Burmese dha use question

[kronckew]

In the more distant past, armies wore a bewildering array of styles of clothing, armours, and weapons from plain to ornate, for a variety of economic and personal reasons. Bling was a sign of your rank and status.

In the following age of gunpowder the armies started to standardize, wear uniforms issued by their governments, this provided not only a way to distinguish who was on your side in a melee but offered a form of camouflage in that when everyone looked the same at a distance, no one soldier would receive 'inordinate' attention for his bling.

Officers thru history however were expected to buy their own gear, often if not usually more ornate as they rose in rank. Rules of war provided that Officers were not to receive undo attention as that was ungentlemanly. Col. Ferguson, the famed rifle man & sniper, refused to shoot George Washington in the back for this reason.

This practice continued into the early 19c, when us dastardly colonials figured out that shooting officers, and NCOs worked really well. Fancy bling officers tended to die first. At Chalmette (New Orleans) A well-disciplined Scots regiment lost all its officers as it approached the US line, and just stood there at attention and not firing back, getting shot to pieces until an officer showed up who told them to get the heck outta there. At the end, the Brits didn't have any officers to pursue the battle and surrendered.

By the time of the American war between the states, this 'gentlemanly armour' was completely gone. As one Union General found when visiting the front lines stated eloquently when asked to keep his head down, "Don't worry, they couldn't hit an elephant at this dist.." and dropped dead with a bullet thru his forehead.

Fancy silver/gold rank badges on shoulders and collars/hats started either being removed before battle, or replaced with 'subdued' versions. Now it is the poor slob with a visible antenna who gets shot first.

[Peter Dekker]

Hi,

That some Burman preferred a heavier style or a longer blade may simply be preference, but the Shan provided dha for many ethnic groups throughout Burma, including Burmans, Kachin, and Karens, as well as into northern Thailand and Laos, and even as far north as Assam and neighboring states in NE India.

It doesn't appear to be "some Burman", Burman swords are heavier by default and in that sense seem to be closer to the typical Indian talwar or Chinese dao or Japanese katana in weight, and in balance much like the latter two as well.

They tend to be heavier than Shan dha, but in the grand scheme of things, they are not the clumsy, overweight swords they are made out to be. Plus, edges are hard and often have a temperline when polished.

Another argument for them being fighting swords is that:
a.) Humble unadorned Burmese dha are found with the same weight and balance.
b.) Some of these fancy blades were mounted in humble mounts, you couldn't see the blade when sheathed.
c.) I've seen some, and currently own one, with some nicks and cuts in the softer side of the blade that seem clear edge damage.
d.) During the Anglo Burmese wars, many were confiscated after the defeat of Shumba Woonghee:

"The advanced posts of the army under Shumba Woonghee, had now appeared on the banks of the Rangoon River, seven miles from Rangoon."

"The carnage was very great, at least five hundred men being slain in the first stockade, and amongst them was Shumbah Woonghee."

"In this stockade was a battery of nine small guns, and ranged in a row behind, wore the Burman colours. They were made of red silk, swallow-tailed, and having the figure of a Braminy goose in the centre, and when furled, were bound round with green leaves instead of cases. A great many stand of arms were captured and destroyed, and many handsome spears, the shafts headed with chased silver, swords with gold and silver handles and scabbards silver caps..."

-Thomas Abercromby Trant, July 1824

This was not the storeroom of a palace that was raided. This stockade was temporarily set up by Shumba Woonghee moving army. He himself fell fighting in battle. And the amount of richly ornamented weapons was "a great many", which suggests much more than for his own personal use.

My personal preference would be a good Shan dha over one of the fancy Mandalay dha if I had to pick one to fight with. But then I know little about actual sword fighting.

It's all a matter of preference. I regularly do sword-sparring. My style is Chinese, with a wooden replica of my favorite antique jian, weighing at 840 grams it's about as heavy as a heftier Mindan dha. Pros of a relatively heavy piece: Easier to keep the center-line, harder for them to beat it aside due to the inertia of the piece. You hit harder. Cons: You fatigue more easily, and are a little bit slower so you need to carefully plan your actions.

Historically, for most cultures, the pros outweighed the cons since 800 grams is a perfectly normal weight for swords and sabers around the world.

*Strictly speaking, the Shan are Burmese since most of them live in the Shan States within the old Kingdom of Burma (now Myanmar).

Tell that to the Shan living in Thailand and China...

What about the "bearing swords" of Europe--those monsters that were carried in procession? Moro datus do a similar thing with large ornate kampilan. "Mine is bigger than yours" can play out in various settings as a display of wealth and superiority, just as lots of gold and silver finery can. Why not combine the two, and go big with lots of bling?

Well, that's the thing. These Burmese dha are mainly thicker than many Shan dha. If there is one dimension in which a sword on a parade does not give more of a bling factor, it must be the thickness.

Length, width, are seen from afar. Not thickness.

If you want to get into the numbers, I have detailed weights, measurements and p.o.b.'s of a good number of dha I've had pass through my hands for a comparative study between those of the same type that were, and were not, lavishly decorated. And from the top of my head, there really isn't much of a difference between the two blades structurally. As in, there appears no reason to assume the decorated ones perform any less in the field. If a Burmese soldier could afford one, he would get one, and then that was his trusty sword.

(Exceptions are the late ones, first decades of the 20th century. I also have examples of those that show overly thin blades in sometimes very good mounts.)