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... :D

(((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. :)

http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/5...bert1017ui.jpg

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.

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. :confused:
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.

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

Thank you, very nice pictures! Btw, that mailcoat... :eek: HUGE links... Is it original? It's quite hard to beleive... :eek:
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. :D 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

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

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.

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! :)

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.

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

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

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". :eek:

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

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 .

:) :) :) 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 ! :) :) :)

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.

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.

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 :D , 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... :mad:

Aqtai: nice examples, I'm convinced... :mad: But I was still able to use something like these greaves for fighting... and it was good... Hm, maybe I invented something new??? :D

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. :eek: I won't post photos of THIS. :D

Hm, isn't it a little familiar, Aqtai? :D This is the guy who tested the lamellar.

I'm looking forward to seeing your work. :)

I hope your client recovers from his wounds. What the hell was he doing anyway?!

About the lamellar armour, because it was made of rigid plates, it did indeed provide an excellent defence against arrows compared to mail, however it had quite a few weaknesses: it wasn't particularly good against swords and sabres because the lacing could be cut, furthermore because it was quite rigid, vulnerable areas like the armpits and groin were left exposed. Mail and plate armour provided a compromise: rigid plates over the abdomen and back, mail over the groin and limbs.

Another problem with lamellar of course was that the lacing would get soaked in wet weather increasing the weight, and the lacing sometimes got infested with lice etc.

This picture is a Tibetan lamellar armour from the Rubens server, the actual armour is in the Royal Armouries (Although it wasn't there when I last visited the the RA).
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raid1cdroms...l/P1015070.JPG

Here's another 15th century mail and plate armour from the Royal Armouries:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...ate_armour.jpg

According to the label it's Turkish, According to Robinson's "Oriental Armour" though it's Mamluk. It does ressemble the mamluk mail and plate shirts in the Topqapi.

He was fighting... :D Semi-full contact. :D Overconfident. :D Not a very unusual thing here. A guy ordered greaves with knees because one of his friends lost his... patella, maybe? That piece of bone over the knee, I don't know it's english name. The surgery tool was the "spike" of a two-handed, rebated viking axe. Stupid people, we are... but as we have a few good armourers, more and more of these idiots realize that plate on vulnerable joints = life-long joint usage...

I bet you like Rubens, don't you? :)
That RA suit is nice, but it has HUGE links... And it seems rivetted. :confused:
Wait, I recall Ham telling us that mamluks used baydana as a primary defense... which means HUGE links... Ok, it's mamluk. :D
Did they ever fight europeans? Especially germans? Because this link size is EXTREMELY vulnerable to half-swording IMO.

Thanks for listing the reasons of my anti-lamellar mindset... ;)
BTW, Norm wrote that there were samurai armours with long plates, opened only on one side, so the owner was helped into it by assistants who pulled it apart. Is it true? It seems quite a stupid thing to me, as the continuous opening-closing would stress the metal... which's not good. :confused:

The mamluks were a fascinating bunch. They were a caste of warrior-slaves, originally Turkish but later Circassian from the Caucasus, who ruled over Egypt, Syria, Arabia and parts of Asia minor from 1250 AD to 1517 AD. Their capital city was Cairo which they filled with beautiful Mosques, Khanqa's, madrassahs, hospitals and Wikalas (caravanserais). Even after the Ottoman conquest they remained the dominant military group in Egypt until 1807.

As I said before , they fought a wide variety of enemies. They fought the Crusaders in the 13th century and inflicted several defeats on them, eventually driving them out of the Middle-East. They managed to stop Mongol expansion into North Africa by defeating the Mongols in 3 major battles in 1260, 1281 and finally 1303, although a few mamluks were themselves of Mongol origin, including one Mamluk sultan.

They may have come up against German Crusaders, although to my knowledge they never fought an all-German army. In the 15th century the mamluks conquered Cyprus, the last surviving Crusader kingdom, I presume that the Crusaders of Cypus may have used Western European weapons and equipment. In the early 1500s the mamluks fought a naval war against the Portuguese in the Indian ocean. Since the mamluks were primarily heavy cavalry/horse archers I'm not sure how much of a role they took in a naval battle. I have a suspicion that much of the fighting in the Indian Ocean was done by Maghribi (North African) mercenaries.

