Question About SEA Armor

[josh stout]

Originally Posted by Nick Wardigo

Just thought I'd chime in on Chinese double-weapons.

There is nothing in the military manuals of the Ming or Qing Dynasties to support double weapons. This is corroborated by period artwork. I feel comfortable saying that using double weapons was never part of the Chinese military.

It did exist in civilian use. Keeping in mind that the vast number of examples I've seen are fake (particularly the flamboyant ones), I have seen enough double-jian, double-dao, hook swords, paired maces, etc. to say that the practice existed at least since the nineteenth century, but it was definitely not the norm. Curiously, I've never seen any earlier examples, say, from the Ming or early Qing. Either the practice was developed in the nineteenth century or earlier examples were simply lost, but, again, the period artwork doesn't offer any proof.

To answer Kris's specific question about whether the techniques were developed in a "field of war," I'd have to say no. From what I've seen of the military manuals, it seems that, prior to firearms, a thousand soldiers with spears were more useful than a thousand soldiers whirling about with double sabers.

I must disagree that double weapons were not used in war by the Chinese. However, I agree totaly that they were not used by regular troops as depicted by period illustrations. Here is a discussion showing a Ming "bandit" with full size double swords and in full armor. (http://forum.grtc.org/viewtopic.php?...ghlight=double)

The other book I cite (Chinese Weapons, Werner 1932 ), also shows full size double weapons as used by what would be special forces for assaulting walls. I suspect that what double weapons are really useful for is causing huge damage quickly on packed masses of the enemy. (Think of Black Whirlwind and his two axes wading into battle) Musashi also mentions the usefulness of double weapons when facing a crowd but uses a single sword in duels. In a martial arts context, many of the movements with shuang jian and other double weapons are designed for use against spears and pole arms. What one does not see much is evidence of a double weapon fighter in single combat against a longer sword, or a sword and shield. Also you do not see a row of double weapons fighters lining up against a row of regular soldiers. There are several examples of double weapons being used as part of a battle array including shields and pole weapons.

My conclusion is that a double weapon is what you would expect. It is strong on offence, but less effective on defense. So they are useful for shock troops clearing a wall where a defender's weapon might be hampered by space, they are good for getting inside a long weapon, they are good for crowd control, and they are useful in specialized contexts where there are other soldiers with other weapons for protection. They tend to be seen in the martial arts in one against many situations where a shield would not be as useful. As Musashi describes it, one must drive the attackers together and not let them have the initiative. One does not have time to defend.

I would rather have a shield in a duel.
Josh

[ThePepperSkull]

A quick question on use of Moro armors from region to region -- was armor used by every Moro group? Which groups used them? Were they in use in Sulu ever or were they exclusive to the mainland of Mindanao?

[David]

Originally Posted by ThePepperSkull

A quick question on use of Moro armors from region to region -- was armor used by every Moro group? Which groups used them? Were they in use in Sulu ever or were they exclusive to the mainland of Mindanao?

I can't actually answer the question, but just to be clear, armor was not common among Moro fighters. It was worn by the elite.

[KuKulzA28]

I think an important concept to bring up also is the importance of armor in the war doctrine or psyche of a group of people. Europe has always been relatively big on armor for whatever reason. You can go back to the days of Hellenic hoplites, Iberian caetrati with bronze plates, Celtic warriors (some naked, some bare-chested, some with mail), Roman maniples, etc. While the majority of the people did not have armor, those who could get it often did. While cavalry was key, while the Carthaginians and Successor Greeks loved to use elephants, and while skirmishing infantry could seriously damage morale, the European fighting mindset seemed to be very focused on the core being well-armed infantry. Two armies would line up and wear each other out through better armor, tactics, use of formations... and attrition. This is evident even when gunpowder was used, with long lines of musketeers blasting away at each other until one line was obliterated or lost resolve. Most european tactics focused on this mindset. There have always been exceptions, such as Hannibal and Napoleon who practiced strategies involving much more mobility and flexibility.

If you read up on Eastern strategies and war philosophies, maneuverability and swiftly striking vulnerable targets, and positioning seem to be emphasized much more. While heavier troops always existed... armor rarely reached the same level of popularity, and mobility was always important - from the steppe tribes, to the rattan armored southern Chinese, to the Burmese, Thai, Melayu, Dayaks, etc. Of course environment also affects this as mentioned before.

I feel, though I may be wrong, that there's definitely a negative correlation between armor and two-weapon use. However, I also think there is a greater amount of skill required in the handling of two weapons and especially when defending - where-as with a shield it is somewhat simpler. Also, when fighting in masses in formation (which not all SE Asian peoples did), shields can be interlocked for shield walls and useful for all sorts of formations... dual weapon troops may hinder tight formations because they'll be swinging swords from both sides.... ?


I don't think it's been mentioned, but rattan armor was somewhat common in southern China and Taiwan... rattan was decent protection while allowing for flexibility, mobility, and breathability. And I also dimly recall Khmer troops wearing two chains across their chests... ?


Just some thoughts, hopefully it adds a new perspective to this excellent discussion so far.

[ThePepperSkull]

Originally Posted by David

I can't actually answer the question, but just to be clear, armor was not common among Moro fighters. It was worn by the elite.

Oh, definitely. I do know that it was very uncommon for a Moro to wear armor and it usually meant that you were a person of status.

I cannot distinguish origin of the armors yet by looking at them, though. Did they all come from the same place or did each region make their own for their Datus?

[Battara]

And don't forget that until the early 1800s the planet was in the midst of a "little ice age" making the tropics cooler for Moro armour.

[aiontay]

I'll have to admit I skimmed through this thread, so I hope what I say is fairly relevant. As for my own martial arts background it is among other things Pekiti Tirsia, Kabri Kabrong, and Ray Nah (or however you'd Romanize the Skaw Karen term for sword fighting). I'd say shields make sense for group combat, double weapons make more sense for single combat, provided you really know what you're doing, or double weapons for when you've lost shield and can pick up another weapon off the battlefield, or as someone noted in a unit of shock troops.

In Drager and Smith's Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts I believe they have a drawing showing an armored Korean horseman wielding two swords, but I don't know their exact source, so I don't know how valid it is.

Somewhere I've seen a photo of what was reputed to be Maha Bandoola's armor. Bandoola was the Burmese commander during the First Burmese War with the British. It looked like it was metal armor.