Question About SEA Armor

[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.

[HangPC2]

Bugis Chain Mail (Baju Zirah @ Berantai Pahlawan Bugis)

Bugis Shield (Perisai Bugis)








Location : Kuala Selangor Historical Museum, Bukit Melawati, Selangor (Malaysia)












Location : National Museum, Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)

[HangPC2]

Location : Ngah Ibrahim Fort Museum, Perak (Malaysia)

[HangPC2]

Moro Chain Mail (Baju Zirah @ Berantai Bangsamoro)




[/color]




Malay Brunei Chain Mail (Baju Zirah @ Berantai Melayu Brunei)







Sources : http://www.geoship.jp/BRUNEI/

[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.