Green Beret's? They are mostly for training a insurgency. Though they are good fighters, they aren't used for combat operation specifically as the Navy Seals or Rangers might be.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
I saw some people saying earlier that they would have been liberated just the same in WWII by the Red Army had the US and UK not Invaded Europe...
You have got to be kidding me, they would liberate you alright, just like they did Poland, Hungary, Czechoslavakia, East Germany ect...
Anyway, on a more serious note:
Modern warfare takes the same amount of courage if not more(in the past they didn't have to deal with being killed by people the couldnt see or being blown up by an artilleryman 10 miles away...and just the sounds of modern warfare can be hugely frightening), so courage isnt really the issue with today's warfare, the issue is that anyone can kill anyone with a firearm and although it takes some skill to use them basically you have a chance of killing someone just by spraying and praying.
Warfare historically of course was different, those warriors posessing greater skill were more likely to survive a battle and therefore warfare in the past people could of course produce better warriors in the area of personal skill.
I am going to list a few from several eras as when times change so do the wars and the warriors.
700-300 BC: Argians,Spartans and Macedonians
300BC-100 AD: Carthaginians, Romans and Maccabees
100-500 AD: Romans, Sarmatians, Palmyrans, Huns and Goths
500-1000 AD: Franks, Vikings, Armies of Islam, Byzantines, and Magyars
1000-1200AD: Norman Knights, Byzantine Cavalry, Turks, French armies, Armies of both Frederick Barbarossa and Richard the Lionheart
1200-1500AD: Hussites, Teutonic knights, Knights of Malta, Longbowmen, Scottish Pikemen, Mongols, and Janissaries.
1500-1700AD: Polish Hussars, Ritters, Border Reivers, Swiss Pikemen, Landesnechtes, Swedes under Gustav Adolph II, and the English New Model Army.
1700-1800AD: Jacobites, British Infantry, Continental Regulars(AFTER Valley Forge), and the French cavalry
1800-1900AD: Spanish Geurillas, French Army, British, Krasjisniks, Turkomen, Various Native American tribes, French Foreign Legion, The Iron Brigade and the Stonewall Brigade, and the Prussian army.
1900-Present: Boers, Germans, Japanese, Russians, Polish(at monte cassino in particular) Chinese(Korean War), Israelis, Croatians, US Marines(they have taken part in some of the hardest and most intense fighting in modern history and have taken huge casualties so I believe that they do deserve a mention) and British Paras!
thats exactly what im saying <americans love the history of europe even though there not european.For some reason Americans think they are Roman or Greek.All i ever see on american made programs is how great romans and greeks are.My theory is its american propagandda to prove that greco./roman culture is superior to others and thus justifys taking "democracy" to places like iraq.
thats exactly what im saying <americans love the history of europe even though there not european.For some reason Americans think they are Roman or Greek.All i ever see on american made programs is how great romans and greeks are.My theory is its american propagandda to prove that greco./roman culture is superior to others and thus justifys taking "democracy" to places like iraq.
I highly doubt this conspiracy, and in fact most Americans are of European descent. So it is only natural that we be interested in our own history(which is shared IMO for the most part due to immigrations over the centuries) Even many of the minorities here in the US have strong ties to European history, the hispanic popultion for example have historical ties to Spain. Americans as a people did not suddenly sprout up out of North America as a new people with no history, we were in fact British, Spanish and French colonists.
I also have to disagree with the assumption that Greek or Roman culture was superior to anyone in any way besides militarily. Although there is of course much to learn from these civilizations...many of the "barbarians" had civil sytems just as complex, just they were mainly disunified and played against each other by the Romans.
Furthermore American programs on history generally seem to focus on WWII and the Civil War rather then Greek and Roman culture, In fact I wish there was more on the Greeks and Romans and MUCH less on WWII.
Considering Armenians have been severely
outnumbered in every war and have had numerous adversaries at one time,
including all major empires of the region, they fought just as bravely
as anybody. We still have our own language, alphabet, and our religion
was never forced on us, we chose it for ourselves and it remains
unchanged despite thousands of years of pressure. How many countries on
earth today can claim all 3 of those things? BESIDES being under
Assyrian,Persian, Roman, Macedonian and Byzantine rule, Armenia only
had 2 years of TOTAL independece from 1045 until 1991, but our
people and culture remain because of our great warriors and
their spirit. Our most recent example is when our undersized
and technologically backwards troops in Nagorno-Karabagh successfully
conquered 1/5 of Azerbaijan in 1994, and woudve taken more if Russia
didnt force us to end the war. At least give us an honorable mention or
something, lol.
But i understand as to why you wouldnt put us in, its not like
history revolves around us or like we have some huge role in history.
Just trying to tell you more of my people's history, because
sadly its not written in history books...
I agree. But in regards to Azerbaijan.. 1/5 of it is not a big chunk,
considering Azerbaijan is extremely tiny to begin with. Infact 1/5 of
it is miniscule that's like smaller than Deleware. Lol
I agree. But in regards to Azerbaijan.. 1/5 of it is not a big chunk,
considering Azerbaijan is extremely tiny to begin with. Infact 1/5 of
it is miniscule that's like smaller than Deleware. Lol
Thats true, 1/5 of Azerbaijan is not that much
land. But you're talking about a population of 150,000 who started the
war outnumbered 2 to 1, and had no tanks and no planes, against a
country of 8 million who had an airforce and plenty of tanks, not to
mention better weapons and armor. All the tanks the Armenians used in
the war were stolen from Azeri bases. Of course Russia had a hand in
assisting the Armenians with war technology, but the Azeris lost a
province that sits on a mountain range (literally--I've been there
twice), and were overtaken by numerically and technologically
disadvantaged rebel forces who were working their way up from the
bottom of those mountains. Also, the casualties were roughly 5,000
Armenians to 25,000 Azeris. If Azerbaijan had all those advantages and
lost, then the only concievable advantage Armenians had was a much more
clever/efficient group of soldiers. I'm sure both sides fought with
bravery, but it takes a lot of bravery for the Armenians to fight an
enemy with that many advantages on their side.
I mean, if Azerbaijan's army lost while
fighting on top of mountains, imagine if they were on equal ground,
much less had comparable war technology
Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller, and Teutonic Knights! Those organizations produced the greatest warriors of the middle ages.
The Knights of the Hospital weren't nearly as good as the Knights Templars. Then again, the Knights Templars and Knights Hospitallers weren't exactly bright -- 150 of them charged 7,000 cavalry troops.
The Knights of the Hospital weren't nearly as good as the Knights Templars. Then again, the Knights Templars and Knights Hospitallers weren't exactly bright -- 150 of them charged 7,000 cavalry troops.
Well it wasn't about intelligence but rather about honor, they felt that if they were to avoid a fight they were then nothing but cowards.
No, it was more that they were being led by two berserks in shining armor. And, oddly enough, those two incredibly rash fellows were Guy de Lusignan's chief advisors. Well, among them.
It was a stupid move. They didn't have to do it. Even if they won, it probably wouldn't have made a difference. 7,000 cavalry is a lot, but 150 Knights was 1/4th the yearly yield of knights in Palestine. I'm pretty sure Saladin could throw more than a 21,000 cavalry at the Crusaders, especially after he united Syria and Egypt.
100-500 AD: Romans, Sarmatians, Palmyrans, Huns and Goths
500-1000 AD: Franks, Vikings, Armies of Islam, Byzantines, and Magyars
1000-1200AD: Norman Knights, Byzantine Cavalry, Turks, French
armies, Armies of both Frederick Barbarossa and Richard the Lionheart
1200-1500AD: Hussites, Teutonic knights, Knights of Malta, Longbowmen, and the Scottish Pikemen
1500-1700AD: Polish Hussars, Ritters, Border Reivers, Swiss Pikemen, Landesnechtes, and the English New Model Army.
1700-1800AD: Jacobites, British Infantry, Continental Regulars(AFTER Valley Forge), and the French cavalry
1800-1900AD: Spanish Geurillas, French Army, British, Krasjisniks,
Turkomen, Various Native American tribes, French Foreign
Legion, The Iron Brigade and the Stonewall Brigade, and the
Prussian army.
1900-Present: Boers, Germans, Japanese, Russians, Chinese,
Israelis, Croatians, US Marines(they have taken part
in some of the hardest and most intense fighting in modern
history and have taken huge casualties so I believe that they
do deserve a mention) and British Paras!
Great list mate. Sorry if it's a stupid question, but who where the Maccabees?
A couple other you might want to add: Janisarries, Swedes under Gustav Adolph II, and the Mongols....
Maccabees were Jewish rebels who rose up against the Seleucids and eventually defeated them over a 20 year period of tough and bitter fighting. The jewish holiday of Hannukah is the celebration of thei victory over the Seleucids.
I will update the list a little later when I have more time. Thanks for the suggestions
I saw some people saying earlier that they would have been liberated just the same in WWII by the Red Army had the US and UK not Invaded Europe...
You have got to be kidding me, they would liberate you alright, just like they did Poland, Hungary, Czechoslavakia, East Germany ect...
Anyway, on a more serious note/P]
Modern warfare takes the same amount of courage if not more(in the past they didn't have to deal with being killed by people the couldnt see or being blown up by an artilleryman 10 miles away...and just the sounds of modern warfare can be hugely frightening), so courage isnt really the issue with today's warfare, the issue is that anyone can kill anyone with a firearm and although it takes some skill to use them basically you have a chance of killing someone just by spraying and praying.
Warfare historically of course was different, those warriors posessing greater skill were more likely to survive a battle and therefore warfare in the past people could of course produce better warriors in the area of personal skill.
I am going to list a few from several eras as when times change so do the wars and the warriors.
700-300 BC: Argians,Spartans and Macedonians
300BC-100 AD: Carthaginians, Romans and Maccabees
100-500 AD: Romans, Sarmatians, Palmyrans, Huns and Goths
500-1000 AD: Franks, Vikings, Armies of Islam, Byzantines, and Magyars
1000-1200AD: Norman Knights, Byzantine Cavalry, Turks, French armies, Armies of both Frederick Barbarossa and Richard the Lionheart
1200-1500AD: Hussites, Teutonic knights, Knights of Malta, Longbowmen, and the Scottish Pikemen
1500-1700AD: Polish Hussars, Ritters, Border Reivers, Swiss Pikemen, Landesnechtes, and the English New Model Army.
1700-1800AD: Jacobites, British Infantry, Continental Regulars(AFTER Valley Forge), and the French cavalry
1800-1900AD: Spanish Geurillas, French Army, British, Krasjisniks, Turkomen, Various Native American tribes, French Foreign Legion, The Iron Brigade and the Stonewall Brigade, and the Prussian army.
1900-Present: Boers, Germans, Japanese, Russians, Chinese, Israelis, Croatians, US Marines(they have taken part in some of the hardest and most intense fighting in modern history and have taken huge casualties so I believe that they do deserve a mention) and British Paras!
I gotta say Im kinda suprised you didnt put up the Polish soliders for present times, but u put Croatians up there.
I saw some people saying earlier that they would have been liberated just the same in WWII by the Red Army had the US and UK not Invaded Europe...
You have got to be kidding me, they would liberate you alright, just like they did Poland, Hungary, Czechoslavakia, East Germany ect...
No, you misunderstood me. What I meant was that the Red Army would have defeated the Germans no matter if the allies had invaded Western Europe. The reason the Allies suddenly invaded in 1944 was because the Russians were starting to invade Eastern Europe, and without intervention, would have pushed into Eastern Europe.
No, you misunderstood me. What I meant was that the Red Army would have defeated the Germans no matter if the allies had invaded Western Europe. The reason the Allies suddenly invaded in 1944 was because the Russians were starting to invade Eastern Europe, and without intervention, would have pushed into Eastern Europe.
No, I agree with you, I don't think it was you I was talking about
The Polish are great fighters but they did not turn the tide of a massive conflict as the Croatians had done. Again, this is not meant as a slight toward the Poles as I have the greatest respect for them and their military heritage. If I have offended you I sincerely appologize.
The Poles never got credit for cracking some codes. They did lead the assault at the Fourth Battle of Monte Casino. They just couldn't rebel at Warsaw successfully.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum