@@jamesaaron7211 In terms of longevity & spread of use, it really is *the* weapon; it was used from the Ancient world, all the way up into the Early Modern Era, & you could debate that the bayonet on the end of a musket/ gun (especially the earlier Plug Bayonet) was just an extension of the spear into a mechanised era- which means it made it into the 18th, 19th, & 20th centuries. Every culture had some form of spear; from short spears, often thrown or used a bit like long daggers/ knives - to standard length spears that were almost always thrown, or thrust (the Greeks' _doru_ & Roman _hasta_ & _pilum_ ) - to massive _sarissa_ in Macedonia - to pikes, arrayed in the schiltron formation- that proved so deadly in the Wars of Scottish Independance. The bow required long years of regular training, as well as the development of strength- depending on the kind of bow (the crossbow took far less time, apparently) - but the spear; it was as simple as a fire-hardened sharpened stick, to elaborate heads, & sometimes even the base had a sharp end - a person had to risk trying to get in close, to do you any damage; it worked well as a personal weapon, could be used as a ranged weapon (depending on the type), & it was devastating in a formation. Absolute S-tier weapon; I'd put the bow in A-tier; it was quite versatile in the sense that- like a lot of the other weapons, it was potentially something that a wide range of people could use (including women- as noble women in the medieval era took part in hunting - but probably not peasants, unless conscripted - commoners were not permitted to hunt, without their lord's authority) - it was a naturally ranged weapon so you just had to keep knights & men-at-arms at a distance, to stay safe- & there were different types (simple/ standard, long, recurve [that could have *massive* range, without the unwieldiness of a longbow, but the draw-strength needed...]) -- bowmen/ archers were a considerable part of armies in the past- however, the bow has traditionally had a poor reputation, specifically because it was a ranged weapon (it was known as 'the coward's weapon'- Paris, in the Trojan War, was a skilled archer- but was despised for not fighting in the field, the one time he did- he lost & had a lucky save - just like poison was considered a cowardly means to kill) *_additionally_* : if your quiver ran out of arrows, you could hit someone with the bow (treating it like a 4x2, more or less), as a last resort- & vice versa, if you lost your bow- you could effectively stab someone with an arrow in a vulnerable gap, again- as a last resort.
I'm disappointed we missed one of the greatest weapons of history, the spear, which should be in the S tier. I'm glad you explained your bias on the samurai sword, as European swords were just as effective. The falchion could have rated higher, as it wields more like a machete, and can be used as one in thick bush, so a jungle fighter doesn't need to swap weapons if surprised.
Throughout history, and even prehistory, the spear has been the tool. The most dangerous animal is a human with a pointy stick. Only surpassed by more humans with pointy sticks. With a close second probably in the bow. Because it allows to do all the hunting and warfare from a distance. And yes, the katana is glorified, but european swords were just as good. They weren't heavy clubs, but works of craftsmanship. Neither is superior to a legendary level. But either will do the job.
A flail being over C rank is insane. Peasants might be used to smacking immobile wheat that's laying on the ground. Swinging a spikey dongle in a battle at people who can block and stab and dodge is much different. You miss once and you're buggered. Should be the same rank as the morning star - it's essentially the same thing.
Depending on how hard you're marking certain things I can potentially understand the 2-hander and messer, but not the flail. He mentions himself he'd be scared of hitting the person behind him which should tell you how functional these actually were in battle.
I think the rating is based on historic significance. There were far more people using a flail than a Zweihänder or a Messer. With a Messer, the Problem is short distance, which for an untrained person might be more dangerous. With a flail, it's easier to keep everyone around at a distance. In German language, beating someone up is sometimes still called "verdreschen", which goes back to the Dreschflegel (flail).
@@hyperturbotechnomike There were a LOT more people using Messer than flails. Flails were almost unheard of on battlefields, only seen routinely in a few regional armies like the Hussites. Few medieval soldiers would ever see a flail in battle.
IMHO he vastly underestimated the effectiveness, versatility and damage of the war hammer, between the crushing blow of the hammer and the deadly effect of the back spike, combined with its ease of use, it’s probably the weapon that I would choose to take into combat against most armor types.
Warhammers were specifically a horsemans weapons as a counter to armoured foes. It belongs in its lower tier. On foot you would use a poleaxe (remember warhammers were a late medieval weapon for a reason)
@@elricthebald Indeed and also the only "main" melee weapon that was still in use by infantry once firearms came along. Spears or pikes were used to protect soldiers with rifles and such.
@@giftzwerg7345 I can understand the argument of "it isn't a spear because it doesn't meet certain characteristics about weight and length" but they perform the same role on the battlefield. Given that the Sarissa was considered a spear and it was larger than many late Medieval and Reneissance pikes, I'd count pikes as a type of spear.
Dagger, I'd put it on B. There are reports from different places and times where knights dropped their main weapon, picked up their daggers and stabbed their targets, to then pick their main weapon. Also daggers come in a lot of flavours. There are more triangular shaped-tip daggers for exploiting gaps in armor; there are "pikey" daggers to try to pierce some pieces of armour; there are 3 blade daggers to cause a lot of internal bleeding. Axe, I'd put in A. It's a sharp but somewhat blunt weapon, so it doesn't require much training or finesse. Despite the blade, you can also use the blunt side as basically a hammer, making it very, very versatile.
You put the flail in the A category? The flail has limited defensive capability. I think it would take some skill besides. If used wrong you could very easily hurt yourself.
After all that, he puts a Katana top of the list, not because of it being superior in every way, it's because it's ''Cool.'' Which renders the whole exercise the subjective selections of an individual, basically.
We can just ignore his ranking for the katana and focus on everything else, for which he made reasonable arguments. He was explicit about having no substantive reason for ranking it so highly.
Dagger definitely at least A tier. With all the armor commonly present during that time, closing the distance and grappling was almost a guarantee, rendering most weapons useless. Dagger, shield, and gauntlet, reign supreme.
@@kristiankopera Those swords were more artifacts and less weapons of war. They were never used as the first option in war and were instead used in other ways such as for duels.
I think it's depends. In terms of a primary in the battlefield it's probably fair but as a weapon overlap especially as a secondary I'd say a or s tier
Daggers are good for assassins. You do not want to be in a field in a major battle with a dagger as your main weapon. The dagger is a secondary weapon, the rest were all main hand weapons. C in this context of fair. Now Flail being above the axe is shocking. It has a cutting side, a blunt side that could be used as a hammer and is much more controlled
@@William-uc4gq agreed, it's the same as a pistol. It's okay in certain situations and good in some but mostly a backup weapon for when your primary weapon isn't working. If your fighting with a pistol vs someone with an AK at 100m your most likely going to die
This is a fun and interesting exercise. I'm kind of shocked by the fact that you placed the warhammer in the "D" tranche. This seems a great weapon for the battlefield, particularly for fighting in formation or in a shield wall. It seems a perfect amalgam of the best features of other weapons. Like the axe, it is easy to use but has greater reach. It is able to do crushing damage to the joints - perhaps not quite as effectively as a mace but close enough when you consider its other versatile features. It is shorter than the pole axe and and has a lower swing radius to take advantage of its leverage making it more effective to use in formation. The longer, pointed side can be effectively used as a hook to pull down an opponents shield in a shield wall. And finally, the long point combined with the fact that the weapon is a lever to multiply force makes it particularly effective in separating ring mail and punching through plate to create deep, heavy bleeding, impaling wounds, making not just joint strikes but every strike potentially very serious. The only downside might be that the wounds created by the spike side might be so deep that the weapon could become stuck in it but that's a much bigger problem for the person that you hit than it is for you. It would make any movement an agony and only open the wound further. Add to that the haft which can be used defensively and, if I saw a bunch of soldiers armed with these things coming across the field, I'd be running the other way!
@@Aetheraev How do you figure? I doubt that a single handed Warhammer was a primary weapon for Anyone. But as sidearm? Perfect for light infantry, or for bowmen - think Longbowman at Agincourt jumping into the melee. Now a polehammer tho.... Now THAT is an infantry weapon
I disagree with a lot of this, having used a bastard sword and two handlers like the zweihander they are surprisingly light and nimble. The “damage” ranking is a poor way of looking at weapons, if something can kill some one then it will kill them, it’s easier to stab someone than it is to chop someone’s head off, yes, the head chopping does more “damage” in the sense that the person will look gruesome but they both have the same net effect; the dude is dead. And the stab was quicker and easier.
I havent read all of it, but you really said ”having used two handed swords like the zweihander” when zweihander is simply another term for a two handed sword.
@@zoroverse8358there are other two handed swords, like the longsword, and one can argue that zweihanders are german style and different to, for example the spanish montante
@@mav598 A longsword could absolutely be considered a zweihander. It is a very vague term, and saying it is the german style is simply a guess, an assumption. Any 2 handed sword could be classified as a zweihander, and saying “2 handlers like the zweihanders” is redundant and stupid. Its like saying “having used the gun like the handgun” but at least handgun would specify the selection of guns more, while saying zweihander would not specify what type of 2 handed sword whatsoever.
@@zoroverse8358 You are sort of correct if you're talking from the german perspective, but in the english language the german loanword Zweihänder refers specifically to the huge one from the renaissance.
The classic cruciform style longsword is so mythicised and romanticises and associated with the immage of the knight and Middle Ages, but most people don't know that the mainstay of medieval armies where pole weapons : poleaxes, polehammers, halberds, spears, pikes, two handed axes, warhammers. Knights started a fight with lances at horse back, the sword ( if it was even carried ) was a secondary or even a third weapon, behind a pole weapon.
@@Didamina101 Of course they were, I never denied their importance. They were also extremely important status symbols. And as far as weapons go, a longsword was very nimble and versatile and could do a lot of things in battle, it could be used to effectively attack and defend. What my point was, was that swords were not the main weapons on battlefields, but more secondary to the type of weapons I mentioned.
On foot met at arms would also use some form of heavy weapon, like English bills, or mainland European glaives. It's similar in Japan, where samurai would use spears, bows, and later, guns, and ashigaru (peasant retinue which made up majority of armies in feudal period) would get longer and longer pikes. And later guns, too... however, ALL OF THEM would be armed with a sword of some sort, and a dagger too. You just don't bring a lance into indoor fight. Swords were pistols of pre-modern age.
@@KasumiRINA You are 100 % correct. Swords, maces, axes, where just secondary or even tertiary ( mounted knights would start with lances than pole weapons ). And very well done to also mention samurai, because the katana is so romanticised that you would think they only carried that. When in fact it was spears, bows... and guns. And boy, did the samurai loved their guns.
