armyreal.com - Forums

Go Back   ArmyReal.com Forums > Military Discussions > Armies of the World
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #111  
Old 12-24-2005, 07:59 AM
RM_Brit RM_Brit is offline
Recruit
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: England, Leeds
Posts: 3
Default

hi all, i was wondering if any of you could give me a brief explantion on how this site works.
Reply With Quote

  #112  
Old 12-24-2005, 10:58 AM
TopGun TopGun is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 49
Default

To Texas:

You are mistaken. You were talking about the Holy Roman Reich of the German Nation, which was founded in 962. I was talking about the Kingdom of Germany, which was founded in 919.

Last edited by TopGun; 12-26-2005 at 04:50 AM..
Reply With Quote

  #113  
Old 12-25-2005, 02:47 AM
Texas's Avatar
Texas Texas is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TopGun
To Texas:

You are mistaken. You were talking about the Holy Roman Reich of the German Nation, which was founded in 962. I was talking about the Kingdom of Germany, which was founded in 911.
One of the largest Germanic tribes, the Franks, came to control the territory that was to become France and much of what is now western Germany and Italy. In A.D. 800 their ruler, Charlemagne, was crowned in Rome by the pope as emperor of all of this territory. Because of its vastness, Charlemagne's empire split into three kingdoms within two generations, the inhabitants of the West Frankish Kingdom speaking an early form of French and those in the East Frankish Kingdom speaking an early form of German. The tribes of the eastern kingdom--Franconians, Saxons, Bavarians, Swabians, and several others--were ruled by descendants of Charlemagne until 911, when they elected a Franconian, Conrad I, to be their king. Some historians regard Conrad's election as the beginning of what can properly be considered German history.
German kings soon added the Middle Kingdom to their realm and adjudged themselves rulers of what would later be called the Holy Roman Empire. In 962 Otto I became the first of the German kings crowned emperor in Rome. By the middle of the next century, the German lands ruled by the emperors were the richest and most politically powerful part of Europe. German princes stopped the westward advances of the Magyar tribe, and Germans began moving eastward to begin a long process of colonization. During the next few centuries, however, the great expense of the wars to maintain the empire against its enemies, chiefly other German princes and the wealthy and powerful papacy and its allies, depleted Germany's wealth and slowed its development. Unlike France or England, where a central royal power was slowly established over regional princes, Germany remained divided into a multitude of smaller entities often warring with one another or in combinations against the emperors. None of the local princes, or any of the emperors, were strong enough to control Germany for a sustained period.
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #114  
Old 12-25-2005, 04:04 AM
TopGun TopGun is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 49
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas
Some historians regard Conrad's election as the beginning of what can properly be considered German history.
The first king of Germany I was talking about was not Conrad I, it was Henry I.
Reply With Quote

  #115  
Old 12-25-2005, 04:16 AM
Texas's Avatar
Texas Texas is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TopGun
The first king of Germany I was talking about was not Conrad I, it was Henry I.
Henry I, the Fowler (German: Heinrich der Finkler or Heinrich der Vogler) (876 - July 2, 936), was Duke of Saxony from 912 and king of the Germans from 919 until his death in 936.
__________________
Reply With Quote

  #116  
Old 01-08-2006, 02:51 PM
royalmarinehopefull royalmarinehopefull is offline
Sergeant First Class
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: liverpool, britian
Posts: 181
Default

HI ALL
well long time no see
glad to see my thread is still giong
Reply With Quote

  #117  
Old 01-09-2006, 11:25 AM
royal marine's Avatar
royal marine royal marine is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: high wycombe, buckingamshire
Posts: 1,000
Send a message via MSN to royal marine
Default

to lenin-stop talking about the bulgarians being so good we kicked your arse many a times back in the days

to top gun-just srop it for gods sake youre missing the fact that germany lost because once they took france they went staright onto russia as well as the battle of britain, if you would of just concentrated all your forces on britain and europe then by joe think i would be talking the german bloody language right now
i agree that your commanders were **** though, if kettering would of taken more command then we would of been in deep trouble
so just imagine the shock at smolensk!
imagine that if you had already taken europe and ALL your forces were going across the russian border, but i suppose the russians wouldof beaten you back the half of russia you took so quickly was just a barren wasteland, your real fighting started at moscow and further on
as an all its a hard one to say what the outcomes of WW2 would of been if you would not of moved onto russia so quick!
__________________
what manner of men are these maroon berets
Reply With Quote

  #118  
Old 01-09-2006, 10:25 PM
Lockdown89 Lockdown89 is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 38
Default my 2 dollars

Hey whats going on. This is my first post so i thought it should be a good one.

1. As far as Britian's Military History goes. "The sun never set on the British Empire. Dominion over palm and pine." These guys owned over 2/3 of the known world at one point.
Anyway you cant base a military power based on its past.

2. Rangers are INDEED part of USSOCOM. While true, some soliders do use it as a stepping stone to Special Forces/DELTA. They are a force depolyed by USSOCOM. They can be deployed themselves, or with other miilitary units. But you do have to get your Ranger Tags, before you can go try out to do the Special Forces Schools. You have to do the Darby Queen before you can do the Nasty Nick. As far as Marines being to the Navy what Rangers are to the Army. Sorry, thats incorrect. Our Marine forces are Damn good. But rangers school is much more complex and difficult then Marine Basic and AIT. For arguments sake they are more like the Navy's Airborne. Dont get me wrong Im talking about basic fleet marines. There are Marine divisions out there that are better trainded then Rangers.

3. As far as Quality between US forces and British Forces. Lets put it this way, None of the basic training in any of the US militaries Boot Camp is set up for failure. They dont like to loose people during boot camp its cost a lot of money to train people. This is because of turn-over ratio's, manning, and such. Bascially the U.S. has a lot of territory to cover. While Britian does not have as much. So Britian can afford to be a lot more stingy about who makes it in their training programs and who doesnt. IF someone cant make the cut. O well too bad. To be perfectly honest. I wish we could afford to be more stingy, there are too many people in the military that dont deserve to be in. Much less hold rank. But all in all if you linded up our best 200 thousand (or whatever the british army numbers are) Soliders, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines. You would find its about the same Quality of people. And saying who's better is just a matter of being Biased.
Reply With Quote

  #119  
Old 01-09-2006, 10:40 PM
kurusch's Avatar
kurusch kurusch is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lockdown89
Hey whats going on. This is my first post so i thought it should be a good one.

1. As far as Britian's Military History goes. "The sun never set on the British Empire. Dominion over palm and pine." These guys owned over 2/3 of the known world at one point.
Anyway you cant base a military power based on its past.

2. Rangers are INDEED part of USSOCOM. While true, some soliders do use it as a stepping stone to Special Forces/DELTA. They are a force depolyed by USSOCOM. They can be deployed themselves, or with other miilitary units. But you do have to get your Ranger Tags, before you can go try out to do the Special Forces Schools. You have to do the Darby Queen before you can do the Nasty Nick. As far as Marines being to the Navy what Rangers are to the Army. Sorry, thats incorrect. Our Marine forces are Damn good. But rangers school is much more complex and difficult then Marine Basic and AIT. For arguments sake they are more like the Navy's Airborne. Dont get me wrong Im talking about basic fleet marines. There are Marine divisions out there that are better trainded then Rangers.

3. As far as Quality between US forces and British Forces. Lets put it this way, None of the basic training in any of the US militaries Boot Camp is set up for failure. They dont like to loose people during boot camp its cost a lot of money to train people. This is because of turn-over ratio's, manning, and such. Bascially the U.S. has a lot of territory to cover. While Britian does not have as much. So Britian can afford to be a lot more stingy about who makes it in their training programs and who doesnt. IF someone cant make the cut. O well too bad. To be perfectly honest. I wish we could afford to be more stingy, there are too many people in the military that dont deserve to be in. Much less hold rank. But all in all if you linded up our best 200 thousand (or whatever the british army numbers are) Soliders, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines. You would find its about the same Quality of people. And saying who's better is just a matter of being Biased.

Welcome to the madhouse and it's nice to read some well balanced views.
__________________

'Never was so much owed by so many to so few.'
Sir Winston Churchill.

Nearly 750,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion. That is a cause for shame, not pride.
Reply With Quote

  #120  
Old 01-09-2006, 10:58 PM
Lockdown89 Lockdown89 is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 38
Default

thanks it good to be here!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:30 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    
·Contact Us   ·Legal   ·Privacy   ·Link To Us    ·Advertise With Us    ·About Us    ·Site Map     
     Copyright 2004-2019 Activv, LLC. All rights reserved. Armyreal.com is a service provided by Activv.
This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country.