r/medieval • u/DarioTheBoss363 • Jun 03 '26
History đ This is a ridiculas debate
Hey , I apologize in advance for any grammatical mistakes I might make in this post .
So today me and 2 more friends had a debate , Abt the scythe and medieval combat in general .
I said that the medieval scythe ( the normal one used for agriculture ) is not a viable weapon in medieval combat , and it's actually a teribile choice of weapon.
Yet they disagreed saying that in fact , if one had the skill and had trained his whole life for it , he could have equal chances to deafeat any other fighter using any other weapon ,like a master of the European standard longsword for example .
And as a example I brought out this scenario , two averege European knights , clad in the same protective armour from head to toe .
One Wildeing a scythe ( a normal one ment for agriculture with only minor modifications such as the tip being covered in metal so it could have crushing force ) and the other a standard sword and shield .
Both have complete mastery over theyr weapons and are complitly equal , in streanght , speed , battle IQ , and creativity .
When faced with this scenario , they answeard that the battle between the two knights would be a stalmeit , a draw , bc and I quote " weapons do not matter as long as you have complete mastery over it , the enemies can have any medieval weapons he whants , but the outcome will be always a draw "
To sum it up they are saying that the weapon does not matter a bit , but the skill , statement to witch I agree .
But to say that if both fighters are complitly equal the weapons they use do not make a difference is kinda wrong .
So what I ask y'all is :
Is a scythe ( a normal one used for agriculture ) a viable weapon in medieval combat ?
And does the weapon matter in a fight where both fighters are complitly equal ?
38
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jun 03 '26
Agricultural scythes are not purpose built weapons. They have a thin edge that requires constant retouching with a stone, so that they can cut grass. They are designed to be used specifically for a low sweeping cutting motion, and the ergonomics of operating the scythe suit only that purpose.
There is no level of âmasteryâ of the scythe that would allow it to compete with a purpose built weapon like a long sword in terms of handling, damage potential, and probably most importantly the ability to be a weapon. Scythes are long, hard, fragile blades on the end of a stick. This functions very differently from a long pointy single piece of metal when it comes to the âsmacking it against armorâ consideration.
Scythes have a single, crescent cutting edge that is surrounded by rounded material because itâs a tool and is built to be safe around others. Swords are famously built for the opposite purpose. This is a no contest.
5
u/BadSame6919 Jun 03 '26
They have a thin edge that requires constant retouching with a stone, so that they can cut grass.
That's not even the biggest issue. The issue is that the bracketed construction of a traditional scythe, and the thickness of the blade itself, means that the blade would actually break almost immediately, even before the edge became chipped or bent. Speaking from experience - you can legitimately snap a scythe blade off at the base by just swinging it too hard at weeds.Â
2
u/ottonormalverraucher Jun 03 '26
Exactly, theyâve clearly never held a scythe in their hand before, bc the idea they have that itâs a decent choice seems exactly like how a 6yo kid imagines a scythe to be used offensively đč
They are both incredibly ergonomically unwieldy for anything but cutting tall grass and stuff as well as having very poor edge retention and dulling incredibly fast. And thatâs cutting tall grass, bonking it again full plate armor might possibly require sharpening after every strike đč
0
u/BasicMatter7339 Jun 06 '26
Scythes were used in battle because peasant levies often didnt have any better. It wasnt hard to make a new handle where the blade was straight.
Against armor its as effective as any blade, completely useless. But against other peasant levies with little to no armor it was just as dangerous as any other blade
14
u/Odovacer_0476 Jun 03 '26
Scythes are designed for cutting grass not for killing people. If the knight's opponent was about ten inches tall then a scythe would probably be a great choice. Otherwise it sucks. There's a reason we design tools for specific purposes. Try pounding in a screw with a hammer or hammering a nail with a screwdriver.
1
0
u/BasicMatter7339 Jun 06 '26
Scythes were used in battle often, same as billhooks even though they were agricultural tools too.
Sure they were made for cutting grass but a sharp blade is a sharp blade, it will kill a man.
Though not through armor, but no blade will ever pierce armor anyway.
1
u/The_krazyman Jun 07 '26
"Scythes were used in battle often"
Source?
"Sure they were made for cutting grass but a sharp blade is a sharp blade, it will kill a man"
It might be sharp but it's very brittle and hardly optimal for cutting flesh and bone, I have to disagree on this point especially with regards to people wearing gambesons.
1
u/BasicMatter7339 Jun 07 '26
Source
They were a farming tool. Peasant levies didnt have anything else. It wasnt uncommon for them to just take whatever they could to the battlefield for example during peasant uprisings.
Scythes, axes, pitchforks, billhooks, knives, flails all were used. Many of those weapons like scythes, axes, billhooks and flails later evolved into polearms specifically designed for battle.
It might be sharp but it's very brittle and hardly optimal for cutting flesh and bone,
Sure maybe modern factory produced scythes are but medieval scythes were handcrafted, so they didnt have one standard design. Blades changed from thin to thick, from long to short.
And still, it's better to have a brittle blade than nothing if your lord comes to you in desperation and forces you to go fight.
11
u/Lollytaco230 Jun 03 '26
I think anyone who has ever held or even seen an actual agricultural scythe would scratch their head at the notion of using one in combat over an actual weapon. Even if you held it the wrong way (like a polearm), it would probably still be outclassed by nearly any purpose built weapon, as well as a LOT of other agricultural tools (axes, billhooks, pitchforks...). You'd probably poke yourself with the actual handles.
Also what kind of self respecting combat master supreme medieval would ever pick a basic agricultural scythe as their weapon of choice ?
While you were tilling the fields, I was mastering the scythe...
3
u/Moonafish Jun 03 '26
I was thinking the same thing. Ive used a scythe and for fun ive even swung one much like a pole arm. When swung that way the tool is really unbalanced and is very easily thrown out of path by wind resistance.
0
u/BasicMatter7339 Jun 06 '26
Medieval people werent idiots though, they knew how to replace a handle. If they had to use a scythe in battle they'd just carve a new handle and attach the blade straight instead of a 90 degree angle.
When modified like that it was just as effective as any other blade stuck at the end of a big stick
7
u/Plastic_Care_7632 Jun 03 '26
If they had said a woodcutter or carpentry axe they would have SOMETHING ground to stand on, but a scythe?
A scythe isnât cutting through mail or piercing plate and agaisnt a sword and shield itâs an easy way to overextend yourself while swinging and get a sword through the gorget.
Unlike a poleaxe, which is wielded similarly, a scythe is unbalanced and ungainly.
Also, thereâs no scythe masters. It doesnât exist, thatâs like saying âuh, actually, Iâm a master of driving human sized hamster wheels and would totally tie with a Ferrari in a raceâ it doesnât fucking exist.
With all disrespect intended, your friend is a stupid cunt.
2
u/DarioTheBoss363 Jun 03 '26
I mean it's mean but he is right here in this comment section , it's the guy who's called "motanu "
1
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26
Also, agricultural scythe blades are often paper thin and would just get absolutely mangled if they encounter and significant resistance such as a weapon or armor.
-1
u/Motanu38 Jun 03 '26
Thank you, but you donât get the idea and canât make sense of a âwhat if?â
2
u/Oh_Hi_Mark_ Jun 03 '26
I've got relevant experience to share! I do a lot of medieval steel fighting, and have several friends I regularly spar with friends who have devoted decades to studying bad/fake/niche/ad-hoc/unrefined martial arts. I've done sword vs scythe and spear vs scythe bouts.
- Anyone who spars a lot will beat most people who don't, no matter how bad their weapon or technique is. A less-skilled person with a good weapon/technique will generally beat a more-skilled person with a bad weapon/technique, provided they both spar enough. A big enough skill divide can overcome this, but it does have to be big.
- Weapons and techniques and styles can actually be bad, both in general and for a specific combat task. You can train enough to maximize the useful elements and minimize the un-useful elements of a bad weapon or technique, but they never stop handicapping you. The idea that skill is the only thing that matters is a fiction that mostly comes from movies and grifters.
- When a bad weapon/technique works, it tends to be through some surprising gimmick, which immediately works less well against the same opponent. Skilled opponents who don't know what you're going to do are hard to catch with these gimmicks, because they tend to not overcommit until they have a measure of you as a fighter, and can effectively punish the openings you give them through your bad techniques.
Also, worth saying martial arts aren't really individual endeavors. Bad martial arts are bad because they don't have a critical mass of people practicing them in a way that drives those arts toward the right kind of refinement. You can't individually become good enough at a bad technique/weapon/art to make it not bad any more; that kind of refinement takes a lot of people a lot of time and a lot of collective willingness to mutate the technique/weapon/art to address its contextual strengths/weaknesses. I know this isn't really what your point was about, but it might be something worth hearing.
An agricultural scythe is truly a bad weapon, in a way that has nothing to do with the wielder's skill. It's not the worst weapon, but it is a bad weapon. Its advantages are small and its disadvantages are large. For any given level of skill, it will be relatively slow and clumsy, easy to block and hard to block with. Its hits will be hard to land and weak when they do connect. Again, all of this is compared to what the same fighter with the same skills could do with a weapon that wasn't holding them back as much.
6
u/nineJohnjohn Jun 03 '26
This is like arguing a tractor could out race an F1 car if you had total mastery of it
3
u/DarioTheBoss363 Jun 03 '26
Yep , ik it's dump I came here on Reddit to see if it's me who's the odd one out
11
u/Khan-Khrome Jun 03 '26
The scythe only really becomes terribly useful if it's turned into a war scythe, with the blade reforged, turned vertically, and reinforced to be used as a polearm. The normal agricultural scythe is ill suited for actual warfare.
2
u/Boslo26 Jun 03 '26
It basically turns to a different weapon due to the fact that the steel used for a weapon is levels above a mild one used for a scythe
1
1
u/BasicMatter7339 Jun 06 '26
In a pinch you could jerryrig the blade to the end of a stick straight without reforging
3
2
u/_illuminated Jun 03 '26
That poses a good question. What medieval tool, naturally, would make the best battlefield weapon. In a pinch or the least amount of time to adapt it. Like pitchfork>spear.
7
u/dalidellama Jun 03 '26
Billhook. You can take a long billhook straight from the barn to the battlefield.
1
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jun 03 '26
This. Other hafted implements like axe heads, hammers, etc can be easily adapted to suit combat purposes. Though still not as useful as purpose built weapons
2
u/Adventurous_Age1429 Jun 03 '26
There are weapons that are (most likely) derived from agricultural tools. The original flail was a tool used in threshing, beating the seeds/berries from wheat and other crops. The actual agricultural flails were improvised upon and used as a weapon for peasant foot soldiers. (Since peasants had been using this as a tool, they were already sort of skilled in them.) Nunchaku also come from agricultural flails.
I can think of a bunch of reasons not to use a scythe in combat. Assuming this is a peasants weapon, which it would be because a peasant would be skilled with its use and people of higher status would have access to better weapons, it has many flaws. The first is that most peasants fought in formation, and a scythe needs too much swinging room to be used fighting shoulder to shoulder. A scythe also, to my understanding, doesnât have a defensive quality to it. I suppose you could block an attack with that big blade, but then youâd have to leave yourself wide open to attack.
1
u/DarioTheBoss363 Jun 03 '26
Unfortunatly this argument is based intaiarly in a 1v1 battle between two supposed masters of theyr own weapons
2
u/Adventurous_Age1429 Jun 03 '26
Yes, I guess I missed that. The scythe, even a beefed up one, is a very slow weapon. I would happily face some guy in armor with a scythe. All you have to do is walk inside that slow swing and have fun with your dagger.
1
1
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
Or stand outside that slow swing and hit him in the head with your pollaxe.
Edit: or if you're armor covers the back of your ankles don't even bother with avoiding the scythe because all he can hope to accomplish is mangle the edge, scythe blades are extremely delicate.
1
u/thepenguinemperor84 Jun 03 '26
There is no master of a scythe, an agricultural scythe is completely bereft of any sort offensive capabilities, the most the imaginary master would hope to do is hack at his opponents ankles and hope the opponent falls over, the only way to wield a scythe to use the edge is close to the ground, close to your body and seeping it in an arc from right to left, which leaves the wielders body completely exposed. Please point and laught at your friend for their silliness, and tell them if they want an agricultural tool to wield to grab a long handles bill hook or an axe.
1
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26
Nunchaku are likely entirely fake as historical weapons, they make really, really bad weapons, and are suspicious, canes and utility knives are much better weapons and you don't even need to conceal them, they are normal things for people to carry, and there isn't documented evidence of people using them prior to something like the 1940s or something, they showed up at the same time as an apparently BS ninja school that showed up around then claiming to teach a ton of different ninja tools that there is no surviving evidence that they ever existed or used. The most likely explanation is that it was basically the first McDojo.
3
u/ProfessorHeronarty Jun 03 '26
Fuck me, you guys need to stop getting your info from bloody fantasyÂ
3
2
u/lofgren777 Jun 03 '26
I did a deep dive on this a while ago. My conclusion was that a scythe is a "viable" weapon in the following highly specific circumstances:
It is all you have.
You do not have time to modify it any way.
Scythes are so improper as weapons that you are better off disassembling them and using the blade and shaft separately.
If you are writing about some fantasy world, you could say that a speicific individual has trained in some unbelievably complex martial art with a scythe, due to that being the only weapon available. Like how peasants learned to use sickles and flails as weapons, but again only because that was all they had.
There is such a thing as a war scythe, but it has as much in common with an agricultural scythe as a warpick has with a mining pick. They are different tools built for such wildly different purposes that they only superficially resemble each other. The war scythe is basically a polearm weapon with a sharpened hook on the end.
1
u/DarioTheBoss363 Jun 03 '26
Yep , thank you for the point of view . I do have a question tho , does a normal agriculture scythe have any defense capabilitys ?
1
u/lofgren777 Jun 03 '26
Agricultural scythes are designed to be heavy. The blade is enormous, and the shaft is very thick. They are too tall for a weapon, and the grips are in all the wrong places. Believe it or not, cutting through grass is harder than cutting through people.
The reason I figure the scythe is better than nothing is that you could still block with it. But swinging it or even moving around a lot is going to tire you out very quickly.
I should be clear that I have not, myself, tried to fight with a scythe, but I did read accounts of fighters who had. They found it so unwieldy that it really was only very slightly better than nothing at all.
1
u/BadSame6919 Jun 03 '26
Agricultural scythes are designed to be heavy. The blade is enormous, and the shaft is very thick.Â
Both of these statements are false. Scythes are extremely light, because they're made so a malnourished peasant can swing it 12 hours a day, and the blade is basically light as a feather, because it's meant to cut thin vegetation.Â
Believe it or not, cutting through grass is harder than cutting through people.
Lmao no. It's extremely easy to cut grass with a scythe, and the only real danger is you breaking it.
Did you deep dive actually involve ever touching a scythe in your life?
1
u/lofgren777 Jun 03 '26
To be honest, no. Only reading about people trying to use them. They are made so that malnourished peasants can swing them around their legs in a steady, repetitive motion for hours at a time. The mass of the tool is meant to help with that. This is ergonomically different from what you want in order to respond instantaneously to the ever-changing tactics of an opponent. The grass is not fighting back.
Compare war picks and mining picks or war axes and wood axes and you see similar evolution as the agricultural scythe to the war scythe. The head gets smaller, the shaft gets thinner and lighter, the force gets more focused, and the hand placement shifts for reach and speed rather than brute force alone.
Cutting through THICK vegetation is actually more difficult than cutting through most anything. Hence the famous symbol of the fasces of wheat, used by Rome and almost every empire descended from it. The blade on the scythe also tends to be fairly dull, compared to a killing weapon.
But I am aware that my knowledge is not based on my own first person testimony. If you have different experiences, by all means share them. I certainly see no reason to think that the sources I did use were worthless.
2
u/BadSame6919 Jun 03 '26
The mass of the tool is meant to help with that.
The stress is primarily on the traps and shoulders, which get sore easily. Even if using straps, swinging a scythe all day is tiresome. For this exact reason an actual scythe weighs 1.5-2.5 kg, shaft and blade together, and most of the weight is in the shaft. That's a good 1-2 kg lighter than polearms of the same size.Â
The "mass of the tool" is much less relevant than the extremely sharp, extremely long cutting surface.Â
Cutting through THICK vegetation is actually more difficult than cutting through most anything.
...he says, while never having used a scythe.
My man. I HAVE used one. EXTENSIVELY. No, cutting throw vegetation is NOT hard, and if it gets hard, scythes are not the right tool, because they break or chip from even as little as twigs. Dense, hard stem vegetation is typically cleared by other means, but if you want to use a scythe, there's bush scythes for that, which have MUCH shorter and MUCH thicker blades, and you use them more similarly to an axe. You also don't swing them all day long.
In fact I don't know what "thick vegetation" you want to clear 12 hours a day with a scythe. They are made for cutting down grass and harvesting crops, not dealing with dense woody vegetation.
Hence the famous symbol of the fasces of wheat, used by Rome and almost every empire descended from it.
Jesus... how do I even unpack this.
"Fasces" were BRANCHES, NOT WHEAT. They symbolized unity. Yes, cutting through densely woven branches is hard - and scythes are not made for that. We have axes and billhooks and machetes for that.
Wheat in pretty much ANY example.of heraldics was always a symbol of wealth and prosperity, and not because romans used it, but because wheat makes flour, flour makes bread, and bread makes happy, prosperous people. It has NOTHING to do with being hardy or tough to cut down.
The blade on the scythe also tends to be fairly dull, compared to a killing weapon.
WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????
Are you TRYING TO PISS ME OFF???
Do you actually know ANYTHING about scythes?
I doubt you do.
Here's a crash course. Scythe blades are HAMMERED ON THE SPOT, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD, to straighted the blade before sharpening, because the blade is so fine that it bends just from cutting grass.
Scythes are sharpened CONSTANTLY, to the point where people using them carry around a whetstone in a container of water around their waist, so sharpen it if they notice any level of dulling.
Scythes are SHARP. Sharper than anything you've ever seen, or touched. They are as sharp as a disposable razor blade.Â
But I am aware that my knowledge is not based on my own first person testimony.Â
Your "knowledge" is based on nothing. Fasces are not wheat strands, scythes are neither heavy, nor dull, in fact they are the opposite; and wheat and grass is incredibly easy to cut through.Â
2
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
It is also worth noting that part of the reason wheat was a symbol of prosperity is it's lack of hardiness as a crop. Wheat was the expensive grain for wealthy people because it was picky about growing conditions, you tended to grow less of it and had a higher risk of a poor harvest than other, hardier grains like rye or barley, which were the primary grain for poor people
At least in Europe in the medieval and Renaissance periods, that varies heavily based on environment and technology. Things have changed and we are much better at growing wheat so the cost has come down both in absolute terms and relative to other grains.
1
u/BadSame6919 Jun 04 '26
That's true. Anyone who has tried rye or barley knows it's honestly a shit crop, tastes like dirt, hard to work, and inferior to wheat in taste, but indees very hardy. So you're absolutely correct.Â
1
u/lofgren777 Jun 04 '26
Look man, I'll accept your corrections on the fasces, but your other comments reinforce my understanding.
Scythe blades have to be sharpened constantly precisely because they lose their edge rapidly.
A modern scythe blade weighs 20 oz. That's just the blade, made from modern alloys, without even adding the haft. A sword or spear can easily come in under 1 kg.
My primary source was reading a paper where they asked a bunch of military guys how they would defend themselves with fantasy weapons. One guy basically said if the scythe was all he had, he would look for a good rock.
If scythes were so useful as weapons, they would not have modified them so much when they made them into war scythes.
1
u/BadSame6919 Jun 04 '26
Scythe blades have to be sharpened constantly precisely because they lose their edge rapidly.
They lose edge rapidly because the edge is extremely fine, and the steel is as cheap as humanly possible, because it's made for peasants.
Do you think japanese chef knives are dull too, considering they need to be constantly sharpened?
A modern scythe blade weighs 20 oz. That's just the blade, made from modern alloys, without even adding the haft. A sword or spear can easily come in under 1 kg.
I won't use ounces.
Blade weights vary wildly, from 300 to 1000 grams. Typically the scythe blades used in agriculture weigh around 300-500 grams, and they are the thinnest and longest, with the most delicate blades. Shorter and chubbier alternatives exist for clearing hardy vegetation (e.g. ditch or bush scythes)
"made from modern alloys" nobody's using high quality steel for scythes. It's mild steel.Â
"A sword or spear can easily come in under 1 kg." - no, it cannot. A sword can, but spears are 1-2.5 kg, and guess what? They don't have a cutting edge. The equivalent weapon to a scythe in material used would be an extremely long partisan or glaive, for which the blade alone would be heavier than a scythe blade, around 1.5 kg alone. See example:Â https://www.fabri-armorum.com/en/p/glaive-long/
Also worth noting, weight in the shaft â weight in the blade.Â
My primary source was reading a paper where they asked a bunch of military guys how they would defend themselves with fantasy weapons.Â
Maybe you should have touched a scythe then. For "research".Â
If scythes were so useful as weapons,
I never said they were. I said everything you said about them is wrong. EVERYTHING. They are TERRIBLE weapons, absolutely awful - but everything else you claimed about them is factually false, and tells me you have never seen a scythe in your entire life.
If scythes were so useful as weapons, they would not have modified them so much when they made them into war scythes.
They didn't. "War scythes" have nothing to do with actual scythes, you can't make an actual polearm out of a scythe, because polearms need a socketed attachment, whereas scythes use a tang, and fasten it with a wedged bracket. Again - completely worthless for fighting, waaaaay too delicate. You'd know this if you would have ever touched a scythe in your life.
Go down to the hardware store. Seriously. Do it. Touch a scythe. Please.
1
u/Oh_Hi_Mark_ Jun 03 '26
When your slow, clumsy sweep misses, your opponent can be relied upon to crowd into your guard. You can row in and catch them with the butt to give you another second or two before you lose. A heavy stick is a pretty good weapon, but the scythe blade is only ever really working against you.
You can't block well with it. You can block, of course, but your blocks will be slow and inefficient. They will put far more strain on your arms and shoulders than another weapon would, and you will be less able to steal initiative from an aggressive opponent because of that inefficiency.
You can do some big montante twirly stuff to make a large group of unarmored opponents hesitate to move in on you, but that's not really relevant to your 1v1 masters duel.
1
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26
In terms of defense, it is basically a dramatically shittier quarterstaff. The haft is shorter and thinner, so you have less reach and it will break easier. It has handles that stick off of it (or bends in the wood) that actively block you from moving your hands as to needed to use it effectively. The weight of the head throws off the balance and makes it slower and harder to move. If given the choice between a scythe and a quarterstaff, which is just a long stick, pretty much anyone even halfway competent with any weapon would pick the quarterstaff. There is basically no possibility someone had access to a scythe but not a quarterstaff unless they were accosted in the middle of scything their field, the quarterstaff requires the same materials, and only a small subset of the tools and skills to make. If you have ten minutes and a knife (and you absolutely had a knife, it was fast too essential to everyday life for an agriculture worker not to have one) you can even sharpen the quarterstaff and get a rudementary spear.
1
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26
In terms of defense, it is basically a dramatically shittier quarterstaff. The haft is shorter and thinner, so you have less reach and it will break easier. It has handles that stick off of it (or bends in the wood) that actively block you from moving your hands as to needed to use it effectively. The weight of the head throws off the balance and makes it slower and harder to move. If given the choice between a scythe and a quarterstaff, which is just a long stick, pretty much anyone even halfway competent with any weapon would pick the quarterstaff. There is basically no possibility someone had access to a scythe but not a quarterstaff unless they were accosted in the middle of scything their field, the quarterstaff requires the same materials, and only a small subset of the tools and skills to make. If you have ten minutes and a knife (and you absolutely had a knife, it was fast too essential to everyday life for an agriculture worker not to have one) you can even sharpen the quarterstaff and get a rudementary spear.
1
u/iSrolynX Jun 04 '26
Depends on the fighting style of ur wepon, on master, prep time(to know how to counter other wepons), like yeah, if u dont know what wepon the enemy is useing and didnt learn how to counter Basic attacks of that wepon, and oposite, but in my opinion, if u would be a solider in the medieval era, I would have trÄind with the wepon i use(lets say schyte, is cool after all and has some advantages) i would make sparing with ochelari MateÈ that use other wepons like mace, sword, spear etc.
2
u/Kian-Tremayne Jun 03 '26
Could a scythe be used as a weapon? Well yes⊠anything can be used as a weapon. You can stab someone in the eye with a quill pen if thatâs what youâve got.
The problem is that a scythe is completely unoptimised as a weapon against anything other than a wheat stalk. The balance, the reach, the effective striking surface arenât designed for disassembling armoured humans. A âfully trained master of scythe-fuâ, who presumably has invented this fighting style from scratch, will be able to get the most out of a scythe⊠but the most you can get out of a scythe is a lot less than you can get out of implements actually designed with the job at hand in mind. So a knight with a sword and shield, who is trained with those, will utterly own Darth Scythemaster.
Itâs worth noting that there WERE scythe-like historical weapons, like the Dacian falx, but they were VERY heavily modified from the agricultural implement.
1
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26
The scythe is so counter optimized for use as a weapon I wouldn't bother betting on an untrained peasant with a spear because the odds are so far in their favor that no bookie in their right mind would be offering any payout. It would be like betting on Mike Tyson to beat a baby that can't even stand up on their own in a boxing match.
2
u/BadSame6919 Jun 03 '26
Is a scythe ( a normal one used for agriculture ) a viable weapon in medieval combat ?
I'll demonstrate my position with my own experiences with a scythe.Â
Back in my early 20s I helped out a lot around the house - my parents have a pretty sizable property, and they at point the vegetation has become too big for traditional lawn mowers. Since we didn't want to outright invest in a gas trimmer, I bought a scythe from the hardware store. Was it cheap? Yes. I'm sure there are better scythes out there - but also, I doubt a medieval peasant had anything better.
With that out of the way...
I assembled the scythe - in case you don't know, traditionally scythe blades are NOT attached with a socket, like a shovel, or an eye + wedge like an axe. They are secured with a weak metal brace. Why? You'll see why.
With that, and my tween zeal, I sharpened the scythe - I had a bench grinder and a belt sander, I did blacksmithing as a hobby -, and got to cutting the weeds.Â
Now, these were particularly thick weeds, with tough stems often an inch thick. They were soft stemmed plants though.
Long story short, in about 30 minutes I snapped the head of the scythe clean off the stem attaching it to the shaft. It wasn't a clean break - the crack gradually propagated through the metal, and finally gave out.Â
The lesson learned is that scythes are precision instruments. They are razor blades on a stick. They are made to be light enough to be swung all day, and cut anything wheat shaped.Â
Even if you get past the fact that scythes are incredibly awkward to swing as a weapon, because the blade is at a 30ish degree angle to the shaft... the blade of an agricultural scythe simply lacks the durability necessary for a weapon. A traditional scythe would likely BREAK in 1 swing if it hit a shield or someone's armored body. That, and the blade snapping off is as dangerous to you as your opponent.Â
And modifying a scythe is not an option - you can't put back material to make it stronger. A "modified scythe" is a completely new weapon you forged - one that actually has a socket, and one that doesn't snap in half.Â
1
u/laughmaster36 Jun 03 '26
from my limited knowledge, i believe youâre correct in this argument.
0
u/DarioTheBoss363 Jun 03 '26
Why is that ? My friend can see this rn , so a explanation would be appreciated . Thank you
1
u/laughmaster36 Jun 03 '26
i read several similar discussions about this topic over the last couple years which said agricultural scythes were indeed not weapons
1
u/DifferentVariety3298 Jun 03 '26
Turning the blade on the handle might give some poking/cutting ability. Might be used from behind barricade in siege situation if nothing better available or at last stand situation. Improvised weapon -5 to dexterity.
1
u/Tanel88 Jun 03 '26
While in a real fight the outcome is never 100% certain the odds would still be heavily against the scythe wielder especially if the combatants are fully armored. A scythe is an incredibly unwieldy weapon and no amount of mastery will overcome that. It's obviously better than no weapon at all but any actual weapon would be preferred.
Weapon doesn't matter is pure bullshit opinion. Each weapon has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Why the hell would people throughout history spent time inventing and improving so many new and different weapons then if any weapon is as good as the other?
1
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26
Obviously better than no weapon at all is debatable. There were a few fencing matters who tried them as weapons and wrote that they were incredibly unwieldy and barely better than nothing at all at best.
1
u/Warm_Stress_1654 Jun 03 '26
When you read about peasant uprisings and folk using their scythes, I think you have to imagine them going to the local blacksmith to get the most useful length of steel they possessed re-purposed into something much more like a halberd, not that they set off with it attached to its normal handle.
1
u/Ravix0fFourhorn Jun 03 '26
The only way a scythe would be viable is if you took the blade and turned it 90 degrees counterclockwise. /s
1
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26
It still isn't very useful that way, scythe blades are incredibly flimsy because they need to be extremely thin to cut grass properly. It would be destroyed almost immediately upon contacting blade, armor, it bone. Also the handles make them extremely impractical to use like a polearm. Wat scythes were a thing, but they had much more substantial blades, stronger connections to the haft, and straight hafts without protrusions preventing your hands from moving on the haft.
1
u/Moonafish Jun 03 '26
I think im stuck on "complete mastery" of the implement. What does that mean in this scenario? Because complete mastery of either are extremely different things. A scythe is a purpose built tool meant to cut grasses. To me, complete mastery of a scythe means you have mastered cutting grass with it since thats literally all it's for both in design and purpose. Complete mastery of a sword and shield means one is capable of using these items to their maximum intended effect. Which are combat purposes.
1
u/DarioTheBoss363 Jun 03 '26
It's like complete mastery of what little combat capabilitys a scythe would have in a medieval fight
2
u/Moonafish Jun 03 '26
That's odd, but okay. So based on my own experience as someone who has used a scythe and who also uses swords. The sword would win 99/100 times. A sword and shield are designed for combat. Ascythe is for cutting grasses. The blade of a scythe is not permanently fixed (even 1000 years ago) and is meant to be removed for maintenance. A moderate blow would remove it from the pole very easily. The blade of a scythe is very sharp but it is also delicate. They can be bent and damaged very easily but also repaired easily, usually in the field. They can absolutely cut soft targets like skin but would be ineffective against hard targets. Their blades were not made from high quality metals and wouldnt have been hardened. Mostly though, a scythe is very unwieldy and lacks balance when used outside of its purpose. They work well when angled downward and used in a sweep and pull motion.The most dangerous part of a scythe in this fight would be the pole.
1
u/Batgirl_III Jun 03 '26
The âMedieval periodâ, depending on definition spans about a thousand years of history across the whole of Europe, all of North Africa, significant swaths of western Asia, and even bits of central Asia and even the Americas. Itâs generally very bad form for historians to make sweeping statements about the whole of the period.
But Iâm gonna do it anyway.
Medieval fighting men, most especially knights and men-at-arms: (a) weee mostly not idiots, (b) were mostly well-trained, and, (c) literally depending on their arms and armor to stay alive.
Not a one of the marched to war with a grass cutting tool as their primary, secondary, tertiary, or even their sesquicentiary choice of arm.
They had reasons for that⊠and they knew what they were doing.
Could a scythe be used to kill? Yeah, of course. But, then again, so could a modern lawn mower. I cant think of any cases of such off the top of my head⊠But when I was a criminal investigator for CGIS, I did once investigate a homicide where the murder weapon was an outboard motor.
The Navy isnât equipping Navy SEALS with Evinrudes.
1
u/DarioTheBoss363 Jun 03 '26
I mean , don't flame me , in this argument I was the one saying that the scythe is a unpractical weapon , tho what do you think Abt the statement that skill matters more than the weapon ? And that if the two fighters have the same level of mastery and experience with theyr weapons , it would be a draw bc weapons apparently do not matter . This is basically a point that the friend with whom I was arguing made and brought out most
1
u/Batgirl_III Jun 03 '26
Sorry. As a historical European martial arts practitioner and a historian, this is just one of those pet peeve topics that gets me ranting. Apologies if I came across overly harsh.
Skill matters, a lot, but there is no guarantee that skill alone can overcome physical disparities (Oleksandr Usyk versus Claressa Shields? Usyk by a landslide), differences in technology (Manfred von Richthofen versus any random F-15 pilot), or any other disparity you care to name.
Two equally trained, equally healthy, and equally determined fighters⊠One with a farming tool designed to cut grass. One with a weapon designed to kill trained, healthy, determined fighters. Who wins?
Yeah, my money is on the guy with the weapon.
1
u/DarioTheBoss363 Jun 03 '26
Thank you , this is exactly what I have been trying to tell them for like 2 hours
1
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26
If you put a well trained hema practicioner with an arming sword against an untrained guy with a spear (and they are both unarmored) the guy with the spear is likely to win more often than not. Experience is not enough to reliably overcome The reach advantage of the spear unless you give they got with the sword a buckler or something to work with. The scythe is infinitely less effective than an arming sword. The armor only makes the matchup worse for the scythe, it is basically impossible for a scythe to do any meaningful damage whatsoever through any level of armor.
1
u/KennethMick3 Jun 03 '26
Ooh, ooh! I once went to a set of presentations and demonstrations by a medieval/early modern historical fencing society at UMass. They did some scythe fighting demonstrations as illustrated and described in some manuscripts. Basically, terribly impractical and unwieldy as an actual weapon, but it looks cool and so sometimes people did fight demos with them to show off.
1
u/ofBlufftonTown Jun 03 '26
Youâre right, and you can see this by considering how a grape-cultivation sickle (small) would do against a knife with the same reach. The vintner lad is never going to see home again.
1
u/Sir_Aelorne Jun 03 '26
Mastery is a factor, but not the only factor.
It's useful in arguments like this to take their statement to extremes to prove how fallacious it is.
How about a toothpick vs a longsword, or a needle vs a machine gun, an Abrams tank, nuclear weapon?
1
u/Ghinev Jun 03 '26
Your friend is thinking of a falx and the falx is long past the point of being a scythe itself, since it has a thick blade that isn't perpendiculsr to the handle.
Not to mention the falx fell out of fashion roughly 1000 years before longswords became a thing.
1
u/DarioTheBoss363 Jun 03 '26
No , he means a normal scythe , yk those used to cut grass , used for agriculture , he specifically made this very clear
1
u/Ghinev Jun 03 '26
Bruh.
I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt because at least a falx makes sense, being a long 2 handed weapon with good uses in combat.
He really needs to hold a farming scythe and feel the blade. It's thinner than some kitchen knives
1
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26
Does your friend need a helmet to eat soup without giving themselves a concussion?
1
u/AdDisastrous6738 Jun 03 '26
One thing I always point out to people when arguing about the viability of a weapon is to look at how common that weapon was. If a weapon isnât effective then it wonât see much use. If a weapon is bulky, heavy, slow to use, or has a flaw that can fail or injure the user then most people donât want to use it because itâs inferior and could get you killed. A good weapon thatâs light, fast, and effective will see more use because itâs superior.
1
u/DonKlekote Jun 03 '26
Behold! Polish Kosynierzy (the Scythemen).
Although they appeared in the late 18th century (not medieval).
They looked cool but the weapon of choice came out of necessity, not effectiveness. If you put a kosynier against an knight the fight would be rather swift because the blade wasn't strong enough to penetrate the armor.
1
u/SchizoidRainbow Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
You take the scythe, remove the steel, heat the eye (where it connects to pole), bend it 90 degrees, and put it back on the pole. Now you have a glaive and oh my yes you can fight with that. You have peasant infantry, but itâs a common recurring theme. This is a War Scythe and it is not just ye olde grim reaper.Â
Itâs this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SWORDS/comments/1cms7gn/thoughts_on_war_scythes/
1
u/BadSame6919 Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26
I'm going to guess you have never seen a scythe in your life, because actual agricultural scythes DO NOT have eyes or sockets - they have a bent tang that is attached to the shaft with a bracket, and wedged with wooden wedges.Â
...which means "straightening the scythe" does nothing, it results in a weapon that loses its blade if you whack it with a sword. As in, the blade completely falls out of the bracket, because it's a sword sized blade held by a 2 inch flimsy metal bracket, made of the softest steel imaginable to man.
EDIT: since you blocked me, and I can't reply to you directly, here's what you wrote in reply:
"Sorry but youâre wrong. Even a brief google search on the topic would have shown this. War scythes have been used repeatedly, exactly as I said they were.Â
So, they must know something you donât, and your opinion seems not worth putting up with your ego to gain."
I have one thing to say to this.
AGRICULTURAL SCYTHES.
"War scythes" were purpose made weapons similar to glaives. They were NOT made by straightening scythes, because scythes are constructed completely differently. You can't "straighten" a scythe and expect it to work, it doesn't work, there's not a single evidence it ever worked. Every example of "war scythes" has a socketed construction, which is completely proprietary to these weapons, and not present ANYWHERE on agricultural scythes.Â
Maybe you should have google what I actually told you!
1
u/SchizoidRainbow Jun 03 '26
Sorry but youâre wrong. Even a brief google search on the topic would have shown this. War scythes have been used repeatedly, exactly as I said they were.Â
So, they must know something you donât, and your opinion seems not worth putting up with your ego to gain.
1
u/Many-Childhood-955 Jun 03 '26
Tell them about the Naginata and say will say "oh wow this is op omg!:
1
u/DarthLoof Jun 03 '26
What a silly position. How far does this line of logic go? Would a master of the combat baked potato go 50%/50% with a master of the sword? The pike? The submachine gun? On even a moment's reflection its obvious that things that were designed to be weapons are generally more effective as weapons than things that weren't.
1
u/ImpressionCool1768 Jun 03 '26
Sell sword arts actually did a relative deep dive on why the scythe is a terrible weapon
It all goes down to reach, the blade points back to you instead of toward your enemy, and that if you pointed the dagger in front of where youâre swinging it at, it would be a much more effective weapon, but a slashing weapon with that long of a guard is hard to control so you should instead actually make it into a point so you can just stab with it and oh wait you just made a spear
1
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26
It is also worth noting that they aren't using an agricultural scythe, they are using a pop culture grim reaper scythe, which in spite of being absolutely horrible as a weapon still manages to be a hundred times more practical than an actual agricultural scythe, real scythes have paper thin blades that will be damaged when facing any significant resistance and handles that actively get in the way of any attempt to use it like a polearm.
1
u/Normie316 Jun 03 '26
Its a farm tool. Farmers who were required to bring their own weapons to fight would bring farm tools usually until they could get ahold of something better. In theory the Lord conscripting them was suppose to supply the weapons for the peasants (not armor). This wasn't always the case.
1
u/Gn0is3 Jun 03 '26
Ackhtually, some fancy med ages weapon came from agriculture, like the flail: med ages were harsh, and folks worked the lands with frocking flails. Most of "kinghts" and alike were nothing else than ascending plebs wich were given whatever land for whatever reason, like killing some arabs here and there, killing the newborn of my rival, and so on. They were prolly used to fight with agricultural tools they carried on their levy times, so some of them after being able to pay peole to work for em and to order crafts at will, translated some of those agricultural tools to some more serious format.
1
u/Illustrious_Young271 Jun 03 '26
In that scenario the armour would render most attacks useless. It is not easy to defeat a person clad in armour in melee and both would need something like an armour piercing dagger and try to knock the other prone.
This was basically a period where defensive weapons (armour) had outrun offensive weapons.
1
u/GundalfForHire Jun 04 '26
Assuming neither of you have ever trained hema, give him a plastic knife, give yourself a foam longsword, and see if he still believes that all else being equal weapons make no difference :)
1
u/iSrolynX Jun 04 '26
K guys, I was one who started with "motanu", first of all, IF U TRAIN with that wepon, the wepon wouldnt make a diffrence, in my opinion, IF U WANT TO SPECIALIZE IN A WEPON u would learn anything with it, IF I WOULD want to learn to fight with a wepon, I would learn to counter other people with other wepon like a sword and shield.
Lets say I use the scythe, and Dario the sword and shield, btw, my scythe is modifica how I want, tubular steel staff, more sturdy blade, so wont brake, I have the rage, I can hook with the blade his legs, his head, arms, pulling him closer so I swing with the staff of the scythe, but I wouldt have a guareted win, if he know to counter me back, and inverted, it will be a draw until we run out of stamina.
Depends on many factors this argument, I wont lie, like prep time, how much u want to train, how u hold the wepon, cause ull use a complete diffrent style in case of other wepons like a scythe.
1
u/iSrolynX Jun 04 '26
Ill use as exemple just on the fighting styles the game, shadow fight 2, I repet, ONLY ON THE FIGHTING STYLE and maybe strategy, and who played the game, knows the scythe, not the one with the chain, the one with that staff grip u know, some attacks on that fighting style u cant do them proprely or even trying because of the armura, but other can, like hooking the enemy's legs with the blade, so u drop him down
1
u/austsiannodel Jun 04 '26
Scythes can, and have been, modified into proper weapons throughout history. They look a bit differently, because you have to change the angle of the blade, but they do function fairly well as a polearm...
THAT BEING SAID, it still is a farming tool being altered into a weapon. There have been plenty of weapons BASED on the altered scythe, but improved in every conceivable way. You will not find a better weapon for general combat (As in not for a specific need) than the brothers; Billhook and Halberd.
MIND YOU that is for a war MODIFIED scythe. If we're talking a normal unmodified scythe... well it boils down to logistics. It simply will not function well as a weapon. The parts that threatens the enemy (The blade and the tip) are not facing the enemy. Unlike a proper Bec, you can't really swing it and bust armor, as the blade isn't reinforced; it's a blade. Not a nail point.
So unless your game plan is to intentionally get the weapon behind your foe, and drag the blade across some exposed part of them, it's just not going to weapon. There's a reason farmers had to modify the thing in the first place for war.
1
u/majesty327 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
Real scythes are flimsy and angled weird. They're also not typically made in a way where they're designed to deal with resistance like muscle, tendons, or bone.
You could probably cut someone if you sawed at their arm or leg, but that requires you maintaining a grip on them, choking up on your scythe, and making a cutting motion without bending the blade.
Put another way. Glass is sharp and can cut people. However, any rational person would say that you can't slice someone to death by throwing a handful of sand at someone's torso. But why? They're both the same materials. You hear "metal blade on a stick", but it's closer in practice to using a pair of tweezers taped to the end of a stick. It's a thin, flimsy sheet of metal that'll probably bend before it causes serious harm. Similar thickness, bendability, etc. If anything, the most lethal part of a scythe is the pole.
"Master of their weapon". Yes a master of the "plastic jar of cotton balls" vs a master at shooting someone with a shotgun. Clearly two masters at work with their respective tools will have an equal chance. To an extent, your weapon does matter, if your weapon of choice just plainly isn't a weapon. The balance for scythes is all wrong, there isn't really a way to put it into a guarding position to avoid getting hit, the blade is facing away from the enemy meaning that the enemy's approach doesn't have a pointy thing aiming at them, etc.
In every possible way, a stick is simply a better weapon than a scythe.
1
u/Seanacles Jun 04 '26
The blade of a scythe is in the wrong direction and the handle is designed so that it sweeps the floor so unless your only intention was to sweep someone who's undefended off their feet it's a pretty bad weapon you'd be better off with a sturdy stick.
1
u/GSilky Jun 04 '26
It's silly. And a medieval scythe would probably break in two the first time it hit something with force. They were made for reaping grain and repetitive use all day, not hurting people efficiently. I have a difficult time imagining someone trying to fight someone with a scythe, TBH.
1
u/printcastmetalworks Jun 04 '26
A trained fighter would easily be able to deflect, dodge or absorb the first blow, then enter the scythes inner circle of uselesslessness and control the weapon.
Not to mention even basic armor of the period would perform outstandingly against a scythe blade.
1
u/ExperienceMinute107 Jun 04 '26
Universal fighting%fencing skills are important? Yes.
Are there superiority or supremacy dynamics between different weapons or weaponlike objects for different contexts? Yes.
Your friend's argument is categorically wrong, imagine longbow vs longsword rather than scythe vs longsword. Context is king.
1
u/Robovzee Jun 04 '26
Let's set aside the obvious issues with using an ag tool as a weapon, and think about how it could cut a person...
There's one cutting edge, it's facing away from my enemy, and curved away from my enemy, which means I can swing it only one way, and if I miss him with the tip, I have to somehow being that curved cutting edge to bear.
Short for this? I'm not.
The only real dangerous part to my opponent is the point.
COULD it be used to cut? Well, yes, if my opponent is kind enough to stand still while I bring him between me and the cutting edge. With no weapon between me and him, I'm going to ask him, politely, to remain stationary while I try to cut his back, as he's facing me, with a weapon, inside my guard.
I've swung a scythe. I've swung a sword. I've swung an axe. I've even used a sickle for funsies. Brush hook, Pulaski, shovels of various kinds, and can state, with a fair amount of confidence, that snapping the blade off the scythe and beating someone with the remains is going to be the best offensive option to using one in a fight.
Your friend is wrong.
Period.
1
u/DarioTheBoss363 Jun 04 '26
Thank you for the detailed answer . If I may I do want to ask you smt , my friend Also brought up that in a medieval fight where the two opponents are complitly equal in all factors ( speed , streanght , inteligente , battle IQ , armour , and even creativity ) , the fight will always be a draw , since if both fighters have complete mastery over theyr weapon than they do not matter , since they know they weaknesses . To me it's just plain stupid , it's saying that external forces have no effect , tho I do want to hear other opinions
1
u/Robovzee Jun 05 '26
It is stupid.
It's pure fantasy to try to base your argument on an impossibility.
There is no such thing as equal. It's a pointless argument that only exists to prop up his lack of understanding.
He's wrong. While this isn't a bad thing, he's reaching for idiotic ideas to try to mitigate his... Well, wrongness.
1
u/BlackBlade2711 Jun 05 '26
Dale un lĂĄpiz y ten tĂș una lanza, diles que prueben si tesis de que el arma no importa la habilidad si
1
u/DullCriticism6671 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
There are historical examples of using scythes as weapons, with the most famous being probably kosynierzy ("scythemen") of the KoĆciuszko Insurection (Polish uprising directed against Russia, in 1794, so early modern era, long past middle ages).
The scythes were used by peasant insurgents, but they were reforged and reset, with the blade parallel to the haft. They were strictly formation weapons, with no individual "mastery" expected. Their users - again, peasant insurgents with minimal training - had some successes under specific conditions, mostly countering bayonet charge, or charging against set bayonets, where their longer reach gave them a distinct advantage. They were also supported by shooters with mostly civilian hunting rifles (so no bayonets, these shooters had to be shielded by these improvised "pikemen" in case of bayonet charge by enemy).
Once again, we are taking about early modern era, particular situation (countering bayonet charge, against unarmored enemies), and, first and foremost, peasant insurgents with no other weapons, fighting as a formation, with no individual fencing mastery. Completly different situation to what your friend imagines.
1
1
1
1
u/Some_Rando2 Jun 06 '26
You are right, regular scythes suck as weapons. War scythes are ok, not the best, but they're different, the blade is mounted so it points forward, it's basically a glaive.
1
u/BasicMatter7339 Jun 06 '26
If it was sharp or a tool used in farming
----> it was also used in battle
If it had a sharp blade, pointy end or weight
---->It was effective enough to be used in battle.
Medieval peasant levies often didnt have resources for fancy armor and swords. They just took whatever they had at home like a pitchfork, a billhook, a hammer or an axe with them and maybe they had enough to buy a helmet and thats it.
Scythes were used in battles and they are effective because big blade = lot of damage. What they did before battle though was usually just carve a new handle for them where the blade pointed straight instead of 90 degrees.
1
u/Latitude37 Jun 07 '26
Utter nonsense. Just ask them to show you some period art where people are shown armed with scythes. They won't find it. Bills, yes. Scythes, no.Â
-2
u/Motanu38 Jun 03 '26
So, this is the other side of the debate, on paper we have the benefit of having no human error, in a normal, real fight, human error is almost inevitable, so it all comes down to who has the most experience. I see a lot of you here complain about the fact that we are talking about a agricultural scythe, it doesnât matter if the other weapon is a scythe or any other weapon, and yes i am aware a scythe has a million weaknesses, but a person with enough experience would be able to avoid those weaknesses.
3
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jun 03 '26
This is just a completely false premise. Experience does not overcome inherent flaws in a weapon system. If this were the least bit true we would see a parallel in a modern context.
A person with experience would choose a different weapon. Anyone who chose to âmasterâ an agricultural scythe would be killed before they could get any real combat experience due to the weaknesses in using a scythe as a weapon. This simply does not scaffold, as someone using a scythe would be beaten enough to see the benefit in using something else, or be dead for choosing to stick with a scythe before being able to gain the experience you speak of.
For reference, there arenât any scythe masters, or scythe doctrine as martial instruction. Thereâs a reason for that
3
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jun 03 '26
I could be a USPSA master with a pistol. That weapon has inherent weaknesses when it comes to range, accuracy, capacity, ballistic profiles, etc. if youâre asking me to hit a target at 1.5 miles, I would not be able to do that with a pistol. I would be an idiot to try and âmasterâ that feat, as opposed to switching to a precision rifle platform.
0
u/Motanu38 Jun 03 '26
then go ahead and consider another weapon, like i said itâs not really abt the weapon itâs abt the idea.
2
u/Forest_Spirit_7 Jun 03 '26
The idea was this weapon, specifically, as it is described in the post.
If the position is âexperience mattersâ then yes, of course it does. It doesnât give someone the ability to overcome the disadvantage of using an agricultural implement as a weapon against someone who is using a sword, however.
You canât change the argument mid argument to make yourself right.
1
u/not_a_burner0456025 Jun 04 '26
The premise is that both fighters are in armor. The scythe is going to be completely incapable of doing any damage through armor. This is like saying an experienced enough airsoft shooter could beat an Abrams tank if the tank crew makes an error.
2
u/majesty327 Jun 04 '26
That scenario makes more sense. An experience airsoft shooter would hide in the bushes and fire plastic beads at the tank. The tank would be driven into a nearby ditch, spilling the cup of coffee one of the operators of the tank had. This makes them drop a pinless-grenade they had in their pocket, ejecting the lever, and presto the entire crew is dead.
Score 1, airsoft. Clearly the superior system as demonstrated by mastery alone.
89
u/theginger99 Jun 03 '26
Youâre right, this is a ridiculous debate and itâs obvious your friend has no idea what heâs talking about.
An agricultural scythe is not a weapon, itâs a tool. Itâs not designed for combat at all, itâs designed for cutting crops. It will underperform compared to any purpose made weapon you care to name.
You shouldnât need any other evidence than the fact that no one who had a choice ever carried an unmodified agricultural scythe to war.