Armour in the Wild West

Jim McDougall · 26th June 2009, 02:16 PM

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 · 27th June 2009, 01:33 AM

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 · 27th June 2009, 01:57 AM

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

26th June 2009, 02:16 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	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

27th June 2009, 01:33 AM	#2
aiontay Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 88	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.

27th June 2009, 01:57 AM	#3
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	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