Metal Swords?

[Robert F. Smith]

The point is that I don't think any conquistadores noticed two Aztec warriors thrusting and parrying against each other with their macuahuitls in hand-to-hand combat as if they were truly swords. These were offensive weapons. You try to parry a swing by another macuihuitl, and the brittle obsidian shards are probably going to break or embed themselves into the wood of your own weapon.

And, despite your suggestion, the Book of Mormon doesn't quote from or try to reenact Edmond Rostand's 1897 play "Cyrano de Bergerac," thrust home! with all the wonderful swordplay and romantic poetry. You are reading more into the Conquistadores' identification of the macuihuitl as a "sword" than the comparison will bear. At least Mel Gibson attempted to employ actual ancient weapons in his Apocalypto (2006), even though I didn't see any macuahuitls therein. The commitment to authenticity is admirable.

The development, types, and similarities to swords among the various macuahuitls is well described online in "Evolution of the Maquahuitl" at http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk/.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

When does "rock" not mean "rock"? When it means Peter, of course. When does "sword" not mean "sword"? When it is a "macuahuitl", of course.

No traces of any iron or steel swords have been found in North, Central or South America dating from pre-Columbian times. And the argument of their rusting away would seem to fill the bill. But if the blades were made of obsidian then there is no rust involved. Where are all the thousands of millions of obsidian chips from weapons manufacture or millions of pointed blade edges from macuahuitl weapons lost in battle?

There are millions of obsidian, chert, and flint chips throughout the western hemisphere, many of them the remains of paleolithic knapping to create the various tools constantly used by Amerinds during the last 20,000 years or so. Obsidian, which is volcanic glass, is merely the sharpest. Take an anthropology class at a local college or university. Visit a local museum dealing with paleoindian culture. It will be a real eye-opener.

[dougtheavenger]

What material the swords were made is not what strikes me about Book of Mormon violence. Remember it is a translation and 'rust' may have simply meant decay as Joseph himself probably had a metal sword in mind when the story came up. Similar to christ quoting the Septuagint.

An EXCELLENT apologetic point though is how Ammon used his 'sword' whatever it may be.

But behold, every man that lifted his club to smite Ammon, he smote off their arms with his sword; for he did withstand their blows by smiting their arms with the edge of his sword, insomuch that they began to be astonished, and began to flee before him; yea, and they were not few in number; and he caused them to flee by the strength of his arm.- Alma 17:37 http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/17.37?lang=eng#36

This is a Filipino Martial Arts concept commonly refferred to as "defanging the snake" or sometimes "defanging the serpent"'. Here is wiki's definition http://en.wikipedia....nging_the_snake

Here is a youtube link of defanging the snake. check out after intro 5:35

VERY IMPORTANT to help you understand why Ammon was considered "wise, yet harmless"(alma 18:22) watch. because it is what he did not do that demonstrates his wisdom. Except to the Leader

Now six of them had fallen by the sling, but he ^aslew none save it were their leader with his sword; and he smote off as many of their arms as were lifted against him, and they were not a few. alma 17:38.

[media=]

What is interesting is that this is a concept within all edged weapon martial arts systems. So I guess Brother Joseph must have been well aware of this from his studies in Eastern Hemisphere that is probably where he got all that stuff from Coptic christianity also because there is just no way that Smith learned this from Fencing, Fencing is for the wealthy. Also i bet that the sons of mosiah passed time by doing this kind of training probably for fun and practice. Alma 17:7 always sounded fishy to me. Since when did people hunt with swords. Your also single for 14 years.

Edited July 7, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[ANACO]

What material the swords were made is not what strikes me about Book of Mormon violence. Remember it is a translation and 'rust' may have simply meant decay as Joseph himself probably had a metal sword in mind when the story came up. Similar to christ quoting the Septuagint.

An EXCELLENT apologetic point though is how Ammon used his 'sword' whatever it may be.

But behold, every man that lifted his club to smite Ammon, he smote off their arms with his sword; for he did withstand their blows by smiting their arms with the edge of his sword, insomuch that they began to be astonished, and began to flee before him; yea, and they were not few in number; and he caused them to flee by the strength of his arm.- Alma 17:37 http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/17.37?lang=eng#36

Also note in Alma 19,

22 Now, one of them, whose

brother

had been slain with the sword of Ammon, being exceedingly angry with Ammon,

drew his sword

and went forth that

he

might let it fall upon Ammon, to slay

him

; and as

he

lifted the sword to smite

him

, behold,

he

fell dead.

In Alma 17, you have Lamanites using clubs.

In Alma 19 you have a Lamanite using a sword. (the brother of the Lamanite slain by Ammon's sword).

A club and a sword - used by two brothers - would not be synonymous two chapters apart in the account. Therefore, they would be different weapons, presumably one made of wood, the other of metal.

(formatting issues)

Edited July 8, 2012 by ANACO

[volgadon]

For the most part, clubs club, swords cut.

Edited July 8, 2012 by volgadon

[ANACO]

For the most part, clubs club, swords cut.

True. I wonder why they never discovered gunpowder...

[ERayR]

True. I wonder why they never discovered gunpowder...

Edited July 8, 2012 by ERayR

[dougtheavenger]

In Alma 17, you have Lamanites using clubs.

In Alma 19 you have a Lamanite using a sword. (the brother of the Lamanite slain by Ammon's sword).

A club and a sword - used by two brothers - would not be synonymous two chapters apart in the account. Therefore, they would be different weapons, presumably one made of wood, the other of metal.

(formatting issues)

This talk about distinquishing between swords and clubs is silly. I am a Jeet Kune Do person so I dabble in a lot of martial arts. Therefore I do not claim to be an expert. However from my training I have learned to feel the differences between certain types of weapons and how they are used. In many parts of the world metal blades have been outlawed for security reasons in Ireland, Japan and in the Phillipines. Because of this the Filipinos for example used fire hardened sticks to train. Many movements are the same while their are many nuances to this weapon.

Good point on Alma 19:22 That one goes to Jesus. The drawing the sword part can easily be identified the 'open position'. This is exactly what struck me about Arnold Friberg's painting of Ammon defending his flocks

note how his hand is palm is facing upwards. That would decrease the chances of a foe being able to knock the sword out of his hand. Which is how you are supposed to fight with a sword. How the Lamanite drew his sword I do not know. It really is a nonissue.

The sons of Mosiah after all were royalty. Thus it makes sense that they would have quality weapons whereas little kids use sticks as weapons everyday. With regard to the weapons be they the club looking instrument with obsidian stones( the macahuatl) or just a good old stick is just a silly point to get stuck up on.

My Formatting skills along with my grammatical skills are about as weak as your rebuttal.

[ERayR]

Also note in Alma 19,

22 Now, one of them, whose

brother

had been slain with the sword of Ammon, being exceedingly angry with Ammon,

drew his sword

and went forth that

he

might let it fall upon Ammon, to slay

him

; and as

he

lifted the sword to smite

him

, behold,

he

fell dead.

In Alma 17, you have Lamanites using clubs.

In Alma 19 you have a Lamanite using a sword. (the brother of the Lamanite slain by Ammon's sword).

A club and a sword - used by two brothers - would not be synonymous two chapters apart in the account. Therefore, they would be different weapons, presumably one made of wood, the other of metal.

(formatting issues)

You read too much modern fiction about ancient times by authors that have no idea.

[ANACO]

This talk about distinquishing between swords and clubs is silly. I am a Jeet Kune Do person so I dabble in a lot of martial arts. Therefore I do not claim to be an expert. However from my training I have learned to feel the differences between certain types of weapons and how they are used. In many parts of the world metal blades have been outlawed for security reasons in Ireland, Japan and in the Phillipines. Because of this the Filipinos for example used fire hardened sticks to train. Many movements are the same while their are many nuances to this weapon.

Good point on Alma 19:22 That one goes to Jesus. The drawing the sword part can easily be identified the 'open position'. This is exactly what struck me about Arnold Friberg's painting of Ammon defending his flocks

note how his hand is palm is facing upwards. That would decrease the chances of a foe being able to knock the sword out of his hand. Which is how you are supposed to fight with a sword. How the Lamanite drew his sword I do not know. It really is a nonissue.

The sons of Mosiah after all were royalty. Thus it makes sense that they would have quality weapons whereas little kids use sticks as weapons everyday. With regard to the weapons be they the club looking instrument with obsidian stones( the macahuatl) or just a good old stick is just a silly point to get stuck up on.

My Formatting skills along with my grammatical skills are about as weak as your rebuttal.

You read too much modern fiction about ancient times by authors that have no idea.

"By authors that have no idea?" How about that author by the name or Dr. Hugh W. Nibley. He noted the difference between these Lamanites using clubs and swords in an article to defend a Mesoamerica setting here ==> http://maxwellinstit...anscripts/?id=4

"

So the men had swords but only used clubs

. Isn't that odd, and isn't it odd that those same wicked Lamanites walked around right in front of the king's palace where everybody recognized them, and nobody did anything about it? And no one held it against the winning team that they had stolen their flocks back, but the losers were only angry with Ammon because he had thrown rocks and used his sword against men bearing only ceremonial clubs.

"All this reminds us of those many ceremonial games in which the loser also lost his life, beginning with an Aztec duel in which one of the contestants was tethered by the ankle and bore only a wooden mace while his heavily armored opponent wielded a weapon with sharp obsidian edges."

et cetera

I guess Dr. Nibley is one of those authors "who read too much modern fiction about ancient times."

