Best army/special forces in world history?
- Thread starter Glockmatic
- Start date
Obviously "Zero Cool" has some trouble grasping the historical context of Medieval Europe/Asia.
Let's see what I wrote:
The army who crushed the Romans and put the Persians in fear.
Romans (at the advent of Islam) = technically the Byzantines(East Roman Empire).
Persians = Sassanid Persians
But looking at the historical context of the Muslim military. They defeated the Moguls, the Franks(Crusaders), the Zoroastrian-Persians and the Roman-Byzantines. Furthermore, the Islamic Empire was larger than the empires of Persia, Alexander or the Romans. It was stretched from North Africa to the Central Asian steppes and into Pakistan (Sind). Infact, a Muslim leader (can't recall his name) was sent to conquer China but the Chinese emperor payed a tribute payment.
Furthermore, you cannot compare two different empires when it comes to military power. Napoleon, for example, could have indiputably conquered Alexander's Empire. Similary, the Muslim militiary force cannot be compared to Alexander's one. The Muslims were more advanced and could have easily crushed Ceasar's or Alexander's forces.
The Muslim army had a higher moral and superior mobility. The odd thing is that the Romans had amoury that were far superior and advanced to that of the Muslims. Moreover, the Muslims still continued to fight in spite of great odds (ratio 1:10). Lastly, Heraclius' forces already reached their peak when confrontin' the Muslims.
By the way, skilled leaders/superior tactics is another form of superiority.
It's unfortunate that the only Muslim General the West knows is Saladin. Khalid Ibn Waleed was even better (tactics wise). Or what about Tariq, Amro, Sa'ad Ibn Abi, and so on.
Despite the fact you cannot compare militiary powers, I still am of the opinion that the Muslim forces were among the greatest forces.
Peace
Let's see what I wrote:
The army who crushed the Romans and put the Persians in fear.
Romans (at the advent of Islam) = technically the Byzantines(East Roman Empire).
Persians = Sassanid Persians
But looking at the historical context of the Muslim military. They defeated the Moguls, the Franks(Crusaders), the Zoroastrian-Persians and the Roman-Byzantines. Furthermore, the Islamic Empire was larger than the empires of Persia, Alexander or the Romans. It was stretched from North Africa to the Central Asian steppes and into Pakistan (Sind). Infact, a Muslim leader (can't recall his name) was sent to conquer China but the Chinese emperor payed a tribute payment.
Furthermore, you cannot compare two different empires when it comes to military power. Napoleon, for example, could have indiputably conquered Alexander's Empire. Similary, the Muslim militiary force cannot be compared to Alexander's one. The Muslims were more advanced and could have easily crushed Ceasar's or Alexander's forces.
The Muslim army had a higher moral and superior mobility. The odd thing is that the Romans had amoury that were far superior and advanced to that of the Muslims. Moreover, the Muslims still continued to fight in spite of great odds (ratio 1:10). Lastly, Heraclius' forces already reached their peak when confrontin' the Muslims.
By the way, skilled leaders/superior tactics is another form of superiority.
It's unfortunate that the only Muslim General the West knows is Saladin. Khalid Ibn Waleed was even better (tactics wise). Or what about Tariq, Amro, Sa'ad Ibn Abi, and so on.
Despite the fact you cannot compare militiary powers, I still am of the opinion that the Muslim forces were among the greatest forces.
Peace
I have no trouble "grasping the historical context of Medieval Europe" as you sordidly put it. I was merely inquiring as to why you viewed the Muslim armies as the greatest the world has ever seen. A comparitave can of course be made between armies from different epochs if you put their means and men into context, something which you have unsurprisingly chosen not to do. I say again, for it's time the Roman army was the most disciplined, most advanced and best led army the world has ever seen. Give me credible evidence to the contrary. If the Muslim armies were, for arguments sake, Hindus and founded a Hindu empire stretching across the Middle East would you view them in the same rose-tinted light? I think not.
Which was unexpected. Muslims never destroyed cities, and hence why they were superior. These savages (Mongols) were defeated at the end and later on converted to Islam. They created a another Islamic Empire in East Asia (Moghul Empire)
The Muslims defeated a Chinese army at Talas who outnumbered them (according to Chinese sources 30,000 men and according to Muslim reports 100,000).
And it was Qutaibah bin Muslim who was sent to conquer Turkestan (which he did) and then penetrating the borders of China. The Chinese emperor _did_ pay him tribute in order not to attack them.
I find it typical that some users here brush somethin' as "bullshit" without substaining with EVIDENCE refuting the claim stated.
You're playin' with words. The term sordidly doesn't even come close with what I mentioned. Perhaps it would be wise not to throw in the straw-man fallacy. You cannot compare a ancient military force with a medieval one. And the Roman army is not the most diciplined, most 'advanced' and best led army that world has ever witnessed. In the Ancient world, perhaps. The Roman army were the most advanced in their time, just like how the British Army was the most advanced in the 18th century. Or the Muslim army in their time. Also, the Mongols are regarded the most disciplined army before the age of gunpowder.
What I find it amusin' is that I provided [credible evidence] (see in my previous) that the Muslim Army was the greatest militiary force in the Medieval world. I provided the battles, the opponents etc. To simply brush it aside and yet claim for "evidence" is presportous. Furthermore, it's so apparant that your whole argument if fallacious. I specifically stated that the Muslims created a Empire larger than Alexander's or the Romans within DECADES.
The Muslims defeated a Chinese army at Talas who outnumbered them (according to Chinese sources 30,000 men and according to Muslim reports 100,000).
And it was Qutaibah bin Muslim who was sent to conquer Turkestan (which he did) and then penetrating the borders of China. The Chinese emperor _did_ pay him tribute in order not to attack them.
I find it typical that some users here brush somethin' as "bullshit" without substaining with EVIDENCE refuting the claim stated.
You're playin' with words. The term sordidly doesn't even come close with what I mentioned. Perhaps it would be wise not to throw in the straw-man fallacy. You cannot compare a ancient military force with a medieval one. And the Roman army is not the most diciplined, most 'advanced' and best led army that world has ever witnessed. In the Ancient world, perhaps. The Roman army were the most advanced in their time, just like how the British Army was the most advanced in the 18th century. Or the Muslim army in their time. Also, the Mongols are regarded the most disciplined army before the age of gunpowder.
What I find it amusin' is that I provided [credible evidence] (see in my previous) that the Muslim Army was the greatest militiary force in the Medieval world. I provided the battles, the opponents etc. To simply brush it aside and yet claim for "evidence" is presportous. Furthermore, it's so apparant that your whole argument if fallacious. I specifically stated that the Muslims created a Empire larger than Alexander's or the Romans within DECADES.
At first you claimed the Muslims possessed the greatest army ever and now you rephrase that to the "greatest militiary force in the Medieval world"? The former I dispute as throughout History there have been many greater forces, the latter I do not as the army of Saladin et al was indeed one of the finest in the Medieval world.
^^Agreed. The Mongols were quite humane to those who obeyed them and surrendered, they were allowed to continue living unaltered albeit they had to pay a special tax for the privilige. Those who disobeyed and put up a fight however were slaughtered as an example to others. To call them "savages" is not only incorrect, it is disingenuous.
"Qutaibah bin Muslim was sent to conquer Turkestan which he did, even penetrating the borders of China and getting a tribute payment from the Chinese emperor. Perhaps his most successful general was Musa bin Nusair who consolidated control over North Africa and who sent Tariq bin Ziyad to invade Spain."
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Hajjaj-bin-Yousef
lol, the Mongols were never interested the areas they conquered. They only conquered and loothed it, never ruled or administered it. So one should use the term Empire loosely when referin' to the Mongol Dynasty.
Zero Cool, is it so difficult to even interpretate my post correctly without mis-construing the whole context. Good Lord. I stated that the Islamic Empire created a empire LARGER than Alexander's or the Romans within decades. Do I've to bold it out in the future? Where did I mention that they created the largest landmass? Furthermore, the Moguls never ruled these landmass but only loothed them.
Secondly, I want you to point out where I specifically stated that the Muslims possessed the greatest army ever. I rarely edit my pots so it would be easy to quote the exact phrase. I stated that the Muslim forces were _AMONG_ the greatest forces.
Quote:
Despite the fact you cannot compare militiary powers, I still am of the opinion that the Muslim forces were among the greatest forces.
Quote:
Where is the suprise. I listed one of the greatest forces in history.
The Mongols were savages. I've covered this topic not too long ago on the other board
Sir Thomas Arnold wrote in "Muslim civilization during the Abbias Period:
"Muslim civilisation has never recovered from the destructions which the Mongols inflicted upon it. Great centres of culture, such as Herat and Bukhara, were reduced to ashes and the Muslim population was ruthlessly massacred..... Under the command of Hulagu, they appeared before the walls of Baghdad, and after a brief siege of one month the last Caliph of the Abbasid house, Mustasim, had to surrender, was put to death togheter with most of the members of his family; 800,000 of the inhabitants were brought out in batches from the city to be massacred, and the greater part of the city itself was destroyed by fire.
