You can back up your statement with sources and analysis, but blind claims that you make right now has no basis and is pointless.

i think he means military, not culture..

anyway, you keep saying Europeans were better in every thread you've posted, and if you even want to make a whole thread about it, you should tell us why you think so.. I mean, how can we correct you if we don't know where you are mistaken?

Yeah, just because romans and spartans defeated Persians and stuff, it is doubtful that they would defeat Asians who have very different tactics and weapons.

Europeans without firearms and cannons never manage to carve out empire larger than 3.3 to 3.5 milions square miles. Largest European empire before industrial revolution was Holy Roman empire which was around 3.3 to 3.5 milions square miles while Roman empire with vassal was around 2.4 milions square miles and Alexander's empire was only 2.1 milion square miles. The rest were just many small kingdoms.

Asians managed to create large size empires without firearms. Here are example of Asian empires that exceed 4 to 5 milions square miles1)Mongol Empire, (2) Tang Dynasty, (3)Turuk(Gokturk)Khaghanate. Ummayad Caliphate was around 3.5 milions square miles, Abbasid Caliphate around 3 milions square miles, Han Dynasty without vassal was 2.9 milions square miles and with vassal was around 4 milions square miles, Xiongnu Empire was around 2.5 milions square miles, Seljuk Sultanate and Archaemenid Persia was around 2.3 milions square miles, and the rest like Qin, Jin(3rd century a.d.), Sui, Northern Song, Liao(Khitan), Jin(Jurchen) Dynasties, Yarlung Empire of Tibet, Khmer Empire in South East Asia, Uighur Empire, Turgish Empire, Xianbei Empire, Rouruan Empire, Sassanian Empire, Kushan Empire, Parthian Empire, Kharakhanid, Mauryan Empire, Gupta Empire and Khwarezm Empire were much bigger than those tiny kingdoms in Europe.

Some like Archaemenid Persia, Seljuk Sultanate were larger than Alexander's Empire and probably as large as Roman Empire. While some others like Qin, Jin(Sima-Yan), Sui Dynasties, Turgish Empire, Uighur Empire, Mauryan Empire, Khusan Empire, Sassanian Empire, Liao(Khitan) and Jin(Jurchen) were around 1.3 to 2 milions square miles.

This had already proven that Asian are much better and stronger in military than European(I'm not trying to prove whose culture is better). And please do not assume that European will always win in the melee attack because the European Knight or Roman Legion never fight with something like Korean, Khitan, Jurchen, Japanese, Tibetan or Chinese Heavy Cavalry/Infantry who were also good in melee attack.

And please do not judge all Asian armies as the same. Every nation has different type of army even though sometimes they use the same tactics. For example just because Nomadic Hordes prefer to use hit and run tactics that doesn't mean Asian armies don't know how to fight in close combat. Hit and run tactics and Crossbow(especially Chinese) were often use in warfare but so were melee attack especially East Asian nations fighting with each other.

To say European is stronger than Asian is an absolute nonsense and racist, but if you still keep trying to say European is stronger than Asian then please provide proof and evidence or else what ever you say is just purely bullcrap.

well, just becasue land is big, it is not nessesarly that Asians are stronger.  War especially in that era is mostly about weapons and style/leadership, (well, a war of attrition includes size, production, etc). 

My point is, using land is not sufficient to prove strengh.  I mean, they could just claim empty land .

I concur. 

Even if European soldiers might have had better and shiny armors as knights and Halbaldiers, they do not actually contribute much to victory, at that time.  Like different types of weapons and psycological factors contribute to a victory if these two forces fought.

Having good equipment is not good if the enemy has got good weapons as well.  As how Frankish knights were mowed down in Agincourt. 

Strategy can also count. 

As how the swiss with poorer equipment defeated an Austrian army 4 times bigger and better equipped at Morgarten, because they chose a good spot (above were the mountains, below the sea, and a narrow path in between).

All these factors should form the basis of your conclusion, dsjdsj. 

go to hell you are an cheap asian jerk

Well, here are a few facts: Everybody here knows Liegnitz 1241. We have a topic about the battle in the military forum here if you wish to read how the so called "stronger" Europeans were slaughtered in their shiny armor and were totally outpalyed and stragezised. Then came the Sajo river where the worlds number 1 general (bagatur) Sübedei got down with one of the gems in the history of warfare and strategy. Europeans never managed to get further than Anatolia in the midde ages and were pushed even deeper into Europe in the 15th and 16th century by the Ottomans. European armies never accomplished much against Asia pre to the imperial age of colonization so there is no such weird proof of Europeans being stronger in any way.

And i presume you ment the Roman Empire as Europeans aswell and they weren't stronger than the Asians either, never getting a total victory over the Sassanids.

A copy of the Art of War I have talked about how advanced military stratedgy was in China, as was their weapons. Translated by a white historian/military officer (so the view isn't as biased)

There's a part where he mentions Alexander, how if Alexander had pushed a little further out of India and into China, he would have encountered a kingdom far exeeding the strength of his or any he had fought.

Then there's direct comparisons. Take the English longbow, compare it to the composite bows of Asia, the most ready example being the Mongol bow. The mongol bow is more compact (able to fire from horseback) and can be built to require pulls twice that needed of the english bow.

Then again, when you say something is better than something else due to piecemeal info ala history, it really is a bias, isn't it?

If you want to not use the advent of firearms for kingdom size, then the Jin, Sung, and all dynasties to follow would be disqualified.

Or challenge each other to games of "Age of Empires" with one's respective nations !

The mongols had 5 time the number of europeans in liegnitz. And in the devil's horsemen chamber said that the europeans were more safe than they have thought they were.

So the Europeans underestimated the mongols. Really badly. Horribly, really.

Number accounts are unreliable though. Many Europeans recorded their numbers as much greater as they thought because

1) They were very very mobile and organised, beyond anything they had ever experienced. So they assumed "Hmmm, another horde must have been hiding here!

2) They were embarassed. Everyone makes excuses for losing.

"Storm From the East" is a good book to read about Mongols with a good focus on the European Theatre.

Really, the Europeans thought the mongols were better than them.

You don't get called "Hammer of God" by the Pope for nothing.

They did not make excusses, the numbers were likely to be real. The mongols never had a great number disadvantage like the spanish did in mexico. The mongol army was larger than any european countries' and they are excellent fighters so they have achieve what they have. But they although suffered heavy losses in europe that they could not afford so they withdrew. Europe was not as feeble and pathetic as some people says, it's more than capable to hold back the mongols.

The spiritual leader of Europe, the Pope, doesn't call just anyone "Hammer of God"

He only says that sort of thing when an apocalyptic, unstoppable force of unfathomable terror and power is sweeping across the land like an unholy plague of arrow shooting locust, toppling kingdom after kingdom.

It also seems a bit implausable that the Mongols could transport such a huge number of people right into foreign territory across a continent into another so quickly. There were not that many Mongols in existence. True, they had auxillaries and mercenaries (even an English knight fought for them) but were made up largely of the original steppe dwellers from Central Asia.

"Hammer of God" !

The Mongols were usually very outnumbered, they probably were in Europe too, and thier EUropean campaign was their most sucessful ever, the Europeans were easier to beat then most other foes at that time.

Also what about Russia in the Russo-Japanese war, they lost bad to an Asian power.

I think when someone just discounts a whole social group that means they dont know anything about it.  Its easy to be pro-western if that the only history you know... and it clearly is this this persons case as heonly believes the highly inflated and unlikely stats given my Europeans at the time of Leignitz.

TSTH,

Europeans did fight against the samurai--in the 16th century.  The Spanish in the Philippines had to deal with Sino-Japanese pirates (wako) often, during the 1570s and 1580s.  The fact that the Spanish had firearms is a moot point, because the wako had them too!  The fighting involved a mixture of missile weapons (arquebuses and bows) and melee weapons (polearms and swords). 

And the Spanish won.

To say European is stronger than Asian is an absolute nonsense and racist, but if you still keep trying to say European is stronger than Asian then please provide proof and evidence or else what ever you say is just purely bullcrap.

Then, by your logic, you have also made a "racist" comment (below):

This had already proven that Asian are much better and stronger in military than European(I'm not trying to prove whose culture is better).

No martial culture is inherently superior to any other, though some have certainly been more successful than others, during various time periods.

Peace,

David Black Mastro

Tobodai,

I'm glad you brought this up, because I'm really weary of reading about all these baseless claims that the Mongols always outnumbered their opponents--if anything, as you indicated, the reverse was usually true.

Well, I don't know if historical Mongols--like Prince Batu--would have agreed with your assessment there.  Batu became pretty nervous when dealing with the Hungarian knights at HTH range at the Battle of Mohi,  before Subotai came up.

And, they must have had at least some appreciation for European military prowess, as they hired knights and crossbowmen from time to time.  In fact, the unpleasant Mongol experience with Italian mercenary crossbowmen was very manifest at the siege of Székesfehérvár (Stuhlweissenburg), which the Mongols abandoned after a spirited defense by the Italians.  Even Friar Carpini commented that the Mongols "feared" the crossbow.

Peace,

David Black Mastro

There were samurai within the wako ranks, as well as skilled fighting men from China--certainly "real soldiers" in the practical sense.  It's even known that many of their Chinese members trained in kenjutsu.

And they were very well-equipped.  When Lim-Ah-Hong attacked Manilla in 1574, he had 4,000 warriors in 62 armed junks, and the Spanish initially thought they were being assaulted by a Portuguese fleet--not bad for folks who supposedly weren't "real soldiers".

Peace,

David

You forgot the Portuguese. In the early sixteen hundreds, a man named André Pessoa managed to kill a few samurais with his bare hands. And they gained many victories in the east in spite of being incredibly outnumbered.

Anyhoo, this whole question is absurd. There are several asian cultures, and there are several European cultures, each with a different way to fight.

As for the Mongols in Europe, Tobodai, how can you say it was easier for them there than anywhere else? Let's face it, for the Mongols most adversaries were equally easy to defeat. Liegnitz is probably nothing compared to the battles held in the middle east or central Asia (not only that, but I read somewhere that Bohemians actually put up a stiff resistence to the Mongols; don't know if that's true though) Or are you just unnerved by what's his face's rash comments? You're right to feel that way, but please, calm down.

Degredado,

Yes, I'm aware of Portuguese exploits in the Far East, but the fact remains that, despite putting up a tremendous fight, Pessoa was ultimately defeated and killed.

Formerly the governor of Macau, Pessoa commanded the carrack Nossa Senhora De Graca, when she was assaulted by samurai in 1610.  Pessoa killed some samurai himself, but he was described as fighting with a sword and shield--common equipment for a European officer at that time, actually.  So, esgrima was probably on par with kenjutsu at that time.

I also didn't mention the incident involving the English galleon Tiger, commanded by Sir Edward Michelbourne, and a wako junk, in 1605.  A fight broke out on the Tiger, during what was assumed to be a friendly meeting.  The English were ambushed, but recovered quickly and used pikes to drive the wako into the forward cabin, where they were then finished off with artillery.

Peace,

David

I concur with David on the well-equipped part.  In fact, these Wakos invaded Korea on numerous occassions.  they left some of their equipments either because they died with it during battle or something...and they reveal heavy samurai shields and armors, indicating that these pirates were in fact elite samurai warriors.

Gubukjanggoon, if you still don't believe me, try search a kbs documentary with the title: wegu were elite samurai warriors? or something like that

[/QUOTE]

go to hell you are an cheap asian jerk

[/QUOTE]

I say that this djdjdj racist-spammer should be banned.

The topic is absurd.... Dosn't djdjdj even know that there are hundreds of Asian cultures and hundreds of European cultures?

This djdj guy is fuming about how Mongols were conquering Eastern Europe... - Are you one of those so called "White Pride" people?  By the way, Mongols were no Asian-Supremeists (they killed whole lot of Asians too!), so no reason to fume about losing in your "race wars"!

"Europeans did fight against the samurai--in the 16th century.  The Spanish in the Philippines had to deal with Sino-Japanese pirates (wako) often, during the 1570s and 1580s.  The fact that the Spanish had firearms is a moot point, because the wako had them too!  The fighting involved a mixture of missile weapons (arquebuses and bows) and melee weapons (polearms and swords). 

And the Spanish won."

This battle is not a good indication in anyway, Wo kou pirates are small in number and they lack cavalry units, Qi Ji guan of Ming also defeated them pretty easily so there is nothing surprising.

"Well, I don't know if historical Mongols--like Prince Batu--would have agreed with your assessment there.  Batu became pretty nervous when dealing with the Hungarian knights at HTH range at the Battle of Mohi,  before Subotai came up.

And, they must have had at least some appreciation for European military prowess, as they hired knights and crossbowmen from time to time.  In fact, the unpleasant Mongol experience with Italian mercenary crossbowmen was very manifest at the siege of Székesfehérvár (Stuhlweissenburg), which the Mongols abandoned after a spirited defense by the Italians.  Even Friar Carpini commented that the Mongols "feared" the crossbow."

Most of the crossbowmen that mongols employed are Chinese not Europeans. The Song crossbowmen had better trigger mechanism design and training along with formation. The various cities of Jin and Song held much larger mongol armies for a much long time inflicting heavy casualties on them. Europe is the furthest conquest of the mongols, yet it was still conquered with such little troops and relative ease on the battle field.

The 1574 attack on Manilla is actually just fine as an "indication"--as I already pointed out, Lim-Ah-Hong had some 4,000 men, all well armed.  Considering the fairly small numbers of Spanish present in the Philippines at that time, the victory of Juan de Salcedo was no small accomplishment (though the Spanish were backed by Pampangan mercs).  Also, the wako lack of cavalry wasn't an issue, since we don't hear too much about cavalry use in general in the Philippines at this time anyway.  As for the Ming Chinese defeating the wako "pretty easily", it's interesting to note that Ch'i Chi-Kuang implemented Army Reforms (like the establishment of the "Mandarin Duck" squad formation) in direct response to the wako threat, so the military capabilities of the latter could not have been negligable. 

So?

Perhaps you could elaborate on these three points?

The luxury of historical hindsight can be distorting, leading some of us to make claims of victories achieved with "relative ease", that may or may not reflect the reality of the situations being discussed.

Peace,

David

Let me tell you what happen to Yi sung Ge, the first king of Choson dynasty.  He was first a general who had to combat Wokos around shoreline.  I remember from a documentary that from a battle against them, he captured like 5000 horses or so.  They also mention documents that it was hard to penetrate their armor with arrows because they were heavily armored. 

All this indicates that these wakos were Elite Samurai Warriors. 

Not those stereotypic wakos who attack with sandals and the clothing of sushi chef

China was hardly gained because Mongols hardly knew about siege at that time.  After they took some Chinese prisoners as siege mechanics did they manage to speed up siege processes(Normal siege took around 5~9 days I think after Chinese siege help).  If the mongols knew how to make siege weapons before their invasion of China, chances are that the two worlds would have fallen at relatively same time.

"The 1574 attack on Manilla is actually just fine as an "indication"--as I already pointed out, Lim-Ah-Hong had some 4,000 men, all well armed.  Considering the fairly small numbers of Spanish present in the Philippines at that time, the victory of Juan de Salcedo was no small accomplishment (though the Spanish were backed by Pampangan mercs).  Also, the wako lack of cavalry wasn't an issue, since we don't hear too much about cavalry use in general in the Philippines at this time anyway. "

The point is wako isn't a regular army of imperial Japan and far from the quality of that of Toyotomi's army that displayed its fighting prowess in the Korean wars. It lack key element of organization, cavalry and artillery which is not difficult to beat head on.

"As for the Ming Chinese defeating the wako "pretty easily", it's interesting to note that Ch'i Chi-Kuang implemented Army Reforms (like the establishment of the "Mandarin Duck" squad formation) in direct response to the wako threat, so the military capabilities of the latter could not have been negligable.  ""

The original Ming border squads were not imperial armies and their fighting capacity was very poor, even the imperial army at the time has denerated to such a level that mongols won frequent victories when raiding. Note that Wo Kou's attacks are raids not serious threats to ming border in any way. Qi Ji Guan is only a Cang Jun which is a small post and its quite possible that the emperor have never even herd of him until he defeated the Wo kou. And this is the Ming army of the mid 16 century, it will undergo a much increase in qualtity by the time of Zhang Ju Zheng.

"Perhaps you could elaborate on these three points?"

Certainly, The The major superiority of the Chinese crossbow over their western counterparts is its trigger mechanism, Dubs claimed the arrangement of the parts of this mechanism was almost as complicated as that of a modern rifle bolt, and could be reproduced only by very competent mechanics. Removal of the shafts allowed the the component pieces to drop out and although the mechanism was easy to reassemble, it may have taken more ingenuity than the huns possessed to reproduce the bronze casting. Later western devices were often unnecessarily complicated and with so many moving parts must have been prone to disorder. The Chinese lock, on the other hand, was fool proof in operation and it could not discharge itself because of water on the bearing surfaces,; its reliability was absolute, in fact the mechanism have litle changed since han times, many later dynasties in fact try to dig up lost mechanisms from the past and improve on them, in one instance, the Ming emperor, Zhong Yuan Zhang have duged up a Han crossbow and copied its mechanism. This along with better manufactured bolts aloowed the Eastern crossbow to outrange, outpierce, and less mistakes than the western counterparts.
While on the side of tactical formation, the early troops of the central plain had developed the volley rotation shooting formation which only the 18th century European flintlock shooters mastered. And the variety of the Crossbow of the Chinese version such as the repeater gave it far more variety and advantage. This is a passage from a song manual which states the point:
"The crossbow is the most efficient weapon of any, even at distances as small as five feet. The crossbowmen are mustered in separate companies, and when they shoot, nothing can stand in front of them, no [enemy] formation can keep its order. If attacked by cavalry, the crossbowmen will be as solid as a mountain, shooting off such volleys that nothing can remain alive before them. Although the charge my be impetuous it will not reach them. Therefore the barbarians [i.e. Khitan] fear [the crossbow]. For struggling around strategic points among mountains and rivers and defiles, overcoming men who do not lack bravery, the crossbow is indispensable.

Regarding the method of using the crossbow, it cannot be mixed up with hand-to-hand weapons, and it is beneficial when shot from high ground facing downwards. It only needs to be used so that the men within the formation are loading while the men in the front line of the formation are shooting. As they come forward they use shields to protect their flanks. Thus each in their turn they draw their crossbows and come up; then as soon as they have shot bolts they return again into their formation. Thus the sound of the crossbows is incessant and the enemy can hardly even flee. Therefore we have the following drill -

shooting rank
advancing rank
loading rank.

"The luxury of historical hindsight can be distorting, leading some of us to make claims of victories achieved with "relative ease", that may or may not reflect the reality of the situations being discussed."

There is nothing that I disagreed about this statement, so whats your point?

"China was hardly gained because Mongols hardly knew about siege at that time.  After they took some Chinese prisoners as siege mechanics did they manage to speed up siege processes(Normal siege took around 5~9 days I think after Chinese siege help).  If the mongols knew how to make siege weapons before their invasion of China, chances are that the two worlds would have fallen at relatively same time."

On the contrast, the Mongols well perfected their siege techniques when invading Song, and the siege of Xiang yang still took over 5 years causing the mongols to loose over 50,000 troops on the process.

I thought that the mongols finally took the wall down after they brought in the infamous trebuchets....?

And of those 50,000 men, how many were slaves? 5,000+? Not exactly an astounding loss. How many Chinese died? Probally more, but god knows they breed so damned fast...

Warhead,

Again, your assessment of the wako is inaccurate.  They clearly were very organized, as contemporary Spanish and Chinese observations reveal.  I already pointed out that the lack of cavalry wasn't an issue in the Philippines.  Even if it had been an issue, the manner in which the samurai used their cavalry probably would not have presented a problem for the Spanish--look at what Nobunaga did to the Takeda cavalry at Nagashino in 1575, and you'll note that the Spanish under Cordoba had executed similar carnage amongst French gendarmes at Cerignola, back in 1503.  As for artillery, what did the "regular army" samurai have that the wako didn't?  Both of them were supplied with superior European artillery from time to time.

Were the wako of the same caliber as Hideyoshi's Imjin War veterans?  I'd venture to say "No", but the Spanish colonial soldiers in the Philippines were likewise not on the same level as the crack troops in the Spanish Army of Flanders.  So, IMO it all evens out.

Claiming that the wako attacks were "not serious threats" to the "Ming border in any way" ironically disregards the Ming military viewpoint on the issue.  In Late Imperial Chinese Armies 1520-1840, author Chris Peers pointed out:

"...by 1554 the wo-k'ou were stronger than ever, defeating several Ming armies on land, and threatening major coastal cities like Nanking and Hangchow."

Funny, I never saw the trigger mechanism on Western crossbows as being "unneccesarily complicated"--certainly, it doesn't have many parts--and it was used successfully for centuries.

LOL--"outrange" and "outpierce" Western steel-staved crossbows of the 15th and 16th centuries?  Give me some figures on these Chinese crossbows (draw weight, effective range, etc)!

It depends on what your definition of "volley rotation" is.

Western gunners used the "countermarch"--a form of "volley rotation"--during the 16th century.

The much-vaunted Chinese repeating crossbow was of comparatively limited application.  It's design suggests that it was more applicaple to defending fortifications, as opposed to field use, and I must wonder about the accuracy of a weapon that used flightless bolts.

You say you don't disagree with my statement, and yet it was you who spoke of the Mongols defeating the Europeans with "relative ease".

My point is that you utilized some facts to make some pretty broad (and rather warped) declarations, which are not reflective of reality.  You said,

The fact remains that China was conquered by the Mongols.  Western Europe was not.

You then went on to say:

This nonsense about defeating the Europeans with "relative ease on the battlefield" is what I was specifically talking about, in regards to my "historical hindsight" comment.  I already pointed out that Prince Batu himself appeared to have felt otherwise. 

As for the standard belief that the Mongols would have smashed the rest of Western Europe, it's ultimately a moot point, because they chose not to attempt it.  In fact, Erik Hildinger offered some worthwhile observations in his excellent Warriors of the Steppe--A Military History of Central Asia, 500 B.C. To 1700 A.D.:

"Still, despite the evident superiority of the steppe warrior over most of his settled adversaries, Europe, at least, never suffered actual conquest from the steppe.  The Mongols, it seems, might have done this except for their internal political troubles.  But the steppe warrior was a product of his environment, shaped by it and therefore suited to it.  It follows, then, that he was limited by it.  Consider that a steppe army needs a great number of horse, at least two and more commonly three for every man.  An army might easily have a hundred thousand horses as well as herds of cattle or flocks of sheep to feed the men, and these animals need a great deal of grass.  In Hungary, where the steppe extends into Europe, there may be enough, but farther west there may not.  Cerrtainly a horde could feed its animals from granaries instead, but after conquest it would be difficult to maintain the number of horses to which they were accustomed.

Even though the steppe warriors as a group were better fighters than the individualistic and honor-obsessed knights of medieval Europe, the latter might still have appeared as dangerous foes, particularly when they operated from castles in hilly and forested terrain.  So while the Mongols had shown themselves more than capable of dealing with any of these obstacles, the combination of them may have rendered Europe less attractive as a target.  One may suppose that when Batu no longer had the support of Karakorum (and its imperial tumens) he must have judged the conquest of Europe, like the reoccupation of Hungary, too risky."

Batu's reservations were hinted at when Mongol parties were ambushed by Austrian troops under Duke Frederick.  The successful defense of Székesfehérvár by the Italian mercs was doubtlessly noted as well.

And the next time a cavalry-based army of horse-archers tried to penetrate that deep into Western Europe, they were wiped out (the Turkish akincis in the Vienna Woods, in 1532).

Peace,

David

"Again, your assessment of the wako is inaccurate.  They clearly were very organized, as contemporary Spanish and Chinese observations reveal."

Do point out which chinese source claim they are very organized if you didn't assume that up.

"  I already pointed out that the lack of cavalry wasn't an issue in the Philippines.  Even if it had been an issue, the manner in which the samurai used their cavalry probably would not have presented a problem for the Spanish--look at what Nobunaga did to the Takeda cavalry at Nagashino in 1575, and you'll note that the Spanish under Cordoba had executed similar carnage amongst French gendarmes at Cerignola, back in 1503.  As for artillery, what did the "regular army" samurai have that the wako didn't?  Both of them were supplied with superior European artillery from time to time."

Volley rotation fire is som,ething that the Wou kou didn't use.

"Were the wako of the same caliber as Hideyoshi's Imjin War veterans?  I'd venture to say "No", but the Spanish colonial soldiers in the Philippines were likewise not on the same level as the crack troops in the Spanish Army of Flanders.  So, IMO it all evens out."

This evens out nothing, it just means the comparison is invalid.

"Claiming that the wako attacks were "not serious threats" to the "Ming border in any way" ironically disregards the Ming military viewpoint on the issue.  In Late Imperial Chinese Armies 1520-1840, author Chris Peers pointed out:

"...by 1554 the wo-k'ou were stronger than ever, defeating several Ming armies on land, and threatening major coastal cities like Nanking and Hangchow.""

No, absolutely not, your claim is incorrect in all sense, the Wou kou is a pest not a threat, the Ming army that sent against it were small detachments of mere thousands and hundreds, the Wou kou band mostly number a few hundred to a few thousand. Those pitty battles you bring up are small scale skirmishes, to say that they actually prove anything is ridiculous.

"LOL--"outrange" and "outpierce" Western steel-staved crossbows of the 15th and 16th centuries?  Give me some figures on these Chinese crossbows (draw weight, effective range, etc)!"

No, This whole thread is about the 13th century if you haven't noticed this whole time, yes there aren't record of draw weight, but the range is 500 yards while tha tof the arbalest is roughly 350 in average.

"Western gunners used the "countermarch"--a form of "volley rotation"--during the 16th century."

We are talking about the 13th century for your information.

"The much-vaunted Chinese repeating crossbow was of comparatively limited application.  It's design suggests that it was more applicaple to defending fortifications, as opposed to field use, and I must wonder about the accuracy of a weapon that used flightless bolts."

On the contrast, the repeater was used against large field infantry in which the bolts would do large casualtie.

You say you don't disagree with my statement, and yet it was you who spoke of the Mongols defeating the Europeans with "relative ease".

My point is that you utilized some facts to make some pretty broad (and rather warped) declarations, which are not reflective of reality.  You said,

"You say you don't disagree with my statement, and yet it was you who spoke of the Mongols defeating the Europeans with "relative ease"."

Considering the amount of troops deployed in proportion to the total number of the mongol empire as well as the distance covered it was relatively easy.

"My point is that you utilized some facts to make some pretty broad (and rather warped) declarations, which are not reflective of reality."

The reality is very clearly reflected in the secret history, mongols hardly consider Europe a marjor campaign, the secret mostly mention capaigns against other steppe empires as well as those that are in China, only a few sentences are dedicated to the European campaign and there were no details on the battle, the feud of the generals were more important, the mongols never did use much of its stregth in the campgain against Russia thus the relative ease.

"The fact remains that China was conquered by the Mongols.  Western Europe was not."

Considering western Europe is never invaded, this comparsion like your other pet arguments are invalid.

The only fact that clearly remains is the fact that those parts of Europe that they did invade, they did it with roughly 100,000 troops in only a few years, while they took far longer and employed far more troops not to mention far less distance in their campaign against China.

You then went on to say:

"This nonsense about defeating the Europeans with "relative ease on the battlefield" is what I was specifically talking about, in regards to my "historical hindsight" comment.  I already pointed out that Prince Batu himself appeared to have felt otherwise.  "

Prince Batu's troops are only but a fraction of the Mongol army. Relative ease is comparison with other conquests which you consider Europe just as difficult which is obviously wrong.

"As for the standard belief that the Mongols would have smashed the rest of Western Europe, it's ultimately a moot point, because they chose not to attempt it.  In fact, Erik Hildinger offered some worthwhile observations in his excellent Warriors of the Steppe--A Military History of Central Asia, 500 B.C. To 1700 A.D.:"

I never disagreed with the fact that mongols could not take western Europe, in fact I'm always with the argument that they can't,. but only because of the vast distance and terrain they have to pass through, nothing to do with any superiority in European military.

Warhead,

Have you ever seen one of these things in action?  I have.

In Mike Loades' video, Archery--Its History and Forms, a demo with the Chinese repeating crossbow is given.  The design of this weapon is undeniably ingenious, but it is also not without its faults.  I suggested that it was probably better for defense of fortifications because the balance is well forward (with the magazine in the front), and so one could rest it on a wall.  When not resting it on a wall or similar surface, one must brace the end of the stock on the hip, which certainly doesn't lend itself to accurate shooting.  Add to that the problem of the flightless bolts, and I think you see what I'm getting at.

Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey gives an effective range for this weapon at about 80 yards, which certainly isn't neglible, but I still personally have my reservations about the weapon overall.

LOL--whatever, bro.

Since "there were no details", how can we ascertain what the Mongols really thought?  Again, I lean towards the opinion of Prince Batu, a Mongol commander who was actually there.  James Chambers elaborated on this situation at Mohi in The Devil's Horsemen:

"The Mongols surrounded the camp, but Batu was despondent.  The second bridge had taken longer than expected to build and the delay had cost him terrible casualties for which he blamed Subedei.  He was no longer confident that his exhausted soldiers were strong enough to storm the camp or hold their own if the Hungarians came out again, and he wanted to play safe and retreat."

Batu's doubts were also indicated by Subedei's valiant reply:

"Subedei, however, had more faith in his soldiers and their trust in him was absolute.  'If the princes wish to retreat they may do so,' he said, 'but for my part I am resolved not to return until I have reached Pest and the Danube.'"

It's not invalid, nor is it a "pet argument".

You attempted to suggest that the Chinese gave the Mongols a harder time than the Europeans did, as if you were inferring some sort of Chinese superiority there (and if I misunderstood you, I apologize).  I simply pointed out the obvious--China was conquered, and Europe was not--so how can you make such declarations in the first place? 

And how many troops did the Mongols have to deal with in the Chinese campaigns?

Batu's force was one of the main forces that fought in the European campaign, so I don't see what your argument is here.

Then perhaps you need to reassess the situation, since the "terrain" the Mongols had "to pass through" and the "European military" are inseparable parts of the same equation.  What did the Mongols dislike in general?  Close combat at HTH.  That was precisely what the European aristocratic warrior class specialized in.  Supporting footsoldiers provided a missile element with crossbows, that was better suited to the defensive, "static warfare" common amongst settled peoples--ie., farmer-soldiers and the like.  Both of those elements could have been used to good effect in the "terrain" of Europe you speak of.  The Mongols experienced comparatively small demonstrations of these things at Székesfehérvár and in Austria, and the Ottoman Turks received a full-blown education on the subject in 1532.

Peace,

David

Warhead,

Allow me to refresh you memory...

You originally claimed,

I, in turn, simply corrected you, by mentioning that Europeans had developed effective "volley rotation shooting" well before the 18th century.

Peace,

David

Warhead,

The following comes from Peers' Late Imperial Chinese Armies 1520-1840, and he uses Ch'i Chi-Kuang as a source:

"At first the pirates were better disciplined than the government troops and frequently outmanoeuvred them, but when possible they preferred to stand on the defensive.  Ch'i Chi-kuang noted that 'the pirates always manage to sit on the heights waiting for us.  Usually they hold on until evening, when our soldiers become tired.  Then they dash out... They adorn their helmets with coloured strings and animal horns of metallic colours and ghostly shapes to frighten our soldiers.'"

Peers also noted that the wako were well-drilled in Japanese swordplay:

"A distinctive feature of the wo-k'ou themselves was the Japanese swordplay employed by some of their infantry--both Japanese and Chinese who had learned their methods.  They raised and lowered their swords in unison, signalled by officers with folding fans, and wielded them so swiftly that an enemy 'could see only the flash of the weapon, not the man.'"

And, for folks who were (according to you) not very organized or disciplined, it is curious to note that Ch'i Chi-kuang went to considerable lengths to actually learn sword technique from the wako:

"Swordfighting stances from the 1588 edition of Chinese General Qi Jiguang 's Ji Xiao Xin Shu. General Ji inflicted a great defeat on the Japanese pirates in 1561 at Taizhou, capturing the leader and 1900 pows. These techniques were obtained after interrogating (ie torturing) the pirates."

So, the wako made a thoroughly systematic use of their weapons.

The entire article can be found here:

http://www.sevenstarstrading.com/article/2hand/ming.html - http://www.sevenstarstrading.com/article/2hand/ming.html

I find it a bit amusing how you accuse me of "assuming" things, when it appears that YOU are assuming that pirates can't fight as an organized force.  The wako in the 16th century clearly did--again, their attack on Manilla in 1574 was originally thought to have been an incursion by a Portuguese force.  If you want more examples of organized pirates, all you have to do is look at the North African corsairs from the same century.  In fact, Sulleyman employed one of these mere "pirates"--Khzir-ed-Din Barbarossa--to reorganize the entire Ottoman Navy!  The best Muslim commander at Lepanto, Ulich Ali, was likewise a corsair.

How do you know that?

Hardly "invalid" my friend.

My comparison shows that well-equipped European and Asian warriors--who were both very experienced in the specific theatre they operated in--faced each other, and, in this particular case, the Europeans won.  It doesn't mean that the Japanese or Chinese didn't know how to fight--on the contrary, the Spanish had nothing but praise for the martial capabilities of the wako.

And I can post those accounts too, if you wish.

Peace,

David

Warhead,

For a group of mere "pests" they seem to have had a fairly profound impact on the Ming.

Ch'i Chi-kuang's "Mandarin Duck" squad formation was implemented as a direct result of dealing with the wako.

Japanese swordfighting techniques were incorporated into Chinese fencing systems, as a direct result of dealing with the wako.  These are documented in Chi-kuang's treatise, the Ji Xiao Xin Shu.

Warhead, we've been dealing with both the 13th century and the 16th century--you should have been more specific in your claims regarding these Chinese crossbows.

Now, let's take a look at those figures...

You claim a range of 500 yards for the Chinese crossbow in question.  I would not consider this an effective range, but if you can provide sources confirming that this was a range actually used in battle, that would be great.

Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey, who's classic text, The Crossbow, remains a standard on the subject, makes no mention of Chinese crossbows with a range of 500 yards.  And yet, he was familiar with these weapons.

The fact is that no small arms--whether hand bows, crossbows, or early firearms--were used at such long ranges.  The Turks were famous for launching light flight arrows from their composite bows some 600-800 yards, but this should not be confused with arrows used in war.  The famous English veteran of the Low Countries Wars, Roger Williams, observed that the heavy Spanish-style musket could "spoil" a man or horse from a full 600 yards away, but the chances of actually hitting something from that distance was minimal.

Peace,

David

"Have you ever seen one of these things in action?  I have.

In Mike Loades' video, Archery--Its History and Forms, a demo with the Chinese repeating crossbow is given.  The design of this weapon is undeniably ingenious, but it is also not without its faults.  I suggested that it was probably better for defense of fortifications because the balance is well forward (with the magazine in the front), and so one could rest it on a wall.  When not resting it on a wall or similar surface, one must brace the end of the stock on the hip, which certainly doesn't lend itself to accurate shooting.  Add to that the problem of the flightless bolts, and I think you see what I'm getting at."

Its used for both, and its clearly documented to be used against massed infantries.

"Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey gives an effective range for this weapon at about 80 yards, which certainly isn't neglible, but I still personally have my reservations about the weapon overall."

The maximum range is near 200 yards.

"LOL--whatever, bro."

Whatever what? Finish the reply.

"Since "there were no details", how can we ascertain what the Mongols really thought?  Again, I lean towards the opinion of Prince Batu, a Mongol commander who was actually there.  James Chambers elaborated on this situation at Mohi in The Devil's Horsemen:"

I didn't say it was easy, I said it was relatively easy in comparison with its other conquests simply by thelittle importance but into the whole campaign in the record.

"It's not invalid, nor is it a "pet argument".

You attempted to suggest that the Chinese gave the Mongols a harder time than the Europeans did, as if you were inferring some sort of Chinese superiority there (and if I misunderstood you, I apologize).  I simply pointed out the obvious--China was conquered, and Europe was not--so how can you make such declarations in the first place? "

Its very invalid, China did give mongols a harder time inflicting more casualtie on them and taking longer and more troops to conquer. are you denying that? Europe was not conquered because its never invaded, and I was talking about the parts of Europe that was invaded, why did you jump to western europe?

"And how many troops did the Mongols have to deal with in the Chinese campaigns?"

300,000 mongol troops and nearly as much auxiliars from North China, Korea and central asia.

"Batu's force was one of the main forces that fought in the European campaign, so I don't see what your argument is here."

My point is that its but a fraction of the major force of mongols.

"Then perhaps you need to reassess the situation, since the "terrain" the Mongols had "to pass through" and the "European military" are inseparable parts of the same equation.  What did the Mongols dislike in general? "

I'm not even talking about western europe, why did you start talking about it? All the argument here is about eastern Europe, since you said they were just as difficult to conquer as others, and I pointed out it wasn't which is a fact.

"I, in turn, simply corrected you, by mentioning that Europeans had developed effective "volley rotation shooting" well before the 18th century."

I know they had volley rotation in the 16th century created by William, you haven't noticed the term "mastered" have you?

"'the pirates always manage to sit on the heights waiting for us.  Usually they hold on until evening, when our soldiers become tired.  Then they dash out... They adorn their helmets with coloured strings and animal horns of metallic colours and ghostly shapes to frighten our soldiers.'"

Peers also noted that the wako were well-drilled in Japanese swordplay:

"A distinctive feature of the wo-k'ou themselves was the Japanese swordplay employed by some of their infantry--both Japanese and Chinese who had learned their methods.  They raised and lowered their swords in unison, signalled by officers with folding fans, and wielded them so swiftly that an enemy 'could see only the flash of the weapon, not the man.'"

And, for folks who were (according to you) not very organized or disciplined, it is curious to note that Ch'i Chi-kuang went to considerable lengths to actually learn sword technique from the wako:

"Swordfighting stances from the 1588 edition of Chinese General Qi Jiguang 's Ji Xiao Xin Shu. General Ji inflicted a great defeat on the Japanese pirates in 1561 at Taizhou, capturing the leader and 1900 pows. These techniques were obtained after interrogating (ie torturing) the pirates.""

I'm sorry but you have said nothing about the organization of the Wo Kou, disicpline and training doesn't equal organization, or is that what your definition of organization is?

"How do you know that?"

They don't appear in sources. ITs EXPLICITLY  mentioned that their primary weapons are swords and ARCHERY or else Qi Ji guan would not use shields against them.

"Hardly "invalid" my friend.

My comparison shows that well-equipped European and Asian warriors--who were both very experienced in the specific theatre they operated in--faced each other, and, in this particular case, the Europeans won.  It doesn't mean that the Japanese or Chinese didn't know how to fight--on the contrary, the Spanish had nothing but praise for the martial capabilities of the wako."

No its invalid because you are comparing two armies of secondary qualities and assuming that top notch troops will have the same result without any reason such assumption is invalid.

"For a group of mere "pests" they seem to have had a fairly profound impact on the Ming.

Ch'i Chi-kuang's "Mandarin Duck" squad formation was implemented as a direct result of dealing with the wako.

Japanese swordfighting techniques were incorporated into Chinese fencing systems, as a direct result of dealing with the wako.  These are documented in Chi-kuang's treatise, the Ji Xiao Xin Shu."

My point is simply to prove your wrong about them been a threat. And you've competely failed to understand the situation, the Wo kou never fought large imperial armies of the capital, what they faced was merely small coastal contingents, the small continents used the typical ming spear on wooden shafts, such formation are only effective when mass employed on large battlefields, in which the skirmishes against the wo kou wasn't. Because these small skirmishes usually only envolve several hundred people, the battle goes larely to hand to hand to hand in which the ming staff is at a disadvantage. coupled with the fact that none of the ming troops possess any powerful artillery(which is one of the advantage of ming against Hedioshi's troops). Thats why Qi Ji guan adopted the bamboo spear to trap enemy's swords as well as adopting Wo kou sword technique to fight them on their own ground. Such weapon are NOT employed on large battlefield as with the case of the Korean war, powerful artillery and chainmailed cavalry were the standard troops in that war because they are imperial troops, the Wo kou raids faced none of these, its the coastal guards that use their own weapons to fight the wo kou. And Qi ji guan just adopted something useful.

"You claim a range of 500 yards for the Chinese crossbow in question.  I would not consider this an effective range, but if you can provide sources confirming that this was a range actually used in battle, that would be great."

Its not the effective range, The effective range is 350 yards. But the arbalest's effective range is also considerably lower.

Warhead,

That's fine--but again, the shooting-from-the-hip thing has its limitations.

Maximum range is largely irrelevant.  See my post above regarding the Spanish musket and Turkish bows.

We just seem to have a different view on the issue.  I try to see these things from the perspective of the men who did the fighting, so expressions like "relatively easy", etc., just don't work IMO.

See above.

It's a far larger amount of territory to conquer, and using that to attempt to criticize European fighting prowess is pretty weak.

I had said,  "Well, I don't know if historical Mongols--like Prince Batu--would have agreed with your assessment there.  Batu became pretty nervous when dealing with the Hungarian knights at HTH range at the Battle of Mohi,  before Subotai came up.

And, they must have had at least some appreciation for European military prowess, as they hired knights and crossbowmen from time to time.  In fact, the unpleasant Mongol experience with Italian mercenary crossbowmen was very manifest at the siege of Székesfehérvár (Stuhlweissenburg), which the Mongols abandoned after a spirited defense by the Italians.  Even Friar Carpini commented that the Mongols "feared" the crossbow."

And you replied,

 I was speaking specifically about European military capability there, and it appeared you were offering a retort to that.  That's what led to our Mongol debate.

Because it's a part of Europe, and because the Mongols did have some experience (both good and bad) in dealing with Western Europeans--Templars, Italian infantry mercs, etc. 

Peace,

David

Sources?

"Maximum range is largely irrelevant.  See my post above regarding the Spanish musket and Turkish bows."

The problem is the repeater is not designed for power. The purpose is to have enourmous amount of arrows reigning down to find opens and since its covered with poison a slight pierce would be fatal.

"It's a far larger amount of territory to conquer, and using that to attempt to criticize European fighting prowess is pretty weak."

No on the contrast china proper is not as large as eastern europe during this time. The territorial extend of china proper is roughly 16 million sq miles, Eastern Europe's extend is over 2 million sq miles.

I had said,  "Well, I don't know if historical Mongols--like Prince Batu--would have agreed with your assessment there.  Batu became pretty nervous when dealing with the Hungarian knights at HTH range at the Battle of Mohi,  before Subotai came up.

And, they must have had at least some appreciation for European military prowess, as they hired knights and crossbowmen from time to time.  In fact, the unpleasant Mongol experience with Italian mercenary crossbowmen was very manifest at the siege of Székesfehérvár (Stuhlweissenburg), which the Mongols abandoned after a spirited defense by the Italians.  Even Friar Carpini commented that the Mongols "feared" the crossbow."

"And you replied,

 I was speaking specifically about European military capability there, and it appeared you were offering a retort to that.  That's what led to our Mongol debate."

I did say those, and they are facts(with the exception of misunderstanding of the term "relative ease". Nothing I'm trying to prove.

"Because it's a part of Europe, and because the Mongols did have some experience (both good and bad) in dealing with Western Europeans--Templars, Italian infantry mercs, etc. "

Well, i was talking about the part of Europe that mongols did fight and conquer.

"Sources?"

Needham's science and civilization in China volume 5, part 6, section 30

"roughly 16 million sq miles, Eastern Europe's extend is over 2 million sq miles."

Typo: 1.6 million sq miles

Spare me the semantics, bro--the system of countermarch used in the 16th century was the best method for the use of the weapons of that time.

And William didn't "create" the countermarch--this was used by the arquebusiers and musketeers of all major European armies at that time.  William developed the linear formations to counter the square and rectangular formations of the Spanish.

Funny, the Spanish sources from the same period mention plenty of firearms too.

The "armies of secondary qualities" used much of the same equipment and tactics as the "top notch troops".  In some aspects of warfare (guerrilla actions, etc), they were perhaps even better than their bretheren who engaged more in set-piece battles.  This isn't rocket science, Warhead.

They clearly were a threat, Warhead, as established authors have shown.

Apparently, you have failed to understand some things.  The spear has the initial advantage over shorter weapons, and polearms have universally been used because of their inherent advantage in this department.  Any modern-day Filipino martial artist with experience in the use of the sibat (staff), can tell you that. Spearmen were an integral part of the "Mandarin Duck" squad concept.  Some of the other elements of that unit, like the men equipped with the bamboo saplings, were intended to make use of the unskilled (but numerous) peasant manpower that the Chinese often relied on. 

You said the the wako were unorganized.  I have given you primary and secondary sources which state otherwise.  The very fact that the Chinese had to employ special tactics against fighting men who came from a sophisticated "blade culture" should show you that the wako were far from mere brigands.  The experiences of the Spanish with the wako should show you the same thing.

He did what had to be done, against a skilled and ORGANIZED enemy.

Peace,

David

"Funny, the Spanish sources from the same period mention plenty of firearms too."

and did they mention volley rotation fire?

"The "armies of secondary qualities" used much of the same equipment and tactics as the "top notch troops".  In some aspects of warfare (guerrilla actions, etc), they were perhaps even better than their bretheren who engaged more in set-piece battles.  This isn't rocket science, Warhead.""

Prove they did. as for guerilla actions, funny because Hedioshi's troops also employed such tactics, against the Ming in the initial encounter, so you're wrong about not using it.

"Apparently, you have failed to understand some things.  The spear has the initial advantage over shorter weapons, and polearms have universally been used because of their inherent advantage in this department.  Any modern-day Filipino martial artist with experience in the use of the sibat (staff), can tell you that. Spearmen were an integral part of the "Mandarin Duck" squad concept.  Some of the other elements of that unit, like the men equipped with the bamboo saplings, were intended to make use of the unskilled (but numerous) peasant manpower that the Chinese often relied on.  "

Fail to understand what? I never said swords have the initial advantage. "Initial" advantage is only effective with powerful frontal attack, the Wo kou not only used hit and run to their advantage and engage easy hand to hand at the right moment. And most of these ming attacks eventually turn into scattered individual battles since the numbers aren't great, and in this packed fighting Wo kou swords are inevidably superior. The point is these ming troops are far from the same uality as the imperial troops so you have an invalid point.

"You said the the wako were unorganized.  I have given you primary and secondary sources which state otherwise.  The very fact that the Chinese had to employ special tactics against fighting men who came from a sophisticated "blade culture" should show you that the wako were far from mere brigands.  The experiences of the Spanish with the wako should show you the same thing."

I'm still waiting for your source on their organization, speculating on their fighting ability shows nothing.

"He did what had to be done, against a skilled and ORGANIZED enemy."

Again rpove it, show me what organization they used.

Warhead,

Yes, Payne-Gallwey mentions that.

Fair enough--again, apologies on my part if I misunderstood your point there.

I was speaking about both.

Could you give me the full quote?  Was this a composite-staved weapon?

Thanks,

David

"They clearly were a threat, Warhead, as established authors have shown."

no they are not, its ridiculous to say that Wo kou actually threatened the Ming, the best ming troops as well as the majority are in the north not against the wo kou because these are only secondary enemies and mere pests than threats.

"Could you give me the full quote?  Was this a composite-staved weapon?"

Its a chart of list of the range of different weapons, the crossbow is from the Tang dynasty. Most are not composite staved. The korean ones however was.

Warhead,

I honestly don't know--the Spanish accounts come from the exhaustive multi-volume Blair & Robertson history of the Philippine Islands, and I haven't seen all of them.

However, it's certainly possible.

Given the nature of the wako raids in China and the Philippines, and the nature of the Spanish fighting against the Moros and other hostile Filipinos, I feel that skill in that type of warfare is self-evident.

I never said that guerrilla tactics weren't used by major armies--please don't misquote me.  All I said was that Spanish colonial troops and wako were probably better at it overall, which again should come as no surprise.

The nature of HTH combat with melee weapons.

Wrong.

Spears and other polearms can be used as individual combat weapons, in small skirmishes and the like.   "Short weapons" men in Europe used halberds, bills, and other polearms.  They were also used at sea.  A polearm user has the range advantage, and he can control the combative-engagement distance ("fencing measure" or ma-ai) better than an opponent armed with a shorter weapon (like a sword), unless the combat is taking place in cramped quarters (inside a pub or tavern, for instance). 

Ch'i Chi-kuang included spears specifically to outrange wako swords.  He included some swordsmen with dao and shield for close support, depending on the situation. 

So what were these elite "imperial troops" doing at this time?

I gave you primary sources, from Ch'i Chi-kuang himself, describing how they fought.  The general's words indicate organization--no speculation is necessary.

I already did, bro. 

It's not my problem if you choose to ignore the facts.

Peace,

David

"Given the nature of the wako raids in China and the Philippines, and the nature of the Spanish fighting against the Moros and other hostile Filipinos, I feel that skill in that type of warfare is self-evident."

And as already pointed out, Wo kou did not have the high level of firearm that government armies have, its quite reasonable that warring troops that fought constant civil war for dominance over Japan is well better equippted than raiding pirates.

"I never said that guerrilla tactics weren't used by major armies--please don't misquote me.  All I said was that Spanish colonial troops and wako were probably better at it overall, which again should come as no surprise."

This is not something unusual for an army of inferior equipment, when they can't engage armies of better quality, they resort to guerilla tactic. This is done by Vietnamese and the PRC army. 

"The nature of HTH combat with melee weapons."

No i didn't

"Wrong.

Spears and other polearms can be used as individual combat weapons, in small skirmishes and the like.   "Short weapons" men in Europe used halberds, bills, and other polearms.  They were also used at sea.  A polearm user has the range advantage, and he can control the combative-engagement distance ("fencing measure" or ma-ai) better than an opponent armed with a shorter weapon (like a sword), unless the combat is taking place in cramped quarters (inside a pub or tavern, for instance). "

Wrong, the fight is in cramped quarters most of the time as I already mentioned, the wo kou are the ones that choose where to fight, the fight on boats and melee between Ming and Wo kou mostly end up in tight battles. And its not just a theory, its proven by the fact that Wo kou swords proven to be vicotorious, and ming had to change part of its army especially to train in the wo kou sword style.

"Ch'i Chi-kuang included spears specifically to outrange wako swords.  He included some swordsmen with dao and shield for close support, depending on the situation. "

And he also used a lot of swords men and train them in wo kou sword technique which is not done before.

"So what were these elite "imperial troops" doing at this time?"

In the north guarding the wall against mongols.

"I gave you primary sources, from Ch'i Chi-kuang himself, describing how they fought.  The general's words indicate organization--no speculation is necessary."

No, all it indicate was their training and swordsmith, no organization

"I already did, bro. 

It's not my problem if you choose to ignore the facts.

Peace,"

no you didn't, so its very much your problem to show me what organization they claim rather than assume they had a good one.

"I honestly don't know--the Spanish accounts come from the exhaustive multi-volume Blair & Robertson history of the Philippine Islands, and I haven't seen all of them.

However, it's certainly possible."

Certainly possible is not enough, you have to be certain with proven sources since you claimed the imperial Japanese troop would loose to Spain's, and I doubt they did because rotation fire is only done with army of high quality in Japan, its very skeptical that some poor brigand could have the money to muster a large amount of musket to be able to perform such formations, not to mention the cery fact that Qi Ji guan record they use archers and little on muskets proves that their main weapon is archery and not musket let alone the complex and well drilled volley rotation fire.

I've never heard that, where you have that from?

I stand by the theory that if you're going to call your assailant the "Hammer of God" and a plague upon your people, divine punishment, etc.

It means they are pretty hard dudes.

it's also true that crossbows are great against the mongols. The Song and other Chinese had for centuries known that, saying that "what the nomad fears most is the crossbow".

And I also just figure... a force with less men, less advanced tactics, less experience(with fighting nomad horsemen) and less technology (no explosives or cannons) would be easier to beat than one of those rivals-from-the-beginning-of-history that have been warring with you for, well, a really really long time.

But in the end, Knights are still super-cool

Mongols are still super-cool.

Europe still kicks the rest of the world's ass 1800's up to the 21st century.

What we need is a good space Alien invasion to bring us all together!

Nah, Mongols. Read it in a book. Two books.

Atilla was compared to divine punishment though, I think. He just wasn't God's hammer.

Warhead,

First of all, you're misquoting me again--I never claimed that "imperial Japanese troops would lose to Spain's" (though I do think it was possible).  What I did was reply to TongShanThaiHiung, when he stated:

My reply was:

"Europeans did fight against the samurai--in the 16th century.  The Spanish in the Philippines had to deal with Sino-Japanese pirates (wako) often, during the 1570s and 1580s.  The fact that the Spanish had firearms is a moot point, because the wako had them too!  The fighting involved a mixture of missile weapons (arquebuses and bows) and melee weapons (polearms and swords). 

And the Spanish won."

As I have already indicated, there were samurai within the ranks of the wako, and they fought with the same type of weapons (swords, spears, naginata, arquebuses, etc).

Secondly, Ch'i-Chi-kuang's "record" is not the only one which describes the wako, so your declaration that "their main weapon is archery and not the musket" doesn't hold up under fire (pun very much intended).  Here's a Spanish account of fighting in the Philippines in the 1580s, which offers a considerably different picture:

"Most Illustrious and Excellent Sir: I do not know whether the letters with new information which the governor is writing today will arrive in time to go on this ship, which has been dispatched to this port of Acabite; so I wish to give your Excellency notice of what is going on. Yesterday – St. John’s Day – in the afternoon, there arrived six soldiers who had gone with Captain Juan Pablo de Carrion against the Japanese, who are settled on the river Cagayan. They say that Juan Pablo sailed with his fleet – which comprised the ship Sant Jusepe, the admiral’s galley, and five fragatas – from the port of Bigan, situated in Ylocos, about thirty-five days’ journey from Cagayan. As he sailed out, he encountered a Chinese pirate, who very soon surrendered. He put seventeen soldiers aboard of her and continued his course. While rounding Cape Borgador, near Cagayan one fair morning at dawn, they found themselves near a Japanese ship, which Juan Pablo engaged with the admiral’s galley in which he himself was. With his artillery he shot away their mainmast, and killed several men. The Japanese put out grappling-irons and poured two hundred men aboard the galley, armed with pikes and breastplates. There remained sixty arquebusiers firing at our men. Finally, the enemy conquered the galley as far as the mainmast. There our people also made a stand in their extreme necessity, and made the Japanese retreat to their ship. They dropped their grappling-irons, and set their foresail, which still remained to them. At this moment the ship Sant Jusepe grappled with them, and with the artillery and forces of the ship overcame the Japanese; the latter fought valiantly until only eighteen remained, who gave themselves up, exhausted. Some men on the galley were killed, and among them its captain, Pero Lucas, fighting valiantly as a good soldier. Then the captain, Juan Pablo, ascended the Cagayan River, and found in the opening a fort and eleven Japanese ships. He passed along the upper shore because the mouth of the river is a league in width. The ship Sant Jusepe was entering the river, and it happened by bad fortune that some of our soldiers, who were in a small fragata, called out to the captain, saying to him: “Return, return to Manila! Set the whole fleet to return, because there are a thousand Japanese on the river with a great deal of artillery, and we are few.” Whereupon Captain Luys de Callejo directed his course seaward; and although Juan Pablo fired a piece of artillery he did not and could not enter, and continued to tack back and forth. In the morning he anchored in a bay, where such a tempest overtook them that it broke three cables out of four that he had, and one used for weighing anchor. He sent these six soldiers in a small vessel to see if there was on an islet an water of which they were in great need. The men lost their way, without finding any water; and when they returned where they had left their ship they could not find it they met with some of those Indians who were in the galley with Juan Pablo, from who, it was learned that Juan Pablo had ascended the river two leagues and had fortified himself in a bay; and that with him was the galley, which had begun to leak everywhere, in the engagement with the Japanese. The Indian crew was discharged on account of not having the supplies which were lost on the galley. Most of these men went aboard the Sant Jusepe. They said that the Japanese were attacking them with eighteen champans, which are like skiffs. They were defending themselves well although there were but sixty soldiers with the seaman, and there were a thousand of the enemy, of a race at once valorous and skilful..."

Note how the Japanese had large numbers of arquebusiers. They fought the Spanish to the mainmast of the galley, but were then driven back--it reminds one of the vicious HTH fighting at Lepanto in 1571 between the Christians (Spanish, Venetian, and Papal troops) and the Muslims (Turks and Barbary Corsairs). Note also that, despite this victory, the Spanish had an obvious respect for the Japanese (just as they respected the Turks).

"...The six soldiers came with this news, and on the way they met a sailor who had escaped from a Sangely ship which had sailed from here. With supplies of rice for Juan Pablo. He says that the Sangleys mutinied at midnight and killed ten soldiers who were going with it as an escort, who had no sentinel. This one escaped by swimming, with the aid of a lance that was hurled at him from the ship. Moreover, I have just detained some passengers who were going on this ship, because there are no troops on these islands, and a hundred soldiers have to go immediately as a reenforcement, although the weather is tempestuous. I expect to be one of them, if the governor will give me permission. These enemies, who have in truth remained here, are a warlike people: and if your Excellency do not provide by this ship, and reenforce us with a thousand soldiers, these islands can be of little value. May your Excellency with great prudence provide what is most necessary for his Majesty’s service, since we have no resource other than the favor your Excellency shall order to be extended to us. The governor was disposed to send assistance to the ship, which was a very important affair; but after these events he will not be able to do it, because there do not remain in this city seventy men who can bear arms. May our Lord guard the most illustrious and excellent person of your Excellency and increase your estate, as you Excellency’s servants desire. From Cabite, June 25, 1582. Moat excellent and illustrious sir, your servant kisses your Excellency’s hands."
JUAN BAPTISTA ROMAN

Perhaps the above account will give you a more complete picture of who the wako were, and what they were capable of.

Peace,

David

James Chambers, The Devil's Horsemen--The Mongol Invasion of Europe.

Chambers describes Székesfehérvár (the ancient burial place of the Hungarian Kings) as "Stuhlweissenburg" (the German name for the same town).

The Austrians under Frederick had been victorious in a couple of skirmishes with the Mongols (one in which the mysterious English ex-Templar with the Mongol Army had been captured).  Frederick challenged two of the Mongol prisoners to single combat--he skewered one with his lance, and chopped off the arm of the other with his sword.

"My reply was:

"Europeans did fight against the samurai--in the 16th century.  The Spanish in the Philippines had to deal with Sino-Japanese pirates (wako) often, during the 1570s and 1580s.  The fact that the Spanish had firearms is a moot point, because the wako had them too!  The fighting involved a mixture of missile weapons (arquebuses and bows) and melee weapons (polearms and swords). 

And the Spanish won."

As I have already indicated, there were samurai within the ranks of the wako, and they fought with the same type of weapons (swords, spears, naginata, arquebuses, etc)."

But he never mentioned the japanese. But since you didn't claim it, you seem to mean it when you said Spain won. 

"Secondly, Ch'i-Chi-kuang's "record" is not the only one which describes the wako, so your declaration that "their main weapon is archery and not the musket" doesn't hold up under fire (pun very much intended). "

No but all other ming records record the same thing.

"Here's a Spanish account of fighting in the Philippines in the 1580s, which offers a considerably different picture"

Now that its clear, it proves even less, the battle was faught on sea or attacking a fortification rather than on the ground, tactics employed on sea is vastly different from organization on ground. In such cases, both Qi Ji Guan and Yi sun Shin have annililated far greater odds against wo kou boats.It also mentions sant jusepe overcame the Wo kou ship with artillery. The wo kou boat that fought obviously lacked artillery. Whuile the spanish record of those other ships that did have "plentity of artillery" doesn't show that they actually fired it, nor were they destroyed, they just didn't take the ship.

"Perhaps the above account will give you a more complete picture of who the wako were, and what they were capable of."

The equipment of the wo kou is probably different from Qi Ji guan's time to this. But obviously this battle still doesn't show that Wo kou army is anything on the level of firepower and organization that Nobunaga's army is. The fight doesn't indicate any organization whatsoever. Its too shallow to indicate any view on their comparison with the official Japanese troops.

mmmh, don't have that book, any other source that mantions abotu this event? and on what primary sources is this based on?

Ralph payne is pro asian and exaggerated the range of the automatic cross bows and it's magazine size. The automatic crossbow was absolutely worthless on the battle field. The mongols have suffered a great number of serious defeats which led to it's withdraw from europe. Many of you people just read english sources about the chinese and they can be way off. I read chinese books about the chinese history and know what they are exactly like. The idea of arabs preserving the greek knowledge is incorrect. Europe was never less advanced in technology than the arabs and more advanced in the theoretical sciences like mathematics. the reason that the europeans were so strong is their culture. the western culture was more democratic than the east. The arab and chinese kings are extremely fataous and wasteful that the eruopean kings were more wise and controlled under the democratic system.

If I can remember correctly, it was the Arabs who introduced the idea of democracy to Europe via renaissance.  The idea came from the Greeks/Romans, which were burried due to the fall of Rome.  In between there was a dark period where Europeans believe all this Witchcraft superstition (inquisition in which incriminated died one way or another w/o representation!), which I would not call democratic at all

Also, the medieval way of court was the following.  The prosecutor and defendant both raised their swords for a deathmatch dual.  The winner was considered to have the hand of god thus worthy!  That's not democratic!

I don't remember any instances of that...?  Can you elaborate more?

I don't buy that, because I know that you cannot read chinese in the first place.

First about the court system, you are making your self look stupid by saying that. I can't believe you. And the chinese literacy thing, I'm chinese then why can't I read chinese? You are again making your self look like a shallow person by guessing my abilities.

*Voice Change*: His Holiness djdjd dosn't belive that dueling-trials existed so whoever says they did must be stupid!  Logical?

Here is a paragraph on medieval justice: Dueling is metioned. http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/justice.htm - http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/justice.htm

How do we really know that you are Chinese? I may as well as claim that I am Chinese and then claim that I read ancient texts as well! Any idiot can claim to be Chinese who read millions of Chinese history books for the matter. Bring sources to back up your fantastical claims.

Bring your proofs on European Monarchial-Democracy. You sound like a White Supremeist to me.

Totally agreed mod. Except for the dueling thing - "Honour" sometimes played a greater role than the religion. If one strikes thee on the right cheek thrust the knife into...

Friend dsjdsj,may i ask you 1 simple question,since you said you're Chinese,why did you call me cheap Asian jerk? Even if you want to flame or insult me(which i will just take it as a joke)you obviously won't say cheap Asian jerk because Chinese are also Asian. If one Asian wish to flame/insult other fellow Asian they will only say "you're a jerk" and without the word Asian.

In this case i believe you're non Asian instead you're just white European/American and since you claimed to know who the Chinese or any other Asians are then please enlighten me about them or else just stop making assumption/conclusion and try to learn from other competent members instead of assuming/making conclusion without prove and evidence.

Take note(for friend dsjdsj) that i'm not saying i'm an expert in anything nor i'm trying to challenge you in history or other thing and this post is not for offending you either but i do hope you will not starting to flame me or others.

I apologize if anyone feel offended about this post.

Warhead,

He DID mention the Japanese--read it again:

Peace,

David

He was a noble/knight who was exiled from England, made his way across Europe, into the middle east. There, he gambled away his fortune. When the mongols came by, he signed up as a mercenary.

Sounds like a movie.

"The Last Mongol"
Starring Tom Cruise

If you can't read then don't bother to ask me things. I already pointed out that you called me racist and what I said bullsh*t. This is the second time people talked about this. If you miss it this time then you got problems.

"I already pointed out that you called me racist and what I said bullsh*t."

... Your sentence dosn't make sense. So he called you racist, and then you suddenly said BS?

"go to hell you are an cheap asian jerk"

So you are a "Chinese"  and you insult people as "Asian jerks"....

I think this member should be seriously banned for racism

"Europe was never less advanced in technology than the arabs and more advanced in the theoretical sciences like mathematics. the reason that the europeans were so strong is their culture."

But it sure is weird that no book i have ever read has mentioned this part. Probably a conspiracy form Asian historians! But you are probably right because a mans word is a mans word. The Arabs also probably started organizing Al-Qaeda cells from 632.AD, fell to being barbarians and the Spanish made the Pyrenean peninsula into the most culturally advanced area of Europe and the Arabs then left the sciences for Europe!!!!!

Get real dsjdsj, the Arabs were more advanced in modern terms from Europeans for atleast from the 8th century to the 12th. Those centuries come from my head, but at that time period it was like it was, the Arabs were the cultural overlords.

When did the cultural rise of Europe begin, from Dante Alighieri and Aquino Thomas or...

1.

This is from the website provided by Evildoer .

2. translate both of these:

äñãæÊÆÔþ Ü÷ëð

Warhead,

Your reading of the Spanish letter is rather selective, so I'll post the pertinent passages from it again:

The Japanese put out grappling-irons and poured two hundred men aboard the galley, armed with pikes and breastplates. There remained sixty arquebusiers firing at our men. Finally, the enemy conquered the galley as far as the mainmast. There our people also made a stand in their extreme necessity, and made the Japanese retreat to their ship.

So here, we have the Japanese boarding the Spanish galley in force.  They attacked at HTH, while being supported by a unit of arquebusiers.  They fought as far as the mainmast of the galley, and then were driven back.  Plenty of HTH fighting there.

They dropped their grappling-irons, and set their foresail, which still remained to them. At this moment the ship Sant Jusepe grappled with them, and with the artillery and forces of the ship overcame the Japanese; the latter fought valiantly until only eighteen remained, who gave themselves up, exhausted. Some men on the galley were killed, and among them its captain, Pero Lucas, fighting valiantly as a good soldier.

The above excerpt indicates that the Sant Jusepe did not overcome the wako vessel "with artillery"--the author states that the Sant Jusepe "grappled with them", and used both artillery and the "forces of the ship" (ie., the fighting men on board).

It's possible, though I doubt it.

Sounds like you're in denial about the situation overall, Warhead. 

TongShanThaiHiung said that Europeans and Japanese never fought in a melee situation, and I provided a couple of examples where they did, and won.

Peace,

David

Temujin,

James Chambers lists the following primary sources for The Devil's Horsemen:

The Secret History of the Mongols (a Chinese translation of a Mongol text which has not survived)

The Precious Summary (17th century chronicle by the Prince of Ordos)

The Campaigns of Chingis Khan (a Chinese history)

History of the World Conqueror by Juvaini

Compendium of Histories by Rashid ad-Din

La Flor ded Estories de la Terre d'Orient by Hayton the Monk

The Georgian Chronicle

The Chronicle of Novgorod

Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisei

Monumenta Germaniae Historica (collection of contemporary central European reports and chronicles)

Historia Tartarorum by Simon of Saint Quentin

Itinerarium et Historia Mongolorum by Giovanni de Plano Carpini

De Itinere ad Tartaros by Benedict the Pole

Itinerarium ad Partes Orientales by Willium of Rubruck

Chronica Majora by Matthew Paris

Peace,

David

I see...I will further research on that...

"Ralph payne is pro asian and exaggerated the range of the automatic cross bows and it's magazine size. The automatic crossbow was absolutely worthless on the battle field. "

Wrong.

"So here, we have the Japanese boarding the Spanish galley in force.  They attacked at HTH, while being supported by a unit of arquebusiers.  They fought as far as the mainmast of the galley, and then were driven back.  Plenty of HTH fighting there."

I neve rsaid there is no fighting, but its still a naval battle, with the problem of boarding and its organization is totally different than a field one.

"not overcome the wako vessel "with artillery"--the author states that the Sant Jusepe "grappled with them", and used both artillery and the "forces of the ship" (ie., the fighting men on board)."

Again I never said they never fought them with their hand, but artillery is one of the decisive weapons.

"Sounds like you're in denial about the situation overall, Warhead.  "

The situation just doesn't prove anything solid.

"TongShanThaiHiung said that Europeans and Japanese never fought in a melee situation, and I provided a couple of examples where they did, and won."

If you read his post careful he never mentioned the japanese. And he said that western melee isn't necessary superior, which was his point.