Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: America's Worst Enemy in History
mongyu    1/2/2008 8:16:10 AM
The title says it all: Who do you think has been the greatest enemy ever to threaten America? My vote goes to the British hands down. No other country ever came as close as the British to physically ending the United States in our history. The Germans and the Japanese were formidable in their own right, but neither [or even both] could reasonably invade the United States. The Soviet Union had the theoretical potential to destroy the United States, but I think everyone agrees that this was not a practical capability in the way the British Empire's ability to take Washington DC was. The Soviets were a dangerous enemy ideologically in the way it could convert adherents in America, but they never out-did the British who successfully supported a rebellion in the United States by funding, arming, and giving moral support to the Confederacy. So what country would you choose?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT
paul1970    duh!   2/8/2008 10:35:13 AM

Example of burdened horses charging.

Do so if you can.

The speeds vary by horse but on average are > 25 mph.

Herald


I said your science was based on fantasy.... and now you carry on.......
but to humour you.... even if your speed is right that is only 2/3rds of the speed you are claiming for the French to have.
those horses are not the type in use in 14thC France. those men are not ACTUALLY wearing heavy armour. but if you want to have it fine....
surely you would have been better with the charges in Braveheart....  or even.......Crecy but I guess that doesn't suit your alternative explanations at all as they are far too slow for your science to work...
 
I await you using the LOTR films or the bladestorm game for your next piece of..... ahem!....  science....  :-)
 
I wouldn't class hollywood as a good source for credible history but if it floats your boat fine. but at least you can get a look at them wearing realistic looking armour for HYW and the ECW from some of those reenactment videos... note the lack of armour for ECW and fire ranges of muskets.....
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/8/2008 11:17:16 AM
Listen cretin.

The horses are filmed at the gallop moving in a group. That was what interested me. And that is why I chose the example since it is a real measurable event for comparative purposes usoing a group of men over forested somewhat funneled terrain.

Seeing that all you have done so far is complain, is that it isn't the way it happened or that's not possible in the FACE of REAL evidence, of that its not only possible, but that in light ofd ther physics and the battlespace parameters plus the time factors, its the only sensible way to explain ALL the described Crecy evidence, I suggest you get off your nitpick horse, put on a duncecap and join the other morons in the corner.

It makes sense to me that you use terrain and obstacles to maximize the efficiency of a relatively poor missile weapon available to you as well as give your outnumbered infantry the best chance they have against a tactically faster and shock oriented horse-mounted enemy.

I consider all factors in a battlespace, not one, cretin. The speeds and times in the MERs can vary as much as 30% either way. It doesn't affect the decisive factors or the actual outcomes. The French lose because they are beaten in outnumbered chunks of stopped horsemen confronting far more numerous English infantry at close range, the horsemen  are always outnumbered at the point of close contact, as in less than a hundred feet, not because of the mythical long ranged lobbed longbow fire.

That is what ALL the evidence cumulative shows.

As for the Bayeux Tapestry, Its there, it shows what I described, and it fits the characteristics of combat as we knoiw it to  actually be as in men in battle, still keep coming at you no matter what until you kill them.

Hence again the dagger wounds on the French Crecy dead. The English had their hands full in the middle of a long battle. Who had time for prisoner watching when the French form up for another charge?

You need to look at all the evidence in the mosaic-not the bits and pieces you don't like and which you think you can object, but for which you have provided no credible negation whatsoever.

And of course you prove by this incapacity to argue on point and factual merit, that you are still an incompetent.

As always, CREF previous salutations

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       2/8/2008 11:58:11 AM

1. So the damned Genoese bowman wore a mail shirt. Look up garbadine-and I don't mean the twill 19th century weave..
3. A horse is a horse. The only charge rates which I've ever seen measured worth a damn in BATTLE are US Army rates taken during the Civil War when somebody actually bothered to time an actual cavalry charge by several hundred men over known measured ground [Brandy Station]. Assemble 700 French knights in 14th Century armor and have them charge uphill on wet grass through trenches and abattis and we'll see the results. Until then the 6th Pennsylvania charging Stuart's canister firing horse artillery over a 1100 yard run over badly broken and heavily defended ground and John Buford's pocket watch timing them do it, will have to do. 33 miles an hour.

Get stuffed.

Herald

 
looked up garbardine and gabardine and neither appears to have anything to do with armour.  i think the word you would be looking for would be brigandine.
 
a horse is a horse in exactly the same sense that a car is a car and a plane is a plane.  this shows an amazing level of just plain ignorance of the subject unless you want to try to assert that a clyde has a sporting chance of beating even a mediocre thoroughbred round the track or that the thoroughbred can pull a plough like a clyde.  the performance of acw cavalry is pretty dubiously relevant to what midieval french cavalry performed like. 
 
this kind of obvious trash is why people ought to be careful about assuming any of your pronouncements are accurate.


 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/8/2008 10:47:29 PM




1. So the damned Genoese bowman wore a mail shirt. Look up garbadine-and I don't mean the twill 19th century weave..

3. A horse is a horse. The only charge rates which I've ever seen measured worth a damn in BATTLE are US Army rates taken during the Civil War when somebody actually bothered to time an actual cavalry charge by several hundred men over known measured ground [Brandy Station]. Assemble 700 French knights in 14th Century armor and have them charge uphill on wet grass through trenches and abattis and we'll see the results. Until then the 6th Pennsylvania charging Stuart's canister firing horse artillery over a 1100 yard run over badly broken and heavily defended ground and John Buford's pocket watch timing them do it, will have to do. 33 miles an hour.

Get stuffed.

Herald



 


looked up garbardine and gabardine and neither appears to have anything to do with armour.  i think the word you would be looking for would be brigandine.
 

a horse is a horse in exactly the same sense that a car is a car and a plane is a plane.  this shows an amazing level of just plain ignorance of the subject unless you want to try to assert that a clyde has a sporting chance of beating even a mediocre thoroughbred round the track or that the thoroughbred can pull a plough like a clyde.  the performance of acw cavalry is pretty dubiously relevant to what midieval french cavalry performed like. 

 

this kind of obvious trash is why people ought to be careful about assuming any of your pronouncements are accurate.




1. Coming from an idiot who can't fathom loads and burdenage afloat and yet claims to be an expert on barges that is funny.
2. A horse is a horse. He could run at 10 mph or 50 mph. That is a sum delta difference of 30+/- seconds in my calculations as to how long at the gallop the horsemen is subjected to vollied arrows 90-30 being the range as in negligible effect at all.
3. You like the other cretin have yet to demonstrate the remotest ability to analyze data or supply any data of your own .
4. I've just about consigned you to the clown club with the rest of the cretins on that basis alone.
5.  The word I should have used is hauberkgeon.  I make many mistakes in the minor details, not in the important stuff like you two imbeciles do ALL the time.

Hows your slang usage?

As always CREF my previous salutation and apply it in good measure.

But then you would have to know how, wouldn't you?

Herald   

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    On Cavalry   2/9/2008 12:31:50 AM
A contemporary (ACW) account, one from many at
h*tp://www.horse101.com/topics/History/cavalry_horse_html


Just to share, found while googling "speed cavalry charge mph" or some such - many variations will come to mind. 
Quoted grossly, apologies...
Were it not for the suffering of men, one could readily weep at the suffering of these magnificent beasts (if you like horses).

(On the other hand, I've heard that prematurely-retired polo ponies go nuts for the action...)

Summary: 

  • The Cavalry Horse - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/5548/horse.html
    • The Cavalry Horse
    • bear in mind that, in the service in this country, a cavalry horse when loaded carries an average of 225 lbs.
      • [note:  no armor]
    • About The Cavalry Horse
    • his mother from the camp of the 1st Massachusetts Cavalry
    • You read of Stoneman' s and Grierson' s cavalry raids, and of the dashing celerity of their movements
    • Do you know how cavalry moves? It never goes out of walk, and four miles an
    • An offcer of cavalry needs to be more horse-doctor than soldier, and no
    • So I have but one rule, a horse must go until he can' t be spurred any further,
    • and then the rider must get another horse as soon as he can seize on one.
    • he horse is, in active campaign, saddled on an average about


ht*p://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/5548/horse.html


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/5548/17CavBanner2.gif" border="0" height="143" width="500">

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/5548/Flagbar.jpg" height="15" width="500">

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/5548/Horsecmp.gif" height="224" width="600">

Photograph-Library of Congress


About The Cavalry Horse

by Cap. Charles Francis Adams

(Written to his mother from the camp of the 1st Massachusetts Cavalry)

Potomac Creek, May 12, 1863

    It is by no means a pleasant thought to reflect how little people at home know of the non-fighting details of waste and suffering of war. We were in the field four weeks, and only once did I see the enemy, even at a distance. You read of Stoneman?s and Grierson?s cavalry raids, and of the dashing celerity of their movements and their long, rapid marches. Do you know how cavalry moves? It never goes out of walk, and four miles an hour is very rapid marching "killing to horses" as we always describe it. To cover forty miles is nearly fifteen hours march. The suffering is trifling for the men and they are always well in the field in spite of wet and cold and heat, loss of sleep and sleeping on the ground. In the field we have no sickness; when we get into camp it begins to appear at once.

