The FIRST Bowie Knife??

[satx78247]

VERY TRUE. = The Sandbar Fight/Duel in the Icehouse at Midnight weapon, as I said earlier, LOOKS like a "fancy-made" butcher knife or scalper, with a "coffin-shaped" handle.

COL Bowie used both the "fancy" butcher knife & "My Little Friend" in the Icehouse Duel.
(Witnesses said that BOTH blades were blood-stained, when the door was unlocked & the other party was "quite dead" (One would think that being dead would be like being pregnant, i.e., what you are or are not but that's what the local newspapers described the deceased as being.) at that time. Further, the white/ruffled shirt that COL Bowie was wearing was thrown away, as Bowie said that his laundress would never get it cleaned.)

It's my opinion that ANY blade designed/made by the Bowie brothers IS a "Bowie's Knife", regardless of shape/design.

Note: Probably the most ornate & (at that time) expensive "Bowie's Knife" ever made was made "on private commission" for a "Creole Dandy from New Orleans" in 1838.
That blade is about 16" long & 3" wide at the widest point. The grip & sheath is of Ebony wood & the cross guard is made of "melted Spanish gold coins" (that were provided by the customer)
The handle & sheath are also heavily ornamented with gold.- I would guess that overall that the knife is about 22-23 inches overall, when sheathed.
(When the "fancy Bowie" was on display at Dillard University's Library in 1976-77, the plaque on the display case said that Rezin Bowie charged the customer 60.oo in US gold coins, plus the cost of materials to make that VERY ORNATE knife.)
To me, the blade looks like a short sword, rather than a "fighting knife".

just my opinions, satx

 

[Artificer]

Dave,

That is an interesting point about not having a cross guard to interfere with drawing the blade. (Excellent point Bowie normally dressed as a "townsman," if not a bit of a Dandy at times.)

The problem I see with that theory is even a rather "small" Bowie Knife with a 7 or 8 inch blade would have been very difficult to conceal under one's coatee/outer coat.

Still, I agree that if they thought a cross guard might interfere with the draw when wearing "town clothes," they may well have done away with the cross guard, even if doing so was not needed.

Gus

 

[Einsiedler]

You would be surprised what one can conceal in the small of their back.

Edit. Or for that matter inside your trousers

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Gus,
I understand your point, and it's not bad. What I mean is, that for example, if one is drawing the blade from beneath some clothing, and let us not forget the shirts tended to be sort of "blousy", one might be concerned with a snag.

I came up with this while considering modern, concealed weapons. Consider all of the modern variations on a single brand, in Smith & Wesson revolvers meant for belt or armpit carry beneath one's jacket which are hammerless, or have the hammer shrouded..., to prevent a snag when drawing. Consider too, how many such guns with normal hammers have had them bobbed by gunsmiths.

So with that in mind I thought that since not only are these men in the first half of the 1800's having to draw their concealed weapons fast, but they also need to draw them with force, while the modern handguns need merely to come out quick and a trigger be pulled. So the fellows of the first half of the 19th century not only needed to produce the knives, but probably had to move that knife to block an incoming blade attack (so needs force) or to deliver a good wound on the opponent (also needing force). In such a case, would not a delay or the movement being weakened by snagging the clothing for a split second = a debilitating or perhaps mortal wound to the defender, instead of a successful block or delivering a defensive cut to the opponent?

Again, I don't know how many actual cases where clothing snagged caused a man in a fight a problem, but the perception that it might cause a problem could be enough to influence what the knife makers sold, since the knife users would want the product without a guard.

Purely conjecture, but you'd think if the lack of a guard was a problem and not at least thought to be an advantage, there wouldn't be so many of the guardless, coffin handled knifes surviving today. Surely if the market was flooded with such knives, that might be an answer, but then why would a man drop a lot of coin on a custom knife made with such a handle and no guard?
:idunno:

LD

 

[Nativearizonan]

I don't know, but would guess the addition of the large guard, and especially the D-guard, was the result of knives being used in the military where it was more likely to be used to parry the blow of a saber. In civilian use, it was probably not normally a big advantage, but facing those with swords, it becomes a critical survival feature. The infantryman did not normally carry a sword, and needed something handy to block the blows from sabers.

It seems after the Civil War, the "Bowie" was much more likely to have the large guard, and this could have been a result of the wartime use of fighting knives.

 

[satx78247]

One main reason that so many VERY LARGE "Bowie Knives" of the WBTS period survived the war & in such good condition was that those BIG knives were too large/awkward to carry during the long treks into battle then.
(The fancy "early war", "full-dress" uniforms survived for precisely the same reason. = Those ornate uniforms were simply UNSUITABLE for daily wear & an ornate uniform made you a TARGET.)

yours, satx

 

[Einsiedler]

I would venture to guess that the typical knife fight (if such a thing existed) was extremely one-sided, involved only one knife, and last a total of no more than 5 seconds, with the unlucky participant laying on barroom floor with at least two fatally administered back cuts, and not ever knowing what hit him.

 

[Artificer]

LD,

Funny you should mention S&W's (and I do remember the hammerless and bobbed hammer models), though I was thinking of the "concealed" cross draw rig I had for an N Frame Model 25 with a 6 1/2 barrel. Had to take the huge wood grips off and replace them with pachmyer grips. The only problem was that I needed a jacket or maybe a specially tailored suit coat/sport coat to "conceal." OK, back to the topic.

Though I am aware of modern cross draw rigs, where the knife is along the side of the body under a coatee or jacket, I am not aware they had them during the period?

I do not know of period PRE-WBTS daguerreotypes showing a person in civilian clothes wearing a Bowie Knife in other than a cross draw rig supported by the waist belt? Most of the drawings/engravings I have seen show the knife carried that way.

Yes, the fact that so many sold during the period that did not have guards, definitely meant something. I am unsure whether it meant they were not concerned about not having a cross guard, OR if that was the way so many were made and they just "made do" with them that way?

Many period daggers from that period and long before, normally had some kind of guard on them, if nothing more to keep the hand from sliding up onto the edges. Of course Scottish Dirks did not have a cross guard, per se, but the front of many grips had a swell or lobes (left over from the earlier Ballock Knives) to keep the hand from sliding forward. Maybe the "swell" at the front of the coffin handle did the same on early Bowie knives?

I can see Native Arizona's point that the "D Guard" Bowie was more for military use to parry a sword OR a bayonet. However, a cross guard did not have to be nearly that large to be effective.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

One main reason that so many VERY LARGE "Bowie Knives" of the WBTS period survived the war & in such good condition was that those BIG knives were too large/awkward to carry during the long treks into battle then.

yours, satx

Yes indeed, plus once trained well with a bayonet, a Soldier was usually better off with a bayonet than a large bowie knife.

Many of those large early knives were left in camp after only one or two marches.

Gus

 

[LRB]

That would not describe a fight, but rather a murder, or assassination. The survivor would likely hang were there witnesses. In my experience as a witness to the aftermath of such encounters, in a face to face fight, with both party's armed and alert, no one walks away uncut. It is a nasty, revolting, and unromantic affair in truth.

 

[Artificer]

EXACTLY right, Wick, and especially when both parties have knowledge of knife fighting and the more so when both are well trained/experienced.

Gus

 

[Einsiedler]

That would not describe a fight, but rather a murder, or assassination. The survivor would likely hang were there witnesses. In my experience as a witness to the aftermath of such encounters, in a face to face fight, with both party's armed and alert, no one walks away uncut. It is a nasty, revolting, and unromantic affair in truth.

Yup. That very scene plays out just about every weekend somewhere in South Texas.

Everyone who got into a knife fight didnt necessarily have any experience or know what they were doing! My point was never give your opponent an edge (no pun intended). Unromantic? Of course. Murder perhaps? Depends onThe situation say on the 1825 /1830 Texas Louisiana frontier. Lots of folks in Texas then evading a necktie party somewhere east of the Sabine. Lots of folks that needed hanging lived to ripe old age ( most were politicians).

 

[satx78247]

EXACTLY SO. - Even our famous (or notorious, depending on your view of COL Jim,) COL Bowie got "cut up severely" in some of his knife-fights.

During the Sandbar Fight he was "run through with a sword & survived that grievous wound.
Also, he was cut across the chest in the Midnight Icehouse Duel.

yours, satx

 

[tenngun]

I would venture to guess that the typical knife fight (if such a thing existed) was extremely one-sided, involved only one knife, and last a total of no more than 5 seconds, with the unlucky participant laying on barroom floor with at least two fatally administered back cuts, and not ever knowing what hit him.

That's for sure. The big fight a la caridine in long riders was a Hollywood invention. The Hatfield McCoy fight where in several mcoys jumped a hatfild an stabbed him several times would be more typical.

 

[satx78247]

AND/OR the BIG knives & ornate dress uniforms were sent home to be worn at parties/events AFTER the war.

Union & CSA "field uniforms" are MUCH rarer (especially in usable condition) in 2017 than either Army's dress uniforms are.

yours, satx

 

[tenngun]

Over and over during the late war we read about trails of armies marked by discarded gear thrown off as useless or just heavy

 

[Nativearizonan]

One main reason that so many VERY LARGE "Bowie Knives" of the WBTS period survived the war & in such good condition was that those BIG knives were too large/awkward to carry during the long treks into battle then.

yours, satx

Yes indeed, plus once trained well with a bayonet, a Soldier was usually better off with a bayonet than a large bowie knife.

Many of those large early knives were left in camp after only one or two marches.

Gus

A lot of Confederates were not issued bayonets, especially late in the war. They were drafted and sent to fight with whatever they had or the struggling Confederate army could scrape up.

Remember that a saber was generally wielded by a man on horseback who fought much like a drive by shooter. He'd make one slash at an enemy and be gone to the next. If you could block that slash, you could survive that particular encounter. The big knife was not a good offensive weapon, however against rifles, pistols and bayonets, although there were undoubtedly many killed by knives during the war.

 

[tenngun]

That would not describe a fight, but rather a murder, or assassination. The survivor would likely hang were there witnesses. In my experience as a witness to the aftermath of such encounters, in a face to face fight, with both party's armed and alert, no one walks away uncut. It is a nasty, revolting, and unromantic affair in truth.

Yup. That very scene plays out just about every weekend somewhere in South Texas.

Everyone who got into a knife fight didnt necessarily have any experience or know what they were doing! My point was never give your opponent an edge (no pun intended). Unromantic? Of course. Murder perhaps? Depends onThe situation say on the 1825 /1830 Texas Louisiana frontier. Lots of folks in Texas then evading a necktie party somewhere east of the Sabine. Lots of folks that needed hanging lived to ripe old age ( most were politicians).

Self defense was pushed to the limit. Should someone threaten your life or even your property you could strike back, even from an ambush. A jury was not likely to hang someone known to them, and were likely to know if the dead was a bully or not. "Boom towns" were likely to be more forgiving of fights. Wild places like the riverfront or skid row was not likely to see the local law one way or another as the 'good people' didn't care, unless the dead was a gentleman 'slumming'. That same gentleman would be able to get away with a lot. Even with that the 'good people' of town might just think he got what he deserved for going to low places and houses of ill repute.

 

[Bo T]

Don't know about the veracity, but had one fella tell me that the most dangerous knife across the pond and a bit north is the typical Mora knife. Mostly because it is so useful and inexpensive that pert near everyone has one. And knows how to use it.

 

[satx78247]

I cannot argue over that, though I would GUESS that a GURKA's knife is the MOST dangerous because of the tough fearless people who wield it.

yours, satx