OK, so school me up on this Bowie/fighter thing

[bladeymae]

Thanks for your comments Roger. As you say Bowie's knife is famous as a fighting knife but i'm sure it and other knives of the day were much more often used for more mundane tasks. You can skin a mouse with a 10" Bowie and butcher an elephant with a pen knife but neither are optimized for the task. The clip point of the Bowie and the dagger point of the Arkansas toothpick are what made them effective killing tools. I'm a fan of Bill Bagwell's knives and when i look at them i see differences between them and 19th century knives. When you hunt hogs bayed by dogs you don't slash at them until they die , you stick the point in their vital organs. Anyone who is defending his life with a knife would be wise to do the same. The difference between a butcher's knife and a Bowie knife is the point and it's size. As Crocodile Dundee would say "this here's a knife".


Johnny

 

[RogerP]

Thanks for your comments Roger. As you say Bowie's knife is famous as a fighting knife but i'm sure it and other knives of the day were much more often used for more mundane tasks.

No argument there - as I mentioned earlier. But the fact that it was more often used for more mundane tasks back in the day does not make it any less of a fighting knife in origin or definition.

Even back in the day, there weren't an abundance of knife fights breaking out all over creation. And if actual use as a fighting knife in any way informs the definition, I think you'll agree that the vast majority of contemporary "fighters" don't qualify - as by far, the majority never were and never will be used in a knife fight.

When you hunt hogs bayed by dogs you don't slash at them until they die , you stick the point in their vital organs. Anyone who is defending his life with a knife would be wise to do the same.

True for hunting hogs, but not necessarily true for a fighting knife. If it were so, the dagger would be the ultimate fighting knife. There are a great many fighting knives that have performed their role worldwide and over centuries that are more "slashy" than "stabby". Hit a guy pretty much anywhere with a Khukri and he's out of the fight. If I had to defend my life with a knife, a Khuk would suit me just fine.

Roger

PS - that Dorneles piece is awesome, whatever label you hang on it.

 

[ttoney83]

Generally, IMO, a fighter will have a bit of a guard to help protect the weapon hand and catch and help control your opponants blade. Fighters come in many styles and one style is a Bowie type, clip point blade.
The blade of a fighter may be somewhat thinner and generally longer than your camp knives, but mostly it is going to feel like a feather in your hand, ie, there should be almost no blade presence, the point of balance being at or very near the guard to facilitate fast, accurate strikes and quick recovery.
This general description is supported by an ancient axiom of warfare;
There are two types of Warriors; the quick, and the dead.

Heavy, slow weapons make for slow, dead warriors.

 

[Mark Knapp]

In the photo below does anyone differentiate any of the knives as Bowie or fighting knives ? For reference the largest blade is 13 1/2" long not including the handle and 2 1/2" wide.

This is an amazing collection

 

[RogerP]

Heavy, slow weapons make for slow, dead warriors.

The historical instances where speed has been successfully sacrificed for power in edged weapons are SO numerous as to call that statement very much into question.

Just look at swords - they ranged from light and linghting fast to heavy and powerful. A quick, whippy little rapier wouldn't accomplish much against and armored opponent. A broadsword might, slower though it may be. Had you tried to get a Norse raider (Viking) to abandon his battle axe for something lighter and faster, you would have had a tough sell. Just as you would trying to convince a Ghurka that his knife was deficient by reason of being too blade heavy and not having a guard. He'd also probably be real keen on the idea of his opponent trying to "catch and control" his scything blade on a half-inch piece of steel. I could go on, but I hope you have my point.

Roger

 

[HoosierQ]

According to Bernard Levine, in the collecting world (antiques I suppose you'd say) a Bowie knife is a knife designed and built as a side arm. It would have to pre-date the introduction of the cap and ball revolver in 1838 or whenever it was. This distinction is important because there are many knives made later for hunting and other purposes on the same pattern of what we call a bowie today. Obviously all these custom made Bowie knives are no less of a Bowie knife because they've been made since 1838. Just saying... So by this logic, a Bowie and a Fighter are one and the same, and the term(s) are in place to differentiate the Bowie from the hunter, the camp knife, the skinner, etc.

Again, I am citing Bernard Levine here.

 

[bladeymae]

PS - that Dorneles piece is awesome, whatever label you hang on it.

Thanks Roger. Coming from a man who appreciates fine knives that means a lot to me and i'd like to say you have posted many fine knives yourself.

Johnny

 

[bladeymae]

I had to post this knife and whether you call it fighter or Bowie or both it is my all time favorite. The original by John Chevalier and Gil Hibbens rendition punch all my buttons when i think Bowie.

Johnny

 

[Ebbtide]

Good one Johnny!
I like that idea

Bowie first and foremost was a weapon.
Back up to the single shot pistols of the day.
As the weapons of the day evolved, so did the bowie.
Years after the repeating pistol became common, the bowie knife shrank to the 'cowboy' bowie and even later on the 'hunter bowie'. Less weapon and more tool.
So it really helps to have a time frame.
The Bowie name helped to sell knives just cuz everyone wanted a knife like Bowie's.

Slash vs thrust is one of the oldest weapon debates around.
After all these years there still is no clear cut winner
The Bowie, with all of its attributes, gives the owner the option of both.

To me, all of the knives in the group shot of antiques qualify as bowies.
English, confederate, Sheffield and so forth.

I think today the bowie knife is undergoing another change.
What used to be called Bowies are now regarded as antique styles or repros.
The current Southwest Bowie used to be called a fighter.
And the camp knife has some how become a bowie as well.

The Bowie Knife, an ever changing, ever evolving design

 

[RogerP]

^^ Two very cool bowies up there. :thumbup:

And Ebbtide - I agree with everything you just said.

Roger

 

[bladeymae]

I like the Evans Bowie and renditions of antique knives in general. By the way Bruce lives about 30 miles south of me in Booneville , MS.

Johnny

 

[stabber]

I feel the taller blade with the curvy clip really gives the knife that Bowie shape/design

For instance, These Siska's. One has Rados 5 bar turkish twist and the other is one of Jim's biggest Bowies made.

Here's a Siska Engraved by John Pease. Not as much of a curvy clip, But I put this in the Bowie pile

I feel a fighter blade has a lower profile blade with a longer clip to get the weight down for a nice fast moving fighter. Like this Siska, Or these Jrry Hossom Massive Retributions. Near 20 inches but hollow ground to a very surprising Balance and weight distribution:thumbup:

This Craig Camerer Long Rifleman Fighter has a very low profile Blade that is nice n light and very fast in the hand:thumbup:

 

[Kevin Jones]

While I too like to think of a Bowie as a weapon, I assure you that for every instance where one was actually "used" as a weapon (ie knife fight) there were hundreds or perhaps thousands of instances where it was "used" for other purposes (ie camp knife).

 

[RogerP]

While I too like to think of a Bowie as a weapon, I assure you that for every instance where one was actually "used" as a weapon (ie knife fight) there were hundreds or perhaps thousands of instances where it was "used" for other purposes (ie camp knife).

So? How does that contribute to the definition of the bowie or distinguish it from a "fighter"? Are "fighters" regularly used in knife fights in your experience? Whether you "like to think" of a bowie as a weapon or not is irrelevant. That is what the original knife was. That is what made it famous. That is it's defining characteristic. The fact that it wasn't predominantly used is knife fights is nothing more than what would be expected. These knives became hugely popular in Bowie's time and thereafter - the fact that most of the people who wanted to own "a knife like Bowie's" weren't a bunch of cutthroats is hardly surprising from a mere statistical standpoint. None of that changes the fact that the bowie was a sidearm - a weapon - a failsafe against less than foolproof firearms of the day. That is what defines the genre, whether you choose think of it as a glorified camp knife, or not. The vast majority of fighting knives today (that is - knives designed as fighters) aren't in fact used in knife fights. That doesn't mean they're not fighters.

Kevin - can you think of ANY knife style where it's "actual" use as a weapon, exceeds its use "for other purposes"? If not, then by your definition, no fighting knives exist.

Put another way - a knife conceived and designed as a fighting knife isn't less of a fighting knife by virtue of the fact that it isn't routinely used in knife fights.

Roger

 

[NickWheeler]

I apologize if it's already been mentioned (I'm still a little delirious from the trip) but Jason Knight's defining characteristic is pretty simple and straight-forward.

If it has a sharpened clip it's a fighter, if it doesn't... it isn't.

Now I don't personally go by that... I just call it whatever I feel it is/looks like!!! :foot:

But Jason's theory is awfully simple and hard to screw up!

 

[RogerP]

According to Bernard Levine, in the collecting world (antiques I suppose you'd say) a Bowie knife is a knife designed and built as a side arm.

You and Mr. Levine are both spot-on.

Roger

 

[RogerP]

I apologize if it's already been mentioned (I'm still a little delirious from the trip) but Jason Knight's defining characteristic is pretty simple and straight-forward.

If it has a sharpened clip it's a fighter, if it doesn't... it isn't.

Now I don't personally go by that... I just call it whatever I feel it is/looks like!!! :foot:

But Jason's theory is awfully simple and hard to screw up!

Unless, of course, it's a bowie with a sharpened clip.

Roger

 

[Kevin Jones]

So? How does that contribute to the definition of the bowie or distinguish it from a "fighter"? Are "fighters" regularly used in knife fights in your experience? Whether you "like to think" of a bowie as a weapon or not is irrelevant. That is what the original knife was. That is what made it famous. That is it's defining characteristic. The fact that it wasn't predominantly used is knife fights is nothing more than what would be expected. These knives became hugely popular in Bowie's time and thereafter - the fact that most of the people who wanted to own "a knife like Bowie's" weren't a bunch of cutthroats is hardly surprising from a mere statistical standpoint. None of that changes the fact that the bowie was a sidearm - a weapon - a failsafe against less than foolproof firearms of the day. That is what defines the genre, whether you choose think of it as a glorified camp knife, or not. The vast majority of fighting knives today (that is - knives designed as fighters) aren't in fact used in knife fights. That doesn't mean they're not fighters.

Kevin - can you think of ANY knife style where it's "actual" use as a weapon, exceeds its use "for other purposes"? If not, then by your definition, no fighting knives exist.

Put another way - a knife conceived and designed as a fighting knife isn't less of a fighting knife by virtue of the fact that it isn't routinely used in knife fights.

Roger

Roger, in reading back over this thread it’s obvious that you have issue with everything I write.

I’m not going to argue back and forth with you on this forum as we have done in the past as it’s not productive, rude to other forum members and my time is more valuable to me than that.

I would suggest that, in the best interest of the community, we not let our recent differences outside this forum bleed onto here.

 

[RogerP]

Roger, in reading back over this thread it’s obvious that you have issue with everything I write.

I’m not going to argue back and forth with you on this forum as we have done in the past as it’s not productive, rude to other forum members and my time is more valuable to me than that.

I would suggest that, in the best interest of the community, we not let our recent differences outside this forum bleed onto here.

Kevin - I was discussing the subject at hand. I disagree with the significance you attach to the very obvious fact that most bowie knives made weren't actually used in knife fights.

I don't have an issue with everything you write - only when you're wrong. Clearly, it bothers you when someone - by someone, I mean me - has the temerity to express an opposing view. There's not much I can do about that. As I said at the outset of this thread, there is nothing resembling a consensus on what defines a bowie or a fighter. Inherent in that statement is an acknowledgement that people will possess different views on the subject. Discussing those differing views is what happens on a knife discussion forum.

Roger

 

[betzner]

Probably a good idea to post some pics, at this point in the "conversation". Here's a Bowie and a fighter, without any attendant discussion thereof: