Why didn't the Ancient Chinese use plate armor like the Greeks, Romans, Europeans?

Feb 2011
6,231
I'm still waiting for any evidence for handheld crossbows of 2000 lbs of draw weight. After all these years people keep saying it but so far not a single shred of evidence. The only reproduction I've seen which achieved that much draw weight ended up with a prod way too heavy to be handheld.
 
Aug 2014
4,016
Australia
Mongolian victories had nothing to do with what armour each side wore. A battle is determined by dozens of factors: numbers, tactics, terrain, logistics, transportation, commander ability, weather, experience, morale, resources, intelligence, training, local support, and so on. If you list these in order of importance, the equipment that each side used is way down near the bottom.
 
Feb 2019
211
California
Cost. Making a full plate is expensive. Remember, Plate Cuirass isn't just a plate. Its folded to make it as light as possible and to be symmetrical to a human torso, it needs to be symmetric to deflect a blow(a flat plate get dented). The Chinese relied on high numbers peasant armies. Greek use of plate armour is limmited since Hoplites had to buy their own equipment. By the Hellenistic time the Linothorax was common.

The Romans never used plate armour besides officers. Chaimail or Scale was used by the average soldier. The Lorica Segmentata is simply lamminated Steel/Iron armour.
If they can't steal it the Chinese aren't interested in it. Some things never change.
 

Similar History Discussions