| Author |
Message |
Dan Howard
|
 Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 12:17 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
There is a world of difference between "recreational armour" and "armour that will safe your life on the battlefield".
|
|
  |
 |
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | There is a world of difference between "recreational armour" and "armour that will safe your life on the battlefield". |
Could you elaborate on this a bit?
And recreational or not, I'm very familiar with the processes used to create diffirent forms of armour.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jojo Zerach wrote: |
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.)
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. |
Jojo, your statement
| Quote: | 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. |
Jojo, some people here can speak on other types of armor but as far as Japanese armor goes you must not have any taken any time to understand the processes needed to construct a complete armor. Do you have any idea how long it took for a full samurai armor to be constructed, it could be several years for a high quality one.
From melting down the iron sands to come up with the metal necessary for the plates, scales and other pieces , or the tanning of hides to make the various leathers and rawhides used, to the collecting of the toxic sap used in making the lacquer, the cloths used for the backings had to be cultivated and spun and weaved, the silk worm cultivation for the silk used in the laces, the minerals and substances used to dye and color the lacquer, cloth and silk had to be collected and processed. There were non ferrous metals and precious metals that had to be mined and processed to be used in various fittings.
All these materials had to be taken from the raw form and worked into finished materials. The raw iron had to be worked into sheets, plates, wire and these pieces had to be drilled, formed, drawn, riveted and lacquered. The leathers and rawhides had to be smoked, dyed, formed, drilled, stenciled and lacquered. The cloth had to be cut and sewn, embroidered. The copper, brass, gold, silver fittings had to be formed, molded, stamped, etched, drilled, riveted.
The lacquer process alone was an incredibly difficult step, the harsh Japanese environment would destroy untreated rawhide and iron. lacquer could only be applied under very specific heat and humidity conditions, applying it was an art form and the lacquer itself was a very dangerous toxic material to work with, layer after layer with sanding and polishing between the layers. You can read about it here http://www.kenjitoki.com/about_urushi2.html
You can not have armor with out a means to carry and store it, all Japanese armor would have cloth bags for each individual item and wood boxes to carry it in, the boxes themselves would have leather covers to keep water out.
I hope you do not think that the armor makers were just a bunch of unskilled or semi skilled laborers with a few bosses in charge, the people who made Japanese armor were master craftsmen with generations if not hundreds of years of knowledge passed down through the different families and schools of armor makers.
|
|
 |
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jojo Zerach wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | There is a world of difference between "recreational armour" and "armour that will save your life on the battlefield". |
Could you elaborate on this a bit?
And recreational or not, I'm very familiar with the processes used to create diffirent forms of armour. |
If you were, you wouldn't have made these statements.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: | | 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 |
|
The statement was made earlier in this topic by fellow member Scott Woodruff (on the 9th, 7:19pm) | Quote: | | For instance, in the 16th century there were more firearms in Japan than in the rest of the world combined. |
and it was to this I replied in my post of the 10th which started our exchange. You replied to that post in a way which is easy to interpret as a defence of that statement since you seemed to challenge my statement that it was equal to the infamous katana claim and presented Daehnhardt's book as proof of this.
| Eric S wrote: |
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. |
|
Does this quote come with a footnote in which presents the facts he based this claim on? For example which battles he are using as an example and the European armies with which he is comparing them? It is a rather bold and sweeping statement much in need of facts to back it up.
| Eric S wrote: |
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 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.
|
And this single Italian merchant had accurate knowledge of the arms production in all the countries in the world at that time? Clearly the fellow was impressed but he is a narrative source, on the level with the sources who reported 100.000 or more French soldiers at Agincourt. There is no doub that he saw a thriving arms industry but he is in no position to accurately judge how it compares to all the other countries in the world at that time.
In order to make an accurate comparison you need hard numbers which are usually found in administrative documents and similar sources.
| Eric S wrote: |
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".
. |
"Guns" is rather imprecise word as it be used to describe everything from artillery, to crew served firearms to the hand held firearms (small arms) carried by infantrymen. I used "firearms" because the normal usage of that word excludes artillery & crew served weapons as it is my impression that Perrin primarily uses the word "gun" to describe individual weapons such as match-lock arquebus rather than in the widest sense of the word.
The actual quote from Perrin is certainly less exaggerated than the version misquoted on the Internet. But more interesting to me is the content of the footnote supporting it if any. Which sources has he used and what do they say? Has he really compare inventory numbers from all gun using nations in the world with those of Japan? If he has not how can he make that statement?
| Eric S wrote: |
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. |
So where does those figures come from? (Not to mention which are his figures?) For example which numbers are Perrin using for the English army? From which year are those numbers? And with which years of Japanese history is he comparing them? The choice of the English army is also very interesting as the English were noted for not being a major user of guns for much of the 16th Century due to a continued reliance on archery. Even in 1588 18% of the Trained Bands still used bows.
Does Perrin compare any other European nations with Japan? I.e what are the facts as presented by Perrin in support of his claims.
"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: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel Staberg wrote: | | You replied to that post in a way which is easy to interpret as a defence of that statement since you seemed to challenge my statement that it was equal to the infamous katana claim and presented Daehnhardt's book as proof of this. . |
Daniel, I was just putting out another source of information from the very small list books with any real information on Tanegashima, I just get tired of people mis-quoting Perrin whether his facts are accurate or not you can not argue the facts without the exact statements in front of you. I can neither confirm or disprove any of the statements made by either of the authors, and I do not really care to.
When discussing Japans entrance in the firearms age the significant fact is that Japan went from having virtually no knowledge of the use and manufacture of firearms and from just seeing a couple of matchlocks in the possession of a few storm tossed Portuguese adventurers in 1543 they not only mastered the complex problems of manufacturing gun powder and matchlocks they caught up with the rest of the world.
The other equally significant fact is that Japan basically was able to withdraw their matchlocks from military action for several hundred years. They did not destroy them or completely stop the manufacture but somehow they went back in time and pretended that they did not possess these weapons and resumed their pre-firearms armor and weapons use until the world came knocking on their door and reawakened them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, to consider what Perrin presents as fact, there are two different claims:
| Eric S wrote: |
Perrin says on page 3 | Quote: | | They had fought battles in the sixteenth century using more guns than any European country possesed. |
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. |
|
The first, based on the number of guns in Japanese battles, would be a claim of about 40,000, for the invasion of Korea (about 160,000 soldiers, and Wikipedia tells me they were about 25% handgunners). Or is there some battle with more handguns? The comparison is with any European country. There is some wiggle room in "country" and "possessed". Anybody have any inventory numbers at hand to compare?
The second is based on a larger number, the total number of guns in the country, and the comparison is with the total number of guns in any other country. Mid-1600s, almost certainly there were more guns in China (compared with the estimate of 150,000-200,000 Japanese guns, Edo period). Perhaps the 16th century Japanese total was higher. What of the Chinese total? A footnote in K. Hack & T. Rettig, "Colonial armies in Southeast Asia" (footnote 33 on pg 34) tells me that in the late 15th century, about 1/3 of the Ming army carried firearms, so 400,000-600,000 firearms. The number of guns would be lower.
So Perrin appears to be wrong here (and given the overall level of accuracy, this is not a surprise).
"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: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: |
The other equally significant fact is that Japan basically was able to withdraw their matchlocks from military action for several hundred years. They did not destroy them or completely stop the manufacture but somehow they went back in time and pretended that they did not possess these weapons and resumed their pre-firearms armor and weapons use until the world came knocking on their door and reawakened them. |
Perrin's main point. Guns were used in various revolts during the Edo period, and featured in such military action as existed. So Perrin was wrong.
