There is a big difference between a ‘colony’ and ‘administration’ or Empire.
One of the main advantages of language is that it allows inter personal communication, and that rather falls down when one calls a spade a bucket.
We really should take this to a different thread.
I think it’s safe to say that the heaviest modern armor is the stuff bomb squads wear. I think we can also say that it’s not intended for combat, although you might be able to joust with it.
No, it wasn’t “mostly laquered leather.” They were using iron cuirasses way back in pre-history. Even ashigaru armor, which was the cheapest stuff around, would be very likely to incorporate iron or steel plates. The silk cord in the armor was used to bind metal plates or splints together; it was a kind of brigandine armor. If you swam in leather armor, you’d lose most of the protective qualities of it if there were any spots that were imperfectly treated. Leather armor would be the kind I would be most concerned with keeping dry. There’s no way I’d be swimming in it if I had a choice. There might have been parts of the armor that used cuir bouilli, but the majority of the armor was metal. I’ve seen just one example of an armor made almost entirely from leather, and it was made just prior to the Meiji era as a novelty armor. (At least you didn’t say it was made from lacquered bamboo. I’ve heard that one way too many times.)
Japanese armor tended to be a bit lighter due to its construction and because the Japanese went for mobility over protection most of the time, but you’re still talking about 20-25 kg or more. The swimming wasn’t a modern crawl stroke or even all that fast, it was more like the kind of thing you’d see in a water polo match. Good goal keepers in water polo can do an egg-beater kick that will put them about waist-high out of the water for seconds at a time. That’s pretty much how you’d have to swim in armor to keep from going under.
No, it wasn’t “mostly lacquered leather.” They were using iron cuirasses way back in pre-history. Even ashigaru armor, which was the cheapest stuff around, would be very likely to incorporate iron or steel plates. The silk cord in the armor was used to bind metal plates or splints together; it was a kind of brigandine armor. If you swam in leather armor, you’d lose most of the protective qualities of it if there were any spots that were imperfectly treated. Leather armor would be the kind I would be most concerned with keeping dry. There’s no way I’d be swimming in it if I had a choice. There might have been parts of the armor that used cuir bouilli, but the majority of the armor was metal. I’ve seen just one example of an armor made almost entirely from leather, and it was made just prior to the Meiji era as a novelty armor. (At least you didn’t say it was made from lacquered bamboo. I’ve heard that one way too many times.)
Japanese armor tended to be a bit lighter due to its construction and because the Japanese went for mobility over protection most of the time, but you’re still talking about 20-25 kg or more. The swimming wasn’t a modern crawl stroke or even all that fast, it was more like the kind of thing you’d see in a water polo match. Good goal keepers in water polo can do an egg-beater kick that will put them about waist-high out of the water for seconds at a time. That’s pretty much how you’d have to swim in armor to keep from going under.
I know they were. It’s covered by my link. I don’t doubt metal was also used, and Bryant gives several examples, up to full metal cuirasses made in imitation of Portuguese ones. Still, the scales of the dô and associated bits are cited as being lacquered rawhide. Perhaps there’s an argument to be made that I leapt in with the to soon with the “most”, there, but your cite-free doublepost isn’t making it, especially since
a) I never mentioned cuir boulli. I said “lacquered leather” which is *so *not the same thing. And I know my boulli, boy. I’ve boullied enough of the stuff.
b) Most Japanese armours are lacquered, inside and out. How you can tell if it’s lacquered metal or lacquered leather/rawhide without cutting, I don’t know. Seems to me more like someone can’t tell the difference between iron and black lacquer.
c)Someone who can’t tell the difference between **lamellar **and ***brigandine *** has no business lecturing me about any armour, Japanese or otherwise.
Bryant trained under armourers in Japan and has written several books on the subject. If you don’t like his analysis, take it up with him. If you want to quibble the “most” bring cites about the relative numbers of different materials in collections, not “I saw some dô and they were shiny like metal, ahyup!”
This may come across as snippy, but then, this be GD, so if you wants to be the Corrector, you gots to bring the Correction. Snide remarks about “Well, at least you didn’t mention bamboo, teehee” are not the way to bring it. Cites are.
Let’s put it this way, in all the books I’ve read about Japanese armor, I have never seen leather referenced as a primary material. Every single armor other than the novelty armor I mentioned above was cited as being made of iron or steel, lacquered, and lined with leather or in rare cases cloth, with leather used primarily only for connections and backing. While my reading on the subject is probably not up to an academic standard, I’ve read enough to know what was common and what would be considered unusual in armor. Armor made mostly of leather would be unusual. Your source (which I also found several years ago, by the way) says that leather was used in several areas, but it never says that it was a primary armoring material, especially not for the dô.
a) You’re right, I made an assumption about your intention. Lacquering doesn’t provide absolute water protection either, though. I wouldn’t entirely trust it if it got wet.
b) I don’t assume anything, other than that the people who write books on the subject have done enough research to know what the armor they’re describing is made of. I also have a funny habit of trusting that museum exhibit descriptions are accurate. I know that I’m not an expert, so I have to rely on the scholarship of those who are.
c) I do know the difference, but I used the wrong one when I typed my reply. I mis-remembered that lame are supposed to be longer strips when the term is actually used even for smaller pieces like in the ôsode of this armor. I accept the correction; my bad.
I realize that you probably do have more experience in actual armoring than I do, but I still think you are overstating how much leather was actually used in Japanese armor. I’ve run into quite a few people who know a LOT more than me when it comes to European arms and armor but who carry quite a few misconceptions when it comes to Japanese stuff. That’s why I offered the correction.
And at this point, I wish I had access to my books back in the US or had kept a bibliography of stuff I researched in the library when I was interested in this subject, because I’ve got nothing to give you in the way of a citation. I’ve got no online sources more extensive than yours. In fact, yours is the one I would have used if I needed to point someone to a good website on Japanese armor.
He specifically references thick water-buffalo rawhide as used to make kozane. Since kozane are the primary component of the armour, it stands to reason that they are what go to make up the body in all styles except the Hotoke Dô and its derivatives. This could just as easily be metal, and I get that, but from what I’ve read, you have no call to say they didn’t use leather, except in novelty armours. You could quibble about the “most”, like I said, but as per what I’ve read, lacquered rawhide was a definite armour component.
I get that you were intending to counter the weird bamboo armour notions some people spread, but a look at what I wrote and who I linked to should have told you I wasn’t just talking out of my arse.
Since I feel I’ve been insulted in this thread, I will put one more post and not return.
Fine, I use a popular term instead of the academic one. Since I’m not an academic, I musty be a complete moron who gets his info from daydreaming about Dungeons and Dragons.
I did not change my argument. I pointed out that in the even that guns came about later, the rise of mass armies would have had the same ultimate effect.
I think the “knight in armor so heavy he had to be winched onto this horse” meme got its start from a brief scene of Laurance Olivier’s very popular (for its day) movie version of Henry V. It’s apocryphal, from all I’ve read. FWIW, Michael Crichton in his novel Timeline argues that a knight in plate armor could be very limber and quick given experience and training, and I suspect he’s right. I doubt that anyone going into hand-to-hand combat is going to purposefully render himself slower, more ponderous and sooner-tired than his opponent.
It goes back at least to 1839, and a popular music-hall comedy; I guess that image really stuck in popular culture.
Smiling Bandit, come back. Nobody insulted you, and you made some good points in a lively discussion. It’s just that the term “platemail” is going to generate a certain amount of ridicule in any discussion among people with a long-term historical interest in armor. Don’t take it personally.
Regardless of what material is used in Japanese armor, you can see that it’s less protective than European plate armor. The insides of the arms are unprotected, and in earlier versions the armor on arms and legs is made of large “flaps” that appear to only be connected at the top. It seems that Japanese armor would be easier to move in without special training, and less prone to make the wearer overheat.
Actually, chainmail, like I said, is easy to make, I could teach you the basics in minutes (sleeves and the like are a bit more complicated)
Scalemail, on the other hand, is hell to make. The correct recipe goes something like this:
I have no idea how heavy it is compared to plate or chain, I’ve never tried it on myself.
I think you and I are having a problem in thinking about different periods of armor. The armor you referenced there is an older style that fell out of favor around the time of the Mongol invasions. Those battles completely changed Japanese thinking about armor and weapons. I was thinking of stuff from the Sengokujidai and Momoyama era – over 300 years later – when practicalities were of more importance than style and prestige, and when arms and armor in Japan reached their heights (in my opinion). This was about the period of development that would correspond with Europe’s pre-firearm plate and mail armor.
From what I remember, during this time iron and steel were the materials of choice for armor. It’s when the best armor was being tested for proof against both arrows and firearms. I’ll concede a little bit here and say that I should probably go update myself since it has been a while since I read up on this stuff. It is possible that leather was used more commonly and more extensively than I remember. It’s also possible that most of the armor I’ve seen and read about was metal simply because that was more interesting.
I disputed the “most” part because I didn’t want people looking at your statement and walking away thinking, “Wow, those Japs were kind of dumb, using leather when they had metal to work with.” Yes, I was trying to fight the perception that Japanese armor was inferior or that they used weird materials. I realize now that you know what’s going on but people reading this thread who don’t know about armor would get the wrong impression from your statement, I think.
