Western Armour compared to Japanese armour.

[JackDionne]

Anyone have any idea if western armour from the same time period was superior to the armour used in Japan in the same time period?

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Well, it was kind of superior if you mean by protecting against brute force, but the thing is a Japanese Katana would slice through the metal quite easily making it useless.

Japanese armor was more inclined to absorb and then push back, or to make it slide off.

That's about all I know, sorry. Katana's were such lethal weapons armor didn't really mean much

[Nakandakari Lobato]

I beg to disagree. The katana is not a metal ripping machine. It's a blade that chips like any other. The overall strength is quite amazing, but due to the non-tempering of the edge (for sharpening), they chipped. If you'll watch videos of experts wielding katana, there are certain areas that are weaker, and hence those areas were chosen for piercing or slashing. Blades were horribly expensive and took a long time to construct, and often passed down for generations. It would be foolhardy to walk up and cut against your opponent's armor without being intentional in making the cut. (We won't even get into mushin here).

The question is flawed, I think. Superior in what way? You have weight issues, restriction of movement issues, durability, resistance to penetration, cost, etc. This is the subject of a long book.

I think that most armor is the result of pragmatic field testing. The styles evolve based upon the environoment and the warriors using them.

[Kinjo]

Well, it was kind of superior if you mean by protecting against brute force, but the thing is a Japanese Katana would slice through the metal quite easily making it useless.

Japanese armor was more inclined to absorb and then push back, or to make it slide off.

That's about all I know, sorry. Katana's were such lethal weapons armor didn't really mean much

Dude you are so lost in the sauce its funny.

Anyone have any idea if western armour from the same time period was superior to the armour used in Japan in the same time period?

Yes, why do think Daimyo started to adopt western armor. Sure Japanese armor is flexible and light and it was adequate to protect against the weapons being used in Japan but in no way can it be compare to the finest armor that was being produced in Europe. Don't get me wrong I really like samurai armor but Europeans were light years a head of Japanese armorers when it comes to working with metal.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Katsumoto]

Don't get me wrong I really like samurai armor but Europeans were light years a head of Japanese armorers when it comes to working with metal.

How do you mean? In terms of forging stronger plates? Because that was dictated only by the type of combat Europeans preferred (brute force) compared to the Japanese style of manoueverability and flexiblity.

An interesting article:

Armor changes things in swordplay. If you've never trained in it, you can't imagine how it affects your movements and execution of even simple actions. It has been said that while Europeans designed their armor to defeat swords, the Japanese designed their swords to defeat armor. There is a certain truth to this, but it's a simplistic view. The better Japanese armor was constructed of small overlapping lacquered metal scales or plates tied together with silk cords in order to specifically resist the slicing cut of the katana. It allowed good freedom of movement while offering excellent protection. But if it got wet, the silk cords soaked up water and it became terribly heavy. Though the earliest styles of samurai armor were designed with large square plates more as a defense against arrows, the later forms were intended primarily to be used by and against similarly equipped swordsmen and to lessen the tremendous cutting capacity of their swords. It was durable, effective, and provided for ample movement. But how would it hold up to the stabs of a narrowly pointed knightly sword? This is an important question.

Medieval European armor was designed and shaped more to deflect strikes and absorb blunt force blows from lances and swords. A knight's armor varied from simple byrnies of fine riveted maile ("chainmaile") that could absorb slices and prevent cuts, to well-padded soft jackets, and metal coats-of-plates which were designed equally to protect from concussion weapons as penetrating thrusts. Maile armor existed in numerous styles and patterns but arguably reached its zenith in 15th century Western Europe, where closely-woven riveted links could resist any drawing slice as well as being proof against many slashes and thrusts from swords. Maile of such equivalent was not used in Japan.

Generally speaking, European plate armor was designed primarily as a defense against sword points and other bladed weapons, whereas, Japanese armor was primarily designed more as a defense against arrows and spears. Significantly, it frequently had open feet and hands and a design that permitted archery. The knight's encased armor by contrast was idealized more for mounted charge with lance and or for dismounted close-combat. Japanese heavy armor contemporary with the period of the High Middle Ages knight was not considerably lighter than European plate.

A complete suit of fully articulated rigid plate-armor, which has been described as unequaled in its ingenuity and strength, was nearly resistant to sword blows and required entirely different specialized weapons to effectively defeat it. With its tempered steel and careful curved fluting it was just invulnerable to sword cuts-even, it can be surmised, those of the exceptionally sharp katana (some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor, gifts and purchases which they even wore into battle -they did not prize them merely as exotica). Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché presented by Hollywood. Unless you've worn accurate well-made plate of this kind, it is impossible to really know how it influenced the way a knight would move.

Without the necessary weapons designed intentionally to face and defeat plate armor, any fighter armed with a sword alone would have difficulty (katana or not). Indeed, full European plate armor with maile might very well damage the keen edge on particularly fine katanas. After all, we should not forget that despite the katana's vaunted cutting ability, the samurai were able to successfully rely on their armors as defense against it. There is every reason to imagine knightly armor would have been just as, if not more, effective. If we therefore assume the armors to be more evenly matched, say maile and partial plate for the knight as used around 1250, things would get more interesting. However, the samurai did often carry an excellent thick dagger which would have been quite useful. Curiously, each warrior was highly skilled in using their respective armor-piercing daggers and with close-in grappling (something not generally known about actual knightly fencing skills).

