Talk:Sangheili

New Ranks
Maybe we should add a new line to the rank table template called "Storm" and have "Infantry" "Ranger" "Commander" "Warrior" n "Zealot". Thoughts?

Agreed. Since the "Storm" is only a splinter faction of the former-Covenant (which has now broken up and disseminated since the Great War) and, in certain aspects, completely different from the Covenant military altogether; it only makes sense if we create and organize a separate rank structure for the newly specific military roles Storm has introduced. Granted, some are, in retrospect to the time-era, related to titles given by the Covenant from before (suck as the Ranger specialists), they are still different. It should also include the member species as well if the Administration chooses so. Killjax 22:23, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Another attempt to fix the ranks/titles
This has been brought up before, but it was not implemented (to my knowledge). I made an attempt similar to the linked, but without using a table. This is because the information in the table misleads readers into thinking that they are a hierarchy. By eliminating the table and putting the ranks/titles into paragraphs, I think this new format presents the information better and more accurate. — subtank   23:55, 30 September 2012 (EDT)


 * Of course not, the user that brought it up was too afraid (or lazy) to edit the article himself, instead attempting to goad other editors into implementing his ideas. Anyway, I read your page, it's much clearer than having a table (unless said table can be organized close to how you have it written there).  Smoke Sound off! 09:32, 1 October 2012 (EDT)


 * I tried using a table (and images) but it looked disproportionate and out of place. If we can nail this one, we can use the same format for the rest of the Covenant.— subtank   13:29, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

Page picture.
Would this be a more suitable image? I ask this because he is standing upright while the current one is hunched over.ArchedThunder 05:18, 30 October 2012 (EDT)


 * I prefer the current one; the hunched-over stature is fairly natural to more recent depictions of the Sangheili. Plus the swordsman stance looks better in the title image than the Warrior's "come at me bro" pose. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 06:18, 30 October 2012 (EDT)
 * I also prefer the current one, I just thought I'd bring it up since the Elite is standing up straight in that image and I didn't know if others would prefer that.ArchedThunder 06:22, 30 October 2012 (EDT)

Mary Sue-like description of racial traits? (2)
Okay, rather than pointing out the many flaws in your argument's logic in a long list, I'll just go over the essential points. Humanity didn't lose all of their worlds--a good number of the Inner Colonies were outright never even contested, as the Covenant went straight after Reach, then Earth, within the span of less than a year. Losing a war does not mean you are less competent at warfare, or even that your military is inferior. Here's an example: The Winter War. Finland against Soviet Russia, one on one. Despite having inferior technology, vastly inferior numbers, and no ability to go on the offensive, Finland avoided total defeat and inflicted a casualty ratio of more than 4-to-1. Why? Because of vastly superior tactics, strategy, use of available tech/resources, and ingenuity. In the Halo 'verse, humanity uses superior tactics and strategy than the Covenant every. single. time. Why do they ever lose? The Covenant have vastly superior technology, numbers, and insurmountable strategic initiative. The Fall of Reach? A vastly outnumbered and outgunned UNSC force inflicted vastly disproportionate casualties through the use of far superior tactics, strategy, intelligence, organization, and ingenuity. Name a battle, and the Covenant either lose against all odds or win with far heavier losses (or with far less efficiency) than any half-competent tactician/commander/force should. And it's not rocket science as to why--religious fanatics raised in a society built upon corruption, superstitious feelings, caste-based governing and rule, advancement-by-faith-or-feats, and an honor-bound warrior-culture that pits soldiers in duels to the death as part of training and selection are extremely unlikely to make good tacticians or leaders. When a harsh code of honor completely overrides rationalism, pragmatism, or survival (and even victory), you are not a good tactician; at best, you're good in spite of all those things. Okay, next; the Elites were the best fighting force in the galaxy because they hadn't been defeated? Not only is that not true (they lost to the Prophets, in large part because they--irrationally--refused to even study the highly advanced Forerunner relics for religious/dogmatic reasons, something that the Prophets themselves had no problem doing), but their toughest competition after that defeat was the Jackals--and in this case, it took a while for the Elites to wear down disorganized groups of pirates whose ships weren't even capable of FTL (and even then, the war ended when the Prophets struck a deal to basically give the Jackals a small degree of autonomy and monetary dispensation for their services). The Hunters? The Elites got their asses kicked on the ground, and resorted to threatening orbital bombardment to get victory--against a race that had no combat spacecraft at all, or colonies. Grunts? Similar story. The Brutes were fairly willing to join without being at the end of a gun. As for the super advanced technology they do possess, it's pretty much a given that the vast majority of it comes from the Prophets and/(perhaps OR)Engineers, who are basically 'do everything for you, including self-replicate and self-educate' supercomputer engineers that already know a good deal about Forerunner tech. And after the end of the H-C War, the Elites can't even build new ships because they don't know how (says a lot, there). Until the Prophets completely drop off the map, the Brutes are actually winning against the Elites because the Prophets help them keep building ships. As for treating the Elites, an entire race, as a single person for stereotyping purposes--I'm not doing that; the article in its current form does, describing all Elites as intelligent, very strong, cunning warriors with intense bravery (and so forth). The problem is, you can't find more than a handful of Elites that match that description, but you can very easily find countless examples of ones that contradict it. The only cases of Elites winning battles/engagements through superior tactics/intelligence are against Brutes--who are repeatedly demonstrated to be quite stupid in most areas (though to be fair, I'm sure a good deal of that is due to deficiencies in their culture, society, governing systems, etc, not so much to biology) and have only been using Covenant-level tech for a few decades, compared to the centuries/millennia for Elites. Oh, and remember Thel's first mission as the Arbiter? That clever/suicidally brave idea he came up with for dealing with the Heretic faction and its leader? The fact that it wasn't the first idea they had is alarmingly stupid/irrationally dense of them. In most cases, the tactical skill level that Elites show is an adept understanding of animalistic, hunting-style methodology against small groups of prey. In naval battles, they literally prefer to charge head-on into close combat regardless of the nuances or details of the situation. It says a great deal when the highest-ranked Elite soldiers fight like shock-troops, individually, on the front lines wielding swords in a battlefield of guns, explosives, vehicles, and many kinds of fire and air support--not commanding or leading, but personally rushing into the fray with a knife in a gunfight. SaltyWaffles 17:21, 30 October 2012 (EDT)SaltyWaffles


 * The entire situation with the Human-Covenant War is essentially an Outer Context Problem. To use examples from the events of World War Two is wrong: those empires/governments/factions are similar in terms of military technological achievement. The easiest and best example of understanding how the Human-Covenant War was fought is to look back to events during the expansion of the Old Empires (i.e. British, Spanish, Dutch, French) on native lands of the Americas, Indian Seas, Africa and the islands near Australia, where most native empires are driven to extinction. Military commanders have the tendency to be bold (and make rash decision) when they are technologically superior than their opponent, eventually underestimating their opponent's abilities (i.e. recent example being Afghanistan War and the '60s-'80s Vietnam War). — subtank   21:52, 30 October 2012 (EDT)