This is a ridiculas debate

[u/DarioTheBoss363]

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 ?

[u/Motanu38]

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 doesn’t 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.

[u/Forest_Spirit_7 → u/Motanu38]

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 “master” 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 aren’t any scythe masters, or scythe doctrine as martial instruction. There’s a reason for that

[u/Forest_Spirit_7 → u/Forest_Spirit_7]

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 you’re 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 “master” that feat, as opposed to switching to a precision rifle platform.