18 August 2016

Ming, Qing and Japanese armour components: A brief introduction and analysis

UPDATED NOVEMBER 10, 2022


Ming Qing Japanese Armour Glossaries
Left: An unnamed Ming Jin Yi Wei (錦衣衛, lit. 'Brocade-clad guard') in parade gear. Middle: Fu De (富德), a Manchu general of Plain Yellow Banner. Right: Yamanaka Yukimori (山中幸盛) with his characteristic crescent moon crested helmet.
This blog post is intended to be an introductory article to Chinese armours of Ming and Qing period, their individual components, as well as a comparison between their similarities and differences. I also included a Japanese armour to the analysis in the hope that it can highlight the design considerations that went into each of these armours.

Ming Armour

Ming Chinese lamellar armour glossary
Components of Ming armour (click to enlarge).
Armour in the above picture is taken from Ru Bi Tu (《入蹕圖》). This particular suit is a parade armour, although it is reasonably representative of field armours used by Ming troops in North China. 

This type of armour is known as Zhao Jia (罩甲, lit. 'Coat armour'), or more precisely Chang Shen Da Jia (長身大甲, lit. 'Long body great armour') for the long version. It is a single-breasted, button up coat reaching below the knees, usually but not always collarless and sleeveless, that comes in many forms ranging from unarmoured riding coat to lamellar, scalebrigandine and even mail armour. For the most part, lamellar and scale version of Chang Shen Da Jia were reserved for elite troops, bodyguards and officers, while ordinary troopers wore brigandines.

Analysis

Ming Chinese armour design feature
Analysis of Ming armour (click to enlarge).
Chang Shen Da Jia allows for considerable freedom of movement for the arms and neck, and provides good protection to lower legs (especially when its wearer is mounted), both of which make the armour especially suitable for horse archers. Essentially a one-piece long coat, Chang Shen Da Jia also has relatively simple tailoring compared to the complex multi-piece "Cataphract" armour, making it easy to produce and fast to suit up, the latter was especially important for Ming border troops, who often had to respond to unpredictable and sudden nomadic incursions at a moment's notice.

While a basic set of Chang Shen Da Jia (plus helmet) already provides adequate protection to its wearer, it still has many vulnerabilities such as unprotected throat and exposed upper limbs to name but a few. As such, Chang Shen Da Jia was often worn together with auxiliary armours such as throat protector and metal plated armguards known as Bi Fu (臂縛) to protect these vulnerable areas. Less commonly, armoured mask, mirror armour, and greaves were also worn with Chang Shen Da Jia.

Ming Dynasty throat armour
Left: A Ming cavalryman wearing what appears to be a large, two-piece plate bevor, as well as full-length armguards. Middle: A Ming cavalryman wearing a helmet with brigandine throat protector similar to Qing-era design (see below), a mirror armour on the chest, as well as half-length armguards. Right: Three Ming guards wearing brigandines with armoured collars.
Due to the loose-fitting nature of Chinese brigandine, Chang Shen Da Jia has relatively poor weight distribution compared to more rigid lamellar or plate armour, and its great length slightly inconveniences combat on foot (although many Ming infantry fought in relatively immobile square formation or behind the cover of war carts/field fortifications). In addition, Ming armguards do not adequately protect the hands and fingers of the wearer. While this is a necessary trade-off due to the need of greater hand dexterity for archery, it still constitutes a significant weakness.

Qing Armour

Qing Chinese brigandine glossary
Components of Qing armour (click to enlarge).
Armour in the above picture is taken from Zi Guang Ge Gong Chen Xiang (《紫光閣功臣像》) depicting Fu De (富德), a Manchu general of Gūwalgiya clan that participated in the First Jinchuan War and Dzungar-Qing Wars. This armour is typical of the type worn by high-ranking Manchu generals.

Two-piece brigandine was already in use since mid-Ming period at the latest and gained significant popularity during the twilight years of the Ming Dynasty, partially supplanting the long coat style. After the demise of Ming, its successor Qing Dynasty inherited the design and pushed for standardisation across the entire empire, eventually leading to two-piece brigandine becoming the dominant form of Chinese armour. Although many alterations, improvements and stylistic changes were applied to the design over the years, the basic form of Qing armour remains largely unchanged from its late Ming predecessor. 

Unfortunately, as adoption of more advanced firearms, both by Qing military and its many enemies, quickly became widespread, Qing armour only underwent a relatively short period of development before being rendered obsolete and relegated to ceremonial roles.

Analysis

Qing Dynasty armour design feature
Analysis of Qing armour (click to enlarge).
It is curious to see the resurgence of multi-piece armour (albeit in brigandine form) during late Ming period. The reason of this shift is unclear, but possibly related to the changing nature of warfare in North China, from dealing with nomadic raids to high intensity struggle of survival between the declining Ming and ascendant Qing. After Qing Dynasty took power, it was able to dominate Mongolia in a way that no previous Chinese dynasties could, so the easy-to-wear long coat armour was no longer needed.

Other differences between Ming-era Chang Shen Da Jia and Qing brigandine include the addition of throat protector to the armour set (rather than being an auxiliary item), replacement of metal plated armguards with brigandine pauldrons and armoured sleeves/vambraces, as well as the addition of various armour attachments. A notable improvement of Qing armour over its Ming predecessors is the addition of a type of flared cuff known as Ma Ti Xiu (馬蹄袖, lit. 'Horse hoof cuff') to armoured sleeves and vambraces to better protect the hands. Overall, Qing armour offers superior mobility, modularity, and ease of manufacture (as every components of Qing armour, save for the helmet, are of the same brigandine construction) at the expense of reduced protection to buttocks and back thighs as well as longer suit-up time.

Japanese Armour

Samurai armour glossary
Components of Japanese armour (click to enlarge).
Armour in the picture above is taken from tsuki hyakushi (《月百姿》), a nineteenth century ukiyo-e (浮世絵) painting depicting Yamanaka Yukimori (山中幸盛), a prominent samurai that served Amago clan during Sengoku period (戦国時代). This painting is the work of master painter Tsukioka Yoshitoshi (月冈芳年).

By sixteenth century, samurai armour had evolved into its final iteration: tōsei gusoku (当世具足, lit. 'Present age complete armour'), developed as a response to the introduction of Portuguese firearms, shift of battlefield tactics, as well as increasingly intense warfare of Sengoku period. Riveted or stapled laminar armour known as okegawa-dō (桶側胴) also supplanted earlier lamellar armour to reduce cost and improve protection.

Analysis

Samurai armour design features
Analysis of Japanese armour (click to enlarge).
Even a rudimentary inspection on Japanese armour of this period will reveal that it is designed for foot combat. This is especially evident on the presence of groin armour, heavy emphasis on thigh protection, and the choice of footwear (see below). Thigh armour is extremely crucial for foot combat, especially for samurai (since they did not use handheld shield and wielded shorter spears or polearms), as injury on femoral artery can result in death within minutes, not to mention very difficult to treat even with modern medical technology.

Samurai of this period were no longer the horse archer-duellists they once were. They became much more close combat-oriented, and this shift of tactic was also reflected on their armour design. Tōsei gusoku protects virtually every part of its wearer's body, and its gaps and weak spots can be further reinforced with auxiliary armour items worn beneath or on top the main harness, befitting a warrior that was expected to engage in high intensity close combat frequently. Some auxiliary under-armours also provide padding and better weight distribution for the main harness.

Another notable feature of later period samurai armour is the shrinking of its spaudlers. Early Japanese ō-sode (大袖) were actually shoulder mounted shields designed to protect the flanks and upper arms from incoming arrows. As samurai became less reliant on archery and more on close combat, sode also shrank in size and evolved into proper spaudlers for better protection and mobility for the arms.

Nevertheless, despite its near-complete coverage tōsei gusoku is not without drawbacks. For an armour with such complete protection, it actually has surprising amount of gaps and flaws that can be exploited with fatal consequences. Many Japanese armours also do not have backing material and are quite noisy to wear due to rubbing between individual armour plates, not to mention this also causes premature wear to lacing, lacquer coating, and the plates themselves.

Choice of footwear

The difference between Chinese and Japanese approach to warfare can also be seen on their respective footwear of choice. Ming Northern troops and Manchu warriors alike were predominantly cavalrymen, so their footwear of choice was obviously riding boots (infantry-based Ming Southern troops continued to wear shoes with stockings or puttees, or sometimes straw sandals as well). On the other hand, Japanese warriors were predominantly footmen, with almost no cavalry to speak of, so their footwear of choice was sandals.

Ming Chinese Riding Boots
A pair of Ming-style boots, made by Hanfu clothing store Chong Hui Han Tang (重回漢唐).
A boot is known as Xue (靴) or more rarely Yao Xie (靿鞋, lit. 'Shafted shoes') in Chinese language. Traditional Chinese riding boots share many similarities with neighbouring horse cultures such as the Mongols. They can be made of either cloth or leather, although military riding boots are exclusively made of thick, stiff leather to better protect ankle joints. Due to the cold and dry climate of North China, traditional Chinese riding boots are lined with layers thick fabric. Stockings known as Wa (襪) are usually worn underneath the boots.

Unlike Western-style riding boots, traditional Chinese riding boots are flat-heeled. They have unusually wide shafts and comparatively short vamps, which serve the same purpose as heel, (i.e. to prevent the foot from slipping through the stirrup and get stuck). Both Western and traditional Chinese riding boots also have flat and smooth soles for the same aforementioned reason. Still, boots with flat soles are more slippery, which renders them less suitable for foot combat, especially in rough terrain.

Traditional Chinese boots are almost always pitch black in colour contrasted with pale white soles. They generally have less prominent and rounder upturned toes than Mongolian boots (even though upturned toes design seems to originated from China), and many boots do not have upturned toes at all.

Japanese Samurai Sandals
A waraji. Note the toes jutting out from the front edge of the sandal. Straw sandals are still used in traditional Japanese stream hiking known as Sawanobori (沢登り)
Japanese warriors made use of flip-flops and sandals made of rice straw, called zōri (草履) and waraji (草鞋) respectively, although waraji were by far the more common of the two. Japanese sandals provide excellent ventilation (effective in preventing athlete's foot) and ankle mobility, as well as a firm grip on rocky or mossy surface, making them the prefect footwear to use in the mountainous and humid Japan. While straw sandals are less durable than shoes or boots, they can be cheaply replaced and even manufactured on the fly as long as there is raw material available.

During cold seasons, divided toe socks known as tabi (足袋) can be worn together with sandals. Samurai that wanted better protection for their feet may wear armoured kōgake (甲懸) on top of the socks.

On the flip side, horse riding in sandals is generally a very bad idea, as getting accidentally stepped on by a horse is extremely unpleasant and potentially crippling. This is especially true for Japanese straw sandals, which are traditionally made shorter and narrower than the wearer's feet, providing even less protection than other sandals. Besides, a sandal does not protect the ankle like a boot does, putting the rider at higher risk of ankle sprain and fracture.




Further reading
(Patrons post) Flaws and gaps of samurai armour
(Patrons early access) Auxiliary armours of Qing brigandine



If you like this blog post, please support my work on Patreon!

144 comments:

  1. If sleeveless armor is for horse archering

    Then why joeson brigandine have sleeves

    Ps did wing brigandine also sleeveless?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sleeveless is nice to have for archery, but isn't a strict necessity. It is also a trade off between more freedom of movement vs more protection.

      Qing had both sleeveless and sleeved brigandines.

      Delete
  2. "Due to the flexible nature of Chinese-style brigandine"

    could you explain this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Flexible as in not rigid like plate armour?

      Delete
    2. Brigandine is relatively more flexible than plate in general

      What I want ask is, is chinese brigandine is more flexible than other countries?

      Delete
    3. and I want know, how flexiblity of armor is related weight distribution

      Delete
    4. Can't think of many countries that used brigandine...anyway, if we compare a Chinese brigandine to a European brigandine, it is indeed more flexible/loose-fitting.

      Delete
    5. Flexible armour, like mail, basically let your shoulder to support its entire weight (wearing padding and belt helps a lot though). Also if you change your body position (let's say going all-four), the body part that has to support the weight change as well.

      Rigid and form-fitting armour such as plate armour can distribute its weight more evenly,thus lessen the burden to the body.

      Delete
    6. Speaking of Joseon, I really wanted to include them (and Vietnam) in this blog post as well, but my knowledge to Joseon/Vietnam armour is extremely limited, and good period paintings are hard to come by.

      Delete
    7. You guys can forget about Vietnamese armour since there is little to no evidence about it. Even harder when asks a Vietnamese doctorate about their ancestor's armour since they will tell you their ancestor go to war with bare foot and bare naked.

      Delete
    8. @Aomari2
      Good day and welcome to my blog.

      Vietnamese going to war naked isn't wrong, as similar descriptions also show up on Ming records. However that's not the entire picture, since Vietnam wasn't even unified at that time, and Ming had mostly encountered the remnant of Mac Dynasty, sandwitched between Trinh-Nguyen war.

      Delete
    9. @春秋戰國:
      If they were like that there is nothing to complain but they weren't. According to historical evidences, the basic equipment of levy class soldiers is clothes and boots beside weapons and shields.

      Delete
    10. Checked my source. Ming records describe Mac troops as having rattan hat (but did not wear it), untied hair, barefooted, and did not carry anything on their shoulder other than their weapons.

      Indeed no mention of nakedness, only barefoot.

      Delete
    11. About barefoot. That is acceptable because Vietnamese enjoy walking and running barefoot for hundreds of years. Not because they can't make or buy shoes, they simply liked it. But in war that is a different matter, because all war equipment are supply by the state including shoes.

      Delete
    12. Which state? The troops mentioned in Ming records are Mac troops of the 17th century. By that time Mac was nothing more than a shadow of its former glory.

      Delete
    13. @春秋戰國: Trinh and Nguyen lords, of course.

      Delete
    14. The Vietnamese military didn't only use levies as troops no? Did they not have professional soldiers? And from what I've seen from statues in Vietnam, it seems that they depict famous generals wearing armor that seems similar if not identical to Chinese armor from various periods.

      Delete
    15. @Unknown
      Vietnamese most certainly had some form of professional military and/or royal guards. Also given that they are at close proximity with China, heavy Chinese influences are to be expected (although they are quite different also).

      Vietnam is also an international hub of sort, so influences from Japanese, Europeans and SE Asians (i.e. Siam etc) are also very evident on their weaponry.

      Delete
    16. @春秋戰國
      Later Ly to Ho dynasty Era: Fubing system from Tang dynasty.
      Later Le to Early Tay Son Era: Ming dynasty military system with modifications.
      Taken from "Lịch triều hiến chương loại chí" (歷朝憲章類誌 lit. Various dynasty encyclopedia).

      Delete
  3. Since the Zhao Jia is commonly worn by northern soldiers who are usually mounted, what kind of armor(s) would southern infantry wear?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zhao Jia as well, usually (but not always) only waist or thigh length.

      Delete
  4. http://blogfiles.naver.net/20150329_124/53traian_1427563969981mv11C_JPEG/mongol_japan.jpg

    Is this a mongol armor or qing armor?

    some data claim this is a mongol armor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unmistakably Qing, probably late Qing even. Japanese mislabeled the armour.

      If the size (especially the siyah) is any indication, the bow on the side is probably a Qing bow, or Qing-influenced Mongol bow.

      Delete
  5. Have I understood correctly that the 罩甲, Zhao Jia, is a description of form, i.e. long skirted/sleeveless/collarless? But it could be of various material, e.g. scale, brigandine, mountain pattern etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and it is not necessary long skirted and not necessary even armoured.

      Delete
  6. Did the Chinese ever developed equivalent of elbow and kneepads? I would assume it's difficult to armor these joints and still maintain mobility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No AFAIK. They usually just extend the armour skirt to cover the knees.

      The manica-like armguard does protect the elbow.

      Delete
    2. I've seen knee pads on a Song period warrior sculpture from southwest China. So I think knee pads did exist, but they were probably not commonly used or limited to certain regions.

      Delete
    3. Do you have a picture of it?

      Delete
  7. Very comprehensive analysis.

    Just a note though, it seems the samurai of the period had leather shoes or boots for riding, but they might not be considered part of the set of the Gusoku.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsqsL15C4OA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am aware of it. Samurai did ride horse sometimes after all so they got to have some riding equipment top. It just isn't as common as the waraji.

      Delete
  8. Do you have a picture of inside of chinese brigandine?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is an example of a Qing brigandine for the rank and file, with iron plates only cover the bare necessity of body.

      http://i.imgur.com/XQXlWKv.jpg

      Delete
    2. do you think ming brigandine use simillar size of plate as this one?

      and do you know how many rivets were use to hold each plate and their locations

      Delete
    3. @s ss
      Probably similar, although not many Ming brigandine survived so I can't be sure.

      For rivets, depending on the location, two to four rivets. Body plates have three, for example.

      Delete
  9. The illustration of samurai armour, though done during Edo era is actually the classic O-yoroi type during the Heian era. The boxy cuirasse with a lot of colourful lacing, large shoulder guards are indicators of the old style. Sengoku and subsequent Edo era armour are tighter fitting lamellar with less lacing and sometimes riveted like European armour. Some also use Portuguese style full plate cuirasse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I identify the armour as a more contemporary version mainly due to its seven kusazuri instead of the usual four, found on O-yoroi armour. Its Do also strikes me as quite curved.

      The sode are indeed larger than most sengoku period armour, which I think is also an attempt to reincorporate O-yoroi elements into Edo period armour.

      Delete
    2. Agree, it's the Edo equivalent of O-yoroi. It is interesting because it was deemed as cumbersome and impractical during the Sengoku period. Worn mostly by Daimyo who want to show their ancient lineage. Curiously, it did retain the style where the right arm has no sleeve guard to make drawing the bow easier (a characteristic of Heian era horse archers). But as you said, using sandals is more for foot combat. The actual Heian armour set includes some form of furry shoes / boots.
      http://www.yurukaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/O-yoroi-the-early-Japanese-armor-of-samurai-class-of-feudal-Japan-02.jpg

      Delete
    3. Updated my blog post slightly to include the sode change.

      Kote was originally archery sleeve that protect the left arm from being hit by bowstring (from botched shooting), that's why only the left arm has it originally.

      Delete
  10. As there were no wars during the Edo period, the Japanese greatly romanticised the samurai image and had gone back to the classical style.

    ReplyDelete
  11. any protection between ming long coat armor?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Replies
    1. If you mean what is worn beneath the armour, most likely only normal clothing.

      Delete
    2. so middle spot is compeletly vulunerable right?

      Delete
    3. I still don't really get yoir question, but if you mean lower midriff (that body part not protected by Samurai armour), Ming long coat armour doesn't have this problem.

      Delete
    4. What I mean

      If Ming long coat armor is not overlapped would'nt that make middle of torso compeletly vulnerable?

      Delete
    5. No? Although the plates didn't overlap there isn't any gap either.

      Delete
  13. I know ow the use of chainmail armor is somewhat limited or even rare in East Asia compared to other parts of the world, but would it be known that a shirt of mail would be used in conjunction with these armors? I'm curious if this was historical since I am planning in the future to assemble my own suit of late Ming and early Qing styled brigandine armor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Unknown
      All I can say is "possible".

      On one hand, mail armour was worn under other armour since Tang period (we got a mural from Dunhuang to prove it), although it was evidently quite rare. In the rare case that someone was described as wearing multiple layers of armour (i.e. 兀顏光 from Water Margin), he was often described as something extraordinary.

      On the other hand, many Qing painting depicts officers wearing mail shirt alone.

      Delete
    2. I see. I know that Japanese mail used both techniques, but do you know if Chinese mail was riveted and or butted?

      Delete
    3. Chinese mail is 4-in-1 Riveted.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the info! I'll keep watching this blog as there's not a great deal of sites that go in depth with Chinese arms and armor like yours. And whenever this suit will come together, hopefully sometime next year, I'd like to share it to get your input!

      Delete
    5. I will be looking forward to that.

      Delete
  14. Ming brigandine pic
    http://imageshack.com/a/img924/8953/XN0QTU.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I am aware of it, although I personally think that it is from early Qing (or Southern Ming contemporary to early Qing Dynasty).

      Delete
    2. Mr chen

      where do you get this picture?

      https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vjrZnRNfzMk/VwS1ylgyzXI/AAAAAAAACoU/ERw7GACzSnkGj5KjrxpPpBeIg1pl7jVVQ/s640/songzmd.jpg

      Delete
  15. https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cSwntu_ux1g/VhWmOyi6-7I/AAAAAAAABGw/C-MSlGqNWjQ/s640/412.jpg

    I've never seen this kind of 2-piece armor

    especialy that skirt armor. Do you know anything about this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From 《王瓊事蹟圖冊》,a set of scrolls depicting Wang Qiong's(1459-1532) achievements.

      In this particular scroll Wang Qiong is the Military Commissioner of the 3 passes(Taiyuan border garrison).

      The individuals with waist length brigandine and brigandine tassets is presumably some sort of ensign/messenger.

      Delete
    2. @Wansui
      Good day, it's been some time.

      To this date I am still not sure what to make of these "brigandine tassets". It is similar, yet also very different from Qing period "apron". I also remember there's one mural in Fire God Temple that depicts similar tassets, but on traditional Chinese armour.

      Delete
  16. Great post, is there any reason why there is a significant difference between the Ming and the Qing armour, and what is the difference between Chinese armour and Mongolian armour?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The change from one piece to two piece armour actually happened before the fall of Ming Dynasty. Qing simply inherited the latest armour style from Ming.

      Mongolian armours are (for the most part) direct copies of armours used by the cultures they fought with/conquered. So Mongols in China used mostly Chinese-style lamellar armour, while Mongols in Middle East used Middle Eastern-style armours, etc.

      Delete
  17. I was looking for references for Chinese arms & armors and I've found your blog, which is amazing and I wanted to thank you for the articles,they are great!

    I also wanted to comment under this section because I am interested in Japanese arms & armors and I've been able in the past years to get proper and solid knowledge, and I have to say that your brief analysis and introduction on Tosei Gusoku is one of the best I've read in a non Japanese-themed blog (And I have to say that is even better than some Japanese-themed sources).


    If I might add something, I'll stress the fact that Tosei Gusoku in Japan were developed when the armorers switched from a lamellar construction to a solid plate and lames ones, to save time and money for the new demand of armors, in the mid-late 15th century.

    Also, armpit were protected by armor pieces like the Wakibiki, or the Manju no wa which was similar to european arming jacket and voiders.
    And the mid riff as you pointed out, in some armor was left unprotected, only covered with a thick obi. But some times there were hidden mail/brigandine section under the lacing or over it in the form of patches; sometimes the lacing was entirely replaced by mail/brigandine section, or made entirely with plates which leave no gap.

    On high end examples the breastplate, the sode, the suneate and even the shikoro to some extent were lined and covered by leather and or ieiji.

    Cavalry unit were deployed in some cases in Japan, especially in the Kanto region, so the warrior there used boots rather than straw sandals.

    The only thing I would change in this article is the picture you have used, Kuniyoshi is a great artist but his style is kinda "anachronistic".
    I would have used this picture:
    "Samurai with Iron Mask" by Kiyochika Kobayashi

    https://www.artelino.com/auctionimages/items/21338g1.jpg



    I'll hope you might find my comment interesting, and again nice job with all the content.

    Luca

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good day Luca and welcome to my blog! Glad you like my article. Your comment remind me of that one (large metal lames), I should update my blog post at some later time.

      As for armpit armour, I actually point that out in the picture (you can click on it if the text is too small to read). I only mention some auxiliary armour pieces because it is hard to go through every single one of them in a brief introduction article.

      The fur boot have been pointed out to me in one of the previous comments so I am aware of it (and samurai cavalry). That being said, this is a comparison between the "standard loadout" of three relatively well-off warriors, so I omitted less common equipment in the comparison.

      I pick the Kuniyoshi artwork because it is the only one I found with a samurai standing in complete loadout while facing a similar direction as the other two Chinese warriors. Your picture is in many way better than what I found, although the sode is sadly missing.

      Delete
    2. Rule number one: read twice.
      I've noticed just now that the wakibiki were indeed mentioned in the picture, sorry, my fault.

      I think your choice of artwork is a good one. Although is an ukiyo e, the picture is looking good in the comparison with the Qing and the Ming soldier.
      In the artwork of Kobayashi a late and mature tosei gusoku is depicted, by that time at the beginning of the Edo period, Sode were seldom worn, they were directly integrated in the kote (bishamon kote style) or abandoned in favor of small shoulder guards called kohire.

      If you are interested there is a similar picture with less armor, where the samurai is looking in the same direction of the two Chinese warriors, but this time waraji are missing which might be a problem as well.
      If this might be useful, I'll leave It here.
      The artwork is "Yamanaka Yukimori" by "Tsukiyoka Yoshitoshi"


      http://blog-imgs-72.fc2.com/p/i/g/piglet01/20141211223024d91.jpg

      P.s
      I think there is a lot of potential in this blog and in your work, I'll probably have future questions since you seems to be quite knowledgeable; hope this won't be annoying, feel free to answer when you'll have time!
      Have a nice day, Luca

      Delete
    3. @Luca

      Add a line in the article that mentions the okegawa-do stuff.

      I wish I find your second picture earlier, that's certainly a better one! The accuracy of the armour certainly far outweight the missing waraji (and Horo, but that piece is not very common as well so I won't miss it)! I will probably find a time to update it into the blog post.

      I am also trying to find a good Joseon Korean warrior painting to no avail. Then again, as Joseon Dynasty survived well into 19th century, I do not known which period is appropriate.

      Delete
    4. While I'm quite confident with my resources on Japanese armor inside art, I don't think I could help at all with Joseon artwork.

      On a side note, I know that it was fairly fashionable for samurai warriors of the Azuchi Momoyama period using Chinese elements on their helmets, both for decorative and defensive purpose. For example, Chinese and Korean helmet bowls were used. Do you know if cuirass or other armor element did reach Japan?


      Also, do you know if it was true the reverse situation? Did Mainland people used Japanese armor elements?

      Delete
    5. I also vaguely remember Oda Nobunaga putting on a Ming coin as his banner.

      Can't speak for the Korean either. For the Chinese, Japanese influence is more evident on their weapon rather than armour (sword, Changdao, arquebus). However, this armour...specifically the neck armour on the mask, seems very Japan-like.

      http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/02/plate-armour-of-ming-dynasty.html

      Delete
    6. This is definetely something I would love to further research and investigate, both for armors and weapons.

      At least to me, It seems quite unlikely that there was any influences in the 16th century, especially for Japan since the foundation of their early armor was Chinese.

      That throat guard is quite similar to a Japanese yodare kake indeed.

      By the way, is there any survivals/ reference other than manuals depictions of the 龍鱗甲 and 鞋底甲?

      Because I Think that gyorin zane armour in Japan might came from these Styles.

      Delete
    7. I'm no expert on Japanese armors, but based on my vague knowledge, I would say that Japanese armors are most similar to the Chinese armors during the Age of Fragmentation, around 3rd to 6th centuries AD. After that they sort of diverged onto their own paths, with Chinese armors being influenced by Central Asian armors, while Japanese armors developed their own unique styles. I definitely wouldn't call 16th century Japanese armors as mere copies of Chinese armors.

      Delete
    8. @TheXanian

      Sure, it would be a on over semplification.
      Early Japanese armor was probably Chinese in design, or Korean.
      I have been really interested in the topic of Japanese armor and I came here to see if there were some sources saying that the Chinese used Japanese armors or viceversa, influences included.

      During the late 16th century, in Japan armor became a status symbol and a way to be recognizable in the midst of the battles, so some warriors started to use weird and fancy helmets, incorporating both Chinese and European features.
      It would be interesting to see if something else comes up!

      Delete
    9. @Luca Nic

      Unfortunately, there's no other reference on those armours.....Well, there's one surviving brass scale armour, possibly late Qing, that is somewhat similar to 渾金甲, although that one has no helmet, sleeves,and boots.

      There's some discussion among Ming officials, I forget which period, to import Japanese armours, but that plan did not come to fruitition. Some Japanese (captured during Wokou campaign or Imjin War) also served in Korean and Ming army.

      Koxinga certainly had access to Japanese armour, but only in limited number.

      Scale armour are actually very rare in China, lamellar (later brigandine) being the norm.

      Delete
  18. I wonder how a typical southern Chinese warrior compared to the three warriors listed here. It seems that the southern Chinese had some rather unique styles of armors made out of rattan, paper, and leather. And it also seems that the southern Chinese retained the Song style lamellar armor for much longer. I heard that there was a set of Ming iron lamellar armor unearthed in Guangzhou, and after reconstruction it looked very similar to the Song armors depicted on the military manual Wujing Zongyao.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @TheXanian

      The Southerners used a different style of helmet. They typically did not use armguards, has different footwears (shoes or waraji-like sandals) and used shorter (waist length to knee length) armour, but otherwise still the same old Zhao Jia.

      Rattan was actually rarely used for armour except for helmet and shield.

      The notion that traditional-style lamellar was used in South China for much longer is a speculation, albeit probably accurate. There's is a Qing period painting by two Japanese eyewithnesses that shows some Chinese troops still use traditional armours in the 19th century.

      There seems to be some issues with the reconstruction of that Guangzhou lamellar, but it shouldn't be too far off...I hope.

      Delete
    2. If I remember correctly, there were at least two types of rattan armors being mentioned in Ming military manuals. The first one was a waist-length armor made out of rattan canes in a woven manner, kind of like a rattan version of the mail armor. It has to be soaked in tung oil and then dried, and this process needs to be repeated several times. The second one is a type of lamellar armor made of small rattan plates, and it is said to be used by the marines.

      Delete
    3. @The Xanian
      True, and both rattan armours can be found in my other blog posts. But they were rarely used.

