The most feared warriors in history [Archive]

The Black Ship

11-30-2002, 16:07

Mongols- imagine, "surrender, or every man, woman, child, and beast will be destroyed", and you know they've already done it to others

Vikings- guerilla warfare in the age of the axe .

Aztecs- flower wars for the sole purpose of gaining prisoners so their hearts can be ripped beating from their chests to feed a rapacious god.

ICantSpellDawg

11-30-2002, 20:27

sweet facts - the whole "surrender or no one will know your people ever existed" seems to be a reccuring threat (and well backed-up)

monkian

11-30-2002, 20:43

I reckon the Celts must've been pretty fearsome http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

PFJ_bejazuz

11-30-2002, 22:18

Songlines (a book by Bruce Chatwin about aboriginal beliefs) has an excellent quote which is said to be a 'Persian utterance about the arrival of the Mongols'.

They came and they saw,
And they burnt & they slew,
And they trussed up their loot & were gone.

Excellent little poem which captures the almost 'shark attack' impact & ferocity of everyone's favourite Altai tribesmen doing a mornings work.

Taohn

12-01-2002, 08:09

Samurai.

Hakonarson

12-02-2002, 00:17

There are 2 basic types of fighters that inspired exceptional fear:

1/ those who didn't care whetehr they lived or died. Eg Hashashin (Assasins) and Viking Berserkers.

When you fight "normal" men you know the risk you run is limited because if you kill enough of them then the rest will run away, but not so with these folk - you have to kill them all.

This means that you have to expose yourself to more risk then normal, and people don't like doing that

2/ The utterly ruthless who also have the military power to back up their threats.

Mongols are a great example but by no means the only ones.

These people do not compromise, and slaughter whoever gets in their way on and off the battlefield. Surrender may mean enslavement, but resistance means extermination with no mercy.

Now I do NOT include Spartans in this. Certainly Spartans were feared in Greece, but not outside of it, and they were too few to inspire any terror in whole populations - and that wasn't the Greek way of war anyway - the fear of them was on the battlefield.

Xer0

12-02-2002, 00:21

Quote[/b] (The Black Ship @ Nov. 30 2002,09:07)]Vikings- guerilla warfare in the age of the axe .
Can you tell me more about vikings that used guerilla warfare? Sounds a bit twisted

ICantSpellDawg

12-02-2002, 00:42

well, the vikings would dress up like monkies and attack people with their giant arms and throw sh*t at each other screaming like apes. monkey combat - viking gorilla warfare

FRIGHTENING

Hakonarson

12-02-2002, 01:54

Most Viking fighting was in the form of raids - a ship or 2 coming in without much warning, destroy the village or monastary or whatever over a couple of hours, then leave before any responsse could arrive from the local forces - classic guerilla warfare.

Sure there weer som major battles against various enemies - but they were relatively few and far between, whereas the it was the small scale stuff that was occuring all the time and really made their reputation

The Black Ship

12-02-2002, 02:06

Precisely Hakar...thanks for the help.

If you look up the term guerrilla it states: a member of a band of irregular soldiers that use guerrilla warfare (use of hit-and-run tactics), harassing the enemy by surprise raids, sabotaging ommunications and supply lines. Certainly the raids of the Northmen that had gone a Viking seem to apply.

My point was...imagine a hit-and-run attack by a mobile band of warriors that used an axe(I know that is a myth too...swords were the actual weapon of preferance) to do there dirty work http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

NinjaKilla

12-02-2002, 02:10

I dont think that was a specefically viking tactic. Rather the way that society was organised and the fact that there was no standing army simply meant that was the way fighting was done. Of course this style favoured the aggressors as it was almost impossible to defend against - in the end in England they build a series of forts in which the population could hide whenever neccessary. The thing that I always wanted to study, though was put off by the sparsity of material, was what encouraged the vikings to leave their homelands and bugger up everyone elses settlements.

Ktonos

12-02-2002, 07:35

Spartans - for their unique warrior training, self dicipline and excellent morale and ethics.

Romans - for their perfect military administration and a perfect war maschine viewing them as a whole.

Vikings - for their infame throughout the european coasts and the folclore assosiated with berseker rage and gods punishment.

Mongols & Huns - for the threat of total destruction against europe and asia - eventhough it was based on their seer numbers.

Maories and other cannibal tribes - well, its really fearfull to fight against someone who would eat you if he could.

hrvojej

12-02-2002, 08:45

I'm not saying about the history in general, but personally, I would be most afraid of the Maori. The scene of thousands of warriors with tatooed faces dancing haka (I think that's what the war dance is called) is something that really sends shivers down my spine. And I know it's still fairly commonplace, so people might get used to it, but if I imagine it wasn't just for show, and that I was their opponent... *shudder* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

ShadeFlanders

12-02-2002, 11:22

I still stick to my crusaders from early outremer: religious fanatics that murdered, raped, plundered and looted in a days work. When they got organised for an expedition things got really bad, they had no sense of self preservation and were all hardened veterans which kicked serious ass plus they were led by a guy which the muslems believed was Satan himself for his courage and skills on the battlefield. And if you were caught as a muslem you would first be tortured and then burried after being smeared in with pig's grease (every muslem's worst nightmare).
One example of the crusaders ruthlessness and courage is the second battle of Ascalon where Baldwin I charged the 20000 strong Egyptian army head on with some 200 knights and sent the Egyptians running. Baldwin I, aka the white devil, would often launch raids into muslem territory sending the local population into a panicked flight. Most muslem lords feared to face him on the battle field.

Ktonos

12-02-2002, 13:10

It's a different fear effect when opposing a frenzied fanatical enemy warrior and when athis fear is a 100% outcome of the opponents ability to fight. Thus neither Mongols or Crusaders can match the Spartans IMHO.

Rosacrux

12-02-2002, 14:07

Good thinking Ktonos. While the Mongols inflicted panic only by the mentioning of their presence ("the horde is coming, ruuuun") they did so because they had this annoying habit of executing in the most horrible manner those who resisted or those they felt like it.

OTOH, others - like the Spartans you mentioned - inspired fear because of their military ability and expertise. They were feared warriors, not ravaging savages.

Same applies to other armies-soldiers throughout history.

Celts, for instance, were pretty fearsome, because they were big and sturdy in shape, painted themselves and had some really nasty habits (as to take no prisoners or chop off the heads of their opponents to present them later to their leader, so they get a decent share of the loot).

Ktonos

12-02-2002, 14:44

Yes. In Thermopylae the Persians in the last rows where whiping those in the front lines in order to march against the Spartans, while in Plataies Mardonious every night before the battle moved his unit to the other flank in fear of the Spartan units against him, only to find them opposite him the next day.

Red Peasant

12-02-2002, 14:52

Quote[/b] (ShadeFlanders @ Dec. 02 2002,09:22)]I still stick to my crusaders from early outremer: religious fanatics that murdered, raped, plundered and looted in a days work. When they got organised for an expedition things got really bad, they had no sense of self preservation and were all hardened veterans which kicked serious ass plus they were led by a guy which the muslems believed was Satan himself for his courage and skills on the battlefield. And if you were caught as a muslem you would first be tortured and then burried after being smeared in with pig's grease (every muslem's worst nightmare).
One example of the crusaders ruthlessness and courage is the second battle of Ascalon where Baldwin I charged the 20000 strong Egyptian army head on with some 200 knights and sent the Egyptians running. Baldwin I, aka the white devil, would often launch raids into muslem territory sending the local population into a panicked flight. Most muslem lords feared to face him on the battle field.
Was old 'Balders' a Belgian by any chance? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Your patriotism is commendable, but hardly impartial http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Fancy being scared of a Belgian Lol http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

ShadeFlanders

12-02-2002, 14:57

Citaat[/b] (Red Peasant @ Dec. 02 2002,13:52)]Was old 'Balders' a Belgian by any chance? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Your patriotism is commendable, but hardly impartial http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

No he wasn't, he was Frank. Today you might call him a frenchmen. I must admit I am a big supporter of him and as such am not completely impatial but I'd urge you to read more about Baldwin I and what muslem sources have to say about him and you might see that I didn't exaggerate as much as you think.
[edit]to quote the inscription on his tombstone:

Citaat[/b] ]a second Judas Maccabaeus, whom Kedar and Egypt, Dan and Damascus dreaded.

btw:

Citaat[/b] ]fancy being scared of a belgian
Well seeing Jean-Claude van Damme acting is kinda scary. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Alrowan

12-02-2002, 15:15

maori by far... hell they went to new zealand and ate the old inhabitants... nuff said

that or the zulus of africa

ICantSpellDawg

12-02-2002, 15:44

the crusaders im not sure id go with for most feared, but maybe... there was the idea that non-christians (especially jews) loved gold and wealth so much that they ate it. The people believed that if they went through a non-christian town they could murder everyone and rip open all of their bellies to find treasure. pretty scary right there, but medieval life pretty much sucked anyway for pretty much everybody, so maybe being gutted to death back then was a relief

Xer0

12-02-2002, 16:38

Quote[/b] (ShadeFlanders @ Dec. 02 2002,04:22)]One example of the crusaders ruthlessness and courage is the second battle of Ascalon where Baldwin I charged the 20000 strong Egyptian army head on with some 200 knights and sent the Egyptians running. Baldwin I, aka the white devil, would often launch raids into muslem territory sending the local population into a panicked flight. Most muslem lords feared to face him on the battle field.
That just stupidty they used that in later periods and got kicked ass. The crusaders were just plain stupid. Not the templars and hospitallers though. Saladin was the only one with the good tactics.

ShadeFlanders

12-03-2002, 09:56

Citaat[/b] (Xer0 @ Dec. 02 2002,15:38)]That just stupidty they used that in later periods and got kicked ass. The crusaders were just plain stupid. Not the templars and hospitallers though. Saladin was the only one with the good tactics.
At the time it wasn't stupid: the egyptian army had never been in a battle situation before, the crusaders were all hardened veterans. Furthermore the Egyptians had never heard of couched lance charges which is very scary. They just started running after impact.
The crusaders were no tactical imbiciles, after the muslems got used to couched lance the balance evened out a bit but the crusaders started changing their tactics too. Horse archers were starting to be used and disciplined spear formations were also used (as oppposed to european armies). Also head-on knight charges were no longer used, the crusaders used an infantry screen to block arrows and light cavalry which opened up for the knights when the charge would be most effective. So you see they were in no sense stupid,though the crusaders that had just arrived from Europe thought of these tactics as unhonourable and refused to use them, they were stupid.
Furthermore it was a disastrous and utterly dumb decision by the templar grand master that directly led to the defeat at Hattin (and the destruction of Outremer).
So you see your statement that the crusaders were dumb and Saladin was the only one with good tactics is incorrect.

Red Peasant

12-03-2002, 16:45

Quote[/b] (ShadeFlanders @ Dec. 02 2002,12:57)]
Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Dec. 02 2002,13:52)]Was old 'Balders' a Belgian by any chance? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Your patriotism is commendable, but hardly impartial http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

No he wasn't, he was Frank. Today you might call him a frenchmen. I must admit I am a big supporter of him and as such am not completely impatial but I'd urge you to read more about Baldwin I and what muslem sources have to say about him and you might see that I didn't exaggerate as much as you think.
[edit]to quote the inscription on his tombstone:

Quote[/b] ]a second Judas Maccabaeus, whom Kedar and Egypt, Dan and Damascus dreaded.

btw:

Quote[/b] ]fancy being scared of a belgian
Well seeing Jean-Claude van Damme acting is kinda scary. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Wasn't he the Count of Flanders? Near enough for me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

You're right, the only thing scary about Mr V Damme is his bad acting...and his effeminate accent http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif You guys should stick to making beer. Belgian and Czech beer are the best

Red Peasant

12-03-2002, 16:52

....nah, you're right Shade-F, whenever anyone asks me in the future, "Who were the most feared warriors in history?"

I'll say, "The Belgians Everyone knows that, it's as clear as the nose on yer face mate" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

ShadeFlanders

12-03-2002, 17:28

No he wasn't the count of flanders, you are confusing Baldwin I (of Boulogne) with Baldwin, emperor of Constantinople which was the first latin emperor as a consequence of the 4th crusade, he was count of flanders at the time.
And maybe your second post isn't that far off, the Celts have been described here by a few as the scariest warriors of all time and Julius Caesar himself said (in his book "the Gallic wars"): "Of all the celtic tribes the Belgians are the bravest." Of course those "Belgians" are long dead. You might even say there is no such thing as a belgian people, only a belgian nationality.
Finally I remind you I never said the belgians were scary, I said the first crusaders were scary (and especially Baldwin I which was a frenchie).

Ckrisz

12-03-2002, 17:42

The Mongols did NOT depend on numbers. In every major battle from China to Hungary they were outnumbered by their enemies. Superior generalship, discipline, mobility, and firepower allowed them to annihilate larger armies every time.

DojoRat

12-03-2002, 18:10

The Mongols. As the most successful steppe confederacy they have to be first. The Spartans might have been feared but only by other warriors, the only populace to fear them were their own helots. The Vikings were certainly feared but until their later, larger invasions you were safe in a fortified, garrisoned city. You were never safe from the Mongols. They were masters of the battlefield and inspired terror over an immense area.

NinjaKiller: The source material is scarce for the 'cause' of the viking raids but I think it was a mixture of climate, geography, and culture.
A warmer climate in Scandanavia increased agricultural production and boosted population.
Relatively wealthy, settled societies had established themselves just over the horizon and contact with them brought the desire for more goods to be gained through trade or other means.
These settled areas were easily reached/plundered from the sea with the longboat, which come to think of it, should be a fourth technological factor.
Lastly, a chieftans power came from the size of his warrior band, and this could only be maintained or increased by the plunder he could provide. A successful raider would attract followers and power.
A simplistic overview but I think it generally correct.

Xer0

12-03-2002, 19:14

Quote[/b] (ShadeFlanders @ Dec. 03 2002,02:56)]
Quote[/b] (Xer0 @ Dec. 02 2002,15:38)]That just stupidty they used that in later periods and got kicked ass. The crusaders were just plain stupid. Not the templars and hospitallers though. Saladin was the only one with the good tactics.
At the time it wasn't stupid: the egyptian army had never been in a battle situation before, the crusaders were all hardened veterans. Furthermore the Egyptians had never heard of couched lance charges which is very scary. They just started running after impact.
The crusaders were no tactical imbiciles, after the muslems got used to couched lance the balance evened out a bit but the crusaders started changing their tactics too. Horse archers were starting to be used and disciplined spear formations were also used (as oppposed to european armies). Also head-on knight charges were no longer used, the crusaders used an infantry screen to block arrows and light cavalry which opened up for the knights when the charge would be most effective. So you see they were in no sense stupid,though the crusaders that had just arrived from Europe thought of these tactics as unhonourable and refused to use them, they were stupid.
Furthermore it was a disastrous and utterly dumb decision by the templar grand master that directly led to the defeat at Hattin (and the destruction of Outremer).
So you see your statement that the crusaders were dumb and Saladin was the only one with good tactics is incorrect.
Why did they lost Outremer then? Its because their stupidity and Saladins brillant tactics.

monkian

12-03-2002, 20:10

But if the crusaders were as 'stupid' as you said then Saladin wouldn't have needed to use 'brilliant' tactics.

Just like Dojorat doesn't even have to use a 'complicated' explanation to confue you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Red Peasant

12-03-2002, 20:58

Whoops, sorry Shade....just indulging in a little English custom....taking the piss http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

PFJ_bejazuz

12-03-2002, 21:28

In the spirit of the Red Peasant, if I can mention a British Regiment that appears to have been overlooked - 'The Devils in skirts'

regimental history page:
http://www.carryonline.com/carry/cokhyber.html

The Burpers certainly didn't like it up 'em.

edit: forgot to mention that they are on the official register as the 3rd Foot & Mouth.

DojoRat

12-03-2002, 22:34

Hey, I resemble that remark

Tachikaze

12-03-2002, 22:51

Battlefield ninja.

deejayvee

12-04-2002, 04:14

Quote[/b] (Xer0 @ Dec. 03 2002,12:14)]Why did they lost Outremer then? Its because their stupidity and Saladins brillant tactics.
That's a very simplistic way of looking at it.

Particularly seeing as though Saladin died before Outremer was finally lost.

I think a bigger problem was that after a crusade had lost it's impetus, a lot of troops would go home leaving undermanned garrisons behind.

Red Peasant

12-04-2002, 14:17

Quote[/b] (General_Mayhem @ Dec. 03 2002,19:28)]In the spirit of the Red Peasant, if I can mention a British Regiment that appears to have been overlooked - 'The Devils in skirts'

regimental history page:
http://www.carryonline.com/carry/cokhyber.html

The Burpers certainly didn't like it up 'em.

edit: forgot to mention that they are on the official register as the 3rd Foot & Mouth.
Hah, another English custom...taking the piss out of ourselves http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Helps to keep yer sane http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

NinjaKilla

12-04-2002, 14:32

Just was watching a documentary about two SO4 operatives that were released from one of the concentration camps. They said they d been back in England couple of days and were walking down the street in uniform when a funeral procession went past. The guy being interviewed said that they just couldn't help bursting out laughing. He said: 'All that trouble for one dead... if we didn't laugh we would have never stopped crying'.

Thats the spirit Ah how lucky we are to be BRITISH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

They don't like it up 'em http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Xer0

12-04-2002, 17:06

Quote[/b] (monkian @ Dec. 03 2002,13:10)]But if the crusaders were as 'stupid' as you said then Saladin wouldn't have needed to use 'brilliant' tactics.

Just like Dojorat doesn't even have to use a 'complicated' explanation to confue you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
He used good tactics but the crusaders were stupid and almost gave him the victory

monkian

12-04-2002, 17:40

So even though the crusaders were 'stupid' he didn't actually win ?

Xer0

12-04-2002, 19:27

Quote[/b] (monkian @ Dec. 04 2002,10:40)]So even though the crusaders were 'stupid' he didn't actually win ?
Ofcourse he won

monkian

12-04-2002, 19:34

Quote[/b] ]He used good tactics but the crusaders were stupid and almost gave him the victory

You said they almost gave them victory.

Xer0

12-04-2002, 22:55

Quote[/b] (monkian @ Dec. 04 2002,12:34)]
Quote[/b] ]He used good tactics but the crusaders were stupid and almost gave him the victory

You said they almost gave them victory.
Yes but he was the one who fooled them so the crusaders lost but the crusaders were the stupid one who let themself to be fooled.

ShadeFlanders

12-05-2002, 10:38

Citaat[/b] (Xer0 @ Dec. 04 2002,21:55)][quote=monkian,Dec. 04 2002,12:34][quote]Yes but he was the one who fooled them so the crusaders lost but the crusaders were the stupid one who let themself to be fooled.
Yes but it was the Templars that were so stupid as to give the advice to march through the desert. And the king at the time also wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. But this was only at one time. Furthermore Saladin nearly got his head handed to him on a plate a few years earlier at the battle of Montgisard (11 november 1177) where a handfull of knights sent his entire army running, Saladin barely escaped with his life.

Xer0

12-05-2002, 15:48

Quote[/b] (ShadeFlanders @ Dec. 05 2002,03:38)]
[quote=monkian,Dec. 04 2002,12:34][QUOTE=Quote ]Yes but he was the one who fooled them so the crusaders lost but the crusaders were the stupid one who let themself to be fooled.
Yes but it was the Templars that were so stupid as to give the advice to march through the desert. And the king at the time also wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. But this was only at one time. Furthermore Saladin nearly got his head handed to him on a plate a few years earlier at the battle of Montgisard (11 november 1177) where a handfull of knights sent his entire army running, Saladin barely escaped with his life.
It was the templars who won at Mont Gisard

ShadeFlanders

12-05-2002, 19:07

Yes (mostly) but it was Saldadin that lost at Montgiskard.
So what can we conclude:
Templars weren't tactically infallible, nor were they idiots (most of the time)
Saladin wasn't tactically infallible, nor was he an idiot.
And finally the "normal" knights in outremer were not tactically infallible but nor were they idiots

Xer0

12-05-2002, 23:22

Quote[/b] (ShadeFlanders @ Dec. 05 2002,12:07)]Yes (mostly) but it was Saldadin that lost at Montgiskard.
So what can we conclude:
Templars weren't tactically infallible, nor were they idiots (most of the time)
Saladin wasn't tactically infallible, nor was he an idiot.
And finally the "normal" knights in outremer were not tactically infallible but nor were they idiots
We can make a list of the them and the best comes first.

1. Saladin

2. Templars

3. Crusader knights