Epic battle scene

>Epic battle scene
>Both armies are just running full speed into each other

>believing in the tactics meme
just literally bring more men and weapons then the other side, that's all there is to it

t. Darius III

I hat that too OP. It will be that or the winning side wins because they are "more disciplined" yet all that means is that they wait longer before charging.

...

This is contrary to almost every European battle against non-Europeans, be they red indians, regular indians, sand niggers, regular niggers or ching chong chinks.

then explain that historical battle in that one war n the 40s where a single samurai defeated over 800 world war 2 soldiers armed with machine guns

Is that the one where he didn't even draw blood, but instead chopped through their machine guns one-by-one and sometimes through as many as 3 at once?

>smaller side will always lose
>in a Napoleon thread
Is this bait or are you actually retarded?

>bad guy is cowardly mastermind
>realises shields are useful
>if opponent doesn't have any, shoot arrows

>Medieval fantasy/historical drama
>Female character that fights
>She's an archer

He kind of looks like the guy from Red Letter Media.

Think of how many years we've been recording history

NoW think of how many legendary generals have gone down in history

Now think of how many utterly shit generals have been forgotten by history

You'd be surprised at how often a battle turns into "just fuckin charge them". I mean I'm not surprised cause I'm not a war historylet, but you would be surprised.

this guy gets it

Go look up the 100 Years War.

Which is the most believable thing for a woman to be doing on a battlefield.

It's a real insult to archers that people think it doesn't require any physical prowess that even a girl can do it.

>battle scene
>soldiers are randomly spawned on the battlefield

The Battle of Marathon.

>woman
>on a battlefield
>believable

You're an idiot. A woman can shoot an arrow better than she can swing a sword agaisnt a man. That's why she uses the bow.

lol 'lol' lol

...

It's a movie, it depicts one story, not the entirety of recorded history. There were a handful of women that fought battles with men, so you can just assume the character is based off girls like them

Commanding the army.

Are you implying a woman has a better chance sword fighting men than she does shooting them from a distance?

>20 good men cripple an entire army

good god GoT is terrible

Even the kid with the trumpet would be a boy; castrato, but a boy.

bows are hard to pull

I'm implying neither. I don't accept the premise.

>just literally bring more men and weapons then the other side, that's all there is to it
*blocks your path*

>t. Cadorna

One of the most btfo moments in history. But rome did that to a lot of people.

But that's literally how they fought back then.

The last thing she should be is an archer though.

>epic battle scene
>both armies are just running full speed into each other
>nanoseconds before clashing the home team retreats as a giant trapped pit opens up as the opposing army falls like dominoes

You guys do realize that women compete in Olympic archery right? A bow is hard to use yes but it's not impossible simply because you're female

>people break rank to fight one by one
>people are killed with a single slash even though they are covered head to toe in armor

Have any of you faggots even shot a bow before? Not every thing is a 180 lbs pull English longbow for christ sake. There are women on this planet that can bench 400 lbs. What can you faggots bench?

>America and South Vietnam had more men than North Vietnam fighting
"No!"

>You guys do realize
I don't validate posts that look like they were written by a 2th grader.

This is the only one that gets me. Not the break rank part cause that happens all the time in undisciplined armies. But the 1 shot slashing through chain mail is Fucking retarded

>2th
The absolute state of Sup Forums

You wanna fight you flaming faggot?

t. absolute retard

You think modern Olympic archery is akin to real war archery? You think modern day athletes are akin to ancient soldiers? There's a reason no woman has ever been an archer in war.

>muh modern day roided benching

My little sister could kick your ass

Well you are an ass.

>no woman has ever been an archer in war
Wew lad

>calls other people faggots

Actually YOU are the ass.

We're talking about the use of bows in warfare
Most bows used in warfare had heavy draw weights and I really doubt many women trained hundreds of years ago

You would be interested in ass you faggot.

But you're the one who brought it up

>both sides sprint 200 yards in full steel armor and then have enough energy left to fight

epic, simply epic

You're the one who can't stop thinking about my man ass.

I called him a faggot too, so it's only fair. But I will restate my opinion that my little sister could beat up at least 50% of the soy boys ITT. She's shot bows before too but I would comfortably pit her against most of you in a fist fight

But you're the one who can't stop talking about it.

Not every bow was a Fucking English longbow my dude. The huns had to shoot from horse back so don't give me that shit about war bows all being heavy draws. Even the heavy draw bows, women can shoot them.

I would I got a great ass.

Your chinese cartoons aren't historical depictions.

Just because you can't sprint 200 yards without coughing up a lung, doesn't mean others cant

>muh horse archers
opinion discarded

Yea muh horse archers, only the most renowned and feared army to have ever walked the ancient earth. Wtf would they know about shooting bows lol

Battle of Yarmouk, Romans and Rashidun Caliphate

>15,000–150,000(modern estimates)
>100,000–200,000(primary Arab sources),
>140,000(primary Roman sources)

VS

>15,000–20,000 (modern estimates)
>24,000–40,000 (primary sources)

Casualties:
>50,000+ killed (modern estimates)
>70,000–120,000 killed (primary sources)

and

>3000 killed

I'll let you guess which is which.

>just because you can't sprint 200 yards in 100 lbs of metal doesn't mean others cant

great argument my man

How else should I make the argument? Call you a retarded fat ass?

desu most of her "soldiers" were untrained peasants and many of the casualties were women, children and even old people

>calling byzantines roman to make the muslim victory more impressive
Pathetic.
Also, dat modern estimate range.
The Byzantines are a fucking joke, a handful of crusaders fucked them up too with little effort.

This is Sup Forums man, no one actually knows what they're talking about.

Defending in fortress assault would seem more believable.

Not him but rome got btfo by other nations as well, during the height of their empire no less. Mounted archer armies are THE best military forces in ancient history, not Roman legions.

picking italians to fight a war is like picking a toddler to fight in an MMA match

It's a meme you dip
Still, the longbow was the prevalent bow used in western europe
Horse archers are more of an eastern thing

>I'm not a war historylet
Real historian here. Don't be one. People that specialize in war without anything surrounding it (aside from lolinternationalpolitics) are the bottom of the barrel in the discipline. For a scientifically point of view, there is absolutely nothing interesting in writing about the strategies or the weapons of x army.

Just read a history book man. There have always been women that went beyond the expectations of their gender.

That would come down to personal taste fellow lover of history. I find war history incredibly interesting

Mounted archers were shit, they were very limited in where they could effectively operate.
Hell, their bows couldn't even survive the cold & wet European weather.
There's a reason they never made massive inroads into Europe.

Definitely the prefered range weapon of western Europe. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to watch a movie and get upset when you see one girl doing something that most girls wouldn't normally do. It's almost as if the movie was telling you the story of that one girl

>mounted archers were shit
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>cant read 3 sentences to understand why
Kids these days.

They were the most successful armies in history (pre guns). Highest win/loss ratio. But don't take my word for it, go check for yourself

The most successful in their limited terrains.
Are you stupid?

The mongols pillaged the shit out of Russia and eastern Europe. How in the hell does a horse army have limited terrain? There's no open fields in Europe? Guess what else the mongols were really good at? Sieging. Now I know what you're thinking, how would the mongols have been able to get their horse up ladders and scale a castle wall. Trick question, they didn't, because sieges don't always result in forceful take overs. You surround the city and starve them out until they surrender.

If you enjoy war history in your spare time then it's all good for you. I myself just bought a nice little book on China's civil war of '45-'49 that I can't wait to read in-between redaction. I'm just saying that when it comes to the academics, war history is the most frowned upon subject and one every one tend to avoid. It's much treating about the war more that it's producing works that focus on the operational aspect of a certain war. Such as equipment, strategies and war feats. It's simply factual content that has no value by themselves because they don't push anything new.

I'll give you an example of a teacher of mine that wrote several books on the Vietnam war. On the class I took with him (literally called "The Wars of Vietnam"), he never once stated what was the important battles, or the generals, or the guns the VC used or whatever. Because these information are not important. What was important, for example, was how a certain event (ex. : the battle of Dien Bien Phu, China's support of North Vietnam in 1949, the split between China and USSR's diplomatic relation) was primordial in the history of the country.

The Mongols actually got fucked up in eastern Europe the second time, they were only successful in their initial assaults because those kingdoms were unprepared for their style of warfare.
Also, eastern Europe/Russia is far far flatter than central and western Europe, learn your fucking geography.
Lastly, the Mongols didn't succeed because of horse archers you uneducated retard, they conquered because they had a bit of everything in their army, a truly mixed force.
I can't believe you're so smug about something you know so little about, "hurr durr mongols all rode horses", you're like a child.

say that to italy mang

>Highest win/loss ratio


They were also the fastest type of warfare to be obsolete, it literally took 5 minutes for a one trick pony to fall to the ground and be pushed back so hard that for the rest of their worthy history, the golden horde was nothing but a vassal to an actual nation with trained military

That's all good stuff too most certainly. War is not a clear cut thing by any measure. To understand war you need to have an understanding of the era it took place in. You're correct In saying that the who what when where how is more important than the way they went about fighting. I just personally take great interest In the latter as well. In certain cases it's very important information.

For example chariots were a large part of ancient warfare until the battle of gaugamela, where Alexander the great exposed their weakness. After that battle chariots became somewhat irrelevant in ancient war. Napoleon did the same thing in the 1700's when he reshaped the way Europeans managed their armies, and the Romans before him during the 3rd century when they made being a soldier into a paying profesion.

Highly debateble. The mongol empire could have contested europe for much longer had it not crumbled under the incompetence of genghis khans successor. Khans right hand man Subotai utterly dismantled two royal European armies on back to back days that were roughly 200 miles apart. He rekt one army then immediately rode through the night and rekt another army right after. Subotai is probably the greatest ancient general of all time, boasting a final score of 42 victories 0 defeats

Ah, yes, the famous soviet tactic of winning battles.