What are the best armies ever?

"Well, no matter, I'm sure that their 100% byzantine infantry proved more efficent than any other infantry at that time, since they were descendants of the romans (who were quite nasty, as everyone knows)."

 

No, the Byzantine infantry is not highly developed and no way the most efficient, not even including their metallurgy and missile inferiority to the Age of Fragmentation infantries, their infantry played a secondary role to their cavalry. Although they did attack in certain circumstances, they are little more than a base which the cavalry maneuvred, where in the central Plain the infantry was used as a primary offensive weapon like the later Swiss infantry which attacked in coordination with the cavalry. Add to this is the powerful crossbow drills used along with the composite bow that could pierce heavy armours which the Byzantine lacked.

"it was not Tokugawa but Hideyoshi who invaded Korea."

I learn something new everyday.

"

No, the Byzantine infantry is not highly developed and no way the most efficient, not even including their metallurgy and missile inferiority to the Age of Fragmentation infantries, their infantry played a secondary role to their cavalry. Although they did attack in certain circumstances, they are little more than a base which the cavalry maneuvred, where in the central Plain the infantry was used as a primary offensive weapon like the later Swiss infantry which attacked in coordination with the cavalry. Add to this is the powerful crossbow drills used along with the composite bow that could pierce heavy armours which the Byzantine lacked."

During the dark ages, I'm sure they could take on most other infantry, tho.

"

The 13th century Samurai aren't even disciplined, they fought in a feudal chivary fasion which is obviously way inferior to those of the 16th century which also used far superior equipments."

Don't know much about them, that's why I left that option open. But I still hold my opinion about the 16th and 17th century samurai.

I do respect your views of the Samurai, but I stand by my opinion that they are vastly overrated. Yes, they were great warriors/soldiers, BUT they were so clenched on to their martial arts, that I'm having a hard time believing they could actually have crushed any other army.

Samurai were arrogant about their skills. At least compared to chinese and korean martial artists, who were encouraged to seek out masters of other martial arts and practice their skills, whereas japanese were only given a diploma, and with that diploma came status (from various dojos). Japanese fought only one kind of enemy: Themselves. Thus, they knew always what to expect. Chinese and korean troops fought many different kind of enemies (maybe not as versitale as some other armies, but sure enough, they fought way more different armies than any japanese army did). Thus; the korean and chinese were more well versed and all rounded.

Yes, the Samurai were great warriors, just like many other "people" that have walked this earth. But they are vastly overrated...

They were small in number but amongst the fiercest warriors were the Black Feet Indians of Montana and Canada!!


The Blackfeet Indians are the westernmost of the Algonquin stock, and are of three tribes, the Siksika (Blackfeet); the Kainah (Many Chiefs); and the Pikuni (Wearing Apparel). Under their protection were the Utsena (Gros Ventres), also of Algonquin stock, and the Soksipwoyiks (Sureis), a small tribe of Athabaskan stock. In 1814 this confederacy of tribes numbered about 16,000 lodges (80,000 people). They owned a vast country, extending from the Saskatchewan River, in Canada south to the Yellowstone, and from the Rocky Mountains east to about a north and south line that would intersect the junction of the Missouri and the Milk Rivers. The tribes have been so decimated by smallpox, warfare, and starvation, that they now number only about 8,000. The Siksika, Kaina, and Soksipwoyiks (since 1873, wards of the Canadian government) are thriving agriculturists. In Montana, the Utsena and Pikuni members of the old confederacy are rapidly dying out.

The reservation of this tribe is too high and cold for successful farming, and the range has been overstocked and eaten out largely by the cattle of white men. The Indian Bureau has forced most of the members of the tribe to accept patents to their lands; but they have been obliged to sell them in order to obtain necessary food. The result is, that those who still live are now pauper citizens of our country, dependent upon the charity of the state. Yet, by the terms of a treaty that they made with our Government in 1855, the Pikuni and the Utsena still legally own about one third of the land within the State of Montana.

Swedish army had best cavalry in Europe

Hmm..what about polish-lithuanian cavalry ?

Swedish/ Finnish cavalry copied the tactics of Polish cavalry and improved them further. I would rank Finnish hakkapeliittas and Swedish cavalry higher. Especially their charge was unstoppable because of very tight formation.

I/Eye, about the first point, i was mistaken , thank you. About the second point, that are debately.

EvilNed, at XVI century japanese were more advanced in war with fire weapons than koreans; the chinese situation is my doubt, i know that they used fire weapons in Korea but i ignore what was their level.

warhead, the byzantines could cordinate infantery and cavalry too, they thought that infantry was secondary yes but only if the cavalry could operate without problems, when the byz fought against great mass of infantry with pikes they used infantry in the main battle (excellent) and flanking with cavalry (the byzantine military manuals show us that they had developed the tactics of the infantry, cavalry was primary but this don't mean that infantry was inefficient). For example, the bulgarian campaign of John Tzimisk�s.chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

Maybe, but I'd take your word for it anyway. You have more knowledge in the subject than I do.

Originally posted by Temujin Swedsich cavalry best? did they even had light�cavalry like Austrian Croats or Cossacks? and i greatly doubt the quality of Scandinavian horses....

Atually the swedes bred an entirely new breed of horses - the swedish warmblood. They were purpose-bred especially for the swedish cavalry in the 1600s. The native horses of scandinavia were indeed small, but the swedish warmblood is about 16-17 "hands".

I think it is quite nice.