[David Black Mastro]

Here's a link to a photo of the nanban gusoku (composite European/Japanese armor) supposedly worn by Tokugawa Ieyasu at the battle of Sekigahara in 1600:

http://www.toshogu-koyoen.com/toshogu/gif/nanbangusoku.gif

Not the best photo, but still cool nonetheless. This suit is preserved in the Toshogu Shrine.

[Tyler Weaver]

I've always found it interesting how Japanese armorers generally only used the breastplates and helmets of European harnesses and went Japanese-style for the limb defenses. This suggests to me that they appreciated the quality and tempering of European torso armor, but did not see any advantage to conventional plate limb armor versus Japanese limb armor, considering that AFAIK no elements of European limb defenses were adapted to use in Japan. Has anyone ever actually sat down and tried to figure out the protective ability of 16th-century Japanese and European harnesses to perhaps find out why this is? The conventional wisdom is that solid plate provides a superior defense to maille-and-plates and splinted arrangements - given the historical contradictions involved in this case, work should probably be done on the particular dynamic and protective properties of Japanese limb defenses to see how they measure up.

[Patrick Kelly]

You're assuming that the japanese had exposure to full suits of european harness. Did they? I don't know. The japanese harness that David posted was used, as stated, circa 1600. By that time full plate harness was pretty obsolete on the european battlefield.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Patrick;

Not sure of the exact dates but weren't the Portuguese and maybe Dutch doing commerce in Japan in the early 16th century when full armour was at its' peak technically but starting to be less used as full armour and more and more as 3/4 or 1/2 armour. ( Also ceremonially armour still seems to appear at least in paintings of military commanders and nobles at least until the mid 17th century or early 18th. )

The Japanese may have had limited exposure to full European armour at least in battle against Europeans.

It is possible that full armour may have been given to high Japanese nobles as diplomatic gifts in the name of European nobles or Kings ?

As with matchlock firearms the Japanese would have been very interested in adapting anything they found useful.
And as Tyler suggested they may have chosen to keep what worked best for them.

[Tyler Weaver]

[David Black Mastro]

The Japanese imported European weapons and armor from the mid-1540s, when they first saw matchlock arquebuses carried by the Portuguese.

As to why they didn't use European arm defenses, etc.--who knows?

In terms of weaponry, the Japanese were likewise selective. Obviously, they adopted the European matchlock gun, and used it in huge numbers. One other European weapon they may have adopted, which is hardly ever mentioned by writers today, is the pike--what the Japanese called a nagae-yari. These long spears ranged in length from 4 meters up to 5.6 meters. Instead of being made of ash as European pikes were, they were of composite construction, consisting of an oak core covered with laminations of bamboo. The first mention of the use of organized bodies of troops with nagae-yari that I have been able to find concerns Oda Nobunaga (who was also a fan of the gun), and it dates from 1553. This strongly suggests a European influence for the nagae-yari.

But what about swords? Certainly, the bushi do not appear to have ever adopted the straight-bladed, cut-and-thrust swords used by the Europeans they dealt with--the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Dutch, and the English. Suggestions that the nitto (two-sword) style favored by Musashi was inspired by the espada y daga method of the Spanish and Portuguese remain unproven. Ditto for the claim that the sai was inspired by some of the more long-quilloned European left-hand daggers.

Back to those arm defenses, we should also perhaps consider certain cultural factors. Maybe the Japanese simply preferred the aesthetic qualities of their native arm defenses, and thus retained them. Maybe they were content with simply protecting their vitals with solid European steel. After all, it wouldn't be the first time that cultural factors conflicted with pure combative effectiveness. Look at the landsknechte--when they were at their height in the first quarter of the 16th century, the fashion was for long beards, and they indulged in it! Given the role that ringen (wrestling) played in close quarters struggles, one would think that a long beard would be a liability (indeed, Marozzo even shows a beard seizure in the wrestling section of his Opera Nova), but it didn't stop these German mercenaries from wearing them! What about puffed-and-slashed garments? Were these the epitome of practical fighting garb? Certainly not, and yet they were worn judiciously by troops who were considered to be among the best in Europe at that time (the Swiss and Germans).

Best,

David

[Tyler Weaver]

[David Black Mastro]

Tyler,

[Daniel Staberg]

[George Hill]

[David Black Mastro]

[Tyler Weaver]

[George Hill]

[quote="Tyler Weaver"]

[David Black Mastro]

[David Black Mastro]

[Daniel Staberg]

[David Black Mastro]

I've just been informed that nagae-yari date from about 1480 onwards, so I suppose the nagae-yari/pike deal is one of parallel evolution.

However, I still find it interesting how Oda Nobunaga--the real pioneer of firearms use in 16th century Japan--perferred the longest nagae-yari, and I still have to wonder about a potential European influence there.

[Tyler Weaver]

[Daniel Staberg]

[Jared Smith]

Is anyone willing to consider the possibility that artwork and our own perceptions exaggerate the degree to which full arm and leg harness were actually utilized in Europe? Protecting only the chest area and head in plate (other areas protected in leather or existing mail, etc.) achieves a very high % area protection return in terms of effectiveness versus costs. I would argue that this even saves a few pounds of weight compared to alternative full mail plus padding. I would side with Patrick in that full arm and leg harness was not common for a long period of time. Alternatively, basic breast plates or coat of plates with a good helm was the preferred extent of heavy armour as late as Spanich exploration of the Americas.

When I have been able to find english translations of medieval armour inventories, plate is sometimes described as "pairs of plate". To me that implies a possibility that munitions issue plate was sometimes just front and back breast plates and a good helm. Although the upper echelon undisputedly had full plate, and most surviving full plate is traceable to nobility. Inventories often describe equal numbers of hauberks, "jacks" or alternative forms of primary chest area protection at the same time quantities of "plate" are counted. Museum displays of arquebusiers' and curiassier's plate suits fitting for someone who merited blueing and brass trim (at Higgins Armoury) do not seem to include full plate protection for arms and legs. Laws established for minimum protection in tournament joust did not actually prescribe full plate, but permitted helm, coats of plate, gloves, and pretty basic armor. I would guess that there were "men at arms" qualified by lineage (some say that they actually just had to establish that ancestors participated in previous jousts to qualify for many tourneys) who did not necessarily have this full plate harness.......

Maybe I am way off mark here. But, if I were trying to prove that everyone had full harness suits based on arecheology, period texts, and translations of armour inventories, I don't think I could do a decent job of it.