Favorite Type of Soldier.

[CelticBard]

Favorite type of soldier. I.E. Greek Hoplite, Macedonian Phalangite, Swiss Pikemen, Egyptian Mamluke, Turkish Janissary, etc. What warriors are revered, and which not cared for by the historical public.

[Commander]

I think a roman centurion would be one of the most reveared soldiers. The possessed all the necessary skills to be warriors and killing machines.

Soldiers that participate in guerilla warfare and use unconventional methods are not cared for by the historical public in my opinion.

[CelticBard]

Commander, have you watched the HBO show Rome? I believe they accurately illustrate many things, one thing I do not agree with them on is their portrayal of the Celtic Gauls and especially Vercingetorix, but they show Roman military life better than I've ever seen before.

The Centurion is portrayed as a sergeant like man, tasked in battle with keeping the line steady, while he has a disciplinary role in the camp.

Most Western societies, Rome, Gaul, Greece, and their Chivalrous successors all looked disfavorably down on skirmishing troops. Archers, javelineers, and slingers were all essential in battles, but usually were brought in as specialists, Cretan archers, Balearic slingers, or made up of by young or poor men, Roman veles, Celtic skirmishers. In Celtic societies the skirmishers were the young men who didn't have the strength to wield a sword yet.

Eastern societies, Parthia / Persia, Sarmatia, Mongolia, Japan all relied heavily on archery. The Parthians and other steppe nomads were dependent on their hordes of mounted skirmishers, while Japanese warfare was much more about the bow than it ever was about the sword.

[Gustav II Adolph]

The American fightingman regardless of time period.

[UberCryxic]

Three words: French Imperial Guard (1804-1815). Would rape your Roman centurions, American fightingmen, and anything else you could throw at them.

Other great and elite units, among many others, were the Persian Immortals, the Byzantine Varangian Guard, and the Knights Templar.

[Gustav II Adolph]

Three words: French Imperial Guard (1804-1815). Would rape your Roman centurions, American fightingmen, and anything else you could throw at them.

Other great and elite units, among many others, were the Persian Immortals, the Byzantine Varangian Guard, and the Knights Templar.

Sherman's men in 1864-1865 would have went through the Imperial guard like sh*t through a goose.

"When I found that Sherman's men were marching through the North Carolina swamps corderoying its own roads and making 10 miles a day. I new then there was no greater army since the time of Julius Ceaser."

Gen. Joseph E. Johnston

[Belisarius]

Three words: French Imperial Guard (1804-1815). Would rape your Roman centurions, American fightingmen, and anything else you could throw at them.

Other great and elite units, among many others, were the Persian Immortals, the Byzantine Varangian Guard, and the Knights Templar.

In that case, purely in the cause of friendly debate: The British Infantryman, 1700-1914. None better!

Think I might have mentioned Waterloo but thought better of it. Oh No! I did, damn! :lol:

[UberCryxic]

"Sherman's men in 1864-1865 would have went through the Imperial guard like sh*t through a goose."

Agreed, primarily because they had better weapons. These fighting scenarios between units in different time periods is a bit childish, and I'm sorry for starting it. My ideas were comparative; that is, comparatively they were better than "American fightingmen," a confusing term that is. Given equal weapons and enough time to learn how to use them, and enough tactical indoctrination in other matters, the Imperial Guard would probably win. They really only ever failed at Waterloo, and even that had more to do with striking the wrong place rather than some fault of theirs.

"In that case, purely in the cause of friendly debate: The British Infantryman, 1700-1914. None better!"

I just have a question about the choice for years; why not go until 1918? 1914 leaves out the Somme, the superb British offensives on the Western Front in 1918 so critical to ending the war, and a ton of other things.

"Think I might have mentioned Waterloo but thought better of it. Oh No! I did, damn!"

Only the Young and Middle guards ever broke at Waterloo. The Old Guard fought well throughout.

[Lord_Cronus]

The Old Imperial Guard was composed of some of the best fighters in the world at the time.

[Belisarius]

Why 1914? I thought about that. I sought to just include the Regular professional army, as opposed to the mass citizen armies that followed.

[UberCryxic]

Why 1914? I thought about that. I sought to just include the Regular professional army, as opposed to the mass citizen armies that followed.

And the ones.....who did so much in laying the groundwork for modern infantry tactics. Great ommission.

[Professor Phantom]

British sailor no one could navigate the seas better!

[Belisarius]

British sailor no one could navigate the seas better!

Carefull! You'l provoke UberC into a discourse on why Dutch, Portugese and Spanish sailors laid the foundation of modern navigation techniques! :lol:

[CelticBard]

No one has mentioned the Spartans yet? Or the Nervii, the Celtic Sparta? Or Prussia, known as Sparta of the North? All elitist military societies.

[Gustav II Adolph]

"Sherman's men in 1864-1865 would have went through the Imperial guard like sh*t through a goose."

Agreed, primarily because they had better weapons. These fighting scenarios between units in different time periods is a bit childish, and I'm sorry for starting it. My ideas were comparative; that is, comparatively they were better than "American fightingmen," a confusing term that is. Given equal weapons and enough time to learn how to use them, and enough tactical indoctrination in other matters, the Imperial Guard would probably win. They really only ever failed at Waterloo, and even that had more to do with striking the wrong place rather than some fault of theirs.

"In that case, purely in the cause of friendly debate: The British Infantryman, 1700-1914. None better!"

I just have a question about the choice for years; why not go until 1918? 1914 leaves out the Somme, the superb British offensives on the Western Front in 1918 so critical to ending the war, and a ton of other things.

"Think I might have mentioned Waterloo but thought better of it. Oh No! I did, damn!"

Only the Young and Middle guards ever broke at Waterloo. The Old Guard fought well throughout.

I ment man for man. The soldiers that came out of the Mid West at that time were some of the toughest in military history.

[Lord_Cronus]

"Sherman's men in 1864-1865 would have went through the Imperial guard like sh*t through a goose."

Agreed, primarily because they had better weapons. These fighting scenarios between units in different time periods is a bit childish, and I'm sorry for starting it. My ideas were comparative; that is, comparatively they were better than "American fightingmen," a confusing term that is. Given equal weapons and enough time to learn how to use them, and enough tactical indoctrination in other matters, the Imperial Guard would probably win. They really only ever failed at Waterloo, and even that had more to do with striking the wrong place rather than some fault of theirs.

"In that case, purely in the cause of friendly debate: The British Infantryman, 1700-1914. None better!"

I just have a question about the choice for years; why not go until 1918? 1914 leaves out the Somme, the superb British offensives on the Western Front in 1918 so critical to ending the war, and a ton of other things.

"Think I might have mentioned Waterloo but thought better of it. Oh No! I did, damn!"

Only the Young and Middle guards ever broke at Waterloo. The Old Guard fought well throughout.

I ment man for man. The soldiers that came out of the Mid West at that time were some of the toughest in military history.

You ain't kidding. Those people were as close to savages as you can get. Some of them would take the teeth of people they've killed and wear them on a necklace, and scalping was the preferred kill. Some of the stories I've read about Bleeding Kansas are just gruesom.

[UberCryxic]

"I ment man for man. The soldiers that came out of the Mid West at that time were some of the toughest in military history."

This statement in itself is not being contested, but the French soldiers from the Revolution were also brave and tough, with years of ideological indoctrination that surpasses anything Civil War soldiers experienced. So even man for man you don't have a good argument. If this is the basis that you're choosing, then the French would win outnumbered 10-to-1. The Old Guard simply was tougher than anything thrown at it. Waterloo was really their only reversal, and even then they acquitted themselves fairly well.

[Gustav II Adolph]

"I ment man for man. The soldiers that came out of the Mid West at that time were some of the toughest in military history."

This statement in itself is not being contested, but the French soldiers from the Revolution were also brave and tough, with years of ideological indoctrination that surpasses anything Civil War soldiers experienced. So even man for man you don't have a good argument. If this is the basis that you're choosing, then the French would win outnumbered 10-to-1. The Old Guard simply was tougher than anything thrown at it. Waterloo was really their only reversal, and even then they acquitted themselves fairly well.

I respect you opinion, but I disagree.

[Fishystick]

I must say the Roman Legionary. No doubt these soldiers were at the top of their game. And when trained and bled in battles, they only got stronger. They could stop a calvery charge, break a charge, and throw their spears at a distance.

[CelticBard]

"Sherman's men in 1864-1865 would have went through the Imperial guard like sh*t through a goose."

Agreed, primarily because they had better weapons. These fighting scenarios between units in different time periods is a bit childish, and I'm sorry for starting it. My ideas were comparative; that is, comparatively they were better than "American fightingmen," a confusing term that is. Given equal weapons and enough time to learn how to use them, and enough tactical indoctrination in other matters, the Imperial Guard would probably win. They really only ever failed at Waterloo, and even that had more to do with striking the wrong place rather than some fault of theirs.

"In that case, purely in the cause of friendly debate: The British Infantryman, 1700-1914. None better!"

I just have a question about the choice for years; why not go until 1918? 1914 leaves out the Somme, the superb British offensives on the Western Front in 1918 so critical to ending the war, and a ton of other things.

"Think I might have mentioned Waterloo but thought better of it. Oh No! I did, damn!"

Only the Young and Middle guards ever broke at Waterloo. The Old Guard fought well throughout.

I ment man for man. The soldiers that came out of the Mid West at that time were some of the toughest in military history.

You ain't kidding. Those people were as close to savages as you can get. Some of them would take the teeth of people they've killed and wear them on a necklace, and scalping was the preferred kill. Some of the stories I've read about Bleeding Kansas are just gruesom.

But savage isn't always good. Look at the whole history of Rome v. Gaul or of the Anglo-Normans against the Irish, matter of fact, look at the Indians, another group of scalpers, they were decimated by civilized discipline. Savage works well in small scale fighting, the history of Rome v. Caledonii, but as soon as the savage meets the civilized in a large scale, pitched battle, things typically go poorly.

[Tancred]

Too many to name one. But among the many I would include:

Cromwell's Cavalry-Disciplined, determined and highly effective
Norman Cavalry-The best of their period in Western Europe
Landsknechts-The soldiers everyone wanted in their armies in the early 1500s
Mongols-Ruthless and fierce
Sioux Warrior-Crazy Horse, says it all
Current Special Ops-Has there ever been a better trained warrior?
English Longbowman-There wouldn't have been a Crecy, Portiers or Agincourt for the English to celebrate without them.
Alexander's Companions-The greatest component of the greatest army
Apaches-You try running around in the desert Southwest

[Ymeto]

I think one group that we have left out that deserves some mention are the Egyptian Mameluks. They were slave warriors in the Muslim culture who overthrew the ruler of Egypt. On top of this they took out the Mongols and the Euopean Crusaders (what was left of them) in the Mid-East.

[pietimport]

the roman empire;

roman centurion they where the best.

they had a lot of disipline and a very big army.

and they where a big giant

[Cunedda]

The Roman Legion

Cause without it Europe and the world would have been a different place.

[sun_tzu345]

Japanese Samurai!!!:
-lamellar armor small leather/steel plates overlapping
-swordsmanship
-katana made by folding steel several times to multiply strength
-strategy

[Breth]

You know, II was reading a little maunal I had found that had been declassified. It was written by someone/people in the engineers corp during the Veitnam war. It was describing what the traps looked like, how they were made, how they were used. The Veitcong and North Veitnamese could mkae A helluva lotta **** out of ****.

They are not thought of much.

has anyone mentioned the Turks? They were good too.

Also the Carls, regardless of thier country.

[Kampfpanzer]

Imperial Prussian Army 1871-1918
The early war years of the "Panzerwaffe" that utilized the Blitzkrieg so well up until 1943.
The USAF, the Bundeswehr, the military of Great Britain, the Afghani's (who kicked the living hell out of the Soviet's, that's always a positive thing.) and the South Korean Marine Corps.

[Lee Cookies Oswald]

my favorite is most likely the SS Tank commanders in the german army in ww2. i love everything about them. their tanks, their uniforms, the battles in which they fought....everything.

[philosalexandros]

everyone seems to be forgetting about the spartans and also alexander's companion calvary (or at least one person remembmered him) because how can you get better than a greek soldier being trained from 6 or 7 years old to the rest of his life. one example of their slaughtering soldiers is the battle of thermoplyae (however spelled)

[Zachary]

I would Have to say Napoleon army

[philosalexandros]

i am talking about spartans by the way

[gashead]

my favorite is most likely the SS Tank commanders in the german army in ww2. i love everything about them. their tanks, their uniforms, the battles in which they fought....everything.

didnt one tank commander, micheal wittman, end up destroying like 180 tanks by himself or sumthin and got the knights cross with oak leaves?

[Lee Cookies Oswald]

my favorite is most likely the SS Tank commanders in the german army in ww2. i love everything about them. their tanks, their uniforms, the battles in which they fought....everything.

didnt one tank commander, micheal wittman, end up destroying like 180 tanks by himself or sumthin and got the knights cross with oak leaves?
YES!!! omg i love whittmann...lol yea, he skored somethign really amazing at this one battle...cant remember which tho. yea he was amazing.

[Nikd]

Best infantry according to time period.

With criteria : Discipline, training, arms and of course results in battle field and respect from their opponents.

Ancient :
1. Roman Centurions
2. Macedonian phalanx
3. Spartan Hoplites
4. The Goths of Alarich

Medieval :
1. English Yeomen
2. Vikings
3. Byzantines

Renaissance :
1. Turk Janissary
2. Swiss Pikemen
3. Spanish infantry

Early :
1. Napoleon Guard
2. British infantry
3. Virginia infantry
4, German infantry

Modern :
1. Germans
2. US Marines
3. BEF
4. Vietnam infantry

[JerseyPerson14]

The roman legions take the cake. No other military has faced as many tough challenges and come out on top than the freakin romans. You have to count the Byzantines as romans by the way.

The Byzantines saw themselves as romans, and so did their contemporaries. They were not called byzantines during the dark or middle ages. They were simple just the romans.

[Nikd]

The roman legions take the cake. No other military has faced as many tough challenges and come out on top than the freakin romans. You have to count the Byzantines as romans by the way.

The Byzantines saw themselves as romans, and so did their contemporaries. They were not called byzantines during the dark or middle ages. They were simple just the romans.
Thanks for your notice about that.
Although "Byzantines" called themselves Romans, the Empire of 7th century ad and after had little to do with the Roman Empire of Augustus and Marcus Aurelius, Latin were not spoken and not even used in state documents, orthodox dogma, Muslim expansion, move of tribes like Slavs, Bulgars played also a significant role to forge a state with total different character than the Roman Empire, the empire was Roman only in tradition and his Emperor.

[Silverghost]

Best infantry according to time period.

With criteria : Discipline, training, arms and of course results in battle field and respect from their opponents.

Ancient :
1. Roman Centurions
2. Macedonian phalanx
3. Spartan Hoplites
4. The Goths of Alarich

Medieval :
1. English Yeomen
2. Vikings
3. Byzantines

Renaissance :
1. Turk Janissary
2. Swiss Pikemen
3. Spanish infantry

Early :
1. Napoleon Guard
2. British infantry
3. Virginia infantry
4, German infantry

Modern :
1. Germans
2. US Marines
3. BEF
4. Vietnam infantry

Hm... but
Napoleon Guard defeated by Russian Army of Emperor Alexander II (Cossacs and Hussars as elite)
Germans were also defeated by Soviet Army
So... you can make your own conclusions

[Belisarius]

Hm... but
Napoleon Guard defeated by Russian Army of Emperor Alexander II (Cossacs and Hussars as elite)
Germans were also defeated by Soviet Army
So... you can make your own conclusions

Napoleon's Guard was never defeated by the Russians, it was about all that survived 1812. I also think the Preobrazhensky, Semenovsky, Izmail, Litovsk and Finland Lifeguard regiments would be offended at you rating cossacks above them! :D

[Silverghost]

Napoleon's Guard was never defeated by the Russians, it was about all that survived 1812. I also think the Preobrazhensky, Semenovsky, Izmail, Litovsk and Finland Lifeguard regiments would be offended at you rating cossacks above them! :D

Good, thanks for showing my mistakes!
But, why didn't Napoleon used his Guard in Russia? What did he scared about?

[PADDYBOY]

I like the ones you dip in soft boiled eggs :) Yummy, scrumtuous :D

[Belisarius]

Good, thanks for showing my mistakes!
But, why didn't Napoleon used his Guard in Russia? What did he scared about?

He did, at the Berezina crossing on the way back. By then the Guard was the only unit functioning at anything like its pre invasion capabilities.

Napoleon kept his Guard as a final reserve of loyal battle hardened troops he could rely on without question. He had no real need to committ them on the way into Russia.

[Simon Bolivar]

My favorite soldier would have probably have been the highly trained and extremely brave soldiers of ancient Sparta.

[gashead]

Being one myself, I would say the british territorial army soldier. Willing to work a normal life and surrender his free time to serve her majesty the queen.

'Swift and Bold' 6th Battalion Motto

[Belisarius]

Celer et Audax. RGJs. I know you well.

[PADDYBOY]

Being one myself, I would say the british territorial army soldier. Willing to work a normal life and surrender his free time to serve her majesty the queen.

'Swift and Bold' 6th Battalion Motto


Now I understand !

I thought that was a picture of your driveway in the avatar :D

[gashead]

Now I understand !

I thought that was a picture of your driveway in the avatar :D

i would love to have a challenger 2 sitting on my driveway :p

[PADDYBOY]

Yep. I bet none of the neighbours would complain if you played your music to loud :cool:

You boys do a great job Gashead. Best of British mate. :)

[Jubelu]

:D To me:

Far East:

Mongolian Archers and Mongolian Heavy Lancers.
Reason: Their superior skills and their brilliant tactics give me an unprecedent admire. A unique highly disciplined, self-sufficent, and versatile ever seen in human history.

Samurai and Ninza: Their spirit reflects shinely their katana's blade.

Dai Viet Militia (Vietnamese Guards): For the stubborness and immortal heart, die for their motherland. They defeated Song, Yuan, Ming and became very close to people.

Timurid Armies Under Tamerlane: For the same reason of the Mongols, but with extra brilliant tactics with elephants.

Qin Imperial Guards and Tang Imperial Armies: Methinks, these two armies wrote the overture and the end of an glorious China.

Middle East:

The Janissary of Ottoman Empire: Their discipline and well-organised helped to brind down the legend Constantinople and the whole long-existed Byzantine Empire. (However, the story of the motherland is so poignant)

The Mamluks of Saladin: For their loyalty and their brilliant skill on horse back in the fighting against the Mongol armies.

Europe:

The Spartan Hoplite: No matter people are going to chat about the Thermopylae Battle, they are still the one of finest infantry units in the world.
(My affection of couse spread to Alexander's Army, but because they shared the same features, so don't count on the list:D )

The Roman Legion: Their achievement were unquestionable, who disagree, explain :D

The English Longbowmen: They played no small roles in defeating outnumbered French Army in early phrase of the Hundred Years War

The British Red Coat: For their best performance in the French and Indian War and the Seven Years War.

The Grenadier Corporation of Frederick the Great: They were pround son of Prussia

The Fearsome Bismarck's Army (1870-1871): With their brutal but brilliant inflict on France, they had proved themselves as the most powerful army in the late 19th century and showed to the rest of the world that Napoleon III's amry was only a tiger made by rotten fruits.

Napoleon Imperial Guard: They wrote the first line and the end point of the last greatest kingdom in Europe.

Soviet Red Army: For their extraordinary courage, they created a magic in Stalingrad: defeating the army of Hitler. Their infantry could be said as the most versatile one in Modern History.

[Nikd]

^^Nice post, i like the geographical sort that you have make.

[Charles V]

My favorite type of soldier would be the Spanish tercios in the 16th and 17th century. Their discipline and experience as well as their abilities impressed and frightened the armies of Europe for more than a century.

[Edgewaters]

My favourite is going to have to be the Viking raider and trader. They made no pretensions about national duty or moral right or racial superiority, they were out to adventure, grab treasure, and make money. And they were really good at it.

[FIRE STORM]

the housecarl's of the Saxon army

[Melisende]

Varangian Guard and the Janissaries - both groups were "outsiders" and therefore their loyalty was only to their Emperor. No conflict of interest, so to speak.

Normans would be next - for their sheer tenacity and courage.

[Penelope]

I have three Favorites.

Greek Hoplites, Ancient Hawaiian Warriors, and Zulu. All three because of the beauty of their armour or dress, the innovation of the weaponry used, and becuase they were all fierce in battle.

[philosalexandros]

i am also going to have to say praetorians they were pretty much the true emperors of rome

[stung]

Hey Penelope,what do you think of the idiots on the ALL EMPIRES forums?pretty funny huh?

[Edgewaters]

But savage isn't always good. Look at the whole history of Rome v. Gaul or of the Anglo-Normans against the Irish, matter of fact, look at the Indians, another group of scalpers, they were decimated by civilized discipline. Savage works well in small scale fighting, the history of Rome v. Caledonii, but as soon as the savage meets the civilized in a large scale, pitched battle, things typically go poorly.

Barbaric peoples (or modern peoples) don't generally do pitched battles.

Pitched battles are those where the commanders of the two sides agree to meet on some field at a specific time and place. Think 17th and 18th century European warfare.

[quyloc]

Brave people and love country like crazy

[Jonathan4290]

I would have to say the Macedonian phalanxman. Facing that formation would be so frustrating and would piss me right off.

[Chookie]

I'm slightly upset that no-one has yet mentioned the Clansmen of the Scottish Highlands and Islands, or the Gallowglass (from the same area, but an earlier era).

I would also point out that it was the common people of Scotland who beat the crap out of the English (who were supposedly the best army in existence) in the Wars of Independence.

[Belisarius]

I'm slightly upset that no-one has yet mentioned the Clansmen of the Scottish Highlands and Islands, or the Gallowglass (from the same area, but an earlier era).

I would also point out that it was the common people of Scotland who beat the crap out of the English (who were supposedly the best army in existence) in the Wars of Independence.

Someone's been watching too much Braveheart. :D:p

[NomadBard]

The highland clans of Scotland, fighting as schiltrons, were what defeated the armies of England after Edward I's death, but before his death they were the same armies that were slaughtered in droves by his longbowmen. Plus, it was the brain and ax of the noble Bruce that really hammered the English, Wallace lived as a detested rogue for a while after Falkirk before his own men sold him to his enemies.

[Sun Tzu]

ah my favorite would have to be a Spartan Hoplite they were the kind of soldiers who followed Leonidas to the end they were dauntless and they laughed in the face of death they lived for the battle.

[Belisarius]

The highland clans of Scotland, fighting as schiltrons, were what defeated the armies of England after Edward I's death, but before his death they were the same armies that were slaughtered in droves by his longbowmen. Plus, it was the brain and ax of the noble Bruce that really hammered the English, Wallace lived as a detested rogue for a while after Falkirk before his own men sold him to his enemies.

I think you'll find schiltrons were composed mainly of Lowlanders. Highland clan warriors of this period tended to fight in a different style and are usually depicted with shorter spears or javelins and axes or characteristic highland swords. Highlanders seem always to hog the limelight.

[PADDYBOY]

I think you'll find schiltrons were composed mainly of Lowlanders. Highland clan warriors of this period tended to fight in a different style and are usually depicted with shorter spears or javelins and axes or characteristic highland swords. Highlanders seem always to hog the limelight.


Thank you Belisarius :)

The well trained Scottish schiltrons (hedgehogs) were manned by English speaking, trouser wearing Lallanders
The English longbows were routed by the Scottish light horse and were not allowed to decimate the hedgehogs, as they did at Falkirk, when the Scots were led by Wallace.

It is sometimes claimed that the ancient Picts used schiltrons, though, in the images carved into stones, they form a line of swordsmen followed by a line of spearmen, with the spears projecting ahead of the swordsmen, the assumed purpose being to draw first blood from the enemy as they charge making the path easier for the swordsmen ?

[Nick]

I'm slightly upset that no-one has yet mentioned the Clansmen of the Scottish Highlands and Islands, or the Gallowglass (from the same area, but an earlier era).

I would also point out that it was the common people of Scotland who beat the crap out of the English (who were supposedly the best army in existence) in the Wars of Independence.
The reason the English lost was because of Edward II's incompetence.

[Chookie]

The reason the English lost was because of Edward II's incompetence.

Undoubtedly Edward II was incompetent, his nobility, however, were not.

[PADDYBOY]

I wonder how things would have turned out if the Scottish cavalry had not fled the field at Falkirk, or dare I say it, if the Bruce had been in command rather than Braveheart ???

[Chris Boonzaier]

The French Foreign Legion ;-)

[MrStoff1989]

The Highlanders!

[Iron]

The Parachute Regiment 1st Battalion, produces the best type of fighting soldier and are the best airbourne troops apart from Air Troop from the SAS.

To be fair i would say that, they are my Regiment but its true. :)

[1of300]

Spartan b/c of the Agoge

Centurion b/c they revolutionized warfare with equipment and tactics (Roman Pike, fortified camp structures)

Marines b/c amphibious assault tactics of the Air/Ground/Sea and numerous successful battles (Bela Wood, Pelilu, Okinowa, Iwo, Tripoli, Tarawa)

[Melisende]

TOY - because at the end of the day, if I don't want to play, I can pack up and go home!

[Melisende]

Okay - seriously - I've always been a bit partial to the Celts - whatever their strengths or failings.

[landser1941]

All Guard units are special,in the old days they were usually hand picked by their patrons,and for that honor they were expected to stand and die if he asked them to.
Harold and his house-carle's at Hastings,and Leonidas and his hand picked 300 at Thermopylae are in the "stand and die"catagory.
Napoleon Bonaparte's Imperial Guard was built out of a mixture of volunteers and draftees,but no matter how you came to be in his army you had to have 10 year's in the army, and fought in several campaigns to make it into the Old Guard infantry,The Grenadiers and Chasseur's a'Pied. You didnt get into those battalions without his personal OK,and you didn't get out without his personal OK.Its said that he knew most of them by name,and you could depend on him to pin your Legion of Honor on your chest,or make sure your family was taken care of after you died.And thousands of them died for him.
April 30th is the anniversary of the battle of Camerone fought in Mexico in 1863 by a single company of 63 men,and 3 officers of the French Foreign legion, against a force of about 2,500 hundred Mexican infantry and cavalry.At the end of the day,out of ammunition,the survivors fixed bayonets and charged.I think there was 2 survivors.
These were the type of units that fueled my interest as a kid.

[azguyrn]

Alexander's Macedonians. Foot march from Greece to India! Still amazing today. Demonstrated ability to fight all spectrums of war from counter insurgency (Parthia/Afghanistan) to full battle(countless victories). Even the Old Imperial French Guard wilted in Russia. The Macedonians just finally tired of walking after 10 years.

[C.C.Benjamin]

The Greek hoplite - The heavily-armoured phalanx was an awesome method of war in a time when everyone else wore little to no armour and wicker shields. A particular nod to the Spartans, whom Phillip and Alexander were to afraid to try and conquer.

[landser1941]

I tend to agree Alexander was a giant amongst warriors,and the only thing that he really ever did wrong was to die to young.
Have you ever read the story of Xenophon's march upcountry.Its 2,500 hundred year's old and very good.He died just the year before Alexander was born,I think.
I read it at a very young age,and it and Headley's "Napoleon and his Marshalls" started my interest in the military.

[Cutaway]

Japanese Ninjas & Samourai's, Aztec/India/Thai Warriors/Incas/Zulu's, Maori's & Aborigini's.

For modern day: Mercenaries, SEAL's, Commandos, French FL/Spanish FL Legionairres

Although Russian, I think the Spetsnaz are as the training is extremely LETHAL.

[Caesar]

I would say the Roman Army for fighting on foot and on horseback the Samaritan Knights.

[voltigeur]

It is a toss up of the European Armored Knights and Native American warriors.

[tjadams]

...Native American warriors.

Agreed. They accomplished so much with so little while facing overwhelming odds.

[Son of Cathal]

ANZAC Soldiers from WW1. Aussies and Kiwis FTW

[Richard Stanbery]

Saxon men of the fyrd? Shieldwall, anyone?

Or another favorite of mine, the Imperial Russian Cossacks of the Romanov Dynasty.

For least favorite, I would have to say Mongolian army under Ghengis Khan. Everybody hated them.

By the way, we Tennesseans (and a little help from "others") routed Shermans Army at Chickamauga.

[kilvil]

the one with enough brains to say lets go home lads

[mlipo]

By the way, we Tennesseans (and a little help from "others") routed Shermans Army at Chickamauga.

Sherman wasn't at Chickamauga.

[Henriksson]

The Finnish army during WWII who, even though vastly outnumbered, outgunned, outeverything, crushed the Red Army.

[tjadams]

Sherman wasn't at Chickamauga.

Sherman didn't take over the western theater from Grant till 64'. But CSA General B. Bragg sure did his job over the yanks at Chickamauga. Although Sherman & Bragg were close friends.

[sandymonart]

My favourite type of soldier is a typical Australian Regular Army Infantry platoon sergeant. Usually laconic and unflappable, combat experienced, absolutely dependable and able to be on one hand be seen to be totally supportive of his platoon commander and yet be able to apply and have accepted sensible input to command decisions when appropriate.

[Heidi XX]

My favourite type of soldier is a typical Australian Regular Army Infantry platoon sergeant. Usually laconic and unflappable, combat experienced, absolutely dependable and able to be on one hand be seen to be totally supportive of his platoon commander and yet be able to apply and have accepted sensible input to command decisions when appropriate.
Also one of my faverotes aswell, the Aussies, exspeicaly during ww2

[Son of Cathal]

Also one of my faverotes aswell, the Aussies, exspeicaly during ww2

Nah WW1, not that I have anything against the men who served in WW2, I just prefer the image of the Australian soldier in the First World War

[Kharn the Betrayer]

Cataphracts, French Gendarmes, Polish Husaria,

[Alex III]

I must go with two.

The Agrianes in the army of Alexander - these elite, light armed shock troops played massives roles in flanking and destroying enemy archers or, such as the case at Gaugamela, tying up large numbers of enemy heavy cavalry.

The other is the Companion Cavalry, the elite cavalry unit of the Macedonian army, commanded by Alexander himself.

[Efendi]

i think the most effective one in its time is. Mongolian Cavaliries.

Because of their mobilities.
Their war tactics.
Their weapons.

Sure no one like wars. and none of the warriours are/were greath man.

[Alex III]

i think the most effective one in its time is. Mongolian Cavaliries.

Because of their mobilities.
Their war tactics.
Their weapons.

Sure no one like wars. and none of the warriours are/were greath man.

Good choice.

But on the 'no one likes wars' comment. I disagree. Lots of people in history have liked war, have lived for war.

[Kharn the Betrayer]

The Mongols got the snot beaten out of them plenty of times a far more effective one would be the polish husaria who could beat solid infantry on their own and were very fast versatile and mobile cavalry

[Efendi]

Good choice.

But on the 'no one likes wars' comment. I disagree. Lots of people in history have liked war, have lived for war.

Unfortunatelly you are right. Some time i be so pesimistic about human beings. Sure history is full of people who live with sword and die with sword.

[Efendi]

The Mongols got the snot beaten out of them plenty of times a far more effective one would be the polish husaria who could beat solid infantry on their own and were very fast versatile and mobile cavalry

I realy don't have any idea about polish husaria.

Mongolians can endure long distance voyages. when they get hungry they can drink the blood of the horse. as i read in National Geographic.

they use many kind of arrow some of them not for killing but making the oppenent frightened with the sound it whistle.

Their horse perfect for long distance voyages. i read in N. Geographic that mongolian cut the nostril of the horses to let them breath more effectively.

May be Polish Hussaria could have better veapons i have no idea. But it is sure that Mongolian are probably best horse rider at their times. they learn to ride a horse when they were just a small kid.

i would like to have more info about Polish Husarias. I can't trust all the web pages.

[Kharn the Betrayer]

The Hussars also learned to ride and fight when they were little they trained from the time they were seven years old. BTW I don't recall the Mongols taking their horses on boats.

The Hussars were armed with two kinds of sword, two warhammers, four pistols and two carbines, a horsebow three quarter plate armour and maille, and shields, they were also armed with a 25 foot lance and were able to impale up to 4 people when they charged. They also had several remounts so they could keep going over long distances they were some of the best cavalry of their time able to shatter Tatars, Pikemen, Ottoman soldiers and enemy cavalry alike.

Don't get me wrong the Mongols did a pretty good job by themselves but they won because they used combined arms tactics not just because of their horse archers

[sturm]

Polish Hussaria, or as known as Polish wing hussars.
Heavy cavalry, good, well armed, but better then mongols, i cant agree on that.
Mongols (as all Steppe nomadic people), live on the back of there horses, they worshiped the horse, as a sacred animal, they made fantastic cavalry.

My favorite type of soldiers are the Cossacks, warlike people, who valued war, and never feared death, they were also known as fantastic cavalry.

[Labienus]

I really like the Scandinavian berserk (Danish/Norwegian). These guys were bloodthirsty killers.

[sturm]

The Hussars also learned to ride and fight when they were little they trained from the time they were seven years old. BTW I don't recall the Mongols taking their horses on boats.

The Hussars were armed with two kinds of sword, two warhammers, four pistols and two carbines, a horsebow three quarter plate armour and maille, and shields, they were also armed with a 25 foot lance and were able to impale up to 4 people when they charged. They also had several remounts so they could keep going over long distances they were some of the best cavalry of their time able to shatter Tatars, Pikemen, Ottoman soldiers and enemy cavalry alike.

Don't get me wrong the Mongols did a pretty good job by themselves but they won because they used combined arms tactics not just because of their horse archers
All nation that lived in the Steppe region worshiped the horse as sacred animal, and learned to ride from a small kid, so Hussars are not the only people who learn from small kids.
Mongols did the very same thing, there shock action from the cavalry cant compare with the europen knights but the mongols counter that with superior mobility which proved to be vital element in warfare (just look at the results, mongols manage to take many armies, and many countries).
Mongol tactic is not to charge as the polish hussars, but withdraw, disorder there opponent and then attack.
The hussars may have better armor and horse size, but mongols had advantage with faster horses and more flexible armament they were lancers/swordsmen/archers, actually they were perfect archers. Also the mongols had great discipline, and doctrine, which they fallowed.

[Kharn the Betrayer]

The Hussars were just as flexible as the mongols and better how else do you explain them defeating the mongols?

As learning to ride when they young my point was the mongols were hardly unique.

And IIRC it was the rare european heavy horse unit that could pull off something like the hussars did.

Did you read what I posted about the Hussars armament? The mongols did a good job but as I said before it was because of their combined arms tactics and ferocity and their empire didn't last that long.

The Hussars were also very disiplined and they crosstrained.

[sturm]

But exactly for which hussars do you speak about, the polish wing hussars ?

[Kharn the Betrayer]

Yes the Polish Winged Hussars

[sturm]

Mongolic empire was strong at 13-th -14-th century, after the fall of the Mongolic empire there are only different divided kahantes left.
So it is normal that mongolian cavalry will be inferior then Polish winged hussars, we are speaking about two different periods.
Gunpowder was wildly used during the time of the polish winged hussars, and as you pointed out, they too have used firearms.
Mongols were already outdated, so to speak..

[Kharn the Betrayer]

The Mongols used gunpowder! And the Tatar states even they might not cover that much territory they were foes to reckoned with and territorial coverage doesn't necessarily effect military power. So the Hussars were as good or better than the Mongols and bows and horse archers were still used with great effect well even in the 1800s

[sturm]

We already spoke about the effect of gunpowder weapons and bows in many threads.
I would like to know, how somebody may reload his musket on the back of the horse?
You know the answer.

[Kharn the Betrayer]

Yes it's doable granted it's hard to do in the middle of a melee which was why the Hussar relied primarily on his lance (Kopia) duriing charge and when he closed with the enemy he used one of his hand weapons.

[sturm]

Yes it's doable granted it's hard to do in the middle of a melee which was why the Hussar relied primarily on his lance (Kopia) duriing charge and when he closed with the enemy he used one of his hand weapons.
Yes and i never doubted the power of the wing hussars. Poland was actually very rich and powerful catholic country.
Mongolian cavalry did very similar thing, there horseman's used both melee weapons and bows, they were very good in using both..

[Efendi]

The Hussars also learned to ride and fight when they were little they trained from the time they were seven years old. BTW I don't recall the Mongols taking their horses on boats.

The Hussars were armed with two kinds of sword, two warhammers, four pistols and two carbines, a horsebow three quarter plate armour and maille, and shields, they were also armed with a 25 foot lance and were able to impale up to 4 people when they charged. They also had several remounts so they could keep going over long distances they were some of the best cavalry of their time able to shatter Tatars, Pikemen, Ottoman soldiers and enemy cavalry alike.

Don't get me wrong the Mongols did a pretty good job by themselves but they won because they used combined arms tactics not just because of their horse archers

They have much of weapon greath. But they seem heavy which seem a bit disadvantage.

I think they can be better in long distance than mongolian horses. They probably better against to infantries than mongolian cavaliries.

[Efendi]

i don't know about gun power but Mongolian soldiers could shot in every 10 sec.

[Kharn the Betrayer]

@ Effendi

The Hussars weren't heavy their horses were unburdened by order of the king.

As for shooting arrows english longbowmen could get off ten rounds a minute

[sturm]

At first Polish winged hussars, were mainly light cavalry, but eventually they become heavy cavalry.
So its important to know for which period exactly are we speaking about. Winged Hussars were elite unit to Poland-Lithuanian army, from 16 to 18 century, which is a lot of years.

Mongolians used Composite bow, a very powerful bow also.

[Celticguy]

I still think a soldier in a tank would be stronger than a mongol on horse back

[Labienus]

and the navy seals would trash the roman legions. This is as evident as your post.

[sturm]

and the navy seals would trash the roman legions. This is as evident as your post.
What if he is armed with sword and shield.. ?

[Celticguy]

I still think a nuclear bomb is the best soldier

[sturm]

I still think a nuclear bomb is the best soldier
Ah there were times when you though soldier in a tank is the best soldier, but time changes :D:D

[Celticguy]

;)

Apparently according to a British general of he 1800s a small stout welshman from the valleys made the best type of soldier in the British army.

[sixtvs]

For the ancient ones I would have to go, on equal terms, the Spartans and the Romans. During the 15th or so century, I would have to side with the samurai's of Japan. In modern times. . US Navy Seals along with the US Marines.

[Flashman]

Either a Scottish Claymore wielder during the 13th century, or a British redcoat in the 19th century e.g. Rorke's Drift.

[unmemorable]

The Japanese Ronin, for me. Followed closely by the ineffective (but still awesome) pre roman Celts.

[Chookie]

The Japanese Ronin, for me. Followed closely by the ineffective (but still awesome) pre roman Celts.
Ineffective? Tell that to to the Romans, mention Brennus when you're at it.

[Isoroku295]

either the Redcoat, or the Legionary........ maybe even the Longbowman

[Peuranpuolikas]

Vikings!
They aren´t really "soldiers", but they sure did one hell of a job. They made whole Britain kneel. I´ve heard that vikings fought 1 viking against 15 brits... and won! Respect.

[Edgewaters]

Vikings were very good marines, but only passable soldiers. The English, when they could catch them, beat them pretty badly on a number of occasions. The Battle of Ethandun, for example. Stamford Bridge. Etc.

Nevertheless, they did make Britain kneel ... for the same reason Britain made much of the world kneel. Naval mobility is something that is very, very difficult to counter with land forces. You can't be everywhere at once.

[sturm]

Naval mobility is something that is very, very difficult to counter with land forces. You can't be everywhere at once.
Exactly and that is why the over rated spartans, are easy pray ;)

[unmemorable]

Ineffective? Tell that to to the Romans, mention Brennus when you're at it.
Sure it's not like the Romans then got organized and completely conquered Gaul and half of Britain. The Celts were fine, they just didn't advance fast enough strategically or technologically.

[nativejanissary314]

I think that my favorite type of soldier would be the Turkish Janissary.:) They had no equal at their height, the were the only standing army in Europe, amazing soldiers, crack shots, great shock troops and sappers, and excellent cooks. They used a heavier musket that gave them more power and accuracy than the European muskets. The Europeans had to develop a whole new strategy to defeat them. They only lost the siege of Vienna because Kara Mustafa was an overambitious military idiot! also, I like the irregular skirmisher. (think Iroquois warriors, French voltiguers,). I hope that I spelled that right. They changed the way war was fought because massed formations hardly worked against soldiers that were hiding from them when they shot straight. Also, they gave Napoleon the idea of using his skirmishers to hold the enemy in place.

[Efendi]

Amazons are the most favourable than the others no doubth :D

[Edgewaters]

Sure it's not like the Romans then got organized and completely conquered Gaul and half of Britain. The Celts were fine, they just didn't advance fast enough strategically or technologically.

Technologically they weren't half-bad. The Romans borrowed most of their stuff. Helmets, chainmail, the scutum, even the gladius. The Celtiberians, in particular, had some especially devastating weapons in their arsenal - it was from them the Romans borrowed the gladius, but they had other weapons the Romans never did adopt. The falarica, for instance - an incendiary pilum. Or the soliferrum, a heavy, all-iron barbed javelin that punched through shields and armour with ease.

Their big problem was simply that they weren't very organized socially. There was no single great power among all the cultures that come under the term Celtic; just a patchwork of disunited minor powers. Coordination in large-scale warfare generally eluded them, with a few notable exceptions.