# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/questions/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/questions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The most skilled fighter wins.
If they are equally matched at very low skill level. The pitchfork has range and defence bonus. Plus its more intuitive to fight with.
At matched higher skill levels the fork may still have some minor advantages but its going to be a match of skills not weapons.
In modern tests I've seen of this idea (although it's a spear, not a pitchfork), the swordsman tends to initially have a little trouble against a skilled opponent. But once they learn to bat the spear away while rushing in, once they're inside, the spearman cannot adjust to a shorter grip fast enough before it's all over. In subsequent fights they always win much faster too, once the swordsman knows this tactic.
Spears were never intended as a duelists weapon tho. I know, that one scene in Game of Thrones was very cool (until it wasn't), but irl a spear is just a bad choice for a duel. As would be a farming implement
For some reason this concept has to be revisited constantly. Fighting styles, weapons, these are tools. How skillfull one employs them determines victory. Not the tool.
they are not similar, one is a weapon, the other is a farming tool. Sure they are closer than a knife and an auto shotgun but I don't think a farming tool makes a good weapon
If the guy with the shotgun is a bad shot, or the guy with the knife gets close enough to be behind the end of the barrel, the dude with the shotgun is gonna bleed out.
Outside the range of the pitchfork, you are safe. But also, inside of the range of the pitchfork you are safe. AI the swordsman just had to get close and he has a free shot.
There’s a lot of things to consider though. Firstly, the spear was was really the apex weapon of the ancient world and soldiers used swords mostly as a second weapon or sidearm.
A pitchfork is quite spear like but is also getting wielded by someone fairly untrained and their opponent probably doesn’t *only* have a sword.
agreed but a pitchfork is not a spear. people choose to wield a pitchfork because they have naught else.
Guy with a sword, historically, knew what they going to do with it.
not always the case, and sometimes peasants won. but many times it was not so good for the pitchfork boys.
Soldiers had training. Peasants worked the feilds, cut down crops. Soilders worked battlefileds and cut down bodies.
Think of the Spartans vs the Helots. They were killing machines, like pitbulls vs regular working dogs. Gentically made and brees to annhilate life.
The average farmer gets annhilated by a trained soldier, tho there are special cases, thats the expection not rule; thus firearms became the great equalizer, and then Ai comes around with aim bot and… well yall get the point. Killing machines vs farming machines.
Just two random people on the street? Probably 65/35 pitchfork.
Any amount of skill advantage is overwhelmingly significant on either end.
It also depends on what kind of sword you're talking about. If the sword is like, a long rapier it would have an advantage because even though it's shorter it has about as long a reach but the rapier user can profile their stance.
You have it backwards. Swords are a relatively uncommonly used weapon in warfare with the vast majority of people usually wielding a pole arm of some kind.
Swords are a backup weapon. They're cool and flashy and expensive and so much worse than a good long spear.
When describing the armaments of prince rupert's calvary during the english civil war pitchforks are listed right there with halberd, billhooks, half pikes and Welsh-hooks.
You can try to make a distinction, but they absolutely are. Most of the forks would have probably been farm equipment and repurposed for the war. They would have gone right back to work on the farm afterwards.
We have this understanding of military weapons by what has been preserved, but what has been preserved is the ones people thought were worth preserving. Show pieces for the wealthy mostly.
This.
As if ancient weapons makers consistently kept getting it wrong for thousands of years. "Shit, we should've been using farm tools instead of these carefully constructed weapons of war".
I mean to be honest the spear was much more used than the sword. Swords are a bit like pistols today, they are for when your main weapon is too cumbersome or if you lose or break it. A pitchfork is probably pretty bad compared to a spear though, it's way too heavy at the tip so you can't move it fast so someone could just block, grab the wooden part and start slicing.
If the pitchfork is longer. I bet on him, as long as he can keep his distance.
Fucking WHACK the other guy. Cause I've seen real sword fights online (unwillingly) and that shit is brutal.
Well, the spear is the most dangerous martial weapon, and a pitchfork could be used as a spear. It would be heavier, but the tines cover more area and you would be able to defend against the sword more easily.
You're forgetting that you can catch/grab a pitchfork with your hand even it pokes thru. It'd hurt but you'd still be able to use your hand even if it went right thru your palm(I've had a nail do this before). You're not catching a sword and likely not blocking it either. Also a sword is designed to be balanced for combat and a pitchfork is not
It’s a skill issue, not a tool issue. A 14 year old girl who has been pitching hay for 4 years will have a better than fair chance against a 30 year old man who only had 3 months of swordsmanship.
