| Author |
Message |
|
Hugh Knight
|
|
    |
 |
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
 Posted: Thu 31 Mar, 2011 7:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
When your opponent wears a great helm and full mail, no unarmed parts exist to target. Under that context I can see why warriors would favor the two-handed stroke to the skull. Sometimes it seems like folks also employed mighty blows against armor as a test or perhaps ritualized display. For example, fifteenth-century German knight Jorg von Ehingen and his Moorish foe each struck the other with their swords during their duel to no effect. The contest turned into a long grappling match that von Ehingen finally won with a cut to the face and thrust through the throat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 31 Mar, 2011 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | When your opponent wears a great helm and full mail, no unarmed parts exist to target. Under that context I can see why warriors would favor the two-handed stroke to the skull. |
And not just a two-handed stroke, either--take a look at the pictures I posted on the previous page. I have often seen people knocked unconscious with one-handed blows through modern helmets lined with a mix of high-tech closed- and open-cell foam using light, flexible sticks of rattan; how much easier, then, to do it with a rigid steel sword against a helm lined with a very thin layer (Robert MacPherson calls them "medieval pot holders" because of the thinness) of dried grass or cow's hair (as the Churburg catalog tells us they were).
The famous Betrand de Born poem Be.m platz lo gais temps de pascor gives us some inkling of this when he talks of "hacking heads and arms." The head may be struck to stun one's opponent, and the arm because the bone is close to the mail and the mail is stretched across the bone, so a blow there is likely to break the bone.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 31 Mar, 2011 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | I have often seen people knocked unconscious with one-handed blows through modern helmets lined with a mix of high-tech closed- and open-cell foam using light, flexible sticks of rattan; how much easier, then, to do it with a rigid steel sword against a helm lined with a very thin layer (Robert MacPherson calls them "medieval pot holders" because of the thinness) of dried grass or cow's hair (as the Churburg catalog tells us they were). |
At the same time you have folks who fight with blunted steel polearms in full armor and report that it takes multiple blows (or a single extremely lucky one) to take someone out. Based on that data, with a sword you would either have to be Hercules or plan on a flurry of strokes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 31 Mar, 2011 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: | | I have often seen people knocked unconscious with one-handed blows through modern helmets lined with a mix of high-tech closed- and open-cell foam using light, flexible sticks of rattan; how much easier, then, to do it with a rigid steel sword against a helm lined with a very thin layer (Robert MacPherson calls them "medieval pot holders" because of the thinness) of dried grass or cow's hair (as the Churburg catalog tells us they were). |
At the same time you have folks who fight with blunted steel polearms in full armor and report that it takes multiple blows (or a single extremely lucky one) to take someone out. Based on that data, with a sword you would either have to be Hercules or plan on a flurry of strokes. |
Actually, I agree, and the historical record supports this: It usually takes multiple blows. In many cases, however, people today don't spend a lot of time learning to hit really hard, either, or try to avoid hurting one another so they don't hit as hard as they can.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Larry Bohnham
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Apr, 2011 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
With an M1 Garand 
Sorry, I just had to get that outta my system.
Seriously, though, the Samurai were more concerned with an honorable death in battle and I think their armor tends to reflect that outlook on life. It is really quite ingenious though and shows excellent engineering principles designed to take advantage of the fact that they did not have extensive amounts of iron available to make maiile or plate. The armor is light, very flexible and slanted more toward letting you survive long enough in battle to close with your opponent and get at 'em with a katana or naginata.
That said I think that most western medieval edged weapons including pole arms would have been very effective against Japanese laminar armour, if only because these weapons were designed to defeat all steel defenses. I hope to do some cross cultural testing or this sort later this year, time permitting, and I'll share the results. In the meantime, if you look at the back episode of the Spike series called "Deadliest Warrior" that featured the Samurai v. Viking, they took a whack at a period Japanese helmet and it stood up quite well, the laminar Mon (breast plate) however came off worse for the wear, which makes sense because the helmet is made of steel plate along western design principles.
"No athlete can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows; he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack under the fist of his adversary..."
Roger of Hoveden, d.1201
a furore Normannorum libera nos Domine
"Henry, get down off that horse with that sword, you'll put someone's eye out!" Mrs. Bolingbroke's advice to her son, Henry, on the eve of the battle of Agincourt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Apr, 2011 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Larry Bohnham wrote: | Seriously, though, the Samurai were more concerned with an honorable death in battle and I think their armor tends to reflect that outlook on life. It is really quite ingenious though and shows excellent engineering principles designed to take advantage of the fact that they did not have extensive amounts of iron available to make maiile or plate. The armor is light, very flexible and slanted more toward letting you survive long enough in battle to close with your opponent and get at 'em with a katana or naginata.
That said I think that most western medieval edged weapons including pole arms would have been very effective against Japanese laminar armour, if only because these weapons were designed to defeat all steel defenses. I hope to do some cross cultural testing or this sort later this year, time permitting, and I'll share the results. In the meantime, if you look at the back episode of the Spike series called "Deadliest Warrior" that featured the Samurai v. Viking, they took a whack at a period Japanese helmet and it stood up quite well, the laminar Mon (breast plate) however came off worse for the wear, which makes sense because the helmet is made of steel plate along western design principles. |
None of this is particularly true. If the Japanese were so hung up on an "honourable death" then they wouldn't have bothered with armour at all.
Their armour is no different from all of the other examples of lamellar all over the world except for some minor differences in lame shape and lacing.
The Japanese had plenty of iron available and did make plate and mail armour - just not the fully-enclosed articulated suits that were exclusive to Western Europe.
It isn't all that light. Plenty of European suits were lighter. Lamellar by its very nature is heavier than plate.
A lot of Japanese lamellar was in fact rigid, not flexible. It depends on how the lames are laced together.
Any weapon would be effective against Japanese armour if you can bypass the armour and attack the gaps.
"Laminar" is another term for segmented plate. The Japanese used a "lamellar" construction.
Nothing in Deadliest Warrior is even close to historically accurate. It won't tell us anything useful about Japanese armour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Werner Stiegler
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Apr, 2011 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Seriously, though, the Samurai were more concerned with an honorable death in battle and I think their armor tends to reflect that outlook on life. It is really quite ingenious though and shows excellent engineering principles designed to take advantage of the fact that they did not have extensive amounts of iron available to make maiile or plate. The armor is light, very flexible and slanted more toward letting you survive long enough in battle to close with your opponent and get at 'em with a katana or naginata. |
You're repeating a number of inaccurate "facts" there. For one, the armour used by the Japanese had pretty much reached its final shape long before the 1920s, which is roughtly the time when the Hagakure began to be repopularized in Japan and the new Army Regulations began on reworking a people who were 90% Peasants and Townspeople into those soldiers that made your stereotype of Samurai. Usually headhunters are very much concerned with returning alive though, and advancement schemes in Japan pretty much made Samurai headhunters during the more prominent parts of their history. The japenese people were only drilled to become human bullets after the Russo-Japanese War.
They had enough iron to export swords to China as part of their tributory trade around 800A.D., I think, and enough of it to make extensive use of maile and plate. Their deposits even lasted long enough to turn them into the best armed and armoured pirates in Southeast Asia, as the Portugese remarked. That was during the 16th century, btw.
Lamellar isn't exactly light either. In fact, it's a bit heavier than your run-off-the-mill breastplate fashioned from a single piece, but feel free to believe that it's a case of nimble tiny asians vs lumbering european iron men. Who's to correct you on that point, after all? Oh, and we do have rather nice tales of Samurai who found the armour of other Samurai to be impenetrable to the strikes of their weapons. Make of that what you will.
Likewise make what you will of the fact that they could write intelligible and left us a plethora of documents about battlefield deads, some of these even with numbers. Those numbers state that guns and arrows killed 70% of everyone on the battlefield, then came spears and everything else was in the single-digits. That includes both swords and Naginatas. So they must've especially made their armour for something that harldy ever happened. Their fetishisation of swords is very much a very late phenomenon, born during the long periode of peace...and of course, from a hobby of civilians - townspeople and such.
| Quote: | | That said I think that most western medieval edged weapons including pole arms would have been very effective against Japanese laminar armour, if only because these weapons were designed to defeat all steel defenses. I hope to do some cross cultural testing or this sort later this year, time permitting, and I'll share the results. In the meantime, if you look at the back episode of the Spike series called "Deadliest Warrior" that featured the Samurai v. Viking, they took a whack at a period Japanese helmet and it stood up quite well, the laminar Mon (breast plate) however came off worse for the wear, which makes sense because the helmet is made of steel plate along western design principles. |
That particular Episode showcased the wierd way in which that particular entertainment program sets up its test. With the shield not being used for protection because it ran in the "Special Weapons"-class in that matchup...and...I have no idea what Wester design principles you are talking about. There are ony two common ways to make a helmet bowel - raise it from one piece or weld it from multiple pieces. Both of them and even the third, uncommon one, were used internationally.
There were no tests of the viking's weapons against any other part of japanese armour, as far as I recall. At least not within the episode itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Apr, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As said above, the Japanese were not so short of iron so that they couldn't use it for armour. And you need iron to make iron or steel lamellar armour anyway. It also wasn't too expensive, as also posted earlier up-thread.
From an imperial edict of about 781:
"The armor of the provinces has rusted through after some years. Most can not be used. Once in three years we establish a precedent and repair them. As we repair them they are damaged; this is an extreme waste of labor. Now leather is tough and lasts for a long time as armor. When put on the body it is light and convenient; when struck by an arrow, it is difficult to penetrate. When the amount of labor is measured, it is especially easy to make. Henceforth the armor made annually by the provinces should all be leather."
Translation from W. W. Farris, Heavely Warriors, Harvard UP, 1992, pg 101. For "leather", one should probably read "rawhide". Rawhide lamellar works well enough, is light, and requires less labour to make and maintain. Cost of materials is not mentioned as a factor in the edict.
From 781 onwards, the Japanese iron and steel industry continued to grow.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Larry Bohnham
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Apr, 2011 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh well.
"No athlete can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows; he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack under the fist of his adversary..."
Roger of Hoveden, d.1201
a furore Normannorum libera nos Domine
"Henry, get down off that horse with that sword, you'll put someone's eye out!" Mrs. Bolingbroke's advice to her son, Henry, on the eve of the battle of Agincourt
|
|
|
|
|
Larry Bohnham
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Apr, 2011 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Re: the availability of iron ore in Japan, the following is quoted from Hoshimi Uchida, "The History of Technology Library", Mikata, Tokyo, 1995
"One of the shortcomings in the natural endowment of Japan was lack of iron resource in contrast to the richness in nonferrous metals. Although ironmaking started in the prehistoric times, Japanese people could not make iron from ores containing 40-50 % of iron, as was the case in China or Europe. Therefore iron supply seems very short throughout the history and its use was almost restricted to warfare and edge tools."
So, it would seem that there wasn't a lot of iron to be had which means that they had to be judicious in finding methods or armor making that would allow for a limited amount of iron/steel. There are numerous accounts of Samurai suffering multiple wounds from sword cuts through their armor, whereas one doesn't see much similar comments about European warriors in full plate. The Samurai seemed to have paid a price for the paucity of iron that his Western contemporaries did not.
Yes, Japanese culture did shift through history regarding the outlook on death in battle. The Medieval Samurai seemed to have had more work a day attitude toward it and accepted it as the risks of the job at hand, but Bushido still placed a high value on serving one's lord up to and including dying well in his service, so perhaps to say that they "sought" death is a bit of a misnomer, but they certainly thought that dying for one's lord was one of the highest acts of bravery and loyalty one could perform and they stood ready to do just that whenever they went into battle.
The revisionist view of Bushido adopted by the Japanese military in the early 20th century was not a pure form to be sure, but the undercurrents that allowed people to buy into it where already there from 500+years prior.
"No athlete can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows; he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack under the fist of his adversary..."
Roger of Hoveden, d.1201
a furore Normannorum libera nos Domine
"Henry, get down off that horse with that sword, you'll put someone's eye out!" Mrs. Bolingbroke's advice to her son, Henry, on the eve of the battle of Agincourt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Apr, 2011 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Larry Bohnham wrote: | | So, it would seem that there wasn't a lot of iron to be had which means that they had to be judicious in finding methods or armor making that would allow for a limited amount of iron/steel. |
They had to be judicious in how they made their iron but there is little evidence to suggest that there was ever a shortage. Even if there was the military wouldn't have felt it. The result would simply be less iron available for civilian use.
| Quote: | | There are numerous accounts of Samurai suffering multiple wounds from sword cuts through their armor |
Really? Where?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Apr, 2011 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Larry Bohnham wrote: | Re: the availability of iron ore in Japan, the following is quoted from Hoshimi Uchida, "The History of Technology Library", Mikata, Tokyo, 1995
"One of the shortcomings in the natural endowment of Japan was lack of iron resource in contrast to the richness in nonferrous metals. Although ironmaking started in the prehistoric times, Japanese people could not make iron from ores containing 40-50 % of iron, as was the case in China or Europe. Therefore iron supply seems very short throughout the history and its use was almost restricted to warfare and edge tools."
|
When does this refer to? It isn't correct for late Medieval and early modern Japan, as can be seen by Japanese exports of iron and steel to China (most famously, Ming imports of sword blades), which was far from short of iron and steel, and by Japanese iron prices (European iron was uncompetitive in the 17th century; see prices up-thread). Iron was used for more than warfare and edged tools, being essential for agriculture and used, e.g., for domestic teapots. Insufficiency of domestic iron (and coal) sources did force the Japanese iron industry to depend on imports post-Edo, but that's not relevant to Edo and earlier demand.
Earlier (pre AD1000), there was more dependence on imports of iron and iron goods from China.
| Larry Bohnham wrote: |
So, it would seem that there wasn't a lot of iron to be had which means that they had to be judicious in finding methods or armor making that would allow for a limited amount of iron/steel.
|
The later Japanese armours aren't a solution to lack of iron/steel. The earlier rawhide lamellar armours would provide such a solution, but these were replaced by iron and steel lamellar armours and solid breastplates.
The various non-iron armours in use in Korea and China could have been copied by the Japanese had they wanted to or needed to, but there doesn't seem to have been any need. (Padded cotton armours, rawhide brigandines and lamellar armours, paper armours, etc., were used in China, Korea, and Central Asia, alongside iron and steel armours.)
In the early medieval period, armies tended to be rather small, and there might be only a few thousand armoured soldiers, which wouldn't place much demand on iron and steel. The growth of armies up to the late Warring States/Sengoku period surely contributed to the growth of Japanese iron and steel production, but iron and steel production continued to grow in the Edo period, despite the reduction in warfare after Sekigahara.
| Larry Bohnham wrote: | There are numerous accounts of Samurai suffering multiple wounds from sword cuts through their armor, whereas one doesn't see much similar comments about European warriors in full plate. The Samurai seemed to have paid a price for the paucity of iron that his Western contemporaries did not.
|
Through their armour, or around their armour? There are many sources describing a warrior plunging into the mass of the enemy army, and fighting until his weapons are broken, and emerging with multiple wounds (as one might expect), but the common accounts don't give much detail about how the wounds were acquired. Most accounts I've seen of direct penetration of Japanese armour refer to arrows and bullets; if you know of some sources talking about swords cutting through armour, let me know, for this is interesting.
| Larry Bohnham wrote: |
Yes, Japanese culture did shift through history regarding the outlook on death in battle. The Medieval Samurai seemed to have had more work a day attitude toward it and accepted it as the risks of the job at hand, but Bushido still placed a high value on serving one's lord up to and including dying well in his service, so perhaps to say that they "sought" death is a bit of a misnomer, but they certainly thought that dying for one's lord was one of the highest acts of bravery and loyalty one could perform and they stood ready to do just that whenever they went into battle. |
The frequency of betrayal and desertion during the Warring States period says something about the gap between theory and practice.
Two common myths concerning samurai armour are:
- There was a shortage of iron and steel, so the Japanese used lacquered leather and wood/bamboo.
- The Japanese didn't care much about armour, because they sought a noble death.
These are essentially the Japanese equivalents of the Western "swords weighed 20 pounds" and "knights had to be hoisted into their saddles by cranes" - widely stated, but not very accurate. Looking at Japanese armours and noting that they're iron and steel, not rawhide and bamboo, should suffice for the first. The second is more complicated, since it's about behaviour. But looking at casualty rates in battles shows that a lot of the losers ran away and lived, often many more than stayed and fought.
[I like the anecdote about the senior officer who was scolded by his commander for being shot in the arm. He was wearing two suits of armour, one on top of the other, for bullet-resistance. This is why his commander scolded him - without the extra weight of the 2nd armour, he would have been able to dodge the musket shot (according to his commander), and not been wounded at all. (It isn't so silly, the idea of being able to dodge muskets, since there is a lag between the match hitting the pan and the main charge firing.)]
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Apr, 2011 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Werner Stiegler wrote: | | ...and...I have no idea what Wester design principles you are talking about. There are ony two common ways to make a helmet bowel - raise it from one piece or weld it from multiple pieces. Both of them and even the third, uncommon one, were used internationally. |
The many pieces aren't necessarily welded together and neither all or any out of metal. There are example for such headgear in all parts of Eurasia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Apr, 2011 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Larry Bohnham wrote: | | So, it would seem that there wasn't a lot of iron to be had which means that they had to be judicious in finding methods or armor making that would allow for a limited amount of iron/steel. |
They had to be judicious in how they made their iron but there is little evidence to suggest that there was ever a shortage. Even if there was the military wouldn't have felt it. The result would simply be less iron available for civilian use.
| Quote: | | There are numerous accounts of Samurai suffering multiple wounds from sword cuts through their armor |
Really? Where? |
The Dutch settlement on Taiwan made great profits with selling deerskins to Japan that was turned into armour, especially for ashigaru. The ashigaru were sometimes counted as the lowest samurai, so you have to be careful with the sources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Werner Stiegler
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Apr, 2011 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kurt Scholz wrote: |
The many pieces aren't necessarily welded together and neither all or any out of metal. There are example for such headgear in all parts of Eurasia. |
I'm fairly certain that the test on that show was doned on a piece either welded or held together by rivets, techniques that are fairly identical across the borders. Certainly there are lamellar helmets, latten helmets and helmets made from a plethora of other non-metallic materials, but such interesting details are not part of the inquiry of the Deadliest Warrior show.
| Quote: | | The Dutch settlement on Taiwan made great profits with selling deerskins to Japan that was turned into armour, especially for ashigaru. |
From what I remember, Happi-coats usually do not count as stand-alone armour, though they certainly were used as protective clothing by both firemen and noblemen treatened by fire. I would imagine that the deerskin imported ended up as mon-bearing uniforms rather than standalone armour.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Apr, 2011 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kurt Scholz wrote: | | From what I remember, Happi-coats usually do not count as stand-alone armour, though they certainly were used as protective clothing by both firemen and noblemen treatened by fire. I would imagine that the deerskin imported ended up as mon-bearing uniforms rather than standalone armour. |
Agreed. This cannot be considered "armour".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Apr, 2011 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Werner Stiegler wrote: |
| Quote: | | The Dutch settlement on Taiwan made great profits with selling deerskins to Japan that was turned into armour, especially for ashigaru. |
From what I remember, Happi-coats usually do not count as stand-alone armour, though they certainly were used as protective clothing by both firemen and noblemen treatened by fire. I would imagine that the deerskin imported ended up as mon-bearing uniforms rather than standalone armour. |
http://emedia1.bsb-muenchen.de/han/HISTORYEBO...o=heb02369
mentions from page 73 to page 80 exports of deerskin from Taiwan under Dutch rule in the range of 62,000 per year and Japan as the major customer. Thailand is mentioned as an alternative source for the depleting reservoir of deerskins on Taiwan. The deer in question would be this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cervus_nippon_taioanus.JPG
I think that's a lot of skin exported to Japan, enough to equip an army.
Sure he doesn't look like providing as thick leather as the wild boars native to Japan, but what exactly did the Japanese use for their leather armour?
|
|
|
|
|
Larry Bohnham
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Apr, 2011 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Uchida was describing the whole of Japanese industrial history from first metal use forward.
For some reason you folks seem to think I'm putting the Japanese down, far from it, I think their design solutions to many problems are often unique and ingenious and they have the guts to not be afraid of ideas that come from places other than Japan and incorporate them into what they're doing. Also, you have me at a bit of a disadvantage as I am not familiar with the price and export tables that you refer to. One of the leading documented causes of Japan's military conflict with the Western powers in the late 19th - mid 20th century was directly related to her need to obtain increasing amounts of natural resources from outside her borders to supply her rapidly growing industrialization which speaks to Mr. Uchida's assertions quoted earlier.
Further, if there was an abundance of workable iron ore in Japan during the middle ages, how come they did not develop full plate armour? Their battle space environment was filled with lethal missiles to a far greater extent than the battle space of contemporary Europe, and yet those circumstances which drove Western armourers to develop full plate never seemed to click in Japan, why?
I'm not trying to get into a "I'm the smartest guy in the room" tit for tat here, just trying to learn.
Stephen Turnbull in his book, "Samurai; The Story of Japan's Great Warriors" quotes an account of the siege of Namwn in 1597. "Okochi was cut in four places on his sleeve armor and received two arrow shafts that were fired deeply into his bow arm in two places." He goes on the state that Okochi received several wounding cuts to his chest (presumably through his do?). So there is at least one account of armor penetration.
So, if the Samurai really wanted nothing more than to survive what was a very hazardous battle space and there was plenty of iron to be had, why didn't some bright fellow go to an armourer and say, "Hey, howzabout you make me a harness of plate."? That's a bit facetious, but the question is valid, I think. Technology generally develops based on wants and needs derived from environmental stimuli, but socialization and cultural taboo can inhibit people from fully exploring a given avenue of advancement, such as continental Europe's refusal to arm their commoners with longbows for fear of disrupting the feudal status quo, for instance.
Just some thoughts. At ease men, I'll be in the area all day.
"No athlete can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows; he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack under the fist of his adversary..."
Roger of Hoveden, d.1201
a furore Normannorum libera nos Domine
"Henry, get down off that horse with that sword, you'll put someone's eye out!" Mrs. Bolingbroke's advice to her son, Henry, on the eve of the battle of Agincourt
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Curl
Location: Northern California, US Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 487
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Apr, 2011 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The harness argument is not very good, China, Iran, and India all had vast iron industries and none of them developed a harness either. The reason for the development of the full harness is not (in my opinion) well understood. Personally I think it is a mix of more powerful crossbows and the medieval tournament that led to continued innovation and variation in the armourers craft. To be honest that question can't be answered until we better understand the armour industry outside of Europe.
As far as being wounded through the arm with an arrow, thats vary possible since many kote (arm armour) had open spots that weren't covered with mail (kusari) and would be easily pierced.
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