Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 189

Thread: [Suggestion] muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

  1. #81
    wudang_clown's Avatar Fire Is Inspirational
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    7,357

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    Quote Originally Posted by Imperiumiv View Post
    the crusaders have left a better account for themselves, facing stacked odds.
    Excuse me, but this is a romantic view of the whole issue.

    All political factions were facing stacked odds then. Think about Romans, Armenians, Fatimids, even Great Seljuks (whose empire lasted only two centuries (almost). Saying that crusaders were in worst situation and that they left a better account for themselves is simply not true.

    Under the patronage of m_1512

  2. #82
    matmohair1's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Abu Dhabi - UAE
    Posts
    2,155

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    Quote Originally Posted by Abul'Khair View Post
    Is it safe to assume that Armenia and other eastern Christian factions would be armored similarly to Muslim factions?
    yes. Armenia, Georgia and other eastern Christians did so, they also combined it with Roman & west European examples as well

    heavy armor was used by the Armenians since their wars with the Sassanian Persians
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    middle eastern Christians
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Georgians
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Armenia during the crusades
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Muslim & Christian warriors of the 12th century
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    14th century Armenia & the Caucasus
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    the same changes were happening in north Africa
    -
    later Muslims in Spain combined western and eastern styles of armor and even invented new ones such as the manople gauntlet sword

    14th - 15th Andalusia
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    Last edited by matmohair1; July 27, 2011 at 04:18 AM.


  3. #83
    Prince of Judah's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville, FL
    Posts
    1,483

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    Quote Originally Posted by wudang_clown View Post
    Excuse me, but this is a romantic view of the whole issue.

    All political factions were facing stacked odds then. Think about Romans, Armenians, Fatimids, even Great Seljuks (whose empire lasted only two centuries (almost). Saying that crusaders were in worst situation and that they left a better account for themselves is simply not true.
    Stacked odds in battles, not all of geo-politics. And i'm not talking about success. I am merely claiming they left a better account of themselves given the odds. I honestly don't think it can be argued that the Crusader states were ever advantaged compared to their two primarily successful foes, the Ayyubids and the Mamluk Sultanate. I don't see how my opinion is romantic.
    Last edited by Prince of Judah; July 27, 2011 at 05:05 AM.

  4. #84
    Heeehehe's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    City of Lightning, Equator Emerald, 1st Level of Heaven
    Posts
    246

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    Quote Originally Posted by DMX23 View Post
    Well I inderstand now Why They were defeated And whipped ouit from iberia.Arogance never make the Man (or the nation) better
    That's can be true I think, Who know? maybe this is why Caliph Umar Al-Farouq The Great crying when he received the treasure of persia, money can damage their morale and faith.

    ‘Umar b. Al-Khattâb – Allah be pleased with him - was given the treasures of the Persian Emperor (after his conquest), ‘Abdullah b. Arqam asked, “Are you going to put this into the public treasury (bayt al-mâl) until you can distribute it?” ‘Umar replied, “No by Allah, I will not take this under a roof before I have passed it on.” So they put it in the middle of the mosque and spent the night guarding it. In the morning, ‘Umar uncovered the treasure and saw such an amount of gold and silver that it almost shone; so he began to cry. ‘Abd Al-Rahmân b. ‘Auf – Allah be pleased with him – said, “Why do you cry o Amîr of the Believers? This is a day of thanks and a day of happiness for sure.” ‘Umar replied, “Woe to you, this has never been given to a people except that it has cast enmity and hatred amongst them.”
    "And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth). Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge) (and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the best of creators. After that, surely, you will die. Then (again), surely, you will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection. And indeed We have created above you seven heavens (one over the other), and We are never unaware of the creation." (QS. Al-Mu'minun (23):12-17)

    "He who has not seen it does not know the power of Islam." -Ibn Khaldun

  5. #85

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    Matmohair1, could you put the legend for this last picture, please:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  6. #86

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    I seem to see alot of references to heavy armor without mention of the fact how much armor making process and types changed in the period 1200-1400. Heavy armor in 1100 is not the same as heavy armor in 1300.

    Also the economic processes which changed to make armor making from an incredibly expensive process for quality armor to a cheap enough process that lower wealth strata soldiers could afford armor that was only slightly less good relatively than the best available as far as protection. The later very rich armor was mostly only a bit lighter, and had more custom details. These economics changes did not happen everywhere equally. Mostly due to political aspects and trade routes.

  7. #87
    matmohair1's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Abu Dhabi - UAE
    Posts
    2,155

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    certainly -

    excerpt from "armies of feudal Europe" (WRG)
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    troops from 15th century Grenada from "Armies of the Middle Ages 1" (WRG)
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 






    excerpit from "arms and armor of the crusading era V.1"

    sorry for the small size of the scans - I added colored dots to differentiate between Muslim & Christian figures
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    armor, weapons and costumes from 15th century Grenada
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    Mamluk & Ottoman armor and helmets effected European cavalry traditions greatly, even up until the early 18th century
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    for example the çiçak helmet has evolved into the 17th century lobster helmet worn across western Europe,
    while Russian and some eastern European cavalrymen where indistinguishable from middle eastern warriors
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    the sharing, understanding and merging of cultures is what allows all civilizations to flower - it also dispels the myth of one sided superiority
    - if one side was fully superior, they wouldn't have both copied each other.
    Last edited by matmohair1; July 27, 2011 at 12:15 PM.


  8. #88
    Prince of Judah's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville, FL
    Posts
    1,483

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    Superb post matmohair! I've got ebooks of those two books, but the images don't show up in my ereader.

  9. #89
    matmohair1's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Abu Dhabi - UAE
    Posts
    2,155

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    i had a problem with "arms and armor of the crusading era"
    turned out I needed to use Foxit PDF Editor to change the size of the images to fit the pages
    that seems to have done the trick

    btw -its volume 2 that wont work until edited


  10. #90
    Prince of Judah's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville, FL
    Posts
    1,483

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    Yeah I used foxit as well.

  11. #91

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    Check "The Mamluks 1250-1517" by Osprey, Lamellar armour rapidly decreased in 14th century and before the 15th century its almost disappeared.

  12. #92
    matmohair1's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Abu Dhabi - UAE
    Posts
    2,155

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    it was gradually replaced by Plated mail armor which defined the upcoming eras
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




  13. #93
    Dago Red's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~John Adams
    Posts
    3,095

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    You can see a color picture of a real coat of chain and plate in this thread. I saw several of these, and they appear to be of extremely sturdy construction, though I wonder how easily they may have come apart at the rivets when hit with a heavy weapon/mace.

    I'd rather have coat of plates on separately over the chainmail, clearly the better defensive option, though you would sacrifice some mobility (not to mention stamina bearing the extra weight).


    I must point out, 2 things which support what I've been saying all along:

    1. as this source states: Mamluks in full armor appear only rarely in this era -- meaning most of BC's timeframe. I believe by "full armor" he means no additional armor over a chain coat or lamellar, which of course the best troops were wearing. Yet this clearly suggests that they were not as heavily armored as Crusader knights on the average, who indeed wore doubled up chainmail, early forms of iron plate, and either a coat-of-plates along with heavy chainmail under their surcoats or often times, iron plates riveted into their aketons.

    2. As this source also states, which I've indicated before, these scale hauberks you see, indeed much of the metal lamellar that looks so pretty, was made of tin plates. Not steel, not even iron (though iron versions existed too). These tin armors would have protected the wearer against light attacks and arrows given the successive layering and overlapping but would have been destroyed by heavy arms -- thus the wearer would become unprotected during combat as the armor was obliterated on his person.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ichon View Post
    Heavy armor in 1100 is not the same as heavy armor in 1300.
    Indeed, all heavy armor was not equal at any time. One man's heavy armor was another man's light chain shirt. Two Crusaders walking together may have appeared similar. But the one wealthier one who afforded the heavier mail, the iron gorget, the hardened leather bracers and the plates riveted into his aketon was many degrees heavier than this more common brother in arms, who could only scrap up an old chain shirt and a gambeson. These are just facts. later discrepancies were even more extreme as steel came into play and advances were made with great helms, etc.

    This is not to say that one heavy armor was superior to another against all weapons. Consensus suggests that lamellar, even made of tin plates, and certainly of iron ones, was better at stopping arrows than chainmail. But that same tin lamellar was obliterated in a heavy melee.

    And again, as that source above states, most mamluks didn't even have the extra heavy tin scale coats. If the mamluks didnt' even have them at this time, do you think the average Ayyubid warrior did? The average Turk of Rum. Clearly, no.

    This is in line with all accounts on all sides. In conclusion, when the Crusaders arrived, they were, on average, more heavily armored than their foes. This gave them a decided advantage in the siege after siege, taking city after city, and fortress after fortress. God was not on their side, God didn't smite the Muslim infidels for them. They won because of great generalship (in many cases), luck (in others), discordance among their enemies (often), and initially having superior arms and armor for the enemies of the immediate region -- large portions of who's troops, apart from their armored ghulams, were often levied out of local populations and from turcoman tribal warriors who wore little or no armor.
    Last edited by Dago Red; July 27, 2011 at 02:57 PM.

