Waffen SSHardly a elite force. It was made up of ideological sympatiers, not elite soldiers.
*Danannana*
Waffen SS.
Spanish partizans in the Peninsular War.Guerilla warfare agaisnt slow, static formations. Does not require much skill. The peasants took shots then retreated, as well as interfered messengers and killed lone stragglers.
The fact that mere peasants could grind the French army almost to a halt without any training is astounding.
Waffen SS
*Danannana*
Waffen SS.
,come on im catholic,
Just because other guys killed more doesn't the way of SS any better. The SS, besides fighting in the front like men, killed civilians, unarmed men, and guarded the death camps.
The SS-einsatzgruppe were the worst. The Waffen-SS was also a fully voluntary unit, not conscripted.Quote,come on im catholic,
And I'm an atheist. Does that have anything to do with it?
My final is that the (waffen)-SS were indeed an elite unit of the German army...but they were largely also war criminals
The Russian Hand Mortar troops or whatever they wereahh seen those,,would be fun to shoot,, my group has a blunderbuss and that things got recoil
BRITISH REDCOATS!!!! :)
Cataphracts are NOT the ancestors of medieval heavy cavalry, they had no stirrups and holded their lances with two hands. But yes, definitly a special force.I would still argue that they played a significant role in pioneering the shock tactics of armoured heavy cavalry and in introducing this style of warfare to Europe. Where this eastern influence combined with the feudal system would eventually lead to the knights of medieval Europe.
British Line>Dutch Line.BRITISH REDCOATS!!!! :)
Meh.
But then we would have a time delay of around 600 years in central and north europe seeing heavy cavalry on battlefield (well in fact we havn't funds of cataphracts in central europe (france/germany/britain), I'm not sure but maybe some in hungarian/romanian castellums). Sure, the Byzantine Empire hold still the tradition of the cataphracts, but they never saw service above the balcans. The first using of heavy cavalry in central/northern europe is visually marked with 1066, the battle of Hastings (Bayeux Tapestry (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Normans_Bayeux.jpg)). But we have earlyer no visual or archeological fact of heavy (shock) cavalry in europe. So I don't see for the central european knighthood the same tradition as the one of the cataphracts.Cataphracts are NOT the ancestors of medieval heavy cavalry, they had no stirrups and holded their lances with two hands. But yes, definitly a special force.I would still argue that they played a significant role in pioneering the shock tactics of armoured heavy cavalry and in introducing this style of warfare to Europe. Where this eastern influence combined with the feudal system would eventually lead to the knights of medieval Europe.
I mean, I'm sure the cataphracts would have used stirrups and couched lances had those innovations been available to them. ;)
Anyways, I think the English longbowmen could be classified as an elite force, due to their lengthy training, resulting skill, and remarkable battlefield success (particularly during the Hundred Years War).
Cataphracts are NOT the ancestors of medieval heavy cavalry, they had no stirrups and holded their lances with two hands. But yes, definitly a special force.I would still argue that they played a significant role in pioneering the shock tactics of armoured heavy cavalry and in introducing this style of warfare to Europe. Where this eastern influence combined with the feudal system would eventually lead to the knights of medieval Europe.
I mean, I'm sure the cataphracts would have used stirrups and couched lances had those innovations been available to them. ;)
Anyways, I think the English longbowmen could be classified as an elite force, due to their lengthy training, resulting skill, and remarkable battlefield success (particularly during the Hundred Years War).
ok,, DUTCH MILITIA 1815!!!!
they were charging french troops,,that deosnt count :)
The Old guard is a interesting choice. As far as I know, they did not rely on (much) equipment that was not available to the regular ranker, they won engagements because of their skill, and because of their reputation.
The Old guard is a interesting choice. As far as I know, they did not rely on (much) equipment that was not available to the regular ranker, they won engagements because of their skill, and because of their reputation.
The old guard where misused a bit, but in my opinion, a elite fighting force.
Cataphracts are NOT the ancestors of medieval heavy cavalry, they had no stirrups and holded their lances with two hands. But yes, definitly a special force.I would still argue that they played a significant role in pioneering the shock tactics of armoured heavy cavalry and in introducing this style of warfare to Europe. Where this eastern influence combined with the feudal system would eventually lead to the knights of medieval Europe.
I mean, I'm sure the cataphracts would have used stirrups and couched lances had those innovations been available to them. ;)
Anyways, I think the English longbowmen could be classified as an elite force, due to their lengthy training, resulting skill, and remarkable battlefield success (particularly during the Hundred Years War).
The longbowmen are a fairly good choise, since their success stems mostly fom training not equipment or technology.
but the men who used them had to be trained to shoot them, actually won of the hardest infatry weapons of the middle ages, ive got a cousin does olympic archery for australia and also medieval english long bow reenactment, he said they are the hardest bows to use due to the strength, you apparently started training with them when u were very young.That's why it was forbidden in england in the late medieval time to do other sports on sundays than bow shooting!
but the men who used them had to be trained to shoot them, actually won of the hardest infatry weapons of the middle ages, ive got a cousin does olympic archery for australia and also medieval english long bow reenactment, he said they are the hardest bows to use due to the strength, you apparently started training with them when u were very young.That's why it was forbidden in england in the late medieval time to do other sports on sundays than bow shooting!
Longbowman had only the advantage of a huge range, in close combat they lost heavily against men-at-arms (the common heavy infantry in the 14th-15th centuries) because of the lack of armour and melee training. And when they shot all their arrows, they had everytime the role of a spectator when it got to a close combat. Agincourt and Crécy are only very extraordinaire victories of english longbowmen, very rarely fought in the 100 Years' War. Like Cannae or Austerlitz.
Well, but you forgot to metion, that the milan plate armor was not affordable by the common man-at-arms. Only the most wealthy knights could purchase these formidable steel plate armours.Well i'm sure we have all seen arrows and what they do to "Armour", to chainmail and platemail but what about the Battle of Verneuil with Lombardian plate armour?but the men who used them had to be trained to shoot them, actually won of the hardest infatry weapons of the middle ages, ive got a cousin does olympic archery for australia and also medieval english long bow reenactment, he said they are the hardest bows to use due to the strength, you apparently started training with them when u were very young.That's why it was forbidden in england in the late medieval time to do other sports on sundays than bow shooting!
Longbowman had only the advantage of a huge range, in close combat they lost heavily against men-at-arms (the common heavy infantry in the 14th-15th centuries) because of the lack of armour and melee training. And when they shot all their arrows, they had everytime the role of a spectator when it got to a close combat. Agincourt and Crécy are only very extraordinaire victories of english longbowmen, very rarely fought in the 100 Years' War. Like Cannae or Austerlitz.
Well see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk
or read for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verneuil
I'm Shockingly surprised that people haven't mentioned the polish hussars..... they where the premier cavalrymen in europe for quite a few hundred years. Atleast so I've read :PYou mean the winged hussars I think. Yes, definitly a formidable troop.
but the men who used them had to be trained to shoot them, actually won of the hardest infatry weapons of the middle ages, ive got a cousin does olympic archery for australia and also medieval english long bow reenactment, he said they are the hardest bows to use due to the strength, you apparently started training with them when u were very young.That's why it was forbidden in england in the late medieval time to do other sports on sundays than bow shooting!
Longbowman had only the advantage of a huge range, in close combat they lost heavily against men-at-arms (the common heavy infantry in the 14th-15th centuries) because of the lack of armour and melee training. And when they shot all their arrows, they had everytime the role of a spectator when it got to a close combat. Agincourt and Crécy are only very extraordinaire victories of english longbowmen, very rarely fought in the 100 Years' War. Like Cannae or Austerlitz.
Did the longbow ceed to the Matchlock? No the longbow was a far superior weapon in all aspects but it could no long peirce armour and this is where it lost, the matchlock was expensive, unusable on a large scale without a lot of money and fired about twice a minute, it just took much out of what the English army was capable of at the time.
Cataphracts are NOT the ancestors of medieval heavy cavalry, they had no stirrups and holded their lances with two hands. But yes, definitly a special force.I would still argue that they played a significant role in pioneering the shock tactics of armoured heavy cavalry and in introducing this style of warfare to Europe. Where this eastern influence combined with the feudal system would eventually lead to the knights of medieval Europe.
