[rangertexas]

I was reading on a website

www.knives-daggers-formosa.com

that sinuous blades are far more deadly and cruel than straight edged blades for stabbing as they leave a wound that is more difficult to heal than a straight edged blade. In fact most of the Indonesian Kris or Keris that are used for combat are sinuous! Combat in this sense meaning sneaking up on someone and stabbing them i.e assassination. I bought a sinuous blade online from Taiwan, and it does make one hell of a hole in a water melon and a very different kind of whole than a straight edged blade (more messy).

In fact it states on that site that the Europeans during the crusades believed that sinuous blades were too cruel and banned their use by the crusaders.

Well I pity any intruder that comes into my house now as that blade has got to be a very painful welcome!

http://www.knives-daggers-formosa.com/dagger.JPG

[RLsnow]

wait a minute, crusaders got to eat other people, but they couldn`t use sinous blades?...........

[Pax Jordana]

If you're looking for cruelty, find a dagger that makes a triangular wound. The wounds they make are much harder to close.

With modern medical care the way it is, there's very little difference between a sinuous and a straight blade for stabbing. Slashing, maybe, if you believe all that stuff you see in Special Projects..

Congratulations on having a tool handy for home defense, and welcome to THR!

[SlamFire1]

that sinuous blades are far more deadly and cruel than straight edged blades for stabbing as they leave a wound that is more difficult to heal than a straight edged blade.

I doubt that. You are going to get a nasty wound channel with any knife that wide, there might be something to having more cutting surface, but I think it is for other reasons.

The cultures that used and made these things are not "Western" in thinking. They attribute mystical powers to things. These cultures have all sorts of weird beliefs and taboo's: Once of which is that swords and knives can have “personalities”

I think the curvy shape is there because it looks snake like, looks menacing. Both things would fortify the courage of the user, scare the dickens out of the opponent.

I have a couple of these snake like blades, and they are hard to sharpen. But they look wicked.

[Mp7]

the intruder will definitely realize he´s
not in the average kitchen :)

..i personnally favour a "Kukri" knife.

[ashtxsniper]

I can see the headlines now. Man tries to defend home with knife and gets shot by intruder. Good luck swinging steel I will stick to throwing lead.

[Ghost Tracker]

Best look at cultures that have fought longest & most often with the most advanced, forward-thinking blade technologies of their day. i.e. who's the most innovative, experienced, blade weapon-users in world history? IMHO, that's the Japanese & the Persians. Neither culture shows universal adoption the sinuous blade. If there had been real advantage in the killing effectiveness of the design, I believe you would see it in at least one of them.

But, like most everything I write, it's just an observation.

[rangertexas]

IN reply to ashtxsniper! (can't work out how to quote on this forum)

Unlike guns in close combat

Knives don't jam and a good dagger will puncture a bullet proof jacket!

[jgo296]

the curved blade shows it great advantage once you twist the inserted blade

[rangertexas]

Good point that Ghost Tracker makes about the Japanese and Persians not using sinuous blades. However you also have to consider what those cultures were using the weapons for. Sinuous Keris were often used for the professional killing of one target and not for "combat" as the Japanese swords were. This would require an assassin sneaking up on the target from behind and usually stabbing them in a downward direction behind the clavicle (yes and twisting was a part of the process). Although this sounds awkward it is apparently a very effective method. Therefore this kind of knife would be designed in a very different way to a sword needed for dueling or open combat in battle as needed by a samurai.

There is also no doubt that a sinuous blade does have a much larger surface area on the cutting edge.

I would however be interested to know what kind of daggers were used by the Japanese ninja for assassination.

[auschip]

The way I understand it, Other then looks, the main reason to add the "luks" was to increase the size of the wound without having to add more metal.

Not all keris were sinous, in fact some folks believe that fewer then half had sinous blades vs straight blades.

[mr.trooper]

I doubt that. You are going to get a nasty wound channel with any knife that wide, there might be something to having more cutting surface, but I think it is for other reasons.

The cultures that used and made these things are not "Western" in thinking. They attribute mystical powers to things. These cultures have all sorts of weird beliefs and taboo's: Once of which is that swords and knives can have “personalities”

I think the curvy shape is there because it looks snake like, looks menacing. Both things would fortify the courage of the user, scare the dickens out of the opponent.

I have a couple of these snake like blades, and they are hard to sharpen. But they look wicked.

GOOD JOB! WAY to slap a generic label over a huge scope of independent and unrelated cultures! Your high-school sociology teacher would be proud.

Your wrong anyway. The Swiss and some Germanic tribes occasionally used swords with wavy blades. So much for advanced western thinking.

Best look at cultures that have fought longest & most often with the most advanced, forward-thinking blade technologies of their day. i.e. who's the most innovative, experienced, blade weapon-users in world history? IMHO, that's the Japanese & the Persians. Neither culture shows universal adoption the sinuous blade. If there had been real advantage in the killing effectiveness of the design, I believe you would see it in at least one of them.

You loose all credibility when you say the Japanese are "advanced" and "forward thinking" in blade technology. They used the SAME highly specialized design for thousands of years, and adapted there fighting style to fit the blade instead of the other way around. FURTHERMORE, they had almost NO experience fighting anyone other than THEMSELVES during that time period. If you want a specialized slashing weapon to fight against identically armed opponents in light armor than the Katana is your best friend, but its a poor choice for anything else.

your argument is illogical anyway. Saying that one culture is superior to another in ANYTHING assumes that someone else sucks at it. This is very ethno-centric, and is a classic sociological fallacy. it assumes that one groups view on the world is superior to someone else, and that said culture is more logicaly advanced or evolved. This is highly Darwinian, and a bit racist as well. Its the type of crap you hear a lot on internet forums, but its not the type of argument that holds up under academic evaluation. Thats a fancy way of saying that this type of comparison is stupid and illogical.

[ashtxsniper]

1st off knife fighting is stupid you are bound to get hurt in one way or another.
2nd The design of your knife is going to have a hard time punching through a bullet proof vest unlike a straight double edge knife. A icepick or screwdriver would be better. OBTW some vest are stab proof/resistant
3rd The best way to increase your chances in a knife fight is to put as much distance between you and your opponent and still be able to stab or slash. A sword or a spear from Cold Steel would work much better than a dagger.
4th If you truly are going to use a knife for defense get a quality one that will hold an edge and not break on you when you need it.

This a picture of just a small amount of the quality knives I own and most of them would work better in a hand to hand combat situation then a fantasy dagger. I am not trying to rag on you just trying to help you. If you really want to talk about knives take a trip over to Bladeforums.com there are a lot of people there who can teach you much.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/cashtxsniper/100_1409.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/cashtxsniper/100_1325.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/cashtxsniper/100_0588.jpg

[Ash]

I agree with Mr. Trooper. To say the Persians and Japanese were the best at blade making is just plain wrong. The Katana and similar Japanese blades were excellent slashing weapons against non-metal armor, but chip easily against mail, and more importantly create a painful but easier to heal wound. Thrusting blades created, for the time, the most deadly wound. Slashing attacks were easier to conduct and easier to learn, but thrusting attacks, while more difficult to master, were far deadlier.

Any of the cultures which used the blade can be credited for making competent and capable blades. The western blades were excellent (many were, that is). Sure, some martial blades were compromises that were neither suited for slash or thrust, but the Japanese were certainly not any more masters at the craft than some other cultures.

Indeed, the Persians and Japanese are known for their slashing weapons but not for thrusting swords. As the thrusting attack is more difficult, can we then assume than a 1500's duelist from France adept at using a rapier would be superior to the Samurai?

Ash

[SlamFire1]

This is very ethno-centric, and is a classic sociological fallacy. it assumes that one groups view on the world is superior to someone else, and that said culture is more logicaly advanced or evolved. This is highly Darwinian, and a bit racist as well. Its the type of crap you hear a lot on internet forums, but its not the type of argument that holds up under academic evaluation. Thats a fancy way of saying that this type of comparison is stupid and illogical

To add all the caveats about Roland’s Sword, and Viking welding patterns would take far more than a paragraph.

But since you are so knowledge, why don’t you write a book, or an encyclopedia (you will need several books when you address the Kris) on the history of knives, including sections on racist cultural Darwinism, from Babylonian times to now. And see if anyone reads it.

[CWL]

First of all, don't believe the hype on that guy's website. Aside from possibly some of the crappiest pictures to ever grace a website, those blades are not made in Taiwan (Formosa) NOR are they made of Japanese steel. I'll bet you money that they come from China -and not from the hi-end Gerber shop either.

As for "wavy" blades, these do add additional cutting surface area to the same amount of linear length, useful when applied in the correct manner such as for cutting and slashing moves. Just like modern serrated knives, but in a grander scale.

Europeans, besides the flamberge greatsword of the Renaissance never got into wavy sword patterns, probably because of difficulties in forging and different cultural mentality in application of blade use. European swords often represented the cross while Muslim swords represented the crescent. As for Japanese swords, these developed the graceful curve as a result of forging. The Chinese, being pragmatists used both straight and curved blades.

As for which one is better? All styles killed plentifully when encountered.
Swords and knives are like guns, you still need to practice and know what you are doing to get practical use out of it.

[Ash]

The blade's curve is based on its use. A thrusting blade is straight, a slashing blade is curved. A French epee is so specialized a thrusting weapon that it has no edge to speak of. A hussar's blade is well-curved, given the nature of the in-your-face melee of light cavalry work. A cuirassier's blade is long and straight, given the need for the heavy cavalry charge. Most broadswords were straight for the thrusting attack against armor and horse.

Ash

[CWL]

Eastern scimitars were sharpened, European Hussars' sabers were left unsharpened by the time of the Napoleonic Wars.

Proper mounted use of the hussar's sword was to thrust it forward, thumb down with edge-up to spear the opponent.

[Ash]

Not always. Medical reports from the Crimean war described Russian casualties caused by British blades which were very clearly slashing-blows, including one account of a Russian whose head was essentially cloven in half, almost to his chin.

Ash

[SlamFire1]

European Hussars' sabers were left unsharpened by the time of the Napoleonic Wars.


The typical Hussar sabers I have seen were heavily curved cutting swords. I would be surprised if they remained unsharpened after deployment.

The typical issue sword was in fact dulled between wars. On another forum guys have put out instructions from period manuals which indicate that the edges were dulled. The reason why is obvious, training accidents! In one book, a veteran British Cavalry officer was discussing his first experiences in the service. He was of course an aggressive kid, and he sharpened his sword. During saber practice, he cut off an ear of his horse!

Having talked to one gent, who was a vetern of the American Horse cavalry, he told me of a training accident that happened during sword practice. One trooper was going throught the straw dummy excersize and fell off his horse. He let go of his M1913 Patten saber on the way down. It did not go far due to the sword knot. And the sword some how reversed , landing hilt first, point up, on the ground. The unfortunate trooper landed on the point. The sword went through his body starting in his arm pit. Needless to say, the Trooper died.

This dulling of swords did have its own problems, troops arrived in combat areas with dull swords. There is an account in one book where British Cavalry charged Boer infantry and basically beat the Boers into submission with their swords. I don't think any Boers were killed because the sword edges were dull!

This account helped the British move away from cut and thrust swords and the last Cavalry sword model they fielded was the P-08, perhaps the finest thrusting sword every produced for Cavalry.

[357wheelgunner]

This one time I bought an evil looking fantasy blade made from chinese junk steel for $19.99 at the state fair, and I instantly became a ninja assassin warrior with mad skillz.

Phear meh

edited to add:

Sorry for the sarcasm, don't take that wrong I was just messing around and don't want it to be taken the wrong way.

Be careful what internet ninjas tell you about history, combat ability, what works and what doesn't in the real world, etc.

That knife will look terrible if it ever ends up in court as a murder weapon. A large kitchen knife would probably server you better for home defense if you can't afford a large stick or a shotgun.

[Ghost Tracker]

Sooo, Mr. Trooper,

Your wrong anyway

You loose all credibility when you say...

your argument is illogical anyway

This is very ethno-centric, and is a classic sociological fallacy

This is highly Darwinian, and a bit racist as well

Its the type of crap you hear a lot on internet forums

Thats a fancy way of saying that this type of comparison is stupid and illogical

...you've certainly articulated your opinion on OUR opinions. Got any of your own?

[hso]

KNOCK IT OFF

This thread is going to be locked and people are going to start getting official warnings if this bickering continues.

rangertexas,

That website is full of grossly incorrect information. I suggest searching under keris or kris and looking at any of the websites not trying to sell you something. Here's good place to start. http://www.nikhef.nl/~tonvr/keris/ http://www.joglosemar.co.id/keris.html http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/kerisinformation.html

Real keris/kris daggers were not all waved. Assassination was not their primary purpose. They did have mystical power attributed to them.

http://www.art-export.com/other/keris/5b.jpg


BTW, Japan didn't start producing steel swords until about 1,600 years ago. These early Japanese swords were very much like the straight Korean swords of the era. Uniquely Japanese swords weren't developed until around the 6th century (1,500 years ago) but these were large curved two handed tachi. The truly enormous two handed odachi/nodachi followed around 1300 and the katana didn't evolve until around 1400 ("only" 600 years ago). The type of combat influences the form of the weapon and the form of the weapon influence the style of fighting. It is a synergistic relationship.

Education and guidance are not achieved through ridicule.

[Ghost Tracker]

Right you are! My original response has been edited to reflect a more gentlemanly tone.

[SlamFire1]

Real keris/kris daggers were not all waved. Assassination was not their primary purpose. They did have mystical power attributed to them

And with the beatiful blade forgings, handle carvings, and eye popping wood fittings, there just might be something to them having mystical properties.

Nice Kris.

Mine. I could not resist the nickle patterns in the blade, and the figure is actually quite detailed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/knives/KrisFulllengthbesidescabbard.jpg

[hso]

Slamfire1,

That's a beautiful kris! Nice pattern! Is that your's?

The picture I provided was just an illustration for our young OP to see that straight kriss exist and what a real kris looks like. My kris is waved.

Arguments abound over the source of the nickle iron used in the older blades. Some say old meteor fall while others point to a small region in Indonesia that could have supplied it. Regardless, it sure makes for beautiful pattern.

[JShirley]

knife fighting

Is a misnomer. Several experts I respect have mentioned that knife dueling almost never happens. Some of us practice knife killing. If I somehow end up in a very bad situation, and all I can practically use is my knife, I'm going to have to work very hard to be sure I'm effective. This will probably be fatal to my animal or human attacker.

If facing a knife, as ashtxsniper mentions, distance is your friend. If you cannot run, even rocks or other projectiles are better than going contact distance against a blade.

And historical evidence suggests that even the Japanese suffered more deaths in battles from thrown rocks than swords!

John

[walking arsenal]

What?

Rocks?

Seriously?


You don't happen to have a source for that do you?

[RLsnow]

stones hurt :( like...alot

[Art Eatman]

Saw some examples of the kris, in the Philippines in 1949/1950. Wavy blades, roughly in the 12" to 15" length. Not all had a really-sharp point, although the edge of even the rounded tip was sharpened. So far as I recall from that time, the kris-type knife was a Malay concept, mostly.

Had a knifing here in Terlingua, back in 1984. The knife was a Randall-type, about an eightish-inch blade IIRC. The user stabbed into the chest and then swung the blade from side to side. I doubt if there would have been any difference in "mess", whether the blade was straight or wavy.

Art

[JShirley]

Walking, I'll see if I can get a source for you.

[JShirley]

...okay, I think these books may have the references:

Shackley, Myra
1986 Arms and the Men; 14th Century Japanese Swordsmanship Illustrated by Skeletons from Zaimokuza, near Kamakura, Japan. World Archaeology 18(2):247-254.

Karasulas, Antony
2004 Zaimokuza Reconsidered: The Forensic Evidence, and Classical Japanese Swordsmanship. World Archaeology 36(4):507-518.

This post (http://listserv.uoguelph.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9911&L=iaido-l&P=R4481&D=0)from Professor Karl Friday, UGA Dept of History and classical Japanese stylist says (I'll add my own emphasis for clarity):

An analysis that I was just looking at
this morning, of documents reporting battlewounds, for example, shows that
between 1500 and 1560, out of some 620 casualties described, 368 were arrow wounds, 124 were spear wounds, 96 were injuries from rocks (thrown by slings or by hand), 18 were sword wounds, 7 were combined arrow and spear wounds, 3 were combined arrow and sword wounds, 2 were combined rock and spear wounds, and 2 were combined rock and arrow wounds. Between 1563 and 1600 (after the adoption of the gun) some 584 reported casualties break down as follows: there were 263 gunshot victims, 126 arrow victims, 99 spear victims, 40 sword victims, 30 injured by rocks, and 26 injured by combinations of the above (including one poor SOB who was shot by both guns and arrows and stabbed by spears, and one who was speared, naginata-ed, and cut with a sword). In other words, long distance weapons (arrows and rocks) accounted for about 75% of the wounds received in the pre-gun era, and about 72 % (arrows + guns + rocks) during the gunpowder era. Which is to say that "traditional fighting" does not appear to have been heavily centered on close-quarters clashes of swords or even of spears, except in literary sources.


So, before guns, rocks in Japan killed more folks on the battlefield than swords. After guns, guns killed many more people on the battlefield than swords- and this in the land of the much-vaunted "samurai sword".

Don't get me wrong- I like a good katana or tachi, quite a bit. All my sword study has been battojutsu. This doesn't mean that Japanese sword automatically trumps anything, other than perhaps a dirty look.

[SlamFire1]

That's a beautiful kris! Nice pattern! Is that your's?

Yupe, its mine, temporarily. Until the day I have to pass it to the next owner, but till then, I am taking good care of it. These things, you really don’t own them, you just take care of them for the next generation.

[SlamFire1]

So, before guns, rocks in Japan killed more folks on the battlefield than swords. After guns, guns killed many more people on the battlefield than swords- and this in the land of the much-vaunted "samurai sword".

Hey that was interesting. But don't discount rocks as a weapon. The ancients stockpiled sling projectiles, the ones I seen had a small foot ball shape. A sling thrower can throw something the size of a lemon over 200 yards and when it hits, it will kill you.

With a sword, you had to get up close. In that time period between far away and close you were exposed to arrows and sling bolts.

I think once the enemy formation broke, I would bet most of the fatalities would be due to blade weapons, assuming the battle of Towton is typical. http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/archsci/depart/resgrp/towton/

Ancient warfare was really awful.

[JShirley]

I don't at all discount thrown projectiles- except knives. I think virtually anyone would be better served with any variety of thrown projectiles found around them, than throwing a knife at an attacker.

Once I began to study spear, I quickly found a new favorite close-quarters weapon! A decent spearman can defeat a good swordsman without difficulty.

[Byron Quick]

You'll be easily able to discern the combatant who is truly adept with thrown knives. He'll be the guy carrying a multitude of identical knives.

I once was adept with throwing knives. To the point where the people better than me did it in circuses.

Something I found out when I first tried throwing at dummies wearing clothes and at deer roadkill. The blade has to strike at a radically different angle in the dummies and deer carcasses to penetrate than the angle that sticks up in a tree or a board target.

In a dummy covered in an old Levi jacket or a deer carcass, a throw that would be perfect on the common targets will penetrate about a third of an inch before the rotation of the knife slaps the hilt against the surface. Then the knife rebounds, the hilt drops downwards and gravity pulls the knife out and it fallls to the ground.

What are the big punches that have the section that is a hexagon in cross section and then about half down it becomes a tapering cone? I knew a guy once who took those-big ones nearly an inch thick and ground the end down to a chisel point. I never tried one on a carcass but he could throw the darn things through a 55 gallon oil drum.


I don't at all discount thrown projectiles- except knives.

The biggest problem with throwing a knife is if your knife is your only weapon. Someone who has practiced and thought about using a thrown knife as a weapon will have a fairly hefty knife. Probably also will be throwing at faces to avoid the clothing penetratrion problem. The knife will be heavy enough that even if the blade doesn't land right, the impact will fracture facial bones.

I'm good at knife throwing and I suppose I would 'discount' knives as a projectile weapon. If by discount you mean not choosing to do so under most circumstances. If by discount you mean that someone can't severely injure you by throwing a knife at you then I disagree. It's just not the optimal choice if you have choices. I'll take a rock any day. Give me a few days to practice and I'll take a sling.

