View Full Version : The Finnest warriors of All times...
Sorry but I couldn't resist. I think that we must view the global opinion of the forum members for that interesting question.
Rosacrux
12-02-2002, 11:33
...you gonna have to face it, you're addicted to poll...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
True. It is my bane because I hate statistics. Damn it
lol... that was the hardest poll ive had to vote in.. eventually i had to put the celts.. only because thier entire life revolved arround warfare.
they defeated the romans, greeks, and a tonn of other races.. and there is just something special about them... maybe if they were united they could have built the largest empire.... who knows
Rosacrux
12-02-2002, 15:57
Alrowan
When did the Celts defeat the Greeks? Only once they went down the southern Balkans (from the area of todays Yugoslavia were they resided, before moving eastwards and settling finaly in Galatia, in todays Turkey) and they got their arses handed to them in quite a definite manner.
the celts sacked delphi in abou 300bc i think it was, considering that delphi was the center of greek religeon then its a big thing, after that the greeks used them as mercenaries in thier various campagins, then the let some settle in asia minor, in what was called gallatia
Rosacrux
12-02-2002, 16:36
Err... nope, that is completely incorrect. They did sacked Delphi, during a campaign they led in southern balkans in the late fourth century. The campaign was succesful at the beginning, since they defeated the Macedonian army and then tried to moved southwards, then bypassed Thermopyles with their secondary army and send them to loot some Greek cities. Eventually, though, they got surrounded, cut off and annihilated to the last man (the expedition force, not the whole Celtic lot in the Balkans).
A few years after that incident, the Celts moved into Asia Minor, in the area named Galatia ("land of Gauls", in Greek - they called all Celts "Gauls"), where they settled for good. Later on, the first emperors of the (Eastern) Roman empire used the offspring of those Celts as mercenaries - they didn't lose their bite after all those years.
I can give you specific sources, dates, names etc. tommorow, I've read a great article about the Celtic "invasion" in Greece recently. I'll dig it up and expect me to post details tommorow.
umm.. ive just been reading a book on this.. perhaps i got a few things mixed up, but the fact that they did sack delphi at least show thier competence against the greeks
ICantSpellDawg
12-02-2002, 21:45
i thought the greeks called them keltoi and the romans called them gauls?
Hakonarson
12-02-2002, 23:08
Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Dec. 02 2002,09:36)]Later on, the first emperors of the (Eastern) Roman empire used the offspring of those Celts as mercenaries - they didn't lose their bite after all those years.
They weren't all that flash - the Romans defeated them twicein 189BC using primarily light infantry and it wasn't a hard fight either time.
Later on a couple of imitation legions were raised from among them but they weer roughly handled by Mithridates and Pharnaces and considered to be inferior troops.
The remnants of the 2 legions were incorporated into hte Roman army when Galatia was finally annexed late in the 1st century BC I think.
Quite frankly none of the people in this list strike me as being outstanding.
all of them were very competent in their time and way, but that's pretty much the same as can be said of any ancient peoples who survived any length of time.
BlackWatch McKenna
12-03-2002, 00:28
Since the poll asked for finest "warriors" I had to go with the Celts.
To me, "warrior" connotes individual prowess and warriorness in battle (yes, I've just made up the word Warriorness). Maybe its the fact that they ran stark naked into battle, with their hair spiked straight up in the air. You've got to be brave to just have your junk hanging out there....
As for Greeks and Celts:
-Celts' sorties into Greece in 279 B.C.
http://www.celtica.wales.com/hanesfa/celtiaid/pennod3/p19.html
-Celts visit Macedonia and Greece
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~marion01/page43.html
//blackwatch
MonkeyMan
12-03-2002, 01:18
Spartans for me, seriously 'ard bastards. However i'm much happier to live a nice comfy life than live out any fantasy of going back a few thousand years to find out for myself. Celts ran in a close second for me, generally due to my lack of any real knowledge on the subject and lack of time to read your links. Sorry guys.
