Just a /pol/ack trying to solve an argument. Who would win? You

I'm gonna say for 150 ants.

>>2230821

/his/ thinks you should fuck off back to your containment board

>>2230829
I only occasionally browse and the thread caught my attention.

>>2230834

The question can't be answered without more information, such as terrain.

>>2230845
That is what a quarter of the posts were saying. Let's assume the field is mostly flat with some hills or something

>>2230860

It depends too much on the actions of the commanders.

The correct strategy would be to not engage until the end. Barring that, you'd want to form alliances on the spot; even though you help someone you need to destroy, its in your best interests since it exponentially increases your power compared to the others the more are willing to fight. Ideal, you'd get everyone on your side but one, then pick a new punching bag and go down the list until its you and someone weaker that you've been sparing. Theres a lot that can go wrong, but its less risky than just trying to win via combat alone.

There's also the question of armament. How much ammo does the seal have? And heck, what's the range? Do the various combatants understand the fighting capabilities and equipment of their foes? Whose got horses?

As is, I'd give the edge to the Mongols due to both being mobile and mostly untouchable by many of their enemies, and for being led by Genghis Khan, whose, well, very good. Mamluks have a similar advantage, but Temujin and the mongols are simply superior troops with a superior leader. The infantry armies don't have an answer to horse archers.

The wild card is the Navy Seal. Lacking a better way to phrase it, a "perfectly played" (you can't sneak up on him, fool him, negotiate with him, wait him out, or whatever, and he's got a crack shot) navy seal armed with an accurate firearm and enough ammunition would just be utterly untouchable. The only counter would be to use the hills as cover and bait him out, so it might end in a stalemate depending on the circumstances. But if the other armies all understood this, then if they were rational they'd pretty much all ally at once and go after Mr. Seal right at the start, and then maybe you'd get a big fuckoff free for all for his gun.

also crusaders lead by Jean d' Arc? she wasn't a crusader they were not even in the same fucking century this shit sucks i fucking quit

File: aristotle btfo.png (638KB, 467x602px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 467x602px

Prove me wrong, /his/.

What the fuck did you just say about me, you little bitch? Tier:
Navy Seal

God Tier:
Mongols
Mamlukes

Slow but powerful Tier:
Crusaders
Romans
Spartans

Lightly-armored and manuverable Tier:
Samurai and Ninjas
Immortals
Zulu

Cannon Fodder Tier:
Maori (wooden weapons lel)
Apaches

Good at killing unarmed peasants Tier:
Vikings

Lets assume the slow and fast guys in the middle are on the same level, because their success entirely depends on how well they can find advantages and cover their weaknesses.

>>2230924

As badass as we might let on, we can't take on a ton of fast moving things by ourselves.

t. ex-navy seal

>>2230821
>Just a /pol/ack
>doesn't know how to cross-board link
>saves the fucking thumbnail
Wow you're a fucking retard, what a terrible thread. Delete this and kill yourself.

>>2230928

While I doubt the credibility of what you just said; you could easily spray at anything coming your way and scare it shitless. Horses will not be accustomed to the reports from a gun, and everyone else who engages in a defensive posture is going to lose a shitload of guys just because they're scrunched up.

>>2230928
If I were to make a more accurate list there would need to be a specific environment, each army's equipment, and then speculate on who would make alliances with each other.

If a Navy Seal just had a sniper with a fuckton of ammunition and explosives he could probably pull something off.

The real question would be how 50 Slavs with AK-47's and an unlimited supply of Vodka would last.

>>2230931
Well sooorrrry.
Just look here:107318531

>>2230933

Do I need to write a book for you to believe me? Mongols employed artillery, their horses wouldn't have been spooked so easily. It really depends on if one of us is well hidden, and the range.

>>2230935

Again, it depends on the terrain.

>>2230939

Mongol artillery is not what you think it was.

They utilized gunpowder for the purpose of mixing it with other material in order to create noxious fumes, and help set things on fire. Not because it exploded.

t. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World

The other armies would have a very difficult time finding the SEAL, let alone killing him.
Say the SEAL is slightly less good as the re cord and that he is accurate at 700+ meters. The people who have never heard of a gun before will see their friend get splattered then hear a ear shattering boom. The effect on morale would be devastating
>>2230939
We are assuming mostly flat with some hills.

>>2230950

What about when they shelled the Hungarians that were well dug in and surrounded by a wagon train?

>>2230950
Technically they did use fire bombs and catapaults, but its unlikely they would be very useful if the 100 strong force is cavalry and the environment isnt a siege.

>>2230953

Again, to set things on fire and cause them to route due to the rumor that they had trained dragons working for them. They didn't have things that exploded. They used conventional artillery engines to hurl balls of gunpowder shit, or fire lances in order to get the job done.

>>2230953

Hills, maybe. Hills with cover, even better. 400 people is still a shit ton to kill if they don't break and run before charging the hill.

>>2230953
The strong point of the mongol army was their cavalry and the speed that came with it. They would not bring artillery as there is no cities to besiege

How would the Maori and Zulu fare against the Romans and Spartans if both sides teamed up against eachother?

>>2230971

His point is a counter-argument to my own, which is that I am under the belief that the Mongol cavalry would break and run due to the weapons being employed by said Navy SEAL.

He is arguing that because the Mongols via the Chinese used gunpowder, their horses would be used to the sounds of gunfire. He isn't saying that they would bring artillery.

>>2230972
The Roman and Spartan battle formations are at least similar so that is one point in their favor

You guys seem to think that SEALs are super effective on their own. We fight as a team, with the element of surprise.

>>2230972

Maori and Zulu are big fucks, but the Romans and Spartans proved that they could fight big fucks. Well, at least the Romans did. And while Shaka actually employed soldiers, the Maori were primarily bands of singular warriors doing their own thing. Since neither force has cavalry, the Maori and Zulu force would go down badly. The unit cohesion in both the group of Spartans and Romans would win the day, plus the superior technology being employed. The Romans with their gladius and sculum would destroy the Maori, while the bronze and long sarissas of the Spartans (let's assume that's what they are using) would simply out range the Zulu's.

>>2230982
Imagine the surprise when the enemy has no concept of sniping or firearms that can fire more than 10 feet

>>2230982

Nah, we are merely working with the assumption that modern firearms > anything else. This is a pretty strong trait in favor of the SEAL. With even just an M4, forget about an M249, you could do horrendous damage to any opposing force before they were able to figure out what was going on.

Worse, because most military commanders were conspicuous in the field of battle; you could easily pick them out John Sedgwick style.

>>2230978
Not really... they had different weapons, different doctrine, and different formations (with phalanxes fighting in a line and using overlapping shields/long spears, while legionaries had a more open formation for tactical flexibility and had short swords. They wouldn't have fought in the same line to much effectiveness; they could support each other and make up for weaknesses, tho, but they have pretty distinct mindsets on how an army ought to operate and in how their soldiers are trained. The maori and zulu would probably have an easier time cooperating, since the zulu tactics were not really reliant on the style of weaponry, and were deliberately simple so they would require little training to utilize.

File: mk18.jpg (728KB, 2048x968px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 2048x968px

>>2231000

this is more of what I used, but yeah I guess I'm just not well versed in the morale of 500 zulu strong armies.

>>2231007
>Shaka, your beloved leader, gets wiped out by invisible space wizard magic that cracks like thunder
Yeah that would cause a dip in morale

>>2230924
>Slow but powerful Tier:
>Spartans
Didn't the 300 fight naked? They could probably move and form up very quickly since they were so elite.

>>2231019

Could Shaka be distinguished on the battlefield?

>>2230975

You can't just fucking unload from a long range and expect to take out a lot of them. If the cavalry doesn't break and run from the time of the first kill shit would get hairy pretty fast.

>>2230989
>superior technology

Right, the steel tipped spears of the Zulus are inferior in every way to the iron/bronze weaponry of the Romans and Spartans.

>>2231030

They'd have to know where you were first.

Which, because they either can't hear shit (due to the horses they are on), or because they aren't aware of the coming v.s. going difference in acoustics with gunfire. This could very well lead to confusion as to where the hell they are being shot from. And again, they'd have to see you shooting at them. Not quite an easy feat if the SEAL is prone, wearing camo that matches the area, and is making good use of cover. To say nothing of prep time.

>>2231046

They had no armor to speak of, and their shields were made of stretched hides. It didn't work at marathon with wicker shields and short spears, why the fuck would it work now?

>>2231047

Granted that they don't break and run from being shot, they could pretty easily tell which direction they were being shot from in a general sense. Best best is to fight dirty and take out the leader.

>>2231069

That's the thing, like Shaka, I am not sure if you could easily distinguish the leader of a Mongol cavalry troupe in general. Unless of course you looked for the guy that people seemingly were taking directions from. This might be difficult given the number and terrain though. Specifically if you don't have a height advantage. Genghis would make this even more difficult to pull off because he lived extremely simply, and adhered to a strict steppe lifestyle. You'd probably kill at least a few other guys who you thought were him before you figured out who was Genghis.

>>2231076
Shaka might be more noticeable as he comes from a tribal culture and would likely wear a more flashy war dress befitting his status as king

>>2231051
They have a sheer number advantage and are far more mobile. You're right in stating the Persians were blown out with their wicker shields and spears, but they didn't have weaponry comprised of vastly stronger metals.

To also draw an example from eastern antiquity, the Assyrians were without equal once they started producing iron weapons on a major scale. Which was, for the time, leagues ahead of your typical flavor of bronze/copper metals.

>>2231020
Phalanxes are extremely slow and ineffective in open environments (withought huge numbers) because everyone needs to be extremely coordinated to move in formation. Turning is also a large problem, and the romans took advantage of this when they invaded Greece. That combined with the weight of the weapons makes it more difficult for the spartans to be considered fast. Ideally they would be holding a chokepoint where numbers dont matter and the enemy is forced to push through a sea of spears or continuously bombard them with arrows.

>>2230821
Legionaries>Mongols=Mamluks=Crusaders>Spartans>Immortals>Samurai/Ninja>Navy SEAL>Zulu>Apache>>>>>>Maori>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Vikings