Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Atlantia
Now obviously there are some rather famous examples where 'modern' European/western armies underestimated their oponents and came to a sticky end, but these are often more historical 'blips' than anything else.
What really interests me is where European armies have faced non-european opponents with different martial traditions and 'technology' and found it to be an equal.
I often wonder when looking at some of the marvelous ethnographic weapons on this site how they would fare in combat against European steel and tactics?
I can think of a few good examples of this, mostly from when the British Empire reached India and Afghanistan, but I wondered if anyone (as I'm sure those reading this are collectors of both Euro and Ethnographic weapons) have any great examples of their favourite ethnographic weapons proving themselves against European armies?
|
Hello,
A fascinating discussion, thank you everyone for such an interesting read.
The Ottomans won some pretty impressive campaigns against Europeans in the early 18th Century, I feel these may be worth a mention as this was a period when their technology and tactics were said to be in a state of decline. While it is arguable that the post 17th Century military technology of the Ottomans never quite matched that of the Europeans; it is commonly understood that great military reform efforts begin with Selim III (1789-1807) who made the first major attempts to modernise the army along European lines. Taking this into account, let’s have a look at some pre-reform victories that could perhaps be labelled a more than simply 'historical blips'. I won’t go into their 16th century victories in this post, but the Turks certainly enjoyed many of them. Although in regards to military victories, the 18th century would not be as successful for the Ottomans, there were some important successes.
During the 18th century, Europeans found themselves opposed by large armed forces of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. The Ottoman armies consisted of many different peoples who had an array of different arms and of course these arms differed both in quality and sophistication. The soldiers of these armies ranged from well-trained professional soldiers and semi-nomadic horseman etc, to armed peasants. Of course the European armies they faced were not always completely different in terms of quality, but one can perhaps suggest that they were most often better trained and armed. Nevertheless, the Turks won some important and noteworthy campaigns; in 1711, fast moving Turkish cavalry outmanoeuvred the Russian army under Peter the Great, the Russians had found the local peoples not as supportive as they had hoped and compounded their already poor logistical position by advancing as a huge singular force. The Turks found it quite easy to surround them and the Russians under fire from Turkish guns and being constantly skirmished, had to accept humiliating peace terms.
In 1715, the Venetians were driven from southern Greece by the Ottomans in what was arguably one of the most decisive campaigns of the century. In 1739 the Austrian army was driven back into Belgrade by the Turks in such a decisive campaign the Austrian generals surrendered in fear of more losses. While the Ottoman Turks would lose many campaigns due to poorer weaponry (and other reasons), particularly at sea, the size of their empire enabled the movement of resources and men in order to focus strength on a particular opponent, thus increasing their military effectiveness.
To fast forward history now, I have noticed there has been some discussion on Vietnam here: This has made me think about the Allied loss at Galipolli in 1915/16- I wonder if this may be a viable addition to this discussion.
Regards