Working The Trapline — Mountain Man In Africa; 18th Century ‘Special Forces’; The Sweetest Bite

Sometimes when you backtrack along a trail you pick up sign that you missed when traveling it before. So it was when I picked up Brian Herne’s White Hunters the other night, looking for a quiet read before nodding off. Herne’s book is a survey of professional hunters in East Africa from the turn of the 20th century up through the “golden age” of safari. Good stuff, nice to dip into every now and then for a short tale of adventure in the bush.

What caught my eye this time around was a paragraph in his exploration of just who might be considered the first “white hunter” — that is, the first professional hunting guide — in Africa. To wit:

Well, now, this kinda trips the trigger. A Mountain Man in Africa? Turns out ol’ Peregrine (and why is his nickname not Pippin?, I ask you…) wrote a book about his life afield.

Yes, of course I will have to order up one of those facsimile paperbacks. And, correct me if I’m wrong, but the cover model appears to be blasting a bear with a Volcanic pistol. Now that ain’t something you see every day.

*

This is the kind of question that military history buffs love to nerd out over: Why didn’t armies use “special forces” in the 18th Century? YouTuber and re-enactor Brandon Fisichella posed this question, which he must have known was sure to stir the shit.

If there is any one part of the military that we civilians love to obsess over, it’s the Special Forces. From Green Berets to the SAS, they’re typically small elite teams that specialise in infiltrating behind enemy lines to conduct high risk, high security operations that require a highly specific set of skills. From rescuing a hostage to blowing up a bridge, they’re the best of the best! But then, if these kinds of units are so important in modern military operations, why don’t we hear about them more throughout history? Did they even exist prior to the 20th Century? And, if not, why not?

OK, I’ll play. The way Fisichella frames the terms of the debate, he makes a pretty good case that what most of us might call “special forces” of the 18th Century were really just light infantry doing light infantry things, not small-team sabotage ops behind enemy lines or hostage rescue or targeted killings like the Bin Laden raid (sorry, I meant “kill or capture”) — the kind of stuff handled by modern special operations forces. For example, Rogers Rangers don’t really qualify as the progenitors of American Special Forces (particularly if you are referring to the actual U.S. Army Special Forces — Green Berets — and not using the term generically. Nomenclature around this stuff is a pain in the ass). Brandon F., as he’s known, makes a fair argument that 18th Century warfare and the structure of 18th Century armies didn’t really lend itself to specialization and the kind of operations we associate with SpecOps.

Patrick O’Donnell makes the argument in his wonderful book The Unvanquished that modern American special operations forces really should trace the lineage to the partisan rangers and special scout contingents formed during the American Civil War. That works within Brand F.’s framework — the ACW was a modern war, and modern special operations were a viable feature of warfare in that context.

But… I can’t help challenging Brandon F. with an example from the 18th Century that I doubt he thought of: Brady’s Rangers, who operated on the Upper Ohio River frontier in years of the American Revolution. Under Brandon F.’s definition — small units operating behind enemy lines, specifically trained for such operations — Brady’s Rangers absolutely qualify as a “special force.” So, I would argue do Kenton’s Boys, Simon Kenton’s on-his-own-hook outfit, who operated in the same manner a ways down the Ohio River. In regards to mission-specific training, Brady’s men conducted “Indian Drills,” as ace frontier historian Ted Franklin Belue recounts:

“Spies,” said John Cuppy, “practiced before going on a scout, shooting at
a mark, throwing their tomahawks and sticking them in a tree at two or
three rods and jumping over fences.”
A “rod” (or, in their day’s terminology, a “perch” or “pole”) is an English measurement of varying length that by Cuppy’s era equaled 16.5 feet.
So, imagine: Brady’s men threw ’hawks at ranges up to 50 feet and in
full gear, shooting and keeping skills honed by running Sam’s forested obstacle courses reflecting real-life combat, a training scenario most of us would throw down serious beaver to witness in real time. I sure would.

Further, Brady’s Rangers conducted what modern SpecOps teams would call pseudo operations — disguising themselves in a manner to be mistaken for enemy forces, as an aid to recon or penetration operations. The Selous Scouts were famed for such operations during the Rhodesian Bush War, and they are among the most legendary special operations forces.

I mentioned this in the comments on the video. We’ll see if Brandon F. takes it up.

*

I just love Liath Wolf’s stuff. Here’s a fine folktale for a chilly evening:

Sir Ewen Cameron of Lochiel, 17th chief of Clan Cameron, is a ledgenday figure in Scottish history, so many brave acts, daring deeds and wild adventures are attributed to the great Lochiel though out his long years. He fought in the War of Three Kingdoms for many years, earning a reputation as a master of the blade and a grand strategist. He would go on to become one of principle Jacobite leaders in the rising of 1689. Locheil fought in the battle of Killiecrankie, and was there to witness the death of another Scottish legend, John Graham viscount of Dundee, known as bonny Dundee or Bloody Clavers depending on your loyalties. It is safe to say that for the 90 years the Great Loceil lived there was not a duel lost or personal victory he did not achieve. The historian Thomas Macaulay said of Lochiel, that in personal qualities he was unrivalled among the Celtic princes of old. Ewen Cameron was a gracious master, a trusty ally and a terrible enemy. This all leads us to todays tale, and perhaps Locheils bloodiest story. The sweetest bite.

*

Yet one more piece of gear that I don’t need, can’t justify and still really want: The Becker Campanion in Magnacut steel.

As FP readers know, I am a big fan of Becker knives. And I am not a snob about super-steels; 1095, which is what the standard Beckers come in, is plenty good ’nuff. And yet… this Magnacut stuff is very intriguing. Strange Dwarven magic, it would seem…

Most super-steels come with inherent trade-offs. Sharp with great edge retention/impossible to sharpen in the field being my biggest bugaboo. Magnacut seems to have solved the Riddle of Steel: very sharp, very tough, with very good edge retention and reasonable ease of sharpening, and corrosion resistance. Crom!

The KA-BAR Becker BK2 Campanion is the most popular knife in the Becker Knife & Tool lineup.  So how can you make something that is already the best even better?  Offer it in MagnaCut!  The KA-BAR Becker BK82 MagnaCut Campanion has all the same rugged traits of the original BK2, but offers the superior edge retention, toughness, and corrosion resistance of MagnaCut.

If you hunt, camp or spend time afield, we know you will love the Becker Campanion. The Campanion has a large, comfortable black Zytel handle, mated to a wide sturdy blade that is as happy skinning game and prying apart joints as it is chopping onions for the chili and splitting out small kindling for the fire. The Campanion blade is constructed from CPM-MagnaCut stainless steel for absolutely pristine corrosion resistance and excellent toughness to ensure simple maintenance and reliability in the outdoors. Paired with a molded plastic belt sheath, this is one tough fixed blade that truly hits all the marks for a great companion camp knife. 

Crom!