Bat'leth bashing

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

http://www.geek.com/news/star-treks-batleth-is-the-stupidest-weapon-in-science-fiction-1664487/

Never thought about that. It's kind of a quarterstaff with teeth.

 

[Timo]

The sword appears to be a modified farm implement - it's even used as one in "Birthright Pt II"! No doubt it's intended to be purely defensive; it's probably something Kahless whipped up in his barn to overthrow his evil masters, then propagated to the serf masses so that they could crush the nobility with sheer numbers.

Straight swords such as that wielded by Duras in "Reunion" would be the noble weapons, great for offense but requiring user skill. The bat'leth only requires brute force. And for that, it deserves to be the weapon of the ultimate masters, as only a master could use the inferior weapon victoriously in an offensive battle...

I really think Dan Curry devised the best scifi weapon ever, even if partially by accident.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I guess it's one of those things whose association changed dramatically after it was used thusly. Like the cross, a weapon of torture that is now the symbol of victory over sin and death. (Please don't flame me - I'm only making a comparison I'm familiar with.)

 

[Tosk]

"Stupidest weapon in sci-fi" Stupider than a Dalek plunger? C'mon now...

 

[Jedi_Master]

I guess it depends on your perspective. I know some folks experienced in blade fighting, and they like the bat'leth although they say that effectively using it require you to fight at a very close range.

 

[Sgt_G]

But it LOOKS cool, which is all that matters, no?

 

[Mage]

Some years ago, I was very much into bladed weapons, collected them (not cheap stainless steel stuff from China, real weapons), read many articles and books, and was part of several online communities that studied swords and other bladed weapons.

As far as effective weapons go, the bat'leth makes no sense whatsoever. Weight distribution, how the shape of the blade would disperse the shock of impact, cutting abilities with the inside curve the way it goes.... Simply does not work as a effective weapon. Sure, it'll kill well enough, but a blunt bar of steel will do that as well if you hit a skull hard enough.
Remember how Dax mentioned that a typical bat'leth weighed about 5.3 kilograms and was about 116cm long?
On average, a Japanese sword would weigh in around 1,2 kilograms, and a average 1 handed 'knightly' sword about the same. I own this sword, a replica of a typica Oakeshott Type XII. Notice the weight and length. http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-knight-xii.htm

The concept that a bat'leth would weight 5.3 kilos, with what looks like no proper balance, and still be easy to wield, simply does not add up.

Now, before people claim Klingons can wield it because they are stronger, we've seen humans use them as if they weigh nothing, so that doesn't add up.

 

[Timo]

...The article seems to make a common mistake about the "blade area" of the weapon. There is none. When a Klingon pushes an opponent with the broad forward edge, there isn't a cut of any sort in evidence. That part of the "sword" appears to be purely for stopping enemy blades with minimum skill and effort. If there's any cutting part to the weapon, it's the outer curves at the ends, between the two impaling spikes at each end.

For the peasant fighter, it really is a two-handed shield that you transform into a combat pickaxe right after the enemy has collapsed from the fatigue of trying to break through your defenses. For the master duelist, it's both these things at the same time.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Jedi_Master]

It does suit itself to a "smash and mash" kind of fighting style. The Klingons never seem to have any complex fighting styles, just wailing on each other until one or the other collapses or breaks the other's weapon.

 

[David cgc]

If you want to talk stupid, let's go with the bat'leth used in Star Trek Into Darkness. Now, I can get behind the idea of having multiple styles of the weapon rather than just the plain, generic crescent that was used on TV (and the middle-two concepts on this page look great to me), but they decided to go with the ones that added two blades that curved back towards the wielder. It turns it from a pointy quarterstaff into something that seems as likely to kill you as an opponent. It'd also make some of the moves used by non-extras impossible, like the way it'd sometimes be cradled in the crook of the arm. Of course, maybe it was designed for the generic Klingon, whose combat style with the bat'leth boils down to "shove it into the other guy's face."

And why did they stop making the little blades on the d'k tag retractable? Takes all the fun out of the dagger. They could've at least implied it if the spring-loaded prop was too expensive.

 

[Unicron]

This topic might be better suited for General Trek Discussion instead, so I'll send it over there.

 

[RAMA]

Clearly they have no idea what they're talking about:

According to Dan Curry, the designer:

My studies of martial arts lead to the development of the Klingon weapons such as the bat’leth and the mek’leth. We had an episode in which Worf was to inherit an ancestral bladed weapon. The art department came up with something thar resembled a pirate’s cutlass. I felt that the Klingons should have something unique and original and I wanted to create something ergonomically sound. I have never liked movie weapons that just look coll but can’t be used. I am proud of the fact that the Korean Martial Arts Association recognized it as the first new bladed weapon of the last century that is practical.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I have little doubt that it could have practical combat applications. However, the bat'leth was far from a sword, a light, nimble weapon that can deliver mortal stabs and cuts at a distance. In many ways, the bat'leth was an oversized crossguard, which can have offensive applications, but is more to protect the user than anything else.

That said, the bat'leth is a more practical weapon than the Buster Sword or the double-bladed light-saber: one rips you arm off as you swing, the other slices it off.

 

[uniderth]

Is it an impractical sword? Yes.
Is it an impractical weapon? No.

 

[USS Firefly]

Well It looks cool when I'am looking at the wall where it hangs, while I am gaming, and when It looks cool It is good

 

[t_smitts]

Interesting article, but I'd like to know what qualifications, in terms of weapons training, the writer has, compared to Dan Curry.

 

[The Wormhole]

you want to talk stupid, let's go with the bat'leth used in Star Trek Into Darkness. Now, I can get behind the idea of having multiple styles of the weapon rather than just the plain, generic crescent that was used on TV (and the middle-two concepts on this page look great to me), but they decided to go with the ones that added two blades that curved back towards the wielder. It turns it from a pointy quarterstaff into something that seems as likely to kill you as an opponent.

Clearly Abrams doesn't get the bat'leth. Or Star Trek in general.

 

[Mage]

Is it an impractical sword? Yes.
Is it an impractical weapon? No.

Yes, it is a impractical weapon. It's too heavy, the cutting edge is the inside. There are weapons on Earth that have that, but with the overall shape of the bat'leth, you're never going to actually cut anything. When it's actually properly moving, it can crush bone well enough, but to get it moving with proper speed, you need time. And in close quarter combat, any split second counts. Considering the reach of this weapon, you're not gonna get it moving fast enough to be effective against someone with a decent knife. Why? To gain enough momentum behind it, you need to have it behind you to get enough speed behind it. Anyone with say, a bowie size knife, would have plunched said knife in your gut.

 

[FormerLurker]

You've never half-sworded, have you?

 

[Bad Thoughts]

You've never half-sworded, have you?

I'd rather throw my pummel and end my opponent rightly!