|
|
Post by spence on Dec 12, 2020 13:44:54 GMT -7
An example of the kind of reference describing how the tomahawk was carried. The Pennsylvania Gazette October 6, 1763 WILLIAMSBURGH, September 16.…. on his discharging his piece, he was attacked by several Indians at once; the first that made up to him he knocked down with his gun, but the savages wresting it out of his hand, he knocked down another with a tomahawk, which he carried under his belt. I'll bet he didn't have a sheath on it.  Spence |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 13, 2020 0:45:30 GMT -7
Spence,
Thanks for the great pics!!
Oh boy do the pics showing the "double frogs" with the hatchets or tomahawks in front and bayonet and scabbard in the rear, bring back memories of a GREAT deal of heated discussions from both Military and Militia re-enactors from the mid 1970's onward.
Suffice it to say for a very long time no one had documentation for British or British American Soldiers carrying a tomahawk or hatchet in the front part of a double frog in the FIW, let alone in the AWI, until very recently.
Hatchets were issued in British Regular Infantry Regiments, BUT they were part of the camp kit issued to a “Mess” of Soldiers. A “Mess” was the number of soldiers meant to eat together and that could mean between 6 and 8 soldiers. Each Mess was issued a kettle, a hatchet and other items meant to be able to make a fire and cook the rations for the entire Mess. This equipment was stored in the baggage train when Regiments were on the move and issued by the Companies to the Mess’s when they encamped. IOW, a Regiment normally only had at most one hatchet for every 6 to 8 Soldiers and there is no mention of any kind of scabbard for those hatchets, most likely because they were intended solely for camp kit. So if/when a British Soldier did stick a hatchet into the front part of a double frog and was concerned about the sharp edge, he would have needed to make some kind of sheath or scabbard out of whatever he could find. Also, when going into a fight, he may or probably took his “home made” scabbard/covering off the hatchet before engaging in a fight, as he might not have a chance to do it DURING a fight.
Period and/or modern Artists may have and often did decide it looked more “War Like” to show naked blades, if they even knew the hatchets or tomahawks normally had some kind of sheath or covering when not going into a fight.
I also want to give kudo’s to Spence for having shown pictures of original tomahawks in two kinds of shoulder suspension rigs on the other forum and perhaps this forum as well? These and one used by Sir William Johnson in the French and Indian War that I lost the pics to the original two computers ago, were for civilian or militia use and were not “standard issue” to British Regular Infantry Regiments. However, all of them had some kind of cover for the sharpened edge of the tomahawk. That should tell us they thought it important to cover the edge so as not to damage themselves while carrying a SHARP tomahawk that way, though.
Finally, it just so happens that I did my own little bit of “experimental archeology” with a double frog and sharpened tomahawk back in the late 1970’s. At the time I was doing a Serjeant’s (period correct spelling) impression in Captain Willing’s Company of Continental Marines, AWI. We knew the Officers were clothed in Continental Marine Uniforms, but since the enlisted men were all enlisted at Fort Pitt, they did not have regular uniforms. That was a great impression for me at the time, because I could not afford a complete Continental Marine Uniform and I could use the 18th century clothing I already had.
The link below is an Artist’s impression of those Marines, painted in the early 1970’s.
Willings-Marine-Expedition-Feb.-1778-by-Charles-H.-Waterhouse-1024x675.jpg (1024×675) (alabamapioneers.com)
Since Serjeants in the period were still often authorized to wear Infantry Hangers (period name for a sword issued to them) in the British Regulars and some American Regulars and Marines; I was looking ahead to the time I would buy a repro of an Infantry Hanger. So I made a double frog attached to my waist belt, which might have been a “hold over” from the FIW. Yeah, I knew I was stretching it a bit even then for a Militia Man, though we had a LOT less documentation back in those days.
Since I did not actually have a sword for the front of the double frog, I decided it would be a good place to carry a tomahawk until I got a sword. Now because I made the double frog, I took the time to ensure it “hung right” with the tomahawk and bayonet in it, before I stitched it to my waist belt. It turned out to be a very good thing I already had made a sheath for the tomahawk, though, when I was trying it on and getting the positions marked to sew it onto the belt.
