Armour?

Aqtai · 14th September 2005, 06:46 PM

If you are talking about the 5th picture along, the one that looks like this:

I'm sorry to say it is a greave. Oriental greaves strap to the outside of the leg.

If you have a look at the picture of the mannequin wearing the full armour with the krug cuirass, you can just make them out.

Here is photo I took of one at the Royal Armouries museum.

Here is a complete greave and cuisse assembly. It's from that Osprey book on Ottoman Armies.

Here's a 15th century Turkish cuisse as well.

BTW, that's a nice website you found there. There is a partial embossed krug on the first page.

Ahriman · 14th September 2005, 07:24 PM

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???

Aqtai · 14th September 2005, 08:09 PM

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.

B.I · 14th September 2005, 10:04 PM

i think you have both hit a long-standing debate, and one that has not entered the forum before (as far as i know).
i'm afraid it has no answer, but the general consensus is that it is a vambrace (and i agree). its all down to opinion, as either corner can offer up a plausable arguement.
mine has always been asthetics, in that as a vambrace its effective and does the job. as a greave, its ill-fitting (at any angle) and looks ugly and out of place.
as i said, its only my opinion. the stibbert museum has them on the legs and i never thought it looked right. armour was used for both cavalry and infantry, so i cant agree on the 'side of the leg showing' theory. also, no good warrior would rely on remaining horsed and leave themselves vulnerable if un-horsed (i guess).
the problem is in the existance of splintered, small plates, and complete plates style of ottoman armour. i figured this was why stibbert mounted his dummies in the way he did as his mail/plate vambraces couldnt be anything but, so he figured that the solid plate guard had to be a grieve.
all speculative and a matter of opinion i'm afraid (but, no reason to stop debating :-)
i hold firm to my theories though (unfortunately, as does everyo ne else).
i must admit, i thought it was only the stibbert that had them mounted on the legs. i think the ones on the met complete armour are different (and dont have the 'hand-shield section). i have only seen images so may be wrong.
no idea where the ones on the 'complete leg' in the osprey book is from. does it have a reference?

Aqtai · 14th September 2005, 10:48 PM

Hi Brian, I'm glad you could join in.

The one from the Osprey book used to be in the Royal Armouries when they were still in the Tower of London. I actually saw it in 1989, but didn't bother photographing it. The two pieces are still in the Royal armouries, but they have now been separated.

My personal argument for it being a greave is the bit at the lower end, the one which I assume is meant to cover the ankle. If this was a vambrace it would be covering the back of the hand, excellent protection but also restricting wrist movements.

Somewhere in my papers is an old B&W picture I photocopied from an old book on Islamic art, it shows a helmet, bazuband and greave/vambrace thingy attributed to Shah Abbas 1st (all of which presumably are still in the British Museum). In this rather old photo they all seemed to be part of a matching set, which raises the question why would a single set of armour need two different types of vambrace?

ham · 15th September 2005, 03:38 AM

Gentlemen,

These are unquestionably greaves. Having tried on several in various collections, I can assure you that they fit the outer calf from just below the knee and completely cover the ankle, as they should for a cavalryman.
Further, they are entirely rigid in the flat plane and so would not permit the wrist to bend, nor do they fit comfortably along the ulna. Despite the size (though there is considerable variance) they are virtually always too long to even fit from elbow to knuckle.

Sincerely,

Ham

Ahriman · 15th September 2005, 08:18 AM

I was told on numerous events that never say "never", or "unquestionably".

And BTW, it's listed as vambrace in a TURKISH museum... in Ankara.
I have made something like the pic I posted, and it was comfortable for fighting with sabers, and it restricted only a bit movement, less than an italian mitten. Of course, it wouldn't be fixed to the hand, but to the lower arm only.
BUT it'd work as a greave as well. I personally don't like the idea much as I don't really like fighting from horseback, but it'd work for those who like it. Strange thing is that most of these "greaves" DO look like my forearm in proportions - much more than the "true" vambraces. Only a few are too long, and the RA photo of the assembled version is the only one which looks definitely like a greave to me.
I'm almost sure that we'll never find out. Or do we have any illustrations/sculptures/explicit writings? And from where the turkish museum thought it's a vambrace? Good questions, I think.

14th September 2005, 06:46 PM	#1
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	If you are talking about the 5th picture along, the one that looks like this: I'm sorry to say it is a greave. Oriental greaves strap to the outside of the leg. If you have a look at the picture of the mannequin wearing the full armour with the krug cuirass, you can just make them out. Here is photo I took of one at the Royal Armouries museum. Here is a complete greave and cuisse assembly. It's from that Osprey book on Ottoman Armies. Here's a 15th century Turkish cuisse as well. BTW, that's a nice website you found there. There is a partial embossed krug on the first page.

14th September 2005, 07:24 PM	#2
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	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???

14th September 2005, 10:04 PM	#4
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i think you have both hit a long-standing debate, and one that has not entered the forum before (as far as i know). i'm afraid it has no answer, but the general consensus is that it is a vambrace (and i agree). its all down to opinion, as either corner can offer up a plausable arguement. mine has always been asthetics, in that as a vambrace its effective and does the job. as a greave, its ill-fitting (at any angle) and looks ugly and out of place. as i said, its only my opinion. the stibbert museum has them on the legs and i never thought it looked right. armour was used for both cavalry and infantry, so i cant agree on the 'side of the leg showing' theory. also, no good warrior would rely on remaining horsed and leave themselves vulnerable if un-horsed (i guess). the problem is in the existance of splintered, small plates, and complete plates style of ottoman armour. i figured this was why stibbert mounted his dummies in the way he did as his mail/plate vambraces couldnt be anything but, so he figured that the solid plate guard had to be a grieve. all speculative and a matter of opinion i'm afraid (but, no reason to stop debating :-) i hold firm to my theories though (unfortunately, as does everyo ne else). i must admit, i thought it was only the stibbert that had them mounted on the legs. i think the ones on the met complete armour are different (and dont have the 'hand-shield section). i have only seen images so may be wrong. no idea where the ones on the 'complete leg' in the osprey book is from. does it have a reference?

14th September 2005, 10:48 PM	#5
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Hi Brian, I'm glad you could join in. The one from the Osprey book used to be in the Royal Armouries when they were still in the Tower of London. I actually saw it in 1989, but didn't bother photographing it. The two pieces are still in the Royal armouries, but they have now been separated. My personal argument for it being a greave is the bit at the lower end, the one which I assume is meant to cover the ankle. If this was a vambrace it would be covering the back of the hand, excellent protection but also restricting wrist movements. Somewhere in my papers is an old B&W picture I photocopied from an old book on Islamic art, it shows a helmet, bazuband and greave/vambrace thingy attributed to Shah Abbas 1st (all of which presumably are still in the British Museum). In this rather old photo they all seemed to be part of a matching set, which raises the question why would a single set of armour need two different types of vambrace?

15th September 2005, 03:38 AM	#6
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Gentlemen, These are unquestionably greaves. Having tried on several in various collections, I can assure you that they fit the outer calf from just below the knee and completely cover the ankle, as they should for a cavalryman. Further, they are entirely rigid in the flat plane and so would not permit the wrist to bend, nor do they fit comfortably along the ulna. Despite the size (though there is considerable variance) they are virtually always too long to even fit from elbow to knuckle. Sincerely, Ham

15th September 2005, 08:18 AM	#7
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	I was told on numerous events that never say "never", or "unquestionably". And BTW, it's listed as vambrace in a TURKISH museum... in Ankara. I have made something like the pic I posted, and it was comfortable for fighting with sabers, and it restricted only a bit movement, less than an italian mitten. Of course, it wouldn't be fixed to the hand, but to the lower arm only. BUT it'd work as a greave as well. I personally don't like the idea much as I don't really like fighting from horseback, but it'd work for those who like it. Strange thing is that most of these "greaves" DO look like my forearm in proportions - much more than the "true" vambraces. Only a few are too long, and the RA photo of the assembled version is the only one which looks definitely like a greave to me. I'm almost sure that we'll never find out. Or do we have any illustrations/sculptures/explicit writings? And from where the turkish museum thought it's a vambrace? Good questions, I think.