Why did the Al-Andalusians adopt European-style armor and cavalry warfare, while the Ottomans did not? By the mid-13th century, the Andalusians had fully adopted European armor and knightly warfare, with their cavalry becoming nearly identical to their Christian adversaries. However, the Ottomans chose to stick to their traditional emphasis on horse archers and utilized a mix of half-plate and mail armor. Even though elite Ottoman units like the Kapıkulu cavalry combined horse archery with shock tactics effectively, they never fully adopted European-style full plate armor or fielded a cavalry force resembling European knights. The Ottomans utilized Serbian knights in battles such as Nicopolis (1396) and Ankara (1402), where these knights in full plate armor distinguished themselves in combat. This shows the Ottomans clearly recognized the effectiveness of such heavy cavalry. Combining knights in full plate with their other forces—such as their Janissaries and Kapıkulu cavalry—could have been a powerful strategy. Yet they still chose not to adopt European armor on a wider scale. Why was this the case?
>>17281525
>>17281531
>>17281535Here’s the translation of the highlighted and accompanying text from the image in Spanish:>"In the second half of the 13th century and the beginning of the 14th century, two generic models of weaponry coexisted in the Nasrid Sultanate of Granada: one adopted by copying Christian models and another that maintained the Hispano-Muslim tradition rooted in its Eastern and Maghrebi origins.">The adoption of weapons following the Christian model is documented in the Cantigas, where part of the Muslim cavalry took on a markedly heavy character with closed helmets, caps, mail armor, gauntlets, breastplates, and shields (fig. 3). This suggests that in Granada, which emerged in the 13th century as a vassal of Castile, and later with its political ties to Christian forces during the reign of Ferdinand III, some Muslim troops at times became assimilated to Christians in appearance and equipment.
>>17281525Andalusians were largely european converts so it was more natural idk
>>17281525Because andalusians hired Castilian, Portuguese, French, Basque and Aragonese mercenaries in mass scale, to great extenct they were not people of war so they did prefer to pay others to fight for them
>>17281626But these are specifecly Andalusian troops in eurpean armor. Not just mercs
>>17281614I gues, but why would'nt the Ottomans somwhat adopt full plate armor. The closest I know they did was that some Kapikulu sipahis would adopt cuirasses (Plus some guys taking armor of dead knigts after battles)
>>17281525Knights become irrelevant in the age cannons and modern standing armies like janissaries and Ottomans didn't need to adopt European style knight warfare because they constantly btfo heavy armoured Europeans with light armour steppe Mongol tactics
The post-Seljuk successors in Anatolia were heavily nomadic, or at least many of them were, and they engaged in raiding. There was also a wave of Turks and Iranians that migrated westward into Anatolia, Kurdistan and Azerbaijan in the late-1210s and 1220s when the unified Mongol Empire invaded Khwarezmia.I believe when the Seljuks fell, there was a lot of cultural devolution that happened. Religious syncretism increased too, especially between the 1200s and 1400s. The Ilkhanate also had a presence in parts of Anatolia between 1256 and 1335. Qizilbash probably grew in parts of Eastern Anatolia in the late-1400s. Then the Safavid Empire controlled it in the early-1500s until the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514 when the Ottomans permanently seized those lands.
>>17283477I understand that the Ottomans would not abandon the horse archer tradition, whether in the form of irregular raiders, skirmishers, or the professional Kapikulu cavalry. But why didn't they incorporate European armor and warfare at least partially? The Ottomans were well aware of the effectiveness of heavy shock cavalry, given that they were constantly fighting against it. Additionally, as I mentioned, Serbian knight auxiliaries proved themselves valuable when fighting for the Ottomans. The combination of heavy European cavalry with other Ottoman units was quite effective. While I wouldn't expect the Ottomans to completely abandon horse archers in favor of knights clad in full plate armor, it's odd that they didn't integrate any such units alongside their existing forces.
>>17281525I can only speak for the Ottomans as I'm more familiar with their history. It's probably a combination of:>steppe nomad tradition and cultural preference for agile mares over powerful stallions as warhorses >military doctrine focused on ensuring mobility and stamina over diverse terrain and climate types >early adoption of gunpowder and artillery as part of a combined arms strategy led them to prefer a more mobile profile of cavalry (this is what led to the obsolescence of heavily armoured knights in Europe too, btw)>economic efficiency (plate armour is expensive and heavily armoured knights are costly to maintain - this is particularly relevant as much of the Ottoman cavalry was comprised of fief-holding Sipahis who provided their own equipment)
>>17281525It's weird seeing Muslim armies look like that. Honestly, it looks cool.
