Best Soldier Units Lets discuss best soldier units trough history

[hitmanblood 0]

Well, since I have come to discussion about best government system and aside of that me and the topic starter have started arguing about best soldier unit in a sense. And since we are somewhat polluting that topic I have decided to start new topic afterwards I may add some poll so we would be able to see which units are the best in deed. So let's hear all of yours opinions and let's argue about it. My preferable units would be legionaries and Spartans. I will leave explanation for some other post.

[Janissary 0]

Hello,Im the other end of the debate :)Anyway, we were disscusing about janissaries.Sultan Murad I founded the units around 1365. Promising children (mostly Christian youths) were taken care under Sultan. They were raised with high morale values. When they reach some certain age, most clever ones were taken apart to became bureaucrats. Others become soldiers. They are not allowed work or form families. They receive some nice sallary all time. They spend their times in barracks. They have their own uniform and they march with their own marching band.Today there are many rumors how janissaries trained. Most famous one is about slaping same marble until it gets thin.They are the most loyal soldiers, serving and dying for their Sultan was the greatest honour.During war time, rules for janniseries becomes more strict. They were excepted to behave such in a discipline. They are also many rumors about Janissaries discipline. My favorite is once a foreign scholar wanted to investigate janissaries so he spent the night in their camp. But in the morning... when he woke up, to his surprise the whole battalion moved, left the area without waking him up.Of course later centuries janissaries corrupted because rules got lousy. They began to take part in comerce, people without proper training get to be janissary. Soon they became a political power, even threating the Sultan. So finally, Mahmud II succeeded in forcibly disbanding them in 1826.

[hitmanblood 0]

hehhe how unlucky I must be you have taken liberty and took out the best argument against them in fact. First of all it is not that Christian youths were taken care under Sultan. This was some sort of taxation in blood which Ottoman Empire imposed on mostly Orthodox population to ensure their submission. Every ten years they would go and collect young ones from their parents and take them teach them in Islamic religion and in fact trying to erase their memory of the life before. One of the biggest problems was that many of them remembered the life before. And the thing why they are not perfect is because too often they themselves have rioted against Sultans usually killing them and overthrowing them from the throne. This is far from perfect soldier if you would consider it. And though they had few bright spots mostly are not the ones to get the perfect soldiers title. One more thing I wanted to mention is that they were in fact emperors personal guard. Something similar to the pretorians in the roman empire and in fact janissary were the first standing and professional army since the Roman legionaries. So their significance is in that and not much else. At least I don't see it. The fact that they were also one of the reasons for steady decline in Ottoman State emphasizes this even further. best regards, let's see some other unit.

[Aethix 0]

I think your other topic about the best government really go hand and hand as without a strong government your military forces are nothing. Typically without a strong military your political forces are nothing. All though I love to think about the history of the Spartans, the different units that participated in the Crusades the soilders of WWII, I really don't think any of them can compare to the military of today. Very few of the historically great military are still around today under the same rule as they once where. To compare the Spartans, the Persians, the French army under Napoleon Bonaparte agianst military's of today just doesn't make any sense. Our technology makes this time frame unlike any other.

[mail_sup 0]

i personally like archers. they need a lot of skill and are very deadly at a distance. but at close range there screwed

[Janissary 0]

...Roman legionaries...

You know when you said legionaries in your 1st post I thought you are talking about French legionaries and thinking to myself werent they more-less mercenaries

By the way, about janissaries. That they lasted 460 years. You can divide this long life-span into two part where system has been working where system has been corrupted.

[hitmanblood 0]

Well, this topic seems a bit dead but nonetheless. I will put out few answers to you guys. Firstly it is Aethix hopefully I got this right. But we are not trying to compare all units if they would be standing on the same ground and attack each other of course few snipers would destroy phalanges of Alexander the Great but we are trying to discuss which unit is the best comparing let's say several other things like. Length of service. Usefulness you see nuclear bomb is powerful weapon but the real thing that is killing people today is AK47. So such things then maybe loyalty this could be one important thing in comparison and even bravery though we can only rely on historical mentioning of such units it is important to consider of all of these facts to find the best unit. On the other hand without powerful peace keeper there is no strong government though today mostly we relay on the armed forces maybe we will evolve in future to start using some other means of peace keeping force (note the word force might be changed as well). Then to answer to the mail sup archers are somewhat good but among them is one important unit and those are longbow man from England these guys were making so much damage that todays rifles might thing about it. Though they also suck at short ranges.And now Janissary I see where we might go apart. But one thing is why I dislike janissaries is the same thing why I dislike praetorians both are too close to the goverment and ruling body of the country and therefore they have intention to fight for the power instead for the country I hope you get me there. And I agree that the main problem with the janissaries was corruption but this comes from the pure fact that they are too close to the governing body as I have already said.

[Okara KAmi 0]

Awe this topic isn't dead... yet.

Well when you are talking about the best soldier units, you are right, you can't compare them against each other because one nuclear bomb can destroy armies upon armies of them. I think we should compare the armies of speculation to the others of the time, but that is also a flawed system. For example when we compare the Spartans to say the Samurais, we can never get a full perspective because the competition the Spartans faced was different than that of the Samurais.

 

But as we are on the topic I guess I will plop in my input as well. Samurais have got to be my vote for the best soldier units. Though they haven't always been known to travel in units, there are many cases where they have banded together. The majority of these examples repeat the word Daimyo. This is the land lord of Japanese land, obviously many exist. They would hire Samurai to fight for them to defend or gain land in many cases. What I found unique was that Samurai weren't virtually brain washed from their youth, they aren't brought up in the environment of service, yet in service, their loyalty is extremely remarkable.

 

We can take a closer look at Samurai loyalty through something called the Bushido. This is the code of honor that the Samurai follow. In here there is something called Ritual suicide. This is when a Samruai commits suicide when he loses. This is partly because of public shame, but the main reason that the Samurai take their own lives is because they feel they have shamed their lord. The Daimyo. This sort of loyalty, I feel, is unprecedented. We have always heard of the few die hard loyalists who kill themselves at the loss of a fight, but for this regime to be implemented into a whole group of warriors?

 

This Must mean that the Samurai fight with everything that they have. Surrender is something they strictly oppose. If you remember, in WWII the Japanese surrendered only after the second nuclear bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Before then they fought on persistently against the colossal US that had a production rate that was far greater than Japan. I find that this sort of perseverance can load any unit with enough determination and discipline to come out victorious.

 

~Just My Opinion =)

[Erdemir 0]

Janissaries were unstoppable under the rule of Ottoman Empire in 1300s-1800s.

Janissaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary

A Janissary drawing by Gentile Bellini (15th century).

 

In 1830s Ottomans have set up a new military system with Nizam-ı Cedit between 1829 and 1855.

Armies of Napoleon was unstoppable until when he reach to Moscow, but before Army of Napoleon has been defeated by Nizam-ı Cedit.

 

Nizam-ı Cedit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizam-%C4%B1_Cedid

 

Regards...

Edited June 16, 2008 by Erdemir (see edit history)

[iGuest 3]

Impossible to compare soldiers or armiesBest Soldier UnitsListen folks, this is a hollow debate. It is impossible to determine here on the internet who were the best warriors, or the greatest army. There are just way too many variables that get in the way, such as technology, religious beliefs, society, and so on. War has been, and will always be hell, for all involved. To compare a Samurai to a Trojan is simply ridiculous, as the times, and technology were different. That would be like pitting a the Roman Legion against one Abrams tank! You just can't do it! Let's all hope that we never find out the ultimate answer to that question, as if we ever do, I will be typing to myself, in some basement somewhere, living off of the last few saltine crackers, and K-Rations that I have stored up!-reply by Tom Parks