Notes on Japanese Armor: The Transition From Lamellar to Plate

Notes on Japanese Armor: The Transition From Lamellar to Plate



A rare ukiyo-e depicting armorers working in the 17th century, from a print of Hishikawa Moronobu (菱川 師宣).

This is a very technical topic that I wanted to discuss here on my blog, since I was asked to but also because it's one of my favorite focus when it comes to history, material culture and ancient technology of Japan.
So today I will write about one of the most crucial aspect of Japanese armor development, a step forward that changed the warfare and history of the country of the rising sun.

Trying to write about Japanese armor history is extremely difficult: we lack a good amount of artistic representations, archaeological findings as well as inventory notes or written descriptions, and much of the knowledge is written inside expensive Japanese books.
To add even more confusion, a great deal of misconceptions have been circulated in the past, which created a very distorted picture that will be addressed here today.

One thing however is quite clear: armors for the torso in Japan went from lamellar to plates over time, from classic armors to tosei gusoku armors, with a complete transition in the 16th century.
To better understand this process, and why it only happened in a specific time period, it is useful to talk about Japanese lamellar armors first.


Japanese Lamellar Armors 

Without taking into account the very early lamellar armors and lacing systems, there were essentially three main ways to make lamellar armor in Japan (and several variations to assemble them which I won't discuss here). So here there are some very simplistic descriptions:

The first one which was the most common and famous in the early armors is to make sane-ita (
札板board using kozane (小札); the small lamellae, when laced together, created a double thickness plate and for this reasons many time an alternated structure of hardened rawhide and metal was used. The board was then stiffened and hardened with lacquer, and laced to other boards to form the armor.


Here you can see how smooth and thick the laced lamellae became after the lacquer is applied, from left to right. At the end of the process, the board became rock solid, and this is why it could be fixed into shape.

The second method is extremely similar but instead of kozane, iyozane (
伊予札) were used to make the board. In this case, the overlapping between lamellae was minimal, sometimes reduced to a mere 2mm, and so only metal lamellae were preferred and could be used since without overlapping the weight of the board was reduced. An additional hardened rawhide or metal strip was laced to the back of the board, to increase its strength and to shape the board properly.
The board was lacquered, and then it was encased in leather and laced, or laced and when the armor was finished it was completely encased in leather.



In this damaged section, on the left you could see the small iyozane laced together, with the additional structure at the bottom. On the right, you could see how all of this is covered by layers of lacquer.


The third and final method consisted of using iyozane, connecting them horizontally with leather and silk laces, and then sewing them to a fabric backing; a lot of haidate (thigh armor) were made in this way.




Here on this haidate, the third structure mentioned above. Small lamellae laced horizontaly and sewn to a cloth 


All of these types of structure, (except some styles of the third one) could stay into a fixed shape thanks to the lacquering stiffening or due to the presence of hard strips that acted as structures, and so unlike traditional lamellar which is rather flexible, these armor were semi-rigid when wrapped around the body. 
So they were able to transfer the energy of an impact through the entire length of the board rather than in one single area, which significantly dissipated the amount of force that was transmitted through to the body of the warrior.

In addition to that, towards the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century, we started to see internal leather ties called tomegawa (
停め革) which were used to secure the various boards together, helping to make the cuirass more rigid and to hold it erect. For this reason dō assembled in this manner are sometimes referred to as ‘standing cuirasses’, or tachi-dō (立胴). With the tomegawa, the standing cuirass rested on the hips much better and the weight was equally distributed.

Last but not least, due to the tension of the internal laces, the armor could be opened and closed without the need of hinges; It will flex open and spring back into the original position.



The interior of a iyozane cuirass, assembled in the third method; it is made of lamellae, but is very rigid and doesn't collapse on itself. In this case, the lamellae boards behave very similar to plates. This is the meaning of a  tachi-dō (立胴).


Usually, compared to armors made with rigid and big metal structure like plates, traditional lamellar armors lack a lot of features and this fact make them worst defensive garments.
Lamellar is not rigid: so it would transmit part of the energy of the blow to the body and cannot dissipate the energy through a larger area.
A flexible structure cannot be fixed into shape, so it could not benefit of deflecting curvatures, it is usually closer to the body compared to a rigid structure and the weight is all on the shoulders rather than on the much more comfortable hips.
Finally, the intricate lacing system is subjected to damage over time by weapons as well as the environment.

However, the traditional Japanese lamellar armors as I have explained above didn't have most of the aforementioned lamellar's problems, since their structures allowed them to be rigid and have a fixed, quite resilient shape that make these types of armors able to have almost all the benefits of the ones made with big and rigid plates.
On a practical and functional level, it is easier to understand why the Japanese retained their lamellar armors for such a long period (although it went into several changes through out history) before moving to plate: because their armors worked pretty well.



Unlike with western European armor history, in which is much easier to understand the transition from the flexible mail armor to the rigid plate armor, the benefits offered by plates weren't so neat when it comes to Japanese lamellar armor and it's quite clear to understand why there were few incentives to develop a new structure when the old one worked so well (leaving the technology needed to smelt high quality large plates aside).

In addition to that, lamellar armor and the respective lacing system was the symbol of the warrior social class.
So on a sociological level, the colorful suit of armors were essentially part of the cultural identity of the Samurai, and the aesthetic of kozane was deemed to be a sign of nobility. 
This two levels help to understand why lamellar prevailed for so long in Japan.






The transition to plate

An extremely important element required to create armors made of plates is the level of metal smelting technology. What is often said about plate armor development in Europe, is that one of the key feature needed was the ability to create large, high quality steel and iron plates. Although I don't argue with that idea, I would like to point out that this is not the main feature nor the primary cause of such development.
In any case, the Japanese didn't faced those problems, which is a myth often repeated on the internet. As I have written in my series about "Ancient Iron and Steel technology in Japan" they had the furnaces able to create such high quality plates very early in their history, and the process utilized to make large steel and iron ingots was already well established by the 14th century.

In fact, quite large iron and steel plates were used in Japan to make rigid armors as far as the 5th century with the tankō armor (短甲)It is fair to point out that the plates used in that period wouldn't have been on par with the plates used 1000 years later in terms of quality, and like the lorica segmentata in Europe, these types of armor were replaced with a much easier to make version (lamellar in Japan, mail in Europe); but this is a topic for another article.
Relative big plates were also used in the Samurai age, and could be found in armor for the legs, arms, face and other auxiliary forms like the waidate plate of the Oyoroi.



An example of a Tankō cuirass made with big and large solid plates, 5th century.


Nanbokucho period - mid 14th century


Despite the few incentives and the high level of protection of Japanese lamellar armor, the first development of plate cuirasses in Japan during the Samurai age happened in the 14th century, during the Nanbokucho period (南北朝時代).


In the well known book Taiheiki (太平記) written during the mid 14th century, we could read the terms "kana dōand "kara dōrespectively written with the characters "金胴" and "空胴".
The first character could be translated as gold, but could also refer to metal, while the second means empty.
So it is assumed that these two words refers to an all metal clam shell cuirass devoid of laces (empty), unlike the traditional armors, and it is accepted that this armor was made with solid riveted metal plates, hinged at one or more sides.
This was a step towards the direction of transitional armor of the 16th century, such as the design found in Mogami dō. In fact it was theorized by Y. Sasama that this type of construction was the forerunner of the aforementioned armor, but unfortunately there are no survivals and we are left with speculations on the meaning of the word.

It is not a surprise that the first step in this direction happened in the wars of 14th century; 
within this period there was a shift from mounted archery and light infantry warfare to heavy infantry and heavy cavalry based combat, and although arrows were still the most effective killer, polearms of various types and sizes were widely used, so the laces of the lamellar armors could effectively be damaged in the long run, by weather or edged weapons. This was the biggest limit of traditional Japanese armors (and any type of lamellar armors), and having large, sturdy riveted plates eliminated the problems of laces.



A sketch made by me of a possible type of Kana dō; the plates are supposed to be riveted. I'm not an artist but this should give you an idea.


Ōnin war period - late 15th century and eaearly 16th century


After the Nanbokucho period, armor developments slowed down due to the long period of peace.
However, with the outbreak of the 
Ōnin war and the beginning of the Sengoku period in the late 1470s, armorers had to face new&old problems.
The wars of this period started to be true military campaigns, and in the long run, laced armors, much more than in the 14th century, were deemed to be unsuited for these new types of conflicts. Quoting Sakakibara Kōzan from his masterpiece on Japanese armors,


"[...] When soaked with water they are very heavy and cannot dry quickly, so that in summer the weight is oppressive and in winter the whole may freeze. Moreover no amount of washing will completely free the lacing from any mud which may have penetrated it, so that on a long and distant campaign it becomes evil smelling and overrun by ants and lice, with consequent ill effects upon the health of the wearer."

