| Author |
Message |
Eric S
|
 Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 10:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Daniel Staberg:
And were is your proof of all of your statistics?
|
|
   |
 |
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here are some turkish armors.
note, this one may be indian.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
 |
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | Daniel Staberg:
And were is your proof of all of your statistics? |
The Dutch numbers are from “The Republic as exporter of arms 1600-1650” by H. Ph. Vogel published as part of “The Arsenal of the World, The Dutch Arms trade in the Seventeenth Century” (Delft 1996). Vogel based his essay on the data unearthed by the joint research project of Leiden University and the Army & Weapons museum in Delft in 1991 to 1993.
The Suhl data comes from Zeitschrift für Historische Waffenkunde while the Imperial data is from Ernstberger’s "Wallenstein als Volkswirt im Herzogtum Friedland“ (Reichenberg 1929)
The Swedish data is taken from Sten Claeson’s “Krigsindustrin” published in “Kungl Artilleriet, Yngre vasatiden. Ed. J. Hedberg (Kristianstad 1985) as well as my own research into the Militieräkningar, Artillerihuvudboken and Artilleriräkenskaperna for the years 1630-1632 and 1636-1642 in the Swedish War Archive.
So my numbers are either hard data from primary sources, or estimates based on such data made by my self and other researchers working with documentation.
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Limiting the argument to swords vs armour will certianly lead to flawed results.
In Renissiance Japan, swords only accounted for tiny percentage of battlefield wounds.
In Medieval and Renissiance Europe, it's the same story, with the majority of soldiers using spears/polearms and bows.
These weapons were both more effective than swords, and spears/polearms were much easier the make then swords.
I notice outside of Greek, Japanese and 14th-17th century European armour, most cultures made fairly simple armour. (On Roman armour, for example, the helmet is the only piece that would require any real skill to make.)
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Burns
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
These are my non expert but familiar thoughts and some expert advice I got prior to purchase of my katana from Kult Of Athena! The Hanwei ONI Katana, and to chose from either the Oni or the Preying Mantis. Because they are made from bainite for core and martensite for skin steel.
For this type of sword, mainly cutting but thrusting too, they got the sword perfected centuries ago and therefore no reason to change something optimized to it's full potential! By the way superb posts on photos by Michael Curl and. Katana cross section illustrations by Eric S!
A katana cannot cut through mail over a gambison and certainly not against plate armor. I cannot concieve nor fathom how a k Samurai could possibly or remotely have a chance against an armoured knight. Although Japanese armor is lighter and one can move swiftly also designed to glance off cuts, I don't see how the samurai will avoit the thrust! While the samurai can cut all day long against plate armor in absolute futility!
My thoughts, while self educated, a deep eastern martial arts background I do not pretend to be any expert!
Hope this helps some.
Bob
"The Knight of Madness"
(A self humor title I came up with in 2005)
It IS What It IS! Only In Truth, Can Reality Exist!
To "Learn" we must empty our minds and therefore open our mind and spirit. A wet sponge absorbs no water. A preconceived mind is recalcitrant to new knowledge!
|
|
 |
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric Gregersen wrote: |
| 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? |
There are a few pictures of such armours in Stone, which can be seen in Google Books preview. (This particular page is a couple of Indian armours. Some Turkish armours some pages earlier. Look through the whole armour section.)
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel Staberg wrote: | | 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. |
Perhaps 20,000 muskets at Sekigahara. Other battles/wars to look at would be Osaka and Hideyoshi's Korean war. I don't have musket-figures for Osaka (but there were over 300 cannon). For the Korean war, the Japanese commanders in Korea wanted more and more muskets. IIRC, some planned to have about 1/2 their men equipped with muskets. If achieved, this would have made about 70,000 muskets.
"Rest of world" needs to include China, too. Good luck on trying to find reliable numbers on firearms in late Ming China, but there were plenty. Mid-17th century, the musket was the dominant battlefield weapon, the Han Banners specialised in firearms, and the Green Standard Army had plenty. To estimate a very safe lower bound, perhaps a minimum of 200,000 muskets in Chinese military service in the mid 1600s.
