Why those long wide Bowie knives?

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo!

For 1861:

"No. 2.

Weapons, captured at Rich Mountain Pass on July 11th by the Ind. Regts.

A great many knives of the most monstrous dimensions were found on the bodies of the dead and wounded and taken from the prisoners. The blades of most of them, which were at the recommendation of Gov. Wise manufactured out of waggon (sic) springs, measure on average a foot and half in length and from 3-4 inches in width. They would in close combat prove a most disastrous weapon, but are not likely to be used that way."

L. Johnssen, field correspondent for Harper's Weekly.



Curt

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo!

And a lad from the 4th Michigan:



Curt

[David Fox]

I've never bought into the oft-repeated assertion large side knives/cutlasses were useless encumrances to army personnel. Should a fight boil down to one protagonist getting inside the guard of another, rare as that scenerio may be, a large knife in hand would be a sight better to have than a sharp stick. Perhaps more important, they made very useful camp tools. Remember: the United States Army went on after the Civil War to the trouble of adopting a series of large-bladed personal weapons/tools for groundpounders from the 1870s through 1910. These included the bizarre wide-bladed bayonets of the 1870s with hand application, the 1880 "hunting" knife, production resuming in 1890, the Krag Bowie bayonet of 1900, and the M.1910 bolo widely used in WW I, a murderous trench weapon. WWII saw the limited issue of M1941 naval cutlasses to GIs on Guadalcanal and wider issue of machettes in the Pacific and Viet Nam. Seems to me that, for a sidearm asserted to be worse than useless, every American Army generation since 1865 has found application for large side knives or side knife-like weapons with concurrent thrusting, cutting and a chopping usefulness. In the infantry unit to which I was assigned in Viet Nam, very large cheap Bowies sent from home were a fad. We weren't issued machettes in the Mekong Delta, and these cleaver-like edged weapons popular in 1861 had multiple practical uses in 1968.

[Hank Trent]

Weapons, captured at Rich Mountain Pass on July 11th by the Ind. Regts.

Check out that bottom one. If it's drawn to scale, that's the largest push-dagger I've over seen. Is that as unusual as I think it is, or is that some kind of weapon I'm not aware of, that normally comes in that size?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo!

Dunno, I have wondered that for decades since first coming across that reference.

It defies push-dagger technology due to its size.

However, in some oriental martial forms of knife-fighting, that is still taught (say to the "Delta" and the "SF" type lads) there is a two handed "power assist" using the second hand to push the hilt. (It comes after one has captured the attention of a foe with the first 1-3 cuts.)

But the CW era farmer, clerk, or mechanic did not receive such esoteric and arcane into modern training- and used a knife either as best he naturally could, or perhaps might have actually been exposed to.

(On the other unrelated hand, I was taught how to "be nasty" to kill or maim with many mundane things one could just pick up- a pencil, a ballpoint pen, an umbrella, a car key, or a rolled up newspaper or magazine if my unaided body was not getting the job done.)

Soldiers improvise with what they have. The large bowie could inflict nasty and fatal wounds in its own right but also having passed into contemporary legend in the 1840's and 1850's as a Jim Bowie craze.
Sometimes crazes make sense, sometimes they did not. We are again seeing a very small rise or interest in the modern military with tomahawks, which is history repeating itself from Viet Nam.

The M1869 Trowell bayonet is another historical oddity.

Curt

[FloridaConscript]

any pioneer types have any documentation as to how frais were sharpened? I haven't done a ton of pioneer research, but I can't help but think a large side knife fashioned from a wagon spring or cleaver would be right handy in the pioneer business. I know rev war guys had faschine (sp?) knives...did that carry over to our 19th C. subjects?

side knives were being manufactored by Georgia through out the war.

http://www.oldsouthantiques.com/os1529p1.htm

[OldKingCrow]

Hallo!

Soldiers improvise with what they have. The large bowie could inflict nasty and fatal wounds in its own right but also having passed into contemporary legend in the 1840's and 1850's as a Jim Bowie craze.
Sometimes crazes make sense, sometimes they did not. We are again seeing a very small rise or interest in the modern military with tomahawks, which is history repeating itself from Viet Nam.

The M1869 Trowell bayonet is another historical oddity.

Curt

Spetsnaz Shovel.

[Union Navy]

As much as the soldier/sailor seemed to want a large knife for a variety of purposes, higher-ups seemed to expend considerable effort to keep such out of their hands. Witness the semantic somersaults that Adm. Dahlgren resorted to to get a "fighting knife" (so-called Dahlgren bowie bayonet) into the hands of sailors. He had to sell it as a bayonet for the Plymouth rifle, to which it was unsuited and usually didn't fit anyways. Made a great close-quarters weapon for boarding, though. Which also almost never happened, either.

[Jimmayo]

All three of the dug knives were found in an 1862 camp of the 57th Va. by a friend of mine. Two were in hut sites. No telling why they were left behind when the regiment broke camp.

The other one was captured at the battle of Old Men and Young Boys at Petersburg by a member of the 11th Pa. Cav. This was probably only carried to one battle.

[Lance Stifle]

Hello then brother,
a surprise to read you'd served in Vietnam, when I did my own tour as an Aussie we highly valued the American KaBar.

It was SOP to less than gently prod behind the knees of any charlies on sweep throughs post contact.
Most of us carried 7.62mm (.308) FN SLR's too long to be accurate when fitted with bayonets, so one hand on the pistol grip keeping the arc, the other using the KaBar.

They were a bloody good general purpose tool as well; I still have mine.

Wait for the surprise conclusion.
Kim Stewart

"I am with the South in death, in victory or defeat...I never owned a Negro and care nothing for them,
but these people have been my friends and have stood up to me on all occasions." Patrick Cleburne 1860.

I've never bought into the oft-repeated assertion large side knives/cutlasses were useless encumrances to army personnel. Should a fight boil down to one protagonist getting inside the guard of another, rare as that scenerio may be, a large knife in hand would be a sight better to have than a sharp stick. Perhaps more important, they made very useful camp tools. Remember: the United States Army went on after the Civil War to the trouble of adopting a series of large-bladed personal weapons/tools for groundpounders from the 1870s through 1910. These included the bizarre wide-bladed bayonets of the 1870s with hand application, the 1880 "hunting" knife, production resuming in 1890, the Krag Bowie bayonet of 1900, and the M.1910 bolo widely used in WW I, a murderous trench weapon. WWII saw the limited issue of M1941 naval cutlasses to GIs on Guadalcanal and wider issue of machettes in the Pacific and Viet Nam. Seems to me that, for a sidearm asserted to be worse than useless, every American Army generation since 1865 has found application for large side knives or side knife-like weapons with concurrent thrusting, cutting and a chopping usefulness. In the infantry unit to which I was assigned in Viet Nam, very large cheap Bowies sent from home were a fad. We weren't issued machettes in the Mekong Delta, and these cleaver-like edged weapons popular in 1861 had multiple practical uses in 1968.