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?
|