Richard Fay wrote: |
Hello all!
Thanks again, Hisham! The description sounds similar to what I think the garment worn by early 14th century English knights might have been like. One question, do you know if the Indian fabric armour was worn by itself, or was a mail shirt worn beneath? I imagine if bazubands and mail-and-plate leg armours were worn with the fabric armours, then the fabric armours were considered to be a functional armour. I know the Chinese "studded" armours are suspected of being "court garb", and not truly protective. The Indian armours do sound like protective garb, even if only light protection, since they were stuffed with a bit of cotton wool padding, just like some medieval European gambesons! Now, am I reading the description correctly, the nails were attached to the cover fabric only? I would imagine they would be if the nail ends were simply bent over, the padding would most likely protect the inner shell and the wearer from damage caused by the nail ends. Now, I wonder, were the nails meant to be decorative only, or was it thought that they added some protective value? Even if modern tests show that "studs" on padded fabric don't add any significant advantage, that doesn't mean the armourers and warriors of the time always thought the same way we "moderns" do! I really appreciate all the responses! This has turned into a fascinating thread! Stay safe! |
Hi Richard,
I'm afraid the answer is I don't know. I'm pretty sure that the examples reinforced with steel plates would have offered a level of protection comparable to a chahar ayna. As for the ones without the plates, my personal feeling is that this would offer a similar level of protection to say a European "padded jack".
The other point worth remembering is that while apparently similar armours are depicted in miniature paintings dating back to the 16th century, it's hard to know if these are the same as the surviving 18th and 19th century armours. The fact is that by this time armour was pretty much obsolete in South Asia, most surviving Indo-Persian armours from this period are clearly parade armours and not meant for battle.
Also The Mughuls originated in Central Asia where Brigandine/coat-of-plate type armours were quite widespread, so the armour in the miniatures could be brigandines. Furthermore a type of armour known as kazaghand, which was a padded garment lined with mail was used in the Middle-east in the 12th to 16th centuries, and there is at least one surviving 17th century Indian kazaghand, so the armour in the miniatures could also be kazaghands. Click on the link please:
http://www.royalarmouries.org/extsite/view.jsp?sectionId=2023
In addition Stibbert has his figure wearing the chihalta over a mail shirt, and while I am inclined to take a reconstruction made by a 19th century antiquitarian with a hefty pinch of salt, he could have been right!
Some pictures:
16th century miniature (click on the thumbnail please):
This are the relevent pages from Robinson's "Oriental Armour" (London, 1967), I'm sorry but I was too lazy to copy them out, click on the thumbnails:
And this are some pages i scanned from Robert Elgood's "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (2004):