SO in Alot of shows, games and even war hammer in someplace i see people using scythes as weapons.
But are they plausible weapons to use(not today ofcourse)
The only way i can imagine would be grandiose displays to make it work and massive amounts of agility. Most of which can be accomplished with a simple dagger or longsword.
So do they fall under the same and chain axes? Rule of cool?
In Rurouni Kenshin, there's a girl ( ) who uses a scythe, and it apparently weighs like fifty pounds, with a WOODEN staff part. Needless to say, they snap the pole part in half, and she's ( )left totally disarmed. Imagine if the pole part was metal! No way anyone would be able to make a decent weapon out of a scythe.
Chain axes are just axes with a belt of teeth running along the edge. Axes are deadly weapons, and for a CSM, I don't see the chain axe as being a problem...
No, scythes are farming implements that stayed on the farm. They're logically terrible weapons in virtually every capacity. They do nothing that isn't better done with a spear, sword, or poleaxe.
chain axes are basically giant clubs wielded by science fiction supermen. Farming scythes as weapons are just the worst thing dungeons and dragons ever tried to make mainstream.
I think the only time they'd be a weapon is if they happened to be what was on hand when a village needed to fight. Like branches, chair legs, brooms etc.
Can you kill people with it? Yes, so it is a plausible weapon. Would you be better off with a sword/axe/dagger? I would think so. Weight and general unwieldiness would make it a cumbersome and awkward weapon to use, but if you're a peasant working the fields and get set upon by bandits, a scythe might be preferable to your fists, or a rock, or even a shovel.
I suppose if you've got the skill and strength, you could be pretty efficient at beheading people. I doubt a scythe would bite into armor much, or at least as much as a stout axe could.
Necroshea wrote:Can you kill people with it? Yes, so it is a plausible weapon. Would you be better off with a sword/axe/dagger? I would think so. Weight and general unwieldiness would make it a cumbersome and awkward weapon to use, but if you're a peasant working the fields and get set upon by bandits, a scythe might be preferable to your fists, or a rock, or even a shovel.
I suppose if you've got the skill and strength, you could be pretty efficient at beheading people. I doubt a scythe would bite into armor much, or at least as much as a stout axe could.
It's incredibly unlikely they would let you behead them with your giant unwieldy blade that requires you to be two feet from them to use in that fashion. Remember, the cutting edge on a scythe is on the inside, meaning that you need a sweeping arc that comes in from behind their neck.
Scythes are designed and intended to cut grain stalks.
To define, I'm used to scythes being the really long hafted farm implement with long curved blade, and handles that facilitate using lever action to swing just above ground level.
A sickle is held in hand, with c-shaped blade, used to harvest plants at hand level.
(Wanted to define because it helps explain where I'm going)
So a scythe is optimized to minimize fatigue during the wheat harvest. Wheat can be tough, but cutting close to ground means it still needs strength to make the cut, but it is more about efficiency.
So, take that peasent who swings from sunup to sundown during the harvest. He's got the endurance to go all day, but with force to cut wheat... Not bone. Certainly not armor, and any over the head wild swing attack moves are silly. I think it could mess up horse legs, though, and would certainly work well to hamstring unarmored foes. Peasant vs peasant? Yeah, it could suck massively to be hit by one.
But, anything else? Not really feasible, IMHO.
A sickle, though, I could see as a much more effective weapon...
Considering how long humans have been killing each other and how long scythes have been around, if they were practical weapons they would have been used more often by this point and we wouldn't need to have the conversation.
Ahtman wrote:Considering how long humans have been killing each other and how long scythes have been around, if they were practical weapons they would have been used more often by this point and we wouldn't need to have the conversation.
I know, but they are just so cool looking.... it is easy to imagine them as horrendous lethal weapons! Grim reaper does use one, after all!
Ahtman wrote:Considering how long humans have been killing each other and how long scythes have been around, if they were practical weapons they would have been used more often by this point and we wouldn't need to have the conversation.
I know, but they are just so cool looking.... it is easy to imagine them as horrendous lethal weapons! Grim reaper does use one, after all!
Actually, I believe in the original artworks he is depicted as using a sword.
The scythe is also more of a play on the concept of reaping souls as wheat. The concept of the grim reaper as we know him is actually kind of contemporary.
ShumaGorath wrote:The scythe is also more of a play on the concept of reaping souls as wheat. The concept of the grim reaper as we know him is actually kind of contemporary.
Indeed, and while he is often shown carrying one, he is rarely shown using it as a weapon. Castlevania being the exception, of course.
In mediaeval times every able bodied man was required to be armed for "keeping the peace". Even peasants were equipped with some light weapons such as bows, spears and cheap swords or heavy knives. There is no way a scythe would be used as a weapon except in very desperate conditions. You would be better off with a pitchfork.
Melissia wrote:The main advantage of the scythe is that the average weapon user isn't much trained to defend against it. It's not an ideal weapon
Scythes are little more than ineffective halberds, I'm sure if you're formally trained in that sort of thing you will be able to counter a scythe user.
Samus_aran115 wrote:No, not at all. Scythes are horrible.
In Rurouni Kenshin, there's a girl ( ) who uses a scythe, and it apparently weighs like fifty pounds, with a WOODEN staff part. Needless to say, they snap the pole part in half, and she's ( )left totally disarmed. Imagine if the pole part was metal! No way anyone would be able to make a decent weapon out of a scythe.
Chain axes are just axes with a belt of teeth running along the edge. Axes are deadly weapons, and for a CSM, I don't see the chain axe as being a problem...
Did you just use an anime to prove your point? Really? Not even a quick google search? Wow.
