|
15th August 2005, 07:21 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8
|
Question About SEA Armor
Hi, everyone. This is a great place!
To give you some background relevent to my question, I'm a martial artist, as many of you may be. I have, until recent health problems, practiced Kali (eskrima). I've been going back and forth with some folks on another board (for gamers) about the validity of using double weapons vs. a shield. I consider the second weapon helpful in defense (as well as attack). These people seem adamant that double weapon techniques only developed, and were found useful, in areas devoid of body armor (padded, leather, piecemail, etc.). They also seem to think that where a shield is availible it is always superior to two weapons. Does that sound right to you folks? I can't find anything through Google, except brief descriptions of Burmese nobles wearing leather armor. I know the Moros wore armor, and I know that the Filipinos produced double weapon techniques, but I don't know if the Moros specifically did. I know this isn't a martial arts board, but anything answering the above, or at least pointing me in the right direction would be helpful. I enjoy learning about bladed weapons from SEA, and all over the world. I have many books on the subject, but none of them mention any armor in that part of the world. The closest I can find is Indian armor. I have found a website that shows Moro armor, but I need to stengthen my case a bit more. Thanks. |
15th August 2005, 04:10 PM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 987
|
From all that I have seen, I believe your information about SEA armor is correct, at least as far as continental SEA goes. Metal armor was not used. In Burma and Thailand the common soldier (who was a levy soldier) went essentially unarmored, and the more affluent wore a "war coat," which as near as I can tell was of heavy or padded silk, and a leather "war hat" which looked a lot like something Jimmy Buffet might be wearing down in Margaritaville. I have a scan of an old catalogue that shows a war coat and war hat, and if no one else posts it in the meantime I will put it up this evening from home.
Two-sword techniques were apparently used regularly in warfare in both Burma and Thailand, as well as sword-and-shield, sword-and-buckler, and double-handed techniques. Each one used a slightly different type of sword. Andrew has done the real research in this area, so hopefully he can add more. I have read that the standard court dress in Thailand was a sword (daab) and keris, which makes me wonder if there is or was a sword-and-keris technique. That would be an interesting parallel to the European rapier and main gauche, which was for dueling with an un-armored opponent. |
15th August 2005, 04:29 PM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 327
|
not sure this is of help. the Moro armor is very close to Bugis armor of early Celebes/Sulawesi. combat of the early Bugis was with the blowgun, I think it was developed to stop poison darts. the Spanish from the earliest days in the Philippines had armor. I haven't been able to find anything as to what type of armor the Moro had before the Spanish or how it developed. The Bugis were in Brunei (alligned with the Moro), pre-Spanish; as well the Makassar (Celebes) aided the Moro against the Spanish. There well might be that, armor created to stop darts was adopted to protect against the sword, perhaps even to give a psychological balance to the Spanish armor.
|
16th August 2005, 01:20 AM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,247
|
I'd also pitch in Stone's Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armour and Draeger's Weapons and Fighting Systems of Indonesia as books to check out for SEA armor.
So far as double weapon use goes, we can also point to European (case of rapiers, sword and dagger, rapier and main gauche), Japanese (Miyamoto Musashi et al), Chinese, Korean, even Native American (tomahawk and knife) examples, although we'd have to eliminate the Amerinds if you meant two of the same kind of weapon. Or not. We could easily add all of SEA and Okinawa to the double weapons list, and probably pop in a few Roman gladiators if we wanted to go that far. Basically, it's an idea that a lot of people have tried and a few have specialized in. Personally, I think that using a shield is "better" for a few reasons: 1) a shield is generally cheaper than a second sword, 2) it's easier to use in your off hand (less learning involved), 3) it protects against incoming missiles better than a sword or dagger does, and 4) a shield is good for displaying logos, heraldic symbols, etc. Otherwise, having something sharp in your offhand is a great way of keeping people from getting inside the reach of your sword.... My 0.02 cents, Fearn |
16th August 2005, 03:53 AM | #5 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 84
|
Quote:
I would love to get the source of your info. For some time now, I have been struggling with several references in Sejarah Melayu (The Malay Annals) and Hikayat Hang Tuah about the use of the keris panjang. These ancient classics did not refer to the keris panjang as an executioner's sword but as a slashing weapon. Hang Tuah used keris panjang to parang (slash) at a mob of 100 Majapahit warriors. It is quite possible that this keris panjang may have been a version of the daab, with the keris as a close-quarter weapon. Interestingly, the personal keris slipped into the waistband is variously called the keris pendua (the second of a pair) or a keris pandak (pendek - short?). I'm developing a nagging suspicion that the Malay keris as we know it today may be post-1511, after the Portugeuse invasion and the fall of Malacca. |
|
16th August 2005, 04:32 AM | #6 | ||||||
Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8
|
Thanks everyone so much for your interest in my question. This is helping me.
Let's take this one at a time: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In trying to support my ideas on two-weapon fighting, mainly that two weapons were occasionally better than one weapon, I cited Musashi, and was greeted with this response: Quote:
I do not believe there is a "superior" style. Tactical and strategic dominance is a creature of context. I had said earlier that, given the right context, two weapons could be as good as one and a shield. You need less training with a shield, but in a warrior culture, one is apt to follow local martial custom from an early age, which negates the problem of long training. The Filipinos are a prime example. I started learning two weapon fighting from day one in class, and it didn't really seem that hard to me (nor am I unique in that opinion). Quote:
Last edited by KrisKross; 16th August 2005 at 04:50 AM. |
||||||
16th August 2005, 04:28 PM | #7 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 987
|
Quote:
|
|
16th August 2005, 05:03 PM | #8 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,300
|
Rapier and Main Gauche
Hi K.K. ,
The Main Gauche was used in conjunction with the Rapier in unarmored combat ; often in duels . |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|