| Author |
Message |
Hisham Gaballa
|
 Posted: Sat 09 Jul, 2005 2:47 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gordon Frye wrote: | In light of Hisham's posted painting of Mohacs, and Felix's comments on Frankish Heavy Cavalry's devestating charge, I would like to point out the rather interesting inclusion of some Turkish Heavy Cavalry in the lower right-hand corner (well, just above the lower right-hand corner, really) of the painting. Chaps wearing helmets and what looks to be maille (which most of the other Turkish Horse isn't shown with), carrying lances and mounted on barded horses. Hard to know if the bardings are quilted cloth, or coverings for heavier armour, but it's there never the less, and looks substantial.
My own knowledge of Mohacs is quite scanty, being limited to the single chapter the Oman devotes to the battle, but it is interesting to note that the Turks had their own "Cataphracts" as it were to counter the Hungarian's Western-style Heavy Horse. Whether they were used or not, I don't recall. Hisham, do you have more details on Mohacs?
Cheers,
Gordon |
I'm embarrassed to admit, that despite including that painting, I actually know very little about the battle of Mohacs. Apart from the fact the Turks won.
The Ottomans, Mamluks, Mughuls and Safavids all had heavy cavalry, but their armour was nowhere near as heavy as European plate armour. It consisted of mail or mail-and-plate armour. In terms of the protection it offered it is probably equivalent to late 12th century European armour. You will notice all the Ottoman cavalry still have bowcases and quivers, so despite the armour, they were still horse archers. Mamluk tactics were to soften up the enemy with arrows, followed by a cavalry charge against an already weakened enemy. I think Ottoman sipahi cavalry tactics were probably similar.
You will notice that the Hungarian knights are already on the run, but they had probably already been softened up by artillary, musket fire and Turkish horse-archers.
On the subject of Ottoman bards, this picture was very kindly given to me by B.I. on vikingsword.com's ethnographic weapons forum. It is a 16th century Ottoman armour and bard from the Armeria Reale di Torino. Thanks Brian, I hope you don't mind me using your picture.
|
|
  |
 |
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Jul, 2005 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hisham;
Thanks for the photo of the Turkish Heavy Horse! With minor variations in armour, it's pretty much what I would expect to see from Oriental Heavy Horse from Roman through the late 18th Century. It certainly looks as though it would be perfectly effective (within the bounds pf reason) against the Lances, Swords and Arrows of any opponents in the neighborhood. I agree with your estimate of being pretty much on the same effective level as ca. 1300 (perhaps even 1400) European Heavy Horse. (I am also given to understand that some African Horse was still accoutering itself in much the same manner, though perhaps it was with padded cotton armour, as late as the late-19th Century. Unfortunately European small-bore, breech-loading magazine rifles and rapid-fire artillery are a trump for such armour.)
I did note the inclusion of bowcases with the Heavy Horse, something that the Oriental Horse seems to have been committed to since the Scythians at least. The Mounted Bowman was probably one of the most effective weapons systems devised, up until the development of efficient firearms and an organization to properly employ them. Thanks for pointing those out, there are some pretty nifty details in that painting.
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
  |
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Jul, 2005 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed - the Muslim armies did not match the plate armour of 1400 and thereafter, but in earlier periods the equipment was quite similar. During the Crusader era, the arms and armour were very similar, except for size and shapes.
The people of the western Sudan - Hausa, Fulani, and Yoruba, did develop a cavalry strikingly similar to the horsemen mentioned above. Mail, padded cloth, straight swords were all used.
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Jul, 2005 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Felix Wang wrote: |
The people of the western Sudan - Hausa, Fulani, and Yoruba, did develop a cavalry strikingly similar to the horsemen mentioned above. Mail, padded cloth, straight swords were all used. |
Felix;
That would be who I was thinking about. Thanks for posting that info!
