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.