US military SABER VS Native American TOMAHAWK?

The military saber offers a lot of advantages over the Native American tomahawk, but that's not to say that the tomahawk doesn't have some potential advantages in combat.

Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:

Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:

Matt Easton's website:

Easton Antique Arms:

[josephangiulo]

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.

[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!

[deniskozlowski]

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.

[connorburnes]

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.

[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.

[drizzt]

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.

[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.

[andreweden]

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.

[nonna_sof]

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.

[alexandersmall]

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.

[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.

[ronaldsellers]

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.

[silverjohn]

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.

[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).

[mistahanansi]

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.

[taylorryanpowers]

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 YouTube!!!🙏🙏🙏🙏🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓🪓

[riverraven]

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!

[markfergerson]

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.

[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.

[andybaxter]

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.