Hōseki (抛石) - Japanese Catapult
Hōseki (抛石) - Japanese Catapult
A Sijiao taken from Wujing Zongyao (武經總要). Due to the lack of Japanese iconography on the subject, I've used a Chinese ones which very likely resembled the Japanese version.
Another very obscure and overlooked Japanese weapon is the catapult, also known as mangonel. In Japanese it is called Hōseki, Tōsekiki (投石機), or Hatsuishiki (発石木) and Hihō (飛砲) in historical texts.
There are many reasons why this type of weapon is hardly associated with Japanese warfare, but before addressing this fact, it is worth to look at the weapon itself and its history.
The first mentions of stone projectiles being used to inflict damage is found inside the Nihon Shoki and we can read that these projectiles were fired by large siege crossbows called Ōyumi (大弓).
The first mentions of stone projectiles being used to inflict damage is found inside the Nihon Shoki and we can read that these projectiles were fired by large siege crossbows called Ōyumi (大弓).
Nothing is really known about these devices although the academic consensus on the matter is that they weren't catapults-like machines.
The first references to proper catapults used in Japanese warfare are found in the Taiheiki of the 14th century; Kusunoki Masahige used one while besieged by Aso Harutoki's army in 1333 although no description for the weapon exist. This device was likely used as an antipersonnel weapon. In the Taiheiki, these catapults are compared to Chinese ones.
The true first complete description of a catapult used in Japan is dated 1468 during the Ōnin war. In this case, a traction trabuchet was uses and it is described in the Hekizan Nichiroku.Such weapon was made by a specialized craftsmen from the Yamato provinces and resembled a Chinese "Crouching Tiger Trebuchet" and it was used to throw 3 kg stones or explosive bombs known as thunder crash bombs (震天雷) as far as 274-300 meters.
The first references to proper catapults used in Japanese warfare are found in the Taiheiki of the 14th century; Kusunoki Masahige used one while besieged by Aso Harutoki's army in 1333 although no description for the weapon exist. This device was likely used as an antipersonnel weapon. In the Taiheiki, these catapults are compared to Chinese ones.
The true first complete description of a catapult used in Japan is dated 1468 during the Ōnin war. In this case, a traction trabuchet was uses and it is described in the Hekizan Nichiroku.Such weapon was made by a specialized craftsmen from the Yamato provinces and resembled a Chinese "Crouching Tiger Trebuchet" and it was used to throw 3 kg stones or explosive bombs known as thunder crash bombs (震天雷) as far as 274-300 meters.
These projectiles shattered on impact and they were used against enemy formations or to destroy light small towers and to set fire to other facilities in Kyoto during the conflict.
Each catapult was operated by a crew of 40 men who were the ones that made the arm of the device throwing the projectiles; the weapon was rater small and compact, capable of being used in small spaces compared to larger and heavier catapults. Unlike a counterweight trabuchet, it was operated by manpower rather than a heavy weight. This decreased the power of the weapon but it also allowed a greater "rate of fire".
Each catapult was operated by a crew of 40 men who were the ones that made the arm of the device throwing the projectiles; the weapon was rater small and compact, capable of being used in small spaces compared to larger and heavier catapults. Unlike a counterweight trabuchet, it was operated by manpower rather than a heavy weight. This decreased the power of the weapon but it also allowed a greater "rate of fire".
An artistic representation of a Japanese catapult used during the Ōnin war.
Other accounts of these catapults being used exist as well during the Sengoku period. During the siege of Takigawa in 1552, the Mori used these weapons to inflict casualties on the opposite side to a greater effect; in fact, up to 25% of the wounds inflicted by ranged weapons were caused by traction trebuchets according to the documents of that battle.
Another instance in which catapults were used was during the siege of Omori in 1599; in this case, the weapon was operated by women and children since the defenders were a peasants army. A final references to this weapon being used was the Osaka siege, where the defenders used the famous fire projecting mangonels to launch incendiary and explosive bombs on the attackers.
While said weapon was clearly known and used during the Samurai period, and in some cases inflicted a good amount of casualties on the receiving side, it is quite evident that catapults in Japan were rare and saw little usage.
This is quite easy to explain; unlike its Chinese or European counterpart, the Japanese catapult was not particularly heavy or strong in its power, and was used mainly as a form of antipersonnel weapon rather than to destroy walls and open breeches against castles or city walls.
This is due to the location of Japanese castles; the majority of these fortifications were already located on strategic places such as high hills or mountains peak which prevented the offenders to effectively use catapults and this is why heavy counterweight trabuchets were never developed, because they would have been useless in this particular scenario. In fact, as I have already written in other instances, Japanese terrain is heavily mountainous.In addition to that, when hirajiro (平城 - located on open plains) castles were developed and started to spread all over Japan, although they could have potentially been attacked by catapults, cannons started to be the main artillery weapons.
Azuchi castle, a typical yamajiro (山城) located on top of a very high hill. Such fortifications would have been impossible to attack with a trabuchet.
So the main role of this weapon was indeed to create mayhem inside enemy formations. However, despite its effectiveness in doing so, they required specialized artisans and a good amount of resources to be made and operated. They were also very hard to move and were usually built on the spot.
All these features made the catapults quite costly and demanding for their effectiveness, so the warlords of the 15th and 16th century Japan preferred to invest their resources into massed archery and later on massed volley fire which were much more effective and required less efforts as well as being able of being deployed everywhere.
These are the main reasons why catapults saw very little usage in Japan.
If you liked this article, please consider sharing it and for any questions don't hesitate to leave a comment below! Thank you for your time,
All these features made the catapults quite costly and demanding for their effectiveness, so the warlords of the 15th and 16th century Japan preferred to invest their resources into massed archery and later on massed volley fire which were much more effective and required less efforts as well as being able of being deployed everywhere.
These are the main reasons why catapults saw very little usage in Japan.
If you liked this article, please consider sharing it and for any questions don't hesitate to leave a comment below! Thank you for your time,
Gunbai.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
DeleteAbout that picture I don't think so; if I recall correctly it's from a Edo period artwork and it looks like a wooden cannon which were made in the mid to late 16th century.
Hey
DeleteI think you will find it interesting, japanese were able to cast perfect western-style cannons by using their traditional tatara methods and that knowledge was not lost, because during the pacific edo period there were different schools of artillery that date back to the sengoku jidai
https://www.chiba-muse.or.jp/SONAN/kikaku/hinawa/shiriyou%20ni%20milu%20hinawajiuyu.htm#komonjyo
Apparently through the rangaku studies , western ballistics and more advanced cannon designs were incorporated, they were doing all this prior to 1853:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takashima_Shūhan
https://t.pimg.jp/022/547/302/1/22547302.jpg
https://t.pimg.jp/022/546/400/1/22546400.jpg
here how japanese casted their cannons:
https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/chocoballque/GALLERY/show_image.html?id=65494425&no=8
http://www.city.itabashi.tokyo.jp/c_kurashi/034/images/img_34964_1_1.jpg.html
http://www.ranhaku.com/web05/c5/2_03koshikiro_zu.html
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_Iz33JRrgrM/Uk473kaISvI/AAAAAAAADjM/BpE1TT5rwIw/s1600/第3%E3%80%80大砲鋳之図.jpg
they are here using こしき炉 and tatara furnace
こしき炉 has to do with china and japanese people have been using them for so long, since casting bells to giant bronze buddha statues:
https://ja.japantravel.com/神奈川/鎌倉大仏造像の謎-1/9315
http://www.at-takaoka.co.jp/img/casting/history/1-4-02.jpg
http://cleanup.jp/life/edo/images/2nd/img1_49.jpg
https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/mnakano8833ten/GALLERY/show_image.html?id=6789344&no=12
the western equivalent for こしき炉 is the cupola furnace, invented in the 18th-century europe and it was the prerequisite for the production of cast iron until 1945, when the electric melting furnace took over
and the first western-style furnaces in japan were reverberatory furnace type:
https://ironna.jp/article/3260
http://nabeshima.or.jp/collection/index.php?mode=detail&heritagename=築地反射炉絵図#sub_unit_a
http://alp.my.coocan.jp/2016b/image/f48.jpg
as you can see the Japanese were able to cast cannons as good as the western ones of the 19th century
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ShimonosekiCannon.jpg
Japanese cannons captured during the shimonoseki campaign and made in 郡司鋳造所
with all that said, the sengoku artillery was at least good enough
Thank you for the info!
