"East" Vs "West": A Comparable "Eastern" Army

[ZayoTVRadio]

It seems disappointing, but, and this comes from my admittedly shallow knowledge of history, but I have yet to find a single point in history where an Eastern army has been decisively superior to a Western army on the tactical level. Virtually every single victory an Eastern army has against a Western army either stems from a numerical advantage (crude), shrewd political games (what I consider to be a rather vague and unsophisticated skill) or the quality of the Western army involved (in other words, the defeated army was of below-average-quality). It does not appear to be an easy topic to address with a simple web search, which is why I am here inquiring about it.

In other words, I am looking for a Battle of Gaugamela, Battle of Cannae, or even a Battle of Austerlitz equivalent where an Eastern army decisively won against a Western army, without any obvious advantage, and perhaps, as a bonus, even seeming disadvantages, skillfully overcome by the Eastern leader and/or troops, as opposed to the Western army simply handing them the victory through unforeseen, outside circumstances. If this cannot be found, (this is the part of the request related to alternate history) then one can simply provide an Eastern army that could be conclusively proven to have the ability to pull off such a victory.

Feel free to poke any holes that you see in my request, and as always, "West" here refers to the countries of Europe and European dominated colonies such as the USA, Australia and Argentina, and "East" everyone else, with an emphasis on armies from Asia, hence the term.

Edit: The Eastern army in question may not be under the influence of any Western advisors/allies, especially in a significant capacity, nor be lead by a Westerner. It is allowed, however, to have a Western army lead by an Easterner besting another Western army. Also, both defensive and offensive victories are allowed. Mongols excluded, and besides, they were mostly confined to the fringes of Eastern Europe.

 

[Lindseyman]

The Persians defeated the Romans as often as the Romans defeated them. Then there are always the Mongols.

 

[Gokbay]

The time during the height of the Ottoman Empire?
Russo-Japanese War (ok that is being disingenuous since Japan had a western style army at the time)?
Does Carthage's victories against Rome count?
Nevsky's and Polish/Lithuanian victories against the Teutonic Order?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

In other words, I am looking for a Battle of Gaugamela, Battle of Cannae, or even a Battle of Austerlitz equivalent where an Eastern army decisively won against a Western army, without any obvious advantage, and perhaps, as a bonus, even seeming disadvantages, skillfully overcome by the Eastern leader and/or troops, as opposed to the Western army simply handing them the victory through unforeseen, outside circumstances. If this cannot be found, (this is the part of the request related to alternate history) then one can simply provide an Eastern army that could be conclusively proven to have the ability to pull off such a victory.

Yarmouk, Gaudalete, Hattin, Leignicz, Mohacs, Nicopolis, to name but a few.

 

[ZayoTVRadio]

Western style armies are acceptable, hence this edit of mine; "It is allowed, however, to have a Western army lead by an Easterner besting another Western army". I consider Eastern Europe to be "Western" after 1CE. Carthage is also considered Western, but someone may correct me on that. This also only includes outstanding victories on the level of the significant battles I mentioned in the OP, as opposed to any normal victory.

So far, Yarmouk seems to be a potential candidate I had forgotten, though my knowledge of the Arab Conquests, and in particular, that very battle, along with the state of the Roman Empire at that time, prevent me from considering it.

 

[ZayoTVRadio]

As for your reply, @Fabius Maximus; Saladin appeared to have a clear advantage in Hattin, otherwise I could end it there; Leignicz, dubious; Mohács, no, just no; and Nicopolis, debatable or otherwise, I could have also ended it there. As for Gaudalete and Yarmouk, the Rashidun, and other such polities may have been more militarily competent than I had thought, or remembered. I may simply end it there...may, that is.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

If you exclude Mesopotamia, the Assyrian military was probably superior to the Ahhiyawa or the Mycenaen kingdom of Greece in the Bronze Age. The Ahhiyawa seem to have been seen as somewhat at a parity with the Hittite kingdom., so this is quite an achievement to say the least. Likewise, we would presume Ahhiyawa or Mycenae/Argos and its menagerie of vassals, was the strongest power in Europe most likely (not assured). Thus, generally, we could say, Assyria could defeat any army in Europe 9/10. The same goes for the Hittites, Egyptians, Karduniash (Babylonia) and the prior Mitanni kingdom. The issue Assyria would face in Bronze Age and early Iron Age Europe, is that they would be most likely outnumbered in battle or in difficult terrain for the Assyrian cavalry tactics. Most

Yet, we could say, that Assyria was the most well equip of the ancient realms in terms of a combination of martial sophistication and advanced military methods. Such that essentially no realm on the planet at the time exceeded them in all of the categories, Assyria was generally overpowered by time or by lack of manpower to sustain annual wars. Until the Roman Republic, there was not a 'Western' realm that exceeded Assyria in many of these aspects of military sophistication.

Obviously later, the Ottoman Empire was superior in essentially every way except manpower to the strongest kingdoms in Europe (with the exception of the potentiality of the Papacy). And if we consider the Ottomans western, the Timurids decisively routed the Ottoman army in 1402 with a victory as decisive as Guagemela or Austerlitz.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Carthage isn't 'Western' outside of the geographical sense. When questions like this speak of the West, it's meant in a cultural sense, usually in terms of descent from the Greeks and Romans. The Phoenician derived Carthaginians and their armies of tribal Iberians and Gauls don't meet this criteria.

I'd also emphasize that Yarmouk be counted, if indeed we're talking about the tactical level. They brought a far stronger army to the field and were utterly shattered, losing key provinces basically forever.

Manzikert saw an immense Byzantine army shattered by the Seljuks.

In the Battle of Mohi, the Mongols routed a Hungarian army of roughly equal strength during an opposed river crossing, no mean feat.

The Ottomans repeatedly trounced their rivals in the Mediterranean; the battle of Djerba is probably the most prominent case.

 

[Orcbuster]

It seems disappointing, but, and this comes from my admittedly shallow knowledge of history, but I have yet to find a single point in history where an Eastern army has been decisively superior to a Western army on the tactical level.

Mongols, saracens, ottomans, spanish moors etc, basically any time during the previous millenium when cavalry was the major factor the west tended to be crushed on a tactical level.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

It seems disappointing, but, and this comes from my admittedly shallow knowledge of history, but I have yet to find a single point in history where an Eastern army has been decisively superior to a Western army on the tactical level. Virtually every single victory an Eastern army has against a Western army either stems from a numerical advantage (crude), shrewd political games (what I consider to be a rather vague and unsophisticated skill) or the quality of the Western army involved (in other words, the defeated army was of below-average-quality). It does not appear to be an easy topic to address with a simple web search, which is why I am here inquiring about it.

Winning a war in the boardroom is a far more impressive skill, if you ask me.

Anyway, here are some that might work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adwa Ethiopia beat up Italy.

Do naval battles count? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima Japan just annihilating Russia.

This entire war- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Afghan_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Acre_(1799) Napoleon, no less, getting defeated by the Ottomans.

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

in the first Anglo-Maratha war, -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Maratha_War, after that British use politics and spy and by subverting White officer in Maratha Army. also after the death of Child Peshwa Narayanrao and then Scindia, the banker of India stop there funding to Maratha which bankrupted the central government.
repeatedly in Anglo-Mysore war, Mysore defeated due to British politics not due to war but from Politics.
in 18 century Indian army were on the level of British army only 20-21, the fight with Maratha and Mysore provide capability and experience to subvert alliance and country in European theatre against Napoleon Bonaparte.
so in India in 18 century Indian defeated due to lower strength in institution not on the tactical level.
last war fought between Maratha and Britsh it was noted by British that Maratha wins the battle but Peshawa in two they surrendered due to no support from the banker and nobility. due to Nobility of Maratha see him as the Traitor/kin-slayer son.

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

an example - battle of Pollilur 1780 - British vs Mysore
strength -british -3853-7000 mysore 2000-3000
result- 3000 killed ,200-5000 captured , unknown

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Mongols, saracens, ottomans, spanish moors etc, basically any time during the previous millenium when cavalry was the major factor the west tended to be crushed on a tactical level.

Well, to be fair, European noble cavalry tended to be high tier and better than their Fatimid, Islamo-Iberian and Arab coutnerparts. Then, at least comparable to Central Asian cavalry. European heavy cavalry in the Middle Ages, reminds one of the Arsacid styled heavy cavalry, the so-called cataphracts and this is a strategy that the Arab realms had a weaker edge on the Germano-European realms, that had fantastic heavy cavalry. In fact, in the Crusader wars and the wars in Iberia , the German-Latins were if anything, outdone in the infantry and archery department, but compensated with superior noble cavalry units.

This should come at no surprise either. The Europe of the Middle Ages, was influenced immensely by the Goths, the Germanic peoples and the Huns, a collection of relatviely horse-centred martial societies. Especially when it came to using such as class and lineage distinctions. In comparison, the Arabs were novices and untrained in the ways of cavalry warfare. Hence, the Arabs realms utilized Perso-Turkic cavalry.

 

[Femto]

The Battle of Carrhae. The Partians had the geography advantage I'll give that to Rome, but they were severely outnumbered and Crassus's troops were top-tier.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Speaking of Parthians, they ended up supplanting the Seleucid empire as the dominant power in Iran and Mesopotamia. I don't know the details of how they did it, but I'd imagine there were probably at least a few battles involved.

 

[Creticus]

Speaking bluntly, the line between easterners and westerners is ridiculously arbitrary, thus rendering this pretty much pointless.

 

[Awkwardvulture]

The whole East vs West thing is indeed a little arbitrary, but if you want an example, there is the Battle of Edessa where a heavily outnumbered Sassanid force annihilated a larger Roman force using better tactics(that is not to say that either Empire was better militarily, in fact I believe both were of roughly equal power)

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Speaking of Parthians, they ended up supplanting the Seleucid empire as the dominant power in Iran and Mesopotamia. I don't know the details of how they did it, but I'd imagine there were probably at least a few battles involved.

In pitched battle,s it varied at times. The Seleucids were dominant against the Dahae steppe nomads during the early period and the reign of Antiochus III. In fact, Antiochus III inflicted a severe defeat on the Arsacids and sent Arsaces in flight, where he went north and lived among the Scythians until news arrived of Antiochus III having lost wars in Syria. As such, the Arsacids pushed south once more. The Arsacids in subsequent kings, especially Priapatrius or Arsaces III(191-176 BCE) and Phraates I or Arsaces IV (176-171 BCE) the Arsacids defeated the Seleucids across Parthia, conquering the Parthian region fully (the Arsacids, were Dahae nomads, related to the Scythians, from the region of Kwarezm and modern Kazakhstan). Whence Phraates I passed, he was replaced by Mithradaites I or Arsaces V (171-132 BCE) who allied the Bactrian kingdom and the two dismantled the Seleucid empire, with Mithradaites I destroying the Seleucid filed armies in Mesopotamia thrice.

This series of wars is a good example, but I would not say the Arsacids were superior. They however, had a good geopolitical understanding and effectively used their assets, namely a series of nomadic confederates to their advantage. Likewise, they gained immensely from a Seleucid power often unfocused. Seleucid critical errors remained in the fact that they focused on the legacy of Alexander in Syria, Egypt, Anatolia and Europe, at the expense of their eastern flanks. Antiochus III could lord it over his vassals and foes when he had the power, but once he exhausted himself against Rome and others, his Seleucid empire stood no chance against a determined Arsacid lord, primarily Mithradaites I, who himself claimed to be a reincarnation of Alexander.

 

[alexmilman]

It seems disappointing, but, and this comes from my admittedly shallow knowledge of history, but I have yet to find a single point in history where an Eastern army has been decisively superior to a Western army on the tactical level. Virtually every single victory an Eastern army has against a Western army either stems from a numerical advantage (crude), shrewd political games (what I consider to be a rather vague and unsophisticated skill) or the quality of the Western army involved (in other words, the defeated army was of below-average-quality). It does not appear to be an easy topic to address with a simple web search, which is why I am here inquiring about it.

In other words, I am looking for a Battle of Gaugamela, Battle of Cannae, or even a Battle of Austerlitz equivalent where an Eastern army decisively won against a Western army, without any obvious advantage, and perhaps, as a bonus, even seeming disadvantages, skillfully overcome by the Eastern leader and/or troops, as opposed to the Western army simply handing them the victory through unforeseen, outside circumstances. If this cannot be found, (this is the part of the request related to alternate history) then one can simply provide an Eastern army that could be conclusively proven to have the ability to pull off such a victory.

Feel free to poke any holes that you see in my request, and as always, "West" here refers to the countries of Europe and European dominated colonies such as the USA, Australia and Argentina, and "East" everyone else, with an emphasis on armies from Asia, hence the term.

Edit: The Eastern army in question may not be under the influence of any Western advisors/allies, especially in a significant capacity, nor be lead by a Westerner. It is allowed, however, to have a Western army lead by an Easterner besting another Western army. Also, both defensive and offensive victories are allowed. Mongols excluded, and besides, they were mostly confined to the fringes of Eastern Europe.

The point seems to be close to the favorite notion of the European historians of the XIX century that the European armies starting from the Middle Ages were “regular” while those of Asia were “irregular”. 😀

Well, the Mongols, Medieval Ottomans and Mamelukes, Timur had “regular” armies while their European contemporaries did not. An idea that the “West” was always ahead in the terms of military organization appeared at the times when the historic information was not adequate and easy to ignore if it did not fit the narrative but these times are long gone.

The Umayyad armies which defeated the Visigoths already used stirrups and had real “shock” cavalry while their opponents seemingly did not. And the Franks started creation of their heavy cavalry only after encounters with the Spanish Moors. When the Almoravids invaded Spain their army had a well-organized infantry while their Christian opponents still had been relying exclusively upon the knights. Small wonder that only an outstanding commander like El Cid managed to score few victories. The Ottomans created a high-quality infantry, the Janissary, when their European opponents had nothing of the kind. The “West” started getting ahead in the XVI century and became clearly superior (few offsets here and there aside) by the 1730s - 40s.

There were no “Eastern” armies at Austerlitz: all participating armies had been 100% Western by their organization and by the geographic areas from which they were raised. Needless to say that in 1799 the same Austria-Russian combination kicked the French out of Italy so should it be considered as a triumph of the “Eastern” warfare? 😅

Greek-Persian Wars and Macedonian conquest of Persia did demonstrate a weakness of the existing Persian military system but later the Parthians and Persians managed to hold their ground against a much stronger Rome.


As far as Cannae is involved, who is the “East”? The Rome? Carthage owned at least as much territory in Europe as Rome did and most of the Hannibal’s army had been from the European territories to the West. And the Roman army was bigger.

Exclusion of the Mongols looks as a rather artificial method to confirm the very shaky theory. They did fight successfully against the Europeans. Should we conclude that those from the Eastern and Central Europe do not fit your own definition, which talks about “Europe” as a whole with even Argentine being included. BTW, the Mongols did not confine the “fringes” of the Eastern Europe. It can be argued that the successive capitals of the Golden Horde were close to the “fringe” (approximately 300 - 400 km from the Southern border of Europe and approximately 900 - 1,000 km from the Eastern border) but they advanced successfully all the way to the Adriatic coast and their permanent sphere of influence (Russian principalities; on the map below Novgorodian Republic is not included but it was paying tribute so the whole Northern Russia should be added) covered most of the Eastern Europe.

Then, in the list of the reasons for the “Western” defeats you mentioned the inferior quality of the specific Western troops, which kind of defeats the point you are seemingly trying to make: so the Westerners were superior in quality except for the cases when they were inferior. 🤪

OK, how exactly the “West” at Nikopol was inferior to the general ...er.. “Western” level if its main striking force consisted of the crime of the Herman, French and Burgundian knighthood and the battle was lost due to their pigheaded bravery and the standard methods of fighting? How about the undisputed fact that at that time the Ottomans had a military system superior to the “Western”? Regular well-drilled infantry from the East vs. the knights from the West. The numbers on both sides (the legends aside) had been pretty much equal.

How exactly the “Western” Austrian armies managed to be defeated by the “Eastern” Ottoman armies more than once during the “post-Eugene” period of the XVIII century while the same Ottomans had been routinely beaten by presumably “Eastern” (judging by Austerlitz comment; BTW, do you understand that Russia of the XVIII - XIX was a biggest European country?) Russians? Were the Austrians the “right west” when Charles of Lorraine, Margrave of Baden and Eugene were alive and turned the “wrong west” after his death?

 

[TRH]

Speaking bluntly, the line between easterners and westerners is ridiculously arbitrary, thus rendering this pretty much pointless.

And to the extent they're categorized and contrasted, I'm honestly a lot more used to seeing the exact opposite conclusion drawn by the OP, about how Mongols/Parthians/Abbasids were infallible and invincible, and the idea of them losing to those brainless walking tin cans who called themselves soldiers is ASB.