NationStates Jolt Archive

Thank God for the crack Brit troops. Another case of them kicking ass and taking names. I love these guys.


-----------------------------------------------

British Troops Save 76 Iraqi Prisoners in Raid on Basra Police Station

Monday, December 25, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Backed by tanks, British soldiers raided a police station in the southern city of Basra on Monday, killing seven gunmen in an effort to stop renegade Iraqi officers from executing their prisoners, the British military said.

After the British stormed the Basra police station, they removed the prisoners, who showed evidence of torture, then evacuated the building before blowing it up.

The operation showed how closely aligned some police units are with militias and death squads — and the challenges coalition forces face as they transfer authority for security to Iraqis.

In Baghdad, police found 40 bodies, apparent victims of sectarian violence. A car bomb exploded beside a market and a homicide bomber struck a bus in separate attacks that killed 14 civilians and wounded at least 33.

In the Basra raid, the British set out to arrest officers with the station's serious crimes unit who were suspected of involvement with Shiite death squads. Seven members of the rogue police unit were apprehended three days ago in other raids, said a British spokeswoman, Royal Navy Lt. Jenny Saleh.

Iraq's President Says U.S. Forces Detained Two Iranians Invited to Iraq U.S. Forces Net 4 Top Iranian Officials After Series of Raids in Iraq "We had intelligence to indicate that the serious crimes unit would execute its prisoners in the coming days, so we decided to intervene," Saleh said.

British troops were fired on as they approached the station and their return fire killed seven gunmen, said Maj. Charlie Burbridge, another British military spokesman.

British and Iraqi forces transferred all 76 prisoners at the station to another facility in downtown Basra, he said. Some prisoners had "classic torture injuries" such as crushed hands and feet, cigarette and electrical burns and gunshot wounds in the knees, Burbridge said.

The British demolished the building in an effort to disband the unit. "We identified the serious crimes unit as, frankly, too far gone," Burbridge said. "We just had to get rid of it."

The unit's members, he alleged, were involved in tribal and political feuds in southern Iraq, which is mostly Shiite. They were not, he said, engaged in the kind of sectarian reprisal killings that have terrorized mixed neighborhoods of Baghdad.

Most of Britain's 7,200 troops in Iraq are based in the Basra area.

Mohammed al-Askari, a spokesman for Iraq's Defense Ministry, said the operation was coordinated with the Iraqi government. "Multinational forces got approval for this raid from this ministry and with participation of the Iraqi army," he said.

U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who is in charge of training Iraqi forces, said in Washington last week that efforts were under way to weed out Iraqi national police believed to be sympathetic to the militias.

Up to a quarter are thought to be aligned with the militias, which are engaged in sectarian violence.

The establishment of a viable Iraqi police force is vital to the U.S.-led coalition's goal of handing responsibility for security to Iraqis, so foreign troops can return home.

In another sign of lawlessness in Basra, gunmen on Monday robbed $740,000 from a bank about half a mile from the raided police station.

The car bomb in Baghdad, meanwhile, struck a mostly Shiite district to the east that attracts crowds of shoppers and laborers looking for work.

In another part of eastern Baghdad, a homicide bomber exploded in a minibus, killing three people and injuring 19, police said.

Another homicide bomber killed two policemen at a checkpoint at a university entrance in Ramadi, capital of Anbar province, a stronghold of the Sunni-dominated insurgency.

The deaths came a day after Iraq's interior minister said attacks targeting police had killed some 12,000 officers since the 2003 fall of Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. command announced that an American soldier and a Marine had died Sunday from combat wounds suffered in Anbar province.

Another soldier died and two were wounded Monday when a roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. military vehicle in southern Baghdad, the military said.

At least 2,972 American troops have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The Sept. 11, 2001 attacks claimed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

Christians attended Christmas services in Baghdad and northern Iraq, home to most of Iraq's 800,000 Christians. Some in Baghdad stayed home, however, fearing violence.

Christians are on the fringes of the conflict, which mostly involves Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs — but they have been targeted by Islamic militants.

"I hope next year will bring good things and unite all Iraqis because there is no difference between Christians and Muslims," said Abu Fadi, a worshipper who does not use his Christian name because he fears for his safety. "May God bring relief from this."

In another sign of escalating diplomatic tensions between the U.S. and Iran, the White House said Monday that U.S. troops in Iraq detained at least two Iranians and released two others who had diplomatic immunity.

U.S. officials have charged that Iran provides training and other aid to Shiite militias in Iraq — including the equipment used to build roadside bombs. The Tehran regime says it only has political and religious links with Iraqi Shiites.

But Iran is believed to be expanding its shadowy role in Iraq, partly to counter U.S. influence in the region.

In Baghdad, a spokesman for Iraqi President Jalal Talabani confirmed that U.S. troops had detained two Iranians who were in Iraq at his invitation. "The president is unhappy about it," said Hiwa Osman, Talabani's media adviser.

He gave no further details, and the U.S. military said it had no comment.

"We suspect this event validates our claims about Iranian meddling, but we want to finish our investigation of the detained Iranians before characterizing their activities," White House spokesman Alex Conant said Monday. "We will be better able to explain what this means about the larger picture after we finish our investigation."

He said that a routine raid on suspected insurgents netted the Iranians. Two had diplomatic immunity and were released to the Iraqi government, which then released them to Iran, Conant said.

________

Pictures of the above event....

www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8B353B56-E464-42E0-9B62-C14E9BD994C2/0/opthyme1.JPG

Before………

www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BD4CCD7A-E639-4E5A-B5A1-18FC53F2D7D1/0/opthyme2.JPG

Merry Christmas!!!!!

www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4CCAA593-9C7E-4A2F-BC35-0A31FFB10329/0/opthyme3.JPG

After………

img226.imageshack.us/img226/9689/hqmndse2006222308ot0.jpg

Hurray for Britain. Science save the Queen.

Way to go UK.

Well, I''ll probably be called a libservanazi if I actually take a stance on anything, but I do feel entitled to celebrate the heroism of British and, to a lesser extent, American troops (if you read, you'll find that's a compliment) in the face of not only a fanatical foe but also a government which simultaneously hurls them into conflict and cuts their funding.

Let's hear it for the us! Huzzah!

*Waves UJ and sings "The British Grenadiers"*

It's nice to know that, although we may no longer be able to rule an Empire over a quarter of the globe, we can still storm a police station in a war-torn desert.

Huzzah!

Huzzah, I think.

Good effort on fighting wankers!

Huzzah!
God I love that fucking word!

Though I must ask, since there ought to be a decent amount of Brits passing through this thread...

We (or at least I) see nearly nothing on what our allies are doing in Iraq. I know the Poles were planning to leave this month, but I never hear any details on what goes on where the Brits, Aussies, South Koreans, or any of the other nations that are or were there are dealing with and going through.

Care to fill a clueless Yank in? :p

EDIT: I just noticed that Mongolia (you know...between RUSSIA and CHINA) has troops in Iraq.

I'll bet that pissed of somebody! :p

The Brits blow up a police station and people see this as a good thing?

I wonder how many of the 7 reported kills were cowering or had their unarmed hands in the air?

The Brits blow up a police station and people see this as a good thing?

I wonder how many of the 7 reported kills were cowering or had their unarmed hands in the air?

Jeeze, you're so cynical it's pitiful. The Brits save 76 guys, show a real idea of law and order to the populace, and all you can whinge about is that 7 guys got killed in the op.

Guess what? People get killed in actions like this. They decide to fight back and the Brit SOLDIERS (not cops) react exactly how they SHOULD react.

Go the Brits!

The Brits blow up a police station and people see this as a good thing?

I wonder how many of the 7 reported kills were cowering or had their unarmed hands in the air?


You're pathetic.

my only regret was they didn't get more of the crooked IPs.

Maybe you'd like them to throw flowers at the crooked IPs instead of bullets and grenades? Well, SR, you'd be looking at 76 dead Brits instead of 7 dead BAD, ahem, BAD guys and 76 rescued prisoners.

The Brits blow up a police station and people see this as a good thing?

I wonder how many of the 7 reported kills were cowering or had their unarmed hands in the air?

Less than seventy-six. Thus, utilitarianism says "good thing."

I'm not dead. Thus, egoism says "good thing".

It's a win-win!

Not to mention that if we take the article as truthful (and if we don't, there's no debate), our troops were fired upon and they fire back. Forgive me libsevanazism, but people who shoot at British soldiers are voluntarily waiving their inherent right not to be shot at by British soldiers.

I still don't understand why they blew the building up. There's no valid reason to blow it up.

If the SCS is crooked then just dismiss everyone and rehire. Why blow the building up? It might have been built using aid money... it just seems such a waste.

Well, SR, you'd be looking at 76 dead Brits instead of 7 dead BAD, ahem, BAD guys and 76 rescued prisoners.

as an Irishman, those numbers would be nice :p

why blow up the station after? what does that achieve? removing precious infrastructure?

the brits have previous shooting unarmed enemies. lots of it

I find the fact that the insurgents have infiltrated the Iraqi police and army to be quite disturbing.

as an Irishman, those numbers would be nice :p

why blow up the station after? what does that achieve? removing precious infrastructure?

the brits have previous shooting unarmed enemies. lots of it

Yep. Just like everybody else.

I find the fact that the insurgents have infiltrated the Iraqi police and army to be quite disturbing.

Would police officers siding with them count as infiltration?

I find the fact that the insurgents have infiltrated the Iraqi police and army to be quite disturbing.

or that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's are opposed to the invasion and the occupiers and many of them are cops.

or that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's are opposed to the invasion and the occupiers and many of them are cops.
Whatever. Just shows what an irretrievable shit hole the Americans have turned Iraq into.

or that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi's are opposed to the invasion and the occupiers and many of them are cops.

Which answers not at all the question of why they were preparing to shoot 76 Iraqis. These aren't any kind of resistance - they're just religiously motivated gangsters.

Would police officers siding with them count as infiltration?I would say yes. Because either (a) they were solicited by the insurgents/rebels OR (b) they are aware of their cause and feel sympathetic to it and attempt to join or just act on their own.

I still don't understand why they blew the building up. There's no valid reason to blow it up.

If the SCS is crooked then just dismiss everyone and rehire. Why blow the building up? It might have been built using aid money... it just seems such a waste.
Well that is very true. Maybe they did it as a symbolic thing, or somesuch, but really it might well have been better to keep it, to be honest.

I would say yes. Because either (a) they were solicited by the insurgents/rebels OR (b) they are aware of their cause and feel sympathetic to it and attempt to join or just act on their own.

Or (c) they're insurgents who joined the police force specifically to do something like this. I guess.

Whatever. Just shows what an irretrievable shit hole the Americans have turned Iraq into.

Aw-shut-up. it was a regular uptopia before we went in,right? :rolleyes:

Law and order through purges, baseless arrests and torture, murders with no trials.

The Iraqi people support us. The scumbag fucking syrians and iranians are the ones US Soldiers are fighting, mainly.


Its been a shithole since the dawn of time and now it has a chance to be something better.



Nice job the British did on this story,though.

I find the fact that the insurgents have infiltrated the Iraqi police and army to be quite disturbing.

That suprises you? There are gang members in the US military aswell. Some are good, some are bad. I recall there is one ex-gang member who is a Designated marksman with an army unit in baghdad. He was a very good shot too.

Its also nice to see the work of the people we're going to be handing Iraq over to after we leave.

WTF is a 'homicide bomber'?

Don't most people setting off bombs intend on killing? Is it someone who doesn't plan on killing themself in the ensuing explosion? What stupid nomenclature...

WTF is a 'homicide bomber'?

Don't most people setting off bombs intend on killing? Is it someone who doesn't plan on killing themself in the ensuing explosion? What stupid nomenclature...
No, it's a ridiculous American term for a suicide bombing, which ignores the fact that people are sacrificing their own lives to kill others.

Aw-shut-up. it was a regular uptopia before we went in,right? :rolleyes:

Law and order through purges, baseless arrests and torture, murders with no trials.

The Iraqi people support us. The scumbag fucking syrians and iranians are the ones US Soldiers are fighting, mainly.


Its been a shithole since the dawn of time and now it has a chance to be something better.



Nice job the British did on this story,though.


Not really. Look at Kurdistan.

The Iraqi people support us.

do people still actually believe this?

No, it's a ridiculous Fox News term for a suicide bombing, which ignores the fact that people are sacrificing their own lives to kill others.

Fixed. Americans who don't watch Fox News have the same "WTF" reaction.

The Iraqi people support us.
Its been a shithole since the dawn of time and now it has a chance to be something better.

Mesopotamia? Fucking ingrate.

In any case, the Iraqi people have never supported the US, nor that idiosyncrantic style of "freedom" you impose at bayonet point.

do people still actually believe this?

Depends who you count as "The People". The Kurds DO support us, for obvious reasons. And I suspect that if we could get a real handle on the violence, a lot of the general populace would support THAT - regardless of who provided it.

Aw-shut-up. it was a regular uptopia before we went in,right?
It was much better than this. Saddam did an efficient, if evil job of running Iraq. The average Iraq could at least read, and not go outside fearing fundamentalist suicide bombers, or random attacks for not wearing a burqa.

That you think Iraq still has a chance is laughably naive. It's damned if the US troops stay, and damned if they don't.

The Iraqi people support us. The scumbag fucking syrians and iranians are the ones US Soldiers are fighting, mainly.

The insurgency seems to have widespread support, even though most Iraqis welcomed the US invasion[3]. According to a recent poll, 47% of the Iraqi population approve of the attacks on Coalition forces, but not of attacks on Iraqi security forces, or civilians[4]. When broken down along sectarian lines, a remarkable 88% of Sunni Arabs approve of the attacks, while other groups do not support the attacks at all. This is not surprising, as the Sunni minority controlled the government of Iraq during the administration of Saddam Hussein. Iraq's deep ethnic and sectarian divides have been a major dynamic in the insurgency, with the insurgency finding much weaker support from some segments of the population than others.

Now, don't believe the propaganda from FAUX News, the US soldiers are mostly fighting Iraqis who are supported by nearly half of Iraqis.

The Iraqi insurgency isn't one or two groups, rather dozens that span the entire range of Iraqi politics, foreigners regardless of source (American, Iranians, whatever, Iraqi nationalists don't care) are likely to have to face attacks from some groups, especially when they piss off the local populace, and be treated well when they act in ways the local population supports.

No, it's a ridiculous American term for a suicide bombing, which ignores the fact that people are sacrificing their own lives to kill others.

I see, it's a ridiculous attempt to further dehumanize their enemy, because dropping laser guided bombs is braver then walking up with the bomb strapped to your chest.

Aw-shut-up. it was a regular uptopia before we went in,right? :rolleyes:

Law and order through purges, baseless arrests and torture, murders with no trials.

The Iraqi people support us. The scumbag fucking syrians and iranians are the ones US Soldiers are fighting, mainly.


Its been a shithole since the dawn of time and now it has a chance to be something better.



Nice job the British did on this story,though.

Do peple still believe that bollocks? Must be because of all the Syrians and Iranians that have been caught and/or shot, as opposed to hardly any Iraqis at all :p

I see, it's a ridiculous attempt to further dehumanize their enemy, because dropping laser guided bombs is braver then walking up with the bomb strapped to your chest.

Sorry, but walking up to someone and blowing yourself to bits isn't bravery. Just stupidity.

Its been a shithole since the dawn of time and now it has a chance to be something better.

i do hope you are joking... do Akkad, Sumeria, Babylon, Persia, Seleucia, Parthia and the Great Arab Caliphate mean nothing to you? :headbang:

I see, it's a ridiculous attempt to further dehumanize their enemy, because dropping laser guided bombs is braver then walking up with the bomb strapped to your chest.
Absolutely, because then only one set of people dies, which is supposedly better or something.

I always felt it was a strange form of cowardice, because you don't have to live with the consequences of your actions, of seeing the corpses of your victims and knowing that you killed them all. Sometimes Death's the easy option. I've seen the phrase used in one or two tabloid papers in the UK as well as a point of interest.

Sorry, but walking up to someone and blowing yourself to bits isn't bravery. Just stupidity.

Killing people in general is stupid regardless of the method employed.

It just happens to take more balls to strap a bomb vest to yourself and walk up to them then it does to press a button from miles away.

Fixed. Americans who don't watch Fox News have the same "WTF" reaction.
Or MSBNC (?) or CNN, which, IIRC also use the term, no?

Killing people in general is stupid regardless of the method employed.

It just happens to take more balls to strap a bomb vest to yourself and walk up to them then it does to press a button from miles away.

I just don't see bravery as particularly important. If the situation degenerates to violence, I'll be the guy shooting from the barricade, while all the "brave" guys fight out in the open.

Anyway: "Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country. They won by making the other poor bastard die for his country."

I just don't see bravery as particularly important. If the situation degenerates to violence, I'll be the guy shooting from the barricade, while all the "brave" guys fight out in the open.
I have something of an admiration for people who are actively willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause. I have no respect at all by people who win wars by pushing a few buttons, miles away from combat.
Anyway: "Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country. They won by making the other poor bastard die for his country."
Said by a man so cowardly as to shell beautiful French towns to the ground so that it was easier to kill off the Germans inside.

I have something of an admiration for people who are actively willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause. I have no respect at all by people who win wars by pushing a few buttons, miles away from combat.

Said by a man so cowardly as to shell beautiful French towns to the ground so that it was easier to kill off the Germans inside.

He kept his men alive at the expense of a few buildings. I'd've done the same. As for winning wars - He who wins writes the history. He who loses is forgotten. The first duty of the soldier is to win. If he can't do that, he is worthless to his nation.

I just don't see bravery as particularly important. If the situation degenerates to violence, I'll be the guy shooting from the barricade, while all the "brave" guys fight out in the open.

Anyway: "Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country. They won by making the other poor bastard die for his country."

That's nice, I wasn't commenting on how smart it was, only on the degree of cajones it takes to perform. ;)

There are times when sacrifice is required and any soldier worthy of the name will do so but only if it is necessary. A good commander does what he has to to minimise his casualties and win the battle/war. There is nothing cowardly in war about removing an enemies defenses from a distance before attacking. The first world war was full of wasted life due to idiotic ideas of glory and dieing for the cause thank Christ we've learned from it.

He kept his men alive at the expense of a few buildings. I'd've done the same. As for winning wars - He who wins writes the history. He who loses is forgotten. The first duty of the soldier is to win. If he can't do that, he is worthless to his nation.
That kind of thinking leads to Phyrric victories, which are rubbish. "Hurrah, we liberated wherever", followed by "Oh... yeah... we sort of destroyed that which made it worth having in the first place..."

Winning is great, but if the cost is pretty unpleasant, then it's not really worth it, is it?

There are times when sacrifice is required and any soldier worthy of the name will do so but only if it is necessary. A good commander does what he has to to minimise his casualties and win the battle/war. There is nothing cowardly in war about removing an enemies defenses from a distance before attacking. The first world war was full of wasted life due to idiotic ideas of glory and dieing for the cause thank Christ we've learned from it.
I'd agree if it was bunker networks that they destroyed, or trenches etc., but peoples' actual own homes and such is a bit much.

That's nice, I wasn't commenting on how smart it was, only on the degree of cajones it takes to perform. ;)

And I answered you: cojones don't matter. If you don't win, or at least do real damage, you could have the biggest pair in the history of the world and it wouldn't make any difference.

(As an aside - I once saw a guy with balls a good two feet around. This did not do him much good...)

That kind of thinking leads to Phyrric victories, which are rubbish. "Hurrah, we liberated wherever", followed by "Oh... yeah... we sort of destroyed that which made it worth having in the first place..."

Winning is great, but if the cost is pretty unpleasant, then it's not really worth it, is it?

Depends on what the alternative is, I suppose. Yes, there are some fights it would be better to walk away from. But if you're going to fight, always fight to win.

I have something of an admiration for people who are actively willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause. I have no respect at all by people who win wars by pushing a few buttons, miles away from combat.

Said by a man so cowardly as to shell beautiful French towns to the ground so that it was easier to kill off the Germans inside.

And by a man who won. Go look up Plan XVII for a good contrast.
War is hell. People get killed, maimed, and mentally scarred. But if it has to be done... well, it has to be done. And with the minimal loss of life. People who use accurate, laser-guided munitions with no harm to themselves are inflicing much less loss that suicide bombers who could harm civilians.

Thus, regardless of false ideals like "courage", it is generally better, morality-wise, to hit the big red button.

This seems to me to be another manifestation of the persistant myth that it was all so much more "honourable" "back then" and that in the middle ages, people "found out the names" of their victims. Bullshit. Chivalry was designed so that knights could opress commoners and get laid, glossed over with crap about honour. Battles were decided by the longbow or push of pike for much of the period. There were no laws of war. The same applies to most of the rest of history.

Urban warfare is one of the nastiest types, houses, alleys etc give a lot of hiding points and allow for some real nasty crossfire situations and snipers. Look at Stalingrad for an example on a larger scale. It sucks for the people who owned the houses of course but it doesn't change the fact that it helped reduce casualties.

Edit: On an interesting note the longbow was one of the most devestating weapons of it's time period if it weren't for the years of practice that it took to effectively use it, it might have even hindered development of the gun.

This seems to me to be another manifestation of the persistant myth that it was all so much more "honourable" "back then" and that in the middle ages, people "found out the names" of their victims. Bullshit. Chivalry was designed so that knights could opress commoners and get laid, glossed over with crap about honour. Battles were decided by the longbow or push of pike for much of the period. There were no laws of war. The same applies to most of the rest of history.

Chivalry wasn't invented until after knights had started to lose their place on the battlefield. Bushido and chivalry were both ideas spread by men longing for days long passed. Not contradicting what you're saying, only adding. :)

Edit: On an interesting note the longbow was one of the most devastating weapons of it's time period if it weren't for the years of practice that it took to effectively use it, it might have even hindered development of the gun.

There's a variety of bows that were more effective then early guns, depending on the role.

Chu-ko-nu(sp?) aka Manchurian repeating crossbows had a rate of fire that would make a soldier blush up until the first submachine guns were invented.

Mongol bows and other composite bows had ranges that put Welsh longbows to shame.

Arbalests had a far longer range then early guns with at least the same degree of armour penetration.

Guns came to be most popular in Europe for the psychological impact of their loud blast.

Said by a man so cowardly as to shell beautiful French towns to the ground so that it was easier to kill off the Germans inside.

General George S.Patton can not be descibed as "cowardly" by anyone's definition.
This is pure stupidity.

There's a variety of bows that were more effective then early guns, depending on the role.

Chu-ko-nu(sp?) aka Manchurian repeating crossbows had a rate of fire that would make a soldier blush up until the first submachine guns were invented.

Mongol bows and other compound bows had ranges that put Welsh longbows to shame.

Arbalests had a far longer range then early guns with at least the same degree of armour penetration.

Guns came to be most popular in Europe for the psychological impact of their loud blast.

And their ease of use. The rise of the firearm occured hand in hand with an increasing trend towards larger armies with extreme examples including the Levee en Masse and WW1. A gun required ever decreasing levels of physical strength and training to be lethal, while the reverse was true of bows. This kept the gun popular until technological developments in the World Wars cemented its superiority.

There's a variety of bows that were more effective then early guns, depending on the role.

Chu-ko-nu(sp?) aka Manchurian repeating crossbows had a rate of fire that would make a soldier blush up until the first submachine guns were invented.

Mongol bows and other compound bows had ranges that put Welsh longbows to shame.

Arbalests had a far longer range then early guns with at least the same degree of armour penetration.

Guns came to be most popular in Europe for the psychological impact of their loud blast.

We-el, that and the fact that anyone could be taught to use a gun in five minutes, keep it clean and working in an afternoon, and be a reasonable shot in a week.
Wheras, to make a good bowman, according to tradition, it was "First, train his grandfather..."

Crossbows killed off Chivalry....when mere commoners could easily kill the noble classes.

Bows are different (in Europe) as the English and Welsh bowmen were not commoners. Insofar as I can recall anyway.

Crossbows killed off Chivalry....when mere commoners could easily kill the noble classes.

Bows are different (in Europe) as the English and Welsh bowmen were not commoners. Insofar as I can recall anyway.

Traditionally, they were Yeomen, who were commoners who owned their own land under royal grant in exchange for providing a fighting man whenever the levy was called up. They tithed direct to the king as well (no baronial middlemen).

Traditionally, they were Yeomen, who were commoners who owned their own land under royal grant in exchange for providing a fighting man whenever the levy was called up. They tithed direct to the king as well (no baronial middlemen).

Ok. I admit I am rusty on this aspect of hierarchy. So I guess I should have said peasants? I'm not sure thats right. (in regards to the crossbowmen)

Help me out here! LOL

Ok. I admit I am rusty on this aspect of hierarchy. So I guess I should have said peasants? I'm not sure thats right. (in regards to the crossbowmen)

Help me out here! LOL

Actually, Crossbowmen tended to be professional (i.e. Mercenary) soldiers. A crossbow required some knowledge to maintain, and a certain amount of skill to use - not as much as a longbow, to be sure, but a certain amount. This was also why crossbows weren't as common on Albion as they were on the mainland of Europe - Mercs in Europe generally just had to go to the next place that was likely to have a war, while Britain had long periods of relative peace.

Peasents were lucky to have a shortbow - if they got leveed, they generally had to grab the best farming tool they had and trudge off.

Ok. I admit I am rusty on this aspect of hierarchy. So I guess I should have said peasants? I'm not sure thats right. (in regards to the crossbowmen)

Help me out here! LOL

The important part is not knights, since we're talking about chivalry.

And hi, Rubiconic! You know me better as the Right Honourable Lord Field Marshal Sir Friesland-Colony. Glad to see you.

Actually, Crossbowmen tended to be professional (i.e. Mercenary) soldiers. A crossbow required some knowledge to maintain, and a certain amount of skill to use - not as much as a longbow, to be sure, but a certain amount. This was also why crossbows weren't as common on Albion as they were on the mainland of Europe - Mercs in Europe generally just had to go to the next place that was likely to have a war, while Britain had long periods of relative peace.

Peasents were lucky to have a shortbow - if they got leveed, they generally had to grab the best farming tool they had and trudge off.

Hmmm crossbows are not aim and shoot weapons when used in barrage fire though....the only training is how to load, aim, shot on order. And to maintain the bow. Seeing as the bows themselves have quite simple mechanical mechanisms I cannot see that as being a major issue either. I would say that compared to a longbowman the differences are immense.

I know that the mercs used them but a merc army was usually 'rabble'. A nobleman getting killed by a crossbowman was anathema to the tennets of Chivalry.

What I was asking was about the commoners. If I recall correctly commoners were also able to own land...?

Either way the development of the crossbow into a easily available tool of warfare upset the balance of power that the nobles had.

Or am I talking bollocks?! LOL

The important part is not knights, since we're talking about chivalry.

And hi, Rubiconic! You know me better as the Right Honourable Lord Field Marshal Sir Friesland-Colony. Glad to see you.

Sah! Greetings! Cup of tea?

How do you mean not knights? I am slightly baffled!

I thought this thread was about the British storming a rogue police station. I must be mistaken, we're revisiting mideaval times, interesting.

Good for the British. Anybody know their casualties during this event, if any? Again, Good Job. :)

We-el, that and the fact that anyone could be taught to use a gun in five minutes, keep it clean and working in an afternoon, and be a reasonable shot in a week.
Wheras, to make a good bowman, according to tradition, it was "First, train his grandfather..."

Crossbows and guns required similar levels of training. Other bows... well... there's a reason football was banned and every man was expected to practice archery on Sunday.

And their ease of use. The rise of the firearm occured hand in hand with an increasing trend towards larger armies with extreme examples including the Levee en Masse and WW1. A gun required ever decreasing levels of physical strength and training to be lethal, while the reverse was true of bows. This kept the gun popular until technological developments in the World Wars cemented its superiority.

Mostly true, except the Levee en Masse started around Napoleonic times, long after firearms had came to dominate.

Hmmm crossbows are not aim and shoot weapons when used in barrage fire though....the only training is how to load, aim, shot on order. And to maintain the bow. Seeing as the bows themselves have quite simple mechanical mechanisms I cannot see that as being a major issue either. I would say that compared to a longbowman the differences are immense.

I know that the mercs used them but a merc army was usually 'rabble'. A nobleman getting killed by a crossbowman was anathema to the tennets of Chivalry.

What I was asking was about the commoners. If I recall correctly commoners were also able to own land...?

Either way the development of the crossbow into a easily available tool of warfare upset the balance of power that the nobles had.

Or am I talking bollocks?! LOL

No, not bollocks. The crossbow had the POTENTIAL to do what firearms actually DID - break the dominance of heavy cavalry and create a return to mass, professional and semi-pro militaries, instead of (as was the case for a time) having professional nobles, small numbers of mercs, and a rabble of peasentry composing your army. The fact that it DIDN'T do that was more due to social and economic factors than technological limitations of the device.
Peasents, in most of Europe, did not own land; they farmed under contract to the local lord. Serfs, on the other hand, were "attached" to the land - he who owned the land owned the serf, it was a form of slavery.

The first duty of the soldier is to win.

No, actually the first duty of the soldier is to not commit war crimes.

No, actually the first duty of the soldier is to not commit war crimes.

Winners don't get charged.

General George S.Patton can not be descibed as "cowardly" by anyone's definition.
This is pure stupidity.
Yes, next to the "inherently cowardly French". ;)

Winners don't get charged.

What about Dachau?

What about Dachau?

? Expand Please.

? Expand Please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre

Thank you. I will have to amend my earlier statement - Winners are not punished (unless the winning government sees a major advantage in doing so - and possibly not then).

No, not bollocks. The crossbow had the POTENTIAL to do what firearms actually DID - break the dominance of heavy cavalry and create a return to mass, professional and semi-pro militaries, instead of (as was the case for a time) having professional nobles, small numbers of mercs, and a rabble of peasentry composing your army. The fact that it DIDN'T do that was more due to social and economic factors than technological limitations of the device.
Peasents, in most of Europe, did not own land; they farmed under contract to the local lord. Serfs, on the other hand, were "attached" to the land - he who owned the land owned the serf, it was a form of slavery.

Cheers!;)

I think perhaps we need to time frame this...? I had been led to understand that the first proper professional Army was the Parliamentary New Model Army...which did use firearms. And removed from command non military trained officers.

If the crossbow was not effective or decisive then why were there attempts to ban the weapon?

Gotcha re serfs/peasants....

I had been led to understand that the first proper professional Army was the Parliamentary New Model Army...

Surely the Roman Legions were a professional army?

Surely the Roman Legions were a professional army?

Well yes and no...the Roman commanders were aristos...NMA commanders were not...or if they were had received military training (progressing via the ranks I suppose)....

Basically the difference is that NMA commanders were trained...were as the Romans put more value on the commanders social rank...

well thats what I have gathered so far.

Why do I feel like I am walking into some kinda trap?? LOL!

People who use accurate, laser-guided munitions with no harm to themselves are inflicing much less loss that suicide bombers who could harm civilians.

Thus, regardless of false ideals like "courage", it is generally better, morality-wise, to hit the big red button.

Depends on the case, really. If you have a camp of enemy soldiers, then yes, it is better to push the button rather than send your soldiers to die. But it's not OK to save the lives of a few thousand soldiers by butchering millions of civillians. (Not to point a finger at the USA. It could have been anyone.

Back to the actual point of this discussion, yes, it was a bit pointless blowing up those buildings. But in general, they did a good job at it.

So huzzah for the Brits.

good doggy, have a bone...

*pats on head*

I think perhaps we need to time frame this...? I had been led to understand that the first proper professional Army was the Parliamentary New Model Army...which did use firearms. And removed from command non military trained officers.


The New Model Army was the first MODERN army, but far from the first professional one. The Roman Army, after the Marius reforms, probably gets the nod for that - while getting an officer's position often required you to be upper class, or at least rich, you pretty much also had to have some martial training, and the non-com equivalents and below were pure and simple professionals - war was their trade.

Likewise was the case of many, if not most, of the forces that fought in the thirty years' war in the 1600s. While various nobles were put in as overall commanders, the majority of the officer corps were either professional military men from national armies, or professional mercenaries.

Not far distant in time from them were the Condottieri armies of the wars of the Italian city-states. These were purely mercenary affairs, and purely for profit. Many a paymaster, and not a few ordinary soldiers, grew rich on the hubris of Italy.

All of these were professional armies. They weren't necessarilly efficient, because many of our modern concepts of an army - TO&E, Basic Training, multiple NCO ranks - either hadn't been invented yet or had been forgotten. What the New Model Army did was take trends in military thinking that had been hundreds of years in the making and synthesized an entirely new way to run and command an army.


If the crossbow was not effective or decisive then why were there attempts to ban the weapon?


Who said it wasn't effective? In Eastern European warfare before the introduction of the musket, crossbowmen filled much the same role as the Longbowman did for the English.
What they DIDN'T do was field them in large numbers and try to mow down their opponents at close range. That tactic would have to wait for the arquebus. WHY they didn't try this was simple - they rarely had enough crossbows. They were considered an expensive extravagance by the nobility, who after all, held the purse strings. And while today, from 700 or so years distance, we can see that a crossbow and an early arquebus were roughly similar in penetrating power and that the crossbow had a better rate of fire, this wasn't seen to be the case at the time. In some cases, perception is everything. The loud, authoritative handgun got a respect the quiet, lethal crossbow deserved, but never really got.