estcrh

Here are some images that help to clarify the terms being used such as "agamaki no kan", "uketsutsu" (uked-zutsu) and "gattari".

"Agamaki no kan" is the metal ring that the agamaki knot is attached to.

 "Uketsutsu" or more correctly "uked-zutsu" is the wood container that a flag pole would fit into, a "sashimono" (flag or banner) would then be attached to the flag pole.

"Gattari" (also machi-uke) is a hinged bracket that is attached to the back of the dou / do (cuirass), the uked-zutsu is held in place by the gattari.

In the image below the red arrow points to the "uked-zutsu", the yellow arrow points to the "gattati".

Sashimono with pole and uked-zutsu.

With image one I think I can offer an opinion......................................The straps coming from the sode make use of the kanamono nothing more.

Dave, I am not exactly sure what this means....."The straps coming from the sode make use of the kanamono nothing more".....Kanamono are the various metal fittings found on Japanese armor, some purely decorative, some functional. As far as I can see the straps of the sode are connected to the agamaki knot....did you mean agamaki instead of kanamono?

In the image below the yellow arrow is pointing to the agamaki, the red arrows are pointing to were the sode straps are tied to the agamaki know, I do not see any kanamono involved.

Are we not taking this too seriously? It is what it is...a book. A good read, but not going to change the way we collect or how we see matchlocks. Most of these points are niggly little things that are distracting.

Brian, I agree with you but when you have someone like Anthony Bryant and other authorities that people look up to saying things like.........."Among real historians of Japan, Perrin is considered a laughing stock---- if he's considered at all"...........you are bound to have people that end up thinking this book was not seriously researched when it actually does contain a lot of very interesting historical information. 

I was trying to find out if anyone who had a negative opinion about this book was basing it on inaccuracies or if they were possibly just being swayed by the negative comments they have heard about the book. 

I have no problem if you want to deleted any comments of mine or anyone elses that you feel distract from this review, maybe clean it up a bit.

Sorry, the translation...the Japanese had social problems with firearms...

 

Best Regards

Perrin does say that "besides these technical difficulties the Japanese also had a social problem with guns"....he goes on to explain that before the introduction of the matchlock, the Japanese had a custom of exchanging "ritual compliments" right before beginning a battle. He refers to a battle in 1548 in which a samurai force armed with matchlocks was defeated by a force that did not have matchlocks due to the fact that after exchanging these "ritual compliments" the matchlocks had not been prepared to fire and they were defeated by the force without matchlocks, he sites a source for this (#40).

Perrin goes on to discuss the solution for certain technical problems as well as relating a later battle in 1575 were a force men armed witjh matchlocks not only started using their matchlocks in battle with out the previously customary ritual compliments, they also hid themselves behind breastworks. Referring to Lord Oda's forces, Perrin said this "He never even considered letting them introduce themselves-or even be honorably visible" and that this new tactic which included having three thousand matchlocks being fired in volleys of a thousand at a time led to Lord Oda being sucess.

I see not problem with any of these statements or facts unless that are historically inaccurate, do you have any evidence of this?

There is enough basic info there for me to get something out of it. Anyone reading it will be well advised that there are mistakes. But until something better comes along, I am happy to read some of the basics without having to go elsewhere. Dedicated armour enthusiasts will already be on those forums. Guys with a casual interest will skim the article, and ask questions if they need to.

There is still a LOT of valid info there, even the diagrams are useful and interesting.

I think both Ian and Daves comments are helpful, in the forum were this was originally posted there are no warnings so anyone reading it will not take care to scrutinize what they are reading, but as it is now anyone who reads this thread will know that this article contains some very good information and some (or a lot) of inaccuracies.

This actually points how how little verifiable material there is for the average reader who is trying to make sense of the whole Japanese armor world without having to spend years doing so. I am looking forward to Dave and Ians joint publication which I am sure will be a great resource.

It's nearly completely inaccurate. 80/20

 

Apologies, but I don't have the free time at the moment to correct them all.

A good scholarly difference of opinion. I think your way off but I could be wrong, maybe some of our other more knowledgable forum member will have a few minutes of time to point out one or two of the more glaring mistakes....I am not expecting anyone to do the whole thing.

 

 We have a katchu forum, and we direct all of our members here for Nihonto.

 

Not entirely   http://nihon-no-katchu.proboards.com/board/37/nihonto

I did say ...."while not completely accurate"..... A few examples of inaccuracys could be pointed out in the same amount of time it takes to criticize, that would actually help teach people something.

Absolutely riddled with errors I'm afraid.

Ian Bottomley

Of course, an amateurs attempt to do what a much more knowledgable person probably should have done but did not (as far as I know), in the absence of a better one it is a good basic reference and as someones knowledge of the subject grows they can learn to differientiate the facts from the errors. This was written in 2007 and there is now much more information available for the next person who may attempt to do a similar write up, or they can take this one and correct the mistakes, now that would be interesting and helpful.

Maybe some of the more knowledgable people here would point out the "errors", that would be helpful as well.

The mogami do seems to be "Myochin ki no Munekata saku". Late Edo! Struggling with right and middle row.....

Very nice article, lots to learn and read there.

But posting it as an external link to a giant pic is going to make it either unavailable in the future, and certainly hard to follow since you can't copy and paste anything.

