Just a quick question about Japanese armor.
From what I understand, on the protection vs. mobility scale, Japanese armor was designed more on the mobility side of the equation. This being the case, how should it be handled for TRoS? I'm sure I could just plug in numbers...(somewhere between leather and mail?)...but not being particularly familiar with the "real world" application of armor, I felt I would ask those with more experience.
Any suggestions?
Quote from: Sneaky GitJust a quick question about Japanese armor.
From what I understand, on the protection vs. mobility scale, Japanese armor was designed more on the mobility side of the equation. This being the case, how should it be handled for TRoS? I'm sure I could just plug in numbers...(somewhere between leather and mail?)...but not being particularly familiar with the "real world" application of armor, I felt I would ask those with more experience.
Any suggestions?
I am no expert on japanese armor, but having recently read up a bit, I think some serious distinction has to be made between different types. Some had a solid cuirass, others were more scale, some had more metal, some more wood, some more leather...
Though on the other hand, the western armor types are also merely archetypes, with numerous transition types actually in existance historically. I think it would be interesting to see some scale type armor, though, Jake, since it is not that rare (especially when local metallurgy and smithing makes wires for chain impractical or wasteful) Is FOB bringing anything in that direction? What about wooden armor?
I would love to handle a lot of this in TFOB, but I'll need to do a lot of reading before I feel competent in doing so. My personal opinion of Japanese armor is that it's primitive in every way when compared to the European stuff, based on books and museum pieces. HOWEVER, I am far, far, far from even "knowledgable" about that sort of thing, so it'll be a lot of work before I can confirm or deny that stuff being in the book.
Jake
Quote from: Jake NorwoodI would love to handle a lot of this in TFOB, but I'll need to do a lot of reading before I feel competent in doing so. My personal opinion of Japanese armor is that it's primitive in every way when compared to the European stuff, based on books and museum pieces. HOWEVER, I am far, far, far from even "knowledgable" about that sort of thing, so it'll be a lot of work before I can confirm or deny that stuff being in the book.
Jake
Hm, what do you mean with "primitive"?
well, I mean primitive in comparison. And again, let me state, that my opinion is highly biased and grossly under-informed on this topic...which is why I'm not ready to "officially" comment on it. Comparing the materials, design, and overall function of Japanese armor compared to european armor from equivalent time periods, I find the european to be far superior and more sophisticated in its design. This includes components (European steel vs. Japanese steel, lamellar, wood, reeds, etc), surface geopmetry (the bevelled planes of, say, gothic plate vs. the theatrical appearance of a samurai helment or the squarish arm and leg protection of Japanese armor), and fit/funciton (complex joints in European plate vs. the flap-system of Japanese armors).
That's my suraface opinon, based on books read (informational books, not fiction and fantasy) and museum pieces that I have observed *primarily* through glass. It's Far far far far away from authoritative, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though I'm obviously a skeptic. I also realize that climate effects things tremendously, and that European style armor would be innapropriate in Japan most of the year. That doesn't change which one I would rather be wearing in a fight.
Jake,
who really hopes he didn't just start a flame war.
Quote from: Jake Norwoodwell, I mean primitive in comparison. And again, let me state, that my opinion is highly biased and grossly under-informed on this topic...which is why I'm not ready to "officially" comment on it. Comparing the materials, design, and overall function of Japanese armor compared to european armor from equivalent time periods, I find the european to be far superior and more sophisticated in its design. This includes components (European steel vs. Japanese steel, lamellar, wood, reeds, etc), surface geopmetry (the bevelled planes of, say, gothic plate vs. the theatrical appearance of a samurai helment or the squarish arm and leg protection of Japanese armor), and fit/funciton (complex joints in European plate vs. the flap-system of Japanese armors).
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that what armor you can make is highly dependable on what resources you have. Europe is quite a bit greater than Japan, and extensive trading took place. European armor was only possible thanks to the invention of blast furnaces and water-powered hammers, and due to the availability of iron ore that allowed the production of high quality steel. Conversely, contrary to popular opinion, the intense folding and refolding of japanese blades, for example, while in a way testimony of the excellency of japanese swordsmiths, far from making a SUPERIOR blade was the only way to make ANY blade worth the name from small quantities of iron of highly variable quantity, much like pattern-welded blades in Europe before the blast furnace.
