Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Heavy armor of mamluk vs european knight via 1000-1600 Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Oliver Hauss





Joined: 10 Nov 2006

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jul, 2015 4:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gregory J. Liebau wrote:

Two words: discipline and organization. The Swiss confederacy was comprised of a tightly knit and homogenous urban society, and for well over a hundred years prior to the period of their military fame, the Swiss towns had been defending themselves against incursions from foreign powers (such as the Holy Roman Empire) attempting to relieve them of their urban privileges.



The HRE was less of a "foreign" power than one the Swiss emancipated themselves from. And their conflict as such was less with the HRE, which had granted them imperial immediacy, than with the Habsburgs who, as local nobility, they feared were far less concerned with the interest of the Empire as such than with their own influence in the region. In fact, the privileges had been expanded to Unterwalden by the Luxembourg emperors. And when the Bavarian Louis and the Austrian (Habsburg) Frederick vied for the throne, the confederacy supported the Bavarian in order to curb Habsburg power. So they very much saw themselves as part of the HRE, if as a part immediately subordinate to the Emperor, whoever that was, and for reasons of pure power politics not preferring the Emperor to come from local nobility such as the Habsburgs, fearing that the conflict of interest would lead to their rights curbed in favor of the noble house.

So if anything, the Swiss built their strength and experience in a local conflict with the House of Habsburgs. It is also erroneous to say that they turned their interest from purely defensive to expansionist in the 15th century - their expansion started long before that and partly drove the conflict with the Habsburgs, who, in turn, wanted to reassert their authority. Both the Battle of Morgarten and the Battle of Sempach happened in an effort at retaliation against Confederacy aggression and expansion.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Noah A. Sabouni





Joined: 24 Jul 2015

Posts: 21

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jul, 2015 6:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sorry, but I just realized that mamluke armor is very very similar to cataphract armor, anyone else notice also?
I like middle east and European history
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gregory J. Liebau




Location: Dinuba, CA
Joined: 27 Nov 2004

Posts: 669

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jul, 2015 7:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks for the specifics, Oliver. Interesting stuff! My own research typically ends with the 13th century, so I cannot delve into such details. Welcome to the posting community. Happy

Noah, cataphracts were quite a bit earlier than the Mamlukes in general, but it seems like that the evolution of heavy cavalry armor in the East would create many similarities between the armament of the two soldier types.

Also welcome to the forum, Noah! Forgot to say so at first. Cheers!

-Gregory
View user's profile Send private message
Noah A. Sabouni





Joined: 24 Jul 2015

Posts: 21

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jul, 2015 7:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gregory J. Liebau wrote:
Thanks for the specifics, Oliver. Interesting stuff! My own research typically ends with the 13th century, so I cannot delve into such details. Welcome to the posting community. Happy

Noah, cataphracts were quite a bit earlier than the Mamlukes in general, but it seems like that the evolution of heavy cavalry armor in the East would create many similarities between the armament of the two soldier types.

Also welcome to the forum, Noah! Forgot to say so at first. Cheers!

-Gregory


Haha thanks man! I realize cataphracts were around long before muslim empires, but the armor style became popular through out the muslim world for most middle eastern heavy cavalry. Mamluke heavy cav is not identical to an ancient cataphract, but similar.

I like middle east and European history
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,523

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jul, 2015 8:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gregory J. Liebau wrote:
Noah A. Sabouni wrote:
Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
The who-was-the-best question can't be answer with any clarity, especially outside of a shared social context with strong documentation. We can perhaps claim with a measure of a confidence that the Swiss were the best heavy infantry in Europe (or in Western Europe) from approximately 1450-1550, because so many period texts take or support this position. Declaring a best across time and space strikes me as reaching. The Mamlukes during the era of the Crusaders and after certainly had impressive warriors and equipment, but who can say how they compared with troops they never faced?


Interesting , why were they the best in that time?




The premise of their organization was to use squares of pikemen interspersed with crossbowmen and hand gonners to work both defensively and offensively for rather magnificent, coordinated maneuvers that were virtually unheard of among infantry formations since antiquity. The Swiss tactics were quickly adopted among Germans and the famous Landsknechts were imitators of their success, and they were also picked up by certain Italian condottieri groups among others. By the mid-16th century it's arguable that the Swiss model of using infantry in such blocks had evolved to become the basis of the first early modern standing armies.

-Gregory


aside from the eastern roman military tradition that maintained and preserved the usage of long spears and pikes with archers since the period of the roman armies (although this military tradition had well and truely broken down by the end of the 13th century

although, granted, the byzantine infantry wasnt usually as aggressive as the swiss were famed for being, acting more like a fixing force or an anchor point in the battle line that allowed the cavalry to do MOST of the offensive actions, nore were they as agressive as the roman and earlier hellinistic infantry



and for Noah i can help you regarding cavalry of the earlier end of the time scale by looking at the byzantine wars in syria against the current islamic caliphs of the 10th and 11th century's

its made vbery clear that the saracens of the period DEFINATELY fielded heavy cavalry that would almost rival the cataphractoi, the reason being that the byzantines equipped their heavy skirmish troops known as menavioin bearers with extra thick, and big bladed spears that were supposed to hold firm when braced even when the impact of a saracen cavalry charge would break the points of the regular infantry kontarion (4m pikes)
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Noah A. Sabouni





Joined: 24 Jul 2015

Posts: 21

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jul, 2015 8:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:
Gregory J. Liebau wrote:
Noah A. Sabouni wrote:
Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
The who-was-the-best question can't be answer with any clarity, especially outside of a shared social context with strong documentation. We can perhaps claim with a measure of a confidence that the Swiss were the best heavy infantry in Europe (or in Western Europe) from approximately 1450-1550, because so many period texts take or support this position. Declaring a best across time and space strikes me as reaching. The Mamlukes during the era of the Crusaders and after certainly had impressive warriors and equipment, but who can say how they compared with troops they never faced?


Interesting , why were they the best in that time?




The premise of their organization was to use squares of pikemen interspersed with crossbowmen and hand gonners to work both defensively and offensively for rather magnificent, coordinated maneuvers that were virtually unheard of among infantry formations since antiquity. The Swiss tactics were quickly adopted among Germans and the famous Landsknechts were imitators of their success, and they were also picked up by certain Italian condottieri groups among others. By the mid-16th century it's arguable that the Swiss model of using infantry in such blocks had evolved to become the basis of the first early modern standing armies.

-Gregory


aside from the eastern roman military tradition that maintained and preserved the usage of long spears and pikes with archers since the period of the roman armies (although this military tradition had well and truely broken down by the end of the 13th century

although, granted, the byzantine infantry wasnt usually as aggressive as the swiss were famed for being, acting more like a fixing force or an anchor point in the battle line that allowed the cavalry to do MOST of the offensive actions, nore were they as agressive as the roman and earlier hellinistic infantry



and for Noah i can help you regarding cavalry of the earlier end of the time scale by looking at the byzantine wars in syria against the current islamic caliphs of the 10th and 11th century's

its made vbery clear that the saracens of the period DEFINATELY fielded heavy cavalry that would almost rival the cataphractoi, the reason being that the byzantines equipped their heavy skirmish troops known as menavioin bearers with extra thick, and big bladed spears that were supposed to hold firm when braced even when the impact of a saracen cavalry charge would break the points of the regular infantry kontarion (4m pikes)


Thank you. I believe when a templar met a mamluk or any other saracen heavy cav, it was an even match. Both having nearly impenetrable chainmail along with lamellar armor.

I like middle east and European history
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Oliver Hauss





Joined: 10 Nov 2006

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jul, 2015 10:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gregory J. Liebau wrote:
Thanks for the specifics, Oliver. Interesting stuff! My own research typically ends with the 13th century, so I cannot delve into such details. Welcome to the posting community. Happy

...

-Gregory


Thanks. I always found the situation highly ironic that many take the Habsburgs for Austrians oppressing the poor Swiss when, in fact, the Habsburgs where themselves from the area and the whole mess led to them losing their ancestral castle eventually - which, incidentally, is still around, at least partially: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_Castle
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Sun 26 Jul, 2015 4:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I'd say the Early Swiss also had a lot of luck. Pikes weren't their primary weapon to begin with instead they used halberds. Many of the early battles if not all were fought on their home turf and more often than not they had the initiative to start with an ambush. They only switched to pikes later when dismounted Italian Man-at-arms with lances nearly defeated them.


As for coordinated moves no other infantry could perform I remain a little skeptical. As far as I can tell their tactic on open ground consisted of forming into three large battles each with a pike block or a few smaller ones and attacking head on until the enemy quits the field or no swiss is left alive. This is where the Swiss really shine, they had the corps espirit and courage to charge into anything with pikes and maintain formation even if a quarter of their comrades lay dead. In defeat they rarely routed but instead marched off the field in formation.

This tactic tended to work rather well until the Battle of Bicocca, much like the nobles who died at agincourt they made the mistake to attack a fortified position without proper support etc etc.

When people start listing the 'ultimate warrior' they often just name a troop type of a certain army led be an extremely competent general.

The mongols, Swiss, English archers, man-at-arms and roman legionaries are all good soldiers when the man calling the shots knows what he's doing. As we all know these soldiers got chopped to bits when being led by incompetent people.
View user's profile Send private message
Vasilly T





Joined: 02 Dec 2014

Posts: 66

PostPosted: Mon 27 Jul, 2015 12:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gotta agree with Pieter B. on pretty much everything he said, I too had the impression that early swiss victories really did involve a pretty solid amount of luck. I only would like to add that it was not a "nearly" defeat at the battle of Arbedo but a pretty solid defeat instead.
View user's profile Send private message
Finley A




Location: San Fransisco
Joined: 18 Jul 2015

Posts: 11

PostPosted: Wed 29 Jul, 2015 12:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I don't believe the malmuk had the same weapons. The blades were curved and suited to lightly armoured opponents. They had maces though. Plus european knights were trained how to take down a heavil armoured knight.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Wed 29 Jul, 2015 12:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Finley A wrote:
I don't believe the malmuk had the same weapons. The blades were curved and suited to lightly armoured opponents. They had maces though. Plus european knights were trained how to take down a heavil armoured knight.


What makes you believe they had curved blades?
View user's profile Send private message
Gregory J. Liebau




Location: Dinuba, CA
Joined: 27 Nov 2004

Posts: 669

PostPosted: Wed 29 Jul, 2015 1:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Yeah, most Islamic swords of the high middle ages would have had straight blades. Scimitars and the like were adopted from more eastern peoples and did not become a dominant form until Turkish influence was at its peak, though I'm no expert.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Sword_of_Umar_ibn_al-Khittab-mohammad_adil_rais.JPG

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/idris/Trip1%20063.jpg

http://sword-site.com/thread/258/14th-century...rd-kattara

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/attachment.p...1322055610

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/55/d0/...705096.jpg
View user's profile Send private message
Samuel Bena




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 10 Dec 2007

Posts: 94

PostPosted: Thu 30 Jul, 2015 1:57 am    Post subject: swiss square         Reply with quote

Gregory J. Liebau wrote:

The premise of their organization was to use squares of pikemen interspersed with crossbowmen and hand gonners to work both defensively and offensively for rather magnificent, coordinated maneuvers that were virtually unheard of among infantry formations since antiquity. The Swiss tactics were quickly adopted among Germans and the famous Landsknechts were imitators of their success, and they were also picked up by certain Italian condottieri groups among others. By the mid-16th century it's arguable that the Swiss model of using infantry in such blocks had evolved to become the basis of the first early modern standing armies.
-Gregory


Apologies for the OT.

I have always wondered about the two points mentioned in Gregory's post-

1. the square formation of the fifteenth century Swiss footsoldiers and

2. assumed emulation of their tactics by period German/HRE armies.

I saw this written in secondary literature a lot but do you guys know of any period evidence supporting these observations? Happy

Best.
Sam
View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number
Finley A




Location: San Fransisco
Joined: 18 Jul 2015

Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri 31 Jul, 2015 2:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Most middle eastern swords were curved. An assumption?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Thu 10 Sep, 2015 5:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gregory J. Liebau wrote:
Two words: discipline and organization. The Swiss confederacy was comprised of a tightly knit and homogenous urban society, and for well over a hundred years prior to the period of their military fame, the Swiss towns had been defending themselves against incursions from foreign powers (such as the Holy Roman Empire) attempting to relieve them of their urban privileges.

The towns began banding together, forming very well-trained militias, and eventually found themselves in such a position (by the mid-15th century) that they were able to make themselves available as mercenaries and turn their attention outward, instead of just working defensively.


Uh. There are a couple of problems with this summary. The first is, of course -- as Oliver has pointed out -- the Habsburgs were not a particularly "foreign" enemy, and the Swiss conflicts against them were pretty local, not the Swiss against the rest of the HRE. As a matter of fact, the Swiss remained highly loyal to the HRE once they were given broad autonomy, and did not become independent until after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

The second is the image of the Swiss as a unified force. They were so good at fighting precisely because they fought so much against each other when they didn't have a common enemy to band against. Swiss villages were known to raid and ransack each other, the rural cantons (such as the original three) were in a constant state of tension with the urban cantons (like Basel and Zurich), and of course the cities had their rivalry with each other. Local warfare and skirmishes were pretty endemic to the area and didn't end until the Napoleonic Wars was over and the Swiss established their modern form of government in the 19th century. During the Napoleonic Wars itself Switzerland as a whole was the scene of one of the most violent (but also one of the least well-known) insurgencies against the French-backed revolutionary government.

Oh, yeah, and strongly implied in the second point is that the Swiss cantons were anything but uniformly urban. Many were quite rural and even their neighbouring townsmen saw them as unruly barbarians.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Thu 10 Sep, 2015 5:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Noah A. Sabouni wrote:
Sorry, but I just realized that mamluke armor is very very similar to cataphract armor, anyone else notice also?


This isn't particularly surprising. Muslim historians during the early conquests noted how many recruits (whether converted or otherwise) they took from among Eastern Roman/Byzantine and Sassanid Persian ranks, and it's pretty difficult to see how this would have happened without bringing in a considerable degree of Late Roman and Persian influence into the Muslim armies. Indeed, Salman al-Farisi -- one of the most noted tacticians in early Islamic history -- was known to have been a former soldier, probably in the Sassanid Persian army.

Byzantine sources also support this contention. At least before the Crusades, they generally characterised the Arabs as their most dangerous foes since the Arab forces were eager to learn about any new developments in Byzantine military science and learned very quickly once they got their hands on it. So there's nothing unusual about similarities in military technology between the two -- they probably learned a great deal from each other, so much that it's no longer possible to tell who learned/stole which innovation from whom.
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.





Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 645

PostPosted: Thu 10 Sep, 2015 5:47 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:


Oh, yeah, and strongly implied in the second point is that the Swiss cantons were anything but uniformly urban. Many were quite rural and even their neighbouring townsmen saw them as unruly barbarians.


I think you just described every country in Europe before the 1950s Wink
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Thu 10 Sep, 2015 2:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Finley A wrote:
Most middle eastern swords were curved. An assumption?


Most modern Middle Eastern swords are. That wasn't the case before the Ottoman conquests in the 15th and 16th century; before then the predominant form of swords in Arab lands were straight-bladed and rather reminiscent of late-Roman and Migration Period European spathae. There's an older thread that has many images of straight Middle Eastern swords of this type: http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=175...amic+sword

In other words, it would have been really difficult to tell apart the blades of "Frankish" or "Crusader" swords from "Saracen" ones since they were quite similar during the peak period of the Crusades (let's say roughly 1100 to 1290) -- the main difference lay in the shape of the hilt, and indeed many blades of either culture seem to have been traded or captured and then rehilted in the style of the other.
View user's profile Send private message
Ahmad Abdel




Location: Jordan
Joined: 29 Oct 2020

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue 01 Dec, 2020 6:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gregory J. Liebau wrote:
You're right, Noah, I had forgotten about both Battles of Homs! My apologies. The second battle was a very serious engagement, however in the first battle only about six thousand Mongols participated and it was during a time of civil war within the Mongol Empire. I do not consider it a very serious engagement or a worthwhile showing of military might. I had never read about the Battle of Marj al-Saffar, though it does indeed seem like quite a handsome display of military skill on the part of the Mamlukes.

It is important to consider also that the Ilkhanate begun under the reign of Hulagu was not part of the main Mongolian empire, and no campaigns directed by an actual Great Khan were ever made against the Mamlukes - in other words, the best of the Mongol's armies never fought against the best of the Mamlukes.

-Gregory

actually the mamluks won 6 or more battles

Have a nice day
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Heavy armor of mamluk vs european knight via 1000-1600
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum