Quick question: why did the east favor mostly lighter armor and

Less materials

>>1563115
Shit steel, well in Japan at least.

>>1563129
>>1563139
Alright, thanks.

>>1563115
>shit material
>cost
>conscripts and militias that need to arm themselves can't afford better
>massed units equipped by rulers cost a lot if you want to give them best stuff

>>1563115
China had to deal with only horseniggers and savages for most of its history. Lighter troops were more useful against these enemies.

Not sure about other places, but korea is mountainous as hell, and no one wants to go hiking in armor. Plus Korean military history is comprised mainly of fighting off invasions and setting itself ablaze

Because there's no English long bow in Asia. Full plate armors were developed to protect bodies from English long bow. It was stronger than Asian bamboo bow and could shoot more arrows than crossbow. In close range, English long bow can pierce chain mail.

File: 9aded382b3add2e54eda69693504c946.jpg (83KB, 736x449px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 736x449px

We used spears, bow&arrow and swords while they shoot us in the back with their guns. What a bunch of pussies.

They didn't, the east had plenty of heavy armour. Full plate didn't develop, but that isn't a sign that they didn't want it, just that they didn't have the full background to produce it.

Please remember it's only the late-high and late middle ages where Europeans wore full heavy (in the comparative sense, i am not saying knights couldn't move before someone gets triggered) armour.

>>1566059
Your bad for inventing firearms and making them accessible to a people forged in perpetually brutal warfare and fanaticism-based applied war doctrines.

>>1563115
Because Chinese crossbows and Japanese katana could penetrate steel.

>>1563115
Becuz of the fucking Mongols/Turkics who run circles around Heavily-armored cataphracts, the
pains of mass production (QC, availability of
materials etc.) and logistics

File: Chinese Axes Annotated.jpg (90KB, 635x447px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 635x447px

>>1563115
Meme.

Lamellar and Plated Mail/Lamellar suits the Chinese/Nips/Koreans favored isnt light at all.
They used a lot of two handed swords.
Chinks used battle-axes & maces in addition to double edged two handed swords.
Pikes were used in the region.
A crossbow is not a light infantryman's weapon.
Neither is a horse caprisoned with lamellar armor.

You're working on memes bro.
>>1564011
>>1566119
China also had to deal with itself and Southern barbarians. In addition good armor fends off shitty Nomad bows and the Nomads did not get the drop on the Chinks all the time.

File: adcbdf44ebf81a4c669acf55d02a6059272da6fe.jpg (872KB, 1944x2592px) Image search: [Google]

872KB, 1944x2592px

>>1563115
b8 thread

Song multi piece lamellar was adopted by the Khitans,Jurchens and Mongols

>>1566139
They were not as heavy as Plate armor tho.

File: autism.png (61KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 300x300px

>>1566037

>>1566214
Song infantry armor and full plate weighed roughly the same.

>>1566587
MEDIEVAL WEAPONS. Heavy Armour https://youtu.be/Owbfxz6owHE

>>1566214
it is roughly the same amount of metal per protected area unit.
things like chain and lamellar are logistically better, and easier to manage than a suit of plate. against spears and swords, they prevent open wounds and even if you get bruised or even break a bone , you wont have to deal with infection and spilling your guts

File: image012.jpg (117KB, 483x700px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 483x700px

>>1563115
They had both heavy weapons and steel armor. You've been misinformed by people not familiar with east Asian military history

>>1567325

Whether they had them in small numbers is not the same as whether they massed armoured cavalry etc as standard.

File: aec379310a55b319f70d692142a98226cefc17e9.jpg (462KB, 1308x940px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 1308x940px

>>1567339
>whether they massed armoured cavalry etc as standard.
wew lad

>>1563115

well, they used chainmail and lamellar a lot, but i guess you mainly mean actual plate armor and such

>logistics/practicality
plate armor protects pretty good, but comes with a buttload of downsides.
it is very-cost intensive to make , but cannot be cut up and reworked into something else like chainmail once it is broken. plate needs to be fitted quite precisely to not restrain movement too much, whereas chain mail can be easily worn even if it is too large and can be refitted more easily if you want to.
putting on full plate armor takes a lot of time and the help of other people, and wearing it during travels is pretty hot and uncomfortable.
plate armor needs extensive care, mail maintains itself while it moves and lamellar/brigandine is mostly covered by cloth anyway

and not having the recources to make as big amounts of plate armor as europe and not developing special high-powered weaponry like english longbows made it quite irrelevant on the battlefield of the east.

>>1567373
thats not plate though

>>1567389
>massed armoured cavalry
Don't change the goalposts

>>1567395

European massed armoured calvary did normally use plate, though. A bit of light chainmail ain't the same thing.

File: 1412772531301.jpg (30KB, 368x368px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 368x368px

>>1567383
Thank you. I was genuinely curious and it seems most people took it as trolling or whatever.

>>1567406
>Autism
Song lamellar isn't light.

>>1567410

It's still a collection of arrow holes, kiddo.

>>1567417
Being this much in denial

>>1567316
>Lamellar
>against piercing weapons

Kek lammellar is only good against piercing weapons for cavalry, since the scales point up on cavalry armor, and barring a good polearm hit, the blow will glance off.

Lamellar is designed against blunt force damage, the way the scales are held together, the force is absorbed into the armour, rather than the soldier.

For foot soldiers, downward and to the left Lamellar is usually best, if they have a shield. The problem with Lamellar for most foot soldiers, is it has an inherent weak direction, that allows for someone to stab, and basically shred the armor.

You would only ever use it with a shield, or for cavalry.

>>1567430

You've literally provided one picture and a bit of shitposting to back you up.

Where's your sources?

File: Wujing Zongyao lamellar.jpg (81KB, 507x732px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 507x732px

>>1567442
>The regulations of the fourth year of the Reign of Shaoxing (绍興四年) in 1134 AD stated that Bu Ren Jia was made from 1825 iron or steel pieces and in total it weighed around 29 kilograms. Different types of soldiers wore armors which weighed differently; some were heavier while others were lighter. For example, the armor of pikemen weighed around 32 to 35 KG, the armor of archers weighed around 28 to 33 KG, and the armor of crossbowmen weighed around 22 to 27 KG.

File: Song Cavalry (2).jpg (382KB, 918x681px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 918x681px

>>1567339
>East Asians don't have massed armored cavalry.
Considering that the Chinese and the Koreans fielded Cataphracts, that is plain wrong.

File: 1466789995506.jpg (306KB, 1800x1196px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1800x1196px

>>1567442
not him, Karl Friday wrote that Japanese lamallar was actually harder to pierce than chainmail Of course latter on they adopted actual steel Brest plates that were even harder to pierce

>>1567383
>special high-powered weaponry like english longbows

>>1567383
The hell are you smoking? Mongol composite bows were even more deadly than English meme bows.

File: battlecrecy-770x427.jpg (125KB, 770x427px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 770x427px

>>1570143
Historically speaking, the longbow was deadly to armoured european knights,while the asian composite bow was little more than a nuisance to european crusaders.

>>1570187
I know its only a crappy pop history test but a saw that a Japanese bow gives a similar power output to a English. Its the special arrow head that lets it peirce some armor

>>1570187
>Historically speaking, the longbow was deadly to armoured european knights
Citation fucking needed beyond meme battles like Crecy and Agincourt.

>>1570187
>Mongols conquer most of Asia, Middle East with composite bows
>English lose the Hundred Years War with their longbow super technology
>"well clearly the longbow was the superior weapon"

>>1570234
Tell me one battle where asian bows defeated armoured knights,as it stands Longbows win.

>>1570187
Realistically speaking, compound bows have better power and accuracy potential than the English memebow.

>>1570258
>refuses to provide an actual citation
>"I win because I say so"
Summer in full force today.

>>1570258
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica

>>1570264
You ching chongs are always sour losers.

>>1570270
>The Templar contribution was very small, estimated around 68-88 well-trained, well-armed soldiers;[14] their letter to the king of France gives their losses as three brother knights, two sergeants and 500 'men'—according to their use of the term, probably peasants working their estates and thus neither better armed or trained than the rest of the army's infantry.
> three brother knights

>>1570294
>Mongols kill knights and win a battle versus Europlebs
>"doesn't count because it was only a few"
Why are memebow fanboys so thick?

>>1567383
>special high-powered weaponry like english longbows
Ah yes that amazing high-powdered weapon that won a tiny amount of battles and wasn't adapted by other European powers at the time. I don't think there's a bigger meme in history than the English longbow and overrated reputation it receives from masturbatory Anglo scholars.

>>1570308
I doesnt say the knights were killed by bows though does it genius?
You are funny Keep posting

>>1570331
>army made of mostly of archers
>"well clearly they wrestled the knights to death hurp de durp"

>>1570344
>Speculation and greentext
So youve got nothing then?

Facts are european weapons were more powerful-thats why european wore heavy metal armour, and chinks only worn leather, silk and paper armors.

>>1570363
>european weapons were more powerful
Then why did nobody outside of England use this super-powerful, knight-killing memebow?

>>1570363
>Facts are european weapons were more powerful-thats why european wore heavy metal armour.
This whole thread has been plate fags denying the existence of lamellar.

File: 42f9fa88c3d2677c99cda91a5ccd6a80.jpg (97KB, 736x981px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 736x981px

>>1570363
>why european wore heavy metal armour, and chinks only worn leather, silk and paper armors.

>>1570464
>what are spears

>>1570493
Something that was everywhere?

>>1570363
Evidence?

>>1570616
see>>1570477
Check out the flax armour on the right

>>1570616
>>1570624
>Cherrypicking the Jinbaori
>Conveniently ignore the armor on the left
Anon is full of shit and ignores lamellar armor.

>>1570645
Non rigid is inferior to rigid armour,because the energy of an impact will pass through it onto its wearer. Because the impact ignores lamellar knitting.

>>1570655
>Non rigid is inferior to rigid armour,because the energy of an impact will pass through it onto its wearer. Because the impact ignores lamellar knitting.
Irrelevant,no one is arguing for the superiority of lamellar over plate.

>Facts are european weapons were more powerful
Citation needed.

>-thats why european wore heavy metal armour
The fact that East Eurasian used metal lamellar blows your claim out of the water.

>and chinks only worn leather, silk and paper armors
Leather,paper and lamellar were used by Southern Chinese.

If leather was useless then the Chinese rhinoceros wouldn't have been hunted to extinction.

>>1570645
its not even lammellar, that is a bullet prove breast plate. a solid steel breastplate was not uncommon during the muromachi era

>>1570686
I'm referencing armors in general not just Sengoku era armors.

I'm well aware the Japanese adopted European plate and manufactured riveted plate.

>>1570689
But they used steel in their armor from the beginning. They also had chainmail separate from European style.

Heck the Kabuto was always steel.

>>1570699
>But they used steel in their armor from the beginning. They also had chainmail separate from European style.
???

I'm not the one claiming that the Far East lacked heavy armor.

>>1570706
sorry anon can be confusing. what are you claiming?

>>1570709
>>1567339
>>1570363
>Anon claims the Far East lacked heavy armor and harps plate.
I claim that lamellar was widespread and some forms of lamellar weighed even more than plate.

>>1570624
>Anon uses jinbaori as evidence that European armor was superior.

>>1563115
>why did the east favor mostly lighter armor and weapons compared to the west?
Eastern weapons weren't really lighter. A katana for example weighs more than a European longsword of comparable length since it has a rather bulky blade (being a cutting weapon primarily that shouldn't be surprising). Japanese armour isn't particularly light either, during the 15th - 16th century they used mail armour that was reinforced with iron plates, quite comparable to what was used in Europe during the late middle ages. A full suit of plate armour may look heavy but the weight is generally overestimated.

>Was it because their lands had less materials with which to make heavy armor?
If you're referring to a lack of plate armour it should be considered that it has less to do with 'less material', in the sense of having less raw material, e.g. iron ore, but more a matter of the limitations of the steel smelting technology that is available. Japan for example used tatara ovens which were roughly comparable to the European bloomeries that were used throughout the middle ages which produced a rather limited amount of high carbon steel, hidden in a big lump of iron that was unevenly infused with carbon and various slag remainders. Plate armour only came into existence when Europe developed blast furnaces and oxidisation ovens which produced high carbon steel in much greater quantities. Before that they had to make armour from smaller plates or mail and bolt their helmets together rather than forging them from a single piece.