I mean, I'm sure the cataphracts would have used stirrups and couched lances had those innovations been available to them. ;)
Anyways, I think the English longbowmen could be classified as an elite force, due to their lengthy training, resulting skill, and remarkable battlefield success (particularly during the Hundred Years War).
The longbowmen are a fairly good choise, since their success stems mostly fom training not equipment or technology.
Bro, the long bow was a technological advantage...
The musket was a barrel of iron with some wood attachments. The way of firing is just as simple.
The long bow was better then other bows, thus creating an (technological) advantage. GoldenEagle is completely right.
A composite bow, THAT'S technology!The musket was a barrel of iron with some wood attachments. The way of firing is just as simple.
The long bow was better then other bows, thus creating an (technological) advantage. GoldenEagle is completely right.
The is just a bow, a normal bow with the same strenghts and weaknesses as other bows. The fact that it is better is because it has a higher draw-weight, draw-weight which requires the wielder to be stronger. So it is just as any other bow, no technological innovation or anything. The french, hungarian, swedes and arabs all had the technology and knowhow to make longbows, it's just the fact that they had very few people who would have any use of them since they required so much strenght.
A composite bow, THAT'S technology!The musket was a barrel of iron with some wood attachments. The way of firing is just as simple.
The long bow was better then other bows, thus creating an (technological) advantage. GoldenEagle is completely right.
The is just a bow, a normal bow with the same strenghts and weaknesses as other bows. The fact that it is better is because it has a higher draw-weight, draw-weight which requires the wielder to be stronger. So it is just as any other bow, no technological innovation or anything. The french, hungarian, swedes and arabs all had the technology and knowhow to make longbows, it's just the fact that they had very few people who would have any use of them since they required so much strenght.
The Russian Hand Mortar troops or whatever they wereahh seen those,,would be fun to shoot,, my group has a blunderbuss and that things got recoil
The Russian Hand Mortar troops or whatever they wereahh seen those,,would be fun to shoot,, my group has a blunderbuss and that things got recoil
Am I right in thinking they could go through a man?
but the men who used them had to be trained to shoot them, actually won of the hardest infatry weapons of the middle ages, ive got a cousin does olympic archery for australia and also medieval english long bow reenactment, he said they are the hardest bows to use due to the strength, you apparently started training with them when u were very young.That's why it was forbidden in england in the late medieval time to do other sports on sundays than bow shooting!
Longbowman had only the advantage of a huge range, in close combat they lost heavily against men-at-arms (the common heavy infantry in the 14th-15th centuries) because of the lack of armour and melee training. And when they shot all their arrows, they had everytime the role of a spectator when it got to a close combat. Agincourt and Crécy are only very extraordinaire victories of english longbowmen, very rarely fought in the 100 Years' War. Like Cannae or Austerlitz.
Did the longbow ceed to the Matchlock? No the longbow was a far superior weapon in all aspects but it could no long peirce armour and this is where it lost, the matchlock was expensive, unusable on a large scale without a lot of money and fired about twice a minute, it just took much out of what the English army was capable of at the time.
It wasn't the armor, it was that training matchlock infantry was way easier than to train bowmen. These heavy armors would be only affordable by the knights or other rich people. A peasant would barely have any armor.
Well, but you forgot to metion, that the milan plate armor was not affordable by the common man-at-arms. Only the most wealthy knights could purchase these formidable steel plate armours.Well i'm sure we have all seen arrows and what they do to "Armour", to chainmail and platemail but what about the Battle of Verneuil with Lombardian plate armour?but the men who used them had to be trained to shoot them, actually won of the hardest infatry weapons of the middle ages, ive got a cousin does olympic archery for australia and also medieval english long bow reenactment, he said they are the hardest bows to use due to the strength, you apparently started training with them when u were very young.That's why it was forbidden in england in the late medieval time to do other sports on sundays than bow shooting!
Longbowman had only the advantage of a huge range, in close combat they lost heavily against men-at-arms (the common heavy infantry in the 14th-15th centuries) because of the lack of armour and melee training. And when they shot all their arrows, they had everytime the role of a spectator when it got to a close combat. Agincourt and Crécy are only very extraordinaire victories of english longbowmen, very rarely fought in the 100 Years' War. Like Cannae or Austerlitz.
Well see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk
or read for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verneuil
Quite more forgotten to look at, is the angle with which the arrow impact the armour. As you can see in your video, the cuirass is more round and has different angles, so a really critical hit was only if the arrow hit the breast or chest part frontal. On the sides the arrow would simply scratch away. Most common critical hits were made in the face of the heavy infantry, because they simply very often opened their visors to have a better view. And next the arrow volleys made disorder in the ranks of attacking infantry by simply pushing them back due the heavy impact (its still that strong without penetrating the armour), so it has given a defending advantage of the english heavy infantry while beeing in a straight line while the french were not.
6000 arrows could only be released at a higher range. At 20 m effective range only the first 1 or 2 lines could release their arrows to not hit the own longbowman in their backs. That decreased the effect severely. And furthermore, most attacks of men-at-arms/knight went to the center (there where the opponent aristocrats with their men-at-arms were with the money (!) if you capture them). So most of the longbowmen never got in the effective killing range of 20 meter, because they stoot on the wings.Well, but you forgot to metion, that the milan plate armor was not affordable by the common man-at-arms. Only the most wealthy knights could purchase these formidable steel plate armours.Well i'm sure we have all seen arrows and what they do to "Armour", to chainmail and platemail but what about the Battle of Verneuil with Lombardian plate armour?but the men who used them had to be trained to shoot them, actually won of the hardest infatry weapons of the middle ages, ive got a cousin does olympic archery for australia and also medieval english long bow reenactment, he said they are the hardest bows to use due to the strength, you apparently started training with them when u were very young.That's why it was forbidden in england in the late medieval time to do other sports on sundays than bow shooting!
Longbowman had only the advantage of a huge range, in close combat they lost heavily against men-at-arms (the common heavy infantry in the 14th-15th centuries) because of the lack of armour and melee training. And when they shot all their arrows, they had everytime the role of a spectator when it got to a close combat. Agincourt and Crécy are only very extraordinaire victories of english longbowmen, very rarely fought in the 100 Years' War. Like Cannae or Austerlitz.
Well see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk
or read for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verneuil
Quite more forgotten to look at, is the angle with which the arrow impact the armour. As you can see in your video, the cuirass is more round and has different angles, so a really critical hit was only if the arrow hit the breast or chest part frontal. On the sides the arrow would simply scratch away. Most common critical hits were made in the face of the heavy infantry, because they simply very often opened their visors to have a better view. And next the arrow volleys made disorder in the ranks of attacking infantry by simply pushing them back due the heavy impact (its still that strong without penetrating the armour), so it has given a defending advantage of the english heavy infantry while beeing in a straight line while the french were not.
If you read about the volume of arrows the chances of getting a direct hit from 6000 arrows released at 20m range which is about 25 paces of a man for 5-6 foot, is actually pretty high.
By the 1500's this armour had spread over the majority of Europe and was both makeable in England, France, Spain and the HRE and affordable due to its more widespread use. For example the English civil war that errupted "The War of the Roses" although the longbow was still used it had mainly started to be replaced with the handgonne, a handgonne would be far more expensive to run and maintain than any peice of armour where as any kind of hand weapon would not ... and a Longbow was relatively cheap compared to every other type of weapon as it never really had to be provided by the lord or noble unless it was for ammunition.That's right here, but i was talking about the 100 Years' War. That's why I didn't mention that here! ^^
There was quite a large discussion on costs of "Munitions" armour.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?572485-Armour-of-the-1470-s-Image-resources
The only thing the matchlock could do better was pierce the new armour, it wasn't a viable choice in England until this happened. Considering the majority of the populace of England was trained to pull 100-200 pound bows from the absolute pinicle of youth by forced laws even by Henry VIII at the start of the 1500's. Why even think the matchlock was better other than to use it to pierce the new armour, it is far from logical to choose it over the longbow when the resources are already in place.Right!
I'd compare it to building a zoo then turning it into a hospital. Because every lord would think "Cheap arrows ... or expensive slow firing bullets that are wildly innacurate?" ... which would you logically choose? or would the question be "Arrows that don't pierce the armour anymore or Bullets that do?".
Hence Armour killed the Bow ... not the matchlock.
These guys look so...American.Not at all. :-\
These guys look so...American.
Breaking morale with a bronze-plated fist of gay pride.Quote of the year. ;D
Breaking morale with a bronze-plated fist of gay pride.Quote of the year. ;D
Nothing like fighting side by side with your lover(s) to keep morale up! I'd totally forgotten about them.
Spoiler[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rAHrHd2lcw[/youtube][close]
Of course it was a elite force!Waffen SSHardly a elite force. It was made up of ideological sympatiers, not elite soldiers.
*Danannana*
Waffen SS.Spanish partizans in the Peninsular War.Guerilla warfare agaisnt slow, static formations. Does not require much skill. The peasants took shots then retreated, as well as interfered messengers and killed lone stragglers.
The fact that mere peasants could grind the French army almost to a halt without any training is astounding.
The average mongol ought to be reckoned, seeing the damage they could lash out with minimal funding. Altough, to be fair, they practiced horsemanship and archery daily since they were young, so they did have some advantages over societies were warfare was considered a duty rather then a profession.
Waffen SS!agreed
Waffen SS!agreed
Waffen SS!agreed
How was the Waffen SS one of the most elite fighting forces of history, let alone 'elite' at all?
It's ok ! I'm ready with facts, data, statistics and everything to win the argument !
as an army on the whole i would have to say the wehrmacht as they were the best fighting force in Europe and even against the vast hordes of russia and america they managed to fight them for many years even though they were vastly outnumbered. If Hitler had not been in over-all command they might of just taken euro-peon Russia. If they were the size of the red army they would of been unstoppable.
The Knights Of St.John (The Knights Templar)
Agovic posted something informative, not about Montenegro and correct?
Well, I'll be damned...
phalanx...a very rigid and inflexible formation that is designed to essentially steamroll your enemies with an impenetrable bronze and wood wall of ass-fucking...which required mental discipline, and physical strength to carry all that armor, shield, equipment, etc..., plus they took breaks to go back to farming!
I would have to say basically all Greek hoplite. I mean, these guys [...] they took breaks to go back to farming!"Charge!"
I would like to add another one: The Turkish pilots during Turkish independence war. They were very, very out teched and had very few planes, but still managed to push back Greek Planes. (Some times, their planes would get a motor stop in mid air, so they would have to return that caused the Greeks to have Air superiority for few hours)
I would like to add another one: The Turkish pilots during Turkish independence war. They were very, very out teched and had very few planes, but still managed to push back Greek Planes. (Some times, their planes would get a motor stop in mid air, so they would have to return that caused the Greeks to have Air superiority for few hours)
Soo... A bunch of guys pushed back the greek air-force in a few skirmishes where the greek air-force probably been in same or worse condition, and you call them an elite-force? ???
I have to go with Spartan hoplites.
+1 look to my earlier post about the theban sacred band :PI have to go with Spartan hoplites.
I'll counter that with Thebans!
i`ll counter that with Alexander the Great and hes phalangites :PI have to go with Spartan hoplites.
I'll counter that with Thebans!
I'll counter that with Republican Roman legionnairesi`ll counter that with Alexander the Great and hes phalangites :PI have to go with Spartan hoplites.
I'll counter that with Thebans!
I'll counter that with Varangian Guardsmen!I'll counter that with Republican Roman legionnairesi`ll counter that with Alexander the Great and hes phalangites :PI have to go with Spartan hoplites.
I'll counter that with Thebans!
I'll counter that with a good batch of battle-hardened Scandanavian Huskarls!
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg141.imageshack.us%2Fimg141%2F8845%2Fhuscarl3fw9.jpg&hash=e99a0ad95af637cede3b7325aae49b7d6ced03bc)
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Fn2%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Flarge%2F2008%2F12%2F11%2Fsomm83803390.jpg&hash=6dcaea89edf606c722db90146faeafa804648ce7)i dont think they are elite + they are not from beginning of time-19th Century
somali armed forces
(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Fn2%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Flarge%2F2008%2F12%2F11%2Fsomm83803390.jpg&hash=6dcaea89edf606c722db90146faeafa804648ce7)
somali armed forces
I think he was joking, guys.i hope so :P
I think he was joking, guys.