I'm curious as to why neither the Mamluks nor the Ottomans adopted plate armor. This is especially puzzling for the Turks, since they had had ample opportunities and means to both poach European armorers (as they did with gunmakers) and reverse engineer it. Instead, they stuck with plated mail throughout the 15th - 16th centuries. What do you think?
Why no plate armor in the Islamic world?
- Thread starter antisocrates
- Start date
- Status
1. Against anything but guns, plated mail is plenty good enough.
2. Shoulder mobility is important for armoured horse archers. Combine this with lots of affordable mail makers and cultural inertia...
3. Mass-produced plate was a huge industry in Europe spanning several countries from the beginning to the end of the process. Nothing quite like that existed in the East.
4. That said, there was plate armour. Limb protection was plate, and for heavy horsemen mirror plates or even complete layered cuirasses were produced.
What you're asking is, why didn't it completely replace the competition like it did in Europe.
There could be lots of reasons for that, from tactical to economic. Spanish soldiers in the New World used mail, scale and brigandine armour all the way into the mid-17th c. for example, even if domestically mass-produced plate was far more common.
Mail was also in use throughout Central Asia, North India and the Caucasus even in the 19th c.
Last edited:
If plate-armour caused heat exhaustion in the temperate climes of Europe, just imagine what it would do in the desert.
The Islamic world extends beyond the deserts, though. Or even the tropics.
They did, just not in the same way than European that used full plates.
The technical features that allowed the development of plate armor were issued from Arabo-Islamic world, so I doubt they would need to "reverse-engineer" it.
It's just it was adapted to their tactics, their terrain (even Reconquista fighter didn't used full plates) and used something more close to cuirasse than anything, or using more often part of armor than full set.
The westerneuropean tactic of heavy cavalry man was "guided missile". At the end, you have an human tank that doesn't even need a shield.
The middle-eastern tactic, however, was based on mobility and, as RGB said, full plates isn't what you search then.
Basically what RGB said. It's first about tactical differences, then geographical context.
In this regard, Spanish equipment was kind of a middle way between western Europe and Mediterranean warfare.
I would point as well there's no need of retro-engineering considering the technical advances that allowed plates in Europe came from Arabo-Islamic world where a metallurgic "industry" -fail of more fitting word- existed before European one.
In plates, in gunpowder artillery, etc.
I'll just disagreeing with RGB on this point
:
The technical features that allowed the development of plate armor were issued from Arabo-Islamic world, so I doubt they would need to "reverse-engineer" it.
It's just it was adapted to their tactics, their terrain (even Reconquista fighter didn't used full plates) and used something more close to cuirasse than anything, or using more often part of armor than full set.
The westerneuropean tactic of heavy cavalry man was "guided missile". At the end, you have an human tank that doesn't even need a shield.
The middle-eastern tactic, however, was based on mobility and, as RGB said, full plates isn't what you search then.
Basically what RGB said. It's first about tactical differences, then geographical context.
Cause you don't fight in a southern Mediterranean mountainous terrains OR in sub-tropical mountainous/foresty terrain in full plate. Not unless you want to become a puddle.
In this regard, Spanish equipment was kind of a middle way between western Europe and Mediterranean warfare.
I would point as well there's no need of retro-engineering considering the technical advances that allowed plates in Europe came from Arabo-Islamic world where a metallurgic "industry" -fail of more fitting word- existed before European one.
In plates, in gunpowder artillery, etc.
I'll just disagreeing with RGB on this point
:
You had fabrication of plate armors up to the XVIII where they effectively protected against guns. Their main issue wasn't their effectiveness, but their weight that reached 35 kg that was suicidal when move was more and more privileged.
Oh, they had the technology for sure. What they didn't have was the kind of system where the iron would be produced in Germany, this iron would be hammered into cheap plate in Italy, then shipped to say, Flandres to be re-cut to size for the individual customer.
They instead had mail-maker workshops and trade districts with large and often advanced cottage industries. It worked well enough.
Not sure which part we're supposed to be disagreeing about...I'm just saying that plate armour has a number of advantages over say, plated mail. One of them is that it needs less time to make. Neither cheap plate nor cheap constructed armour are a particular challenge for an apprentice armourer, but hammering a breastplate is a lot faster than stamping out small plates, then riveting them into a mail shirt.
The most important advantage is that due to plates in plated mail armour being pretty thin, it wasn't that good at stopping bullets, roughly comparable to good brigandine.
A good cuirass COULD stop bullets. But in the east it wasn't as much of a priority as mobility was. Though Russia/Turkey/Mamluks/Persia used personal firearms very widely, they still tended to err on the side of mobility rather than protection from bullets. And as you said, bullet-proof plate is heavy.
If you're not expecting to meet bullets, then plate has no particular advantage big enough to retool your entire armaments industry.
So I think we might actually agree?
Even without considering the chronological issue, the horses species that existed in Middle Ages were really stronger, also smaller.
While the most expensive were close to Frisian Horse or Spanish Genet, the more common were somewhat in between with draft horses.
These horses were trained and used to these charges (basically 40kg)
While the most expensive were close to Frisian Horse or Spanish Genet, the more common were somewhat in between with draft horses.
These horses were trained and used to these charges (basically 40kg)
Thanks for the replies. However, I don't find the arguments put forth here persuasive enough. For the sake of argument, I'll be confining my why's to the Turks. While it's true that guns were less common in the East, during the period in question, the Turks were neck deep in European enemies, from Venetians to Hungarians to Germans and the Spanish, all of whom were in harness. Furthermore, horse archery formed less and less important part of Ottoman tactics during this period. Janissaries eventually fought in pike and shot formations, and their core cavalry were lancers rather than horse archers. In addition, I doubt that plated mail weighed less than non-proofed harness, thereby eliminating horse fatigue and mobility as the reasons to choose mail over harness. Considering how quickly the Turks adopted anything useful military during this period, I think we can safely eliminate culture from the discussion. For that matter, I have little doubt that Istanbul could have erected an arsenal for harness, if the sultans so chose--just as it did for shipbuilding and gun/artillery. And I don't think heat would've been that much of problem, given that the predominant theater of war at the time was Eastern Europe; if Italians, the French, and the Spanish didn't mind wearing harness while in Italy, I doubt heat would have in E Europe either. Lastly, during this period infantry began to be increasingly armored in harness, munition and better, so I don't understand why Jannisaries weren't in proofed harness, when their European enemies made increasing use of guns.
If we're talking about the Ottomans, I get the impression that their big military competitive advantage was their ability to recruit, equip, transport, and supply absolutely massive armies. There are credible reports of the Ottoman army at the Seige of Cyprus in 1570-1 having up to 200,000 men, for instance.
With that many men, it's prohibitively expensive to equip enough of them with plate armor to make a big difference.
With that many men, it's prohibitively expensive to equip enough of them with plate armor to make a big difference.
But it didn't happen, so their arguments don't have to be persuasive at all, because they followed through on them.
So why didn't everyone follow the French ordonnance model in Western Europe? Because they were constrained by economics, tactics and social structures. England and Scotland had a fracton of the heavy cavalry of the French, as did the Swiss. Spanish tactics were dominated by infantry tercios and light cavalry not the charge home by the heavies.
Conversely why did poland retain heavily armoured cavalry far later than anyone else in Europe.
PS - Janissaries did not fight on horseback - the word you are looking for is Sipahi, Sipahi of the Porte to be precise. Janissaries also rarely used proper pikes - half pikes, halberbs maybe but not pike. their tactic versus cavalry as akin to the Hussites and often used barricades or wagons for protection.
Obvious answers aren't always obvious. That being said, wearing hot metal into combat is not a good idea, and thus the Arabs didn't wander about in a suit of plate mail.
In the 15th century, the Turks often used wagenburg tactics, but in the 16th century, it's my understanding that they fought in shot and pike manner like their contemporaries. Otherwise, their victories over Germans and the Spanish don't make much sense. Wagenburg was dangerous in the 15th century, but there was reason why it was no longer used in Europe, except on ad hoc basis. Furthermore, regardless of exact proportion of heavy cavalry, plate armor was used widely throughout all the major European armies. From cuirass to half plate to full plate, it or its portions thereof was everywhere. At the very least, the Ottomans should have protected its elite troops with proofed plate, as the Japanese quickly learned to do, but they didn't, preferring the more cumbersome plated mail that gave far less protection against gunfire, gunfire that was omnipresent in their European theater. How come?
The core army, for the most part, was for most of this period. The Janissaries and the Sipahi of the Porte were comparable in numbers to their European opponents. As to your numbers, I doubt it, unless your source was counting the total number of MEN at the siege, not the total number of regular soldiers. It's my understanding that the number of men trotted out by general historians is for the most part bunk, being inflated up by Christian chronicles. The more recent historians try to gauge the numbers more accurately with not only documentary sources, but also with archaeology and military science.
Wagon tactics were widely used in Eastern Europe into the late 17th c. and performed about as well, or better, than pike, against both Polish and Ottoman armies.
Against Polish and Turkish cavalry. Just as they were successful in Africa in the 18th century. It's just they weren't part of standard European repertoire (at least in non-East European armies). Besides, the 17th century was well in the disintegration of Ottoman military effectiveness.
- Status