Edited July 9, 2012 by ANACO

[ERayR]

"By authors that have no idea?" How about that author by the name or Dr. Hugh W. Nibley. He noted the difference between these Lamanites using clubs and swords in an article to defend a Mesoamerica setting here ==> http://maxwellinstit...anscripts/?id=4

"

So the men had swords but only used clubs

. Isn't that odd, and isn't it odd that those same wicked Lamanites walked around right in front of the king's palace where everybody recognized them, and nobody did anything about it? And no one held it against the winning team that they had stolen their flocks back, but the losers were only angry with Ammon because he had thrown rocks and used his sword against men bearing only ceremonial clubs.

"All this reminds us of those many ceremonial games in which the loser also lost his life, beginning with an Aztec duel in which one of the contestants was tethered by the ankle and bore only a wooden mace while his heavily armored opponent wielded a weapon with sharp obsidian edges."

et cetera

I guess Dr. Nibley is one of those authors "who read too much modern fiction about ancient times."

You didn't read what I wrote. You missed this: "You read ... modern fiction..." Note: Nobody is claiming a club and a sword are synonymous. It is you that is making that connection. Where do you get that they were only carrying ceremonial clubs. Besides the last I heard a ceremonial club can do as much damage as a dirty old run of the mill club. Had he not drawn and used his sword he would have been as dead as if they were using swords.

[dougtheavenger]

"So the men had swords but only used clubs.

Exactly. Sorry that I did not elaborate on the Sticks versus blades tangent. The point of me bringing that up is that draw attention to the fact that 'swords' are harder to come by than 'clubs'. The Sons of King Mosiah(which included Ammon) were basically Royalty so the probably had some pretty high quality Self-defence equipment. Which would be the sword. The macahuatl can easily be identified as a sword since it cuts. There would be a distinctive feel and usage of the Macahuatl that is why there is a distinction.

It has been about a month and no one has really critiqued the Defanging the Snake in the Book of Mormon theory.

UPHELD

[dinnahoag]

Hiiii inquiringmind . ...

Yup, it is true that no pre-Columbian metal swords have ever been discovered in North, Central, or South America .

[CASteinman]

Yup, it is true that no pre-Columbian metal swords have ever been discovered in North, Central, or South America .

I believe that posts in this thread have shown that it is not true -- that they have been found.

[ERayR]

I believe that posts in this thread have shown that it is not true -- that they have been found.

Come now you are confusing the whole issue with some facts.

[Bob Crockett]

Hiiii inquiringmind . ...

Yup, it is true that no pre-Columbian metal swords have ever been discovered in North, Central, or South America .

Not true. I have quoted from Thomas Haywood (Heywood)'s work.

[mfbukowski]

I believe that posts in this thread have shown that it is not true -- that they have been found.

What? Read the posts before you shoot off your mouth? Who would do such a thing??

[Anijen]

Not true. I have quoted from Thomas Haywood (Heywood)'s work.

What book by Thomas Haywood are you referring to? I would like to read it. thanks.

[Kjev]

It also comes down to the meaning of steel and metal. Steel as we know it did not exist in the time of Joseph Smith, at least not widely.

What? May I ask how you come to that conclusion? Damascus steel and Toledo steel were known in Europe long before Joseph Smith was born, and let's not forget the art of forging steel katanas in Japan, even in 1600. I'm not trying to argue. I just wonder if you could expound on your statement a little.

[Anijen]

What? May I ask how you come to that conclusion? Damascus steel and Toledo steel were known in Europe long before Joseph Smith was born, and let's not forget the art of forging steel katanas in Japan, even in 1600. I'm not trying to argue. I just wonder if you could expound on your statement a little.

I am thinking that was a typo. he probably meant someone earlier. If so steel has been around along time.

[Nathair/|\]

If this is a sword, I don't see why a macahuatl can't be one too.

[Duncan]

Is it true that no pre-Columbian metal swords have ever been discovered in North, Central, or South America?

I have them, there are in my garage in a box

[MormonMason]

... Plus, you can't decapitate somebody with one of those, as per Ether 15:30....

I call BS. One of these bad boys decapitated a horse with one swing, as recorded by a Spanish chronicler.

[bcuzbcuz]

I call BS. One of these bad boys decapitated a horse with one swing, as recorded by a Spanish chronicler.

Bernal Diaz del Castillo wrote his version of events some 30 years after the fact. There may have been some "poetic license" used in the writing. Certainly, Diaz del Castillo himself viewed other stories of events to be largely fictitious.

[CASteinman]

Bernal Diaz del Castillo wrote his version of events some 30 years after the fact. There may have been some "poetic license" used in the writing. Certainly, Diaz del Castillo himself viewed other stories of events to be largely fictitious.

Modern reconstructions of this weapon show it to be extremely capable.