Spahis

'In the 15th and 16th centuries most of the Timarli Sipahis were of kul ('slave') origin. Among Muslim Turks, only those who volunteered and gained honours in battle, and the followers of frontier lords ('ucbeylerinin yandaslari') could get a timar ('fief'). Statistics of Albania region of the year 1431 show that %16 of the sipahi were former Christian nobles, 30% were Anatolian Turks, 50% were slaves of the Sultan or other Beys. Remaining 4% of the timars belonged to Kadis, 'Piskopos' (Orthodox Bishops) and palace favourites. Later, the ratio of sipahis with Turkish origin slowly declined.'   Also note that the Muslim Anatolian Turks he mentions need not be Turcomans. They were mostly already settled Turks."

Ive actually been looking for a translated version of Inacik's Sancak i-Arnavud for quite some time but have had no luck whatsoever...

Sipahis got dressed heavy silk armours.Silk armour is stronger than metal armours.Also silk gives confort activity.

Beylerbeyi Timarli Sipahis (land holding ones- not land owning) or Kapikulu Sipahis (Sipahis of the Porte)?... Timarli Sipahi are not elite. Akincis are not elite either, they are just raiders; light cavalry. Kapikulu Sipahi are the only ones that could be called elite.

The Timarli were irregular cavalry who are confused with the elite Sipahi force as colloquially they were also called Sipahis. The "Sipahi" was the elite divison of the "six divisions of the cavalry". Akinci were the raider divison, they served as scouts and disrupted the enemy units.

Beylerbeyi Bullocks. Majority of the Timar holders were 'of kul (slave, i.e. non-muslim) origin', just like the Janissaries, according to Inalcik. I posted the detailed quote here before:

This was true during Murad I reign, however, Mehmed II changed this making Sipahi's chosen ethnic Turks.

Beylerbeyi I don't think we can compare the Janissary to the Timarli Sipahi in term of loyalty or 'effectiveness'.

Sipahi were regarded as being loyal, the phrase "Atlı er başkaldırmaz" ("Horsemen don't mutiny".) is testonomy to this.

Beylerbeyi In my opinion the worst case of betrayal in Ottoman history, caused by 'Turks', while Serb vassals fought to the end...

I'm not so certain we can call this a betrayel, those lands wern't Ottomans, they were still under the hegemony of beyliks. The Ottomans underestimated Emir Timur and the Beyliks, when some of the Beyliks decided to accept Timur as the leader along with other escalations made war immenant. Many of the early Ottoman battles were with other Turks, like against the Karamanogullu beylik and the Mamluks both who were older than the Ottomans (athough the Mamluks by then were dominated by Circassians.)

Originally posted by ataman Originally posted by gezgin Sipahis got dressed heavy silk armours.Silk armour is stronger than metal armours.Also silk gives confort activity.   Sorry, but it doesn't hold facts. There are descriptions from the battle of Chocim 1621 that single blows of hussar lances, were piercing 2, 3 and even 4 sipahis at once (BTW, it doesn't apply only to Ottomans; there are sources from other battles which show that piercing a couple of enemies, who didn't use metal armors, by the hussar lance, was an usual event). On the other hand, there is Ottoman relation from the battle of Vienna which states that sabres and lances of Ottoman soldiers did nothing to Polish hussars who wore metal armors (so Ottoman cavalrymen had to strike Polish horses).

I agree with you that the polish armor was heavier than turkish ones but the turkish sipahis mostly used metal armor also. The Kapıkulu sipahis were heavy horseman which numbered total 5-6000 at the 16th century era. The tımarlı sipahis also wore metal armor however their retainers  equipment were poorer than their masters. The story of single blow killing  3-4 sipahi is I think illogical but this exxagrated stories of turkish losses are common in Europe(satisfaction probably).  

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi I agree with you that the polish armor was heavier than turkish ones but the turkish sipahis mostly used metal armor also.

Edited by ataman - 08-Jan-2009 at 18:04

As I already written, they weren't just Ottomans who were 'impaled'. There is a letter of Lithuanian hetman from 1660, where he stated that in the battle of Polonka 6 Russian infantrymen were pierced by single blow of the hussar lance.

I don't think it is an anti-Ottoman or anti-Turkish thing. It just seems highly unlikely. If you run through one person, that's it. You can't change the heading of the lance anymore. So you'd have to impale everyone in one strike. Now, if you are charging onto infantry in close formation, it may be possible to impale a few people. On the other hand, if you are charging cavalry, they must be unarmoured, practically touching each other, and you should charge them perfectly from the side, and even then the horses take much more space than men. In a stretch, I can believe two horsemen getting impaled, but four? I don't think so. 

Maybe, but European cavalrymen had to learn very fast. German, French and English military treaties from 16th and 17th c. advice to kill enemy horses first of all. It was much easier to dismount armoured enemy than to kill him.

I read the memoirs of a German knight (or squire) who was captured by the Ottomans in Nicopolis and that's what he wrote, e.g. the knights charged the Turkish cavalry but Turks shoot the horses first, so they were soon fighting on foot. Now, he also wrote that there were dragons in Anatolia, which is funny, but I don't see anything wrong with his comments on the knights and Turks shooting the horses. 

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi You can't change the heading of the lance anymore.

i have read a lot of such primary sourcesabout the use of the lance in ww1 (which doesn't break) and so far there was only one mention where one body was completely impaled and most of the time the lance did but only light wounds despite many stabs. those modern soruces are by far more reliable. but if you think you have so many sources that proove the contrary then give me those sources.

those are only four sources and from a time period of 60 years, you said you had "too many" and from "different times"...

Originally posted by ataman Originally posted by Temujin those are only four sources   5 sources from 4 battles   Originally posted by Temujin and from a time period of 60 years, you said you had "too many" and from "different times"...   62 years between the battle of Vienna and the battle of Chocim is 'the same time' in your opinion? I've given you primary sources written by members of the battles, by commanders of hussars and commander of an army. Is it not enough? Ok, so look at the list of sources only to the battle of Chocim 1621: 1. Potocki (3 Ottomans pierced at once) 2. Auxent (3 - 4 Ottomans pierced at once) 3. Rudomina (3 - 4 Ottomans pierced at once) 4. Marchocki (2 Ottomans pierced at once) 5. Sobieski (3 Ottomans pierced at once) 6. Lubomirski (2-3 Ottomans pierced at once)

İt really seems unbelieveable, because with the impact of the lance ,the lancer will also loose its stability with the first clash(momentum: speed*weight, single arm power against the clash).But with the powerful clash the formation of their opponents would crack. Maybe 2 soldier at once could be but 3-4 is impossible