Armour in the Wild West

[Jim McDougall]

While we are familiar with the study of medieval armour, it is interesting to find that perhaps armour was not so resoundingly obsolete with the advent of firearms after all. It has always seemed interesting that the means of proofing armour was to fire bullets at it, and the dent was considered proof it was soundly made and acceptable....hence the term 'bulletproof'.
Clearly the reduction of the armour components was not entirely due to the use of firearms, but more for flexibility in movement as methods of combat changed.
As early as 1538, Negroli was commissioned to create a bulletproof vest for Francesco Maria Della Revere.

As we look into the history of the 'wild west' , we find that this term extended far down under as well, into 1880's Australia, and the outlaw gang of Ned Kelly, who are renowned for the phenomenon of wearing crudely fabricated suits of armour in a bizarre anachronistic fashion.
These incredibly heavy suits covered the torso, and were made of old plough metal weighing an incredibly uncomfortable 94 pounds. They were worn under full length covercoats and the police were astounded by the invulnerability of these men to gunfire until a helmet was seen being worn, believed only by Kelly.

This brought to mind the question of bulletproof vests in the west, were they actually worn? We know that during the Civil War, some of the Union troops did purchase steel breastplates, though as uncomfortable as they were , most were abandoned.

Certainly heavy steel was impractical for defensive wear, as painfully discovered by the Kelly gang, when their uncovered limbs were shot full of wounds, and they could not move fast enough to make a gainful escape. It is said that armour, as we know not limited to steel, is also fabricated of various kinds of cloth, even silk. It is said that silk can in fact either stop or impede the travel of bullets, especially the lower velocity black powder types.

In Joseon Dynasty Korea, during the U.S. expedition of 1871, the forces were puzzled at the fact that the Koreans seemed unaffected by gunfire, finding that they were apparantly wearing heavily folded cotton vests of as many as 30 folds. One unfortunate result for these bulletproof soldiers was that they were not impervious to the hot metal of cannon shell fragments, actually igniting some of them. One of these bulletproof vests was apparantly displayed until fairly recent times in the Smithsonian, now having returned to Korea.

I just thought these were interesting notes in the days pre-Kevlar, and am wondering if there are accounts of bulletproof protection, whether steel or fabric, having been used in the west by gunfighters or others.

[Emanuel]

Hello Jim,

I don't really have anything meaningful to add to the subject, besides a wonder at the development of body armour into modern times, but I just want to say thank you for always bringing such interesting subjects of conversation :) You encourage us to delve deep into the study of arms and armour and consider everything.

Thank you for that, and please keep it up my friend!

Warmest regards,
Emanuel

[BBJW]

Cole Younger of the James Younger Gang wore a heavy salt brine layered leather vest. It would stop a lot of the cap and ball revolver rounds of the day as well as buckshot at a little farther out. It would not stop heavier rifle rounds.

bbjw

[M ELEY]

Excellent subject matter indeed, Jim. I was unaware of Union forces being offered body armor. Fascinating information. I'm not surprised that it was considered (Emperor Napolean III's cuarassiers were still wearing them into the mid-19th century) and rejected (many of the Union soldiers wouldn't even carry their M1860 issued swords, deeming them useless in battle. That's why many of these swords are in such good shape). Let us not forget the Native American bone breast plates worn by chiefs that were often adorned with British gorgets from a century before. Although not common, they were worn to deflect arrows, spears and bullets from afar. I remember reading about the Egyptian Khedieve (King) and his troops known as the "Iron Men", who still wore breastplates into the late-19th century.
Betcha G. Custer would have given his hair for a good breastplate at the Big Horn. :rolleyes:

[fearn]

Hi Jim,

I don't have any good armor anecdotes to add. Still, I keep thinking about the Ghost Dance shirts of the Lakota, that were supposed to stop bullets and did not, and of the scarves worn by the old capoeiristas, which didn't stop bullets, but did keep their opponents straight razors from slitting their throats.

F

[M ELEY]

http://books.google.com/books?id=kK2cjAhojt8C&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=khedive+iron+men&source=bl&ots=D_ngc4n2P-&sig=MHIVEdrsGEt5A5gn-S0bRRrOWRE&hl=en&ei=8RQ7SoWETwfsp6kE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you so much guys!
I really appreciate the kind words, and I do tend to wander off on esoterica in arms and you guys always come up with great items of information that add to learning on them.
Emanuel, you may not have material at the moment...but if I know you, you soon will have :) you seem to have a way to find things and add unique perspective, thank you!
BJ, thanks for the info on the Youngers...never thought of brine soaked leather...though leather was of course well known back into the Spanish colonial days the Southwest....the Soldados de Cuero (leatherjackets) wore these to stop Apache arrows.
Mark, I hadnt heard of the Khedives 'iron men' ( a few chords of Ozzy...."Iron Man" :) need to look more into that.
Speaking of Napoleons cuirassiers, I recall reading about Waterloo in John Keegan's "Face of Battle" many years ago, and the description of the constant sound like hail on a tin roof, of all the bullets constantly hitting armor, helmets, swords etc.
There was probably a lot of things Custer would have wished for at the Little Big Horn!

All the best,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jim,

I don't have any good armor anecdotes to add. Still, I keep thinking about the Ghost Dance shirts of the Lakota, that were supposed to stop bullets and did not, and of the scarves worn by the old capoeiristas, which didn't stop bullets, but did keep their opponents straight razors from slitting their throats.

F

Good stuff Fearn!
Actually what I'm thinking of is not just armour, but bulletproofing, whether steel, silk, leather or whatever....and had forgotten the 'Ghost Dance'. The idea of apotropaics is definitely a pertinant associated perspective, thank you for adding these.

All the best,
Jim

[Marc]

For a fascinating overview of this very subject in such a terrible testing ground as was WWI, I reccomend:

DEAN, Bashford, "Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare".

The original book was published in 1920 (I think) and summarizes the conclusions of a commitee at the head of which was Dean himself (by then Arms & Armour curator of the MET), dealing with the analysis of personal body protection during the past conflict in order to make new (theroretically useful) proposals for the army in this field.

Or something like that. :)

An original is extremely hard to find and expensive, but there's been at least a couple of modern editions in the last few years, and they can be found at a good price.

[fernando]

I have enjoyed watching Mick Jaeger in the role of famous Ned Kelly.
The helmet he wore looks so real as the actual armour used by Ned in 1880.
Fernando

.

[kronckew]

while they turned out to be not very bullet proof, the mahdi's army wore armour at the battle of omdurman in 1898, where winston churchill led a charge of the 21st lancers against them. some references to horses of the mahdi's forces wearing quilted armour, and of the chain mail shattering under british sabre blows due it's fragility due to it's age and condition.
the lancers did not wear armour and some, including churchill used their pistols more than lance & sabre. at least till they ran out of ammo.

[Jim McDougall]

Marc, wonderful suggestion to a reference written by one of arms and armour's true sages! Bashford Dean. I had heard of body armour's use in some degree in WWI, and these times were of considerable innovation, so the discussion on these topics must be excellent by Mr. Dean. I hope I will be able to find a copy at some point to review. Thank you for adding this!

Fernando, excellent movie, and I forgot that Mick Jagger had been in this. I caught a glimpse of only part of it....its a must see, thank you for the reminder, and I'll get it in my list of movies to watch. Always loved the 'Stones' music and interesting that Jagger (and Bowie) stand as pretty good actors as well. Thanks very much for the reminder and for posting the great photos of this armour! Reminds me a bit of the Tin Man in "Wizard of Oz" :)

Kronckew, thank you for the notes on the Mahdists, and especially the notes on the chain mail breaking from condition, I have seen references noting the often questionable servicability of chain mail when not properly maintained, and though Arkell has written on the manufacture of chain mail in the Sudan, it must have been expensive for the rank and file to acquire.

I recall having read about the Mahdists actually tightly binding thier bodies with tightly wound strips of cloth so as to give the the physical integrity to continue fighting as long as possible despite repeated bullet wounds. It seems that the revolver was greatly in demand to pump as many bullets as possible into these charging warriors, perhaps with that in mind.

Thanks again guys!!
All the best,
Jim

[aiontay]

If the bone breastplates of past centuries were like the ones today (and I'm not aware that they are constructed any different except for those horrid plastic "bone" beads) then they weren't something I'd go in to battle wearing for protection. The shape of the bead- which tapers from the center in both directions- and the rather loose construction would make it easy for an arrow, lance, saber, knife etc to slip through. It might work against vertical/ diagonal cuts pretty well I suppose, but those glass beads might shatter. Likewise, while gorgets were and are still pretty popular (this time of year they're pretty commonly seen around here), I think even back in the 18th century they were more decorative than functional for most tribes.

Some of the California and NW Coast tribes had wooden armor made from rods, as well as leather armor. On the Northern Plains in the 18th Century there were war shirts made with multiple layers of hide with sand mixed with glue between each layer. These shirts dropped out of use as guns became more common. There were also occassional mail shirts that turned up on Plains.

[Jim McDougall]

Its great to see you in on this Aiontay, and of course your perspective on these hairpipe breastplates is very well placed. Great information on the hide layered with sand between layers, which I had never heard of, despite being aware of leather used as protection against arrows.




In looking further into more on the hairpipe regalia, which appears to have originated in about first quarter 19th century with Comanche's (though there are undoubtedly, as always ,varying opinions), these seem to have spread widely among southern Plains tribes, certainly farther with thier movements.

There is a pretty interesting account on these by John C. Ewers in
"Hair Pipes in Plains Indian Adornment: A Study in Indian and White Ingenuity", Anthropological Papers #50, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 164, Smithsonian reprint (from 1957), 1996. pp.29-85.

Basically it seems that the breastplates, much as the multi-row chokers, were essentially regalia and decorative costume, though there would seem to have been some deeper representation possible in many cases. It seems that these were not items to be used in warfare, as noted.

The gorget has always been an interesting item of vestigial armour, which of course is worn not as an element of protection but symbol or rank or certain ceremonial application. As noted, these were worn by British officers in the 18th century and I believe were probably adopted by the American Indians not only for apparant value as elements of rank, but possibly the close similarity to the crescent which was important in much tribal symbology.
It would be interesting at some point to learn more on the history of the gorget, I recently encountered a guy who is working on his doctoral thesis on them.

From other reading I have found that apparantly the steel breastplates were not particularly of interest to tribal warriors, and that in colonial America, one cuirass which was left among materials in one abandoned post, was found several years later still sitting and rusted through. The Indians had apparantly taken much else, but left this as unimportant or useful.
There is a much later account, though I cannot locate the exact reference, of a warrior who was called 'iron shirt' for his apparant deflection of bullets. It was later discovered he indeed was wearing all or part of an old Spanish breastplate under his clothing.

Returning to the outlaw faction in the wild west, there was apparantly a gunfighter (actually more of an assassin) who was called 'deacon Jim' for the long black frock coat he wore, attacking at night. Underneath he wore a steel plate over his chest. His time period seems to have been the turn of the century in Oklahoma (he was hanged Apr. 19,1909).
The first records for bullet proof vests officially, U.S. Patent and Trademark office, were from 1919, and the first documented demonstration of such a vest was with the metropolitan police in Washington in 1931.

From most of what I have read on the old unrifled guns and muskets, the accuracy was so questionable in most cases that bulletproof armor was probably not considered essential (myself I would want one...just in case!). I have understood the whole purpose of volley firing was essentially to be sure of hitting something, though that is certainly more perception than fact.
Obviously, close quarters fighting and melee would tighten the range of accuracy considerably, and strengthen the case for such protection.

I really do appreciate everyone joining in on this, and hope we can continue looking into other examples and instances. Briefly returning to the more magical and apotropaic perspective, I recall in research on the 'running wolf' that the purpose of so called 'Passau art' or talismanic markings on blades and amulets worn by soldiers, was to protect them in battle, especially from bullets.

All best regards,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks again everybody! Great run!! :)

BTW, while helping my daughter move this week, moved some of my son in laws gear from his time in Iraq.....that kevlar vest is heavy!!! :)

[ausjulius]

"From other reading I have found that apparantly the steel breastplates were not particularly of interest to tribal warriors, and that in colonial America, one cuirass which was left among materials in one abandoned post, was found several years later still sitting and rusted through. The Indians had apparantly taken much else, but left this as unimportant or useful."

damn those indians must have been as dumb and door stops or that anicdote is probably not true..

i cannot see any primative people leaving a sheet of metal so valued to the in a thin state sitting on the ground.. unless for some supersticious reasons...

as to the armor.... i guess in a western setting in recent times i cant think of anything. i know till very recent times.. 1890s.. iin parts of mongolia and tibet silk was used under armor to stop bullets and arrows.. and worked rather well..
and to armor.. i understand several maori chiefs used armor and european swords..
one chief after visiting england was giver a suit of armor from the king and sword. and apon return to new zealand used it to good effect.. would have been 1820s or before.. being imprevious to bullets and dressed in a finely made renaissance suit or armor with matching sword used this as his wounder weapon to subdue the surrounding tribes with ease..
i do seem to recall padded steel breast plates were offered for slae in the 19th century and were used by mail couriers and armed guards transporting money and gold..

[Jim McDougall]

"From other reading I have found that apparantly the steel breastplates were not particularly of interest to tribal warriors, and that in colonial America, one cuirass which was left among materials in one abandoned post, was found several years later still sitting and rusted through. The Indians had apparantly taken much else, but left this as unimportant or useful."

damn those indians must have been as dumb and door stops or that anicdote is probably not true..

i cannot see any primative people leaving a sheet of metal so valued to the in a thin state sitting on the ground.. unless for some supersticious reasons...

as to the armor.... i guess in a western setting in recent times i cant think of anything. i know till very recent times.. 1890s.. iin parts of mongolia and tibet silk was used under armor to stop bullets and arrows.. and worked rather well..
and to armor.. i understand several maori chiefs used armor and european swords..
one chief after visiting england was giver a suit of armor from the king and sword. and apon return to new zealand used it to good effect.. would have been 1820s or before.. being imprevious to bullets and dressed in a finely made renaissance suit or armor with matching sword used this as his wounder weapon to subdue the surrounding tribes with ease..
i do seem to recall padded steel breast plates were offered for slae in the 19th century and were used by mail couriers and armed guards transporting money and gold..


Good stuff Ausjulius! Thank you for posting.
Actually I think you hit it pretty soundly with the American Indian warriors, there was indeed a great deal of superstition...but these warriors were brilliant...often held to be among the worlds finest light cavalry.
In many campaigns during the Indian Wars certain chiefs were commended by American officers for the exemplary way they carried out thier warfare.

I believe the Maoris, much as the Moros, were inclined to use chain mail and indeed probably had occasion to use European weapons.

I hadnt heard of the padded breast plates for armed guards and couriers in the 19th century. Do you have more details?

Thank you again for posting and for the great observations!
All the best,
Jim

[BBJW]

Excellent subject matter indeed, Jim. I was unaware of Union forces being offered body armor. Fascinating information. I'm not surprised that it was considered (Emperor Napolean III's cuarassiers were still wearing them into the mid-19th century) and rejected (many of the Union soldiers wouldn't even carry their M1860 issued swords, deeming them useless in battle. That's why many of these swords are in such good shape). Let us not forget the Native American bone breast plates worn by chiefs that were often adorned with British gorgets from a century before. Although not common, they were worn to deflect arrows, spears and bullets from afar. I remember reading about the Egyptian Khedieve (King) and his troops known as the "Iron Men", who still wore breastplates into the late-19th century.
Betcha G. Custer would have given his hair for a good breastplate at the Big Horn. :rolleyes:

A breastplate wouldn't have helped Custer much. Many of the Indians were armed with Winchesters. Not to mention heavy caliber muzzleloaders and assorted breechloaders.

bbjw

[M ELEY]

Of course, you are right. I was just joking. On an interesting side note, is is said that despite all that Custer did to the Souix, they still had great respect for the man! When his body was recovered, he had been scalped, but otherwise, intact. All of the other soldiers at the BigHorn had been horribly mutilated out of vengence (per Native American beliefs, they would look like this in the afterlife). Interesting...

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

A fascinating subject.

This is broadening the initial post by Jim, but tank crews used chain mail facial protection during WWI. Helmets are still in use and riot police use plastic armour reminiscent of Roman and medieval times. And then cavalry throughout the 19th century, used "armour" by way of hidden chain and sundry similar reinforcements in uniforms, to protect against sabre slashes.

In the natural Sciences Museum of La Plata, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina, there used to be an exhibit of a leather armour made for an Indian chief. From memory, it was made from seven layers of leather, and I have a faint recollection it having stopped a bullet, but not quite sure of this as I am going back some twenty years on this one. It lacked sophistication and was of a very primitive design, a bit like a potato sack.

I wonder how the French Cuirassiers fared during their Mexican campaign during the 1860s - Perhaps Gonzalo could chime in on this one.

Cheers
Chris

[fernando]

... I wonder how the French Cuirassiers fared during their Mexican campaign during the 1860s - Perhaps Gonzalo could chime in on this one...
Maybe Gonzalo has one in his collection ;) .
A 1854 French cuirass.
Fernando

.

[Jim McDougall]

Of course, you are right. I was just joking. On an interesting side note, is is said that despite all that Custer did to the Souix, they still had great respect for the man! When his body was recovered, he had been scalped, but otherwise, intact. All of the other soldiers at the BigHorn had been horribly mutilated out of vengence (per Native American beliefs, they would look like this in the afterlife). Interesting...
LOL! I was right with ya Mark!! :) and no doubt any kind of armour would have been enthusiastically received! if nothing else for moral support. This event has ever since often served as an analogy for any 'hopeless' situation.

It truly is worthy of note that Custer's body was spared the terrible mutilations of the others, typically carried out by the Indian women after the combat with the pent up rage they felt, especially for those they had lost, and as noted by Mark, for the afterlife.
While I would consider the perception toward Custer more as 'regard' in his capacity as a 'chief' than respect, it is known that certain less dramatic, nonetheless symbolic, bodily mutilation was applied in that his eardrums were punctured. This is thought to have some meaning to do with 'his words' and was carried out by Indian squaws.

The soldiers were horribly outgunned, and it is true that the warriors did have a number of Henry and Winchester repeaters which both fired .44 rimfire ammunition.The U.S. government in thier frugal 'wisdom' issued single shot carbines to troops to prevent excessive use and would 'be wasteful' ! Obviously not a very prudent perspective here. There are also numerous references to jamming from both sides in the battle. This would hardly be surprising in frantic, repeating firing of the guns and the enormous amounts of dry, Montana plains dust that would have been in clouds with the intense movements of horsemen in concentrated areas. There are reports of broken knife blades and jammed actions found among the debris.
The archaeological reports of the excavations at Little Big Horn battlesite in the 1980's led to incredible forensics and ballistic studies that revealed a great deal in better understanding the use of the weapons there.

Interesting information Chris on the face mail, and I have seen the shields used by riot police in the phalanx (?)formation. The use of leather on the frontiers of New Spain is indeed well known as the Soldados de Cuero found that heavily padded leather provided protection from Indian arrows. The use of guns in those times was quite limited earlier, and even later the lack of gunpowder caused even the Spanish to rely more on the lance as a weapon.

I had not heard of the layered leather vests in South America, and it would be indeed interesting to know more toward ballistic results on these. I think that as we had noted earlier, the earlier low velocity bullets may have been stopped or at least impeded by leather or heavily folded fabric, but the higher power bullets, probably not.

Good suggestion on the cuirassiers in the campaigns in Mexico..Gonzalo where are ya?!!

In a documentary just on about the Romanovs, and the massacre of the Royal Family in Russia in 1918,the young girls were apparantly not killed by the gunfire and ultimately bayonetted and bludgeoned. It was found the bullets were deflected by corsets laden with diamonds and jewels.
Just interesting note while I was writing this :)

All best regards,
Jim

[colin henshaw]

Very interesting topic. To add a few more African perspectives on "bulletproofing" :-

During the early 20th century "Maji Maji" native uprising in the then German East Africa, African diviners gave their warriors a magic concoction that would (they thought) turn the German bullets into water !

The Ashanti warriors of the 19th century wore smocks covered with many leather pouches filled with talismans, which gave both a magical protection against bullets and some possible actual protection against low velocity black powder projectiles (sometimes bits of metal or stones).

The 19th century warriors of the Sultanate of Bornu used cuirasses made of iron and iron helmets.

For what its worth...

Regards

[ausjulius]

I believe the Maoris, much as the Moros, were inclined to use chain mail and indeed probably had occasion to use European weapons.

I hadnt heard of the padded breast plates for armed guards and couriers in the 19th century. Do you have more details?

Thank you again for posting and for the great observations!
All the best,
Jim
hi jim.. yes.. honestly the desire for iron among the american natives and their value of it.. i couldnt see a breastplate being discarded unless they had leaft it for some great fear or a superstitious kind..

i think the tlingit and hada and other peoples along the pacific coast did make mail from metal washers and coins. and also wooden and shell armor but i think ti was more to deflect their own weapons, darts and arrows and not realy related to protection from bullets. although from what i understand these people had common use of firearms since the 1770s as the main weapon..


as the maoris using chain mail.. i have never heard of this..
it would be interesting to see something about that.

as to the metal plates for armor guards in the 19th century .. i seem to recall seeing several thins.. but i cant remember where. i i think one might have been an addvertisment.. for a padded steel plate.. i seem to recall pinkerton or wells fargo.. or others may have used these......
i guess they were porably the same as the metal breast plates sold during the civil war..
i do recall seeing some place somebody may have made and sold chain mail shirts or some such crazy think in the u.s. in the 19th century also..




