US military SABER VS Native American TOMAHAWK?

[@scholagladiatoria]

Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: clcr.me/Apr_scholagladiatoria_1 and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days

[@mordredstein9553]

Kind of a bad comparison facing off a stone headed axe vs a proper sword. The natives are a primitive stone-age people without access to real forging or even the wheel and the then Europeans are technologically industrialized.

[@Intranetusa]

@@mordredstein9553 While South America had a good amount of evidence for metallurgy of smelting copper and bronze, North America excluding Mexico strangely lacks evidence of metallurgy. However, there are exceptions such copper smelting by the natives living among the Great Lakes, and as iron working of native/unsmelted iron in the Pacific Northwest. One wonders why iron smelting never took off.

[@mordredstein9553]

@@Intranetusa Because forging iron and steel takes a bit more sophistication than casting bronze or copper. You need way higher heat to work with iron for starters. And none of those details even matters because this is a weapon of the North American natives, and as I previously mentioned, they couldn't even figure out the wheel, let alone forging.

[@Intranetusa]

@@mordredstein9553 It's obvious that they didn't smelt iron because they have the technology/know-how to smelt iron. The question is why this technology/know-how was never developed. North Americans in Mexico and South Americans did use wheels in toys/toy carts (but not for regular sized carts) and did have bronze smelting...but bronze was not developed further or even regressed by the time of European contact. And the North American natives further north in the USA/Canada originally had copper smelting but then abandoned it by the time of European contact. So we should look at why their metallurgy did not progress or even regressed over time.

[@mordredstein9553]

@@Intranetusa I already answered why. Working iron is rather technical compared to copper or bronze which needs only be melted and cast. Compared to soft, low density metals like copper and bronze, Ion requires higher heat, which requires a more specialized forge to handle the temperatures and stronger tools along with some other technical matters. Those natives simply didn't have the sophistication to work iron. Plus, there's also the fact that by the time Europeans got here, the native simply didn't have the technological sophistication to keep themselves from being exterminated by a superior power let alone time to develop their tech. Nor did they really have much need to until we showed up. The things they would need weapons against were also using stone age to copper age tech or were animals. As they say, "necessity is the mother of invention" so they had no need to develop until they were already being wiped out and by that point, it was far too late.

[@josephangiulo8601]

I used to run this very experiment with a training partner: one-on-one, saber versus tomahawk and long knife. Consistently (and regardless of which fighter was using which weapon), the critical element turned out to be distance. Everything else being equal, if the saber fighter could control the distance-retreat repeatedly, until they created their ideal opening-they could usually pick off the tomahawk fighter if/when they tried to close distance. By the same token, if the space was constrained, the tomahawk/knife combination was more effective; if the saberist could be tempted into extending their blade to ward off an attack (a modern fencer's "stop thrust"), the shorter weapons could bind and command the saber, allowing an effective attack with the companion weapon. As always, the abilities of the individual fighters are more important than most other variables, but we ran this experiment many times, with fighters of different backgrounds and skill levels, and wound up with similar results most of the time.

[@LionAstrology]

Did you guys ever experiment/practice throwing the tomahawk? Outside sword range?

[@Swordsman_HEMMA]

Just want to echo this sentiment, since this has been my experience during saber vs bowie + tomahawk as well. The tomahawk is an excellent hooking weapon, especially if it has deeper beard. The complete lack of hand protection was definitely a problem, though.

[@31terikennedy]

Yep it's a standoff weapon but the revolver became a better standoff weapon.

[@grizzlyblackpowder1960]

@@LionAstrology and fight a man with a sword with only a long knife? Better be pretty good at throwing tomahawks.

[@grizzlyblackpowder1960]

@@31terikennedy Doesn't matter how skilled anyone is when a revolver is introduced either.

[@deniskozlowski9370]

The thomahawk would be a lot quieter to carry tucked in a belt. There are a lot of period accounts from the Civil War and early Indian Wars concerning how loud cavalry units could be on the move. The clattering of sabers in their scabbards made cavalry have distinct sounds that could be heard long before they could be seen. Being that most of the fighting in the southwest against the Apache and Comanche we're ambush or counter ambush a sword rattling about especially at night would be problematic. After the Civil War the US Cavalry operated as mounted infantry and they usually left their sabers at the barracks.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Very good point!

[@omarkusturica3174]

I am not sure that I would be convenient carrying a tomahawk tucked in the belt.

[@Loffstadt]

One of the things flagged up by US Cavalry re-enactors. When skirmishing dismounted, their sabres are VERY noisy trip hazards. If you're fighting with a rifle it is VERY easy for the scabbard to get tangled between your legs.

[@Loffstadt]

@@omarkusturica3174 having carried one for both LARP and HEMA. A tomahawk sits very nicely tucked in a belt at the top of the leg. The head sits a natural fall point for the hand. With the haft being straight, relatively narrow and smooth, drawing is usually very easy. There are also documented drills for drawing a Tomahawk.

[@ethanblinkhorn8396]

@@omarkusturica3174 I arry mine tucked in my belt behind me. I find it very practical and it dosent get in the way at all.

[@jgttx]

Speaking as someone living in the USA, I appreciate Matt doing these videos on the tomahawk and Bowie knife. Having someone with Matt's gravitas talking about this subject makes me feel that colonial America has something to offer the HEMA community. Thank you Matt!

[@WJS774]

It's a bit late for medieval, but it's definitely interesting. IIRC medieval isn't really Matt's specialty though anyway.

[@ebreshea1337]

It is historical, but not technically european, though i guess you could say it descends from HEMA

[@JinKee]

just wait until he discovers gunstock melee combat

[@elliotsmith9812]

@@XCodes This begs the question of how well and how soon Native Americans learned to work steel. One saber could probably make several Tomahawks.

[@WJS774]

@@elliotsmith9812 Did they _ever_ learn to work steel? That's something that requires a substantial industrial base, something I don't believe the native tribes ever achieved during the period that they were independent political entities. I'm pretty sure that their steel weapons were all bought, weren't they?

[@Loffstadt]

Worth remembering that Tomahawks were regularly paired with Bowie style knives. Dwight McLemore's 'Fighting Tomahawk' is worth a look. The other big advantage for me is usefulness on the frontier. Tomahawk is lighter, easier to carry, is a more effective tool and most importantly is easier to repair. The most likely failure point for a tomahawk is the haft. Which is easily replaced. Sabre breaks, blade gets too many nicks, harder to keep sharp etc. InRange did a similar discussion about why the US cavalry stuck with Trapdoor Rifles over Lever Action repeaters. Durability, ease of repair and logistics were big factors.

[@paullytle1904]

​@@jimbob465the 1873 model wasn't a conversion

[@michaeltedder7558]

I'm this pairing, which weapon went in the dominant hand? The tomahawk or the knife?

[@Loffstadt]

@@michaeltedder7558 typically the tomahawk would be in the dominant hand. The hatchet having greater reach and the knife being better in defence

[@connorburnes7697]

For purely combat, I’d prefer the saber. However on the frontier, the tomahawk has tons of non-combat related advantages. Everything has its place.

[@hoosieryank6731]

Carry both...or maybe a machete (dual-purpose, y'know).

[@swissarmyknight4306]

Odin, Vili, and Ve created man, but Colonel Colt made them equal. I absolutely adore melee weapons training, but Indiana Jones was right.

[@connorburnes7697]

@@swissarmyknight4306 The original quote is “God made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal.” I believe. However it’s a good point. Ancient weapons and hokey religion are no match for a good blaster at your side, another great Harrison Ford movie quote.

[@andreweden9405]

Matt, to your point about the tomahawk's advantage over the sword in certain close-in settings, don't forget that many of the frontier conflicts were fought in very densely wooded areas. This, combined with its extreme handiness as a woodland bushcraft tool, is actually one of the major reasons that many colonial/territorial militia opted for the tomahawk instead of the hanger. In fact, this was even the case with certain British forces out here in the woods such as Butler's Rangers.

[@victorwaddell6530]

And Roger's Rangers , the man who literally wrote the book that the modern US Army Rangers base their doctrine on .

[@grizzlyblackpowder1960]

I feel like I'm seeing this point a great deal, at least three comments before your had the same point. But im Fairly sure that this comparison comes with an unspoken caveat based on the period and subsequently the terrain. Sabers had been around for quite awhile but I think the type he is referring too is the US cavalry Saber as it was issued for the Indian wars, post civil war. I mean when you think of historical artwork where a natives tomahawk and a cavalry Saber meet, its not often based in the woodland foothills of the Appalachian range.

[@matthewzito6130]

@@grizzlyblackpowder1960 Both sabers and tomahawks were used as far back as the French and Indian War.

[@skankeroniswampdonkyslut3672]

Densly wooded yes but not densely enough from stopping a sabre being swung so there is no advantage given to the tomahawke in that respects

[@BladeRunner1066]

Having used a Emerson Hawk to stop a carjacking at close range, they are highly effective. Of course I had to be tested for HIV for most of a year afterwards. There was a lot of blood.

[@drizzt102]

This is legitimately native tactics during that time period. Whenever they would initiate conflict, theyd use various methods or choose the battle space for that explicit purpose. Come in fast, get it to that down and dirty hand to hand range, using knives and tomahawks. And like the Ghurkas with kukris, they were damn good at it. Terrifyingly good.

[@silverjohn6037]

Reference the close range fighting most First Nations and frontiersman would also carry a long knife. Not always Bowies but Arkansas Toothpicks (long straight two edged knives) or even just simple butcher/skinning knives. So throwing a tomahawk then following up with a knife was quite common. It's also useful to keep in mind that spears would have been the primary weapon when given the choice, just like in Europe. It's just that Hollywood prefers the way shorter weapons like swords and axes look like in a camera shot so people have developed a distorted idea of historical fighting as a result. Sort of like the early Pilgrim settlers all wearing black and white clothes in popular imagination because a 19th century illustrator liked that look for the books he was working on.

[@grizzlyblackpowder1960]

I like your point about the spears, but you also have to keep in mind how natives used spears as they often used them in an atypical way. A spear or native Lance wasn't necessarily a weapon they would hang on to, some natives would carry a handful of spears more reminiscent of javelins or throwing spears than actual spears. And the lances used by plains natives were too heavy for use in any type of close melee. Early on before Gunpowder spread through their society held spears were probably more prevalent, but its kind of rendered obsolete by the rifle. It's would probably be better to carry a rifle and a choice of hand weapons than say a spear when facing cavalry. Remember there is nothing more Hollywood about the native Americans than them being portrayed as too backwards and wild to understand how to use rifles.

[@silverjohn6037]

@@grizzlyblackpowder1960 Given the choice most First Nation/Native Americans did indeed use guns though smooth bore trade muskets were most often preferred as they could be used dual purpose with shot for hunting fowl or ball for larger game. But my point remains that spears remain underrepresented in popular imagination thanks to Hollywood. The spear was also used in the form of javelins not unlike the velites and peltasts in classical Rome and Greece. But the lance, when used by plains horseman, who mostly lacked saddles and stirrups to stabilize a couched (underarm) thrust, weren't always that unwieldy and, though they could range from 14 feet, 6-7 feet would be more typical (see the link below). It's also important to understand that full on cavalry charges in the Plains Wars were rare and were mainly used to break out of an ambush with both sides preferring to act as mounted cavalry by dismounting before a fight. centerofthewest.org/2017/08/08/plains-indian-weapons-part-3-lance/#:~:text=The%20lance%E2%80%94wah%C3%BAkeza%E2%80%94is%20another,or%20osage%20orange%20favored%20most.

[@nonna_sof5889]

I think it's also important to remember that, at the time, most of the North American East coast would be dense forest. If I go into the woods in my backyard in Northern NY there's a lot more places I can get a good swing with a tomahawk than a saber. We also have a lot of small rises and elevation changes you could use to close on an enemy protected from their muskets.

[@RotgerValdes]

But there was a lower possibility that decisive battles would take place in dense forrest.

[@paullytle1904]

@@RotgerValdes yes but there were quite a few ambushes and scrimishes in the woods

[@matthewmaxcy1574]

@@RotgerValdes you'd be surprised, most battles were fought in such conditions here on the East coast, I myself live in Maine and back in those times there weren't many open areas as our state is surrounded by thick forests and bogs and outside of that is ocean ,and maine still to this day has unspeakable amounts of land especially up north that also has alders growing so thick a man or beast could be standing 4 ft from you and unless you smelled him first you would be dead..

[@matthewmaxcy1574]

Agreed,I live in Maine and much has been cut but old growth still exists and even the new growth forests and areas can be so heavily thick one could disappear from sight only a few ft away.

[@BigBackInk]

You know there has to be a good story to how he got the Japanese sword. I don't think it would be given up lightly.

[@kanrakucheese]

Depends on when it was taken. Samurai class was abolished in 1871 and a LOT of swords went to Bannerman (and, presumably, other less well remembered surplus companies). By the turn of the century they were still pretty cheap swords (1.25-3 dollars in 1903, depending on length, when proper swords of other makes were more than that) and likely would have been even cheaper closer to 1871. The Bannerman catalogs are really interesting in general.

[@bontbiq]

I remembered the movie red sun with Alain Delon and Charles Bronson, about a samurai bringing a sword as a gift from the emperor and being mugged by "the locals" on the way...

[@davideddy2672]

Manjiro likely brought it with him as an offering I believe …

[@IvanIvanoIvanovich]

There was an article from 2019 that explored that photo, "Red Cloud, Dog Child, and the 'Long Knife' of the Samurai in Indian Country." Pretty interesting.

[@corvanphoenix]

It's nice having ancestral relics, but they would pay a lot of bills for a lot of the family...

[@ronaldsellers3717]

Interestingly, a weapons cache excavated in 2015 from the 1600's at Jamestown (Ft. James), Virginia, included backswords, basket hilted broadswords, rapiers, armour, pikes & bills made up the majority of the weapons found.

[@buffewo6386]

No surprise to me. You bring the weapons you are most familiar with.

[@grizzlyblackpowder1960]

Makes sense. The cavalry Saber used by us cavalry during the Indian wars would be a bit later than the 1600s though.

[@matthewzito6130]

Makes sense. Settlers at that early stage wouldn't have had time to adapt their weaponry to the local conditions. Meanwhile any fighting they would have done would have been mainly in and around the fort where they stood their best chance. (In addition to the threat posed by the native population, they worried about possible attacks from the Spanish).

[@Pine3Def]

Here’s my interesting fact: American man poors salt on Walmart floor

[@mistahanansi2264]

I'm surprised he didn't mention hooking of the opponents weapon in combat, since that's more of a standard advantage axes have over swords. Not to mention on can bushcraft with tomahawk A LOT better than a sword can, even though there are better axes still. Also, speed of production is a huge one. By historical accounts, it's been long since confirmed that a weaponsmith can churn out a f*ck ton of tomahawks in the amount of time it would take them to finish a single saber. This would allow a culture that uses tomahawks to arm their warriors A LOT sooner than the one that uses sabers, assuming they're the same in number and have equal access to resources.

[@leppeppel]

I would add a fifth point: durability and ease of repair. In previous centuries when metallurgy wasn't as good, a small, solid axehead was less likely to break than a long, thin blade, and although a wooden haft is more likely to break than a properly-made steel blade, it's also much easier to replace. Regarding shields: the tomahawk is also more effective *against* a shield than a saber would be, since it transfers more percussive force and can also be used to hook the shield aside. Regarding armour penetration: Not just armour, but thick clothing as well. I'm sure that a chop from a tomahawk (especially a spontoon tomahawk) would be much effective against someone wearing a thick woolen winter coat than one from a saber (although sabers can also thrust, which evens out the comparison somewhat).

[@stevenschwartzhoff1703]

Agreed, depending on a saber to arm a fighting group requires more logistics natives would likely not have access to. Also, if a army detachment comes across a goup of natives, the guy with a saber is obviously out to "make trouble", the guy with a tomahawk may just be out working in the woods.

[@riverraven7359]

While you mentioned close quarters you kind of missed the terrain factor. Densely wooded East coast/Appalachian trails would make short weapons more practical to avoid entanglement. The European settlers in the 1600's would more likely carry melee weapons daily, Messer's, cinquedea , falchions, cuttoes etc. As the forests gave way to the vast Great Plains cavalry becomes a better option and thus long swords like sabres and backswords come into prominence. On a sheer familiarity level axes of all description would be common and I expect at least a few blacksmiths or farriers used a hammer in anger!

[@RotgerValdes]

Well there a lot of types of terrain in Europe. And there were a vast variety of melee weapon of which a saber and a pike became more or less universal in use from the experience of hundreds of wars and thousands of battles.

[@riverraven7359]

@@RotgerValdes because in Europe you have cities to defend or capture, this forces pitched battle in the open eventually. The Native American tribes had few if any cities and migrated a lot, a 16-21ft pike is going to be a nightmare in dense forest, the Spanish tercios worked on open Mexican plains but not in Florida swamps.

[@johnmccray5904]

My thoughts exactly regarding the heavily forested areas. Eastern North America was densely forested for the most part and tactics of the native peoples reflected such.

[@ianmedford4855]

Seems weird that the the tomahawk of eastern American Indians was basically a one handed viking axe? Especially combined with a shield.... Just sayin' They lived in walled, stationary villages. The honchos lived in longhouses. They farmed the land. They fought with one handed axes and shields. The Narragansett had people with blonde/red hair and blue eyes among them (they are a tribe from Southern New England), and their name sounds an AWFUL lot like the ancient Norse for "The Norse Who Walked And Settled" (Don't remember the spelling, but the phonetics are "Nor-go-ne-set-a")

[@williamrobinson4265]

a limiting landscape to cavalry certainly, but the old growth wasnt that dense. a cavalry saber would have done just fine and better than some swords

[@wiskadjak]

Per a video of Fort Ticonderoga National Park re-enactors french troops traded their epee de combat for tomahawks. The swords were continually snagging on branches/deadfall etc. making it difficult to move through wooded areas. In Canada we call it “the bush” because there’s whole lot more dense under growth, fallen logs, weeds etc. than trees. The tomahawk was kept in a neat holster with the head at the hip so it wouldn’t impede movement. Also there was a much greater need to cut wood than people.

[@taylorryanpowers3019]

Would love to see more tomahawk content!! Lots of historical accounts to pull from regarding people encountering the tomahawk on all continents!! Keep it up Matt - one of the BEST channels on KZbin!!!🙏🙏🙏🙏🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓

[@brometheus5019]

Yea buddy. Love this escapism. And knowledge!

[@vargenfenrisson1164]

tomahawks are stupid when you can have a gunstock warclub

[@grizzlyblackpowder1960]

@@vargenfenrisson1164 and as history has shown us on several occasions, gunpowder is better than both, sometimes combined.

[@andybaxter4442]

It would be interesting to hear about Native American lancers in the West. Comanche lancers and Mexican lancers came to blows quite a few times in the Texas territories.

[@bryangrote8781]

I recently read “Empire of the Summer Moon”, which mentions some accounts of this but don’t recall the details. It’s one of the best books ever written on the plains Indian wars, especially regarding the Comanche. Highly recommend it.

[@andybaxter4442]

@@bryangrote8781 thank you for pointing me to that book. I'm listening to it now.

[@petriew2018]

there's accounts from Spanish officers who server in what is now Texas that basically said the Comanche were the best light cavalry in the world circa 1800

[@carldehaven7672]

@@andybaxter4442 That very line was spoken by John Wayne to Henry Fonda in one of John Ford's Indian Wars sagas.

[@mariotrujillo8860]

​@@bryangrote8781 dude Empire of the Summer Moon is highly exaggerated By the late 1800's the Comanche had formed trade with agreements with the Spanish settlers in their share war with the Apache. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 however is were things began to fall apart since the influx American settlers forced the neighboring tribes to attack the Comanche. When Mexico gained independence the American settlers began trading with the Comanche, the result of this was a low ranked Comanche's easiest option for wealth was to raid the very farms and homesteads they spent the last 30+ years trading with. The whole reason Texas is even a thing is because low ranked Comanche raid the area so badly they committed what was in effect genocide for what eventually Arizona, New Mexico and of course Texas.

[@effeojnedib7208]

I agree with the "depends on the environment". Texan living in Virginia of the USA. When training with any of my hawks, I practice with both hands, and can alternate which end of the hawk. I sometimes hold it upside down, with the blade in the direction of my knuckles. This allows the wooden handle to act as a club, should I ever need the quickness that particular grip allows, the head now serves as a counter balance and "brass knuckles". It also really speeds up the strike and recovery. Thanks for your video.

[@BeingFireRetardant]

I practice the same way. Normal and inverted as a club. One in each hand. Estwing makes a very solid hammer/hatchet with a leather washer grip. It is one of the finest tools for fighting, that was never designed to be. But if you are skilled with a hawk, pick one up at Depot for $40. You'll immediately understand... I train with all kinds of knives, swords, and knife/hawk combos... but running two Estwing's is an exceptionally formidable pair, because one essentially acts as a shield/hook/club allowing the other one to strike, and can be reoriented very quickly. Just some ideas to play around with. I simply like the versatility and power. Hawks and hatchets are to swords what Khukuris are to knives. Takes a lot of practice to run well, but if handled correctly, bring far more power for size than almost anything. Thrusting is good. Piercing is great. But the ability to shatter bone and cleave flesh apart in a single blow is better. IMHO. One other advantage, beyond the psychological impact, is that the statistical likelihood of ever facing someone in actual combat that goes close quarters, is that there is only a mere handful of people on planet earth who have any sort of capability whatsoever in defending against a paired tomahawk attack. (Even including HEMA experts.)

[@motagrad2836]

As I recall choking up and using part as a club means you can also use the stick bit as, or to improve the defense of, a shield

[@BeingFireRetardant]

@@motagrad2836 Yeah, you can play non-lethal wack-a-mole just like Escrima, but at any time just reverse what's out front. Options. The cool part is you can run the blade up or down that way, either guarding the elbows or the forearms... Working with two hawks inverted and tucked in like that, gives me about a foot of baton/handle/full-tang-steel-stick to work with. That you can transition at any given time back into a hook, a blade, or a hammer. Think of it less like a blunt instrument weapon, and more like a precision grappling and takedown tool... Especially running one in each hand. Options.

[@connorperrett9559]

@@BeingFireRetardant Are you talking about the Estwing Sportsman's Axe?

[@BeingFireRetardant]

@@connorperrett9559 Yes, leather grip, not that weird foam rubber one. Seems odd as a fighting weapon until you work with it for a minute. I love them.

[@StutleyConstable]

As an example of the availability of the two weapons; during the War of 1812 the Kentucky Mounted Volunteers were issued tomahawks because there were not enough sabers available. I think one company of the volunteers was issued Starr sabers, but the others carried tomahawks. Been a while since I researched this, though, so perhaps someone else would have better information.

[@DaglasVegas]

I'd imagine the tomahawk and Saber were more predominantly pitted one against the other during the 18th centaury, as in the French Indian wars, Pontiac's rebellion and etc...while in the 19th centaury American Indian Wars both sides used of revolvers and repeating rifles predominantly, I suspect geography limited the potential for close quarter fighting, as the planes offered little cover and a great line of sight, unlike the pitched battles, and forested guerilla fighting on the east coast in th18th centaury, that were more conducive to close quarter combat.

[@sjohnson4882]

Although they had been invented in 1835 (Colt and apparently others), revolvers and repeating rifles were not common until after the 1860s.

[@DaglasVegas]

@@sjohnson4882 the major conflicts between the natives of the great planes happened in the 1860's to 1870's. when the U.S government tried to confine the indians to reservations for example the famous the battle of the Little Bighorn was in 1876. so...?

[@dolsopolar]

yes, i haven't seen anyone making c0ntent about 18th century cavalry swords even if they were it was just early napoleonic models and spadroon

[@wolfgangzeiler2605]

@@DaglasVegas Firearms, especially rifles, were rarely used by the western Plains tribes until the early 1870s. For example in the Fetterman fight on 21 December 1866 (which lasted about 40 min) where about 1000 to 1500 warriors from several Sioux branches, from the Northern Cheyenne and Arapahoes ambushed and killed 79 US soldiers and two civilians (second biggest loss on the Plains for the army), according to the report of surgeon Horton who examined the dead after the fight, only six soldiers died by gunshots, the rest by arrows or strikes from warclubs. Only a small proportion of the native warriors had firearms at this date, if so, mostly revolvers (which were not very effective in combat compared to rifles or muskets). At Little Bighorn in 1876 a higher number of firearms was used by the natives but still under 50% of the warriors had them presumably. A certain proportion of warriors had repeating rifles of the lever-action type, and while such rifles were usually inferior to the army Springfield single-shot carbines (and certainly the rifles of the infantry) in the typical Plains fights, at some point in the Bighorn battle they might have been very advantageous, guessed from cartidge findings and Indian storytelling. Which is debatable, as so much of the Custer fight. :)

[@grizzlyblackpowder1960]

@@wolfgangzeiler2605 there are records that also contradict this though. First hand encounter from the battle of washita in 1868 claim that a small band of Cheyenne was armed mostly with rifles. There are also similar accounts from the 1860s claiming Sioux and Comanche warriors had also adopted a variety of firearms. So it's kinda a six of one, half dozen of the other kind of thing. Though most of the skirmishes described by Custer in his book, detail natives starting an engagement using firearms primarily.

[@markfergerson2145]

I can't get over the Naive American holding a katana. My first thought was also "where the hell did he get that?" Native Americans typically called swords "long knives" and had some interest in them but never took them up other than as war trophies and status displays mostly because swords didn't fit their fighting styles. That and they couldn't make more of course.

[@Subutai_Khan]

He is actually Native Canadian, specifically from the Blackfoot tribe :) . His name was "Dog Child" AKA Winnepeg Jack and he served in the North West Mounted Police as a scout. Unfortunately, I couldn't tell you where exactly he got the sword as that seems to remain a mystery but it goes to show how connected the world was by the late 19th century!

[@markfergerson2145]

@@Subutai_Khan Thanks for that even if you couldn't solve the mystery.

[@markfergerson2145]

@@jimbob465 Okay, that's plausible. Still kind of strange there aren't more such images (that I know of)

[@helifanodobezanozi7689]

The Japanese were in the western Americas long before the US existed. They actually built a western style sailing ship and sent a delegation to New Spain (Mexico) in 1613. It was lead by a Samurai named Hasekura Tsunenaga who, at one point, cut of the ear of a Conquistador soldier for offending him. People are unaware that Japan's intial reluctance to embrace technology and isolation in the early modern period were self imposed.

[@BigHossHackworth]

A weeb no doubt. Every tribe has one..

[@robertlehnert4148]

The late Hank Reinhardt, co-founder of Atlanta Cutlery, once did a sparring experiment, where his partner used a rapier and Hank used a kukri, which has less reach than most tomahawks. Hank kept tagging his partner and his partner was unable to touch Hank, because Hank did NOT attempt to close in, tie up or trap the rapier blade, instead Hank would hang back, just out of reach, and when ever his opponent attempted a lunge or passing step advance, Hank would take advantage of the over commitment, do a fast beat on the rapier's blade, rebounding with a short hack chop to the opponent. Then Hank and partner switched weapons, but Hank still dominated--by avoiding the long over-committed attacks and using the rapier like a sewing machine needle, a quick piston in-and-out thrust at his opponent's extremities.

[@TimberwolfCY]

I feel like this communicates much more that his partner didn't know how to fence/fight. Distance control is key, and if his partner could not control distance with a weapon that was 3-4x longer, that's hardly a good example to use.

[@loveall3890]

You can throw a khukuri like a tomahawk as well.

[@jhilal2385]

Several details on usage; 1 - a lot of tomahawk wielders might carry several. In this case, a tomahawk thrown in the charge is replaced by a second in the hand, so the tomahawk wielder is not reduced to just a knife. This makes the charge similar to that of ancient Germans opening a charge with a flurry of thrown hand axes, or Romans with a volley of pilae. 2 - a lot of tomahawk fighting is dual wielding tomahawk and long knife. Modern practitioners refer to this a Okichitaw (some good youtube videos), which also includes use of war club and long knife, 2-handed war clubs, and gunstock clubs (which often have a spike or blade embedded).

[@Justin_Rose]

Just discovered this channel the other day and have watched a half dozen or so videos so far. I do a lot of fantasy writing, and getting these quick glimpses at informed thoughts on weapon use is really helpful, lends some solid insights to inform my writing. Thanks to the uploader for creating this.

[@ronaldayres546]

During the first WW1 I could see the Tomahawk being a effective trench warfare weapon, seeing that trench shovels were used as weapons.

[@ReasonAboveEverything]

Small axes that would qualify as "mouse hawks" were indeed used in ww1.

[@JCOwens-zq6fd]

The spontoon is better at going through the thick european garments as well as the thick winter hides of predator animals. It has to be remembered that our tribes weren't just fighting europeans but each other & mother nature at the same time. Bear, mountain lion, jaguar, even moose are all super super dangerous when walking around in the wilderness.

[@colbunkmust]

I don't ever think there were "heaving masses" in any combats between saber wielding Americans and Native Americans, at least during the Post Bellum(Civil War) westward expansion, so I'm not sure how relevant that point would be. Might be more of a factor for other parts of the world or for earlier periods, but at least in the US at that time, most conflicts in the 'Indian Wars' were small scale skirmishes, with mobility and disengaging playing a big part of combat. Even when parties clash in melee, the lines were typically quite loose as the US cavalry normally fought in skirmish order when dismounted. Also, Natives typically were quite well armed and used quite a few firearms by the 1860s and 70s so most casualties were by bullets.

[@andrewstraub131]

The same goes equally for the entirety of the conquest the east coast forests are very tight and natives were often well armed with firearms even from the very early contacts . Even in South America where they would have been potentially most useful (urban combat taking place on plazas or avenues) we find first hand accounts of sabers and swords being transformed ito something more multipurpose and useful such as the first matchetes being made by simply cutting off handgaurds and shortening blades

[@colbunkmust]

@@andrewstraub131 eh, King Phillip's War involved quite a bit of close in guerilla fighting and there were a lot of ambushes in the French and Indian war and Pontiac's War where melee combat was more likely than later skirmishes in the West. Also, Latin America had much more influence in its cavalry corps from Europe which was much more focused on the use of cold steel. Peru, for example, outfitted its heavy cavalry like the Prussian cuirassiers. And in the Mexican-American War, American dragoons armed with carbines and brand new Colt cap and ball revolvers were fighting Mexican lancers that rarely carried firearms at all.

[@andrewstraub131]

@@colbunkmust king Philips war is interesting in that it saw a fair amount of failure of European technology because of long supply lines and the widespread use of hit and run guerrilla tactics . And there are not only first hand accounts of sabers being useless in this type of warfare it also was much earlier and thus from a strictly technological standpoint they were more reliant on old tech and tactics while the English shoehorned their ideas about what warfare was .simply put the sword was done being a relevant piece of equipment even though it took some armies until after ww1 to admit it I think that had to do with stories of King Arthur more than any sound tactical doctrine hell the English were still arming colonials with bills and hooks weird choices against Armed insurgents

[@colbunkmust]

​@@andrewstraub131 "simply put the sword was done being a relevant piece of equipment even though it took some armies until after ww1 to admit it" I strongly disagree with that argument. Until reliable magazine-fed metallic-cartridge firearms were widely available gunpowder technology had huge strategic and tactical limitations against more primitive armies. And King Philips War was a long long time before that ever occurred. Islandwana was a disaster for the British Army that despite having access to modern firearms and artillery. And that battle took place on a open field with little cover and the British rear being anchored by a large rocky outcropping. They were still outflanked and killed, mostly by spears and clubs, because the Zulus had better unit cohesion, mobility and maneuver tactics and because the British troops didn't expect an imminent attack or fortify their position. I would like to hear the cited accounts you mentioned stating "sabers being useless" nonetheless.

[@erichusayn]

Id say its all in the skills of whoever is wielding whatever weapon... Cant remember if it was a deepeeka or a universal but i got a pipe/hawk a while back from one of them through KOA. Functions as neither a tomahawk nor a pipe. They even had to use a shim to keep the head on the shaft. Lol. Curious about the Hanwei version, but don't have the cash to blow at the moment...

[@larrybrock6811]

I wouldn't say it's all in the skill of the user; weapons are tools it doesn't matter how skilled the carpenter is if he's using the wrong tool for a specific job. You wouldn't cut wood with a drywall saw so if you know something about the nature of your upcoming conflicts let's say you know your enemies will be largely unarmored a falchion or glaive would be a better tool than an awlpike or estoc.

[@mm650]

You pointed out, as part of the throwing application of the tomahawk, that one might be equipped with several to specifically facilitate that use. There is a secondary aspect to that fact that has implications for melee use: One can use, one of several tomahawks to the point of DESTRUCTION. This means that one can be uninhibited in the power placed behind a blow with a replaceable weapon the way one can not be with an irreplaceable one. This point is magnified all the more by the fact that a stone headed axe is likely more intrinsically breakable even if used correctly due to the brittle nature of stone, and the sabre more subject to breakage if used without finesse. This is even more important in mass-battle rather than one-on-one: In a one-on-one battle one might be willing to risk breaking one's sabre if one thought that it would end the duel in your favor, particularly if you were losing anyway and felt it was the only way one might come out alive. But in a battle, such a destructive use of a weapon can't make sense because you are still in the battle even if the attack works.

[@TimberwolfCY]

Being American, it's both surreal and satisfying to have a non-US guy talk at length and detail about something Native American. I can't explain why, but it's a very different and fresh perspective on it. Stateside, I don't feel like the Native peoples get nearly as much discussion in almost any realm in [US] society, post-secondary school, as they should. Thank you!

[@bryangrote8781]

Since you’re on American frontier weapons I wonder if you could take a look at American Indian shields. I don’t know anything about shields used by the eastern tribes, but they were commonly used by the plains tribes and were made of hardened buffalo hide. I have read in the past that these could actually deflect bullets if hit at an angle but have only seen one source for this, “The Last Captive” the memoir of captive, Herman Lehmann, who stated they deflected bullets on several occasions.

[@rcfokker1630]

I read that the skull of the buffalo was often employed as a shield. Specifically, the forehead of the beast, which was especially thick to facilitate the animals 'head-butting' each other.

[@ishill85]

@@rcfokker1630 makes sense, i saw the herds in yellowstone during the rut once and it's just incredible. It's like watching hairy pickup trucks smash headlong into each other, except instead of both becoming totaled wrecks like cars would they just keep shoving each other back and forth.

[@buddymoore1543]

I enjoy your videos as usual. I am part Native American: Comanche, Cherokee and mostly British (Gaelic) and German. That makes me an old fashioned Mutt. However because I heard stories of a famous Comanche chief growing up and how part of my family was related to him I researched some of this in my early 20s. I was wondering the same thing about tomahawks. To be honest I think the Sword achieves tactical superiority in every way and I bet you that if the ghosts of fallen Warriors cold speak they would think so too. so to be clear about the Tomahawk and its role I have to uhm, risk to rub a sore spot between our nations... the Tomahawk was never meant to be a weapon. It was a tool for Bush Craft, in exactly the same way a Hatchet is. It was used for hunting, harvesting, clearing brush, building shelters, etc. When the Europeans and folks from the British Isles landed at the time we record our History of war fighting more like sportsman games between tribes or villages where no one really killed each other but would basically dominate each other or play a aggressive form of Tag and hit each other with sticks to eliminate competitors. Opponents would have to sit out or be beaten out. When the Whites arrived the Natives assumed their warfare was going to be conducted on the same terms. It was an outrage that the Whites killed in battle and naturally the Natives didn't know how to respond to that for a long time. Eventually, they took the same attitude and decided if it had to be that way it would unleash their full primal fury. So the battles ebbed and flowed back and forth. Most Native Americans did not cling to tradition when it came to war fighting. If they found a weapon or tactic they could use to get an advantage they adopted it quickly. I don't know for sure but the tomahawk might have actually been weaponized by a Ranger and guerrilla fighter launching raids on British Troops during the Revolutionary War. the Brits would be looking for Colonists and on more than one occasion us Yanks "went Native" and dressed in Native American garb to evade British Troops. the Brits were possibly the finest military force on Earth at the time or at least among them and no one could stand up to their might directly, so going Native and launching guerrilla hit and run raids like the Native Americans was the way to go. the founder of the Army Rangers began here in the woods and forests attacking British troops disguised as natives and at least as much as our History records it this form of warfare was unconventional and new to the highly disciplined New Model Army of rifle regiments and mounted Calvary, etc who marched in lock step and formed nice formations in military discipline. As a Hand to hand weapon, I am going to hazard the guess that the Tomahawk was used because it was a common tool carried by woodsmen and Natives and did not look out of place for Brits who might have been on patrol or posted somewhere. Now, who started throwing the things I have no idea. Native American Warriors of many Nations (Tribes) carried a variety of weapons, both made, traded and captured and for certain the Tomahawk is primarily meant as a throwing missile weapon. yes, they carried shields but it depends on what Nation and the terrain they hunted or camped in. The Plains Indians would carry a lot of long spears and bows and in hand to hand use a short Lance or Knife with a shield or without but I can say for certain having known many of much thicker blood than mine and many of pure blood, they readily adopt whatever works and strive to master it. What people don't really know though as that many Natives carried multiple Tomahawks precisely because they were short range throwing weapons and because they are top heavy are easy to stick. Modern roofing hammers still use the same shape only with a hammer head on one side and a short hatchet blade with a hook in it on the other. Hatchet throwing and Tomahawk throwing remains a living tradition all over the nation today as a sport. the Apache like many other Nations used the Tomahawk for blocking, punching, hooking, stripping and brutally chopping at their foes. the US Army Rangers still carry Tomahawks today even in wartime as part of their Ranger traditions. Rangers are Woodsmen and Hunters and it all goes back to when ...oh I forget his his name who went Native on British troops in the revolutionary War...because you guys were such bad asses no one would dare risk a frontal assault for a long time. Natives fought the Spanish, many europeans and I think there is ample evidence they had encounters with the Northmen (vikings) who clearly landed and navigated and migrated all the way to the West Coast leaving burial mounds as far as Washington State. So much of Native American tools, art and dress reminded me of Norse Vikings with an American schtick to it. . We also know that the Celts wit the Druids landed even earlier than the Vikings and before them, the French paladins and before them, possibly Jewish/Hebrew refugees or pilgrims. The History have all been told is not right and many different cultures were here at different periods. each brought their tools and weapons. That Katana you see depicted, if the picture is not a fraud would be because Japan sent delegations here prior to the Meiji restoration or sometime around then and its believed that these often had encounters with Natives crossing the South West but I wouldn't know. What people don't know is that after the Civil War arms companies often sold rifles to native Americans and once they were equipped with near equal weapons they made a mess of the US Army...but they were few and the Army many and so on. A lot of uniquely American fighting tactics came directly from various Native American Nations. the Army used often single shot Springfield rifles while the Natives began using Lever Action repeating rifles with shorter lengths and wold organize into parties of 6 or less moving quickly through dry creek beds and between hills, while the Army was trained to take the High Ground, the Natives used those hills for cover and would get in close to the Army and then attack with repeating rifles. yes, in HTH, they would absolutely use the Tomahawk with a knife in the other hand and I bet they picked up more than one sword as a trophy and then began using it instead but certainly would have carried one or more tomahawks lashed somewhere on their body. You know, the Tomahawk has survived to the present day as both a tool and hand to hand weapon used even in the Armed Forces. troops carried them in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Many people in the Prepping community packs at least one in their bug Out Bag and they are used as heavily among us Whites as they are among us Natives. We are all one people now. this political activist guy, Patriot street fighter gives them away as rewards to remind people to be patriotic even in the face of a Superior Force and join the attack when the time is right. companies of all sorts make all kinds of tactical tomahawks but I embarrassed to admit that I am a Prepper, former battle reenact and Renny, part Native, blah, blah, blah and I don't actually own a good tomahawk except for one ultra cheap Wal-Mart special given to me years ago which I stuck in a camping bag and quit using on account the steel was too soft to keep an edge. A sword remains a superior weapon in every way and the Whites did't ultimately win after all because our weapons were inferior or outmatched but the Tomahawk is a nasty weaponized tool a guy could practically rebuild Civilization with if he has the right skills to get it started. swords are no good in thick wooded areas and under brush but the Tomahawk is small enough and primarily used as a hacking and hooking weapon so it was well suited to the environment. in an open space the sword will dominate...so you have to draw them into the underbrush, get them turned around and lost while the Sun is going down and then you can hunt them on your terms where their weapons will be almost useless...

[@Eric-ux2ji]

Ease of transportation, can be carried on your belt while doing other things. Lighter. Stealthier, doesn't rattle while approaching the enemy and above all other advantages can be used as a pipe!

[@ianalexander7267]

Thank you. I feel like the sword is one of the forgotten frontier weapons

[@ColinTherac117]

I would add to the last point that the high instance rate of combat being in more wooded terrain makes the close-in advantage more pronounced in the theaters of combat where the tomahawk was used. It really sucks when your sword gets caught in low hanging branches, bushes, or vines. Plus the video did not discuss the utility of the tomahawk outside of combat which is much greater than a sword.

[@hannespj603]

Just adding to "familiarity with your particular weapon-system": muscle-memory. (how to switch from distance to close-range, ways to block, etc.) This is not only important regarding tomahawks & sabres, but I would dare to say: this holds true for modern fire-arms too (though they are more complex and need technical understanding/knowledge on top).

[@kanrakucheese]

Video idea: Go through one of the public domain Bannerman catalogs (internet archive has at least the 1903 catalog) and comment on the sword section. There's some very interesting descriptions and several pages of illustrations.

[@alexandersmall7380]

I’d also imagine that there is a certain psychological impact of knowing that they could use it either as a melee weapon or as a ranged weapon, sort of like going up against a musket armed line infantryman, vs a spearman. Both effectively have a spear, but one also has ranged capabilities.

[@SuperOtter13]

Funny timing today. Watched this video then went to a gun and antique show this afternoon. And got to hold and admire some original spontoon pipe tomahawk. Was surprised at how big they are. Much longer and stout handles than I've found on other types of tomahawk. Definitely more like a war hammer or pick from middle ages than I expected. Great content thank you again Matt for all the work you put into sharing your knowledge with us! Cheers

[@thomaszaccone3960]

Francisca - the Franks used a throwing ax as did other Teutonic warriors. When I was younger, I used a guide from a Black Powder book to learn how to throw a hawk. I was able to hit a playing card at 21 feet away with one. Once you get the hang of it, I found the thing was easier to accurately throw than a baseball. The key was bring able to judge distance in paces of your stride and use a throwing hawk with a handle as long as your forearm from elbow to clenched fist. It went through a full revolution for every three paces when thrown right. Held with the blade facing you, it would hit the target at a one and a half of your paces with the handle facing upwards when it hit. I totally concur with your analysis.

[@Spear_of_the_Raven_Ash]

Many parallels with the Francisca; great idea for a discussion topic Matt!

[@eikskjold]

'Empire of the Summer Moon' is a great book going into the impact the Commanche empire had on Texas. Anyway, there are a lot of mid-1800's accounts where Commanche buffalo hide shields could deflect bullets. Coupled with their superb horsemanship and 14' lances and bows... they just ruled the lands until revolvers and repeaters came into play.

[@thechroniclesofthegnostic7107]

Nailed it! And very glad that you brought up point 3 (shields)--very related to why in earlier European times, esp. Viking times, etc., the single handed axe was a perfectly viable alternative to a sword.

[@thechroniclesofthegnostic7107]

Also worth a follow up vid, related to point 4, is how both cases of Native Americans who acquired swords, and especially Americans colonists, the tendency to prefer hangars or shortened swords. (Also the development of the espada ancha.) Yup, on foot "too long" being sometimes a liability. And of course 19th C sabres in particular were cavalry arms.

[@danhaywood5696]

Tomahawk is cool AF! I dig mine. Really enjoy this channel too. It's awesome with the historical accounts and full understanding of the weapons history and design and uses and tactics and economics. Provides a lot of insights, especially on weapon designs.

[@dragdragon23]

Great show, Love it! What about a bayoneted rifle vs the spear in close combat?

[@Philippians--co6ww]

3:37 to skip ad

[@tedhodge4830]

The spontoon would have been more effective against things like clavicles, ribcages, skulls, etcetera. The combination of impact force and the concentrated point would likely shatter and pierce bones.

[@tumbleweed6658]

Very well done Matt as always, as an American Revolution reenactment student for about 25 years now the knife and tomahawk have alway been standard kit and after a few days in camp I felt naked without both, that being said we really competed hard with them for blanket prizes and bragging rights. we would fire three shots with our flintlocks and then fellow this up with a fast run up to a hey bail target. The only time I would throw a hawk is when I would have a battle buddy to join me in the fight. Throwing a tool that may save your life is a big gamble and your enemy could very well use it on you. The throwing rank for shock and awa fellowed by the hand to hand rank makes for taking the field much like a folly fire followed up by a bayonet charge. End result the last Blok to the traven buys the rest of the lads a pint!! cheers Matt

[@tariksabie1738]

Thanks for this informative video. Always been a huge fan of tomahawks. Question, in your research have you seen what the typical weight was for a traditional tomahawk that was used in the French and Indian War or sometime earlier? Most modern tomahawks I see (and own) seem to be too heavy. They are 16 oz and up. I've seen some research where older traditional ones were between 6 - 10 oz, which would be a lot easier to carry and use in combat.

[@Pearalt9094]

I really enjoy this sort of speculative discussion involving our cultures! I've been watching you since my school days, I love your content!

[@DougShoeBushcraft]

I was surprised to hear you mention choking up on a tomahawk and punching with it. I was going to leave a comment concerning that, but you covered it. Good job. -as always, I would say.

[@johnwolfen4243]

Great stuff my English friend. One disadvantage is the tomahawk must be swung in an arch. This can be blocked easily. Lots and Lots of Natives also carried a bowie knife or other large knife. So you can swing with the hawk and stab with the knife a big advantage. You can also carry more than one knife and tomahawk without much trouble. Before everyone says the sword is so much better I should remind folks that the Vikings use small and large axes to good effect.

[@matthewdemuth2792]

Is there video explaining the advantages of the saber over the tomahawk? Feeling like it’s spoken of and mentioned but I couldn’t find the actual video

[@duelinginbarcelona]

Does the statement at 14:40 take into account infantry sabre's? Jaime Merelo in 1862 recommends Spanish infantry officers stash their pistol away in close skirmishes in order to not discharge their firearm and strike a comrade, for this would be truly lamentable.

[@mrcharon6197]

This was fantastic. I'm still hoping you will do something comparing conquistador weapons to pre-Columbian weapons!

[@vargenfenrisson1164]

pre colombian? almost the entire continent had the same gear before the spanish came.

[@mrcharon6197]

@@vargenfenrisson1164 yes, I understand that, the point being compare battlefield weapons between the two.

[@darrenvanderwilt1258]

Much depends on the specific time period. Many European settlers and militia would carry tomahawks. For example, Rogers Rangers during the French and Indian (Seven Years) war. The tomahawk is far more versatile than a saber when you consider breaking trail, setting up camp, or improving a fighting position. All these weapons, sabers, tomahawks, knives, pole arms, and bayonets, had greater chance of being employed during battles and skirmishes during the early colonial and U.S. frontier periods, up to the American Civil War. Native Americans would usually use them as a coup de grace upon wounded enemies. After the advent of repeating arms becoming prevalent, close quarter hand weapons became a last ditch means in a desperate fight to survive (ran out of ammunition, being overrun, etcetera). Like in the earlier period, they’re used to maintain a sort of continuity of fire. Great example, the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Custer’s forces were armed with Springfield Trapdoor carbines, great at long distance volley fire, as was previously encountered in the past decade (Civil War) against symmetric forces (fighting the last war). The Native Americans were predominantly armed with tube magazine fed 1873 Winchester carbines, providing for greater continuity and rapidity of fire. There was little need for hand to hand weapons. Also, Native Americans imbued their weapons and shields with spiritual “medicine,” giving them an individual sense of immunity to their enemies weapons. Great video, and a great practical/mental exercise.

[@ew3612]

Its a good point but the native americans were armed with whatever they could get their hands on so they had a mix of everything. I dont know what the ratio of weapon types were but i know they were not primarily armed with firearms.

[@rezlogan4787]

I visited the ruins of an old Army fort in my corner of the desert southwest. I can confirm that the museum was full of rusted sabers belonging mostly to officers. The rifle and revolver would have been primary arms for both the Army and tribal fighters. Interestingly, the tribes were not defeated or relocated in this state (the Union was defeated decisively and forced to negotiate a land treaty), and the tribal lands are relatively prosperous communities today.

[@kencoffman7145]

Another thing to consider is terrain. North America eastern woodlands are and were extremely dense. Swinging a sword is just way to limited with branches and underbrush.

[@andreweden9405]

I had just made this same point as well right before seeing your comment.😁

[@StaringAtAScreen]

I was going to add that comment as well. A tomahawk is not just a weapon, but a multipurpose tool. I never go backcountry without a small hatchet, and I would imagine the hatchet and tomahawk were used very similarly.

[@jasondearborn2349]

Thank you Mr Easton, for including that picture of the native American with a Japanese sword. I've fallen down a rabbit hole of theoretical history trying to research it 😀

[@scholagladiatoria]

It's not even the only one - I found another one of a Native American with a tachi!

[@Theduckwebcomics]

His name was Dog Child, he was some sort of law enforcement officer in Canada.

[@ndld4955]

The tomahawk and the francisca both are essentially throwing axes seems to be similar weapon idea that developed independently of one another interesting I wonder other more examples of this phenomenon Ps one thing he forgot to take into account it's the fact that if you essentially flip a tomahawk you essentially have a light Maze which is very effective against armour

[@petriew2018]

actually the tomahawk is a development of the francisca, it's not a truly 'native' design. No disrespect to the native americans, but the Tomahawk was an outgrowth of simple french axe heads used as trade goods during the fur trade era. When the french realized they were being used as weapons and not just tools, they started offering heavier heads based off old medieval designs at a higher price for what the Native Americans then developed into what we know as the tomahawk. the manufacture of tomahawk heads was almost exclusively done in europe or the american colonies, so there wasn't a lot of stylistic development by the Natives. They just took what was available and mounted them in the way the individual tribe preferred.

[@Pine3Def]

Nope

[@markpoole5854]

Dear Matt, first of all a great channel by a very dedicated and knowledgeable expert i.e. You. I have one minor criticism, its actually something I do myself and that is to digress and waffle on a bit, please don't consider this in any way a personal criticism it is like myself an individual trait, however sometimes it would be nice to get to the point, but its your channel and its very good. I have been making tomahawks' and Scandinavian hand axes for years I sometimes mostly in fact add leather bindings and carved rings at various heights on the handle which allows excellent grip points when choking up to use as a weapon or indeed for carving I ounce cut out and shaped an entire one piece bow limb on an archery project with just a small tomahawk. Anyway I digress, Sabres were poor in forested areas and having fired his musket most average soldiers were left with a bayonet or knife against very agile and very skilled native Americans unencumbered by layers of uniform which no doubt restricted movement, in my research native Americans would duel wield a tomahawk and knife very skilfully and with a quote I ounce read "overwhelming speed and ferocity". Keep up the good work and feel free to correct any inaccuracy's in my text I believe the Apache were considered some of the best knife fighters of the day, had dishonesty and cruel tactics, the metal cartridge and repeating rifles not come to bear I believe the white man would have had a far more difficult time conquering the west. The oppression of the native American peoples was and still is of great loss to humanty!

[@jamesrussell7760]

Which would be better, a tomahawk with a shield or a short sword like the Roman gladius with a shield?

[@leemcgann6470]

Being the manager of a axe throwing venue… i am very comfy with the knock down power of a thrown tomahawk. I would LOVE to see someone do some ballistic & kinetic energy measurements of thrown axes & tomahawks!!!!

[@LionAstrology]

I always thought the advantage of having a sheild was that your opponent must reach around the shield to strike you making them have to come in closer. I don't think "blocking" and stike to create the distance is quite as safe/effective.

[@johnschultz8906]

Literally this is my first video on this channel and I'm already in love lol

[@MrPiotrV]

An additional factor is how much metal is required. If metal is limited then you can make a whole lot more tomahawks than swords, which makes it even better when you consider they might be carrying a few extra to throw.

[@batdad24]

This reminds me of comments I have heard on why the Francisca was so effective on the battlefield. Not only for it being a cultural weapon, but also for it's diversity in combat uses.

[@erickillough6476]

Oh my, just noticed that two hander against the wall on the left. Looks very cool.

[@nilo70]

Well , I think it depends on who is fighting , more so than the weapon (excludes firearms) involved ?

[@tonyjensen4093]

Great video. Aside from the actual fight, I imagine tomahawks were more affordable. You sort of touched on this when you spoke of the availability of the tomahawk vs the saber. Also, I believe the tomahawk would be easier to keep on your person when you weren't expecting a fight.

[@joebloggs5318]

Great as a secondary weapon. Use it in your off hand in a similar manner to a main gauche or swordbreaker.

[@woltews]

I live in western Canada the number 1 advantage of a tomahawk that helps you stay alive is Not freezing to death !!!!!!!! you can get to the dry wood in the centre of the log or branch yo can only carry so much stuff with you and things you do not have play no part in keeping you alive so the axe that can also be a weapon wins out over the sword that can also be a sword and ocashionly a sword

[@matthewhammond859]

Matt whats going on with your collaboration with the royal armouries?

[@jacknoone2762]

Of course this begs the question of dual wielding both a sabre and tomahawk. Your thoughts on this combination please.

[@dariustiapula]

Something about tomahawk brings the inner childhood out of me.

[@andrewblack7852]

Is there really that much difference between this period of time inviting use of the axe against sword

[@ethanblinkhorn8396]

Another great video Matt! I have a few projects im currently working on but have something im planning on making you for your collection;)

[@markziff7234]

Now you've mentioned the gunstock war club, any chance of a video of such?

[@jankarieben1071]

Thanks also for your “choppy short sword” video, I felt silly actually when I took mine out and easily hacked down some thick saplings with ease. 😅

[@SuperOtter13]

Love this topic thanks Matt

[@Dustypilgrim1]

It may be worth pondering that, (when considering sabre versus tribal knives, daggers, clubs, 'hawks etc) if matters were to become issues of hand to hand standing orders often required that sabres be discarded before the march. This was the apparently case at 'Greasy Grass' . One has to wonder if an assumption of their being as good as useless if the enemy closed in hand to hand combat may have had a sway on the final fate of Custer's beleaguered , 'sabreless' , companies once their shots from single shot Springfield Model 1873's and the Colt Single Action Army revolvers had been absorbed by a swarming mass charge of the tribes. In a matter of seconds the 210 (or so) troopers with Custer may have gotten off some 1400 rounds with scant time or facility for reloads , (generous when reminded they were short of ammo for resupply) yet very possibly sustained a typically low rate of incapacitating hits faced with wounds, exhaustion, hunger, thirst and incapacitating fear. When they were swarmed perhaps the resignation of senior command to discount the sabre as viable , and preference for discarding them for an imagined, covert approach sealed the troopers' fate .

[@TheUncleRuckus]

I'd say it's first and foremost advantage is that the tomahawk can easily and accurately thrown unlike the sabre. Also it offers grappling/hooking capabilities too.

[@philipwaddles984]

One thing to Tomahawk has over the sword. Is day-to-day life. Bushcrafting. just by taking the head off of the weapon. You have another tool for skinning animals Or carving wood And you never have to worry about your handle. There is a forest full of them. Growing up in Jamestown Virginia everyone has one. It's just a great all-around tool. And if you have to you can use it as a weapon. Wonderful video

[@jurassiclobotomy4196]

It is an interesting point that the earlier martial encounters between European colonists and Native Americans would have been in the period where rapiers and baskethilt broadswords were popular weapons. Do we have indeed have any accounts of such actions between tomahawks and rapiers and/or broadswords?

[@joeyvanhaperen7715]

Nice to hear anyone talk about punshing with axes cause nobody ever talks about using hand axes like a punsh dagger or knuckeldusters at close range. I would argue the best close range weapon would be the dagger/fighting knife and a very close second would be a handaxe like a Tomahawk. Many people don't try this but against a sword if you have a axe all you have to do is rush in, hook the sword out of the way, choke up on your axe and start punshing like you in a street fight. I would even agrue that hand axes can even be better anti-armor weapons then daggers if they have a very pointy top beard or a top spike. Why? Cause they have more reach then a dagger, they can still hit with a lot of percusif force and when choked up you still have a point you can easly stab into gaps of the armor, not to mention you can hook strabs on armor to rip them and the shaft can be used to grappel with aswell. I honnestly would still always pick a nice axe over a sword, and I might carry a axe with a top spike instead of a dagger aswell. In my eyes axes are a kind of inbetween option for daggers, maces, and swords, cause they can approche each of these weapons in doing the same thing, but are just not as great as each seperate one.

[@inregionecaecorum]

What accounts are there of Tonahawk vs Sabre?

[@jonahhex9620]

I wonder how obsidian performs against various hard materials?

[@donaldlopez9077]

First off, Thank you for what you do! Brilliant. Fun question, Is there such thing as known martial "treatises" on Stone Age weapons/weaponry? if so how old and oldest known? Just Ann odd curious thought and I cannot think of anyone better equipped to know, know how to find out or even chance a good guess. Carry On Sir!

[@bdjcasar8357]

Not to seem contrary, but I am going to argue that sabers were not in any way "standard" for settlers. Soldiers maybe, officers certainly, but not settlers. Most civilians used muskets and tomahawks. They learned the value of a good multi-tool like a tomahawk from interactions with Indigenous people. Likely, spontoon pipehawks weren't very common. Most "tomahawks" were made from chert. More Europeans carried iron and steel tomahawks than Indigenous people.

[@stephenballard3759]

In Matt's previous video, the historical sources he reads from claimed that steel tomahawk were ubiquitous among the Natives. Not necessarily the spontoon/pipe style, of course, but tomahawk heads were extremely common trade goods very early on.

[@petriew2018]

uhhh... no, most tomahawks were metal because they were acquired as trade goods. The Native Americans are not known to have used stone axes of any kind is warfare before 'first contact'. They'd have used hardwood clubs, spears, or stone/bone knives. axe heads were a highly popular trade good because they could be mass produced in europe or the american colonies for next to nothing from relatively cheap iron or steel, traded to the natives for highly lucrative furs, and the trade company itself would see a huge profit. It would honestly have been easier for a native to acquire a metal axe head by hunting a few animals than it would have been to make himself a stone axe. Guns, knife blades and axe heads were three of the most common goods used in the fur trade. as for the style of axe, that depends entirely on who your trade partner was. Those trading with english or american settlers tended to get the utilitarian style most commonly depicted in movies, since that's the pattern the settlers themselves would have been using as every day tools. If you were trading with the french you could get your hands on some specifically weaponized axe heads, since the french knew they could trade those as a premium. They also tended to give them as cheap gifts, because an axe shaped like the 'fluer de lis' would have been quite impressive to a lot of chiefs and cost you next to nothing.

[@pey7759]

I remember reading that most swords were used by natives as status symbols, whether confiscated of gifted. In fact, I specifically remember an account during the initial Spanish push for colonization of a native being seen with the broken top of a rapier (or sim) set into a handle and being used as a more typical weapon of their culture

[@bryanandrews7391]

One thing that wasn't mentioned but should always be considered when discussing the advantages/effectiveness of a weapon is its psychological effect on the enemy. Axes in general, and specifically tomahawks, can be very scary weapons to face to the untrained opponent...let's be real no one wants to be hacked to death. By comparison, swords, spears, bayonets, etc. all of which are all much more familiar, are less scary. If you're fighting with a sword you probably have some idea how your sword-armed opponent is going to use it. Here, knowing that this weapon can effectively be thrown at you changes the game entirely -- to an untrained soldier, you might even have second thoughts about rushing this guy with your sword. I can't offer any specific first-hand accounts off-hand so I am speaking purely from a speculative point of view and a "what would I do/think" perspective here. However, we shouldn't discount the fact that the majority of soldiers in the 17th, 18th, and even early 19th centuries were fighting an enemy they didn't really understand. Consequently, just the prospect of engaging Native Americans in battle had to have some psychological effect on them just taking into account the horror stories that circulated on the frontier of scalpings and savagery, etc (whether true or not). And the same could likely be said of the Vikings or any other group in history that have been painted as "barbarians." I can't imagine that actually seeing a Native, dressed in war paint and wielding a tomahawk helped to soothe the mind any. Putting this whole picture together means that the tomahawk is more than a physical weapon...it's scary as hell and placing it in context of who is wielding it and the circumstance of time makes it even more ferocious. Matt briefly alluded to weapon psychology in his discussion of tomahawk throwing, but I understood his point there to be more "psychological" in that it offers the wielder more tactical options and changes his tactical thinking. What I'm referencing is the psychologically "scary" effect on the target. A weapon doesn't necessarily have to be physically good to be effective, if it can scare your opponents away or even psychologically make them second guess the encounter and catch them off guard, you're going to have a natural advantage (at least until they start learning how to defeat it and not to be scared of it). Once you begin facing better-trained soldiers the game changes again, which is why I emphasize the point about facing untrained opponents as would be common in colonial militias or even green regular army recruits. We only need look at WWI and WWII to confirm that gas, flamethrowers, and nebelwerfers all had a comparable or possibly greater psychological effect than they did physical effect. The same ought to be considered here of the tomahawk and saber... All that said, I'd still prefer the saber, but facing an opponent with a tomahawk is going to change how I view the situation as opposed to facing another saber or bayonet-wielding opponent. If this was the first time you'd ever seen or faced the weapon, that may even more DRASTICALLY change your view, and the argument could be made that effect is yet another advantage of the weapon.

[@carldehaven7672]

Matt, First great content as always! Next I think that most of the tomahawk vs saber incidents between Native Tribes and US affiliated forces would likely have been pre-1840 and would have involved infantry hangers/sabers/cutlass, generally a shorter weapon, with both opponents on foot. When we talk about cavalry sabers, we should think of the saber as part of a weapon system composed of the horse, the trooper, the stirrup saddle and the saber. As an aside, the Pennsylvania colony 1757 militia law required members to be armed with besides a musket, fuzee or other firelock, a cutlass, bayonet or tomahawk. That carried over into the post Revolution regulations. Also the tomahawk was issued a NATO stock number(4210-01-518-7244) and has been used in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan by US forces.

[@alancranford3398]

George Armstrong Custer left behind his battery of two Gatling guns, two 3" field guns, about a quarter of his command, his wagons, and all of his regiment's sabers before leaving for the Little Big Horn. The Sioux kept their tomahawks. The cavalry found that sabers were ineffective in combat against irregulars mounted on horseback because the irregulars rationally didn't stand, fight and die, but only attacked when the irregulars had the advantage and would flee when they irregulars were at a disadvantage. The saber became excess baggage and sabers rattled, too! On the other hand the tomahawk was a useful tool and the Sioux were short of supplies. Large hunting knives filled the "tool" function for cavalry troopers and also served as an expedient weapon.

[@bandit6272]

🤔

[@jimwestberg4771]

Excellently said! realistically sabers were seldom used during the Indian war period for offensive means, mostly due to the fact that the mode of war in the west was almost never suited for it.

[@bandit6272]

@@jimwestberg4771 Sabers not effective because the American Indians just "ran away"? Sounds like a shortcoming of tactics, not the weapon. That's like saying guns aren't effective because people duck.

[@omarkusturica3174]

Custer died in that battle though, so I am not sure that this proved to be a good decision on his part.

[@jimwestberg4771]

@@bandit6272 I mean yes essentially. Sabers were useful in traditional European style conflicts (two armies fighting in a field of battle etc. etc.). The mode of warfare during the Indian Wars in western campaigns more often than not were small skirmishes that were seldom longer than an hour and to both sides equated to raids and not so much pitch battles. Sabers still saw use for parade dress and limited drills, though for seldom for combat. With the vast majority of cavalry commanders (company grade and up) being seasoned combat vets of the civil war during the height of the Indian Wars (1870-1880), I'd say if they saw it as unuseful in this very different style of war it most likely was.

[@frankharr9466]

Being able to get in can be hard, but I can see why it would be good once you have. Do we know enough about the relvant shields for a video?

[@raphlvlogs271]

how short can the shortest functional tomahawk be?

[@outandaboutintheworl]

I remember reading an interview with Michael Mann about the research he did for Last of the Mohicans, and he mentioned in the French Indian wars British units quickly adapted to carry hatchets. This was due to the nature of fighting in the dense east coast forests, where a sword or bayonet would be hampered by the thick growth, which a hatchet was more likely to crash through. Always stuck with me as an example of real world soldiers quickly adapting to their combat situation, and this just not making it in to the film at all (even though the director knew all about it). Anyhow, that seems another circumstance where a tomahawk might be the preferred weapon (and if Mann's story is true, resulted in British troops opting to take on local weapons).

[@Sceptis]

Could we see some experimental sparring with these two weapons in opposition?

[@colinmartin6096]

Absolutely has an advantage of you can close the distance between you and your opponent. As a boy I fell in love with tomahawks when I found a chipping hammer and started throwing it at logs. One thing I've found myself doing is practicing and learning how to use it in a melee situation and I too used it like a punch dagger.

[@fuferito]

Considering the context, which of the the two; tomahawk or sabre, is better at opening a chocolate Easter egg?