Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 24th June 2009, 04:35 AM   #8
BBJW
Member
 
BBJW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Idaho, USA
Posts: 228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
BBJW is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.