Horse Archers and Plate Armor: A Historical Analysis

Horse archers, with their skill in mounted combat and reliance on speed and mobility, traditionally wore rather light armor. Speed was paramount in their work, and this often meant forgoing heavier protection. Yet, with the rise of plate armor around the 15th century, a new challenge emerged for these horsemen. Could they still effectively counter the formidable knights in their heavy armor?

Effectiveness and Limitations of Horse Archer Armor

The primary goal of a horse archer was to deliver quick, decisive blows, often targeting the horses or dismounting their opponents, making them vulnerable on foot. While plate armor, at its peak, was near invulnerable to arrows and musket balls, unless a lucky shot hit a vulnerable spot such as an eye slit, gaps and weaknesses in the armor still presented opportunities for effective combat.

The battle aim was to disrupt the knight's ability to ride their horse, not to penetrate the armor. By causing the knight to dismount, the horse archers rendered them in a much more vulnerable position on foot.

Close-Quarters Combat and Armor-Eradication Techniques

When necessary, horse archers adapted to close-quarters combat. They used weapons and tactics similar to those employed by any armored infantry to deal with plate armor. These included:

Crushing and Piercing: Horse archers could use weapons like maces and lances to crush or pierce the armor, exploiting any weaknesses or gaps that existed. Using Pointed Weapons: By inserting pointy weapons into the gaps in the armor, they could cause pain and incapacitate the opponent.

The Role of the Ottoman Archers

The effectiveness of horse archers against plate armor was best demonstrated during historical confrontations involving Ottoman archers. The Ottoman Empire, known for its robust army and effective use of disciplined archers, faced various European armies equipped with plate armor.

Kosovo 1389, Nicopolis 1396, Varna 1444, and Mohacs 1526: These battles showcased the Ottoman archers' versatility and adaptability. In the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, the Ottoman archers, both mounted and on foot, cooperated with the Sipahi lancer-archers to defeat the French forces. Despite the French infantry making it through the archers and stakes, they were ultimately defeated by the Sipahi's mounted charge.

The Battle of Agincourt in 1415: Even more striking was the intersection between French knights in plate armor and English longbowmen. Here, the French employing saltpeter fire did not significantly affect the outcome. The English longbowmen used a combination of firepower and mobility to decimate the French cavalry, which relied heavily on heavy armor.

Analysis of Tactics and Outcomes

The defeat of the French at Nicopolis and Agincourt, despite the presence of heavy plate armor, highlights the adaptability of horse archers in close-quarters combat. The French Marshal Jean de Bueil, Comte d'Armagnac and Constable of France, Boucicaut, who fought at both Nicopolis and Agincourt, may have underestimated the capabilities of the Ottoman horse archers due to their previous military experiences in which heavy armor often provided an invincible shield.

At Agincourt, the French knights, despite the mud, were still outmatched by the English longbowmen's strategic positioning and mobility. The French may have thought they could replicate their success at Nicopolis, but the marshy ground and the ineffectiveness of saltpeter fire worked against them.

The case of Boucicaut demonstrates a hands-on understanding of the limitations of heavy armor. His capture at both battles, and subsequent release after Nicopolis and death after Agincourt, suggests that the adaptability of horse archers, combined with effective tactics, could counter even the mightiest knights on plate armor.

Conclusion

In summary, while plate armor was indeed effective against horse archers during the 15th century, it was not an insurmountable obstacle. The techniques and tactics employed by horse archers, including the use of weapons that could exploit gaps in armor, made them formidable opponents. The historical battles involving Ottoman and other archers, such as those at Nicopolis and Agincourt, provide clear evidence of the adaptability and effectiveness of horse archers in combat against heavily armored knights.