I made a video about scythes and reading the comments,
I noticed that a lot of the same counter arguments were coming up again and again
So I thought I'd deal with them here and now.
The first was people said, "What about War-scythes?"
They weren't Geordies [people from Newcastle in England with a very distinct accent] asking about their scythes,
they were talking about:
That is to say, a type of weapon that's quite definitely made for war
a purpose built war weapon,
not a converted agricultural implement.
I was talking, I think fairly clearly in my video,
about the agricultural implements, the scythe.
People sent me references, for instance, to photos like these:
and notice in this photo, you've got a load of Polish soldiers
posing with their war scythes
and they've also got guns, this is quite a late period
not really the period that I had in mind when I was making my video.
Now those weapons, you see they have long straight, spear shaft like hafts,
and on the top of them is what is quite clearly a purpose-built head.
Look, it's got a forged socket and little crossbars,
and a pretty substantial blade on the end.
Now, yes they are scythes in that they are reminiscent of scythes.
you can see how they got the name "scythes" because they've got a blade that certainly would remind anyone of a scythe.
But these are war-scythes, they're not converted agricultural implements. They're something different.
Here, in this picture, you'll see that the way they're mounted is actually quite different.
These blades were made to be used quite differently
not to be mounted sideways for cutting grass,
but to be mounted in line with the haft for hitting people.
Another thing was that not all scythes are as curved as the one I showed you in the video.
That's true. Not all of them are, particularly in Eastern Europe
they're very often straight, that is to say that they have a main haft that is straight,
but actually, the handles are placed on them such that they are sort of, in effect, a bit like that "s" curved thing.
if you want to hold them by the handles, they still have that awkwardness about them for combat,
but of course, the very great convenience for scything
which is what the handles are for.
The hafts are still also a fair bit shorter than you would want on a polearm.
Next thing is the treatise.
Now yes, there is a treatise by:
and it shows men fighting other men with scythes.
But let's have another look at these pictures, shall we?
Look at them. Look at the fabulous clothing that these men are wearing,
these are finely attired gentlemen with their richly dyed cloths, their split sleeves
and look, even gold embroidery! Wow!
These manuals were not made for the common man.
In fact, he only produced three, so far as we know.
They were stupendously expensive! The common peasant could not possibly have got his hands on one of these.
No, these were for enthusiastic, very rich gentlemen.
They weren't printed. This writing, though it's beautiful, it's been done by hand very carefully and very expensively.
So these treatises are for hobbyists.
He was writing in the 16th Century, by this time, people are using guns and stuff for war.
and he was rather disappointed that the noble art of fencing was going out of fashion and he wanted to produce
the world's most comprehensive compendium of all fencing techniques.
He got so obsessed with it, in fact, that he got massively in debt producing it,
and ended up being hanged as a thief after embezzling a lot of money, but anyway, he wanted to put everything in.
Now, why would a gentleman need to learn how to defend himself with a scythe
against another gentleman also armed with a scythe?
That's a pretty unlikely situation ever to come about, don't you think?
It's just somewhat niche.
No. He produced this for the sake - I put it to you, this is my theory -
He produced it as part of just being as complete as he could, and appealing to an audience:
"Look! My compendium's even got scythes in it!"
"Ooh! Wow! Are there secret techniques about scythes? I must part with cash to find out about these secret techniques!"
People do part with cash.
You can sell fifteen-year-old boys all sorts of daft nonsense about "ninjas".
A friend of mine once lent me a book for a laugh called "Modern Day Ninjitsu",
and it had in it sections on "How To Kill Someone with a Tin of Baked Beans!"
or, "a Biro!"
And yes, I can believe that if you practise a lot with a tin of baked beans you could get really good at it and kill someone with a tin of baked beans.
But, until the Army is interested, until the British Army says:
"Do you know, these baked beans are dynamite! Forget about all these guns and grenades and mortars and rubbish,"
"we need to be training our soldiers day in day out about how to kill people with tins of beans!"
Only, that doesn't happen.
People were not training armies in how to kill with scythes.
And here's another good reason that I don't think the agricultural scythe was much of a weapon in its day,
and I was talking about the late Medieval period.
In the late Medieval period, I'm not talking about the whole world necessarily here,
but certainly in England it was a legal requirement for every man between the ages of fifteen and sixty to have arms.
You weren't allowed to carry them around all the time, but, you know, when bandits were about, when the peace needed to be kept,
you had to have access to arms.
And we're talking here about swords and daggers; if you lived in the woods, you had to have a crossbow.
And men, by law, had to practise archery.
If you've got, and I'm talking here about everyone, right down to the lowest, the villeins, the serfs,
they were bound by this law as well. Everybody. Not just the gentlemen.
So, if you've got an entire populace that's armed with effective weapons like bows and swords,
why would they use scythes?