AnimeSuki Forums

Xellos-_^ · 2011-01-04, 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flinch

Then again, let us not forget the ridiculously powerful Teutonic Knights. In all honesty, who wants to fight a guy in half-plate that's running around with a zweihandr?

Man with longbow shoots horse
Knight on horse crash to the ground and is pin under dead horse
Man with longbow takes his time killing man on back like turtle.

Flinch · 2011-01-04, 23:20

Umm... Teutonic Knights were generally dismounted, in order to control them more effectively. And a lot of them would carry a tower shield and a bastard sword, while the officers generally used the zweihandrs.

NoemiChan · 2011-01-04, 23:37

Only careful planning and timing is the key in defeating the Mongols.

1. They're great archers that can shot while on horseback.
2. They're arrows can reach a target up to half a km away.
3. Their arrows can pierce armor.

1. Fight them in a terrain not suited for cavalry like swamps, up hills and forest. Poison the rivers!!!!

2.They use composite bows, so why not used the same weapons they use. A hundred thousand heavy archers can shot millions of arrows up to half a km away. It's impossible that not one Mongol will be dead in no time.

3. True but ... it's them same for any infantry archers using powerful bows.

...my opinion

NoemiChan · 2011-01-04, 23:39

Again... Mongol's easy conquered most of Asia because they're an army of horse back, the same as most nomadic tribes of Asia.

Asuras · 2011-01-04, 23:41

I'm no expert on European warfare, but the Medieval knights of many olden countries occupying West Europe had fairly strong armies with advanced technology.

Long bows that could reach even further than any short bow. Heavily armored knights. Moving wooden castles. Steel flaming arrows, and really fortified castles.

I'd bet my money on their success. I mean, juts look how far they got, and how the Mongols ultimately failed.

NoemiChan · 2011-01-05, 00:07

Probably the reason why Mongols kill so many people, well because of fear of them and to strike fear on them .

They fear of ruling an empire with too many people to rule, just imagine if they all uprise at the same time which did happen later on.

They wanted to strike fear. Those who fights them will surely die. That is simple to prevent again uprisings.

RandySyler · 2011-01-05, 00:09

That was a progression from the ancient age to the middle ages. To say how they defeated the Mongols (relatively ancient army) is to say that America's army today would defeat WW1 era England. It's a matter of technological progression.

From short to long bows, better armor, tactics, swords, siege weapons, etc. the European knights would slaughter any ancient army, just like any modern army would slaughter any 19th century army.

Om Nerabdator · 2011-01-05, 00:10

itd have to be the Sparta army for me i mean come on look what 300 of them did imagine a whole army of them

Asuras · 2011-01-05, 00:11

Ah, *plamface*
I was totally confused there. I didn't realize at the moment that we were maintaining that ancient of a civilisation.

Asuras · 2011-01-05, 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by matty543

itd have to be the Sparta army for me i mean come on look what 300 of them did imagine a whole army of them

But, the fact that they only had 300 still doesn't change. So they'd still likely lose.

NoemiChan · 2011-01-05, 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asuras

Ah, *plamface*
I was totally confused there. I didn't realize at the moment that we were maintaining that ancient of a civilisation.

These is an best ancient army thread

Asuras · 2011-01-05, 00:14

Says "World's Best Army" actually.

NoemiChan · 2011-01-05, 00:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by matty543

itd have to be the Sparta army for me i mean come on look what 300 of them did imagine a whole army of them

300 is a joke, watch the original 300 film which seems to be more realistic.

All of them were wipe out arrows

Asuras · 2011-01-05, 00:19

It was still a great movie.

Anywho. I would have to say that the Mongols were fairly successful in their days. I would place my money on them.

No thanks to them, they also brought along the Black Plague.

NoemiChan · 2011-01-05, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asuras

No thanks to them, they also brought along the Black Plague.

Nope, it's Europes lack of proper sanitation that cause the Black Plague/ Death

Mr. Wang · 2011-01-05, 00:25

Technically, in the real battle of Thermopylae, rather than the glorified, but still badass move 300, there were actually 300 Spartans... accompanied by about 700 Thespians, about 400 Thebans, and a couple hundred other Greeks fighting in the last stand. But still, with the legends of the Persian Army numbering in the millions (though, doubtful), the fact of the matter is, these Greeks were vastly outnumbered, and managed to eliminate many, many, enemy soldiers before falling in their death in defense of their homeland. They say that the battle resulted in the deaths of 100,000-200,000 Persians. Or, so I've read. We can't exactly tell if that's inflation of legend, or a good estimated guess. But the Battle of Thermopylae still stands as one of the greatest battles in history.

Mr_Paper · 2011-01-05, 01:20

The thing is everyone keeps assuming static tactics and advantages.

Why would the Roman army (at its peak during the expansion of the empire) ever choose to fight where they were at a disadvantage against their enemy? While they were skilled at open ground combat, they also excelled at urban and forest tactics.

The Moguls fought, almost exclusively, on open terrain with few hills and forests as it was to their advantage of mobility and were generally terrible at siege tactics. Why would they fight anywhere other than an open plain?

The Greeks were no different, they chose to fight where it was to their advantage.

And so on, and so on...

There is no reason to assume that any of the major historical armies would enter combat without a strategy which takes into account either the enemy's advantages or the terrain.

The best army would be the one that best knew when not to fight.

Kafriel · 2011-01-05, 05:29

In terms of defence, Greek soldiers can persevere for a VERY long time (both in the distant and recent past) and used to have a solid fleet too (can we count naval power in this thread?).

Quote:

Why would the Roman army (at its peak during the expansion of the empire) ever choose to fight where they were at a disadvantage against their enemy?

Why would anyone, for that matter? Don't look at Napoleon

Quote:

I would have to say that the Mongols were fairly successful in their days.

There's no denying that

To solve the terrain issues, who do you think would win if they had to fight in a modern metropolis (skyscrapers, asphalt highways, ~27 degrees temp., concrete and metal all around)?

MakubeX2 · 2011-01-05, 07:40

I'm going to throw in a wild card and say the Order Of The Hashishin.

In many ways, they are the predecessors to today's Islamic extremists, sharing many similar methods of trainings and doctrines including promises of reward of "going to heavens where they will be wait upon by virgins"

It is said that one of Ghenkis Khan's descendant fear them so much that he delayed an expansion into Iraq to crush the Hashishins in their homeground of Alamut before launching a full-scale invasion just to secure his own neck.

Hooves · 2011-01-05, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kafriel

In terms of defence, Greek soldiers can persevere for a VERY long time (both in the distant and recent past) and used to have a solid fleet too (can we count naval power in this thread?).

Yep, since this is the World's Best Army, it does not forbid us to discuss the navy and air force right? They are technically part of an army just in a different section from what I believe.

Also Mr.Wang is correct about the true history of the Battle of Thermopylae, they were able to hold out against the Persians because of that choke-point, but another good factor of the battle was due to the command of the naval-commander Themistocles that had a good share of the battle, because the Persians would have easily surrounded the Spartans sooner then what happened, but Themistocles was able to keep the sea under control. That was until a route leading around the pass guarded by Spartans was brought down and started to surround them. Leonidas got the other men to leave besides his 300 Spartans, so thats probably why they were so famous for their last stand.

2011-01-04, 23:20	Link #62
Flinch Onii-chan~ Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Einzbern Castle Age: 32	Umm... Teutonic Knights were generally dismounted, in order to control them more effectively. And a lot of them would carry a tower shield and a bastard sword, while the officers generally used the zweihandrs. __________________

2011-01-04, 23:41	Link #65
Asuras Dictadere~! Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.	I'm no expert on European warfare, but the Medieval knights of many olden countries occupying West Europe had fairly strong armies with advanced technology. Long bows that could reach even further than any short bow. Heavily armored knights. Moving wooden castles. Steel flaming arrows, and really fortified castles. I'd bet my money on their success. I mean, juts look how far they got, and how the Mongols ultimately failed. __________________

2011-01-05, 00:09	Link #67
RandySyler Onee-Chan Power~! Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: In this reality (A.K.A. Colorado, U.S.A.)	That was a progression from the ancient age to the middle ages. To say how they defeated the Mongols (relatively ancient army) is to say that America's army today would defeat WW1 era England. It's a matter of technological progression. From short to long bows, better armor, tactics, swords, siege weapons, etc. the European knights would slaughter any ancient army, just like any modern army would slaughter any 19th century army. __________________

2011-01-05, 00:10	Link #68
Om Nerabdator ~Maru~ Join Date: Mar 2008	itd have to be the Sparta army for me i mean come on look what 300 of them did imagine a whole army of them __________________

2011-01-05, 00:11	Link #69
Asuras Dictadere~! Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.	Ah, plamface I was totally confused there. I didn't realize at the moment that we were maintaining that ancient of a civilisation. __________________

2011-01-04, 23:37	Link #63
NoemiChan Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Philippines Age: 36	Only careful planning and timing is the key in defeating the Mongols. 1. They're great archers that can shot while on horseback. 2. They're arrows can reach a target up to half a km away. 3. Their arrows can pierce armor. 1. Fight them in a terrain not suited for cavalry like swamps, up hills and forest. Poison the rivers!!!! 2.They use composite bows, so why not used the same weapons they use. A hundred thousand heavy archers can shot millions of arrows up to half a km away. It's impossible that not one Mongol will be dead in no time. 3. True but ... it's them same for any infantry archers using powerful bows. ...my opinion

2011-01-04, 23:39	Link #64
NoemiChan Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Philippines Age: 36	Again... Mongol's easy conquered most of Asia because they're an army of horse back, the same as most nomadic tribes of Asia.

2011-01-05, 00:07	Link #66
NoemiChan Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Philippines Age: 36	Probably the reason why Mongols kill so many people, well because of fear of them and to strike fear on them . They fear of ruling an empire with too many people to rule, just imagine if they all uprise at the same time which did happen later on. They wanted to strike fear. Those who fights them will surely die. That is simple to prevent again uprisings.

2011-01-05, 00:14	Link #72
Asuras Dictadere~! Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.	Says "World's Best Army" actually. __________________

2011-01-05, 00:19	Link #74
Asuras Dictadere~! Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: On the front lines, fighting for inderpendence.	It was still a great movie. Anywho. I would have to say that the Mongols were fairly successful in their days. I would place my money on them. No thanks to them, they also brought along the Black Plague. __________________

2011-01-05, 00:25	Link #76
Mr. Wang Scholar of Yanderes Author Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Haramihama	Technically, in the real battle of Thermopylae, rather than the glorified, but still badass move 300, there were actually 300 Spartans... accompanied by about 700 Thespians, about 400 Thebans, and a couple hundred other Greeks fighting in the last stand. But still, with the legends of the Persian Army numbering in the millions (though, doubtful), the fact of the matter is, these Greeks were vastly outnumbered, and managed to eliminate many, many, enemy soldiers before falling in their death in defense of their homeland. They say that the battle resulted in the deaths of 100,000-200,000 Persians. Or, so I've read. We can't exactly tell if that's inflation of legend, or a good estimated guess. But the Battle of Thermopylae still stands as one of the greatest battles in history. __________________

2011-01-05, 01:20	Link #77
Mr_Paper Hmm... Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Looking for his book...	The thing is everyone keeps assuming static tactics and advantages. Why would the Roman army (at its peak during the expansion of the empire) ever choose to fight where they were at a disadvantage against their enemy? While they were skilled at open ground combat, they also excelled at urban and forest tactics. The Moguls fought, almost exclusively, on open terrain with few hills and forests as it was to their advantage of mobility and were generally terrible at siege tactics. Why would they fight anywhere other than an open plain? The Greeks were no different, they chose to fight where it was to their advantage. And so on, and so on... There is no reason to assume that any of the major historical armies would enter combat without a strategy which takes into account either the enemy's advantages or the terrain. The best army would be the one that best knew when not to fight.

2011-01-05, 07:40	Link #79
MakubeX2 うるとらぺど Join Date: Oct 2004 Age: 44	I'm going to throw in a wild card and say the Order Of The Hashishin. In many ways, they are the predecessors to today's Islamic extremists, sharing many similar methods of trainings and doctrines including promises of reward of "going to heavens where they will be wait upon by virgins" It is said that one of Ghenkis Khan's descendant fear them so much that he delayed an expansion into Iraq to crush the Hashishins in their homeground of Alamut before launching a full-scale invasion just to secure his own neck.