Which militaries throughout History have the most misinformed fanbase?

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,045
T'Republic of Yorkshire
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.
The Japanese would have poured volley fire into the hussars. Nobunaga knew how to deal with cavalry.

You're entitled to your opinion, based as it is on ignorance.
 
Jul 2016
8,411
USA
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
Actually, based on actual historical analysis they weren't that bad.

The demise of Roman citizen cavalry came not because they weren't effective in combat, but because the lowliest trooper cost the same as a centurion in terms of pay, plus the cost of the public horse, whereas foreign cavalry the only thing Romans paid for was feed for the animals and a small portion of booty at the end of the campaign.

By the Late Republic, the Equestrian Class was essentially running the economy, so pulling them for constant military service was more than just an inconvenience for them, it was a detriment to the state. On top of that, there was an increased push to serve in other roles, like a contubernales/quasi staff officer, as centurions, tribunes for those chasing legitimate higher commands/political careers. So it seems after a while they simply stopped recruiting the Equestrians as Roman citizen cavalry and used them differently or not at all.
 
Likes: macon

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,045
T'Republic of Yorkshire
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.
As it goes, the sword was never a primary battlefield weapon. It was always a backup weapon, with spears being the main weapon of both samurai and ashigaru.
 
Sep 2014
801
Texas
The Mongols had small horses too. Worked for them,
Nonhorse people have often looked at size to judge a horse's value. The toughest horse on the planet is a nondescript looking horse called a Karbardin. Mongolian horses have the same ancestors as the Celtc pony....they are both small and what else? They carry the large heart gene...same with American Indian ponies. Do you know what breed has the most animals carrying this gene? Shetland ponies. Plus larger animals require more food than smaller range bred horses. The horses that survived the charge of the light brigade ended up starving to death on land that kept Dons fat.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,675
Slovenia
The Japanese would have poured volley fire into the hussars. Nobunaga knew how to deal with cavalry.

You're entitled to your opinion, based as it is on ignorance.
Nobunaga was behind a wooden stockade and Takedas were running around because they were not able to break a stockade. Japanese were not able to break a massed infantry formation with their small horses and a wooden stockade with a massed infantry behind it even less. Hussars would never even try doing it because they were not led by Katsuyoris.

As I wrote and was considered in this forum: musketeers were having enough time for one volley before cavalry in full charge reached them. Others also provided proofs that a single volley produced only few casualties among cavalrymen.
 
Dec 2018
49
Cheyenne
As it goes, the sword was never a primary battlefield weapon. It was always a backup weapon, with spears being the main weapon of both samurai and ashigaru.
That's certainly the case in massed formation. Ive seen the polearms used by the Japanese when I visited Okazaki castle. Certainly nasty pieces of work. However, the samurai loved the close with their opponents and engage in melee combat whenever they had the opportunity to do so, as taking ears and heads was considered the only way to verify defeated opponents. There was a Korean general who was decapitated in single combat during the imjin war, and Korean soldiers generally feared Japanese swordsmanship
 
Feb 2016
4,225
Japan
I don’t think Samurai were overrated.

Samurai swords certainly are by laymen and fanboys alike.
Samurai are just a Japanese knightly cast. By Nobunagas day their armies were mostly Ashigaru anyway... a Japanese army would be large, and have a lot of firepower.
 
Feb 2011
6,231
For those genuinely interested in Japanese warfare, the Gunbai blog is the place to go: Gunbai: Ancient Japanese Warfare

It includes things like addressing misconceptions of Japanese swordmaking (ie the misconception that it developed from an "iron-poor" area), armor, infantry tactics, etc....

He's also a great artist too, this was his sketch of the most protective configuration of the Tose Gusoku:

 

Similar History Discussions