  14. #94
    matmohair1's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Abu Dhabi - UAE
    Posts
    2,155

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    This is in line with all accounts on all sides. In conclusion, when the Crusaders arrived, they were, on average, more heavily armored than their foes.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    and initially having superior arms and armor for the enemies of the immediate region
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    large portions of who's troops, apart from their armored ghulams, were often levied out of local populations and from turcoman tribal warriors who wore little or no armor.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


  15. #95

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    Mat, don't take it offensive but you're finding a rare thing and try to show it as a common think in your research(talking about gauntlents and some others)

  16. #96
    matmohair1's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Abu Dhabi - UAE
    Posts
    2,155

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    what i meant is that its impossibly to have a fully armored or fully light army

    any army can win or lose any battle

    - its not about armor, you combine different types of light and medium troops &
    if it was hard to obtain metal for producing armor, it should also be hard for the crusaders who controlled a smaller geographical area.

    armor evolves to withstand arrows while bow makers strive to achieve better armor piercing abilities

    therefor its impossible to generalize the whole story without looking at the time period as a whole
    rather than concentrating on the 1st crusade alone

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    their are other battles we can also discuss for example

    the battle of Manzikert - Roman armor quality wasn't the reason for defeat or victory
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    the second crusade & the failed assault on Damascus
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Last edited by matmohair1; July 27, 2011 at 04:50 PM.


  17. #97
    Prince of Judah's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Margaritaville, FL
    Posts
    1,483

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    Matmohair, I believe Dago is correct when arguing overall crusading armies were more armored, because of large numbers of militia and levies. I'm not going to argue about what made one army win battle X. I would agree that it is not that simple. The second crusade wasn't truely defeated. it fractured and broke apart. It was a political and financial disaster for the Christian forces. But they weren't actually defeated militarily. Also, the Crusader states imported most of their equipment from Italy.

    By the way, where are you getting all of this great art from?
    Last edited by Prince of Judah; July 27, 2011 at 05:02 PM.

  18. #98
    matmohair1's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Abu Dhabi - UAE
    Posts
    2,155

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    -http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Yli-R.../dp/0972529802

    - http://www.aeroartinc.com/publishing/the-crusades.html

    I wasn't able to get the book so I am only relying on few scans from this website

    - http://gorod.crimea.edu/librari/krest/str_01.html
    Last edited by matmohair1; July 27, 2011 at 06:15 PM.


  19. #99
    wudang_clown's Avatar Fire Is Inspirational
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    7,357

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    Quote Originally Posted by Dago Red View Post
    1. as this source states: Mamluks in full armor appear only rarely in this era -- meaning most of BC's timeframe. I believe by "full armor" he means no additional armor over a chain coat or lamellar, which of course the best troops were wearing.
    Why are you citing the description by omitting important parts of it?

    It reads: Mamluks in full armor appear only rarely in the sources of this era, which means that the depiction may not reassemble a common mamluk armour due to not satisfying amount of data in contemporary sources. But at the same time: though as mentioned above many probably wore similar body-armour to that depicted here but concealed it beneath their topcoats.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dago Red View Post
    2. As this source also states, which I've indicated before, these scale hauberks you see, indeed much of the metal lamellar that looks so pretty, was made of tin plates.
    No, it says: a long lamellar Djawshan. (By the end of this era at the latest the term Djawshan could also be applied to a mail corselet reinforced [not "a lamellar made of", ie. exclusively made of] with small tin plates.

    With all respect to you, but you are drawing your conclusions on misinterpretation.

    Under the patronage of m_1512

  20. #100
    Dago Red's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~John Adams
    Posts
    3,095

    Default Re: muslim weaponry and military structure in future BC versions

    With all due respect to you, I was not omitting the important parts. I could not copy/paste it since it was a photo I was quoting... so I just wrote the main point -- which is that Mamluks in full armor appear only rarely in the time frame with which we are concerned. Then I even qualified that, in case it was misleading to suggest they were lightly armored, NO, certainly they wore chain and lamellar. What the author means by them not wearing "full armor" is that they did most of them did not have these extra scale / plate armors on top of their chain / lamellar. I'm being extremely rational and fair about everything I say.

    And am in fact finding that it is others who are reading into misinterpretation. I don't have some alternative agenda here, I'm not Muslim or Christian, or French or Turkish, or have a hard on for Crusaders or a bone to pick with Muslims. I am completely rational and only in seek of the truth. That full quote is there for everyone to read in Mat's picture. The "sources of this era" is understood. We know the Mamluk armor got heavier and heavier. That only proves my point all the more, that earlier on, they were not as heavily armored. Sources of "later eras" will confirm the increase of their armor.


    As for the tin plates.. It was I who've said that Eastern armors were constructed of tin in the past in these armor discussions, specifically these plates and scales for added protection. You can call that particular piece of armor whatever you want, whatever the correct term is... .my point is only that this supports what I've been saying. That tin was used to make overlapping plates and scale armors. I am not drawing any misinterpretations.

    You can debate how much tin was used, who used it, how effective it was as stopping different attacks, etc. I am not certain of these things. But I know tin is not as strong as iron.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •