Pound for pound, the best soldiers in history?
| white bbw filthpig | 12/25/17 | | adventurous gunner | 12/26/17 | | chartreuse galvanic lodge pervert | 12/25/17 | | adventurous gunner | 12/26/17 | | Milky soul-stirring kitchen | 12/26/17 | | wonderful cumskin ratface | 12/26/17 | | adventurous gunner | 12/26/17 | | racy chapel codepig | 12/26/17 | | wonderful cumskin ratface | 12/26/17 | | disrespectful giraffe stage | 12/26/17 | | wonderful cumskin ratface | 12/26/17 | | disrespectful giraffe stage | 12/26/17 | | wonderful cumskin ratface | 12/26/17 | | supple fortuitous meteor | 12/26/17 | | gaped blue fat ankles | 12/26/17 | | duck-like principal's office | 12/25/17 | | adventurous gunner | 12/26/17 | | Impressive Native Juggernaut | 12/26/17 | | Irate yellow roommate | 12/26/17 | | vivacious corner | 12/25/17 | | chartreuse galvanic lodge pervert | 12/25/17 | | crystalline school cafeteria | 12/25/17 | | bespoke diverse hall macaca | 12/26/17 | | Glittery jet-lagged church building persian | 12/25/17 | | rose rigor jewess | 12/25/17 | | hairraiser psychic spot | 12/25/17 | | adventurous gunner | 12/26/17 | | cracking trailer park | 12/26/17 | | Multi-colored forum | 12/25/17 | | Glittery jet-lagged church building persian | 12/25/17 | | adventurous gunner | 12/26/17 | | wonderful cumskin ratface | 12/25/17 | | Massive Aquamarine Becky Church | 12/25/17 | | bat shit crazy nursing home | 12/25/17 | | Blathering Razzle-dazzle Twinkling Uncleanness | 12/26/17 | | arousing black people who are hurt | 12/25/17 | | vivacious corner | 12/25/17 | | wonderful cumskin ratface | 12/25/17 | | vivacious corner | 12/25/17 | | wonderful cumskin ratface | 12/25/17 | | maize circlehead foreskin | 12/27/17 | | misunderstood floppy associate box office | 12/26/17 | | Fiercely-loyal Location Genital Piercing | 12/26/17 | | concupiscible keepsake machete home | 12/26/17 | | rose rigor jewess | 12/26/17 | | Cocky Obsidian House | 12/26/17 | | metal wine plaza | 12/26/17 | | racy chapel codepig | 12/26/17 | | dashing sticky base really tough guy | 12/26/17 | | wonderful cumskin ratface | 12/26/17 | | supple fortuitous meteor | 12/26/17 | | boyish emerald useless brakes french chef | 12/30/17 | | Useless stock car menage | 12/25/17 | | topaz sound barrier | 12/25/17 | | Hyperventilating lavender dragon | 12/25/17 | | Erotic private investor | 12/26/17 | | drunken yapping casino boistinker | 12/25/17 | | Milky soul-stirring kitchen | 12/26/17 | | khaki ladyboy | 12/25/17 | | tripping tattoo office | 12/25/17 | | purple cruise ship sweet tailpipe | 12/26/17 | | curious brethren | 12/26/17 | | Sinister stag film striped hyena | 12/26/17 | | Pearl swollen cuck dingle berry | 12/26/17 | | bespoke diverse hall macaca | 12/26/17 | | topaz sound barrier | 12/26/17 | | high-end half-breed lettuce | 12/26/17 | | adventurous gunner | 12/26/17 | | Useless stock car menage | 12/26/17 | | Navy point doctorate | 12/26/17 | | wonderful cumskin ratface | 12/26/17 | | Navy point doctorate | 12/26/17 | | Useless stock car menage | 12/26/17 | | Navy point doctorate | 12/26/17 | | Useless stock car menage | 12/26/17 | | Navy point doctorate | 12/26/17 | | Cocky Obsidian House | 12/26/17 | | metal wine plaza | 12/26/17 | | Milky soul-stirring kitchen | 12/26/17 | | Useless stock car menage | 12/26/17 | | Milky soul-stirring kitchen | 12/26/17 | | Bronze tantric sex offender voyeur | 12/26/17 | | Erotic private investor | 12/26/17 | | frum resort | 12/28/17 | | dull irradiated pozpig antidepressant drug | 12/26/17 | | Milky soul-stirring kitchen | 12/26/17 | | rose rigor jewess | 12/26/17 | | soggy stirring piazza depressive | 12/28/17 | | Heady property volcanic crater | 12/26/17 | | aphrodisiac nofapping deer antler mediation | 12/26/17 | | dashing sticky base really tough guy | 12/26/17 | | Drab ticket booth | 12/26/17 | | dashing sticky base really tough guy | 12/26/17 | | big buck-toothed national | 12/27/17 | | Burgundy Vengeful Legal Warrant | 12/27/17 | | swashbuckling brunch | 12/27/17 | | Spectacular Hot Coldplay Fan Affirmative Action | 12/28/17 | | frum resort | 12/28/17 | | Spectacular Hot Coldplay Fan Affirmative Action | 12/28/17 | | frum resort | 12/28/17 | | swashbuckling brunch | 12/28/17 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 25th, 2017 7:40 PM Author: white bbw filthpig
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: adventurous gunner
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: wonderful cumskin ratface
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: wonderful cumskin ratface
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: vivacious corner
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: wonderful cumskin ratface
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: vivacious corner
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: Hyperventilating lavender dragon
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: drunken yapping casino boistinker
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: Navy point doctorate
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: Erotic private investor
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: Heady property volcanic crater
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: Drab ticket booth
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) |
|
|