Why didnt china into bespoke armor and mass produced everything? Were they too poor to afford plate? Even japan had cuirasses
>>18653943>Why didnt china into bespoke armor and mass produced everything? We know of a couple of imperial and princely suits of armour, either as physical examples or from paintings.As for why their change over to solid plate cuirass was spotty - They got invaded by steppe people over and over again, who kept using lamellar well until after it was no longer any good.
>>18653943It’s not about being poor or wealthy but about skill. The skills and techniques needed to make a full plate cuirass were very complex and only master smiths in Northern Italy and Germany were capable of producing them.
>>18653943>>18654417There's also a fashion side to armour.They weren't a people who pursued a fashion with complex cuts or dramatic shapes, so the armour made on the basis of those clothes remained less challenging as well.
>>18653943>whybecause insect chinks did not "believe" in firearms>kek
>>18653943China went all in on casting iron which makes for poor armor.Europe went all in on forging iron which makes for good plate armor.
>>18654417Greenwich, Bern and Flanders both had their domestic productions of plate armor as well. It wasn't a specific Italian and German thing it just took some time for the industry to gradually move. Also Japan did make single plate front cuirasses but it was more so a curioso then anything because the need was supplented by animated laminates and rigid laminates by the 1550s.>>18653943Producing plate wouldn't have changed much of anything in terms of their later goal. What China needed desperately was bigger muskets, better gunners and more heavy armored pikemen in style of ethnics from Sichuan.
>>18653943>Why didnt china into bespoke armor They did. The fancy generals armor you see in paintings n shieet were all custom made. >and mass produced everything?This was only true for the Qin-Han Dynasties. In later dynasties, armor & weapons production was a bit more decentralized, with state factories & government-commissioned private artisans working together to make them.>Plate armor.China did not want plate, period. They encountered plate armor repeatedly throughout history (from Koreans, Japanese, and then European Colonists in Southeast Asia) and their only reaction to it was just "meh" and stuck to lamellar/brigandine/chainmail. Most likely it just did not fit their local warfare styles for heavily armored folks (i.e. armored cavalrymen doing horse archery duels with steppeniggers), nor infrastructure (plate armor needs extensive facilities to repair, which sucks for an army on campaign as Chinese cities are far apart from each other), and by the time plate armor was vogue, muskets & cannons were becoming more sophisticated and deadly that the Chinese want to learn making those instead of wasting time & resources learning how to make plate.The Ming Dynasty DID experiment on plate armor with the "Quan Tie Jia" (Full Iron Armor, pic rel), but artefacts & mentions of it was so rare that it probably was not widely used or considered.>>18654417Its not really a matter of skill for the Chinese. Those fuckers invited jesuits & spent hella money buying European cannons & muskets and learning how to make those in the 1500s-1600s. Meanwhile there was no such incentive on tinkering with European plate armor besides buying them for mere novelty.
>>18655329Making a full plate cuirass was not simply about shaping a sheet of metal. Precise control of heat, cooling, temperature, and form was crucial to make the armour strong enough to withstand heavy blows, pressure, punctures, and later even firearms. While there were good smiths everywhere very few were capable of that like in Western Europe like in Italy and Germany
>>18653943Bespoke armor and military equipment depend on the demand of military aristocracy. China have had multiple cultural revolutions before the famous communist one done by Mao so they had almost zero military aristocracy by the 12th century. Peasant armies just need basic equipment.A lot of archeological artifacts in China dates to when they still had chariot riding aristocracy and gets more more empty as their elite became replaced by peasants and civil scholar-bureaucrats mainly paid with foodstuffs. It came back a bit during the Qing and you'll find many suit of armor belonging to the Manchu ruling class.The Pagoda style armor you see in that pic was worn by the Jurchen. The native Song mainly used lamellar and cloth armor. As depicted in this Jurchen nobleman's tomb
>>18655459Still Irrelevant. If Changs wanted plate & could not make it they would have bought it from the Europoids like they did with guns & cannons. Yet that did not happen.
>>18655509>China have had multiple cultural revolutionsYou're confusing China with your ancestral home continent which repeatedly smashed and destroyed its own culture in the Protestant Reformation and French revolution and Napoleonic warshttps://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18532842/#q18532842>Peasant armies just need basic equipment.China never used peasant levies or peasant conscripts unlike Europe, retard.The post-feudal "bueuracratic" military from the Qin dynasty to the Ming dynasty and Qing dynasty was a corps of professional soldiers.The Qin, Han, Western Jin, Eastern Jin, Sui, Tang, Song, Ming dynasties all used professional militaries.The Ming military was recruited from hereditary military households seperate from commoner peasants. Han soldiers in the Qing dynasty were part of the Green Standard Army, a force of full time professional soldiers that frequently recruited sons and grandsons of veterans.>peasants and civil scholar-bureaucrats mainly paid with foodstuffsThe Qin didn't abolish hereditary nobility, retard, it only deprived them of their fiefs.From the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties, hereditary nobles like Dukes, Marquises controlled their own fiefs.In the Qin, Western Jin, Sui, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing, hereditary military nobles still existed.They no longer had territorial fiefs but were assigned households who would provide them with their salary, like a Duke would have 10,000 households paying taxes to support his salary.Every founder of a dynasty gave hereditary noble titles to the generals who helped him unite China and their families became part of the military nobility.The founder of the Ming dynasty gave hereditary noble titles to his generals like Mu Ying who got the title Duke of Qian.Mu Ying's descendants held the title Duke of Qian right to the end of the Ming dynasty, when Mu Tianbo accompanied the Yongli emperor to Burma.The Ming military nobles were bared from participating in civil affairs
>>18655509>>18655550But the Ming hereditary nobility (Dukes, Marquises, Barons) continued playing active military roles in the Ming wars.The Eight banners were NOT nobility.There were ordinary (irgen) Manchu bannermen who had no titles Qing dynasty had hereditary noble title system continued from the Ming. Han non-banner commoners like Zuo Zongtang and Zeng Guofan were given have hereditary Marquis noble titles.Han bannerman like Shi Lang were given have a hereditary Marquis noble titleMeanwhile an ordinary Manchu bannerman would have no hereditary title.The Qing, Ming, Tang, Song, Sui all gave hereditary noble titles to military officers who helped found the dynasty or save the dynasty and achieved great military victories.This is just like post feudal Europe like England in the 17th-18th century which gave a hereditary noble title to the Churchill family for military service in the war of Spanish successionOr Russian empire after Peter the Great which gave hereditary noble titles to officers who defeated Ottomans or Napoleon.These nobles no longer had fiefs of land like in feudal times, appointed governors and bureaucrats administered the land. But hereditary military nobles still held their titles and passed it on to their sons.In post-Zhou post-feudal China, while appointed bureaucratic magistrates and governors administered the land, hereditary military nobles like Dukes and Marquises still passed their titles in their families in ChinaChina also has the worlds oldest continous hereditary noble peerage in the male line, the Kong family descended from Confucius who were Marquis Baocheng and Duke Yansheng for the past 2000 years continuously from the Han dynasty to the Republic of China.
>>18653943People need to stop seeing armour as a linear progression of lvl1 to lvl100. Armour has specific functions, used in specific settings, specific environments specific fights, to counter specific weapons, specific fighters, and it needs certain skills to create and especially repair and maintain specific types of armour. Plate armour wasn't the panacea of personal armour.
>>18655523China didn't buy its breech loading cannon and muskets. It took them by force after defeating Portuguese at the battle of Veniaga in 1522 and capturing their ship with weapons and reverse engineering them.Japan is the one that bought them from the Portuguese by giving a Japanese girl named Wakasa to the Portuguese as a sex slave to teach them to build muskets and cannons.
>>18655509>It came back a bit during the Qing and you'll find many suit of armor belonging to the Manchu ruling class.No you retard, the Qing is just the most recent so the leather armour didn't rot away.We barely have surviving armour from the Shang and Zhou era.The rhino leather armour mostly rotted away and only a few Bronze piece armour were found from the Zhou.The Qin terra cotta statues only depict what armour looked like.>The Pagoda style armor you see in that pic was worn by the Jurchen. The native Song mainly used lamellar and cloth armor. As depicted in this Jurchen nobleman's tombIron pagoda is lamellar armour you retard.Ordinary non-noble Jurchens wore iron pagoda, it has nothing to do with being a noble.Most ordinary Manchu bannermen were not nobles either.Only a few Manchu banner families held noble titles like Duke.Eight banners were not nobilityJust like Cossacks weren't nobility in Russia.A Han Marquis like Zuo Zongtang was a noble in the Qing even though he wasn't a Bannerman.
what is funnier? chang or jeet revisionism?
>>18655689You haven't refuted a single point in the posts above.
>>18655550https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great#Death_and_burialAlfred was temporarily buried at the Old Minster in Winchester with his wife Ealhswith and, later, his son Edward the Elder. Before his death he had ordered the construction of the New Minster hoping that it would become a mausoleum for him and his family.[168] Four years after his death, the bodies of Alfred and his family were exhumed and moved to their new resting place in the New Minster and remained there for 211 years. When William the Conqueror rose to the English throne after the Norman conquest in 1066, many Anglo-Saxon abbeys were demolished and replaced with Norman cathedrals. One of those unfortunate abbeys was the very New Minster abbey where Alfred was laid to rest.[168] Before demolition, the monks at the New Minster exhumed the bodies of Alfred and his family to safely transfer them to a new location. In 1110, the New Minster monks moved to Hyde Abbey, a little north of the city, taking with them Alfred's body and those of his wife and children, which were interred before the high altar.[168]MapWikimedia | © OpenStreetMapAbout OpenStreetMapsMaps: terms of use40m44yds1maplink: Couldn't parse JSON: Control character error, possibly incorrectly encodedLocations1 Where Alfred is suspected to be buried since 1788[171]Many churches were vandalised during the English Reformation, including Hyde. The Abbey was dissolved in 1538,[168] the church and cloister were demolished and treated like a quarry, and the stones that made up the abbey were then re-used in local architecture.[172] The stone graves housing Alfred and his family stayed underground, and the land returned to farming. These graves remained intact until 1788 when the site was acquired by the county for the construction of a town jail.[173]
>>18657125Modern eraBefore construction began, convicts who would later be imprisoned at the site were sent in to prepare the ground, ready for building. While digging the foundation trenches, the convicts discovered the coffins of Alfred and his family. A local Roman Catholic priest, John Milner, recounted this event:Thus miscreants couch amidst the ashes of our Alfreds and Edwards; and where once religious silence and contemplation were only interrupted by the bell of regular observance, the chanting of devotion, now alone resound the clank of the captives chains and the oaths of the profligate! In digging for the foundation of that mournful edifice, at almost every stroke of the mattock or spade some ancient sepulchre was violated, the venerable contents of which were treated with marked indignity. On this occasion a great number of stone coffins were dug up, with a variety of other curious articles, such as chalices, patens, rings, buckles, the leather of shoes and boots, velvet and gold lace belonging to chasubles and other vestments; as also the crook, rims, and joints of a beautiful crosier double gilt.[174]The convicts broke the stone coffins into pieces. The lead, which lined the coffins, was sold for two guineas, and the bones within scattered around the area.[172]The prison was demolished between 1846 and 1850.[175] Further excavations, in 1866 and 1897, were inconclusive.[176][177] In 1866, amateur antiquarian John Mellor claimed to have recovered a number of bones from the site which he said were those of Alfred. These came into the possession of the vicar of nearby St Bartholomew's Church who reburied them in an unmarked grave in the church graveyard.[175]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindow_WomanConditionToday, only the bony remains of the skull from the discovery exist, because of the handling of evidence by the police.
