Skip to main content

The Tomahawk Is Its Own Beast by Mark Hatmaker

 


Just how prevalent and important was this ubiquitous weapon in early Frontier warfare?

Well, in a word—it was the penultimate choice for many.

The long gun from flintlock to carbine to repeating rifles was the primary choice.

We do see wide use of the bow and arrow, and facile use at that, but…if/when access to firearms was on the table the bows became back-ups, if carried at all.

What did not fade away was the tomahawk.

From the earliest and prolific bloody engagements in Pre-Colonial America to as late as the 1880s, the tomahawk was often the second-tier go-to, in many cases surpassing the long knife and, surprisingly still a second choice of many even after the advent of reliable revolvers as sidearms.

The earliest days of continental warfare were termed by many “The Days of Flintlock and Tomahawk.”

And this weapon was not merely an indigenous peoples’ tool, it saw quick and early adoption by many colonists; those who sloughed off Eurocentric ways and experienced firsthand, how formidable, adaptable and facile this “primitive” weapon was.

Here is but one of the copious references to Anglos using this adopted “retro” technology.

And at every station [we] would spend an hour or two in the exercise of tomahawk and rifle, not only for our own improvement in the use of these weapons of warfare but also to alarm the savages if they should be lurking in the neighborhood.”—John Struthers, 1777.

Not a Weapon in a Vacuum

We must keep in mind that the adoption and persistence of the tomahawk was not a choice of scarcity—other weapon choices were on the table.

Many British soldiers, many French soldiers, and many a colonist had swords, sabers and various long blades in their possession.

Many of these blades were standard kit for some and were indeed carried into battle, and yet, the tomahawk became and remained the weapon of choice.

One would assume canny warriors in possession of and schooled ably with the sword would prefer this longer bladed weapon, a weapon that had centuries of tradition, tactical study and real-world battle [and duel] application behind it; one would assume that this better forged, better “schooled” weapon would hold sway over and above the often makeshift “primitive” technology.

One would also assume that the indigenous peoples, who were notorious scavengers and adopters of technology would scoop up any and all weaponry post successful skirmish and use the sword themselves.

And yet…

We see many an Anglo quickly forgo the swords and sabers of European tradition.

We see many an indigenous warrior indeed scooping up found blades but…they return to the village as trophies and are not carried into battle.

Come War Party, the confiscated flintlock, or perhaps a better forged tomahawk is the first and second choice.

The forethinking Anglos, some dubbed “Sons of the Trackless Forest” used the evidence of experience to also forgo the long-blade and adopt the tomahawk as their own second-spot of essential kit.

Early Rangers from Roger’s Rangers to Russell’s Rangers to Coffee’s Rangers and beyond, all had access to long-blades, and yet, spot #2 went to the tomahawk.

When allowances were made for a #3 spot, the hunting knife was chosen but…no sword, no saber, no foil, no weapon of long hallowed and vastly technical use.

The tomahawk persists at a #2 spot through the mountain man expansion Westward and into the 1880s with the use of “Indian Scouts” by the US Cavalry.

The Indian Scout Detachments were allotted one tribal weapon in addition to the standard Cavalry kit. This “allowance” weapon was almost inevitably the tomahawk—the Pawnee and Cheyenne favoring it heavily with the Apache, as rebellious as always, opting often for a tribal lance.

We must further notice that part and parcel of the patrolling cavalry kit was not the cavalry saber. By this point, such swords were considered decorative and tradition holdovers—less utilitarian gear than space occupying clutter.



The Tomahawk Is Not a Sword

Those preceding five words are obvious and yet…we still see modern interpretations of tomahawk work attempting to overlay the long tradition of sword work on top of tomahawk application.

This is a curious approach.

We must ask ourselves, if the Euro-centric Continental battle-tested sword work proved ill adept in the New World versus the tomahawk, then why would one assume that the tactics that did not serve well with the actual designated weapon in hand be any wiser to adopt to a weapon with completely different characteristics?

The Tomahawk Is Not a Stick

Another five words of obviousness.

Stick systems are admittedly long-blade correlates—as formidable and wounding as stick tactics are, no one considers a stick attack on par with a sword attack.

And yet…we see tactics that were formerly designed for sword, being adapted to less deadly stick use, and then, again, being shoehorned onto a tomahawk.

Again, a weapon with completely different characteristics.

A weapon that was proven to both sides of the Atlantic to be the second-choice weapon after a firearm—chosen over a sword and…over a stick.

Sticks Abounded

We must also consider that indigenous peoples had access to sticks themselves. Sticks being low-hanging fruit, you could literally find sticks at every pace travelled in the Eastern side of the Mississippi and yet…not even a 3rd, 4th, or even 5th place choice.

Yes, of course, there was some use of sticks in indigenous warfare, yes, there was use of cudgels and war clubs, but…the uses in no way held precedent, did not enjoy the same ubiquity, and were, well, simply considered well below par to the tomahawk.

And…indigenous stick and cudgel use in no way resembles tomahawk work.

The real-world embrace of combat weighed heavy on the indigenous mind and no fanciful thinking regarding “Well, the stick is the same as a tomahawk” existed.

The Tomahawk Was and Is a Beast and a Weapon Unto Itself.

It deserves due respect and not assumption of Old World cultural overlay claiming that it is the “same thing as.”

Not at all.

The tomahawk was not a second choice to sword or stick.

It was preferred.

It was also preferred by those in the know, to use it as a tomahawk.

To use it as the Beast that it is.

[Want real-deal tomahawk & battleaxe work and other historically accurate Old School Mayhem? See our Training and Research Resources below.]

The Black Box Warehouse

https://www.extremeselfprotection.com/

The Indigenous Ability Blog

https://indigenousability.blogspot.com/

The Rough ‘n’ Tumble Raconteur Podcast

https://anchor.fm/mark-hatmaker

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Apache Running by Mark Hatmaker

Of the many Native American tribes of the southwest United States and Mexico the various bands of Apache carry a reputation for fierceness, resourcefulness, and an almost superhuman stamina. The name “Apache” is perhaps a misnomer as it refers to several different tribes that are loosely and collectively referred to as Apache, which is actually a variant of a Zuni word Apachu that this pueblo tribe applied to the collective bands. Apachu in Zuni translates roughly to “enemy” which is a telling detail that shines a light on the warrior nature of these collective tribes.             Among the various Apache tribes you will find the Kiowa, Mescalero, Jicarilla, Chiricahua (or “Cherry-Cows” as early Texas settlers called them), and the Lipan. These bands sustained themselves by conducting raids on the various settled pueblo tribes, Mexican villages, and the encroaching American settlers. These American settlers were often immigrants of all nationalities with a strong contingent of

Resistance is Never Futile by Mark Hatmaker

Should you always fight back? Yes. “ But what if …”           Over the course of many years teaching survival-based strategies and tactics the above-exchange has taken place more than a few times. The “ but what if …” question is usually posed by well-meaning individuals who haven’t quite grasped the seriousness of physical violence. These are people whose own humanity, whose sense of civility is so strong that they are caught vacillating between fight or flight decisions. It is a shame that these good qualities can sometimes stand in the way of grasping the essential facts of just how dire the threat can be.           The “ but what if …” is usually followed by any number of justifications or pie-in-the-sky hopeful mitigations. These “ but what if …” objections are based on unfounded trust and an incorrect grasp of probability. The first objection, unfounded trust, is usually based on the following scenario. Predator : Do what I say and I won’t hurt you. Or

The Original Roadwork by Mark Hatmaker

  Mr. Muldoon Roadwork. That word, to the combat athlete, conjures images of pre-dawn runs, breath fogging the morning air and, to many, a drudgery that must be endured. Boxers, wrestlers, kickboxers the world over use roadwork as a wind builder, a leg conditioner, and a grit tester. The great Joe Frazier observed… “ You can map out a fight plan or a life plan, but when the action starts, it may not go the way you planned, and you're down to the reflexes you developed in training. That's where roadwork shows - the training you did in the dark of the mornin' will show when you're under the bright lights .” Roadwork has been used as a tool since man began pitting himself against others of his species in organized combat. But…today’s question . Has it always been the sweat-soaked old school gray sweat suit pounding out miles on dark roads or, was it something subtler, and, remarkably slower? And if it was, why did we transition to what, and I repeat myself,