Ottoman Turks Cav vs Knights?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17706
Printed Date: 20-May-2024 at 18:20
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Ottoman Turks Cav vs Knights?
Posted By: BigL
Subject: Ottoman Turks Cav vs Knights?
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 04:17
| Who is the Better Cavalry Ottoman Turks Siphai and or Qapkula or The Knights of Europe?? |
Replies:
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 05:35
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 06:10
I think that it depends if Knights has access to sugar or not, if he does nothing less powerful than a leopard 2 tank could stop him
In all seriusness though you need to define what you mean by knights better as they had existed for centuries before the Sipahi's came into existence. Futheremore there were Knights in many European nations at the time of the Sipahis who specifically came from the ottoman empire. They varied greatly in equipment/armour, training, status and methods. Finaly it depends on the situation as each has thier strengths and weaknesses. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 06:24
 Very funny Praetor, but oh so true. 'Knights' vs Leopard 2 Tank: Bring it on!And yes, in all seriousness, you do need to specify a bit more. At their height, Ottoman heavy cavalry (whether Qapakulu, Sipahi or whatever) would easily take down English Knights, in certain conditions. Adversely, the opposite would probably be the case at the peak of English/European Knight dominance. The situation is not as vital to the outcome but would still play a part. If there is one thing that would cause the Knights to lose, it would be their mentality (arrogance, impetuosity), due to the fact that chivalry (code of ethics) doesn't tend to apply when fighting the Muslims -as far as I'm aware- and therefore wouldn't be a problem or advantage (however you see it) It would definitely be an epic engagement, the initial collision would be monumental! ------------- |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 16:44
I agree before the Hussar(esspecialy the winged ones) the Siphais never had any problems ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 17:15
|
Depends on the battlefield as well as the weather... but European knights... gets my vote. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 17:18
|
If the Sipahis weren't defending anything the knight couldn't do anything. Sipahis were much faster and the knight couldn't shoot any ranged weapon mounted so ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 08:07
|
Siphais had the same tactics as Mongol\nomad tactics so Siphais would take out the knights from distance ------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2007 at 17:07
|
i voted for sipahi ------------- |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2007 at 22:30
By the way, Ottoman Kapikulu, which is the stable army of the Sultan, was mainly an infantry-based army.
Kapikulu had a Cavalry division as well, though, which was more elite and less numerous than the Spakhis. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2007 at 22:37
Sipakhis mostly consisted of lightly armored pacey lancers, the archers didn't take place in the same frequency as Mongols used them. There were horse archers, but the ratio was not same as Mongols. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 20:30
|
By the time that Sipakhs "ruled" in the east, in western europe effective combined infantry (with long pikes and gunpowder) were defeating the mounted knights (Spanish-Frank wars in northern Italy). It was the dawn of a new type of warfare and the end of knighthood, although the gunpowder was used by Ottomans even before.
Well, we might consider this as an example: in the battle of varna, Ottoman Sipakhs were defeated by a combined Hungarian/Wallachian cavalry force. The christians were less than the Ottomans(2:1) in this battle so we might consider that there was an proportion btw these two cavalry forces too*.In this case the quality difference between the two cavalries was more important than the quantity difference.
*I don't have the info about the exact numbers of the units which took part in the battle so i just suppose. ------------- 
|
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 13:35
|
this is a Ottoman sipahi bow, it was more effective then a gunpowder at that time (the speed, the power, the range etc) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0jBsSckdBI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0jBsSckdBI ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 19:53
Yes ,maybe it was . Of course musketeers of these ages were a weak power as individuals, but when they were used as a combined force , things were much different... -------------
|
Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2007 at 05:27
| To correct Athanasios it was hungarian light cavalry and infantry at the battle fo Varna-1444,but the heavy knight cavalry was the houshold guard of the polish king Wladyslaw Warnenczyk.And yes,they defeated the ottoman cavalry-both rumelian(left flank) and anatolian(right flank) but then the king made a stupid mistake to attack the Jannisary core with only 200 remaining knights.Of course he died. |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2007 at 10:20
|
Yes, thanks for the info.I didn't know the exact quality of the christian troops. But i think that it was a combined cavalry force this which defeated the Sipahis.Wallachian in the right flank and Hungaro-Bulgarian in the left. Wladislav made a stupid mistake indeed... -------------
|
Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2007 at 12:05
|
It was in fact the christian infantry with only the help of the wallachians that defeated the turks(rumelian sipahis,akanjy and azbeks) on the left flank,not only the christian cavalry.Western type Knights defeated the rumelian sipahis on the right flank and they sustained only hungarian and polish knoghts.Bulgarians were only revolting peasants with no horses.
PS.Historians argue if it was a just a mistake that the king attacked the Janissary core.There is a theory that he in fact attacked them to cover the retreat of the destroyed christian right flank,which would otherwise shurely be slaughtered by the Janissaries.Wladyslaw is famous for his chivarly so this theory is very possible. |