Armour in the Wild West

[BBJW]

Cole Younger of the James Younger Gang wore a heavy salt brine layered leather vest. It would stop a lot of the cap and ball revolver rounds of the day as well as buckshot at a little farther out. It would not stop heavier rifle rounds.

bbjw

[M ELEY]

Excellent subject matter indeed, Jim. I was unaware of Union forces being offered body armor. Fascinating information. I'm not surprised that it was considered (Emperor Napolean III's cuarassiers were still wearing them into the mid-19th century) and rejected (many of the Union soldiers wouldn't even carry their M1860 issued swords, deeming them useless in battle. That's why many of these swords are in such good shape). Let us not forget the Native American bone breast plates worn by chiefs that were often adorned with British gorgets from a century before. Although not common, they were worn to deflect arrows, spears and bullets from afar. I remember reading about the Egyptian Khedieve (King) and his troops known as the "Iron Men", who still wore breastplates into the late-19th century.
Betcha G. Custer would have given his hair for a good breastplate at the Big Horn.

[fearn]

Hi Jim,

I don't have any good armor anecdotes to add. Still, I keep thinking about the Ghost Dance shirts of the Lakota, that were supposed to stop bullets and did not, and of the scarves worn by the old capoeiristas, which didn't stop bullets, but did keep their opponents straight razors from slitting their throats.

F

[M ELEY]

http://books.google.com/books?id=kK2...esult&resnum=1

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fearn

Hi Jim,

I don't have any good armor anecdotes to add. Still, I keep thinking about the Ghost Dance shirts of the Lakota, that were supposed to stop bullets and did not, and of the scarves worn by the old capoeiristas, which didn't stop bullets, but did keep their opponents straight razors from slitting their throats.

F

Good stuff Fearn!
Actually what I'm thinking of is not just armour, but bulletproofing, whether steel, silk, leather or whatever....and had forgotten the 'Ghost Dance'. The idea of apotropaics is definitely a pertinant associated perspective, thank you for adding these.

All the best,
Jim

[Marc]

For a fascinating overview of this very subject in such a terrible testing ground as was WWI, I reccomend:

DEAN, Bashford, "Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare".

The original book was published in 1920 (I think) and summarizes the conclusions of a commitee at the head of which was Dean himself (by then Arms & Armour curator of the MET), dealing with the analysis of personal body protection during the past conflict in order to make new (theroretically useful) proposals for the army in this field.

Or something like that.

An original is extremely hard to find and expensive, but there's been at least a couple of modern editions in the last few years, and they can be found at a good price.

[fernando]

I have enjoyed watching Mick Jaeger in the role of famous Ned Kelly.
The helmet he wore looks so real as the actual armour used by Ned in 1880.
Fernando

.

[kronckew]

while they turned out to be not very bullet proof, the mahdi's army wore armour at the battle of omdurman in 1898, where winston churchill led a charge of the 21st lancers against them. some references to horses of the mahdi's forces wearing quilted armour, and of the chain mail shattering under british sabre blows due it's fragility due to it's age and condition.
the lancers did not wear armour and some, including churchill used their pistols more than lance & sabre. at least till they ran out of ammo.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you so much guys!
I really appreciate the kind words, and I do tend to wander off on esoterica in arms and you guys always come up with great items of information that add to learning on them.
Emanuel, you may not have material at the moment...but if I know you, you soon will have you seem to have a way to find things and add unique perspective, thank you!
BJ, thanks for the info on the Youngers...never thought of brine soaked leather...though leather was of course well known back into the Spanish colonial days the Southwest....the Soldados de Cuero (leatherjackets) wore these to stop Apache arrows.
Mark, I hadnt heard of the Khedives 'iron men' ( a few chords of Ozzy...."Iron Man" need to look more into that.
Speaking of Napoleons cuirassiers, I recall reading about Waterloo in John Keegan's "Face of Battle" many years ago, and the description of the constant sound like hail on a tin roof, of all the bullets constantly hitting armor, helmets, swords etc.
There was probably a lot of things Custer would have wished for at the Little Big Horn!

All the best,
Jim

[BBJW]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Excellent subject matter indeed, Jim. I was unaware of Union forces being offered body armor. Fascinating information. I'm not surprised that it was considered (Emperor Napolean III's cuarassiers were still wearing them into the mid-19th century) and rejected (many of the Union soldiers wouldn't even carry their M1860 issued swords, deeming them useless in battle. That's why many of these swords are in such good shape). Let us not forget the Native American bone breast plates worn by chiefs that were often adorned with British gorgets from a century before. Although not common, they were worn to deflect arrows, spears and bullets from afar. I remember reading about the Egyptian Khedieve (King) and his troops known as the "Iron Men", who still wore breastplates into the late-19th century.
Betcha G. Custer would have given his hair for a good breastplate at the Big Horn.

A breastplate wouldn't have helped Custer much. Many of the Indians were armed with Winchesters. Not to mention heavy caliber muzzleloaders and assorted breechloaders.

bbjw

[M ELEY]

Of course, you are right. I was just joking. On an interesting side note, is is said that despite all that Custer did to the Souix, they still had great respect for the man! When his body was recovered, he had been scalped, but otherwise, intact. All of the other soldiers at the BigHorn had been horribly mutilated out of vengence (per Native American beliefs, they would look like this in the afterlife). Interesting...

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

A fascinating subject.

This is broadening the initial post by Jim, but tank crews used chain mail facial protection during WWI. Helmets are still in use and riot police use plastic armour reminiscent of Roman and medieval times. And then cavalry throughout the 19th century, used "armour" by way of hidden chain and sundry similar reinforcements in uniforms, to protect against sabre slashes.

In the natural Sciences Museum of La Plata, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina, there used to be an exhibit of a leather armour made for an Indian chief. From memory, it was made from seven layers of leather, and I have a faint recollection it having stopped a bullet, but not quite sure of this as I am going back some twenty years on this one. It lacked sophistication and was of a very primitive design, a bit like a potato sack.

I wonder how the French Cuirassiers fared during their Mexican campaign during the 1860s - Perhaps Gonzalo could chime in on this one.

Cheers
Chris

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

... I wonder how the French Cuirassiers fared during their Mexican campaign during the 1860s - Perhaps Gonzalo could chime in on this one...

Maybe Gonzalo has one in his collection .
A 1854 French cuirass.
Fernando

.

[Chris Evans]

Originally Posted by fernando

Maybe Gonzalo has one in his collection .
A 1854 French cuirass.
Fernando

.

Hi Fernando,

A very handsome piece - Is it yours?

Cheers
Chris

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Of course, you are right. I was just joking. On an interesting side note, is is said that despite all that Custer did to the Souix, they still had great respect for the man! When his body was recovered, he had been scalped, but otherwise, intact. All of the other soldiers at the BigHorn had been horribly mutilated out of vengence (per Native American beliefs, they would look like this in the afterlife). Interesting...

LOL! I was right with ya Mark!! and no doubt any kind of armour would have been enthusiastically received! if nothing else for moral support. This event has ever since often served as an analogy for any 'hopeless' situation.

It truly is worthy of note that Custer's body was spared the terrible mutilations of the others, typically carried out by the Indian women after the combat with the pent up rage they felt, especially for those they had lost, and as noted by Mark, for the afterlife.
While I would consider the perception toward Custer more as 'regard' in his capacity as a 'chief' than respect, it is known that certain less dramatic, nonetheless symbolic, bodily mutilation was applied in that his eardrums were punctured. This is thought to have some meaning to do with 'his words' and was carried out by Indian squaws.

The soldiers were horribly outgunned, and it is true that the warriors did have a number of Henry and Winchester repeaters which both fired .44 rimfire ammunition.The U.S. government in thier frugal 'wisdom' issued single shot carbines to troops to prevent excessive use and would 'be wasteful' ! Obviously not a very prudent perspective here. There are also numerous references to jamming from both sides in the battle. This would hardly be surprising in frantic, repeating firing of the guns and the enormous amounts of dry, Montana plains dust that would have been in clouds with the intense movements of horsemen in concentrated areas. There are reports of broken knife blades and jammed actions found among the debris.
The archaeological reports of the excavations at Little Big Horn battlesite in the 1980's led to incredible forensics and ballistic studies that revealed a great deal in better understanding the use of the weapons there.

Interesting information Chris on the face mail, and I have seen the shields used by riot police in the phalanx (?)formation. The use of leather on the frontiers of New Spain is indeed well known as the Soldados de Cuero found that heavily padded leather provided protection from Indian arrows. The use of guns in those times was quite limited earlier, and even later the lack of gunpowder caused even the Spanish to rely more on the lance as a weapon.

I had not heard of the layered leather vests in South America, and it would be indeed interesting to know more toward ballistic results on these. I think that as we had noted earlier, the earlier low velocity bullets may have been stopped or at least impeded by leather or heavily folded fabric, but the higher power bullets, probably not.

Good suggestion on the cuirassiers in the campaigns in Mexico..Gonzalo where are ya?!!

In a documentary just on about the Romanovs, and the massacre of the Royal Family in Russia in 1918,the young girls were apparantly not killed by the gunfire and ultimately bayonetted and bludgeoned. It was found the bullets were deflected by corsets laden with diamonds and jewels.
Just interesting note while I was writing this

All best regards,
Jim

[celtan]

In a documentary just on about the Romanovs, and the massacre of the Royal Family in Russia in 1918,the young girls were apparantly not killed by the gunfire and ultimately bayonetted and bludgeoned. It was found the bullets were deflected by corsets laden with diamonds and jewels.

That is the kind of image that I try not to picture in my mind. How utterly horrible.

lupus est homo homini

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much Aiontay. I think the gorget, which was in European military parlance, a sort of vestigial armour symbol of rank, was likely seen and used in much the same manner by the American Indian tribes, especially when received as gifts from Europeans.
I think the use of the sword was probably effective in the same manner as the tomahawk in 18th century warfare on the frontiers. When the single shot gun(s) was discharged, it was an immediate opportunity for attack.

While I would imagine that the sword did find at least some use on the Plains by Indian tribes into the 19th century, it does not seem in enough presence to have become especially widely known. At least when I think of a Native American warrior, my image would seldom include a sword, and this is I think often the case despite the fact that numerous references in some artwork and descriptions exist. I am under the impression that much of this is within tribal histories, and found apparantly in certain focused research. In "Native American Weapons" ( Colin F. Taylor, 2001, p.54) , the author notes that many of the well travelled British M1796 sabres were sold in the American West in about the 1840's, and that they became a kind of status symbol among many of the tribes. One instance described is of a sword painted red , used symbolically by the Crow leader Wraps Up His Tail, and seems to have been the focus of his supernatural power (Taylor. p.55).

Thank you for the input Chris, and very well made points! It certainly would seem like added weight of ammunition would be more worthwhile rather than extra weight of armour.

Well placed quote Celtan! and it does seem I could have left the graphics of this terrible incident out of the text. As you note, it is an unfortunate element of truth, mans inhumanity to man. I have always managed to rather remove myself from the true nature of arms in that sense, and always focus on the history and symbolism in styles etc. and in that parlance regretably included those details without thinking.

All very best regards,
Jim