Why didn't Islamic sultanates adopt full plate armor?

Most likely it's due to the expense. A Man at Arms or Knight would take the time to repair or loot plate armor from a battlefield, but mail is less expensive and can be replaced easier. A Couple decades of that and a suit of plate is bound to wind up in some collection or armory somewhere.

Yeah, I'm definitely more informed by the 16th c. where there's a lot of soldiers' cheap plate (and infantry corselets/mounted harqeuboussier armour) and not a lot of anything else even though we know from text and purchase records that mail and jacks were still commonly used. I definitely tend to think of the 14th and even the 15th c. as a transitional period where lots of things were tried, but I disagree that the illustrations don't somewhat-accurately show it as such. These 1300s/1400s forces were after all very small, and lots of the people involved were career soldiers or brigands, whether gentlemen or commoners. English infantry in particular was the hottest thing before the Swiss made it big, and there are examples of individual infantrymen who entered the gentry and made huge fortunes in the wars.
 
The Landsnechts started as lands-militia and then had to go do mercenary work to keep themselves in the money during peacetime at home, so maybe that's what was meant there?

The name had numerous interpretations. Hans Delbruck in "History of the art of war, volume IV" goes to some length to explain it but clearly indicates that as the troops they were professionals from the very beginning, created by Maximilian and organized based upon the Swiss model. Article on Wiki gives some details regarding creation of their units (as far as it is backed by Delbruck's authority, it probably can be trusted ;)).

Nonetheless, as you'd said, besides the bishop's mantle, mail wasn't common at least according to the thousands of pictures of landsknechts that remain for us to look at. The pikemen were very lightly armoured for the period, but when they did wear armour, they wore plate.

OK, the Swiss traditionally did not wear any protective armor all the way into the Italian Wars (even when they could afford it, this was a part of a well thought PR promoting their image of the extreme fearlessness). Both Landsknechts and Spanish pikemen had been routinely using cuirases, helmets and whatever other types of protection they could afford. Especially this applied to the pikemen forming perimeter of the column. Soldiers with the halberds, placed in the middle of it may not have an armor at all but they were not wearing the mail. I'd assume that Holbein was realistic enough and he was depicting pretty much his contemporaries.

1024px-Bad-war.jpg
 
Both Landsknechts and Spanish pikemen had been routinely using cuirases, helmets and whatever other types of protection they could afford.

In fact there was a special pay-grade category of "armoured pikemen" in both systems, and that position was usually occupied by poor noblemen or successful veterans, in both Spain and Germany.

Armouring yourself up in half-harness was a lot cheaper than serving in the cavalry :p

Incidentally there are also accounts of people trying to cheat the recruitment commissioners, since basically they were evaluated by sight. People would doctor their shoes and stuff their shirts to appear taller and more muscular, and sometimes have several people conspire to present themselves before the recruiter wearing the same decent set of armour passed around between them, if it was required by the company.

All it indicated is that generally speaking, the recruiters were quite selective and didn't want poor peasants in their mercenary companies even in relatively poor places like 1470-1540s Germany or Switzerland.
 
In fact there was a special pay-grade category of "armoured pikemen" in both systems, and that position was usually occupied by poor noblemen or successful veterans, in both Spain and Germany.

Armouring yourself up in half-harness was a lot cheaper than serving in the cavalry :p

This was, of course, true for as long as the cavalry mostly meant "gendarmes" and the lighter units were rather small. But as soon as the reiters got into the picture, cavalry ceased to be the expensive branch even if they had to buy their own horses, armor and weapons.
 
This was, of course, true for as long as the cavalry mostly meant "gendarmes" and the lighter units were rather small. But as soon as the reiters got into the picture, cavalry ceased to be the expensive branch even if they had to buy their own horses, armor and weapons.

It's my impression that people got advance payment to buy all that from the recruiter, which would then be subtracted from later pay. Not a lot of recruits would carry that much cash around.

Obviously having a reliable monetary system and banking helps with that kind of thing.
 
It's my impression that people got advance payment to buy all that from the recruiter, which would then be subtracted from later pay. Not a lot of recruits would carry that much cash around.

Obviously having a reliable monetary system and banking helps with that kind of thing.

I'd assume that advance money would help but still the recruit should have some qualities/possessions/experience qualifying him for such a service. Probably having a suitable horse would be a start.
 
I'd assume that advance money would help but still the recruit should have some qualities/possessions/experience qualifying him for such a service. Probably having a suitable horse would be a start.

Recommendation letters, like d'Artagnan in the novel :p

I suppose we're into the 1600s now so there we go, full journey completed.
 
Recommendation letters, like d'Artagnan in the novel :p

I suppose we're into the 1600s now so there we go, full journey completed.

D'Artagnan is a different case: he had a recommendation letter for getting enlisted in the most privileged unit of the Royal guards. This was hardly a requirement for a lowly reiter. But a demonstrated ability to ride a horse would be probably a minimal requirement. :)
 
Anyone mention the penultimate reason anything is or is not adopted by a society's military bodies whether they are ennobled land owners or mass conscripted peasants; Doctrine, yet?
 
In the Middle East, there wasn't really need to. I also think armor cataphracts died out in Persia as well following the collapse of the Sassanids.
 
I mean they're stylized but if this one's inaccurate, they're all inaccurate. I keep hearing the same objection to literally every picture of soldiers from all eras and cultures - Russian, Polish, Persian, French, German, Byzantine, pictures in chronicles and pictures created for private collections, stylized and realistic: oh, these people are too well-equipped, where are all the unprotected peasants-at-arms? There's a famous picture of the battle of Orsha where the Muscovites are shown overwhelmingly well-protected as are the Polish troops and the same objections were raised. Unpossible, Russia poor, horse archers can't armour.

Few thoughts.

1st, "peasants-at-arms" were probably a rarity on a battlefield. The usual example are English archers but they were not typical for a continental Europe and the French attempts to create its own "free archers" were not quite productive. City militias were a different story but the burghers tended to be reasonably wealthy and could afford a decent protective equipment. Probably the only "unprotected peasants-at-arms" who left a serious military record were the Swiss pikemen and until the Italian Wars it was usually an issue of being protected against them (which usually did not work, even with a full plate), not other way around.

2nd, as far as the famous painting of the battle of Orsha is involved, if you look closely, you'll see that quite a few Muscovites are wearing fur-trimmed hats and padded jackets, not helmets and mail (look at those drowning in a river) - the individual details are seen better in a left corner - bottom. The same goes for the Polish artillery and light cavalry - bottom center and right corner. You can even see the typical German costumes.

3rd, The Muscovite army in this battle did not have "peasants-at-arms": these troops were feudal militia (nobility with the trained and armed servants) and quite often their armor and weapons had been passing from one generation to another so that even a relatively poor noble could be wearing mail and helmet. The peasants, when called to a military duty, had been used for building fortifications and similar duties, not for a battle service.
 
Few thoughts.

1st, "peasants-at-arms" were probably a rarity on a battlefield. The usual example are English archers but they were not typical for a continental Europe and the French attempts to create its own "free archers" were not quite productive. City militias were a different story but the burghers tended to be reasonably wealthy and could afford a decent protective equipment. Probably the only "unprotected peasants-at-arms" who left a serious military record were the Swiss pikemen and until the Italian Wars it was usually an issue of being protected against them (which usually did not work, even with a full plate), not other way around.

2nd, as far as the famous painting of the battle of Orsha is involved, if you look closely, you'll see that quite a few Muscovites are wearing fur-trimmed hats and padded jackets, not helmets and mail (look at those drowning in a river) - the individual details are seen better in a left corner - bottom. The same goes for the Polish artillery and light cavalry - bottom center and right corner. You can even see the typical German costumes.

3rd, The Muscovite army in this battle did not have "peasants-at-arms": these troops were feudal militia (nobility with the trained and armed servants) and quite often their armor and weapons had been passing from one generation to another so that even a relatively poor noble could be wearing mail and helmet. The peasants, when called to a military duty, had been used for building fortifications and similar duties, not for a battle service.

I'm in broad agreement. I think that we can rely on period illustrations quite freely, because they're very good on the details of individual items. The proportions of stuff being worn might be a bit off here and there, but I strongly doubt there's a whole class of common warrior that gets omitted altogether. I think if anything the rarity and exotic aspect would make sure they're represented (even the picture of Najera, drawn much after the fact, went to some pains to depict a slinger, a dart-man, archers, and light horsemen). European illustrators and miniaturists loved drawing Stratiotes and Turkish irregulars, for example. And the Swiss got their own share of representation too.

I also think that in late medieval/early modern Europe including Russia, a blatantly under-equipped lowborn soldier fighting in an actual battle line was a rarity if not a complete fiction. I mean, heck, when random burghers, gentry and peasantry was raised as part of the National Militia during the Time of Troubles, even they had standards of equipment. The only way you could enlist with no armour in a 1600s militia in Russia at its nadir was if you were an arqueboussier and had your own gun, your own powder, and your own sword.
 
I also think that in late medieval/early modern Europe including Russia, a blatantly under-equipped lowborn soldier fighting in an actual battle line was a rarity if not a complete fiction. I mean, heck, when random burghers, gentry and peasantry was raised as part of the National Militia during the Time of Troubles, even they had standards of equipment. The only way you could enlist with no armour in a 1600s militia in Russia at its nadir was if you were an arqueboussier and had your own gun, your own powder, and your own sword.

Ah, this "National Militia" thingy is rather tricky because the ...er... "patriotic picture" does not necessarily correspond to the reality (it HAD to have a broad national base which means that you have to put peasants and other patriotically-minded volunteers into its ranks :winkytongue:). The people who organized the 2nd Opolchenie were practically minded and preferred a relatively small army of the professional soldiers to a bigger unruly mob of a questionable quality.To get the high quality troops you needed to pay them well no matter how patriotic they were. So the whole thing started with a huge fundraising effort to finance this armed force and to provide its loyalty to the cause (*).

As a result, the salaries of the ordinary streltsy and the members of feudal militia (all these service people had been fitting into the traditional categories) were on a level of the pre-war salaries of the Tsar's Guards. Of course, these people had been professional military: the sources are clearly talking about the "service people" from Nizhny Novgorod and other towns (Arzamas, Vyazma, etc.). By the time of the Battle of Moscow (August 1612) the army consisted of 1,000 streltsy, 4,000 cossacks (mounted and on foot) and few thousands of "dvoryanskoe opolchenie".

It looks like on their way to Moscow they were joined by some impoverished people (cossacks and not cossacks) but as a minimum these "naked" and "barefoot" people had some kind of a firearm «мнозии ж от казатцкову чину и всякие черные люди не имущие… токмо едину пищаль да пороховницу у себя имущие», «ови убо боси, инии же нази»

Taking into an account that this army was approximately 8,000 strong and managed (granted, with the help of 2,500 Cossacks) to stand up to the Polish relief army of approximately 12,000 (including 8,000 Cossacks and 1,500 infantry which included 400 Hungarian and 200 German mercenaries) led by no less than Jan Karol Chodkiewicz and 3,000 Poles as garrison of Kremlin, it should be quite professional in its composition.

The Muscovite state had so-called "Посошная рать" - auxiliary troops raised from the cities and villages based upon certain quota armed and supplied by their communities but they were used for the construction works, help to the artillerymen, guarding the fortified border lines, etc. but not a battlefield deployment. I did not find any mentioning of it in connection to 1612.

____________________________________________________________________
(*) As was remarked by a disrespectful author of the early XX, if the people had been pawning their property to get the required money, there were also the people to whom they were pawning the property.;)
 
Top