Blast furnaces in turn require an intense infrastructure around them, not the least an EXTENSIVE amount of fuel for the fire. If you look at England, much of the deforestation happened precisely at that time, and timber at times was sheer unaffordable as building material. That also means that you have to have fuel and ore in close proximity (otherwise the logistics involved make the cost prohibitive) etc.
Lastly, keep in mind the style of fighting. When the preference is on drawn cuts, there is no reason to design armor to fend of powerful hacking cuts, and mobility serves you better in allowing you to void the attacks.
For the materials that the Japanese people had, they did good. Their iron was often of poor quality and there wasn't much of it, so you can kiss the idea of plate armor goodbye.
I would probably give this Japanese armor an AV of 2 for the average stuff, maybe up to 4 for the better (and costlier) samurai armor. Woven bamboo is probably as hard to hack through as leather, and the samurai armor would be reinforced in places with iron, wood, steel or something. Only samurai would be allowed to buy this masterwork armor, which would probably cost as much as masterwork leather armor, and have no movement or Combat penalties.
In short, I don't know a whole lot about Japanese armor (about as much as Jake, maybe less, maybe more), but I'd treat it like leather armor: not too costly, no CP or move penalties, nothing stunning in the AV department.
Quote from: Irmo
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that what armor you can make is highly dependable on what resources you have. Europe is quite a bit greater than Japan, and extensive trading took place. European armor was only possible thanks to the invention of blast furnaces and water-powered hammers, and due to the availability of iron ore that allowed the production of high quality steel. Conversely, contrary to popular opinion, the intense folding and refolding of japanese blades, for example, while in a way testimony of the excellency of japanese swordsmiths, far from making a SUPERIOR blade was the only way to make ANY blade worth the name from small quantities of iron of highly variable quantity, much like pattern-welded blades in Europe before the blast furnace.
Blast furnaces in turn require an intense infrastructure around them, not the least an EXTENSIVE amount of fuel for the fire. If you look at England, much of the deforestation happened precisely at that time, and timber at times was sheer unaffordable as building material. That also means that you have to have fuel and ore in close proximity (otherwise the logistics involved make the cost prohibitive) etc.
Lastly, keep in mind the style of fighting. When the preference is on drawn cuts, there is no reason to design armor to fend of powerful hacking cuts, and mobility serves you better in allowing you to void the attacks.
Don't get me wrong--I agree with you entirely. For what they had, they did good, however, what they had was primitive in comparison. And yes, the style of fighting is different, which has never been argued. I still maintain that Euro armor is more technologically advanced--not that Japanese armor is bad.
Lastly, although recent japanese swordsmanship is based on the draw cut and the razor-sharp edge, I believe that katanas from the 14-16th centuries had chisel edges, much like european swords did, as those were weapons that had to face armor more regularly.
I don't think that we're disagreeing, but rather that our emphasis in our arguments don't match up to what the other is trying to say.
Jake
Quote from: Jake NorwoodI don't think that we're disagreeing, but rather that our emphasis in our arguments don't match up to what the other is trying to say.
A lot of that seems to go on around here :-)
Brian.
Thanks for the input all.. very enlightening. I had heard (and I will be the first to admit my lack of expertise) that Japanese armors placed emphasis on lightness and mobility. I had also heard that it was a "commonly held belief that a well-placed sword or arrow strike would bypass most of the reasonable armor types." I had not heard the discussion about the inferiority of Japanese resources.. Definately good points, though. Definately good. It certainly explains why many Japanese adopted European-style breastplates.
Hm, not quite what we are looking for, but interesting nevertheless, and all the more indication on being careful before judging a given piece of armor:
QuoteVisual Arts Event
Ceremonial Splendor: Japanese Armor
Where: Trammell and Margaret Crow Collection of Asian Art Museum
2010 Flora St.
Dallas, TX 75201
When: Through Jan. 19, 2003
Tuesday - Wednesday, 10 am - 5 pm
Thursday, 10 am - 9 pm
Friday - Sunday, 10 am - 5 pm
Price: Free
Info: Call 214-979-6430
Event Profile
"Ceremonial Splendor" features three masks, 22 helmets and eight full suits of armor from the Barbier-Mueller Collection. The majority of the objects date from 1333 to 1868, and were used primarily for ceremony and as status symbols, instead of as protection during warfare.
Quote from: Jake Norwood... surface geopmetry (the bevelled planes of, say, gothic plate vs. the theatrical appearance of a samurai helment
I was thinking about this. A well designed kit should give you a bonus on rolls to intimidate, lead, and do other social things on and off the battlefield. Most armor should give some bonus. The really ornate Japanese armor, though perhaps not the world's toughest armor does look extremely cool. Especially with the penants flying off the back. I'd give way big bonuses to social rolls wearing such armor (A suit of Maximillian plate would probably do nearly as well, too).
Don't underestimate the roll of Social abilities in combat.
Mike
Soc in combat is pretty much useless, IMHO.
I would, however, give big phat bonuses to leadership rolls (which is WP)... something on the order of +1 for good chain, +2 for plate and +3 for masterwork plate armor. It would also inspire a lot of dread in unarmored opponents, giving their leader a penalty (unless he was armored as well).
I don't think it would be Social that the bonuses would go to. Social is shmoozing and smooth-talking. Armor don't help you do that, good looks do. Armor helps you intimidate, and that's more WP than anything else. Besides, you'd doubtlessly feel pretty invulnerable in full gothic plate armor, so that makes sense.
Quote from: Lyrax
I don't think it would be Social that the bonuses would go to. Social is shmoozing and smooth-talking. Armor don't help you do that, good looks do.
I think that depends. Armor is also an indication of social status (wealth) and can therefore affect Soc rolls. Think of how much appearence in terms of clothing or cars is important. Armor is essentially the same thing. You wouldn't go to an important job interview in jeans and a tshirt, or on a date dressed like slob.
How it affects a Soc roll could depend on the situation, however. One would have to decide based on the inclination of the 'opponent'. Among social equals (eg landed nobles) more elaborate armor would probably be positive (wealth=respect). During a peasant revolt a knight in fancy armor could get a negative modifier when interacting with peasants (wealth=oppresion). Certainly begging for mercy on the battlefield would be helped by elaborate armor, at least vs a foe who is inclined to want randsom (wealth=$$$)--although it might not for some groups (like the historical Swiss).
The same could be said for clothing in general. Those who dress well are more likely to be respected in some situations...or detested in others...
In the fairly rigid social system of a generic medieval society dressing to your station would probably be the most important thing. Overdressing would be considered presumptuous...(don't dress better than the Duke if your only a knight...).
NT
NT
Quite right Toli. Armor as a status symbol as a representation of ransom value would be one example. Who is a worthy opponent and who isn't worth my time would be another.
Remember, in the period TROS draws from "professional" soldiery is in its infantcy. Not only are social aspects highly important on the battle field they could conceivably be most important. Especially depending on the region you're discussing.
For instance, in many armies the quality of armor was directly tied to status. I don't mean how fancy the armor was, I mean who's got a shield and helmet, who's got a full suit of mail, and who's got his mail augmented with plate pieces. For these armies armor=authority in the same way as epaulets and fancy hats would in later periods. Low ranking PC riding on to a battle field in high grade armor...might just be mistaken for someone to be obeyed. Might even be prevented by his own side from wearing armor above his station.
Quote from: Valamir
For instance, in many armies the quality of armor was directly tied to status. I don't mean how fancy the armor was, I mean who's got a shield and helmet, who's got a full suit of mail, and who's got his mail augmented with plate pieces.
Very true. To some extent the "kit" the person had defined class. I believe (if I remember correctly) that in the early middle ages (when social structure was somewhat fluid) what was to become the knightly class, the miles, was defined by their equipment (mail shirt + horse) not a particular social class class...and horses have always been the symbol of nobility, since they (the horses) were so expensive to keep....