Greatest soldier of all time
- Benoit Douville
- Member
- Posts: 3184
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 02:13
- Location: Montréal
Nope.. I would say they must be the Waffen SS troopers from the LSSAH, or from the 12th SS "Hitlerjugend" Division, which in many aspects was better than the LSSAH itself.Thunderstruck wrote:Probably true but I'll put the Marines up against anybody else any day. After all the streets of Heaven are guarded by United States Marines.
Considering how thousands of scum propagandists, both Westerners and Commies, had tried to brainwash us in thinking how "criminal" was the SS, and how the Nuremberg Kangaroo Court has labeled the SS a "criminal organization", while they poured in our eyes and ears plenty of crap about the Heroic US Soldier, Guardian of Democracy(five minutes of stormy applause), it's nothing to be amazed of.The Marine Corp is all about discipline. My Dad has been out for 35 years and still is a Marine. How many Waffen SS can say that?
~Ovidius
-
- Member
- Posts: 2840
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 23:46
- Location: United Kingdom
Well technically speaking, the US is the guardian of Democracy, I don't see anyone else with the capabilities, or the will to take this role. However I too get tired with the constant glorification of the American's in World War 2. They take all the credit for so many actions which they participated and forget the sacrifices of others.while they poured in our eyes and ears plenty of crap about the Heroic US Soldier, Guardian of Democracy(five minutes of stormy applause), it's nothing to be amazed of.
I recall Band of Brothers, in it the Americans fight heroically for some village, and then afterwards there are only Americans in the town. After seeing this episode, a former inhabitant of the town wrote to a local magazine here in New Zealand pointing out that during the fighting, all he ever saw were British soldiers, even after the fighting there was no sign of the American soldiers portrayed in Band of Brothers.
Unfortunately I didn't keep the letter so I can't name the village.
While the Americans did make huge sacrifices during World War 2, I rank them no higher, or lower than those made by other countries made in World War 2. I just wish that the American movie establishment would make something that was historically accurate.
Nnope. I counted them in Mediterranean. After all there was very little beaches around that little sea that weren't under Roman control.Ovidius wrote:You forgot North Africa, Middle East, Gallia and the Balkan Peninsula up to beyond the Carpathians.Tiwaz wrote:Yes. They only started from little peninsula and ended up ruling whole Mediterranean and most of modern Britain. That is absolutely pathetic achievement.
Pitful, ain't it?
~Ovidius
I think nobody has after that "owned" a whole sea of that size.
Or before....
Re: US movie accuracy
I agree with Gwynn here: "I just wish that the American movie establishment would make something that was historically accurate"
It irks the hell out of me when I view a movie that is technically or historically inaccurate. I like John Wayne flicks, for instance, but I can't stand to watch The Comancheros. It's set in 1840 Texas, and everyone is armed with lever action Winchester 73's and Colt Peacemakers. Ugh.
The US forces--however much they are dissed--DID accomplish a lot and do some amazing things during WW 2; I see no reason why movies can't be based on what actually happened and without poofing the exploits to the skies.
Hollywood CAN make decent historical movies, when it tries. The Longest Day was an excellent story, despite the "art" changes from Ryan's book, and Battle of Britain is an epic the likes of which we're probably not going to see again.
But Hollywood knows that what makes the most moolah is fantasy, not history. And money talks louder than anything else.
Sigh.
And I STILL think the Byzantine Army ranks way up there.....maintaining the Empire's borders mostly intact against numerous enemies with greater population resources, for 500 years, is a hell of an accomplishment.
It irks the hell out of me when I view a movie that is technically or historically inaccurate. I like John Wayne flicks, for instance, but I can't stand to watch The Comancheros. It's set in 1840 Texas, and everyone is armed with lever action Winchester 73's and Colt Peacemakers. Ugh.
The US forces--however much they are dissed--DID accomplish a lot and do some amazing things during WW 2; I see no reason why movies can't be based on what actually happened and without poofing the exploits to the skies.
Hollywood CAN make decent historical movies, when it tries. The Longest Day was an excellent story, despite the "art" changes from Ryan's book, and Battle of Britain is an epic the likes of which we're probably not going to see again.
But Hollywood knows that what makes the most moolah is fantasy, not history. And money talks louder than anything else.
Sigh.
And I STILL think the Byzantine Army ranks way up there.....maintaining the Empire's borders mostly intact against numerous enemies with greater population resources, for 500 years, is a hell of an accomplishment.
Re: US movie accuracy
Ever watched Kelly's Heroes? It's interesting how a painted-plywood superstructure can turn a T-34 into a TigerGalahad wrote:I agree with Gwynn here: "I just wish that the American movie establishment would make something that was historically accurate"
It irks the hell out of me when I view a movie that is technically or historically inaccurate. I like John Wayne flicks, for instance, but I can't stand to watch The Comancheros. It's set in 1840 Texas, and everyone is armed with lever action Winchester 73's and Colt Peacemakers. Ugh.
Or "Force 10 from Navarone"? It's pretty fun to see German occupation troops in Yugoslavia, riding in T-34 tanks and M2 half-tracks. 8)
Ask Steven Spielberg, although I doubt he will give a fair answer.The US forces--however much they are dissed--DID accomplish a lot and do some amazing things during WW 2; I see no reason why movies can't be based on what actually happened and without poofing the exploits to the skies.
The navy maybe, but the army sucked due to inept commanders, poor strategy and reliance on defense.And I STILL think the Byzantine Army ranks way up there.....maintaining the Empire's borders mostly intact against numerous enemies with greater population resources, for 500 years, is a hell of an accomplishment.
~Regards,
Ovidius
Generally, in a war of alliance, the victors try to minimize their allies exploits when comparing with their own. In case of defeat, it is generally the other guys fault.Gwynn Compton wrote:[Well technically speaking, the US is the guardian of Democracy, I don't see anyone else with the capabilities, or the will to take this role. However I too get tired with the constant glorification of the American's in World War 2. They take all the credit for so many actions which they participated and forget the sacrifices of others.
Re: Byzantine Army
Ovidius writes "The navy maybe, but the army sucked due to inept commanders, poor strategy and reliance on defense."
I have to disagree with that comment. The Byzantine Army was like any other army in history.....it had good periods and bad periods, and good commanders and bad ones.
But overall, it had competent, well-trained and professional officers executing a well-thought out scheme designed to protect the Empire.
While the Germans and the Franks, et al, considered the art of war to be who could chop the most heads in a melee, the Byzantine Army had officer academies that taught the best tactics and strategies to use against whatever enemy they faced, to cause the enemy's ruin with the least possible cost in men and money.
When defensive tactics or strategy were called for, they were used; when the offense was needed, IT was used. And if bribery could remove the need for fighting altogether, bribery was used.
In short, it was a highly disciplined, well-trained, fully professional army. It was the German Army of its day.....but its day lasted 500 years.
It had inept commanders--all armies have--but you can't call the likes of Narses, Belisarius, Heraclius, Nicephoras Phocas and Basil II Bulgaroctonus--to name a few--inept.
If the army and its commanders and their strategy were so bad, how was the empire able to survive, keeping the empire's heartland mostly intact, for 500 years?
Because the system was so professional and because it was designed to execute a chosen imperial strategy of maintaining the imperial borders at the least possible cost, as opposed to allout conquest, which cost money. The system could survive bad commanders and it thrived under good ones.....just like the Roman Army did.
It whipped a long list of enemies over those centuries. And might have continued doing so if not for a commander whose treason at the Battle of Manzikert caused the destruction of the main field army, which was immediately followed by the elimination of the Empire's main recruiting base in Asia Minor when the Seljuk Turks pillaged it into a wasteland.
I have to disagree with that comment. The Byzantine Army was like any other army in history.....it had good periods and bad periods, and good commanders and bad ones.
But overall, it had competent, well-trained and professional officers executing a well-thought out scheme designed to protect the Empire.
While the Germans and the Franks, et al, considered the art of war to be who could chop the most heads in a melee, the Byzantine Army had officer academies that taught the best tactics and strategies to use against whatever enemy they faced, to cause the enemy's ruin with the least possible cost in men and money.
When defensive tactics or strategy were called for, they were used; when the offense was needed, IT was used. And if bribery could remove the need for fighting altogether, bribery was used.
In short, it was a highly disciplined, well-trained, fully professional army. It was the German Army of its day.....but its day lasted 500 years.
It had inept commanders--all armies have--but you can't call the likes of Narses, Belisarius, Heraclius, Nicephoras Phocas and Basil II Bulgaroctonus--to name a few--inept.
If the army and its commanders and their strategy were so bad, how was the empire able to survive, keeping the empire's heartland mostly intact, for 500 years?
Because the system was so professional and because it was designed to execute a chosen imperial strategy of maintaining the imperial borders at the least possible cost, as opposed to allout conquest, which cost money. The system could survive bad commanders and it thrived under good ones.....just like the Roman Army did.
It whipped a long list of enemies over those centuries. And might have continued doing so if not for a commander whose treason at the Battle of Manzikert caused the destruction of the main field army, which was immediately followed by the elimination of the Empire's main recruiting base in Asia Minor when the Seljuk Turks pillaged it into a wasteland.
- Matt Gibbs
- Member
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: 23 Mar 2002, 01:46
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
Different Ages
With different outlooks and different technologies its not a comparison but just a chance to express a personal favourite I guess. I have read a lot about the brutality of the Mongol empire and it's fighting prowess so they get my vote. If they are in a fight with some machine gunners of the 12th SS then I vote for the Waffen-SS of course!!
Regards
Matt G
Regards
Matt G
Re: Huns and Mongols
The Huns and Mogols are from similiar ethnic groups of Asian nomadic horsemen, but different societies separated by around 800 years of time.
The Huns did THEIR ravaging ca 450AD. The last of the many great victories of the Roman Empire was when Aetius led his Romans and their Gothic allies at the Battle of Chalons-sur-Marne, and defeated Attila the Hun. The Huns basically faded from history a couple of years later, when Attila died. He made them a terror, and without him they went back to historical oblivion.
Cept maybe for the nation called Hungary, of course. <g>
The Huns did THEIR ravaging ca 450AD. The last of the many great victories of the Roman Empire was when Aetius led his Romans and their Gothic allies at the Battle of Chalons-sur-Marne, and defeated Attila the Hun. The Huns basically faded from history a couple of years later, when Attila died. He made them a terror, and without him they went back to historical oblivion.
Cept maybe for the nation called Hungary, of course. <g>
This is mission impossible III.
There are so many missing from the list from Ancient times upto present day and to try and compare the fighting capabilities from one era of time with another is futile because the scenario's are so false.
Some of the few missing ones I can think off are, The American Plains Indians, Zulu's, Viet-Cong, Saxons/Celts, The Armies of Hannibal, The Armies of Alexander the Great, Greek/Roman Armies, Armies of Henry V, British Longbowmen, Syrian armies of Darius, Gurkha's, Israeli Armies of the Six Day War, plus a multitude of regiments from all over the world.
Andy from the Shire
There are so many missing from the list from Ancient times upto present day and to try and compare the fighting capabilities from one era of time with another is futile because the scenario's are so false.
Some of the few missing ones I can think off are, The American Plains Indians, Zulu's, Viet-Cong, Saxons/Celts, The Armies of Hannibal, The Armies of Alexander the Great, Greek/Roman Armies, Armies of Henry V, British Longbowmen, Syrian armies of Darius, Gurkha's, Israeli Armies of the Six Day War, plus a multitude of regiments from all over the world.
Andy from the Shire