Question About SEA Armor

[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]

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)