Video

@@kirkglundal4289 it gives you more space to push the bow

yeah budget mail is pretty bad. But this is just a 35lbs manchu bow here---i would not consider it arrow resistant at all lol.

@@wyattw9727 that manganese steel is not historical but historically these armors are only meant to be sufficient safe from arrows further than 30m

@@cathayarmory7328 I suppose it's also sufficient to be safe for SCA related sparring or even HEMA feders. Although I'd feel certain that the armors would be proof against non Manchu bows closer, since it's those gnarly composites with heavy grain arrows that were infamous for piercing hauberks. Also iirc, the Manchu armor in museums is possibly ceremonial armor with superficially thin plates vs what was worn during the establishment of the dynasty, or at least so I've been told.

@@wyattw9727 Qing minimum warbow draw weight 65lbs, Song minimum warbow draw weight about the same.

@@wyattw9727 0.5mm. Even at 1mm it is a bad design. Non historical means bad.

@@wyattw9727 I am surprised of the bad lamellar reconstruction done by Russian and European archaeologists and reenactors TBH ;)

@@cathayarmory7328 Oh definitely, Avar cuirasses are legitimate but what I hate is how they're so poorly shaped to the body usually, too long in the chest, unsculpted tubes, and applied to non Avar armors too. Good Lamellar vendors seem to be exclusively Chinese, mongol, Japanese, or Turkic in focus. There's a couple good western lamellar guys like Dawson and some Polish company that made a really good looking Klibania, but so much of it is sooooo baaaaad. The thing that irritates me the most is when you see lamellar cuirasses with the Avar T-Shirt shape that leaves so much of the front breast exposed, or the clavicle. I think the Russian vendors make the armpits too broad for a 'one size fits all' attitude vs sculpting it to the customer's specifics.

www.alibowshop.com/product-page/heavy-thick-shaft-manchu-arrow

FD?🧐

facebook.com/cathayarmory

@cathayarmory7328 thank you ^^ How much was the price?

No way. Aliexpress is for mass produced cheap items ;)

@@cathayarmory7328 I saw expensive armor on AliExpress, so I left a comment just in case If it was possible to sell it, I was going to buy it when I had some spare money 😭😭😭

Alibow Yarha II

yes you may.

@@cathayarmory7328 🙏

Keep up the good work! You are earning lots of 5 mao money paid by the Imperial Republic of Han

😆you really work hard lol

This type of armor was originally equipped by the Mongols, and later inherited by the Han and Korean people. The Manchu people of the Qing Dynasty also inherited the armor of the Han people of the Ming Dynasty. If I put the armor of the Ming Dynasty together with the armor of the Qing Dynasty, you should not recognize it

​@@user-ln2me2bu4khe is most definetely a troll.

This type of armor was originally installed by the Han people, not the Mongols. @@user-ln2me2bu4k

@@user-ln2me2bu4k This type of armor was originally installed by the Han people, not the Mongols.

这是错误认知。顶发髻其实无法稳定带盔。必须把发髻解开，配上合适的衬帽。另外明代也不存在什么高盔，都是差不多的高度。

Synthetic material training sword. Weight and balance somehow close to a real sword.

@@cathayarmory7328 Is it from Wukusi armory?

The earliest Qing armor would have the square pieces on both sides, by the 18th century only one is on the left side, because there is a big thick quiver on the right side to cover the opening.

Actually there were also non-mass produced version of these in the Qing era. Some started to show development over traditional types with more fitting leg pieces and even knee plates. On the other hand there was also mass-produced simple European plate armor in the 16 to 17th century too.

@@cathayarmory7328 love to see the high end types of Chinese armor. Also the Korean ones of the same era. I've read they put lacquered leather over the plates instead of fabric. So little video info these days. Yes, the west has the same mass produced too but Interesting info I got when they compared Chinese, the western are a lot heavier in weight. They classified them as "light" armour according to its protection potential but most are heavier than the expensive plate armours. Though there is the "Jack of Plates" type that is reliable, cheap and easily produced. But it came late in the firearm era and mostly used against native Americans due to its versatility in jungle combat. Though Scottish targe shield still useful, capable of deflecting musket shot. Is there a similar Chinese shield in the firearm era?

haha typical🙃

the cuff on the robe covers the back of the hand when shooting the bow. After shooting just pull the sleeve down to cover the whole hand

glad it can be helpful :)

If you are talking about HMB and heavy SCA the historical mongol armors also cannot handle that too. What you need is non-historical armor to do those "full contact combat".

Steel mastery would be the place to go

Steel mastery is a bit too expensive, alot of their things are marked up 30-50% more than than what I see other reputable armor smiths do. The best ones I've seen are Master Uley doing Khorasan armor (Modern day Middle East) a early mongol-esqe heavy armor, and Sharukhan Market that focuses on Middle east and Mongol armor. But if you buy certain parts and comission aesthetic pieces that make up Chinese armor, you could assemble yourself a functional kit. Like sharukhan Market's Turanian Dragon Chest Armor. It costs 1,800 dollars , Looks hella bad ass and only slightly over priced when comparing to other pieces of similar styles.@@AssasiCraftYogUscus

Wrong flag lol

60lbs@33"

historical plates have little curvature on the horizontal and vertical direction so the arrow won't glide into it. These plates are just bad (too thin and wrong geometry)

fiberglass

not very authentic in its geometry but may work with some people at lighter draw weights. The material may become slippery more easily than moose antler if the thumb sweats too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchu_bow

Manufacturers of modern recurve bows use 28" as a standard for measuring draw weight, but most can be safely drawn well beyond that. Western/modern archery styles use an anchor on the face to facilitate consistency and fingers to hold the string. These styles have evolved for accuracy in hunting or target shooting situations, usually where the archer is standing still. For many traditional Asian styles of archery they don't anchor on the face and sometimes they use a thumb ring. Most of these styles were developed to be used in war (sometimes on horseback), where penetration of lightweight armour was necessary, hence the need for power, speed and the ability to shoot from different angles. Overdrawing the bow gives the archer more penetrative power. The bows used for these styles are designed to be drawn further than modern recurves/longbows, you need to overdraw them to shoot them at the drawlength they were designed to be shot.

@@HamishGarland Western Manufacturers. Korea it is measured at 31 inch standard. The world is a big place.

@@MrRourk like I said, modern recurves are measured at 28", that includes bows made by all of the big Korean manufacturers. Traditional bows are different, due to the different techniques sometimes used.

Oh boy… There is a lot that you don’t know about…

LOL

Apply handcannons for thst matter.

Author should make a tutorial on how to use handcannons.

I know it is not very important for mounted combat but China had big infantry armies when southern Song dynasty, were there anything like Japanese Haidate?

I have seen your video on Facebook but I am so suspicious about resources

facebook.com/groups/1479559672316238

it's the manchu style tail

@@cathayarmory7328 on head behind like India pandit Brahman