Finally the mamluks fought Napoleon Bonaparte duing his invision of Egypt in 1798. they used virtually the same tactics they used against the Crusaders, the Mongols and the Ottomans. Needless to say Napoleon defeated them, although he then went on the create his own small unit of mamluks!

The mamluks certainly used lamellar armour as well as mail in the 13th and 14th centuries, in the 15th century however they abandonned lamellar armour in favour of mail and plate armour. They also continued to use mail right until 1798.

Thanks for the info! I think they (the mamluks) were rather lucky - in the 13th century they didn't have to face vollharnischers, as then even the italians used only a few knees, and elbows... I mean, plate defense for them. :D
I have asked earlier, but it seems that no-one replied... did eastern people ever develop halfswording? Especially when confronting m&p armour, or strong riveted, it'd be crucial... but I haven't heard of it. But, again, I haven't heard about this vambrace-greave debate before... :D

If mamluks took part in the fighting in the 1500s, they may have come up against Portuguese officers wearing full plate armour, but I doubt it as naval warfare is different, how many guys in full plate armour will be on the deck of a Nao reppelling boarders? The Mamluk navy did defeat the Portuguese in one naval battle in 1508, but as I said before, I think most of the fighting was done by Maghribi mercenaries, not mamluks.

I'm sorry to seem ignorant, but what is "half-swording"?

It's a gripping method that gives extraordinary control and force to thursts and slices by sacrificing real cuts. When halfswording, you grab the BLADE with one (mostly the left) hand, while the other grabs the hilt as usual. By this, you get a short and very light spear AND a good grabbing tool as well.

I'll describe a very simple scenario. You are holding your sword in halfswording, left on the blade, thumbs pointing at each other. Your opponent cuts from above in an angle, targeting your left collar-bone. You raise your left hand much more than your right and receive the blow between your hands in a quite sharp angle. His blade slides down and stops at the quillon. Then you lower your left and raise your right hand as if you were to sheath your sword to your left. By this, your opponent's blade is incapable to cut you, the point is far behind you, and he could only move it to your far left. Then you simply strike him in the face with the pommel. Even as it took quite long to tell, it's carried out lightning fast, and most likely wounds the opponent quite well, even if he was wearing armour.

Mostly halfswording is done in armour, where you have a good leather glove to protect your blade-grabbing palm, but there are pictures showing unarmoured use, mostly with either slender blades or some kind of cloth on the blade... and sometimes without any of these. Of course, it makes it clear that you NEVER block a blow fully, or in 90°, nor do you block with the edge. Imagine the effect of a two-handed full-power blade driving your sword into your... lower arm... :eek: Or the bending effect of the same, if you received the blow to the flat in 90°.

BTW, my question came from that I saw half-swording advised for messers. (messers are huge knife-like swords, sometimes twohanded, mostly resembling wide-bladed, crossguarded katanas) So it'd logical that eastern fighters developed it as well - cuts for unarmoured opponents and strong thursts for the mail-armoured, or m&p wearing ones...?

Sorry for the long post, but I think that the more you know... well, then the more you know. :) Which is a good thing. :D

In the 1500's, and especially in naval warfare, one would only wear a strong breastplate, or even less... say, a gorget. So that's doesn't count... :)

In that case, AFAIK the mamluks never developped half-swording.

The mamluks fought as horse-archers/heavy cavalry. they would soften up their enemies from a distance using composite bows on horseback bows mongol-style, then once the enemy was sufficiently weakened they would charge with their lances. for close quarters work they would use maces and warhammers. In the 13th century the main sword used by mamluks was a straight double-edged sword. During the course of the 14th century they gradually adopted kilij-style sabres.

Their main enemies in the 14th-15th centuries, apart from each other, were the Mongols, The Aq-Qoyonlu Turcomans and the Ottomans, all of who would have been similarly equiped and (initially at least with regards to the Ottomans, they adopted field artillary and muskets in the late 15th century) would have used similar tactics.

Mamluk words:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...el_37_ISAS.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...ns/ISAS_pl.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...65_ISAS_pl.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...6_and_57_1.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...d-15th_C_1.jpg

As you can see, non are particularly suited to half-swording. All are meant for use on horseback.

