Thanks for that info B.I. and Ham, very helpful.
I have to admit I am still smarting after being dismissed with the following statements on another forum (which shall remain nameless and linkless
)
Quote:
|
...European armor had become superior, both in terms of the general quality or effectiveness, and perhaps as importantly, of coverage. Lets not forget around the time of the first crusade is roughly analagous to when the first head to toe mail armor started to appear in Europe...Eastern Armor in general, including Russian Armor, was generally inferior in terms of the quality of the iron used, and that this was part of the reason so much more integrated mail and plate forms are seen particularly in Turkish and Russian armor...I always understood this was a major reason for the success of the European heavy cavalry in all engagements where they were able to come to grips with enemy forces. The Arab, Turkish, Kurdish, Egyptian etc. heavy cavalry was simply not in the same league, largely due to equipment...
|
There was a whole lot more in the same vein. You could say I've come here to lick my wounds
.
I have seen a fair bit of Mamluk and Ottoman mail in museums, superficially at least it looks equal to Western European mail. Indeed according to H. R. Robinson Mamluk mail rings were often double rivetted and had inscriptions! I was wondering though, have there been any metallurgical analyses of Mamluk and Ottoman mail? And have there been any studies published which compare pre-17th century Middle-Eastern mail to pre-17th century European mail?
Since this thread could do with some pics, I've got some pictures of 15th-16th century Mamluk mail which I took in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo many, many years ago. I was going through a black and white photography phase at the time.
The mail shirt in the 2nd picture had a collar reinforced with leather strips similar to the one described by Ham.