You can kill someone with one yes, but so can a rock, and people dont consider rocks to be very dangerous either. Ive personally handled one before, goofing around at a friends house, and they are rather unwieldy TBH. Thye are really made to just sweep grains and grass out on the farm. It doesnt really segway well into a good weapon. Nothing like an axe thats for sure.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, scythes are farming implements that stayed on the farm. They're logically terrible weapons in virtually every capacity. They do nothing that isn't better done with a spear, sword, or poleaxe.
chain axes are basically giant clubs wielded by science fiction supermen. Farming scythes as weapons are just the worst thing dungeons and dragons ever tried to make mainstream.
Full on scythes yes, Short hand scythes are not as bad however.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, scythes are farming implements that stayed on the farm. They're logically terrible weapons in virtually every capacity. They do nothing that isn't better done with a spear, sword, or poleaxe.
chain axes are basically giant clubs wielded by science fiction supermen. Farming scythes as weapons are just the worst thing dungeons and dragons ever tried to make mainstream.
Full on scythes yes, Short hand scythes are not as bad however.
A "short hand scythe" is a sickle, sickles have been used worldwide as weapons for a while.
I always read the rules for scythes with vague amusement. A slash hook or sickle is an alright weapon, if not that good, but a scythe is a tool. A hammer is better weapon.
I m surprised that this thread has so many responses and not one of them has pointed out that Scythes have been used in military action on several occasions.
Is it a preferred weapon: no.
But to quickly arm a force, particularly one in rebellion straightening the blade of a scythe and mounting it on a straight haft is a time honored tradition. More inventive groups would come up with even better adaptations like straightening and then hooking the end.
So as a plausible weapon history gives it a profound yes. As a primary arm for combatants whose profession is war, a profound no.
If you wander your way over to Home Depot where the shovels are you'll find tha many farm implements are much better suited as weapons that scythes with no adaptations. Pole axes, pitch forks, axes, mauls, etc.
its not an effective weapon as folks have already said up top
i have seen firsthand however the type of damage a scythe can do
My uncle manages a sugarcane plantation and has folks with full sized and hand scythes cutting down sugarcane for hours on end
hard, dangerous work made even more dangerous by the sheer monotony of it
swipe... swipe...swipe all day long
I was 12 years old when i visited the plantation. I was sitting inside the truck waiting for the cane to be loaded on (and was happily nibbling on a cane) when everyone heard a blood curdling scream from one of the workers
apparently one of the workers kinda "tuned out" and didnt know that another guy was in the way of his scythe.
swipe.
cut a foot clean through just right above the ankle
Slarg232 wrote:The mere fact that you people underestimate and write off the Scythe makes it a terrifying weapon that will seal your DOOOOOOOooooooooo.........m
Only if I don't have a shotgun, or barring that, a good hockey puck and something called hallways.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, scythes are farming implements that stayed on the farm. They're logically terrible weapons in virtually every capacity. They do nothing that isn't better done with a spear, sword, or poleaxe.
chain axes are basically giant clubs wielded by science fiction supermen. Farming scythes as weapons are just the worst thing dungeons and dragons ever tried to make mainstream.
Full on scythes yes, Short hand scythes are not as bad however.
AustonT wrote:I m surprised that this thread has so many responses and not one of them has pointed out that Scythes have been used in military action on several occasions.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, scythes are farming implements that stayed on the farm. They're logically terrible weapons in virtually every capacity. They do nothing that isn't better done with a spear, sword, or poleaxe.
chain axes are basically giant clubs wielded by science fiction supermen. Farming scythes as weapons are just the worst thing dungeons and dragons ever tried to make mainstream.
Full on scythes yes, Short hand scythes are not as bad however.
The only time someone would ever use a scythe as a weapon is if either:
A) They are attacked by someone while already holding a scythe in their hands and don't have time to grab anything else.
B) They're not particularly used to using weapons, or a scythe, and think it would be a good weapon. The first time they try and use it, it's a tight race between him realizing how bad of a weapon it is and him being killed.
Scythes in fact have been used as weapons (I can only think of one instance). During the Seven Years War scythes were used to knock aside pikes. Are they common weapons? No. Technically the Halberd does the same thing and does it better.
There is also the War Scythe, but its really more of a spear modified from a Scythe than a Scythe itself.
The scythe has found it's way into use in fiction as a weapon through centuries worth of misinterpretation of images which depict death or the grim reaper. Which in actual fact has nothing to do with it's use as a weapon but more to do with the grim reapers' descendency from the roman god of agriculture, Saturn, and the idea that he is the harvester of souls.
Considering this, it shouldn't be expected to make the best case for a weapon.
LordofHats wrote:Scythes in fact have been used as weapons (I can only think of one instance).
I don't think anyone is claiming that a scythe has never been used to take a life, just that it is not a practical weapon. Unless it is changed to the point of being another weapon, like how the War Scythe is more spear than scythe, it doesn't make sense unless it is a desperation move. In D&D a Scythe is 2d4 +2 Proficiency, which is just terrible.
VegRAWR wrote:Using a scythe like you would use a quarterstaff would be pretty effective tho.
foes wearing full body armor were not a common sight so the scythe's armor piercing problems is not such a big deal
A pretty effective way to commit painful suicide, yes.
please do explain?
The blade is curved inward. Handling the scythe like you do a quarterstaff (other than being practically impossible giving the weighting and shape of the weapon) would result in you goring yourself.
VegRAWR wrote:Using a scythe like you would use a quarterstaff would be pretty effective tho.
foes wearing full body armor were not a common sight so the scythe's armor piercing problems is not such a big deal
A pretty effective way to commit painful suicide, yes.
please do explain?
The blade is curved inward. Handling the scythe like you do a quarterstaff (other than being practically impossible giving the weighting and shape of the weapon) would result in you goring yourself.
Seems fair enough to me. Effective/practical or not, certainly not impossible.
Ahtman wrote:I don't think anyone is claiming that a scythe has never been used to take a life, just that it is not a practical weapon.
Just because something isn't practical doesn't mean it hasn't been used as a weapon in a military manner. 'Practical' is a rather messy word in a military sense. Lots of impractical things become weapons, wicker, a random stick, the Panzer I
Sickles are also a farming implement and were developed into weapons on several occasions (Egyptian Khopesh was based off a sickle). The Thracian Flax has a similar origin. None of them were very practical weapons. Hard to make, resource consuming, rather unweildy, but then the Halberd is also rather impractical as a weapon because its so absurdly top heavy. In the end though they ended up being practical. Sickle shaped swords could grip shields or go right around them. The Flax's shape allowed it to cut right through heavy armor of the time. Halberds being so heavy cut through pikes and effectively stop a horse.
Not that I'm saying the scythe is a great weapon but it could have military application. Its problem is probably that any use I could think of for it is probably already taken by other more ideal weapons. Though I suppose there's always the rule of cool
In D&D a Scythe is 2d4 +2 Proficiency, which is just terrible.
I know little of D&D but if they did that as a joke it's hilarious
Seems fair enough to me. Effective/practical or not, certainly not impossible.
Iff he was to swipe that most of the time the enemie would hit the shaft. he would then have to pull off some maneuver to hit him with the blade.
Like a quarterstaff then? The point was it doesn't seem "impossible" like ShumaGorath says.
How does anything he described sound like what you do with a quarterstaff? Last I checked quarterstaves don't have giant knives on the end of them. Also, typhus isn't even holding a scythe. The handle to that thing is practically touching the blade. Theres absolutely no purpose for the lengthy shaft if he HAS to hold it up there. It's basically a really awful one handed axe.
Thats also a tiny toy based on a thousand pound demon infested superman in giant superarmor.
ifStatement wrote:He's wielding a scythe like you would a quarterstaff. Something you claim is impossible.
No, he's holding like you would hold an elongated piece of wood if you're standing in that exact position. Since his frozen pose is lost in time we can't really tell how he's wielding it.
ifStatement wrote:He's wielding a scythe like you would a quarterstaff. Something you claim is impossible.
No, he's holding like you would hold an elongated piece of wood if you're standing in that exact position. Since his frozen pose is lost in time we can't really tell how he's wielding it.
Also, HES NOT REAL.
I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.
ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.
Point is, it's not "impossible"
Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).
Also he's heavily armored and not proportioned like a human.
ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.
Point is, it's not "impossible"
Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).
The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.
ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.
Point is, it's not "impossible"
Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).
The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.
Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".
ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.
Point is, it's not "impossible"
Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).
The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.
Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".
Now learn what that one means.
Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.
Ahtman wrote:I don't think anyone is claiming that a scythe has never been used to take a life, just that it is not a practical weapon.
Just because something isn't practical doesn't mean it hasn't been used as a weapon in a military manner. 'Practical' is a rather messy word in a military sense. Lots of impractical things become weapons, wicker, a random stick, the Panzer I
Again, you are refuting something that isn't being argued i.e. that you can use a scythe to kill someone. Practical actually doesn't have to be that messy. You can kill someone with a rock, but an Assault Rifle would be a better choice between the two, which is why most units are assigned AR's and not big rocks. The question isn't whether it can kill, but would it be worth the time and trouble to mass produce them and spend time training people to wield them effectively in combat, and the answer for scythes is no, not even a little.
LordofHats wrote:Sickles are also a farming implement and were developed into weapons on several occasions (Egyptian Khopesh was based off a sickle).
It was already pointed out on the first page that sickles and scythes aren't the same, and that sickles have much greater use as a weapon.
LordofHats wrote:Not that I'm saying the scythe is a great weapon but it could have military application.
You could find military application for almost anything if you try hard enough, doesn't make it a good idea, even by your own admission:
LordofHats wrote:Its problem is probably that any use I could think of for it is probably already taken by other more ideal weapons.
The closest is the War Scythe, but as was shown, it is actually a spear variant, not a Scythe. Does it look cool in some contexts? Sure. Still, if you were stuck in a fight or combat zone and offered any weapon to take in which you would your life would depend, it is a very bad choice. If you don't have another option it is better than nothing, but not even close to being a mediocre option.
Ahtman wrote:In D&D a Scythe is 2d4 +2 Proficiency, which is just terrible.
I know little of D&D but if they did that as a joke it's hilarious
To give a comparison, a Great Axe is a d12 that gets extra dice on a crit hit.
ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.
Point is, it's not "impossible"
Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).
The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.
Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".
Now learn what that one means.
Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.
Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".
ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.
Point is, it's not "impossible"
Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).
The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.
Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".
Now learn what that one means.
Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.
Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".
ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.
Point is, it's not "impossible"
Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).
The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.
Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".
Now learn what that one means.
Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.
Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".
Which when used as a determiner in front of impossible means what I just said. Impossible in actuality but not in theory.
No. No that's just not what those words mean in those sequence. Ignoring the fact that the second definition I gave can't possibly be interpreted that way the first one is meant to be interpreted in the exact opposite of the way that you're running with.
ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.
Point is, it's not "impossible"
Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).
The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.
Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".
Now learn what that one means.
Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.
Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".
Which when used as a determiner in front of impossible means what I just said. Impossible in actuality but not in theory.
