Knight vs Mamluk

[Infinity Blade]

I thought about requesting this matchup like the rules say, but we're so infrequently posting here that I don't think I'm doing anything all that bad by just going ahead and making the thread. Besides, both of these warriors actually fight each other in history and are considered more or less equals in martial prowess, so this would be no different from making a matchup like T. rex vs Triceratops (which, how could you not approve a matchup like that?).

I have posted the following images below to give you an idea of what each warrior is equipped with, although you may deviate from this a bit so long as both are within the relevant time period. That is, do not come into this thread talking about a 15th century knight in full plate armor or anything of the sort.

Knight (early-mid 13th century):


Mamluk (early-mid 13th century):


Screen captures taken from Combat: Templar Knight versus Mamluk Warrior (Osprey Publishing).

[Infinity Blade]

I think this is a pretty good match, given that both were rigorously-trained warriors and would need all the luck they could get to win over the other.

The knight has the advantage of having virtually his entire body covered in armor. A knight of the 13th century would literally be covered head to toe, whether in his helmet or riveted mail. This means that to damage the knight himself, the mamluk has to be able to make a sufficiently damaging blow even with all the armor the knight has over him. That is, he would need to put enough force behind his lance to pierce through the knight's mail, padded armor, and his actual body. That's not impossible, since the way mail is constructed does allow for piercing weapons to penetrate it and injure the wearer underneath, but nevertheless, it's an advantage for our knight. Depending on how much force is behind it, a blow that might otherwise have injured him while unarmored could be stopped dead in its tracks by his armor.

Also, the knight has a highly aggressive, powerful approach to attack here, which is to literally charge straight on and make impact with his lance (this would normally be done in concert with other knights participating in the cavalry charge). I don't know if Islamic warriors did the same.


The mamluk's advantages are two-fold (one at least potentially). A mamluk was highly well trained in horseback archery, whereas this is not something knights would reliably or consistently be using*. As such, the mamluk has the advantage of being able to ride away and shoot arrows at the knight, who must catch the mamluk. While I don't think there are any hard measurements, the book I got the two screenshots from above estimates that likely draw weights for a mamluk's composite bow is 80-100 lbs. I remember reading of accounts where Crusader knights were unharmed by arrows (looking like pincushions), but I also remember reading of instances where indeed they were killed by them, which I think sounds about right for a composite bow with a draw weight of 80-100 lbs. If close enough, an arrow from the mamluk could very well penetrate deeply, while if he were too far away, the knight could very well charge on unscathed.

*That's not to say no knights ever used bows. There's evidence that they did, it's just not an expected piece of their armament.

Also, it looks like the mamluk could plausibly be wearing a combination of mail hauberk AND lamellar. Both of these alone are already great defenses, so together they'd be HIGHLY protective and complementary. The mail would cancel out the lamellar's disadvantage of not being able to protect certain body parts (like the armpits, or even most of the face), at least in places where the mail is actually present. In turn, the lamellar would alleviate the mail's relative vulnerability to piercing or blunt weapons (again, at least in places where the lamellar is actually present). Given the knight's high energy charge with a couched lance, I'd argue it's still possible for his lance to go through this, but this is just about the best way I could imagine the knight injuring the mamluk under all that armor (unless maybe he has a mace). If armed with a sword, his best bet really would be to target unarmored regions, which, thankfully for the knight, the mamluk has. The mamluk's unprotected hands, and possibly even his face (though it's possible the face could be protected by a mail coif, like above), are potential targets. Maybe even the lower legs and feet too. Obviously, though, hitting these unarmored regions on a fighting opponent is significantly easier said than done.

Taking the above into consideration I think I might slightly favor the mamluk, but I'm not 100% certain, and the knight is a dangerous foe for sure. The more I thought about this recently, the more I realized how close this fight really is.

[Creodont]

I favor the knight by a slight margin. I’m busy right now, but I’ll write a post explaining my reasoning this weekend.

[jhg]

I think lamellar is superior to chain mail and because the Mameluke has similar tactics and weaponry, I’m thinking Mameluke.

[lionclaws]

The War stories of Saracen warriors read like horror movies:

"One of their horsemen hastened to me, displaying his colors in a green and yellow silk tunic, under which I thought was no coat of mail. I therefore let him alone until he passed me. Then I applied the spurs to my mare, which leaped over the wall, and I smote him with the lance. He bent sideways so much that his head reached his stirrup, his shield and lance fell off his hand, and his helmet off his head. By that time we had reached our infantry. He then resumed his position, erect in the saddle. Having had linked mail under his tunic, my lance did not wound him. His companions caught up with him, all returned together, and the footman recovered his shield, lance and helmet."

-Usama ibn Munqidh

"It was said that one part of their defense was held by a Frank who seemed like a jinni, very agile and confident in the Devil's help...[his shield] became a target for arrows so that he soon resembled a hedgehog covered in spikes. The arrows remained stuck in his protection, but could not penetrate it."

-Imad ad-Din al-Katib al-Isfahani

In general, mail seems to have been preferred for protection against melee combat (and by people who didn't care about cost constraints/efficiency), while lamellar was preferred by people who focused on archery (and/or preferred quantity over quality in armor - China and Byzantium being the exemplars). In general, the Frank was a taller man on a heavier horse, and would have had a significant edge in a fair fight - emphasis on "fair." In a fight where neither man can run away, combatants and their horses are kept in good condition, and the climate is a neutral factor, the knight's charge must eventually be faced - and it will be nigh irresistible.

Of course, none of these factors actually applied in 13th century Levant. The crusader's logistics either came from overseas, or didn't exist. The Destrier was a fodder hog, and didn't provide any sustenance to his master in return. The heat was sweltering - which may be why the Mamluk (rather sensibly) wore less armor - meaning the already substantial logistical burden on the knight was increased, as even more water was required to prevent man and beast from overheating. The crusaders and their horses were typically dehydrated, overheated, and underfed. While the more flexible Mamluks on their lighter, hardier mares could dash from Cairo to Damascus and back again, living off the land and picking off exhausted crusaders - while avoiding healthy ones. It's a classic example of "novices study tactics, professionals study logistics."

But only the tactical question arises in this matchup, and on that front, barring gunpowder from consideration, the Frankish knight was only bested by his descendents.

[Supercommunist]

TBH I don't know much about Middle Eastern history but it seems that Mamluks had a more merit based system.

Most knights were expected to be skilled warriors but they were also nobles and thus many of them probably didn't have to deal with strict task masters and some were probably downright spoiled.

Mamluks on the other hand were slaves--they were given special privileges but they probably held to a higher standard.