Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Spunjer · 14th November 2009, 05:00 AM

did this tag came with it???
at a glance, it does seem to carry a lot of weight, since the names and places were significant, but it doesn't make any sense. during the moro campaign, there were a lot of moro/american skirmishes, but regarding major battles, there were few. as david mentioned, there was no Battle of camp vickers. if what the tag meant "battle of pandapatan", then yes, it happened. it was the first hostile action between the moros and the american forces. to explain why it doesn't make any sense, one has to look at what really happened.

it was in may, 1902 when seven companies from the 27th Infantry, and with the help from 25th Battery Field Artillery took the battle to the moros. technically the battle was labeled as Battle of Bayan in history books. the americans encountered two kotas or forts in this battle, namely kota binadayan, the smaller one, and kota pandapatan, were the major battle was fought. it was in kota pandapatan, where lieut. thomas vicars (vickers) got killed. as far as who led the battalions; major william scott led the first attack (at binadayan), but then col frank baldwin assumed command at the attack on pandapatan. when these were all happening, capt john pershing was in marawi, miles away from the actual battle. in the end, the sultan of bayan, his heir, the rajah muda, and the sultan of pandapatan were killed.
weeks later, a camp was built not too far from the battle site, and it was named after the lieutenant. it was then when capt. pershing took command of the camp.
going back to the tag, the chronology, characters, etc., are just screwed up somehow:

there were no battles in 1901
battle of camp vickers never happened
john pershing wasn't the commander during the battle

the tag does look old though. is it possible that this was added a few years later, to garner interest to early days collectors? military catalogs such as bannerman, who has been printing catalogs since the 1800's, comes to mind. i'm pretty sure there were collectors back then, who, like there present incarnations, would love to get a piece of a well-provenanced weapon.

just my .02 cents..

14th November 2009, 05:00 AM	#15
Spunjer Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Witness Protection Program Posts: 1,730	did this tag came with it??? at a glance, it does seem to carry a lot of weight, since the names and places were significant, but it doesn't make any sense. during the moro campaign, there were a lot of moro/american skirmishes, but regarding major battles, there were few. as david mentioned, there was no Battle of camp vickers. if what the tag meant "battle of pandapatan", then yes, it happened. it was the first hostile action between the moros and the american forces. to explain why it doesn't make any sense, one has to look at what really happened. it was in may, 1902 when seven companies from the 27th Infantry, and with the help from 25th Battery Field Artillery took the battle to the moros. technically the battle was labeled as Battle of Bayan in history books. the americans encountered two kotas or forts in this battle, namely kota binadayan, the smaller one, and kota pandapatan, were the major battle was fought. it was in kota pandapatan, where lieut. thomas vicars (vickers) got killed. as far as who led the battalions; major william scott led the first attack (at binadayan), but then col frank baldwin assumed command at the attack on pandapatan. when these were all happening, capt john pershing was in marawi, miles away from the actual battle. in the end, the sultan of bayan, his heir, the rajah muda, and the sultan of pandapatan were killed. weeks later, a camp was built not too far from the battle site, and it was named after the lieutenant. it was then when capt. pershing took command of the camp. going back to the tag, the chronology, characters, etc., are just screwed up somehow: there were no battles in 1901 battle of camp vickers never happened john pershing wasn't the commander during the battle the tag does look old though. is it possible that this was added a few years later, to garner interest to early days collectors? military catalogs such as bannerman, who has been printing catalogs since the 1800's, comes to mind. i'm pretty sure there were collectors back then, who, like there present incarnations, would love to get a piece of a well-provenanced weapon. just my .02 cents..