First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Ancient Military- Before 1500A.D
1493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 8/15/08
Which army in the ancient time and medieval ages (1500 A.D and before) had the best armies? The organization, equipment, commanding system and the strategies etc. What are their weaknesses, their strengths etc. Oh and before you harp on about Romans, please look closely at their military==, I don't want retards going "Whoo, the Romans are the best" without a reason. Okay, I'll it to you guys.

My opinion would be the Mongolian armies, they had the meritocracy, so your promotion is decided by how well you work instead of your birth (Unless your born in the Ghengis Khan family). They allowed small commanders to decide how to achieve the overall goal decided by the general (Similar to the U.S.A army). Each group had 10 soldiers and if one ran, all 10 will be subjected to a trial for fleeing which most likely will lead to their death. They integrated the engineers, soldiers etc into the army and they placed a huge emphasis on group cohesion.

Interesting note- Each soldier had 3 horses.
16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 8/15/08
The Huns. They kicked serious ass. :P
To be honest, it's because their horsemanship was unparalleled and they had no ethical limitations to hold them back.
Vikings too, were scary powerful. They went to battle to die, for Vikings believed that dying in battle was the key to Valhalla (heaven for warriors)
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 8/15/08
The Crusaders,Turks,Goths,Mongols,Arabs & Vandals.
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 8/15/08

h4x0rz wrote:

The Huns. They kicked serious ass. :P
To be honest, it's because their horsemanship was unparalleled and they had no ethical limitations to hold them back.
Vikings too, were scary powerful. They went to battle to die, for Vikings believed that dying in battle was the key to Valhalla (heaven for warriors)


I agree that Huns are powerful but they met their fate at the Battle of Chalons. In fact, Visigoths and Romans almost destroyed the whole Hunnic armies! But still Attila the Hun is AWESOME!
16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 8/15/08

OTAKUADDICT wrote:

The Crusaders,Turks,Goths,Mongols,Arabs & Vandals.


you do realize only the second crusade was successful right? 1 out of 4 is a very poor score =_=
Arabs not really, maybe the Ottomans, which had it's seat of power with the Turks.
Mongols, fuck yeah, they were savage.
Vandals?
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 8/15/08 , edited 8/15/08

h4x0rz wrote:


OTAKUADDICT wrote:

The Crusaders,Turks,Goths,Mongols,Arabs & Vandals.


you do realize only the second crusade was successful right? 1 out of 4 is a very poor score =_=
Arabs not really, maybe the Ottomans, which had it's seat of power with the Turks.
Mongols, fuck yeah, they were savage.
Vandals?


Yup Vandals and they were the ones that destroyed Rome and loot it during the 4th or 5th century I think.
They have poor military equipments but have powerful strategy and berserkers.
Ottomans maybe strong but they suffered defeats from the Timurids(Mongol Persians) and from Vlad the Impaler during the 14th or 15th century .
16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 8/15/08

OTAKUADDICT wrote:


h4x0rz wrote:


OTAKUADDICT wrote:

The Crusaders,Turks,Goths,Mongols,Arabs & Vandals.


you do realize only the second crusade was successful right? 1 out of 4 is a very poor score =_=
Arabs not really, maybe the Ottomans, which had it's seat of power with the Turks.
Mongols, fuck yeah, they were savage.
Vandals?


Yup Vandals and they were the ones that destroyed Rome and loot it during the 4th or 5th century I think.
Ottomans maybe strong but they suffered defeats from the Timurids(Mongol Persians) during the 14th century.


Vandals is a very general term. What civilization are you referring to?
Oh, and Alexander the Great pwned all
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 8/15/08 , edited 8/15/08

h4x0rz wrote:


OTAKUADDICT wrote:


h4x0rz wrote:


OTAKUADDICT wrote:

The Crusaders,Turks,Goths,Mongols,Arabs & Vandals.


you do realize only the second crusade was successful right? 1 out of 4 is a very poor score =_=
Arabs not really, maybe the Ottomans, which had it's seat of power with the Turks.
Mongols, fuck yeah, they were savage.
Vandals?


Yup Vandals and they were the ones that destroyed Rome and loot it during the 4th or 5th century I think.
Ottomans maybe strong but they suffered defeats from the Timurids(Mongol Persians) during the 14th century.


Vandals is a very general term. What civilization are you referring to?
Oh, and Alexander the Great pwned all


Vandals were a Germanic tribe along with the Goths during the 4th and 5th century.
Alexander the Great is indeed one of the best generals in history and even OWN3D all barbarians in his empire.
2655 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 8/15/08
Before 1500 A.D, it certainly would be the Mongols of Genghis Khan. They won nearly every single major battles, despite being outnumbered. They conquered the largest land empire in history. The mongols was indeed the most powerful army in pre-gunpowder age.
692 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/17/08 , edited 8/17/08
It depends on what kind of battle you are fighting. You certainly wouldn't use armies built around horsemen and horse archers for long term sieges and you certainly wouldn't use a large band of heavy infantry in a dense forest (Massacare of Varus' column at Teutoburger forest).

The Hunnite armies were raiders and would have been highly ineffective during sieges. The walls of Constantinople kept the Hunnite army and bay and prevented Attila from sacking the great city. The belief was that the Huns had spent so much time on horseback, they had "forgotten how to walk".

As for the Roman Legions, the pre-Marian reform legions worked much differently to the legions after the reforms.
16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 8/17/08
SPARTANS.
692 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/17/08 , edited 8/17/08

h4x0rz wrote:

SPARTANS.


If you got that idea from watching "300", I'm afraid you'll be severely disappointed with the real Spartans. The real Spartans can be best described as exceptional militiamen specializing in phalanx combat.

The phalanx was a formation whereby heavily armed spearmen (Hoplites or Phalangites) would point their pikes or spears towards the enemy: Forming a spear wall.



As depicted in the picture above, the pikes or spears that could not reach the front were tilted at a 45 degree angle to deflect missile fire.

The strength of the phalanx came from its near impregnable front, but it was prone to being outmaneuvered and flanked because turning such a large column whilst keeping the men in formation was extremely difficult.

The phalanx also performs poorly on rough terrain, which is one of the reasons why the Romans eventually abandoned hoplite style tactics in favour of the more versatile gladius and scutum we see today since the terrain in Italy was too rough and not suited to this kind of combat especially against the Samnite tribes and the Gauls further to the North.

Furthermore, Philip V of Macedon's army was broken by the Roman Legions during the Battle of Cynoscephalae. This was due to the phalanx breaking ranks and therefore allowing the legionaries to enter the gaps and slaughter the spearmen at close range. This battle marked the superiority and versatility of the Legion over the inflexible phalanx.
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 8/19/08

Eririel wrote:


h4x0rz wrote:

SPARTANS.


If you got that idea from watching "300", I'm afraid you'll be severely disappointed with the real Spartans. The real Spartans can be best described as exceptional militiamen specializing in phalanx combat.

The phalanx was a formation whereby heavily armed spearmen (Hoplites or Phalangites) would point their pikes or spears towards the enemy: Forming a spear wall.



As depicted in the picture above, the pikes or spears that could not reach the front were tilted at a 45 degree angle to deflect missile fire.

The strength of the phalanx came from its near impregnable front, but it was prone to being outmaneuvered and flanked because turning such a large column whilst keeping the men in formation was extremely difficult.

The phalanx also performs poorly on rough terrain, which is one of the reasons why the Romans eventually abandoned hoplite style tactics in favour of the more versatile gladius and scutum we see today since the terrain in Italy was too rough and not suited to this kind of combat especially against the Samnite tribes and the Gauls further to the North.

Furthermore, Philip V of Macedon's army was broken by the Roman Legions during the Battle of Cynoscephalae. This was due to the phalanx breaking ranks and therefore allowing the legionaries to enter the gaps and slaughter the spearmen at close range. This battle marked the superiority and versatility of the Legion over the inflexible phalanx.


so it means Legions OWN3D the Phalanx
16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 8/19/08

Eririel wrote:


h4x0rz wrote:

SPARTANS.


If you got that idea from watching "300", I'm afraid you'll be severely disappointed with the real Spartans. The real Spartans can be best described as exceptional militiamen specializing in phalanx combat.

The phalanx was a formation whereby heavily armed spearmen (Hoplites or Phalangites) would point their pikes or spears towards the enemy: Forming a spear wall.



As depicted in the picture above, the pikes or spears that could not reach the front were tilted at a 45 degree angle to deflect missile fire.

The strength of the phalanx came from its near impregnable front, but it was prone to being outmaneuvered and flanked because turning such a large column whilst keeping the men in formation was extremely difficult.

The phalanx also performs poorly on rough terrain, which is one of the reasons why the Romans eventually abandoned hoplite style tactics in favour of the more versatile gladius and scutum we see today since the terrain in Italy was too rough and not suited to this kind of combat especially against the Samnite tribes and the Gauls further to the North.

Furthermore, Philip V of Macedon's army was broken by the Roman Legions during the Battle of Cynoscephalae. This was due to the phalanx breaking ranks and therefore allowing the legionaries to enter the gaps and slaughter the spearmen at close range. This battle marked the superiority and versatility of the Legion over the inflexible phalanx.


Not just 300 lol, but from those insane 'tests of strength' they had to go through.
1493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 8/19/08

OTAKUADDICT wrote:


Eririel wrote:


h4x0rz wrote:

SPARTANS.


If you got that idea from watching "300", I'm afraid you'll be severely disappointed with the real Spartans. The real Spartans can be best described as exceptional militiamen specializing in phalanx combat.

The phalanx was a formation whereby heavily armed spearmen (Hoplites or Phalangites) would point their pikes or spears towards the enemy: Forming a spear wall.



As depicted in the picture above, the pikes or spears that could not reach the front were tilted at a 45 degree angle to deflect missile fire.

The strength of the phalanx came from its near impregnable front, but it was prone to being outmaneuvered and flanked because turning such a large column whilst keeping the men in formation was extremely difficult.

The phalanx also performs poorly on rough terrain, which is one of the reasons why the Romans eventually abandoned hoplite style tactics in favour of the more versatile gladius and scutum we see today since the terrain in Italy was too rough and not suited to this kind of combat especially against the Samnite tribes and the Gauls further to the North.

Furthermore, Philip V of Macedon's army was broken by the Roman Legions during the Battle of Cynoscephalae. This was due to the phalanx breaking ranks and therefore allowing the legionaries to enter the gaps and slaughter the spearmen at close range. This battle marked the superiority and versatility of the Legion over the inflexible phalanx.


so it means Legions OWN3D the Phalanx


Though the romans would have lost if Phillip had cavalry to back him up (Did Phillip have cavalry in his army at that time?), other way to defeat the phalanx- just make wooden fences (mobile fences that is) and push it in their way or horse archers ^^.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.