Armour in the Wild West

[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

[ausjulius]

i think also one has to look at the method of warfare neither the american settlers nor the indians were engaged in any heavy combat or in any large organized encounters.. the indians never fourght in organised groups in that area of the americas.. compared to for exsample the indians on the pacific coast and coastal alaskan natives they used very basic tactics and attacked in a individual manner.. not using group tactisc or any real manouvers invoiving preorganized plans..
generaly you will find in these cultures they combatants lack body armor and sheilds or have very small sheilds or use the infrequently.

as they are attacking as an single person. they have no orders.. attacking with what weapons they personaly own and in what manner they wish,
i thin armour realy coms when
1, you have a people with a structured ordered society with a class or worriors who can be directed by a chief and armed by his direction and controled by his tactics like people of the pacific in micronesia and polynesia western alaska .. or you have to have a seditary people producing agriculture,, that may not have a sturctured society with a hereditary chief but still use things like shield and body armor.. like in papua new guinea, they are able to store in their homes these extra and infrequiently used equipment.. and they fight in a group and not as an individuial with "fighting plans" and "drilling" before the battle.

i think you could say the plains indians culture was buy the time of european contact no longer at this state. no doubt in the past they had a far more complexed social structure and i do seem to recall some finds in the mid west of some form of body armor from earlier times when they were less mobile.
but by the time horses became common i think the lost many of these habits as they didnt suit their lifestyle and style of combat.
it can be seen in central and south america , the settled peoples having body armor and the nomadic ones mostly not having this..

i thin it is obvious why the "cowboys" of the day didnt have body armor.. it was becasue maybe in their whole life they would never shoot one person or be in one gun battle . and elk and bison dont have guns.
the most people were never in raging gun battles every week or fighting off bands of indians..
if one wants to see the real wild "west" then northen brazil or southern mexico would be exsamples of rely wild frontiers..
and in both these places body armor was actualy used up till the 1890s.. as were swords and spears..


one an other note....
one always has to remember how many millions of starving mouths expired in the life of those young ladies so they could have those jewels in their corsets , as they hardly worked for them

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Ausjulius,
Very well thought out assessment of the conditions of warfare experienced in America's frontiers in early colonial times into the movements toward the west.
I am certainly no authority on Native American warfare, but it seems to be that this was a magnificently complex culture, and warfare was inevitable between tribes for numerous reasons. The regimentation of European military and American settlers were incredibly restrictive in trying to combat what was essentially guerilla warfare. There was clearly adaption of strategy and use of weaponry taken by both sides as conflicts continued.

I'm not sure that the use of armour by Indians was likely, with the instance earlier noted an exception, and possibly other singular cases. Mostly I am interested in the use by gunfighters or others in the western frontiers.
You are right, the much dramatized and embellished tales of blazing gunfights being the norm, or fighting off bands of attacking warriors are mostly just that. While there are cases of certain individuals who apparantly knew they were constantly at threat of violence, who may have used some kind of protection such as bullet proof vests, the cases seem to have been rare.

The unfortunate reference I included concerning the Romanov event I think should be dropped, the point was concerning bulletproof vests, and used only in a comparitive analogy. As I have noted, I regret including it as clearly the point of reference was lost in adverse reactions. My apologies to anyone who misunderstood my intent and for having used this tragic reference.

All best regards,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ausjulius,


[QUOTE=ausjulius].. it was becasue maybe in their whole life they would never shoot one person or be in one gun battle . and elk and bison dont have guns.
the most people were never in raging gun battles every week or fighting off bands of indians.. [QUOTE]

I think that you make an extremely valid point. Frontier societies were nowhere as violent as pop culture, through the efforts of the myth makers, would have us believe. For example, from reading Argentinean literature, one would be led to believe that the gauchos were constantly fighting life and death duels. And whilst in the 1870s the murder rate was 178 times worse than in England, nevertheless and despite such a violent frontier environment, a British immigrant of those days, recalled seeing only one fatal stabbing in a full decade of rural life.

