What is the world's bravest nation

[jonatas]

Look, the top power of Portugal was in fact between those ages: 1500-1650.

Yamo, Portugal was broken by Dom Sebastião's ill fated crusade in Morocco in 1578, but i'm sure you know that

I would choose either between Dom Manuel I's reign or João II's to represent the ideal monarch for Portugal.... i would incline towards João II personally, "the perfect prince", as representing a legendary part of Portugal's history, though doubtless Manuel reaped João II's benefits and Portugal enjoyed the wealth and glory of the Descobrimentos during Manuel's reign (1495-1521)

 

[stormbind]

I think the UK (and England) has been rather brave. It has gone toe to toe against foes with far more power than itself, psyched itself up, and clobbered them.

Elizabethan England vs. Spanish Empire is one example.

I also think they were pretty brave to liberate Europe from Napoleon. Then they stood against a statistically stonger Germany, twice. The UK didn't shy away from being the first line of defense against a massive USSR either (esp. North Sea) and is frequently the most outspoken nation on the world stage - quite prepared to upset the USA or EU when it suits them.

Given it's diminutive size, I think the UK has demonstrated balls of steel.

 

[Verbose]

Given it's diminutive size, I think the UK has demonstrated balls of steel... bags of coal... pots of gold...

I'd say France was pretty brave to spread its Revolution to the rest of Europe in the first place.

And I know lots of nations that would just love to be as "tiny" as the UK, i.e. the population of France and Italy.

 

[stormbind]

While there is an element of truth in what you say, I am not referring to UK influence over equal peers.

I was specifically referring to how the UK has reacted to bigger rivals who possessed truck loads of coal... and truck loads of gold

 

[Yamamoto]

I was specifically referring to how the UK has reacted to bigger rivals who possessed truck loads of coal... and truck loads of gold

That could fit perfectly to Portugal, in 15th and 16th century.

 

[Adler17]

I already said that no nation is the bravest nor is any braver. There were ever times in which one nation fought against others to survive. If for instance Britain in nominated here by stormbind I could nominate Prussia. Prussia had to cope with the Polish- Lithunian alliance and became a Polish dominium. It became independent under the Grand Elector and a kingdom under his son, Friedrich I. It had now to cope with Austria, Sweden, France, Poland, Saxony, Russia. It was near to destruction in the 7 Years war and in 1807 in the peace of Tilsit. But it survived. Under Bismarck it managed to do the nearly impossible: the unification of Germany against the great powers. But due to wise diplomacy and only 3 short wars Bismarck accomplished the mission impossible.
So Prussia would be a good contender.
Nevertheless I repeat again: There is no bravest nation nor is any nation braver than the others.

Adler

 

[Scythian_Jatt]

Hi guys,

The Sikhs would probably be ONE of the bravest, they were the ones who drove the Moghuls out of India, even though they were greatly outnumbered. In one battle at the Golden Temple (Amritsar) 100 Sikhs faced off against 20, 000 Moghul soldiers under the command of Ahmed Shah Abdali, and they still came out victorious.

The Sikhs are also the only people in history known to have conquered present day Afghanistan fully, defeating the mighty Pashtun tribes(Pathans). The Afghanis till this day deny this ever occuring, even though Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore had reigned over Afghanistan for close to 40 years during the late 19th century.

Even the U.S. hasn't been able to control all of Afghanistan present day, much of the country is controlled by warlords etc.

I like the Russians though, hardcore dudes

regards,

 

[blindside]

Hi guys,

The Sikhs would probably be ONE of the bravest, they were the ones who drove the Moghuls out of India, even though they were greatly outnumbered. In one battle at the Golden Temple (Amritsar) 100 Sikhs faced off against 20, 000 Moghul soldiers under the command of Ahmed Shah Abdali, and they still came out victorious.

The Sikhs are also the only people in history known to have conquered present day Afghanistan fully, defeating the mighty Pashtun tribes(Pathans). The Afghanis till this day deny this ever occuring, even though Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore had reigned over Afghanistan for close to 40 years during the late 19th century.

Even the U.S. hasn't been able to control all of Afghanistan present day, much of the country is controlled by warlords etc.

I like the Russians though, hardcore dudes

regards,

Didn't the Ancient Persians and then Alexander conquer pretty much all of modern day Afghanistan. I think numerous Turks and other Persians have repeated this feat.

 

[Squonk]

I already said that no nation is the bravest nor is any braver. There were ever times in which one nation fought against others to survive. If for instance Britain in nominated here by stormbind I could nominate Prussia. Prussia had to cope with the Polish- Lithunian alliance and became a Polish dominium. It became independent under the Grand Elector and a kingdom under his son, Friedrich I. It had now to cope with Austria, Sweden, France, Poland, Saxony, Russia. It was near to destruction in the 7 Years war and in 1807 in the peace of Tilsit. But it survived. Under Bismarck it managed to do the nearly impossible: the unification of Germany against the great powers. But due to wise diplomacy and only 3 short wars Bismarck accomplished the mission impossible.
So Prussia would be a good contender.
Nevertheless I repeat again: There is no bravest nation nor is any nation braver than the others.
Adler

Bah, Teutonic Knights in Prussia were efficient, good gouvernors and good soldiers, but were hardly brave. All their neighbours had other troubles, and they themselves had constant support from abroad.
During the Gruenwald war, they were only saved by king Jagiello's lack of haste, either because He thought the war is over already, or because He wanted to keep Teutonic Knights as the thing that kept Poles and Lithuanian together.
During the 13-year war, TK really showed an admirable ability of regeneration, but the success was only that they survived in some way.
During 1520-5 war, Prussia only survived because its master was a nephew of Polish king
During 1655-60 war Prussia, or rather Brandenburg, was not brave, but just snivelling.
And later on, Prussia was just saved by the death of tzarine Elisabeth.

 

[Raw is War?]

I'd say Sparta, due to the Battle of Thermopylae.

 

[Adler17]

Squonk, the Polish king was it who gave (Eastern) Prussia free, after the Brandenburgers helped him to win the war. Also the TK were invited by the Polish duke Konrad von Masowien, because he couldn´t cope with the Prussians. Later this amicality was over after Lithunia and Poland were united. This alliance as I agree was in long terms deadly for the TK. Nevertheless they fought against an outnumbering enemy. Although invain. Later the Grand Elector could become free and was no longer a vasall to the Polish king.
In the 7 years war Prussia had to fight against Saxony, Poland, Sweden, Austria, Russia, Holy Roman Empire and France. Only Hannover, Braunschweig and Britain were allies, but not very trustworthy (especially Britain). So fighting against nearly all European countries and still winning is not brave???? I admit that Frederic the Great had luck but luck is a decisive factor only the brave can use.
Later the war of 1806 where Prussia was indeed saved by the Czar. However Prussia survived and took revenge in Leipzig and Waterloo.
In 1848 the foreign powers were one reason why the foundation of a German Reich failed. Bismarck knew that very well and because of a series of diplomatic offensives and wars he was able to unify Germany- again against nearly all of Europe.
So you can´t deny that Prussia was brave but you if you do so, it would be interesting to see your definition of bravery.
All in all to remember: I still say that there is no bravest nation!

Adler

 

[Squonk]

Squonk, the Polish king was it who gave (Eastern) Prussia free, after the Brandenburgers helped him to win the war.

You somehow didn't notice that Prussia was bound to help Poland anyway, as its vassal, and instead of doing it, it stood on Swedish side and occupied Polish territory. Berlin-Krolewiec were bought out of war by granting (limited) independance, that's true, but if they honoured their obligations, they wouldn't have to be bought out of it in the first place.

Also the TK were invited by the Polish duke Konrad von Masowien, because he couldn´t cope with the Prussians.

Actually, he did, just He's killed the guy responsible for the defence sistem and needed some other sollution.

Later this amicality was over after Lithunia and Poland were united.

I think the end of Polish-TK amicity took place earlier, when
- TK forged a document giving Chelmno land and Prussia for itself
- when TK annected some lands of Pomerania duchy
- when Poland was endangered by revolt of German citizens of Cracow in the south, and Brandenburg invasion in the North, and called TK for help against Brandenburg (as it was supposed to give it according to earlier treaties),
and it did push the Brandenburgians away, but instead of backing of, it in fact took the part of Pomerania that remained in Polish lands by force (btw murdering entire population of Gdansk - future Danzig city), and refused to give it back
- later on, it took some other Polish lands, allied against Poland with Luxemburgs and in fact attempted to destroy Polish kingdom completely
I think the lack of sympathy towards TK had to do with all that.

This alliance as I agree was in long terms deadly for the TK. Nevertheless they fought against an outnumbering enemy.

Unlike earlier, and in fact they had much better equipement, and better fortifications. They were not at all without chances of winning.

In the 7 years war Prussia had to fight against Saxony, Poland, Sweden, Austria, Russia, Holy Roman Empire and France. Only Hannover, Braunschweig and Britain were allies, but not very trustworthy (especially Britain).

Nah, Poland didn't take part in this war.

So fighting against nearly all European countries and still winning is not brave???? I admit that Frederic the Great had luck but luck is a decisive factor only the brave can use.

Prussia was entirely conquered, and Russians took Berlin. Frederick was doomed, and only saved by death of Elisabeth.

 

[Adler17]

At first vassals were not that trustworthy in that times and the Great Elector wanted to get rid of being a vassal. Well later he swiched the sides, what was common in that era. Since that was a common place it is only bad in the modern point of view but not in the one later.
Concerning the the end of the Prussian- Polish friendship you´re right. When Wenzel III. was murdered his successor tried to annex Pommerania and also other parts like Danzig, which was indeed founded as a Slavic castle but later inhabited by Germans until 1945. But here again Prussia was no aggressor but Poland. This also lead to a preventive strike in 1410 shortly after the Polish- Lithunian union was established. We know the further history.
In the 7 years war Poland was united with Saxony. So it took part.
At last Prussia was never entirely conquered nor Berlin was conquered for a long time. It was a critical phase indeed and it is true that Prussia was saved by the death of the Czarina. But until that Prussia defended itself against nearly all European nations. And in battles like Leuthen or Roßbach Prussia was saved to survive the Czarina. This lead to the fact the Prussians could use the lucky situation.

Adler

 

[Squonk]

Concerning the the end of the Prussian- Polish friendship you´re right. When Wenzel III. was murdered his successor tried to annex Pommerania and also other parts like Danzig, which was indeed founded as a Slavic castle but later inhabited by Germans until 1945. But here again Prussia was no aggressor but Poland.

What? Who's Wenzel III? And when Poland attacked Prussia? About which period are we talking about?

In the 7 years war Poland was united with Saxony. So it took part.

Nope. Poland had only personal union with Saxony.

 

[Volum]

Just for national pride im gonna say Norway Vikings going over the seas and stuff like that.

I agree with Adler tough, there is no nation that can stand out as braver then others, since it all depends on how you see things. Its kind of like discussing music, you cant get anyone to like music they dont like.

 

[Adler17]

Wenzel III. was IIRC the last Piast on the Polish throne. It is the time of 1300. After his death his successor tried to annex Danzig and parts of Pommerania, unsuccessfully thanks to the Teutonic Knights. Then it came to a series of hostilities in which the Polish were unable to beat the Germans until the union with Lithunia...

Adler

 

[Squonk]

Wenzel III. was IIRC the last Piast on the Polish throne. It is the time of 1300. After his death his successor tried to annex Danzig and parts of Pommerania, unsuccessfully thanks to the Teutonic Knights. Then it came to a series of hostilities in which the Polish were unable to beat the Germans until the union with Lithunia...

Adler

The last Piast on Polish throne was Kazimierz (Casimir) the Great. He died in the seventies of XIV century I think.
You could have two people on mind: his father, Wladyslaw I Lokietek, or Waclaw III.
The story went like this. After Poland splitted into a number of duchies,
after several attempts of re-uniting it, mostly be Silesian dukes, Przemyslaw II of Major Poland was crowned in 1295. His domain was Major Poland, Pommerania (eastern part, Danzig and Stolp/Gdansk and Slupsk; he got it peacefully thanks to a deal with its last souvereign ruler that the one who shall live longer will get it), and Minor Poland (the same case). Minor Poland was however taken before coronation (as well as most of Silesian duchies) by Czechs (who also claimed Polish throne). Przemyslaw II, reknown for alleged murder of his first wife, a Meklemburgian, was later on married to a Brandenburgian marchgravine. That didn't stop Brandenburgians from raiding him during some party and killing him in year 1296. As Przemyslaw's only dotter, Ryksa (?) was married by Czech king, Waclaw II of Przemyslid dinasty, king of Bohemia was eventually crowned as king of Poland, owning (vassalised) Silesia, Major and Minor Poland, and eastern Pommerania. He died in year 1305. His son, Waclaw III, the last of Przemyslid dinasty, was never crowned king of Poland, because he was murdered a year later near Olomluniec. He did plan to exchange Pommerania for Misnia, but He didn't have time to do so.
Anyways, that was the time when earlier pretendents to the crown begane fighting again. Mostly it was between Henry of Glogow (Silesia) and Wladyslaw Lokietek of some puny duchy in Kujawy region. Eventually Wladyslaw Lokietek won, and owned Major Poland, Minor Poland and eastern Pommerania, but then the Brandenburgians attacked. The rest of the story I've written earlier.
The Czechs under Luxemburg dinasty continued to claim Polish throne until Casimir the Great agreed to pay them a large sum of money and resign from Silesia in exchange for resignation of their rights.

 

[Jack the Ripper]

Jack the Ripper: Israel is not a lamb surrounded by wolves. It took Arab-inhabited land and invaded several other Arab states during its history. Not that the Arabs are without fault, and definitely Israelis have proven to be brave, but don't be so one-sided.

Yes they did take the land, twice. Actually, they didnt take arab land. After the state of israel was made, they invited the arabs to stay. Most of the arabs left after the ARABS declared war on israel in 1948.

What is there in that land that the arabs want so badly though? Theres no oil. Its half desert. Its less than 1/5th of 1 percent of the land in the middle east. As far as i know the only muslim religious sites in the land are in Jerusalem (which is jointly owned). The vast majority of vegitation there now was planted by the jews in the early and middle part of the 20th century. Apart from some meditteranean coastline, i dont see what would be so attractive about the land.

I do stand by my statement about the wolves. Israel didn't start any of the wars since its founding in 1948. While nowadays the Israelis use their military to take out military/terrorist targets, the palestineans targets civilians as a political statement. Theres already a palistine. Its called Jordan.

And so, again i will list the bravest countries:
America
Australia
Scotland
Poland
Israel

 

[Rambuchan]

I don't want to get into the debates between personal and national bravery. I've a few contributions which fall both sides of the coin. So in the spirit of the original post my contributions are:

The Gurkhas - Hard nuts in hard conditions, anywhere in the world.

The Maroons - West African slave renegades who constantly bashed the more numerous, powerful and advance British forces in the Caribbean. Their bravery was preserved in the colour maroon, which adorns the West Indies cricket team kits for one!

On a more national level:

The British Celts under Boudica against the Romans.

Impressed with the Poles and Koreans.

Afghans have consistently bashed the hell out of more poweful nations that set foot in their mountains - Britian and the Soviets for eg. Planes kind stitched them up though.

The Mongols were brave and terrifying and Alexander's Macedonians were in the same limitless way.

Well actually IMO:

Although Britain did join WW2 as a matter of principle, realising it would lose much, I think Britain dragged its feet about getting into it. Many of the European Allied nations very much buried their head in the sand over Hitler's intentions. This to me is the antithesis of bravery.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

I don't want to get into the debates between personal and national bravery. I've a few contributions which fall both sides of the coin. So in the spirit of the original post my contributions are:

The Gurkhas - Hard nuts in hard conditions, anywhere in the world.

The Maroons - West African slave renegades who constantly bashed the more numerous, powerful and advance British forces in the Caribbean. Their bravery was preserved in the colour maroon, which adorns the West Indies cricket team kits for one!

On a more national level:

The British Celts under Boudica against the Romans.

Impressed with the Poles and Koreans.

Afghans have consistently bashed the hell out of more poweful nations that set foot in their mountains - Britian and the Soviets for eg. Planes kind stitched them up though.

The Mongols were brave and terrifying and Alexander's Macedonians were in the same limitless way.

Well actually IMO:

Although Britain did join WW2 as a matter of principle, realising it would lose much, I think Britain dragged its feet about getting into it. Many of the European Allied nations very much buried their head in the sand over Hitler's intentions. This to me is the antithesis of bravery.

Hmm.

The Maroons...so brave the British bought them off and they worked to capture other escapee slaves for the British.

The Ghurkas - yeah, tough and brave

The British Celts, abit of rape and pillage before getting promptly wiped out, hardly a splendid qualification.

The Afghans - fighting on their own turf and fighting all the time in a geographically remote and hostile land. Helped by circumstances.

The Mongols - well, you had to be tough, you were part of a fearsome military machine, you didn't necessarily have to be brave as your enemy was in many respects outclassed.

The Macedonians - well, maybe the Persians were just crap