19 August 2015

The myths of Shan Wen Kia

Chinese Mountain Pattern Armour
Section of the Ming period scroll painting 'Sou Shan Tu (《搜山圖》)', depicting Chinese war deity Er Lang Shen (二郎神) in a full suit of Shan Wen armour.
The so-called "mountain pattern armour/star scale armour" or Shan Wen Kia (which is a misspelling, correct Pinyin should be Shan Wen Kai or Shan Wen Jia) is a type of scale armour that is (almost) unique to China. However, like many ancient Chinese military equipment, it is shrouded in mysteries and misconceptions. 

In this blog post, I will attempt to clear up some misconceptions regarding mountain pattern armour.


1. No one knows the correct historical name of this armour.
While terms like Shan Wen Jia (山文甲) and Shan Zi Tie Jia (山字鐵甲) can be found in Tang and Song Dynasty records, historical texts provide no explanation nor accompanying drawings. Whenever drawings are present, Song and Ming Dynasty records simply use generic terms such as "body armour" to describe such armour.

Ironically, the most likely historical name candidate for mountain pattern armour is actually Suo Zi Jia (鎖子甲), which is also used to denote mail armour (to the confusion of many).


2. There are no surviving examples.
Although mountain pattern armour frequently shows up in Chinese paintings, sculptures and statues, no actual examples survived, which add a lot of difficulties to the reconstruction efforts.


3. It is not strictly unique to China.
While commonly found in China, religious statues depicting mountain pattern armour-wearing guardians can be found across all regions where Buddhism is widely practised such as Japan, Korea, Vietnam and Thailand.

However, depictions of mountain pattern armour in a non-religious, non-abstract and military context can only be found in China and countries with high degree of sinification such as Korea and Vietnam.


4. Current reconstructions don't work.
Dan Sloane Mountain Pattern Armour
Reconstruction of mountain pattern armour as proposed by Daniel Slone.
One of the more commonly accepted construction method of mountain pattern armour is proposed by Daniel Slone (you can read his article at Armour Archive). However, experiments done in China show that a mountain pattern armour assembled using his proposed method provides almost no protection against arrows. In fact, uneven surface of the armour becomes sort of "arrow-trap", as the strongest part of the scales will deflect/guide the arrow to the weakest part of the armour — the small gap between multiple scales.

Shan Wen Kia Fail
Experiment using the "star pattern" scales. All arrows pierced the armour at the gaps, pushing aside the scales without actually damaging it. Experiment using "mountain pattern" scales yields similar results. Note: The scales used in this experiment were not simply assembled together, they were firmed connected to each other using chain links.
The small gap (circled) is the weakest part of the armour.
Reconstruction efforts in China had produced mountain pattern armour that provides much better protection, although the details of these new reconstructions have not yet been disclosed.


5. It is supposed to be very soft and flexible.
China Skanda Statue
Ming period statue of a Wei Tuo (韋馱) or Skanda in armour, Shuanglin Temple, Shangxi province, China. Note the folded thigh armour.
Shan Wen Kai
Close-up of the folded thigh guard. The upper part of this thigh guard has an arming point that allows the lower part to hook on.
Current reproduction efforts all produced armours that are fairly stiff and inflexible, giving rise to the myth that mountain pattern armour can "shock harden" on impact. This is contradicted by numerous ancient Chinese statues that depict extremely flexible mountain pattern armour.

Some armour enthusiasts in China even suggested that the so-called mountain pattern armour may in fact, simply be the stylistic convention of mail armour. However, there exist statues wearing BOTH mountain pattern armour and mail at the same time, so this is unlikely to be the case.

Chinese mountain pattern armour myth
A Ming period guardian statue, Nanjing, Jiangsu province. Note the highly detailed mountain pattern pauldrons and mail thigh guards.


6. There are more than one type of mountain patter armour.
Variant Shan Wen Kia
Southern Song Dynasty statue of a tomb guardian. Note the breastplate with X-shaped scales.
While "three point star" version of mountain pattern armour is the most common, there are so many variants of this armour that even the most knowledgeable historian in Chinese armour lose count. This in turn add to the complexity of the already difficult reconstruction effort.

102 comments:

  1. Thank you for posting the article Fish scale armour or mountain pattern armour.
    If we were today confused why there were so many different types in statues and even proven by experiment , not as fantastic as it was thought to be. I would not be surprised even back in those ancient of days, the people might just as confused as we are right now. I tend to think after the experiment was conducted, it was just an "artistic' and "easier" to describe and express a real chain armour in real life on to decoration statues, rather being the real thing. Imagine those stone carver artist labouring under the sun and candle lights making carving out of stone to make things look like the real one, they might ended with the ancient version " wrist karpal syndrome" ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ancient Chinese sculptors could and did sculpt normal "4-in-1" mail on statues though.

      Personally I think the so-called Shanwen armour is most likely ceremonial armour, although the “unique mail weave pattern” theory is growing on me as well.

      Delete
    2. I hold the same hypothesis. Since Tang dynasty used other armours more widely, and there was a huge armour improvement in Song, then a steep decline in Ming due to gunpowder, and Shanwen was mainly seen in painting and sculptures as exotic armour, it signifies that it is leaning on being a ceremonial armour than a practical one. That is, of course, not to say it was not practical at some point.

      Delete
    3. Are you people stupid of course it failed the test because you shot arrows at it no chainmail is designed for that all mail will fail that test chainmail is strictly cut protection only it has little to no stab resistance I have 10 year of medieval combat experience in armor if i wear mail someone can try and cut me all day and wont get through but as soon as they go for a stab I know its going through first stab plate armor if made correctly is pretty stab proof barring a lance with a fast horse behind it lamellar is in between plate armor and chainmail it has more movement than plate but has more stab resistance than mail key word resistance not proof depending on plate style shape and arrangement can help a little bit but it will always be weak from one direction or angle of attack and even so the resistance helps to lessen the blow so shots from arrow would be less deep plus if you were wearing anything behind in such as a gambeson or if you had a leather backing especially if it was hardened it would have to make its way through that further slowing and that resistance means less of a significant injury to you and I'm certain we all can agree the less significant the injury the better please in future test things what they are designed for filling a fridge full of explosives and blowing it up has no bearing on whether or not it keeps your lunch meat cold enough if the tests have nothing to do with its intended purpose of course the results wont be what you want please consider that

      Delete
    4. @Unknown
      Umm, maybe improve your manner, punctuation, and grammar before you comment?

      Delete
    5. @Unknown. "chainmail is designed for that all mail will fail that test chainmail is strictly cut protection only it has little to no stab resistance"

      That is completely false. Properly constructed riveted mail is very stab resistant, and swords are unlikely to be able to stab through mail. You must be using historically inaccurate butted mail, which even a butter knife can stab through. There are plenty of tests on Youtube that shows proper mail resisting sword stabs, arrows, etc. And only arrows from warbows of over 100 lb draw and very strong thrusts from rigid spears could penetrate riveted mail.

      Delete
  2. What do they saying about san wen jia in records?

    Just mentioning the name?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and some vague description like "it is made of iron".

      Delete
  3. Three thoughts ons this.

    1. While an arrow may be forced into the gap, it will also have spent part of its energy. A backing of leather or cotton may stop the arrow.
    Is this type of armor worse at stopping an arrow than narrow lamelar armor? That has a tendency to 'flip' and let an arrow through, when hit on an edge.

    2. This type of armor looks as if it will be very, very strong versus slashing (sword) or crushing (mace). Maybe the not-so-great stopping of arrows is acceptable?

    3. What if it is not just one layer? If you duplicate and invert an extra layer, the inverted V's will fall into a V, covering the gaps and making it much harder to force the links apart.
    It will probably reduce flexibility though, and definitely make it more time consuming to produce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @BlackPrince

      1. While true, it is still safer to stop the arrow altogether.

      Since no one actually try it out, I can say which is better.

      2. Any type of metal armour is good against sword slashes, but you may have a point vs blunt weapon.

      3. Many traditional Chinese armours have two layers of breastplate, so this is not limited to Shan Wen Kia.

      Delete
    2. Could the metal scales be sewn onto a cloth or leather backing? The force of the arrow would be spread out from these weak spots theoughput the material, and the arrow head would have to push apart the plates to the point it tore the leather. That would be much more difficult than breaking a single metal ring.

      Delete
    3. @Ray
      Yes, that's what was usually done (backing material) if we look at the statues. That being said, normal lamellar also use backing.

      Delete
    4. Was normal lamellar not designed to be resistant to arrows?

      Delete
    5. @Ray

      Normal lamellar armours is supposely supremely resistant to arrows.

      Delete
  4. Where do you get the image? (Testing picture)

    I need a source

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it was from China's 刀劍天下 (hfsword) forum, but the forum was closed down, so I am unable to locate the original source anymore.

      Delete
    2. than there is no specific data of that test?

      (like material of star and arrow)

      Delete
    3. No, as most armour reconstructions or experiments in China are done by enthusiasts rather than professionals or academics, don't expect research paper or anything like that. Best they can do is to shoot a video or something.

      Anyway, whether the test was done with crappy metal matter very little, since the scales were not damaged but pushed aside by arrows.

      Delete
  5. The test on the picture had lots of flaw. Just like how people test mail using butted ring instead of rivetted. This kind of construction would definetly include a rivet between the piece and the enclosing hardened leather..

    Butted mail as it was used on some ignorant "history" tv show n hobbyist. Were also show the same flaw, the ring act like a "trap" just like this mountain scale.

    But if its was riveted one to the other n the hardened leather side n behind. It will stop a light arrow from a distance.

    But offcourse.. The result will vary base on the type of bow, draw weight, tipe of arrow tip, weight of arrow, distance n angle.. Heavy crossbow with armor piercing tips on short distance would be very different with non composite shortbow

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand the analogy with the famously flawed butted mail test(s), however unlike mail we don't even know whether historical mountain scales were riveted or not, or how it was riveted.

      Currently known reconstructions (including Armour Archive's riveted Mountain Scale) do not seems to hold out very well.

      There are indeed more recent reconstructions that stand up to arrow test, but details on the construction have yet to come out.

      Delete
    2. While it is true that we do not know how it was constructed, I think it is safe to say, this was not it. If we want to test any potential practical value of this design, so as to better judge if such armor was indeed used in battle, a questionable and flimsy prototype hardly constitutes much evidence. Rather, an educated Guess would be to sew the pieces in a similar fashion to lamellar armor, as was practiced.

      Delete
    3. The "filmsy prototype" only serves to demonstrate that "this reconstruction does not work". It does not disprove the armour in general, or whether it is effective.

      By the way, lamellar armour is not sewn together, but laced to each other. There are numerous ways to lace lamellar, but to my knowledge non of them applicable to mountain scale armour, which has drastically different scales.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, I meant sewn onto a leather backing. I can see that being possible...

      Delete
    5. @Ray

      Many Chinese lamellar armours have some sort of backing (AFTER the lamellae are laced to each other), so the "directly sew to backing" method will result in an armour that's weaker than normal lamellar armour, which doesn't fit the notion that mountain scale armour was preferred by high-ranking generals.

      Delete
  6. For the individual "mountain"/"star"-shaped scales, do they necessarily have to be raised angular? I see some examples (albeit reproductions) that they can also be flat. Maybe that contributes to the arrow trap problem?

    It is certainly troubling that no surviving example is found despite being the go-to armor during the Song and at least early Ming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not necessarily. There are indeed depiction of both "flat" and "raised" mountain scale.

      There are actually growing supports regarding Mountain Pattern being artistic depiction of mail armour, and its historical name might actually be "Suo Zi jia (鎖子甲)". Then again, there are also hints that ancient meaning of Suo Zi Jia was NOT mail armour, but some sort of lamellar.

      Delete
    2. I am very interested in these growing supports. Are there any sources present at hand?(if it’s not too much trouble, and yes I can read Chinese)
      If I recall my sources correctly, mail armor was an extreme rarity in China, so it does not really make sense that so many articians would incorporate it in their sculptures. Moreover, it really doesn’t look like mail, artistic or not. It also seems weird to use mail armor as pauldrons( instead of sleeves) when it is flexible and curves around the whole body.

      Delete
    3. https://cms-bucket.nosdn.127.net/catchpic/7/72/724cd90af4790eaf46ee711a289028a6.jpg



      https://tc.sinaimg.cn/maxwidth.2048/tc.service.weibo.com/img1_gtimg_com/2e08c3007b5745ee04ae44dccd5a8dbe.jpg



      https://cms-bucket.nosdn.127.net/catchpic/b/b7/b7e6306143ec05273745fa12bf0aaf1c.jpg?imageView&thumbnail=750x0&quality=85&type=jpg&interlace=1



      https://cms-bucket.nosdn.127.net/catchpic/b/b6/b682476c41434e1f3465e13ac3f03077.jpg?imageView&thumbnail=750x0&quality=85&type=jpg&interlace=1

      Delete
    4. @Ray
      s ss shows you some great evidences.

      Now, the notion of "extreme rarity of mail" is probably based on the fact that hardly any pre-Ming period mail armour survived to present day, although the same can be applied to all Chinese armours in general. Most of the knowledges regarding Chinese armours are based on paintings, sculptures, and historical records.

      Thus, the reasoning goes, if "mountain scale armour" is indeed artistic depiction of mail armour, then past historians misinterpret the evidences and drew the wrong conclusion, so mail was not rare.

      Put it in other word, using the prior conslusion of "mail armour is rare in China" as a premise to challenge/disprove the "mountain pattern = artistic licence mail armour" theory is circular reasoning.

      Delete
    5. @Ray
      Now you raise a good question regarding pauldrons/sleeves. It does seem weird. However, mail pauldron is not without precedent.

      https://i.pinimg.com/736x/1c/28/99/1c2899dcbb53091d58d42bdcd5b50b88--fantasy-inspiration-character-inspiration.jpg

      Delete
    6. Thankyou for responding.

      I too, am now quite convinced about the mail armor theory. However, is there any knowledge on the design of suo zi jia? Was it a practical design used in battle, or ceremonial? I noticed that the 4th picture is quite different from the previous 3, and may suggests a very different construction of sha wen jia/ suo zi jia.

      In the drawing, there are 3 lines dividing each individual 'star shape' into 3 'L-shape'(s). (I hope you understand what I am saying) While this could represent the angular edges of star-shaped lamellar pieces, it could also be interlocking, 6 in one hexagonal rings, as the name suggests.

      This possible design is unlike designs found in Japan and Europe. It would explain the artistic impressions on statues, and why they differ from other carvings representing mail armor in the pictures of statues provided by s ss. A recreation will also help us better understand the protectiveness and flexibility of this armor.

      I did some research on Japanese armor, and kusari-sode was mentioned several times, so I stand corrected. The idea of mail pauldrons to protect mail sleeves seems.. puzzling. But then again, I am not an expert.

      Delete
    7. Edit:
      I just saw your article on chain mail armor. Could it be that there were different designs of suo zi jia?

      Delete
    8. @Ray
      Despite my previous repliles, personally I am not yet fully convinced to the "artistic license mail" theory, merely consider it plausible.

      Delete
  7. I may be late to the conversation, but I have a few points:
    The arrow test: What type of arrows, arrowheads, bow and pull weight of bow were used?
    Also was that test patch constructed in the same manner as Dan Sloane's method?
    What metal was used for the scales?

    Regarding Dan Sloane's construction method - I have made a functional suit of armor using that method. I had 18g mild steel cut at a metal fab shop and have used that armour for SCA (blunted rattan) heavy combat for the last 8 years. The shoulder guard has seen better days, but the rest of it has held up rather well.
    The oversize shoulder guards were modified to thigh guards and now have been replaced with a skirt and flaps.
    Overall it is very protective when cinched down over my body and has stood up to sword and shield and great weapon combat.
    You can see the full album here:
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/9998306@N06/albums/72157621804247351
    And the full kit in action:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt9YrkG3GOk

    I have not tested any of it against live arrows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good day Brian and welcome to my blog.

      Unfortunately tests done in China tend not to be as detailed as those in the West, so a lot of details are not clarified (and the forum with the test result is down).

      If my memory serves, the tester used what he called a "toy bow", a bow with 20~30 lbs pound range for the test. He tested on both Daniel Slone construction and a "three point star" type (as photo) from unspecified range. Can't recall the metal used for armour.

      Please bear in mind that there ARE tests done in China that yield much better result (I mentioned that in my blog post). If there's a test done elsewhere that debunk my point, I'll be all too glad to retract it.


      As for your armour, although there isn't any surviving pieces, the scales on your armour appear to be on the large side. I am glad that to hear that it can stand up to abuse.

      Delete
  8. Another proof that weird pattern is nothing but fancy mail

    https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-buddhist-devotee-spreading-a-heavy-chain-mail-coat-which-was-made-76996563.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That hardly constitute a solid proof...

      Delete
    2. It clear indicate at least in china there were various types of mail pattern exist more than typical 4 in 1 pattern

      And furthermore they cleary dont bother to stick with simple ring shape metal

      Delete
    3. Several counterpoints:

      1) I am not even sure if that's an armour, it looks like a chain curtain.
      2) Even if it is an armour, it is clearly not meant to be used in battle. I doubt that it can even be worn by a human.
      3) Even if such a mail pattern existed in China, it only means that Chinese used several kinds of mail weave patterns. It does not prove or disprove the existence of "mountain pattern" scale.
      4) According to the website description, the photo was taken in Bhutan...

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Im not saying that particular "armor" is necessarily battlefield armor nor san wen kai and yes as you pointed out i also it isnt meant for human (aka giant statue) 

      However if we imagine much smaller and dense version of it all of problems is gone though i cant tell this mail variant is most cost effective design but again so many so call san wen kai is appeared in ceremonial situation or religeious contexts in actual battlefield context its rarely seen

      And as you know not this san wen kai is a only obscure pattern in chinese armor you can see alot of variation and that particular model is quite similar to some skirt armor and pauldrons which is described in wu bei zhi

      And as i said before this complex pattern armors is usually (not always) appeared in religious painting especially in Buddhism art 

      And many ming and qing buddhisim record blatantly written this pattern as 鎖子

      I know Bhutan is not a china but they have buddhism and as well korea ,vietnam and Jappan also have buddhism and these culture when they describe their version of san wen kai most of time it is related to buddhism context or some other religious (or myth if you will)

      And in speaking of jappan i believe japanese mail pattern is also somewhat relate to chinese weird pattern armor

      Delete
    6. It should be noted that, at least in China, "mountain pattern" armour depictions can usually be found on:

      1) Religious statues and paintings/murals, which tend to include fantastical elements.
      2) Tomb guardian statues and murals, which have realistic armour/minimal fantastical elements.
      3) Paintings and woodblock prints of various types, which may or may not depict realistic armours depending on the context.