[walking arsenal]

1500 and 1560, out of some 620 casualties described, 368 were arrow wounds, 124 were spear wounds, 96 were injuries from rocks (thrown by slings or by hand), 18 were sword wounds, 7 were combined arrow and spear wounds, 3 were combined arrow and sword wounds, 2 were combined rock and spear wounds, and 2 were combined rock and arrow wounds.

So, before guns, rocks in Japan killed more folks on the battlefield than swords.

That analysis would be correct if you take the numbers at face value. However it seems that the sample is a small one taken over a large period of time.

I haven't looked into the books you posted yet but I think I will just for fun.

I'd find it easier to believe if it said somthing like "Out of 1000 soldiers at the battle of bamboo, 300 died of wounds by rocks" or some such thing.

Make no mistake about it though. As an archer I have the utmost respect for those old stick and rock throwers.

[SlamFire1]

Once I began to study spear, I quickly found a new favorite close-quarters weapon! A decent spearman can defeat a good swordsman without difficulty.


It is my recollection, having read "A Book of Five Rings" by Miyamoto Musashi over a decade ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi that he stated in the book that the spear was "stronger" than the sword.

If you notice, there are a lot of spearman in ancient pictures. Even in artwork up to the 1700's.

There has got to be a reason for that.

Movies shape peoples perception of history and facts. Sword fights look better and occur so often in pirate movies, most people think of a sword as the Infantryman’s weapon. Well prior to firearms, it was a polearm, pike, or spear, the sword was secondary.

[JShirley]

I may still have a copy of The Book of Five Rings. It was translated by a Japanese interpreter and martial artist, and I received it at a sojutsu- spear- seminar. (He said the other versions had quite a few flaws.)

That analysis would be correct if you take the numbers at face value.

Well, I'm not just taking the numbers at face value- I'm believing the opinion of a widely recognized expert in historical Japanese warfare.

Byron, I think knowing lots of ways to use defensive tools is a Very Good Idea. You and Bud Malstrom are the only folks I've seen who are reliably dangerous with thrown knives. If I'm about to die, and see no good alternative, I'll throw my knife, too- but in general, I'd prefer a 1" steel ball bearing or half a brick.

John

[TimboKhan]

Logically, it stands to reason that distance weapons account for more battlefield deaths than a sword. Fighting someone at range is always better from a personal survival point of view. Slings can be extremely accurate and quite deadly. Remember, David didn't stab Goliath!

My own opinions on this are biased against the sword. Spears and halberds were and are better weapons either for the individual soldier or for the massed squad. You won't find a credible historian that will argue otherwise. In my opinion, I think that impact weapons like the mace and club are superior to the sword on some fronts. Simply put, the skill level needed to be effective with a mace is considerably less than a sword, and a blow from a mace is going to hurt regardless. A well-armored soldier might be able to withstand a sword attack, but it's much harder to stay fighting when you are getting cracked by dead weight. That isn't to say that swords are useless, as that would be kind of a dumb thing to say, but they aren't as great a weapon as popular opinion would lead us to believe.

Ancient warfare was really awful.

Boy, that sure is true. The brutality required of and normal for war until only recently is shocking. It's worth noting that some of these battles consumed the lives of upwards of 100,000 men in a single battle. Frankly, that boggles me. My town is about 65,000 people, and I simply cannot envision my town being killed by various combinations of puncture, laceration and blunt force trauma in one day.

[walking arsenal]

The brutality required of and normal for war until only recently is shocking.

Yeah, good thing were more civilized now.

Dropping a hellfire on a group of insurgents from an unmanned aerial drone is a lot less brutal.

[JShirley]

It's definitely a lot more selective than warfare has been for much of history.

[walking arsenal]

No doubt.

[TimboKhan]

Dropping a hellfire on a group of insurgents from an unmanned aerial drone is a lot less brutal.

Well, dead is dead I guess, but a hellfire is a whole lot quicker and less painful way to go than getting run through with a spear or bashed in the head with an axe. It's a function of detachment, really. When you have to go out knowing that your going to need to slaughter men in ways that we in modern society wouldn't even slaughter an animal, thats considerably more brutal to me than instantly reducing someone to mist with a push of a button. I didn't mean to imply that modern warfare is somehow better, but in comparison, modern warfare is a walk in the park on the brutality scale.

