African sickle swords as effective weapons

[Timo Nieminen]

Shaka's successful imperialism wasn't the result of weapons - weapons rarely make the difference in war when neighbours fight each other. The credit should go to discipline and organisation (both on and off the battlefield). Same for the Romans - they didn't win wars due to using sword and shield, but due to discipline and organisation (and numbers and industrial capacity (e.g., building fleets on demand)).

Thrusting spears were around in Africa long before Shaka. Shields were around long before Shaka.

IMO, "engineeringly incompetent" isn't an accurate description of swords with effective cutting edges, often effective thrusting points, and weight, balance, and length that make them easily usable weapons. If they have an unusual stereotypical appearance, but will effectively cut (and sometimes thrust), they appear to be engineered well enough. Often, they have ergonomic grips, blade cross-sections that give good stiffness for low weight, very effective cutting cross-sections, and features such as forward curved tips (e.g., sickle swords as in the OP) and pointy bits (e.g., flared-tip Konda swords) that will give fearsomely effective penetration on a cut. They no more deserve being labelled non-functional due to their appearance than exotic-to-European-eyes weapons like the kukri, kora, kampilan, and kris.

[Jim McDougall]

Interesting elucidation, which does make a good point, although I am not sure who or where the notion of Shaka's imperial success being based on weapon(s) came from. As far as I have understood, the success of the Zulu nation militarily was enhanced through Shaka's attention to organization and tactics and the proper use of the weapons already extant.

The assegai (iklwa) was a shorter stabbing spear which Shaka insisted be used in contact combat over the use of throwing spears (which were still used but only prior to direct attack). The shield was of course known, but improved by Shaka by being made larger and used tactically in a more combative manner (hooking opponent shield aside for fatal assegai thrust).

While Shaka was long gone by the time of Isandlwana (1879), Cetshwayo the Zulu king effectively carried forth the methods and battle order of Shaka, though finally defeated.

There have been many perceptions of 'exotic' weaponry in European view, but certainly as pointed out, many 'unusual' in appearance have proven to be quite deadly in instances of actual use. Obviously the kukri has been proven incredibly so of course through the almost legendary exploits of the Gurkhas, and the kora, kampilan and keris have been deemed effective as well.

In actuality, the question of actual use combatively of many weapons which are seen as unwieldy, and ineffective when gauged by either western or other perspectives is not likely to be 100% accurate. It is well known that many of these African edged weapons are indeed used ceremonially, and perhaps these versions derive from forms which were indeed used combatively in some less exaggerated or embellished form.
However, it is also the case that many such edged weapons forms have become relatively inert traditionally held arms, such as bearing swords, dress and parade swords, and ceremonial accoutrements.

While these types of weapons are not considered battle worthy in many cases, virtually any weapon can become one of opportunity or necessity in the right circumstances. Even the much contended Omani dance sa'if was noted as being 'razor sharp' , yet with its relatively flimsy blade, would render it hopelessly uncombative, but could certainly badly wound if the situation warranted.
In another discussion I mentioned the Kabyle flyssa of Algerian Berber regions, and that its long, terribly balanced blade with needle point, has never been accurately accounted as far as its actual use. The open hilt without guard offers little in supporting use of this blade in a thrust, nor can this seemingly be used in a swinging cut for slashing. Obviously those of this form smaller (they are in range of sizes) may be more effective, but most of length seem unlikely for combat use. Still, as noted, the deadly prospects of sharp blade and needle point as well as hefty blade weight could be seen as possibly usable as a weapon.

I think it is necessary to consider these many types of African edged weapons pretty much individually rather than with a broad brush. There are some that are most surely ceremonial alone, but it would be interesting to look into their source or symbolism in learning if earlier actual weapons influenced their use.

Returning to the native tribes of Africa and their warfare, I agree that their systems of conflict were based more on intertribal 'negotiation' and limited contest rather than pitched battles and war. As well noted, tribes were allied confederations in many cases or smaller groups, all maintaining a degree of autonomy. One of the primary goals in many cases in addition to situations of internecine dispute was captive taking, which led into the commerce of slaving. Outright killing in battle was not conducive to these goals obviously, so aside from limited combat in raids, or other incidental cases, there was not a need for heavily armed forces. This may be why the spear was traditionally the primary weapon of African tribal peoples where these other edged weapon forms came into being in more recent times through the many outside influences.

Att: Zulu tribesman with 'assegai' from "The Lure of Africa" C.H. Patton

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

Shaka's successful imperialism wasn't the result of weapons - weapons rarely make the difference in war when neighbours fight each other. The credit should go to discipline and organisation (both on and off the battlefield).

