Unfortunately, this thread (below you'll find the first post) was put up in my name without my knowledge, by selectively taking several postings from another thread ("The use of bronze armour” on the Ancient Chinese Arsenal sub-forum), after one poster (Kenneth) started to accuse me of trolling (though he was the real perpetrator) and started to pester the mods to intervene on his behalf. I'm sorry to see that his unscholarly behavior actually seems to work here: calling for your mother to silence the opposition in a discussion.

Anyway, I do not see the use of only discussing things that have already been written about and published a dozen times, without it being allowed to challenge such set-in-stone opinions, and always that sword hanging over you of a mod ready to step in to tell you that your opinion is not allowed. That makes for a really dull forum, attracting only newbees and stamp collectors, where doubting the official line is illegal and Karl Popper is a heretic.

A final word for Kenneth: if you ever enter a scholarly or scientific discussion in the real academic world, you do well to remember all of the words in following quote, and not just the first sentence:

“It is often asserted that discussion is only possible between people who have a common language and accept common basic assumptions. I think that this is a mistake. All that is needed is a readiness to learn from one's partner in the discussion, which includes a genuine wish to understand what he intends to say. If this readiness is there, the discussion will be the more fruitful the more the partner's backgrounds differ.”
(Karl Popper)

After all: if we'd never set sail, our world would still be flat. Signing off,

BJ

=== the first post of many, selectively taken from the Bronze Armour thread, without my knowledge or agreement ===

It has already been asked, but so far ignored: why cut up leather and turn it into some kind of plate / scale armor?

Here's my thoughts:

1) As far as I can check, most (if not all) armor was found in graves.
2) Armor could / would be painted.
3) Weapons, bronze decorations and details would not be painted.
4) Bronze was very expensive.
5) Burials often see models substituting the real thing.
6) A protective suit out of leather is manufactured easier and as armore far more effective in far simpler ways.
7) The weight of fire during battles explain why front rankers, commanders, etc need armor.
8) The effectiveness of the shot used makes leather rather useless as armor.
9) Armor that does not afford enough protetion against shot is usually abolished (historically).
10) When Sunzi talks about soldiers (1st sentence part 2), he uses "belted armor" to describe them: 帶甲, dai4jia3 (banded shell, whatever), not 'leather', even though the phrase immediately preceeding it is 革車, ge1che2, which is translated in many ways (some kind of chariot), but the important thing is that the first character is (can be) 'leather'. As Sunzi tries to make his text poetic (numbers of character per phrase, sounds, etc) he would never have passed the opportunity to use the character for leather twice in in this context (even if the chariot one doesn't mean 'leather').

Now if we look at 1-5, it makes sense to substitute a real bronze armor suit for a leather one, especially if a real bronze suit commonly was painted (and thus not recognizable as bronze): the weapons and fittings are in bronze because they were not painted (and maybe because those are much harder to model in leather or whatever).

In 6-9 is shown why leather armor as we know it would be quite useless on a battlefield, but if it was bronze, the use makes sense.

With 10 we have a literary reason to believe that the armor we know was not leather in real life.

So I postulate that bronze armor was used and the suits we know are cheap lookalikes used only for burials.

Thoughts?

BJ

Well, thanks for the reply, but I hope you do not take my speculations for light headed fantasies based on nothing. Besides, without doubt or asking, no progress will ever be made and I am looking for progress, not mindlessly regurgitating old opinions.

Regarding burial habits, substitution is a common thing to do, everywhere. Especially when it's to replace something very (very) expensive. Cheaper goods, or goods that are too personal would be laid to rest next to such substitutions. Nothing strange there.

Regarding painting: I read that the leather was painted, so the suits were colored. Painting metal armor is nothing special either, it happened all through history, for various reasons. Now suppose they had bronze armor and painted it ... Some burial suits have bronze added, sure. And as I suggested, that's either for decorative purposes where the shape, design or metal sheen could not be reproduced in leather, or because the owner wanted to show his wealth.
Besides, just as I presume they painted their bronze armor (which would fit in with all the other color accents they had), you speculate that if they wore bronze they would polish it to a sheen. Same same, no?

Regarding leather as armor. We do agree that Chinese warfare was shot heavy, right? Then look at any other shot heavy period in what ever place or culture in history and you will see complete metal protection (often thru mail, scale etc) OR much thicker but partial metal protection when the weight of the shot is very high. In that last case leather is often used for protection against melee weapons and cheap protection against energy low shots. And that leather is always very thick, very much one or only a few pieces and flexible. Because that's the quickest, cheapest and most effective way: period. It offers all that protection you list, but better. When the weight of shot gets so heavy that even all those provide only partial protection, then armor is abolished.
In other words, on ancient Chinese battlefields you'd expect either metal armor or thick leather coats. Instead we came up with leather scales / lamellar?? Against cross bows?

BJ

Note;
For the discussion in context, as well as making sense of comments like 'see page 1 of this thread' bear in mind CHF moderators eventually split this topic off from an earlier thread on Chinese armours;
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=15438

The first post here (#1) then comes at the end of those 4 pages of discussion, including pictures of and extracts from texts discussing known and excavated Chinese leather & iron lamellar armours.

A couple of reply posts are still sitting back there in error too, one should be here in between post #1 & 2 (hence "Well, thanks for the reply..."
& see last page http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...p;#entry4894670

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I really don't want to just be mean, but some of the stuff you are saying is either way off, or else assumedly based on not knowing more details.
If you want to make a proposal in direct opposition to my own, which is after all just sharing the balance of evidence and citing the most relevent authors, then for the interests of not confusing a casual reader by making this unclear I am forced to reply.
Since I have already written perhaps several thousand words on the subject here, and used references and physical examples, it seems rather a shame.



Substitution is a not simply a common thing to do, everywhere. Objects used by the living in life come out of all sorts of ancient graves, horse gear, weapons, furniture, food, textiles.
While substitution is important too the wider world examples are nor relevant to the Chinese situation of outfitting tombs of which I expect I will be more personally familiar than yourself.
"Cheap goods" are no explanation in Chinese tombs since the tombs that are best furnished represent the elite, and expense is no concern for many of them.
If you know of some of the sorts of items of jade or bronze that have turned up in tombs then this idea of 'expense' to explain the lack of bronze armour is misinformed.
When entire ritual sets of graduated bronze Ding and other vessels can be buried it shows that in graves containing, say, a few thousand items "cheap" does not factor into it.
While there are substitute items, and real items, and quality items made just for the tomb, there is no real confusion about what is what. I have seen and handled examples from each of these categories.
If you took the time to read through some of my earlier threads you would see pictures of graves stocked with weapons, and also times where I have identified an items as a 'tomb' item and contrasted it with a more robust 'functional' item.
You are wrong though in assuming 'real' armours and sets of weapons are not laid to rest with a lord or notable warrior.
The reason sets of bronze armour are not found is because they were not made.


Assuming you read this very thread you would have read that leather armour was painted (or dyed) on the first page. Pigments remain when organics decay (and are quite clear in soil) and also some intact armours of leather have survived for study.
"Painting metal armor ....happened all through history" is of no consequence when 'where' it happened is of more importance. There is no suggestion Chinese 'painted' bronze (or iron). Even the iron armour that has been found & been decorated might be inlaid with another metal since metal has its own lustre, kind of like how people might not paint over the chrome on a sportscar.


I don't presume because, as you fail to have noted, the bronzes I was commenting on are items I have examined in the hand. Polishing is universal on bronze items. Even the polishing you can't see with a naked eye you can see at magnification, like 20x or 30x. Just like metal today can be made to shine by a cutting polish, or fine abrader, people know to bring out the natural qualities.



This is not true about shot-heavy cultures. The heavier armours were for infantry cultures rather than missile dominated societies.
Contrast the armoured hoplite with light armoured Persian warriors . Contrast early steppes warriors (with light or no armour most typically) with Roman infantry.
The idea is wrong demonstratably anyway since we have examples of Chinese armies from the Qin period and Han (whole formations) when the heavy shooting weapons were very important and many warriors are unarmoured or only lightly armoured as a % (cavalry who had armour having lighter versions of lamellar vests than armoured infantry)
Outfitting all warriors even in metal armour in Han, or leather armour earlier was not apparently essential. Agreat deal of Han warriors depicted in ceramics have no armour, and like Qin armies are mixed in with the armoured soldiers.
The formation chosen gaurd the Qin Emperor are not 'cheap' versions but most likely an elite force if anything. These show that many warriors both archers and halberdiers etc. wore no body armour at all.



You don't understand that 'thick leather' is not what is required for effective armour. Westerners boiled leather to toughen it, and Chinese lacquered it. For weight you have more protection so hardened leather was better.
There is plenty of evidence of the use of leather armours in both ancient periods (Rhino armour mentioned in ancient histories) and that it was effective. It was desired for cavalry in later periods because of its lightness, there are even leather armours from post-Han periods that exist.
The other point is that crossbows only appear during the Warring States period, the 4th century BC, at which time the early iron age is starting to make an impact. Iron armours are recorded literally -not metaphorically- in ancient histories, and examples have been found too.
For the bronze age itself for 1,000 years before this, when at least bronze helmets and decorations were worn with leather armours...there was no crossbow.
Another point is that most forms of earlier crossbows excavated are apparently arm loaded types rather than foot drawn. One mechanism from the Han period I examined was over 1kg, and several times heavier than the average Warring States example. Heavy firing crossbows became important in the second half of the Eastern Zhou. In the Han period the crossbow was refined and made more effective.

There is no suggestion that bronze armour must have existed because ancient warfare couldn't have done without it.
There is no reason either to believe than leather armour was somehow ''useless''. There is plenty of evidence it was used in battle even after iron became common.
There is no evidence bronze armour existed but was too precious to ever bury so leather armours were buried because it was 'cheap'.
There is no evidence to date of the use of bronze body armour by ancient Chinese.

(first: yes, I read all those threads).

Throughout military history, the hardest hitting weapons always had an armor from the same material trying to stop it (unless of course it is a material not suitable for that, like obsidian). Somehow then, this was not the case in China ...

Shot heavy armies did use metal armor, more so than melee-oriented ones. They need it, because unlike melee troops, they need two hands to operate their main weapon, whereas sword wielders have one hand free for a big shield (of course, poor shot-heavy troops were outfitted with pavises they could hide behind, like the Persians you mention). For example, the main reason for steppe armies to develop fully armored troops was to withstand the arrow shower during the charge home.
Front rankers, cav or inf, would be metal clad, rear rankers would have metal helmets (arrows coming down only).
The other example you mention are troops that fought in open formations, moving fast, not worth the trouble of wasting arrows salvo's on. If you want to do more than pester the enemy, you need close formations for massed fire. That means less mobility and more men / square meter. In other words: more armor needed for protection. Really: shot heavy needs fuller armor.

Of course leather can be an effective armor, as I stated before. However, it can be more effective and way more cheap (remember those big armies) if you do it the way other armies did: boiled leather coats, flexible but good against slashing and reasonable against stabbing. What advantage does a lacquered segmented leather suit give you that would make it worth all the extra effort and cost?

To be honest, the burial thing I came up with was for me to find a reason why maybe the armor suits we know were not functional armor. There are other arguments to support the burial =/= functional thing (forgot where I read it: like some chariots) or to be able to explain why a bronze armor suit would not be buried but a bronze ding would.

The main point to me though is, that the suits we found do not necessarily have to be functional battlefield suits. I tried to come up with some reasons (and others might be able to find better ones ... maybe it was honourful to wear your father's armor? the warrior caste had ceremonial suits in leather looking like the real thing? Whatever.).
Hhowever primarily I want to explore the possibility that real armor suits were real ... well ... armor suits. And them being from some metal would much better explain their looks.

One reason I came to this is that we even find leather helmets that are ... segmented! No matter how well lacquered & stiff leather would be able to deflect an arrow, such helmets have no shock resitance to the melee weapons used.
However, they do remind one of metal segmented helmets, found everywhere else in the world.

You say we have no proof that there were bronze armor suits. We also have no proof that the burial suits were meant for battle use. So where does that leave us? Trying to find a solution.

BJ

[PS on the painting of bronze: I was referring to painting their armored suits IF those suitse were indeed bronze, just as they painted their burial suits. Of course they did not paint bronze used for decorations.]

Time to give some examples, because you have only used undefined generalisations and 'maybes' so far.
The ancient world examples I gave are the opposite to your examples.....that you haven't yet given.


So leather armour is only for leather weapons? You need to talk in specifics soon, and use some relevent and contemporary examples.
....Or not. I am growing tired of this.


It is not so different elsewhere, just you seem to think everyone used metal armour, or bronze armour before the iron age.
They did not. No they didn't....even in the iron age they didn't.
Metal armour was not universal for ancient warriors and even those that did have it outfitted according to the rank of an individual, such as Celtic mail for example.
How many cultures actually used bronze body armour if we really get down to it anyway?
You need to start qualifying your concepts, if you want to make out that China is 'odd'.


When the reconstruction experiments presently being done are finished there may be more details, but lacquered & internally corded lamellar is flexible (due to the construction) but still HARD, improved over basic leather .
It is rigid, like plastic, and soaked and coated repeatedly with a hardening resin.
Boiling leather shrinks leather, lacquer does not shink.
If a piece was of the same hardness but a larger size then it wouldn't be as flexible as smaller movable plates. Think about that. This is one reason smaller plates evolved over time, because it is better. Think of chain even, a lot of the effectiveness is not just the metal but the backing material absorbing the impact. (there are more details in swordforum about armour mechanics, even field tests & comparisons...I think you really need to look there).
Just because you can't visualise it, or won't visualise it, lacquered leather was used after iron armour was used (i.e post-Han).......on the battlefield, since there are accounts of cavalry prefering it for the weight, examples in museums, and specific mentions in texts. It must have been effective. Obviously.
I really wonder why I am bothering with this since you haven't even read any of the sources that you should have and I can't really match imagination if archaeology, or period records, or modern scholarship does not satisfy you. You have convinced yourself rather than tried to learn a little.


Am I wasting my time here? It is not so hard to seperate a distant pit with substitute items from the personal effects buried directly with the dead.
If all the scholarship says..leather armour was found, armour of the period is leather..it is amazing to me that you believe these are cheap copies and real armour was not buried (although everything else was, like weapons and chariots and the bronze fittings).
You don't seem to have taken in the comments about what items went into tombs and the types of items closely associated with the dead. They are functional, because they are meant to function as in life in the next life. Food is put on plates, cutlery is provided, wine vessels are filled. The swords are sharp, the bows are stringed. The leather is cured and hardened.
You really are unique, and I don't think I am making any progress.
I don't think I can help you.

Maybe it's because you're from the other side of the globe, but you manage to upend the things I say to their opposite. Anyway:

You want examples ... I just named steppe armies and Persians. Others: look at eastern Roman archers, look at Byzantians, look at Chinese. Then look at non-shot armies (like Germans) ... see the difference??? (or do you only look at the Romans and the Greeks as counter examples ... who were pretty heavy on the shot too btw, short range). You imply to be well read about warfare, yet you do not know about these armies it seems.

What I meant with 'best weapon material' = 'best armor material' is exactly that. Somehow you read there that I say that ALL the users of such weapons ALWAYS go fully armored in THAT stuff ... three things I did not say. Of course they didn't: any layman knows. But you WILL find instances, especially with the upper classes. That includes bronze cultures, IF they used body armor (btw, if not, you still probably find it in other armor uses, like shields, but we're talking suits here).

That people developed smaller plates is understandable ... that was metal after all. And metal is very, very hard. So to make a suit flexible, you build a suit from tiny metal parts (or wood, for those so inclined). But we're talking leather here. Leather has flexibility by istelf. Leather then is more comparable to textiles. And you can look at what Greeks or Aztecs (etc) did with that: no need to walk the path of the tinier segments, because there are cheaper, easier and more effective ways to get better protection from the material. Again, I'm talking battlefield army armor here.

You won't hear me deny that scolars found leather armor suits in graves ... but I can question there interpretation of their find. Grave robbers take the easy way out too often: they find a skeleton in a mound in NW Europe and presto, that was once build as a burial mound. Hey, a small unexplained room in a house ... 'obviously' a house temple, etc. I merely gave another POSSIBLE reason why the burial suits are leather ... also a wrong one perhaps: others can no doubt find better ones. But that doesn't really matter, because

The real question remains: did they use bronze armor suits during battles?

BJ

Btw, I appreciate your frankness, but there's no point telling us you're tired ... unless you like me to do likewise? OK then: I have to go pee now.

Historically in most ancient armies in different cultures, including the ones here mentioned, melee troops are more heavily armoured than missile troops. If you like we can go through a number of armies (say ten) to prove this either way. Sounds fair?



This is fine. I am not sure if this is the main reason but am willing to take your word for it. Personally I would have thought the fact that you are going to be charging into the enemy means you would prefer to be better armoured.



Certainly they would have as much armour as is comfortable and does not interfere with their function. But it still does not change the fact that melee troops tend to be the more heavily armoured. Which particular army are you thinking of? I can't think of any where missile troops are more heavily armoured than melee troops in the ancient period at the moment.

Hi BJ, if referring to the Warring States period I have not come across evidence for this. There is evidence of iron armour. Does that answer your question? If not, let me know and we can further discuss as this is an area I am interested in.

My bad, I have to be more precize. I should have said "more complete armor", otherwise this confusion starts.

What I tried to do was give a reason why those segmented suits might have been metal in real life.

The point is that armies that fight with or against large numbers of organized fire, are on average better armored than those that do not. Of course, the melee specialists in each will be heavier armored then the non-melee-ers. In other words, I was refering to armies in general, not specialized units.

But then one step further, the melee specialists in such armies are usually completer armored than those in the non-shot armies. In the steppe example, you see that the legs usually where the last part to be armored, even after the complete horse. And legs are easier hit in melee than in fire ... so if melee was the main armor driver, then you'd expect the legs to be protected before - for example - the horses rear end.

Back to the Chinese. You see infantry heavily armored, which seems to be logic if we accept the view above. As armies supposedly were very large, you would not expect so much / many armored men if the armor was for melee mostly (expense) ... front rankers maybe, but not more, and even those would be OK with a lot less (look at medieval European pike / halberd infantry). However, like bowmen, halberdiers have no way to carry a shield, so they need extra protection against arrows. And Chinese were shot heavy, so that explains the large amount of armor (the completeness of the suit)


Now to the metal vs leather. If you look at the Mongols, many wore some kind of protection, often leather. But as soon as they got the opportunity, they choose to do away with leather and replace it with metal. The first ones where the nobles and the melee troops. I.e. where there was a choice, metal won.

Besides, if you have to armor huge numbers of men with leather, then why go to the trouble of those complex segmented suits? (even simple vests, shields and a solid helmet is more than enough)

And finally, if China really mainly (even the nobles) used leather (and in such complex ways), then they are the only civilization that did not use metal armor to fight metal arrows and metal swords.

Somehow I don't believe that ... nobles were rich enough to afford the best protection (even bronze from far away) ... not flimsy segmented helmets made out of leather pieces. You go lacquering a leather football, I'm sure it can deflect the occassional arrow, but surely not the blade of a halberd wielded with both hands, coming down at full speed!

Why then were the burial suits leather and not bronze? I do not know. But we can think of many possible reasons.

BJ

That's because the author 周纬 is long dead and this book was first published about half a century ago. I was tempted to get this book as it does not appear to be expensive even knowing that some of what is written or shown may be outdated in view of findings since then.

I was given to understand armouring the legs would affect the mobility of the horses.



The New Kingdom Egyptian army was missile heavy as well, up to 50% of the army, yet there were not heavily armoured. As for the Mongols the majority of their force were not heavily armoured compared to the opponents they faced. Only a part of their forces would have been considered heavily armoured. In fact their tactical doctrine required a large force of lighter horsemen. I can recommend James Chambers books on the Mongols with regards to tactics.



lacquered leather is stiff with little flex. This is nothing like say leather jacket. The lamellar style had a couple of advantages:

1. Greater flexibility
2. Ability to better conform to the contours of the body (which increases protective capability).
3. There is no need to build armour to fit
4. Ability to effect field repairs efficiently

With regards to point 4 if you have say a single piece vest were it to be damaged by say sword cut you more or less have to live with the damaged vest or get a new one. Lamellar on the hand allowed you to replace the damaged lamellae relatively easily.




I don't think anyone here is saying this. What I have said is there is no evidence for the use of bronze body armour. Technological advances coupled with social/economic situations can have an impact on how arms and armour developed. Armour is Japan and Korea were largely influenced by developments in China up till the Tang dynasty and yet especially in the case of the Japan they went off in a different direction after that.



In the first place leather does not have to be flimsy. If they really were that useless, they would not have survived as armour protection for so long. Going by your example of the 'halberd' surely this is against your theory of missile troops needing more armour? Also take care to note that no one here is arguing that bronze or iron armour would not provide better protection. Other factors may have been more essential.



However the most plausible one would be because that is what armour of the period was made of. If the armour was indeed bronze why not just place the bronze armour?

We can always for the sake of argument say it is possible someone somewhere had bronze armour made and wore it in battle. The fact is we have not found evidence for the use of bronze body armour on any scale yet. I for one would be very excited if any such evidence turned up.

What a wonderful thing language is ... we say the same but mean something else: I meant to explain why the legs of the riders were not protected, I figure you're talking about the horse's legs.

Lacquered leather has advantages no doubt. Does anyone have 'hard numbers' comparing them to the kind of leather used in (for example) post-plate Europe? And any idea about the difference in cost and production time?

Mongols not wearing armor (or wearing lesser) where the ones operating in more open formation units, moving faster, less ordered, etc. The compacter a unit becomes, the slower (thus can't get out of the way), the easier it is to hit, the higher the chance an enemy will fire salvos. Thus the more important armor gets. Same for units meant to close for melee.

The thing about the Egyptians is that we know even less about their army than about the pre-Han Chinese. Personally I believe they were the first in their region to used massed, drilled bow units. None of their funeral art really show anything like armor, maybe because they outranged opponents, maybe because they did not want to display it (it does not allow to show the characteristics of the body, and that was very important to them, to show things wholesome).
You do see with the Assyrians though that they have a lot of armor in their infantry, often top-to-toe, and their battles were very much shot-heavy. And lucky for us, they liked to show it off on their temples.


Well, the helmet to me was more an eye-opener (saw one in a museum). Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see those things being very effective against blows from swords or halberd ... even metal ones can get skewered. So I figured that they couldn't be battle helmets, etc.

Why we haven't found any bronze battle armor yet (provided there were any) might simply be because we haven't found any of the places we could find them. There's not that many armors of pre-Medieval Europe found either. The best place to look would be a marsh near a siege or battlefield, or finding a wreck from a naval battle.

If I were a noble, and I had the money, I sure would buy the best protection possible. And every civilization always came up with plenty of armor made from the hardest hitting weapons materials. Would the Chinese be different?

A third scenario btw could be that they did buy the best, and it really was leather ... that should tell us a thing or two about the effectiveness of the bows and melee weapons in those days, don't you think?

Anyway, we can ask. For example, the Dian in the south were renowned for their bronze and they had armor suits that remind one of those lamellar burial ones, but they seem to go around the body and show rings, not segments. Could these be the famous sleeve armor? (see Tongxiu 筒袖 and Liangdang 两当 Armour.
Hmmm, then one step further (OK, I'm stretching, but still), could those somehow be linked to the banded armor SunZi speaks of? Ring, band, sleeve ... all the same. And all different from patches, scales, lamels. No?

BJ

BJ, you really don't seem to really be looking with you eyes, or listening or reading. You can produce volumes of text, and I consider just selecting 'ignore user' or requesting this thread be locked because this is becoming pretty silly now.
Just how you define 'shot heavy' is a mystery. The steppes people (...you choose to use late dynasty 'Mongols' and fixate on the heavy cavalry) like Xiongnu or other contemporary bronze age steppes cultures (Sythians etc.) used leather armour (yes, and it has been found archaeologically). Even a West-Han era commentary says how such leather is no match for crossbows. It was one advantage the Han had over such martial people.
Yet, your Chinese 'shot heavy' ill-defined hypothesis seems to have failed to note I pointed out the quite late (early iron-age) appearance of the crossbow. For 1,000 years before this, the true "bronze age", as all commentators have said, there is no metal body armour.
The Chinese bows were made of composite material, often bamboo. They were no more 'shot heavy' than their northern enemies who used excellent composite bows and wore leather armour.

Also this 'completeness of the suit' in Chinese armour again tells me you have not even read through even a small amount of specific literature on ancient Chinese armour or looked at pictures successfully. The Qin buried army for example is well known, yet you even seem to doubt that lamellar was really used.
BTW your use of Dian culture bronze is a bit misleading, the 'banded' looking armour you have assumed is bronze, but the only complete bronze examples like that have been found are the neck gorgets and bracers from the tomb of a Dian King. These sorts of items were in a royal tombs in Yunnan far from the Zhou states. The armours you are looking at on the common Dian warriors in a battle scene may well be leather. Masses of Dian weapons turn up, but bronze armours do not. Regardless, the armour of that type (gorget & bracer) has no equivalent in the Zhoung-guo/China of its day.

Important reminder; The Bronze age does not need comparing to medieval metal armours or much later cultures. That is less relevant again.
I mentioned how cavalry and infantry suits in Qin were different, yet you just say "completeness of the suit" like it was fact.
It is not.
Charioteers had the heaviest armour, but even in the West Han much armour is only a sleeveless vest made of large plates....yes, plates of lamellar. Even East Han helmets are lamellar. The inlaid decorated iron suits are lamellar. Iron lamellar plates are found even in the post Han period.
This was the method Chinse constructed armour in. It's true. You seem to think it doesn't make sense (I don't know why) but it still IS.
You also say 'large amounts of armour' but even in the Han many warriors have no armour, or just a little. Take a look. Your version of reality is fantastic.





You are still saying this. Wakey-wakey.
In the Bronze age there is no evidence that such heavy armours as we see in the Greek hoplites were common (or as you think, universal) around the world. It was a specific method of war. Less mobile, human battering rams. The phalanx is compared to a rugby scrum pushing.
The shields and screens of the Persians do not have any bearing on discussions of -body-armour-, although you misuse it as evidence of ''armour'' & shot heavy. Persians, including 'The Immortals' were actually lighter armoured than the Greek type of warfare, hence how they suffered in stand-up fights.

Find some pictures of bronze armour in 'every other civilisation', or perhaps just 10 civilisations as Ur gave a reasonable number. Do something with a minimal standard for comparison.
Your idea the Chinese are unique in warfare is only because you have a fictional viewpoint by mixing up different periods of history, and comparing later European warfare (like armoured pikemen) with Chinese in 1,000BC.




What you believe it precisely the problem.
There you go again with 'flimsy leather' and this is why I find you beyond logic or reason. Segmented armour is not a weakness. Again you haven't got some very basic concepts. What is with "even bronze from far away"? You really are talking about something you know nothing about.

Tombs were not outfitted with 'cheap' junk....Fact; Leather lamellar was still used after iron was introduced. Got that?
If leather was used after metal body armour came into use, then perhaps it is not 'useless' or 'flimsy' like you have deduced by studying the soft leather on you shoes.

& Why did you post a lacquered leather shield on the Plate armour thread but not announce this was flimsy or 'cheap'?


I bet you could think up a dozen different reasons, maybe even twice as much. Quality is better than quantity though and nothing you have said really holds water. Even if I point out problems with them you would just repeat them again like they still made sense.

The burial armours were leather because warriors and Lords were buried with the items they used in life. Fact. You really haven't been paying attention.
This is why decorated and ornate weapons and armours have been found, decorations or facings of bronze on leather/fabric, and decorations on iron lammelar.

It's the real stuff.



Mods;

Is it about time this thread got locked?
Or set to '3 S'?
This conversation is comparible to pure mischief.
I feel like I am wasting time with a troll.
If BeeJay was restricted by the 'scholarly standard' setting then none of this elusive and ethereal ...'I think' & 'maybe' mixed in with subjective and ill-defined history would have ever been posted....and I would have not wasted hours of my time replying.
Really, unless a continued discussion is going to produce new sources or show real objects then this idea of 'bronze armour really did exist, in my heart of heart I believe' is about as valid as saying that Julius Caesar had really bad body odour and this is the real reason the senate killed him.
How can you discuss history when there is simply nothing to it?
I enjoy history, and have an interest in truth, not confusion for no purpose.
For a casual reader I hope this patchwork of inaccuracies is not going to mislead people from the balance of evidence.
I feel like my attempts to inform CHF readers of quite a conventional concept like this is being sabotagued by this tomfoolery.

How about a merciful locking of the thread, or a 3S setting?
Either way...blessed silence.

My problem is that I am not sure what you are doing even commenting on this thread. You are not just saying something quite moderate like I would agree with such "no bronze armour has been found ...yet"
You are saying amongst other things..."I can't believe they didn't wear bronze armour, they must have worn bronze armour...everybody other civilization did...etc." and then given some quite silly reasons for these odd concepts, like all leather armours found to date are 'cheap substitutes' or 'leather is flimsy or useless' I can only try and reason with you for so long.
These are your words, go check.
i.e Even where you attempt a logical argument in support , like because of powerful crossbows there must have been bronze armour (see your post 56) you didn't know of course the crossbow dates from the 4th century BC, emerging at the end of the bronze age and early iron age.

Again, I have a problem that you don't seem to even be phased by the used of leather armours in ancient accounts I mentioned repeated, i.e: Guan Zhong, addressing duke Huan of Qi (7th century BC)

(5th century BC)
]

These are the Rhino-leather armours in life, of which rather a lot is said BTW. Of course leather was used on the battlefield...as it was even long after the East Zhou period.
i.e I know of leather (layered camel hide) used in the Tang period according to a British museum text, and here Athena Chang says of a museum purchase;
..."at the end of last year, a {PRC} museum spent plenty of money on purchasing a set of Yi General's armor of the Three Kingdom period style. Some parts of the armor were made of buffalo's leather, and some part were made of rhino's leather."
Warhead notes;

Also ShaoYun notes, "
..."Ma Long was a Western Jin general suppressing a Xianbei rebellion in the 270s, and to give his troops greater mobility than the Xianbei cavalry (who used iron lamellar), he dressed them in rhino hide armour."
&
"With Northern Wei support, Yang Nandang, the Di King of Chouchi (southern Gansu), invaded the Liu-Song dynasty's Hanzhong prefecture in late 433. Liu-Song troops under Xiao Sihua, Xiao Chengzhi, Xiao Wangzhi and Xiao Tan counter-attacked......and began driving the Chouchi troops back from Hanzhong. But in early 434 Xiao Chengzhi and his men were trapped by Yang Nandang's son Yang He and four other Chouchi generals, with 10,000 infantry and cavalry, in a fort. The besieging Chouchi army was several tens of layers deep, and stormed the fort at close range such that bows and arrows were of no use to the defenders. Furthermore, they all wore rhinoceros-hide armour which was impenetrable to spears and ji halberds"

This is why your doubts about leather being used at all, and your visualizations of its effectiveness, are quite odd.
Just how you decided that early armours in China were 'comprehensive' in coverage (yet you don't even believe in effectiveness of lamellar or that any armour found to date is even 'real') is really a mystery...
This is why I ask for you to be specific...provide some sources or items (evidence, y'know?). You aren't doing too good so far.

The idea of '3S' (scholarly standard) is that sources must be given for posts, and personal opinions are given second place.
You should try it. You accuse me of being some sort of Nazi....I am just snapping my fingers saying "whoah! --reality check! whoah! wakey-wakey!"
After several posts like this, I see I should have probably just ignored you from the start and let the thread die.



No I aren't doing a Nazi book burning. I like books. I use them.
Like I said, speculation is good...just you make so many errors of fact that I wonder why you are making claims & conclusions like;
"I postulate that bronze armor was used and the suits we know are cheap lookalikes used only for burials."
That's not a speculation...that's a conclusion at odds with all the present evidence!
Hence, I don't think I am being a Nazi to tell you that is a load of rubbish, for listed reasons.
I do give credit to both professional scholars like I quoted & referenced (see page #1 i.e 'Weapons in Ancient China, ...Chinese armour before the Tang Dynasty, ....Iron & Steel in Ancient China, ....Ancient Chinese Weapons; A collection of pictures, ...Gilded Dragons, ....Art & Archaeology in Ancient China) and the physical remains that archaeology reveals in same said books, plus my personal observations of material items. What else is there?
Imagination is grand, but not reason to overturn a balance of evidence and then state the opposite as sound & enlightened reasoning.



You don't seem to know what you are talking about anytime you get specific about ancient China. You do seem well read, but you have never used it in a way that can be evaluated. No pictures, no bibliography, I do presume you have read broad ...but not deep.
You bring in stuff like Hittites and Mongols for instance, but generally for the purpose of a generalization. I think earlier I (& Urof Persia) asked for a few specifics to some of these generalizations. I really don't mind. We can be more specific to China instead if you like.



You lost me there at the first line...I think it is the terminology you are employing. 'segmented' & 'burial suits'.
You mean lamellar, like Chinese used, and leather armour, like Chinese used.
It seems that you think Qin and Han armour construction is not to be discussed but medieval warfare is.
Take note (again) that Qin armour is essentially a Warring States armour design (weapons in the tombs -dated inscriptions- show casting in the Warring States period BTW), and early West Han armour is largely the same as Qin, lamellar. If you read some of the literature the use of Qin terracotta warriors to study cordage on lamellar would not seem odd. ....The type of shields for example depicted in East Zhou art are the same as Qin shields (and Han shields), the lamellar construction shown on wooden models of armoured warriors in East Zhou tombs (just looking like the full sized ones you believe aren't really used)....again, same basic armour types.
Most suits did not cover the legs, or even the arms, but then again I am not sure which ones you actually mean though. You haven't given examples, or defined what ones you do believe in.


See, that's great. Your imagination again. This why you seem to have a unique take on everything.
Chariot axle heads did not stay the same over time, they modified (some even with blades) and the decorative examples in early periods are stripped down in later periods due to the demands of war.
Again, these are real battlefield chariots. They are even depicted in ceramic armies are late as Han.
i.e in the QinShiHuang tomb area 2 chariots were unearthed, bronze, and to scale.
One is a 'traveling' chariot, the other is a 'war' chariot with weapons and driver.
They were meant to serve the Emperor as such vehicles did in life.
I don't suppose you believe that either.
If you actually believed these were representations of real objects, then you might learn more.
There is tonnes of scholarship and publications on such things.
Even household items like cosmetic kits, cutlery, scholars writing gear, cooking vessels, lanterns, mirrors, and spare clothes...everything you would need....put into ancient tombs.
Yet you chose to believe that real armour was never-ever-ever put in a tomb.
You don't seem to grasp the ancient Chinese mortuary industry.
Chinese believed you really could 'take it with you'.



See my first comments above. Your reasonable statement now (essentially the maxim 'absence of evidence in not evidence of absence' is nothing like what you have been saying.
Still, you can take that too far. Believe in alien building pyramids, George Bush is a lizard man, or even that Weapons of Mass Destruction were being built by Saddam.
That's pretty good reasoning in reverse there buddy BTW, "It hasn't been found...yet it must have existed!! and the leather stuff is fake (cheap), and "flimsy" and "useless" etc."


When you say:# 8 "The effectiveness of the shot used makes leather rather useless as armor."
Then .............#9 "Armor that does not afford enough protection against shot is usually abolished (historically)."
The many references (and physical finds of armour AFTER the bronze age) show you must be wrong in at least one point.
This is what I have said from my first reply to you.
You wonder why I get tired of saying leather wasn't (quote) ..."rather useless as armor."
I also grow tired of trying to convince you ancient Chinese put items in graves they planned to use.
Personal weapons, etc, decorated armours....and make-up for the ladies.

"....just as I presume they painted their bronze armor"
Yeah, they didn't have bronze armour but don't let it stop you assuming it was painted too.
It seems you think pointing out these assumptions as erroneous is comparable to Nazi book burning.
Ha! hahahahah!


Tell you what...since you aren't interested in reading the relevant books, and don't believe in 'artefacts' (except those that suit you) here is a quote from 'Weapons in Ancient China' along the same lines as my comment about Dian armour.....
See, this is why you think I am pushing some agenda. It's actually called contemporary history.
I don't have a great interest in 'coulda-shoulda-woulda' arguments.
Albert Dien doesn't even mention Dian armours as they are a 'Sino-Viet' culture. The weapons types have more relation to Vietnam than the Zhou. Yang Hong called them 'Minority Nationalities of the Border region'. They weren't a minority like the people on Chinese TV at New Years time. They were a different culture with a separate development of weapons and armour styles until the Han period (Dian were distant 'barbarians')....I could suggest some reading if you like {i.e 'Weapons & ethnicity on the Sino-Viet frontier IIRC , or check my threads with Dian weapons for more details.}
I like books.
They have stuff in them like;



But to remind you of armours away from the Yunnan barbarian regions, to return to the central Zhou states-

Albert Dien in ‘Armour in China before the Tang dynasty” states “No body armour which was presumably made from leather survived”. {.. he then mentions traces of paint in soil where armour decayed}. ……“Small bronze pieces in various forms that may have attached to leather armour seem decorative and would have not afforded much protection………Metal armour (iron) began to appear in the late Warring States period.””.
&
“The earliest traces of armor in China consist of bronze helmets, since body armor was made of non-durable leather. The earliest surviving body armor is of lacquered leather laminae from the Warring States period (fifth-third centuries BC). Over time, the size of the laminae grew smaller.”

As Cheng Dong and Zhong Shao-Yi states…..”the armour of the period is constructed from leather .”

Yang Hong states; ”…with the exception of…bronze helmets..all other Eastern Zhou armours….obtained by excavation are made of leather. {bronze fittings and plaques attached to leather armours} “... [u]are rather thin and fragile and can hardly have had any defensive value”.

Etc Etc.

& in my first post on page one;
“No bronze armour has been found of the period that is being discussed (the late bronze age & early iron age). No true bronze armour has been found at all.
It anyone wants to bring information otherwise then post a picture with an original contextual comment by the author.”

That is still where we are at.

Sneaky, that's called a strawman argument. I never said Qin soldiers didn't wear helmets. I even posted a picture of a Qin helmet in the early part of the thread, as well as an iron lamellar helmet from Yan state (3rd century BC).
We never even mentioned this topic, but it is odd you choose to believe some excavated evidence as 'literal' when it suits you.
I also have posted pictures of Eastern Han iron helmets elsewhere on CHF. They are made of lamellar plates too. Believe it or not.

My 'tomb finds' are not my only form of evidence since I also include relevant historical/period evidence too.
i.e There are clear references to iron armours in the ShiJi from West Han records talking of states like Han and Zhongshans armours. There are references to leather armours too as given above.
No bronze mentioned though.
If you mean to say yours is the "historical comparisson" part then I would agree for once, but only to add that applying comparsons from other parts of the world, at quite different & later times, onto ancient bronze-age China is part of the problem we are having here....not the solution.

This is going around in circles, without new things being added. It seems we will stay in disagreement on this then.
Below is a pic of what I'm talking about. Btw, thanks (not) for comparing me to a Nazi ... though you are the one demanding to shut up someone that has a different opinion than yours.

For the record, I never said nobody wore leather, I am only talking about these suits. Because they do not look designed for leather to me (just look at those arm crescents). Rhino armor was used ... so? Probably also buffalo. Now if those burial suits were made from rhino leather, then you have a point.
Neither did I say lamellar is not effective, but it is less effective than the same thing in metal. I used 'segmented' to bypass the whole "is it lamellar or is it scales" discussion, btw. And also because the parts in these suits seem too big to fit our view of both.
They did not stop wearing those suites the moment someone started using cross bows. But you are right here, if they stopped wearing those burial suits after the intro of the cross bow, that might be an indication they were not made form metal.

The Dian I introduced to show that bronze was not unknown in the area. Ideas can travel you know, even the Dian's, together with their bronze no doubt.
In general, it's hard to know what kind of examples you want me to give you if every time I do it, you either ignore them or push them aside as irrelevant ...

Chinese burial habits where not that different from others. Including their 'it must be real' attitude. Yet those others also used substitution (ancient Egypt, for example).
But again, not so relevant, as the main point is the battlefield armor. Those burial suits might have been ceremonial and then fit your demand for 'real only', even being expensive.

Going from "I didn't find it so it didn't exist." to "Nothing has been found yet, but there may be enough reasons to assume something like it did exist." is the reason you and I are now able to discuss this over the internet. Call it a hunch or stupid idea, but without those we'd still believe we live on a pancake circled by the sun. Etc. Etc.
My hunch is they had it, your belief that they hadn't. So far no proof for either, just the fact that we haven't found one and the fact that everbody else had it. To quote your quote from Yang Hong: "[...] all other Eastern Zhou armours ... obtained by excavation are made of leather." Btw, just how many of those Dendra armors have been found?
It would be nice to see some quotes from those scholars you mention, but then the ones where they come up with other arguments besides "We didn't find it, so they didn't have it."


