Print Page | Close Window

deleted

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24972
Printed Date: 02-Jul-2022 at 23:05
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: deleted
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Subject: deleted
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 15:33

Which do you think was the best soldier of their time? taking into account tactics, scenario, terrian, armament, etc.

 
I'm going with the klibanophoros big suprise thereLOLSmileWink
 
Unless you have something useful to contribute don't post here
 
Vote and discuss


-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)





Replies:
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 16:01
Pilots of strategic bombers with nukes.


Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 17:09
The one that never fought LOL
But what do you mean with: "the best soldier"? Courage, technique of fighting and I don't know what else?
I'd go for the samurai


-------------
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.


Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 17:14
No turco-mongol steppe soldier? I think an inadequate list


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 18:58
Sorry, I forgot the mongols.

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 19:57
Steppe cavalry, kapıkulus, mamelukes for turco-mongol stock(Noatbly horse archers).


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 22:01
Then click on, other.

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 16:41

uhhm were the heck is the SAS on that list has to be better than the seals as many on secodment fail SAS selection also by definition to best soldiers have to come from the modern era a techniques training equipment and the humans themselves have evolved through history to become better

 

I know people will disagree with me on this though  



Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 18:51
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

No turco-mongol steppe soldier? I think an inadequate list


your statement is incorrect and a couple of names should be taken down.

The Turco-mongol WARRIORS never fought for fixed pay neither did the samurai (except ronin) neither did the Knights


there is a big difference between Warrior & soldier


where are the Jannisaries?

they had one of the best training

-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 19:03
Why is there no muslim terrorist?One man kills tens even hundrets before dying- no soldiers ever could do this. Dead

-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 19:06
WW I have about had enough of your violations. Keep your muslim hatred to yourself and just answer the question. Best Soldier. For this and previous flights of fancy you have earned your first warning.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 19:14
Originally posted by Seko

WW I have about had enough of your violations. Keep your muslim hatred to yourself and just answer the question. Best Soldier. For this and previous flights of fancy you have earned your first warning.
 
 
 
And if i sincerely thought those men are the best soldiers ever?Millions of people around the world see them as soldiers,so why shouldn't i propose them as best soldiers ever?


-------------


Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 19:22
^thats it this guy pisses me off

hereby i would officialy like to report him

-------------
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage


Posted By: Polish rider
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 07:20
By now, Polish hussars are number 1. WOW! I didn't know that there are so many Poles in the forum. Witam rodaków Smile!
Most of nations believe that their soldiers were the best. I am not anexception, therefore I've voted for Polish hussars too. IMHO they were the best soldiers in XVI th and XVII th centuries. XVIII c. is another story.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 15:26
Hussars have nothing on the Cataphract.

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 16:17
Originally posted by Roberts

Pilots of strategic bombers with nukes.
 
That will do nicely, unless you have to be ground troops to be 'soldiers'.
Originally posted by 02bburco

uhhm were the heck is the SAS on that list has to be better than the seals as many on secodment fail SAS selection also by definition to best soldiers have to come from the modern era a techniques training equipment and the humans themselves have evolved through history to become better  
 
And the last part of that is pretty irrefutable, though picking the SAS in particular may be bit far. Most modern armies have similarly trained and equipped units, like, indeed the SEALs. (But are the SEALs 'soldiers' - aren't they sailors?)
 
But, apart from the SEALs, if it's a question of facing any of the soldiery listed, I'll be perfectly happy doing so with a company of dug in modern infantry with machine-guns, let alone anything fancier.¨
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 16:26

Greek Hopolites are my pick. Along with German Armed Forces 1860-1945 and the IDF. What makes these groups elite is that they are the result of an entire mobilized society.  Many of the other options represented groups of elite professional soldiers.

Any society can raise small numbers of elite professionals. Mobilizing an entire society for war, including the unmotivated and undisciplined, and then consistently beating quality opponents is far more difficult.   
 
 


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 17:26
Hopolite's tactics were rigid and inflexible and only the Spartan's society was completely geared toward war and they were even more inflexible than other hopolite's and they lost a bunch of wars, and so did the germans. 

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 19:20
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

Hopolite's tactics were rigid and inflexible and only the Spartan's society was completely geared toward war and they were even more inflexible than other hopolite's and they lost a bunch of wars, and so did the germans. 
Yes, I am aware of their losses.  The Germans, however, created one of the most lethal military machines in history and won far more battles than they lost.  
 
All Greek City States mobilized their entire society for war.  All (or most) males were required to serve. Hoplite formations reflected the population of the entire city state. They were not small groups of elite volunteers.  Sparta just took the idea of the Greek citizen army to an insanely high level.  


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 19:25
No, the greeks drafted farmers for their army and you can't have a city whose citizens are mainly soldiers who will plant the crops? the spartans had helots for that but they were unique.

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 00:18
^
Whether the Hopolites were drafted or genuine volunteers is not important. What is important is that Hopilite citizen soldiers fought extremely well and represented the entire society (motivated, unmotivated, physically fit, the unphysicaly unfit, the naturally aggressive and the passive). They were also usually part time soldiers.
 
This is completely different from the Navy Seals, SAS, Samurai, etc.  In these cases, most members of the society would be rejected for membership in such units.  The very small number of people who do qualify, then train full time for war. 


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 01:27
The romans wiped them outLOLLOLLOLLOL

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: C.C.Benjamin
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 07:40
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

The romans wiped them outLOLLOLLOLLOL


Erm, no they didn't, they conquered them, and that's because the Greeks had absolutely no sense of unity whatsoever.  That is one of the few things about the ancient Hellens that truly pisses me off.

Where is the English Longbowman on this list?  They are responsible for wiping out every brave man in France, thus leaving only those unwilling to fight left, paving the way for the modern French...! (I'd like to say I'm joking, but France's actions in WWI and II were just...cowardly.)


-------------
Know thyself


Posted By: Bankotsu
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 08:00
Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

(I'd like to say I'm joking, but France's actions in WWI and II were just...cowardly.)


Counter:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7061&IBLOCK_ID=35 - http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail


Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 08:35
Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by Count Belisarius

The romans wiped them outLOLLOLLOLLOL


Erm, no they didn't, they conquered them, and that's because the Greeks had absolutely no sense of unity whatsoever.  That is one of the few things about the ancient Hellens that truly pisses me off.

Where is the English Longbowman on this list?  They are responsible for wiping out every brave man in France, thus leaving only those unwilling to fight left, paving the way for the modern French...! (I'd like to say I'm joking, but France's actions in WWI and II were just...cowardly.)
 
An extremely nasty slur on the French.
 
WWI they fought bravely and well throughout. Yes after some disastrous handling they had their mutiny BUT that was only against attacking recklessly and an improvement in their basic conditions. All dealt with well by Petain. Thereafter no problems,
 
WWII did not show the French at their best they were poorly lead from the top and that showed. However many units fought bravely and with distinction even in 1940. Thereafter once reconstituted they also fought bravely and well.


Posted By: C.C.Benjamin
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 08:46
Originally posted by Peteratwar

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by Count Belisarius

The romans wiped them outLOLLOLLOLLOL


Erm, no they didn't, they conquered them, and that's because the Greeks had absolutely no sense of unity whatsoever.  That is one of the few things about the ancient Hellens that truly pisses me off.

Where is the English Longbowman on this list?  They are responsible for wiping out every brave man in France, thus leaving only those unwilling to fight left, paving the way for the modern French...! (I'd like to say I'm joking, but France's actions in WWI and II were just...cowardly.)
 
An extremely nasty slur on the French.
 
WWI they fought bravely and well throughout. Yes after some disastrous handling they had their mutiny BUT that was only against attacking recklessly and an improvement in their basic conditions. All dealt with well by Petain. Thereafter no problems,
 
WWII did not show the French at their best they were poorly lead from the top and that showed. However many units fought bravely and with distinction even in 1940. Thereafter once reconstituted they also fought bravely and well.


Perhaps I was unfair with the comment regarding WWI, but in WWII they did not impress me at all.  Fleeing from British troops after thinking they were German is the first thing that comes to mind.


-------------
Know thyself


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:02
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

No, the greeks drafted farmers for their army and you can't have a city whose citizens are mainly soldiers who will plant the crops? the spartans had helots for that but they were unique.
 
What makes you think Athenian citizens planted crops? All Greek states had slaves.


-------------


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 14:23
So only slaves did the farmwork? don't you know where the hopolite's came from?

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2008 at 16:31
Those numbers look a little odd to me. I wonder how many people actually voted in this Poll?This-post-of-yours-made-no-sense-at-all,-and-I-think-you-are-an-idiot,-but-I-am-so-not-going-to-drop-down-to-your-level-and-admit-it-to-your-face

-------------


Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 05:05
Different warriors were suited to their own environment, fighting style, their commanders, etc.  It's like animals.  There is no animal that is better suited than the next,  they are all suited well to their way of life.

-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2008 at 15:58
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

So only slaves did the farmwork? don't you know where the hopolite's came from?


Slaves in Greece where not like we imagine them. People have the Roman image of the slave in their minds. Except from the poor bastards that worked in mines and in ships the rest had almost the same quality of life with the average free citizen who would work the fields side by side with his 2-3 slaves.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2008 at 16:01
Originally posted by Vorian

Originally posted by Count Belisarius

So only slaves did the farmwork? don't you know where the hopolite's came from?


Slaves in Greece where not like we imagine them. People have the Roman image of the slave in their minds. Except from the poor bastards that worked in mines and in ships the rest had almost the same quality of life with the average free citizen who would work the fields side by side with his 2-3 slaves.
 
That's not what I was talking about.


-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2008 at 22:50
my vote is for the SAS
compared to other speacal forces who share a simalar role they may not be the best equiped but they get the job done


Posted By: Husaria
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2008 at 02:42
I respect the French but i must say WW2 they were cowardly. France Said "Poland we are allies right?" Poland Says "Help" So what do the french do instead of launching a assault into west germany they start digging in around france yep thanks france. 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 23:44
United States Marines. Modern day Spartans.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 16:40
Best?  Which factors make up the best - most disciplined, better led, organized and equipped?  Winning victory against the longest odds? All of the above, I suppose.  However, overall impact on history is the most important defining characteristic, I would assert.   Some, like the SS don't count. The best don't fight for execrable causes.

That being said, here is my top list, in descending order (starting with the best)

#1 The Roman Legionary (Marian Reforms to the reign of Diocletian)
#2 Macedonian Companions (foot and horse)
#3 Mongol Heavy Cavalry
#4 Royal Navy crewmen, from the 16th to 19th Centuries (ships of the line).
#5 Greek Hoplite - any city.  The Spartans were good, but the Athenians had their moments.
#6 Turkish Janissaries
#7 Allied airborne troops, WW2: 101st, 82nd, Red Devils, others.
#8 The British Tommy - up to WW2.  After that, a sharp decline in effectiveness.
#9 Napoleon's Imperial Guard
#10 Swedish Musketeers - 30 years war, the army of Gustavus Adolphus.






-------------


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2008 at 00:57
What about Cataphracts? I didn't know that the mongols had heavy cavalry

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 05:58
I have several picks, actually.

First, in the Americas--the warriors of almost all of the various societies in Mexico during and shortly after the spanish occupation. Emphasis on the Mexica and the various cultures collectively (and pejoratively) known as the Chichimecs. Also, the Mapuche of chile and the Seminoles of the florida region were viewed (rightfully so) as particularly tenacious combatants.

There are some absolutely INSANE stories from spaniards about these people. Things like one warrior holding off two horsemen for over an hour, taking away one's lance, and fighting with it for another hour until being shot by a crossbowman. Like an enemy stabbed with two lances and continuing to hold off four opponents. Like arrows fired with such force they went through a horse's metal head armor, it's head, two thicknesses of mail and buckskin armor, and into a rib cage. Like an almost obscene level of courage and discipline, and a tenacity and ferocity that apparently suprised even veteran warriors from combat with the turks, who were considered absolutely deadly at the time.

Granted, a lot of the stories are probably exaggerated. Some of them could easily be outright lies. But even so, the picture that gets painted is one of truly deadly and skilled warriors--not just savage yelling steretypical barbarians, but shockingly disciplined, trained, inventive, and brutal combatants--and this was through the eyes of the people who conquered them. You've done something right if the people you eventually LOSE to are that impressed by your abilities.

In the Mediterranean, the Roman Legions. Disciplined, effective, almost mechanically precise. I'd consider their parthian enemies quite high on the list, as well. And during the Byzantine era, the Goths were...shockingly effective. They learned thir lessons well, ultimately.

In africa, the Zulu empire's warriors under Shaka. UNEQUIVOCALLY.  The nubian cavalry the Carthaginians used is a definite, as well--very, VERY highly regarded. The military of the egyptians, before being eclipsed by other powers, was very good.

In asia...well, it's big place and I don't know that terribly much about it. Probably too many to list, although the rajputs were apparently quite good, and I admire the mongols.

In australia, the Kangaroos. And the Saltwater crocodiles. And the snakes. And the spiders. Hell, even the SHEEP. And the people. ALL OF THEM.

Uh...that's all for now. Maybe I'll think of some more.




-------------
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche



Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 23:08
All of them lose out to the klibanophorosBig%20smileLOLTongue hussar's are a close second

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 01:20
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

All of them lose out to the klibanophorosBig%20smileLOLTongue hussar's are a close second


*cough*showmeaklibanophorosandi'llshowyousomeonewhodieswhenyoulurehimupamountainpathandtiprocksontohimandshoothimfullofarrows*cough*

But yeah, the klibanaophoros and the hussars were pretty awesome.




-------------
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche



Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 01:43
The klibanophoros wouldn't have been stupid enough to go into an ambush they would send scouts for that and the could always shoot back (one the many reasons the were so awesomeSmile) I agree they were really cool!!Smile

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 02:29
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

The klibanophoros wouldn't have been stupid enough to go into an ambush



....ClapClapClap
Clap
EVERYONE is stupid enough to fall for an ambush; the question is whether the enemy is smart enough to make the ambush they'll fall for.

But yes. they were really awesome.

Despite my seeming preference for infantry, the horse-back horror-bringers are always appreciated.



-------------
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche



Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 02:59

They were awesome, I'm not sure that there was ever any cavalry that was better than themSmile



-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 04:11
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

They were awesome, I'm not sure that there was ever any cavalry that was better than themSmile

 
A pesant mounted on a mule could defeat a klibanophoros. There is no better-worse in warfare.  War did not become "better" over time. Peoples used weapons that fit their needs and enviornment.


-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 04:21
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Originally posted by Count Belisarius

They were awesome, I'm not sure that there was ever any cavalry that was better than themSmile

 
A pesant mounted on a mule could defeat a klibanophoros. 
 
 
OMG!! thats... thats... I can't describe that without seriously violating the code of conduct how old are you anyway? my God man I'm just left spechless

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 04:59
It is entirely possible. One is not totally better than the other. The pesant has general advantages of being , well, a pesant. Long hours of labor makes a somewhat strong mind and robust body. And then again there are the variables - an infinate number in fact. So yes, it is entirely possible for a pesant on a mule to defeat a klibanophoros.
 
I am in high school.


-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 05:15
First of all peasants back then had a really bad diet, little or no combat training or experience, with a rusty pitchfork for a weapon, whereas the klibnaophoros was a highly trained disiplined professional (how much stronger of a mind can you get) with a wide variety of weapons, a battle trained armored destrier a bow and pankration, a rigourous regimen (they elite soldiers after all) they were recruited from the nobility so they would have had a better diet and more food, and a better physique than said peasantSmile and high quality armor and high quality weapons, and a sheild and good tactical flexibilty and strategy 

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 05:19

Ok a klibnaophoros approaches the pesant. The pesant throws a rock at him, he falls off his horse. The pesant comes over and takes off his helmet. Stabs him with your so called "rusty pitchfork".



-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 05:26
Thats just lame, how would a rock thrown by a human even effect him through his helmet? the klibanophoros would just laugh and shoot him full of holes, and why would he just lay there on the ground?

-------------


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)




Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 05:28

Hes on the ground because he is dazed, had a panick attack, a seizure, a heart attack, a bad cramp, a tightening of the muscles, the sun was in his eyes, he remembered his past daughters and tried to recount what they said to him days before, he got implaed on a stake. An infinate amount of variables for everything.



-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 23:07

Originally posted by Count Belisarius

 
 
OMG!! thats... thats... I can't describe that without seriously violating the code of conduct how old are you anyway? my God man I'm just left spechless



He said "could" not "would find it easy to."




-------------
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2008 at 18:36
this discussion is even more redundant than the pikemen thread....Pig


Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 00:57
Originally posted by Temujin

this discussion is even more redundant than the pikemen thread....Pig


And does that statement contribute anything of value to the debate?

Of COURSE it's redundant. Ninety percent of everything is either , redundant, pointless, or unneeded. C'est la vie.


-------------
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche



Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 04:40
I remember when I read a book called Bushmasters that many American generals regarded Japanese soldiers as being loyal and audacious. There is a story that I heard about (if anyone could elaborate it would be appreciated) that there were Japanese soldiers stationed on a remote island, guarding it and totally oblivious that the war had ended. I beleive the reason the Japs lost because they had poor commanders save Yammamoto and lack of resources.

-------------
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 19:16
Originally posted by TheARRGH



And does that statement contribute anything of value to the debate?

Of COURSE it's redundant. Ninety percent of everything is either , redundant, pointless, or unneeded. C'est la vie.


a thread like this called "best whatever" usually belongs to historical amusement. my post was just a reminder and was indeed not supposed to contribute anything.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2008 at 09:51
Originally posted by Temujin

a thread like this called "best whatever" usually belongs to historical amusement. my post was just a reminder and was indeed not supposed to contribute anything.


I'm with you, but it's all for nothing. People in general seem to have an obsessive-compulsive complex about these topics, for even though they never lead anywhere people still keep repeating them over and over.

I just burst out laughing when I open one of these threads and I'm met with a poll! Do people actually believe that historical consensus is established by voting!? LOL

If we're going to treat a topic like this seriously we must first agree on the conditions of what makes an army superior, but this is never done and you just end up with an utterly pointless debate where the participants argue their case based on entirely different preconditions. Even more laughably the only precondition often seems to be which army/general/whatever you identify with culturally or ethnically, but how on earth this has an impact on the quality of the army/general/whatever is beyond me. My own suggestion is that we simply rename all these threads, to f.ex. "name some soldiers from your country" or "which general are you the most closely related to?". Then it would make sense.


-------------


Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2008 at 16:24
If you don't want topics like this, don't allow about ninety percent of people to join the forum who try to.

That'd be pretty much the only way to get rid of them.

Not particularly enthusiastic about them myself, to be honest, but it seems that in certain forums--military history particularly--it's so rare someone actually manages to come up with a really interesting thread that these spring up.

If all you want to do is cut back on these, you might want to try seeding as many interesting threads as you possibly can around the forum.

Unless something like that happens, people are probably going to stick with what's there.


-------------
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche



Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2008 at 07:46
In other words it's kind of like those bad tv shows you watch because there is nothing else on.

-------------


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 01-May-2017 at 18:27
Thread Closed

-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com