Consider this: We had 56,000 dead in all of Vietnam, and we rightly view that as shocking. In the Battle of Edessa (259 CE), 70,000 men perished in one battle. All the deaths at Edessa came from face-to-face warfare using spears, axes, hammers, swords, rocks, fists or whatever else. Maybe you don't think thats any less brutal than modern warfare, but I sure see a difference, particularly when you consider that ancient warfare also effected the general populace to a much greater extent than modern warfare does. I am sure life in Iraq isn't awesome, but neither are we going in, raping every female we see and stealing food out of the mouths of the hungry. Perhaps our soldiers commit brutal acts on occasion, but by and large they are not brutal men. I don't think that can be said about warriors of ye olden times.

Anyway, you make a point, but if it came down to it, I would take death by Hellfire any day of the week over death by sword.

[hso]

We talk about the need to prepare the mind for the brutality of using a knife in a life and death struggle vs. the relatively sterile act of defending yourself with a gun all the time here because the primitive "bad breath" range struggle for life is much different than toting a gun and shooting someone.

This debate can be extended to primitive warfare and modern warfare. People can be killed in combat in a much more detached manner today than it ever was possible in the 18th century and before (yes, and H2H battles can still occur). If it seems brutal that killing can be detached and tidy compared to hacking another man's arm off while standing in the guts of a third while he cries for his mother, I can understand that perspective, but let us not confuse the two.

[Ghost Tracker]

This thread has taken a few interesting evolutionary turns as bright, well-informed folks offer thoughtful observations. Thanks gentlemen!

I recently was involved in a conversation about how modern warfare "might be different" if the political/tactical decision-makers actually (physically) LED the fight. The decisions about what would be cause enough for war, and how that war would be fought, might be radically different if the guy making the decision...was at the front of the charge.

Some of you historians might have an idea of when this concept went out-of-style & how warfare has changed since it happened?

*This thread has NOT been hijacked. Simply re-routed to a new destination, much like a hijacking.

[Byron Quick]

Some of you historians might have an idea of when this concept went out-of-style & how warfare has changed since it happened?

While there are examples of the leaders of a significant tribe or nation 'leading from the front,' it was never 'in style.'

History gives many reasons. All identical. Probably the most recent is the death of King Adolphus Gustavus of Sweden in battle during The Thirty Years War back in the early 1630's. Sweden was kicking butt and taking names until his death as he was a true military genius. Sweden had pretty rough times after his death. His nation would have been much better off if he had directed battles from a bit further back. Most of the other political leaders who led from the front in battle who were competent...they mostly also got killed-to the detriment of the cause of their nation.

If history should be used to guide one's course, then this is a very poor idea.

When the political leader is competent and gets killed in battle, things usually go south for the nation in the war.

When the political leader is incompetent, he usually doesn't manage to get killed until he has gotten his nation into a situation where there are no viable options.

It's one of those deals that sounds good superficially and theoretically that has not worked at all well in practice.

[Ash]

Not just getting killed in battle, but leading a battle from the front gives an excellent tactical feel for but a small area and denies the commander the ability to direct the entire battle. Leading the charge, as in Mel Gibson's William Wallace charge seems heroic, but it means the commander has actually abandoned his command of the battle.

That is what subordinate officers and then NCO's are for. It isn't cowardice, it is command.

And by the way, I knew a man who hunted rabbits with stones. I saw him take out a rabbit running at full speed with a stone about half the size of a golf-ball. This was while I interned with Georgia Pacific in northern Mississippi. We were on a prescribed burn and a rabbit got chased out of the fire and onto the road. It was perhaps 10 yards from Joe Jackson, who knelt down a quickly picked up a piece of gravel. The rabbit tore down the road and he flung the stone, striking the rabbit behind the head. The animal tumbled a few feet and fell dead. I saw it with my own eyes. I thought it was an absolute fluke, but one of the other crew members told me Joe killed rabbits with rocks all the time (this was while Joe skinned the animal and put it in his cooler).

Ash