      So, does "mountain pattern" armour shows up in non-religious, non-ceremonial context? The answer is yes. At the very least, it shows up in Wujing Zongyao (later copied to Wubeizhi), which is a military treatise, and nothing in the text indicates that it was meant for ceremonial purpose only.

      Delete
    7. As for the name "鎖子":

      While I agree with you that the most likely historical name for "mountain pattern" armour is 鎖子甲, and the term is translated to "mail armour" nowadays, this was not always the case. I can find at least two definitions for the term 鎖子甲 from period texts.

      1) A 4-in-1 pattern mail armour.
      2) A finely crafted armour.

      The second definition can be found in Song period text (i.e. earlier than first definition), and in no way indicates that 鎖子甲 MUST be mail armour.

      Delete
    8. Joseon korea use term 鎖子甲 for mail armor

      Delete
    9. Yes. It's the same in China, at least from late Ming onwards.

      Delete
    10. It was very early joseon when they use that term to refering mail armor

      And as you know as much as vietnam joseon try to imitate ming dynasty in many aspect

      Delete
    11. I know. I say "at least" because the dictionary was compiled during that period. The term may had been in use for much longer.

      Delete
    12. https://m.cafe.naver.com/ImageView.nhn?imageUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fmcafethumb-phinf.pstatic.net%2FMjAxODA4MDhfMjMz%2FMDAxNTMzNjU3NTU2NzY0.znAgYRyjAlXjG99GMqnEiHIuIgsZFBiNtkCMHJjyW7Ig.XM3UMLvl4CS5LI1W5ZE6Oh626JmvEK8ZmHblfQFV4Y8g.PNG.gil092003%2F2.png%3Ftype%3Dw1280


      What your thought on this picture?

      Mere brigandine with fancy fabric pattern or actual san wen kai?

      Any record on san wen kai in qing period?

      Delete
    13. That's only fancy pattern. I suppose the picture is from Japanese 《唐土名勝図会》? I think the book is largely based on 《皇朝禮器圖式》, and the text describes it as decorative pattern.

      Plus, there are several surviving Qing brigandines with that pattern.

      Delete
  9. https://www.google.co.kr/search?client=ms-android-samsung-ss&tbm=isch&q=japanese+chainmail&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKiJjSpvncAhUL97wKHSCyD6MQBQhtKAA#imgrc=34y6wxuaejwF6M:


    Another possible model that I recently found

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, this weave patter has long been proposed to be a possible explanation of mountain pattern armour.

      Delete
  10. Okay, so my expertise on the subject is basically nil, but something just hit me.

    The scales on the Wei Tuo's armor seem to have much higher peaks than most reconstructed scales.

    Suppose that this:

    http://www.theringlord.org/forum/uploads/monthly_03_2010/post-12-126888404088.jpg

    ...is more or less how the armor under consideration was constructed (with riveted links replacing the butted ones in the image). Then the main determinant of flexibility will be the "depth" of the central peak of the scale, with deeper peaks allowing a wider range of motion to the "arms" of the adjacent scales. If other depictions of highly flexible star-scale armor tend to have similarly deep scales to the ones worn by the Wei Tuo, it may lend credence to the "three pointed star" hypothesis over the "mountain character" hypothesis.

    Also, it's probably worth noting that the images you provide of Chinese soldiers tend to look... "puffy" to my euro-centric eyes. I'm assuming that means lots of layers of textile underneath the armor. The defensive value of those layers of padding should not be underestimated.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good day Dragonchild.

    Mix-and-match of various types of armors (lamellar, liminar/banded, partial plates etc) was fairly common in China so that alone cannot be used as an indication that Mountain Pattern armour was "not consistently trusted".

    Scale armour was also rarely used in China - what ancient Chinese referred to in their records as "scale" will be classified as lamellar in modern understanding (most of the time).

    Mountain Pattern armoru was almost exclusively used by important officers, generals, and guards, so cost should not be a concern at all, and it would be the polar opposite of cheap "industrial" armour. Metal strips armour theory also does not explain why it can be so flexible.