These facts allowed the creation of a new type of lacing system, the sugake odoshi, which partially solved the aforementioned problems and also decreased significantly the amount of time required to lace an entire suit of armor, but is not the main focus of this article.

Another problem was that with the all country at war, the demand of armors increased drastically.
Lacing an entire board of saneita required a lot of time, and it was only the starting point.
In addition to that, repairing it if needed required time too, and when one of the vertically connected lamellae was broken, the whole ensemble or area was prone to disintegrate.

So the armorers of this period, thanks to the improvement of iron and steel working techniques, started to use slightly curved iron and steel plate called itamono (板物) almost universally in lieu of the old saneita, for the cuirass as well as for the tassets and sode (pauldrons).
To answer to the sociological needs of the Samurai, these plates were sometimes decorated with lacquering to resemble kozane or iyozaneita and due to this application, they are called kiritsukekozane (切付小札) or kiritsukeiyozane (切付伊予札).



These innovations were a throwback of the previous century Kanadō, and gave rise to the Mogami dō (最上胴) at the end of the 15th century and beginning of the 16th century (1520s).
The Mogami cuirass was made by well-forged iron or steel plates. A dō made of rigid metal plates can of course not be opened that easily as when constructed of the more fexible kozane.
This lead to the adding of several hinges – located in 
four "axis", which results in four dō segments and for this reason it is called a gomai d
ō– which allow the rigid dō to open easily. 
It was a practical solution, each plate had their own small hinges at the two extremities, and the plate was connected by them to the other plates horizontally, while it was laced vertically by kebiki or sugakeodoshi with tomegawa knots in order to stand rigid and not telescope on itself.
Further development after the 1550s: the major difference from the armor worn earlier, like the Kana d
ō, was an increase in the number of rows that encircled the torso from 4 to 5.

According to Sakakibara Kōzan the term "Mogami" goes back to the fact that such dō were initially made in the Mogami region of northern Dewa province.



The laced Mogami type of construction; on the left, how the plates were individually hinged at each end. On the right, a Mogami cuirass.

However, in order to answer to the lacing's problems aforementioned, occasionally these plates were riveted instead of being laced, just like the previous Kana dō; whit this addition, a much more solid and rigid cuirass was created.
One drawback to the Mogami construction was that the small individual hinges were delicate and were easily damaged. Despite this they continued to be produced as long as armor was made. To counter this weakness, the small hinges were replaced by larger, longer ones that connected all the plates together. It was not long before the construction was simplified by fitting only one hinge under the left arm.
By this point, by the early 16th century, the Japanese had already access to clam shell d
ō made with laminated plates.


Sengoku period - mid to late 16th century

After the riveted and laced Mogami d
ō began to spread in the various armies of the country, and a further development in iron and steel production, it didn't take long for the armorers to have new ideas.
Around the 1560s and the 1570s we start to se the early model and forerunners of the famous O
kegawa dō (桶側胴). 
An Okegawa-d
ō was made of riveted bigger plates; it was robust and relative easy to make and so it became quickly adopted from the late Muromachi period onwards. These early versions also known as Kanto go mai dō (関東五枚胴) were the evolution of Mogami cuirasses, hinged at four places, a five dō sections. 


The later version of the Okegawa-dō in turn is just hinged with one long hinge at the left side of the cuirass and so it is principally a nimai-dō. The plates of an Okegawa-dō can be arranged horizontally (yokohagi, 横矧) or vertically (tatehagi, 縦矧).
These new armors however, had also a different shaping, and were much more towards a globose shape to better deflect weapons, which was established at the end of the 1580 and beginning of the 1590.




A sketch of a yokohagi okegawa dō, made with riveted plates.


With the Okegawa d
ō, the production time of armors decreased and it is not a surprise to see that said armors were used both by high ranking Samurai as well as by normal foot soldiers by the Keichō era (1590-1610).
It didn't take longer to make the next logical step in armor design; using a full, single plate instead of a series of riveted plates.
The Okegawa as well as the Mogami could be considered two types of laminar armors, like the European Anime cuirass.
Compared to a breastplate made with a single plate, in theory, the laminar one is structurally weaker because the shock is absorbed by one smaller lame instead of a single plate, and each rivets is a potential failure point.
However, in practice the difference between the two types of armor is minimal, because part of the shock is still distributed among the various plates; in fact, even in Europe, Anime cuirass were still used alongside the single plate design. In addition to that, laminar armors are much easier to repair compared to the ones made with one plate.

In any case, around the 1590s  we start to see the production of one plate breastplate, hinged at one side like the Okegawa.
These models are called Hotoke d
ō (仏胴). This term, "Hotoke", is also used to describe an Okegawa do which is heavily lacquered, with a smooth face not showing any seams, and the words refers to the "unblemished Buddha". The armor underneath is either made of one plate or looks like if made of one plate.

A sketch of a very simple and plain Hotoke dō.


Interestingly enough, within this period, we also have the first contact with European traders. This fact led various armor's historians to question themselves whether or not cuirasses made with one plate were influenced by Western armor.
One could see the Hotoke-d
ō in the context of Nanban-dō (南蛮胴 - western style cuirass), quasi as a product of emulating these Western armors whose face is also made of one plate, and other could see it in the context of a further simplification of armors, namely quasi as the next logical step from the Mogami-dō of laced plates over the Okegawa-dō of riveted plates.

If I have to pick one of these versions, I'll go with the latter; we knew that European armors influenced Japanese ones, and they were called with a specific name (Nanban), had a different shape and were likely to be first seen in Japan around the 1590s, so the Hotoke style happened around the same time and is hard to claim direct influence.
While the concept of making larger plates was the leitmotif of the whole process of simplification started in the 16th century, both in cuirasses as well as in helmets.


In any case, around the 1590s we see the final iterations of plate cuirasses in Japan.
The aforementioned Nanban d
ō (南蛮胴) style was used by some Samurai; some of these armors were directly imported from the European, although they were an extremely tiny minority (but this is a topic for another article), while the majority of the Nanban dō were actually made by Japanese armorers. 
These armor are called Wasei Nanban dō (和製南蛮胴) or Nihonsei nanban-dō (日本製南蛮胴),  which means Japanese made Nanban-dō. Some of them followed their European models faithfully but the majority were adjusted to meet Japanese aesthetics. Japanese-made and European-made Nanban-dō consist basically of two thick iron plates with a central ridge line, which made the weapons of the enemy sliding off upon impact and so this feature was also occasionally applied to other styles of armors, like the Okegawa. In this case, we speak of an Hatomune-dō (鳩胸胴).




A sketch of a Nanban breastplate.


While in the context of the Hotoke d
ō, we see the appearance of the famous Niō dō (仁王胴), which was made of a single plate and embossed to like like a Niō.
In the context of the Tatehagi Okegawa and Mogami d
ō, we could see the development of the Sendai dō (仙台胴) also known as Yukinoshita dō (雪の下胴); this armor was made with five large plates: one for the front, one for the back, one for the left side, and two for the right side where the breastplate open; due to this feature this style is a type of gomai dō, like the Mogami dō. Sometimes, instead of one single large plate for each sections, riveted plates were used. This armor is famously associated with Date Masamune.





On the left, a Sendai Dō, hinged at four sides and made with multiple large plates. The sape was more similar to the Mogami dō. On the right, a Niō dō, made with only two plates and hinged at one side, embossed and decorated.

At the beginning of the 1600, the development of tosei d
ō was completed, and various mixed styles with several possible iterations emerged in the last years of the Sengoku period.



Common misconceptions associated with the transition to plate armor in Japan

Even if this detailed version of mine could be seen in various books and papers about Japanese armors, and it could be shared by a good number of scholars, unfortunately it is not the mainstream one.
With the need of a very broad generalization in this field, a good number of misconceptions have been circulated around on the internet in order to explain the transition and development of tosei gusoku cuirasses; even if there is plenty of material above, for the most curious, I'll try to debunk them;

1) Japanese armorers started to use plate due to the presence of firearms in the 1540s.


As I have explained above, the usage of plates in Japanese armors could be dated as back as the 4th century,  and early 16th century. Solid clam shell cuirasses were developed in the late 16th century, and likely there were already some early development in the 15th century, while early firearms didn't play any significant role up until the 1560s, with being established weapons by the 1580s, as I have written here in my article about the real spread of gunpowder weapons in Japan.
It wasn't the so called gun paranoia to drive Japanese armor makers into plate, but the need of simplification in the production process. Moreover, lamellar armor were still being made fairly regularly.
Although it is fair to say that larger plates were better suited to withstand bullets than lamellar structures, so I do understand why such wrong correlation was made in the first place.


2) The Japanese armorers made tosei gusoku thanks to the inspiration of European armors.

While it would be wrong to underestimate the impact of Western influence into modern armor, it is equally wrong to find in them the starting point of Japanese armor development.
It is a common misconception to attribute the Okegawa, Hotoke and other styles of cuirass to the European, but in reality, Western armors were rare and didn't came into Japan prior to the 1590s, while we start to see the aforementioned styles around the same time, as a result of a much more complicated economic process, which would be naïve to ignore.


3) The Japanese were able to make tosei gusoku armor thanks to European's techniques and materials.


While I have already address the old myth of the Japanese iron being poor in quality, there wasn't any significant improvement brought by the Europeans, as far as any sources is concerned, to Japanese steel and iron industry: neither by techniques nor by any "magical superior steel" imported.
By the time the European arrived, the Japanese were already able to smelt high quality steel ingots large enough to make plates thanks to their own native blast furnace, in fact they were able to make their own Japanese made western style armors by the 1590s.



If you managed to read it all until here, I wanted to seriously thank you for the time you dedicated to this long, very technical article.
Please feel free to share it, in order to remove these misconceptions on the internet, and for any question don't hesitate to use the comment section below!
Thank you so much, I hope you liked it!

Gunbai


Comments

  1. Very, very good post! I waited for someone to make this post,and you nailed it. Many thanks, although I partially knew about it, it definitely helps me a lot, thanks . I will gladly share it, I'm annoyed by all the eurocentrist that still put down Japanese saying that the war of the sengoku jidai where fought and won thanks to European technology alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much!
      Although is a very detailed and technical topic, I felt that these details needed to be adressed since I always find the wrong&stereotyped versions of the creation and development of Tosei do.

      I will also talk about nanban do in the future and why they were occasionally worn.

      Delete
    2. Did Oda Nabunaga really wore nanban do?

      Delete
    3. Probably no; there isn't any real evidences of Nobunaga having a Western Armor. There is a wasei nanban do attribuited to him, but is not official by any means.
      Also, there are no written records or depictions of him wearing western clothes, armors or some style of "capes".

      It is likely to be a modern "pop culture thing".
      He did use a kawari kabuto resembling a western hat as a form of banner, and I think is there that the legend originated, but as far as real things are concerned, the majority of Nobunaga + Western stuff are myths

      Delete
  2. Let me tell you sir, who has just written a great article! Very entertaining to read, at least for me. I love that you take the trouble to destroy myths and hoaxes that are out there regarding Japanese armor and weapons.
    Regarding that, it would seem convenient to request something ... if it does not bother you.
    Could you at some point break down the myths propagated by this wikipedia article ?:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1582_Cagayan_battles
    It will probably be painful to read because of the bad writing and the string of stupidities said, but it would be interesting to see how someone demolishes the myth ...
    I feel like I'm asking a lot without being able to give anything in return, and that's not good ... excuse me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much!! I'm glad you liked it.
      Also, don't worry about your request! I'm happy to receive questions and comments, it's part of the idea I have of this blog, even if sometimes I'm not able to satisfy some requests as fast as I would like to do.

      About the Cagayan battle, I have already enough notes to debunk all the story: I was able to access to the original source that deal with the episode and it's full of wrong statements, exagerations, contraddictions and "historiographic" problems.
      I could write an article about it and honestly I have been thinking to do it in the past, but on the other hand I don't really want to get involved in any kind of "Samurai vs X" - deadlieast warriors debates with this blog, because they are fairly toxic in my opinion, and I wanted to have good, healthy and educated discussions under my blog articles.

      Delete
    2. In any case, If you are interested, here there are the crucial points I have analyzed from the letter found in "The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803 — Volume 5 of 55 from the Gutenberg Project"

      1) the events are described in a letter wrote by Juan Baptista Roman, based on the account of "six indians" whom were sent to look for water and didn't partecipate the battle but heard the story by some other "indians soldiers" who were presumably on the ship.
      So it's actually a source 3 times away from the original event and not reliable at all.

      2) There is no mention of Ronin, Samurai or anything closer to a professional Japanese army. It is only written "Japanese Pirates", and we know from Ming sources that at that time, Japanese people were 1-10% of all the ones called Japanese pirates.

      3) The Spanish had a fleet made of 5 fregatas and 1 galley. A galley of the period was able to contain an average of 200 soldiers, with a maximum of 400.
      The Spanish soldiers listed on the galley were 60: and this is the first exageration; it is very unlikely that they were the only men on board: such boats needed at least 120-150 men to be manned.
      So there were at least 80 other natives to fight with them, all armed and equipped as the Spanish.
      The other five frigatas might have had as well 50 men on board each.
      So there were at least 400-500 men able to fight on that fleet, and not only 40-60.

      3)The first skirmish involved a Japanese pirates boat against all the fleet, even if they boarded the galley. The second exagerations is that the Japanese pirates in that boat were supposed to be 200. The biggest Japanese war boat of the period was the Akatebune and it carried 80 soldiers and 60 sailors, but that boat at Cagayan was clearly not a war vessel but the average pirate boat, a Chinese Junk or a Japanese Kenminsen: both of them had a maximum of 70-100 people on board.
      It would have been impossible to gather 200 soldiers on those boats, not even on the biggest Japanese war ship.
      Despite the numerical inferiority, they were able to board the galley and gave an hard time to the Spanish soldiers as we read through the letter, even if they were ultimately defeated.

      4) The second skirmish which is the famous ones, involved (presumably) the entire fleet against 18 "Sampan". Now the pirates here were supposed to be 1000, and here we have another exageration. A Sampan of the period could only have 8-10 people on board at best.
      It is physically impossible to have 1000 people on board of 18 ships of 3-5 meters.
      At best, the 18 Sampan had 160-180 pirates on.
      Which means that the "Japanese" pirates were severly outnumbered against a fleet of 400-500 people.
      Even assuming that only the galley was involved, that would have been 150-180 pirates on small boats against one big galley with artillery and 120-150 men well armed and organized.
      Despite the disadvantage, the pirates were able to almost destroy the galley which "was leaking everywhere" as we read through the letter.

      5) The purpose of the letter was to ask for reenforcement, which means that the Spanish hardly managed to survive against the pirates; the heavy casualties suffered are evident when the letter says " there are no troops on these islands, and a hundred soldiers have to go immediately as a reenforcement": this means that most soldiers of the fleet were gone.

      6) The description of the pirates includes terms as "fought valiantly", "a race at once valouros and skillfull", " are a warlike people" and last but not least: "and if your Excellency do not provide by this ship, and reenforce us with a thousand soldiers, these islands can be of little value."
      This means that if the account is to believed ( 60 soldiers were able to fight back 200 pirates in the first skirmish and 1000 in the second) there is no way to call these pirates skilful or saying that they fought valiantly, nor the extreme necessity to send 1000 soldiers as reenforcements.

      Delete
    3. As a side note, in the account there is no mention of the so called "superior arms and armors" of the Spanish soldiers, and it's clear that they had an hard time to fight back the less armored and less organized pirates.
      No mention of "katana breaking against Spanish swords" as I have heard often by the people who bring this account into the discussion.
      Not a single word on how easy, due to some tactics or some superior western technology, was to defeat the enemy, who actually was an hard enemy to face (despite being pirates and not a professional army) as we read through the letter.

      So at the end of the day, the Cagayan skirmishes are two quite regular pirates punishment, inflated by a Spanish source (the only available) to deal with the below average performance of their fleet which has been overly inflated again by modern days salty fanboys that have taken the "knight vs samurai" debate too seriously.

      Delete
    4. First of all thank you for answering.
      Second, you gave me information about the subject that I did not know. I remember a few months ago to enter all the sources cited in the article, to find contradictions and errors (I found many) but the number of crew on the boats makes this whole story joke is not held anywhere.
      I remember reading in a Spanish blog, that the soldiers put oil in the pikes so that they could not be grabbed by pirates or something like that.
      The same article supposes, in addition, that the Japanese did not have metal armor, something even worse I think.
      Although without a doubt, the cherry on the cake is the article in Spanish. (I read it first from there because I'm from Argentina) The section of Talk in art. It is a worse disaster. From ultra Spanish nationalists who compare soldiers with swords (saying that a soldier with a shield is better than a katana) to a sea of ​​fallacies and insults.
      I'm not going to ask you to read it, it's horrible.
      Anyway I do not think that doing an article on the subject is falling into the topic of X vs Y. I think many people read your blog, so it could be a good thing ...

      Delete
    5. I have also read some of those articles: pure non-sense and fantasy.
      According to the official sources, the pirates had metal armor, arquebuses and spears, and it is not specified if those gears were European, Japanese or Chinese.
      There are also no detailed account of the fights, which I believe came from a book about military legends...
      I might think about writing something then, although I'm a little scary that those fanboys might came to my blog and "shitstorm" my comment section... anyway, thank you for the input! I appreciate it!

