laitimes

Why was armor in the house considered a rebellion in ancient times?

#Headline Creation Challenge ##头条讲真的#

Nurhachi's thirteen pairs of armor raised troops, and Zhou Yafu was buried with 500 pairs of armor, which was characterized as an "underground rebellion". That's how powerful armor is.

Even the rebel master Sima Yi Sima Master and son, the 3,000 dead soldiers they raised in the shadow have no armor, and they need armor to occupy the arsenal instead of making it themselves, which shows that the threshold for owning armor is still very high, and it is not just a rebellion.

Looking at the picture below, with just one sword, if you really fight, these 3,000 dead soldiers can easily be defeated by hundreds of forbidden troops with armor (total annihilation is unrealistic, and you can't run fast with armor).

Why was armor in the house considered a rebellion in ancient times?

In ancient times, the emperor showed respect to his courtiers, and he could "enter the court without tending to go to the palace with his sword", but I have not heard that there is anyone who can wear armor to the palace. dared to wear armor to see the emperor, that is, the level of Cao Cao Dong Zhuo, which is equivalent to writing the word "rebellion" on the door of the minister.

Why was armor in the house considered a rebellion in ancient times?

In addition, in ancient times, the so-called generals who had "the courage of ten thousand people", who could sweep thousands of troops in front of the battle, were all wearing armor, especially heavy armor, such as Xiang Yu:

Why was armor in the house considered a rebellion in ancient times?

With armor, the general can fully exert his full strength, otherwise, it will be difficult for the gods to be a mess of arrows. Xu Chu, who likes to be shirtless in wars, can only appear in novels, and he is also single-handed, and he is the one who dies first in the real group fight. The real history is: Yang Zaixing, who wore heavy armor, died in a battle at Xiaoshang Bridge:

Zaixing was killed in battle, and then his body was obtained, and he was burned, and he got two liters of arrows.

Two liters of arrows can cost the life of a general in armor, and if these two liters of arrows are used on Xu Chu, dozens of bare-chested Xu Chu will be rich.

Therefore, if there is a fierce general who hides a few pairs of armor, it is not too much, even if it is only twenty or thirty pairs, and when fully armed, dozens of armored cavalry will not have a chance to penetrate the entire palace, especially the warriors of that level, there is no shortage in every dynasty.

Why was armor in the house considered a rebellion in ancient times?

In summary, because the armor can prevent random arrows and can maximize the advantages of the fierce general, the private possession of the armor is very unfavorable to the safety of the emperor (in case the fierce general becomes a powerful minister, his life is in danger), so it is reasonable to say that the private possession of armor is equivalent to rebellion. Even for ordinary people whose force value is not so high, such as Li Xian, the crown prince of Tang Gaozong Li Zhi, hundreds of armors are a huge threat.

Read on