Question About SEA Armor

[KrisKross]

Hi, everyone. This is a great place!

To give you some background relevent to my question, I'm a martial artist, as many of you may be. I have, until recent health problems, practiced Kali (eskrima). I've been going back and forth with some folks on another board (for gamers) about the validity of using double weapons vs. a shield. I consider the second weapon helpful in defense (as well as attack). These people seem adamant that double weapon techniques only developed, and were found useful, in areas devoid of body armor (padded, leather, piecemail, etc.). They also seem to think that where a shield is availible it is always superior to two weapons.

Does that sound right to you folks? I can't find anything through Google, except brief descriptions of Burmese nobles wearing leather armor. I know the Moros wore armor, and I know that the Filipinos produced double weapon techniques, but I don't know if the Moros specifically did.

I know this isn't a martial arts board, but anything answering the above, or at least pointing me in the right direction would be helpful. I enjoy learning about bladed weapons from SEA, and all over the world. I have many books on the subject, but none of them mention any armor in that part of the world. The closest I can find is Indian armor. I have found a website that shows Moro armor, but I need to stengthen my case a bit more.

Thanks.

[Mark]

From all that I have seen, I believe your information about SEA armor is correct, at least as far as continental SEA goes. Metal armor was not used. In Burma and Thailand the common soldier (who was a levy soldier) went essentially unarmored, and the more affluent wore a "war coat," which as near as I can tell was of heavy or padded silk, and a leather "war hat" which looked a lot like something Jimmy Buffet might be wearing down in Margaritaville. I have a scan of an old catalogue that shows a war coat and war hat, and if no one else posts it in the meantime I will put it up this evening from home.

Two-sword techniques were apparently used regularly in warfare in both Burma and Thailand, as well as sword-and-shield, sword-and-buckler, and double-handed techniques. Each one used a slightly different type of sword. Andrew has done the real research in this area, so hopefully he can add more.

I have read that the standard court dress in Thailand was a sword (daab) and keris, which makes me wonder if there is or was a sword-and-keris technique. That would be an interesting parallel to the European rapier and main gauche, which was for dueling with an un-armored opponent.

[Bill]

not sure this is of help. the Moro armor is very close to Bugis armor of early Celebes/Sulawesi. combat of the early Bugis was with the blowgun, I think it was developed to stop poison darts. the Spanish from the earliest days in the Philippines had armor. I haven't been able to find anything as to what type of armor the Moro had before the Spanish or how it developed. The Bugis were in Brunei (alligned with the Moro), pre-Spanish; as well the Makassar (Celebes) aided the Moro against the Spanish. There well might be that, armor created to stop darts was adopted to protect against the sword, perhaps even to give a psychological balance to the Spanish armor.

[fearn]

I'd also pitch in Stone's Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armour and Draeger's Weapons and Fighting Systems of Indonesia as books to check out for SEA armor.

So far as double weapon use goes, we can also point to European (case of rapiers, sword and dagger, rapier and main gauche), Japanese (Miyamoto Musashi et al), Chinese, Korean, even Native American (tomahawk and knife) examples, although we'd have to eliminate the Amerinds if you meant two of the same kind of weapon. Or not. We could easily add all of SEA and Okinawa to the double weapons list, and probably pop in a few Roman gladiators if we wanted to go that far. Basically, it's an idea that a lot of people have tried and a few have specialized in.

Personally, I think that using a shield is "better" for a few reasons: 1) a shield is generally cheaper than a second sword, 2) it's easier to use in your off hand (less learning involved), 3) it protects against incoming missiles better than a sword or dagger does, and 4) a shield is good for displaying logos, heraldic symbols, etc. Otherwise, having something sharp in your offhand is a great way of keeping people from getting inside the reach of your sword....

My 0.02 cents,

Fearn

[rahman]

I have read that the standard court dress in Thailand was a sword (daab) and keris, which makes me wonder if there is or was a sword-and-keris technique.

Mark

I would love to get the source of your info. For some time now, I have been struggling with several references in Sejarah Melayu (The Malay Annals) and Hikayat Hang Tuah about the use of the keris panjang. These ancient classics did not refer to the keris panjang as an executioner's sword but as a slashing weapon. Hang Tuah used keris panjang to parang (slash) at a mob of 100 Majapahit warriors.

It is quite possible that this keris panjang may have been a version of the daab, with the keris as a close-quarter weapon. Interestingly, the personal keris slipped into the waistband is variously called the keris pendua (the second of a pair) or a keris pandak (pendek - short?).

I'm developing a nagging suspicion that the Malay keris as we know it today may be post-1511, after the Portugeuse invasion and the fall of Malacca.

[KrisKross]

Thanks everyone so much for your interest in my question. This is helping me.

Let's take this one at a time:

Originally Posted by Mark

In Burma and Thailand the common soldier (who was a levy soldier) went essentially unarmored, and the more affluent wore a "war coat," which as near as I can tell was of heavy or padded silk, and a leather "war hat" which looked a lot like something Jimmy Buffet might be wearing down in Margaritaville. I have a scan of an old catalogue that shows a war coat and war hat, and if no one else posts it in the meantime I will put it up this evening from home.

That would be hugely helpful. There seems to be so little in the way of info on SEA armor. I know they never developed plate, but I find it hard to believe no one ever used any armor at all along with two-weapon fighting styles. Armor is so common going from India and radiating out to almost everywhere else in the world (even if one speaks of Maori "war girdles" or Jaguar Knight padded coats). I can't believe the Burmese didn't have it.

Originally Posted by Bill

the Moro armor is very close to Bugis armor of early Celebes/Sulawesi.

Yes, it did help. I didn't know that. My opponents seem to think that no Filipinos had armor, which (he believes) led to them creating double-weapon fighting systems. The implication is that two weapons against armor isn't at all effective. I find that hard to believe.

Originally Posted by fearrn

I'd also pitch in Stone's Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armour and Draeger's Weapons and Fighting Systems of Indonesia as books to check out for SEA armor.

I have the second book, but never heard of the first one. Draeger is very thurough, but I didn't see much (maybe not any) in the way of actual armor. However, there are some shields in there.

Originally Posted by fearn

So far as double weapon use goes, we can also point to European (case of rapiers, sword and dagger, rapier and main gauche), Japanese (Miyamoto Musashi et al), Chinese, Korean, even Native American (tomahawk and knife) examples, although we'd have to eliminate the Amerinds if you meant two of the same kind of weapon. Or not. We could easily add all of SEA and Okinawa to the double weapons list, and probably pop in a few Roman gladiators if we wanted to go that far. Basically, it's an idea that a lot of people have tried and a few have specialized in.

I seem to remember that the Europeans used long swords along with daggers sometimes. I'm not talking about rapiers here, either. Would that have been without armor only?

In trying to support my ideas on two-weapon fighting, mainly that two weapons were occasionally better than one weapon, I cited Musashi, and was greeted with this response:

Thus it is clear that this guy was ELITE, VERY ELITE. Also note that it took him many years to create this style of his and perfect it. However after his death in 1645 not one of his pupils (some having been with him for many years) had the ability to fully understand and execute his style and, even with his two publications, could not do so after several years of study - Niten Ichi-Ryu died out after that. Thus this again points to the need fro a very special person to master this.

With that – your support and theory of historical superiority of TWF is not validated – the opposite is true. Musashi was not a major player in the shaping of tactics for his nation at all; as said; the guy was actually a Ronin; an outcast and a mercenary. This is not to mention there are just a few years of prior Japanese warrior and Samurai fighting history prior to his birth that did not utilize his methods.

This was after I had said: "If you know what your a doing, killing someone who only has one weapon becomes much easier, as does preventing yourself from being killed, than if you only had one weapon. As for the wakazashi, the author of the Book of Five Rings seems to agree with me on this."