DeleteYes I was aware that the Japanese were able to produce cast iron in high quantities since I have studied a little bit the Tatara and his variations ( you can find a detailed article in my Iron and Steel in Japanese arms and armors series, the second part).
Also it makes perfect sense that bronze cannons were casted too, as I have written in my cannon's article, because the technology and the knowledge to cast big bronze Buddhas and bells was there since Buddhism reached the country.
I have also posted one picture of a late big bronze cannon in that article which was casted, although the late Edo period is definitely past my experience and the topics discussed in this blog.
W-Wow, when I asked if it was possible to make an article on catapults, I definitely wasn't expecting it to literally be the next one. As always, thank you very much for your efforts to help us understand Japanese history. I was especially surprised that they were used during the siege of Osaka, considering that was the battle in which mortars were first used in Japan, and they're pretty much the better gunpowder version of the catapult.
ReplyDeleteWell I'm into writing a very long article so I decided to post something since it was a lot of time from the last article. In any case thank you!
DeleteYes it is surprising that catapults were used there by the defenders against cannons but if anything it highlight how at disadvantage were the Toyotomi forces in the siege.
To be fair, catapult was mostly used as antipersonnel weapon elsewhere too. In actual siege, it could be used to knock down gates and less-stury fortifications (like yagura). Only counterweight trebuchet and gunpowder weapon stand a realistic chance to actually knock down walls.
ReplyDeleteDoesnt yagura just mean a turret?? What do you mean by less-stury fortifications (like yagura) when it could be made of stone and concrete as well?
DeleteIt is less sturdy than the wall beneath it.
DeleteThank you for the comment! Yes you are right, my comparison was mainly with really heavy counterweight trebuchet used to destroy wall sections mainly in Europe and China.
DeleteIt is true that this type of "light" catapult might destroy and set on fire wooden yagura, although it was specifically used against enemy formation as far as the accounts are concerned.
Anyway, @armchairskeptic a yagura could be something like this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Funai_Castle_02_cropped.jpg
Or also something like this:
https://iwiz-chie.c.yimg.jp/im_sigg7RM46fDMrYUDgmHopcY5Og---x320-y320-exp5m-n1/d/iwiz-chie/ans-230053876
In the case of the latter, which I believe is the one @春秋戰國 was talking about, it can be damaged by a Japanese catapult.
@Gunsen History @ARMCHAIR SKEPTIC
DeleteIMO as long as the structure is hollow, it can be damaged and destroyed by catapults, regardless of what it's made from.
Wall is tough because it is (mostly) a solid block of stones. Other structures on the wall need to make space in order for the defending troops to use them, of course they'd be less sturdy.
Hey, wanted to ask was
ReplyDeletewrought iron ever use in Japan and what is the earliest example of wrought iron in the world.
Hi!
DeleteYes it was used, in every day life iron objects as well as a core material for some swords (the cheapest ones) and for cheap armors as well.
Wrought iron is literally the main ouptut of every old style furnace. Pure iron was never obtained, because some "impurities" like carbon ended in the mix. More over, said wrought iron was worked with hammers to consolidate it, hence the name, wrought means "worked".
The earliest example was likely obtained at the beginning of the iron age, so around the 14th-12th centuries BC, a lot of time ago.
Thanks, oh I'm May email you a bit later I want to discuss about writing, as well as to how the myth of wooden armor got started and some other stuff.
ReplyDeleteAgain thanks I was more asking for a specific area but thank you anyway.
Good article, I think with the proximity of Japan to China they would be influenced in someway.
ReplyDeleteCould you do an article on the Japanese musket especially its accesories like the Hayago?
Sure! I'm currently into a long project but I will talk about Japanese small firearms soon, since it's a topic I have hardly touched in these years and it deserves some articles!
DeleteThank you.
DeleteI found photos of 7th century Asuka statue in Horyu-ji Temple. They are the earliest Japanese statue showing Tamonten.
I noticed that their armor is different compared to later period statues. Could they depict what the Japanese wear at that time?
http://kousin242.sakura.ne.jp/wordpress016/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/%E5%85%AD%E6%9C%9D%E6%A7%98%E5%BC%8F.jpg
the 7th century statue is on the left.
Here is a complete view of the 4 statues.
http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/m-69_44634/imgs/1/1/115d0802.JPG
http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/mariko1961/imgs/1/5/157c579d.jpg
There are also many statue showing what looks like solid plate cuirass, it also look different to later statues in that the cuirass is more complete.
https://kusunoki-456.c.blog.so-net.ne.jp/_images/blog/_bb1/kusunoki-456/20170408-7-939ed.JPG
https://kusunoki-456.c.blog.so-net.ne.jp/_images/blog/_bb1/kusunoki-456/20170408-8-1e96d.JPG
It does have some Chinese feature like the beast head armor
https://kusunoki-456.c.blog.so-net.ne.jp/_images/blog/_bb1/kusunoki-456/20170408-4-ffad2.JPG
but I don't find it that similar compared to Chinese statues of the same period.
Those are just statues (often pretty stylized statues) that kind of armor was not use.
DeleteNice find!
DeleteI have to say that although they look quite unique, the things they are wearing don't really look like armors in my opinion.
As far as we know by the 7th century, keiko was the main stream form of armor worn in Japan since we have quite few findings of the period.
It might be a form of Men'ochu which is an armor only described akin to a brigandine/gambeson but it's hard to tell from the statue.
The other ones look like Tang dynasty plate&cords armor, although it is quite approximative as Kazanshin pointed out. It doesn't help that we do not know a lot on that form of armor either, so it might be indeed Chinese armor.
I have to say that Eagle1 is right, although statues shouldn't be dismissed, except Haniwa figures, they usually don't depict Japanese armors but rather Chinese/mythological armors especially if they are related to Buddhism.
There are bigger pictures of those 4 statues that show the individual plates on what they wear.
DeleteSide view
Deletehttp://kousin242.sakura.ne.jp/wordpress016/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/009-1.jpg
Show the back part.
http://avantdoublier.blogspot.com/2008/10/blog-post_08.html
Another 7th century painting from Tamamushi Shrines.
https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Tamamushi_Shrine_(front_doors).jpg
Notice that it also has tall neck armor unlike later statues. Maybe it was from Korea. It dates from mid-7th century, at that time Japan had not yet isolate itself after defeat from China.
I am interested because this paintings are just not like the later ones.
Do you know of any reconstructed Keiko other than this?
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Asuka_Museum_Keik%C3%B4.jpg
How do they know to reconstruct it? Did they find enough plates or description from that period?
My bad, I didn't notice the details! Yes that look like lamellar armor indeed.
DeleteYou are also right, the tall neck armor is a feature of Korean armors of earlier period so it might be some kind of influence.
To me it look like keiko, it is fair to assume so since lamellar armor was called like that in Japan and by that time period it would have been widely used.
About Keiko there are more or less 200 pieces from the 5th century onward and there are haniwa figures as well. Also, lamellar pieces were used for the tassets or the pauldrons in tanko armor.
Some replica suits were assembled by experts in the 20th century. We do not know exactly how they looked like but it is fairly possible that the modern day replicas are very similar to the ancient ones.
Here are some pics:
http://kokutenkyou.up.n.seesaa.net/kokutenkyou/image/k2.jpg?d=a2
https://www.touken-world.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/26478b278898a230e62cbec3dc75b164.jpg
http://kokutenkyou.up.n.seesaa.net/kokutenkyou/image/5B5E4B896E7B480E69CAB5DE5A4A9E78B97E5B1B1E58FA4E5A2B30.JPG?d=a1
Thank you for showing me those replicas.
DeleteThis period from 600s to 900s is still very obscure for me to see a pattern in Japanese armor design and I know it is not a popular period either.
From what I read, the Japanese lose the battle of Baekgang in 664 and then they close themselves until 701 which mean that Chinese influence cannot be entering during the 7th century.
That happen during the Nara and early Heian, but even then the last learning expedition was during early 800s.
The problem is that if those statue did indeed copy from Korea like Baekje refugee for example, we know that the plate armor in Three Kingdom also gradually replaced by lamellar just like in Japan, but we don't know what their armor afterward look like. The closest one I see is from Silla and they all look like Tang armor. Maybe they really adopt Chinese armor or maybe it is just artistic depiction.
