NationStates Jolt Archive

What say you, generals of the general forum? What country/nation has had the greatest military heritage?

Of all of them, I have to say (and my fellow Americans, please don't lynch me) that England has, in my opinion, one of the most proud warrior cultures in history. They have shown time and again that they are a force to be reckoned with, for no matter how down and bloodied they may seem (with a few exceptions in 1776 and 1812 =P), they always come back for more. The British fighting spirit throughout history is one to be admired by the entire world, and they have revolutionized combat many times over.

Any thoughts?

Greece?

Greece?

overrated. The city states were pathetic, really. It was Macedon that did a lot of the things that the Greeks get credit for.
Like professional armies.

They faught off the Persians twice, and looked really sexy doing it.

Rome! *Cheers for the gladiatorial arena and the conquering of Gaul* Darn Barbarians....:D

They faught off the Persians twice, and looked really sexy doing it.

Somebody's just seen 300...:rolleyes:

Finland.

Rome! *Cheers for the gladiatorial arena and the conquering of Gaul* Darn Barbarians....:D

You know, Rome was actually had a losing record so far as battles are concerned. They just wouldn't stop coming.
Roman tactics-
Men form square. Men march. Men get ambushed by barbarians and all die.
New men form square. Men march. Men win one battle, then get crushed. All die.
New men form square. New men march. Barbarians so shocked that there are more romans, they say "to hell with it" and give up.

:D

Somebody's just seen 300...:rolleyes:

To be fair, the Spartans were really warriors. There wasn't much of a culture beyond that. Therefore, they are disqualified by my standards. *Brings down gavel on a Spartans head*

Somebody's just seen 300...:rolleyes:

Yes, and I know for a fact that 300 is absolutely, 100% factual in every way. Including the Spartans speaking english.

You know, Rome was actually had a losing record so far as battles are concerned. They just wouldn't stop coming.
Roman tactics-
Men form square. Men march. Men get ambushed by barbarians and all die.
New men form square. Men march. Men win one battle, then get crushed. All die.
New men form square. New men march. Barbarians so shocked that there are more romans, they say "to hell with it" and give up.

:D
You barbarian! YOU'RE the one who told Varius it'd be a nice day to take the legion for a walk in the woods, didn't you!!! :D

Finland.

The Fins fighting off the USSR in WWII was absolutely brilliant, and it is a disgrace that the rest of the world doesn't admire them more. =(

You barbarian! YOU'RE the one who told Varius it'd be a nice day to take the legion for a walk in the woods, didn't you!!! :D

shifty eyes* Nu uh! It was Julius! Lies! ALL LIES!
runs out arch screaming, toga falls off*

The Fins fighting off the USSR in WWII was absolutely brilliant, and it is a disgrace that the rest of the world doesn't admire them more. =(
And yet.... For some reason we counted them as part of the Axis. Probably because they were pissed at the Russians and let Germany march over towards the USSR...

I disagree, Britian's military culture isn't really so much of a culture as it is technological superiority. What I mean to say is that they didn't really have a military "culture" so to speak. Britian's military was just a line of soldiers armed with machine guns against hordes of Africans armed with...eh... "spears". They never really had a great military "culture", they just had a great technological advantage against almost everyone they fought against, with the exception of World War 1 and 2.

In the end I believe that Germany and by extension Prussia has the greatest military heritage. They were one of the first to ever put professional armies on the field rather then merely drafted soldiers. They created a system of military discipline that is still used in many countries including the US.

Baron von Steuben's German military training tactics are still used in the US army and I'm fairly certain that a few other countries also use German training tactics.

shifty eyes* Nu uh! It was Julius! Lies! ALL LIES!
runs out arch screaming, toga falls off*
*Forms a Testudo formation. Marches after Setulan* You'll never escape! Well, unless we get tired. Or if you keep running. Hey! Slow down a bit! We can only march so fast in this armor!:D

What say you, generals of the general forum? What country/nation has had the greatest military heritage?

Of all of them, I have to say (and my fellow Americans, please don't lynch me) that England has, in my opinion, one of the most proud warrior cultures in history. They have shown time and again that they are a force to be reckoned with, for no matter how down and bloodied they may seem (with a few exceptions in 1776 and 1812 =P), they always come back for more. The British fighting spirit throughout history is one to be admired by the entire world, and they have revolutionized combat many times over.

Any thoughts?
Much of the British armies success over the centuries can be attributed to their masterful strategy of "only picking fights with people who don't have firearms."
Germany, on the other hand, tried to take on the world twice in the 20th Century alone. Admittedly, they lost both times, but that sort of scrappiness in the face of rather overwhelming odds demands some respect. One could also talk about the barbarians during Roman times or the Holy Roman Empire in the middle ages, but I've had too much rum to be that historically competent.

You guys need to take a peek at China's history. Or Japan's history.

If I had to pick one out of the two, I'd say Japan had the best military tradition. But the Chinese warrior culture dates back farther.


Either way, both of these pwn any european nation.

Much of the British armies success over the centuries can be attributed to their masterful strategy of "only picking fights with people who don't have firearms."
Germany, on the other hand, tried to take on the world twice in the 20th Century alone. Admittedly, they lost both times, but that sort of scrappiness in the face of rather overwhelming odds demands some respect. One could also talk about the barbarians during Roman times or the Holy Roman Empire in the middle ages, but I've had too much rum to be that historically competent.
Ach. The barbarians stunk. We Romans beat them. Well, whenever we had a general who's strategy was NOT "Let's take a walk in the Barbarian infested woods!":D

Ach. The barbarians stunk. We Romans beat them. Well, whenever we had a general who's strategy was NOT "Let's take a walk in the Barbarian infested woods!":D

Something I've never understood. You Romans beat the barbarians...

And then you bred with them... :$

Why? :confused:

I second Finland.

Winter War FTW.

I disagree, Britian's military culture isn't really so much of a culture as it is technological superiority. What I mean to say is that they didn't really have a military "culture" so to speak. Britian's military was just a line of soldiers armed with machine guns against hordes of Africans armed with...eh... "spears". They never really had a great military "culture", they just had a great technological advantage against almost everyone they fought against, with the exception of World War 1 and 2.

In the end I believe that Germany and by extension Prussia has the greatest military heritage. They were one of the first to ever put professional armies on the field rather then merely drafted soldiers. They created a system of military discipline that is still used in many countries including the US.

Baron von Steuben's German military training tactics are still used in the US army and I'm fairly certain that a few other countries also use German training tactics.

It was a tossup for me between Prussia/Germany and England. In the end, I chose England because, while they did mess with people with pointy sticks, if you go back a bit farther, you'll see them duking it out with every European and Middle Eastern power in the middle ages. While I agree that the Prussians have a more obvious influence on our military today, such English weapons as the longbow, claymore, and billhook changed the face of medieval warfare.

You guys need to take a peek at China's history. Or Japan's history.

If I had to pick one out of the two, I'd say Japan had the best military tradition. But the Chinese warrior culture dates back farther.


Either way, both of these pwn any european nation.

I have. But there are so damn many of them! Especially China. It has like...six different phases, each with different nations. Reading the Seven Military Classics was somewhat like death by slow torture (except for one or two), but I do have a healthy respect for the eastern nations' warrior traditions.



CM, we both know that all Roman generals liked walking in the woods. It was romantic. ;-)

You guys need to take a peek at China's history. Or Japan's history.

If I had to pick one out of the two, I'd say Japan had the best military tradition. But the Chinese warrior culture dates back farther.


Either way, both of these pwn any european nation.

Rome: 12 AD
Vs.
China: 12 AD

Rome would Pwn. I need not say more.

Rome: 12 AD
Vs. Japan: 1195 AD

Rome would still Pwn because of their Superior tactics when compared to the Japanese military system of individual combat.

The Romans would form the Testudo formation (Tortoise, the one with all the shields), and march forward. The Japanese would do the whole individual combat thing, and fire at individual soldiers, only to have the arrows bounce harmlessly off their sheilds. Once into close combat, the Romans would use their Gladius (Short swords) to strike around the right armpit, when their opponent lifted their arm to strike. This would end in total annihilation of Japanese forces, and the Romans would go back home and watch the chariot races again.:)

Something I've never understood. You Romans beat the barbarians...

And then you bred with them... :$

Why? :confused:
'Cause we forgot to bring teh wimmenz along when we came across the Alps.:D

Rome would still Pwn because of their Superior tactics when compared to the Japanese military system of individual combat.

The Romans would form the Testudo formation (Tortoise, the one with all the shields), and march forward. The Japanese would do the whole individual combat thing, and fire at individual soldiers, only to have the arrows bounce harmlessly off their sheilds. Once into close combat, the Romans would use their Gladius (Short swords) to strike around the right armpit, when their opponent lifted their arm to strike. This would end in total annihilation of Japanese forces, and the Romans would go back home and watch the chariot races again.:)


Ahhh, but would they? That's the catch. The Roman army had excellent infantry, and their discipline was unparalleled...but they were also not trained to fight cavalry. At least not of the caliber that the Samurai were. Samurai were excellent warriors, and all it would take would be for one Testudo to fall...and then the entire army would be royally screwed.

Rome: 12 AD
Vs.
China: 12 AD

Rome would Pwn. I need not say more.

Rome: 12 AD
Vs. Japan: 1195 AD

Rome would still Pwn because of their Superior tactics when compared to the Japanese military system of individual combat.

The Romans would form the Testudo formation (Tortoise, the one with all the shields), and march forward. The Japanese would do the whole individual combat thing, and fire at individual soldiers, only to have the arrows bounce harmlessly off their sheilds. Once into close combat, the Romans would use their Gladius (Short swords) to strike around the right armpit, when their opponent lifted their arm to strike. This would end in total annihilation of Japanese forces, and the Romans would go back home and watch the chariot races again.:)

As much as I like Rome's Testudo shield formation, mostly due to years of playing Rome Total War. I think your highly underestimating China's military during that time period. China by that time period the crossbow (nǔ, 弩) was well developed and quite widely used in warfare. Testudo relies on the assumption that the enemy only has bow and arrows, which lack armor piercing abilities. I don't think a battle between Rome and China would be quite the massacre you assume it would be.

You guys need to take a peek at China's history. Or Japan's history.

If I had to pick one out of the two, I'd say Japan had the best military tradition. But the Chinese warrior culture dates back farther.


Either way, both of these pwn any european nation.

I disagree. Both foolishly disregarded firearms, in Japan's case going so far as to ban them completely. Both were eventually pwned due to their isolationism ,short-sightedness, and assumption of superiority.

My pick is Ethiopia. Don't laugh; they beat the hell out of the Italians despite an appalling lack of decent modern weaponry, or modern anything else for that matter. Hitler had to intervene to save his ally from complete disgrace. The Zulu were also impressive; they managed to bloody the nose of the British Empire when it was at its zenith, despite being armed with spears.

And no, I'm not black.

As much as I like Rome's Testudo shield formation, mostly due to years of playing Rome Total War. I think your highly underestimating China's military during that time period. China by that time period the crossbow (nǔ, 弩) was well developed and quite widely used in warfare. Testudo relies on the assumption that the enemy only has bow and arrows, which lack armor piercing abilities. I don't think a battle between Rome and China would be quite the massacre you assume it would be.

True, but I believe the romans would win. I believe (not entirely sure) that at that point the Chinese were still using bronze and stone for weapons. Likewise, the chinese armies were almost entirely made up of peasant levies, whereas the romans were professional soldiers. No, I think the real deciding factor would be the command capablities, a category the Chinese exceled at.

Something I've never understood. You Romans beat the barbarians...

And then you bred with them... :$

Why? :confused:
Having met both Italian and German women before, and further considering that this was in the era before shaved legs and armpits, I've never understood why the Roman men bred with anything.

As much as I like Rome's Testudo shieldformation, mostly due to years of playing Rome Total War. I think your highly underestimating China's military during that time period. China by that time period the crossbow (nǔ, 弩) was well developed and quite widely used in warfare. Testudo relies on the assumption that the enemy only has bow and arrows, which lack armor piercing abilities. I don't think a battle between Rome and China would be quite the massacre you assume it would be.

No, no, no. You are right in saying that the crossbow was in wide use at the time, but you're also assuming that crossbows are more powerful then the bow. To an extent, crossbows were more powerful then the short bow, but up close, a bow can still pierce armor. The Roman Scutum (Rectangular-e shield), was made to resist arrows, even at close range. If you'll notice, the Scutum is slightly curved, made to harmlessly reflect arrows (And bolts). The Roman Scutum was also very thick, thick enough to resist heavy arrows at extremly close range. A crossbow may be powerful, but not enough to pierce the Scuum, at least not at long range. Second, a crossbow takes almost a minute on average to reload and fire. This would give the romans the time they needed to get up close before attacking. And if you say the repeating crossbow in use at the time, I'll point out it was neither as powerful nor as accurate as a normal crossbow, or even a bow.

Burn! Romans pwn again!

True, but I believe the romans would win. I believe (not entirely sure) that at that point the Chinese were still using bronze and stone for weapons. Likewise, the chinese armies were almost entirely made up of peasant levies, whereas the romans were professional soldiers. No, I think the real deciding factor would be the command capablities, a category the Chinese exceled at.

The Romans too. Well, with the Romans, it's an all or nothing situation. They either have a commander who could fight off the third crusade with three men and a stick, or a commander who manages to lose 15,000 men against a few thousand barbarians with spears and puny little bows.XD

Rome! *Cheers for the gladiatorial arena and the conquering of Gaul* Darn Barbarians....:D

Fuck the Romans. The Celts were much more awesome.

My vote goes to Celtic peoples. Down? Often. Out? Never.

Either that or the Mongols.

Burn! Romans pwn again!


As long as they avoid the woods, that is.

The Romans too. Well, with the Romans, it's an all or nothing situation. They either have a commander who could fight off the third crusade with three men and a stick, or a commander who manages to lose 15,000 men against a few thousand barbarians with spears and puny little bows.XD

Most of the so called "Barbarians" are only thought of as such because the Romans thought so, when in actuality they were formidable military forces.

As long as they avoid the woods, that is.

Indeed. Kinda pathetic of them that once there's a forest, they're fucked.

The Romans too. Well, with the Romans, it's an all or nothing situation. They either have a commander who could fight off the third crusade with three men and a stick, or a commander who manages to lose 15,000 men against a few thousand barbarians with spears and puny little bows.XD

Ah, I can hear the story now...

"So there I was, alone but for Vindictus on my left and Callidus on my right. We had a single stick, no water left, and the Gauls were everywhere..."

Fuck the Romans. The Celts were much more awesome.

My vote goes to Celtic peoples. Down? Often. Out? Never.

Either that or the Mongols.


And the celts are english! :D

Though I must admit, the mongols were impressive. But it was like a one night stand that turns into a relationship. At first, the sex is great, but then you learn she has herpes.

...I don't get it either. Cus I was totally going somewhere with that.

I disagree. Both foolishly disregarded firearms, in Japan's case going so far as to ban them completely. Both were eventually pwned due to their isolationism ,short-sightedness, and assumption of superiority.

My pick is Ethiopia. Don't laugh; they beat the hell out of the Italians despite an appalling lack of decent modern weaponry, or modern anything else for that matter. Hitler had to intervene to save his ally from complete disgrace. The Zulu were also impressive; they managed to bloody the nose of the British Empire when it was at its zenith, despite being armed with spears.

And no, I'm not black.

Actually it wasn't that they foolishly disregarded firearms. It was just that Europe's years of fighting one another led them to have a military technological boom while Asia was relatively stable. Japan had united itself and China had done so as well. Japan most certainly did not disregard firearms, they adopted them rapidly. China did lag in that department but its sometimes forgotten that China actually invented the first "firearm", its unfair to say that they refused to use them because they didn't. Its just that they're technology had lagged to the point that they "couldn't" really develop it. The Manchus had firearm soldiers, but their guns were primitive by European standards and the Japanese relied on buying European guns.

As for Ethiopia while I admire they're ability to fight off a European power. I must point out that.
One. After the Italian reunification, Italy's military sucked. I'm sorry...I can't be any more blunt. They had almost no manufacturing power and were more of a liability to Germany in WW2 then help. Ethiopia won because Italy was so bad not because they were amazing, although again I do admire them because of their abilities.
Two. Britian left Ethiopia essentially alone because Ethiopia had nothing they really wanted. If Ethiopia had gold or such, I doubt Britian would have given up as easily...

Fuck the Romans. The Celts were much more awesome.

My vote goes to Celtic peoples. Down? Often. Out? Never.

Either that or the Mongols.
The Celts were pawned by the Romans in Britain. Ever heard of Boudicca?
As long as they avoid the woods, that is.
They were specifically trained to fight in the plains. *Slaps ancient Roman general who thought of that little idiocy*
Most of the so called "Barbarians" are only thought of as such because the Romans thought so, when in actuality they were formidable military forces.
Exactly. But the Romans kicked their butts, so one must say the Romans were a truly awesome military force.
Indeed. Kinda pathetic of them that once there's a forest, they're fucked.
Like I said, specifically trained to fight in the plains.

No, no, no. You are right in saying that the crossbow was in wide use at the time, but you're also assuming that crossbows are more powerful then the bow. To an extent, crossbows were more powerful then the short bow, but up close, a bow can still pierce armor. The Roman Scutum (Rectangular-e shield), was made to resist arrows, even at close range. If you'll notice, the Scutum is slightly curved, made to harmlessly reflect arrows (And bolts). The Roman Scutum was also very thick, thick enough to resist heavy arrows at extremly close range. A crossbow may be powerful, but not enough to pierce the Scuum, at least not at long range. Second, a crossbow takes almost a minute on average to reload and fire. This would give the romans the time they needed to get up close before attacking. And if you say the repeating crossbow in use at the time, I'll point out it was neither as powerful nor as accurate as a normal crossbow, or even a bow.

Burn! Romans pwn again!

I take it your Italian?

Alright I'll accept the fact that the Scutum was made to repel arrows but the arrows used by the Goths and the Franks were not English composite bows. They were not heavy arrows, they were light arrows used to fight against other relatively unarmored barbarians. To compare their bows and arrows, to Chinese crossbow's which used iron bolts is not really a fair comparison.

I doubt that the Scutum's which was made to deflect wooden arrows would have been able to deflect an iron bolt, which had far more force behind them then any bows that were used in that era. The Composite bows and English longbows had not been invented yet.

Moreover the Testudo formation was a very slow moving formation. It forced Roman soldiers to shuffle in slow steady steps, it would have been easy to fire and then run off. Unless the Roman troops chose to break out of the formation which would defeat the point in the first place.

Actually it wasn't that they foolishly disregarded firearms. It was just that Europe's years of fighting one another led them to have a military technological boom while Asia was relatively stable. Japan had united itself and China had done so as well. Japan most certainly did not disregard firearms, they adopted them rapidly. China did lag in that department but its sometimes forgotten that China actually invented the first "firearm", its unfair to say that they refused to use them because they didn't. Its just that they're technology had lagged to the point that they "couldn't" really develop it. The Manchus had firearm soldiers, but their guns were primitive by European standards and the Japanese relied on buying European guns.

*Ahem*
The use of arquebuses and other firearms was halted in Japan during and until the end of the Tokugawa shogunate by decree of the shogun.THEY REJECTED GUNS! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus)

*Ahem*
THEY REJECTED GUNS! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus)

Well actually I was talking about the Meiji Revolution, not the Tokugawa period...but yes I see your point.

However even in Britian, when guns were first introduced, a few British general stated that they should just continue to use longbows because it had a faster rate of fire and a longer range. I think quite a few countries rejected guns early on until they became pretty effective.

Mongolia.

Not like they really HAVE much of a military anymore.

Other than that...Iran(Persia), Italy, Germany, Egypt, England, Russia, Spain and China are all high on my list.

The Celts were pawned by the Romans in Britain. Ever heard of Boudicca?
She scared the hell out of them with her uprising. And in case you forgot, no, the Romans didn't "pawn" the Celts in Britain. They conquered half the island and got so sick of fighting the Celts that they built a wall to protect themselves from the rest. And even then, the hold over Britain was only ever just "stable," and at many times was quite tenuous. Excuse me, over the part of Britain that they had.

They were specifically trained to fight in the plains. *Slaps ancient Roman general who thought of that little idiocy*
That's kinda stupid considering that large parts of Europe do not consist of plains.

Exactly. But the Romans kicked their butts, so one must say the Romans were a truly awesome military force.
Except when they didn't and got their asses handed to them, as happened numerous times at the hands of so called "Barbarians."

Like I said, idiotically trained only to fight in the plains.
Fixed.

I take it your Italian?

1/4 I'll have you know!:D
Alright I'll accept the fact that the Scutum was made to repel arrows but the arrows used by the Goths and the Franks were not English composite bows. They were not heavy arrows, they were light arrows used to fight against other relatively unarmored barbarians. To compare their bows and arrows, to Chinese crossbow's which used iron bolts is not really a fair comparison.

True.
I doubt that the Scutum's which was made to deflect wooden arrows would have been able to deflect an iron bolt, which had far more force behind them then any bows that were used in that era. The Composite bows and English longbows had not been invented yet.

Actually, several cultures that the Romans invaded used iron arrows as well.
Moreover the Testudo formation was a very slow moving formation. It forced Roman soldiers to shuffle in slow steady steps, it would have been easy to fire and then run off. Unless the Roman troops chose to break out of the formation which would defeat the point in the first place.
You can only run so far. Besides, if I remember right, Chinese tactics and military at that time was still heavily dependent on Calvary (Which the Romans pwned again and again), and large peasent armies, with some professional troops using better weaponry (Such as the crossbow), no?

She scared the hell out of them with her uprising. And in case you forgot, no, the Romans didn't "pawn" the Celts in Britain. They conquered half the island and got so sick of fighting the Celts that they built a wall to protect themselves from the rest. And even then, the hold over Britain was only ever just "stable," and at many times was quite tenuous. Excuse me, over the part of Britain that they had.

They conquered England. For them, that was enough. By the time the Romans got to England, they were either preoccupied with something else, or had an emperor uninterested in the military.
That's kinda stupid considering that large parts of Europe do not consist of plains.

They managed to adapt most of the time, but when in thick forests, attacked by an enemy who uses neither sword nor axe in great quantity... Well... Varus! Varus! Give me back my legions!
Except when they didn't and got their asses handed to them, as happened numerous times at the hands of so called "Barbarians."

Rarely did that happen before the breakdown of the Roman military system, and when in the hands of a competent general.(Replaced by Barbarian mercenary armies)
Fixed.
Agreed.

1/4 I'll have you know!:D

True.

Actually, several cultures that the Romans invaded used iron arrows as well.

You can only run so far. Besides, if I remember right, Chinese tactics and military at that time was still heavily dependent on Calvary (Which the Romans pwned again and again), and large peasent armies, with some professional troops using better weaponry (Such as the crossbow), no?

True enough but an iron arrow is much different from an iron bolt. Crossbow bolts were made to be armor piercing, a strength that the average bow at that time did not.

As for cavalry forces, I'm not too sure. Indeed, I'm not sure if China ever had a very huge cavalry, the large population made in very difficult to rely on horses, for much of its history China was very infantry based. Although I do know the Chinese made use of cavalry units, I'm not sure if they were based on it.

I'm also unsure about Rome's ability to ehh "pwn" cavalry forces again and again. If I remember correctly most of the barbarian tribes were very infantry based. The Celts, Gauls and Franks never had a very extensive horse culture. Cathage was not horseman based either. The only exceptions were the Parthians, but Rome never really defeated that culture totally if I remember correctly.

That said, don't get me wrong. I have huge respect for Rome's military culture. I just don't feel it was quite the master of "pwn" you make it out to be. :)

Well actually I was talking about the Meiji Revolution, not the Tokugawa period...but yes I see your point.

However even in Britian, when guns were first introduced, a few British general stated that they should just continue to use longbows because it had a faster rate of fire and a longer range. I think quite a few countries rejected guns early on until they became pretty effective.
The problem with longbows was the amount of time it took to master the weapon when compared to the crossbow or the gun. The gun uses less material for it's ammunition, and fires at a slightly faster rate then the crossbow, which made it the military weapon of choice in later years.

True enough but an iron arrow is much different from an iron bolt. Crossbow bolts were made to be armor piercing, a strength that the average bow at that time did not.

As for cavalry forces, I'm not too sure. Indeed, I'm not sure if China ever had a very huge cavalry, the large population made in very difficult to rely on horses, for much of its history China was very infantry based. Although I do know the Chinese made use of cavalry units, I'm not sure if they were based on it.

I'm also unsure about Rome's ability to ehh "pwn" cavalry forces again and again. If I remember correctly most of the barbarian tribes were very infantry based. The Celts, Gauls and Franks never had a very extensive horse culture. Cathage was not horseman based either. The only exceptions were the Parthians, but Rome never really defeated that culture totally if I remember correctly.

That said, don't get me wrong. I have huge respect for Rome's military culture. I just don't feel it was quite the master of "pwn" you make it out to be. :)
It was! If you'll remember:
Repellere equites ("repel horses") was the formation used to resist cavalry. The legionaries would assume a square formation, holding their pila as spears in the space between their shields and strung together shoulder to shoulder.
Later used as the porcupine formation used by Richard the Lionhearted in the third crusade. I forget which battle. Also, the Celts used horses against the Romans as well as the Spanish, whereas the British used chariots. Remember who won?;)

1/4 I'll have you know!:D

True.

Actually, several cultures that the Romans invaded used iron arrows as well.

You can only run so far. Besides, if I remember right, Chinese tactics and military at that time was still heavily dependent on Calvary (Which the Romans pwned again and again), and large peasent armies, with some professional troops using better weaponry (Such as the crossbow), no?


Nods* Chariots were HUGE in the Chinese armies. Reading any of the Classics, it always references chariots.

But the fact remains, the Romans were never adapted to fighting cavalry. The only real cavalry they fought was Numidian (during the Punic Wars, they were hired as mercenaries by Carthage), and that was light compared to both the Chinese and especially the Japanese.

It was! If you'll remember:

Later used as the porcupine formation used by Richard the Lionhearted in the third crusade. I forget which battle. Also, the Celts used horses against the Romans as well as the Spanish, whereas the British used chariots. Remember who won?;)

Hmmmm.... Lets see here :gundge:

Well actually the Celts and the British didn't really use horses and chariots that much.

Quote
"Fighting was initiated by chariots and slingers hurling missiles at the enemy, the chariot-fighters then dismounted to fight with shield, sword and spear as infantry."

"Typically the crew of two (driver and warrior) would ride together to the battle, the warrior would throw his spears and then dismount to fight on foot."
End Quote

As a result the Romans weren't quite fighting cavalry. Since both the Celts and the British used horses more for skirmishing and for transportation rather then for charge tactics.

As for Spain, I have no fricken idea....to be honest.

Nods* Chariots were HUGE in the Chinese armies. Reading any of the Classics, it always references chariots.

But the fact remains, the Romans were never adapted to fighting cavalry. The only real cavalry they fought was Numidian (during the Punic Wars, they were hired as mercenaries by Carthage), and that was light compared to both the Chinese and especially the Japanese.
Agreed. There's only one way to settle this...

THE TIME MACHINE!:D

Actually it wasn't that they foolishly disregarded firearms. It was just that Europe's years of fighting one another led them to have a military technological boom while Asia was relatively stable. Japan had united itself and China had done so as well. Japan most certainly did not disregard firearms, they adopted them rapidly. China did lag in that department but its sometimes forgotten that China actually invented the first "firearm", its unfair to say that they refused to use them because they didn't. Its just that they're technology had lagged to the point that they "couldn't" really develop it. The Manchus had firearm soldiers, but their guns were primitive by European standards and the Japanese relied on buying European guns.

As for Ethiopia while I admire they're ability to fight off a European power. I must point out that.
One. After the Italian reunification, Italy's military sucked. I'm sorry...I can't be any more blunt. They had almost no manufacturing power and were more of a liability to Germany in WW2 then help. Ethiopia won because Italy was so bad not because they were amazing, although again I do admire them because of their abilities.
Two. Britian left Ethiopia essentially alone because Ethiopia had nothing they really wanted. If Ethiopia had gold or such, I doubt Britian would have given up as easily...

The Japanese adopted the firearm quickly, during the Sengoku period, but Tokugawa outlawed them upon his ascension. The ban was to some extent ignored, but it did prevent technological progress; therefore, I think it's fair to say the Japanese disregarded firearms. I would say the same of the Chinese; whatever their reasons, and they may have seemed perfectly sound at the time, they neglected to innovate.

It's true that the Italians were terrible; I mentioned the Ethiopian conflict because it amuses me to think of how very much the Italians sucked. The Zulu, however, were not in Ethiopia, and as far as I know the British never attacked Ethiopia. Nor did the British give up in the Zulu Wars; they won in the end. I just find it impressive that the Zulu were able to win any battles at all, given the fact that they were armed more primitively than, say, the ancient Assyrians.

The "Martial Races" of India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha

(These groups pretty much helped the British Empire stay the British Empire for a good long time)

and

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

(the Black Watch was called, by the Germans in WWI and WWII, the Ladies From Hell because of the kilts, bagpipes and general bad attitude in battle)

I thin you two are leaving something out. Numbers, there were a fuck load of chinese, even back then. Also, if you wanted to go by military culture, and not just who would win, then clearly rome is on top(at least vs. china) for having trained armies and not just masses of peasants.

Hmmmm.... Lets see here :gundge:

Well actually the Celts and the British didn't really use horses and chariots that much.

Quote
"Fighting was initiated by chariots and slingers hurling missiles at the enemy, the chariot-fighters then dismounted to fight with shield, sword and spear as infantry."

"Typically the crew of two (driver and warrior) would ride together to the battle, the warrior would throw his spears and then dismount to fight on foot."
End Quote

As a result the Romans weren't quite fighting cavalry. Since both the Celts and the British used horses more for skirmishing and for transportation rather then for charge tactics.

As for Spain, I have no fricken idea....to be honest.

In the initial invasion of Britain, the Brits wreaked HELL on the Romans with Chariots. It took them a bit to adapt. Well, at least i THINK it was Britain. Maybe it was somewhere else. I remember it was a river battle where they used a pontoon bridge....

Agreed. There's only one way to settle this...

THE TIME MACHINE!:D

That is crazy. That is ridiculous. That is...

SUCH AN AMAZING IDEA!!!!:hail::hail::hail::hail:


It's true that the Italians were terrible; I mentioned the Ethiopian conflict because it amuses me to think of how very much the Italians sucked. The Zulu, however, were not in Ethiopia, and as far as I know the British never attacked Ethiopia. Nor did the British give up in the Zulu Wars; they won in the end. I just find it impressive that the Zulu were able to win any battles at all, given the fact that they were armed more primitively than, say, the ancient Assyrians.

Mad props to the Zulu. Those were some gutsy sonsabitches.
And besides, how cool is it say "Shaka Zulu?"
Go on, do it. You know you will. :D

After this...someone make a thread about the country with the "worst" military culture.

That will be a far more fiery debate hehehe

*Grins with pure evil* :)

I thin you two are leaving something out. Numbers, there were a fuck load of chinese, even back then. Also, if you wanted to go by military culture, and not just who would win, then clearly rome is on top(at least vs. china) for having trained armies and not just masses of peasants.

You forget, it doesn't matter how many shitloads of peasants you have, better equipment and better training will carry the day. Example: The battle of Agincourt. The French had at LEAST two times the amount of troops as the English, and the English still handed them their butts on a golden platter.

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

(the Black Watch was called, by the Germans in WWI and WWII, the Ladies From Hell because of the kilts, bagpipes and general bad attitude in battle)

Bangin. My division got named by the Germans too! They called us...The Bloody Bucket (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28th_Infantry_Division_%28United_States%29).

I thin you two are leaving something out. Numbers, there were a fuck load of chinese, even back then. Also, if you wanted to go by military culture, and not just who would win, then clearly rome is on top(at least vs. china) for having trained armies and not just masses of peasants.

Again, the Roman army lost more than half its battles!!! What made the difference was their sheer determination to conquer that made them keep coming back.

Mad props to the Zulu. Those were some gutsy sonsabitches.
And besides, how cool is it say "Shaka Zulu?"
Go on, do it. You know you will. :D
Definitely. "Hey guys, let's charge a bunch of well-armed British troops with a few fancy spears!"

The strangest part is that they WON!:eek:

You forget, it doesn't matter how many shitloads of peasants you have, better equipment and better training will carry the day. Example: The battle of Agincourt. The French had at LEAST two times the amount of troops as the English, and the English still handed them their butts on a golden platter.

And it gave us our favorite insult. :upyours:
Yes, that is actually how we got it.

You forget, it doesn't matter how many shitloads of peasants you have, better equipment and better training will carry the day. Example: The battle of Agincourt. The French had at LEAST two times the amount of troops as the English, and the English still handed them their butts on a golden platter.

Well...keep in mind England didn't just have an equipment advantage and many of the French knights were actually pretty well trained soldiers. Seeing as they had been fighting since they were squires.
England won such a devastarting victory because.

First. The French were dumb enough to charge in a narrow corridor which neutralized their number advantage. If it had been a flat plain, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad for them.
Two. The French also amazed the world by charging their cavalry across a muddy plain which slowed down their cavalry a lot. Their are some reports of their horses getting stuck and thus, slowing down another poor guy behind him.

I think numbers can count, as long as they're used correctly. Even when Rome fought Boudicca, they were very clever to put their force in between two forests so that the Celts would only charge in one direction.

Numbers count when you use them to surround and flank armies, they tend to be worthless if your an idiotic strategist.

Well...keep in mind England didn't just have an equipment advantage.
First. The French were dumb enough to charge in a narrow corridor which neutralized their number advantage. If it had been a flat plain, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad for them.
Two. The French also amazed the world by charging their cavalry across a muddy plain which slowed down their cavalry a lot. Their are some reports of their horses getting stuck and thus, slowing down another poor guy behind him.

I think numbers can count, as long as they're used correctly. Even when Rome fought Boudicca, they were very clever to put their force in between two forests so that the Celts would only charge in one direction.

Numbers count when you use them to surround and flank armies, they tend to be worthless if your an idiotic strategist.

Just goes to show that half of winning a battle is the other guy screwing up.

Bangin. My division got named by the Germans too! They called us...The Bloody Bucket (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28th_Infantry_Division_%28United_States%29).



Again, the Roman army lost more than half its battles!!! What made the difference was their sheer determination to conquer that made them keep coming back.

I remember the story about one of Rome's losses before it conquered Italy. The leader had captured a few thousand Romans, and being young and inexperienced, he wrote to his father to ask him what to do. His father wrote back, and told him to kill them all. Not being satisfied with this, the son wrote to his father asking him for different advice. The father wrote back telling him to free them all and make peace with Rome. Confused by this, he had his father brought to him, and asked him why the different opinions. The father said something like this: "If you kill them all, you will have deprived Rome of a few legions, weakening them for a few decades before they have time to regain their strength. If you free them, you will have made a friend of Rome." The son said that he intended to make them all walk under something or other, I forget what it was, but it was a sign of servitude. The father tells him, essentially "You do that, these Romans will keep on coming until they get their revenge. (Sorry, REALLY paraphrased this part)" Well sure enough, the Romans end up going back on the surrender treaty and attack and conquer everything the young leader had, and killed him.

