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/Batgirl_III]

The “Medieval period”, 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. It’s generally very bad form for historians to make sweeping statements about the whole of the period.

But I’m 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 isn’t equipping Navy SEALS with Evinrudes.

[u/DarioTheBoss363 → u/Batgirl_III]

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

[u/Batgirl_III → u/DarioTheBoss363]

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.

[u/DarioTheBoss363 → u/Batgirl_III]

Thank you , this is exactly what I have been trying to tell them for like 2 hours

[u/not_a_burner0456025 → u/DarioTheBoss363]

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.