[Michael Curl]

So this is similar to my japanese weight thread, question is how would one defeat japanese armour of an opponent? As we know harnischfechten dictates how this could be done with a longsword, and I assume that the gap thrusting idea would hold true in Japan, but the katana does not seem to be particularly thrust suited, nor have I seen any japanese halfswording (other than a few techniques which seem to be more of a temporary block). So does anyone know of any moves or techniques for how this would be done?

[Adam D. Kent-Isaac]

Same way you defeat other kinds of armour: maces, polearms, warhammers, etc.

Did you mean to ask, how do you defeat Japanese armour using only swords?

[Michael Curl]

Yep, thats why I brought up harnischfechten and half-swording. Also I'm not aware of how popular warhammers were in Japan, were their any?

Also to clarify, I'm not looking for a simple, thrust into the openings answer. I was wondering if they had a system for doing so (like in Europe) or if there were specific techniques, like I have heard about a middlehau type cut to the torso that would land between do and kusazuri.

[Connor Ruebusch]

I don't think Harnischfechten is even specifically a gap-thrusting sort of fighting method, is it? From what I've seen, it usually involves using the halfsworded sword as a lever with which to throw your opponent to the ground, where you could conceivably knife him through the visor or something. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

[Michael Curl]

Well you can do all of that but it helps shorten the sword into a small spear, and you can definitely use the point on the face, groin, armpit, inside elbow, and palm.

[Hugh Knight]

Japanese kenjutsu kata are explicit about the methods for defeating armor with a long sword. Some examples include cuts to the inside of the thigh, inside of the forearm, and across the gap in the plates between the do, or torso armor, and the kusazori, or the plates hanging over the upper thighs (this gap is covered only by silk laces).

This video shows Otake-shihan of the Katori Shinto-ryu demonstrating some of these techniques:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3cpPRBlnwc&am...r_embedded

Many people don't realize this, but many schools of kenjutsu hide their armored techniques inside kata usually practiced without armor. In fact, one entire set of kata in Katori Shinto-ryu, called the Omote no tachi, are armored techniques, although the actual cutting targets are changed to different ones when you first learn them (the other set of kenjutsu kata, called Gogyo no tachi are the unarmored kata, then there are the Ryoto or two-sword kata--and yes, done long before Musashi became famous for it). Later, more advanced students are taught the correct targets for these kata.

There is relatively little halfswording in kenjutsu, although it does exist. For example, in Itsutsu no tachi, the first of the Omote no tachi, there is a cut to the inside of the enemy's wrist done with the tip of the sword while resting the left hand on the back of the blade. I haven't counted them, but off the top of my head, I can actually think of more *thrusts* at the halfsword (again, with the left hand just resting on the back of the blade, not gripping it as in European halfswording) done in unarmored kata than in armored kata. Still, the fact remains that the vast majority of sword techniques in armored combat are cuts done with both hands on the hilt, not thrusts, halfsword or otherwise.

[Hugh Knight]

[Michael Curl]

Thank you so much for the video. So if so many cuts were aimed below the do or to the inside of the arm why didn't they apply more mail there to protect against it? It seems like a very easy fix. For that matter, why does Japanese armour seem to cover less than European (even a hauberk seems to cover more), does it have to do with economics or notions of enough is enough.

[Hugh Knight]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Mick Jarvis]

Japanses blades are great to stab with. and in the styles that i do there is alot of stabbing and then twisting while inside the body and ripping/cutting out to make the damage worse.

and the Tatsubo is a beast of a weapons!

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Japanese agriculture might have had something to do with the less extensive coverage of their armour too--a European soldier could have walked clean through a ploughed European field without getting anything but his shoes soggy (and maybe his sabatons a bit clogged with sod), but a Japanese warrior would have had to be wading if he wanted to cross a rice paddy. Slogging through a paddy with a full suit of European plate...well, let's just say that if you could pick up a ton of mud and water in a pair of combat boots (before the advent of ventialted jungle boots) crossing a rice field, just imagine how much you'd accumulate inside a pair of metal shoes, with metal greaves, and all that kind of stuff....

(Not to mention that the Japanese--along with many other East Asians--used to fertilize their fields with human excrement. Try getting that inside your greaves.)

[Hugh Knight]

[Michael Curl]

Hmm, it just seems odd to me to build armour in such a way. I understand the interest in weight but especially considering that your opponent was always going to go for such openings it seems odd not to have protected it in some way, especially seeing how the Japanese have some very specific pieces such as the wakibiki that are meant to protect odd areas.

But then again you also have unarmoured knees in japan for awhile too if I recall (before they started extending the suneate and using kikko to cover).

I wonder if there was also less of a need to be so thoroughly armoured because of a difference in range weapons? I don't know how powerful the avg yumi was but I was under the impression that by the time of the sengoku, crossbows weren't particularly favored. Then again when teppo came in more solid breastplates were introduced.

So after this long rambling post I think that I agree with you.

[Dan Howard]

Bottomley mentions the problems with lamellar armour while on extended campaigns and suggests that this may be why later armours tend towards designs that don't need much lacing. He cites this passage from Sakakibara Kozan as support.
“When soaked with water the armour becomes very heavy and cannot be quickly dried; so that in summer it is oppressive and in winter liable to freeze. Moreover, no amount of washing will completely free the lacing from any mud or blood which may have penetrated it, and on long and distant campaigns it becomes evil-smelling and overrun by ants and lice, with consequent ill effects on the health of the wearer.”

[Colt Reeves]

Some questions just occurred to me and I wasn't sure where to put them, so I thought I'd put them in this thread as they are related.

I've seen a variety of reasoning for the lesser weight of samurai armour: They didn't know how to make good armour, samurai were all about mobility and speed, slogging through rice patties isn't all that fun in full plate, most samurai were too poor to own the full set, etc, etc. Now I can see where all of these reasons play a role, but it is that last one that really has my attention at the moment.

We (some of us anyway) look at samurai and assume that they are the equivalent of the richest knights, high-born and all toffed up to the max. However, as shown in various threads here, most weren't riding out with the full kit. They were similar to the knight in that not all were rich and had the best gear possible. Some were making do with whatever old out-dated armour they could afford.

Now for my question/questions: Is it safe to assume that many samurai were poorly equipped for money reasons rather than, say, mobility? Are we looking at a situation similar to a lot of poorer European knights, only worse because Japan wasn't making lots and lots of "good" armour in the first place? If given the choice would a lot of samurai worn the full suit?

If this was the case, does anyone know the proportions at any point in history off the top of their head? I.E. How many were truly rich and could have all that they wanted as opposed to those who just making do? How does it compare to the European situation at any given time period or region? (Yes, I am aware that these questions are rather open-ended, but in all fairness I said "off the top of their head." I'm not expecting a research paper on the subject, just wondering if anyone knows off-hand.)

[Simon G.]

[Hugh Knight]

[Colt Reeves]

Sorry, but I would say that the main reason I am reluctant to believe it is because the most common time I hear that the samurai were all about mobility is when someone who knows nothing but popular culture is talking about how great and skilled the samurai were and how they would wade through any European army. With that as my benchmark, it kind of seemed like it has more to do with ignorant geeks trying to explain away a possible flaw in the awesomeness that is the samurai than anything else.

That being said, I believe you when you say "most sources agree". I don't have much in the shape of sources, samurai are not really my thing and I'm not going around reading The Five Rings or whatever it's called. So if you say this is how it was, then I'll take you at your word. I just wanted a direct response to my questions rather than trying to connect the dots from various posts and whathaveyou. There's a difference between someone writing "I think it was so they could move fast" and "There were wealthy ones wearing light armour too, apparently by choice."


Edit: Basically I knew popular culture said it was true and I don't trust popular culture!

[Hugh Knight]