.

[Chris Evans]

Maybe Gonzalo has one in his collection ;) .
A 1854 French cuirass.
Fernando

.

Hi Fernando,

A very handsome piece - Is it yours?

Cheers
Chris

[fernando]

Hi Fernando,

A very handsome piece - Is it yours?

Cheers
Chris

Oh no, Chris :o .

Just found it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirassier

In this area, i only have this part:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10276

Best
Fernando.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Ausjulius,
I do believe you are right on the American Indian tribes of the Northwest fashioning armour of wood and material using metal attachments, and as you note, am not aware of intended deflection of bullets. The advent of iron came late to these regions as far as locally produced metalwork, but they did use copper in considerable degree. While they could produce copper items, I believe they obtained a great deal of copper from trade, as well as from sheathing on wrecked ships that were lost along the coast in those endeavors.

On the note on Maoris use of chain mail, I will have to check further as I do not recall exactly where that reference was or if perhaps I may have inadvertantly misincluded that along with Moros. There is of course always the possibiity of singular cases from trade or European contact, but we of course are looking for significant use.

I found the name of the American Indian chief who was apparantly called 'Iron Shirt'. He was I believe a Tonkawa (?) in 1850's Texas, Chief Pohibit Quasha, and apparantly had an old Spanish breastplate. It seems that, at least in various references it has been noted that the tribes were at least in some degree intrigued by the various implements of the White Men, and that these objects would have been kept as kind of trophies whether used or not. The interest afforded a long held old Spanish morion seen in the movie "Dances with Wolves" (which was in my perception pretty well researched) I think reflects such possibilities.

It is known that while the Indian warriors did not use swords in combat, at least not in incidence well known, and that they did acquire them as trophies. These were held in high esteem and seem to have become elements of ceremonial regalia.

It would seem that there was a great deal of invention and innovation active in the Wild West, and I enjoy watching the television documentary series "Wild West Tech" in which they review many elements of weapons and various implements used in those times. The records of the U.S. Patent office would probably reveal quite a few pretty humorous 'inventions' proposed in these times, though many were remarkably sensible, even though obviously quite anachronistic. I would guess by then the patent on chain mail from the Middle Ages would have expired :)

All best regards,
Jim




.[/QUOTE]

[VANDOO]

SOME OF THE TRIBES (ESKIMOS) IN THE FAR NORTH USED A FORM OF BONE ARMOR BACK INTO PREHISTORY. THEY CONSISTED OF A SERIES OF BONE PLATES WITH HOLES DRILLED OR CUT THRU THEM ATTACHED TO SOME HIDE A PIECE OF WALRUS OR WHALE LEATHER WOULD SERVE VERY WELL. THIS KIND OF AMOR TYPE SERVED AS A SECOND OUTER RIBCAGE WHICH IS THE ARMOR AND SUPPORT WE ARE BORN WITH. PERHAPS A SKELETONS RIBS GAVE US THE IDEA OF THAT FORM AND NO DOUBT TURTLE,FISH AND ARMADILLO MAY HAVE HAD A INFLUENCE ON OTHER FORMS IN THE PAST.
SOME TRIBES WERE SAID TO HAVE USED THE ARMOR OF THE GARFISH FOR BODY ARMOR, ARROW POINTS AND ARROW QUIVERS. I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH TRIBES BUT THE LARGEST GAR LIVE IN THE SOUTHERN UNINTED STATES. ITS NOT UNUSUAL FOR A ALLIGATOR GAR TO REACH TEN FEET LONG AND WEIGH 350 POUNDS. I READ SOMEWHERE THEY WERE STUDYING FISH ARMORS TO IMPROVE SOME OF TODAYS BODY ARMOR.

THE USE OF THE GORGET GOES BACK TO PREHISTORY IN THE AMERICAS AND IS FOUND OVER A VERY WIDE AREA. SHELL AND COPPER GORGETS WERE FOUND IN SPIRO MOUNDS IN OKLAHONA WHICH DATES TO AROUND 1200 AND OLDER EXAMPLES ARE KNOWN. ANOTHER INTERESTING TOPIC THANKS JIM AND ALL :D
PICTURE OF AINCENT ESKIMO BONE ARMOR PLATE.

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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.

[ausjulius]

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

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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]

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

[celtan]

In a documentary just on about the Romanovs, and the massacre of the Royal Family in Russia in 1918,the young girls were apparantly not killed by the gunfire and ultimately bayonetted and bludgeoned. It was found the bullets were deflected by corsets laden with diamonds and jewels.

That is the kind of image that I try not to picture in my mind. How utterly horrible.

lupus est homo homini

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much Aiontay. I think the gorget, which was in European military parlance, a sort of vestigial armour symbol of rank, was likely seen and used in much the same manner by the American Indian tribes, especially when received as gifts from Europeans.
I think the use of the sword was probably effective in the same manner as the tomahawk in 18th century warfare on the frontiers. When the single shot gun(s) was discharged, it was an immediate opportunity for attack.

While I would imagine that the sword did find at least some use on the Plains by Indian tribes into the 19th century, it does not seem in enough presence to have become especially widely known. At least when I think of a Native American warrior, my image would seldom include a sword, and this is I think often the case despite the fact that numerous references in some artwork and descriptions exist. I am under the impression that much of this is within tribal histories, and found apparantly in certain focused research. In "Native American Weapons" ( Colin F. Taylor, 2001, p.54) , the author notes that many of the well travelled British M1796 sabres were sold in the American West in about the 1840's, and that they became a kind of status symbol among many of the tribes. One instance described is of a sword painted red , used symbolically by the Crow leader Wraps Up His Tail, and seems to have been the focus of his supernatural power (Taylor. p.55).

Thank you for the input Chris, and very well made points! It certainly would seem like added weight of ammunition would be more worthwhile rather than extra weight of armour.

Well placed quote Celtan! and it does seem I could have left the graphics of this terrible incident out of the text. As you note, it is an unfortunate element of truth, mans inhumanity to man. I have always managed to rather remove myself from the true nature of arms in that sense, and always focus on the history and symbolism in styles etc. and in that parlance regretably included those details without thinking.

All very best regards,
Jim

[ausjulius]

i think also one has to look at the method of warfare neither the american settlers nor the indians were engaged in any heavy combat or in any large organized encounters.. the indians never fourght in organised groups in that area of the americas.. compared to for exsample the indians on the pacific coast and coastal alaskan natives they used very basic tactics and attacked in a individual manner.. not using group tactisc or any real manouvers invoiving preorganized plans..
generaly you will find in these cultures they combatants lack body armor and sheilds or have very small sheilds or use the infrequently.

as they are attacking as an single person. they have no orders.. attacking with what weapons they personaly own and in what manner they wish,
i thin armour realy coms when
1, you have a people with a structured ordered society with a class or worriors who can be directed by a chief and armed by his direction and controled by his tactics like people of the pacific in micronesia and polynesia western alaska .. or you have to have a seditary people producing agriculture,, that may not have a sturctured society with a hereditary chief but still use things like shield and body armor.. like in papua new guinea, they are able to store in their homes these extra and infrequiently used equipment.. and they fight in a group and not as an individuial with "fighting plans" and "drilling" before the battle.

i think you could say the plains indians culture was buy the time of european contact no longer at this state. no doubt in the past they had a far more complexed social structure and i do seem to recall some finds in the mid west of some form of body armor from earlier times when they were less mobile.
but by the time horses became common i think the lost many of these habits as they didnt suit their lifestyle and style of combat.
it can be seen in central and south america , the settled peoples having body armor and the nomadic ones mostly not having this..

i thin it is obvious why the "cowboys" of the day didnt have body armor.. it was becasue maybe in their whole life they would never shoot one person or be in one gun battle . and elk and bison dont have guns.
the most people were never in raging gun battles every week or fighting off bands of indians..
if one wants to see the real wild "west" then northen brazil or southern mexico would be exsamples of rely wild frontiers..
and in both these places body armor was actualy used up till the 1890s.. as were swords and spears..


one an other note....
one always has to remember how many millions of starving mouths expired in the life of those young ladies so they could have those jewels in their corsets , as they hardly worked for them ;)

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Ausjulius,
Very well thought out assessment of the conditions of warfare experienced in America's frontiers in early colonial times into the movements toward the west.
I am certainly no authority on Native American warfare, but it seems to be that this was a magnificently complex culture, and warfare was inevitable between tribes for numerous reasons. The regimentation of European military and American settlers were incredibly restrictive in trying to combat what was essentially guerilla warfare. There was clearly adaption of strategy and use of weaponry taken by both sides as conflicts continued.

I'm not sure that the use of armour by Indians was likely, with the instance earlier noted an exception, and possibly other singular cases. Mostly I am interested in the use by gunfighters or others in the western frontiers.
You are right, the much dramatized and embellished tales of blazing gunfights being the norm, or fighting off bands of attacking warriors are mostly just that. While there are cases of certain individuals who apparantly knew they were constantly at threat of violence, who may have used some kind of protection such as bullet proof vests, the cases seem to have been rare.

The unfortunate reference I included concerning the Romanov event I think should be dropped, the point was concerning bulletproof vests, and used only in a comparitive analogy. As I have noted, I regret including it as clearly the point of reference was lost in adverse reactions. My apologies to anyone who misunderstood my intent and for having used this tragic reference.

All best regards,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ausjulius,


[QUOTE=ausjulius].. it was becasue maybe in their whole life they would never shoot one person or be in one gun battle . and elk and bison dont have guns.
the most people were never in raging gun battles every week or fighting off bands of indians.. [QUOTE]

I think that you make an extremely valid point. Frontier societies were nowhere as violent as pop culture, through the efforts of the myth makers, would have us believe. For example, from reading Argentinean literature, one would be led to believe that the gauchos were constantly fighting life and death duels. And whilst in the 1870s the murder rate was 178 times worse than in England, nevertheless and despite such a violent frontier environment, a British immigrant of those days, recalled seeing only one fatal stabbing in a full decade of rural life.

Cheers
Chris

[VANDOO]

I JUST REMEMBERED ANOTHER USE OF BODY ARMOR OF SORTS IN THE OLD WEST. THE HATCHET MEN WORKING FOR THE TONG'S USED PISTOLS, AND EDGED WEAPONS AND WOULD WEAR THE QUILTED CHINESE COATS AND UNDER THEM LOTS OF LAYERS OF CLOTH AND NEWSPAPER OR OTHER MATERIALS. THIS PROVED SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE IN GUN FIGHTS AND THEY WOULD BANG AWAY AT EACH OTHER A LOT LONGER THAN IF THEY HAD NO PROTECTION FOR THEIR BODIES.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO AVOID GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF SUCH A FIGHT SIMPLY WATCH OUT FOR GROUPS OF FAT CHINESE IN COATS. FAT LOOKING CHINESE WERE RARE IN THOSE DAYS UNLESS THEY WERE BUNDLED UP FOR THE COLD OR BATTLE. YOU CAN SEARCH ON THE INTERNET FOR THIS INFO IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I RESEARCHED IN THAT DIRECTION BUT I THINK LOOKING UNDER TONG WARS OR HATCHET MEN SHOULD TURN UP SOME INFO. :D

[Jim McDougall]

I JUST REMEMBERED ANOTHER USE OF BODY ARMOR OF SORTS IN THE OLD WEST. THE HATCHET MEN WORKING FOR THE TONG'S USED PISTOLS, AND EDGED WEAPONS AND WOULD WEAR THE QUILTED CHINESE COATS AND UNDER THEM LOTS OF LAYERS OF CLOTH AND NEWSPAPER OR OTHER MATERIALS. THIS PROVED SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE IN GUN FIGHTS AND THEY WOULD BANG AWAY AT EACH OTHER A LOT LONGER THAN IF THEY HAD NO PROTECTION FOR THEIR BODIES.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO AVOID GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF SUCH A FIGHT SIMPLY WATCH OUT FOR GROUPS OF FAT CHINESE IN COATS. FAT LOOKING CHINESE WERE RARE IN THOSE DAYS UNLESS THEY WERE BUNDLED UP FOR THE COLD OR BATTLE. YOU CAN SEARCH ON THE INTERNET FOR THIS INFO IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I RESEARCHED IN THAT DIRECTION BUT I THINK LOOKING UNDER TONG WARS OR HATCHET MEN SHOULD TURN UP SOME INFO. :D

Great information Vandoo! and leave it to you to come up with the exotic!
I had never thought of this particular aspect of the West, and did start looking into more on the fabled Tongs. Naturally I have heard the expressions 'Tong Wars' and 'hatchet man' many times, but never realized the origins of the terms.
The term 'hatchet man' of course conjures up immediate thoughts of the corporate 'efficiency' experts who eliminate personnel, and of course probably derives from the idea of 'hit man' which these Tongs used in thier clandestine dealings. There was apparantly a 1932 movie with Edward G. Robinson "The Hatchet Man" using this premise. It would seem the Tong (transl. =hall) were versions of the Chinese 'triads' who were originally created as protective units but evolved into clandestine crime organizations in the U.S. in the many Chinatowns. Naturally, the weapons used must have been all manner of available tools or implements, and the readily available axe or hatchet was certainly an effective choice.

The Tong Wars were essentially territorial wars between competing groups of these organizations that seem to have taken place frequently from about the last quarter of the 19th century and still exist ,though now more a gang type association. In group conflicts or fights, it is interesting that they contrived these ersatz bulletproof coats, and it is noted that the Tong groups by 1912 indeed carried firearms, even to what types were preferred. In New York, apparantly the On Leon Tong carried Smith & Wessons while the rival Hip Sing Tong carried Colts. With this it would be interesting to discover just how effective these coats might have been against these weapons....rather than the presumed thought of gangs with rather cliche' 'saturday night specials'.

You're right, much in the sameway one would be wary of a guy wearing a trenchcoat entering a convenience store in July, beware of unusually heavy Chinese guys in a group was probably good advice in those days.

All best regards,
Jim

[VANDOO]

HERE ARE SOME PICTURES OF EDWARD G. ROBINSON AND LORETTA YOUNG IN THE HATCHET MAN. I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO SEE THE MOVIE LONG AGO BUT IT SEEMS TO BE IMPOSIBLE TO GET A COPY TODAY PERHAPS IT WILL COME OUT ON DVD EVENTUALLY. PIRATE HATCHET MEN HAVE BEEN FEATURED IN THE JACKIE CHAN MOVIES PROJECT 1 AND PROJECT 1A , A COUPLE OF MY FAVORITES.
THE TONGS OPERATED LIKE A BUSINESS/ COMBINATION SECRET LODGE HERE IN THE USA AND OFTEN WERE VERY INFLUENTIAL IN THEIR COMUNITYS.THEY AVOIDED TROUBLE WITH OTHER COMUNITIES AND USUALLY HAD THEIR FIGHTS SET UP IN AREAS WHERE THE LOCAL POLICE OR BYSTANDERS WOULD NOT SEE ANYTHING. IN SMALLER TOWNS THERE WAS SELDOM ANY TROUBLE AND OFTEN SOME WERE VERY GOOD FOR THE CHINESE COMUNITYS WHO WERE EXPLOITED AND LOOKED DOWN ON BY OTHER RACES. THEY WERE NOTED FOR SMUGGLEING IN WOMEN AND OPIUM AND SOME RAN ALL THE CRIMINAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND SOMETIMES COLLECTED PROTECTION MONEY. NOT ALL WERE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS BUT THE MOST FAMOUS OFTEN WERE, JUST AS OUR MOST FAMOUS GANGSTERS HAVE BEEN NOTED THE MOST IN OUR HISTORY. I SAW SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET ABOUT A TONG HOUSE IN ONE SMALL TOWN THAT WAS BEING RESTORED AND PRESERVED AS A HISTORICAL PLACE. THERE WERE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS OF SOME OF THEIR BATTLES FROM THE PERIOD IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THERE WERE SOME GOOD ONES IN SAN FRANCISCO.

[fearn]

i think also one has to look at the method of warfare neither the american settlers nor the indians were engaged in any heavy combat or in any large organized encounters.. the indians never fourght in organised groups in that area of the americas.. compared to for exsample the indians on the pacific coast and coastal alaskan natives they used very basic tactics and attacked in a individual manner.. not using group tactisc or any real manouvers invoiving preorganized plans..
generaly you will find in these cultures they combatants lack body armor and sheilds or have very small sheilds or use the infrequently.

as they are attacking as an single person. they have no orders.. attacking with what weapons they personaly own and in what manner they wish,
i thin armour realy coms when
1, you have a people with a structured ordered society with a class or worriors who can be directed by a chief and armed by his direction and controled by his tactics like people of the pacific in micronesia and polynesia western alaska .. or you have to have a seditary people producing agriculture,, that may not have a sturctured society with a hereditary chief but still use things like shield and body armor.. like in papua new guinea, they are able to store in their homes these extra and infrequiently used equipment.. and they fight in a group and not as an individuial with "fighting plans" and "drilling" before the battle.

i think you could say the plains indians culture was buy the time of european contact no longer at this state. no doubt in the past they had a far more complexed social structure and i do seem to recall some finds in the mid west of some form of body armor from earlier times when they were less mobile.
but by the time horses became common i think the lost many of these habits as they didnt suit their lifestyle and style of combat.
it can be seen in central and south america , the settled peoples having body armor and the nomadic ones mostly not having this..

i thin it is obvious why the "cowboys" of the day didnt have body armor.. it was becasue maybe in their whole life they would never shoot one person or be in one gun battle . and elk and bison dont have guns.
the most people were never in raging gun battles every week or fighting off bands of indians..
if one wants to see the real wild "west" then northen brazil or southern mexico would be exsamples of rely wild frontiers..
and in both these places body armor was actualy used up till the 1890s.. as were swords and spears..


one an other note....
one always has to remember how many millions of starving mouths expired in the life of those young ladies so they could have those jewels in their corsets , as they hardly worked for them ;)

Hi Ausjulius,

I was thinking through a long list of examples, and my end conclusion is that there's not a great correlation between who's carrying armor and defensive weapons and the social structures you're talking about here. I keep thinking about those shields the Australian Aborigines carried, to cite one example.

A couple of complicating factors play in thinking about this:

1. Social structure. The Indians of 1491 appear to have been more organized than the ones of, say, 1800, or 1850. Epidemics took most of them out. Without getting into the politics of this, we all need to specify what time period we're talking about for any location, to talk about what the level of social complexity was at a place and time.

2. Social complexity may not add up to military might. An example: I'm reading a book about Estanislao (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estanislao)), a California Indian who entered the Mission system in 1821, rebelled with 400 followers in 1827, beat the Spanish in several battles, and reconciled in 1829, only to die in 1838 from either smallpox or malaria. Among other things, he built several working forts based on what he learned from the Spanish. Another thing is that he was quite possibly the origin of the Zorro myth. As a devout Christian, he would trap the Spanish, carve an S in their chest, and let them go with no loss of life, at least in the early battles. The last battles got pretty bloody on both sides.

The basic point is that if you're doing a cursory reading of the ethnographic literature, the California Indians weren't politically sophisticated and didn't build forts, use complex weapons or wear armor. However, it took one of them only six years to figure out how to beat the Spaniards at their own game. People can change very rapidly, especially when exposed to new ideas.

I think it boils down to a couple of questions.

1. Can someone make useful armor? This is a technical question, a logistical question, and (in some societies) a financial question.
2. Is it worth making and using that armor? This depends on things like mobility, survivability in the armor when not in combat (from wounds, heat stroke, drowning, etc), and the general trade off between how good the armor is vs. the problems with using it in a particular situation.

Generalizing beyond these two questions is problematic, IMHO.

F

[M ELEY]

Shameless promotion here, but I noticed an interest in breastplates here. I just posted one for sale in the Swap forum if anyone is interested... :D

[Jim McDougall]

Just when ya thought this thread was done :)
In "Arms and Armor Annual" (ed. Robert Held, 1973), there is an article titled " Body Armor in the American Civil War" by Harold L. Peterson (p.304-307).
In this the types of armor produced for the Union army were of two basic types, both produced in New Haven, Conn. about 1862.

The most popular was the 'soldiers bullet proof vest' by the G.D.Cook & Co. which was a varying size fabric vest with pockets for insertion of spring steel plates on either side of chest.
The other was by the Atwater Armor Co. of New Haven, and was more complex, actually of a cuirass form much like those of 17th-19th c. .

Obviously the biggest problem with these was weight, and there were also many homemade styles using these concepts. It is noted that hundreds of instances are recorded of soldiers lives being spared by these notably uncomfortable and awkward items, however it appears that those using them were often ridiculed as walking iron stoves etc. Many of these were discarded, but it does seem there are numbers of them in various Confederate museums, taken in battle and of course suggesting obviously that they werent always entirely successful.

Returning to the original theme of the thread, since these vests were well known nearly two decades prior to the period of gunfighters most often discussed in the 1880's to the turn of the century, there would seem to have been potential for being considered.

Best regards,
Jim

[A Senefelder]

Howdy, i'll take the opportunity to first introduce myself, my name is Allan Senefelder and Lee was nice enough to grant me access to the forums a week or so ago. My megher contribution to the subject at hand. The book Steel Pots, The History of America's Combat Helmets, documents a wide variety of expiremental helmets and body armour from WWI the results ranging from the somewhat Ned Kellyish in appearence to positively medieval. The maille face cover mentioned earlier was one of two ideas made for tankers and some machinegun crews both designed to attach to the M1917 helmet. One was as mentioned maille that attached to the helmet, the other was what amounted to plate goggles with vision slot in each side that also attached to the helmet. Another inteseting piece or set of armour from WWI was a " cod piece " and mittens made from leather, with a piece of asbestos ( heat protecion ) over the palms of the mittens and the " important bit " on the cod piece and asbestos the covered in maille in an oriental 4 in1 weave. These were made by the US and used by certain members of artillery gun squads, specifically the feall that caught the spent brass as it was ejected from the breech to be thrown aside. The Italian army issued a vest made up of small plates attached to a leather backing for trench raiding and the Germans issued a breast plate with faulds and a reinforcing plate for the front of the coal schuttle helmet for use by machine gunners and blockhouse guards.

The Moro's have also been mentioned, thier often brass maille and plates coats, casquettel inspired helmets and shields combined with the poor penetrating power of the .38 played hell with US troops during the Moro uprising in the Philippins (sp) just after the Spanish American War. The .38 simply counldn't nock them down and after action reports were filed of officers actually hurling thier empty revolvers at tribsman as the rounds had not stopped them. This is a good part of what spured the US Army to look for a larger caliber service pistol eventually leading to the adoption of the Colt 1911 and the S&W .45 caliber revolver. The events of the Moro uprising stood out enough to be used as fodder for recuiting posters during WWI ( I have one hanging in my foyer ).

During the 19th century, British army cavalry units took to wearing panels of maille on the shoulders of thier coats and either a single ( bridal ) or paired maille covered leather gauntlets in thier combat with native armies in India, as archery, lance, mace and sword were the prinicple weapons they were facing from thier mounted opponents, applied with a zeal that had more in common with the middle ages than the Victorian era. At least one of these units retained little pieces of fine maille worn on the epaulets of thier uniforms ( harkening back to the large maille panels worn for defense ) until, the 1940's, you'll have to forgive me, I don't recall the unit but I did own an officers uniform from this unit about 15-20 years ago.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Allan, and welcome to the forum !!! I'm really glad you joined us here, and especially that you came in on this thread, which I have hoped would keep going as it seems an interesting subject which clearly brings up many applications of body armour in history.

You bring up another favorite topic in mentioning the very colorful pageantry of the British Indian cavalry during the Raj in India. The uniforms worn by the officers in these native regiments are fascinating, and these shoulder chains are one of the most intriguing elements. It seems these were copied from Indian cavalry and became the vestigial items on uniforms from about 1880's until about the 1930's. These British cavalry uniforms are incredibly collectible, and as far as I recall, the regiments most commonly associated with the chains were Bengal units.

When I first began this thread, I sought to discover what likelihood there was that gunfighters in America's wild west might have ever worn any type of bulletproof vest or such protection.

In recent reading there are references to the effectiveness of silk in protection from projectiles, and according to some sources, even bullets.
In images of many of the gunfighters, accurate or not, as well as of gamblers, who would seem to have also needed protection in most cases, an item of clothing popular was the vest, and often it seems made of silk.
My thoughts of course were that perhaps some of these individuals might have sought to acquire these silk vests not only for flamboyance, but for such protection as well.

I was even more intrigued when I discovered that a doctor, from Tombstone of all places, had found that a gunshot victim who had apparantly had a silk handkerchief located at the site of his wounds, and the bullets had failed to penetrate the silk. In this case, the wounds were fatal, but the doctor, George Emery Goodfellow, saw the potential in the silk for protective use.
He apparantly published a paper titled "Notes on the Inpentratibility of Silk to Bullets", however its date and publication seem unclear.
Some sources say 1881, some say in Southern California in 1887. It would seem either case would have been too late for Wyatt Earp or any of the participants at OK Corral on October 26, 1881, to have had any vests of silk.
It has also been shown that a Chicago clergyman Rev. Casamir Zeglen had researched producing these further, and they were unbelievably expensive. The one owner of such a silk vest was Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, who was wearing it June 28,1914....unfortunately his assassin hit him in the neck, above the vest.

Regardless of these notable instances, the use of silk as protective clothing goes back to the Mongols, and one wonders if even the suggestion of such potential might have prompted such extravagance beyond flamboyance.

All best regards,
Jim

[A Senefelder]

Now that you mention it I seem to remember reading something at some point about expirementation using silk and bullet resistance. I'm not sure where I encountered it, more than likely as some sort of military trials, i'll have to see if I can recall where. It involved multiple layer of fabric, I rememebr that.

As I recall ( most of my study is in European A&A for work so i'm not as up on the East as I should be ) the use of silk under armour was found most anywhere horse archery was the predominant mode of combat for cavalry. An arrow is imparted spin to stabilize flight by its fletchings, this means it will continue to rotate as it penetrates a target/person. The density of the weave of the silk a) slowed arrows down and b) since the silk tended not to cut or tear but maintain integrity as the arrow turned as it penetrated the silk would wrap around the head. There are two principle problems when removing arrows one is that as they are usually of some type of broadhead they tend to rip on withdraw and second that because the arrow turned as it penetrated there is no straight withdraw route as sometimes can be had with a bullet. With silk by slowly pulling the silk taught the fabric bound up with the arrow in the wound would unwrap, causing the arrow to turn backwards from how it came in thus roughly mirroring the corscrew channel it created on entry and minimising tearing and since the silk was wrapped around the head tearing from barbs was also minimized.

[Pukka Bundook]

Hi Jim,

I think the silk would work against bullets from a derringer or such, but not against long-arms. This wouldn't be a problem for a gambler as such, where a shot would come from something short over (or under) the card table.

I have not heard of any "Wild West" armour along the lines of Ned Kelly's stuff. His was effective, (His helmet has dents all over it, including one from a Martini-Henry right between the eyes!) ...yet it was also very heavy.
As a side-note, I do not think people are as tough as they used to be!

As far as I can see, the reason for no armour most of the time is for similar reasons heavy plate was given up in Europe in the 17th century;
Bullets could still go through it sometimes, and it was heavy and cumbersome.
Better move fast and light than pack the weight. ......so the buff jacket and steel cap replaced the heavy stuff. This is rather over-simplified, but I think you may understand what I mean.

The one piece of 'armour' I do not understand being abandoned, for cavalry use, (particularly where edged wepons were in use) was the thigh-length heavy boot.

Cheers,

Richard.

[aerosick]

Soft Body Armor
One of the first recorded instances of the use of soft body armor was by the medieval Japanese, who used armor manufactured from silk. It was not until the late 19th century that the first use of soft body armor in the United States was recorded. At that time, the military explored the possibility of using soft body armor manufactured from silk. The project even attracted congressional attention after the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. While the garments were shown to be effective against low-velocity bullets, those traveling at 400 feet per second or less, they did not offer protection against the new generation of handgun ammunition being introduced at that time. Ammunition that traveled at velocities of more than 600 feet per second. This, along with the prohibitive cost of silk made the concept unacceptable. Silk armor of this type was said to have been worn by Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria when he was killed by a shot to the head, thereby precipitating World War I.

[READ MORE HERE] (http://inventors.about.com/od/bstartinventions/a/Body_Armor.htm)

[A Senefelder]

Jim, I now remember where I read about silk used for bullet proof armour and boy was I wrong. Its from L.Ron Hubbard's Final Blackout, his version of Things to Come written in 1939. It not a bad story even though the inspiration is obvious but as its written mostly on a soldiers level after 30 years of fighting and complete exhaustion of all involved the gear used is a mishmash. The item in question is worn by " the Lieutenant ", the stories anti hero and is refered to as a battle cloak, made up of multiple layers of quilted silk which according to the story would stop bullets, but did suffer attrition through use and would eventually become useless.

" As far as I can see, the reason for no armour most of the time is for similar reasons heavy plate was given up in Europe in the 17th century;
Bullets could still go through it sometimes, and it was heavy and cumbersome.
Better move fast and light than pack the weight. ......so the buff jacket and steel cap replaced the heavy stuff. This is rather over-simplified, but I think you may understand what I mean."

My understanding is that much of Europes ruling class was forced into a deciscion in the later 17th century. Firelocks were much more reliable than matchlocks and much more expensive and armies had achieved enourmous protonational levels that were increadibly expensive to keep in the field, armour even the basics of breast plate and helmet for armies of several tens of thousands were also expensive and a choice had to be made by those paying for it all. The newest, most up to date firelocks or body armour and the choice across the board in Western Europe was the latest gun technology. Yes much of the full harness of the previous century had already been discarded but the helmet and breast plate were the last to go, and the first pieces to be resureccted with the dawing of the 20th century and the manufacturing muscle of the industrail era to produce not just as many up to date fire arms as needed but also body armour as well. If you think about it simply standing in lines 60 feet away in brightly colored uniforms blazing away at each other using volley fire is the definition of suicide. With the comming of WWI and the power of industrialization every participant began to re-adopt body armour in an acknowlegment of the fact learned centuries earlier that soldiers and thier training are expensive investments, and as such needed proper protection to keep that investment in the field paying dividends and minimize the injuries when suffered to increase the likelyhood of returning to service. Since it re-adoption during WWI bady armour has remained a mainstay for militaries the world over often much heavier than basic plate harness would have been in the 15th or 16th centuries ( with all the additional pieces that have come into service during the US's time in Iraq a full bullet proof body armour rig can come it at 80-90 pounds ) and expirementation to improve it is constant.

[David]

The Moro's have also been mentioned, thier often brass maille and plates coats, casquettel inspired helmets and shields combined with the poor penetrating power of the .38 played hell with US troops during the Moro uprising in the Philippins (sp) just after the Spanish American War. The .38 simply counldn't nock them down and after action reports were filed of officers actually hurling thier empty revolvers at tribsman as the rounds had not stopped them. This is a good part of what spured the US Army to look for a larger caliber service pistol eventually leading to the adoption of the Colt 1911 and the S&W .45 caliber revolver. The events of the Moro uprising stood out enough to be used as fodder for recuiting posters during WWI ( I have one hanging in my foyer ).
I would like to point out that it is unlikely that it was Moro armor which brought about the introduction of higher caliber hand guns in the U.S. military as very, very few Moros ever wore such armor. Only a handful of powerful datus would have owned such armor. It was the intense fierceness of the Moros themselves in battle that kept them coming in spite of having a few rounds of .38s in them. :)

[A Senefelder]

" I would like to point out that it is unlikely that it was Moro armor which brought about the introduction of higher caliber hand guns in the U.S. military as very, very few Moros ever wore such armor. Only a handful of powerful datus would have owned such armor. It was the intense fierceness of the Moros themselves in battle that kept them coming in spite of having a few rounds of .38s in them. "

I was tooling around looking for stuff on this and stumbled upon this http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.guns/2007-09/msg00999.html . I have read other sources regarding the poor penetrating power of the .38, but the Moro expiriences are something of a hallmark. The fella in the link above posits that the poor performance of the .38 during the campaign relates to the age of the loads, .38's had been in storage for a while, well the .45's for the revolvers brought in to replace the .38's were newly made shells, as the explanation for the poor performance of the .38. I cannot speak to the veracity of his claims but it certainly is an interesting theory and not something that would have occured to me.

[VANDOO]

BACK TO THE WILD WEST :)
THERE IS A STORY BUT NO FACTS TO BACK IT UP AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE CONFLICTING STORIES ABOUT THE GUNFIGHT ITS SELF BUT I THOUGHT IT INTERESTING ENOUGH TO MENTION HERE ANYWAY.
AT THE GUNFIGHT AT IRON SPRINGS IN 1882 BETWEEN WYATT EARP AND THE COWBOY GANG LED BY CURLY BILL BROCIUS WHERE GUNFIRE WAS EXCHANGED AT VERY CLOSE RANGE. IT IS SAID EARP'S CLOTHES WERE FULL OF BULLET HOLES BUT HE WAS NOT WOUNDED AND AS CURLY BILL WAS NOTED AS ONE OF THE VERY BEST SHOTS SOME SAID EARP WAS WEARING BODY ARMOR SO HE SURVIVED. AS FAR AS I KNOW THERE IS NO WRITTEN STATEMENT BY EARP CONCERNING THIS MATTER AND THERE ARE EVEN SEVERAL STORIES THAT SAY EARP NEVER KILLED CURLY BILL AND THAT HE DIED MANY YEARS LATER. BUT AN INTERESTING STORY ANYWAY TRUE OR NOT. :D

[Jeff D]

How can it be that this hasn't come up yet? :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiQntJC-Efw

Jeff

[Jim McDougall]

Well done Barry! That exact instance was one of the situations that began me on this thread, and I have still been researching to discover more on the possibility of Wyatt Earp ever using such protection. It has been mentioned that it was amazing that in the hail of bullets at the OK corral, Earp remained unscathed.
It is also known that Wyatt was well aware of functional apparal, and the coat he wore that day also had lined pockets to hold his gun, he did not wear a holster. Perhaps this would suggest other features in line with well thought out clothing that would serve well in his obviously threatened work.
It is also interesting that thoughts on bulletproof clothing such as vests were a topic at hand in Tombstone with the doctor previously mentioned. It remains unclear whether discussions on this predated the OK corral incident, but it seems quite possible, and if so, it was a small town, and Earp would certainly seem to have been cognizant of such matters.

Jeff, amazing, I had completely forgotten that scene in one of the legendary greats of spaghetti westerns!! How did you remember that?!! I havent seen the movie in years. Absolutely perfect example, and looks like the screenwriters were definitely on the same page with this idea.

All best regards,
Jim