Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 14th September 2005, 09:09 PM   #13
Aqtai
Member
 
Aqtai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Merseyside, UK
Posts: 222
Default

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.
Aqtai is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.