     But with the horses it is otherwise and you have no idea of their sufferings. An offcer of cavalry needs to be more horse-doctor than soldier, and no one who has not tried it can realize the discouragement to Company commanders in these long and continuous marches. You are a slave to your horses, you work like a dog yourself, and you exact the most extreme care from your Sergeants, and you see diseases creeping on you day by day and your horses breaking down under your eyes, and you have two resources, one to send them to the reserve camps at the rear and so strip yourself of your command, and the other to force them on until they drop and then run for luck that you will be able to steal horses to remount your men, and keep up the strength of your command. The last course is the one I adopt. I do my best for my horses and am sorry for them; but all war is cruel

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Nichy reply.   2/9/2008 1:29:41 AM
Bear in mind some things, Nichy.

I chewed off a  PRC bandit when he came in here boasting about the Mongols. One of the arguments we had was the abolity of cavalry to march. At that time I quoted the march drill of the US Army which was post Civil War which was for each hour 45 minutes ride and 15 minutes walk for each trooper and horse and no more than ten hours in the saddle at each movement, with rest stops every five and grain and water for the horse.

The infantry could always out-march the cavalry; for people just don't realize how TOUGH men are. Our march pace at the walk is 2/3 of Mister Ed and our endurance without food and water, even with packs equal to 1/4 our mass  is 1.5x to 2x a horse's. Give us water and a little food to eat at the walk and we can march for days. In fact walking  under those conditions tends to make us tougher not break us down.

The US Army calculation was that the cavalry could cover about 30-35 miles a day at a walk pace, while the infantry could cover 20-25 miles. The  horse soldiers men and animals were worn out after 3 days and needed a day's rest ROM was 100-120 miles. Infantry could in four days worst case cover 120 miles and in typical cover 90. In a ten day march [Gettysburg] the infantry made no extended halts except for sleep and a single hot meal per day and on the last day double timed the last two miles into battle under load that was comparable to a medieval knight burdened by armor and weapons. 180-225 miles for that infantry chasing Bobby Lee-all on foot, then three days of the worst fighting you could imagine. The Union cavalry ran itself ragged but only covered about 170 miles in 8 days march. They killed a lot of horses. The Union infantry worn out ran harder and covered more ground  than any horse.  

Horses have to be combed down and rubbed after the march and bedded down with a blanket as well as loose tethered to the picket line, be allowed to socialize graze and to sleep. Otherwise they DIE. Men can go longer and stand far more abuse.

Its called WILL.

One comment about knights.

A knight in the 13th century weighed about 140 lbs [all muscle-especially between the ears]  He wore 60 to 80 lbs of armor. His lance was not that heavy or he couldn't point it [about 20 pounds at most] and his sword weighed 5-7 pounds, add an 8 pound shield and a 10-15 pound saddle and blanket and you get about 275 pounds.

Every once in a while you'd get a big fat knight and you break the 300-350 pound mark.
 
The point is that knights took better care of their horses than the average US Civil War cavalryman. The horse was the knight's car. That beast got better treatment than the knight's wife or kids.

So you won't see the knight riding his war horse 20 miles to a battle. What you will see him do is come with a horse string  and squires and grooms to care for the horse string. He will have a primary war horse that he's trained to serve HIM that he will use, when he makes that one or two thousand yard movement to contact.  He will have a travel horse he rides and he will have his fighting gear in a cart.

The war horse will NEVER if he can help it, be subjected to the kind of cruelty that US Army horses suffered in a total war like the Civil War.

And one last thing. The primary weapon the knight had to use as a shock weapon was the spear. He is not going to be moving four miles an hour when he couches that lance. That is not how the weapon is used, that is not how the knights trained, and it is not how the knights fought.

They don't like to be caught in the middle of infantry at the stop either. They can be so easily pulled down and swarmed

A man can generate 1/5 horsepower  under normal load. Under life or death exertion that can easily exceed 1/3 horsepower. Three desperate men equipped with tools specifically designed for the purpose of knocking a man off a horse, jump a stopped knight on aforesaid terrified stalled  horse? The knight hasn't got a chance in hell.  

Herald   
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    On Cavalry - Herald   2/9/2008 2:40:15 AM
Utterly fascinating:

h*tp://www.geocities.com/futuretanks/ponysoldiers.htm

horses for the modern era!


But Herald...

It would be presumptuous to call you my friend, but I wish you would believe that I have your welfare at heart when I make these remarks.  It pains me not to be quite able to take your side against paul1970, who knows I think he's a twit, and Ehran, who seems to live and exist solely to annoy me, to say nice things about Canada and their British masters, or ideally both.  In particular, paul is almost always wrong and I am amazed you let yourself give him the other side of the argument,.  I also understand that the Brits have a lot wrapped up in their national myth of the plucky longbow-wielding yeoman as the core and essence of their eternal freedom and general bodaciousness, and could be expected to be prejudiced in favor of the clothyard shaft.

However:

I take no notice of your hostility, that is usual and I have come to expect it.  But when it seems you have been led down a blind alley, it takes a different character.  What is the old saw about redoubling one;s efforts when one has lost sight of one's goals? 

When you make remarks like "a horse is a horse," well, first I chuckle, and second, I have to feel that you would never accept this sort of thing from your opponent in a discussion of, say, a2a combat or the manufacture of cast vs. forged receivers.  In particular, your what I find I must call idealized notions of the capability of a cavalry charge, not to mention the skill and knowledge of military leadership of the era, do not take into account two factors you commonly emphasize:  logistics.and advances in technology.

The Dacian horse charge you linked to, while it could lead to notions of a sustained charge, or at least a ride, at over 20mph, is IMHO utterly unrealistic as an indicator of what medieval horses and riders could do.  For one thing, surely you know there were no stirrups in Roman times?  In fact there were none at the Battle of Hastings, IIRC. 

Basically from sources near at hand - simple google-fu - your charge speed estimates are IMHO 2x to 4x off. 

Now, that doesn't invalidate your notions of the clever/lucky use of terrain and clime by the English, nor does it weaken your argument that the longbow was not exactly a .50 BMG in terminal effect.  In fact the slower the charge, esp. in close to contact, the more chance for longbows to have what effect they could, especially in their MER/killing zone.  And obviously if they charged a dozen times and more, volley fire didn't stop 'em dead.

So in a sense I am not sure an argument is necessary, if you don't need to have one.

But in the words of Aeon Flux, I'm not in the habit of arguing about the color of red herrings!

ISTM, unless I am very much mistaken, that we got into Crecy to show the limits of the longbow, and the relative superiority of the primitive firearm, AGAINST ARMOR.  But as with a dear, dear friend of mine who is sadly no longer among us in the flesh, the subject has been changed to avoid defeat on the original ground. 

I missed your refutation of how armor was no longer very relevant at the time of the ECW.  Certainly the use of armor had dwindled by that time.  And, IIRC, the question was, how would a longbow army (ceteris paribus, yada yada) do against an arquebus army?

Back to that, I grant you your point that the SMASH of a heavy ball (and you never responded to my contention that your sizing of the relevant lead slug seemed far off) excels the performance of the clothyard shaft against armor.  Actually while you made convincing reference to the limits of arrow penetration vs. plate, you never cited parallel figures for contemporary firearms, but in general, it is clear that the development of the gun is what led to armor going out of style, just like the auto led to the marginalization, at best, of the buggy-whip.

However:  back to ECW, you showed a pic of the Genoese shooter in jerkin, hauberk, haburgeon, whatever it was.  Now let's see relevant pics of the ECW troops in their various forms of armor.  Without which, as I think I've been saying, we need not consider armor-smashing so much as antipersonnel effects.

And at anywhere from 2x to 10x peak/sustained cyclic rate, against unarmored or lightly armored targets, arrows seem to have a great potential advantage vs. primitive firearms.  I scarcely see how this can be contended.  Or perhaps it can, but I have not yet seen you follow through on THAT argument - we fled to Crecy first.

So dismissing the stupid, evil French (WTF didn't they flank right a mile and come back at them along the ridgeline?  Not to mention charging the men without rest.  THAT will slow down your closing speeds!), in t
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    On Cavalry - Herald   2/9/2008 3:50:11 AM
These are rock solid points you make, Herald.
Bear in mind some things, Nichy.

I chewed off a  PRC bandit when he came in here boasting about the Mongols. One of the arguments we had was the ability of cavalry to march. At that time I quoted the march drill of the US Army which was post Civil War which was for each hour 45 minutes ride and 15 minutes walk for each trooper and horse and no more than ten hours in the saddle at each movement, with rest stops every five and grain and water for the horse.

The infantry could always out-march the cavalry; for people just don't realize how TOUGH men are. Our march pace at the walk is 2/3 of Mister Ed and our endurance without food and water, even with packs equal to 1/4 our mass  is 1.5x to 2x a horse's. Give us water and a little food to eat at the walk and we can march for days. In fact walking  under those conditions tends to make us tougher not break us down.

The US Army calculation was that the cavalry could cover about 30-35 miles a day at a walk pace, while the infantry could cover 20-25 miles. The  horse soldiers men and animals were worn out after 3 days and needed a day's rest ROM was 100-120 miles. Infantry could in four days worst case cover 120 miles and in typical cover 90. In a ten day march [Gettysburg] the infantry made no extended halts except for sleep and a single hot meal per day and on the last day double timed the last two miles into battle under load that was comparable to a medieval knight burdened by armor and weapons. 180-225 miles for that infantry chasing Bobby Lee-all on foot, then three days of the worst fighting you could imagine. The Union cavalry ran itself ragged but only covered about 170 miles in 8 days march. They killed a lot of horses. The Union infantry worn out ran harder and covered more ground  than any horse.  

Horses have to be combed down and rubbed after the march and bedded down with a blanket as well as loose tethered to the picket line, be allowed to socialize graze and to sleep. Otherwise they DIE. Men can go longer and stand far more abuse.

Its called WILL.

As noted in the article I posted/linked next, it is also a question both of the breeding of the horse, and its conditioning/maintenance.  But you are exactly right that in the main, men can march horses right into the ground.  (Another unfair advantage of men is the biomechanics:  in short, a man with a broken or even an amputated leg can still survive and heal; in general a horse with a broken leg needs to be put out of its misery.  You spoke of involved earthworks in the sense of medieval tank-traps.  But in fact a gopher hole will kill a horse as dead as an atom bomb.


One comment about knights.

A knight in the 13th century weighed about 140 lbs [all muscle-especially between the ears]  He wore 60 to 80 lbs of armor. His lance was not that heavy or he couldn't point it [about 20 pounds at most] and his sword weighed 5-7 pounds, add an 8 pound shield and a 10-15 pound saddle and blanket and you get about 275 pounds.

Quibble:  5-7 lbs for a longsword or a lighter broadsword; a bastard/hand-and-a-half sword or the great two-handed sword of such as Richard the Lion-Hearted could go 15-20 lbs.  A pound for the dagger.  A few pounds of misc. kit.  And I do think the saddle MAY have been much heavier than you suppose, I have one figure alleging 50 lbs in the time of the cataphracts (pre-stirrup tech, of course).  But as you remind me, men were smaller then.
Every once in a while you'd get a big fat knight and you break the 300-350 pound mark.
 
The point is that knights took better care of their horses than the average US Civil War cavalryman. The horse was the knight's car. That beast got better treatment than the knight's wife or kids.

As with samurai, there were knights and there were knights.  I can't knock the above at all, but the following, which I totally buy, was the ideal, but not attainable by the marginal knight.  He had one or two good horses and they WERE his children, just as you say. 

So you won't see the knight riding his war horse 20 miles to a battle. What you will see him do is come with a horse string  and squires and grooms to care for the horse string. He will have a primary war horse that he's trained to serve HIM that he will use, when he makes that one or two thousand yard movement to contact.  He will have a travel horse he rides and he will have his fighting gear i
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/9/2008 11:16:51 PM

These are rock solid points you make, Herald.

Well it shows that you understand that I do know something about march rates and closure rates and HORSES.

Bear in mind some things, Nichy.

I chewed off a  PRC bandit when he came in here boasting about the Mongols. One of the arguments we had was the ability of cavalry to march. At that time I quoted the march drill of the US Army which was post Civil War which was for each hour 45 minutes ride and 15 minutes walk for each trooper and horse and no more than ten hours in the saddle at each movement, with rest stops every five and grain and water for the horse.

The infantry could always out-march the cavalry; for people just don't realize how TOUGH men are. Our march pace at the walk is 2/3 of Mister Ed and our endurance without food and water, even with packs equal to 1/4 our mass  is 1.5x to 2x a horse's. Give us water and a little food to eat at the walk and we can march for days. In fact walking  under those conditions tends to make us tougher not break us down.

The US Army calculation was that the cavalry could cover about 30-35 miles a day at a walk pace, while the infantry could cover 20-25 miles. The  horse soldiers men and animals were worn out after 3 days and needed a day's rest ROM was 100-120 miles. Infantry could in four days worst case cover 120 miles and in typical cover 90. In a ten day march [Gettysburg] the infantry made no extended halts except for sleep and a single hot meal per day and on the last day double timed the last two miles into battle under load that was comparable to a medieval knight burdened by armor and weapons. 180-225 miles for that infantry chasing Bobby Lee-all on foot, then three days of the worst fighting you could imagine. The Union cavalry ran itself ragged but only covered about 170 miles in 8 days march. They killed a lot of horses. The Union infantry worn out ran harder and covered more ground  than any horse.  

Horses have to be combed down and rubbed after the march and bedded down with a blanket as well as loose tethered to the picket line, be allowed to socialize graze and to sleep. Otherwise they DIE. Men can go longer and stand far more abuse.

Its called WILL.


As noted in the article I posted/linked next, it is also a question both of the breeding of the horse, and its conditioning/maintenance.  But you are exactly right that in the main, men can march horses right into the ground.  (Another unfair advantage of men is the biomechanics:  in short, a man with a broken or even an amputated leg can still survive and heal; in general a horse with a broken leg needs to be put out of its misery.  You spoke of involved earthworks in the sense of medieval tank-traps.  But in fact a gopher hole will kill a horse as dead as an atom bomb.

I spoke of horse falls. Gopher holes, spring snares, caltrops,  trip hazards. The entrenching would only be for the ditches you use for abattii or pointed anti-horse stake barricades.  You do knowm that the English came into battle with those stakes pre-sharpened and ready to implant?

One comment about knights.

A knight in the 13th century weighed about 140 lbs [all muscle-especially between the ears]  He wore 60 to 80 lbs of armor. His lance was not that heavy or he couldn't point it [about 20 pounds at most] and his sword weighed 5-7 pounds, add an 8 pound shield and a 10-15 pound saddle and blanket and you get about 275 pounds.


Quibble:  5-7 lbs for a longsword or a lighter broadsword; a bastard/hand-and-a-half sword or the great two-handed sword of such as Richard the Lion-Hearted could go 15-20 lbs.  A pound for the dagger.  A few pounds of misc. kit.  And I do think the saddle MAY have been much heavier than you suppose, I have one figure alleging 50 lbs in the time of the cataphracts (pre-stirrup tech, of course).  But as you remind me, men were smaller then.

The average knight is not King Richard, who is huge. Besides the two handed sword is unwieldly from horseback.

Every once in a while you'd get a big fat knight and you break the 300-350 pound mark.
 
The point is that knights took better care of their horses than the average US Civil War cavalryman. The horse was the knight's car. That beast got better treatment than the knight's wife or kids.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle    Whatever happened to the original question?   2/10/2008 12:24:23 AM
This thread had taken quite a few turns hasn't it?  Does anyone remember the original question?

So who was America's "greatest" or "worst" enemy.  And don't always consider the words "greatest" and "worst" to be disparaging.  They can be complimentary when talking about warfare.

In an attempt to bring the thread back to topic I re-post my first reply:

The greatest enemy ever faced by the United States of America was the Confederate States of America:

- no enemy before or since has ever been more tenacious or harder for the USA to defeat;
 
- no enemy before or since have ever been such true believers in the reasons for which they fought;
 
- no enemy before or since has ever taken such a brutal toll on the USA physically, spiritually, emotionally, or logistically;
 
- no enemy before or since ever remained as undefeated spiritually and emotionally after being defeated physically and logistically;

- no enemy before or since has ever had so many of their descendants believe so strongly in their ancestors basic nobility, honor, and essential goodness whether they agree with their ancestors actions or not.

The greatest enemy ever faced by the United States of America was the Confederate States of America.

I've considered other opinions posted here and I respect them but I still stand by this post.

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics