This weekend I was participating in an F&I event at Fort Frederick and had a lengthy discussion with Jack of Beaver River Trading Company. He sells reproductions of original documented "Belt Axes" as I belive he called them. They were much smaller than your typical rendezvous tomahawk you find for sale at Dixon's etc. The heads were about 4.5 long x 2 inch blade width. Most everyone in the French soldier portrayal is carrying a much larger one in the frog belt, like 6 inch long x 3.5 inch blade. He called these "Half-Axes" and said they were really for camp wood chopping duty, better suited to the chore if the handles were a bit longer, and that these large ones were NOT what the French Marines (or British) were carrying in their belts in the 1750's.

His documentation including Ticonderoga, Bloody Pond, and many other sites.

Also, the heads of his small belt axes were set onto the end and wedged in like a modern axe, and that the way we slide the heads on from the end of the handle up to the larger tapered head end was not historically correct. That method was only used for tools that require the head to be removed for sharpening, such as with an adze.

I have seen plenty of images of trade axe heads, so I was familiar with the correct profile for 18th c., but I assumed the scale was larger, never realizing these were fairly small items.

So, that has everyone in our Compagnie rethinking what they need to carry on their frog belt. Any thoughts from the group?

The little axe you're describing sounds like a "Ft. Meigs" axe. Nice little unit, I have one. It is absolutely NOT correct to my admittedly fantasmagorical personna.

That personna being a crippled up, overweight, grouchy old man equipped by wandering around a Goodwill store with fifty bucks and an overwrought imagination.

I do wish I could be more help.

Three Hawks

quote:

That personna being a crippled up, overweight, grouchy old man equipped by wandering around a Goodwill store with fifty bucks and an overwrought imagination.

...Well...At least you you have something to aspire for... I guess I don't have a real persona as of yet. It's sort of a conglomeration of different periods. I do have a nice "shrew hawk" that I like very well. I'm not sure of it being "PC" however. Best regards. Rockerhound

Three Hawks,
wouldn't being found at Ft Meigs and documented as to period pretty much qualify it as PC?

new at this end

Rich

quote:

Also, the heads of his small belt axes were set onto the end and wedged in like a modern axe, and that the way we slide the heads on from the end of the handle up to the larger tapered head end was not historically correct. That method was only used for tools that require the head to be removed for sharpening, such as with an adze.

Bull puckey - in fact the vast majority of extant axes and tomahawks were handled the way he says they weren't done.
IMO - NEVER trust a vendors (or any one else's) word alone on such matters. ALWAYS cross reference by using books and actual artifacts. and I say that being a vendor myself......
A suggestion go here http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/
sign up and ask the same question and also ask for primary citations - some of the most knowledgeable folks on the period and subject in question hang out there........

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Three Hawks,
wouldn't being found at Ft Meigs and documented as to period pretty much qualify it as PC?

new at this end

Rich

I don't think so. My take on Pee Cee "Period Correct" is more along the lines of not what was available somewhere on the planet, but what would the "average" person connected with the place and time one is concerned with be most likely to have on his person or in his gear.

When was the Ft. Meigs axe dug up? How many were in use at the place and time the persona in question was active? I've only heard of the one. Hardly makes a case for a widespread presence, does it?

I am ostensibly a Mountain Man of he 1837-1845 period. I have and use a Ft. Meigs axe. Now the question becomes: Did any Mountain Man of my era actually possess and use a Ft. Meigs Axe?

From what I've learned the answer is NO. My main problem is that the 1837 - 1845 era is sadly lacking in accurate information and up to it's figuritive ears in good ol' GI Mil-Spec Bovine Fecal Matter interspersed with a few bits of actual truth. Unfortunately the truthy bits are themselves fairly well buried in the vats of Mil-Spec Bovine Fecal Matter.

All y'all's mileage may indeed vary. Widely.

Three Hawks

Some of the small belt or bag axes are hard pressed to be of great service with a 4" long blade and a 2" wide cutting surfave and maybe a 1/2"x2" pole they will mkane some kindling and do some light work but I would reather have a heftier axe should I find myself surrounded buy trees and limbs that were in need of being cut, I have a little bag axe I got somewhere that is like many of those small ones advertised, not very incouraging if it is the only axe on hand.

Not to go off on a tangent, but take a look at this "Oops Page" website, near the bottom, where he is saying that no "Fort Meigs" style axe can be documented as ever being found at Fort Meigs.
http://www.geocities.com/old_lead/oops.htm

[By the way, if you find this site interesting, better print it because Geocities is shutting down in October]

Well the "name" of the axe is wrong, but it is documented. Its funny to note that a small axe doesn't mean it was carried for that purpose on a belt. They used small axes for some wood working crafts and I wonder if they haven't found the proper use for the little thing.

So my question of a "belt axe" (I thought they were always carrying them in a belt, around your waist or in a shoulder belt and sheath) is when they get too small. I have a very serviceable "squaw axe" with a small poll. It's used in camp for chores, while I carry in a sheath that is part of my shooting bag a small axe without a poll, and a shorter than standard handle, but both a bit bigger and (imho) more useful than the meigs-kentucky-axe.

As for the "frizzen", name and the referenced site..., no kidding most of the folks in the Mid Atlantic reenactment community know the term is incorrect for our period. It was most commonly called a Cock and Hammer, not a hammer and frizzen. Since the days of caplocks though, calling the flintlock hammer by its proper name confuses people, and today it will confuse tourists and school kids.

"Huzzah" vs. "Hurrah" reference is incorrect on the site (imho) for I have seen an article that demonstrated that the ending "ah" for other words spelled phonetically in the 18th c. pronounced "ah" as we today pronounce "ay" as in the word "day". So it's huz-ay, not a bad spelling of hur-ah, and it was hur-ay, not hur-ah.

LD

Unless, you are at a juried event and are supposed to represent a specific type of person, go ahead and use the Ft. Miegs belt axe. Ft. Miegs or not, put in belt or not, they are OK for the broad qualification of pre-1830 or pre-1830 events. I have one and find in camp it is the best thing since nickle beer. Sharpens stakes, shaves kindling, splits smaller wood (get yer fingers out of the way) and lots more. Have never used it for dressing game but would betcha it would be very useful for that also.

To see what exactly I am referring to here, as the Belt Axe, take a look at the "French Round Poll" image, currently image 8 under his Hand Forged Trade Axes toolbar link.
Beaver River

These are quite small (4.75 x 1.75). They were not for camp chores, but more for use by the troops in battle. He had a 3-ring binder full of documentation indicating that these were proper for F&I.

quote:

Originally posted by Hunts4Deer:
To see what exactly I am referring to here, as the Belt Axe, take a look at the "French Round Poll" image, currently image 8 under his Hand Forged Trade Axes toolbar link.
Beaver River

These are quite small (4.75 x 1.75). They were not for camp chores, but more for use by the troops in battle. He had a 3-ring binder full of documentation indicating that these were proper for F&I.

Those are nice. And, he is obviously very proud of them
If not for camp chores, why the poll?

Those round poll don't have a poll end on them. It's my understanding that the flat-ended, weighted poll style, was more for adding weight and improving balance.

quote:

Originally posted by Hunts4Deer:
Those round poll don't have a poll end on them. It's my understanding that the flat-ended, weighted poll style, was more for adding weight and improving balance.

If it looks like a pounding poll, and if it walks and talks like a pounding, it's a.....nebber mind. I'll take your doucmented word for it that that is not a pounding poll.

Make sure you are looking at the image labeled "French Round Poll.jpg", which now is image 9, but apparently the images rotate as he adds new stock.

quote:

Originally posted by Hunts4Deer:
Make sure you are looking at the image labeled "French Round Poll.jpg", which now is image 9, but apparently the images rotate as he adds new stock.

I'm pretty sure what is now image 8 is what I saw originally.
No matter. I would rather argue.

I cannot get the Beaver River site to open, but I think I may have the little axe you describe--it came from a vendor at Manskers a few years ago--not the "Ft Meigs" axe [ca. 1812], it is similar to issue F&IWar-Rev War small axes, carpenters axes, etc. Many small axes were tools of tradesmen or hunters--even today many big game hunters carry small axes--these are for splitting the breastbones, etc and butchering, not for felling trees. The little axes are usefull for cutting saplings but not heavy work. The backwoods hunter did not carry a heavy "belt axe"--he might have had a 'real' axe on his pack horse or in his canoe. On his belt or bag he carried a small axe or tomahawk.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike R,

whats your portrayal and time period and where did you come from and why?Answer these questions first will help guide you in your research.Now a couple pf my pet peeves about axes.They were generally called hatchets or tomahawks in the period.I have yet to see a primary source list them as a belt axe or bag axe.Fort Meigs is a place and the hatchet people refer to as a Fort Meigs is a kentucky pattern in my research.A handle held with a wedge is the most predominant way of fastening the head handle junction.I can supply you with a list of good research material if you would like to research this further.

I myself prefer a hammer poll hatchet or a kentucky pattern.Dont forget this little hatchet was also a backup weapon for a muzzle loading gun.The people that say they arent any good have limited experiance with them and how to use one.Im not gonna build a cabin with one,but then again its a companion tool to the larger felling axe which it resembles.

I have found many old butcher knife blades that bear extensive hammer marks on the spine...I assume a bag ax of some kind was used to drive the blade through joints etc..during butchering..cant think of what else could have battered the knife spines so...and my own expiriments with the technique were very successful...even on catfish heads...so I vote for a hammer poll bag ax for a hunter...for French infantry, I thought there was lots of documentation already for their tomahawk style axes?
TCA

This message has been edited. Last edited by: T.Albert,