In today's military world what rank and role would the conqueror

>>33459302
not even memeing you right now, OP
>>>/his/

>>33459302
OP can't inb4
Faggot.

>>33459302
Main gunner marine

Idk fuck someone that gets to shoot big guns and giggle while he has lego key chains and a teddy bear strapped to his chest?

>>33459302
>It's yet another stupid what is the X equivalent of Y in Z? post

>>33459302
A marine

>>33459302
Toilet scrubber

File: 1490416932018.gif (143KB, 545x524px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 545x524px

>>33459302
>all those inb4s
>when they are applying to him
>somehow protecting him

>>33459302
Conquerer is an epithet not a rank. Ranks are a formilized system within a military. Epithets are names given or taken by people to enhance or explain reputation.

>>33459486
>not realizing that by using those insults you're being unoriginal and just shouting buzzwords over the internet thus making yourself look like an idiot
>the reaction gif
>>>/co/

File: 1490536882956.png (697KB, 768x1156px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 768x1156px

>>33459527
>insults
>unoriginal
>buzzwords
>implying originality and buzzwords matters when they apply specifically to you
>proceeds to evade the conversation around him by directing it at me instead of why his idea is garbage

>>33459302
special forces

although, in today's military world, combat prowess is not really a thing, not like it used to be

File: 1489752362258.jpg (12KB, 294x273px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 294x273px

>>33459556
>you're entire invading force of peasants and men at arms take over Jerusalem
>congrats, you're all special forces now

K.

>combat prowess is not really a thing, not like it used to be

Please do tell.

>>33459645
well for one troops are almost obsolete now.

but more importantly, war for several centuries has been more about the ability to reload a weapon and shoot in the general direction of the enemy than about physical prowess. Not to sound like a weeb, obviously there's the misconception of medieval warfare being like a thousand one-on-one duels happening simultaneously. I'm just saying that skill is nowhere near as important as it used to be, and that's exactly why muskets replaced bows in the first place; less training required means more troops.

File: 1490693315981.png (402KB, 452x510px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 452x510px

>>33459698
>troops are almost obsolete now

Just like how tanks are obsolete? Or attack helicopters? Or Jets? Hey man, drones are going to be obsolete too, we have jammers. Heck, we have nukes, why not just use that?

>the ability to reload a weapon and shoot in the general direction of the enemy than about physical prowess

I reckon crossing endless mountains, transversing city ruins, maneuvering through swamps, all while not getting a bullet through you, doesn't require that much skill or prowess.

I mean we all can just train our men to stand in line and fire guns at each other. Like, our military still uses muskets, obviously.

Heck, squad tactics, CQC, room clearing, load bearing, and all those are things are overrated. Modern day soldiers are so much weaker and untrained than those of antiquity, in spite of the ever increasing knowledge shared and improve nutrition within nations.

>>33459775
You know, I hate calling out strawmen, but not in this case because you point went right over your head. I never said modern soldiers are all worthless pussies, but that's really how you interpreted it

>I reckon crossing endless mountains, transversing city ruins, maneuvering through swamps, all while not getting a bullet through you, doesn't require that much skill or prowess.

That's not combat. As a side note, it's worth noting that modern soldiers carry way more than medieval ones, but that is also besides the point

>I mean we all can just train our men to stand in line and fire guns at each other.

I never implied it was easy to be a modern soldier, or that combat is worse or better in a given period. What I am saying is that individual strength is not nearly as valued as it once was, especially with the amount of weaponry that essentially removes the human factor (artillery and explosives for instance)

What I was getting at is this: there can be no such thing as a "modern day Achilles". Warfare has changed in a way that doesn't allow for "prodigies" to really stand out and make a difference. The most popular military heroes are Patton, Chris Kyle and Hatchcock, and sometimes you hear some anecdotes of courageous grunts pulling off some wild shit but that's about it.

File: tmp_3113-I LIKE TO PLAY LEGO CASTLE-636767700.png (379KB, 398x624px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 398x624px

STOP FIGHTING AND SCREAMING!

IT MAKES MY HEAD HURT ME FEEL STRESS AND ANGRY AND SAD NOW!

I NEED LEGOS AND TEDDY NOW!

STOP FIGHTING AND ARGUING STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT NOW!

RAAAAAAHHHHH RAH RAH RAH RAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

>>33459963
not him but- no, you just stated that combat prowess which would presumably be defined as a high degree of combat proficiency no longer exists because troops are almost obsolete. which is kind of retarded. by which i mean actually retarded. warfare has never been about individual skill, it's about strategy, tactics, and how well a group operates with each other. these are what make up a a military's strength. to suggest a professional soldier, in significantly better gear and with a few good hombres fighting against poorly equipt and trained peasants was so much of a more skillful endeavor back when your enemies killing you instantly and easily at a distance with the mere ability to press a lever wasn't a thing yet seems pretty silly.

>>33459302
I'd go with Warlord. As a conqueror rules by force and is generally more interested in warfare and acquiring land/power than governing which would be more of a dictators schtick.

>>33460099
I said combat prowess is no longer a "thing", in that "warrior culture" has changed. The closest thing to a modern Achilles we have is Rambo, and he's even more unrealistic than any medieval type "warrior hero", specifically because of the erratic nature of gunfights and countless other factors that changed the face of war. I was trying to explain the changes/innovations that lead to this new point of view

>strategy, tactics, and how well a group operates with each other. these are what make up a a military's strength

no shit, thanks

>>33460158
Maybe you should use more appropriate language next time. Prowess quite literally refers to one's skill at something. Also suggesting Achilles(made invulnerable by being dipped in a river, save his heel and other mythological shit) is more realistic than Rambo is pretty funny

>>33460244
Yeah, I pretty much assumed you'd understand. Although my original comment said "combat prowess is not really a thing, not like it used to be" and you read "combat prowess is non-existent in modern days"

Achilles is just the most popular example of a "great warrior" type of hero. In the Illiad he kills hundreds of men which is ridiculous, but if you compared the movie version, or used any other example of an ancient/medieval legendary figure, I'd say they're more plausible than Rambo. Even with extensive training in guerilla warfare, there's only so much a single man can do against dozens of Viet Cong soldiers (ie. not much at all)

>>33460313
>>33460244
Will you fucks just shut up goddamn jesus fucking christ quick trying to derail the fucking thread you cunts!

>>33460469
well I hate to break it to you buddy but your question was dumb.

File: IMG_0831.jpg (56KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 320x320px

>>33459302
Take your LARPing game somewhere else

File: Ajax_carrying_body_of_Achilles_2.jpg (33KB, 299x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 299x400px

>>33460469
*ACHILLES AJAX HECTOR PRIAM ODYSSEUS AGAMEMNON TROY ILLIAD*

I'm gonna name my eldest son that just to make you mad.

>>33460561
Can someone explain what larp even mean?

>>33460743
Live action role playing. Typically fantasy-themed live action games played with foam swords

>>33460787
Okay thanks

Just thought the word larp was some new dank crap meme like braaaapt is with /v/