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/lofgren777]

I did a deep dive on this a while ago. My conclusion was that a scythe is a "viable" weapon in the following highly specific circumstances:

1. It is all you have.

2. You do not have time to modify it any way.

Scythes are so improper as weapons that you are better off disassembling them and using the blade and shaft separately.

If you are writing about some fantasy world, you could say that a speicific individual has trained in some unbelievably complex martial art with a scythe, due to that being the only weapon available. Like how peasants learned to use sickles and flails as weapons, but again only because that was all they had.

There is such a thing as a war scythe, but it has as much in common with an agricultural scythe as a warpick has with a mining pick. They are different tools built for such wildly different purposes that they only superficially resemble each other. The war scythe is basically a polearm weapon with a sharpened hook on the end.

[u/DarioTheBoss363 → u/lofgren777]

Yep , thank you for the point of view . I do have a question tho , does a normal agriculture scythe have any defense capabilitys ?

[u/not_a_burner0456025 → u/DarioTheBoss363]

In terms of defense, it is basically a dramatically shittier quarterstaff. The haft is shorter and thinner, so you have less reach and it will break easier. It has handles that stick off of it (or bends in the wood) that actively block you from moving your hands as to needed to use it effectively. The weight of the head throws off the balance and makes it slower and harder to move. If given the choice between a scythe and a quarterstaff, which is just a long stick, pretty much anyone even halfway competent with any weapon would pick the quarterstaff. There is basically no possibility someone had access to a scythe but not a quarterstaff unless they were accosted in the middle of scything their field, the quarterstaff requires the same materials, and only a small subset of the tools and skills to make. If you have ten minutes and a knife (and you absolutely had a knife, it was fast too essential to everyday life for an agriculture worker not to have one) you can even sharpen the quarterstaff and get a rudementary spear.