which is better?chinese or european armor?
which dynasty has the best armor?
what r the types of armor that the chinese used?
Full Version: chinese armor
i'm too lazy to look them up right now but theres already multiple threads regarding the subject of Chinese armor
Euro armor was far too heavy which slowed down cavalry and cavalry relies on speed for striking power. plus, euro armor was not THAT protective, a Chinese/Steppe Nomad composite bow could cut through euro style armor at 200 yards easily.
Euro armor was far too heavy which slowed down cavalry and cavalry relies on speed for striking power. plus, euro armor was not THAT protective, a Chinese/Steppe Nomad composite bow could cut through euro style armor at 200 yards easily.
Basically, both European and Oriental armour were developed to counter the weapons they would face on the battlefield. You can say one type of European armour was better than a certain type of Oriental armour in some specific ways and vice versa, but I think a broad generalisation of which is better would be neither accurate nor, frankly, possible.
Agree with you totally there Starfire. Each one has its ups and its downs. There really isn't a "Best Kind" of anything.
Even the most 'protective' European plate armour can still be pierced through by cross-bow bolts or bow arrows. The chinese armour was light and was combined to give mobility for cavalry ride. I would say the chinese armor makes a good balance on speed and protectiveness.
As much as I hate to say, European armor surpassed that used in the East. The latest forms of plate armor made the wearer pretty much impervious to sword blows, you'd have to nail him with a powerful crossbow bolt, a pick, a polearm, a greatsword or a gun pretty hard to bring him down. No part of the body was exposed (well, a little so you can see, but not much). Anything that can penetrate the plate of the late rennaissance will penetrate any Chinese armor.
The tailor made form fitting plate armors are pretty much the pinnacle of armor design. They were around 70lbs at most, distributed well throughout the body. A wearer could move well in them, though the armor gets tiring to wear as it has no ventilation (bad for hot weather).
If you want it lighter, it came lighter, in forms where it was just torso, pauldrons, and skirt.
For sheer protective value and skill, Europeans eventually had better armourers.
Then again, I've never seen a set of 'real' Chinese lion armor before. Shian Wei Kia, Mountain pattern scale, whatever it's called.
That could be an armor that could be seen as 'equal' to plate armor, with its ingenius design of interlocking scales.
My favorite is the armour of the Tang and the Ming. The Tang for their dragon/beast head sleaves, and the ming for just making cool mountain pattern armour.
when it comes down to it really, I can't say. It's just that I've NEVER seen a real version of this armour, I've seen real versions of European armour, which makes the latter more attractive.
The tailor made form fitting plate armors are pretty much the pinnacle of armor design. They were around 70lbs at most, distributed well throughout the body. A wearer could move well in them, though the armor gets tiring to wear as it has no ventilation (bad for hot weather).
If you want it lighter, it came lighter, in forms where it was just torso, pauldrons, and skirt.
For sheer protective value and skill, Europeans eventually had better armourers.
Then again, I've never seen a set of 'real' Chinese lion armor before. Shian Wei Kia, Mountain pattern scale, whatever it's called.
That could be an armor that could be seen as 'equal' to plate armor, with its ingenius design of interlocking scales.
My favorite is the armour of the Tang and the Ming. The Tang for their dragon/beast head sleaves, and the ming for just making cool mountain pattern armour.
when it comes down to it really, I can't say. It's just that I've NEVER seen a real version of this armour, I've seen real versions of European armour, which makes the latter more attractive.
"plus, euro armor was not THAT protective, a Chinese/Steppe Nomad composite bow could cut through euro style armor at 200 yards easily. ""Even the most 'protective' European plate armour can still be pierced through by cross-bow bolts or bow arrows."
No, the top plate armour of the 16th century was virtually invulnerable to anything other than axe and clubs,(which is used to deform the armour and not piercing it) it could even prevent a bullet from 200 yards. Combosite bows would not even make a mark on it in 200 yard in fact even in just 50 yards it is unlikely to penetrate, and even if a good angle shot pierced it, the mail inside would still deflect the bolt and preventing any damage.
No sword can cut through plate armour except one; The Zhan ma Dao.
This have been tested by Plate armour experts which used the swords from all the different civilizations ranging from the Katana and the Teutonic cutting swords to the islamic curved swords all haven't made the slightest impression. Only the Zhan Ma Dao with its design especially used for cutting through heavy armour hacked through the arm of the knight and even that didn't pierce the mail, but perhaps broke the person's bone inside, after all Zhan Ma Dao is also more of a smashing weapon than cutting. Yet when the Zhan Ma Dao is swung at the helmet of the knight the helmet got squashed and the wooden figure inside had its head shattered which the expert say would happen to a real person if hit. But the Zhan Ma Dao is an extremely heavy weapon and impractical to use except highly trained men that are in loose formation so they can swing the weapon with room. Thus it only made a small part of the army.
