Question About SEA Armor

[Mark]

On the use of keris in Thailand, from "Heritage of Thai Culture," Thailand National Museum Fine Arts Department, 1993 (the section on weapons was written by Mrs. Natthapatra Chandavij, who very graciously gave the intrepid Dan Wilke a few hours of her time and the chance to copy her section of the book):

"The Kris was a dagger, or short knife used for and-to-hand fighting. It is supposed that the daggers were originally used by the Dong son people, in the Gulf of Tangkeai, in about the 1st century and were at some point introduced to the Malaysian and Indonesian Peninsula.
There were more than one hundred types of dagger, each with a specific name ... [and she goes on to list a bunch of names].
In general, a dagger blade has two sharp edges, the length of its blade decided by the maker. Sometimes it may be more than 35 cm long, the upper part of the dagger may be about 7 cm broad. The bottom of the hanlde was sometimes decorated with a covering of bronze or other valuable metal with a picture of a giant or garuda, which was believed by the Malaysians to be able to prevent illness, and also show it has supernatural power. When not in use, the dagger was put in a sheath made from high quality wood which was curved and may be decorated with gold or silver.
Daggers were imported and disseminated in Thailand from the south. There has been evidence of daggers here since the Aytthaya period [1350-1767]. King Narai, the Great, gave daggers to his officials to tuck in at the left side of the waist for convenient use. In the Rattankosin period [1768-1910], King Rama V used a dagger as a symbol decorated on the emblem of state." pp. 129-130.

I can't find the more specific reference to the keris-and-sword combo in court dress, but I am still looking.

[rahman]

Thanks Mark

Any photos to go with this?

[Mark]

Originally Posted by rahman

Thanks Mark

Any photos to go with this?

Its never enough for you, is it?

Actually, no. All I have is a second or third generation photocopy of this part of the book, so the pictures are not great. It shows two keris, which while very nice, appear typically Malay as near as I can see.

[KrisKross]

Battara,

I can't say I'm truly surprised that the double weapon wielder defeated the shield wielder. It's the artist, not the art, I always say. But think about this: if you were taught from boyhood (say 8-10 years old) to use double weapons, wouldn't you think you'd be pretty good by the time you were 18? If you've got villagers practically trained from birth, it doesn't matter that two weapons is harder than one and a shield. Firing a bow from horseback isn't easy either (to understate the matter), but both the Mongals and the Japanese do it, even now. Heck, the Mongols did in en masse!

If you want to raise a large army to defend a nation, spear and shield is the way to go, really. It's cheap and fast. However, that context doesn't match every situation. For instance, a small village.

That's why I believe somewhere there is evidence of this type of warfare clashing with armor and shield.

Mark Bowditch,

That is freakin' excellent, man. Thanks. I wasn't actually expecting pictures with citations. That's above and beyond.

This is essentially what I've been looking for, but I have to ask a question about the "war coat." Do you think that constitutes padded armor, or just a uniform? It looks extremely thin for protective use. However, that could just be because it's really old.

Another question: I know the Chinese used armor fairly extensively. Did their double weapon techniques develop in a "field of war" sort of context, or was it more a personal type of combative form?

[rahman]

Its never enough for you, is it?

Mark -- me greedy
Actually I was interested in the keris. The photo has something that looks like a badik with an angular handle, but is there actually a Thai keris?

On armor, Rasdan posted in a separate thread photos of Malay armor made of CROCODILE SKIN. He also showed a Bugis keris designed to penetrate chainmail armor, which the Bugis are known to have.

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by rahman

Mark -- me greedy
Actually I was interested in the keris. The photo has something that looks like a badik with an angular handle, but is there actually a Thai keris?

On armor, Rasdan posted in a separate thread photos of Malay armor made of CROCODILE SKIN. He also showed a Bugis keris designed to penetrate chainmail armor, which the Bugis are known to have.

Yes, I remembered that, the Nias armor.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ght=nias+armor

[Mark]

Originally Posted by KrisKross

This is essentially what I've been looking for, but I have to ask a question about the "war coat." Do you think that constitutes padded armor, or just a uniform? It looks extremely thin for protective use. However, that could just be because it's really old.

