Muzzleloading Forum .....


Contact - Can't Login?
This area is for discussing the use of Accoutrements.
Posts related to making equipment, should be placed in "The Craftsman".
 Page 3 of 3 « First<123
Login Name Post: Throwing hawks or knives in combat?        (Topic#305442)
Wes/Tex 
Cannon
Posts: 7448
Wes/Tex
11-19-17 11:18 PM - Post#1652446    

    In response to Artificer

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/69/08/95/6908...

 
Loyalist Dave 
75 Cal.
Posts: 5986
Loyalist Dave
11-20-17 08:07 AM - Post#1652476    

    In response to Artificer

  • Quote:
There never had to be a formal/codified martial art for people to be trained to use the hand weapons of their time.

For example, Vikings were not full time soldiers and had no martial art school, but they were trained to use the hand axe very well by older warriors.



I'm not suggesting that "no martial art = no martial techniques". But I am saying that it is observable to have martial techniques, combat moves for a weapon or weapons, and not an actual "martial art".

LD

 
Artificer 
Cannon
Posts: 6069
11-20-17 08:35 AM - Post#1652482    

    In response to Loyalist Dave

  • Loyalist Dave Said:
  • Quote:
There never had to be a formal/codified martial art for people to be trained to use the hand weapons of their time.

For example, Vikings were not full time soldiers and had no martial art school, but they were trained to use the hand axe very well by older warriors.



I'm not suggesting that "no martial art = no martial techniques". But I am saying that it is observable to have martial techniques, combat moves for a weapon or weapons, and not an actual "martial art".

LD



OK, then taking that into consideration, even full time soldiers then or now rarely were/are taught a true martial art, unless they study one in their off duty hours.

As an example, even the British Army that did publish manuals and orders on many things, did not have a bayonet manual until the very end of the 18th century/early 19th century. As much as they relied on the bayonet in this period, they also only had "martial techniques" of instruction. Yet, it is very difficult to find any PROOF of that instruction before the manuals were written was given to the soldiers, outside of very "basic techniques" in the early manuals.

Gus

 
Rifleman1776 
Cannon
Posts: 13243
Rifleman1776
11-20-17 09:38 AM - Post#1652497    

    In response to Artificer

....Uh????? Artificier.....I know you are very much educated on things relating to the AWI so your statement puzzles me. I'm not much of an expert on the Continental soldier or the Redcoat. But, I have frequently read of instances of the Americans being soundly defeated by the British when a bayonet attach was used by the Redcoats because they had superior training in their use. I respect your input on posts regarding things AWI so am puzzled by what you just said.

 
tenngun 
Cannon
Posts: 6407
tenngun
11-20-17 11:24 AM - Post#1652524    

    In response to Rifleman1776

They concentrated on tactical movements. They were trained to put bayoneted musket it to a position and move in a direction based on drum beats, commands or bugle calls. They were trained company to company instead of man to man.
The men paraded till the moves became second nature, and responses didn’t require thought. The company was a pawn on a chess board, and it was up to the general to move them. One red coat with an empty musket vs one rifleman with a tomahawk was anybody’s guess. One hundred redcoats moving as one vs milita the best disciplined won.

Edited by tenngun on 11-20-17 11:25 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
Artificer 
Cannon
Posts: 6069
11-20-17 12:06 PM - Post#1652532    

    In response to Rifleman1776

Sorry if I was confusing. I'll try it a different way and hope this will clear it up.

There was no "Bayonet Drill Manual" in the British Army until after the AWI. Earlier Drill Manuals that were used up to and including the AWI only had a few "basic techniques" shown in the manuals and certainly nothing that could be called advanced training or bayonet fencing and especially not a martial art.

Now the British Army up through the AWI (and afterwards) was one heck of a lot further along in writing, publishing and documenting some of the smallest details of day to day Army life and more than anyone else in the colonies. Detailed Minutiae was kept in log books kept by Serjeants (with a nod to the period spelling) Company Officers, etc., etc. going all the way up through the chain of command. Yet it is very difficult to document any bayonet training beyond learning how to take up the poses/positions with the bayonet mounted musket in the Drill Manuals.

(NA's had nothing even remotely resembling this documentation, because most tribes/nations had no written language.)

The only documentation that seems to have survived for any kind of bayonet training in the British Army up through and including the AWI, was the very few "basic techniques" listed in available Drill Manuals. (I emphasize the use of the term "basic techniques" because that is what others described how NA Warriors used the Tomahawk.) These techniques were basically just how to hold the bayonet mounted musket at a charge position or when receiving an enemy bayonet charge or against enemy mounted troops. There is nothing in the Drill Manuals on blocking or parrying an enemy's thrust or other techniques of "bayonet fencing" to actually use the bayonet effectively in close combat.

Now as you mentioned, the British Army was known for being very effective with the Bayonet up through and including the AWI. Of course some of this in the early stages of the war was due to the discipline of the British Soldiers and the fact that many Patriots did not have bayonets. However after Valley Forge when the Patriots were far better trained and disciplined for only a few months and had bayonets by that time, the Patriots did much better at going head to head with the British Soldiers and their bayonets.

Now what this tells me is that even with the British Army being what is often referred to as the most professional Army in the world at the time and with ALL the full time training they had received before coming over and training by their Senior Enlisted and Officers; they only knew a few "basic techniques" of bayonet fighting. Otherwise, the British would have easily won over the Valley Forge trained Patriots (even with their bayonets) in hand to hand fighting with bayonets at the Battle of Monmouth in June 1778. This because that battle was only a few months after Von Steuben showed up to begin to train the American Army at Valley Forge on 23 February 1778.

IOW, even the most Professional Army in the World at that time with writing, publications, manuals and a full time Army; only had a few "basic techniques" for bayonet fighting that can be documented. Of course the British Army was primarily trained in drill, movement and firing - with the bayonet only being a secondary weapon, though an important one. But, they did not have advanced bayonet techniques and certainly no martial art with the bayonet.

OK, a little more comparison between the Most Professional Army in the World compared to NA's. Yes, NA's primarily used guns or bows if they did not have guns and the tomahawk was their secondary weapon. But some state the NA's had no "martial art" with the tomahawk. Well, no kidding, but we also have to remember the British Army did not have a martial art with the bayonet and they had all the advantages over the NA's mentioned here and that some others have already mentioned.

What I'm getting at is why must we assume that the NA's had to have a martial art, written language, publications, etc., etc. to effectively use the tomahawk; when even the British Army did not have a bayonet martial art or bayonet fencing training in the period?

The British Army only had "a few basic techniques" with the bayonet, yet they used the bayonet pretty effectively. The American Army only had a "few basic techniques" with the Bayonet and not as much discipline and training as the British Army, yet they did well against the British in hand to hand combat only months after Von Steuben showed up to train them.

So "few basic techniques" with the tomahawk and taught to NA's by other NA's with more experience in warfare, made them fairly formidable along with their other tactics.

Gus

 
Rifleman1776 
Cannon
Posts: 13243
Rifleman1776
11-20-17 02:10 PM - Post#1652553    

    In response to Artificer

Very informative. Thanks.

 
Wes/Tex 
Cannon
Posts: 7448
Wes/Tex
11-20-17 06:16 PM - Post#1652603    

    In response to Artificer

Your statement about training and use of bayonet tactics ion both sides is absolutely correct. Formal combat training was not as we know now and depended to a large extent on working together. Von Steuben's instruction made all the difference but it would still be up to the overall training of any regiment or company. The ultimate example would be the 1st Maryland at Guilford Courthouse. As the British pushed everyone back the grenadier company of the Brigade of Guards was plowed into by the 1st Maryland, bayonets level. Gen. Lee described the British as having been "compelled to recoil from shock". When the 2nd Maryland started to fall back under pressure, Col. John Gunby of the 1st did a left wheel and his troops poured it into the advancing British...things would never be quite the same afterwards.

 
Artificer 
Cannon
Posts: 6069
11-20-17 07:53 PM - Post#1652630    

    In response to Wes/Tex

Thank you for that information.

BTW, just loved the pic with the Viking and how wolves don't play well with dogs. Sorry I missed that earlier.

Gus

 
Wes/Tex 
Cannon
Posts: 7448
Wes/Tex
11-20-17 09:01 PM - Post#1652650    

    In response to Artificer

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bbVMsNA7tSw/VgHRCytJFBI/AAAAAAAAuo...

The other way to go!

 
Artificer 
Cannon
Posts: 6069
11-21-17 03:58 AM - Post#1652687    

    In response to Wes/Tex

  • Wes/Tex Said:


Wow, I wish I had had that illustration in the latter stages of my Career on Active Duty. I used to joke that this "Old Man" or "Dinosaur" did things that would help ensure my younger Marines would have a hugely better chance of surviving in combat, if they really followed my example and what I was teaching them and the standards I held myself and them to. I was also able to influence and assist many Officers younger and even a few older than me.

Gus

 
Rifleman1776 
Cannon
Posts: 13243
Rifleman1776
11-21-17 09:48 AM - Post#1652727    

    In response to Wes/Tex

  • Wes/Tex Said:


Love it. I may capture and make a print to hang in my so-called office.

 
NWTF Longhunter 
50 Cal.
Posts: 1097
NWTF Longhunter
11-22-17 11:00 PM - Post#1653000    

    In response to Rifleman1776

http://mail2.wowway.net/service/home/~/?id=92495&part=2&...

 
NWTF Longhunter 
50 Cal.
Posts: 1097
NWTF Longhunter
11-23-17 08:26 AM - Post#1653048    

    In response to NWTF Longhunter



 
Wes/Tex 
Cannon
Posts: 7448
Wes/Tex
11-23-17 05:44 PM - Post#1653140    

    In response to NWTF Longhunter



The version I heard was, "Never fight with old guys, they know they can't win a fair fight so will just kill you!"

I had an incident three years ago Christmas when three little punks decided they were going to mug the old Santa-looking guy for his money. Dumb little numb-nuts. Kept backing up till they pushed it too far then out popped the Boker...SNAP! Bet they're a lot more circumspect now!

 
nhmoose 
54 Cal.
Posts: 1618
nhmoose
11-23-17 06:19 PM - Post#1653150    

    In response to Wes/Tex

Never been in a fair fight, when you do you have fornicated in an ascending manner.

 
Rifleman1776 
Cannon
Posts: 13243
Rifleman1776
11-24-17 09:28 AM - Post#1653239    

    In response to Wes/Tex

  • Wes/Tex Said:


The version I heard was, "Never fight with old guys, they know they can't win a fair fight so will just kill you!"

I had an incident three years ago Christmas when three little punks decided they were going to mug the old Santa-looking guy for his money. Dumb little numb-nuts. Kept backing up till they pushed it too far then out popped the Boker...SNAP! Bet they're a lot more circumspect now!




Haven't carried it yet, but now that I am using a cane I have built myself several. One is a 1" hickory shaft topped with an antique cast brass horse haim tip. Solid and heavy. If it hits anything it will hurt. I call it my "New Orleans walking stick". Old don't mean helpless.

 
Wes/Tex 
Cannon
Posts: 7448
Wes/Tex
11-24-17 01:06 PM - Post#1653273    

    In response to Rifleman1776

  • Rifleman1776 Said:

Haven't carried it yet, but now that I am using a cane I have built myself several. One is a 1" hickory shaft topped with an antique cast brass horse haim tip. Solid and heavy. If it hits anything it will hurt. I call it my "New Orleans walking stick". Old don't mean helpless.


My old pard Charley had a walking stick with about a three inch solid brass ball on the end...bouncing that off of anything got teh point across!

 
 Page 3 of 3 « First<123
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Print Topic


876 Views
Welcome Guest...
Enter your Login Name and password to login. If you do not have a username you can register one here

Login Name

Password

Remember me. Help



Login Not Working?...

Registered Members
Total: 31549
Todays
Birthdays
11-24Irish Mick
11-24GunnyGene
11-24stubshaft
11-24ridingdutchman
Current Quote
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
~ Thomas Jefferson

PRIVACY POLICY
FusionBB™ Version 3.0 FINAL | ©2003-2010 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.081 seconds.   Total Queries: 72  
All times are (GMT-6.0). Current time is 08:26 PM
Top