Which would breed the better warrior?

[redrooster]

I believe it was napoleon who said something to this effect
"morale is to training, as 3 is to 1"
training can can breed morale but more often then not it is the ideology of the organisation or nation that is behind the motivation of the warrior.

[Hakonarson]

Any of them except money, the Ranger's creed and the whip IMO.

the others are all life-styles encompasing moer than simple oath-taking - one is bought up in them and knows no other way, hence they are much more motivating than the other 3, which are generally conscious choices and are able to be backed out of with some ease.....well the whip isn't, but then it's jsut not going to make you a great fighter anyway

[Rosacrux]

Motivation. Good motivation. Despair is quite decent, as is poverty and lack of opportunities. A good countermeasure is riches and safety, though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[DemonArchangel]

What are the laws of lycurgus/.

[Heraclius]

If I remember correctly, Lycurgus was a Spartan who organized it into the austere, brutal and military society that we remember it as.

[redrooster]

i put in ranger's creed cause i cannot think of any modern equivalent that organises and orientates cultures and mentalilities towards fighting and war.

[Kongamato]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

You forgot an option.

[redrooster]

Quote[/b] (Kongamato @ Mar. 21 2003,15:47)]http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

You forgot an option.
ermmm....wat is that..... honour and glory?

[71-hour Ahmed]

fanatic wicca lesbians... two in one and they distract the enemy as they fight nude... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[71-hour Ahmed]

Seriously, you want something they will fight and die for. Something they see as greater than them. Religion is best for this. A lifestyle is maybe second.

[Kongamato]

The smoking guy means that you forgot pre-battle drugs, such as Hashish and Berserker mushrooms. However, this option is not as broad and basic as the ones you suggested.

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Kongamato @ Mar. 21 2003,18:01)]The smoking guy means that you forgot pre-battle drugs, such as Hashish and Berserker mushrooms. However, this option is not as broad and basic as the ones you suggested.
You have a point, I remember a programme about how the Zulus used drugs before going into battle. They were scary chaps.

[Red Peasant]

Oh, and 'Ranger Creed', WTF is that? I presume it's some silly American cult thing, but it definitely ain't well known. Just a thought, was he a character in Bonanza?

[DemonArchangel]

well, actually, religion will not breed a competent warrior per se, what it will breed are martyrs, which are infinitely more dangerous than warriors.

[redrooster]

i agree that ranger's creed does not belong here, but it was the first thing that came to mind.
ranger creed (http://headquarters.50megs.com/PG/RANGERC.html)
the ranger refered to here is of those airborne deep insertion types.

[spmetla]

The rangers creed was from Roger's Rangers, which were an elite colonist force during the french and indian war that conducted raids and recon for the British regulars.
American propagada? no

[Red Peasant]

So you claim that was written by Rogers was it?

Doesn't sound like an eighteenth century period piece to me, more like 20thC American hokum. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Catiline]

The creed is bollocks, if admirable, the Rangers, as i'm sure RP knows are true enough.

Rangers lead the way http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif No Britishman would ever come up with that, colonial or not....

[Shahed]

Rangers lead the way

[A.Saturnus]

I would say professionality. In the long run, a soldier who wants to survive is more usefull than a fanatic who wants to die.

[71-hour Ahmed]

Personally I favour the islamic fundamentalist tactics, as they are so damn scary for the enemy. Plus if you discipline them a bit then they can be used in long term fight to the death scenarios, like what Saddam is hoping to do. And its dirt cheap to strap a bomb to a mans body as opposed to building a tank, so more money to spend on my imperial palaces

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Div Hunter]

You forgot the most important and most succesful one - democracy Democratic nations have consistently raised the largest and usually victorious armies.

[Lord Godfrey]

It depends on how the question is interpreted. Are we talking about the type of society that develops the best warrior? If so, I think Div Hunter’s post on the success of Democracies in developing and outfitting victorious armies is correct.

If we are discussing how an individual soldier is motivated to perform - then I think the sacred band generated by individuals overcoming long odds to accomplish an objective whether religious, ideological, or cultural in nature is best. Warriors who are whipped will eventually find a means of escape, and soldiers motivated by monetary means will desert as soon as the tides of war change in the opponent’s favor or when the money runs out.

Also - don’t confuse the Ranger Creed (recited every morning by modern day US Army Rangers) with the rules originally prescribed by Major Rogers in 1756 during the French and Indian War
1. Don't forget nothing.
2. Have your musket clean as a whistle, hatchet scoured, sixty rounds powder and ball, and be ready to march at a minute's warning.
3. When you're on the march, act the way you would if you was sneaking up on a deer. See the enemy first.
4. Tell the truth about what you see and what you do. There is an army depending on us for correct information. You can lie all you please when you tell other folks about the Rangers, but don't never lie to a Ranger or officer.
5. Don't never take a chance you don't have to.
6. When we're on the march we march single file, far enough apart so one shot can't go through two men.
7. If we strike swamps, or soft ground, we spread out abreast, so it's hard to track us.
8. When we march, we keep moving till dark, so as to give the enemy the least possible chance at us.
9. When we camp, half the party stays awake while the other half sleeps.
10. If we take prisoners, we keep'em separate till we have had time to examine them, so they can't cook up a story between'em.
11. Don't ever march home the same way. Take a different route so you won't be ambushed.
12. No matter whether we travel in big parties or little ones, each party has to keep a scout 20 yards ahead, 20 yards on each flank, and 20 yards in the rear so the main body can't be surprised and wiped out.
13. Every night you'll be told where to meet if surrounded by a superior force.
14. Don't sit down to eat without posting sentries.
15. Don't sleep beyond dawn. Dawn's when the French and Indians attack.
16. Don't cross a river by a regular ford.
17. If somebody's trailing you, make a circle, come back onto your own tracks, and ambush the folks that aim to ambush you.
18. Don't stand up when the enemy's coming against you. Kneel down, lie down, hide behind a tree.
19. Let the enemy come till he's almost close enough to touch, then let him have it and jump out and finish him up with your hatchet.

Rangers Lead the Way

[AggonyShim2]

my vote goes to bushido http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif go figure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[spmetla]

Quote[/b] ]You forgot the most important and most succesful one - democracy Democratic nations have consistently raised the largest and usually victorious armies

If you're referring to my home the US your kind of mistaken.

The US only has a large army because of its large population which is large because becuase we have such a large country.

This overwhelming population is what is what won victories. Not democracy, the Russians had the largest army during WWII and it only won in the long run because of it's large population.

Only now when our tech, tactics, and training are so good is the need for a large army not neccesary.

The US has good tech and leadership, and the reason we are so good is that and because of a professional all volunteer military.

I voted for nationalism, but also in retrospect that professionalism, equipment and leadership. Bushido helped motivate the japanese to become good soldiers, just as nationalism helped motive the Germans to be great soldiers. But like I just stated professionalism, equipment and leadership.

[Sjakihata]

Quote[/b] ]we are so good

Now are you really that good?

Just look at gulf war one and two. A lot of FF. And you are fighting a MUCH weaker enemy, that has: low morale, 12 years with sanctions, a leader that uses money on palaces and not latest mili tech.

I voted A mutual compassion eg. good motivation. That I believe you get the most reliable and better troops. Of course, if you are allowed to combine any of the options, the troops will suddenly be even better http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[lonewolf371]

Quite honestly we will never know how good we are until we get in a little scuffle with a nation that actually can rival us, a.k.a. Britain, Sweden, perhaps France, these countries have a decent air-force and army, Iraq doesn't. The only people that can challenge us are our allies, and we're no longer allies all hell will break loose.

Profesionalism has always won the day, someone who shoots the enemy before the enemy shoots him is professional. All countries that have lasted at least some measure of a long time have had standing armies of professional soldiers always ready to fight. Countries that rely on loyal, but weak citizen armies last for a time, but when they meet a professional force they're wiped out. A good heart can get you many places, but nationalism and feeling towards one's country will not kill any other man, nor will it save the man who feels it.

[spmetla]

Quote[/b] ]Just look at gulf war one and two. A lot of FF. And you are fighting a MUCH weaker enemy, that has: low morale, 12 years with sanctions, a leader that uses money on palaces and not latest mili tech.

I voted A mutual compassion eg. good motivation. That I believe you get the most reliable and better troops. Of course, if you are allowed to combine any of the options, the troops will suddenly be even better

First off let me apologize for sounding so conceited.

I know we are fighting an enemy that is hardly a threat. I also realize we have a lot of FF. But we would probably have a lot more FF if it wasn't for all our training and tech. And also FF is usually caused by simple human error, that's something that's hard to correct no matter how well you've been trained.

I know that the US wouldn't fare near as well if it were to take on an actual world power. If the US were to take on the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia it would be far different. If there was no use of nukes at all it would be a pretty fair fight. Against Russia our tech would win in the air but on the ground the sheer numbers of the Russias combined with their pretty damn respectable equipment would make for a bloody posibply lost fight.

And for those other powers It'd be an even fight. Only our stealth tech along with the amount of troops we could commit would bring victory.

Anywho I was just trying to say that democracy is not the reason that the US has won it's past wars.
And once again I apologize for my attitude.


Quote[/b] ]Rangers lead the way

This isn't part of the Rangers Creed written by Maj. Roger. This saying came about during WWII on the Omaha beach when the General in charge (don't know his name) told the rangers to lead the way through the defenses. At least that's what I learned. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[lonewolf371]

Sheer numbers are what Americans faced when China entered the Korean war. Sheer numbers are what Americans slaughtered once they got their footing. Too many people mis-judge the American ground force, it's better than you think. Our tanks are well-developed, along with our artillery. After WWII our communications are almost perfect between soldiers, tanks, and artillery. Just because we've focused on other parts of the army doesn't mean the ground forces are useless against superior numbers. We DO have something sort of a mega-tank now, something that was ordered way back during the Cold War and would be useful in a situation against any of the European powers. Britain would put up more of a fight than most as it has done in the past. The Russian military, however, would collapse easier. They almost certainly recieve little pay and money allocated towards them which poses an extreme problem. China would pose perhaps next the Britain the single most important threat, although the US would still beat the crap out of them. The US military simply outright rocks, and I've no doubt we'd be able to take on the whole world, or at least in the process of losing blow it up.

[spmetla]

Quote[/b] ]Sheer numbers are what Americans faced when China entered the Korean war. Sheer numbers are what Americans slaughtered once they got their footing

Those sheer numbers pushed us from the extreme north of the pennisula to the mid section 38th parrel of the pennisula where we agreed to a cease fire.

The Abrams was the first tank we built that was better than it's Soviet counterparts. If we went into Iraq with M60s we wouldn't have fared quite as well.
The coorditaion between our troops and artillery has always been top rate, but sometimes that's not enough.

[Lord Godfrey]

On D-Day, part of the 2nd Ranger Battalion and the 5th Ranger Battalion landed on Omaha Beach with the 29th Infantry Division. They where were pinned down much of the morning by mortar and machine gun fire from the cliffs above the beachhead. The 29th ID's assistant division commander Brigadier General Norman Cota formulated a plan to breakout from the beach and said to the Ranger commander “Rangers, Lead the Way”. The rest is history. Three other companies from the 2nd Battalion climbed the cliffs at Point du Hoc to destroy German artillery that could fire onto the beaches.

[lonewolf371]

Well, 'sheer numbers' are what pushed us all the way almost back to Seoul, and we pushed 'sheer numbers' all the way back to the 38th where a stalemate ensued.

[Nowake]

The laws of Lycurgus can make good warriors, but I really think that Bushido is best and more developed ...

The others ...

~ well, nationalism wasn't able to make soldiers fanatical (i'm talking about the majority);

~ religion: if you raise doubt in the soldier's menthality, than he'll colapse;

~ mutual feelings etc. well, they may stand for eachother, but that doesn't guarantee their obedience;

~ all the others: no solid morale;