Funny theory about messers is that they came out of guild dispute. Swordmakers guild made it illegal to make swords for non members but they still were talking business from knifemakers with daggers so knifemakers came up with legal loophole that allowed them to sell long blades in retaliation
Nah, fam -- three-sided dagger is definitely S-tier at least. Coming from a grappling background -- in armored combat, very few weapons are likely to kill you. Knock you down, stun you, incapacitate and unhorse you -- sure. But in armored grappling -- NOTHING compares to the three-sided "b*llocks* dagger for efficiency and effectiveness, except, perhaps, a war-hammer. Most "knightly" deaths were caused by an unceremonious dagger during groundfighting. As a grappler -- dagger is your friend when nothing else works. S-tier for sure. Nastiest little piece of steel ever invented. (And no --I'm NOT French, and had no relatives at Agincourt.)
Not to knock the video -- I love vids like this. Keep 'em coming. But I have to disagree from the sheer numbers of recorded casualties, and from the effectiveness in actual armored grappling, of the very dedicated and horrifically effective design of the rondel dagger.
We have to understand that the pictures are not always a representation of the actual item. The "dagger" depicted in the picture here is very cool, but the expert considered it more like a "belt knife".
@@Kriegerdammerung the dagger in the picture is a Rondel Dagger, designed to pierce mail and even low quality/thin plate. So maybe he decided to generalize to "daggers in general", which is kinda unfair. Still, this video is for fun, not very accurate.
He did say he might make mistakes and to feel free to correct him. Also he is rating everything according to his idea of what the weapons can do, not any particular list of actually how they are rated. So he isn't even wrong, its just his opinion.
Get Matt Easton of Scholagladiatoria to come on for this sort of video. Matt’s specialization is specifically in historical weapons and their usage, he has fencing schools where he teaches how to use myriad different medieval and renaissance weapons. His takes may be a bit different, perhaps a bit more nuanced. Somethin to consider 👍
Great video, I do miss the humble but very effective spear tho, It might be outside the time period here The polehammer and the Bec de Corbin would be great additions as well. I know that that list could go on for a long time, and you'd always miss out some type up weapon... Good and interesting stuff 👍🏻
When you showed the morning star I thought of "Ivanhoe," 1952. For the final battle, de Bois-Gilbert picks Mace and Chain. Ivanhoe picks the Axe. As the fight progresses, Ivanhoe is unhorsed. He is on the ground and he loses his shield, which is severely crumpled. He keeps taking blows and ducking. Then, he is able to pick up his axe. As de Bois-Gilbert takes a swing, Ivanhoe holds his axe in both hands. The chain wraps around the handle and he pulls de Bois-Gilbert out of his saddle. With de Bois-Gilbert on his back, Ivanhoe buries the axe in his chest. This is, by far, one of my favorite movies. Before anyone says anything, I know they didn't have steel shields in the early 13th Century. Another problem is that everyone is speaking English, when, in fact, most of the Normans would've been speaking French. Certainly when King Richard arrives on scene and gives his speech, he would've been speaking French.
@@maybrittwilkens6149 Just remember, this is fiction. Elizabeth Taylor at her most beautiful time. It well portrays the animosity between the Saxons and Normans. I haven't been able to find where, but I understand that the term holocaust was first used in the time of Richard I. If you take it as just plain good entertainment, you'll be fine.
To Schola Gladiatoria. This vid only lacks a spear, staff and perhaps a distinction between armoured v unarmoured combat; please disregard missile combat (javelins, slings, bows, etc.) as it requires a different approach. Also remember this is the choice for a PRIMARY weapon entering combat, so please dont listen to the DAGGER/RONDEL plonkers. And remember that the katana has been folded a thousand times and can cut through a tank ;) (I.e its super cool, he is absolutely right)
Gotta love how you pick and choose when youre going to base the rating off your actual metrics and when you're just going to rate it however you feel. Not to mention, you gave the two-hander a low usability rating because you would need to be trained how to use it, then gave the katana a super high usability rating saying you are basing that off of being a trained samurai. Have some consistency, I'm not even going to talk about the flail.
The war hammer shown is more of a Lucerne Hammer...longer shaft like a pole axe. A War hammer could have a shorter shaft such that it was paired with a Buckler. A dangerous combo. Maces aren't morning stars. A mace is the simplest weapon to use. Breaks bones, skulls, joints, etc, with relatively little purchase. A glancing blow might break a limb. Barely any training needed. Spears have been around since the dawn of time and have won more empires than any other weapon. The Messer is underrated. Messer is German for "knife", and was easier to make than swords. Lighter and easier to use, they're much easier to train with. A falchion is essentially a heavy Messer, but weighted more like an axe. It's not a specialist weapon in any regard. If you've used a machete, you're good with a falchion or Messer. A morning star has no chain. That's a flail. Seriously. Morning stars are life enders. Between the bludgeoning damage and the spike penetration, you'll die of internal injuries before leaving the field Flails are great for offense, and are capable of circumventing shields. They can't block or party well. Lastly, daggers. Daggers are ESSENTIAL. Close quarter combat, coup de grace, eating utensil, carving tool....it does so much. AND you can throw the bloody things. The katana is basically a short single edge longsword with a longer handle. They're made from softer steel as well. A lot of myth, but not the legend it's made out to be.
You covered a lot I was going to mention. I also thought it strange he would place a mace at 'S' tier for being handy against armor, but a warhammer all the way down at 'C'.
Not to mention....aces at bell ringing. I guarantee you even the most hardened knight would be useless for a considerable period if he had been struck in the helm with the full impact of a well struck mace.
Disagree with a lot of the choices: S TIER - Pollaxe: totally agree with this one - Spear: don't know how this one is missing, but if any melee weapon should be S tier, it should be the spear A TIER - Arming sword: reliable, versatile, a lot of design variations to prioritize thrusting or cutting, can be paired with another weapon or a shield. It's only downside is that if the opponent is wearing armour it becomes useless, and of course it won't see a lot of action in open battlefield. - Messer: everything you can say about the arming sword you can say about the messer, plus it tends to have better hand protection because of the nail in the guard and some models have a knuckle bar. The only issue compared to the arming sword is that because of the curved nature it would probably have more trouble to get into armour gaps B TIER - Katana: pretty simmilar to the messer and arming sword in function, BUT, i give it a lower score because of a couple of points. The laminated construction with a softer spine will give it a risk of bending, hence i would be more worried about ruining it mid battle, its also a very chunky sword, making it not the best at getting into armour gaps. Plus, the blade lenght tends to be shorter than an average one handed sword (unless it's a tachi) - Two-handed sword: It's my favourite weapon, but still, I recognize it has a lot of flaws that prevent it from being top tier. Its a very weird weapon whose use was shortlived and that is the king of compromises, a weapon designed to be a jack of all trades but not dominate in anything. - Falcion: Though it depends on the model since falcions varied widely throughout regions and time periods. I've always seen the messer as a more evolved version of the falcion, hence I find it hard to put them in the same category if we're taking both into account. Still, it's a would be a very reliable side arm C TIER - Dagger: nothing to add here. fightingwise it's worse than axes and maces, but I do agree it's a quintessential tool for any soldier in ancient times, hence it totally deserves the spot here - Hand axe: good chopping action, poor reach, null hand protection. Only if you're fighting armoured opponents or somebody with a wooden shield I'd see the appeal - Mace: Lot of percussive action, also poor reach and hand protection. Again, only against armoured opponents it would be worthwhile - Warhammer: same case as with the mace D TIER - Flail: Everything with a chain and segmented i would find akward to wield. Sure enough, it should give a good wack to anybody, but I'm positive most people would choose something else over this. Even as a peasant, why choose this over a regular spear or a billhook? - Morningstar ball and chain version: same case as the flail but with lower reach and a higher chance to hurt yourself in the process. I would guess controlling this thing would require a lot of practice and the advantages it provides are minimal compared to the time investment.
Yeah, it makes sense! Also modern style katanas only appeared later around 15th century or so, most medieval samurai carried tachi, a heavier cavalry sword... very little difference apart from being worn blade-down.
One of the things that people misunderstand is that it's as if everyone wears full body armour. full body armour is expensive as fuck and not everyone can wear it. Instead of spending money so that everyone can wear full armor, it would be stronger to use that money to build more soldiers. Two or three reasonably well-trained peasants are stronger than one knight in shining armor. Even if you are wearing full body armor, you can easily be beaten if another person holds you back while you deal with one and pulls you down to the ground. Especially if the battlefield is in a state of melee. So there is no such thing as an S rank just because it is strong against armor. If they were so strong, people in the past would have had maces all the time because they were not stupid. And there were many peasant soldiers on the battlefield. Historically, those weapons were used because they were effective. In other words, the weapons that were used the most on the battlefield are ranked S. And the ridiculous part of this video is that it doesn't showcase the most used weapons at all. That means spears and bows. Those are S-ranked weapons. Soldiers carried two-handed weapons like spears and bows. And they carried swords and other weapons as sidearms. Therefore, it is ridiculous to treat two-handed and one-handed weapons in the same category.
This comment is for the many people that maybe don't know that the flail is actually a really secure weapon to use, because the measures of the chain, stick and ball were obviously calculated to not reach your hand while wielding it, so basically the ball will swing sufficiently far away from you to not rappresent any meaningful threat for the one who weilds it (if you see pictures of flails with chains longer of the staff, they are probably fake or simply drawn bad). + The flail is actually a really effective weapon while mounted, because the chain absorbs the knockback after the strike (instead of your wrist like in the case of the mace). The flail also is really effective against shields, since it can hit behind them and can cause enough wounds to debilitate the opponent. The true downsides of the flail in my opinion are these: - Since it basis on a chain to be effective, it can potentially be a fragile weapon and can break quite easily, if even one of the rings is weak it will break really soon (you need a really good blacksmith). - Isn't the best for formation fighting, to weild it in a way that causes really and severe damages you can't be in close quarters with your homies, so again the one handed version is great while mounted.
Personal preference would be to have war hammer in the A slot. Having multiple certifications with the SAFD and possessing a martial arts background the war hammer has the ability to wrench joints because that's part of it's design function. Also as a impact weapon much like short sword technique, if you bash someone in the head with a helmet on those repeated blows will cause disorientation and nausea. All that said a war hammer isn't really meant to be used on it's own. It's meant to be used with a buckler, shield, short sword or dagger. It can be used single handed.
It probably depends on situation, period etc. In 1x1 definitelly usefull, if you go against spear/pike formation with 3-4 meters long spears, shorter swinging weapons kinda sucks as you just get impaled before using it. Similarly if cavalry plays role, not sure how much it will help against 50 horsemen running at you and your buddies.
You correctly point out that the formation of the "messer" is very much like a knife. This is because that is exactly what it is, if in a somewhat glorified form. "Messer" is simply the German word for "knife." In this case it was slightly adapted for armed combat. Nonetheless the form remains. However, given it's extended size it might be considered a short-sword, but that might be a bit of a stretch. Certainly it would be useful as a self-defense weapon for civilians, or daily wear for nobility that might be otherwise heavier armed. If I am not mistaken (and I could be in this case) it is closely related to another German sword called the "katzbalger" which strongly represents a larger version of this "messer" that you show. Interestingly, though you mentioned the Landsknecht Zweihander, the katzbalger was often their close defense weapon. The flail, as you note, took many forms. Certainly the peasants would have been comfortable with the heft and swing and control of the tool. Thus it's effectiveness as a weapon in the hands of a commoner. For this reason there were laws in certain German dukedoms, baronies, and principalities about the permissible forms of this tool, lest it become a weapon. I cannot disagree with your assessment of the poleaxe, as much as I want to. It just doesn't carry the romanticism of the sword (or spear or axe also among the Norse.) It' simply isn't "sexy." But effective and versatile? Apparently quite so. You make very brief comparison between the mace and the morning star. I'm not certain that academia has finally decided on definitions here. The German "morgenstern" is a combination betwixt the flail and mace, which you've already described. But spiked maces are often called this. Either way, a devastating weapon if used properly. As for its versatility, you can disarm your opponent with it, which is not so easy with other weapons. The falchion is ugly. I don't like it. I pay it no mind. lol. Certainly likely that the cavalry saber it is descendant and appropriate for high speed mounted warfare. But it is still ugly. This is where personal opinion greatly overrides what may be a practical weapon.
All swords used with 1 hand should be A tier, because you can use a shield with them. Arming sword, side sword, falchion, rapier ect. S tier are your pole arms. Spear, glaive, bec di Corbin, Halbert, pole axe, partisan ext. Because of their reach and because we know they were specifically battlefield weapons (in the beginning you referenced what you would bring to a battlefield) B tier are for very effective limited use weapons like daggers, maces, 2 handed swords. All great weapons but less versatile than A tier. C tier are tools that can be used as weapons like the axe, scythe, flail ect. D tier is for weapons that are made to be throw, due to single use.
I feel like how good you are with any weapon is based on skill and training and armour. Some of the best weapons are the simplest eg the spear is probably the most unfluencial widely used effective weapon as anyone can use it, its very effective with good range, its easy to access or make conpared to a flail. It can be braced into the ground and used to dismount a horse man which most of these weapons can't do
Poleax was used by dismounted knights in plate when facing their opposite number as it was designed for dealing with heavily armored opponents. It probably requires wearing heavy armor to use as it’s not possible use with a shield.
the versatility of the katana lies in the long handle compared to the relatively short blade making it fairly usable even in-doors. The versatiliy in a ball and chain lies in using the chain to catch a weapon/arm or strangling the oponent if it ends in a grapple. One thing I think your missing is that having a one-edged sword is actually less complex than two edges. When you train with a double edged sword you learn how to use it in an effecitve and lethal way, but if you just pick up a sword without training you will probably use it as a one edged sword either way.
I agree with the most of this, and if I were a 14th century soldier going to war, the poleaxe would be my weapon of choice. I would place the flail in D tier for the same reason as the morning star (the version with a spiked ball and chain). Any weapon with a chain just adds an element of unpredictability and danger to not just yourself, but other soldiers on your side! First and foremost, I want to be in control and trust the weapon I am brandishing.
A dagger is used when grappling an enemy. A larger weapon would be useless, so its not just a coup degrace. A spear can be used for a coup degrace and with more leverage while sliding the blade into a visor.
I think a dagger being a sidearm should give it bonus points. It's situational for sure but excellent in those situations and there's not much of a drawback of keeping one as a second option. Especially when those choices use cases can complement another weapon so well when it comes to range control.
@@wbbartlett I'm pretty sure 90% of battle-hardened soldiers would die in the apocalypse also. Combat training is no defense against nuclear weapons, no matter if they're nerds or not.
Axe should be higher, it can be thrown as a hand axe as well as used as a two sided battle axe. Very versatile and its weight can have a bludgeoning effect. Should be an A tier as it can be used to take out armored opponents and potentially calvary.
Another Western historian does not know about normal one-handed flails. In Eastern Europe and the steppes of Asia, the flail was actively used. It was actively used by steppe nomads. For example, it was a very popular weapon in the Golden Horde. Why? Easy to make in the field. It does not require a lot of metal and its quality. Can be made from almost any metal and even stone. The flail takes up little space. You also don’t need high-quality wood to make a flail. A one-handed flail is called a " Кистень " in Russian. You need to go to the Russian Wiki, there is a good article on the topic. Please note that some of the pictures in the article are modern stylizations that are not related to ancient examples. The version shown in this video is a European exotic that was almost never used.
I think you need more than a ranking system. More like rock/paper/scissors. Oh and add spear and add shield. Some of these are specialized to overcome others. Flail is about overcoming shield, either braining over the top or pulling shield down. Pole axe and similar are for defending against cavalry.
Battlefield or self defense? What if any armor is involved? Are you behind a castle wall? Attacking a castle? From a war wagon? Generally speaking, S tier would be war bows including crossbows with armor piercing ammunition, and armor piercing polearms, such as a Bec de Corbin. A rapier would be S tier for self defense.
He put flail in A partially because peasants would know how to use it? I'm fairly certain that it was one of the rarer weapons on the battlefield and I doubt people without any combat experience would know how to use it right away lol
The Medieval pike, especially the shorter hooked pike (not a halberd), should have been included in your review. It was reasonably inexpensive to mass produce. It afforded the lightly-armored infantry (70-80% of the fighting force in most battles) an effective stand-off thrusting weapon and the hook excelled at unseating a mounted knight and pulling down shields. Heavily armored knights were tasked with plowing through infantry ranks to disrupt formations and create chaos similar to mechanized tank warfare on today's battlefields. Once a heavily-armored knight was on the ground, he was at a distinct dis-advantage on a crowded battlefield and could be overcome by numerous lightly-armored infantrymen wielding pikes, axes and daggers (Agincourt). Also, I didn't realize that the Japanese katana (Samurai sword) ever made an appearance on Medieval European battlefields? (joke, old boy). Interesting video.
The ranking should include what you would pick as range decreases, what your primary weapon of choice would be. So little correction: Axe D, the two handed sword was used in combination of poleaxes tier S-A ; warhammer B; Spear S: Nunchacks E: Maze A-B. The Katana as A, its artwork, but not better than quality European swords.
Pretty interesting to see how many varieties of sword you rated, but only ONE pole-arm, when I feel like on balance on a medieval battlefield you would probably be more likely to see a variety of pole-arms and fewer swords (obviously largely concentrated with wealthier combatants). Great video though, cool to hear your perspective.
Just a suggestion, you can rank the items in question on the same letter from left to right left being the higher rank. For example, if you like the two handed sword better, that would be left of the messer in the B row. Just to add some nuance.
The samurai sword called a katana was not the standard weapon of the samurai when they were fighting it was more of a back up weapon, when the spear and bow was the primary weapons
The best weapon is determined by the type of battle and opponent armour. In a medieval european heavy armour battle I would also pick the halberd for for open field or a mace+shield for close quarter. Steel clad knight can be killed without buckling if using a mace - the vibrational force on a helmet would be deadly.
Hi Matt. Love this video. Your content is so interesting and fun. I wonder if you know from history what weapons particular Kings used in battle? For instance, I think I have read Edward IV either used a double-handed sword or one sword in each hand. Would you kindly confirm or give alternative insights. Many thanks 😊
During the famous Siege of Malta in 1565 when the Muslim Ottoman Empire was trying to conquer it from the Knights of St. John (aka the Knights of Malta, aka the Knights Hospitaller), the master of the Knights personally fought with a big two-handed great sword, and mowed down many Janissaries like grass with a scythe! The Knights successfully defended Malta for Christendom, and the Ottomans never tried attacking it again.
Morning Stars usually don't have a chain, that's more a medieval art depiction, it'd basically a mace with spikes. A version with a chain would usually have an enlonged shaft and be classified as ball-and-chain flail...two of the most common weapon types missing, the crossbow or arbalest as specialised war weapon as well as the longbow and the composite bow... Technically what you presented as poleaxe is a halberd, as a poleaxe has a hammerhead instead of a spike opposite the axe... Missing of course as cavalry weapon and therefore typical first attack weapon of a mounted knight is the lance
When you held the katana I was afraid for your life, thinking an army of dweebs would come out and murder you because you insulted their favorite weapon. Instead you handled it quite well, made some good points and especially acknowledged the coolness, which is an important factor. Well done!
he said is was the medieval equivalent of a lightsaber, and that was enough to keep them off his back. Ultimately, he suffered from the same delusions they have about this weapon. Its a sword. A decent one, but no more deadly in a trained person's hands than a longsword in the hands of a trained person.
I agree the spear was a superior weapon for a long time, but, by the Middle Ages, it had been relegated to hunting and did not appear as often on medieval battlefields as it was replaced with the poleaxe and Halbert. So it should not have been included. The Falchion should be ranked much higher. The single-edge, wider, thicker blade made it stronger. Plus, the flat edge allowed the user to hold or brace the blade with his weak hand, which made it more versatile. That is why it was so popular. It could and did outlast other blades. In a battle between trained/skilled opponents, it would break a Samurai's Sword blade. The Samurai Sword blade was made of superior steel. But, it had no real advantage over the best blades of Europe and the Middle East.
As a HEMA instructor, all I can say that you need to get to swinging these things to be able to judge them. Really, the only thing you were spot on with is the pollaxe. Sorry.
@@jamesj.mccombie5031 Sorry, skipped past the morning star bit because morning stars are ridiculous weapons. So, if he also stated that they are silly then touche, we now agree on two things. My biggest issue is that the mace is not an S tier weapon. It is true that it can be used in one hand and can cause damage vs those in armour, but not as much as was once thought. In addition, they are not any easier or harder to use by an untrained person, in fact, it might be that it takes more. There has been some great work done on this by Dequitem, I would highly recommend you go watch his take on mace vs longsword, it is illuminating. His placement of the messer was not bad, but his take as to why shows that he does not understand how the messer is applied. If it was such a specialized weapon as he suggests, why did so many common people carry them? Medieval people were wrestlers first, and the messer really feeds into that inherent skill, making in more intuitive to use than he thinks. His placement of the Rondel is problematic. He never discusses context. Imagine a pollaxe vs Rondel. Well, if both parties are at distance, and have plenty of space to maneuver, then of course the pollaxe is an S tier weapon, and the Rondel is an F. But, if the two parties are pressed together in a mob of ranks, the pollaxe quickly becomes a liability and becomes an F tiered weapon while the Rondel jumps up to being an S tiered weapon. I could go on, but I have better things to do. I’ll Let Matt Easton handle it.
@@mosesjones4853 I'll agree with you on 99% of what you just said but Dequietem's analysis of the damage done by a mace is not based on historical maces but rather ones used in modern armoured fighting competitions. The historical maces were a bit heavier. This is one of those cases where more investigation is needed to make judgement one way or another on the impact maces had on armoured opponents (pun 100% intended).
Leave everything else out of the conversation... The war hammer in C?! Are we nuts?! This thing was a knight killer it is perfect against armored opponents because of the thunderous impact of the piercing hit + the amazing bludgeoning damage and against non armored opponents (for example lightly armored archers) because no skull can handle a piercing strike or your chest probably won't survive the bludgeoning strike of this thing. Plus for you defensive tools an one handed war hammer paired with a shield is imo the optimal build for a medieval fight wether early high or late period and no matter how lightly or heavily armored your opponent is.
I would rate the falchion higher, it was designed as a cavalryman's sword, in that role it performed superbly. However I think you probably hit it on the money as far as its usability while dismounted. It's a good weapon, but there are better options.... Although I'd take a falchion over a samurai sword every time, especially the katana, the lack of handguards, the fact that a katana is pretty bad at stabbing compared to other swords (although you can still stab with it), and the lack of pommel makes it easily my least favorite sword except for the gladius (which has the exact opposite problem). Easy D for me for the samurai sword Now a samurai sword isn't an F (that's reserved for the flail and gladius), its an excellent slashing weapon and there's a lot of cutting power, but the same is true for the falchion, its like it has all the drawbacks of the falchion and only half its benefits.
I know this is a weird quastion, but does anyone know the title of the song played from 5:30 to around 6:00? I am very sure I know it from somewhere, but I can´t figure out from where and it´s driving me nuts. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
The dagger should be at least A level. I'd go as far as an S level. They've been around forever, we still use a form of them with bayonets & KA-BARs, they were common even amongst peasants, & a dagger could be used in a wide variety of situations. The dagger is clearly S level. Fun video!
The knife and dagger have been around since before the Neolithic Age. American indigenous peoples had a saying: A man without a knife is dead. It was a multi use survival tool. The difference between a dagger and a knife: the former has two edges, the latter only one. Cheers!
Can't imagine using a morning star over a mace. They do have a slight cool factor, but I'd be afraid of hitting myself in the face. A mace and a katana, and maybe a halberd.
It gives you reach when you're on horseback. When mounted you have to fight differently, and it gives you those crucial extra inches on chain. Additionally he missed out on the ability to wrap the chain around weapons or limbs to pull and drag around your opponent. It does lack the solid punch and simplicity of a mace and requires a lot of training and practice to get good with, but a high speed iron ball is a scary thing when wound up.
Flail in A-tier is absolutely absurd, especially when putting the Chained Morningstar in D with essentially the same weaknesses. Messer should be A-tier. Arguably the 2-handed sword too but I can get how it being such a specialist weapon making it B-tier. I don't know enough about falchions but I struggle to see it being that low down too. Katana is a weird inclusion for this list, I feel it would have been better to cover the Shamshir instead - and there's a severe lack of polearms.
My personal listing of the above, as melee weapons, with the inclusion of one weapon that is shamefully omitted in the video: S: Polearm - can be used as a spear, as an axe and is just so damn versatile. A: Spear, depending on the circumstance the spear could also be an S tier. But as it's circumstantial i'd rate it as an A. B: Axe designed for war, swords (Falchion, messer, katana) - not good, not terrible. But never a primary weapon. D: Axe not designed for war, any weapon in a supporting role. F: Flail, morning star on chain: Grat a stick with a blunt hard end, that hits harder and is more efficient!
I had hoped you would go through the Halbard, Spear and perhaps a Rapier or Club. That said I agree with most of the ranking except your obvious bias toward the Samurai Sword which I think you rated higher than is fair to do, considering that it really does no more damage than a European sword, is less versatile and not much more useable. In attack a regular sword and Samurai sword I think would be similar, but I think you would much rather want to defend yourself with a European Sword over a Samurai Sword, so I would have put the Samurai Sword as a B-tier. I am also not sure I would put a flair as a A since its versatility and defense ability would not be great, you also mentioned it could be a worry of hitting someone behind you, so I might put the flair in B as well. The Two Handed Sword I might upgrade to a A because it does so much damage. Yes it is tougher to use, but it is deadly if you become proficient at it. Also I think the Morning Star does more damage than a 6 because you have to consider the extra damage which comes from the fact that this is swung and so get a extra gravitational damage, however I would still have rated it a D since it is a very hard weapon to use with virtually no versatility or defense capability. Otherwise I think I agree with everything else. But this was a very fun video. Thanks for making it.
The axe is devastating against both armored and unarmored opponents, it's a shield destroyer, it serves as a tool for many a thing from cutting, chopping, cleaving and more. It's also a very easy to understand item. Btw, I am going at this from the picture he shows in his hands, which is a standard axe. It's really silly though, the axe shown is a cleaving axe that everyone owns while the other pictures shown all have different sizes and functions. A dane axe is more capable of doing damage and has more reach but it's way harder to wield properly while a small battle axe is more nimble and lighter, and yes, a woodcutter's axe is not made for murdering people but it will most certainly do the job, albeit not optimal depending on thr circumstance. Also, he shows a Rondol dagger in his hand while he talks about every kind of dagger except the very specific one he holds in his hand. What it all comes down to is that 'axe' and 'dagger' and what not is not a good term to rank things with because of how ambiguous those words are.
"Sword making more damage then axe", mace above pick/hammer, saber under arming sword, shaft flail above one handed one. My physicist heart are bleeding.
Dagger should be way higher tier. Dirk and Targe was a dagger/shield combination and extremely lethal as once they charged in with the Targe , the dirk/dagger would deliver a highly accurate lethal blow. Dagger is very accurate - very deadly. Does need a shield though.
Indeed. While the katana was certainly prevalent, especially later on, it was by no means the only sword design used. Many of the most famous samurais didn't use them. The lack of adherence to one single type of weapon is kind of what Musashi was known for. And iirc, outside of duels and executions, I think their bows, spears and firearms killed the most people.
This is quite hard. As it depends so much is it in battlefield, duel, vs. Armor (and type) or no armor. As it will change the tier of a weapon tremendously.
The Flail seems like a bigger version of the morning star. It seems like it would be equally unpredictable in the heat of battle, just with a larger surface area that has the ability not only to hit yourself but your comrades,
Is this a History Hit video I see before me? I am, of course, referencing the Scottish Play and the role the dagger plays in it; it deserves a higher rating. After all, the dagger was used to dispatch King Duncan which set off a string of events that even the witches were involved in. Tolkien himself drew influence from these events 😀
Morning star w chain can wrap over a shield or weapon block and damage the opponent without a direct line of attack. Difficult to learn to use but dangerous.
I stick with the fact that the spear has been the weapon of choice for over a million years. From the predecessors of our species all the way into the early modern age, the spear has been the tool that allowed us to defeat foes much larger than us. The most dangerous animal is a human with a pointy stick. And the relatives of the spear. And then the bow. Because it allows us to hunt and wage war without coming in range of the enemy spear. And then perhaps the axe. The metal is more compact than on a sword, much less risk of it breaking. And the axe head can be used to carve a new shaft. Extremely versatile tool. Perhaps not the best as a weapon, but it can do so much. And comparing swords and bows, the sword is easier to pick up. In a way, it's a metal club. Basically everyone can pick one up and start whacking. Learning the bow is much harder, it takes practice to even start using it. But once the person can use it, there isn't much more. Swords on the other hand have a much higher skill ceiling. The art of using it effectively has many forms that can take decades to master.
I think a very important weapon that is missing is a spear
Indeed, a spear might actually be THE weapon, rivalled only by a bow.
@@jamesaaron7211
In terms of longevity & spread of use, it really is *the* weapon; it was used from the Ancient world, all the way up into the Early Modern Era, & you could debate that the bayonet on the end of a musket/ gun (especially the earlier Plug Bayonet) was just an extension of the spear into a mechanised era- which means it made it into the 18th, 19th, & 20th centuries. Every culture had some form of spear; from short spears, often thrown or used a bit like long daggers/ knives - to standard length spears that were almost always thrown, or thrust (the Greeks' _doru_ & Roman _hasta_ & _pilum_ ) - to massive _sarissa_ in Macedonia - to pikes, arrayed in the schiltron formation- that proved so deadly in the Wars of Scottish Independance.
The bow required long years of regular training, as well as the development of strength- depending on the kind of bow (the crossbow took far less time, apparently) - but the spear; it was as simple as a fire-hardened sharpened stick, to elaborate heads, & sometimes even the base had a sharp end - a person had to risk trying to get in close, to do you any damage; it worked well as a personal weapon, could be used as a ranged weapon (depending on the type), & it was devastating in a formation.
Absolute S-tier weapon; I'd put the bow in A-tier; it was quite versatile in the sense that- like a lot of the other weapons, it was potentially something that a wide range of people could use (including women- as noble women in the medieval era took part in hunting - but probably not peasants, unless conscripted - commoners were not permitted to hunt, without their lord's authority) - it was a naturally ranged weapon so you just had to keep knights & men-at-arms at a distance, to stay safe- & there were different types (simple/ standard, long, recurve [that could have *massive* range, without the unwieldiness of a longbow, but the draw-strength needed...]) -- bowmen/ archers were a considerable part of armies in the past- however, the bow has traditionally had a poor reputation, specifically because it was a ranged weapon (it was known as 'the coward's weapon'- Paris, in the Trojan War, was a skilled archer- but was despised for not fighting in the field, the one time he did- he lost & had a lucky save - just like poison was considered a cowardly means to kill) *_additionally_* : if your quiver ran out of arrows, you could hit someone with the bow (treating it like a 4x2, more or less), as a last resort- & vice versa, if you lost your bow- you could effectively stab someone with an arrow in a vulnerable gap, again- as a last resort.
Its u fair cause a spear is SS tier
Arguably the poleaxe incorporates the spear and the halberd.
@@MultiCappie but the spear is a lot longer
I'm disappointed we missed one of the greatest weapons of history, the spear, which should be in the S tier.
I'm glad you explained your bias on the samurai sword, as European swords were just as effective.
The falchion could have rated higher, as it wields more like a machete, and can be used as one in thick bush, so a jungle fighter doesn't need to swap weapons if surprised.
Arguably the poleaxe incorporates the spear and the halberd.
The spear (king of the battlefield) should be here. Good someone mentioned it.
Maybe you could post your own video and rank weapons (including the spear), then?
What would it cost you? Practically nothing.
Throughout history, and even prehistory, the spear has been the tool. The most dangerous animal is a human with a pointy stick. Only surpassed by more humans with pointy sticks.
With a close second probably in the bow. Because it allows to do all the hunting and warfare from a distance.
And yes, the katana is glorified, but european swords were just as good. They weren't heavy clubs, but works of craftsmanship. Neither is superior to a legendary level. But either will do the job.
I'd probably put the speak in an A tier personally. But, it's a great weapon definitely.
Spear, spear, spear where is the damn spear
Poleaxe is also spear
Spear SS rank.
S tier stands for spear tier
Everyone is correctly calling for the spear, but he is also missing the longsword
This is fun. There's also lots here to unpack. So much context required. Maybe I'll do that 😄
Matt, it is REQUESTED and REQUIRED by this honorable assembly of nerds that you make a reaction video to this. The world needs justice.
Yes! Context please!!! In the right context the Rondel quickly becomes the only S teir weapon. :)
yes please!
Matt..please tell these people how important a rondel is lol.
Please do. Just remember its the PRIMARY weapon of choise, NOT secondary (ie. daggers)
A flail being over C rank is insane. Peasants might be used to smacking immobile wheat that's laying on the ground. Swinging a spikey dongle in a battle at people who can block and stab and dodge is much different. You miss once and you're buggered. Should be the same rank as the morning star - it's essentially the same thing.
flail in A tier and the 2hander and messar in B is just criminal.
Depending on how hard you're marking certain things I can potentially understand the 2-hander and messer, but not the flail. He mentions himself he'd be scared of hitting the person behind him which should tell you how functional these actually were in battle.
I also think messAr is criminal.
I think the rating is based on historic significance. There were far more people using a flail than a Zweihänder or a Messer. With a Messer, the Problem is short distance, which for an untrained person might be more dangerous. With a flail, it's easier to keep everyone around at a distance.
In German language, beating someone up is sometimes still called "verdreschen", which goes back to the Dreschflegel (flail).
I kind of checked out at the flail.
@@hyperturbotechnomike
There were a LOT more people using Messer than flails. Flails were almost unheard of on battlefields, only seen routinely in a few regional armies like the Hussites. Few medieval soldiers would ever see a flail in battle.
Wasting time on Katana while leaving out spear? C'mon.
He didn't even call it a Katana, just a "samurai sword".
IMHO he vastly underestimated the effectiveness, versatility and damage of the war hammer, between the crushing blow of the hammer and the deadly effect of the back spike, combined with its ease of use, it’s probably the weapon that I would choose to take into combat against most armor types.
Henry V was using it in Agincourt. (Bad) Source: The King, Netflix.
Warhammers were specifically a horsemans weapons as a counter to armoured foes. It belongs in its lower tier. On foot you would use a poleaxe (remember warhammers were a late medieval weapon for a reason)
Robert Baratheon approves
It’s the AT weapon of the Middle Ages!
@@fotograf736 It's not a source. It's a movie.
The Dagger 🗡 Should Be At A category at LEAST. Every Man going into Battle Would WANT and NEED a Dagger in close quarters...
My thoughts exactly
Part of the consideration is: would you want to go into battle ONLY with a dagger.
Yip in close quarters it IS the most efficient weapon
Definitely want your dagger to help with digging rocks, wood and pieces of arrow heads out of your flesh.
The dagger is a great 'A' pick for SECONDARY weapon, but going into battle with a dagger as a primary weapon. Come on, have a little common sense
So where is the spear? The most used weapon in pre-history and history, including in the Dark Ages.
Shield & Spear was king of the battlefield for centuries, probably millennia.
@@elricthebald Indeed and also the only "main" melee weapon that was still in use by infantry once firearms came along. Spears or pikes were used to protect soldiers with rifles and such.
@@joh80yes tho a pike isnt a spear, it has a different role
@@giftzwerg7345 It is a spear. The length is the only difference.
@@giftzwerg7345 I can understand the argument of "it isn't a spear because it doesn't meet certain characteristics about weight and length" but they perform the same role on the battlefield. Given that the Sarissa was considered a spear and it was larger than many late Medieval and Reneissance pikes, I'd count pikes as a type of spear.
I will watch this with the highest level of scrutiny 😶🌫️
He put the “Samurai sword” (Katana) into S! If he wrote a book I’m not reading it!
Dagger, I'd put it on B. There are reports from different places and times where knights dropped their main weapon, picked up their daggers and stabbed their targets, to then pick their main weapon. Also daggers come in a lot of flavours. There are more triangular shaped-tip daggers for exploiting gaps in armor; there are "pikey" daggers to try to pierce some pieces of armour; there are 3 blade daggers to cause a lot of internal bleeding.
Axe, I'd put in A. It's a sharp but somewhat blunt weapon, so it doesn't require much training or finesse. Despite the blade, you can also use the blunt side as basically a hammer, making it very, very versatile.
You put the flail in the A category? The flail has limited defensive capability. I think it would take some skill besides. If used wrong you could very easily hurt yourself.
After all that, he puts a Katana top of the list, not because of it being superior
in every way, it's because it's ''Cool.'' Which renders the whole exercise the subjective
selections of an individual, basically.
Even the samurai didn't put the katana at the top.
Also telling how much he underrates dagger or doesnt include the S weapon in spear.
@@barnettmcgowan8978 Some maybe did, but they didn't live to brag about it.
We can just ignore his ranking for the katana and focus on everything else, for which he made reasonable arguments. He was explicit about having no substantive reason for ranking it so highly.
Dagger definitely at least A tier. With all the armor commonly present during that time, closing the distance and grappling was almost a guarantee, rendering most weapons useless. Dagger, shield, and gauntlet, reign supreme.
You also get a free critical hit when you attack with a dagger from behind or when in stealth.
Loved the hilariously honest way the katana ended up in the S class.
kinda sounds like he have no idea whats hes talking about, puting katana in S becase its "cool".. its still just a sword... medieval expert my ass..
@@kristiankoperarealistically he’d put it where the falchion is, but c’mon, it’s a samurai sword
@@kristiankopera Those swords were more artifacts and less weapons of war. They were never used as the first option in war and were instead used in other ways such as for duels.
'first off we have..'
me: OH a rondel! we are getting very spe..
"... a dagger'
0 . 0
I strongly recommend Schwerpunkt on the Medieval weapons series. PhD specialized in Medieval warfare, quite good both in essence and in detail
Or Matt Easton, or Metatron, or Skallagrim... Any would be light years ahead of this drivel.
Schwerpunkt is really good, bc he also applies some basic reasoning and questions Standard naratives
My man did daggers dirty
I think it's depends. In terms of a primary in the battlefield it's probably fair but as a weapon overlap especially as a secondary I'd say a or s tier
Daggers are good for assassins. You do not want to be in a field in a major battle with a dagger as your main weapon.
The dagger is a secondary weapon, the rest were all main hand weapons. C in this context of fair. Now Flail being above the axe is shocking.
It has a cutting side, a blunt side that could be used as a hammer and is much more controlled
@@William-uc4gq agreed, it's the same as a pistol. It's okay in certain situations and good in some but mostly a backup weapon for when your primary weapon isn't working. If your fighting with a pistol vs someone with an AK at 100m your most likely going to die
This is a fun and interesting exercise. I'm kind of shocked by the fact that you placed the warhammer in the "D" tranche. This seems a great weapon for the battlefield, particularly for fighting in formation or in a shield wall. It seems a perfect amalgam of the best features of other weapons. Like the axe, it is easy to use but has greater reach. It is able to do crushing damage to the joints - perhaps not quite as effectively as a mace but close enough when you consider its other versatile features. It is shorter than the pole axe and and has a lower swing radius to take advantage of its leverage making it more effective to use in formation. The longer, pointed side can be effectively used as a hook to pull down an opponents shield in a shield wall. And finally, the long point combined with the fact that the weapon is a lever to multiply force makes it particularly effective in separating ring mail and punching through plate to create deep, heavy bleeding, impaling wounds, making not just joint strikes but every strike potentially very serious. The only downside might be that the wounds created by the spike side might be so deep that the weapon could become stuck in it but that's a much bigger problem for the person that you hit than it is for you. It would make any movement an agony and only open the wound further. Add to that the haft which can be used defensively and, if I saw a bunch of soldiers armed with these things coming across the field, I'd be running the other way!
You'd like shadiveristy. Much longer version of this. Plus, rankings made sense Including higher on Polaris in general &the spear.
The Warhammer isn't an infantry weapon really. It is just too unwieldy in a tight formation. It is a cavalry weapon for use against armoured foes
@@Aetheraev How do you figure? I doubt that a single handed Warhammer was a primary weapon for Anyone. But as sidearm? Perfect for light infantry, or for bowmen - think Longbowman at Agincourt jumping into the melee. Now a polehammer tho.... Now THAT is an infantry weapon
I disagree with a lot of this, having used a bastard sword and two handlers like the zweihander they are surprisingly light and nimble. The “damage” ranking is a poor way of looking at weapons, if something can kill some one then it will kill them, it’s easier to stab someone than it is to chop someone’s head off, yes, the head chopping does more “damage” in the sense that the person will look gruesome but they both have the same net effect; the dude is dead. And the stab was quicker and easier.
Well that sucks for you then huh
I havent read all of it, but you really said ”having used two handed swords like the zweihander” when zweihander is simply another term for a two handed sword.
@@zoroverse8358there are other two handed swords, like the longsword, and one can argue that zweihanders are german style and different to, for example the spanish montante
@@mav598 A longsword could absolutely be considered a zweihander. It is a very vague term, and saying it is the german style is simply a guess, an assumption. Any 2 handed sword could be classified as a zweihander, and saying “2 handlers like the zweihanders” is redundant and stupid. Its like saying “having used the gun like the handgun” but at least handgun would specify the selection of guns more, while saying zweihander would not specify what type of 2 handed sword whatsoever.
@@zoroverse8358 You are sort of correct if you're talking from the german perspective, but in the english language the german loanword Zweihänder refers specifically to the huge one from the renaissance.
The classic cruciform style longsword is so mythicised and romanticises and associated with the immage of the knight and Middle Ages, but most people don't know that the mainstay of medieval armies where pole weapons : poleaxes, polehammers, halberds, spears, pikes, two handed axes, warhammers.
Knights started a fight with lances at horse back, the sword ( if it was even carried ) was a secondary or even a third weapon, behind a pole weapon.
Swords were carried at every important medieval battle. They absolutely belong here. And they are very good sidearms.
@@Didamina101 Of course they were, I never denied their importance. They were also extremely important status symbols.
And as far as weapons go, a longsword was very nimble and versatile and could do a lot of things in battle, it could be used to effectively attack and defend.
What my point was, was that swords were not the main weapons on battlefields, but more secondary to the type of weapons I mentioned.
On foot met at arms would also use some form of heavy weapon, like English bills, or mainland European glaives. It's similar in Japan, where samurai would use spears, bows, and later, guns, and ashigaru (peasant retinue which made up majority of armies in feudal period) would get longer and longer pikes. And later guns, too... however, ALL OF THEM would be armed with a sword of some sort, and a dagger too. You just don't bring a lance into indoor fight. Swords were pistols of pre-modern age.
@@KasumiRINA You are 100 % correct. Swords, maces, axes, where just secondary or even tertiary ( mounted knights would start with lances than pole weapons ).
And very well done to also mention samurai, because the katana is so romanticised that you would think they only carried that. When in fact it was spears, bows... and guns.
And boy, did the samurai loved their guns.
Funny theory about messers is that they came out of guild dispute. Swordmakers guild made it illegal to make swords for non members but they still were talking business from knifemakers with daggers so knifemakers came up with legal loophole that allowed them to sell long blades in retaliation
Nah, fam -- three-sided dagger is definitely S-tier at least.
Coming from a grappling background -- in armored combat, very few weapons are likely to kill you. Knock you down, stun you, incapacitate and unhorse you -- sure.
But in armored grappling -- NOTHING compares to the three-sided "b*llocks* dagger for efficiency and effectiveness, except, perhaps, a war-hammer. Most "knightly" deaths were caused by an unceremonious dagger during groundfighting.
As a grappler -- dagger is your friend when nothing else works.
S-tier for sure. Nastiest little piece of steel ever invented.
(And no --I'm NOT French, and had no relatives at Agincourt.)
Not to knock the video -- I love vids like this. Keep 'em coming.
But I have to disagree from the sheer numbers of recorded casualties, and from the effectiveness in actual armored grappling, of the very dedicated and horrifically effective design of the rondel dagger.
We have to understand that the pictures are not always a representation of the actual item. The "dagger" depicted in the picture here is very cool, but the expert considered it more like a "belt knife".
@@Kriegerdammerung the dagger in the picture is a Rondel Dagger, designed to pierce mail and even low quality/thin plate.
So maybe he decided to generalize to "daggers in general", which is kinda unfair. Still, this video is for fun, not very accurate.
It's a rondel dagger
Bullocks daggers are thought to be what inspired the dirk
He did say he might make mistakes and to feel free to correct him. Also he is rating everything according to his idea of what the weapons can do, not any particular list of actually how they are rated. So he isn't even wrong, its just his opinion.
When you're an "expert", his opinion should have value.
Get Matt Easton of Scholagladiatoria to come on for this sort of video. Matt’s specialization is specifically in historical weapons and their usage, he has fencing schools where he teaches how to use myriad different medieval and renaissance weapons. His takes may be a bit different, perhaps a bit more nuanced. Somethin to consider 👍
Great video, I do miss the humble but very effective spear tho, It might be outside the time period here
The polehammer and the Bec de Corbin would be great additions as well.
I know that that list could go on for a long time, and you'd always miss out some type up weapon...
Good and interesting stuff 👍🏻
could have had a pike instead then
Spear has allways been there is some ways
The spear was the most common primary weapon in medieval battles and it wasn't even close; even less so if you include lances and pikes.
"block with your flail! Block with your war hammer(war pick)!" - this guy
Types of metals made lots of difference, I think I'd want to know that before ranking a weapon. Fun video!
When you showed the morning star I thought of "Ivanhoe," 1952. For the final battle, de Bois-Gilbert picks Mace and Chain. Ivanhoe picks the Axe. As the fight progresses, Ivanhoe is unhorsed. He is on the ground and he loses his shield, which is severely crumpled. He keeps taking blows and ducking. Then, he is able to pick up his axe. As de Bois-Gilbert takes a swing, Ivanhoe holds his axe in both hands. The chain wraps around the handle and he pulls de Bois-Gilbert out of his saddle. With de Bois-Gilbert on his back, Ivanhoe buries the axe in his chest. This is, by far, one of my favorite movies. Before anyone says anything, I know they didn't have steel shields in the early 13th Century. Another problem is that everyone is speaking English, when, in fact, most of the Normans would've been speaking French. Certainly when King Richard arrives on scene and gives his speech, he would've been speaking French.
Wow, gotta go watch this movie now. Seems like they got some things right there.
@@maybrittwilkens6149 Just remember, this is fiction. Elizabeth Taylor at her most beautiful time. It well portrays the animosity between the Saxons and Normans. I haven't been able to find where, but I understand that the term holocaust was first used in the time of Richard I. If you take it as just plain good entertainment, you'll be fine.
To Schola Gladiatoria. This vid only lacks a spear, staff and perhaps a distinction between armoured v unarmoured combat; please disregard missile combat (javelins, slings, bows, etc.) as it requires a different approach.
Also remember this is the choice for a PRIMARY weapon entering combat, so please dont listen to the DAGGER/RONDEL plonkers. And remember that the katana has been folded a thousand times and can cut through a tank ;) (I.e its super cool, he is absolutely right)
Gotta love how you pick and choose when youre going to base the rating off your actual metrics and when you're just going to rate it however you feel.
Not to mention, you gave the two-hander a low usability rating because you would need to be trained how to use it, then gave the katana a super high usability rating saying you are basing that off of being a trained samurai.
Have some consistency, I'm not even going to talk about the flail.
The war hammer shown is more of a Lucerne Hammer...longer shaft like a pole axe. A War hammer could have a shorter shaft such that it was paired with a Buckler. A dangerous combo.
Maces aren't morning stars. A mace is the simplest weapon to use. Breaks bones, skulls, joints, etc, with relatively little purchase. A glancing blow might break a limb. Barely any training needed.
Spears have been around since the dawn of time and have won more empires than any other weapon.
The Messer is underrated. Messer is German for "knife", and was easier to make than swords. Lighter and easier to use, they're much easier to train with.
A falchion is essentially a heavy Messer, but weighted more like an axe. It's not a specialist weapon in any regard. If you've used a machete, you're good with a falchion or Messer.
A morning star has no chain. That's a flail. Seriously. Morning stars are life enders. Between the bludgeoning damage and the spike penetration, you'll die of internal injuries before leaving the field
Flails are great for offense, and are capable of circumventing shields. They can't block or party well.
Lastly, daggers. Daggers are ESSENTIAL. Close quarter combat, coup de grace, eating utensil, carving tool....it does so much. AND you can throw the bloody things.
The katana is basically a short single edge longsword with a longer handle. They're made from softer steel as well. A lot of myth, but not the legend it's made out to be.
You covered a lot I was going to mention. I also thought it strange he would place a mace at 'S' tier for being handy against armor, but a warhammer all the way down at 'C'.
Not to mention....aces at bell ringing. I guarantee you even the most hardened knight would be useless for a considerable period if he had been struck in the helm with the full impact of a well struck mace.
Super interesting video, loved it! I'm surprised the bow wasn't included though, is it because it's a ranged weapon?
Disagree with a lot of the choices:
S TIER
- Pollaxe: totally agree with this one
- Spear: don't know how this one is missing, but if any melee weapon should be S tier, it should be the spear
A TIER
- Arming sword: reliable, versatile, a lot of design variations to prioritize thrusting or cutting, can be paired with another weapon or a shield. It's only downside is that if the opponent is wearing armour it becomes useless, and of course it won't see a lot of action in open battlefield.
- Messer: everything you can say about the arming sword you can say about the messer, plus it tends to have better hand protection because of the nail in the guard and some models have a knuckle bar. The only issue compared to the arming sword is that because of the curved nature it would probably have more trouble to get into armour gaps
B TIER
- Katana: pretty simmilar to the messer and arming sword in function, BUT, i give it a lower score because of a couple of points. The laminated construction with a softer spine will give it a risk of bending, hence i would be more worried about ruining it mid battle, its also a very chunky sword, making it not the best at getting into armour gaps. Plus, the blade lenght tends to be shorter than an average one handed sword (unless it's a tachi)
- Two-handed sword: It's my favourite weapon, but still, I recognize it has a lot of flaws that prevent it from being top tier. Its a very weird weapon whose use was shortlived and that is the king of compromises, a weapon designed to be a jack of all trades but not dominate in anything.
- Falcion: Though it depends on the model since falcions varied widely throughout regions and time periods. I've always seen the messer as a more evolved version of the falcion, hence I find it hard to put them in the same category if we're taking both into account. Still, it's a would be a very reliable side arm
C TIER
- Dagger: nothing to add here. fightingwise it's worse than axes and maces, but I do agree it's a quintessential tool for any soldier in ancient times, hence it totally deserves the spot here
- Hand axe: good chopping action, poor reach, null hand protection. Only if you're fighting armoured opponents or somebody with a wooden shield I'd see the appeal
- Mace: Lot of percussive action, also poor reach and hand protection. Again, only against armoured opponents it would be worthwhile
- Warhammer: same case as with the mace
D TIER
- Flail: Everything with a chain and segmented i would find akward to wield. Sure enough, it should give a good wack to anybody, but I'm positive most people would choose something else over this. Even as a peasant, why choose this over a regular spear or a billhook?
- Morningstar ball and chain version: same case as the flail but with lower reach and a higher chance to hurt yourself in the process. I would guess controlling this thing would require a lot of practice and the advantages it provides are minimal compared to the time investment.
The Bec de Corbin? Destroyed armour, shields and anyone who encountered the beak.
I love that he threw out all logic when it came to the Katana. They are cool.
Yeah, it makes sense! Also modern style katanas only appeared later around 15th century or so, most medieval samurai carried tachi, a heavier cavalry sword... very little difference apart from being worn blade-down.
One of the things that people misunderstand is that it's as if everyone wears full body armour.
full body armour is expensive as fuck and not everyone can wear it.
Instead of spending money so that everyone can wear full armor, it would be stronger to use that money to build more soldiers.
Two or three reasonably well-trained peasants are stronger than one knight in shining armor.
Even if you are wearing full body armor, you can easily be beaten if another person holds you back while you deal with one and pulls you down to the ground. Especially if the battlefield is in a state of melee.
So there is no such thing as an S rank just because it is strong against armor.
If they were so strong, people in the past would have had maces all the time because they were not stupid. And there were many peasant soldiers on the battlefield.
Historically, those weapons were used because they were effective. In other words, the weapons that were used the most on the battlefield are ranked S.
And the ridiculous part of this video is that it doesn't showcase the most used weapons at all.
That means spears and bows. Those are S-ranked weapons.
Soldiers carried two-handed weapons like spears and bows. And they carried swords and other weapons as sidearms.
Therefore, it is ridiculous to treat two-handed and one-handed weapons in the same category.
This "Medieval Historian" ... is demonstrably NOT a Medieval weapons expert!
This comment is for the many people that maybe don't know that the flail is actually a really secure weapon to use, because the measures of the chain, stick and ball were obviously calculated to not reach your hand while wielding it, so basically the ball will swing sufficiently far away from you to not rappresent any meaningful threat for the one who weilds it (if you see pictures of flails with chains longer of the staff, they are probably fake or simply drawn bad).
+ The flail is actually a really effective weapon while mounted, because the chain absorbs the knockback after the strike (instead of your wrist like in the case of the mace).
The flail also is really effective against shields, since it can hit behind them and can cause enough wounds to debilitate the opponent.
The true downsides of the flail in my opinion are these:
- Since it basis on a chain to be effective, it can potentially be a fragile weapon and can break quite easily, if even one of the rings is weak it will break really soon (you need a really good blacksmith).
- Isn't the best for formation fighting, to weild it in a way that causes really and severe damages you can't be in close quarters with your homies, so again the one handed version is great while mounted.
Personal preference would be to have war hammer in the A slot. Having multiple certifications with the SAFD and possessing a martial arts background the war hammer has the ability to wrench joints because that's part of it's design function. Also as a impact weapon much like short sword technique, if you bash someone in the head with a helmet on those repeated blows will cause disorientation and nausea. All that said a war hammer isn't really meant to be used on it's own. It's meant to be used with a buckler, shield, short sword or dagger. It can be used single handed.
It probably depends on situation, period etc. In 1x1 definitelly usefull, if you go against spear/pike formation with 3-4 meters long spears, shorter swinging weapons kinda sucks as you just get impaled before using it. Similarly if cavalry plays role, not sure how much it will help against 50 horsemen running at you and your buddies.
Might be sad to hear for some folks but i tend to think a durable spear well used still tends to beat everything.
All those useless youngsters with their pole-axes.
MATT LEWIS!!! Love your shows. Very enjoyable as well as educational. Thanks!
You correctly point out that the formation of the "messer" is very much like a knife. This is because that is exactly what it is, if in a somewhat glorified form. "Messer" is simply the German word for "knife." In this case it was slightly adapted for armed combat. Nonetheless the form remains. However, given it's extended size it might be considered a short-sword, but that might be a bit of a stretch. Certainly it would be useful as a self-defense weapon for civilians, or daily wear for nobility that might be otherwise heavier armed. If I am not mistaken (and I could be in this case) it is closely related to another German sword called the "katzbalger" which strongly represents a larger version of this "messer" that you show. Interestingly, though you mentioned the Landsknecht Zweihander, the katzbalger was often their close defense weapon.
The flail, as you note, took many forms. Certainly the peasants would have been comfortable with the heft and swing and control of the tool. Thus it's effectiveness as a weapon in the hands of a commoner. For this reason there were laws in certain German dukedoms, baronies, and principalities about the permissible forms of this tool, lest it become a weapon.
I cannot disagree with your assessment of the poleaxe, as much as I want to. It just doesn't carry the romanticism of the sword (or spear or axe also among the Norse.) It' simply isn't "sexy." But effective and versatile? Apparently quite so.
You make very brief comparison between the mace and the morning star. I'm not certain that academia has finally decided on definitions here. The German "morgenstern" is a combination betwixt the flail and mace, which you've already described. But spiked maces are often called this. Either way, a devastating weapon if used properly. As for its versatility, you can disarm your opponent with it, which is not so easy with other weapons.
The falchion is ugly. I don't like it. I pay it no mind. lol. Certainly likely that the cavalry saber it is descendant and appropriate for high speed mounted warfare. But it is still ugly. This is where personal opinion greatly overrides what may be a practical weapon.
All swords used with 1 hand should be A tier, because you can use a shield with them. Arming sword, side sword, falchion, rapier ect. S tier are your pole arms. Spear, glaive, bec di Corbin, Halbert, pole axe, partisan ext. Because of their reach and because we know they were specifically battlefield weapons (in the beginning you referenced what you would bring to a battlefield) B tier are for very effective limited use weapons like daggers, maces, 2 handed swords. All great weapons but less versatile than A tier. C tier are tools that can be used as weapons like the axe, scythe, flail ect. D tier is for weapons that are made to be throw, due to single use.
I feel like how good you are with any weapon is based on skill and training and armour.
Some of the best weapons are the simplest eg the spear is probably the most unfluencial widely used effective weapon as anyone can use it, its very effective with good range, its easy to access or make conpared to a flail. It can be braced into the ground and used to dismount a horse man which most of these weapons can't do
Poleax was used by dismounted knights in plate when facing their opposite number as it was designed for dealing with heavily armored opponents. It probably requires wearing heavy armor to use as it’s not possible use with a shield.
You're as consistent as an English referee.
the versatility of the katana lies in the long handle compared to the relatively short blade making it fairly usable even in-doors.
The versatiliy in a ball and chain lies in using the chain to catch a weapon/arm or strangling the oponent if it ends in a grapple.
One thing I think your missing is that having a one-edged sword is actually less complex than two edges. When you train with a double edged sword you learn how to use it in an effecitve and lethal way, but if you just pick up a sword without training you will probably use it as a one edged sword either way.
Love all your content!
I agree with the most of this, and if I were a 14th century soldier going to war, the poleaxe would be my weapon of choice. I would place the flail in D tier for the same reason as the morning star (the version with a spiked ball and chain). Any weapon with a chain just adds an element of unpredictability and danger to not just yourself, but other soldiers on your side! First and foremost, I want to be in control and trust the weapon I am brandishing.
A dagger is used when grappling an enemy. A larger weapon would be useless, so its not just a coup degrace. A spear can be used for a coup degrace and with more leverage while sliding the blade into a visor.
Spear? Literally the most effective weapon, and the most employed, in history - ever.
True but it isn't emblematic of "Medieval" weapons, spears were used during middle ages, before and after.
I think a dagger being a sidearm should give it bonus points. It's situational for sure but excellent in those situations and there's not much of a drawback of keeping one as a second option. Especially when those choices use cases can complement another weapon so well when it comes to range control.
"Well, it's going to get me killed, but, it just looks so cool, so . . . "
It doesn't get much stupider than that.
You've described how 90% of basement nerds would die in the apocalypse.
@@wbbartlett Boom!
@@wbbartlett I'm pretty sure 90% of battle-hardened soldiers would die in the apocalypse also.
Combat training is no defense against nuclear weapons, no matter if they're nerds or not.
Axe should be higher, it can be thrown as a hand axe as well as used as a two sided battle axe. Very versatile and its weight can have a bludgeoning effect. Should be an A tier as it can be used to take out armored opponents and potentially calvary.
I very much enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Another Western historian does not know about normal one-handed flails.
In Eastern Europe and the steppes of Asia, the flail was actively used. It was actively used by steppe nomads. For example, it was a very popular weapon in the Golden Horde.
Why? Easy to make in the field. It does not require a lot of metal and its quality. Can be made from almost any metal and even stone. The flail takes up little space. You also don’t need high-quality wood to make a flail.
A one-handed flail is called a " Кистень " in Russian. You need to go to the Russian Wiki, there is a good article on the topic. Please note that some of the pictures in the article are modern stylizations that are not related to ancient examples. The version shown in this video is a European exotic that was almost never used.
I think you need more than a ranking system. More like rock/paper/scissors.
Oh and add spear and add shield. Some of these are specialized to overcome others.
Flail is about overcoming shield, either braining over the top or pulling shield down.
Pole axe and similar are for defending against cavalry.
Battlefield or self defense? What if any armor is involved? Are you behind a castle wall? Attacking a castle? From a war wagon? Generally speaking, S tier would be war bows including crossbows with armor piercing ammunition, and armor piercing polearms, such as a Bec de Corbin. A rapier would be S tier for self defense.
I feel like "dagger" should of been expanded because daggers can vary alot in function, form and size. Same with "axe" but not to the same extreme.
He put flail in A partially because peasants would know how to use it? I'm fairly certain that it was one of the rarer weapons on the battlefield and I doubt people without any combat experience would know how to use it right away lol
The Medieval pike, especially the shorter hooked pike (not a halberd), should have been included in your review. It was reasonably inexpensive to mass produce. It afforded the lightly-armored infantry (70-80% of the fighting force in most battles) an effective stand-off thrusting weapon and the hook excelled at unseating a mounted knight and pulling down shields. Heavily armored knights were tasked with plowing through infantry ranks to disrupt formations and create chaos similar to mechanized tank warfare on today's battlefields. Once a heavily-armored knight was on the ground, he was at a distinct dis-advantage on a crowded battlefield and could be overcome by numerous lightly-armored infantrymen wielding pikes, axes and daggers (Agincourt). Also, I didn't realize that the Japanese katana (Samurai sword) ever made an appearance on Medieval European battlefields? (joke, old boy). Interesting video.
The ranking should include what you would pick as range decreases, what your primary weapon of choice would be. So little correction: Axe D, the two handed sword was used in combination of poleaxes tier S-A ; warhammer B; Spear S: Nunchacks E: Maze A-B. The Katana as A, its artwork, but not better than quality European swords.
Pretty interesting to see how many varieties of sword you rated, but only ONE pole-arm, when I feel like on balance on a medieval battlefield you would probably be more likely to see a variety of pole-arms and fewer swords (obviously largely concentrated with wealthier combatants). Great video though, cool to hear your perspective.
"use pommel to bludgeon" - this guy, and Dwarf Fortress game.
It is where we get the verb 'to pummel'. It was a thing.
Just a suggestion, you can rank the items in question on the same letter from left to right left being the higher rank. For example, if you like the two handed sword better, that would be left of the messer in the B row. Just to add some nuance.
The samurai sword called a katana was not the standard weapon of the samurai when they were fighting it was more of a back up weapon, when the spear and bow was the primary weapons
Love the video! Any chance to get a playlist of the background music?
Before watching, if the spear is any lower than S i will dismiss the entire video
edit:
lmao no spear, (long) bow, crossbow, danish axe
The best weapon is determined by the type of battle and opponent armour. In a medieval european heavy armour battle I would also pick the halberd for for open field or a mace+shield for close quarter. Steel clad knight can be killed without buckling if using a mace - the vibrational force on a helmet would be deadly.
Hi Matt. Love this video. Your content is so interesting and fun. I wonder if you know from history what weapons particular Kings used in battle? For instance, I think I have read Edward IV either used a double-handed sword or one sword in each hand. Would you kindly confirm or give alternative insights. Many thanks 😊
During the famous Siege of Malta in 1565 when the Muslim Ottoman Empire was trying to conquer it from the Knights of St. John (aka the Knights of Malta, aka the Knights Hospitaller), the master of the Knights personally fought with a big two-handed great sword, and mowed down many Janissaries like grass with a scythe! The Knights successfully defended Malta for Christendom, and the Ottomans never tried attacking it again.
dang that dagger description was brutal well those were dark times
Morning Stars usually don't have a chain, that's more a medieval art depiction, it'd basically a mace with spikes. A version with a chain would usually have an enlonged shaft and be classified as ball-and-chain flail...two of the most common weapon types missing, the crossbow or arbalest as specialised war weapon as well as the longbow and the composite bow... Technically what you presented as poleaxe is a halberd, as a poleaxe has a hammerhead instead of a spike opposite the axe... Missing of course as cavalry weapon and therefore typical first attack weapon of a mounted knight is the lance
When you held the katana I was afraid for your life, thinking an army of dweebs would come out and murder you because you insulted their favorite weapon. Instead you handled it quite well, made some good points and especially acknowledged the coolness, which is an important factor. Well done!
he said is was the medieval equivalent of a lightsaber, and that was enough to keep them off his back. Ultimately, he suffered from the same delusions they have about this weapon. Its a sword. A decent one, but no more deadly in a trained person's hands than a longsword in the hands of a trained person.
