what kind of armour did chinese soldiers wear

[S. Steele]

obviously it would change over long periods of time and differ between various types of soldier, but can you give me a general idea say, in each dynasty?

[Leonid Korogodski]

From what I understad, brigandine was the staple of Chinese armies from the earliest history till well into the modern one, with variations. In its most basic form, brigandine is made by lining a cloth or leather garment with small metal plates, usually on the inside or between two layers of cloth and/or leather for padding, though the plates could also be on the outside (especially, in the early times). Overlapping plate segments were often used to protect the mobile parts of the body, such as shoulders, arms, and the like.

As always, much depended on what the warrior could afford.

Chain mail was known in China but it never took off, for some reason. I wonder if it may be related to different styles of combat and dominant weapons. After all, different types of threat would require different types of armor to counter them better. In the West, for example, plate replaced chain mail in order to counter the longbow.

Leo

[Doug Mullane]

Originally posted by Leonid Korogodski
As always, much depended on what the warrior could afford.

Are you sure it wasn't what the government could afford? I am not schooled in Chinese armor to any great extent, so my curiosity is rather, er, curious.

Doug M

[David Black Mastro]

Leonid,

Originally posted by Leonid Korogodski
From what I understad, brigandine was the staple of Chinese armies from the earliest history till well into the modern one, with variations. In its most basic form, brigandine is made by lining a cloth or leather garment with small metal plates, usually on the inside or between two layers of cloth and/or leather for padding, though the plates could also be on the outside (especially, in the early times). Overlapping plate segments were often used to protect the mobile parts of the body, such as shoulders, arms, and the like.

In addition to brigandines, lamellar armor was of course popular.

Chain mail was known in China but it never took off, for some reason. I wonder if it may be related to different styles of combat and dominant weapons. After all, different types of threat would require different types of armor to counter them better. In the West, for example, plate replaced chain mail in order to counter the longbow.

Yeah, I suspect that maille wasn't as popular in the East, because of the prevalance of archery with the powerful Asiatic composite bow. Maille is vulnerable to powerful bows, though this can be corrected by wearing a thick buckram jacket, over the maille.

Peace,

David

[Leonid Korogodski]

Originally posted by Doug M
Are you sure it wasn't what the government could afford? I am not schooled in Chinese armor to any great extent, so my curiosity is rather, er, curious.

Well, it depends on the historical period. Seeing as the question was mainly about armor, I neglected to be more specific, but you're right: that was indeed the case in the later history.

I guess my phrasing was partly a Freudean slip: I'm currently much more interested in the older China. Before the First Emperor, China was feudal. During the Western Zhou and the Spring and Autumn period, the armies were recruited in a manner not much different from the medieval Europe.

During the Warring States period, the disintegration of the feudal structure accelerated precipitously, with various states starting to experiment with various measures designed to strengthen the central authority of the ruler of a state (duke, later king), generally at the expense of vassal nobility. Two extreme examples: The state of Jin failed to reform, eventually failed and split into three (Zhao, Wei, and Han). The state of Qin was the most successful, starting with Long Shang as prime minister (who paid with his life for the success of his reforms, however) and up to Li Si, who helped the First Emperor to unite China, abolish feudalism, and create an empire (Li Si, too, eventually ended very badly; Lord Shang was lucky to "only" be torn apart between chariots).

But I digress. The Intrigues of Warring States (Zhan Guo Ce) records how Viscount Xiang of Zhao mobilized against the Duke of Jin in a war that eventually led to the downfall and partition of Jin (late 5th century BC). The Intrigues is not exactly an epitome of historical accuracy, but even so it is obvious that at that time the rulers did not have centralized distribution of resources.

Later, the so-called "five households system" of recruitment was pioneered in Qin by Lord Shang (4th century BC) and was later adopted by most of the great states (Han Fei, a prince of Han and a famous Legalist scholar, mentions it in late 3th century BC in relation to the state of Wei, if I remember correctly). Every five households were responsible for sending and equipping one warrior. That system survived long into the days of the empire.

I know significantly less about the more recent history, such as Qing, Ming, etc.

Leo

[Scott M. Rodell]

You really want to get your hands on a copy of:
Ancient Chinese Armor, Shanghai Chinese Classics Publishing House, Shanghai, 1995, isbn: 7-5325-2033-1

it will answer all your questions & more. There's a chapter on every dynasty.

[Doug Mullane]

www.amazon.com and www.bookfinder.com do not have this book on file. Is there another source where we can find it?

Thanks,

Doug M

[Leonid Korogodski]

Originally posted by Doug M
www.amazon.com and www.bookfinder.com do not have this book on file. Is there another source where we can find it?

http://www.paragonbook.com/html/brow....cfm?item=3960

Leo

[Bruce W Sims]

If you are more of a visual person I would pick-up on one of the many fine coffee table books available on the excavations at the site of Shi Huang Di's (1st Chinese Emperor). The reproductions of the many warriors in the various armies interred around the tomb are thought to be some of the most detailed representations of military accoutremont for the period you are seeking. If you ever to make it to China, I would skip the Great Wall and spend my energy getting to visit this tomb excavation.

FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Thomas Yuan]

Hmm...can anyone scan pictures from the book?

Oh- I want to see some Tang, Song, and Ming Armor.

[Timothy Yan]

brigandine armor didn't become popular until mid Ming Dynasty.

Chain mail was known to the Chinese by 300 AD. However, due to mail's poor protection against missile weapons comparing to scale armors, it was not used untill the late Ming and Qing era.

Originally posted by Leonid Korogodski
From what I understad, brigandine was the staple of Chinese armies from the earliest history till well into the modern one, with variations. In its most basic form, brigandine is made by lining a cloth or leather garment with small metal plates, usually on the inside or between two layers of cloth and/or leather for padding, though the plates could also be on the outside (especially, in the early times). Overlapping plate segments were often used to protect the mobile parts of the body, such as shoulders, arms, and the like.

As always, much depended on what the warrior could afford.

Chain mail was known in China but it never took off, for some reason. I wonder if it may be related to different styles of combat and dominant weapons. After all, different types of threat would require different types of armor to counter them better. In the West, for example, plate replaced chain mail in order to counter the longbow.

Leo

[Craig R.]

You could try these:

Ancient Chinese Armies 1500–200 BC (Men-at-Arms 218)
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=Q9427~ser=MAA

Medieval Chinese Armies 1260–1520 (Men-at-Arms 251)
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=P2544~ser=MAA

Imperial Chinese Armies (1) 200 BC–AD 589 (Men-at-Arms 284)
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=P5144~ser=MAA

Imperial Chinese Armies (2) 590–1260 AD (Men-at-Arms 295)
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=P5993~ser=MAA

Late Imperial Chinese Armies 1520–1840 (Men-at-Arms 307)
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=P6558~ser=MAA

They might help.....

Craig R.

[Karl Foster]

There is also a discussion on the Antique Armor Studies Forum on Mountain Pattern Scale armor, courtesy of The Armor Archive.

FYI: Chinese "Shan Wen Kia" scale armor...

[Dan Howard]

Moved to Antique Armour forum.

[Dan Howard]

I have been looking for several years but I can't find any confirmed example of lamellar anywhere in the world dating before the Warring States period.

Lamellar is defined as armour made from small plates laced together in such a way that there is no need for a foundation backing. If the plates need to be fastened to some sort of backing for structural integrity then it is scale armour, not lamellar.

[Dan Howard]

Originally posted by Leonid Korogodski
From what I understad, brigandine was the staple of Chinese armies from the earliest history till well into the modern one, with variations. In its most basic form, brigandine is made by lining a cloth or leather garment with small metal plates, usually on the inside or between two layers of cloth and/or leather for padding, though the plates could also be on the outside (especially, in the early times). Overlapping plate segments were often used to protect the mobile parts of the body, such as shoulders, arms, and the like.

As always, much depended on what the warrior could afford.

Chain mail was known in China but it never took off, for some reason. I wonder if it may be related to different styles of combat and dominant weapons. After all, different types of threat would require different types of armor to counter them better. In the West, for example, plate replaced chain mail in order to counter the longbow.

Leo

Firstly, don't call it chain mail. It is simply "mail".

Secondly, brigandine never consisted of plates attached to the outside of a foundation. Nor were the plates ever sandwiched between two layers of fabric. The plates always were attached to the inside of a foundation and the bare plates rested against whatever arming garment was worn underneath. IIRC there are only two examples of brigandine with fabric on the inside and these are in the British Museum and only consist of a small section covering the shoulder. The rest of the plates were bare. If a lining was attached to the inside of a brigandine the action of the overlapping plates would tear it out very quickly.

