Weapons Armor and Castles of the Orient Review
NOTE: I use a few conventions throughout this review, primarily abbreviating source book names.
WACO=Weapons, Armor, and Castles of the Orient
NtIA=Ninja: The Invisible Assassins
SotS=Secrets of the Samurai
'historical accuracy'=Palladium Books' claims to this in their catalog product description.
I'd like to give a heart "well done" to Scott Johnson for his work on the cover of the revised printing. And Scott, I know you didn't expect that ;)
(Page 2 pic from SotS, page 194.)
WEAPONS
Bo Staff--stats and small write up included, accuracy rating, nil. The stats for this weapon clearly show it to be a Kyushaku Bo (Nine Shaku Staff). While they do exist, the most common Bo Staff is the Rokushakumaru Bo (Six Shaku, Round Staff). The statement that 'many were made entirely of iron or steel' is an exageration at best since these weapons were not common. Overall, the generic writeup, with limited information provided for the weapon listed in stats, much less any other weapon mentioned results in a very poor presentation.
Jitte and Tjabang--stats and small writeup included, accuracy rating, low (Pics (including the Tjabang!) from SotS, page 313). While the origin of the sai (pictured but not described, and only confused as a jitte by the source and books which use it for research) is subject to quite some debate, the jitte itself is not, it is clearly known as being developed for police in Japan during the early Edo era.
Kusarigama--stats and small writeup included, accuracy rating, low (Pic from SotS, page 317). The writeup included in this section is so vague as to be completely useless. The fact that many of the weapons listed for this section are supposed to have the same stats (i.e. the manriki gusari/kusari gama and kau sin ke/sa tjat koen) means that the author felt these weapons, which have widely different construction, should do the same damage. Laziness at best, this approach makes the inclusion of stats for any of these weapons a waste of time.
--Kau Sin Ke--stats included
--Sa Tjat Koen--mentioned, no stats
Masakari--stats and small writeup included, accuracy rating, very low, picture shows modified masakari (mis-identified as an Ono in the source, SotS, page 322 FURTHER NOTE: THE Ono from SotS is actually a pic of Ono from Stone's Weapons, however since the artist of SotS didn't realize that Stone's pic was only showing the top part of the haft and the blade, we get stuck with a weapon that's a modification of a modified weapon that loses quite a bit of accuracy) with a chain-weapon attachment. While this weapon may have had a chain added, the author obviously intends his statement that other weapons often had a chain added to justify his creation of other, fictional weapons which did not exist. However, since the Japanese didn't use heavy smashing weapons to the degree that other nations used them, we can give him some credit for accuracy in another generalized writeup with little specific information on the weapon presented.
--Malaysian sickle type weapons--mentioned, no stats
Kama--stats and small writeup, accuracy rating, average (Pic from SotS, page 320). One of the most accurate writeups for a weapon in the entire book. While most of the writeup is generic, the wording of the last sentence justifies it for this weapon. On an editing note, the word is 'strict' not 'strick.'
--Malaysian "Tiger Claw" Weapons--mentioned, no stats
--Sabit--mentioned, small writeup, no stats
Pendang Sword--stats, vague writeup
Arit--stats, vague writeup
The writeup for these two weapons is so vague that no specifics can be addressed from an accuracy standpoint.
--Sakin--mentioned, no stats
--Parang--mentioned, no stats
--Sikim Gala--mentioned, no stats
(Samurai with sword pic on page 5 from SotS page 273)
Mayalasian Swords--mentioned, no stats, this goes for all of the following Malaysian weapons.
--Pendang style swords
--Gadubong
--Tapak Kudak
--Thinin
--Bodik
--Baradi
--Boegis
--Kelewang
--Larbango
--Mentawa
--Kelewang (2)
--Luris Pedang
--Peudeueng
Malaysian Knives
--Sewar
(Samurai sword drawing exercise pic from SotS, page 277)
Katana--stats and small write up, accuracy, very low (Pic from SotS, page 259 or 260)
Wakizashi--stats and small write up, accuracy, very low (Pic from SotS, page 259 or 260)
The writeup for these two actually has a small portion actually dedicated to them. However, since it perputates one of the common stereotypes of Japanese swords, we can rule out any 'historical accuracy.' The section on sword usage, while somewhat useful, does nothing to describe the weapons, and the inclusion of a short statement on Chinese swords (of which a few are pictured in the armor section, with no names, stats, or descriptions) seems to be more of a teaser than any sort of information.
--Short Sword--WTFO? After looking over my review of Weapons and Assassins, this was obviously intended to be the ninja short sword (Pic from SotS, page 259 or 260)
--Aikuchi--described as 'dagger without hilt' (hey only half wrong isn't bad), no stats, accuracy rating is very low (Pic from SotS, page 261)
--Tanto--described as 'dagger with hilt' (hey only half wrong isn't bad), no stats, accuracy rating is very low (Pic from SotS, page 261)
(Samurai with sword held out pic from SotS, page 273)
(Samurai with sword held down pic from SotS, page 273)
Kawang Grapple
--Kawanga--(don't you love the different spellings...editors, ha!), stats and small writeup, accuracy average (Kawanga in combat pic from SotS, page 223)
Yari--stats and small writeup, accuracy, very low. Since the combat art listed for this weapon is "yarijutsu" you have to wonder if this author did the same research we saw in Weapons and Assassins. The skill of spear combat is called 'sojutsu.' The fact that not all spears were yari (or even one of the many yari variants) seems to have escaped the notice of whoever coined this term. Of course, let's not forget the stereotypical 'highest quality blade' myth that is again perpetrated here.
--(Yari held overhead pic from SotS, page 253. Second from top Yari blade from SotS, page 242. Third and fourth Yari pics from SotS, page 249. Second from Bottom Yari from SotS, page 242. Yari in combat pic is from SotS, page 251 (ironically, also labeled "The YARI in combat")
Naginata --stats and small writeup, accuracy, poor. The stat block identifies this weapon as a "Japanese Bladed Staff," since it is later labeled a "Curved Spear" you have to wonder if the author has even heard of polearms, much less whether or not if he knows what a staff or spear are.
--Naginata (curved) Spears (Top two naginata blades from SotS, page 242. Next two blades from SotS, page 244 (ironically, the third picture down is drawn with the cover still on) The so-called 'naginata blades' picture actually only shows one naginata, the pic on the far left, the pic in the center is type of bisento, and the far right pic is a type of yari (one of the myriad kama yari variants).
--Naginata with weight and chain--mentioned, no stats, accuracy nil (Pic shown modified from SotS, page 261, note the addition of the chain to the naginata is entirely the artists idea and is not in any way, shape, or form, 'historically accurate'). Ashigaru holding naginata pic from PAGE ?
Malaysian Spears--mentioned, no stats
--Two-Handed Parangs--
Japanese Arrows--pictured, no stats
(Arrows Japanese pic from SotS, page 239. Examples of Arrowheads pics from SotS, pages 235 and 236.)
Manriki Gusari--mentioned, no stats (note says see Kusarigama and Kau Sin Ke) (Manrikigusari pics from SotS, page 319.)
--Yari with weights and chains attached--mentioned, no stats, accuracy, very poor "Yari with weights and chains attached" (actually a Chigiriki) pics from SotS, page 319.)
Kiseru--stats and small writeup, accuracy, average (Pic from SotS, page 323). Fairly specific writeup, however the author doesn't seem to realize that Kiseru exist in both wooden and metal construction, the latter being designed when weapon restrictions made the use of such a reinforced item very useful in combat situations.
Gunsen--stats and small writeup, accuracy, very low (Pic from SotS, page 301 and 303). The fact that the author lumps all fans under the umbrella titel of "Gunsen" means that almost no research was done. Since there exist a wide variety of fans, folding and non-folding, paper, wood, and metal construction, such an overlapping umbrella usage and description makes this entire writeup to vague to be considered accurate.
Weapons mentioned in armor section
"Gumbia"--page 17. Actually a misspelling of Gumbai (Modified Hepburn Romanization actually makes this Gunbai), no stats, accuracy rating, average.
Tachi--page 20. No stats, description as a "sword mount" accuracy rating, very low
"Iron Staff"--page 23. No stats, no description, no idea where in the hell they came up with this one
Bisento--page 23. No stats, description as "curved broad bladed spear" Now, while it's called that in the source for the pic, the bisento is a polearm, not a spear (Palladium has always had problems figuring out the difference between the two for Japanese weapons, not entirely their fault though, since their source isn't all that great and commonly lists such weapons as 'spears'). Accuracy rating, very low.
Su Yari--page 24. No stats, described as a 'staff' Since it's a spear the accuracy rating is nil.
No-Dachi--page 24. No stats, described as a 'large 2-handed sword' accuracy rating, average.
"Folding War Fan Metal"--page 25. No stats, no description, I suppose you could consider it for the "Gunsen" writeup and stats from earlier, however since it's not clearly identified as such,
accuracy rating, very low.
Wakizashi and Katana swords--page 25. Not entirely the author's fault since we know what the source is, however, the sword at the back of the waist is clearly NOT a katana, first off, the hilt is bent, not straight, second, the angle of the blade presented by the sheath is at the wrong angle for a katana.
"Bow"--page 28. No stats, no description. But hey, we know it's at least Chinese. Accuracy rating, insofar as it goes, very accurate, after all the weapon depicted IS a bow. Since the exact type of
bow is not identified however, overall accuracy rating is very low.
Overall--Roughly 54 weapons, of which, only 15 have stats! The overall accuracy is poor.
ARMOR
Armor section
Since I'm only versed in Japanese armor to any degree, I'll skip the other armors. Considering the overall level of research done on the Japanese sections, it's safe to consider the other sections less than 'historically accurate'.
Ignore the entire second paragraph of the introduction to Japanese armor. First off the statement about heavy armor types developed by the Europeans being considered a step backward in that
they slowed down their wearer is one of the common myths about Japanese armor. European chain mail, for instance, was considered a step backwards because it didn't offer the same level of
protection as Japanese chain mail. Additionally, some European armors styles WERE adopted (on a very limited basis) by the Japanese, primarily European chain mail (it actually cost less to build and was lighter than Japanese mail types) and European plate armor (naturally adopted to Japanese armor styles).
Next we move to the statement about arrows and musket balls penetrating "any reasonable armor worn." The author fabricated this little bit since research clearly indicates heavy usage of arrow proofed and, later, shot proofed armor types (not too mention armor resistant to spears...since no one armor could be built to withstand all attacks, this was primarily limited to armors against the major weapon of the era).
The generic use of the author's armor table from Weapons and Armor also shows that the author made no effort to actually investigate Japanese versions of these types of armor (a truly daunting task). Simple facts like lamellar scale armor, Japanese chain construction, and mock-scale armors seem to have passed the author by.
Parts of Japanese Armor
I can actually agree with the statements of the first paragraph. Japanese armor types and subtypes exist in so many types it takes fairly large books to adequately cover them.
Major Pieces of a Japanese Suit of Armor (pic on page 11) from SotS, page 192 (the picture titled
'Major components of the Japanese suit of armor').
Minor spelling error on page 12. The leather gloves (called 'yugaky') are actually yugaki.
Do-Maru, page 12 from SotS, page 204.
Mempo pics, page 13, unsure of source (amazingly enough it's not another SotS pic), however, they're obviously from photographs of mempo, rather than illustrated drawings.
Kabuto pics, page 14. The ones on the left are from one source, while the ones on the right are from photographs of actual kabuto.
Jingasa pics, page 15. Almost all are from photographs, the bottom left two seam to be from other sources.
Warrior in full armor (yaroi) pic, page 17 from SotS, page 194. (High Officer in O-Yoroi, 14th c)
Commander in full armor pic, page 17 from SotS, page 190. (Field Commander, 17th c)
Steps in donning Japanese armor, pages 18-19. These are my all time favorite pics in Palladium Books. All joking aside, these pics are straight from SotS, pages 197 and 198, minus step 2 (Long Fundoshi) from that source, with different patterns and hairstyle. On another note, Palladium still incorrectly identifies the long sword worn as being a katana (This is a simply stupid mistake, it's well known that tachi are worn blade down and katana are worn blade upwards).
