system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
[STAR TREK] Is a Bat'leth superior to a sword? If Genghis Khan had designed them could he have taken over the ancient world?
gpt
Sometimes, and no. The Bat'leth is a bit more like a warhammer or axe than a sword. The Bat'leth is a very heavy weapon, so much so that it's difficult to wield even with both hands. That alone makes it inferior to most swords, as they could be used alongside a shield. It's too short to make up where polearms could reach, but too heavy and clunky to be used one-on-one against any properly armed soldier in Earth's history, which is generally what swords were used for. A very strong, fast man *might* be able to use the Bat'leth quite well, but even that would only make him about as efficient as any other solider on the field.

In the case of the Mongols, they would have no need for such a weapon. Primarily, they had two main weapons: Scimitars and bows. These weapons were very useful because they were designed to be used from horseback (Of course, they seemed to have had polearms as well, but that's beyond the point). They were especially well-known for their skill in archery, and over half of the army was made up of archers. They certainly used all of this to their advantage, their primary tactics involving flanking or circling the enemy. The Mongols would simply have found no use for the Bat'leth.

There have always been misconceptions about ancient warfare, and the primary one is that swords were the primary weapon of soldiers. Whether or not it's true of Klingons, for humans, swords were mostly sidearms and dueling weapons, and sometimes exclusively for show. Even if the Bat'leth *was* superior to any human sword, it still would not have conquered any empires.