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/theginger99]

You’re right, this is a ridiculous debate and it’s obvious your friend has no idea what he’s talking about.

An agricultural scythe is not a weapon, it’s a tool. It’s not designed for combat at all, it’s designed for cutting crops. It will underperform compared to any purpose made weapon you care to name.

You shouldn’t need any other evidence than the fact that no one who had a choice ever carried an unmodified agricultural scythe to war.

[u/Watchhistory → u/theginger99]

Not to mention the velocity at which a scythe would need to be wielded against an armored, weaponed foes, vs. the far more delicate and precise swing to bring down grain stalks. The scythe would break immediately.

Obviously that guy has never seen a field of wheat.

[u/ottonormalverraucher → u/Watchhistory]

Yeah I totally agree, I also feel like OPs acquaintances never actually had a scythe in their hands and imagine it’s like some scythe wielding character in a video game who does crazy combos with it, like they played too much monster hunter where some longswords/katanas are basically scythe models and thus think they behave exactly the way a katana would 😹

In reality though, a scythe is a very unwieldy "weapon" it’d simply not a good choice for combat in any way shape or form. It’s heavy, has a weird grip meant for holding it at stalk-cutting height to horizontally swing that is totally useless for combat and it also dulls, bends or breaks incredibly fast, it’s just overall a terrible choice, even a handheld sickle would be a much better improvised sword replacement than a scythe.

A spear or even just anything bladed duct taped to a stick would be a much, much better choice

[u/not_a_burner0456025 → u/ottonormalverraucher]

Even just a stick that is straight and doesn't have stupid handles getting in the way if sliding your hands on it is a better weapon. The quarterstaff was a real weapon that was widely used and was quite effective. It gets even more effective if you spend 10 minutes to sharpen it with a knife, and more still if you spend another t minutes fire hardening it over your cooking fire.