This post is about the medieval and renaissance europeans were stronger than the asians in terms of military power.
First, the european troops were better. Most of this is due of the better equipment. They had better armour than the asians. The whole equipment standard is higher; all of their soldiers except some pesant levies wore armour. Their soldiers all had at least chain mail armour and usually more which is what the asians could not compare to. The militia man which is what a large part of their army is made up of were very eliete in these armour. Europe also had man at arms. These fighters were the most eliete troops in the world due to their amour.
Second, the europeans had better bows. Their crossbows and arblests were very powerful compared to the asian composite bows(which not all of them had large amounts of). They could pierce plate armour where the composite bows only can pierce chain mail at very close ranges. The longbows used by the english were even more deadly.
The european siege technology was unrivaled. They have put great importance on it since the roman days. After centuries of development through materialistic ways, it reached a very amazing, effective, advanced state.
The europeans also had superior naval technology and skills. They have been fighting on the sea and gaining much experience and development since the ancient spartan days. The asians had a very late start. The europeans had the doctrine and idea of exploration, discovery, expansion ect... Which the asians. One example was the chinese. Their massive fleets discribed in their literature works like the jin and song dynasties were restricted to fighting on rivers and rarely, close sea straits. They did not have large amounts of trade warfare, patrol on seas like the europeans on the mediterrian sea. I'm chinese and know a lot about the chinese history and culture.
First, the european troops were better. Most of this is due of the better equipment. They had better armour than the asians. The whole equipment standard is higher; all of their soldiers except some pesant levies wore armour. Their soldiers all had at least chain mail armour and usually more which is what the asians could not compare to. The militia man which is what a large part of their army is made up of were very eliete in these armour. Europe also had man at arms. These fighters were the most eliete troops in the world due to their amour.
Second, the europeans had better bows. Their crossbows and arblests were very powerful compared to the asian composite bows(which not all of them had large amounts of). They could pierce plate armour where the composite bows only can pierce chain mail at very close ranges. The longbows used by the english were even more deadly.
The european siege technology was unrivaled. They have put great importance on it since the roman days. After centuries of development through materialistic ways, it reached a very amazing, effective, advanced state.
The europeans also had superior naval technology and skills. They have been fighting on the sea and gaining much experience and development since the ancient spartan days. The asians had a very late start. The europeans had the doctrine and idea of exploration, discovery, expansion ect... Which the asians. One example was the chinese. Their massive fleets discribed in their literature works like the jin and song dynasties were restricted to fighting on rivers and rarely, close sea straits. They did not have large amounts of trade warfare, patrol on seas like the europeans on the mediterrian sea. I'm chinese and know a lot about the chinese history and culture.
