| Author |
Message |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
 Posted: Sun 07 Dec, 2008 1:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | I made a point that it is not uncommon for many (by many I am speaking of many with little knowledge of martial arts in general) to give the Eastern Martial arts a mystique that is not warranted. This IMO is due more to a lack of knowledge of western martial arts, |
It also has a great deal to do with a lack of knowledge about Eastern martial arts. Wayne Muromoto's excellent article explains this in great detail.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Sun 07 Dec, 2008 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree 100% with you Mr. Curtis. I would say that the agressive demystification of western arts is often done while ignoring the myths surrounding eastern arts. When one puts Ashida Kim in the same basket as Otake Risuke, it says a lot.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
 |
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well since I am now at the end of a semester of pre-japanese history let me give my 2 cents.
I think Spartans would win against early samurai because until the Muromachi era samurai fought in mounted duels and not one on one, truth is there seems to be little emphasis on tactics as combat was rather ritualized. How ever once we get to sengoku not only does the samurai armor improve (o-yoroi was terribly bulky and uncomfortable armor made out of iron scales or kozane. The armor was not even well designed for sword fighting since mounted archery was its purpose) but tactics and a more "modern" style of fighting come to the for ground. At which point I think the ashigaru would win as a teppo (matchlock) can blast through anything known to spartan or samurai (short of nanban armor).
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
 |
|
|
James Lopez
Location: Earth,Texas Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: tis |
|
|
Theres no doubt in my mind that the samurai would win both on one -to-one and battle formations.
1.the samruia as you must all know are taken at birth and placed by there sword wich will be with them the day that they die (a familiar thing to me is that it reminds me of U.S. Marines )anyway after that they are put in to a rigid and vigirous training the majority of it one-to-one combat also of the samurai code:Bushido
2.The spartans being born and raised to be the perfect killing machine were given bronze armor of course someone mentioned this earlier but the samruais didn't always use Steel or iron they mainly used leather as it was flexible and light plus if they were using Steel armor how the hell would they use their bows.
3.The spartans formation has flaws the enemy could sorruond them or go behind them while another force is in front of them if they tried to move there formation it would possibly break up.Or the enemy could sorruond them and they being pressed on all sides would no doubt get in a circular formation thus having the enemy archers excellent targets maybe they would put there shield up above there heads the ones behind the front ranks and probaly tire out also as there front ranks start dwindling the ones in the back are exposed for some brief time thus exposed to both elements and if that person where to get killed in that breif time the one behind him also might be killed thus have a gap in the Formation.
4.also i was watching a show called mansers and they had a kantana go againt a .45 and the sword spilt the bullet in half also i was watching the history channel and they had this famous long ago samurai he got his bow and sunk an entire ship with one arrow also as they where coming for him he was the first to commit seppuku or something like that.
5.seems to me like we got ourselves two Light weight boxers
El Lopez,Imperial Lieutenat Colonel of the Kasursain Empire,Diplomat of the Tribe Domination,And the Protector of the weak conquerer of the Corrupt.
|
|
  |
|
|
George P.
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2008 1:48 am Post subject: Re: tis |
|
|
| James Lopez wrote: | they mainly used leather as it was flexible and light plus if they were using Steel armor how the hell would they use their bows.
|
laquered leather is anything but flexible.
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2008 3:42 am Post subject: Re: tis |
|
|
| James Lopez wrote: | Theres no doubt in my mind that the samurai would win both on one -to-one and battle formations.
2.The spartans being born and raised to be the perfect killing machine were given bronze armor of course someone mentioned this earlier but the samruais didn't always use Steel or iron they mainly used leather as it was flexible and light plus if they were using Steel armor how the hell would they use their bows. |
What are your sources for the samurai "mainly" using "leather" armor?
And why would steel armor prevent them from using their bows?
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: Re: tis |
|
|
| James Lopez wrote: | Theres no doubt in my mind that the samurai would win both on one -to-one and battle formations.
