
Samurai Helmets - cnahr
https://news.kynosarges.org/2019/04/19/samurai-helmets/
======
ender7
While beautiful, most of these pieces are primarily ceremonial or intended for
generals who would rarely involve themselves on the battlefield†.

Almost all of these pieces date from after the unification of Japan under the
Tokugawa shogunate (c. 1600). From 1600 to 1850 Japan experienced a stable
period marked by very little real armed conflict. During this time, the
samurai transitioned from soldiers to what were effectively mid-level
bureaucrats. However, unlike most bureaucrats, they managed to retain all of
the trappings of a martial lifestyle, including ornate armor, beautiful
swords, and the occasional mortal duel. It was during this time of relative
peace that these (sometimes ridiculous) fashion pieces developed, somewhat
complicated by the tradition of incorporating pieces of much, much older
helmets into the "core" of the helmets (one of the helmets in the OP has a
core dating from the 14th century, but was significantly embellished later
on).

†This is generally true of what arms and armor have survived from around the
world. The stuff that was actually used rusted away long ago; the highest
chance for survival was to have been so valuable that no one dared to actually
take it onto a battlefield.

~~~
chewz
> and the occasional mortal duel.

Duels under Tokugawa were forbidden and punishable by death of both opponents.
The only fighting that samurai could see was terrorizing of unarmed peasants.

Samurai were not warriors in European sense but more of a mob enforcers. Good
for terrorizing peasants not really fit for fighting in any military sense.

During Meiji when peasants got professional military training and leadership
samurai became toothless.

[BUSHIDO: WAY OF TOTAL BULLSHIT]
[https://www.tofugu.com/japan/bushido/](https://www.tofugu.com/japan/bushido/)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Kumamoto_Castle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Kumamoto_Castle)

[2] [https://www.historynet.com/satsuma-rebellion-satsuma-clan-
sa...](https://www.historynet.com/satsuma-rebellion-satsuma-clan-samurai-
against-the-imperial-japanese-army.htm)

~~~
z3phyr
That is during the Shogunate. Before the unification, The samurai were
involved with actual on field battles.

~~~
chewz
Mostly using arrows not swords. But yumi is inferior weapon compared to
reflexive bow used by Chinese, Korean, Mongol or Turkic soldiers.

Also if you look at any Japanese castle (Himeji had been well preserved by US
Bomber Command for navigational purposes) you will quickly realize that any
continental army will take at most a week to dry it's moats and dig mines
under it's wall. Fortunately Japan never had seen invading army on its soil.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yumi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yumi)

[2]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_bow](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_bow)

This samurai / bushido hype is so much out of proportion and simply untrue.

While in the same time real history of Asia is full of military class of
exceptional value. Indian Rajput, Islamic Gunpowder Empires, Malays, Mongols -
to name just a few

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Empires](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Empires)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malacca_Sultanate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malacca_Sultanate)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwarang](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwarang)

~~~
z3phyr
I am not going to compare medieval continental technology to medieval Japan
because that would be against the spirit of comparison. Japan was pretty
closed society even when they traded with the continent. While it is true that
the continent saw cutting edge tech in terms of unbalanced battle situations,
we can surely appreciate the Japanese stuff for it's aesthetic vibe.

If Japan was suddenly in the continent, I am sure they would have to compete
and modify their war society like the rest did. But the root aesthetics would
be the same.

------
saidajigumi
I highly recommend checking out the Samurai Collection[1] referenced here, if
you can get to one of its showings – it travels around quite regularly. The
exhibit is great, both in size (good, but not overwhelming) and presentation
details. Especially the full (O-yoroi) armor, which is in transparent cases
that let you get up close on all sides to see how the armor is constructed,
and the many levels of artisanship that go into each piece.

Also, the exhibition venues will often do things like find local artisans to
demonstrate related skills. E.g. I demoed making the armor lacing braids (as
much as 200-400 yards, in reeled silk, per suit!) when the show was at the
Portland Art Museum.

[1]
[http://samuraicollection.org/aboutus_history.html](http://samuraicollection.org/aboutus_history.html)

------
ereyes01
After looking at pictures of a bunch of samurai helmets, I came to a
realization that Darth Vader's helmet is more or less the shape of a samurai
helmet. Maybe this should have been obvious to me (especially being a fan of
the Hidden Fortress film), but it was a cool discovery for me.

~~~
zentropia
George Lucas was inspired by samurai films. This film are called jidai seki
(period films). From jidai --> jedi. Also C3PO and R2D2 are inspired by the
couple of mongrels in Hidden Fortress.

~~~
DavidAdams
This is also why the Jedi (at least in the earlier films) use two hands to
hold their lightsabers. It's the Japanese style. Of course, Samurai swords
were two-handed because they were heavy, due to the poor quality of steel
available. A light saber "blade" would presumably weigh nothing, so it would
make more sense to hold it one handed like a, well, saber.

A master of the more technologically advanced European saber would probably
cut a Katana-wielding Samurai to ribbons. Good thing the Samurai would
probably just shoot him from horseback anyway.

~~~
benj111
I've been mulling the cause and effect mentioned in your comment. Poor quality
steel -> heavy -> 2 handed.

I don't ever recall seeing a 2 handed bronze sword, and if the steel is worse
than bronze, why didn't they go back to that? Which kind of suggests that it
isn't.

I'm assuming low quality steel is overly soft rather than overly brittle. If
it were overly soft wouldn't that favour shorter blades? You'd either get
flex, or as you mentioned, added weight, which seems a bad trade off compared
to a shorter sword and shield?

I got the impression 2 handed swords/no shield was an honour thing, rather
than a tactically advantageous thing, I'm in no way an expert on such things
though.

~~~
krapp
>I got the impression 2 handed swords/no shield was an honour thing, rather
than a tactically advantageous thing, I'm in no way an expert on such things
though.

I am not an expert either but as I understand it, Samurai were nobles and
fought on horseback with their primary weapons being spears and bows, and they
considered swords a backup weapon.[0]

The mythologizing of the Samurai, their honor-above-reason mentality
("bushido") and the katana as their primary weapon was a retrofiction created
in the Edo period, when the Samurai had been disarmed and relegated to
bureaucrats, and they wanted to justify and romanticize their violent past,
and the term _bushido_ was invented in the 20th century, and was itself based
on Western ideals of chivalry in knighthood (which also, really, didn't
exist.)[1,2]

[0][https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10331/why-
didnt-...](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10331/why-didnt-
japanese-infantrymen-and-samurai-use-shields)

[1][https://www.tofugu.com/japan/bushido/](https://www.tofugu.com/japan/bushido/)

[2][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11990721](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11990721)

~~~
benj111
"The mythologizing of the Samurai, their honor-above-reason mentality"

Agreed, I was focussing more on the not tactically advantageous, rather than
ascribing an honour code per se.

It is generally a good idea to agree weapons beforehand, it helps keep the
battlefield survivable. The 20th century wasn't known for it's 'honour' but
WW2 combatants did refrain from using chemical weapons for example, and nukes
were never used in the cold war and it's proxy battles. I'd label that as part
of an honour code? I'm not making the case too forcefully though.

~~~
robotresearcher
More like fear of reprisal than honor. Chemical and nuclear weapons are very
hard to defend your civilian population from. Mutual Assured Destruction has
worked so far but I wouldn’t call it an honor code.

~~~
benj111
Germany fought to the end in WW2, the eastern front was particularly brutal. I
suspect there were already fears of reprisals.

I wasn't thinking MAD specifically, although I'm aware of at least one example
where Russian early warning picked up an incoming object that appeared to them
to be a missile, and they didn't respond, which seems very un MAD. I was
thinking of the proxy wars, Vietnam, Korea, etc. I'm not even sure the threat
of nuclear attack was used. I suppose you could say that's part of MAD (not
attacking allies), if that were the case, wouldn't the same reasoning extend
to not fighting them in the first place, in the same way there were never any
conventional wars between Russia and the US?

So agreed it is mainly about self preservation, but I would say it goes a
little further than that.

------
sorokod
Is the fantastic impracticality of these helmets due to the handicap principal
(
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle)
)?

~~~
crooked-v
Some of these are almost certainly just ceremonial pieces, but the ones that
aren't would have served a distinctive signpost for troops under a samurai's
command, the same way that flags strapped to armor and horses were common in
premodern warfare through the world. Fighting without radios or even so much
as binoculars is extremely confusing, and if you're leading a bunch of peasant
militia who get a bare minimum of training, you want it extremely obvious
who's giving the orders and where to try and group up if people get separated
in battle.

~~~
sorokod
...and the face masks?

~~~
jschwartzi
These would be useful for both terrorizing your enemies and also ensuring that
you don't take a blow to the face.

~~~
crooked-v
Also, easily exploitable high-quality iron was much rarer in Japan than in
Europe, so reinforced masks gave some face protection while being incredibly
cheaper than steel faceplates on helmets.

------
abledon
If anyone lives in London and would like to investigate how the ancient sword
arts of japan tie into meditation, I highly recommend [http://battodo-
fudokan.co.uk/](http://battodo-fudokan.co.uk/)

~~~
sorokod
From the websight "Nakamura Ryu Battodo is a distillation of traditional
Japanese swordsmanship ..."

In other words, it is not a traditional sword system but a modern one.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Given it's less than savory origins I wouldn't consider it a basis for
meditative contemplation either.

~~~
Razengan
For those wondering, this may be referring to it being the replacement for
allegedly using live prisoners for sword practice.

------
Isamu
There's an interesting helmet with a large statue of Fudo Myo-o, the
"immovable radiant king" of Shingon Buddhism.

I don't recall seeing another helmet with a full statue. Are there more
examples?

~~~
cnahr
That was the first and only one I had seen, too. I suppose there may be a few
more but they certainly seem to be rare. This exhibition had no other
examples. The helmet with a flame-engulfed dragon that was shown mounted on an
armor suit comes closest.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Armor 1 and Armor 3 both feature heavy use of a light bluish thread for
decoration. In China a similar blue, made from kingfisher feathers, would be
an imperial symbol -- do you know if there's any relationship / what the
significance in Japan was?

~~~
cnahr
I’m not aware of any such relationship in Japan. The exhibition didn’t mention
it, and I haven’t heard of it elsewhere either. I think it’s just decorative
here.

------
benj111
Does the Royal Armouries in Leeds still have that amazing collection of
Japanese armour?

That would be my bank holiday recommendation.

------
mhb
Mouse and cat armor:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19703277](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19703277)

------
zzo38computer
What is the mass of the helmet?

~~~
lainga
I tried one on once at a hole-in-the-wall samurai museum in Tokyo. It was
pretty hefty but very well-supported - my head didn't feel wobbly or strained.

~~~
benj111
"hole-in-the-wall.... museum"

My interest is piqued.

I'm inferring that they're just very small museums? Do they have any essential
characteristics?

Google isn't being very helpful.

~~~
lainga
[https://www.timeout.com/tokyo/museums/samurai-
museum](https://www.timeout.com/tokyo/museums/samurai-museum)

It's one man's work of passion. When I went, it was quiet enough that an
attendant guided us around the entire first floor personally. It's not exactly
tiny, but it's just two narrow floors behind an unassuming frontage, and so a
_big_ change from the other (public) museums in Tokyo.

------
billconan
are these helmets practical or mostly for decoration purposes?

------
siqu
(define (get) (get1 (quote ()) (read)))(define (get1 b r) (if (eof-object? r)
(reverse b) (get1 (cons r b) (read))))(define (put) (put1 (quote ()) (read-
char)))(define (put1 b r) (if (eof-object? r) (list->string (reverse b)) (if
(char=? #\\) r) (put1 (cons #\\. (cons #\\. (cons r b))) (read-char)) (put1
(cons r b) (read-char)))))(define (final lis) (if (null? lis) lis (final1 (car
lis) (cdr lis))))(define (final1 f r) (if (and (pair? f) (pair? (cdr f)) (eqv?
(quote quote) (car f))) (cons f (final (cdr r))) (if (list? f) (final2 f
(gather (count (car r)) (cons (quote ()) (final (cdr r))))) (if (or (vector?
f) (pair? f) (eq? #\\) f)) (cons f (final (cdr r))) (cons f (final
r))))))(define (final2 f g) (cons (append (final f) (car g)) (cdr g)))(define
(count s) (- (string-length (symbol->string s)) 2))(define (gather c lis) (if
(= c 0) (cons (reverse (car lis)) (cdr lis)) (gather (- c 1) (cons (cons (cadr
lis) (car lis)) (cddr lis)))))(for-each write (final (with-input-from-string
(put) get)))

~~~
tomatotomato37
I'm bored and we are on a site called hacker news; anyone want to join me on
de-obfuscating this code?

~~~
LukeShu
Here's the best I could do at formatting and reading/commenting it, so far:

    
    
        ;; Usage: (get)
        ;; Parse the entirety of stdin as a sequence of s-expressions.  Return
        ;; that list of expressions.
        ;;
        ;; The definition of this function is a little contrived, because in
        ;; lisp it's simpler to prepend to a list than to append to it, which
        ;; would be the natural thing to do.  So instead, we build the list
        ;; such that it is backwards, then we call (reverse LIST) on it when
        ;; we read EOF.
        (define (get)
          (get1 (quote ()) (read)))
        ;; Usage: (get CURRENT-BUFFER JUSt-READ-EXPRESSION)
        (define (get1 b r)
          (if (eof-object? r)
              (reverse b)
            (get1 (cons r b) (read))))
        
        ;; Usage: (put)
        ;;
        ;; Read the entirety of stdin as a sequence of characters, perform the
        ;; global string substitution ")" -> ")..", then return the result as
        ;; a string.
        ;;
        ;; The definition of this function is a little contrived, because in
        ;; lisp it's simpler to prepend to a list than to append to it, which
        ;; would be the natural thing to do.  So instead, we build the list
        ;; such that it is backwards, then we call (reverse LIST) on it when
        ;; we read EOF.
        (define (put)
          (put1 (quote ()) (read-char)))
        ;; Usage: (put CURRENT-BUFFER LAST-READ-CHAR)
        (define (put1 b r)
          (if (eof-object? r)
              (list->string (reverse b))
            (if (char=? #\) r)
                (put1 (cons #\. (cons #\. (cons r b))) (read-char))
              (put1 (cons r b) (read-char)))))
        
        ;; Usage: (final LIST)
        ;; ???
        (define (final lis)
          (if (null? lis)
              lis
            (final1 (car lis) (cdr lis))))
        ;; Usage: (final1 FIRST REST)
        (define (final1 f r)
          (if (and (pair? f) (pair? (cdr f)) (eqv? (quote quote) (car f)))
              (cons f (final (cdr r)))
            (if (list? f)
                (final2 f (gather (count (car r)) (cons (quote ()) (final (cdr r)))))
              (if (or (vector? f) (pair? f) (eq? #\) f))
                  (cons f (final (cdr r)))
                (cons f (final r))))))
        ;; Usage: (final2 f g)
        (define (final2 f g)
          (cons (append (final f) (car g)) (cdr g)))
        ;; Usage: (count SYMBOL)
        (define (count s)
          (- (string-length (symbol->string s)) 2))
        ;; Usage: (gather c lis) 
        (define (gather c lis)
          (if (= c 0)
              (cons (reverse (car lis)) (cdr lis))
            (gather (- c 1) (cons (cons (cadr lis) (car lis)) (cddr lis)))))
        
        ;; 1. Use (put) to read stdin as a string and perform the ")" -> ").."
        ;;    global string replacement.
        ;; 2. Feed that resulting string to (get), which parses it in to a
        ;;    sequence of s-expressions.
        ;; 3. Feed that list of expressions to (final), which does something
        ;;    to it and returns a list.
        ;; 4. (write) each item that (final) returns.
        (for-each write (final (with-input-from-string (put) get)))

~~~
backronym
It looks like you cracked open the lobster. I tried compiling this:

(+ 6 (*).... 2 3 2 3)

