I think the discussion largely dances around the key points. The first is simple enough to address: has something that is a scythe, by which I mean a farming implement, been used in warfare? Yes. Has such an implement been used to kill someone? Of course. With these two points we have established something: that the scythe has been leverage in battle and has almost certainly shed blood.
But these two points don't really address the real question. Plenty of objects can be used to end another person'[s life. A claw hammer can cave in a skull, a baseball bat can shatter bones and a sharpened stick can puncture flesh. But such things are
improvised weapons. These are objects that are created with with a purpose other than ending the life of another and, as a natural result, will generally perform worse than a purpose built weapon.
This is precisely where the scythe falls. It is a weapon of
desperation, something that is better than being unarmed but inadequate in the face of something designed specifically for the purpose of murder. A claw hammer can bash a skull but a war hammer is better suited for the purpose. A wood cutting axe can fell a man but any of a variety of battle axes are preferable for the job.
The last discussion seems to revolve around the notion of a scythe specifically designed for war. To this point I would argue that altering an object in order to make it better suited for one function (murder) at the expense of another (farming) means you are generally dealing with a different kind of object altogether.
DoctorFrankenStein said:
I LOVE scythes and sickles. As for their practicality I'll turn to the master scribe, Terry Pratchett-
"Although the scythe isn't pre-eminent among the weapons of war, anyone who has been on the wrong end of, say, a peasants' revolt will know that in skilled hands it is fearsome."
A peasant, by definition, would not represent "skilled hands", especially in the martial sense.
Jabberwock xeno said:
You can hook and grab the edges of armor, sheilds, and swords, twist and hook to pull them away, or hit the opponents body from odd angles.
The method of striking with a scythe does allow one to naturally attack the weakest points in armor. It also ensures that one has the most
difficulty landing a hit as a short pace forward will result in being hit by the haft of the weapon and, assuming one is wearing any significant armor, will result in exactly zero significant injuries. By contrast, the person holding the scythe will have enormous difficulty maneuvering the weapon for a follow up attack before the defender can counter with their own strike. A single pace back and the blade misses entirely and a follow up attack would take a fair amount of time for no other reason than the design and length of the weapon. A step to either side could result in the blade only landing a glancing blow that could readily be turned by a great many types of armor (including relatively common and cheap iterations). Hooking the shield as described solves no problem as this ensures the dangerous part of one's weapon (the point and edge) are in no position to actually cause injury. Without a way to do anything more than jab the shield holding man with a blunt stick, one has simply forfeited their offensive strike by tangling their weapon with their target's defensive implement and have no means of defending against a swiftly delivered attack.
The fundamental problems with the scythe as a weapon
ought to be obvious. The weapon is very long yet is designed to be used in a swinging motion. Once one commits to any particular motion of this type, it is difficult to quickly recover. More to the point, the length of such a weapon ensures that it would be of limited use defensively. This is a
significant problem considering the average person wielding such a weapon would not be wearing anything more than the most rudimentary armor. Beyond this, there are the offensive problems I noted above. If you couple this with the fact that the scythe requires two hands to use, you find that you are armed with an inadequate weapon all while having next to nothing to defend yourself with. Where other weapons with similar flaws could at least find solace in numbers and well ordered formations, the basic mechanism of delivering an attack with a scythe ensures that close order ranks are impossible thus ensuring that a man so armed fights
alone. When you top it all off with the simple fact that the farming version of a scythe is simply poorly suited to deliver an effective attack against a wide variety of armors, you find that it truly is a weapon of
desperation.
There are ways around these problems of course. To counter the problem of an utter lack of defense one could simply wear significant armor. Such a move is expensive and almost certainly out of the means of a peasant. To counter the problems of the basic style of attack one could add a spear point. To counter the relative useless of such a weapon against significant armor one could opt for a shorter, thicker and wider blade.
The solution to the problem of the scythe therefore is easy to see: one simply needs a better weapon that shares little with the scythe and armor that no farmer could afford.
