I've been taught that the weapon hand and the empty hand are interrelated; the same principles that underlie a good empty hand technique are present in the weapon hand, and vice versa. For example, many short stick strikes are very similar to basic punches, with slight changes due to the nature of the stick. In theory, you should be able to perform any weapon form/technique empty hand, or any empty hand technique with a weapon. Of course, reality and theory aren't in total agreement; some things just don't work well when you do that -- though sound principles of stance, body angle, and body dynamics are the same in each case.
Burmese weapons arsenal
- Thread starter destructautomaton
- Start date
blackdiamondcobra
Purple Belt
In the wars between Burma and Thailand, an integral part of the battle was the war elephants.
"The elephants would often advance into the thick of battle, or against enemy stockades, with apparent disregard of javelin wounds. Moreover, the sight of them often had a terrifying effect on the foe."
A description of BUIH SUKRI (Burmese: Headman of the Troops) Commanders of the four armies of the Burmese Army: Cavalry, Infantry, Elephants and the Fleet - in the kingdom of Pagan (10th-13th century)pretty much breaks down their attacking army.
"Siamese and Burmese weapons consisted of bows, crossbows, lances, spears with curved heads, javelins and swords. Defensive armor was mainly confined to leather shields and caps of leather or plaited bamboo"
The weapons used off of the war elephants were halbred, short spears for throwing, spear, some used bow, some used long handled weapons in addition.
I have an old burmese book on spear and it has a tremendous amount of usage of a spear on a horse(cavalry).
The infantry had an assortment of weapons primary being the sword.
Burmese (i trimmed and cropped this article for purposes of this conversation)
(500 AD-1526 AD)
By Dan Mersey
The medieval Burmese have inexplicably been overlooked by wargamers for too long. They combined the best elements of both Indian and Chinese warfare, and between the early 11th and early 14th centuries were one of the most formidable kingdoms of south-east Asia.
Sandwiched between the Indians, Tibetans, Chinese and Khmer, the Burmese contantly engaged themselves in border conflict, as well as standing up to (and losing against) the might of the Mongols in the late 13th and early 14th centuries.
"Burmese" armies actually represent several cultures who rose and declined through this period - the Pyu, the Burmans of Pagan, and the southern Mon people.
Army Composition
Elephant - Elephants were the Burmese armies shock troops - and they were effective (they routed Mongol cavalrymen, who then had to dismount to regroup and win). Burmese elephants were prized by all south-east Asian armies, and when one Burmese king banned their export, a trend for elephant smuggling sprang up! Unlike the Khmer, Burmese crews fought from a tower - Marco Polo says that the Burmese elephants had 12 crewmen armed with spears and bows.
Cavalry - The king, when not riding on an elephant, fought with his armoured bodyguard cavalrymen. Levied cavalry also existed, fighting with spears and curved "dah" swords. Burmese cavalrymen usually fought on the flanks of armies, and specialised in raidng behind enemy lines. They were not trained to be unafraid of elephants.
Bow - Burmese infantry were a mixture of levied bowmen and spearmen. Burmese bowmen were well regarded, but were not a match for the Mongols.
Crossbow- Crossbows were used by a number of Burmese warriors - the Mon were reportedly very accurate with crossbows. Later armies may well have had access to Chinese repeating crossbows.
Auxilia- Vast armies of raw, ill disciplined levy spearmen supported the elephants in battle. They really appear just to have been cannon (elephant?) fodder - hence their classification as Auxilia!! The king's bodyguard were not much better - selected for their loyalty above their fighting skills.
Psiloi -A number of skirmishers fought in Burmese armies, mixed in amongst the elephants. They fought with bows and spears, and carried little else. They may even represent the respected Mon or Pyu hunters, who undoubtedly fought as light troops.
Camp
Pallisade fighting was an art form to the Burmese - even as late as the British invasion in the nineteenth century. Burmese stockades were intricately constructed according to astrological charts, and their camp should really be represented by such a fortification.
Painting
The Burmese were heavily tatooed from the waist down - so a varitey of blue-black squiggles on their lower halves should look just about right. The levied troops wore loincloths in a variety of colours, and carried bamboo or leather shields. The bodyguard troops wore long, brightly coloured robes, and carried gilded shields. Horses and elephants may have been decorated with magical symbols and warpaint (I have seen pictures of elephants with completely red painted undersides and legs).
"The tactics developed in Burma by Bayinnaung and introduced into the Siamese army by Naresuan with still greater success, were basically those of guerilla warfare: the drawing on of an enemy by feigned retreat, ambush, and surprise attacks, with the avoidance of unnecessary risks."
I include this short quote on guerilla warfare because it is the place were I personally believe the mae sawk fits. It is my understanding that it came in to use out of desperation when people couldnt afford to arm themselves with swords like in small villages and in desperate moments outside of whatever sticks, staffs or other things they could use to fight. It was originally made out of special wood or very old bamboo crafted together to make the weapons. I think when we read about in the West or demonstrated or taught, without understanding its true usage you miss what the training is about.
In a side note, the cambodian master of the lbok ktor had different examples with points, elongated fronts which were very thick, etc. What he described and how he demonstrated its use would perfectly fit in the context of its development. What was surprising about him was that he was a master of that weapon only and not the sword, staff, etc. He had totally mastered this one weapon, its history, development and use.
He explained it was a weapon his grandfathers village who were rice farmers could create with very little to defend themselves. So it fits in line with what i learned in Thailand about the weapon itself. It will be very interesting when and if I find a burmese master of this weapon to see its history and how it was created and used matches what i previously learned.
The other weapon taught in burma, thailand and cambodia is the sickle which is another farming tool.
I think especially in thailand with the newer strains of krabi krabong, it is taught more from a more theatrical presentation of its usage in war. The older masters fall in line more with the old ways that correspond to things history tells us about battles in cambodia, burma and thailand.
Many times these battles were not only to capture regions but to acquire slaves. Of course, the Burmese were especially brutal in sacking Ayuthaya and the amount of destruction there was huge.
"It was the object of warfare to increase the available manpower, not to waste it in bloody pitched battles. Hence attention was paid primarily to mobilizing large and intimidating forces, catching the enemy off balance, and demonstrating by some initial success that the supernatural forces which decided such things were on one's side."
"The Abboy de Choisey(1687:241) thought the Siamese, Burmese and Laotians made war "like angels" firing into the air or the ground to scare their enemy rather than kill him, and attempting to round up populations and lead them off to their own territory rather than injuring them. Large numbers of people did die as a result of famine, disease, and disruption brought about by war, but few on the battlefield."
What i get from alot of historical writing about these battles was it is more of a tactical battle and less a bloodthirsty affair though obviously there was a tremendous loss of lives but maybe less than one would expect from these huge continuous wars.
A link of interest on se asia weapons:
http://www.arscives.com/historysteel/continentalsea.article.htm
"The elephants would often advance into the thick of battle, or against enemy stockades, with apparent disregard of javelin wounds. Moreover, the sight of them often had a terrifying effect on the foe."
A description of BUIH SUKRI (Burmese: Headman of the Troops) Commanders of the four armies of the Burmese Army: Cavalry, Infantry, Elephants and the Fleet - in the kingdom of Pagan (10th-13th century)pretty much breaks down their attacking army.
"Siamese and Burmese weapons consisted of bows, crossbows, lances, spears with curved heads, javelins and swords. Defensive armor was mainly confined to leather shields and caps of leather or plaited bamboo"
The weapons used off of the war elephants were halbred, short spears for throwing, spear, some used bow, some used long handled weapons in addition.
I have an old burmese book on spear and it has a tremendous amount of usage of a spear on a horse(cavalry).
The infantry had an assortment of weapons primary being the sword.
Burmese (i trimmed and cropped this article for purposes of this conversation)
(500 AD-1526 AD)
By Dan Mersey
The medieval Burmese have inexplicably been overlooked by wargamers for too long. They combined the best elements of both Indian and Chinese warfare, and between the early 11th and early 14th centuries were one of the most formidable kingdoms of south-east Asia.
Sandwiched between the Indians, Tibetans, Chinese and Khmer, the Burmese contantly engaged themselves in border conflict, as well as standing up to (and losing against) the might of the Mongols in the late 13th and early 14th centuries.
"Burmese" armies actually represent several cultures who rose and declined through this period - the Pyu, the Burmans of Pagan, and the southern Mon people.
Army Composition
Elephant - Elephants were the Burmese armies shock troops - and they were effective (they routed Mongol cavalrymen, who then had to dismount to regroup and win). Burmese elephants were prized by all south-east Asian armies, and when one Burmese king banned their export, a trend for elephant smuggling sprang up! Unlike the Khmer, Burmese crews fought from a tower - Marco Polo says that the Burmese elephants had 12 crewmen armed with spears and bows.
Cavalry - The king, when not riding on an elephant, fought with his armoured bodyguard cavalrymen. Levied cavalry also existed, fighting with spears and curved "dah" swords. Burmese cavalrymen usually fought on the flanks of armies, and specialised in raidng behind enemy lines. They were not trained to be unafraid of elephants.
Bow - Burmese infantry were a mixture of levied bowmen and spearmen. Burmese bowmen were well regarded, but were not a match for the Mongols.
Crossbow- Crossbows were used by a number of Burmese warriors - the Mon were reportedly very accurate with crossbows. Later armies may well have had access to Chinese repeating crossbows.
Auxilia- Vast armies of raw, ill disciplined levy spearmen supported the elephants in battle. They really appear just to have been cannon (elephant?) fodder - hence their classification as Auxilia!! The king's bodyguard were not much better - selected for their loyalty above their fighting skills.
Psiloi -A number of skirmishers fought in Burmese armies, mixed in amongst the elephants. They fought with bows and spears, and carried little else. They may even represent the respected Mon or Pyu hunters, who undoubtedly fought as light troops.
Camp
Pallisade fighting was an art form to the Burmese - even as late as the British invasion in the nineteenth century. Burmese stockades were intricately constructed according to astrological charts, and their camp should really be represented by such a fortification.
Painting
The Burmese were heavily tatooed from the waist down - so a varitey of blue-black squiggles on their lower halves should look just about right. The levied troops wore loincloths in a variety of colours, and carried bamboo or leather shields. The bodyguard troops wore long, brightly coloured robes, and carried gilded shields. Horses and elephants may have been decorated with magical symbols and warpaint (I have seen pictures of elephants with completely red painted undersides and legs).
"The tactics developed in Burma by Bayinnaung and introduced into the Siamese army by Naresuan with still greater success, were basically those of guerilla warfare: the drawing on of an enemy by feigned retreat, ambush, and surprise attacks, with the avoidance of unnecessary risks."
I include this short quote on guerilla warfare because it is the place were I personally believe the mae sawk fits. It is my understanding that it came in to use out of desperation when people couldnt afford to arm themselves with swords like in small villages and in desperate moments outside of whatever sticks, staffs or other things they could use to fight. It was originally made out of special wood or very old bamboo crafted together to make the weapons. I think when we read about in the West or demonstrated or taught, without understanding its true usage you miss what the training is about.
In a side note, the cambodian master of the lbok ktor had different examples with points, elongated fronts which were very thick, etc. What he described and how he demonstrated its use would perfectly fit in the context of its development. What was surprising about him was that he was a master of that weapon only and not the sword, staff, etc. He had totally mastered this one weapon, its history, development and use.
He explained it was a weapon his grandfathers village who were rice farmers could create with very little to defend themselves. So it fits in line with what i learned in Thailand about the weapon itself. It will be very interesting when and if I find a burmese master of this weapon to see its history and how it was created and used matches what i previously learned.
The other weapon taught in burma, thailand and cambodia is the sickle which is another farming tool.
I think especially in thailand with the newer strains of krabi krabong, it is taught more from a more theatrical presentation of its usage in war. The older masters fall in line more with the old ways that correspond to things history tells us about battles in cambodia, burma and thailand.
Many times these battles were not only to capture regions but to acquire slaves. Of course, the Burmese were especially brutal in sacking Ayuthaya and the amount of destruction there was huge.
"It was the object of warfare to increase the available manpower, not to waste it in bloody pitched battles. Hence attention was paid primarily to mobilizing large and intimidating forces, catching the enemy off balance, and demonstrating by some initial success that the supernatural forces which decided such things were on one's side."
"The Abboy de Choisey(1687:241) thought the Siamese, Burmese and Laotians made war "like angels" firing into the air or the ground to scare their enemy rather than kill him, and attempting to round up populations and lead them off to their own territory rather than injuring them. Large numbers of people did die as a result of famine, disease, and disruption brought about by war, but few on the battlefield."
What i get from alot of historical writing about these battles was it is more of a tactical battle and less a bloodthirsty affair though obviously there was a tremendous loss of lives but maybe less than one would expect from these huge continuous wars.
A link of interest on se asia weapons:
http://www.arscives.com/historysteel/continentalsea.article.htm
Last edited:
Jimi
Black Belt
That is very insightful. I enjoyed that read, thank you. especially for the link.