    Also, given the prevalence of archery in China, and the prevalence of poisoned arrow on top of that, cutting corner on limb defense might not be a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  12. https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/830210512537035215/
    https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/830210512537035211/
    What do you think of this piece ?
    Do you think it's just a japanese attempt at making the armor from chinese style buddhist statue works or could it be a legit copy ? It shows kikko brigandine under what i guess is just ornemental adittion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw it a while back. Yeah, I think it is a Japanese attempt to replicate the armour of Chinese-style Buddhist statue.

      Delete
  13. What if it's actually linen instead of metal? The mountain armor pattern could be achieved via a quilting pattern using linen or silk knots to form strong, flexible fabric "plates" that should be supremely effective at disrupting blunt trauma and robbing missiles of their energy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Period paintings and statues consistently depict the armour in white (polished iron/steel), gold (bronze) or sometimes black (iron/lacquered) colour, so it's unlikely to be non-metallic.

      Delete
    2. We do see qing parade armor with mountain scale pattern cloth though. Also im not sure artwork is enough to warrant that it could be metal as we see organic material being gilded with gold such as the case of indian pangolin scale armor

      Delete
  14. Hi 春秋戰國。 I was wondering if you have come across this YouTube channel.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyW4H0g_WY1ZVZlbkcmQOpQ

    This is from a Taiwanese designer who makes modern mountain pattern armour, supposedly without rivets or mail rings. The videos show what appears to be good resistance to stabbing with a knife, as well as resistance against penetration from a couple of different types of arrow tips from close range. One of the videos also demonstrate good flexibility of the armour.

    He clearly states that this is his interpretation of the armour as the actual design isn't known, but it appears to be at least somewhat effective.

    Unfortunately he doesn't actually show the design of the plates, but he does have a website where you can by small samples, like a forearm guard and a small section attached to a backpack.

    Leg me know what you think!

    Alex

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for bringing this to my attension. The design and flexibility look fairly promising. I hope he can switch to smaller plates and shoot it with a more powerful bow (80lbs and above) though.

      His current 45lbs test seems to be conducted with a bullet-shaped target point? That arrowhead has abyssmal penetration.

      Delete
    2. how does scale hold themselves?

      Delete
    3. Yes the tests aren't great and the camera / equipment is lacking but at least the pieces don't seem to come apart like the previous Chinese tests that were posted. And the flexibility really surprised me, it almost looks like a piece of mail that you can roll up.

      Delete
    4. To S SS,

      I don't know what the individual pieces look like as he never shows a close up of an individual piece or the reverse side of the armour. My guess is that if you laid a piece flat side down (the middle point up like a flattened tetrahedron) then each corner on the flat would have a tab pointing up also.

      A side on 2D view would be something like this:
      |_/\_|

      Where the third point is behind the 2 points shown but with the same construction.

      He does have a shop where he sells this, if you are really curious to take a look. But it's a bit expensive and I don't know if he ships overseas.

      https://blackstreamhan.top/shop/

      Delete
    5. I ask him over the YouTube video, he says it's not a target point but a bodkin.

      Delete
  15. I have a question about point #6 in the article. "While "three point star" version of mountain pattern armour is the most common, there are so many variants of this armour that even the most knowledgeable historian in Chinese armour lose count. This in turn add to the complexity of the already difficult reconstruction effort." Before coming across this page, I had never seen anything besides the 3 point star. Does anyone have any other pictures or know of variants besides the 3-point stars and the 4-point star in the "X+X+X" configuration?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good day. Here are some more variations (that I can find in a hurry) for your reference.
      https://imgur.com/a/CyZLWcs

      The first picture appears to be the so-called "Japanese dragonscale" mail pattern, second and third picture might be normal mail armour but are called mountain pattern nontheless, and the fourth picture has a hexagon + three-point star structure. The fifth one has normal mountain pattern at the top and weird X pattern at the bottom.

      Todd Feinman on Armor Archive forum is doing a reconstruction that somewhat resembles the hexagonal version. He declares the myth solved. I think he might be onto something - but only for the hexagonal version though.

      http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=161368

      Delete
    2. That being said, I don't think a reconstruction that basically forces you to squint your eyes and reintepret what you can plainly see is a good idea ovarall.

      Todd's reconstruction also does not taken into consideration that Mountain Pattern armours are frequently depicted in metallic colours (Gold or White) in paintings and painted statues. I am pretty certain whatever lace used in the construction of lamellar armour do not usually come in gold or white colour.

      Lamellar lacing is also a pain to draw, and thus the first thing a painter/sculptor would want to skip (conservation of details). Many "normal" lamellar armours depicted in Chinese paintings and statues are without lacing. Can't imagine a painter would suddenly go out of his way to draw it.

      Delete
    3. I had seen Todd Feinman's claim on theringlord's chainmail discussion site, but it seemed unlikely to me, as it looks too different from the sculptures. That got me searching again (last time was in 2010, when I had first come across Daniel Sloan's version), which brought me here. Blackstreamhan's pictures & videos look rather promising. I *think* I figured out his connection method (basically, 3 hooks linked together in the same manner as a chainmail mobius ball), but I want to see if it works for other the other variations. Thanks for the pics. It looks like I've got a number of variations to test out.

      Delete
    4. To be fair, Todd's version does resemble some depictions of Mountain Pattern armor, especially on woodblock prints.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wow, those are great reference images. I've never had anything so detailed to work from before. A lot of really good information here in general. I think s ss theory might be right because I recognise all those patterns. How crazy would it be Zlosk if we had the answer right in front of us the whole time?

    http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/images/339-hoodoohexsheet.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is what I called "Japanese dragonscale" mail pattern. China's armourers have long proposed that Mountain Pattern is based on this design, and it does resemble some, but not all, depictions.

      http://www.mailleartisans.org/gallery/gallerydisplay.php?key=7645

      Delete
    2. Interesting, they both have a passing resemblance but in my opinion there are others that are more likely. More exact look and simpler construction. I have a few in mind that aren't generally known, I'd need to dig through my personal collection for them I think.

      The rings would closely resemble a type of chain armour I came across in eastern Russia called a Baidana. Are you familiar with that technique?

      http://www.mailleartisans.org/gallery/gallery_image.php?key=5746

      Using a similar technique and my own weaves I'm confident I could replicate at least the first three variations shown here, possibly more. https://imgur.com/a/CyZLWcs

      Delete
    3. I also think this mountain armor is big flat mail similar to baidana except octagon shape

      Delete

  18. In the style of Blackstreamhan, I've been able to make cardboard units that can be linked together in 4 styles: the basket weave (imgur pic 6), the "standard" Y-shapes (top of imgur pic 5), the Xs that rotate 45 degrees (point 6 of the article above), and I've got a start on the hexes (imgur pic 7). These patterns match up with tesselation patterns {4, 4}, {6, 3}, {4, 8, 8}, and {4, 6, 12}, respectively. Based on what I've learned from the internet about tesselations (which is not much), these are the only patterns that will work in this style, as they are the only tesselations that can be made solely with regular polygons that have an even number of sides. I am still trying to work out best sizes, as I need to flex the tabs on some of my cardboard units to fit them in place, and that would not be allowed in metal.

    I still haven't been able to recreate imgur pics 1-3 in that style, but I'm still trying. I'll try to get some pics up this weekend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! I am interested to see your reconstruction.

      Delete
  19. I've added pictures of the assembly of 3 types of units to album https://photos.app.goo.gl/7hPiNnRKCEodJffy9. I've got a complete writeup with embedded pictures at https://historum.com/threads/effectiveness-of-chinese-mountain-armor.133545/post-3139663.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing. Your +X+X and "I-shape" version of Mountain Pattern is really interesting!

      Delete
  20. I made this proof of concept prototype with some scraps I had laying around. This shows the weaves necessary to create patterns that match variants 1-3 as well as the typical style.The dimensions would of course need to be adjusted to give a better fit to the rings locking together. I'm guessing that the originals were rings woven similarly and coined/riveted.

    http://www.theringlord.org/forum/index.php?/gallery/image/7364-swkmailjpg/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is the flexibility? The left piece does not look like it would flex very much, while the right piece looks like it would flex more easily in one direction than the other.

      Delete
    2. It's good, it would easily flex with a cloth backing. Comparing this with maille armor is similar to curb chain vs. normal chain. When it stretches too far it curls into a hyperbolic shape, interesting stuff anyways.

      Delete
  21. I recently found this picture in the Akbarnama showing one of the Mughal horses having a criniere showing clear mountain pattern armor, so it was even more widespread than I previously thought, and also it might be interesting to see how a non sinic culture depict it.
    http://warfare.ga/Moghul/Akbar/1577-The_Battle_Preceding_the_Capture_of_the_Fort_at_Bundi_Rajasthan-Akbarnama-large.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you can find that pattern also from other islamic culture

      I believe one of turk painting have it

      Delete
    2. http://warfare.ga/14/Baptistere_de_Saint_Louis.htm

      http://www.swordforum.com/vb4/attachment.php?attachmentid=111045&stc=1&d=1343604363



      mamluk with mountain pattern



      Delete
    3. That's interesting, three very different cultures with very similar representations. So from that we can assume that the depictions are pretty accurate and not abstract representations. It's another piece of the puzzle so good to know, thank you.

      Delete
  22. I found a video of working Shan Wen Kai.

    https://www.bilibili.com/video/av40738365?from=search&seid=1703542747069942039

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is shooting with a very weak bow though.

      Delete
    2. Maybe.

      I think the Shan Wen Kai could be made with any method as long as it show the distinctive pattern.

      I can find probably 3 separate form of this armor:

      1. It could be mail of unknown weave, some of the depiction make it look like ring combined together.

      2. It is probably made of plates, this include the cross pattern armor and many others that cannot be replicated with rings.

      3. Combination of the above 2 methods.

      Delete
    3. Had anyone try rivetting the scales to a backing? so it cannot move aside, like it did, when they just hooked together.

      Delete
    4. @Joshua
      I think so, but there are a lot of reconstruction approaches so I can't remember which is which clearly.

      Delete
  23. Any news on the promising Chinese tests?
    I used to have the idea that mountain pattern armor, as abysmal as it currently appears to be against penetrative strikes, might have been designed as a way to confer stiffness to armor, with possibly a layer of gambeson-like material underneath as padding and protection against penetration. At the very least it seems to fit contextually during the Song as blunt trauma weapons were increasingly popular on all sides.
    But after seeing these promising tests done in Taiwan, I’m starting to abandon my theory.
    https://youtu.be/6Kstif0e0dw

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should thank the folks above for bringing attention to the Taiwanese reconstruction to me. As I live in TW, I’d be glad to see if the maker is willing to meet and explain his methodology. At the very least he seems to be good humored

      Delete
    2. Nothing particularly noteworthy unfortunately.

      Opinions are divided between "fancy way to depict mail armour" camp, the "only some kind of fancy pattern on fabric" camp, and the "actually is some kind of metal star-shaped lamellar armour" camp.

      As far as test is concerned, AFAIK no Mountain Pattern test held up to the standard of Jack Ma's lamellar armour test. The Taiwan test (and other similar tests like it) is already a big improvement over the lousy one in my blog post, but 45 lb bow isn't particularly powerful.

      Delete
  24. For me finding this image was quite interesting
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bust_of_a_Buddhist_guardian_figure,_from_China,_Yuan_Dynasty,_14th_century_CE._The_British_Museum.jpg
    it doesnt really look like the standard design, but its immense clarity in its sculpting makes it look like it has a structure completely different from what i expected. I'd love your thoughts on this one!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think this is the right thing type of armour i have here with the images? I wouldnt expect the british museum to be wrong about its origins, looks pretty different from the other depictions in scupltures though, especially in how the pieces seem to connect together
      https://www.alamy.com/gilt-bronze-head-of-buddhist-guardian-figure-chinese-yuan-dynasty-1300-50-at-the-british-museum-london-uk-image224544039.html
      heres another angle of the same thing

      Delete
    2. Yes, that is one of the many variations of unusual Shan Wen design. Some speculate that it is some kind of "cross pattern plates over mail" design.

      Attempted reconstruction:
      https://imgur.com/a/kTkI96A

      Delete
  25. I'm way too late for this conversation, but here's my take - shan wen kai might have been useful for deflecting slashes, and that the use of some kind of rudimentary, secretive riveting technique we don't yet know about might just be the secret of this armor.

    There are things that works for one but not another. The way this armor is shaped and constructed tells me that it might be a less laborious version of mails, as well something to do with pride of domestic production. Also, in terms of medieval armor, if something is ineffective against arrows, it might just be twice as effective for edge weapons (spare the qiang, of course). This thing was also used for horse armor under Song dynasty, so there might have been some basis for its effectiveness.

    All in all, even as of 2022, we know too little of this thing. Though, for a nice distractive conversation, every time I put on my heavy, 16 oz herringbone suit, I just marvel to myself that I was putting my "shan wen kai" on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This makes me think it could be a form of rattan armor which seems to fit many of the above mentioned qualities.

      Delete
    2. @JUSTIN
      "Shan wen" pattern armour appeared long before rattan was being used for military equipment in any capacity though.

      Delete
    3. Hmm in that case, what if its both cloth and mail combined? The maille rings could be sewn into the mountain pattern fabric underneath similiar to butted japanese gusari armor, completely concealing the rings.

      Delete
    4. Also we have real life examples of mountain scale armor as a cloth pattern like this example from the british musuem. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_OA-7426-7427

      Delete
    5. @Justin
      While "fabric theory" cannot be completely ruled out due to lack of archaeological finds, I personally find it not very likely.

      Chinese statues and paintings with so-called San Wen pattern depict an older and completely different style of armour from Qing brigandine, and San Wen pattern is most often shown at locations where scales or lamellar would normally be expected. So IMO it's unlikely to only depict a fabric-covered something in this specific pattern.

      Delete

< > Home

Random Quotes & Trivia

GREAT MING MILITARY © , All Rights Reserved. BLOG DESIGN BY Sadaf F K.