Weapon/Tool Development/Anthropology... Formerly Blocking useless?

[jobo]

Kind of a limited interpretation of tomahawk, there... Tomahawk is a particular style of hand ax, recognizably different from a hatchet, for example. Typically, tomahawks have straighter handles, and often, less of a hammer side, though some tomahawks designed more for fighting may have a spike or other "added" incentives on the back side. Many more traditional tomahawks are made by wrapping a softer iron or steel around the shaft, then forge welding a harder/better steel for the actual sharpened blade.

Or perhaps we need to limit knives to those chipped from a piece of stone, and not include knives made of various metals?

But... I kind of think maybe the discussion of blades and tomahawks is drifting from the original topic of whether or not blocks are useful...

no he has identified tomahawks as being stone headed axes,

he is the one insisting on authenticity of ancient weapons, he can't start mixing and matching

 

[jobo]

I have read many survivalists commentaries that if they could have their choice of only one non-firearm hand weapon in the wild, it would be the hand axe.

yes i can see that a hand,axe has all sorts of benefits, any saying that they would prefer a stone headed tomahawk to a hand,axe

 

[Danny T]

I'm sure, but not as intended,

Oh...how so?
There are modified hawks for specific purposes like door entries or automobile entries but many are still used for combat and as such are trained as a combat tool.

 

[jobo]

Oh...how so?
There are modified hawks for specific purposes like door entries or automobile entries but many are still used for combat and as such are trained as a combat tool.

I'm looking for a single instance of a tomahawk being use to chop someone up, anytime since say the 1800s,
nb please not e if it's hasn't got a stone head its NOT a tomahawk, its a modern axe

 

[Gerry Seymour]

yes i can see that a hand,axe has all sorts of benefits, any saying that they would prefer a stone headed tomahawk to a hand,axe

I haven't heard anyone say a tomahawk had to be stone-headed.

 

[lklawson]

no he has identified tomahawks as being stone headed axes,

he is the one insisting on authenticity of ancient weapons, he can't start mixing and matching

...for the period in question.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring this aspect in this thread starting from the very first.

 

[lklawson]

yes i can see that a hand,axe has all sorts of benefits, any saying that they would prefer a stone headed tomahawk to a hand,axe

It will shock no one who has been reading this thread to know that no one except you has claimed this.

 

[drop bear]

Sorry, but your history is off. The tomahawk/hand-ax has been part of kit for warfighters since they were invented. They were used against the British by the Colonials in the U.S. War for Independence. They were used in WWI as trench weapons. They were used in the Korean conflict. They are even still used sometimes by U.S. warfighters in the M.E.

While a hand-ax may be a very niche weapon, it always has been and yet remains a viable one and it is still being used "as intended."

Exept apparently not.


For instance, when I teach tomahawk, I often encourage people to practice on grass while wearing historic footwear. Why? Because modern shoes often give far better "gripping" ability, particularly on modern surfaces, and changes the way that a person moves while "fighting." It, literally, changes the footwork, which is a fundamental part of the martial art. If a fundamental part of the martial art changes then it is no longer the historic artifact.

Or Rapier fencing (which I don't study). While a better quality Rapier is a good idea, making it too heavy, tip-heavy, or somehow historically inaccurate, changes the speed and balance of the weapon, which changes the effective techniques with it.

 

[lklawson]

Exept apparently not.


For instance, when I teach tomahawk, I often encourage people to practice on grass while wearing historic footwear. Why? Because modern shoes often give far better "gripping" ability, particularly on modern surfaces, and changes the way that a person moves while "fighting." It, literally, changes the footwork, which is a fundamental part of the martial art. If a fundamental part of the martial art changes then it is no longer the historic artifact.

Or Rapier fencing (which I don't study). While a better quality Rapier is a good idea, making it too heavy, tip-heavy, or somehow historically inaccurate, changes the speed and balance of the weapon, which changes the effective techniques with it.

<sigh> Well, your lazy (or trolling?) ways continue. I've stated any number of time her on MT that I focus on mid-to-late 19th C. Western martial arts, straying occasionally into very early 20th C.

I'm not sure what you have convinced yourself that you've "proven," but the fact is that studying 19th Century martial pursuits while wearing 19th Century footwear, particularly for tomahawk, is pretty standard.

 

[jobo]

I haven't heard anyone say a tomahawk had to be stone-headed.

well they have in this thread, but anyway, its fairly logical that , that is a defining feature ,

i think its a US perspective, we Europeans have had fighting axes since the year dot, non of them being called a tomahawk, which is a name perculular to, a certain design of axe used by the native Americans, if you are going to call all fighting axes tomhawks, then you can call submachine guns ,muskets as they do much the same job, just better,

 

[lklawson]

well they have in this thread, but anyway, its fairly logical that , that is a defining feature ,

i think its a US perspective, we Europeans have had fighting axes since the year dot, non of them being called a tomahawk, which is a name perculular to, a certain design of axe used by the native Americans,

Not exactly, no. The name comes from a variation/corruption of the name from indigenous languages and was pretty much immediately applied to Trade Axes supplied by European traders. That said, as has already been pointed out, tomahawks are generally differentiated very loosely from what is sometimes called a hatchet, though, historically speaking, in the U.S. there is a great deal of overlap in the terms. Most often, but not exclusively, a straight handle is an important feature. Tomahawk heads vary widely in shape, size, and design. Look at what historians credit as the "hatchet" that was typically carried by Rogers Rangers and referenced in his 28 Rules of Ranging.

if you are going to call all fighting axes tomhawks, then you can call submachine guns ,muskets as they do much the same job, just better,

Nope. You misunderstand. I don't know if that is intentional or otherwise, but basically it's an American hand-ax.

It's simply not as black-and-white as you seem to want to claim.

 

[jobo]

Not exactly, no. The name comes from a variation/corruption of the name from indigenous languages and was pretty much immediately applied to Trade Axes supplied by European traders. That said, as has already been pointed out, tomahawks are generally differentiated very loosely from what is sometimes called a hatchet, though, historically speaking, in the U.S. there is a great deal of overlap in the terms. Most often, but not exclusively, a straight handle is an important feature. Tomahawk heads vary widely in shape, size, and design.

Nope. You misunderstand. I don't know if that is intentional or otherwise, but basically it's an American hand-ax.

It's simply not as black-and-white as you seem to want to claim.

you appear to be engaging in cultural theft, as someone who insists on authenticity in the design of ancient weapons , you suddenly want to call all modern axes tomahawks, when it is clearly and accurately ONLY the item that was used by the native Americans consisting of a stone head, you defined tomahalks as having a stone head early in this discussion.

 

[lklawson]

you appear to be engaging in cultural theft, as someone who insists on authenticity in the design of ancient weapons , you suddenly want to call all modern axes tomahawks, when it is clearly and accurately ONLY the item that was used by the native Americans consisting of a stone head, you defined tomahalks as having a stone head early in this discussion.

I don't know if this is humor, trolling, or just being dense. If it's humor, then good job. If it's trolling, then, well, I'm replying so I guess it worked.

No, I did not define tomahawks as only having a stone head. That's where they started. Notice when I wrote "were?" That's a past-tense. I also wrote in the next sentence about the trade axes which replaced the stone.

At this point, I'm pretty sure that you're just arguing. Unless you can come up with a real discussion, I just going to let you blather.

 

[jobo]

I don't know if this is humor, trolling, or just being dense. If it's humor, then good job. If it's trolling, then, well, I'm replying so I guess it worked.

No, I did not define tomahawks as only having a stone head. That's where they started. Notice when I wrote "were?" That's a past-tense. I also wrote in the next sentence about the trade axes which replaced the stone.

At this point, I'm pretty sure that you're just arguing. Unless you can come up with a real discussion, I just going to let you blather.

no back about twenty posts, where you were talking about authentic foot ware AND stone headed tomahawks,

 

[lklawson]

no back about twenty posts, where you were talking about authentic foot ware AND stone headed tomahawks,

Apparently you didn't read it too closely.

Blocking useless?
"The first "tomahawks" were either stone maces with lozenge type heads or were stone axes, carried and used by pre-colonial [indiginates] who did not have horses. The pre-colonial traders used trade axes (just the ax heads) which were mounted to local wood handles, and thus is has been since. The basic design remains the same, and a hand-ax has been a combination tool/combat-tool since the idea was invented by Og wearing his untanned anteater skins.

It's a short ax. Hold it in one hand and chop the other guy's body."

This was in response to your claim that using a tomakawk to chop on someone wasn't using it as it was "intended."

See where I wrote "The first..." Then I describe those "first" ones. Then I talk about their replacement with trade axes.

Are you done yet?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

you appear to be engaging in cultural theft, as someone who insists on authenticity in the design of ancient weapons , you suddenly want to call all modern axes tomahawks, when it is clearly and accurately ONLY the item that was used by the native Americans consisting of a stone head, you defined tomahalks as having a stone head early in this discussion.

You seem to be engaging in trolling.

 

[Danny T]

nb please not e if it's hasn't got a stone head its NOT a tomahawk, its a modern axe

Metal hawks were being utilized in North America in the late 1500s.

 

[jobo]

Metal hawks were being utilized in North America in the late 1500s.

after the Spanish arrived you mean ? European axes are NOT hawks, they are European axes

 

[oftheherd1]

I haven't heard anyone say a tomahawk had to be stone-headed.

You are usually so good at picking up on strawmen. Were you asleep at the keyboard?

 

[oftheherd1]

I'm looking for a single instance of a tomahawk being use to chop someone up, anytime since say the 1800s,
nb please not e if it's hasn't got a stone head its NOT a tomahawk, its a modern axe

Villisca axe murders - Wikipedia