Armour in the Wild West

Jim McDougall · 25th June 2009, 08:02 PM

Great information Barry! The idea of armor in many ways approximating anatomy is seen also in cases of many African shields, where the elements of the shield were often called by terms associated to anatomy, such as spine, ribs. Interesting also in the use of animal components as elements for various types of weapons and armor. As noted earlier, the gorget has stood as a fascinating vestigial element of armor well known in military regalia for some time. It is interesting that these have always been presumed to have entered the Indian cultures post contact, but it seems possible that they were in effect around long before that..perhaps with other symbolism?

Ausjulius, it would seem that I must have misapplied the comment on Maori use of chain mail, and probably interpolated with the established Moro use. I did do some checking though, and did find one interesting instance in which armour did at least some degree of use, if only as a novelty. In "Museum, Anthropology and Imperial Exchange" (Amiria J.M.Henare, p.105) two Maori chiefs voyaged with the schoolmaster Thomas Kendall to London in 1820.
They were introduced to King George IV, who presented them with gifts including a suit of armour to Chief Hongi Hika, who upon his return to New Zealand, wore this in attacks on his old enemies.
It is noted that Thomsen ("Story of New Zealand" Vol.I , 1859, p.256) observed that this suit of armour had been pieced out to various individuals by 1859, and in 1849 the breastplate alone had been in the possession of a chief near source of Waipa river and in 1853, the other chief from the voyage had buried the helmet with his dead son.

Other references noted that since fighting among Maori tribes involved mostly hand to hand combat with clubs and similar weapons that armour was not worn, and warriors donned only the grass skirts. Therefore, no real evidence of chain mail, but the instance of the gift armour was of interest.

All best regards,
Jim

aiontay · 26th June 2009, 02:00 AM

I just got back from a business conference in Houston, so a few disjointed comments; hopefully I write some more comments later. First, superstition is in the eye of the beholder, so I treat explanations that rely on "ceremonial" causes with a bit of caution. Maybe they left the steel breastplates because they were in a hurry and they were too heavy (there's a story about Kiowas leaving a huge gov't. shipment of gold coins and taking a huge load of sugar after a successful raid because they liked sugar, but couldn't figure out a use for the gold), or may be they didn't have chisels or files at the time to cut up the metal. As for swords, they were used extensively in combat; there is plenty of ledger art as well as written sources that attest to this. I just recently ran across a Spanish account from the 18th century that notes the Pawnee were well armed with guns and swords. I don't recall the Tonkawas having an iron shirt but there were several "Iron Shirts" out on the Plains in various tribes. One of the first Cheyenne casualties in the fight where they lost their Medicine Arrows to the Pawnees was a Cheyenne with an mail shirt; he was shot through the eye.

As for gorgets, I'll have to remember to ask about the symbolism, at least in the Southeastern system. That should be pretty easy to do. As Vandoo notes gorgets have been around a while. I've never heard of gar fish being used as armor. The scales were definitely used as arrow heads and the teeth are still used by one of my friends and others for scratching during Green Corn ceremonials, but the smaller gar teeth, not alligator gar since their teeth are too dull.

Jim McDougall · 26th June 2009, 02:16 PM

Aiontay, its good to see you back, and thanks as always for the great input.
Interesting notes on the Indian use of swords, and I very much look forward to hearing more on these instances. The comments I noted were mostly based on swords from the mid to latter 19th century, and some instances where these were held only in what appeared ceremonial use. The use of sabres seems to have fallen out of use by the cavalry as well, at least by the time of the Little Big Horn, despite there being some singular and vague reference to same there.

Thanks Ausjulius for the additional notes on the Maori. I was just realizing how little is typically discussed on the weaponry of these warriors, and perhaps this might be a great topic for an independant thread.

All best regards,
Jim

aiontay · 27th June 2009, 01:33 AM

Yes, by the mid 19th Century swords were probably not as widely used; a pistol would be better. Nevertheless, the ledger art indicates they were used all the way to the end of the fighting on the Plains.

I did consult with two friends (one Choctaw and one Seminole) regarding gorgets. The original shell ones indicated clan/religious-political office. Of course, since in the SE religious/political status depended in part on clan affiliation, the gorgets frequently indicated both things simultaneously. The Choctaw tradition says the first metal gorgets were gifts from the Spanish, which would indicate an introduction by the mid 1600s at the latest. Apparently the Chickasaws had a series of bars engraved on the gorgets that indicated status.

Chris Evans · 27th June 2009, 01:57 AM

Hi Folks,

I suspect that the answer to the riddle of why was armour abandoned in the WW, resides in that once firearms gained ascendancy, it probably would have made more sense to carry extra ammunition and loaded pistols than tens of pounds of armour.

From what I gather, cuirasses made some sense in military battles in affording some marginal protection against light shrapnel, spent bullets and ill directed sword cuts and lance thrusts, but this only in the European context. Once distances were vast, supplies stretched to the limit, self sufficiency and mobility of troopers becoming paramount, there were more important items to carry along than heavy armour.

Just my thoughts....

