Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Ancient Armies Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 17:21 |
I would say Rome with Persia (Parthian or Sassanid) on a close second. Carthage, Egypt and Greece all had their prime, but it was over with the rise of Rome.
As for the ancient Mesopotamien armies, they must have been among the most powerful in the world, perhaps the most powerful during their glory days. Assyrians certainly weren't weak, as some seem to claim. Back then they were a warrior people to the bone, and for a long time undefeatable, on par with the migthy Hittites.
|
|
vulkan02
Arch Duke
Termythinator
Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 23:12 |
Roman army was good but it was so because Rome after all wasn't
alone... it would be heavely supplied by its latin allies so it had a
number advantage too... in the early day of the Roman Republic i would
say the Samnites probably had the best army in Italian peninsula.
|
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
|
|
Virgil
Immortal Guard
Joined: 17-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 12:33 |
Originally posted by minchickie
The Romans had way too much stuff to lug
around. The Huns easily caused chaos and had little problems
defeating them. |
The Roman army that fought the Huns was a very different army and one
that was in decline after the glory years of the previous three hundred
years.
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 19:45 |
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter
Originally posted by Rome
There to weak
| what you mean too weak you are kidding how could you say that meopotamian armies such as Akkadian,Assyrian,Chaldean were trong armies Akkadian found the first empire in the world Assyrian made an empire from Iran to Egypt and defeated Egyption army on the Nile and you tell me they were weak |
The armies of Mesopatamia were to weak because there equipment and organization was ancient by the time of Rome.
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 02:27 |
Rome was at its peak at the time of Caesar.
|
|
guo hua
Janissary
Joined: 30-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 05:01 |
Originally posted by Reginmund
I would say Rome with Persia
(Parthian or Sassanid) on a close second. Carthage,
Egypt and Greece all had their prime, but it was over
with the rise of Rome.
As for the ancient Mesopotamien armies, they must
have been among the most powerful in the world,
perhaps the most powerful during their glory
days. Assyrians certainly weren't weak, as some
seem to claim. Back then they were a warrior people
to the bone, and for a long time undefeatable, on par
with the migthy Hittites. |
If Roman army are so good and why is it still cannot
surivive until today. An army of the ethnic that is no
longer alive, are forever not an good army. FACE IT!
|
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 05:55 |
The roman army did not survive till today because it fell appart from coruption from the in side and barbarian attacks from outside.
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 09:53 |
Originally posted by guo hua
If Roman army are so good and why is it still cannot
surivive until today. An army of the ethnic that is no
longer alive, are forever not an good army. FACE IT! |
Riiight, so now we're judging ancient armies by wether or not they made it to the industrial age? By your standards, "an army of the ethnic that is no longer alive, are forever not an good army" (sic), all ancient armies fall short.
No army is invincible, unchanging or everlasting, my gibbering friend.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 11:06 |
I don't think this question can be properly answered without
considering the time period. People are comparing armies here 1000
years apart. Doesn't make sense. Even Roman armies 100 years apart were
different.
|
|
guo hua
Janissary
Joined: 30-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 03:03 |
Originally posted by Reginmund
[QUOTE=guo hua] If Roman
army are so good and why is it still cannot
surivive until today. An army of the ethnic that is no
longer alive, are forever not an good army. FACE IT![/
QUOTE]
Riiight, so now we're judging ancient armies by
wether or not they made it to the industrial age? By
your standards, "an army of the ethnic that is no
longer alive, are forever not an good army" (sic), all
ancient armies fall short.
No army is invincible, unchanging or everlasting, my
gibbering friend. |
Any army may not be invincible, but army that can
protect its own ethnic race until today, no matter how
many conquer or disaster occur during the past two
thousand two hundred years, is the best army of the
world.
|
|
|
strategos
Chieftain
Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1096
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 03:16 |
Originally posted by guo hua
Originally posted by Reginmund
[QUOTE=guo hua] If Roman army are so good and why is it still cannot surivive until today. An army of the ethnic that is no longer alive, are forever not an good army. FACE IT![/ QUOTE]
Riiight, so now we're judging ancient armies by wether or not they made it to the industrial age? By your standards, "an army of the ethnic that is no longer alive, are forever not an good army" (sic), all ancient armies fall short.
No army is invincible, unchanging or everlasting, my gibbering friend. |
Any army may not be invincible, but army that can protect its own ethnic race until today, no matter how many conquer or disaster occur during the past two thousand two hundred years, is the best army of the world. |
well maybe this "best army of the world" has not yet come.
|
http://theforgotten.org/intro.html
|
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 09:49 |
Originally posted by guo hua
Originally posted by Reginmund
[QUOTE=guo hua] If Roman army are so good and why is it still cannot surivive until today. An army of the ethnic that is no longer alive, are forever not an good army. FACE IT![/ QUOTE]
Riiight, so now we're judging ancient armies by wether or not they made it to the industrial age? By your standards, "an army of the ethnic that is no longer alive, are forever not an good army" (sic), all ancient armies fall short.
No army is invincible, unchanging or everlasting, my gibbering friend. |
Any army may not be invincible, but army that can protect its own ethnic race until today, no matter how many conquer or disaster occur during the past two thousand two hundred years, is the best army of the world. |
As much as I know the army of the Roman Empire was superior to its enemies and capable of defending the Empire. The western empire collapsed because of internal political and economic not military reasons. (Of coruse the internal problems had effects to the army.)
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 10:02 |
Armenia had the Strongest Army Because they manage to fight against all muslim nations and Kept there Religion !!! From the begenning Year 600 when Islam came !Armenia! until NOW !!!
Edited by [ARM]Paul
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 11:53 |
Originally posted by guo hua
Any army may not be invincible, but army that can protect its own ethnic race until today, no matter how many conquer or disaster occur during the past two thousand two hundred years, is the best army of the
world. |
Ok, so this apparently unspecific army you speak of (which I have a sneaking feeling is quite specific, and not unrelated to your own ethnic identity), has suffered many conquests or disasters throughout the ages, but you claim they're the best in the world simply because their ethnic group still exists today?
With such reasoning, all the armies of all ethnic groups since antiquity are the worlds' best, as long as they've not suffered a complete genocide. Doesn't make much sense to me. Anyway it doesn't matter, this thread is about ancient armies, and therefore we'll judge according to their performance in ancient times, pure and simple.
|
|
guo hua
Janissary
Joined: 30-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 00:43 |
Originally posted by strategos
Originally posted by guo hua
Originally posted by
Reginmund
[QUOTE=guo hua] If Roman army are
so good and why is it still cannot surivive until today.
An army of the ethnic that is no longer alive, are
forever not an good army. FACE IT![/ QUOTE] Riiight,
so now we're judging ancient armies by wether or
not they made it to the industrial age? By your
standards, "an army of the ethnic that is no longer
alive, are forever not an good army" (sic), all ancient
armies fall short. No army is invincible, unchanging
or everlasting, my gibbering friend. | Any
army may not be invincible, but army that can protect
its own ethnic race until today, no matter how many
conquer or disaster occur during the past two
thousand two hundred years, is the best army of the
world. |
well maybe this "best army of the world" has not
yet come. |
Roman army and its people is gone forever, which
they were either merged with other ethnic group or
totally be eliminated. The only army that surivived
today, are the Han army who protect its subject until
today through so many generation of war disaster &
victorious. And this is why no ethnic group in the
world would have grown to a population of 1.2 billion.
The largest ethnic group in the world and the only
ethnic group that survived continously for more that
two thousand of years. Without a determine, brave &
effective army, it will probably be eliminated long
long time ago. Just like how Roman empire was
ended by the Goths barbarians or totally weaken by
the Huns.
|
|
|
vagabond
Colonel
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 524
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 02:31 |
As Imperator Invictus has already pointed out, I think that we need a careful definition of terms as we are apparently talking apples and oranges; or more particularly ethnic groups as opposed to kingdoms and empires. While the Han people are named for the Han dynasty and have reproduced prolifically, they are not the Han dynasty. There are modern day Celts, and Celtic language use can still be found but there has not been a Celtic kingdom for many centuries. France, Italy, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal all use Romance languages, directly descendant from the Latin used by the Romans, and Romania still carries the name of Rome, but this does not make any of them heirs to the Roman Empire. One is an ethnological question; the other is historical.
I was skeptical about the claim that the Han army had lasted through to the present time. Not being immediately familiar with the intricacies of Chinese history - I consulted the pages at the University of Maryland http://www.chaos.umd.edu/history put together by Leon Poon.
From his pages, where he specifically distinguishes between the Han people and the Han dynasty: http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/imperial.html#han , he says, "The Han dynasty, after which the members of the ethnic majority in China, the "people of Han," are named, was notable also for its military prowess" he goes on to say " The Han rulers, however, were unable to adjust to what centralization had wrought: a growing population, increasing wealth and resultant financial difficulties and rivalries, and ever-more complex political institutions. Riddled with the corruption characteristic of the dynastic cycle, by A.D. 220 the Han Empire collapsed."
The Minnesota State University Museum site concurred: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/china/timeline.html
As did Paul Halsall on the Brooklyn College City University of New York pages: http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/chinhist.h tml
I found this to be backed up by all other academic sources that I checked. I could find no source that claimed that the Han dynasty or their army had survived through modern times.
For further reading - these resource pages are very good: http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/references.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/eastasia/eastasiasbook.html#I mperial%20China
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/chinbib.html
As an additional note - discussion here on the Ancient History boards has remained quite civil and free from the taint of nationalist and racist ardor that has damaged so many other discussions. Let us please keep it that way. Solid intellectual arguments backed by verifiable sources are always welcome.
|
In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan)
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 10:59 |
Well, vagabond, that should conclude the matter. An excellent post by the way, thoroughly researched and backed up.
And I agree, the whole ethnicity-issue should never have been brought up in this context.
|
|
Gavriel
Pretorian
Joined: 17-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 11:19 |
Roman Legionaries were the best trained,best equiped and most
disiplined of all the Ancient Armys IMHO.Especially if a man like Gaius
Julius Caesar is leading them,he won the highest Roman military award
for courage ( corona civica) so he wasnt just a pansy General like some
of them were.His men worshipped him,especially the 10th.When the 10th
were encouraged to mutiny and marched on Rome,Caeser rode out to meet
them on his own,He stopped this Army in its tracks by addresing them as
Quirites (citizens) and not his Soldiers,which he allways addresed them
as before, Shaming them all so much they turned around.That
shows the man was a charismatic leader and i believe his Soldiers
fought harder for him than they would for other Generals.
Sorry i know its a bit off topic but i love Caesar .
The Romans were the better troops so they should win,they defeated large
numbers in Gaul , but a few hundred thousand Hans might be a bit of
a handfull.
G
Edited by Gavriel
|
|
Publius Scipio Africanus
Immortal Guard
Joined: 03-Sep-2005
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 01:22 |
I don't have anything against Caesar, but he wrote about his own
campaigns and was a leader who was inspirational and is not neccesarily
the genius everyone thinks he is.
|
'I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 96% how I react to it.' Scipio Africanus
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2005 at 00:08 |
Well prove it Scipio.
so I expect you to say that Scipio is better.
Edited by Rome
|
|