HisKoR t1_izwnxg6 wrote on December 12, 2022 at 12:02 PM

Never quite understood why Chinese and Korean armor quality seemed to deteriorate by the 15th and 16th centuries to the point that normal foot soldiers barely wore any armor. Ive heard armor was rendered ineffective by guns but guns were expensive and most armies wouldnt have been equipped with them, especially the Manchus or Mongolians etc. Also, Japan still used high quality armor even though they spearheaded volley tactics in Asia at the time. Seems more like the institutions in both China and Korea were so eroded by corruption and incompetence that soldiers were regarded as expendable and thus werent provided with armor. I read that by the 18th century, most Qing brigandine armor didnt even have any real iron plates inserted between the cloth and was basically just cloth with metal studs for show.

Brigandine armor also seems to have become most popular sometime during the 14th to 15th century in East Asia, but brigandine also seems like the cheapest armor option between plate, chainmail, lamellar, and laminar. Ive wondered if doubling as a coat made it more popular or if it was just the cheapest option since its easier to maintain than the other armor types and less obvious if the metal plates were missing or of bad quality.

Karvier OP t1_izwq49r wrote on December 12, 2022 at 12:26 PM

The more manpower you have, the more likely you will consider them as cannon fodders. For example, the Manchus conducted a census at 1649, and there were only 55330 adult males(yes) found from the entire Manchus population. So they would certainly care more about the qualities of their soldier’s equipments, otherwise they as a people won’t last very long.

[deleted] t1_izwq76m wrote on December 12, 2022 at 12:27 PM

[deleted]

War_Hymn t1_j007bsm wrote on December 13, 2022 at 3:09 AM

>but guns were expensive and most armies wouldnt have been equipped with them

Actually, firearm use in China was pretty prolific by the time of the Ming Dynasty. Your argument about higher cost can be applied to crossbows as well, but obviously they were still issued and deployed on a large scale despite this.

Armour (even fabric or leather based armour) is expensive as well, so it was mostly worn by elite or noble troops who could afford it. Also keep in mind that the Chinese and Koreans made heavier use of peasant levies/conscripts in their militaries relative to their European/Japanese counterparts (who mostly depended on smaller armies of professional/semi-professional soldiers), so obviously had a harder time outfitting their entire forces with armour.

>Seems more like the institutions in both China and Korea were so eroded by corruption and incompetence that soldiers were regarded as expendable and thus werent provided with armor.

I don't know about Korea, but in the case of Qing China that is sort of true. In the late-1700s, the Qing emperor enacted a freeze on troop salaries, so soldier pay didn't keep up with inflation. The Banner armies in particular suffered from lack of armed conflict in the relative peaceful period between the Qing invasion of Vietnam (1789) and the 1st Opium War (1839).

The lack of fighting led to idleness and neglect in maintaining combat effectiveness (instead of training, Banner soldiers spent their time drinking and gambling). Also with the way the Qing military worked, Banner troops got paid much more when on campaign. Since they were also prohibited from doing other jobs or running businesses, in peacetime they had no means of income other than the small stipend (2-4 taels of silver per month) provided by the imperial court that was more for maintaining equipment and horses (Banner troops had to buy their own). With the pay freeze and inflation, lack of combat and the usual loot gained from pillaging the enemy, most Banner troops found themselves in an economic tough spot. Despite their reputation as the Qing's elite troops many were impoverished by standards of the time, and their situation was passed on to their children as their position/duties in the Banner forces were hereditary. I won't be surprised if these Bannermen were regularly pawning off their father or grandfather's armour and weapons for booze money as a result of their poverty.

The Green Standard forces weren't any better, facing serious issues in desertion, corruption (officers frequently stole the pay of their soldiers, or straight made up the number of recruits they had to embezzle money from the imperial court), and lack of funding.