traditional armor

[ChaShu]

I had always assumed that either:

• armour got more elaborate (a la the photos above) as the Pax Tokugawa gradually negated their actual use in live combat situations and allowed more elaborate designs (just like what happened to European "court swords")
• or... that some of the more wealthy samurai were able to afford two sets of armour: battle armour and "parade" armour (as in Europe, where some nobles could afford the same for their armour and armaments)

Thoughts?

[Hisham]

I think that website which Alex(ZealUk) posted the link to has the answer as far as the existence of a "parading" japanese armor trend.
It's worth the visit, some pretty awesome stuff in there.

[ChaShu]

I think that website which Alex(ZealUk) posted the link to has the answer as far as the existence of a "parading" japanese armor trend.
It's worth the visit, some pretty awesome stuff in there.

I'll definitely check it out when I get home (I'm... um... checking the forums from work...) since some weird code stuff is happening when I link up to the site from here. Thanks Hisham and Alex!

[Stimpson J. Cat]

I would think so, much better than if you'd wear a medieval "european" full armor.

Likely as well or better as somebody in Japanese armor The Europeans in general were more practical about their approach to armor, most of the time anyway. If it didn't work, like if they couldn't move well it in, they got rid of it. They did do some ridiculous stuff also, like the long pointed toes on armor when long pointy shoes were in fashion, but overall, they approached armor in a more practical manner than the Japanese. Even the Japanese armors intended for battle tended to have some highly impractical features, for example a sizable gap bewteen the sode (upper arm protector) and the kote on the forearm, often leaving the elbow and lower part of the upper arm with little or no protection, and why would anybody stick a bunch of stuff out of their helmet that they could be knocked around by which didn't improve the utility of the armor? (See the late 16th century armors at the posted site).

It's probably instructive to note that a number of features which originated on armor for retainers in Japan were eventually incorporated into armor for higher ranking people. The retainer armor was made to be practical, not fashionable. Look at the retainer armors on that site, fewer and larger solid plates, little exposed lacing or exposed rivets on the helmet or other stuff to catch the point or edge of a weapon, no useless junk stuck on anywhere, helmet designs which would deflect a strike instead of catch it. Probably more effective armors than their bosses were wearing.

[joekc6nlx]

i thought hakama is came from china Tang Dynasty, and those folding bit represent kindness, etiquette, decorum, wisdom and courage.

According to the ZNKF Kendo-English dictionary, the hakama used today was designed for riding horses. The pleats may have come from the Buddhist influence from China, or they may have come from Shinto influences. Regardless, my original premise stands.

[Optomitrist]

yeah hakamas are the japanese equivalent to cowboy chaps. If you do a google search on them you'll find a bunch of info on them.

[joekc6nlx]

yeah hakamas are the japanese equivalent to cowboy chaps. If you do a google search on them you'll find a bunch of info on them.

I wonder why they don't sell woolly ones......LOL!

[ChaShu]

I wonder why they don't sell woolly ones......LOL!

Don't they have the Bambi ones for the horseback kyudo?

[Hisham]

Likely as well or better as somebody in Japanese armor The Europeans in general were more practical about their approach to armor, most of the time anyway. If it didn't work, like if they couldn't move well it in, they got rid of it. They did do some ridiculous stuff also, like the long pointed toes on armor when long pointy shoes were in fashion, but overall, they approached armor in a more practical manner than the Japanese. Even the Japanese armors intended for battle tended to have some highly impractical features, for example a sizable gap bewteen the sode (upper arm protector) and the kote on the forearm, often leaving the elbow and lower part of the upper arm with little or no protection, and why would anybody stick a bunch of stuff out of their helmet that they could be knocked around by which didn't improve the utility of the armor? (See the late 16th century armors at the posted site).

It's probably instructive to note that a number of features which originated on armor for retainers in Japan were eventually incorporated into armor for higher ranking people. The retainer armor was made to be practical, not fashionable. Look at the retainer armors on that site, fewer and larger solid plates, little exposed lacing or exposed rivets on the helmet or other stuff to catch the point or edge of a weapon, no useless junk stuck on anywhere, helmet designs which would deflect a strike instead of catch it. Probably more effective armors than their bosses were wearing.

You got some good points, but consider this the daimyos would stay behind to oversee the battle and normally everybody would die before letting anyone face there lord, that might explain why there were some "just for the show" (showing off in the time of battle is like psychological warfare nowadays) aditions to there armors opposit there retainers which were in the melee, am i mistaken if i said that the high ranking retainers and there daimyos would look for a duel with a worthy opponent more than just slice n dicing? Anyway i don't think it was a useless junk after all but then this is just my hypothesis based on what little i know.

[iam_pk]

i will do a search and hav a look then~

[Stimpson J. Cat]

consider this the daimyos would stay behind to oversee the battle and normally everybody would die before letting anyone face there lord, that might explain why there were some "just for the show"

True and I think that the armors posted early in this thread are "show armors", sort of the equivilant of European parade armors, though I believe high ranking European leaders wore battle armor to battles and reserved their parade armor for parades and high ranking Japanese leaders wore their show armors to battle more, so it's probably not a perfect analogy.

Anyway, I agree that the armors early in this thread were probably never intended to be used in individual combat engagements, that's why I pointed out the ones from the other site which are labeled as late 16th century armors. I would guess those were intended for combat, but they still share some of the same impractical features, just not to nearly the overblown extent of the show armors.

[Light Samurai]

yeah hakamas are the japanese equivalent to cowboy chaps. If you do a google search on them you'll find a bunch of info on them.

I wonder if imatation cowboy leggings hakama would sell well....

[iam_pk]

that sounds really odd.....i dont think they can sell well

[jackchen]

Nice pics!

[Frame]

I read (off the shogun : total war historical part on the CD actually not sure about how valid this source is) that some used to mix their armour with small bits of european armour because it was different/rare therefore expensive.