• PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      As the saying goes, “Japanese swords were made to defeat armor; European armor was made to defeat swords.” There’s a different overall emphasis - Japanese armor is meant to protect one against everything up until the most brutal part of the melee, where everything is resolved - European armor is meant to protect against everything, and then some. The difference means that late European armor is ungodly heavy (~30kg) in comparison to late Japanese armor (~15kg, not to be confused with earlier, heavier O-Yoroi which clocks in at closer to 25kg), and needs a hell of a lot of padding to avoid ending up looking raw and red under all that metal!

      • rumschlumpel@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        “Japanese swords were made to defeat armor

        Who says that? That sounds like bullshit, straight-edged swords (especially the late medieval ones with extra-strong tips) are much better at dealing with armor than curved swords.

        • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Rather than being an absolute comparison of the ability to pierce armor, the saying is meant to reflect a difference in priorities and development.