# TOP 12 cavalry of all time.[no order]



## AUSTERLITZ

They will not be ranked by quality.1 is given to denote first entry thats all.

1]MACEDONIAN HETAIROI COMPANION CAVALRY.

The cavalry force that won alexander his empire,unmatched in its day.Lead by alexander in person and composed of friedns with superb camaraderie and co ordination.Campaigned from greece to india.

Weapons and armour.

Xyston-Thrusting spear.
Kopis-short sword.
Boetian helmet.
Shoulder guards.
Bronze cuirass.
Horses had partial head and breast plating for limited protection vs missiles.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Kopis.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Organized into tetrachies.

Each tetrachy of 49 men was formed into WEDGE formation.4 tetrachies formed a squadron[ILE].
Each squadron had 200 heavy cavalry.
Only the royal Ile had 400 men.This was commanded by alexander in person and composed of the creme de la creme.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The tetrachy wedge.Four wedges like these formed a ile[squadron].The phalanx held the enemy in place with its pikes while the cavalry wedges smashed its flanks.

Next;Arab Mobile guard/ummayad cavalry.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Basbug

Kapkikulu, Spahi many more Great Turkish Cavalry.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

2.ARAB CAVALRY[Rashidun and ummayad]

These are the cavalrymen responsible for the great islamic conquests initiated primarily under the generalship of khalid ibn al walid and his feared mobile guard.They swept all accross them from the pyranees in the west to the indus in the east defeating the byzantines and sassanids.The interesting thing is there was no standardized doctrine or equipment that is clearly known
Their main advantages were extreme mobility,superb horsemanship,religious zeal and endurance from harsh desert conditions.The main strategy was deception and hit and run to wear the enemy down,then finish the demoralized forces with massed charges.They were superb in skirmishing and use of terrain.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
What khalid's mobile guard charging would look like.Badass ninja look.

The main weapons were lances,and both straight and curved blades.Plus the arabic dagger khanjar.

The swords included primarily straight swords during early rashidun era.The infamous scimitar and cutlass evolved a little later.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The 'saif ' scimitar ,the official weapon for holy war.Used for slashing strikes.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Thrusting straight swords.Show byzantine and persian influence.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The moorish cutlass,used primarily by the moors of spain.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Other than this the khanjar arabic dagger was also carried.


Next;Norman Knight

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Before everyone comes up why i haven't included his fav cavalry.my list is.

Macedonian hetairoi.
Mongol horde.
Mamelukes.
French napoleonic cuirassiers.
Arab cavalry.
Turkish sipahi.
Parthian/sassanid cataphract.
Russian cossacks.
Indian war elephant.
Steppe horse archer[turkic/hun/scythian etc]
Norman knight.
Polish winged hussar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kambojaric

The Delhi Sultans cavalry was formidable as well. They went up against the Mongols on several occasions and came out the winners.


----------



## Basbug

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Before everyone comes up why i haven't included his fav cavalry.my list is.
> 
> Macedonian hetairoi.
> Mongol horde.
> Egyptian mamelukes.
> French napoleonic cuirassiers.
> Arab cavalry.
> Turkish sipahi.
> Parthian/sassanid cataphract.
> Numidian skirmisher cavalry.
> Indian war elephant.
> Steppe horse archer[turkic/hun/scythian etc]
> Norman knight.
> Polish winged hussar.



mameluks were Turks, you seem to have no idea of history. 

Kapikulu elite cavalry.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

I am not talking about ethnicity,but the area/nation they served for.Egyptian mamelukes were extremely deadly vs mongols.christian crusaders,later many served in turkish armies after ottoman conquest.Napoleon destroyed them finally but was impressed and hired them and squadrons of mamelukes served in the grande armee.

The elite turkish cavalry in numbers was the sipahi,it was a war winning instrument in its time.

But if u want mamelukes will do.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kambojaric

What happened to your infantry thread?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Bamxa said:


> The Delhi Sultans cavalry was formidable as well. They went up against the Mongols on several occasions and came out the winners.



True,but it was regional in nature.Mostly confined to subcontinent.Also alauddin khilji defeated the mongols using indian war elephants.
The combination of similar turkic cavalry and war elephants was too much for the mongols.

I see moderator has deleted infantry thread for being duplicate thread.How are infantry and cavalry same?facepalm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basbug

Kapikulu was elite cavalry aswell. 

Quick note Ottoman cavalry in the game Napoleon total War have the best set of cavalry and that game is set in stagnation / downfall, so even in them times we was elite of elite.


----------



## Kambojaric

Out of curiosity, does cavalry play an important role in South East Asian warfare? I know pretty much nothing about historical Vietnamese/Cambodian armies other than that they did use elephants. What about horses?

For me the best: 
light cavalry = cavalries that emerged out of Central Asia (whether it be Turkic or Iranian or Mongolian). The parthian shot and feigned retreats was their trademark and used successfully again and again.

heavy cavalry = medieval European knights. A big combined charge by these horseman could break any infantry. However this way of warfare was only suitable for colder climates, as the heavy equipment that these knights wore, bore a heavy toll on them in hotter climates, best exemplified by what happened at Hattin.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Heavy cavalry too emerged from the parthian cataphract.The sassanid cibinarii and byzantine cataphractoi are direct descendants of this.Later europeans under franks of charlemagne adopted the knight.
Btw in napoleon total war game best cavalry is french imperial heavy horse guard grenadiers,the only undefeated regiment of the napoleonic wars.
Light cavalry was always from steppe,because archery used for hunting and horsemanship,the way of life were both excellent military skills,So steppe nomadic people didn't have to train armies,their lifestyle itself produced excellent cavalry.But once they settled down,their advantage would slowly dwindle.As a mongol general famously said-u could conquer the world on horseback but alas u couldn't rule it from there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Bamxa said:


> The Delhi Sultans cavalry was formidable as well. They went up against the Mongols on several occasions and came out the winners.



Not much details on exact tactics used against the Mongols by Zafar Khan and Khilji


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

3.NORMAN KNIGHT/TEUTONIC KNIGHT.

The most accomplished medieval knights were the normans,teutons and the templars.
The norman knight was the predator of the western european battlefield in france and england.Its greatest triumph at hastings during norman conquest of england.
The teutonic knights based in prussia,spread terror against the polish and lithuanians,especially the pagans.They also took part in crusades.The templar knight was very similar to the norman knight and was primarily a force for crusades where they met their match against the fast moving seljuk cavalry that refused to meet their charge head on.In europe the rise of armoured pikemen and english longbow eventually led to their decline.But armoured cavalry in their time was the king of the medieval battlefield.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Charge of the teutonic knights.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Norman knight,lighter but more mobile.

Arsenal consisted of Long lance,Norman longsword,kite shield,chainmail armour and mace or battle axe.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Templar knight.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The norman longsword.Maces and battleaxes were also common.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
How they looked in battle.

Next-The steppe horse archer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## livingdead

Thanks for the effort mate. It was an iteresting read.


----------



## mehmeTcc

Those heavy cavalry you have mentioned has no chance against light armoured hordes. History proved this in Manzikert.
Huns and Memluks are Turkic btw. And what about Khazarian Alps? Europe owes them much.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Bamxa said:


> Out of curiosity, does cavalry play an important role in South East Asian warfare? I know pretty much nothing about historical Vietnamese/Cambodian armies other than that they did use elephants. What about horses?
> 
> For me the best:
> light cavalry = cavalries that emerged out of Central Asia (whether it be Turkic or Iranian or Mongolian). The parthian shot and feigned retreats was their trademark and used successfully again and again.
> 
> heavy cavalry = medieval European knights. A big combined charge by these horseman could break any infantry. However this way of warfare was only suitable for colder climates, as the heavy equipment that these knights wore, bore a heavy toll on them in hotter climates, best exemplified by what happened at Hattin.



On S-E asian warfare.
The chinese suffered and learned form the steppes and in the heyday of the tang maintained huge cavalry armies,these were of solid quality.Though they did suffer a loss to the umayyads,and to the mongols.But almost everyone lost to the mongols.

In japan cavalry was not predominant,the generals and select few rode and fought on horseback though.
Th predominant cavalry weapon was the japanese naginata.Samurai fought on horseback as archers and for individual combat.
Massed organized charges were not there till takeda shingen introduced in japan during the sengoku era .Takeda cavalry was feared throughout nippon as a battlewinning arm,till it was destroyed by massed volleyfire from arquebusiers at the battle of nagashino by oda nobunaga,the first unifier of japan.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Mounted samurai.Note bow and katana,wakizashi swords.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Naginata,used by later charge cavalry of the sengoku era.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

On south east asia,these heavily forested and damp areas didn't produce cavalry of good calibre.The elephant was the strike arm instead.This applied to most parts of india as well except rajasthan and later maharashtra.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ajtr

poona horse...........................


----------



## Basbug

Those heavy cavalry can get tired quick, slow not mobile, a Turkish Cavalry maybe Ak&#305;nc&#305; can hunt them down on horse with he's bow.


----------



## livingdead

Basbug said:


> Those heavy cavalry can get tired quick, slow not mobile, a Turkish Cavalry maybe Ak&#305;nc&#305; can hunt them down on horse with he's bow.



Ok.. turkey is best. happy now?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

mehmeTcc said:


> Those heavy cavalry you have mentioned has no chance against light armoured hordes. History proved this in Manzikert.
> Huns and Memluks are Turkic btw. And what about Khazarian Alps? Europe owes them much.



