very satisfying *ping* sound afterwards. It's proven itself in island jungles in the Pacific to the snowy winter plains of Europe.

I think the longsword rating isn't too biased. My only criticism is I'd knock off half a point on anti-armor. Half swording is effective against armor but you trade defense and reach when using that technique, which hurts overall. Edit: I'd probably knock a point in durability off the katana too, but slightly increase its damage. Katana's edge is sharper than typical longsword quality steel but way more brittle. Plus katanas don't use spring steel and can be bent easily compared to a longsword.

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

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

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

i would have made a "one handed use" score aswell. Because if it is easy to carry one handed, you have the other hand free for: Grappling, shieldusage, secondary weapon etc. Or simply maintaining fighting capacity if one arm gets injured. It is obviously an advantage. Two handed weapons will generally speaking score higher in say reach and damage than one handed weapons. Like a Greatsword will have more range and damage compared to an arming sword. So its fair the greatscore ranks higher. But on the other hand the arming sword can be combined with a shield without getting worse in and of itself. So it gets a say 6 point score in "one handed use". A greatsword would obviously have a 0 point score. you cant possibly use a shield with that. You cant possibly use it with 1 hand at all. A longsword might have a "one handed score" of maybe 3. It CAN be used one handed (e.g. with a shield) effectivly, however a longsword wielded in 1 hand loses a lot of options that a longsword with wielded two handed has. So therefore a score of 3, bc you can single hand it, but it comes as disadvantages that your secondary armament have to make up for.

The mighty STICK is the best weapon.Hits hard, is quick to use, requires a low skill level to use, and its very cheap to own. It is also VERY common and you can get one almost anywhere.

20:23 _you can half-sword with the katana_ If you try to half-sword with the katana you immediately lose your fingers, because of its superior cutting power.

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

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

Y'know, I've literally clicked off of videos in the past because they didn't get the basic concepts you're addressing here! KUDOS! *subs*

You should probably break up adaptability quite a bit. It's a conglomeration of too many things, especially when you bring up your earlier points about the Gladius. You gave the longsword a higher ada than daggers, which in a vacuum could be rationalized, as they have some advantages and disadvantages over the others. To me, the dagger would score top marks in this area simply because it is small enough and light enough to be a quickly drawn companion/secondary weapon to any other weapon once the battle goes to grapple, which it will if you are both wearing good armor. So while a poor solo weapon, you'd be a fool not to carry one because it costs you very little to purchase, carry and ready but provides a valuable service as a weapon in the niches it favors. For a soldier, this is one of the few weapons that is non-optional IMO, and it shows since it still hasn't been phased out of modern militaries. It also provides non-combat utility. Meanwhile if you take the katana in the context of where it existed, it has a few advantages given its link to status and class, which gives social acceptance to carrying the weapon (not in all, but some cases) in places where Europeans would *generally* (again, context) not be allowed to take 'field blades' like full-size longswords. Nobody's choosing between katana and longsword today as a serious consideration for a carry weapon unless they're bloody mad. Obligatory joke about how daggers are prohibited in Britain today where in the past you'd not be considered a freeman without a knife.

The best weapon is fear. Fear is the mind killer. If your opponent has no mind, you can just move in for the kill. ✔

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

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

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

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

We need clones to test which is the bet weapon. Clone humans, raise them with pre-recorded martial arts video tutorials, weed out those that over and under-performe on a physical aspect, then have them fight with the different weapons. Several thousands of clones will be needed to have enough data for each weapon. Hardest part of this ? Probably not going to jail before the end of the testing, as you're basically running a human farm for years...

SPEARS. Kreigsmesser is also pretty badass too

3:16 _"I dare you to imagine carrying this around in everyday life. For civilian self defense."_ Just break it in half, tie the ends with a cord/chain, and hide it in your pants 👍

Nunchaku are crearly the best melee weapons if you exclude nearly any other weapon. :D It's clearly always a question of situation. ^^ fg C.

The best weapon is A frying pan Frying pan can Cook Is a shield Can be non letal Can be letal If you heat does more damage Against armor is really good And is really funny And can deflect bullets Tank shells Can parry like in the legend of zelda botw Can parry nuclear explotions

I would define adaptability as how easily a random person could pick it and use it to effectively defend/attack.

In a modern context, where you're trying to defend yourself by ending an attack fast, nothing beats a Flat Leather Sap, Blackjack, or Soft Lead-Shot Filled Sap, for a weighted bludgeon that is also portable, usually has a strap for retention, and wrapped in leather to reduce bounce during impact. They're also tried and tested for hundreds of years by police departments, militaries, and on the wild west frontier. There's several good quality makers that I've purchased from in Canada.

Great conversation starter. I would prefer a different criteria however. Instead of a stat list, create a list of combat scenario archetypes such as self defense, open field, mountainous terrain, and on a boat. Keep up the good work.

I hate Star Trek but I will say the Bat'leth might have scored higher on the damage scale. The reason is you would have the ability to twist and throw your shoulder and body weight behind the attacks as you are fully bracing the weapon in two hands. You can pivot holding further out to the sides of the weapon driving behind, using your body and hips as the fulcrum.

I've been carrying a military grade flip baton for years. I've never been comfortable with the idea of stabbing someone so I don't carry blades. The most effective weapon is the one your willing to use. Drawing blood is not something to take lightly.

Have you thought about the symbolism of the weapon? i.e. a sword with a cross guard being a cross so Christian cultures gravitate to them, the Chinese jain with the strange mushroom guard that is 'lucky', or the Bat'leth being from the story of kayless (which I can't spell). Even the katana being virtually unchanged for centuries (just shortened Tatchi) because of tradition. I think a lot of the better known (more likely to be preserved or depicted in art) weapons are the ones with more symbolic meaning rather than purely the 100% most efficient deadly most awesomeist killy thing ever.

When I was training with Katana I was taught to use the blunt back for parrying opponents blades and sharp edge for striking.

That definitely isn't a "Stick".. Everyone knows it's a get your dog to exercise device. On your video... Think is a personal question, of which the "best vs worst" argument is answered in what's "best" for them while MY or YOUR best may be something THEY should NEVER pick to use if even a rock or big tree branch is available as an option.

Best weapon is probably the rock. Throwing is the most natural attack motion of the human body. Also, they are free and can be found pretty much anywhere.

I think longsword adaptability should go down one tick. yah its relitively wearable, but not as much as smaller 1 handed swords.

The perfect loadout would be: Chainmail over gambeson with plated armor on the arms and legs, spear, shield, one handed sword, warhammer and a dagger. In my humble opinion.

You forgot to add an "intimidation" stat. Any fight you don't have to fight because your opponent ran away is a good fight.

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

Still think the katana would be a bit lower in durability compared to the longsword. The carbon steel they use were inferior to spring steel most of europe used. There's also the factor of how they were melted and forged as that can determine the impurity count in the blades.

So in terms of the best bladed weapon in the modern world (like you said, setting/use matters), which is effective, multi-useful, and still very much lauded....elite combat troops choices seem to be the ones that carry the most weight. A small, high quality hatchet is extremely popular in that world. Things like Winkler tomahawks and such, which are held in high regard with groups like the Navy Seals. Not that this is the be-all-end-all opinion on the matter....but if you're in a cave and you need to handle something quietly with no chance of the person waking their friends (IE, you might not be able to get the blade placement you need)....just caving in their skull in one blow from whatever angle you have seems to be effective. A small tomahawk plus a good folding knife will get you by in the woods too, for more mundane tasks. I've gutted, butchered and quartered several animals in the field in order to carry them out and a small pocketknife and a hatchet served great for gutting and dismembering. Great for building blinds, making kindling, and even splitting small logs. And of course, if you connect with a hit, it's devastating, regardless of what the target is wearing.