So why weren't scythes used more than swords in combat? If you're gonna die anyway, you might as well go out larping as the fucking grim reaper, and take a few heads with you.
So why weren't scythes used more than swords in combat? If you're gonna die anyway...
Charles Cook
Tyler Rodriguez
'cause real scythes make terrible, almost useless weapons. The from reaper has one because it's a symbol of harvest, not because it's badass.
t. scythe owner
Luke Ortiz
This
>t. Used a mock one for SCA once
>only once
Evan Murphy
This. Most people don't realize that its size and grip is unwieldy when held to strike above the waistline.
In wartime, peasants would typically remove the handle and reattach the blade parallel to the shaft as an improvised weapon. Even then, the cheap farm-metal blade wouldn't stand a chance against armour.
Joshua Green
There were war scythes mostly for poor farmers who needed a polearm in a jiffy. They just mounted the blade to be in line with the wooden pole.
This still wasn't used much because a long ass wood spear cost less material and was better in formation
Jeremiah Clark
Lack of chronic autism.
Christian Rogers
That show is pure faggotry but I would bend Pearl over a table.
Luke Scott
They're good for wheat, shit for flesh.
Joshua Phillips
Repurposed agricultural tools can be kinda practical as weapons
Michael Bennett
Was the khopesh actually effective against shielded enemies? I understand that the design makes it difficult to parry with a straight blade, but I always figured the anti-shield thing was just a video game meme.
Jayden Rivera
From chariot-back (no saddles yet) or up close, it could hook and pull down the lightweight leather sheilds of the era
Benjamin White
This is just an excuse to shitpost about Steven Universe on Jow Forums. Seriously? You need to know the handful of /co/ crossposters' opinions that badly? Are they that much more important to you than the thousands of faggots lurking the on-topic board? Come on, we both know you've done this before and you'll do it again, but we both know you could be better than this.
Oliver Lewis
>Literally only one post about the show
>the rest are about scythes, or other weapons
Clearly this is a SU thread now
Brody Garcia
A two-second google search of the word scythe got 22,400,000 results, he could've posted from anyone of those, but deemed fit to post a SU gif. He has a motive, even if it's a half-assed subconscious one.
Jack Kelly
I love how they gave her that massive nose to make her ugly
Zachary Powell
Wrong
Jaxson Peterson
I'm not a fan of the show either, but jesus fucking christ man, take off the tin-foil hat, not everything is a conspiracy
Andrew Ross
If the Egyptian empire existed mostly after the bronze age then why did they use leather shields?
Elijah Cooper
See, I don't get the value of anything short of a polearm in chariot warfare. You see all these pictures of fucking Illiad-era men with swords drawn while on their chariots, but you're risking a catastrophic collision if you get into range. Disregard things like control over the horses, and you're still more liable to go flying off your mount at a fair speed than you are to hook your opponent's shield.
I understand that Indian chariot warfare, Mahabharata-style, was more of a tedious affair and involved slower speeds and more positioning, but I feel the premise is still the same. Chariots were all about absolutely trouncing the infantry with unparalleled speed, but any kind of mounted soldier needs range.
Robert Martin
Fine, fine, I'll shut up about it. Tinfoil's underrated as hell for insulation though.
Jack Reed
I figure 99% of people riding horses into battle used polearms, but the 1% of the 1% that consistently survived trouncing common sense were the ones most depicted in the contemporary art of the time.
Matthew Robinson
>Using the wrong scythes-user girl.
Shame.
Kevin Gonzalez
Weight, effectiveness, and cost. Egypt had fair metalworking capabilities, but arming every man with a full metal shield was beyond their ability. Even the Romans relied more on laminated wood and leather than metal. It was just impractical, and devoting metals to making weapons made more sense.
Easton Edwards
Not for lack of trying on their part to be honest, a manual does exist for the scythe without reattaching the Blade parallel to the shaft
Cameron Flores
I mean, in a pinch, you could slice up his calves pretty bad.
Bring that hefty hunk of wood down on a vital spot would leave you wide open and far too close for comfort.
Jose Flores
The khopesh isn't a re-purposed sickle, it rather appears to have evolved out of a battle-axe.
The edge is on the outside, so I doubt it's much harder to parry a cut from it than any other curved blade really. I'm not sold on the hooking idea either, the khopesh comes in a number of different styles, and number of which would clearly be a lot worse at hooking than others.
Given that we see leather shields remain in use in the Indo-Persian era up into the 18th-19th centuries I suspect that they simply work quite well. Cured rhino hide and similar seems to make for some pretty stubborn stuff. And it can't have been seen as the poor man's option either, as they made things like this one.
That may be more a "if a scythe is what you have at hand when the fight starts" thing than some actual push to make it work as a proper weapon. Plus, it's Mair. He had somewhat peculiar ideas about things.
From what I've understood the Illiad era heroes with their shortswords would have used the chariot more as a battlefield taxi so they'd be fresh and rested for their duel with the other chariot-delivered hero. It isn't something I've really looked into though.
James Bell
Guy you responded to here
Yes that manual Is mostly improvised weapons
John Hughes
he was referring to harvesting scythes, not war scythes
that being said, a simple locking hinge could allow you transition from larping reaper straight to effective warrior and back so you can maintain the aesthetic without losing out on combat effectiveness
Mason Evans
>Reddit universe
Go back, nogunz
Ryder Edwards
I'd rather say it's more that the author wasn't a fencing master, but more of a fencing fanboy trying to document an art he himself may not have had the most solid grasp on. With a desire to get it all he may have thrown in a number of things which were, well, not well advised overall. The focus overall is very much on "proper" weapons though, we have maybe 170 pages of longsword, 150 pages or wrestling, 100 pages of dagger, 50 pages of rapier/single handed sword, 100 pages of dussack, twenty each of short staff, halberd and poleaxe, etc against 40 pages of scythe, 20 pages of sickle, and a few pages somewhere of large club.
Trusting the strength of a hinge for such may not be very prudent.
Ryan Rogers
>From what I've understood the Illiad era heroes with their shortswords would have used the chariot more as a battlefield taxi
See, I enjoy this aesthetic. Something about the greatest warriors sensing an opening and charging into an affectionate duel between kindred souls fulfils every aspect of the Romantic warrior's portrait. I'm not talking about Achilles and Patroclus or Ajax and Hector bullshit; I mean the thought of commanders fighting in lone combat because they're confident they can utterly slay the enemy's commander and make a mockery of their forces.
But the fact is, chariot-borne warfare existed far into the future of these men. The Celts would often rout the Romans with their chariots before finding their encampments surrounding and their homelands destroyed. I made an allusion to the Indian style of chariot warfare, mostly because it often had the sort of aesthetic that you get in swashbuckler-stories. After hazardous manoeuvring under constant fire, the two chariots clash, and one man risks his life in assaulting the other. The idea of an even battlefield almost never exists in Indian epics.
I'm not implying that someone like Heracles stood no chance against a chariot-mounted warrior. Instead, I feel chariots revolutionised warfare and eventually lead to the footsoldier becoming more of a holding force than a conquering force.