Which militaries throughout History have the most misinformed fanbase?

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,675
Slovenia
They weren't fighting Europeans. Their horses were more than adequate for the kind of warfare they were fighting.
They were not having better choice, that's true. But with European horses their warfare would have been different.

It would be fun to see polish winged hussars of later 15th century fighting Takeda. :)

Poor samurais, so young and so dead. :'(

Also their armor was also not much if compared to European plates. How correct is my impression that it was as European armor from early middle ages, Franks of Charlemagne for example? Was it comparable to a chain mail?
 
Mar 2019
286
Kansas
They were having small horses not really capable of cavalry charges against infantry. European horse would clear them off the field.
Well you can only work with what you have. The Romans were useless on horses. They just went and conquered some people who knew the front from the back of a horse and gave them the job instead
 
Sep 2014
801
Texas
Patton fans. While Patton was a decent general, he had some serious flaws. Most of them were "cool, edgy warrior flaws" such as over-aggression and over-enthusiasm for battle. Other, less cool flaws were his total lack of diplomacy.

Close to this are "Lost Cause" fans of the Confederacy. Enough said: you lost a war you shouldn't have started in the first place. Instead of raising an army to resist Lincoln (and causing a war in which brother slew brother), you should have abolished slavery. All the money spent on war probably would have more than financially compensated slave owners for the lost wealth.

The king of all misinformed fanbases is the cult of Napoleon Bonaparte. Personally, I respect Napoleon in many ways. But his fanbases continuous actions of:

-Unfairly blaming his subordinates for his failures. Boney, you should have listened to Davout in Russia and Talleyrand in regards to Spain.

-Forgetting his war crimes. I've been over this before, but the conduct of the French Army 'living off the land" involved stealing food from peasants, raping them, and torturing them for information on where their food was. And by torture, I mean hanging women and children upside down over burning fires. They were confirmed to have done specific crime in Portugal, and likely elsewhere as well.

-His bitch-like excuse making over Waterloo. Bonaparte fans either claim Wellington was an idiot who got lucky and was saved by Blucher or he was failed by the incompetence of Grouchy or Ney. Sometimes, it's both. It's obvious from historical records Wellington fought at Mont St. Jean on the guarantee of Prussian support, and Blucher's arrival was part of his plan.

As to the failings of Ney and Grouchy, these hold a lot more water, IMO. Had Grouchy maneuvered better, he might have cut off Blucher from Wellington, forcing the Iron Duke to withdraw to Brussels, dragging out the campaign, potentially giving Napoleon the chance to attack Wellington without Prussian support. Ney's uncoordinated cavalry charge was a worse disaster than Cardigan and the Light Brigade.

Paralleling history, Wellington 'fans' are much more magnanimous to Napoleon than Napoleon fans are to Wellington.
1. Most people don't know much about Patton these days. Horse people know who he is because of this....Operation Cowboy – How American GIs & German Soldiers Joined Forces to Save the Legendary Lipizzaner Horses in the Final Hours of WW2 - MilitaryHistoryNow.com

2. Lost Cause....yeah .....funny though that the people who actually fought them had more compassion than armchair generals do today.

3. I really don't know much about Napoleon.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,045
T'Republic of Yorkshire
They were not having better choice, that's true. But with European horses their warfare would have been different.

It would be fun to see polish winged hussars of later 15th century fighting Takeda. :)
It really doesn't matter. The Japanese were more than adequate for the enemies they were fighting. If they had faced winged hussars throughout their history, their tactics would have been different.

The Japanese of the 15th century would simply fill them full of arrows. The Japanese of the 16th century would fill them full of lead.

Also their armor was also not much if compared to European plates. How correct is my impression that it was as European armor from early middle ages, Franks of Charlemagne for example? Was it comparable to a chain mail?
The Japanese had chain mail, and their armour was made up of overlapping metal plates. By the late 16th century, quality samurai armour was bulletproof, and they had plate breastplates. So yeah, Japanese armour was entirely comparable to European armour.
 
Mar 2019
286
Kansas
The Mongols had small horses too. Worked for them,
The Mongols were an interesting lot. They were super highly mobile in a time when most warfare was very slow moving and dense formations. I also think the Mongols would take the Polish Hussars, simply run them around till their horses are tired....then let them have it.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,675
Slovenia
The Mongols were an interesting lot. They were super highly mobile in a time when most warfare was very slow moving and dense formations. I also think the Mongols would take the Polish Hussars, simply run them around till their horses are tired....then let them have it.
Mongols were not stupid to fight head on heavy western cavalries. Japanese were a different lot in my opinion. Open charges were their standard way of fighting. I think that many of Kyushu samurais died in repeated charges against Mongols when they landed on Kyushu.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,675
Slovenia
It really doesn't matter. The Japanese were more than adequate for the enemies they were fighting. If they had faced winged hussars throughout their history, their tactics would have been different.

The Japanese of the 15th century would simply fill them full of arrows. The Japanese of the 16th century would fill them full of lead.



The Japanese had chain mail, and their armour was made up of overlapping metal plates. By the late 16th century, quality samurai armour was bulletproof, and they had plate breastplates. So yeah, Japanese armour was entirely comparable to European armour.
Japanese would have had a time for two arrows and one bullet each until polish hussars would have been all over them... Also those guys were charging five to ten times more numerous enemies all the time and breaking them in most cases. Western or eastern armies, it did not matter to them. Swedes, Germans, cossacks, Russians and Turks were all trampled by them for a two centuries or so.

Japanese were not much in battlefield tactics in my opinion, they would not pose much of a challenge to few thousands of polish hussars.
 
Dec 2018
50
Cheyenne
The Japanese performed very well against Korea and Ming China in land battles during the Imjin War. No reason to assume they wouldn't equally be as competent against a late middle ages European army. Japanese swordsmanship was the real deal. They were ruthless, merciless and highly motivated soldiers the Korean texts show.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions