Armour?

rasdan · 11th September 2005, 11:16 AM

Hi Shah,

What i meant is, how the 'rod' for the lock is fixed. In this following picture, we can see that the plates are made of horn, and the 'rod' is brass. How does the brass 'rod' fixed onto the horn plate? I suspect the horn only has holes for the 'rod' and the 'rod' was made separately and welded onto a piece of centre brass plate inside the armour and then fixed with the lock. The extra inner middle plate also can protect the body if the thrust goes directly in the middle of the chest plates. (Just my opinion). We can see the missing 'rod' from the second picture below. Can anybody clear this up?

Thanks,
Rasdan

Aqtai · 11th September 2005, 12:14 PM

I knew I had seen a picture of vambraces similar to the ones you made somewhere. This pic is from G.C. Stones venerable and somewhat outdated "Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times". Unfortunately Stone doesn't mention when these vambraces were made and in what part of India where they used.

This picture is also from the same book, surprisingly it's the only picture I have that shows the back of a krug:

Alam Shah · 11th September 2005, 12:45 PM

Rasdan,

The rings may be a modification, for a quick easy release mechanism.

rasdan · 12th September 2005, 04:03 AM

Ic, thanks Shah

Hi Ahriman,

Love your work on the plates. Finishing the armour would give more or less same muscle built as the one on the plates.

Ahriman · 13th September 2005, 04:06 PM

Thanks!

(((Then buy some

)))
Nice pictures, thanks again! I know that most of you are familiar with these... but I couldn't find them earlier... And it's a good thing to have them in one place, isn't it? (((This means: post even more!!!

)))
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?

Aqtai · 13th September 2005, 08:00 PM

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:

Ahriman · 13th September 2005, 09:33 PM

My fault again... I meant metacarpal plate. I know about the mittens, but that'd be far from enough... especially if there's the possibility of meeting a hammer, a club, an axe... Not to mention a two-hander sword.

With them being small, I meant that even MY arm has a wrist/thickest part circumference ratio of 18/42, which is quite far from these vambraces. They don't widen enough for a muscular arm, which would be normal for an archer-swordsman. The last one you posted is getting closer if I see it correctly, but MOST of these are... small, and it's strange to me. If you still can't understand my rambling, learn hungarian so I can explain it in my mother language...

About the zertsalo-krug thing, I thought the same, but thoughts like this often cause me trouble... For example I don't understand why would a Berserk*-ish armour impossible in the 16th century, Germany. Grotesque, fluted, working. Then...?
* I mean the manga, not the viking bastard.

11th September 2005, 11:16 AM	#1
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 368	Hi Shah, What i meant is, how the 'rod' for the lock is fixed. In this following picture, we can see that the plates are made of horn, and the 'rod' is brass. How does the brass 'rod' fixed onto the horn plate? I suspect the horn only has holes for the 'rod' and the 'rod' was made separately and welded onto a piece of centre brass plate inside the armour and then fixed with the lock. The extra inner middle plate also can protect the body if the thrust goes directly in the middle of the chest plates. (Just my opinion). We can see the missing 'rod' from the second picture below. Can anybody clear this up? Thanks, Rasdan Attached Images

11th September 2005, 12:14 PM	#2
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	I knew I had seen a picture of vambraces similar to the ones you made somewhere. This pic is from G.C. Stones venerable and somewhat outdated "Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times". Unfortunately Stone doesn't mention when these vambraces were made and in what part of India where they used. This picture is also from the same book, surprisingly it's the only picture I have that shows the back of a krug:

11th September 2005, 12:45 PM	#3
Alam Shah Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,248	Rasdan, The rings may be a modification, for a quick easy release mechanism.

12th September 2005, 04:03 AM	#4
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 368	Ic, thanks Shah Hi Ahriman, Love your work on the plates. Finishing the armour would give more or less same muscle built as the one on the plates.

13th September 2005, 04:06 PM	#5
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Thanks! (((Then buy some ))) Nice pictures, thanks again! I know that most of you are familiar with these... but I couldn't find them earlier... And it's a good thing to have them in one place, isn't it? (((This means: post even more!!! ))) 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?

13th September 2005, 09:33 PM	#7
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	My fault again... I meant metacarpal plate. I know about the mittens, but that'd be far from enough... especially if there's the possibility of meeting a hammer, a club, an axe... Not to mention a two-hander sword. With them being small, I meant that even MY arm has a wrist/thickest part circumference ratio of 18/42, which is quite far from these vambraces. They don't widen enough for a muscular arm, which would be normal for an archer-swordsman. The last one you posted is getting closer if I see it correctly, but MOST of these are... small, and it's strange to me. If you still can't understand my rambling, learn hungarian so I can explain it in my mother language... About the zertsalo-krug thing, I thought the same, but thoughts like this often cause me trouble... For example I don't understand why would a Berserk-ish armour impossible in the 16th century, Germany. Grotesque, fluted, working. Then...? I mean the manga, not the viking bastard.