No. No that's just not what those words mean in those sequence. Ignoring the fact that the second definition I gave can't possibly be interpreted that way the first one is meant to be interpreted in the exact opposite of the way that you're running with.
Yes. An adjective qualifies something it does not disqualify it. Almost, for example, is not an adjective.
Ugly beauty is still beauty.
Rapid slow is still slow.
By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion. It isn't impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff in a practical fashion. It may be impossible to do it at a good degree of practicality but the statement "practically impossible" alone does not imply those conditions.
ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.
Point is, it's not "impossible"
Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).
The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.
Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".
Now learn what that one means.
Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.
Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".
Which when used as a determiner in front of impossible means what I just said. Impossible in actuality but not in theory.
No. No that's just not what those words mean in those sequence. Ignoring the fact that the second definition I gave can't possibly be interpreted that way the first one is meant to be interpreted in the exact opposite of the way that you're running with.
Yes. An adjective qualifies something it does not disqualify it. Almost, for example, is not an adjective.
Ugly beauty is still beauty.
Rapid slow is still slow.
By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion. It isn't impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff in a practical fashion. It may be impossible to do it at a good degree of practicality but the statement "practically impossible" alone does not imply those conditions.
prac·ti·cal [prak-ti-kuhl] Show IPA adjective 1. of or pertaining to practice or action: practical mathematics. 2. consisting of, involving, or resulting from practice or action: a practical application of a rule. 3. of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work: practical affairs. 4. adapted or designed for actual use; useful: practical instructions. 5. engaged or experienced in actual practice or work: a practical politician.
Given the usage scenario definitions three and four are paramount. It is impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff in a practical fashion. Hell, if you really want to be diehard about this you can't wield a scythe like a quarterstaff at all since it isn't one and we didn't establish classifications for either object.
ifStatement wrote:I'm sure if you allow your imagination to run slightly past the fact he isn't real you might be able to understand that with a similar anatomy to that model a human being is able to hold and wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. It being a stupid idea or not.
Point is, it's not "impossible"
Theres a fundamental breakdown here since he's not wielding anything. It's a depiction of him holding something and he's not holding it in the way you would handle a stave in a confrontation. He has very little leverage on it in places you would want. He's also not holding a scythe, he's holding something the artist made to kinda depict one. Its hand holds are positioned entirely wrong, the weapon would be useless for farming. Hell, for all we know he's putting that thing on a shelf or throwing it in the trash. What he's certainly not doing though is handling a scythe (which it's not) like a quarterstaff (which he's not).
The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.
Alright, you've grasped the term impossible. Good. Now look at the post that you quoted that started this all. What do you notice? You notice that I used the qualifier "practically!".
Now learn what that one means.
Putting the adjective practically in front of impossible implies that it is impossible in actuality but not in theory. Which it isn't.
Practically means "in effect, virtually" or "in a practical manner".
Which when used as a determiner in front of impossible means what I just said. Impossible in actuality but not in theory.
No. No that's just not what those words mean in those sequence. Ignoring the fact that the second definition I gave can't possibly be interpreted that way the first one is meant to be interpreted in the exact opposite of the way that you're running with.
Yes. An adjective qualifies something it does not disqualify it. Almost, for example, is not an adjective.
Ugly beauty is still beauty.
Rapid slow is still slow.
By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion. It isn't impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff in a practical fashion. It may be impossible to do it at a good degree of practicality but the statement "practically impossible" alone does not imply those conditions.
prac·ti·cal [prak-ti-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to practice or action: practical mathematics.
2.
consisting of, involving, or resulting from practice or action: a practical application of a rule.
3.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work: practical affairs.
4.
adapted or designed for actual use; useful: practical instructions.
5.
engaged or experienced in actual practice or work: a practical politician.
Given the usage scenario definitions three and four are paramount. It is impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff in a practical fashion. Hell, if you really want to be diehard about this you can't wield a scythe like a quarterstaff at all since it isn't one and we didn't establish classifications for either object.
Either way this argument is ridiculous.
Notice the second line of that definition "adjective" not adverb.
And yes the argument is ridiculous. It is clear than practically impossible is not what you meant to say by what you believe it does say. hence if you had expressed yourself better in the first place I wouldn't have refuted your statement.
In a lot of stories, people are "scythed down" so that tells me a scythe can be used as a weapon. Why, look at the movie "Jack the Giant Killer" as evidence. He killed a giant with a scythe.
If someone came looking for you in the barn, you could hide in the haymow and drop a scythe on their head and kill them.
AustonT wrote:I m surprised that this thread has so many responses and not one of them has pointed out that Scythes have been used in military action on several occasions.
When?
Ancient Egypt
1525 Peasant's Revolt
1655-1660 The Deluge
1685 Monmouth Revolt
Notice the second line of that definition "adjective" not adverb.
And yes the argument is ridiculous. It is clear than practically impossible is not what you meant to say by what you believe it does say. hence if you had expressed yourself better in the first place I wouldn't have refuted your statement.
You stated that practically impossible means impossible in a practical fashion. I agree. Lets make sure that you said that though, I'm gonna quote it.
By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion.
Oh, there it is! The definition for practically as an adverb is "in a practical manner". Practical means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work".
So yes, what I said as an adverb was correct and intends what I meant it to. What I stated as an adjective was correct and intended what I meant it to. You're being intentionally obtuse and in a childish way. You also have clearly never seen a scythe in your life.
The question though Ahtman is the scythe a "plausible" weapon, which it is. Kama's are basically miniature scythes (of course their size makes them much more practical). And they have been used in the past, mostly by angry mobs. Its just not really advisable. I actually think a rock would be much more useful in an "oh snap he's coming at me" situation
Notice the second line of that definition "adjective" not adverb.
And yes the argument is ridiculous. It is clear than practically impossible is not what you meant to say by what you believe it does say. hence if you had expressed yourself better in the first place I wouldn't have refuted your statement.
You stated that practically impossible means impossible in a practical fashion. I agree. Lets make sure that you said that though, I'm gonna quote it.
By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion.
Oh, there it is! The definition for practically as an adverb is "in a practical manner". Practical means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work".
So yes, what I said as an adverb was correct and intends what I meant it to. What I stated as an adjective was correct and intended what I meant it to. You're being intentionally obtuse and in a childish way. You also have clearly never seen a scythe in your life.
Practically is not an adverb. There is no definition for practically "as an adverb"
AustonT wrote:I m surprised that this thread has so many responses and not one of them has pointed out that Scythes have been used in military action on several occasions.
When?
Ancient Egypt 1525 Peasant's Revolt 1655-1660 The Deluge 1685 Monmouth Revolt
I don't see anything about scythes in the histories of those, but presumably peasant wielded them as weapons. When did the Egyptian military class use scythes? They used a lot of sickle like weapons, but I haven't seen any use of scythes in actual warfare.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ifStatement wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Notice the second line of that definition "adjective" not adverb.
And yes the argument is ridiculous. It is clear than practically impossible is not what you meant to say by what you believe it does say. hence if you had expressed yourself better in the first place I wouldn't have refuted your statement.
You stated that practically impossible means impossible in a practical fashion. I agree. Lets make sure that you said that though, I'm gonna quote it.
By stating something is practically impossible you are stating it is impossible in a practical fashion.
Oh, there it is! The definition for practically as an adverb is "in a practical manner". Practical means "of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work".
So yes, what I said as an adverb was correct and intends what I meant it to. What I stated as an adjective was correct and intended what I meant it to. You're being intentionally obtuse and in a childish way. You also have clearly never seen a scythe in your life.
Practically is not an adverb. There is no definition for practically "as an adverb"
LordofHats wrote:The question though Ahtman is the scythe a "plausible" weapon, which it is. Kama's are basically miniature scythes (of course their size makes them much more practical). And they have been used in the past, mostly by angry mobs. Its just not really advisable. I actually think a rock would be much more useful in an "oh snap he's coming at me" situation
Wear a dark cloak, and then it truely does become a "Oh snap, he's coming for me!" type of deal.
I bet if I could find one and find someone to use it on, I could totally use a Scyth as a weapon.
Ummm, you should probably read this. There's something in that link you need to see. It rhymes with adwerb.
So should you....
Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.”
If you look for the answer you want on the internet you will likely find it. Practically shouldn't be used as an adverb, an internet dictionary will include it to cover all bases, but it still denotes you shouldn't do it.
AustonT wrote:I m surprised that this thread has so many responses and not one of them has pointed out that Scythes have been used in military action on several occasions.
When?
Ancient Egypt
1525 Peasant's Revolt
1655-1660 The Deluge
1685 Monmouth Revolt
Still looking for verification on Ancient Egypt*, but the others are still using a scythe as an improvised weapon, not as a weapon of choice. I also imagine that there were mixed farm implements involved and that pitchforks were far more deadly as far as combat went. It goes back to being a peasant weapon, and not the best peasant weapon at that. A pitchfork, sickle, or even a machete would be more useful.
*I wouldn't call this a scythe, for example.
Spoiler:
Egyptians seemed to use sickles more than scythes. There seems to be a lot of conflation of sickles and scythes going on here.
Ummm, you should probably read this. There's something in that link you need to see. It rhymes with adwerb.
So should you....
Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.”
If you look for the answer you want on the internet you will likely find it. Practically shouldn't be used as an adverb, an internet dictionary will include it to cover all bases, but it still denotes you shouldn't do it.
Now I post the entire thing rather than your little chopped bit.
"Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.” Both uses, however, are well established and standard in all varieties of speech and writing. "
So there you have it folks. The depths to which someone will nitpick very basic language in an effort to make his model toy scythe-to-quarterstaff comparison seem valid.
Ummm, you should probably read this. There's something in that link you need to see. It rhymes with adwerb.
So should you....
Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.”
If you look for the answer you want on the internet you will likely find it. Practically shouldn't be used as an adverb, an internet dictionary will include it to cover all bases, but it still denotes you shouldn't do it.
Now I post the entire thing rather than your little chopped bit.
"Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.” Both uses, however, are well established and standard in all varieties of speech and writing. "
So there you have it folks. The depths to which someone will nitpick very basic language in an effort to make his model toy scythe-to-quarterstaff comparison seem valid.
The phrase 'wassup mofos' is also established. it doesn't make it into the OED however. There is englsh and there is correct english.
marv335 wrote:It's worth noting that Typhus's Manreaper is a terrible example, as it isn't really a scythe, it's at best a large sickle.
It's a stick with a knife coming out of the end. It's doesn't have any inherent logic to it's design. How the hell does he use it? Does he just hit people at point blank? Does he let go of the handle? Why is there a hand guard if he has to do that?
Ummm, you should probably read this. There's something in that link you need to see. It rhymes with adwerb.
So should you....
Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.”
If you look for the answer you want on the internet you will likely find it. Practically shouldn't be used as an adverb, an internet dictionary will include it to cover all bases, but it still denotes you shouldn't do it.
Now I post the entire thing rather than your little chopped bit.
"Usage note
A few usage guides object to the use of practically in the senses “in effect, virtually” and “almost, nearly.” Both uses, however, are well established and standard in all varieties of speech and writing. "
So there you have it folks. The depths to which someone will nitpick very basic language in an effort to make his model toy scythe-to-quarterstaff comparison seem valid.
The phrase 'wassup mofos' is also established. it doesn't make it into the OED however. There is englsh and there is correct english.
Are you one of those guys that gets mad every time websters adds a word to the dictionary or appends a meaning? If so I'm gonna cut off this conversation right now.
ShumaGorath wrote:Are you one of those guys that gets mad every time websters adds a word to the dictionary or appends a meaning? If so I'm gonna cut off this conversation right now.
If you had any idea what you were talking about you would have explained to me that you meant it in the adverbial sense the moment I first refuted it. Instead you've researched it as you went along. Like I said, if you search for the answer you want on the internet you will find it.
ifStatement wrote:If you had any idea what you were talking about you would have explained to me that you meant it in the adverbial sense the moment I first refuted it. Instead you've researched it as you went along. Like I said, if you search for the answer you want on the internet you will find it.
The dictionary has it listed as an adverd. If you want to have a little cry party about it then I suggest sending them a strongly worded letter. As it is you're in the minority camp and at this point you're just being petulant about it. I researched it as I went along because you forced the issue into inane territory. At every step I was correct in my use and assumptions.
How about this example. You're hiding aloft in a barn and someone
with ill intent is looking for you in there when suddenly you jump down at them.
At just the second you are lined up with their head and shoulders as though you were standing in a wheat field, you make a swipe and cut off their head?
Sounds like a plausible weapon to me at that point.
ifStatement wrote:If you had any idea what you were talking about you would have explained to me that you meant it in the adverbial sense the moment I first refuted it. Instead you've researched it as you went along. Like I said, if you search for the answer you want on the internet you will find it.
The dictionary has it listed as an adverd. If you want to have a little cry party about it then I suggest sending them a strongly worded letter. As it is you're in the minority camp and at this point you're just being petulant about it. I researched it as I went along because you forced the issue into inane territory. At every step I was correct in my use and assumptions.
No you were wrong on the base of it and have found a get out clause in an ill used adverb which makes it onto dictionary.com but not into the oed, collins or any dictionary worth reading.
ifStatement wrote:If you had any idea what you were talking about you would have explained to me that you meant it in the adverbial sense the moment I first refuted it. Instead you've researched it as you went along. Like I said, if you search for the answer you want on the internet you will find it.
The dictionary has it listed as an adverd. If you want to have a little cry party about it then I suggest sending them a strongly worded letter. As it is you're in the minority camp and at this point you're just being petulant about it. I researched it as I went along because you forced the issue into inane territory. At every step I was correct in my use and assumptions.
No you were wrong on the base of it and have found a get out clause in an ill used adverb which makes it onto dictionary.com but not into the oed, collins or any dictionary worth reading.
AustonT wrote:I m surprised that this thread has so many responses and not one of them has pointed out that Scythes have been used in military action on several occasions.
When?
Ancient Egypt
1525 Peasant's Revolt
1655-1660 The Deluge
1685 Monmouth Revolt
I don't see anything about scythes in the histories of those, but presumably peasant wielded them as weapons. When did the Egyptian military class use scythes? They used a lot of sickle like weapons, but I haven't seen any use of scythes in actual warfare.
The Princes' troops were mostly mercenaries. As such they were well equipped, were well trained, and had good morale. The peasants, in contrast, were badly equipped with scythes and flails (they mean grain flails in this case).
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Frankenhausen At Bridgwater, the shortage of regular weapons of all kinds led him to order the equipment of about 500 men with bills improvised by riveting scythe blades onto 8 ft poles. These scythemen were better armed than those who had to make do with hatchets, pitchforks or even clubs.
http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/ASH/Monmouthreb.htm
I have to drive home so you'll forgive me for not doing one each.
I'll try to find an image or quotation for scythes in Eqypt, anime does not make it easy.
As I said, they were peasants and used mixed peasants weapons.
AustonT wrote:At Bridgwater, the shortage of regular weapons of all kinds led him to order the equipment of about 500 men with bills improvised by riveting scythe blades onto 8 ft poles. These scythemen were better armed than those who had to make do with hatchets, pitchforks or even clubs.
Do you realize what you just said was that they took scythes and then turned them into polearms they were more effective than improvised peasant weapons? They change the scythes to more useful weapons. It was even posted earlier showing that a War Scythe is a type of spear/polearm, and not like a farming scythe at all.
hotsauceman1 wrote:No i like it brought up this conversation. I just didnt think a topic like this wuld get much traffic.
Sorry, my post was meant towards the guy who was throwing English dictionaries from the 1850s at me as hard as he could. There's nothing wrong with this thread. It's a perfect nerd thread.
Ahtman wrote:As I said, they were peasants and used mixed peasants weapons.
AustonT wrote:At Bridgwater, the shortage of regular weapons of all kinds led him to order the equipment of about 500 men with bills improvised by riveting scythe blades onto 8 ft poles. These scythemen were better armed than those who had to make do with hatchets, pitchforks or even clubs.
Do you realize what you just said was that they took scythes and then turned them into polearms they were more effective than improvised peasant weapons? They change the scythes to more useful weapons. It was even posted earlier showing that a War Scythe is a type of spear/polearm, and not like a farming scythe at all.
No GAK really? It's almost as if I said that's how scythes are used on the first page of this thread. Let's take a time warp.
AustonT wrote:I m surprised that this thread has so many responses and not one of them has pointed out that Scythes have been used in military action on several occasions.
Is it a preferred weapon: no.
But to quickly arm a force, particularly one in rebellion straightening the blade of a scythe and mounting it on a straight haft is a time honored tradition. More inventive groups would come up with even better adaptations like straightening and then hooking the end.
So as a plausible weapon history gives it a profound yes. As a primary arm for combatants whose profession is war, a profound no.
If you wander your way over to Home Depot where the shovels are you'll find tha many farm implements are much better suited as weapons that scythes with no adaptations. Pole axes, pitch forks, axes, mauls, etc.
Shuma asked a perfectly legitimate question: When; to which I provided an answer. If you don't like it you can take your ball and go home, crying won't change the fact that scythes have been used as a weapon for centuries which answers the question: "Is a scythe a plausible weapon?" quite cleanly.
AustonT wrote:Shuma asked a perfectly legitimate question: When; to which I provided an answer. If you don't like it you can take your ball and go home, crying won't change the fact that scythes have been used as a weapon for centuries which answers the question: "Is a scythe a plausible weapon?" quite cleanly.
You seem to be letting your emotions spiral wildly out of control over something not worth it at all. Before your panties get so twisted you have to go to the emergency, consider this: is a poleaxe the same as a scythe? If not, then it doesn't make sense to continually called modified scythes scythes and then using it to point out that they had military uses. We all know that polearms had military uses.
This is a scythe:
This is a war scythe:
when you take the blade and put it parallel to wood it stops being a scythe and becomes more of a voulge, bastiche, or glaive.
In all fairness I found one source out of several that still referred to it as just a scythe when turned into a military weapon. Still, I don't think OP was referring to this:
so much as this:
There is a huge difference between grabbing a farm implement and going off to fight, and turning a farm implement into a practical weapon before going off to a fight.
The point of a weapon, any weapon, is to give reach and, to put momentum behind the strike, to focus the point of impact, all while keeping the weapon as light as possible. A scythe would give some increased reach, but most of that would be undone by the blade facing inwards, as to threaten the target you’d have to push the blade past them before bringing it blade back in.
That said, I think it’d work reasonably well in putting momentum behind the swing, simply given the weight of the thing, though the long, curved blade would be far less effective in penetrating armour than other designs like a polearm.
The design also limits the types of attacks you can make – limiting you to swinging out past the target and bringing the attack back in.
ifStatement wrote:The model isn't pivotal to the point that it is not impossible to wield a scythe like a quarterstaff. A cat flying to the peak of killamanjaro while playing the flute, that's impossible. Wielding a staff with a blade on the end like you would a staff without a blade on the end, that's stupid yeh, difficult, yes. Impossible? No.
The point to a quarter staff is an even distribution of weight, so the attacker can quickly change angles of attack, from wielding with hands wide apart, threatening to strike with either end, to quickly switching one hand to an end with the other toward the centre and thrusting like a spear.
Having a big heavy blade on one end makes that impossible.
Did you know that folk wisdom in Bulgaria is to leave your scythe out in the weather in your yard year-round? It's supposed to get a bit rusty, so that when you hone it the rust coming off "helps to sharpen it". You do not want to get cut with one of those suckers. Not because it's especially deadly, but because tetanus (or getting another booster shot) is no fun.
My father in law taught me to mow the lawn with his scythe. It would make an impractical weapon. If you were desperate you could hold it near the end (like a polearm rather than like a scythe) and swing it, trying to impale the target, but it would certainly be unwieldy. You could even possibly hook over someone's shield, though you'd want a friend with a shield to be defending you so you didn't get run through the belly while trying this maneuver. In general trying to hook/cut with it would pretty much be a fool's errand.
OTOH if you were to remove the blade and re-mount it as a war scythe, that would be a decent spear-type weapon.
All of this has pretty much been covered already, except for the folk customs and the bit about me using one to mow the lawn.
A rusty tool won't give you tetanus necessarily, a dirty tool will; which granted a rusty tool is more likely to be.
The rust kinda might help sharpen it as a soft metal holds and edge better than hard metal. The thought being that soft metal shears away uniformly thus maintaining the edge where as a hard edge just dints.
Beyond all that a scythe would make a crappy weapon I'd think as it is meant to cut as it is drawn towards you so you'd have to encompass your foe and then swing it fast enough to catch up with him as he is running towards you, then if you do chop his head off you have a decapitated body still hurtling towards you with none of its momentum diminished.
A rusty tool won't give you tetanus necessarily, a dirty tool will; which granted a rusty tool is more likely to be.
The rust kinda might help sharpen it as a soft metal holds and edge better than hard metal. The thought being that soft metal shears away uniformly thus maintaining the edge where as a hard edge just dints.
Beyond all that a scythe would make a crappy weapon I'd think as it is meant to cut as it is drawn towards you so you'd have to encompass your foe and then swing it fast enough to catch up with him as he is running towards you, then if you do chop his head off you have a decapitated body still hurtling towards you with none of its momentum diminished.
I think this is the main reason it simply wouldnt work compared to other tools that find their way into battle. And axe/hammer you either hack or bludgeon them to death fairly easy. Where as the Scythe does what is mentioned here. Granted one could, with practice, figure out how to maneuver around the dead/dying person, it just seems to awkward all around for practical use.
And I cannot believe how ignorant some of you are on this thread. Holy hell, how can such a simple, insert your opinion question, turn into such a gak fest.
What we also seem to have forgotten is that scythes have a pointy end as well as a blade edge. As an improvised weapon, I would not attempt to hack and slash at the enemy with a scythe. Instead I would attempt to drive that nice sharp point on the end of the blade as far into their body as I can, and the cutting edge just makes it more damaging on the way out again.
Again, not the best of weapons, but still a damn lethal one...
