Quite a compelling list, but what about the early modern era?

Turkish Horde. especially "Bordo Bereliler" elite troops..

Actualy when they met the Volga Bulgars(around the volga river today) - the Mongolian armies were defeated repeatidly until they sent in a 300 000 army, which included a lot of people from their provinces, against the Volga's 50000 and........  

well the outcome is obvious.   The Mongolian armies were also being defeated by the other Bulgarian kingdom (the Bulgaria today) for a while in the late 13th cent.

The army of Abbasid Caliphate once...

Most of the commanders were Turkish and served bravely to the Islam expansion. When the Arabs invaded central asia and Amu Derya, they met with Oguz Turks and they saw their warior abilities and horseman skills, and they were amazed. So they began to train Turkish wariors as Abbasid commanders and paid money to them. The Turks created a great success in conquests, so the Caliphs let Turkish wariors to be important military man and rich people of society...

C'mon pal, do you actually believe that the mongols had anything near 300 000 men? The army of Batu that invaded Volga Bolgar 1236 were at it's most a 100 000

the Sübe'edai and Jebei Russian Expediotion army + Jochis reifnorcement army atatcked the Volga Bulgars after the battle of Kalka river. the outcome of the battle is disputed but the Volga Bulgars claimed victory. I also heard the city Kazan means something like terrible, because the Mongols suffered a heavy defeat at this location. however the Batü campaign brought the Vogla Bulgars down. I never heard of any defeats at the hands of the Danube Bulgars though.

I assume you're lumping the Huns in there - ?  Nobody ever had the domination and fighting ability like the Huns under Attila. 

Thank God for nosebleeds.    

The Spanish Army of Italy, under Gonsalvo de Cordoba.

Georg von Frundsberg's landsknechts.

The Spanish Army of Flanders, especially when commanded by Alessandro Farnese, the Duke of Parma.

The Ottoman Army under Sulleyman.

The Japanese Army of the Imjin War.

Gustavus Aldophus's Swedes.

Cromwell's New Model Army.

I listed the 16th century samurai right above your post.

The samurai who "withstood the Mongol attack" in the 13th century dealt mainly with Chinese and Korean auxiliaries, who, with all due respect, weren't the most formidable troops of their day, and in any event the Japanese were ultimately saved by the weather.

"Unmatched mobility (the decisive factor in their success) tactical supremacy against anything and everything they faced, unparalleled ferocity, hardyness and cunning, superior organization and leadership, winning even when heavily outnumbered - definitely an army way ahead from what Europe (or anyone else) had at that time.
"

Not this again, just what "Unmatched Mobility and "Superior Organization" did the Mongols posses over the other horse based steppe armies? The Ordos decimal system existed thousands of years prior to the Mongols and used from Xiongnu down to the Khitan. While they are all mobile armies with little need for large baggage trains.

I've already posted this, the Mongol army's formation and Organization is little different from the Khitan, Liao, and Jurchen Jin armies, in fact almost identical.

 This is from account of Meng Hong which is the most detailed primary document on the Mongol army, while the Liao and Jin armies are well documented. In the early days of Jin as was in the Mongol army, the army consist of 5 ranks, 2 clad in iron armour and 3 in acquered hide. The army of Aguda was drawn up for battle in squadrons of 50 horsemen, 20 with heavy cuirasses and bows behind. A Mongol squadron number 100 men and from Plano Carpini’s accounts, it describe them arranged at intervals with the heavily armoured troops of each stationed at the front. The troops in the two front ranks wore complete armour, with swords and lance, and their horse also armoured. The rear 3 ranks wore no armour and their weapons were the bow and javelin. While a complete identical organization in the Jin is as follows, with the punian (the basic unit made up of 50 men) 20 men were supposed to be armoured and equipped with lances or halberds, and formed the front two ranks of the standard five-deep formation - known as the guaizima. The other three ranks consisted of lightly equipped archers. It has been suggested that this formation was designed to protect the archers from missiles while they softened up the enemy in preparation for a charge.
Both the Jin and Mongol troops begin the battle with the light troops, one body in support of another, advanced through the squadron intervals in the 2 front ranks and poured volleys of arrows into the opposing lines. Simultaneously one or both the wings began an eveloping movement to take the enemy flanks and rear. If the first storm of arrows succeeded in disordering his array, the shock troops received the command of charge. Should the light troops be repulsed by a charge, they retired shooting backward from the saddle, and other detachments took their place and repeated the arrow storm. If these were unsuccessful, the remaining light troops took up the assault.
Similar methods was deployed by the Khitans, In Meng Da Bei Lu, the Liao army was organised into a decimal system with regiments of 500 or 700 men, ten of which formed a division, with ten division making up an army. Attacks were carried out through a succession of controlled charges, each regiment advancing in turn before being replaced and withdrawn to rest. The attack is made by the 1st of the 10 squadrons, if it was successful then the other 9 would charge forward, but if it fail it was called to the back of the line to rest while the next squadron take its place. If necessary, it would be repeated for days until the enemy is exhausted. Then all 10 squadrons would charge and rout.The Mongol army was virtually identical to those of the early Khitan and Jin armies. All of which had soldiers keep ready 4 bows and 400 arrows. (Parkers, A thousand year of the tartars, p.258), the source of mongol army is mainly drawn from the accounts of the Han general Meng Hung.

This tactic was used by the Liao in their victory over the emperor Song Tai Zong at Gao liang river, and 100 years later by the Jurchen’s 20,000 against the Khitans themselves whose army numbered 100,000 and again 100 years later, the same combination of fire and shock by Mongols against the declining Jin at Hu Pu Da Gang. The battle procedure favored by the Mongols was therefore long tried and proven. It was Genghis that adopted their tactics, not his invention in anyway.

Saying that the Mongols revolutionized tactic is ridiculous, the only difference between the Mongol and Jurchen seems to be that the Mongols relied some more on light cavalry while the Jurchen had a more emphasize on the heavy cavalry in which they developed the Tie Fuo Tuo: A heavy cavalry that has two layer of armour and is virtually invulnerable to any missile. The Jin army that fought the Mongol was a completely different army that has more infantry than cavalry and years of peace has already depleted their efficiency. The mongols in their later days were the same and thats why they were easily defeated in battle by Ming losing over 80,000 troops.

The reason that mongols conquered further other than geographical factors was because of their vast supply of horses which neither the Jurchens nor the Qitans have, so eventually the Jin and Liao had to incorporate large infantry into their army for numbers. And since both the Jin and Liao are not purelly nomadic and they had already had long experience of Chinese influence, their conquest was directly followed by consolidation and administration, and the long years of peace eventually depleted their army efficiency. The same thing happened to the Yuan so their is nothing special about the Mongols in this respect.

"The samurai who "withstood the Mongol attack" in the 13th century dealt mainly with Chinese and Korean auxiliaries, who, with all due respect, weren't the most formidable troops of their day."

On infantry warfare they certain were.

In fact the initial Mongol Song war of 1234 was faught to a draw.

After the fall of Jin, The Southern Song despatched a force to recover LuoYang  KaiFeng and Nanjing from the Mongols. 
In the sixth month, Generals Quan ZiCai and Zhao Kui captured Kaifeng.

Then Quan marched to LuoYang forcing the Mongol to withdraw and he entered it in triumph.
But their provision was short and the Mongol force from ShanZhou under Shubutaibu returned to take LuoYang. The Song armies withdrew from Kaifeng and Luo Yang. The Mongols openeed the gates of the Yellow River to drown the Song army.
Then the Mongols followed up by an invasion of the Song
But in XiangHan and ChuanShu, HuBei and SiChuan, they were defeated by the Song under General Meng Qi although killing much people there.
Along the Huai river, they were also halted by General Du and Yu.

Even Kublai used Han infantry excessively and he was able to deploy Chinese infantry to a much more effective degree than his predecessors which depended almost solely on cavalry. In the battle Kublai faught with Kaidu and his mongolian collision. Kublai made his Han infantry dismount. When Kaidu's cavalry came near they were dismounted by the Han infantry and once they fell they became the immdediate prey of the Chinese swordsmen.

They had only recently been conquered by the Mongols, so their morale and overall effectiveness was not particularly high.

"They had only recently been conquered by the Mongols, so their morale and overall effectiveness was not particularly high."

Thats obviously not the case when they defeated Kaidu. In fact what evidence do you have that their morale is low? There wasn't any concept of nationality back then and these soldiers are paid and would serve any master that gives them benefit. And many served them to the end fighting against the Ming. 

[/QUOTE]

C'mon pal, do you actually believe that the mongols had anything near 300 000 men?

[/QUOTE]

well the thing I read stated that they got most of their soldiers from their provinces

Warhead, you can argue against the obvious until you're blue in the face, but the hard fact is that the 13th century was not the best time for China or Korea, militarily speaking.  If you want to talk about times when they kicked some major butt, then go ahead, but don't carry on about this issue.

I can't speak specifically for the Chinese or Koreans, but there most certainly was a concept of nationality in Medieval times, at least among some groups (the Normans come to mind).  And in any case, I suspect that the Chinese and Koreans at least had some sort of cultural identity.

Pardon me if I seem needlessly nationalistic, but I would like to mention Afonso de Albuquerque's troops.

Now I know Portugal would never be on the top ten list of nations with mighty armies, but Albuquerque managed to achieve a lot with so little. He conquered Hormuz, Goa, Malacca, and God knows what else, thus really establishing Portuguese dominance in the Indian ocean.

And what about the Persians during the antiquity? Yeah, they lost to the Greeks, but I'm sure that under Cyrus, things could have been different

"Warhead, you can argue against the obvious until you're blue in the face, but the hard fact is that the 13th century was not the best time for China or Korea, militarily speaking.  If you want to talk about times when they kicked some major butt, then go ahead, but don't carry on about this issue."

Please spare me your poor lecture, care to elaborate just what "FACT" I'm arguing against? There is nothing to argue against and its facts alone, if you've never read such accounts, then don't bother attempting to argue, since you are simply wrong. You can deny until you're red in the face but it would still not change the fact that these infantry were used to a successful degree that they defeated the old style of Mongol warfare based purely on cavalry.  Why shouldn't I carry on about this issue when you are the one thats misinformed? You are the one that should not carry on this issue.

"I can't speak specifically for the Chinese or Koreans, but there most certainly was a concept of nationality in Medieval times, at least among some groups (the Normans come to mind).  And in any case, I suspect that the Chinese and Koreans at least had some sort of cultural identity."

I’d  suggest that you read Pamela Crossley’s “A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology”  her point is to show how politically motivated the concept of "nation" are, and always have been. Her implications are that as opposed to the DNA trails and ' ethnic bloodline' ideas we tend to hold now, previous to modern nationalisms what is called 'race' today was determined by judgments of loyalty to a particular state.
Even the persuasive theory that locates the origin of what we today call ‘ethnicity’ in the way individuals have been classified according to loyalty to a particular state is based, inevitably, given the general nature of the vast majority of the records from this area, on the stories of the kings and bureaucrats running these states. The common people, though, are for the most part left out of the histories, as we have only become a political force in very, very recent times. (Obviously this is a worldwide phenomenon and it’s not only ancient “Chinese” history that has failed to emphasize any role played by “the masses.”)

The fact is that there are no decrease in moral no matter what you want to think, and if you want to insist on it you're going to have to prove it through the primary documents or evidence in war which obviously does not show a decline in morale whatsoever.

The Mongol myth is pathetic, no different from the myth of the third reich; only perhaps more exaggerated. Most medieval East asian medieval armies are comparable in efficiency, all belong to whats categorized as the "Eastern School" of warfare. Utilizing similar tactics, the armies of the steppe and cavalries of Northern China are essentially the same in organization, formation and dicipline with only slight difference in emphasizes. For example, Jin emphasize more on the heavy cavalry and place them in the front as the major striking power. While the Khitan Liao and Mongols emphasize light cavalry. Both use the decimal system of organization with same formations placing ten regiments into a division, with ten division making up an army. Attacks were carried out through a succession of controlled charges, each regiment advancing in turn before being replaced and withdrawn to rest. The attack is made by the 1st of the 10 squadrons, if it was successful then the other 9 would charge forward, but if it fail it was called to the back of the line to rest while the next squadron take its place. If necessary, it would be repeated for days until the enemy is exhausted. Then all 10 squadrons would charge with the heavy cavalry to break the enemy formation. Its the command that makes the difference. While the Mongols were able to defeat the Jin in Hu Pu Da Gang and Huan Er Zui, the early Jin under Wang Yan Aguda also defeated a much larger Liao army at huang long hill which used the same tactics as the mongols. The Jin also defeated the Naiman and Mongol forces repeatedly in the mid 12th century that their was a saying before Genghis rose to power, that the cavalry of Jin would shatter the army of the Khans like the leaves before the autumn wind. Its the commander, morale in different circumstances and chance just like 18th century European warfare that sets the armies different from each other.

While the Southern armies of Song, Dali, and Tibetans all have their own style of warfare that is just as efficient in countering these northern cavalries. The Tang and Song armies used the Zhang ma Dao and produced them in great quantity, used to cut down heavy cavalry and their armours in just one stroke, and the Song used the Sheng Bi nu and Han composite bow which outranged the Mongolian bows on horseback and could pierce their heavy armour.

the khitan and mongol tactics would have depended on the enemy remaining passive and waiting to be attacked; it was actually difficult to apply in practice. Certainly there were cases where Chinese opponents successfully took the initiative against them, one of which is at Dingxian in 945, a Khitan invasion was opposed by the Later Jin army under Fu Yanqing, who pinned the enemy by advancing in the centre with his main body of infantry, while concentrating 10,000 Shatuo [Turk] cavalry against one flank. The Khitan army was routed, and their emperor escaped in a cart pulled by camels. This proved not to be fast enough, and he transferred ignominiously to a riding camel. Many horses and weapons were captured by the Jin. Another example was Tang general Su Ding Fang’s campaign in Altai against the Tujue, The Turkut chieftain Landulu led more than 10,000 men to surrender to the Tang army, and Dingfang treated them humanely. Shaboluo Kaghan, however, led more than 100,000 men of the Huluwu, Wunushibi and other tribes to resist the Tang. Dingfang attacked with more than 10,000 Uyghur and Han troops. Shaboluo Kaghan saw that the Tang forces were outnumbered 10 to 1, and eagerly surrounded them on all sides. Dingfang ordered his infantry to hold a gentle slope to the south of his position, formed up in a circle formation with long spears to defend against cavalry. He himself led the Han cavalry to form up on a slope to the north of the position. The Turkut first attacked the infantry, but could not break the formation after three charges, with both sides suffering quite a number of casualties. At this point Dingfang launched a sudden attack with his cavalry, while his infantry counterattacked in support. The Turkut army broke and fled, and was pursued for more than 30 li, with several tens of thousands killed.
More examples include The Tang general Li Si Qi’s deployment which numbered 60,000 plus 5,000 tujue auxiliars against the Xue Yang Tuo which numbered some 200,000. These tribes used the same tactic of arrow assault, while the Tang army suffered heavy casualty, they dismounted and charged at the center while the cavalry concentrated at the flanks with Tujue auxiliars returning the fire and crushed the Xue Yang Tuo. In the Tang, crossbowmen also carried the modao (a version of the zhanmadao) as a close-quarters weapon against cavalry, while in the Song dynasty large crossbows and pole-axes proved effective against heavy cavalry charges.
The more famous battle are those done by Song general Yue Fei. In his battle against Jin Wu Shu, he charged his infantry battalion with the Zhangmadao to cut down the Jin Guaizima, and also the powerful Shenbi Crossbow against the heavy cavalries to deadly affects which the jin emperor Wu Shu says he never suffered such defeats, and the saying goes "its easy to topple a mountain but hard to topple the Yue Jia army"

The Dali battle sword is similar and are all coated with poison to cut through the cavalries. Dali and Nan Zhao infantry are said to have inhumane discipline on all soldiers including conscripts, their metallurgy level is just as developed as the Song, and defeated the Mongols in the battle of nine dragon hills in their first invasion. Only fell to a much larger Mongol force of 100,000 under Kublai, and only because the most effective Dali forces were prevented from war by the dictator to take power, but too late to use.

Similarily the Tubo infantry have also defeated the Uighurs in the battle of Gao Cang by charging at them in formation and routing them with the strength of the Tubo armament in 792. Tibetan armour are well made and their metallurgy also reached a quite high level, while they are also experts in mountain warfare.

Wow! Warhead, these are quite amazing battles.

Some of those battles remind me of the 300 Spartans.

My list (not in order yet) the Greeks, Romans, Spanish, Germans, and the Mongols are on my list so far.

I did buy a books about the Roman military, the book is called The Complete Roman army.

I bought this books last Sunday.

I think this book is cool because I skipped around a little bit to see what’s in it, and I read a page that caught my eyes, it had a small list of some men that joined the Roman army.

These were simple free men, not generals or heroes of any sort, these men in their free will decided to join the military (this was an ancient record, a record dated in 10-15 February AD 103).

“Copy C. Minucius Italus to Celsianu"

"Give instruction that the six recruits approved by me for the cohort under your command be entered on the records with effect from 19 February. I have appended their names and distinguishing-marks to this letter.”

C. Veturius Gemellus age 21 no distinguishing marks

C. Longinus Priscus age 22 scar on left eyebrow

C. Julius Maximus age 25 no distinguishing marks

-. Julius Secundus age 20 no distinguishing marks

Well there’s more names, but this is off subject so I’m going to try keep it short.

This is translated into English (the names are not changed at all it’s original) there is the same letter in Latin of the same one in a different page (I look back in the book).

Although this is off subject, the point I’m trying to make is that men with free will that join the army will be more affect force, then people that had bin forced to join.

?   What "myths" are you referring to? 

"   What "myths" are you referring to?  "

The myth that their army is revolutionary and that Genghis Khan invented the decimal system and their cavalry's discipline and mobility is unmatched by any before world war 2, such BS are the mongol myths.

"i think too that the mongols didn´t developed new tactics; but the solution to the special rise of mongols is most simple and more complicated: the character of the Song Empire, a antimilitarist state suspicious to all military stament (without precedent in chinese history), with an army very inneficient. The crucial element was not the horse or other elements, was, i think, that the chinese from main chinese state didn't want fight; the doors of Asia was opened for mongols."

The Mongol cavalry fought Jin not Song. Against Song they used Much Chinese conscripts to fight since the Northern Cavalry is not suitable for the southern terrain. 

warhead, you should look with a strategical perspective, not only tactic: the most greatest steppe empires, huns and turks (and then mongols at XV century), must fight with a chinese state that domain the north of China and a portion of the steppe. The Song empire first refused conquest the ancient frontier and the lands that gave horses to chinese armies, then the jurchens conquest north China with small opposition; and then they permited that the empire of all the oriental steppe take the north china, Song empire allied with mongols attacked to Jin empire!! So one nomad empire domain the lands of horse and the lands of infantry, by first time in history; others conquerors of north China like Topa Wei don't domain the entire oriental steppe and must fight with other nomads peoples or chinese states. Correct, now the nomads attack to Song with infantry, but this element shouldn't be crucial; the last and more important element, is that the Song empire killed to the very best generals of their armies!!

Thats is my arguments: we must not talk about the expansion of mongols, we must talk about the decline of chinese empire; mongols grew where the chinese didn't walk.

bye

I may get flamed for this, but I don't think the japanese should be anywhere near such a list as this one. Perhaps the 13th century samurai, but the 16th and 17th century samurai were not very efficent. Only against each other.

Saying that a samurai was a superior warrior is like saying that a cowboy is a superior gunslinger. There were cowardly samurai, samurai who had little experience in the field (and those are the worst kind) and samurai who were to greedy. In common, they all shared one thing: arrogance. There were many weaknesses in the japanese army system, but as long as they fought each other (which they almost always did) who cared? Then Odo Nobunaga came along and conquered most of Japan, using new tactics. THEN Tokugawa Ieyasu decided to invade Korea with the empire that Odo had left for him. Guess what happened? A complete fiasco. Twice! Surely, the Japanese took the koreans by surrprise and they were by no means horrible fighters, but the koreans and chinese just proved superior. They beat the samurai back, twice. The second time with little effort. Even the samurai naval ships proved inferior to that of the Koreans (under the leadership of Admiral Yi).

The mongols won so many battles because they were warriors (as with the huns and other steppe people). They were more disciplined, lived by their bow and by their horse. They used them all the time, so of course they'd be more skilled at fighting than a chinese heavy cavalryman who'd practice twice a week. Real warriors were no pushovers, as has been proved many times, and steppe people were more often than not: Real warriors! Had it not been for Kamikaze, Japan would probably have been utterly crushed by the mongol cavalrymen (that'd make a good flick).

As for my opinion on the best army... Hmm... Well, as someone said, the Byzantines were left out from the original list. But in the middle ages, they employed a large number of mercenaries, and should these really be considered as part of the byzantine army? 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).

"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.

"Perhaps the 13th century samurai, but the 16th and 17th century samurai were not very efficent. Only against each other."

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.

"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.

EvilNed, what do you think that a warrior is? I understand you if you say that samurais was not good warriors or if you prefer the soldier to the warrios, that is debately; but if you are thinking that they was not warriors, this is a great mistake and a horrible, excuse me, ignorance.

The evolution of the japanese warfare is very complicated and you are generalizing all.

Before XIV century the main battles of japanese was very chaotic battles of horse archer and one vs one, although they were very good fighters in close combat too; the mongol invasion showed that mongol armies were better, but samurais fought fiercely and the mongols never could operate easy. Many battles were fought and the mongols couldn't took a good, e umm (what is the word?), sure land?

http://ubpost.mongolnews.mn/virtualmongolia/kara_korum/divine_wind.htm - http://ubpost.mongolnews.mn/virtualmongolia/kara_korum/divin e_wind.htm

http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/mongol-koryo-japan.htm - http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/mongol-koryo-japan.htm

http://home-4.worldonline.nl/~t543201/web-mongol/mongol-enter-index.htm - http://home-4.worldonline.nl/~t543201/web-mongol/mongol-ente r-index.htm

Then the massive battles were more important and for the Sengoku Jidai many samuaris armies fought excelently, look the battles of Kawanakajima.

When the fire weapons appeared in Japan, they change quickly to the new way and progressed to a level equivalent to the europeans by 1600; Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who invaded Korea, sent a very strong and modern army there; japanese went until Yalu river and fought many battles, koreans were crushed. They losed, yes, by two elemets: 1. The chinese sent to the battle a giant army of 500.000 men (vs 200.000 japanese), not more modern than japanese armies (although, they had cannons), and 2. koreans fight on the seas with undestroyed ships, without those ships japanese win. The second invasion was better for koreans and chinese, ok, they was ready.

Conclusion: japanese losed because they were outnumbered, they couldn't fight against the tourtle ships and they hadn't food. But, they were excellent (and terrible) warriors, soldiers, and the hardness of this war is legend. Can you say that they were worst warriors?

http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~room4me/korea/bunroku.htm - http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~room4me/korea/bunroku.htm

http://www.tkdtutor.com/10Patterns/09ChoongMoo/ChoongmooInfo.htm - http://www.tkdtutor.com/10Patterns/09ChoongMoo/ChoongmooInfo .htm

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...

1.
Military Personel that fought in Korea 1592-1598:

COuntry: Total (Imjin + Jungyu)

Choson: 97 600 (60 000 + 37 600)
Ming: 191 000 (74 000 + 117 000)
Japan: 340 000 (200 000 + 140 000)

*these are regulars. add in guerillas and the figure for Choson increases.

2.
Even without the ships, the Japanese could not have one. The Korean navy made it easy to drive out the Japanese, but even without them Choson-Ming would have drove the Japanese out, although after a much more difficult time.

Swedish caroline army wasn't bad either. It was very good and well oiled warmachine that could take a lot larger army and still triumph. At the best, I think it was best army in Europe. Not a bad achievement in my opinion. Swedish army had best cavalry in Europe and their infantry was very good and cheap to recruit. Propably not the best army ever but still deserves mentioning.

Hmm..what about polish-lithuanian cavalry ?

TJK

Well, Karl XII did beat the polish army several times...

So did Karl X about fifty years before him,even though Karl X was before the caroline period.

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.

My mistake I was not sure "caroline period" refer to XVIII and not XVII century..

Well, yes but it was achieved due to coordination between cavalry and infantry/artillery, in sole cavalry battles swedish reiters were not the problem for winged hussars..

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 Tzimiskés.chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

You mean here probably the Battle of Wojnicz http://www.megalink.net/~dschorr/woynicz.html - on 23 September 1655. As I know details of this battle the decisive factor of Hussars defeat was the fire of 300 dragons and muskeeters who supported the attack of swedish cavalry in the center (commanded personally by Karl Gustav). Swedish cavalry not suppported by infantry/dragons could withstood the attack of polish armoured (medium calss) or light cavalry but not the attack of winged hussars..

   http://www.northernwars.com/woynicz.html - http://www.northernwars.com/woynicz.html "> Battle of Wojnicz  

Swedish cavalry was very reknown and feared throughout most of the 17th and early 18th century. We suffered a great defeat against polish heavy cavalry at Salaspils (Kirkholm) 1605, but they learned from that bitter lesson and reorganized the cavalry - turning it into an agressive and highly effective organization. Gustavus Adolphus made a great use of cavalry in the 30 years war, as did Karl X Gustav Karl XI and finally Karl XII. Karl X Gustav even crushed the cream of polish cavalry (including hussars and tatars) at Warsawa 

Scandinavian ponies are tough and strong, like steppe ponies used by mongols and tatars...

Maybe they were just as good

Swedish cavalry perhaps never met the ottoman cavalry, but the small 50 -men swedish infantry at Bender managed to give the 10 000 turks (including the sipahi and tatar horsemen) a match, before being overwhelmed and captured

You can believe what you want, but several historical examples show that the swedish cavalry indeed were better than Austrians, Poles and Russians. It's also worth mentioning that the english cavalry of Oliwer Cromwell was modelled after Gustavus Adolphus cavalry

Battle of Trzciana 1629 proved Gustavus Adolfus reformed cavalry was still not problem for winged hussars

Charge of 8 banners of polish hussars (about 900 horses)  at Warsaw have broken 3 regiments of reiters  and messed 2 additional regiments of second line (in total more than 2000 soldiers). Charge has been broken by lateral fire of infantry regiments

Swedish cavalry was equal opponent for polish medium cavalry (cossacks, pancerni) but not for the hussars. In case of fight with hussars swedish cavalry was sucesfull only when supported by infantry.

i thought this is about best cavalry and not which cavalry won most engagements. an army that has only one kind of cavalry (ligth or heavy) can never be considdered the best, irregardless of battlefield sucesses.

besides, at the battle of Fehrbellin 1675 prince-elector Frederick Wilhelm of Brandenburg, called the great prince-elector defeated with 5.600 cavalry and 13 cannons, after an epic march from the palatinate, the Swedish army of 7000 infantry, 4000 cavalry and 38 cannons (casualties were 4000 Swedes and 500 Brandenburgians). there goes your best cavalry...

I do not know about Swedish cavalary units but; 

10 000 Turks against 50 Swedish............ What is this?

I do not think that Turks collect and organize an army of 10 000 units to capture 50 persons. Where did you read it? Is it a believable history?

If Swedish cavalary or units were that much powerful why Sweden has been beaten by Russia? If I am not mistaken your king came to Turkey to demand help against Russia and we beat Russia at Prut battle in 1711. 

I can not imagine how powerful a Swedish army of 30 000 soldiers.  

During the 30-years war swedish cavalry was still developing. During the early 18th century though, the 'Karolinian' cavalry (not to be confused with the famous frankish karolingians a 1000 years earlier!) reached the peak of cavalry perfection in the swedish army

Karolinian cavalry:

http://hem.passagen.se/nykopinginsats/caroline.jpg - http://hem.passagen.se/nykopinginsats/caroline.jpg

Well it'sa long story, but after the disaster at Poltava 1709, the swedish king Karl XII fled to his ally - the sultan. The king and his staff was lodged at a mansion in Bender, and in 1713 the sultan tried to remove him by force (the king was too annoying with all his demands on his hosts), surrounding the mansion with an entire army of 10 000 men (he didn't knew that the king only had 50 men with him). So the ottoman soldiers stormed the mansion and took the king prisoner after the swedes had put up a desperate resistance. Casualties were light on both sides, but the king was wounded. As you see, it was not a battle - rather a voilent arrest.

Why was Sweden beaten by Russia then? Well the answer is quite simple - the russians had, just like in WW2 - a never ending resource of manpower and soldiers, whereas the swedes had to fight in many fronts. Sweden could field about 50 000 men (which had to be used in many fronts across Europe), the Russians could counter with several 100 000's men. If the russians lost 10 000 men dead - fine, no problem, they could always replace the casualties. If the swedes lost 1000 men - it was a great loss that could not be replaced 

lol, this is the Swedish mythology thread, that's all i can say...

and if the Swedes were retreatig or not, what does that change? defeat is defeat

lool, don't get a shock but...there are unbiased historians outside Sweden!!!

atz ain jalut the Mameluks were catchign the Mognol rearguard by surprise. the main body was retreating back to Täbriz already...so what? defeat si defeat, even if the army was retreatign or not...I'm really suprised by you, all you ever post is Swedish propaganda, yet you're even moderator of TotalQuiz...

Sweden held out a long time.Denmark had over 40 000 men in the army and Norway 15 000.I do not know how many men Swedens smaller enemies like Saxony had but the strength of the Russian army has already been mentioned and the Swedes were really outnumbered.

btw i have heard that the Swedes could field 71 000 men at that time.Heard it at Skalman.

If Trzciana or Honigfelde proved anything it was that victory goes to the army which is not caught on the march and has the last fresh reservs. Unlike the army of Koniecpolski and Von Arnim Gustav Adolfs's army was force tofigth the battle in the 4 parts in which it marched. It never had time to deploy all units together.

In the end the outcome of the battle was not decided by the hussars but by von Arnims cuirassiers it was they who turned what was a costly draw for the Swedes into a defeat. They turned back Swedish counteratatcks at two critical times, first when Fieldmarshall Wrangel counter attacked with 2150 cavalry at the village of Straszewo. The second time at Pulkowitz where they turned the dead-locked combat between Poles and Swedes in Polish favour and finaly decided the battle. 

There were no 'reiters' in the Swedish army in 1656, 'Reiter'cavalry was a troop type that belonged to the 16th century, not the 17th Century. It wa sonly poles that continued to call 'western' cavalry rajatars/reiters long after the troops equiped that way had disapered.

Polish hussars did break through 3 squadrons(not regiments) of native Swedish cavalry (Uppland and Smaland) and then got stuck in combat with Sinclair and Hammerskiold regiments in the 2nd line. Then they were counter-charged an defeated by the regiments of the 3rd line. Any flankign fire was from the other cavalry of the 2nd line. Swedish army deployed it's infantry in the first line and since hussars reached and slightly pushed back the 2nd line they were at least 150-200 meters behind the swedish infantry (if not deeper) and the Swedish infantry brigades would have had to exposed their backs the rest of the polish army in order to fire at the hussars. (Not to mention that there were several squadrons of Swedish cavalry in the line of fire) So there was no lateral fire by any infantry regiments. The Polish hussar charge at Warsaw was beaten back by the pistols and swords of the Swedish cavalry

Swedish cavalry was equal opponent for polish medium cavalry (cossacks, pancerni) but not for the hussars. In case of fight with hussars swedish cavalry was sucesfull only when supported by infantry.

[/QUOTE]

False, Erik Soop's squadron broke hussars during the battle of Tczew (august 17th 1627) wihtout any infantry support.

The German cuirassier squadrons of Wrangel and Streif and the mtd arqubusier regiment of the Rhine Count Ottow Ludwig broke Potocki's hussaria att Grozno in 1629. Once again without infantry support.

Polish hussars were beaten at Golombi, Gniezno and Filipow in 1656 (without infantry support) 

Golonb (Golab) – both Pufendorf and Carlbom indictate the presence of Swedish dragons on the battlefield and  this is also confirmed by polish relations (IIRC by Kochowski), on the other hand Czarniecki have only 2 banners of hussars which were quite sucesfull in charge against Swedish cavalry but got heavy fire from the dragons. Finally Czarniecki gave order to withdraw after more Swedish units( and polish in the Swedish service) have come on the battlefield which made the Swedish  numerical superiority as big as 3:1. 

Gniezno (you mean probably Klecko here) – again 2 infantry regiments positioned behind the wide trench have supported the Douglas cavalry.

Filipow – I will give you exact data later after I will check, but I’m pretty sure there were at least 2 Brandenburgian infantry regiments

You mean Gorzno here – if you refer to the fights held on morning 12 February at Zaborowo, why you forgot Teuffel infantry ?

This I’m not sure –attack of whole Thorn’s group have broken some banners of polish cavalry but I have not exact data if there were hussars banners. I will try to check this.

Maybe, it could be that poles have just take the swedish term "rytters"

There are two different relation regarding deployment of Swedish/Brandenburgian army in the 2^nd day of battle.

According to this one:

http://www.jest.art.pl/warszawa1656.html - http://www.jest.art.pl/warszawa1656.html

..Upland regiment (2 squadrons) closest neighbour was Bulow's infantry. Moreover in all relation of hussars who were taking part in charge the lateral fire of infantry is mentioned.

Fresh reserves ?? – where you found the fresh reserves on Polish/Austrian side ? All allied units take part in the Ist (Sadowo-Trzciana)and IInd ( Straszewo) stage and finally have won also IIIrd stage at Pulkowice with (partly) fresh group commanded by Gustav Adolf.

I have different description in Ist (Sadowo-Trzciana) and IInd (Straszewo)  stage the final blow was made by hussars, you can be right however with Pulkowitze..

is this actually a pro-swedish argument...?

Yes, since the units in question were parts of the Swedish army and sued distinctly Swedish tactics. Sweden contained overseas provinces in which parts of the population were Germans and recruited germans into the Army as well to make up for the low population of Swden and Finland.

All armies contained large groups of  'foreign' troops duirng the 15th to 18th Centuries. You mentioned the Austrian army in an earlier post, apart from native austrians it contained large numbers of Germans recruited outside Austria proper as well as Wallons, Hungarians and Croats. Spanish and Italian soldiers were also employed by the emperors of austira at one time or another.  The Polish army had not only Poles&Lithuanians in it's ranks, it also used German, Scots, Irish, Serbian, Hungarian, Wallachian and Tartar troops.

The same goes for the Ottoman army which employed a variety of non-turkish troops.

When you are generally right with that claim the example of Ottomans is not right at all - Ottoman never was equal to the Turks...

..and I have checked the Filipowo battle..and I was mistaken - there were not 2 Brandenburgian infantry regiments.. there were 2 swedish infantry regiments commanded by Bengt Horn and Jacob de la Gardie + some units of Brandenburgian infantry from Wolrad Waldeck's regiment..pretty numerous units for your claim the battle was without infantry 

I will try to give the details of Warsaw, Klecko and Golab tommorow..

I disagree, Germans are Germans even if they serve another country, and actually foreign mercenaries were often included because they had a different form of fighting, like the Croat light cavalry employed by the Austrians, or Crimean horse archers for Ottomans. like the Polish lancers of napoleon were not French just because they fought for France. and I really would like to see evidence that the Germans were the same as the Swedes in the army, equipment and training-wise...

You can disagree all you want, it doesn't change the historical facts of the matter. A citizen of the Swedish empire of the 17th Century was Swedish no matter if he spoke Swedish, Finnish, Russian, Ingrian, Estonian,Latvian, German or Polish as his birth language.  The Germans troops in Swedish service were organsied according to Swedish regulations, equiped according to the same regualtions from Swedish armouries&depots and used tactics laid down by said Swedish regulations.

Swedish and German cavalry was of the same types, cuirssiers (shock cavalry, http://public.srce.hr/husar/cuiras1.htm - http://public.srce.hr/husar/cuiras1.htm ) or mounted arquebusiers (support cavalry http://public.srce.hr/husar/arque01.htm)var - http://public.srce.hr/husar/arque01.htm  , Swedish cuirsassier abandoned most of their body armour to save costs and increase mobility, the mtd arqubusiers were turned into (light) cuirassiers ( in this way by having them use a developed form of cuirassier tactics instead of the caracole. This reform introduced by Gustavus Adolphus was applied to all cavalry in swedish service regardless of wether it was Swedish, Finnish, German or French in origin. Only as limited number of fully armed cuirssiers was retained in a few special units such as the Guard regiment.

You'll find the evidence for this in "Sveriges krig 1611-1632" by the Swedish General Staff (Stockholm 1936-1939) in parts 1 and 2 as well as appendix I. Barkman&Lundqvist's "Kungl Svea Livgardes Historia III:1 (Stockholm 1963) also contian a fair amount of information of the subject as does Richard Brzezinskis "The Army of Gustavus Adolphus 1&2" published by Osprey publishing just to mention a few of the books on the subject. 

Havign infantry present in a battle isn't the same thing as having the cavalry supported by infantry in the style used by Gustav Adolf with groups who had squadrons of commanded musketeers&cannon intermixed with the cavalry squadrons. Karl Gustav sometimes mixed infantry and cavalry such as at Czarnowa: http://www.northernwars.com/czarnowa.html - http://www.northernwars.com/czarnowa.html

But common deployemtn was for infantry to deploy in the centre of the battle line in the manner which was typical of battles of this time. At times such as at Gniezno/Klecko the infnatry centre would move up in support of of one cavalry wing. In other battles such as Wallmojza or Filipow the infantry would be left behind and the battle fought by cavalry alone (although at Wallhof two squadrons of musketeers moved forward on each flank of the Swedish cavalry but the elite Yellow, Blue and Red regiments remaiend behind). At Filipow most of the battle was fought Henrik Horn's cavalry wing alone.  

By 'trench' you mena the water filled ditch or pool close to windmills of the village of Dembnica and the village Ziesmarky? It's correct that the swedish infantry was positioned here but Douglas was not even near this position, he was in command of the right wing of cavalry together with Adolf Johan . The left wing was commanded by Wrangel&Müller who did have support of 3 'brigades' of infantry (total of 1000 men, no more) as well as the Swedish artillery.  Douglas cavalry wing fought without any assitance of infantry and artillery.

I don't know exactly how many dragons were at Golab but taking into consideration they are mentioned by Pufendorf as well as in memories of polish soldier (who take part in this battle), I'm rather sure about their presenceon the  battlefield. As for the numbers - do you know how many regular hussars banner have Czarniecki at Golomb ? Exactly two banners- in total about 250 hussars...

For the  Karl Gustav army I have also some doubts regarding number you presented - you gave the total number of Poles in Swedish service on the level 1780 horses (17 banners) but this not include new raised banners. There were 5 regiments of polish cavalry (Sapieha, Kaliñski, Zbro¿ek, Akasak and Niemirycz) each consisted of 6 banners - in total about 3000 horses. Thus even the total number of Swedish cavalry was on the level 4000 -4500 soldiers the whole army numbered more then 7000, when Czarniecki used about 2500 cavalry. 

I haven't claim the infantry was used in the Gustaw Adolf manner.. just polish (lithuanian) relations from the battle of Filipow underline that the main reason of Gosiewski withdrawal was the infantry regiment ( probably commanded by De la Gardie ) which crossed the river Rozpuda and have put the fire on lithuanian  banners which cause panic..

No, I meant the melioration trench on area of  right Swedih wing attacked by Czarniecki ..regarding infatry regiments under Douglas command -  look on the skecht of battle made by Dahlberg - there are shown infantry 3 units positioned  opposite to Czarniecki ..could be  two of them are dragon units  (possible Wittenberg and Berends)

The number of Polish cavalry in Swedish service is taken from Jerzy Teodorczyk's chapter in Wojna polsko-szwedska 1655-1660 red. naukowy Jan Wimmer (Warszawa : Ministerstwo obrony narodowej, 1973) though of course i used the swedish translation made at the same time. According to Teodorczyk the following units were present:

Kosack (Pancerni):
*Starosta of Slonim Jan Sapiehas Banner under Muchowiecki (118)
*Michal Zbrozeks Banner (100)
*Wojciech Golynskis Banner (72)
*Stonik of Czernichow Roman Zahorowskis Banner (70)
*Jerzy Wielhorskis Banner (93)
*Chorazy of Podolien Mikolaj Dzieduszyckis Banner (90)
*Seweryn Kalinskis Banner (150)
*Andrzej Kuklinowskis Banner (100)
* Jan Sapiehas Second Banner under Samuel Lojowski (113)
Total: 906

Tartars (Light Cavalry):
*Mustafa Sudicz Banner (109)
*Halembek Morawskis Banner (118)
*Jan Sieleckis Banner (120)
*Adam Taraszewskis Banner (120)
*Bohdan Murzas Banner (135)
*Mikolaj Pohajskis Banner under Stefan Morzkowski (100)
*Adam Talkowskis Banner (120)
*Jan Grzebultowskis Banner (51)
Total: 873

What research and work proves him wrong? Always good to know about new developments and sources. The source for  4000 to 4500 Swedish cavalry present is it northernwars.com ie Dan Schorrs website? ( http://www.northernwars.com/golombi.html - http://www.northernwars.com/golombi.html ) Dan probably does not reduce the number of Swedes enough since losses of horse was extremly heavy at this time. Many swedish cavalry troopers were dismounted and took no part in the fighting. While Carlbom's number of 3000 Swedish cavarly  present is probably too low, 4000 is a probable maximum when you look at the amount of horses lost according to the muster lists and reports preserved in the Krigsarkiv (War Archive) were I do most of my research of the Swedish army and it's actions.

With regard to Filipow:  Ye,s one brigade of infantry did cross over the river as protection for the Swedish artillery. One brigade at this time was 1/2 of a regiment ie a 'Swedish brigade' of infantry was actulay a batalion sized unit. A full strenght brigade was either 408 or 504 men though by this time of the war Swedish brigades were seldom more than 300-350 men strong. Even if the brigade which was probably from De la Gardie's regiment was at full strenght= 500 men I find it hard to belive that it was more important than the 12 or 14 sqadrons of cavalry of Henrik Horn's wing (2500-3000 cavalry) especialy when it was present on a small part of the battle field on the Swedish left. Did it's prescence realy tip the balance so totaly against the 8000-10000 cavalry of the Lithuanian army? 

Dahlberg's sketch of Klecko is in conflict the written soruces on several points, all 3 infantry brigades went to support Wrangel. The infantry shown is the dragoons of the right wing and perhaps one dragoon unit of the left wing. In all 300-500 dragoons. Once again i find it hard to understand how the precence of such small number of dragoons could have greater importance than the far larger numbers of Swedish cavalry(?).

The high quality Polish cavalry had had no problems with defeating far larger numbers of infantry during the Livonian war or at Klushino or Hammerstein. No other contemporary european cavalry such as the French, English or Germans had problems with overruning or defeating dragoons or infantry in such (small) numbers as we are talking about above. So the question is why did it affect the Polish-Swedish battles so much? Was it because:

A: Swedish infantry and dragoons was of much superior quality compared to other such troops at the time?

B: The quality of the Polish cavalry was not what it once had been due to the losses suffered in the cossack war and Swedish&russian invasions?

C: The presence of Swedish infantry and or dragoons was a convenient excuse to use when commanders needed to explain away defeats.

Now 'B' hardly applies to Klecko, the Swedes present who left relations of the battle were all a bit shocked by the courage, fury and skill with which the "Kvartianerna" (Swedish for Kwarciani (sp?)) of Czarniecki had fought. Never had they met Polish troops who fought so hard. Several officers noted that if Czarniecki had been properly supported by "Pospoliten" (meaning probably the pospolite ruszenie  the battle would have had turned out very badly for the Swedes. In my opinion the trench/ditch was far more important than the fire of a few hundred dragoons.  

Nothing proves him wrong  , just your translation is not exactly- in the sentence just after this list Teodorczyk write " The list above base on the Jan Wimmer calculations and include only banners of old service. There are not included new raised banners which have been groupped in Lowicz. According to the sources we know following regiments of polish cavalry were present at Golab: John Sapieha, Seweryn Kaliñski (6 banners), Micha³ Zbro¿ek (6 banners), Micha³ Aksakand George Niemirycz.  So  the list above is evidently not enough, taking 6 banners for the one regiment we can assume Karl Gustav have at Lowicz about 3000 horses of polish cavalry..

Well, my answer was mainly connected to your previous claim at Filipow (and at Klecko and Golab) Swedish cavalry were not supported by infantry..however in all relations of polish soldiers from this age we can find the real fear to fight with infantry..

No, this could be decisive factor especially when infantry (dragons) are protected by terrain obstacles and their fire supported the cavalry..

Well, Klushino, Kirholm and other such great victories were achieved before Gustaw Adolf reforms.. as for your question I would answer:

A..true - swedish infantry of this age was probaly best in Europe..

B..also true.. Kwarciani units were cream of polish army but were really unumerous and the commanding officers were much worse then before 1648 (losses during battle of Batoh)

C also true ..Czarniecki often used this kind of convinint

So I would rate

A 50 %

B 25%

C 25%