Question About SEA Armor

fearn · 16th August 2005, 11:56 PM

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 · 17th August 2005, 12:29 AM

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 · 17th August 2005, 01:54 AM

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 · 17th August 2005, 02:56 AM

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 · 17th August 2005, 03:40 AM

Thanks Mark

Any photos to go with this?

Mark · 17th August 2005, 04:04 AM

Quote:

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 · 17th August 2005, 05:43 AM

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?

Mark · 17th August 2005, 03:44 AM

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

Aqtai · 17th August 2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

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 · 17th August 2005, 02:18 PM

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.

17th August 2005, 02:56 AM	#4
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Keris in Thailand 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.

17th August 2005, 03:44 AM	#8
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Armor in Thailand 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 Last edited by Mark Bowditch; 17th August 2005 at 04:01 AM.

16th August 2005, 11:56 PM	#1
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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

17th August 2005, 12:29 AM	#2
KrisKross Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 8	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.

17th August 2005, 01:54 AM	#3
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,323	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.

17th August 2005, 03:40 AM	#5
rahman Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 84	Thanks Mark Any photos to go with this?

17th August 2005, 05:43 AM	#7
KrisKross Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 8	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?

17th August 2005, 02:18 PM	#10
Nick Wardigo Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 54	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.