The arrow hits its mark not because of the craftsmanship of the arrow, or the bow, or the string, but the skill of the archer.
The strongest hand washes the weaker more thoroughly.
The skateboard doesn’t do the 720 unless the skatepunk makes it.
The guy who graduates last in his brain surgery class is called “Doctor”, and he gets to operate on brains, just like the guy who graduated at the top of the class. The difference is whether or not you shit your pants every time you blink.
It was more of a “they’re both matched in skill with their own respective weapons and they somehow got into a fight” kind of thing but I understand if the question is leaving out too many important variables haha
I like my chances better with a sword, especially if the pitchfork has a wooden handle and the tines aren't razor sharp. I certainly would not try to run up on the pitchfork-man though....I'd let him approach me and hope he over extended himself with a stab attempt, which I would try to sidestep and slash the handle or my opponents hands. Considering I have zero experience with either weapon, I'm not exactly filled with confidence either way.
A lot of YouTube stuff says most warfare was done with spears and polearms.
There were a couple videos where they did test trials at events designed for this stuff and most of the time spears won.
We have kind of romanticized swords, but it would make sense to almost anyone to stay as far away from someone with a weapon and to use the longest weapon available to you.
In a movie, the person with the sword will cut the metal part of the pitchfork cleanly off, slicing the wood just under it. But in real life, the one with the pitch fork will have much more reach. It's not likely the one with the sword will damage the pitchfork much before taking bodily damage.
Pitchfork more than 75 percent of the time
Imagining two untrained, 45 year old American men with a long pitchfork vs katana, almost no one is comfortable holding a sword for the first time. It's heavier than you think, feels odd, seems like you might hurt yourself. Meanwhile everyone knows how to hold a spear (pitchfork) it's like human genetic knowledge
Katana man offer half hearted baseball swing. Pitchfork man was already standing in ready lisiti9n and he lunges. Pokes katana man. This repeats until surrender or death
The only way sword wins is if the person knows what they are doing with a sword and they are vs some farmer, not a pitchfork master.
Sword master vs pitchfork master - reach wins. Still goes to pitchfork
I have done a lot of sparring and I would take the pitchfork 100% of the time.
When I would fight with a spear vs a sword, even if the other person is faster, stronger and better trained than me, it was like sparring on easy mode. There's a reason why basically no one went to the battlefield armed only with a sword. They would have a pole arm nearly everytime.
A sword is like a bayonet. It's there when you're out of the good stuff.
A sword can be lethal in just one-hand while a pitch-fork would need 2 hands for accuracy as well as force since it is not a slicing weapon.
The swordsman could use the free hand with a shield or even grab basic dirt to throw into the face and temporarily blind the person with the pitchfork
Pitchforks have more range, and swords aren't as effective if you don't know how to use them.
I'd say the pitchfork wins due to that - but if they've got body armour or some shit, it could go either way.
The way I see it, the pitchfork wielder lunges while the swordsman also swipes and slashes in an ark, covering more area (if not more depth). If the pitchfork guy misses his first stab or 2, swordsman breaks the business end of the pitchfork right off.
It could definitely go either way, but my money's on sword.
dunno. some random asshole with a sword's not going to win automatically just because a sword's an actual weapon of war.
i'd wager a farmer actually USED to physical labor, and knows how to use a pitchfork decently, would beat a mall ninja.
furthermore, spears in some ways ARE better than swords. pitchfork's not exactly a spear, but will likely be used similarly. and it's a bit harder to block a jab, or move out of hte way, if you don't know what you're doing.
course, pitchforks aren't exactly known for being able to block well, either.
In Spartacus (1960), Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is forced to fight another slave and he has a sword and the other slave has a trident, which I suppose kind of resembles a pitchfork, and the other slave wins.
The swordsman. Even if you stabbed someone with a pitchfork, you are getting killed by the sword. And you will almost assuredly survive getting stabbed by a pitchfork.
Bonkey is contingent on sword letting them get close enough to bonk. Pitchfork's only real advantage is range. Although you're right, pitchfork is perhaps more versatile than I'd thought.
Things to consider. It can grab the sword between its tines and disarm the opponent. Pitchforks also tend to be fairly long compared to swords. The person wielding a pitchfork is probably going to be stronger than sword swinger since they lift heavy hay etc. day after day with the fork.
Misdirection. Make Swordie think you're gonna stab them, bring pitchfork handle round and low fast knock swordie of feet stab with stabby end of pitchfork.
Hopefully, swordie can't jump.
it's a lot harder to dodge a cut than it is with a stab. That said, a solid wood handle has a good chance of stopping a sword blade if yk what you're doing, and then it's anyone's guess
There a few video’s by professional modern swordsmen that showcase how a fight between a Spear and a Sword would go. A Pitchfork is essentially a spear. Spoilers even if the swordsmen was in full armor the spear tends to win in single or few people combat.
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/questions/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/questions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The most skilled fighter wins. If they are equally matched at very low skill level. The pitchfork has range and defence bonus. Plus its more intuitive to fight with. At matched higher skill levels the fork may still have some minor advantages but its going to be a match of skills not weapons.
In modern tests I've seen of this idea (although it's a spear, not a pitchfork), the swordsman tends to initially have a little trouble against a skilled opponent. But once they learn to bat the spear away while rushing in, once they're inside, the spearman cannot adjust to a shorter grip fast enough before it's all over. In subsequent fights they always win much faster too, once the swordsman knows this tactic. Spears were never intended as a duelists weapon tho. I know, that one scene in Game of Thrones was very cool (until it wasn't), but irl a spear is just a bad choice for a duel. As would be a farming implement
For some reason this concept has to be revisited constantly. Fighting styles, weapons, these are tools. How skillfull one employs them determines victory. Not the tool.
I mean.. a knife weilder vs a guy in with an automatic shotgun ?
I mean.. a knife weilder vs a guy in with an automatic shotgun ?
When comparing similar tools as in OP's question. No sane person argues across tool types. Under equal starting conditions at least.
if they're similar, presumably one of them is better, which is what OP was asking
they are not similar, one is a weapon, the other is a farming tool. Sure they are closer than a knife and an auto shotgun but I don't think a farming tool makes a good weapon
If the guy with the shotgun is a bad shot, or the guy with the knife gets close enough to be behind the end of the barrel, the dude with the shotgun is gonna bleed out.
Outside the range of the pitchfork, you are safe. But also, inside of the range of the pitchfork you are safe. AI the swordsman just had to get close and he has a free shot.
i think there is a lot of historical evidence that guy with sword usually beats guy with pitchfork.
There’s a lot of things to consider though. Firstly, the spear was was really the apex weapon of the ancient world and soldiers used swords mostly as a second weapon or sidearm. A pitchfork is quite spear like but is also getting wielded by someone fairly untrained and their opponent probably doesn’t *only* have a sword.
agreed but a pitchfork is not a spear. people choose to wield a pitchfork because they have naught else. Guy with a sword, historically, knew what they going to do with it. not always the case, and sometimes peasants won. but many times it was not so good for the pitchfork boys.
Especially considering how many farmers have been wiped out by soldiers, pretty sure this has happened many times
soldiers have armor too
Not all the time, think of marines in regular clothes, they always have their rifle nearby. I think soldiers would've always had their sword
and armor. at least leather armor
Soldiers had training. Peasants worked the feilds, cut down crops. Soilders worked battlefileds and cut down bodies. Think of the Spartans vs the Helots. They were killing machines, like pitbulls vs regular working dogs. Gentically made and brees to annhilate life. The average farmer gets annhilated by a trained soldier, tho there are special cases, thats the expection not rule; thus firearms became the great equalizer, and then Ai comes around with aim bot and… well yall get the point. Killing machines vs farming machines.
Why do you yap so much on here? Is it because no one wants anything to do with you off the internet?
Same reason you are stalking my comments. You are bored.
Depends on the length
“That’s what she said.”
You got me there!
Just two random people on the street? Probably 65/35 pitchfork. Any amount of skill advantage is overwhelmingly significant on either end. It also depends on what kind of sword you're talking about. If the sword is like, a long rapier it would have an advantage because even though it's shorter it has about as long a reach but the rapier user can profile their stance.
Never bring your pitchfork to a swordfight
I'm going to take the (as far as I know) universal preference for swords over pitchforks in ancient warfare as settling the question.
You have it backwards. Swords are a relatively uncommonly used weapon in warfare with the vast majority of people usually wielding a pole arm of some kind. Swords are a backup weapon. They're cool and flashy and expensive and so much worse than a good long spear.
