Tomahawks:
Doc Russia wrote to ask an opinion on Dwight C. McLemore's Fighting Tomahawk, which is a followup to his Bowie and Big Knife Fighting System. I've talked about McLemore's first book here occasionally -- I liked the thing -- but I haven't read his other two books. Here's the exchange between myself and Doc, with Doc first:
I was chatting with Moriarty, and he alerted me to the existence of a particular book. This came about while discussing what close quarters weapons might suit my little sister in Iraq, and the idea of the tomahawk came up. I had not known of this particular book before, and I had considered the tomahawk an interesting, but perhaps less than ideal weapon. Anyway, as the discussion flowed, it occured to me that not only may I be wrong, but that it might be worthwhile to look into learning how to use the bowie/long knife and tomahawk weapon set. Neither Moriarty nor myself are very well versed in edged weapons fighting (if you twist my arm, I will admit to learning some stuff related to brazilian saca tripa, but that is another matter). With that in mind, and considering that I had not corresponded with you in quite some time, I thought it an excellent opportunity to pick your brain, and find out what your thoughts on the matter are. It might also make for some good blog fodder, should you see fit. Anyway, please share with me your insight, and I would appreciate it very much. There is no rush on this, and take your leisure in answering.
I do hope this finds you and yours in good health, especially after the horse fall. I used to think that horseback riding was nothing but fun. Then one day, I had a patient whose horse fell back on top of him and the pommel basically impaled him. His pancreas was sheared, and he lost a fair section of bowels, ribs, and spleen before he was back together again.
Best regards to you and to yours.
It's fun having a doctor as a friend, because you get letters telling you in clinical detail all the bad things that almost happened to you. :) Anyway:
I'll ask Jimbo and Froggy about the claim that current US Special Operations Forces are using the tomahawk (as opposed to, say, a camp hatchet). I'm not familiar with the claim.
McLemore is a good writer with a strong background in historical European fighting styles, so the book is probably worth a look. I used to teach the Scottish and Viking battle-axes, which is similar but larger and heavier. Most people are familiar with axes primarily as a wood-chopping tool, but it is also possible to use it as a short polearm -- you can grapple, slash, and stab with the points, as well as bash with the haft or the reverse of the blade.
It was the favored weapon of Robert the Bruce, who could kill an armored knight with one blow using his. It looks like McLemore is considering a big-knife and tomahawk pairing, which would require some training -- but having some experience in two weapon fighting, I can see how it would be an excellent choice for traditional European combat, in which your opponent will also be armed. The tomahawk is a good weapon for capturing or controlling an enemy weapon, which makes it a good off-hand choice. That would leave you with the long knife to take advantage of openings in the enemy's guard that you could create with the tomahawk.
That is to say, the tomahawk would be serving as a sort-of main gauche to the long-knife's rapier, except that with short edged weapons you get less thrusting and more circular slashing and driving. It would be used primarily against the enemy weapon, to create opportunities for employing the knife as the killing device. However, if an opening came for the tomahawk, well -- it's quite capable, even if it isn't a Scottish or Viking battle axe.
The
confrontation with Robert the Bruce I was remembering happened this way:
Bruce, whilst surveying the English army, wore his crown and this sparked an idea in the mind of one young English knight. With Bruce so easy for him to identify, the young Sir Henry de Bohun realised that if he killed him the Scots would suffer a most crushing blow, and that he himself would gain unrivalled admiration from his English king. The next thing Bruce knew, de Bohun was charging towards him with his 12 foot long lance ready for action. Bruce was on his Highland pony, and saw the attack coming. He waited until the last possible moment, then violently wrenched his pony to one side. The keen de Bohen went speeding past, and Bruce swung his battle-axe, crushing the armour worn by de Bohun and splitting open his skull. The eager de Bohun fell dead on the spot with the one mighty blow, which broke the shaft of the axe wielded by Bruce. His army saw their king and his act of courage, and their hearts were filled with admiration and inspiration. If any of his men had doubted his courage, surely their fears were now at rest. Bruce had shown that he was indeed a warrior king. When his commanders reflected on the risk that Bruce took, the king of the Scots pointed out that he was more dismayed that he had broken the shaft of his axe!
That's pretty good, given the height difference for sitting on a Highland pony versus a proper destrier. However, some of the virtue of that has to do with Robert the Bruce himself -- as medieval armor improved, axes were often permitted to be used in tournaments without restriction, as the broad cutting surface made it unlikely to penetrate heavy armor (unlike a dagger, lance, or thrusting sword).
One thing to be considered if thinking about this for a situation like Iraq is the unlikelihood of running into old-style combat of the sort McLemore is examining. In modern combat, you don't expect to be wielding your weapons against an opponent who is similarly armed. Your knife and/or tomahawk has to be fielded against a gun, or a guy who has a knife but who has probably not studied deeply how to use it, or a baseball bat, or perhaps multiple attackers.
McLemore says he deals with that latter circumstance. However, I think that the modern edged-weaponeer needs to worry less about how to assume a defensive posture and defend his space, and more about how to close with, control, and destroy his enemy. Standing off a man until you can open his guard is fine for people who are fighting you symmetrically, but as we know that isn't how things are done these days. You need to learn to adapt the system away from being focused on defense of space, and toward focusing on seizure of the initiative, so that you can close with and eliminate opponents.*
As always with close combat, remember the three steps:
1) Evade
2) Control
3) Retaliate
A successful modern edged-weapon fighter has to advance into the initial attack, while evading it, so that he can control the foe. This part, at least, is similar to the old part: you want to use your free hand, or your weapon, or your body placement, or the terrain, to open a space in which you are free to attack and your enemy is not. Control need not be perfect or long lasting, it just needs to exist long enough to let you focus on the attack for a moment without having to continue evasion.
An example of control would be to grab the foe's wrist and yank it, thus pulling him off balance for a moment. For that moment, you're in charge of where he goes instead of him being in charge of it. You thus have an instant's control in which you can deliver an attack.
Step three is self-explanatory. Modern defensive close combat, because it is asymmetrical, needs to be fatal.** When you create your opening, use it to eliminate the foe. Especially in cases when he may be better armed, or in company with multiple attackers, you need to take advantage of each moment of control to eliminate the foe you have controlled.
* This assumes you are intending to defeat your foes instead of merely creating an opportunity to flee from them. A civilian may, in some circumstances, be justified in doing the latter. A soldier is usually not permitted to flee without orders, but is expected to hold his position or advance, depending on his mission.
Even civilians may not always have the opportunity to flee; or it may be that they are defending a third party, perhaps family or some innocent, in which flight will not achieve the purpose. For example,
former Marine Thomas Autry was cornered in a parking lot by a gang of foes. On occasions like this, a response like his is the one that makes success and survival likely. He advanced into the attack while evading it, controlled by kicking away the shotgun, and then stabbed.
This "preference" for fatal fighting is not a moral preference, but a practical one-- it is created by the reality of combat. It does not imply bloody-mindedness, as demonstrated again by Autry,
who apologized for having killed his attacker. He was genuinely sorry to have had to do what he did -- but he really did have to do it.
** Police readers face different challenges, and this advice is not meant for them. It is meant for readers like Doc's sister, or civilians who are primarily charged with defending themselves, their families, the common peace and lawful order. Soldiers who come into close combat do so in the context of warfighting, against foes who mean not only to kill them but to eliminate their unit, and to harm the civilization they defend. If civilians are set upon at all, it will be asymmetrically by foes who will have advantages over them, and have chosen to attack for that reason. Both soldiers and civilians have to fight with all seriousness of purpose.
Policemen, who may use close combat as a less-lethal alternative to their service pistols, sometimes are called upon to use force against people who are not actually trying to do serious harm to them or anyone else. I recommend
this discussion by Armed Liberal on the subject of police use of force.
