Comparison of the Ming, Mughal and Japanese militaries in the 1590s

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,219
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Spain never really fully mobilized for the invasion of England, I am pretty sure even the army of Flanders didn't send over their full strength. Spain had a lot more troops in the mainland and southern Italy, all in all it managed to field 300,000 soldiers during the 30 years war which happened a few decades later.

Imjin war landings happened in waves where as the Spanish attempted a crossing in one move. The Spaniards probably would have won the war if they were in a position to do this.
The Japanese landed at least 15,000 men in Korea on April 13th-14th, which is around half of the number that the Spanish planned to use to cross the Channel. Overall, the Japanese used well over 200,000 troops in the war (and that lasted a lot less than 30 years...) - so yes, although it did happen in waves, they were very large waves that were comparable to the size of the entire armies of Europe.
 
Jan 2017
7
Australia
Toward end of the 16th century, it'll be about 0.5 Liang per dan for grain, while quickly increased to 1 Liang per dan in mid 17th.


从我的 iPhone 发送,使用 Tapatalk
 
Apr 2019
1
The Western Hemisphere
The Japanese landed at least 15,000 men in Korea on April 13th-14th, which is around half of the number that the Spanish planned to use to cross the Channel. Overall, the Japanese used well over 200,000 troops in the war (and that lasted a lot less than 30 years...) - so yes, although it did happen in waves, they were very large waves that were comparable to the size of the entire armies of Europe.
Japanese count supply troops as well as actual combatant, unlike Europe, don't they?
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
interesting to know some break down of troops incorporated from various north indian regions from the seventeenth century, bihar share seems to be even lower than bengal.

i wonder where did bihar went wrong from maurya and gupta empires? or these empires also hired most of their armies from abroad and not magadh/bihar region which doesnt make sense because the initial magadh must have expanded from its own region and must have utilized the magadhan and bihari soldiers from mithila, bhojpur etc.

Punjab's share has been overwhelmingly high, just like present times as well.

considering bihar is the third most populated places in india, its incomprehensible why it has such a tiny share esp given its military/empire making history and even its high population. Bengal as well due to its large pala empire not so long ago as well.

it may have something to do with pathan population at various regions and bihar share must have been lower in it, since i have heard dehli sultanate esp hired most of their troops non indian, dont know the reason why but i have read it to be the case.

it would also be interesting to compare mughal army with the rest like maratha empire army break down etc.

racist colonist also grouped indians according to their martial ability of the hindus and bengal and bihar seem to have got the short end of the stick

regards
 
Last edited: