Armour?

[Ahriman]

He was fighting... Semi-full contact. Overconfident. Not a very unusual thing here. A guy ordered greaves with knees because one of his friends lost his... patella, maybe? That piece of bone over the knee, I don't know it's english name. The surgery tool was the "spike" of a two-handed, rebated viking axe. Stupid people, we are... but as we have a few good armourers, more and more of these idiots realize that plate on vulnerable joints = life-long joint usage...

I bet you like Rubens, don't you?
That RA suit is nice, but it has HUGE links... And it seems rivetted.
Wait, I recall Ham telling us that mamluks used baydana as a primary defense... which means HUGE links... Ok, it's mamluk.
Did they ever fight europeans? Especially germans? Because this link size is EXTREMELY vulnerable to half-swording IMO.

Thanks for listing the reasons of my anti-lamellar mindset...
BTW, Norm wrote that there were samurai armours with long plates, opened only on one side, so the owner was helped into it by assistants who pulled it apart. Is it true? It seems quite a stupid thing to me, as the continuous opening-closing would stress the metal... which's not good.

[Aqtai]

The mamluks were a fascinating bunch. They were a caste of warrior-slaves, originally Turkish but later Circassian from the Caucasus, who ruled over Egypt, Syria, Arabia and parts of Asia minor from 1250 AD to 1517 AD. Their capital city was Cairo which they filled with beautiful Mosques, Khanqa's, madrassahs, hospitals and Wikalas (caravanserais). Even after the Ottoman conquest they remained the dominant military group in Egypt until 1807.

As I said before , they fought a wide variety of enemies. They fought the Crusaders in the 13th century and inflicted several defeats on them, eventually driving them out of the Middle-East. They managed to stop Mongol expansion into North Africa by defeating the Mongols in 3 major battles in 1260, 1281 and finally 1303, although a few mamluks were themselves of Mongol origin, including one Mamluk sultan.

They may have come up against German Crusaders, although to my knowledge they never fought an all-German army. In the 15th century the mamluks conquered Cyprus, the last surviving Crusader kingdom, I presume that the Crusaders of Cypus may have used Western European weapons and equipment. In the early 1500s the mamluks fought a naval war against the Portuguese in the Indian ocean. Since the mamluks were primarily heavy cavalry/horse archers I'm not sure how much of a role they took in a naval battle. I have a suspicion that much of the fighting in the Indian Ocean was done by Maghribi (North African) mercenaries.

Finally the mamluks fought Napoleon Bonaparte duing his invision of Egypt in 1798. they used virtually the same tactics they used against the Crusaders, the Mongols and the Ottomans. Needless to say Napoleon defeated them, although he then went on the create his own small unit of mamluks!

The mamluks certainly used lamellar armour as well as mail in the 13th and 14th centuries, in the 15th century however they abandonned lamellar armour in favour of mail and plate armour. They also continued to use mail right until 1798.

[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...

[Aqtai]

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]

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]

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]

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