Talk:War scythe

Do you think it was used by Polish peasants only? What a Polonocentrism. -- Ghirla -трёп-  05:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The article says that it was not used in Poland only, so I don't know what is your problem. Perhaps you could read the article again?  // Halibutt 09:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The war scythe and the Fauchard are the same thing? Here is a image showing a fauchard: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep rain (talk • contribs)
 * There is certainly some similarity, but considering the time frame I'd say fauchard is a subtype of war scythe.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Several issues
-- Securiger 11:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) We say The scythe, a farming tool popular in 19th century Poland,. Surely scythes have been used in agriculture in many lands across many centuries?!? (But weren't necessarily popular with those who had to do the work!)
 * 2) I really have to agree with the earlier commenter above. I am very skeptical about "war scythe" being an English language term for a scythe-like blade mounted on a pole. (Try Googling it: you will find many references, but all of them are copies of this article, or references role playing games -- the worst generators of mediaeval warfare fallacies!) One off-line reference I have handy (Weapons: an international encyclopedia from 5000BC to 2000AD) depicts no fewer than 86 types of polearms including "agricultural scythe adapted as a polearm, Monmouth Rebellion"  but doesn't use  the phrase "war scythe" anywhere. Such a weapon is actually called a fauchard if mediaeval or falx if ancient. This article should probably be merged with fauchard.
 * 3) the chariots of Cyrus the Younger which used scythes Erm, weren't those mounted on the axles of the chariots themselves? Might have used scythe blades, or scythe-like blades, but a totally different weapon.
 * 4) War scythe is closely related to war sickle. Really? In what way? That both are based on tools originally used to cut grass? That isn't a very close relationship. The two Okinawan "war sickles" bear two obvious and substantial differences to war scythes: they are much smaller, and the blades are perpendicular to the shafts. If this is "closely related" you might as well say that a spear is closely related to an axe.
 * 5) This article claims The war scythe was probably an early ancestor of more professional pole weapons like halberds. Really? The earliest reference we give to a "war scythe" being used is only 1685. Halberds date back as far as the 14th century. Further, apart from being a pole-arm, halberds bear little resemblance to the war scythe. In fact if we insist on assuming it had to be "descended" from something else rather than just designed for the job, a halberd seems more to be a cross between the 11th century guisarme and the very ancient spear. The guisarme in turn is more likely descended from the 9th century bill which is allegedly based on pruning hooks, if these sorts of theories are to be believed at all. (Personally, I think a lot of these sorts of ideas are just based on Victorian-era ideas which regarded all earlier generations as idiots. More likely, each of these designs was invented by a resourceful soldier or smith in order to attack a particular weakness he had noticed in the enemy's equipment or tactics. And the reason there is such a confusing abundance of designs is that inventing a polearm ain't rocket science!)
 * 6) In the 1685 battle of Sedgemoor, James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, fielded a 5000 strong peasant unit armed with war scythes.  I do not think this is accurate. Most other references note that Monmouth's ill-trained, rag-tag army was poorly equipped, and many of the troops had to make do with agricultural equipment. Such was the shortage of equipment that Monmouth ordered 500 -- not 5,000 -- bills to be improvised from scythes. Some other troops (about 1,000, according to one account) were armed with unmodified scythes because they couldn't get anything better. However, the majority of his troops had muskets! It certainly isn't true that the entire body was armed with scythes. Furthermore for completeness we should mention firstly that this wasn't something Monmouth wanted to do, it was an act of desperation; and also that Monmouth's rebel army was slaughtered.
 * 7) there are documented examples where a scythe has cut through a metal helmet.  If such documentation exists, please provide it!


 * Indented line Ok, I cut this bit: "The war scythe was probably an early ancestor of more professional pole weapons like halberds." as being clearly speculative.

Theblindsage (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"farming scythes, which have very thin and irregularly curved blades, specialized for mowing grass and wheat only, unsuitable as blades for improvised spears or polearms" - that from the article. Well, I can say from first-hand experience that scythe blades had a specific curvature to them, they also had thinner geometry of the edge, but overall they were not much thinner than swords or some polearms. You see, they had to be able to bear an occasional bump against a rock - quite unlike the sickles, which were one handed (as tools). Hence, they were perfectly suitable as blades for improvised spears! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:11BF:4113:3200:180D:70BC:C552:6B71 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Popular culture section
Please before moving the Popular culture section to another article (which is 8 lines long) discuss why you think it shouldn't be here. other weapon articles have similar sections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.22.187 (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the article is about an actual historical weapon, while the popular culture entries are about scythes used for an entirely different purpose. Indeed, I see no evidence that the fictional references are based in any way on the actual use of scythes in war, but are more likely just derived from general use of the scythe. Name the other articles that share this problem. Mintrick (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is too short to stand alone and the Total war unit armed with warscythes are based on this interpretation, they are modified farming weapons used by a relatively cheap unit. Other articles such as the Zanbato page, refering to a ceremonial item being used as a weapon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.14.255 (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because an article is short doesn't mean it should be shoehorned into another one that shares only vague conceptual similarities. Mintrick (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to look at the aforementioned scythes before dismissing them outright? You seem to have decided that in no case can this weapon be used in a fictional context, the sword article has a swords of fictional content section devoted to lightsabers and other such things. 90.207.53.248 (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did. The first two references fantastical, and the last is merely a mention. To follow your analogy of swords, no article mentions all the fantasy game units that use swords; it's not something worth mentioning. The swords article has a few brief mentions of categories of fantastical swords; the importance of individual elements is insufficient to mention them. Mintrick (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * catagories of sword such as:

* The Lightsaber is a sword concept featured in the Star Wars universe. Its popularity has inspired similar laser based swords to have been used in other works of science fiction media. * The Zanbato is an incredibly large type of Japanese sword with a mysterious historical background that has inspired various fictional swords found in a wide variety of today's media including anime television, books and video games. Most unrealistically large swords in Japanese media such as the Buster Sword or the Tetsusaiga found in Japanese media today are inspired by the zanbatō. * The Vorpal blade is a sword from the poem Jabberwocky. It has since been constantly readopted into modern media as a type of magic sword that repeated makes its appearance in unrelated fictional works since. Similar magical swords have become common in fantasy literature, games, and art, but this particular sword has had its name continuously mentioned and spread among many various works from various writers throughout history due to the fact that it was never origanally copywrited.

these are not catagories, lightsabers are most definitly fantastical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.27.180 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Its popularity has inspired similar laser based swords"... category. There are all sorts of similar energy blades, e.g. 99% of robot anime. "a mysterious historical background that has inspired various fictional swords"... category. "a sword from the poem Jabberwocky. It has since been constantly readopted into modern media"... category. Not one of those entries refers to a single fictional sword appearance, but examples of swords that have been adapted into dozens of other media form. When necron warscythes appear in a dozen other works, maybe they should be mentioned. Mintrick (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone's confused a high fantasy AD&D adventure they had with reality! :O
> The scythe, a farming tool, could be easily transformed into an effective infantry weapon. The process usually involved reforging the blade of a scythe at a 90 degree angle, strengthening the joint between the blade and the shaft with an additional metal pipe or bolts and reinforcing the shaft to better protect it against cuts from enemy blades.

This is patently absurd. Although it is common for people to confuse scythes as not many people have seen or held one, and let's face it, the chances you will in your life time are quite slim!

The wafer thin blade of a scythe would require more than 'transformation!' The amount of effort and time that would be required to convert a farming scythe into a weapon for a melee would be vastly more work than creating a purpose built weapon. Outside of some instances historically where farm implements were used in skirmishes and small battles (usually farmer rebellions) I have never encountered--outside of high fantasy fiction novels--reference to a war scythe being anything but named because it resembles a scythe.

I am sure we have some patently absurd drawings by artists who'd never seen a blacksmith of the evolution of a war scythe as depicted, but I can find you Greek soldiers riding into battle atop dolphins in under five seconds.

I would like to call bullshit on this, and I would suggest that the editors whom dabble too much in high fantasy consider the above. Not a single photograph of a war scythe depicts a farming scythe or anything that could in part or whole (besides being melted down and re-made entirely) have once been a farming implement.

Would the current editors consider the above information and either attempt to substantiate their claims of reconstituted wafer thin meter long blades being converted to inch thick kukri like bayonets? There is no way that I could attempt to rectify this without gutting the article down to a stub, as it reads like a Teen Ninja Magazine excerpt at present, so my attempting to rectify this would not do Wikipedia any justice. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this fragment was added by in, I'll echo him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear, not sure what's your source on that. Perhaps you're right, but apparently generations of scythemen and blacksmiths didn't know that it's so hard to strengthen the spine of the blade, reforge the mounting and attach it to a different pole. I guess your problems come from the fact that perhaps in where you live a different kind of scythe is popular. In some areas of the world scythes are indeed wafer-thin, and it would be hard to strenthen them enough to withstand any contact with flesh or steel. However, go to your nearest ethnographic museum and you'll most likely see more types of wider, bulkier scythes popular elsewhere. And these seem to be much better suited for transformation. Sure, iron scythe blade is nowhere near as bulky or durable as a halberd or spearhead, but it's a poor man's weapon. Let me know if this clears any of your doubts.


 * BTW, I was trying to find Piotr Aigner's instruction on pikes and scythes, there should be specific instructions for the blacksmiths there. It's certainly PD now (published in 1794, last edition 1830 I believe), but no luck. Anyone?  // Halibutt 06:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Chrystian Piotr Aigner? Can you give the name of his work we are looking for? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me check, it's in the article on War scythe... Oh wait, here it is: Krótka nauka o kosach i pikach. I could find only excerpts, with most of what's interesting here missing.  // Halibutt 13:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur the book doesn't seem available online. I'd recommend asking at pl.wikisource about it. They are experts at finding texts, and they also know people who can scan it - particularly if you'd be willing to work with hem to transcribe it there. For the record: Worldcat entry, Google Books has it scanned in three different copies, but because Google doesn't give a [censored] about non-English texts, it is locked "in case it would be copyrighted". Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is another fragment of that book, but it has some text discussing scythes in particular (if google translate is to believed). 67.183.129.119 (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The crux of the issue: Confusing military scythes (fauchards, etc.) with literal agricultural scythes
First of all, while there were military scythes or war scythes in European history, including Polish history, they are polearms with only a superficial similarity to the usual, agricultural scythes. Military scythes take their name from them in a figurative manner, not a literal manner. Polearms such as the mostly Western European bill had the design and development of their blades inspired by existing billhook knives. The same goes for fauchards and other subtypes of the war/military scythes, which are in the same broad family of polearms with hook-shaped or sickle-shaped flat blades. Naming the fauchards/military scythes after the somewhat scythe-like shape of their blades was purely colloquial and symbolic, though.

Let's use Occam's razor here: Either the Poles, and the Poles alone, learned the secret of converting a completely ordinary farmer's scythe and its blade into a deadly spear or polearm in just a few hours... or... the claims about ordinary scythes being converted in such a manner are misidentifications, especially in period art. Due to the patriotic nature of the Polish uprisings in the 19th century, and the fact that most of the surviving visual documentation from that period are illustrations and other artworks, not photographs, I think what we're dealing with here is artists inadvertently confusing what the weapons looked like. The military leaders of the uprisings might have ordered the common soldiers and peasants to gather scythes or forge new scythes, but we need to remember "scythe" was a shorthand in their soldier jargon for military scythes. Which are wholly different to scythes as common farming tools, for mowing grass and wheat. Agricultural scythes are highly specialised, both in their hafts and in their blades. Their blades are very thin, very curved, generally quite flexible. If someone tried to convert them into an impromptu spear, they'd immediately come across the issue of the blade being completely unsuitable for use as a weapon. It's just completely different from a spear blade, or glaive blade, or a fauchard blade. (One would be better off using a pitchfork as a spear, rather than trying to repurpose a scythe.)

Early 19th century artists, especially those who knew the fighting during Poland's patriotic uprisings merely from hearsay, or muddled accounts, or via the filter of period military jargon, could very well have easily confused military scythes for ordinary scythes, and portrayed the use or forging of the latter for war as a literal reality. I doubt any of the period Polish artists with patriotic inclinations were experts in the fine minutae and different details of polearms. Especially if we take into account that polearms were largely out of use by that point in history (aside from maybe the spontoon, or the occasional home-made pike of the sort you still see in the 18th century), it's not at all surprising that a civilian of the early 19th century wouldn't have much of a clue how a military scythe typical for the 16th to 17th century actually looked like and how it was used by soldiers.

In conclusion, I think what we have here is a case of a perpetuated misidentification of historical weaponry, in the vein of the Victorians in Britain inventing terms like "broadsword" or "blood groove" out of the blue. Romantic nationalism of the 19th century also no doubt fed into the iconography of "peasants reforging their common tools into weapons", even if such a thing falls apart at close practical inspection (like many anecdotal claims that sound too fanciful or too good to be true). The actual scythes used by Polish rebels and soldiers during the 19th century patriotic uprisings weren't literal converted scythes, but existing or newly made polearms, with proper blades specifically designed and forged for use on polearms. These melee weapons were most probably some form of fauchard (military scythe), or guisarme, or a blend of the two (historically, "fauchard-guisarmes" were very common), or a particularly Polish version of any of these common bladed polearms. You can clearly see the purpose-built nature of the blades even in that photograph of Polish scythemen from the 19th century. What they're posing with are polearms, not some scythes taken out of the barn and hastily reforged at a local smithy.

So, how should we rework the article ? Should we rename it to "Military scythe", add some sections explaining the history and development of the term, how it relates to other polearms - especially fauchards, by far the most typical example - and then conclude with a short section explaining the scythes of the 19th century Polish uprisings and how they were most likely misidentified in period art ? I think it could work. It's certainly better than promoting the ahistorical idea of ordinary scythes being used as proper battlefield weapons. Wikipedia should always strive to be more accurate than that, even with seemingly minor historical topics. Feel free to provide constructive feedback, I'm all ears when it comes to improving this article and similar articles.--ZemplinTemplar (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I've rewritten parts of the lead-in section that had the most obvious errors and historical inaccuracies (i.e. implying that a farming scythe's blade can be easily fashioned into a spear blade). I've also added a gallery section to make the article's images at least slightly more organised. Any ideas and suggestions on further improvements ? --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , this talk seems a little bit embarassing. It is common knowledge in Poland, supported by multiple literary and artistic accounts, that ordinary scythes were indeed reforged and used in war effort. "Let's use Occam's razor here: Either the Poles, and the Poles alone, learned the secret of converting a completely ordinary farmer's scythe and its blade into a deadly spear or polearm in just a few hours... or... the claims about ordinary scythes being converted in such a manner are misidentifications, especially in period art" – it seems that Occam's razor has failed spectacularly. The Poles, and the Poles alone, were able to convert a farmer's scythe into a deadly polearm in just a few hours, because the traditional Polish scythe is really massive and sturdy, quite unlike its analogs from other parts of the world. I even vaguely remember my great-aunt reaping her field with such a scythe, probably out of sentiment, since combine harvesters were already available (also for short-term rent). Well, enough of my introduction – let me quote Piotr Aigner treatise (1794; ):


 * Gdy rzecz jaka długo zostaie w ręku iednego człowieka, gdy iey ciągłe i prawie od dzieciństwa ma używanie, taż rzecz staie się nakoniec bronią w ręku iego. Patagonowie tak celnie z procy trafiaią, że mogliby iść w zakład z naylepszym z naszych strzelców. Gorale tak dobrze umieią powodować siekierką iż śmiało z nią idą na niedźwiedzie. Cepy, kosy, pałki są bronią właściwą Włościan naszych. (…) Kosy zwyczayne do sieczenia trawy pod literą A. chcąc iey użyć przeciw nieprzyiacielowi należy uzbroić ią tym sposobem. I. Zakrzywienie u kosy zwyczayney, przy piętce będące pod literą A. powinno być w ogniu przez kowala na storc wyprostowane, z dwóma dziurkami na nity podług litery B. do którey używa się drzewiec długości łokci 4. a naygrubszy do dwóch cali. Ta kosa w sadza się wyprostowanym ogonkiem, czyli piętką na koniec drzewca w szparę podług długości ogonka do tego wyrobioną podług litery C. który koniec żelazną obrączką wzmacnia się i dwóma nitami nituie się, pierwszy przez ryskę i drzewiec na wylot, a drugi poniżey ryski przez samo tylko drzewce, koniec drzewca na którym kosa osadzona dwóma prętami żelaznemi z dwóch stron: to iest, ieden od grzbietu, a drugi od ostrza kosy obity być powinien, a to dla ochrony w przypadku od cięcia pałasza podług litery D. Prócz tego kosa powinna być tak mocno osadzona i zanitowana, aby się przy nayzamaszystszym cięciu nie chwiała, ani obruszyła na drzewcu. W czasie zaś pokoiu wyjmuje się nazad kosa z drzewca, zagina się na powrót piętka, i na ten sam kiy może być znow do użycia w gospodarstwie osadzona. Which can be loosely translated as:


 * When a given thing remains for long in hands of a man, when he uses it constantly nearly since being a toddler, that thing finally becomes an efficient weapon in his hands. People of Patagonia are so dangerous with their slings that they could easily match the effort of any of our experts. Carpathian Gorals are wielding the shepherd's axe well enough to fight off and kill bears with it. Thus: flails, scythes and sticks are an appropriate weapon for our feudal peasants. (…) Ordinary scythes meant for reaping grass, as shown on sketch A, can be used against an enemy after preparing them as follows. The ordinary scythe's curvature at its tip, shown on sketch A, should be put in fire by a blacksmith and straightened until it is very straight. Two additional holes for rivets should be drilled in it, as shown on sketch B. A weapon pole that should be used is four elbows long and at most two inches thick. The blade is put with its straightened tip into the end of the pole, which should be previously split for a proper length, as shown on sketch C. The same end is supported by an iron ring and riveted with two rivets, the first through both the pole and the blade, the second only through the pole. The same end should also be equipped with two iron bar stocks: namely, one should be put from the dull back and one from the cutting edge of the scythe, that is for defence in case of parrying a broadsword hit, as shown on sketch D. Moreover, the scythe should be put on its pole and riveted so strongly that it will not break or move on the pole even with the mightiest blows. When you force an armistice like that, you can remove the scythe from the pole, curve its tip once more and connect it again as for use in the agriculture.

I hope that I managed to explain the course of things precisely enough. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In all honesty I have not followed the discussion much, but I think you make a valid point that User:ZemplinTemplar was wrong when he wrote that "implying that a farming scythe's blade can be easily fashioned into a spear blade" was wrong. Let's see if they'll reply. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)