I do not believe there is a "superior" style. Tactical and strategic dominance is a creature of context. I had said earlier that, given the right context, two weapons could be as good as one and a shield. You need less training with a shield, but in a warrior culture, one is apt to follow local martial custom from an early age, which negates the problem of long training. The Filipinos are a prime example. I started learning two weapon fighting from day one in class, and it didn't really seem that hard to me (nor am I unique in that opinion).

Originally Posted by rahman

I would love to get the source of your info.

Ditto, although for different reasons.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by rahman

I would love to get the source of your info.

What, and ruin my mystique of being all-knowing (or alternatively of just plain making stuff up)? OK, but unfortunately the source of info on the keris/dha combination is from an out-of-print museum publication. I'll pull some quotes and a cite, though. Come to think of it, Egerton says something about Burmese armor. I'll have to check that.

[Rick]

Hi K.K. ,

The Main Gauche was used in conjunction with the Rapier in unarmored combat ; often in duels .

[MABAGANI]

If you could find my old site, there are pics of three different armor from the southern Philipppines chain mail and horn plates, metal plates, and hardened leather. Stone's book also shows a forth type of padded cloth. Re:double weapons, they can be used with or without armor depending on the skill of the combatant.

[KrisKross]

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

Come to think of it, Egerton says something about Burmese armor. I'll have to check that.

That would be awesome if you could get me some quotes on that topic. Info about Burmese armor is so scarce...

Originally Posted by Mabagani

If you could find my old site, there are pics of three different armor from the southern Philipppines chain mail and horn plates, metal plates, and hardened leather. Stone's book also shows a forth type of padded cloth. Re:double weapons, they can be used with or without armor depending on the skill of the combatant.

Could you give me the site URL? Maybe Google still has it cached or something. I've only been able to find one solid pic of Moro armor, and one could easily claim that it is South Central Asia (India/Kashmiri) rather than Filipino (it probably spread from India through SEA, after all).

Could you point me to a book, article, or website where double weapon use in (or against) armor is featured/touted/described (etc.) in an historical context? Even when speaking about single weapon use, text on its application or relationship with armor is hard to come by, even in a European context.

Thanks for your replies, everyone...

[Bill]

there is some pics of Moro armor here: http://www.eriksedge.com/kampilanindex.html & http://www.eriksedge.com/PH116.html

[Aqtai]

I have seen Phillipino mail and plate armour in Museums and books. It looks strikingly like Iranian and Indian mail and plate armours, which suggests to me that they might have copied armour sold to them by Iranian or Indian merchants. I have also read however that Phillipino mail is butted not rivetted, which would greatly reduce it's effectiveness.

[Spunjer]

KrissKross,
welcome. hope these links helps you. what style do you practice anyway?


http://home.pacbell.net/sika/collection.html


http://photobucket.com/albums/v672/engar/?

enjoy and good luck...

[KrisKross]

That was all extremely useful, thanks.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but a picture of a Moro (or Burmese/Thai/Indonesian/Malaysian) warrior in armor holding two weapons would clinch my case at this point. I just find it hard to believe that people would develop two-weapon fighting (with all its complexities) in an environment including armor without assuming (anecdotally) that it would work against that armor. And even so, I know for a fact that peoples who developed two-weapon fighting also used shields, so someone must have thought you could use two weapons effectively against shields.

Originally Posted by Spunjer

what style do you practice anyway?

Inosanto/LaCoste Blend. Most people call it "Kali" since Filipinos call their art Escrima, and the LaCoste Blend is mostly an American fusion of traditional Escrima styles and some new ideas. The word "Kali" is used mostly in North America, where Inosanto/LaCoste is very common among the various styles. Most of the "new ideas" are a mix of other masters' methods beyond Johnny LaCoste's teachings, rather than spontaneous inventions. It is sometimes called JKD/Kali, because most schools teach Jeet Kune Do along side it, blending the two together.

This is a good explanation: http://www.pamausa.com/Pages/kali.html

This is not my school, and Tucci calls it the "Inosanto Method," but it is the same thing...

