Armour?

B.I · 14th September 2005, 10:04 PM

i think you have both hit a long-standing debate, and one that has not entered the forum before (as far as i know).
i'm afraid it has no answer, but the general consensus is that it is a vambrace (and i agree). its all down to opinion, as either corner can offer up a plausable arguement.
mine has always been asthetics, in that as a vambrace its effective and does the job. as a greave, its ill-fitting (at any angle) and looks ugly and out of place.
as i said, its only my opinion. the stibbert museum has them on the legs and i never thought it looked right. armour was used for both cavalry and infantry, so i cant agree on the 'side of the leg showing' theory. also, no good warrior would rely on remaining horsed and leave themselves vulnerable if un-horsed (i guess).
the problem is in the existance of splintered, small plates, and complete plates style of ottoman armour. i figured this was why stibbert mounted his dummies in the way he did as his mail/plate vambraces couldnt be anything but, so he figured that the solid plate guard had to be a grieve.
all speculative and a matter of opinion i'm afraid (but, no reason to stop debating :-)
i hold firm to my theories though (unfortunately, as does everyo ne else).
i must admit, i thought it was only the stibbert that had them mounted on the legs. i think the ones on the met complete armour are different (and dont have the 'hand-shield section). i have only seen images so may be wrong.
no idea where the ones on the 'complete leg' in the osprey book is from. does it have a reference?

Aqtai · 14th September 2005, 10:48 PM

Hi Brian, I'm glad you could join in.

The one from the Osprey book used to be in the Royal Armouries when they were still in the Tower of London. I actually saw it in 1989, but didn't bother photographing it. The two pieces are still in the Royal armouries, but they have now been separated.

My personal argument for it being a greave is the bit at the lower end, the one which I assume is meant to cover the ankle. If this was a vambrace it would be covering the back of the hand, excellent protection but also restricting wrist movements.

Somewhere in my papers is an old B&W picture I photocopied from an old book on Islamic art, it shows a helmet, bazuband and greave/vambrace thingy attributed to Shah Abbas 1st (all of which presumably are still in the British Museum). In this rather old photo they all seemed to be part of a matching set, which raises the question why would a single set of armour need two different types of vambrace?

ham · 15th September 2005, 03:38 AM

Gentlemen,

These are unquestionably greaves. Having tried on several in various collections, I can assure you that they fit the outer calf from just below the knee and completely cover the ankle, as they should for a cavalryman.
Further, they are entirely rigid in the flat plane and so would not permit the wrist to bend, nor do they fit comfortably along the ulna. Despite the size (though there is considerable variance) they are virtually always too long to even fit from elbow to knuckle.

Sincerely,

Ham

Ahriman · 15th September 2005, 08:18 AM

I was told on numerous events that never say "never", or "unquestionably".

And BTW, it's listed as vambrace in a TURKISH museum... in Ankara.
I have made something like the pic I posted, and it was comfortable for fighting with sabers, and it restricted only a bit movement, less than an italian mitten. Of course, it wouldn't be fixed to the hand, but to the lower arm only.
BUT it'd work as a greave as well. I personally don't like the idea much as I don't really like fighting from horseback, but it'd work for those who like it. Strange thing is that most of these "greaves" DO look like my forearm in proportions - much more than the "true" vambraces. Only a few are too long, and the RA photo of the assembled version is the only one which looks definitely like a greave to me.
I'm almost sure that we'll never find out. Or do we have any illustrations/sculptures/explicit writings? And from where the turkish museum thought it's a vambrace? Good questions, I think.

Aqtai · 15th September 2005, 09:54 AM

I'm going to agree with Ham on this. The evidence for it being a greave is much stronger than the evidence for it being a vambrace. furthermore if you look at the main plate of one of these things sideways on you will note there two distinctive curves or "bumps". The bigger one near the top should fit over the lateral aspect of the calf very nicely, the smaller curve at the bottom would go over the lateral malleolus (ankle bone).

Although they mainly cover the side of the leg, the front is not completely unprotected as the narrow strip connected by mail should partially cover the shin. In addition these greaves would have been worn over sturdy leather boots.

Museums have often got things wrong in the past, the Askeri Muze or Topkapi Museums in Istanbul (I presume the photos came from one of these museums) are no exception.

The one in the RA, although now separated from the cuisse, is still labelled as a "Greave".

Aqtai · 15th September 2005, 05:06 PM

Here is a picture of that 15th century Turkish armour from "Oriental Armour" as it looks now. Unfortunately it's a small photo lacking in detail.
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/knights/gal_isl2.html

What I think can just about about make out though is that the "vambraces" in Robinson's picture seem to have become "greaves".

My wife's always wanted to go to New York, maybe I'll get a chance to see this again in the near future, once we get someone to babysit 3 kids all aged less than 10!

B.I · 15th September 2005, 07:12 PM

i too agree that to use the term 'unquestionably' is just asking for trouble.
i have no interest in the martial or religious aspect of arms, and so when i study or inspect, i do so from an 'antiques' point of view.
i felt urged to respond to hams statement, but thought it best to wait a short while, to prove my point to myself before bowling in. i visited a friend of mine, who as a good collection of ottoman armour. on the phone, we discussed this point and he completely agreed with me. between us, we have handled many and whilst my taste is always indian, he does own a few sets and a couple of single 'vambraces'.
so, i visited him and he chuckled at ham committing himself so forcefully, all the way up to putting them onto our legs (never done in the antiques world - much frowned upon is the wearing of antiques :-) and they fitted perfectly. this was to both our amazement as we were so confident in our initial judgement. because he owned a few sets, we were able to repeat the experiment and there left no doubt in our minds that we were wrong.
i must say he was more in shock than i. as it is his specialist field :-) but we were both happy to admit out misjudgement, and laugh about it.
its funny, i fight against pre-judgement and following without questioning and it seems we are all guilty of it.
this doesnt proeve that your opinion (aqtai and ham) is correct, but it means my friend and i are now on your side :-)
apologies, and humble, as ever.

15th September 2005, 09:54 AM	#5
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	I'm going to agree with Ham on this. The evidence for it being a greave is much stronger than the evidence for it being a vambrace. furthermore if you look at the main plate of one of these things sideways on you will note there two distinctive curves or "bumps". The bigger one near the top should fit over the lateral aspect of the calf very nicely, the smaller curve at the bottom would go over the lateral malleolus (ankle bone). Although they mainly cover the side of the leg, the front is not completely unprotected as the narrow strip connected by mail should partially cover the shin. In addition these greaves would have been worn over sturdy leather boots. Museums have often got things wrong in the past, the Askeri Muze or Topkapi Museums in Istanbul (I presume the photos came from one of these museums) are no exception. The one in the RA, although now separated from the cuisse, is still labelled as a "Greave". Last edited by Aqtai; 15th September 2005 at 04:54 PM.

14th September 2005, 10:04 PM	#1
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i think you have both hit a long-standing debate, and one that has not entered the forum before (as far as i know). i'm afraid it has no answer, but the general consensus is that it is a vambrace (and i agree). its all down to opinion, as either corner can offer up a plausable arguement. mine has always been asthetics, in that as a vambrace its effective and does the job. as a greave, its ill-fitting (at any angle) and looks ugly and out of place. as i said, its only my opinion. the stibbert museum has them on the legs and i never thought it looked right. armour was used for both cavalry and infantry, so i cant agree on the 'side of the leg showing' theory. also, no good warrior would rely on remaining horsed and leave themselves vulnerable if un-horsed (i guess). the problem is in the existance of splintered, small plates, and complete plates style of ottoman armour. i figured this was why stibbert mounted his dummies in the way he did as his mail/plate vambraces couldnt be anything but, so he figured that the solid plate guard had to be a grieve. all speculative and a matter of opinion i'm afraid (but, no reason to stop debating :-) i hold firm to my theories though (unfortunately, as does everyo ne else). i must admit, i thought it was only the stibbert that had them mounted on the legs. i think the ones on the met complete armour are different (and dont have the 'hand-shield section). i have only seen images so may be wrong. no idea where the ones on the 'complete leg' in the osprey book is from. does it have a reference?