Cheers
Chris

[VANDOO]

I JUST REMEMBERED ANOTHER USE OF BODY ARMOR OF SORTS IN THE OLD WEST. THE HATCHET MEN WORKING FOR THE TONG'S USED PISTOLS, AND EDGED WEAPONS AND WOULD WEAR THE QUILTED CHINESE COATS AND UNDER THEM LOTS OF LAYERS OF CLOTH AND NEWSPAPER OR OTHER MATERIALS. THIS PROVED SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE IN GUN FIGHTS AND THEY WOULD BANG AWAY AT EACH OTHER A LOT LONGER THAN IF THEY HAD NO PROTECTION FOR THEIR BODIES.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO AVOID GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF SUCH A FIGHT SIMPLY WATCH OUT FOR GROUPS OF FAT CHINESE IN COATS. FAT LOOKING CHINESE WERE RARE IN THOSE DAYS UNLESS THEY WERE BUNDLED UP FOR THE COLD OR BATTLE. YOU CAN SEARCH ON THE INTERNET FOR THIS INFO IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I RESEARCHED IN THAT DIRECTION BUT I THINK LOOKING UNDER TONG WARS OR HATCHET MEN SHOULD TURN UP SOME INFO.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by VANDOO

I JUST REMEMBERED ANOTHER USE OF BODY ARMOR OF SORTS IN THE OLD WEST. THE HATCHET MEN WORKING FOR THE TONG'S USED PISTOLS, AND EDGED WEAPONS AND WOULD WEAR THE QUILTED CHINESE COATS AND UNDER THEM LOTS OF LAYERS OF CLOTH AND NEWSPAPER OR OTHER MATERIALS. THIS PROVED SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE IN GUN FIGHTS AND THEY WOULD BANG AWAY AT EACH OTHER A LOT LONGER THAN IF THEY HAD NO PROTECTION FOR THEIR BODIES.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO AVOID GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF SUCH A FIGHT SIMPLY WATCH OUT FOR GROUPS OF FAT CHINESE IN COATS. FAT LOOKING CHINESE WERE RARE IN THOSE DAYS UNLESS THEY WERE BUNDLED UP FOR THE COLD OR BATTLE. YOU CAN SEARCH ON THE INTERNET FOR THIS INFO IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I RESEARCHED IN THAT DIRECTION BUT I THINK LOOKING UNDER TONG WARS OR HATCHET MEN SHOULD TURN UP SOME INFO.

Great information Vandoo! and leave it to you to come up with the exotic!
I had never thought of this particular aspect of the West, and did start looking into more on the fabled Tongs. Naturally I have heard the expressions 'Tong Wars' and 'hatchet man' many times, but never realized the origins of the terms.
The term 'hatchet man' of course conjures up immediate thoughts of the corporate 'efficiency' experts who eliminate personnel, and of course probably derives from the idea of 'hit man' which these Tongs used in thier clandestine dealings. There was apparantly a 1932 movie with Edward G. Robinson "The Hatchet Man" using this premise. It would seem the Tong (transl. =hall) were versions of the Chinese 'triads' who were originally created as protective units but evolved into clandestine crime organizations in the U.S. in the many Chinatowns. Naturally, the weapons used must have been all manner of available tools or implements, and the readily available axe or hatchet was certainly an effective choice.

The Tong Wars were essentially territorial wars between competing groups of these organizations that seem to have taken place frequently from about the last quarter of the 19th century and still exist ,though now more a gang type association. In group conflicts or fights, it is interesting that they contrived these ersatz bulletproof coats, and it is noted that the Tong groups by 1912 indeed carried firearms, even to what types were preferred. In New York, apparantly the On Leon Tong carried Smith & Wessons while the rival Hip Sing Tong carried Colts. With this it would be interesting to discover just how effective these coats might have been against these weapons....rather than the presumed thought of gangs with rather cliche' 'saturday night specials'.

You're right, much in the sameway one would be wary of a guy wearing a trenchcoat entering a convenience store in July, beware of unusually heavy Chinese guys in a group was probably good advice in those days.

All best regards,
Jim

[VANDOO]

HERE ARE SOME PICTURES OF EDWARD G. ROBINSON AND LORETTA YOUNG IN THE HATCHET MAN. I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO SEE THE MOVIE LONG AGO BUT IT SEEMS TO BE IMPOSIBLE TO GET A COPY TODAY PERHAPS IT WILL COME OUT ON DVD EVENTUALLY. PIRATE HATCHET MEN HAVE BEEN FEATURED IN THE JACKIE CHAN MOVIES PROJECT 1 AND PROJECT 1A , A COUPLE OF MY FAVORITES.
THE TONGS OPERATED LIKE A BUSINESS/ COMBINATION SECRET LODGE HERE IN THE USA AND OFTEN WERE VERY INFLUENTIAL IN THEIR COMUNITYS.THEY AVOIDED TROUBLE WITH OTHER COMUNITIES AND USUALLY HAD THEIR FIGHTS SET UP IN AREAS WHERE THE LOCAL POLICE OR BYSTANDERS WOULD NOT SEE ANYTHING. IN SMALLER TOWNS THERE WAS SELDOM ANY TROUBLE AND OFTEN SOME WERE VERY GOOD FOR THE CHINESE COMUNITYS WHO WERE EXPLOITED AND LOOKED DOWN ON BY OTHER RACES. THEY WERE NOTED FOR SMUGGLEING IN WOMEN AND OPIUM AND SOME RAN ALL THE CRIMINAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND SOMETIMES COLLECTED PROTECTION MONEY. NOT ALL WERE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS BUT THE MOST FAMOUS OFTEN WERE, JUST AS OUR MOST FAMOUS GANGSTERS HAVE BEEN NOTED THE MOST IN OUR HISTORY. I SAW SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET ABOUT A TONG HOUSE IN ONE SMALL TOWN THAT WAS BEING RESTORED AND PRESERVED AS A HISTORICAL PLACE. THERE WERE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS OF SOME OF THEIR BATTLES FROM THE PERIOD IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THERE WERE SOME GOOD ONES IN SAN FRANCISCO.

[fearn]

Originally Posted by ausjulius

i think also one has to look at the method of warfare neither the american settlers nor the indians were engaged in any heavy combat or in any large organized encounters.. the indians never fourght in organised groups in that area of the americas.. compared to for exsample the indians on the pacific coast and coastal alaskan natives they used very basic tactics and attacked in a individual manner.. not using group tactisc or any real manouvers invoiving preorganized plans..
generaly you will find in these cultures they combatants lack body armor and sheilds or have very small sheilds or use the infrequently.

as they are attacking as an single person. they have no orders.. attacking with what weapons they personaly own and in what manner they wish,
i thin armour realy coms when
1, you have a people with a structured ordered society with a class or worriors who can be directed by a chief and armed by his direction and controled by his tactics like people of the pacific in micronesia and polynesia western alaska .. or you have to have a seditary people producing agriculture,, that may not have a sturctured society with a hereditary chief but still use things like shield and body armor.. like in papua new guinea, they are able to store in their homes these extra and infrequiently used equipment.. and they fight in a group and not as an individuial with "fighting plans" and "drilling" before the battle.

i think you could say the plains indians culture was buy the time of european contact no longer at this state. no doubt in the past they had a far more complexed social structure and i do seem to recall some finds in the mid west of some form of body armor from earlier times when they were less mobile.
but by the time horses became common i think the lost many of these habits as they didnt suit their lifestyle and style of combat.
it can be seen in central and south america , the settled peoples having body armor and the nomadic ones mostly not having this..

i thin it is obvious why the "cowboys" of the day didnt have body armor.. it was becasue maybe in their whole life they would never shoot one person or be in one gun battle . and elk and bison dont have guns.
the most people were never in raging gun battles every week or fighting off bands of indians..
if one wants to see the real wild "west" then northen brazil or southern mexico would be exsamples of rely wild frontiers..
and in both these places body armor was actualy used up till the 1890s.. as were swords and spears..


one an other note....
one always has to remember how many millions of starving mouths expired in the life of those young ladies so they could have those jewels in their corsets , as they hardly worked for them

Hi Ausjulius,

I was thinking through a long list of examples, and my end conclusion is that there's not a great correlation between who's carrying armor and defensive weapons and the social structures you're talking about here. I keep thinking about those shields the Australian Aborigines carried, to cite one example.

A couple of complicating factors play in thinking about this:

1. Social structure. The Indians of 1491 appear to have been more organized than the ones of, say, 1800, or 1850. Epidemics took most of them out. Without getting into the politics of this, we all need to specify what time period we're talking about for any location, to talk about what the level of social complexity was at a place and time.

2. Social complexity may not add up to military might. An example: I'm reading a book about Estanislao (link), a California Indian who entered the Mission system in 1821, rebelled with 400 followers in 1827, beat the Spanish in several battles, and reconciled in 1829, only to die in 1838 from either smallpox or malaria. Among other things, he built several working forts based on what he learned from the Spanish. Another thing is that he was quite possibly the origin of the Zorro myth. As a devout Christian, he would trap the Spanish, carve an S in their chest, and let them go with no loss of life, at least in the early battles. The last battles got pretty bloody on both sides.

The basic point is that if you're doing a cursory reading of the ethnographic literature, the California Indians weren't politically sophisticated and didn't build forts, use complex weapons or wear armor. However, it took one of them only six years to figure out how to beat the Spaniards at their own game. People can change very rapidly, especially when exposed to new ideas.

I think it boils down to a couple of questions.

1. Can someone make useful armor? This is a technical question, a logistical question, and (in some societies) a financial question.
2. Is it worth making and using that armor? This depends on things like mobility, survivability in the armor when not in combat (from wounds, heat stroke, drowning, etc), and the general trade off between how good the armor is vs. the problems with using it in a particular situation.

Generalizing beyond these two questions is problematic, IMHO.

F

[M ELEY]

Shameless promotion here, but I noticed an interest in breastplates here. I just posted one for sale in the Swap forum if anyone is interested...

[Jim McDougall]

Just when ya thought this thread was done
In "Arms and Armor Annual" (ed. Robert Held, 1973), there is an article titled " Body Armor in the American Civil War" by Harold L. Peterson (p.304-307).
In this the types of armor produced for the Union army were of two basic types, both produced in New Haven, Conn. about 1862.

The most popular was the 'soldiers bullet proof vest' by the G.D.Cook & Co. which was a varying size fabric vest with pockets for insertion of spring steel plates on either side of chest.
The other was by the Atwater Armor Co. of New Haven, and was more complex, actually of a cuirass form much like those of 17th-19th c. .

Obviously the biggest problem with these was weight, and there were also many homemade styles using these concepts. It is noted that hundreds of instances are recorded of soldiers lives being spared by these notably uncomfortable and awkward items, however it appears that those using them were often ridiculed as walking iron stoves etc. Many of these were discarded, but it does seem there are numbers of them in various Confederate museums, taken in battle and of course suggesting obviously that they werent always entirely successful.

Returning to the original theme of the thread, since these vests were well known nearly two decades prior to the period of gunfighters most often discussed in the 1880's to the turn of the century, there would seem to have been potential for being considered.

Best regards,
Jim

[A Senefelder]

Howdy, i'll take the opportunity to first introduce myself, my name is Allan Senefelder and Lee was nice enough to grant me access to the forums a week or so ago. My megher contribution to the subject at hand. The book Steel Pots, The History of America's Combat Helmets, documents a wide variety of expiremental helmets and body armour from WWI the results ranging from the somewhat Ned Kellyish in appearence to positively medieval. The maille face cover mentioned earlier was one of two ideas made for tankers and some machinegun crews both designed to attach to the M1917 helmet. One was as mentioned maille that attached to the helmet, the other was what amounted to plate goggles with vision slot in each side that also attached to the helmet. Another inteseting piece or set of armour from WWI was a " cod piece " and mittens made from leather, with a piece of asbestos ( heat protecion ) over the palms of the mittens and the " important bit " on the cod piece and asbestos the covered in maille in an oriental 4 in1 weave. These were made by the US and used by certain members of artillery gun squads, specifically the feall that caught the spent brass as it was ejected from the breech to be thrown aside. The Italian army issued a vest made up of small plates attached to a leather backing for trench raiding and the Germans issued a breast plate with faulds and a reinforcing plate for the front of the coal schuttle helmet for use by machine gunners and blockhouse guards.

The Moro's have also been mentioned, thier often brass maille and plates coats, casquettel inspired helmets and shields combined with the poor penetrating power of the .38 played hell with US troops during the Moro uprising in the Philippins (sp) just after the Spanish American War. The .38 simply counldn't nock them down and after action reports were filed of officers actually hurling thier empty revolvers at tribsman as the rounds had not stopped them. This is a good part of what spured the US Army to look for a larger caliber service pistol eventually leading to the adoption of the Colt 1911 and the S&W .45 caliber revolver. The events of the Moro uprising stood out enough to be used as fodder for recuiting posters during WWI ( I have one hanging in my foyer ).

During the 19th century, British army cavalry units took to wearing panels of maille on the shoulders of thier coats and either a single ( bridal ) or paired maille covered leather gauntlets in thier combat with native armies in India, as archery, lance, mace and sword were the prinicple weapons they were facing from thier mounted opponents, applied with a zeal that had more in common with the middle ages than the Victorian era. At least one of these units retained little pieces of fine maille worn on the epaulets of thier uniforms ( harkening back to the large maille panels worn for defense ) until, the 1940's, you'll have to forgive me, I don't recall the unit but I did own an officers uniform from this unit about 15-20 years ago.