Post by dpd on Sept 4, 2022 14:49:43 GMT
Found this fascinating video comparing Eastern tactics based on foot archers/musketeers and cavalry vs. Western tactics based on pike and shot (or crossbow):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEJak1DDm6k
It is assumed by Western historians that Western tactics represented a technical advance (the infantry revolution) over Eastern Tactics.
Yet armies using Eastern tactics (Polish hussars, Ottoman janissaries, etc.) routinely defeated Western pike and shot armies.
It could be argued that English armies of the HYW used Eastern tactics combining longbowmen with knights.
So who was really superior?
Why did the East not use heavy foot?
Why did the West not use armies that were mostly cavalry?
How did Eastern armies protect foot archers from cavalry charges?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEJak1DDm6k
It is assumed by Western historians that Western tactics represented a technical advance (the infantry revolution) over Eastern Tactics.
Yet armies using Eastern tactics (Polish hussars, Ottoman janissaries, etc.) routinely defeated Western pike and shot armies.
It could be argued that English armies of the HYW used Eastern tactics combining longbowmen with knights.
So who was really superior?
Why did the East not use heavy foot?
Why did the West not use armies that were mostly cavalry?
How did Eastern armies protect foot archers from cavalry charges?
