Best army/special forces in world history?
- Thread starter Glockmatic
- Start date
Source? Those are quite some odds and quite unbelievable.
And by no means were these "romans" the same disciplined roman legions from the olden days. Byzantine troops were mostly mercenaries and a small part professional troops. Also depends what era we're talking.
And "THE Muslim army" never existed. By that definition every army ever under the command of a muslim would be part of "THE muslim army".
There was Saladin's Army. There was Mehmet II's army. There was Saddam Hussein's army.
"THE Muslim army" never existed. Just as there was never "THE christian army".
devils_advok8 said:
Acutally, I've seen alot of people who hate on Islam and come up with links just to prove it wrong.Personally, I got no problem with that, but the hate surrounding this particular subject disgusts me.Y'all can hate on Yahya, lol I dont even think he cares, but he never failed to impress me, I dont remember him losing one debate, always comes up with links and shuts all those offending Islam and anything related with links and knowledge.I didnt see you guys flip when feichen said she thought the IDF was the best army.
And yes, I think the Muslim Army was great, too.Remember Saladdin, Khaled bin Al-Waleed, Omar bin Al Khattab, etc.If I knew much about the subject, I would've joined the debate, but I dont.So I'll just leave it to Yahya, he's doing pretty good so far.
And yes, I think the Muslim Army was great, too.Remember Saladdin, Khaled bin Al-Waleed, Omar bin Al Khattab, etc.If I knew much about the subject, I would've joined the debate, but I dont.So I'll just leave it to Yahya, he's doing pretty good so far.
Agree. Chronic, don't kid yourself, please. These kids are trying to dispute the fact that the Muslim army under the Caliphates and strong leaders war far more skilled and lead and that's what gave it the upper hand in defeating its enemies.
Duke said:
Source? Those are quite some odds and quite unbelievable.
And by no means were these "romans" the same disciplined roman legions from the olden days. Byzantine troops were mostly mercenaries and a small part professional troops. Also depends what era we're talking.
And "THE Muslim army" never existed. By that definition every army ever under the command of a muslim would be part of "THE muslim army".
There was Saladin's Army. There was Mehmet II's army. There was Saddam Hussein's army.
"THE Muslim army" never existed. Just as there was never "THE christian army".
And by no means were these "romans" the same disciplined roman legions from the olden days. Byzantine troops were mostly mercenaries and a small part professional troops. Also depends what era we're talking.
And "THE Muslim army" never existed. By that definition every army ever under the command of a muslim would be part of "THE muslim army".
There was Saladin's Army. There was Mehmet II's army. There was Saddam Hussein's army.
"THE Muslim army" never existed. Just as there was never "THE christian army".
Again, hands down to the Muslim Army. You all can hate until tomorrow, but the fact remains.
My "nonsense"? Simply because you fall foul to Yahya's propagandical posts does not mean the rest of us cannot challenge his viewpoints. He stated the Muslim army was the greatest ever seen, when challeneged over it he couldn't legitimately back it up. Yes the Muslim army, if there ever was such a thing, were a great military force however, unlike Yahya makes out, they were not the utopian force which conquered the East civilizing everything in their wake. There is a thin line between fact and fiction, Yahya has a habit of blurring that line when it comes to Islamic related topics. Justified criticism is always a good thing Jurhum whether you agree with it or not.
Or they were trying to expose you for being biased by proving you wrong?
If non-relgious people didn't hear about people committing atrocities in the name of religion and didn't come across people that constantly throw religion in your face etc., most wouldn't give a rats ass about religion and religious people. If they didn't think you only said "the Muslim army" because you're biased, they wouldn't have commented on it. Hence, they have a dislike for you and not your religion.
(I'm not saying you're biased, this is just how I perceive the situation)
If non-relgious people didn't hear about people committing atrocities in the name of religion and didn't come across people that constantly throw religion in your face etc., most wouldn't give a rats ass about religion and religious people. If they didn't think you only said "the Muslim army" because you're biased, they wouldn't have commented on it. Hence, they have a dislike for you and not your religion.
(I'm not saying you're biased, this is just how I perceive the situation)
Actually, if you go back to your first post regarding Yahya's opinion, you will see why you it's none sense. You clearly stated, "surprise, surprise" as if him being a muslim and acknowldging the fact that the Muslim Army, yes there was such a think, else, Spain wouldn't have been conquered for 7 hundered years, was a great one in its time. No one says don't challenge Yahya's post, but the way you did it came off as if Yahya's post didn't have any merit to it.
The Roman army fought in the name of Rome, nothing else.
I examined in good faith everything he put forward as evidence however fantastic it may have been. He then backtracked his claims of the greatest army "hands down" to the "greatest army of medieval history" when he knew couldn't substantiate it. As I've said I have no trouble with accepting Yahya's opinion on this because the army of Saladin et al was indeed one of the greatest of the medieval timeframe. However I challenged Yahya's original viewpoint because if the Muslims had of been Hindu's would he still have chosen them? I doubt it.
I examined in good faith everything he put forward as evidence however fantastic it may have been. He then backtracked his claims of the greatest army "hands down" to the "greatest army of medieval history" when he knew couldn't substantiate it. As I've said I have no trouble with accepting Yahya's opinion on this because the army of Saladin et al was indeed one of the greatest of the medieval timeframe. However I challenged Yahya's original viewpoint because if the Muslims had of been Hindu's would he still have chosen them? I doubt it.
Let me first state that I've sometimes problem accessin' this board. My firewall or proxy server (nt's standard proxy) seldom allows me to access it and unfortunaley, I do not know how to configure it.
Tell me, Calu, what difference does it make. Mongols commited wholesale slaughter in the time of Ghengis Khan (mostly his sons) while Khan was fully aware of.
Obviously, you haven't studied horrific massacres of Ghengis Khan. Present-day historians merely see him as a "great" state-builder. However, you (and Zero Cool) explicitly stated that he was humane without providing any evidence.
This "humane" expanionist massacred the citizens of Bukhara after they surrendered to him, which again automatically refutes the assertion stated by Zero-Cool 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.
The man is one of the most ruthless criminal in history. In Europe alone; he massacred 2 million people. It's reported that he massacred 20 to 30 million people while others claim that he massacred 40 to 50 million.
He was even reported to have said before wipin' off the cities from existence :
"I am the punishment of God upon you. If you had not committed great sins, your god would not have sent you a punishment like me."
If you want to argue that Ghengis Khan was humane, then let's argue how merciful Hitler was.
I never duck arguments. I even asked you to create a new topic so we can discuss it in-depth. This topic has probably run its course.
I'd be more than happy to address your false notions about Sudan. Create a topic or I'll create a topic if you accept it.
This is ludicrous and a failed attempt to justify the statements of the Islamophobes. Zero_Cool, who is that Ferrari kid (just found out) has on many occasions cited the works of Islamophobes. Too bad that we cannot dig up some of his blatant remarks of intense animosity towards Islam.
I stated that Muslim forces were one of the greatest forces that mankind has ever witnessed provided with substantial evidence. Now if I _asserted_ that the Muslim forces were one of the greatest forces, then you could accuse me of being an biased Muslim who mostly renders [propagandic] statements that sheds the light on Islam/Muslims.
Obviously, there are no such fallacious traces in my posts. And if I get attacked for the sole reason that users despise me online then please continue. I could care less. It just demonstrates the maturity of the users here (i.e. the 15 year-old Zero Cool). I've already proven beyond doubt that some users on this board rely on the ad hominem fallacy instead of attackin' the argument which is typical since most of them are still wet behind their ears.
And I guess 300 Spartans receiving and opposing the Persian army, which numbered 40 times the size of the Spartans is perfectly normal.
The event is titled the Battle of Mutah. When the Muslims defeated the Roman Byzantines and entered liberated Jerusalem.
What Khaled (forum user) is referrin' too about the 30k Muslims vs 100k Roman- Byzantines is what we refer to as the Battle of Yarmuk .
It's not entirly correct that the men were 100k but more like 150.
The Muslim historian Tabari when describin' the battle wrote 200k men (includin' 12k Armenians and 12k Arab Christians)
Balazuri also wrote 200k men.
Gibbon the famous historian writes (based on early Byzantine sources) 140k men includin' 60k Arab Christians. Obviosuly the 60k Arab Christians is incorrect. The author of Sword of Allah (www.swordofallah.com) writes:
On the Western side (Gibbon), too, there is an attempt to minimise the Roman strength, especially the European part of it-partly perhaps for reasons of racial pride. It is absurd to say that the Arab section of the army amounted to 60,000 men. Just the Arabs of Syria could hardly have produced such a numerous army, when the entire Muslim State, which included Arabia, the Yemen, Iraq and Gulf States, could only produce 40,000. This is therefore probably nothing more than an attempt to pass the blame on to the Arabs. It is noteworthy that while Gibbon gives the Christian Arab strength as 40 per cent, Ibn Ishaq (a reliable source) gives it as only 12 per cent.
That is incorrect. The mercenaries were hardened professionals. They had the varangian elites, Byzantine infantry, and kataphraktoi. They were the most heavily armoured and disciplined infantry and cavalry. Furthermore, when Heraclius "unexpectedly" defeated the Persians, he was at the height of his glory but yet he was crushed by the smallish Muslim armies. Muslims defeated them everytime they faced them 'till they wiped them off from existence in the 13th century.
