Hi new here. Just wanted to post this as a reply to an old thread from 2013. I got banned because I "nacro'ed" an old thread. The admin was so pissed he apparently divorced me lol.
Why no plate armor in the Islamic world?
So I'm from the middle east and I have a pretty good grasp on middle eastern martial arts.
To answer your question of why the Ottomans and Mamluks didn't wear full plate like the Germans or Italians did? Short answer: They didn't need to.
Note: I'm going to refer to Middle eastern, North African, Central Asian and North Indian Martial traditions as "Islamicate Traditons" for ease and generalization.
So let's debunk some inaccuracies first on this forum:
1- Middle easterners did wear armor; back in the old Sassanid Persian times, to Arabs, To Seljuks, to even as late as the 18th century. They do get you cooking on the hot arid deserts of Arabia and Persia, so Arabs and Persians ( and later the Turks ) developed a simple method of wearing cloths on the mail armor itself, and that's usually why Christian depictions of Muslims make them seem like they wear no armor.
2- Full plate was heavy, but not heavy enough to be a serious hurdle. Still, it could be a factor in why the Turks didn't like to copy this style. Since Islamicate traditions favor mobility and maneuverability.
3- There wasn't really a conservative force behind what the Muslims used to wear. In fact the Ottomans did a pretty good job of adapting their military tactics in accordance with the enemies they had to face. Hell the Sepahis themselves were a copy of the European knights. There are many examples I can give of how the Ottomans adapted and changed their tactics. In fact the Ottomans had military academies ( Kinda ) where they teach their nobles the arts of war.
4- No, it wasn't too expansive. In fact, What the Sepahis used to wear was considerably more expensive than European full plate armor, and the Sultan didn't favor numbers vs full body aromr, he had all the money and wealth in the world. In fact he had much more wealth to spend than soldiers in his ranks. Muslim armor was shiny and good looking, they carved Quran verses, Arabisc patters and even added jewels and precious stones. Thus, it was more expensive to make.
So now that we cleared misconceptions, how then were the Sepahis, in fact, equal to the knights?
Answer: Simple! Turkish martial arts focused more on horse back fighting. The Turks are people who migrated from central Asia, which there, people lived their entire life from child hood to adult hood on horse back. The central Asian horse was fast and agile. The Turkish warrior had incredible balance on his horse that it is much harder to knock him off his horse. Combine that with unit discipline and there you have a good picture of central Asian martial arts.
So why did the Turks not use full plate armor?
Answer: Also simple! They used a shield! It might sound ridiculous but the big rounded shield protected their entire upper body, and usually the limbs were protected with plated mail. The rounded shield is usually metallic so it serves the same role of plate armor in protecting from slashes and thrusts. It also serves a tactical advantage in parrying, where you diverge the enemy's weapon to the side and strike him. The knights abandoned their use of shields since they armored themselves with full plate which gave them a disadvantage against shielded opponents. The Sepahis were equipped with pike that in itself when charging has a pretty strong blunt ( if it was not able to penetrate ). If the Pike broke, they use a secondary weapon ( and now here it's really about how the knights used to deal with other knights ) which is usually a persian mace or a two sided Axe.
I would also like to point out that knights perhaps do have a better advantage when charging against the Sepahis; since the round shield wouldn't be the best protection against a charging pike. But when flanking or pushing the enemy they were both equal.
Finally perhaps in the end, the Ottomans would realize the advantages of full plate armor and adopt it. But the period from the 14th century to the late 17th century proved that there is a bigger threat the Ottomans needed to adapt to than pesky full plated tanks on horses; gun powder, which they adopted in Janissary muskets and large cannons themselves. But they fell behind eventually until their eventual fall. With it armor pretty much disappeared to be replaced with much cheaper, more maneuverable, yet more amassed musketeer units.
Why no plate armor in the Islamic world?
So I'm from the middle east and I have a pretty good grasp on middle eastern martial arts.
To answer your question of why the Ottomans and Mamluks didn't wear full plate like the Germans or Italians did? Short answer: They didn't need to.
Note: I'm going to refer to Middle eastern, North African, Central Asian and North Indian Martial traditions as "Islamicate Traditons" for ease and generalization.
So let's debunk some inaccuracies first on this forum:
1- Middle easterners did wear armor; back in the old Sassanid Persian times, to Arabs, To Seljuks, to even as late as the 18th century. They do get you cooking on the hot arid deserts of Arabia and Persia, so Arabs and Persians ( and later the Turks ) developed a simple method of wearing cloths on the mail armor itself, and that's usually why Christian depictions of Muslims make them seem like they wear no armor.
2- Full plate was heavy, but not heavy enough to be a serious hurdle. Still, it could be a factor in why the Turks didn't like to copy this style. Since Islamicate traditions favor mobility and maneuverability.
3- There wasn't really a conservative force behind what the Muslims used to wear. In fact the Ottomans did a pretty good job of adapting their military tactics in accordance with the enemies they had to face. Hell the Sepahis themselves were a copy of the European knights. There are many examples I can give of how the Ottomans adapted and changed their tactics. In fact the Ottomans had military academies ( Kinda ) where they teach their nobles the arts of war.
4- No, it wasn't too expansive. In fact, What the Sepahis used to wear was considerably more expensive than European full plate armor, and the Sultan didn't favor numbers vs full body aromr, he had all the money and wealth in the world. In fact he had much more wealth to spend than soldiers in his ranks. Muslim armor was shiny and good looking, they carved Quran verses, Arabisc patters and even added jewels and precious stones. Thus, it was more expensive to make.
So now that we cleared misconceptions, how then were the Sepahis, in fact, equal to the knights?
Answer: Simple! Turkish martial arts focused more on horse back fighting. The Turks are people who migrated from central Asia, which there, people lived their entire life from child hood to adult hood on horse back. The central Asian horse was fast and agile. The Turkish warrior had incredible balance on his horse that it is much harder to knock him off his horse. Combine that with unit discipline and there you have a good picture of central Asian martial arts.
So why did the Turks not use full plate armor?
Answer: Also simple! They used a shield! It might sound ridiculous but the big rounded shield protected their entire upper body, and usually the limbs were protected with plated mail. The rounded shield is usually metallic so it serves the same role of plate armor in protecting from slashes and thrusts. It also serves a tactical advantage in parrying, where you diverge the enemy's weapon to the side and strike him. The knights abandoned their use of shields since they armored themselves with full plate which gave them a disadvantage against shielded opponents. The Sepahis were equipped with pike that in itself when charging has a pretty strong blunt ( if it was not able to penetrate ). If the Pike broke, they use a secondary weapon ( and now here it's really about how the knights used to deal with other knights ) which is usually a persian mace or a two sided Axe.
I would also like to point out that knights perhaps do have a better advantage when charging against the Sepahis; since the round shield wouldn't be the best protection against a charging pike. But when flanking or pushing the enemy they were both equal.
Finally perhaps in the end, the Ottomans would realize the advantages of full plate armor and adopt it. But the period from the 14th century to the late 17th century proved that there is a bigger threat the Ottomans needed to adapt to than pesky full plated tanks on horses; gun powder, which they adopted in Janissary muskets and large cannons themselves. But they fell behind eventually until their eventual fall. With it armor pretty much disappeared to be replaced with much cheaper, more maneuverable, yet more amassed musketeer units.
