 |
| Two helmets, a breastplate and an armoured mask, from 'Wu Bei Yao Lue (《武備要略》)'. |
 |
| Two armguards, a thigh armour, and a backplate, from 'Wu Bei Yao Lue (《武備要略》)'. |
The term "plate armour" is a bit of misnomer here, since this armour cannot be considered a plate armour in its truest sense. Chinese smiths lacked the necessary metallurgical expertise to develop full plate armour , and they did not seem to import plate armour directly from the Europeans like their Japanese and Indian neighbours either (with the possible exceptions of late Ming Guangdong and some Fujianese pirates).
The Quan Tie Jia (全鐵甲, 'Full iron armour') is made of several large lacquered iron or steel plates sewn to a backing made from thick cotton (or calico) fabric. The edges of these metal plates are wrapped with thrice-folded coarse fabric, likely to prevent chafing. In this regard, Quan Tie Jia has more similarities with Russian zertsalo (Зерцало) armour in construction than European full plate.
While Quan Tie Jia is no match for European plate harness, its multiple large rigid plates and thick fabric backing still offer superb protection, a significant improvement over traditional Chinese lamellar and brigandine armour.
thoes dots are maile?
ReplyDeleteand the metal platess are exposed to outside or hiden on the fabric? (like brigandine)
The dots are just fabric if according to description. The plates are exposed.
DeleteIt's seem to be very vulernable to me
Deleteany chance that this armor be worn over other armor ? (like a maile)
@s ss
DeleteAlthough not visible in the artwork, the text specifically mentions that the plates are overlapped.
While wearing mail under this armour certainly looks plausible, we have no other source of this armour, and I don't know if that was a common practice (wearing mail under other armour) back then.
The torso being segmented (the exposed fabric area), probably allows for greater movement like bending,sitting up but at the cost of protection. Is there any examples of Chinese using full cuirass?
DeleteThe plates actually overlaps under the fabric.
DeleteI think there's some records of Koxinga's dad buying european armour but otherwise no.
我在pinterest上面找到了爱好者制作的现代复制品以及博物馆出土的残片，希望有所帮助。
ReplyDeletehttps://i.pinimg.com/originals/74/87/18/748718c0c8b11f8a7264f8b58479ddc7.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6f/70/df/6f70df0a8f72b8c20dce1429c445f592.jpg
Good day Nelson and welcome to my blog.
Delete虽然照片不太能看出来，但是那个残片体积太小了，而且做工粗糙，应该不是全铁甲。
复原盔甲则加入了很多原创的设计进去，因此并不算是严格的复原。
Did this armor ever enter service or is it and the other armor in late Ming manual just theoretical designs?
ReplyDeleteAlso did the Chinese really lack metallurgical expertise to produce plate armor? Is this only for Ming Dynasty or throughout their history?
Because even Safavid Persia could produce plate cuirass without European influence. Some Safavid manuscript actually show plate limb armor that would not be out of place in medieval Europe.
Bazuband, Persian vambraces, are way older than the safavids, at least as old as the 13th century. However char-aina, or 4 Mirrors armor, only became the typical 4 large hinged Brestplate in the late 17th century it seems, before that the plates were smaller. Also, it's not about if you can forge it, but if it's coast effective. If you can make it but it's expensive, it is useless since China is a empire with a true noble warrior class, unlike Japan or Europe were the nobles would buy the best armor for themselves. For exemple, only nobles use heavy armor in indo Persia, with exceptions, but it becomes more and more common, especially in the 18th century, among common folks as well, because of the more industrial forging industry
Delete@The GhostHero
DeleteThese noble warrior class has lost its predominance in ancient Chinese society since the termination of feudalism system and establishment of centralization of authority in 220 BC (The first unification under Qing dynasty). Many later dynasties’ armed forces are made up of standing armies and conscripts. Unlike federalism Europe and Japan before early modern age, these standing armies received the equipment (Harness & Weapon) from the institution instead of purchase by themselves, and many dynasties’ law give harsh punishment toward personal ownership of armor and weapons (often with capital penalty or exile for owning just one suit of armor). That’s an important reason why historical piece of Harness which served from Han (220 AD) to Ming (1644 AD) period was rarely found by modern archaeologists except those very few pieces that was well preserved in the tomb of its owners. Most of these harness often perished follow the collapse of dynasties.
I am just asking why he said this.
ReplyDelete"Chinese lacked necessary metallurgical expertise to develop full plate armour (with the possible exception of late Ming period Guangdong and Fujianese pirates)"
It is just strange to limit the exception of being able to make full plate armor to a city in a short period of Chinese history and the other to some non-state entity.
About your comment, I agree that bazuband can be regarded as plate armor and it is older than the 13th century, there are bazuband already worn in Central Asia and the Tarim Basin from 5th-9th century.
While the complete Char Aina with 4 plate only start to appear in early 17th century, large mirror plate has been worn since the end of Timurid period.
The Safavid also have solid plate for the shoulder and upper arm too, not just the Bazuband. Such plate defenses have the same shape as European munition armor arm defense. Such Persian plate arm defense could be as far back as 1500.
If the Safavid with less resources can make such plate armor, why not the Ming? or previous Chinese regime which in my opinion actually have better armor design than the Ming?
Good day Joshua.
DeleteA "full" plate armour necessarily includes articulated armour for joints, such as couter and poleyn.
To answer your question regarding Quan Tie Jia, the author of the manual actually states that he inquired (i.e. specifically seek out the information) about the armour from others, and list out the required amount of raw materials to make the armour, estimated price, and recommended weight. The illustration of the armour is also unique (i.e. not simply copied from othe books) and realistic, with dimensions of individual parts spelled out. All of these strongly imply that the author actually saw/had a suit of armour, and possibly even witnessed the manufacturing process himself. So IMO this armour is almost certainly more than just a theoritical design.
what was his opinion about this armor?
Deleteand anything interesting record about costruction method?
@ssd
DeleteThe usual brag about sword-proof and bullet-proof qualities of the armour.
The armour is a actually pretty simple as far as construction goes, more-or-less just a laminar armour with extra large plates, cloth backing, and thick cloth covering at the place where two plates overlap. The plates are lacquered and supposedly treated with some kind of "secret medicine", but the author did not reveal the secret/recipe of that medicine.
did he ever mentioned mobility or convenience of this armor?
DeleteNo, but he did caution against making the armour too heavy, and suggest 30 jin (~17.9 kg) as the ideal weight.
DeleteSo why did you said only Guangdong and Fujianese pirate had the ability to make such armor?
ReplyDeleteWhat make them more able than the other Chinese regime or the surrounding civilizations?
So do you have the measurement of the Quan Tie Jia?
The manual is from the 17th century? Do you have the year in which the manual is released?
Also in my personal opinion, such joint armor did not mean the plate armor is needed to provide complete coverage as some 17th century European armor actually adopt the Bazuband design for arm defense combined with the usual European armor.
And European joint plate armor could be disadvantageous as there are manual showing half swording on the exposed gap of the couter which due to its design actually act as trap. This is of course would be impossible to do against a Bazuband style armor.
However I agree that the Ming Dynasty do not have the motivation or technical prowess to create full plate armor, however I don't think this apply to every period throughout Chinese history.
1) Because I can only find written records of those two places making/buying plate armour?
Delete2) Measurements are in the pictures in this blog post.
3) Yes. The book was published some time around 17th century, and the currently surviving version is a reprint during the reign of Chongzhen Emperor.
Has anyone ever reconstructed the Quan Tie Jia and tested it against period accurate weapons like swords and arquebus bullets to see if the author of Wu Bei Yao Lue was bragging or not?
ReplyDeleteI'm looking at the Quan Tie Jia, its design of overlapping laminar plates and cloth, and the claims that it is bulletproof and was originally really skeptical about it. But then it occurred to me that I've seen that design before in other armors and those armors in question were undoubtedly bulletproof:
https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/735cdcf4a896e8b9d474080e15c8fc90.jpg
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a14406f7457a7e3989ed7d63cfdf02c4-c
https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/09/TACTICUM-vest.jpg
Obviously, the material science between Quan Tie Jia and modern armor is very different, but the designs between the two are actually quite similar to one another if you think about it. They are both forms of laminar armor with disjointed overlapping hard plates held together with some soft material.
Also, I'm curious why you made the somewhat sweeping statement that "Quan Tie Jia is no match for European plate harness." If you mean "full plate harness" i.e. armor akin to Gothic/Milanese/Maximilian full plate armor that covers everything from feet, hands, and face, then from my perspective, full plate armor is a very specialized armor designed specifically for close melee combat that has severe disadvantages when put in a context where powerful ranged weapons like guns are introduced and the need for mobility, visibility, dexterity and reducing heat exhaustion to the fighter is needed. In the case of Europe in particular, full plate harness was abandoned completely once gunpowder weaponry took over the battlefield and European armies then gravitated toward armor with a protection level more akin to or even less than something like the Quan Tie Jia (i.e. half-harness which does not cover legs or arms completely as worn by cuirassiers or even just a helmet and cuirass like seen on musketeers). I sometimes feel like European full plate harness has been put on a bit of a pedestal unreasonably in modern internet discussions as "the ultimate armor" and really needs to be reconsidered when you get into the late Ming/Early Modern Period when melee combat was becoming less important. If the full plate design is so good, then why do modern soldiers think something like a Quan Tie Jia is enough protection and don't feel the need to be running around in Fallout-esque full plate powered exoskeletons that cover them head to toe? Just some thoughts.
@JZBai
DeleteAs far as I know only one Khazakh Chinese armourer made a halfway accurate version of the armour (he used mail rather than fabric). He did not test the armour with period weapon though.
As for my statement, well I am comparing both armours in a vacuum, and Quan Tie Jia is inferior to full plate armour in coverage, ergonomics, and weight distribution. Not to mention, there's no inherent flaw in the design of plate armour that prevents it from being an effective defence against firearms of the day. Later period full plate like Greenwich armour stood up to firearms remarkably well.
It will be difficult to compare armours if I also take battlefield circumstances into consideration.
I attached a link in my previous post or you can find in here (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/74/87/18/748718c0c8b11f8a7264f8b58479ddc7.jpg)
DeleteAbove link is a fan-made replica piece of "Quan Tie Jia", however just like blogger point out in his reply, this replica piece combined a few creative element compared with original drawing. For example, this replica use mail as conjunction of different plate pieces while according to the 武备志(Wu Bei Zhi), all the plate pieces are supposed to riveted in outer side of fabric padding.
I think this is nothing close to lamellar armor which using several hundreds of tiny plate either sewing on back padding fabric or connected by lacing cord. If you take a detailed look at European & Japanese plate armor then you will see that both designs combine variant overlapping elements for body move(waist & upper arm) of the wearers:
Spaulders (https://mcishop.azureedge.net/mciassets/w_9_0040179_small-steel-adam- spaulders_550.png)
Flauds (https://uploads.mordhau.com/spirit/images/5705/1a1341168c23c704a5391926e67fde36.jpeg)
(https://uploads.mordhau.com/spirit/images/5705/7245d287f950f0de9cdfcee3b4aaa257.jpeg)
Sode-Japanese Spaulders (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRGrCAfLCHO0GncXrn-QyBHLyVtJmObgjyMj3f2A-69PbidLif4&usqp=CAU)
Kusazuri-Japanese Flauds (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Kusazuri.JPG)
Yodare-Kake Japanese Bevor (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Yodare-kake_4.JPG)
In my opinion the construction of Quan Tie Jia is very similar to the Coat of Plate used in transition armor period (between mid of 13th to mid of 14th century) in Europe, although the plate pieces in Coat of Plate are usually riveted in inner side of fabric:
(https://georgesforge.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/cop1.jpg?w=768)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4f/e5/fa/4fe5fa924796c50bd4f68f3d9ff7f15a.jpg)
On the contrary, armor did not disappear at the first flash of a gun, as is popularly believed. When the Gothic/Milanese/Maximilian became fashionable on the battlefield, the handgun has already been used in Europe for decades (i.e. Hussite Gun) although the early firearm contribute more psychology effect than actually killing power. You may feel surprise that there are plenty of historical record show that how often armor saved its wearer. The corselet, for example, saved Francis I “several times” at Pavia. At the siege of Rochelle (1570) Captain St. Martin remained uninjured after having been struck by musket balls no less than thirty times! So, too, the great Condé, was saved many times by his 84lb three-quarter armor; we have a contemporary note (1652) that at Port St. Antoine his cuirass was “full of dents.” And so it goes. There is no question, therefore, that armor was useful even at a time when gunpowder was in general use.
Keep in mind, The Musket balls, although had not a great range due to the poor aerodynamic shape & quality control, rarely as much as seven hundred yards, and with great individual variation; but they were usually of large caliber and deliver more destructive power than those in present use. Thus bullets of the Revolutionary musket weighed about fourteen to the pound (= 500 grains), which is heavier by 50 to 100 per cent than the present rifle ball (Spitzer). The latest Mauser weighs only 227 grains.
We have reason to believe that the general disuse of armor was not due entirely to the failure of armor, in spite of its weight, to resist firearms, but to other causes as well. Here should be mentioned especially those changes in military tactics which were taking place at a time when armor was declining. Thus during the Thirty Years’ War (which ended in 1648) the Swedes, especially, built up a military system wherein it became necessary for maneuvering armies to cover long distances in short time, a system which alone might have encouraged the army men to throw away its armor, whether light or heavy. In fact I am inclined to believe that this factor is far more important in the disappearance of body defenses than is usually reckoned.
DeleteDid we juast have a boot advertise for modern plate armor because your article mentions plate armour LOL
ReplyDeleteThose are bot spam comments, ignore them.
DeleteIt seems that this amour didn't have any cover on your calves. This could be a interesting reference for artist, but so far I have yet to see any Chinese artist who draw this.
ReplyDeleteMost Chinese armours don't. There are a few drawings of this armour, but few do it right.
DeleteThanks for your reply.
DeleteDo you think that this armour could have had some kind of thick fabric along the thighs, like many Ming armor do?
No, the armour is as shown, only reaching to somewhere pass the knees.
Delete