I am pretty confident in saying that this war coat is not battle armor in sht sense of being intended to stand up to any sort of sustained attack. This is a commander's outfit (possibly princely -- I have to check the reference again), and these guys stayed pretty much out of the mix. I would say, however, that it would have been worn in battle, if nothing else to show the wear's rank and status. I am not sure of the date of this (probably 19th century, just because stuff doesn't last long in that climate). In earlier times, say the 16th and 17th centuries, Burmese and Thai nobles/commanders would often duel from elephant back, something that was at least on one occasion utterly decisive of an entire invasion (Thai prince obliterates Burmese Crown Prince, sending the entire invading Burmese army into panicked retreat). What a sight that must have been! The elephants did as much, or more, fighting as the riders and sometimes ran completely amok. In the duel just mentioned, the Thai elephant basically went nuts and ripped into the Burmese line, chased the Crown Prince to the rear and he was killed under a tree on a hill, in full view of this troops.

But I digress. My point is that in earlier times Thai/Burmese armor, for those allowed to wear it and who could afford it, might well have been more substantial. By the time of this war coat, with tactics such that commanders lead from the rear, preferably from within a nice strong stockade, and when firearms were widely used, it is not surprising that the "armor" devolved into more of a uniform coat (which is what happened in the West over the same time period, of course). I stand by my earlier opinion, however, that the basic Burmese or Thai soldier was virtually unarmored -- they were levee troops who came as they were, and were at most issued a weapon, some rations, and some camping gear to share with their company (i.e., no armor). The equipment issued to levees (or lack thereof) is specified in royal orders from Burma as late as the early 19th century.

Here is another tid-bit that Egerton offers: the Royal bodyguard, called the "Immortals," were believed to be invulnerable and would perform a "war dance" on the tops of stockades during the Anglo-Burmese Wars (the first one, at least) to taunt the enemy, fire up their own side, and generally show off. They relied on tattoos and amulets implanted under the skin for protection, and were furious (read "absolutely psycho") close-combat sword fighters, charging right into the British lines against musket fire and bayonets. No mention of the number of swords that they used, though.

Originally Posted by rahman

Actually I was interested in the keris. The photo has something that looks like a badik with an angular handle, but is there actually a Thai keris?

The picture from the catalogue does indeed include a badik, which is listed as having been collected in Thailand, but likely originally from Malaysia. The "Heritage of Thai Culture" does not appear to describe a distinctly "Thai" keris, and the photograph, from what I can see, is of fairly typical Bugis keris (two are shown, both with Malayan wrangka and Bugis hilts; the one that is shown out of the sheath is 7 lok -- and the rest is too grainy to distinquish).

Here are the names of keris listed in the "Heritage:"

the straight-bladed dagger of Malaysia, for example, is called the "Sapugal Dagger"; a wavy-bladed dagger on the other hand is called a "Berlok Dagger", while a smooth-bladed dagger with a gold or silver design is called a "Berpamur Dagger" and a dagger with a fingerprint-type on the blade is called a "Pichit Dagger"; a dagger with cursive design on both sides of the blade, is called a "Nakra Dagger".

[KrisKross]

Burmese berserkers?! Nice. I can't even imagine how scary that was. Confrontations like that would have made the early invention of the Port-O-Pottie extremely profitable.

Double weapons had a place, and I can only guess that in the middle of a huge formation of other other soldiers wasn't it. So large armies wouldn't have bothered, I suppose. However, I'm told by other students and instructors that Krabi-Krabong (Thai weapon art) was often used to defend passages and gates with small numbers of troops (maybe even just one). That would be pretty crazy work with no protection, even if you were good. I remember the lessons of Thermopylae, but damn...

The tin and aligator armor in the "Unusual Keris" thread is extremely intriguing to me, though. Did the Nais use double weapons?

Question: why would any culture capable fo forging metal not come to the conclusion to wear it, or some other form of protection, to defeat metal weapons? The Moros did, but some other cultures seem to lack this basic insight -- or at least have their reasons for not going there.

[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]

Here is the catalogue picture, which as I recall RSword sent me. My mind is fried right now, so I apologize if I have that wrong. I just want to give credit where it is due. It is Thai, not Burmese as I first said (such a mind I have ...)


The captions read:
"19: (6356) War Coat; made of cotton printed all over with designs in red, blue and yellow, large grotesque faces on back and front; inside lined with coarser blue cloth."
"20 (6355) War Hat; bell shaped, of moulded buffalo hide, painted red and ornamented with designs in gold leaf on outer surface; surmounted with a gilt wood boss. Diamer 13 3/4 inches. Height 8 inches. Top of crown broken slightly also a crack in rim."

You can't see it very well, but this Thai gentleman is wearing a war hat:


Other stuff I found:
Egerton, "An Illustrated Handbook of Indian Arms and Those of Nepal, Burma, Thailand and Malaya" (1880):
-Egerton makes reference to the Burmese general Bandula wearing "armor" during the First Anglo-Burmese War (1982) (p. 93, footnote 1), which he describes as "mixed plate and quilted, resembling central Indian work." P.95, note 259. He notes that a very similar suit was worn by Sikh chiefs at the Mogul court in the lat 17th C, implying that it was in fact Indian and not native armor.
-Egerton also mentions lacquered leather helmets/hats and shields used in Burma and among the hill tribes of Burma and NE India. What Egerton shows as a Khampti Shan helmet from Assam bears a remarkable similarity to what this chap is wearing:

OK, not exactly historical art, but its a traditional Burmese marionette (he's not wearing armor, but he only has one sword!).
-Egerton also illustrates (p. 95, fig. 22) a Burmese double sword consisting of two straight blades with long handles, the blade of one being inserted into the handle of the other so that the while looks like a staff, but when pulled at the ends one gets a sword in each hand.
-Egerton states that "coats of mail are still used by the [Malay] natives of Celebes"

Stone's "Glossary": Fig. 82 shows Malayan armor of hide, heavy cord, and cloth with bark scales; fig. 83 shows mail-and-plate Moro armor

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

Here is the catalogue picture, which as I recall RSword sent me. My mind is fried right now, so I apologize if I have that wrong. I just want to give credit where it is due. It is Thai, not Burmese as I first said (such a mind I have ...)

The captions read:
"19: (6356) War Coat; made of cotton printed all over with designs in red, blue and yellow, large grotesque faces on back and front; inside lined with coarser blue cloth."
"20 (6355) War Hat; bell shaped, of moulded buffalo hide, painted red and ornamented with designs in gold leaf on outer surface; surmounted with a gilt wood boss. Diamer 13 3/4 inches. Height 8 inches. Top of crown broken slightly also a crack in rim."

You can't see it very well, but this Thai gentleman is wearing a war hat:

Other stuff I found:
Egerton, "An Illustrated Handbook of Indian Arms and Those of Nepal, Burma, Thailand and Malaya" (1880):
-Egerton makes reference to the Burmese general Bandula wearing "armor" during the First Anglo-Burmese War (1982) (p. 93, footnote 1), which he describes as "mixed plate and quilted, resembling central Indian work." P.95, note 259. He notes that a very similar suit was worn by Sikh chiefs at the Mogul court in the lat 17th C, implying that it was in fact Indian and not native armor.
-Egerton also mentions lacquered leather helmets/hats and shields used in Burma and among the hill tribes of Burma and NE India. What Egerton shows as a Khampti Shan helmet from Assam bears a remarkable similarity to what this chap is wearing:

OK, not exactly historical art, but its a traditional Burmese marionette (he's not wearing armor, but he only has one sword!).
-Egerton also illustrates (p. 95, fig. 22) a Burmese double sword consisting of two straight blades with long handles, the blade of one being inserted into the handle of the other so that the while looks like a staff, but when pulled at the ends one gets a sword in each hand.
-Egerton states that "coats of mail are still used by the [Malay] natives of Celebes"

Stone's "Glossary": Fig. 82 shows Malayan armor of hide, heavy cord, and cloth with bark scales; fig. 83 shows mail-and-plate Moro armor

Brilliant pictures.

The pattern on the cloth of the "war-coat" looks strikingly like chinese "mountain pattern scale armour". I wonder if this was real armour several centuries ago, but over time patterned cloth was adopted instead.
http://www.armourarchive.org/essays/Shanwenkia.pdf

AFAIK Moro mail was unrivetted, so it would have been easier to penetrate compared to rivetted mail and probably would not have not have needed specialised weapons.

[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.

[MABAGANI]

My books are in storage at the moment, but I recall in text by Prof. Warren on the Balangingi and Iranun, he writes about warriors in prep for a sea raid who were equipped with shields, spears and swords, aside from grappling tools, etc. re: multi weapon use, he goes on that they were known to have a sword in one hand, shield and sword in the other. In drawings, it appears the warrior wore the sleeveless padded vest/armor types, note on effectiveness, maybe obvious in consideration of the climate that they preferred light armor over heavy all out gear.

[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.