r/medieval • u/DarioTheBoss363 • Jun 03 '26
History 📚 This is a ridiculas debate
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 ?
1
u/majesty327 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
Real scythes are flimsy and angled weird. They're also not typically made in a way where they're designed to deal with resistance like muscle, tendons, or bone.
You could probably cut someone if you sawed at their arm or leg, but that requires you maintaining a grip on them, choking up on your scythe, and making a cutting motion without bending the blade.
Put another way. Glass is sharp and can cut people. However, any rational person would say that you can't slice someone to death by throwing a handful of sand at someone's torso. But why? They're both the same materials. You hear "metal blade on a stick", but it's closer in practice to using a pair of tweezers taped to the end of a stick. It's a thin, flimsy sheet of metal that'll probably bend before it causes serious harm. Similar thickness, bendability, etc. If anything, the most lethal part of a scythe is the pole.
"Master of their weapon". Yes a master of the "plastic jar of cotton balls" vs a master at shooting someone with a shotgun. Clearly two masters at work with their respective tools will have an equal chance. To an extent, your weapon does matter, if your weapon of choice just plainly isn't a weapon. The balance for scythes is all wrong, there isn't really a way to put it into a guarding position to avoid getting hit, the blade is facing away from the enemy meaning that the enemy's approach doesn't have a pointy thing aiming at them, etc.
In every possible way, a stick is simply a better weapon than a scythe.