Cheers,
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruel A. Macaraeg
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Jul, 2005 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Felix Wang wrote: | | I agree that Diamond's book is a ground-breaking work, looking at the development of different societies in ecological/economic terms. Hanson is interesting as a case in the development of a thinker, since his background is as a classicist. Most of his later writings are outside of his original field, and I have not been terribly impressed. However, his original two works are very interesting - Warfare and Agriculture in Ancient Greece, and The Western Way of War. |
I have read through several of Hanson's books on Classical warfare, and agree with your assessments completely; his analyses of the emergence and successes of Greek warcraft are persuasive. I think he was emboldened by the utility of this analysis to extend it toward a more sweeping view of European "martial determinism" to explain all of human history. But the very reason his specialist work was successful -- context specific associations between Greek war, agriculture, and sociopolitical organization -- was the reason it couldn't work as a larger theory, because it was removed from its original ancient Greek context.
| Quote: | | John Lynn's Battle is an interesting discussion of warfare as it varies from on society to another, based on their concept of what war is and should be. He seriously critiques Hanson's more generalized claims. |
Haven't read this yet, but sounds like I should! 
| Quote: | | We agree that technologically the Europeans had no advantage to speak of, but they adopted the heavy cavalry charge as a major tactic, and no one matched them. Frankish, Byzantine, and Muslim sources all agree that when a Frankish charge did manage to hit its target, the impact was devastating. TheTurkish method of war had a number of advantages, but did not have a direct answer to the Frankish charge - and no Middle Eastern ruler ever thought that they should create a unit to nullify the one great tactic of the Crusaders. The local rulers certainly had the technology, wealth, and a huge advantage in numbers of skilled fighters, but did not attempt this. It would seem there was something which could not simply be transfered from one society to the other. |
Could it perhaps be the breed of warhorse/destrier, one that had the temperament to make aggressive charges -- that contributed to this? Or the inability of local conditions to breed such horses?
At any rate, I do accept the notion that certain societies have tended to exhibit that mix of discipline and aggression that produces great martial achievement. However, I wouldn't extend it to the degree that some would, to say that such traits contrastively differentiate cultures as a whole. I believe that martial ardor is expressed differently at both the individual and cultural level, constrained by the limitations and advantages of context.
In the case of the heavy charge, it would have entailed no less than a full social revolution to replace the estabished military systems that prevailed among populations in the Middle East (particularly the Turks). Conditions apparently weren't right for that kind of revolution at that time and place, and indeed weren't for a good portion of contemporary Europe either.
|
|
 |
|
|
Jason Daub
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jul, 2005 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ruel and Felix,
I have to agree with you...but...I believe that a balance has to be struck between Diamonds' environmental determinism and Hansons' cultural. It seems that any discussion regarding the difference in opinion is almost invariably partisan, with supporters of each theory staking out hilltops to die on like it were the Western Front. It seems to me that the correct answer to this question is a compromise. What environmental factors caused the warrior class of Europe to turn their backs on missile weapons? What factors caused the warrior class to scorn ruses (for the most part) as unfit?
At what point does something simply become part of a culture, as distinctive as national dress, cuisine, or music? What factors would allow a man to write, in all seriousness; "I love to see a lord when he is the first to advance on horseback, armed and fearless, thus encouraging his men to valiant service; then, when the fray has begun, each must be ready to follow him willingly, because no one is held in esteem until he has given and received blows. We shall see clubs and swords, gaily coloured helmets and shields shattered and spoiled, at the beginning of a battle, and many vassals all together recieving great blows, by reason of which many horses will wander riderless, belonging to the killed and wounded. Once he has started fighting, no noble knight thinks of anything breaking arms and heads- better a dead man than a live one who is useless. I tell you, neither in eatting, drinking, nor sleeping do I find what I find when I hear the shout "AT THEM!" from both sides, and the neighing of riderless horses in the confusion, or the call "Help! Help!", or when I see great and small fall on the grass of the ditches, or when I espy dead men who still have pennoned lances in their ribs"
The "face to face" cultural ethos and the "steppe" ethos met and played out in the middle east, to quote Keegan "What underlay the Crusaders' failures in all these and other defeats was not, however, tactical accident but a structural defect in their method of warmaking: dependence on the armoured charge as a means to victory against an enemy whose main intention was not to stand and receive it. The Crusader believed that success lay in choosing 'the moment at which to deliver their charge with the certainty of striking into the main body of the enemy'" and again regarding the "western way of war": "...a line of division between that tradition and the indirect, evasive and stand-off style of combat characteristic of the steppe and the Near and Middle East: east of the steppe and south-east of the Black Sea, warriors learned to abandon caution and to close to arm's length. The reason for this final abandonment of the psychology and conventions of primitivism in the West and for their persistence elsewhere baffles analysis. The line of division follows that prevailing between climactic, vegetation, and topographical zones quite closely though the linguistic division much less exactly: Greeks, Romans, Teutons, and Celts spoke Indo-European languages, but the Iranian peoples, who did so as well, did not join them in choosing to surrender the bow for the spear or the sword, preferring instead to persist in reliance on missile weapons and the tactics of rapid strike and swift disengagement. It seems dangerous to ascribe any racial explanation to the phenomenon. During the nineteenth century, both the Zulus and the Japanese aquired the disciplines of Western-style combat apparently from first principles and certainly by their own effort. All that can be said is that, if there is such a thing as the 'military horizon', there is also a 'face-to-face' combat frontier, and that Westerners belong by tradition on one side of it, and most other peoples on the other."
One of the great problems that we face is that the cultural artifacts are there for us all to see, but the environmental causes that may underly the changes are available only through inference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jul, 2005 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
On the subject of the ARMOR... I have 'heard' that european mail was constructed somewhat heavier during Richard's period in comparicent to that of the locals.
As I remember, the history channel, (I believe) quoted Saladin as having sent out archers to harrase the Crusaders, and then complaining that the mail was so thick the arrows did not penetrate. One must presume that Saladin and his people had used these same weapons before in such a manner and found them effective.
This suggests heavier mail on the part of the Crusaders, even if not by much.
As to the mail of the locals, I have never heard of mail that will stand up to a Lance.
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
 |
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jul, 2005 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
The memoirs of Usamah Ibn-Mundiqh include an incident where he caught a Frankish knight with the full force of his lance, and Usamah was sure he had run the man through. An Arab-Syrian noble warrior, he had a lot of familiarity with the neighboring Franks. A short while later, in a time of truce, he met the same knight he was sure he had killed. The knight had been wearing "double mail" (whatever the heck that is), which had resisted the lance. There are two points here: one, that an experienced warrior thought he had killed a man through mail, and two that extra-reinforced mail was very difficult to pierce.
Diamond does not explain the more subtle nuances of historical development in full. I think his critical idea is that different degrees of technological development can be explained by a well understood set of biological / economic factors. There is no need to resort to any kind of intrinsic superiority (or inferiority) of a race, ethnicity, or culture to explain their general degree of development. The Arabs had steel while the Incas didn't; he accounts for this without invoking any of the nefarious prejudices which had dogged human relations for centuries. He doesn't well address such issues as why the French gendarmerie was so much more aggressive and successful than the Italian heavy horsemen they encountered in 1494.
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jul, 2005 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Felix Wang wrote: | | The memoirs of Usamah Ibn-Mundiqh include an incident where he caught a Frankish knight with the full force of his lance, and Usamah was sure he had run the man through. An Arab-Syrian noble warrior, he had a lot of familiarity with the neighboring Franks. A short while later, in a time of truce, he met the same knight he was sure he had killed. The knight had been wearing "double mail" (whatever the heck that is), which had resisted the lance. There are two points here: one, that an experienced warrior thought he had killed a man through mail, and two that extra-reinforced mail was very difficult to pierce. |
Thanks! That's interesting.
If any of you recall my post on the differences between a lance and a spear....(seems at certain periods there weren't any) I wonder if at this time the lance had the flat head, rather then the later period stiletto head. Truthfully, I would love to have all the details of this encounter that don't survive... (IE, did he thrust at the fellow in a melee, or joust at him?)
futher, I still wonder if on adverage European mail was more heavily made as well as often being worn doulbe layered. IE, more mass per square inch if you will. Do we have an adverage on the gauge of the links and the diameter for each side's mail? It would surely vary, but an adverage might be found.
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Daub
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Jul, 2005 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
George,
Also from the memoirs of Usamah Ibn-Munqidh; "Another Turk now climbed and started walking on the same wall between the two bastions. He was carrying his sword and shield. There came out to meet him from the tower, at the door of which stood a knight, a Frank wearing double-linked mail and carrying a spear in his hand, but not equipped with a shield. The Turk, sword in hand, encountered him. The Frank smote him with the spear, but the Turk warded off the point of the spear with his shield and, notwithstanding the spear, advanced towards the Frank. The latter took to flight and turned his back, leaning forward, like one who wanted to kneel, in order to protect his head. The Turk dealt him a number of blows which had no effect whatsoever, and he went on walking until he entered the tower."
I have also seen the armour described as "double mail", "doubled mail", and "Frankish mail". As my command of Arabic is nonexistent I have no way of knowing what term is the closest translation. All that I can venture is that there was some difference that the contemporaries noted.
If any of you frequent the various armour research sites please chime in here. I have no actual knowledge of the comparative differences in armour from the First to Third Crusade beyond the anecdotes found in the various histories and I would appreciate any hard evidence that is available.
|
|
|
|
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jul, 2005 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason Daub wrote: | George,
Also from the memoirs of Usamah Ibn-Munqidh; "Another Turk now climbed and started walking on the same wall between the two bastions. He was carrying his sword and shield. There came out to meet him from the tower, at the door of which stood a knight, a Frank wearing double-linked mail and carrying a spear in his hand, but not equipped with a shield. The Turk, sword in hand, encountered him. The Frank smote him with the spear, but the Turk warded off the point of the spear with his shield and, notwithstanding the spear, advanced towards the Frank. The latter took to flight and turned his back, leaning forward, like one who wanted to kneel, in order to protect his head. The Turk dealt him a number of blows which had no effect whatsoever, and he went on walking until he entered the tower."
I have also seen the armour described as "double mail", "doubled mail", and "Frankish mail". As my command of Arabic is nonexistent I have no way of knowing what term is the closest translation. All that I can venture is that there was some difference that the contemporaries noted.
If any of you frequent the various armour research sites please chime in here. I have no actual knowledge of the comparative differences in armour from the First to Third Crusade beyond the anecdotes found in the various histories and I would appreciate any hard evidence that is available. |
As a source of information Usama ibn Munqidh is one of my favorites. Not only is he an eye-witness and participant in many of the events he descibes, he is also extremely entertaining. I've also come across references to "double mail", although for the life of me I cannot remember where. I vaguely remember it being to do with the way mail was connected. In ordinary mail every individual link is connected to 4 other links, whereas In "double mail" every link was connected to 8 other links. I have a feeling though that armour of this type was quite rare and only used over the torso. the rest of the mail, i.e. sleeves, mail mittens and chausses would have been made of ordinary mail.
I have seen 15th and 16th century Mamluk, Ottoman and Iranian mail in museums. Superficially at least it seems no different to contemporary surviving European mail. The rings are in a variety of sizes and are invariably rivetted. In his "Oriental Armour" H. R. Robinson describes Mamluk-era mail from Egypt and Syria as often having 2 rivets in each link rather than just one. Also in Mamluk mail you sometimes find that individual links have been decorated with inlaid inscriptions and arabesques!
Its also worth bearing in mind that Turkish horse archers usually fought against each other. Furthermore they either wore light armours such as gambesons, leather lamellar or no armour at all. So it is more reasonable to assume that during the early Crusading period Turkish arrows were not armour penetrating rather than European mail being higher quality than Oriental mail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jul, 2005 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
As a source of information Usama ibn Munqidh is one of my favorites. Not only is he an eye-witness and participant in many of the events he descibes, he is also extremely entertaining. I've also come across references to "double mail", although for the life of me I cannot remember where. I vaguely remember it being to do with the way mail was connected. In ordinary mail every individual link is connected to 4 other links, whereas In "double mail" every link was connected to 8 other links. |
Where can I find his work? Is it on the internet or is it time for another trip to the bookstore?
Secondly, I personally immediately thought 'double mail? That must mean he is wearing two mail shirts, much in the way I might wear two sweaters if it's really cold.'
Does anyone have any clues as to if the 8 link or the two shirts is the correct one? I would think the two shirts, as overlapping mail does have some precedence. I understand the Romans on the Lorica Hamata had extra mail on the shoulders, and you often see coils or 'bishops mantle's' adding an extra layer over the shoulders. I wouldn't think wearing two layers would be that big a streach to those who were in good enough shape to manage the weight. (And the weight wouldn't be that differnt from a mail with 9 links where five were before)
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
|
|
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jul, 2005 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| George Hill wrote: | | Quote: |
As a source of information Usama ibn Munqidh is one of my favorites. Not only is he an eye-witness and participant in many of the events he descibes, he is also extremely entertaining. I've also come across references to "double mail", although for the life of me I cannot remember where. I vaguely remember it being to do with the way mail was connected. In ordinary mail every individual link is connected to 4 other links, whereas In "double mail" every link was connected to 8 other links. |
Where can I find his work? Is it on the internet or is it time for another trip to the bookstore?
Secondly, I personally immediately thought 'double mail? That must mean he is wearing two mail shirts, much in the way I might wear two sweaters if it's really cold.'
Does anyone have any clues as to if the 8 link or the two shirts is the correct one? I would think the two shirts, as overlapping mail does have some precedence. I understand the Romans on the Lorica Hamata had extra mail on the shoulders, and you often see coils or 'bishops mantle's' adding an extra layer over the shoulders. I wouldn't think wearing two layers would be that big a streach to those who were in good enough shape to manage the weight. (And the weight wouldn't be that differnt from a mail with 9 links where five were before) |
It might need a trip to the bookstore:
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=509340482
Wearing two mail shirts is also possible, But I do have this distinct memory of double mail. I wish I could remember where i saw it.
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
|
|
|
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jul, 2005 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found this definition in George Cameron Stone's "A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and all times" (what a mouthfull!).
And here is a close-up of Mamluk mail from H. R. Robinson's "Oriental armour":
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jul, 2005 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ignore Stone when it comes to armour. The pics and illustrations are great but his text contains too many errors. Nobody knows what double mail actually consisted of.
|
|
|
|
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jul, 2005 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tom, you mentioned leather bazu-bands. I'm sure this is very possible, but I don't actually recall ever seeing any in books or museums. All the bazu-bands I have seen are steel or iron. These would probably stand up to a sword blow slightly better than leather bazu-bands. 
What sort of helmet do you plan to go with the outfit? If you are doing late15th-early 16th century Ottoman, may I suggest a chichak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruel A. Macaraeg
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Jul, 2005 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | have to agree with you...but...I believe that a balance has to be struck between Diamonds' environmental determinism and Hansons' cultural. |
Hi Jason,
I think this is actually what Diamond himself was saying, when he distinguished proximal vs. ultimate causes. As I understand it, his point was that ultimate environmental causes act as powerful constraints on the potential for cultural causes to exert deterministic influence. Hanson seems to reject that, but to my mind Diamond's position is far and way the stronger one.
| Quote: | | So it is more reasonable to assume that during the early Crusading period Turkish arrows were not armour penetrating rather than European mail being higher quality than Oriental mail. |
Hisham,
I'm fairly certain that Central Asian archery was able to penetrate armor. Nicolle in 'Saladin and the Saracens' states that arrows could penetrate armor at even a modest pull, while Marshall's 'Storm from the East' (about the Mongols) makes mention of how silk shirts were worn beneath mail in order to "catch" arrowheads that had pierced their hauberks -- the silk, resistant to tearing because of its strongly woven fibers, would enter the wound with the arrow, preventing excessively deep penetration, and could thus more easily pull the heads out.
***
PS: Didn't realize it till recently, but PBS is actually airing a three-part TV version of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" this month! As you might've noticed, I'm partial to the arguments set forth in that work, so I'm thrilled to see it getting more exposure. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Jul, 2005 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ruel A. Macaraeg wrote: | | Quote: | | have to agree with you...but...I believe that a balance has to be struck between Diamonds' environmental determinism and Hansons' cultural. |
Hi Jason,
I'm fairly certain that Central Asian archery was able to penetrate armor. Nicolle in 'Saladin and the Saracens' states that arrows could penetrate armor at even a modest pull, while Marshall's 'Storm from the East' (about the Mongols) makes mention of how silk shirts were worn beneath mail in order to "catch" arrowheads that had pierced their hauberks -- the silk, resistant to tearing because of its strongly woven fibers, would enter the wound with the arrow, preventing excessively deep penetration, and could thus more easily pull the heads out.
|
Yes, the Mongels... It's worth remembering that the Mongels were used to fighting the Chinese, who used the crossbow quite extencively.
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
|
|
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jul, 2005 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Going back to Islamic armour of the Crusading Era again, I haven't really mentioned lamellar armour. Of course no complte Crusading Era Islamic lamellar survives. All we have is fragments, highly stylised depictions on pottery and miniature paintings and descriptions in Mamluk furuseya manuals. Lamellar armour seems to have been used by Islamic armies from the Muslim conquest of iran in the 7th century, until the early 15th century. According to H. R. Robinson one of it's major weaknesses was that the lacing could be cut, he felt that it was because of this that it was superseded by mail-and-plate armour. The Arabic name for it was jawshan, which was same name used for mail-and-plate armour, the Arabs seems to like recycling words! Of course lamellar was also used by the Russians, Mongols, Chinese and Japanese.
This is from the Osprey website, it's from an article by David Nicolle entitled "Know your weapons, know your enemy: a mamluk training manual":
| Quote: | Question What shows that the owner of a jawshan has the mastery of its use and other such skills?
Answer A man must dedicate himself to putting on his jawshan by himself, even if the sleeves and lower part are separate, until he can do this rapidly on his own.
Note The flap-like sleeves of the jawshan (lamellar cuirass) hung from the shoulder but did not go fully around beneath the arm, nor did they cover the armpit. Instead they were normally secured by a strap around the arm above the elbow. The lower part of the jawshan, below the waist, normally consisted of two or more flaps, which protected the upper legs and buttocks like larger versions of the tassets and cullet, which formed part of 14th-century and later European armour.
Question What else should the owner of a jawshan know about it?
Answer He should know how the cuirass is made, and how it is laced together in case part of it is cut off; also how it hangs and how to stop it getting punctured.
Question What shows that a man is not prepared?
Answer First look at the leather of his saddle-strapping, next see if the silk cords of his jawshan are rotted or if the edges of his weapons are not sharpened. Finally, see if any part of his jawshan is torn with a hole in it or hanging loose.
Question What shows that a man is accustomed to his his jawshan?
Answer Every day he must train himself to dismount elegantly so that he does not break or damage it, and he must keep practising and improving this skill. If, during the winter, the cuirass gets wet or damp from rain, he must examine its leather straps and its connections carefully and wipe off any dampness or mud from its individual pieces and any wetness from its cords. If he fails to do this, the inside of it will rot and it will become out of shape. Such rotting shows negligence and carelessness.
Note The emphasis here as elsewhere is on readiness for battle and care of valuable life-saving equipment.
Question How does the owner of a jawshan shoot with the bow?
Answer When shooting, he wears a small cuirass. The straps and individual pieces of this special jawshan do not damage the bow or snag the bowstring. Sometimes the hanging parts [of the cuirass] can be taken off without harming it. A superior type has crossing strings that secure the tops of the individual lamellae on the outside and no laces hanging off it. This type, however, is not so strong. It may be laced to the top of the arm protector or untied to hang down loose if one wishes to shoot. One can undo this sleeve and let it hang down on its straps as far as the hand and, once the shooting is over, it can be refastened. Alternatively a false sleeve made of silk brocade or soft leather or a mixture of both can be worn, fixed securely at both ends to the sleeve of the cuirass and the arm protector.
Note The 'false sleeve' sounds like a form of smooth covering worn over armour to prevent it snagging the bowstring. The attention given to the particular requirements of armour for bowmen reflects the importance of archery in the mamluk's repertoire of military skills. He was expected to be able to hit a one metre (3.25 ft) target at a range of 75 metres (246 ft) and to loose three aimed shots in one and a half seconds, a much faster rate than achieved by the longbowmen of England. Mamluk tactics included the arrow shower, as the Crusaders learned to their cost at Gaza in 1244.
Question What possesses even greater protective qualities than the jawshan?
Answer A padded garment can be worn beneath the jawshan, as the Europeans wear beneath their iron cuirasses. This is the qarqal. It will protect the wearer from both heat and cold, and from the blows of maces and kafir kubat which soften the flesh and weaken the bones. If a mail hauberk is worn beneath it, then both protection and safety are found.
Note The kafir kubat (literally 'infidel pestle') was another form of mace. A weapon with this name was reportedly used by a rebel leader in AD 685, and it is also mentioned in the hands of Arab-Khurasani troops in the ninth century. It is probable that this kind of mace was thought to be similar in shape to the uncircumcised male organs of non-Muslims. |
This is a fragment of 12th-13th century Iron lamellar from the Jazirah region of Northern Iraq (David Nicolle, Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era 1050-1350):
This is from an Iranian plate dated 1228 AD, it shows several types of Islamic armour including mail and lamellar:
And finally this is one of my favorite depictions of a mamluk warrior, it is from an early 14th century Syrian or Egyptian brass basin, now in the Louvre. He seems to have a helmet with a mail aventail covering his face and leather (?) earflaps, and a lamellar cuirass with extensions covering his thighs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a