Tomahawk

[dspyrido]

I like what doug shows with the tomahawk. The only qualm is the slashes to the body. When done on someone wearing a thick jacket its going to take a few shots to get through.

As for the preferable weapon - I dont need a license to hold an axe. So it is unlikely anyone is going to force entry on suspicion that I may be harbouring deadly camping equipment.

[willywrong]

I like what doug shows with the tomahawk. The only qualm is the slashes to the body. When done on someone wearing a thick jacket its going to take a few shots to get through.

As for the preferable weapon - I dont need a license to hold an axe. So it is unlikely anyone is going to force entry on suspicion that I may be harbouring deadly camping equipment.

+1

[willywrong]

Well, just for shitters, here's #13 of Roger's rules for Rangers:

13. In general, when pushed upon by the enemy, reserve your fire till they approach very near, which will then put them into the greatest surprise and consternation, and give you an opportunity of rushing upon them with your hatchets and cutlasses to the better advantage.

And here's #13 for all U.S. Rangers today:

#13 When lying in ambuscade, wait for the enemy to get close enough that your fire will be doubly frightening, and after firing, the enemy can be rushed with hatchets.

The old ways that work never go out of style
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90038

Will read it tomorrow. Thanks

[willywrong]

Well, just for shitters, here's #13 of Roger's rules for Rangers:

13. In general, when pushed upon by the enemy, reserve your fire till they approach very near, which will then put them into the greatest surprise and consternation, and give you an opportunity of rushing upon them with your hatchets and cutlasses to the better advantage.

And here's #13 for all U.S. Rangers today:

#13 When lying in ambuscade, wait for the enemy to get close enough that your fire will be doubly frightening, and after firing, the enemy can be rushed with hatchets.

The old ways that work never go out of style
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90038

Will read it tomorrow. Thanks

Just finished reading the article a worthwhile read. Thanks.

[Andy_S]

Steve:

Roger (of Roger's Rangers) - aka "The White Ghost" - was a fascinating character. He was one of the most effective irregular fighters of his day, but died a drunkard in a London gutter.

But AFAIK, today's US Rangers don't use cutlasses or tomahawks. (At least, not as issue weapons...)

Willy:
SNIP
He might also find it interesting to read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel". More indigenous Americans died from disease brought to the New World then by the colonisers.
SNIP

I have read it. And biological warfare was used by the Europeans (cholera-infected blankets, IIRC) on at least one occasion.

Steve and Willy:

RE: Firepower
Yep, the Indians at Little Bighorn (or "Greasy Grass" if you prefer) had decent firepower as well as superior manpower. But if Custer has been a bit more prudent, they would not have: the 7th Cavalry actually had machine guns - but Custer left them behind with his baggage train.

Ah, the whims of a cavalry general...

SNIP
I think Andy S Wrong needs to read more history books and stop watching so many BS cowboy movies.
SNIP

Er, steady on!

The reason Custer is so iconic today is that he LOST the battle of Little Bighorn. In the American West, that was an almost unique event: The usual result was the other way round. In this sense, one specific historical event (ie LIttle Bighorn) has overtaken the much broader historical reality (ie the ongoing defeat of the Plains Indians) in the public mind.

Likewise, the Zulu victory of Ishlandwana in British history. It was very, very rare for 19th century "warriors' to beat European "soldiers" in pitched battles that involved mass, maneuver and firepower.

And as you both reference, the Europeans applied total war - massed firearms, logistics, industrial production, population movement, ethnic cleansing - to the business of colonizing the American West. The traditional warrior arts of the native American tribes were entirely - even ridiculously - unequal to the task of resisting this unimagined avalanche.

BTW, am not passing moral judgment on colonial aggression; just stating facts.

SNIP
I'm still not sure how discussion on a video that doesn't mention firearms evolved into a discussion of firearms.
SNIP

Fair enough - it was actually just a flip comment.

But there IS an element in the MA community that seriously believes that their beloved edged weapons still have a significant role in 21st century combat. The argument is similar to that of Custer's Last Stand: While there will always be tiny exceptions to the rule, the general rule still stands. Firearms are far, far superior to cold weapons today to the point where on the battlefield, the latter are virtually invalidated, and have seen since (arguably) the early 19th century.

[Steve James]

Hey Andy, actually, the Little Bighorn was not the only successful Indian v. Army battle. There's also the Battle of the Wabash River, for ex. It was even more devastating that Custer's defeat. Of course, in the US, almost no one learns of the other battles --just as there are no reports of successful slave rebellions.

I take the point about value of traditional Indian weapons against European firepower, But, there were very few large-scale pitched battles of Indian warriors riding headlong into massed gunfire. Native peoples didn't have armies, and didn't fight that way. European "war" against the Plains Indians involved starvation and attacking non-combatants (read women, children, the elderly). This was done in the typical European method of building castles (forts), then sending out expeditions from them to attack Indian settlements, not armies. The Army usually had a hard time finding war parties in the first place. Custer heard there was a large gathering of Indians, and he had the intention of attacking their camp. He just ran into a gathering of Indians that was far larger than expected. That, taken with his inappropriate division of his forces and lack of communication between them, insured his defeat.

Of course, winning pitched battles is not the only way to win a war. The US colonists didn't win many battles with the British regulars either. Washington was expert in running away and avoiding battle. Both sides had firearms. The colonists, however, adopted tactics that had been used by the Indians.

Oh, btw, today's Rangers all have to memorize Rogers rules. And some of them do carry tactical tomahawks. It's not standard issue --i.e., a required part of the kit-- but Rangers in country use whatever they want. They don't leave their M5s at home , but when/if it comes down to hand to hand, hatchets are very handy.

Well, you know what they say, "hand grenades are great, unless you're in a phone booth." Ha, how many of ya'll remember "phone booths."

[Steve James]

@Andy, I had to look more about the Wabash River battle. Here's an interesting breakdown.http://firedirectioncenter.blogspot.com ... -1791.html

Just a short bit from the article:

{The Brits}
So roughly 600-700 musket- or rifle-armed heavy infantry, 100 artillerymen with 8 (4 light, 4 medium) cannon, and 100 cavalrymen; 900 to 1,000 or so all arms under MG Arthur St. Clair.

{The Indians}
Western (or "Miami") Confederacy - Roughly 1,000 to 1,400 light infantry organized (to the best of our knowledge) as follows:

Left Wing:
Ottawa (150) under (Egushwa)
Ojibwe (150) (Wapacomegat)
Pottawatomi (100) (Mad Sturgeon)

Center:
Miami (100) (Little Turtle)
Shawnee (300) (Blue Jacket, Black Hoof, Black Fish, CPT Johnny)
Delawares (300) (Buckongahelas, CPT Pipe, Big Cat)

Right Wing:
Wyandot (200) (Tashe, Roundhead)
Mingo - now the Seneca-Cayuga of the Iroguois Confederacy (75) (Girty)
Cherokee (25) (J. Ward)

The subunits of these tribal organizations would have varied between a single group for the smaller nations up to multiple 20-30 man bands grouped into 80-100 man elements under the overall leaders Weyapiersenwah (Blue Jacket) of the Shawnee, Buckongahelas of the Delaware, and Mihšihkinaahkwa (Little Turtle) of the Miami.

The Campaign: Among the causes of the American Revolution twenty years earlier "kill the redskins" tends to get less press than "taxation without representation" but was as if not more crucial and forms the backstory behind this month's battle.

[Andy_S]

Steve:

RE: Battle of Wabash
Interesting, had never heard of this. Even so, it does not change the big picture of European victory and Indian defeat...which is a very depressing one. (I am sure you have read Dee Brown who, after Wiesel and Levi, has written some of the most heartbreaking books in print.)

RE: Third World Warriors vs European Warfare
Exactly, there was no way traditional warriors, who were used to raid, counter-raid and, on the odd occasion of pitched battle of "counting coup" could fight successfully against this kind of onslaught. The Apache, who were masterly guerillas, probably had the best chance, but even they could only hold out for so long.

I'd add that by attacking settlements, the US Army forced Indian warriors to fight (ie to defend their women and children). Not a pleasant tactic. Similarly, the Allied assault on German cities bled the Lutfwaffee dry in WWII - which was a significant contribution to victory - but was hardly a humane tactic.

To return to tomahawks:
The Indians had a decent H2H weapons suite. Along with the lance, used from horseback, the tomahawk was a sound, hacking and blocking weapon - particularly when varied with the dagger, a stabbing weapon.

It is worth noting that Custer, a seasoned Indian fighter at the time of Little Bighorn, did not let his men not carry sabres: He was in favor of fire and maneuver, rather than H2H. His lack of prudence led him to divide his command; his misfortune was to encounter Gall and Crazy Horse, who were better at F&M than he was.

[willywrong]

Andy S Wrong
Snip
I'd add that by attacking settlements, the US Army forced Indian warriors to fight (ie to defend their women and children). Not a pleasant tactic. Similarly, the Allied assault on German cities bled the Lutfwaffee dry in WWII - which was a significant contribution to victory - but was hardly a humane tactic.
Snip
Having spent the first 10 1/2 years living in a bombed out London on ration cards. I'd have to say that this was a war between two states employing the same tools.

Snip
To return to tomahawks:
The Indians had a decent H2H weapons suite. Along with the lance, used from horseback, the tomahawk was a sound, hacking and blocking weapon - particularly when varied with the dagger, a stabbing weapon.
Snip
Your talk of tactics with the Indians array of weaponry leads me to ask where did you get this information. I would like to see some U-tube of you, or similar so I can actually assess for myself whether or not you actually have some skill or are just and overeducated geek.


Snip
Steve:

Roger (of Roger's Rangers) - aka "The White Ghost" - was a fascinating character. He was one of the most effective irregular fighters of his day, but died a drunkard in a London gutter.
Snip

You can't help yourself. You had to mention that he was a drunk.

Snip
I have read it. And biological warfare was used by the Europeans (cholera-infected blankets, IIRC) on at least one occasion.
Snip

Try his other book "The day before yesterday" It's a good explanation on tribal thinking. Maybe you've read it already and it didn't penetrate.

SNIP
I think Andy S Wrong needs to read more history books and stop watching so many BS cowboy movies.
SNIP
Snip
Er, steady on!
Snip

Fair enough - it was actually just a flippant comment.

Snip
But there IS an element in the MA community that seriously believes that their beloved edged weapons still have a significant role in 21st century combat.
Snip

I'm not of that mindset and I posted it as a video for people to discuss close or close quarter combat with the tomahawk. Anyway it is apparent that you are very tenacious bloke once you get your teeth dug into something so I'm off this one I think unless something relevant and interesting in regards to usage of said implement.

[Steve James]

Oh, Andy is a professional military historian, and he's spoken to many combat vets --who probably preferred lead to iron. And I think that the general claim about the superiority of European firearms over traditional weapons is true. Where I disagree is about the specific reasons for European success in the New World. From the Spaniards on, Europeans needed native allies in order to succeed. So, they often armed Indians. But, more significantly, the Indians were depopulated, often systematically. In the British colonies, after the Revolution, there was a call to kill the Indians, and it was the equivalent to a "final solution." Yes, it could be done because of superior weaponry, but not because there were battles between Indians wielding tomahawks and Americans using only muskets. The Indians often had guns; and the 'Merkins' often carried a tomahawk, or a freaking big knife.

[willywrong]

Oh, Andy is a professional military historian, and he's spoken to many combat vets --who probably preferred lead to iron. And I think that the general claim about the superiority of European firearms over traditional weapons is true. Where I disagree is about the specific reasons for European success in the New World. From the Spaniards on, Europeans needed native allies in order to succeed. So, they often armed Indians. But, more significantly, the Indians were depopulated, often systematically. In the British colonies, after the Revolution, there was a call to kill the Indians, and it was the equivalent to a "final solution." Yes, it could be done because of superior weaponry, but not because there were battles between Indians wielding tomahawks and Americans using only muskets. The Indians often had guns; and the 'Merkins' often carried a tomahawk, or a freaking big knife.

+1 Thanks.

As I said I still want to see some U-tube or like media of Andy S so I can make my own assessment as to his possible proficiency. I would still want to walk in his moccasins for a mile or two before passing judgement.

[windwalker]

Lawmakers questioned why Gonzalez had escaped more scrutiny. In July, he was arrested in Virginia for reckless driving, eluding police and possessing a sawed-off shotgun. In August, he was stopped, but not arrested, while walking along the south fence of the White House with a hatchet in his waistband.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-lawmakers-rebuk ... 16222.html

"a hatchet in his waistband"
guess it was easier packing then a shovel.

[Andy_S]

Steve:

No dispute with you on any of the above.

Just finished reading "Exterminate All The Brutes" on the colonial origins of Adolf's genocide. I think the author overstates his case, but nevertheless, it is horrific (and shaming) reading.

[wiesiek]

re.;guns over cold steel,
I sow >myths busters< - very interesting part _ what is best for killing the zombies,
rifle and guns lost to sword and axe...

[Steve James]

Andy,

that's part of America's black history --and I don't mean African-American, though they also participated-- but it could also be called "red" history. I.e., Native American historians and histories have long held an entirely different interpretation of "what happened" and how. G. Washington, for ex., is seen as an arch-villain, worse than many 20th century leaders of genocides.

In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, "lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed". In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected". (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.)

In 1783, Washington's anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his comparisons of Indians with wolves: "Both being beast of prey, tho' they differ in shape", he said. George Washington's policies of extermination were realized in his troops behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois "from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings". Indians who survived the attacks later re-named the nation's first president as "Town Destroyer". Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five year period. (Ibid)

Thomas Jefferson...
In 1807, Thomas Jefferson instructed his War Department that, should any Indians resist against America stealing Indian lands, the Indian resistance must be met with "the hatchet". Jefferson continued, "And...if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, " he wrote, "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi." Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them". (Ibid)

In 1812, Jefferson said that American was obliged to push the backward Indians "with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains". One year later Jefferson continued anti-Indian statements by adding that America must "pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach". (Ibid)

Note Jefferson's adoption of the "hatchet" code.