I mentioned it that they met their match against light cavalry that refused to meet their charge.But even though on occasions they caught up with the enemy like at arsuf results were devastating.
BUt u are right these were obsolete vs steppe horse archers with composite bows ,and the mongols would prove this at mohi and liegnitz destroying the european knights.And yes manzikert was another classic example of steppe hordes doing their thing.
Btw not all horse archers were turks huns and turkic tribes certainly were,but parthians were primarily iranian,the kushans,the scythians,alans,sarmatians etc so i gave steppe horse archer as a generalization.


----------



## Kambojaric

AUSTERLITZ said:


> On south east asia,these heavily forested and damp areas didn't produce cavalry of good calibre.The elephant was the strike arm instead.This applied to most parts of india as well except rajasthan and later maharashtra.



Yes that was my guess as well.



Basbug said:


> Those heavy cavalry can get tired quick, slow not mobile, a Turkish Cavalry maybe Ak&#305;nc&#305; can hunt them down on horse with he's bow.



It all comes down to the generals ability. Both heavy cavalry and light cavalry have advantages and disadvantages. If you play to your advantage then you are bound to win. At Arsuf for example, the Crusaders heavy cavalry dealt a crushing blow to the comparably light armoured Muslim army as the battle had ended up in close hand to hand combat. At Hattin before that however, Salahuddin had been able to maintain a distance from the Crusaders instead preferring to harass them with hit and run tactics. The Crusader cavalry were simply unable to chase down the light Ayyubid cavalry. The victory there was hence Salahuddins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

4.THE STEPPE HORSE ARCHER

From the hellenistic period right until the rise of gunpowder infantry,the steppe horse archer from central asia was a terryfying foe,mostly because it combined excellent mobility and devastating firepower meaning it could kill u while u couldn't touch them.[the american way of war at present]It was the smart bomber of the ancient and medieval era.Fielded by steppe hordes with born horsemen and used in a organized fashion they were very difficult to stop.
From the scythians and sarmatians,to the huns and parthians,later the seljuk turks,the turkictatar tribes of the steppes to finally the dreaded mongols they were a dominant force on the battlefields of medieval and ancient eurasia.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Parthian horse archers.Rome's nemesis.These annhilated crassus's legions at carrhae.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Kushana horse archers.Descended from the yue chi tribe of central asia.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The famed 'parthian shot'.Where the horseman turned back and fired while riding away simultaneously.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Scythian royal cavalry.Only alexander ever succeded against them.Cyrus lost his head[literally],darius failed.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Typical horse archer equipment.This one from the kypchak-bulgar hordes.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Dismounted seljuk turks.Terror of byzantium.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Arsenal of the huns.Scourge of late rome.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Typical composite bows.

Next;Indian war elephant.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Bamxa said:


> Yes that was my guess as well.
> 
> 
> 
> It all comes down to the generals ability. Both heavy cavalry and light cavalry have advantages and disadvantages. If you play to your advantage then you are bound to win. At Arsuf for example, the Crusaders heavy cavalry dealt a crushing blow to the comparably light armoured Muslim army as the battle had ended up in close hand to hand combat. At Hattin before that however, Salahuddin had been able to maintain a distance from the Crusaders instead preferring to harass them with hit and run tactics. The Crusader cavalry were simply unable to chase down the light Ayyubid cavalry. The victory there was hence Salahuddins.



Thank you ,i don't usually expect people to be so knowledgable,reasonable and non fanboyish here.Pleasant surprise.


----------



## Basbug

Kapikulu Spahi right next to the Sultan in battlefield heavy cavalry


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Don't steal my pics and thunder
Wait for the sipahi.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

5.The INDIAN WAR ELEPHANT

The elephant has been used a weapon of war in africa by carthage as well but the smaller carthaginian african pachyderm was tiny before the behemoth of the asian elephant,which was the mobile weapon of decision of the ancient indian and south east asian armies.Fielded in large numbers[around 500 or over] they were nearly unstoppable,and were used as tanks of the ancient battlefield.They were used successfully from the time of the mauryas,guptas,the khmer empire,by prithviraj at 1st tarain,and alauddin vs the mongols,right into the mughal era by akbar as a terror inducing tool,mobile missile platform and charging juggernaut to trample soldiers underneath.However a serious drawback was if a elephant went berserk it could trample ur own soldiers as well.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The mauryan war elephants,both armoured and unarmoured.Chandragupta maurya was said to possess 9000 war elephants with which he conquered india and defeated seleucus's macedonian army.Seleucus would exchange 500 indian war elephants for 4 of his provinces.These elephants would go on to win him the battle of ipsus of the diadochi wars.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Recreation of porus's war elephant.Porus had 70-130 war elephants,but these were enough to create a lasting impression on the greeks.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
War elephants of the khmer empire.Note how these beasts were used as mobile fortresses mounting longbowmen and javelineers who got a height/range advantage and were invulnerable to cavalry who were afraid of the smell of elephants.The armoured foot soldiers were placed between elephants to protect them from light infantry getting too close .Once the enemy was peppered with arrows and javelins and disrupted enough,the elephants would charge en masse and rout them.Tactics was similar in india.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Mughal war elephant,elephants were the tanks of the battlefield and mughal emperor akbar understood that tanks needed armour.These behemoths were used as command centres on the battlefield.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Mughal war elephant,note matchlock musketeers ahve replaced longbowmen and javelineers.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Not hard to imagine Impact of a elephant charge on massed formations.

Next;Ottoman Sipahi

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

6.OTTOMAN SIPAHI

The ottoman sipahi was a brute force in eastern european battlefield unrivalled in discipline and tactics in its timeframe.
Timarli Sipahis of anatolia and Timarli Sipahis of rumelia (the Ottoman Balkan provinces) had employed different equipments and tactics. Timarli Sipahis of Anatolia equipped and fought as classic horse archer style. They could shoot arrows back and forth while galloping. Yet they weren't nomadic cavalry and their status was similar to medium cavalry class. Balkan Timarli Sipahis donned chainmail, rode barded horses and carried lances. Though they also carried javelins as missile weapons to fend off chasing enemy cavalry, and fought as medium cavalry.

Timarli Sipahis of classical Ottoman period usually comprised the majority of the army and did the majority of the fighting on the battlefield. While infantry troops of the army's center maintained a static battle line, the cavalry flanks constituted its mobile hitting arm. During the battle, Timarli Sipahi tactics were used, opening the conflict with skirmishes and localized contacts with enemy cavalry. Regiments of Timarli Sipahis made charges against weaker or isolated units and whenever confronted with heavy cavalry, retreated back to main body of troops. During one regiment's retreat, other regiments of sipahis may have charged the chasing enemy's flanks. This way, they were trying to draw enemy cavalry away from infantry support, distort their cohesion, isolate and overwhelm them with numerical superiority. Anatolian Sipahis had the ability to harass and provoke opposing troops with arrow shots. More heavily equipped Balkan Sipahis were carried javelins for protection against closing enemy horsemen during their tactical retreats. This way, all cavalry flanks of Ottoman army fought a fluid, mounted warfare around center of the army which remained as a stable pivot.
Though many cavalrycorps were called it was the kapikulu sipahis and silahtars that were the true elite of the ottoman cavalry.The mounted counterpart of the jannisaries,they were employed in the rearguard as a reserve force and personal bodyguards of the sultan.They were the ultimate reserve and could decide the battle with a single charge as at nicopolis 1396.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The timarli sipahis of anatolia.Fought as horse archers complementing their heavy cavalry bretheren.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Timarli sipahis of rumelia.Note the wicker round shield,This was discarded later with proliferation of gunpowder weapons as it became obsolete.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Sipahi fully evolved.Lance the primary weapon of choice.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Kapikulu sipahis,creme de la creme.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The ottoman kilic cavalry sabre.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Ominous looking turkish spahi mace.Shows byzantine influence.These things could be downright brutal.Don't get what i'm talking about?just play age of empires 3.These mace wielding spahi maniacs are so badass that playing as ottomans[my fav civ] u can't build them!U can only ship a limited number from shipments.Not allowed to build lol.

Next: Polish winged hussar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## scholseys

Suely napoleon's french cavalry desserves a spot


----------



## KS

@AUSTERLITZ - would the Maratha cavalry find a mention in your list ?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Very close but not good enough,same for rajput cavalry,mughal cavalry,.[which was descended from timurid lancer which again was version of mongol heavy lancer and iranian cataphract].They simply didn't go beyond regional warfare.

Note i have now removed numidian skirmisher cavalry as well,unfortunately i simply couldn't keep out the russian cossacks so they miss out.



aazidane said:


> Suely napoleon's french cavalry desserves a spot



Obviously !If u read the whole thread.In my list are the french napoleonic heavy cavalry.Cuirassiers and carabiniers.Vive 'l' empereur.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

The hungarian hussar,prussian death's head hussars,finnish hackapelle,han armoured cavalry,tang heavy cavalry,afghan mailed lancers and gothic heavy cavalry also miss out unfortunately.As for those which have missed out if any of u are fans do post pics and info on them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Tired for tonight.Tomorrow will finish this with the rest.

Polish winged hussar.
Cataphract
Cossacks
Mamelukes
Cuirassiers 

and the only one i'll rank.The best for the last.The mongol horde.
Then start with infantry.


----------



## neolithic

*The Savaran: The Original Knights (Sassanian)*


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

7.POLISH WINGED HUSSAR.

Last we had the ottoman sipahi,now its the turn of their arch nemesis,arguably the best dressed soldiers in history.The polish winged hussar.Armed with a freaking 20ft lance,two swords plus pistols and armoured like a moving mounted tank with ostrich wings attatched they were a fearsome sight on the eastern battlefield for over a hundred yrs[1570-1680s]

From the 1570s for over the next century the winged hussar was nearly unstoppable,just about everyone from the swedes ,to the russians,the crimean tatars,cossacks,to the ottoman turks suffered pointy edged pain at their hands.In battle after battle the charge of the winged hussars turned the tide against overwhelming odds examples klushino 1610[6500 poles[not all hussars] rout 35000 russians],kircholm 1605[2600 hussars rout 11000 swedes pikemen mostly!],klusyzin[vs russians outnumbered 5 to1],vienna 1683,khotyn 1673[vs the ottoman turks].





Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Incoming1Hussars closing distance.They would trot in loose formation before closing ranks,lowering spears and charging at the gallop.The horses were mixed breeds of tatar horse for mobility and stamina with polish indigenous horse for strength .





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Equipment of polish winged hussar,curved sabre and the massive koncerz or palash straight thrusting sword.Look at its length.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The epic ostrich wing armour.The myth is that these made a disturbing sound when charging,more likely they were for visual effect and adopted from turkish akinci who wore eagle feathers and such.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The winged hussar was known to even defeat pikemen[though not always] an astonishing feat courtesy of its enormous 20 ft lance that outreached the infantry's pike.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The polish winged hussar's greatest hour was siege of vienna 1683 when a charge spearheaded by 3000 of these routed the ottoman army.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The koncerz or palash.Thrusting sword,this was used as a secondary charging weapon after the lance broke.For close combat the sabre and pistols were used.The koncerz word is supposedly derived from arabic 'khanjar' though they are completely diff weapons.

The polish winged hussar was unstoppable in its heyday,but the first problems began with the reforms of gustavas adolphus and massive increase in gunpowder weaponry in western european armies.By 1775 the obsolete winged hussars finally died out.But they would be reborn in a new form in a few decades,under napoleon the infamous polish lancer would terrorize france's enemies.The dreaded elite of these were the polish old guard lancers and the vistula uhlans,among the most celebrated cavalry of the napoleonic age. 




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Next-The cataphract.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

8]THE CATAPHRACT

The cataphract is among the most influential cavalry types of all time- a huge array of people from the hellenistic successor states,the parthian and sassanids iranians,the indo greek bactrians,the kushanas,the sakas,the byzantines and romanas adopted the cataphract.In europe the franks adopted it as the knight.Later age heavy cavalry like sipahis,timurid heavy cavalry,mughal and rajput cavalry was often a mixture of the old cataphract model with the mongol heavy lancer.
This one will deal with mostly the original cataphracts.
The concept of super heavy cavalry originated with achaenamid persia but was perfected under the seleucids and then the parthians.Later the romans and byzantines facing these metal clad machines of death adopted their own cataphracts.
Indeed belisarius's ctaphract guard was a elite formation responsible for many byzantine victories.Perhaps the most formidable of the early cataphract along with the byzantines was the sassanid clibinarii[immortals] cataphracts.The royal guard,these were the elite of the iranian sassanid cavalry.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Early parthian cataphracts.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Hellenistic seleucid cataphract.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The primary weapon common with all cataphracts was the lance.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The byzantine cataphract.The mask added to the intimidation factor.Close combat was done with the longsword and battle axe.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Saka cataphracts.Primary opponents of the parthians and the gupta empire.Sakas[indo-scythians are usually identified with modern day jats of the subcontinent].They destroyed the indo greek bactrian kingdom.Note the cool horns on the horses.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The sassanid clibinarii immortal cataphract wielding a mace.These were the ultimate shock troops of sassanid emperors like khusrau and were a common sight facing their byzantine cataphract counterparts.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The cataphract like cavalry eventually spread to china and korea,due to contact with the steppe tribes who had adopted it from parthians and sakas.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Parthian and armenian cataphracts duking it out.

Next:The cossack

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Surenas

The Iranians have introduced heavy cavalry in the world. Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Massagatae, Achaemenids, Parthians and Sassanids were the best cavalries of their time, and perhaps even better than most cavalries after them. The Cataphract is a good example. That whole European knighthood is 'borrowed' from Iranians. Armor, lance, Parthian shot, etc. All from Iranians. Our heavy cavalry even kicked Roman's as$ multi pious time. Turks, Mongols and Huns all were influenced by Iranians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cavalry#Persians

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

9.THE COSSACK

The word cossack comes from the turkish 'quzzac' meaning adventurer.They were a predominantly slavic people in the don and dneiper basins from ukraine to volga.The cossacks are usually regarded among the best light cavalry of all time,they were absolute masters of ambushing,skirmishing,raiding,reconssaince and hit and run tactics.They served the russian czars ,in return for military service recieved local autonomy and paid no taxes.They played a pivotal role in war with poles,turks,against the french during napoleon's age they reached the peak of their glory.They were present during ww1 and even during ww2 carried out infiltration and irregular warfare behind german lines.They were the last capable cavalry of modern times.They also had contempt for outside authority,this was exemplified by their vow to the czar of capturing napoleon which they let known[which they almost succeeded] or in their incredibly insulting reply to a ottoman sultan for a demand of surrender.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Lifeguard cossack of the imperial guard."Cossacks are the best light troops among all that exist.
If I had them in my army, I would go through all the world with them."-Napoleon.
Note the lance ,sabre and pistols.A austrian officers's view on cossack's equipment.
''The lance is their main weapon. He knows how to use this weapon with great skill and security, nevertheless the fact that it is one and a half foot longer as the Polish lance. He knows how to use his sabre just as well; officers and NCO&#8217;s practice them for use against the Turks. The pistol is of less value to him. He considers it not really as a weapon, but only as a tool to scare the enemy. He fires only to fire, not to hit anything, and in common there are few Cossacks which use their pistols... Tettenborn armed his Cossacks completely with French muskets... The Cossack loves the use of a firearm, because of the reason that he fears the one of the enemy. He wants to take artillery with him, and the name Poushki (cannon) is for him a word of joy, as well as of fear...A tenth of every squadron consists of marksmen; Strelki. Rifle and pistols are mostly Turkish or Persian booty."





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Don cossacks.They were masters of irregular warfare.There was a polish saying-never skirmish with the cossacks.
On their tactics an austrian officer writes-
'The Cossack fears horsemen of no nation, except the Turks.For the Polish lancers he has admiration, because these
were capable to fight in closed, as well as in open order,and because he had to cope with them almost all the time
during the latest war.The French, as long as they possessed cavalry, held back
their own in closed order and sent forward the Polish for light duties. The German and French light cavalry are not
feared by the Cossack. He will not stand and oppose their formed attacks, and in open order he will surpass them in
manoeuvrability."





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Cossack cavalry acrobatics.They were superb horsemen.But they also had a very bad reputation as looters and indisciplined savagery,There were cases in Italy and Germany when townspeople came out to greet them as liberators, only to be quickly despoiled of clothes, watches and money. The naked men and women fled in horror. The Germans used new words in their prayer, "Save us Lord, from Cossacks". The bearded warriors "with six looted watches in each pocket" frightened the westerners. The 'Jackass Cavalry' spread terror wherever they went.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Cossacks during ww2.The lance had been replaced by the submachine gun and rifle.But they were still masters of irregular fighting.

Next:The mameluke.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Surenas said:


> The Iranians have introduced heavy cavalry in the world. Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Massagatae, Achaemenids, Parthians and Sassanids were the best cavalries of their time, and perhaps even better than most cavalries after them. The Cataphract is a good example. That whole European knighthood is 'borrowed' from Iranians. Armor, lance, Parthian shot, etc. All from Iranians. Our heavy cavalry even kicked Roman's as$ multi pious time. Turks, Mongols and Huns all were influenced by Iranians.
> 
> Heavy cavalry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



True,persia was the birthplace of super heavy cavalry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Surenas

AUSTERLITZ said:


> True,persia was the birthplace of super heavy cavalry.



That's right my friend. Even the Ottoman Sipahi were influenced by Iranian heavy cavalry. The word 'Sipahi' is an Persian world itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

10.THE MAMELUKES

The mamelukes of egypt,originally slave soldiers rose to become some of the best light cavalry in the world.Their superb horsemanship,extreme mobility and fearlessness coupled with excellence in ambush and surprise ,scouting enabled them to halt the invincible mongol war machine and crush the crusaders under sultan baybars.The mamluk empire flourished in egypt,until being conquered by the ottomans.The mamelukes of egypt served in turkish armies especially against safavid persia.They were finally defeated by napoleon in his egyptian campaign 1798 .But he was so impressed by their courage he recruited some and took them back to europe to form a squadron of mamelukes in his imperial guard.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The early mamluk soldier,before the increase of gunpowder weapons they wore heavier armour.These would be the troops baybars would lead vs the mongols and crusaders.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
16th century mameluks in turkish service.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Mameluke bey,fully evolved.Ultra light and fast with curved scimitars.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Mameluke of the french imperial guard.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Mamelukes charge the russian imperial guard at austerlitz.The charge of the mameluke 'headhunters' along with french imperial heavy horse grenadiers was too much and they broke.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Mameluke sabre.Pistols and the sabre were the common armament of late mamelukes.


Next:French Napoleonic heavy cavalry.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

11.NAPOLEONIC FRENCH HEAVY CAVALRY.

Napoleon was a proponent of heavy cavalry as a weapon of brute force and massed shock.Under him the french cavalry was the terror of europe,the master of massed organized charges,the french cuirassiers and carabiners won most engagements through superior doctrine,leadership and organization.But the creme de la crem was the imperial heavy horse guard grenadier of the old guard,the only undefeated regiment of the napoleonic wars .They were rarely committed and when they were like at eylau and austerlitz, results were usually devastating.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The main heavy cavalry of napoleon was the cuirassier.The cuirassiers breastplate and helmet gave it protection against enemy cavalry and lancers and some protection against musketballs at range,while its long stabbing thrusting sword was a potent weapon at the charge as it outreached sabres.Lnacers unless skilled were helpless vs cuirassiers as their lances couldn't penetrate the cuirasses.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Massed charge by cuirassiers and carabiners.Napoleon divided his army into miniature self sufficient army corps[a method used by all modern armies] each with their own infantry,cavalry and artillery.While he dispersed the light and medium cavalry between the corps.He would mass all his heavy cavalry into heavy cavalry divisions which were organized into the central heavy cavalry reserve.These were not allotted to corps but kept directly under napoleon's command usually along with the imperial guard to be used as a battering ram at a chosen point of the enemy line once the target was softened up by massed artillery fire.The infantry would then attack en masse causing a rout,the imperial guard being the final reserve. The succesive massed Artillery barrage,heavy cavalry assault,infantry attack and the imperial guard if necessary was too much for most enemies.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The cuirassier's long thrusting sword clearly illustrated here.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The carabiniers were a elite heavy cavalry unit that performed the same function as cuirassiers.They were present in far lesser numbers though and used their carbines more often.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Armour of cuirassiers and carabiniers.

Continued-





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The creme de la creme were the heavy horse guard grenadiers of the old guard.They went through the whole napoleonic wars undefeated as a regiment.Their black bearskin caps giving a frightening appearence.They destroyed the russian infantry at eylau and the russian imperial guard cavalry at austerlitz.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Grenadier a cheval straight sword.Note the grenade symbol on the hilt.The official symbol of the regiment.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The 3 premier napoleonic heavy cavalry.Napoleon's heavy cavalry was the only cavalry unit in history to charge and take a fortress in battle,this they did in the battle of borodino 1812 capturing the 'death redoubt'.

Next:Finale:The Mongol Horde.


----------



## KingMamba

Surenas said:


> The Iranians have introduced heavy cavalry in the world. Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Massagatae, Achaemenids, Parthians and Sassanids were the best cavalries of their time, and perhaps even better than most cavalries after them. The Cataphract is a good example. That whole European knighthood is 'borrowed' from Iranians. Armor, lance, Parthian shot, etc. All from Iranians. Our heavy cavalry even kicked Roman's as$ multi pious time. Turks, Mongols and Huns all were influenced by Iranians.
> 
> Heavy cavalry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



True but you cannot really blame them for taking ideas from the Persians when you consider the areas the Persian Empire devoured.

Great thread @AUSTERLITZ.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

12.THE MONGOL HORDE

The single most deadliest and successful cavalry formation of all time is the mongol horde,synonymous with carnage and destruction.They within an astonishing small amount of time established the largest contigous land empire in human history using possibly the best organized,effective,well led and versatile cavalry force in history.From the imperial armies of china,to the steppe tribes of central asia,knights of eastern europe and germany,the muslim cavalry of the khwarezeim caliphate,or the slavic prinicipalities of russia..none withstood a determined mongol assault.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Typical mongol tactics,the horse archers harassing and falling back on their heavy lancers who wait to charge the disorganized enemy.
Six of every ten Mongol troopers were light cavalry horse archers, the remaining four were more heavily armored and armed lancers. Mongol light cavalry were extremely light troops compared to contemporary standards, allowing them to execute tactics and maneuvers that would have been impractical for a heavier enemy (such as European knights). Most of the remaining troops were heavier cavalry with lances for close combat after the archers had brought the enemy into disarray. Soldiers usually carried scimitars or axes as well.

The Mongols protected their horses in the same way as did they themselves, covering them with lamellar armor. Horse armor was divided into five parts and designed to protect every part of the horse, including the forehead, which had a specially crafted plate which was tied on each side of the neck.

Mongolian horses are relatively small, and would lose short-distance races under equal conditions with larger horses from other regions. However, since most other armies carried much heavier armor, the Mongols could still outrun most enemy horsemen in battle. In addition, Mongolian horses were extremely durable and sturdy, allowing the Mongols to move over large distances quickly, often surprising enemies that had expected them to arrive days or even weeks later.

All horses were equipped with stirrups. This technical advantage made it easier for the Mongol archers to turn their upper body, and shoot in all directions, including backwards. Mongol warriors would time the loosing of an arrow to the moment when a galloping horse would have all four feet off the ground, thus ensuring a steady, well-aimed shot.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Each soldier had two to four horses so when a horse tired they could use the other ones which made them one of the fastest armies in the world. 





Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Organization and characteristics
Genghis Khan organized the Mongol soldiers into groups based on the decimal system. Units, which included all males from 14-60, were recursively built from groups of 10 (Arav), 100 (Zuut), 1,000 (Minghan), 10,000 (Tumen) and overseen by the tumen quartermaster, called the jurtchi.

Genghis Khan rewarded those who had been loyal to him during the lean years of his rise to power with command postings. Tumens, and sometimes Minghans, were commanded by a Noyan, who was often given the task to administer specific conquered territories. From two to five Tumens would then form an ordu meaning army corps or field army, from which the word "Horde" is derived, under the command of the Khans or their generals (boyan).

Continued...part 2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The combination of horse archers and armoured lancers as a small arms unit was lethal.
To avoid the deadly hail of missiles, enemies would frequently spread out, or seek cover, breaking up their formations and making them more vulnerable to the lancers' charges. Likewise, when they packed themselves together, into dense square or phalanx style formations, they would become more vulnerable to the arrows.
Once the enemy was deemed sufficiently weakened, the noyans would give the order. The drums would beat and the signal flags wave, telling the lancers to begin their charge. Often, the devastation of the arrows was enough to rout an enemy, so the lancers were only needed to help pursue and mop up the remnants.
When facing European armies, whose emphasis was in formations of heavy cavalry, the Mongols would avoid direct confrontation, and would instead use their bows to destroy enemy cavalry at long distances. If the armor withstood their arrows, the Mongols killed the knights' horses, leaving a heavily armored man on foot and isolated.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The mongol imperial guard was the elite keshig.Under superb commanders like subedei,genghis,jube,batu and hulugu the mongols swept all before them.Their ahead of time signals and communication system in campaign and battle using flags ensured superb co ordiantion.Espionage and psychological warfare were also used.Terror and massed butchery werea instrument of state policy.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Th traditional mongol recurve bow.For its time it was unmatched in accuracy,firepower and range.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Mongol heavy cavalry.These were a prime example of how timurid and kublai khan's yuan heavy cavalry looked like.All subsequent armies of the east were influenced by mongols.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The battle of kalka river.The beginning of subedei's assault on russia.Mongols are the only army to have conducted a large scale successful winter campaign in russia.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

That's it.Honorable mentions of some that just missed out-
African numidian skirmisher cavalry,frederick the great's prussian cavalry,prussian death's head hussars,Austria's hungarian hussars,Native american apache and sioux,indian maratha and rajput light and heavy cavalry,Mughal heavy cavalry,afghan/iranian heavy lancer,safavid iranian heavy cavalry,finish hackapellita,chinese tang and han cavalry,spanish mounted conquistadors,gothic heavy cavallry.


----------



## kobiraaz

Very lengthy thread. Bookmarked. Will read later. Whatever the truth is, to me Mobile Guard of Rashidun Army are number one , victorious in their numerous battles against larger Army Persians, Arabs, Persians, egyptians, north africans!!


----------



## KS

@AUSTERLITZ...what is a swastika doing on a mongol horseman ?


----------



## KingMamba

KS said:


> @AUSTERLITZ...what is a swastika doing on a mongol horseman ?



He was probably a Hindu, the Mongols had no fixed religion and Genghis Khan was known to have scholars of all faiths in his court. Eventually over time some Mongols adopted the religion and culture of the areas they conquered. 






As you can see the Mongols conquered Nepal so perhaps they picked up on Hinduism from there?? 

Another example would be the conversion of the Golden Horde of Russia to Islam.


----------



## KS

KingMamba93 said:


> He was probably a Hindu, the Mongols had no fixed religion and Genghis Khan was known to have scholars of all faiths in his court. Eventually over time some Mongols adopted the religion and culture of the areas they conquered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see the Mongols conquered Nepal so perhaps they picked up on Hinduism from there??
> 
> Another example would be the conversion of the Golden Horde of Russia to Islam.



Mongols were never Hindus.....They were Tengriists in the time of Genghis ..and they also did not conquer Nepal..but rather Tibet IIRC...so they picked up Buddhism from them....current form of Lama Buddhism practised by the mongols is heavily influenced by the Tibetan budddhism...Maybe they picked up the swastika from the Tibetans...not sure


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

No probably buddhist,swastika was a symbol of prosperity for all indic faiths not just hinduism.Thats why the nazis adopted it as a ancient symbol of prosperity.Buddhism was prevelant at that time in central asia and china.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

kobiraaz said:


> Very lengthy thread. Bookmarked. Will read later. Whatever the truth is, to me Mobile Guard of Rashidun Army are number one , victorious in their numerous battles against larger Army Persians, Arabs, Persians, egyptians, north africans!!



Everyone has their own favourites.Enjoy the thread mate,hope u like it.


----------



## KingMamba

KS said:


> Mongols were never Hindus.....They were Tengriists in the time of Genghis ..and they also did not conquer Nepal..but rather Tibet IIRC...so they picked up Buddhism from them....current form of Lama Buddhism practised by the mongols is heavily influenced by the Tibetan budddhism...Maybe they picked up the swastika from the Tibetans...not sure



I never said they were Hindus, but why is it hard to believe a few may have picked up on it? Mongols have been openly perceived to have been generally open to all faiths, as long as the people did not rebel against them. The extent of the Mongol conquest differs depending on who you ask, some maps have them controlling all of the subcontinent which is obviously not true. The above map is the generally agreed upon extent of the Mongol empire.

He was probably a Hindu meant specific to that one person but yeah it was probably Buddhist then.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> Everyone has their own favourites.Enjoy the thread mate,hope u like it.



What is your favorite??


----------



## Azazel

No mention of Her Majesty's Cavalry forces.






Remember how 17th lancers became a part of history by getting themselves killed.


----------



## KS

AUSTERLITZ said:


> No probably buddhist,swastika was a symbol of prosperity for all indic faiths not just hinduism.Thats why the nazis adopted it as a ancient symbol of prosperity.Buddhism was prevelant at that time in central asia and china.


 @AUSTERLITZ - would be great if you open a thread on ancient navies too..



KingMamba93 said:


> What is your favorite??



Mongol horde. Evident in his words.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

KingMamba93 said:


> I never said they were Hindus, but why is it hard to believe a few may have picked up on it? Mongols have been openly perceived to have been generally open to all faiths, as long as the people did not rebel against them. The extent of the Mongol conquest differs depending on who you ask, some maps have them controlling all of the subcontinent which is obviously not true. The above map is the generally agreed upon extent of the Mongol empire.
> 
> He was probably a Hindu meant specific to that one person but yeah it was probably Buddhist then.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your favorite??


 
Not sure lol,too many good ones.I am a fan of napoleonic heavy cavalry but that's mostly because its my special area of interest the napoleonic age.The polish hussar,ottoman spahi and mongol horde are also favourites.



KS said:


> @AUSTERLITZ - would be great if you open a thread on ancient navies too..
> 
> 
> 
> Mongol horde. Evident in his words.



Possibly.But if ask in any reputed militray history forum,u'll get the same answer.Almost unanimously mongol horde.Infact the general consensus is mongol horde was the greatest military machine of all time followed by the roman legion.This is mostly because in their timeframe they almost didn't have ANY weaknesses.


----------



## Surenas

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Infact the general consensus is mongol horde was the greatest military machine of all time followed by the roman legion.This is mostly because in their timeframe they almost didn't have ANY weaknesses.



Roman legions? They got their as$'s kicked a couple of times.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Ok but navies will take some time,will finish within the week though.First infantry.


----------



## KingMamba

Surenas said:


> Roman legions? They got their as$'s kicked a couple of times.



True, but they have written the history books and the history books always give a Western Biased view of the situation. So although the Persians pretty much stopped the Roman Legions dead in their tracks, historians instead focus on the land the Romans did conquer.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Surenas said:


> Roman legions? They got their as$'s kicked a couple of times.



And they got up,learned and kept coming.And kicked ***** with a regularity that surpassed the occasions they got kicked.
The longevity of rome's empire stretching and unbelieveable all europe,england,africa and asia minor for around 700 yrs is unsurpassed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Not sure lol,too many good ones.I am a fan of napoleonic heavy cavalry but that's mostly because its my special area of interest the napoleonic age.The polish hussar,ottoman spahi and mongol horde are also favourites.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly.But if ask in any reputed militray history forum,u'll get the same answer.Almost unanimously mongol horde. Infact the general consensus is mongol horde was the greatest military machine of all time followed by the roman legion.This is mostly because in their timeframe they almost didn't have ANY weaknesses.



NVM, I misread what you wrote.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> And they got up,learned and kept coming.And kicked ***** with a regularity that surpassed the occasions they got kicked.
> The longevity of rome's empire stretching and unbelieveable all europe,england,africa and asia minor for around 700 yrs is unsurpassed.



The Romans never could get over the Persian problem, which is what he is referring to.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Surenas

AUSTERLITZ said:


> And they got up,learned and kept coming.And kicked ***** with a regularity that surpassed the occasions they got kicked.
> The longevity of rome's empire stretching and unbelieveable all europe,england,africa and asia minor for around 700 yrs is unsurpassed.



They were not a hyperpower, unlike many other empires. They could even defeat the Parthians and Sassanid-Persians on their eastern border:



> ''So it is well to understand what these Persians did. No one has ever questioned the prowess of the Roman legions. Only one people ever met them on equal terms in open fight. These were the Persians. They first challenged Rome in the very height of her power; and throughout four centuries the greatest forces the mistress of the world could gather were repeatedly and vainly hurled against Persia. *Not one Persian army was destroyed; not one Persian king was led captive in a Roman triumph. Battles were won as often by one nation as by the other; but Rome suffered the great disasters of which we have told; and Rome paid Persia large sums of money for peace so often that the Roman populace complained bitterly, declaring they were become mere tributaries of Persia.'*'



Ancient Persian Civilization


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

KingMamba93 said:


> True, but they have written the history books and the history books always give a Western Biased view of the situation. So although the Persians pretty much stopped the Roman Legions dead in their tracks, historians instead focus on the land the Romans did conquer.



True.The parthian horse archers did a number on the legions several times,marc anthony's parthian campaign was a disaster ,crassus lost his head and army.But generals like publius ventidius bassus showed with good tactics,the legions could defeat the cataphracts and horse archers.Same under trajan,he did capture the parthian capital.So the truth lies somewhere in between.Remember all this while rome usually had to fight on multiple fronts and rarely could bring its full power to bear on one adversary because of guarding an overextended empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Surenas said:


> They were not a hyperpower, unlike many other empires. They could even defeat the Parthians and Sassanid-Persians on their eastern border:
> 
> 
> 
> Ancient Persian Civilization



Indeed the persians definitevely halted rome's eastward expansion.After the parthians the sassanids took over this role.This was a great humiliation for rome but subsequent military victories did somewhat restore the balance and establish a stalemate that would continue even with the byzantines.Also at this time the empire was slowly beginning its decline while the sassanids were a young ascendant power having just toppled the parthians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

AUSTERLITZ said:


> True.The parthian horse archers did a number on the legions several times,marc anthony's parthian campaign was a disaster ,crassus lost his head and army.But generals like publius ventidius bassus showed with good tactics,the legions could defeat the cataphracts and horse archers.Same under trajan,he did capture the parthian capital.So the truth lies somewhere in between.Remember all this while rome usually had to fight on multiple fronts and rarely could bring its full power to bear on one adversary because of guarding an overextended empire.



Yes but you are basing it on the presumption that had Rome been able to use its forces on one front (Persia), that they would have been victorious. You just really don't know so to say so would be wrong.



Surenas said:


> They were not a hyperpower, unlike many other empires. They could even defeat the Parthians and Sassanid-Persians on their eastern border:
> 
> 
> 
> Ancient Persian Civilization



Actually Rome is considered the Hyper Power of its time, despite its multiple defeats to Persia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Surenas

KingMamba93 said:


> Actually Rome is considered the Hyper Power of its time, despite its multiple defeats to Persia.



Sorry, that's right. I thought Amy Chua didn't consider them to be a hyperpower.


----------



## KingMamba

@AUSTERLITZ in reference to your earlier stance that the Mongols are considered the greatest military force of all time followed by the Romans, that is just not true. I do not know many people who would place the Mongol's over the conquests of Alexander the Great especially considering that Alexander accomplished all that he did while at a military disadvantage! Compare that to the Mongols who were never at a major disadvantage and had an even chance at victory or defeat when confronted on equal terms.



Surenas said:


> Sorry, that's right. I thought Amy Chua didn't consider them to be a hyperpower.



No problem mate.

Cyrus the Great's Persian Empire
Roman Empire
Ancient China
Ottoman Empire
British Empire
USA

This is my list, I think it is more or less equivalent to most historians. Let me know if I missed someone or you disagree (to all viewers).


----------



## Surenas

KingMamba93 said:


> @AUSTERLITZ in reference to your earlier stance that the Mongols are considered the greatest military force of all time followed by the Romans, that is just not true. I do not know many people who would place the Mongol's over the conquests of Alexander the Great especially considering that Alexander accomplished all that he did while at a military disadvantage! Compare that to the Mongols who were never at a major disadvantage and had an even chance at victory or defeat when confronted on equal terms.
> 
> 
> 
> No problem mate.
> 
> Cyrus the Great's Persian Empire
> Roman Empire
> Ancient China
> Ottoman Empire
> British Empire
> USA
> 
> This is my list, I think it is more or less equivalent to most historians. Let me know if I missed someone or you disagree (to all viewers).



Thanx bro. But if I'm looking at Amy Chua's list, the Ottoman Empire isn't considered to be a hyperpower.

EDIT: No, I was wrong about the Maurya.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Alexander never faced truly serious adversaries the achaenamid empire was in decline,its emperor a coward and its infantry non armoured rabble relying mostly on archers and greek mercenaries .The immortals light armour and wicker shields were not even able to defeat the greek hoplites.Its cavalry hadn't yet become the brute force that it would later under parthians,sassanids and safavids.that is his main problem.Alexander is glorified in the west but no way was it anyway near the mongol war machine.Primarily because it needed brilliant generalship unlike the mongols who were successful even after genghis and subedei were no more.
While alexander's macedonian army system under seleucus was defeated by the war elephants of the amuryas,pyyrhu's army failed to defeat the romans,and thelegions successfully smashed the phalanxes at pydna and cyncesphalae conquerig macedonia.


----------



## KingMamba

Surenas said:


> Thanx bro. But if I'm looking at Amy Chua's list, the Ottoman Empire isn't considered to be a hyperpower. She mentions the Maurya Empire too, but I don't know anything about them?



I do not consider them a hyper power. The Mauryans united the Indian subcontinent plus Afghanistan and defeated Alexander the Great's lieutenant after his death. 

Maurya Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However during the reign of Ashoka they stopped any further expansion and soon they broke up into little kingdoms again like it was the case during most of the history of the subcontinent.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

KingMamba93 said:


> @AUSTERLITZ in reference to your earlier stance that the Mongols are considered the greatest military force of all time followed by the Romans, that is just not true. I do not know many people who would place the Mongol's over the conquests of Alexander the Great especially considering that Alexander accomplished all that he did while at a military disadvantage! Compare that to the Mongols who were never at a major disadvantage and had an even chance at victory or defeat when confronted on equal terms.
> 
> 
> 
> No problem mate.
> 
> Cyrus the Great's Persian Empire
> Roman Empire
> Ancient China
> Ottoman Empire
> British Empire
> USA
> 
> This is my list, I think it is more or less equivalent to most historians. Let me know if I missed someone or you disagree (to all viewers).



Ur looking at overall strength of the empire taking in economic and political conditions and longevity,i'm talking about only military conditions.And wrong the mongols regularly defeated armies many times their size.Especially in china.


----------



## KingMamba

@Surenas the Indian posters here would know more about them.  You can judge if you consider them one yourself.

As for the Ottomans, they were most definitely a Hyper Power. Consider that the Europeans use to try and make alliances with the Ottomans to fight one another as evidenced by the letters by the English queen to Ottoman Sultan. (You can search for it, I think a thread was made about it here).

Also consider this 

Padishah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The paramount prestige of this title, in Islam and even beyond, is clearly apparent from the Ottoman Empire's dealings with the (predominantly Christian) European powers. As the Europeans and the Russians gradually drove the Turks from the Balkans, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, they insisted&#8212;even at the cost of delaying the end of hostilities&#8212;on the usage of the title "Padishah" for themselves in the Turkish versions of their treaties with the High Porte, as acknowledgement that their Christian emperors were in all diplomatic and protocollary capacities the equal of the Turkish ruler, who by his religious paramount office in Islam (Caliph) had a theoretical claim of universal sovereignty (at least among Sunnites).

This alone shows how much prestige the Ottomans held even in the eyes of their adversaries.


----------



## Surenas

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Alexander never faced truly serious adversaries the achaenamid empire was in decline,its emperor a coward and its infantry non armoured rabble relying mostly on archers and greek mercenaries .The immortals light armour and wicker shields were not even able to defeat the greek hoplites.Its cavalry hadn't yet become the brute force that it would later under parthians,sassanids and safavids.that is his main problem.Alexander is glorified in the west but no way was it anyway near the mongol war machine.Primarily because it needed brilliant generalship unlike the mongols who were successful even after genghis and subedei were no more.



IMO Alexander was more brilliant than any Mongol general whatsoever. I came across this in ne my books about him:



> ''Here is not the place to go into detail on Alexander's method of warfare, but his brilliant leadership illustrates something that at first glance counter our intuitive: the feminine nature of military genius at the highest level. The successful conduct of command has little or nothing to do with typically male traits: brute force, bravado, machismo, arrogance - and even less with courage - except insofar as it, from time to time, may require these features to showcase in order to inspire the troops. It has rather to do with what can be regarded as more feminine characteristics: sensitivity, subtlety, intuition, timing, an indirect approach and the ability to determine strength and weakness in all peace.''

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Ur looking at overall strength of the empire taking in economic and political conditions and longevity,i'm talking about only military conditions.And wrong the mongols regularly defeated armies many times their size.Especially in china.



No bro that list is my view of the Hyper Powers at one point or another, not the best military forces. It was in reference to Surenas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Type 052D

Persians have the best cavelry. If the sassanids stopped using heavy infantry against the Byzantines and arabs then Persia would be a world power to be reckoned with..z


----------



## Surenas

KingMamba93 said:


> @Surenas the Indian posters here would know more about them.  You can judge if you consider them one yourself.
> 
> As for the Ottomans, they were most definitely a Hyper Power. Consider that the Europeans use to try and make alliances with the Ottomans to fight one another as evidenced by the letters by the English queen to Ottoman Sultan. (You can search for it, I think a thread was made about it here).
> 
> Also consider this
> 
> Padishah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The paramount prestige of this title, in Islam and even beyond, is clearly apparent from the Ottoman Empire's dealings with the (predominantly Christian) European powers. As the Europeans and the Russians gradually drove the Turks from the Balkans, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, they insisted&#8212;even at the cost of delaying the end of hostilities&#8212;on the usage of the title "Padishah" for themselves in the Turkish versions of their treaties with the High Porte, as acknowledgement that their Christian emperors were in all diplomatic and protocollary capacities the equal of the Turkish ruler, who by his religious paramount office in Islam (Caliph) had a theoretical claim of universal sovereignty (at least among Sunnites).
> 
> This alone shows how much prestige the Ottomans held even in the eyes of their adversaries.



But historians don't consider it to be an hyperpower. Amy Chua about the Ottomans:



> ''Amy Chua: Again, to be clear, my thesis is only about hyperpowers. An Islamic superpower is certainly a possibility. An Islamic hyperpower, on my view, is extremely unlikely - just as a fundamentalist Christian hyperpower would be unlikely. To pull away from its rivals on a global scale, a society must be able to pull into itself and motivate the world&#8217;s best and brightest, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or background. A tolerant Islamic society might be able to do this. I have a chapter on the Ottoman Empire, which perhaps came closest, but never came close to being a hyperpower.''


----------



## KingMamba

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Alexander never faced truly serious adversaries the achaenamid empire was in decline,its emperor a coward and its infantry non armoured rabble relying mostly on archers and greek mercenaries .The immortals light armour and wicker shields were not even able to defeat the greek hoplites.Its cavalry hadn't yet become the brute force that it would later under parthians,sassanids and safavids.that is his main problem.Alexander is glorified in the west but no way was it anyway near the mongol war machine.Primarily because it needed brilliant generalship unlike the mongols who were successful even after genghis and subedei were no more.
> While alexander's macedonian army system under seleucus was defeated by the war elephants of the amuryas,pyyrhu's army failed to defeat the romans,and thelegions successfully smashed the phalanxes at pydna and cyncesphalae conquerig macedonia.



You give too little credit to Alexander, yes he is glorified the world over and probably given a lot of credit but just look at how he was outnumbered in nearly all of his wins. The battles he won were based on his military expertise and yes that particular emperor was a coward but you forget that he ran AFTER an amazing maneuver by Alexander that nearly killed the Emperor and forced his army to rout. Also you forget some of the Brilliant Mongols generals after Genghis and subedei.

Namely Hulagu Khan and Berke of the Golden Horde!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Yes ottomans can be called a hyperpower.
Mauryas i don't know,main problem is timefarme is too short.After asoka they stopped military expansion and began a slow decline.At their peak they were a formidabe force though .While the cavalry was average.The infantry standard,the archers were very good.But the true shock arm of the mauryan army was the 9000 armoured war elephants.No empire in history fielded this many.Remember porus gave alexander a run for his money with 70-130 war elephants.So no wonder chandragupta defeated seleucus,his succesor and founder of seleucid empire .Seleucus actually exchanged 500 war elephants for 4 provinces and a matrimonial alliance.These would win him the succesor war at ipsus.For more info on the war elephant check my entry on the war elephant in this thread.Its the one before the sipahi.


----------



## Type 052D

Surenas said:


> IMO Alexander was more brilliant than any Mongol general whatsoever. I came across this in ne my books about him:



Khans would have distroyed Alexandia's army. BTW I joined militaryphotos.net but it's sooooo west centric. Say one thing wrong in that fourm and everyone calls you Anti-semite

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Surenas

Type 052D said:


> Khans would have distroyed Alexandia's army. BTW I joined militaryphotos.net but it's sooooo west centric. Say one thing wrong in that fourm and everyone calls you Anti-semite



That's true. It so Americanized.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Surenas said:


> IMO Alexander was more brilliant than any Mongol general whatsoever. I came across this in ne my books about him:



Subedei would give him a run for his money any day.Who else conquered russia in the winter?


----------



## KingMamba

Surenas said:


> But historians don't consider it to be an hyperpower. Amy Chua about the Ottomans:



She dismisses them by calling them intolerant, quite frankly I think this is not a great point to dismiss them because there have been plenty of tolerant societies that have not even come close to what the Ottomans accomplished.



Type 052D said:


> Khans would have distroyed Alexandia's army. BTW I joined militaryphotos.net but it's sooooo west centric. Say one thing wrong in that fourm and everyone calls you Anti-semite



Man, Alexander was a military mind more than a king. Yes he is GLORIFIED by all Westerners but you cannot dismiss him just because of that. It is not his fault all westerners ride him hard body, lol. Who's to say he would not have modified his tactics to fight the Mongols? You really cannot say, so you must judge him based on what he did do.


----------



## Type 052D

Surenas said:


> That's true. It so Americanized.



The worst part is that they are so hypocritical at the same. They called "ChiCom bot" and I commented on a post about the palistinian UN vote stating that the PA should have the right to declare indepedence. That Dude called "Camera" and "GBX" lashed at me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

KingMamba93 said:


> You give too little credit to Alexander, yes he is glorified the world over and probably given a lot of credit but just look at how he was outnumbered in nearly all of his wins. The battles he won were based on his military expertise and yes that particular emperor was a coward but you forget that he ran AFTER an amazing maneuver by Alexander that nearly killed the Emperor and forced his army to rout. Also you forget some of the Brilliant Mongols generals after Genghis and subedei.
> 
> Namely Hulagu Khan and Berke of the Golden Horde!!



Have you heard of xenophon and his 10000?They were basically greek mercenries that were hired by a persian pretender to challenge the throne.They defeated the persian imperialarmy in battle but their employer was killed.Amazingly these mercenaries simply retreated back out from deep within the persian empire and they could do nothing.So you see the quality of the persian forces were low,especially after the passing of strong rulers such as cyrus,darius and xerxes.Even darius and xerxes suffered heavy defeats at the hands of the armoured greek infantry which their light infantry couldn't beat.

On alexander,yes he is one of the greatest military commanders of all time.But ur forgetting this point is not about his generalship but rather comparison between the macedonian army and the mongol horde.And as a military force the mongols are generally agreed to be superior.


----------



## KingMamba

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Yes ottomans can be called a hyperpower.
> Mauryas i don't know,main problem is timefarme is too short.After asoka they stopped military expansion and began a slow decline.At their peak they were a formidabe force though .While the cavalry was average.The infantry standard,the archers were very good.But the true shock arm of the mauryan army was the 9000 armoured war elephants.No empire in history fielded this many.Remember porus gave alexander a run for his money with 70-130 war elephants.So no wonder chandragupta defeated seleucus,his succesor and founder of seleucid empire .Seleucus actually exchanged 500 war elephants for 4 provinces and a matrimonial alliance.These would win him the succesor war at ipsus.For more info on the war elephant check my entry on the war elephant in this thread.Its the one before the sipahi.



Yes but elephants were unreliable and could turn on the user as evidenced by the way Tamerlane defeated the elephant users.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> Have you heard of xenophon and his 10000?They were basically greek mercenries that were hired by a persian pretender to challenge the throne.They defeated the persian imperialarmy in battle but their employer was killed.Amazingly these mercenaries simply retreated back out from deep within the persian empire and they could do nothing.So you see the quality of the persian forces were low,especially after the passing of strong rulers such as cyrus,darius and xerxes.Even darius and xerxes suffered heavy defeats at the hands of the armoured greek infantry which their light infantry couldn't beat.
> 
> On alexander,yes he is one of the greatest military commanders of all time.But ur forgetting this point is not about his generalship but rather comparison between the macedonian army and the mongol horde.And as a military force the mongols are generally agreed to be superior.



Well I guess we can care to disagree because I believe that if a general is good enough he can overcome the shortcomings of his army and make them rise to the occasion. 

Thanks for the info on xenophons, I had actually never heard of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

KingMamba93 said:


> Yes but elephants were unreliable and could turn on the user as evidenced by the way Tamerlane defeated the elephant users.



Exactly.The elpahant was a double edged sword.But note timur faced about 100 war elephants and they still did cause considerable terror in the tatar ranks.Timur actually created a elephant corps with captured beasts that he used against the turks.
Mongols too defeated war elephants in small numbers [around 100] in smarakhand and khmer,but were defeated by alauddin khilji's combination of turkic cavalry and about 300-400 war elephants.


----------



## KingMamba

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Exactly.The elpahant was a double edged sword.But note timur faced about 100 war elephants and they still did cause considerable terror in the tatar ranks.Timur actually created a elephant corps with captured beasts that he used against the turks.
> Mongols too defeated war elephants in small numbers [around 100] in smarakhand and khmer,but were defeated by alauddin khilji's combination of turkic cavalry and about 300-400 war elephants.



True, elephants were fierce but remember you just had to get a few to go berserk and the rest would follow them. I figure if you were facing 5000 elephants and lived long enough to get 1000 to rout the rest would follow, they are animals after all. Remember Timur did not use men to get the elephants to rout, he used camels with hay on their backs which he lit on fire because he knew his soldiers would be scared and it worked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Added new hetairoi macedonian cvalry pic.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The carthaginian african pachyderm.Used in its conflict vs rome it was much smaller and consequently less effective than the gigantic asian elephant.The north african elephant is now extinct.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Added some new pics.




Mamelukes in full armour.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Winged hussars charging pikemen.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Saladin and his cavalry.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Dismounted arab and berber muslim light cavalry.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Dismounted templar knight.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Late arab heavy cavalryman dismounted.

Since there are so many indo pakistani members here i'll post some detailed pics on mughal,rajput and maratha cavalry with equipment soon.
Also some pics of iranian safavids and afghan cavalry.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Early delhi sultanate troops.The left most ghulam heavy lancer was the standard heavy cavalry of the sultanate armies.At 2nd tarain the charge of 12000 lancers broke the rajput centre.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Elite ghulam cavalry.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Rajput elephant archer.Elephants were effective against cavalry armies if used in a combined arms fashion.At first battle of tarain the rajput elephant cavalry was primarily responsible for the defeat of the ghurid cavalry.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Ghulam medium horse archer and ghulam heavy lancer.The horse archers's hit and run tactics were a major advantage for the turkic sultanate armies over the local indian armies.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Sultanate war elephant in action against the mongols.Alauddin khilji's defeat of the mongols was due to a combination of similar cavalry and 300-400 war elephants.A similar attempt by later sultans with around 100 of these,to repulse timurlane would fail due to timur's brilliance.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Baburid Heavy Cavalry.Babur's timurid mogul cavalry was a direct descendant of the mongols,despite the hype recieved by babur's artillery his horse archers were equally important for his victory.The sultanate's turkic horse archers while at an advantage to the indigineous indian cavalry,where no match for babur's mongol style timurid horse archers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Mughal heavy cavalry.Cavalry,both horse and elephants and artillery were the mainstay of the mughal armies,infantry was mediocre and often levies.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Rajput heavy cavalry chainmail armour.The armour of the rajput and mughal heavy cavalry were very similar.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Rajput cavalry with battle axe.The rajputs,succesors of the gurjara pratihara were responsible for decisively defeating the arab expansion in india.Later they served against and for the mughals with distinction.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Mughal talwar.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Rajput talwar.The talwar was the most popular weapon of choice for cavalrymen.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Shahjahan with matchlock and guard horsemen.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The popular sword types during medieval india.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The flail.A populatr armour piercing melee weapon.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The katar,a weapon unique to the indian subcontinent.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Indian maces.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Lance





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Cavalry shield.Usually obsolete after increase in gunpowder weapons.Provided protection in cavalry on cavalry encounters though.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Battle axe,a favourite armoour piercing weapon.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The khanda was a indigineous indian broadsword in use from before the time of the mauryas,possibly from vedic times.Popular among rajputs,marathas and sikhs.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Equipment of indian heavy cavalry.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Note ,the patta weapon used by the maratha light cavalryman.This was another unique indian weapon especially popular among rajputs and marathas.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Maratha silahdar,the light and mobile maratha cavalry were masters of ambush,hit and run and skirmishing.The deccan campaign in hilly maharashtra was prefect ground for their operations.The deccan was the beginnng of the end for the mughals.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Nadir shah's iranian cavalry.The declining mughals were unable to stop nadir's invasion.
Note cavalry of the period slowly shedding their heavy armour due to massive increase in gunpowder weapons.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The zamburak camel artillery.Originally designed by shah abbas of iran,it was adopted by the durranis and was ahmad shah abdali's trump card at the third battle of panipat,the marathas had no answer to the mobile camel mounted field cannonfire.Panipat was a major blow to maratha power.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Pashtun tribal cavalry.Like all cavalry forces,armour was becoming lighter.Excellent light cavalry.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Maratha pindari against british redcoat.The disciplined drilled and technologically superior british forces were too much for most oriental armies in straight field battles.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The indian spear.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Maratha light lancer.Excellent light cavalry.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The firangi.Adopted from european influence this stabbing longsword became fashion after european power began to increase.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Haider ali's heavy mysore cavalry.Tipu put up a valiant resistance against the advancing british but was defeated.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Khalsa sowar.And sikh heavy cavalry.
Sikhs emerged as a dominant force after defeating the durannis.But they too were unable to overcome the british.
The british emerged victorious over mysore,the marathas and sikhs by seperately fighting each,through classic divide and conquer,and playing of each against other using religious/ethnic differences and greed of individual feudal and the use of native troops from bengal and madras under european officers to bolster their numbers.Also Technological superiority and superb discipline were other major factors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Iranian Safavid heavy savar.The safavids were the shia empire of persia,reached their peak under shah abbas,a contemporary of jahangir.Shah abbas reformed his army,also introduced the zamburak.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Safavid lancer.Gunpowder weapons made too much armour redundant,note all cavalry had by this time shed armour for their horses.Speed became important than before.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Nadir shah's lancer.Nadir was brutal,but militarily brilliant.His inavasion of mughal india was studied by the russians for their own proposed invasion of british india.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Kyrghyz heavy cavalry chargin.Lamellar armour and weapons show enormous mongol influence.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Native american apache cavalry.Excellent raiders and ambushers.The europeans introduced the horse to north america.Armed usually with muskets,rifles and axes.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Infamous prussian death's head hussars[totenkopf].Took a major role in germany's war of liberation against napoleon.The ss division totenkopf[death head] would take this insignia as their own during world war 2.Note the skull and crossbones on the headgear.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Hungarian hussar.Austria's best light cavalry,were excellent horsemen and man to man better than their french counterparts.But still couldn't stand up to french cavalry in massed action due to inferior leadership and organization and lack of the reckless 'elan' of the french.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Chinese imperial heavy cavalry.In its heyday the tang dunasty maintained a huge cavalry force to counter the steppe invaders.


----------



## gubbi

@ Austerliz, wonderful and excellent threads on cavalry and your previous battlefield formations and tactics! For an amateur history buff, this is too much to absorb all at once.

I presume that this is your field of expertise and so a humble request. Would it be possible to classify these according to the time periods (which would help again in highlighting their achievements in a geographical area - given there were major powers in an area at a particular time). For someone who is interested in these but not an expert, such a classification would help put into perspective their rudimentary history knowledge.

Oh, btw while you are on the Mongol hordes, there is a recent Mongolian film - *Genghis Khan, the legend of the ten*. Was pretty decent IMHO.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

History is usually divided into 3 ages.

The ancient age is generally regarded from around 500 B.C to 500 A.D from the rise of the persian empire to the fall of the western roman empire.
500A.D TO 1453A.D is considered middle ages.From the fall of the roman empire to the fall of constantinpole or the byzantine empire and the beginning of renaissance.
From 1450 to 1789 the french revolution is called early modern history.From the end of the napoleonic wasr 1815 to today with the beginning of the industrial revolution is called modern history.
Before this the great kingdoms are the hittites of syria,the egyptians of the pharaohs,the assyrians and babylonians of the middle east.

The great powers of the ancient age 
The persian empire.
The athenian empire.[modern day greece]
The macedonian empire and its successor staes the ptolemic and seleucid empires.
The maurya empire.[india]
The kushana empire.afganisthan,india,parts of central sia]
The han dynasty empire[china]
The roman empire.[italy]
Carthage[modern north africa]
Parthia[persia] followed by sassanids[persia]

Middle ages

Frankish kingdom[france-germany under charlemagne]
Holy roman empire[germany-italy]
Byzantine empire[eastern roman empire]
Arabic caliphates[rashidun,umayyad,ayyubid]
Gupta empire,chola empire[india]
Tang dyansty[china]
Song dynasty[china]
Mongol empire[huge,origin present mongolia]
Delhi sultanates[india]
Timurids[central asia]
Ghaznavid/ghorid central asian sultanates.
Mamelukes[egypt]


Early modern age

Ming dynasty[china]
Qing dynasty[china]
Ottoman empire[turkey,middle east,north africa,balkans]
Spanish empire[italy,spain,south america,parts of north america]
France bourbon dynasty
Mughals 
Britain
Russia
Safavid persia
Austrian holy roman empire
Dutch empire.
Sweden.
And after 1815 u know,the modern european powers with unification of italy and germany.And rise of america.
1789 to 1815 are the french revolutionary and napoleonic wars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Balkan stradioti.Superb mercenaries.Many fought against the turks.Note the cool eagle wings.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Finnish hakkapellita[literally 'hack them down' men],elite swedish light cavalry under gustavas adolphus.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Perhaps the least intimidating looking,yet most effective cavalry in history.The north african numidian skirmisher cavalry,were the finest light cavalry of the ancient mediterranean.Thye were used by hannibal in his victories against rome,but later switched sides to the romans and helped defeat hannibal at zama,his only defeat.Later they served in roman armies as auxillaries.Masters of raiding,ambush,skirmishing these were born berber cavalrymen rode their horses without saddles!





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Napoleon's polish lancers,among the deadliest cavalry of the age.These served in french service as exiles trying to free poland which had been broken up by russia,austria and prussia.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
French hussars,known for their dash and elan,colourful uniforms,reckless bravery and their notorious womanizing,drinking and dueling skills.The primary type of napoleonic light cavalry it was said 'the hussars were loved by every wife and hated by every husband'.They were the eyes and ears of the french army.They were nicknamed beau sabreurs[handsome sabres].




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
A famous daredevil hussar general lasalle once quoted 'Any hussar who isn't dead by the age of 30 is a blackguard'.Lasalle's brigade was called 'hell's brigade' and among the most decorated ones in the french army.Lasalle was a brilliant commander, once bluffed a prussian general into surrendering a fortress with 10000 troops with 500 hussars!

In Italy, Lasalle was exchanged and took up a love affair with an Italian marquise in Vicenza. This led to an incident on 17 December 1796 in which he led a party of troopers to his lover's house &#8212; deep within Austrian lines. Lasalle was a good nobleman and fluent in many languages, including German, so he deceived the various patrols that gave him and his men trouble. After making love to his marquise, he left at dawn revealing his French uniform in the light. Lasalle and his men were found and surrounded by 100 Austrian hussars. Once he was discovered he escaped by bluffing and fighting his way out eventually leaping his horse over the parapet of a bridge to avoid capture. With only 18 men he routed 100 Austrian hussars but in the heat of the pursuit he found himself isolated.

He was then alone and surrounded by four of these Austrian hussars that refused to surrender. Lasalle fought his way out, injuring all four hussars, lost his horse, and swam across the Bacchiglione River. He arrived on the banks of the Bacchiglione regrouped with his men as they gave him a captured Austrian horse to ride back to camp uninjured. This incident brought Lasalle to Napoleon Bonaparte's attention the morning after when he rode a captured Austrian horse on parade. Napoleon questioned Lasalle and Lasalle told him it was a horse from an Austrian hussar patrol in Vicenza. Napoleon shouted &#8220;Are you crazy?&#8221; and was preparing a court martial until Lasalle gave him the information that he obtained during the skirmish. Napoleon saw in Lasalle a daring and courageous man that could be a useful in missions of infiltration behind enemy lines where one needs to make his own decisions with haste and good judgment. Napoleon pardoned Lasalle and even made him chef d'escadron of the 7th Regiment of Hussars on 6 January 1797 by only saying &#8220;Commandant Lasalle, remember that name.&#8221;

He justified his rapid progress and reputation when The Battle of Rivoli was won with 5,000 French casualties and 14,000 enemy Austrian casualties including eleven captured flags, six of which were captured by Lasalle.

He also founded the &#8220;Society of Alcoholics&#8221; an initiative that shocked the entire high society of Paris except for Napoleon. It is reported that in one month they drank all that existed of foreign wines in Salamanca.

Back in Egypt Lasalle had been intimately connected with Joséphine Berthier, wife of General Victor-Leopold Berthier, the then Minister of War and Chief of Staff. Joséphine and Berthier divorced in which Lasalle proposed to her. Napoleon gave Lasalle 200,000 francs as a reward. When they met at the Tuileries Palace, Napoleon asked &#8220;When is the wedding?&#8221; Lasalle replied saying &#8220;Sire, when I have enough money to buy the wedding presents and furniture.&#8221; Napoleon said &#8220;But I gave you 200,000 francs last week, what did you do with them?&#8221; Lasalle replied &#8220;I used half to pay my debts and have lost the rest gambling.&#8221;
Such a confession would have broken the career of any other soldier but coming from Lasalle made the Emperor smile. Napoleon merely ordered Marshal Duroc to give Lasalle another 200,000 francs. Napoleon thought highly of Lasalle and would pay off his debts and forgive his rowdy behavior unfitting of an officer. When a prefect asked why Napoleon didn't discipline Lasalle for his conduct, Napoleon responded saying that &#8220;It only takes a stroke of a pen to create a prefect, but it takes twenty years to make a Lasalle.&#8221;





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Lasalle was known for charging into battle with only a pipe ,he was killed in 1809 at wagram.His loss was deeply felt by napoleon.Lasalle's pipe and sabre are displayed at the french war museum at the les inavlides,paris.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Too many pictures this page,need to go next page before update.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Winged hussar lance and sabre.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Polish winged hussars charging jannisaries.Vienna 1683.The charge of the hussars played a critical role in allied victory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Ask me if anyone needs info/pics on any cavalry of any era/nationality here.


----------



## Targon

I would not say T&#305;marl&#305; Sipahi was one of the best, they were just fairly good and numerous/cheap, also had good organization(organization/logistics was one of the specialities of the Ottoman empire).

On the other hand Kap&#305;kulu Sipahi was elite, handpicked from either Janissaries or anyone who showed high skill and bravery in battle, well armoured and used a variety of weapons starting from bows to lances, maces, sabres etc. and of course being in the center of the Ottoman military had very strict organization and discipline.

Too bad that they aren't oftenly used as a frontier force in the battle but rather a guard of sultan and rear.


----------



## gokturkdenkorkun

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Ask me if anyone needs info/pics on any cavalry of any era/nationality here.


i would ask all the images you have about cavalry , could you tell me what is the source of your study and your nationality and where you found all this stuff , because i find most of them bias not that i claim to no better than you on this matter but i would like to absorb your information and knowlagede on any military case


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

gokturkdenkorkun said:


> i would ask all the images you have about cavalry , could you tell me what is the source of your study and your nationality and where you found all this stuff , because i find most of them bias not that i claim to no better than you on this matter but i would like to absorb your information and knowlagede on any military case



This is a very old thread,imageshack has deleted the images and i never updated it.I am an indian,a history student and a military history enthusiast.Sources are the many military history books and magazine articles i read and collected over the years,especially osprey publishing.This list is just a personal opinion not a absolute set in stone fact in any way,feel free to disagree.Though i am curious what you find biased,as far as i see i have represented most of the major historical dominant cavalry forces of their time and region.


----------

