Eastern Navies...Can they compete with the west?

[NakedBarbarian2]

This post is about Eastern Navies ie Ottomons, Persians, Indians and North Africans.

Were there vessels any different to that of the Western European countries?

How did they compare technologically?

Did these factions even invest alot of money in naval technology or did they concentrate on their land conquests?

[Crimson Scythe]

This post is about Eastern Navies ie Ottomons, Persians, Indians and North Africans.

Were there vessels any different to that of the Western European countries?

How did they compare technologically?

Did these factions even invest alot of money in naval technology or did they concentrate on their land conquests?

I don't know about the Persians or the Indians, but the Ottomans were usually only about one generation behind the European powers, in terms of naval technology. They often updated their navy at great expense, but their naval leadership was never really improved, hence their poor performance. The Ottoman navy also tended to be the guinea pig for European navies during this time, with just about everybody testing new weapons and ships on them, which kind of made it hard to keep the navy functional, you know?

Oh, and the North Africans during this period would be the Ottomans. France only took Algeria in 1830, Britain took Egypt in the late 1880s (exact date escapes me at the moment), and Italy took Tripolitania (Libya) in 1912.

[english tyrant]

the Indians had a navy!?!?!?

[Randarkmaan]

China isn't included, but they had a huge navy at some point (I think the 15th or 16th century), which they discontinued. It had HUGE warships armed with cannon and some sort of missile rockets I think, but they would perhaps have been too big to be manoevrable and speedy.
The Ottomans (and that includes the North Africans who usually made up the Ottoman navy) basically used the same types of ships as other mediterranean nations, but they had problems keeping it modern (both in types of ships and armanent and leadership). I don't really think any other Eastern nations had a war fleet, so there's not much to compare to.



Zheng-he's flagship compared to Colombus's ship. The Chinese aren't in the game, but if they were it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to reintroduce such ships. But I really think that in this game the Eastern nations would have to adopt European military naval vessels and naval tactics (as they didn't too much of their own)

Anyway only the most powerful countries would have a war fleet, because of the expense involved, and the expense involved would force them to relocate resources from someplace else (Britain for instance only had a total of some 100 000 British soldiers, plus some 50-100 000 Indian mercenaries employed by the East India Trading Company, later they were integrated into the Empire's army, though that may have been in the 19th century... anyway their land forces were really small compared to the size of their Empire and other European armies, which after the Napoleonic wars could reach national totals of maybe a million or millions of men)

[Sitarus Originalus PM-30+]

Randarkmaan ... waw... i had no idea that china had that huge ships...
(+rep)

Also i think European navy in 18th century has no competition... (England, France, Spain... they have little to fear but eachother)

[Randarkmaan]

Spain was also pretty much lagging behind in the 18th century (though they showed some signs of new prosperity under the Bourbons who, for an example, removed much of the complicated and immensibly slow bureacracy involved in running the Americas, everything had been very centralised under the Habsburgs and American possessions were viewed more as dominions of the King than as colonies), anyway I don't really think the Spanish ships were as good as the British (though that probably goes for the whole world, the Dutch were beaten at this time, weren't they?)

[Lusted]

Whilst the Royal Navy was dominant, the French generally had the best ships with the British going for quantity over quality generally. The Scandinavian navies tended to have good quality ships as well, and the Dutch had smaller sized ships of same types compared to other nations due to the shallow nature of the Dutch coastline.

[Roy Batty]

Galleys have some advantages over wind-dependent European warships, at least in combat. But no, I don't think they will be able to really compete. I don't think the developers would want to challenge their players (at least not much), and probably will have these more primitive navies in the game just so that players can 'cut their teeth' on them, so-to-speak.

[Dirty Harry]

The Spanish and French actually built better ships than Britain, who's ships were actually often notoriously poorly built by corrupt shipyards.

Britain's real advantage was it's superior sailors. First off they had the biggest merchant fleet, and when war broke out, they pressed all the merchant seamen into the navy, giving them a huge advantage in able seamen available. Also their officer corps was a lot more professional and merit based, where men could rise to the top from humble origins based on their ability. The continental navies' officer corps was more a playground for aristocrats, where social status and money rather than qualifications determined rank.

This advantage was magnified throughout the 18th century as France and Spain's merchant fleet was ravaged during wars with Britain, further reducing their recruiting pool. Also, since the Royal Navy was a lot more active at sea, they were usually the ones blockading French/Spanish ports all year long while those guys stayed in port, leading to British sailors' further improving their seamanship while their opponents' degraded.

THe Ottomans needless to say were both hopelessly corrupt, and poor leading to an inferior navy.

[29 days later]

Whilst the Royal Navy was dominant, the French generally had the best ships with the British going for quantity over quality generally. The Scandinavian navies tended to have good quality ships as well, and the Dutch had smaller sized ships of same types compared to other nations due to the shallow nature of the Dutch coastline.

Your right the Spanish and French had better ships for the most part but the Royal navy were successful because the crews were well trained and disciplined.

[Lusted]

Yes, especially during the Napoleonic wars as a lot of time was spent blockading enemy ports so the Royal Navy got a lot of experience compared to the French and Spanish. But i was just talking about the ships, not the crews.

[jo the greek]

for the not so much advanced nations

i propose fire ships

[english tyrant]

for the not so much advanced nations

i propose fire ships

are you calling us English not advanced? we used them against the Spanish armada and they worked quite well but did anyone use them in this time period???:hmmm:

[AmericanFF]

are you calling us English not advanced? we used them against the Spanish armada and they worked quite well but did anyone use them in this time period???:hmmm:

I am not sure, but I dont think you could consider England advanced in sea warfare before the Armada. I would say the miraculous victory taught the English a vital lesson that they couldnt depend on miracles forever and thus the Royal Navy had its true beginning then and there.

[NakedBarbarian2]

What about the Russian navy? Will Peter the Greats reconfiguration of the navy mean that Russia's naval forces are comparable with the West's? OR will Russians navy be similar to that of the Ottomans?

Following on from this, did the cossacks have navies? i just can't imagine it when i picture cossacks i imagine armies consisting completely of cavalry like the mongols or huns.

BTW i might add to this post the question: Should factions who historically hand no navy (ie landlocked or tribal factions) be able to recruit them in ETW? Because personally i think it would be ****ing stupid and its one thing i really don't want to see...

[Lusted]

What about the Russian navy? Will Peter the Greats reconfiguration of the navy mean that Russia's naval forces are comparable with the West's? OR will Russians navy be similar to that of the Ottomans?

Whilst Peter the Great did build up a navy, the Russian fleet had a reputation for being quickly built from greenwood so their ships were not as good quality as other western navies.

[Destraex]

I would be interested to see how the chinese constructed such vessels. The Europeans encountered limits to the size of their ships due to the wood physically not taking the weight and sagging. Did the Chinese ships have double hulls? Are they myths?
I too have heard of the massive chinese trading ships, just not their battleships. Judging by the size of that thing its bigger than the Queen Mary.

Would like to know more

EDIT: Lusted you forgot the Spanish, they had a rep for even better ships than the French.

[Lusted]

EDIT: Lusted you forgot the Spanish, they had a rep for even better ships than the French.

Depends on the time period, but both of them tended to have better ships overall than the British who focused on quantity over quality.

[Sitarus Originalus PM-30+]

i totally agree with Lusted on that one!

[boerekovic]

Ottoman Sailors were mostly from the Levantine coast,the so called Levents
(levent is a famous Male Name in Modern Turkey),
Also ill give this Pic into this Thread:


The Mahmudiye , named after Sultan Mahmut II.
Built by the imperial Navy Arsenal in Istanbul in 1829.
128 Cannons on 3 Decks.