Ahriman, I've just found another mail and plate vambrace for you. This one is from Robert Elgood's "Hindu Arms and Ritual".
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...nbazuband1.jpg

Thanks, both vambraces are very nice... and the upper one has that more solid metacarpal plate I missed. Is that mail riveted? It seems very thin...

Thanks for the swords as well... They are indeed better for horseback usage, especially as they mostly lack a real thrusting point... They were VERY lucky with avoiding open combat against vollharnischers... :) A good harness is quite hard to defeat with cuts, even with a good wide twohander, and most, especially milanese, harnesses were able to repel arrows, even from average crossbows in the 500-550 pounds area.

I'm afraid the book doesn't tell me if the links are rivetted or not. But from what I've read almost all Indian mail made before 1750 AD used rivetted links.

I'm not so sure about that. Ottoman cavalry used almost identical equipment to the mamluks, indeed some actually was Mamluk equipment captured after the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 1517. Unlike the mamluks, the Ottomans fought many battles against western Europeans in the 15th and 16th centuries, many of which the Ottomans won, like the battle of Mohacs in 1526. :)

Islamic cavalry had a different style of fighting, they would stay away from the enemy shooting arrows from horseback, they would only engage in hand-to-hand combat after the enemy was weakened and exhausted.

BTW I found this picture of the back of an Ottoman krug at oriental-arms.com.

http://oriental-arms.co.il/photos/it...01577/ph-0.jpg

The shoulder piece would be connected to the back-plates with mail links or leather straps, then the whole assembly would be attached to the front of the armor with leather straps and buckles and worn over a mail shirt.

I don't think these shoulder plates and back plates are a matching set though, the shoulder plates look much bigger.

Damnit, I've found halfswording in a moghul painting... :eek: :eek: :eek: In the topic of crossbows.

BTW, 1500 is quite at the end of the age of plate. Then a well-equipped mercenary (landsknecht) had only minimal protection compared to earlier soldiers. You know, equipping 5000 soldiers from the same money as 2500 halves the money/soldier... Because of this, a well-equipped merc had a skull-cap, a gorget (face left open), breastplate (often without back), tassels, and usually legs, sometimes demigauntlets. And sometimes, they had splinted arms, or even full gauntlets. And remember, these were the best soldiers of the time. They could use their armour to stop attacks quite well, but they had vital areas exposed.
And when these fell, their leaders in full-plate had to run. You know, no matter how good is you armour, when you are surrounded by axe- dagger- sword- mace- hammerwielding enemies, you have no other chance.
And by 1526, muslim artillery was superior compared to ours. But remember, most of our nobles drowned while running... which means that the vollharnischers were not defeated in "open combat", "just" overnumbered by 1-999999999. :)
Afterall, it was truly a huge defeat, caused by our leaders' arrogance and ignorance... it was a much bigger factor than equiptment.

Fighting style: I know... but that would've hurt "only" the poorer soldiers. Which were the 90% of the army. :D I think that we should've stayed at our old nomad tactics... by converting to christianity, we had to use knights and so... we forgot good eastern tactics, and we failed to perfectly adapt western ways as well. :mad:

Krug: thanks, nice picture, and I think you're right - it's like assembling the 2m+ italian harness with a regular one. :)

I will post the gauntlet pictures soon, but I'm quite busy, and my camera is wrecked.

I also saw that picture in the crossbow topic. I guess I've just learned something new. I know nothing though about how Oriental and Islamic swords were used. I know India has got a rather elaborate martial arts system of its own called Gatka, it could be this a gatka manoevre. However I know absolutely nothing about Gatka either, other than the fact that modern practitioners all appear to be Sikh, so it may be a purely Sikh martial art. :D

I'm looking forward to seeing your finished armour. :)

Oi!
I was away for a while, buried under work... :(
I couldn't take a picture of the remade vambrace I mentioned... my camera was dead then, and my sister bought one for herself only a few days ago... but the buyer will most likely send me the pictures, if he doesn't forget it. :) It turned out very nice, and I blackened the whole thing - looks good.

Yesterday, I finished another eastern vambrace, I'd like to hear your opinions. The plate is 1.5mm CR steel, the rings are 8mm diameter and are 1.5mm thick. Every plate except the border ones are fluted, flutes being 5mm high, except on the longest plate, where they are 10mm, and on the central metacarpal plate, where there's only a touch of fluting, about 1mm. There's a strap under the knuckles, and straps and buckles at wrist and at 2 point of the vambrace. The mail on the wrist is laced with a leather bit. Soon, I'll get pictures of the buyer wearing it.
Lower part of the vambrace is extremely wide, as the buyer uses golves almost equivalent to hockey gloves, and would stand up by themselfes against blunt sabers. :D
The pictures are rather low quality, as this camera costed 15$... :-///
And I took the photos in dark... but they are, I think, usable.
Closeup on the flutes, before blacking.
http://img.tar.hu/ahriman/img/18036135.jpg
One laid out, one compacted... :-)
http://img.tar.hu/ahriman/img/18036138.jpg
And a full picture.
http://img.tar.hu/ahriman/img/18036136.jpg

BTW, did they ever make helmets like the spangenhelm, but joined with mail? I think I've seen something like this somewhere, but I'm not sure. And if it did exist, would it be OK for that vambrace and a krug?

Hi Ahriman, welcome back! :)

Nice work on that vambrace.

Helmets of the type you described were used in India from the 16th-19th century (and probably a lot earlier).

Here's one from the Royal Armouries in Leeds:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...met_RA_015.jpg

Another one from the Royal armouries:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...iHelmet093.jpg

This one is from "Hindu Arms and Ritual" by Robert Elgood:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...6th-17thC3.jpg

You seem to be going for a very Indian look at the moment. :)

Other helmets of the same type from the Royal Armouries:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...ate_17th_c.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...ard_17th_c.jpg

Oh yes, I recently found this picture of a 15th century Mamluk Krug, look familiar? :D
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y11...amlukKrug1.jpg

Wow, thanks, very useful pictures... :D Again, something I thought I invented... :D :D :D

Is it possible that either the krug got there, or these helmets got to the turks? The buyer with the new vambraces would like them combined, and I'm curious that how correct would this be.

Yes, I simply love indian stuff, btw... Maybe with small alterations here and there... :D

I think there are few doubts about the Krug. Not only did the Ottomans make extensive use of krugs themselves, but after the Ottomans conquered the Mamluk Sultanate in 1517, they carted huge amounts of Mamluk armour and weapons back to Istanbul. It was subsequently reused by Ottoman troops. With regards to using Indian-style mail and plate helmets we are on much shakier ground. There is no doubt that Mughul armour was influenced by Ottoman and Persian armour, but the influence seems to have flown in only one direction. I haven't seen any Ottoman helmets with a similar method of construction. :)

By the way, I've found pics of another Indian helmet of a similar type:
http://www.ashokaarts.com/armour/ar-5.html

Ehm, I was thinking about such a design less than a week ago... Is there nothing new I could invent? :D

Would it be correct to put arabic text onto the disc of the krug instead of radial flutes? My costumer would like the word "Allah" onto it, but I can't recall any examples... problem is that that I'm quite against using fantasy style stuff for serious reenacting, so I ask for +50% if the buyer wants something that's out of style, or if it can't be explained by combining existing and contacting styles.

I see no reason why inscriptions cannot be put on the Disc, I have seen many examples, like this 16th century Mamluk or Ottoman krug in The Khalili Collection book:

http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/5...6thcentury.jpg

Why just stop at "Allah". Many real Islamic armours and weapons had a variety of inscriptions, including verses from the Qur'an, the names and titles of the Sultan that the warrior wearing the armour was serving, and in the case of armour made for high ranking amirs, the names and titles of the owner. :)

Ok, thanks, nice picture again...

I'll stop at Allah because of the price... I got $50 for the vambraces, and I'll get $225 for the krug which will be blacked as well... :(
Another reason is that I've started learning arabic only very recently... :D I could copy, of course, but I want to understand exactly what I write.
Oh, and I'll get $50 for the indian-like helmet as well... :-/

Fair comment. :D
I have to say your prices sound pretty reasonable.

hmm...