-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is $300 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Daggers vs. Knives...
- Thread starter scotjute
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2001
- Messages
- 227
1)In the real world, a dagger. Swords just aren't that easy to conceal 
In the past/fantasy world where swords can be carried around, I'd take two daggers over a single sword any time, but why not a dagger and a sword?
2)Guns perhaps? And the daggers and knives were there, just not featured in history books much. Knives are bad things to learn about remember?
In the past/fantasy world where swords can be carried around, I'd take two daggers over a single sword any time, but why not a dagger and a sword?2)Guns perhaps? And the daggers and knives were there, just not featured in history books much. Knives are bad things to learn about remember?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 135
Hi,
What about the legendary Arkansas toothpick or (perhaps I little later I guess) the bowie?? The former is most definitely a dagger and the latter was often around the same size.
(My timeline could be way out here guys, I am not American)
A sword is a million times better than even two daggers in a real fight unless the fight is a surprise self defence situation that happens in a space the size of a telephone booth. A swordsman can just sit in an open ward with the blade above his head and say come and get me. A dagger cannot block a cutting sword or heavy sabre.
Cheers
Stu.
What about the legendary Arkansas toothpick or (perhaps I little later I guess) the bowie?? The former is most definitely a dagger and the latter was often around the same size.
(My timeline could be way out here guys, I am not American)
A sword is a million times better than even two daggers in a real fight unless the fight is a surprise self defence situation that happens in a space the size of a telephone booth. A swordsman can just sit in an open ward with the blade above his head and say come and get me. A dagger cannot block a cutting sword or heavy sabre.
Cheers
Stu.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2001
- Messages
- 435
My .02 cents worth.
Daggers or "double edged" knives are quite popular for self defense. Being sharp on both sides means it requires less force to achieve optimum penetration. Can't really chop with a "dagger" unless you consider a large leaf blade like a "Smatchet" to be a dagger.
Daggers were present in "Frontier America". They were harder to make and thus were more expensive than a single edged knife. They just weren't as practical. There was a popular DE knife known as a "hudson bay", that basically looked like a steel beaver's tail that was sharpened. If you look at more recent history you see this debate pop up time and again. In WWII the Marine Corps 1st Raider Batallion were issued a DE knife based on the Fairbairn Sykes dagger. This was due more to the direct connection between the China Marines and Mr.'s Sykes and Fairbairn, than anything else. For an urban setting, or a quick commando assault it would have probably been fine. But it was for killing only. It was useless for anything else. Enter the 2nd Marine Raider Batallion. They were issued a very large bowie knife. The Case and Western bowies of today are descended from these knives. A much more practical weapon that was also a useful tool, bowies like these are still popular today. As are DE knives. A bowie with a sharpened clip is just as effective a weapon as a dagger, but it can also chop, and be used as a tool. Daggers are rather limited in their usefulness. Daggers seem to me to be more of a prestige item rather than a practical combat weapon IMO.
And Stu, the bowie was "inevented" in the 1830's so your timeline is correct.
Daggers or "double edged" knives are quite popular for self defense. Being sharp on both sides means it requires less force to achieve optimum penetration. Can't really chop with a "dagger" unless you consider a large leaf blade like a "Smatchet" to be a dagger.
Daggers were present in "Frontier America". They were harder to make and thus were more expensive than a single edged knife. They just weren't as practical. There was a popular DE knife known as a "hudson bay", that basically looked like a steel beaver's tail that was sharpened. If you look at more recent history you see this debate pop up time and again. In WWII the Marine Corps 1st Raider Batallion were issued a DE knife based on the Fairbairn Sykes dagger. This was due more to the direct connection between the China Marines and Mr.'s Sykes and Fairbairn, than anything else. For an urban setting, or a quick commando assault it would have probably been fine. But it was for killing only. It was useless for anything else. Enter the 2nd Marine Raider Batallion. They were issued a very large bowie knife. The Case and Western bowies of today are descended from these knives. A much more practical weapon that was also a useful tool, bowies like these are still popular today. As are DE knives. A bowie with a sharpened clip is just as effective a weapon as a dagger, but it can also chop, and be used as a tool. Daggers are rather limited in their usefulness. Daggers seem to me to be more of a prestige item rather than a practical combat weapon IMO.
And Stu, the bowie was "inevented" in the 1830's so your timeline is correct.
- Joined
- May 16, 2002
- Messages
- 4,437
<<most effective for combat/self-defense and why?>>
I'd class daggers as a subclass of knives., so I don't get the "versus" here.
A dagger is a specialized thrusting knife, thus not very versatile as a tool.
I'd take a Khukuri over dagger anytime, as it has mass for the slash and can stull thrust in a pinch. Kind of the Himalayan bowie knife, and Axe in a Knife package.
<<Why didn't the dagger show a more prominent role in frontier America? >>
A dagger is a specialized thrusting knife, thus not very versatile as a tool. A frontiersman is more likely to need a knife he can use for skinning, preparing food, chopping wood, etc.
If he had need of a weapon, he was better off with the firearm for range, using the knife (primarily a tool) as a last resort. A blackpowder rife makes an excellent and devastating club of in close, and that's what he'd do after firing the first shot.
So there you have it. My opinions thru my interptretation of historical research.
Now there are exceptions to this rule. Certain NorthWest tribes (Tlingit) made double bladed daggers for hunting. They hunted moose with these massive daggers made of native copper, while other native americans were using stone points. They would drive moose to the water, and while the moose was swimming the river or lake, they would paddle alongside in a skin canoe, and jab the moose until panic, exhaustion, or bloodloss overcame the beast. So the Tlingit dagger was more of a hand-spear, used in the icepick grip.
Barnes and Noble's book "Swords and Hilt Weapons" (various authors) has a good pic of these fabulous and rare daggers.
Keith
En Ferro Veritas
I'd class daggers as a subclass of knives., so I don't get the "versus" here.
A dagger is a specialized thrusting knife, thus not very versatile as a tool.
I'd take a Khukuri over dagger anytime, as it has mass for the slash and can stull thrust in a pinch. Kind of the Himalayan bowie knife, and Axe in a Knife package.
<<Why didn't the dagger show a more prominent role in frontier America? >>
A dagger is a specialized thrusting knife, thus not very versatile as a tool. A frontiersman is more likely to need a knife he can use for skinning, preparing food, chopping wood, etc.
If he had need of a weapon, he was better off with the firearm for range, using the knife (primarily a tool) as a last resort. A blackpowder rife makes an excellent and devastating club of in close, and that's what he'd do after firing the first shot.
So there you have it. My opinions thru my interptretation of historical research.
Now there are exceptions to this rule. Certain NorthWest tribes (Tlingit) made double bladed daggers for hunting. They hunted moose with these massive daggers made of native copper, while other native americans were using stone points. They would drive moose to the water, and while the moose was swimming the river or lake, they would paddle alongside in a skin canoe, and jab the moose until panic, exhaustion, or bloodloss overcame the beast. So the Tlingit dagger was more of a hand-spear, used in the icepick grip.
Barnes and Noble's book "Swords and Hilt Weapons" (various authors) has a good pic of these fabulous and rare daggers.
Keith
En Ferro Veritas
Ferrous Wheel
Actually I was thinking of the larger daggers as a sort of short sword
or very short sword, sort of in the 12-18" blade length range.
Seems like daggers of that length would still have been relatively easy to carry and had a major advantage over knives and possibly even over the tomahawks they used.
Actually I think Stuart hit on it when he mentioned the Arkansas toothpick. It was a sort of dagger, and often in the over 12" size.
Actually I was thinking of the larger daggers as a sort of short sword
or very short sword, sort of in the 12-18" blade length range.
Seems like daggers of that length would still have been relatively easy to carry and had a major advantage over knives and possibly even over the tomahawks they used.
Actually I think Stuart hit on it when he mentioned the Arkansas toothpick. It was a sort of dagger, and often in the over 12" size.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2001
- Messages
- 435
Well, I doubt there were that many in use in this country at the time, but the Kindjal found a home through out the Caucausus region. I've seen examples from as far east as Syria and as far west as Finland. That is a hell of a lot of territory for one simple knife design. A large version of the Kindjal, the Qama, is more of a short sword than a knife. They are for the most part double edged and rather long. My Kindjal has a 14" blade. Honestly I would have no qualms about taking a REAL Kindjal into battle. (Not the tourist crap) But a large bowie or a Khukri, would still be my first choice. Of late I have been intrigued by the WWI artilleryman's Kindjal. Depeeka makes a replica. It has a 17" double edged, curved blade. Hold it one way, and it is like a saber. Hold it the other way and it is like a sickle.
The fur trappers did have "long knives". I know that in Europe at the time, smaller "Hunting Swords" were common. Some even made it into the trenches of WWI, on both sides. Sword over ax? Brian Boru would have been mortified. I am grossly unqualified for a valid opinion in that debate. Guess that means I need to play with more sharp pointy stab stab hack chop toys. Weeeeeeeeeee!
Course, for the weight of either, I can carry 30 rounds of .223 or .45 ammo.
The fur trappers did have "long knives". I know that in Europe at the time, smaller "Hunting Swords" were common. Some even made it into the trenches of WWI, on both sides. Sword over ax? Brian Boru would have been mortified. I am grossly unqualified for a valid opinion in that debate. Guess that means I need to play with more sharp pointy stab stab hack chop toys. Weeeeeeeeeee!
Course, for the weight of either, I can carry 30 rounds of .223 or .45 ammo.