Why no plate armor in the Islamic world?

[othyrsyde]

No offense dude, but you're reaching the point where it's like a person makes a meal. Then you come along and ask why they made it, and then say their reasoning isn't good enough.

People don't change unless they see an advantage in it or are forced out of necessity. Obviously the development of platemail was something the Ottoman military didn't find useful. Their victories, defeats, and native environment speak well on this. Are you looking for a POD? This might help you better in seeking your answers than the senselessly seeming argumentative tone you're taking with OTL.

 

[antisocrates]

The question is for what reason or set of reasons, i.e., I'm looking for more than your circular they didn't because they didn't. The reasons given thus far are unconvincing because they don't hold up to close scrutiny. For example, heat is unconvincing because in the European theater, the Turk's enemies had no problem wearing plate.

 

[RGB]

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.

The battle of Molodi in 1572 saw Russian musketeers and cavalry in wagonburgs repel a determined assault by janissaries and dismounted Tatar cavalry, before another division placed its own wagonburg behind the Crimean army to cut off the retreat. So it was effective enough against men with spears and guns too.

Granted this "battle" was a military operation that was positively Napoleonic in scale and amount of land covered (the Crimean column occupied about 15 km, the three Russian divisions operated at even greater distances from each other to try to flank the Tatars).

 

[antisocrates]

Never said it could never be effective, only that there was a reason why it was used only on an ad hoc basis in Europe [proper].

 

[RGB]

Never said it could never be effective, only that there was a reason why it was used only on an ad hoc basis in Europe [proper].

What's the reason that you're suggesting?

I mean, to me it seems like there were enough fortifications and broken ground in Western Europe (ditches, canals, hedges, bocage, whatever) that you didn't even need wagonburgs, unlike out on the steppes. Doesn't mean that the tactic itself was obsolete.

But instead of just saying you're unsatisfied with the explanations we have, how about offering some suggestions of your own? Like for example answering the question of why are examples of harness so rare in the Spanish possessions in America?

 

[antisocrates]

What's the reason that you're suggesting?

I mean, to me it seems like there were enough fortifications and broken ground in Western Europe (ditches, canals, hedges, bocage, whatever) that you didn't even need wagonburgs, unlike out on the steppes. Doesn't mean that the tactic itself was obsolete.

But instead of just saying you're unsatisfied with the explanations we have, how about offering some suggestions of your own? Like for example answering the question of why are examples of harness so rare in the Spanish possessions in America?

It was rarely used in the 16th century Central Europe, the place of its birth (or popularization) as well. So not just in Western Europe. As far as explanations, I don't have one; if I did, I wouldn't have needed to ask. It's baffling, really, hence the purpose of this thread. Re: the Americas, what does that have to do with the Turks? But I have heard it was the heat and crappy native weapons.

 

[othyrsyde]

The question is for what reason or set of reasons, i.e., I'm looking for more than your circular they didn't because they didn't. The reasons given thus far are unconvincing because they don't hold up to close scrutiny. For example, heat is unconvincing because in the European theater, the Turk's enemies had no problem wearing plate.

Sometimes the reasons people do things don't make sense. As was said, making platemail is expensive and not normally a part of Ottoman and Turkish/Middle Eastern/Steppe warfare in general, and the lack of its use didn't prevent their success. So why do something that isn't a key to one's victories?

These questions seem more like some kind of "I'm trying to make you think because I want to play devil's advocate" kind of intellectual superiority BS, so I'm out of this discussion. Good luck.

 

[kalamona]

Among the many other reasons cited here: feudalism, wealth/cost and tradition.
In the western world, due to feudalism, the wealthy gone into wars (in numbers), who can afford a full plate at hillarious prices. A young - or even an older one for the matter -spahi could not - even if he wanted one. But tradition dictated the the conservative outfit for spahis - just like in hungary for about the late XVI cent. light horsemen had bows - altough they rarely used it in the original manner.

 

[antisocrates]

Sometimes the reasons people do things don't make sense. As was said, making platemail is expensive and not normally a part of Ottoman and Turkish/Middle Eastern/Steppe warfare in general, and the lack of its use didn't prevent their success. So why do something that isn't a key to one's victories?

These questions seem more like some kind of "I'm trying to make you think because I want to play devil's advocate" kind of intellectual superiority BS, so I'm out of this discussion. Good luck.

That's the type of circular BS reasoning I'm trying to avoid. Would you be satisfied if you asked why didn't the French adopt longbow and I said because "sometimes the reasons people do things don't make sense?" Plate armor was in fact easier and cheaper to make than Ottoman plated mail. Furthermore, Ottomans stopped using steppe warfare since at least mid 15th century, if not probably earlier.

 

[othyrsyde]

That's the type of circular BS reasoning I'm trying to avoid. Would you be satisfied if you asked why didn't the French adopt longbow and I said because "sometimes the reasons people do things don't make sense?" Plate armor was in fact easier and cheaper to make than Ottoman plated mail. Furthermore, Ottomans stopped using steppe warfare since at least mid 15th century, if not probably earlier.

Well they didn't produce it for the many reasons others have exhaustively pointed out. Sorry if the Ottomans reasoning isn't good enough for you, but that's why. Do you have any theories yourself? Several posters who are known to have knowledge on the period and empires involved have given you the reasons, but all you do is shoot them down and offer nothing in return. However I'm done. Goodbye.

 

[antisocrates]

Well they didn't produce it for the many reasons others have exhaustively pointed out. Sorry if the Ottomans reasoning isn't good enough for you, but that's why. Do you have any theories yourself? Several posters who are known to have knowledge on the period and empires involved have given you the reasons, but all you do is shoot them down and offer nothing in return. However I'm done. Goodbye.

None of those "reasonings" held up to close scrutiny. Sorry if the Ottomans reasonings isn't good enough for me? WT heck is that?! If the Ottomans gave a reason(s), obviously it'd be enough... You're making it sound like I have no knowledge on the period or the empires involved. I'm shooting down these theories because I have my own knowledge and the reasons given don't go very far. As an example, as I said upthread, neither heat nor mobility are sufficient explanations given what we know of the period and the states involved. So on.

 

[Derek Pullem]

That's the type of circular BS reasoning I'm trying to avoid. Would you be satisfied if you asked why didn't the French adopt longbow and I said because "sometimes the reasons people do things don't make sense?" Plate armor was in fact easier and cheaper to make than Ottoman plated mail. Furthermore, Ottomans stopped using steppe warfare since at least mid 15th century, if not probably earlier.

A good proportion of the Sipahi from the western provinces did not even have plate mail.

The Ottomans did not need plate mail to beat the Hungarians or the Germans at Mohacs or Keresztes

The heavily armoured knights were not maneuverable enough to fight the fluid envelopment battles that characterised most Ottoman victories - the cavalry mostly fought on the flanks as opposed to the core of the army - that position was filled by janissary and cannon. Usually protected with wagon, stakes and/or chains

 

[RGB]

That's the type of circular BS reasoning I'm trying to avoid. Would you be satisfied if you asked why didn't the French adopt longbow and I said because "sometimes the reasons people do things don't make sense?" Plate armor was in fact easier and cheaper to make than Ottoman plated mail. Furthermore, Ottomans stopped using steppe warfare since at least mid 15th century, if not probably earlier.

The Muscovite Tsars imported "dragoon armour" and "hussar armour" from the West and had some made locally, that was basically a bulletproof cuirass over a buff coat and a helmet, not too different from other 17th c. cavalry.

Nonetheless plated mail coexisted with dragoon armour right through the period and was the typical equipment of the gentry militia (which was as I previously said armed with bows, pistols and sabres).

Both traditional armours and "foreign model" armours were abandoned by the 18th c. in favour of just uniforms, and cuirasses didn't reappear until the Napoleonic period.

The soldiers of the foreign model also were issued pikes, but that period didn't last very long before a new set of reforms eliminated both pikes and berdyshes in favour of the bayonet. The concept of pike isn't difficult to grasp but it never took off in any big way in Eastern Europe nonetheless. So there MUST have been tactical concerns that made certain no-brainer decisions that a European army would have taken less relevant elsewhere.

 

[antisocrates]

The Muscovite Tsars imported "dragoon armour" and "hussar armour" from the West and had some made locally, that was basically a bulletproof cuirass over a buff coat and a helmet, not too different from other 17th c. cavalry.

Nonetheless plated mail coexisted with dragoon armour right through the period and was the typical equipment of the gentry militia (which was as I previously said armed with bows, pistols and sabres).

Both traditional armours and "foreign model" armours were abandoned by the 18th c. in favour of just uniforms, and cuirasses didn't reappear until the Napoleonic period.

The soldiers of the foreign model also were issued pikes, but that period didn't last very long before a new set of reforms eliminated both pikes and berdyshes in favour of the bayonet. The concept of pike isn't difficult to grasp but it never took off in any big way in Eastern Europe nonetheless. So there MUST have been tactical concerns that made certain no-brainer decisions that a European army would have taken less relevant elsewhere.

That's part of my point. Given the danger and prevalence of gunfire on the 16th century European battlefield, why wasn't at the very least proofed cuirass adopted for the Janissaries and/or Spahis? As far as E Europe went, I think part of the reason was the sheer space, which favored sweeping cavalry maneuvers as opposed to bunched up set-piece battles fought in Europe. In contrast, the Ottomans were fighting Europeans in European theater, and the proper Ottoman army was used infrequently in the Ukraine and Poland during this period (I believe they were used more frequently in the 17th - 18th century).

 

[kalamona]

A good proportion of the Sipahi from the western provinces did not even have plate mail.

The Ottomans did not need plate mail to beat the Hungarians or the Germans at Mohacs or Keresztes

The heavily armoured knights were not maneuverable enough to fight the fluid envelopment battles that characterised most Ottoman victories - the cavalry mostly fought on the flanks as opposed to the core of the army - that position was filled by janissary and cannon. Usually protected with wagon, stakes and/or chains

Ehm just for the record, neither Mohács or Mezőkeresztes were a prime example of fluid envelopement battles. No, i think, this is a misconception for multiple reason.

 

[Elfwine]

Something to note also on the Ottomans - the Ottomans didn't just have European opponents, so tailoring their approach to war based on one of their several theaters would not have necessarily been as wise as we think it is.

 

[eliphas8]

That's part of my point. Given the danger and prevalence of gunfire on the 16th century European battlefield, why wasn't at the very least proofed cuirass adopted for the Janissaries and/or Spahis? As far as E Europe went, I think part of the reason was the sheer space, which favored sweeping cavalry maneuvers as opposed to bunched up set-piece battles fought in Europe. In contrast, the Ottomans were fighting Europeans in European theater, and the proper Ottoman army was used infrequently in the Ukraine and Poland during this period (I believe they were used more frequently in the 17th - 18th century).

Because it wasn't deemed necessary to adopt it in the time it would have been effective. That's really the long and short of it, they where still winning against people who did have it and it would have been expensive, add this in with how how ridiculously conservative the Ottoman army could be in it's tactics and you aren't looking at a situation where a change like this is gonna happen without absolute necessity.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Ehm just for the record, neither Mohács or Mezőkeresztes were a prime example of fluid envelopement battles. No, i think, this is a misconception for multiple reason.

Tactical maybe but strategically the pursuit was the reason for the victory not the battle. Gendarmes are not good at destroying fleeing armies

 

[Richard V]

Because Ottoman armies had a more rational procurement system.

Plate armor was expensive and offered little practical advantage against musket and cannon. If you had a finite budget, it's more cost effective to use it for training and cannons than better armor. We can see the result of this at the Battle of Mohacs, where the Ottomans with superior artillery and discipline crushed a Hungarian army that spent it's money on fancy armor.

European plate armor emerged out of the European feudal system where aristocrats were responsible for their own equipment. They were incentivized to spend their own money for the best protection available, even if it added little to the overall combat effectiveness of the army.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the only other army to adopt plate was the Japanese who had a very similar feudal military organization. Unsurprisingly when professional armies emerged in Europe, armor started going away. The Janissary and Sipahi corps were ahead of their time as the only professional army of their day.

 

[kalamona]

Tactical maybe but strategically the pursuit was the reason for the victory not the battle. Gendarmes are not good at destroying fleeing armies

Uhm, there were no pursuit - neither case. At Mohács, the Hungarian heavy cavalry died amongst the turks - well, at least the right wing and without the ones who fled after the first charge - and the whole infantry died standing, in front of the turkish lines, unable to retreat. There were no pursuit, the main body of the turkish army waited on spot for days (3 days as far as i remember).

At Mezőkeresztes, there were no pursue at all. Well, for the record, the whole battle is more of a draw.