Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
I want to know who everyone thinks are the best warriors in history. Consider only their miltary abilities in relative historical terms, not absolute terms.
Best warriors in history?
- Thread starter Pangur Bán
- Start date
Yoda Power
✫✫✫✫✫✫✫
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 13,869
The Romans, Mongols and Arabs were the best warriors i believe, the Macedonians(under Philip and Alexander) and Japanese were pretty amazing too.
The old tribes of Germania conquered Europe from the Romans. And we own it to this day
Saying Indo-Europeans makes it difficult. 5 of the above mentioned are Indo-Europeans, 6 with the IE, duh. So maybe the strongest conquerors are the Indo-European people 3 of the above mentioned are dead tribes. Mongol Empire collapsed, Roman Empire collapsed and the Latin people (IE people) were assimilated, and the Sea Peoples (IE tribes) were defeated and most of them assimilated or killed in later centuries.
So Old Germans or IE.
Cimbri
Saying Indo-Europeans makes it difficult. 5 of the above mentioned are Indo-Europeans, 6 with the IE, duh. So maybe the strongest conquerors are the Indo-European people 3 of the above mentioned are dead tribes. Mongol Empire collapsed, Roman Empire collapsed and the Latin people (IE people) were assimilated, and the Sea Peoples (IE tribes) were defeated and most of them assimilated or killed in later centuries.
So Old Germans or IE.
Cimbri
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Sorry, i meant by "Indo-European" the warriors who are conjectured by some to have invaded Europe and India from the Eurasian Steppe in pre-historic times. I think they are often identified with the battle axe culture of southern Russia. The Sea Peoples are possibly a version of the same people, but there is so little evidence either way. These people (the IEs) may have been the first to use horses and the chariot as instruments of war. There is even the possibility of a gigantic lost empire or super-confederacy stretching from europe to China in pre-historic times.
Ah, youre thinking about the Indo-Aryans (IE people). The ancestors of the modern Indians.
The Sea People came from the northern Mediterranean, Hellas, Sicily and Corsica and so on
While the Sea People managed to destroy the decaying Hittite Empire, that was no major task and they were largely exterminated by the Egyptians (According to Pharaoh Ramses II anyway But the Egyptians are known to hmm rewrite events to their own good). But both Sea People and Indo-Aryans were fierce warriors.
Cimbri
The Sea People came from the northern Mediterranean, Hellas, Sicily and Corsica and so on
While the Sea People managed to destroy the decaying Hittite Empire, that was no major task and they were largely exterminated by the Egyptians (According to Pharaoh Ramses II anyway But the Egyptians are known to hmm rewrite events to their own good). But both Sea People and Indo-Aryans were fierce warriors.
Cimbri
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Yeh, I've got to agree. In their first days they annihilated every army they fought and conquered every mainstream civilization in Eurasia except Byzantium and a few others.
G-Man
A One Man's War
How can I compare a mongol warrior from 1200 and a eurpean WW2 soldier? Ofcource the mongol will be more trained in the use of his weapons, and will be much stronger compared to his own time's enemies, but on the other hand the european and American soldiers of the world wars, because they were ordinary people drafted, were many more. And it's true they didn't have the huge advantage over their enemies the mongols has, but the mongols never faced an army the size of the Nazi army.
I won't compare anything, just mention here the best warriors and why they are actually the best
Vikings - Berserks... Vikings valued berserks as twenty usual warriors!
Rome - highly disciplined, professional army.
Mongols - all their life long they lived on horsebacks, the ultimate nomads.
Guerrillas - though they do not belong to any certain historical state, you all know for sure that guerillas influenced many wars greatly.
Feodal medieval armies - the worst ones: no discipline, no common tactics. The example is French armies of the XIV century.
Vikings - Berserks... Vikings valued berserks as twenty usual warriors!
Rome - highly disciplined, professional army.
Mongols - all their life long they lived on horsebacks, the ultimate nomads.
Guerrillas - though they do not belong to any certain historical state, you all know for sure that guerillas influenced many wars greatly.
Feodal medieval armies - the worst ones: no discipline, no common tactics. The example is French armies of the XIV century.
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
The Mongols went up against Khwarzm and Song China, the two most powerful empires at that time and conquered them. Individually, they could have been a Nazi empire each in power.
Dark Ascendant
Darkness Ascending...
The Mongols at their best in the days of GK. Then, they had the strict discipline of the Yasa Code and knocked over all their opponents.
I'd agree with the choice of Mongols (or any other steppe nomads). They were a very hardy people; growing up in a wild, violent and harsh land w/o the benefits of govt or civilisation (before and earlier part of GK's time). For e.g. their 'courtship' practises are simply seizing and kidnapping young women fr another tribe and involving much bloodshed.
The individual Mongol warrior will have no qualms about riding thousands of miles and then fighting a battle at the end of it. Supply columns? No need; they drink blood fr their horses' veins. While riding. Courage? No lack of it; GK's horde customarily attacked enemies, better equipped and in superior numbers, and won (or at least bloodied them badly).
It was GK's genius to get the Mongols to fight in units and forge them into a powerful united force for pure violence.
Though I'd say, after a generation or two, the individual Mongol soldier had grown soft, fr living off loot and conquered lands.
The individual Mongol warrior will have no qualms about riding thousands of miles and then fighting a battle at the end of it. Supply columns? No need; they drink blood fr their horses' veins. While riding. Courage? No lack of it; GK's horde customarily attacked enemies, better equipped and in superior numbers, and won (or at least bloodied them badly).
It was GK's genius to get the Mongols to fight in units and forge them into a powerful united force for pure violence.
Though I'd say, after a generation or two, the individual Mongol soldier had grown soft, fr living off loot and conquered lands.
Indeed, they were the equivalent of the Third Reich in their day.
And earlier, GK had taken on the mighty Jurchen Jin empire of N China and Manchuria, who were nomads like themselves and ruling over a vast Chinese populace. Amazing, considering that GK used to be a vassal of said empire, until he turned against them and subdued them completely within years.
Each of these empires could summon well-equipped armies in the hundreds of thousands and each was destroyed by the Mongols.
Panda
Metal head
It seems people understand the concept of warrior and soldier as one and the same... 
I'm going to be patriotic and say Germanic, into which I include the Norse as well.
I'm going to be patriotic and say Germanic, into which I include the Norse as well.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Man for man, pregunpowder, I would say the Persian Dhegan, after which the Roman's designed their heavy Cavalry. The Persians still had an edge on firepower, and were equal to the Romans at sword and lance. For infantry, Greek hoplites. For engineering, the Romans and accept no substitutes.
As a group, Tamerlane, or Timur -links, and the Mongols. It would have been interesting to watch Them attack the Persia of the 5th-7th centuries instead of the 14th.
J
As a group, Tamerlane, or Timur -links, and the Mongols. It would have been interesting to watch Them attack the Persia of the 5th-7th centuries instead of the 14th.
J
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
The Glorious, Victorious 24th Mechanized Infantry Division, February, 1991.
In all seriousness, I think the modern American has the whole warfare thing down pat. Great article in the Economist recently about how they have done this with a very "workmanlike" - and thus team-centred - approach to warfare, which too many of the warriors above did not, preferring individual displays of prowess to collective potential.
R.III
In all seriousness, I think the modern American has the whole warfare thing down pat. Great article in the Economist recently about how they have done this with a very "workmanlike" - and thus team-centred - approach to warfare, which too many of the warriors above did not, preferring individual displays of prowess to collective potential.
R.III
Similar threads
