Southeast Asia has always been where Indian and Chinese culture has met and mingled.
The Chams, Khmer, Bamars and Malays have drawn their culture largely from Hindusim but the Viets are a sinitic people. The Thai are somewhere in between.
Could those of you who know anything about the wars that were fought in the region please elaborate on the weapons and military tactics used.
The Khmer, Champa and the Indonesian Empires of Majapahit and Srivijaya based their armies on the ancient Vedic models that were prevalent in Pre-Islamic India. The three main tools of warfare being the Gaj(elephant), Dhron(long bow) and Khanda( broad sword). Other Indian weapons such as chariots and cavalry were impractical for the regions jungle terrain.
The Thais also adapted these Indian techniques, but I dont now much about the Viets who are perhaps the most warlike group in SE Asia.
"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini
I would only add that crossbow was also a very common weapon in south east asia used also by less civilized people and very common amongst khmers who employed heavy ones on elephants too
Vietnamese adopted also many equipments and tactics from China
amongst them the chinese cataphract - heavy horseman armed with bow and sword and different kinds of halberd was quietly common
the round shield was the most common one
Bianca Guaccero - 25 years old - from Bitonto. Bari, Apulia
Southeast Asia has always been where Indian and Chinese culture has met and mingled.
True -- in the cultural sense. But the military history of SE Asia is really the invasion of Hindic states by tribal nations from South China who themselves were being pushed southward by the Chinese Empire.
Sino-Tibetan speakers invaded Burman and Tais (ancestors of southern Chinese) invaded Thailand, Laos and Vietnam. North Viets and Thais were ethnically Tai (or Dai as written in Chinese pinyin.)
Vietnam was a highly sinicized state. Tais in general were pretty receptive to Chinese culture. When Vietnam wasn't part of the Chinese empire, it was actually part of a South China Empire called Nam Yue that included the now Han Chinese provinces of Canton and Fujian.
The difference between Canton and Vietnam is Vietnam kept its own political sovereignty. Anyways, the military history of Tai tribes in Thailand and in Vietnam and Laos were the same. They invaded the Indic Khmers and Chams to their south.
The Thais truncated the Khmer Empire to Cambodia and then began invading the Malay south while the Viets wiped out the Chams. Other Tai tribes overran Laos.
Kind of one sided affairs. Much like the Aryan invasion of north India. Warrior tribes overrunning Indic states.
------------------------------------------------- Soft and smooth as tofu!
Okay how did they fight? Not a lot of material. The Vietnamese would be the easiest to explain.
They had a replica of the Chinese imperial court and administration. So they had civil and military exams as well. Their armies were probably close to the Chinese ones minus the heavy cavalry elements which wouldn't work well in SE Asia. Both the Yuan and Ch'ing in China had a hard in Vietnam. The Ming Dynasty, which actually lost the imperial horse breeding grounds in the north was more successful in Vietnam because its army was more infantry based.
So for the Viets, there would be Chinese reflex bows and pike/spearmen and halberdmen, a small horse element and the traditional Chinese overlapping metal or leather armor.
The original Thais that invaded Khmer land in Thailand were probably organized in a similar Chinese fashion since Nan Zhao, a very powerful independent Tai Kingdom in Yunnan, both fought for and then against the T'ang.
At any rate, Thai versus Khmers and Viet versus Chams were basically East Asian warfare versus Indic.
As far as Khmers and Chams were concerned, there isn't a lot of info. But we do see frescoes and scupltures.
This is a Khmer scuplture showing warfare between Khmers and Chams before the invasion of the Tais.
I would imagine Khmer and Chams to be armed much like the ancient armies of South India (which means no influence from Kushans, Sakas and other Central Asians.) I know they included elephants in their armies something not in Chinese-related militaries.
------------------------------------------------- Soft and smooth as tofu!
Vietnamese were not Sinitic people until Chinese immigrated to there and bred that more beautiful Vietnamese race. The native Vietnamese looked like fetishes in the Diabol 2 jungle mission.
There were no empires next to China. They were all shady villages with no walled capital cities, just villages. And they had no forges.
And Malay people had no empire on the record. It could be proved on Chinese navy engaged Arabian navy there with no slightest interferences from the natives surrounded that region.
India was better. They had towns built with earth. And they had paints. Their capital cities were comparable to Chinese capital, if not better. They had industry. But there were no wars between India and China, because there was Tibetan Himalaya between them. And the religion of these three kingdom was the same, which promoted peace.
India weapons were comparable to Chinese. Iron weapons, ballistics, chariots, bronze armour, mail armour, the both sides had them in their unique aspects. Later on, Chinese had hot weapons which Indies didn¡¦t have. But saving these two kingdoms, the rest of the villages didn¡¦t have these kinds of weapons. Bows were already very high tech to these villages in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Burma.
So you have to get disappointed. There were no international wars in South-East Asia.
I can only satisfy you on two Chinese vs Viets wars. First was on B.C. 223 when Chinese went conquest for the southern land. Chinese army invaded, and Viet commenced guerrilla warfare. It was a hard mission for Chinese. Chinese Commanding General died at a Viet night-stalking. But to the end, Chinese military forced Hundred Viet ( Hundred Viet was Vietnams ancient name from the time China had history) to today¡¦s Vietnams. Then around A.D. 1, Chinese invaded today¡¦s Vietnams. Most of the today¡¦s Vietnams became China¡¦s. Chinese built the first North Vietnams wall city for military and civil purposes.
Chinese didn¡¦t go further to Burma, because it was behind the un-accessible rain forests.
Ancient South-East Asia War ended in Northern Vietnams.
Sorry Gerram, Chinese historical records specifically mentioned the empires of the Khmers and Chams. In fact, they recorded the appeals for help from the Chams against the Vietnamese. Also China recorded campaigns against the Chams when north Vietnam was a Chinese province.
It's silly to say there were no original empires in SE Asia when you see the ruins of Angkor Wat.
Viets or Yue were a people even before they became the "Vietnamese" of today. Today's Vietnamese, especially, the south Viets are a mix of Chams, Khmer and original Dai-Viet from South China. The skin color of Viets in the north is the same as south Chinese. They are much darker in the south.
If you want to see what the original Viets and Thais looked like before the mixing then look at the Hmong and the Dai and Bai tribes of Yunnan.
------------------------------------------------- Soft and smooth as tofu!
oh, thank you for educating me. I was only Chinese Junior-High school graduated. I liked to read story books, especially real stories, so I knew more than the Junior High School history textbooks. Then I mixed them up and pondered them according to the maps and photographs. Afterward, I skimmed the fat. So there came the history in my own version.
I didn't know there were any sizable kingdoms at south of China, saved India kingdoms and mythical ruins nobody ever talked about.
This message has been edited by Gerram808 on Mar 21, 2007 3:56 AM
Angkor Wat. In its time, the Khmer empire was as great as any civilization in Asia. Unfortunately, it took a beating from the Viets and Thais so the Northeast Asians forgot how highly civilized the Khmers and Chams really were.
------------------------------------------------- Soft and smooth as tofu!
The kingdom of Champa (or Chiêm Thành in Sino-Vietnamese records) controlled what is now south and central Vietnam from approximately 7th century through 1832. Before Champa, there was a kingdom called Lin-yi (Lam Ap) (established since 192 A.D.) but relationship between Lin-yi and Champa is still not clear.
Champa's people, the Cham Malayo-Polynesian settlers from mainland Southeast Asia, appear to have reached the mainland from Borneo about the time of the Sa Huynh culture in the 1st and 2nd centuries BC.
The Cham language is part of the Austronesian family. Cham communities exist in contemporary Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia and Chinese Hainan Island.
Champa also had close trade and cultural relations with powerful maritime empire of Srivijaya and later Majapahit of the Malay Archipelago.
Bianca Guaccero - 25 years old - from Bitonto. Bari, Apulia
The "northern" SE Asian states I believe followed the Chinese style of military I suppose. But the southern parts, particularly of the Malay Archipelago are much closer to the Indian coutnerparts although not entirely similar. Its heavily infantry-based, spears, bows and arrows, swords, heavy short swords/machetes type. They do not have cavalry type forces nor chariots as I think was prevalent in India as these types were simply not practical and of little use in the geographical terrain of SE Asia and extremely thick jungles. If they were, they were very minimal. They however employ elephants although certainly not alot at all.
Gerram said they do not have walled cities and etc etc. Thats wrong. They did have knowledge of fortification techniques (no doubt having learnt from the Indians) consisting of primarily of timber or walled-earth. By 11th-12th centuries they too began employing cannons and acquired knowledge of canon-forging, about in line with about the rest of the world. Mostly small but bigger ones did exist (obviously among the richer states). Not surprising as these people had pretty decent knowledge of metal-working. Including armors and such (these aren't very popular however as the humidity in these areas are VERY oppresive, youll just get dehydrated very quickly).
I wish i'm not such a lazy ass to find links and sources, these are something I've acquired through reading multitude of articles. So take it as you will.
Its late and if i can find the time later on, I will try to find pictures as to how they might looked like in the past.
What is the race of most South-East Asians? Are they Mongoloid in the sense of Chinese and Tibetans? Or are they Indo-European (or at least some influence) like north Indians? Or are they Dravidian (or at least some influence) like south Indians?
From my historical sense, Thais and Viets are basically related to southern Chinese or the southern edge of the northern Mongoloid racial groups. (Traditonally called 'yellow folks.' LOL) That's not to say the Thais and Viets aren't heavily mixed and many look more like Malays than traditional Northeast Asians.
Malays and Cambodians are listed as mongoloids as well. But skin color and other characteristics are very different from the northern Mongoloid groups (Tibetans, Chinese, Mongols, Manchus, etc.)
Also the language of Malays, Khmers and Chams is part of the Austronesian family while northern Mongoloids are mainly Sino-Tibetan (Chinese, Tibetan, Burmese) or Altaic (Mongols, Turks, Korean and Japanese -- though Japanese is arguable.)
Dravidians are still Indo-European in language but there is obviously a very close cultural connection between South India and pre-Tai invasion SE Asia. One look at Cham and Khmer architecture and art proves it.
On the surface, the Malay looks like a mix between Tai and Dravidian.
The high culture of the Khmer and Chams was directly related to South India before the invasion of Aryans. I think they were racially connected too but the invasion of India by Aryans and of Southeast Asia by Tais had completely confused bloodlines and languages.
But if you look at the ruins and the art left behind, the Khmer were far closer to South Indians than to Chinese. You see no almost no Chinese influence in ancient Khmer or Cham architecture unlike in Vietnamese or Thai buildings.
------------------------------------------------- Soft and smooth as tofu!
This message has been edited by BigFatPandaBear on Mar 20, 2007 6:33 PM This message has been edited by BigFatPandaBear on Mar 20, 2007 6:30 PM
they are essentially a southern mongolic mix with some little dravidian groups still surviving in Philippines and Borneo and Makassar
The peoples of the majority of continental Southeast Asia, specifically those who are located west of the Annamite Mountain range, including Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines are Southern Mongoloids[8] They are considered Mongoloid according to the four-race theory [citations needed], however, they are genetically distinct from their neighbors to the north and may be considered a Southern Mongoloid race [citations needed].
The Southern Mongoloid is typically shorter-nosed, with quite hairless bodies, and tend to be slender. Starting with the southern Han Chinese of the southeastern coast, they are believed to be adapted to damper climates and allegedly mixed with Austronesian prototypes migrating to the Pacific Ocean.
In Southeast Asia, these Southern Mongoloids have assimilated, mixed in with, or replaced Australoids in some areas. Some Pacific Islanders or Polynesians may also be considered Mongoloids, although in this area of the world, Australoids and Mongoloids have hybridised considerably and the lines between the two "races" are blurred.
Although the Vietnamese, who are located and originate to the northeast of the Annamite Mountain Range, are geographically labelled as "Southeast Asians", their ethnic and cultural heritage ties them to their immediate northern neighbours, the Southern Chinese and other tribes within the proximity of South China.
The Ainu people are believed to be the product of an ancient Southern Monogoloid migration into the Japanese archipelago, occurring before the Jomon Period in Japan.[9]
Paul Kekai also claims that Kerala is partially Mongoloid due to the migrations Turko-Mongoloids there.[11] The Andaman and Nicobar islands off of India's coast are also partially Mongoloid. The Nicobarese and Shompen are a Mongoloid people who live there.[12] Also, anthropologist Lobsang Gelek concluded that the South Asian Mongoloid was physically distinct from Northern and Southern Mongoloids. He theorizes that the South Asian Mongoloid broke away from the Northern Mongoloid in the Neolithic era. These South Asian Mongoloids are physically different from their Northern Mongoloid counterparts by their dimunitive stature.[13] Vikrant Kumar also agrees they are significantly physically different from other Mongoloid populations.[14]
Bianca Guaccero - 25 years old - from Bitonto. Bari, Apulia
As for the Dravidians of Southern India, they are techincally considered Caucasian, but they are not Indo-European as far as language is concerned. There is a theory linking them with the Austroneasian languages of Melanesia and Australia and yet another theory linking them with Altaic(very odd).
Indian culture reached Southeast Asia, which was known as Suvarnabhumi in Sanskrit, via the Tamil Cholas of South India who traded with Indonesia and the Malay peninsula. They also established some colonies there and intermarried with the local Malays, Sumatrans and Javanese. This happened in the early AD dates and was thousands of years after the Aryan Migrations. Thus the literary and religous languge of the Southern and Western peoples of SE Asia was Sanskrit, an Indo-European language although Tamil (Dravidian) was also used.
The Indonesian Empires of Srivijaya(Hindu) and Majapahit(Hindu/Buddhist) controlled teh Malay Archipelago and Peninsula as well as what is now Thailand, Cambodia and Southern Vietnam until the Khmers(Hindu) overthrew them and inherited teh mainland SE Asia portion of their empires.
The Thai were a Sinicized people when they first entered SE Asia from Southern China but eventually they adopted many facets of Indic culture and religous practices.
As for Burma, it remained largely cut off from both the rest of SE Asia and India.Later on they fought a few wars against the Thais. Theravada Buddhism was what shaped their culture, although Nat-Worship (archaic folk Hinduism)was also prevalent.
"Who are the rulers of the lands beyond Guraiz and Burzil? The Darada Rajas."
The Rajatarangini
And Malay people had no empire on the record. It could be proved on Chinese navy engaged Arabian navy there with no slightest interferences from the natives surrounded that region. TEXT
If u Dont know nothing dont post, just that simple,
here Malays kingdom
Kingdom of Mataram
Springing from strong Hindu and Buddhist cultural and economic influence, this lasted from 835AD - 1006AD. It was founded by Sanjaya and his dynasty - of the same name - lasted for almost a century.
Mataram adopted Hindu culture and religion, and was based around central Java, and later on, around Eastern Java The kingdom collapsed due to militaristic pressure from the improaching Malayan King Srivijaya Airlangga, of the Srivijaya kingdom. The Kingdom of Mataram's last ruler was Darmawangsa.
Here is a temple built under Rakai Pikatan. It is the largest Hindu temple complex in the archipelago. It is called Prambanan.
---------------------------------------------
Insulting a Jew is anti-Semitism.
Insulting a Muslim is "freedom of speech"?
I was talking about Imperial grade kingdoms, hence un-ignorable to the neighbors. And I was speaking the notable weapons showing in the grand scale war, thus un-fakable. Not a community, which lasted less than the lifetimes of three jungle rulers and only had a mini Hindus Ruin lying somewhere in the wildness as evidence.
Kingdom of Mataram is a myth created by British scholars. I believe it is brocasted by your government to create your national identity. And your Administration is the contribution from the Colonial Governor System. Period to your history to today.
If I want to know more credible Malay history, I shall go asking Dutch, Brits or consulting Chinese archives, but not Indonesians who had 100 languages in 50 square miles and adopting a European Eagle sign as the national embroider.
Heres another one of those "jungle-people" relics, Gerram.
With all those technical/geometrical stone details and architectural designs, I guess it must be one hell of a tree-climbing, jungle-frolicking people, eh?
Your knowledge is unfortunately, lacking in SE Asian history. Dont pass it off as facts tho. Strangely enough, a lot of "facts" regarding the various Empires that ruled SE Asia were actually researched and brought to the fore by Europeans.
Mataram is a Sanskrit/Indian derived word.
Their National Eagle is the Garuda, A Hindu-derived symbol/mythological creature.
They are, after all, a largely Hindu civilisation at that time.
who the heck that idiot btw, he seem had pride showing his Stupidity ..
I know it nothing to do with the topic,but hell..
Majapahit empire
MAJAPAHIT
THE powerful Hindu kingdom, Majapahit, emerged in the 13th century and united much of what is now modern Indonesia.This Hindu-Buddhist state emerged as a trading Empire by the end of the 13th century and gained control over much of the archipelago, including Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, Maluku, Sumbawa, Lombok, and Timor. Its territorial expansion was credited to its significant naval power and, to some extent, to Gadjah Mada, who was the military commander of the kingdom from 1336. Majapahit Kingdom was the last great Hindu-Buddhist Kingdom of Indonesia, whose influence started to decline in the late 14th century and early 15th centuries. The Kingdom finally collapsed at the beginning of the 16th century. It is sometimes seen as establishing a precedent for the present political boundaries of the Republic of Indonesia (Ricklefs 1993: 19).
The Majapahit Empire was based in eastern Java and ruled much of the southern Malay Peninsula, Borneo, Sumatra, and Bali from about 1293 to around 1500. Its greatest ruler was Hayam Wuruk, whose reign from 1350 to 1389 marked the empire's peak.
The Majapahit was the last of the great Hindu empires of the Malay archipelago. It was preceded by the Srivijayan kingdom, based in Palembang on the island of Sumatra.
The founder of the Majapahit Empire, Kertarajasa, was the son-in-law of the ruler of the Singhasari kingdom, also based in Java. After Singhasari drove Srivijaya out of Java altogether in 1290, the rising power of Singhasari came to the attention of Kublai Khan in China and he sent emissaries demanding tribute. Kertanagara, ruler of the Singhasari kingdom, refused to pay tribute and the Khan sent a punitive expedition which arrived off the coast of Java in 1293.
By that time, a rebel from Kediri, Jayakatwang, had killed Kertanagara. The Majapahit founder allied himself with the Mongols against Jayakatwang and, once the Singhasari kingdom was destroyed, turned and forced his Mongol allies to withdraw in confusion.
Gajah Mada, an ambitious Majapahit prime minister and regent from 1331 to 1364, extended the empire's rule to the surrounding islands. A few years after Gajah Madah's death, the Majapahit navy captured Palembang, putting an end to the Srivijayan kingdom.
Although the Majapahit rulers extended their power over other islands and destroyed neighboring kingdoms, their focus seems to have been on controlling and gaining a larger share of the commercial trade that passed through the archipelago. About the time Majapahit was founded, Muslim traders and proselytizers began entering the area.
After peaking the 1300s, Majapahit power began to decline with a war over succession that started in 1401 and went on for four years. Majapahit found itself unable to control the rising power of the Sultanate of Malacca. Dates for the end of the Majapahit Empire range from 1478 to 1520. A large number of courtiers, artisans, priests, and members of the royalty moved east to the island of Bali at the end of Majapahit's existence, where they remained isolated until the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the Dutch colonials mounted a military expedition to take control of the island.
Indonesian nationalists of the 1920s and 1930s made use of the historical memory of the Majapahit Empire as evidence that the peoples of the archipelago had once been united under a single government, and so could be again, in modern Indonesia.
---------------------------------------------
Insulting a Jew is anti-Semitism.
Insulting a Muslim is "freedom of speech"?
Borobudur is a ninth century Buddhist Mahayana monument in Central Java, Indonesia. The monument comprises six square platforms topped by three circular platforms, and is decorated with 2,672 relief panels and 504 Buddha statues.[1] A main dome is located at the center of the top platform, surrounded by seventy-two Buddha statues seated inside perforated stupa,
Borobudur temple,the world largest buddhist temple
Prambanan temple,the largest hindu temple
and u can find hundreds ancient temples like these in Indonesia in different location
---------------------------------------------
Insulting a Jew is anti-Semitism.
Insulting a Muslim is "freedom of speech"?
Gerram is indeed an ignorant fool. The Malay/Javanese empires - Srivijaya and Majapahit are indeed fab. When I visited the temples in Central Java, I was very impressed. And, Ankor Wat in Cambodia is just as impressive.
Warfare in SEA? From what I understand - depending on the "states" involved - the size of the army could range from a few thousands to 50,000. Sultan Agung's failed attack on the VOC mentioned thousands of troops involved. I would also add that most were not professional but were conscripted by the ruler. Every man brought his own weapon. "Professionals" were mainly palace guards.
China's power mainly stem from her technology and size. Its neighbours did not have the size to match it.
This message has been edited by sparta54 on Oct 22, 2007 8:19 AM
srivijaya was a buddhist malay empire whilst majapahit was a javanese hindu empire. srivijaya disintegrated into smaller independent states until majapahit exert its hindu dominance in the region. malacca was founded by a malay hindu ruler fed up with constant raids from javanese majapahit hindu raiders. the malacca malay empire eventually became bigger and strong enough to control the malacca straits but kept small enough to avoid antagonising the larger siamese and majapahit neighbors. the malay malacca empire stretches from the whole of the malay peninsular to the east coast of sumatra. one of its states, acheh, eventually became strong and challenged malacca for supremacy.
how did they fight? hand to hand in close quarter battles including maritime raids and piracy. the navy rank 'laksmana' was coined during the malacca sultanate denoting a court officer as a navy chief or admiral (laksmana was an figure in hindu literature).
mercenaries were also used by the rulers to keep the vassal states in check. in all probability, the standing army is small but augmented by mercenaries (paid through piracy).
personal weaponry was well developed but not battle techniques.
BTW Was the keris ever used in battle? I don't mean hand to hand fighting. In full scale hundreds or thousands versus equal numbers. I saw examples of spears at the palace in Central Java. The spears were quite small - no longer than 3 feet long. Any reason for the lack of length?
Also, are there any books out there on pre-modern Southeast Asian Warfare? Thanking you experts in advance.
Quote:BTW Was the keris ever used in battle? I don't mean hand to hand fighting. In full scale hundreds or thousands versus equal numbers. I saw examples of spears at the palace in Central Java. The spears were quite small - no longer than 3 feet long. Any reason for the lack of length?
Also, are there any books out there on pre-modern Southeast Asian Warfare? Thanking you experts in advance.
first off, i'm no expert but perhaps i can share some knowledge.
i don't think there were many full blown battles, it was more like a series of ambushes, counter ambushes and protracted. keris is but one of the many weapons used. it is a thrusting weapon. there are also lance like weapons. tombak is a short spear usually not more than 3 feet long. lembing is a long spear. contrary to popular belief, both these spears were rarely used as a throwing weapon especially the short one. they're thrusting weapons. other side weapons are like badek, rencong and sewah.
there are also slashing/cutting weapons more often used in battles. these are sword like or machete like and have many types. pedang, klewang, sewah (long), badek (long) and golok (utility) to name a few. there is also a long keris that's handled like a slashing sword called sundang. there are also many other wicked slashing and axe like weapons developed by the malays of mindanao.
in those olden days battles are fought close quarter. it has always been the norm for the malay warrior to close in the enemy. there were hardly any developments on archery or javelin even though these weapons were also part of the arsenal. that's why even the spears are short handled.
personally, i've never came across any worthwhile books on malay warfare. only descriptions of weaponory and battles fought.
