“Ammon Smote Off Their Arms with His Sword”

Brant Gardner

Obviously, Ammon could not smite the arms of six attacking simultaneously. Therefore, they must have come at him one at a time and always from or near the front. He seems to have been in no danger of being outflanked. Did this one-on-one represent a code of honor, or had Ammon chosen his ground strategically so that the approach was too narrow to admit more than one? Of course, a practical reason for not attacking Ammon in pairs is the danger to one’s companions from a swinging club.

Combat in the ancient world was, perforce, personal. The advantage of six on one was not the simple superiority of numbers, but the superiority of stamina. The effort expended by Ammon is at least six to one. Naturally, larger numbers could be assumed to prevail. Even a temporary advantage by the single combatant would almost certainly be overcome as he continually faced a fresh attacker.

Also crucial in this combat is the weaponry: clubs versus sword. The clubs are not described, but they would have no cutting edge. Ammon’s sword, by definition, would lead us to expect a cutting edge; but why, in that case, would Mormon specify that Ammon smote the arms of his enemy “with the edge of his sword”?

I have already argued that a Book of Mormon “sword” is Joseph Smith’s translation of a more common Mesoamerican weapon such as the macuahuitl. (See commentary accompanying 2 Nephi 5:14.) The macuahuitl was essentially a club with obsidian blades embedded on two sides forming a plane. Thus the “sword” had two sharp edges and two sides that were blunt wood. The club side might be used to stun or fend off an attack, but the bladed sides were clearly used in cases of deadly intent. Lacking a point, the macuahuitl could be used for slashing, but not stabbing.

Could a blow from macuahuitl sever an arm? According to a report from Titulo C’oyoi, created by the Quiché during the Spanish conquest, a blow of a macuahuitl severed a horse’s head during a battle some time between 1523 and 1527. Certainly decapitating a horse would have been even more challenging than severing a human arm.

Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4

References