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

[Juggernaut]

Typical Tousei Gusoku had a weight of about 20~25kg. That's about the same weight of a full plate armor. Was it really more maneuverable?

[Katsumoto]

I meant the manevourability of the joints in the armour and all.

[Kinjo]

How do you mean? In terms of forging stronger plates? Because that was dictated only by the type of combat Europeans preferred (brute force) compared to the Japanese style of manoueverability and flexiblity.

An interesting article:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
[/FONT]

Tempered steel and fluting techniques allowed armorers to produced some very hard armor that could take some serious punishment. As far as European warfare being brute force only is not true, their are many Europeans who had excellent technique and to say it was all brute force is naive. On the other hand who needs maneuverability and flexibility when soldiers fight in tight close rank formations with pikes.

[Katsumoto]

I didn't mean it was completely brute force, I meant in comparison to Japanese warfare where for example cavalry weren't treated as battering rams such as in Europe but more like mobile weapon platforms where they could fire arrows from and slash and thrust with spears.

[Nakandakari Lobato]

Thanks to the last few posters who used logic and sources to back up their discussions. That is as pleasurable a duel to watch as disciplined soldiers on the battlefield. Well done!

[Katsumoto]

I read the 'mobile weapon platform' part in one of Stephen Turnbull's books, The Samurai Sourcebook I believe it was.

[Furious Mental]

By the time European-style breastplates were adopted in Japan, Europe was well into the Renaissance. European warfare at in the latter 16th century was all about complex tactical manouevres - that was one of the big benefits of professional soldiery thoroughly drilled and serving under a uniform and educated chain of command. Also how is the role ascribed to Japanese cavalry as 'mobile weapon platforms' any different from that served by petronels or harquebusiers in European armies (the troops who wore the very breastplates which the Japanese adopted)? I think there is more similarity there than you say.

[JackDionne]

Now I know, thanks to all.

[Katsumoto]

Also how is the role ascribed to Japanese cavalry as 'mobile weapon platforms' any different from that served by petronels or harquebusiers in European armies (the troops who wore the very breastplates which the Japanese adopted)? I think there is more similarity there than you say.

I'm sure there is, although I don't think the European armour was very prevalent with the samurai cavalry men. I'm sure they were adopted by some (most famous example being Oda Nobunaga himself) but most stuck to their own native armour.

[General_Meevious]

It's silly to say that the Japanese adopted superior western armour; yes, some did, but it certainly wasn't the norm and I doubt it was to their benefit (The armour adopted by a few samurai was not remotely like that worn by late medieval German reiters, but a style of breastplate or helmet, manufactured in Japan in imitation of the holiday version of the by now considerably diminished western armour), but rather the result of an assumed correlation between superior western projectile weaponry and the armour that must therefore be designed to resist such powerful attack. In fact, matchlock fire often failed to penetrate traditional samurai armour, but the unprecedented rapid production of firearms allowed their mass distribution among the peasantry, resulting in massed fire and they were certainly capable of piercing most armour most of the time.

The heyday of samurai armour occurred long after that of western armour and it was indeed best suited to a different battlefield. As Lobato has pointed out, there is a much larger discrepancy across the body in the protection offered by a samurai armour than in full western plate. The joints, weight distribution and visibility are also unalike. It's not impossible to compare the two, but there are a lot of variables and to conclude the overall superiority of either is clearly subjective.

[Swagger]

How do you mean? In terms of forging stronger plates? Because that was dictated only by the type of combat Europeans preferred (brute force) compared to the Japanese style of manoueverability and flexiblity.

An interesting article:



http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
[/FONT]

great reading

[Kinjo]

It's silly to say that the Japanese adopted superior western armour; yes, some did, but it certainly wasn't the norm and I doubt it was to their benefit (The armour adopted by a few samurai was not remotely like that worn by late medieval German reiters, but a style of breastplate or helmet, manufactured in Japan in imitation of the holiday version of the by now considerably diminished western armour), but rather the result of an assumed correlation between superior western projectile weaponry and the armour that must therefore be designed to resist such powerful attack. In fact, matchlock fire often failed to penetrate traditional samurai armour, but the unprecedented rapid production of firearms allowed their mass distribution among the peasantry, resulting in massed fire and they were certainly capable of piercing most armour most of the time.

The heyday of samurai armour occurred long after that of western armour and it was indeed best suited to a different battlefield. As Lobato has pointed out, there is a much larger discrepancy across the body in the protection offered by a samurai armour than in full western plate. The joints, weight distribution and visibility are also unalike. It's not impossible to compare the two, but there are a lot of variables and to conclude the overall superiority of either is clearly subjective.

I'm fascinated every time I see this pic.

[General_Meevious]

Yeah, I've read that a factory was set up producing pieces like that after acquiring an initial few breastplates through trade with the Portuguese. I think it's interesting to see how well the kusazuri replace the tassets. I think it would appear less "barbarian" with the arms and legs, however.

Edit: Some more examples:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Not so different to this independently developed type of design, in my opinion:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Inhuman One]

I always thought it would be interesting to see samurai and medieval knights clash in battle. They both had a code of honour and dominated the battlefield and played a major part in society.

Its almost a shame that this never happened.

[Llama_Clan]

To me it seems like anyone who had an axe would have a significant advantage if Japanese armour was designed against slashing maneuvers.