15th century English army, Hussite, Swiss pikeman vs Ottoman

Jan 2019
106
Southeast Asia
How do the

- 15th century English army of the 100 Years War

- Hussite

- Swiss pikeman

fare against the Ottoman of their respective period in a field battle with equal number?

I heard that those forces can defeat other European forces several times their size.

Also what happen if their territory is moved to border the Ottoman, can they repel an Ottoman invasion?


For bonus,
how do the 15th century Burgundian army of Charles the Bold or army of Maximilian I during the Swabian War fare against the Ottoman?
 
Last edited:
Jan 2019
106
Southeast Asia
English army loses.
Could you give a reason why?

Wouldn't the massed English longbowman could inflict more casualty than the relatively missile light army that the Ottoman face in the early 15th century?
 
Mar 2019
52
Belgium
At this time England was a minor power. It's just the anglo saxon movies which gives so many importance to England.
 
Sep 2016
1,280
Georgia
Wouldn't the massed English longbowman could inflict more casualty than the relatively missile light army that the Ottoman face in the early 15th century?
English forces are too small to compete with Ottomans. Even at Agincourt their army was only around 9000 men, by modern estimates. Not to mention, that English also relied on a strong defensive position.

Plus, England also lost the war in the end.
 
Mar 2019
106
Victoria, Australia
Are we doing like a 1000v1000 battle or like the total sum of their armies or something else?

If we're assuming the total force of the armies. then the ottomans would pretty much win every time. Their army was far larger than all the others listed, perhaps even combined and even if they were half-the quality/strength, the numbers would still pretty much guarantee their victory. However, they did deal with a lot of other problems roughly during that same time so it is unlikely that they could bring 100% of their forces to bear against a single enemy.

If we doing a set number. Then we can roughly say that the main forces the english used, to great effect, was levies and longbowmen. Hussites i'm not too familiar with but I believe there were more of a lighter-equipped army, more mobile and more along 'skirmishing' and cavalry-orientated armies. The Swiss where all about the pike and halberd (which they designed and used to extremely great effectiveness, dealing humiliating blows against the habsburgs and the burgundians).

The English lost the war against france due to many reason, but one of the them was funding and changing battlefield technologies and tactics. But, assuming they were on the defensive (which seemed to be their forte), they might fair better than the hussites which I think would fair better in an offensive rule. The swiss would probably fair the best in close-combat, but they would heavily suffer in any ranged-engagement which have always been their weakness.

A united army would compliment each other well I think.
 
Jan 2019
106
Southeast Asia
Are we doing like a 1000v1000 battle or like the total sum of their armies or something else?

If we're assuming the total force of the armies. then the ottomans would pretty much win every time. Their army was far larger than all the others listed, perhaps even combined and even if they were half-the quality/strength, the numbers would still pretty much guarantee their victory. However, they did deal with a lot of other problems roughly during that same time so it is unlikely that they could bring 100% of their forces to bear against a single enemy.

If we doing a set number. Then we can roughly say that the main forces the english used, to great effect, was levies and longbowmen. Hussites i'm not too familiar with but I believe there were more of a lighter-equipped army, more mobile and more along 'skirmishing' and cavalry-orientated armies. The Swiss where all about the pike and halberd (which they designed and used to extremely great effectiveness, dealing humiliating blows against the habsburgs and the burgundians).

The English lost the war against france due to many reason, but one of the them was funding and changing battlefield technologies and tactics. But, assuming they were on the defensive (which seemed to be their forte), they might fair better than the hussites which I think would fair better in an offensive rule. The swiss would probably fair the best in close-combat, but they would heavily suffer in any ranged-engagement which have always been their weakness.

A united army would compliment each other well I think.
The scenario is free for you to decide.

How about:

1. Equal number (so we examine their quality) field combat with each of the listed (not combined) in a flat grass plain or a forest like Agincourt with say 10.000 each.

2. Equal number field combat with combination of the 3 in a flat grass plain or a forest like Agincourt with 15.000 for the Ottoman and 5000 Hussites, 5000 Swiss and 5000 English, the proportion follow what each army usually use.

2. The listed forces join a Crusade somehow, after seeing that the Ottoman is a threat to all of Europe, other European forces did not attack them and provide supply as they went to invade Ottoman territory. If the first invasion fail, the Ottoman will attack again the same way the Ottoman face against Vlad III Dracula.
3. Their forces are combined to defend the border of Hungary to face a full invasion by the Ottoman.


I think the problem for all of these forces is the lack of good tactical maneuverability in a battle and even less strategic mobility, but if they are defending against Ottoman attack I think they should fare better than the usual enemy the Ottoman face.

They should be wary if the Ottoman feint retreat to draw them from their position.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
106
Victoria, Australia
Defending is almost always easier and... well.. you get defensive advantage in that you get to choose many circumstances.
but, let's assume for each of those:

1: I would say the swiss might well have a good chance here. Agincourt had a muddy field that slowed down the cavalry - and we can't just assume this. I say the swiss because if they manage to close the gap, they may well be able to win with a push of pike. the problem is that the ottomans may well just deny them battle and pepper them with arrows

2. At that point, I think the ottoman are on the suffering side since you have three armies that compliment each other well. If this is a crusade you can expect kings or competant leaders to lead them. So, I definitely think that the united army stands a chance. the problem is that it might well become like the crusade of Richard the Lionheart. Wins every battle but fails to win the overall campaign since whilst the ottomans can simply draw up another army, the invaders cannot so easily reinforce themselves.


3. This is effectively #2 but in defensive -- which I would say favours the united army much more.
 
Apr 2017
1,640
U.S.A.
All these forces working together against the Ottomans would be like the Varna crusade, nobody coordinated and as a result the Ottomans won. Also of note it that the Ottomans were a gunpowder empire (they used a lot of non-gunpowder weapons of course too), this was a significant threat to many of the mentioned powers (partly why the Swiss and Hussites stopped being as successful).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gvelion
Mar 2016
1,222
Australia
At this time England was a minor power. It's just the anglo saxon movies which gives so many importance to England.
England certainly was not a "minor power" in the 15th century, or specifically in the first half of the 15th century. Their population was small compared to France or the Ottomans, definitely, but the had a highly effective military by Western European standards, and under good leadership (e.g. Edward III, Henry V) could be a powerhouse, especially in pitched battles. There's a reason why they managed to conquer half of France twice in sixty years despite having barely a quarter of France's population or economy.