Why? What if the goal of studying that MA is to maintain a historic art form? In that case if it "evolved" then it would be changed, different, and no longer the historic art form.
I see your point, Kirk. But "should" is a subjective concept. In my opinion (for all that's really worth), even those maintaining a tradition should evolve. Sword styles should strive for better swords (surely we can actually make better swords today than were made 100's of years ago) and better technique - even if they are aiming to maintain a tradition held long ago. By "better sword" I don't mean necessarily a wholesale change of the weapon, but the tweaks over time that leverage what can be improved without discarding the entire concept. If they don't strive to improve (which will lead to evolution, even if only slowly), my argument would be that they are practicing a performance art (though I might still refer to it as a martial art - my usage is not consistent). My attitude is driven by what one can safely assume was the likely motivation of those who practiced the art at whatever point in time is being recreated/maintained: they likely were trying to be as good at it as they could.
yes that works , like learning to load a musket, or how to avoid being shot with arrow or firing poisoned darts with your blow pipe, how to avoid being rammed by a long boat stabbed with a pike or what to do if your attacker turn up with a wooden horse.
I understand but I don't necessarily agree.
It's fun. Look at how popular "Frontier" recreationism is. There are dozens of "Rendezvous" here locally alone, never mind the rest of the nation. I'm aware of some organizations and clubs in the U.K. for maintaining historic "fighting arts." One such is a club which maintains historic rifle infantry unit from circa late 16th Century. I spoke with one of them a few years ago.
good god, i didn't think of tomahawks
there is no better reason for doing anything, other than its fun, and if learning how to kill with a mammoth thigh bone is what's fun for you, rock on, all good.
Actually...Tomahawks are still being use.
As I said, my view is admittedly subjective. I'd argue (though not vehemently, because I don't think it's important to sway anyone to my view) that the footwork you refer to was a compensation for the footwear's limitation. Had the tomahawk remained in common use, the technique would have evolved as better footwear made different footwork beneficial. And the proponents likely wouldn't have seen the gradual progression of footwear as a significant problem. It's a bit like golf, in that way (in my mind). As materials and craft evolved, it has changed the game markedly, but it's still clearly golf. I like the romance of wood clubs (even hickory shafts), and would probably own and play an historically accurate (to perhaps the early 1900's) set if I could afford it. But that's holding the sport back to an artificial point in time for romantic reasons.
This. And I'm not sure much else matters, frankly.
I'm sure, but not as intended, riding bare back has gone out of fashion for much the same reason
Of course. Nevertheless, that is part of why the moved the way they did. If you want to understand how a martial art existed at the time, an important part of that was the clothing and footwear.
To be honest, it is. Most recognizably, there was the Vietnam era tomahawk, but even today, some U.S. warfighters carry and use a tomahawk. It's not common, but it does happen.
I kinda like the term "historical artifact."
As intended? The first "tomahawks" were either stone maces with lozenge type heads or were stone axes, carried and used by pre-colonial invaginates 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.
I don't know, Kirk. I get the feeling kids are gonna start using that term for me, someday...I kinda like the term "historical artifact."
well exactly, my point, they are not generaly used to chop people, so not as intended, i doubt they are much used for any sort of chopping nowdaysAs intended? The first "tomahawks" were either stone maces with lozenge type heads or were stone axes, carried and used by pre-colonial invaginates 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.
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.
no no no no
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.