Thirdly, there are plenty of threads in this forum demonstrating that plate armour was NOT developed to counter the longbow. Plate armour was developed in Italy before the Italians had any exposure to the English longbow. European mail and its associated padding was far more effective at resisting arrows than many realise. Recent tests by the Royal Armouries indicate that a mail haubergeon worn underneath a padded jack was proof against Mary Rose longbows.

[Leonid Korogodski]

Originally posted by Dan Howard
Firstly, don't call it chain mail. It is simply "mail".

Thanks, I realize that there is no other kind of mail armor. And no, I didn't use any misnomer like "plate mail" or something to deserve a righteous wrath.

Secondly, brigandine never consisted of plates attached to the outside of a foundation. Nor were the plates ever sandwiched between two layers of fabric. The plates always were attached to the inside of a foundation and the bare plates rested against whatever arming garment was worn underneath. IIRC there are only two examples of brigandine with fabric on the inside and these are in the British Museum and only consist of a small section covering the shoulder. The rest of the plates were bare. If a lining was attached to the inside of a brigandine the action of the overlapping plates would tear it out very quickly.

Yes, I should have made a distinction between brigandine and scale. Sorry, I was a bit sloppy in that regard.

Thirdly, there are plenty of threads in this forum demonstrating that plate armour was NOT developed to counter the longbow. Plate armour was developed in Italy before the Italians had any exposure to the English longbow. European mail and its associated padding was far more effective at resisting arrows than many realise. Recent tests by the Royal Armouries indicate that a mail haubergeon worn underneath a padded jack was proof against Mary Rose longbows.

This is interesting; I didn't know that before. However, the question still remains whether plate armor, even if it was invented earlier, wasn't helped to gain popularity so rapidly by a good helping of longbow volleys. After all, it was so much better against arrows.

I doubt anyone would argue against the general principle of arms/armor race development. It may manifest itself differently on different particular occasions, of course.

Leo

[Leonid Korogodski]

Originally posted by Leonid Korogodski
Later, the so-called "five households system" of recruitment was pioneered in Qin by Lord Shang (4th century BC) and was later adopted by most of the great states (Han Fei, a prince of Han and a famous Legalist scholar, mentions it in late 3th century BC in relation to the state of Wei, if I remember correctly). Every five households were responsible for sending and equipping one warrior. That system survived long into the days of the empire.

Correction: I checked my sources, and it wasn't Han Fei talking about the state of Wei. Instead, it was Su Qin talking about the state of Qi (specifically, while praising its military system before the king of Qi in an attempt to convince him to join an alliance against the state of Qin).

A technicality, but I wanted to correct myself.

Leo

[David Black Mastro]

Originally posted by Dan Howard

Thirdly, there are plenty of threads in this forum demonstrating that plate armour was NOT developed to counter the longbow. Plate armour was developed in Italy before the Italians had any exposure to the English longbow.

But the Italians did have exposure to powerful, composite-staved crossbows, as well as composite handbows, that were used by the Hungarians and others.

European mail and its associated padding was far more effective at resisting arrows than many realise. Recent tests by the Royal Armouries indicate that a mail haubergeon worn underneath a padded jack was proof against Mary Rose longbows.

First off, the Mary Rose longbows vary greatly in draw-weight, from 70lbs up to 140lbs.--which ones were used for the tests?

It should also be pointed out that maille could vary in quality, just like any other type of armor.

And again, there's still the issue of other missile weapons, like the crossbow in its various forms, as well as the composite handbows of the the Hungarians, Turks, etc.

Plate appears to have been a response to the increased used of powerful missile weapons, like the longbow and crossbow. The culmination of armor technology in the West was the advent of the so-called "proof" armor, which could stop arrows, bolts, and even bullets in some cases.

However, after the introduction of the heavy Hispano-Italian musket, the armor makers finally ran into a technological dead-end.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Here's a website with a few nice pics of Chinese armour:

http://chinese-armour.freewebspace.com/photo.html

I'd like to avoid dipping into the mail vs. arrows debate this time. I'll only ask a question: does anyone know of any period documents saying anything about Chinese armour against the arrows they faced? Also, did any Chinese forces come into contact with mail armour, and if they, are there any records concerning what they thought about it?

[Dan Howard]

"But the Italians did have exposure to powerful, composite-staved crossbows, as well as composite handbows, that were used by the Hungarians and others."

Leonid specifically mentioned longbows and I provided a specific fact to discount this.

--------

"First off, the Mary Rose longbows vary greatly in draw-weight, from 70lbs up to 140lbs.--which ones were used for the tests?"

The average drawweight was 108 lbs and this was the bow used by the RA.

--------

"It should also be pointed out that maille could vary in quality, just like any other type of armor."

Of course. Here is an example of good quality mail quoted from the Chronicon Colmariense, 1398.

the author states that men at arms wore, "...camisiam ferream, ex circulis ferreis contextam, per quae nulla sagitta arcus poterat hominem vulnerare."

Translation.
"...an iron shirt, woven from iron rings, through which no arrow of a bow could wound a person."

-----------

"And again, there's still the issue of other missile weapons, like the crossbow in its various forms, as well as the composite handbows of the the Hungarians, Turks, etc."

How is this relevant to lnogbows?

-----------

"Plate appears to have been a response to the increased used of powerful missile weapons, like the longbow and crossbow. The culmination of armor technology in the West was the advent of the so-called "proof" armor, which could stop arrows, bolts, and even bullets in some cases."

Plate was a largely a response of social and technological evolution. The evidence suggests that plate armour would have been developed during this time even if the weapons of which you speak never existed.

[Dan Howard]

Originally posted by Benjamin H. Abbott
Here's a website with a few nice pics of Chinese armour:

http://chinese-armour.freewebspace.com/photo.html

I'd like to avoid dipping into the mail vs. arrows debate this time. I'll only ask a question: does anyone know of any period documents saying anything about Chinese armour against the arrows they faced? Also, did any Chinese forces come into contact with mail armour, and if they, are there any records concerning what they thought about it?

Regarding Chinese armour vs arrows I know that they had cheap armour made from paper (technically it is "barkcloth" not paper) that was considered proof against arrows. This stuff was imported from Korea which also issued paper amour to the troops (they called it "jigap"). Apparently it was also good at resisting the cold weather. This armour remained in use until the development of more powerful crossbows in the 12th century.

I just noticed that the depiction of Song cavalry shows a horse that looks like it is armoured in "mountain scale". (the horse in the foreground).

[David Black Mastro]

Hi Dan,

Originally posted by Dan Howard

"And again, there's still the issue of other missile weapons, like the crossbow in its various forms, as well as the composite handbows of the the Hungarians, Turks, etc."

How is this relevant to lnogbows?

I was simply relating that, since the Italians (whom you say developed plate armor prior to contact with English archers) had to cope with powerful missile weapons in the form of composite bows and crossbows, it's logical to surmise that the armor in question was developed largely because of that threat.

And when the Free Companies started roaming the Italian peninsula, there was doubtlessly further impetus to develop increasingly effective forms of plate armor.

Plate was a largely a response of social and technological evolution. The evidence suggests that plate armour would have been developed during this time even if the weapons of which you speak never existed.

And what "evidence" would that be?

Thanks,

David

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

As for the Chronicon Colmariense quotation, I feel compelled to point that it's only one of the many primary sources on the ability of mail to resist arrows. Much of the times the mail comes out ahead, but, just so no one gets the wrong idea, there are a number of accounts of arrows penetrating mail and of bows that could penetrate mail.

Regarding Chinese armour vs arrows I know that they had cheap armour made from paper (technically it is "barkcloth" not paper) that was considered proof against arrows.

Paper armour? Huh. That's neat. Could I get a source and perhaps some more information about this? I assume this armour was to paper as a quilted jack was to cloth. Interestingly enough, the latter armour was also good, cheap protection against arrows (at range).

As for the evolution of plate armour - will I'm not really sure. But I lean towards the technology argument. I seriously doubt that it was due to any hand bow, weapons that been used for hundreds of years. Perhaps the rise of massed archery sped up the process, but plate is better protection against arrow, lance and halberd alike, and cavalry without the benefit of plate had been capable of defeating archers and resisting arrows for a long time before the Age of Plate.

15th and 16th century European plate armour did provide protection superior other armour of that time or times past, but it wasn't miles head of what came before. Any full suit of steel or iron armour, be it Crusader mail or Japanese lamellar, was an excellent defense against arrows.

[David Black Mastro]

Benjamin,

Originally posted by Benjamin H. Abbott
As for the Chronicon Colmariense quotation, I feel compelled to point that it's only one of the many primary sources on the ability of mail to resist arrows. Much of the times the mail comes out ahead, but, just so no one gets the wrong idea, there are a number of accounts of arrows penetrating mail and of bows that could penetrate mail.

Indeed there are.

Here's a comparatively late one, from the 16th century (taken from Sir John Smythe's Certain Discourses Military):

"And in our time King Henry the Eighth, being at the siege of Therouranne, and a convoy of munitions and victuals being at that time to go from Guisnes towards Therouranne, all the French captains of Picardy and Vermandois, having intelligence therof, did assemble all their men-at-arms and lances of those provinces, with some number of shot also, both harquebusiers and crossbowers, and attended the English convoy in ambush more than a league beyond the town of Ard, toward Therouranne.

...after a long fight and many charges by the men-at-arms of France and their shot given, the terrible effect of the volleys of arrows was such that a great number of their horses were wounded or slain, and one of their chief captains, called Monsieur de Plessis, lifting up his sword to strike, was with an arrow shot in at the armhole through his gusset of mail and there slain with many other men-at-arms and French gentlemen of good accompt, in such sort that the French, which did far exceed the English in number, were that day repulsed and overthrown by the excellency of archers."

That action took place in 1513.

As for the evolution of plate armour - will I'm not really sure. But I lean towards the technology argument. I seriously doubt that it was due to any hand bow, weapons that been used for hundreds of years.

Why not?

The Welsh/English longbow didn't exist from day one.

Nor did everyone in Europe have contact with armies of horse-archers with powerful composite bows.

As the years wore on, both weapons became more widespread--After fighting to consolidate power in the British Isles, the English took the longbow to the Continent, during the Hundred Years War and the campaigns in Italy by the Free Companies. They also saw use in Spain, amongst English troops fighting there in the 14th century.

Likewise, the Eastern Europeans had to deal with various waves of horse-archers--the Mongols in the 13th century, and the Ottomans after that.

And there was also of course the case of the ever-improving crossbow.

Perhaps the rise of massed archery sped up the process, but plate is better protection against arrow, lance and halberd alike, and cavalry without the benefit of plate had been capable of defeating archers and resisting arrows for a long time before the Age of Plate.

But there are plenty examples to the contrary...

Look at what the Parthians did--primarily with horse-archers--against Crassus' huge Roman army. Carrhae was one of the worst defeats ever suffered by the Romans.

In addition, certainly there was no army that ever dominated the way the Mongols did--and they did it primarily thru archery as well.

And there are also many examples of cavalry being defeated by archers, well into the Age of Plate.

We have the many battles of the Hundred Years War. Smythe commented,

"Many times French captains and gentlemen attribute all the former victories of the English against themselves... more to the effect of our Archers, than to any extraordinary valliancy of our Nation."

15th and 16th century European plate armour did provide protection superior other armour of that time or times past, but it wasn't miles head of what came before. Any full suit of steel or iron armour, be it Crusader mail or Japanese lamellar, was an excellent defense against arrows.

Some defenses were clearly better than others.

One certainly sees the Medieval and Renaissance version of the "Arms vs. Armor Race"--we start with things like simple maille coats, then move on to a coat-of-plates worn over maille, then plate armor proper, and so on. Armor was meant to protect its user against both hand and missile weapons.

It's also interesting to note that, according to Mike Loades in the video, Archery--Its History and Forms, that "Medieval steel" was "relatively soft", like "Victorian wrought iron", until the late 1400s. I assume there must have been advances in "technology" there, which must have been a benefit to the armor makers.

One sees the race on the other side too, with different types of crossbow staves--simple wooden ones; composite ones of wood, horn, & sinew; and eventually steel ones. This arms vs. armor rivalry continued with the advent of functional, practical, hand-held firearms--the arquebus, the calvier, & the musket. That last one finally rendered any wearable armor useless.

Now, Dan Howard wrote:

Originally posted by Dan Howard
European mail and its associated padding was far more effective at resisting arrows than many realise. Recent tests by the Royal Armouries indicate that a mail haubergeon worn underneath a padded jack was proof against Mary Rose longbows.

I would like to know how distorted the results of this test might be, considering that the bows from the Mary Rose have deteriorated considerably in the 400+ years they've been under water. Robert Hardy commented in The Longbow--A Social and Military History, that many of the bows from the Mary Rose that were tested were not in the best of shape:

Despite their outward appearance these bows obviously had become degraded especially in the sapwood. At this stage the elastic modulus of three of the complete bows was measured and found to be some 50 per cent lower than expected. In view of this confirmation of the degradation the decision was made to stop testing Mary Rose bows and to concentrate on the modern approximations.

So, I have to ask, what was used for the maille penetration test--an actual Mary Rose bow, or a "modern approximation"?

Peace,

David