Samurai pic, page 20 Front...I know I've seen this somewhere, oh well, a few days will have it turn up
Rear view of armor, page 21, SotS, page 206
Kote pics, page 21. From photos of actual kote.
Warrior in haramaki-do rear view, page 22. Blow up of page 2 pic, from same source.
Bottom pic of warrior in haramiki-do, page 22 from SotS, page 194
Foot Soldier wearing hara-ate, page 23 from SotS page 194.
Warrior wearing Jimbaori, page 24 from SotS page 221 (the one labeled 'Warriors wearing JIMBAORI')
Warrior with Nodachi, page 24 from SotS, page 206
Warrior in surcoat, page 25 from SotS, page 221
Field Commander pic, page 25 from SotS, page190
CASTLES OF JAPAN
I know what you're thinking, but I find this to actually be the best section of the book. Instead of a few weapons and armor types, we're treated to several Japanese castles, with detailed drawings and diagrams. Ok, the drawings and diagrams are from other sources (for instance the Himejijo diagrams look suspiciously like those appearing for the same castle in Dragon Magazine Issue #121....but they should...and since they're diagrams they're good to go). In addition, we actually get information on Chinese fortifications. Maybe not to the degree we would like, but at least they cover well known structures like the Great Wall and Peking.
On the other hand, I do take issue with the very first paragraph. The first sentence gives an entirely wrong impression, which could be considered skirting the edges of truth and as not being 'historically accurate.' But since the first sentence is contradicted many times in later paragraphs, it's not as much of a problem in accuracy as a problem with lack of editing (I know, I know, big surprise that).
A note on the scale used on page 31, where it says 20 shaku=7 meters. I don't know how they arrived at these numbers, my best guess is bad math. We know that one shaku =11.930542 inches (yes I know the measurement that exactly, proper research DOES pay off) therefor we can gather that 20 shaku would be equal to 238.61084 inches (19.88 feet). By multiplying the number of inches by 2.54 we get the number of centimeters in 20 shaku or 606.0715336 centimeters. Since we know that 100 centimeters=1 meter, we get 6.06 meters being equal to 20 shaku. By further seeing several mentions of 7 meter measurements, it's likely that those are also off by one meter. Of course this also means that the source of the diagrams and images listed that scale.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Of the references listed, there are two that I have seen for myself (which should be somewhat obvious at this point).
Ratti, Oscar and Westbrook, Adele: Secrets of the Samurai--yup that's right, the book the majority of pics for Japanese weapons and armor (including those oft reprinted in later books) are from. I'm not going to take this opportunity to make any claims for or against these pictures being plagiarism, I'm just clearly identifying where the pics that I can verify come from. Since there are also minor differentiations in the various pics from Oscar Ratti's original work to the versions included in the Weapons series, any conclusions you draw on the subject are your own.
Stone, George Cameron: A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor in all Countries and all Times--another book I've examined thoroughly, though I don't own this particular one :( . THIS book is what PB's Compendium of Weapons, Armor, and Castles should have looked like...oh wait, it did, though much smaller, and more incomplete in the weapons selection. I'm willing to bet that several of the pictures in the WACO are from this source, most likely the drawings from photographs (their style makes them easy to spot), though I couldn't tell you for sure (except maybe on that first Chinese Armor pic).
Of the remaining sources, the only one I've even heard of is the Donn Draeger book. It's a good bet to peruse a copy to see where the Mayalasian/Indonesian/Filipino weapon pics came from.
Overall, this book is disappointing as any sort of resource on Oriental Weapons. While Armor does get fair coverage and castles get the same, the limited number of weapons presented in this book (compared to Weapons and Armor or Weapons and Castles) are dissapointing at best. With over 400 Japanese, 400 Chinese, and hundreds of Korean, Tibetan, Mongolian, Filipino, Malaysian, Indonesian, Thai, Vietnamese, etc weapons to choose from, we get a measly 54, and only 15 of those effectively have stats for use in a game!