That Japan was peaceful enough, and isolated enough, so that milirary technology developed more slowly in Japan during the Edo period than elsewhere in the world is a different story.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
You'll likely find that the Ottomans had more firearms than the Japanese also.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric S
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Eric S wrote: |
The other equally significant fact is that Japan basically was able to withdraw their matchlocks from military action for several hundred years. They did not destroy them or completely stop the manufacture but somehow they went back in time and pretended that they did not possess these weapons and resumed their pre-firearms armor and weapons use until the world came knocking on their door and reawakened them. |
Perrin's main point. Guns were used in various revolts during the Edo period, and featured in such military action as existed. So Perrin was wrong.
That Japan was peaceful enough, and isolated enough, so that milirary technology developed more slowly in Japan during the Edo period than elsewhere in the world is a different story. |
During the Edo period there were large amounts of weapons and armor stored all over Japan for use in case of various emergencies and since Japan at that time was all about internal security you would think that as in most societies which obtained firearms they would have proceeded to produce more and more advanced forms of firearms, but they did not. If you look at period prints from that time you will notice a lack of firearms in them, guns were just not an everyday weapon to be carried around were ever you went as in the west.
I do not remember Perrin ever saying that guns were completely removed they just seemed to be demoted and relegated to emergency weapons and the fact that they were not in everyday use as in Western nations is unusual to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think I see what you mean, Jojo. Folks, I don't think he's trying to claim that the whole process of forging out sheets of metal for scales (of any sort!) or making wire for mail was simple, or that anyone could do it. Obviously those were skilled crafts. I think what he means is that the *body armor* of some cultures was not visually complex or highly decorated. (And he says "except for Japan", and later medieval Europe, etc.) I can see what he means. Mail tends to look like mail, with some variations in length and sleeves, and in Europe they usually didn't tend to add a *lot* decorations in brass rings, for instance. Scale armor also doesn't tend to have the same visual impact as plate armor, etc.
And I tend to agree that the assembly of mail and scale armor are not necessarily as technically involved as the production of plate armor. Sure, there are some technical challenges to overcome, but GIVEN THE WIRE AND/OR SHEET METAL, with a few basic tools and the necessary level of experience, it just takes time. Obviously that doesn't mean modern reproduction mail is the same as ancient or medieval mail in all its tiniest details! BUT if we were to learn what tools and processes they used back then, and we copied those (and had the same metal, of course), we'd be pretty close. It might be tricky and tedious, but once learned properly, it isn't necessarily highly skilled. From the point of the stock metal!
On the other hand, it's a pretty narrowly defined generalization (if that's not an oxymoron!) that could be taken too far. Some folks feel that making REAL mail is very technically difficult, and it's hard to argue with an opion like that. But there are, and no doubt were, armorers who would be puzzled by the idea that making a piece of plate armor is all that hard. Sure, it can take time, but you just cut out the shape you need and start hammering it into shape! Thicker here, thinner there, add some ridges or rolled edges, no big deal, eh? Heck, even fancy lacy edges on some Gothic pieces or gilded brass bling aren't huge obstacles, they take a few clever techniques and the right tools and some time. IF you know what you're doing! We also know that a lot of basic metal shaping was done with the help of "unskilled" beaters--but if any of us tried that sort of thing without a significant amount of training and practice, all we'd end up with would be scrap metal and possibly a master armorer with smashed hands!
So while I can see Jojo's point, it comes down to a lot of assumptions or opinions about what is difficult or simple, or even what's plain or fancy! If we keep arguing those points, we could be here for weeks...
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Jojo Zerach wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | There is a world of difference between "recreational armour" and "armour that will save your life on the battlefield". |
Could you elaborate on this a bit?
And recreational or not, I'm very familiar with the processes used to create diffirent forms of armour. |
If you were, you wouldn't have made these statements. |
Once again, could you elaborate on this vauge statement? I'm just not sure precisely what you're trying to say.
All I'm suggesting is that some forms of armour are more difficult to make than others. Or are you asserting a lamellar curiass and a Maximillian one are similar in terms of training and experience required?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | I think I see what you mean, Jojo. Folks, I don't think he's trying to claim that the whole process of forging out sheets of metal for scales (of any sort!) or making wire for mail was simple, or that anyone could do it. Obviously those were skilled crafts. I think what he means is that the *body armor* of some cultures was not visually complex or highly decorated. (And he says "except for Japan", and later medieval Europe, etc.) I can see what he means. Mail tends to look like mail, with some variations in length and sleeves, and in Europe they usually didn't tend to add a *lot* decorations in brass rings, for instance. Scale armor also doesn't tend to have the same visual impact as plate armor, etc.
And I tend to agree that the assembly of mail and scale armor are not necessarily as technically involved as the production of plate armor. Sure, there are some technical challenges to overcome, but GIVEN THE WIRE AND/OR SHEET METAL, with a few basic tools and the necessary level of experience, it just takes time. Obviously that doesn't mean modern reproduction mail is the same as ancient or medieval mail in all its tiniest details! BUT if we were to learn what tools and processes they used back then, and we copied those (and had the same metal, of course), we'd be pretty close. It might be tricky and tedious, but once learned properly, it isn't necessarily highly skilled. From the point of the stock metal!
On the other hand, it's a pretty narrowly defined generalization (if that's not an oxymoron!) that could be taken too far. Some folks feel that making REAL mail is very technically difficult, and it's hard to argue with an opion like that. But there are, and no doubt were, armorers who would be puzzled by the idea that making a piece of plate armor is all that hard. Sure, it can take time, but you just cut out the shape you need and start hammering it into shape! Thicker here, thinner there, add some ridges or rolled edges, no big deal, eh? Heck, even fancy lacy edges on some Gothic pieces or gilded brass bling aren't huge obstacles, they take a few clever techniques and the right tools and some time. IF you know what you're doing! We also know that a lot of basic metal shaping was done with the help of "unskilled" beaters--but if any of us tried that sort of thing without a significant amount of training and practice, all we'd end up with would be scrap metal and possibly a master armorer with smashed hands!
So while I can see Jojo's point, it comes down to a lot of assumptions or opinions about what is difficult or simple, or even what's plain or fancy! If we keep arguing those points, we could be here for weeks...
Matthew |
Yes, I was making this on the assumption that all tools and raw materials were already avaliable. It's a given any culture that made armour would have to procure materials and make tools, so I sort of viewed it as a nullified factor.
I be more clear, when I said complex, I was refering to actual forming with a hammer, as that is what I personally appreciate to be most challenging and skill intensive.
I think this viewpoint is in line with historical armouers viewpoints. Roman armouers, for example, obviously had the ability to make very skillfully formed armour, as evidenced by the Lorica Musculata.
However, for the average soldier, this was seen as impractical due to the difficulty involved. They instead settled on other forms of armour that were deemed easier to construct, even though took much longer. (such as scale and mail.)
You see this in other cultures as well.
In 1370 England, a knight or man-at-arms would often have full plate armour, though the basic soldier probably had mail and a coat-of-plates. In Japan, a basic ashigaru was equpied much more simply than a wealthy samurai.
This is all because some types of armour are simpiler to make than others. Again, i'm not suggesting they were made by random labourers, though they didn't require intensive training to make.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Once you start to look closer at Perrin's examples it is clar that there are a number of details which seem to be at odds with how things are describe by other authors. For example he puts the number of arquebusiers in the Oda army at Nagashino at 10.000 yet Turnbull only gives the army 3500 arquebusiers in total. Which is the correct number?
Perrin's comparison with the English and Japanses seem to involve carefully selecting his examples, rather than using the actual muster numbers for the English forces he relies on a French ambassadors report. Either because he did not have access to the information or because it did not fit in with his opinions. Rather than the 6000 men with guns quoted by Perrin the English had 42% of the Trained Bands armed with guns, 28742 calivers and 4702 muskets. In addition there were at least 5461 cavalry raised by the militia system, of these the light horse ( 3078) were supposed to carry a pair of pistols while the Petronels (1034) and mounted Arquebusiers (300) carried a long firearm as their main weapon.
In the same way Perrin choses way is well known to have been a particularly poorly equipped expedtionary force commanded by Lord Willoughby for his comparison rather than for example the better equipped force led by the Earl of Essex a few years later.
It is also noteworthy that the English army is the only one for which Perrin looks at in detail, google can turn up no references to major European armies such as the Spanish, the Dutch or the Emperor. The French only make a small apperance when Perrin uses the battle of Coutras as an example but as I will show later there are a number of problems with his description there as well. Why did Perrin ignore the major armies? A lack of sources or the fact that the numbers would not have been in his favour?. Take for example the Spanish Army of Flanders which was recognised as the most formiable and professional fighting force in Europe.
In 1572 the Duke of Alva commanded some 53.000 infantry:
19500 Walloons (up to 77% armed with firearms)
24 440 Germans (50% armed with firearms)
9100 Spanish (25-50% firearms)
(The lower number of Spanish troops with firearms reflect their role as shock troops who favoure the pike rather than a shortage of firearms, by 1596 changes in warfare meant that in the Spanish Tercios fighting in France 72% of the men carried guns.)
Obviously these numbers would put the Oda arquebusiers at Nagashino in a diffrent perspective regardless of wether you use Perrin's 10000 or Turnbulls 3500.
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jojo Zerach wrote: | | Yes, I was making this on the assumption that all tools and raw materials were already avaliable. It's a given any culture that made armour would have to procure materials and make tools, so I sort of viewed it as a nullified factor. |
That seems reasonable to me!
| Quote: | | I be more clear, when I said complex, I was refering to actual forming with a hammer, as that is what I personally appreciate to be most challenging and skill intensive. |
That also seems reasonable. However, I'm not sure everyone would come to the same conclusion. A master of plate armor might cringe at the thought of making mail, while a brilliant mail-maker might be clueless with a raising hammer. Or just the opposite--a maker of plate armor might scorn mail-makers ("Oh, any trained ape can knit!"), while a mail-maker might believe his art to be the highest ("Any untrained ape can pound metal with hammers!"). It might just depend a lot on what someone has been trained to do.
| Quote: | I think this viewpoint is in line with historical armouers viewpoints. Roman armouers, for example, obviously had the ability to make very skillfully formed armour, as evidenced by the Lorica Musculata.
However, for the average soldier, this was seen as impractical due to the difficulty involved. They instead settled on other forms of armour that were deemed easier to construct, even though took much longer. (such as scale and mail.) |
Ah, here's where your thesis falls down: Soldiers and warriors typically did not make their own armor! Wealthier warriors would not even have repaired or maintained their own armor. It's *possible* that the Romans might have been an occasional exception, with some soldiers working in their units' armories, but it really isn't clear that they were actually making armor from scratch. More likely they were only doing repairs, or possibly assembling some items from manufactured parts. We just don't know enough. In other cultures, though, armorers made armor, whatever the type, and soldiers and warriors wore it. So complexity didn't matter, though certainly cost could be a factor in the lower classes. But even there, in many cultures even the simplest metal armor was way out of their price range!
| Quote: | | In 1370 England, a knight or man-at-arms would often have full plate armour, though the basic soldier probably had mail and a coat-of-plates....This is all because some types of armour are simpiler to make than others. Again, i'm not suggesting they were made by random labourers, though they didn't require intensive training to make. |
Yes, but by that point, there was a much larger production of less expensive armor, due to a number of technical and socio-economic reasons. Making cheap armor still required highly trained skill and a growing amount of specialized equipment (power hammers, e.g.). Your average soldier isn't going to have ready access to wire-drawing equipment or water-powered trip hammers, he just buys what he can afford from the folks who do.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jojo Zerach wrote: | Yes, I was making this on the assumption that all tools and raw materials were already avaliable. It's a given any culture that made armour would have to procure materials and make tools, so I sort of viewed it as a nullified factor.
I be more clear, when I said complex, I was refering to actual forming with a hammer, as that is what I personally appreciate to be most challenging and skill intensive.
I think this viewpoint is in line with historical armouers viewpoints. Roman armouers, for example, obviously had the ability to make very skillfully formed armour, as evidenced by the Lorica Musculata.
However, for the average soldier, this was seen as impractical due to the difficulty involved. They instead settled on other forms of armour that were deemed easier to construct, even though took much longer. (such as scale and mail.) |
Even this argument is flawed. Nobody can successfully argue that the main reason why scale and mail was worn is because plate was too hard to make. If you look at inventories you'll see that mail was in demand long after plate became commonplace. It also cost more and took longer to make. On top of that the only people who produced armour (including mail and scale) were highly skilled armourers, not the village blacksmith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eric S wrote: |
During the Edo period there were large amounts of weapons and armor stored all over Japan for use in case of various emergencies and since Japan at that time was all about internal security you would think that as in most societies which obtained firearms they would have proceeded to produce more and more advanced forms of firearms, but they did not. If you look at period prints from that time you will notice a lack of firearms in them, guns were just not an everyday weapon to be carried around were ever you went as in the west.
I do not remember Perrin ever saying that guns were completely removed they just seemed to be demoted and relegated to emergency weapons and the fact that they were not in everyday use as in Western nations is unusual to say the least. |
States invest more in the development of weapons during war and under the threat of war. It's common for the first battles in a war to convince a state to embark on a crash program to improve things. Peace leads to slower development of weapons.
Military firearms were certainly considered for emergency use, and were used in emergencies. Accounts of peasant revolts include the use of firearms by the authorities; firearms were used in the major uprisings. Musketry continued to be taught as a military martial art (but along with swimming in armour, fighting in armour, and fortification science, didn't feature prominently in the later civilianised martial arts). Guns can be seen in artwork of daimyo processions. In a country at peace, what other kind of everyday military use do you expect?
In the civilian arena, guns were in everyday use by hunters and peasants.
Compared to the West, they were used in battle less, but since there were fewer battles than in the West, this isn't a surprise.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
Last edited by Timo Nieminen on Sun 12 Jun, 2011 6:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Even this argument is flawed. Nobody can successfully argue that the main reason why scale and mail was worn is because plate was too hard to make. If you look at inventories you'll see that mail was in demand long after plate became commonplace. It also cost more and took longer to make. On top of that the only people who produced armour (including mail and scale) were highly skilled armourers, not the village blacksmith. |
I can relate to this: François L'Archevêque, possibly one of the world's most renowned modern armorer, doesn't deal in chainmail at all as he finds this too complicated and time consuming (even though he works all his plate using hand hammers) and leaves it to people more experienced in this craft, as he told me a couple of times. I am 99% sure that he would completely disagree with the statement that mail or lamelar armor is simpler to make. The technology to produce it is different, but once you got it, it doesn't automatically necessitate more elaborate instruction.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Musketry continued to be taught as a military martial art (but along with swimming in armour, fighting in armour, and fortification science, didn't feature in the later civilianised martial arts). |
I must disagree, you will find that most ryu ha dealing in musketry were founded in the Edo period. Morishige ryu for example was founded in 1803.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Jun, 2011 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Max Chouinard wrote: | | Quote: | | Musketry continued to be taught as a military martial art (but along with swimming in armour, fighting in armour, and fortification science, didn't feature in the later civilianised martial arts). |
I must disagree, you will find that most ryu ha dealing in musketry were founded in the Edo period. Morishige ryu for example was founded in 1803. |
"Feature prominently in the later civilianised martial arts", I intended. (There are overtly modern schools of hojutsu, too, covering shotguns, modern rifles, automatic weapons, etc. Here is one example.)
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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