Armour? - Page 2

Aqtai · 14th September 2005, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahriman

Lol, I thought I should beleive the museum... Makes sense as a greave, if I look it that way. But then how's that that even the turkish museum says it's a vambrace???

I think for a long time European curators did think they were vambraces, the reason was they were used to European greaves worn on the front of the leg, the idea of one worn on the side was alien to them. From the point of view of the Turks and Iranians it made perfect sense. Warriors who wore armour were cavalry men. The inside of the leg was protected by the horse, only the outside needed armour.

B.I · 14th September 2005, 11:04 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, 11:48 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, 04:38 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, 09:18 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, 10:54 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, 06:06 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, 08:12 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.

Aqtai · 15th September 2005, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.I

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.

I would call it a bit of experimental archaeology...

It is definitely further evidence to support the "greave" argument. Oh BTW, I'm deeply envious of your friend.

ham · 15th September 2005, 10:45 PM

Gentlemen,

As a scholar, I agree it is dangerous to make such definite statements; my intention in doing so was to stimulate thought and hopefully, to compel someone out there to try a practical application, which happily, it has.
Basing or assuming the correctness of a museum display on its nation of origin, as a member has done above, is likewise dangerous-- beginners especially would be well advised to avoid this at all costs. However rather than criticise museums which shows these calf plates as armguards (and there are a great many,) I would say simply that there are very few specialists who actually apply critical reasoning to the field. Among the best are the Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul, the Royal Armouries, Leeds and the arms and armour section of the Met Museum, New York.

Sincerely,

Ham

Ahriman · 15th September 2005, 11:30 PM

Sorry, I mostly believe the museum which has the same nationality as the item... I understand that it's not a very good thing now but I still can't understand how can a museum be unsure about it's national arms... it'd be almost ok to make an error with foreign armour, but with their own...

I agree, and I mentioned that before, that they make sense as greaves - but I mentioned as well that a short one (like the one I posted before) was quite comfortable for me for fighting. It was, of course, a quite modern one (as I made it

) so most likely it resembles the originals only a bit. IF I had the chance to at least SEE originals personally from more angles and in full size then it's quite likely that I'd be convinced.

But as I don't have the chance, and it worked for me as a vambrace, I can only say that they can be either. Now, if you really want to convince me, send me a few originals so I can try them on! Unfortunatuly I won't be able to send them back...

(((I always like to learn new things... I have never thought of them as greaves before, and now, I'll be the first in Hungary who will use them. Thanks.

)))

Aqtai · 16th September 2005, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahriman

Sorry, I mostly believe the museum which has the same nationality as the item... I understand that it's not a very good thing now but I still can't understand how can a museum be unsure about it's national arms... it'd be almost ok to make an error with foreign armour, but with their own...

I agree, and I mentioned that before, that they make sense as greaves - but I mentioned as well that a short one (like the one I posted before) was quite comfortable for me for fighting. It was, of course, a quite modern one (as I made it

) so most likely it resembles the originals only a bit. IF I had the chance to at least SEE originals personally from more angles and in full size then it's quite likely that I'd be convinced.

But as I don't have the chance, and it worked for me as a vambrace, I can only say that they can be either. Now, if you really want to convince me, send me a few originals so I can try them on! Unfortunatuly I won't be able to send them back...

(((I always like to learn new things... I have never thought of them as greaves before, and now, I'll be the first in Hungary who will use them. Thanks.

)))

Most of these things are 350+ years old, people tend to forget how they they were used. Further more they've only been valuable antiques for the last 125 years or so, prior to that they were just seen as worthless pieces of obsolete military equipment, another reason to forget how to use them.

By the way this picture is from the Museo Stibbert in Florence, I think it's actually quite old, I have a feeling that things have been re-arranged there. Take a look at what the equestrian figure has on his legs.

Ahriman · 16th September 2005, 12:52 AM

I don't think that they'd remember using it - but I'd think that they have more written source on it.
And, you know, most of the hungarian kids I know can't even find the difference between a german and an italian harness, but they recognise a hussar breastplate at the first glance, because lots of our 16th century heroes wore those... I'm a bit tired to express myself good enough, but I think you can understand what I mean. Every nation has it's heroic stories, myths, etc, and there's always at least one hero whose arms and armour is mentioned.

Ahriman · 16th September 2005, 12:57 AM

Oh, and nice suits on that photo. I see what you mean... but here it looks strange to me, I don't know why. Size's good, and everything, and still... it may be simply the light, but it seems to me that the bigger curve is on the front.

Now, all this means that I have the same lower arm proportions as a 16th century turkis warriors CALF??? Because the main idea in thinking that my posted pic is a vambrace is that it'd fit my arm perfectly..?
BTW, did you explore the full rubens server? It has tons of pics on armour, unfortunatuly, most are europeans.

Aqtai · 19th September 2005, 03:52 PM

I had a look at the Ruben's server, there is a vast amount of stuff there, I'm quite impressed.

BTW on one of my google searches for pictures of oriental armour. I found this website. It has loads of photos of Russian krugs.
http://jeffmartin.com/Default.aspx?t...7c0%7c5%7c1%7c

Ahriman · 19th September 2005, 04:18 PM

Thank you, very nice pictures! Btw, that mailcoat...

HUGE links... Is it original? It's quite hard to beleive...

What did you search for? I've tried it in countless ways, but I just couldn't find these...

Aqtai · 19th September 2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahriman

Thank you, very nice pictures! Btw, that mailcoat...

HUGE links... Is it original? It's quite hard to beleive...

What did you search for? I've tried it in countless ways, but I just couldn't find these...

They are massive aren't they.

I guess I'll just have to add the Kremlin Armoury to my "List of Museums I must vist one day", it can join the Topkapi Museum, Askeri Muze, Hermitage Museum and Museo Stibbert.

I simply use the "images" option on Google and type in a variety of search terms, usually things like "Turkish armour", "Turkish armor", "Iranian helmets" etc.

Here's an example:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=...=Search+Images

ham · 19th September 2005, 05:11 PM

Gentlemen,

Coats of the type you are referring to, with very large, flat rings are called BAYDANA in Russian. They were actually worn over another coat of smaller rings. The Mamluks also wore coats of large, flat rings but as a primary, rather than secondary, defense. These generally fell out of use in the Near East in the 15th century, but persisted in Russia until the 17th.

Sincerely,

Ham

Aqtai · 19th September 2005, 05:30 PM

Thanks Ham, I know very little about Russian armour, that is one of the first websites i've seen with relatively detailed photos of Russian armour. I wasn't aware that the mamluks used mail shirts with very large rings, all the Mamluk mail shirts i have seen have normal size rings.

I also found the Russian krugs interesting in that with many of them the plates are not connected by mail like Turco-Iranian krugs, but are attached to some kind of leather liner. It's almost like they are an intermediate stage between mail-and-plate krugs and chahar aina cuirasses.

Ahriman · 19th September 2005, 08:16 PM

Norm of Silk Roads said that the main distinction between turkish and russian krug is that the latter is made with leather straps. So I wasn't suprised on that.

So these were worn on finer mail? Ok, then... I've heard about this, but I've never thought that "large" means THIS large. Only a bet: the mamluks confronted mostly sabres is CQ, did they? Do you have any info about the ring sizes?
Btw, Ham: from where do you have so much information on these subjects? Are there any kind of book on these? Even now, I have a veeeery long wish list on books, but there's never enough.

Oh, and thanks for the input!

Aqtai · 19th September 2005, 09:54 PM

The mamluks confronted a wide variety of enemies. In the 13th century they fought European Crusaders, Mongol hordes and each other. The 14th century was a relatively peaceful period, their main enemies were each other. In the 15th century they fought Timur-i-Lenk, European Crusaders on Cyprus, the Kara-Koyonlu and Ak-Koyunlu (although these were minor skirmishes), in the years 1500-1517 the mamluks fought the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean, with mixed results (they hated naval warfare) and finally the Ottoman Turks with disastrous results.

Battara · 23rd September 2005, 06:22 PM

Ahriman, have been watching this and wanted to answer some earlier questions regarding the Moro armor. Here is a link from Oriental-arms to a Moro armor piece with a closeup on the latches. One end of the latch would go into one of the holes in of the rods on the left and the other would be free to go into the one on the right. Behind the plate is brass that would help hold the piece in place to place the latches in place.

http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=1466

ham · 23rd September 2005, 06:56 PM

Ahriman,

I have been researching and teaching in the field for many years (I once heard a student say, since the Franco-Prussian War.) Where arms and armour are concerned, one is well-advised not to take anything at face value, but to make informed conclusions-- published information, i.e. books, archival data, inscriptions are all excellent but must be taken in conjunction with physical examination and when possible, application. This is the only way to learn to distinguish between fanstasy and reality, lore and research, particularly with the rise of the internet, which allots credence to even the least informed and most outlandish opinions (to say nothing of overarching egotism) by virtue of their appearance in print.
A museum's geographical location is not a guarantee of accuracy, on any count whatsoever. Nationalism, nepotism and a good many other -isms can and do affect how the public is informed by such institutions.
You might acquire a copy of Robinson's Oriental Armour, it lays out a good typology and plots the evolution of various types throughout Asia. The language is accessible and not given to pointless esoteric references, and the plates and illustrations are informative.

Sincerely,

Ham

Aqtai · 24th September 2005, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ham

Ahriman,

...A museum's geographical location is not a guarantee of accuracy, on any count whatsoever. Nationalism, nepotism and a good many other -isms can and do affect how the public is informed by such institutions...

You can say that again! I've been to various museums in Egypt, and they have the most outrageous inaccuracies. The worst for this is the Military Museum in the Citadel of Cairo, which definitely has its own ideological axe to grind. The descriptions on the items there are ridiculously inaccurate, I got the feeling that the guy making the labels was just making it up as he went along! You get things like a mannequin wearing an Ottoman mail shirt and an 18th century Iranian kulah khud style helmet described as "Ayyubid fighter 12th century".

Here are some example from the Rubens server (an excellent resource BTW) this first is a picture from the Coptic Museum in Cairo of an Iranian Separ shield and kulah khud helmet described as 11th-13th century (without specifying if this is a AD date or Higri date), also check out the description of the Roman helmet:
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/egypt/cairo...ms_and_armour/
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/egypt/cairo...ur/index1.html

fengmodao · 24th September 2005, 06:36 PM

Hello , I am a new member who comes from China !
1=The China Tibet suit of armour.
3=Light , it was effective with the fire prevention ware to make warm to the compound suit of armour in 18 centuries on the China Qing Dynasty suit of armour
4=Korea suit of armour and China are identical . The fish scale suit of armour . We think that the fish scale is the method that the efficiency is very high . Bear a lot of shocks power .

fengmodao · 26th September 2005, 02:39 PM

Is the suit of armour to paste the host of image that infantry use or cavalryman use ? The bigger and firm suit of armour still could be covered in the outward appearance of identical in China suit of armour ! We are accustomed to the protection of effective multilayer !

Aqtai · 26th September 2005, 05:10 PM

Lamellar armour (the type shown in the 2 top photos) would certainly be a lot easier to make than mail and plate armour, and it was widely used. Not only was it used in China and Tibet, but also in Iran and the Middle-East up until the 14th century AD. In the Middle East it seems to have been superseded by mail-and-plate armours in the early 15th century. AFAIK there are no complete surving Islamic lamellar armours, although fragments and individual lamellae have been found in Iraq.

Rivkin · 26th September 2005, 08:47 PM

According to Gorelik (btw I really liked his last two books), lamellar armor was produced by mongols because it's offered far better protection against arrows than mail.

Ahriman · 26th September 2005, 11:01 PM

Indeed, faaaar better... One of my friends made one out of 1mm spring steel, and was quite suprised when most arrows bounced off without denting the metal... the rest left small dents, but none have pierced. The bow was, if I'm right, 60#.
I don't really like chinese harnesses, as I'm rather a m&p-maniac idiot

, but the last looks good... even to me.

Ham: I think your students are VERY lucky... most hungarian teachers, even quite many of the university teachers, are still thinking that a full-plate harness is too heavy to move in it, that the knights were put on the horses by cranes, etc...

Aqtai: nice examples, I'm convinced...

But I was still able to use something like these greaves for fighting... and it was good... Hm, maybe I invented something new???

BTW, I've added full fingers and a knuckle plate to the "vambrace", or "elbow-demigauntlet" on the first page. Looks less eastern than ever... more like a "muslimised" german elbow gauntlet. I'll post pictures of it in a few days. Reason of upgrade: idiotic owner became overconfident as it provided good defense, especially compared to a thin leather gauntlet used for semi-full contact. He didn't really bother to defend a back-edge cut to the wrist, as he had mail there... but that cut missed with about 5cm, and opened one of his non-gloved fingers down to the bone, AND splitted his fingernail.

I won't post photos of THIS.

Ahriman · 26th September 2005, 11:12 PM

Hm, isn't it a little familiar, Aqtai?

This is the guy who tested the lamellar.

15th September 2005, 10:54 AM	#36
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 05:54 PM.

24th September 2005, 06:36 PM	#55
fengmodao Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: beijing Posts: 29	Hello , I am a new member who comes from China ! 1=The China Tibet suit of armour. 3=Light , it was effective with the fire prevention ware to make warm to the compound suit of armour in 18 centuries on the China Qing Dynasty suit of armour 4=Korea suit of armour and China are identical . The fish scale suit of armour . We think that the fish scale is the method that the efficiency is very high . Bear a lot of shocks power . Attached Images

14th September 2005, 11:04 PM	#32
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, 11:48 PM	#33
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, 04:38 AM	#34
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, 09:18 AM	#35
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, 06:06 PM	#37
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, 08:12 PM	#38
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.

15th September 2005, 10:45 PM	#40
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Gentlemen, As a scholar, I agree it is dangerous to make such definite statements; my intention in doing so was to stimulate thought and hopefully, to compel someone out there to try a practical application, which happily, it has. Basing or assuming the correctness of a museum display on its nation of origin, as a member has done above, is likewise dangerous-- beginners especially would be well advised to avoid this at all costs. However rather than criticise museums which shows these calf plates as armguards (and there are a great many,) I would say simply that there are very few specialists who actually apply critical reasoning to the field. Among the best are the Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul, the Royal Armouries, Leeds and the arms and armour section of the Met Museum, New York. Sincerely, Ham

15th September 2005, 11:30 PM	#41
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Sorry, I mostly believe the museum which has the same nationality as the item... I understand that it's not a very good thing now but I still can't understand how can a museum be unsure about it's national arms... it'd be almost ok to make an error with foreign armour, but with their own... I agree, and I mentioned that before, that they make sense as greaves - but I mentioned as well that a short one (like the one I posted before) was quite comfortable for me for fighting. It was, of course, a quite modern one (as I made it ) so most likely it resembles the originals only a bit. IF I had the chance to at least SEE originals personally from more angles and in full size then it's quite likely that I'd be convinced. But as I don't have the chance, and it worked for me as a vambrace, I can only say that they can be either. Now, if you really want to convince me, send me a few originals so I can try them on! Unfortunatuly I won't be able to send them back... (((I always like to learn new things... I have never thought of them as greaves before, and now, I'll be the first in Hungary who will use them. Thanks. )))

16th September 2005, 12:52 AM	#43
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	I don't think that they'd remember using it - but I'd think that they have more written source on it. And, you know, most of the hungarian kids I know can't even find the difference between a german and an italian harness, but they recognise a hussar breastplate at the first glance, because lots of our 16th century heroes wore those... I'm a bit tired to express myself good enough, but I think you can understand what I mean. Every nation has it's heroic stories, myths, etc, and there's always at least one hero whose arms and armour is mentioned.

16th September 2005, 12:57 AM	#44
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Oh, and nice suits on that photo. I see what you mean... but here it looks strange to me, I don't know why. Size's good, and everything, and still... it may be simply the light, but it seems to me that the bigger curve is on the front. Now, all this means that I have the same lower arm proportions as a 16th century turkis warriors CALF??? Because the main idea in thinking that my posted pic is a vambrace is that it'd fit my arm perfectly..? BTW, did you explore the full rubens server? It has tons of pics on armour, unfortunatuly, most are europeans.

19th September 2005, 03:52 PM	#45
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	I had a look at the Ruben's server, there is a vast amount of stuff there, I'm quite impressed. BTW on one of my google searches for pictures of oriental armour. I found this website. It has loads of photos of Russian krugs. http://jeffmartin.com/Default.aspx?t...7c0%7c5%7c1%7c

19th September 2005, 04:18 PM	#46
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Thank you, very nice pictures! Btw, that mailcoat... HUGE links... Is it original? It's quite hard to beleive... What did you search for? I've tried it in countless ways, but I just couldn't find these...

19th September 2005, 05:11 PM	#48
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Gentlemen, Coats of the type you are referring to, with very large, flat rings are called BAYDANA in Russian. They were actually worn over another coat of smaller rings. The Mamluks also wore coats of large, flat rings but as a primary, rather than secondary, defense. These generally fell out of use in the Near East in the 15th century, but persisted in Russia until the 17th. Sincerely, Ham

19th September 2005, 05:30 PM	#49
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Thanks Ham, I know very little about Russian armour, that is one of the first websites i've seen with relatively detailed photos of Russian armour. I wasn't aware that the mamluks used mail shirts with very large rings, all the Mamluk mail shirts i have seen have normal size rings. I also found the Russian krugs interesting in that with many of them the plates are not connected by mail like Turco-Iranian krugs, but are attached to some kind of leather liner. It's almost like they are an intermediate stage between mail-and-plate krugs and chahar aina cuirasses.

19th September 2005, 08:16 PM	#50
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Norm of Silk Roads said that the main distinction between turkish and russian krug is that the latter is made with leather straps. So I wasn't suprised on that. So these were worn on finer mail? Ok, then... I've heard about this, but I've never thought that "large" means THIS large. Only a bet: the mamluks confronted mostly sabres is CQ, did they? Do you have any info about the ring sizes? Btw, Ham: from where do you have so much information on these subjects? Are there any kind of book on these? Even now, I have a veeeery long wish list on books, but there's never enough. Oh, and thanks for the input!

19th September 2005, 09:54 PM	#51
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	The mamluks confronted a wide variety of enemies. In the 13th century they fought European Crusaders, Mongol hordes and each other. The 14th century was a relatively peaceful period, their main enemies were each other. In the 15th century they fought Timur-i-Lenk, European Crusaders on Cyprus, the Kara-Koyonlu and Ak-Koyunlu (although these were minor skirmishes), in the years 1500-1517 the mamluks fought the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean, with mixed results (they hated naval warfare) and finally the Ottoman Turks with disastrous results.

23rd September 2005, 06:22 PM	#52
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,219	Ahriman, have been watching this and wanted to answer some earlier questions regarding the Moro armor. Here is a link from Oriental-arms to a Moro armor piece with a closeup on the latches. One end of the latch would go into one of the holes in of the rods on the left and the other would be free to go into the one on the right. Behind the plate is brass that would help hold the piece in place to place the latches in place. http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=1466

23rd September 2005, 06:56 PM	#53
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Ahriman, I have been researching and teaching in the field for many years (I once heard a student say, since the Franco-Prussian War.) Where arms and armour are concerned, one is well-advised not to take anything at face value, but to make informed conclusions-- published information, i.e. books, archival data, inscriptions are all excellent but must be taken in conjunction with physical examination and when possible, application. This is the only way to learn to distinguish between fanstasy and reality, lore and research, particularly with the rise of the internet, which allots credence to even the least informed and most outlandish opinions (to say nothing of overarching egotism) by virtue of their appearance in print. A museum's geographical location is not a guarantee of accuracy, on any count whatsoever. Nationalism, nepotism and a good many other -isms can and do affect how the public is informed by such institutions. You might acquire a copy of Robinson's Oriental Armour, it lays out a good typology and plots the evolution of various types throughout Asia. The language is accessible and not given to pointless esoteric references, and the plates and illustrations are informative. Sincerely, Ham

26th September 2005, 02:39 PM	#56
fengmodao Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: beijing Posts: 29	Is the suit of armour to paste the host of image that infantry use or cavalryman use ? The bigger and firm suit of armour still could be covered in the outward appearance of identical in China suit of armour ! We are accustomed to the protection of effective multilayer !

26th September 2005, 05:10 PM	#57
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Lamellar armour (the type shown in the 2 top photos) would certainly be a lot easier to make than mail and plate armour, and it was widely used. Not only was it used in China and Tibet, but also in Iran and the Middle-East up until the 14th century AD. In the Middle East it seems to have been superseded by mail-and-plate armours in the early 15th century. AFAIK there are no complete surving Islamic lamellar armours, although fragments and individual lamellae have been found in Iraq.

26th September 2005, 08:47 PM	#58
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	According to Gorelik (btw I really liked his last two books), lamellar armor was produced by mongols because it's offered far better protection against arrows than mail.

26th September 2005, 11:01 PM	#59
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Indeed, faaaar better... One of my friends made one out of 1mm spring steel, and was quite suprised when most arrows bounced off without denting the metal... the rest left small dents, but none have pierced. The bow was, if I'm right, 60#. I don't really like chinese harnesses, as I'm rather a m&p-maniac idiot , but the last looks good... even to me. Ham: I think your students are VERY lucky... most hungarian teachers, even quite many of the university teachers, are still thinking that a full-plate harness is too heavy to move in it, that the knights were put on the horses by cranes, etc... Aqtai: nice examples, I'm convinced... But I was still able to use something like these greaves for fighting... and it was good... Hm, maybe I invented something new??? BTW, I've added full fingers and a knuckle plate to the "vambrace", or "elbow-demigauntlet" on the first page. Looks less eastern than ever... more like a "muslimised" german elbow gauntlet. I'll post pictures of it in a few days. Reason of upgrade: idiotic owner became overconfident as it provided good defense, especially compared to a thin leather gauntlet used for semi-full contact. He didn't really bother to defend a back-edge cut to the wrist, as he had mail there... but that cut missed with about 5cm, and opened one of his non-gloved fingers down to the bone, AND splitted his fingernail. I won't post photos of THIS.

26th September 2005, 11:12 PM	#60
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Hm, isn't it a little familiar, Aqtai? This is the guy who tested the lamellar.