Why do only Ottomans Get Elite Infantry

[Arinsar]

winged hussars were existed in very late date also poland allready got access to elite cavalary +poland wasnt only nation with winged hussars like cavalary(yet they were best ones)
cossacks filling that role good enought

No sure i understand your post fully. First curretly in game winged hussars is type of calvary you get access to at military technology 22 (as eastern tech group) which is around 1670 as far as I remember. Hussars in were employed in polish army around 1500 around 1570-1580 they were already more or less same as in 1670. Not as single country (not counting Lithuania) came close to copy that (Russians have tried but failed). Not mentioning that no other country (not counting "hordes") used such huge cavalry army as Poland and later Commonwealth was.

 

[fksahin]

Just some basic knowledge to those brainless people who learns history from Wikipedia, try to read real books from real historians;

"Cervantes retrospectively had Don Quixote say that the day “was so happy for Christendom because the world learned that the Turks were not invisible at sea"
Battle of Lepanto

Frank W. Thackeray, ‎John E. Findling - 2012 - ‎History

 

[fksahin]

No sure i understand your post fully. First curretly in game winged hussars is type of calvary you get access to at military technology 22 (as eastern tech group) which is around 1670 as far as I remember. Hussars in were employed in polish army around 1500 around 1570-1580 they were already more or less same as in 1670. Not as single country (not counting Lithuania) came close to copy that (Russians have tried but failed). Not mentioning that no other country (not counting "hordes") used such huge cavalry army as Poland and later Commonwealth was.

Another example of basic knowledge for you;

Ottoman armies mostly consisted of (Tımarlı) Sipahis and they are cavalry units. Also Janissary corps had (Kapıkulu) Sipahis.

 

[kakatua]

That cavalry majority was already said and that is for a simple reason, nobody counted levies very well. They counted how many people with responsibilities(nobles, janissaries, etc) answered the call and how many people they brought to the field(each noble had to bring more men).

Please, if you plan to join a discussion, at least give yourself the hard work to READ it rather than buffoonily throw irrelevant things or facts had been already shown as the ultimate truth.

Also, someone asked why Ottomans conquered so many lands if they were so bad at fighting. As I said, bureaucracy. The ability to administrate and tax vast lands is an important skill/trait to build an Empire, something Macedonians hadn't, but Romans had. They filled the vacuum of power of the Byzantine Empire, probably fighting better than other Beyliks to be hired by the pretenders. While one can say they were the best at "beylik warfare", the world isnt just that. They could conduct raids in Hungary, like a horde, but in battles most of time they lost. They tried to invade Levant and got rekt by a healthy Mamluks. Just after the Portuguese do their crusade in Indian Sea, struggling Muslim Spice trade(biggest source of income to Mamluks) and draining a lot of resources from an exhausted sultanate, the Ottomans could win. The Ottomans also failed every single time to beat the Portuguese until they gave up. Not a problem, because the Portuguese had the best naval warfare at time.

After that is just "A blob throwing its weight", as EU4 players know very well. They failed to conquer Persia because the desert + mountains + far from home combo is a real pain. Romans failed to this combo for a millenia in the same region, don't worry. They didn't advance to Ethiopia for the same reason.They could defeated a retarded king in Hungary while had 25~50% more men and couldn't take Wien because it was too far from home and Europe throw his own blob weight back.

 

[HadjiNazmi]

That cavalry majority was already said and that is for a simple reason, nobody counted levies very well. They counted how many people with responsibilities(nobles, janissaries, etc) answered the call and how many people they brought to the field(each noble had to bring more men).

Please, if you plan to join a discussion, at least give yourself the hard work to READ it rather than buffoonily throw irrelevant things or facts had been already shown as the ultimate truth.

Also, someone asked why Ottomans conquered so many lands if they were so bad at fighting. As I said, bureaucracy. The ability to administrate and tax vast lands is an important skill/trait to build an Empire, something Macedonians hadn't, but Romans had. They filled the vacuum of power of the Byzantine Empire, probably fighting better than other Beyliks to be hired by the pretenders. While one can say they were the best at "beylik warfare", the world isnt just that. They could conduct raids in Hungary, like a horde, but in battles most of time they lost. They tried to invade Levant and got rekt by a healthy Mamluks. Just after the Portuguese do their crusade in Indian Sea, struggling Muslim Spice trade(biggest source of income to Mamluks) and draining a lot of resources from an exhausted sultanate, the Ottomans could win. The Ottomans also failed every single time to beat the Portuguese until they gave up. Not a problem, because the Portuguese had the best naval warfare at time.

