Click to view attachment
What dynasty are these troops from?

This is my first time to add images so I'll see how this works or doesn't work.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment
The captian says jyusouhei for the first one. Who is this and what dynasty?
The second image captian says hoeijin. Can anyone identify this?

Definately Song to Yuan dynasty.

The mixed squad are Ming ('mandarin duck squad' or similar) and the chap with the spear is from a late Yuan painting.

rgds.
Tom..

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachment


Thanks Tom,

I have other image's. Any idea?

Click to view attachment

Is this a shield? If so what dynasty?

Chris

Ahaha, I know nothing about this, but I'm gonna guess Southern Song.

It is a shield. likely to be used on a horse.

The pictures of armor is from the Song dynasty, from a military manual, same with the shield.

The armored men above and the commander looking guy, my guess is Ming.

It is "yuanyang zhen" formation of Qi Jiguang taken from a Japanese treatise of XVII century (copy of Chinese one, probably "Jixiao Xinshu" or "Wubei zhi"). Please see the same picture in the topic about spear in Chinese arsenal, but taken from Korean treatise "Muye dobo tongji" (1790).

The inscription is "The scheme (tu) of infantry detachement (budui)" or in Chinese "budui tu".

The first one is a commander, two next soldiers are swordsmen to protect pikemen (the next 8 soldiers). The last one is a cook. It is according to the Qi Jiguang treatise with slight differences - the first pair of pikemen wields not "wolf brunch" pike bud tridents, and the forth pair wields not tridents but hallberds.

Best regards,

Alexey.

It is cavalry shield from "Wubei zhi" (?) or the similar late Ming treatise 9XVII century).

Best regards,

Alexey.

This is the armours from "Wubei zhi" (1629) used by Robinson in his "Oriental armour". But these samples borrowed by Mao Yuanyi from Tang treatises and famous treatise of Northern Song dynasty "Wujing zongyao' (1043) by Ding Du and Zen Gongliang.

Best regards,

Alexey.

Are these pulled from the Japanese site ?
(it was in another thread and I bookmarked it on a different machine !!!!!)

my Japanese is non-exsistant but i thought it was a Japanese compilation of Ming manuals.

rgds.
Tom..

The style of the graphicsdiffers from the original and the indications as "jyusouhohei" show us that it is at least Japanese copies or compilations of Ming-Qing era treatises.

By the way, could anybody help me with these texts and pics (in Chinese)? I dream to translate "Jixiao Xinshu" into Russian and to render it into English.

Best regards,

Alexey

Yes these were pulled of the Japanese site. There are a TON of pictures, some with Chinese or Japanese characters (Chinese I believe) but I can't read either language, although I can speak a tiny bit of Japanese. Also, my computer will not alway's display oriental writing.

Cheers

Chris

Could you show here the link to the site?

Best regards,

Alexey

This is it...
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Bookend-Ohgai/3816/

Thanks a lot. I have no Oriental scripts installed but the nqame of the site is "Chinese strategy and tactics" (or literally speaking "Chinese methods of war").

I will investigate the site. Thanks a lot.

Alexey.

Alexey,

Can you translate some of this. My computer will not display Japanese nor can I read and write Japanese.

Thanks

Chris

Click to view attachment
I realize a fu is an axe, but what dynasty does this one come from?

Chris

Click to view attachment
Same with this pic. Can anyone identify?

Chris

Click to view attachment

Is thins Ming cavalry? Can anyone give any info on this pic?

Chris

Click to view attachment

What is this?

I can't read Chinese, but this appears to be some kind of battle formation.

It is, I remember seeing it at some Japanese sight partly about Chinese battle formations.

At the top is something on Zhuge Liang. Can't understand Traditional script...

It's an interpretation by Li Quan, the Tang writer of the strategy manual Taibai Yinjing, of Zhuge Liang's 'Tianfu Formation'. Of course, there's not much real basis for crediting such a formation to Zhuge Liang.

The pole-axes are from the Song dynasty and after.

Yes, exactly. It is "madui tu" or scheme of cavalry detachement. There are 10 soldiers, 1 commander ("duizhang") and a cook (the last one called "huobing").

The commander should wield cavalry lance of great length and weight (up to 18 kgs = 30 jin). Other people should assist him on the battlefield. I think as the first 4 mounted soldiers wield matchlocks and/or a kind of primitive fire-arm "kuaiqiang" (a tube with a handle charged with 20 shots with separate ignition and firing them one by one) they were designed to fight dismounted. 2 soldiers are equipped with tridents to assist the men with fire-arms and to launch fire-arrows (using the trident as the launcher). 2 soldiers equipped with hallberds and 2 with poles. The active role of these soldiers in the regular cavalry battle is almost null and void except for the commander with his lance. So I think we have a mixed formation of sem-dragoon type - part of soldiers are designed to fight mounted and part of them designed to fight dismounted and to suppurt the cavalry part of the detachement with their fire- and pole-arms.

This is the invention of Qi Jiguang designed to fight against Mongols. Unfortunately we could not judge about the effectiveness of the system as Qi Jiguang did not fight actively against Mongols.

Best regards,

Alexey.

These manuals are both very useful and extreemly irritating.. They give lots of fascinating detail on these unusual formations yet give hardly any detain on the normal tactics of the bulk of troops.

Still there is one consistant point that is usefull, all 10 man squads are actually a 'paper strength' of 12 (commander, 10 squaddies, cook), 50 man units are 63 (an extra officer, 2-i-c and flag bearer) etc.. Though what actual field strength units were ???

rgds.
Tom..

Have you got these manuals (I see you tell us about "Jixiao xinshu" and "Lianbing shiji" by General Qi)? If so could you provide me with a Chinese text of them?

Regarding the infantry formations - it was really applied in Chosun in XVII century (Koreans received that system from Ming troops in 1594). It had the stucture as followings: 10 soldiers ((4 soldiers + 1 sergeant) x 2) + 1 cook + 1 commander = 12 and formed a "dui". 3 dui (36 men) formed a "qi". 3 qi formed a "shao". So there were 108 combatants (99) and non-combatants (9). Then they got a captain, a lieutenant, a drummer, a flag-bearer, a clerk and several grooms to serve the horses to carry the equipment and ammunition. It totalled about 119-125 men as usual. The there were often a lot of non-combatant servants which served the officers.

Unfortunately I have no info regarding the cavalry formations. But I can not give up the idea of semi-dragoon formations on the battlefield in XVI-XVIII centuries as the Chinese cavalry was really worse than that one of Mongols. So it needed the support of fire-armed infantry.

Best regards,

Alexey.

Exactly so. Could you read the inscriptions? I distinguish only the central "tianchung" inscription and bias "feng" inscriptions. What is the real meaning of this formation? Is this something strange and cumbersome with multiple "gates" to allow enemy in and keep him inside the formation as described in old Chinese novels (completely fantastic up to the core IMHO)?

Regarding the axe - it seems to be a pic from "Wujing zongyao" (1043) or a good copy of later period preserving the original pics.

Best regards,

Alexey.

Alexey & Tom,

Thank you very much. I've posted a picture of a Sung heavy cavalry figure on another post, Sung dynasty - Southern sung at time of Mongols. I am curious as to the name of the weapon it is carrying.

Cheers

Chris

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Did both type of cavalry exist at the same time or is one from earlier or later Sung period?

Cheers

Chris

Frankly speaking the first one seems to be a plastic model of Song warrior and a lot of things in that reconstruction depends upon the fantasy and knowledge of the author of the reconstructuion. So I will not judge but only assume that it is a type of middle cavalry (with personal armour but without horse armour) of Song era.

The second one is the authentic image of Song era heavy cavalry. It is a late Japanese reproduction (something like XVII century).

The weapon is so called oar-sword. I do not remember the proper name in Chinese but when I translated "Muye dobo tongji" I met this type of weapon. It is classified as sword in Chinese system. We can see the same kind of weapon inn some other Song era paintings even if it is depicted an earlier facts (e.g. Tang or Sui).


Best regards,

Alexey

It looks like an oar-glaive (zhao dao 棹刀, often misread as diao dao 掉刀) but isn't. The three points give it away - it's a 三尖两刃刀 or 三尖两刃枪, the three-pointed two-edged glaive. The oar-glaive would only have one point.

Regarding the Tianfu formation 天覆阵, it does look like those fanciful magic things dreamed up by Daoists who don't know that they'd never survive first contact with the enemy. Thomas Chen tells me that the Taibai Yinjing is full of such stuff, and the Wujing Zongyao formations are much more accurate because they're simple and functional.

Thanks Alexey,

The picture is of a 54mm plastic or (most likely)lead figure painted and for sale. I have seen a depiction of such cavalry. I believe the picture is in an Osprey book titled Medieval Chinese armies (700-1400AD). {I'm can't remember the date but it's around that era}. If you don't have that book I can scan the picture and post it. Let me know.

Cheers

Chris

Thanks Yun.

What is the Taibai Yinjian? Also, what is the Wujing Zongyao formation? I Wujing Zongyao was an aurthor to a Song military manuel.

Cheers

Chris

Is this Soldiers chest armour a solid plate, or am I mistaken?

Solid chest plates are quite common in "lamella" armours. Often they were highly decorated lacquered leather plates. Interestingly most seem to be attached purely by means of the waist sash wrapped around them.

I find it hard to believe that the sash alone could keep the plate attached, perhaps leather straps that rest on the shoulders?

No armour in China was ever secured by just the belt. The leather straps over the shoulders are always present. In addition, it is a common occurance during the 5 Hu 16 kingdoms and everything after that an additional belt down the centre is used. This strap is either attached to the belt to hold it up while at the same time holding the pibo down or it would split into two to swing under the arms. Or it could serve both function together. This keeps the armour closer to the body and thereby taking weight off the shoulders.

Things happen I met diaodao in Korean treatises instead of zhaodao. Unfortuantely I have no hyeroglyphics installed in my PC. So, could you give the pingying transcription with the explanation for the every symbol?

Regarding Tomas Chen - are you in contact with him? I tried to contact him in vain. Could you help me to contact him directly? I have a lot of questions to him regarding some matters (Qi Jiguang inherity preferably).

Best regards,

Alexey.

I should rephrase my comment..

There ar several illustrations that show these plates attached by placing them on the chest and wrapping the body sash around. Exactly how his would work in battle without securing straps (to take the weight at least) is questionable, I suspect that Wujiang is correct in assuming that there would be straps.

do you have any illustrations with you?

I remember seeing a while back an illustrated step-by-step of how to put on Tang era armor, part of it involved shoulder straps, and it also had a belt/sash to tighten it.

and with those oar-swords, is it just me or do they kinda look like maces viewed from the side?

How to put on Tang armour of the cord-and-plate type: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4474

Zhao4 = oar
Diao4 = drop
Dao1 = sabre or glaive

Obviously zhao4 is the correct one, unfortunately most people are not familiar with this word and mistake it for diao4.

San1 = Three
Jian1 = Points
Liang3 = Two
Ren4 = Edge, blade
Dao1 = sabre or glaive
Qiang1 = Spear

Strictly speaking, dao1 is more correct than qiang1, but qiang1 might be used for this weapon in a book I read because it's blade is longer and narrower than most glaives.



I think it's just you. Chinese maces were quite different from that.

I mean a european style mace, I know Chinese ones were like melons.

Regarding the Chinese mace. I've read or heard they were hallow to avoid undue stress on the wooden shaft. Is this normal or for certain styles?

Cheers

Only in modern martial arts stuff
Historical mace are all solid

According to the "History of Qidan state" by Song official Ye Longli Qidan and han warriors of Qidan state (917-1125) wielded the mace of 9 iron stripes shaped to create the hollow sphere on a long staff. That weapon was called "fadu".

Best regards,

Alexey.

Ming pieces currently in the Armoury in Leeds are solid.