Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzazulfiqar)
    ottomans.
    The ottomans were by no means the best army in history. I wish people would put aside national, cultural pride. And respond sensibly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4TSR)
    :rofl: yea right!
    go do your history on the ottomans you foolish person.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    The ottomans were by no means the best army in history. I wish people would put aside national, cultural pride. And respond sensibly.
    and your vote goes to ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzazulfiqar)
    and your vote goes to ?
    The American army today, second palce going to the British army in the British empire, due to the fact that the British empire ruled a 1/4 of the worlds people and commanded the largest empire on earth.

    The Ottomons are pale in comparison to the British empire. And this is not a bias slant, it is a factual statment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    The American army today, second palce going to the British army in the British empire, due to the fact that the British empire ruled a 1/4 of the worlds people and commanded the largest empire on earth.

    The Ottomons are pale in comparison to the British empire. And this is not a bias slant, it is a factual statment.
    nope, the op says regardless of tech, america without tech and nukes are nothing... the monguls will eat them for breakfast.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzazulfiqar)
    nope, the op says regardless of tech, america without tech and nukes are nothing... the monguls will eat them for breakfast.
    Regardless of technology ? Hmm the mongols used swords, spears and arrows, is that not technology ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    Regardless of technology ? Hmm the mongols used swords, spears and arrows, is that not technology ?
    no. your comparing swords to nukes ROFL
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzazulfiqar)
    no. your comparing swords to nukes ROFL
    Are swords and arrows not a form of technology ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    Are swords and arrows not a form of technology ?
    No there not. Swords and Arrows require physical strength, rather then a nuke being launched from an ibm with the use of your pinky finger.:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzazulfiqar)
    No there not. Swords and Arrows require physical strength, rather then a nuke being launched from an ibm with the use of your pinky finger.:
    If you do not think that swords and arrows are a form of technology then I will not waste my time conversing with you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    If you do not think that swords and arrows are a form of technology then I will not waste my time conversing with you.
    face it america is no match for the monguls.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzazulfiqar)
    face it america is no match for the monguls.
    I disagree, however I cannot have a serious discussion with someone that is stupid enough to claim that swords and bow & arrows etc. are not a form of technology "because they need human strength opposed to pressing a button"

    You're an idiot, now bye bye
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    I disagree, however I cannot have a serious discussion with someone that is stupid enough to claim that swords and bow & arrows etc. are not a form of technology "because they need human strength opposed to pressing a button"

    You're an idiot, now bye bye
    Kk. Fool, your trying to act like some smart turd comparing mongals swords to american nukes. Now go get drunk you turd.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzazulfiqar)
    Kk. Fool, your trying to act like some smart turd comparing mongals swords to american nukes. Now go get drunk you turd.
    lol turd
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I actually find this subject really interesting(not a lover of war/violence, I'm just really into history), too bad the majority of the posts here will be as accurate/serious as a wiki entry
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zigzog7)
    I was expecting sarcasm, so I got you some news articles:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ghanistan.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-shortage.html
    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...under-named.do

    These, along with all the personal accounts of near misses that I have heard from personnel, are honestly quite shocking. One story I heard was of an A-10 almost blowing up a british convoy because they thought they were iraqis, even though they were wearing nato markings.
    It never ceases to amaze me how hard many British people will try to think of reasons not to like America, but god damn this has to be one of the dumbest.

    I'll try and break it down for you. In war, forces on the same side will, due to confusion or accident or the fog of war, sometimes harm each other instead of the enemy. Britain and America are on the same side in a war, so naturally there will be occurrences of friendly fire, however regrettable that may be.

    Also let me let you in on a little secret: American forces accidentally kill Americans too. Crazy, I know! It must mean that American's hate themselves and are doing everything they can to undermine their country. Despicable!

    I find it hilarious that you simply ignored the points I made, which encompass the effects of America on the entirety of British politics, economics, and society and instead focus on a few isolated incidences which, by your own admission, were mistakes rather than official policy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bluegreendots)
    I actually find this subject really interesting(not a lover of war/violence, I'm just really into history), too bad the majority of the posts here will be as accurate/serious as a wiki entry
    Well it is kinda difficult to pin point who had the "best army in history" simply because of the fact each army were different (Conventional or unconventional? Infantry heavy or balanced? Small Elite troops or mass conscripts? Swords or Guns? Females or no females?)
    plus history is quite a large time scale so the obvious choice would be to pick a more recent army since it will be technologically superior than any historic army. Seriously spartans vs US armed forces... who would win...

    But who cares, this thread is fun and interesting to see who picks who (personally I pick Romans) even if it is as accurate/serious as a wiki entry. So, in your own opinion, who do you think is the best army in history if I may ask.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Man for man, the British army are arguably the best military force ever assembled.

    Not in equipment/numbers etc - but in terms of the level of training and competence of each position.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by N0body)
    Well it is kinda difficult to pin point who had the "best army in history" simply because of the fact each army were different (Conventional or unconventional? Infantry heavy or balanced? Small Elite troops or mass conscripts? Swords or Guns? Females or no females?)
    plus history is quite a large time scale so the obvious choice would be to pick a more recent army since it will be technologically superior than any historic army. Seriously spartans vs US armed forces... who would win...

    But who cares, this thread is fun and interesting to see who picks who (personally I pick Romans) even if it is as accurate/serious as a wiki entry. So, in your own opinion, who do you think is the best army in history if I may ask.
    I have no idea which is why I'm avoiding reading through this thread. I can't distinguish between what's real and what's made up by the lovely TSRers but what you said makes a lot of sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    I disagree, however I cannot have a serious discussion with someone that is stupid enough to claim that swords and bow & arrows etc. are not a form of technology "because they need human strength opposed to pressing a button"

    You're an idiot, now bye bye
    (Original post by hamzazulfiqar)
    DDD

    You are both wrong because swords, arrows etc even someone picking up a animal bone for the first time and clubbing you over the head is 'tech' of sort.

    The British defeated much of the known globe mainly due to superior tech - in advanced weapons, transport and troop supply and deployment. Fighting zulus armed with spears with long range rifles was only going to endup in one result.

    If you eliminate the use of technology in warfare completly - you are bringing it down simly to hand to hand combat.
    then you have to give it to the buddhists and the developemnt of early martial arts which all modern armies now train in.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.