I'd say you actually need both. To stay with sherman's comparison, what if it's 200 6th graders? They will get you. if they just start moving towards a wall with you inbetween them and the wall, you lose.
Of course, the better quality soldiers you have, the less you soldiers you need and vica versa.

I'd say you actually need both. To stay with sherman's comparison, what if it's 200 10th graders?

1217, you dont seem to know me...It would take like 3 10th graders....

Originally Posted by sherman105

1217, you dont seem to know me...It would take like 3 10th graders....

Oops, you said 6th graders... my bad, we have a different school system here, so I should've checked before I pressed <Submit>

LOL.....Very off-toppic, but I weigh about 65 Kg and Im 174cm talll, so I think a few 10th graders could prettey much kill...Obvcours, its all about intimidation...Make the think your really nuts, and theyll back off....Goes for armies two, make your enemy think your strong, even when weak..

ok,ok inuff about six graders my grandma(you dont wanna mess with her) could take them out,etc,etc
as 1217 said you need both well trained army in big numbers could go to hell and back

Its like buying a car why buy 20 cars that drive about 1000 miles each when you can buy one car that does over 100,000 miles w/no problems?

There's an old saying:
slow and steady wins the race, but fast and steady is better

The best army in the world would have the best of both high numbers of highly trained soldiers. 8)

Originally Posted by IrishWizard

A good example of a small unit against a larger one would be the Spartan army in a certain war... Persian War or Pelop*****ian where it was 7,000 Spartans vs. 24,000 Persians. All the Spartans died but they killed over 15,000 men. Thats skill

But that was loss for the spartans and victory for the persians bloody victory but victory. I do think this example is pro-quantity army - to me it says you'll lose a lot but you'll win eventually

Not really, because the Parsians were devestated by this ammount of casualties....Besides, the Parsians were not low quality, they were very trained and highkly orgenised.

OFFTOPIC

Originally Posted by sherman105

Not really, because the Parsians were devestated by this ammount of casualties....Besides, the Parsians were not low quality, they were very trained and highkly orgenised.

Bah, the elite part of the persian army was the cavalry - the noble men and high ranking ones, with the famous persian armour - the best of it's times but the ulk of the army was in fact militia.