Which was the Greatest Fighting force ever, Romans, Greeks,Mongols, Or the present USA.

Originally posted by Seekerof
. Porus met him on a river bank with 40,000 men and 200 elephants, but Alexander secretly crossed the river by night and swept down on Porus' exposed flank. Some 20,000 Indian infantry and 3,000 cavalry were killed, for the loss of about 80 of Alexander's men.


325BC - Alexander expands his empire into India

Still not seeing any indications of a defeat or loss. The above quoted areas also address your insistance to the mention of Por and his saying "Like a king."



seekerof

" 20,000 Indian infantry and 3,000 cavalry were killed " and Alexander only lost 80 men how can people believe accounts like that.

Look at Alexanders actions after such a ''amazing victory'', you would think such a lopsided battle would would have only made his men eager to fight on against such a weak enemy.

But what does Alexander's army do it retreats out of India scared to go any further, something doesn't seem right here. He also leaves through a desert route out of India, why?That is not clear was he on the run or did he fear that his diminish army could be attacked by kings he defeated on the way in.

Im just saying we are getting only one side of the story and their was propoganda even back then.

[edit on 8-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
" 20,000 Indian infantry and 3,000 cavalry were killed " and Alexander only lost 80 men how can people believe accounts like that.

hve to agree , but Alexander was not defeated by Porus. After the war his army lost appetite to fight. they were many thousand miles away from home and wanted to return.


I did some research and found that he Mongol army had some nifty stratergy. they followed the pattern of tactical retreat only to regroup and break the opposition's position .Also their bow was stronger than the longbow(?) according to one site. And they nearly took over Europe twice . Once when they were turned back by the Pope and another when their Khan died and they had to return.

And they did suffered some reverse when their attack was destroyed by the tsunami in Japan.

But still a huge achivement considering their population was only 1 million.


But the roman did held on to their empire for nearly 500 years , they did suffered some defeats by Hannibal and another famous defeat in Germania when they lost 20000 men.
Still a mean feat 500 years is no joke.

Originally posted by JADESTONE

I did some research and found that he Mongol army had some nifty stratergy.

Whats interesting about the accounts of Ghengis Khan and the mongols is that they were all written by the people he conquered. They say the ''History is written by the victors" but the opposite was true in Ghengis Khans case as the mongols had no written language at the time.

Thats why many portrayed him as a muderous dumb barbarian. In truth he was very smart and started some modern ideals such as freedom of religon and a early version of free global trade.

He made people he invaded pay taxes to him but many times they were less then the taxes they had to pay before Mongolians invaded.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by JADESTONE

I did some research and found that he Mongol army had some nifty stratergy.

Whats interesting about the accounts of Ghengis Khan and the mongols is that they were all written by the people he conquered. They say the ''History is written by the victors" but the opposite was true in Ghengis Khans case as the mongols had no written language at the time.

Thats why many portrayed him as a muderous dumb barbarian. In truth he was very smart and started some modern ideals such as freedom of religon and a early version of free global trade.

He made people he invaded pay taxes to him but many times they were less then the taxes they had to pay before Mongolians invaded.

Thats smart , less tax will no doubt keep the revolt in check. And also they were more able to bring more people into their folds. They rewarded the capable people unlike the Europeans where noblity was the prime factor .
Some sites are quoting that Subadi Khan (spelling?), their most famous general was a Chinese.


here is a site which says that the composite bow used by the mongols was much stronger than the longbow.
www.coldsiberia.org...


I am now also considering the Nazi germany , They were also a very efficient
force. They are the original one who came out with the Idea of Blitzkrieg now renamed by the Americans as Shock and Awe.

No doubt Hitler let them down, he was foolish to think he can take all of the world at once.

whill researching on romans I got this.


Rome: The Lost City of China

Lost City?

Did an ancient cohort of Roman warriors fight and work their way into China more than two thousand years ago? If this is true, it would prove a Roman presence in China even before the birth of Christ and the travels of Marco Polo.

www.discoverychannelasia.com...
www.100megsfree4.com...

Its very interesting ..... have a look

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
" 20,000 Indian infantry and 3,000 cavalry were killed " and Alexander only lost 80 men

how can people believe accounts like that.

Look at Alexanders actions after such a ''amazing victory'', you would think such a lopsided battle would would have only made his men eager to fight on against such a weak enemy.

But what does Alexander's army do it retreats out of India scared to go any further, something doesn't seem right here. He also leaves through a desert route out of India, why?That is not clear was he on the run or did he fear that his diminish army could be attacked by kings he defeated on the way in.

Im just saying we are getting only one side of the story and their was propoganda even back then.

[edit on 8-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

And here's what I'm just saying, ShadowXIX:

One side of the story? Huh? You kight want to try again ShadowXIX. Indian sources can be and were provided, to your lack of acknowledgement or recognition of. Btw, see any verification above to your insistance that Alexander lost that battle with Por?!

To be quite forward about this ShadowXIX, the very same can be said for your vaunted Genghis Khan? For everyone! "We are only getting one side of the story"!

Whats further amazing is how you keep chiming "only one side of the story" but have yet to recognize that also these accounts are from multiple upon mulitple varied sources. Alexander the Great is one of the most scholarly researched and studied individual's in military history, if not History, itself, ShadowXIX, even more so than Genghis Khan! In all my checking last night, I found ONE minimally and questionable source indicating what you have said and mentioned and with only ONE reference to back what it was claiming, and on verifying that ONE backing source, guess what? Did not come anywhere close to backing your and it's assertion and claim.

Your skepticism is noted and despite the validity of "numbers" to your satisfaction, History is based on eye-witness accounts and other historical writings from that or around that time period. You not liking that, your debating that, without doing your own crossreferencing and research, amounts to adhereing to the priciples and standards of Historical Revisionism! Certainly your not a proponent of historical revisionism, are you? Whether it was 80 Macedonian men killed or 5000, the simple point that history agrees on, based on the eye-witness and historical accounts from and around that age, was that Por lost, was defeated, was captured, had a conversation with Alexander, and was subjugated! You can continue to profess "loopsided" battles and such till your bloody heart is content, but as an active historical research assistant, you are and were in error here and will continue to be so, till you provided more credible sourcing to contradict those institutions of Oxford and Harvard and Chicago, and other highly prestigeous authors and historians that spent more years researching and studying all historical accounts on Alexander than you probably have been alive, and longer!

You want to contest such, you want to argue against, you want to belittle and whine "loop-sided" battles and "amazing victories," then please start producing some serious verifiable, historical sourcings that substantiate your continued efforts to deny that you were wrong and are wrong, k?




seekerof

[edit on 8-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
" 20,000 Indian infantry and 3,000 cavalry were killed " and Alexander only lost 80 men

how can people believe accounts like that.

I suspect people in the future will not beleive the kill ratios for the US in somalia.

A greek soldier in a phalanx is very well protected. The indian infantry was not encased in hardened armour like the greek. I'm not saying those numbers are accurate or not, but there can and infact should be a very wide disparity between indian and alexandrian casualties. This shows that when there are high greek casualties, that the indians did an especially good job.

Look at Alexanders actions after such a ''amazing victory'', you would think such a lopsided battle would would have only made his men eager to fight on against such a weak enemy.


Also, its very important to note that there aren't really indian sources from teh kingdoms that fought alexander that proclaim a victory. For example, the Egyptians and Hittites fought a major battle in the levant. It was effectively a draw. The egyptian account tells of a smashing victory. The HIttite account does too. Here, the greek account reports a victory, there are no indian accounts of victory, or of being ready to smash a retreating alexandrian army, or anything like that. The 'alexander lost' idea is something that only comes out of modern indian scholars.

But what does Alexander's army do it retreats out of India scared to go any further, something doesn't seem right here.

They're practically on the other side of the globe in an enviroment that'd be like beign on anoher planet to them and had long since defeated their actual enemy the persians and hunted down the Great King. Heck they'd conquered swaths of central asia in between destroying persia and invading india. They also apparently thought that the caspian was a bay of the world Ocean, meaning that they had at least expected to be at the end of the world, so to speak.

That is not clear was he on the run or did he fear that his diminish army could be attacked by kings he defeated on the way in.

Doubtful, the desert killed more of his soldiers that that would've. Those kings had already been defeated and paid tribute and remain a part of the system after wards no?

Im just saying we are getting only one side of the story and their was propoganda even back then.
Certainly. Heck Alexander supposedly had huge horse sadles built and buried, so that people would think his men had been giants.

amuk
A Good example for a Great Army with a great General would be Rommel in North Africa.

Why? He lost in the end, and apparently it was because of poor generalship.

An Example of a poorly equipped, trained and armed army lead by a Great General was the Southern Army lead by Robert E Lee

Perhaps this illustrates your point. THe confederacy was defeated, even tho the union had its generalship and command changed constantly.Lee was a better general than, say, Sherman, even tho Sherman's side ultimately won and Lee's side was defeated. The army, outside of its wider context, isn't overwhelmingly influential on its ultimate victories, which is certianly counter-intuitive. Thus, italians armed with long knives defeat masses of armoured greeks with 15 foot spears or hordes of germans.

seekerof
The elephants once blinded and their trunks cut by swords were as much of a danger to Porus' forces as the Macedonians.

This is why elephants never replaced horses for cavalry. They simply aren't good animals for war.

