Leathernecks

[arnisandyz]

Has anyone heard this term that refers to Marines?

I was told that thid name came about because during WWII in the PI Marines would wear a piece of leather around thier necks as protection against attacks from native tribes. The native tribes from the PI are also credited with the US development of the 45ACP. Seems the 38 cal wouldn't stop/knockdown the attackers.

Fact or Fiction???

 

[Leo Daher]

Hi Andy! How's it going?

Here's what I found on the subject:

Origin of the Nickname "Leathernecks" for the Marines
The following material is from: http://www.grunts.net/usmc/usmclore.html, web site for Marine Corps lore of all sorts.

It is questionable whether the origin of the term "Leatherneck" can be accepted as a legitimate member of the family of legends. More like a tradition, it is. For there can be no doubt of the origin, considering that U. S. Marines of three generations wore leather collars. It is as obvious as the nickname "Red" for a recruit with carrot-colored hair and freckles.

Now accepted by Webster as a synonym for Marine, the term "Leatherneck" was derived from a leather stock once worn around the neck by both American and British Marines--and soldiers also. Beginning in 1798, "one stock of black leather and clasp" was issued to each U. S. Marine annually.
This stiff leather collar, fastened by two buckles at the back, measured nearly three and a half inches high, and it prevented the neck movement necessary for sighting along a barrel. It supposedly improved military bearing, by forcing the chin high, although General George F. Elliott, recalling its use after the Civil War, said it made the wearers appear "like geese looking for rain."

The stock was dropped as an article of Marine uniform in 1872, after surviving through the uniform changes of 1833, 1839, and 1859. But by then it was a part of American vocabulary, a word preserved, like so many words, beyond its original meaning.

So, according to that source, the leather collar was dropped many decades before WWII started. Besides, Americans and Filipinos were allies against the Japanese invaders in that conflict, so it is doubtful that U.S. Marines would need that sort of protection against local tribes.
Bottom line: it appears to be fiction rather than fact.

Take care,
Leo

 

[Guro Harold]

Excerpts from: The Filipino Americans (From 1763 to the Present)

The Philippine American War (1899 - 1914)

"It took the United States more than three years to defeat the army of the first Philippine Republic. However, the outcome of the war was never in doubt, mainly because the United States enjoyed tremendous military advantages."

I vaguely remembered this but there are real history buffs who can elaborate upon this I am sure.

How I found this text was Yahoo!Search:
"American Philippine military encounters"

Palusut

 

[juramentado]

it was during the The Philippine American War when US Marines were forced to wear leather neck protectors due to the large number of them getting their throars slashed.

The invention of the 1911 Colt .45 auto is also attributed to the that The Philippine American War. Apparently attacking juramentados could not be stopped dead by their then issued sidearms and they needed a more powerful caliber.

The Philippine American War was very bloody and featured atrocities on both sides.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by juramentado
it was during the The Philippine American War when US Marines were forced to wear leather neck protectors due to the large number of them getting their throars slashed.

This is the story I've always heard. I don't know how historically accurate it is.

 

[Leo Daher]

Originally posted by juramentado
it was during the The Philippine American War when US Marines were forced to wear leather neck protectors due to the large number of them getting their throars slashed.

The invention of the 1911 Colt .45 auto is also attributed to the that The Philippine American War. Apparently attacking juramentados could not be stopped dead by their then issued sidearms and they needed a more powerful caliber.

Contrary to popular myth, the .45 ACP was not issued in the Philippines during what was known as the Moro uprising. It is true that the then-issue .38 Long Colt caliber was found not reliable in stopping the juramentados running amok, but it was at first substituted by revolvers in .45 Long Colt, not the 1911 semi-automatic pistol.

Several sources indicate that the leather collar was dropped by the U.S. Marine Corps in 1872, so it is doubtful that it was used during the Philippine American conflict. In any case, I find it hard to believe it would make much of a difference against a Barong charge by a juramentado.

 

[lhommedieu]

Originally posted by Leo Daher
Contrary to popular myth, the .45 ACP was not issued in the Philippines during what was known as the Moro uprising. It is true that the then-issue .38 Long Colt caliber was found not reliable in stopping the juramentados running amok, but it was at first substituted by revolvers in .45 Long Colt, not the 1911 semi-automatic pistol.

Several sources indicate that the leather collar was dropped by the U.S. Marine Corps in 1872, so it is doubtful that it was used during the Philippine American conflict. In any case, I find it hard to believe it would make much of a difference against a Barong charge by a juramentado.

This question also received some consideration in the Dogbrothers Forum a while back (Now archived under the "Influence of Spanish Swordsmanship on Filipino Martial Arts" thread):

I originally wrote that an author implied that "the conversion on the part of the U.S. army to the 1911 45 sidearm was as a result of Moro juramentado attacks. Hey, I used to believe that was true as well (it's a great story)."

The response that I got was:

"The gun that actually replaced the .38 during the Phillipine campaigns was the M1897 Colt "New Service" .455 revolver. Before this was introduced to American units in the Phillipines, some American soldiers even resorted to using old 1880's-vintage, single-action .44 and .45 revolvers. Since the fighting with the Moros lasted until 1913, the M1911 eventually saw service there too."

Another response was:

"I'm glad someone finally pointed out that the 45 caliber gun used was a REVOLVER not the 45 automatic that writers on Philippine Martial Arts history,etc. assume was the weapon. The old '44' and the '38' were used,of course. The use of hand guns against the jurmentado were, for the most part, ineffective, according to some accounts I have read and it was only the .45 that effectively stopped them, apparently."

And another:

"The book, 'The Colt Model 1905, Automatic Pistol' by John Potocki has a whole chapter on the .45 Colt M1878/1902 Philippine REVOLVER. Sometimes called "the Philippine". The dismal performance of the .38 D.A. Colt is mentioned and several Moro accounts listed with pics that are pretty common. There's also some tests that were recorded on cattle corpses etc."

And I wrote back:

See also:

http://www.manatarmsbooks.com/excerpt.html
http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/saw/equip/colt45_e.html
http://www.chuckhawks.com/45Colt.htm

From http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/pistols/armpr.htm :

(#223): Colt's first heavy frame, .45 inch Calibre, double and single action revolver manufactured between the years 1872 to 1909. This is an army model. Many of this model were made on Government order for Cavalry use. These differed from the standard design in having a much larger trigger guard and a longer trigger to permit use with a gloved hand. With these variations, this arm has been known as the 'Alaskan' and the 'Philippine' models.

The Potocki excerpt states that: “As a result of these experiences, the Army wisely shipped new .45s to the Philippine Constabulary in 1902. These guns were basically Colt M1878 D.A. Army revolvers with a large trigger guard. Often called the "Alaskan" model in error, the "Philippine" utilized the large trigger guard for increased leverage to allow for a stiffer mainspring necessary to fire Frankford Arsenal ammunition.”

As for the term "leatherneck": I've been told that the use of the collar had been discontinued well before the conflict in the Philippines - as the posts above have also indicated.

Best,

Steve Lamade

 

[theletch1]

While the leather stock has indeed been dropped from the uniform the Dress Blue uniform still sports a very high, stiff collar which holds the head in the same position. How anyone ever managed to fight in such a thing is beyond me. The origin of the nickname is varied but the story told to us in boot camp is along the same lines as that posted by Leo.

The term Devil Dog, however, is very clear in it's origin. WWI Europe, given us by the german army for the tenacity shown in combat...tuffel hundin (sp) translates to Devil Dog.

 

[cali_tkdbruin]

I used to be in the U.S. Navy, and we sailors used to refer to the marines as Grunts.

We used to also never let them forget that the U.S. Marine Corps is a part of the Navy Department

 

[pknox]

Originally posted by Leo Daher
It is true that the then-issue .38 Long Colt caliber was found not reliable in stopping the juramentados running amok, but it was at first substituted by revolvers in .45 Long Colt, not the 1911 semi-automatic pistol.

I was also taught that the same conflict gave us the phrase "running amok", as you mentioned above. Evidently "amok" means "crazy" in one of the Philippine dialects the Americans encountered.

 

[Cruentus]

This is an interesting thread. I never knew that about the .45.

 

[arnisador]

This says amok is Malay.

Thanks for the detailed and well-referenced post lhommedieu!

 

[pknox]

Interesting. Are there any filipino dialects that draw from arabic or malay?

 

[theletch1]

We used to also never let them forget that the U.S. Marine Corps is a part of the Navy Department

Hey, don't get me wrong. The Navy was great. Ya'lls "boats" made great taxis for gettin' us Devil Dogs to where the real action was.

 

[OULobo]

I always remember being told the Colt 1911 .45 semi-auto was used in WWI before the Philippines became an issue. The monicre or 1911 is for its service introduction year if i am not mistaken. I think the .45 revolvers were designed for use in the Insurrection, but the .45 semiauto was adopted because of the reliability and greater capacity. Others on the thread seem to have covered this well.

As for the leatherneck thing, soldiers of France and other European armies have been incorprating leather collars into thier combat uniforms for decades (centuries even) to protect what is often viewed as the most vulnerable part of the human anatomy.

On the subject of possible myths or explanations;

How about bikers and punks wearing black leather jackets because it provided good protection against slashing attacks and stabbing attacks from weak concealable knives that were popular at the time like switchblades.

or

Gen. "Black" Jack Pershing put down moro resistance for over twenty years by using tactics like butchering a pig in front of those muslims to be executed and having the bullets they were to be shot with soaked in the pig's blood. Then the bodies were put in the grave with the pig entrials and buried. This prayed on the fear in some Islamic beliefs that to touch a pig or any part of one was to be denied entrance to paradise.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by pknox
I was also taught that the same conflict gave us the phrase "running amok", as you mentioned above. Evidently "amok" means "crazy" in one of the Philippine dialects the Americans encountered.

I'm taking this all from memory and can't cite my sources, but for what its worth, from what I remember, amok isn't originally a verb, it is a noun that means a person in an Islamic religious frenzy that kills all nonmuslims without care or regard for personal safety. The term was corrupted in to the current use to describe crazy or deranged by American service men in the Philippines during the Insurrection.

In Malaysia and Indonesia they have the official language of Bahasa (Malay and Indonesian versions). Many moro words are hybrids of Arabic and local dialects (of which there are many); throw in neiboring influences from the rest of the malay achipelago (though which the muslims traveled on their way to the Philippines) and conquering armies from Japan, China, Spain and America and you have a pretty unique language that has similarities to many other languages.

 

[pknox]

That makes perfect sense.

 

[Cthulhu]

Originally posted by cali_tkdbruin
I used to be in the U.S. Navy, and we sailors used to refer to the marines as Grunts.

We used to also never let them forget that the U.S. Marine Corps is a part of the Navy Department

Not choosing sides or anything, but the counter to this that I've seen is:

Yeah, the USMC is a department of the Navy...the men's department.



Cthulhu

 

[Federico]

Linguistically Malay and Tagalog are related.

As for amok, it does just mean someone who has gone crazy killing people. For many years it was considered a strangely Malay (not Malaysia but Malay as a race under which Filipinos fit) phenomena, that instead of committing suicide (just killing themselves), crazy individuals would instead kill everyone in sight until they themselves were eventually killed. Much like the Columbine shooters. Running Amok is not religious in any sense.

Sometimes those who ran amok were mistaken with those who have undertaken the rites of Magsabil, or as the Spanish coined it, those who took oaths/juromentados. However, amoks killed randomly, for very little reason (aside from insanity). Juromentados ran their suicide runs for deeply religious reasons, in a form of individual (though sometimes group) rebellion against the colonial powers. Good references about the rites of Magsabil/juromentados: Muslims in the Philippines by Cesar Adib Majul, History of Sulu by Dr. Najeeb Saleeby (or it may have been his other book "Studies in Moro History, Law, and Religion" its been a few years since Ive read them), Swish of the Kris has some details on it too, but is definitely from the Western perspective. A couple good books on the time period are also Muddy Glory by Russel Roth and Mandate in Moroland by Peter Gowing.

 

[lhommedieu]

Sometimes those who ran amok were mistaken with those who have undertaken the rites of Magsabil, or as the Spanish coined it, those who took oaths/juromentados. However, amoks killed randomly, for very little reason (aside from insanity). Juromentados ran their suicide runs for deeply religious reasons, in a form of individual (though sometimes group) rebellion against the colonial powers.

I could be mistaken, but I read somewhere that juromentados were expected to make a public statement expressing their religious beliefs, the reasons for their suicide runs, their intended targets, etc., before they started their attack. Specific rituals, including prayer, diet, and clothing, were also followed.

Only by following this formula could a juromentado expect to find a place in heaven as a result of his actions. Simply "running amok" and killing suddenly and at random would not have achieved the intended religious agenda of a juromentado - and would probabably be considered just a form of insanity.

Is this correct?

Best,

Steve Lamade