Effectivness of European plate armour vs Asian bow

[cl30]

Hi, I came across an article few months ago that described how Mongols invasions impact the weapons and armour developments in East Europe. I am wondering if anyone know that the increases thickness and refinement of the later European medieveal armours proved effectively against the threat from the nomads' reflex bow?

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Actually, it's much easier to thrust a plate armor more than thrusting chain or lamellar armor.

[Temüjin]

plate was not a result of contact with the steppe. in some way it was, though. the first known example of coat-of-plate armour is from eastern germany. it was suggested, also du to the similarity, that the coat-of-plate armour was a copy of the famous mongolian silk armour. the coat-of-plate si the predecessor of the "full" plate.

anyways archery was no issue for europeans, they had mostly to deal with crossbows. the other thing was more advanced forging techniques.

[cl30]

"Actually, it's much easier to thrust a plate armor more than thrusting chain or lamellar armor"

Do you have any proof on that? It seems that some later plate knight armour can even withstanded primitive bullet shots.

My question is wheather horse archers did lose their effectiveness against Europeans when European knights began armed themselves with advanced plate armours. Correct me if I am wrong, the enemies that Timur faced were mostly lightly armoured (mail armour at most) and in order to penetrate plate armour, the horse archers had to reduce his distance between him and enemies, thereby increasing the arrow's penetration. However, by closing the distance with the enemies, the horse archers limited their mobility and exposed themselves to the devastating charges of knights. Such scenerio did happen in Sung China against Jing in 11th century when Sung Chinese found their normal crossbows, reflex bows and blade weapons useless against the very heavy-armed Jing cavalries. Instead, the large battle-axes and reinfored-crossbows were only weapons that were able to stop the Jing's armoured horsemen.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Yes, I can say I watched a few examples. Plus, logicially, it's easy to figure out the differences between lamellar, chain and plate armor.

[cl30]

"Yes, I can say I watched a few examples. Plus, logicially, it's easy to figure out the differences between lamellar, chain and plate armor"

Can you elaborate your examples and the differences between the armours against Asianic reflex bows?

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Lamellar and chain do not have a very solid surface - lamellar armor is made up of pieces of armor tied together while chain armor is made up of very small pieces of chains. This means that they are much more flexible, causing the coming arrow or any other sharp object to lose more of it's momentum when it hits the armor.

[cl30]

"Lamellar and chain do not have a very solid surface - lamellar armor is made up of pieces of armor tied together while chain armor is made up of very small pieces of chains. This means that they are much more flexible, causing the coming arrow or any other sharp object to lose more of it's momentum when it hits the armor."

Do you have any sources on that? Because it seems medieval Japan began replaced their traditional lamellar armours with plate armours (introduced by Europeans in 15th century) as it proved itself excellent against arrows and even bullets. The 14th and 15th century elite Turkish and Persian troops also wore mixed plate and mail armours.

I think the main reason tha nomads still perfered lamellar armours because of its ease of repair and replacements. Afterall, the main materials of lamellar armours were hardened cow skins which were relatively easy to be found and made in nomad world. In contrast, irons and steels were scarced and had to be imported from other regions.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Yes, but in Turkish: Salim Koca's "Selçuklular'da Ordu ve Askerî Kültür (Army and Military Culture Among the Seljuks)". www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/118574/selcuklulardaorduveaskerikultur.htm Plus, I use logic

The plate pieces used by the Ottomans and Iranians were not full plates, but rather small or medium sized plate pieces that were placed on the center of chain mails. The armor was still chain. Having a small plate piece in the middle does not make the armor plate armor

[Temüjin]

i agree, this kind of armour was plate-mail.

[cl30]

Maybe I should changed the topic into "Asianic reflex bow's penetration against European plate armour in 15th century"

Anyway, I have found a book that deatils about Mongol invastion in Europe (as well as in Asia) and dissects Mongols' tactic against much superior armed foes. In Timothy May's The Mongol Art of War, May argued that "even with their [Mongols'] powerful bows the Mongols had difficulty in bringing the knights down" (May 109). Instead, Mongols were forced to used tactics like feigned retreats and "other steppe tactics...could the Mongols outmaneuver the Hungarians and avoid their [knights' irresistible] great charges" (May 109). The book is published in 2007 so the sources are updated. However, as with some other Western research books on Mongols warfare, they all argue that Mongols were inferior in hand to hand combat in comparison with European kinghts (May 109) and with Mamluks (May believed Mamluks were "the most highly trained warriors in the medieval world") (May 109). However, when I talk with some Mongolian friends (who are not researchers though..), they believe most Europeans and Western historians are mostly biased and they believe Mongols were as superbe fighters in close quarter as their bow skill. Mostly importantly, they believe their bows have no problems to penetrate the best European plate armour available. Now, my question for everyone is if Dr. May is correct in his research on Mongols' bow's inferiority against Knights' mail armours in 13th century, it would be impossible for Timur's horse archers to defeat their foes in Europe as plate armours offered more protection against arrows than mails.

I welcome more commets and experts' opinons.


May, Timothy The Mongol Art of War Great Britain: Pen & Sword Books Ltd, 2007.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, the Mongols easily shot down Hungarian knights at Mohi while the Hungarian army was retreating towards Budapest in disorder. At Legnica, what I know is that the Mongols shot some of the knights, but some knights were not hurt because of their chain armors, so the Mongols shot their horses and brought the knights doen, then killed them with melee weapons.

[Temüjin]

before the Mongols, European knights only had chain mail which is an excellent protection vs sword blows but is easily penetrated by arrows, particularly from advancded bows such as those of the Mongols. the only thing that made European knights strong was the charge in close order but in all other instances the europeans are at an disadvantage vs non-europeans, this is also confirmed by the osbervations from Anna Komnenos of Byzantium during the Crusades.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Hmm I see...

[cl30]

"this is also confirmed by the osbervations from Anna Komnenos of Byzantium during the Crusades."

Did Anna observe Mongols or Muslim? Do you have any source on that?