This is around when Europe's got the heavy crossbows, plate armor, big charger knights and whatnot.

And this is... Ming China then, yeah? What would a clash of such armies had been like?

Would the Chinese find their bolts bouncing off plate and defeated? Or would Europeans be exausted by Chinese mobility and defeated?

I would say that leadership would be important here in determining the victory condition. I think Ming would have great advantages during Yongle leadership. Again, cannon was already in use by the Ming army at that time. This could give an great advantages over the Europe army.

agincourt was a victory of longbowmen over french plate armoured knights so i dont see how the europeans could win

delete

Actually it is rather incorrect to say that the longbows won agincourt. The ground chosen as the site for battle, the conditions etc all played their part. The truth is even at close range a longbow wont pierce plate armour.

That seems more correct, Agincourt is simplified into 'Longbow vs. Plate' far too often. The proportion of French wearing plate, the movement of the formations, the boggy ground etc. all seems to be left out of it.
There have been some pretty indepth discussions on this subject elsewhere....and along with experiments of Longbows versus plate found that the armour is very effective at turning arrows at even an optimum angle....it takes a chisel point specifically and a direct hit at short range to stand a chance....not an volley in an arc.

These various 'versus' threads just keep popping up. Seeking answers to hypotheticals that can't be satisfactorily answered.
WHich is better; Coke or Pepsi? Does one really have to be better than the other?

How about comparing weapons and tactics of each without the unnessecary 'versus' since nobody ever outlines the numbers, terrain, location or scenario by which these armies meet.

coke is better. pepsi is too sweet! But then again, Dr. Pepper's pretty good too.

Ok, seriously, Kenneth has a valid point. All these verses type treads seek answers that can't ever be satisfactory for either point of view.

Well, the longbowmen were Europeans too, right?

IIRC, the most formidable European infantry of the 15th century were the close-packed Swiss pikemen. Wouldn't such close-packed formations be very vulnerable to massed Ming firearms? Plate armor also would be no protection against the firearms.

Since Europe wasn't unified in the 15th century, I have a hard time seeing any one European state whose army could have beaten a Ming army.

The Ming firearms during this time was definitely more advanced than Europe. The multi-ple cannons can blow up the European knights of this time.

Well the firearms of the time didn't have much range and required a gunner to manualy ignite the gunpowder which necesitated the use of a bipod. That limited the rate of fire would very limited even with rotation. Plus pikeman can sprint quickly over quite a long distance even with their heavy equipment. In any case the early 15th century no army would make an heavy use of firearms.

The Swiss pikemen even after introduction to gunpowder were very reluctant to give up their fighting styles for gunpowder. Maybe it has something to do with their effectiveness.

early guns were no match for the rate of fire, accuracy and in many cases, range of bows and crossbows. Only the increasing cheapness of manufacture, ease of training and increasing range, power and accuracy of gunpowder weapons forced traditional range weapons out of service.

But with a versus theme, people post as much as they know on their respective sides to give an idea of who had what.

Perhaps kennth does not have a bad idea. Rather than turning into a versus thread we simply turn it into a project of discovering as much about both sides as we can. And each can take from that info what they will. If we organise it right we can get some decent info and discussion.

And while it may be counter productive to compare two states, I imagine it would be perfectly possible to compare things such as training recieved by chinese spearmen vs european spearman

that's what happens in the versus threads tho', what happened in the HvR one.

Well, I'm seeing a lot of disagreement with me on the issue of the power of the Ming firearms. I think Liang Jieming and others are right that firearms replaced longbows and crossbows more because they were easier to train with and becoming cheaper.

What I had in my head, though, was that the 15th-century Ming firearms were already at the level the Europeans had achieved by the start of the Thirty Years' War. And by the start of the Thirty Years' War, the Swiss pikemen had already proven too vulnerable to firearms to survive on the battlefield.

Is my conception of the level of 15th-century Ming firearms exaggerated?

I think about 2/5ths of overall forces were armed with firearms, according to the big phat hardcover book I just got.

I don't think so. But the problem with firearms according to Ji Xiao Xin Shu with raw, inexperienced and lousy soldiers is that they're not maintained properly, they tend to fire it too early, and then they run away when they missed...

I can tell you this, European armor will be very, very hard to penetrate.

The first firearms can not penetrate, the longbow, crossbows, Spears swords etc.

All these weapons had a very, very hard time penetrating….

Not including that European armor is lighter than what you think it is.

I think it depends on whether we are talking of the early or late 1400's.

Early 1400's: Ming army is formidable, excellent training, most advanced gunpowder technology in the world, and a gigantic fleet. Not to mention the warlikeness of the first few emperors.

late 1400's : Military has declined, corruption has lessened the efficiency of Chinese armies, the emperor's are neo confucian weaklings. and of course, European guns have surpassed those of China.

Yes, but gunpowder weapons had some other advantages, e.g cannon had a higher rate of fire, and required less man power than the trebuchet, and later cannon were also more powerful.

In Europe, the key factor was cost. Any 14thc smith could make a handgun, they were cheaper than crossbows almost from the start.

what was the most powerful military power in early 1400 europe, and how did they fight?

The various participants in the hundred years war were all very powerful, France, England, Burgundy, Gascony, and smaller states. Also large numbers of mercinaries had been involved. However the Tutonic Knights in the North and Hungarians in the East were also constantly at war.

Tactics were very varied and were finely tuned to the particular opponants and terrain faced. In Western Europe the men at arms (full plate armour, with a selection of weapons), archers (the term was used for longbowmwn and crossbowmen, mostly well armoured and multi armed) and heavy infantry (pikemen, spearmen, billmen, partizanmen, halberdeers etc all heavily armoured) dismounted to fight and used lots of field fortifications to improve their position. handgunners were used both en masse and as skirmish screens.
All men at arms and most others had horses and could fight mounted if necessary. Cannon were widely used.

Late Medieval warfare is a big subject, too much for posts in forums.

Tadamson, would you say then that Chinese armies would be equally match, or outclassed?

Not in the early half of the 15th century. The Swiss pikemen really only developed to its height until the end of that century.
Prior to that European infantry can't charge in formation, they are not disciplined enough to do that. They could only keep a formation in static mode and thats very vulnerable to mobile cavalry horse archery tactics.

The knights, however, by this time was already quite discipline in formational charges and retreats. But they still lack horse archery and systematic organizations of flexible changes during the battle.

The whole reason why Swiss infantry was so successful is because they could charge while in formation, and that was a big advantage against the cavalry. Yet at its initial stage they are pike dominated and less flexible.
The weaponry and armament should be comparable in advantage of different areas. But in missile, the Ming was still more developed. Continetal Europe focused on the crossbow, but they did not have the counermarch, England focused on the Longbow, but none manage to use both to effect. While Ming had both composite and crossbows. The firearm is actually comparable. But at this date it would have little decisive advantage.

There are too many factors. Army effectivness depends on leadership, logistics, experience, moral, training, equipment . All of these are tied to the terrain in which you fight and the enemies you face. Both sides would have made significant changes if faced with the other.

eg. The English armies of the time were predominantly horse archers, but of a very different type to those of the East (longbows, heavy armour, dismounting to fight, etc) but they operated in an entirely diffferent environment (one that destroys composite bows very quickly incidently).

"The English armies of the time were predominantly horse archers, but of a very different type to those of the East (longbows, heavy armour, dismounting to fight, etc) but they operated in an entirely diffferent environment (one that destroys composite bows very quickly incidently)."

The Ming infantry and cavalry is no less heavy. The Ming shockers of the period had a combination of steel chain and scale. But the fighting methods is indeed different. But the advantage is much more on the Ming's side if its in 1400. Since as already been stated, European infantry of the time are not highly disciplined and are very vulnerable to deceptions. The Mongols has alerady shown that. And in 1400, its little better. Only the armament, weaponry and certain cavalry units were better. And in this case the Ming was also an improvement over the 13th century Eastern weapons.

By 1400 European infantry from the better counties (England, France, Germany most Italian states etc) were far better trained, disciplined and equipped than their Ming contemporaries (many were long term professionals). For 100 years they had dominated Western European battlefields.

They were hardly "far better" than the soldiers of the Hungwu/Yongle reign. the only advantage I can see is their equipment, which admittedly, outclassed that of the Ming.

"By 1400 European infantry from the better counties (England, France, Germany most Italian states etc) were far better trained, disciplined and equipped than their Ming contemporaries (many were long term professionals). For 100 years they had dominated Western European battlefields."