(from the 1995 catalogue of the Hubei Provincial Museum in Wuhan. Since then, they built a new museum with a hall specially for this tomb, very nice.)
BJ

Nice one. Of course my hunch is based on comparing these finds and their armies with many other finds, armies, doctrines, texts and developments about warfare throughout history, not on having watched a cool movie.

You are right. The suit pictured is (lacquered) leather, it's a burial suit. This burial suit might be a substitute, or a ceremonial suit or ... (etc). We are discussing if they might represent battlefield suits made from another material, like bronze.

Btw, I'm all for a scientific approach. I presented a theory with al the arguments. It predicts that we will find mention or traces of such suits in bronze. The theory will probably be proven wrong if: we find these suits made from leather, in actual battle surroundings; or mentions like 'we never made such bronze suits' or clear mention of bronze and leather in a similar context where we can deduce that the suits clearly were not bronze; or discovering that the effectivenes of massed Chinese bowfire in that era was far less deadly than we think still think it was.

BJ

Sometimes agreeing to disagree is the only solution.

Let's just move on so we can keep the thread open without denegrating it to a continuous, tedious, circular argument. If these circular arguments continue, the thread will be closed due to the several PM's we've recieved that requested such. So, let's move on and keep the thread alive.

Right, now we know which suits you are talking about. These were the ones found at the a tomb in Suixian, Hubei. The leather has rotted away leaving the outer lacquer which is how we know they are lacquered leather (Armor in China before Tang, A. Dien)

I am curious, what about the 'arms' (sleeves) says to you they don't look like they are designed or leather? I attach a somewhat clearer line drawing so perhaps you can better elucidate your point. Image is also from A. Dien's article


Shot at 2007-06-26

Nothing I see says it can't be made from lacquered armour. Notice the lamellar construction on the sleeves. In fact as remarked by A. Dien together with the other archaeological findings , we can now trace an evolution in Chinese armour all the way to the Tang dynasty with no discernable influences from outside sources. Lacquered leather armour continued to be used in the Han and further down the road. Leather as a form of armour is proven to work. Otherwise it would have been abandoned.



Right now everything we know says they are made of leather, I think we do not need an indication with regards to that.




1. Bronze was not unknown, this was never in dispute. I quite fail to see the relevance of this.
2. Are you suggesting because the Dian had bronze armour thus those lamellar suits above is likely bronze as well?




'ceremonial' armour which gives all appearance to be actual armour?

Hi Publius, closing this thread for a while may not be such a bad idea. I hope the moderators can understand why some of us are taking so much of our personal time to make replies. We would be doing a disservice to CHF if we do not counter claims which are untruthful or false. Ultimately the forum will suffer the fate of many of the other history forums that I have seen which has poor scholarship and endless debates based on spurious arguments.

Not everyone here is making circular arguments, it just seems so because they had to keep giving the same refutations to the same arguments.

This thread might be a candidate for a 3S, I am not sure, perhaps a discussion among yourselves will yield an answer.

Hi Beejay,

A few ideas on your original 10 points… in reverse order.



I don't think this is correct. In this passage 帶 just means « to wear », and帶甲 is « armor wearers », a relatively common term to designate soldiers in texts of this era (I think there are many instances of it in the Zuozhuan). Most commentators, and translators seem to agree on this.

As for 革車, it seems to be a technical term for a heavy chariot, which is not specific to Sunzi (I think you can find this term in Mencius too), it is opposed here to馳 車 which clearly means light/racing chariot. There seem to be some disagreement on whether the geche is a heavy chariot used for transportation, or a heavy (armoured) war chariot, in which case, leather here might mean "armor"…

So, I think it could not have been written 革 甲 十 萬, because this would mean 100 thousand pieces of leather armor, and therefore change the meaning of the sentence, and 帶革甲 would break the rhythm of the sentence (which btw, was probably more as a help for memorisation, a la Homer, and to help readers "decode" the terse classical language, than as an instance of poetic writing).

Here's the actual passage, and the translation by Giles :
孫 子 曰 ： 凡 用 兵 之 法 ， 馳 車 千 駟 ， 革 車 千 乘 ， 帶甲 十 萬 ；

Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers.



A modern helmet cannot stop a direct hit, yet helmets are worn. The metal armor some cavalrymen wore in the 19^th century (cuirassiers) didn't stop a bullet, neither did the padded dolman or the hussars, yet they were worn, because they did protect in close quarter fights. So perhaps leather armors stood no chance against a crossbow bolt, just like modern uniforms stand no chance against a bullet… This didn't make them useless.



Well, judging from the eyewitnesses accounts we have of professional armies in the gunpowder era, it seems that this notion of "weight of fire" (bullets, or arrows, or bolts, raining) didn't really exist before the advent of the machine gun. Soldiers tended to fire to early (despite drills and orders) and aim poorly. I would be surprised if similar problems didn't exist in ancient China. I am not disputing that crossbows were formidable weapons. They certainly had a terrorising effect on the enemy. But I believe that, just like muskets and early rifles, they were much less lethal in the field than on paper.

In any case, this means there was a trade off between bronze armor, heavy, expensive, but more protective against crossbow shots, and leather armor, light, cheaper, inefficient against crossbows but fine against other weapons. If crossbows operated like modern machine guns, ie the infantry needed to "reach" the enemy line under heavy and permanent fire, your points are valid. But then, if crossbows were less lethal than you think, and most battles were in fact a big melee, then having lighter armor, ie leather, would most certainly win the day.

Francois

Opinions stated as fact seems to be your area. I gave some of your opinions in the earlier thread for comparison and comment.

BTW, it was you who made analogies to me as intellectually 'book burning'. Since I assume you have read about that part of Fascist history I took it as you comparing me to a Nazi. Your indignation would be hypocritical.
I don't recall comparing you to a Nazi anyway, just that I laughed at your idea that to contest your ideas and scoff at them makes me a (metaphoric) Nazi.


Burial suits? You mean lamellar armour.
The examples I gave are about leather armour, hard as rock, turning away halberd blades, in records from ancient China to beyond.
Yes, buffalo was used too. I gave a source for that, and camel leather.
BTW The arm armour on the 'suits' that doesn't look designed for leather to you...that's your fancy. The suits are leather, and I fail to see why banded hardened leather armour fixed by cords somehow seems wrong to you.



I know exactly what you said, since I quoted you above by cutting and pasting your words. This is where adjectives like 'cheap' 'useless' & 'flimsy; come from.
Certainly not anyone else.



The so-called burial suits, using a misleading slight-of-hand by calling them such, are actually leather armours which did (as you have finally conceded) continue to be used after metal armour appeared, because they were effective.
Leather armour also long predates the crossbow too, and was used even after it appeared.
Maybe in this way my posts have not been entirely futile.



The 'examples' you give are only generalisations. You have never mentioned a specific artefact, a location, book, or person that can be checked. The picture you just supplied here is a first to date....yet it is one of the leather armours you seem to disregard in your first 'postulation'.

The Dian is one culture you have rather misused by not looking for examples this cultural exchange even occured.
This is more...'coulda-shoulda-woulda' stuff.
You have not looked at the visibly seperate development of weapon styles in the southern Yue peoples (quite different to Chinese types) and neither have you noted there is no evidence of outside influences on Chinese armour untill Tang times (as stated by Albert Dien).

About Dian weapons, one type I have written on; http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=13653
I used sources to date the artefacts, and provide comments (confirmed by more than one text referenced text) that these weapons developed independently and it is not untill the Han, early Eastern Han, that central plains styles weapons become standard in the region.
In the earlier periods the weapons are more unusual again, as only in the Warring States period is there any early evidence of the beginnings of influence with the Zhou cultural area. (see Early Weapons Systems and Ethnic Identity in the Sino-Vietnamese Frontier, ASPAC ‘96, Edmonton, British Columbia)
Han steel weapons were adopted by Dian peoples for example but there is no suggestion the reverse is true in the bronze age.
Since no Dian weapons, or armour styles, or ritual pieces etc. have been found in the north then such ideas are again another quite unsupported speculation. The Dian were in the distant south after all & considered half naked barbarians in early accounts. States such as Wu & Yue & Chu were between yet no such items have been found outside the far south areas however. The Dian are one of the Yue peoples, and are more related to ancient Vietnam. When Han Wudi sent envoys to Yunnan to find the southern trade routes, they failed. The region was still mysterious in the iron-age. It was unreachable in the Warring States period and earlier.

source; Horses, Silver, and Cowries: Yunnan in Global Perspective* Bin Yang, Northeastern University;
"The earliest textual source of the Silk Road is Zhang Qian's exploration in the Western Regions (xiyu) in the late second century BCE, recorded by Sima Qian in his Shi Ji. Nevertheless, Zhang Qian's report indeed leads to another Silk Road: a road connecting Southwest China with India, where he found Sichuan cloth (Shubu) and bamboo cane (Qiongzhu) in Daxia (Bactria). Emperor Wu of Han (140–87 BCE) then dispatched his envoys and troops to pacify local polities around Yunnan, with the expectation that he could open this road for his sake. His efforts, unfortunately, failed. 4
Because of Emperor Wu's attempts, scholars in China for long time have paid a great deal of attention to this road. Many fragmentary and obscure records in Chinese historical writings prior to the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE) referred to the exchange between China and India through jungles, forests, rivers, and mountains from Sichuan, Yunnan, Burma, and Assam to India. We have no firsthand accounts of anyone completing this journey from early periods."

The Dian is best considered, and more accurately percieved, as a culture unto itself and of essentially a seperate development to the north of China during the Shang-Zhou period.
In this way Albert Dien's comments about the independence of Chinese armour traditions need not be challenged by imaginary Dian style armours (still mainly leather BTW) coming to the central plains but leaving no trace. Dien does not even mention the non-Chinese border cultures except in passing.







This certainly is circular. Yes, there are substitutes...more so in later times because of the waste of human sacrifice and burying dozens of chariots....and there are personal items.
Substitutes are typically in pits, or minaturised (such as examples of weapons and fittings I have shown on CHF). Personal effects are buried directly with the deceased, such as weapons in proximity, or on, the body.
Despite your attempts to create it, there is no need for confusion. People have been studying the leather armour of the Marquis of Zeng for decades and it is only you who believes it is some sort of item never intended for use. Like your picture, reconstructions are found in many texts and even museum displays (such as the Beijing Military museum).




So now they are ceremonial armours. Uhuh.
You will end up just confusing yourself by variably justifying an illogical position.
Speculations, when made to support other shakey speculations, can in the end up contradicting each other in other ways.
I noted how your points #8 & #9 in your first post were demonstratably wrong and contradict each other (see previous post). Here is another logical inconsistency that you have made for your own purposes.
Your initial premise in points 1 to 10 is that bronze was "expensive" so leather was used as a cheap subsitute to replace bronze items, like armour.
...But, further to avoiding the literal reality of tomb objects as personal possessions of the deceased since priceless treasure appear too, and this paradox of including expensive & extraordinary works of art, you also say the detailed or gilded axle hubs, bronze fittings of the large and complex types, or inlaid and decorated weapons are only made to be placed in the tomb ....and not for use in life.
Huh? Wouldn't the "economic option" & "top quality" concepts be mutually exclusive ('cheap' objects are only for the tomb....decorated or elaborate items only for tomb too), and mean you alone have deduced any such early decorated chariots (as are ALL from Shang to West Zhou), or any decorated weapons (despite some inscribed with '...For the personal use of Duke 'X' "), just like leather armours found are also not the real objects?....



Hmmm. My comments about Weapons on Mass Destruction, and this as potentially unhelpful reverse logic, seems to have been lost.

Besides, there is a valid concept known as 'Occams razor' which is of more worth.
It basically states that a conclusion is most sound when made with the least amount of assumptions.
"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
Or, one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
To put it another way, all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.


See, this is where I have clearly asked for examples. You think ancient China is alone in this respect.
Statements like "everybody else had it" {used bronze armour in the bronze age} just shows how you have got some really odd ideas.
How about a meagre half dozen examples from your comparitive history?
Even around China the majority of the bronze cultures did not use bronze armours.


Are you for real? I gave quotes, in quotations, with references to book titles...many times. You sure haven't.
If I had verbatim copied every part from every text I mentioned then I would be wasting even more time on this.
I gave a bibliography and posted extracts from the most relevent books in a manner that allows you to check them.





I would welcome a 3S setting on this thread.

Even if armor X weren't able to stop crossbow bolts, a crossbowman that can hit you through the chest at 200 paces may now only kill you at 100 paces. Anything helps. Most armor(whatever material they may be) can't stop heavy crossbow bolts at point blank range anyhow.

Could anyone give me some more description upon the leather lamellar armour in post 77, the part that protect the arms of the warrior, it seems to me a little bit strange as compared to armour from Europe and Islamic World

BJ, may I ask you several things? If the armour that was buried in the tombs is not real and merely ceremonial, how can you explain that there is no archaeological evidence for bronze armour?

Another thing I might add, I personally don't think that laquered leather lamellar armour (I'll abbrevieate it as 3LA for short) armour is flimsy or weak. For one thing, if it was so weak and outdated, why would later dynasties still use 3LA if it was ineffective for stopping weapons? (Although sources provided by Kenneth state otherwise)

As for your Greece argument and how they had heavy armour, notice how their main opponenets were not shot heavy armies, but rather armies equipped in all the same way? (Sparta had hoplites, Athens had hoplites, etc.)

Also if you look at some European examples of armour, and one army is facing one that is shot heavy (i.e. using muskets) Why is it that most cavalrymen who had the armour (since it still was around) to stop bullets simply disregarded it? (hussars, light lancers, etc.) And it was only the heavy cavalry that namely wore armour (but that was mostly a steel cuirass, and helmet. Nothing like a knight.)

I will try to in a new thread sometime in the future, but not too soon as I have quite a bit on my plate. Anyone who wish to reply I suggest starting a new thread. Hopefully the mods will take note and spin out any non-relevant posts.

Was out of town for two days, but am back, so here goes:

The main point for me was to speculate if the leather suits we know from burials might have been look-alikes of bronze armor suits used in actual battles.
Three other discussions spun off from that:
- one about what Chinese did or did not put in their tombs (stemming from trying to find a reason why the suits in tombs were leather IF we say the battlefield suits were bronze) … this is only partly relevant to the main question (still, most tombs would be furnished with special burial goods, even of they were meant to represent daily life);
- one about the armor difference between armies that rely on ranged combat and those that don't;
- and one about the use of bronze armor during the bronze age.

Several arguments were put forward why we can presume bronze battle suits and why we cannot. The 'can' centered around comparing with other armies in other places, either in similar situations (rely on ranged) or at a similar state of development (material best armor = material best weapon); and the look of the suits. The 'cannot' centered around accepting the accepted view that says 'we haven't found any bronze suits, but we find leather ones (be it in tombs).'

People can read the thread for details. However, one thing to consider is that we didn’t know about the bronze Dendra suits until we found one. Up to that time everybody thought the Greek torso armors where the most complete bronze ever. Another example is ancient Egypt. We have found nothing that can confirm they wore armor (bronze or another), not in art, not in texts, not in tombs. Yet during their heyday their chariot opponents wore bronze scale suits. So it has been assumed the Egyptians must have had something similar instead of going to battle in a short cotton skirt only. Some scales were found in a palace, but it is unclear how to interpret those.


An answer / reply to the most recent posts, grouped by subject:

A ) BEST armor = bronze. So not ALL armor and also not EVERYBODY. But if leaders wore protection, it would have been the best protection possible. Leather is not flimsy perse, but it is if you have bronze to compare to. If you are only a trooper or just poor, you're lucky to even have leather of course.
During the bronze age the best armor was bronze. Some examples: early Assyrians, Sumerians (whose long, copper studded coats may have been ranged doctrine protection), Egyptians (but see above), some Sea Peoples (might even have had 'Greek' style torso cuirasses), Germans, Myceneans (Dendra), Babylonians (I think: those chest disks, like many others), Celts, Hittites (or the other ones they replaced, forgot: all by heart). Of course there were also armies that had no armor at all (so they would not have had bronze armor either of course).
I cannot come up with a single example where this ("had armor and bronze weapons, but no bronze armor") was not the case … maybe someone else can? Kenneth?

B ) About Sunzi: you may be right that it’s 'carry'. My take was that the groups repeat like adjective-noun pairs and not verb-noun. This fits because then it's all about things, not people (chariots, armor, provisions) and also because with verbs, the 'carry' is like an indirect description (those that carry armor), unlike the chariots' direct ones (galloping chariots, etc).

C ) Quotes from well known scholars: the complete (uncut) question I asked was "It would be nice to see some quotes from those scholars you mention, but then the ones where they come up with other arguments besides 'We didn't find it, so they didn't have it.'."
Or: what are the reasons they put forward, besides only finding leather suits? It would be great to read why else they think the Chinese did not have bronze armor suits … I mean, they must have more reasons, as they are aware of Dendra and Egypt (besides, if they have such an opinion about those suits, they must be experts in military history and thus know about all those others where bronze armor did exist).

D ) On average, an army that is relying on ranged combat (or mainly expects to fight such opponents) will be better protected than an army that is not. Compare cavalry who's main function is to charge home: Alexander's Companions were less well protected than the steppe knights he encountered. His army did not rely on ranged combat, the other did. Compare archers from the eastern Roman armies to those from the western: in the east they wore complete scale dresses. Compare the average Persian Immortal to the average German warrior: the Persian had mail / scale and a helmet (of sorts under their hat, plus a shield designed for arrow-warfare), while the German had a shield and if lucky a helmet (plus a melee shield). Sure, the Greek were heavily armored … but not their cavalry or light troops (Maybe the Greek were the exception that proves the rule? Or maybe they were not: look at the development of Dendra to Classic Greek to Macedonian Greek: from full bronze to partly to linen … maybe Dendra's vanished enemies had a ranged doctrine?). Sure the Roman melee infantry was heavily protected … but then they did rely on ranged combat (be it very short range). Compare horse armor and see what army employed full or part horse armor first: always the ranged doctrines.
Once ranged combat keeps defeating armor, people discard the armor as it's too cumbersome for the little protection it offers. That's what happened in Europe once the muskets and pistols demanded armor too thick and expensive to be practical (note here that even melee troops kept adding armor until then, never going the 'too cumbersome' route earlier: that is only done by swift troops deployed in open formations. The Swedes are not a counter example, as they had budgetary problems and used leather instead). Only melee specialists kept their helmets and some their cuirass (although that was more tradition than function in the beginning). And all troops kept some form of head protection for melee.
Metal helmets were only re-introduced on a grand scale during WW1. Because if you are in a trench, then before your eyes are able to look out over the top of it, your forehead will appear and that will be hit by the many snipers waiting, or by shards from grenades. Those helmets were meant to deflect bullets and stop shards and ricochets (nobody expected to stop the bullets cold: not even tanks or armored cars in WW1 were bullet proof).

Everybody (pro and con) spent lots of their time writing their posts and putting their arguments together: I think this is a great (and serious) discussion.

BJ

Forgot about those Dian: we can doubt they were the barbarians that the nothern historians called them. There was plenty of trade and cultural exchange with people around them, so most probably also with the northerners (direct or indirect).

Just by the looks of it, there must have been exchange of warfare concepts, like shield design and possibly helmet or armor design. What I find surpising is that both Dian and the burial suits further north show a similar kind of special neck protection, either running around the neck or sort of vertical plates on the shoulders / back. Why surpirsing? Because as far as I know this kind of protection has only been 'invented' four times: in late medieval Europe, in Mycenea, in Warring States China and among those Dian. Now those last two are a real big coincidence (same region, same time frame) ... unless of course we accept that there was exchange between the two.
Which way that exhcange went I do not know, but it is interesting to note that for example the Romans adopted their shield, helmet and later sword from the Celts, whom they also described as half naked barbarians. As I understand, they also preferred Celtic metallurgy. So it seems that 'barbarians' had plenty of military and craftsmanship knowledge on offer for oganized states. It is said those Dian were better at working bronze than the northerners, but I’m not a metallurgy expert.

Those neck guards on the leather suits I do not fully understand: anybody knows how they were attached? They seem to be meant to protect against up- and sideway swings from swords or pole arms. That means they have to be able to resist huge impacts and that sets restrictions to how they must have been attached. If they go all around (Dian), that already gives them extra stiffness (and much more so if done in metal instead of leather).

BJ

How about you start using sources, examples, and pictures that allow people to check your ideas. You really talk an incredible of fantastic stuff, without doing more than an intellectual hit and run.
This is after all completely at odds with Prof. Diens armour publication & I have not seen any evidence of this in my examination of Dian weapons. Pray tell why are Chinese and Dian shields similar?
The article I cited on the Sino-Viet weapons cultures also does not make this comment about exchanges, and notes the influence one way, in early iron age contexts & only and in limited ways. Dian warriors might use Chinese weapon styles for example. I trust you will at least start to read a little of the previous literature on the subject ysince ou seem insistent on making contrary conclusions about them.
If your posts were a Wiki article each one would state 'this does not cite sources'.
Assuming you really want to discuss this topic lets actually present the concepts in ways that allows people to judge them as valid. Elaborate with real examples, provide a link, be more specific.
"...It is said those Dian were better at working bronze than the northerners, but I’m not a metallurgy expert...."
Then why say it at all? Who said it anyway? Those are weasel words. I have never heard any suggestion that Dian bronze is better, or seen an artefact to justify this. Rather, the opposite is true if anything since Dian superiority would not make much sense given the late bronze age occurrance of bronze weapons in the first place and the complex techniques exported by Chinese bronze casters to Ba culture sites (ritual vessels and semi-barbarian states like ZhongShan (inlay using Chinese experts).




Just because the Mod's haven't compelled you by setting a scholarly standard on this thread doesn't mean you can't raise the bar a little and be specific, or be a little responsible by providing your sources.
How else can readers pick invention from a credible statement of fact?



Your last 2 posts, of which I am loath to even reply to, are interspersed with :"...Because as far as I know....I think....all by heart......As I understand......assumed......{they} might......I do not fully understand......just by the looks of it"

If you really don't want to let this thread die, and want to keep hammering away for some reason, then try and step up and use some mimimum standards.
If you must quote me and bring this up again then at least use a few written works like I did and show that you have a basis for these unique speculations of yours, like supposed non-Chinese influences on Zhou armour and the superior bronze working of the Dian culture.

On page 3 of the Tongxiu 筒袖 and Liangdang 两当 Armour thread I posted several pictures of those Dian. Look at the shields, same thing with the neck guard. That's two very unusual items / shapes. The probability of those things being independently invented, around the same time in the same region [ed: meaning those two things being invented, by both the Dian, and the north], is much much smaller than the probability of cultural exchange. That's why I put in that Celtic example, to show that such exchanges aren't weird at all.
Also, the Dian were more of a warrior nation than the northerners, which could lead one to think that weapons exchange might have gone north, not only south. Again, same thing with the Celts (and others). I'm not saying it was that way, merely pointing out that we have alternative possibilities to take into consideration.

About bronze working: "To supplement their technical skill in creating their bronzes, the Dian peoples also had a good scientific knowledge of alloys and metallurgy. Analysis of bronzes found at Shizhaishan show that the Dian peoples realized that by altering the mixture of certain elements, they could create more malleable or conversely, stronger bronze alloys. As a result, concentration of tin, which lends malleability to bronze was found to be at its optimal level in swords and lowest in bracelets and jewelry to provide softness required to mold the metal. In addition, by the Western Han, the Dian peoples seemed to have pioneered finishing techniques that helped protect their bronzes from the characteristic patina that stems from oxidation and corrosion of the outside layers of metal from exposure to air, especially the humid air that was characteristic of Yunnan. Through double layer treatments and tin plating of their bronzes, the Dian people were able to protect their bronzes from corrosion perhaps in a more technologically advanced manner than their Chinese neighbors so much that even at their discovery in 1955, they retained their silver grey color."
Quote from a thesis (The art of the other, Peter Chai, 2006). For this part he refers to Jessica Rawson's "The Chinese Bronzes of Yunnan" (1983), p. 24. But as I said, I am no metallurgy expert, and don't have that book.

If people use 'I think' in their statements, it's a matter of being polite. Being polite is not the same thing as being wrong or illogical though. You asked me, I answered. Like the half dozen bronze age bronze armor examples you don't believe existed, or the complete suits for ranged doctrine armies you don't know about, etc. Maybe all of that is enough to consider (not agree, just consider) the possibility that on a battlefield those leather burial suits might actually have been bronze (and no, that does not mean 'all' suits, and not 'everybody').

As an interesting side note, the Austrian army tried to introduce segmented lacquered leather helmets in the early 1800s. It was a disaster. They were impractical (too heavy for one) and most were useless within six years of use, though they were designed to last 12 years. These helmets were state supplied, and thus cared for a lot less well than personal armor. Another example of leather armor (especially helmets and state supplied armies) being illogical.

BJ