      Delete
    6. Chime in from the Chinese side. It should be noted that contemporary Ming estimates put the number of Japanese pirates between 10% to 30%. However, it is nearly impossible to know for certain how many actual Japanese were in the Wokou for many reasons:

      1) The estimates usually came from calculation of captured Wokou, which means i) we have no way of knowing the composition of those slipped away, and ii) large swath of Wokou non-combatants might end up captured, skewing the estimates.

      2) Wokou were known to employ Kharash tactics, forcing captured Chinese prisoners to run ahead of their fighting men to demoralise Ming troops. It's quite hard (although not impossible) to tell apart forced prisoners, genuine Chinese outlaws, or something in-between.

      3) Wokou were known to forcibly shaving Chinese prisoners into Japanese hairstyle to prevent them from running away (if the prisoners escaped, they would be mistaken for Japanese and lynched). Some prisoners stayed with their captors for so long that they became genuine pirates themselves.

      4) The ratio obviously fluctuated with time, geography, and the political situation at Japan. For example, during the period when Qi Jiguang was active, many prominent Chinese pirates had already been dealt with, while Ōuchi clan was recently destroyed by Mōri clan (1557), stopping the kangô bôeki trade and creating a large influx of Japanese to China. So the Wokou that Qi Jiguang fought would be entirely different from the Wokou faced by others ten years prior.

      Delete
    7. (I should add that corrupt Ming officers sometimes shift the blame on Japanese if they were defeated to save face, or exaggerated the amount of actual Japanese if they were victorious to earn greater prestige, thus further complicating the matter.)

      Delete
    8. Wokou activity in China had largely subsided after 1567 (on paper, anyway). There were still raids well into 17th century, but many Wokou presumably turned their attension to Southeast Asia. That said, quite a few powerful and dangerous pirate factions remained active.

      Although records tend to be confusing, contradictory and mixed with tall tales, powerful pirates tend to leave their marks on history. This is the reason I find Cagayan Battle so confusing and suspicious - as far as I am able to tell, Ming was completely unaware of that incident, and records are silent on the whereabout of those pirates before and after the raid. Surely a (supposedly) 1,000 men pirate band would also raid some other places? Why is that nobody but the Spanish was aware of their existence?

      Contrast this to an earlier but similar incident - Limahong's attack on Manila in 1572, which was well-documented in both Spanish and Chinese sources. Not only Ming government was aware of this attack, it dispacted an official on a warship to Manila within weeks. The Spanish was also able to distinguish Limahong, a Chinese, and his Japanese aide, Sioco.

      Delete
    9. It is really curious how people who believe that it was a great battle or things like that forget that the fact that a pirate master manages to collect 1000 men is a fact rarely seen. The European pirates who achieved similar things are usually the most remembered, it would be strange that this Tay Fuza (so it was supposedly called) is only remembered by a single Spanish chronicle.
      The wikipedia article in Spanish, which is a total disaster, has a source called: "Historia de un desencuentro. España y Japón, 1580-1614" (translated into English: "Spain and Japan: History of a disagreement") in which he mentions this fact, on page 23

      "The incursions of Japanese corsairs - perhaps pirates, the best - began to be a
      concern for the Hispanics of Manila after 1580, during the government of Gonzalo Ronquillo
      of Peñalosa. In the expedition of Juan Pablo de Carrión to populate and fortify the
      mouth of the Cagayan river, in northern Luzon, had to face another expedition
      Japanese that sought to settle in those lands, possibly, as previously
      Limahong, the Japanese adventurer Tay Fusa .; Juan Pablo de Carrión managed to impose himself, and
      founded and fortified the city of Nueva Segovia. At the same time, it was necessary to send a
      armed to the control of Juan Ronquillo to stop the action of the Japanese that, from 1580,
      the coast was unsettled
      .
      What most amazed and disturbed the Hispanics was the fierceness and bellicosity of the Japanese, as well
      as the good weaponry that they brought: artillery, arcabucería, piquería and defensive weapons for the
      body; It was reported that they were not Indians, but people of courage and courage, much better than a lot
      of the Barbary, and began to insist on the need for reinforcements of men and weapons for
      Philippine Islands"

      What can be drawn from these paragraphs is that a Japanese adventurer named Tay Fusa tried to make an incursion and was rejected by Carrion, that the pirates had good weapons and fought well.

      No mention is made of the number of soldiers, ships or anything that is said. It is curious, since this seems to be its main source.

      Delete
    10. Tracing on my own the origin of this improper talk of people with a certain historical rigor, I ended up on the page of a Spanish newspaper, which seems to be the one that gave rise to this whole problem.

      https://www.abc.es/tecnologia/redes/20130814/abci-armada-espanola-samurais-japoneses-201308140841.html

      Leaving aside that the article begins with an image of possible recreationalists with armors of genpei war, the article has almost all the false elements said by all (what to bathe in oil the pikes do not know where it came from). Besides saying that wako (or wo-kou as it says there) means human half lizard

      Delete
    11. @春秋戰國
      Thank you so much for your input 春秋戰國!
      I do agree with you, it is almost impossible to tell apart how many wokou were actually Japanese, although it is worth to highlight that from a military perspective, they were a completly different thing from a professional army mustered by one of the main clan of the Sengoku period.
      In any case I always found your articles on the subject quite useful, and if I will write something in the future about that, I will surely mention them!

      As far as the Cagayan is concerned, the Spanish source talks about a quite large Japanese pirates settlement, which is very weird that went unnoticed by Ming. Beside this, there are the aforementioned problems ( 1000 people on 18 3-5meters boats?! Only 60 men in a Spanish galley?!). The all episode is kinda weird and suspicious, but one thing is very clear: 60 men are not able to defeat 1000 men in a battle, especially if both factions have similar models of firearms.

      Also, by the 1580s I think that any serious Japanese clan involvement in wokou raids, especially the ones quite far from Japan, was long gone. Beside, defeating pirates was anything but normal by a trained, professional army with a fleet like the one deployed by the Spaniards in that case.

      Delete
    12. @Francisco Souza Auguirre

      What is funny of the whole story is that I have read the letter of Juan Batista Roman, which is used by Emilio Sola, the author of "Historia de un desencuentro. España y Japón, 1580-1614" and there is no description of the battle and no mention of this hypothethical Tay Fusa (which is anything except a Japanese name). Only the quite obviously exagerated numbers are given, but they lack consistency and are very far from the original source - hence why they have been clearly exagerated.

      And among all the sources involved, not a signle one use the word "samurai" or "ronin".

      Honestly, this whole Cagayan thing fails under every aspect one could possible use to analyze it.
      Thank you again for your inputs!

      Delete
    13. Piracy at this part of the world could reach truly mind-boggling scale. In fact, it wasn't unusual for powerful pirate leaders to command tens of thousands (or more) of underlings as well as massive fleet rivaling naval superpowers at the time.

      So raiding with 1,000 pirates isn't implausible in and of itself.

      Delete
    14. What is weird is that there is only one document on those 1000 pirates. It seems to me that the Spanish letters do not mention it. The number of Spaniards is not mentioned either.
      With regard to that Tay Fusa, I decided to look for that name on my own and I ended up trying to use google translate to understand Korean wikipedia and Chinese wikipedia. I do not know any of those two languages ​​so I could not find out much, but apparently it's not a name but rather some kind of title

      Delete
    15. @Gunsen History
      If there's already a settlement, then 1,000 pirates became a little more plausible. The Spanish may simply counted all settlers (including family members and other non-combatants) in their claim. 1,000 purely seaborne pirates implies a larger raiding business, including a base elsewhere. A pirate nest of 1,000 doesn't mean much, on the other hand.

      Still, I think a population of 1,000 is still rather large for a pirate nest.

      @Francisco Souza Aguirre
      I only came across one mention of the event in Chinese language on the internet, and it's from a Chinese-Filipino forum. One mention in Japanese language on the internet, based on Spanish source. Average Japanese apparently have no idea about the incident, or about this Tayfuza guy.

      Delete
    16. @春秋戰國

      The letter talks about something resembling a settlement, although located far were the battle happened (presumably on the sea). It is also quite weird that nobody excpet the Spanish mentions any major Japanese pirates raids in the area; I would immagine that having said numbers is not something that went unnoticed by everyone around.
      And as it as already been said, famous (and skilled) pirates were recorded in various sources dealing with different episodes, and nobody outside the (in)famous Cagayan has ever heard of this Tay Fuza.

      @Francisco
      There are no Japanese original sources/version of the period of said topic as far as I am aware. It is quite normal since they were (presumably) pirates and so there is no official document. Another reason to question all the Spanish claims of their supernatural last stand.
      What is also important is that the letter was asking for reinforcements of 1000, which means that almost the entire fleet (6 ships) was gone.