Then you clearly haven't grasped the concept of Caliphate. The Islamic Empire lasted from 800 CE to 1600 CE. It was always ruled by the Caliphate and thus, every army that the Caliphate produced was a Muslim army.
Tell me, Calu, what difference does it make. Mongols commited wholesale slaughter in the time of Ghengis Khan (mostly his sons) while Khan was fully aware of.
Obviously, you haven't studied horrific massacres of Ghengis Khan. Present-day historians merely see him as a "great" state-builder. However, you (and Zero Cool) explicitly stated that he was humane without providing any evidence.
This "humane" expanionist massacred the citizens of Bukhara after they surrendered to him, which again automatically refutes the assertion stated by Zero-Cool 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.
The man is one of the most ruthless criminal in history. In Europe alone; he massacred 2 million people. It's reported that he massacred 20 to 30 million people while others claim that he massacred 40 to 50 million.
He was even reported to have said before wipin' off the cities from existence :
"I am the punishment of God upon you. If you had not committed great sins, your god would not have sent you a punishment like me."
If you want to argue that Ghengis Khan was humane, then let's argue how merciful Hitler was.
I never duck arguments. I even asked you to create a new topic so we can discuss it in-depth. This topic has probably run its course.
I'd be more than happy to address your false notions about Sudan. Create a topic or I'll create a topic if you accept it.
This is ludicrous and a failed attempt to justify the statements of the Islamophobes. Zero_Cool, who is that Ferrari kid (just found out) has on many occasions cited the works of Islamophobes. Too bad that we cannot dig up some of his blatant remarks of intense animosity towards Islam.
I stated that Muslim forces were one of the greatest forces that mankind has ever witnessed provided with substantial evidence. Now if I _asserted_ that the Muslim forces were one of the greatest forces, then you could accuse me of being an biased Muslim who mostly renders [propagandic] statements that sheds the light on Islam/Muslims.
Obviously, there are no such fallacious traces in my posts. And if I get attacked for the sole reason that users despise me online then please continue. I could care less. It just demonstrates the maturity of the users here (i.e. the 15 year-old Zero Cool). I've already proven beyond doubt that some users on this board rely on the ad hominem fallacy instead of attackin' the argument which is typical since most of them are still wet behind their ears.
And I guess 300 Spartans receiving and opposing the Persian army, which numbered 40 times the size of the Spartans is perfectly normal.
The event is titled the Battle of Mutah. When the Muslims defeated the Roman Byzantines and entered liberated Jerusalem.
What Khaled (forum user) is referrin' too about the 30k Muslims vs 100k Roman- Byzantines is what we refer to as the Battle of Yarmuk .
It's not entirly correct that the men were 100k but more like 150.
The Muslim historian Tabari when describin' the battle wrote 200k men (includin' 12k Armenians and 12k Arab Christians)
Balazuri also wrote 200k men.
Gibbon the famous historian writes (based on early Byzantine sources) 140k men includin' 60k Arab Christians. Obviosuly the 60k Arab Christians is incorrect. The author of Sword of Allah (www.swordofallah.com) writes:
On the Western side (Gibbon), too, there is an attempt to minimise the Roman strength, especially the European part of it-partly perhaps for reasons of racial pride. It is absurd to say that the Arab section of the army amounted to 60,000 men. Just the Arabs of Syria could hardly have produced such a numerous army, when the entire Muslim State, which included Arabia, the Yemen, Iraq and Gulf States, could only produce 40,000. This is therefore probably nothing more than an attempt to pass the blame on to the Arabs. It is noteworthy that while Gibbon gives the Christian Arab strength as 40 per cent, Ibn Ishaq (a reliable source) gives it as only 12 per cent.
That is incorrect. The mercenaries were hardened professionals. They had the varangian elites, Byzantine infantry, and kataphraktoi. They were the most heavily armoured and disciplined infantry and cavalry. Furthermore, when Heraclius "unexpectedly" defeated the Persians, he was at the height of his glory but yet he was crushed by the smallish Muslim armies. Muslims defeated them everytime they faced them 'till they wiped them off from existence in the 13th century.
Then you clearly haven't grasped the concept of Caliphate. The Islamic Empire lasted from 800 CE to 1600 CE. It was always ruled by the Caliphate and thus, every army that the Caliphate produced was a Muslim army.
I despise not Islam Yahya but your propagandical viewpoints. If I despise anything at all, I despise that. As Chronic said if I had thought you were choosing the Muslim army solely out of your own opinion I would not have said a word, but as so often, your religion is the supreme barometer for your judgement.
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.