European armour can be said to be decisively superior by the late 15th century with the invention of full plate armour, but the coming of firearms didn't make them the deadly weapons that they would have become. The only negative aspects of this armour is its unbearable heat and inflexibility in the front and back as well as time to put on, other than that, if one weres it and goes to combat, he is virtually immortal.
No, the top plate armour of the 16th century was virtually invulnerable to anything other than axe and clubs,(which is used to deform the armour and not piercing it) it could even prevent a bullet from 200 yards. Combosite bows would not even make a mark on it in 200 yard in fact even in just 50 yards it is unlikely to penetrate, and even if a good angle shot pierced it, the mail inside would still deflect the bolt and preventing any damage.
No sword can cut through plate armour except one; The Zhan ma Dao.
This have been tested by Plate armour experts which used the swords from all the different civilizations ranging from the Katana and the Teutonic cutting swords to the islamic curved swords all haven't made the slightest impression. Only the Zhan Ma Dao with its design especially used for cutting through heavy armour hacked through the arm of the knight and even that didn't pierce the mail, but perhaps broke the person's bone inside, after all Zhan Ma Dao is also more of a smashing weapon than cutting. Yet when the Zhan Ma Dao is swung at the helmet of the knight the helmet got squashed and the wooden figure inside had its head shattered which the expert say would happen to a real person if hit. But the Zhan Ma Dao is an extremely heavy weapon and impractical to use except highly trained men that are in loose formation so they can swing the weapon with room. Thus it only made a small part of the army.
European armour can be said to be decisively superior by the late 15th century with the invention of full plate armour, but the coming of firearms didn't make them the deadly weapons that they would have become. The only negative aspects of this armour is its unbearable heat and inflexibility in the front and back as well as time to put on, other than that, if one weres it and goes to combat, he is virtually immortal.
I have to agree. I believe European armour to be generally superior in terms of protection to the wearer than Chinese armour. This doesn't reflect an inferiority in Chinese armour as many pro-western military enthusiasts seem to like pointing out. It's a reflection of fighting styles and emphasis. Chinese military arts has always emphasized mobility over strength. Western fighting places great emphasis on taking and absorbing the blow. The eastern fighting technic talks more about avoidance and hence the belief that the easterner is weak and cowardly.
I refer back to my example of the red ant vs. the black ant. Both are superior fighters. Just different.
I refer back to my example of the red ant vs. the black ant. Both are superior fighters. Just different.
Sorry I didn't write that last sentence, it was taken from a quote and I didn't delete it.
[Mod: OK, I've deleted it.]
[Mod: OK, I've deleted it.]
how this type of armor offer protection from?
is this armor light?
is this armor light?
It's brigandine - leather (with a cloth cover) that has metal plates riveted to the inside. Hence the many studs on the surface - those are rivets. This became the standard armour for Qing bannerman cavalry. The metal plate on the chest is for extra protection. I think brigandine was effective against swords and arrows, and to some extent against matchlock bullets.
QUOTE (Yun @ Jan 31 2005, 08:22 PM)
It's brigandine - leather (with a cloth cover) that has metal plates riveted to the inside. Hence the many studs on the surface - those are rivets. This became the standard armour for Qing bannerman cavalry. The metal plate on the chest is for extra protection. I think brigandine was effective against swords and arrows, and to some extent against matchlock bullets.
Regarding the cloth cover you mentioned. In the photograph provided by HaSy I can't tell whether or not the cloth is dyed. Is it dyed, and if so, would the colour be chosen to represent the particular banner the soldier was attached to?
Wow, so only the Zhanmadao actually cut through armor? Interesting. Where was this test done?
Also, that picture of brigandine has the plates removed I believe. Probably a set of court 'armour'.
I wouldn't say the red/black ant is too good an example though. Red ants win by numbers, and brings up the image of the 'horde' that is usually attributed to Asian warfare.
Also, that picture of brigandine has the plates removed I believe. Probably a set of court 'armour'.
I wouldn't say the red/black ant is too good an example though. Red ants win by numbers, and brings up the image of the 'horde' that is usually attributed to Asian warfare.
QUOTE (TMPikachu @ Feb 1 2005, 12:42 AM)
Also, that picture of brigandine has the plates removed I believe. Probably a set of court 'armour'.
Yun mentioned that the plates are actually on the inside of the leather.
That's how it normall would be, but many fancier looking suits just had studs sown to cloth to give the look. In the book "Oriental Armour" I finally saw a suit with plates still intact, and it looks much more solid and stuff compared to every other one I had seen (which usually mention the plates are removed)
QUOTE (warhead @ Jan 31 2005, 06:19 AM)
"plus, euro armor was not THAT protective, a Chinese/Steppe Nomad composite bow could cut through euro style armor at 200 yards easily. ""Even the most 'protective' European plate armour can still be pierced through by cross-bow bolts or bow arrows."
No, the top plate armour of the 16th century was virtually invulnerable to anything other than axe and clubs,(which is used to deform the armour and not piercing it) it could even prevent a bullet from 200 yards. Combosite bows would not even make a mark on it in 200 yard in fact even in just 50 yards it is unlikely to penetrate, and even if a good angle shot pierced it, the mail inside would still deflect the bolt and preventing any damage.
No sword can cut through plate armour except one; The Zhan ma Dao.
This have been tested by Plate armour experts which used the swords from all the different civilizations ranging from the Katana and the Teutonic cutting swords to the islamic curved swords all haven't made the slightest impression. Only the Zhan Ma Dao with its design especially used for cutting through heavy armour hacked through the arm of the knight and even that didn't pierce the mail, but perhaps broke the person's bone inside, after all Zhan Ma Dao is also more of a smashing weapon than cutting. Yet when the Zhan Ma Dao is swung at the helmet of the knight the helmet got squashed and the wooden figure inside had its head shattered which the expert say would happen to a real person if hit. But the Zhan Ma Dao is an extremely heavy weapon and impractical to use except highly trained men that are in loose formation so they can swing the weapon with room. Thus it only made a small part of the army.
European armour can be said to be decisively superior by the late 15th century with the invention of full plate armour, but the coming of firearms didn't make them the deadly weapons that they would have become. The only negative aspects of this armour is its unbearable heat and inflexibility in the front and back as well as time to put on, other than that, if one weres it and goes to combat, he is virtually immortal.
No, the top plate armour of the 16th century was virtually invulnerable to anything other than axe and clubs,(which is used to deform the armour and not piercing it) it could even prevent a bullet from 200 yards. Combosite bows would not even make a mark on it in 200 yard in fact even in just 50 yards it is unlikely to penetrate, and even if a good angle shot pierced it, the mail inside would still deflect the bolt and preventing any damage.
No sword can cut through plate armour except one; The Zhan ma Dao.
This have been tested by Plate armour experts which used the swords from all the different civilizations ranging from the Katana and the Teutonic cutting swords to the islamic curved swords all haven't made the slightest impression. Only the Zhan Ma Dao with its design especially used for cutting through heavy armour hacked through the arm of the knight and even that didn't pierce the mail, but perhaps broke the person's bone inside, after all Zhan Ma Dao is also more of a smashing weapon than cutting. Yet when the Zhan Ma Dao is swung at the helmet of the knight the helmet got squashed and the wooden figure inside had its head shattered which the expert say would happen to a real person if hit. But the Zhan Ma Dao is an extremely heavy weapon and impractical to use except highly trained men that are in loose formation so they can swing the weapon with room. Thus it only made a small part of the army.
European armour can be said to be decisively superior by the late 15th century with the invention of full plate armour, but the coming of firearms didn't make them the deadly weapons that they would have become. The only negative aspects of this armour is its unbearable heat and inflexibility in the front and back as well as time to put on, other than that, if one weres it and goes to combat, he is virtually immortal.
interesting, because i do archery(i use a vintage composite bow) and i've cut through metal plates from far distances. granted, the plate i was using for target might not have been the same kind that Euros used for their armor.
"Wow, so only the Zhanmadao actually cut through armor? Interesting. Where was this test done?"
It was on the history channel a while ago.
It was on the history channel a while ago.
That's very interesting. I've just read more about the Tang modao 陌刀 recently, which is related to the Song zhanmadao 战马刀 and Qing podao 朴刀 (which was also called zhanmadao when used by Qing troops). According to the Jiu Tangshu, in a battle outside Chang'an against An Qingxu's rebel troops, General Li Siye 李嗣业 (who was the best modao exponent in the Tang army) wielded a modao against the rebel cavalry, and with each stroke "the rider and horse would both be split apart" (人马俱碎). Li then formed a solid wall of modao-wielding infantry and advanced, driving back the enemy cavalry.
gah! these comparitive history threads just wont die! 
I agree with Warhead on this one, plate (as tested by the Royal armoury and in televised experiments I have seen) of battlefield quality will stop most projectiles even with the optimum piercing angles, the point will buckle and the shaft split.
Short stout points pierce plate better than the much vaunted bodkin of the longbow.
There was some limited sucess but the ability of plate to stop missile fire is still onclusive...this has been nutted out by the weapons enthuisasts on the sword forum/armour forum. Even chain mail and felt padding allowed English knights to walk around with a dozen Arab arrows sticking out of them...and Chinese armour would have stopped their foes missiles just as well if it struck an armoured location
The links are under the post here 'why didnt Chinese invent plate'.
The main weapons with a show of killing a man in plate were warhammers spikes of heavy halberds with a lot of swing and weight. As warhead outlined they dont have to slice armour apart to injure, just maim the person inside instead.
I agree with Warhead on this one, plate (as tested by the Royal armoury and in televised experiments I have seen) of battlefield quality will stop most projectiles even with the optimum piercing angles, the point will buckle and the shaft split.
Short stout points pierce plate better than the much vaunted bodkin of the longbow.
There was some limited sucess but the ability of plate to stop missile fire is still onclusive...this has been nutted out by the weapons enthuisasts on the sword forum/armour forum. Even chain mail and felt padding allowed English knights to walk around with a dozen Arab arrows sticking out of them...and Chinese armour would have stopped their foes missiles just as well if it struck an armoured location
The links are under the post here 'why didnt Chinese invent plate'.
The main weapons with a show of killing a man in plate were warhammers spikes of heavy halberds with a lot of swing and weight. As warhead outlined they dont have to slice armour apart to injure, just maim the person inside instead.
QUOTE
Regarding the cloth cover you mentioned. In the photograph provided by HaSy I can't tell whether or not the cloth is dyed. Is it dyed, and if so, would the colour be chosen to represent the particular banner the soldier was attached to?
The colours do represent the banner. See this diagram for the different colours:
was every soldier in Qing overweight? I always see these seemingly fat brigandine suits.
I think they're probably just looser for riding. The slits in the cheongsam apparently originated that way too - so Manchu women could ride when wearing them.
does the Qing Dynasty still use lamellar armor aside from brigadine-leather armor?
I first mistaken this lamellar armor for a variation of plate armor. Can someone please tell me what lamellar armor was made of and what it's advantages and disadvantages were to other chinese armors including the european plate armor?
QUOTE
does the Qing Dynasty still use lamellar armor aside from brigadine-leather armor?
Qing cavalry used both lamellar and brigandine in the 17th century, but by the middle of the 18th century both had fallen out of use because of the influence of firearms. Qing cavalry would be totally unarmoured, but brigandine armour with the iron plates removed (but the studs retained) was still used for ceremonial purposes by Bannermen into the 19th century.QUOTE
I first mistaken this lamellar armor for a variation of plate armor. Can someone please tell me what lamellar armor was made of and what it's advantages and disadvantages were to other chinese armors including the european plate armor?
Lamellar armour is made of pieces of leather or iron strung together with string into a suit. Its main advantages are flexibility in movement and ease of repair compared to plate. The disadvantages are probably that it is less durable than chain male or plate, and cannot cover the whole head and body like plate armour.
Read more about lamellar here: http://www.armourarchive.org/patterns/lamellar_templarbob
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505/page6.html
Brigandine: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505/page8.html
[quote=Yun,Feb 5 2005, 01:35 PM]
Qing cavalry used both lamellar and brigandine in the 17th century
so did they still use Ming syle of lamellar armor which is flexible?
and so....Qing calvary used armor while the their infantry did not?
Qing cavalry used both lamellar and brigandine in the 17th century
so did they still use Ming syle of lamellar armor which is flexible?
and so....Qing calvary used armor while the their infantry did not?
The Ming probably used brigandine armour too, but there are no surviving examples.
Early Qing infantry was essentially Ming armies that had surrendered, so their armour would be the same as the Ming infantry - very light or none at all.
Early Qing infantry was essentially Ming armies that had surrendered, so their armour would be the same as the Ming infantry - very light or none at all.
The difference was the change of warfare and the focus.
Yes plate armor was almost invunerable to any conventional weapon, but by the time the true full plates were around guns were already developing fast. thus the full plates never played much of a role in european warfare as muskets became the mainstream. it's main reason for developing also had far more to do with the aritocratic nature of Europe during that time, in which the nobles try to seek better and better protection over other practicalities... like the fact that the time and metal spent on a good platemail for themself could probably be made into weapons for many other more men.
China by that time was no longer a aristocratic society, military men cared a lot about praticality, both in battle and in production, what kind of armor can be mass produced to fit the incrediable lage army, what weapon would be most effective? armor became ever lighter by the later Ming particularly because firearms are becomming too effective for anything to stop it while still being mass producable.
Yes plate armor was almost invunerable to any conventional weapon, but by the time the true full plates were around guns were already developing fast. thus the full plates never played much of a role in european warfare as muskets became the mainstream. it's main reason for developing also had far more to do with the aritocratic nature of Europe during that time, in which the nobles try to seek better and better protection over other practicalities... like the fact that the time and metal spent on a good platemail for themself could probably be made into weapons for many other more men.
China by that time was no longer a aristocratic society, military men cared a lot about praticality, both in battle and in production, what kind of armor can be mass produced to fit the incrediable lage army, what weapon would be most effective? armor became ever lighter by the later Ming particularly because firearms are becomming too effective for anything to stop it while still being mass producable.
QUOTE(Yun @ Feb 5 2005, 01:58 PM)
The Ming probably used brigandine armour too, but there are no surviving examples.
Early Qing infantry was essentially Ming armies that had surrendered, so their armour would be the same as the Ming infantry - very light or none at all.
Early Qing infantry was essentially Ming armies that had surrendered, so their armour would be the same as the Ming infantry - very light or none at all.
[snapback]4699450[/snapback]
can i know where is the origin of chinese characters such as ''bing'' or soldier used in the Qing infantry and are these chinese characters is only Han soldiers?
The character bing 兵 (soldier) was written in a circular patch on the front and back of the uniforms of the Qing Green Standard (luying 绿营) Armies. These armies were made up of Han soldiers. Other irregular troops (militia) might have yong 勇 written instead. Later, this was apparently replaced with more detailed information on the soldier's unit. If anyone knows when this change took place, do tell us here.
how did the bronze armor fell out of use?
and is paper armor effective?
and is paper armor effective?
QUOTE(warhead)
No, the top plate armour of the 16th century was virtually invulnerable to anything other than axe and clubs,(which is used to deform the armour and not piercing it) it could even prevent a bullet from 200 yards. Combosite bows would not even make a mark on it in 200 yard in fact even in just 50 yards it is unlikely to penetrate, and even if a good angle shot pierced it, the mail inside would still deflect the bolt and preventing any damage.
I agree with warhead in this premise. It is true that plate armour in late 15th century and 16th century is Medieval Kevlar.
This is the best armour piercing equipment using in late 15th century. Elegant but deadly, its casualties is incredible.
[quote name='TMPikachu' post='4698395' date='Jan 30 2005, 11:35 PM']As much as I hate to say, European armor surpassed that used in the East. The latest forms of plate armor made the wearer pretty much impervious to sword blows, you'd have to nail him with a powerful crossbow bolt, a pick, a polearm, a greatsword or a gun pretty hard to bring him down. No part of the body was exposed (well, a little so you can see, but not much). Anything that can penetrate the plate of the late rennaissance will penetrate any Chinese armor.
The tailor made form fitting plate armors are pretty much the pinnacle of armor design. They were around 70lbs at most, distributed well throughout the body. A wearer could move well in them, though the armor gets tiring to wear as it has no ventilation (bad for hot weather).
If you want it lighter, it came lighter, in forms where it was just torso, pauldrons, and skirt.
For sheer protective value and skill, Europeans eventually had better armourers.
Then again, I've never seen a set of 'real' Chinese lion armor before. Shian Wei Kia, Mountain pattern scale, whatever it's called.
That could be an armor that could be seen as 'equal' to plate armor, with its ingenius design of interlocking scales.
My favorite is the armour of the Tang and the Ming. The Tang for their dragon/beast head sleaves, and the ming for just making cool mountain pattern armour.
when it comes down to it really, I can't say. It's just that I've NEVER seen a real version of this armour, I've seen real versions of European armour, which makes the latter more attractive.[/quote]
the european armour display u have there only appeared in later times as firearms were already invented...
[quote name='青島Aoshima' post='4909361' date='Oct 29 2007, 02:54 AM']...by the way that nice eurpoean helmet of yours there really disables the persons view to the side...try blocking the left or right of your eye with something (which has small holes) and if you tell me you can see something clear then your eyes scar me...that might be why some people dont know how they died...
[quote name='TMPikachu' post='4698561' date='Jan 31 2005, 09:42 AM']Wow, so only the Zhanmadao actually cut through armor? Interesting. Where was this test done?
Also, that picture of brigandine has the plates removed I believe. Probably a set of court 'armour'.
I wouldn't say the red/black ant is too good an example though. Red ants win by numbers, and brings up the image of the 'horde' that is usually attributed to Asian warfare.[/quote]
umm...european armour isnt as protective as you think it is...go by a set wear it and ill slash you with a halbert
by the way...the more light and felxible your armour is then the less internal damage there is...you would get cuts and other wounds but at least your amrour wouldnt pass the potential of the force onto you...i show you with a mace...
[quote name='青島Aoshima' post='4909364' date='Oct 29 2007, 03:22 AM']umm...european armour isnt as protective as you think it is...go by a set wear it and ill slash you with a halbert
by the way...the more light and felxible your armour is then the less internal damage there is...you would get cuts and other wounds but at least your amrour wouldnt pass the potential of the force onto you...i show you with a mace...[/quote]
And also if you are a racsist please talk about this on fightclub.com not on a chinese history forum...and by the way thank the silkroad around the Han dynasty brought the technology of crossbows to europe...know the origin of stuff before you start saying stuff about it....
by all means there isnt an actual best armour you'll get hurt anyway main parts which has a chance to save you would b a sheild and a helmet...a plate? hmm no matter wat angle you make it, itll always have flat faces which doesnt protect much...unless you want to wear a metal ball which has the ability to make sword slide off its surface...oh by the way that sounds like a good idea for fat people in the western world?
The tailor made form fitting plate armors are pretty much the pinnacle of armor design. They were around 70lbs at most, distributed well throughout the body. A wearer could move well in them, though the armor gets tiring to wear as it has no ventilation (bad for hot weather).
If you want it lighter, it came lighter, in forms where it was just torso, pauldrons, and skirt.
For sheer protective value and skill, Europeans eventually had better armourers.
Then again, I've never seen a set of 'real' Chinese lion armor before. Shian Wei Kia, Mountain pattern scale, whatever it's called.
That could be an armor that could be seen as 'equal' to plate armor, with its ingenius design of interlocking scales.
My favorite is the armour of the Tang and the Ming. The Tang for their dragon/beast head sleaves, and the ming for just making cool mountain pattern armour.
when it comes down to it really, I can't say. It's just that I've NEVER seen a real version of this armour, I've seen real versions of European armour, which makes the latter more attractive.[/quote]
the european armour display u have there only appeared in later times as firearms were already invented...
[quote name='青島Aoshima' post='4909361' date='Oct 29 2007, 02:54 AM']...by the way that nice eurpoean helmet of yours there really disables the persons view to the side...try blocking the left or right of your eye with something (which has small holes) and if you tell me you can see something clear then your eyes scar me...that might be why some people dont know how they died...
[quote name='TMPikachu' post='4698561' date='Jan 31 2005, 09:42 AM']Wow, so only the Zhanmadao actually cut through armor? Interesting. Where was this test done?
Also, that picture of brigandine has the plates removed I believe. Probably a set of court 'armour'.
I wouldn't say the red/black ant is too good an example though. Red ants win by numbers, and brings up the image of the 'horde' that is usually attributed to Asian warfare.[/quote]
umm...european armour isnt as protective as you think it is...go by a set wear it and ill slash you with a halbert
by the way...the more light and felxible your armour is then the less internal damage there is...you would get cuts and other wounds but at least your amrour wouldnt pass the potential of the force onto you...i show you with a mace...
[quote name='青島Aoshima' post='4909364' date='Oct 29 2007, 03:22 AM']umm...european armour isnt as protective as you think it is...go by a set wear it and ill slash you with a halbert
by the way...the more light and felxible your armour is then the less internal damage there is...you would get cuts and other wounds but at least your amrour wouldnt pass the potential of the force onto you...i show you with a mace...[/quote]
And also if you are a racsist please talk about this on fightclub.com not on a chinese history forum...and by the way thank the silkroad around the Han dynasty brought the technology of crossbows to europe...know the origin of stuff before you start saying stuff about it....
by all means there isnt an actual best armour you'll get hurt anyway main parts which has a chance to save you would b a sheild and a helmet...a plate? hmm no matter wat angle you make it, itll always have flat faces which doesnt protect much...unless you want to wear a metal ball which has the ability to make sword slide off its surface...oh by the way that sounds like a good idea for fat people in the western world?
Later european armour does provide good protection against arrows...but considering why the romans use short swords instead of big heavey weapons...they would simply use their big sheild against weapons like longswords and wait for all the weight which the opponent is carrying to drain his energy and the romans would simply give him a stab up the armpits...so wats all that armour about?
yet stronger crossbows have been developed to penetrate heavy plates...halberts are also good against heavy plate armour...by all means dressing yourself with all this steel disables your moblility...eg during the mongolian empries and their domination towards the west.. the european knights only had one horse as the mongols each had 2 or 3 so they can switch horses as one gets tired... the european knights armour weight not only wastes the energy of himself but also the horses which makes them slow and also would have trouble to catch the mongols...more than that archers of the europeans could only shoot 1 arrow in 2 mins as the mongols could shoot 8 in 2mins
it all relates to some mistakes humans make about the bigger the better....well not always
yet stronger crossbows have been developed to penetrate heavy plates...halberts are also good against heavy plate armour...by all means dressing yourself with all this steel disables your moblility...eg during the mongolian empries and their domination towards the west.. the european knights only had one horse as the mongols each had 2 or 3 so they can switch horses as one gets tired... the european knights armour weight not only wastes the energy of himself but also the horses which makes them slow and also would have trouble to catch the mongols...more than that archers of the europeans could only shoot 1 arrow in 2 mins as the mongols could shoot 8 in 2mins
it all relates to some mistakes humans make about the bigger the better....well not always
I wonder does Qin's crossbow will penetrate the european armor
‘The difference was the change of warfare and the focus.
Yes plate armor was almost invunerable to any conventional weapon, but by the time the true full plates were around guns were already developing fast. thus the full plates never played much of a role in european warfare as muskets became the mainstream. it's main reason for developing also had far more to do with the aritocratic nature of Europe during that time, in which the nobles try to seek better and better protection over other practicalities... like the fact that the time and metal spent on a good platemail for themself could probably be made into weapons for many other more men.
China by that time was no longer a aristocratic society, military men cared a lot about praticality, both in battle and in production, what kind of armor can be mass produced to fit the incrediable lage army, what weapon would be most effective? armor became ever lighter by the later Ming particularly because firearms are becomming too effective for anything to stop it while still being mass producable’
Thats exactly it, medieval knight was a noble, he wasn’t just a soldier in army.
“Knight was a man that lived between the 12th and 17th centuries who was pledged to serve his liege or king in military service. Generally this pledge was termed that the knight would serve 40 days of each year in military combat for his king. In exchange the knight would receive loot from battles, his own estate and position in the King's court.”
Knights were equipping themselves, they were not regular army and they were called only in time of need. Now about the armor, the funny thing is that knights going to battle often not really even wanted to kill knight they were fighting, they wanted to defeat them yes but if that was possible they wanted to keep them alive. Espacially the rich ones could count on the opponent’s “mercy”. That was exactly because they were noble, they have money and each knight of each country in europe was firstly warrior of god and if two knights fighted then two warriors of god were fighting against each other. So killing enemy not always was something they most desired. And captured noble ( knight ) was paying greatly for his freedom that was the strongest reason to keep opponent hurt but breathing. Each knight have its own emblem and flag which represented who he was. Every one knew who exactly with is he fighting. So what is better to keep you knocked but alive than better armor? And next funny thing is that for most of the time this armors wern’t used in battles but in duels. There are even specially designed armors for horse duels. And this man were not duelling so they could have money to live, that was sport and they didn’t wanted to die while they practiced it.
“yet stronger crossbows have been developed to penetrate heavy plates...halberts are also good against heavy plate armour...by all means dressing yourself with all this steel disables your moblility...eg during the mongolian empries and their domination towards the west.. the european knights only had one horse as the mongols each had 2 or 3 so they can switch horses as one gets tired... the european knights armour weight not only wastes the energy of himself but also the horses which makes them slow and also would have trouble to catch the mongols...more than that archers of the europeans could only shoot 1 arrow in 2 mins as the mongols could shoot 8 in 2mins”
Now about this. Even the really poor knight have minimum 3 horses. One was a courser for traveling. Another was pack horse for all the weapons and armor. And the specially trained war horse ( minimum one, richer knights have many of them and changed them accordingly during the battle ).
About crossbows, yes i believe crossbows will pierce late medieval european armor. ( but bows surely wont).
Next thing english archer could shot 12 arrows in one minute, mayby you think about crossbowmen. Then yes i agree. The greatest advantage of eastern archers were fact that they could fire arrows riding a horse, european archers couldn’t. That was because fighting styles in europe and asia were different. In europe one great battle often decided about everything. And the place were battle will commence was known by both sides. There is not much need in mobility when you must go to one point fight and go home. ( and you often know this point )
So if i were to bet on which army is going to win a campaign then i will surely say asian style of fighting would win the campaign. But if i were to bet in one on one duel then my choice would surely be medieval knight. Mongols were not fighting in europe to maintain control other the region. They hit robbed and run. This was great tactic for fight but you could not control a country with it. And the knight in full charge on a heavy horse wasn'st exactly slow and stopping someone covered in steel riding on a horse with the same armor wasnt something easy to achieve by any means. The smashing power of such charge was devastating and the main goal of it was to break enemy ranks. That i hope explains a bit why the armor was something so important in europe. ( mayby not exactly practical )
Yes plate armor was almost invunerable to any conventional weapon, but by the time the true full plates were around guns were already developing fast. thus the full plates never played much of a role in european warfare as muskets became the mainstream. it's main reason for developing also had far more to do with the aritocratic nature of Europe during that time, in which the nobles try to seek better and better protection over other practicalities... like the fact that the time and metal spent on a good platemail for themself could probably be made into weapons for many other more men.
China by that time was no longer a aristocratic society, military men cared a lot about praticality, both in battle and in production, what kind of armor can be mass produced to fit the incrediable lage army, what weapon would be most effective? armor became ever lighter by the later Ming particularly because firearms are becomming too effective for anything to stop it while still being mass producable’
Thats exactly it, medieval knight was a noble, he wasn’t just a soldier in army.
“Knight was a man that lived between the 12th and 17th centuries who was pledged to serve his liege or king in military service. Generally this pledge was termed that the knight would serve 40 days of each year in military combat for his king. In exchange the knight would receive loot from battles, his own estate and position in the King's court.”
Knights were equipping themselves, they were not regular army and they were called only in time of need. Now about the armor, the funny thing is that knights going to battle often not really even wanted to kill knight they were fighting, they wanted to defeat them yes but if that was possible they wanted to keep them alive. Espacially the rich ones could count on the opponent’s “mercy”. That was exactly because they were noble, they have money and each knight of each country in europe was firstly warrior of god and if two knights fighted then two warriors of god were fighting against each other. So killing enemy not always was something they most desired. And captured noble ( knight ) was paying greatly for his freedom that was the strongest reason to keep opponent hurt but breathing. Each knight have its own emblem and flag which represented who he was. Every one knew who exactly with is he fighting. So what is better to keep you knocked but alive than better armor? And next funny thing is that for most of the time this armors wern’t used in battles but in duels. There are even specially designed armors for horse duels. And this man were not duelling so they could have money to live, that was sport and they didn’t wanted to die while they practiced it.
“yet stronger crossbows have been developed to penetrate heavy plates...halberts are also good against heavy plate armour...by all means dressing yourself with all this steel disables your moblility...eg during the mongolian empries and their domination towards the west.. the european knights only had one horse as the mongols each had 2 or 3 so they can switch horses as one gets tired... the european knights armour weight not only wastes the energy of himself but also the horses which makes them slow and also would have trouble to catch the mongols...more than that archers of the europeans could only shoot 1 arrow in 2 mins as the mongols could shoot 8 in 2mins”
Now about this. Even the really poor knight have minimum 3 horses. One was a courser for traveling. Another was pack horse for all the weapons and armor. And the specially trained war horse ( minimum one, richer knights have many of them and changed them accordingly during the battle ).
About crossbows, yes i believe crossbows will pierce late medieval european armor. ( but bows surely wont).
Next thing english archer could shot 12 arrows in one minute, mayby you think about crossbowmen. Then yes i agree. The greatest advantage of eastern archers were fact that they could fire arrows riding a horse, european archers couldn’t. That was because fighting styles in europe and asia were different. In europe one great battle often decided about everything. And the place were battle will commence was known by both sides. There is not much need in mobility when you must go to one point fight and go home. ( and you often know this point )
So if i were to bet on which army is going to win a campaign then i will surely say asian style of fighting would win the campaign. But if i were to bet in one on one duel then my choice would surely be medieval knight. Mongols were not fighting in europe to maintain control other the region. They hit robbed and run. This was great tactic for fight but you could not control a country with it. And the knight in full charge on a heavy horse wasn'st exactly slow and stopping someone covered in steel riding on a horse with the same armor wasnt something easy to achieve by any means. The smashing power of such charge was devastating and the main goal of it was to break enemy ranks. That i hope explains a bit why the armor was something so important in europe. ( mayby not exactly practical )
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.