The Scythe as a weapon.

[Peter Hudson]

Yes I think your final paragraph has it...Where a word becomes muddled in meaning because of mis spelling I think that has thrown people here ...My notes above have focussed on the war scythe and the facts seem to point at fairly extensive useage of the modified Scythr as a type of peasant spear cheap and easy to modify and lethal against Cavalry ...and infantry.
The area that has little meat on its bones is in the use of teh Scythe blade as a backsword as the only viable form appears here...and is only a sketch but is intersting;

please see https ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythe_sword


That sword sketch can also be seen at #3 above.

The scythe sword of Thomas Müntzer and a representation of the "summer" half of its runic calendar.
The scythe sword (Sensenschwert) was a type of single-edged sword of the German Renaissance, related to the Dussack. It consisted of the blade of a scythe to which a sword hilt was attached. Like the falx or falcata of antiquity, it was thus a curved sword with the cutting edge on the inside (as opposed to the scimitar or sabre type with the edge on the outside).

The only known surviving example of a true scythe sword (its blade being made from an actual scythe), is that of Thomas Müntzer (1489–1525), kept in the Historical Museum, Dresden. This sword has a representation of a runic calendar incised on the blade. Demmin (1893) notes the existence of other sword blades of the early 16th century bearing runic calendars in Berlin, Vienna, Paris, Munich, Graz and Luxembourg.

It is possible that "scythe sword" may refer to the Thracian romphaia (Greek: ῥομφαία), most commonly a long curved blade with its[1] cutting edge on the concave or inside edge with a piercing point, attached to a pole (wood handle) that's shorter than the blade.

The Thracian romphaia is often compared to a Dacian falx, a longer version of a romphaia.

The romphaia was a close-combat bladed weapon used by the Thracians as early as 350–400 BC.

The two-handed falx is clearly related to the Thracian rhomphaia. It is a derivative of both the sword and the spear, used by the Dacians.

Both the romphaia and falx weapons were made in one hand and two handed versions. Most surviving examples suggest the smaller shorter "one hand" type actually would have been "hand and a half", where the second hand was used more as a lever to make strokes, thrusts, recoveries and angle of attack changes more rapid and fluid.

So, "scythe sword" could refer to a romphaia, or falx possibly.

[Peter Hudson]

Here is an artwork worth noting for its illustration of a modified Scythe used in the centre against a mounted Knight ... This was in the early 1500s. This underscores the use of such improvised agricultural tools in war.

Please see https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...._Mai_1525.jpg

[Peter Hudson]

Here is that picture...

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Peter.

This area of weaponry is a very long way from my own area of interest, & I freely admit I know very little about ancient European weaponry, however, to my eye there is a glaring anomaly in the foremost scythe-like blade in this picture.

I refer to the scythe-like weapon held by the man in the red jacket, front centre.

The blade of this weapon appears to be affixed to the shaft with a socket mounting.

I am not some sort of expert on the development history of scythes, but every scythe I have ever seen, every picture of a scythe I have ever seen, has the blade mounted at 90 degrees to the shaft, the scythe is used parrallel to & a little above ground level, it is used by putting the whole weight of the body behind the swing of the blade, the ergometric action comes from waist and shoulders.

The scythe as a tool cannot have a socket mounted blade, and for a smith to remove the original tang mount and replace with a socket would require smithing work that would be perhaps more difficult than to make a new blade.

Perhaps, because of material shortages this might have been done, but it seems to me that to make a scythe-like blade would be a whole lot easier than to take a perfectly good tool and try to turn it into a functional weapon.

The scythe blade in large part owes its effectiveness as a harvesting tool to its very thin blade supported by a heavy back, to remove the tang and replace with a socket, & then to remove the socket & replace with a tang when conflict was over, would be an expensive & relatively difficult exercise.

Is it possible that the type of scythe-like weapon shown in this picture was in fact a purpose made weapon, not a converted farmer's tool?

[Peter Hudson]

It was apparently an easy job for a blacksmith to take the Scythe Blade off and re align the connection for a shaft so that the blade became a spear like extension . That is apparent in English and Polish examples of this weapon. Making a sword would be more complicated ...perhaps that is why not so many sword examples exist...

Actually post 37 shows the different stages a scythe blade needed to go through to do the work...

Regards, Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...3D72E20A96F73D

This webpage above is full of historical examples of Scythes in a war role and has also set out several methods by which a Scythe can be converted to a weapon. The original stath or scythe pole is ditched for a longer straight pole and various methods are noted for attaching the blade to its new pole.

Peter Hudson.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Peter, that Cambridge article needs a close look.

I do understand forge work very well, and if the angled tang is simply reforged to a straight tang, then that is a quick, easy job and easy to reverse. My problem with the red jacket man in the pic is that the blade looks to have a socket rather than a tang, but maybe we're seeing a ferrule rather than a socket, in which case the blade could have a straight tang.

A quick glance at the Cambridge article shows that sometimes mechanical means were used to provide a blade mounting, this is something that did not occur to me, but I guess in desperate times it becomes a matter of whatever will fill the need is used, without too much thought of integrity or durability.

The idea that making a sword is complicated depends totally upon the quality of the sword. To make a functional blade that could be mounted as a sword is not at all a difficult nor a lengthy job, but to make a quality blade and then mount it as a quality sword is not easy work, nor is it work that takes a short period of time. Saturday night Specials are inexpensive, elegant weapons can cost a kingdom. Perhaps the reason for a small population of swords might be related to several reasons & could embrace both economic and hierarchical reasons?

Thank you for assisting my understanding.

[werecow]

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson

Yes I think your final paragraph has it...Where a word becomes muddled in meaning because of mis spelling I think that has thrown people here ...My notes above have focussed on the war scythe and the facts seem to point at fairly extensive useage of the modified Scythr as a type of peasant spear cheap and easy to modify and lethal against Cavalry ...and infantry.
The area that has little meat on its bones is in the use of teh Scythe blade as a backsword as the only viable form appears here...and is only a sketch but is intersting;

please see https ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythe_sword


That sword sketch can also be seen at #3 above.

The sensenschwert image, for future reference.

[Peter Hudson]

Yes but its already placed at #3.

[Peter Hudson]

Finally an imptression of the way Scythes were modified on the forge...

[A. G. Maisey]

Truly Peter?

I can see people working at an anvil with hot metal, & I can see blades that I guess are scythe blades on the floor with modified tangs, but are the men working at the anvil supposed to be modifying a scythe tang?

[Peter Hudson]

Yes. Posts 41 and 37 both show the different stages to go through to modify the Scythe blades . The soldiers are waiting in the Forge picture above with poles waiting to be fitted as spears and as illustrated in the earlier battle scenes.

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]