Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2008 1:40:57 GMT
I'll make this quick, I'm wondering about the functionality of the Samurai armor of Japan. For those of you who are not familiar with the armor, click on this link and you will learn all that you need to know about it. ezinearticles.com/?Samurai-Armor-Part-1&id=57520 Moving on, now I know that at one point in history, the Samurai were the most advanced warriors on the planet....granted, this was during a period in history when the rest of the warriors of the world were fighting in loin cloths but still..... Anyway, what I'm wanting to know is whether or not the Samurai armor could actually prevent you from getting cut or if it was more for show? I know that it was very light and mainly made of leather with little to no steel so then.....could it prevent you from getting cut? Obviously if one Samurai thrust a sword into the armor of another Samurai, it would go clean through; but what if he slashed the armor? If the blade made contact with the leather instead of the creases in between the armor, would the armor protect the Samurai at all or would it cut clean through as well?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jul 22, 2008 1:51:20 GMT
Many samurai cuirasses were extremely protective and made of iron. To say it was all leather is false, samurai used iron plates in their armour frequently. So, yes, samurai armour could most certainly stop blows, but this depends on where they hit. Samurai armour had a lot of "open" places like the neck and armpits. While very protective in some areas, other areas are very weak. Also, samurai armour was not at all "light" or at least not how you think. The standard curiass from japan weighed similar to one from europe, about 50-70 lbs(exceptions abound on both sides). I think japanese armour may be on the lighter side of that scale, but it's nothing drastic. Remember armour was made for a reason. If it wouldn't protect you, why wear it? www.myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2008 1:56:18 GMT
My apologies for the inaccurate information.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jul 22, 2008 1:59:20 GMT
Hey, don't worry at all - Karma for learning.
I've got plenty to learn on the subject, I'm sure that others can add a LOT more than me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2008 2:05:32 GMT
I do remember reading somewhere that some armor had iron plates but for some reason, I was under the impression that most of the armor was light and made of leather. Thank you for clarifying that for me. Hmmm, it makes me wonder how well the iron plate could withstand a bullet from a musket...
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jul 22, 2008 2:11:41 GMT
Well I'm not sure of japan but I know in the 16th century european breastplates were sometimes shot-tested with muskets and the resulting dents were used as a sign of quality. So early muskets were defeated by quality breastplates and I know that in the latter half of the 16th c. the japanese used european breastplates in their panoply so....maybe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2008 5:48:40 GMT
I would also call you on the whole "most advanced warriors on the planet" bit to, they were very good but you can't say they were the most superior, there is alway something that beats something else so nothing is superior. Example if the samurai went up against the Kataphractoi they would get slaughtered but this is true in most cases of cavalry verse foot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2008 14:14:18 GMT
Moving on, now I know that at one point in history, the Samurai were the most advanced warriors on the planet....granted, this was during a period in history when the rest of the warriors of the world were fighting in loin cloths but still..... I'm a little curious about this. What are you referring to here?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jul 22, 2008 15:18:28 GMT
Well I'm sure you know I agree, but it's best NOT to start this debate again ;D
|
|
|
Post by jjshade on Jul 22, 2008 19:01:50 GMT
[This goes a bit off-topic (sorry), but since the issue surfaced and aroused my curiosity I thought I'd ask...]
"Advanced" isn't necessarily the same thing as "superior". I would understand the word "advanced" in this context more like "the furthest refined", rather than "the best". And by "refined" I mean the level of standardisation and purposeful design of training and equipment.
Example of what I mean: a Roman legion would be a highly refined combat unit, with uniform training and equipment designed for a specific purpose. A Viking raiding team would be a less refined unit, with individually varying weaponry and a wider range of main functions - i.e. sailing, trading, etc.
Now I'm not particularily interested in debating in a "who could beat who's arse" -type of manner, but I might be interested in hearing views on whether the Samurai actually might have been the "furthest refined" military order on the planet at some point in history? Any ideas?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2008 12:23:22 GMT
Ah damn, I should have known I would get hell for that comment. Let me explain that a little better.. Now, when I said "were the most advanced warriors on the planet", I was taking that from a quote a historian said on the history channel. I'm not good enough with history to know the actual facts, I am quoting what I heard. Just pretend I didn't say that okay?
|
|
|
Post by jjshade on Jul 23, 2008 13:19:39 GMT
Don't worry about it, and don't take it personally - just be wary of the History Channel... apparently it isn't the most reliable source. I've heard lots of complaints about it, but not being able to receive it myself I can only refer to one personal experience: I once saw a clip from a History Channel document about Vikings, and there was a scene in it that portrayed Vikings trading, and one of the items on the table was a Claymore (the two-handed sword) with quatrefoils on its crossguard - a "slight" anachronism... I would still be interested in hearing anyone's (informed) views on whether the Samurai were at some point the most advanced/refined/modern military order of their time?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2008 14:08:25 GMT
I would still be interested in hearing anyone's (informed) views on whether the Samurai were at some point the most advanced/refined/modern military order of their time? The Mongols beat up on them. I understand their invasion of Korea didn't go well for them, either. The seem to have gained their reputation through fighting other samurai. Things that worked well enough against other samurai didn't seem to work all that well against outsiders.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jul 23, 2008 15:12:32 GMT
The samurai beat the mongols soundly with the help of mother nature.
And they certainly did well against korea.
However, samurai warfare was primarily between other samurai, there really wasn't too much outside contact like you see elsewhere is cultures like mongolia, china, india, and europe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2008 16:35:00 GMT
The samurai beat the mongols soundly with the help of mother nature. In the first invasion in 1274 the Mongols pushed the samurai inland and took control of the beach. They left of their own accord and got nailed by a storm at sea. The second invasion in 1281 seemed to be more or less a stalemate until another storm saved Japan. Well, their army did well against Korea's, but Korea's navy defeated Japan's, thus depriving Japan of its goal of conquest in mainland Asia. These are the only two instances I know of in which the samurai battle opponents who were not Japanese. If they were the "most advanced warriors on the planet" I would've expected them to do much better. Good? Yes. Most advanced? No.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jul 23, 2008 16:42:57 GMT
They were most certainly the most advanced that their unique and diverse situations could allow. Same as any culture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2008 17:07:09 GMT
86, take a look at this site. www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/katchu.htmlIt is the work of Anthony Bryant, who writes most of Ospreys Samurai stuff. He has studied Japanese armor in Japan and has been trained to reproduce it. I think you will be surprised at what you find.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2008 18:35:52 GMT
They were most certainly the most advanced that their unique and diverse situations could allow. Same as any culture. This expands the meaning of the phrase "most advanced" to the point it loses all meaning.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jul 23, 2008 18:43:34 GMT
Exactly my point.
Every culture was the most advance that circumstances allow because homo sapiens' capacity for originality and adaptation doesn't vary among cultures. Only the individual results do, but this is determined by outside surroundings, not the people themselves.
|
|
|
Post by jjshade on Jul 23, 2008 18:59:37 GMT
Hmm... I guess my question was sort of answered in the sense that if the Samurai had trouble with "alien" military orders/tactics, such as the Mongols (then again, who didn't have trouble with the Mongols...? ), then it is reasonable to assume that they were rather refined as military units, i.e. their training and equipment was highly standardized and directed towards a specific purpose. Perhaps a better question would be whether there was a time in history - within the period of existence of the Samurai - during which there were no military orders on the planet of a level of specialisation and standardisation equal to that of the Samurai?
|
|