Glubb's concludes in one of his books:
"For five hundred years, Baghdad had been a city of palaces, mosques, libraries and colleges. Its universities and hospitals were the most up to date in the world. Nothing now remained but heaps of rubble and a stench of decaying human flesh."
Syria also suffered a similiar fate. For example, in Aleppo, at the time of the Frankish invasion, the country's population stood at 2.7 million inhabitants. Two centures later (1342), after the invasion of the Mongols, it only stood at 1.2 millions.
The famous British historian Gibbon narrates:
"Timur's front was covered with a line of Indian elephants, whose turrets were filled with archers and Greek fire: the rapid evolutions of his cavalry completed the dismay and disorder; the Syruans fell back on each other: many thousands were stifled or slaughtered in the entrance of the great street; the Moguls entered with the fugitives; and after a short defence, the citadel, the impregnable citadel of Aleppo, was surrendered. Among the supplicants and captives, Timur distinguished the doctors of the law, whom he invited to the dangerous honour of a personal conference... During this peaceful conversation, the streets of Aleppo streamed with blood, and re-echoed with the cries of mothers and children, with the shrieks of violated virgins. The rich plunder that was abandoned to his soldiers might stimulate their avarice; but their cruelty was enforced by the peremptory command of producing an adequate number of heads, which, according to his custom, were curiously piled in columns and pyramids; the Moguls celebrated the feast of victory, while the surviving Muslims passed the night in tears and in chains. I shall not dwell on the march of the destroyer from Aleppo to Damascus, where he was rudely encountered, and almost overthrown, by the armies of Egypt. ...I shall briefly mention that he erected on the ruins of Baghdad a pyrmid of ninety thousand heads"
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Hajjaj-bin-Yousef
lol, the Mongols were never interested the areas they conquered. They only conquered and loothed it, never ruled or administered it. So one should use the term Empire loosely when referin' to the Mongol Dynasty.
Zero Cool, is it so difficult to even interpretate my post correctly without mis-construing the whole context. Good Lord. I stated that the Islamic Empire created a empire LARGER than Alexander's or the Romans within decades. Do I've to bold it out in the future? Where did I mention that they created the largest landmass? Furthermore, the Moguls never ruled these landmass but only loothed them.
Secondly, I want you to point out where I specifically stated that the Muslims possessed the greatest army ever. I rarely edit my pots so it would be easy to quote the exact phrase. I stated that the Muslim forces were _AMONG_ the greatest forces.
Quote:
Despite the fact you cannot compare militiary powers, I still am of the opinion that the Muslim forces were among the greatest forces.
Quote:
Where is the suprise. I listed one of the greatest forces in history.
The Mongols were savages. I've covered this topic not too long ago on the other board
Sir Thomas Arnold wrote in "Muslim civilization during the Abbias Period:
"Muslim civilisation has never recovered from the destructions which the Mongols inflicted upon it. Great centres of culture, such as Herat and Bukhara, were reduced to ashes and the Muslim population was ruthlessly massacred..... Under the command of Hulagu, they appeared before the walls of Baghdad, and after a brief siege of one month the last Caliph of the Abbasid house, Mustasim, had to surrender, was put to death togheter with most of the members of his family; 800,000 of the inhabitants were brought out in batches from the city to be massacred, and the greater part of the city itself was destroyed by fire.
Glubb's concludes in one of his books:
"For five hundred years, Baghdad had been a city of palaces, mosques, libraries and colleges. Its universities and hospitals were the most up to date in the world. Nothing now remained but heaps of rubble and a stench of decaying human flesh."
Syria also suffered a similiar fate. For example, in Aleppo, at the time of the Frankish invasion, the country's population stood at 2.7 million inhabitants. Two centures later (1342), after the invasion of the Mongols, it only stood at 1.2 millions.
The famous British historian Gibbon narrates:
"Timur's front was covered with a line of Indian elephants, whose turrets were filled with archers and Greek fire: the rapid evolutions of his cavalry completed the dismay and disorder; the Syruans fell back on each other: many thousands were stifled or slaughtered in the entrance of the great street; the Moguls entered with the fugitives; and after a short defence, the citadel, the impregnable citadel of Aleppo, was surrendered. Among the supplicants and captives, Timur distinguished the doctors of the law, whom he invited to the dangerous honour of a personal conference... During this peaceful conversation, the streets of Aleppo streamed with blood, and re-echoed with the cries of mothers and children, with the shrieks of violated virgins. The rich plunder that was abandoned to his soldiers might stimulate their avarice; but their cruelty was enforced by the peremptory command of producing an adequate number of heads, which, according to his custom, were curiously piled in columns and pyramids; the Moguls celebrated the feast of victory, while the surviving Muslims passed the night in tears and in chains. I shall not dwell on the march of the destroyer from Aleppo to Damascus, where he was rudely encountered, and almost overthrown, by the armies of Egypt. ...I shall briefly mention that he erected on the ruins of Baghdad a pyrmid of ninety thousand heads"
The question of this thread was "What is the best army/special forces in world history?", in your first post you stated and I quote "Hands down the Muslim army." When I questioned you as to why this was the case, you firstly said because of their exploits in defeating such forces as the Visisgoths, Byzantine's and the Persians but then later backtracked to say "it was the greatest force of medieval times." Misconstruing the facts for your own benefit is highly immoral Yahya, you of all people should know that 
Need more credibal sources, even muslim history sites don't even say that he was paid, only saying he recieved knowledge on how to make paper.
Does being a savages exclude them from being great warriors? These "savages" defeated armies larger than their own, even muslim armies. This thread isn't about how they treated their conquered, but how good they are in the battle field
Does being a savages exclude them from being great warriors? These "savages" defeated armies larger than their own, even muslim armies. This thread isn't about how they treated their conquered, but how good they are in the battle field
Zero Cool said:
The question of this thread was "What is the best army/special forces in world history?", in your first post you stated and I quote "Hands down the Muslim army." When I questioned you as to why this was the case, you firstly said because of their exploits in defeating such forces as the Visisgoths, Byzantine's and the Persians but then later backtracked to say "it was the greatest force of medieval times." Misconstruing the facts for your own benefit is highly immoral Yahya, you of all people should know that
Why don't you refute what I stated Zero instead of clutchin' at straws. Why don't you respond adequately to my posts. Perhaps you haven't comphrended fully the essence of debatin'. I make a point, you refute that point. From what I've observed, you only throw fallacies. How typical.
You stated and I quote:
The Mongols were quite humane to those who obeyed them and surrendered, they were allowed to continue living unaltered albeit they had to pay a special tax for the privilige. Those who disobeyed and put up a fight however were slaughtered as an example to others. To call them "savages" is not only incorrect, it is disingenuous.
I stated evidence that Mongols massacred everyone regardless if they obeyed them or not, especially the non-combatants. They're savages Where is your evidence for your ludicrous claim that they're not? Isn't it obvious that most of your illogical statements are based on assertions?
Nationmaster is a credible source. And where is the Muslim history. Denyin' when evidence is cited is simply an act of in-denial.
Yes, they defeated some Muslim armies 'cause it was unexpected. The Muslims defeated them after they got their act together. The Mogols were remarkable warriors which I'm not going to deny. They were also the most disciplined before the advent of gunpowder.
Yes, they defeated some Muslim armies 'cause it was unexpected. The Muslims defeated them after they got their act together. The Mogols were remarkable warriors which I'm not going to deny. They were also the most disciplined before the advent of gunpowder.
Only this last account appears to be particularly savage. And Timur was a poor excuse for a Mongol leader. He fought with other Mongol leaders thus, going against that which Genghis Khan had attempted to create - a unified Mongol people.
As this was the case, the Mongol Empire was but fragments at this point.
Genghis Khan died in 1227 & from them on the Mongol Empire & it's peoples were never the same. Without their military & spiritual leader, the Mongols principles became lost.
It was under the rule of Genghis Khan that the Mongols acheived their greatest feats & it is during his reign that, IMO, the Mongols were one of the best armies in world history.
If you want to take your pick of times throughout history, then Muslims were 'savages', Germans were 'savages', the English were savages, the Romans were 'savages'.
Throughout history, there is not one race of people who could not be called 'savage'.
As this was the case, the Mongol Empire was but fragments at this point.
Genghis Khan died in 1227 & from them on the Mongol Empire & it's peoples were never the same. Without their military & spiritual leader, the Mongols principles became lost.
It was under the rule of Genghis Khan that the Mongols acheived their greatest feats & it is during his reign that, IMO, the Mongols were one of the best armies in world history.
If you want to take your pick of times throughout history, then Muslims were 'savages', Germans were 'savages', the English were savages, the Romans were 'savages'.
Throughout history, there is not one race of people who could not be called 'savage'.
In your first post you stated "Muslim army hands down" when I then questioned you as to why you changed your mind and stated "the greatest force in medieval history". In English Yahya, that is called "backtracking".
As to the Mongols this extract perhaps explains it best:
"The Khan's initial plan of conquest if people resisted was sacking all that was valuable, and then razing the city and killing the resistance, leaving only artists and human shields (for future campaigns) to survive. Genghis Khan himself was extremely supportive to people that were loyal to him and even to his enemies. Different theories exist as to why the Mongols initially behaved in such an extreme manner. From a military perspective, the Mongols were often far from home territory and greatly out-numbered, and wouldn't want to leave enemies in their rear. Economically, destroying population centers gave the Mongols more room to graze their herds.
As the Mongols grew more powerful, advisers convinced Genghis Khan to start building a vassal empire. If the city-dwelling peoples were allowed to continue their way of life, they could produce a surplus of food and goods, a portion of which could be paid to the Khan as taxes. Given the Khan's extraordinary success in his aggressive foreign policy, this wealth could be equally extraordinary. The Khan agreed, taking his tribute in tax, and saving countless lives and cultures in the process. Until 1225 they continued these invasions through Western Asia, into Persia and Russia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols
Far from being "savages" the Mongols were clever tacticians who conquered the largest empire the world has ever seen through a mix of brute force and vassaldom.
As to the Mongols this extract perhaps explains it best:
"The Khan's initial plan of conquest if people resisted was sacking all that was valuable, and then razing the city and killing the resistance, leaving only artists and human shields (for future campaigns) to survive. Genghis Khan himself was extremely supportive to people that were loyal to him and even to his enemies. Different theories exist as to why the Mongols initially behaved in such an extreme manner. From a military perspective, the Mongols were often far from home territory and greatly out-numbered, and wouldn't want to leave enemies in their rear. Economically, destroying population centers gave the Mongols more room to graze their herds.
As the Mongols grew more powerful, advisers convinced Genghis Khan to start building a vassal empire. If the city-dwelling peoples were allowed to continue their way of life, they could produce a surplus of food and goods, a portion of which could be paid to the Khan as taxes. Given the Khan's extraordinary success in his aggressive foreign policy, this wealth could be equally extraordinary. The Khan agreed, taking his tribute in tax, and saving countless lives and cultures in the process. Until 1225 they continued these invasions through Western Asia, into Persia and Russia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols
Far from being "savages" the Mongols were clever tacticians who conquered the largest empire the world has ever seen through a mix of brute force and vassaldom.
The last passage was the only savaging act? This is only 3 of the many accounts narrated after the sack of Baghdad. The Mongols were savages. Killed more than a million non-combatants in one day and burned down the libraries. Those are acts of primitive savages but then again, they became Muslims afterwards.
Then I want you to quote me where the Muslims were called savages. Muslims never commited the attrocities that the Mongols and the Crusaders did.
Don't ignore my points. If you cannot refute my points, then say so instead of relyin' on extraneous points.
His "initial plan". I want you to list how he saved the culture of the Muslim Empire. Does the wikipedia give references for which cultures he saved? Or did I forget to mention that wikis are forum encyclopedias providing no references.
"The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:
* It contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
* It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
* In, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
* It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute
Hold on,
800,000 inhabitants were not rich at all. And yet, they were brutally massacred.
"800,000 of the inhabitants were brought out in batches from the city to be massacred, and the greater part of the city itself was destroyed by fire."
Then I want you to quote me where the Muslims were called savages. Muslims never commited the attrocities that the Mongols and the Crusaders did.
Don't ignore my points. If you cannot refute my points, then say so instead of relyin' on extraneous points.
His "initial plan". I want you to list how he saved the culture of the Muslim Empire. Does the wikipedia give references for which cultures he saved? Or did I forget to mention that wikis are forum encyclopedias providing no references.
"The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:
* It contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
* It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
* In, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
* It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute
Hold on,
800,000 inhabitants were not rich at all. And yet, they were brutally massacred.
"800,000 of the inhabitants were brought out in batches from the city to be massacred, and the greater part of the city itself was destroyed by fire."
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.