The greatest fighting force ever was probably the Scythians. First to tame a horse, first to use barbed arrows, first to encourage female participation in battle, first to perfect the bow as a means of arrow delivery, experts in guerilla warfare, feared by all who encountered them, and on top of all that they were pot smokers. To manage all that while stoned is a true military accomplishment.

BTW I'm not making this up.

Originally posted by Nygdan

amuk
A Good example for a Great Army with a great General would be Rommel in North Africa.

Why? He lost in the end, and apparently it was because of poor generalship.

That was my point, he was a very good General with a top notch Army but defeated none the less

An Example of a poorly equipped, trained and armed army lead by a Great General was the Southern Army lead by Robert E Lee

Perhaps this illustrates your point. THe confederacy was defeated, even tho the union had its generalship and command changed constantly.Lee was a better general than, say, Sherman, even tho Sherman's side ultimately won and Lee's side was defeated. The army, outside of its wider context, isn't overwhelmingly influential on its ultimate victories, which is certianly counter-intuitive. Thus, italians armed with long knives defeat masses of armoured greeks with 15 foot spears or hordes of germans.

Again that was my point there are so many factors that go into every battle that it is hard to claim one Army is the "Best". The WW2 German Army, the Roman Army, etc all have been acknowledged as some of the finest yet have suffered terrible defeats many times. Tactics, Leadership, Motivation, Terrain, Supply, heck even dumb luck play a large part in any battle.

As for Alexander, he was a Great General matched with a Great war machine but since it didnt last much longer than he did its hard to tell if it was his army or him.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The greatest fighting force ever was probably the Scythians. First to tame a horse

Since when? I was under the impression that domesticated horses pre-date the scythain tribe.

Originally posted by Seekerof


To be quite forward about this ShadowXIX, the very same can be said for your vaunted Genghis Khan? For everyone! "We are only getting one side of the story"!

[edit on 8-2-2005 by Seekerof]

I am well aware that we are only getting on side of the story with historical accounts Genghis Khan, infact it was the losing side which was highly baised.

But there are indeed events were accounts were recorded by both sides just like Nydan pointed. In these you can often see just how different the accounts were recorded depending on what side you were on.

boards.historychannel.com...!results.jspa?forumID=95&threadID=300033150


Poll:
What do you think was the best army of the ancient world?


Results (30 Votes Counted):
The Roman Army 22/73%

The Greek Army 4/13%

The Persian Army 1/3%

The Carthaginian Army 2/6%

Other 1/3%

Originally posted by JADESTONE
All those power have had a profound influence in their time. And all of those can claim to be the most efficient fighting force the world has ever seen.

The Greeks were surely not. They were defeated several times, e.g. during the Milet Insurection and at Termopiles.
You should think about the Saracens and the Turks.

[edit on 8-2-2005 by AtheiX]

Originally posted by radagast
boards.historychannel.com...!results.jspa?forumID=95&threadID=300033150


Poll:
What do you think was the best army of the ancient world?


Results (30 Votes Counted):
The Roman Army 22/73%

The Greek Army 4/13%

The Persian Army 1/3%

The Carthaginian Army 2/6%

Other 1/3%

Surprise surprise

no Mongols

And Persian Army is included.

What about the Normans and the Macedonians? Weren't they great? What about the present GB and Vietnam from the days of Vietnam war?

[edit on 8-2-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 8-2-2005 by AtheiX]

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by JADESTONE
All those power have had a profound influence in their time. And all of those can claim to be the most efficient fighting force the world has ever seen.

The Greeks were surely not. They were defeated several times, e.g. during the Milet Insurection and at Termopiles.
You should think about the Saracens and the Turks.

[edit on 8-2-2005 by AtheiX]

Yes they were defeted in Termopiles but looks at the odds 100,000 against a few thousands.

would like to know about Milet ...

nygdan
I'm pretty sure my info is accurate. Disprove it if I'm wrong, by all means. All I did was a search for Scythians Amazons Tame Horses. I'll post a couple to get you started, but there are many, many sources.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.moonspeaker.ca...

members.aol.com...

www.amazonworlds.com...

I hope you're convinced.

Romans! ... Best strategies ver...best inspiration for future armies...its not just waht you can destroy but also what you can rebuilt.

Originally posted by swintersVT
Japan for Discipline and strategic moments of brilliance compared to its size.

Sorry, but Japanesse samurais were not that disciplined (in battle). They were more disciplined than european knights, but a typical samurai battle was something like massive dueling.

Originally posted by longbow
Sorry, but Japanesse samurais were not that disciplined (in battle). They were more disciplined than european knights, but a typical samurai battle was something like massive dueling.

Yeah but the ninja's were quite cool you have to admit..I mean those guys where like whoa...