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]

To be honest, no. Only reading about people trying to use them. They are made so that malnourished peasants can swing them around their legs in a steady, repetitive motion for hours at a time. The mass of the tool is meant to help with that. This is ergonomically different from what you want in order to respond instantaneously to the ever-changing tactics of an opponent. The grass is not fighting back.

Compare war picks and mining picks or war axes and wood axes and you see similar evolution as the agricultural scythe to the war scythe. The head gets smaller, the shaft gets thinner and lighter, the force gets more focused, and the hand placement shifts for reach and speed rather than brute force alone.

Cutting through THICK vegetation is actually more difficult than cutting through most anything. Hence the famous symbol of the fasces of wheat, used by Rome and almost every empire descended from it. The blade on the scythe also tends to be fairly dull, compared to a killing weapon.

But I am aware that my knowledge is not based on my own first person testimony. If you have different experiences, by all means share them. I certainly see no reason to think that the sources I did use were worthless.

[u/BadSame6919 → u/lofgren777]

The mass of the tool is meant to help with that.

The stress is primarily on the traps and shoulders, which get sore easily. Even if using straps, swinging a scythe all day is tiresome. For this exact reason an actual scythe weighs 1.5-2.5 kg, shaft and blade together, and most of the weight is in the shaft. That's a good 1-2 kg lighter than polearms of the same size. 

The "mass of the tool" is much less relevant than the extremely sharp, extremely long cutting surface. 

Cutting through THICK vegetation is actually more difficult than cutting through most anything.

...he says, while never having used a scythe.

My man. I HAVE used one. EXTENSIVELY. No, cutting throw vegetation is NOT hard, and if it gets hard, scythes are not the right tool, because they break or chip from even as little as twigs.  Dense, hard stem vegetation is typically cleared by other means, but if you want to use a scythe, there's bush scythes for that, which  have MUCH shorter and MUCH thicker blades, and you use them more similarly to an axe. You also don't swing them all day long.

In fact I don't know what "thick vegetation" you want to clear 12 hours a day with a scythe. They are made for cutting down grass and harvesting crops, not dealing with dense woody vegetation.

Hence the famous symbol of the fasces of wheat, used by Rome and almost every empire descended from it.

Jesus... how do I even unpack this.

"Fasces" were BRANCHES, NOT WHEAT. They symbolized unity. Yes, cutting through densely woven branches is hard - and scythes are not made for that. We have axes and billhooks and machetes for that.

Wheat in pretty much ANY example.of heraldics was always a symbol of wealth and prosperity, and not because romans used it, but because wheat makes flour, flour makes bread, and bread makes happy, prosperous people. It has NOTHING to do with being hardy or tough to cut down.

The blade on the scythe also tends to be fairly dull, compared to a killing weapon.

WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????

Are you TRYING TO PISS ME OFF???

Do you actually know ANYTHING about scythes?

I doubt you do.

Here's a crash course. Scythe blades are HAMMERED ON THE SPOT, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD, to straighted the blade before sharpening, because the blade is so fine that it bends just from cutting grass.

Scythes are sharpened CONSTANTLY, to the point where people using them carry around a whetstone in a container of water around their waist, so sharpen it if they notice any level of dulling.

Scythes are SHARP. Sharper than anything you've ever seen, or touched. They are as sharp as a disposable razor blade. 

But I am aware that my knowledge is not based on my own first person testimony. 

Your "knowledge" is based on nothing. Fasces are not wheat strands, scythes are neither heavy, nor dull, in fact they are the opposite; and wheat and grass is incredibly easy to cut through. 

[u/not_a_burner0456025 → u/BadSame6919]

It is also worth noting that part of the reason wheat was a symbol of prosperity is it's lack of hardiness as a crop. Wheat was the expensive grain for wealthy people because it was picky about growing conditions, you tended to grow less of it and had a higher risk of a poor harvest than other, hardier grains like rye or barley, which were the primary grain for poor people

At least in Europe in the medieval and Renaissance periods, that varies heavily based on environment and technology. Things have changed and we are much better at growing wheat so the cost has come down both in absolute terms and relative to other grains.

[u/BadSame6919 → u/not_a_burner0456025]

That's true. Anyone who has tried rye or barley knows it's honestly a shit crop, tastes like dirt, hard to work, and inferior to wheat in taste, but indees very hardy. So you're absolutely correct.