Bat'leths
- Thread starter JRoss
- Start date
The Bat'Leth is a typical cool-but-impractical hollywood weapon. It looks good on TV but in reality it is a horrible battlefield weapon for the kind of blade combat its designers envisage.
Anyone in the historical ages (greco roman, medieval period, up to the early - mid gunpowder era when swords declined) who took to the field of battle with a bat'leth type weapon would be killed in combat. It is almost certain.
Anyone in the historical ages (greco roman, medieval period, up to the early - mid gunpowder era when swords declined) who took to the field of battle with a bat'leth type weapon would be killed in combat. It is almost certain.
How so? As pointed out, it's good for deflecting blows and catching the opponent's blade, thus good for survivability. It's longer than most bladed weapons, again good for survivability. It's two-handed, thus fairly secure. Put two typically unskilled soldiers up against each other, one wielding the Klingon thing and another a short slashing sword of typical military fare, and the shortie doesn't necessarily even get close enough to attempt a kill.
A more conventional way of trying to out-sword the enemy, a long straight two-handed blade, would be clumsier to wield and almost useless for deflecting. Plus, the Klingon contraption has sharp points for piercing armor, while slashing swords would be impotent against breastplates and the like.
You don't need much skill with the bat'leth, you just need brute strength to carry a sword that's heavier and more complex than it needs to be. And that's right down the Klingon alley - and also suited for any other military that features soldiers slightly stronger than the human average.
The interesting thing is what happens when two Klingons clash. We don't really see too much bat'leth vs. bat'leth action: Duras chose to fight with a straight sword, and supposedly Kahless and his brother also fought with dissimilar weapons. Perhaps the bat'leth is the weapon for the uneducated masses, good for defense but inferior in offense, while noblemen fight with straight swords that are better at offense?
Timo Saloniemi
A more conventional way of trying to out-sword the enemy, a long straight two-handed blade, would be clumsier to wield and almost useless for deflecting. Plus, the Klingon contraption has sharp points for piercing armor, while slashing swords would be impotent against breastplates and the like.
You don't need much skill with the bat'leth, you just need brute strength to carry a sword that's heavier and more complex than it needs to be. And that's right down the Klingon alley - and also suited for any other military that features soldiers slightly stronger than the human average.
The interesting thing is what happens when two Klingons clash. We don't really see too much bat'leth vs. bat'leth action: Duras chose to fight with a straight sword, and supposedly Kahless and his brother also fought with dissimilar weapons. Perhaps the bat'leth is the weapon for the uneducated masses, good for defense but inferior in offense, while noblemen fight with straight swords that are better at offense?
Timo Saloniemi
You can train you soldiers to get past the longer weapons...and after that it's history. This is why the Zulu cut down their spears when they were fighting the British. If you troops is properly trained and motivated, it's not that hard because most people during hand to hand combat get really scare. They use this as the advantage and get really close to inflict a lethal blow. In Thai fighting style...you wanna preferably hack off your enemies head.
Point over edge. And reach matters a lot.
All military historians know this. Anyone who has ever fenced, or played at the more serious bladed weapon disciplines(or just engaged in a mock melee) know this at an instinctive level.
The Bat'leth is a slashing weapon. Yes it has spikes, yes it can be used to stab. But it is awkwardly designed for that role. Look at any of the successful military organizations of the ancient world. Roman Legions, Greek Hoplites, Sacred Band, etc. They all recognized that slashing weapons take more effort to wield, do not penetrate armor well, leave the wielder open to attack AND inflict less damage than a stabbing thrusting weapon. You can slash me a bunch of times, blood loss will eventually weaken me. I get one good thrust into you and you're done. Plus, surgeons, even today are much more confident treating lacerations than stab wounds.
The shortened Xiphos of the Spartans and the Roman Gladius were not picked for ornamental value, they were picked because they were recognized as the best and most efficient way to kill the enemy. And of perhaps even more importance they allowed the use of a shield.
A short-sword gives you somewhere between 18 inches and 30 inches of reach. A Bat'leth gives you 12 inches? Maybe? I'd be fairly confident going against a Bat'leth with any sort of conventional Earth sword just because of the reach advantage. If you give me a shield and sword, there is no chance at all for that Bat'leth wielder.
All military historians know this. Anyone who has ever fenced, or played at the more serious bladed weapon disciplines(or just engaged in a mock melee) know this at an instinctive level.
The Bat'leth is a slashing weapon. Yes it has spikes, yes it can be used to stab. But it is awkwardly designed for that role. Look at any of the successful military organizations of the ancient world. Roman Legions, Greek Hoplites, Sacred Band, etc. They all recognized that slashing weapons take more effort to wield, do not penetrate armor well, leave the wielder open to attack AND inflict less damage than a stabbing thrusting weapon. You can slash me a bunch of times, blood loss will eventually weaken me. I get one good thrust into you and you're done. Plus, surgeons, even today are much more confident treating lacerations than stab wounds.
The shortened Xiphos of the Spartans and the Roman Gladius were not picked for ornamental value, they were picked because they were recognized as the best and most efficient way to kill the enemy. And of perhaps even more importance they allowed the use of a shield.
A short-sword gives you somewhere between 18 inches and 30 inches of reach. A Bat'leth gives you 12 inches? Maybe? I'd be fairly confident going against a Bat'leth with any sort of conventional Earth sword just because of the reach advantage. If you give me a shield and sword, there is no chance at all for that Bat'leth wielder.
If you look at the way ancient Siamese soldiers use their sowrds, they always swing it downwards towards the shoulders, neck neck where the arterie is, or down on the side of the legs and arms... A downward motion has more momentum and force because of the gravity. Most of the great fighting culture don't use weapons that are too long. Even the Roman pilum weren't that long so it could be effectively used at close range, and so they could easily be thrown. Maybe against a well trained army (people that know how to fight)...using weapons that are too long is at a disadvantage...when they get close to you. It's too clumsy at close range. This is why Thai soldiers used two swords or a shield and sword, so they could get close to their enemies and inflict fatal wound.
And on the note of thrusting V.S. slashing: Thai swords were made like machete to hack off branches, limbs and shoulders, neck and collar bones where it is most crippling to the enemies. That's why they always swing the swords downwards onto the neck, collar bones, shoulders and arms and legs.
And on the note of thrusting V.S. slashing: Thai swords were made like machete to hack off branches, limbs and shoulders, neck and collar bones where it is most crippling to the enemies. That's why they always swing the swords downwards onto the neck, collar bones, shoulders and arms and legs.
Well Worf was born into a noble house and as part of the warrior class. And in the same episode he killed Duras, he told Alexander that his family bat'leth had been in the House of Mogh for generations.
I guess the Bat'leth has iconic status for Klingons since Kahless invented it. If Jesus invented a weapon, maybe all Christians would see that as their preferred weapon, who knows?
I would agree that bat'leths are kind of dumb, but then it doesnt really matter, because Trek is not that kind of show. Good trek is about 95 percent talking and 5 percent action. The action in the show should only ever really there because it relates to whats going on in the show. Like in 'To the Death', the action takes barely any time, and what important is whats going on around it. The fact that the fights are all pretty clumsy dont matter, and shouldnt matter.
Its not an action movie, with action movie stars, its a television show, with television actors. These people are generally better at dialogue and characterisation than any action type stuff; this is the main reason why the TNG movies failed so horribly.
So I dont really care that the bat'leth isnt very functional, it doesnt matter at all.
Its not an action movie, with action movie stars, its a television show, with television actors. These people are generally better at dialogue and characterisation than any action type stuff; this is the main reason why the TNG movies failed so horribly.
So I dont really care that the bat'leth isnt very functional, it doesnt matter at all.
Similar threads
