Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Pisces Axxxxx

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral


About Pisces Axxxxx

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/16/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,639 profile views
  1. The reputation of the Phalanx is that of an impenetrable wall of shield and spears that cannot be broken by a frontal charge and can only be broken by an attack on its rear and its flank. However when I read The Western Way of Way by Hanson, he stated while its true the flanks of the Hoplites were weak (especially on the right side in which the Hoplite assigned there did not have full protection proveded by the shield of another man), this can be countered by a well-disciplined Hoplite unit with a certain formation that resembled a turtle and was round. In this formation, even the flanks and rear of the Hoplite was protected and even a heavy cavalry charge at the rear and flanks would be fended off successfully. Here is the formation in link. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_q45pzp0qhpM/TTDN1O5jR7I/AAAAAAAAALU/YV9lS0_H-uU/s1600/300+B&W.jpg In addition it provided near complete protection against archers. However what I read is that not all Hoplites can do this and only the most disciplined and well-trained such as the Spartans were capable of forming such a formation. In addition, the Hoplites was pretty static when in this formation. So I am wondering are the claims of Heavy Cavalry being the weakness of the Hoplites and Phalanx false (or at least over-exaggerrated)? Also what is the formation in the link above called?I know its a type of Phalanx but I'm wondering what was it called.
  2. I notice many movies portray spears as being a very easy weapon to use. You just hold the spear and wait for the enemy to stupidly run into it. The best example is the Stirling Battle Scene in which William Wallace's soldiers awaited for the English Heavy Cavalry to charge at the Scots. At the last minute, the Scots suddenly pulled out their large wooden stakes on the ground and angled it at the English Horses and they were slaughtered as they charged into it. So many other movies with troops using spears as their primary weapon portrays using spears in a similar fashion. You hold it and form whole wall of spears and just wait for your enemies to stupidly run into it and die. Even after the initial charge, using the spear to kill is portrayed simply as pushing it to the next guy in front of you, wait for that guy to be impaled and fall, then hit the next guy in line with it and repeat. 300 shows this perfectly in which for every Persian killed, the Spartan simply pulls the spear back and waits for the next Persian in role to appear and they suddenly push the spear into the next guy and kill him and keep repeating until an entire Persian unit was decimated. So its portrayed as so long as you don't lose your balance and remaining holding it pointed at your enemy on the defensive, you simply stay where you are and let your enemy charge you and the killing commences. Even martial art movies portrays spears int he same manner. Often the master martial artist awaits for his gang of enemies to run at him and suddenly he starts killing hordes of men with simple pushes of the spear as the come nearby with a fancy trick from staff fighting thrown in every 3rd or fourth bad guy. However I remember a martial arts documentary in which some guys were in Japan trying to learn how to use Yari. The weapon was heavier than many martial arts movie portrays them as. In addition the martial artist teaching them showed them just how clumsy using the weapon was if you are untrained as he made them hit some stationary objects. The martial artist even made the guests spar with him and he showed them just how goddamn easy it was to deflect and parry thrusts from a spear and he showed them just how vulnerable they were once a single thrust was parried. He also showed that spears were very easy to disarmed if you weren't train. So I am wondering after seeing this documentary. Movies show spears as being such simple weapons anyone can use them as I stated in my description above. But the Martial Artist int he documentary really makes me wonder how hard it is to simply just stand there and wait for your enemies to charge into your spear and also how simplistic it was to push your spear into new men repeatedly. Was using a spear much harder than movies portray and require a lot of training like the martial arts documentary I saw show?