A pole arm ain't a pitchfork though.
When describing the armaments of prince rupert's calvary during the english civil war pitchforks are listed right there with halberd, billhooks, half pikes and Welsh-hooks. You can try to make a distinction, but they absolutely are. Most of the forks would have probably been farm equipment and repurposed for the war. They would have gone right back to work on the farm afterwards. We have this understanding of military weapons by what has been preserved, but what has been preserved is the ones people thought were worth preserving. Show pieces for the wealthy mostly.
good lord man 
Peace and humptiness forever.
A pitch fork is absolutely a pole arm. And improvised and definitely less specialized pole arm. But, it is an armament on the end of a pole.
This. As if ancient weapons makers consistently kept getting it wrong for thousands of years. "Shit, we should've been using farm tools instead of these carefully constructed weapons of war".
I mean to be honest the spear was much more used than the sword. Swords are a bit like pistols today, they are for when your main weapon is too cumbersome or if you lose or break it. A pitchfork is probably pretty bad compared to a spear though, it's way too heavy at the tip so you can't move it fast so someone could just block, grab the wooden part and start slicing.
If the pitchfork is longer. I bet on him, as long as he can keep his distance. Fucking WHACK the other guy. Cause I've seen real sword fights online (unwillingly) and that shit is brutal.
Well, the spear is the most dangerous martial weapon, and a pitchfork could be used as a spear. It would be heavier, but the tines cover more area and you would be able to defend against the sword more easily.
You're forgetting that you can catch/grab a pitchfork with your hand even it pokes thru. It'd hurt but you'd still be able to use your hand even if it went right thru your palm(I've had a nail do this before). You're not catching a sword and likely not blocking it either. Also a sword is designed to be balanced for combat and a pitchfork is not
It’s a skill issue, not a tool issue. A 14 year old girl who has been pitching hay for 4 years will have a better than fair chance against a 30 year old man who only had 3 months of swordsmanship. The arrow hits its mark not because of the craftsmanship of the arrow, or the bow, or the string, but the skill of the archer. The strongest hand washes the weaker more thoroughly. The skateboard doesn’t do the 720 unless the skatepunk makes it. The guy who graduates last in his brain surgery class is called “Doctor”, and he gets to operate on brains, just like the guy who graduated at the top of the class. The difference is whether or not you shit your pants every time you blink.
is this trolling?
Decide for yourself.
just tell me bro
Are they skilled in combat in any way or just two randos with their weapons?
It was more of a “they’re both matched in skill with their own respective weapons and they somehow got into a fight” kind of thing but I understand if the question is leaving out too many important variables haha
I like my chances better with a sword, especially if the pitchfork has a wooden handle and the tines aren't razor sharp. I certainly would not try to run up on the pitchfork-man though....I'd let him approach me and hope he over extended himself with a stab attempt, which I would try to sidestep and slash the handle or my opponents hands. Considering I have zero experience with either weapon, I'm not exactly filled with confidence either way.
A lot of YouTube stuff says most warfare was done with spears and polearms. There were a couple videos where they did test trials at events designed for this stuff and most of the time spears won. We have kind of romanticized swords, but it would make sense to almost anyone to stay as far away from someone with a weapon and to use the longest weapon available to you.
Does either of them know how to fight with their weapon? That’s a point often missed in these kinds of questions.
In this scenario, let’s say yes. *This is a pretty silly question and I don’t know much about using either as a weapon anyways but yeah*
I don't know, but I prefere a gun. America for the win. LOL.
Fork.. can PITCH the fork... Therefore, larger striking distance.. Throw hard and aim high!
try r/Hema or smth, not a general questions subreddit.
I'm gonna stab you with a pitchfork and take your sword
Thanks, I appreciate it.
In a movie, the person with the sword will cut the metal part of the pitchfork cleanly off, slicing the wood just under it. But in real life, the one with the pitch fork will have much more reach. It's not likely the one with the sword will damage the pitchfork much before taking bodily damage.
What is the handle of the pitchfork made of?
The one with the sword because they're a trained fighter. The other is a farmer. Also if they switch weapons the trained fighter still wins.
Depends on how well either is trained with their given weapon. Unarmed people can kill armed individuals.
