Another theoretical question: what are those Central African swords used for anyway?

Freddy · 18th April 2005, 06:44 PM

I think it is difficult to compare the weapons of different cultures. Of course, a Japanese katana will be superior to a 'mambeli' or 'mambele '

. This not only by its construction (superior steel), but also by its use.

Central African tribesmen had little of no armor when going into battle. Weapons, how peculiar in shape these may be, were the result of a long evolution and particularly suitable for the conditions needed at that moment in time. Don't forget that large parts of Africa were uncharted areas not no more than 150 to 200 years ago. The isolated populations knew no better.
Even then there were differences. Some Central-African tribes conquered others due to the superiority of their weapons. Take the Zande who were feared over a vast territory as fierce warriors. They used a weird weapon : the multi-bladed throwing knife.
Were these weapons just for show ? I don't think so. Were they inefficient ? By all means, no ! Certainly not against an opponent in a loin cloth.

But compared to the Europeans, with their superior weapons technology (the rifle), these tribesmen were certainly no match. This doesn't mean that on certain occasions they weren't able to defeat the Western technology (take Karthoum and Isandlwana).

True, a lot of these 'weird' African weapons evolved into status symbols. Why not ? It's the same with a Japanese katana. Now, it's no longer a fighting sword. But is it ineffective when used........?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

18th April 2005, 06:44 PM	#24
Freddy Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sint-Amandsberg (near Ghent, Belgium) Posts: 830	I think it is difficult to compare the weapons of different cultures. Of course, a Japanese katana will be superior to a 'mambeli' or 'mambele ' . This not only by its construction (superior steel), but also by its use. Central African tribesmen had little of no armor when going into battle. Weapons, how peculiar in shape these may be, were the result of a long evolution and particularly suitable for the conditions needed at that moment in time. Don't forget that large parts of Africa were uncharted areas not no more than 150 to 200 years ago. The isolated populations knew no better. Even then there were differences. Some Central-African tribes conquered others due to the superiority of their weapons. Take the Zande who were feared over a vast territory as fierce warriors. They used a weird weapon : the multi-bladed throwing knife. Were these weapons just for show ? I don't think so. Were they inefficient ? By all means, no ! Certainly not against an opponent in a loin cloth. But compared to the Europeans, with their superior weapons technology (the rifle), these tribesmen were certainly no match. This doesn't mean that on certain occasions they weren't able to defeat the Western technology (take Karthoum and Isandlwana). True, a lot of these 'weird' African weapons evolved into status symbols. Why not ? It's the same with a Japanese katana. Now, it's no longer a fighting sword. But is it ineffective when used........?