I know I shouldn't trust my source, but on Pawn Stars this weekend, the host said since WWI triangle bladed knives, look like a narrow pryamid were banned by the Geneva convention. Is this true? Supposedly cause too much damage.

I haven't seen a triangle bladed knife ever, so that would make some sense, but it could also be a bad design.

There's a box of about 100 of them here at work that we use for hand deburring





ETA: the largest ones we have are about a 5" blade...






 

Kiridashi Knife ?

The one in the show was made by a French company for US Doughboys. I would think if a triangle blade was a good thing to have in a fight you would see more offered.

Probably "The Hauge convention" (conventions, actually) and not Geneva.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention

It's a set of rules governing a nation's conduct during times of war, and their conduct on the battlefield.

Triangle shaped bayonets create wounds that bleed more. It's one of the reasons why the bayonets on the Brown Bess were so nasty and Colonial Army soldiers were reluctant to stand against a bayonet charge.

It's "illegal" on a battlefield, but not in your house. Or in their pawn shop. If you have one you're good to go.

I'm pretty sure I'm not illegal.

It would likely be under the Hague Conventions, not the Geneva Convention, and I don't recall ever seeing them mentioned, but it's possible.

-e- Damn, I was nano'd!

oh, you mean this?

Cool info.

That looks primitive, like something a pissed off caveman would use.

I LIKE IT!!!!!!

Banned for who?

Definitely resembles a shiv.. (self honed implement of violence)

I have a replica of one of these and its a nasty little dagger.

Cold Steel makes to swords with similiar blades, so they can't be that illegal.

What's with all of this "fighting by the rules?"

If my life is on the line, I'm going to use the most effective tools I can!

YMMV
Hessian-1

Epee blades are triangular..

Agreed, but in the military you'll use what's issued.

Imagine being captured with a "banned" weapon that's intended for use on your captors. How would they feel, and what kind of treatment would you get?

TO shiv with a shank.

SHANK http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shank

Triangle bayonets do not bleed more.
Colonial soldiers were reluctant to stand against a bayonet charge because that was pretty much the bread and butter of the British Army at the time.

Hopefully 95thFoot will be along soon.

never mind, just saw the name on the blade

OK, Hague convention, not Geneva. And thanks for the example pics. Would the triangle knives need blood groves or are blood grooves just a myth?

Actually, the wounds crerated by triangular blades are harder to treat, they do bleed more, and that's why they were banned

Still not why colonial troops feared a British bayonet charge.



 

Blood Groove was to try to help remove the blade . vacuum forms and holds the blade in the bayoneted person. fwir

May want to edit that to Hauge Convention before someone gives us the boring lecture and corrects you.

"Blood" grooves are lightening and strengthening cuts.

My bs is found out

I like peanut butter. Can you skate?

Interesting assertions. What's your primary source documentation for them?

Uh, what about the spike bayonet on the SKS?

Not exactly triangular, but close enough that a ban on triangular bayonets would almost certainly have included it.

How many were (are still being) made? Hmmm...

He was far nicer about debunking you than I was going to be.  

 

I get lucky sometimes

Well ....wars are about killing and bleeding out quick seems a good thing,the more you kill of the opposing side the quicker the battle is won and war over

Was China ever a signatory to either the Hague or the Geneva convention???

Are we talking these? Basically a 3 sided railroad spike from WW1. I have seen them at fun shows and been told by a few "collectors" that the name came from the design and ability to puncture the thick trench coats of the enemies. As far as being banned I had one guy tell me that they were because the wounds were not easily treatable and people bled out from blunt trauma and a puncture more than a blade design. So they were banned for more "civil" blade type bayonet and knifes Ive never done much research on them though..

I love those things! My friends call it my "Blood groove tool".

Now I want one.

I remember reading something about how the tri blade made it a bitch to stich up wounds properly and resulted in more infections\deaths.

Probably thinking of Article 23 of the 1899 Convention.

In WWI guys were using all manners of nasty shit in trenches. Hammers, brass knuckles, push daggers, all manner of blades.

I have a friend who is a reenactor and an absolute nut over Redcoat stuff.

He cites captured mail from rebel soldiers.

And yet...... taking a flame thrower and setting someone on fire from 50 yards away is A-OK!  

What reenactment group unit is your friend in? What letters does he mean?

I don't know what group. I haven't seen him in over a year. I'm not sure he even does it anymore.

I'm pretty sure that Colonial Army soldiers were reluctant to stand against a bayonet charge because of the prospect of getting run through by a fucking bayonet, shape nonwithstanding.

Puncture wounds in general are a whore and a half to treat, almost if not totally impossible to treat without some cutting and extra damage done to the surrounding tissue.

Now add in a three or four sided wound tract with puncture the entire length or even just the tip and you have a self tearing wound deep into the tissue that opens and tears on tissue movement.

"Article 23
Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:––

To employ poison or poisoned arms;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and the enemy's uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war"

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp#art23

Hmm...no mention of three-sided bayonets at all. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Three-sided bayonets had been long obsolete, since 1865. Mention of poison, though.

Folks, these assertions about three-sided bayonets were started by the first modern reenactors of the American Civil War in the 1950s and 1960s.

According to one of them, Dave Jurgella, who confirmed it with his friend and coworker, Ross Kimmel, when people asked them why they were carrying three-sided bayonets for their muskets (both British as well as French/American), they made up answers, so as not to let themselves be thought dim by saying "I don't know." They were young, and didn't know any better, he said.

In other words, they lied, and, with nothing else to challenge them, folks believed it. And still do. And other reenactors strated believing it, since, it "made sense".. And the tales got bigger and more wide-ranging in scope. And the ACW reenactors became Rev. War reenactors, and they kept telling the tales, for varying reasons. Mostly, it makes a neat story, and bayonets interest people in general. Of course, I've heard Viet Nam veterans swear up and down that it's true that they saw M-16s that had been made by Mattel, but, that doesn't make that true either, does it?....

Historical research demands you prove an assertion, much like a proving a charge in a courtroom. You have to have credible, multiple primary evidence sources.

The evidence for the assertions about these long-disused bayonets, other than reenactor logic ("Why, heck- this MUSTA been whut it wuz fer") and a strong desire to believe in this without supporting proof (we call this a "religion"), is frankly, not there. Quoting unnamed reenactors who say they read it in a book someplace, or saw it on Pawn Stars, is not proof.

If somebody can show a document or journal or account from 200 years ago or so, NOT written by somebody long afterwards, who wasn't even there, that confirms this stuff, please bring it forth.

Until then, stop passing it on. It's . It's like something sensationalistic and undocumented from SLA Marshall's works. This is a tired topic that just won't go away.

How do surgeons sew up jagged, uneven shrapnel wounds? How do they sew up people who have gone through windshields in car crashes? Those poor folks are a mess of uneven cuts and stabs.There's somebody in my family who does this. She says "Just use more sutures! This isn't brain surgery!"

The Hague conventions banning dum-dum bullets and triangle knives are pretty funny.

Reminds me of Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid, "Rules? In a knife fight!"

And shouldn't a .58 calibre mimie ball be banned before a .223 hollow point cartridge?