Armour?

Aqtai · 29th September 2005, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahriman

Thanks for the info! I think they (the mamluks) were rather lucky - in the 13th century they didn't have to face vollharnischers, as then even the italians used only a few knees, and elbows... I mean, plate defense for them.

I have asked earlier, but it seems that no-one replied... did eastern people ever develop halfswording? Especially when confronting m&p armour, or strong riveted, it'd be crucial... but I haven't heard of it. But, again, I haven't heard about this vambrace-greave debate before...

If mamluks took part in the fighting in the 1500s, they may have come up against Portuguese officers wearing full plate armour, but I doubt it as naval warfare is different, how many guys in full plate armour will be on the deck of a Nao reppelling boarders? The Mamluk navy did defeat the Portuguese in one naval battle in 1508, but as I said before, I think most of the fighting was done by Maghribi mercenaries, not mamluks.

I'm sorry to seem ignorant, but what is "half-swording"?

Ahriman · 29th September 2005, 12:19 PM

It's a gripping method that gives extraordinary control and force to thursts and slices by sacrificing real cuts. When halfswording, you grab the BLADE with one (mostly the left) hand, while the other grabs the hilt as usual. By this, you get a short and very light spear AND a good grabbing tool as well.

I'll describe a very simple scenario. You are holding your sword in halfswording, left on the blade, thumbs pointing at each other. Your opponent cuts from above in an angle, targeting your left collar-bone. You raise your left hand much more than your right and receive the blow between your hands in a quite sharp angle. His blade slides down and stops at the quillon. Then you lower your left and raise your right hand as if you were to sheath your sword to your left. By this, your opponent's blade is incapable to cut you, the point is far behind you, and he could only move it to your far left. Then you simply strike him in the face with the pommel. Even as it took quite long to tell, it's carried out lightning fast, and most likely wounds the opponent quite well, even if he was wearing armour.

Mostly halfswording is done in armour, where you have a good leather glove to protect your blade-grabbing palm, but there are pictures showing unarmoured use, mostly with either slender blades or some kind of cloth on the blade... and sometimes without any of these. Of course, it makes it clear that you NEVER block a blow fully, or in 90°, nor do you block with the edge. Imagine the effect of a two-handed full-power blade driving your sword into your... lower arm...

Or the bending effect of the same, if you received the blow to the flat in 90°.

BTW, my question came from that I saw half-swording advised for messers. (messers are huge knife-like swords, sometimes twohanded, mostly resembling wide-bladed, crossguarded katanas) So it'd logical that eastern fighters developed it as well - cuts for unarmoured opponents and strong thursts for the mail-armoured, or m&p wearing ones...?

Sorry for the long post, but I think that the more you know... well, then the more you know.

Which is a good thing.

In the 1500's, and especially in naval warfare, one would only wear a strong breastplate, or even less... say, a gorget. So that's doesn't count...

Aqtai · 29th September 2005, 03:58 PM

In that case, AFAIK the mamluks never developped half-swording.

The mamluks fought as horse-archers/heavy cavalry. they would soften up their enemies from a distance using composite bows on horseback bows mongol-style, then once the enemy was sufficiently weakened they would charge with their lances. for close quarters work they would use maces and warhammers. In the 13th century the main sword used by mamluks was a straight double-edged sword. During the course of the 14th century they gradually adopted kilij-style sabres.

Their main enemies in the 14th-15th centuries, apart from each other, were the Mongols, The Aq-Qoyonlu Turcomans and the Ottomans, all of who would have been similarly equiped and (initially at least with regards to the Ottomans, they adopted field artillary and muskets in the late 15th century) would have used similar tactics.

Mamluk words:

As you can see, non are particularly suited to half-swording. All are meant for use on horseback.

Aqtai · 30th September 2005, 11:43 PM

Ahriman, I've just found another mail and plate vambrace for you. This one is from Robert Elgood's "Hindu Arms and Ritual".

Ahriman · 2nd October 2005, 01:06 PM

Thanks, both vambraces are very nice... and the upper one has that more solid metacarpal plate I missed. Is that mail riveted? It seems very thin...

Thanks for the swords as well... They are indeed better for horseback usage, especially as they mostly lack a real thrusting point... They were VERY lucky with avoiding open combat against vollharnischers...

A good harness is quite hard to defeat with cuts, even with a good wide twohander, and most, especially milanese, harnesses were able to repel arrows, even from average crossbows in the 500-550 pounds area.

Aqtai · 2nd October 2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahriman

Thanks, both vambraces are very nice... and the upper one has that more solid metacarpal plate I missed. Is that mail riveted? It seems very thin...

I'm afraid the book doesn't tell me if the links are rivetted or not. But from what I've read almost all Indian mail made before 1750 AD used rivetted links.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahriman

Thanks for the swords as well... They are indeed better for horseback usage, especially as they mostly lack a real thrusting point... They were VERY lucky with avoiding open combat against vollharnischers...

A good harness is quite hard to defeat with cuts, even with a good wide twohander, and most, especially milanese, harnesses were able to repel arrows, even from average crossbows in the 500-550 pounds area.

I'm not so sure about that. Ottoman cavalry used almost identical equipment to the mamluks, indeed some actually was Mamluk equipment captured after the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 1517. Unlike the mamluks, the Ottomans fought many battles against western Europeans in the 15th and 16th centuries, many of which the Ottomans won, like the battle of Mohacs in 1526.

Islamic cavalry had a different style of fighting, they would stay away from the enemy shooting arrows from horseback, they would only engage in hand-to-hand combat after the enemy was weakened and exhausted.

BTW I found this picture of the back of an Ottoman krug at oriental-arms.com.

The shoulder piece would be connected to the back-plates with mail links or leather straps, then the whole assembly would be attached to the front of the armor with leather straps and buckles and worn over a mail shirt.

I don't think these shoulder plates and back plates are a matching set though, the shoulder plates look much bigger.

Ahriman · 13th October 2005, 12:34 PM

Damnit, I've found halfswording in a moghul painting...

In the topic of crossbows.

BTW, 1500 is quite at the end of the age of plate. Then a well-equipped mercenary (landsknecht) had only minimal protection compared to earlier soldiers. You know, equipping 5000 soldiers from the same money as 2500 halves the money/soldier... Because of this, a well-equipped merc had a skull-cap, a gorget (face left open), breastplate (often without back), tassels, and usually legs, sometimes demigauntlets. And sometimes, they had splinted arms, or even full gauntlets. And remember, these were the best soldiers of the time. They could use their armour to stop attacks quite well, but they had vital areas exposed.
And when these fell, their leaders in full-plate had to run. You know, no matter how good is you armour, when you are surrounded by axe- dagger- sword- mace- hammerwielding enemies, you have no other chance.
And by 1526, muslim artillery was superior compared to ours. But remember, most of our nobles drowned while running... which means that the vollharnischers were not defeated in "open combat", "just" overnumbered by 1-999999999.

Afterall, it was truly a huge defeat, caused by our leaders' arrogance and ignorance... it was a much bigger factor than equiptment.

Fighting style: I know... but that would've hurt "only" the poorer soldiers. Which were the 90% of the army.

I think that we should've stayed at our old nomad tactics... by converting to christianity, we had to use knights and so... we forgot good eastern tactics, and we failed to perfectly adapt western ways as well.

Krug: thanks, nice picture, and I think you're right - it's like assembling the 2m+ italian harness with a regular one.

I will post the gauntlet pictures soon, but I'm quite busy, and my camera is wrecked.

29th September 2005, 12:19 PM	#2
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	It's a gripping method that gives extraordinary control and force to thursts and slices by sacrificing real cuts. When halfswording, you grab the BLADE with one (mostly the left) hand, while the other grabs the hilt as usual. By this, you get a short and very light spear AND a good grabbing tool as well. I'll describe a very simple scenario. You are holding your sword in halfswording, left on the blade, thumbs pointing at each other. Your opponent cuts from above in an angle, targeting your left collar-bone. You raise your left hand much more than your right and receive the blow between your hands in a quite sharp angle. His blade slides down and stops at the quillon. Then you lower your left and raise your right hand as if you were to sheath your sword to your left. By this, your opponent's blade is incapable to cut you, the point is far behind you, and he could only move it to your far left. Then you simply strike him in the face with the pommel. Even as it took quite long to tell, it's carried out lightning fast, and most likely wounds the opponent quite well, even if he was wearing armour. Mostly halfswording is done in armour, where you have a good leather glove to protect your blade-grabbing palm, but there are pictures showing unarmoured use, mostly with either slender blades or some kind of cloth on the blade... and sometimes without any of these. Of course, it makes it clear that you NEVER block a blow fully, or in 90°, nor do you block with the edge. Imagine the effect of a two-handed full-power blade driving your sword into your... lower arm... Or the bending effect of the same, if you received the blow to the flat in 90°. BTW, my question came from that I saw half-swording advised for messers. (messers are huge knife-like swords, sometimes twohanded, mostly resembling wide-bladed, crossguarded katanas) So it'd logical that eastern fighters developed it as well - cuts for unarmoured opponents and strong thursts for the mail-armoured, or m&p wearing ones...? Sorry for the long post, but I think that the more you know... well, then the more you know. Which is a good thing. In the 1500's, and especially in naval warfare, one would only wear a strong breastplate, or even less... say, a gorget. So that's doesn't count...

29th September 2005, 03:58 PM	#3
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	In that case, AFAIK the mamluks never developped half-swording. The mamluks fought as horse-archers/heavy cavalry. they would soften up their enemies from a distance using composite bows on horseback bows mongol-style, then once the enemy was sufficiently weakened they would charge with their lances. for close quarters work they would use maces and warhammers. In the 13th century the main sword used by mamluks was a straight double-edged sword. During the course of the 14th century they gradually adopted kilij-style sabres. Their main enemies in the 14th-15th centuries, apart from each other, were the Mongols, The Aq-Qoyonlu Turcomans and the Ottomans, all of who would have been similarly equiped and (initially at least with regards to the Ottomans, they adopted field artillary and muskets in the late 15th century) would have used similar tactics. Mamluk words: As you can see, non are particularly suited to half-swording. All are meant for use on horseback.

30th September 2005, 11:43 PM	#4
Aqtai Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Merseyside, UK Posts: 222	Ahriman, I've just found another mail and plate vambrace for you. This one is from Robert Elgood's "Hindu Arms and Ritual".

2nd October 2005, 01:06 PM	#5
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Thanks, both vambraces are very nice... and the upper one has that more solid metacarpal plate I missed. Is that mail riveted? It seems very thin... Thanks for the swords as well... They are indeed better for horseback usage, especially as they mostly lack a real thrusting point... They were VERY lucky with avoiding open combat against vollharnischers... A good harness is quite hard to defeat with cuts, even with a good wide twohander, and most, especially milanese, harnesses were able to repel arrows, even from average crossbows in the 500-550 pounds area.

13th October 2005, 12:34 PM	#7
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	Damnit, I've found halfswording in a moghul painting... In the topic of crossbows. BTW, 1500 is quite at the end of the age of plate. Then a well-equipped mercenary (landsknecht) had only minimal protection compared to earlier soldiers. You know, equipping 5000 soldiers from the same money as 2500 halves the money/soldier... Because of this, a well-equipped merc had a skull-cap, a gorget (face left open), breastplate (often without back), tassels, and usually legs, sometimes demigauntlets. And sometimes, they had splinted arms, or even full gauntlets. And remember, these were the best soldiers of the time. They could use their armour to stop attacks quite well, but they had vital areas exposed. And when these fell, their leaders in full-plate had to run. You know, no matter how good is you armour, when you are surrounded by axe- dagger- sword- mace- hammerwielding enemies, you have no other chance. And by 1526, muslim artillery was superior compared to ours. But remember, most of our nobles drowned while running... which means that the vollharnischers were not defeated in "open combat", "just" overnumbered by 1-999999999. Afterall, it was truly a huge defeat, caused by our leaders' arrogance and ignorance... it was a much bigger factor than equiptment. Fighting style: I know... but that would've hurt "only" the poorer soldiers. Which were the 90% of the army. I think that we should've stayed at our old nomad tactics... by converting to christianity, we had to use knights and so... we forgot good eastern tactics, and we failed to perfectly adapt western ways as well. Krug: thanks, nice picture, and I think you're right - it's like assembling the 2m+ italian harness with a regular one. I will post the gauntlet pictures soon, but I'm quite busy, and my camera is wrecked.