      Delete
    17. I still find it interesting how nobody arrived at these conclusions, the most evident being the lack of evidence and sources that are not Spanish.
      I do not find it curious that there are no Japanese sources (the Philippines is quite far from there), but no mention by other nearby countries, that is rare.
      Anyway, every time I'm more interested in knowing the meaning of Taifusa, according to wikipedia in English written in kanji is: 大夫. But it refers to a title of caudillo or something like that, it is a term that I never hear.

      Delete
    18. I found an article with a Chinese translated excerpt of Governor Panalosa's July 1582 letter.

      He wrote that his fleet first met two hostile ships, one of them was a Japanese ship while the other one was local. His fleet fought the ships and killed 200 Japanese, and then sail into Cagayan river, where he met another six Japanese ships. He also mentioned that the fleet had "sufficient manpower and ammunition" to defeat the Japanese ships, and the same fleet set up a camp there that would later be turned into a fort.

      Another report excerpt written by Alonso Sanchez also mentions that Philippines was a frequent ("yearly") target of Japanese pirate raids.

      The same article also mentions that Hirado's attempts to break Portuguese silk/porcelain trade monopoly by establishing relation with the Philippines (in 1584) failed because Spanish was very suspicious of them due to so many piratical raids around Cagayan.

      There was apparently another Japanese raid at Ilocos in May 1592.

      Delete
    19. What I conclude after reading all this, is that this issue of the battle of Cagayan seems to be rather a series of wako pirate incursions (that perhaps had a relationship with each other, or maybe not) that the Spanish and Filipinos had to fight in those areas.
      Everything you say, which are incidents other than Cagayan's, are often counted as part of that supposed battle. Apparently various elements of various incursions were taken and misinterpreted as a single battle.

      Delete
    20. @Francisco

      "大夫" in Japanese is read Taifu and means something like "big boss". The original letters refers to him as Tai Zufu actually, and it might be a misinterpretation of the word Shifu - "師父".

      Also, I think I sorted out;
      There are two letters that talk about the same event.
      One is dated 25th June, it is the one wrote by Juan B. Roman and is the one I've described above, with all the problems it has.

      The second is written by Penalosa, dated 1st of July so is the later one; it claims that "news has come of the fleet of Juan Pablo de Carrion", which met two enemy boats with 200 enemy (again, very unlikely given the dimension of the pirate's boats of the period), and after that engagement, " they entered the Cagayan River, where he was to make a settlement".
      There they found 6 other boats, fortifications and artillery, and so they didn't engage in a fight because apparently they had lost their main galley in a storm.
      This letter too was made to ask for reinforcements.
      We do not know how the whole story ended, if the Spanish there survived or fought against the Japanese.
      No mention of the improbable 1000 vs 60 men scenario.

      Both letters talks about the same expedition, and beside being inconsistent for the reasons I have mentioned above, they even contradict one with the other giving two different version of the same story.
      They are both available here;

      http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16501/16501-h/16501-h.htm

      I might write an article with all the analysis made here, to better explain what I was able to understand, but the whole "1000 samurai vs 40 tercios" is just a fairytale fabrication.

      Delete
  3. Hello, I just wanted to raise your attention to one thing, I think there might be an error in the Transition to Plate section. You suggest that:

    "This lead to the adding of several hinges – located in four "axis", which results in four dō segments and for this reason it is called a gomai dō– which allow the rigid dō to open easily."

    However, in Japanese, GO means five and MAI is a counter for flat objects, hence I am only trying to bring your attention to this matter as I believe that the name you describe, relates to the latter part of that paragraph in which you say about the transition from 4 plates to 5.

    To quote: "The major difference from the armor worn earlier, like the Kana dō, was an increase in the number of rows that encircled the torso from 4 to 5".

    All in all, based on my belief, I think that the reason this armor was called gomaidou was in fact the transition from 4 to 5 plates. Mind you, I'm not very well educated in this area. I approached it strictly linguistically, there is possibly more information I'm unaware of which might deem my words nonsensical.

    One a great article Sir! My Kindest regards,

    Adam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello and good day Adam! I'm glad you liked the article!

      I have to say that this is a very technical topic, and I won't deny that I've directly pasted my notes without checking too much if they were understandable to anyone - my bad, I'll explain what I was trying to say:

      The two paragraps are two different things; in the first one, you are right, gomai referst to the fact that the main plates forming the armor are five and so are the (vertical) sections. However, you can consider the sections as four: the front, rear, left side and right side. The right side however has two plates (hence why gomai), to allow the armor to be opened, they overlap when it is closed. I will change that however to make it more clear.

      The second paragraph is even more technical and it is not related to the gomai thing (which is about vertical sections); the rows here are the horizontal ones.
      Without going too much into details, early armors have generally four rows (of lamellar boards) that encircle the body (this section is called "nakagawa") and protect the abdomen as well as the sides, then the "muna ita", which is the section that only protect the chest (a.k.a. the top end of the breastplate).
      Since the rows were only four, the muna ita didn't reach the clavicles; this portion of the body was protected by a "Nodowa":

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTlDOwEVQAEGHvK?format=jpg
      (In this photo you can see that the top end of the breastplate is below the clavicles)

      With an additional rows on the nakagawa, the muna ita reached the clavicles and the Nodowa wasn't needed anymore:

      https://pin.it/thkc7uc7usqp4g
      ( in this photo you can see that the top end of the breastplate terminates at the end of the neck).

      Hope that now is a bit more clear, although I understand that being so technical, this topic is not an easy one!
      Anyway thank you so much for your comment, it was useful indeed!

      Delete
    2. Thank you very much, I'm glad I could help, thank you for clarifying.

      Delete
  4. Great article and thanks for taking my request there's some things I want to talk about regarding armor but there's something else at the moment I like to discuss.

    Where does the whole the katana uses the back/sides of the blade to block or parry and not the edge or you don't block or Parry in general you just strike come from, I seen people say this even ones that apparently practice kenjutsu looking at the schools they mention they use the edge which makes me think it's not the actual school but it's like Metatron School shares the same name with a famous school but it's not the actual School and a more modern style, it's the same old Japanese steel was crap or the smelting process was inferior myth, so want to ask where the hell does this come from and how it so prevalent even people who apparently practice some form of kenjutsu or Kendo believe this it's not even that difficult to go on YouTube checking out some traditional swordsmanship and seen edge-to-edge contact is common.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Kevin!

      I have to say first of all that I'm not a martial arts expert, but as far as I can tell there is some truth in the whole blocking with the side/back of the blade; the thing here is that the edge of the sword is the most valuable and yet fragile asset of the blade. It doesn't mattet how your blade is made, if the edge is too hard it might crack and if it is too soft it might roll when you are hitting a hard surface. Edge failure is always a problem and a risk, especially if you are using the blade against another sword.
      So if you can, it is good to use the side or the back of the blade, to avoid damaging the edge which is the area you cut with. This is true for any sword system.

      But, and there is a big but, you can use the edge to parry/block as well. It doesn't mean that you are actually ruining the blade for sure, and in a fight things happen to quickly to realize wether you are using the flat of the blade or not.
      The same debate is still popular in Hema for example.
      And actually, traditional Japanese sword's edges are hardened and tempered as well; they are harder than European swords, but that doesn't mean that they are brittle as glass. In addition to that, due to the laminated structure and differential hardening, the shock or potential crack (in theory) should stop at the edge rather than propagating to the entire sword.
      So they aren't necessarily more likely to break/crack than other historical swords when used edge against edge: that thing is kinda crap.
      The same is true for the whole "never parry" argument; it depends on the school, having a cut inside another cut rather than a static block might be advantageous and is a matter of preference.
      What does matter is the fact that there are koryu kenjutsu schools that use the edge to parry; if that wasn't optimal, they would have likely dismissed this type of block.
      Hope that this answer your question!

      Delete
    2. Have to disagree with you a bit here The Edge is not the most fragile part the back is more risky as explained by the conference I got from a video comparing human the back is more risky as explained by these comments I got from a video comparing Hems and kenjutsu( I think you seen it)

      he kenjutsu expert is full of crap, that or he studies something from later periods that were less for battle and more for artistic style.

      real kenjutsu has edge to edge contact, and there are also binds and disarms like in hema, also the tsuba when you know how to make the modifications to how you block actually provides perfectly fine protection, remember curved blades, when they dont bind they will glance off and off to the side with many blocks and others catch the weak of the enemies blade on the tsuba.

      also only bad swords were brittle, good smiths tempered the blades slightly afterwards to remove said brittleness and katana are generally less sharp then european swords due to niku, it means meat, basically it refers to having a appleseed shaped edge, the purpose of this is to reinforce the edge though it makes it less sharp, and it has a side effect of having less drag in the cut, basically its better at cutting flesh and bone then a blade with similar edge thickness but other styles of grinds.


      How does he explain that most Japanese sword arts clearly demonstrates edge to edge contact? It's not hard to find hundreds of videos of traditional schools using edge to edge. What style is he from? I also used to believe there was no edge to edge contact until literally every Koryu proved me wrong.

      firstly saying you never block with the edge is wrong. you can block with the sides and back of the blade but these are weak and will bend your sword. blocking with the edge allows you to stop the other sword from finishing its cut and it also allows you to know where their sword is (the only time you would block with the back or sides is if you are attempting to shed the other blade). blocking an incoming cut with the back or sides means you are blocking with the most structurally weak part of the sword and also being a softer metal it will be cut into and damaged alot more then the edge would giving the sword a weak spot meaning that it will break easier when delivering a cut.

      true, everything he said is wrong, katana are actually less sharp on average then european swords, edge of edge blocking is done all the time as well as binds and disarms like in hema, the tsuba when used properly actually provides perfectly fine protection. oh yeah katana edges arent brittle and can range widely in hardness like in the 50 hrc's into the 70's with 20-30 or 40 in the spine. also the sides werent always soft steel but could be hard steel same with the spine medium steel was also used as well as iron. the core could also be hard steel or medium steel.

      my guess is if he does do kenjutsu he either has a dumb and bad sensei or practices a ryu from the later edo period thats classified as kobudo and focuses more on artistic style and some dueling then it does on the older real combative aspects.

      I wouldn't say it's as brittle as glass I say it's time we stop saying it's brittle period,like one of the comments says which I actually got from that 123 guy I told you check out.

      With being tempered getting rid of say like this blog shows
      http://islandblacksmith.ca/process/yaki-ire-clay-tempering/

      not being made of crap Steel and being less sharp on average than their European counterparts.

      I think the word brittle should be dropped.

      Delete
    3. Oh so there is among Koryu a practice called "Kabutowari", which basically translates to "helmet cutting". Obviously a good quality helmet will protect one from sword and spear blows a practice that continues to this day even with antique swords,it shows the katanas durability is extremely underrated.

      And I would like to show a bit from a comment that one guy shared with his experience with a katana.

      "I prefer my Spring Steel but traditionally forged (differentially hardened) katana is far from fragile even after taking side blows from a baseball bat and cutting through several treated 2×4 boards."

      Delete
    4. The Mune of Japanese swords is surely not optimized to be used offensively, but it could take and withstand some damage especially if you have a warihatetsu or a shihozume/makuri lamination, and is also the thickest part of the blade.

      I remember seeing something like that, and yeah that kenjutsu master wasn't really a serious expert at least on mettalurgy of Japanese swords ( not that I am one, but he clearly got something totally wrong).

      Also nice point on the tsuba and curved swords! They are better at deflecting blows, which I believe is one of the main reason why you don't see hadome crossguards on Japanese swords.

      About niku, it does increase the durability of Japanese swords, although not every swords had niku (battlefield swords most likely, but everyday swords don't really need a niku).
      I also agree with the fact that Japanese swords' edge were tempered, and they could withstanding cutting really well (btw thank you for that link!). They are not fragile as many people think!

      I honestly don't like the word brittle too, but in material science, brittle is a material that breaks rather than deforms under stress, although many people read brittle = fragile which is not necessarily true. I do agree that the word is kinda misleading.

      I was also aware of kabuto wari, although is an incredibly rare feat that underline the skill of the swordman, there are cases in which you have swords withstanding such a test, leaving a cut in the helmet. On a good quality battle helmet, the sword wouldn't be able to cut through mainly because the helmet is not completly filled by rice/sand as it is within the kabutowari context but I get your point, historical katana are way more durable than the average people think.
      There was surely a period in the Edo age when some Katana had a very wide hamon due to swords being status symbols and art pieces and thus weren't really good swords so they broke quite easily; I believe that this is the context where all the bashing on katana durability came from.
      By the way, if you are interested on this topic, here there is an article that talks about extreme and unusual test done on several Japanese during the Bakumatsu; many blades didn't make any significant performance (which is quite natural if one tries to cut an iron tsuba with a katana), but the oldest blades as well as the last one performed incredibly well;

      http://www.nihontocraft.com/Aratameshi_Nihonto.html

      Delete
  5. Are there complete example of a 15th century armor set or picture of a person wearing one?

    I find the 15th century the most difficult to get pictures of complete armor.

    Also it seems that the tendency to depict everyone start to appear in this period as well or in the early 16th century.



    Is there new technology appearing in the 16th century? If they already want to create plate armor even before mass usage of firearms, then why don't they make it earlier. It would still protect against arrow just like the O yoroi and easier to create too.



    Also the Nanbokucho Period seem to have interesting have armor types that never appear again like Kawasutzumi Do, is it an early attempt to simplify armor production maybe?




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, the 15th century is the hardest period to research, mainly due to the lack of warfare for most of its first part and due to the lack of internet sources dealing with that.
      As far as I know, for the early 15th century armor, you could use the famous 秋夜長物語-
      A Long Tale for an Autumn Night, which depict warriors from the late 14th century.

      In the 14th century we also start to see Tsubo Sode which were definitely more common by the 15th century. This is a good example of a haramaki of the 15th century, which has tsubo sode that have cords underneath to fix the pauldrons to the arm:

      http://www.emuseum.jp/detail/100508?d_lang=en

      Again, it is very similar to armor of the late 14th century. A good reference for this period is this painting (although it was made in the early 16th century, it use a classic Domaru armor); but instead of Osode, tsubo sode and tsutsu kote:

      https://www.asianart.com/exhibitions/samurai/large/03.jpg

      Helmet also changed quite a lot especially in the shikoro; 14th century one were fitted with the kasa jikoro and usually a shitajikoro of mail or lamellar. By the 15th century, especially towards the mid and the end of it we start to see these style of shikoro:

      https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/hb/hb_13.112.10.jpg

      By the Onin war period we also start to see plate being more prominent, early Mogami do and such; they could still be laced in kebiki odoshi but were made of plate nevertheless. Armors like these were still used in the 16th century. This is a good replica:

      https://lh4.ggpht.com/oqRQWVY9d_Z0ok0oZ3QawvmMvpidPIVS1DM6nZ8BwS9WegvQ-RZVconDYC3Cuw

      I could add even more but I might wrote an article about that.

      Well plate usage in armor was already established by the end of the 15th century, with some possible experiments throughout the 14th century; the lack of development in between the 14th and 15th century I think is due to the lack of warfare. In fact, as soon as the Sengoku period begun, you started to see plates being used.
      In any case, by the 16th century there were indeed improvement in the steel industry; almost all the things I have wrote in my article on "Japanese Steel & Iron technology - part 2" were developed in this period. Professor Izuka Masayoshi proposed a concept of "Muromachi Technological Revolution" to explain these improvements of the late 15th and 16th century.
      Other things to consider prior to the production of plate is that a) Lamellar board were very strong b) the demand of armor was not that great in between the 14th and 15th century.

      Kawatsuzumi Do were indeed one of the experiments of the 14th century, but rather as an early attempt to simplify the process of armor making (which actually was longer compared to a normal lamellar armor), it was an attempt to protect the vertical laces.
      Again, as warfare started to become serious in the mid 15th century, we started to see all the improvements that kickstarted the development of tosei gusoku; some of these ideas were the continuation of the concept that were already developed in the 14th century as you have suggested in your comment!

      Delete
    2. At what time did this kind of armor start to appear?

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DENQuGsVoAAidkX.jpg


      From what I read, European cuirass rest on the hips to facilitate bending on the body.
      How about Japanese cuirass and where did the tailored 15th century lamellar armor rest?

      Because it is lamellar, I think it can always allow the wearer to bend regardless, where it is resting.



      Can this be representative of 15th century armor?

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/%C5%8Cuchi_Yoshioki.jpg

      Delete
    3. How about this armor?

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiUwl35UkAAaGv5.jpg:large

      15th century?


      I noticed that the armor before the late 16th century have a less gap between the cuirass and the Kusazuri.

      https://mag.japaaan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/genpukuharamaki-1.jpg

      compared to this

      https://i.pinimg.com/originals/31/c9/b8/31c9b8f3e43751a66fca3b6977b97717.jpg

      also the silhouette and curving of the cuirass also changed.

      Delete
    4. About the first armor, although it might be 16th century, that style I believe was created in the 15th century.

      Japanese lamellar armor rested on the hips too.
      Early models also were able to bend vertically, in the sense that each board could telescope vertically since the silk lacings allow it to do so; however later armor were fitted with tomegawa internal laces, which didn't allow the boards to telescope. So you get a much sturdier armor that can stand on itself ( and are called Tachi do).

      That armor from that painting could be totally 15th century, although I would say that you would have a tsubo sode in lieu of the Osode, more prominent mail and tsubo kote.
      Also he doesn't seem to wear any suneate, and by that period Otateage suneate were still quite popular on horseback.
      He might wear a hanbo and early types of kogake by that period.

      About the second armor you linked, that style definitely fit the description of a type of 15th century armor (although it could have been made later, since with anything from the pre-modern world, old items didn't disappear as fast as nowadays, replaced by the latest models).
      You can see that the style it's from that period due to the overall look, especially the shape of the wadagami and the munaita, as well as the fact that the torso is encircled by lamellar boards while the kusazuri is made with kiritsuke plates. It looks like one of those hybrid armors that were likely produced during the 15th century.

      Yes the armor of the 14th and 15th century have less gap in between the kusazuri and the do. I would argue that in some armor there was no gap at all. This is why you don't see the additional armors for that area in this period, because the problem simply wasn't there.

      This picture I think get the idea quite nicely:

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdO5Z68V4AINLPk?format=jpg&name=medium

      The armor on the left is made in the style of 15th century armor, while the one in the right fit more in the mid 16th century style. The silhoutte, the position of the muna ita, the number of kusazuri plates, as well as the shape ( rounded vs very tapered) are the major differences.
      In fact, for pre-16th century do, a nodowa was mandatory to protect the upper torso.

      Delete
  6. I traced the picture you link that show the difference between 15th century and 16th century armor and I found this picture of an Okegawa Do, except the shape is more similar to 15th century armor than 16th century one.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtffmAYU4AU3Lmm.jpg

    could it be from the 15th century?



    There are also these armors I found that shows the usual lamellar except seemingly used backward which show less lace than usual. Could you identify if these armor belong to the same clan because both armor have the sun crest and they both use reverse lamellar and they both have no gap below the Do.


    https://rr.img.naver.jp/mig?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kjclub.com%2FUploadFile%2Fexc_board_53%2F2009%2F12%2F28%2F126199144222.jpg&twidth=1000&theight=0&qlt=80&res_format=jpg&op=r


    https://www.sankei.com/images/news/180603/rgn1806030040-p6.jpg



    What drive the Japanese to start depicting everyone in O yoroi starting from the 16th century onward?

    I know it is the same thing with European using Roman armor or Chinese using Song Dynasty armor.


    I noticed that the 14th-15th century armor are almost never reproduced by Edo Period armorer, what they reproduce are either Heian-Kamakura Period or Sengoku Period armor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's actually one of the first type of sendai do. The shape is indeed similar to the ones of the 15th century, and that's because the sendai do shape was based on the mogami do, with the structural developments of okegawa and hotoke. This is why you get the 15th century feeling.

      Those are two very unique light armors which belonged to Uesugi Kagekatsu (上杉 景勝). The lamellar structure you are addressing might seems something totally new but actually it is not; is the same used to make haidate. It is a form of iyozane do: the iyozane are sewn to a backing and they are all connected horizontally.
      Uesugi Kenshin had a similar armor, in fact these types of armors are all preserved at the Uesugi Jinja.

      Well Oyoroi were essentially the iconography of the hero so it was all about symbols. The fact that they also had egawa, kebiki odoshi and others decorative features offered the artist a lot more to depict I believe.

      15th century armors are almost never ever replicated since very few survived. By the 18th century, when people started to make replica armors in the Edo style, they had only very highly decorative oyoroi donated to shrines and the recents leftovers of the Sengoku period; practical armors of the 14th and 15th century were either lost to time or refurbished into new armors. So these armorers lacked the visual evidences to replicate 14th century battlefield armors; there are however some excpetions:

      https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/22503

      This is a hara ate in the style of the early 14th and late 13th century, made in the 18th century.

      Delete
  7. About the Uesugi Kagekatsu armor, I know that the lamellar is assembled like a Haidate. Actually in my opinion, the Japanese didn't have to do much to improve their armor. The Haidate arrangement already have less lace than torso armor.

    Also I don't think that reducing the number of lace for older period armor will make it weaker, because the plates are already bound to each other and then laced to from plates. When a sword cut some lace, the armor will stay stable, whether the lace is few or many. many lace will just make more work.

    When you see the reverse of Japanese armor, you could see that if every Japanese armor are reversed, it would solve a lot of problems.



    I realize this 16th century armor looks like 15th century ones, except with less lacing and laminar plates. Do this mean that the 15th century style last until sometimes in the 16th century, when it changed into the familiar Tosei Gusoku?

    https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-12242.html

    For me, the early to late 16th century is practically as unknown as the 15th century.





    I'm curious what armor would be worn by Samurai clans in the 19th century conflict like Boshin War. Did they wear hundred years old functional armor or did they keep making functional armor during the Edo Period?

    Also I heard that the Edo Period Japanese military is better than the Sengoku one in terms of equipment?
    During the peaceful period the Ashigaru still present?

    What happen to the ninjas during the Edo Period?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think too that Japanese lamellar armors are quite resilient and sturdy despite the laces.
      You are also right when it came to the stability of the sane ita; the board was laced and lacquered and the cords that hold the lamellae together were beneath the other board.

      However, this doesn't apply to connective lacings that bound the boards vertically. A higher number of laces increase the strenght of the vertical connection. If you take a Tare for example, if it is laced in sugake you only have to cut 2 to 3 points to ruin the vertical connection; if it is laced in kebiki, it is harder. (However it is also fair to point out that cutting few points in a small area is harder than having a broad full laced area).
      That being said, if you have a dou maru than run across the body, the problem is minimized since you havr to cut a good portion before seing the vertical connections ruined and the armor would still be very functional.
      In fact it wasn't actually the durability against edged weapons that made armorers change their armors, but the time spent on making them and their durability in harsh conditions.

      About early 16th century, they resembled the 15th century ones shapes up until the 1530s more or less. Again it is harder to pinpoint dates with Japanese armors, mainly because many of these suits weren't signed, we lack pictorial evidences and a lot of armors were destroyed and used into new ones. But by the mid 16th century, and a bit earlier, you start to see the new shapes becoming mainstream.
      Not to mention that dating Japanese armors is impossible prior to the late 16th century, were armorers started to properly sign their works. Without documents describing that X armor which looked like that, you cannot even thrust shrines or museums. For example, the armor of Sakakibara Yasumasa preserved at Tokyo is reliable because there is a painting of the early 17th century depicting the man wearing it.
      On the other hand, I saw a famous "16th century armor" being sold in an online website; it was dated 16th century because the box in which was presented had the date signed on it... not to mention that many armorers back then, to improved their profits, made fake signs and date to create a lineage dating back to the sengoku period, like the Myochin.

      The armor you linked has a very curios story; it was restored by victorians, hence why it might look "weird". It was presented as a gift from the Shimazu to the Europeans if I recall correctly, in the 1570s; it is one of the few that arrived in Europe and as the others it was either highly decorative or a war loot. In fact it is very likely that the armor is 20 to 40 years older than that, and since nobody used it, it was presented as a gift!
      There are plenty of similar stories.
      All of these might suggest you how hard and how unreliable is this field of study.

      During the Boshin war I don't think a lot of armors were worn; mainly kusari katabira and tatami hachigane. But in the so called Bakumatsu period, lot of very functional armors in the 16th century style started to appear again.

      In terms of equipment I highly doubt that the Edo period was any better; but again we have to specify a little because 250 of history is quite a bit. Early 17th century armies were essentialy the same of the late 16th, maybe with more cannons and better ships, but by the late 18th and 19th century, they weren't better neither by 16th or 19th century standards. There was a lot of stagnation, armors and weapons weren't deemed to be functional anymore and so on.
      The Ashigaru were also still present by that period, they were considered as low rank foot soldiers.




      Delete
  8. For your quote from Sakakibara Kōzan about the problems with lacing, was he specifically speaking of a type of lacing, or lacing in general? Do you have what he said before and afterward the quote? Did he mention how the Japanese solved this problem? I heard they smoked their armor, is there any basis for this? Sorry for bombarding you with questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't worry about the questions, I'm glad to answer!!

      I don't own the book so I don't know what Kozan said before and after the quote, but he was talking about kebiki odoshi style of lacing.

      They solved the problem with a new style of lacing called sugake odoshi, and by limiting the amount of laces used (for example they started to rivet their breastplates instead of lacing them).

      About smoking their armor, I know that in between the 15th and 14th century they covered their armors with smoked leather and the style is called kawatsutsumi do. However this solution, despite solving part of the lacing problems, disappeared quite a lot in the 16th century.

      Delete
  9. I just find this thing, I wonder if it is part of a laminar kote in the style of Manica.

    https://www.pinterest.it/pin/310396599312136661/



    I also finally get a possible picture of a Kofun Wakibiki, so armpit is protected.

    Unfortunately I did not realize at that time, I will find it and put it here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They might be although if I recall correctly these were dated Edo period (not that there is something that is clearly Edo to be honest). Unfortunately not much is known about them.

      I will wait for that picture then!

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've noticed some built in kohire plates in examples of sendai do. However, I've noticed inconsistencies in their placement relative to the sode.
      Many examples choose to rest the kohire on top of the sode:
      https://www.pinterest.com/pin/509962357803750766/
      https://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/milwaukee-public-museum-opens-new-exhibition-weapons-beyond-the-blade/nggallery/image/knight-and-samurai-armor/

      while others stack the sode on top of the kohire:
      http://nihon-no-katchu.proboards.com/thread/1917/study-sendai-dou


      Depending om the type of sode used, I feel some style would appear both more functional and aesthetically pleasing, but I was wondering if there was a standard way to wear sode wioth kohire. To be specific, I am unsure why people would rest the kohire awkwardly on top of the kanmuri ita of a tsubo sode, instead of placing the sode on top of it.

      Delete
    2. Nice question!

      Well few things to say; usually, Sendai do that have "plate integrated" kobire aren't meant to be worn with a pair of sode, but with bishamon kote instead ( which have the sode integrated in the kote).

      However, the issue is still there with more flexible kobire.
      In my opinion, the kobire should fit under the sode; I know for sure that Kozan mentions to wear the Sode over the kobire, which make sense. But it also depends on the armor; some have the attachment for the sode despite having plate kobire.
      In theory, you use the attachment over the Oshitsuke no ita to attach the sode, while under the kobire you should have the attachment for the kote. In that way you maximize the coverage.

      Delete
    3. to TL;DR, yes you are right about how they should be worn. However, there are no precise rules with Japanese armors, especially Edo period ones.

      Delete
    4. SFLR.
      Wow, thanks! That really cleared up a lot!

      Delete
  11. That could be gun paranoia but before 1543, the development of plate armor in Japan in the late Middle Ages is vaguely similar to the rest of Eurasia, if it wasn't plate armor, it was mixed plate armor like Mail and plate armor, mirror armor or Bulletproof vest made of cotton called brigandine armor, cotton cultivation first peaked in china during the ming dynasty and was one of the joseon chief exports to japan until an import-substitution policy took place in the mid-edo period by tokugawa yoshimune, yes i know cotton armor took over mainland east asia, but not japan.

    Also the logic Europeans preferred firearms over bows and Japanese the opposite way, it is somewhat ridiculous if you keep in mind that Europeans used bow, polearms and wore plate armor well into the 17th century. And the 16th century is said to be the golden age of plate armor in Europe and boosted by gunpowder warfare. Kind of ironic, the average image people have of the middle ages is actually not so medieval, anyway:

    http://foxhp.blogspot.com/2015/10/archery-in-english-civil-war.html?m=1

    https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BMBFF4/the-double-armed-man-17th-century-infantry-armed-with-pike-bow-and-BMBFF4.jpg

    https://blogs.brown.edu/askb/2015/04/29/archers-piquiers/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisowczycy

    Charles Ralph Boxer found a gun on exhibit in Kamakura which was claimed to have been in the possession of Ashikaga Takauji (1305-58). Naganuma Kenkai 長沼賢海 has found numerous references to the existence of guns in Japan prior to the arrival of the Portuguese.

    With all this said, too much of a coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi. I was wondering why samaurai armor did not incorporate some of the other features found in European armor like rivets and voiders/ couters while adopting others such as gauntlets and cuirass design. I have considered some possible explanations and counter arguments, but my post was accidentally deleted :(.

    In particular, I was wondering if there were
    1) examples of full european plate armor possessed and/ or used by samurai.
    2) Examples of rivets being used. (If you read my previous post, I was wrong about my claim)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry about your previous comment! My blog is still very weird when it comes to GUI but I'm too bad at programming and too proud to ask for some help. Hopefully it will improve in the future!

      To your question; there are some pieces of armor that used sliding rivets to articulate the do in particular but the Japanese usually used silk lacings to do that.

      First example I could find (there actually more that I'm aware of):
      https://i.pinimg.com/originals/25/0f/56/250f56ee3610ada625cac89016d9690f.jpg

      At first it might sounds as a bad alternative but silk is very strong and at the same time, given the climate condition of Japan when it comes to military campaign, I assume that mud and humidity could screw very badly those kind of sliding rivets - it did it for sure to lacings, but they were much easier to repair in case of need.
      An alternative to cover flexible areas that needed more range of movement was mail or kikko - this is what we see in kote for example.

      Couters are something that we know the Japanese know of since there were a couple of these armor pieces that were turned into small boxes or decorative items according to Bashford Dean who was the first to find them in Japan.
      I think that the Japanese of the period didn't like them because they indeed limits your range of motion a bit and could impede archery. An alternative was to use smaller sections of lames (similar to the Chinese "manica" armor of the period) in the elbow region but that was extremely rare as far as I know ( if you want to know more about there is a brief description of this style of armor in my tosei gusoky analysis).

      Anyway there were full European armor set in Japan for sure, as they were donated as diplomatic gifts by various monarchs. However they were never used on the field as far as we know.
      Hideyoshi was the first recorded man to have received a European armor as a gift by the European.
      Here one example that actually survived quite well:

      https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-3018.html

      This was presented in 1639 by the Dutch. It is very possible that other Daimyos before had access to such suits given the amount of diplomacy back then.

      My final guess is that the Japanese adopted most of the European armor pieces mainly for fashion rather than for some form of utility (as you can often see those pieces incorporated with other Japanese elements) and discarded everything that was deemed too cumbersome or uncomfortable to them.
      If you look from a broader point of view, by the time European armor arrived into Japan, native armorers were already making very advanced suits of armor.

      Delete
  13. This was made quite a while ago, but it's still one of my favorite articles on the blog. There's just so much information in a single blog on a single topic, all the while staying interesting to read through and debunking common misconceptions.

    I was wondering, do you think helmets like the Shiinominari kabuto and Momonari kabuto were native developments or do you think they were made under European influence? I know that there are specific Nanban kabuto out there made like morions, but I've also seen claims that all conical helmets were influenced by Portuguese morion-type helmets, something which I'm skeptical of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad you liked it!

      I've heard such theory as well. While it might be that momonari were somewhat inspired by European helmets, I'll exclude shiinominari or any other form of conical helmets of the period, they were in line with the trend of development of kawari kabuto.
      They might have been inspired by Ming or Korean helmet at best, but still, it always puzzled me that most people have this picture of Japan being extremely isolatioanist at that time in its culture and yet take a lot of insipiration in foreign armors.

      Furthermore, momonari own their name to a particular form of Japanase peach (that's exactly what the name means - peach sheaped helmet), and when it comes to armor we do have specific names to refer to morion or cabasset inspired kabuto: nanban kabuto.
      If that was the case, they would have called nanban rather than momonari, although one could argue that such connection existed.

      Still, the idea that European armors circulated in Japan in larger quantities is quite absurd if you consider that a) the European presence was fairly limited and b) made by missionaries and merchants, mostly.
      With such limited presence, it is hard to massively influence the armor development of an entire nation.

      To conclude, they have a similar shape but that's it, and started to appear around the same time in Japan, but this is far from being a direct link, a link that is established when it comes to Nanban armor exactly by the very specific name, which in this case we lack. So I would say no, although it is much more reasonable as a theory compared to other claimed European influences on Japanese armor.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for your very well detailed and informative reply, I knew I could expect it of you! It's true that when it comes to European influence on Japanese weapons and armors, it's hard to make a case when there was so little exchange in terms of military technology. I've even heard claims that "manchira" comes from the european word "mantlet", which I don't believe.

      I always liked that naming aspect of Japanese armor, how a mighty and noble samurai will go into battle wearing an okegawa bucket armor and a shiinominari acorn helmet. Even knowing how effective and well designed they were, the names make them sound so much goofier than they really are when you find out their meanings.

      On the topic of armor, I know that samurai armor was made of steel, but what about munitions ashigaru armor? Perhaps this isn't the blog to ask since you have many posts about metalurgy, but were ashigaru suits of armor made of iron or simply lower quality steel than samurai ones? I suppose it's a bit hard to assume since there's so little info left on the topic.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tate & Tedate (盾 & 手盾) - Japanese Shields

Masakari (鉞) - The Samurai's War Axe

Yumi (弓) - The Japanese Bow

Sengoku Period Warfare: Part 1 - Army and Battle Formations

Tosei Gusoku (当世具足) - Body Coverage Explained

Cagayan Battles of 1582: Debunking the Hoax

Wantō (湾刀): Early Curved Japanese Swords