Tang Dynasty Warrior Armor: 唐精兵
Thank you to my Patrons who has contributed $10 and above: You made this happen!
➢ ☯ Muramasa
➢ ☯ MK Celahir
➢ ☯ Kevin
➢ ☯ Vincent Ho (FerrumFlos1st)
➢ ☯ BurenErdene Altankhuyag
➢ ☯ Stephen D Rynerson
➢ ☯ Michael Lam
➢ ☯ Peter Hellman
➢ ☯ SunB
%20(1).jpg)
Comments
I think the artist based this figure on some early Song sculptures and stone statues. Some of those statues featured aventails that has Y shaped decorations. As for Mountain scales~ it's better to refer to them by the OG of Mountain patterned armor, the Tang sources in 7th century did mention a type of "Mountain patterned armor." But the modern assumption that the individual scales are 山 shaped and meshed together that way its incorrect, mainly that 山 shape is very very impractical. It creates a very rigid board that cannot bent, it also creates wholes and cracks that both channels and arrows but also imbeds them in.
Since Mountain Pattern Armor did not specifically describe the shape of 山 itself, nor did they mention mountain scales, another interpretation of the mountain pattern might be in △ shape and laced like the backdrops of mountains in paintings. Thus background layers behind foreground layers. If layered correctly this does allow deformation and flexibility.
Another interpretation is that the mountain scales might be a decorative pattern, not too different from some more flexible Japanese armors that have the Y shape on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatami_(Japanese_armour)
This~ is at least more plausible of an explanation.
As for /how can they not be preserved?/ Idk, its kind of general and I can't answer that. I will say that Song statues did feature a lot of generals depicted in this armor, the early Song ones were very heavy. 2 of the interpretation of this is that the decorative mountain pattern is merely a depiction of elaborate silk armor ceremonially worn by officers like a type of uniform. Which I tend to not agree, another is that the mountain pattern is merely an artistic shorthand to depict chainmail. Which I vehemently disagree as well, since many Ming statues that have portions of mountain pattern HAVE statues that have portions of distinctive Chainmails on their pauldrons and fauds.
Or we see Iranian scrolls that has Both warriors IN Chainmails and mountain pattern armors fighting each other or fighting together. One of them cannot be totally practical and extant while another merely a flight of artistic fancy. Since the touchstone of these ideas for Iranians and Central Asians are both from the Mongols and native Chinese depiction of these armors were contemporaneous to the expansion of the Mongols into Iran, it's too broad sweeping to say that they didn't exist or they were merely an artistic shorthand. Remember, both Yuan, and the other Central Asian Khanates all have artworks depicting warriors in mountain patterned armors fighting.
It's very possible that much or most of the modern conception of this kind of armor (it they are one and the same as the OG reference mountain pattern armor is one and the same at all) is mistaken or at least not very accurate. However, unless some armors resembling this type of armors are excavated or unearthed, the logical positivists will win the day because~ well, there's just not much material evidence (despite artistic portrayals that is.)