Clash of the Best Historical Armies

[Snake Featherston]

Superior weaponry in terms of average quality of personal weapons and the like, right? The Red Army will presumably have an advantage in armor and aircraft, even though their other problems may not allow them to use these to their fullest potential. Also, it seems like the Reds would have a numerical advantage...

The Red Army was trounced by Denikin's army using British equipment, which was vastly superior to their own and helped to a degree to overcome the inferiority of Denikin in numerical terms. The Reds had a numerical advantage through the RCW, they were still slapped silly by good generals until interior lines came in. The few times they faced non-Russian forces in that war the result was a disaster for them. It's one thing to beat the 10:1 outnumbered enemies like Kolchak and Yudenich, it's another thing entirely to defeat the BEF.

And finally US army against the Prussians. Their support structure should be about equal, since both are among the pioneers in using railroads in warfare. The real differences are in quantity and quality. The Union fielded in the civil war a total of 2.8 million men, as opposed to the German 1.4 million men (sadly I have no breakdown by state at hand to take Prussia seperatly) had mobilised at the end of the war with France without problems. But while many Union soldiers were volunteers without previous training, every Prussian called up was a trained reservist. And this training included the Auftragstaktik, which one US observer during the war with France viewed as a chaotic behaviour in the Prussian lines instead of a quick reaction by a subordinate officer. Which leads directly to the leadership question. While the Union had some good, even outstanding officers and ousted the really bad ones during the war, they had a small trained officers corps. The Prussians otoh had probably the best trained officer corps in the world and a (for its time) very good staff system. Both together allowed even a sub-average commander to perform adequatly and made someone like Moltke even more efficient. Equipment-wise the Prussians also have a significant advantage. They have breechloading rifles since the early 40s, which means that even reserve units are equipped with it by now. But the true war winner are their breechloading, rifled steel guns introduced since 59 for field and siege.
In a war between only those two additional factors would have to be considered as well, like strategic depth, the nearly untouched Prussian manpower in the cities or the role of the American South, but since such a war is probably asb lets assume they simply meet in a battle: Overall the Prussians have the better chances to win unless they get pinned down in a close quarter fight where only numbers count very early. But somehow I can´t imagine that any half competent Prussian officer willingly gets his army dragged into what would be a gigantic pubbrawl.

The crucial element is who leads the Union army in this timeframe. If we're selecting guys like Rosecrans (at his best), Ord, Canby, Schofield, Grant, Thomas, Sheridan, and so on, then that gives the Union a good chance. If we're putting McClellan, Sigel, Jefferson C. Davis, Buell, Halleck, and the like there, then it's a Prussian massacre of a US armed mob.

 

[Benjamin XVIII]

Yes, namely that early guns are cheap to manufacture, with the limitation here being supplies of powder. Guns also required less training to teach people how to use, bows and arrows, OTOH, required rather long-term training. The Mongols had gunpowder and kicked the ass of the one society of their time that made very good use of it, the Song Dynasty. Spaniard psychological tricks won't save them, it'd have to be a serious, straight-up fight.



Actually the most crucial element here is that this is the Mongols under Genghis Khan, a man who won every single battle he ever fought. It's his leadership of the Mongols that'd be the decisive element. As far as the rest of it..........under his successors the Spaniards pull off an Ain Jalut. Under Genghis, the Mongols pull off a coup akin to the defeat of the Song.



The Mongols have experience with gunpowder and use of gunpowder shock. They, after all, defeated the Song dynasty which made plenty of use of it. So if the Spaniards think that gunpowder shock, i.e. psychological employment of heavily inaccurate firearms, is going to save them, they're wrong. The Mongols have a modern-style command structure, and by modern I mean akin to the 20th Century's armies. A 16th Century army is too rigid in some senses to cope well with a more modern structure of that sort, though this is counterbalanced by the Mongols being centuries behind. Under Genghis, they win. Under one of his successors? The Spaniards kick ass and take names.

Interesting point. I do wonder though about the gunpowder weapons of the Song. Were they really comparable to what a musket, even a crappy 16th century musket, could do?

That is a good point about Genghis, I think somewhere in this I forgot we were talking specifically about Genghis. I do not know why, but when I think mongols I think Subotai and the campaigns in Southern China, as well as the campaigns in Poland, Hungary, and Georgia; but rarely about the man who started it all, Genghis.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Interesting point. I do wonder though about the gunpowder weapons of the Song. Were they really comparable to what a musket, even a crappy 16th century musket, could do?

That is a good point about Genghis, I think somewhere in this I forgot we were talking specifically about Genghis. I do not know why, but when I think mongols I think Subotai and the campaigns in Southern China, as well as the campaigns in Poland, Hungary, and Georgia; but rarely about the man who started it all, Genghis.

No, but the crucial element is that the Mongols *do* know what gunpowder is, and primitive gunpowder weapons *did* make a big boom of the sort that would frighten horses of other nomads, but not this group in particular. The most decisive factor here is that Genghis Khan is leading this group of Mongols, as Genghis was an extremely flexible and adaptable military leader. He's about the only pre-modern nomad that could give people a serious fight and actual defeat into the 16th Century, though by the 17th and 18th Centuries improvements in artillery would smash his armies also. By the 19th Century one Maxim gun v. a Mongol horde = Maxim gun wins. Every time.

The Tercio *could* pull off a victory in the right circumstances, but it would take some serious doing, and the kind of skilled ruthlessness that doesn't necessarily characterize a 16th Century Spaniard force facing wild, alien-looking Tartars from the past.

 

[historyfool]

The crucial element is who leads the Union army in this timeframe. If we're selecting guys like Rosecrans (at his best), Ord, Canby, Schofield, Grant, Thomas, Sheridan, and so on, then that gives the Union a good chance. If we're putting McClellan, Sigel, Jefferson C. Davis, Buell, Halleck, and the like there, then it's a Prussian massacre of a US armed mob.

Frankly of those I consider only Thomas really equal or superior to Steinmetz (that of 66, in 70/71 he frankly showed the signs of an over-aged General similiar to Hindenburg later) Eberhard Herwarth von Bittenfeld, Prinz Friedrich Karl or the Crown Prince. But even Thomas would be no real opponent to Moltke, especially if the latter is backed by Roon at home front.
And the German artillery is really a war changer: The Prussian field guns have a range of 4km and can fire 10 times a minute, the M1857 not even half the range and about two shots a minute. Against such odds someone like Mcclellan who denies battle and sits in fortifications might actually fare better.

 

[Alcatur]

What I meant was that while PLC utilised western style infantry (German/Scottish mercs) and cavalry (rajtaria) it was used mostly against European opponents, not on the 'Wild Fields'. Of course, majority of PLCs army was quite different. Post Bathory Polish-Hungarian infantry didn't bother with pikes because cavalry was decisive force on the battlefield, not because they were effective at winning battles.

PLC used also Hungarian style infantry and of course Cossacks, especially in Eastern front. In most battles against Tatars and Ottomans it was customary to dug in and force the enemy into pitched battle (or at least use carts as mobile fortifications) and attack enemy with short cavalry charges; infantry was crucial for any success. Remember that even Hussary could, was equipped for and was used as missile cavalery or even infantry (Chocim 1621) if army lacked them. Combination of dug-in and defend was used in great number of battles - from memory Obertynów 1531, Cecora in 1595, Cecora in 1620 (and retreat from there), Chocim 1621, Kamieniec Podolski in 1634, Zółte Wody in 1648, at Zborów in 1649 using wagenburg was first reaction to encountering Tatars, at Batoh in 1652, at Podhajce in 1667, in campaigns of Jan III Sobieski between 1674 and 1676. Main strenght of PLC army was their large experience and ablity to use very diferent tactics when necessary - while charges worked against western opponents, against eastern ones infantry was much more important. And all authors agreed that Tatars are particularly vulnerable to firearms and canons.

Superior weaponry in terms of average quality of personal weapons and the like, right? The Red Army will presumably have an advantage in armor and aircraft, even though their other problems may not allow them to use these to their fullest potential. Also, it seems like the Reds would have a numerical advantage...

Bolsheviks had almost no armour and no planes in 1920; both things were crucial for Polish victory. Red commanders were actually making comments like "trained cavaleryman has nothing to fear from an armoured tank" (Gai)

 

[Benjamin XVIII]

No, but the crucial element is that the Mongols *do* know what gunpowder is, and primitive gunpowder weapons *did* make a big boom of the sort that would frighten horses of other nomads, but not this group in particular. The most decisive factor here is that Genghis Khan is leading this group of Mongols, as Genghis was an extremely flexible and adaptable military leader. He's about the only pre-modern nomad that could give people a serious fight and actual defeat into the 16th Century, though by the 17th and 18th Centuries improvements in artillery would smash his armies also. By the 19th Century one Maxim gun v. a Mongol horde = Maxim gun wins. Every time.

The Tercio *could* pull off a victory in the right circumstances, but it would take some serious doing, and the kind of skilled ruthlessness that doesn't necessarily characterize a 16th Century Spaniard force facing wild, alien-looking Tartars from the past.

A very clear and concise breakdown.
I applaud your reasoning.

 

[Redbeard]

I think some of these actually were done in OTL:

Mongols vs. muskets: In Napoleonic wars the Russians deployed a lot of horse archers - the French called them the "least dangerous soldiers" or "Cupidos"! The Bashkirs and Kalmycks of the Russian army might not have been well led, but I think we in general overrate the damage a bow can do.

Frederick vs. Napoleon: At Jena/Auerstadt we saw a Prussian army not much changed since Frederick vs. Napoleon and Wellington's British Army IMHO was much closer to Frederick than Napoleon.

When "arranged" against each other the line of well trained musketeers is hard to defeat, but all in all the Napoleonic system is much more flexible and thus much superior. I know Wellington won the final battle, but that was against a spent ball and only because the Prussians intervened at the last moment. But first of all Wellington depended on the enemy comming to him. If Napoleon had been forced to fight his wars with a British style army he would have been in deep trouble as he rarely would engage the enemy at all.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Elfwine]

I think some of these actually were done in OTL:

Mongols vs. muskets: In Napoleonic wars the Russians deployed a lot of horse archers - the French called them the "least dangerous soldiers" or "Cupidos"! The Bashkirs and Kalmycks of the Russian army might not have been well led, but I think we in general overrate the damage a bow can do.

That doesn't really explain how well or poorly they would do versus the tericos, which are not the same as Napoleon's troops either in organization or equipment.

When "arranged" against each other the line of well trained musketeers is hard to defeat, but all in all the Napoleonic system is much more flexible and thus much superior. I know Wellington won the final battle, but that was against a spent ball and only because the Prussians intervened at the last moment. But first of all Wellington depended on the enemy comming to him. If Napoleon had been forced to fight his wars with a British style army he would have been in deep trouble as he rarely would engage the enemy at all.

You do realize the British could and did attack in this period.

 

[eliphas8]

I think some of these actually were done in OTL:

Mongols vs. muskets: In Napoleonic wars the Russians deployed a lot of horse archers - the French called them the "least dangerous soldiers" or "Cupidos"! The Bashkirs and Kalmycks of the Russian army might not have been well led, but I think we in general overrate the damage a bow can do.

This is a bad comparison, the spanish did not use Muskets at this time. They used arquebuses and other very early handguns that where utter crap when compared to the actually decent guns that where muskets.

 

[Vingilótë]

Mongols vs. muskets: In Napoleonic wars the Russians deployed a lot of horse archers - the French called them the "least dangerous soldiers" or "Cupidos"! The Bashkirs and Kalmycks of the Russian army might not have been well led, but I think we in general overrate the damage a bow can do.

In regards to Mongols vs. muskets, it's not quite the same thing. The Spanish gunpowder troops are not at the level of Napoleon's troops in either tech, organization, or training.

 

[Snake Featherston]

This is a bad comparison, the spanish did not use Muskets at this time. They used arquebuses and other very early handguns that where utter crap when compared to the actually decent guns that where muskets.

And it's also worth noting that Russian irregular cavalry did play a major role in the lethality of the Grande Armee's retreat. Irregulars doing poorly against a well-disciplined modern army is the general pattern of what happens. The two types of war are incompatible. In this sense it's worth reflecting on the irony that Budenny's cavalry did a lot of damage in the winter 1941-2 to the relatively far stronger Wehrmacht, because the local scenarios made that possible.

So...........any simplistic argument like that doesn't necessarily work. Given all the modern examples of forces that on paper should not have survived a single battle against a stronger enemy defeating that enemy by irregular means on a battlefield. Admittedly almost none of them relied on bows and arrows, but then we're discussing the Early Modern Spanish force against the greatest pre-modern general of all time.

Now if we were discussing the Golden Horde or one of his similar successors v. the Spaniards, I'd actually credit the Spaniards more as the Spaniards have a better chance.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Frederick vs. Napoleon: At Jena/Auerstadt we saw a Prussian army not much changed since Frederick vs. Napoleon and Wellington's British Army IMHO was much closer to Frederick than Napoleon.

When "arranged" against each other the line of well trained musketeers is hard to defeat, but all in all the Napoleonic system is much more flexible and thus much superior. I know Wellington won the final battle, but that was against a spent ball and only because the Prussians intervened at the last moment. But first of all Wellington depended on the enemy comming to him. If Napoleon had been forced to fight his wars with a British style army he would have been in deep trouble as he rarely would engage the enemy at all.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Wellington's tactics weren't really based on that premise as in terms of morale that tends to be self-defeating at even a tactical level, by virtue of guaranteeing the initiative to the enemy, meaning you might wait for him in the wrong place and then shit hits fan and splatters. In 1806 the Prussian army also had a different scenario than what's described here, where its leadership is rather superior than was the case when Napoleon invaded it and the great Prussian generals of the later war hadn't yet risen to power.

 

[Arachnid]

When "arranged" against each other the line of well trained musketeers is hard to defeat, but all in all the Napoleonic system is much more flexible and thus much superior. I know Wellington won the final battle, but that was against a spent ball and only because the Prussians intervened at the last moment. But first of all Wellington depended on the enemy comming to him. If Napoleon had been forced to fight his wars with a British style army he would have been in deep trouble as he rarely would engage the enemy at all.

Really? Wellington's Army didn't attack? Can I point you towards the Penninsular War and the Invasion of France, especially the Battles of Vitoria, Orthez, Biadassos, Nivelle, Nive or any one of the dozen battles where Wellington took the offensive and smashed French armies.

 

[Detlef]

I agree the Roman Heavy foot will make up a greater proportion of the army and be qualitatively superior to the Crusader foot. However the Crusaders will have some heavy foot who can go toe to toe with the legions.



Obviously the Romans have missile troops but like the cavalry the Roman missile troops would be outclassed having shortbows and slings. Which are qualitatively inferior to the Crusader crossbows and especially longbows.



What I meant is that thanks to the Crusaders winning the cavalry battle they will be able to use their most powerful element where an when the want. In contrast slower legionaries aren't going to be launching flanking manoeuvres. Obviously the legions are going to react, they aren't morons either but on balance it's better to be the side doing the flanking than being flanked.


The Romans do have an advantage in their heavy foot, but the Crusaders have the advantage in cavalry and missile troops and that will carry the day.

Wouldn´t the Roman Legions have their "battlefield artillery" available?
By that I don´t mean siege weapons but at least the smaller scorpio and ballista?
This for example:
http://www.romanarmy.net/artillery.htm

http://www.romanobritain.org/8-military/mil_roman_artillery.htm

During the Roman Republic and early empire eras, 60 scorpio per legion was the standard, or one for every centuria.
Scorpio were typically used in an artillery battery at the top of a hill or other high ground, the side of which was protected by the main body of the legion. In this case, there are 60 scorpio present which can fire up to 240 bolts per minute at the enemy army.

Don´t know the composition of artillery during Trajan´s time. But a mixture of ballista, scorpio and maybe even catapults attached to every Legion might surprise the Crusaders a bit?

 

[robertp6165]

What I meant is that thanks to the Crusaders winning the cavalry battle they will be able to use their most powerful element where an when the want. In contrast slower legionaries aren't going to be launching flanking manoeuvres. Obviously the legions are going to react, they aren't morons either but on balance it's better to be the side doing the flanking than being flanked.

The Romans do have an advantage in their heavy foot, but the Crusaders have the advantage in cavalry and missile troops and that will carry the day.

Well, I'd love to see the Crusader cavalry charge into the volleys of tens of thousands of pila they will encounter as they approach the Roman infantry formations. There won't be many of them left on horseback...or many horses left standing, for that matter.

The Parthians and Sassanids dealt with Roman legions by wearing them down with archery at beyond pilum range. Only when the Roman formation was breaking up under the sustained archery barage did they send in the heavy cavalry.

And I think you'd find that a Roman infantry formation would be a tough nut to crack with a cavalry charge. The Romans were flexible enough that actually outflanking them would be difficult. They were quite capable of performing the maneuvers necessary to face the oncoming threat. We're not talking about a phalanx here.

As for missiles, yes the Crusaders had crossbows (they didn't have long-bows, which came into use in England after the Crusades were pretty much done). But the average Crusader army didn't have a lot of them. And these wouldn't be the powerful steel crossbows of the later middle ages. These are mostly wooden crossbows we're talking about here, with possibly some composite ones mixed in.

Trajan's armies would have been supported by large numbers of archers, mostly recruited in the East and mostly firing fairly powerful composite bows. Roman slingers were nothing to sneeze at, firing lead slugs which would hit with enough force to cave in a helmet. And the Romans had crossbows too, and, as others have mentioned, mobile artillery.

So I just don't see where the Crusaders have any sort of advantage in missile fire.

 

[Rex Romanum]

I have though read many accounts of the Unions great grandsons beating the Prussans great grandsons not once but twice in the next 80 years. Many an army has under estimated the fighting ability of the American military.

Eh, to be fair, the main reason why United States was able to defeat Imperial Germans and Nazis so easily is because they have been "softened" by Britain/Commonwealth/France/Russia/USSR, for years.

Saying that USA was victorious in both World Wars because "Americans have superior fighting ability than Germans", is somewhat...ludicrous.

Also, don't forget about America's economic and industrial power.

 

[Redbeard]

Sorry I can't reply individually to all the replies to my "provocation", I'm short on time. But concering Wellington he was first of all a great tactician making great use of terrain to support his lines of musketeers to shoot up an enemy usually (feeling) forced to try to dislodge him. That is where Wellington usually won, and certainly when he won over Napoleon.

Had he been in the operational/strategic role Naoleon usually was in, he couldn't have utilized his tactical "tricks" nearly as much, but would have had to deploy his precious infantry in columns to have them move to the attack and have needed the exteme flexibilty the Napoleonic system allowed over armies of several armycorps. And he certainly would have had to control his cavalry much better and he would have had to coordinate his artillery much more. Imagine Wellington at Wagram!?

Next Wellington was lucky he didn't meet Napoleon when he and the French army was in its prime, he might well have ended up as the Prussians did in 1806. But the Prussians did learn a lot, it was that experience that had them develop the staff system, that later in 19th century proved much superior to the French or anything else for that matter. The British hardly had a staff system, but also rarely fielded really big armies .

Wellington is as overrated as the Mongols

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Elfwine]

I note that Wellington's victories on the attack are ignored.

Do we just write those off as not occurring?

 

[SonOfFreedom]

What about the armies led by King David or the US 1941-1945)

 

[Kaiphranos]

What about the armies led by King David or the US 1941-1945)

Hmm, I'd have to give the US the edge in that match-up.