[Spunjer]

yo kriss, check your pm...

[fearn]

Hi Kriss,

There's one other thing about double-weapon fighting: the length of the weapons. Chinese double jians are typically shorter than single-jians, and that's also apparently the case with the "case of rapiers" (two rapiers instead of rapier and main gauche).

There are a couple (well, three) problems with using two long weapons. One is that they can snag each other--your opponent can force one blade to foul the other, for instance. A bigger problem is that you're horribly exposed on the inside. If someone slips inside your guard, what are you going to hit him with? If you have a dagger in your off hand, this isn't a problem, but with two long swords, you're in trouble. That's apparently why the double rapier technique never took off the way rapier and main gauche, or buckler, or cloak did.

A third problem, when dealing with armor, is that one hand may simply not be enough to power the weapon through the armor. In that case (for instance, with a katana), you're sacrificing power for complexity, but if none of your attacks cause damage, you're in trouble.

I'd point out that double short swords (or knives) are quite a bit more common, from wing chun to escrima and kali. I'd also point out that double-wakizashi techniques still exist, and they didn't come from Musashi's lineage.

F

[KrisKross]

Got it, Spunjer

Fearn, your arguments make sense. Although I wasn't so much concerned with what type of weapon one used in the "off hand." I personally prefer the dagger. Double short swords would split the difference, I guess. I've seen good work done with a double barong, for instance.

Power is less of a problem with plate armor, since you won't get through it with a strong arm swing anyway, really (although you can pierce it with bracing and leverage, as with a heavy lance). I mean, what are the chances you'd simply run a man through with a sword while they were wearing a full plate curass? It was mainly a problem of bashing the knight into unconsciousness so you could finish him, I hear.

Chain and leather can be pierced with a dagger, though, and I can see the importance of the dagger in my own art. A one-handed swing from a short sword might hurt but not really pierce much armor, but it can set up a killing blow with a dagger. Sneaking a blade into an armpit isn't really that hard, in my experience.

[Battara]

I know that in Italy, double sword is a very unique form of fighting. The trouble is one had to be very adept and an advanced fighter to use it instead of a shield. Thus it was not very widespread and only expert swordsmen could employ such techniques. I have actually seen it in action at an SCA event years ago, and it looked almost identical to FMA Sinawali! I was very impressed. He was fighting against a shield holder and won! He was the only one who used it and was quite advanced in his training.

[Mark]

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

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

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

[rahman]

Thanks Mark

Any photos to go with this?

[Mark]

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


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

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


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

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

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

[Mark]

Originally Posted by rahman

Thanks Mark

Any photos to go with this?

Its never enough for you, is it?

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

[KrisKross]

Battara,

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

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

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

Mark Bowditch,

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

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

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

[rahman]

Its never enough for you, is it?

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

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

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by rahman

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

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

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

[Aqtai]

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brilliant pictures.

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

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

[Nick Wardigo]

Just thought I'd chime in on Chinese double-weapons.

There is nothing in the military manuals of the Ming or Qing Dynasties to support double weapons. This is corroborated by period artwork. I feel comfortable saying that using double weapons was never part of the Chinese military.

It did exist in civilian use. Keeping in mind that the vast number of examples I've seen are fake (particularly the flamboyant ones), I have seen enough double-jian, double-dao, hook swords, paired maces, etc. to say that the practice existed at least since the nineteenth century, but it was definitely not the norm. Curiously, I've never seen any earlier examples, say, from the Ming or early Qing. Either the practice was developed in the nineteenth century or earlier examples were simply lost, but, again, the period artwork doesn't offer any proof.

To answer Kris's specific question about whether the techniques were developed in a "field of war," I'd have to say no. From what I've seen of the military manuals, it seems that, prior to firearms, a thousand soldiers with spears were more useful than a thousand soldiers whirling about with double sabers.

[MABAGANI]

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

[Mark]

Originally Posted by KrisKross

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by rahman

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

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

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

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

[KrisKross]

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

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

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

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