Although running naked into battle may well make you very scary, it does hint at the eating of one or two too many mushrooms before battle. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif although being a great warrior despite a lack of clothes and armour is impressive in terms of skill at arms, a truly great warrior would realise the advantage such things would give and would come prepared.
The Black Ship
12-03-2002, 01:24
Every year the first order on the agenda was to renew the war status with the Helots...gotta be Sparta.
deejayvee
12-03-2002, 07:45
Finnest Warriors???
Is that the warriors who come from Finland?
Or is it some kind of half dolphin half human warrior??
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
No its a warrior from a Fin's nest.
Celts did sacked Delphi but the war was eventually lost. They never were victorious against the Greek Phalanx. Only against the Greek peasants and civilians.
A.Saturnus
12-03-2002, 13:36
aren`t the English, the Germans and the Israelis missing in the poll? (and a lot of others, of course)
I can understand the Germans, but when did the rest where concidered as the best warriors? The English where famous for having the best navy during 17th-20th ct, and the best special force, SAS, but never where they feared for being the best war mascine.
Red Peasant
12-03-2002, 17:06
Quote[/b] (Ktonos @ Dec. 03 2002,11:54)]I can understand the Germans, but when did the rest where concidered as the best warriors? The English where famous for having the best navy during 17th-20th ct, and the best special force, SAS, but never where they feared for being the best war mascine.
Cromwell's republican New Model Army was courted by all the major powers of Europe so they could have it on their side. However, I think it saw only one major continental action at the Battle of the Dunes on the north coast of France, mid 17th-c. In the course of the battle a single regiment stormed a massive dune occupied by Spanish tercios outnumbering the English some 3 to 1. It was difficult to get a footing and the troops had to pull each other up in the face of massed Spanish musket fire and pikes, absorbing high casualties in the process. The Spanish were still considered to be the finest infantry in Europe at the time......but no longer. The main British strength since that time has been 'corporate', the large number of regiments with an intrinsically high morale factor. It is this deeply entrenched and widespread esprit de corps that has served the British Army so well, more so than having the best trained troops, though it is usually to be reckoned with on that score as well.
But, apart from that, I'd say it has never been the British ethos to say we are the best, we just get on with it. We don't want to be a "war machine", we leave that for more militaristic societies.
Rosacrux
12-03-2002, 17:29
Good grief, speaking about militarist societies, we all forgot about the German Landsknechts.
Professional fighting forces, sold to the higher bidder, with their unique pros and cons, and the most prominent warriors of their respective age. The were also the first to introduce a great number of Arquebuziers in their regiments (one out of 4, IIRC, was an arquebuzier, fighting in skirmish formation) and the first who trashed the Spanish Tercios so badly, they rendered them obsolete overnight.
The slaughter of the Venecian army, the grand battle of Padia, the establishment of the Great France, all those are feats of the Landsknechts (strangely enough, Ze Germans worked to make France big... go figure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ). they had their sworn enemies: the Swiss pikemen. But they fought alongside (for the same boss) more than once... But when they faced eachoter, they didn't bother with taking prisoners and other niceties http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Anyone remember the "Schwarze Legion"? Fearsome guys all over... got slaughtered to the last man by their fellow countrymen (the "regular" Landsknechts) in a battle in Italy (I think...)
The Mongols, hands down. Look at the amount of land they conquered
Sparta? Sorry, but that's just a tad Greek-centric. They never even got out of Greece and were eviscerated by their war with Athens, then humiliated by the Thebans.
rasoforos
12-03-2002, 20:38
about the Celts : Running naked in the battle is supposed to be intimidating to the enemy? Well...i somehow dun think it is...especially if it is COLD http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I believe that the Spartans were better warriors that the Celts because all of their society was built around their military. The celts were warlike but they didnt have to go to the army at 7. Moreover i dun think a bunch of naked people shouting would have any chance against a tight spartan phalanx.
However my vote doesnt go to the spartans. For most part of their history the spartans were just infantry fighting in tight formations. You cannot take over the world this way. For me the best warriors were the Macedonians at the time of Alexander , their phalanx was a huge breakthrough at this time that no other infantry managed to resist against , and their strong , fast and brave cavalry made sure the phalanx would face any surprise attacks while bulldozing its way through the persian empire.
deejayvee
12-04-2002, 04:03
Quote[/b] (Ktonos @ Dec. 03 2002,06:54)]I can understand the Germans, but when did the rest where concidered as the best warriors? The English where famous for having the best navy during 17th-20th ct, and the best special force, SAS, but never where they feared for being the best war mascine.
Tell that to the French at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt
Jesus...I can't believe nobody has mentioned Samurai. And on this board too. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/redface.gif
Anyways, IMO, they were among the greatest in the world (if not the best).
Well, now I recon that I forgot someone indeed. Vietnam. They beat the French too. Do you measure how good a warrior is from what his nation has conquered? Does that mean that Vietnamese or Zulus, or ... Spartans where not fine warriors?
Agreed , I should include Samurai.
For the rest there is an "Other" option.
A.Saturnus
12-04-2002, 14:41
Viet-Kong were far from being the best. The won just doe to their highly superior numbers. In the war against America, they lost 10 or 20 times as many as the US
Quote[/b] ]Viet-Kong were far from being the best. The won just doe to their highly superior numbers. In the war against America, they lost 10 or 20 times as many as the US
I'm sorry but thats b*ll*cks.
They won due to their resourcefulness and jungle skills.
They knew the lay of the land and were fighting for their country in a war that should never have happened and that America should never have been involved in.
The US goverment lacked the politcal backbone to commit to the war and eventually called an end to the 'conflict'
I'm pretty sure that each Vietcong casualty cost America around $400,000 or something ridiculous.
BlackWatch McKenna
12-04-2002, 18:43
$400,000.00 a casualty?
Man- they could of bought all the Viet Cong soldiers a Villa in the South of France for that much...
Then there would have been no bloodshed. The enemy would be in their vacation homes and the winners would... well, the winners would wish they had vacation homes, too.
I think its around that much- its something huge due to the cost of the technology that America used.
the fact was they were throwing firepower at an unseen enemy and hit very little for their 'money's worth'
PFJ_bejazuz
12-04-2002, 19:19
The 'buy them all a villa in the South of France' idea has the nicest touch of irony considering it all started as a French collonial issue.
Picture the scene, "Yo dudes in the black pajamas. If you throw down your weapons we'll let you live in France."
Answer comes back, "We're prepared to offer you similar terms Monsieur Oppresive Military Power San."
'An you must surf somwhere else now stoopid greedy whiteman Aint no surf he-re '
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
rasoforos
12-05-2002, 20:34
Rasoforos - although nothing directly wrong with this post, it could only lead to flaming. Please do not bait others.
Thanks
Edited by Ithaskar Fëarindel
PFJ_bejazuz
12-06-2002, 03:32
**Gen Mayhem reaches for anti-flame war bucket of water**
it was the villa in the south of france coincidence which prompted my glib response
i'm sure neither myself nor monkian meant any specific offense to the viet minh, viet cong, french overseas forces, australian or american contingents in that particularily grim theatre of war.
who among us can say their country hasn't behaved in a questionable manner at one time or another ...
I'm british, we invented concentration camps. It's not something I'm proud to be associated with but I wouldn't appreciate that fact being used to make sweeping generalisations about the basic british character either.
point being (eventually) I'm sure we're all aware that each one of us lives in a glass house & throwing stones would benefit non of us
deejayvee
12-06-2002, 03:43
Quote[/b] (General_Mayhem @ Dec. 05 2002,20:32)]who among us can say their country hasn't behaved in a questionable manner at one time or another ...
I'm Australian and I am extremely unproud of a lot of things our country has done and is doing.
Papewaio
12-06-2002, 04:37
Same DJV. Proud Aussie in a lot of things not so proud in a lot of others. Slowly progressing towards the better I think.
Just can't rest on ones laurels.
Thing is with a multi-cultural democracy there is always going to be people I disagree with, but I like the differences and am proud of them.
Thing that really annoys me though are the ones who are pig ignorant racists sometimes known as One Nation http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.
MacGregor
12-06-2002, 06:49
It's hard to be proud of everything your country has done. I'm American and sadly I'm embarrassed to admit that nowadays thanks to most of the stuff the U.S.A. has pulled in the past and is doing currently.
Back to the topic though... The Spartans were some bad ass people. They disgarded the weak, sickly, and deformed and trained their warriors from the age of something like 7 (i'm think, if not 7 it wasn't much later.) Any country with a philosphy of "Come back with your shield or on it" has to earn some votes. The Samurai deserve a nod too and they and the Spartans had one very important thing in common. The most important part of their training was that they learned not to be afraid to die. If you think nothing of death then everything else is easy when going into combat.
Spartans trained their boys in hand to hand "street fight" since they could walk. By seven youths where moved to army camps where they were trained from the veterans in individual tactics and primarly mental domination over fear for anything, even death. After 2 years the boys where left alone naked and unarmed to the near forests and mountains to survive for 1 whole year. This tradition was called "Kryptia". The survivors where finaly concidered men and attained the rank of the Spartan soldier.
In combat they never tried to indimidate their opponents
the rest of the Greeks. Their simple presence at the other side of the field was enough to intimidate any opponent of those.
Rosacrux
12-06-2002, 08:45
Ktonos - do not forget a certain aspect of Krypteia that looks quite savage nowadays: The obligation to hunt down and kill helots who did not behave.
Quite annoying tradition...
Different era, different ethics. 3/4 of the population of ancient Athens, the mother of Democracy,were slaves. That does not mean that they where Tyrrans. Just that the way of life of the Ancients was that, that some cruel things for us nowdays were logical during theirs. The hunt of heilots was for realtime training and to keep down their continiusly increasing numbers. The life of a slave was of less importance in comparisson to that of a freeman in every society until the prohibitance of slavery (I believe 20th century). The cruelest deed of Spartans was the murder of newborn children with any somatic incapabilities.
Catiline
12-06-2002, 13:49
I always rather liked the fact that if the lads on the kryptia were caught stealing they were beaten, but only for getting caught...
Spartan boys were also beaten by their fathers if they complained to them that another boy beat them.
Red Peasant
12-06-2002, 21:21
Quote[/b] (General_Mayhem @ Dec. 06 2002,01:32)]**Gen Mayhem reaches for anti-flame war bucket of water**
it was the villa in the south of france coincidence which prompted my glib response
i'm sure neither myself nor monkian meant any specific offense to the viet minh, viet cong, french overseas forces, australian or american contingents in that particularily grim theatre of war.
who among us can say their country hasn't behaved in a questionable manner at one time or another ...
I'm british, we invented concentration camps. It's not something I'm proud to be associated with but I wouldn't appreciate that fact being used to make sweeping generalisations about the basic british character either.
point being (eventually) I'm sure we're all aware that each one of us lives in a glass house & throwing stones would benefit non of us
It was reprehensible that the Boer people were kept in what were termed 'concentration camps', and the way the places were run was shocking, but they cannot be equated with the Nazi camps. The Nazi versions were extermination camps, intended and designed for the 'Final Solution'. People may have a go at the Brits, and we sometimes deserve it, but we are not the same as Nazis.
The South African Boers had a choice at the beginning of WWI, to join Britain or Germany, and many feared it would be the latter for obvious reasons. The Boer leader said there was no choice, it had to be Britain, because of the magnanimity with which they had been treated in defeat, he felt they had a moral obligation to side with GB. If there had even been the faintest suggestion that the British had tried to deliberately exterminate the Boers then he would not have held this attitude.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.