Talk:Bowie knife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Bowie Knife vs Machete

It seems that Bowie Knives are somewhat of a small machete (the largest bowie knife and smallest machete being at 12 inches). What do you think? Zachorious 04:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brass Back-strap

I've heard this story about the brass back being used to "catch" blades but it's always struck me as remarkably unlikely. Unless someone can verify it I recommend it be cut. Peregrine 12:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's common enough actually, lots of knives and swords use some method of catching another blade with the back or side. Whether you're quick enough to do it is a matter of practice and talent I assume.209.169.111.193 02:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC) (Eno-Etile, forgot to login)
Perhaps we're using "catch" in different senses here. I'm familiar with back surface parries (al la circle six in FIE fencing) but as it was reported to me it involved intercepting someones edge with one's own back. So it needs both citation and clarification (as does the reference to the dirk).Peregrine 06:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, I just understood it to mean that the softer metal on the back would be used to "catch" your opponents knife/sword/etc as an attempt to reduce damage to your own knife (especially the blade), and to increase the liklihood of damaging your opponets blade. But if you're talking about actually catching and holding your opponents weapon I'd have to agree that it seems unlikely.Eno-Etile 02:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, 'catch' needs to be defined here. Setting a thrust aside with the back, fine, taking a blow on the back...I'm not so sure. One version of the story I've recently come across is that it's to prevent damage to the blade when using the back as an expedient hammer.Peregrine 15:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Bit late on teh repost, sorry. Well it would defintly prevent damage to the blade as a narrow surface takes more damage from a blow than a wider one. Thats why you can hit a metal post with a baseball bat for hours and not damage it but you dull or possibly break a knife made of the same material. Oh And various sword methods teach that you use the side or back of the sword to block as opposed to the edged end of the blade 209.169.111.193 03:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm also doubtful about this. If nobody objects, I'm going to rewrite a little at some future time. I'll have to go to a library. Noble Rust (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There may have been 19th century bowies with brass backs but I didn't find
any in a fairly wide-ranging search of available pictures when I wrote it up
for guns magazine. there is one blade catchingdesign feature that
appeared on some bowies of the alleged James Black/ musso bowies. 
This is a notch at the bottom of the tang just in front of the
handguard and on the sharp side of the blade.  It is called a "

Spanish notch" and was supposed to be useful in spanish style

sabre fencing which some New Orleans instructors modified for
use with the bowie knives.

--Mcumpston (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish Notch is not used for blade catching in the Spanish style of knife fighting as referenced by both the Manual del Baratero and by James Loriaga's book Sevelian Steel. Many researchers today believe it to be a tool for stripping sinew and tying/reparing rope and nets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.59 (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bayonet link

Why the link to the Napoleonic bayonet site? It's broken anyway so I recommend either fixing it with an explaination of its relevance or cutting it. Peregrine 07:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Have removed Peregrine 06:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that was just spam. I reverted all of his contribs but didn't go far enough back on this one. Kafziel Talk 12:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Buck knife" cite?

buck knives and bowie knives are two entirely separate animals. The bowie knife has a fixed blade while the buck knife has a folding blade that locks into the open position for safety. MPaquette 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - can anyone comment on the "Buck knife" reference in this article? I haven't heard anyone called bowie knives buck knives myself, and it smells a bit like marketing. Random name 13:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

the buck General, The Buck special and the buck Frontiersman all have bowie-style blades and are fixed sheath knives.  The Buck 110 folder is often considered the generic Buck Knife though the company makes dozens of designs. --Mcumpston (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency?

Note that this conflicts with the story of the knife's origin in the Wikipedia article on the "Sandbar Fight" where a blacksmith named Cleft (apparently documented) made the knife based on a design by Bowie's brother.

For the brother, see Rezin Bowie. Some work should be done on consistency of what is said here, and sources cited. Charles Matthews 15:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Much of the information that Wikipedia has provided on the Bowie Knife is incorrect. Included is a list (not all inclusive) of problems with it. Most of the information falls into these catagories... 1. NOT TRUE 2. The knife photo'd is not even pre 1900 and doesn't even resemble a "Bowie Knife". 3. Most of their "facts" are not even close to what is generally accepted by most scholarly collectors and 3. There are two sides to every story and the Black story is generally thought of as just that..."A Story"; by the most advanced students/collectors of history 4. There is no evidence that Jim Bowie designed the "Bowie Knife", nor was it done in Arkansas. 5. There is evidence that Jim's Brother Rezin Bowie designed the first Bowie (butcher) Knife. There are many good references to access parts of this history. The best is Mr. Norman Flaydermans "The Bowie Knife, Unsheathing an American Legend." Mr. Flayderman gives both sides of the story and then uses scholar to credit and discredit where necesary. That which cannot be proven is left up to the reader. There is no stone unturned and many photo examples are given. It also is the first time that an attempt has been made to define "Bowie Knife". That reference should be used in Wikipedia. I am not billing Mr. Flaydermans book or being bias in any way, just pointing out what over 50 years of unbiased scholarly research on the subject "Bowie Knife" has resulted in... Before you cite the Bowie knife and where it was made, you owe it to yourself and future generations to read in full "The Bowie Knife, Unsheathing an American Legend". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.84.159 (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of this criticism, and am trying to get my hands on some materials to properly cite regarding at least some of these issues. I'm not entirely convinced there are "many" good references, but there are certainly some. Random name 11:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal status

I've begun a section on "legal status." Possession (or specifically, "carrying") of a Bowie knife is a criminal offense in Texas, the land for which Jim Bowie fought and died. Does anyone have information on status of this weapon in other jurisdictions? Yours, Famspear 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there no other articles discussing the legalities of bladed weapons in the US? This page doesn't seem like the place to discuss it in detail. I appreciate the irony, but suspect a link to another page might make more sense. Random name 13:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear editor Random name: The section does not discuss the legalities of "bladed weapons" in general. The article is about the Bowie knife in particular, not bladed weapons in general.
However, you may have a good point. For example, the article on the AK-47 more or less does it your way -- with only a brief mention in the main article and a link to a separate article on legality of the AK-47. Maybe it has been set up that way because the legal information can easily make for long, separate articles????
Anyway, I'll defer to you and others who edit the weapons articles on how to handle this. My interest is not so much in the Bowie knife or other weapons anyway. I'm more into legal matters. Yours, Famspear 14:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
it depends on where you live. california it's not legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.154.49 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: I have removed the "Ironically" language from the comment on legal status. I am the editor who put the language in the article in the first place, and I agree in retrospect that it's POV that can be removed. (By the way, I accidentally noted my latest edit as "minor", which I didn't intend to do.) Yours, Famspear (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Right after the Sandbar duel, Bowie knives became very popular and many people replaced their sword canes with them. A fight broke out in the Alabama legislature in which one of of the congressman evicerated another one with a bowie knife.--Mcumpston (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC) In the late 1830s, Tennessee, and Alabama both inacted anti bowie knife legislation and texas included Bowie knives by name as an illegal knife in 1871 legislation that outlawed carrying of pistols, dirks, daggers, swords, sword canes. bowie knives clubs and other items.

[edit] citations

I've added several of these. Notably, the quote regarding the use of the bowie as razor,boat paddle axe etc is a good discription but was made up by Russell T. Johnson as a device to detect plagerism rather than a historical artifice. It has been widely reproduced without attribution. I have cited Johnson and linked to his article, " The Bowie Knife and the Arkansas Toothpick." Some of the cited material I added makes this article repetitious in places. I have refrained from deleting key portions or reformatting the entire article in order to let interested partie contribute and arrive at a consensus. --Mcumpston (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Movie title incorrect

The Alan Ladd movie about Jim Bowie is The Iron Mistress (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044753/), not The Iron Maiden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.186.68 (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)