Can you see if you can get it as text or at least convert to a pdf? Hard to access it as is now.

Here is a link to the original article, this should help. 

https://myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.php

This article from Myarmoury is interesting and informative, it is worth taking a look at, while not completely accurate is still is a good basic guide.

 

 

tetsu was not always avalable, or if it was it was expensive, so armour was made from nerigawa. 

 

 

"Tetsu" meaning iron and "nerigawa" meaning rawhide, although it is sometimes refered to a leather there is a difference

In Belgium, we are blessed with Zenon Vandamme. Now retired, but a true urushi artist. More members will know him as a sword polisher.

If he is retired shouldnt it be "we were blessed"? He used to have a web site but not any more, I think his services are no longer available to the general public.

Nice little exhibition with some good armor's. Note the inside laced shikoro!

Any idea what the term is for this type of lacing???

Here is a good example of what urushi could be hiding. This looks like a suji bachi kabuto but the peeling urushi reveals something else. If the lacquer was in good shape I think you would have to be able to see the inside of the kabuto in order to reveal the actual construction and how many plates there were.

and Chapter III third sentence...

 

...very effictive weapons more and more overshoed the men who used them...

 

Best Regards

During the half century after Lord Oda's victory, firearms were at their height in Japan. Not to know how to use them was not to be a soldier. But, at the same time, the first resistance to firearms was developing. It arose from the discovery that efficient weapons tend to overshadow the men that use them.

 Perrin was relating the samurai delemma of the day. When  you have a weapon that just about anyone could be trained to use in a very short period of time, how do you justify your existance as a samurai? If the samurai were needed to defend the homeland but any bunch of men with guns could wipe of a much larger number of highly trained professional samurai fighters what then? Japan could have conscriped an army of commen men and armed them with guns, just as the Europeans did...no more samurai needed then. This was a real problem that was debated during that time period.

and Chapter III third sentence...

 

...very effictive weapons more and more overshoed the men who used them...

 

Best Regards

Found that as well, I will post the exacte quotes.

Eric, it's chapter II, right after quote number 38 about the french musketeers...

 

Best Regards

Ok, found it, thanks, I will try to post the exact quote.

Sorry, the translation...the Japanese had social problems with firearms...

 

Best Regards

Perrins book has several period illustrations which show SAMURAI using matchlocks...he shows mounted samurai using matchlock pistols and a group of samurai using matchock muskets, he pointed out that this group had two swords and called them "gentlemen musketeers". There are references about samurai asking for more matchlocks while fighting in Korea. He also points out the importance of swords to the samurai. He discusses both points since these were topics that were of importance in that time period.

And an int Paul Varley pdf..with thoughts that without the guns there was no united Japan..

 

http://publications.nichibun.ac.jp/region/d/NSH/series/symp/2007-06-00/s001/s009/pdf/article.pdf

 

Best Regards

I tried to be perfectly clear here

I ask that comments be limited to the text contained in the book, if you find it to be not factual and or historically accurate etc then by all means post a quote for discussion, if you do not have any text from the book that you disagree with please refrain from making comments based on your personal beliefs.

I am not interested in discussing what some other person may have said, I am interested in discussing direct quotes (in English) from Perrins book that you disagree with, as in not being accurate, historically correct etc.

I am trying to understand the basis for some of the negative comments about this book and at the same time I am trying to show that this book was written by a very competant author using a wide variety of historical texts, and verifible references. In order to do this people need to post direct quotes from  the book that they disagree with...so far not one person has come up with a single sentence to discuss.

Hi Eric, I have the german version from Klett-Cotta..

page 36 ... Hatten die Japaner mit den Feuerwaffen auch soziale Probleme. ...

 

Also int. Die Produktion von Waffen in Japan, LIT Verlag, Harald Poecher

 

Best Regards

Sorry, I do not speak German, care to translate? I am not sure if page 36 in the German version is the same as the English version, what chapter is that from?

Hi,

Perrins thesis that the Japanese had social problems using ( owning ) tanegashima is not true. Many high ranked samurai had

teppos and used tem, so the gun had no bad social prestige.

PS like the perrin book

 

Best Regards

 

Pps it is said in an edo contest a bowman fired 13053 arrows in 24 hours; the gunmans coups were plenty...

Do you have a quote from the book which backs up your statement or is this your personal opinion?? What proof do you have that this is Perrins "thesis", personal insight or fact??? So far not one person has posted any text from the book which backs up anything they say...humm.

Here is a pdf article by Clive Sinclaire about an armor that Robert restored for him a few years ago, if you look at the before and after pictures you can not believe the end result. 

http://to-ken.uk/onewebmedia/Diary%20of%20the%20Restoration%20of%20a%20Suit%20of%20Japanese%20Armour.pdf

The idea that the Europeans only allowed the Japanese old technology is not true.

Perrins book certainly does not push this particular idea as far as I know, in fact he lists at least two instances were the Japanese were introduced to more advanced firearms (flintlocks). He mentions a 1636 Dutch trading mission in which the shogun was presented with "a dozen smart new flintlock pistols" and then in 1643 when a group of samurai onboard a Dutch ship were allowed to fire the ships flintlock muskets. He mentions that the Dutch were puzzled by the Japanese "indifference to new weapons".