Mars, after they come and kick our ass.

Mars, after they come and kick our ass.

And then are killed by the common cold.:gas:

And then are killed by the common cold.:gas:

psht. Please. I loved that movie!

You forget, it doesn't matter how many shitloads of peasants you have, better equipment and better training will carry the day. Example: The battle of Agincourt. The French had at LEAST two times the amount of troops as the English, and the English still handed them their butts on a golden platter.

Better equipment and training will carry the day? I don't think so.

Russia. 1942-1945.

Better equipment and training will carry the day? I don't think so.

Russia. 1942-1945.
The germans had crap for winter equipment. K?

Better equipment and training will carry the day? I don't think so.

Russia. 1942-1945.

To be fair, you could argue the equipment standpoint. The T-34 was one hell of a tank, and while it was one on one inferior to pretty much any of the German peices, it was produced to such quantity that it...

Never mind.

To be fair, you could argue the equipment standpoint. The T-34 was one hell of a tank, and while it was one on one inferior to pretty much any of the German peices, it was produced to such quantity that it...

Never mind.

NO WINTER EQUIPMENT OR TRAINING! *Snaps fingers, points at words*

Nods* Chariots were HUGE in the Chinese armies. Reading any of the Classics, it always references chariots.

But the fact remains, the Romans were never adapted to fighting cavalry. The only real cavalry they fought was Numidian (during the Punic Wars, they were hired as mercenaries by Carthage), and that was light compared to both the Chinese and especially the Japanese.

Chariots fell out of use by about the first century BC.

After that it was cavalry. Cataphract type heavy cavalry came into use by the 4-5 century AD (pretty sure, anyway).

Also, which China are you talking? Which dynasty? Shang? Qin? Chu? Wei? T'ang? Han?

Makes a bit of a difference.

They conquered England. For them, that was enough. By the time the Romans got to England, they were either preoccupied with something else, or had an emperor uninterested in the military.
They had a rather tough time with England initially. Though it of course was not called that at the time, as the Angles came later. By the time they got to Scotland, getting the rest of the island didn't really seem worth fighting yet more Celts. I do object to the Celts being called barbarians, however.

They managed to adapt most of the time, but when in thick forests, attacked by an enemy who uses neither sword nor axe in great quantity... Well... Varus! Varus! Give me back my legions!
They did sometimes. They never adapted well enough to secure more than a foothold in most of what is now Germany, as that area was extremely heavily forested at the time.

Rarely did that happen before the breakdown of the Roman military system, and when in the hands of a competent general.(Replaced by Barbarian mercenary armies)
It did happen on occasion though. Before the rise of the Empire, even before the Punic Wars, Rome was actually sacked by the Celts twice.

Agreed.
While their mastery of the plains got them far, they could have conquered more by being more versatile and coming up with ways to fight on different types of terrain. Where a battle takes place has such a huge impact on its outcome.

Im going to go with the classics, Greece and Rome...

from Athens and Sparta to the Roman Empire to Byzantium...No One has done as much shit as Those two Fuckers...

The Norse had a pretty good run at things as well...as did the Aztecs, when the Spanish weren't around.

The Norse had a pretty good run at things as well...as did the Aztecs, when the Spanish weren't around.

True, id definitely give them a solid Runner Up status...

But, just from sheer numbers of years active, and numbers of wars won, and numbers of people killed...

Its gotta be Greece and Rome...

I still think the Mongols may have given Rome a run for it's money...in terms of slaughter, at least.

A lot of countries have had a period where they were militarily strong. Britain deserves mention, and so do Greece, Rome, and America. However, not every militarily powerful country had a dominant warrior culture. Some better examples of that would be the Norse, and perhaps the Aztecs(both already mentioned as well).

Eh. Rome always relied on numbers. If it came down to a Rome vs. Japan fight, one only really has to look at what happened in Parthia to see the results.
Besides, anybody who says that a Japanese bow couldnt pierce a Roman shield clearly is unaware of the sheer badassery of the Japanese longbow, and the ability of a man of roughly Roman height to pull and aim a 200lb draw bow.

And the Japanese emphasis on individual combat is often times overexaggerated. There were periods when warfare became highly stylized, but that happens pretty much everywhere. Often times higher ranking samurai would seek out their opposite number on the field, but lower ranking samurai (of which there were quite a lot) usually acted as your average 'foot soldier' (given that the Japanese experience with conscript armies was usually rather poor.)

Anyway, if you want an example of how the Romans fare against cavalry-heavy armies equipped with strong horse archers, take a look at what happened in Parthia.

Besides, katanas can cut through tanks. Thats a well known fact ;)

Anyway...

I'm suprised nobody's mentioned Russia yet. Maybe not the most brilliant warriors ever, but they're stubborn, and, when pressed, tend to display great national pride, solidarity and fervor.
Ever heard of the Pavlovsk Grenadiers? Apparently during the Napoleonic Wars the regiments depot battalion charged across a burning bridge, into a French occupied village, and cleared the place out using nothing but bayonets and their fancy mitre-caps.

The British, in my opinion, excel at two things. Taking credit for joint ventures (Waterloo, the Crimean War, and the defeat of Napoleon in general), and starting fights with people they know they can beat. Not to say that those are necessarily negative traits. They're actually quite good for nations which are keen on surviving the 19th and 20th centuries :P

EDIT:
On the note of the Japanese rejecting firearms...
Its actually rather untrue. Just prior to cutting off contact, Japan actually had MORE guns than most of Europe combined. They were rather poor in terms of cannons, true, mostly, I suspect, because Japan didnt have the booming cathedral industry of Europe (which would result in more bell foundries, which would give you people good at casting large amounts of metal that wouldnt explode under preassure).
But regardless, SOME Japanese nobles/lords/local rulers rejected firearms, but others took a great liking to them.
Just because they cut off official contact with Europe doesnt mean they instantly became backwards savages, relying on swords. It slowed them down a bit, but it seems they've discovered maps from the isolationist-era which show the discoveries of various European nations, updated in a fairly timely manner. So it seems that some contact was maintained and, presumably, the flow of technology didnt cease entirely.

What say you, generals of the general forum? What country/nation has had the greatest military heritage?

Of all of them, I have to say (and my fellow Americans, please don't lynch me) that England has, in my opinion, one of the most proud warrior cultures in history. They have shown time and again that they are a force to be reckoned with, for no matter how down and bloodied they may seem (with a few exceptions in 1776 and 1812 =P), they always come back for more. The British fighting spirit throughout history is one to be admired by the entire world, and they have revolutionized combat many times over.

Any thoughts?

British and English are different. The British got completely annihilated by the ancestors of the English and now only live in Wales, so the British fighting spirit isn't much use.

British and English are different. The British got completely annihilated by the ancestors of the English and now only live in Wales, so the British fighting spirit isn't much use.

Good thing for the sheep, eh? ;)

Good thing for the sheep, eh? ;)

Hehe.

Besides, katanas can cut through tanks. Thats a well known fact ;)

Don't forget that they can also tear holes in Space-Time.

Anyways...Why havn't the Zulus been mentioned? I know they weren't big strength-wise for a long time, but for just a small moment in history they were a military juggernaut. I mean come on, anyone who can use massed spears to beat rifles is a badass in my book.

In that case the Ethiopians that beat the Italians with spears in the first Italian-Abyssinian war should get your approval too.

Something I've never understood. You Romans beat the barbarians...

And then you bred with them... :$

Why? :confused:

To make more Romans of course, assimilation works wonders.

I disagree, Britian's military culture isn't really so much of a culture as it is technological superiority. What I mean to say is that they didn't really have a military "culture" so to speak. Britian's military was just a line of soldiers armed with machine guns against hordes of Africans armed with...eh... "spears". They never really had a great military "culture", they just had a great technological advantage against almost everyone they fought against, with the exception of World War 1 and
2.

Well if we are only going to limit ourselves to post 1700's then yes you might have some points here but why do we forget about the 100 years war, the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the conquest of Scotland etc.

In the end I believe that Germany and by extension Prussia has the greatest military heritage. They were one of the first to ever put professional armies on the field rather then merely drafted soldiers. They created a system of military discipline that is still used in many countries including the US.

Baron von Steuben's German military training tactics are still used in the US army and I'm fairly certain that a few other countries also use German training tactics.

Yes you cannot go past Germany when thinking about the OP topic

Of course there is also the Mongols, the Byzantines which was a follow on from the fall of the Eastern Roman empire, Romans, I think the ancient Greeks might also have a shoe in amongst others.

What say you, generals of the general forum? What country/nation has had the greatest military heritage?

Any thoughts?

As for fighting ability, I nominate Vietnam.
In less than 40 years, they fought against Japan (as a French colony during WW2) and won; then against France and won; then against USA+ANZ and won; then against Cambodia, and won.
They're AWESOME fighters.

As for conquest wars, Britain is the obvious winner. After all, Britain has conquered the largest empire ever, kept it for a almost two centuries, and managed to leave it without being kicked out too harshly. That is, military power + tech power + intelligent diplomacy.

I have to agree on Vietnam. I've said it before, and no doubt will again. (Seemingly) hopelessly outnumbered, out gunned, essentially surrounded, assaulted for years on end, and not a thought of doing anything other than fighting on. Not a lot of nations have taken on the likes of the USA, France, and China amongst others, within a few years of one another, and sent them all packing, least of all relatively small and largely pre-industrial nations in an industrial age.

On England and/or Britain at large I think the case is strong and don't understand the notion that the English only ever took-on technically inferior rivals... nonsense! We made the Scots do it :D

More seriously, though, surely part of 'warrior culture' is the development and proper employment of superior weaponry, isn' it? If so, a Boxer-Henry short-chamber point-four-five calibre miracle in the face of a few thousand bronze-tipped sticks is a cultural triumph!

Besides, while the British victory over, say, the Zulu, might be attributed to greater availability to the British of firearms (the Zulu had some, too, if mostly older types, though to be fair the British service rifle of the time was some years off the pace compared with France and even the US), the rise of the Zulu nation must in no small part be credited to the assegai as opposed to the more unwieldy weapons of their southern African neighbours.

If technology had nothing to do with it we'd all be raving over the Inka and Aztecs et cetera.

Perhaps more to the particular point -of Anglo-British military tradition-, I think that some -I imagine chiefly Americans, but could be wrong to do so- forget England's long history as European underdog. For centuries the English were politically isolated, numerically dwarfed, technologically simple, and outrageously belligerent, and getting away with it. Starting on France and Spain as England so often did was, at the time, a bit like Taiwan making a habit of launching airstrikes on the PRC while plundering passing Japanese shipping, and actually ending up with a global empire instead of a kick in the face.

I still want the Celts to win. A suitably vague term fitting the 'warrior culture' thread. Fecking Romans.

[Dusts off the go-back-in-time-o-tron and drafts a note advising Vercingetorix not to sit around and let them build a fort around him like it doesn't even matter.]

Eh. Rome always relied on numbers. If it came down to a Rome vs. Japan fight, one only really has to look at what happened in Parthia to see the results.

Well, Romans relied on superior organization and discipline too, as Boadicea's Britons had to learn.

Besides, anybody who says that a Japanese bow couldnt pierce a Roman shield clearly is unaware...
Iirc, an arrow shooted with a tatar bow can pierce 5 bronze shields (with the first being at 10m). That's something, ain't it?


Anyway, if you want an example of how the Romans fare against cavalry-heavy armies equipped with strong horse archers, take a look at what happened in Parthia.

Yep, the Roman army was thought for the steep slopes and the bush-clustered forests around the Mediterranean, not for the open plains. In the plains, cavalry with bows is the most lethal thing around (unless you got machine guns).

I'm suprised nobody's mentioned Russia yet. Maybe not the most brilliant warriors ever, but they're stubborn, and, when pressed, tend to display great national pride, solidarity and fervor.
True, since the times of Aleksandr Nevskij.

On England and/or Britain at large I think the case is strong and don't understand the notion that the English only ever took-on technically inferior rivals... nonsense! We made the Scots do it :D


LOL.

Anyway, as for some technically-equal rivals Britain took on:

France (not exactly a backwards country)
Spain (at the time the ultimate power in Europe)
Germany (8,8cm gun? V-2? Jets?)

Perhaps more to the particular point -of Anglo-British military tradition-, I think that some -I imagine chiefly Americans, but could be wrong to do so- forget England's long history as European underdog. For centuries the English were politically isolated, numerically dwarfed, technologically simple, and outrageously belligerent, and getting away with it. Starting on France and Spain as England so often did was, at the time, a bit like Taiwan making a habit of launching airstrikes on the PRC while plundering passing Japanese shipping, and actually ending up with a global empire instead of a kick in the face.

I'd say the chief contributing factor to the general survival of the British nation would be political savvy, moreso than military strength. The British have, historically, had a knack for turning their enemies against each other, or forming essentially unbeatable alliances (even with former enemies).
Look at the Napoleonic Wars. The main role of the British was, essentially, to sit outside the French harbors and send guns to Spanish rebels, while arranging for the Russians, Prussians, and Austrians to do the footwork.
Then, at the last moment, swoop in and claim the final victory. Nevermind the Russians marching into Paris, the British caught Napoleon and sent him off to an island to die of 'too-much-arsenic-in-the-wine' poisoning.

Brains over brawn, as it were. Which isnt to say that the British didnt have a fine military, 'though with a tendancy towards official incompetence (although in the 19th century, which military DIDNT have its fair share of inbred nobility with funny hats?). Simply that, when it came to military might, I personally believe that the British would be the 'weakest' of the great powers. Considering the relativly small size of their army, they might've even had trouble against some of the 'weaker' nations of the Napoleonic era.

British and English are different. The British got completely annihilated by the ancestors of the English and now only live in Wales, so the British fighting spirit isn't much use.

That's quite a leap. And not really all that... true.

The British are in Britain today, that's a fact. British people are British. Surprisingly!

The ancient Britons and the English may fairly be seen as different things, much as is the case for any country. But even so it is a mistake to assume that the Angles and Saxons et cetera wiped-out the Britons, or that the Welsh are so special.

I'm English, but my ancestors beyond my parents' generation are all Welsh, Irish, and a handful of Scottish. I'm not alone in that. This alone ruins your point, but is hardly the crux of mine.

That is to say, you're probably doing what most people do in assuming that a successful invasion by one people leads to the disappearance of the aboriginal inhabitants. Actually, most British people today have chiefly the blood of ancient Britons. Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans, Celts, and all sorts of others have left their marks, but by and large we're all still Britons. We just don't all have red hair, anymore.

Mostly I'm just baffled by the suggestion that I'm not British, really.

I don't really disagree with you, by and large, Dontgonearthere, but can't help thinking...

Simply that, when it came to military might, I personally believe that the British would be the 'weakest' of the great powers. Considering the relativly small size of their army, they might've even had trouble against some of the 'weaker' nations of the Napoleonic era.

...you wouldn't be the first person to make that assumption, and then get a nasty surprise from the hapless little army of shopkeepers, eh? ;)

Well, Romans relied on superior organization and discipline too, as Boadicea's Britons had to learn.
Large numbers of organized men are always better than large numbers of unorganized men :P
Fortunately for the Romans they could frequently have the best of both worlds, as it were.

Iirc, an arrow shooted with a tatar bow can pierce 5 bronze shields (with the first being at 10m). That's something, ain't it?
As I recall, the Turkish shortbow was remarkably powerful as well. Despite their difference in design, the heaviest Japanese longbows were essentially used in the same fashion 'ride right up into their face' fashion employed by some shortbow users. Considering their MASSIVE draw strength, they wouldnt be too accurate, especially from a moving horse.


Yep, the Roman army was thought for the steep slopes and the bush-clustered forests around the Mediterranean, not for the open plains. In the plains, cavalry with bows is the most lethal thing around (unless you got machine guns).
Even cavalry with bows arent a match for men with repeating firearms. Just ask the plains indians. Or the Cossacks.


True, since the times of Aleksandr Nevskij.
One must also admire Peter the Great's "never give up" attitude. You've got to have some admiration for a man who, after having his ass severly kicked, actually learned his lesson and went back to kick some serious ass himself.
I mean, this is some sort of alien concept throughout military history. Actually LEARNING from...well, anything >_>

I don't really disagree with you, by and large, Dontgonearthere, but can't help thinking...



...you wouldn't be the first person to make that assumption, and then get a nasty surprise from the hapless little army of shopkeepers, eh? ;)

One might say that Napoleon and Hitler made the same mistake when they invaded Russia. After all, they've got a corrupt, drunken, officer corps, pathetic logistical ability, and some of their soldiers are armed with PIKES (or blackpowder breechloaders, depending on which would-be Master of Europe we're talking about). Really, what hope do they have? ;)

I find that most nations, when pushed too hard, tend to push back with suprising strength. After all, that story about the Polish postal workers who held off German SS troops for a week or something with nothing but ten pistols and a single light machine gun is pretty inspiring :P

LOL.

Anyway, as for some technically-equal rivals Britain took on:

France (not exactly a backwards country)
Spain (at the time the ultimate power in Europe)
Germany (8,8cm gun? V-2? Jets?)

Indeed. During many of England's wars with France, it has been suggest and quite possibly proven that the inferior quality of English ironsmithing meant that even the famous Anglo-Welsh longbow and its bodkin arrows was typically incapable of penetrating French plate armour, making it little short of freaking miraculous that the English dug out a few victories. It seems about equivalent to five thousand guys with assault rifles coming up against an entire tank army and walking away victorious.

Er, wait, and I'm not talking about the Italian invasion of Egypt, heh.

Oh, earlier I meant to add that, since we're talking about warrior culture, there are notes against many nations. The English, for example, before the civil war, quite famously there were what, three men in the entire country who knew how to load and fire a mortar. The English, much as they may like a scrap, are quite capable of sitting off and having a pint or a cuppa while the rest of the world goes to hell, which isn't all that warlike of them.

Of course it never lasts, but still, worth a mention.

One might say that Napoleon and Hitler made the same mistake when they invaded Russia. After all, they've got a corrupt, drunken, officer corps, pathetic logistical ability, and some of their soldiers are armed with PIKES (or blackpowder breechloaders, depending on which would-be Master of Europe we're talking about). Really, what hope do they have? ;)

I find that most nations, when pushed too hard, tend to push back with suprising strength. After all, that story about the Polish postal workers who held off German SS troops for a week or something with nothing but ten pistols and a single light machine gun is pretty inspiring :P

True, true. I am surprised that I haven't mentioned the Yugoslavs, actually. Now that's a partisan tradition!

The ordinary Polish soldiers and people, much like the French, often as not, only went down kicking and screaming. I think it's unfair in remembering WWII that some of us on our British islands or distant American continent mock the continental European nations for falling so quickly. I think that if the USA were a nation attached to the European continent, it would have fallen -in relative terms, given its size- an awful lot faster than France or Poland, given he state of its military at the time. I'd say the same for Britain, but exercises and simulations have suggested that the Germans would have lost even if they'd landed on British soil, so I won't bother.

True, true. I am surprised that I haven't mentioned the Yugoslavs, actually. Now that's a partisan tradition!

The ordinary Polish soldiers and people, much like the French, often as not, only went down kicking and screaming. I think it's unfair in remembering WWII that some of us on our British islands or distant American continent mock the continental European nations for falling so quickly. I think that if the USA were a nation attached to the European continent, it would have fallen -in relative terms, given its size- an awful lot faster than France or Poland, given he state of its military at the time. I'd say the same for Britain, but exercises and simulations have suggested that the Germans would have lost even if they'd landed on British soil, so I won't bother.

Oh, the GOVERNMENT may've fallen quicker, but, not to trumpet the 'indomitable spirit of the American citizen' too much, the resulting guerilla war would've drained the Germans dry. It would be like trying to occupy all of Russia, except that a good portion of it was actually inhabited, and worse yet, pretty much everybody owns, or has access to, a gun.
I mean, can you IMAGINE trying to occupy New York? All the back alleys and gangs and cab drivers?
I'd imagine an invasion of the US would've been a lot like an invasion of the Soviet Union. Initial success, followed by a meatgrinder war of attrition won based on population. And then Berlin being re-named 'Freedom City' or something like that. And then selling T-shirts.

That's quite a leap. And not really all that... true.

The British are in Britain today, that's a fact. British people are British. Surprisingly!

The ancient Britons and the English may fairly be seen as different things, much as is the case for any country. But even so it is a mistake to assume that the Angles and Saxons et cetera wiped-out the Britons, or that the Welsh are so special.

I'm English, but my ancestors beyond my parents' generation are all Welsh, Irish, and a handful of Scottish. I'm not alone in that. This alone ruins your point, but is hardly the crux of mine.

That is to say, you're probably doing what most people do in assuming that a successful invasion by one people leads to the disappearance of the aboriginal inhabitants. Actually, most British people today have chiefly the blood of ancient Britons. Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans, Celts, and all sorts of others have left their marks, but by and large we're all still Britons. We just don't all have red hair, anymore.

Mostly I'm just baffled by the suggestion that I'm not British, really.

Ancient Britons were Celts, and most of us are mainly Angle, Saxon or Jute, so you're wrong.

Mostly I'm just baffled by the suggestion that I'm not British, really.

Being british is old hat these days. Everyone is either English, Scots, Irish or a sheep fiddler. Devolution and all that.

I'm gonna say Switzerland. Appeared as a bunch of angry pikemen that beat everyone for a century or so, then decided they'd had enough and didn't go looking for fights.

Best warriors you can hope for.

Ancient Britons were Celts
...and a whole load of other tribes and peoples.

Ancient Britons were Celts, and most of us are mainly Angle, Saxon or Jute, so you're wrong.

Ah, no, I wouldn't have bothered posting, if I were going to be wrong :)

Celts are Celts for cultural reasons, not ethnological ones. The Celtic culture arose in mainland Europe while Britain was inhabited by, well, the ancient Britons, in the main. Then the Britons adopted Celtic culture. Still aboriginal Britons, in the main. Then the Romans came and Celtic culture was partly Romanised on the continent and then in Britain. Still aboriginal Britons, in the main. Then the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes came, and more Celtic -and Roman- culture was replaced. Still aboriginal Britons, in the main. Ever more ethnic bastardisation over the generations, perhaps more-so in England than the Celtic fringe where cultural bastardisation has also been slightly less pervasive, but, in the end, I'm still English and British and probably mostly ethnic Briton, whether you like it or not.

Ah, no, I wouldn't have bothered posting, if I were going to be wrong :)

Celts are Celts for cultural reasons, not ethnological ones. The Celtic culture arose in mainland Europe while Britain was inhabited by, well, the ancient Britons, in the main. Then the Britons adopted Celtic culture. Still aboriginal Britons, in the main. Then the Romans came and Celtic culture was partly Romanised on the continent and then in Britain. Still aboriginal Britons, in the main. Then the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes came, and more Celtic -and Roman- culture was replaced. Still aboriginal Britons, in the main. Ever more ethnic bastardisation over the generations, perhaps more-so in England than the Celtic fringe where cultural bastardisation has also been slightly less pervasive, but, in the end, I'm still English and British and probably mostly ethnic Briton, whether you like it or not.

I see your point about Celts, but DNA has shown that modern English people are mainly Germanic, which fits with us being Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Norwegians.

Okay before you continue your argument, stop and think, the cultures you are mentioning are they WARRIORS? Or just plain soldiers? True the romans were the strongest fighting force at the time but, what decides a warrior from a basic soldier or infantry? ABILITY TO ACT ON HIS OWN.
Romans were trained for mainly their shield tactics, few were capable of handling 1 on 1 combat like the samurai.
Also take into consideration of the time period and location, Asian warfare was mainly developed for forest battles, except the Chinese and a few others set on open and mountain terrain. Romans combat strategies were developed for open desert or small forest locations, European strategies where in dense forests and sometimes mountains.
Thus having Chinese fight British in the north would result in a Chinese loss while in the mountains of china the British would lose. Now after taking all of that into thought, don't forget their technology as well, repeating crossbow for starters, how about Greek fire, European Armour, Asian firearms, and many more so remember it could end a lot differently.
Also all of the examples i heard from you again are military soldier based, think of seafaring warriors though, or pure warrior cultures, both were forces to be reckoned with in their time.

In the end i think Germany deserves this award, they "defeated the roman empire", challenged the world twice, and still today have a strong powerful military. Their special ops are trained like the old warriors and they still have a great sense of honor, a main attribute in a true warrior.

-United States Marine Corps.
Military Police :mp5:

I see your point about Celts, but DNA has shown that modern English people are mainly Germanic, which fits with us being Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Norwegians.

Well, I don't mean to be an ass about it (sorry, got some beer in me :) man, these new emoticons are ugly, eh?), but actually I think that's not really true. It is the traditional view, yes, but, more and more, newer studies are tending to find that we're all pretty much the same across the British isles, especially Great Britain, and that aboriginal Briton blood is still dominant. We're not exactly the same, but you'll find as many different alien influences on one street in England as between English and Welsh at large.

I mean, if you think about it, especially in the ancient past, it's going to be hard to breed-out an aboriginal population. If Angles and Saxons and what not were coming across on little wooden boats, they were coming in scores, hundreds, maybe thousands at a stretch, into communities of tens or hundreds of thousands across the nation (as much as it could be called such at the time). If anyone's going to be bread out, it's the invaders. And it's not as if they could push the entire population into Wales and Scotland et cetera at the point of a sword or whatever. That shit is hard to do, just ask the Serbs!

But they succeeded. DNA smaples were taken from people in small villages in Wales and people in small villages in England and the English genes were much more similar to Dutch ones than the Welsh were. There were also more Anglo-Saxons than there were British.

There are lots of seemingly conflicting studies, but my impression certainly is that the bigger, more recent ones tend to show regional variations (with plenty of people messing it up by moving about, especially in modern times) that are based more on distance from one another than grouping in either the Celtic fringe or England.

We're getting waaaay off the thread topic here, but whatever!

Looking over Wiki, because let's face it that's just the easiest place to start and even if it doesn't give us many firm conclusions at least it gives voice to many viewpoints rather than the more partisan views of most websites, I still think that I'm basically right, if not quite entirely.

"However, this view [of mass evacuation from or extermination in England of the aboriginal population] has been re-evaluated in recent times with archaeologists and historians finding minimal evidence for mass displacement: archaeologist Francis Pryor has stated that he 'can't see any evidence for bona fide mass migrations after the Neolithic.' Historian Malcolm Todd writes
'It is much more likely that a large proportion of the British population remained in place and was progressively dominated by a Germanic aristocracy, in some cases marrying into it and leaving Celtic names in the, admittedly very dubious, early lists of Anglo-Saxon dynasties. But how we identify the surviving Britons in areas of predominantly Anglo-Saxon settlement, either archaeologically or linguistically, is still one of the deepest problems of early English history.'"

Then, "In The Origins of the British, Stephen Oppenheimer concludes, based on a meta-analysis of the data collected during both the 2002 and 2003 studies, and data from other sources, that the majority of English ancestry is, much like the other populations within the British Isles, from the original hunter-gatherer populations that settled Britain between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the last Ice Age. He also suggests that the relatively high levels of northern European Y chromosomes (mainly I1a and R1a, "Anglo-Saxon" and "Viking" markers) detected in eastern Great Britain (both Scotland and England) have a far older signature than they would have if they had been introduced during an "Anglo-Saxon" invasion, they appear to have been in Great Britain much longer. He concludes that there may have been ongoing migrations between North Sea regions (eastern Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Northern Germany) as far back as the palaeolithic..."

...which is all rather interesting, if you ask me.

Anyway, British is British, it just takes a while to forget each influx.

they Faught Off The Persians Twice, And Looked Really Sexy Doing It.

this Is Sparta!

Darn, something's messing with SPARTA! Maybe the Persians are to blame (yet again)!

What say you, generals of the general forum? What country/nation has had the greatest military heritage?

Of all of them, I have to say (and my fellow Americans, please don't lynch me) that England has, in my opinion, one of the most proud warrior cultures in history

Yep, the terror of men in grass skirts armed with sticks everywhere....

my choice would be The Sikhs or Gurkhas

Afghans..?

Fought off the British and the Soviets.
When nobody is trying to invade Afghanistan, they entertain themselves by fighting eachother.

DARN YOU SLEEP! I seem to have missed a lot. Back to Rome-worshiping.:D
They had a rather tough time with England initially. Though it of course was not called that at the time, as the Angles came later. By the time they got to Scotland, getting the rest of the island didn't really seem worth fighting yet more Celts. I do object to the Celts being called barbarians, however.

I'm just using it as a general term for who the Romans called uncivilized. Heck, I'd be considered barbarian to a point.:D

They did sometimes. They never adapted well enough to secure more than a foothold in most of what is now Germany, as that area was extremely heavily forested at the time.

And then, Varus decided it'd be a nice day to take a walk in the woods....:D
It did happen on occasion though. Before the rise of the Empire, even before the Punic Wars, Rome was actually sacked by the Celts twice.

That was before the reforms of Gaius Marius, no?
I still think the Mongols may have given Rome a run for it's money...in terms of slaughter, at least.
Yeah, but the Mongols were much like the Romans in oone aspect:
They had no fricken idea of how to fight in the forests :D.
Well, Romans relied on superior organization and discipline too, as Boadicea's Britons had to learn.

You mean like they all crowded together only to find out how hard it was to raise their long swords?:D

Iirc, an arrow shooted with a tatar bow can pierce 5 bronze shields (with the first being at 10m). That's something, ain't it?

Isn't the tartar bow another word for the composite bow? Also, how thick are those shilds you're talking about?
Yep, the Roman army was thought for the steep slopes and the bush-clustered forests around the Mediterranean, not for the open plains. In the plains, cavalry with bows is the most lethal thing around (unless you got machine guns).

I was always told they were trained for the open plains, and therefore got slaughtered in dense forests despite managing to adapt most places. Link? (Not on Parthia, I KNOW that one:D, on the training part)

Just to throw it out there (and because I'm surprised nobody mentioned them yet), what about the middle eastern cultures?

Turks and Egyptians (fought off the crusades), Judeans (yes, that was a nation, and yes, they did defeat the Romans...twice), Moors (were one battle away from conquering Europe)...those are all highly succesful military peoples with warrior traditions.

Just to throw it out there (and because I'm surprised nobody mentioned them yet), what about the middle eastern cultures?

Turks and Egyptians (fought off the crusades), Judeans (yes, that was a nation, and yes, they did defeat the Romans...twice), Moors (were one battle away from conquering Europe)...those are all highly succesful military peoples with warrior traditions.

The Judeans beat us? Ohhhhh, you mean the part where we burnt down their temple.:D The Turks did a good job, but if King Richard had just a little more support in the third crusade... And I don't know much about the Moors.

The Judeans beat us? Ohhhhh, you mean the part where we burnt down their temple.:D The Turks did a good job, but if King Richard had just a little more support in the third crusade... And I don't know much about the Moors.

All right, Roman, that's enough from you. It's time to pay Alaric.

Vae victis, buddy! Vae! (You're much too chipper)

The Judeans beat us? Ohhhhh, you mean the part where we burnt down their temple.:D The Turks did a good job, but if King Richard had just a little more support in the third crusade... And I don't know much about the Moors.


I said that they defeated the romans, not that they had final victory over them :D

I said that they defeated the romans, not that they had final victory over them :D

And guess what counts?:D

Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi) @ Winter War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_war)

As much as I like Rome's Testudo shield formation, mostly due to years of playing Rome Total War. I think your highly underestimating China's military during that time period. China by that time period the crossbow (nǔ, 弩) was well developed and quite widely used in warfare. Testudo relies on the assumption that the enemy only has bow and arrows, which lack armor piercing abilities. I don't think a battle between Rome and China would be quite the massacre you assume it would be.

A RTW player on NSG? W00T!

A RTW player on NSG? W00T!
Yo, I do also, although I only play RTW : Realism, because the basic game-mode is actually pretty pish in terms of accuracy both of troops and how battles were fought at the time.

I'd disagree with us British being a 'warrior culture', we're really traders, albeit quite good at fighting things. For an actual warrior culture, I'd probably say Japan.

I disagree, Britian's military culture isn't really so much of a culture as it is technological superiority. What I mean to say is that they didn't really have a military "culture" so to speak. Britian's military was just a line of soldiers armed with machine guns against hordes of Africans armed with...eh... "spears". They never really had a great military "culture", they just had a great technological advantage against almost everyone they fought against, with the exception of World War 1 and 2.

In the end I believe that Germany and by extension Prussia has the greatest military heritage. They were one of the first to ever put professional armies on the field rather then merely drafted soldiers. They created a system of military discipline that is still used in many countries including the US.

Baron von Steuben's German military training tactics are still used in the US army and I'm fairly certain that a few other countries also use German training tactics.

1) Napoleonic wars. Same tech but the brits kicked french ass as soon as Wellington took over

2)not...really... Gustav Adolphus did some of that but I'd say the discipline went back to Sparta, Rome and Macedonia.

And it gave us our favorite insult. :upyours:
Yes, that is actually how we got it.

That is actually a myth.

Yo, I do also, although I only play RTW : Realism, because the basic game-mode is actually pretty pish in terms of accuracy both of troops and how battles were fought at the time.

I'd disagree with us British being a 'warrior culture', we're really traders, albeit quite good at fighting things. For an actual warrior culture, I'd probably say Japan.

I played RTR a lot too. With Macedonia I conquered greece and turkey before my computer crashed :(.

I played RTR a lot too. With Macedonia I conquered greece and turkey before my computer crashed :(.
Sad times. Always nice to take on the world as the Macedonians and come out on top, although the whole plague this is a bit sad :(

Personally I'd say Great Britain or Sparta. Great Britain because they beat the French so may times its not even funny even when at terrible odds (read agincourt). They stayed "Roman" for a while even after the romans left. They won the Napoleonic wars hands down. They were the main force behind the "win" of World War 1. They fought off the Lufwaffe, came back from Dunkirk and Still managed to put a fleet together in time for D-Day and they haven't really shown any sign of letting that military fall apart (their still doing better than anyone else in Iraq and the same is true of Afghanistan). Plus Kippling=awesome.
Sparta is for a few things. Yes the hot gates was awesome but it was terrain entirely suited to their kind of fighting. But they won again after the hot gates and beat back an army grater than theirs on a field more suited to Persian tactics. More important Sparta won the Peloponnesian wars and at their prime sending a single Spartan General to support an ally meant victory for that ally. The only reason Sparta ever really died out was inbreeding . . .which has little to do with military culture.

Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi) @ Winter War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_war)

The Winter War was less a product of Finnish greatness and more a product of Soviet stupidity. The majority of the great Finnish victories I've read of seem to have been the result of a particularly politically loyal but not so intelligent Soviet officer declaring "NOT ONE STEP BACK, COMRADES" and rushing around trying to find himself some Finns to kill.
Its not exactly difficult to just 'fall back and encircle'.

Meanwhile, most of Finnish history prior to that seems to consist of being the Poland of northern Europe, getting invaded by Sweden, Russia, and anybody who just happens to be passing by.

Sad times. Always nice to take on the world as the Macedonians and come out on top, although the whole plague this is a bit sad :(

Once I beat two Sassanid stacks with 7 of those really awesome phalanxes from Athens. In a bridge battle, but they had elaphants.

Personally I'd say Great Britain or Sparta. Great Britain because they beat the French so may times its not even funny even when at terrible odds (read agincourt). They stayed "Roman" for a while even after the romans left. They won the Napoleonic wars hands down. They were the main force behind the "win" of World War 1. They fought off the Lufwaffe, came back from Dunkirk and Still managed to put a fleet together in time for D-Day and they haven't really shown any sign of letting that military fall apart (their still doing better than anyone else in Iraq and the same is true of Afghanistan). Plus Kippling=awesome.
Eh as much as I love to tease the French about Agincourt, you have to remember that we did actually lose that war. Talking about how great Agincourt was is kinda like talking about the Alamo. Nice morale-raiser, but total fail in the end.
The Winter War was less a product of Finnish greatness and more a product of Soviet stupidity. The majority of the great Finnish victories I've read of seem to have been the result of a particularly politically loyal but not so intelligent Soviet officer declaring "NOT ONE STEP BACK, COMRADES" and rushing around trying to find himself some Finns to kill.
Indeed. Although props to the Finns and all that. On the other hand, when the Russians learned to fight, by 1944, the Finnish got completely plastered, and then had to fight the escaping Germans who burnt down Lapland for seemingly no reason.
Meanwhile, most of Finnish history prior to that seems to consist of being the Poland of northern Europe, getting invaded by Sweden, Russia, and anybody who just happens to be passing by.
Aye.
Once I beat two Sassanid stacks with 7 of those really awesome phalanxes from Athens. In a bridge battle, but they had elaphants.
Aye well that's not ENTIRELY difficult :p

"best pikemen on the bridge"
*leaves it for 3 hours*
"YAS! VICTORY IS MINE!"

A RTW player on NSG? W00T!

Make that two ;).

Make that two ;).


Aye well that's not ENTIRELY difficult :p

"best pikemen on the bridge"
*leaves it for 3 hours*
"YAS! VICTORY IS MINE!"

Why this is heaven, nor am I out of it. (cookie for recognizing quote)

Eh as much as I love to tease the French about Agincourt, you have to remember that we did actually lose that war. Talking about how great Agincourt was is kinda like talking about the Alamo. Nice morale-raiser, but total fail in the end.

Except we lost the Alamo. I think of it more like the first and second battle of Bull Run. Confederacy won, but in the end the union came back and took back the south.

Eh as much as I love to tease the French about Agincourt, you have to remember that we did actually lose that war. Talking about how great Agincourt was is kinda like talking about the Alamo. Nice morale-raiser, but total fail in the end.

Ah but the loss was political. I can see it too. If I was the Brits I probably would have thought "hey if we give them their land back then we've got somewhere to train!!! for you know . .. our real fights"

Personally I'd say Great Britain or Sparta. Great Britain because they beat the French so may times its not even funny even when at terrible odds (read agincourt).
Yeah, sort of like at Bauge, Patay, and Castillon. I rather think the French won the Hundred Years War, seeing as they got to keep their country. Or maybe Brest during the Nine Years War.
Strangely enough, despite their reputation, England and France have maintained rough military parity. The French have, historically, maintained a far stronger land-based military than the English, otherwise France wouldnt exist. Likewise, the English have a far stronger navy, otherwise England wouldnt exist.

They stayed "Roman" for a while even after the romans left.
And then got invaded by the Saxons.

They won the Napoleonic wars hands down.
'Though the Russians, Prussians, Spanish, and Austrians did most of the work.

They were the main force behind the "win" of World War 1.
Certainly the Russians tying up most of Austria's forces in horrific and bloody stalemates had nothing to do with that.

They fought off the Lufwaffe,
So did the Russians, and several other nations, who weren't so fortunate to have a body of water between them and the German tanks and artillery.

came back from Dunkirk and Still managed to put a fleet together in time for D-Day
And the US recovered from losing most of its battleship fleet, and still pretty much kicked Japan's naval ass all the way across the Pacific.

and they haven't really shown any sign of letting that military fall apart (their still doing better than anyone else in Iraq and the same is true of Afghanistan).
The UK's military may not have 'fallen apart', but its suffered some serious knocks as a result of professional incompetence. The Crimean War being a prime example.

Plus Kippling=awesome.
As you will.

Sparta is for a few things. Yes the hot gates was awesome but it was terrain entirely suited to their kind of fighting. But they won again after the hot gates and beat back an army grater than theirs on a field more suited to Persian tactics. More important Sparta won the Peloponnesian wars and at their prime sending a single Spartan General to support an ally meant victory for that ally. The only reason Sparta ever really died out was inbreeding . . .which has little to do with military culture.

I believe the Art of War says something about half of victory being in the location of chosen for a battle. And even if Sparta had survived as a power to the Roman conquest of Greece, they would've been thrashed by the legions. Its been proven pretty conclusively that Roman tactics utterly thrash the phalanx.

Switzerland. The best war is the one you don't have to fight.

I'm not really sure that the Moors constituted a country/singular culture by the 8th/9th century. Were they united by anything except their common religion?

Indeed. Although props to the Finns and all that. On the other hand, when the Russians learned to fight, by 1944, the Finnish got completely plastered, and then had to fight the escaping Germans who burnt down Lapland for seemingly no reason.

That and Russian tank designers got their heads around the idea that 'More turrets =/= better'. I mean, really, "Hey, I have an idea, lets build a tank with FIVE TURRETS, no armor, and a poor engine. I'm sure the Finns wont be able to punch through the armor with heavy machine gun fire."

Ah, those crazy Germans. Let them near a torch and you never know if they're going to start a party or burn down your capital.

I'm not really sure that the Moors constituted a country/singular culture by the 8th/9th century.
Aye, they did. The 11th century was the real kicker, which brought upon the Taifas (eh small city states) which led to the Spanish and French taking Spain back.
Were they united by anything except their common religion?
Not really, although their religion played a great role in their culture, which made it lots more unified than that around Europe.

That and Russian tank designers got their heads around the idea that 'More turrets =/= better'. I mean, really, "Hey, I have an idea, lets build a tank with FIVE TURRETS, no armor, and a poor engine.
Erm the T-28, which is what you seem to be talking about, was better-armoured than almost anything outside of a KV-1 at the start of the war. Also, the Russians were getting T-34 production moving by the last days of the Winter War an dall that.
I'm sure the Finns wont be able to punch through the armor with heavy machine gun fire."
They couldn't take out T-28s with HMG fire. Could they get very jammy on a poorly-built T-26? Yes. Take out a BT-10 at close range? Yes. But not a T-28, mechanical breakdowns where what destroyed them.

NO WINTER EQUIPMENT OR TRAINING! *Snaps fingers, points at words*

Versus pretty much training comprising "here's a gun and some bullets, pal, go shoot some fascist pig dogs."

Versus pretty much training comprising "here's a gun and some bullets, pal, go shoot some fascist pig dogs."

/Homeland advantage+incompetent leader on other side.

Versus pretty much training comprising "here's a gun and some bullets, pal, go shoot some fascist pig dogs."
WELL, the Russians did take great pride in being a sharpshooter culture. Helped them massively when WW2 came about, as did most of their men having done some level of national service in their lives.

Yeah, sort of like at Bauge, Patay, and Castillon. I rather think the French won the Hundred Years War, seeing as they got to keep their country. Or maybe Brest during the Nine Years War.
Strangely enough, despite their reputation, England and France have maintained rough military parity. The French have, historically, maintained a far stronger land-based military than the English, otherwise France wouldnt exist. Likewise, the English have a far stronger navy, otherwise England wouldnt exist.

um actually I think that was a smart call. The brits won the napoleonic wars. invaded france then Pulled Out. That was the smart call because they got what they wanted (a change of government) then left. The Americans might have wanted to take a page out of that book.


And then got invaded by the Saxons.

Yes true . . .civilians got eventually overrun by people who had being giving a professional army a very hard time . . .anyway they eventually managed to kick the saxons out too


'Though the Russians, Prussians, Spanish, and Austrians did most of the work.

the russians Prussians and Austrians LOST . . .ALOT . . .despite british funding. The brits kicked the french out of spain, portugal and India and finished up by invading france itself and forcing a change of government.



Certainly the Russians tying up most of Austria's forces in horrific and bloody stalemates had nothing to do with that.

The Russians surrendered before the end of the war.


So did the Russians, and several other nations, who weren't so fortunate to have a body of water between them and the German tanks and artillery.

The Russians did great but they had a massive population and lost a lot of land! (a smart call in my opinion at least). Who are these other nations you speak of?


And the US recovered from losing most of its battleship fleet, and still pretty much kicked Japan's naval ass all the way across the Pacific.

The us were attacked in their homeland exactly once in Hawaii and that was entirely their fault. Also they were fighting Japan! Lower population, Lower production and fighting a land war in ASIA and it still took the US of A a while to come back and actually win a fight.


The UK's military may not have 'fallen apart', but its suffered some serious knocks as a result of professional incompetence. The Crimean War being a prime example.

The Crimean yes . . .but name one other.


As you will.

ya thats purely oppinion


I believe the Art of War says something about half of victory being in the location of chosen for a battle. And even if Sparta had survived as a power to the Roman conquest of Greece, they would've been thrashed by the legions. Its been proven pretty conclusively that Roman tactics utterly thrash the phalanx.
Probably yes. . . .and so what? they were good a choosing terrain. Thats a good military trait part of being a good military culture. The Romans lost for exactly the opposite reason. Shitty terrain choices ie. the uberwald.

/Homeland advantage+incompetent leader on other side.

Stalin was pretty incompetent, too. He purged most of the talent out of the military leadership.

Germans had better equipment and better combat training (it's hard not to have better combat training than the Soviet conscripts of the time). As far as equipment goes, they had bad winter equipment, but the Soviets had rather poor equipment the whole year round, except of course for the mighty T-34.

WELL, the Russians did take great pride in being a sharpshooter culture. Helped them massively when WW2 came about, as did most of their men having done some level of national service in their lives.

True, they did have good snipers.

Erm the T-28, which is what you seem to be talking about, was better-armoured than almost anything outside of a KV-1 at the start of the war. Also, the Russians were getting T-34 production moving by the last days of the Winter War an dall that.
A bit of hyperbole. I was actually speaking of the T-35, which was underarmored for its size. I gather that the T-28 received middling performance reviews, whereas the T-35 was basically designed around the WWI 'battleship on tracks' concept.
After the Winter War I beleive the T-35 was confined to parade duty, although the survivors may have seen some action in the Defence of Moscow.

They couldn't take out T-28s with HMG fire. Could they get very jammy on a poorly-built T-26? Yes. Take out a BT-10 at close range? Yes. But not a T-28, mechanical breakdowns where what destroyed them.

The T-28 was still rather underarmored for its size, however.

um actually I think that was a smart call. The brits won the napoleonic wars. invaded france then Pulled Out. That was the smart call because they got what they wanted (a change of government) then left. The Americans might have wanted to take a page out of that book.

They invaded France and then got their butts kicked by a little girl who could talk to God. After Agincourt, the English had a rather tough time of it.


Yes true . . .civilians got eventually overrun by people who had being giving a professional army a very hard time . . .anyway they eventually managed to kick the saxons out too
Sort of. As I recall, the English are 'Anglo-Saxons'

the russians Prussians and Austrians LOST . . .ALOT . . .despite british funding. The brits kicked the french out of spain, portugal and India and finished up by invading france itself and forcing a change of government.
The British hardly fought any major land battles. They provided money and weapons, certainly, but the British army avoided engagement until the French were well worn down by the constant grinding of the other combatants.
And, if you will recall, it was the Russian Tsar who led the march into Paris, and it was the Russian army that crippled Napoleon at Borodino and Moscow.

The Russians surrendered before the end of the war.
That means they didnt contribute?
Tying up HUGE numbers of German, Austrian and Ottoman soldiers is probably what kept France in the game, and, by extension, England.

The Russians did great but they had a massive population and lost a lot of land! (a smart call in my opinion at least). Who are these other nations you speak of?
Germany had a rather large population too, and, if you'll remember, Russia gained a nice chunk of land at the end of the war. Specifically, about half of Germany.
Several smaller nations managed to fend off the Germans for a while, while its true they fell eventually, check out the story of the Danzig Post Office. A bunch of Polish postal workers, armed with ten pistols and a light machine gun, held off the SS 'til they brought in flamethrowers.


The us were attacked in their homeland exactly once in Hawaii and that was entirely their fault. Also they were fighting Japan! Lower population, Lower production and fighting a land war in ASIA and it still took the US of A a while to come back and actually win a fight.
The US was fighting Japan and Germany...AT THE SAME TIME. While the British did contribute to both fronts, their prime contribution to the Pacific Front seems to have been to the Japanese bridge building industry.
Perhaps fighting a two-front war was the reason the US took its sweet time to come around and deal with Japan. I mean, launching massive, simultaneous invasions of Japan and Germany at the same time would not exactly be conducive to military success, IMO.


The Crimean yes . . .but name one other.
The First Anglo-Afghan War.
The Boer Wars.
The Anglo-Zulu war.

Probably yes. . . .and so what? they were good a choosing terrain. Thats a good military trait part of being a good military culture. The Romans lost for exactly the opposite reason. Shitty terrain choices ie. the uberwald.

I wasnt argueing that the Spartans were a good example of warrior tradition. And, while the Romans certainly lost battles, they usually won wars. Else they wouldnt've managed to do what nobody else has done since and 'unite' the majority of Europe.

Also crossing the Pacific /= Crossing N. Africa. Every inch that America had to take from the Japanese in WWII required a amphibious landing and a joint Army/Navy/Marine effort.

They invaded France and then got their butts kicked by a little girl who could talk to God. After Agincourt, the English had a rather tough time of it.

they didn't even lose all the terrain they'd take to that point and they beat her and captured her eventually.


Sort of. As I recall, the English are 'Anglo-Saxons'

true though they eventually regained autonomous rule.


The British hardly fought any major land battles. They provided money and weapons, certainly, but the British army avoided engagement until the French were well worn down by the constant grinding of the other combatants.
And, if you will recall, it was the Russian Tsar who led the march into Paris, and it was the Russian army that crippled Napoleon at Borodino and Moscow.

the Russians took one ONE army. And only after that army got to moscow. France had three (and four at one point) all of which were tied up in Spain and Portugal lol and wow . . .avoided army engagements . . .you really need to read up on your history buddy. Britain fought near constantly in Spain and Portugal and took India On ITS OWN against french/french led forces. Read up LEASE . . .or would you like me too list all the land engagements in which the brits were involved. (oh and FYI the Brits were alone in the war for quite a while when russia, austria and Prussia sued for peace . . .and they still won! ON LAND too!)


That means they didnt contribute?
Tying up HUGE numbers of German, Austrian and Ottoman soldiers is probably what kept France in the game, and, by extension, England.


they lost. . .even after they lost and those "huge" numbers of troops came back into the french theater the brits held on and pushed forward.


Germany had a rather large population too, and, if you'll remember, Russia gained a nice chunk of land at the end of the war. Specifically, about half of Germany.
Several smaller nations managed to fend off the Germans for a while, while its true they fell eventually, check out the story of the Danzig Post Office. A bunch of Polish postal workers, armed with ten pistols and a light machine gun, held off the SS 'til they brought in flamethrowers.

no where near that of Russia. And russia's was huge compared to britains. And those other nations .. .they lost. . .in the end that's all that matters really.


The US was fighting Japan and Germany...AT THE SAME TIME. While the British did contribute to both fronts, their prime contribution to the Pacific Front seems to have been to the Japanese bridge building industry.
Perhaps fighting a two-front war was the reason the US took its sweet time to come around and deal with Japan. I mean, launching massive, simultaneous invasions of Japan and Germany at the same time would not exactly be conducive to military success, IMO.

at the start the American's got beaten rather badly by the Japaneses (and not just at pearl harbor) thats without them being involved in any other theater.


The First Anglo-Afghan War.
The Boer Wars.
The Anglo-Zulu war.

no one has done well in Afghanistan . . .I mean no one (maybe they should get the prize . . .tho they don't really fight offensively much). The Brits came out alot better than many people have. Meh the boer war was a bit odd . . . but in the end the British won remember. . .I have no idea what the Anglo-Zulu war was . . . .


I wasnt argueing that the Spartans were a good example of warrior tradition. And, while the Romans certainly lost battles, they usually won wars. Else they wouldnt've managed to do what nobody else has done since and 'unite' the majority of Europe.

What were you arguing?

Ah, those crazy Germans. Let them near a torch and you never know if they're going to start a party or burn down your capital.

Aye. Just think, if Techno has been invented 100 years earlier how different things would have been....

they didn't even lose all the terrain they'd take to that point and they beat her and captured her eventually.
The French got it back eventually, however. Even Calais, 'though it took them a whle.


true though they eventually regained autonomous rule.
And lost most of the Saxon 'warrior tradition' as well.


the Russians took one ONE army. And only after that army got to moscow. France had three (and four at one point) all of which were tied up in Spain and Portugal lol and wow . . .avoided army engagements . . .you really need to read up on your history buddy. Britain fought near constantly in Spain and Portugal and took India On ITS OWN against french/french led forces. Read up LEASE . . .or would you like me too list all the land engagements in which the brits were involved. (oh and FYI the Brits were alone in the war for quite a while when russia, austria and Prussia sued for peace . . .and they still won! ON LAND too!)
Ah, but the one that marched on Russia was La Grande Armee. That was SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN. To my knowledge, the largest modern armed force assembled for a single campaign up 'til that point. And Napoleon came out of Russia with, what, 13,000 men? I dont think the British did anything to rival that.
Meanwhile, the British swooped in at the end of Napoleons career, claimed credit for Waterloo (despite most of the forces being from other nations), and declared that they won the entire series of Napoleonic Wars.

For Spain and Portugal, while the British did send 30,000 men, I cant seem to find a record of them participating in any major battles. It seems all the major victories were won by Spain, and the British only arrived AFTER the Battle of Bailen.

And for India...as if anybody other than the British had a significant presence there anyway. The French had a few cities, the British had the EIC and lots of Indian allies.

they lost. . .even after they lost and those "huge" numbers of troops came back into the french theater the brits held on and pushed forward.
Fourtunatly for the British, half those huge numbers of troops were dead, crippled, or otherwise out of the war. And had been occupied until pretty much the end of the war. Once Russia backed out, the USA came in. And however much the British pushed, it really didnt make much of a difference.
What was the largest shift in the trenchlines on the Western Front? 17 miles? The Russians made more progress than that at the start of the war, even if they lost it all.


no where near that of Russia. And russia's was huge compared to britains. And those other nations .. .they lost. . .in the end that's all that matters really.
We're speaking in terms of warrior culture, not winning. You can still WIN and not have a warrior culture.
I'm not sure I understand you first sentence. It doesnt seem to quite fit in with my arguement there...


at the start the American's got beaten rather badly by the Japaneses (and not just at pearl harbor) thats without them being involved in any other theater.
The Germans and Italians declared war on the US shortly after Pearl Harbor, and then the US held off the Japanese at Wake.

no one has done well in Afghanistan . . .I mean no one (maybe they should get the prize . . .tho they don't really fight offensively much). The Brits came out alot better than many people have. Meh the boer war was a bit odd . . . but in the end the British won remember. . .I have no idea what the Anglo-Zulu war was . . . .

The British did fairly well in the Second Anglo-Afghan war. Took over Aghanistan for a short period of time.

The British won, but it shook the British military up quite a bit. Its the reason they switched from bright red to khaki.

The Anglo-Zulu war was the one where they British lost a couple of battles to a bunch of spear-wielding Africans. They may've won in the end, but they still lost ground to people who's total firearms inventory could be counted on your fingers.


What were you arguing?

Overall? That Britian isnt a warrior culture. Its a merchant/political culture which excells at getting other people to do the majority of the fighting for them in most situations.

In this specific case, that the Spartans were smart.

EDIT:
And, for now, I must bid you adieu. Which isnt to say I wont be back, just that you shouldnt expect a reply any time soon for a bit.

The French got it back eventually, however. Even Calais, 'though it took them a whle.

true . . .eventually and through non-millitary means


And lost most of the Saxon 'warrior tradition' as well.

Probably true


Ah, but the one that marched on Russia was La Grande Armee. That was SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN. To my knowledge, the largest modern armed force assembled for a single campaign up 'til that point. And Napoleon came out of Russia with, what, 13,000 men? I dont think the British did anything to rival that.

not true. At sea Britain trashed both French and spanish fleets while on land britain took on and beat three armies (equalling in their entirety almost the same amount of troops) on terrain more favorable to the french with an army smaller than the russians . . .much. .. much . . .much smaller.


Meanwhile, the British swooped in at the end of Napoleons career, claimed credit for Waterloo (despite most of the forces being from other nations), and declared that they won the entire series of Napoleonic Wars.

ok . . .have you read ANYTHING about the Napoleonic wars? the british started fighting earlier than the Russians. they kept fighting when the Russians surrendered and they beat the best France had to offer time and time again. And finally it was Wellington's leadership that made the victory at Waterloo possible

.
For Spain and Portugal, while the British did send 30,000 men, I cant seem to find a record of them participating in any major battles. It seems all the major victories were won by Spain, and the British only arrived AFTER the Battle of Bailen.

O . . . .my . . . lord . . .ok here's the list (*all these battle include the french)

* Battle of Alba de Tormes <---- spain only france won
* Battle of Albuera <-----French retreat Brits involved
* Battle of Alcañiz <------Spain Only Spain won
* Siege of Almeida (1810) <---- protugal only Portugal lost
* Siege of Almeida (1811)<----- brits only Brits won
* Battle of Almonacid<-------spain only spain lost
* Battle of Arroyo dos Molinos <-----Britain protugal spain. Allies won

B

* Battle of Badajoz (1812)<-----Brit and portugese brits won
* Battle of Bailén <------Spain only. Spain won
* Battle of Barrosa <----- Brtis and Spanish but Spanish sit it out. Brits win and take an Eagle
* Battle of Nivelle <-----Brits Spanish and portugese Allies win
* Battle of Bayonne <----- all 3 Allies, Allies win
* Battle of the Bidassoa (1813)<----- Brits only. Brits Win
* Battle of Burgos<-----Spain only Spain losses
* Siege of Burgos <-----Brits and portugese. Inconclusive . . .maybe french victory
* Battle of Bussaco <----- Brits and portugese Allies win

C

* Battle of Cabezón
* Siege of Chaves
* Siege of Ciudad Rodrigo (1810)
* Siege of Ciudad Rodrigo
* Battle of Corunna
* Siege of Cádiz
* Battle of the Côa


D

* Dos de Mayo Uprising

E

* Battles of the Bruch
* Battle of Espinosa

F

* Battle of Fuengirola
* Battle of Fuentes de Onoro

G

* Battle of Garcia Hernandez
* Battle of the Gebora
* Siege of Gerona (1809)
* Battle of Grijó

M

* Battle of Maguilla
* Battle of Majadahonda
* Battle of María
* Battle of Maya
* Battle of Medellín
* Battle of Medina del Rio Seco

N

* Battle of the Nive

O

* Battle of Ocana
* Battle of Orthez

P

* Battle of Pancorbo
* Second Battle of Porto
* First Battle of Porto
* Battle of the Pyrenees

R

* Battle of Roliça
* Battle of Roncesvalles (1813)


S

* Battle of Sabugal
* Battle of Sahagún
* Battle of Salamanca
* Battle of San Marcial
* Siege of San Sebastian
* Siege of Saragossa (1808)
* Siege of Saragossa (1809)
* Second Battle of Vera
* Battle of Somosierra
* Battle of Sorauren

T

* Battle of Talavera
* Battle of Tamames
* Siege of Tarragona (1813)
* Battle of Toulouse (1814)
* Battle of Tudela

U

* Battle of Usagre

V

* Battle of Valencia (1808)
* Battle of Valmaseda
* Battle of Venta del Pozo
* Battle of Valls
* Battle of Villafranca (1809)
* Battle of Villagarcia
* Battle of Vimeiro
* Battle of Vitoria
If you want me to continue I will but I hope you can see the trend here.


And for India...as if anybody other than the British had a significant presence there anyway. The French had a few cities, the British had the EIC and lots of Indian allies.

The Brits fought and won against a much larger french led ennemy Indian force.


Fourtunatly for the British, half those huge numbers of troops were dead, crippled, or otherwise out of the war. And had been occupied until pretty much the end of the war. Once Russia backed out, the USA came in. And however much the British pushed, it really didnt make much of a difference.
What was the largest shift in the trenchlines on the Western Front? 17 miles? The Russians made more progress than that at the start of the war, even if they lost it all.

Trench warfare= small gains. The Russian's backed out almost a YEAR before the end of the war.


We're speaking in terms of warrior culture, not winning. You can still WIN and not have a warrior culture.
I'm not sure I understand you first sentence. It doesnt seem to quite fit in with my arguement there...

Yes but you can't win consistently . . .which the brits have.


The Germans and Italians declared war on the US shortly after Pearl Harbor, and then the US held off the Japanese at Wake.


how bout The phillipeans. . . the US lost them and large numbers of troops months after the Japanese invasion and before they were sending ANY help to the Pacific front.


The British did fairly well in the Second Anglo-Afghan war. Took over Aghanistan for a short period of time.

Ya but even then . . .I mean Afghanistan is never really conquered by neone


The British won, but it shook the British military up quite a bit. Its the reason they switched from bright red to khaki.


yes true


The Anglo-Zulu war was the one where they British lost a couple of battles to a bunch of spear-wielding Africans. They may've won in the end, but they still lost ground to people who's total firearms inventory could be counted on your fingers.

good to know


Overall? That Britian isnt a warrior culture. Its a merchant/political culture which excells at getting other people to do the majority of the fighting for them in most situations.

I disagree


In this specific case, that the Spartans were smart.

Right . .. now that I agree with lol

EDIT: Sweeeet :D please comeback

Shit! I forgot Sweden.

Gustavus Adolphus, anyone?

Yes true . . .civilians got eventually overrun by people who had being giving a professional army a very hard time . . .anyway they eventually managed to kick the saxons out too


The Saxons never got kicked out, they now make up England.

The Anglo-Zulu war was the one where they British lost a couple of battles to a bunch of spear-wielding Africans. They may've won in the end, but they still lost ground to people who's total firearms inventory could be counted on your fingers.

Honestly, I'm not sure if anyone expected the Zulus to do so damn well. Shaka transformed his nation into a true military power to be rightfully feared, without the help of guns. Too bad he was assassinated.

To write them off as spear-wielding Africans is kind of insulting...

Gustavus Adolphus may have been great, but when else have the Swedes won a war, or even been in won, since the 30 years war?

Gustavus Adolphus may have been great, but when else have the Swedes won a war, or even been in won, since the 30 years war?

Not anything I can think of.

Adolphus certainly put Sweden of the map for quite a while, though.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Poland or Hungary. They defended Europe from the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. If not for them western Europe could have fallen to the forces of the Ottomans. (a smallish chance, but still). The Poles also defended Europe from the Mongols.

Anyways, I'm not sure if they are the 'best' warriors, but they deserve to be mentioned.

Also, the Assyrians, anyone?

The Assyrians were OK for a while, then they got pwned by everyone, including God.

true . . .eventually and through non-millitary means
Actually, they re-took Calais by force, because the English failed to maintain the fortifications.

Probably true
Thats why the English need the Scots in the army. ;)


not true. At sea Britain trashed both French and spanish fleets while on land britain took on and beat three armies (equalling in their entirety almost the same amount of troops) on terrain more favorable to the french with an army smaller than the russians . . .much. .. much . . .much smaller.
I never debated English naval superiority. While their ships werent top-quality, they had lots of them, and some brilliant naval commanders. I contest the fact, however, as I have mentioned previously in the topic, that the British could hold out against any other European great power in a land war (in some hypothetical alternate universe where England is attached to the rest of Europe somehow).

However, the British isles were never under any serious threat as a result of this. Napoleon could scheme all he wanted, but nothing was getting across the channel.

And while the British may indeed have faced three armies, totaling an equivalent number to the Grand Army, they faced the spread across quite a few conflicts, and with allies.
The Russians had to deal with the Grand Army on their own, with little in the way of material assistance.

And while the Russian army may have been LARGER than the British army, it was also rather poorly equipped and not nearly as well trained. Russian soldiers were allowed something like eight shots a year of target practice, and most of their training centered on looking good on parade. They STILL managed to drive out, virtually on their own, a vastly better armed, trained, and drilled force with, initially, superior morale and a rumoured-to-be invincible leader.


ok . . .have you read ANYTHING about the Napoleonic wars? the british started fighting earlier than the Russians. they kept fighting when the Russians surrendered and they beat the best France had to offer time and time again. And finally it was Wellington's leadership that made the victory at Waterloo possible

Being in a war longer doesnt mean you automatically get credit for winning it. Like I said, it was the Russians that destroyed Napoleon at his strongest, occupied Paris and saved Europe.
It was the British who beat Napoleon at his weakest, then packed him off to an island to poison him to death because they were afraid he'd do it all again.
And, really, if the British had been in a situation where France could've attacked them directly, how do you think the war would've gone? Rather differently, I think.


O . . . .my . . . lord . . .ok here's the list (*all these battle include the french)

* Battle of Albuera <-----French retreat Brits involved
The British contributed less than 1/3 of the total force, and their main contribution to the battle seems to be having a general killed and then retreating

* Siege of Almeida (1811)<----- brits only Brits won
If you call a vastly outnumbered French force outsmarting the British and escaping (mostly) intact right under the allied forces noses a 'victory'.

* Battle of Arroyo dos Molinos <-----Britain protugal spain. Allies won
Given, however, I cant seem to find much information on the French general. I'll reserve judgement >_>

B

* Battle of Badajoz (1812)<-----Brit and portugese brits won
The French were only out numbered by 20,000 men, and, it should be noted, inflicted almost 5,000 casualties on the allied force.
Meanwhile, it seems Badajoz went down in history as one of the worst examples of British military conduct in the entire Napoleonic war. The redcoats apparently looted the city and then threw a drinking party that lasted three days. Not to mention that, of the est. 4,000 killed, roughly 1,500 were French soldiers, the rest being primarily Spanish civilians.
Not exactly a shining moment in British military history or the Earl of Wellington's career.

* Battle of Barrosa <----- Brtis and Spanish but Spanish sit it out. Brits win and take an Eagle
The Spanish didnt sit the whole battle out, only after the British commander pissed off the Spanish one did they back off. And the British forces were apparently 'anglo-portugeuse', which most likely means a roughly even mix of British and Portugese troops.
Further, while the allies succeded, the battle was rather indecisive. Both sides had roughly equal casualties and the French really didnt lose anything.

* Battle of Nivelle <-----Brits Spanish and portugese Allies win
The French were outnumbered by 20,000 men and were forced to cover a 20 mile long perimeter, which meant he had no reserves for the battle. So, not only were they outnumbered, but in a poor position.

* Battle of Bayonne <----- all 3 Allies, Allies win
Not only did it take place after Napoleon was defeated, but the primary force consisted of Spanish and Portuguese. The British commander seems to have simply sat back and waited, and, even then, managed to get one general killed and the commander of their force captured.

* Battle of the Bidassoa (1813)<----- Brits only. Brits Win
Seems to have been a fairly even exchange, and the British had Portuguese and Spanish support. Roughly even casualties, 'though the French lost some cannons and eventually retreated, there wasnt much to gain strategically.)

* Siege of Burgos <-----Brits and portugese. Inconclusive . . .maybe french victory
[b]2,000 Frenchmen drove off 35,000 British and Portuguese, and managed to inflict more casualties than they sustained. If we're talking about fighting spirit and warrior culture, I dont know what more you could want to demonstrate that the French in the 1800's werent guys you messed about with.

* Battle of Bussaco <----- Brits and portugese Allies win
*Given, 'though with roughly equal numbers of Portuguese, attributing this soley to the British is hardly logical.

Bold mine.

If you want me to continue I will but I hope you can see the trend here.
The British are good at winning with allies to provide superior numbers?
Most of those battles are soundly indecisive. I removed the non-British battles since we ARE talking about the British here.


The Brits fought and won against a much larger french led ennemy Indian force.
As far as I can tell, the French hadnt had a significant presence in India since the 1750's. The French colonies were confiscated by the British during the French Revolution and only returned AFTER the Napoleonic Wars.


Trench warfare= small gains. The Russian's backed out almost a YEAR before the end of the war.
The Eastern Front shifted hundreds of miles in both directions and tied up vast numbers of troops for the majority of the war.
Trench warfare = no gains, unless you're a carrion bird.


Yes but you can't win consistently . . .which the brits have.
Not according to those battles with in Spain.
Need I mention Quatre Bras?


how bout The phillipeans. . . the US lost them and large numbers of troops months after the Japanese invasion and before they were sending ANY help to the Pacific front.
The Japanese army at the start of WWII was well equipped and highly motivated, and the troops devoted to attacking the Phillipines were first-rate amoung those.
Meanwhile, the US garrison was essentially composed of poorly trained and equipped soldiers.
They still, however, managed to hold on for a fair amount of time. I beleive you mentioned the British retreat from France earlier, yes?


Ya but even then . . .I mean Afghanistan is never really conquered by neone
And the British were motivated by paranoia that the Russians were going to invade India and, rather foolishly, decided to mount an expensive, in both money and lives, expedition that wasnt really required.

yes true
good to know
Well then >_>


I disagree
How many major wars have the British fought without arranging for allies beforehand? Their primarly contribution to the Napoleonic Wars was to pin the French fleet and cut off French trade. Most of the major battles were fought in Central/Eastern Europe, away from British help (outside of monetary aide).
I am not saying that the British are incapable of bravery, courage and tactical brilliance, simply that they favor a rather more subtle approach which doesnt fit in with the standard 'warrior ideal'. If we're talking D&D classes, the UK is a Bard. Capable of self defence, but apt to talk his way out of situations as well.



Right . .. now that I agree with lol

EDIT: Sweeeet :D please comeback
Nyo ho.

Honestly, I'm not sure if anyone expected the Zulus to do so damn well. Shaka transformed his nation into a true military power to be rightfully feared, without the help of guns. Too bad he was assassinated.

To write them off as spear-wielding Africans is kind of insulting...

Aye. And the 'spear wielding Africans' was an exaggeration on my part. I've got great respect for the Zulu, and the Ethiopians. Anybody who can kick a European nations ass with or without firearms is pretty good in terms of warrior culture in MY book ;)

The Assyrians were OK for a while, then they got pwned by everyone, including God.

Skinning your enemies alive and making chairs out of them tends to upset their deity ;)

Make that two ;).

I'm a RTW player too!

And a METW2 player.

And soon to be an Empire Total War player. I hope that comes out soon!

Back on Topic.

Most nations have had some form of military culture. Many stand out. The large Global powers such as Britain. The Powers trying for Domination, Such as Germany and France. And those such as Japan, Korea and China.

Of course, you have your Zulu's, Corsican's, Fins, etc etc, that Won, or putup a good fight, against a larger power.

This is where it gets tricky.

Modern times, Israel, USA and UK all stand out, amongst others.

It all really depends on the time period, or circumstances. So I cannot give a single clear answer, sorry chaps!

Hey, I'm a METW2 as well.

(GOD I love the Moors.)

My computer can't run it, so I still play MTW 1!

And a METW2 player.


Hey, I'm a METW2 as well.

(GOD I love the Moors.)

I am too! God, I hate the Moors. I play Spain. =D

Anyway, I absolutely fail to see how anybody could say that the Japanese capture of the Philipines and Wake Island were anything but heroic stands on the part of the American fleet.

Wake is a legend. Four hundred marines and civilians holding out against the best Japanese soldiers in the entire Pacific theater. Badly supplied, and with absolutely no hope of relief, they nevertheless lasted two weeks. Two weeks, and they inflicted horendous casualties on the Japanese troops, as well as their supporting troops.

And Bataan and Corregidor (I know I spelled that wrong) are more examples of the sheer balls it takes to look a hopeless situation in the face and fight on regardless.

Shit! I forgot Sweden.

Gustavus Adolphus, anyone?

Yeah, Finns.

I have to agree with Dontgonearthere here in that the Stereo typical "british" culture has never really been a "warrior culture".

However Britishness does incorporate possibly the Ultiamte true warrior culture:

The Highland Clans.

The final assimilation of the Clans after the Scotish civil war of 1745 was what really kick started the modern reputation of the British Army and has left a remarkably large cultural mark on a large percentage of the World's militaries.

It is the same cultural heritage that connects the cattle thevies rosued by the pipes to retain thier ill gotten gains to the troops goign over the top in ww1 and 2.

There is no other warrior culture where a single musician can have a bigger impact than an entire battalion.

Although I will say that the distinctiveness of scottish units has decreased in the modern BA comapred to what it was like during the days of empire and even ww2.

I have to agree with Dontgonearthere here in that the Stereo typical "british" culture has never really been a "warrior culture".

However Britishness does incorporate possibly the Ultiamte true warrior culture:

The Highland Clans.

The final assimilation of the Clans after the Scotish civil war of 1745 was what really kick started the modern reputation of the British Army and has left a remarkably large cultural mark on a large percentage of the World's militaries.

It is the same cultural heritage that connects the cattle thevies rosued by the pipes to retain thier ill gotten gains to the troops goign over the top in ww1 and 2.

There is no other warrior culture where a single musician can have a bigger impact than an entire battalion.

Although I will say that the distinctiveness of scottish units has decreased in the modern BA comapred to what it was like during the days of empire and even ww2.

Aye, I've heard they've taken the True Scotsman Verification Mirrors away from the army.

At least the Scottish units arent alone. They're slowly but surely removing all traces of seperate identity from the Gurkhas as well.

I have to agree with Dontgonearthere here in that the Stereo typical "british" culture has never really been a "warrior culture".

However Britishness does incorporate possibly the Ultiamte true warrior culture:

The Highland Clans.

The final assimilation of the Clans after the Scotish civil war of 1745 was what really kick started the modern reputation of the British Army and has left a remarkably large cultural mark on a large percentage of the World's militaries.

It is the same cultural heritage that connects the cattle thevies rosued by the pipes to retain thier ill gotten gains to the troops goign over the top in ww1 and 2.

There is no other warrior culture where a single musician can have a bigger impact than an entire battalion.

Although I will say that the distinctiveness of scottish units has decreased in the modern BA comapred to what it was like during the days of empire and even ww2.

The Scottish never were, and never will be the ultimate true warrior culture. Spartans were raised from birth to be nothing but warriors. Roman legionnaires were trained to be a professionel fighting force, one unmatched in it's day, and given modern equipment and the know-how to use them, probably unmatched today also. The Zulus were excellent warriors, using everything they had to defeat a well trained British force with nothing but spears (Did the Zulus use atl-atls?) and the sort. The Fins waged a war with terrible cost against the Soviets, and the Japanese had a warrior culture rivaling Medieval Europe.

The Zulus were excellent warriors, using everything they had to defeat a well trained British force with nothing but spears (Did the Zulus use atl-atls?) and the sort.

Nah, they adopted the Berber Assegai. Shaka modified it a bit, but it was still pretty much the same weapon: An excellent, light, throwing and stabbing spear.

I still say the Mongols had the ultimate warrior culture. I mean, from birth, they lived life in the saddle, learned to be incredible horse archers, and drank the milk of their horses for sustenance.

Probably helped them conquer a huge area of the world, that did.

The Scottish never were, and never will be the ultimate true warrior culture. Spartans were raised from birth to be nothing but warriors. Roman legionnaires were trained to be a professionel fighting force, one unmatched in it's day, and given modern equipment and the know-how to use them, probably unmatched today also. The Zulus were excellent warriors, using everything they had to defeat a well trained British force with nothing but spears (Did the Zulus use atl-atls?) and the sort. The Fins waged a war with terrible cost against the Soviets, and the Japanese had a warrior culture rivaling Medieval Europe.

Your post seems to come down to "Nah-uh!!!"

If the Scots weren't an awesome warrior culture, why were the Romans you keep trumpeting about afraid to fight them? Did they somehow become pansies when they got to the middle of the island?

Your post seems to come down to "Nah-uh!!!"

If the Scots weren't an awesome warrior culture, why were the Romans you keep trumpeting about afraid to fight them? Did they somehow become pansies when they got to the middle of the island?

I think it was the forests. :D

Really though, the scots were a scary bunch. Did you ever hear of the Claymore? (not the landmine)
They were these massive greatswords, and the Scots would be like...alright, the bad guys are over the hill. Kill them all!

They wouldn't be able to lift their arms in fifteen minutes, but the enemy would be in little pieces.

Your post seems to come down to "Nah-uh!!!"

If the Scots weren't an awesome warrior culture, why were the Romans you keep trumpeting about afraid to fight them? Did they somehow become pansies when they got to the middle of the island?
Do you realize the cost of running such an Empire? The Romans only recruited out of Italy (Well, back when their Emperors had an ounce of sense) for loyalty reasons, and only so many people join. Sure you had the skirmishers who were foreigners who wanted citizenship, but you can only have so many actual legionnaires. Fielding such an army over an unstable area of land isn't free, and the Romans had more important things to thing about. Y'know, like Germany continually trying to barge in, and the Imperial treasury being frittered away.

I think it was the forests. :D

Really though, the scots were a scary bunch. Did you ever hear of the Claymore? (not the landmine)
They were these massive greatswords, and the Scots would be like...alright, the bad guys are over the hill. Kill them all!

They wouldn't be able to lift their arms in fifteen minutes, but the enemy would be in little pieces.

"Hey Varus, why don't we all crowd together in that tight forest over there. The shade looks nice!"

"Sure, why not? Hey! All three legions of you! Come on over, the shade is fine!"

*Groans, cries*

I think it was the forests. :D

Really though, the scots were a scary bunch. Did you ever hear of the Claymore? (not the landmine)
They were these massive greatswords, and the Scots would be like...alright, the bad guys are over the hill. Kill them all!

They wouldn't be able to lift their arms in fifteen minutes, but the enemy would be in little pieces.

Claymores are fun...too bad you have to be REALLY friggin strong to use one.

Zweihänders are nasty buggers as well...

Claymores are fun...too bad you have to be REALLY friggin strong to use one.

Zweihänders are nasty buggers as well...

those things are AWSOME!!!!

Suicide pike-breaking troops. Gotta love them.

those things are AWSOME!!!!

Suicide pike-breaking troops. Gotta love them.

Aren't we forgetting about someone?

Genoese Crossbowmen!:D

The only problem with claymores is that the Romans had been pretty gone gone four about 900 years by the time they showed up >_>

Honestly, huge swords really aren't all that practical. They weigh a ton, only a certain number of (very) strong men tended to use the, and they took great skill to wield in close combat. Sure, a huge hunk of steel might seem useful when surrounded by a dozen men, but speed is really more important in my opinion. Those big swords are quite slow.

I'd rather just use a saber, or regular longsword.

:DThe only problem with claymores is that the Romans had been pretty gone gone four about 900 years by the time they showed up >_>

And that makes them less awsome how?

Honestly, huge swords really aren't all that practical. They weigh a ton, only a certain number of (very) strong men tended to use the, and they took great skill to wield in close combat. Sure, a huge hunk of steel might seem useful when surrounded by a dozen men, but speed is really more important in my opinion. Those big swords are quite slow.

I'd rather just use a saber, or regular longsword.

Except they worked. Like, really, they did an amazing job. Twent troops armed with Claymores could rip apart formations four times their size. Always remember how psycological warfare is, and how superstitious people used to be. What is scarier...

A formation of sixty swordsmen running at you screaming warcries,

or twenty celts, painted blue, wearing kilts and disdaining armor, screaming bloody vengence on all who dare defy them, and swinging massive swords above their heads?

I'd be worried about the first. I'd be shitting myself about the second.

:D

And that makes them less awsome how?



Except they worked. Like, really, they did an amazing job. Twent troops armed with Claymores could rip apart formations four times their size. Always remember how psycological warfare is, and how superstitious people used to be. What is scarier...

A formation of sixty swordsmen running at you screaming warcries,

or twenty celts, painted blue, wearing kilts and disdaining armor, screaming bloody vengence on all who dare defy them, and swinging massive swords above their heads?

I'd be worried about the first. I'd be shitting myself about the second.

Unless you had sixty other men with you, firing crossbows at the men with huge swords from a few hundred yeards away.:D

overrated. The city states were pathetic, really. It was Macedon that did a lot of the things that the Greeks get credit for. Like professional armies.

I believe you mean Alexander the Great. Him being Macedonian and of Hellenic(sp?) times.


They faught off the Persians twice, and looked really sexy doing it.

That was Sparta, or just a few Spartans. Athens helped later. Also, that far back they were not called the Greeks. Athens, Sparta, Macedonia, Arcadia, and others were refered to as Hellenians (again sp?). As most of those city states traced their lineage back to Herra.

:D

And that makes them less awsome how?



Except they worked. Like, really, they did an amazing job. Twent troops armed with Claymores could rip apart formations four times their size. Always remember how psycological warfare is, and how superstitious people used to be. What is scarier...

A formation of sixty swordsmen running at you screaming warcries,

or twenty celts, painted blue, wearing kilts and disdaining armor, screaming bloody vengence on all who dare defy them, and swinging massive swords above their heads?

I'd be worried about the first. I'd be shitting myself about the second.

Any swordsman who knows what he's doing shouldn't have a problem with what he's being attacked with.

Of course, you are right. I'd venture to say that the scare tactics of claymores and Zweihänders are almost as damaging as the swords themselves; there's also the fact that the majority of medieval warriors were peasants or conscripts who would shit themselves when they saw claymore fighters.

Aaaaaand...guns and bows worked pretty well against anyone who charged blindly into a fight with just a gigantic sword.

Unless you had sixty other men with you, firing crossbows at the men with huge swords from a few hundred yeards away.:D

it was a hypothetical situation. :rolleyes:

Obviously in a battle, there are other factors. And I am sure that said crossbowmen would be plenty occupied by other targets.

That was Sparta, or just a few Spartans. Athens helped later. Also, that far back they were not called the Greeks. Athens, Sparta, Macedonia, Arcadia, and others were refered to as Hellenians (again sp?). As most of those city states traced their lineage back to Herra.

Please, please don't tell me you think 300 Spartans actually stood against the Persians at Thermopylae.

It was more like 5,000 Greeks from many different city states. Athens was a key part in driving the Persians back at several major battles, including Marathon.

Any swordsman who knows what he's doing shouldn't have a problem with what he's being attacked with.

Of course, you are right. I'd venture to say that the scare tactics of claymores and Zweihänders are almost as damaging as the swords themselves; there's also the fact that the majority of medieval warriors were peasants or conscripts who would shit themselves when they saw claymore fighters.

Aaaaaand...guns and bows worked pretty well against anyone who charged blindly into a fight with just a gigantic sword.

Yeah. I mean, when you get down to it, most soldiers back then were not very competant sword fighters, but rather conscripted peasantry. And I would certainly agree with you that the psycological impact might be even more damaging than the swords themselves.

And again, it was a hypothetical situation. In real combat, there would be dozens, if not hundreds, of other factors than blindly rushing across the field screaming.

it was a hypothetical situation. :rolleyes:

Obviously in a battle, there are other factors. And I am sure that said crossbowmen would be plenty occupied by other targets.

Hehe, crossbows!

Warrior "culture" is not the same as "tradition".

Example: Sparta had a warrior "culture". A culture is something that pervades the everyday life.

Gurkhas have a military tradition - not everyone (every male) in Gurhka life is a warrior.

Having a fine military tradition also doesn't imply military success. Most Arab armies have fine longstanding military traditions going back to tribal roots - and Arab armies have been continuously humiliated by Western armies since the invention of the machinegun.

Do you realize the cost of running such an Empire? The Romans only recruited out of Italy (Well, back when their Emperors had an ounce of sense) for loyalty reasons, and only so many people join. Sure you had the skirmishers who were foreigners who wanted citizenship, but you can only have so many actual legionnaires. Fielding such an army over an unstable area of land isn't free, and the Romans had more important things to thing about. Y'know, like Germany continually trying to barge in, and the Imperial treasury being frittered away.

Doesn't make sense to stop your military campaign in the middle of an island once you have momentum. They were scared. And then built a wall because of being so terrified of the highlanders.

Doesn't make sense to stop your military campaign in the middle of an island once you have momentum. They were scared. And then built a wall because of being so terrified of the highlanders.

Oh, I thought you were talking about Montgomery in Sicily for a moment there...

:D

And that makes them less awsome how?



Except they worked. Like, really, they did an amazing job. Twent troops armed with Claymores could rip apart formations four times their size. Always remember how psycological warfare is, and how superstitious people used to be. What is scarier...

A formation of sixty swordsmen running at you screaming warcries,

or twenty celts, painted blue, wearing kilts and disdaining armor, screaming bloody vengence on all who dare defy them, and swinging massive swords above their heads?

I'd be worried about the first. I'd be shitting myself about the second.

Ah, psychological warfare. Always useful.

Doesn't make sense to stop your military campaign in the middle of an island once you have momentum. They were scared. And then built a wall because of being so terrified of the highlanders.

They weren't scared, if they were scared, they wouldn't have manned the wall at all. They realized (Or rather, one of the Emperors realized) that it wasn't effective in manpower or in Sesterces(Spelling?) to conquer and occupy Scotland.

Mostly because the Scots were batshit fucking insane.:D

psht. Please. I loved that movie!

You must have very bad taste in movies then. :D

Please, please don't tell me you think 300 Spartans actually stood against the Persians at Thermopylae.

It was more like 5,000 Greeks from many different city states. Athens was a key part in driving the Persians back at several major battles, including Marathon.

I'd also add that it was the Athenian navy that ran circles around the Persians keeping them stuck up and unable to flank and land behind the Hot Gates several days before finding the goat path. And the Spartans weren't even involved at Marathon, they came by, looked at the bodies and left.

MONGOLS. Simply.

Your post seems to come down to "Nah-uh!!!"

If the Scots weren't an awesome warrior culture, why were the Romans you keep trumpeting about afraid to fight them? Did they somehow become pansies when they got to the middle of the island?

The thing is, the race we now call the scots lived in Ireland at the time. It was the Picts who lived in Sctoland back then.

Meanwhile, most of Finnish history prior to that seems to consist of being the Poland of northern Europe, getting invaded by Sweden, Russia, and anybody who just happens to be passing by.
That's because Finns didn't have sense of nationalism until the late 19th, early 20th century; no country of their own to defend, so to speak.

Though, Finns did kick ass in Swedish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkapeliitta) colors.

I'd also add that it was the Athenian navy that ran circles around the Persians keeping them stuck up and unable to flank and land behind the Hot Gates several days before finding the goat path. And the Spartans weren't even involved at Marathon, they came by, looked at the bodies and left.

Exactly. Without the Athenians, there would be no Thermopylae legend.

Interesting side note: The movie displays the only other Greeks at the battle as Arcadians (There were about a thousand). In reality, the Greek force was made up of troops from all over Greece.

Also: 300 Spartans, 700 Thespian volunteers, 400 Thespians who had been pressed into service, and 900 Helots stayed behind with Leonidas for the final stand, not just the Spartans themselves.

:D

And that makes them less awsome how?
Oh, it doesnt. Just makes them impractical for taking on Romans :P



Except they worked. Like, really, they did an amazing job. Twent troops armed with Claymores could rip apart formations four times their size. Always remember how psycological warfare is, and how superstitious people used to be. What is scarier...

A formation of sixty swordsmen running at you screaming warcries,

or twenty celts, painted blue, wearing kilts and disdaining armor, screaming bloody vengence on all who dare defy them, and swinging massive swords above their heads?

I'd be worried about the first. I'd be shitting myself about the second.

Depends on whether or not I have a cannon loaded with grapeshot pointed at them.

Exactly. Without the Athenians, there would be no Thermopylae legend.

Interesting side note: The movie displays the only other Greeks at the battle as Arcadians (There were about a thousand). In reality, the Greek force was made up of troops from all over Greece.

Also: 300 Spartans, 700 Thespian volunteers, 400 Thespians who had been pressed into service, and 900 Helots stayed behind with Leonidas for the final stand, not just the Spartans themselves.

True, but the Spartans gave Greece and Western civilization that one legendary and heroic last stand. It was the Spartans that inspired Greece to fight, and arguably saved Western Civilization from being squished by the East.

True, but the Spartans gave Greece and Western civilization that one legendary and heroic last stand. It was the Spartans that inspired Greece to fight, and arguably saved Western Civilization from being squished by the East.
Sounds like your buying into the national romantic myth of 'west vs east' which Herodotus himself invented.

Anyone who really buys into that whole crap of wicked eastern tyrannies and free western democracies is ignoring that all of Greece practised slavery, Spartan economy itself was based entirely on the Messenian slaves.

I'd like to nominate the Vikings for the Warrior Culture Award.

*grabs and ax and goes into berserk frenzy*

Sounds like your buying into the national romantic myth of 'west vs east' which Herodotus himself invented.

Anyone who really buys into that whole crap of wicked eastern tyrannies and free western democracies is ignoring that all of Greece practised slavery, Spartan economy itself was based entirely on the Messenian slaves.

The fact that the Spartan economy was based on slaves has no relevance to the fact that their stand, with allies, saved democracy- which isn't what they were intending at all- the Spartans just wanted to save Sparta and her allies. But in acting out of self-interest Sparta arguably saved western civilization.

The fact that Spartans and other Greeks used slavery is immaterial to this point.

The fact that the Spartan economy was based on slaves has no relevance to the fact that their stand, with allies, saved democracy- which isn't what they were intending at all- the Spartans just wanted to save Sparta and her allies. But in acting out of self-interest Sparta arguably saved western civilization.

The fact that Spartans and other Greeks used slavery is immaterial to this point.
No, it's very relevant, I correctly presuppose that western politics, the same as eastern, were based upon class dictatorship, and that the 'freedom' you speak of was entirely subsebtive, and entirely exclusive to the ruling class. As Lenin correctly said, " Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners".

The state is the basis for class rule, nothing more, and political 'freedom' is but the extension for the freedom of those who rule, not those who toil.

Slave, serf, proletarian, same same.

No, it's very relevant, I correctly presuppose that western politics, the same as eastern, were based upon class dictatorship, and that the 'freedom' you speak of was entirely subsebtive, and entirely exclusive to the ruling class. As Lenin correctly said, " Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners".

The state is the basis for class rule, nothing more, and political 'freedom' is but the extension for the freedom of those who rule, not those who toil.

Slave, serf, proletarian, same same.

So what?

I'm not claiming there were no slaves, and that some people have wealth and power others do not. I'm saying the Spartans and their allies saved western civilization from eastern domination. There were more free people in the west than the east. It is from the west where democracy started, and the Spartans and other Greeks stopped the Persians from destroying democracy and installing despotism.

Even if the freedoms and privalige were only available to a select group, they still existed, and eventually gave rise to the high level of freedoms we have today all around the world. (despite us all being in some sense slaves to the machine...so to speak)

The fact that democracy, the very idea of citizen's and rights were preserved by the Greeks, despite the fact they practiced slavery. It is a contradiction, kind of, but nevertheless true.

Now I know your just going to rail on an on about how no one is really free, but please, spare us all your commie rants...


Anyways...

Vikings!

So what?

I'm not claiming there were no slaves, and that some people have wealth and power others do not. I'm saying the Spartans and their allies saved western civilization from eastern domination. There were more free people in the west than the east. It is from the west where democracy started, and the Spartans and other Greeks stopped the Persians from destroying democracy and installing despotism.

Even if the freedoms and privalige were only available to a select group, they still existed, and eventually gave rise to the high level of freedoms we have today all around the world. (despite us all being in some sense slaves to the machine...so to speak)

The fact that democracy, the very idea of citizen's and rights were preserved by the Greeks, despite the fact they practiced slavery. It is a contradiction, kind of, but nevertheless true.

Now I know your just going to rail on an on about how no one is really free, but please, spare us all your commie rants...


Anyways...

Vikings!

No, my point is, as long as class society exists, true freedom will never exist. Freedom in class society relies upon the appropriation of one class and the expropriation of another, for political power sways with control of economic power.

No, my point is, as long as class society exists, true freedom will never exist. Freedom in class society relies upon the appropriation of one class and the expropriation of another, for political power sways with control of economic power.

Whatever.

100% total freedom can never, and has never existed. There are always social norms, taboos, customs that people follow- from hunter gatherers to present day city dwellers.

Its probably one of the free-est (sp??) periods in history. Why?

Thank the Spartans.

Thank the Spartan dedication to warfare. Thank their oppressive system towards the helots.

Just admit it. The current world wouldn't exist without the Spartans and allies standing against the Persians.

Also, if its a choice between one oppressive regime, and another, at least choose the home team, I mean come on...

Whatever.

100% total freedom can never, and has never existed. There are always social norms, taboos, customs that people follow- from hunter gatherers to present day city dwellers.

Not under Communism.

Not under Communism.

YES UNDER COMMUNISM.

If someone wanted to make and keep something for themselves, they couldn't.

They'd be forced to follow the communist norms and taboos, or most likely face the gulag or execution.

Anyways, who'd you pick for the warrior culture award?

Not under Communism.

Not under Communism IN THEORY. In practice it's very different.

YES UNDER COMMUNISM.
If someone wanted to make and keep something for themselves, they couldn't.

You are mixing up the mass production of goods with production altogether. Communism is about socializing the control of the mass production.

Not under Communism IN THEORY. In practice it's very different.
Exactly. Theory and practice are very rarely the same thing.

The fact that the Spartan economy was based on slaves has no relevance to the fact that their stand, with allies, saved democracy- which isn't what they were intending at all- the Spartans just wanted to save Sparta and her allies. But in acting out of self-interest Sparta arguably saved western civilization.

The fact that Spartans and other Greeks used slavery is immaterial to this point.

Thermopylae really isn't a great example of saving democracy. It was more of a delaying tactic than anything to give the rest of Greece time to assemble its armies. I've heard more than one historian say that it was a waste of men rather than any sort of "turning point." All it did, at most, was inspire a couple more city states.

Now: Marathon, or Plataea I'll happily accept as an instence where the Greeks saved democracy. They were massively crushing defeats against Persia, and it was these battles that helped foster western civilization.

No, it's very relevant, I correctly presuppose that western politics, the same as eastern, were based upon class dictatorship, and that the 'freedom' you speak of was entirely subsebtive, and entirely exclusive to the ruling class. As Lenin correctly said, " Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners".

The state is the basis for class rule, nothing more, and political 'freedom' is but the extension for the freedom of those who rule, not those who toil.

Slave, serf, proletarian, same same.

Well rather than moaning about something you can’t change, why don’t you get up of your arse and make the most of it. Equal society would be nice, but it’s not going to happen. So you, me, and everybody should have aspirations to get to the top of the pyramid, as it were. If my success depends on people working in a factory then so be it. Me and my family are well fed, happy and have money to spend on cars and snooker tables and what have you.

People in the factory could’ve gotten to my level, nothing to stop them but them selves. Look at people like Sir Sugar, started off as a barrow boy and now is one of the wealthiest men in the country, so don’t give me the bollocks of oppressed workers. If there capable and have the determination to do something then they can, but many choose not to or are incapable.

This is purely hypothetical of course; I don’t own a factory or anything or even have my own family yet.

The Afghans. First they kicked off the ass of the Russians, and now they are pointing to the USA ass.

Faut le faire, beating up 2 super states.

Not forgetting the British Empire as well, the Afghans fought us off in the 1800s.

Well rather than moaning about something you can’t change, why don’t you get up of your arse and make the most of it. Equal society would be nice, but it’s not going to happen. So you, me, and everybody should have aspirations to get to the top of the pyramid, as it were. If my success depends on people working in a factory then so be it. Me and my family are well fed, happy and have money to spend on cars and snooker tables and what have you.

People in the factory could’ve gotten to my level, nothing to stop them but them selves. Look at people like Sir Sugar, started off as a barrow boy and now is one of the wealthiest men in the country, so don’t give me the bollocks of oppressed workers. If there capable and have the determination to do something then they can, but many choose not to or are incapable.

This is purely hypothetical of course; I don’t own a factory or anything or even have my own family yet.
Lol copypasta.

Actually, they re-took Calais by force, because the English failed to maintain the fortifications.


Thats why the English need the Scots in the army. ;)



I never debated English naval superiority. While their ships werent top-quality, they had lots of them, and some brilliant naval commanders. I contest the fact, however, as I have mentioned previously in the topic, that the British could hold out against any other European great power in a land war (in some hypothetical alternate universe where England is attached to the rest of Europe somehow).

However, the British isles were never under any serious threat as a result of this. Napoleon could scheme all he wanted, but nothing was getting across the channel.

And while the British may indeed have faced three armies, totaling an equivalent number to the Grand Army, they faced the spread across quite a few conflicts, and with allies.
The Russians had to deal with the Grand Army on their own, with little in the way of material assistance.

And while the Russian army may have been LARGER than the British army, it was also rather poorly equipped and not nearly as well trained. Russian soldiers were allowed something like eight shots a year of target practice, and most of their training centered on looking good on parade. They STILL managed to drive out, virtually on their own, a vastly better armed, trained, and drilled force with, initially, superior morale and a rumoured-to-be invincible leader.




Being in a war longer doesnt mean you automatically get credit for winning it. Like I said, it was the Russians that destroyed Napoleon at his strongest, occupied Paris and saved Europe.
It was the British who beat Napoleon at his weakest, then packed him off to an island to poison him to death because they were afraid he'd do it all again.
And, really, if the British had been in a situation where France could've attacked them directly, how do you think the war would've gone? Rather differently, I think.




Bold mine.


The British are good at winning with allies to provide superior numbers?
Most of those battles are soundly indecisive. I removed the non-British battles since we ARE talking about the British here.



As far as I can tell, the French hadnt had a significant presence in India since the 1750's. The French colonies were confiscated by the British during the French Revolution and only returned AFTER the Napoleonic Wars.



The Eastern Front shifted hundreds of miles in both directions and tied up vast numbers of troops for the majority of the war.
Trench warfare = no gains, unless you're a carrion bird.



Not according to those battles with in Spain.
Need I mention Quatre Bras?



The Japanese army at the start of WWII was well equipped and highly motivated, and the troops devoted to attacking the Phillipines were first-rate amoung those.
Meanwhile, the US garrison was essentially composed of poorly trained and equipped soldiers.
They still, however, managed to hold on for a fair amount of time. I beleive you mentioned the British retreat from France earlier, yes?



And the British were motivated by paranoia that the Russians were going to invade India and, rather foolishly, decided to mount an expensive, in both money and lives, expedition that wasnt really required.


Well then >_>



How many major wars have the British fought without arranging for allies beforehand? Their primarly contribution to the Napoleonic Wars was to pin the French fleet and cut off French trade. Most of the major battles were fought in Central/Eastern Europe, away from British help (outside of monetary aide).
I am not saying that the British are incapable of bravery, courage and tactical brilliance, simply that they favor a rather more subtle approach which doesnt fit in with the standard 'warrior ideal'. If we're talking D&D classes, the UK is a Bard. Capable of self defence, but apt to talk his way out of situations as well.




Nyo ho.

1)lol lack of funding . . .armies worst curse
2)lol oh ya :D
3)On the water: ya fair enough. Though Napoleon wanted to invade across the channel, his fleet got trashed.
4)Yep who kicked their asses all the way back to moscow then realized it was cold as hell and he had no food . . . .
5)If Britain were attached to France? oh god it would have gone differently . . .if it were down around Portugal though? I dunno. Anyway the British Played a large role in the Napoleonic Wars from start to finish. They beat napoleons Marshals in Spain again and again even those who were successful in Russia (such as massena)
6) In almost all of those battles the British and allies had inferior numbers (oh and the Spanish were terrible allies at the start of the peninsular war)
7)Nope indian troops. French leadership . . .its actually a pretty interesting campaign.
8)Did Russia ever make big gains into prussia or germany? From what I've seen of WW1 easter front the Russians just kept getting pushed back further and further into their own land.
9)(will respond to rest later gtg)

Also, I believe the conventional logic is that if Napoleon managed to get about 200,000 troops over the channel that it would have been all over because at that stage the British army was quite hopeless.

1)lol lack of funding . . .armies worst curse
That and the superior French army. Apparently the English were rather caught with their pants down in that case.

2)lol oh ya :D
Assuming you're speaking of the Scots there...

3)On the water: ya fair enough. Though Napoleon wanted to invade across the channel, his fleet got trashed.
Quite.

4)Yep who kicked their asses all the way back to moscow then realized it was cold as hell and he had no food . . . .
And now its my turn to express exaggerated shock that you clearly have never read anything in regards to the 1812 invasion of Russia.
:eek:
All done.

Russia was facing some six hundred thousand men, with their current army of...one hundred and fifty thousand. The Grand Army included troops from something like eight nations.
Of the major battles fought up to Borodino, two were French victories, one was more or less indecisive (although a French strategic victory), and one was a Russian victory. Pretty good when you consider how massivly outnumbered they were.
Borodino was, easily, the bloodiest battle of the Napoleonic Wars, and probably the largest and bloodiest in Western history up until WWI.

Napoleon himself said, "Of the fifty battles I have fought, the most terrible was that before Moscow. The French showed themselves to be worthy victors, and the Russians can rightly call themselves invincible."

After Moscow, if you'll care to check, the Russians didnt suffer a single major loss throughout the campaign. Blame it on Cossacks and cold weather all you will, but a French comparison of the weather and casualties from the campaign shows that deaths rose with the temperature, and 1812 wasnt an especially cold winter anyway.

5)If Britain were attached to France? oh god it would have gone differently . . .if it were down around Portugal though? I dunno. Anyway the British Played a large role in the Napoleonic Wars from start to finish. They beat napoleons Marshals in Spain again and again even those who were successful in Russia (such as massena)
Considering how quickly Spain and Portugal fell to the French, they would've been in London within a few weeks.
I do believe that the point of my little summaries of all those battles was that the British hardly won anything in Spain, and those few victories they HAD were generally rather marginal, and, in one case, they managed to kill more Spanish civilians than French soldiers.

6) In almost all of those battles the British and allies had inferior numbers (oh and the Spanish were terrible allies at the start of the peninsular war)
In most of those battles I listed, the French were outnumbered, and the British acted as though they owned the Spanish, giving them the worst combat duties, including, in the case where the Spanish commander decided to sit out half the battle, using Spanish troops as, essentially, human shields until the British deployed.

Besides all that, the British aid prior to 1808, when the Spanish won their first major victory against the French, was rather marginal. By the time the British arrived, the Spanish had been fighting for years.

7)Nope indian troops. French leadership . . .its actually a pretty interesting campaign.
The only mention of India I can find in the Napoleonic Wars is a half-baked scheme by Paul I to march 20,000 Cossacks through Central Asia to invade India.
Like I said, it seems the French colonies in India were taken by the British during the French Revolution, which somewhat limits the French ability to raise much of a military force in India.

8)Did Russia ever make big gains into prussia or germany? From what I've seen of WW1 easter front the Russians just kept getting pushed back further and further into their own land.
http://www.worldwar1.com/maps/php075.jpg
Note the shaded areas past the Russian border. Kind of hard to make out, but its the only map I could find. It wasnt until Russia essentially experienced a governmental implosion that the Germans and Austrians could make a serious attack. Which you can hardly blame on the Russian troops. When you've got no idea who is in charge, are either getting conflicting orders or no orders at all, and have been fighting the bloodiest war in world history, its a bit demoralizing.
Frankly, for being on the verge of civil war and having suffered defeat at the hands of the Japanese, they did rather well, fighting three nations across several thousand miles of front.

9)(will respond to rest later gtg)
lolk

Also, I believe the conventional logic is that if Napoleon managed to get about 200,000 troops over the channel that it would have been all over because at that stage the British army was quite hopeless.

Eh, the problem would be getting troops across the channel in the first place. The British displayed a healthy paranoia of the French getting anything across that body of water and generally kept enough ships around that they probably could've taken daily depth measurements to be sure the French werent throwing rocks into the water to build a jetty to England.

Thermopylae really isn't a great example of saving democracy. It was more of a delaying tactic than anything to give the rest of Greece time to assemble its armies. I've heard more than one historian say that it was a waste of men rather than any sort of "turning point." All it did, at most, was inspire a couple more city states.

Now: Marathon, or Plataea I'll happily accept as an instence where the Greeks saved democracy. They were massively crushing defeats against Persia, and it was these battles that helped foster western civilization.

Then you don't understand the psychological importance of Thermopylae. Yes it was a delaying tactic, and a damn good one. It also provided the Greeks a rallying point to remember; it filled the Greek hearts with fire for the war.

Yes, Marathon and Plataea were very important battles, but Plataea (where the Persian plans for taking over Greece were destroyed) wouldn't have happened if not for Thermopylae.

Lol copypasta. Copied from here to the other place, I noticed afterwards it was quite adequate lol. But I wrote it myself if that’s what you mean, now why don’t you reply? Because you know I’m right and communism always fails?