14th September 2005, 10:48 PM	#2
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Hi Brian, I'm glad you could join in. The one from the Osprey book used to be in the Royal Armouries when they were still in the Tower of London. I actually saw it in 1989, but didn't bother photographing it. The two pieces are still in the Royal armouries, but they have now been separated. My personal argument for it being a greave is the bit at the lower end, the one which I assume is meant to cover the ankle. If this was a vambrace it would be covering the back of the hand, excellent protection but also restricting wrist movements. Somewhere in my papers is an old B&W picture I photocopied from an old book on Islamic art, it shows a helmet, bazuband and greave/vambrace thingy attributed to Shah Abbas 1st (all of which presumably are still in the British Museum). In this rather old photo they all seemed to be part of a matching set, which raises the question why would a single set of armour need two different types of vambrace?

15th September 2005, 03:38 AM	#3
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Gentlemen, These are unquestionably greaves. Having tried on several in various collections, I can assure you that they fit the outer calf from just below the knee and completely cover the ankle, as they should for a cavalryman. Further, they are entirely rigid in the flat plane and so would not permit the wrist to bend, nor do they fit comfortably along the ulna. Despite the size (though there is considerable variance) they are virtually always too long to even fit from elbow to knuckle. Sincerely, Ham

15th September 2005, 08:18 AM	#4
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	I was told on numerous events that never say "never", or "unquestionably". And BTW, it's listed as vambrace in a TURKISH museum... in Ankara. I have made something like the pic I posted, and it was comfortable for fighting with sabers, and it restricted only a bit movement, less than an italian mitten. Of course, it wouldn't be fixed to the hand, but to the lower arm only. BUT it'd work as a greave as well. I personally don't like the idea much as I don't really like fighting from horseback, but it'd work for those who like it. Strange thing is that most of these "greaves" DO look like my forearm in proportions - much more than the "true" vambraces. Only a few are too long, and the RA photo of the assembled version is the only one which looks definitely like a greave to me. I'm almost sure that we'll never find out. Or do we have any illustrations/sculptures/explicit writings? And from where the turkish museum thought it's a vambrace? Good questions, I think.

15th September 2005, 05:06 PM	#6
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Here is a picture of that 15th century Turkish armour from "Oriental Armour" as it looks now. Unfortunately it's a small photo lacking in detail. http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/knights/gal_isl2.html What I think can just about about make out though is that the "vambraces" in Robinson's picture seem to have become "greaves". My wife's always wanted to go to New York, maybe I'll get a chance to see this again in the near future, once we get someone to babysit 3 kids all aged less than 10!

15th September 2005, 07:12 PM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i too agree that to use the term 'unquestionably' is just asking for trouble. i have no interest in the martial or religious aspect of arms, and so when i study or inspect, i do so from an 'antiques' point of view. i felt urged to respond to hams statement, but thought it best to wait a short while, to prove my point to myself before bowling in. i visited a friend of mine, who as a good collection of ottoman armour. on the phone, we discussed this point and he completely agreed with me. between us, we have handled many and whilst my taste is always indian, he does own a few sets and a couple of single 'vambraces'. so, i visited him and he chuckled at ham committing himself so forcefully, all the way up to putting them onto our legs (never done in the antiques world - much frowned upon is the wearing of antiques :-) and they fitted perfectly. this was to both our amazement as we were so confident in our initial judgement. because he owned a few sets, we were able to repeat the experiment and there left no doubt in our minds that we were wrong. i must say he was more in shock than i. as it is his specialist field :-) but we were both happy to admit out misjudgement, and laugh about it. its funny, i fight against pre-judgement and following without questioning and it seems we are all guilty of it. this doesnt proeve that your opinion (aqtai and ham) is correct, but it means my friend and i are now on your side :-) apologies, and humble, as ever.