Some weeks or months later, I was wearing the double frog with the tomahawk and bayonet in place at an event. I had taken the sheath off the tomahawk for a tomahawk throwing competition. There were about a dozen of us in the competition and we each threw one time, then waited for everyone else to throw before we threw again. So I decided to stick the tomahawk back into the double frog without a sheath on it, in between throws. I don’t remember the reason why, but I bent down to do something with the tomahawk not covered by a sheath and it would up cutting my period overalls and just into my skin. Thankfully I did no serious bodily harm to myself, but at from that time onward, I never carried the tomahawk with a bare edge again in the double frog.
Oh, and FWIW looking back, in the period I would not have used the tomahawk to fight with as long as I had a bayonet on my musket and I KNEW how to use a bayonet. So carrying the tomahawk with a sheath on it in the double frog may have been more authentic than I realized at the time.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Dec 13, 2020 1:39:02 GMT -7
:Personally, I've carried my very sharp tomahawk stuck in my belt at the small of my back, with nothing on the cutting edge, for 30 years, never even nicked myself." -Spence
I can definitely see someone carrying their 'hawk this way without getting cut.
But to have it slung under my arm, blade forward, I guarantee I'd cut my arm or wrist.. but I'm also one of the most unlucky people I know. Mr. Murphy maintains a luxury condo in my back pocket, lol
"I have a lot of references to tomahawks, hatchets and axes from the 18th century. I just did a search of all my written material and found not a single description of a tomahawk being carried on a shoulder belt.." -Spence
Hence the reason for this topic questioning the the quoted description.
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Dec 13, 2020 9:33:29 GMT -7
I wish people would just stop carrying tomahawks all together so we could stop having threads like this. Also it's difficult and awkward and dumb. I blame tv, movies, and that one guy in the Verger Yorktown watercolour.
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 13, 2020 9:36:42 GMT -7
Okay so on this forum my phone won't let me highlight or emphasize what I want. The line in question is, "Each man had a leather belt around his shoulders, with a tomahawk and scalping knife." The belt is said to be around the shoulders not around the waist. Is the an argument for the shoulder slung 'hawk that has been discussed elsewhere or just a language discrepancy? Thanks, Dave Hi Dave, Though I can't document it for the Minute Battalion, I think I may have an explanation for "the leather belt around the shoulders" you mentioned. During the FIW and even into the beginning of the AWI, IF a Militia Men had any kind of military accoutrement to carry cartridges, it was very much more likely it was what they called a "Cartridge or Cartouche BOX," though we commonly call it a "Belly Box" today. This because it was much cheaper to provide a Militia Man with a "Cartouche Box," which was simply a wooden block drilled with holes for the cartridges and only had a leather flap over the block. The blocks usually had between 9 and 13 holes for cartridges, though some held as many as 15. Below is a link showing a British "Cartouche Box" on a military waist belt with frog. 62ndregiment.org/cartridge_box.JPGBelow is a pic of a Cartouche Box with the flap raised, showing the black painted wood block underneath. www.jarnaginco.com/artwork/frenchandindian/204RW%20inside.jpg It was much more expensive to supply what they called a "Cartridge or Cartouche POUCH." In these the wooden block was surrounded by leather to form the pouch with flap and suspended from the shoulder with what they often called a "belt," but was also called a "strap" and we usually call a "shoulder strap" today. A Cartouche Pouch also held at least 18 holes in the block and up to as many as 30 holes (or more) for cartridges. These would have been a pretty big and unusual deal for a Militia Unit to have at the beginning of the AWI, so it makes sense it would be described with a "belt around his shoulders" in the period. Gus |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Dec 13, 2020 16:50:54 GMT -7
I wish people would just stop carrying tomahawks all together so we could stop having threads like this. Also it's difficult and awkward and dumb. I blame tv, movies, and that one guy in the Verger Yorktown watercolour. I blame John Ferdinand Dalziel Smyth for telling us about it in the first place. Danged meddler. A Tour in the United States, 1784: ". . . Throughout all this country, and in every back settlement in America, the roads and paths are first marked out by blazes on the trees, cut alternately on each side of the way, every thirty or forty yards . . . The convenience and simplicity of this mode has rendered it universal throughout the whole back country. "It became the more readily adopted, as all who travel beyond the roads and beaten tracks, always have tomahawks in their belts; which, in such situations and circumstances, are more useful than anything, except the rifle-barreled firelocks; both of which all the male inhabitants habituate themselves constantly to carry along with them everywhere." Spence |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Dec 13, 2020 16:53:50 GMT -7
I can definitely see someone carrying their 'hawk this way without getting cut. But to have it slung under my arm, blade forward, I guarantee I'd cut my arm or wrist.. So....don't carry it that way.  Spence |
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Dec 13, 2020 19:42:20 GMT -7
I can definitely see someone carrying their 'hawk this way without getting cut. But to have it slung under my arm, blade forward, I guarantee I'd cut my arm or wrist.. So....don't carry it that way. Spence Trust me, I won't. And I really doubt they did either. At least not blade forward like that. I'm thinking the artist placed the 'hawk like that to show what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Dec 13, 2020 22:23:33 GMT -7
Yeah, it's counterintuitive, isn't it.
