Makes me wonder - maybe the Persians actually invented the stereotypical crown of the feudal king?
That's kind of obvious. I can't find it anywhere right now but I remember something that the crown actually finds it origin in Zoroastrianism/Mazdaism. It has something to do with the sun, and Mithras, but I forgot the details. I might be wrong, however, as I can't find anything about it on a quick search on google.
The Roman Empire, via the mystery cults of the east the legionaries brought back in the imperial period. But again, I might be wrong. When I can find the time and energy I'll see if I can verify.
Well, no. Russian crowns were very different. Muscovite knyaz wore a round, decorated fur cap with a cross in the centre.
Kinda like these.
During this time period, metalworking wasn't quite as advanced as it was , say, a millennium later. However, for a very long time, bronze was considered a superior material for armor than iron was because :
1. until more advanced techniques were developed, iron could not be made as brittle as bronze.
2. Bronze could be cold-worked and didn't need to be heated up to be molded into different shapes, once formed into sheets, metalworkers could put it around a form and start hammering.
3. Iron rusted and deteriorated rather quickly (unless coated in another material such as copper or brass; Usually, we see this in the construction of those late Persian banded arm and leg guards).
Anyway, the fact remains, iron equipment was not quite as durable or weather-resistant. This is why (generally) the archaeological finds from both this era and the later hellenistic era tend to have bronze artifacts more frequently than iron artifacts- Bronze equipment could be passed down for generations, whereas the Iron equipment would be commonly melted back down and re-worked due to corrosion and other environmental factors.
Lastly, Bronze is considered the material for armor for those of high status or position, because iron was more common and more cheaply available.