Tankō (短甲): Kofun period laminar armor
Tankō (短甲): Kofun period laminar armor
A classic Kofun period warrior wearing tankō armor, from 短甲冑着用男子図.
Before reading all of this, I have to say that this article was made possible thanks to the book of Mr. Trevor Absolon: " Samurai Armour: Volume I: The Japanese Cuirass: 1 (General Military) . Bloomsbury Publishing". Without his work, this would not have been possible. If you want to buy his book, I strongly recommend to do, since aside few flaws it is probably one of the best books on the subject in English.
One of the first armor associated with the Japanese culture is the so called Tankō (短甲), a solid clamshell cuirass made with riveted or laced iron plates used during the Kofun period (古墳時代), in between the 4th and 6th century.
Although it is often said that this armor was the first type of armor developed in Japan, it wasn't; armor have been used in Japan since the Yayoi period, and the Tankō was neither an entirely Japanese design.
In fact, the origin of such armor is Korean; at some time during the first half of the 4th century, a new design of cuirass from the Korean peninsula was introduced in Japan.
This new form of cuirass was unique in that it was assembled from a series of vertical plates, or tatehagi-ita (竪矧板), that were bound together by leather thongs, called kawa-toji (革綴じ), which allowed the armor to be wrapped around the torso like a corset and formed a solid laminar cuirass, made of iron plates.
One of the first armor associated with the Japanese culture is the so called Tankō (短甲), a solid clamshell cuirass made with riveted or laced iron plates used during the Kofun period (古墳時代), in between the 4th and 6th century.
Although it is often said that this armor was the first type of armor developed in Japan, it wasn't; armor have been used in Japan since the Yayoi period, and the Tankō was neither an entirely Japanese design.
In fact, the origin of such armor is Korean; at some time during the first half of the 4th century, a new design of cuirass from the Korean peninsula was introduced in Japan.
This new form of cuirass was unique in that it was assembled from a series of vertical plates, or tatehagi-ita (竪矧板), that were bound together by leather thongs, called kawa-toji (革綴じ), which allowed the armor to be wrapped around the torso like a corset and formed a solid laminar cuirass, made of iron plates.
One of the few 4th century tatehagi ita armor.
The tatehagi-kawa-toji cuirass was designed to cover the back of the torso from the top of the shoulders downward, while the chest was covered from the base of the clavicle to the top of the hips.
This design was also unique in that the tatehagi-ita were forged with a subtle top-down taper which gave the armor a more form fitting hourglass-like shape. Due to this feature, the weight of the armor rested on the hips, like modern tōsei dō, rather than on the shoulder, and sensibly decreased the burden of the armor's weight.
This design was also unique in that the tatehagi-ita were forged with a subtle top-down taper which gave the armor a more form fitting hourglass-like shape. Due to this feature, the weight of the armor rested on the hips, like modern tōsei dō, rather than on the shoulder, and sensibly decreased the burden of the armor's weight.
During the latter half of the 4th century, the Japanese armor makers started to produce a variation of the tankō cuirass that utilized large, generally rectangular plates, called hōkei-ita (方形板), in lieu of the long, vertical tatehagi-ita, developing their own style of cuirass.
While the use of this indigenous construction technique significantly altered the visual appearance of the cuirass, the overall form of the original tatehagi-ita design was retained. As leather thongs continued to be used to assemble the cuirass made in this manner, they came to be known as hōkei-ita-kawa-toji, or literally ‘rectangle plate leather bound’, cuirass. To give you a visualization of the armor, it looked like a tailored version of the 13th century European coat of plates, with large/medium plates assembled together.
A museum replica of the hōkei-ita tankō, taken from this blog
Interestingly enough, by the beginning of 5th century, in Korea tankō armors started to be replaced by lamellar suits.
However, by this time, in Japan the production of tankō armor continued, with constant improvements to its design, developing a true Japanese armor.
A museum replica of the hōkei-ita tankō, taken from this blog
Interestingly enough, by the beginning of 5th century, in Korea tankō armors started to be replaced by lamellar suits.
However, by this time, in Japan the production of tankō armor continued, with constant improvements to its design, developing a true Japanese armor.
The key innovation that was introduced in the 5th century was the addition of a skeletal frame of sturdy, spaced vertical bands around the body of the cuirass that substantially improved the overall rigidity of the armor.
In fact, many experts are of the opinion that cuirasses only became tankō after the skeletal frame was added to the design. As such the term tankō is not used by archaeologists to refer to the early, primarily vertical-plate-assembled Korean forms of cuirass that are devoid of this distinctive feature.
A close up of a museum piece where it is possible to see the various frames.
In fact, many experts are of the opinion that cuirasses only became tankō after the skeletal frame was added to the design. As such the term tankō is not used by archaeologists to refer to the early, primarily vertical-plate-assembled Korean forms of cuirass that are devoid of this distinctive feature.
The skeletal frame consisted of a wide, slightly inward-angled base band that was several centimetres wide.
An intermediate band of protective plating that was also several centimetres in overall height filled the space between the base band and the next rib, which was a long, narrow horizontal band that wrapped around the lower abdomen area of the armor.
This was followed by another intermediate section of plating that was itself capped by another horizontal band that wrapped around the upper chest area of the cuirass.
This band was divided into two short portions that covered either side of the breast area of the torso before terminating near the armpits. The band continued as a single long piece around the rear of the cuirass in the area of the shoulder blades. It was then capped by yet another intermediate band of plating that was followed by a wide cap band, which extended around the full upper circumference of the armor. The cap band was generally about the same width as the base band around the frontage of a cuirass, but was fabricated so that it swelled to nearly double its frontal width around the rear upper portion of the cuirass. This allowed the six lower tiers to maintain a fairly universal appearance around the exterior circumference of the tankō, while it simultaneously extended upward far enough to cover most of the upper back.
An intermediate band of protective plating that was also several centimetres in overall height filled the space between the base band and the next rib, which was a long, narrow horizontal band that wrapped around the lower abdomen area of the armor.
This was followed by another intermediate section of plating that was itself capped by another horizontal band that wrapped around the upper chest area of the cuirass.
This band was divided into two short portions that covered either side of the breast area of the torso before terminating near the armpits. The band continued as a single long piece around the rear of the cuirass in the area of the shoulder blades. It was then capped by yet another intermediate band of plating that was followed by a wide cap band, which extended around the full upper circumference of the armor. The cap band was generally about the same width as the base band around the frontage of a cuirass, but was fabricated so that it swelled to nearly double its frontal width around the rear upper portion of the cuirass. This allowed the six lower tiers to maintain a fairly universal appearance around the exterior circumference of the tankō, while it simultaneously extended upward far enough to cover most of the upper back.
A close up of a museum piece where it is possible to see the various frames.
Along with the framing, the Japanese armor makers also introduced two different forms of intermediate protective plating. The first form was fundamentally little more than horizontal rectangular pieces of plate called yoko-ita (横板)that were cut and shaped as required to conform to the horizontal gaps between the bands of the external skeletal framing. The second form of intermediate plate was made in the form of a triangle, or sankaku (三角). These triangular sankaku-ita were arranged with their wide bases secured to the upper edge of a lower framing band.
The inverted triangular gaps that were left between these plates were filled by other sankaku-ita that would be affixed tip down to the lower edge of the frame band immediately above the latter.
As leather thongs continued to be utilized to assemble the individual component pieces, these cuirasses came to be identified respectively as yoko-ita-kawa-toji and sankaku-ita-kawa-toji tankō.
To obtain the curvature and the tailoring effects found in tankō, the armor makers used wooden logs in order to hammer the plates into shape.
On the left a replica based on the museum piece on the right; in this case, the plates are of sankaku type, the most common design.
Another improvement in design construction came in the middle of the 5th century. At this point, instead of relying on leather tongs, the armor makers switched to rivets, also known as byō (鋲) probably due to Korean influences, although it is worth to say that unlike their Korean counterparts, they relied on rivets with round heads instead of flat ones.
As leather thongs continued to be utilized to assemble the individual component pieces, these cuirasses came to be identified respectively as yoko-ita-kawa-toji and sankaku-ita-kawa-toji tankō.
To obtain the curvature and the tailoring effects found in tankō, the armor makers used wooden logs in order to hammer the plates into shape.
On the left a replica based on the museum piece on the right; in this case, the plates are of sankaku type, the most common design.
The cuirasses produced were substantially stronger and much more resilient than their leather-thong-bound counterparts.
However, it appears that kawa-toji-tankō continued to be made for a couple of years alongside riveted cuirasses before the practice was finally abandoned.
When rivets were utilized to construct a cuirass, the forms of cuirass discussed above are referred to as yoko-ita-byō-dome and sankaku-ita-byō-dome.
A famous haniwa showing a riveted cuirass.
One of the issues that armor makers had to overcome when they began to use rivets to fabricate tankō was that the armor lost most of its flexibility, an integral feature of a cuirass assembled using leather thongs.
However, it appears that kawa-toji-tankō continued to be made for a couple of years alongside riveted cuirasses before the practice was finally abandoned.
When rivets were utilized to construct a cuirass, the forms of cuirass discussed above are referred to as yoko-ita-byō-dome and sankaku-ita-byō-dome.
A famous haniwa showing a riveted cuirass.
One of the issues that armor makers had to overcome when they began to use rivets to fabricate tankō was that the armor lost most of its flexibility, an integral feature of a cuirass assembled using leather thongs.
This flexibility was necessary for warriors to don this armor, made of a single continuous piece. When rivets were used for assembly, it became extremely difficult to spring the left- and right-hand sides of the cuirass far enough apart where they came together down the centre of the chest for a warrior to enter the tankō.
The solution to this problem was to construct the main body of the tankō in two pieces, with the front right quadrant of the cuirass being made of a separate removable panel. This section was originally designed to marry up with the main body of the armor, and cords were used to secure it in place.
An alternative version had both the front left- and right-hand quadrants of the cuirass constructed as separate removable panels, which greatly simplified the effort that was required to don the cuirass.
As such, depending on how they were constructed, tankō can be ichi-, ni- or even san-mai-dō. As cords proved unreliable at holding the heavy, sectional pieces of armor in place, the armor makers began to affix various rudimentary forms of hinges to the sides of the cuirass and separate sectional pieces. And while these seem often to have taken the form of simple hook-and-eye-like appendages, they also appear to have worked well to hold the separate pieces of the cuirass together.
A close up of the hinges on a museum piece.
An alternative version had both the front left- and right-hand quadrants of the cuirass constructed as separate removable panels, which greatly simplified the effort that was required to don the cuirass.
As such, depending on how they were constructed, tankō can be ichi-, ni- or even san-mai-dō. As cords proved unreliable at holding the heavy, sectional pieces of armor in place, the armor makers began to affix various rudimentary forms of hinges to the sides of the cuirass and separate sectional pieces. And while these seem often to have taken the form of simple hook-and-eye-like appendages, they also appear to have worked well to hold the separate pieces of the cuirass together.
A close up of the hinges on a museum piece.
The tankō was devoid of integral shoulder straps, or wadagami (綿上), and instead utilized a series of closed leather loops that were knotted through the front and back plates of the cuirass to provide anchoring points through which a length of cloth or leather cord could be strung.
The length of fabric or cord that formed the shoulder straps would be pulled through the open loops and drawn tight until it began to lift the weight of the cuirass off the hips, at which point the ends would be knotted together.
Tankō armors were technological ahead in terms of armor design compared to anything worn in Japan up until the late 13th century. They were made of rigid plates, had a perfect weight balance system since the armor rested on the hips and was suspended from the shoulder, offered serious body coverage and protection and was tailored to the wearer to work properly, hence the amount of work needed to produce a suit of this type of laminar armor was incredible.
In fact, according to archaeological evidences, these suits were rare and belonged to the upper echelons of the Yamato state during the 4th and 6th century, especially full sets of armor.
The length of fabric or cord that formed the shoulder straps would be pulled through the open loops and drawn tight until it began to lift the weight of the cuirass off the hips, at which point the ends would be knotted together.
Tankō armors were technological ahead in terms of armor design compared to anything worn in Japan up until the late 13th century. They were made of rigid plates, had a perfect weight balance system since the armor rested on the hips and was suspended from the shoulder, offered serious body coverage and protection and was tailored to the wearer to work properly, hence the amount of work needed to produce a suit of this type of laminar armor was incredible.
In fact, according to archaeological evidences, these suits were rare and belonged to the upper echelons of the Yamato state during the 4th and 6th century, especially full sets of armor.
Other than a metal helmet, which appears to have been adopted around the same time that the first tatehagi-ita-kawa-toji examples of cuirass began to be utilized in Japan, the earliest armor was more than likely worn without additional fixtures or equipment, with shields still being a very prominent element of warfare. Gradually, however, other protective items of armor were introduced and worn in conjunction with the tankō. These included protective coverings for the upper chest area and shoulders. Armour for the forearms and shins was also produced, and they will all have their dedicated article in the future.
One integrated additional element of the cuirass was the upper leg armor, commonly known as kusazuri (草摺). However, such piece is quite rare as far as findings goes, especially compared with the cuirasses found.
A famous haniwa depicting a tankō armor with an integrated kusazuri.
One integrated additional element of the cuirass was the upper leg armor, commonly known as kusazuri (草摺). However, such piece is quite rare as far as findings goes, especially compared with the cuirasses found.
This could, however, be a result of organic materials, such as rawhide, or very thin metal plates having been utilized to fabricate it. Evidence to support this theory can be found on the many terracotta warrior statues called bushi-haniwa (武士埴輪) that were produced in large numbers between the 4th and 6th centuries; all of them have some sort of kusazuri.
A famous haniwa depicting a tankō armor with an integrated kusazuri.
Kusazuri first began to appear on tankō sometime in the 5th century; some claims that again this was somewhat influenced by Korean influences, but nevertheless the design of the kusazuri was completely native and not found in Korean armors.
Fauld-like, the kusazuri formed a large skirt-like profile in the shape of a bell, coming down to the knees.
This was achieved by constructing two mirrored segments, each of which comprised several flat crescent-moon-shaped bands. The bands were forged so that each one was slightly larger in diameter than the band that preceded it in the top-to-bottom suspended arrangement of the bell-like skirt, which was held together by several long, vertically arranged bands of leather sewn on the inside. This allowed the skirt to collapse or telescope over itself as was required to accommodate the movement of the legs.
Again for visual reference, it looked like European skirt of plates often found on 15th century English armor.
A partial reconstruction of the horizontal lames used to make the kusazuri.
This was achieved by constructing two mirrored segments, each of which comprised several flat crescent-moon-shaped bands. The bands were forged so that each one was slightly larger in diameter than the band that preceded it in the top-to-bottom suspended arrangement of the bell-like skirt, which was held together by several long, vertically arranged bands of leather sewn on the inside. This allowed the skirt to collapse or telescope over itself as was required to accommodate the movement of the legs.
Again for visual reference, it looked like European skirt of plates often found on 15th century English armor.
A partial reconstruction of the horizontal lames used to make the kusazuri.
While the majority of kusazuri appear to have been made from horizontal lames, the number of which could vary from as few as four to more than a dozen, depending on the width of each plate, other alternative forms of hip armour may have also been utilized. And while archaeologically this is not supported by the evidence of the items that have been recovered to date, the bushi-haniwa appear to show that several seemingly different forms of kusazuri were utilized; one unique design of kusazuri that is depicted on some examples of bushi-haniwa features a tapered skirt that appears to have been made from several trapezoidal plates.
The aforementioned design; it is quite possible that such kusazuri never existed and was actually the byproduct of artistic license.
Most examples of kusazuri appear to have been assembled using several wide strips of leather. These vertically arranged strips were positioned at regularly spaced intervals around the inside surfaces of the skirt hoops. The strips were made long enough to let the majority of the surface area of each band show as it hung over and past the plate immediately above it in the descending order of the telescoping skirt. The bands appear to have been initially secured to the support straps by leather thongs, though in the case of some later examples they may have been riveted in position.
Another speculative method of securing the bands of the kusazuri together is based on designs seen on some examples of bushi-haniwa that appear to show the horizontal lames of the skirt being secured together by large triangular panels of leather that were affixed to the façade of the kusazuri, although there are no archaeological evidences to support this.
Hip armour assembled from three or four suspended pendant-like lamellar sections was also introduced, but only after lamellar armor started to become common in Japan around the middle of the 5th century. Based on the limited number of kusazuri that have been recovered, it appears that they were designed to be worn over the top of the cuirass. Exactly how the kusazuri were secured to the cuirass, however, is unclear. Sturdy waist-belt-like cords were more than likely used for this purpose but buckles and other methods may have also been employed.
A 5th century tankō with a lamellar kusazuri; the lamellae were loosely laced, in order to facilitate leg movements, and they were made of iron.
A modern museum replica with gold leaf applied.
It is also possible that said armor had an internal liner; while no example has survived to prove their existence, it is possible that in some cases panels of leather were stretched across the inner surfaces of the cuirass to create a liner, or urabari (裏張り). The urabari, which literally translates as ‘back applied’, may have been secured in place by having its outer edges folded over onto the exterior surface of the cuirass along the entire outer-edge length of the dō. The leather panels would then be bound in place with leather thongs that would be threaded through a series of holes punched at regular intervals around the outer edges of the cuirass. Fastening the leather sections in this manner created a liner while it also simultaneously capped the rough outer edges of the cuirass. This would have made the armor much more comfortable to wear, so it likely that such features were used especially since said armor was worn by the upper class.
A full tankō replica with all of its components.
The aforementioned design; it is quite possible that such kusazuri never existed and was actually the byproduct of artistic license.
Most examples of kusazuri appear to have been assembled using several wide strips of leather. These vertically arranged strips were positioned at regularly spaced intervals around the inside surfaces of the skirt hoops. The strips were made long enough to let the majority of the surface area of each band show as it hung over and past the plate immediately above it in the descending order of the telescoping skirt. The bands appear to have been initially secured to the support straps by leather thongs, though in the case of some later examples they may have been riveted in position.
Another speculative method of securing the bands of the kusazuri together is based on designs seen on some examples of bushi-haniwa that appear to show the horizontal lames of the skirt being secured together by large triangular panels of leather that were affixed to the façade of the kusazuri, although there are no archaeological evidences to support this.
Hip armour assembled from three or four suspended pendant-like lamellar sections was also introduced, but only after lamellar armor started to become common in Japan around the middle of the 5th century. Based on the limited number of kusazuri that have been recovered, it appears that they were designed to be worn over the top of the cuirass. Exactly how the kusazuri were secured to the cuirass, however, is unclear. Sturdy waist-belt-like cords were more than likely used for this purpose but buckles and other methods may have also been employed.
A 5th century tankō with a lamellar kusazuri; the lamellae were loosely laced, in order to facilitate leg movements, and they were made of iron.
A full tankō suits with all of its components offered a very high degree of body coverage for the time period, and the fact that it was made by several sturdy and rigid plates increased severely the quality of the protections against any type of battlefield's threats.
It is often compared to the Roman lorica segmentata because the two suits indeed look fairly similar.
As any types of armor used in Japan, these cuirasses were lacquered; several recovered items of armor confirm that gold leaf was sometimes applied to the façades of the armor worn by elite members of Yamato society, and usually modern day replica tend to render the lacquer as black.
As any types of armor used in Japan, these cuirasses were lacquered; several recovered items of armor confirm that gold leaf was sometimes applied to the façades of the armor worn by elite members of Yamato society, and usually modern day replica tend to render the lacquer as black.
A modern museum replica with gold leaf applied.
It is also possible that said armor had an internal liner; while no example has survived to prove their existence, it is possible that in some cases panels of leather were stretched across the inner surfaces of the cuirass to create a liner, or urabari (裏張り). The urabari, which literally translates as ‘back applied’, may have been secured in place by having its outer edges folded over onto the exterior surface of the cuirass along the entire outer-edge length of the dō. The leather panels would then be bound in place with leather thongs that would be threaded through a series of holes punched at regular intervals around the outer edges of the cuirass. Fastening the leather sections in this manner created a liner while it also simultaneously capped the rough outer edges of the cuirass. This would have made the armor much more comfortable to wear, so it likely that such features were used especially since said armor was worn by the upper class.
A full tankō replica with all of its components.
What it's puzzling is the fact that by the beginning of the 6th century, tankō production ended abruptly, with auxiliary pieces such as the kusazuri and the shoulder guards being replaced by lamellar components, and then the with complete adoption of lamellar armor for the body, although it is very likely that tankō suits were still worn up until the 7th century.
It is easy to see why laminar armor production stopped so quickly: because the production was centralized in the capital as far as we know, and so once the decision was taken, the process was quite easy to stop since it was all located in one place.
However, we do not know why such decision was taken, especially since we know that by the 3rd century the Japanese already knew lamellar armor; still, there are several theories.
One of this theories, which sadly is one of the most accepted, is that such rigid cuirasses weren't well suited for the needs of mounted warriors. This is simply untrue since it ignores completely the European tradition of 15th century knight as well as the Japanese ones of the 16th century, a period in which rigid plates cuirasses were developed once again in Japan. Instead, it is very likely that such armor was worn on horseback as well.
Another theory states that the adoption of lamellar in lieu of the laminar plates was dictated by fashion. As crazy as it might be, armor and fashion were strictly connected in these societies; this theory was given added credence in 2013 by a discovery made during the archaeological excavations at the Kanai Higashiura site in Gunma Prefecture, where a small rectangular panel of lamellar armor assembled from sane carved from animal bones was unearthed.
The smooth, polished appearance of the bone scales, which are believed to date from the late 5th or early 6th century, suggests that they were worn for aesthetic or ceremonial purposes and that they were not intended to be used as protective armor. This would be in keeping with the idea that lamellar armor was associated with the elevated status of the elite within Yamato society.
So it might be that fashion played a part, as well as other factors.
In fact, I don't think there was only one driving factor to support such change; while it's true that lamellar is much more comfortable to wear on horseback and that we know that such armor was associated with the upper echelons culture, there is more.
First of all, the cost associated with laminar cuirasses is often overlooked, but given the level of technology of 5th and 6th century Japan, while creating medium size plates was something achievable, it was costly.
These plates wouldn't have been of the same quality of the ones used to assemble 15th and 16th century Japanese armor, because we know that the technology associated with iron and steel evolved throughout Japanese history.
It is in fact quite possible that tankō armors weren't much better compared to lamellar ones when it comes to stopping arrows or spears, mainly due to the quality of the plates.
Moreover, forging a tankō cuirass would have been incredibly harder to do compared to assembling a lamellar suit, since the latter didn't need to be tailored to properly work (although such suits were more often than not tailored too, still the process of tailoring lamellar was incredibly easier compared to the ones used with the tankō).
All things considered, this style of armor was abandoned due to the cost and the skill required to create it, the effectiveness of lamellar as well as its cultural importance.
Despite this, tankō suits are a symbol of the Japanese warriors of the Kofun period.
However, we do not know why such decision was taken, especially since we know that by the 3rd century the Japanese already knew lamellar armor; still, there are several theories.
One of this theories, which sadly is one of the most accepted, is that such rigid cuirasses weren't well suited for the needs of mounted warriors. This is simply untrue since it ignores completely the European tradition of 15th century knight as well as the Japanese ones of the 16th century, a period in which rigid plates cuirasses were developed once again in Japan. Instead, it is very likely that such armor was worn on horseback as well.
Another theory states that the adoption of lamellar in lieu of the laminar plates was dictated by fashion. As crazy as it might be, armor and fashion were strictly connected in these societies; this theory was given added credence in 2013 by a discovery made during the archaeological excavations at the Kanai Higashiura site in Gunma Prefecture, where a small rectangular panel of lamellar armor assembled from sane carved from animal bones was unearthed.
The smooth, polished appearance of the bone scales, which are believed to date from the late 5th or early 6th century, suggests that they were worn for aesthetic or ceremonial purposes and that they were not intended to be used as protective armor. This would be in keeping with the idea that lamellar armor was associated with the elevated status of the elite within Yamato society.
So it might be that fashion played a part, as well as other factors.
In fact, I don't think there was only one driving factor to support such change; while it's true that lamellar is much more comfortable to wear on horseback and that we know that such armor was associated with the upper echelons culture, there is more.
First of all, the cost associated with laminar cuirasses is often overlooked, but given the level of technology of 5th and 6th century Japan, while creating medium size plates was something achievable, it was costly.
These plates wouldn't have been of the same quality of the ones used to assemble 15th and 16th century Japanese armor, because we know that the technology associated with iron and steel evolved throughout Japanese history.
It is in fact quite possible that tankō armors weren't much better compared to lamellar ones when it comes to stopping arrows or spears, mainly due to the quality of the plates.
Moreover, forging a tankō cuirass would have been incredibly harder to do compared to assembling a lamellar suit, since the latter didn't need to be tailored to properly work (although such suits were more often than not tailored too, still the process of tailoring lamellar was incredibly easier compared to the ones used with the tankō).
All things considered, this style of armor was abandoned due to the cost and the skill required to create it, the effectiveness of lamellar as well as its cultural importance.
Despite this, tankō suits are a symbol of the Japanese warriors of the Kofun period.
As I have written above, this article was made possible by the incredible book of Mr. Trevor Absolon, "Samurai Armour: Volume I: The Japanese Cuirass: 1, (General Military), Bloomsbury Publishing", please consider buying his book to increase your knowledge on Japanese armor.
Feel free to share this article if you liked and for any question, don't hesitate to leave a comment!
Gunbai
An amazing article!
ReplyDeleteThere is very little info on the Tanko armor. And a lot of disinformation, as always ...
I find it incredible to see how defensive a tanko suit could be.
I feel a little stupid, because I really believed in the moment the matter of the supposed inconvenience to use it on horseback ... and I did not take into account the plate armor.
I suppose that the disappearance of the tanko was due to reasons similar to the disappearance of the lorica segmentata. They are very similar armor in addition.
Iron mountain armory has a reproduction of a tanko. I do not know how good it is, but I like to see that there are reproductions of such old armor.
Obviously, I can not leave without asking things that have nothing to do with the article.
Are you going to talk about the invasions of the Mongols and how the typhoons were not decisive? It is a topic that makes my hair stand on end when many idiots on the internet use the subject of kamikaze to "demonstrate" the inferiority of Japanese tactics and weapons compared to the rest of the world.
Oh, and also ... will you talk about the samurai women? Onna-Bushi I think it's the right term. I guess they were not so common, but hey, there's Tomoe Gozen. I also remember hearing that it is said that Uesugi Kenshin could be a woman ... a simple myth, but for some reason I love the idea.
Thank you so much! I'm glad you liked it. Actually, although to me it is very weird, a lot of people believes that this style of armor wasn't comfortable on horseback - despite plenty of counter evidences.
DeleteAbout IMA tanko armor, I've seen some pics on their website - I have to say that's not a tanko :'D. It is essentially a "reskin" of their usual products, in particular the helmets, the pauldrons and the tassets are the ones used in their 16th century sets. I don't even know if the armor has a frontal opening - as it is supposed to have! Their armguards are very cheap... probably the worst product they have in their inventory.
I'm currently working on a big project on the mongol invasions - I want to cover all the arms&armors aspects of that period and then do a series of article about the invasions; I'm planning to write it when Ghost of Tsushima will came out.
I might also do an article on the onna bugeisha, although I did some researches previously since I was requested but I didn't find enough materials to make an article.
Unfortunately, Samurai women are highly romanticized and the reality is quite different; like many cultures in that period, warfare was men's business and unfortunately, probably due to Confucianism, Japan back then was quite sexist by modern day standard. However, there is at least one istance of Japanese women fighting during the civil war in the 1850s. That's usually beyond my period of research but I might look into it and see what I can get!
It's a shame that the IMA Tanko is not a good reproduction. I think Tanko is one of the more underapreciated armors in history...
DeleteI was already aware of the romatization of the Onna-Bugeisha, and also I know about the women fighting in the Civil War. I was really talking about Tomoe Gozen XD. An article about her would be really interesting!
Talking again about the Tanko, I really find this armor very similar to the Lorica Segmentata. It's curious, they were the "grandfathers" of plate armor in their respective lands, and both were forgoted or discarded in favor of more "simple" designs (if you call simple lamellar or mail). I really don't remember, but I think that the Segmentata has little or none presence in the cavalry of the Roman Empire. It seems that this early forms of plate armor were more used by infantry. I really don't know...
Yes indeed, but I have to say that the pre-Samurai era itself get very few attentions in the West.
DeleteI will write an article about Tomoe in the future then!
Tanko it is quite similar to the Lorica Segmentata, and I often think the same when it comes to plate armor development in Japan and in Europe! They both have a similar history too as you said.
About tanko on horseback, we are quite sure that it was used in conjuction with horses due to the elite nature of the armor, although it is quite possible that the kusazuri was somewhat reduced or discarder due to the saddle.
Nice article, yours is probably the most complete in English I have ever read about Kofun armor and it is very detailed too.
ReplyDeleteWould you make a sketch of a fully armored Kofun warrior?
In my opinion, there is something that really changed in Japanese armor making from the early Heian Period. For example, Keiko lamellar armor have plates made in different shapes for different places, while the Do-maru have the same plate for all part of the body.
Thank you!
DeleteThis article was quite easy to write thanks to the book of Mr. Absolon, which is probably the most complete on the subject of pre Samurai armor.
A sketch of tanko is a good idea! I will add it in the following week.
About Keiko, in my opinion there was a de-centralization of armor making during the Heian period, and so the process of making armor started to simply itself.
Then there was the introduction of lacquering stiffening - with that you can create shapes out of lamellar boards, and you don't need many different lamellar designs.
I think that cost efficiency plus lacquer stiffening were the driving factors here.
I am curious in how Trevor Absolon gather his info on Kofun armor, probably from archeological sites.
ReplyDeleteI am currently trying to gather all the possible Kofun armor to make a complete suit.
There are certainly many variation on the Tanko and Keiko like the type with stiff neck armor.
http://kamome-blog.com/2018/04/08/mihara-museum-of-history/
http://kamome-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/c6da04e0b62a291dd539ed764ae96bb9.jpg
I would think that an ideal combination would be these.
https://dominiqueartis.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/dsc_7669.jpg
with lamellar arm armor
https://www.orjach.org/wp-content/uploads/Fig152.jpg
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*slYTQIAi6Y_zY-OwRWsLeg.jpeg
with neck armor
https://esacademic.com/pictures/eswiki/70/FunazukaKofunHaniwaSoldier.jpg
https://img.kaikai.ch/img/49169/43/3
It is interesting to see that vambrace and arm armor is very widely depicted in Haniwa. Not much armor of this time period in other areas have vambrace.
The Kofun Period probably show the earliest example of steel vambrace in the world.
http://kokutenkyou.up.seesaa.net/image/kote01.JPG
I don't know how the Kofun lamellar manica and vambrace interact when worn.
It is interesting that in most culture when they wear manica, vambrace is usually left out and vice versa, when they wear vambrace, manica is not worn underneath the vambrace.
There is one Chinese painting showing tubular laminar sleeve ending at the elbow and the rest of the forearm covered with plate vambrace.
There is only one exception to this trend, Mughal armor.
This one is from 1590-1595.
https://hkeshani.github.io/darc/akbarnama/assets/images/akbarnama25.jpg
Look at the the bottom left 2 figures.
The figure on the above wear just a manica and the one directly below him wear vambrace over the manica.
I think there is nothing restricting the Kofun in wearing both like this.
He probably used a lot of Japanese books as well.
DeleteIf you are interested in this period, there is a Japanese researcher that I follow who has a website and he have few handmade high end quality replicas of these styles of armor:
http://kokutenkyou.seesaa.net/
I believe that neck portion was a Korean feature which was later discarded in favor of the akabe yoroi, which is the gorget associated with tanko armor. I say this because akabe yoroi seem to cover both the front as well as the back and wearing one of this with that kind of protrusion on the back of neck might be awkward.
As far as I know, lamellar arm armor was adopted once the keiko replaced tanko, with earlier armors having plate vambraces.
Unfortunately, while we have physical evidences of those vambraces, we do not (afaik) have them of lamellar arm armors and so we enter the realm of speculation.
Modern reconstructions tend to have a lamellar katayoroi (tubular shoulder/ upper arm armor) with a separate lamellar vambrace, instead of one single lamellar arm piece:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f3/1a/88/f31a88d69a2b4a9612dc8b6f9b943910.jpg
Even if we look at the haniwa depicting this style of armor, there is a gap at the height of the shoulder, so it might be a separate piece indeed. Sadly, we lack other info on this style.
In any case I think that either a lamellar vambrace or a plate one would be used, not a combination of the two. The kata yoroi could vary in length, some covers only the shoulders, others could reach the elbow. A combination of kata yoroi + vambrace could potentially cover entirely the area of the arms without imposing restrictions on the inside of the elbow, something that a lamellar manica could do.
But to be honest, I'm not very confident on Japanese arm armors of this period; I'll wait the next book of Trevor Absolon which will deal with those pieces!
I believe that whatever the Japanese wear at this time, it is highly developed and sophisticated.
DeleteThat high collar seem to be worn on a Keiko which would mean it come later than the Tanko. Rigid collar and Guruwa neck armor exist for Tanko as well.
Didn't the Keiko and Tanko used side by side for a period? The Haniwa seems to come from the same period while depicting both Tanko and Keiko.
Also where do they get the lamellar sleeve from?
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f3/1a/88/f31a88d69a2b4a9612dc8b6f9b943910.jpg
On lamellar manica, manica on the Roman Empire is also a separate piece of armor unattached to torso armor. I believe the gap is caused by the short upper arm armor. If it is worn with the sleeved Keiko, it would provide complete protection to the arm.
Also what I mean with wearing vambrace with lamellar manica is wearing the vambrace to protect the forearm, while the rest of the arm is covered by lamellar attached to edge of the vambrace or the vambrace is worn over the lamellar manica. See the Mughal example.
Do you have a photo of Kofun plate greave?
DeleteSo far the only armor I found is lamellar.
About manica, either from lamellar or laminar, my opinion is that it probably wouldn't restrict the inside of the arm.
If you measured the time it was worn without interruption, you would actually get 1400 years, from 300s BC Khwarezm to 1000s China. During those period, they can be depicted as worn by archers, so I guess it is not something that really restrict the arm or that complex to make.
The manica continued to be worn from 1400s Timurid Empire to 1600s China.
So all in all, it is maybe worn for 1600-1700 years in Asia, it is the same length as mail armor being worn on its own in Europe. I doubt that they would be worn for that length of time, if it is restrictive on the arm.
I am interested if the Japanese have different from of Tanko other than the one that used horizontal strips, but used at the late Kofun Period.
That's very true, Japanese armor was very sophisticated.
DeleteAlso what I was talking about by high collar is usually seen on Korean and early version of the tanko; it was probably replaced by the gorget called akabeyoroi.
It is true as well that tanko and keiko were used togheter for a period of time since keiko appeared around the 5th century.
For that lamellar kata-yoroi, I believe that there is either some findings or some sources mentioning it because I have already seen it. Similar design existed as well in China.
About the manica, many designs, especially the Chinese ones, don't cover the inside of the arm but only the outside. In this way, you do not get arm movement hindrances.
In any case, we don't have evidences of lamellar manica in Japan except that haniwa, which may simply depict a lamellar version of plate the vambrace, since we have some degree of evidences of this type of armor (by the 7th century, every plate armor component was almost entirely replaced by a lamellar version - from the shoulder guards to the greaves.
And speaking of greaves, apparently during the heyday of tanko, a simple plate worn over the shin was used. It didn't cover much of the side nor the back of the leg, it was essentially only a frontal plate. Additionally, a back plate might have been used too; here are some pictures of a modern replica:
http://blog-imgs-73.fc2.com/b/e/t/betaneta/tateDSC02121_convert_20150215232252.jpg
http://blog-imgs-73.fc2.com/b/e/t/betaneta/tateDSC02124_convert_20150215232400.jpg
Also another picture that might help you to visualize the various style of tanko used in Japan:
https://blog-001.west.edge.storage-yahoo.jp/res/blog-1d-f9/tyokkomon/folder/1269985/02/40105902/img_1_m?1442323060
Will you do an article on the transition from Keiko to O-yoroi or is it already covered in the O-yoroi article?
DeleteThe change to the characteristic Japanese armor is not just the O-yoroi, it is the whole set that change.
I noticed that many Kote depicted in Kamakura Period only have solid plate on the forearm and no plate on the upper arm. I think that those are remnant of the vambrace. Is there research on why the Japanese choose such armor when the previous Keiko should suffice for mounted archery?
I find the Japanese unique in this in that they are the only one who try optimizing horse archery to such degree.
The transition from Nanbokucho armor to Tosei Gusoku in the Sengoku Period seems to retain the same style and look, but updated.
Also about manica, I don't think that there would be a complete remnant of lamellar manica. Since it is lamellar, they would break apart and be unrecognizable as the body armor unlike laminar ones.
Manica with full arm protection seems to appear more than the one that cover halfway. However, in number produced, the partial manica would probably produced more during the Ming and Qing.
From what I know, laminar manica that cover halfway is only commonly shown from Roman manica excavation (the one in carving is full coverage and even have laminar gauntlets integrated) and Ming-Qing manica (even then there are at least a statue from that period showing full coverage with armor mitten integrated into the manica). The rest of manicas from all period, even the earliest finding, seems to be full coverage.
My point is that reduction in coverage is not to increase mobility, but probably to reduce cost and weight. Such reduced area would also be less unlikely to be attacked.
About the transition from keiko to oyoroi (in terms of cuirasses), everything I know was written in my oyoroi article; but if you have any question that you think I didn't cover there feel free to ask! Maybe I can find something more to add.
DeleteAlso yes there were quite few changes, like the introduction of osode, the wakidate, new ways of making lamellar and so on.
About the kote, we are not very sure on how they look like up until the 13th century. There are no findings and almost no depictions, so a lot of what we know is speculation. Anyway, it is assumed that the kote of this period had no plates on the upper arm, and this was probably due to osode being used.
By the way, keiko and oyoroi are very very similar; in fact if you look at the later version of the keiko (the uchikake keiko), you can see the similarities. Probably this style of armor was popular because it was effective for horseback archery, easy to make and repair and so on.
It is also true that armor development from the Nanbokucho to the Sengoku is more linear and similar, if you will.
About the lamellar, we have findings of other components like shoulder armor, gorget, but we don't have it for a manica. This is why in my opinion that haniwa is depicting a vambrace rather than a full manica.
Moreover, I'm not familiar with manica style of armor, but if you start to add rigid material in the area that connect the upper arms with the lower ones, you will have a restriction of the movement, because you will have too much material there. To give you an example, even mail which is fairly flexible, restrict the flexion of the arm. With smaller plates telescoping into each other I think it could be even worse.
Not to say that you won't move the arm, but archery might be hard with that kind of arm. This is why in my opinion Chinese arm armor usually didn't cover that area, although cost and weight played a part too.
In any case, I've never seen the hyphothesis of lamellar manica being used in Japan; the arm armor usually associated with Kofun period is a laminar/lamellar pauldron that could extend past the elbow worn in conjuction with vambraces. This is the common depictions you could see in museum replica and books, as far as I am aware.
About Heian and Kamakura Period,
Deletehow good is the Ban Dainagon Ekotoba as historical source for Heian armor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Dainagon_Ekotoba
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ban_Dainagon_Ekotoba
There is some in French that it is painted by Tokiwa Mitsunaga who is active 1158-1179.
Otherwise, I don't know older pictures.
About manica and lamellar armor,
I just thought that it act like the lame on the inside of the arm like in 16th century European armor. Maybe it is just bias, but I had always assume that every armor design must be practical and fully functional, otherwise they would not be used.
Your opinion is true though, that many Asian armor when not using manica or mail, almost always left the elbow joint free from armor, probably because of the prevalence of archery.
Maybe we should wait more to see if new Kofun armor could be found in new excavation. From what I know that 2 haniwa come from the same region. I forgot the name.
The Ban Dainagon Ekotoba is not bad, but it's medieval art and we should always be cautios with it. It should depict events from the 9th century, but it is likely that the armor depicted there are from the 12th century. Unfortunatelt it doesn't have a good amount of details too.
DeleteOther 12th century illustrations that depict armor are the kokawadera engi emaki (粉河寺縁起絵巻) and the shogunzuka engi emaki (将軍塚縁起絵巻).
However, the problem is that we don't have, as far as I know, earlier depictions. So we only have a partial picture of late Heian period armor, but not much of the 9th-11th century.
Well don't get me wrong, the manica is fully functional. Otherwise it wouldn't have been used; my point is that while it offered great protection, it limited a little more than other armor the flexion of the arm, which means a no-no for archery most of the time. We have to consider that armor is also a matter of personal preference, thus a warrior might have been more keen on something that didn't restrict archery, if archery within that context was extremely important.
In any case, we will wait if something new would be found.
For example, a kote from the 15th century was excavated nearby Kamakura, and it had nanban kusari on it; this challenges the official version that this style of mail was introduced by the Europeans.
If 12th century depiction is rare and previous one is pretty much non-existent, why do I often hear that by 10th century Japanese equipment have changed to the iconic O-yoroi and so on?
DeleteI also heard that there is some O-yoroi from the 10th-11th century that survive in temple.
I also agree with your opinion on the manica. Sometimes people don't know how much arm maneuverability was needed when loosing arrow on horseback rapidly.
But I think that the manica is rather rare in modern reconstruction than European plate armor and I feel that there is not enough modern experience on how a full coverage manica perform in melee and archery.
About new things found in arms and armor history,
I think those 2 Haniwa is not something you would find in modern depiction seeing that one of them have a sword with handguard. Isn't there is a lot of 1-2 object that is not depicted even in modern Japanese depiction?
The problem is that we don't know if that 1-2 object is common or just an exception. Going by the common logic, the Edo armors would be an accurate depiction of Japanese armor making because it is the most easily found historical armor in Japan. I mean the Parthian and Sassanid cataphract were employed for 400 years each, but as far as I know there is no full Parthian or Sassanid armor found. China, the various Caliphate, and Byzantium are a few example of this, each being large empire with a lack of excavated equipment.
That 15th century kote is interesting, do you have the link to the picture?
I am not surprised that the Japanese either import or made European weave mail by themselves before European arrival. I guess you read the various thread in Myarmory arguing that the Japanese never or cannot made riveted mail.
As always, you raised very good and legitimate questions! I should have been more specific, my comment was towards auxiliary armors like kote, sode and suneate. As far as helmets and cuirasses are concerned, there are more references. In fact as you noted there is an Oyoroi preserved which is dated 10th century or 11th century ( I can't remember with precision). With it, we can do an educated guess on the development of the Oyoroi - because we are not entirely sure of its age nor how much it was altered from its original look.
DeleteOn the other hand however, we lack the same reference for limbs armor ( the introduction of osode is pretty much pure speculation for example).
You are also right about manica, I don't know if there are good quality replicas. I know that there is a group of reenactors that is specialized in Sasanid Empire and they also have manica armors.
I understand your points; when it comes to armor, it is possible to think that usually, 1 or 2 surviving elements are enough to assert that the element existed but also that it wasn't common at all. If it was more common, you would have more references to it, not only in findings but in description, iconography and other sources.
Also, that kind of handguard have actual references in Kofun period Japan, although it was a ceremonial one:
http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/takamimusuhinokami/imgs/8/3/831d8a34.JPG
http://museum.isejingu.or.jp/imgs/cms_event/761b1ow8/761b1ow8-68d_r.JPG
I'm pretty sure that is the same of the haniwa because you can see something resembling a series of smal bells on it.
About that kote, this is the picture:
https://pin.it/4pe4oe6hjn4jmg
Unfortunately I wasn't able to find out if it was riveted or not, but it is clearly a 4 in 1 EU wave.
Thank you for the 15th century kote picture. It is interesting to see a rarely surviving piece of Japanese armor from the 15th century.
DeleteDo you know of this Nanbokucho Kote?
https://www.niwaka.com/wabori/img/mp/large/033_02.jpg
Do you mean Eran ud Turan with Sassanid reenactment group? Yes, they are currently the only group who reenact Sassanid and Sogdian culture.
This is the manica they use for Sassanid armor.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dx6dmskXQAAN5Mm.jpg
As we can see, it is still not full enclosing. The other group that use manica frequently is the Roman reenactment groups.
I found this short article. What do you think of it? It state that the Keiko is already fell out of use during the 8th century.
https://www.nihonto.com/a-brief-history-of-japanese-armor/
But it also state that state produced armor exist in 8th-9th century, I guees that would be the Men'ocho armor.
By the way, I think this modern replica show what a full Keiko armor would look like.
https://snapmart.jp/photos/1066103
So now we have 1 Kote from the Kamakura, Nanbokucho and 15th century Muromachi Period. It is easier to reconstruct what 14th-15th century Samurai wear. It seems that solid plate was used in Kote until after 1550.
DeleteAbout Sode, at least we know that they already appear in the 12th century through scrolls like Ban Dainagon Ekotoba.
It is surprising that finding info on Japanese armor in some period could be harder than Chinese armor in their obscure period.
Mainly because of the amount of depiction in China as compared to Japan and depiction that are less prone to archaic depiction.
About obscure period, while we know the shift from lamellar to laminar happen in the 15th-early 16th century, the detail are rather hard to study.
Why is armor from 1500-1550 much rarer than those from 1550-1600?
I know that you are currently researching Mongol invasion of Japan.
While I have lightly read on Mongol invasion of the Sakhalin, I did not realize how dynamic the interaction of the Siberian people, Ainu, Japanese, Jurchen/Manchu, Chinese and Mongol in the Sakhalin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Sakhalin
It seems that the Ainu are quite capable to at least fight both the Mongol and Japanese for a while.
You are welcome! The dating of that kote is early 15th century although that kind of style was already depicted in 13th and 14th century scroll. So it might be even an earlier design (much like Visby armor). In fact by the late 14th/early 15th century you can expect to see thumb protection on the teko.
DeleteI've already seen that 14th century kote; indeed it was a fairly common design seen in medieval Japanese armor, with two plates on the arm and one on the hand. It is usally called yoshitsune kote.
Kote design stayed pretty much very uniform through the ages. You start to have tsubo kote and shino at least since the 13th century, and then in the 16th you get new design as well like koshino kote and odagote.
The main difference is the mail, the shape and style of the plates and the teko.
I will make article about that for sure discussing the various styles and design.
What changes through the ages was usually the style and the overall appearence.
Early 15th century kote would have been quite similar to late 14th ones while late 15th ones more akin to early-mid 16th century.
Yes that's the name of the group! Isn't that a leg style manica armor? In any case you can see that it is not fully enclosed and that in the knee region there is a cap rather than lames. This might speak for itself when it comes to mobility (and comfort) of that kind of lames.
About that article, it isn't necessarily a bad one but as soon as someone start to reduce the information for the sake of article's lenght, he is going to omitt a lot.
Keiko was used until it evolved, if you will, into the oyoroi. So it was used pretty much until the 10th century, but again it wasn't just dropped in favor of another new style, keiko is just the predecessor of the oyoroi.
Also, those are modern replica of an actual haniwa found nearby Osaka so yes, that's how a full set of keiko looked like in the 5th-7th century and possibly even further.
Plates on the upper arm like those on the forearm where always present even on later period kote, but they were usually either segmented or smaller. Tsubo style plates that encase the arm of larger plates were rare on that area of the arm probably because from the mid to late 14th century, sode starter to act as pauldrons with new curved design like tsubo sode and tosei sode. With that armor piece, the presence of additional armor on the arm would have been too much.
Armor from the 1500-1550 is harder to find because of the Sengoku period. A lot of warfare was going on, and old suits were constantly recycled into new one, others were simply destroyed. If you think about the fact that both the original Azuchi castle and Osaka castle were lost due to war and destruction, it is not hard to immagine how much armor was neglected and/or lost.
Later suits are also rare, but the shape and style was preserved thanks to Edo period replicas.
Anyway, it wasn't drammatically different from late 15th and late 16th century, you could expect a mix essentially.
I might discuss this in the future, if I find enough references and material to make an article.
But again in that time period you will have do maru, mogami do, nuinobe do, and by the 1530s early version of the okegawa do.
About Sakhalin, that's quite new to me too! I haven't look into Ainu history and culture yet. However I'm not impressed to see the Mongols failure in the early attempts, that kind of terrain and climate is verg very hard for an invading army and the native have a massive advantage; but it was an impressive feat nevertheless! I might look into in the future, it seems quite interesting.
Thank you, your reply is very informative.
DeleteI found modern pictures of Men'ocho armor.
https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0273/42/1379756697493.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ee/2d/0b/ee2d0be3bb773682799c4d2b4d4eb680.png
How do they reconstruct it, if there is only textual evidence?
Is Nara Period the only time state army and state produced equipment was in use?
We know the Keiko turn into the O-yoroi, what happen to the Men'ocho?
For modern reenactment of manica, I think this 1st century Gladiator relief show an ideal form.
For arm:
https://i1.wp.com/www.thewanderingchickpea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DSC_4556.jpeg?resize=683%2C1024
For leg combine with greave:
https://i0.wp.com/www.thewanderingchickpea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DSC_4559.jpeg?resize=683%2C1024
Back of thigh:
https://i0.wp.com/www.thewanderingchickpea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DSC_4557.jpeg?resize=1100%2C733
About Ainu, do they have decent metalworking?
From internet pictures, their armor cover much of the body like Siberian armor, but is it metal?
You are welcome!
DeleteAbout Men'ochu, I think that some kind of description was available and it is assumed that looked like this mainly because there was a similar type of armor in Tang China, but we aren't sure it looked like this at all. It's a very speculative design.
Also we know that armor production with tanko and keiko was centralized, but it was mainly during the imperial age period that a state army was a thing, so yes pretty much after the Ritsuryo system was implemented. But I'm quite sure that every man had to acquire its gear, so the state didn't issue armors.
Men'ochu armors were discarded after the rise of the Samurai mainly because it was an armor made for poor soldiers that were conscripted into the army. After this period, war was a business of noblemen and their direct retainers, so lamellar was used in lieu of that kind of gambeson because it was more protective.
Nice pictures of Roman manica!
Ainu did have some metallurgy skill, that's for sure. Being lamellar, their armor could be either rawhide or iron, or a combination of the two. The style is very similar to keiko too. You can also find swords and axes in Ainu culture as well, but since I haven't seen metallurgical papers discussing their tools I can't say if it was good or not. But we can assume that it was good enough and on average as good as the ones used by other people living in that kind of region, from Hokkaido to Siberia.
So the Men'ochu armor are worn alongside the Keiko and early O-yoroi?
DeleteAlso the previous article I linked to you said something about Tameshi that is an official pattern of armor from the central government that must be produced and then sent to the capital. Could there be another official pattern other than the Men'ochu?
I think this period is another experimentation that bridge the Tanko-Keiko design to the O-yoroi. Then again the Nara period is very rarely mentioned when talking about Japanese military.
I show that manica picture to show you how intricate armor could be even in the 1st century AD. While we could say that is just how the manica is depicted, the consistency of full tubular manica probably mean it is a proven design. We just have to test it for archer.
That is actually my main concern with modern reenactment armor, most of it especially non-European reenactment look to open. Many historical armor actually look overly complex and enclosing, yet they are still worn that mean those design work. I mean just look what armor Tobias Capwell wear with the normal modern knight replica armor.
https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/2338f1c/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1376x2048+0+0/resize/840x1250!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fca-times.brightspotcdn.com%2F02%2F35%2F34821ee811318a67db7911be5830%2Fla-la-oe-capwell-jpg-20150324
https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0383/38/1424995188595.jpg
That's the thing with Japanese armor, the few things we have now is mostly from 17th century forward, then people will naturally regard those as the Japanese worn in combat several centuries before.
In your opinion how far have we come in discovering all type of Kofun armor?
By the way, remember that discussion we have of non-European solid cuirass outside of India and Japan, I got these 2 cuirass.
This one is supposedly 18th century Ottoman. I have doubt though, since similar cuirass sometimes appear as modern replica.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ea/1c/7e/ea1c7eb85c0b255f3adae38bbbd4405a.jpg
This one is real 17th century Persian cuirass. It is stored in the Victoria & Albert Museum.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/df/62/9e/df629e4865e40b3c2c4fb8a1ac26cdd6.jpg
I am also currently researching Yuan Dynasty armor, it could turn to be treasure trove of previously not seen Chinese armor. However my research time period is after the Mongol Invasion of Japan, you would be probably interested on several depiction of what look like solid plate cuirass.
While armor in 14th century Japan could at least be examine with a few examples, late 13th and 14th century is a very obscure period for Chinese armor as many depiction show the usual Song style armor, while others show a modified style of armor, even stranger is the physical find and textual evidence.
My opinion is that the traditional Chinese armor is still worn and still progressing, while foreign auxiliaries brought their own armor. In addition, the Mongol probably create their own armor and develop it in different lines to the Chinese style.
Right now the best source for Yuan Mongol armor is the Japanese invasion scroll. It show a manica being worn there, by complete chance I found a Yuan soldier tombstone showing what looks like manica too. At the same period, Korean painting also show manica.
However all of those could be worn at the same time anyway since the Mongol Empire is so vast, Mongols in different places could develop different equipment and bring it to the other Mongol khanate.
Possible use of manica in the Yuan Dynasty and Korea:
Deletesoldier on the front of the boat on the farthest left
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Takezaki_suenaga_ekotoba_2-2.jpg
Yuan soldier tombstone
https://i2.kknews.cc/SIG=nnr3vb/1p6500055r26s7s4r7q9.jpg
Korea Goryeo 13-14th century painting
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/J42PAA/korea-goryeo-hwaeomgyeongbyeonsangdo-d9-J42PAA.jpg
For Yuan Dynasty or early Ming torso plate armor:
Yuan Dynasty 1271-1358:
http://5b0988e595225.cdn.sohucs.com/images/20180128/149a197bf4784d88b28d7855ca3c3177.jpg
Ming Dynasty 1385:
http://hzimg.guwanch.com/coms.zhangyan.com/capture/331d284f8d7e488bad27a5569ebff21d.jpg
The figure on the leftmost and rightmost seems to wear completely rigid armor.
Yes the men'ochu was worn along the forms of keiko, although it was mainly a poor soldier armor.
DeleteAlso I have to double check that thing about Tameshi which simply means "proofed" in Japanese, but afaik there is a passage in the risturyo code that states that every men has to buy armor from themselves. So while armor might have been produced by the Imperial office it wasn't issued directly, I'm quite sure on that.
Also I'm pretty sure that you can have that kind of fully enclosig manica, but it would be kinda awkard to wear, and comfort is an important personal aspect when someone has to wear armor for longer periods.
In my opinion we haven't find all the Kofun armors available but there is quite a significative number to draw the conclusion that there isn't anything totally new to see.
Cool cuirasses! I also know that there is a Tibetan armor made of one piece although I don't know if it's iron or not.
Also I can't help with Chinese armor, you should go to GreatMingMilitary because he is way more knowledgeable than me in this topic ;)
However, as far as the Moko Shurai Ekotoba is concerned, it is believed that the armors depicted is either lamellar, brigandines or padded armor. I will briefly talk about this in the future article about the mongol invasion.
Moreover, those arms armor might be manica since it is found in the following Ming dynasty, but it could also be some type of padded armor as well. It is hard to tell without extremely detailed pictures.
Also, usually when considering Chinese armors, afaik a lot of design that are usually depicted could be ceremonial or fantasy especially when mystical creatures are involved. In any case those torso armors looks like mirror plates, which were commonly used when depicting religious elements.
Thank you for you reply.
DeleteWould you write a Keiko article after this?
There is this photo of leather padding for Tanko.
http://kamome-blog.com/2018/04/08/mihara-museum-of-history/
Do you know why some Tanko is constructed with large wing plate?
About the Tibetan armor, do you have the picture?
I have photos of 2 cuirass supposedly Tibetan, but it cannot be traced back with Google.
Currently I'm doing some research on early Japanese curved swords, but I had to slow down a lot because I'm in the process of moving house. This is also why I reply with some delay as well.
DeleteBut I will write an article about the keiko sooner or later ;)
Also it is fairly possible that some kind of light padding/lining was used inside tanko. In my opinion the ones that have those kinds of wings were more ceremonial; I struggle to find another reason for that honestly.
Also this are the armor breastplates I was mentioning:
https://pin.it/qymcjqkwf5k7ib
https://pin.it/wdsbzqkn4h2fsp
https://pin.it/uaoj6vzh7ikgsm
However it is impossible to date them neither to say if it is metal or not.
Congratulation in having a new living place. It is alright, if you reply slower.
DeleteThe curved sword in Japan is very interesting because it could be an isolated family of curved sword, not influenced by the Steppe, unless if the Emishi is regarded as Steppe people too.
The wings on the Tanko do look in my opinion like the arm shield of Siberian armor and
Scythian steppe armor which probably is a common thing in the Steppe.
https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0393/98/1429495250616.jpg
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mf1atv3bRQ1qa1j9o.jpg
I wonder if such wings are actually vestigial remnant of those and the wings may or may not be functional.
I also have photos of those Tibetan cuirass, they are certainly metal because they have metal loops attached to them. The blue one is probably bronze.
Also interesting is the Kote like arm armor found in Ladakh.
https://historum.com/data/attachments/12/12687-871ef8c4f28f6f4662ff3422536346cd.jpg
Sorry, if the picture is small.
Thank you!
DeleteYes early Japanese swords are interesting and at the same time not well known so an article is needed.
Btw, it is true that those wings look similar to the ones found in Siberia and such, although in the case of the Japanese I don't think there is a direct connection. I also cannot comment on their functionality as well unfortunately.
Your articles are always so complete and detailed when it comes to armor, I'd like to thank you once more for all the effort and time you put into them! I find it extremely unfortunate that Tankō is such a little known piece of armor, despite it being so effective, at least on paper. Any kind of solid cuirass type armor is impressive to me, especially this early in history.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I wanted mentioned though is wooden Tankō. Evidence of lacquered wooden armor has been found during the late Yayoi period, and I've seen the term being used to describe these wooden armors. Is the wooden armor in any ways based on Korean armor or is it completely indigenous to Japan?
Thank you so much! These words means a lot for me, and it's true, it is unfortunate that this period of Japanese history in general doesn't get any attention in the West.
DeleteYayoi period armor is very hard to research; we have some findings but we do not know if they were ritual/ceremonial items or battlefield items. The reason behind this debate is the fact that wood is not great as a form of body armor; I personally suspect that hardened rawhide was used for armor pieces, but not a single piece survived due to rawhide being less durable over time, although we cannot exclude wooden armor too.
As far as I know, the term used to describe those armors is mokusei kacchū 木製甲冑 (or just 木製甲, but sometimes even 組合式木甲 or 刳抜式木甲 ).
I can see the term tanko fitting within that context mainly because the fundamentals of both armors ( a rigid, form fitting shaped shell that encase the body) are the same.
Also, they are 100% native Japanese design
DeleteThank you for your reply. I saw the term 木製短甲 on the Wikipedia page for the Tankō, so I thought they were early Korean imports. Thank you for clarifying their origins.
DeleteWhat are your opinions on ainu armor? And did it use iron? What were the materials used?
ReplyDeletehttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcReXgB8SOz-i74jpEdYavyp2zrSd646QXJRHzTQx9FpNW14ZZj8
The pic was taken in the 19th-century and it doesn't look like anything the Japanese would have dressed in the 19th century or in the last many centuries , which I believe discards the Japanese import probabilities. Apparently the origins for ainu culture is satsumon, which is contemporary with the classical period of japan and warabiteto findings in ezo:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpGfYOCVIAAlFzS.jpg
The ainu origin is very likely to be an emishi subbranch. Whatever the whole ainu history is very long, obscure and was already on its knees before the meiji era, those ainu found in the 19th-century photographs are among the last ones left behind, just like the aztecs/Nahuas still exist in central america and assyrians in the middle east but as peasant minorities (in opposition to their good old glory days). Since i can't find anything about ainu horsemanship and the Japanese conquest began as early as the middle ages.
Ainu armor looks like a version of keiko cuirasses, but I haven't look that much into it. As for the material, they probably used a combination of iron and rawhide like the Japanese did.
DeleteAinu history is very hard to research, and as far as I know, they are supposed to be related to the Emishi indeed. It might be a good topic to look into, as soon as I will have some time!
Hey! I did a sketch of the most defensive version of Tankō!
ReplyDeleteHere it is: https://www.deviantart.com/yoritomodaishogun/art/Tanko-Sketch-806232320?ga_submit_new=10%3A1563503442
If you want you can put it in your article (it would really make me very happy that you do it XD)
That's a good sketch! Unfortunately I have already start to work on my own so I think I will use it ( since I'm doing a lot of tries, it was my first time drawing tanko), but I will add a link to that as well! ;)
DeleteOh well... thank you anyway! I was thinking to make sketches about the things and topics that you talk about in your articles... so, I think I will send a link to the sketches to you, if I make them...
DeleteI feel honored if you manage to do something like that! That's very cool, I'm very happy that this blog is stimulating creativity in others ;)
Deleteif the Japonic peoples (such as yamato and ryukyuans) once existed in the korean peninsula. Should tanko armor be considered proto-japanese? Gaya confederacy and jeju island were the last dominant japonic-speaking areas in the korean peninsula..
ReplyDeletethe continental branch in "Korea" was extinct through killing,intermarriage, enslaving and acculturation in the korean peninsula by koreanic (more purely altaic at the time) horse breeders from the yalu river area (paektu mountain and dangun in korean mythology for more info, just a fine example)with their warfare 'borrowed' from the ordos culture through the slab grave culture/北狄(hanbok like depicted in the goguryeo frescoes, Korean composite bow and gold jewelry of 3 Korean kingdoms date back to this 'transfer'... all dating back to a scytho-siberian cultural sphere that once existed in Mongolia prior to the xiongnu rise and koreanic horse riders were the eastern neighbors in manchuria to them).
Original china was only the henan province, all the rest was taken from 四夷:
"The earliest dynasties (the Shang dynasty and Zhou dynasty) exerted varying degrees of control over western Shandong, while eastern Shandong was inhabited by the Dongyi peoples who were considered "barbarians". Over subsequent centuries, the Dongyi were eventually sinicized."
Japonic populations arriving from the chinese coastline introduced wet-rice cultivation with origins in the yangtze river area, bronze age to northeast asia and consequently population boom were going on prior to the koreanic arrival. But if the Zhou made bronze breastplates, I wonder if the japonic populations did the same thing before shifting to iron
just like the Celtic populations shared both mainland Europe and insular Europe.
DeleteI say this because the only contemporary source with kofun Japanese "purchasing iron weapons and armor " from the nakdong river valley is chinese records saying southern korean peninsula paying tributes in the form of iron trade and nothing else ( nobody knows the appearance of the exported material, probably something of lost extreme luxury, in opposition to the known kofun findings, also most KNOWN kofun tombs were virtually unknown until the postwar japan), so far that's impossible to determine what's the meaning, just like katana trade with the ming dynasty or seeking to demilitarize the local population? As back in time, southern Korea was tributary of the wa japan and mongols did the same demilitarization policy to their vassals and new territories, examples in recent japanese history are ryukyu under satsuma rule and hideyoshi's 刀狩 . None of the cases is lacking internal iron production.
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goguryeo–Wa_conflicts
Going as far as Pyongyang while at the same time dependent on foreign iron?
Well, it is complicated because Japanese history of that period is still quite disputed and in my very humble position, since I am no historian and not very familiar with the topic, I can't say if you can consider it proto-Japanese (although those points of your are very valid and good). For the sake of simplicity we just say that the original tanko design was created in Korea and reached Japan where it was modified and developed too.
DeleteUnfortunately we don't even know if they used bronze armor since there are almost no findings prior to the Kofun period in terms of armors (in fact it is still disputed if they actually used wood armor). It would be interesting to know it!
About the relationship with Japan and Korea in the 4th century, indeed Japan was involved in foreign missions in Korea. It is very disputed by historian (thanks to nationalism) which of the two states was vassal of the other (which given the state of Japanese society at that time, it is very likely that Japan was the vassal one), but still there was some kind of relationship. It is also true that by that time period iron and steel technology in Japan wasn't too advanced so they relied a lot on imported steel and iron ingots as well as immigrants who brought technology with them. On the other hand, I've never really bought the theory that Japan was iron scarce at that time, especially once the technology of smelthing and mining was acquired.
The reality is that some iron and steel imports were likely welcomed despite a young (but already somewhat efficient and independent) iron and steel Japanese industry.
Ok, but that's all about the Gwanggaeto stele's conspiracy theory invented by korean nationalists in the last 6-4 decades (not really a matter of history)... only koreans deny such a thing. The text written on the stone is clear and direct, what's not clear yet.. what's the meaning for wa... japonic peoples in general in both peninsula and Japanese archipelago, or just anyone to the east of korea
DeleteYes that's true... It is hard to define the true meaning of Wa people, mainly because nowadays the most direct lineage to that specific group is only found in Japan while historically it was extended to Korea too. The fact that both nations are quite against each other doesn't help at all with modern historical debates.
DeleteI wanna ask if you have Patreon. I'd like to support your work
DeleteThank you so much Henrique for asking me this; it means a lot that someone wants to support me and my works. I'm truly grateful for this.
DeleteCurrently I don't have a Patreon, mainly because I don't dedicate as much time as I would and I feel that there is still a lot to do for the blog.
The best thing you can do for supporting me is reading my researchea, leaving interesting comments and sharing my articles: this is already more than enough!
Anyway, if I will start a Patreon in the future, I will make a dedicated post so that everybody will know it. Thank you again!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI just found your blog from a Quora post. Oh man, it's so good. It's rare to see so more research done right and then distilled into an easy-to-read format. I'm going to get very little done today now! :)
ReplyDeleteHi! I'm glad you like my blog, these are the kind of words that mean a lot to me ;)
DeleteHey, I want you to get your opinion on Kings and generals video on the Mongol invasion of Japan, I haven't watched it yet, did look at the comments section however and of course it's flooded with "they all died in a typhoon" meme.
ReplyDeleteAnyway wanted to get your opinion, since you have plans for an article on it.
Sorry but I've been meaning to ask you it is said that the use of war drums was unknown at this time on the Japanese side so it was great for frightening horses, just wondering if is this true or is it like the myth of swords breaking against Mongol leader armor.
Delete*Leather armor.
DeleteHi! Sorry for the late reply but I'm in the middle of personal life issues (I'm moving in another country so my blog is at the moment not the first priority, unfortunately.)
DeleteAnyway, I've managed to see the video. It is not perfect but it is good; it focus on the p.o.v. of the Mongols but at the same time it mentions important facts like the first thyphoon being mentioned only in the Yuan sources to cover the military failure.
However I have found major errors:
1) The idea that the Samurai engaged in individual duels rather than fighting in horsemen groups (like the Moko Shurai Ekotoba tell us) and the idea that the Mongol had superior tactics and formations (which it is still very disputed).
2) The Japanese wall was built after the first invasion. There was no major wall or fortifications, just armies of samurai severely outnumbered in the first invasion.
3) The concept that the Japanese lacked tactics or strategy; yet they didn't lost any major engage in Kyushu once the fleet landed and attacked. Moreover, various succesful raids were done by the Japanese against the Mongol.
4) While it's true that gongs weren't used by the Japanese, the effect of them on their horses is highly overestimated and was probably a drammatic inflation of Japanese sources. Japanese warhorses were trained for war, where you can hear screams, painful sounds and see a lot of blood and corpses. I find it odd that they would have been frightened by drums.
5) The Japanese actually didn't suffer heavy losses at all during the battles fought at Hakata.
More or less these were the major issues I had with the video. Otherwise it is not bad at all!
Hey, been meaning to ask could you possibly do a debunking article on the duels and banning of rapiers, I remember when people use that as a way to bash on katanas before the infamous battle with 40 Spanish soldiers received attention, I looked into it and read an article about it the funny thing is the article mention the next day the rapier users got their butts kicked however looking into it the story doesn't add up, so I was wondering if you can do an article about.
ReplyDeleteCurrently I'm writing a top 10 debunking myths about Japanese swords; it is quite long, but since that specific request isn't a really big topic I could fit that inside the article!
DeleteI remember reading something along those lines, but sources on that matter are very hard to find and to verify
Cool, I'll be looking forward to that article, here is an article about these duels but not sure of the exact same one I read a few years back tho http://www.naippe.fm.usp.br/arquivos/hobby/Sawasu_Part_3.pdf
DeleteThank you!!
Delete