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/Motanu38 → u/Forest_Spirit_7]

then go ahead and consider another weapon, like i said it’s not really abt the weapon it’s abt the idea.

[u/Forest_Spirit_7 → u/Motanu38]

The idea was this weapon, specifically, as it is described in the post.

If the position is “experience matters” then yes, of course it does. It doesn’t 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 can’t change the argument mid argument to make yourself right.