Europe and asia

dsj

Banned
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.
 
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.
 
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.

:D
 
Mark Conley said:
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.

:D
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.
 
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?
 
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... :D
 
Mark Conley said:
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... :D
That was from an expensive book. The stuff was impossible. I had many points against it.
 
It's in A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times Together With Some Closely Related Subjects by George Cameron Stone. The author is so fat and inept and he claims to be able to shoot further than the british traditional longbowmen. He is crazy.
 
Mybe a bit offtopic:

The Chiese had invented gunpowder, hell they even had fireworks :firedevi:

How come they didn't have guns and cannons. Who was the first country, who used these in combat?
 
The chinese were not a innovative race. Their culture was not interested in natural sciences. Wether ideal or material. Their society did not acknowledge technological and scientifical ability and the mathematicians were disregarded and all of the crafts men ect... were less valued than in europe. The only way to prevail in society was studying literature. Since the north and south dynasties of jin they started a system of testing they call 科举制度 that lasted until the last qing empire which test only letericy skills. The actuall first use of gunpowder was blurrily recorded. The first assured use on the battle field at the battle of crecy. It was probably used earlier in sieges but the records are vague to tell exactly.
 
dsj said:
Mark Conley said:
maybe the chinese did.

check out the wikipedia entry just for the history of gunpowder. it seems to indicate that big hold up for use in cannon was the lack of a metallurgical skill to make a tube capable of holding the explosion, and not rupturing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder#History

:D
That's just rockets. The chinese never had any projectile firing devices.

i see. projectile firing devices...and just what do you define as a projectile firing device?

air powered? gunpowder driven?? gun cotton? how about LPG for the fuel..as a compressed gas. What type projectile? solid? sabot? english peas? spitwads?

would that projectile be round, tapered, conical, obloid? would a blow gun dart count as a projectile?

http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/history/ming.htm

1368-1644: Ming Dynasty. Another accomplishment of the Ming dynasty was the final and lasting construction of the Great Wall. While the Great Wall had been built in earlier times, most of what is seen today was either built or repaired by the Ming. The brick and granite work was enlarged, the watch towers were redesigned and cannons were placed along its length.

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1225,subcat-POLITICS.html

sung dynasty-12 century. By the twelfth century, the armies of the Sung Dynasty added metal grenades to their arsenal. China pioneered fragmentation bombs, whose casings shattered into deadly shrapnel. Within another hundred years, Chinese factories made hundreds of military rockets and bombs, some filled with poisons, such as arsenic, that released on impact. Others were packed with tar and oil, designed to start fires. The Chinese also built early guns, metal barrels packed with gunpowder, which shot out a rock or a metal ball.

The word never infers that it didnt happen. Distinctly, did not happen. Its like saying a person will never make a very good historian, or that there will never be a mistake made.


I dont know that anyone would have what it takes to answer one of your posts dsj. sure hope you do find someone. Im out of this.
 
I meant never had any beofre the europeans. Those gernades were ineffective tricks like the automatic crossbow. I mean gunpowder weapons by the gunpowder kicking the projectile out.
 
Back
Top