Good channel... deserve more view than other channels who don't know about ottoman empire

"Only thr elite could afford a full plate of armor" umm the same is true everywhere, despite what hollywood may depict.

Composite bow had more range and faster .Also can be used on horseback. Longbow had more impact to armor when in effective range due to the advantage of thick arrows. But if you have longer range and better mobility with more firepower due to faster bow advantage it would be superior against enemy Becouse how many men can be armed with full plate armor. Also it is not important to kill if you can make the soldier out of battle due to wound. Even Plate armor soldier has spots that vulnerable to arrows. Don't forget, you need to eleminate the enemy, no need to kill Becouse you do not need to do so.

It's simply because their gunpowder tech advanced faster than their armour. The Ottoman did use plate armour, but not full plate because by the late 14th century the Ottoman empire was already a gunpowder empire, and that's about the same time full plate came into existence.

Turks war ta ticals are basicly quick moving capability and heavy armor is make slowest your horsman, our horse archers quicly arive enemy line begin to raining bows and quicly run far of enemy lines.

The reason the Mongols qaunqured most of Asia is because every country and civilization in Asia was weak and still is compared to most of Europe that we're way stronger than the Mongols themselves and besides the argument of that the Mongols were the greatest empire in the world is stupid because they couldn't even take a single country in Europe. Also the British used recurve bows in the Medieval ages on horseback so whoever made this has no knowledge in Medieval Europe and Medieval Asia imean come on dude even the Roman Empire used the recurve bows. And by the way the long bow is one of the best bows in the world and Medieval Europe.

Now i know what some of my great grandfathers did

Its simple, u cant use hornbow's on the horse when wearing a full plate armor. Turks are use similar armors from Göktürks to Ottomans. Since the majority of the Turkish armies consisted of horse archers over the last thousand years, the armor did not change much either, it only improved in terms of material. Since the majority of the Turkish armies consisted of horse archers over the last thousand years, the armor did not change much either, it only improved in terms of material.

But in the battle of Ankara, only Serbian heavily armored cavalry had success against the Timurids...

Şamşir iran ve ya fars kılıcı değildir. Ortaasyadan horasan Türkleri irana getirdiler sonra farslar benimsedi sonra araplar farslardan Türk kılıcının kavisli halini aldılar. Araplar ve farslar düz kılıç kullanıyorlardı. Şemşir Osmanlı kılıcının atasıdır. Zaten iranı 1000yıldan fazla Türkler yönetti ve 10 büyük devletler kurdular. Günümiz iranda %45 Türk yaşamakta. İran dediğinizde iran Türkleri yok sayılıyor ve bütün Türk kültürü farslar adına yazılıyor

Basically the ottomans started as typical steppe raiders and ended more or less wearing the shoes, or rather the boots, of the byzantines.

Well they did used heavy armor and plates - its just that by the time they developed technology to mass produce it and bred horses strong enough to carry armoured riders it was slowly getting obsolete due to the gunpowder :D

That's not even a valid point lol.

What the fuck is this channel name?

1:52 - what movie is that from?

Then how light armoir able to win aganist heavy armour when there ia no space of pierce heavy armour

Do you really think that the Ottoman Empire could not have produced all-metal plate armor between 1400 and 1600? In the years you mentioned, the Ottoman Empire had the most developed army and economy in Europe and the Middle East. Even if you assumed that they could not produce, they could still hire or capture the most famous craftsmen in their field. But instead of producing a knight that cost as much as a town's annual income, they preferred to shatter the knight's armor with their six-bladed maces or riddled them with cannon and musket fire.

Ankara was lost because the Turkoman levies defected from the Ottoman army, and Timur had a better organized army compared to what was at that time a much smaller Ottoman beylik. Better horse archers were probably not going to defeat a more logistically capable Timurid empire.

“Full plate armor” was invented for western royalty and aristocracy so that they don’t die easy on battlefield, but they were hardly useful and were never used en masse. Forget about movies or games showing whole armies in full plates. Never happened.

Good work

🗿👍

hey m8! i found your channel recently through videos you did years ago, i'm glad to see you are still posting. nn🎉

Considered themselves persians?

I just found your channel. Do you know the type of armor Ralamb's sipahi wear? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ralamb_Sipahi.jpg If YT deletes the link, just google 'Ralamb sipahi'. The guy with the horizontal stripes. It doesn't look like a yushman.

Spending money on artillery was much more rational than spending money on heavy cavalry. That's the whole reason.

ser: means head.. to pass; To abandon .. that is, he gave up his head and risked certain death. So why are they doing this? To gain the consent of the creator, that's all. Sultans act according to the book of the creator. For example, if someone treats someone unfairly during peacetime; If that person has his hand cut off... the person whose hand was cut off appeals to the judge. It doesn't matter whether he is a Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew. According to the laws of the creator, if the sultan is wrong, his hand is cut off. Neither soldiers can prevent this. nor its people. The command comes from the creator, and they obey it. Sultans are on the same level before the law as the people they rule. Only the sultan, who is the supreme commander in war, has absolute power. The padişah (sultan) is both the slave and the master of his people. He is the only noble person in the country.

The Ottoman Empire (or the 3rd Roman Empire) abolished the principalities and became the only state before the Ankara War. The lords took refuge in Timur and wanted their principalities. These soldiers were an inseparable unit while fighting the infidels. But when they saw the flags of their lords, their soldiers went there. Timur is tactical and moreover, he is a person to be admired in the world. Losing soldiers, the 3rd Roman ( osmanlı yada devlet-i aliye) state lost the Battle of Ankara because of previously timur purchased military units. The horses kept by the 3rd Roman Empire (Ottoman Empire) were the best war horses in the world. It was a mixture of Arab war horses and Turkish war horses. In fact, the English horse was a combination of this horse. It was defeated by the barbarians. After the 2 Vienna Ottoman defeats, the British took the 3 noble horses from the Austrians. It's great that you spit out ideas as if you were ignorant and foolish, without gaining full knowledge.

Supercool video! Keep it up.

great video!

Quite detailed and spot on video, even portraits were completely historical! Turkish soldiers regardless it is cavalry or infantry would carry several weapons, especially maces as secondary was quite common as they were effective against heavy armour including plate armour. They would carry 3 weapons often, bow/javelin/gun, always a sword as nothing was better against soft targets, a mace or spear + a small shield was quite common. So they were like a walking armoury already which was another factor limiting how much armour they could wear. It is also correct Turkomans weren't able to carry as much as European war horses but they were also far more mobile, for example a study i saw was claiming turkomans were jumping longer than heavier horses while running which was allowing them to become more stable for accurate arrow shots. Another major factor was Turkish armies were always vast majority cavalry both during Seljuk empire and early Ottoman empire, for example in 1492 there were 6,000 Janissaries and 40,000 Sipahis in Ottoman army. This was allowing them to control battlefield with their superior mobility, they faced knights with plate armour and overwhelmed against them? They were simply feigned retreating and tiring them which worked flawlessly in so many battles. Both Seljuk and Ottoman empires dominated pitched battles for centuries while only experienced decisive defeats against Mongols and Timurs that they both had more cavalry! It just didn't make sense abandoning their superior cavalry tactics for plate armour alone.. By the way Ottoman army never had any infantry expect Janissaries, Ottoman standing army was called Kapıkulu army and it had Kapıkulu heavy cavalry, Janissaries (Infantry division), Topçu ocağı (Artillery division), Cebeci ocağı (Supply division) and even lağımcılar (Drillers) who were weakening walls etc had their own division. So light armoured skirmish etc was also a part of Janissary corps, they were only less experienced Janissaries. They would train with every weapon literally and as they became older also accordingly more skilled they would rank up. So the heavy core of Janissaries were the oldest and most skilled part of it. Because Ottoman had vast majority cavalry armies, it always struggled during sieges as cavalry was useless so Janissaries always had great importance and political power. They were receiving quite high salaries and also lion's share from plunder.

All that was necessary to have said is that it wasn’t their style. The Turks had their own traditions of making war.

When match lock firearms and cannon became available, the Ottoman Turks took full advantage and by these times even the europeans were significantly reducing their armour coverage.

Good video, compact and gets to the point quickly. A few things should be noted though I think; 1. Using a bow in plate armour isn't impractical or impossible. In full plate armour it becomes significantly more difficult to draw and loose an arrow, but if the pauldrons are removed then the archer can loose arrows at similar speed and with similar mobility to an unarmoured man. This does however make using the bow more draining, but heavily armoured cataphracts and hussars did also make use of bows. A fit Ottoman warrior who did a lot of cardio could probably pull it off. I think what primarily hindered the adoption of European-style full plate armour for the Ottomans, was that the lighter horses used by horse archers are less able to effectively carry a man in plate than a destrier-style horse. In turn, destrier-style horses are also considerably heavier (the descendents of those horse breeds are typically classified as Light draft horses today) and not as mobile as an Arabian for example. Certain heavier horse breeds were used by "horse archers", but those archers were often primarily shock cavalry (Hussars, Cataphracts). 2. Cataphracts were adopted by the Romans from encounters with respective Iranian dynasties. These dynasties in turn might have encountered cataphracts from Scytho-Sarmatian peoples, and adapted them from their own use or developed similar cavalry units. Another possibility is that they developed as more heavily armoured Median and Persian cavalry. I'm actually not sure the Huns had any heavy cavalry of their own, all I've found about them points to them primarily using mounted archers/javelineers. That said, it's not impossible that they might have had their own heavy cavalry. I want to say the Avars, Bulgars and Magyars did, though. These are relatively minor additions to a video that's otherwise pretty good.

WTF is plate mail armor?

I bet that I could shoot with a bow in full plate armour, but it depends on the type. Some do have too big shoulder plates, or other things that would get in the way... The nicest plate armour I've seen that would suit a horse archer was probably Polish in origin. It had the following features: 1) burgonet helmet (open-face helmet with something similar to a sunscreen that can be used to protect the face by simply looking down) 2) plate armour torso. The front plate was actually two pieces that could slide into each other to allow more mobility. Plus, the plates overlap around the heart, which makes this spot the most protected. Below it were three steel lamellars, which are more common in plate armour, but are also for allowing movement. 3) plate reinforced mail for the arms. The outside of the arms was essentially plate armour, but instead of overlapping plates and open spots on the inside, they were part of a mail sleeve. 4) tassets going from the torso right down to the knees. They were form-fitting to the thighs and protect the entire front. PS: I've seen some stunning examples of full plate armour, be it Italian, German, or French, but I wouldn't feel comfortable in any of them. Especially the armet helmets are nothing for me... (too restricting and not just for the vision)

I'm sorry but it's just wrong. The one and only reason is lack of technology as can be witnessed by char-aina, which, in its most developed form, is a crudely made plate cuirass, so it's evident that they had nothing against plate armour itself, they just couldn't make it as good as european armourers, or in as big a volume.

Very interesting fakts. Thx

In principle the exposee is correct, but several notes: -Turks actually lost the battle of Kosovo. Campaign aim was to conquer Bosnian-Serbian state, which hadn't happen as a consequence of the battle, and sultan was killed on top, the only one to die in battle in entire Ottoman history. Result was minor territoral expansion and a civil war that the Bayazid had to deal with. Contemporary European sources also considered this as a Christian victory, not defeat. -Turks employed vassal, mostly Serbian heavy cavalry, most of it clad in plate armor to good effect at several important campaigns, notably at Ankara where they were the last troops standing despite of the loss of battle. This probably slowed the distribution of heavy armor among the sipahis as it was much cheaper to use vassal contingents to fill this role then to mass produce heavy armor for them anew. While we are at Battle of Ankara, major reason for horse archery deficiency of the Ottoomans was defection of the major part of the army to Timur, most of them being semi-nomadic Turkoman tribes of Anatolia which were "pure" horse archers, it hasn't much to do with supposed decline of the skills among the Turks as such. -Cataphracts were initially Scythian invention, that spread southwards to Iran and Hellenistic states, later to be picked up by Rome. While Others some of the other Euroasian groups were also noted as cataphract-like users, like the Avars, Turkish tribes weren't, and adopted such setups for tribal elites and guard units only in places like Iran and Rum where they had pre-existing infrastructure to lean on. -Um, Janissaries weren't really shock troops, their battlefield role was traditionally quite defensive, providing the backbone of the army in the field. When used as assault infantry, like in some sieges-it was wasteful and a sign of dire need.

The Ottomans also quickly adopted firearms and no doubt found they could pierce even the best plate.

so basically because they had to fight very different opponents in very different climates and move large distances they had to compromise and make more "medium or all around" style of armour that had a fine balance of weight to mobility. which makes perfect sense. the European kingdoms at that point where mostly occupied fighting each other over relatively short distances so they didn't have to move nearly as far to defend far flung borders and thus could make wider spread use of heavy armour. and there is the differences in primary horses as well as the cultures that they come from. sort of like how you have Light (Recon), Medium/Cruiser (the main mobility and firepower component) and heavy/Infantry (mostly for breakthroughs where armour and firepower is more important) classes of tanks up to the invention of the MBT by the soviet union when they rolled out the T-54/55 which efficiently combined the ability of both medium and heavy tanks.

Lamellar armour worked just fined for centuries, with unique advantages and were produced at a fraction of the cost. Full plate armour werent popular in Europe either until late 15 to 16th century, a time in which warfare were soon to be trasitioning to gunpowder anyway.