What are in your opinion the greatest Asian empire ever, not counting the Middle East?

Feb 2019
345
California
#38
Not all of it, but under Edward III in the 1350's-60's and Henry V in the 1410s/20s they certainly conquered a very large part of it, in both cases all of the west and much of the north.
I will mostly agree but with a caveat, WAA. Henry did (through military poweress) get France to acknowledge that his son* would rule all of France. But it wasn't via conquering all of France and it really never became a thing (as the young folk say).

*Of course the lad's mother was a Daughter of France. And Agincourt is very overrated as a great feat of arms. More like slaughtering all the defenseless schmucks who got caught up in that Cincinnati Who concert than a glorious triumph, if you ask me
 
Mar 2016
1,091
Australia
#39
And Agincourt is very overrated as a great feat of arms. More like slaughtering all the defenseless schmucks who got caught up in that Cincinnati Who concert than a glorious triumph, if you ask me
This is not true at all. Agincourt was an absolutely gruelling battle after the initial archers and cavalry phase, descending into a giant mosh-pit of infantry hacking away it each other for hours on end in the rain and mud. Even Henry V personally fought alongside his soldiers in the melee, because it was so desperate. It's a common misconception that Agincourt was won easily by the English by simply shooting a lot of arrows at the French as they ran at them. The effectiveness of the English longbows was only relevant in the first stage against the French heavy cavalry, and even then it was more to the credit of the conditions of the day, since the thick mud meant they had to dismount their horses because they couldn't pick up enough speed. The French had far greater numbers than the English, including more infantry, and they actually possessed cavalry unlike the English (who had none), and they were fighting in home territory. The English victory is a remarkable testament to good leadership, defensive thinking and sheer physical endurance and courage. A lesser army led by a lesser commander (like the French were) would have been crushed. Had the French simply waited for reinforcements from the King, who was nearby, and had not attacked the English's defensive position, they would have easily beat them. I don't see how you could describe the French as "defenceless" since they had far greater numbers and were the ones attacking.
 
Feb 2019
345
California
#40
I know the arrows thing is a myth. Recent "scholarship" suggests that what actually occurred however was a "crowd disaster" similar to British soccer mob-crushed-me-against-the-fence or Who stampede caused by all the mud and the funnel shape of the approach to the Anglos.