      Delete
  19. NOTE: I updated the blog post with a more historically accurate painting of the samurai, along with some minor editing on the article. For those interested in the old picture, you can find it here:

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-V28yYqnGmeA/V7EYMKnYrTI/AAAAAAAAC_o/tKe4sN9Af-AvFfeexNFPt5Po7R7M_I20QCLcB/s1600/Ming_Qing_Japan_Warrior.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hello, do you have any information about early Qing/Later Jin armour, especially the face mask? I've seen people on Historum say they used lamellar armour, Osprey also says that.
    What are your thoughts on this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The existence of Jurchen/Manchu lamellar armour and face mask are attested in written records, but none of them survived I'm afraid.

      Delete
    2. Would it be a stretch to say that they still used the Iron Pagoda style of armour?

      Delete
    3. While certainly possible, we don't have any evidence that suggest for or against it.

      Delete
    4. I heard the written records mention barding as well, is that true?

      Delete
  21. And would they be lamellar as well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes and yes (lamellar & barding). We know for certain that they used lamellar, whether they were the old "Iron Pagoda" style or the "Great Coat" style we have no idea though.

      As a side note, both Ming and Mongols likewise had barding and lamellar.

      Delete
    2. Do you have the specific sources for lamellar, barding and face mask available?

      Delete
    3. What specific that you need? Do you mean records of Ming/Jurchen/Mongol barding?

      Delete
    4. Yes and the Manchu lamellar as well.

      Delete
    5. Mentions of Manchu lamellar and barding can be found in both Ming and Joseon written records. For Mongols, there is a record about cavalry under Altan Khan with Ming style armor including brigandine and lamellar, and his elite troops had barding.

      For Ming barding, there are some records of bardings being taken out for maintenance, as well as at least one late Ming woodblock print depiction.

      Delete
  22. I forgot to add the face mask.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For Ming mask I only recall one record of Shenji Batallion equipped with mask, as well as Tieren. Mentions of Jurchen/Manchu mask can be found in Ming, Joseon, and Western witness records.

      Delete
    2. This has been extremely useful and informative, thank you!

      Delete
    3. do we have any surviving examples or any hint to guess how they are looked like

      Delete
    4. There's a recently auctioned brigandine peytral that possibly dated to late Ming period.

      Delete
    5. can i see the picture?

      and do we have mask as well ?

      Delete
    6. No mask. This is what the peytral looks like:
      https://i.imgur.com/dwsYxVQ.jpg

      Delete
    7. its remind me a qing skirt armor

      very im suprised


      p.s fo you have any plan to write article about late ming iron cavarly?

      Delete
    8. What/Which late Ming iron cavalry? That name kinda lose its significance since any half-competent cavalry unit could be called that.

      Delete
    9. That one is a hot mess of confusing information and conflicting opinions, so I'm afraid it is beyond my ability to give it a good article.

      Delete
  23. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rkIZZhbAOwk&t=1032s


    hey matt easton use your image

    did he ask your permission?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi, i've recently been looking at the two versions of the famed 清明上河图 and noticed some ming period military activcties in the painting. Are the paintings an accurate representation of a regular city garrison of the ming period?

    picture i cropped from the paintings : https://leehungchang.tumblr.com/post/186116736484/soldiers-in-the-two-versions-of-qingmingshanghetu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not notice anything out of the ordinary, so I guess they are accurate. Do you have the full hi-ress picture of the painting?

      Delete
    2. the wiki article contains the somewhat high res version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Along_the_River_During_the_Qingming_Festival

      Delete
  25. This is low quality but I think this might be a depiction of early Qing barding. https://scontent.fuln1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13315473_1167599573279977_4598065487148418861_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_oc=AQlyge7aH9uO6pbJr5_ufLjqnaOhjNCIEbT4DjjhT4paoq_JP91aCtMN_OwFe_LzZ5U&_nc_ht=scontent.fuln1-2.fna&oh=871c8c6e4fbc8af3182cc1fbcd82ad7c&oe=5DB2E28E

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Update: This is the 元人秋猎图, a depiction of the Yuan dynasty, but the clothing and equipment are early Qing.

      Delete
  26. Did chinese ever used plated mail?

    If they did what did they called it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, they also didn't have a specific name for it.

      Delete
  27. Hi again! Had a question about Ming/Qing/Chinese armors I was wondering about:
    Did Chinese armorers ever make armor (or at least parts like the helmet or mirror plate) that was bulletproof like was done on occasion in Europe and Japan? Seems strange that the Ming/Qing who used gunpowder weaponry extensively would not attempt to make their armors proof against it... (same strangeness goes for other cultures like the Ottomans and Mughals who seemed to have adopted guns heavily yet favored mail + mirror plate for their armors even though that armor seems to be poor protection against bullets...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I can remember, Xu Guangqi discussed something like that.

      Also, Quan Tie Jia is said to be bulletproof.

      Delete
    2. Didn't Manchu and Tie Ren armor are bullet resistant as well?

      And the Japanese said that Ming shield and armor are bullet resistant as well.

      Delete
    3. Manchu armour was discussed by Xu Guangqi.

      Tie Ren armour was not described as bullet resistant.

      Delete
    4. Paper armors(紙甲) were able to stop bullets according to Ming dynasty records "武備要略". Ming and Qing dynasties did develop some types of bullet-rsistent armors but they're usually multi-layers combined with different materials including metals, leathers, cottons and papers. During Battle of Sarhu, the armors wore by Manchus were able to resist bullets shot from both Ming and Choseon musketeers.

      Delete
    5. @Blogger01

      There are some evidence that suggest the bullet resistant qualities of thickly layered cotton and paper, as well as one (homemade) test that I am aware of.

      Delete
  28. About the article,

    "this type of armour has poor weight distribution compared to rigid lamellar or plate armour"

    I think poor distribution of weight happen when the armor is an untailored like Medieval mail tunic. If an armor is fastened at the front/back than the armor should hug the body meaning the weight are distributed throughout the length of the torso rather than just shoulder and the waist.

    "all of these add-ons were already present on Ming armour"

    Is there other showing of this, other than a late Ming brigandine pieces?

    "somehow leaves the lower part of midriff (i.e. area between cuirass and tassets) completely unprotected."

    Only true for late 16th century armor. Early 16th century at the same time as the Ming armor did not have this gap and in late 16th century there are a number of choices to cover this gap with either mail belt or articulated lower extension of the Do.

    "Many Japanese armours also do not have backing material"

    The plates are lacquered and there are Japanese armor with backing material. Chinese brigandine also didn't had backing material that prevent metal to clothing contact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Joshua
      · Ming/Qing brigandines were seldom fastened with chest straps like earlier lamellar though.

      · There are late Ming written records mentioning these add-ons in the context of brigandine parts.

      · While it's true that you can use auxiliary pieces to cover the gap, it still constitutes a weakness that you have to take extra step to mitigate.

      · The problem with backing (or lack thereoff) is more about metal on metal contact than metal on clothing contact.

      Delete
    2. · Ming/Qing brigandines were seldom fastened with chest straps like earlier lamellar though.

      Do you mean a chest sash like the Varangian bra?
      Didn't a flexible armor wrap itself around the body when fastened at the front?

      https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/22011


      · There are late Ming written records mentioning these add-ons in the context of brigandine parts.

      Thank you. Do you know where I can read them?


      · While it's true that you can use auxiliary pieces to cover the gap, it still constitutes a weakness that you have to take extra step to mitigate.

      That's the thing I did not understand about Japanese armor.
      This is a Do from around the period of the depicted Ming soldier.

      https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-12242.html

      The Kusazuri overlap the torso armor leaving no gap. So far all 15th-early 16th century armor I see is like this.


      · The problem with backing (or lack thereoff) is more about metal on metal contact than metal on clothing contact.

      Didn't most metal armor in the world had metal to metal contact somewhere in their construction?

      European, Indian, Chinese armor are composed of metal contacting other metals.

      Delete
    3. @Joshua
      Yes, I mean something like Varangian bra, or at least the strap used to hold mirror plate in place. Flexible armour like mail will sag when you move around so it's better to secure it.


      Unfortunately, even I do not have the complete version of the source (I only acquired screenshots of the relevant part).

      "So far all 15th-early 16th century armor I see is like this."

      Here's one from the 16th century with gap.
      https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/27582

      I don't understand the reasoning for the gap either.


      "Didn't most metal armor in the world had metal to metal contact somewhere in their construction?"

      Yes, it is inevitable. But still better to reduce it as much as possible.

      Delete
  29. "Tie Ren armour was not described as bullet resistant."

    Is it based on the meaning of "sijdegeweer" being sidearms?

    From what I found, all meaning of geweer refer to firearms.

    Also all translation of of Fredercik Coyett that I read also said that the Tie Ren armor resist Dutch bullet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Rifle" is a mistranslation. For source written in the 17th century, we should go with the old meaning.

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zijdgeweer

      https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/land016mili01_01/land016mili01_01_0027.php (you can try google translate this)

      Delete
    2. Thank you. I did not notice that zijdgeweer are a word and not a compound.

      Delete
  30. "Yes, I mean something like Varangian bra, or at least the strap used to hold mirror plate in place. Flexible armour like mail will sag when you move around so it's better to secure it."

    Yes, mail and other flexible armor will sag, but European mail are rarely fastened at the front/back/side.

    Such mail armor is like a T-shirt that cannot stretch, there is no way it could rest on the body, otherwise it will not pass the shoulder when worn.

    Mail and other flexibe armor made in the style of Do-maru/Haramaki/or fastened at the sides is different story, in my opinion, because with such fastening method you force it to conform to body shape.


    "Here's one from the 16th century with gap."

    That's why I specifiy 15th-early 16th century.
    That armor is quite strange and should be antiquated in the 16th century. It does not have the silhouette of thinner waist so it follow the shape 13th century armor, while the gaps are not present in earlier armor of this type, so maybe it is an imitation combined with late 16th century preference for gap.

    From my discussion with Gunsen, I think we could get a pattern of 15th century.

    This is old armor before the rigid self supporting 15th century lamellar. As you can see the side sag on its own.

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e0/fe/90/e0fe90b594143f7d25dc89962c05be09.jpg

    This is 15th century lamellar. The waist part is thinner, so it had the benefit of rigid cuirass as well.

    https://webarchives.tnm.jp/imgsearch/show/E0017343


    These two are from 1500-1570. The form remain the same, but replaced with laminar and also had the lacing reduced.

    https://netz-saitama.xsrv.jp/gururi/images/201905_01/p07.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPRiHTqUYAA8vkh.jpg


    This is late 16th century armor shape, in this case, the armor is lamellar (or false lamellar). As you can see, it has gaps in the midriff, while previous armor did not.

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d4/b4/0d/d4b40dfdb346ce84abfc1dc890400f08.jpg


    Now I don't know if such development is standard or not. For example this is a 15th century untailored armor (or maybe it is tailored for a person with wide torso) with no gap.

    https://image.tnm.jp/image/1024/C0042556.jpg

    while this one is extremely narrow at the waist.

    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3e/eb/3b/3eeb3b82c1b4f6fa2cf7dc3e2dc435b7.jpg

    The thing is that such gap are purposefully designed, while previous armor didn't had those gaps. One example of that I suspect is purposefully separated is probably the old Kote design being separated into the new Kote and Manchira.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Joshua
      Now that I've finally getting my latest blog post cleared, I can reply to the comment (I hope I don't forget to reply to something...)

      "European mail are rarely fastened at the front/back/side".
      Indeed true, and the weight distribution will most likely be affected.

      Chest straps and Varangian bras were nice things to have, but not absolutely crucial. The practice wasn't universal in both Byzantine Empire and China (and elsewhere) either.


      I must admit I only have some basic knowledge with the development of Japanese armour/weapon, so this is just a blind guess:

      Could the gap be a result of cost-saving and cutting corners? Sengoku warfare evolved and increased in intensity quite a lot over the century, so maybe the gap was the result of trying to churn out more armours in shorter period of time?

      Delete
  31. "Indeed true, and the weight distribution will most likely be affected."

    Some middle Eastern mail and most East Asian armor are fastened at the front/back/side that means their weight distribution are different to European mail armor and more similar to 14th-15th century Coat of Plates/Brigandine.


    "Could the gap be a result of cost-saving and cutting corners? Sengoku warfare evolved and increased in intensity quite a lot over the century, so maybe the gap was the result of trying to churn out more armours in shorter period of time?"

    That is what I thought too, the Japanese concentrate on thickening the cuirass and helmet, while reducing as much weight as possible on the rest. I don't think the drive for overall heavier armor exist in China or Japan, as it does in Europe. I remember seeing a 17th century 3/4 Cuirassier armor with a weight of 42 kg.

    With the exception of the more solid torso part of the Do and the Kote, the rest of the Japanese armor of late 16th century are more open, lighter and sometimes plain inferior or less sophisticated in construction.

    I don't know precisely when the transition start from 15th/early 16th century style to gunpowder armor late 16th century. The earlier armor would be more ideal for a battlefield with minimal gunpowder and more arrows/spear as it is more enclosed.

    Here are the component of earlier armor that you can compare to the Japanese armor picture you have.

    https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/65122

    This is how a 1400 Samurai look like.

    https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/65122

    The early 16th century Samurai probably wear the same limb armor, but with better torso armor in the form of laminar and early Okegawa Do.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMv71FDUEAYLPtp.jpg


    He wear Hodo Haidate that enclose the back of the leg as well.
    https://i.imgur.com/Z4ekaI8.jpg

    The Kote is old design, so it goes under the Do. The arm defense are solid or hinged plates with gaps covered with mail or plate. This is a 1400-1450 Kote with European style mail covering the gaps.
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jEX0YXVxDeU/XcntCmysdbI/AAAAAAAABnQ/EywBKyeHpycUYTEPGXl56j7DXT56UCmdwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/f0b0a55c26f6a76c16c330a770c35858.jpg

    The one in the painting had mail on the part under the Do and it also had small plates to cover to supplement the mail.

    A real example from Edo Period of old style Kote with mail under the Do and in the armpit:
    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ec/4c/11/ec4c1136f03ab8ce18a066a3258250e0.jpg


    The greave is more solid with rigid knee guard and it also cover the front and back of the shin.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEn6gJFUwAA8t96?format=jpg&name=large


    As far as I know that is the difference, much of it is based on simple observation and as far as I know probably wouldn't be in a book.

    However, while late 16th century "standard" Japanese armor is more open, they did not forget how to create more enclosing armor and the additional armor had a lot more variety than 15th-early 16th century armor.

    So an ideal late 16th century with all additional armor would still be better.

    ReplyDelete
  32. According to some researches I've found, Ming-Qing styles traditional Chinese military boots(軍靴、軍用靿鞋) sometime were armored with metal plates or chainmail but they're installed inside(or between) the fabric of boots(鐵甲靴、鐵網靴) like usual brigandine armors, so it's not necessarily unarmored, just not visible from outside.
    https://www.zhihu.com/question/339491553
    Also as I understand, the regular Chinese foot soldiers usually just wear traditional Chinese linen-cotton flat shoes(中式布鞋) or straw shoes(草鞋)similar to Japanese, only officers, cavalries and elite soldiers can wear boots, there were strict regulations about what kinds of shoes they should wear.

    Outstanding article btw!

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

      The "brigandine boots" is extrapolated from a pair of surviving armoured boots currently in the possession of The National Museum of Mongolia. The boots are closer to Chinese style than Mongol style, and given the time period, they were likely issued to a Mongolian soldier serving in the Qing military.

      Still, since they are the only surviving evidence, we don't know how common armoured boots were in the past. I put a "some boots may be armoured" note in the Qing brigandine analysis picture to reflect this.

      Delete
    2. I know of the plates in the boots but not boots with mail where is that example coming from?

      Delete
    3. @Blogger01
      @Tobi

      So far I've yet to find any evidence of Chinese armoured boots lined with mail. "jazerant" vambraces were quite common during Qing period though.

      Delete
  33. is it possible that the armor in chujing rubi tu are made by fabrics with armor patterns printed on it? it seems illogical to wear actual armor and walk a long distance

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No? The guards were probably in parade gear, but they were still in the presence of the Emperor, with all the potential risks that entail. Also, there are various surviving records of manufacturing/storing of metal armours (including the more ornate ones) used by Imperial guards, but this so-called "painted-on armour" never existed in Ming records as far as I am aware.

      It seems even more illogical to me to NOT wear actual armour during a parade. Various cultures, both East and West, both past and present, parade in actual armour all the time.

      Delete
  34. Scott Rodell had introduced some antique Qing dynasty military boots with metal sole(鞋底甲), very interesting.
    https://youtu.be/Su2GIVzxakc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting.

      I don't think they are called 鞋底甲 historically though?

      Delete
  35. Did not realize you updated the article!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Would you be inclined to do a comparison for Korean and Vietnamnese armor with enough sources supplied?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not any time soon unfortunately. I am pretty occupied at the moment.

      Delete
  37. Hi, love your blog and now the patreon!
    One thing that confuses me doing some research is, does the Qing armor essentially look like the Ming armor during late ming period (When they are fighting each other), ie already influenced by Ming culture?

    I'm very very new to 1600's warfare but it's been interesting so far :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome and thanks for supporting me!

      Yes, Later Jin/Early Qing armours look pretty similar, in fact nearly identical, to late Ming armours. Ming Dynasty ruled the region we now call Manchuria, where the Nurhaci rebellion originated. Actual control waxed and waned over time, and at times it was only "in name only", but obviously Ming would still strongly influence them.

      Delete
  38. Do you have any idea of how thick the armours would be? For either the samurai's plate or the brigandines?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No idea on Samurai plate.
      Folks on Cathay Armoury say average thickness of Qing brigandine plates is ~0.7mm.

      Delete
  39. Regarding the puttees worn by southern troops, would they have been worn on their own or over socks/stockings. Also, what material would they have been made of?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both, they can be worn alone or over stockings. They are made of cloth.

      Delete
  40. My apology, I can't look up stuffs for the next few days for obvious reason, will get back to you later.

    ReplyDelete

< > Home

Random Quotes & Trivia

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