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

Jan 2019
106
Southeast Asia
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).
Didn't Varna was lost because the crusader did not deploy Hussite wagon tactic and the king attack the Ottoman head on which lead to his death?

They also didn't have Swiss pike tactics or longbowman.

Considering that each of those 3 can win by themselves against greater numbers, I think even when uncoordinated they could still fare better than the forces at Varna. Of course, the whole fight depend on if the Ottoman have good artillery during the 15th century or not, I know they have it in the 16th century, but I don't know if their field artillery is as good in 15th century.

These 3 are mostly tactically defensive army, although the Swiss charge their enemy.

Their defeat are often from what I understand come from falling to feint retreat or breaking their formation.


English defeat due to breaking formation and charged from the flank:

Battle of Formigny - Wikipedia


Lithuanian defeat because they leave their Wagenburg to a feint retreat:

Battle of the Vorskla River - Wikipedia


Hussite defeat from feint retreat:

Battle of Lipany - Wikipedia


Swiss defeat from pikes and crossbow fire:

Battle of Arbedo - Wikipedia



However here the English can counter Ottoman archer and cavalry attack, the Swiss can protect against sudden cavalry attack when charging and the Hussites provide a good tactic if the 3 fall back to defensive positions. I doubt the Ottoman infantry could stand against the Swiss and dismounted English man at arms.

The artillery could be charged by both the Swiss and the English on foot or countered by Swiss or Hussite artillery.
 
Jan 2019
106
Southeast Asia
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.
I think the reason they are defeated is that the English lack manpower and could not replace their number as easily as the French, if their population and economy is equal, the English would probably never be driven away from France.

From what I read, the Burgundian army of Charles the Bold combine various aspect of 15th century European army like artillery, crossbowman, dismounted man at arms and it even have English longbowman in their rank. It seems that their defeat to the Swiss is from bad generalship of Charles and bad luck.

How good are they compared to the English or Ottoman?

Also why is such innovation such as pikes and arquebus are not used against the Ottoman in 15th century?
 
Mar 2016
1,222
Australia
I think the reason they are defeated is that the English lack manpower and could not replace their number as easily as the French, if their population and economy is equal, the English would probably never be driven away from France.

From what I read, the Burgundian army of Charles the Bold combine various aspect of 15th century European army like artillery, crossbowman, dismounted man at arms and it even have English longbowman in their rank. It seems that their defeat to the Swiss is from bad generalship of Charles and bad luck.

How good are they compared to the English or Ottoman?

Also why is such innovation such as pikes and arquebus are not used against the Ottoman in 15th century?
Can't speak in too much detail on the question regarding the 15th century Burgundians, but the Nicopolis crusade of 1396 was led primarily by the Burgundians and was absolutely destroyed by the Ottomans, although that isn't really because of their lack of skill but due to other factors.
 

At Each Kilometer

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
4,006
Bulgaria
Nicopol was mentioned. Many different factions fought against early ottoman army, John the fearless, the heir of Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy with his French knights, Sigismund, king of Hungary with his army, contingents from the HRE and Poland, support of Genoa and Venice, knights of the Teutonic Order and Hospitallers etc. Bayezid
was victorious, a famous early Ottoman sultan mainly due to what Timur did to him after the disaster at Ankara several years later. Just read that Timur's body was exhumed from his tomb days before the start of Barbarossa operation and an inscription inside it was found 'whomsoever opens my tomb shall unleash an invader more terrible than I'. Godwin's law :)