- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 3,330
Hawks made a lot of sense in the era of single shot muskets and lightly clothed combatants.
Now? Not so much. Too much flash and not enough utility for the weight.
Classically, the hawk was paired up with a long knife in the off hand for the obvious reason of giving the user two different weapon speeds to work with and some hope of offside defense against counterattack.
In escrima at least, having two sticks is usually more effective and versatile than having just one. Hawks, with their weight in the head, are even slower to recover than a tropical hardwood stick.
The sweeping arcs of a hawk are enhanced when an offside knife keeps the vulnerability down due to a committed strong side extension on the attack.
Used singly, the hawk is weak on defense, and slow and limited on offense. An experienced spear wielder, (rifle with bayonet), will defeat a hawk wielder given comparable skill levels due to the reach and better attack angles offered by a weapon that can both slash and thrust.
A light axe with an ergonomic handle, (see the Roselli axe for a short three hold style example), one that could be pressed into defense if it had to be, and had a useable hammer poll rather than a back spike, would be much better for the real world. In the earliest fur trade on this continent, trappers carried what were called "half axes," from which tomahawks evolved.
Axe strikes and depressed skull fractures are just as lethal as hawk strikes and spike penetration, but hammering in trap stakes, fish weirs, shelter poles, and cracking nuts with the flats of a hawk would suck compared to having those jobs to do and be able to use a hammer poll.
Not that I ever suggest copying, but the utility hawk is a better deal for the money spent than the flashier war hawk.
Now? Not so much. Too much flash and not enough utility for the weight.
Classically, the hawk was paired up with a long knife in the off hand for the obvious reason of giving the user two different weapon speeds to work with and some hope of offside defense against counterattack.
In escrima at least, having two sticks is usually more effective and versatile than having just one. Hawks, with their weight in the head, are even slower to recover than a tropical hardwood stick.
The sweeping arcs of a hawk are enhanced when an offside knife keeps the vulnerability down due to a committed strong side extension on the attack.
Used singly, the hawk is weak on defense, and slow and limited on offense. An experienced spear wielder, (rifle with bayonet), will defeat a hawk wielder given comparable skill levels due to the reach and better attack angles offered by a weapon that can both slash and thrust.
A light axe with an ergonomic handle, (see the Roselli axe for a short three hold style example), one that could be pressed into defense if it had to be, and had a useable hammer poll rather than a back spike, would be much better for the real world. In the earliest fur trade on this continent, trappers carried what were called "half axes," from which tomahawks evolved.
Axe strikes and depressed skull fractures are just as lethal as hawk strikes and spike penetration, but hammering in trap stakes, fish weirs, shelter poles, and cracking nuts with the flats of a hawk would suck compared to having those jobs to do and be able to use a hammer poll.
Not that I ever suggest copying, but the utility hawk is a better deal for the money spent than the flashier war hawk.