Chaka's " successful imperialism" did, in fact, result from the modification of the throwing assegai into a stabbing Iklwa. It changed the entire tactic of the confrontation, allowing coordinated face-to-face contact and converting ritualistic hurling of solitary assegais from a distance with extremely low probability of any damage to the opponent into a dedicated mass murder.
In this he ( likely unknowingly) reproduced the Roman tactic: tightly organized legion moving inexorably forward and performing non-stop deathly stabbing.

Yes, stabbing spears were present in other African societies, but it was Chaka who conceptualized their use on a mass scale and integrated them into his vision of a novel military force dedicated to a total war.



In this Chaka was not alone: Mongols of Chingiz Khan devastated Russian and later East-Central European armies with new tactics based on the softening of the opposing force by rapid feighned cavalry assaults, false withdrawals, and tight communications between units. For that they used powerful bows and arrows and light sabers to slaughter disorganized and separated enemies. That was how Subedei and Jebe with 20,000 cavalrymen utterly annihilated 120,000-strong Russian army at Kalka river and, later on, the flower of European knighthood at Legnica.

And, yes, Ngombe/Ngulu beheading swords and the like could inflict damage, but they were not optimized for any stabbing or cutting function and, from the engineering point of view, their artistic/ ritualistic construction severely impaired their functional performance.

Every successful military requires a concept of the battle order and provision of the most appropriate weapons. Deliberately artistic configuration of the blades only gets in the way.

And you are correct: a conflict between neighbors does not require tactics and weapons optimized for killing. After all, each tribe will end up with its own territory and will continue to be autonomous. Former opponents will continue to co-exist. Things change when your goal is to acquire their territory and subjugate their population. This requires a lot of blood and gore. Chaka understood it.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

Chaka's " successful imperialism" did, in fact, result from the modification of the throwing assegai into a stabbing Iklwa. It changed the entire tactic of the confrontation, allowing coordinated face-to-face contact and converting ritualistic hurling of solitary assegais from a distance with extremely low probability of any damage to the opponent into a dedicated mass murder.
In this he ( likely unknowingly) reproduced the Roman tactic: tightly organized legion moving inexorably forward and performing non-stop deathly stabbing.

Yes, stabbing spears were present in other African societies, but it was Chaka who conceptualized their use on a mass scale and integrated them into his vision of a novel military force dedicated to a total war.



In this Chaka was not alone: Mongols of Chingiz Khan devastated Russian and later East-Central European armies with new tactics based on the softening of the opposing force by rapid feighned cavalry assaults, false withdrawals, and tight communications between units. For that they used powerful bows and arrows and light sabers to slaughter disorganized and separated enemies. That was how Subedei and Jebe with 20,000 cavalrymen utterly annihilated 120,000-strong Russian army at Kalka river and, later on, the flower of European knighthood at Legnica.

And, yes, Ngombe/Ngulu beheading swords and the like could inflict damage, but they were not optimized for any stabbing or cutting function and, from the engineering point of view, their artistic/ ritualistic construction severely impaired their functional performance.

Every successful military requires a concept of the battle order and provision of the most appropriate weapons. Deliberately artistic configuration of the blades only gets in the way.

And you are correct: a conflict between neighbors does not require tactics and weapons optimized for killing. After all, each tribe will end up with its own territory and will continue to be autonomous. Former opponents will continue to co-exist. Things change when your goal is to acquire their territory and subjugate their population. This requires a lot of blood and gore. Chaka understood it.

VERY well said Ariel, and really brings better perspective to understanding the character of these aspects of African tribal warfare . From what I have read concerning Chaka, while may not have 'invented' the shorter version of the assegai, he certainly promoted its use and the 'methods of engagement'
including the tactical 'bull horn' formation which in turn made his military formidable and indeed successful.

Returning to our topic on the actual effectiveness of African sickle swords as weapons, and by association other African tribal edged weapons, again, I think individual examination of select forms is best.
In my opinion these 'sickle swords were effective as weapons, but perhaps not necessarily in the manner often suggested, by hooking the shields of opponents.
However, it is interesting as we discussed Chaka, that he also enlarged the Nguni form of shield ( 'modification' just as with assegai) with which he trained the warriors to use the shield to 'hook' or pull the opponent shield aside for fatal assegai thrust to ribs. It would seem that the compromising of opponents shields was a known combat maneuver in African warfare here, so perhaps known in other regions as well.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by ariel

In this he ( likely unknowingly) reproduced the Roman tactic: tightly organized legion moving inexorably forward and performing non-stop deathly stabbing.

As I said, discipline and organisation. Everybody in the region used shields and spears, and one can implement this same tactic with a multi-purpose throwing/thrusting spear (or with a variety of designs of thrusting spear). If Shaka's enemies had thought that the short thrusting spear was the key to his victories and adopted it (without the discipline and organisation), they would have lost just as badly, if not worse.

Originally Posted by ariel

In this Chaka was not alone: Mongols of Chingiz Khan devastated Russian and later East-Central European armies with new tactics based on the softening of the opposing force by rapid feighned cavalry assaults, false withdrawals, and tight communications between units. For that they used powerful bows and arrows and light sabers to slaughter disorganized and separated enemies. That was how Subedei and Jebe with 20,000 cavalrymen utterly annihilated 120,000-strong Russian army at Kalka river and, later on, the flower of European knighthood at Legnica.

The sabre had been around for centuries. The composite bow had existed for over two millennia. Feigned withdrawals, and many of the other tactics the Mongols used were old and well-known steppe tactics. The elements of the Mongol military system that weren't just the usual steppe military system were largely adopted from the Khitans. There were no revolutionary changes or advances in weapons and tactics that enabled Mongol success.

Indeed, tactically the Mongols often only performed comparably with their enemies. Where they excelled was at the operational level, consistently fighting favourable battles, bypassing strongpoints, and achieving surprise. This achievement didn't depend on weapons, but on disciple and organisation. Part of that was good communications, which was achieved through existing technology (couriers on horseback) and organisation.

Originally Posted by ariel

And, yes, Ngombe/Ngulu beheading swords and the like could inflict damage, but they were not optimized for any stabbing or cutting function and, from the engineering point of view, their artistic/ ritualistic construction severely impaired their functional performance.

Consider the attached photos of two Congo swords. These are, IMO, quite typical Congo swords. Both show stereotypical design with prominent artistic elements. How do these artistic elements severely impair their performance? How is the function of the sickle sword in the OP severely impaired?

It's true that there are many African weapons that are purely ritual/ceremonial. In my experience, these are a small minority of the weapons, and in any case are militarily irrelevant since they're not fighting weapons.

Originally Posted by ariel

And you are correct: a conflict between neighbors does not require tactics and weapons optimized for killing.

You misunderstand. Neighbours (especially pre-industrial neighbours) are generally at similar levels of technology, and have access to the same or similar weapons. The main advantage of one neighbour over the other comes from organisation, numbers, or economics, not weapons.

Non-neighbours such as colonial European powers often had a major advantage due to weapons, which local powers could not always match due to their inability to manufacture similar weapons. An advantage in weapons, especially at the level of modern rifles vs muzzle-loader, bow, and spear, can make a difference (and was typically accompanied by an advantage in discipline and organisation, which made things even worse). Weapons can make a difference. Menelik II was wise to buy modern rifles as quickly as he could.

[ariel]

Timo,
There is no disagreement between us: both “organization” ( in a larger sense of the word) of the military as well as the weapons at its disposal are important. My point is that they mutually influence each other and should be compatible to be fully effective in their common goal: the “ways”( tactic) and “means” (instrument).
Inverting your example of assegais used as stabbing weapons without proper organizing principle one can imagine what would have happened had Chaka’s Impis , properly deployed and trained, used their iklwas as hurling weapons from a conventional distance :-) The whole idea was to make spears utterly unusable as hurling implements, to force the fighters to engage in the face-to- face confrontation. For that, spear heads had to become massive to inflict maximal damage and the shafts short enough to make them unusable for hurling, in fact converting a traditional assegai to a stabbing sword analogous of gladius.


Thus, only a marriage of trained Impis with a weapon suitable for their optimal function could assure final success.

In modern times tanks, initially imagined as self-propelled movable cannons/ machine guns, mutated into highly mobile analogs of heavy cavalrymen capable of converting static trench defense into dynamic attack force. Again, a revolutionary idea of aggressive maneuverability coupled to a proper instrument.
Six foot tall English bows would be unsuitable for Mongolian light cavalry, but the absence of its mobile tactic would be equally unsatisfactory despite massive use of long distance nomadic bows.


In different circumstances the primacy of the chicken vs. the egg could be switched: sometimes the ways dictated the means, sometimes vice versa. But the general principle of their mutual compatibility remained inviolable.