Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
Estrch,
Every time I see this pic I am always wondering: why should an executioner need a helmet, a shield and a heavily-spiked coat? Was he supposed to duel with the convicted person, and how was he supposed to strike with his humongous tegha without impaling his own arm?
|
Ariel, armor is not necessarily for protection, it was probably part of the show, for the spectators of an event. if this man was actually an executioner then making him seen ferocious would make sense. I can not comment on the usefullness of the armor only that it appears to not be made from parts of an elephant armor as far as I can tell.
Armor was worn by some participants of durbars and other state events, I do not think it was necessary for protection in this case either, but the armor was real, just from a different (earlier) time period.
Bikaner soldiers wearing armor for the Prince of Wales visit to India in 1875-76.
These mail and plate shirts are from a large group of armor that was stored in the Bikaner armory in Rajastan, northern India. Maharaja Anup Singh (reigned 1669–98) was a general in the armies of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb and led a series of campaigns in the Deccan in the 1680s and 1690s, including battles at Golconda in 1687 and Adoni in 1689. Dates on similar armors indicate that they taken as war trophys during one of the Deccan campaigns. In recent years some of these armors were sold off to dealers and have ended up in private and public collections.