It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Alexander WON in India without problems. Why did he not advanced more east? Because his soldiers didn't want to. They were thousands miles from home, they wanted to see their wives, childrens etc. and they want to have a good life with money.

Romans VS Mongols - while Romans would be probably defeated on eastern battlefields, the Mongols would have big problems in european mountains.




posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

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.



Most of the ancient battles were fought in such manner .
Canae, Zama, Thermopyly, Pydna, Tigranocerta (Romans lost only 13 legionaries, while the Tigranes army - over 100 000 man - was completely destroyed). Even in medieval times i.e. Agincourt English lost only 13 knights+100 infantry VS french 5000.
Reasons for such disproportional loses?
1. Armies fought in disciplined formations. Most of the loses were caused when the losing army WAS FLEEING throwing down their weapons and shields. During the battle only a few soldiers were killed.
2. The own wounded soldiers were healed, while the enemy wounded unable to walk(or be sold as slaves) were simply killed.
3. Alexander soldiers were better protected, as already said.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
The Greeks hands down. Size comparison of their nation to what they took over. They were stronger than the Romans who are slightly behind.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
post deleted, two posts in row.

[edit on 8-2-2005 by longbow]



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
The Greeks hands down. Size comparison of their nation to what they took over. They were stronger than the Romans who are slightly behind.


I highly doubt Greeks were militarily stronger than Romans. It's true that Greeks were divided in small enemy states ... They were defeated by macedonians too. And the legions were much more disciplined and more flexible than greek phalanx. I would say Greeks were the best soldiers from 600 to 350 BC, but than no more.


Originally posted by JADESTONE
would like to know about Milet ...


500 Phoenician ships and the whole Persian army against 1 single city, that was the only reason for defeat.

[edit on 8-2-2005 by longbow]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
The Greeks hands down. Size comparison of their nation to what they took over.

But the roman legions were originally only open to the members of a single city.

They were stronger than the Romans who are slightly behind.

The roman division into legions and cohorts, and ultimately maniples, was certainly 'ahead' of the phalanx formation.


atheix
and at Termopiles.

What!? Thermopolyae? 500 hundred spartans defended the pass from the entire persian super army for days and were only defeated by being utterly and completely wiped out in a final malestrom of missils. They couldn't retreat, couldn't manouver very much even. That was one of the few instances where a loss was a real win. They showed that, pound for pound, they far outclassed the persians in ability, and the rest of all greece for sheer determination, fortitude and loyalty.


jadestone
Surprise surprise no Mongols

Thats because its an ancient world question.


wyrdeone
a search for Scythians Amazons Tame Horses.



en.wikipedia.org...
The mtDMA analysis showed that the modern horses had almost as much genetic variation as samples of fossil horses. By contrast, similar mtDNA analyses had shown that modern individuals from cattle, sheep, water buffalo, and pig breeds are much less genetically diverse than their ancient forbears. This would suggest that horses, unlike the other domestic animals studied, had ancestors in many places, implying that domestication occurred in many areas.

But the scythians could be the first.


One claim is that evidence at several sites shows equine tooth wear that only could appear from the friction of a bit against the molars. Sites incluke Dereivka, a Ukrainian settlement site (circa 4500–3500 BCE), and the Botai culture, dated 3500–3000 BCE in the northern steppes of Kazkhstan, east of the Ishim River

This would infact seem to support the scythians, even 'traditional' scythians (i usually think of central asians and peoples near mongolia as non scythian, or even non-iranian speakers as non scythians)

the unequivocal date of domestication and use as a means of transport is circa 2000 BC, the Sintashta chariot burials.


Hmm, this would also seem to support it, tho I usually don't think of the original indo-europeans as being scythiansm, but that might be a "lumper versus splitter" issue really.

on sintashta
www.csen.org...
csc.ac.ru...
www.people.fas.harvard.edu...
Some intersting Google Scholar Results for Scythian and Shintashta

I had been under the impression that it was a more asiatic invention, what with 'przwalskis' (or some such) aboriginal horse being in the deep steppes now. But it looks like your statement is effectively correct.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
nygdan
It's wicked hard to figure things like this out. Nobody can really offer anything more than a best guess, an educated stab at the truth. To my knowledge the Scythians didn't even keep written records, nor did their 'predecessors' the Central Indo-Europeans for the most part. Native Americans could very well be the first, or a mystery culture nobody knows about. I'm 'right' in this case, but only as correct as the evidence allows.

I tend to go with consensus because it seems the right thing to do, but that can sometimes be little more than a bunch of parrots regurgitating the opinion of some other 'learned' man. The whole issue of history is a sticky one because there is no absolute truth, only compartmentalized accounts tainted by nationalism and racism (for the most part). The rest is usually 'inspired fiction' like Atlantis.

Japanese samurai were incredible single combat warriors, there is no doubt about that in my mind. If anyone is interested in learning more about Samurai and the Japanese style of warfare, read up on the battle of Dan no Ura. The rank and file however were little more than peasants with pikes. I'd say the Japanese are out of the running for that fact alone (though I do love the culture and have studied it extensively).



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

What!? Thermopolyae? 500 hundred spartans defended the pass from the entire persian super army for days and were only defeated by being utterly and completely wiped out in a final malestrom of missils. They couldn't retreat, couldn't manouver very much even. That was one of the few instances where a loss was a real win. They showed that, pound for pound, they far outclassed the persians in ability, and the rest of all greece for sheer determination, fortitude and loyalty.


In fact it was 300 Spartans AND 8000 other Greeks for first 2 days. When Leonidas (spartan king) realized that they were flanked by Persians (3rd day), he sent most of his force home, only the soldiers from Thespii and Fokis remained (because their cities were already destroyed). So it was not only 300 Spartans, there were much more man (2000-3000?), but the Spartans took all the glory.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by longbow]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
So it was not only 300 Spartans, there were much more man (2000-3000?), but the Spartans took all the glory

I'd have to say that they still deserve it, they faced it in the end and were destroyed to a man. the others with the spartans, as i understand it, at the end, were their assistants and support, armed helots and logistics and the like.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow


In fact it was 300 Spartans AND 8000 other Greeks for first 2 days. When Leonidas (spartan king) realized that they were flanked by Persians (3rd day), he sent most of his force home, only the soldiers from Thespii and Fokis remained (because their cities were already destroyed). So it was not only 300 Spartans, there were much more man (2000-3000?), but the Spartans took all the glory.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by longbow]



Longbow is right on that there were about 3000 men in the first 2 days. Leonidas and about 300 men stayed behind for the final day battle ,he did it to allow the rest a safe exit and also because it was predicted that to save Sparta , a spartan king will have to die.

But some modern scholars have cast doubt on the whole affair, u see the episode involves 3 days . And anything with 3 is suspected,as it was a norm to make stories and poem involving the number 3.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

I'd have to say that they still deserve it, they faced it in the end and were destroyed to a man. the others with the spartans, as i understand it, at the end, were their assistants and support, armed helots and logistics and the like.


Nope, they were all regular hoplites. At the beginning there were +/-8000 man together (300 Spartans+various Greek allies). 3rd day 300 Spartans+1700 other hoplites from Fokis+Thespis remained. That was what I meant, that Spartans took all the glory, because everybody talks only about the Spartans,only a few people know that other1700 man died there too.
BTW all Greeks knew that it was probably from the beginning a suicide mision - IMO that was the reason why Sparta for example sent only 300 man (they had 10 000 hoplites+much more helots). The all free mainland Greek states could easily field 50 000-80 000 man, it's a mystery why they have not done it.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Djenghis khan! People tend to forget that the mongolian empire is actually a half mongolian half turkish empire. Just look at his name djenghis khan is the central aziatic turkish way of saying sea king.

Yavuz Selim is also very good. He doubled the territory the size of the ottoman empire.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I find it odd to think nobody has mentioned the British Empire. You talk about ‘Great Victories’ and ‘Colonizing’ the world. Well, think of this. Britain at one point in time had: Australia, parts of Africa, China parts of the Middle East. New Zealand, Canada, control over a lot of island nations off of America. List goes on.

It held roughly 40% of the World and 25% of the Worlds population and lasted from the 14th Century to arguable the present day.

During this period, Britain defeated France, Spain, the Dutch, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, hundreds of aboriginal tribes and several revolutions. The only revolution during that period that worked was the American and at the end of that war, they still had to buy the land back off of England before they could establish the ‘United States’.

Although now the Empire has all but been disbanded, it is one of the longest running in History and arguable one of the most important. It caused the ‘Industrial Revolution’ through most of the world. Reshaped the ‘Middle East’ and made English a language of a Nation with less then 25million people the 3rd most spoken language of the present day.

