Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Ottoman army
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Sikander View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 12-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198 		  Quote Sikander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ottoman army
    Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 18:47
Oh, but I don't say they haven't influenced in terms of tactics and so. That's quite natural When you fight an enemy you have to learn from him or you are doomed. So, Ottomans learned from the Mamluks, and Safavids, and Arabs, and Greeks, and Balcanics, and Magyars, and so on, and vice-versa to all of these.
 
What I say is that the Europeans, for the most part, didn't copied the Ottomans in terms of troop types or even technology. They didnt's copied Ottoman cavalry, or infantry, or military technology (except for the Russians, as far as I know).
 
As for clothes, the influence is obvious: the XVIIth century European cavalry helmet is a copy from Ottoman helmets, themselves copies of Mamluk helmets (everybody is influenced by evreybody else!)
And it seems that the poited hats, large trousers and big, poited shoes of the clowns are a burlesque copy of the Ottoman clothing!
 
One more influence: pastry. The croissant! Big%20smile . If it weren't the Ottomans' failure to take Viena we woudn't have this delicacy at our breakfast.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 19:04
Russians never copied anything from Ottomans; and by the time serious Russian-Turkish wars started, Russian army had been organized according to the Western European standards.

Edited by Sarmat12 - 18-Aug-2007 at 19:07
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sikander View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 12-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198 		  Quote Sikander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 03:53
Well, Sarmat, you should re-read the book where you took your avatar from: Mikael Gorelik's "Warriors of Eurasia". Wink
 
And I remember (this got nothing to do with military stuff) that in Russia I drank traditional (yep!) Turkish coffe.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 17:13
Could you please specify more about these influences?
 
In fact, Moscow Russia didn't have much interaction with Ottoman empire until Peter the Great. Poles and Austrians encountered the Ottomans much more often than the Russians.
 
Moscovite army was indeed influenced by Orient. But it was Tatar influence, not Turkish.
 
As about such influences like fire weapons, guns etc. They came to Russia via Poland, Livonia or Sweden and also through Western mercenaries who were hired to train the Russian army, not through Ottomans, who in fact never attacked Moscow state themselves.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 20-Aug-2007 at 17:14
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sikander View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 12-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198 		  Quote Sikander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 08:27
Well, I'll give another hint:
 
Here's tre transcription (the Turkish items that I know of are in bold):
 
"Offensive: kolushchyeye - thrusting weapons, (including sabel, konchar, mech, nosh, and kindjal); metatel'noye - shooting (launching) weapons (including kolchan, djid, naluch, saadak, samostrel and sulitsa ); ru'yashchyeye - chopping weapons (including berdysh, sovna and rogatina); and udarnoye - striking weapons (including bulava, chekan, klevets, palitsa, shestoper, and topor).
Defensive: dospekh orbronya - body armor (including pantsir, baidana, bakhteretz, kalantar', kol'chuga, kuyak, nagavits, tyegilyai, yushman and zertsalo); sholom or shlyem - head or neck protection - helmet (including barmitsa, litchina, misyurka, shishak, shlyem, yalovets and yerikhonka); and the shchit - shield (including the tarch)."
 
Perhaps the Turkish names are of Tatar origin, or not, I don't know. But it seems strange that Tatars would name mail coated head covers as misyurkas: the name derives from Misr = Egypt...
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 16:44
pantsir = panzer (armour from Germany)

the Kinzhal was a Caucasian weapon.
Back to Top
Sikander View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 12-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198 		  Quote Sikander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 07:24
"the Kinzhal was a Caucasian weapon"
 
Yes, I know! I would love to have one (of good quality, though). I presume the name is of Turkish origin, or am I wrong?
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 18:48
don't think so. but i would also love to own a Kinzhal and Shashka myself... :)
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 19:25
Originally posted by Sikander

Well, I'll give another hint:
 
Here's tre transcription (the Turkish items that I know of are in bold):
 
"Offensive: kolushchyeye - thrusting weapons, (including sabel, konchar, mech, nosh, and kindjal); metatel'noye - shooting (launching) weapons (including kolchan, djid, naluch, saadak, samostrel and sulitsa ); ru'yashchyeye - chopping weapons (including berdysh, sovna and rogatina); and udarnoye - striking weapons (including bulava, chekan, klevets, palitsa, shestoper, and topor).
Defensive: dospekh orbronya - body armor (including pantsir, baidana, bakhteretz, kalantar', kol'chuga, kuyak, nagavits, tyegilyai, yushman and zertsalo); sholom or shlyem - head or neck protection - helmet (including barmitsa, litchina, misyurka, shishak, shlyem, yalovets and yerikhonka); and the shchit - shield (including the tarch)."
 
Perhaps the Turkish names are of Tatar origin, or not, I don't know. But it seems strange that Tatars would name mail coated head covers as misyurkas: the name derives from Misr = Egypt...
 
All these names were adopted from Kypchaks (Cumans) even before Ottoman empire appeared. They were used in 11th-12th century already.
 
 There was also another branch of Turkic nomades, called "Torks" in Russian chronicles, a northern branch of Oguzes. They served as a frontier quardsmen in Ancient Rus in 12-13th century, so they also probably influenced some names of the armour, but again it doesn't relate to Ottoman military.
 
Kindzhal and Shashka are indeed of Caucasus-Chirkassian origin, without relation to Ottoman.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 23-Aug-2007 at 19:34
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sikander View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 12-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198 		  Quote Sikander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 07:11
"Torks"... do they have anything to do with the Chrny Kobluky? They were great allies of the Russians. And had good cavalry also.
As for the pieces of equipment, I concede you are probably right. The long relations between Russians ans Turkic peoples may have triggered this exchamge of influences (or rather an influx, this time from Turkic to Russians).

Edited by Sikander - 24-Aug-2007 at 07:18
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 13:46
Russian names for some Steppe tribes are different than those used in the west. Torks are Uzes, which shortly displaced the Patzinaks (Pecheneg) and in turn where displaced by the Polovtsians (Qipchaqs).

Chernye Klobuki were a conglomeration of elements of the Pecheneg, Uzes and Berendei people.
Back to Top
Sikander View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 12-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198 		  Quote Sikander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 08:09

"Chernye Klobuki"... I misspelled it, sorry!

Weren't the Uzes also called "Vardarioi" by the Eastern Romans who used them as mercenaries? They would be of Turkic stock, right?
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 15:26
not sure about Byzantine names, i only know of Cuman for Qipchaq. but Uzes are indeed cloesely related to the Oghuz, iirc Uz is just another name for Oghuz
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 16:14
Originally posted by Temujin

Russian names for some Steppe tribes are different than those used in the west. Torks are Uzes, which shortly displaced the Patzinaks (Pecheneg) and in turn where displaced by the Polovtsians (Qipchaqs).

Chernye Klobuki were a conglomeration of elements of the Pecheneg, Uzes and Berendei people.
 
This is absolutelly correct
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 16:22
Originally posted by Sikander

"Chernye Klobuki"... I misspelled it, sorry!

Weren't the Uzes also called "Vardarioi" by the Eastern Romans who used them as mercenaries? They would be of Turkic stock, right?

 
I am not sure, but I might assume that those Vardariori were Pechenegs.
 
Northern Uzes (or Torks from Russian chronicles) didn't reach Byzantinne borders, they were defeated by the Russian princes and their remnants merged with Cherniye Klobuki (Karakalpaks in Turkic).
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 03:42
Russians had exchanges with Tatars, and Tatars had plenty of exchanges with the Ottomans. Tartar-Ottoman trade and alliances were very great.

Also, the Ottomans fought wars with the Moscovites well before Peter the Great. IIRC correctly, it was much more like Ivan the Terrible time period.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 14:32
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


Also, the Ottomans fought wars with the Moscovites well before Peter the Great. IIRC correctly, it was much more like Ivan the Terrible time period.
 
I doubt that. Russians fought against Tartars but not against Ottomans. Ottomans became enemy of Russia in second half of XVIIth century when Russia managed to conquer Eastern Ukraine.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 14:51
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Russians had exchanges with Tatars, and Tatars had plenty of exchanges with the Ottomans. Tartar-Ottoman trade and alliances were very great.

Also, the Ottomans fought wars with the Moscovites well before Peter the Great. IIRC correctly, it was much more like Ivan the Terrible time period.
 
Yes there were some wars before the 18th century, but really insignificant compare to the wars which Ottomans fought in Europe against Poles, Hungarian, Austrians etc.
 
Despite the Ottoman alliance with Tatars, their military tactics had a very little impact on traditional Tatar warfare.
 
Tatars remained mounted archers until the 18th century when they finally were conquered by Russians (I mean Crimean Tatar Khanate which was a vassal of Ottoman Sultan).
 
Ottoman warfare which features were strong artillery, gunners and inantry didn't infuence Crimean Tatars.
 
When Russians faced Tatars they fought with mounted Tatar archers, not with Turkish Janissaries.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 29-Aug-2007 at 14:54
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138 		  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 15:21
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Russians had exchanges with Tatars, and Tatars had plenty of exchanges with the Ottomans. Tartar-Ottoman trade and alliances were very great.Also, the Ottomans fought wars with the Moscovites well before Peter the Great. IIRC correctly, it was much more like Ivan the Terrible time period.


Yes there were some wars before the 18th century, but really insignificant compare to the wars which Ottomans fought in Europe against Poles, Hungarian, Austrians etc.


Despite theOttoman alliance with Tatars, their militarytactics had a very little impact on traditional Tatar warfare.


Tatars remained mounted archers until the 18th century when they finally were conquered by Russians (I mean Crimean Tatar Khanate which was a vassal of Ottoman Sultan).


Ottoman warfare which features were strong artillery, gunners and inantry didn't infuence Crimean Tatars.


When Russians faced Tatars they fought with mounted Tatar archers, not with Turkish Janissaries.

I guess that Kazan khanate was more sophisticated in military matters than Crimean khanate, since they had more "urban" establishment contrary to Crimean steppe state. They had cannons and arquebuses for sure - at least employed in the town defences, not sure about infantry though.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 16:00
I guess Crimean Khanate was stronger. Yes Kazan Khanate used gunns during the siege of Kazan, but other than that there war style was akin to Crimean Tatars. In the Russian chronicle about the taking of Kazan it said that Kazan Tatars didn't know how to use the guns, so they forced Armenian and Turkish merchants to fire from them.
 
Crimean Tatars BTW had stone wall cities and also guns to protect them, even more advanced than Kazan Tatars.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.