Dear Sup Forums

Dear Sup Forums

In your opinion, what was the most effective pre-firearm military?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

pic unrelated
cavalry armies > skirmish armies > infantry

Tell that to the legions moron

Florence's Army during the renaissance.

Florence didn't send their pure Florentine men out to die in the name of the elite, Florence send mercenaries out to fight the offence, and kept their boys defending the castles and cities.

would you not want a mix of cavalry and foot?

Napoleon's army

Alexander could've beaten Napoleon imo.

Hasn't this already been determined? I'm pretty sure some study found that the vast majority of deaths were from arrow wounds.

Also, >>/his/

>pre-firearm
would agree though

The Metatron and lyndybeige youtube channel could help you answer your question OP.

Personally i would go for a roman Gladius but you need to know how to use it the right way. No swinging only stab in stomach.

The legions that got buttraped by skirmishers so badly that they modified their spear so they could be used in skirmish battles?

The vikings

The Mongol horde, very little room for debate on this.

Armored Cavalry and pikemen/spearmen backed up by lots of heavy bowmen

Pretty much what the Brits did

Heavy bowmen were far more effective than the heavy crossbowmen that the French and others used

Yup, either the Scythians or the Mongols, which is basically the same concept. Can't kill what you can't attack

mix of cavalry,skirmish and infantry ofcourse
Alexander,phyrros,hannibal were all effective because they supported their infantry enough and used heavy cavalry

They had the biggest empire of human history so yeah necessary

Pic related ovb

The most effective thing about them was the plague they brought with them

And stand up fight against a typical Brit battlefield will be a slaughter for the Mongols

big armies of horse archers would be a pretty scary thing to actually try to fight without guns.

Macedonian phalanx

>this is a debate

this 100%

>no army has ever had to adapt to new enemies
>fixing your one weakness doesn't count

> using a siege weapon in open combat

Stop basing your reality on Gladiator.

Yea mobile cavalry armies. Backed up by archers and a few light infantry.
Khalid Walid
Chinggis Khaan
Huns
Exc

The Mongols didn't have time for that shit.

Literal psychopaths.

>Canadian chink trying to rewrite history like his CCP education taught him

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

>implying my picture show why they need onagers

They would have lost hard against heavy bowmen of the Brits

They fought against people that used flight arrows designed for long range against unarmored people

>Leaf agrees Mongols were best pre-firearm military
I can't believe it, I'm agreeing with a leaf.

really cant compare imho, they all had different purposes and used totally different tactics

>greek phalanx:its super effective!
>roman shield formations:its super effective
>mongol hit and run tactics:its super effective!
>britbong longbow archers:its super effective!

and so on

they had massive shields and armor, the brits bows wouldve given them trouble, but in close combat they would be slaughtered

Typical kiwi shitposter, the British empire comes after fucking guns.

The Royal Cavalry

Which part of pre-firearm don't you understand abo?

>Onager
>Field artillery

Pick one

I think it depends a lot on the terrain. On flat terrain pikes are definitely the best, especially when supported by heavy cavalry. On uneven terrain I'd bet on the legions

Why is the (((american))) empire not on the list?

I'm quite sure its more than half the planet at this point.

Mongols conquered all of Eurasia.

because you have no idea what an empire is.

this, no fight

roman empire is more romantic but the huns have the heaviest impact on world history

the repercussions of their actions stretched all the way from japan to europe

the huns. cavalry archers. they dont have the most wins abroad but they simply stop trying after atila dies

BS the Romans excelled in putting men in the field, not in outmaneuvering opponents.

Probably because we dont give a shit enough to call whats ours an "Empire"

The Mongolian Horde under Genghis was the most advanced for its time.
>every single unit is a mounted Archer of extreme skill out of the barn northern wastes
>fighting against soft, weakling city dwellers who were conscripted foot soldiers with very little cavalry support.
The tactics used were preddy gud too.

but they didnt hold ground, it was an invasion army and just swooped in and disappeared shortly after. then again for example roman legions conquered territories and hold them for centuries so they were good at defending too

The templar order

>They would have lost hard against heavy bowmen of the Brits

Yes, 1200 years in the future they would lose.

Mongolian empire was the biggest, don't fucking show me your stupid wikipedia link anyone can modify this at any moment and it's monitored by retard liberals

I'm deeply sorry your education didn't teach reading to an acceptable level.

>They had the biggest empire of human history

>HUMAN HISTORY

Its not a matter of outmaneuvering its about getting close enough to make their bows useless or them running out of arrows

It's really not fair to compare the two. Entirely different forms of combat. Also Alexander didn't have as extensive communications in the battlefield. It'd probably go to Napoleon.

Fuck off nigger their bows were shit unasable in the wet. Stupid steppe shits.

The romans got slaughtered on many occasions. They always succeeded in just throwing more bodies at the problem.

There only real saving grace was some of the brilliant leaders like scipio africanus and julius ceasar

Cataphracts mah nigga

Not much can stop a stampeding hoard of Aryan Persians (except phalanx formation but cone on that shits boring and OP)

I am happy with this thread

Because despite what many retards believe, American power is not hegemonic.

The mind.

>They always succeeded in just throwing more bodies at the problem.
It worked did it not?

If you mean best soldiers & not best army

I would say Spartans & Vikings

In terms of best armies, Mongolian army & Roman.

Proofs?

>muh sand

>I think it depends a lot on the terrain
this

>The romans got slaughtered on many occasions. They always succeeded in just throwing more bodies at the problem.

All armies lose. What you describe is why Rome was so powerful. They had superior organization and discipline, and that matters far more than tactics.

English Army. Specifically the archer class.

Take Agincourt.

Bout a thousand Archers BTFO 8500 (((Quality)) French Knights.

>8
>Fuckin
>Thousand

This. pic related.

/thread

bump

Don't be facetious. Egypt wasn't officially part of the roman empire either, at the time. It was a "vassal kingdom".

And yes, the americans are subtle about it. Would be a sad state of affairs if we had to admit we are a vassal banana republic of the united states.

He'll show you a map full of worthless sand

The mongol horde

Fuck off kid serious discussions only

Agree.

The British empire had more land area? Ok, they took to people with swords meanwhile they had gunpowder.

Mongols fought and equal fight. Sword against sword.

How is it not Hegemonic?

Roman military or the Macedonian military or Mongols.

I'd probably rank them
1. Romans
2. Mongols
3. Macedonians

Yeah.

Tip: Dan Carlin's Hardcore History about the Mongolian army is fucking great.

Not really impressive considering how weak their logistics were and how taxing they were to maintain. Meanwhile Rome was fielding multiple field armies in the hundreds of thousands with organized supply chains even in the westerns late empire period.

Truly, the only professionalized army in the world until Turks and their janissary and Hungarians and the black army.

>In your opinion, what was the most effective pre-firearm military?
Sucks your education doesn't teach you to remember what you read; topic is with regard to pre-firearm militaries only.

Thought they spoke the Queen's english over in kiwiland, are you one of those nigger maoris?

Boy the mongols conquered most of the world in their day. Piss off

Mongol Armies > Roman Legions > Greek Armies (Spartan, Macedonian)

the finnish hord

Maybe, but (((american))) power isn't.

Find me a country where being anti-semitic won't land you in jail and i'll show you a country that isn't part of the (((american))) empire.

>empires extend relations of power across territorial spaces over which they have no prior or given legal sovereignty, and where, in one or more of the domains of economics, politics, and culture, they gain some measure of extensive hegemony over those spaces for the purpose of extracting or accruing value.[8]

USA is a world superpower, but not a empire

What leverage do we have over you, where you could be considered such a thing?

The problem with cavalry archers, which many people like here, is that they are quite vulnerable to foot archers, because they present a much larger target. This is especially the case for light skirmisher cavalry.

Of course the Persians, Huns and Mongols all fielded heavily-armoured cavalry archers, but they are very expensive, especially when they have limited charge effect, unlike say the Macedonian Companion cavalry.

Furthermore, their usefulness diminish as ranged weapons improve. A late medieval crossbow can punch through armour and make heavy mounted cavalry also very vulnerable to foot archers.

Finally, the observation needs to be made, that firearms were invented in around 1000 AD, and indeed played an instrumental role in China holding off the Mongol hordes for centuries. It's always good to keep in mind that the Mongols were still fighting the Song dynasty after they had subjugated Moscow.

offtopic here but werent those longbows heavy as fuck to use? im not saying they werent overpoweredly good, i just remember seeing some documentary about those archers that said that alot of the men had shoulder injuries because the bows were so hard to use?

and then Persian Immortals

>What leverage do we have over you
Our military

>muh sand again
Stupid nigger

Combined arms is the best way. Units complement each other and cover weaknesses of each type of fighter.

Genghis Khan's army most likely. Was swift as it was destructive and conquered every empire it came in contact with ranging from the Persians and Chinese to the early European civilizations.

Romans never adapted to new enemies. They were always adapting to the previous ones they encountered.

Continuously and endlessly losing embarrassing battles.

Nigger you are just mad I'm right. Piss off shit skin. Hang yourself

didnt the chinks have some sort of primitive rocket launchers too? like glorified fireworks or something

god damnit that shitpost made me legitimately mad.

10/10

Hahahahaha NO EGYPT WAS NEVER A VASSAL KINGDOM OF ROME you stupid monkey go eat a banana

Not to mention the horse is a huge target and the horse archer can only fire to their left side (if right handed). Then they cant do shit in woods or wet conditions because of their bows, only wide open plains.

Yeah, they're a son of a bitch and will fuck you up if you don't know what you're doing

That's fucking absurd. You wouldn't go to jail here for antisemitism. The people who wrote the foundation of our laws made sure you were legally free to speak out against anything and anyone.

Other countries just have cucked speech laws. We din do nothin.

wheres norway poster ? he is a destroyer of fleets

>kys
Stupid kid

Got any proof to offer on that claim faggot

Egypt was a nigger-tier vassal to rome