After that is just "A blob throwing its weight", as EU4 players know very well. They failed to conquer Persia because the desert + mountains + far from home combo is a real pain. Romans failed to this combo for a millenia in the same region, don't worry. They didn't advance to Ethiopia for the same reason.They could defeated a retarded king in Hungary while had 25~50% more men and couldn't take Wien because it was too far from home and Europe throw his own blob weight back.

What a good fortune that looser Turks have, huh?
I was thinking before looking this forum; the euro-centric thought died in Europa and America long decades ago. And now i'm seeing that i'm totally wrong.
Still ordinary people is thinking those; "Turks were successful because The Byzantines who converted to Islam, helped them", "Turks were so crowded and attacked little, poor kingdoms", nonsenses like these.
I'm reading some amazing American historians who writing on Ottomans and i recommend those historians to all of you. Maybe you learn somethings.

 

[makaramus]

And there we have the the problem I find so bizarre, it's that they and only they get access to professionals i wouldnt have a problem if they either didnt get the bonus, and they were balanced in other ways or other nations got some way to recruit other generic style professional armies similarly balanced. All this while keeping the interesting mechanics for their recruitment.



The issue of how bad the ottoman navy was is the reason it got so menacing in the first place, the ottomans having lost a string of battles despite overwhelming numbers Christian fleets got lazy Venice considered every ottoman ship worth half that of a Venetian made similar size vessel, other Christians took this lead too that the Ottomans were so bad at sea they could be basically ignored, so the ottomans basically built themselves a huge fleet pretty much unchallenged. This huge fleet suffered from poor leadership and seamanship, lack of technological advances, toughness or longevity. It did make up for this similarly to ottoman land forces in sheer numbers, the thin flimsy construction also meant it was faster than typical Christian fleets so could always use that to it's advantage, saying that Venetian ships were still faster and had the advantage of being fast due to mathematical and technological progressions rather than just general barebones construction

and ... I said that it was numbers made them strong in navy not quality? dude whats wrong with you I said what you said: ottoman ships worth nothing but they were REALLY TOO MUCH to ignore(and even caused fear to pope since he was too close to italy)
whatever offtopic: again I think reason they got resistance to damage is to make them die harder and trigger disaster easier

No sure i understand your post fully. First curretly in game winged hussars is type of calvary you get access to at military technology 22 (as eastern tech group) which is around 1670 as far as I remember. Hussars in were employed in polish army around 1500 around 1570-1580 they were already more or less same as in 1670. Not as single country (not counting Lithuania) came close to copy that (Russians have tried but failed). Not mentioning that no other country (not counting "hordes") used such huge cavalry army as Poland and later Commonwealth was.

trouble is commonwealth/poland/lithuania allready got an idea to present winged hussars

 

[kakatua]

What a good fortune that looser Turks have, huh?
I was thinking before looking this forum; the euro-centric thought died in Europa and America long decades ago. And now i'm seeing that i'm totally wrong.
Still ordinary people is thinking those; "Turks were successful because The Byzantines who converted to Islam, helped them", "Turks were so crowded and attacked little, poor kingdoms", nonsenses like these.
I'm reading some amazing American historians who writing on Ottomans and i recommend those historians to all of you. Maybe you learn somethings.

You can accuse of Euro centrism, but just because you can't proof anything. Because, obviously, you would prove me wrong if you could.

In that case, I accuse you, and others of "Warcentrism", due to your clear desire that a great empire can only be great through war, ignoring "smaller" traits like the internal diplomacy and authority, conciliating the many interests inside such big domains with so many different religions, creeds, tribes, cultures and communities to avoid mass and constant rebellions and still keep a functional state working while keeping the best welfare system of its time.

You don't need to go far away to see an Empire built through opportunism and luck rather than be better at war: Spanish Empire. Unless you think beat natives is a great skill. Spanish Tercios could be funded only because the constant flow of silver from America, otherwise would be just an elite force, with much less impact in Europe.

Do you want other? Habsburg. Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube

Eurocentrism is to think every empire needed to be built like Prussia into Germany.

 

[HadjiNazmi]

You can accuse of Euro centrism, but just because you can't proof anything. Because, obviously, you would prove me wrong if you could.

In that case, I accuse you, and others of "Warcentrism", due to your clear desire that a great empire can only be great through war, ignoring "smaller" traits like the internal diplomacy and authority, conciliating the many interests inside such big domains with so many different religions, creeds, tribes, cultures and communities to avoid mass and constant rebellions and still keep a functional state working while keeping the best welfare system of its time.

You don't need to go far away to see an Empire built through opportunism and luck rather than be better at war: Spanish Empire. Unless you think beat natives is a great skill. Spanish Tercios could be funded only because the constant flow of silver from America, otherwise would be just an elite force, with much less impact in Europe.

Do you want other? Habsburg. Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube

Eurocentrism is to think every empire needed to be built like Prussia into Germany.

Actually i agree you about these matters. My objection is to your simplification of a nation's successes. How? I explain;

Porteguese's crusade in Indian Ocean is just one reason of the failing of The Mamluks. One of the other reasons was musket and artillery power of The Turks. Quite different other reasons are exist, of course (social, economic etc.)

I mean;

Nothing is dependent to just one thing. There are too many conditions and those are the consequences of very different things and events.

 

[Ostovar Hossein]

You can accuse of Euro centrism, but just because you can't proof anything. Because, obviously, you would prove me wrong if you could.

In that case, I accuse you, and others of "Warcentrism", due to your clear desire that a great empire can only be great through war, ignoring "smaller" traits like the internal diplomacy and authority, conciliating the many interests inside such big domains with so many different religions, creeds, tribes, cultures and communities to avoid mass and constant rebellions and still keep a functional state working while keeping the best welfare system of its time.

You don't need to go far away to see an Empire built through opportunism and luck rather than be better at war: Spanish Empire. Unless you think beat natives is a great skill. Spanish Tercios could be funded only because the constant flow of silver from America, otherwise would be just an elite force, with much less impact in Europe.

Do you want other? Habsburg. Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube

Eurocentrism is to think every empire needed to be built like Prussia into Germany.

Maybe you should read on The sevent Ottomans- venetion war...
And no empire always wins every battle, you win some you lose some. But you seem to like to point out their defeats only and belittle their victories a clear case of bias...

 

[kakatua]

Maybe you should read on The sevent Ottomans- venetion war...
And no empire always wins every battle, you win some you lose some. But you seem to like to point out their defeats only and belittle their victories a clear case of bias...

"And this side brought 50% more men in open field and won the battle"
Not exactly the kind of thing excite people, like logistics and bureaucracy you seem to ignore so much. If we talk about Ottoman campaigns in XIV you will call me a pro-Ottoman guy too?

About the gunpowder empire, firearms and cannons costs money. No money, no firearms and no cannons. The Mughal Empire did a far better use of this, wrecking the elephant warfare in India. But, you know, I'm Eurocentric. Find a new label please. This is outdated.

 

[Ostovar Hossein]

"And this side brought 50% more men in open field and won the battle"
Not exactly the kind of thing excite people, like logistics and bureaucracy you seem to ignore so much. If we talk about Ottoman campaigns in XIV you will call me a pro-Ottoman guy too?

About the gunpowder empire, firearms and cannons costs money. No money, no firearms and no cannons. The Mughal Empire did a far better use of this, wrecking the elephant warfare in India. But, you know, I'm Eurocentric. Find a new label please. This is outdated.

Nice at again I see... many nations which by the way have their own separate funds can Field far eliter force than one nation fielding twice as much? Did you know Ottomans used basi bazuk? Probably not maybe go learn about that? Do you think Ottomans sent all their numbers in? Do you think it is easy to lead army that is huge in that era? Do you understand anything about war in that era? Do you understand numbers are not everything? do you understand that there are many battles that one side has more number and losses? . O ye maybe you should brush up on the fact that in most battles such as great Turkish war it was Ottomans vs half of Europe?

 

[Ostovar Hossein]

"And this side brought 50% more men in open field and won the battle"
Not exactly the kind of thing excite people, like logistics and bureaucracy you seem to ignore so much. If we talk about Ottoman campaigns in XIV you will call me a pro-Ottoman guy too?

About the gunpowder empire, firearms and cannons costs money. No money, no firearms and no cannons. The Mughal Empire did a far better use of this, wrecking the elephant warfare in India. But, you know, I'm Eurocentric. Find a new label please. This is outdated.

But then again just few seconds ago you were claiming Ottomans gave up it is funny isn't? Go learn history and stop wasting my time with your eurocentric mind I can belittle any nation like you in Europe in 2 secs hand picking their defeats and bringing their Victories down to luck... But I don't do that since I respect history and I don't go around adding my opinion as a fact.

 

[kakatua]

I just saw attacks on my person, not on the arguments, while ignoring half of what I say despite quote the whole. Please, refrain of do that.
I do not care if you see as a personal insult to say a group of people weren't that good at killing another groups of people when compared to other groups of people. We are not on your small group of friends to just throw "Bias!" as a win card to every discussion.

 

[Ostovar Hossein]

I just saw attacks on my person, not on the arguments, while ignoring half of what I say despite quote the whole. Please, refrain of do that.
I do not care if you see as a personal insult to say a group of people weren't that good at killing another groups of people when compared to other groups of people. We are not on your small group of friends to just throw "Bias!" as a win card to every discussion.

You think by backing out you are winning an argument you are not and if you think you made any point here you are also wrong you made absolutely none, your argument on the bases of number has no meaning in real world but only in this game... Persians had much bigger army and they lost against Greeks, Spanish navy was far bigger but was destroyed by the British... Ottoman army was far bigger but was destroyed by nadershah. You don't want learn history it is fine but this thread is about history and not opinions. You have good day sir!

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

and ... I said that it was numbers made them strong in navy not quality? dude whats wrong with you I said what you said: ottoman ships worth nothing but they were REALLY TOO MUCH to ignore(and even caused fear to pope since he was too close to italy)
whatever offtopic: again I think reason they got resistance to damage is to make them die harder and trigger disaster easier

trouble is commonwealth/poland/lithuania allready got an idea to present winged hussars

Their technological backwardness and poor tactics at sea meant that most nations simply disregarded them at sea until they actually became a problem, the exact same thing happens with the ottomans on land too earlier on in history, its a repeated mistake of the European powers where they underestimated the Ottoman abilities, it was pretty clear from how unmovable they were after first reaching Gallipoli that they would grow to become a significant issue. The same thing happened at sea but even more so, with their battle in 1416 being a crushing defeat of the Ottomans despite having huge numerical advantages.

Maybe you should read on The sevent Ottomans- venetion war...
And no empire always wins every battle, you win some you lose some. But you seem to like to point out their defeats only and belittle their victories a clear case of bias...

I'm not sure what you mean on the Seventh Venetian Ottoman war, the war was a complete surprise to Europe, the Turks made a surprise and shock challenge to reassert themselves on the territory lost in the 6th war, unprepared defences in the Peloponnese fell quickly and decisively with little resistance, however the conflict is much more interesting in Dalmatia and Corfu, with the 3 major events of the war going horribly for the Ottomans, most notably the sieges of Sinj and Corfu, where an Ottoman army of around 35-40,000 was denied by 700-800 men at Sinj, and a force of over 30,000 were shockingly defeated at Corfu against a Venetian army of around 5000. The major naval battle of the campaign is the 2nd battle of Matapan, where similarly matched fleets engaged and the Venetian fleet with small support from the Portuguese and Maltese resulted in a major victory. Despite the successes in battles the territorial gains of the Peloponnese and Crete were recognised in the peace treaty, showing yet again the Ottomans pretty much brute forced their way to good terms having more resources to fight against a much smaller more tightly limited enemy, whilst the simultaneous Austro-Turkish war where the field was much more level saw decline in Ottoman holdings in general.

 

[kakatua]

You think by backing out you are winning an argument you are not and if you think you made any point here you are also wrong you made absolutely none, your argument on the bases of number has no meaning in real world but only in this game... Persians had much bigger army and they lost against Greeks, Spanish navy was far bigger but was destroyed by the British... Ottoman army was far bigger but was destroyed by nadershah. You don't want learn history it is fine but this thread is about history and not opinions. You have good day sir!

Field large armies/navy is a administrative feat that can be used by the military, but is not a military feat.

Spartans were known to be good at war to beat bigger/same size armies with few casualties. Romans were too, but also had an amazing logistic(to its time) and built the biggest ancient empire.If the French had won on Agincourt this battle would be neglected among many others of this period, because is expected the biggest army beats the smaller one and isn't like a big feat. Vietnam is remembered because US failed, otherwise would lost among other many US interventions around the world in Cold War. Winged Hussars are (gloriously) known because could beat 1:10~1:20 armies.

Beat nearly bankrupt nations doesn't prove one better at war. Repeatedly fail to beat armies 1:100 shows one is bad.

Ps.: Guerrilla wrecks anyone since ancients times and shouldn't be taken into account. From Rome to Napoleon and Vietnam, this tactic was still working very well.

 

[holyvigil]

Actually i agree you about these matters. My objection is to your simplification of a nation's successes. How? I explain;

Porteguese's crusade in Indian Ocean is just one reason of the failing of The Mamluks. One of the other reasons was musket and artillery power of The Turks. Quite different other reasons are exist, of course (social, economic etc.)

I mean;

Nothing is dependent to just one thing. There are too many conditions and those are the consequences of very different things and events.

Crusade? I didn't think the war was Papal sanctioned and primarily religiously motivated. It was all about trade. Material goods.

 

[Ostovar Hossein]

Field large armies/navy is a administrative feat that can be used by the military, but is not a military feat.

Spartans were known to be good at war to beat bigger/same size armies with few casualties. Romans were too, but also had an amazing logistic(to its time) and built the biggest ancient empire.If the French had won on Agincourt this battle would be neglected among many others of this period, because is expected the biggest army beats the smaller one and isn't like a big feat. Vietnam is remembered because US failed, otherwise would lost among other many US interventions around the world in Cold War. Winged Hussars are (gloriously) known because could beat 1:10~1:20 armies.

Beat nearly bankrupt nations doesn't prove one better at war. Repeatedly fail to beat armies 1:100 shows one is bad.

Ps.: Guerrilla wrecks anyone since ancients times and shouldn't be taken into account. From Rome to Napoleon and Vietnam, this tactic was still working very well.

Good point on gurilla I agree, but I think you should keep in mind that Ottomans used many type of infintry in the front for example they used tatar cavalry as back up also had sepahi cavalry, Ottoman army was big army with many different qualities it is just not ok to say their army only won by numbers. Ok so now they have nerfed Ottomans janaseries card which is fine and historical since not all Ottomans inft were made out of janaseries, they are also hard to get which is a big nerf along with loss of cores making all neighbors stronger. No one here is saying Ottomans defeated everyone but they we're power to fight against until 1780 and their decline... But to say that janaseries were bad unit and farther nerf Ottomans is just unacceptable... As for other units I am sure paradox will in time show European elite inft of better quality. Thanks for your time.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Good point on gurilla I agree, but I think you should keep in mind that Ottomans used many type of infintry in the front for example they used tatar cavalry as back up also had sepahi cavalry, Ottoman army was big army with many different qualities it is just not ok to say their army only won by numbers. Ok so now they have nerfed Ottomans janaseries card which is fine and historical since not all Ottomans inft were made out of janaseries, they are also hard to get which is a big nerf along with loss of cores making all neighbors stronger. No one here is saying Ottomans defeated everyone but they we're power to fight against until 1780 and their decline... But to say that janaseries were bad unit and farther nerf Ottomans is just unacceptable... As for other units I am sure paradox will in time show European elite inft of better quality. Thanks for your time.

As keeps being pointed out, no one has said the Janissaries are a poor unit here, its been pretty constantly stated they are a good quality professional group of soldiers, just not the space marine elite units some people seem to think they were. Its also weird that the thread keeps coming back to this idea of military composition despite no real reason to because its not like any force was composed entirely of one type of unit, disputing composition seems like a weird thing to do.

The nerf does one thing quite well in that it does differentiate the Ottoman mass suicide infantry squads from the janissaries, although Its still a really bizarre design choice to only allow one nation access to infantry better than their standard levies.

The Ottoman decline also started way before 1780, realistically it began following the substantial change in foreign policy after the treaty of Karlowitz in 1699, they became much more insular and focused much more on their own internal issues rather than projection and while they were still a significant power their sphere of influence was gradually losing its hold for the technological booming of western powers during the 18th century.

 

[kakatua]

Crusade? I didn't think the war was Papal sanctioned and primarily religiously motivated. It was all about trade. Material goods.

They thought Indians were Christians, tried to reach India to make contact with them and explain Muslims are bad guys to get resources from the rich lands of India and start a 2 front-war on the Muslims with the ultimate goal of recover Jerusalem. It does look like a fantasy scenario, but Europe was very backward in knowledge about the rest of the world due to the "Muslim Wall". Portuguese even thought Indians saying "Krishna" was "Christ" in their language and sent letters to the King of Portugal saying everything the legends said were truth. After they notice Indians weren't Christians and the incident in Calicut, the goal changed to struggle Muslim trade through Sea, blocking Aden and Hormuz routes, attacking merchant ships, etc.