This stuff about the guns almost disappearing in Japan during the Edo period isn't right either. This is from Perrin being very selective with the evidence - looking at restrictions on firearms, while ignoring the even stricter restrictions on swords and spears. Peasants, for example, could own guns. At a rough estimate, 150,000-200,000 firearms at any time, through the Edo period (D. L. Howell, The Social Life of Firearms in Tokugawa Japan, Japanese Studies, 29:1, 65-80 (2009)). This includes firearms in private hands. (How many guns in Europe at any time, including those in private, non-military, hands? Rather more, I suspect.)
It's just a Perrinism that's made it's way to Wikipedia.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Hill
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | (How many guns in Europe at any time, including those in private, non-military, hands? Rather more, I suspect.)
It's just a Perrinism that's made it's way to Wikipedia. |
Another thing to remember when compairing Japan to the rest of the world is Japan is a bit smaller than California, or for the Europeans, Germany. It's also an Island, so any time you wish to make a claim that 'Japan had more than the rest of the world', remember it's size, then think of relative production abilities, wealth, population etc of the island to all of Europe and Asia, Africa, and by the 1600's the America's.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I notice outside of Greek, Japanese and 14th-17th century European armour, most cultures made fairly simple armour. (On Roman armour, for example, the helmet is the only piece that would require any real skill to make.) |
I disagree, as I have already posted, you have very complicated armour being used in Turkey, and much of that armor can also be seen being used in Persia, Middle East (meaning modern Iraq, Syria, Jordan), and India. Additionally Tibets armor can be quite heavy.
However this all depends on what you consider to be complex, if you don't consider mail to be complex, but only solid plate, then almost no one outside of Europe made complex armor. If you are talking about complex in that, the armor was designed by a specialized industry that could protect the entire body of the wearer, then that opens up many more places, including the gilbert islands, kamchatka, and alaska.
http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/nateand.../tpod.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koryaks
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=339771504142
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jojo Zerach wrote: | | I notice outside of Greek, Japanese and 14th-17th century European armour, most cultures made fairly simple armour. (On Roman armour, for example, the helmet is the only piece that would require any real skill to make.) |
I disagree with this, too! There are any number of helmets and cuirasses from Bronze Age Europe that show a high degree of skill and workmanship, aside from the fact that working high-tin bronze sheet is far from simple. This continues into Iron Age cultures such as Gauls and Iberians, doing beautiful work in bronze and iron. The plates of a Roman lorica segmentata have been shown to be better steel on average than a lot of late medieval armor, with a hardened outer surface. And the armor of tiny scales on a hideously fine backing of mail (often refered to as plumata) involves an incredible amount of skill (and patience!).
Beyond the Roman era, there are fabulous helmets such as the Baldenheim and Valsgarde types. Believe me, those are not simple to make! Even supposedly "simple" spangenhelms show a complexity or skill that is surprising. Then you get one-piece conical "Norman" style helmets which may look plain, but...
Don't be deceived by the comparative lack of decorated helmets and armor in the European "Age of Mail". Those folks did a lot of very good metalwork and loved their color and shine as much as any other culture. The fashions of the time simply ran a different direction, resulting in what looks like a plainer trend to us.
Vale,
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jun, 2011 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob Burns wrote: |
A katana cannot cut through mail over a gambison and certainly not against plate armor. I cannot concieve nor fathom how a k Samurai could possibly or remotely have a chance against an armoured knight. Although Japanese armor is lighter and one can move swiftly also designed to glance off cuts, I don't see how the samurai will avoit the thrust! While the samurai can cut all day long against plate armor in absolute futility! |
Thats a popular misconception that samurai relied mainly on their swords in combat. Before firearms were introduced into the mix it was the bow (yumi) being used on horseback that was the main weapon along with the naginata, then as Japanese warfare moved to large ground based armies the spear (yumi) and then the matchlock (tanegashima) came into play, the sword was a last defense. It was not until the Edo period that swords became the weapon of choice as firearms were retired from public use and in crowded urban areas bows and spears were relegated to wall hangings. If you look at the armor of different periods in Japan you can see how it developed based on the weapons being used in that period.
Early Japanese armor was made from light weight flexible individual scales (kozane) laced together, a good defense against arrows, instead of hand held shields samurai wore large shields on their shoulders (sode) due to the fact that they would be on horse back..
The introduction of firearms (1543) caused the Japanese armor makers to start using plate armor instead of scales. The chest armor (dou) and helmet (kabuto) were able to be constructed in a way that bullets from matchlocks could be stopped..that is if you could afford the have such armor made for you.
After the end of major warfare in Japan the heavy battle armor was retired and lightweight portable armor and armored clothing capable of defending from sword attack was the dominant armor worn right up to the end of the samurai era approximately 1868 or so.
Old style true individual small scale armor. Notice the large shoulder guards (sode).
Post firearms bullet resistant armor. The bullet marks were not from battle, these "proof" marks were to show potential purchasers that the armor was able to withstand being shot. (Tameshi).
Edo period (1800s) armored clothing. Chain armor jackets(kusari katabira) and forehead protectors (hachi gane)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Gordon Campbell
Location: Australia. Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Posts: 678
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jun, 2011 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Eric, with regards to your third picture, would those three in maille be the middle figures retainers?
Member of Australia's Stoccata School of Defence since 2008.
Host of Crash Course HEMA.
Founder of The Van Dieman's Land Stage Gladiators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jun, 2011 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Curl wrote: | | Quote: | | I notice outside of Greek, Japanese and 14th-17th century European armour, most cultures made fairly simple armour. (On Roman armour, for example, the helmet is the only piece that would require any real skill to make.) |
I disagree, as I have already posted, you have very complicated armour being used in Turkey, and much of that armor can also be seen being used in Persia, Middle East (meaning modern Iraq, Syria, Jordan), and India. Additionally Tibets armor can be quite heavy.
However this all depends on what you consider to be complex, if you don't consider mail to be complex, but only solid plate, then almost no one outside of Europe made complex armor. If you are talking about complex in that, the armor was designed by a specialized industry that could protect the entire body of the wearer, then that opens up many more places, including the gilbert islands, kamchatka, and alaska.
http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/nateand.../tpod.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koryaks
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=339771504142 |
I generally don't consider mail, scale, or lamellar armour to be complex.
Yes they have many pieces, and take a long time to construct, though they can be made with fairly unskilled labour.
Assuming you have all the tools ready, you could teach someone to make any of these types of armour in a day or two, and they could become proficent at it in a week or so.
Raising a pair of 14th century greaves or forming a Greek muscle curiass, on the other hand, would require years of training and practice to become good at.
(I base the complexity of armour on the ammount of skill in making it, rather than the outward apeparance. The lamellar armour you posted is nice and impressive looking, though it is ultimately just a bunch of flat peices laced together.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jun, 2011 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Jojo Zerach wrote: | | I notice outside of Greek, Japanese and 14th-17th century European armour, most cultures made fairly simple armour. (On Roman armour, for example, the helmet is the only piece that would require any real skill to make.) |
I disagree with this, too! There are any number of helmets and cuirasses from Bronze Age Europe that show a high degree of skill and workmanship, aside from the fact that working high-tin bronze sheet is far from simple. This continues into Iron Age cultures such as Gauls and Iberians, doing beautiful work in bronze and iron. The plates of a Roman lorica segmentata have been shown to be better steel on average than a lot of late medieval armor, with a hardened outer surface. And the armor of tiny scales on a hideously fine backing of mail (often refered to as plumata) involves an incredible amount of skill (and patience!).
Beyond the Roman era, there are fabulous helmets such as the Baldenheim and Valsgarde types. Believe me, those are not simple to make! Even supposedly "simple" spangenhelms show a complexity or skill that is surprising. Then you get one-piece conical "Norman" style helmets which may look plain, but...
Don't be deceived by the comparative lack of decorated helmets and armor in the European "Age of Mail". Those folks did a lot of very good metalwork and loved their color and shine as much as any other culture. The fashions of the time simply ran a different direction, resulting in what looks like a plainer trend to us.
Vale,
Matthew |
I was making a genralization about body armour. (I understand any helmet is difficult to make, especially plain looking, one-peice ones.)
Many cultures were skilled metalworkers, though it was generally not applied to body armour, as scale, mail, and lamellar were the norm in most places.
(A lot of surviving medieval armour is from Germanic areas, which would appear to be metallurgically behind other places in Europe until the Renissiance.)
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jun, 2011 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jojo Zerach wrote: | I generally don't consider mail, scale, or lamellar armour to be complex.
Yes they have many pieces, and take a long time to construct, though they can be made with fairly unskilled labour.
Assuming you have all the tools ready, you could teach someone to make any of these types of armour in a day or two, and they could become proficent at it in a week or so.
Raising a pair of 14th century greaves or forming a Greek muscle curiass, on the other hand, would require years of training and practice to become good at.
(I base the complexity of armour on the ammount of skill in making it, rather than the outward apeparance. The lamellar armour you posted is nice and impressive looking, though it is ultimately just a bunch of flat peices laced together.) |
Maybe you should try constructing some replicas of these armours before making such silly statements. It might be easy to lace a few metal plates together but it is very difficult to copy the appearance and functionality of an actual museum piece. They definitely cannot be made with "fairly unskilled labour".
|
|
|
|
|
Johan Gemvik
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jun, 2011 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: |
Maybe you should try constructing some replicas of these armours before making such silly statements. It might be easy to lace a few metal plates together but it is very difficult to copy the appearance and functionality of an actual museum piece. They definitely cannot be made with "fairly unskilled labour". |
I second that.
Once upon a time many years ago when I was just making butted maille I used to think maillemaking was just about the man hours put into it. But it's so much more, tailoring it to fit the wearer, how to make the riveting strong and not just pretty and ornamental and so on. How to even make the overlap and holes in the individual rings to begin with.
Another good example is simply making a section of metal lamellar without modern power tools or drills. Then manage to bind it or ring it so it won't slide apart leaving gaps from movement or even the lightest touch of a weapon tip.
It's far from as easy as it seems and most historical armours have so many function related details put into the making of them it's almost unbelievable.
"The Dwarf sees farther than the Giant when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on" -Coleridge
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jun, 2011 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam Gordon Campbell wrote: | | Hey Eric, with regards to your third picture, would those three in maille be the middle figures retainers? |
Sam I have heard that the photo is titled "Estate Guards", I believe that the intention of the individual who took the photograph was to imply that the individual wearing traditional armor ( he is holding a commanders baton or saihai) is a samurai and the other men wearing chain jackets (kusari katabira) are retainers due to the fact that from what I can see they only have one sword which would signify a much lower ranking individual such as a retainer. Most photographs from this period were staged in a studio with people acting the part of samurai but this photograph may actually have been taken outside. I know of only three photographs showing this type of Edo period armor, here is another thats obviously staged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jun, 2011 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the matter of arquebuses: A contemporary witness stated that 6 months after the European arrival, 600 of them had already been replicated (Boxer. Christian century. University of California, 1974). And then they became one of the major purveyors of guns in Asia. No matter the numbers (doing mathematics in this case is just silly) the capacity of adaptation of the Japanese is what is truly admirable. They have shown many times that their economy and sometimes whole social order could be rearranged to fit their needs in a rate that surpassed any developed country today (and we have the numbers to prove it). Just look how fast they transferred from a medieval army to a modern military colossus. I mean c'mon!
And can we just get over the katana syndrome (the name I've given to that reaction phase that nearly everyone seems to go through when first introduced to European arms and martial arts)? The katana was a good all rounder... alright. It wasn't expressly meant to defeat armor, for which purpose you had a panoply of much more enjoyable weapons to do the job, be it a bow, gun, spear, halberd, axe, warhamer, club, armor piercing dagger. But it was as every other sword in history a good choice for every situation. Pretty good on a battlefield, pretty good in shady neighborhoods, pretty good to make lower castes fear you and higher ones consider you. As for the armor it was well adapted to an archipelago filled with huge mountains, forests and swamps and I would say was pretty much the equivalent of a 17th century European one, and judging by how the Japanese modified European armors, I would say they agreed.
Now can we just appreciate armors and weapons for what they are and not what they never were? Unless we all get sucked in a time warp we will never have to choose between a Gothic armor and a yoroi to save our lives, so again get over it!
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jun, 2011 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel Staberg wrote: | | So if the Japanese did have more firearms that the rest of the world why does it not show on the battlefield? |
Can you show me were anyone has written this statement in any book?
No were that I know of does Perrin or anyone else state that the Japanese had | Quote: | | more firearms that the rest of the world |
Here are the quotes that concern the numbers of weapons in Japan compared to other countries
Perrin says on page 3 | Quote: | | They had fought battles in the sixteenth century using more guns than any European country possesed. |
In Perrin's book page 13 | Quote: | | In 1483, admittedly an exceptional year, 67,000 swords were shipped to China alone. A hundred and fourteen years later, a visiting Italian merchant named Francesco Carletti noted a brisk export trade in "WEAPONS OF ALL KINDS" both offensive and defensive, of which this country has, I suppose, a more abundant supply than any other country in the world. |
Do you see what was being said here? Perrin is quoting a statement from an Italian merchant in 1597 who said that Japan had more abundant supply of weapons of ALL kinds (not just firearms) than any other country in the world, Perrin is not making that statement he is quoting a statement made in 1592, just to make a point as to how large a supply of weapons Japan had at its disposal.
This statement goes along with Perrins statement on the population of Japan compared to the populations of several European countries in the 1500s. On page 16 he states that Japan had a population of 25 million compared to 16 million in France, 7 million in Spain, 4.5 million in England and 1 million in what would become America.
The actual statement that is so often misquoted is this statement on page 34 | Quote: | | At least in actual numbers, guns were almost certainly more common in Japan in the late sixteenth century than in any other country in the world. |
Perrin states the Japan ALMOST CERTAINLY had more guns than 'ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD" guns not firearms and not the whole world.
While you might not agree with this statement this is what his book says, not that Japan had more "firearms than the rest of the world".
As an example on Page 118 in the books footnotes Perrin uses as an example this statement | Quote: | | The entire English army, for example had fewer guns than any one of half a dozen Japanese feudal lords. |
He goes on to show were those figures came from, lets debate the FACTS not whats been repeated on some forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jun, 2011 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Jojo Zerach wrote: | I generally don't consider mail, scale, or lamellar armour to be complex.
Yes they have many pieces, and take a long time to construct, though they can be made with fairly unskilled labour.
Assuming you have all the tools ready, you could teach someone to make any of these types of armour in a day or two, and they could become proficent at it in a week or so.
Raising a pair of 14th century greaves or forming a Greek muscle curiass, on the other hand, would require years of training and practice to become good at.
(I base the complexity of armour on the ammount of skill in making it, rather than the outward apeparance. The lamellar armour you posted is nice and impressive looking, though it is ultimately just a bunch of flat peices laced together.) |
Maybe you should try constructing some replicas of these armours before making such silly statements. It might be easy to lace a few metal plates together but it is very difficult to copy the appearance and functionality of an actual museum piece. They definitely cannot be made with "fairly unskilled labour". |
I'm a recreational armourer, and I stand by my statement.
After you become familiar with the process, these forms of armour are fairly straightforward to construct. (Though very labour intensive.) They all have steps that must be repeated for each scale/ring, although none of these indivual steps require much specialized skill. (Riveted mail probably being the hardest of the 3)
As Johan suggested, perhaps the most challenging part of these armours is the overall assembly. (not the basic construction methods.)
I'm not suggesting they were made by untrained people, though they could have easialy been made by numerous semi-skilled people working under a head armourer's guidance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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