In 17century which armies were the most succesfull among Europeans and Asian

[Jo the Greek]

This mean in tactics logistics and generall war technology .
I suggest Tercios and Carls Gustavs armies had good tactics that were the start for the 18 cent Tactics

Whilie in Logistics i will added Chinese and ottoman armies

[Fragony]

I'd say Gustav's, the barrel role wasn't new but he perfected it into something that can be used offensively, and he used it to great effect. So I say the Swedes

[Jo the Greek]

One interesting that i read on Gustav is that his changes were based also on nessecity not in clear innovation

[Fragony]

One interesting that i read on Gustav is that his changes were based also on nessecity not in clear innovation

True, the barrel roll was a Dutch invention, but it moved backwards to act like a sponge. Gustav used it to push forwards with great effect. Not really innovative sure, but oh so effective

Edit, Just realised my English sucks, a barrel roll means something else in English. What I mean is rotating a firearms formation. The Dutch moved backwards for it to act as a defence, the Swedes used it offensively

[Kagemusha]

I think if we look into infantry the most advanced would have been Spanish, Dutch and Swedes chronologically. Cavalry wise the Polish Hussars were practically undefeated force during the century. Lot of credit concerning creating of field artillery can be given also to Swedish as they were the first ones to field larger amount of light artillery pieces in field battles.

[Jo the Greek]

i wouldnt agree on cavalry European had mostly heavy cavalry

[Kagemusha]

And Polish arent Europeans? During this period central European cavalries tended to use caracole , which tended to turn cavalry into shooters. The effectiveness of the tactic has been questioned quite a lot.

Concerning Husaria. We have lot of examples of their capabilities. For example against the Swedes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars

[Jo the Greek]

Caracolle was atactic against massive infantry formations like tercios i argue cause Europeans armies may had heavy charge cavalry but lacked light cavalry that others had and was really usefull

And while heavy cavalry had great impact it had drawbacks as being ultra expensive slow and needed a lot of funds to mantain .

[ReluctantSamurai]

True, the barrel roll was a Dutch invention

I thought "rolling fire" for firearms was something Oda Nobunaga came up with for his teppo:shrug:

[Kagemusha]

I thought "rolling fire" for firearms was something Oda Nobunaga came up with for his teppo:shrug:

Similar inventions on other sides of globe.Not uncommon at all.

[Fragony]

Similar inventions on other sides of globe.Not uncommon at all.

Indeed. I really don't know anything about Asian warfare anyway, but the world was big enough by then for such developments everywhere. Didn't gunpowder originally come from China in the first place

[Conradus]

Indeed. I really don't know anything about Asian warfare anyway, but the world was big enough by then for such developments everywhere. Didn't gunpowder originally come from China in the first place

It did, but there are discussions wether they actually used it for warfare like it began to be used in Europe.

[KrooK]

And while heavy cavalry had great impact it had drawbacks as being ultra expensive slow and needed a lot of funds to mantain .
Husaria was not heavy cavarly. It was medium cavarly that was able to fight both with practically every kind of army (infantry, cavarly, missile). In my opinion best armies of XVIIth century was swedish and polish army. Both of them had good infantry and cavarly. Their leaders knew how to use both of them and how to mix infantry and cavarly. Both armies knew how important is artillery and how useful it can be.

To explain my view - theory about weak polish infantry into XVIIth century is not a truth. Polish infantry regiments (called "German type"), especially strenghtened with cossacks, were one of the best infantry into Europe. If we are talking about cavarly, Poland had many kinds of cavarly - mostly medium and light type. There were practically no heavy cavarly (as I wrote husaria was not heavy unit), but husaria was strong enough to fight against any cavarly their faced. Best proof is that Poland won every war its fough into 1st part of XVIIth century.

1. With Russia
2. With Sweden (long hard war, Poland finally won)
3. With Turkey (Chocim - probably greates battle of XVIIth century)
4. With Cossacks

[Fragony]

I thought the Polish were known for their heavy armour in both infantry and cavalry, maybe that was earlier?

[Jo the Greek]

REgarding polish hussars you may see them as medium if you compare them with heavier armed cavalries but i dont think that it was much lighter than the rest Europeans

The charaktiresation light or heavy is given mainly by the horse used

[KrooK]

Actually it was lighter. Far lighter. Husaria armour were made for horseman. It was protecting these part of riders body, who were not hidden behind the horse (horse, head, front of legs, hands). Thats why it was much lighter than typical armour of heavy cavarly. Whole armour weight about 16 - 18 kilograms. Furthermore sometimes they did not used all of their armour (like vs tatars).
Talking about horses - husaria did not used big ones. Small but strong.

[Jo the Greek]

On rolling fire also Janissairies and Chinise used the same method but i dont think that Rolling fire had so much impact on warfare as they still needed a big pikemen block behind them .

And speaking of Janissairies will you consider them in the period refered as better worse on same terms with the European counterparts

[ReluctantSamurai]

but i dont think that Rolling fire had so much impact on warfare as they still needed a big pikemen block behind them

But in Japan teppo and the 'rolling fire' technique changed the way that samurai fought. Yes the musket itself was the driving force behind the sweeping changes in samurai warfare, but the rolling fire technique (as exemplified by the battle of Nagashino) made them much more effective.

[Jo the Greek]

The battle of Nagashino was a prepaired trap for the attacker like British preparations in CUlluden or like Warwagons of Hussite wars Rolling fire was a technik used with Muskets but it the greater use of Firearms in fields

and systematic evolution of them that Led in results like Nagashion or what happened in Europe . But the rolling fire effectiness i think it is a classical theorists boost that derives from non practical knowledge of the actual battles They overstress i think Rolling fire . What i want to say that Rolling fire was effective under some certain historical realities and was Warender tactic .

[Arjos]

I agree with Jo here, what Nobunaga did that was revolutionary, rather than the rolling fire, was the massive (for the time) number of teppo he fielded.
Iirc in other provinces like Kanto, at most there were few hundreds of them. While in Kyushu they were used to ambush, by small skirmishing groups.

Not to mention the "trenches" he had built in that battle.

[Jo the Greek]

I remeber for example how mughals bows helped conquered indian or how superior were Mughal Matchloks cause they were made in Damascus steel both of those i refereed are similar to the rolling fire logic

[Domen]

Polish-Lithuanian army was tactically very strong in field batles, especially in the first half of the 17th century. But usually insufficient in siege battles or trench warfare, mainly due to shortage of infantry (not qualitative shortage, but quantitative one).

After the reforms of king Wladislav IV in the 1630s that changed (infantry component reached 60% of entire army strength, Wladislav also strengthened and modernized Polish-Lithuanian artillery). This resulted in the victorious war vs Russia in years 1632 - 1634 and Sweden asking for prolongation of the armistice on terms favourable for Poland without resistance in 1635.

But those reforms were then crippled by military defeats of the late 1640s and 1650s (mainly occuring as the result of internal conflicts - i.e. the Cossack Uprising in Ukraine), which decimated the best part of the Polish army (especially the defeat at Batoh in 1652).

Also prolonged wars were a big problem for Poland-Lithuania, due to obsolete tax system, and in effect shortage of money in the State Treasury to finance a prolonged large-scale war. There were attempts of reforming the taxation system but no of them was completed because it was not seen as absolute necessity (and nobility was in general very reluctant to pay taxes).

One cure to this financial problem was the registery Cossack infantry - those soldiers were very cheap, in fact they served for almost no money (compared to other types of infantry - i.e. Polish-style musketeers and German-style musketeers) and they were good as infantry. However, after the Cossack Uprisings of 1648 and the subsequent war against Russia, Poland lost large part of Ukraine.



Talking about horses - husaria did not used big ones. Small but strong.


They weren't small, they were medium size, but strong, resistant and fast at the same time.

Husaria used horses which were called back then "the Polish horses" - a breed of horses that nowadays is extinct.

At that time Polish horses were considered as one of the best breeds of horses in the world known to Europeans.