Question About SEA Armor

[KrisKross]

Thanks everyone so much for your interest in my question. This is helping me.

Let's take this one at a time:

Originally Posted by Mark

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.

That would be hugely helpful. There seems to be so little in the way of info on SEA armor. I know they never developed plate, but I find it hard to believe no one ever used any armor at all along with two-weapon fighting styles. Armor is so common going from India and radiating out to almost everywhere else in the world (even if one speaks of Maori "war girdles" or Jaguar Knight padded coats). I can't believe the Burmese didn't have it.

Originally Posted by Bill

the Moro armor is very close to Bugis armor of early Celebes/Sulawesi.

Yes, it did help. I didn't know that. My opponents seem to think that no Filipinos had armor, which (he believes) led to them creating double-weapon fighting systems. The implication is that two weapons against armor isn't at all effective. I find that hard to believe.

Originally Posted by fearrn

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.

I have the second book, but never heard of the first one. Draeger is very thurough, but I didn't see much (maybe not any) in the way of actual armor. However, there are some shields in there.

Originally Posted by fearn

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.

I seem to remember that the Europeans used long swords along with daggers sometimes. I'm not talking about rapiers here, either. Would that have been without armor only?

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:

Thus it is clear that this guy was ELITE, VERY ELITE. Also note that it took him many years to create this style of his and perfect it. However after his death in 1645 not one of his pupils (some having been with him for many years) had the ability to fully understand and execute his style and, even with his two publications, could not do so after several years of study - Niten Ichi-Ryu died out after that. Thus this again points to the need fro a very special person to master this.

With that – your support and theory of historical superiority of TWF is not validated – the opposite is true. Musashi was not a major player in the shaping of tactics for his nation at all; as said; the guy was actually a Ronin; an outcast and a mercenary. This is not to mention there are just a few years of prior Japanese warrior and Samurai fighting history prior to his birth that did not utilize his methods.

This was after I had said: "If you know what your a doing, killing someone who only has one weapon becomes much easier, as does preventing yourself from being killed, than if you only had one weapon. As for the wakazashi, the author of the Book of Five Rings seems to agree with me on this."

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).

Originally Posted by rahman

I would love to get the source of your info.

Ditto, although for different reasons.