Why didn't horse archers last longer? Muskets easily replaced bows because they are way better, but it's hard to shoot a 2 handed gun on horseback and even harder to reload so most men who fought on horseback fought using lances or sabers. Seems like bows would have been advantageous until Colt invented the Walker pistol

>>17850148 (OP)
Middle Easterners and Orientals continued to practice horse archery well into the 17th century.

>>17850167
Qing horse archers raiding a Dzungar camp, 1756.

>>17850167
Qing horse archers raiding a Dzungar camp, 1756.

>>17850167
>>17850191
why didn't yuros?

>>17850191
Depiction a Sikh horse archer.

>>17850199
Most of Europe never developed a tradition of horse archery, however, those who did (Lithuania, Russia), generally continued that practice until the end of the 17th century.

>>17850199
Horse archery requires a certain lifestyle to perform
A single mounted archer takes years to become accurate at hitting moving target while himself being on a highly mobile, unstable platform like a full-galloping horse - nevermind keeping formation and orienting the horse accurately in the meanwhile. Most of that training when it concerned central asiatic or southern tungusic cultures was done THROUGH their lifestyle as nomadic pastoralist hunters. Meanwhile, the only people amongst the settled who could afford spending so much time training in such a way were either mercenaries, nobles or frontiersmen, who were either A) in the first case, not enclined to dole out cash for training that way unless they were already living that lifestyle (i.e Unnigardae) or B)not numerous enough to have actual wings of horse archers.
Not to mention the exhorbitant cost of war-bred horses and adapted archer equipment. Central asian cultures used cattle -particularly horses - as currency and used their archer equipment when not at war to hunt, maximizing the usage of each in both facets of life, unlike settled cultures which, if they invested in this, had to dole out cash to maintain those particulars units (again, the Unnigardae).

>>17850223
>used cattle -particularly horses
I don't think horses are a kind of cattle

>>17850266
>I don't think horses are a kind of cattle
you're right, it's livestock. I don't think it detracts from my point tho.

>>17850266
It can be used to refer to livestock in general. The semantic shift went from property to livestock to just cows and the last one was quite recent

An arrow can be stopped by a horse's caparison or reduce it to a scratch. A musket ball or grapeshot will go straight through like it isn't even there.

>>17850307
this isn't
>why did infantry switch from bows to muskets
it's
>why didn't the cavalry keep using bows
cavalry was using fucking swords and lances, they weren't shooting because they couldn't reload on horseback.

>>17850148 (OP)
Horse archers had one gimmick, pretending to run away and lure the enemy into an ambush, of that didnt work they were shit out of luck.
Totally overrated.

>>17850148 (OP)
Because Dragoons were just a better choice. Horse archers get much less cool when the opponent can volley fire ranked muskets back at you or just dump artillery fire into your horde before it closes to archery range.

>>17850347
Only the heaviest warbows can get through padded cloth and they're not much use against shields or armor, it is the defining feature of every encounter between bows and gunpowder. More so than the years of training needed or the fatigue of using a bow.

For centuries Russians were trapped under the Tatar yoke whose horse archers were unassailable on the open steppe, able to pepper armies for hours under a relentless barrage before finally charging demoralized and wounded troops. Infantry bows and crossbows were perhaps superior to the composite bows of the Tatars, infantry could take cover behind wagons or terrain features, however the strength of cavalry is its ability to concentrate force in one area. The Tatars would use their initiative in searching out weak points and attacking like a carousel with a constant stream of riders unleashing their arrows at close range. Their riders might take a few arrows, but they would fire more in that area. They would surround the enemy and everywhere constantly harass and probe for weaknesses.

However these dense formations are undone if a single musket ball can collapse a horse or the enemy had even a light cannon or some other explosive device ready. The terrifying horde, rumbling and shaking the ground, is drowned out by the very loud crack of muskets interspersed with the whinnying horses scattered across the field, blocking and scaring subsequent horses pressed to attack. The Cossacks took advantage of this, their troops consisted of war wagons with infantry and very light cavalry that, with fresh horses, could chase down the smaller Mongolian breeds. In this way they would advance to objectives like river crossings and trade posts.

>>17850406
ok, but they still used cavalry after muskets became a thing and they used lances and sabers instead of bows. And they still used light cavs to attack artillery.
I don't see how a bow is less effective than a saber or lance

>>17850413
Because peppering them at a distance with arrows all day like the Mongols stopped working in the late 15th century. Napoleonic cavalry worked in concert with infantry and artillery and only attacked disrupted formations, closing in rapidly and causing maximum chaos thereby preventing the infantry from reloading their muskets and forming organized lines.

>>17850454
Also, light cav of all forms carried ranged weapons, pistols, carbines, ect. It wasn't just a TW style this unit has x thing.

>>17850167
Mamelukes were doing it all the way to early XIX century.

>>17850406

>However these dense formations are undone if a single musket ball can collapse a horse or the enemy had even a light cannon or some other explosive device ready. The terrifying horde, rumbling and shaking the ground, is drowned out by the very loud crack of muskets interspersed with the whinnying horses scattered across the field, blocking and scaring subsequent horses pressed to attack.

Firstly, guns until the invention of rifling were about as accurate as the average bow. Secondly, it's extremely difficult to hit a horseman in motion with bows, which means it's just as difficult with single shot muzzle-loaded guns.

>The Cossacks took advantage of this, their troops consisted of war wagons with infantry and very light cavalry that, with fresh horses, could chase down the smaller Mongolian breeds.

The Cossacks had mixed success at best when dealing with horse archers of the Siberian khanates in this manner. The reality was that the armies of Tsarist Russia at this point in time (15-17th century) was very similar to that of Turkic and Mongolic armies; it was a cavalry-centric army and the average weapon used by a Russian soldier was the compound bow.

>Because peppering them at a distance with arrows all day like the Mongols stopped working in the late 15th century

No, it worked surprisingly well into the early 20th century. It's the ideal form of harassment as it's difficult to counter.

>Napoleonic cavalry worked in concert with infantry and artillery and only attacked disrupted formations, closing in rapidly and causing maximum chaos thereby preventing the infantry from reloading their muskets and forming organized lines.

Napoleonic cavalry tactics sucked. There's a reason why no one outside of Europe adopted it. It developed as it did because the Europeans were stuck on the idea of using cavalry as the decisive military arm, when even cavalry centric armies such as the Qing and the Ottomans had abandoned the notion.

>>17851376
>Napoleonic cavalry tactics sucked.
lack of bong cavalry cause the bongs to lose the American Revolutionary War because they could never get a decisive victory without cavalry cutting down routing men

>>17851389

The lost for a variety of reasons, lack of cavalry wasn't one of them.

>>17851400
not being able to force Washington into a decisive battle and not being able to stop Washington from retreating over and over and over was a big one

>>17850406
Le heavy warbow is a meme. An easy to draw but expensive 80lb composite can outperform an 128lb self bow with the same grain of arrow.

>they're not much use against shields or armour
You can't determine that without specifying the weight of the arrow, arrow type, whether it's steel or iron tip and what type and poundage the bow is. There is far too many variables with bows.

>Infantry bows and crossbows were perhaps superior to the composite bows of the Tatars

Infantry bows are the same thing as Cavalry bows. What might be different is that tartars might prefer larger siyahs and heavier arrows.

I do agree with the rest of the points tho.

>>17850148 (OP)


>Memoirs of Marbot (pp. 660-661): “I could never understand for what purpose the Russian government brought from such a distance at the cost of huge expenses large masses of untrained horsemen who had no sabers, no pike and no firearms. Therefore, they could not resist the regular troops and were only good for depleting the terrain and causing deprivation and hunger among the regular corps of their own army. Our soldiers were not at all frightened by the sight of these half-wild Asians, we called them Cupids, because they also had bows and arrows.

>However, these new arrivals, still unfamiliar with the French were spurred on by their commanders, almost as ignorant as themselves, and expected us to flee when they approached. They were eager to come into contact with us and from the very first day of their arrival at the position in front of our troops they rushed at our soldiers in countless crowds, but everywhere they were met with rifle fire. These hideous ugly savages naturally fled in an instant and left a large number of slain on the battlefield.

>These losses did not at all pacify their ardor. They seemed to be even more aroused. Moving without any order, using any crossings, they continuously pranced around us, looked like a swarm of hornets, escaped from everywhere, and it became very difficult for us to catch up with them. But when our cavalrymen succeeded, they ruthlessly and in large numbers killed the Bashkirs because our pikes and sabers had a huge advantage over their arrows. However, since the attacks of these barbarians did not stop and the Russians supported their attacks with the help of hussar troops to exploit the confusion that the Bashkirs could create at several points in our line, the emperor ordered the generals to redouble their vigilance and visit our forward posts more often. "

>>17851648
>Facing a terrible cannonade, and continual attacks, the French line remained steadfastly in position. Towards our left, Marshal Macdonald and General Sébastiani were holding the ground between Probstheyda and Stötteritz, in spite of numerous attacks by Klenau’s Austrians and the Russians of Doctoroff, when they were assailed by a charge of more than 20,000 Cossacks and Baskirs, the efforts of the latter being directed mainly at Sébastiani’s cavalry.

>With much shouting, these barbarians rapidly surrounded our squadrons, against which they launched thousands of arrows which did very little damage because the Baskirs, being entirely irregulars, do not know how to form up in ranks and they go about in a mob like a flock of sheep, with the result that the riders cannot shoot horizontally without wounding or killing their comrades who are in front of them, but shoot their arrows into the air to describe an arc which will allow them to descend on the enemy. This system does not permit any accurate aim, and nine tenths of the arrows miss their target. Those that do arrive have used up in their ascent the impulse given to them by the bow, and fall only under their own weight, which is very small, so that they do not as a rule inflict any serious injuries. In fact the Baskirs, having no other arms, are undoubtedly the world’s least dangerous troops.

>>17851652
>However, since they attacked us in swarms, and the more one killed of these wasps, the more seemed to arrive, the huge number of arrows which they discharged into the air of necessity caused a few dangerous wounds. Thus, one of my finest N.C.O.s. by the name of Meslin had his body pierced by an arrow which entered his chest and emerged at his back. The brave fellow, taking two hands, broke the arrow and pulled out the remaining part, but this did not save him, for he died a few moments later. This is the only example which I can remember of death being caused by a Baskir arrow, but I had several men and horses hit, and was myself wounded by this ridiculous weapon.

>I had my sabre in my hand, and I was giving orders to an officer, when, on raising my arm to indicate the point to which he was to go, I felt my sabre encounter a strange resistance and was aware of a slight pain in my right thigh, in which was embedded for about an inch, a four foot arrow* which in the heat of battle I had not felt. I had it extracted by Dr.Parot and put in one of the boxes in the regimental ambulance, intending to keep it as a memento; but unfortunately it got lost.

>You will understand that for such a minor injury I was not going to leave the regiment, particularly at such a critical time…

tl;dr because bows are shit compared to muskets. Speaking as an armchair general, properly trained and equipped horse archers might not be as pathetic, note that Marbot specifically says that the Bashkirs weren't firing directly at the French which made them a lot less effective, but even so I expect this would require them to be in musket range to be effective which would likely cause result in terrible casualties, particularly against any half-decent infantry blob. There were also similar stories from the Great Northern War where the Poles, allied to Russia against Sweden, were initially laughed at for carrying bows to war and then turned out to be completely worthless as well.

>>17851376
>No, it worked surprisingly well into the early 20th century. It's the ideal form of harassment as it's difficult to counter.
It didn’t against Napoleon’s infantry squares in Egypt
> Napoleonic cavalry tactics sucked. There's a reason why no one outside of Europe adopted it.
Those “outside of Europe” were absolutely shit in warfare in the 17-20th centuries, you can argue that they weren’t but they pretty much all got colonised by Europeans using musket squares, saber/lance cav and cannon, even though the enemy had their little horsey carousels with gay bows

>>17851660
neat

>>17851416

Nothing to do with lack of cavalry. Washington was an expert in operational maneuvers and the British had no commanders who could match his ability in controlling the battlespace. Frederick the Great was stan for Washington and regarded Washington's campaign around Princeton as a military masterpiece.

>>17851648
>>17851652
>>17851660

>cites Marbot
>kek

This is the same Marbot who took an arrow to the thigh and had to be dragged away from the battlefield in a stretcher.

>It didn’t against Napoleon’s infantry squares in Egypt

Infantry squares didn't work so well for the Russians in Central Asia, the Spanish and the Americans in the Great Plains.

>Those “outside of Europe” were absolutely shit in warfare in the 17-20th centuries, you can argue that they weren’t but they pretty much all got colonised by Europeans using musket squares, saber/lance cav and cannon, even though the enemy had their little horsey carousels with gay bows

The Europeans posed no existential military threat to the sophisticated civilizations of the Old World until the mid 19th century. And that was largely due to industrialization and the steam ship allowing European armies to project power outside of the continent.

>>17853504
>Nothing to do with lack of cavalry. Washington was an expert in operational maneuvers and the British had no commanders who could match his ability in controlling the battlespace. Frederick the Great was stan for Washington and regarded Washington's campaign around Princeton as a military masterpiece.
Napoleon has some quote about how the only way to decisively win a battle is to have your cavalry cut down routing infantry

>>17853504
>Infantry squares didn't work so well
The Chinese utilized large infantry squares to counter steppe nomads, what was more of an issue is predicting where nomads would strike or cutting off their escape route.

>>17850406
The problem you have is that you're thinking about a battle only. A lot of eastern european warfare in both medieval and early modern period was about skirmishing and logistics, not battles and horse archers were simply a type of cavalry that could use pretty usual horses and be effective at raiding the living shit out of countryside, taking our enemy foraging parties or logistics trains etc. at some point everyone understood how to deal with the mongols(wagon forts and ranged weapons) on the battlefield but to deal with their ability to spread out and dgaf about your wagon fort that was different.

Also as for OP, horse archery survived in eastern europe until give or take early 1700's(fun fact, winged hussars used bows quite often), it was more about availability of pistols really because that was a solid replacement for bows in the way cavalries used them there.

>>17853829

If they were so effective, why did the Chinese abandon the tactic? It's because it produced mixed results and required an intensive amount of resources for the squares to hold, as the tactic called for creating a fortress of bodies and wagons which the nomads would lay siege to. When the Qing came into power, they never bothered with this tactic, instead they turned to a reliable method of countering horse archers which is using their own horse archers.

>>17853504
>Infantry squares didn't work so well for the Russians in Central Asia, the Spanish and the Americans in the Great Plains.
That must be why the steppes and the Great Plains are independent nations nowadays
> The Europeans posed no existential military threat to the sophisticated civilizations of the Old World until the mid 19th century
You said it worked into the 20th century tho, you played yourself
> And that was largely due to industrialization and the steam ship allowing European armies to project power outside of the continent.
So when Europe could transfer its armies to fight the pony fucker armies the pony fuckers lost? Again you destroyed your own argument
Face it, if your tactic worked you wouldn’t have been subjugated by Anglos, Frogs, Dagos and drunk Slavs

>>17853522
Well, Napoleon was wrong
He was good at battle tactics but really bad at strategy

>>17853874
>If they were so effective, why did the Chinese abandon the tactic?
Probably because their guns and men were made in China
It worked fine with highly trained European armies with well made European guns, that’s why you are speaking English right now son

>>17853864
>fun fact, winged hussars used bows quite often)
winged hussars were walking or rather riding armories, they often have few fire arms as well

>>17853893
Yes, but bows would be in their arsenal too.

>>17853874
>If they were so effective, why did the Chinese abandon the tactic?
Infantry squares/war wagons by themselves did not have offensive capabilities. Cavalry was always the hammer while infantry square/war wagons was the anvil.

>It's because it produced mixed results
Bullshit. They were only torn down by Later Jin/Early Qing who had heavily armored infantry and adopted Chinese artillery.

> required an intensive amount of resources
No, Ming infantry/war wagons were relatively quick to train and can even be unarmored this is precisely why Sun Chengzhong chose to muster a force of tens of thousands of mostly war wagon/infantry troops.

>When the Qing came into power, they never bothered with this tactic
They had a completely different objective, the Ming tried to prevent constant incursions while the Qing pacified Mongolia through diplomacy. The Qing was constantly on the offensive and required mobility against the Dzunghars while post Tumu Ming was more reactive and defensive in nature.

>instead they turned to a reliable method of countering horse archers which is using their own horse archers.
This is no different than the Ming, when conducting punitive expeditions it was 20k+ cavalry with only a small 1-2k force of war wagons to protect the HQ.

>>17853864

>it was more about availability of pistols really because that was a solid replacement for bows in the way cavalries used them there.

Muzzle-loaded pistols and carbines were effective substitutes for bows, but these were inferior to the bow in the context of mounted warfare. The value these weapons provided was that they gave range capabilities to the cavalry of people who did not live a lifestyle that fostered mounted combat and warfare. Everytime cavalrymen armed with muzzle-loaded weapons would confront horse archers, it ended very badly for them. The weapons are simply too slow to reload to match the volume of fire that bows can deliver, which is everything in mounted range warfare.

>>17853883

>That must be why the steppes and the Great Plains are independent nations nowadays

Infantry squares didn't contribute to their subjugation.

>You said it worked into the 20th century tho, you played yourself

None of what's been stated refuted my previous point.

>So when Europe could transfer its armies to fight the pony fucker armies the pony fuckers lost? Again you destroyed your own argument

None of what's been stated refuted my previous point.

You're grasping at straws because you have nothing to refute what's been stated. You clearly have no technical knowledge of military innovations and everything you know about historical events is from playing video games.

>>17850148 (OP)
>Why didn't horse archers last longer?
They did.
Eastern armies like Ottomans and Russian maintained hybrid armies of musketeer infantry and horse archers. Guns for horseman weren't so exciting, one of the main advantages of the musket rane can't be utilized from horse. You can't shoot musket accurately from horse, and bow has much better rate if fire. Another advantage of the gun armor penetration see anti knight reiters armed with brace of massive pistols wasn't so userfull at East we're plate armor wasn't common.

>>17853915
Ok so it’s obvious that you aren’t here to actually discuss, just to disregard anything that goes against your argument
All fields (such as the ones where guns rekt horse archers and colonised you pony boys)

>>17853915
>Infantry squares didn't contribute to their subjugation.
They absolutely did. See Muslim gunpowder empires and Russia conquering Golden Horde lands.
what was different about these armies was employment of numerous professional musketeer infantry. While their cavalry remained traditional feudal military armed with bows and sabres. Like mongols 400 years before.
But musket was that secret ingredient that allowed them to roll over militaries that didn't have musket.

>>17850148 (OP)

Probably because they were made of shit tier copper, melted easily, and were reinforced with brittle balsa wood.

>>17853887
Yeah that's why yuro imperialism in asia didn't happen until the industrial revolution with the exception of india getting gobbled up by bongs when mughals collapsed

>>17853913

>Infantry squares/war wagons by themselves did not have offensive capabilities. Cavalry was always the hammer while infantry square/war wagons was the anvil.

Incorrect. The War Cart Regiments had different formations depending on the environment, the opponents, and the mission. Some had a sizable cavalry contingent, while others didn't.

>Bullshit. They were only torn down by Later Jin/Early Qing who had heavily armored infantry and adopted Chinese artillery.

Are you going to explain how any of this has to do with my point? If not what I've said stands.

>No, Ming infantry/war wagons were relatively quick to train and can even be unarmored this is precisely why Sun Chengzhong chose to muster a force of tens of thousands of mostly war wagon/infantry troops.

No, that had to do with the fact the Ming at that point had built a massive arsenal of war wagons that they had no problem calling them up for service.

>The Qing was constantly on the offensive and required mobility against the Dzunghars while post Tumu Ming was more reactive and defensive in nature

No, it's because the Qing maintained a large effective cavalry force and had no need for the infantry/war wagon squares that the Ming relied on.

>This is no different than the Ming, when conducting punitive expeditions it was 20k+ cavalry with only a small 1-2k force of war wagons to protect the HQ.

Refer to what's been stated about the War Car Regiments above.

>>17853925

>Doesn't deny that he gets his history from video games

I accept your concession.

>>17853885
>Well, Napoleon was wrong
scholar anon ova here

>>17853997
If he was right, he would have won

>>17853887

>It worked fine with highly trained European armies

The Europeans were nothing special and their military records in Asia were mixed at best. But I bet you also think that the Romans had special military training that made the legions unique from from their Carthaginian, Greek, and Gallic counterparts.

>>17853934

Did you just admit that you know nothing about how these thing played out?

>See Muslim gunpowder empires

The gunpowder empires were referred to as such because of their emphasis on big guns, cannons and artillery, rather than small guns.

> Russia conquering Golden Horde lands.

The Tsarist armies were fighting in the similar fashion as the Mongols and the Turks.

>what was different about these armies was employment of numerous professional musketeer infantry

A small corps of professionals. They were not the majority. These armies placed their focus on building large artillery and cavalry forces.

>>17854027
>The gunpowder empires were referred to as such because of their emphasis on big guns, cannons and artillery, rather than small guns.
All their military included infantry musketeer corps. Like most known Ottoman Empire unit was Jannisaries.
Cannons were crucial for Sige warfare but even in Napoleonic wars period musket was main weapon of field battles and produced like 80-90% casualties.

>The Tsarist armies were fighting in the similar fashion as the Mongols
When they were fighting in Mongol fashion borders of Moscow Tsardom ended in Tula and Ryazan, 120 miles away from Moscow.

>A small corps of professionals. They were not the majority
But extremely important. Timeline.
1500 gunpowder revolution happens, all
advanced militaries in Europe arm hastily with arquebuse.
1525 Pavia battle happens.
Arquebuse start to trickle into Russia.
1550 Ivan The Terrible founds streltsy corps.
1552 Moscowites take Kazan (mind you previous 4 campaigns failed).
1554 small Russian raiding parties sail south to Astrakhan Khaganate, defeats it military installs Russian puppet.
1556 Astrakhan Khaganate rises against puppet, Russian send small force and exteerminates all resistance.
1557 Baskhkirs shit themselves seeing new Russian power and bend their knees to Russian Tsar semi voluntary.
1582 Ermak leads campaign that end with conquest of Khanate of Sibir
That literally is. As Russians get their hands on arquebuse they started to roll over horse nomads so hard it wasn't even funny, Russia snowballed into their lands at light speed (while advances into Western direction where Russians were met by arquebuse wasn't so successful).

Thing is military history is poisoned by boomers fake news who downplayed role of the musket and it's effectiveness
>muh longbow has better range than musket
>musket was only adapted because it was easy to train
Etc bollocks.
In reality musket absolutely rolls over any muscle driven weapons and it caused military revolution.

>>17853994
>Incorrect. The War Cart Regiments had different formations depending on the environment, the opponents, and the mission. Some had a sizable cavalry contingent, while others didn't.
Cavalry regiments are necessary for mobility, war wagons require time to set up and lack mobility compared to pure cavalry. War wagons regiments cannot conduct the same missions as cavalry such as Dao Chao operations let alone hope to catch up to Mongol raiders.

>Are you going to explain how any of this has to do with my point? If not what I've said stands.
My point of contention is your claim that they had mixed results, which is not the case when it comes to a pure cavalry force like the Mongols. Mongols lack the heavy infantry to replicate the Later Jin's ability to dismantle cheval de frise/war wagons.

>No, that had to do with the fact the Ming at that point had built a massive arsenal of war wagons that they had no problem calling them up for service.
You claimed that they required an intensive amount of resources. War wagon crew were less valuable than cavalrymen, both Qi Jiguang and Sun Chengzhong did not issue them armors while other sources list low end armors such as cotton, leather or paper while cavalry wore brigandine. It is precisly because of less stringent requirements for war wagon crew that Sun Chengzhong was able to whip into shape a large force in a short period of time. The mid-late Ming had severe horse shortages they cannot invest as many resources into cavalry as the Early Qing.

>No, it's because the Qing maintained a large effective cavalry force and had no need for the infantry/war wagon squares that the Ming relied on.
Early Qing did not deal with same circumstances as the Mid-Late Ming who were not conducting deep campaigns into Outer Mongolia/Tibet/Xinjiang.

>had no need for the infantry/war wagon squares that the Ming relied on.
You have provided zero counterarguments that Ming infantry/war wagon was ineffective against Mongolian nomads.

>>17853994
btw the thickness of Ming war carts were meant to counter arrows not firearms, they would be obsolete against the Dzunghars who had access the later access to firearms, light field artillery and zamburaks.

Typical Ming war cart walls only had a thickness of 1 cun(32mm), lighter variants such as Ye Mengxiong's Qing Che only had a thickness of 6 fen(19.2mm). Qing Dun Che on the other hand had a thickness of 2-5 cun(64mm-16cm) with additional layers of iron sheets and cowhide which could protect against heavy matchlocks, needless to say this would be a large increase in weight making it unfeasible for transport across large distances.

>>17850213
Byzantine and Magyars?

>>17854362

Everything you've said is wrong

>Cannons were crucial for Sige warfare but even in Napoleonic wars period musket was main weapon of field battles and produced like 80-90% casualties.

Cannons were used extensively as field artillery in amongst the gunpowder empires. They're the primary reason why pike & shot never took off as a viable formation in those regions. Europeans leaned into muskets because the region lacked the material wealth to produce cannons in the same volume.

>When they were fighting in Mongol fashion borders of Moscow Tsardom ended in Tula and Ryazan, 120 miles away from Moscow.

No, the Russians were still fighting in that fashion up until Peter the Great's reforms in the early 1700's.

>That literally is. As Russians get their hands on arquebuse they started to roll over horse nomads so hard it wasn't even funny, Russia snowballed into their lands at light speed

The Turkic khanates in Eastern Europe were more or less sedentary at that point in time. They're armies were a parallel to the Russians; largely composed of irregular cavalry with small corps of arquebusiers. Central Asia was a completely different beast, the steppe people there lived almost entirely nomadic lifestyles and the Russians could barley control the region. The Russians were only able to have a modicum of control by making deals with the local emirs; in exchange for their recognition of the Tsar as their sovereign, their potentates would be exempt from taxes and conscription. The Russians controlled the handful of urban areas, but never had control of the open steppes. Their columns and supply trains were frequently harassed by steppe raiders, which the Russian soldiers were helpless to stop. They were only able to achieve full dominance of the steppes in the early 1930s thanks to the use of airplanes.

>>17850148 (OP)
Practicing archery was required by law in many places inside the Ottoman Empire, in others it was part of the socio-economic model.

>>17850148 (OP)
>Muskets easily replaced bows because they are way better
Firearms coexisted with bows and crossbows in European armies for centuries.
> but it's hard to shoot a 2 handed gun on horseback
That's why mounted infantry is a thing. When gunpowder first started being widely used you saw units of mounted gunpowder infantry, the first dragoons. Dragoons did not really become true cavalry until firearm technology improved enough to make mounted riflemen a viable concept.
>Seems like bows would have been advantageous until Colt invented the Walker pistol
Shooting a bow on horseback is not easy, there is a reason the only cultures that employ horse archers are ones where horseback riding and archery are two skills every man is expected to learn from childhood, i.e. steppe peoples for whom being able to ride, shoot, and shoot while riding is a way of life and not merely a martial role. If your culture does not require men to be able ti ride before they can grow a beard you will probably not have trained horse archers for your military because it's a difficult skill set to master later in life.

>>17850148 (OP)
>Seems like bows would have been advantageous until Colt invented the Walker pistol
>>17854934
>for centuries.
The match lock is the last technological stage where bows and crossbows are still being use in tandem.
The Comanches apparently made do because there was value to low-power, rapid fire archery in a situation where nobody was wearing armour any longer.

>>17854959
>The match lock is the last technological stage where bows and crossbows are still being use in tandem.
And it took centuries for the matchlock to see widespread use after firearms first started being used in battle in Europe. Even then crossbows remained very popular throughout Europe until the mid 16th century. At least for most of Europe. Not everywhere modernized quickly.

>>17854438

>Cavalry regiments are necessary for mobility, war wagons require time to set up and lack mobility compared to pure cavalry.

War Cart Regiments were self-sustaining combined arms formations that were modified for achieving different missions. The size of the cavalry contingent varied depending on the mission, this is well documented.

>My point of contention is your claim that they had mixed results,

They did have mixed results. If they were as effective as you're claiming, why is that the Ming were never able to achieve full military dominance over the Mongols and other steppe threats?

>You claimed that they required an intensive amount of resources.

Yes they do. It doesn't take a genius to realize how capital intensive it is to build a fleet of war wagons. There's a reason why the Ming commander who conceived of the War Car Regiment, Zeng Xian, was executed, that is, he massively under-reported the budget and cost to create the unit to carryout his operation in Hetao.

>War wagon crew were less valuable than cavalrymen, both Qi Jiguang and Sun Chengzhong did not issue them armors while other sources list low end armors such as cotton, leather or paper while cavalry wore brigandine. It is precisly because of less stringent requirements for war wagon crew that Sun Chengzhong was able to whip into shape a large force in a short period of time.

Of course the standards for these crews were lower. But that had nothing to do with the ability of the Late Ming to field War Carts Regiments quickly. The Ming spent 200 years building a war wagon fleet, of course they're able to pull those from their stockpile. Or are you seriously under the impression, that the war wagons were built as needed and dismantled afterwards?

>You have provided zero counterarguments that Ming infantry/war wagon was ineffective against Mongolian nomads.

You're the only one saying it.

>>17854894
>Europeans leaned into muskets because the region lacked the material wealth to produce cannons in the same volume.

NTA, what’s your basis for this claim?

>>17850266
>I don't think horses are a kind of cattle
You would be surprised.
Here is traditional leather canteen of Golden Horde Nomads to make Kumis in the field.
Men of the Golden Horde when they went outdoors for long prefer to ride mare who recently gave a birth and produced a milk.
Milk was put in this canteen. "Horns" is where old Kumis was put as starter for brewing Kumis. Canteen was filled with fresh horse milk rider milked from horse. After about 24 hours fresh Kumis (fermented milk with strength of about beer 4% o something) was ready andn that was food that sustained that rider in field. His mare both carried him and fed him. Imagine that and logistical implications.

>>17854985
>Even then crossbows remained very popular throughout Europe until the mid 16th century
No.
With some retarded boomers or something.
We have literally Holy Roman Emperor order in 16th century to STOP PAYING wages to retarded Landsknechts Boomers who still carried crossbows. Order of the Emperor SPECIFICALLY called that wages would be paid ONLY to Landsknechts who carried arquebuse. Crossbowmen would get dick. Zero. Nada.
There were similar edicts from some European mayors aimed at town's milita
Some Idiot boomers like you didn't get the message that arquebuse was clearly superior. People in power literally shoved that memo into idiots faces.

>>17854894
>Everything you've said is wrong
Apply to yourself

turnes out, firearms and not bayonets caused the greatest amount of wounds on the battlefield. At Malplaquet, for example, the best evidence indicates that 2/3 of the wounds received by French troops came from the enemy's fusils, with only about 2 % were inflicted by bayonets. Of the men wounded by gunfire, 60 % had been struck in the left sde, the side facing the enemy as a soldier stood in line to fire himself.

Looking at a larger sample of veterans admitted to the Invalides in 1715, Corvisier arrived at the following breakdown of wounds:
French vs Russians in 1812 at Smolensk. Picture by F. Neumann - 71.4 % from firearms
- 15.8 % from swords
- 10.0 % from artillery
- 2.8 % from the bayonet
Perhaps the figures for bayonet wounds are so small because bayonets may either have killed more effectively, and thus allowed less soldiers to survive to be admitted, or produced wounds that were more survivable without permanent maiming. It is also possible that bayonet charges proved their worth by driving defenders from their positions before the troops actually colided." (Lynn - "Giant of the Grand Siecle" p 489)
According to another sample taken (in 1762) in Invalides;
- 69 % of the wounded were wounded by musket balls
- 14 % by sabers
- 13 % by artillery
- 2 % by bayonets

In 1807 during the war between France and Russia and Prussia, chirurg Dominique Jean Larrey studied wounded on one battlefield and found most were caused by artillery and muskets. Only 2 % of all wounds were caused by bayonets.

The damage inflicted during "bayonet assault" was most often executed by bullets. Larrey studied one particularly vicious close combat between the Russians and the French and found:
- 119 wounds from musketballs
- 5 wounds from bayonets

>>17854894
>No, the Russians were still fighting in that fashion up until Peter the Great's reforms in the early 1700's.
Inherit part of the Russian force (like every other force of Muslim Gunpowder Empires) was the elite corps of the musketeers under direct control of the Monarch.
Remember that stupid boomer meme ?
>musket was only adopted because it takes two week to train peasant to use musket
Well first musketeer force was ELITE LIFE LONG regular military professionals who had no analogues in their states history.
Boomers like you ARE COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG!

>>17854934
>Firearms coexisted with bows and crossbows in European armies for centuries.
Firearms been hand canons.
After arquebuse (long barreled gun that in ballistic and tactical qualities remained generally the same until middle of the 19th century) was invented gunpowder revolution and change started at Sonic speeds.
First mentions if the arquebuse were recorded in 1464.
By 1500 there were records of all advanced militaries arming themselves with mass of arquebuses.
In 1525 Pavia Battle happens that puts undisputable point about superiority of new gunpowder way of war.
It took just mere 50 years to completely change ways of war. We are talking about medieval Europe with not internet , telephone ot telegraph or newspapers
Even in that society gunpowder innovation spread like wildfire,cl it was so good.
For context. F-16 and Abram tanks USA supplied to Ukraine were designed 50 years ago.

>>17855388

You just copy pasted random information to deflect what exactly?

>Inherit part of the Russian force (like every other force of Muslim Gunpowder Empires) was the elite corps of the musketeers under direct control of the Monarch.

I can tell that you're an ESL, because you don't even know what the word elite means. The concept of an elite unit implies that it's a small group, not the standard line formation of an army. The Streltsy at their height was estimated to be about 20,000 strong.

>>17854894
>Cannons were used extensively as field artillery in amongst the gunpowder empires. They're the primary reason why pike & shot never took off as a viable formation in those regions. Europeans leaned into muskets because the region lacked the material wealth to produce cannons in the same volume.
Sorry but this is just retarded. Even in Machiavelli's times there were people saying that war will soon be giant artillery duel.

What actually happened was that the artillery itself has changed. A lot of early guns were made by forging iron plates. These were extremely common in late medieval period but the pressures and projectiles they could survive were limited. With spread of star forts they weren't enough anymore and heavier, cast guns were too heavy to move around the battlefield quickly, which prompted slow retreat away from using artillery in battles that lasted until the so called leather cannons showed up, which reintroduced the cannon to the battlefields. Later improvement in casting techniques is what cemented their presence.
I'm not sure what kind of cannons did the middle easterners use, but the price wasn't a problem in Europe, the weight was. Unless you're going to tell me that Europeans were richer in late medieval period than in 1600

>>17855608
>The concept of an elite unit implies that it's a small group, not the standard line formation of an army. The Streltsy at their height was estimated to be about 20,000 strong.
This what Streltsy were.
Only Regular military of the Russian Tsar (rest of his military force been IRREGULAR fuedal bandits) he paid with solid and deficit silver coin straight out of his purse (while rest of his irregular force was paid zero silver). And rest of his military significantly outnumbered streltsy corps.
This what want Streltsy were. Elite Guard of the Tsar armed with novel Uber weapons, answering to Tsar directly and only to Tsar, and consuming majority of the Russian State budget. And these soldiers were lifelong professionals, dedicating their entire life to military service.
You Fucking CAN'T be more Elite than this. Literally CAN'T.

>>17854994
>War Cart Regiments were self-sustaining combined arms formations that were modified for achieving different missions.
War cart regiments had cavalry because soldiers on foot can never catch up to Mongol cavalry, wagons are only useful if Mongols are willing to converge in one area. If you examine the actions of Mongol raiders after they penetrated the Great Wall only Ming cavalry had the mobility to

>They did have mixed results
So where are these mixed results? Ming era military thinkers did not think war wagons were obsolete against horse archers.

> why is that the Ming were never able to achieve full military dominance over the Mongols and other steppe threats?
Post Tumu Ming had insuffcient horse reserves, war wagons overcame the numerical superiority of Mongols in multiple battles(Battle of Anyinbao) but lacked power projection/mobility.

>Yes they do. It doesn't take a genius to realize how capital intensive it is to build a fleet of war wagons.
What is cheaper, an unarmored, unskilled war wagon crew or the cost of raising elite cavalry? Sun Chengzhong did not have the luxury of time or adequate horses.

>You're the only one saying it.
>If they were so effective, why did the Chinese abandon the tactic?
Your own words not mine. 17/18th century Dzunghars are a completely different threat than 16th century Mongols >>17854581 Ming war wagons were not constructed with the goal of detering firearms/artillery. 18th century Dzunghar campaigns in Tibet and Xinjiang are way beyond the operational range of mid-late Ming when it comes to combating nomadic entities.

>>17854994
>There's a reason why the Ming commander who conceived of the War Car Regiment, Zeng Xian, was executed, that is, he massively under-reported the budget and cost to create the unit to carryout his operation in Hetao.
Yan Song's jealously against Xia Yan(Zeng Xian's political ally) was the primary cause of the execution not the proposed expenditure, he was further slandered as instigating Altan Khan, withholding military pay and fabricating merit.

The expeditionary force was only estimated to cost 1.8 million taels while extending the Great Wall to the Hetao region was a staggering 20 million taels. If you break down the 1.8 million expenditure even further it cost 570,000(horses), 24,600(transport vehicles), 100,000(firearms) and 600,000(wages, food etc.) taels for 120,000+ men half cavalry/infantry. By comparison Ji garrison during Qi Jiguang's tenure only had 21,000 war wagon troops out of 143,826 men.

Where is the evidence war wagon regiments were prohibitively more expensive than infantry/cavalry regiments, wages, logistics or upkeep for the Great Wall? Yu Dayou, Qi Jiguang and a host of other military commanders had no problem maintaining war wagons.

>>17851376
>rifling
Even without rifling they are reasonably accurate, before the battlefield is filled with smoke they can hit a target at 50 meters and have a decent chance of a hit at 100 meters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trgZmM9fNS0

>extremely difficult to hit a horseman in motion
It is a numbers game.

If the horse archers attack in a dense formation, the musketeer just needs to aim slightly above the horizon and they will hit something. If they are dispersed, then there will be maybe 1 or 2 horse archers within range of 10 musketeers. Our Cossack musketeers would be in their wagon circle with boxes of powder and shot firing all day, densely packed, taking turns to fire through the slots before reloading, they can do this all day, their arms aching but nothing compared to the aches of their opponents, whose horses will suffer from heat exhaustion (which is why Mongols warrior had 3 horses each).

>The Cossacks had mixed success
The 16th century saw a sudden rapid expansion east,

>the average weapon used by a Russian soldier was the compound bow
Bows continued to be used until the flintlock and the Russians employed steppe peoples with their horse archers as allies, but they were not the "average" weapon by the end of the 16th century, neither did they confer much advantage against the similarly armed steppe peoples.

>it worked surprisingly well into the early 20th century
Whatever battle you are referring to did not represent warfare in the early 20th century, this is quite a wild claim.

>Napoleonic cavalry tactics sucked. There's a reason why no one outside of Europe adopted it.
18th century and Napoleonic era cavalry were light cavalry, little different from light cavalry anywhere else in the world. If it "sucked", well, then so did everyone else's. In battles between the British and India, often half the army were light cavalry and functioned much the same way as light cavalry in Europe.

>>17851376
>An easy to draw but expensive 80lb composite can outperform an 128lb self bow
Why would this be, doesn't the arrow have more energy?

>using cavalry as the decisive military arm
The use of cavalry varied wildly within Europe, there was no absolutist doctrine across Europe that cavalry was the decisive military arm, not sure where you got this from.

>>17851488
>You can't determine that without specifying the weight of the arrow, arrow type
Well apparently even the heaviest warbows at short range with the famous bodkins do little against armor, look at these nerds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds-Ev5msyzo&t=800

>Infantry bows are the same thing as Cavalry bows
Infantry are not burdened with riding a horse at the same time, bows are as much about the archer as the bow itself.

>I do agree with the rest of the points tho.
Why thankyou, don't expect people to agree with me on 4chan.

>>17853864
If you can secure strategic points like river crossings then you can delay enemy movement and supply more troops in the area. Granted these are few and far between in the steppe, but once captured they give your own raiding parties a local numerical advantage and they can clear out the surrounding area allowing you to progress to some other strategic point or build fortifications to use as supply caches. So a lot depended on those wagons and those guns.

>>17856177

>Why would this be, doesn't the arrow have more energy?

A certain composite manchu have higher reflex and stored energy then a self yew even at 82lbs. It's going to be launching the same mass of arrow at the same speed as the 119lb. Yep i got the draw weight wrong. But still 37lb of draw difference is a lot at higher ends.

>Well apparently even the heaviest warbows at short range with the famous bodkins do little against armor, look at these nerds.

In that video the maille is getting punctured which is a type of armor. If you meant that arrows from a very specific construction bow would do little agains a plate armor that is made out of 1050 AISI (with modern elements that makes it easier to harden) with modern uniform heat treatments (which had a very high failure rate until the 15th century) in a very specific range of thickness then yes i would agree with you. There are other tests with different variables of plate armor being punctured. (Alan williams, Mark Stretton). If you want historical examples, i can give that too.

>Infantry are not burdened with riding a horse at the same time, bows are as much about the archer as the bow itself.

Why do you think being on a horse would inhibit you from shooting "infantry" bows? The only thing that would matter is how tall the bow is but like i referenced there are designs in which bows are shorter but with more reflex.

>>17854362
I trust the other guy, because you are clearly a bong

>>17855337
usually when someone says cattle they mean domesticated bovines

>>17855388
>turnes out, firearms and not bayonets caused the greatest amount of wounds on the battlefield. At Malplaquet, for example, the best evidence indicates that 2/3 of the wounds received by French troops came from the enemy's fusils, with only about 2 % were inflicted by bayonets. Of the men wounded by gunfire, 60 % had been struck in the left sde, the side facing the enemy as a soldier stood in line to fire himself.
is this copypasta? and yeah no shit, guys tend to rout at bayonet charges

>>17856893
For horse nomads horse was their cattle. They raised horses for meat and milk and horses livestock was their main food source.

>>17855608
NTA, but you are clearly ESL. Elite does not imply less than 20,000 units. for instance, the commandos of WWII were an elite bong unit
>By the end of the war 25,000 men had passed through the Commando course at Achnacarry.
per nationalinterest.org, the US has 70,000 special forces members
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/confused-all-us-special-forces-heres-guide-192216

>>17851376
>>17856140
>Even without rifling they are reasonably accurate, before the battlefield is filled with smoke they can hit a target at 50 meters and have a decent chance of a hit at 100 meters.
someone on /k/ mentioned they did a study somewhat recently and found out most kentucky long rifles lack rifling. Tightly patched roundball could absolutely hit targets in excess of 100 yards, especially when shot at dense enemy formations where you didn't have to hit an individual person.

>>17856140
>In battles between the British and India, often half the army were light cavalry and functioned much the same way as light cavalry in Europe.
>india
>guns

>>17856177
>Well apparently even the heaviest warbows at short range with the famous bodkins do little against armor, look at these nerds.
that's not a good test because it assumes all troops had good quality armor and not complete ass armor

>>17856918
I'm not saying they weren't used in that manner. I'm saying that's the wrong word

An infantry line won't let horse archers get in range and makes them obsolete I'm assuming

>>17855715

>Sorry but this is just retarded. Even in Machiavelli's times there were people saying that war will soon be giant artillery duel.

Nothing wrong with what I stated. You just don't can't comprehend the idea that Europeans focused on small firearms tech, while recognizing that cannons are the future can both be true.

>I'm not sure what kind of cannons did the middle easterners use, but the price wasn't a problem in Europe, the weight was.

Price absolutely was the problem. Europe until the 19th century was relatively poor region, the average prince could barely afford to keep up with the latest military tech, especially with artillery. It's ironic, because as the European continent is littered with stone fortresses, it was the ideal region for artillery tech to develop. Whereas with the gundpowder empires, coming from at that time the wealthiest regions in the Old World, could splurge on artillery. In the Battle of Kannauj (1540) Mughal emperor Humayun deployed 21 heavy guns, 700 field cannon and 5,000 musketeers against Sher Shah Suri.

>>17855946

>What is cheaper, an unarmored, unskilled war wagon crew or the cost of raising elite cavalry? Sun Chengzhong did not have the luxury of time or adequate horses.

How is it that the economics of war is something you can't wrap your head around? As I've said repeatedly and you've repeatedly ignored, the Ming had 200 years to build a war wagon fleet. By Sun Chengzhong's time, war wagons had become an economic option.

>Your own words not mine.

No, those are your words not mine. I never said Chinese, I specifically stated the Qing and the context of their military.

>>17858016
>Nothing wrong with what I stated. You just don't can't comprehend the idea that Europeans focused on small firearms tech, while recognizing that cannons are the future can both be true.
The problem is that cannons were plentiful in battles and sieges until about 1530-1550 and then become siege only weapon until the mid 17th century. The problem again was that the fortifications have evolved in a way that made old cannons useless and "new" cannons too heavy, price most likely didn't have much to do with it.
>Ree euros poor
Per capita europeans were richer than anyone else from at least 1500's onwards but more importantly the continent developed much more advanced financial mechanisms, importance of which often escapes historians. The effective tax burdens were higher, interest rates lower and loans more eagerly used.

Also please give me a quote for the artillery number in that battle you've mentioned. Wikipedia only says "abundant" but quotes some book from 1925 so who knows.

>>17856140

>Even without rifling they are reasonably accurate,

Are they more accurate than bows? No.

>If the horse archers attack in a dense formation, the musketeer just needs to aim slightly above the horizon and they will hit something.

You're describing an ideal scenario. Most of the peoples who engaged in this type of warfare were aware of the dangers of running into a wall of men. That's why their mode of operation was harassment, raiding, skimming, and ambushes.

>The 16th century saw a sudden rapid expansion east,

It didn't. The Russians drew lines on a map and claimed vast swathes of territory they didn't control and had no ability to exert power over.

>Bows continued to be used until the flintlock and the Russians employed steppe peoples with their horse archers as allies, but they were not the "average" weapon by the end of the 16th century, neither did they confer much advantage against the similarly armed steppe peoples.

Objectively false. The compound bow was the standard weapon for that time period and much of the aristocracy and nobility (1 out 4 the Russian nobility was of Turkic and Mongolic stock) still practiced warfare in the steppe manner.

>Whatever battle you are referring to did not represent warfare in the early 20th century, this is quite a wild claim.

Not a wild claim if you know anything about how nomadic peoples conduct war. Even though by the 20th century repeating weapons had made their way into frontier regions, the bow was still a common sight amongst warbands. Do you want to know why? Because these peoples didn't have easy access to tools and equipment necessary to maintain and repair their firearms. American native warbands were still using bows in the 20th century along withe revolvers and repeaters, just like Turkic warbands were using them along with rifles and pistols.

>>17856140

>18th century and Napoleonic era cavalry were light cavalry, little different from light cavalry anywhere else in the world. If it "sucked", well, then so did everyone else's.

False. First light cavalry is a role; it doesn't describe equipment, at least not by that point. Secondly, the Europeans were obsessed with maintaining cavalry's role as a hammer, even though technology rendered that role obsolete for cavalry. Everyone who wasn't part of the European cult of cavalry recognized shouldn't be used in that manner from the Ottomans, the Qing, and the Americans.

>>17858704
>Are they more accurate than bows? No.
doesn't really matter. It's not unreasonable to hit a single mansized target at 100 yards and you can easily hit a horse or a formation out much further than that. From WWII through the GwoT the vast majority of combat engagements were within 300 yards because beyond that you can't really see a person that well. a 5'8" man on average has a 19 inch torso from shoulder to shoulder. that's 6.3 MOA or like a 6.3 inch target at 100 yards or a 3.1 inch target at 50 yards or a 1.5 inch target at 25 yards. it isn't visually that big

>>17858155

>The problem again was that the fortifications have evolved in a way that made old cannons useless and "new" cannons too heavy, price most likely didn't have much to do with it.

Look at the artillery parks of the gunpowder empires; they not only produced massive siege cannons that had to be hauled by oxen and elephant trains, but also smaller artillery pieces designed for battlefield destruction. The fact that the average European prince had to make a choice between creating siege cannons or field artillery, indicates that it was a question of price.

>Per capita europeans were richer than anyone else from at least 1500's onwards but more importantly the continent developed much more advanced financial mechanisms, importance of which often escapes historians.

This is an absurd statement and there's little evidence to support this idea. If this was remotely true, there would have been no pressure for the Europeans to engage in overseas colonization with the goal of accessing the Asian markets. Advanced financial mechanisms is objectively false; what happened was that banks removed the traditional guard rails against usury and the collapse of the Church's temporal authority to enforce those laws. This led to a situation where money became self-perpetuating, allowing princes and merchants to engage in all types of enterprises, even if the money was backed by bullshit.

>Also please give me a quote for the artillery number in that battle you've mentioned. Wikipedia only says "abundant" but quotes some book from 1925 so who knows.

Storia do Mogor by Niccolo Manucci. William Irvine translation from 1907.

>>17856943

That you for confirming that you're an ESL

>>17858852
nah, that's you. you are clearly from an ESL country like yurop or bongland

>>17858155
>>17858845
the
>advanced financial mechanisms
were just jews running jewish banks and speculation

>>17858845
>this was remotely true, there would have been no pressure for the Europeans to engage in overseas colonization with the goal of accessing the Asian market
Well I guess since Americans are richer than Indians and Chinese there's no reason for them to access other markets either. The opium wars were a folly too, the British were at that point one of the richest people on the planet and yet they wanted access to some Chinese backwater? Stop being dense.

A good example of the fiscal ability of european states is battle of Lepanto. Venice alone was able to sustain about 40% of the galleys the Ottomans did and those were also more substantial vessels. The eastern empires were just big, but they weren't very developed.