Exactly, thank you for supporting my point. You always see the same incompetence during times of expansion
Walter Model deserves more recognition.
Exactly, thank you for supporting my point. You always see the same incompetence during times of expansion
Walter Model deserves more recognition.
Here's another warrior class match-up: The Chevalier Order vs The Order of The Templars.
Chevaliers. No contest here.
Chevaliers. No contest here.
Just about.
Your average Knight can probably kill your average templar nine times out of ten.
The Ash Warriors are a ragtag group of rabble rousers... They are disorganized and and ineffective in actual warfare. They'd probably be destroyed by a cavalry charge (like just about any other disorganized group of infantry ever). Actually... I think the only group of infantry that could ever stand a cavalry charge without polearms, would be the Qunari, and that is because they have the physical power and organization to withstand it.
But answer the topic:
On the battlefield in actual warfare, it would probably be the Qunari. They are after all born and bred for singular purposes, and while the Chevaliers would also have to attend to matters of politics, the Qunari could devote all their time to perfecting the art of war and battle.
In a one-on-one scenario you can't really point to any group as superior, since it would vary widely within the groups. I'd imagine Chevaliers and Duelist, who specializes in single combat would be more likely to win fights than others.
Just about.
Your average Knight can probably kill your average templar nine times out of ten.
They have about the same equipment. It would all come down to trainning and skill, and both groups are trained meticulously for combat.
Walter Model deserves more recognition.
Given the cause he fought for, id say not really
The New Inquisition
Just about.
Your average Knight can probably kill your average templar nine times out of ten.
I think Templars would definitely fall under the criteria of "Knight" within Thedas. However, Chevaliers are anything but your average knights.
I think Templars would definitely fall under the criteria of "Knight" within Thedas. However, Chevaliers are anything but your average knights.
Did you deliberately misconstrue my statement?
I think given the context you would grasp my meaning.
Given the cause he fought for, id say not really
._.
He's one of the best strategic minds in the history of warfare.
David Gaider and bio devs.
._.
He's one of the best strategic minds in the history of warfare.
Hardly. Don't get me wrong, he was certainly skilled and gifted. But one of the best in history? No.
Did you deliberately misconstrue my statement?
I think given the context you would grasp my meaning.
Oh, I know what you meant. I'm only questioning the word choice.
Oh, I know what you meant. I'm only questioning the word choice.
Average Chevalier then?
Average Chevalier then?
That is more appropriate.
Hardly. Don't get me wrong, he was certainly skilled and gifted. But one of the best in history? No.
If you mention Rommel so help me...
Walther Model? Wooden and uncreative.
"Wooden" is a pretty appropriate word to use for this particular dick-measuring contest.
._.
The arrangement of the gun emplacements, towed rifles, artillery and armored units in Hurtgen was a masterpiece!
The killzones set up from all accounts were immensely effective and given he is the man who gave the US the biggest bloody nose of the war, i'd believe the historical accounts.
Which of the three warrior specializations in DAI do you guys think would win in an all out slug-fest, The Champion, The Templar or The Reaver?
Kesselring
...Fair enough.
Good General.
If you mention Rommel so help me...
Are you going to deny that Rommel was a skilled strategist and tactician? Because in that case you would be one of the only ones to do so. I am not saying Rommel was one of the most skilled in history either though. WW2 was actually lacking a whole lot in the field of brilliant strategists and tacticians (WW1 even more so).
Reaver all the way.