@@jamesj.mccombie5031 Actually less so than a long sword. Considering the longsword is double edged
@@jamesj.mccombie5031 Yup this guy has no weapons experience yet is ranking them? lol
I agree the spear was a superior weapon for a long time, but, by the Middle Ages, it had been relegated to hunting and did not appear as often on medieval battlefields as it was replaced with the poleaxe and Halbert. So it should not have been included.
The Falchion should be ranked much higher. The single-edge, wider, thicker blade made it stronger. Plus, the flat edge allowed the user to hold or brace the blade with his weak hand, which made it more versatile.
That is why it was so popular. It could and did outlast other blades. In a battle between trained/skilled opponents, it would break a Samurai's Sword blade.
The Samurai Sword blade was made of superior steel. But, it had no real advantage over the best blades of Europe and the Middle East.
As a HEMA instructor, all I can say that you need to get to swinging these things to be able to judge them. Really, the only thing you were spot on with is the pollaxe. Sorry.
Sorry, but as a HEMA instructor, you should also have noticed that he was spot on with the "morning star" ball and chain mace thing as well.
How would you have ranked them?
@@jamesj.mccombie5031 Sorry, skipped past the morning star bit because morning stars are ridiculous weapons. So, if he also stated that they are silly then touche, we now agree on two things.
My biggest issue is that the mace is not an S tier weapon. It is true that it can be used in one hand and can cause damage vs those in armour, but not as much as was once thought. In addition, they are not any easier or harder to use by an untrained person, in fact, it might be that it takes more. There has been some great work done on this by Dequitem, I would highly recommend you go watch his take on mace vs longsword, it is illuminating.
His placement of the messer was not bad, but his take as to why shows that he does not understand how the messer is applied. If it was such a specialized weapon as he suggests, why did so many common people carry them? Medieval people were wrestlers first, and the messer really feeds into that inherent skill, making in more intuitive to use than he thinks.
His placement of the Rondel is problematic. He never discusses context. Imagine a pollaxe vs Rondel. Well, if both parties are at distance, and have plenty of space to maneuver, then of course the pollaxe is an S tier weapon, and the Rondel is an F. But, if the two parties are pressed together in a mob of ranks, the pollaxe quickly becomes a liability and becomes an F tiered weapon while the Rondel jumps up to being an S tiered weapon.
I could go on, but I have better things to do. I’ll Let Matt Easton handle it.
@@mosesjones4853 I'll agree with you on 99% of what you just said but Dequietem's analysis of the damage done by a mace is not based on historical maces but rather ones used in modern armoured fighting competitions. The historical maces were a bit heavier. This is one of those cases where more investigation is needed to make judgement one way or another on the impact maces had on armoured opponents (pun 100% intended).
A lot of HEMA instructors here.
Leave everything else out of the conversation... The war hammer in C?! Are we nuts?! This thing was a knight killer it is perfect against armored opponents because of the thunderous impact of the piercing hit + the amazing bludgeoning damage and against non armored opponents (for example lightly armored archers) because no skull can handle a piercing strike or your chest probably won't survive the bludgeoning strike of this thing. Plus for you defensive tools an one handed war hammer paired with a shield is imo the optimal build for a medieval fight wether early high or late period and no matter how lightly or heavily armored your opponent is.
I would rate the falchion higher, it was designed as a cavalryman's sword, in that role it performed superbly. However I think you probably hit it on the money as far as its usability while dismounted. It's a good weapon, but there are better options.... Although I'd take a falchion over a samurai sword every time, especially the katana, the lack of handguards, the fact that a katana is pretty bad at stabbing compared to other swords (although you can still stab with it), and the lack of pommel makes it easily my least favorite sword except for the gladius (which has the exact opposite problem). Easy D for me for the samurai sword
Now a samurai sword isn't an F (that's reserved for the flail and gladius), its an excellent slashing weapon and there's a lot of cutting power, but the same is true for the falchion, its like it has all the drawbacks of the falchion and only half its benefits.
I know this is a weird quastion, but does anyone know the title of the song played from 5:30 to around 6:00? I am very sure I know it from somewhere, but I can´t figure out from where and it´s driving me nuts. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Fantastic video
The dagger should be at least A level. I'd go as far as an S level. They've been around forever, we still use a form of them with bayonets & KA-BARs, they were common even amongst peasants, & a dagger could be used in a wide variety of situations. The dagger is clearly S level.
Fun video!
The knife and dagger have been around since before the Neolithic Age.
American indigenous peoples had a saying: A man without a knife is dead.
It was a multi use survival tool.
The difference between a dagger and a knife: the former has two edges, the latter only one.
Cheers!
Can't imagine using a morning star over a mace. They do have a slight cool factor, but I'd be afraid of hitting myself in the face. A mace and a katana, and maybe a halberd.
It gives you reach when you're on horseback. When mounted you have to fight differently, and it gives you those crucial extra inches on chain. Additionally he missed out on the ability to wrap the chain around weapons or limbs to pull and drag around your opponent. It does lack the solid punch and simplicity of a mace and requires a lot of training and practice to get good with, but a high speed iron ball is a scary thing when wound up.
Flail in A-tier is absolutely absurd, especially when putting the Chained Morningstar in D with essentially the same weaknesses. Messer should be A-tier. Arguably the 2-handed sword too but I can get how it being such a specialist weapon making it B-tier. I don't know enough about falchions but I struggle to see it being that low down too. Katana is a weird inclusion for this list, I feel it would have been better to cover the Shamshir instead - and there's a severe lack of polearms.
@10:45 I used that sword in HEMA. I needed a lot practice to use it properly
My personal listing of the above, as melee weapons, with the inclusion of one weapon that is shamefully omitted in the video:
S: Polearm - can be used as a spear, as an axe and is just so damn versatile.
A: Spear, depending on the circumstance the spear could also be an S tier. But as it's circumstantial i'd rate it as an A.
B: Axe designed for war, swords (Falchion, messer, katana) - not good, not terrible. But never a primary weapon.
D: Axe not designed for war, any weapon in a supporting role.
F: Flail, morning star on chain: Grat a stick with a blunt hard end, that hits harder and is more efficient!
Names video "Medieval Historian Ranks Dark Age Weaponry", proceeds to rank mostly high medieval and later weaponry.
I had hoped you would go through the Halbard, Spear and perhaps a Rapier or Club. That said I agree with most of the ranking except your obvious bias toward the Samurai Sword which I think you rated higher than is fair to do, considering that it really does no more damage than a European sword, is less versatile and not much more useable. In attack a regular sword and Samurai sword I think would be similar, but I think you would much rather want to defend yourself with a European Sword over a Samurai Sword, so I would have put the Samurai Sword as a B-tier.
I am also not sure I would put a flair as a A since its versatility and defense ability would not be great, you also mentioned it could be a worry of hitting someone behind you, so I might put the flair in B as well. The Two Handed Sword I might upgrade to a A because it does so much damage. Yes it is tougher to use, but it is deadly if you become proficient at it. Also I think the Morning Star does more damage than a 6 because you have to consider the extra damage which comes from the fact that this is swung and so get a extra gravitational damage, however I would still have rated it a D since it is a very hard weapon to use with virtually no versatility or defense capability. Otherwise I think I agree with everything else.
But this was a very fun video. Thanks for making it.
The axe is devastating against both armored and unarmored opponents, it's a shield destroyer, it serves as a tool for many a thing from cutting, chopping, cleaving and more. It's also a very easy to understand item. Btw, I am going at this from the picture he shows in his hands, which is a standard axe.
It's really silly though, the axe shown is a cleaving axe that everyone owns while the other pictures shown all have different sizes and functions. A dane axe is more capable of doing damage and has more reach but it's way harder to wield properly while a small battle axe is more nimble and lighter, and yes, a woodcutter's axe is not made for murdering people but it will most certainly do the job, albeit not optimal depending on thr circumstance.
Also, he shows a Rondol dagger in his hand while he talks about every kind of dagger except the very specific one he holds in his hand.
What it all comes down to is that 'axe' and 'dagger' and what not is not a good term to rank things with because of how ambiguous those words are.
"Sword making more damage then axe", mace above pick/hammer, saber under arming sword, shaft flail above one handed one. My physicist heart are bleeding.
Dagger should be way higher tier. Dirk and Targe was a dagger/shield combination and extremely lethal as once they charged in with the Targe , the dirk/dagger would deliver a highly accurate lethal blow.
Dagger is very accurate - very deadly. Does need a shield though.
"Samurai Sword"
Which kind? That's like pointing to any European sword and calling it "Knight Sword".
Indeed. While the katana was certainly prevalent, especially later on, it was by no means the only sword design used. Many of the most famous samurais didn't use them. The lack of adherence to one single type of weapon is kind of what Musashi was known for. And iirc, outside of duels and executions, I think their bows, spears and firearms killed the most people.
This video should have been titled something along the lines of; "History Tier List | Medieval Historian Ranks Dark Age Weaponry"
This is quite hard. As it depends so much is it in battlefield, duel, vs. Armor (and type) or no armor. As it will change the tier of a weapon tremendously.
The Flail seems like a bigger version of the morning star. It seems like it would be equally unpredictable in the heat of battle, just with a larger surface area that has the ability not only to hit yourself but your comrades,
Is this a History Hit video I see before me? I am, of course, referencing the Scottish Play and the role the dagger plays in it; it deserves a higher rating. After all, the dagger was used to dispatch King Duncan which set off a string of events that even the witches were involved in. Tolkien himself drew influence from these events 😀
Tolkien doesn't get enough credit for improving on Macbeth's gimmicks (notably, walking forest... literally, and "no man of woman born").
@@KasumiRINA Yes. I believe Tolkien was disappointed that the moving forest turned out to be men hiding behind a branch they held before them.
Morning star w chain can wrap over a shield or weapon block and damage the opponent without a direct line of attack. Difficult to learn to use but dangerous.
What about the long bow and the cross bow.
I stick with the fact that the spear has been the weapon of choice for over a million years. From the predecessors of our species all the way into the early modern age, the spear has been the tool that allowed us to defeat foes much larger than us. The most dangerous animal is a human with a pointy stick. And the relatives of the spear.
And then the bow. Because it allows us to hunt and wage war without coming in range of the enemy spear.
And then perhaps the axe. The metal is more compact than on a sword, much less risk of it breaking. And the axe head can be used to carve a new shaft. Extremely versatile tool. Perhaps not the best as a weapon, but it can do so much.
And comparing swords and bows, the sword is easier to pick up. In a way, it's a metal club. Basically everyone can pick one up and start whacking. Learning the bow is much harder, it takes practice to even start using it. But once the person can use it, there isn't much more. Swords on the other hand have a much higher skill ceiling. The art of using it effectively has many forms that can take decades to master.