Question About SEA Armor

ThePepperSkull · 6th September 2011, 08:44 AM

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 · 6th September 2011, 01:01 PM

Quote:

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 · 6th September 2011, 02:55 PM

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 · 6th September 2011, 05:09 PM

Quote:

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 · 7th September 2011, 12:11 AM

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 · 8th September 2011, 01:50 AM

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.

6th September 2011, 08:44 AM	#1
ThePepperSkull Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 338	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?

6th September 2011, 02:55 PM	#3
KuKulzA28 Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: between work and sleep Posts: 731	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.

7th September 2011, 12:11 AM	#5
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,219	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.

8th September 2011, 01:50 AM	#6
aiontay Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 88	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.