Wrong, only selected groups were professionals, while all of the Ming armies from the Wei Suo were professionals in an inherited military system. I will repeat again, European infantries at this time is undisciplined as a whole, they are not able to keep formation while attacking, the Ming has no problem of doing so. The Swiss infantry was the first European infantry that could do such.

Care to explain what equipment of European armies are better? Firearm on both sides are comparable, Ming actually has a more variety and percentage for its army. Armaments are comparable. The Mings were superior in missile weaponry. The Ming crossbow were superior in mechanism to its Euroepan counterparts, while the composite bow is efficient to the longbow in different aspects. Your claims are largely groundless.

Yes, Ming missile weapons were superior. But in terms of close combat equipment, European soldiers clad in full plate, wielding halberds, maces, and flails are obviously going to be hard to beat.

No, 1400 Europe did not have full plate, that only developed towards the very end of the 15th century. The best armour are mail reinforced with plates of various shapes over the back, abdomen and chest, most infantry of that time had chainmail. Plate is far too expensive to create even in late periods.
Plate is far from invulnerable, the Ming had numerous ways to destroy knights in armour. The Zhang Ma Dao has already proven to smash the helmet to a bulp when brought down, and on the joint, it would immedieately dislocate it when come in contact. If anything, the plate hampers certain reflex movements and would be disadvantage in this instance when they are brought against the heavy weapons of Ming arms. Of course chest protection might be another story, but such generalization has little evidence, the Zhang Ma Dao could easily cut through any form of scale or chain by a slight touch from the wielders. The plate just require a good hack to smack and dent. The ming also had mace and heavy handled weapon like the halberd and axe.

Actually, transitional plate armour has been in use since the 14th century, as my first post on this topic shows. In addition, regular troops could be equipped in munitions plate, which is protective but very uncomfortable due to the fact that it is not custom fitted to the wearer.



I'm well aware that the Ming had anti-armour weapons. But they were never designed to deal with the more protective European plate armour.

I heard of History channel show or something like that doing a test with attacking a full plate suit, and out of the various weapons used, only the zhanmadao actually cut through (the rest bashed/dented).

That's just something I've heard though, and it's been mentioned here before, I have no way of confirming it.

"Actually, transitional plate armour has been in use since the 14th century, as my first post on this topic shows. In addition, regular troops could be equipped in munitions plate, which is protective but very uncomfortable due to the fact that it is not custom fitted to the wearer."

I'm talking about full plate, the plate of 1400 has its advantage, but Ming scale have its own advantages. saying one is superior is simply generalizing and baseless.



"I'm well aware that the Ming had anti-armour weapons. But they were never designed to deal with the more protective European plate armour."

Care to explain? Because testing have been done and Zhang Ma Dao has no problem cutting right through the best plate armours of Europe.

So,when did the Ming infantry use brigadine type armor?

What are the advantages of Ming scale (by scale do you mean the kind that's stitched together that I call 'lamellar' ?)

I have the idea in my head that western chain/plate armor is the best in the world, and that bugs me. Any valid info to get rid of that feeling would be super!

things I would think of being... lamellar is cheaper/faster to make, easier to maintain, but those are not 'cool/impressive' positive points.

I do believe that full plate is the best armour. But partially plated knights have no advantage. Islamic armies used these as well from 15th century on. Ming scales are far more complicated designed and folded than European lamellars. And Ming chain mail were said to be so intricate that the Katana during the Imjin war makes absolutely no effect on it. Add to this were silk undercoats for the generals. In essense Ming infantry were just as missile resistant as Swiss pikemen(which were better armoured than most other European infantrymen). And their well trained heavy pollarm users nullify much of the advantage of plate armour especially when its not full plating, the arms joints are very vulnearble with the fact that they are chain mail.

It's still a matter of armies evolve to meed the specific threats and environment that they face, as such Western European and Chinese armies were different (not necessaraly better or worse). Even in Europe there was considerable variation.

eg French army 1415 (Agincourt a fairly well documented battle - yat there is still considerable academic discussion re numbers etc...).

The total French army was over 150,000 but only 12,000 to 20,000 actually fought.


The French first line was entirely dismounted men at arms in full plate harness. Ther were small groups of mounted men at arms on the flanks, a second line of heavily armoured archers and crossbowmen, then a third line of heavily armoured infantry with polearms (5-20% in plate harness), spears etc

Interestingly as the 15th c progressed many European infantry wore less ans less armour.

The thing is, early 15th century European army just isn't disciplined enough. Only the later half of 15th century does the European armies have comparison.
In 1400, the Knights were the major offensive weapons, the infantry are only a base of which the knights revolve around. While in China, the infantry takes just as much offensive role as the cavalry. For example the Yue Jia Jun used the MaZhaDao and the Tang used the MoDao to rush up against the heavy cavalries and completely cut them up to force them to retreat. This puts a disadvantage against the Euroepan knights since they have no mounted archers, the ZhangMaDao would do some serious damage. While the infantry would be at a disadvantage when its repeately harrassed by mounted archers and heavy cavalries which takes the initiative to berak their formation through the typical Liao style of repeated charging groups of ten until the enemy finally breaks their formation. Since the European infantry can't counterattack in cohesive formation, this would be deadly.
The Swiss infantry would be another story, , thats why I divide 1400s into two halfs.(or more)

Yes, and European plate is more protective than any form of scale, lamellar, or chain. But less flexible.



But the Zhanmadao is an anti-cavalry weapon. It would seldom be used against infantry.

Besides of that, I find it hard to believe that the Zhanmadao could cut through plate armour. Afterall, the Zhanmadao developed when heavy cavalry was the norm. And it was used to cut at the horses legs to bypass it's armour.

And less ventilation, less easy to maintain.

But all in all, full plate using high tampered steel is a good winning combination against similar units


Actually, it was an anti-horse weapon against cavalry charges. When the horse is down, the zhanmadao would then be turned against the rider who have just fallen which have proven to be extremely deadly.

The effect of the zhanmadao against armour is because of its good combination of blade and weight. Such was the formula in which most heavy weapons of the Song dynasty was based on. It wasn't so much as the cutting ability as much as the hacking ability.

More protective in terms of melee in general, but in missile resistance it has not shown any superiority.






read the Modao section in the arsenal, Yun has already posted its use. Li Siye's battle "At Xiangji Temple, he stripped off his armour and shirt, and stood roaring at the charging enemy cavalry in front of his troops. Under the strokes of his modao, an enemy cavalryman and his horse would both be chopped into pieces, and after he had killed several tens of the enemy this way, Li's troops stood their ground.

Not only was it for the horse, but for the armour in general, it could cut through men with armour and horse together in one stroke.
And cutting of full plate armour has been experimented, it disconnect the joints with ease in a downward swipe.

But remember, the rider would be wearing a suit of lamellar-not plate. And even then, Thomas Chen's post on Sung battle axes indicate that they were used to break the ribs of the rider, not cut them. Which would be significantly harder to achieve if the enemy was wearing plate.

Look, its been experimented, so guessing wouldn't matter. Cutting through scale and the whole arm together isn't more difficult to achieve then plate

Were these horse armoured as heavily as the age of fragmentation cataphracts or the later Sung and Jin heavy cavalry?

What kind of plate armour was this? Even the poleaxe had a hard time getting through top European plate armour.



Yes, you are right. But both lamellar and scale have gaps between the lames to exploit. Plate armour has no such problem. In addition, plate armour was specially designed so that blows would glance off (eg having ribbing in the metal)

Anyway, I believe the Ming would have an upper hand over the European armies of the early 15th century. But the by the late 15th century, Ming efficiancy had seriously declined.

Thomas Chen should not be considered an authority on this matter. While his site does provide a good source, there are many gaps.


If you are refering to the gaps inbetween the lamellas, then it should be noted that such gaps are negligible in the heat of battle when both parties are in movement.

Actually, he was quoting from a book.



Maybe when they are fighting with asian style sabers. But with spears and tapered longswords, designed specifically to exploit openings in the enemies defence. Those gaps could become a real problem.

The Chinese were not unaware of the problem of thrusting weapons posed. The advantage of lamella over scales is precisely to stop such actions, lacing down the lamellas onto a leather undercoat on both ends meant the only thing that gets through that way would be air and water. The lamellas were not flat and were bent inwards to further enhance this defence. Although this design does have a weakness of reducing movements compared to scale. In addition, Chinese armour were less designed for melee as opposed to stopping arrows.

Still this question is pretty much untestable so there isn't much worth debating it.