I doubt about Chinese one

i think that's what he said.

@@zazugee where

It developed in Central Asia. Either by the Iranic tribes who originally lived there before migrating to modern Iran or by others. Even the Koreans and Chinese had Catphracts. It was a natural solution to Horse Archers.

The first cataphracts were fielded by the persians at Gaugamela against the advance of Alexander the Great. Then they were copied by Alexander's successors and later by the romans

​@@grimgoreironhide9985makes a degree of sense the tribes of Central Asia and the people of the persian plateau are neighbors practically

Not just under plate. There were also specialised arming dubleds (padded armor shirts) that had mail sown only into the places where there were gaps in the plates, like the armpit. This was used to reduce weight, as you didn't need really mail under the plates. Though you are right as it was also worn underneath it. Fullplate armor is just so facinating, interesting and such a sophisticated technology. Hope you have a great day.

@@leonvoelker7639 Arming doublets and voiders reduced the weight by reducing the amount of mail used. However, these weren't universally used. Italy in particular mostly continued wearing full hauberks while England and France preferred the arming doublet. Also, a lot of soldiers were not wealthy enough to afford full plate harness. Mail was relatively expensive as well, but there was a lot of old mail in circulation and it was relatively easy to modify to fit a new person. So, a soldier of less means may opt for a new breastplate and helmet then for the rest of their protection use Grandad's hauberk.

@@jonc.8074 that's what I said. I didn't say they were universaly used. I just said that they existed and for what purpose. Sorry if it came across like I wanted to correct you. I just wanted to add to your comment. Sorry.

wrg, no such thing as inherix or etc, bigx etc 1uferiox bloat, doesn tmatter, no such thign as stronx or etc or etc bout itx etc

Proof of claim? Or was it just the result of expansion and raiding culture of a state situated in Europe.

@@TheBronzeMonkey the ottomans from the time of Osman I they were focusing on conquering europe and not middle east, the reason was simple they were fighting against christians in europe and they could claim a holy war jihad combined with their nomadic urges for conquering, they could attract volunteers from all islam, turcomen tribes etc and used them as gazi (victors over christians). the ottoman hemirate in Bythinia in late 1280s were few and needed to attracts moslem fighters for honor and spoils from every source. from making Nikaia their capital when conquered, when setting foot in european byzantine after 1354 and when conquered Adrianople the first big city on the west coast they moved their capital there. they were preety much focusing primiarily in conquering the balkans and later east europe. also the balkans at the time were fragmented small and warring kingdoms easy prey for them.

@@TheBronzeMonkeyThe Ottomans we’re obsessed with Europe. The only reason why stopped was because the Europeans eventually became strong enough to stop the Turks at Vienna. The Europeans learnt the tactics of the Ottomans and how to counter them. Stop trying to spread this propaganda that the Ottomans were never interested in Europe. You letting your Muslim bias and current events shape your opinions on past history. The Ottomans were hated by fellow Muslims as much as Europeans. They were the most dominant Imperial power of their era and this caused both Muslims and Christians to fear them.

​@@petros311the Ottomans conquered all of Levant and Egypt from the Mamluk Sultanate... So they obviously did conquer in the middle east

@@El_Jefe_Maestro that hapened very late in 1517 if i remember corectly, by then they have become an empire a sultanate, on the early days from 1280-1380 they were a small Emirate focus on jihad and needed to atract muslim Ghazies holy warriors to strengthened their ranks.

In modern warfare especially in gun powder age, speed and agility are important at war, but in medieval war they lose in short range fighting in direct clash, because lack of protection unlike western European knight 😂

Actually in the 15th century the Hungarian Black Legion had a lot of black plate armor for their troops yet they utilize the most gunpowder weapons then any military force in the globe.

@@djackzdjackz7004 actually soldiers in full plate armor were actually quite maneuverable, and medieval knights were very maneuverable too. That's a huge myth that medieval plate armor hinders ones movement too much. The fact is plate armor was not that heavy, in matter of fact it's one of the lightest form of metal armors in cover to weight ratio.

It's all about logistics. Plate didn't give enough of a protection boost to bother with.

İts also that,but there is more. Ottomans comes from Turkic heritage. Which means they carried nomad army style to their empire. And i think only thing that ottomans held from their past nomadic life is army style.

If you have armor so heavy you can only stand and walk and stuff for no more than 12 minuets that's perfectly fine if you will be spending most of your time on horseback. You will only need to be dismounted once in a while for a few tasks that will also mostly involve sitting. Horseback is a good game changer.

thats the exact reason

Because plate armor are western European knight technology , eastern side using lamellar or mail plated armor who originated from Persian jawshan / yushman who are wearing by Persian immortal cataphract

The rest of the world didn't use full plate. And only a minority in europe used it, as it was very expensive (having to be custom made) and was only manufactured in a few centers.

@@majungasaurusaaaaMajority of European common soldiers used brigantine which is similar to the half plate used by the East.

​@@majungasaurusaaaaFull plate armour is basically a custom built Ferrari.

@@grimgoreironhide9985 Depends on the region. German speaking lands in the late Medieval used very few brigandines, instead opting for cuirasses for common soldiers. This wasn't full plate, but it was still partial plate. Further West in the places more influenced by Italy, you see more brigandines. Especially in Iberia. Later in the early Modern era you saw very extensive use of 3/4 plate and things like that, so by no means was plate armor inaccessible. It just eventually stopped suiting European doctrine for various reasons.

Some depictions of artwork, take for example the image from 3:06 the one with two guys are riding, if you look closely you can see the one with the white horse has peculiar chest piece thats a plated cuirass.

They were having mail armor, plates at joints and a strong circle plate at chest and all these were under cloth. But this was not heavy as european knights. In the heat of middle east if you wear this kind of heavy armor you can not move fast and you will probably need more water supply. Ottoman knighta strategy was to be protected but not restricted. And it was very succesfull against european knigths till the end of 17th ceuntry. So after 18 th ceuntry the gun power and cannons made the difference not armors.

@@Robredomania Ah i see. So they use somekind of light plated mail under their cloth. It always confuse me if these elite units didn't wear any good armor protection, an arrow to the torso will definitely make the many years of training since their child just useless. And they are no different to cannon fodder then Thank you for your reply

Only sipahi (heavy horse archer), kapikulu (heavy cavalry) and seymen (meaning dog guard of Sultan, just like janissary armed with musket, bow and Arrow, kilij or yatagan sword also with leather or steel rounded Shield) who wear heavy mail plated armor

@@Robredomania please source

You can see an exemple of Janissary armor. Generaly they were having also a chest plate armor. I have to tell yoi that they were using also muskets, especially from the end of the 15. Ceuntry so there is no need for a really heavy armor.

And you pronounce Turkish words magnificently. As a Turk, I owe you my congratulations and thanks. I hope you enjoy your Turkish history adventure.

Simply the Ottomans and other peoples didn't have the infrastructure to make such armor. Arms and especially armor was a highly guarded secret in Europe as for both security reasons and money/profit reasons. These were companies that was privately owned with the government watching them. It would be bad for the government, the Church, and the private company to let this technique and knowledge go to someone else. It skill, knowledge, as well as it requires a certain infrastructure with certain technology and tools to make plate armor. By the mid or late 1400s Europeans were already making mass-produced plate armor for normal soldiers. So it was very possible to make it for large armies. The Spanish did it, the Germans did it, and Italians did it. The Hungarians also did it but they imported most of their armor from Italy and Germany for their Black Legion army.

@@landsknecht8654 I see.. So their cannons, mortars and muskets etc. was probably made of some sort extreme heat and pressure resistent plywood. Didn't know that. They must be pretty good in botanics area. Must be bio-composite...

@@ugurkaya2511 Yeah but cannons and guns are different then making armor with slopes, floutings, ridges, and articulations.

@@landsknecht8654 I don't want to be that guy, but ridges ? Slopes ? Really ? C'mon...

@@ugurkaya2511 Yes, making such armors actually a science on itself, it takes techniques and knowledge to do it the right way it's really not that easy to replicate especially in the past. It takes a certain infrastructure & tools with the right skill to do it. Certain spots on the armor with slopes, ridges and fluting help deflect attacks and also makes the armor stronger without making it thicker giving it structural integrity, also the slopes and other things makes the armor in certain angles thicker as well without actually increasing sickness. The Japanese imported a lot of European armor during the 16th century, yet they themselves were unable to replicate it. It was many of the Japanese Lords & and Nobles that found European armor to be the best quality. Let's put in this perspective, NASA scientist & Russian scientist studied medieval and Renaissance suits of European armor to help make space suits...

Europe used to be a sheet hole, Scandinavians didn't build any impressive monuments and lived in huts. Now the middle East is a sheeet hole cuz of the stupid terrorist groups. And wars.

Europe was a shithole back in the day. Most poor continent in the world. But once they found a new continent,everything changed drasticly.

And like the romans it led to their rise

Mohacs i guess

Yeah sounds like the Battle of Mohacs, 1526

@@bosphiii That's it, Cheers.

Its beautiful!!

There was no plate armer in Siege of Acre. Crusaders in Levant all used mail armor

Tell that to the samurais

@@knutderklein9994 They didn't wear plate during the high medieval period when they fought as horse archers. O-Yoroi was heavy lamellar with huge free hanging pauldrons serving as shields, leaving the arms to move freely.

@@majungasaurusaaaa tose gusoku armor beg to differ.

Bruh u barely lose any mobility in full plate armor.

@@hugo-pg5tv talking about specific movement for archery

light Lancer cavalry can be very effective though, even against heavy cavalry Look at Rashidun light cavalry defeating Byzantine & Sassanians heavy cavalry Or Maratha Light cavalry defeating Mughal heavy cavalry

@@aburoach9268 yeah it can happend but you need more sophisticated tactics to win against heavy cavalry in close combat with light cavalry

@@akramkarim3780 also the right equipment, because a curved sword won't do much against a heavily armored opponent, Long Lances & pole maces would be very effective, since light cavalry is very fast, the impact of their lance will be also much more powerful then that of a heavy cavalry men & perhaps some small metal shields attached to the arms to fend off sword blows

@@aburoach9268 the first arabs had a long lance for their cavalry i this it played a role in wining against the sassanid and byzantine heavy cavalry , also the Arabs used a hit and run tactic that exosted the heavily armoured horses of persians and romans then they will be easy kill

1. “Both sides faced each other at Angora (modern Ankara) on July 28, 1402. Timur, by occupying water sources and strategic ground, put Bayezid I immediately in a dif- ficult situation. The large nomadic army of Timur, which also included elephants in front, was nearly twice the size of the Ottoman army. Paying no attention to the advice of his commanders or to the exhaustion of his army, Bayezid I launched the attack immediately from his right wing (Anatolian units). Timur’s left wing lured the unwary Anatolian units into an ambush. At this decisive moment the former emirate soldiers changed sides and Bayezid’s right wing collapsed completely. Timur’s simultaneous attack on the Ottoman left wing (Rumeli units) was stopped by a stiff defense, but the Rumeli units lost confidence when attacked by the enemy center. A daring counterattack by Bayezid’s Serbian units established contact with the center while the remaining Rumeli units decided to withdraw. The Kapıkulu corps at the center preserved their formation and courageously faced the increasing attacks of the Timur’s cavalry. Bayezid I refused to leave the battlefield, and by a fighting withdrawal pulled some of his remaining units back to a dominant hill. Part of the Ottoman center and the Serbians managed to escape before the encirclement, but most of the Janissaries and palace guards perished in a last stand, and Bayezid himself was captured by the enemy. The collapse of Ottoman army was obviously the outcome of a clash of interests and divided loyalties due to the rapid military transformation of the military. The desertion of the former emirate soldiers to the enemy provided the necessary excuse for the traditional military classes to flee. In addition to this, Timur managed to maintain the initiative from the very beginning by choosing the battlefield, con- trolling the water sources, and forcing the Ottomans to attack. Interestingly, the Ottoman military suffered all the problems that conventional forces had previously faced against nomadic cavalry-and the Ottomans, as previous nomads, should have known how to deal with Timur. That they did not is clear evidence of the level of transformation from nomadic cavalry to a regular infantry and cavalry force.” - A military history of the Ottomans by Mesut just and Edward J Ericsson. 2. I am talking about plate armour worn by European knights or men at arms they faced on the field. They were of course pragmatic about it and used mismatched pieces. Helmets from slain men for example. And of course shock troops or serdengecti would of had heavier armour but not “full plate”. I’ll even make a video on my unmanly comment in the future just for you. 3. I recommend reading the title and listening carefully before coming in here with a challenge only to be smacked around yourself.

​@@TheBronzeMonkey despite the English not being perfect, you are 100 percent right from what I can tell. good work good sir

No shame loosing to Timurids ( Mongols) almost everyone did . These guys where the nightmare of middle ages .

​@@nijadbahnam9859 Timurids were no Mongols. His army was Chagatai Turks. He was a Central Asian Turco-Mongol

​@@RandomGuy-df1oyBasically the same thing. Turks and Mongols were the warrior caste of the medieval middle east.

Turks lost the Kosovo? lol this is real history pal. Turks won the battle but because of the death of their Sultan which occured after the battle, Bayezid went back to the capital. Janissaries were good counter-attack troops aswell

In military affairs degrees of loss or win are determined by the amount of achieving intended goals. Ottoman campaign of 1389. was a major one, with clear intent of conquering the Bosnian-Serbian state. It failed to do so, hence it was a loss. Furthermore all the contemporary European sources clearly identify it as a win for the Christian side-Turks were forced back. That is a win. Aside from that Murad was the only Ottoman sultan that was killed in the field of battle in the entire history of the dynasty. @@RandomGuy-df1oy

They definetly had the budget.

The state could afford it, and many arms and armour was purchased from western countries

@@TheBronzeMonkey Why did arabs adopt the indian talwar evident by antarah ibn shaddad (famous pre Islamic,pre turkic invasion,arab mixed afican warior )not the standard straight gulf sword

@@TheBronzeMonkey why were the al zatt(jatts) famous for the ability to use a sword in the hadith

Ottoman empire was vast and rich. Especially during the rise of plate armor. They were known to hire Hungarian cannon smiths, Syrian sword masters. If Sultan wanted they would easily field an army wearing full plates. If petty Bohemian kings could afford plate armor believe me Ottomans could too. Its not in their military tradition. They simply didnt need it.

If they wanted it they could and would have purchased them.

@@TheBronzeMonkey It's not that simple, though. Buying it, albeit expensive, perhaps was possible, but let's not forget that armour is, at the end of the day, is supposed to be expendable, it rusts, it dents, it gets pierced, it may crack, and so not only there should be specialists around who are able to maintain it, but you should be ready to replace a part if need be, it's not a one-off purchase, which complicates things a lot if the armour-production center is too far away for it to make logistical sense, you'd rather use what's available in your region.

@Tork789 then they could have hired plate armour makers. Arms trade to the ottomans though banned by papal bull flourished, with the assistance of Ragusa, Bosnia, Venice, Genoa, and later on Dutch and English. The logistic capability of the empire was unmatched, if they wanted to they could do it. Also this argument is based on the fact that you assume there was no interaction or trade. There are 15th century examples of Serbian plate, who by that time were very much a part of the empire. As I sad if they wanted to they could, it just didn’t fit the warfare strategy that they employed. Did they see a use for heavy armour yes, vassals, European sipahi, and Süvari were decked out, but was there a need to invest in what was being developed to such impregnable level as the European armorers ? No there was not.

@@TheBronzeMonkey Again, I'm not arguing if they could do any of these things or not, I believe if they really wanted to, they could indeed establish a trade route, or even establish their own armouries by inviting european armourers like Henry VIII did, it was most likely just a question of finances, which the ottomans had plenty. But would it make sense in regards to what they would get in return? I don't think so. I believe they could absolutely benefit from having the same style of armour as europeans, but it wouldn't be such a boon to go to such great length to acquire it for their army, I'm arguing that their warfare style could absolutely use the armour, and the only reason they never did is because they didn't have the technology and getting it or establishing a trade just to get the armour wasn't seen as such a huge advantage to go for it, they could successfully wage wars against europeans even without it, but it was not because somehow their warfare style couldn't fit with this kind of armour.

Those battles are examples of why Brigandine armour and Polearms are so great and cheaper.

I don’t usually reply but what is the your point ?

Except they did not. Neither the Mongols nor the Turks could get trough Central Europe. Plate armor is 30 kg. That's the same weight that modern soldiers carry. Not that heavy.

The armour that Christian nations of Europe had very little to do with the successes or failures of the ottomans Turks.

​@@anotherhistoryenthusiast5874 "the Mongols nor the Turks could get trough Central Europe" / the Mongols could, they had central Europe & the HRE was about to bend over, spread A cheeks and accept deeper ramming But then Ogodei died & Mongol Civil war

@@anotherhistoryenthusiast5874 Mongols conquered eastern europe and they were going to conquer central europe but they had to return because death of great khan. Central european tactics can’t win againts mongols anyways they were way too fast

@@mrmalfurion5408 That is a misconception. The Mongols retreated becouse of the Cuman revolt and becouse the campaign was not profitable.