  3. Yesterday I was playing Shogun:Total War. In one battle I should have theoritically won because I had a combine force of one unit of archers and several units of Yari Samurai and Yari Ashigaru. The number of troops my enemy had were pretty much the same as me. However his army was compsed entirely of Samurai Archers. When the battle began, I sent my spearman right away to assault the enemy army. Going by the game's units system, my force of Yari Samurai and Yari Ashigaru should have lead me to victory as Samurai Archers are weak to melee units......... The whole battle turned out differently. My Yari Samurai and Ashigaru units fled collapsed early in the battle and retreated from what should have been an easy victory theoritically. GUESS WHAT? My Yari Samurai WAS actually VERY close to getting into contact with the Samurai Archers. As in, just a few feet away! Yet as the Samurai Archers continued to fire barrages, the whole Yari Samurai units collapsed apart and started fleeing the battlefield. THEY WERE JUST a FEW FEET AWAY and had they proceeded with the charge they would have DESTROYED the Samurai Archers and it would have been a complete victory for me. I should have won according to theory of gameplay mechanics........ So I am curios how terrifying would a barrage of Arrows be?STUPID question I know but the battle in Shogun:Total War got me curious about IRL battles. I remember seeing battles in Rome:Total War in which Roman Legions were in the Testudo formtion and completely protected by the Shield Wall. They were incredibly closee to reaching some horse archers yet they collapsed as they were marching midway from the enemy and the unit ran away. According to Gameplay Theory, the unit would have won this battle if they didn't collapse and abandon shield wall and they wouldn't have suffered casualties until they finally started swinging their swords at the horse archers. So I am very curious about this. I am esp. curious about how terrifying arrow barrages would be even if you were in a tight shielf wall formation and was not in risk at all of getting hit by arrows because of the Shield Wall. <iframe id="dmRosAd-1-north" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://dmros.ysm.yahoo.com/ros/?c=cbdde9a2&w=678&h=315&ty=noscript&tt=How+Terrifying+was+a+barrage+of+arrows%3F+Even+with+Shield+Walls%3F&r=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bing.com%2fsearch%3fq%3dterrifying%2barchery%2bbarrage%2byahoo%2banswers%26amp%3bqs%3dn%26amp%3bform%3dQBRE%26amp%3bpq%3dterrifying%2barchery%2bbarrage%2byahoo%2banswers%26amp%3bsc%3d0-0%26amp%3bsp%3d-1%26amp%3bsk%3d%26amp%3bcvid%3d2ba6698bc7684fb29f96b5df80520cb9"> </iframe>
  4. Of course we need military. The problem I have is when it becomes radical to the point people are literally obsessing over every moment. I understand getting upset over the guy opposing the Iraqi war, but is it fair to hit him? Especially in the middle of a college classroom???!!!!! How about wanting to bomb anti war protestors?Is that acceptable? I mean the French paratroopers literally began to bomb metropolis Paris late in the war and by the time De Gaulle granted Algeria independene they were literally executing a coup to overthrow the French government and a civil war nearly broke out in mainland France. I though their duty was to defend France? They are going to start bombing Paris to continue a useless war? Don't they understand the war was made in the first plae beause selfih European Algerians refuse to grant at least equal rights and access to public facilities to native Algerians if they weren't going to grant them citizenship? Have you ever read Jean Lartguay's works?
  5. What were you going to state?
  6. You totally missed the point of my thread Caldrail. What I am trying to tackle here is the double standards. So many young guys today and even high school history teachers think of the Imperial Japanese Army as a bunch of badass mofos because they refused to surrender and fought to the death or even committed suicide. Muslim terrorists have shown similar "valour" in recent years. From the Battle of EZ Street in which one terrorists kept on firing bullets as Americans raided his building instead of surrendering and took out a few American soldiers with him to the superb coordination of existing extremist tribes in Talbian in executing such well timed attacks that take out humvees (that only a disciplined unit could execute). But not a single praise goes to any of these terrorists' bravery. If Muslim terrorists are attacked for bombing civilians, why do so many people today (especially young American guys) respect the Japanese army simply because they committed suicide or charged into machine guns rather than surrendering? The typical Japanese soldier from the time period probably raped and killed far more person in his life time than Osama Bin Laden did directly! Shouldn't Japanese soldiers be attacked as cowardly using this logic? Furthermore, this is my BIGGEST GRIPE. When the Mujahideen were brutally bombing Soviet supply lines, American SF officers were sending out praises. In fact no on in Washington objected to how the Taliban tortured captured Soviet PoWs and if anything the white house was in joy when they heard Soviets abandoned territory-the same territory in which Taliban and such groups would MUTILATE Afghanis who lived in the area when the Soviets occupied it. These Afghanis DID NOT SUPPORT the SOVIETS but were raped and massacred for not supporting the Islamic resistance directly. Even though they actually rooted for the Soviets to be kicked out of the territory. Been reading A Savage War of Peace by Alistair Horne and he praises the FLN's patience and ability to adapt to the French army's movements. But I have not seen Horne make a single praise for any Islamic terrorists groups who been fighting the French recently such as Al Qaeda. Who have executed the very same qualities the FLN had, except to a more extreme level (particularly Al Qaeda's ability to hid in with the populace was superior than the FLN was when Al Qaeda operatives bombed France in the 80s and 90s). If the FLN, a terrorist group, is praised for its fighting qualities by a pro-western historian, shouldn't Al Qaeda, Hezbolla, and such group be PRAISED because they execute much of the same militarist valour and adaptability FLN did? Why single out the Taliban and so on as being cowardly terrorists who bomb civilians? That is what you totally missed in my post.
  7. Pisces Axxxxx

    Would you consider soldiers who are rapists heroes?

    OK first of all soldiers are not the only ones who "FACED THROUGH HELL". How about policemen who get fired upon while waiting in a barricade for hours, days, weeks, or in some extreme cases months? Certainly in North America most such cases would not be as brutal as defending a trench for months, but a layman's study of police and the most brutal riots and so forte shows its just as terrifying and exhausting as defending a building from German paratroopers or assaulting a Japanese bunker. Or how about being captured alive and sent to a torture facility where you seen some acquaintances in town being tortured brutally to death as frequently happens in South America (especially juntas)? And none of you are even personally involved with Castro's politics or so forte. Thats even more brutal to watch than seeing a soldier lose his foot from a mine (tenfold if you happened to survive out of a miracle from the torture chambers). I'm not trying to be rude but I seen my share of war vets acting all high and mighty about those who "never served" as being sheltered wen they call veterans who died for their countries as utter scumbags and losers and should not be honored because if they didn't die in war, they would be scumbags who continue swindling honest descent people or molesting their daughters,etc. Civilians can FACE and often do face just as much brutal hardships, if not more than soldiers do. I mean some of these "civilians" have even witnessed more combat than war vets from Iraq such as the child soldiers of Africa. Especially in war zones. I am currently reading A Savage War of Peace by Alistair Horne. This is where the topic came out. French soldiers were torturing random Algerian civilians with rapist-style methods in their arsenal. One incident that came to mind is a former French paratrooper TORTURES his children for fun and when asked, his response was that he got so used to torturing people back in the war its an ingrained hobbit. WHICH I CALL UTTER BS. Thats what I meant about raping in war. Even moreso when the victims are supposed to be your FUCKING ALLIES or are even CITIZENS of your own COUNTRY! For starters sake, what does torturing your family has to do with your past war experiences? Moreso, I cannot comprehend specifically why Moroccan soldiers went raping FRENCH CIVILIANS. Italians because they were enemies is understandable to an extent but raping the very people you swore to defend? And they are getting honored? I am even more at a lost of words how Japanese soldiers in World War 2 PAID brothels to rape PURE BLOODED Japanese women dragged from their homes and forced to work as prostitutes! And moreso how the Japanese military, who claim to be fighting for Japan's freedom, not only condoned it but they even profited from it as they earn a large percentage of the money Japanese soldiers paid to rape their own COUNTRYWOMEN! Rape as revenge towards your enemy (already vile in my opinion) is one thing (especially if they ravaged your hometown and tortured your whole family cruelly before they cut their genitals out and burned your homedown). BUT RAPE against your ALLIES and more importantly the people of your hometown? I read of cases of Turkish soldiers (who came from their specific Ottoman colonies) going around raping (and even enjoying it) the very people they grew up in not just in World War 1 but in the history of the Ottoman Empire! I am even more flabbagastered how Hirohito or the Ottoman sultans can consider such worthless losers as glorious heroes considering its their own CITIZENS-100% PURE BLOODED Japanese or Turks,etc sharing the exact same religion, and so forte, who were BRUTALIZED! Enemies are one thing but your own allies, countrymen, or even your directly related kin? I disagree the chief responsibility goes on the head of the teams (though they still cannot deny their neglect of the situation). It falls upon the individuals in the teams. I mean where is the responsibility of the sergeants in the first place for preventing this? And assuming there were criminal elements in every unit, I am at a lose of words how one privates beliefs can spread through the whole group like wildfire. He is practically as my father (in the army) is "WORTHLESS" and is just expendable. Why the hell would SGTs and such be so damn influenced easily? Your description makes me think as though in the first place the people who are being recruited and sent to such violent teams SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED into the military. It sounds like a bunch of frail minded individuals in that incident.
  8. I remember a while back I read in the Boxer Rebellion, the Western armies eagerly engaged in mass gang rapes of local Chinese women. It was not only allowed but condoned to the point one officer praise French soldiers as "GALLANT" for raping hundreds and hundreds of Chinese women. It got so bad American and Japanese soldiers had to point their rifles at Russian and German soldiers to get them to stop. In World War II,Allied officers were well aware that Moroccan soldiers were raping Italian women in the thousands and they even raped French civilians (their allies) for the hell of it. Despite this, Moroccan soldiers got honored for their battlefield performance and in later colonial wars, Western officers even were grief stricken as they witnessed these WWII Moroccan vets suffer horrific deaths in colonial wars specifically in the Algerian Revolution. There is even a war memorial in France for Moroccans who died fighting in Algeria. THE SAME SOLDIERS who ENJOYED raping French civilians and later German civilians. One officer even cried seeing his Moroccan battalion screaming from pain due to losing limbs and facing decapitation. WAIT WAIT WAIT these soldiers had nor remorse gangraping ten year old Italian girls and even killing their fathers. More shockingly these officers know that these Moroccans RAPED FRENCH CIVILIANS (who they sworn to protect). WHY THE HELL are they in such agony for such thug soldiers? IMO these Moroccan soldiers don't deserve any pity. They got what they deserve when they lost their injuries for life in Dien Bien Phu or were slaughtered in Algeria (and even tortured to death). They are getting praised for fighting useless colonial wars and getting pity for suffering-BUT THESE soldiers had no remorse for murdering Italian families and gangraping the women 50 times for pleasure! Why should they be pitied and be given war monuments in France and Germany? What do you think? Do you think soldiers who perform excellent in the battlefield should be praised as gallant if they went around raping for fun? Do you consider them gallant for gangraping hundreds of civilian women? In fact I even openly praise their enemies for brutally torturing rapist soldiers. I cheer everytime I read Boxers skinning British soldiers (who raped Chinese women for fun) they captured alive, when Algerian soldiers slit the throats of Moroccans who are veterans of WWII, and when Soviets starved and even experimented on Nazis who raped Jewish and Russian girls to death.
  9. I notice a very bizare tendency for Westerners to praise the Japanese military of WW2. I still remember how kids and even-mind you HISTORY TEACHERS with DEGREES-to praise the Japanese soldiers in WW2 for refusing to surrender and preferring to commit suicide. In their view, its the MOST OUTSTANDING act of bravery to believe surrendering is cowardly and instead to fight to the death. Even those who are familiar with the warcrimes of the Japanese still praise them for their discipline and insane reckless courage. So I am fascinated. The Japanese military of WW2 did some of the most horrific crimes in modern warfare. In fact despite all the criticism on the Germans for being so evil, Japanese soldiers on average did more terrible things. Hell they even RAPED Japanese women and massacred Japanese civilians during the final days of the war for the hell of it! But yet Muslim terrorists have the same mentality. They believe fighting to the death is glorious and most would rather commit suicide than surrender. There are cases of terrorists doing epic last stands and taking out lots of American soldiers in minor firefights. But these Muslims get nothing but contempt even fro historians. From a ratio basis the typical Muslim terrorist probably killed much less people in their life time than the typical Imperial Jpaanese soldiers so going by acts they commit less than the Japanese (even though its comparable in vileness). Update : The reason these Muslim terrorists get bashed as ABSOLUTE EVIL is because they target civilians. But wait didn't the Japanese army gunned down civilians for fun? Even formally capturing civilians and creating official games where Japanese soldiers get awarded for beheading the most number of PoWs in a contest? Update 2: So many of these guys even call Muslim terrorists COWARDS because their leaders like Bin Laden refused to commit sucide-ignoring the fact some leaders of the Imperial Japanese army ran away and tried to avoid punishment. Some such as Masami Kitaoka even pledged allegiance to Americans after the war and helped them. We're talking about guys who experimented on children who didn't follow the Bushido Code out of fear of death and giving up worldly pleasures. Update 3: In fact even when Japanese warcrimes are known by belligerents discussing history, they always still end up praising the Japanese soldiers immense professionalism and discipline in the battlefield. I seen experts in Westpoint praise Japanese soldiers for their performance in say the Battle of Singaphore. Update 4: Yet even Muslim terrorist groups show superb discipline comparable to armies of Western superpower such as the Mujahideen of Afghanistan, military historians don't even at least praise their fanatical discipline. I mean some of the Mujahideen that fought the Americans have shown such precision in timing their ambushes that only a profesionally trained army can perform. Even if they are the BAD GUYS can't we at least give credit due since the Imperial Japanese Army always get praised? Update 5: Yet in a twist of irony in wars before 9/11 I have read of statements by American military and Wetern historians PRAISING the PERFORMANCE of Muslim terrorists. For example Horne frequently states the FLN of Algeria have shown such superb patience in fighting their war against the French. When the Soviets were in Afghanistan, American SF commented on how its good the Mujahideen were our allies because they provided such SUPERB fighting abilities against the Soviet forces.
  10. Thing is the bias they have-if a civilian is kissing up to the military to the point of obsession (having posters of the US marines on his wall, buying Airforce toys,etc) they immediately praise him as though he is mature (ignoring the fact he may be abusive to his siblings and he never been outside his hometown his whole life). Yet if a storekeeper is complaining soldiers are scumbags for wrecking his store and robbing his property, soldiers attack him as being "sheltered" because he fails to appreciate the "sacrifices" the armed forces are making to defend his "freedom". WAIT you just violated his rights and you took away his freedom from fear by vandalizing his store! Furthermore this storekeeper is already living in borderline poverty and he has to work his ASS off VERY HARD just to pay off the rent. He is "sheltered" simply because he (rightfully) attack the soldiers as worthless scumbags despite the fact they later died in some other foreign war? I mean this storekeeper children starved to death because you just took away his only means of living by wrecking his store and stealing the property he needed to sell just to keep up with basic necessities! Or what if Japanese soldier gangraped you? Are you "sheltered" simply because you stated you were glad they died in the following battles as Americans freed the island? I mean even the American soldiers would despise these Japanese soldiers as utter scumbags who deserved to be shot! Yet simply because you openly expresses love for the military, you're immediately appreciated and you're praised as "mature" by military vets. I'm not lying my next door neighbor is approaching 25 but he still lives with his parents and he is literally leeching on them. Shouldn't he be bashed as sheltered? I mean he never worked once in his life and when I come home from work I can hear loud sounds from his home as late as midnight from his gaming! I admit I even woke up a few times and came to work late because I couldn't sleep early at night. This neighbor manchild of mine is even VERY FAT and BLOATED and he lives the life of a hedonist (I see him purchasing games using his parent's credit cards when I go to gamestop and even purchase jewelry to give to others using his parents money when he is flirting with others girls and so forte). So he fits "SOFTIE" by all definitions even civilian standards. Shouldn't the military bash him for being a fatso hedonist who can't even do a pushup by himself and leeching on his parents? Honestly like the Cuban I know, the correlation of anti-military=sheltered is VERY HAZY at best and it ignores many factors (you hate the American military but you LOVE the Vietnamese military and you're a citizen of Vietnam, etc).
  11. A few months ago I made a blog statement about how a soldier isn't NECESSARILY a hero and some of them are such thugs that even if they "died for the country" they should not be honored but should be despised as loser thugs because if they didn't serve in the armed forces they would have wouldn't have anything to be praised for and some of them even CONTINUE their criminal acts while in service such as an incident a while back in which a former soldier who had a prior criminal record actually kidnapped an Iraqi girl and sold her into sex slavery. All I stated is that we should be careful about "honoring war veteran" and we should refrain from judging the vet because some of them are truly worthless scumbags. One guy who claims to have been a marine in Vietnam started attacking me, stating by my post he can tell I am "sheltered" and had been fortunate not to experience the "grim realities of life". He went praising such scumbags because "they died for the country" and ranted how disrespectful he found my post. He stated the military has the "BRAVEST" of the population even if they are scumbags because they are willing to fight wars most citizens are not willing to and thus they should be honored for dying for the country even if they were scumbags before enlisting and they continue war crimes while in uniform.WAIT WAIT WAIT so by using his logic, the Imperial Japanese soldiers who raped innocent teen girls like the Filipina Rosa Henson and Indonesian victim Ronasih ARE HEROES simply because they died for the country???!!! What the ****...... But back to the issue. This ex-marine didn't even know anything about me. I may not have been to war, but I am definitely NOT SHELTERED. I seen lots of terrible things that haunt me to this day and even experienced some myself and I do not WANT to talk about. But simply because I was stating a blunt truth some of these soldiers are not only immoral crooks, but they even participate in crimes against humanity.......... He's attacking me as SHELTERED???!!! I'm not going to use my own experiences because they are too personal but I'm NOT SHELTERED at all by Western standards. To use another example, I know of a guy who came from Cuba. Actually he is now upper class, considerably rich even in American standards. He is ANTI-MILITARY and HATES the US government and military and he openly admits he is anarchist. Even I initially thought he was sheltered because of his anti-military and anti-government rants. BUT I discovered HE LOST his entire family when he was trying to escape to America. His mama and papa DIED from exposure during the escape on an improvised raft and when he landed in Florida, he was ******* STARVING as in he hadn't eaten and drink for DAYS!!!! In addition his hate for soldiers and anti-military beliefs are not without justification. When he was in Cuba, the soldiers patrolling the country were known to bully the local populace and steal food, money, etc. In his case, the SOLDIERS forced his older sister to be pimped into prostitution just to put FOOD on the TABLE. This guy experienced firsthand how abusive soldiers can be. And he gained his wealth by WORKING his *** OFF as young as 11 13 around that age range and struggling to survive in his first 10 years of America. I disagree with lots of his opinion, but I can understand why he hates soldiers and government. By using the Vietnam war marine I argued with, this Cuban guy is sheltered and never had to live through the harsh realities of life???!!! In parts of South America, the national armed forces are HATED by the populace. Because not only have they committed acts of genocide/mass execution, but they frequently steal from the people and are known to kidnap locals for human trafficking. It gotten so bad in some countries in the continent, gangs and local armed militia will shoot you on sight if you are wearing uniform or kill you in your sleep if you reveal being a member of the armed forces. Are the populations of these countries sheltered because they ******* HATE their military and see them as worthless scumbags who deserve to be killed? Even when you don't state anything offensive but merely question things or state someone else's opinions, many military supporters and military personnel accused you of being sheltered. I remember I stated the US defense budget is WAAAAYYYYY too HIGH. I didn't state anything about cuts and some soldiers in Facebook start attacking me as being an ungrateful and that I should be deported to Iran and stuff like that so I can see the "REAL WORLD"............. What do you think of this? Being a pro-military and being sheltered HAVE NO CORRELATION. Additional DetailsIn addition to the examples I listed above, I know people in the military who despise some veterans despite "dying for the country" because these vets were pedophiles and some even committed identity theft that stole said guys actually in the military. If military personnel actually hate them, I don't see whats wrong with calling them losers despite dying for the country. 3 months ago In fact I can list as many people who are flag waving patriots who support high defense spendings who are "sheltered". I know one guy next doors who's approaching 25 and he's still living with his parents and is not studying nor does he have even a part time job. He spends his free time playing video games and sleeping. But he is all out on "supporting the troops" and he in local parades he's always out in front trying to send thank-you notes and yelling at soldiers how much he loves them and how grateful he is for their service to the country. 3 months ago So he doesn't get attacked simply because he kisses up to the military? Despite the fact he is "living in his parent's basement" (lol I don't know if he does but he's definitely "sheltered" by Western standards)? While all of use who actually have a life with jobs or currently studying in school get attacked as lacking real world experience and not experiencing the harsh realities of life simply because we don't blindly worship the military and we even give criticisms when they're due? What a load of BULLSHIT!!! 3 months ago In many cases its TRULY UNDERSTANDABLE why someone would hate the military. Who can blame the rich Cuban I mentioned? His sister had to go into PROSTITUTION to the local soldiers and he was so poor in Cuba because the soldiers often robbed the poor people of their property. Who can blame any of the comfort women for not eagerly supporting their country's military (some even being aggressively anti-militaristic) and hating the Imperial Japanese Army?These girls were so DAMMMNN young (some only reaching their teens at 13) when they were dragged out of their homes and sent to brothels to be repeatedly raped brutally everyday? 3 months ago By the Vietnam war vet marine's logic, Rosa Henson and Ronasih as well as the thousands of young victims of the Japanese army's comfort woman system are sheltered?DESPITE the fact they lost their virginity before they even had the chance to crush on some dreamy boy??!!!! 3 months ago
  12. Pisces Axxxxx

    American Soldiers Rape of French and German High

    The second isn't an article but a letter. Anyone who's read a number of memoirs or even seen Saving Private Ryan or knows the story of Band of Brothers is aware that GIs often killed German or Japanese prisoners. Soldiers aren't angels, when is that news? To turn the argument around a bit I could care less about German or Japanese victims, by 1945 their nations had killed tens of millions of Chinese, Filipinos, Jews, Slavs & Gypsy civilians or caused the deaths of tens of millions of others etc., just for being who they were. I don't buy into the fiction that just because they weren't Nazi party members or were drafted or---name your argument--that they are innocents. Some of the most brutal massacres were committed by Wehrmacht units and tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians were systematically shot by German police battalions (called up police reservists) made up of non-party members. HOW THE HELL can you justify war rapes in Normandy???!!!! Especially when the victims were the FRENCH-OUR ALLIES WHO WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE LIBERATING!!!! Especially when some of the girls were only teenagers who were still dreaming about marriage????!!!! Its one thing for crimes to be done against the enemies (which has always gone for thousands of years). But you seriously are screwed up if you're going to try to justify rape of the faction who is supposed to be our allies! I mean you even wnet off topic and put the non-related topics of Japanese killing millions (totally different topic). And your ignorance astounds me. If you knew anything about the Japanese front, the Imperial Japanese Army even ABUSED their own country's citizens such as the mass shootings of whole village and wide looting of Japanese homes by low ranks. You could care less how many Japanese civilians were killed in the war? Are you even aware Japanese soldiers went around beating store owners and robbing them for fun? And its so off topic . You're trying to justify soldiers aren't angels as the reason why the rapes of French civilians isn't so bad? So by your logic if the National Guard started going around rampaging into American citizens home and raping little girls, hey should be excused because our enemies done far worse stuff and soldiers aren't angels? What the hell kind of world are you living in? Did your parents ever teach you manners to a girl?
  13. Pisces Axxxxx

    Top Soviet Afghan War Myths

    1)Soviets were in Afghanistan because they wanted to invade the country. Biggest myth comparable to Americans trying to imperialize Vietnam.The Russians were not in Afghanistan to conquer it. The Soviet Union had existed next door to the country for more than 60 years without any kind of invasion. It was only when the United States intervened in Afghanistan to replace a government friendly to Moscow with one militantly anti-communist that the Russians invaded to do battle with the US-supported Islamic jihadists; precisely what the United States would have done to prevent a communist government in Canada or Mexico. 2)The Russians were sent running from Afghanistan by the war's end after American aid was sent It’s not even precise to say that the Russians were sent running. That was essentially Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev’s decision, and it was more of a political decision than a military one. Gorbachev’s fondest ambition was to turn the Soviet Union into a West-European style social democracy, and he fervently wished for the approval of those European leaders, virtually all of whom were cold-war anti-communists and opposed the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan 3)The Afghanis were defeating the Soviets in battle. The next most famous myths of the Soviet Afghan War. Throughout the war the Soviets won every engagements in battle. Much like the American war, the Soviets constantly destroyed the Afghani bases and mountain strongholds by constantly bombing suspected areas in the country. In every major engagement, Soviet casualties were out of proportion compared to Afghani casualties. For example the overall Deadfor Soviets were no more than 75,000 while Afghan dead were around 800,000- 2 million. In every major battle Afghan casualties were 3-8 X larger than Soviet casualties. By the time the Soviet were leaving, it can be argued they were almost won the war. Former Soviet generals state had they stayed an extra few months to year, the Mujahideen would be wiped out and order and stability be brought to Afghanistan. 4)Most Afghanis supported the Mujahideen and Afghan rebels A big myth. The vast majority of Afghans didn't really care about the outcome of the war. A very large portion of the population of Afghanistan actually fled to nearby country as refugees to avoid getting involved in the war and suffering the hardships of the war.For example the population of Afghanistan's second largest city, Kandahar, was reduced from 200,000 before the war to no more than 25,000 inhabitants as most of the refugees fled from Afghanistan. Around a 1/4-1/3 (depending on your sources) even supported the Soviets directly as they saw Soviet forces modernizing Afghanistan and life under Soviet rule was more comfortable. Afghans who decided to join the Soviets were offered basic needs such as education and human rights. It was during the Soviet Afghan war that women in Afghanistan more rights and more people in Afghanistan were literate and educated than during anytime in Afghan history! The vast majority of the population that remained in Afghanistan during the war were neutral to the war and just stayed in their homes. 5)Soviet soldiers were ruthless and oppressed the population, terrorizing and massacring the local population for fun. A big myth created by American anti communist propoganda. Throughout the entire war, Soviet soldiers spared the lives of surrendering Mujahideen and Afghan rebels after battle. The Soviets treated enemy POW with care and respect and were far more noble than the Afghan rebels ever been. The Soviets never terrorized the Afghan population and massacred Afghani civilians for sadistic pleasure. Throughout the whole war Soviet Airforce avoided bombing heavily populated areas and villages where Mujahideen were suspected to be hiding in. The Soviet soldiers did their best to avoid harming the innocent civilian Afghans and in fact many soldiers actually gave their lives up to defend Afghan civilians from Mujahideen terrorism! The saddest part is that the many of the civlians Soviet soldiers fought and died to defend from the Mujahideen terrorists were indifferent to their sacrifices or actually supported the Mujahideen!Rambo and other American movies got the Soviet Afghan war all wrong. It can be argued that the Mujahideen were the bad guys and that the Soviets were actually the good guys!
  14. Read this thread I discovered. http://historum.com/war-military-history/69199-why-weren-t-later-battles-thermopylae-impressive-greco-persian-one.html I am curious can anyone post details about the Roman battle? Why didn't the Greeks inflict such an impression on the Romans as they did towards the Persians and later Celts as the linked thread states? How were the Romans about to win without suffering the casualties of the Persians and Celts and what did the Greeks lack that they were unable to repeat an impressive last stand like they did with the Persian and Celts (who the Greeks even beaten according to the link)?
  15. We already all know that a unit formation is superior to that of an individual fighters and Armies that fought like teams will destroy individual fighters. But when I play Shogun:Total War, I notice the Nodachi Samura easily wipe out a pair of Yari Ashigaru (militia) slicing through them rather easily. Even the Samurai Archers, who don't specialize in the Japanese Sword Arts, would beat a unit of Yari Ashigaru 8 out of 10 times once they switch to melee. The Yari Ashigaru barely received any training in the martial arts. Even in battles where trained mass formations fought, units that are highly trained in martial arts would beat those that only receive basic training. Granted the Yari Samurai were far better trained in the art of using spears as weapon and have shown to fight off very well in positions that would get most Spearmen of other civilizations slaughtered (getting out of formation, fighting on rocky terrain,etc.) because they are actually trained in the Japanese spear arts (not to the extent of a master though) rather than relying on formations. But send in some NoDachi Samurai (who are in-game trained by schools of Japanese swordsmanship developed by battle-hardened master swordsmen) and all other things equal a NoDachi Samura unit would destroy a Yari Samurai unit in the game. Send in the Warrior Monk (who are the best units in the game and have spent their WHOLE LIVES mastering the Japanese martial arts) and the Monk units will often slaughter against overwhelming numbers to victory (even in enemies in rigid formations). Though it should be stated as opposed to most individual fighters like the Celts in history, the Warrior Monk in the game are shown as using formations and could use flanking tactics,etc. But playing Shogun:Total War and seeing units that are individually well-trained as fighters destroy units in rigid deadly formations like the Spear Walls made me wonder how much the skill of the Warriors would affect the outcome of a battle. Now I know the Japanese were an exception the rule that even their hardened Elites who mastered Martial Arts used formations and flanking. They would technically be anything but the individual fighters the Celts and lots of other armies were. Seeing the NoDachi Samurai break Spear Walls apart (including the trained Yari Samurais) and seeing the Warrior Monks kill enemies in rigid formations VERY easily made me wonder. In addition their are times in the game where I got enemies completely flanked on all sides but they fight so viciously even when their formations are broken up and it becomes a chaotic melee that they practically scare several UNITS of soldiers to flee away. In the bigger battles I even seen the master martial artists slice their way into my leader and killing him thus winning the battles as my unit runs away! Is the emphasize on "mass formations" and "team work" a bit too much on its importance in battle?Do many Military Historians and Military Theorists underestimate the effectiveness of warriors who have mastered single combat? I mean even assuming your units is rigidly disciplined and mastered the art of formations, if they could not properly wield a sword and block and parry wouldn't they just be walking into their deaths? Playing Shogun:Total War and recently reading Martial Art texts after being inspired by it makes me wonder........