BTW Was the keris ever used in battle? I don't mean hand to hand fighting. In full scale hundreds or thousands versus equal numbers. I saw examples of spears at the palace in Central Java. The spears were quite small - no longer than 3 feet long. Any reason for the lack of length?
The Keris, even though it was the sign and symbol of Malay manhood, was popularly believed to be relegated as a "back-up" weapon in times of warfare. A side-arm like a pistol. Its not a good idea to go onto the battlefield armed only with a pistol, don't you think so? Nope, you carry an assault rifle at least. So, that in mind, the main weaponry were still the spear, javelin, bow, sword, machete etc,etc.
I suppose the shortened length of spears reflects the battle tactics/strategies prevalent during those days which were lightning raids and ambushes and the mountainous/thick jungles definitely encouraged that. Although large scale battle and sieges did occur, actually and one has only to refer to the battles between the achenese and the portugease, in which the achenese regularly brought a pretty decent sized invasion army of about 10 000 - 20 000 troops.
This message has been edited by Runekeeper on Oct 19, 2007 2:14 AM
For those interested please refer to Southeast Asian Warfare, 1300-1900 by Michael W. Charney.
Elephants were used in Java, Cambodia, Burma, and Thailand. I am not sure of in the peninsula though. In the eastern islands of Indonesia, much of the warfare could be best described as raiding parties with a few exceptions. I am in the middle of working on a paper on this. I'll post it when completed.
What I know are based on books and articles that i've read here and there...sadly I can't remember names though. Not exactly the avid historian, its something that I like to read and have a peak, now and then.
from what i know, elephants and horses were not used extensively nor tactically in battles by the malays in the peninsular unlike the siamese. it must be noted that the malay's area of influence is an archipelago. and the malays mode of sea transport were not meant for long deep sea voyages, but fast perahus. it may be difficult to transport elephants/horses in large numbers in these type of vessels.
when talking about warfare in general, i tend to associate it with organised and well developed large scale empires with significant reaches, like achehnese, java, malays. as opposed to tribal warfare, like the illanun or bugis, who were localised or mercenary/piratical in nature.
It's interesting that you mentioned the Bugis. The Bugis were the hired guns of the day during the Dutch colonial times in the Nusantara. There are records of them working for the VOC in pacifying duties in a number of areas where the Dutch were in involved in the archipelago. By all accounts they were outstanding troops. Likewise, the Dutch also used the Madurese and Balinese as part of their army. There was a report that Japanese samurais were also engaged by the Dutch in the archipelago. And, Africans as well.
VOC troops consisted of European and Asian men; 40 per cent of the Europeans were Dutch, the remainder from many areas of western Europe, especially the German states. VOC armies were also made up of men from many parts of the Archipelago, particularly Bugis, Balinese, Timorese, Ambonese, Indigenous Christians and Javanese. Indonesian troops fought under their own commanders, who were linked to a hierarchy of Dutch officers. Examples of troop composition will illustrate the fact that opposing armies were not distinguished from each other as brown versus white. In 1683 the VOC lent assistance to Raden Haji in his attempt to displace Sultan Ageng from the throne of Banten in the form of a company of 20 European soldiers and 300 Balinese (Kumar, Surapati, p. 23); in 1687 VOC troops marching against Trunajaya consisted of 600 Europeans, 200 Mardijkers (freed slaves, free men, usually of Indian or Indian-Portuguese ancestry), 100 Balinese, 100 Malays, 300 Batavia Javanese, 50 Bugis and 50 Makasarese; M. C. Ricklefs, War, culture and economy in Java, 1677-1726 (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1993), p. 276.
There is a lot more to be done in this area of study.
This message has been edited by sparta54 on Oct 22, 2007 3:26 AM
Quote:It's interesting that you mentioned the Bugis. The Bugis were the hired guns of the day during the Dutch colonial times in the Nusantara. There are records of them working for the VOC in pacifying duties in a number of areas where the Dutch were in involved in the archipelago. By all accounts they were outstanding troops. Likewise, the Dutch also used the Madurese and Balinese as part of their army. There was a report that Japanese samurais were also engaged by the Dutch in the archipelago. And, Africans as well.
VOC troops consisted of European and Asian men; 40 per cent of the Europeans were Dutch, the remainder from many areas of western Europe, especially the German states. VOC armies were also made up of men from many parts of the Archipelago, particularly Bugis, Balinese, Timorese, Ambonese, Indigenous Christians and Javanese. Indonesian troops fought under their own commanders, who were linked to a hierarchy of Dutch officers. Examples of troop composition will illustrate the fact that opposing armies were not distinguished from each other as brown versus white. In 1683 the VOC lent assistance to Raden Haji in his attempt to displace Sultan Ageng from the throne of Banten in the form of a company of 20 European soldiers and 300 Balinese (Kumar, Surapati, p. 23); in 1687 VOC troops marching against Trunajaya consisted of 600 Europeans, 200 Mardijkers (freed slaves, free men, usually of Indian or Indian-Portuguese ancestry), 100 Balinese, 100 Malays, 300 Batavia Javanese, 50 Bugis and 50 Makasarese; M. C. Ricklefs, War, culture and economy in Java, 1677-1726 (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1993), p. 276.
There is a lot more to be done in this area of study.
the bugis ancestral homeland is sulawesi. the bugis kingdoms were maritime in nature (traders and mercenaries). bugis mercenaries served the various kingdoms serving rajahs and sultans. in some cases, they became sultans themselves eventually like the current sultan of selangor (a state in malaysia). a side weapon associated with the bugis is badik (a dagger with pistol like hilt, unlike the keris).
malay was generic to the archiepelago. perhaps this was due to the use of malay as lingua france of the region coupled with the early rise of the malay kingdoms of jambi and palembang (both in sumatra, and about the same time of the rise of the java kingdoms) which sphere of influence included the malay peninsula.
another common denominator among the various ethnic groups in the region was the keris. apart from these two, all ethnic groups have their own peculiar customs, habits and language.
because of the various labels being collectively refered to as 'malays' by outsiders especially those european civil administrators who couldn't figure out who was who, 'malays' are often misunderstood. as i said earlier, the two key common denominator among all the ethnic groups in the region were trading language and keris. with the coming of islam, religion became another key common bind among people of the arhipelago.
the malay word for pirate is 'lanun'. this has bearing to the 'malays' of illanun, a sub-group in mindanao the philippines. all the traits one would normally expect from a pirate are perhaps well represented by the illanuns. i am not surprise with what the abu sayyaf groups are capable of.
similarly, all the traits one would expect from a trader and mercenary can be found with the bugis. a trader seek to make profits whilst a mercenary serve those who pay him highest. LOL.
Yes, we do have problems putting a fix on who's who in Southeast Asia sometimes. Let me explain - when someone from Malaysia once said to me that he was a Malay, and then later, saying to another friend that he was actually Wong Jawa, most of us thought that he was being funny. Later, it is only when I had a better inkling of the local history and ethnicities that I began to understand. Anyway, recent trip to Malaysia (Kuala Selangor) was eye-opening when it was pointed out that the "houses on stilts were Malays" whilst the houses with dirt or cement floor were Javanese Malaysians.
J.G. Taylor (UNSW - Dept. of History ) writes in her article "Meditation on a Portrait from Seventeenth-Century Batavia:
The soldiers of the Nusantara raided and fought on land and at sea with lances, pikes, spears, bows and arrows, blowpipes, daggers, muskets and cannon. They protected themselves in two ways. First, they covered their bodies with protective clothing. Armour and war jackets were made from local vegetable fibres or shell discs, and were reinforced with thick bark or cotton wadding. Archipelago metal workers were quick to borrow from European military techniques, and they produced metal jackets and helmets in their forges. The second way in which soldiers tried to survive battle was spiritual. They bought amulets made by holy men, and marched to the accompaniment of gongs from the sultan's palace beneath banners inscribed with verses from the Qur'an. They fought under the command of a leader who claimed possession of a weapon with magical powers of flight and accuracy, or who was known to meditate and to find, in periodic withdrawal from the comforts of domestic society, a spiritual strength that would translate into victory.
On the use of gun powder and firearms in Southeast Asia:
From "Military Technology Transfer from Ming China and the Emergence of Northern Mainland Southeast Asia", Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. Vol 34, 2003, Sun Laichen (Assoc. Professor of History, CSU Fullerton) wrote:
Gunpowder technology was not the exclusive preserve of the Chinese; it had been introduced to maritime Southeast Asia via Zheng He's expeditions and maritime trade. A small bronze Chinese handgun dated in 1421 was found in lava, for example, and by the mid-fifteenth century cannon and fireworks were being manufactured by Chinese Muslims there.
Even so, modern historians have pointed out that maritime peoples--the Malays, Javanese and Achinese, for example-though they may have been familiar with firearms before 1511, never 'developed their artillery into a very effective arm'.(This was of course true of the Siamese and Burmese as well, at least in comparison with the Vietnamese.) Equally importantly, in maritime Southeast Asia firearms were adopted more for their spiritual power than for practical value. Relatively abundant sources in several languages have shown convincingly that during the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries Chinese gunpowder technology spread throughout Southeast Asia via both the overland and maritime routes, long before the arrival of European firearms. Chinese firearms spread intensively to the northern mainland region via overland routes and had a much more profound impact on its history than Western weaponry. P
Partially as a result of Chinese technology, firearms played an important role in territorial expansion in Luchuan (Maw Shan), Lan Na, and especially Dai Viet. Taking advantage of Chinese-derived military technology, the Vietnamese could eventually defeat their old enemy Champa, whose disappearance became only a matter of time, and make a short-lived but unprecedented 'long march' as far the territory of the Ava kingdom.
According to the author, the spread or diffusion of technology, including gunpowder technology, has been identified as one of the markers of early modernity. However, due to the lack of research on the dissemination of Chinese gunpowder technology to Southeast Asia from the late fourteenth century, the arrival of Portuguese firearms in the region in the 1500s has often been considered--understandably--as the starting point of revolutionary technological change in the early modern time.
This message has been edited by sparta54 on Oct 24, 2007 8:53 AM
link edited for too long search strings. just search "malay cannon lela" or "cambridge southeast asia". really good reading for southeast asia warfare.
This message has been edited by ferryman2393 on Oct 25, 2007 3:53 AM
Nice pics. I think the cannons in your foto are called "swivel-guns" used as light field artillery. It's loaded viz the breech. A removable powder holder sat in the breech and was wedged in place. Such guns are often located at the corners of a fort, so that they could be turned around to cover alternately two diferent walls. Max distance is less than 300 metres and average weight of the projectile were less than 0.5 kg.
I think I've seen larger and older cannons in Java. Not sure how effective they were but as the scholar I refered to above wrote in his Ming China paper - cannons were used in a slightly different way in comparison to the Europeans.
This message has been edited by sparta54 on Oct 26, 2007 4:18 AM
Michael Adas, "Prophets of Rebellion: Millenarian Protest Movements against the European Colonial Order", University of North Carolina Press 1979.
In the early centuries of European overseas expansion, most of the peoples of Africa and Asia did not find themselves at a decisive disadvantage in comparison with the Europeans in military technology and organizational techniques.
The initial European advantages in technology were selective and preponderantly oriented to the sea. Disease and geographical barriers and sheer numerical superiority permitted most Afro-Asian peoples to prevent extensive European penetration or to limit it to coastal and insular areas. Persistent manpower shortages, an awareness of their limitations in land warfare, and the nature of their expansionist aim also restricted European inland penetration in most areas. Beginning in the last half of the eighteenth century, however, and gaining increasing momentum throughout the nineteenth century, the Europeans' advantages in conflict with non-Western peoples became decisive in almost all categories of weapons and organization, on land and sea. The industrial revolution and its concomitant advances in military and communications technology broke down geographical and disease barriers and transformed simple numerical superiority, epitomized by the massed cavalry charges that were the backbone of many Asian and Sudanic African armies, into mass slaughter. Ironclad steamships and river boats, mobile and increasingly accurate field artillery, railways, machine guns, and general staffs made possible the conquest of vast areas of the globe. They also made it feasible to administer these conquests in depth and to bring about extensive socioeconomic transformations.
The reactions of non-Western peoples to the demonstrated superiority of European arms varied widely, depending on their own level of technological and organizational development, the time period when intense European penetration (hence military confrontations on land) occurred, and their previous contact with the Europeans. Small-scale, relatively isolated societies, such as those found over much of east and central Africa or in Oceania, were apt, as Ndabaningi Sithole has expressed it, to be "overwhelmed, like the Chinese and Japanese who had developed large-scale and highly sophisticated political and military systems and who had long been in contact with the Europeans were forced, however grudgingly, to admit Western technological superiority. This admission eventually led to demands for changes in their institutions and thought patterns aimed at closing the obvious technological gap. Much of the sense of impotence and humiliation initially felt by colonized peoples can be traced to the awesome superiority that the Europeans demonstrated in material, particularly military, matters. From West Africa to Japan, large kingdoms and small found in the words of the ill-fated Vietnamese mandarin, Phan Than Gian: "Nobody can resist them. They go where they choose. . . . Under heaven, everything is feasible to them, save only the matter of life and death."
few nights back i watched the movie 'bang rajan' on the local telly. nothing to shout about its cinematic qualities. but its portrayal of the siamese warriors is good eye candy. lots of muscular dark brown men with wicked hairdos wielding similarly wicked blades. there was also a real big water buffalo with horns each as long as its body length being ridden into battle. not so with the burmese army, which was portrayed as skinny darker brown men with an obese as their leader. once u got through all the nationalistic jingo sorted out, the gore of close quarter battles is quite true i suppose. quick and decisive.
Bang Rajan...I've got a copy of the Dvd myself. Its a good movie to watch whilst eating pizza and guzzling copious amount of beer. Anyway, it best not to rely on farmers as soldiers because when its planting season they always run home to work on their land. This is why military levy doesn't always work. This is why the Bugis and Madurese gained lots of employment because they were either tossed out of their homeland or the land from where they come from are too dry and infertile to work on. The local kings/sultans etc usually relied on his palace guards who were the professional soldiers and complemented his "troops" with the farmers who his nobels have to provide him with as obligation.
Looking forward to it.
[/IMG]