Also these Nations still are under British Control: Gibraltar in the Mediterranean; the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, and St. Helena (including Ascension and Tristan da Cunha) in the South Atlantic; Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, and the Turks and Caicos Islands in the West Indies; and Pitcairn Island in the Pacific

If you wish to talk about Military Victories, during this period Britain had to go against the Spanish Armada, The Napoleonic Wars, Anglo-Spanish War, Anglo-Dutch Java War, War of the Quadruple Alliance, War of the Spanish Successor, Bore Wars, Hundred Years War and World War 1, just to list the ones I know off of the top of my head.

These wars and the British Empire shaped the World as we know it. Without this it is arguable if The ‘United States’ could of ever been a Super Power or if China would of ever joined together. It is also this Empire that stopped the advancements of the Middle East and Africa, returning them into poverty and also brought amazing advancements in technology. I don’t see how anybody can of over looked this. Out of all the mass Empires that have ever existed, this one has helped shape the world unlike any other.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Nope, they were all regular hoplites. At the beginning there were +/-8000 man together (300 Spartans+various Greek allies). 3rd day 300 Spartans+1700 other hoplites from Fokis+Thespis remained.

The Phocaeans weren't battleing the main line tho, they were guarding the pass that was revealed to the persians by a greek traitor. The persians overran them and then surrounded the 300 spartans. They couldn't have all been armed as hoplites, the helots at a minimum would not be armed as hoplites, and every city is going to have non hoplites (tho, as far as I know, every city will have a core of hoplites). Lots of other people certainly fought in the battle. In the end it was the 300 spartans and the thespians that were annihilated, making a final stand. The greeks at the time recognized the bravery of the people involved all around.

All the credit should not go to the spartans alone, agreed. But the defeat at thermopalyae is certianly not a black mark on the acheivements of the spartans.


www.livius.org...]livius.org's take on herodotus' account
The Persian army invades Thessaly along the pass of Tempe, and reaches Thermopylae without further incidents. The Greek garrison is small (4000 men, including 300 heavily armored Spartans, 400 Corinthians and 400 Thebans[..]
[Leonidas] sends away the other troops, but orders the Spartans and Thebans to stay. The Thespian contingent and a seer named Megistias refuse to leave[...]
Then, he orders his men to go forward against their opponents, who are flogged towards the Spartans by their officers. When Leonidas falls, a bitter struggle over his body breaks out. Herodotus tells that the Greeks have to drive off the enemy four times, and finally succeed in dragging it away. Then, the Thebans desert their allies and surrender; the Spartans and Thespians retreat to a small hill, where they are killed by Persian archers.


Leonidas


The hill where the 300 spartans and the thespians were killed

IMO that was the reason why Sparta for example sent only 300 man (they had 10 000 hoplites+much more helots).

The Spartans were very much undesirous of fighting abroad. They wanted to wait until the persians were in lacodameia and fight them there. They were under high pressure from the rest of the greeks, so they sent a small army.
The all free mainland Greek states could easily field 50 000-80 000 man, it's a mystery why they have not done it.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Djenghis khan! People tend to forget that the mongolian empire is actually a half mongolian half turkish empire.

The mongol empire included turcic subject peoples, but not modern 'turks' of the sort the live in turkey.

Heck, the turcic expansion itself was a big empire, even outside of the ottomans.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
They are turks. Turks arent the people living in turkey only. Turks are the people who have turkish customes speak turkish and feel turkish. Like my dad had a student from kazachistan who said he wasnt a kazach but a turk.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I'm just distinguishing between Turks, ie the people in turkey who call themselves turks, and turcic peoples, who speak turcic langauges, like the turkomen or various other central asiatic ethnicities.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
They call themselfs turkish. There isnt a real difference between turkey turks and central asiatic turks other than there is more european influence.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Roman's took their fighting tactics from Late-era greece.
They took the Phalanx idea and made it more manuverable.
they subdivided the usually 200 men Phalanx into seval groups of 50 or so men. In essence the roman style was a more advanced version of the greek style.

However, for the rest, you cant really compare the various armies, as they're methods were for much different purposes.

its like comparing a Steyr Scout to a P90



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by AtheiX
 



The Macedonians were Greeks.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join