How did the Ottomans Fight During the "Pike and Shot" Era?

[Gatsby]

I'm pretty sure I've never heard of them utilising pikemen, so how did they organise their harquibusiers and normal troops? Did men still fight with swords? How heavily armoured were their troops? How much was cavalry relied on? etc.

[The Noble Lord]

They did have pikemen, not as much as the European counterparts but they were there as the part of the army.

[Radosław Sikora]

They did have pikemen, not as much as the European counterparts but they were there as the part of the army.

Do you know any use of them in the open field to stop a cavalry charge?
I know only battles, where Ottoman infantry employed obstacles to protect itself in the face of cavalry charges.

[white-wolf]

They did have pikemen, not as much as the European counterparts but they were there as the part of the army.

I did not know that Ottomans had pikemen. Are you sure?

[The Noble Lord]

I did not know that Ottomans had pikemen. Are you sure?

I am not sure before the 17th century but I did come across the document which describes the siege of Vienna in 1683 where Kara Mustapha Pasha had employed Janissary and other infantry of unknown origin as pikemen on the left flank of his army.

[Radosław Sikora]

I am not sure before the 17th century but I did come across the document which describes the siege of Vienna in 1683 where Kara Mustapha Pasha had employed Janissary and other infantry of unknown origin as pikemen on the left flank of his army.

Could you name that source? I'd like to check it (particularly because they were the Poles on the left flank of the Ottoman army at Vienna ).

[hellheaven1987]

An very interesting account.

An Ottoman legion (musketeer's, and some guns) had already been fighting alongside the Adalite army for some time, and with the arrival of the Portuguese, the Ottomans sent reinforcements: 2000 Arabian musketeer, 900 Turkish pikemen, 1000 Turkish foot musketeers, some Shqiptar foot soldiers (with muskets) and Turkish horsemen.

Source.

Turkish pikemen fighting against Portuguese??

[Erebus Pasha]

I am not sure before the 17th century but I did come across the document which describes the siege of Vienna in 1683 where Kara Mustapha Pasha had employed Janissary and other infantry of unknown origin as pikemen on the left flank of his army.

There was a varied mix - pikemen, halberdiers and swordsman were used in 16th and 17th century Ottoman armies. These close quarter weapons still had a great deal of importance at a time when handguns were still unreliable and slow loading, with the socket bayonet yet to be introduced. Despite the Janissaries having muskets issued as a matter of course, the Ottomans still utilised many archers well into the 18th century. Janissaries tended not to engage in prolonged firefights but were normally held back in reserve, or were used to provide covering fire for the assault troops.

Much of this is speculation, however. Though we do know that Ottoman armies often faired poorly against European armies when they didn't have the chance to deploy properly (i.e., with field fortifications). Which is why the Ottomans preferred siege battles, where their artillery, engineers, and sappers often gave them an advantage.

Certainly it's not so much of a myth that generally Ottoman forces performed better on the defensive or during sieges. You are correct also about how Ottoman field forces did poorly against European armies when they didn't have chance to deploy properly or were suffering under severe operational difficulties. This was true of some of their more notable defeats of the 17th century - St Gotthard in 1664, Slankaman in 1691 and Zenta in 1697. Whilst having excellent logistical support huge Ottoman armies were rather ponderous in their movements, giving an alert enemy time to prepare their defences accordingly. They were much better engaging in siege warfare. Whilst the comparisons in military technology and techniques between the Ottomans and their European enemies is often debated when discussing Ottoman military decline, during the 17th century they could be described as being leaders in sapping and mining techniques. In this the Ottomans were generally excellent, and at the Siege of Vienna the sappers and miners performed heroics in trying to reduce the fortifications after Kara Mustafa had left much of his heavy siege artillery behind.

@cpreston5 - might I suggest you get hold of Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700 by Rhoads Murphey. It should provide much of the answers you seek as it covers the period you're interested in.

[hellheaven1987]

I'm pretty sure I've never heard of them utilising pikemen, so how did they organise their harquibusiers and normal troops? Did men still fight with swords? How heavily armoured were their troops? How much was cavalry relied on? etc.

Ottoman during 16th/17th Century used light cavalries as their main force, combined with infantries, artilleries and small group of elite units this was enough until 18th Century.

Overall, early Ottoman military advantage was its logistic organization; once that was out, Ottoman military units performed poorly just like others.

[dogukan]

I'm pretty sure I've never heard of them utilising pikemen, so how did they organise their harquibusiers and normal troops? Did men still fight with swords? How heavily armoured were their troops? How much was cavalry relied on? etc.

I do not exactly know the way Ottomans fought in this era, and I'm curious as well.

But as far as I know Ottomans digged trenches and brought many cannons.
Still the light cavalry Tımarlı Sipahi was the main force. Also there were various types of janissaries with different tasks.
(muskeeters, guards, engineers, cooks...etc)
Then the high ranking sipahis, heavily armored

There were also allied forces:
Again light cavalry from Tatars (generally around 30-40 thousand if I remember correctly.)
And some more European fashioned soldiers from Romanians(?)
I heard of Serbian Knights as well.

Depending on where the battle is, the local border guards were also called.
Akıncıs were mostly Turkmen nomadic warriors who were sent to area before the main army for looting and spreading fear as well as recon missions(and chasing routers). If I remember correctly they were not paid by the Ottomans but they get whatever they could from loots.

The bashibozuks were mercenaries or criminals who were looking for action. They were also irregular troops.

Above is the main fighting force. But Ottomans brough a lot more men with them for supply/build/cannonfodder purposes. Every Muslim family had to give away one son which were called azabs. These were simply peasentfolk only called during campaigns.


to sum up:
Raid,dig in, deploy cannons, shoot, horse charges and build mini cities where the army goes

[hellheaven1987]

Still the light cavalry Tımarlı Sipahi was the main force. Also there were various types of janissaries with different tasks.
(muskeeters, guards, engineers, cooks...etc)
Then the high ranking sipahis, heavily armored

Timar was landowners that needed to provide military force during mobilization. Much like feudal lords in West Europe, each Timar, when called up for service, would bring a number of men with him. Those men would serve as infantries normally.

Janissary, during this period, generally had small percentage of overall force, so they were generally served as elite reserve. There were other attachments such as military engineers and gunners and so on.

Above is the main fighting force. But Ottomans brough a lot more men with them for supply/build/cannonfodder purposes. Every Muslim family had to give away one son which were called azabs. These were simply peasentfolk only called during campaigns.

Azabs were volunteers that volunteered themselves for service; they were professional soldiers, but not that well-trained as Janissary.

In the late 16th century all Muslim men could enlist. From every 20-30 households 1 man would join whilst the others supported him. The standard weaponry of an Azap of this era was a matchlock and a sabre.

[dogukan]

Timar was landowners that needed to provide military force during mobilization. Much like feudal lords in West Europe, each Timar, when called up for service, would bring a number of men with him. Those men would serve as infantries normally.

Ah okay, thanks for the clarification. I know the tımar system, but I have always thought that soldiers from tımar were cavalry. I still believe it is that way, but what you say makes more sense.
Tımar feeds soldiers and horses for being given a land. The soldiers could be both cavalry(Tımarlı Sipahi) or infantry.
And then there are the elite Sipahis of Kapıkulu, heavy cavalry.

Janissary, during this period, generally had small percentage of overall force, so they were generally served as elite reserve. There were other attachments such as military engineers and gunners and so on.

Compared to rest of the army they were a small percantage. During Suleyman's reign, their numbers were increased to 36 thousand. And they had various tasks. Janissariy is not a single type of soldier. They vary from musicians to engineers, even cooks.
The typical janissary that comes to ones mind is generally the muskeeter sekban. Which were active in combat. But majority of them were elite reserves as you say, protecting the general or the sultan.

[Radosław Sikora]

I know the tımar system, but I have always thought that soldiers from tımar were cavalry.

Because they were cavalry.
"in brief to have spoken in explication of the Nature of the Zaims and Timariots, which come under the general denomination of Spahees, and compose the best part of the Turkish Armies; we shall now proceed to declare, as far as can probably be computed, the number of these Horse which fill up the vast Host that hath overspread so large a proportion of the World"

(The History of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire, p. 329)

[Dracula]

I'm pretty sure I've never heard of them utilising pikemen, so how did they organise their harquibusiers and normal troops? Did men still fight with swords? How heavily armoured were their troops? How much was cavalry relied on? etc.

The ottoman normal army was bashi-bozouk, that is - irregulars, armed with swords /yatagan/ , pistols and a musquet. Along them feudal sipahi cavalry and infantrymen. That is how the conquest was made plus the janissaries. The pikemen required a better organisation which was not available. A regular army -nizami - appeared late in the XVIIIc and even then was not functioning on all the territory.

I think the bashi-bozouks are not well represented in game, given only the sword.

[Crimson Scythe]

I'm wondering if the Ottoman 'pikemen' that are mentioned are really just either levied spearmen or halberdiers that have been misrepresented by European sources of the time? Polearm-type weapons are quite common in Ottoman armies, and they could easily be mistaken for pikemen if used in the anti-cavalry role. I mean, the best way to stop a cavalry charge in the field is a lot of men with long, pointy sticks. That was as true in the 'pike and shot' era as it was in the time of Alexander the Great.

Generally speaking, however, Ottoman tactics in field battles would have relied on field fortifications (e.g., wooden stakes); massed archers (and later arquebusiers/musketeers); melee infantry (ranging from basibozuk irregulars, to mercenary yayas), who could be armed with anything from swords and shields, to halberds; cavalry, in the form of armoured heavy cavalry to horse-archers (and later musket-armed cavalry irregulars - could be used like dragoons); and finally artillery, for which the Ottomans are famous. I would think that the artillery, archers/musketeers, and cavalry would have been the main killers in an engagement with an Ottoman army. Melee infantry would really have been in a supporting role, like defending the flanks or more elaborate field fortifications. Cavalry would probably have been used both as a lure (as it was by most steppe peoples) and as a way of delivering a coup-de-grace. Basically, the idea would have been to draw the enemy into the field of fire of the artillery and ranged infantry with cavalry, pound away at him, and then charge the flanks with heavier cavalry. It's kind of an adaptation to gunpowder weapons of traditional steppe tactics. And melee infantry would probably have been used offensively in the event of the enemy deploying their own field fortifications.

Much of this is speculation, however. Though we do know that Ottoman armies often faired poorly against European armies when they didn't have the chance to deploy properly (i.e., with field fortifications). Which is why the Ottomans preferred siege battles, where their artillery, engineers, and sappers often gave them an advantage.

[Radosław Sikora]

Polearm-type weapons are quite common in Ottoman armies, and they could easily be mistaken for pikemen if used in the anti-cavalry role.

'If' is the key word here .
Does anybody know a source which describes Ottoman infantrymen who used piks to stop a charge?

I mean, the best way to stop a cavalry charge in the field is a lot of men with long, pointy sticks.

It's true that sometimes piks were enough to stop a charge. But it certainly wasn't the best way to do it. Much better was (for example) a wide, deep ditch.

Ottoman infantry used ditches and small walls to repulse cavalry charges in the early stage of the battle of Vienna. Allied (Polish-German-Imperial) infantry, apart from piks, used also chevaux de frise to protect itself from the Ottoman cavalry in that battle.

[Crimson Scythe]

'If' is the key word here .
Does anybody know a source which describes Ottoman infantrymen who used piks to stop a charge?

I personally don't know of a case off hand, hence the guess.

It's true that sometimes piks were enough to stop a charge. But it certainly wasn't the best way to do it. Much better was (for example) a wide, deep ditch.

Ottoman infantry used ditches and small walls to repulse cavalry charges in the early stage of the battle of Vienna. Allied (Polish-German-Imperial) infantry, apart from piks, used also chevaux de frise to protect itself from the Ottoman cavalry in that battle.

Ditches and chevaux-de-frise both have the problem of having to be prepared beforehand. And they're stationary (well, I suppose you could manhandle the latter into a new position...). Pikemen, on the other hand, are quite mobile, and can be re-deployed as needed. Or even used on the offensive, under certain circumstances.

But your point is well-taken.

[Radosław Sikora]

Ditches and chevaux-de-frise both have the problem of having to be prepared beforehand.

It's true. But they were useful in pitched battles.

And they're stationary (well, I suppose you could manhandle the latter into a new position...).

Yes, chevaux-de-frise were light enough to manhadle them during the battle.
BTW, just 3 months ago I had an occasion to manhandle chevaux-de-frise. They were really light. I had no problem to move 2 chevaux-de-frise at once at the distance of a couple of hundred meters, having 2 guys to a help.

[PointOfViewGun]

I think Ottoman couldn't manage to get the Shot part right until Nizam-i Cedid so they didn't really used pikes. It's pretty much why they lost a great number of battles.

[Crimson Scythe]

I think Ottoman couldn't manage to get the Shot part right until Nizam-i Cedid so they didn't really used pikes. It's pretty much why they lost a great number of battles.

Not exactly true, actually. The Ottoman tactics for gunpowder weapons were just more individual. That is, individual marksmanship and reloading times were more important than coordination with the rest of the unit. So, as you might imagine, the first volley could be devastating but there would be no real successive volleys, as in the European style. This is because musket-armed troops played a supporting role for the artillery, cavalry, and melee infantry, in that order. In a pitched field battle, this would naturally put the Ottomans at a disadvantage, even if they had a numerical superiority. But this would definitely be an asset in a siege battle, particularly a siege in which the Ottomans were the defenders. Couple this with the Ottoman logistic system, and you can see why the Ottomans could hold the Danube for as long as they did with arguably inferior forces.

Yes, chevaux-de-frise were light enough to manhadle them during the battle.
BTW, just 3 months ago I had an occasion to manhandle chevaux-de-frise. They were really light. I had no problem to move 2 chevaux-de-frise at once at the distance of a couple of hundred meters, having 2 guys to a help.

How solidly built was it? I ask because I've seen some that might spook a horse, but won't really stop it physically if the rider can push it forward (e.g., in the case of a well-trained horse). Arguably, the more solidly built it is, the heavier and therefore less mobile it becomes. Your opinion?