Terracotta army-symbolism or realistic depiction

[wigglywaffles]

When the Terracotta army was discovered, there were quite a few other artifacts discovered along with the statues including many weapons made of bronze and armour made of stone.

File:Stone helmet and armor of the Terracotta Army.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

I have seen several people including this resource package from the british museum https://www.britishmuseum.org/PDF/Teachers_resource_pack_30_8a.pdf claiming that the bronze weapons were actual tools used for war and suggested it was a replication of an actual army would have been like in the time of Qin. But according to that logic wouldn't the armour made of literal stone also could have been used for war as well since they were also found at the tomb alongside the bronze weapons? Also a lot of the soldiers depicted within the army were not depicted with armour and I have seen several users on this site claim that ancient Chinese soldiers rarely had armour based on statue depiction.

So do you guys think that the Terracotta army was a stylized ideal of what an army is in the mind of the First Emperor or was it supposed to be a realistic replication of a functional army of Qin China?

 

[HackneyedScribe]

Out of all the terracotta warriors excavated in Qin Shihuang's museum in Pit 1 (the main pit), about 80% have armor. It seems like a lot don't have armor because all the unarmored ones are at the front of the line, and many of the pictures tend to be taken facing the front of the line. Han terracotta soldiers of Liu Bang tend to have roughly 40% armor (and a lot of the armor provide little coverage), but later terracotta armies of the Han may be depicted with 100% armor (with coverage even greater than that of Qin Shihuang's terracotta soldier's armor).

Qin soldiers wore perishable armor, if they wore actual armor then probably only the lacquer coating may remain.

 

[wigglywaffles]

but do you think it was a stylized army depiction?

 

[sparky]

The consensus at this time is that it was a realistic symbolism of the Chin army
in older tombs real humans would be present as sacrifice
of course it's much easier to sacrifice concubines and musicians than Warriors

 

[wigglywaffles]

though I have a feeling that they didn't wear stone armour though and I felt the guide from the British museum suggested that it was supposed to be a perfect depiction of the Qin army

 

[wigglywaffles]

also I remember some one on this forum said that some of the swords found in the terracotta army had an excessive amount of tin in their bronze composure which made them too brittle to use,

 

[Dan Howard]

No it isn't stylized. There are extant examples of the gear depicted on the TC warriors dating to the same period that are very similar. A tomb in Leigudun contained a dozen lacquered hide lamellar cuirasses that look virtually identical.

None of the bronze swords in the TCW tombs are too brittle to use.

The stone armour was specifically made for funerary use, it was never actually worn. It probably derived from the suits made from jade, which had connotations with immortality.

 

[wigglywaffles]

Well you said yourself, the stone armour was for ceremonial purposes rather than actual usage which meant not everything apart of the army was functional use equipment. Also bronze does have spiritual significance in many ancient cultures as well

 

[Dan Howard]

Just because one tomb contained ceremonial items, doesn't mean that they all had ceremonial items.

 

[wigglywaffles]

is it also true whats said about bronze swords, that its harder the them into long swords than iron/steel? in Iron&Steel in ancient China its said that casting a long bronze sword was very difficult and it can break a lot more easier in battle

 

[The Keen Edge]

This article claims that some of the particularly long swords are models of iron swords instead of being long bronze swords. 兵马俑里的青铜长剑其实只是模型？

However, It is important to keep in mind that this is not a peer reviewed academic work, but it does cite the work 復活的軍團 “The Resurrected Army” for statistics on the tin percentages of blades which ranges from 20-30 percent tin.

Some bimetallic composite chinese blades have a softer core of about 11% tin with harder edges at around 20% tin, but many of the swords within the pits have single cast blade with over 20% tin, and, these blades are about 90 cm in length, which is 30cm longer than most bronze swords in China. The length combined with the solid brittle alloy means that the blade could have easily snapped.

Additionally, the blade profile is identical to the profile of contemporaneous iron blades. So, in light of that, I think it is fairly safe to say that at least those long blades are representational.

As for the OP, some items within the complex are clearly symbolic such as the bronze chariot model which is like 1/3 the size of a normal chariot. But this doesn’t mean that everything is representational or that we can’t still learn a lot from representational items such as stone armor.

 

[Dan Howard]

We have Aegean Bronze Age swords that are over a meter in length with clear signs of battle damage.

 

[wigglywaffles]

The guide from the Britsh Museum also asserts that war chariots were also used a Qin times, I don't think they were very common in China at that time

 

[wigglywaffles]

Could those bronze long swords found in the agean been "experimental" weapons made by blacksmiths (perhaps orangesmiths in this case) and then discarded once found out they broke rather easily

 

[Dan Howard]

They didn't break. They were found intact in the grave with signs of "sword-on-shield" battle damage. If they were an unsuccessful experiment, they wouldn't have continued to use them for two centuries.

The proper term is "redsmith". Blacksmiths work with iron. Whitesmiths work with tin alloys. Redsmiths work with copper alloys.

 

[The Keen Edge]

We have Aegean Bronze Age swords that are over a meter in length with clear signs of battle damage.

Interesting, I was unaware of this. Is there a place one could go to see more about these blades? Do we know the tin content and are there good diagrams showing the edge geometry of these blades?

 

[Dan Howard]

These were Mycenaean Type A. They have been erroneously called "rapiers" but Barry Molloy demonstrated that they were just as good at cutting as thrusting. One of the longest examples measures 1.16 m and was found at Zafer Papoura, on Crete.

 

[wigglywaffles]

but was it true that it was easier in terms of technical skill to make a iron long sword over a bronze one?

 

[sparky]

it depend , if there is a good network for the supply of bronze materials it might be more cost effective to use bronze than Iron
smelting require very large quantity of fuel
in ancient Greece iron and bronze were favored alternatively until Iron took over as a primary metal

 

[wigglywaffles]

I guess that's why there was a collapse of the bronze age in the mediterrainian, the tin-copper trade network was ruined