France vs china

[deleted_user0]

ofcourse they did, considering the size of their armies. It's also very normal for the time, its a myth that european armies had great numbers of heavy cavalry as well. for example, during the crusades, heavily armored cavalry would make up no more than 10% of an army, and that would be a very considerable cavalry force. Only few armies were formed around a backbone of mounted troops (in most armies they formed the elite of the elite), the mongol army being one of the few and one of the most succesful, and still most of their cavalry men would be light horse archers and lancers. Yet it would be silly to say that they had no concept of heavy cavalry...

If there is any reason why the significance of heavy cavalry declined for the Qing dynasty, it would be because of the increasing prominance of firearms on the battlefield, not because they were somehow unable or unaware of how to field an effective heavy cavalry force. And its a trend which happened around the globe. The french cuirassiers are called heavy cavalry, but they are really not that heavily armored compared to medieval knights or the parthian cataphracts. Similarly, Alexander and his father philip are often lauded for creating one of the most effective heavy cavalry forces in the ancient world, the companion cavalry, yet, they were not really shock troops in the sense medieval knights or even cuirassiers were. So really what you say is just wrong, whichever way you try to spin it.

The manchus were descendents of the Jurchen tribe, which had a long tradition of horsemanship and heavy cavalry.

[Kickass_OP]

manchu is mongol lol.

[Laurence Drake]

ofcourse they did, considering the size of their armies. It's also very normal for the time, its a myth that european armies had great numbers of heavy cavalry as well. for example, during the crusades, heavily armored cavalry would make up no more than 10% of an army, and that would be a very considerable cavalry force. Only few armies were formed around a backbone of mounted troops (in most armies they formed the elite of the elite), the mongol army being one of the few and one of the most succesful, and still most of their cavalry men would be light horse archers and lancers. Yet it would be silly to say that they had no concept of heavy cavalry...

If there is any reason why the significance of heavy cavalry declined for the Qing dynasty, it would be because of the increasing prominance of firearms on the battlefield, not because they were somehow unable or unaware of how to field an effective heavy cavalry force. And its a trend which happened around the globe. The french cuirassiers are called heavy cavalry, but they are really not that heavily armored compared to medieval knights or the parthian cataphracts. Similarly, Alexander and his father philip are often lauded for creating one of the most effective heavy cavalry forces in the ancient world, the companion cavalry, yet, they were not really shock troops in the sense medieval knights or even cuirassiers were. So really what you say is just wrong, whichever way you try to spin it.

The manchus were descendents of the Jurchen tribe, which had a long tradition of horsemanship and heavy cavalry.

their focus was not heavy cavalry

manchu are not mongols

[deleted_user0]

You are just being ignorant. What does that even mean, their focus was not heavy cavalry? There were very few armies that consisted primarily of mounted warriors instead of of primarily foottroops. That doesnt mean they didn't use heavy cavalry, as you suggested on the previous page. Just admit when you are wrong. The french cuirrasiers are heavy cavalry, yet Napoleon's battlefield army was like 95% infantry. Are you saying now that the its ridiculous for the french to make heavy cav?

When the Jurchen tribe, later renamed to manchu by the son of Nurhaci, conquered china, they definitely made extensive use of cavalry however, and they were definitely an integral part of their army. I'm not saying the biggest, and you can debate about what the most important part of an army is, but reality is, in most cases its a combination of unit types for a reason, pure cavalry would be vulnerable, so would pure infantry be, atleast in those times. Therefore they combined them.

You said china making heavy cav would be ahistorical, yet many chinese dynasties made extensive use of cavalry, tasked and equipped for different roles, from scouting, to horse archery to heavy cavalry. The qing dynasty was no exception, the only difference is that they rose to power when the role of cavalry on the battlefield was almost at an end. From 1800 onwards, heavy cavalry would become largely obsolete on any battlefield on the world, with the exception of the american pains, though it's a stretch to call those cavalry troops heavy cavalry by any means.

[Laurence Drake]

You are just being ignorant. What does that even mean, their focus was not heavy cavalry? There were very few armies that consisted primarily of mounted warriors instead of of primarily foottroops. That doesnt mean they didn't use heavy cavalry, as you suggested on the previous page. Just admit when you are wrong. The french cuirrasiers are heavy cavalry, yet Napoleon's battlefield army was like 95% infantry. Are you saying now that the its ridiculous for the french to make heavy cav?

When the Jurchen tribe, later renamed to manchu by the son of Nurhaci, conquered china, they definitely made extensive use of cavalry however, and they were definitely an integral part of their army. I'm not saying the biggest, and you can debate about what the most important part of an army is, but reality is, in most cases its a combination of unit types for a reason, pure cavalry would be vulnerable, so would pure infantry be, atleast in those times. Therefore they combined them.

the bulk of the fighting under the qing dynasty was done by the green standard army, which relied on troops enlisted from the local chinese. their experimentation with gunpowder and their experience in repelling the mounted troops of the steppes had prevented the chinese developing a cavalry tradition within their military. chinese war horses were notorious to the europeans for being of a poor standard, and were known to collapse under the weight of a heavily armed rider. the concept of a heavy cavalry charge just didn't exist in east asia in the way that it did in europe. manchu cavalry fighting was centred around light cavalry tactics and mounted archery. they never had the resources to develop a historical tradition focused on the use of heavily armoured warhorses. and given the homogeneous and unitary nature of the qing state, the primary role of the army was to put down rebellions rather than protect it from outside threats, and to that extent it became necessary for military service to revolve around garrison duty, which were most usefully upheld by infantry, who were cheaper to enlist and train and could patrol streets and walls. neither the qing nor the manchu had reasons to develop cavalry on the scale that was seen in europe

sources:
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md ... E02B7055A1
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md ... CA0418C467
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md ... E0684A4DB3

[sdsanft]

manchu is mongol lol.

Haha no

[deleted_user0]

You are just being ignorant. What does that even mean, their focus was not heavy cavalry? There were very few armies that consisted primarily of mounted warriors instead of of primarily foottroops. That doesnt mean they didn't use heavy cavalry, as you suggested on the previous page. Just admit when you are wrong. The french cuirrasiers are heavy cavalry, yet Napoleon's battlefield army was like 95% infantry. Are you saying now that the its ridiculous for the french to make heavy cav?

When the Jurchen tribe, later renamed to manchu by the son of Nurhaci, conquered china, they definitely made extensive use of cavalry however, and they were definitely an integral part of their army. I'm not saying the biggest, and you can debate about what the most important part of an army is, but reality is, in most cases its a combination of unit types for a reason, pure cavalry would be vulnerable, so would pure infantry be, atleast in those times. Therefore they combined them.

the bulk of the fighting under the qing dynasty was done by the green standard army, which relied on troops enlisted from the local chinese. their experimentation with gunpowder and their experience in repelling the mounted troops of the steppes had prevented the chinese developing a cavalry tradition within their military. chinese war horses were notorious to the europeans for being of a poor standard, and were known to collapse under the weight of a heavily armed rider. the concept of a heavy cavalry charge just didn't exist in east asia in the way that it did in europe. manchu cavalry fighting was centred around light cavalry tactics and mounted archery. they never had the resources to develop a historical tradition focused on the use of heavily armoured warhorses. and given the homogeneous and unitary nature of the qing state, the primary role of the army was to put down rebellions rather than protect it from outside threats, and to that extent it became necessary for military service to revolve around garrison duty, which were most usefully upheld by infantry, who were cheaper to enlist and train and could patrol streets and walls. neither the qing nor the manchu had reasons to develop cavalry on the scale that was seen in europe

sources:
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md ... E02B7055A1
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md ... CA0418C467
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md ... E0684A4DB3

The reason that the green standard army was mostly infantry was because they were used as garrison as you said. However, for prolonged military campaign, the banner armies were used. It wasn't until the 19th century after several defeats vs Europeans that the green army was reformed and the army was modelled after modern European armies, and the focus of warfare had shifted towards firearms and artillery. It wasn't until that time that the GSA became the primary army. However, the timeframe of aoe3 is from around 1550 to 1850, so this reform is out of scope of the aoe3 timeframe.

The aoe3 air character is the kangxi emperor who lived in the late 17th century. During this time the banner armies were still used as an effective fighting force.

There is no debate about the fact that the use and role of the heavy cavalry in Europe was unique and not really rivaled anywhere else in the world. However, heavily armored cavalry, where both rider and mount were armored, were definitely used in Asia and Arab world as well.

If you read accounts of Chinese battles when the Qing beat the Ming, they talk about thousands of cavalry being committed to break infantry formations. Sure, their heavy cavalry were used differently, and could not match the charging shock produced by European cavalry making use of couched lances, but they were definitely used in Melee combat and atleast part would've been heavily armored with lamellar armour

The claim that Chinese cavalry was inferior because of bad horses comes from some obscure Jesuit observer, and his objectivity can probably be questioned, considering the fact that Europeans were very biased towards non Europeans and regarded them as inferior in general.

You can nuance whatever you want and claim that heavy cavalry was never the prominent and deciding factor on Asian battlefields as it was in Europe but it's wrong to say the Qing using heavy cavalry would be ahistorical

[Laurence Drake]

You are just being ignorant. What does that even mean, their focus was not heavy cavalry? There were very few armies that consisted primarily of mounted warriors instead of of primarily foottroops. That doesnt mean they didn't use heavy cavalry, as you suggested on the previous page. Just admit when you are wrong. The french cuirrasiers are heavy cavalry, yet Napoleon's battlefield army was like 95% infantry. Are you saying now that the its ridiculous for the french to make heavy cav?

When the Jurchen tribe, later renamed to manchu by the son of Nurhaci, conquered china, they definitely made extensive use of cavalry however, and they were definitely an integral part of their army. I'm not saying the biggest, and you can debate about what the most important part of an army is, but reality is, in most cases its a combination of unit types for a reason, pure cavalry would be vulnerable, so would pure infantry be, atleast in those times. Therefore they combined them.

the bulk of the fighting under the qing dynasty was done by the green standard army, which relied on troops enlisted from the local chinese. their experimentation with gunpowder and their experience in repelling the mounted troops of the steppes had prevented the chinese developing a cavalry tradition within their military. chinese war horses were notorious to the europeans for being of a poor standard, and were known to collapse under the weight of a heavily armed rider. the concept of a heavy cavalry charge just didn't exist in east asia in the way that it did in europe. manchu cavalry fighting was centred around light cavalry tactics and mounted archery. they never had the resources to develop a historical tradition focused on the use of heavily armoured warhorses. and given the homogeneous and unitary nature of the qing state, the primary role of the army was to put down rebellions rather than protect it from outside threats, and to that extent it became necessary for military service to revolve around garrison duty, which were most usefully upheld by infantry, who were cheaper to enlist and train and could patrol streets and walls. neither the qing nor the manchu had reasons to develop cavalry on the scale that was seen in europe

sources:
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md ... E02B7055A1
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md ... CA0418C467
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md ... E0684A4DB3

The reason that the green standard army was mostly infantry was because they were used as garrison as you said. However, for prolonged military campaign, the banner armies were used. It wasn't until the 19th century after several defeats vs Europeans that the green army was reformed and the army was modelled after modern European armies, and the focus of warfare had shifted towards firearms and artillery. It wasn't until that time that the GSA became the primary army. However, the timeframe of aoe3 is from around 1550 to 1850, so this reform is out of scope of the aoe3 timeframe.

The aoe3 air character is the kangxi emperor who lived in the late 17th century. During this time the banner armies were still used as an effective fighting force.

There is no debate about the fact that the use and role of the heavy cavalry in Europe was unique and not really rivaled anywhere else in the world. However, heavily armored cavalry, where both rider and mount were armored, were definitely used in Asia and Arab world as well.

If you read accounts of Chinese battles when the Qing beat the Ming, they talk about thousands of cavalry being committed to break infantry formations. Sure, their heavy cavalry were used differently, and could not match the charging shock produced by European cavalry making use of couched lances, but they were definitely used in Melee combat and atleast part would've been heavily armored with lamellar armour

The claim that Chinese cavalry was inferior because of bad horses comes from some obscure Jesuit observer, and his objectivity can probably be questioned, considering the fact that Europeans were very biased towards non Europeans and regarded them as inferior in general.

You can nuance whatever you want and claim that heavy cavalry was never the prominent and deciding factor on Asian battlefields as it was in Europe but it's wrong to say the Qing using heavy cavalry would be ahistorical

its ahistorical when heavy cavalry becomes their primary unit

the green standard army did most of the work conquering China. even in overseas campaigns the banner armies relinquished their mounts due to the difficult terrain of hostile foreign environments. in general there just isn't evidence to support the claim that the chinese employed heavy cavalry as the main breakthrough component of their armies, compared to europe where heavily armoured and mounted cavalry featured prominently on the battlefield until the 18th century.

the inferiority of chinese horse breeds is well-documented throughout the historical literature. compare these two images of a qing horserider and a european cuirassier from roughly the same period; the size of the chinese horse relative to its mount is clearly smaller than its european cousin.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... seback.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... llange.jpg

[deleted_user0]

Obviously it's smaller, I never claimed otherwise. The Mongolian ponies were also smaller, yet they were sturdy and durable, much better at long distance. Anyway we're ralking about different things now, and we are straying from the original point that you made, which was clearly wrong.

It's silly to say that China having cavalry in the game is ahistorical because players decide to make mostly cavalry. It's equally ahistorical that ports spam pure dragoons or that French make mostly cuirs even though heavy cavalry was barely used anymore. In that way everything in aoe is ahistorical.

Also the role of European cavalry began to decline in the late 14th century already. And mass cavalry charges rarely dominated battlefields in the 15-17th century, with a few exceptions. They were mostly kept in the armies due to equestrian traditions of the nobility, and cavalry was useful in their role of scouting, foraging and raiding obviously, but this was a light cavalry job.

[Kickass_OP]

Nice history class.

[milku3459]

Welp...even if we don't know if the Chinese used heavy cav a bunch, we DO know that _H2O does and that's what matters.
The thing is, nobody cares if the meta of a ten year old game is historical or not; as the meta is entirely decided by players how historical can it be? This topic is about the FICTIONAL game AOE3's Fre vs China MU.
but if you still care, the chinese guy has already told you the answer to the chinese history question. listen to the chinese guy.

[Laurence Drake]

Obviously it's smaller, I never claimed otherwise. The Mongolian ponies were also smaller, yet they were sturdy and durable, much better at long distance. Anyway we're ralking about different things now, and we are straying from the original point that you made, which was clearly wrong.

It's silly to say that China having cavalry in the game is ahistorical because players decide to make mostly cavalry. It's equally ahistorical that ports spam pure dragoons or that French make mostly cuirs even though heavy cavalry was barely used anymore. In that way everything in aoe is ahistorical.

Also the role of European cavalry began to decline in the late 14th century already. And mass cavalry charges rarely dominated battlefields in the 15-17th century, with a few exceptions. They were mostly kept in the armies due to equestrian traditions of the nobility, and cavalry was useful in their role of scouting, foraging and raiding obviously, but this was a light cavalry job.

no, my original point was right. it's ahistorical. games are better when they are historical because they teach us about things as they really were.

[Hazza54321]

meh who made this thread boring and started talking about chinas history, i was an interesting discussion before

[Laurence Drake]

umeu

[lemmings121]

What? The great kickass, the op, asking for help?
Must be fake.
Stolen account, for sure.

[deleted_user0]

Obviously it's smaller, I never claimed otherwise. The Mongolian ponies were also smaller, yet they were sturdy and durable, much better at long distance. Anyway we're ralking about different things now, and we are straying from the original point that you made, which was clearly wrong.

It's silly to say that China having cavalry in the game is ahistorical because players decide to make mostly cavalry. It's equally ahistorical that ports spam pure dragoons or that French make mostly cuirs even though heavy cavalry was barely used anymore. In that way everything in aoe is ahistorical.

Also the role of European cavalry began to decline in the late 14th century already. And mass cavalry charges rarely dominated battlefields in the 15-17th century, with a few exceptions. They were mostly kept in the armies due to equestrian traditions of the nobility, and cavalry was useful in their role of scouting, foraging and raiding obviously, but this was a light cavalry job.

no, my original point was right. it's ahistorical. games are better when they are historical because they teach us about things as they really were.

No you are wrong, its not ahistorical for the qing to have cavalry in their unit roster in that time frame. That the player then chooses to make purely cavalry or artillery is up to their discretion and has nothing to do with history. It is neither historical or ahistorical

You said China training cavalry was ahistorical but that was clearly wrong. So you shifted to China didn't have an army mainly composed of cavalry which is correct but also totally irrelevant. It is a game not a simulation.

[Laurence Drake]

Obviously it's smaller, I never claimed otherwise. The Mongolian ponies were also smaller, yet they were sturdy and durable, much better at long distance. Anyway we're ralking about different things now, and we are straying from the original point that you made, which was clearly wrong.

It's silly to say that China having cavalry in the game is ahistorical because players decide to make mostly cavalry. It's equally ahistorical that ports spam pure dragoons or that French make mostly cuirs even though heavy cavalry was barely used anymore. In that way everything in aoe is ahistorical.

Also the role of European cavalry began to decline in the late 14th century already. And mass cavalry charges rarely dominated battlefields in the 15-17th century, with a few exceptions. They were mostly kept in the armies due to equestrian traditions of the nobility, and cavalry was useful in their role of scouting, foraging and raiding obviously, but this was a light cavalry job.

no, my original point was right. it's ahistorical. games are better when they are historical because they teach us about things as they really were.

No you are wrong, its not ahistorical for the qing to have cavalry in their unit roster in that time frame. That the player then chooses to make purely cavalry or artillery is up to their discretion and has nothing to do with history. It is neither historical or ahistorical

You said China training cavalry was ahistorical but that was clearly wrong. So you shifted to China didn't have an army mainly composed of cavalry which is correct but also totally irrelevant. It is a game not a simulation.

it's ahistorical that the game makes heavy cavalry the optimal choice for the player, since it implies that heavy cavalry occupied a role in the chinese military that it never did.

[macacoalbino]

aztec fighting japan in the great plains is historical af right?

[deleted_user0]

Show hidden quotes

Obviously it's smaller, I never claimed otherwise. The Mongolian ponies were also smaller, yet they were sturdy and durable, much better at long distance. Anyway we're ralking about different things now, and we are straying from the original point that you made, which was clearly wrong.

It's silly to say that China having cavalry in the game is ahistorical because players decide to make mostly cavalry. It's equally ahistorical that ports spam pure dragoons or that French make mostly cuirs even though heavy cavalry was barely used anymore. In that way everything in aoe is ahistorical.

Also the role of European cavalry began to decline in the late 14th century already. And mass cavalry charges rarely dominated battlefields in the 15-17th century, with a few exceptions. They were mostly kept in the armies due to equestrian traditions of the nobility, and cavalry was useful in their role of scouting, foraging and raiding obviously, but this was a light cavalry job.

no, my original point was right. it's ahistorical. games are better when they are historical because they teach us about things as they really were.

No you are wrong, its not ahistorical for the qing to have cavalry in their unit roster in that time frame. That the player then chooses to make purely cavalry or artillery is up to their discretion and has nothing to do with history. It is neither historical or ahistorical

You said China training cavalry was ahistorical but that was clearly wrong. So you shifted to China didn't have an army mainly composed of cavalry which is correct but also totally irrelevant. It is a game not a simulation.

it's ahistorical that the game makes heavy cavalry the optimal choice for the player, since it implies that heavy cavalry occupied a role in the chinese military that it never did.

The game doesnt do that. Players do that. And if you are so stupid to think the chinese army would be 121 population strong and that if you make only flamethrowers, it would be an accurate representation of the chinese army, then no amount of history classes will remedy that stupidity. I guess you are beyond saving. But I must give you points for how hard you try to make it appear as if you werent wrong. You can change your initial statement a million times over, it remains wrong. So thats it for me, enjoy your trolling.

[sudmakmak]

LOL, I'm the strongest history.

[tedere12]

LOL, I'm the strongest history.

who are you

[sudmakmak]

LOL, I'm the strongest history.

who are you

>>>????<<< Mean History?

[tedere12]

LOL, I'm the strongest history.

who are you

>>>????<<< Mean History?

I cant understand what you are trying to say, sorry. You just said you are the strongest history, who are you?

[Laurence Drake]

Show hidden quotes

Obviously it's smaller, I never claimed otherwise. The Mongolian ponies were also smaller, yet they were sturdy and durable, much better at long distance. Anyway we're ralking about different things now, and we are straying from the original point that you made, which was clearly wrong.

It's silly to say that China having cavalry in the game is ahistorical because players decide to make mostly cavalry. It's equally ahistorical that ports spam pure dragoons or that French make mostly cuirs even though heavy cavalry was barely used anymore. In that way everything in aoe is ahistorical.

Also the role of European cavalry began to decline in the late 14th century already. And mass cavalry charges rarely dominated battlefields in the 15-17th century, with a few exceptions. They were mostly kept in the armies due to equestrian traditions of the nobility, and cavalry was useful in their role of scouting, foraging and raiding obviously, but this was a light cavalry job.

no, my original point was right. it's ahistorical. games are better when they are historical because they teach us about things as they really were.

No you are wrong, its not ahistorical for the qing to have cavalry in their unit roster in that time frame. That the player then chooses to make purely cavalry or artillery is up to their discretion and has nothing to do with history. It is neither historical or ahistorical

You said China training cavalry was ahistorical but that was clearly wrong. So you shifted to China didn't have an army mainly composed of cavalry which is correct but also totally irrelevant. It is a game not a simulation.

it's ahistorical that the game makes heavy cavalry the optimal choice for the player, since it implies that heavy cavalry occupied a role in the chinese military that it never did.

The game doesnt do that. Players do that. And if you are so stupid to think the chinese army would be 121 population strong and that if you make only flamethrowers, it would be an accurate representation of the chinese army, then no amount of history classes will remedy that stupidity. I guess you are beyond saving. But I must give you points for how hard you try to make it appear as if you werent wrong. You can change your initial statement a million times over, it remains wrong. So thats it for me, enjoy your trolling.

the only fool in a troll argument is the one who gets trolled

[sudmakmak]

Show hidden quotes

LOL, I'm the strongest history.

who are you

>>>????<<< Mean History?

I cant understand what you are trying to say, sorry. You just said you are the strongest history, who are you?

I'm learn history(Bachelor of history)