| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
Eric G.
|
 Posted: Wed 08 Jun, 2011 8:58 pm Post subject: Samurai Arms & Armor VS. European VS. Roman VS. etc. etc |
 |
|
I have been thinking about this recently and decided to post it up here to get some of your opinions.
I have always loved European arms and armor. Thanks to this website i have been introduced to the evolution of the european sword and how it changed to combat the ever-more effective armor. I know much more about european arms than any other culture's weaponry, (and only a little about that compared so some of you) but it seems to me that European weapons changed much more than that of other cultures.
For example, take the samurai katana. Did that even evolve all that much? I mean, I know that it evolved from a straight single-edged blade to a curved one, but besides that I do not know of any details that would greatly change the functionality.
That leads me to armor. European swords evolved to combat the growing effectiveness of armor. If what I think I know about the Samurai sword is true (that is evolved very little) then is that because the armor never really surpassed the effectiveness of the sword's design? I know that there are more weapons to factor in other than the sword, but I'm limiting this for the sake of simplicity.
Also, even though Greek and Roman armor left a great deal more uncovered than European armor, they had really big shields (also armor) that were quite effective, as well as protection for the areas that might remain uncovered by the shield. I'm sure many of you could think of examples from other cultures - please feel free to chime in here.
So my question - am I right about the lack of evolution of Samurai arms and armor VS those of Europe? Would the full plate of a European knight be easily considered the 'ultimate' (a dangerous word, I know) of armor for melee combat? What other cultures had particularly noteworthy armor and what makes it so good?
Eric Gregersen
www.EricGregersen.com
Knowledge applied is power.
|
|
   |
 |
|
Scott Woodruff
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Jun, 2011 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your question is kind of all over the place, but you do bring up some interesting points. It is true that the Japanese have had a tendency to be more conservative than most cultures, but these long periods of little change have been interrupted by explosive bursts of technological change. For instance, in the 16th century there were more firearms in Japan than in the rest of the world combined. Of course later on the Japanese conservatism reasserted itself and firearms were all but entirely banned until the next cycle of accelerated technological change in the 19th century. Really this had a lot to do with the fact that they could see the corrosive effect changes in military technology could have on their society and were able to control these technologies and preserve the social order. Looking at the developement of the sword, the Japanese put more emphasis on perfecting what they had within the confines of traditional ideas rather than try innovative new ideas. This really had very little to do with developements in armor as the sword was generally a secondary weapon that was not necessarily designed to defeat armor, while armor was designed primarily to defeat archery.
I think it is reasonable to assert that 15-16th century European plate armor was pretty much the epitomy of defensive arms developement (prior to the developement of chemical energy weapons.) I find it interesting that plate armor reached such a high level of sophistication during the Bronze Age only to almost entirely disappear for nearly 2 millenia. During those 2 millenia armor consisted almost entirely of either scale, lamellar or mail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Wed 08 Jun, 2011 11:31 pm Post subject: Re: Samurai Arms & Armor VS. European VS. Roman VS. etc. |
|
|
| Eric Gregersen wrote: |
That leads me to armor. European swords evolved to combat the growing effectiveness of armor. If what I think I know about the Samurai sword is true (that is evolved very little) then is that because the armor never really surpassed the effectiveness of the sword's design? I know that there are more weapons to factor in other than the sword, but I'm limiting this for the sake of simplicity.
|
If you limit it to swords for the sake of simplicity, the sword was stopped by the armour, and the sword didn't evolve to defeat the armour. So, the sword could continue relatively unchanged independently of the changes in armour. The change from tachi mountings to katana mountings comes from going from suspending the sword from the waist while wearing armour, to wearing the sword tucked into the wasit sash with no armour.
As for functional evolution, the samurai sword went from tachi to katana, from a cavalry sabre (a sidearm for a horse-archer or lancer) or infantry back-up weapon (with the primary weapon being bow, naginata, spear, or (later) musket to a dress accessory and duelling weapon.
For battlefield use, the armour was designed to resist arrows, spear, and polearms, and for some armours, guns. If it stops those, it stops swords. As a later duelling weapon, it's not as likely to face armour. There is a nice diverse variety of Edo-period armour, some can be seen in this thread. This is lighter and less protective than the battlefield armours. This armour was less likely to face the old battlefied weapons, and more likely to face swords.
| Eric Gregersen wrote: |
Would the full plate of a European knight be easily considered the 'ultimate' (a dangerous word, I know) of armor for melee combat? What other cultures had particularly noteworthy armor and what makes it so good? |
Some Indian, Turkish, and Persian armours had excellent all-over coverage, like a mail-and-plate version of the coverage of an all-over full European foot armour.
There was plenty of excellent Japanese and Chinese armour, with musket-proof torso armour. I think any armour of not-too-great weight that stops muskets should be under consideration as "good".
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 7:43 am Post subject: Re: Samurai Arms & Armor VS. European VS. Roman VS. etc. |
|
|
Hoo, yeah, kind of all over the place! It'll be interesting to see where this thread goes.
| Eric Gregersen wrote: | | European swords evolved to combat the growing effectiveness of armor. |
Careful, that is not always the case, by any means! Sword evolution in the ancient and early medieval periods really seems to be independent of armor evolution. For one thing, in many cultures of those eras, most warriors had neither swords nor armor!
| Quote: | | I know that there are more weapons to factor in other than the sword, but I'm limiting this for the sake of simplicity. |
Ha, good luck simplifying any of this!
| Quote: | | Also, even though Greek and Roman armor left a great deal more uncovered than European armor, they had really big shields (also armor) that were quite effective, as well as protection for the areas that might remain uncovered by the shield. |
Again, not always necessarily the case. A well-equipped Roman legionary from 150 BC had a thigh-length mailshirt, greaves, and a helmet with cheekpieces as well as a 4-foot-tall shield. A well-equipped warrior from the 10th century AD had a thigh-length mailshirt, no greaves, a helmet without cheekpieces, and a round shield 2 to 3 feet in diameter. Granted, most legionaries from that early had only a small pectoral plate, one greave, helmet, and shield, but most 10th century AD warriors would have only a shield. Once you get into the Late Roman Republic or early Empire, legionaries on average have far more armor than a contemporary barbarian army, or any early medieval European army. But ancient armor trends alone could fill a book!
| Scott Woodruff wrote: | | I find it interesting that plate armor reached such a high level of sophistication during the Bronze Age only to almost entirely disappear for nearly 2 millenia. |
Well, sophisticated plate armor continued into the Late Roman Empire, with the grunt-level lorica segmentata as well as the aristocratic muscled cuirass. So the gap between that and the re-emergence of plate in the middle ages is only about a thousand years. But I agree that it was mostly mail in the meantime! (At least for most of Europe.)
It's complicated!
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I find it interesting that plate armor reached such a high level of sophistication during the Bronze Age only to almost entirely disappear for nearly 2 millenia. During those 2 millenia armor consisted almost entirely of either scale, lamellar or mail. |
Its not really interesting once you understand how effective mail was. Also, realize that bronze can be worked much more easily than iron. To make large iron plates requires much more heat in the bloomery (or whatever other furnace) and on the part of the smith to forge, otherwise it will have too much slag to work. So if you can only work small pieces of iron, then you have to make either rings, or scales. Thats why you see all bronze plate being replaced with mail and lamellar.
Since iron mail is much more flexible, possibly stronger, and vastly cheaper (iron being cheaper than bronze in most places) the reason for the changeover is easy.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
 |
|
|
Jeremy V. Krause
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scott Woodruff wrote: | Your question is kind of all over the place, but you do bring up some interesting points. It is true that the Japanese have had a tendency to be more conservative than most cultures, but these long periods of little change have been interrupted by explosive bursts of technological change. For instance, in the 16th century there were more firearms in Japan than in the rest of the world combined. Of course later on the Japanese conservatism reasserted itself and firearms were all but entirely banned until the next cycle of accelerated technological change in the 19th century. Really this had a lot to do with the fact that they could see the corrosive effect changes in military technology could have on their society and were able to control these technologies and preserve the social order. Looking at the developement of the sword, the Japanese put more emphasis on perfecting what they had within the confines of traditional ideas rather than try innovative new ideas. This really had very little to do with developements in armor as the sword was generally a secondary weapon that was not necessarily designed to defeat armor, while armor was designed primarily to defeat archery.
. |
That's facinating Scott. I didn't know that. Really interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Bjornsson
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This question reminded me of an essay I read at thearma.org some years ago which I enjoyed and thought credible, though I know little about the arms and armour of either culture.
this is it: http://thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is a mistake to think that Japanese weapons (particularly swords) and armor did not go through big evolutionary changes simply because those changes are not easy for the untrained eye to recognize.
Looking at various katana and seeing a minor variation on the same sword would be like looking at all straight double edged swords and seeing the exact same thing, unchanging through the ages.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, Michael would you mind writing a spotlight article on the evolution on the katana, as I am wholly ignorant and can't see any change in it. I think such an article would go a longway to dispelling such notions.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: Samurai Arms & Armor VS. European VS. Roman VS. etc. |
|
|
| Eric Gregersen wrote: |
For example, take the samurai katana. Did that even evolve all that much? I mean, I know that it evolved from a straight single-edged blade to a curved one, but besides that I do not know of any details that would greatly change the functionality.
|
Breaking this down to katana first. The katana was designed for use on foot, it evolved from the tachi which was longer and one handed while the katana is shorter and two handed.
While the two swords appear to look alike there are distinct differences, the tachi was worn with the cutting edge downward and the signature (mei) on the tang (nakago) of a tachi can easily be recognized when compared to a katana as the katana was worn cutting edge up and the signature would be on the opposite side of the tang. A tachi sword case (koshirae) has 2 hangers that put the sword in a position were the cutting edge is face down. The katana has one fitting on its case and the katana would be tied to a belt with the cutting edge face up.
Tachi were designed to be drawn and used on horseback, while katana were designed for being used on foot. Thats a big difference that had to do with the change in weapons and methods in samurai warfare. Samurai warfare went from one on one horse based combat with bows (yumi) as one of the most important weapns, to mass co-ordinated armies were the spear (yari) became the dominant weapon and eventually the matchlock (tanegashima) became the most important weapon.
During the Edo period (1600s to 1800s) when Japanese cities grew and there was a huge urban population and the katana and the wakizashi (which is a slightly shorter sword) became the dominant weapons. The huge samurai armies were by then disbanded and the bow and spear were not of much use in crowded urban situations, firearms were removed from use and most citizens were unarmed except when traveling. The wearing of 2 swords (daisho) was the status symbol showing that you were a samurai and the wearing of 2 swords was required and enforced thus the samurai could easily be distinguished by anyone by their swords alone. No one but a samurai could wear a katana which explains the importance of the katana to the samurai.
Many tachi were cut down and changed into katana like swords but they can still be recognized as being originally a tachi which shows that there was significant differences between the two swords,
|
|
|
|
|
Eric G.
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | It is a mistake to think that Japanese weapons (particularly swords) and armor did not go through big evolutionary changes simply because those changes are not easy for the untrained eye to recognize.
Looking at various katana and seeing a minor variation on the same sword would be like looking at all straight double edged swords and seeing the exact same thing, unchanging through the ages. |
Michael,
Thank you for mentioning to me that the japanese katana did go through some evolutionary changes. My understanding is that it went through very little change. Then again, I did not know how much change the European sword went through over the centuries until recently either. I now know much more about European swords and how much they changed, but I still know little to nothing about the changes that happened with the katana. I bet that we would all be happy if you could enlighten us as to how the form and function of the katana changed and why.
I must admit, I sometimes feel some contempt for the little hollywood influenced katana-ites (as I call them) that think that the japanese were the ultimate warriors and that fighting in Europe was little more than an unsophisticated bash-fest. The more I learn about European weapons and armor the more I realize how much variety there is. Then again, I know very little about Japanese weapons and armor - the katana-ites kinda make me spurn the topic. However, I don't want to be ignorant myself, so that is why I ask.
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Some Indian, Turkish, and Persian armours had excellent all-over coverage, like a mail-and-plate version of the coverage of an all-over full European foot armour. |
Timo,
Thanks for your addition to the conversation. This sounds interesting, can you provide some info or pictures about this?
Eric Gregersen
www.EricGregersen.com
Knowledge applied is power.
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Jarvis
Location: Australia Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 78
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Hill
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is about as much variation in Katana as there are in the Oakshots, so that’s a large endeavor. The blades will be different in depth of curvature, amount of curvature along the length of blade, length of blade ect…You might as well be asking Michael to do a mini ‘Oakshot’ of the Katana.
That said the differences in the Japanese blades do not go to the extent the European ones do. We can compare the differences in Katana to the differences in double handed strait blades. Once you add in Raipers, Small sword, Side Swords, Falchions etc, you have a far larger variety of swords out of Europe, but Europe is a much larger place too so it’s not a fair comparison. I would tend to state that the ‘stagnation’ of weapon and armor development probably arose from the ‘relative’ peace Japan had compared to Europe’s almost constant fighting of one form or area or another. But then again if we take just Scottland and look that their swords and armor, you get a totally different picture as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a picture of a tachi and its case (koshirae), notice the tang (nakago) of the blade, it is short and meant for one handed use on horseback. The next picture is of a tachi being worn in the manner of a tachi, cutting edge down, and the sword is worn horizontal by the use of 2 attachments to the belt of the wearer, this is quite different than the katana which has one attachment and would be thrust into the belt of the wearer with the cutting edge face up, making it easy to draw while on foot. The next picture shows a sword being worn cutting edge up in the manner or a katana or wakizashi.
The last picture shows a matched set of swords (daisho) that showed the wear to be a samurai to everyone he encountered, this is a katana and wakizashi combination. Only a samurai had the right to wear a daisho.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Curl wrote: | | Well, Michael would you mind writing a spotlight article on the evolution on the katana, as I am wholly ignorant and can't see any change in it. I think such an article would go a longway to dispelling such notions. |
There are literally dozens of books on this subject, written by people compared to whom I am an ignoramus. If you are interested, then you will enjoy reading any number of them a great deal.
This is a good primer:
http://www.amazon.com/Samurai-Sword-Handbook-...amp;sr=1-1
This is a great book but I don't remeber how much detail it goes into as far as evolution goes, but you will certainly be able to see the differences:
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Samurai-Japanese-11...amp;sr=1-8
And if you can find this book, it's great, it's the Japanese version of the "Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight."
http://www.amazon.com/Arms-Armor-Samurai-Hist...amp;sr=1-1
And a nice surprise...as I opened the copy in my bookshelf, I found one of my old black belt certificates that I thought I lost! So big thanks to you for making me look! 
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Thu 09 Jun, 2011 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The uchigatana, is a not very well understood sword but it was the transitional sword between the tachi and the katana. There is a good fairly well researched article explaining this developmant in Japanese swords on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uchigatana
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Many of the developments that happened in the katana itself can not be seen as they are in the manipulation of the composition of the internal structure of the metal used to forge the sword. Various methods were discovered and used by different sword smiths to make their particular style of sword different than another sword smith. Over time certain schools of sword making in Japan gained the reputation of being of a much better quality than other similar looking swords. Here is a chart showing some of the different forging methods used by Japanese sword smiths. On a well polished sword it is possible to see the different laminations of steel used to construct the sword.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scott Woodruff wrote: | | For instance, in the 16th century there were more firearms in Japan than in the rest of the world combined. Of course later on the Japanese conservatism reasserted itself and firearms were all but entirely banned until the next cycle of accelerated technological change in the 19th century. . |
I'm sorry but that claim is so far from the reality of things that it is on the same level as the claims that katanas cut through machine gun barrels in WorldWar 2. Running it thorugh google it through google it appears as an unsourced claim on various internet sites which makes rather hard to check the facts on which it is supposed to based. However a bit of google-fu on google books seems to suggest that the source is Perrin's book "Giving up the gun" which is rather well for it's lack of accurate facts as far as European manufacture and use of firemarms is concerned.
A telling example of the actual numbers of fire arms in use during the 16th Century is the famous battle of Nagashino, there Oda fielded 3000 arquebusiers. At the same time Sweden, a small, poor and backward European nation with a 3rd rate army fielded a total infantry force of some 10500, all of whom was armed with arquebuses. In addition there were some 2500 cavalry armed with carbine and pistol. Once you turn to the armies of major European nations like the Spanish or French you find tens of thousands of troops armed with firearms in that year. So if the Japanese did have more firearms that the rest of the world why does it not show on the battlefield?
"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel Staberg wrote: |
I'm sorry but that claim is so far from the reality of things that it is on the same level as the claims that katanas cut through machine gun barrels in WorldWar 2. |
In The bewitched gun : the introduction of the firearm in the Far East by the Portuguese by Rainer Daehnhardt page 15
http://www.amazon.com/Espingareda-feiticeira-...amp;sr=1-1
The author states that | Quote: | | from the date of the arrival of the Portuguese in Japan, 23rd September 1543, on the beach at Nishimura Ko-ura (were the Japanese placed a memorial stone for the Portuguese and the Jesuit missionaries and another for world peace), until the date of the expulsion of the Portuguese and the Jesuit missionaries in 1639, the Japanese manufactured many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF GUNS, of which they wrote the most significant pages of the History of Japan, |
Professor Rainer Daehnhardt comes from a Prussian family that has moved to Portugal in 1706. Author of more than 60 books on the History and the feats of the Portuguese, this historian and collector of more than 500.000 swords, guns, canons, pommels, maps and manuscripts related to the Portuguese Discoveries,.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
And his sources & proofs for this nebulous claim are what? Not to mention the proof that shows that the japanese produced more firearms that major gunpowder users like the Europeans & Ottomans. (The original claim was that the Japanese had more firearms than the rest of the world combined in the 16th Century, not that they were able to produce large numbers of firearms) Yet despite this supposed ability to produce firearms in huge numbers the Oda only fielded 3000 at Nagashino.
To put the "many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF GUNS" in perspective the town of Suhl in Germany had the capacity to make roughly 20.000 firearms a year for a good part of the 1543-1639 period.
Once you add up decades of production it is easy to reach very impressive numbers. In this case Daehnhardt is describing close to a century worh of manufacture. European examples easily reach similar numbers:
Between 1600-1650 the Dutch alone purchased 500.000 muskets for their armed forces, they also found the time to sell 50.000 firearms to the Danish army during 1625-1629, the Portugese got 36.5000 firearms in a single year (1641) from the Dutch while the French got at least 20.000 muskets between 1613 and 1621. The conservative esitmate is that the Dutch exported at least 200.000 muskets between 1600 and 1650 and thats no counting carbines, pistols, calivers and arquebus. The Imperial army purchased at least 60.000 firearms between 1620 and 1632 and it what is recorded in the small part of it's records which survive.
The Swedes manufactured 78.000 muskets between 1618 and 1639 according to preserved records and that number is reach with records for 10 years missing and numbers for 3 years being incomplete. It has been estimated that the total production for the period in question was between 110.000 to 150.000 muskets.
So the alledged Japanese numbers are neither exeptional, nor is it probable that they outnumber the rest of the world.
"There is nothing more hazardous than to venture a battle. One can lose it
by a thousand unforseen circumstances, even when one has thorougly taken all
precautions that the most perfect military skill allows for."
-Fieldmarshal Lennart Torstensson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic