type of heavy, single-edged sword, usually slightly curved, 1670s, from French sabre "heavy, curved sword" (17c.), alteration of sable (1630s), from German Sabel, Säbel, which probably is ultimately from Hungarian szablya "saber," literally "tool to cut with," from szabni "to cut." The Balto-Slavic words (Russian sablya, Polish szabla "sword, saber," Lithuanian šoblė) perhaps also are via German, but Italian sciabla seems to be directly from Hungarian. Saber-rattling "militarism" is attested from 1922. Saber-toothed cat (originally tiger) is attested from 1849, so named for the long upper canine teeth.
EDIT: Oooh, etymonline is wrong (or at least not complete). Mirriam-Webster has earlier known uses, says that it was used in the UK first, around the late 1870s.
There is no unanimity of opinion on why we came to refer to this kind of behavior as saber-rattling. Some think that it comes from the practice of 18th-century Hungarian cavalry units had of brandishing their sabers at opponents prior to charging. Others have said that it comes from the habit that military officers had in the early 20th century of ominously shaking their scabbard when issuing orders to subordinates. Our records indicate that the two words began seeing use in fixed fashion around 1880, making it unlikely that it was directly related to either of the causes given above.
Of late it has been in some quarters impossible to mention the word patriotism without having the taunt of being a sabre-rattling BOBADIL thrown in one’s face.
— The Standard (London, Eng.), 19 Feb. 1879
The “Sabre Rattling” of M. Coumoundouros, especially his assertion that by the coming spring he will have 86,000 men in the field, and that this number of troops will have been got together by the 10th of December.
— The Leeds Mercury (Leeds, Eng.), 3 Nov. 1880
The word appears to have begun in the press in the United Kingdom first, and by the early 20th century had spread to newspapers in the United States.
I wondered who was first, too, and looked it up before. The date seems to be in dispute, but English is apparently the original language to coin the term.
they've already exhausted the stupid. There is only cowardly left. Russia bombing the UK, and inadvertently, technically the EU would almost certainly result in US retaliation, let alone the nuclear submarines that britain has. And probably the rest of the EU.
He didn't threaten to use nukes. He threatened to run drills where his soldiers pretend to use nukes. Probably so that he can actually follow through on an ignored threat.
But that still doesn't change the fact that any actual nuke use would result in an escalation regretted by both sides, even if it doesn't result in an alpha strike.
Edit: and given russias use of China and Iran weaponry
The US and Russia have historically been the world's two largest arms dealers. You can begrudge China and Iran for getting a slice of the action, but I have to imagine pulling them directly into the conflict would not improve matters for any Ukrainian.
US assessment is that China is providing the majority of what Russia needs to make those weapons, which is critical to russias ability to maintain their offensive.
They're using loopholes to bypass sanctions by posing as civilian gear.
Ukraine is also finding critical Chinese parts on captured gear that used to be from other countries honoring those sanctions.
“Our view is that one of the most gamechanging moves available to us at this time to support Ukraine is to persuade the PRC [People’s Republic of China] to stop helping Russia reconstitute its military industrial base,” the official said.
There's something weird in Putin's hand... it's super blurry... I think he's shaking it really, really fast... hang on, I have a high-speed camera. Let's see what it is.
Holy shit what the fuck is wrong with you basically begging for a war between two major powers? We all hate Putin, but fuck that would not be good for anyone.
The UK hasn't been a major power in like at least 2 decades. If you mean NATO then Russia isn't really a major power in comparison to NATO. Not that it's important, Russia isn't stupid enough to pick a fight with NATO.
It would be really bad for a small group of people and would save the lives of hundreds of thousands of others. Say Putin does strike Britain. A bunch of people die in the initial strike. Then Britain, America, Poland, Germany, Ukraine, France, Canada, and probably a handful of others all collectively turn the Kremlin into glass and dust in a retaliatory strike. China and North Korea both rattle their sabers about it but neither of them wants to throw down with the Allies 2.0 because it doesn't matter who you are, going to outright war with a world cooperative force is a capital-letters Bad Idea.
Otherwise Putin continues to slowly grind his way across Eurasia for the next decade while every other country's politicians hem and haw about who they want to help and how much. Meanwhile thousands of people die daily as the Russian meat wave slides its way down toward the central EU.
There's a very good reason that Putin has been performing military ops in Ukraine and only vaguely threatening everyone else that got involved. He knows that if he manages to actually draw the ire of the full Allied military might the remaining lifespan of his army and capitol will be measured in minutes.
If this were just a straight up shooting war it would have been done and dusted two years ago. Instead it's a political war, and that's stopping a bunch of politicians from actually making a move on it. Nobody wants to be the guy that started World War 3, and Putin is leveraging that to enormous effect.
pbs.org
Hot