Europe and asia




 
--
 
July 22nd, 2004  
dsj
 

Topic: Europe and asia


This post is about the europeans having greater military power than the asians during the late medieval ages and rennaissance and beyond. And at least equal in military power in the early and high middle ages.
During the early and high middle ages the crusade represented european strength. They took over vital areas to the muslims so quickly and they held them for such a long time with massive support from the european countries. The islamic world never owned so many major western european cities. The crusades ended because the europeans lost interest, probably not because they weren't able to. During the high middle ages the europeans have defeated the mongols at grobnok and kladsko which resulted in their retreat. My point is mainly based on the late middle ages. The europeans have much better armour than the asians. During the begnning of the hundred years war the europeans had plate combined with chain mail. this was already much better than what the asians had. During the middle of the hundred years war cannons were in vast use, the european men at arms were covered in full plate armour and I believe were the most eliete forces in the world. Europe had a great number of them which means they had a eliete reserve to use. Next, the european militia man was armoured in full chain mail and brigandines. They had at Least chain mail armour. This standard can not be compared with what the asians had. the europeans had better bows, The longbows and normal crossbows had an effective range of at least 200 meters. This was longer than the asian bows. The europeans had better castles and siege technology, they had put great importance on this since the roman days and after a thousand years of development this cannot be rivaled with. The europeans also had better naval power. They had thousands of history since the spartan days. The asians had a very late start. From my points I believe that the europeans were the strongest since the middle ages.
July 23rd, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
The Europeans had big horses too .
July 23rd, 2004  
dsj
 
Actually, those horses were a result of cross breeding and are the descedents of the arab horses. The middle east had the best horses. The european horses were smaller originally. But the middle east hadn't put good use to it. The arab calvary during it's strongest time got defeated by european foot soldiers during it's weakest time. The big horses got put into full use by the europeans as their knights were formidable and swept the western and near eastern world.
--
July 23rd, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
Big heavy armour plated knights needed big horses to carry them...even at its best, a complete enclosing armour suit can weigh 80 pounds or better.

July 24th, 2004  
dsj
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Conley
Big heavy armour plated knights needed big horses to carry them...even at its best, a complete enclosing armour suit can weigh 80 pounds or better.

A full harness is just 45-50 pounds. That number includes the saddle and other things. A knight could do elaborate things in their armour and presents to show off their skills. The english longbow men could shoot a lot more accurately than the mamluks could.
July 24th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
okay.....

heres a link to some armour made in these periods you are talking about. Notice the weight on the german armour picture?

http://www.arador.com/gallery/hig1.html


how about the weight on the italian jousting armour picture?

or is this not the time period you are talking about?

July 24th, 2004  
dsj
 
I checked my books. The sources are totally different. You are right. Now I don't trust any weird pro asian historicall books and sticking my belief to the europeans had better bows and trusting my own judgement. The turkish bows being smaller, lighter and lower draw weight can shoot 3 times further is absurd; it's like saying that they have magic. And also the mongol warriors shooting further than an modern U.S Soldier is also crazy. It was said on a book that a turkish ambassador hit a target supposedly small at 450 yards with a broken turkish energy bow and said that he can shoot much further if the bow was not broken. Do you people believe this?
July 25th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
well..

got a link to the turkish statement? it would help to see all the facts of the statement: the weight of and diameter of the arrow, and such.

stranger things have occurred in the world of arms...
July 25th, 2004  
dsj
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Conley
well..

got a link to the turkish statement? it would help to see all the facts of the statement: the weight of and diameter of the arrow, and such.

stranger things have occurred in the world of arms...
That was from an expensive book. The stuff was impossible. I had many points against it.
July 25th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
book title and author? IBSN number? surely such a thing cant be hidden that bad...