Talk:Chinese armour

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Chinese

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article states, "Full armour for cavalry appeared during the 4th century AD. During the Three Kingdoms Period (三国), fully armoured cavalry were extensively used for shock" The Three Kingdoms Period was from 220 to 280, therefore this doesn't make sense. I've deleted the first sentence.

Besides, the last paragraph talks about " Jia and Kai ". This is only moderately useful if the characters aren't given. I assume the characters are jiǎ 甲 and kǎi 鎧/铠 and will add this to the article. If I am mistaken, may somebody who knows more about the subject correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.197.25 (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Move

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Somebody moved this article from Chinese armour to Chinese Armor, [1] I've moved it back since it was originally armour, the user had no consensus to change and obviously the a shouldnt be capatalised either. McVities (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Decline of Chariot use in China during Warring Period due to crossbows?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article speculates that chariot use declined during the Warring Period due to crossbows. However, chariot use for warfare also decline in the West at the same, yet crossbows were not involved. The Perian's unsuccessful use of chariots against Alexander the Great is the last time I have heard them being used in the West (not counting more backwards areas such as Brittain). In Alexander's case, crossbows were not a factor, but tactics were found that dealt with chariots, and development of similar tactics in the China might have just render chariots not cost effective. 66.51.147.97 (talk)DB —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC).Reply

Tbh I think mountain pattern armour is just chainmail

No offense to anyone, but after looking at a bunch of pictures depicting mountain pattern armour, I honestly believe mountain pattern armour is just chainmail. You can see "mountain pattern armour" on the helmets of Song dynasty statues flowing down across the shoulders, which means it was flexible like chainmail. Also in one Song statue/mural, the distinction between chainmail and mountain pattern armour is mixed, which I believe represents an artistic shift in how chainmail is depicted. So my current theories are that MPA is just a highly stylized form of chainmail, or two, it was a form of Chinese chainmail with angles that when riveted or butted together, appears on the outside as though they were 山 characters but the pieces themselves are not actually 山 shaped. Either way the more I think about it the less I believe it was a super special Chinese armour never before seen anywhere else. We already know it was flexible enough to function like a mail coif. It's still possible that the mountain pattern armour represents a different shape of chain rather than the standard ring, but from all the evidence we have so far, it functioned no differently than mail.

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply