About Best military training in history Page 2
|December 22nd, 2005||#11|
| || |
The only reason Sparta failed to keep this up, was it's standards were so high, they just didn't have the numbers. Plenty of Perioikoi and Helots to command though.
"Even if I wished to surrender to you - and I don't - I am commanding Australian's who would cut my throat if I accepted your Terms" Colonel C Hore, Siege of Elands River, 1900
If You want to See the Future, Read a History Book
|December 22nd, 2005||#12|
| || |
The greatest thing about the Roman Legionaire was that he was probably comparable to most any soldier of any are for his prowess in battle, but much more important than that, he learned to blend his skills almost perfectly with his fellow Legionaires. Sure they had a technological edge over their enemies, but the greatest secret of their success was how coordinated and disciplined their Legions were. I think that the Spartan warrior was probably tougher individually, but not as thoroughly trained to function as a coordinated unit in battle as the Legionaire. They're both excellent examples.
"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it."
- General Robert E. Lee
Warning, critical pebkac error in the iD10t!! pebkac\wtflolurpwnzd\snafuroflmao.exe called iD10t, iD10t failed to respond!! System in danger!!
"It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." -Chevy Chase
|December 22nd, 2005||#13|
| || |
It's also important to distinguish between regular and elite/bodyguard troops - obviously the latter are likely to have more intense training than normal troops.
Ignoring the fact that elite/bodyguard troops are 'by definition' more highly trained I'd say there's no simple way of determining who had the best regular training. Do you call skills like riding a horse that may be fundamental to your way of life military training if you happen to be part of a warlike people? IMO no. We have to examine training that is done only with a military purpose in mind. Also, does experience in the field count or just training systems in place?
Quite frankly I'm distrustful of much of ancient military history - the reporting systems in place were often word of mouth and it was been proven that much of it is simply exaggerated. In any case I think this question is impossible to answer but possible candidates for best regular army training might be:
- Japanese feudal Samurai
- Spartan Warriors
- Roman Legionnaires, especially post Gaius Marius reforms
- German Wehrmacht 1936-42
Frankly, I just don't have the knowledge to give a satisfactory answer to this question.
"An Emperor is subject to no-one but God and justice."
Frederick 1, Barbarossa
Last edited by Doppleganger; December 22nd, 2005 at 17:23..
|December 22nd, 2005||#14|
| || |
True that the question has no EXACT answer, but surely it isnt that big of a problem.
I do agree about the Romans. They were more advanced than their enemies. Used better tactics, and we all have to agree on their discipline.
They were trained to work together and divided the units and created centurions to keep the discipline and morale. They created formations such as the testudo formation or the turtle formation as well. They are an example of any modern military, as they have influenced both, Napoleon and Hitler.
The mongols to have to be mentioned, as they were the first to creat the stirrups if I am not mistaken. But the mongols aslo had more numbers as well as horses. Each man had approx 3 horses. They also used good tactics, but to me, they were more of barbarians. They killed and ravaged eveything. Here, the honor comes into play.
What is a good soldier without honor and dignity?
Here, we can mention the Japanese samurai, as they followed the code of bushido, or the way of the warrior. Fascinating warriors if you ask me. Prefered suicide over shame and loss of honor. A really complicated and complex way they got. Lived by following that code as well as grew up being a warrior. To them, honor and tradition was everything, some of them prefered the sword and bow over the European Arquebus and Musket, why? cause it was the weapon of their ancestors and true wep of a samurai.
So, it might differ from one place to another, each had thei own unique abilities.
~when a man does his best, what else is there? Gen.George S.Patton
|December 23rd, 2005||#15|
| || |
|December 24th, 2005||#16|
| || |
The romans used better tactics and were more modernized in ideology and ways, but I bebieve i already mentioned that
anyways, u could for sure not underestimate the Spartans. Ont thing is, the Spartans didnt think of conquering such as the romans or mongols.
And their numbers where less.
They also created good formations such as the phalanx.
|December 24th, 2005||#18|
| || |
lol, yeah. also Juijitsu and stuff.. archery..
Thats why, from the fist day of their lifes, the comit their lifes to be a samurai, he does not learn this in one day or have to go to classes, well sometimes he does, but he learns most of it during the course of his life.
|December 24th, 2005||#19|
| || |
Man for man, Sparta. Technology and tactics, Rome.
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”
—John Stuart Mill