| Author |
Message |
William Frisbee
Location: South Shore, MA Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 93
|
 Posted: Thu 17 Mar, 2011 8:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
And didn't cover a lot...
A bit fancier armour. Same era. Total weight, just under 73lbs.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Mar, 2011 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
One thing I wounder about is the weight of parts of these armours. The helmet of the 39 pound armour above seems very heavy compared to the rest of the armour that looks like non-metal.
I read some publications on the weight modern infantrymen wear in combat and should wear. There seems to be quite an agreement that weight should be around 35-36.5 pounds maximum during combat (but is usually higher). Is this possibly a reasonable weigth for skirmishers? And if so, are the heavier armours here not suited for this kind of combat because they would exhaust troops? I wonder about that because in art I've seen armoured supporters of mounted samurai.
|
|
|
|
|
William Frisbee
Location: South Shore, MA Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Mar, 2011 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Having worn, and fought in both types (an okegawa dou, hineno kabuto with tsubo kote and suneate, and now my current late 14th century armour), I will tell you this much.
The european armour is much more comfortable for me.
Both sets were made for ME (my Japanese armour by Black Hydra Armouries (Mykaru), and my European stuff by HammerBreaker from the Ukraine) so they fit properly.
While its easier to move your arms and legs in the Japanese armour... well thats because it doesn't protect near as much...
Anyways, the AVERAGE American solidier playing in the sandbox right now carries about 70lbs of gear. Most Army units carried more, but in combat patrol situations carried less (90 lbs when on the move, 50 lbs in combat).
And I quote from an Army source:
| Quote: | | An Army Science Board study in 2001 recommended that no soldiers carry more than 50 pounds. Yet the Times said a 2003 Army study found that soldiers on extended foot patrols carry an average load ranging from 87 to 127 pounds. |
Oh:
| Quote: | | study led by a Johns Hopkins University researcher found that nearly one-third of all medical evacuations from Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004 through 2007 resulted from musculoskeletal, connective-tissue or spinal injuries. That was more than double the number of evacuations from combat injuries. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
|
|
|
|
William Frisbee
Location: South Shore, MA Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Mar, 2011 12:05 pm Post subject: Re: weight |
|
|
You just said it yourself, the armour weight was dtistributed.
In my current kit, the most uncomfrortable thing I wear is my haubegeron. It only weighs about 17lbs, but after 5 or 6 hours in it, my shoulders do get a bit sore.
I could wear my plate all day long (and I have done so when doing demonstrations at faires or during events).
Japanese armour was TYPICALLY not as well distributed weight wise as was contemporary European armour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Mar, 2011 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Carl Massaro wrote: |
The same type of averaging is also misleading when talking of historical life-expectancies. We often hear that "The average person only lived until they were 30 or 40." Or, "you were considered old at 25." The problem with this is that they give people a sense that everyone died of old age before they were 50. Once again, they are averages and account for children dying, and people dying of disease and infections earlier in life. Since ancient times, the likelyhood of dying earlier is greater, but should disease or violence be avoided, people were living into their seventies and sometimes older. |
A bit off-topic but another great point, Carl, a it is also dramatically affected by time, place and class. Life expectancy in the 14th c as a median age looks dramatically lower - because a third of the populace died of the plague. Again, nobility - if they weren't killed in warfare (child birth for women) or of disease, were often living in their 60s, 70s and yes, 80s. There are several Italian lords of the 13th and 14th century who cleared 90 - one of the Neapolitan lords and one of the Montefeltri made it over 100! Now, these are *also* statistical minorities, and the point is that less people lived this long, and less people were as tall as modern man is now. But "averages" are a very hard thing to discuss in this context.
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
 |
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Thu 17 Mar, 2011 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kurt Scholz wrote: | One thing I wounder about is the weight of parts of these armours. The helmet of the 39 pound armour above seems very heavy compared to the rest of the armour that looks like non-metal.
I read some publications on the weight modern infantrymen wear in combat and should wear. There seems to be quite an agreement that weight should be around 35-36.5 pounds maximum during combat (but is usually higher). Is this possibly a reasonable weigth for skirmishers? And if so, are the heavier armours here not suited for this kind of combat because they would exhaust troops? I wonder about that because in art I've seen armoured supporters of mounted samurai. |
I know someone who lives in Japan and participates in a modern gun troop. He and the other people in the troop use as much actual antique equipment as possible including antique Tanegashima matchlocks and antique armor when possible. I recently asked him how much his entire kit weighed including the firearms equipment and sword etc as he was about to tour Portugal with his troop. | Quote: | | 35-40 kg before food/water. I had no gunpowder or bullets and I left my Horagai Triton shell behind. My sword Koshirae contained only a light wooden Tsunagi. |
What people are not taking into account is the weight of all the equipment needed by a samurai while in the field. A high ranking samurai could afford the best armor no matter what the cost and weight would not be an issue as he would have many retainers to carry it and all other necessities. On the other hand a lower ranking samurai had to choose what armor he could afford and if he did not have a retainer weight would certainly be a factor as many items needed to be carried along with armor, you had clothing, weapons, food,water, a flag etc. Before the use of firearms armor was much different also so what era you are talking about would make a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
William Frisbee
Location: South Shore, MA Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seeing a samurai using a matchlock just doesn't feel right to me...
I thought they were mostly the domain of ashigaru?
|
|
|
|
|
William Frisbee
Location: South Shore, MA Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here are some pictures of my Japanese kit.
The Dou.
The Kote:
The kabuto (same thing, only with blue ito):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William Frisbee wrote: | Seeing a samurai using a matchlock just doesn't feel right to me...
I thought they were mostly the domain of ashigaru? |
Turnbull, Stephen. Samurai Invasion: Japan's Korean War 1592–98. London: Cassell & Co, 2002, ISBN 0-304-35948-3.
Turnbull, Stephen. 'The Samurai Sourcebook'. London: Cassell & Co. 1998. ISBN 1-85409-523-4.
They have some represenations of samurai with guns during the Imjin War. The Japanese had quite a lack of cannon and so they had big muskets used by "really strong" men. Being depicted as someone wielding such a firearm seems to have been one of the things samurai liked. There are also reports about samurai hunting Siberian tigers with firearms as a heroic pasttime. I read a report that such a tiger can still kill a maen despite a bullet through the heart because he has 3 seconds left to act and the Japanese reports stress how very dangerous this was.
|
|
|
|
|
William Frisbee
Location: South Shore, MA Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, the "bird guns". Some fired a 2" round.
Yes TWO inch.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Mar, 2011 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William Frisbee wrote: | Seeing a samurai using a matchlock just doesn't feel right to me...
I thought they were mostly the domain of ashigaru? |
Samurai matchlocks (tanegashima) can be differentiated from the ashigaru ones by the difference in decoration. Both samurai and ashigaru used tanegashima of various sizes and types, but the samurai ones tend to be highly decorated while the ashigaru variety are plain and simple. The same rule applies to ashigaru armor and other weapons, ashigaru armor and weapons were lower grade but functional compared to the samurai armor and weapons of similar type. As for ashigaru, they were simply an extension of the samurai, with most if not all of their armor and equipment being owned and provided by a samurai lord to the ashigaru as needed and returned to the lord when the need was over. Here are two examples of tanegashima, one an ashigaru type and the other a samurai owned tanegashima.
|
|
|
|
|
William Frisbee
Location: South Shore, MA Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Mon 21 Mar, 2011 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lower grade being the functional term here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic