By late Ming dynasty, most armor seems to have converted to brigandine, and this trend occurred in Korea as well. I assume this was a response to the increasing use of firearms and previous armor design no longer offer adequate protection. However, this trend did not catch on in Japan, who also used quite a bit of firearms. What was the reason for this?

I have searched all over the web and found some images of surviving Qing brigandine armor and very few Qin and Han stone armor. But anything in between those two periods seems to be missing. Same goes for the Korea (even worst, I couldn't find any Korean samples at all). I was wondering if anyone have pics of traditional lamellar armor similar to those wore by lokapala or the Ming tomb general, or from any other period except Qing.
If no surviving samples are available, what was the reason? I heard some explained that they were all destroyed in the cultural revolution... but this doesn't explain why they are missing in Korea as well. If people are able to dig up armor from Qin times, how comes they couldn't find anything in say... Tang or Song times?

Thanks!

Don't worry - there are a lot of armour scales for "missing periods". By the quite understandable reasons most part of armour was found fragmented. So you need not worry about lack of these artefacts. I know about real "fields of Jin armours" in Russian Far East.

YThen in Ming the chain-mail was very popular as well as organic armour (of hide, cotton etc.).

Then regarding Japanese armour - the trend was the same and they had to develope the cuirasse as well as was done on mainland. But there were 2 different technological ways - to produce brigandines and to make cuirasses of big plates (timely even full-plate).

Best regards,

Alexey.

Most of our knowledge of armour from Eastern Han to Tang comes from tomb figurines of soldiers. No actual pieces of armour have been found, but that is probably because we are not digging in the right places. It seems people in this period mostly stopped putting real armour in tombs, so the place to look is ancient battle sites. However Chinese archaeology mostly focuses on tombs.

If we are looking for armour in ancient battle sights, wouldn't it be a fruitless effort since the armour would have already rotten away during all those years? Tombs, now, might provide some measure of protection to stall the effects of time. Besides, some(probably all) of the armour found in tombs aren't made up of armour materials but instead types that wouldn't rot away so easily, such as clay.

In the case of iron lamellar, I think it would have a better chance of surviving. Also, there is the possibility of armour being found in mass graves for soldiers (either killed in battle or massacred as POWs), since there would not always be time or a practical need to strip them of their armour.



Besides the stone armour found in Qin Shihuangdi's tomb pits, I think all pre-Han and Han armour found in tombs has been the real stuff. The 12 Leigudun (tomb of Marquis Yi of Zeng) suits were leather, and the three Western Han suits found in the tombs of princes in Mancheng (Hebei), Linzi (Shandong), and Guangzhou were all iron.

After Western Han, the practice of putting armour in tombs seems to have almost died out. Iron lamellar plates from both body armour and horse armour have been found in the tomb of Feng Sufu, the brother of the first ruler of Northern Yan in Liaoning (early 5th century), but not enough to make a reconstruction. Other than that there have been no pieces of armour found in Age of Fragmentation tombs, only large numbers of figurines.

In 1986, pieces of 12 iron helmets were found in the moat of the old city of Ye, and identified as Northern Dynasties helmets. A Northern Wei cast iron helmet has also been found in Hohhot, but date and details for the find are not known. These are, as far as I know, the only complete examples of real Age of Fragmentation armour that have been found.

Ah, like the battle of ChangPing, in which the entire Zhou army was burried alive.

Would you happen to have any image of these partial armor? Also I noticed a scale pattern resembling a triangle seems to be pretty common in Chinese armor. Is that unique to Chinese armor and are these any surviving pieces?

sorry I don't quite get the last part. Are you saying the Japanese developed both brigandines as well as cuirasse? Or that Japanese developed cuirasse instead of brigandines but they both serve similar function? If its the latter, are there any practical advantage of cuirasse over brigandines or vice versa? And why did the Chinese prefer the brigandines instead of the cuirasse?

Thanks!

I would try to find these photos - there are a lot of scales and even fragments of armour. A lot of Jin helmets are dug out too. These photos were sent to me by one of my friends who took part in excavations during 2004-2006.

"Shanwen"-shaped scales were not found in Russian Far East. As far as I know they were not found anywhere and could be seen only on old pictures of Song & Ming periods (probably, other periods too).

Japanese developed cuirasse instead of brigandines but they both serve similar function - to protect body with a plate of armour, fordged from one big steel plate or compiled from smaller pieces. Full-plate cuirasse could be made thicker than brigandine scales but it is too difficult to be fordged. You may spoil the plate if the technique of fordging is not high enough. If the thickness of steel is equal the weight of cuirasse is less than the weight of brigandine. You also may model cuirasse to fit body and get rid of overweight to the shoulders as it is common with usual brigandine.

Regarding the national preferences in armour style it is almost the same as the difference in culture as the armour is the part of culture. Japanese never used good chain-mails or composed bows but nobody doubts that they had enough quantity of skilled craftsmen to produce these weapons for samurais. Chinese did the same.

Best regards,


Alexey.

wow you have a friend that actually participate in the excavation?! Thats pretty cool stuff
If you can find these photo it would be awesome!

Its a shame that the shanwen scale only exists in paintings today... I sure hope we will manage to dig some up someday. Are there any manual script around that recorded the construction or benefits of this pattern?
There seems to be quite a bit of antique Chinese swords found (even though not alot of people pay attention to them), but why the lack of antique armor? Is it mainly because armor are harder to preserve due to its complexity compare to a sword or other reasons?A set of armor is suppose to be pretty expensive, especially if they looked anything like those elaborate ones in painting. It would seems reasonable that people would have took more precautions to keep them in good shape and past them onto their children, or even as burial items.

Thats an excellent explanation regarding brigandine, thanks!

There is actually a manual book about varieties of armors during Tang dynasty and there was this part mentioning about Shan Wen Jia (山紋甲). So ever since then, i was admired by this peice of armor which i've been looking for many many years because of its unique design, and despite of its uniqueness; its protection can be equally tough as oppose to a full plate. Im pretty sure somebody in here mention about that manual which i got the information from, so it would be very appreciated if anyone knows about the manual please do post your comments about it.

best regards,
Intem

on comparing it to plate... well in Europe brigandine was used in the same era as full plate armor, protecting the torso. Arms and legs were still plate.

Some sources say the cloth and studs offered many decorative opportunities, making it popular for ceremonial armor.

is it known what country brigandine originates from? Or did it come up independently.

[quote name='Altaica Militarica' date='Apr 9 2007, 02:12 PM' po
"Shanwen"-shaped scales were not found in Russian Far East. As far as I know they were not found anywhere and could be seen only on old pictures of Song & Ming periods (probably, other periods too).

[/quote]

It should be Tang dynasty. It became unpopular after that and in fact I don't recall seeing any examples from later dynasties. (but I havent research into those dynasties so I could well be wrong)

In fact Shanwenjia is seen as archaic and often anachronistically applied to older dynasties, to the Three Kingdoms period for example.

Shanwen shows up in Song and Ming artwork though, like patterned on statues, but it seems to have first come around in Tang.




close up detail of a Ming statue

guy on this website tried to build a suit

http://www.flatbow.com/shanwenkia/

Oh, I remember coming across this site awhile ago. Seems like he haven't updated for quite a long time. Does anyone know if he is still working on the project?

On which source did it mention that Shanwen armor scales were found in russian far east? Or if i misunderstood you, does russian far east in your meanings means China or something?

best regards,
Intem

I think he said ""Shanwen"-shaped scales were not found in Russian Far East. "