Tomahawk carrying

[Wes/Tex]

Finally found the larger image Spence posted...should have looked at all posts first. The smaller pic makes it appear there could be a knife sheath immediately above but the clearer larger image shows it's the end of the woven shoulder strap that creates that illusion. A number of of hanging bayonet/cutting blade shoulder and belt rigs as worn by soldiers was also in use with the simple expedient of replacing the short sword with a tomahawk. Though a replica, this type of bayonet or hanger suspension belt is an example...just ignore the added knife sheath.
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/8a/eb/ee/8aebee241cfdac54a58693ae6821917f--holsters-knife-making.jpg

Not exactly the same, of course, but the single sword units are somewhat alike.

There's this one but for a much larger type axe than a simple tomahawk. Listed as mid-18th century but no idea of it's provenance.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-w-bQX5fw...EpQ/9HXgfHoebak/s640/fortpittmuseumca1760.jpg

 

[Artificer]

Thanks Wes/Tex,

Back in the late 70's, I made a special sliding belt double frog for sword and bayonet, a little similar to the sliding frog in your first link above. I figured it would be good to use with a Hanger and Bayonet for my Serjeant's (Period spelling I'm trying to learn) Impression.

Well, then I found out it was really not correct for my AWI Serjeant's Impression as they pretty much stopped carrying Hangers in the FIW. Drat.

OK, so then I found my Tomahawk would fit nicely below the Bayonet in the lower frog instead of the Hanger. I had made a scabbard that safely enclosed the tomahawk's blade edge, so figured that would work. Well, later on I learned they did not do that either. Double Drat.

Now that I'm an old geezer, I guess I can wear the double frog in AWI reenacting as a Militiaman, as I can say it was from my service in the FIW.

Gus

 

[George]

Here's another neat rig. Notice that it says the pipe bowl can be unscrewed and replaced with a hammer poll, and there are moldings and engraving on the head/blade. Also, the leather button is good to see on such an early rig.



Spence

 

[crockett]

What I was referring to looks more like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=is...sAQINQ&biw=1006&bih=617#imgrc=FCzWYkAgyQNKbM:

There is a very similar hatchet at the Valley Forge Museum.

In any event, both tomahawks and hatchets were carried.

 

[George]

What I was referring to looks more like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=is...iw=1006&bih=617#imgrc=FCzWYkAgyQNKbM:[/quote]
Crocket, I posted that image in this thread above. With all the problems and confusion re Photobucket, I never know if people can see my images, can you see that one?

Spence

 

[Loyalist Dave]

There is also the military Light Infantry Hatchet, Frog for carrying not only the tomahawk, but also the bayonet. One could made the same and carry a knife instead.

LD

 

[crockett]

Sorry but I didn't get the image although I'm not too savy on computers.

On that type of hatchet, the one at Valley Forge is close enough for inspection and the hatchet is very thin, maybe only 5/8". I think a standard 1" board is wider. I'm not sure how such thin hatchets were made.
I've never been able to figure out the breakdown between tomahawks and hatchets, the use may have been 50/50 as far as which was more popular.

 

[Artificer]

There is also the military Light Infantry Hatchet, Frog for carrying not only the tomahawk, but also the bayonet. One could made the same and carry a knife instead.

LD

Dave,

This is brand new information to me as I have studied the AWI British Light Infantry accoutrements only to a very little degree.

I realize a double frog for bayonet and tomahawk/hatchet would have been supplied by the Regimental Commander and not issued from British Ordnance. So there was more leeway in what each Regimental Commander wanted his troops to have and therefore what they actually had.

What I have not seen is documentation for a double frog for Light Infantry, though.

At least somewhat surprisingly, there is documentation a double frog for sword and bayonet was used by a Grenadier Company as late as 1772, but the following drawing of that date was done while the Regiment was still stationed in Ireland. http://62ndregiment.org/Uniform_documentation.htm

So I guess I am asking what is the documentation for the double frog for the British Light Infantry here in the colonies during the AWI?

Gus

 

[Wes/Tex]

Troiani, Collins and other fairly meticulous researching artists illustrate light infantry carrying small axes instead of hangers though specific notes for this are not mentioned. Both illustrate the type of frog hung from the waist belt rather than the over-shoulder variety. Troiani merely states, "Tomahawks or hatchets supplemented muskets and bayonets of the new Short Land Pattern, the light infantry companies being the first recipients of these new arms." I've heard and read similar but so far no specific original source stating such. So far, all illustrations show black belts and frogs...again I don't know what this is based on though light infantry belting usually appears black vs. grenadiers buff or natural leather. Even that can't be taken as unquestionably typical.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/55/5b/0c/555b0c4ac27a19cf3e5b016ff18f7384--military-units-military-uniforms.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2e/6e/ed/2e6eed8143ac8d594b891caaff507f04--american-revolutionary-war-american-war.jpg
The exception! :wink:

http://www.uppercanadahistory.ca/military/military2p10.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/1b/df/4d/1bdf4d0322ed23515fbe7042b8051da0.jpg

Everybody seems to think that's how it was but good luck finding period proof! :wink: :haha:

 

[Wes/Tex]

Also found comments by Robin May in his volume of Osprey's "Men-At-Arms Series #39; The British Army In North America 1775-1783" which states in referring to light infantry, "The men were suppose to carry a small cartridge box on a tan leather waist belt, a powder horn and bullet pouch, and a hatchet and bayonet in a frog; sometimes the hatchet had a simple case buttoning round the blade." Again, there is no specific note about where this revelation came from.

Of even more interest is a published list of recommendations submitted on June 15, 1784, a year after the end of the "late war" entitled "Report of the Proceedings of a Committee of General Officers Regarding the Equipment of Soldiers". Nine of these recommendations received approval, of which three pertained to light infantry companies, also called 'picket companies'.

2. Powder-Horns and Bullet-Bags of Light Infantry were never used during the late war.

5. The whole battalion to be accoutred alike, with the addition of two articles for the Light Infantry, e.g., Hatchet & Priming Horn, which may be carried either with the knapsack or as the Commanding Officer shall think most convenient.

8. A Leather cap worn by some of the Light Infantry during the late war is strongly recommended.

Number five would indicate light infantry did indeed carry hatchets and proved useful enough to be recommended for future use. Close but no cigar! :wink: :haha:

 

[Artificer]

Wes/Tex,

Thanks for looking and posting the links to the paintings. Sure wish they would source the documentation, as being issued a hatchet/tomahawk does not mean they carried one in a double frog. They could easily have carried it in their packs or snap sacks and that makes a lot more sense to me, because they had bayonets.

Also:

"2. Powder-Horns and Bullet-Bags of Light Infantry were never used during the late war."

It seems the Generals were not informed of everything or perhaps they forgot a few things. From the following link, one may scroll down to this description of a period drawing of a Light Infantry Soldier wearing a shoulder slung Cartridge Box (AKA Belly Box) and powder horn.

"Detail of a sketch of the back of a light infantry private in the 69th Regiment, 1778 by Philippe Jacques de Loutherbourg, R.A. (1740-1812) © Anne S. K. Brown Military Collection, Brown University Library"
http://62ndregiment.org/soldier_arms.htm

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Well you get this 63rd Light Private from the AWI in artwork, AND you get this 48th Regiment Private from the F&I in artwork, but they are all contemporary images, and not period done. So why did the artist portray them as such? Here's another "F&I" light infantryman from the 55th Foot, and you can see his 'hawk blade next to his left forearm. Another artist rendition of The 55th in North America gives another contemporary example. Here are some American Provincial Rangers with them, and here is The 80th Regiment of Light Armed Foote having them, both in the F&I.

I wonder is this is an reenactorism that has crept into the artwork as well??

LD

 

[Artificer]

I wonder is this is an reenactorism that has crept into the artwork as well??

LD

LD,

I honestly don't know for sure, but have had some folks who I regard their knowledge sufficient and they know of no such documentation for the double frog used by the Light Infantry.

Though I can see the hatchet/tomahawk would have been useful to them for camp chores and things, I see no reason why the hatchet would have been considered anything but at most a tertiary/last resort weapon after the loaded musket and then the musket with bayonet affixed. Further, there is no record of them ever being trained in any kind of hand to hand combat with a hatchet, of which I have ever been able to run across. Now, that does not make it fact, but it tends to discount the hatchet as any kind of primary weapon for the LI.

It would seem to me that they would have used the single waist belt frog for their bayonet that was issued with each Musket as a complete "Stand of Arms." This similar to the one below, though with Iron rivets rather than copper. http://www.najecki.com/repro/pouches/Waistbelt.html

As mentioned earlier, I believe they would have carried the hatchet either in their pack/snap sack or lashed to it.

Gus

 

[Stophel]

Mostly, when you see period images of frontiersmen with axes/tomahawks (which is all too rare anyway), the axe is simply thrust through the belt... which I think is crazy, but apparently they did it. There are, however, enough existing axe sheaths (belt and shoulder strap) that we can say that they were not rare. Here's an 1843 print of an 1830s Bodmer image clearly showing the top-hatted traveler's tomahawk in a shoulder sheath.

Note also his rather large shoulder-slung satchel.

 

[George]

Mostly, when you see period images of frontiersmen with axes/tomahawks (which is all too rare anyway), the axe is simply thrust through the belt... which I think is crazy, but apparently they did it.

It works. I've been doing it that way for many years without a single problem. At least its HC/PC. :grin:

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Spence,

I'm sure you also ensure the Hawk blade is very sharp and for me, that always meant I made a leather scabbard for it that went over the blade BEFORE I carried it in my waist belt. I have slipped too many times over the years that I will not have a bare Hawk blade around my waist. :redface:

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I know a lot of artwork shows the bare hawk, but I wonder in an age when cuts could lead to fatal infections, if the hawk was normally carried with a sheath. It does not take much of a covering to drastically reduce the chance of an accidental slice, and in a surprise self-defense encounter, a hefty blow would drive the blade of a very sharp hawk through the blade cover into your opponent. No need to remove the cover, so no reason to have a bare blade.

LD

 

[Artificer]

Indeed. Even a scrap piece of leather or thick cloth tied around the front of the hawk would make it much less susceptible to getting cut and risking serious infection or death in the period.

Gus

 

[George]

I have always thought the risk of carrying a hawk in your belt is a lot less than some would have you believe. it's clamped tightly against your lower back, and if it rotated at all it would be so the cutting edge rotated away from you, not into your body, so I never understood how you were supposed to get a cut on the back. Any risk of a cut would seem to involve your hands, instead, and that has proved to be a non-problem in my experience.

The BP hobby has a lot of associated risk, and we learn to live with them. This seems no different. There are enough real threats without inventing imaginary ones.

This is a personal decision of mine, like blowing down the barrel, and I've never had a reason to question it. I would never recommend it to someone else, such a decision is the responsibility of each person.

One thing for sure, if I ever have to defend myself against an angry Indian with a tomahawk, I for certain don't want to have a case on my hatchet unless he will agree to have one on his. :haha:

Spence

 

[ddoyle]

risking serious infection or death in the period.

Make no mistake your just as likely to die today from an infection! Especially if you spend anytime at a hospital. Try and keep your top layer in tact.