A thought occurred to me. If you give someone a good whack with the cutting edge of a tomahawk, the edge doesn't have to be that sharp to do him in.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Dec 14, 2020 4:48:24 GMT -7
Yeah, it's counterintuitive, isn't it. A thought occurred to me. If you give someone a good whack with the cutting edge of a tomahawk, the edge doesn't have to be that sharp to do him in. Spence I seriously doubt period axes were routinely carried "shaving sharp." How many period references to whetstones in packs, shooting bags, etc., have you come across? Zero for me thus far... The ability to easily produce a "wicked" edge and the obsession with doing so (myself included) is, I suspect, a modern one. |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 14, 2020 6:49:04 GMT -7
Yeah, it's counterintuitive, isn't it. A thought occurred to me. If you give someone a good whack with the cutting edge of a tomahawk, the edge doesn't have to be that sharp to do him in. Spence I seriously doubt period axes were routinely carried "shaving sharp." How many period references to whetstones in packs, shooting bags, etc., have you come across? Zero for me thus far... The ability to easily produce a "wicked" edge and the obsession with doing so (myself included) is, I suspect, a modern one. OK, I can't document this but I'm sure there were people back then just as today, who didn't sharpen their tomahawks or other tools enough to keep them sharp. However, we also can't discount the fact those people used hand tools one heck of a lot more than we do today and routinely sharpened all sorts of tools to get the most out of them. Even more importantly, to get the most safe use out of them. Nothing is a dangerous as a dull knife, hatchet, axe, tomahawk, adze, draw knife, scythe, etc. and I'm sure they knew that because they used them a lot more than we do. The stone or stones they kept for sharpening everything else would work fine for sharpening a tomahawk. For those who went on long hunts, they most likely kept stones in their gear on the pack horses. In a pinch, you can get a fairly good edge with a file, as well. Worse case scenario, find some sandstone or other stones to sharpen a hawk in the field. Gus |
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Dec 14, 2020 7:06:16 GMT -7
I seriously doubt period axes were routinely carried "shaving sharp." How many period references to whetstones in packs, shooting bags, etc., have you come across? Zero for me thus far... The ability to easily produce a "wicked" edge and the obsession with doing so (myself included) is, I suspect, a modern one. OK, I can't document this but I'm sure there were people back then just as today, who didn't sharpen their tomahawks or other tools enough to keep them sharp. However, we also can't discount the fact those people used hand tools one heck of a lot more than we do today and routinely sharpened all sorts of tools to get the most out of them. Even more importantly, to get the most safe use out of them. Nothing is a dangerous as a dull knife, hatchet, axe, tomahawk, adze, draw knife, scythe, etc. and I'm sure they knew that because they used them a lot more than we do. The stone or stones they kept for sharpening everything else would work fine for sharpening a tomahawk. For those who went on long hunts, they most likely kept stones in their gear on the pack horses. In a pinch, you can get a fairly good edge with a file, as well. Worse case scenario, find some sandstone or other stones to sharpen a hawk in the field. Gus A plausible, if undocumented assertion. However, I personally find it no more compelling than previous comments. Recall the original question was about the frequency of axe sheath usage and mode of carriage. I think we have reasonably established that sheath usage was not universal and that forward carriage in a double frog is also to some degree, at least, documented. The relative frequency of each and the proposed REASONS for said unknown frequency remain a subject of pure speculation, barring a more methodical Spence-like quantitative analysis 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 14, 2020 7:36:31 GMT -7
OK, I can't document this but I'm sure there were people back then just as today, who didn't sharpen their tomahawks or other tools enough to keep them sharp. However, we also can't discount the fact those people used hand tools one heck of a lot more than we do today and routinely sharpened all sorts of tools to get the most out of them. Even more importantly, to get the most safe use out of them. Nothing is a dangerous as a dull knife, hatchet, axe, tomahawk, adze, draw knife, scythe, etc. and I'm sure they knew that because they used them a lot more than we do. The stone or stones they kept for sharpening everything else would work fine for sharpening a tomahawk. For those who went on long hunts, they most likely kept stones in their gear on the pack horses. In a pinch, you can get a fairly good edge with a file, as well. Worse case scenario, find some sandstone or other stones to sharpen a hawk in the field. Gus A plausible, if undocumented assertion. However, I personally find it no more compelling than previous comments. Recall the original question was about the frequency of axe sheath usage and mode of carriage. I think we have reasonably established that sheath usage was not universal and that forward carriage in a double frog is also to some degree, at least, documented. The relative frequency of each and the proposed REASONS for said unknown frequency remain a subject of pure speculation, barring a more methodical Spence-like quantitative analysis 😉 Actually, there is very little documentation of using a hatchet or tomahawk in a double sheath and the documentation I know of doesn't state whether they kept some kind of covering on the edge or not. Yet, it would seem they surely would have done it considering the sharp edge was in a position where it was much more prone to hurting themselves than when carried in the belt behind the back. Gus |
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Dec 14, 2020 7:53:00 GMT -7
From de Witt Bailey's Small Arms of the British Forces in North America 1664-1815:
"A board of General Officers met on 25 Feb. 1771 to consider patterns for light infantry clothing and accouterments; a subcommittee composed of Lord John Murray, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, Robert Monkton, Thomas Murray, Koppel, and Mackay was established to sort out the details." He further states that the committee largely adopted Gen William Howe's pattern accouterments including the direction that "the belt was to have two frogs, one for the bayonet and the other 'for the hatchet occasionally; which at other times will be tyed (sic.) upon the Knapsack.'" (149)
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 14, 2020 21:51:21 GMT -7
From de Witt Bailey's Small Arms of the British Forces in North America 1664-1815: "A board of General Officers met on 25 Feb. 1771 to consider patterns for light infantry clothing and accouterments; a subcommittee composed of Lord John Murray, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, Robert Monkton, Thomas Murray, Koppel, and Mackay was established to sort out the details." He further states that the committee largely adopted Gen William Howe's pattern accouterments including the direction that "the belt was to have two frogs, one for the bayonet and the other 'for the hatchet occasionally; which at other times will be tyed (sic.) upon the Knapsack.'" (149) That is a very interesting quote. Thank you. Of course that quote talks about two separate frogs and not what in modern times we call a "double frog." I would love to see an original or even a drawing of the frog they used for the hatchets, as I'm not sure if a hatchet handle would fit into the standard British Ordnance Pattern Frog for the bayonet? The reason I say that is because I have made copies directly from the measured drawings of original British Ordnance Pattern Frog's, excavated at Fort Loudoun and I don't think hatchet handles would fit, unless made oversize for the hafts. . BTW, in the same Book and only two pages before, on page 147, one of the FIW Rangers depicted is wearing a double frog with a bare blade. I do want to point out the term "double frog," to which we have been referring, may be a modern description. I'm not sure it was used in the period. It may have been, but I just don't know as I don't have documentation on that one way or another. Gus |
|
