hidden room 2 - captured arms

Aqtai · 17th June 2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.I

hi aqtai,
i'm a little confused of which helmet you mean. the ottoman or the tarter-esque helmet?

Sorry. the first helmet. It has a hemispherical bowl with a mail fringe and has a Shishak-style peak, cheek plates, neck-guard and nasal bar attached to the mail. That 's what I meant by a cross between a kulah khud and shishak.

I don't recall ever seeing an Ottoman helmet like that before.

B.I · 17th June 2005, 01:37 PM

hi aqtai,
sorry, i worked out which helmet you meant and edited my question. now it sounds like your repeating yourself for no reason, and i'm clairvoyant :-)

Aqtai · 17th June 2005, 02:13 PM

Thanks for the reply B.I. It is a bizarre piece. I suppose it could be a parade helmet, as you pointed out the peak would be fairly unstable. I still cannot help wondering why such an impractical helmet?

With regards to my 1st impression, I believe the Ottomans were in the habit of modifying captured helmets. If I remember rightly, the Royal Armouries (I've not been there since they moved it to Leeds) had a very tall Persian helmet which was "Ottomanified" by having a peak added on to it, and I wondered if the same thing had happened here.

H.R. Robinson's Oriental Armour has a line drawing of a slightly more conventional shishak with the peak suspended by hinges rather than usual six rivets attaching it to the brow. Another design which I thought was highly impractical.

This helmet does clear up one thing for me. I have often wondered if the lower edge of the mail brow piece of a kulah khud stopped above the eyes or if it was in front the eyes. Obviously with this particular helmet, if the mail was in front of the eyes the wearer would not be able to see.

B.I · 17th June 2005, 02:24 PM

hi aqtai,
the ottomans did indeed reuse helmets from other cultures, and i've seen some strange assemblages, with burgonets with ottoman lamellar neckguards.
this piece, however is pure ottoman. also, i still hold to my theory, and so i feel it doesnt help with your khud/vision question, as it may nave been put together after its working life, where the vision wasnt important.
also, remember 90% of the khuds you see today are made for decoration, and never for use and so they wont help. a 17thC khud is heavier and larger than the 19thC bazaar pieces.
your answer, may be in mail and mail'plate helmets of india, which covered the face completely. these, by theri construction and date would have been made for use, and so i feel the mail curtain didnt obstruct the vision, or if it did, it was deemed acceptable.
also note, these earlier helmets were composed of riveted mail and so the links were thicker than the 19thC butted links you see now. even so, it was deemed a necessary obstruction.
i will try and find an image of what the ottoman helmet should have looked like.

B.I · 17th June 2005, 05:37 PM

this given an idea of its original form.

Aqtai · 17th June 2005, 06:34 PM

Thanks Brian. Very nice helmet. I see why you thinnk the one in Venice may have originally looked like this.

I have seen a picture of a very similar Mamluk helmet in the Topkapi Museum attributed to Khayrbek, the last Mamluk governor of Aleppo, the one who betrayed the mamluks to the Ottomans and was rewarded by being made Ottoman governor of Egypt after the Ottoman conquest.

Edit: I have just found a picture of that helmet, please excuse the quality, it's a bad photocopy of a very old book. H. R. Robinson has pictures of the same two helmets in his book, he calls this rounded style a muwa'ama (A very Arabic sounding name) and attributes it to Khayrbek.

wolviex · 17th June 2005, 07:30 PM

Thank you for these pictures Brian. If you are travelling through the Europe remember Krakow - just let me know if you'll be passing by, and I'll open my doors for you

Just a few reflections. Watching these beautiful Turkish armament I have a strange feeling, because all of these objects are very familiar to me. Most of them were used in Poland as usual armament, parade armament and of course as the war-trophies. Contacts amongst Poland and Turkey were very wide during 16th-18th centuries, and those who are lucky to have "War and Peace" catalogue, know very well what I'm talking about. Anyway, many of the objects like these are well represented in Polish museums as well. But what astonished me, is the amount of kalkan-shields. Great collection, uncomparable with anything in Poland.

Thank you one more time!

Rivkin · 17th June 2005, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aqtai

Thanks Brian. Very nice helmet. I see why you thinnk the one in Venice may have originally looked like this.

I have seen a picture of a very similar Mamluk helmet in the Topkapi Museum attributed to Khayrbek, the last Mamluk governor of Aleppo, the one who betrayed the mamluks to the Ottomans and was rewarded by being made Ottoman governor of Egypt after the Ottoman conquest.

I don't know nothing about non-caucasian arms, so my input would not be very valuable, but I've seen a georgian helmet, supposedly early XVIII century, just like the one in the museum. Unfortunately I don't remeber where I've seen it.

Concerning Khayrbek, he was a Georgian and a lot of people (inluding Ibn-Iyas) suspected that he simply disliked Circassians, therefore choosing Ottomans over them.

17th June 2005, 05:37 PM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	this given an idea of its original form. Attached Images

17th June 2005, 06:34 PM	#6
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Thanks Brian. Very nice helmet. I see why you thinnk the one in Venice may have originally looked like this. I have seen a picture of a very similar Mamluk helmet in the Topkapi Museum attributed to Khayrbek, the last Mamluk governor of Aleppo, the one who betrayed the mamluks to the Ottomans and was rewarded by being made Ottoman governor of Egypt after the Ottoman conquest. Edit: I have just found a picture of that helmet, please excuse the quality, it's a bad photocopy of a very old book. H. R. Robinson has pictures of the same two helmets in his book, he calls this rounded style a muwa'ama (A very Arabic sounding name) and attributes it to Khayrbek. Last edited by Aqtai; 17th June 2005 at 06:48 PM.

17th June 2005, 01:37 PM	#2
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi aqtai, sorry, i worked out which helmet you meant and edited my question. now it sounds like your repeating yourself for no reason, and i'm clairvoyant :-)

17th June 2005, 02:13 PM	#3
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Thanks for the reply B.I. It is a bizarre piece. I suppose it could be a parade helmet, as you pointed out the peak would be fairly unstable. I still cannot help wondering why such an impractical helmet? With regards to my 1st impression, I believe the Ottomans were in the habit of modifying captured helmets. If I remember rightly, the Royal Armouries (I've not been there since they moved it to Leeds) had a very tall Persian helmet which was "Ottomanified" by having a peak added on to it, and I wondered if the same thing had happened here. H.R. Robinson's Oriental Armour has a line drawing of a slightly more conventional shishak with the peak suspended by hinges rather than usual six rivets attaching it to the brow. Another design which I thought was highly impractical. This helmet does clear up one thing for me. I have often wondered if the lower edge of the mail brow piece of a kulah khud stopped above the eyes or if it was in front the eyes. Obviously with this particular helmet, if the mail was in front of the eyes the wearer would not be able to see.

17th June 2005, 02:24 PM	#4
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi aqtai, the ottomans did indeed reuse helmets from other cultures, and i've seen some strange assemblages, with burgonets with ottoman lamellar neckguards. this piece, however is pure ottoman. also, i still hold to my theory, and so i feel it doesnt help with your khud/vision question, as it may nave been put together after its working life, where the vision wasnt important. also, remember 90% of the khuds you see today are made for decoration, and never for use and so they wont help. a 17thC khud is heavier and larger than the 19thC bazaar pieces. your answer, may be in mail and mail'plate helmets of india, which covered the face completely. these, by theri construction and date would have been made for use, and so i feel the mail curtain didnt obstruct the vision, or if it did, it was deemed acceptable. also note, these earlier helmets were composed of riveted mail and so the links were thicker than the 19thC butted links you see now. even so, it was deemed a necessary obstruction. i will try and find an image of what the ottoman helmet should have looked like.

17th June 2005, 07:30 PM	#7
wolviex Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Poland, Krakow Posts: 418	Thank you for these pictures Brian. If you are travelling through the Europe remember Krakow - just let me know if you'll be passing by, and I'll open my doors for you Just a few reflections. Watching these beautiful Turkish armament I have a strange feeling, because all of these objects are very familiar to me. Most of them were used in Poland as usual armament, parade armament and of course as the war-trophies. Contacts amongst Poland and Turkey were very wide during 16th-18th centuries, and those who are lucky to have "War and Peace" catalogue, know very well what I'm talking about. Anyway, many of the objects like these are well represented in Polish museums as well. But what astonished me, is the amount of kalkan-shields. Great collection, uncomparable with anything in Poland. Thank you one more time!