Well for you guys across the pond, that may be, as yours are typically pointed.
Where as American versions, are typically less pointy
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not to mention, youd be using it, as a pick, and again, they have already put picks into battle, and they are used FAR better then that.
about all you can do with a scythe is sweep behind someone and give it to their tendons realyl good. if they havent stabbed you to death by then, they will be on the ground unable to move and you can poke them all you want.
really tho, scythes are heavy and a pain to swing. plausable, yes; optimal, no. i think id rather use a rake.... or a hoe... pitchfork being most preferred
I'd only opt for a scythe if I were Death from Terry Pratchett's Discworld books. Looks cool but potentially just as lethal to its wielder if they went OTT swinging it around!
RossDas wrote:I'd only opt for a scythe if I were Death from Terry Pratchett's Discworld books. Looks cool but potentially just as lethal to its wielder if they went OTT swinging it around!
RossDas wrote:I'd only opt for a scythe if I were Death from Terry Pratchett's Discworld books. Looks cool but potentially just as lethal to its wielder if they went OTT swinging it around!
I would imagine that a scythe could be used well, however, to do this you would need to form squares of warriors using the scythes as halberds, and if you're going to that much trouble just use halberds anyway.
Also, you're thinking of single people using them, in which case no, it's utterly terrible.
I think the scythe can be a weapon as a man with a scythe can attack another man and certainly kill him with it, to some extent of efficiency. However, in terms of use against another armed opponent, as everyone else has pointed out, it comes out rather short as it is either an inefficient pick or and inefficient staff. Definitely not a wartime weapon, but a psychotic's weapon.
Looking at those videos I find myself thinking how easily I could defeat them with a sword (and as an amateur LARPG player, I know how to use a sword).
I suppose a professional could do better with them, but then again they would still be no match for a professional swordsman.
p_gray99 wrote:(and as an amateur LARPG player, I know how to use a sword).
No, you know how to use a wooden/latex object that resembles a sword. Unless you do actual training with the real thing to practice.
Also, those videos: That's kind of sad, actually. I see a guy slowly swinging around what barely resembles a 'scythe' and looks more like a staff with a curvy bit at the end.
p_gray99 wrote:(and as an amateur LARPG player, I know how to use a sword).
No, you know how to use a wooden/latex object that resembles a sword against other untrained people also using wooden/latex objects resembling different weapons
^Well, we could give him the benefit of the doubt that he practices WMA, and does actually know how to handle a sword.
And before it sounds like I'm talking out of my own ass, I do have experience in martial arts - 12 years and a Black Belt in Shotokan Karate, and a year and 3rd Kyu in Kendo.
p_gray99 wrote:Looking at those videos I find myself thinking how easily I could defeat them with a sword (and as an amateur LARPG player, I know how to use a sword).
I suppose a professional could do better with them, but then again they would still be no match for a professional swordsman.
They don't weigh all that much, they are just bulky and a bit awkward. My dad purchased a German/Bavarian one to clear some acreage, and I was able to get a couple hours in with it. It's not that fun.
Well dont get too carried away with the guy being into LARP and that equating to no sword skills. My oldest brother used to practice with wooden swords and did some LARPs as well, mostly for practice, and while in the Marines, was stationed in Japan. So he took some Kendo classes with a master swordsmen as the teacher, and with only previously mentioned know how, he could and did , beat nearly half the class before learning how to actually sword fight. They were so impressed with him, that when his tour there was done, the whole class signed a Kendo stick and presented it to him as a sign of respect for his prowess with a sword. So yea, youd be surprised how much skill you can learn from beating fake Orcs in the face with duct taped sticks.
I can say, I never play with my swords, so Id bet anyone that LARPs would beat the gak out of me. Then again, Id just fething shoot emtm
KingCracker wrote:I can say, I never play with my swords, so Id bet anyone that LARPs would beat the gak out of me. Then again, Id just fething shoot emtm
KingCracker wrote:I can say, I never play with my swords, so Id bet anyone that LARPs would beat the gak out of me. Then again, Id just fething shoot emtm
KingCracker wrote:I can say, I never play with my swords, so Id bet anyone that LARPs would beat the gak out of me. Then again, Id just fething shoot emtm
Let me just say this. Anything can be plausibly be used as a weapon. Just that some things are good dedicated weapons and some things are not.
Those videos of *scythes* being used in battle, would not even remotely approximate the real thing. The metal blade would add so much momentum onto that, and weight that you'd probably not be able to use it for parrying/agile work unless you were a space marine.
Essentially, the sort of people who'd wield a scythe would be a peasant, and they wouldn't get any formal military training in medieval times. Yes, maybe it'd be good against unarmoured men, but with a good armoured shoe, or even just a boot....you could avoid a lot of damage.
By amateur LARPer, I didn't mean swinging a wooden sword at imagionary orcs as much as someone who does fencing to a low level and has friends to spend hours duelling with.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that I know how quickly a sword moves from one point to another and that it's far quicker that those scythes can move. Unless in tight blocks, I doubt that they would be able to do anything in battle.
I think that I'll try a long wooden pole to represent a scythe in my next LARPing to see how terrible it is. I'm not expecting much.
KingCracker wrote:I can say, I never play with my swords, so Id bet anyone that LARPs would beat the gak out of me. Then again, Id just fething shoot emtm
Isn't that cheating?
Not if there's no one left to call you a cheater.
I like this thinking!
Its my self defense technique, I mention it on DAKKA every now and then, to try and garner some interest in my classes
) who uses a scythe, and it apparently weighs like fifty pounds, with a WOODEN staff part. Needless to say, they snap the pole part in half, and she's ( 
