Elite infantry in Medieval times

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Yes they were hired by Byzantium. The Emperor had De Flor killed then Roger's troops defeated local Byzantine forces and went on the rampage.

[edyzmedieval]

Didn't know that....

But didn't the Byz hire condotteri cavalry because they didn't have enough local troops in the late years???(1300-1453)

Í want to find out more about the mercenary troops that the Byz had...

Thnx !

[The Wizard]

The Nicaean empire had a corps of Western knights in their service... since the Westerners called themselves 'Latins' the corps was called Latinikon.

Furthermore, the Turkish mercenaries they hired also had their own corps. Also, at one point the Nicaean empire also had Cuman thematic troops on its eastern borders. These Cumans were the same that had fled first to Hungary after Subedei and Batu Khan had invaded Russia. Both the Turkish mercenaries and the Cumans (who dissapeared from Byzantine armies as the frontier was pushed westwards by the waves of Turkish migration to Asia Minor) were organized into a corps, which was called, paradoxically, Skythikon. Proof of how great an impression the Skythians had made on the Greeks.



~Wiz

[Basiliscus]

Weren't Samurai mounted horse archers primarily?

Indeed they were originally, but by the time Europeans arrived around the 16th century they had progressed more towards melee infantry. These roles were made famous by people such as Miyamoto Mushashi, who roamed around looking for individual duals - to exemplify their honour in battle.

I think the main difference between Mongols and Samurais was that the Samurais' notion of honor was rather on an individual basis, while for the Mongols, it was rather the honor of the whole community.

I would agree with that point and it would seem that the Mongol's "community focus" made them such a formidable enemy in battle, whereas many of their enemies (European Knights and Japanese Samurai) entered battles with a more selfish approach. Not until the introduction of guns and the pike-and-musket battle unit did European knights have to adapt their perception of honour.

[Magister Pediyum]

Come on people 'Medieval' not renascence not Equites, infantry what about Fekeete Sereg/Black Brigade of God king Corvinus

[Watchman]

The Samurai used to be the only "actual" soldiers the Japanese had around, and made up both the infantry and the cavarly. The richer and/or higher-status ones fought on horseback, the rest on foot. The former were mounted archers first and foremost until around the Mongol invasion attempts, which introduced the concept of massed infantry archery (Japanese archery used to be on a rather one-on-one basis, with the mounted guys in armour fighting semi-ceremonial "jousts" with each other) and quickly led to the horse-archer being badly outgunned. The mounted samurai quickly shifted their main attention to long spears after that and mostly became shock cavalry.

Japanese infantry, be they samurai or (later on) ashigaru, tended to have a bow, spear, pike or naginata as their main weapon - the sword was for backup. Although certainly fierce and effective, I don't think there was anything particularly rearkable about their quality as warriors by the standards of the world at the time and frankly I strongly suspect a feudal Japanese army would have utterly collapsed in the face of contemporary European knights - the massed lance charge was absolute murder for most anyone who didn't know how to counter it.

Most places and rulers of the period we call "medieval" had crack troops at their disposal, usually in the form of picked household troops or an elite bodyguard assembled from the best warriors of the realm or somesuch. These guys would most commonly fight on horseback, at least in medieval Europe where "elite warrior" was pretty much synonymous with "horseman", although they would naturally fight on foot if the situation required.

The likes of the Swiss, the Brabancon spearmen or the Almughavars, however, cannot IMHO be properly called "elite" troops; rather, they were people who had found a very effective military method used en masse, which tended to make the degree of individual weapon skill a somewhat secondary consideration. By and large they weren't so effective because they were mighty warriors, but rather because they were highly disciplined and fought as cohesive units - rather like modern armies do. Anyway, where these guys came from the way of fighting that made them so fearsome as battlefield units was the norm, not an exception; and I think one of the prequisites of "elite" status would specifically be training and/or equipement above and beyond the norm, whatever that is, and in the context this isn't fulfilled. These guys were "elite" in comparision to the feudal armies of their time from other regions but not to the forces their home regions could muster.

The likes of Janissaries or the Varangian Guard, however, would merit the title on the grounds of being picked forces trained and equipped above and beyond the level that was the norm among the rank-and-file infantry of their "home regions". Ditto for any less institutional "guard" units some rulers might raise or end up with in their forces.

[Basiliscus]

Japanese infantry, be they samurai or (later on) ashigaru, tended to have a bow, spear, pike or naginata as their main weapon - the sword was for backup.

You are correct about the use of weapons, and is a point I forgot temporarily . It wasn't until after the Tokugawa unified Japan, and the idle samurai had little to do, that the sword took on its importance as the soul of a warrior.

Although certainly fierce and effective, I don't think there was anything particularly rearkable about their quality as warriors by the standards of the world at the time and frankly I strongly suspect a feudal Japanese army would have utterly collapsed in the face of contemporary European knights - the massed lance charge was absolute murder for most anyone who didn't know how to counter it.

Although this is clearly a hypothetical situation, and therefore yourself nor myself cannot be 'right' or 'wrong', I would tend to agree to disagree to your points made. As a direct comparison, I believe that a 16th century European army would have overcome a similarly numbered 16th century Japanese army, as the Japanese had only had limited exposure to guns (in comparison to their European counterparts) and therefore I think they would have been defeated as you say.

But, I think in individual combat (and perhaps this is outwith the context of this thread) the samurai were better trained and better armed. Western-style European armour (being made from primarily metal) would have little resistance to a blow from a Katana, whereas the boiled leather armour of the samurai would have slowed down a blow from an inferior quality western sword. The samurai's armour also allowed greater flexibility than the european armour (perhaps of the earlier - 13th/14th century varieties anyway) and the samurai helmet also allowed greater field of view than the metal visored helmet.

However, not all samurai or knights were trained uniformly, and so this argument has a serious flaw in that it does not take into account the differences in regional training across say Japan or Europe. And also, there was different variations in European arms and armour (for example, the Greeks and the English would have been armoured and fought differently).

I am interested to hear from anyone with somethign to add to this, as I have already stated, as a fictional event, there is no real right or wrong!