Paul Kirchner - The Deadliest Men: The Worlds Deadliest Combatants throughout the Ages

To Emily, a good writer.

Other books by Paul Kirchner:
Duelling with the Sword and Pistol:
400 Years of One-on-One Combat
Jim Cirillos Tales of the Stakeout Squad

The Deadliest Men:
The Worlds Deadliest Combatants throughout the Ages
by Paul Kirchner

Copyright 2001 by Paul Kirchner

ISBN 13: 978-1-58160-989-9
ePub ISBN: 9781610046558
PRC ISBN: 9781581609899
Printed in the United States of America

Published by Paladin Press, a division of
Paladin Enterprises, Inc.
Gunbarrel Tech Center
7077 Winchester Circle
Boulder, Colorado 80301 USA
+1.303.443.7250

Direct inquiries and/or orders to the above address.

PALADIN, PALADIN PRESS, and the horse head design
are trademarks belonging to Paladin Enterprises and
registered in United States Patent and Trademark Office.

All rights reserved. Except for use in a review, no
portion of this book may be reproduced in any form
without the express written permission of the publisher.

Neither the author nor the publisher assumes
any responsibility for the use or misuse of
information contained in this book.

Visit our Web site at www.paladin-press.com

Contents

Preface

He hefts his battleax.
She stands en garde,
rapier poised.
He thumbs down the safety on
his .45 automatic.
Each faces a superior
number of armed and determined
enemies, but no matter.
Within moments, those enemies
will either have fled or
lie dead.

I nvincible heroes have fascinated us from the epics of Homer to the action films of Hollywood. They routinely fight for their lives, survive terrible wounds, pull off hairbreadth escapes, triumph against overwhelming odds, and leave their enemies in heaps. But how many such people have there really been? This book profiles nearly 50, ranging from a Viking to a samurai, a Texas Ranger to a Detroit Tiger, a contemporary Los Angeles shopkeeper to a Colonial-era housewife.

Each fought as an individual. I chose not necessarily those who racked up the highest body counts, but those who consistently prevailed in a violent environment, whether or not they had to kill. While there are fencing masters and combat pistol shooters who may have demonstrated greater skill than my subjects, they are not covered here unless they fought for blood, not sport.

Obviously, no collection such as this can aim to be comprehensive, and I limited it by certain parameters. Falling under my definition of masters of personal combat are fighter pilots, but not those who led armies or captained ships. I wanted only those who faced their foes on an even footing or at a disadvantage, so I havent covered snipers. I sought the widest variety of subjects, balancing the well known with the obscure, the contemporary with the ancient, the civilian with the soldier, men with women, and Americans with heroes of other nations, while leaving out stories that were too similar. There are simply too many great fighter pilots, Western gunfighters, and combat infantrymen to give each his due, and a succession of such stories can get repetitive.

Why did they fight? All had legitimate causeswar, law enforcement, affairs of honor, or self-defensebut I think that two reasons underlie them.

First, for the most part, they liked to. They found the clash of blades and the whiz of bullets stirring; in the words of a Viking poem, they were battle-glad and strife-eager. Describing this quest for danger, Andrew Steinmetz, a 19thcentury chronicler of dueling, wrote: Few sensations are more delightful than those we enjoy upon finding ourselves secure after our lives have been placed in imminent peril, and men who have once known the pleasure of escaping danger often seek it, or are, at least, careless about exposing their persons, hoping again to experience similar gratification. Russian general Mikhail Skobelev put it more vividly when he said, The risk of life fills me with an exaggerated rapture. The fewer there are to share it, the more I like it.... Everything intellectual appears to me to be reflex, but a meeting of man to man, a danger into which I can throw myself headfirst, attracts me, moves me, intoxicates me. I am crazy for it, I love it, I adore it. I run after danger as one runs after women; I wish it never to stop.

Secondly, they were motivated by honor, a concept thats easier to understand than it is to define. In its crudest form, it is little more than a truculent demand for respect, as expressed by John Wayne in The Shootist: I wont be wronged, I wont be insulted, and I wont be laid a hand on. I dont do these things to other people and I require the same from them. At its more refined, it involves an absolute commitment to ones word, reputation, and comrades. It holds that there are things more important than life, and that they are worth fightingand dyingfor. Honor is inextricably bound up with courage, for it takes courage to sustain honor and, after angers hot blood has cooled, honor to sustain courage. Like courage, it is not an inherently moral quality, but we admire it even in our enemies because it represents a triumph over the fear of death.

Its a paradox, but life achieves its highest value only when it is held less precious than other things. Those who value nothing above their own safety lead diminished lives, but the hero, by valuing honor more than his life, transcends his own mortality. This is often literally true. The clich holds that it is better to be a live coward than a dead hero, but the coward, hampered by what Patton called the weakening instinct of self-preservation, may lose his life while the hero, focused solely on victory, survives.

Along with the ever-present possibility of violent death, what makes these stories compelling is the variety of characters involved. Some, like Jean-Louis and Bryce, were masters of their fighting arts, while others, such as Duston or Thomas, won their battles on sheer never-say-die mind-set. Francisco and Hamer were powerful men who towered over their opponents, while Allen and Murphy were no less formidable despite their small stature. Some, like Pizarro and Shaka, suffered harsh poverty in their youth and seemed driven by a lifelong need to command respect, while others, like Alexander and Churchill, were born to wealth and privilege yet displayed the same craving for glory. Some, like Jackson, created successful peacetime careers with the determination that had carried them through combat; others, like Boyington, seemed to lose their bearings without a tangible enemy to fight. Cobb, who exemplified the crudest sort of honormere aggressive self-assertionfought in a berserker rage; York, who exemplified honors highest ideals, fought in a state of sanctifying grace.

When reading these stories, the reader may wonder to what extent they are true. As someone whos not sure how much to believe of what I read in the daily paper, I cant provide a satisfactory answer. Combat is by nature chaotic, and accounts of an event often conflict, even when provided by the same person. Furthermore, a hero may be tempted to put the best possible spin on his adventures, and if he doesnt, others will. Before the 20th century, historians generally didnt consider it their duty to let facts get in the way of a good story. As for national heroes, glittering deeds accrue to them long after their deaths. I consider the more recent stories the most reliable: I wouldnt put much stock in a Viking saga, but no one receives the Medal of Honor unless his heroic act has been verified by at least two witnesses, and figures such as Bryce and Thomas were subject to press scrutiny and police investigation. At any rate, these are the generally accepted versions of events. Ive done my best to cross-check and verify them, but I didnt set out to debunk. I have included stories I suspect have been embellished, but rejected those in which the embellishment has clearly overtaken the facts. (Sir Bevis of Hampton was under consideration, but I lost faith in the accounts after he slew his third dragon.) I think that Alexanders biographer Arrian had a valid perspective. After describing one of his subjects remarkable deeds, he wrote, If it so happened, I have nothing but praise for Alexander. If the historians told it because they thought it the sort of thing Alexander would do, I still have only praise for Alexander.