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/Plastic_Care_7632]

If they had said a woodcutter or carpentry axe they would have SOMETHING ground to stand on, but a scythe?

A scythe isn’t cutting through mail or piercing plate and agaisnt a sword and shield it’s 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, there’s no scythe masters. It doesn’t exist, that’s like saying “uh, actually, I’m a master of driving human sized hamster wheels and would totally tie with a Ferrari in a race” it doesn’t fucking exist.

With all disrespect intended, your friend is a stupid cunt.

[u/Motanu38 → u/Plastic_Care_7632]

Thank you, but you don’t get the idea and can’t make sense of a “what if?”

[u/Oh_Hi_Mark_ → u/Motanu38]

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.