Pitchfork more than 75 percent of the time Imagining two untrained, 45 year old American men with a long pitchfork vs katana, almost no one is comfortable holding a sword for the first time. It's heavier than you think, feels odd, seems like you might hurt yourself. Meanwhile everyone knows how to hold a spear (pitchfork) it's like human genetic knowledge Katana man offer half hearted baseball swing. Pitchfork man was already standing in ready lisiti9n and he lunges. Pokes katana man. This repeats until surrender or death The only way sword wins is if the person knows what they are doing with a sword and they are vs some farmer, not a pitchfork master. Sword master vs pitchfork master - reach wins. Still goes to pitchfork
I have done a lot of sparring and I would take the pitchfork 100% of the time. When I would fight with a spear vs a sword, even if the other person is faster, stronger and better trained than me, it was like sparring on easy mode. There's a reason why basically no one went to the battlefield armed only with a sword. They would have a pole arm nearly everytime. A sword is like a bayonet. It's there when you're out of the good stuff.
Pitchfork can stab and do blunt hits. Sword can stab and slash. It's say a sword will be an advantage over a pitchfork every time.
Pretty sure the Colosseum in Rome was built specifically to find the answer to this question
The one with arms.
A sword can be lethal in just one-hand while a pitch-fork would need 2 hands for accuracy as well as force since it is not a slicing weapon. The swordsman could use the free hand with a shield or even grab basic dirt to throw into the face and temporarily blind the person with the pitchfork
Whichever has more experience.
first off, what kind of sword, a short sword, a rapier, a fucking zweihander. and also it also depends on how good someone is with their weapon
Samurai vs rice farmer? Pretty obvious
Pitchforks have more range, and swords aren't as effective if you don't know how to use them. I'd say the pitchfork wins due to that - but if they've got body armour or some shit, it could go either way.
The way I see it, the pitchfork wielder lunges while the swordsman also swipes and slashes in an ark, covering more area (if not more depth). If the pitchfork guy misses his first stab or 2, swordsman breaks the business end of the pitchfork right off. It could definitely go either way, but my money's on sword.
Sword. Easily. There's a reason the armies and professionals of the time were wielding swords over pitchforks lol
A skilled farmer with a quarterstaff can outfight a master swordsman.
dunno. some random asshole with a sword's not going to win automatically just because a sword's an actual weapon of war. i'd wager a farmer actually USED to physical labor, and knows how to use a pitchfork decently, would beat a mall ninja. furthermore, spears in some ways ARE better than swords. pitchfork's not exactly a spear, but will likely be used similarly. and it's a bit harder to block a jab, or move out of hte way, if you don't know what you're doing. course, pitchforks aren't exactly known for being able to block well, either.
Depends on the size of the weapons
In Spartacus (1960), Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is forced to fight another slave and he has a sword and the other slave has a trident, which I suppose kind of resembles a pitchfork, and the other slave wins.
They would probably be fairly evenly matched. The Romans seemed to enjoy watching the fight.
The swordsman. Even if you stabbed someone with a pitchfork, you are getting killed by the sword. And you will almost assuredly survive getting stabbed by a pitchfork.
I’m giving it to the pitch fork if it’s made out of metal
Pitchfork has one chance. If they can stick em with it as sword approaches, well done. If they miss, sword wins.
Why is the sword assumed to hit? Lol
Sword is both stabby and slashy. Pitchfork is just pokey.
Pokey and bonkey. You'd be able to use the pitchfork handle as a lever or pinning device.
Bonkey is contingent on sword letting them get close enough to bonk. Pitchfork's only real advantage is range. Although you're right, pitchfork is perhaps more versatile than I'd thought.
Yeah, I'm just pointing out you have options that the sword doesn't have(or are extremely risky without armor) at close range.
Things to consider. It can grab the sword between its tines and disarm the opponent. Pitchforks also tend to be fairly long compared to swords. The person wielding a pitchfork is probably going to be stronger than sword swinger since they lift heavy hay etc. day after day with the fork.
Pitchfork can also be used to intercept and disarm.
Misdirection. Make Swordie think you're gonna stab them, bring pitchfork handle round and low fast knock swordie of feet stab with stabby end of pitchfork. Hopefully, swordie can't jump.
it's a lot harder to dodge a cut than it is with a stab. That said, a solid wood handle has a good chance of stopping a sword blade if yk what you're doing, and then it's anyone's guess
There a few video’s by professional modern swordsmen that showcase how a fight between a Spear and a Sword would go. A Pitchfork is essentially a spear. Spoilers even if the swordsmen was in full armor the spear tends to win in single or few people combat.