[Mark]

Originally Posted by KrisKross

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by rahman

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

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

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

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