I had previously just assumed this stuff to be some kind of scale armour, but after seeing the first pic below it appears to be "mail and plate".

From a Ming dynasty painting.

Bad links. Download the pics, upload them to imageshack and link here.

Is nobody interested in my discovery?

Conan, as UrofPersia mentioned your linked images say 'Bad link' and show no images. There is no way to comment on your pictures.
Even without seeing them I would suggest you add when the pictures date from (Ming?) and where they are sourced.

Hmm, I'm not sure why you can't see them, as I'm hosting them myself. In any case I'll correct the problem.

Maybe segmented plate at certain parts. I don't see anything like a breastplate. Mail or scale is certainly shown.

By "mail and plate' I simply meant small plates of metal linked together with chain. Nothing like the full plate+mail of European knights.

Oh, that would make sense then. One of the helmets seem to be made by that style too.

Yes, mail armour seems quite common in Ming period artwork.

It was previously assumed that the Japanese were the only people in Asia to make use of "mail and plates" armour. However, judging by these statues and illustrations it would seem the Chinese employed this type of armour too.

Of the last 2 pictures I don't see anything like 'mail'. I presume you mean chain mail? The shirts could be fabric after all and the armour is pretty minimal. There isnt a suggestion of metal or 3 dimensions except on the arms.
The first picture is a kind of figure quite commonly shown in Buddhist influenced imagery from Tang times. Given the detail on the figure I am quite certain there is no chain mail on 'him' either. It shows little plates.
The Chinese did apparently have armour like breast plates by this time as they are depicted in post Han ceramics and in regions there were early examples of gorgets and cuirasses of one piece but it would be misleading to refer to 'chain & plate' which is quite specific. These pictures after all dont even suggest anything of the sort.

Edit;
I took another closer look. I still dont see anything unusual. Greaves or Cuirasses do not make armour into 'plate'. These may even be leather after all and bronze cuirasses exist in the far south of China in East Zhou times. There is not suggestion of linked mail in the slightest. Chainmail works in a very particular way and is constructed by linked rings. The circular segments on the demon conquering spirit will either be lamellar or possibly scale (as in attached to another material).
The 'mail & plate' by your own defintion is after all no different to lamellar in that it is linked together by fabric or metal wire. A single metal hoop or ring exists to attach plates together even in Qin examples. Such armour has a very long tradition in China. There is no reason to assume there is a different technique here based on these pictures.

I'm not sure what you mean Kenneth. I've already quite clearly stated that "mail and plate" by my definition is lamella pieces linked together by mail. I never once implied solid plate in the European/Japanese fashion. What's more, the armour visible in those Ming paintings looks very different from Ming depictions of Lamellar. I can't imagine the statue is armoured in lamellar --the gaps between each plate are far too large.

I was not convinced what is shown on the body on the first picture is armour at all but I kept that to myself. I saw the same gaps too.
If you mean that these armours are lamellar then I suggest you dispense entirely with 'mail and plate' because both together or independently these terms mean something quite different in 99.99% of discussions.
To repeat, small plates or armour pieces linked by metal hoops or bands existed nearly a dozen centuries before this and the reference to 'chain' is misleading to a casual reader. Linked lammelar with metal hoops should never be called mail. From your initial post to the clarification you made afterwards it would mean the terms you have used are not required to explain a construction which dates from ancient times.
This (below from Qin dynasty) is not plate and chain. The construction is very clear and the armour type should only be called lamellar http://www3.uakron.edu/worldciv/china/ch-armor.html


It was after all myself that first called these ''lamellar'' on this thread since the word hadn't even popped up. Other members by comparison say 'mail or scale is certainly shown' or 'mail armour seems quite common in Ming period artwork.' when in fact neither are shown here and nor is there evidence I have seen that Chinese used such construction. If you have some actual pictures of Ming chain then show them here for comparison please.
If something new is being seen here (which I doubt) then lets be specific on what it is or else members will talk of Chinese 'plate' 'scale' & 'mail' which doesn't exist.

For newbie's, scale is armour attached to a backing material, mail is made of connected rings and plate referred to fitted pieces of armour (typically articulated). Greaves, for example, or a cuirass which is a form of breastplate, or a gorget, means armour plates and true plate armour or 'plate' should be distinguised.
Lamellar armour, which is the original Chinese method of construction, is made of armour plates stitched together and so connected to themselves as opposed to the scale/backing method. There is nothing in the conventional sense to suggest these pictures at least show any new technique in the Ming.
You asked for comment and there it is. The only thing remarkable here is arguing over the common or individually chosen semantics. Either a literal and accepted meaning or one that is being used in this instance only.
Either way newbies could be mislead without some clarification.

To quote Albert Dien in 'Armour in China before the Tang dynasty'; http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bril...isi0ma64w.alice


http://artofchainmail.com/history.html
''Historical body armour is separated into three classifications; "Lamellar", "Plate" and "Mail." {he forgot scale, which he confuses with lammelar in the text}.....
....The sole culture that didn't develop its own Mail Armour is China, although they did wear imported Mail from the Middle East. ''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_armou..._Chinese_Armour (general info on Chinese armour types)

1. The armour in your picture is made of stone. How do we know functional versions would have used metal hoops, rather than standard leather strings?

2. The statue is quite clearly wearing armour, complete with guards for the shoulders and upper arms. The gaps between each plate are pretty substantial, which is unusual for lamellar but common for "mail and plates".

3. Here is a little comparison for you, Kenneth. Ming depictions of various types of armour. Hopefully the pics will be viewable this time.

This is lamellar


This isn't (and if it is, it's a very stylistic representation)


I have other images dating from the Ming period which depict soldiers wearing what appears to be mail armour. Remeber I only said APPEARS to be mail armour, I'll be happy if someone can conclusively prove otherwise.

BTW, are these thumbnails viewable? I've had complaints about them on other forums.

The images can be viewed but they are at such poor resolution it is hard to tell what is different. The method of construction is not visible.
The first picture I said "I was not convinced what is shown on the body on the first picture is armour at all".
I did not say that he wasn't wearing bracers (arm pieces) and a helmet since he clearly is.
The pieces on his body, you must take into account, may simply be 'show' as small pieces and fittings exist on armours which serve no purpose or else show a foreign influence. The 4 armed figure is based on a non-Chinese pantheon after all and is representing a mythical creature.
Representations of non-Chinese armour occur on more literal statuettes throughout Chinese history however.

I do not understand the term "mail and plate" being used at all. It is pretty clear what the terms mean and the pictures do not show this. Mail is not used to describe connective rings or hoops themselves but a specific armour type comprised only of rings. Your first Ming painting certainly doesnt show connected rings (it may just be 'leopard spot' fabric) and the last one is too low resolution to tell. Bear in mind brigandine was being used by this time. I would expect the last pic is just a finer lamellar since 'fish scale' examples have a long history in China. To see how the term 'mail' is used bear in mind the literal meaning given when Albert Dien says the style did not occur in China.
see 'mail' http://www.regia.org/Mail.htm 'mail' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail 'mail' http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/NORarmsarmour.htm


You question whether the Qin stone armour would use metal hoops for attachment in reality...and I would say not. Excavated examples of lamellar binding from the Han era for example used hemp cord, not metal wire.
My point of posting the Qin image is about construction styles & definition. The method is lamellar and it would not be called otherwise even if functional suits were found with metal rings but I might add that from a painting you are also assuming that these 'plate & mails' are metal rings also while the other is a spirit guardian, probably a "Lokapala", which is based on Hindi figures.
These occur due to Buddhist influence and many examples exist, a typical gaurdian at http://www.buddhamuseum.com/3-colors-dharmapala.html


Compare the overlapping armour on the side of the Ming warriors arms to the construction of lamellar on arms 2,000 years before (late Spring & Autumn IIRC) .

This is from mid-East Zhou and lamellar plates got smaller over time. Even in the variety in the terracotta army btwn officers and men there is more variation than these Ming pictures.


I could only concede it might look that way to somebody else but instead of conclusively proving otherwise to what is the conventional wisdom I would say the burden is on the other side. Find a Chinese word to distinguish mail and find it mentioned in a military text, or find a shred of an excavated suit which shows an unknown construction (after all iron armours survive from Han times) or find a good picture which shows something that could be understood to mean mail in the conventional sense.
I couldn't be clearer that if you want comment on your images that;
A These pictures do not show anything to suggest a different form of armour since plates of different sizes in lamellar might look different but the construction method is what makes a distinction.
B The use of the term 'mail & plate' is used to describe a very distinct armour style of non-Chinese type and quite how these pictures are supposed to show anything beyond a brigandine armour or typical lamellar of a known type is not apparent in the images I have seen.

Please note I am not trying to offend. I would ask in turn you show better images of the construction (assuming they exist) and also consider that 'mail' is a very particular form of armour. I have no doubt that you know exactly what 'mail' means, yet I am stating the obvious for readers. Even small plates linked by metal wire will still be a lamellar armour.

It's late and your post sounds vaguely hostile, but nevertheless...

1. I don't need those links to show me what mail armour is, as I'm well aware myself.

2. South Asian/middle-eastern mail and plates didn't look at all like the armour depicted on the statue.

3. Those Ming paintings clearly depict something other than lamellar, even if they are blurred. Have you ever seen lamellar constructed of Hexagonal pieces?

4. The differences between the armour of the two soldiers are clear. If you can't see that, I have nothing left to say.

5. How am I supposed to find "a shred of an excavated suit"? How I am supposed to quote a military text when I don't read Chinese characters (or at least not very well yet)?

6. "Mail and Plates" was also used in Korea. What are the chances that this armour spread to Korea and not China?

7. Wujiang actually posted an image of Chinese "mail and plates" some months ago, which you can probably find through a simple search.

My stance is this: Ming paintings depict a form of armour seemingly constructed of hexagonal plates. The design is not consistent with any type of lamellar I'm aware of, nor does it resemble lamellar armour portrayed in the very same illustration. It does however, share some similarities with a Chinese statue wearing what appears to be a suit of "mail and plates" armour. 'Mail and plates" was used widely in east Asia (Korea, Japan) and central Asia. It is unlikely that this efficient type of armour was not used in China considering most of it's neighbours employed it.

Nope, I am not hostile. I would suggest in turn you seem very defensive over a 'discovery' which you asked for 'comment' on. The thread is called 'Chinese mail & plate' which is at best a misnomer and on the balance of evidence so far seems to be extremely subjective.

1. I don't need those links to show me what mail armour is, as I'm well aware myself.

Like I said; "I have no doubt that you know exactly what 'mail' means, yet I am stating the obvious for readers. Even small plates linked by metal wire will still be a lamellar armour. & ........Either way newbies could be mislead without some clarification."

2. South Asian/middle-eastern mail and plates didn't look at all like the armour depicted on the statue.Like I said, "I do not understand the term "mail and plate" being used here." {I would say that in that instance it is likely being 'mis-used' and ask if you can find it in a text.It seems to imply a half plate, transitional plate armour, as in http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/lofiversi...php/t4691.html} **diagram from thread is below

3. Those Ming paintings clearly depict something other than lamellar, even if they are blurred. Have you ever seen lamellar constructed of Hexagonal pieces?
I said for clarification; "Lamellar armour........is made of armour plates {shape not specified} stitched together and so connected to themselves as opposed to the scale/backing method. "
{You seem to base this on these pictures when the shape of the plates is not important and the method of construction is what defines it. I have seen Lamellar armour in hourglass shapes, bar, shield, rectangle, half circles, flattened tear drops and other assymetric shapes. Hexagonal would be fine.
BTW See figure 10 on Albert Diens article, where diamond patterns are worked inlaid onto shield shaped lamellar plates on a fine fish scale armour. In a painting if the diamonds were painted on the armour in an artwork it would not mean proof of a new method of construction even if diamonds were shown.
You are not considering the construction on brigandine in the late dynasties either. A shape is not what defines an armour type.}

4. The differences between the armour of the two soldiers are clear. If you can't see that, I have nothing left to say.
Like I said "I could only concede it might look that way to somebody else."
{You are looking at a painting and a shape on a armour shirt but it does not follow that a different method of construction has been shown.
If mail was being used or worn there surely there should be some clear evidence? If you have nothing left to say then just realise you have not offered anything new and neither have you improved the quality of images to allow me to understand why such a view should be made on this form of 'evidence'.}

5. How am I supposed to find "a shred of an excavated suit"? How I am supposed to quote a military text when I don't read Chinese characters (or at least not very well yet)?
{Is that the limit of your "discovery"?. For example I have about about 6 texts that show actual iron armour from the period of my own study, the much earlier Han dynasty, and if you are trying to reveal something contentious to the forum then I would expect you should consult your peers/fellow enthusiasts from your own focus area, review books of surviving armour examples, & find extracts/translations & question a Chinese reader on the characters that could mean 'mail' in Chinese. Typically when I find something I might want some info on I would e-mail people I know with a common interest or seek a translation for a key-word or consult the English language texts I have. i.e; Use a library card. Talk to your peers. Consult members with a knowledge of Chinese characters.
I have quite often come across bronze age artifacts that will not be shown in any book, or even prehistoric items. Sometimes after a year I might see something that helps it fall into place. Other times not.The point is that Ming dynasty armour should present no more of a difficulty and especially if you are talking about something evidently shown in a number of paintings. If you can't find anymore info then, well, maybe the obvious answer is that it is a type of lamellar or brigandine.}

6. "Mail and Plates" was also used in Korea. What are the chances that this armour spread to Korea and not China?
{Again.....I do not understand the term "mail and plate" being used at all. Consult some previous studies and try and find the term being used.
A section of chain in a lamellar suit does not make it 'mail' or the lamellar 'plate'. For instance in "A Brief Survey of Defensive Armour Across Asia" the distinction is again made between real mail, like the Parthians, and scale, like the steppes people wore, and lamellar etc. The distinction is well understood and it is about construction methods and the primary aspect of an armour. }

7. Wujiang actually posted an image of Chinese "mail and plates" some months ago, which you can probably find through a simple search.
{I have not seen that and I tried a search but untill I see the pictures or evidence the terms are employed correctly then I would consider Chinese 'Mail & Plate' to be a CHF term only. If you can post the link that would be appreciated since this is the contention of your thread. In the common context that academics use 'mail & plate' it shouldn't be use to describe other mixed types of armour which are mostly comprised of scale/brigandine/lamellar. This is misleading based on your pictures and on the CHF link of armour types I gave above real plate & chain armour is shown. If you also have evidence of real chainmail shirts being used as an armour in Ming (not as linkage) or if you can find a reference in a scholarly source where a linkage of mail amongst lamellar makes the suit 'mail & plate' then I would be most curious. At the moment there is no evidence on this thread for either.}

Conan quote; My stance is this: Ming paintings depict a form of armour seemingly constructed of hexagonal plates. The design is not consistent with any type of lamellar I'm aware of, nor does it resemble lamellar armour portrayed in the very same illustration. It does however, share some similarities with a Chinese statue wearing what appears to be a suit of "mail and plates" armour. 'Mail and plates" was used widely in east Asia (Korea, Japan) and central Asia {???????}. It is unlikely that this efficient type of armour was not used in China considering most of it's neighbours employed it.


Here are some examples of Japanese mail, shirt and mail arm pieces amongst other types. http://www.armourarchive.org/way_of_japanese_warrior/
Japanese did insert small lamellar plates into chain, or used chain to cover areas of flexibilty when other armour (lamellar) formed the bulk of protection. (i.e the common type termed ''so gusari'')
The construction is shown here on a good article; http://www.caradoc.org/~iain/gusari.html
However, if you can find any reference to Japanese armour as a 'plate and chain' please show me because it is better to use the actual terms to describe the Japanese version of chain, as given on the thread. Here is another glossary with shows how complex the numerous varieties of armour fittings are; http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/katchu.glossary.html
There is no need to use potentially misleading terms. Mail is only one element/portion of Japanese armour which is made up of a great number of components and should not be confused by using European specific terms for a whole. i.e ''plate & chain'' when Japanese used lamellar/scale/brigandine as a larger portion of the whole. 'Shino' (Japanese) or 'Splint' (English) is often mentioned as a suit type {although this is typically arm and shoulder only}. Japanese armour includes a complex composite of different armours.
http://surbrook.devermore.net/herosource/japanarmor.html


With regards to the paintings this thread is based on hexagonal plates (a shape) which are not what makes lamellar or scale or brigandine into 'mail & plate' and neither does the statue show mail in even the Japanese style. Without examples or Chinese terms for the methods employed in Japan with mail we are presently left with no evidence of similar construction.


That non-Chinese forms of armour (including scale) came into China by way of foreigners, or as even one source I gave earlier claims, that chainmail was later imported into China, is a possibility but the issue is to be able to confirm it was either worn or manufactured in China at all. More needs to be done and what is actually being suggested here needs clarification.
I would hope that more information would be forthcoming before a Chinese 'plate and mail' idea is considered a closed case and also a more correct terminology should be considered for composite armour types.





**diagram from CHF thread;
note 'Mail & Plate' in the correct meaning, or 'half plate'. (see 1350ad)
Newbies should not come away from this CHF thread saying 'Chinese Mail & Plate'.

Kenneth, I suggest you take a look at this link and stop misinterpreting what the definition of "mail and plates" is. http://www.geocities.com/normlaw/page9.html

I am NOT referring to the so-called "Plate-mail' of Europe. As my link shows 'mail and plates" is a type of armour constructed of mail used to connect metal pieces. It is NOT the same thing as lamellar. H Russell Robinson. Oriental Armour

The Moro coats of mail and plate have frequently been classified as Indian, Chinese, and even Japanese

I think that you need to sit back and start again..

There is a communication problem here as you appear to use te sam words to mean different things.

re the 'discovery'.

Some Ming period armour does seem to be of chain that included larger plates. As this is know from various parts of the Mongol Empire this shouldn't be a surprise. Ther are also later Manchu brigantine (ie fabric covered) armours in Western collections, that are constructed this way. This type of armour was very common in Central Asia, Persia, Turkey, Russia, India etc from the 13th to 17th C. (and even later) so Chinese examples are to be expected.

This was Altaica Militarica's comment on Wujiang's example of Ming "mail and plate"

oh wow, this is quite a discovery if I think what it is

Kenneth, I think you're just misinterpreting the term being used.

it seems to be similiar the sort that Russians and Indians wore, yeah?




I have a picture that seems to be a Ming armor, I'll post it when I get home

you know, between this, the modao, and the 'mountain pattern scale', I think CHF's made more 'discoveries' about Chinese armor than any book I've read

TMPikachu, I feel far from confused but I grow tired of discussing this.
The term being used here is not one which conveys any special meaning and neither is it the common meaning.
If it is going to be used instead more specific 'Shino' or 'Begter' construction (and many more examples of specific cultural names for such armours are on Conans link) then it just means it will convey less meaning. It is using a term in a broadest possible sense and what is most important is deducing the construction of the Ming armour, or is mail is even shown in the pictures. These various types of composite armour as the same link notes include lamellar and mail in several instances and it is very diverse and quite different again to the Japanese usage.
This is why I think more correct or closest terms should be used by each according to construction; ie, on another site;
http://www.cross-dream.info/armour/bakhterets-and-tarch.html
What would the Chinese call this armour type for instance? Is there even a word at all? if so....Why not?
Do the Ming pictures actually show anything like we see shown on Conan's link? (....not really)
Why not find out some more before chalking up points for the boundaries of knowledge being expanded by CHF? ...."Wow?"..... This is all very half-arsed to me.
& Thinking that this is revealing more than academic writtings....My God.

Seriously, those pictures show nothing to get excited about. The only one that shows contruction clearly is the statue, and this doesn't show anything like on Conan's link. There isnt actually a chain linkage of the type shown on Japanese armour either. The figure is after all a Hindi influenced spiritual gaurdian and should be taken with some sceptisms. even if it was, as I said, foreign armours are represented on figures with a great deal of frequency after the Tang but do not reflect Chinese armours.
The Ming paintings only clearly show armour 'plates' on the arms which are of a type that is not new {lamellar}, & are not using chain. The only thing I can see are the hexagonal shapes which could be either the fabric design itself (since it is quite different to the arm armour colour and there are no clear third dimensions) or it could be just a brigandine or lamellar plate attachment. There is no way of knowing. The one that Conan seemed to say was most interesting was the poorest quality photo of the lot.
Unless some closer or better images are shown, and why they havent been I don't understand, and until an even basic investigation is made into other aspects then there is no reason to assume there is some exotic construction or a new discovery here.
I did find the thread on Wujiangs armour; he says himself he doesnt know here it is from. He thought it might be Ming, but a modern construction,
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...9&hl=begter
The armour is not like the Ming pictures here and there is no information on where or when it even originated from. It may have been bought off e-bay (I have seen such mail & helmets like that for seperately sale) and if the helmet and the armour are even matching is not known (Wujiang even said as much).
It may even be a fantasy piece.
"Wow" indeed.
There is suggestion mail may have been bought into China (imported). A better line of research would involve opinions and expansion over Wujiangs comment; "I have rechecked my notes. This form of chainmail + fengqiaokui combination are consistant with the close bodyguards of the Emperor."
i.e, was there any basis for this suit or is it fantasy, and where would the reconstruction been made from (assuming it is MIng at all).

Kenneth, if no higher quality pictures are available to me, how am I supposed to post them?

The fact remains, if China's closest neighbours all made use of "mail and plates", it's highly likely the Chinese employed this type of armour too.

BTW, the armour on the statue is clearly not "Hindi" it has all the characteristics of historical Chinese armour, such as the unique winged helmet

Conan, on the two smaller illustrations

I've seen a similiar geometric design before, exept it was on Japanese armor. The book called it brigandine.


and here's a picture that I got from CHF months ago







**Ha! A google search brought up that Japanese stuff

here

Yes, it does seem quite similar to the stuff depicted in the Ming paintings. But not the same as what the statue is wearing.

So where did you get that picture of the statue?

This is hardly a historic source, but, the way those circles don't overlap, with spaces between them, it's like some Romance of the Three Kingdoms tv show armor I've seen before.



this isn't a historic source at all, but is there the possibility it was based off of something like what you found?

3 Kingdoms dramas usually have Ming-era armor/arms right?

or it could just be a budget way to make lamellar looking armor