Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ahriman
...I was thinking. Would it be possible to make a modified krug? I mean, I like it, I have made one already, but I'd prefer a smaller disc, and a bit higher, so it could cover the solar plexus. Um, it'd look almost like a zertsalo, just with m&p construction. So, full circle: would it be "authentic"? (If it was hard to understand, I can post a drawing.)
Vambraces: nice, but I still lack the full metacarpal. Is it because it's my modern idiotism, or it was rare, or what..?
Arm sizes: it'd be OK if it would be to scale. I mean, hand smaller, arms smaller, ok, but the proportions are still not ok. My wrist circumference is 18cm, and my lower arm circumference at the thickest is more than 42cm. Now, I wasn't training for a long time, I'm not a regular archer, I prefer two-handed weapons, and still... I simply can't believe that a full-time warrior can have such a tiny arm. Even the most flaring vambrace on the pics have about 1/1.5=1,666 wrist/thick area ratio, while 42/18=2,333, and it's AFTER the non-training period.
One thing occured to me though: isn't it possible that these were the possessions of the upper classes, and were mostly decorative? I mean, if it has silver on it, repousse, etc, it's not likely that it's owner was a full-time fighter, who don't care much for politics. Or am I, again, and idiot?
|
Hi Ahriman,
I'm not sure what you mean about the "krug" disc being modified. The disc already covers the entire abdomen and part of the chest as well. The zertsalo is just the Russian version of the krug, in fact krug itself is a Russian word. This type of armour was used in Turkey, Iran and Russian the 16th and 17th centuries so there was probably a lot of variation already. In fact Islamic/Oriental armour was made by a single craftsman working with a group of apprentices not mass produced in a factory, so I doubt that any two krugs would be identical.
As for the bazubands being small, I don't understand it either, but I doubt all the examples we have are all purely decorative. Many of these must have been made for combat, yes many may have been made for high-ranking officers or for elite guard units, but even these chaps would get involved in combat if the battle went the wrong way.
It's possible also we have completely misunderstood the way these things were worn.
I'm not sure what you mean by the metacarpal either. Turkish and Iranian bazubands often had mail "mittens" attached while Indian bazubands (known as dastanas) either had mail mittens or padded fabric mittens.
Anyway I'll throw in a few more of my photos:
First a pair of Indian dastanas from the Victoria and Albert Museum in London:
A partial 16th century Ottoman krug from the Royal Armouries museum:
An 18th century Iranian armour set. I can't remember if this this set is early or late 18th century. The difference is important. Armour made before 1750 is more like to be functional armour designed for combat and the mail links are rivetted, whereas armour made after about 1750 is usually ceremonial and mail components are invariably unriveted.
Lastly an 18th century Sindi armour from the Royal Armouries:
