Me and my history teacher were talking about this on one day, and i just bumped into him today and thought of it again. What was the best type of soldier ever, it may be truly impossible to compare two different types of troops from different ages but if you put the time there were around and what they did together then you can get a decent idea. Was it the Greek Hoplite, the Roman Legionary, the German Panzer, the Persian Immortals, the American Marine, the list could go on forever which is exactly why i didn't do a poll and me and my history teacher never really got to a clear cut agreement so I'll ask you guys what was the best ever.

In terms of pure soldiery, it would definitely have to be somewhere in the Far East, before the Industrial Age began. I'm leaning towards China or Japan. Pretty close call, but personally I'd say Japan. That's where you'd find the (highest concentration of) best overall 'troops', I'd say. They had it down to a science... an art... a lifestyle -- better than anyone else. And yes, even the Spartans. :rolleyes:

Nobody makes swords like Japan, same goes for soldiers. And once upon a time, that was the entire meaning of life, for many of them. Thus, they took it pretty far...

The more effective killers. That means modern soldiers.

The more effective killers. That means modern soldiers.

OK then, a pilot flying an aircraft laden with a thermonuclear weapon FTW. /thread

But in terms of... 'the men' (AKA 'the soldiers'), that's what I meant, before.

The more effective killers. That means modern soldiers.

You've got to think of what kind of world the soldier was in, if you compare a samurai with an arqubuster (early European gunpowder soldier, i think thats how you spell it)the arqubuster is a more effective killer since he has a musket but the actual better soldier who would do better fighting and killing during a war at his own time would be the sammy.

I think that when the Roman Legions were at their best, that's about as good as it ever got. They would march all day, build a competent fort to spend the night in, build a bridge across a river the next day, stand up to anyone with tactics and training that allowed maximum power against any enemy of their day.

I think that when the Roman Legions were at their best, that's about as good as it ever got. They would march all day, build a competent fort to spend the night in, build a bridge across a river the next day, stand up to anyone with tactics and training that allowed maximum power against any enemy of their day.

Thats who i was saying, because not only would they very easily conquer a territory, but then they would also become very good builders being able to build forts and anything else needed very quickly. Not only that but they were also very well equipped and theres a surplus of good Roman military leaders so they were always led by the best.

Was it the Greek Hoplite,

The Phalangite was arguably better than the Hoplitai.

the Roman Legionary,

Pre or Post-Marian reforms? And then, are you including Limitanei, or is that only Comitatenses?

the German Panzer,

Surely you meant Panzer Grenadier by that.

the Persian Immortals,

They weren't really the best soldiers in the world, they were simply some of the most famous. Still elite troops, though.

the American Marine, the list could go on forever which is exactly why i didn't do a poll and me and my history teacher never really got to a clear cut agreement so I'll ask you guys what was the best ever.

Well you have to remember that you cannot compare things like legionaries to United States Marines to Redcoats to Beoduin, each is in its own element. Perhaps you can measure how they fared against other soldiers of their day, and attempt to decide which was the most dominating relative to its timeframe, but to establish a "best soldier ever" would be completely subjective in the end.

Here are my nominees from various eras.

Ancient - Assyrian Charioteers
Archaic - Iron weapon-wielding Sea Peoples
Classical - The Sacred Band of Thebes, or Spartates Hoplitai
Hellenistic - Pezhetairoi
Roman Republic/Empire - the post-Marian Comitatenses
"Dark Ages" after 476AD - Mohammad's Ansar warriors
Middle Ages - Mongol Cavalryman
early Gunpowder Era - Janissary Corps
"Age of Imperialism" - Prussian Fusilier
WWI - I'm not qualified to make this call
WWII - certainly the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler and Das Reich divisions of the Waffen-SS
Postwar - United States Marine

These are of course my own suggestions, quite without elaboration; should it be requested, I would be happy to expatiate copiously. :)

EDIT: I'm also aware of my ignorance of Eastern and pre-Columbian American styles of warfare, and how Western-biased this list is.

Solid Snake. Topic over.

An Aztec with nuke :)

on topic: I have no idea, and I think "what/who is the greatest x" threads are boooooooring.

The Phalangite was arguably better than the Hoplitai.

Pre or Post-Marian reforms? And then, are you including Limitanei, or is that only Comitatenses?

Surely you meant Panzer Grenadier by that.

:lol: This part of your post could be renamed "Cheezy tries to impress everyone with the historical proper names he knows". :p


:rolleyes: This part of your post could be renamed "Cheezy tries to impress everyone with the historical proper names he knows". :sleep:

WWII - certainly the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler and Das Reich divisions of the Waffen-SS


LSSAH and 2nd SS weren't that good, especially post Normandy. The true German elite troops were the Fallschirmjager, the U-boat fleet, and Panzer Lehr.

For WWII, I'd rate the Finnish ski troups (sissi?) quite high.

For WWII, I'd rate the Finnish ski troups (sissi?) quite high.

Or the SAS, the Rangers, the Brandenburgers etc.

Those spartan soldiers in 300 were mean. I know they were fictional and dramatized, but they were pretty cool to have stopped the large Persian army. Alexander and Hannibal armies were top notched too, I know they were inspired generals, but they faced big odds and win. Best in my opinion is not just the most expensive, or we would choose the soldier who can potentially inflict the greatest casualty (button pusher) best is the most flexible, cost effective all rounded soldier. All these qualities are found in the modern infantry warrior.

Pure but interesting speculation on European Knight vs. Japanese Samurai.
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm

Other than that, every period had a one or several unequaled troop type, like the roman legion, Napoleonic artillery or british infantry line, Great Khan cavalry, 100 year war longbowmen, German Panzer division, US Navy supercarriers, Swiss/German Pike infantry...

Another interesting debate would be to try to find what was the worse type of soldier ever.

I guess the one who died instantly from deceases due to no medication provided.

I guess the one who died instantly from deceases due to no medication provided.
It has little to do with the quality of the soldier, but of the medical services.

I have no idea why people are saying US Marines for modern times...

Marines, in comparison to the SAS, Delta, Spetsnaz, Seal Team 6, are by far the juniors.

Perhaps because they are a large size unit, and not just a small elite force?

Well then, what about the Rangers, Airborne, Foreign Legion, Royal Marines etc?

BTW, who are these "people"?

It seems that only one poster said US Marines for modern times.

And strangely enough, he's american...

BTW, who are these "people"?

It seems that only one poster said US Marines for modern times.

And strangely enough, he's american...

Just preempting the deluge of "UNAHTED STATES MAHREENS, MOTHER. .. .. .. .ERS"

They certainly have an impressive combat record, to say the least.

If you're asking for soldiers, then many of the nominations in here are flawed. A good soldier is not necessarily the one who can win in a 3 on 1 combat; it's the person who can bring victory to his army when coupled with his fellow soldiers: that requires discipline, organization, and obedience. Not special ops. Thus, I'd nominate the Roman legionary, the Mongol horse archer, and maybe a Swedish musketman from Gustavas Adolphus' armies.

I have no idea why people are saying US Marines for modern times...

Marines, in comparison to the SAS, Delta, Spetsnaz, Seal Team 6, are by far the juniors.

Marines were able to take Mexico City the Mexican-American war, they were a dominate force during WWII, they stormed Tripoli when Pirates were attacking American ships, and there the the tip of the sword that is the American army today, they're elite and can fight in any terrain and if I was the enemy i know that one thing i would not want to hear is "oorah marines"

Surely you meant Panzer Grenadier by that.

It doesn't just have to be foot soldier, with the Panzer the Germans were able to blitzkrieg and conquer half of Europe

they stormed Tripoli when Pirates were attacking American ships

Maybe it should be Marines V Ninjas then! It would be about as constructive a topic as this thread.

(1)Marines were able to take Mexico City the Mexican-American war, (2) they were a dominate force during WWII, (3) they stormed Tripoli when Pirates were attacking American ships, and (4) there the the tip of the sword that is the American army today, they're elite and can fight in any terrain and if I was the enemy i know that one thing i would not want to hear is "oorah marines"

1. They didn't capture Mexico City alone nor could they have with out the US Army.

2. They were not the dominate US force in WWII. At their highest strength there were around 130,000+ Marines compared to the US Army's 11,000,000.

3. There were only eight US marines at Tripoli IIRC, they had hundreds of mercenaries with them.

4. The US Army can also fight on every terrain. From the Past decade at least its been the US Army who leads the way into a war. Panama 89 was US Army paratroopers, US cav in Iraq 91 and again in 03. The first troops on the ground in Afghanistan weren't even Americans.

Also, US MArines are pretty much unable to do occupation work, whcih is quite critical to the miltiary.

The Marines are very good. But if you look at their whole history, they are not exceptionally better than other military units. In some ways yes, in others, no. I would say better than most, but not the best as a whole.

130,000+ Marines compared to the US Army's 11,000,000.

3. There were only eight US marines at Tripoli IIRC, they had hundreds of mercenaries with them.


There recruitment slogan is "The Few, The Proud, The Marines" so obviously there is not going to be a lot of marines but the marines are going to be better than the average soldier

The Red Army did a pretty incredible job at Stalingrad, holding out in the most horrific circumstances, and then turning an almost certain loss into a win that determined the fate of a lot of the world.

If you're asking for soldiers, then many of the nominations in here are flawed. A good soldier is not necessarily the one who can win in a 3 on 1 combat; it's the person who can bring victory to his army when coupled with his fellow soldiers: that requires discipline, organization, and obedience. Not special ops. Thus, I'd nominate the Roman legionary, the Mongol horse archer, and maybe a Swedish musketman from Gustavas Adolphus' armies.

the discussion is flawed anyway.
with the arrival of repetitive fire weapons training became much less important, while numerical and industrial advantage became everything.

The Red Army did a pretty incredible job at Stalingrad, holding out in the most horrific circumstances, and then turning an almost certain loss into a win that determined the fate of a lot of the world.

At Stalingrad, half the Red Army consisted of Workers' Militias formed from factory workers, who weren't even given firearms, but the odd grenade, and bayonettes, that kinda stuff. They were suppsoed to form a barrier to allow the Guards to regroup etc.

At Stalingrad, half the Red Army consisted of Workers' Militias formed from factory workers, who weren't even given firearms, but the odd grenade, and bayonettes, that kinda stuff. They were suppsoed to form a barrier to allow the Guards to regroup etc.

Half? I dont think so... not what I read in the book Stalingrad anyway. In any case, that would make the result even more impressive.

Also, US MArines are pretty much unable to do occupation work, whcih is quite critical to the miltiary.

Right, because other great soldier outfits were. The legionaries did an exceptional job of "occupying" Dacia :rolleyes:

Half? I dont think so... not what I read in the book Stalingrad anyway. In any case, that would make the result even more impressive.

Half was hyperbole, old chap ;)

Right, because other great soldier outfits were. The legionaries did an exceptional job of "occupying" Dacia
An army, or indeed a unit, that cannot occupy a territory adequately isn't worth a damn in any engagement that isn't some msort of blitzkrieg (e.g Gulf War I), especially when they are occupying. In fact, they are very usually detrimental.

Has there really been any outfit that was capable of dealing with an armed uprising, short of exterminating the populace?

It has little to do with the quality of the soldier, but of the medical services.

I consider those who provide medical services to the soldiers as part of the military like those who push buttons in ways to aid the troops. Infact today they are considered officially part of the army and people who have military careers can be people that provide medical services.

It is crucial and it is not mutually exclusive. You could say however that it has little to do with the quality of other soldiers and much to do with the quality of soldiers based on this field.

But i am not judging an individual here necessarilly without judging the advantages he gets from other individuals. Maybe that is wrong and not true to the question.

Anyway the modern soldier ,is the best because he gets the most support from weapons , medical issues , armor , name it and today it has been done better than 2000 or 1000 years ago .

I consider those who provide medical services to the soldiers as part of the military like those who push buttons in ways to aid the troops. Infact today they are considered officially part of the army and people who have military careers can be people that provide medical services.

Agreed, and in fact the first I believe the first medical corp was organized by Larrey and his ambulances, in Napoleon's army.

But it that case, your comment shouldn't be "the worse soldier is the one who dies because of his wounds", as it has little to do with the soldier itself, but "the worst army is the one that let to many of its soldiers die of their wounds".

Small difference, but quite important.

The Red Army did a pretty incredible job at Stalingrad, holding out in the most horrific circumstances, and then turning an almost certain loss into a win that determined the fate of a lot of the world.
I'd say that reflects the army or even the nation as a whole rather than the individual soldiers. Most Soviet soldiers were barely-trained conscripts, a human wall that evolved into a human steamroller. It was a combination of volume and determination rather than actual fighting skill that allowed them to trample through the Reich as they did.

Anyway, I think it's hard to make this judgment in anything but a "time and place" sort of thing. Even within a particular era ad region, environment and situation are incredibly important factors, as the slaughter of the "unbeatable" Legions at the hands of the Germanic "hordes" in the Teutoburg Forest proves. Given a flat, open space and time to properly deploy, the Romans could well have destroyed the relatively disorganised Germans, yet the particular events of the battle reduced the famed Legionary, who so relied on the massed ranks of his comrades-in-arms, to so much tinned meat.

I'd say that reflects the army or even the nation as a whole rather than the individual soldiers. Most Soviet soldiers were barely-trained conscripts, a human wall that evolved into a human steamroller. It was a combination of volume and determination rather than actual fighting skill that allowed them to trample through the Reich as they did.

OK, I take your point, in terms of skill they were nothing special, but in terms of determination & resillience they were. To hold out in Stalingrad under the circumstances they did was something few others would have been able for. but I understand your point, and you are right, determination alone isnt what the OP is asking about.

as the slaughter of the "unbeatable" Legions at the hands of the Germanic "hordes" in the Teutoburg Forest proves. Given a flat, open space and time to properly deploy, the Romans could well have destroyed the relatively disorganised Germans, yet the particular events of the battle reduced the famed Legionary, who so relied on the massed ranks of his comrades-in-arms, to so much tinned meat.
Massed ranks a la a Hellenistic phalangial formation don't work too well with the legionary. The problem at the Teutoberger Wald was actually that the legionaries needed to have more space between individual soldiers, otherwise they get cut about without room to use their swords. Legionaries needed about five feet of space between soldiers to fight effectively. True, they did have the ability to fight in close, especially since they concentrated on stabbing instead of swiping, but when you're packed together like sardines (forgive the overused simile) it's very hard to use your shield. That was sort of crucial. Another good example of this is Cannae: 70,000 ish Roman legionaries crammed together in a small space got trashed by Hannibal. Then there's the much closer to 9 AD event at the camp of Atuatuca during the Gallic War, when Legio VIII got annihilated by the Eburones in a small valley, as the Romans got jammed up too close to each other.

Romans actually functioned better on uneven ground than on flat, open space, compared to most armies of their time. Look at the Battle of Pydna, when the Macedonian phalanx initially cut apart the Roman formation, but as the Macedonians advanced onto broken ground, the phalanx developed holes and irregularities that the more flexible Roman legionaries exploited to great effect. There was a lot of open space between not only individual legionaries but also between maniples and cohorts, which could be adjusted as the situation warranted.

Flexibility was the order of the day in a Roman legion, but when you're trapped in an iron box you don't have the space to be flexible.

And of course what's often ignored is what happened after the Teutoberger Wald incident. The Empire sent several different expeditions into Germania, mostly punitive. Germanicus, Caligula's daddy, was in charge of the most famous and most important of these; not only did he successfully deal with the same kind of ambush the Cherusci pulled on Quinctilius Varus, but he defeated them in two major engagements on Germanic soil, the most important at Idistoviso. He got two of the three eagles back, but was recalled by the emperor anyway. Rome had the ability to conquer Germania. The problem was that it wasn't economically viable. Grabbing a huge tract of woods and swamps and Romanifying it costs money, and the money wasn't going to be made back out of Germania anytime soon. Hell, even Gaul was a stretch, but at least they had better pottery from being La Tene as opposed to Jastorf.

Oh, as for the "best troops in history"? My vote goes to the Argyraspides, or Silver Shield pikemen. They were the elite of Alexander's phalangitai, and during the Wars of the Diadochi, despite the fact that they were 60-70 years old by then, they formed the core of Eumenes' army against Antigonos Monophthalamos. At the Battles of Paraitakena and Gabiene, Antigonos' cavalry defeated Eumenes' other forces, but both times Antigonos' pezhetairoi were defeated by the Argyraspides without the latter suffering a single casualty, and both times they marched off the field unvanquished. It was only when Antigonos captured their treasures, the riches of decades of plundering in the East, and ransomed them, that they switched sides and murdered Eumenes. Then, to break them up, Antigonos sent them off in small groups to fight and die in the Bactrian and Arachosian wilds so that they couldn't ever be a political or military force again.

Fair points. I was just attempting to highlight the fact that there is no "best type of soldier", even within a particular region or time period. So much of it depends on particular circumstances- whatever they may be- favouring a particular troop type or tactic that it's virtually impossible to present any one troop type as "best". If the Legions were simply flat-out superior to the Germanic troops, then Teutoburg would not have occurred. As it was, the Romans were simply superior in the majority of circumstances.

Then, to break them up, Antigonos sent them off in small groups to fight and die in the Bactrian and Arachosian wilds so that they couldn't ever be a political or military force again.

A very interesting and educational post, Dach! But this line jumped out at me as something I do in Rome Total War when I have completely inadequate family members; you know, raving mad, horrible trade and command penalties, men who posess no use to me, I either put on a ship and set sail for the closest barbarian fleet, or send him off alone to fight the rebel hordes. :evil:

Traitorfish: oh, absolutely. As may be seen from my posts in the "mass archery armies" thread, I'm a combined-arms whore. But also, since I like Romans, I just had to try to defend them whatever way I could. :D
A very interesting and educational post, Dach!
Thanks. I like classical history.
But this line jumped out at me as something I do in Rome Total War when I have completely inadequate family members; you know, raving mad, horrible trade and command penalties, men who posess no use to me, I either put on a ship and set sail for the closest barbarian fleet, or send him off alone to fight the rebel hordes. :evil:
When playing as the Parthians in Rome: Total Realism, I sent two of my family members with a combined bodyguard of 35 guys off into the wilds of Central Asia and then had them besiege a barbarian village to just get rid of them, like you said. When the city inhabitants - a stack of 12 horse archer units - attacked, I decided to play out the battle just to kill them off myself. Forgetting that heavy cavalry is superior to lightly armed horse archers when the horse archers are in a confined space, I managed to get my generals into the city and smashed through the 600 horse archers like a scythe through wheat and captured the village with 2 casualties. Stupid, stupid, stupid. :p

Pre 476: Spartans or Roman Legionaires

476-1500: Mongol horsemen or Samurai.

1650-1850: British redcoat

1945-current: USMC

Spec ops are special, and do not count in this discussion.

Pre 476: Spartans or Roman Legionaires

476-1500: Mongol horsemen or Samurai.

1650-1850: British redcoat

1945-current: USMC

Spec ops are special, and do not count in this discussion.

I'd like to note that the Tercio is certainly worth mentioning, among others.

1490-1650: Spanish tercio

I took this post, becuase here you can see what are the most common thought off and selected soldiers.

I do think the Spanish Tercio tactics revolutionised warfare and should e worth mentioning.

What about the troops Alexander and the successors used? Weren't they called Hypastists or something like that? I don't know much classics buut that name sounds about right?

What about the troops Alexander and the successors used? Weren't they called Hypastists or something like that? I don't know much classics buut that name sounds about right?
Hypaspistai were among the units Alexander had. The name means "Foot-Companions", which is apt; Alex's heavy cavalry were the Hetairoi, or Companions, and the hypaspistai were powerful light infantry meant to form a link between the cavalry and the slower phalanx of pezhetairoi and argyraspides. Alexander's hypaspistai were probably one of the stronger units of the time: clad in the traditional classical armor of the hoplitai, they weren't as rigid as the various phalangitai units and were often used to storm fortifications or bolster the battle line at key locations. They were on that mad charge with Alexander at Gaugamela when he launched the right wing of his army towards Darius and served all throughout Alex's epic journey, and like the argyraspides they fought in the wars of the Diadochi. We're not sure what exactly happened to them; they probably had to evolve beyond the antiquated hoplite armor to fight in the Hellenistic age. The last sources that I can remember mention them as part of the Seleukid kings' corps of neo-Argyraspides and as fighting with Pyrrhos of Epeiros (:)). But yeah, the hypaspistai were awesome. Only reason I picked the argyraspides over them was 'cause the argyraspides had a neato story to go along with them, whereas we don't know as much about their foot companion friends.

I think you made a wee mistake there. If the "hetairoi" are "companions," don't you think it's the "pezhetairoi" that are the "foot-companions"?

I'd like to note that the Tercio is certainly worth mentioning, among others.

1490-1650: Spanish tercio

I took this post, becuase here you can see what are the most common thought off and selected soldiers.

I do think the Spanish Tercio tactics revolutionised warfare and should e worth mentioning.

Yes, definitely.

I think you made a wee mistake there. If the "hetairoi" are "companions," don't you think it's the "pezhetairoi" that are the "foot-companions"?
Whoops, yeah. I'm good at mixing stuff up, sorry about that. But the infantry roles as described are the same.

476-1500: Mongol horsemen or Samurai.
The Samurai were a warrior class, not a troop type as such. They represented a broad range of equipment based, varying both with time period and battlefield role.
What's more, the Samurai were not, despite the pop-culture myth, particularly effective troops. They developed in an isolated culture and so never learned to deal with anything but their own particular approach to warfare. Their only expoosure to non-Japanese warfare were the Mongol invasions, which never really went beyond a few skirmishes, and the later invasions of Korea, both of which ended disastrously for the Samurai.

I'd like to note that the Tercio is certainly worth mentioning, among others.

1490-1650: Spanish tercio

I took this post, becuase here you can see what are the most common thought off and selected soldiers.

I do think the Spanish Tercio tactics revolutionised warfare and should e worth mentioning.
The tercio was a combined-arms formation, not a troop-type. It was a combination of pikeman and musketeers, and, while invented in Spain, was by no means exclusive to it. In fact, the formation had it's origins in earlier combined arms formations used by the English, Swiss and Burgundians.
It was improtant and effective, no argument, but hardly a particular troop type in the same sense as the Spartan hoplite or Mongol mounted archer.

The Samurai were a warrior class, not a troop type as such. They represented a broad range of equipment based, varying both with time period and battlefield role.
What's more, the Samurai were not, despite the pop-culture myth, particularly effective troops. They developed in an isolated culture and so never learned to deal with anything but their own particular approach to warfare. Their only expoosure to non-Japanese warfare were the Mongol invasions, which never really went beyond a few skirmishes, and the later invasions of Korea, both of which ended disastrously for the Samurai.


The tercio was a combined-arms formation, not a troop-type. It was a combination of pikeman and musketeers, and, while invented in Spain, was by no means exclusive to it. In fact, the formation had it's origins in earlier combined arms formations used by the English, Swiss and Burgundians.
It was improtant and effective, no argument, but hardly a particular troop type in the same sense as the Spartan hoplite or Mongol mounted archer.

you are right. I admit my mistake. :) (note to self: stop playing strategy games :s )

French Old Guard.