Which Medieval Army is The Strongest

[Takverely]

hello. I am New here. I have thought much about Crusader(Europian), bizantine and muslim armies and wonder your point of view. Which is the Strongest and why.

So my point of view is this. Seljuk Armies were the Strongest because of the highes tnumber of horsearchers. they also had good heavy cavalry (ghulams). the only weakness I think is heavy infantry that was needed during sieges but Seljuks could fight well on foot too. in open areas Seljuks could crach any kind of force(heavy infantry or cavalry) as it happened in battle of Manazkert(1071) that was held between Seljuks and bizantines who were much more than seljuks. Europian army is much like bizantine army with their heavy cavalry and infantry so I can say same about crusaders. and the only reason of their(crusaders) success in the 1st crusade was the fact that Seljuks were fighting each other. you can remember what happened to Crusaders during the second Jihad. you might say that Crusaders crached the first Jihad but my answer is the same. Seljuks were not united, even the Second Jihad leader Il Gazi was by Crusaders side during the first jihad.

Seljuk Vs Egypt? I think Seljuks are better as the history shows, Seljuks captured much Egyptian territories. Seljuks are the best I think. they had the best Horsearchers who were the most part of their army.


please not only vote but tell us why do you think so...

[Ascarona]

Why isn't the Mongolian on there? Its still medieval...
I choose Crusaders, yes they had the slow ranged infantry but also the combined talents of many countries and heavy armored knights.

[Stavroforos]

Out of those options I chose Egyptian, which I assume is Fatimid or Ayyubid.

[Maca]

Strongest at what?

Certain situations lend themselves to a certain army style.
Overall, I would choose Crusader, due to the mix of heavy Inf and Cav being rather effective, but that's probobly bias talking.

[Shqiponja_Hayabusa]

Common now, we have to give it to the turks. They were professional soldiers of middleages.

[hellheaven1987]

Common now, we have to give it to the turks. They were professional soldiers of middleages.

Ya, I would use 700 knights to slaughter 10000+ Turks.

[dogukan]

ISn't the thread question silly? Strongest army is the strongest. Stylewise all had their weaknesses and strong side.

Ya, I would use 700 knights to slaughter 10000+ Turks.

I doN't know if he meant that way, most of the Turks were simply soldiers and nothing else. You could find Turkish soldiers fighting for different factions from China to Europe.

[Godless Pickle]

Common now, we have to give it to the turks. They were professional soldiers of middleages.

Even though most of their soldiers were slave janissary soldiers....

[Lysimachus]

Even though most of their soldiers were slave janissary soldiers....

We're on about the Seljuks not the Ottomans. And the Janissaries infact were extremely capable troops; unfortunately they were basically a Turkish Praetorian Guard.

[Watchman]

Even though most of their soldiers were slave janissary soldiers....

Wrong on so many counts it's not even funny. Aside from what Lysimachus said - wrong era genius - the Yeni Cheri never formed a very large part of Ottoman armies anyway. The bulk was diverse quasi-feudal levies, allied and subject troops (Serbian knights were highly regarded as assault cavalry, I understand), mercenaries and volunteers of varying motivations (ranging from religious to greedy); the Janissaries' main function was to provide a core of solid heavy infantry to anchor the battleline and storm fortresses, whereas the main offensive arm was - unsurprisingly given the Ottomans' background and core regions - the cavalry, more particularly the quasi-feudal sipahi.

In military power in general, it was the Europeans. Their knights could dispatch any enemies with relative ease, especially in high numbers, making melee combat with a full-strength Crusader army suicide.

Nonsense. The only actual advantage the knights had over their Eastern equivalents was the massed couched-lance charge, the force of impact of which was universally recognised as unparalleled. OTOH the tactical doctrine, formations etc. which allowed European heavy cavalry to deliver such a shattering charge were also rather rigid, linear and tactically cumbersome (more specifically, the charge was executed in a long thin line) - which is why "Eastern" heavy cavalry, who were quite familiar with the couched-lance technique itself, didn't adopt the same tactics. *They* preferred maneuverable formations, as befits military traditions that had evolved in the relatively open battlefields of the Middle East where mobility was vital; the European doctrine, by contrast, had evolved in a subcontinent chock full of obstacles where battlefields were nigh invariably constricted by geographic features such as rivers and dense forests and a frontal assault was pretty much the only course of action normally available.

Once the various Easterners got over their initial shock at the peculiar European cavalry tactics they wasted no time adapting, which tended to turn the battles into a bit of chess matches - the Europeans would seek to put their opponents in a position where the knights could deliver their fearsome charge, while the locals sought to avoid exposing themselves in such a manner and further goad the knights into expending their charge ineffectively.

The Turkomans, no competition. Their manouverability made it almost impossible for the heavy infantry of the crusaders and fatimids to attack them, and of course the mail armour was no match for the composite bow and arro

Infantry can't catch cavalry *anyway* so moot point there - instead they've always gone for a combination of spearmen and archers as a countermeasure.
Also, no. Mail stops arrows quite well, all things considered, which is one reason it was so long and widely popular among the Middle Easterners *themselves*. Battlefield archery against armoured opponents was never mainly about casualties anyway, but rather distruption. Unarmoured horses of cavalry exposed to extended missile fire also tended to suffer heavily.

By the by, heavy cavalry *could* actually run down nomad horse-archers in certain circumstances. Mainly, they had to be able to pursue closely until the smaller horses of the nomads tired - nomadic light cavalry derived its stamina from having access to numerous remounts, but have fun trying to switch mounts when heavy cavalry on higher-quality horses is breathing down your neck...
Norman mercenary knights were AFAIK regarded by the Byzantines as very good at running down Turkish horse-archers in this manner, back in the day.

'Course, since the people who employed skirmishing horse-archers weren't complete idiots they would try to do something about such pursuit if given the chance - most likely involving their own heavy cavalry intervening, or the skirmishers ducking behind a supporting line of heavy infantry...

[Farnan]

What time period?

Which Egypt? There were the Fatmids, the Ayyubs, the Mameluks.

Which Seljuks? The united sultanate, or Rum or the other Seljuk states. Why are the Ottomans not included?

Byzantines? What time period?

Crusader Armies? 1 - X1Vth Crusade? Antioch? Jerusalem?

[RomanSoldier9001]

Roman/Byzantine Army the remanant of proffessional roman army and probaly the only army that actual function as army!

[Manoflooks]

In what year are you talking about?1400 up is clearly the Ottomans-1100 the europeans, more-in between, I'm not really sure.

[ivan_the_terrible]

The biggest factor was almost always leadership.

Funny engouh Fatimid actually allied with First Crusaders; hell, both sides even showed warm friendship during Siege of Antioch.

That's misleading. The First Crusade army fought the Fatimids on more than one occasion.

[hellheaven1987]

That's misleading. The First Crusade army fought the Fatimids on more than one occasion.

No, it was a friendly alliance at the Siege of Antioch, since Antioch was under Turkish control and Alexius actually suggested that alliance, probably because both Fatimid and Byzantium had little idea what Crusader's ultimate target was. It was notabal that, Jerusalm was under Turkish hand during Siege of Antioch, and only back to Fatimid's control one year before Crusader sieged it (that was, when Crusader stucked on Antioch).

[ivan_the_terrible]

No, it was a friendly alliance at the Siege of Antioch, since Antioch was under Turkish control and Alexius actually suggested that alliance, probably because both Fatimid and Byzantium had little idea what Crusader's ultimate target was. It was notabal that, Jerusalm was under Turkish hand during Siege of Antioch, and only back to Fatimid's control one year before Crusader sieged it (that was, when Crusader stucked on Antioch).

The First Crusade was not confined to the siege of Antioch! The crusaders fought the Fatimids in two major engagements: 1) Siege of Jerusalem, and 2) at the battle of Ascalon.

[hellheaven1987]

The First Crusade was not confined to the siege of Antioch! The crusaders fought the Fatimids in two major engagements: 1) Siege of Jerusalem, and 2) at the battle of Ascalon.

I already gave my explaination clearly; if you need to find alternative explaination about that, I don't mind it.

[Takverely]

in 1120 AD. which one was the strongest. I mean their style of fight Etc. there are no mongols and Georgians(who had mix of horsearchers, heavy cavalry and heavy infantry). but discuss them if you want and tell us why are they stroger than others.

of course we shouldnt compare armies of leaders/Generals. just compare Crusader and Seljuk Army what advantages and disadvanteges do they have same for Egypt and Bizantine. compare their style of fight, which is better in open area in siege, in mountainous area etc.

[Prince of Yunderup]

in 1120 AD. which one was the strongest. I mean their style of fight Etc. there are no mongols and Georgians(who had mix of horsearchers, heavy cavalry and heavy infantry). but discuss them if you want and tell us why are they stroger than others.

of course we shouldnt compare armies of leaders/Generals. just compare Crusader and Seljuk Army what advantages and disadvanteges do they have same for Egypt and Bizantine. compare their style of fight, which is better in open area in siege, in mountainous area etc.

Well if you are going by tactics etc rather than economics, army size etc then with a 1 for 1 scenario then definitly the crusaders with tried and tested mix of spearmen, heavy cavalry, bowman,squires etc sure the seljuk horsearchers where formidable but nothing can beat a well timed charge of knights the medievel equivilant of the battle tank, which brings me to another point, when you throw a great general such as Richard the lionhearted or Saladin it really did make or break the battle, just look at Saladins tactics at battle of Hattin brains beats brawn so really have to include generals in the equation. I would elaborate more but I'm on a Wii at the minute.

[konny]

in 1120 AD. which one was the strongest. I mean their style of fight Etc.

I don't think that there would have been many contemporary forces in the world of 1120 that would have been able to defeat an European army in a pitched 1:1 on flat ground; certainly none of the three named - that is, the Byzantines would if their army would be composed of European mercs first of all.

Even if we take into account the extremly unfavourable conditions of the crusades, what seems to be the background of that question, the crusaders usually had the better end for them in the 12th Century. In case of Saladin's realm it was nothing but sheer luck that made it get out of the Third Crusade without destruction (the sudden death of Barbarossa, after having defeated the Seljuks twice, that made the bulk of the German army return before entering the Holy Land).