Titus001

If you want answers go to google video and type in The War Party,should explain some things about iraq.

thanks

tflex,maybe you should join up and fight in the war with iran if it ever comes so i dont need to fight in a war that does not benefit my country/USA or the world,seems to me if we go to war with iran it would benefit a small country/israel and my countries corporations that would profit off of war.Seems to mean israel is getting nervous by the bomb and they want big brother to shed blood for them.Let iran get the nuke what would they do nuke usa and europe?If iran decided to nuke anyone it would be isreal.But iran would not do it b/c it would not benefit there country unless they like being occupied like iraq.RAMESES GREAT,lebanon is not a christian nation,infact there are more musslims than christians.

Did the parthians use more knights i mean cataphracts than horsearchers?I always thought they used more horsearchers than heavy cavarly.Maybe you could give me a link or your info from yourself.

I just hope we dont invade iran just b/c they might build nukes,the propaganda on fox and cnn are already starting about iran and we are still in a war.If they build a nuke are they a threat to europe and usa?Would they dare nuke europe and usa?I dont think so b/c they would be invaded and occupied for years,so to me its just more lies and boogey man to keep the american people scared and fighting with eachother and meanwhile the elites do what they please.

I said parthia's army with horsearchers/archers is more like han china than of rome,i said nothing about culture.

Yes im a ohio state fan and i would love to see a playoff system like the nfl or college basketball,maybe 32 teams is just to much ,id go with the top 10 teams but anything is better than what we have now.I think in the next 5 or 10 years there will be a playoff system or thats what i heard,man do i hope so, GO BUCKS

Id like to see a picture of the roman legion at 400AD compared to the 150AD legion.

Infantry wins the day,medieval knights are not all as they were cracked up to be.And the the cultures of gaul,germany did not just run around like mad man.Infact gaul had a good culture with trade made up by villiages almost like medieval europe,gaul was rich in gold and silver and had great metal workers,a little more advanced then just mass crowd of yelling mad men.

The whole war is a joke,its a sunni vs shiite for the most part.It was almost like a lynching with the shiites killing the sunni leader what a joke,and some people think that our leaders did not know this crap would start when we invaded,just a huge big blood bath with old scores to settle.

Posted by the great,If you go to iran and you are not muslim they may kill you,lol thats funny,do you work for fox news or aipac with that propaganda?

Well using a lot of horsearchers and archers is tactics correct?When the general decides what troops to use that is tactics.And i still think parthia and han china are more the same in tactics and troops that of being very different, when comparing rome and parthia and rome and han china they are both very different of rome and the greeks.

Ask this,who does this war benefit,i will give my answer later on,im just reading what you guys are saying.Ask this does this war benefit the usa people and iraq?

I said parthia was more like han china than rome.Just do some research on han chian and parthia,they both favored movement/archers/cavarly over heavy infantry,if you deny it read some books.

Ok maybe parthia and han china were not the same but they used horsearchers/archers,all im saying is the han china of warfare is very different of romes.And parthia is more like han chian than rome. rameses great,parthia and han china have a lot in common,they both favored maneuvability and archers over heavy infantry, so i dont no what you are trying to say,han china was based around horsearcher,crossbowman,archers,parthia was based around archers and horsearchers and heavily armed horseman.Very much the same no? or very different of romes.

Wrong caldrail,eastern and western warfare are black and white and completlydifferent,did rome ever have a army of 20,000 horsearchers like han china did?Did rome utilize archers and mobility like han china did or parthia the answer is no, they had different style of fighting,han china was based around the horsearcher and the crossbow/archers,long range warfare combined with maneuvabilty,im not saying the romans were not immobile,im just saying they were not as quick as han china. but black and white comparing rome and han china,totally different systems of war and tactics.

Well i just dont think the common soldier in medieval times from 600AD to 1350AD were as deciplined,motivated,armed as the roman legions,But i do think the cavarly were better than romes along with the archers but i just dont see the infantry being superior to what of rome's.

You guys can talk about how great the knight was or the longbow,but what about the common soldier in the infantry,how were they armed,trained,deciplined.Were they just as well armed,trained,deciplined as the romans?Or as i think most medieval armies for the most part were peasants/consripts that were not well armed,deciplined or the motivation as the common roman infantry.

lol saddam did bad things but do we have a right to invade a country and occupy a nation just b/c he was a bad leader?It seems to me the war was a lie and all the things they said about WMD'S was false and lies to lure the usa people in a war that did not benefit its people and you can say the iraq people also.We must ask this,who did this war benefit?

kosmo make sense for the part by saying the romans did not fight cavarly like in the middle ages,we know this,well atleast i hope we do,but how many knights could be on the battle field at one time to win the battlle?I think most of us know the battle will for the most part like 90% of the time will come down to the infantry,ok we know medieval cavarly was superior to the romans,but what about the infantry kosmos?Were the medieval armies for the most part well armed,trained and deciplined like the romans? i think not........ Im talking about the common soldier no elite people who got the best of everything,was the common infantry of the medieval period from around 600AD to 1300AD better than romes infantry,we already know the cavarly was better but what about the infantry?Or do you think the elite knights would win the battle with there invincible charge that would run amouk the poor romans?

kosmo?there was no heavy cavarly at that time?please explain why parthia and some germans had heavy armored cavarly,romans against heavy cavarly is a myth,all you need is a balanced attack to win,romans had more trouble against horsearchers over heavy cavarly.And knights are kind of overrated,these people were elites that got the armor,training,motivation,but how many knights can be on the field at 1 time?Most of medieval armies were made up by peasant,consripts that for the most part got no armor,little training and would flee at first glance of any deciplined army.

I got a question,why did medieval armies for the most part adopt the long sword and small shield?It seems to me the infantry went backwards since the celts,german and other people's favored the long sword and the romans easily for the most part beat them most of the time,the gladius is not the best sword ever,but teamed with the big shield it was the best combo ever in war in my opinion,So why did the armies of the medieval time favored long swords?Did they go back to there roots which was warrior vs warrior,AKA long swords which did not favor formation fighting like the romans.

Wrong bryaxis,the style of china or han china is very different style of fighting,han china was based around the bow,horsearchers and maneuverability.Han china used maybe 20,000 cavarly supported by archers,crossbowman,and infantry,so han china favored cavarly,archers and maneuverbilty,romans favored heavy infantry for the most part supported by archers and cavarly,as you can see they cant be any more different. i knew nothing about han china 6 months ago,i found a lot of good info at china history forum,The things i learned from there is han china's territory was larger than rome's no joke,And rome and han china were around the same time also.

What we need to decide is which infantry was better trained and better deciplined.

thanks the great