What is the world's bravest nation

[Adler17]

All nations have brave moments. Finland, Britain, Germany, France,... We should more precisely ask for the bravest moment in a nation´s history.
For Prussia perhaps the 7 years war. Surrounded by enemy powers and not destroyed! Or in 1812/ 13. Napoleon was beaten in Russia. The Prussian troops escaped by being guarding the Northern flank. At Tauroggen (Lithunia) Marshall Yorck von Wartenburg made a cease fire with the Russians terminating the alliance with Napoleon and switching the sides AGAINST the will of the king, who still had doubts. Later he was honouring Yorck, however he had never a good relationship to him anymore. However even Yorck´s hair was becoming grey in the night before the meeting with the Russians.
Or the defence of German East Africa in ww1. Or Liegnitz 1241.
There are many moments to think of in each history.

Adler

 

[classical_hero]

I would say Australia. We have been fighting in wars way above our fighting class ever since we have been a nation. The actions of our soldiers at Gallipoli has to be one of the bravest acts in our brief nation's history. There was also a battle during the Vietnam war were Aussie Soldiers were hugely outnumbered and yet we still mangaged to win the battle.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

I didn't even know the Aussies fought in Vietnam. A lot of people seem to tell me that USA always goes into a war alone. Anyway, while Gallipoli was brave, It was not all Austrailian, and it was fought far from your home. Austrailia was never invaded, I think a nation has to be invaded, and fight for the homeland to be brave, so I don't think the Americans, or Austrailians were all that brave. But, that's just me

 

[Marla_Singer]

I didn't even know the Aussies fought in Vietnam. A lot of people seem to tell me that USA always goes into a war alone.

If I were you, I would be glad for the US that France didn't participate to the Vietnam war. Actually, even France's support to that war would have been a bad idea IMHO.

 

[nonconformist]

If I were you, I would be glad for the US that France didn't participate to the Vietnam war. Actually, even France's support to that war would have been a bad idea IMHO.

Yeah, if we didn't lose Indochina first

 

[joacqin]

I have to disagree on Poland, they if anyone have been histories whipping boy. Their bravery consists of having repelled perhaps a third of the invasions launched at them and that isnt that good of a ratio.

At the risk of sounding stupidly nationalistic I would like to bring up Sweden. Bravery or stupidity often goes hand in hand but the fact that the Russians were not a major power in European politics until the 18th century is in my opinion due to Sweden refusing to accept that Russia was a hundred times bigger than them, dont know if it was ignorance or pure foolhardiness but for hundreds of years it was tiny Sweden who sent invasion armies into huge Russia and with sheer arrogance kept Russia on the defensive. When the Russians finally figured out that Sweden was tiny and that they were big and when some semblence of rational thought entered the minds of the Swedish politicians the tables turned and Russia took its rightful place as a great European power.

Despite this I agree with those who say that we cant talk about national bravery.

 

[Verbose]

Yes I'd say you are overly patriotic. (Or maybe patriotic for the wrong reasons.)
Russia had worse enemies to overcome before they ran into the Swedes, and once they did it was mostly a matter if time until they could hand Sweden a crushing defeat. I can't see how Sweden seriously impeeded Russian expansion in the 17th and 18th c.?

Besides, I think you overstate Swedish aggressiveness against Russia. Most of Sweden's wars have been wars of defence, and often not just against Russia but against coalitions of Russians, Poles, Danes et al.
If I can find the time, I'll make a little list of Swedish-Russian wars later on.

If the Swedish military track record is "brave" it may be in the instances when it has mostly on its own beaten back these coalitions of enemies.

 

[joacqin]

First I would like to say that I am not really talking out of any patriotic fervor, any patriotism in my posts comes from the Swedish schooling which just as all countries educational systems give a very postive and patriotic image of its country's history.

Well, the fact is that when it comes to Russia, and even if it was from Swedish perspectives defensive wars it was Swedish armies trampling around in Russia, not the other way around. Swedish holdings on the other side of the Baltic doesnt count as Sweden proper To my knowledge the only armies who have been on the soil of Sweden proper have been Danish, but they on the other hand have been there a lot.

When it comes to the Danes and the Poles we were the Dane's little *****es for hundreds of years up to the 17th century where the Danes were our *****es for a few hundred years. To my knowledge the Poles just liked to go into alliances with the Danes and Russians but even then they got their butts whipped and they never launched any invasions.

 

[Mescalhead]

If I were you, I would be glad for the US that France didn't participate to the Vietnam war. Actually, even France's support to that war would have been a bad idea IMHO.

Yeah, France finished its job at Dien Bien Phu.

 

[MaisseArsouye]

I think celtic people are among the bravest : Scots, Gauls,... They fought for their famillies and land.

I couls also say Sparthans, Huns or Hitites.

But IMHO Zulus are the bravest !!!

 

[Verbose]

First I would like to say that I am not really talking out of any patriotic fervor, any patriotism in my posts comes from the Swedish schooling which just as all countries educational systems give a very postive and patriotic image of its country's history.

Well, the fact is that when it comes to Russia, and even if it was from Swedish perspectives defensive wars it was Swedish armies trampling around in Russia, not the other way around. Swedish holdings on the other side of the Baltic doesnt count as Sweden proper To my knowledge the only armies who have been on the soil of Sweden proper have been Danish, but they on the other hand have been there a lot.

When it comes to the Danes and the Poles we were the Dane's little *****es for hundreds of years up to the 17th century where the Danes were our *****es for a few hundred years. To my knowledge the Poles just liked to go into alliances with the Danes and Russians but even then they got their butts whipped and they never launched any invasions.

'
Well, we would be Bad Swedes if we displayed patriotic fervour.

And you come across a pretty level headed.

I just think Swedes in generall mistake the agressive prosecution of these wars for wars of agression.
Maybe I made a mistake, with my impression of what you wrote. Sorry, if that's the case.

The funny thing about the Swedish-Russian wars is that the agressor has often fared worse than the defender.

The reason Sweden mostly went on the offensive was often due to the fact that the Swedish armies at the time were better led, better trained and better equipped than its opponents. It was often a case of someone declaring war on Sweden but Sweden getting its preparations finished first. In which case it went on the offensive according to old chancellors Skytte's dictum prior to the Swedish entry into the 30 years war. "He who raises an army, and keeps it within the borders of the nation, is effectively making war upon himself." In order to be able to support at 17th or 18th c. war, it was preferable to make sure that the devastation happened to someone else.

Sweden's most agressive stance towards Russia was in the 18th c. (the war of the Hats and Gustaf III's Russian war, both due to Swedish agression), but the wars were mostly failures (if not disasters) and certainly nothing that cointained Russian expansion.

 

[EquinoxOmega]

yes, the Zulu insurrection was a brave deed: To fight for freedom against the modern and nearly undefeatable army of the British Empire.

 

[Verbose]

If I remeber the Zulu business right it was more a question of fighting an invasion, not so much an isurrection.

The British went in, in anticipation of a Zulu ritual known "as the washing of the spears" (i.e. in the blood of enemies), traditionally a necessity for Zulu warriors if they were to move from warrior to grown men, marry and start families. Unfortunately it would traditionally mean war. Since the Zulu nation hadn't been at war for some time it was feared they were about to start one.

That may not have been the case however. At least king Cetsewayo told the British that the Zulus would come up with a solution to the problem that didn't involve attacking some neighbour.

In the end it could perhaps be said to boil down to a question if the Europeans' had faith in the ability of an African society to reform itself, which they hadn't.

 

[Vrylakas]

The idea of a 'bravest nation' is foolhardy. Every nation has moments of great bravery and moments of terrible cowardice. If the criteria for being a 'brave nation' is simply that they faced foreign invasion, then that means only those countries who border aggressive states are 'brave'. Iceland, Japan and Britain are a bunch of cowards in this definition!

