Pound for pound, the best soldiers in history?
| slimy hissy fit stage | 12/25/17 | | Dun motley fanboi | 12/26/17 | | concupiscible theatre | 12/25/17 | | Dun motley fanboi | 12/26/17 | | misunderstood macaca menage | 12/26/17 | | Crimson House | 12/26/17 | | Dun motley fanboi | 12/26/17 | | Dull Vibrant Affirmative Action Garrison | 12/26/17 | | Crimson House | 12/26/17 | | Silver racy locale jap | 12/26/17 | | Crimson House | 12/26/17 | | Silver racy locale jap | 12/26/17 | | Crimson House | 12/26/17 | | Milky talented den organic girlfriend | 12/26/17 | | ruddy buck-toothed site | 12/26/17 | | copper step-uncle's house | 12/25/17 | | Dun motley fanboi | 12/26/17 | | Exhilarant Community Account Toilet Seat | 12/26/17 | | Appetizing theater idiot | 12/26/17 | | Buff excitant range quadroon | 12/25/17 | | concupiscible theatre | 12/25/17 | | Rough-skinned deranged tattoo | 12/25/17 | | Stirring university juggernaut | 12/26/17 | | light generalized bond hell | 12/25/17 | | Laughsome sable karate | 12/25/17 | | Razzle pale lay gaming laptop | 12/25/17 | | Dun motley fanboi | 12/26/17 | | Puce violent property | 12/26/17 | | bearded learning disabled plaza voyeur | 12/25/17 | | light generalized bond hell | 12/25/17 | | Dun motley fanboi | 12/26/17 | | Crimson House | 12/25/17 | | thriller old irish cottage | 12/25/17 | | Chartreuse point mood | 12/25/17 | | Comical Sienna Becky Office | 12/26/17 | | submissive mewling selfie | 12/25/17 | | Buff excitant range quadroon | 12/25/17 | | Crimson House | 12/25/17 | | Buff excitant range quadroon | 12/25/17 | | Crimson House | 12/25/17 | | cream legend | 12/27/17 | | gold idea he suggested address | 12/26/17 | | narrow-minded stead | 12/26/17 | | hyperventilating athletic conference | 12/26/17 | | Laughsome sable karate | 12/26/17 | | yellow set | 12/26/17 | | swashbuckling canary prole | 12/26/17 | | Dull Vibrant Affirmative Action Garrison | 12/26/17 | | citrine mad cow disease | 12/26/17 | | Crimson House | 12/26/17 | | Milky talented den organic girlfriend | 12/26/17 | | zombie-like bespoke milk lettuce | 12/30/17 | | chocolate indian lodge | 12/25/17 | | primrose stimulating fat ankles | 12/25/17 | | Trip abnormal philosopher-king hairy legs | 12/25/17 | | Sooty ladyboy gunner | 12/26/17 | | crystalline principal's office turdskin | 12/25/17 | | misunderstood macaca menage | 12/26/17 | | Bronze beady-eyed hall | 12/25/17 | | Glittery whorehouse boiling water | 12/25/17 | | low-t candlestick maker parlour | 12/26/17 | | Provocative Wild Center | 12/26/17 | | Charismatic home feces | 12/26/17 | | Magical Forum | 12/26/17 | | Stirring university juggernaut | 12/26/17 | | primrose stimulating fat ankles | 12/26/17 | | arousing impertinent doctorate national | 12/26/17 | | Dun motley fanboi | 12/26/17 | | chocolate indian lodge | 12/26/17 | | Burgundy slap-happy son of senegal | 12/26/17 | | Crimson House | 12/26/17 | | Burgundy slap-happy son of senegal | 12/26/17 | | chocolate indian lodge | 12/26/17 | | Burgundy slap-happy son of senegal | 12/26/17 | | chocolate indian lodge | 12/26/17 | | Burgundy slap-happy son of senegal | 12/26/17 | | yellow set | 12/26/17 | | swashbuckling canary prole | 12/26/17 | | misunderstood macaca menage | 12/26/17 | | chocolate indian lodge | 12/26/17 | | misunderstood macaca menage | 12/26/17 | | Adventurous Weed Whacker Sanctuary | 12/26/17 | | Sooty ladyboy gunner | 12/26/17 | | Salmon demanding ape orchestra pit | 12/28/17 | | grizzly odious business firm | 12/26/17 | | misunderstood macaca menage | 12/26/17 | | Laughsome sable karate | 12/26/17 | | violent fiercely-loyal stag film | 12/28/17 | | Massive multi-billionaire heaven | 12/26/17 | | bright bateful chad space | 12/26/17 | | citrine mad cow disease | 12/26/17 | | Seedy brindle dilemma | 12/26/17 | | citrine mad cow disease | 12/26/17 | | Stubborn Brethren | 12/27/17 | | chestnut dashing piazza marketing idea | 12/27/17 | | bistre really tough guy goyim | 12/27/17 | | Hot 180 Friendly Grandma | 12/28/17 | | Salmon demanding ape orchestra pit | 12/28/17 | | Hot 180 Friendly Grandma | 12/28/17 | | Salmon demanding ape orchestra pit | 12/28/17 | | bistre really tough guy goyim | 12/28/17 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 25th, 2017 7:40 PM Author: slimy hissy fit stage
Possible contenders
Greeks under Alexander
Romans under Julius Caesar
Mongols under Genghis Khan
Imperial Japanese during WWII
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35006035)
|
|
Date: December 26th, 2017 4:03 PM Author: Dun motley fanboi
It's the Gurkhas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha
Greeks under Alexander and Romans under Julius Caesar primarily benefited from excellent generalship and improved tactics, not necessarily soldier quality. The Mongols under Genghis were so dominant because they were the best with the finest technology of the era: the horse.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35011627)
|
|
Date: December 26th, 2017 8:07 PM Author: Crimson House
I think chess and other perfect-information, turn-based strategy games have created a flawed image of what makes a greater general. We tend to think in very tactical terms: The best general can see many "turns" ahead and formulate complicated yet foolproof plans that take advantage of his opponents' tiny mistakes and subtle weaknesses.
Napoleon was certainly a capable tactician and could lay traps for his opponent, but for the most part his tactical skill was based on executing simple strategies consistently and well, rather than doing super-complex stuff. Additionally, though, being a great soldier involves many other factors that aren't always obvious today:
-Napoleon had an extremely good memory. He could remember the strength, status, and leadership of almost every regiment in his army, and often formations elsewhere in his empire as well. Because of this, he was very good at promoting subordinates who performed well, and was good at allocating just enough force to particular tasks. More generally, he just understood his army inside and out, in a period where armies were incredibly complex and nobody had computers and the like to keep track of things.
-Napoleon had tremendous energy. He could perform at a high level for more than a day without sleeping, and could greatly refresh himself after sleeping for just an hour or two. He was always planning, reading dispatches, sending new orders, riding quickly to critical fronts, and reacting to the latest developments. More than anything, his limitless energy maybe what set him apart from peers. The gradual loss of this energy as he aged goes a long way to explaining Napoleon's decline as a commander later in life.
-Napoleon was excellent at logistics, constantly grinding out every small advantage for his men by ensuring a constant resupply of food, uniforms, and most importantly, shoes (the amount of correspondence Napoleon sent regarding shoes is truly terrifying). By keeping his army well-supplied, Napoleon kept them in better shape, which gave the army staying power and enabled the exceptional feats of maneuver that won him great victories at Ulm, Jena, and elsewhere. Typically, winning a battle was all about having the superior concentration of force at the critical point, and Napoleon almost always ensured his men were there, with more firepower before the enemy was.
-Napoleon was a skilled leader of men who rewarded both success and loyalty, which inspired strong devotion in many of his followers. His excellent memory helped here; there are many famous stories of Napoleon recognizing and rewarding individual soldiers he had seen years before.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35013133) |
Date: December 25th, 2017 9:06 PM Author: Crimson House
Kinda depends on what you mean.
When you say soldier, do you mean the killing power of each individual warrior? Some armies train individual men to be really capable, while others are all about the greater unit with each man perhaps being unimpressive. Similarly, some armies stand out because their officer corps was really good; is that a factor here?
Also, are we factoring in any "opponent adjustments?" An army that easily defeats conscripts led by military amateurs is probably less impressive than an army that consistently defeats professional troops led by veteran officers.
With that said, a few answers:
-The Carolean armies of Gustavus Adolphus, Charles XI, and Charles XII (yes, my moniker) were very impressive pound-for-pound fighters, which was necessary because Sweden had imperial pretensions without the population normally needed to back such pretensions up. The Swedish troops were trained to be zealous Christian fanatics to improve their morale and discipline to world-class levels. Since they couldn't outlast more-numerous foes exchanging fire at a distance, they were trained to advance rapidly under fire and defeat the enemy in close-quarters shock combat. This doctrine resulted in some preposterously one-sided victories while badly outnumbered and outgunned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_(1700)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fraustadt
-The Mongols at their apex naturally deserve a mention. They defeated almost everybody they encountered for almost a century, despite being grossly outnumbered and fighting in wildly different landscapes and circumstances. They didn't just win in open plains combat, but could also win in sieges and in the tougher terrain of central Europe.
-The Spartans are of course famous as all-time hardass soldiers but at their peak it was not an unearned reputation. In an era of amateur citizen soldiers Spartans were all professionals who had trained for life and were almost unbeatable in the field for centuries. Greek heavy infantry were the best soldiers of that time period (as their heavy use as mercenaries attests), and the Spartans were the best heavy infantry of all. Their only problem was a lack of numbers and the extremely basic nature of their tactics.
-The Macedonian phalanx deserves a mention of course, considering the way it just steamrolled the entire known world for a century until powers either adopted it themselves or created counters. The Persians were NOT some incompetent horde and the fact Alexander utterly crushed them repeatedly is extremely impressive.
-The Spanish tercio infantry were the dominant infantry force of Europe during a period of massive conflict between organized states with professional armies. The tercios never lost a land battle for a century and a half, and when they finally did (at Rocroi) it was only because the other formations of their army were beaten.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35006650) |
|
Date: December 25th, 2017 9:54 PM Author: Buff excitant range quadroon
Is information yet available on ISIS's rise? Have you looked at this?
It was said that the Iraqi govt was incompetent or the people/soldiers in territory they took over no compelling reason to support their own government.
They pulled some pretty insane wins against much larger forces. Were ISIS soldier religious commitment important/essential to the success? What else can be determined about these soldiers?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35006993) |
|
Date: December 25th, 2017 9:56 PM Author: Crimson House
At best ISIS is a big fish in a small pond. Hard to call them some of the "best soldiers in history" when any great power could annihilate them in a week if they felt compelled to do so.
Arab armies in general are famously bad at fighting wars. This 20-year-old article is still perfectly relevant:
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35007000) |
|
Date: December 25th, 2017 10:04 PM Author: Buff excitant range quadroon
dat raciss
edit: see that these problems could apply culturally
what did you attribute ISIS rise to- just that enemies were ShiTTTstates?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35007045) |
Date: December 25th, 2017 9:12 PM Author: Trip abnormal philosopher-king hairy legs
A lot of solid historical contenders:
Spartans under Leonidas
Greeks under Alexander
The Imperial Legions
Early Muslim Army under Khalid ibn Walid (Undefeated Commander)
Mongols under Genghis
The Korean Navy under Admiral Yee (Undefeated Commander)
Frederick the Great of Prussia's Grenadiers
Napoleons Army
The Gurkha Regiments of Her Majesty's Forces
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35006680)
|
Date: December 25th, 2017 9:40 PM Author: crystalline principal's office turdskin
Serious question: was British naval power so dominant that British land forces were less important? Or was it the industrial revolution and that Brits were fighting less sophisticated armies? British land forces never come up in these conversations.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35006909) |
Date: December 26th, 2017 1:00 AM Author: Burgundy slap-happy son of senegal
outted as a MAF ASIAN when you include japan but not germany from WWII
lol fucking lol @ japanese being anywhere close to being the best. they beat nobody in WWII. HTFH
Its Mongols >> Wehrmacht >> everybody else in modern history. like somebody else mentioned above rhodesians also come close. the other contenders are napoleon's army, Prussian army under Wihelm I that PWNED Austria, France and unified germany
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35007981) |
Date: December 26th, 2017 6:58 PM Author: Sooty ladyboy gunner
VIET CONG
nnnnnnnnnnnn-nineteen
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35012709) |
Date: December 26th, 2017 9:01 PM Author: Massive multi-billionaire heaven
the Mongols and it's not close.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35013408)
|
Date: December 26th, 2017 10:29 PM Author: Seedy brindle dilemma
Seems like the way the question is worded is inherently biased toward infantry.
US soldiers are the best trained, most well equipped in history by a significant amount.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35014202) |
|
|