Hacker News Reader

Comment by sorokod | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

Yes. Important and high-level people often wore large and conspicuous helmets to show that they were still on the field. Others could look to see that the lord was still not overrun or had not taken flight, or perhaps he had taken a different position. Also it could be useful to signal his authority if he had to directly rally troops from horseback.

Yep! I went to the "Art of Armor" exhibition when it came to Phoenix Art Museum - saw this stuff up close and bought the catalog, which confirms that many of the fancier pieces were ceremonial in nature -- especially the ones with big vertical decorations

Side note : one of the most amazing parts of the exhibition was the archery equipment -- fantastic and frightening-looking arrow broadheads especially

...and the face masks?

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

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.

Nope, it's due to the fact these come from the period after the samurai had changed from soldiers to aristocratic bureaucrats. It's doubtful any of these saw a single battle.

They may have seen battle but if so as commanders from the rear where visibility to the troops was paramount. If they had seen actual close combat those elaborate decorations probably would not have survived. Also, there were many plainer helmets at the exhibition. I think a samurai expecting real combat would have chosen one of those.

I'm under the impression that samurai only wore armor in real battles and never for ceremony (preferring other, equally elaborate garments for that). This is in contrast with medieval Europe where there are many examples of elaborate, ceremonial-only armor (such as full suits for children of royalty, etc). Can anyone confirm?

These weren't worn. They were primarily gifts and a means to maintain skilled artisans.

Number 3 would do great in battle, they could see him coming from over the horizon.

It's likely an artifact of the samurai fighting style which is quite different from conventional continental fighting as experienced by regular troops.

Can you briefly describe the style of fighting that makes this sort of headgear practical?

For one thing, despite their cool swords, I understand that the Samurai preferred to kill people with arrows when possible. They were all accoplished archers, including firing from horseback, which, as we all know from the Mongols, is a very effective way of defeating non-mounted foes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com