# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Who are the Greatest warriors in history

## Zauriel

Who do you think are the greatest warriors in history? I can't decide which group of warriors are the best, since each group has their own strengths, weaknesses, codes of honor, tactics, fighting skills and weapons. 

I think I'll go for Samurai because they are skilled and ruthless fighters. 

I'm not going to include soldiers from modern history because their new warfare is far more sophisticated.

----------


## nurizeko

My vote was completely an utterly bias in favour of where my loyalties lie, as such i have no realy good reason to put them above the rest.

 :Relieved:

----------


## Dutch Baka

This is a difficult choice, all of above have the same kind of weapons, but my interest is in Japanese history, so I choose for the Samurai, but if they were the best*that will nobody know*... to bad they were not tested by the Mongols, that would have been a nice fight, (sorry I watch it from a strong , not strong position not about deaths)the Japanese sword was probably one of the strongest (maybe the knight had stronger but heavier swords) and most easy(musketeers had an easier sword, but not as strong as the katana) to use weapons too (am i right)

were there any foreign samurai's in Japan? 

I kind of miss the sword fights , now its only pressing some button, it's not fair anymore!!!!! at least the old fights were more fair!

Also I find the Ninja very strong, I mean they still use tactics from the Ninja nowadays. Nice thread you put up

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

Its a very difficult choice because its not that specific, if i do i a little bit of research even on the ones i do not know very well i can find many honerable things about them, but it depends very much on the time periods we are looking at. 
Before the age of ghengis khan, the mongels had a very unorganised society consisting of scattered tribes, bandits, merchants, common folk and thieves- they were only really interested in their own affairs back then. When ghengis khan came along with his bloody conquests and united the mongels and the vast bulk of the empires and nations in the world at that time, the mongels really came into their own as far as warriors and a new modern society is concerned.
I certainly wouldn't call the roman gladiaters the best warriors of all time though, any up-to-date historian will tell you now days that most gladiators were just common criminals or poor people dragged off the streets and pitted in the stadiums together to fight it out for their lives, or get slaughtered in a huge variety of barbaric and cruel ways for entertainment often with no hope of survival.
European knights, well, thats really vague...If you are talking about the english knights of chivalry and morals, well, some knights were very honerable, especially those close to the queen, but most were just thugs who did what they pleased while not called into service and went around murdering each other for their weapons or posessions and similar things.
Most people view the vikings as migrants who moved to the shores of britain for trade, wealth and more importantly- farming. Yes, most of the vikings were simply tribal lords who heard of the fertile varied lands we have over here, in comparsion to their sparse unfertile soils, and came over here for a better life in general. Its true that some vikings did the whole traditional "lets rampage through the monastarys and kill all the monks, burn the books and steal the relics, tapestries and other priceless items", but this was mostly in the name of funding their oversea's campaigns, but most vikings were simply interested in the farming prospects over here.

----------


## PRIZMATIC

Without personal opinion:
There are two definitions of soldiers:
- His relation to death...
- And for what he it makes...
Also there is " an art of fight "...
From this also is defined - what it is the soldier...
Also there is a culture of education of soldiers... And culture of their behaviour...

----------


## Mitsuo

I don't know, I have never fought against them. Except that one time when that mongol tripped me on the way to school. A lot of pushing.

But I chose the Samurai of course. Look at my last name. Anyway, I also think that the gladiators were good. 

Dose damn Mongorians. Jk.lol. South Park joke.

----------


## moffeltoff

Well the most efficient killers on the battlefield was a group formed about 60 years ago ,which members were later hunted down by the allied forces of WWII.
But then again you would probably see them as criminals rather than warriors ,which is probably right.

----------


## Elizabeth van Kampen

Ever since I started learning history at school I have never stopped admiring the Roman Gladiators. Their history still fascinates me up till today.

And then of course there was Napoleon.

----------


## Dutch Baka

But napoleon had guns.... mainly

----------


## moffeltoff

So did the Janissaries and the Musketeers or why else would the be could Musketeers ,if they had nothing to do with muskets (guns)?

----------


## Dutch Baka

THE Musketeers had swords.. the other musketeers had muskets..

----------


## moffeltoff

> THE Musketeers had swords.. the other musketeers had muskets..


Yes but THE Musketeers never existed =)

----------


## Dutch Baka

For me they did haha.. sorry let this topic remain serious hahaha

----------


## Reiku

Well, guns were used by Samurai in the later periods...

...and the weapon doesn't really make the warrior, in any event...

...as for my opinion:

Well, we'll never know untill they fight each other--so how about we lift that ban on human cloning and get to work on this?  :Laughing:

----------


## moffeltoff

> For me they did haha.. sorry let this topic remain serious hahaha


http://www.online-literature.com/dumas/threemusketeers/

----------


## Mycernius

This is a difficult question to answer. One reason is that under a brilliant leader any of the warriors mentioned could excel on th battlefield. Under an incompetant leader even the best would be defeated and turn and run.
I wouldn't class gladiators as warriors. They were people that were forced into the arena to fight for entertainment. Most were poor and criminals and many, despite being trained, wouldn't be expected to last too long. Only the smart and wily fighters managed to gain freedom and respect. The only time they ever proved themselves in organised battle was during the slaves revolt, led by Sparticus. After a great many victories, partially due to inept Roman leaders and the large numbers of slaves, the revolt was crushed under Pompey and their corpses lined the Appian way. Which rather shows the point of a professional army, the legionary, under the command of a good general can crush a larger, unorganised rabble. If you want to name the better warriors of this time then I would go for the Roman Legionaires.
The same can be said for the mongols. Under Genghis Khan they became an orgaised army ,but after his death tribal rivalries took over and they eventually collaspsed and weren't much threat to anyone.
The there is comparison. How do you compare a Samurai to a European Knight? A samurai has his sword and armour, but it is not as effective as european armour. Samurai armour was made to deflect a katana sword, a light slicing sword. European armour was heavier and made to defect a heavier broadsword. European broadswords were disigned more to break bones and crush rather than cut. After all they had to go through plate armour. European knights on their horses were equivalent to a tank on a battle field, but even they could be bought down by archers; see Agincourt and Crecy. Should also remember that samurai never really fought anyone outside of Japan while other warriors mentioned fought a variety of armies.
Overall I would say one of the best were the Spartans. Raised from birth to fight, they were one of the most effective fighters of their age. But, as with all warriors and fighters, they had their day and ended up conquered by a more modern army and gradually fell into corruption and inept leaders and fighters.

----------


## Jack

Out of all of them, the mongols and the romans achieved a lot, so i say the mongols.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

I cannot decide at the moment between the vikings and the mongels...The mongels took over half of the known world at the time of ghengis khan, and were some of the first people recorded to use many of the commonly used tactics of warfare today, they united many nations and empires in peace ironically by using great means of bloodshed, but then again, although some of the things that ghengis khan did in his day would appall and disgust most of us today, he was living in a different time back then when those sorts of things were common practice and resonably acceptable. Most of what drove ghengis khans conquests though as time went by was not the fight for freedom and peace but rather the promise of treasure after he conquered each nation to fund his ever expanding army and to keep it together, and to quell any disagreements from other countries who did not agree with his actions.

Aside from the occasional monastry slaughter to fund their armys, the vikings came primarily to england for trade and farming to help their people prosper. Unlike ghengis khans people, the vikings people were already quite united when they went on their conquests, but were in danger of falling apart as lords and tribal leaders started to fight each other more and more over the shrinking amount of land available and inheritance to set up their own villages. So in effect they were doing it for the general overall good of their people and the peace of their nation...I guess one of the things you have to ask yourself with these sorts of things, is how noble you consider each warriors cause and how you can justify their actions  :Doubt:  ...The mongels knew and had confidence they would win their battles almost everytime, but the vikings were always in doubt wether they could make each conquest as they sent their warriors into the unknown harsh sea's everytime for the good of their people...

----------


## Mitsuo

the roman empire was quite powerful. the gladiators I admire too, because they fought for their own freedom, I think.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> the roman empire was quite powerful. the gladiators I admire too, because they fought for their own freedom, I think.


The whole fighting for freedom thing is mainly a hollywood notion, the vast majority of gladiators had no hope of suvival let alone freedom, it was mostly just an equivilant to a death sentence in the name of entertainment. Most were just poor people, beggers or petty criminals/thieves dragged off the streets because they often had shortages of real criminals. You also have to remember that hundreds of thousands of christians were massacred in the arena for their beliefs along with many other people of other religeons. Many of the so-called barbarians the romans were fighting were disgusted at a lot of what went on in the roman arena's ironically. You have to remember though this is not a thread about great nations/empires but rather warriors.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

One of the things i like about ghengis khan empire though, unlike so many nations or empires throughout ancient/old history, is that he was very open-minded about other religeons, and unlike such people like the romans or western knights, every time he conquered a country he let them carry on their own beliefs about religeon rather than massacre anyone who didn't conform to his way of thinking. He increased trade throughout all the countrys he conquered and open up trade between countries where there was no trade before, his people led very prosperous lives during his age, he brought the people together and stopped the fighting that was tearing his homeland mongolia apart, he enforced the morality of and emphasis on loyality and honesty and judged people for who they were rather than what familys or powerful people they were connected too. 
Many of his generals were not people appointed to him because they had good conections or came from a noble family or whatever, but rather because they had showed loyality and respect towards him. His people were loyal to him because of this, and he treated people very fairly as long as they showed loyality to him- and they never broke his trust.

----------


## Zauriel

> One of the things i like about ghengis khan empire though, unlike so many nations or empires throughout ancient/old history, is that he was very open-minded about other religeons, and unlike such people like the romans or western knights, every time he conquered a country he let them carry on their own beliefs about religeon rather than massacre anyone who didn't conform to his way of thinking. He increased trade throughout all the countrys he conquered and open up trade between countries where there was no trade before, his people led very prosperous lives during his age, he brought the people together and stopped the fighting that was tearing his homeland mongolia apart, he enforced the morality of and emphasis on loyality and honesty and judged people for who they were rather than what familys or powerful people they were connected too. 
> Many of his generals were not people appointed to him because they had good conections or came from a noble family or whatever, but rather because they had showed loyality and respect towards him. His people were loyal to him because of this, and he treated people very fairly as long as they showed loyality to him- and they never broke his trust.


QUOTED FOR EMPHASIS!

I admire Genghis Khan's perspective on the definitions of loyalty and treason. 
Genghis Khan values geniune loyalty in any soldier even on his enemies' sides. And he wouldn't trust especially those who sell his enemies to him. I think he's right. If a soldier can sell his leader to you, then he can sell you to your enemy, too. Traitors have no loyalty to anyone except themselves. How can you trust somebody who always switches sides even though he has changed from your enemies' side to your side? 

The paragraph below is from http://www.leader-values.com/Content...ntDetailID=799

He recognized the values of his individual enemies. He would put to death a soldier who had tried to be disloyal to their own commander, by, for example, betraying the commander to Genghis. However, he would pardon and even bestow honours and responsibility on those who had fought loyally for their commander - even if against Genghis. In fact one of his most trusted generals, Jebe, was once a young opposing soldier who shot Genghis' horse from under him in battle.

----------


## Martialartsnovice

My Choices are:
#1 Samurai & Ninja
#2 Mongols/Huns
#3 Chinese
#4 Scottish Highlanders/Celts
#5 Viking/Teutonic/Medival Knights
#6Roman Gladiators

----------


## Da Monstar

Vikings of course. Who invaded England? vikings did  :Laughing: 
They wasn't about nobelty or shivalry and they were nordic

----------


## Mitsuo

> The whole fighting for freedom thing is mainly a hollywood notion, the vast majority of gladiators had no hope of suvival let alone freedom, it was mostly just an equivilant to a death sentence in the name of entertainment. Most were just poor people, beggers or petty criminals/thieves dragged off the streets because they often had shortages of real criminals. You also have to remember that hundreds of thousands of christians were massacred in the arena for their beliefs along with many other people of other religeons. Many of the so-called barbarians the romans were fighting were disgusted at a lot of what went on in the roman arena's ironically. You have to remember though this is not a thread about great nations/empires but rather warriors.



Yeah, I thought so, I wasn't sure about the freedom thing. But I still think they were good warriors. Yes, it is barbaric, but that doesn't take away their so called warrior skill. Although I don't think they can be compared to the samurai. 
Well, what I meant by the Roman Empire was that I think that they had good warriors. They had a great leader, Julius Caesar, which made them great warriors (boosted their moral), they had good training. So Im not talking about a nation, or empire, but more like the entire group of fighters within the empire were good warriors. So, I didn't go off topic there.

----------


## Silverbackman

Top 5 from the list provided would be;

1. Mongols
2. Roman Gladiators
3. European Knights
4. French Musketeers
5. Japanese Samurai And Ninjas

Mongols would very much be at the top, no warrior had as superior tactics, mobility, and bow strength.

Roman Gladiators would probably come next. They compete so competition creates powerful things. Warriors being no exception.

European Knights would come next. They has some of the best armor in history and were highly trained warriors.

The French Musketeers aren't to be underestimated. Their skills with the rapier are so quick that many fighters would have a very tough time with them.

The Japanese are number 5 obviously because of their strong warrior ethics and discipline. Ninjas are even more deadly with the greatest stealth in the world.

All other warriors follow closely behind.

----------


## No-name

"Wars not make one great."

Yoda

A single batallion of todays trained and equiped US Marines could wipe any of those guys out in a matter of days. Technology rocks. Mongolian calvary vs. 
Abrams tanks--- I think the taks will win.

----------


## SortOf

is the best warrior

----------


## Duo

I would say for inovative reasons ninjas were to be admired. Studying how people sleep they would notice fake patterns, techniques to walk on rice paper, hunger and thirst pills, fakin their own death...using candle light to dialate their pupils for better vision... wearin dark blue and red clothing so they would absorb the night light.. poisened tip throw weapons... for innovation they get my vote. Janissaries were also quite good. The backbone of the Ottoman empire. Trained since childhood to be warriors. The greatest warriors are those who don't have to fight in my view

----------


## No-name

Ninjas technically speaking aren't warriors. They didn't fight wars at all.

----------


## Mycernius

A bit like roman gladiators. They just fought for the entertainment industry.
I would define a warrior as someone who fights on a battle field ie: belongs to an army of some description.

----------


## Panta Ray

My Choices are: Mongols, Huns, Janissaries and Serbs (Hajduci, Uskoci, trcepozivci) - Greatest warriors in history!

----------


## Sensuikan San

A difficult one in so many different ways; it all seems to depend upon what you define as a warrior.

I finally decided upon pure courage and determination as a yardstick ... and may well be held to task for my choice(s); but I have two:

i) The International Brigaders sent into Madrid in 1936/37, during the Spanish Civil War.

Essentially _totally untrained_ volunteers (about two weeks basic training, max. - often without arms) of diverse nationality (but at that time, mostly German with a few French and English thrown in ...) - these guys were civilian volunteers who were thrown into a front line, held it, repelled it and managed to create a situation where Fascist forces were held at bay for almost three years.

ii) The United States Marines - WWII, Pacific Theatre.

OK - you may laugh! But these guys were mostly fresh out of the States, well trained (?) but inexperienced, and thrown into one of the most barbaric wars of modern history with no-holds-barred, and against a strong and mst determined enemy; they seem to have done a half-assed good job of it from what I see!

I don't think you have to go back into antiquity for courage - although - I wouldn't have wanted to be at Agincourt, either!

W

----------


## Mycernius

Agincourt was one hell of a battle. Imagine being outnumbered 4 to 1, exhausted and hungry and facing armoured knights. Yet they did it
I have found info here if anyone is interested.

----------


## Philip

Hehe.... I most agree with monstar. Vikings are the best. It was only a sunday expedition when they invaded England. And everytme the Romans tried to conquer the Vikings. The romans got their ass kicked.  :Joyful:   :Yeahh:

----------


## Clawn

The Spartans were the best fighting force of their time, in my opinion. I have a few, so I'll make a list.
SpartansSamuraiKnightsVikings!!!

----------


## Martialartsnovice

Ancronym Abuse Association, lol

Well, Ive been doing some reading and studying lately

Im have decided to revise my choices

1) Samurai & Ninja
2) Monguls
3) European Knights
4) All Others

I like the samurai for their discipline, kinda reminds me of the USMC, and the Ninjas for their training in stealth and covert operations like the CIA.

Mongols were by far the most successful armed calvary soldiers, so they are definitely a force to be reckoned with at any meeting.

European Knights because they brought back many things that they learned from culture exchange during the time between Crusade fighting.

----------


## jason

> Who do you think are the greatest warriors in history? I can't decide which group of warriors are the best, since each group has their own strengths, weaknesses, codes of honor, tactics, fighting skills and weapons. 
> 
> I think I'll go for Samurai because they are skilled and ruthless fighters. 
> 
> I'm not going to include soldiers from modern history because their new warfare is far more sophisticated.




just a reaction to the statement above:
winston churchill said that the filipino warrior is the greatest warrior. For with their fierce resistance it saved australia from the japanese and gave the allies enough time to prepare against the japanese. That all done with few modern weapons and with their bolos and sticks. There are documented skirmishes where a single eskrimador disarmed and killed several japanese soldiers and faced a katana weilding samurai officer, which he disarmed and killed with his kali stick, and many other war stories. It is also said that ( i havent seen the actual document/article) that Miyamoto Mushashi the greatest samurai was outclassed by a kali warrior. Being a warrior i think is different from being a soldier. warriors strive for individual glory or the glory of their warrior society, soldiers are DIFFERENT. For individual merit and prowess in combat, few if any can match a real master of Kali, and its practitioner the Filipino warrior.

----------


## jason

> Who do you think are the greatest warriors in history? I can't decide which group of warriors are the best, since each group has their own strengths, weaknesses, codes of honor, tactics, fighting skills and weapons. 
> 
> I think I'll go for Samurai because they are skilled and ruthless fighters. 
> 
> I'm not going to include soldiers from modern history because their new warfare is far more sophisticated.



Read the Battle of Yultong/ Chosin Reservoir. ANd the Battalion Combat Teams of the Philippines in the korean war. WHere alone they faced 200,000 chinese soldiers when the line held by (Turks and an african Nation and americans? retreated)to their left and right broke. 8000 Filipino soldiers stood their ground and not only defending but counterattacking as well with devastating results. When a Gloucester Somrthing? unit of the English were surrounded, massive efforts were made to rescue the doomed english solders surrounded by a vast arrmy, Only filipino soldiers came closest within a mile, but sadly they were ordered back. all english soldiers persihed. there are great warriorsevery where

----------


## Silverbackman

Oh wait I almost forgot about the War Elephants. Most civilizations that encountered the War Elephant (whether in India, Persia, or Carthage), were pretty much scared shitless until they and their comrades were gored all at once.

----------


## Silverbackman

The combined power of the armored tank like elephants with archers, javelin throwers, and musketeers on top reigning down death on the enemy.

----------


## black_tiger

> Who do you think are the greatest warriors in history? I can't decide which group of warriors are the best, since each group has their own strengths, weaknesses, codes of honor, tactics, fighting skills and weapons. 
> 
> I think I'll go for Samurai *because they are skilled and ruthless fighters.* 
> 
> I'm not going to include soldiers from modern history because their new warfare is far more sophisticated.


 
But...they were all skilled and ruthless. The Gladiators especially. I do admire the discipline of the Samurai though.

BTW, where are the Spartans?

----------


## black_tiger

> This is a difficult choice, all of above have the same kind of weapons, but my interest is in Japanese history, so I choose for the Samurai, but if they were the best*that will nobody know*... to bad they were not tested by the Mongols, that would have been a nice fight, (sorry I watch it from a strong , not strong position not about deaths)the Japanese sword was probably one of the strongest (maybe the knight had stronger but heavier swords) and most easy(musketeers had an easier sword, but not as strong as the katana) to use weapons too (am i right)
> 
> were there any foreign samurai's in Japan? 
> 
> I kind of miss the sword fights , now its only pressing some button, it's not fair anymore!!!!! at least the old fights were more fair!
> 
> *Also I find the Ninja very strong,* I mean they still use tactics from the Ninja nowadays. Nice thread you put up


Ninja weren't warriors. They were assassins. They were hired by anyone, loyal to none but their Ninja Clan. 

Samurai despised Ninja thinking them sneaky and dishonorable. To a Samurai, anyone who would not face the enemy honorably...but instead killed through deception (or even while a target was asleep), was to be loathed.

----------


## rms2

I voted "Roman Gladiators". They came from all over the Empire and so represented the best fighters from among many different peoples. Add to that the facts that they got a lot of practice and were called on to fight for their very lives on a regular basis without the aid of a company of comrades.

Besides, "Gladiator" is one of my all-time favorite movies!  :Cool V:

----------


## Cristian

propably the mongols

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

Mongols, most likely.

----------


## Maciamo

I would like to say Spartan phalanx and Roman legions (in the first century BCE and CE) instead of Roman gladiators. Both were extremely well trained, organised and disciplined. The Spartans were probably superior in training but lacked a diversified army with cavalry and ballistic weapons. 

The Huns, Mongols or Vikings just went rampage on a terrorised population. The code of honour of the samurai is very useful in combat (it's not a strategy). European knights were vary variable, but overall disorganised and individualistic. Musketeers were not particularly brilliant. Anyone can shoot a gun.

----------


## Radegast

Slavs warriors are greatest warriors of the world! They had grasped up half of Europe by the end of the 970 year. With prince(knyaz) Svyatoslav Igorevich they had destroyed Khazarian Kaganat when Europe walked under table. Visantia had paid tribute before the Christain came in their(our!) land. 
They were brave and honour warriors. They protected the native land without fear of death. They were greatest warriors!

Who were the mongols? They were BIG heap of the weak warriors with Chinese equipment and fear in eyes. If you have big army, it doesn't means that you have good warriors.

----------


## dnabuff

I am Italian and was a student at SOAS, I think the Arabs of the meditereanea were underated. They actually expand from Bedoins Arab peninsula towards the north to sacked the Persians and Byzantines and settled in Spain and move towards India and steps of china less than 120 years, I think thats amazing Warriors .

After further readings the earlier arabs were not taught to surrender and can invade a large Army even tho they had smaller troops

Arabic speaking people invaded Spain, South Portugan, Sicily Mid East, Persia up to India and steps of China, I think its remakable! And they fought and even brought science to Spain and beyond, and thats a Bonus!

Muscles and Brauns

But like all, they went down, everything that goes up has to come down

XXX

----------


## dnabuff

By the way Assasins comes from Syria Hashashins

I cant believe no one mentioned Arabs who was clearly all over Spain, Portugal, Southern France, Sicily, NOrth Africa ( and brough berbers ), Persia, Causcasus , steps of China and north India and Sindh.

They hold on to Spain for 900 years

Even the Vikings were reported to respected them.

Thats not amazing and I dont know what to say

----------


## DavidCoutts

My personal favourites, the guys I'd want to have my back if I was fighting hand to hand and blade to blade, are, in no particular order:

Norsemen, especially Wolfshirts or Bersekers.

Poor Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon.

The Scottish Knights and Infantry of the Wars of Independance.

Spartans.

Scottish Border Reivers.


And if the Bad Guys had archers, I'd want either English and Welsh Longbow men or Mongol/Hun horse archers on my side as well!

Has anyone been watching Deadliest Warrior on Spike?

----------


## DavidCoutts

> just a reaction to the statement above:
> winston churchill said that the filipino warrior is the greatest warrior. For with their fierce resistance it saved australia from the japanese and gave the allies enough time to prepare against the japanese. That all done with few modern weapons and with their bolos and sticks. There are documented skirmishes where a single eskrimador disarmed and killed several japanese soldiers and faced a katana weilding samurai officer, which he disarmed and killed with his kali stick, and many other war stories. It is also said that ( i havent seen the actual document/article) that Miyamoto Mushashi the greatest samurai was outclassed by a kali warrior. Being a warrior i think is different from being a soldier. warriors strive for individual glory or the glory of their warrior society, soldiers are DIFFERENT. For individual merit and prowess in combat, few if any can match a real master of Kali, and its practitioner the Filipino warrior.


Since I currently train in Kali(among other Arts)I have to agree with you as tot he fighting ability of the Filopeno warrior. The term "running amok" comes from the Filopeno warrior's battle-fury. :Good Job:

----------


## LeBrok

I would say Greeks under Alexander the Great, as warriors/leader combo. They only stopped winning because they got home sick. They also won a battle against elephants in India. If they didn't return home they possibly would have tested the Samurai's skills, as Alexander was on a quest looking for the end of the earth.

Lots of awesome warriors, leaders and armies through the history. We know who was great but will never know who was the best.

----------


## let`s talk

I wouldn`t call Roman Gladiators "warriors". They were just slaves. They didn`t fight for the idea.
My vote is Vikings or Mongols.

----------


## DavidCoutts

Vikings or Mongols did'nt "fight for the idea" either. They fought for loot and personal glory.

This discussion is about fighting ability, not morality. By those standards, the Roman Gladiators were Warriors.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

> They hold on to Spain for 900 years


LOL. Arabs hold on to Spain for 900 years?? Please, get a clue.

Muslims (not arabs) ruled the *Kingdom of Granada for 800 years*...



...Until they were expelled by the Catholic Kings (without putting a fight btw :Innocent: )




In the rest of the Iberian Peninsula (not Spain) they ruled for a very shorter period:

----------


## ^ lynx ^

...and they never conquered the whole Peninsula as you can see in the last pic.

----------


## SerbianWarrior

Yeah,id have to say The Templars,nothing beats religious fervor!

----------


## Wilhelm

> I am Italian and was a student at SOAS, I think the Arabs of the meditereanea were underated. They actually expand from Bedoins Arab peninsula towards the north to sacked the Persians and Byzantines and settled in Spain and move towards India and steps of china less than 120 years, I think thats amazing Warriors .
> 
> After further readings the earlier arabs were not taught to surrender and can invade a large Army even tho they had smaller troops
> 
> Arabic speaking people invaded Spain, South Portugan, Sicily Mid East, Persia up to India and steps of China, I think its remakable! And they fought and even brought science to Spain and beyond, and thats a Bonus!
> 
> Muscles and Brauns
> 
> But like all, they went down, everything that goes up has to come down
> ...


Actually, most of the muslim invaders in Iberia were not Arab but Bereber.

----------


## ^ lynx ^

You are talking exclusively about the Iberian Peninsula invasion Wilhelm. 

But dnabuff was talking about the muslims invasions in Persia, India and China too... and there the arabs didn't take berbers from Magreb for their army.

----------


## Gwyllgi

I don’t know about the best, that would probably go to The Samurai who combined being warriors with so much more, but the prize for being *hardest* bastards would probably go to a Scottish lot.

I recall that there was a Scottish ‘lowland’ regiment made up mostly from people from Glasgow and surroundings who had the informal regimental slogan _“Guns an’ weapons we don’ need, jus’ a razor … wheeest, ye’re deed”_

This being based on the antics that the Glasgow street gangs got up to, and in some areas still do.

The Gurkhas would probably come a close second.

----------


## buckley612

I know this is a long dead poll, but I felt a need to mention the Cantabrians. Their resistance towards the Romans seems like something that no modern historian could adequately summarize.

----------


## coolman

jesus! was

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

There were many, obviously. I would like to add the Lusitanians to the list. They resisted the Romans (for hundreds of years) and dealt them considerable military blows in Western Iberia.

----------


## NewEngland

A well seasoned, modern day US Navy Seal would give any warrior from any time period a run for his money, on land, under water, or freefalling out of an airplane. With or without just about any weapon, at any range from zero to 2000 meters.

----------


## Regulus

A neat post. After much consideration, I went with Samurai.
I don't know if it would have caused a different answer from me, but I would have put in Roman Legionaries as opposed to gladiators.

If I were to add my own from the past, I would take the Greek hoplite.

<--------See?

----------


## barbarian

xanthos-the capital city of likia (south anatolia)- warriors. they killed almost all of their women and children before their last war against persians (some says they commit suicide after killing their own families).

http://www.fethiyeyachting.com/jpg_files%5Cxanthos.jpg
http://lexicorient.com/turkey/xanthos06.htm
http://www.antalyaburada.com/images/...by/xanthos.jpg
http://www.pataraotel.com/FileUpload...e/xanthos5.jpg
http://images.travelpod.com/users/le...de-xanthos.jpg

----------


## Bogdan

spartans and montenegrin warriors

----------


## Imperium Romanorum

Србски ратници-Serbian warriors


Painting of the Serbian Double-Headed Eagle breaking Turkish shackles and chains,
a Rising Sun in background with Kosovo 1912



The choice Czar Lazar and his brave Serbian warriors made in the fateful battle of 1389 still help their descendants today make the right choices.


3 Holy Warriors Fresco


This battle the Serbs lost physically, but because of the great heroism and extreme sacrifice for Serbian Heritage and Serbian Orthodox Faith, it is still one of Serbian History’s “greatest moments.” It was when the brave Serbian Christian warriors went into battle against overwhelming odds, choosing “eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven” over life in the early kingdom.

Most of the persons named in this song were from old Serbian History, and more particularly, around the Battle of Kosovo Polje (Battle of the Field of Blackbirds). Against the Turkish army

We celebrate that day—with honor, pride and dignity-each year on June 28, Vidovdan.

----------


## Imperium Romanorum

Milos Obilic was a great Serbian hero, who at Kosovo Polje went into the Turk’s own camp and killed the Turkish Czar Murat. He was an inspiration to Serbian warriors. Some of our mot beautiful songs are written about Milos Obilic and his heroic deeds. He is often cited as an example of fidelity and dedication based on his devotion to his ruler, the Serbian Czar Lazar. Our greatest Serbian poet, Petar II Petrovic-Njegos, Bishop of Crna Gora, placed Milos Obilic above all Kosovo warriors because of his heroic feats. Milos Obilic perished on the Kosovo Polje Battlefield.

----------


## Imperium Romanorum

Draza Mihajlovic (Mihailovich) was our beloved Serbian hero of World War II. Although given the opportunity to flee the country, he stayed and fought together with his brave followers against overwhelming enemies of the Serbs in the worst days in Serbian history. General Draza fought in the name of freedom and for a nation founded on democratic principles. He was praied by all democratic leaders and fighters of our times until he was deserted by those he helped. His followers, among many other brave deeds, save the lives of almost 600 American aviators, downed over Yugoslav territory. The communists deceitfully captured Draza in 1946 and without a proper trail, sentenced him to death. Be he lives and will live on in the hearts of the Serbian Chetniks and all freedom-loving Serbian people everywhere.

----------


## Imperium Romanorum

Karadjordjevic was another famous Serbian dynasty headed by Karadjordje. The head of the dynasty, Djordje Petrovic (Karadjordje), was a Serbian villager from Topola near Belgrade. He organized the first Serbian uprising against the Turks in 1804 and caused the Turks much trouble for almost ten years. Even Napoleon was amazed at this great feats against the Turks.

The upsrising was continued under the leadership of Prince Milos Obrenovich in 1815. Karadjordje was acclaimed in many Serbian songs as a great hero. His grandson was King Peter I, the Great Liberator, and his great grandson was King Alexander I, the Unifier, who was assassianted in Marseilles in 1934.

----------


## Imperium Romanorum

Serbian Emperor Dusan the Mighty



Stefan Uroš IV Dušan (Serbian Cyrillic: Стефан Урош IV Душан) (c. 1308 – 20 December 1355), called "the Mighty" (Serbian: Силни, Silni), was the King of Serbia (from 8 September 1331) and Emperor (Tsar) of the Serbs and Romans (from 16 April 1346). He enacted the constitution of the Serbian Empire in Dušan's Code, and under his rule Serbia reached its territorial, political and economic peak.
He is also the only ruler from the house of Nemanjić who has not been canonised as a saint. Dušan was also noted as a man of gigantic proportions. According to Papal ambassadors, he was the tallest man of his time, estimated at close to seven feet tall. His death in 1355 was a "catastrophe" for the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Balkans, since he ruled in the only Balkan state which was capable to stop the advance of the Ottoman Empire.[1] His Crown is presently kept at the Cetinje Monastery, in Montenegro.

----------


## qwinegp

The Spartans and Alexander the Great

----------


## Regulus

> Serbian Emperor Dusan the Mighty
> 
> 
> 
> Stefan Uroš IV Dušan (Serbian Cyrillic: Стефан Урош IV Душан) (c. 1308 – 20 December 1355), called "the Mighty" (Serbian: Силни, Silni), was the King of Serbia (from 8 September 1331) and Emperor (Tsar) of the Serbs and Romans (from 16 April 1346). He enacted the constitution of the Serbian Empire in Dušan's Code, and under his rule Serbia reached its territorial, political and economic peak.
> He is also the only ruler from the house of Nemanjić who has not been canonised as a saint. Dušan was also noted as a man of gigantic proportions. According to Papal ambassadors, he was the tallest man of his time, estimated at close to seven feet tall. His death in 1355 was a "catastrophe" for the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Balkans, since he ruled in the only Balkan state which was capable to stop the advance of the Ottoman Empire.[1] His Crown is presently kept at the Cetinje Monastery, in Montenegro.


We find common ground here. I hold that Dushan untimely death was a major event that has been almost forgotten by time. Had he lived for a while longer, the Slavs of the Balkans would probably have either taken or married into the dynasty that ruled Constantinople. 
Without going into a long explanation about the 'new life' being breathed into the otherwise dying empire or the likely result of greater resources resulting from the ensuing unification of the Balkans, I hold that the Ottomans would probably never taken the city if Dushan had lived.
I can think of very few 'what if' scenarios that would have had a greater change of resulting history than this.

----------


## Vallicanus

> I know this is a long dead poll, but I felt a need to mention the Cantabrians. Their resistance towards the Romans seems like something that no modern historian could adequately summarize.


 The Romans still won in the end. :Cool V:

----------


## Vallicanus

> There were many, obviously. I would like to add the Lusitanians to the list. They resisted the Romans (for hundreds of years) and dealt them considerable military blows in Western Iberia.


 Again, the Romans won in the end. :Cool V:

----------


## Reinaert

If taken all facts into account, the Mongols were the most efficient warriors.

Their tactics were very close to today's fighting standards.

Speed, mobility, light but strong armor.
(Silk under the armor to prevent bacterial or chemical exposure)
Their bows were the best ever made.
Genghis Khan used modern intelligence and communication techniques.

I am glad he didn't make it into Europe, or we would be talking Mongolian nowadays.

----------


## Reinaert

> Again, the Romans won in the end.


No, they were overrun.

Guess who did that?  :Innocent: 

Guys like us..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXwft...eature=related

Here you have it literally!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GowMI...eature=related


AI! We're one Celtic family!

----------


## LeBrok

> If taken all facts into account, the Mongols were the most efficient warriors.
> 
> 
> I am glad *he didn't make it into Europe*, or we would be talking Mongolian nowadays.


 :Confused:  

Define Europe or post a map of your Europe.

----------


## Melusine

Google: wikipedia: Mongol Invasion of EUROPE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe

Does anyone "suppose" that they left ANY y-dna there? Or were they ALL celibate?

Yah right!! as a female I would say YES, there are many Europeans with their y-dna coursing though their veins as well as some folk, on this very forum.

Melusine

----------


## Vallicanus

> No, they were overrun.
> 
> Guess who did that? 
> 
> Guys like us..
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXwft...eature=related
> 
> Here you have it literally!
> ...


Stick to chronology.

The Romans conquered Cantabrians and Lusitanians FIN.

The East Romans destroyed the Germanic Ostrogoths and Vandals. The crude and backward Lombard invaders of Italy would have suffered the same fate but Byzantium faced Slav, Persian and Muslim Arab attacks.

Celtic culture was squeezed out by Romance speech and culture (and Germanic culture in most of Britain) except in a few small, dirt-poor corners of western Europe.

----------


## Reinaert

Haha.. Just posted what I meant.. The Mongols were the most efficient warriors ever in history. Only crybabies deny that. Why? 
I don't know. History is an intellectual effort to get the truth out of the propaganda of yesterday. And there seem to be many creeps that still believe in the propaganda they heard. 
Very silly. 

There is little Roman lack of culture left in Europe.

Only the British and the Americans live with the idea of an ideal fascist system like the Romans and Spartans had.

----------


## Regulus

And you are a Celt? Your personality is as Celtic as mine is that of a Marxist.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Haha.. Just posted what I meant.. The Mongols were the most efficient warriors ever in history. Only crybabies deny that. Why? 
> I don't know. History is an intellectual effort to get the truth out of the propaganda of yesterday. And there seem to be many creeps that still believe in the propaganda they heard. 
> Very silly. 
> 
> There is little Roman lack of culture left in Europe.
> 
> Only the British and the Americans live with the idea of an ideal fascist system like the Romans and Spartans had.


Where is Mongol power now?
The Mongols were defeated by the Mamelukes in Egypt so they were not that invincible.

BTW you are Germanic not Celtic. :Useless:

----------


## barbarian

how can someone evaluate if european knights, roman gladiators, Musketeers (funniest one) are greatest or not? what are the criterias? there is very little legendary info about them in the history.

if we accept them as a group, then we must also accept american cowboys or even RAMBO :Grin: 

Note: it is sad that nobody even mentions Ottomans, since they ruled in three continents for *several centuries.*

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

> how can someone evaluate if european knights, roman gladiators, Musketeers (funniest one) are greatest or not? what are the criterias? there is very little legendary info about them in the history.
> 
> if we accept them as a group, then we must also accept american cowboys or even RAMBO
> 
> Note: it is sad that nobody even mentions Ottomans, since they ruled in three continents for *several centuries.*


Janissaries? They were Ottomans!

Anyways you're right this poll doesn't make much sense! My funniest is roman gladiators; the name already suggests they are not warriors.

----------


## sparkey

> And you are a Celt? Your personality is as Celtic as mine is that of a Marxist.


That's an odd way to equate things. What is a Celtic "personality" like? And a Marxist "personality?" Different people within a culture have different personalities and different people within a political stripe have different personalities, no?

I think that, even if Reinaert was raised in a Germanic (Dutch) culture, it is within his right to identify as Celtic, although doing so implies a certain amount of cultural practice. Even if his deep paternal ancestors were Celtic, we are not our ancestors... otherwise, call me a Cro-Magnon. But if he persists some sort of, say, Gaulish beliefs and practices, he can be Celtic while still being Dutch.

----------


## Regulus

> That's an odd way to equate things. What is a Celtic "personality" like? And a Marxist "personality?" Different people within a culture have different personalities and different people within a political stripe have different personalities, no?
> 
> I think that, even if Reinaert was raised in a Germanic (Dutch) culture, it is within his right to identify as Celtic, although doing so implies a certain amount of cultural practice. Even if his deep paternal ancestors were Celtic, we are not our ancestors... otherwise, call me a Cro-Magnon. But if he persists some sort of, say, Gaulish beliefs and practices, he can be Celtic while still being Dutch.


Actually, it is the opposite of odd. The manners, emotional styles, and practices attributed to Celts are fairly well known to all. Both of these would contribute to at least a general personality type. It is more than obvious that we are not discussing individual personality traits, but those of a collective or cultural type. So what I wrote applies.
Now, if you had followed even some of the posts where one individual has made repeated claims to identify himself as of being a Celt, Celtic-type, what have you, but repeatedly goes around advocating some sort of communal, semi-socialist-type world, you wouldn't have questioned the statement that I made. The Celtic economical world, if there was any, is completely on the opposite side of anything resembling a communal thing. 
It clearly was made up of an aristocratic class, a class of workers, etc.

You clearly jumped in on this topic without thinking about what may have brought the post(s) to the point where you decided to jump in. Also, rightly or wrongly, I think that I have identified myself as being of a personality type that would be strongly opposed to that of someone who would be inclined to Marxism. So again what I wrote applies.

----------


## Reinaert

> Stick to chronology.
> 
> Celtic culture was squeezed out by Romance speech and culture (and Germanic culture in most of Britain) except in a few small, dirt-poor corners of western Europe.


And these words from a Scotsman?
I guess you're a bloody Sassenach!  :Annoyed: 

The Celts didn't disappear on the continent of Europe. They adapted to changing situations. A form of using brains. Many of them have sailed to Southern England, Ireland and Scotland. 
And many still live in the Southern part of The Netherlands and Belgium.

Typical for Celtic culture was a more social society.
I have seen that in Scotland too, but you don't seem to be like that.

And BTW, the question was who was the greatest warrior in history.
That wasn't about the outcome of his deeds. 
Great warriors seldom establish an empire that lasts very long.
Great Empires have a tendency to collapse after a while.

Have a good day.

----------


## Vallicanus

As a Dutchman, your background is Germanic not Celtic.

I suggest you learn some history.

The Mongol, Roman and British Empires lasted long enough.

----------


## sparkey

> The manners, emotional styles, and practices attributed to Celts are fairly well known to all. Both of these would contribute to at least a general personality type.



Obviously. But just as obviously, the scope of possible individual personalities within a given culture is larger than that. You can't say, "You're not a TRUE Celt because you have personality traits X, Y, and Z."




> Now, if you had followed even some of the posts where one individual has made repeated claims to identify himself as of being a Celt, Celtic-type, what have you, but repeatedly goes around advocating some sort of communal, semi-socialist-type world, you wouldn't have questioned the statement that I made. The Celtic economical world, if there was any, is completely on the opposite side of anything resembling a communal thing.
> It clearly was made up of an aristocratic class, a class of workers, etc.



What the...? Plaid Cymru is very socialist and very Celtic. So, these are not incompatible. I suppose you could argue that Reinaert's Celtic identity tries to relate himself to the Gauls, who do not share the socialist-leaning history of the Welsh... but why can't a Gaulish revivalist be a socialist? You don't have to endorse an ancient political system to identify with a culture.
 



> You clearly jumped in on this topic without thinking about what may have brought the post(s) to the point where you decided to jump in.



Sorry if it seems like I'm jumping in without context. I am familiar with Reinaert's posts.




> Also, rightly or wrongly, I think that I have identified myself as being of a personality type that would be strongly opposed to that of someone who would be inclined to Marxism. So again what I wrote applies.


Yes, personality types influence political types, and yes, culture influences both. But a culture does not _exclude_ a personality type or a political type, that is my point, and that is why your statement is still odd.

----------


## Regulus

> Obviously. But just as obviously, the scope of possible individual personalities within a given culture is larger than that. You can't say, "You're not a TRUE Celt because you have personality traits X, Y, and Z."
> 
> 
> What the...? Plaid Cymru is very socialist and very Celtic. So, these are not incompatible. I suppose you could argue that Reinaert's Celtic identity tries to relate himself to the Gauls, who do not share the socialist-leaning history of the Welsh... but why can't a Gaulish revivalist be a socialist? You don't have to endorse an ancient political system to identify with a culture.
> 
> 
> Sorry if it seems like I'm jumping in without context. I am familiar with Reinaert's posts.
> 
> 
> Yes, personality types influence political types, and yes, culture influences both. But a culture does not _exclude_ a personality type or a political type, that is my point, and that is why your statement is still odd.


 

 Dude, you are digging _WAY TOO FAR_ into this. My statements figure in perfectly well and make more than enough sense. Your attempts to dissect ad hoc statements not only serve no real purpose but only serve to send us into a tailspin.

----------


## sparkey

> Dude, you are digging _WAY TOO FAR_ into this. My statements figure in perfectly well and make more than enough sense. Your attempts to dissect ad hoc statements not only serve no real purpose but only serve to send us into a tailspin.


Alright, I'll drop it. Just trying to explain why I find it odd to challenge people's ethnic identities based on their personalities.

----------


## barbarian

> Janissaries? They were Ottomans!
> 
> Anyways you're right this poll doesn't make much sense! My funniest is roman gladiators; the name already suggests they are not warriors.


oops sorry, i didnt know that word.

----------


## Regulus

> Janissaries? They were Ottomans!
> 
> Anyways you're right this poll doesn't make much sense! My funniest is roman gladiators; the name already suggests they are not warriors.


They did indeed form a crucial part of the Ottoman army, but Janissaries were comprised of slave-soldiers taken from conquered nations (I believe mostly Christian) as youths.
They were brought up as Muslims and were known as ferocious warriors.
I think that the Turkish word for 'new soldier' was something like 'yani cheri'. It was similar to that of the earlier Mamelukes.
Supporters of the idea would hold that they were otherwise well-treated and given opportunities of advancement.
Those who oppose the idea would equate it with a type of 'Stockholm Syndrome' where hostages begin to identify with those who control them.

----------


## Regulus

> Only the British and the Americans live with the idea of an ideal fascist system like the Romans and Spartans had.


 
Well done and another touche'.

You nailed my screen name and avatar in one shot and I didn't even catch it at first. 

At least we are not yelling at each other all of the time any more.

----------


## Reinaert

> As a Dutchman, your background is Germanic not Celtic.
> 
> I suggest you learn some history.


Haha.. You should.

I had a YDNA test you know. 
And the conclusion is that a large part of the population in my area are direct relatives of the Belgae, Irish and Scottish population.
And they are Celtic. Not Germanic.

----------


## barbarian

> They did indeed form a crucial part of the Ottoman army, but Janissaries were comprised of slave-soldiers taken from conquered nations (I believe mostly Christian) as youths.
> They were brought up as Muslims and were known as ferocious warriors.
> I think that the Turkish word for 'new soldier' was something like 'yani cheri'. It was similar to that of the earlier Mamelukes.
> Supporters of the idea would hold that they were otherwise well-treated and given opportunities of advancement.
> Those who oppose the idea would equate it with a type of 'Stockholm Syndrome' where hostages begin to identify with those who control them.


most of the governers were raised in the similar way.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Haha.. You should.
> 
> I had a YDNA test you know. 
> And the conclusion is that a large part of the population in my area are direct relatives of the Belgae, Irish and Scottish population.
> And they are Celtic. Not Germanic.


 
The Dutch are culturally and linguistically Germanic.
 :Rolleyes:  :Rolleyes: 

The Lowland Scots are partly Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) while the Highland Scots are partly Norse (Germanic).

YDNA is only one ancestral line among many.
Only *genome-wide studies* give you a complete genetic picture.

----------


## Reinaert

> The Dutch are culturally and linguistically Germanic.
> 
> 
> The Lowland Scots are partly Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) while the Highland Scots are partly Norse (Germanic).
> 
> YDNA is only one ancestral line among many.
> Only *genome-wide studies* give you a complete genetic picture.


Yeah.. Talk more nonsense, and they will love you on this forum as a clown.
You really don't know where you are talking about.




> YDNA is only one ancestral line among many.


Woohaaaaaaaaaa....  :Innocent: 

YDNA is the straight forward line from father to son..
You can't get more precise than that.

It's a joke the Scots would have Germanic and Norse fathers.

I guess they may have made many Germanic and Norse ladies pregnant with their Celtic good looks and sharp wits...  :Grin: 

And another thing.
You shouldn't talk about how the Dutch are. 
You really don't understand.
The Dutch are a divided people.
They always were.
Celts, Germanic, Norse, and other people in a Republic of 17 different Provinces!!!!

Ok, part of The Netherlands is Germanic and Norse.
But that isn't true for the rest of the country.

The political difficulties in The Netherlands nowadays are related to the cultural differences.

A Sassenach will never understand that.

The Dutch are NOT one people.
The Dutch are NOT one nation.

----------


## sparkey

Reinaert, I think you and Vallicanus are talking past one another. Vallicanus is right, to a large degree... Dutch is clearly a Germanic language, all of the Dutch provinces speak a Germanic language as their primary language, and the Dutch (all of them) fit into the West Germanic cultural framework. But at the same time, you're right... many of the Dutch descend from Germanicized Celts, and the differences in heritage can be felt within Dutch culture. You, no doubt, descend from lots of Germanicized Celts.

Your ancestors probably became Germanicized a long time ago. They have probably been speaking a Germanic language and participating in Germanic culture for that long period. How much longer do you feel your Dutch relatives will have to do so before they become Germanic, or will they always be Celts even if they've forgotten all of the old words and customs? Do you actually, yourself, try to revive any of the old Celtic customs, or is your identification as a Celt strictly genetic? Because if it's strictly genetic, that seems like a tenuous connection to me...

I mean, for example, I've got both Celtic and Germanic ancestry from different places, but at the moment I participate in a Germanic (English-speaking) culture. So although I have some Celtic heritage (Brythonic specifically), I'm effectively Germanic. I have taken a lesson in Welsh but don't know that language particularly well. I observed St. David's Day and St. Piran's Day this year. I feel I could become more Celtic if I continued down the path of learning Welsh and participated in more Welsh & Cornish customs. But currently, even my connection is tenuous.

----------


## Vallicanus

Sparkey sums up the linguistic and cultural situation well while Reinaert should not presume to teach me Scottish history.

You cannot define yourself by Y-dna alone. What about your father's maternal relatives and all the ancestral lines inherited from your mother? 

I suspect Reinaert is a troll who has not got a clue about genome-wide studies. Perhaps he should surf the net and learn about the commercial companies that deal with such matters.

----------


## Melusine

Why is this thread now OFF TOPIC?

Try the DNA section.

Melusine

----------


## sparkey

> Why is this thread now OFF TOPIC?


Because it's the kind of tangent that interests us weird people who come to this forum.  :Cool V: 

But seriously, bring us back on topic, then. I can help by naming a group that hasn't been brought up yet: Swiss pikes. They were not the best at conquering territory, but were incredibly effective at repelling knights in 15th century Switzerland. A lot has to be said for a good defense... and the rest of Europe took note and employed them as mercenaries. Against the listed choices, I would take them against the samurai, knights, Huns, gladiators, highlanders, and Vikings. They would need favorable terrain to beat the Mongols, but that would certainly be doable in Switzerland. Musketeers is not a fair comparison because they come from a later time period... although it's worth noting that the primary downfall of the Swiss pikes was their weakness against gunpowder weapons.

----------


## Melusine

I searched forum and did find Hannibal and his army.

He is regarded in military history "among the best military strategist and tacticians"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal 

Never mind that he "did himself in".

Melusine

----------


## Vallicanus

Don't forget the Spanish conquistadores in the New World.

Faced with a strange environment and the shifting tactics of cunning enemies "the Spanish adventurers, sprung from the common people, displayed a fertility of resource, and a talent for negotiation and command, to which history scarcely affords a parallel" (Lord Macaulay).