1.the samruia as you must all know are taken at birth and placed by there sword wich will be with them the day that they die (a familiar thing to me is that it reminds me of U.S. Marines )anyway after that they are put in to a rigid and vigirous training the majority of it one-to-one combat also of the samurai code:Bushido
2.The spartans being born and raised to be the perfect killing machine were given bronze armor of course someone mentioned this earlier but the samruais didn't always use Steel or iron they mainly used leather as it was flexible and light plus if they were using Steel armor how the hell would they use their bows.
3.The spartans formation has flaws the enemy could sorruond them or go behind them while another force is in front of them if they tried to move there formation it would possibly break up.Or the enemy could sorruond them and they being pressed on all sides would no doubt get in a circular formation thus having the enemy archers excellent targets maybe they would put there shield up above there heads the ones behind the front ranks and probaly tire out also as there front ranks start dwindling the ones in the back are exposed for some brief time thus exposed to both elements and if that person where to get killed in that breif time the one behind him also might be killed thus have a gap in the Formation.
4.also i was watching a show called mansers and they had a kantana go againt a .45 and the sword spilt the bullet in half also i was watching the history channel and they had this famous long ago samurai he got his bow and sunk an entire ship with one arrow also as they where coming for him he was the first to commit seppuku or something like that.
5.seems to me like we got ourselves two Light weight boxers |
Any good sword can cut a bullet. A guy on a SBG forum did it with a few bot european and japanese swords. And between Spartans and Samurai it depends alot on terrain, capabilty of commanders and much much things. What if Samurai couldn't get behind Spartans or surround them? Then it would much like Thermopylae. A lot of horseman in a frontal charge against well disciplined and armed spearman. It can't go well for horseman, archers or lancers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Lopez
Location: Earth,Texas Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Thu 11 Dec, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: this |
|
|
1.to the replies I just watch the History Channel and they usually have like specials on samurais and spartans or both it was said that they use alot of leather because they used there steel and iron for there swords.Also for the Steel armor preventing using a Bow i don't think you can even in chain mail plus it would probaly make them inaccurate also steel armor were usually for more.....i don't know i,m kinda stuck at this part(what we call a brain fart)but anyways if they used leather they be able to pick it out of their armor or dodge them also they were usually sorruonded by the enemy and if there army was getting beaten they had to at least be more flexible and kill alot of enemies before they got killed because it was rare for a samurai to retreat,but if they did it would take forever to take off their armor and commit seppsuko if they used metal armor also the only metal you,ll ever see on a samurai would be either his face mask and the swords he carried besides the tip of arrows.
2.well i,m not sure wich gun it was so i placed a random number also the Samruias would either attack them frontal charge or seeing that it is an Inferior choice they'd probaly climber the cliffs with ropes and ladders and Bombard them with arrows from the front and fro above also if the Samurais ever got to meet the Spartans it would be a Miracle like thing also the samurais barley had any ships thats why the euros met them first well actually the Japanese did have ships but they were usually meant for fishing(Sushi).
yeah that's all i got!
El Lopez,Imperial Lieutenat Colonel of the Kasursain Empire,Diplomat of the Tribe Domination,And the Protector of the weak conquerer of the Corrupt.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Dec, 2008 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Both Samurai and Spartans primarily used metal armour. If a Spartan in particular could not equip himself with a bronze cuirass then would not be classed as a Spartan and would not fight in the phalanx. Regardling leather there is very little evidence to siuggest that any classical Greek fighter wore leather armour. It was predominantly made from linen or metal.
Last edited by Dan Howard on Fri 12 Dec, 2008 4:14 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Dec, 2008 4:06 am Post subject: Re: tis |
|
|
| James Lopez wrote: |
i was watching the history channel and they had this famous long ago samurai he got his bow and sunk an entire ship with one arrow also as they where coming for him he was the first to commit seppuku or something like that. |
Any arrow that hit the water at an angle shallow enough to hole a ship would ricochet off the water's surface and strike the hull above the water line. Even if it did strike below the waterline it would neatly plug the hole preventing any leakage anyway. And supposing that the bow was impossibly heavy enough to punch through the hull of a ship below the waterline, the size of the hole would be so small that it would take weeks for the ship to sink
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Dec, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: Re: this |
|
|
| James Lopez wrote: | 1.to the replies I just watch the History Channel and they usually have like specials on samurais and spartans or both it was said that they use alot of leather because they used there steel and iron for there swords.Also for the Steel armor preventing using a Bow i don't think you can even in chain mail plus it would probaly make them inaccurate also steel armor were usually for more.....i don't know i,m kinda stuck at this part(what we call a brain fart)but anyways if they used leather they be able to pick it out of their armor or dodge them also they were usually sorruonded by the enemy and if there army was getting beaten they had to at least be more flexible and kill alot of enemies before they got killed because it was rare for a samurai to retreat,but if they did it would take forever to take off their armor and commit seppsuko if they used metal armor also the only metal you,ll ever see on a samurai would be either his face mask and the swords he carried besides the tip of arrows.
2.well i,m not sure wich gun it was so i placed a random number also the Samruias would either attack them frontal charge or seeing that it is an Inferior choice they'd probaly climber the cliffs with ropes and ladders and Bombard them with arrows from the front and fro above also if the Samurais ever got to meet the Spartans it would be a Miracle like thing also the samurais barley had any ships thats why the euros met them first well actually the Japanese did have ships but they were usually meant for fishing(Sushi).
yeah that's all i got! |
1. I'm not a native speaker so I don't understand everything you said, but I have a few things to say. I have a mail, I made it, it is butted so it's not historical but it doesn't really matter in this disscusion, and I do archery. I just wanted to say it doesn't prevent you from using your bow. I think you would even be able to use bow in a partial plate armour. And why do you think Samurais would usually be surrounded? Samurai's most usual enemy was another Samurais, they can't really surround each other, do they? 
2. Let us say that Samurais do have ropes and ladders on a campaign. Why do you think Spartans would be stupid enough to let the Samurais dismount and climb the rocks infront of them? They would charge them when they dismounted. Hoplite tactics were invented for Greece, full of mountains and passes that can be blocked and they worked well against most of invaders. And the big round shields work very well against arrows and can be lifted above your head if that is where the arrows are coming from.
Samurais and Spartan warfare is very different and is good in their own environment. Spartans wouldn't be stupid to go on a wide flat area where they could be surrounded by a more mobile cavalry force and Samurais wouldn't charge on a good defensive position defended by spearmen. At least none would do that more then once. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 14 Dec, 2008 3:03 am Post subject: Re: tis |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | James Lopez wrote: |
i was watching the history channel and they had this famous long ago samurai he got his bow and sunk an entire ship with one arrow also as they where coming for him he was the first to commit seppuku or something like that. |
Any arrow that hit the water at an angle shallow enough to hole a ship would ricochet off the water's surface and strike the hull above the water line. Even if it did strike below the waterline it would neatly plug the hole preventing any leakage anyway. And supposing that the bow was impossibly heavy enough to punch through the hull of a ship below the waterline, the size of the hole would be so small that it would take weeks for the ship to sink |
Hmm...Dan, I don't think you'd need to do such a detailed debunking, because the feat in question was a legendary one and I don't think any historian seriously believes that archer sunk that ship with a single arrow. If I'm not mistaken, the archer has to be either Tametomo or Yoshitsune or both (since Japanese legends get mixed up with each other as much as in any other culture).
BTW, was metal armor really necessary for Spartans in general? As far as I know, it was a must for the Spartiatai/homoioi, but the perioikoi and neodamodeis/helot hoplites were not held to such exacting equipment standards. Never mind that "Spartan" armies sometimes had few true Lacedaemonians (let alone Spartiates!), making up the lack with contingents of allies and mercenaries.... (Agesilaus in Asia is perhaps one extreme example.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darryl Aoki
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 8:25 am Post subject: Re: tis |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | James Lopez wrote: |
i was watching the history channel and they had this famous long ago samurai he got his bow and sunk an entire ship with one arrow also as they where coming for him he was the first to commit seppuku or something like that. |
Any arrow that hit the water at an angle shallow enough to hole a ship would ricochet off the water's surface and strike the hull above the water line. Even if it did strike below the waterline it would neatly plug the hole preventing any leakage anyway. And supposing that the bow was impossibly heavy enough to punch through the hull of a ship below the waterline, the size of the hole would be so small that it would take weeks for the ship to sink |
Hmm...Dan, I don't think you'd need to do such a detailed debunking, because the feat in question was a legendary one and I don't think any historian seriously believes that archer sunk that ship with a single arrow. If I'm not mistaken, the archer has to be either Tametomo or Yoshitsune or both (since Japanese legends get mixed up with each other as much as in any other culture).
BTW, was metal armor really necessary for Spartans in general? As far as I know, it was a must for the Spartiatai/homoioi, but the perioikoi and neodamodeis/helot hoplites were not held to such exacting equipment standards. Never mind that "Spartan" armies sometimes had few true Lacedaemonians (let alone Spartiates!), making up the lack with contingents of allies and mercenaries.... (Agesilaus in Asia is perhaps one extreme example.) |
I think the archer in question was Minamoto Tametomo.
Could helots, as non-citizens, serve in the Spartan army as hoplites? I thought that, as a rule, hoplites had to be citizens and had to provide their own kit (armor, shield, and weaponry). Admittedly, if you've got levied troops armed as heavy spear-and-shield wielding infantry, not calling them hoplites 'cos they aren't citizens seems like a quibble.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: Re: tis |
|
|
| James Lopez wrote: | Theres no doubt in my mind that the samurai would win both on one -to-one and battle formations.
1.the samruia as you must all know are taken at birth and placed by there sword wich will be with them the day that they die (a familiar thing to me is that it reminds me of U.S. Marines )anyway after that they are put in to a rigid and vigirous training the majority of it one-to-one combat also of the samurai code:Bushido
2.The spartans being born and raised to be the perfect killing machine were given bronze armor of course someone mentioned this earlier but the samruais didn't always use Steel or iron they mainly used leather as it was flexible and light plus if they were using Steel armor how the hell would they use their bows.
3.The spartans formation has flaws the enemy could sorruond them or go behind them while another force is in front of them if they tried to move there formation it would possibly break up.Or the enemy could sorruond them and they being pressed on all sides would no doubt get in a circular formation thus having the enemy archers excellent targets maybe they would put there shield up above there heads the ones behind the front ranks and probaly tire out also as there front ranks start dwindling the ones in the back are exposed for some brief time thus exposed to both elements and if that person where to get killed in that breif time the one behind him also might be killed thus have a gap in the Formation.
4.also i was watching a show called mansers and they had a kantana go againt a .45 and the sword spilt the bullet in half also i was watching the history channel and they had this famous long ago samurai he got his bow and sunk an entire ship with one arrow also as they where coming for him he was the first to commit seppuku or something like that.
5.seems to me like we got ourselves two Light weight boxers |
1. the samurai sword was not even the main weapon of samurai warfare, as has been said the samurai sword being a kami is a product of the tokugawa era, remember its "the way of the horse and bow".
2. You can use bows with steel armor, and the japanese armor was made out of iron!! http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/katchu.html
Average full suit would weight around 65lbs. however that is o-yoroi and it depends on what time period were talking about.
3. Samurai didn't even fight IN formation until after the mongol invasion so I don't see how tactical thinking would be very well developed.
4. I saw the same history channel episode, there is no way that a bow could sink a ship except against a small row boat, and taking time for it to fill with water.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
| Quote: | | BTW, was metal armor really necessary for Spartans in general? As far as I know, it was a must for the Spartiatai/homoioi, but the perioikoi and neodamodeis/helot hoplites were not held to such exacting equipment standards. Never mind that "Spartan" armies sometimes had few true Lacedaemonians (let alone Spartiates!), making up the lack with contingents of allies and mercenaries.... (Agesilaus in Asia is perhaps one extreme example.) |
As the Linothorax was thought to be the most populat body armour for hoplites by 450 BC or so, it would not be necassary! Of course some think the Linothrax may have had some metal scales, so it becomes a bit more hazy.
But to be a Spartan Equal you had to go through the training and become a citizen, although there is one example hwere one did not go through the training, the renegade Athenian (forget his name at the moment). Of course, they may have made exceptions from time to time, but I would think he would have been "adopted" as a citizen.
There was mention somewhere, of course I cannot remember where, where A Spartan Hoplite army was supported by Helot peltasts, or at least lighter armoured troops functioning as such.
Hey, the one thing I'm thinking of with the archer - could this be an exaggerated story where a fire arrow caused a severe shipboard fire?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: tis |
|
|
From the link you provided; "Japanese armour was never made of wood or bamboo. It was either leather, steel, or a combination of the two." There could be iron, as carburizing wasn't an exact science, but saying it was only Iron, at least after the Heian period and before Edo is unrealistic. The term is often used I think because most people don't really care about the difference and use Iron or steel as synonyms.
| Quote: | | 3. Samurai didn't even fight IN formation until after the mongol invasion so I don't see how tactical thinking would be very well developed. |
I think that's a bit overrated. They sure had a lot of decorum and duels during warfare (I would say that most cultures had at onoint) but that was only at the beginning of the encounter only, after that usual warfare ensued. And that was for samurai, regular infantry would not have to submit to such protocols. Chinese formations and strategies were known and extensively used up until the Heian period where they began to modify them to their needs. And various tactical treaties are known and available from various warlords of the period, in which their tactical thinking is quite well developed.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Sahigan
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
... I'm not going to comment on anything else, as I am not well versed in either Greek or Japanese history. however, that piece on tactics...
the 'flaws' that you pointed out in the phalanx applies to every other military power in existence. If you are outflanked or surrounded, you are generally dead. This applies to everyone who uses the battle line, and most pre-gunpowder armies do. You could argue that the phalanx itself is a pure carnation of the battleline, in the sense that it is very concentrated in the front with very little protection on the flank or rear. However, almost all of the greek armies had allied forces in the form of light skirmishers(and Cavalry, after Phillip II) protecting their flanks, eliminating much of the problem with such a rigid formation.
You need to be very careful when debating military tactics. No civilization ever depended on only one type of units to fight their wars and thus comparing one warrior with another without regard for supporting units is largely moot.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | As the Linothorax was thought to be the most populat body armour for hoplites by 450 BC or so, it would not be necassary! Of course some think the Linothrax may have had some metal scales, so it becomes a bit more hazy. |
Sparta was far more conservative than other Greek cities. The bronze cuirass was worn for generations after other Greeks adopted the linothorax. In any case how does that support the argument for leather armour? There is no evidence to suggest that any Spartan hoplite from any time period wore leather armour. Hoplite armour was predominantly metal or linen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The bronze cuirass was worn for generations after other Greeks adopted the linothorax. In any case how does that support the argument for leather armour? There is no evidence to suggest that any Spartan hoplite from any time period wore leather armour. Hoplite armour was predominantly metal or linen. |
Dan, was not suggesting anywhere that leather was worn. I was answering this question:
| Quote: | | BTW, was metal armor really necessary for Spartans in general? |
I agree that the Spartans would have been more traditional in general, though I'm not sure if any evidence points specifically one way or the other in this case.
I was not agreeing with James Lopez that Xena armour was the armour of the day 
Here's something, a longer article in general, but does make mention of the Linothorax in use by Spartans. In this at the time of Thermopylae, when I thought the Bronze back and breasts were still the order of the day:
| Quote: | Story's tools
Column: Armor by Nikolaos Markoulakis | on Jun 24, 05:45 PM Print Friendly Version | Send Article
After the celebrated opening and the expected success of the 300, a great number of individuals started to consider seriously to gain some knowledge for ancient Sparta, and especially on Spartan warfare.
We watched Frank Miller’s three hundredth Spartans ‘semi-naked’, equipped with a sword, Corinthian typed helmet and the eminent shield with the Greek letter Λ. Few days later, documentaries points out the historical equipment and armour used by the Spartans, by emphasising the one used at Thermopylae. We can, therefore, take two examples of academic based documentaries discussing the Spartan hoplites’ armour at the time of the legendary battle of Thermopylae, all were made by the History Channel: the Spartan Army and the Last Stand of the 300. In both cases, regardless the well produced and presented reconstruction, they lack to mention the extensive use of the pilos helmet.
It is evidence that from the early fifth century B.C.E. the Spartan armour — as well as of the rest of the Greek hoplites — changed. The alterations were mainly focused on the weight of the armour. Full metal breastplates were mainly abandoned (Hdt. vii 226.2) because of the extended heat and heaviness. The Corinthian helmet, with no doubt, was a well made defensive item, which also provided a status of richness to the hoplite, because it was appropriate to be decorated. However, its use started to fall in the actual action as was uncomfortable for the raising communication demands and continues change of formations.
We know that at Thermopylae few of the Spartans were equipped with linothorax (linen body armour) but not with metal breastplates. The rest of the Lakedemonians had no more than their metal helmet, spear, sword and shield. The Greek armies had to achieve light weight and at the same time maximum protection. Therefore, it is logical to believe that the shield and helmet were the most essential defence equipment at that time.
A rider, perhaps a Dioskouros,
wearing a pilos and riding a horse
to the left
9ca. 400 B.C. – 300 B.C.)
From Sparta in
Svoronos 1903-12, 635, pl. 140.
The pilos was in use from the 6th century B.C. and was also used from various Greek-like armoured Mediterranean armies. Goldstein in ‘An Etruscan Helmet in the McDaniel Collection’ (Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 72., 1968, pp. 383-390.) provides an outstanding examination of this type of helmet taking an example of a perfectly preserved Etruscan pilos helmet. From her study we know that the helmets were constructed mainly by bronze (82.5%), 9.0% of tin, 3.0% of lead and 1.0% of iron. The dimensions seems to be standardized. The construction, which is not yet fully examined, was made presumably by a single flat piece of bronze, which was then shaped on an egg-shaped base. The two formed sides were then met in a neatly formed crest. The end form indicates that this type of helmet, the pilos, never had cheekpieces. The simple shape was divided by one ridge which circles the shape in the third lower part forming a light shaped brim.
The pilos helmet was depicted numerous times as the main hoplites’ item from the early 5th century to the late 4th, on stelai, relief and situlae. It is also evidence on relief and stelai of the use of horse-hair crest, lophos with this type.
The early supposition that the helmet derived from the pilos hats (mainly as depicted to a number of Arcadian figurines in Loeffer, ‘The Museum’s Classical Collection’, Bulleting of the Rhode Island School of Design, 1965, fg.3, pp.4-5) cannot be accepted as valid if we take in granted the extreme complex development of the helmet design in Greece, Italy.
More precisely, in Sparta, as Cartledge sates, the pilos helmet was in extreme use and maybe was the only type used for a period of time from the Lakonian hoplites (see ‘Hoplites and Heroes: Sparta’s Contribution to the Technique of Ancient Warfare’, in The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 97., 1977, pp. 11-27). Thucydides when mentioned the battle at Pylos (c. 425) described the with vivid colours the scene: |
http://www.sparta.markoulakispublications.org.uk/index.php?id=114
NOt sure where his "evidence" comes from though, but I know our evidence on the Linothorax is based much upon written records as opposed to any actual examples.
The Pilos helemt thing I found a bit interesting as well. Spartans are often depicted with Corinthian style Helms, from my knowledge (prior to 300 ) was that they wore simple metal cap type helmets, not the type with more protection for the face.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: Re: tis |
|
|
| Max Chouinard wrote: |
From the link you provided; "Japanese armour was never made of wood or bamboo. It was either leather, steel, or a combination of the two." There could be iron, as carburizing wasn't an exact science, but saying it was only Iron, at least after the Heian period and before Edo is unrealistic. The term is often used I think because most people don't really care about the difference and use Iron or steel as synonyms.
| Quote: | | 3. Samurai didn't even fight IN formation until after the mongol invasion so I don't see how tactical thinking would be very well developed. |
I think that's a bit overrated. They sure had a lot of decorum and duels during warfare (I would say that most cultures had at onoint) but that was only at the beginning of the encounter only, after that usual warfare ensued. And that was for samurai, regular infantry would not have to submit to such protocols. Chinese formations and strategies were known and extensively used up until the Heian period where they began to modify them to their needs. And various tactical treaties are known and available from various warlords of the period, in which their tactical thinking is quite well developed. |
Well they obviously weren't utilized well as the Gundan was terrible, which is why it was disbanded. As far as not having tactics, that was an extrapolation of mine from the duel style of warfare and from what I understood from the gunki-monos.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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