Armour in the Wild West

[M ELEY]

Of course, you are right. I was just joking. On an interesting side note, is is said that despite all that Custer did to the Souix, they still had great respect for the man! When his body was recovered, he had been scalped, but otherwise, intact. All of the other soldiers at the BigHorn had been horribly mutilated out of vengence (per Native American beliefs, they would look like this in the afterlife). Interesting...

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

A fascinating subject.

This is broadening the initial post by Jim, but tank crews used chain mail facial protection during WWI. Helmets are still in use and riot police use plastic armour reminiscent of Roman and medieval times. And then cavalry throughout the 19th century, used "armour" by way of hidden chain and sundry similar reinforcements in uniforms, to protect against sabre slashes.

In the natural Sciences Museum of La Plata, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina, there used to be an exhibit of a leather armour made for an Indian chief. From memory, it was made from seven layers of leather, and I have a faint recollection it having stopped a bullet, but not quite sure of this as I am going back some twenty years on this one. It lacked sophistication and was of a very primitive design, a bit like a potato sack.

I wonder how the French Cuirassiers fared during their Mexican campaign during the 1860s - Perhaps Gonzalo could chime in on this one.

Cheers
Chris

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

... I wonder how the French Cuirassiers fared during their Mexican campaign during the 1860s - Perhaps Gonzalo could chime in on this one...

Maybe Gonzalo has one in his collection .
A 1854 French cuirass.
Fernando

.

[Chris Evans]

Originally Posted by fernando

Maybe Gonzalo has one in his collection .
A 1854 French cuirass.
Fernando

.

Hi Fernando,

A very handsome piece - Is it yours?

Cheers
Chris

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Fernando,

A very handsome piece - Is it yours?

Cheers
Chris

Oh no, Chris .

Just found it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirassier

In this area, i only have this part:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10276

Best
Fernando.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Of course, you are right. I was just joking. On an interesting side note, is is said that despite all that Custer did to the Souix, they still had great respect for the man! When his body was recovered, he had been scalped, but otherwise, intact. All of the other soldiers at the BigHorn had been horribly mutilated out of vengence (per Native American beliefs, they would look like this in the afterlife). Interesting...

LOL! I was right with ya Mark!! and no doubt any kind of armour would have been enthusiastically received! if nothing else for moral support. This event has ever since often served as an analogy for any 'hopeless' situation.

It truly is worthy of note that Custer's body was spared the terrible mutilations of the others, typically carried out by the Indian women after the combat with the pent up rage they felt, especially for those they had lost, and as noted by Mark, for the afterlife.
While I would consider the perception toward Custer more as 'regard' in his capacity as a 'chief' than respect, it is known that certain less dramatic, nonetheless symbolic, bodily mutilation was applied in that his eardrums were punctured. This is thought to have some meaning to do with 'his words' and was carried out by Indian squaws.

The soldiers were horribly outgunned, and it is true that the warriors did have a number of Henry and Winchester repeaters which both fired .44 rimfire ammunition.The U.S. government in thier frugal 'wisdom' issued single shot carbines to troops to prevent excessive use and would 'be wasteful' ! Obviously not a very prudent perspective here. There are also numerous references to jamming from both sides in the battle. This would hardly be surprising in frantic, repeating firing of the guns and the enormous amounts of dry, Montana plains dust that would have been in clouds with the intense movements of horsemen in concentrated areas. There are reports of broken knife blades and jammed actions found among the debris.
The archaeological reports of the excavations at Little Big Horn battlesite in the 1980's led to incredible forensics and ballistic studies that revealed a great deal in better understanding the use of the weapons there.

Interesting information Chris on the face mail, and I have seen the shields used by riot police in the phalanx (?)formation. The use of leather on the frontiers of New Spain is indeed well known as the Soldados de Cuero found that heavily padded leather provided protection from Indian arrows. The use of guns in those times was quite limited earlier, and even later the lack of gunpowder caused even the Spanish to rely more on the lance as a weapon.

I had not heard of the layered leather vests in South America, and it would be indeed interesting to know more toward ballistic results on these. I think that as we had noted earlier, the earlier low velocity bullets may have been stopped or at least impeded by leather or heavily folded fabric, but the higher power bullets, probably not.

Good suggestion on the cuirassiers in the campaigns in Mexico..Gonzalo where are ya?!!

In a documentary just on about the Romanovs, and the massacre of the Royal Family in Russia in 1918,the young girls were apparantly not killed by the gunfire and ultimately bayonetted and bludgeoned. It was found the bullets were deflected by corsets laden with diamonds and jewels.
Just interesting note while I was writing this

All best regards,
Jim

[celtan]

In a documentary just on about the Romanovs, and the massacre of the Royal Family in Russia in 1918,the young girls were apparantly not killed by the gunfire and ultimately bayonetted and bludgeoned. It was found the bullets were deflected by corsets laden with diamonds and jewels.

That is the kind of image that I try not to picture in my mind. How utterly horrible.

lupus est homo homini

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much Aiontay. I think the gorget, which was in European military parlance, a sort of vestigial armour symbol of rank, was likely seen and used in much the same manner by the American Indian tribes, especially when received as gifts from Europeans.
I think the use of the sword was probably effective in the same manner as the tomahawk in 18th century warfare on the frontiers. When the single shot gun(s) was discharged, it was an immediate opportunity for attack.

While I would imagine that the sword did find at least some use on the Plains by Indian tribes into the 19th century, it does not seem in enough presence to have become especially widely known. At least when I think of a Native American warrior, my image would seldom include a sword, and this is I think often the case despite the fact that numerous references in some artwork and descriptions exist. I am under the impression that much of this is within tribal histories, and found apparantly in certain focused research. In "Native American Weapons" ( Colin F. Taylor, 2001, p.54) , the author notes that many of the well travelled British M1796 sabres were sold in the American West in about the 1840's, and that they became a kind of status symbol among many of the tribes. One instance described is of a sword painted red , used symbolically by the Crow leader Wraps Up His Tail, and seems to have been the focus of his supernatural power (Taylor. p.55).

Thank you for the input Chris, and very well made points! It certainly would seem like added weight of ammunition would be more worthwhile rather than extra weight of armour.

Well placed quote Celtan! and it does seem I could have left the graphics of this terrible incident out of the text. As you note, it is an unfortunate element of truth, mans inhumanity to man. I have always managed to rather remove myself from the true nature of arms in that sense, and always focus on the history and symbolism in styles etc. and in that parlance regretably included those details without thinking.

All very best regards,
Jim

[ausjulius]

i think also one has to look at the method of warfare neither the american settlers nor the indians were engaged in any heavy combat or in any large organized encounters.. the indians never fourght in organised groups in that area of the americas.. compared to for exsample the indians on the pacific coast and coastal alaskan natives they used very basic tactics and attacked in a individual manner.. not using group tactisc or any real manouvers invoiving preorganized plans..
generaly you will find in these cultures they combatants lack body armor and sheilds or have very small sheilds or use the infrequently.

as they are attacking as an single person. they have no orders.. attacking with what weapons they personaly own and in what manner they wish,
i thin armour realy coms when
1, you have a people with a structured ordered society with a class or worriors who can be directed by a chief and armed by his direction and controled by his tactics like people of the pacific in micronesia and polynesia western alaska .. or you have to have a seditary people producing agriculture,, that may not have a sturctured society with a hereditary chief but still use things like shield and body armor.. like in papua new guinea, they are able to store in their homes these extra and infrequiently used equipment.. and they fight in a group and not as an individuial with "fighting plans" and "drilling" before the battle.

i think you could say the plains indians culture was buy the time of european contact no longer at this state. no doubt in the past they had a far more complexed social structure and i do seem to recall some finds in the mid west of some form of body armor from earlier times when they were less mobile.
but by the time horses became common i think the lost many of these habits as they didnt suit their lifestyle and style of combat.
it can be seen in central and south america , the settled peoples having body armor and the nomadic ones mostly not having this..

i thin it is obvious why the "cowboys" of the day didnt have body armor.. it was becasue maybe in their whole life they would never shoot one person or be in one gun battle . and elk and bison dont have guns.
the most people were never in raging gun battles every week or fighting off bands of indians..
if one wants to see the real wild "west" then northen brazil or southern mexico would be exsamples of rely wild frontiers..
and in both these places body armor was actualy used up till the 1890s.. as were swords and spears..


one an other note....
one always has to remember how many millions of starving mouths expired in the life of those young ladies so they could have those jewels in their corsets , as they hardly worked for them

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Ausjulius,
Very well thought out assessment of the conditions of warfare experienced in America's frontiers in early colonial times into the movements toward the west.
I am certainly no authority on Native American warfare, but it seems to be that this was a magnificently complex culture, and warfare was inevitable between tribes for numerous reasons. The regimentation of European military and American settlers were incredibly restrictive in trying to combat what was essentially guerilla warfare. There was clearly adaption of strategy and use of weaponry taken by both sides as conflicts continued.

I'm not sure that the use of armour by Indians was likely, with the instance earlier noted an exception, and possibly other singular cases. Mostly I am interested in the use by gunfighters or others in the western frontiers.
You are right, the much dramatized and embellished tales of blazing gunfights being the norm, or fighting off bands of attacking warriors are mostly just that. While there are cases of certain individuals who apparantly knew they were constantly at threat of violence, who may have used some kind of protection such as bullet proof vests, the cases seem to have been rare.

The unfortunate reference I included concerning the Romanov event I think should be dropped, the point was concerning bulletproof vests, and used only in a comparitive analogy. As I have noted, I regret including it as clearly the point of reference was lost in adverse reactions. My apologies to anyone who misunderstood my intent and for having used this tragic reference.

All best regards,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ausjulius,


[QUOTE=ausjulius].. it was becasue maybe in their whole life they would never shoot one person or be in one gun battle . and elk and bison dont have guns.
the most people were never in raging gun battles every week or fighting off bands of indians.. [QUOTE]

I think that you make an extremely valid point. Frontier societies were nowhere as violent as pop culture, through the efforts of the myth makers, would have us believe. For example, from reading Argentinean literature, one would be led to believe that the gauchos were constantly fighting life and death duels. And whilst in the 1870s the murder rate was 178 times worse than in England, nevertheless and despite such a violent frontier environment, a British immigrant of those days, recalled seeing only one fatal stabbing in a full decade of rural life.

Cheers
Chris

[VANDOO]

I JUST REMEMBERED ANOTHER USE OF BODY ARMOR OF SORTS IN THE OLD WEST. THE HATCHET MEN WORKING FOR THE TONG'S USED PISTOLS, AND EDGED WEAPONS AND WOULD WEAR THE QUILTED CHINESE COATS AND UNDER THEM LOTS OF LAYERS OF CLOTH AND NEWSPAPER OR OTHER MATERIALS. THIS PROVED SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE IN GUN FIGHTS AND THEY WOULD BANG AWAY AT EACH OTHER A LOT LONGER THAN IF THEY HAD NO PROTECTION FOR THEIR BODIES.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO AVOID GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF SUCH A FIGHT SIMPLY WATCH OUT FOR GROUPS OF FAT CHINESE IN COATS. FAT LOOKING CHINESE WERE RARE IN THOSE DAYS UNLESS THEY WERE BUNDLED UP FOR THE COLD OR BATTLE. YOU CAN SEARCH ON THE INTERNET FOR THIS INFO IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I RESEARCHED IN THAT DIRECTION BUT I THINK LOOKING UNDER TONG WARS OR HATCHET MEN SHOULD TURN UP SOME INFO.

[fearn]

Originally Posted by ausjulius

i think also one has to look at the method of warfare neither the american settlers nor the indians were engaged in any heavy combat or in any large organized encounters.. the indians never fourght in organised groups in that area of the americas.. compared to for exsample the indians on the pacific coast and coastal alaskan natives they used very basic tactics and attacked in a individual manner.. not using group tactisc or any real manouvers invoiving preorganized plans..
generaly you will find in these cultures they combatants lack body armor and sheilds or have very small sheilds or use the infrequently.

as they are attacking as an single person. they have no orders.. attacking with what weapons they personaly own and in what manner they wish,
i thin armour realy coms when
1, you have a people with a structured ordered society with a class or worriors who can be directed by a chief and armed by his direction and controled by his tactics like people of the pacific in micronesia and polynesia western alaska .. or you have to have a seditary people producing agriculture,, that may not have a sturctured society with a hereditary chief but still use things like shield and body armor.. like in papua new guinea, they are able to store in their homes these extra and infrequiently used equipment.. and they fight in a group and not as an individuial with "fighting plans" and "drilling" before the battle.

i think you could say the plains indians culture was buy the time of european contact no longer at this state. no doubt in the past they had a far more complexed social structure and i do seem to recall some finds in the mid west of some form of body armor from earlier times when they were less mobile.
but by the time horses became common i think the lost many of these habits as they didnt suit their lifestyle and style of combat.
it can be seen in central and south america , the settled peoples having body armor and the nomadic ones mostly not having this..

i thin it is obvious why the "cowboys" of the day didnt have body armor.. it was becasue maybe in their whole life they would never shoot one person or be in one gun battle . and elk and bison dont have guns.
the most people were never in raging gun battles every week or fighting off bands of indians..
if one wants to see the real wild "west" then northen brazil or southern mexico would be exsamples of rely wild frontiers..
and in both these places body armor was actualy used up till the 1890s.. as were swords and spears..


one an other note....
one always has to remember how many millions of starving mouths expired in the life of those young ladies so they could have those jewels in their corsets , as they hardly worked for them

Hi Ausjulius,

I was thinking through a long list of examples, and my end conclusion is that there's not a great correlation between who's carrying armor and defensive weapons and the social structures you're talking about here. I keep thinking about those shields the Australian Aborigines carried, to cite one example.

A couple of complicating factors play in thinking about this:

1. Social structure. The Indians of 1491 appear to have been more organized than the ones of, say, 1800, or 1850. Epidemics took most of them out. Without getting into the politics of this, we all need to specify what time period we're talking about for any location, to talk about what the level of social complexity was at a place and time.

2. Social complexity may not add up to military might. An example: I'm reading a book about Estanislao (link), a California Indian who entered the Mission system in 1821, rebelled with 400 followers in 1827, beat the Spanish in several battles, and reconciled in 1829, only to die in 1838 from either smallpox or malaria. Among other things, he built several working forts based on what he learned from the Spanish. Another thing is that he was quite possibly the origin of the Zorro myth. As a devout Christian, he would trap the Spanish, carve an S in their chest, and let them go with no loss of life, at least in the early battles. The last battles got pretty bloody on both sides.

The basic point is that if you're doing a cursory reading of the ethnographic literature, the California Indians weren't politically sophisticated and didn't build forts, use complex weapons or wear armor. However, it took one of them only six years to figure out how to beat the Spaniards at their own game. People can change very rapidly, especially when exposed to new ideas.

I think it boils down to a couple of questions.

1. Can someone make useful armor? This is a technical question, a logistical question, and (in some societies) a financial question.
2. Is it worth making and using that armor? This depends on things like mobility, survivability in the armor when not in combat (from wounds, heat stroke, drowning, etc), and the general trade off between how good the armor is vs. the problems with using it in a particular situation.

Generalizing beyond these two questions is problematic, IMHO.

F

[M ELEY]

Shameless promotion here, but I noticed an interest in breastplates here. I just posted one for sale in the Swap forum if anyone is interested...