And how does one otherwise define a 'brave nation'? What percentage of the population has to behave bravely in order for the whole nation to get the bravery tag? Every country at some point coughs up Quislings, turncoats and traitors - does that diminish the nation's bravery status?

When it comes to the Danes and the Poles we were the Dane's little *****es for hundreds of years up to the 17th century where the Danes were our *****es for a few hundred years. To my knowledge the Poles just liked to go into alliances with the Danes and Russians but even then they got their butts whipped and they never launched any invasions.

You may want to spend some time reading more books, laddie. Polish history is not merely defined by its relationships with Sweden (or Denmark, for that matter), and the only time prior to 1941-45 that Poland allied itself with the Russians was in the Great Northern War of 1700-1721 - at which point Poland was well advanced into its senile old age and decline. In the 15th and 16th centuries it was the Russians attempting to repel Polish invasions, with Smolensk, Vjazma and Tula spending considerable time under Polish rule. Kiev has spent more time under Polish-Lithuanian rule than Russian so far in history. As for Sweden, with the exception of its slow incursions into Livonia and the ill-conceived idea of electing the Catholic branch of the Wazas (Vasas) to the Polish-Lithuanian throne, prior to the Great Northern War Poland had indeed successfully repelled most Swedish military advances - including the excruciating three decade-long war that began with the Cossack Rebellion and ended with the peace with the Ottoman Empire (1648-1676).

Indeed, some historians have wondered (with comfortable hindsight, of course) whether the Swedish-Polish aspect of this war might have left Russia with much opportunity for westward expansion, as these two fading powers represented the only real western obstacles in the late 17th century to Russia.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

I have to disagree on Poland, they if anyone have been histories whipping boy. Their bravery consists of having repelled perhaps a third of the invasions launched at them and that isnt that good of a ratio.

They won a lot more than that. Most of the middle ages ones were Polish victories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Polish_wars

 

[Combat Ingrid]

Well, the fact is that when it comes to Russia, and even if it was from Swedish perspectives defensive wars it was Swedish armies trampling around in Russia, not the other way around. Swedish holdings on the other side of the Baltic doesnt count as Sweden proper To my knowledge the only armies who have been on the soil of Sweden proper have been Danish, but they on the other hand have been there a lot.

Perhaps you don't consider Västerbotten to be a part of "Sweden proper"
There were more of those pesky Russians here than we could handle back in 1809. The peace treaty which cost us Finland was signed outside of Umeå. Check out this link:
http://www.multi.fi/~goranfri/battles.html


As for brave nation, I would say Russia. Have they ever not lived in misery? And still they rise to save the day when everything seems to be lost. Over and over again

 

[joacqin]

Västerbotten does not count as Sweden proper Frozen wastelands is of no importance.

 

[superisis]

I hold that anything not within a 5 mile radius (and by that I mean swedish miles) of Stockholm is considdered "landet" (the country side) and is therefore, by definition, of zero importance.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Paraguay, Germany, Israel, Russia and others.

I've let this rest for a while, but as soon as someone mentioned Paraquay we have a winner as the World's bravest nation. The time period being in the war between 1864-1870 between Paraquay and ALL her neighbours. In terms of population she was outnumbered 30:1.

Considering people think the Confederates were brave and fought hard and against long odds, consider that the Confederate male casualties were barely 20% (that probably being an over-estimate) whilst Paraguay managed 80% of males between 16-80 as casualties.

I don't think any nation has fought for so long, so hard and against such numerical supremacy as the Paraguayans. They are surely the World's bravest nation! Had the Conferderacy fought with such zeal, they would have surely gained succession from the States.

 

[joacqin]

Superisis, just shows what you know, everyone knows that everything above the Hallandsås are frozen wastelands inhabited only by polar bears, wolves, moose and the occasional hunter/gatherer.