At least for Japan, we can prove that by 10th century those statue are just artistic depiction.
the goguryeo kingdom was exterminated in the 7th century, all goguryeo frescoes date back to previous centuries (no later than 612),these frescoes celebrate the military supremacy of goguryeo as well as Triumphal arches do with the Roman emperors (pointless to build a huge advertisement of you being a loser). Understanding my logic here, post-Han armor type would have been introduced before the 7th century, and it is in this context that your account fits. An interesting argument to understand why post-han armor had no lasting effect on Japanese warriors, well ... Samurai still did not exist in the proper sense, but mercenaries in the service of the kyoto crown and mercenaries bank themselves, this aspect lamellar armor would be more fundable for a non-imperial army (the use of mercenaries in the tang army would be an interesting comparison). Attempts were made in Japan by Emperor Tenmu (673–686) to have a conscripted national army, but this did not come about, and by the 10th century Japan instead relied on individual landowners to provide men for conflicts and wars. These horse-owning landowners were the beginnings of the samurai class, mercenaries follow heterodox concepts such as Swiss pikemen and landsknechts
DeleteAccording to the book Shinsen Shōjiroku compiled in 815, a total 326 out of 1,182 clans in the Kinai area on Honshū were regarded as people with foreign genealogy. The book specifically mentions 163 were from China, 104 such families from Baekje, 41 from Goguryeo, 9 from Silla, and 9 from Gaya. They are Toraijin clans, people, many of them artisans and skilled workers, emigrated to Japan from the Korean peninsula, including two high priests who arrived in Japan in 595: Eji from Goguryeo and Esō from Baekje
@Joshua
DeleteAs far as I know and I have been able to learn, the 6th century to 9th century armor development saw the widespread usage of the keiko, which later developed in the uchikake keiko and then proto-oyoroi. There was also the meno'ochu armor although not much is known.
The pic I have used to describe Oyoroi evolution can give you and idea of the armors worn during the 7th to 9th century.
Also after the demise of the Korean Kingdom, a constant flow of refugees came to Japan and bring with them their culture, technology and so on. This is why you have many clans associated with Korean and Chinese lineage, especially from China and to Baekje as @henrique have said. Every time something went wrong on the mainland, you could expect people coming to Japan.
So those statues might be connected with Korean, Chinese or maybe a mixture between traditional Japanese statues and foreign ones. Very interesting, although my knowledge on religious statues is fairly limited than yours I have to say ( anyway, thank you again for sharing! It's always useful to learn new things!).
@henrique
I think that post Han armors didn't have an impact on Japanese armors mainly because arms and armors influence were always transmitted from Korea, even if they were Chinese, and mainly because by the 6th to 7th century Japan started to create their own arms and armors without that much of foreign influences.
@Gunsen
Deletewhat is the origin for curved blades? dao from han china? from china and then improved by turkic, tungusic, mongolic and japan? it is easy to see why improved, as chinese themselves later imported and incorporated from those sources (倭刀 from japan)..... Well well...all Muslim, Indian and European sabers from medieval times were derived from turco-Mongol ones and always the same thing in common for propagation: cavalry. In the Japanese case, yamato versus emishi cavalry in northern japan ...
@Eagle 1 You can't just dismiss them as "just statues". Statues and paintings are often main sources for our understanding of a lot of aspects of the era.
ReplyDelete@Joshua Solid cuirasses in Japan were used ever since the Tanko, but were quickly replaced by lamellar (Keiko).
http://bunka.nii.ac.jp/heritage/131010/_286245/131010_286245655338714085012_300.jpg
Tang dynasty Chinese armor appears to have had a cuirass design.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Tang_cord_and_plaque.jpg/220px-Tang_cord_and_plaque.jpg
Here's an extremely stylized reconstruction:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c5/e2/1d/c5e21d7eab0bdc3fb781b2cf8e173695.jpg
What I mean with solid cuirass is cuirass made from a single plate.
DeleteKofun cuirass is made from strips riveted together, that construction is rigid, but not one piece as in Greco-Roman or Medieval cuirass.
These statue show a full torso length solid cuirass, most later Japanese statue show plate only covering the breast area.
Most Chinese statue also rarely show a one piece plate covering most of the torso, so I want to know if its an intermediary style with more realism than Haniwa, but more contemporary design than later statue.
Well those statues are interesting and it seems that they are wearing some type of mirror plate armor; afaik that wasn't used in Japan. Also I don't think that they would have had the technology to make such big plates in the 7th century, mainly because the tatara was still small and not very efficient. Moreover, I have never seen something similar.
DeleteBut I could be wrong and this might be a hint to something totally new that we have never seen before; but if anything, it would have been very rare since no descriptions or findings of this armor was ever found (although the 7th century is some what obscure when it comes to Japanese armor.)
These statues as you pointed out in the comment below doesn't exactly look like Chinese ones indeed.
The lamellar armor on the 4 statues and the shrine painting is certainly different than later Japanese statue.
DeleteThe 7th century might be the narrow window of more sophisticated statue design, but without overly Chinese aesthetic.
Those plate armor those statues wear do have similarity in its overall shape with the lamellar armor. Just replace the torso area with plate. It look like a Char Aina. Is it a depiction of contemporary Korean plate armor remnant?
Also for early Japanese metallurgy, do we know that they no longer using continental smelting technology and shifting to Tatara furnace?
Because I think all of those changes happen during the Heian in which most unique Japanese really become the standard.
By the way, people don't need large furnace to produce plates. The Delhi Iron Pillar while large is made possibly by welding small pieces of iron and heating while beating it into shape. I hear that India do not have blast furnace until the 19th century, so I guess it wouldn't be a lot of problem for the Japanese to produce strip of metal and weld them together into one large plate.
Well it might be more similar to keiko or something that was meant to represent lamellar armor; I have to say that the analysis of henrique below is quite accurate, sometimes artistic representations are quite off.
DeleteThe Japanese tatara started to be developed in the 6th century indeed; you are right, you don't need blast furnaces to produce big plates, you can weld them; but overall the construction would be rather weak compared to a single sheet, especially if the steel is full of slag and not consolidated. Creating such things would have been extremely expensive and not very protective compared to lamellar in my opinion.
What is interesting about those statues is that the armor look like a chair aina indeed (a mirror plate); in this regard, due to the lack of anatomical shaping and deflecting curvature, the tanko of the previous period should be superior in terms of defense and of weight distribution.
Anyway I'm not really well versed into Korean armors especially of that period.
@Kazanshin
DeleteThe "extremely stylized reconstruction" is literally a movie prop. It does not resemble the actual Tang armour in any way.
@Gunsen
DeleteIt could also be a representation of Silla and Gaya style plate armor which are compose mostly of large plates instead of horizontal strips like the one used in Baekje and Kofun Japan.
Silla cuirass
http://www.kocis.go.kr/CONTENTS/BOARD/images/Gimhae_History_03-k(1).jpg
This is a 4th century Gaya style cuirass, notice that the front part is made of 2 large plates.
http://www.sjpost.co.kr/news/photo/201812/37598_32653_325.jpg
Another Gaya cuirass
https://gimhae.museum.go.kr/images/sub1/exh/umool2_24b.jpg
look an the broke n area on its lower right part, from which we can see that they are actually made of solid plate not strips riveted together.
Another hint is that it may be related to the mysterious "plate cuirass" that start to appear during the Northern and Southern Dynasties in China. it is always depicted differently than normal mirror plate and sometimes worn in place of mirror cuirass. If it is lamellar, then they would the individual plates, but they did not.
http://5b0988e595225.cdn.sohucs.com/images/20180925/1f07b1a47a0847218d6f3a691858aa43.jpeg
I think that whatever it is, it should be possible for the Japanese to create large plate if they still use whatever method the Korean use.
@Joshua
DeleteI don't think Korean "tanko" were made with bigger plates compared to Japanese ones, and I have to say that is rather impossible to judge the size of that plates since the Korean armors you linked are heavily corroded.
I can see vertical plates and the classic "frame" structure that was often implemented in Japanese tanko as well.
So to TL;DR I think that those Korean armors are essentially the same Tanko the Japanese used and not made of a single/bigger sheet of metal.
For example, tanko made with vertical longer plates existed as well in Japan (tatehagi ita tanko).
I should write an article about Kofun period armor asap since it gets a lot of attention in this blog!
I once read a Korean article showing that there are 3 types of such cuirass in Korea and Japan:
Delete1. Vertical plates used in Silla and Gaya, but almost non-existent in Baekje or Japan.
2. Horizontal strips, very commonly used in Baekje and Japan which have relation with Baekje.
3. Trinagular plates riveted together, also used in Baekje and Japan.
For large plates.
I think these example are clearer to see and it don't have frame like the one found in Japan. These are 4th century Gaya cuirass.
https://post-phinf.pstatic.net/MjAxOTAzMjdfNTgg/MDAxNTUzNjU0NzI4Mzg4.eZjCWmt_qlod7gp0kdyRepawvVD7hU-q3a8_qiiADlwg.IHPL_6tYk4eTajMo191qy_VwUW5QuTcH-avSIKKrvo0g.JPEG/%EB%B3%B4%EB%AC%BC_%EC%A0%9C2020%ED%98%B8_%EB%B6%80%EC%82%B0_%EB%B3%B5%EC%B2%9C%EB%8F%99_38%ED%98%B8%EB%B6%84_%EC%B6%9C%ED%86%A0_%EC%B2%A0%EC%A0%9C%EA%B0%91%EC%98%B7_%28%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84%EC%B6%9C%EC%B2%98_%EB%AC%B8%ED%99%94%EC%9E%AC%EC%B2%AD%29.jpg?type=w1200
This is the closeup.
https://img.seoul.co.kr//img/upload/2019/02/27/SSI_20190227150522.jpg
Big plate on the collar:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a4/42/6a/a4426a9686232b99014fa0d42a18513f.jpg
Front view
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Korea-Silla-Iron.armor-01.jpg
Also, when it have frame doesn't mean that it must be made from severa different strips, it could also be thrust stopper to prevent thrust from sliding past the plate.
https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1576/26596911175_86f7a37049_b.jpg
European armor also have it, but it was made a small strip riveted to the edge, there is nothing that stop people from making a thrust stopper wider with plate instead strips.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/23155
As far as I know there is only one Japanese Tanko made with vertical strip dating back to 4th century.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Short_Cuirass%2C_Kofun_period%2C_4th_century%2C_from_Omaruyama_Tumulus%2C_Kofu-shi%2C_Yamanashi%2C_iron_plates_joined_with_leather_-_Tokyo_National_Museum_-_DSC06382.JPG
and the strips still not as large as in the Korean ones.
I also don't think that producing large solid plates would be difficult for either Japanese or Korean.
Kofun stirrup. It is solid and probably start as plate which would then be dished.
https://image.tnm.jp/image/1024/C0089399.jpg
https://i.stack.imgur.com/p9LKG.jpg
This is the back view of Kofun cuirass. Notice the large top plate, how difficult would it be to expand further?
https://image.tnm.jp/image/1024/C0067451.jpg
The Asuka statue with plate armor, the one on the right, seems to be wearing something that look like this.
http://www.gimhaenews.co.kr/news/photo/201904/27122_38239_5553.jpg
or this
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/444624
@Joshua
DeleteI see your points about Korean tanko; they seems to be somewhat different compared to the Japanese ones, with plates being arranged vertically more often than horizontally as it was in Japan but again I'm not well versed neither in Chinese nor Korean armors.
But again those plates aren't that big either, despite being larger than the Japanese ones.
Also, it is hard to tell if that collar was made with one single sheet of metal. My guess? It was either welded or rivetted, but since it's heavily corroded it's impossible to tell.
It was quite hard to make single sheet breastplate as the one seen in Japan by the 16th century and I'll explain this later on this comment.
The frame used in Tanko is not a blade stopper but a true frame used to increase the integrity of the rivetted plates.
Afaik the frame itself might have been made by weldings multiple plates.
Now to large plates production: to create such plates like the one used to make a solid hotoke do you need a massive amount of iron ore.
With bloomery, which was used both in Korea and in Japan, you need a very massive bloom and those weren't seen until the late medieval period, since Tatara were small before the medieval period.
To give you some data, to produce a solid single sheet cuirass you need 19 kg of iron ore, because you need to consolidate it with hammering and folding, and then forging it into shape, and this will decrease the material mass by a lot as well as other impurities.
If you do not do that, the plate would be very random as far as brittleness goes.
Moreover, you need a large bloom in the first place, becase you are losing up to 2/3 of the material. If you start to combine smaller blooms togheter the final product would be a mess and you will need further consolidation etc. so more iron.
How many lamellae could you make with 20 or so kg of iron? Quite a lot.
This is also about wrought iron; if you want a steel cuirass, you have to use bloomery steel which was a tiny % of the blooms, usually used for weapons. This would increase further the amount of bloom kg, to the point that you need indirect steel production method.
Afaik, that wasn't used untill the Kamakura period.
So it's extremely costly in the first place, and then you need a very big furnace which didn't appear until later.
Continuing;
DeleteAbout China, the situation is very different since they had blast furnaces, but then again, the problem mentioned above still exist; you need to decarburize cast iron, create a bloom, consolidate it and then forging which means a lot of material would be loss, if you want a large plate.
This, afaik, is totally the opposite of the military approach used by China, which needed to issue thousands of armors to their soldiers.
Those pillars seems impressive indeed, but what kind of steel was used to make them? I'm 100% sure that is cast iron.
Cast iron is good for pillars, and it's relatively easy to make when you have a blast furnace since the yields is close to 100%.
Making armors required decarburization, consolidation and forging with each passage diminishing the % of steel.
Now, the main difference between those pillars and a ww1 tank armor, beside the quality (by the ww1 modern chemistry created new alloys which were impossible to make previously), is the fact that one would shatter upon impact against a bullet, the other is bulletproof.
I hope that I gave you the idea; building such plates would have been costly, almost impossible to do and most importantly, the final result might not have been so much better compared to lamellar suits.
Solid armor is very defensive, but you need a hard surface of some steel to make it effective or a thick wrought iron surface.
A lamellar armor might have been as good with cheaper materials.
Finally, Japan was not as exposed to foreign countries as it was the rest of Asia by that time period, and it is a relatively small island compared to Asia itself.
Unique or rare armor design might have existed, but were far from being common compared to the more standard versions.
So it is not very surprising that we do not see many styles of armors in Japan; after all it was an island relatively isolated by the mainland with one homogenous culture and very small isolated minorities.
Things in the past didn't evolved as they do now, and if it worked, it wasn't likely to change.
Look at kabuto design for example.
Also I don't think we should take those statues too seriously as references; first of all, they are statues and are quite unique on their own since there are no other statues with that design.
Second, there are no description nor findings of such armors (afaik). Have they exist? It is possible, but they were far from common.
Third, as far as Buddhist and religious iconography goes, they might not even wearing armor at all, and those are just garments.
It's very complicated, but my thesis is that if other, unconventional styles of armors existed in Japan by that period, we would have heard of them like with the Men'ochu.
(Beside in this period, a conscript army was used so the armors were very standard and easy to make).
Anyway, some of those statues seem to wear the Korean tanko indeed; this make them much more plausible as something influenced or made by Koreans immigrants imho.
For the thrust stopper, look at the edge of the frame on the left, you would see a small broken strip on the rim of the frame, which frankly serve no purpose other than decoration or armor to protect against thrust that hit the frame.
DeleteFor iron/steel plate armor, I found this 2 cuirass, one from the tomb of Philip the 2nd of Macedon and the other, the Prodromi cuirass. As far as I know, the ancient Greeks didn't have blast furnace, yet we have these 2 examples and other example of solid one piece iron helmet.
https://ebooks.infobase.com/epub/9781438143682/OEBPS/images/GEP-AlexGreat.fig07.jpg
http://www.igoumenitsamuseum.gr/images/photos/4723280185322da66eac519.70024681.jpg
I am quite skeptical on the idea that producing large flat plates is harder than creating all iron/steel helmet.
This is an Neo-Assyrian iron helmet from 800-700 BC. How would the smith make it if it is not plate in the first place or a chunk of iron that would then be hammered down into plate anyway?
https://www.apaixonadosporhistoria.com.br/img/galeria/artigo_75_20181007093112_2109578418.jpg
On the possibility of Chinese mass production of steel plates, we have the Gou Xiang buckler.
http://img2.scimg.cn/userupload/auction/items/2207/335419/orig/4b1caf445fda9a00a3a64b1754d29931.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/81/ce/57/81ce577aca53fcff7fbde825b7bbcf8a.jpg
While those plates are cast iron, I know that steel objects in Han Dynasty are sometimes decarburized to increase its toughness. Considering that the plate is found in the remain of a bridge, it is probably some kind of reinforcement and would have to withstand lots of stress from the water, however without testing on the plate, it is impossible how it is manufactured.
Also the comparison with WW 1 tank armor is to show that producing large plates is not impossible in ancient East Asia. By the way, I found out that even until early WW 2, some tank armor are completely cast. Cast iron, while worse than RHA, is not significantly so that it is useless and it is easier to create turret by casting. The Han Dynasty plates are also 5 times thicker than WW 1 British tank armor, in fact it is thicker than most medium WW 2 tank armor.
On the Korean and Japanese metallurgy before the 16th century, I found this cast iron/steel Buddha from late 800s-early 900s Korea.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-v-oO0WB43Q0/Wq9By24zYYI/AAAAAAAAAbc/10I3pLdJ2swXe3pMQq4zNAqq857sJtYVACEwYBhgL/s1600/3-3%2B%25EC%25B2%25A0%25EB%25B6%2588%2B%25281%2529.tif
I also don't think it is impossible for Japan to produce it before the 16th century, after all one of the section of the O-yoroi is already solid plate. They just lack the use for it that cannot be fulfilled with lamellar that they are already familiar with.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Front_view_of_Waidate_of_Aka-ito_Odoshi_Yoroi,_Musashi_Mitake_Shrine.jpg
Also the only technological challenge for creating European style plate armor is just the cuirass, the large one piece plate torso armor is relatively rare in history. Making plate to cover the limbs is common, I can gather examples of plate limb or laminar armor from just one culture from one of their period in history.
You are right, though, that without physical evidence we could only guess what that is.
Thank you for sharing the information. I would wait for your article on Kofun armor.
I noticed that post-1000 most Japanese statue follow a standard Tang style armor with no deviation like having a manica and so on. Here is a Heian Period art which is clearly not realistic.
https://colbase.nich.go.jp/collectionItemImages/index/5b7114ef7684b844c73356fa61c11915/1115-1?lang=eng
You often talk about this Men'ochu armor, where do you find reference to them?
@Joshua
DeleteI won't argue that those frame might works as blade stopper although that wasn't their primary purpose. A "primary blade stopper", if you will, doesn't have to be made of such big plates but is rather hammered out/built on the edge of the plate.
Also, I have to sat that I wasn't aware of those cuirass, they are quite a surprise for me!
Anyway, the problems I've mentioned still remains. The thing is that in the past, prior to the development of big bloomeries, it was very,very hard to get a consistent homogenous bloom to work with. A good examples of this is swordmaking: swords were made by forge welding several small pieces, and swords weren't big plates to begin with. The same applies for those plates; they were probably made by forge welding multiple iron pieces.
Moreover, if those cuirass were made of bloomeries that didn't reach 1200°C, which was fairly common for pre medieval furnaces due to their size, they would have made very poor iron.
Plate, unlike mail or lamellar, required a good solid piece of steel, be it wrought iron or medium carbon steel, cold worked or hardened, to be effective.
So it is totally possible that those cuirass weren't that good.
The same thing apply for the helmet; this is why in medieval and antiquity you have rivetted plates over forged welded ones, because they were better for armor.
It is totally possible that said helmet was "raised" from a solid chunk of iron obtained by welding multiple smaller pieces, but it would have made very poor armor.
Also as you said we have to define big plates, and for big plates I mean a single sheet breastplate like those found in 16th century Japan.
You can achieve laminar armor with smaller size plates.
For example, I won't consider those bucklers big plates.
About those pillars ( I have assumed that they are pillars since they look like pillars, but I might be wrong) I'm pretty sure were made of cast iron, because while it does make terrible armor, it's good against compression and thick pillars aren't brittle either. Decarburizing was done for military objects were you need tough stuffs, but the process involves melting cast iron, blowing air into it and then forging it (with loss of material). So creating those monster with a decarburized bloom would have been costly and unnecessary (assuming it was for bridge's pillars).
I don't have experience on ww1&2 tank's armor, but I have to say that while it's possible to create cast iron plates, they would be very brittle. Maybe a 2 cm would work, but that's outside the realm of body armor.
As I said, I don't know if Korea had access to blast furnace or not, although what arrived in Japan was definitely bloomeries. That object may be a Chinese import, but again blast furnace doesn't directly translate into plate; you need to decarburize it and forging it with care which is still very, very costly.
And when it comes to plate armor in general, you have to consider many factors including technical skill and economic issues. After all in Korea they droppes Tanko for lamellar just like in Japan, so it was either as good ( which means that those plates weren't very great, and top of it weren't big) or much less costly. Those are important factors when it comes to arms and armors history.
As far as Japan is concerned, "big plates" of reliable quality weren't available earlier than the late 15th/16th century.
DeleteYou mentioned the waidate, that's true was made of solid plates, yet it is not really big and on top of it, sometimes it was made of 2 to 4 rivetted plates. This alone speaks on how difficult it was to make medium-large size plates.
Anyway, if you are interested in these topics I can give you a good reference: "The Knight and Blast Furnace" by A. Williams. He explores all of these things concernig large plates production.
The Men'ochu or Men'oku (綿襖甲) was essentially a jazerant or a brigandine type of armor issued to the foot soldiers of the Ritsuryo army.
We didn't know much since there were no findigs but we do know it existed since it is listed and described in the inventory of the Imperial army that are found in the shoku nihon kosho volume 8 (続日本紀考証巻八).
Also if you want to know more, I invite you to write me an e-mail since it's more direct and I can keep up better because this article comment section is going wild :'D
Sorry, for filling the comment section, do you know how to erase my comment?
DeleteThank you for sharing your opinion on those statues and your knowledge on plate armor.
Don't worry! I said that about comments because my blog has some limitations in the comment section so it might be annoying writing here.
DeleteI won't erase the comments, there are very useful info that everyone could read!
One example of Japanese that certainly did not the Japanese armor worn atvits period
ReplyDeletehttps://www.narahaku.go.jp/english/collection/v-754-0.html
It is a copy of a 8th century Tang Dynasty statue, which was brought to Japan.
Well, artistic depictions are never 100% trustfull, that's why archaeological artifacts matter, east asian/chinese guardian lions are derived from greco-buddhist sculpture, lions were once existing in the middle east, central asia, india and mediterranean europe, but never in east asia (at least not after the paleolithic times), by depicting "lions" (in the course of time with the extinction of the animal in asia and the disappearance of Buddhist trade through the silk road after the abbasid conquest, it was difficult to have access to the animal, so the design became more imaginative in the course of time in east asia and probably more inspired by dog breeds such as Pekingese and Tibetan Mastiff , notably foxes in japan) does not mean that magically lions once existed in East Asia.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piraeus_Lion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Amphipolis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ashoka_pillar_at_Vaishali,_Bihar,_India.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sculpted_reliefs_depicting_Ashurbanipal,_the_last_great_Assyrian_king,_hunting_lions,_gypsum_hall_relief_from_the_North_Palace_of_Nineveh_(Irak),_c._645-635_BC,_British_Museum_(16722368932).jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sarnath_capital.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sanchi_capital_right_side_view.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lion_Capital_-_Chunar_Sandstone_-_Circa_3rd_Century_BCE_-_Rampurva_-_ACCN_6298-6299_-_Indian_Museum_-_Kolkata_2014-04-04_4432.JPG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lauria_Nandangarh_lion.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lion_Gate,_Hattusa_01.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Reliefs_of_lions_in_Turkey#/media/File:Lion_on_lid_of_omb,_probably_Lycian_work,_Fethiye_Museum,_3201.jpg
ETC......
As the sculpture was contemporary to the Tang Dynasty, as well as the trade boom and buddhist missionaries between East Asia and Japan were enormous back in time, it can be said that the sculpture is a perfect copy of an old Chinese SCULPTURE
please take note about elephants in japanese sculpture and arts as a big example about why artistic depictions are never 100% trustfull:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangiten
the head of the elephant has a very peculiar shape which makes it hard to be imagined as anything else, so the design has remained essentially the same over the years I guess, while lions are just beasts and beasts are common
The beast head armor appear in China in late Northern and Southern Dynasties which would mean late 6th century, before the Arabs even fight outside Arabia.
DeleteIt appear earlier or later in Sogdiana from 5th-8th century.
So from the time period, such depiction in armor is not caused by the Arabs closing trade routes.
For plausibility of such beast head sleeve armor or manica in use in East Asia, there are also plenty of depiction of non- mail armor that have short sleeves.
Even if such laminar manica is just artistic depiction, we still have depictions of long sleeve lamellar manica from China, Korea, Japan and Tibet.
Also lack of physical evidence did not mean armor is not worn there. If that is true.
The real problem if there is lack of physical evidence and lack of depiction such as the case of Japanese armor from 600s-900s.
@Joshua
DeleteWell there are some armors dated within that period, or some reconstruction of it in Japan. It was essentially a version of the keiko, the uchikake keiko, and the development of proto-oyoroi. You could expect to see those development in the time frame 600s-900s.
Here are some pics:
Keiko; from the late 5th to the 7th century:
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/be/22/8f/be228fb2125b0a3f22419635df2d1f63.jpg
Uchikake Keiko; 7th-8th century:
https://i0.wp.com/pic2.zhimg.com/v2-4b6a4ba0dbe98cc203749f1bf833c375_r.jpg
Transition from Uchikake keiko to Oyoroi: 8th to 10th century:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NcCNk3XSiIM/XALV1XNJpiI/AAAAAAAABB4/Xwek390WRxsvdQ8Nm2NZikUYtjxqXVxvACLcBGAs/s1600/Oyoroi%2Bschemes.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/pic1.zhimg.com/v2-84e21029362d3e89a85c480a01255600_r.jpg
Some of the armors worn from the Kofun to the Nara period:
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/b3/2b/89/b32b8934b0f19238aded3ce2e3110154.jpg
@Gunsen
DeleteJapan came relatively late and after China and Korea in the bronze and iron ages ( you are aware of this), and almost simultaneously then it would not be impossible for Japanese, baekje, silla, gaya armors of the tanko type to be "living fossils" after the fall in the use of this type in the north china plain at some point in the warring States period, just like the lamellar type was once the continental East Asian standard, but Japanese never FULLY upgraded to brigandine (i am aware of kikko armour) simply because Japanese have separated themselves from the CONSTANT conflicts of continental Asia in the asuka period. The "nomads" generally cited new warfare standards in east asia, as both chinese and koreans used composite bows, curved blades (tang dynasty times) brigandine armors ( efficiency against the "nomadic" warfare), cataphracts (xianbei origin for east asia) and etc...
Bronze, chariots (as seen in the terracotta army), and iron spread in east Asia through northwest china, so unified China was the most populous civilization in East Asia and right after the gansu corridor (a huge population to arm and "technology monopoly")
@Gunsen
DeleteContinuing...
perhaps bronze plate armors were used before the iron ones in East Asia
this is dian kingdom, a bronze baiyue civilization that once existed in southern china before Southward expansion of the Han dynasty
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:鎏金掳掠铜扣饰.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dian_horseman_in_battle.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dian_bronze_horseman.jpg
you can see more here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bronze_in_the_Yunnan_Provincial_Museum
armors of the first image are quite similar to the dendra panoply:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mycenaean_armour_from_chamber_tomb_12_of_Dendra_1.JPG
there you go again:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:鎏金掳掠铜扣饰.jpg
the Mycenaean civilization was another of the bronze type, the possible disseminated use of armors among the users of their respective cultures is probably because their peoples were warrior aristocrats in a way like the samurai and Assyrians, as opposed to the Egyptians for example who were altogether a hydraulic despotism composed of an immense mass of recruited peasants from time to time (which perhaps explains why nothing is known about Egyptian bronze armor, even though Egyptology being the field of the most advanced studies on a civilization dating back to before the classical antiquity)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Soldiers_of_Han
the han dynasty soldiers fought like this against the dian kingdom:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSX_eAmroLmv98X5oHd1pVqznnUNH8j2klSiYX8R0YpOlyx_h8XxQ
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Soldiers_of_Han
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Han_dynasty_armor
this pic in particular calls my attention:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Han_pottery_figurines_01.jpg
breastplate armor? somehow perhaps the plate armors of ancient East Asia survived like that, han dynasty was 206 BC–220 AD
in the following centuries.....apparently improvements have happened, all prior to the tang dynasty:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Soldiers_of_Northern_Wei
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Soldiers_of_Northern_and_Southern_dynasties
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Soldiers_of_Northern_Qi
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Soldiers_of_Sui
then finally the tang:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Soldiers_of_Tang
-this a tanko type from silla and Gaya confederacy
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gaya_armour_(Daegaya_soldier).jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gaya_amour(5th_c).jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GayaironarmorFINAL.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Korea-Silla-Iron.armor-01.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_Korean_(Silla)_armour.jpg
tanko type from kofun japan:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Kofun_armor
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tanko
the kingdoms of gaya and silla were far from goguryeo (rival to many guys inside and outside the korean peninsula) and were relatively the weakest of the Korean peninsula, goguryeo was a master in shock cavalry using lamellar type armor and introducers of "cataphracts" to northeastern Asia
at the end of the story silla defeated everyone else and conquered the Korean peninsula, part because of being able to follow the goguryeo way and part because of the tang chinese alliance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=SfQoBoKhILI
reconstruction based on:
http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2907709
similar to this:
http://www.korea.net/upload/content/editImage/Gaya_warrior_faceL1_m1.jpg
take a look, goguryeo cavalry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Goguryeo_armor.jpg
@Gunsen
DeleteContinuing again....
all goguryeo frescoes date back to previous centuries (no later than 612),these frescoes celebrate the military supremacy of goguryeo as well as Triumphal arches do with the Roman emperors (pointless to build a huge advertisement of you being a loser). Perhaps post-han type armor existed only reserved for the court in nara and after kyoto, the patrons of nanto rokushu, shingon, tendai...(descendant branches such as jodo-shu), the various sculptures behind all this conversation. The early samurai and imperial army were different armed forces and is by the 10th century Japan instead relied on individual landowners to provide men for conflicts and wars(Ritsuryo system failed). These horse-owning landowners/mercenaries of mixed peasant, emishi and aristocrats roots were the beginnings of the samurai class (strong social prejudice towards them). Lamellar armor for being more common and cheaper, is easier to find and throughout Japan during the northward expansionism where the samurai owned their shoen manors. Not to mention that Kyoto and Nara ( strategic importance besides economic) were torched several times in history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2QTUu6QCJ8
How do they know if the Uchikake keiko have a separate part on the side?
DeleteDo you have websites mentioning it?
@henrique
DeleteAs far as Japan is concerned, curved swords are actually a native development made by the people living in the Kanto area and by the Emishi in the Tohoku area, so in the northern part in which horsemanship was very important, more or less in the 5th-7th century.
These swords had a very distinctive hilt (called kenukigata) and a curvature towards the hilt.
They were mixed with early tachi (横刀) which were straight and originated the curved tachi (太刀), with that specific hilt and curvature.
Afaik, in China sabres and curved swords appeared later on during the late Song Dynasty.
Also, afaik tanko design was only found in Korea and Japan by the 4th to the 6th century, it might have been a Chinese design but I'm highly skeptical since there are plenty of findings both in Japan and Korea but not a single one in China.
Also, there are some plate bronze breastplate in China dated to the Shang/early Zhou dynasty:
https://pin.it/w5dmgf5msjd63t
This might be one of the breastplate design used in those statues. However the key detail is that it's bronze, which is significally easier to produce compared to a single breastplate of iron or steel, especially for the period.
Anyway, I'm not as well versed as you are with Chinese armors and history so I cannot say much on that, unfortunately.
Also, regarding brigandine, as far as I know became prominent in China in the late 13th-14th century.
In Japan, by the 14th we start to see something resembling coat of plates which solved the problem of exposed lacings (kawazutsumi do) as well as plates being used.
By the end of the 15th century, plates started to be regularly deployed.
Moreover, as I have written in my article that explains the shift from lamellar to plates, the lamellar boards made by the Japanese (小札板) are quite unique in the sense that they behave more like plates rather than traditional lamellar.
The strings that connects each lamellae horizzontally, once the board is finished, are essentially "cutsproof" thanks to lacquer covering them, and the whole board is very solid. This might explain why lamellar armor in Japan stayed more.
https://pin.it/wehzebmr2eytx7
Also I would argue that while Korean armors inspired Japanese ones in the Kofun period, Chinese armors played little (through Korea) to no role in influencing Japanese armor development; moreover, by the 7th century, Japan started to be indipendent as far as military was concerned from the others parts of Asia.
So I don't think post-han armors was ever worn or seen in Japan.
@Joshua
I have read about the uchikake keiko Sasama as well as in the last book of Trevor Absolon.
It was more or less like a coat; I suppose that there were findings and description of such armors, and although I don't have the original sources I'm pretty confident in Sasama and in Absolon (but as far as the latter is concerned, only about pre Samurai armor).
@gunsen
DeleteWow, I did not know that zhou armor
But it makes perfect sense because the Chinese continued to use larger plate armor to cover the horse. The plates used in armors just got smaller and smaller as time passed (human lives matter more) due to the advancements in armor making and in response to arrow warfare......
Creating steel plate armor should be no problem for the Chinese. If these founds are true, then the Chinese from the Han Dynasty were capable of making large steel plate far larger and thicker than the one used in WW 1 tanks.
Deletehttps://historum.com/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEajvNMn.jpg&hash=c4ab3d5d89c4f70a0807444f1af04113
https://historum.com/threads/lets-post-examples-of-chinese-architecture-that-survives-from-the-ancient-world.134608/
https://kknews.cc/zh-my/culture/z34394a.html
Each of the plate is 700 cm x 110 cm x 7 cm.
Now the question is if the Korean and the Japanese have the same technology.
@henrique
Post-Han armor is the armor that is fastened with straps over the shoulder, that is what you mean, right?
I think it is called cord and plaque armor.
@Gunsen
Armor in East Asia is often surprising as there could be a whole line of development parallel to the "standard version", the version that we often see as the generic armor. It is quite narrow if the Japanese armor of 600s-900s were only composed of Keiko and Uchikake Keiko. Likewise with just O-yoroi and Do-maru for Heian to nanbokucho Period.
For example, there is this found of Mongol plate armor from the Yuan Dynasty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mongol_plate_armour.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/exUUhOf.jpg
Painting done by Gorelik:
https://i.imgur.com/aFYArlu.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/cXGCqgS.jpg
As far as I know, it has no precedent in other East Asian armor.
The Ming Quan Tie Jia also had no precedent.
https://i.imgur.com/eAR5CBo.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/43rPpHG.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/zxcLhtD.jpg
These Asuka statues should be more believable as they are made close to the period where rigid body armor are worn.
Also another Asuka statue.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-voZ5K9KyizM/WSXx1m292qI/AAAAAAABgyY/tAV6omHQEWIMxKiB4TTjaUdQlhSTrNJ3ACLcB/s1600/I22-151.jpg
I would not be surprised anymore if such armor exist. From the previous examples I have shard with you, we know designs in East and Central Asia could go all the way to insane level.
@joshua
Deletejust all chinese armor developments that came after the han dynasty, but prior to the song dynasty... because both tanko and keiko were koreanic origin for japan, however of far remote north han chinese descent not later than the han dynasty. In other words, Japan was "late".
Ban Dainagon Ekotoba is the oldest depiction of the samurai. The oldest surviving Japanese depictions of japanese people are just a few prior to the 12th century:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Illustrated_Sutra_of_Cause_and_Effect
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mural_of_Takamatsuzuka_Tomb
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tamamushi_Shrine
the first 2 links above portray a society very tang dynasty-influenced and dating back to the 7th/8th centuries
The earliest depiction of Japanese samurai is the Ban Dainagon Ekotoba from the late 12th century:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ban_Dainagon_Ekotoba
All other emakimonos and byobus depicting SAMURAI WARRIORS before the mongol invasions were actually created by artists not earlier than the 13th-century, Moko Shurai Ekotoba is the oldest CONTEMPORARY portrayal of Japanese warriors
hogen rebellion but made in the 17th century:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hogen_no_ran.jpg
gempei war by kano motonobu (1476-1559):
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Genpei_kassen.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Genpei_kassen_2.jpg
yamato-e:
"The oldest Yamato-e works to survive are four famous 12th century handscrolls of parts of The Tale of Genji, three in the Tokugawa Art Museum in Nagoya, with another from the same set in the Gotoh Museum in Tokyo; together they are known as the Genji Monogatari Emaki. Only a small proportion, about 15%, of the original survives, assuming this was complete. The original scrolls would have totalled about 450 feet long, in 20 rolls which alternate text with images, containing over 100 paintings, with over 300 sections of calligraphy. The surviving scrolls consist of only 19 paintings, 65 sheets of text, and 9 pages of fragments"
the other 12th-century SURVIVING emakimonos do not portray warriors. Basically there is no representation of Japanese armor before the 12th century, if not the armor of the Buddhist sculptures and other a few examples such as tamamushi Shrine
a contemporary source (in addition to other factors) matters a lot, take a look:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Nicopolis.jpg
The Battle of Nicopolis, as depicted by Turkish miniaturist Nakkaş Osman in the Hünername, 1584–88..... the appearance is clearly 16th century, with nothing to do with the year 1396
@gunsen
Deletesorry, but i got questions
http://new.uniquejapan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/japanese-swords-evolution.jpg
on the far right corner, when the curved tachi appeared, 8th century? but relatively unpopular prior to the 10th century?
curved blade might be really a turco-chinese thing and took a while to be more mainstream at least in the whole imperial china (for being continentally huge, more borders' enemies and more culturally diverse) and the rest of eurasia through the muslim turco-mongol khanates and clashes such as Falchion, Talwar, Shamshir, Scimitar, and Pulwar. The Jin-Song war and Mongol Invasion/Yuan dynasty unification saw the curved blade favored by steppe warriors spread across sedentary China... whatever before... the needs against the cavalry of central asia, mongolia and manchuria (goguryeo), inner mongolia, tarim basin weren't new to china
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_the_Tang_military
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectorate_General_to_Pacify_the_West
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_dynasty_in_Inner_Asia
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Lc4S44vccn0/V_hxZQYg0VI/AAAAAAAAD8I/nf5ual5W0w4UhESpS43nBXOuWQjv1TBQwCPcB/s1600/tumblr_nl39el0WvJ1t22njao6_1280.jpg
Tang dynasty officer's saber, or "Tang Dao," 唐刀, gold inlays, lacquered scabbard and shagreen or ray skin wrap around the handle. The blade would be either straight or curved (always curved for the cavalry) and often only has one sided tip.
according to administrative code book, 唐六典,which was finished in A.D.738, tangdao is the generic term of four types of swords. Yi dao(仪刀), swords for ceremony, long, blade is straight, gorgeous in appearance, with golden ring on the tail of grip; Zhang dao(障刀), swords for shield, slightly CURVED, short and portable, designed for close combat; Heng dao(横刀), swords for the court guards, blade is long, narrow and straight, grip is long, with many decorations on sheath; Mo dao(陌刀), swords for foot soldiers, long and heavy, can be wielded to cut the legs of steeds of cavalry.
the Japanese technique of bending blades can not have sprouted from the ground, born to a rock , it doesnt make sense, the whole eurasia followed turco-mongol sabers, except the japanese? really hard to believe...
and the 8th century is contemporary with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kogarasu_Maru
maybe early japanese curved blades and imports looked like this:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-j9nnAD0ctHs/WAKjum_I4HI/AAAAAAAAELo/ekSk0bqryKQ7cLaD7fqGSEo9SJacdK1MQCLcB/s1600/1244d0aaabcg215.jpg
https://br.pinterest.com/pin/643100021766531018/
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wouSsbECz0c/WAKnnFtcfKI/AAAAAAAAEM4/YovY4Vj-G9U-7BW72ADONlMGoS8zwu40gCEw/s1600/tang%2Bsword%2Bpreserved%2Bin%2BJapan.jpg
the last pic....Tang dynasty officer's saber preserved in Japan's 正倉院, designated as "Tang-era katanas." From the Nara period till the Heian period, Japan modified the Tang blade until the form became the modern katana (after the mongol invasions).
"The Mongol invasions of Japan facilitated a change in the designs of Japanese swords. Thin tachi and chokutō-style blades were often unable to cut through the boiled leather armour of the Mongols, with the blades often chipping or breaking off. The evolution of the tachi into what would become the katana seems to have continued during the early Muromachi period (1337 to 1573)" and by the muromachi period... the japanese were exporting a large amount of katana
https://markussesko.com/2013/11/01/japanese-sword-trade-with-ming-china/
but this trade dates back at least to the song dynasty times, page 269:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91cc/034d461d30387b21f0eb1f55c124259ee1de.pdf
@gunsen
DeleteALSO
Tang helmets during this era really reminiscent of the early samurai armors, what's more interesting is that the Chinese themselves would discontinue such helmets while it became a common fixture of Japanese armor for a millennium afterwards.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-41jczRQFbjk/WbaiUzT06QI/AAAAAAAAN-E/XKwJgDc6yfQv-e16IeC2IUnuxw3f94ngQCLcBGAs/s1600/1-1503141P103241%2B%25281%2529.png
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rDfX2IsXdt4/WbaiujD8flI/AAAAAAAAN-U/_TFK50PvjnkgHmWq8aM7tMOwJZTj6oPMwCLcBGAs/s640/Yulin_Cave_5_antechamber_s_wall_lokapala_%2528Tang%2529%2B%25281%2529.jpg
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_WDEgxGma2c/WbaiYG_ON3I/AAAAAAAAN-M/VbRDO_-QQQQmEuMokDnfHhPLwaqrn5pJgCLcBGAs/s400/HELM.jpg
Lokapala (Celestial Guardian) from Yulin Cave 5 in Gansu China. Most of the Tang helmets
for the high ranking military officers have extended cheek pieces- in this case neck protectors
(termed Shikoro in Japanese) that were phased out in succeeding Chinese dynasties,
however, they would become a common fixture for the samurai helmets in Japan.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mQRLFFHuQF4/WsIBVUW5-oI/AAAAAAAATuc/1rv3cAA16I44WUcUI3HPC6aMZuaJFYrSwCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/SDo4dj5%2BBW.jpg
Early Heian era samurai helmets were influenced by these cavalry helmets- especially the cheek pieces.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-41jczRQFbjk/WbaiUzT06QI/AAAAAAAAN-E/XKwJgDc6yfQv-e16IeC2IUnuxw3f94ngQCLcBGAs/s1600/1-1503141P103241%2B%25281%2529.png
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aiP5Eb9_wzo/WbaixNr7hLI/AAAAAAAAN-Y/hW1ajuRef5cb-4t5y66WbHh29G6t_UYDACLcBGAs/s1600/Yulin_Cave_25_n_wall_Maitreya_Sutra_3_%2528Tang%2529%2B-%2BCopy.jpg
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YcCbiiEImDU/Wbajs0ipmnI/AAAAAAAAN-c/O9X6KnJew64pgTi8TMZEHsmfuuzBfuO0gCLcBGAs/s1600/Yulin_Cave_25_n_wall_Maitreya_Sutra_3_%2528Tang%2529%2B-%2BCU.jpg
Another Celestial Guardian from Yulin Cave 25 Maitreya Sutra in China, displaying a guardian with a helmet with prominent winged cheek pieces- for the samurais of the succeeding centuries, namely during the Hein era- they would term such pieces Fukigaeshi.
interesting modern artwork depicting some tang armors and the dude's 'KABUTO' in the middle:
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xh2lUV0KFcU/WbnfZpquKWI/AAAAAAAAOAQ/evVgo4kczCwGtsgCfFDs4s7fay2juX6mACLcBGAs/s640/TANG-SOLDIER-RIDERS.jpg
The Japanese Emperor Tenmu (r. 672–686) established his conscripted army on that of the Chinese model, his state ceremonies on the Chinese model, and constructed his palace at Fujiwara on the Chinese model of architecture all following the establishment of the Protectorate General to Pacify the West and yes the japanese were afraid of a possible invasion ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinshin_War
@henrique
DeleteActually, samurai helmets are not influenced by Tang helmets, these kind of featureshave have some similarities but are different from one another and had already shown up on Japanese armor before the Tang dynasty.
@Eagle 1
DeleteBefore the 7th century? Even though you said before the tang dynasty.... keep in mind that such chinese helmet features already existed prior to the tang dynasty and continued to exist until The song dynasty times... no can ignore how tang-influeced was Japan during the late asuka, nara and early heian periods.... it is well recorded in history.
Japan did not come from a rock in history and Japan wasn't an influential economy prior to the muromachi period...
Yes, by the kofun period, these features always showed up tho not common yet, can be found on Haniwa figures, as for these features showing up showing out prior to the Tang dynasty (in China I mean) not really maybe in late sui dynasty perhaps but didn't start to take until Tang,tho I'm not as familiar with Chinese armor, unless your talking
Deleteabout some wing head features which weren't common or use was on Japanese armor.
They had already close themselves off from Tang Before early heian period, if I remember correctly.
I didn't say anything about coming out of Rock,but to be honest with you the Tang influence is often overblown not saying Tang did not have a influence but sometimes taken too far,for example I've seen some people claim sumo was introduced during the Tang dynasty,accept this kind of wrestling originated everywhere in so many different cultures and evidence for sumo predates the Tang dynasty itself, I really don't get the part about the economy here.
Just remembered contact was still going on in the early heian period tho not as big as the ones before and the last one was canceled, but still going on, just cracking myself.
Delete@henrique
DeleteIt's quite complicated, but the short answer is that I dismiss any foreign Tang influences when it comes to the creation of the nihonto.
The early specimen of curved swords found in Japan is the Warabiteto used in the indipendent north east, type 1 (according to Masakuni Ishii classification) which account for 80% of all the warabiteto found in Japan and is dated 7th century.
https://www.bullshido.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13946&d=1352738083&thumb=1
This essentially is the origin of curved swords in Japan; later on they were adopted by the Yamato people in a sword design usually called kenukigata tachi or efu no tachi. It was the clash between the Emishi and the Yamato that made these types of swords going around Japan, so to answer your question, around 8th to 9th century.
Althought the Emishi had foreign contact, it wasn't a sinicized culture like the early Yamato court; moreover, by the 8th-9th century foreign impact on arms and armors was diminishing severely and Japan was on its way to create its own military paradigm.
The thing is that while Turkish-Mongolian swords had the opportunity to influence Chinese sword design due to proximity, it wasn't the case in Japan due to distance; moreover, Japanese early curved swords had a distinctive hilt and curvature and could be used with two hands, something not found in early Turkish sabers afaik.
The same with the Kogarasu maru tachi, it is quite unique and I don't really see any similarities with Turkish/Mongolian sword.
About the tang dao also known as kara tachi in Japanese; there were two types and it's still debated if both were Japanese made or one Chinese imported and the other Japanese made.
You can read what Markus Sesko has written about that.
However, what has to be said about that is while some of the 3 extant Japanese kara tachi had a very subtle curvature to the hilt, they are essentially straight.
Moreover, all the Tang dynasty era depiction of swords (since afail there are no surviving blades) are also straight.
In addition to that, the kara tachi was not a matter of blade design but of decorations and fittings. In fact, blade wise they are essentially the same swords of other chokuto tachi (either single edged or with moroha zukuri).
Anyway I will write about those swords and kofun armor asap given the interest both have!
In the mean time you could read Markus Sesku books, I found them very reliable.
To conclude, about the technique used in Japanese swordmaking, it's quite a mystery but it could have originated in Japan as well especially when there was a lot of tial and error process back then.
I will comment on helmet asap, but the short answer is that @Eagle1 is mostly correct. Anyway, since I think that my comment section has some limits, you can write me an e-mail so you can write without characters limitation since it's very annoying imho.
As far as helmets are concerned, the fukigeshi in Japanese helmets were born to fend off arrows and are extensions of the lamellar neck guard.
DeleteTang helmets on the other hand are built differently, as far as I can see.