> Hand to hand?? Wasnt 18th century warfare was suppose to be where
> opossing forces faced each other and never really intend to get that
> close to one another? Why did soldiers carry them in the first
> place, to cut brush??
The right and proper use of a tomahawk (read "weapon") is in your hand, not
thrown away. That is practical sense. 'Hawks can be accurately thrown- at
stationary targets at know ranges. Known range is the key. The 'hawk has to
make a certain number or revolutions to hit edge on- an extra half turn only
means handle, not edge. Very hard to do in combat, with an adrenal rush, at
someone rushing you. I would not bother to learn the slight, as the effort is
wasted and better spent on learn to reload faster...
On the other hand, close combat was expected, that is why muskets have
bayonets. NJ militia law required a bayonet, and a tomahawk "or a sword".
Swords are not for chopping wood.
Until the advent of the revolver, people carried large knives instead of
pistols, usually (think Bowie). One knife is good for more than one opponent,
and always works in all weather. Men expecting to possibly use a knife as a
weapon carried bigger knives than they would otherwise need. Long hunters were
"longknives" to the Indians-though many carried what would be considered butcher
knives today, and were not designed for fighting.
During our period, gentlemen stopped wearing swords, except for military men.
The military men carried smaller swords. Later this was found to be
ineffective, and officers swords were more sabre like, as Civil War swords are.
In our period, gentlemen were carrying canes/walking sticks, which habit
continued for decades. They were a good defensive weapon as well.
Your humble servant,