Question About SEA Armor

[KrisKross]

Battara,

I can't say I'm truly surprised that the double weapon wielder defeated the shield wielder. It's the artist, not the art, I always say. But think about this: if you were taught from boyhood (say 8-10 years old) to use double weapons, wouldn't you think you'd be pretty good by the time you were 18? If you've got villagers practically trained from birth, it doesn't matter that two weapons is harder than one and a shield. Firing a bow from horseback isn't easy either (to understate the matter), but both the Mongals and the Japanese do it, even now. Heck, the Mongols did in en masse!

If you want to raise a large army to defend a nation, spear and shield is the way to go, really. It's cheap and fast. However, that context doesn't match every situation. For instance, a small village.

That's why I believe somewhere there is evidence of this type of warfare clashing with armor and shield.

Mark Bowditch,

That is freakin' excellent, man. Thanks. I wasn't actually expecting pictures with citations. That's above and beyond.

This is essentially what I've been looking for, but I have to ask a question about the "war coat." Do you think that constitutes padded armor, or just a uniform? It looks extremely thin for protective use. However, that could just be because it's really old.

Another question: I know the Chinese used armor fairly extensively. Did their double weapon techniques develop in a "field of war" sort of context, or was it more a personal type of combative form?

[rahman]

Its never enough for you, is it?

Mark -- me greedy
Actually I was interested in the keris. The photo has something that looks like a badik with an angular handle, but is there actually a Thai keris?

On armor, Rasdan posted in a separate thread photos of Malay armor made of CROCODILE SKIN. He also showed a Bugis keris designed to penetrate chainmail armor, which the Bugis are known to have.

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by rahman

Mark -- me greedy
Actually I was interested in the keris. The photo has something that looks like a badik with an angular handle, but is there actually a Thai keris?

On armor, Rasdan posted in a separate thread photos of Malay armor made of CROCODILE SKIN. He also showed a Bugis keris designed to penetrate chainmail armor, which the Bugis are known to have.

Yes, I remembered that, the Nias armor.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ght=nias+armor

[Mark]

Originally Posted by KrisKross

This is essentially what I've been looking for, but I have to ask a question about the "war coat." Do you think that constitutes padded armor, or just a uniform? It looks extremely thin for protective use. However, that could just be because it's really old.

I am pretty confident in saying that this war coat is not battle armor in sht sense of being intended to stand up to any sort of sustained attack. This is a commander's outfit (possibly princely -- I have to check the reference again), and these guys stayed pretty much out of the mix. I would say, however, that it would have been worn in battle, if nothing else to show the wear's rank and status. I am not sure of the date of this (probably 19th century, just because stuff doesn't last long in that climate). In earlier times, say the 16th and 17th centuries, Burmese and Thai nobles/commanders would often duel from elephant back, something that was at least on one occasion utterly decisive of an entire invasion (Thai prince obliterates Burmese Crown Prince, sending the entire invading Burmese army into panicked retreat). What a sight that must have been! The elephants did as much, or more, fighting as the riders and sometimes ran completely amok. In the duel just mentioned, the Thai elephant basically went nuts and ripped into the Burmese line, chased the Crown Prince to the rear and he was killed under a tree on a hill, in full view of this troops.

But I digress. My point is that in earlier times Thai/Burmese armor, for those allowed to wear it and who could afford it, might well have been more substantial. By the time of this war coat, with tactics such that commanders lead from the rear, preferably from within a nice strong stockade, and when firearms were widely used, it is not surprising that the "armor" devolved into more of a uniform coat (which is what happened in the West over the same time period, of course). I stand by my earlier opinion, however, that the basic Burmese or Thai soldier was virtually unarmored -- they were levee troops who came as they were, and were at most issued a weapon, some rations, and some camping gear to share with their company (i.e., no armor). The equipment issued to levees (or lack thereof) is specified in royal orders from Burma as late as the early 19th century.

Here is another tid-bit that Egerton offers: the Royal bodyguard, called the "Immortals," were believed to be invulnerable and would perform a "war dance" on the tops of stockades during the Anglo-Burmese Wars (the first one, at least) to taunt the enemy, fire up their own side, and generally show off. They relied on tattoos and amulets implanted under the skin for protection, and were furious (read "absolutely psycho") close-combat sword fighters, charging right into the British lines against musket fire and bayonets. No mention of the number of swords that they used, though.

Originally Posted by rahman

Actually I was interested in the keris. The photo has something that looks like a badik with an angular handle, but is there actually a Thai keris?

The picture from the catalogue does indeed include a badik, which is listed as having been collected in Thailand, but likely originally from Malaysia. The "Heritage of Thai Culture" does not appear to describe a distinctly "Thai" keris, and the photograph, from what I can see, is of fairly typical Bugis keris (two are shown, both with Malayan wrangka and Bugis hilts; the one that is shown out of the sheath is 7 lok -- and the rest is too grainy to distinquish).

Here are the names of keris listed in the "Heritage:"

the straight-bladed dagger of Malaysia, for example, is called the "Sapugal Dagger"; a wavy-bladed dagger on the other hand is called a "Berlok Dagger", while a smooth-bladed dagger with a gold or silver design is called a "Berpamur Dagger" and a dagger with a fingerprint-type on the blade is called a "Pichit Dagger"; a dagger with cursive design on both sides of the blade, is called a "Nakra Dagger".

[KrisKross]

Burmese berserkers?! Nice. I can't even imagine how scary that was. Confrontations like that would have made the early invention of the Port-O-Pottie extremely profitable.

Double weapons had a place, and I can only guess that in the middle of a huge formation of other other soldiers wasn't it. So large armies wouldn't have bothered, I suppose. However, I'm told by other students and instructors that Krabi-Krabong (Thai weapon art) was often used to defend passages and gates with small numbers of troops (maybe even just one). That would be pretty crazy work with no protection, even if you were good. I remember the lessons of Thermopylae, but damn...

The tin and aligator armor in the "Unusual Keris" thread is extremely intriguing to me, though. Did the Nais use double weapons?

Question: why would any culture capable fo forging metal not come to the conclusion to wear it, or some other form of protection, to defeat metal weapons? The Moros did, but some other cultures seem to lack this basic insight -- or at least have their reasons for not going there.

[fearn]

Hi Kriss,

I can think of a bunch of reasons to have metal weapons but not metal armor.

1) Depending on the weapon, many weapons have non martial uses: a spear or bow can be used for hunting, a saber or axe for cutting plants, etc. The only use of armor is as armor. If you're poor, this kind of cost matters.

2) People in armor sink. If you're fighting in, on, or around the water, this matters.

3) It might not stop the main weapon. This is especially true with bows and guns, and it's also true (as you pointed out above), where someone is good enough to find the (perhaps large) chinks in the armor. In all of these cases, dodging or using a shield might work better.

4) As others have pointed out, armor is hot, and this matters in the tropics. Given how fast things rot in hot, humid conditions, I suspect that keeping a complex piece of armor in good working condition (with non-rotting padding underneath) might be more trouble than it's worth. I don't think it's an accident that most Indonesian swords are sheathed in wood, not leather, and one can only speculate on the pleasures of keeping leather straps or leather-based armor in any sort of shape under tropical conditions.

5) There are many types of war, and heavy armor works best in pitched battles. If the main form of warfare is raiding through thick jungle, then armor would be a positive disadvantage. It makes noises, blocks your senses, and slows you down. Draeger's book on Indonesian fighting arts talks a bit about the types of battles fought, and there's a lot more about raiding than there is about European style battles, as I recall.

my 0.02 cents again,

Fearn

[Mark]

Originally Posted by fearn

Hi Kriss,

4) As others have pointed out, armor is hot, and this matters in the tropics. Given how fast things rot in hot, humid conditions, I suspect that keeping a complex piece of armor in good working condition (with non-rotting padding underneath) might be more trouble than it's worth. I don't think it's an accident that most Indonesian swords are sheathed in wood, not leather, and one can only speculate on the pleasures of keeping leather straps or leather-based armor in any sort of shape under tropical conditions.

5) There are many types of war, and heavy armor works best in pitched battles. If the main form of warfare is raiding through thick jungle, then armor would be a positive disadvantage. It makes noises, blocks your senses, and slows you down. Draeger's book on Indonesian fighting arts talks a bit about the types of battles fought, and there's a lot more about raiding than there is about European style battles, as I recall.

I put my money mostly on these two, at least as far as continental SEA is concerned. The largest killer in the Burmese campaigns into Thailand (and a large factor for the English during the Anglo-Burmese wars) was heat and disease. Moving long distances in armor just was not healthy. Throw in the rust and rot factor and it might not have been worth the investment. Even the dry season was pretty wet, and not infrequently a siege lasted into the wet season, or a retreat happened during the wet season. With regard to 5), there were two principle tactics in SEA warfare (let me exclude what the Khmer did back in the day, because I don't have info on this): fast strikes, and seiges. Pitched/set battles were avoided, and even when there were such battles, such as attempts to relieve or break a seige, the main tactic was speed and manuverability, not heavy infantry tactics. None of this particularly favors, or requires, much in the way of armor.

Here is another thought. To the extent SEA groups picked up the idea of armor from Europeans, such as the Portuguese and Dutch, this would have been less likely on the continent because contact with Europeans came much later, and was not so much in the nature of conflict as it was in islandic SEA. Prolonged contact wasn't established until the mid to late 17th century, pretty much, and the links were commercial. In the late 17th cen there were a few mix-ups with the Portugese, a couple isolated encounters with the British and French in the 18th, all of which were really naval conflicts that lead to some land action, and of course the Anglo-Burmese wars in the 19th century. By then, armor had fallen out of use in Europe, so what you see is the assimilation of musket and cannon technlogy and tactics.

[KrisKross]

I feel most of fearn's observations are valid, at least from the perspective of common sense. I just hadn't looked at things from that angle until now. I have trouble enough imagining wearing plate at all, even in Europe. In the winter you would freeze solid and become slow. In the summer you would cook. It seems like a bad proposition either way.

Is it easy to get through chain mail with a one-handed swing from, say, a short sword or a broadsword? Doesn't seem like it would be, which leads me to wonder how the sword survived for so long. I read once that some forms of attack could break the rivets and force shards of metal through the jerkin, causing injury. I know a two handed sword could shear off a limb encased in chain, but a one handed sword? It would hurt, though...

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

I put my money mostly on these two, at least as far as continental SEA is concerned. The largest killer in the Burmese campaigns into Thailand (and a large factor for the English during the Anglo-Burmese wars) was heat and disease. Moving long distances in armor just was not healthy. Throw in the rust and rot factor and it might not have been worth the investment. Even the dry season was pretty wet, and not infrequently a siege lasted into the wet season, or a retreat happened during the wet season. With regard to 5), there were two principle tactics in SEA warfare (let me exclude what the Khmer did back in the day, because I don't have info on this): fast strikes, and seiges. Pitched/set battles were avoided, and even when there were such battles, such as attempts to relieve or break a seige, the main tactic was speed and manuverability, not heavy infantry tactics. None of this particularly favors, or requires, much in the way of armor.

Here is another thought. To the extent SEA groups picked up the idea of armor from Europeans, such as the Portuguese and Dutch, this would have been less likely on the continent because contact with Europeans came much later, and was not so much in the nature of conflict as it was in islandic SEA. Prolonged contact wasn't established until the mid to late 17th century, pretty much, and the links were commercial. In the late 17th cen there were a few mix-ups with the Portugese, a couple isolated encounters with the British and French in the 18th, all of which were really naval conflicts that lead to some land action, and of course the Anglo-Burmese wars in the 19th century. By then, armor had fallen out of use in Europe, so what you see is the assimilation of musket and cannon technlogy and tactics.

The mail and plate armour worn in the Philipines would have provided a fair degree of ventilation. It is also quite similar to Indo-Iranian mail and plate armour, I think it is more like they wore this armour as a result of Iranian and Indian influence, NOT European influence.

To answer Kris, as to how easy it was to penetrate, Moro mail is butted not rivetted, it would be a lot easier to penetrate Moro mail than rivetted Indian or Iranian mail.

[Battara]

Aqtai, I also lean in the direction of first influence on Moro armour being from India/Persia. This was an older influence in trade relations. I am of the opinion, however, that this was modified by early Spanish contact. Special note would be of the helmet sometimes worn by Moro datu with the armour that is fashioned aftert the early Spanish morions at the time of contact.