Cheers
Chris

ausjulius · 26th June 2009, 02:05 AM

yup it was the suit i was thginking about,
yes normaly maori combat was involving any armor or large amounts of projectile weapons, no doubt they new of them but didnt use them..
they did have very long lances.. 20 or 30 feet and other weapons like darts and javalins and such but i think these were not frequently used as they were considered cowardly.
there is a lot of accounts of maori standing in the open unprotected and reciving cannon shot while waiting for their oponants to close for hand to hand combat..
i guess this changes after guns became more common as they basicaly reversed their fighting from ritual to desperate trench style warfare with their pa's

25th June 2009, 08:02 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Great information Barry! The idea of armor in many ways approximating anatomy is seen also in cases of many African shields, where the elements of the shield were often called by terms associated to anatomy, such as spine, ribs. Interesting also in the use of animal components as elements for various types of weapons and armor. As noted earlier, the gorget has stood as a fascinating vestigial element of armor well known in military regalia for some time. It is interesting that these have always been presumed to have entered the Indian cultures post contact, but it seems possible that they were in effect around long before that..perhaps with other symbolism? Ausjulius, it would seem that I must have misapplied the comment on Maori use of chain mail, and probably interpolated with the established Moro use. I did do some checking though, and did find one interesting instance in which armour did at least some degree of use, if only as a novelty. In "Museum, Anthropology and Imperial Exchange" (Amiria J.M.Henare, p.105) two Maori chiefs voyaged with the schoolmaster Thomas Kendall to London in 1820. They were introduced to King George IV, who presented them with gifts including a suit of armour to Chief Hongi Hika, who upon his return to New Zealand, wore this in attacks on his old enemies. It is noted that Thomsen ("Story of New Zealand" Vol.I , 1859, p.256) observed that this suit of armour had been pieced out to various individuals by 1859, and in 1849 the breastplate alone had been in the possession of a chief near source of Waipa river and in 1853, the other chief from the voyage had buried the helmet with his dead son. Other references noted that since fighting among Maori tribes involved mostly hand to hand combat with clubs and similar weapons that armour was not worn, and warriors donned only the grass skirts. Therefore, no real evidence of chain mail, but the instance of the gift armour was of interest. All best regards, Jim

26th June 2009, 02:00 AM	#2
aiontay Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 88	I just got back from a business conference in Houston, so a few disjointed comments; hopefully I write some more comments later. First, superstition is in the eye of the beholder, so I treat explanations that rely on "ceremonial" causes with a bit of caution. Maybe they left the steel breastplates because they were in a hurry and they were too heavy (there's a story about Kiowas leaving a huge gov't. shipment of gold coins and taking a huge load of sugar after a successful raid because they liked sugar, but couldn't figure out a use for the gold), or may be they didn't have chisels or files at the time to cut up the metal. As for swords, they were used extensively in combat; there is plenty of ledger art as well as written sources that attest to this. I just recently ran across a Spanish account from the 18th century that notes the Pawnee were well armed with guns and swords. I don't recall the Tonkawas having an iron shirt but there were several "Iron Shirts" out on the Plains in various tribes. One of the first Cheyenne casualties in the fight where they lost their Medicine Arrows to the Pawnees was a Cheyenne with an mail shirt; he was shot through the eye. As for gorgets, I'll have to remember to ask about the symbolism, at least in the Southeastern system. That should be pretty easy to do. As Vandoo notes gorgets have been around a while. I've never heard of gar fish being used as armor. The scales were definitely used as arrow heads and the teeth are still used by one of my friends and others for scratching during Green Corn ceremonials, but the smaller gar teeth, not alligator gar since their teeth are too dull.

26th June 2009, 02:16 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	Aiontay, its good to see you back, and thanks as always for the great input. Interesting notes on the Indian use of swords, and I very much look forward to hearing more on these instances. The comments I noted were mostly based on swords from the mid to latter 19th century, and some instances where these were held only in what appeared ceremonial use. The use of sabres seems to have fallen out of use by the cavalry as well, at least by the time of the Little Big Horn, despite there being some singular and vague reference to same there. Thanks Ausjulius for the additional notes on the Maori. I was just realizing how little is typically discussed on the weaponry of these warriors, and perhaps this might be a great topic for an independant thread. All best regards, Jim

27th June 2009, 01:33 AM	#4
aiontay Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 88	Yes, by the mid 19th Century swords were probably not as widely used; a pistol would be better. Nevertheless, the ledger art indicates they were used all the way to the end of the fighting on the Plains. I did consult with two friends (one Choctaw and one Seminole) regarding gorgets. The original shell ones indicated clan/religious-political office. Of course, since in the SE religious/political status depended in part on clan affiliation, the gorgets frequently indicated both things simultaneously. The Choctaw tradition says the first metal gorgets were gifts from the Spanish, which would indicate an introduction by the mid 1600s at the latest. Apparently the Chickasaws had a series of bars engraved on the gorgets that indicated status.

27th June 2009, 01:57 AM	#5
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Hi Folks, I suspect that the answer to the riddle of why was armour abandoned in the WW, resides in that once firearms gained ascendancy, it probably would have made more sense to carry extra ammunition and loaded pistols than tens of pounds of armour. From what I gather, cuirasses made some sense in military battles in affording some marginal protection against light shrapnel, spent bullets and ill directed sword cuts and lance thrusts, but this only in the European context. Once distances were vast, supplies stretched to the limit, self sufficiency and mobility of troopers becoming paramount, there were more important items to carry along than heavy armour. Just my thoughts.... Cheers Chris

26th June 2009, 02:05 AM	#6
ausjulius Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: musorian territory Posts: 444	yup it was the suit i was thginking about, yes normaly maori combat was involving any armor or large amounts of projectile weapons, no doubt they new of them but didnt use them.. they did have very long lances.. 20 or 30 feet and other weapons like darts and javalins and such but i think these were not frequently used as they were considered cowardly. there is a lot of accounts of maori standing in the open unprotected and reciving cannon shot while waiting for their oponants to close for hand to hand combat.. i guess this changes after guns became more common as they basicaly reversed their fighting from ritual to desperate trench style warfare with their pa's