----------


## Melusine

The Spanish conquering Mexico were great warriors??

The conquest was not about "defending ones country (Spain), the peoples of the Americas did nothing to Spain , they did not go there and rape, plunder and "shove" their religion unto anyone. 

This was genocide against a people who were "superstitious" and had never seen a White man, and a horse. When the Spaniards arrived in Mexico they dis-embarked from their ships in full armor and and on horseback, the Natives were sure that their "god" had returned to them and fell to the ground and worshiped them. They could have attacted them and instead offered them "hospitality", to be repaid by murder and theft.

Gold and Silver was taken by the boatloads to Spain until the mines ran dry.

The Spanish (warriors??) conquerors raped and used the native women and killed thousands of males for their own gratification and GREED.

History has confirmed the above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish...e_Aztec_Empire 

Lord Macaulay was a "jundiced spector of Spanish/Mexican history.".

Melusine

----------


## LeBrok

> The Spanish conquering Mexico were great warriors??
> 
> The conquest was not about "defending ones country (Spain), the peoples of the Americas did nothing to Spain , they did not go there and rape, plunder and "shove" their religion unto anyone. 
> 
> This was genocide against a people who were "superstitious" and had never seen a White man, and a horse. When the Spaniards arrived in Mexico they dis-embarked from their ships in full armor and and on horseback, the Natives were sure that their "god" had returned to them and fell to the ground and worshiped them. They could have attacted them and instead offered them "hospitality", to be repaid by murder and theft.
> 
> Gold and Silver was taken by the boatloads to Spain until the mines ran dry.
> 
> The Spanish (warriors??) conquerors raped and used the native women and killed thousands of males for their own gratification and GREED.
> ...


All warriors raped and pillaged giving the right circumstances. The question is what group of warriors were the best in fighting, therefore the best warriors.
Personally I didn't vote, as we don't have enough info to make a valid decision.

----------


## Vallicanus

As LeBrok said, all soldiers will rape and pillage, in the past or in the present, given the right circumstances.

Let's set emotionalism aside and look at facts.  :Useless: 

As warriors the few hundred Spaniards led by Cortes showed remarkable courage and resource.
The Aztecs they conquered were so bloody (tearing out the hearts of living victims etc) that many thousands of native Mexicans (Tlaxcalans) joined the Spaniards.

Pizarro in the Inca Empire was also ruthless and not to the taste of modern bleeding-hearts but he too showed remarkable political and military skill.

Given the gruesome modern record of wars and genocides recent mankind has no cause to judge a past where the mindset was totally different and probably less hypocritical than today.

----------


## Melusine

True, all warriors raped and pillaged giving the right circumstances.

The Spanish conquistadors would not stand the test of a warrior's code. Less than a thousand men did not conquer a whole empire of millions (Aztecs) with their fighting skills, courage, they did it with using "psychological warfare (using the Aztec religious beliefs), with the "help" of other indigenous tribes of Mexico, and used this without MERCY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior 

In the above URL there is a list of "other warriors".

BTW: related to genetics (off topic here), this is a very good reason and explanation of how the various y-dna haplogroups were introduced to every country (in the world) since the "caveman" and before to present, no country in the world nor Europe has escaped the raveges of war/warriors and their rape and pillage.

Melusine

----------


## Vallicanus

Warrior's code?

Don't be naive. There are no just or bloodless wars.

*All wars are about butchery and treachery* not like some third-rate Hollywood schmalzy film.

----------


## Reinaert

> Warrior's code?
> 
> Don't be naive. There are no just or bloodless wars.
> 
> *All wars are about butchery and treachery* not like some third-rate Hollywood schmalzy film.


Haha.. This is what I mean.

Vallicanus uses a language that is not familiar with what happened in Celtic Europe. The Celts surely had a warrior code.
Honor is most important.

People without honor don't understand that.

----------


## Reinaert

> Don't forget the Spanish conquistadores in the New World.
> 
> Faced with a strange environment and the shifting tactics of cunning enemies "the Spanish adventurers, sprung from the common people, displayed a fertility of resource, and a talent for negotiation and command, to which history scarcely affords a parallel" (Lord Macaulay).


Another proof Vallicanus is stupid to believe this shit.

The Spanish happened to enter South America in a point in time when the population were totally against the rulers. That's why they got so many support by the natives they could overrun the ruling South American empires.

The Spanish themselves were shifting from liberators into robbers in a very short time. Greed is always very bad. And also their inhuman behavior against people and animals.
The Spanish inquisition, bull fighting.. Fascism..

Sorry, but Spain hasn't a right to be member of the EU!

----------


## Vallicanus

> Haha.. This is what I mean.
> 
> Vallicanus uses a language that is not familiar with what happened in Celtic Europe. The Celts surely had a warrior code.
> Honor is most important.
> 
> People without honor don't understand that.


What "warrior code" would that be, my phoney Celt who is really a Dutch Germanic?
Celts were head hunters.

War is always and everywhere a filthy business and only people of kindergarten mentality like you believe otherwise.

The bottom line is that the Romans conquered the continental Celts and those in South Britain.
Nearly all modern "Celts" speak languages derived from their conquerors, either Romance or Germanic.

You are a troll's troll. :Laughing:

----------


## Reinaert

> What "warrior code" would that be, my phoney Celt who is really a Dutch Germanic?
> Celts were head hunters.
> 
> War is always and everywhere a filthy business and only people of kindergarten mentality like you believe otherwise.
> 
> The bottom line is that the Romans conquered the continental Celts and those in South Britain.
> Nearly all modern "Celts" speak languages derived from their conquerors, either Romance or Germanic.
> 
> You are a troll's troll.


And you are a stupid ass troll.
Your stupidness shows with everything you write.

You are misinformed by old school learnings.
Europe is totally different from what you were told.

Silly soul!

----------


## Vallicanus

> And you are a stupid ass troll.
> Your stupidness shows with everything you write.
> 
> You are misinformed by old school learnings.
> Europe is totally different from what you were told.
> 
> Silly soul!


The Celts were defeated by Romans and by Germanic tribes and except in Brittany or the fringes of the British Isles Celtic language and culture is as dead as the dodo.

You are the troll as you contribute nothing concrete to ANY thread. :Rolleyes:  :Laughing:  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Reinaert

No, the Celts are still very alive and kicking.
This Celt even speaks 4 languages, and about culture.. 
Pog mo thoine.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Vallicanus

> No, the Celts are still very alive and kicking.
> This Celt even speaks 4 languages, and about culture.. 
> Pog mo thoine.


"Pog mo thoine" pretty much sums up modern "Celtic culture". :Laughing:  :Laughing:  :Laughing: 

You are Dutch, so Germanic in speech and culture. :Laughing:  :Laughing:  :Laughing:  :Laughing:

----------


## Canek

> The Spanish themselves were shifting from liberators into robbers in a very short time. Greed is always very bad. And also their inhuman behavior against people and animals. The Spanish inquisition, bull fighting.. Fascism.. Sorry, but Spain hasn't a right to be member of the EU!


 i agree, they were and are scum..  :Sick:

----------


## Vallicanus

White Americans had black slavery until the 1860s, near genocide of native Americans, segregation of races until the 1960s, a joke of a medical service for the poor to this day, wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now intervention in a Libyan civil war, on-going racism against blacks and Hispanics.

Who is scum?

----------


## Canek

you aren't making spaniards look any better. and i am not a white american.

----------


## Vallicanus

> you aren't making spaniards look any better. and i am not a white american.


OK, you're not a white American. :Thinking: 

However we are talking about military skill as we perceive it in this thread not killing bulls (sad though that is) or the Inquisition.

----------


## Reinaert

Well, to go back to the subject.

I already told Genghis Khan was in my view by far the most efficient warrior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

He unified Mongolia.
He used everything he came across with to improve his army.
He did have a kind of CIA.
His fighting strategy and tactics came very close to todays warfare.

Bowmen on horseback, with a superior bow were the equivalent of the modern Apache helicopter.

Of course he was a war criminal in today's opinion, but in fact all warriors are.

In that view it's understandable that Ghengis also used terror to win a war.
If he entered a new territory, he attacked the first city, murdered nearly all of the inhabitants if they resisted. And let some escape to spread the rumor.
Then he could ride in other cities without a problem.

----------


## Canek

too much euro-centrism in this pool. what about the incas? they built the greatest empire in america, or what about the aztecs? they were one of the bravest and most feared warriors on the face of the planet. as usual self-centered europeans can't see beyond their noses.

----------


## Vallicanus

Certainly Musketeers should not be in the voting list above and European knights were laughably unsuccessful in the Crusades apart from the First Crusade.

----------


## Canek

most of european warriors in this pool are not on pair with aztecs or incas in terms of bravery.

----------


## Reinaert

> too much euro-centrism in this pool. what about the incas? they built the greatest empire in america, or what about the aztecs? they were one of the bravest and most feared warriors on the face of the planet. as usual self-centered europeans can't see beyond their noses.


Well... This is a European Forum..  :Beat Shot:

----------


## Canek

> Well... This is a European Forum..


  well, i wouldn't expect asiatics, americans or africans to be euro-centrists

----------


## Elias2

> too much euro-centrism in this pool. what about the incas? they built the greatest empire in america, or what about the aztecs? they were one of the bravest and most feared warriors on the face of the planet. as usual self-centered europeans can't see beyond their noses.


This is a european forum is it not?

----------


## Reinaert

Canek is a troll. Ignore him.

----------


## Canek

> Canek is a troll. Ignore him.



stop stalking me troll, you're the only troll in here attacking anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions. you are acting like a true fascist.

----------


## sparkey

> most of european warriors in this pool are not on pair with aztecs or incas in terms of bravery.


I've always thought supposed differences in things like "bravery" to be relatively insignificant when comparing warrior classes... although it always seems to be brought up when people argue that certain warrior classes were superior to European knights. Like, I've read arguments that the samurai were more powerful than knights because they were more devoted, more well-trained, etc... and although I disagree that samurai were better warriors than knights, at least that's a fair comparison, unlike knights vs. Incas. There's nothing to indicate that European knights were not brave, or well-trained... quite the contrary, they were trained from young ages and valued bravery. That's not to say they were the best warriors of the time period, because, as others have mentioned, they had their hands full with Middle Eastern armies during the Crusades, Mongol armies during the Mongol invasion, and pikes in wars at home.

But take an Inca warrior from Pachacuti's reign. Those warriors would have had wooden armor and shields and used things like simple spears and copper battle-axes as weapons. One-on-one versus a knight with chain mail and a longsword, even a cowardly one, they wouldn't have stood a chance. Add to that the fact that European projectiles were more developed, and that mounted warfare was a specialty of Europeans, and I don't know why the Incas would be brought up as a serious challenge...

----------


## Canek

eupean knights were more well-trained and their weapons were more developed, but all that doesn't make them more brave than the incas or the aztecs... the incas built the biggest empire in america, and aztecs were feared all over the continent... to me the greatest warriors are those who show an extraordinary bravery. the aztecs and incas were the greatest.

----------


## sparkey

> eupean knights were more well-trained and their weapons were more developed, but all that doesn't make them more brave than the incas or the aztecs... the incas built the biggest empire in america, and aztecs were feared all over the continent... to me the greatest warriors are those who show an extraordinary bravery. the aztecs and incas were the greatest.


Alrighty, I guess I can't disprove that, "bravery" isn't something that can be documented archaeologically. So, if it's your only measurement, you can kind of pick the warriors you think fit it best. I will say that relative to other indigenous Americans, the Incas and Aztecs were undoubtedly mighty.

----------


## Canek

not only relative to the indigenious americans... they were the greatest warriors of any of the cultures world wide, imo.

they didn't have armors, shields or developed weapons and still achieved a lot of things. the pre-colombine civilizations of america were the greatest warriors in history.

----------


## Dale Cooper

SPARTANS ... I can't belive you didn't put them for voting... they were and they are till this day, a ELITE when it comes about been SOLDIER and Warrior

----------


## Regulus

> SPARTANS ... I can't belive you didn't put them for voting... they were and they are till this day, a ELITE when it comes about been SOLDIER and Warrior


 
I had noted the same earlier on, but I would use Hoplites in general.

Spartans were probably the best as far as states go, but other Greek states also had some excellent heavy infantry.

----------


## Canek

i wouldn't trust the history of the spartans at all... after all the historic sources we have about their victories were written by the own greeks.

----------


## Regulus

> i wouldn't trust the history of the spartans at all... after all the historic sources we have about their victories were written by the own greeks.


 
Interesting. 

There is a wealth of information from those days about the Spartans.
Some of it was pro-, some anti, and some neutral.

Your response to this is that we can't trust the accuracy of them or of their victories. Am I to understand that we can in fact trust accounts of the ancient Peruvian and Aztec empires? Mind you, the empire ruled by the Inca had no written system at all.

----------


## Canek

regulus, you only have to see the huge portion of american territory the incas conquered to realize how great they were as warriors. and they did it without horses or developed weapons.

----------


## Regulus

> regulus, you only have to see the huge portion of american territory the incas conquered to realize how great they were as warriors. and they did it without horses or developed weapons.


 
Absolutely. Now please use the same logic to the topic at hand. It will not be difficult to conclude that a city-state that maintained its position and had so much influence among other strong city-states, not to mention the citations of so many who were their opponents, was fortunate to have such courageous and selfless soldiers.

Also, don't forget that one of their opponents was the Persian Empire. The last time I checked, they were non-Greek.

----------


## Canek

greece is/was a little state. and the spartans didn't conquered persia. alexander the great did it with soldiers from different parts of the world, not only greeks.

----------


## Regulus

> greece is/was a little state. and the spartans didn't conquered persia. alexander the great did it with soldiers from different parts of the world, not only greeks.



You're just not thinking here.

All the city-states were very strong and densely populated. One state being able to have such influence among these indicates a measure of strength. All of those states recognized the qualities of these people.

Also, who told you that I said that they conquered Persia? Or are you trying to create a false argument of mine to rebut?

Spartan soldiers engaged the Persians on a number of occasions.
At Thermopylae, they were the main contingent to remain against vastly superior numbers, they inflicted tremendous casualties.

At Platea a year later, they led the coalition that defeated the Persians.

Years later, they comprised a large part to the force that performed strongly in battle against Artaxerses and returned as a force after the generals were killed by treachery.

Your opposition appears to be without sense. Are you one to argue that it is possible to jump into a lake without getting wet?

----------


## Regulus

I cleary am weary of arguing the obvious, but it should be noted that the city-state in question always was trying to avoid being involved in events outside of its immediate area. Even when it did start getting invoved, it was never to create an empire, just to get friendly governments into other city-states and to keep cities like Athens from becoming all-powerful

----------


## LeBrok

> not only relative to the indigenious americans... they were the greatest warriors of any of the cultures world wide, imo.
> 
> they didn't have armors, shields or developed weapons and still achieved a lot of things. the pre-colombine civilizations of america were the greatest warriors in history.


Then the Spain have sent few thousands of not so brave warriors to America. They conquered millions of bravest Aztecs and Inca's warriors.
So, how important the bravery was on a battle field?
Also, the thousands conquering millions, is the reason why Aztecs and Incas are not listed as best warriors in the poll. 
Lets vote with facts and not the feelings.

----------


## Triskel

European knights

----------


## Canek

lebrok, spaniards did NOT conquered millions of aztecs and incas... they had the help of other amerindian tribes who hated the aztecs and incas and fought on the spanish side... besides, spaniards had better weapons and horses, that doesn't make them better than the pre-columbine civilizations. 

aztecs and incas were only defeated by a more developed civilization, that doesn't make them a worse warriors than the europeans. they should have been included in this eurocentrist poll.

----------


## sparkey

> European knights


OK, so you picked knights, and I picked Swiss pikes. How did that turn out? Oh, yeah... the Battle of Laupen. The Swiss weren't seriously challenged as the best infantry in the world until they started getting copycats and gunpowder turned out to be their weakness. But when it was just Swiss mercenaries vs. knights, the situation certainly didn't favor the knights...

----------


## Regulus

> lebrok, spaniards did NOT conquered millions of aztecs and incas... they had the help of other amerindian tribes who hated the aztecs and incas and fought on the spanish side... besides, spaniards had better weapons and horses, that doesn't make them better than the pre-columbine civilizations. 
> 
> aztecs and incas were only defeated by a more developed civilization, that doesn't make them a worse warriors than the europeans. they should have been included in this eurocentrist poll.


 
Caneck, I don't think that anyone here will dispute the accomplishments of the Aztecs and Peruvians. Would you feel better if we just all jumped in and agreed that those people were the best warriors ever?

Once we are set on that, how do we go about ranking those two?
Which is number one and which is number two? maybe tied?

----------


## Canek

regulus i'm not asking people to agree with my opinions about aztecs and incas, of course.  :Rolleyes:  you know opinions are like ******* everyone got one.

but yes, i do expect people to agree that pre-columbine civilizations should have been included in this poll which is too much eurocentrist.

----------


## Antigone

> aztecs and incas were only defeated by a more developed civilization, that doesn't make them a worse warriors than the europeans. they should have been included in this eurocentrist poll.


Well it is not exactly a eurocentrist poll, have another look. But it IS a European forum, you really couldn't expect otherwise.

However any civilisation and their warriors can only be judged within the context of their own, and within the context of their own time. I don't understand how any can be compared successfully with warriors of another continent that is entirely different in almost every way.

----------


## Dale Cooper

> I had noted the same earlier on, but I would use Hoplites in general.
> 
> Spartans were probably the best as far as states go, but other Greek states also had some excellent heavy infantry.


Yes I agree, but ... somehow maybe it's better to say just Spartans because they were what they were :)

----------


## Atilla

Spartans are the Greatest Warriors the World has known definitively. The life of a Spartan male was a life of discipline, self-denial, and simplicity. The Spartans viewed themselves as the true inheritors of the Greek tradition. They did not surround themselves with luxuries, expensive foods, or opportunities for leisure. And this, I think, is the key to understanding the Spartans. While the Athenians and many others thought the Spartans were insane, the life of the Spartans seemed to hark back to a more basic way of life. Discipline, simplicity, and self-denial always remained ideals in the Greek and Roman worlds; civilization was often seen as bringing disorder, ennervation, weakness, and a decline in moral values. The Spartan, however, could point to Spartan society and argue that moral values and human courage and strength was as great as it was before civilization. Spartan society, then, exercised a profound pull on the surrounding city-states who admired the simplicity, discipline, and order of Spartan life.

----------


## ottomanempire

You can't compare an ancient civilization, like the Assyrians who were the best warriors of their time. And the Mongols, who came 1500 years later.

----------


## Knovas

I voted for the others category: 

Spartans were great, but also pre-Christian Romans were very furious warriors. Extremely hard.

----------


## zanipolo

> I voted for the others category: 
> 
> Spartans were great, but also pre-Christian Romans were very furious warriors. Extremely hard.


Vikings - from greenland to the black sea , conquered a lot, left nothing

Prussians under frederick the great, beating 4 great super powers at the same time, and winning

Confederates - lack of manpower cost them the war

Romans - won on discipline

Spartans, excellent on a small scale

----------


## weissmacht

The group I am chossing may not be the number 1 greates but they should be in the top 5 and I can see on this forum and pol they have been greatly undermised and forgotten.The tribes of North-Western Europe were extremely talented and fierce warriors.This ios my best argument plainly-the Germanic and Celtic peoples were constanyl at war with Rome-the greatest Empire of all of European history.Now even though these tribes didnt have the organization the Romans did they stil managed to defeat the Romans in MANY well known battles.The Teutoberg forest is just one example.They won thatbattle simply becuase of their fighting skills.The Romans were excellant fighter in OPEN battle and thier formations but in the Forest with more enclosed fighting and more personal skils needed they were wiped out by the tribes of northwest Europe.This has happend in Scotland in Britian in Germania and numerous examples show it in history.Plus from time to time these tribes acutallly did win victories against the Romans in open battle too.So they had the skills to defeat the most powerful Empire on Earth both on the Romans terms and thier own.They only lacked the organization and unity of the empires of the nation-states of the south.These tribes Germanic and Celtic were infamous for petty quarrels among themselves and a total lack of unity.Even the few times they were unted such as with Arminius or Vercingetorix or even Boudicca this unity didnt last long at all.They had the personal fighting skills and even thier own formations like the shield wall or the Boar's head triangles but they didnt have any real cohesive unity and organization-everman wanted to be the top dog and no one wanted to take orders basically.Plus petty tribal differances from the Ancient past never really changed.They had the skills to defeat the Romans in a one on one fight warrior against warrior-and also occasionally in open battle formation too so if they already had the true skills could easily defeat the Romans just from that if they HAVE HAD the right unity and organiztion such as the Romans did then the Celtic and Germanic tribes would have gone much much further and could have easily defeated the Romans-the greates empire there was at the time.They already could defeat them even though they didnt have the organiztion-so if they DID have the same organiztion as the Romans then without a doubt they could have deafeated the Romans much much more longtermPlus the fal of the Roman empire is simply becuase many barbarian tribes attacked Rome at the same time.Mongals in the east Slavs-Germanic tribes from the north etc.....The Romans were too busy fighting everyone else the tribes from the north invaded rome and there was no one there to defend it.Basically the Barbarian tribes of all of Europe outsmarted the Romans......and brought the Empire to its knees.Proof-that if there was actual unity and organization and cooperation among the Barbarian tribes of Europe then they could easily deafeat the great city-states of southern europe and even bring down the greatest military power on earth at the time

----------


## weissmacht

Plus-when the Germanic nations actually adopted some of the Roman ways-they ended up creating the single most greates and powerful cultural and military machine in ALL of Europe-The middle ages of Europe,the Crusades the Knights of Europe Feudalism etc...the new germanic power houses England France German states Prussia and muchmuch more all became the most influential and most powerful nations of the middle ages-they are all basically Germanic nations who took many influences fom the Romans and used it in thier own way.The Normans,Franks,Saxons,Lombards,and alll the rest-the entire culture we know today as medieval Europe was based on somewhat Romanized-Germanic cultures and peoples.

----------


## JKU

> Yes but THE Musketeers never existed =)


d'Artagnan was a real person. They were known as Musketeers because they used muskets, as cavalry they also used swords

----------


## JKU

> The Teutoberg forest is just one example.They won thatbattle simply becuase of their fighting skills.The Romans were excellant fighter in OPEN battle and thier formations but in the Forest with more enclosed fighting and more personal skils needed they were wiped out by the tribes of northwest Europe.


Please. No it wasn't, it was simply treachery on part of Arminius. The Romans were not marching in a disciplined formation, marching w/o wearing armor, unprepared for any attack simply because Arminius was supposed to be a Roman ally but was in reality a treacherous enemy. The battle was simply a German ambush/massacre of unsuspecting, unready to fight Roman soldiers. 
Today’s equivalent would be if a few battalions of German Leopard 2s rolled up to Wiesbaden Airfield and started blasting away at US troops.

----------


## The Alani Dragon

My choice would have been the group which contained steppe nomads. In other words other group of warriors.

----------


## American Idiot

> Without personal opinion:
> There are two definitions of soldiers:
> - His relation to death...
> - And for what he it makes...
> Also there is " an art of fight "...
> From this also is defined - what it is the soldier...
> Also there is a culture of education of soldiers... And culture of their behaviour...



going by your definitions, the Samurai are up there with the greatest, IMO

----------


## American Idiot

Hard to say if there is really any single greatest group of warriors

----------


## toyomotor

> Out of all of them, the mongols and the romans achieved a lot, so i say the mongols.


Jack, I agree with you. The Mongols conquered most of Europe, all of China, parts of South East Asia as far as Java. They were fierce "Winter War" specialists, expert bowman, horsemen and tacticians. That they were united gave them a great advantage over the "city states" of Europe. Under the rule of Ogedei Khan, they gained a lot from the Chinese culture, and, had successive rulers from the time of Kublai maintained Genghis Khans vision, the, in my opinion, could have ruled all of the known world.

----------


## Aberdeen

The battle exploits of the Mongols are quite impressive, but what really impresses me is how this supposedly primitive group of steppe nomads created a well organized empire, with the rule of law, religious tolerance, a well developed road system and postal system, a currency system, etc. Of course, they also wiped out whole populations in order to create their empire, but the fact that they had the technology to do it (including large siege engines) is impressive. And of course most pastoralists seem to have a genius for organized military warfare that's probably related to their herding skills. But what makes the Mongols much more impressive than any other pastoral group that created a large empire is not just that they operated on such a large scale, but that they quickly developed the machinery necessary to hold an empire together. It doesn't matter to me who they stole their knowledge from (presumably mostly from the Chinese), what impresses me is that they knew what they had to do to keep what they conquered. Of course, in the end, tribalism is probably the most important of the things that defeated them, but the results of their empire had lasting affects, just like the result of Alexander's much more temporary creation.

----------


## stefco

Serbs are the greatest warriors in history.

----------


## Idun

As individual warriors, tactics, techniques, born and groomed mentally for battle.
The Samurai just are in their own class, the total commitment to being a perfect and willing to die at any time.

----------


## Icebreaker

I have seen that God caused the sun of empire to shine in the mansion of the Turks, and turned the heavenly spheres around their dominion, and named them Turk, and gave them sovereignty, and made them kings of the age, and placed the reins of the people of the time in their hands.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I have seen that God caused the sun of empire to shine in the mansion of the Turks, and turned the heavenly spheres around their dominion, and named them Turk, and gave them sovereignty, and made them kings of the age, and placed the reins of the people of the time in their hands.


It's good that you can consider the question objectively, Icebreaker.

----------


## Idun

> It's good that you can consider the question objectively, Icebreaker.


Analytical and objective is not a big thing in those parts, oratory, yelling and hand gestures makes you right.

----------


## kamani

It holds no value to win with superior numbers or weapons. A great warrior is one that wins against the material odds. So choosing great warriors becomes battle specific. Some of the greatest that I know of are: Greek Coalition in "Greece vs Persia", Hannibal Army in "Carthage vs Rome", Skanderbeg Army in "Albanians vs Ottoman Empire", Napoleon in any of his battles except Russia, German Coalition in "Germans vs Huns", Polish Winged Hussars in "Austria vs Ottoman Empire".

----------


## Icebreaker

Relax guys. It's just a quote from Mahmud Al-Kasghari (11th century scholar).

----------


## Echetlaeus

I believe that Greeks should have been in the poll as well.

----------


## Fire Haired

> I believe that Greeks should have been in the poll as well.


Depends which ones. I don't know that much about ancient history, but i think Alexander the Great's armies and the Spartens should defintley be on the poll.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Depends which ones. I don't know that much about ancient history, but i think Alexander the Great's armies and the Spartens should defintley be on the poll.


Greeks in general would be fine. We have proven ourselves once again in WW2 when we beat the Italians, a far more powerful country than small Greece. Also, the fact that Hitler's powers came to suppress us made the Nazis lose time and start the Russian campaign in the winter, a horrible mistake as it was proven.

Point is: Greeks powerful in the past and nowadays.

Remember: Salamis, Marathon, Thermopylae, Punic Wars in Magna Graecia (which must be again Greek), we fought during the Byzantine times --- in the beginning as the East Roman Empire, afterwards almost Greek empire which lasted 1000 years ---, then the War of Independence from the Ottoman Empire, the Balkan Wars (I and II, winners in both along with Serbia and Bulgaria (at first)), WWI, the Asia Minor Expedition (we were so close to win, should the Soviets have not assisted Kemal Ataturk), our navy has never lost a battle, we are the ΜΕΓΑ ΤΟ ΤΗΣ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΗΣ ΚΡΑΤΟΣ (i.e., _The Great Nation that Rules the Seas_), WWII etc. Generally we have fought many wars breh.

Actually nowadays I am reading _Cyrus Anabasis_ and the history of the _Ten Thousand_ by Xenophon. You must read that to understand what it means to be a Greek.

Here is Magna Graecia (in lower Italy): 

Magna_Graecia.jpg

----------


## LeBrok

> Greeks in general would be fine. We have proven ourselves once again in WW2 when we beat the Italians, a far more powerful country than small Greece. Also, the fact that Hitler's powers came to suppress us made the Nazis lose time and* start the Russian campaign in the winter*, a horrible mistake as it was proven.


Operation Barbarossa (German: Fall Barbarossa, literally "Case Barbarossa"),* beginning 22 June 1941*, was the code name for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union during World War II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Greeks in general would be fine. We have proven ourselves once again in WW2 when we beat the Italians, a far more powerful country than small Greece. Also, the fact that Hitler's powers came to suppress us made the Nazis lose time and start the Russian campaign in the winter, a horrible mistake as it was proven.
> 
> Point is: Greeks powerful in the past and nowadays.
> 
> Remember: Salamis, Marathon, Thermopylae, Punic Wars in Magna Graecia (which must be again Greek), we fought during the Byzantine times --- in the beginning as the East Roman Empire, afterwards almost Greek empire which lasted 1000 years ---, then the War of Independence from the Ottoman Empire, the Balkan Wars (I and II, winners in both along with Serbia and Bulgaria (at first)), WWI, the Asia Minor Expedition (we were so close to win, should the Soviets have not assisted Kemal Ataturk), our navy has never lost a battle, we are the ΜΕΓΑ ΤΟ ΤΗΣ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΗΣ ΚΡΑΤΟΣ (i.e., _The Great Nation that Rules the Seas_), WWII etc. Generally we have fought many wars breh.
> 
> Actually nowadays I am reading _Cyrus Anabasis_ and the history of the _Ten Thousand_ by Xenophon. You must read that to understand what it means to be a Greek.
> 
> Here is Magna Graecia (in lower Italy): 
> ...


Greeks have certainly changed culturally, militarily, etc. many times throughout the last 4,000 years, so it is hard to put their fighters throughout history in one category. I am sure in many differnt eras Greeks have had victories and defeats like everyone else, and I don't know where to rank them in the world.

----------


## Nobody1

> Who do you think are the greatest warriors in history


The Austrian soldiers at Karánsebes 1788;

----------


## LeBrok

> The Austrian soldiers at Karánsebes 1788;


That's actually tragicomical story, I've never heard of. Who needs enemy with army like this?

----------


## Pax Augusta

_Roman Gladiators_? Problably you meant Roman Legionary soldiers.

----------


## Vinnie

Vikings in Northern Europe were the hardest.

----------

