Who had the better military? The Tang Dynasty or the Carolingian Empire?

I'd think it would go without saying that a standing professional army would have both logistical capabilities and large sources of quality equipment, but I'll give that article a read. Keep in mind when we're talking about how impressive the Carolingian Empire was, it's in comparison to its neighbors. Petty English kings, steppeniggers, and disorganized bands of Slavs make the Carolingians look quite impressive.

>historum.com/speculative-history/43249-frankish-empire-vs-tang-empire.html
Old threads here.

Tang army was mostly cavalry to deal with Steppe tribes, their infantry were defeated by the Arabs

>their infantry were defeated by the Arabs
Talas was fought over a span of days and was inconclusive until the Tang regulars were betrayed and surrounded by both their Karluq mercenaries and the Arabs, so this is hardly a good measure of their ability.

It wasn't Tang regulars but rather their allies. They were on the frontier of their expansion, so their influence was at its weakest.

Tang.

Tang and Carolingian were completely different level of military power.

Attached: Atlas of Tang唐疆變遷圖.gif (645x545, 380K)

What the fuck happened in 660?

Tang defeated Turkic khangate and pacified western region.

Subjugated the Gokturks/Turks/Xiongnu

Tang

Tang had better quality

Professional standing army versus disparate groups of feudal lords.

So a few battles in the 700s is a reflection of an entire military over three centuries?

lets get this straight
arabs btfo the tang
franks btfo the arabs
so franks>tang

Wrong. Only around 20% is cavalry. 10% crossbowmen, 10% archers, 60% melee infantry. That's from a Tang general's book with regards to the steppe invasions.

But what if it's like rock-paper-scissors?

Arabs only won 1 border conflict(Talas) against Tang, and that's largely due to the betrayal of Tang allied forces. It didn't really damage Sino-Arab relationship and Tang didn't lose control of western region until An-Shi rebellion.

During the An Shi rebellion, the Tang dynasty asked for help from the Arabs too. They sent like ~4000 men to assist Tang dynasty. Once they were successful, they were granted land/resources for colonization with the local Chinese. This was one of the first instance of permanent muslim areas

>Who had the better military? An Empire that had a state-funded standing army or the Empire where to raise a single fucking cavalryman it needs an entire village?

Attached: Frankish Cavalryman in his estate..jpg (4500x3318, 3.85M)

Kek
Imagine if Constantine VI had married Rotrude and then seen how ass backwards that empire was (despite larping as hard as possible)

FRANKED.

What’s up with this meme that a standing army is superior to mustering troops? Why did the Franks manage to defeat the Umayyad caliphate?

Who had the better military?
The ashanti or the ottoman empire?

The Byzantine Empire at the time of Charlemagne could have wrecked the Franks and wipe the floor with them, both in terms of size of land armies and navy wise, but chose not to because they were interested in building a common front against the Arabs.

LMAO, the Byzantines couldn’t even defeat the visigoths and the lombards. Both of which are far weaker than the Carolingian empire. What makes you think that the Byzantines could defeat them?

*were

it really is too bad that the byzantines were never really stable except under the few instances of a powerful emperor like Basil

>Result: decisive Tang strategic and tactical victory

Attached: Tang strategic victory.png (1524x935, 207K)

That's BS tho

Neustria alone could raise 50000 calvary men.