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.
PFJ_bejazuz
12-10-2002, 22:57
**Gen_Mayhem notices Red Peasant's location so trys a light hearted joke before launching on bleak subject**
"Eh, eh, calm down ar kid"
: )
But seriously, if you re-read (or possibly just read my post slowly) you'll notice that I didn't mention the Nazi's WW2 'labour camps' (as those evil pieces of shit called them).
The main reason I didn't mention the Nazis in my post was that I didn't want to start a 'Top Trumps - Attrocities' threads when we all start to compare the evil that humans are capable of. Three reasons for this:
1: I wouldn't want to belittle the suffering of any group at the hands of another (as in: they didn't suffer 'as badly' as 'who ever' when ultimately all the victims suffered more than any of us throwing in our tuppence worth of opinion)
2: The British Southern African Expedition Force & the Nazis were not the only organisations to employ military force to 'concentrate' a civilian population in a given area to their detriment.
3: A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity. It's quite sad to try to justify a perod of history as acceptable by saying another group in another time were worse.
But the point I obviously didn't surround with sirens & flashing lights was this -
No-one should be held responsible or judged by the actions of historical groups who share their nationality. We are responsible for our own actions in the present & in someway responsible for the climate in which the generations who follow mature in (if they're surrounded by bigots you can hardly blame them for thinking bigoted opinions are the acceptable norm).
**Gen Mayhem takes off shell suit & comedy permed wig hoping he's made his point without upsetting Red Peasant (though he probably wouldn't have put them on at all if he had been speaking to a fellow Blue Peasant, not that GM's one of the mint sucking variety but one of the Maine Road types. Still, as long as they're not one of our local red variety I'm sure you'd be considered an ally of sorts. "If you hate Man Utd clap your hands")**
Catiline
12-11-2002, 01:09
Clap, but we're ahead of them in the table so i can be magnanimous and say i only loathe them.
PFJ_bejazuz
12-11-2002, 03:18
THREE : ONE
we don't win much but beating a team (one player price could buy us out inc. stadium) like Utd in the last ever derby at Maine Rd.
sweet ...
deejayvee
12-11-2002, 05:52
Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Dec. 06 2002,01:45)]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...
Annoying if you're a helot.
But for the Spartans, they needed to do it to keep the social order in tact. The helots could, at times, be a rebellious bunch.
Knight_Yellow
12-11-2002, 07:15
Its the romans for so many reasons (watch the life of brian)
The romans r the best becos
1. they conquered a rejoin and let the locals rule but if anything happened they whent back in killed everything and put there own in charge.
2. they had a profesional army in wich if u served for so long u became a citizen of rome.
3. they controlled most of the known world back then.
4. the romans did not fall becos of enemy armys it was a succesive series of bad to insane ceasars witch eventualy led to self annialation.
5. the celts never realy won anything against the romans the only reason they didnt invade scotland was cos they didnt whant it (no good exports not very good crops uncivilised) and im scottish so i know what im talkin about.
6. The roman army was the basis for all armys today, if u go back far enough it all leads to the romans.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
GameDesigner
12-11-2002, 07:42
Sorry but for my money it's US SOCOM forces. They cost about a million dollars a piece to train and many thousands a year to support but they are very very dangerous folk. I would rather face an entire spartan army then one seal team In general, US forces at their best have been very impressive indeed, the Stonewall Brigade and Iron Brigade of the US Civil War fought as hard as any force in history you'd care to name.
S
deejayvee
12-11-2002, 07:58
Quote[/b] ]4. the romans did not fall becos of enemy armys it was a succesive series of bad to insane ceasars witch eventualy led to self annialation.
There are many reasons why the Roman Empire fell (technically I guess it was when the Turks took Constantinople, but I assume you're not talking about the Byzantines). And part of it was, in fact, that they had problems dealing with the small raids by Asiatic and Germanic tribes.
Quote[/b] ]6. The roman army was the basis for all armys today, if u go back far enough it all leads to the romans.
I disagree. I think it all goes back to that caveman Uga Buga who first picked up a rock and threw it at someone else.
And GameDesigner wrote:
Quote[/b] ]I would rather face an entire spartan army then one seal team In general, US forces at their best have been very impressive indeed
I'm sorry but no US Special Forces come anywhere near the British SAS. They basically created the modern Special Forces and according to the British SAS the only forces around the world that come close are the Australian and NZ SAS. Even the US Army's Delta Force (which, afaik, is the best of the US Elite Special Forces) has trained under British SAS guys.
Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Dec. 11 2002,08:15)]Its the romans for so many reasons (watch the life of brian)
The romans r the best becos
1. they conquered a rejoin and let the locals rule but if anything happened they whent back in killed everything and put there own in charge.
2. they had a profesional army in wich if u served for so long u became a citizen of rome.
3. they controlled most of the known world back then.
4. the romans did not fall becos of enemy armys it was a succesive series of bad to insane ceasars witch eventualy led to self annialation.
5. the celts never realy won anything against the romans the only reason they didnt invade scotland was cos they didnt whant it (no good exports not very good crops uncivilised) and im scottish so i know what im talkin about.
6. The roman army was the basis for all armys today, if u go back far enough it all leads to the romans.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Well I guess that you mean you prefer to deal with a Spartan army using a spear and a shield...and a US commando with his equipmment...and yes I agree that the most famous commandos are the SAS. At least history tells that, not Holliwood.
Catiline
12-11-2002, 10:41
Lets be careful here lads, noone wants to see this thread get derailed into a squabble about whose special forces are the best.
Rosacrux
12-11-2002, 10:47
oh, come on folks, eveybody knows that the special forces of the Ugha Dugha Tribe (lived in the northern side of Neanderthal) were the most notorius.
They used skill and cunning to get close to their prey: the women of the other tribes. They sneaked behind them, stroke them unconscius with a rapid blow, and dragged them back home (cave) without the males of their tribe even noticing.
Only problem is that they used a fierce blow, to make sure that they wouldn't scream or something, so they suffered a rather high rate of losses among their loot.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Red Peasant
12-11-2002, 12:22
Quote[/b] (General_Mayhem @ Dec. 10 2002,20:57)]The main reason I didn't mention the Nazis in my post was that I didn't want to start a 'Top Trumps - Attrocities' threads when we all start to compare the evil that humans are capable of. Three reasons for this:
1: I wouldn't want to belittle the suffering of any group at the hands of another (as in: they didn't suffer 'as badly' as 'who ever' when ultimately all the victims suffered more than any of us throwing in our tuppence worth of opinion)
2: The British Southern African Expedition Force & the Nazis were not the only organisations to employ military force to 'concentrate' a civilian population in a given area to their detriment.
3: A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity. It's quite sad to try to justify a perod of history as acceptable by saying another group in another time were worse.
But the point I obviously didn't surround with sirens & flashing lights was this -
No-one should be held responsible or judged by the actions of historical groups who share their nationality. We are responsible for our own actions in the present & in someway responsible for the climate in which the generations who follow mature in (if they're surrounded by bigots you can hardly blame them for thinking bigoted opinions are the acceptable norm).
No probs mate Wanna buy a car stereo....nearly new? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
You will notice that I referred to Nazis...not any particular nationality. I just thought your statements needed some qualification. The moral 'evil' resides in the Nazis' intent.
What the Hebrew/Israelis from the Bible? They had some pretty fine victories.
Or the Swiss? Not a war-mongoring nation but when they get involved they aren't bad...
NagatsukaShumi
12-12-2002, 13:06
I went with Mongols.
Firstly-They created the largest empire ever seen
Secondly-Their tactics in battle are astounding, the way they used their horsemen is amazing.
Thirdly-They had strict rules to mkae sure everyone kept in line, which only lead to an increase in loyalty.
Sjakihata
12-12-2002, 16:41
Why can I not vote for the Samurai/japanese ???
Hirosito
12-13-2002, 19:17
to reply to something from a page back. to think that vietnam's greatest victories are over the US is wrong. they beat the mongols, the chinese and anyone else who cared to set foot into their country.
Quote[/b] ]Sorry but for my money it's US SOCOM forces.
Who are trianed by the SAS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
chilliwilli
12-14-2002, 20:55
I voted for The Mongols, but I don't think forging the largest empire means you are the best fighting force. Most of the countries in Asia that they conquered were ripe for the picking and those that were strong states (Khwarzmian Sultanate and China for instance) had other problems before The Mongols were at their gates. Europe would have been even easier to conquer since they had more problems during the time of The Mongols than Asia did.
I picked them because of their superb use of tactics including their use of very advanced pyschological warfare which impresses me the most. They would plant people in empires shortly(when I say shortly I mean months or even years since we are talking Medieval times.) before they marched on them to not only spy and inform, but to also cause terror in the nation. They would tell the people there that The Mongol army approaching was 500,000 strong when it was more like 50,000 and the spies would also tell tales of earlier conquests where The Mongols depopulated cities killing millions, well he was actually telling the truth about that. The Mongols would make the people believe what the spies were saying all the way until the city was captured. They would place handcrafted dummies on the spare mounts each soldier kept and bring them on the battlefield, during night they instruct their soldiers to carry 4 or 5 torches each, and sometimes they would even do both. This all makes the enemy believe that the army is many times larger than it actually is and this is also the reason why the actual size of their armies is so exagerated in almost every history book, they were almost always outnumbered.
The Swiss should have been added. Not many forces that were better trained than them, they were very disciplined. When the kings of Europe needed mercenaries they mostly looked to The Swiss. Some Swiss were employed full time too, mostly to guard castles and things like that. Nice little fact for you: During the storming of The Bastille, The Bastille was guarded by a mostly Swiss force and they did a nice job, but quantity overcame quality that day.
Could someone tell me a little about The Maori?
Papewaio
12-14-2002, 22:56
Maori short answer.
Maori are polynesians as such they are physically larger then europeans. Check out the bouncers at nightclubs in Aus and NZ and you will find that a lot of them are polynesians.
At the height of the colonial british empire they won the treaty of waitangi. Essentially the only native population to win a treaty in combat against a colonial power.
In WWII in North Africa NZ was often used on the flanks of the army and the Maori battalion were used on the flanks of the NZ.
Also they along with the rest of the kiwis fought the german paratroopers quite often. They were feared by the axis and in one instance did the haka in a misty dawn and scared the crap out of the opposing troops.
Anyhow someone will be able to list the facts but do a search on the Maori wars and NZ in WWII.
chilliwilli
12-14-2002, 23:12
Thanks Pape I'll do a google for the rest.
Haka in the misty dawn? I think I'm missing something here. Sounds vulgar hehe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.
Rosacrux
12-15-2002, 14:37
seen the "haka vs a lifted kilt" commercial? it's for a whiskey and it's awfully funny...
chilliwilli
12-15-2002, 21:49
Hmm not sure if they have that commercial in America.
Mr Frost
12-15-2002, 22:41
The stories of fighting naked are largely myth , we knew the value of armour , but money and resource were the limiting factors there . Cesar made a big deal of beating Vetingetorix' larger army , but convieniently failed to highlight that most of them were farmers , artisans and other such civillians {Rome had quite the habit of forgetting whom were the civillians during a war ... that's why the Germans ended up exterminating them ; they -Romans- just couldn't seem to stop from exterminating whomever they could not assimilate to the point of vertual extinction} and perhaps 1 in 10 were actual profession warriors .
Celtic mercenaries commanded {and were eagerly paid by all and sundry} premium prices throughout the ancient . The few sources that claim otherwise are either biased {like Trajan} or ignorant {like Trajan ... I really disslike Trajan} and rather few in number . The reason was , we were dammed good Rome only conquered because they could invariably present superior numbers {verses actual warriors , rather than few warriors and lots of civilians to try and make up to the numbers} of trained fighting men .
They {Rome} would face one or a few tribes at a time and being that mabey one tenth of adult men can make proper warriors {remember that statements of 1/4 population being warriors comes from Rome who wanted to paint their enemy/victims as a dangerous threat to Romes' safety on their own . Note how the Mongols were said to have 500,000 warriors when their scarce few million total population managed to produce but 100,000 in reality} and that not all of those may decide to take that path . Thus when Rome attacked they had a large numerical advantage and as our future depended on things that could not easliy be move fast enought to flee {like our food reserves , livestock , children and elder folk ... not to mention homes and the immobile land it's self} whereas theirs was far away and safe , they could maneuver more and could chose the time to strike . In ever numbers {our actual warriors to their soldiers} , they were no match .
As for Spartans , as I said , mabey 1 in 10 men can make good warriors , and that is relativly generous ... I for one would be a lousy warrior , even though I know rather well how to fight , as I think too much too deeply too often {pretty much non stop really http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif} and would likely think when I should act and feel empathy at the wrong moments . Yet Sparta chose to give every boy to think he would be a warrior {and if your brought up believing a thing it becomes ingrained regardless of the actual truth} and built thus an army that may have been well schooled and looked good {and certainly had strength ... I would be a bad warrior , but I can fight very effectivly if I must ; for a while at least} but possessed very serious flaws in it's line much like early 20th century steel plate had imperfections in it such that it was notably less protective than the same grade {obstently} of such would today {as today the imperfections would be all but absent} . Sparta I feel went beyond the point of diminishing returns by tring to make all their men into warriors {and ignoring those rather less in number but still significant and therefor useful women who are proverbial Amazons} and in effect actually weaked their army in doing so . When they faced a foe who refused to be cowed by the myth of Spartan efficiency {believing your going to lose is a self fullfilling belief} they lost .
Losing the war in which they sacked Delphi {I take a Guildmembers' word here , I am not very familiar with that conflict} should be noted that they were an "expeditionary" force in the heart of Greek territories {I know that much} and thus would have had various logistical probelems , a likely numerical dissadvantage and the Greek Phallanx was a rather potent weapon as the medievil Scottish and Swiss seemed to understand .
Like our Norse cousins , we spread far and wide and earned much fame , respect and glory , and had we united we would have ruled all Europe as an empire that might have lasted to this day ; and we would have made it a far more enlighted and worthy empire than ever did the callous Romans .
Also note , contrary to popular belief , we never commited human sacrifices {executions of trators and criminals yes and in "interesting" fashion , but never of innocents} ; those bog bodies in Britain and Belgium etc were left by Cesar and his ilk {the Roman might have banned the pratice just before Cesars birth , but cocaine and such are illegial here yet still a thriving trade in them exists and it was so with human sacrifice by Romans . That's why the one described as a cheiftain in documentories so often has a Roman haircut rather than the longer styles prefered by Celts of the time} .
I know no one mentioned that , but it often bugs me .
I consider the Vikings , Maori , Turks and Mongols to come very close {but no cigar for my money http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif} .
As for the Vietnamese , though they can fight fairly well , it is their culture that allowed them to repeatedly push out those who overran them . They would very effectivly retain their own identity as a distint people and custodians of their lands {against the assimilating pressures that a conquering people will try to enforce so that they might become the legitimate residents} so that their rising up and throwing out the invaders becomes rather inevitable .
That's this barbarians oppinion anyhow http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Mr Frost
12-15-2002, 23:28
I will certainly agree the Maoris were rather magnificent , but it was in neglecting to advance their technology that held them back .
Celtic technology and scientific understanding was every bit equal to that of Rome or the Greeks , merely that we largly prefered not to live in overcrowed cities that were basically very fancy and gawdily decorated sewer systems http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif {only the wealthiest Romans got plumbing , the rest used "medievel solution to the disposing of oblutions" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif} . Greek and Roman possitioning also gave them excellent trade incomes ... thus the difference in resources for the typical fighting man in each society . Viking metalurgy was second to non and there were pattern welded swords so well made that at least one was crafted in 800AD that was still used {with propper care and many hilts later http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif} in 1600 on the battlefield The Mongols were very sophisicated in equine husbandry and bow making and what they couldn't make themselves they conquered population whom could suppily artisans who could {they wore silk jackets beneath their mail that would wrap around an arrow point that penetrated the mail such that it would not touch their flesh even if it did gouge a nasty hole in them ... this was due to their own pratice of poisoning their arrows} .
Now imagine , Papeweio , Maoris with even Celtic/Roman/Greek technology {I wonder if the changeover from B.C. to A.D. was as anoying as the change from normal to daylight saving time;)} They might with even that have beaten Britains' expiditionary forces {there is I believe evidence to suggest that Britain wouldn't have gone much further to secure New Zealand than they did ... though why seems a little odd given the good farm land , but likely they were stretched thin already and not seeing either trade opportunities nor mineral wealth ...} with steel swords {and axes etc ... perhaps a polearm based on the Maori fighting staff {I can't remember the correct name unfortunately} and good bows/crossbows {ARBS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif} .
With equal advancement they would likely have had an empire covering much of the pacific with the mineral wealth of Australia {which they would likely have conquered} to suppily them they could have rivaled anyone as a great power
What ifs fascinate me ... there's an interesting one , I'm sure you'll agree
Of course , without Maoris , there wouldn't be a real Kiwi rugby team http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gifhttp://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Cheers .
chilliwilli
12-16-2002, 03:21
Good point about Vietnamese. I agree 100%.
Romans also got the the pilum (throwing spear of the legions) from Celts. Celts are probably my 2nd pick behind The Mongols which I already said above.
The Mongols also used barbed arrows, first used by The Huns, who they are very closely related to(both are descended from the same tribe, The Hsiung-nu). Wounds suffered by barbed arrows were actually made worse by pulling the arrow out. Pretty nasty. Besides their leather cap, armor, and silk undergarments, Mongols also had water proof boots and water proof sacks. When crossing rivers they would place all their belongings in the sacks, secure them to the saddle of the horse, and then guide the horse across the river. After crossing they would open the sack and everything would be dry.
ShadeFlanders
12-16-2002, 15:25
Mr Frost, why are you talking about the Kelts that gave good old Caesar some scares as "we"? The continental Kelts are long dead, Caesar pretty much wiped out the northern tribes (especially the Belgae) completely for their nerve to revolt and what was left first mixed with Romans and anything celtic was later completely gone after the invasion of the germanic tribes like the Franks.
Mr Frost
12-16-2002, 17:06
Quote[/b] (ShadeFlanders @ Dec. 16 2002,08:25)]Mr Frost, why are you talking about the Kelts that gave good old Caesar some scares as "we"? The continental Kelts are long dead, Caesar pretty much wiped out the northern tribes (especially the Belgae) completely for their nerve to revolt and what was left first mixed with Romans and anything celtic was later completely gone after the invasion of the germanic tribes like the Franks.
Well to begin with : I am of Celtic blood {Irish mostly} . The Gauls as the Romans called them were but a part of the celtic people/world ; much as the Saxons were part of the same culture as the Norse {same Gods , same stories , same way of thinking/living etc} . We are no more extinct than whomever your people are .
Secondly , I am a Barbarian Pagan {the Barbarian bit is a modern choice to differentiate from such modern weirdness as "wicca" and other "new-age" inventions}
Despite the best efforts of christianity , enough of our kind survived quietly in secret {duh , the Vaticans forces wanted to exterminate us} to preserve our legacy over the centuries .
These days , the forces of christanity cannot muster enough support from society at large {at least not in the first word countries ... in some third world locations there is enough ignorance to support the worst despotism} to present a serious threat to the survival of my kind , thus many decided to "go public" {so to speak} .
You would be supprised how many of us there are . Many still keep their beliefs secret ... sensible for a good number to remain thus just incase thing change for worse again .
We are different to Odinists {Asatru} , in that we are not a revival , but rather an unbroken {though worn and frayed in places http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif}line from the origional source . Were the genuine article Though Asatru seem to be sincere and honourable flk who have the right idea ; thus I consider them to be "on my side" ; I merely make the point for clarity .
Some of the tribes are Celtic {that's my bloodline , though I have quite a bit of Germanic blood in me too -mostly Nordic} , some are Germanic ... I am sure their are quite a few Slavic tribes concidering how much longer the old ways lasted openly in the Russias ; but I am not so well educated in this life by our standards {it's a long story} so I cannot say to what extent .
I can say with confidence , however , THIS :
We ain't done yet Shadeflanders ; not by a LONG CHALK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
ShadeFlanders
12-16-2002, 18:13
I was talking more about the continental celts (they were the ones that fought Caesar after all), indeed in Ireland and Wales (and to a lesser extent Scotland) the celts still "live". But their culture is mostly dead.
2000 yrs ago celts lived on the very place I live now but I doubt I have as much as 10% (or even 5%) celtic blood.
Mr Frost
12-17-2002, 14:00
Were many of us {those who did not forget} are in Australia , Canada and America now {Europe got far too crowded ; too many nosey neibours http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif} .
Don't think that several million people {The Celts living in Gaul} ALL submitted not just body , but mind and soul too to the Romans' "cultural" pogroms {and the Christian ones which followed} . Some learned to be secretive , some simply moved to Britain and then Ireland or such {then ended up haveing to learn to live in the shadows anyway when that insidious cult of Nazarine gained sway ; but time to prepare , and the assistance of those who had already learned it would have prooved fruitfull} and then when the American and Australian continents were opened up to European colonisation , we went there {though there will be some still in Europe , most left for these new lands} .
It all depends upon your perspective ShadeFlanders . I am a Celt {mostly Irish} , but I have a fair bit of Germanic blood {equally Norse and Saxon} and I feel that Viking passion stir in me from time to time and I also have perhaps an eighth of Slav in me {my Fathers' Mother -Nancy- was Russian and would have been about half Slavic , half Nordic} and I have a feel that at times too {for example , I have in me the Russian prepensity to love or hate with totality ... not the dominant side of me , but it is most definitly there} .
Our beliefs include a proficy of the coming together of our scattered tribes . The Indo Europeans were once one tribe ; we travelled , grew then began to drift apart . For a time we almost forgot we were once one . I see all this period as part of a forging process and time of testing our metal {individually and as one} . Those of us still standing will be the finnished product . Some of us will carry Continental Celtic blood {like me} , some will even have been there to fight that Megolomaniac Cesar many lifetimes ago And thus they still live , both in blood decent and in that we continue to live life after life so long as we have the will for it {No one has an inherrantly imortal soul , you must keep the will to live to keep coming back untill you learn enough to become imortal or loose that will and embrace oblivion . Passion and desire are thus the essence of life } .
I am many things {A pagan to some , a Bastard to others http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif} and one of those things is a Continental Celt .
What was once , shall be again
Hope that answers your question . Cheers . http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
DthB4Dishonor
12-19-2002, 05:44
Hail Gentlemen, fellow .org guys, and generals (of MTW that is).
I think there should be a slight distinction made here. There are 2 kinds of warriors which we can define. The individual Feudal and samurai type of warrior and the warriors who form a cohesive fighting force.
1) As individual warrior I would have to give samurai my vote. Reasons for which have long been discussed in STW forums.
2) As cohesive force I would vote Romans with Spartans and Mongols in second.
A) Romans had a very disciplined, flexible and invative army. True they adopted many weapons and strats from other civilizations but I believe that is there strenght. The Romans were a marching construction company. I believe it was in Caesars campaign in Gaul where he formed one set of obstacles, ditches, walls and towers to keep one group of gauls from escaping from a mountain and another outer obstacles to keep there relief force out. Also there strenght in the battlefield is a directly seen in there longevity as the dominating force in the world.
* I give you guys this rule of thumb when picking your best cohesive force. If CA could duplicate any warriors or groups which would you most want to command versus another group?
Respectfully,
RTKPaul
The Fighting Uruk Hai
or... hmm.. nevermind *Grins*
I'm not sure if you could really use "The Celts".. Its a rather wide term They were all over europe At least around the Modern England, Scotland, Ireland, France. And various tribes around modern germany (and probably loads more)..
And if we would go for Warriors, I'd vote for the samurai (which aint in the vote *Grins*) .
As for Soldiers, and warfare, it would be either
The Swiss Pikemen
They were considered the best of the best soldiers in "modern warfare" during the renaissance. A lot of it was because of their re-invention of the Phalanx formation, No one felt like charging a unit with 90 pikes pointing out from a formation of 30x150 men(They even had a few larger formations!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. And the ones in front of the formation didnt have much choice but to advance and attack, since those behind them kept moving.
The Spartans
I dont know overly much about, except that they were the best warriors greece had to offer, and that the Phalanx mentioned above was invented by Greece. (At least its called Greek Phalanx)
The Romans
The romans with their formations and "modern" army were simply the best organised soldiers of their time and area.
And as for the Celt statement that the celts beat the romans on several occasions, The romans did conquer a [lot] of "celt territory". That doesnt change the fact that Celts are WAY cooler than romans though.
The Mongols
Most people know their skirmisher tactics, riding the fastest of horses, they kept feigning retreat and luring enemies with them, while showering them with hails of arrows. And as mentioned before, their psychologic warfare was quite effective. Their ruthlessness was a potent weapon too as mentioned in the "Killing of prisoners"-thread. If a city decided to cause them trouble, it could very well happen that the population was slaughtered. Something which I believe could scare quite a [b]lot[b] of cities that werent sure of victory into submitting..
Their respect for holy men, other religions and other people enabled them to become great conquerors. (They werent allowed to spill the blood of holy men, if they needed to they strangled them with bowstrings or trampled them with horses under carpets instead *Grins*).
What can I say, If they didnt have some weird culture, we could all be mongols today(Okay, I'm making an assumption that we all derive from Europe. Which probably isnt true, no offence intended). During the middle ages, the Mongols were standing outside the gates of Vienna, when their great Khan died. And all their troops had to return to their homelands to choose a new great Khan, putting a stop to their campaign in Europe.
The Vikings
A lot of their success depended on their shieldwall, since not many of their opponents had very organised soldiers. They weren't empire builders, they were plunderers and mostly fought "untrained" warriors.
Conclusion
It all comes down to who they faced.
Most of the soldiers mentioned here, Apart from the Swiss, Mongols and Spartans went down in history, mostly because they defeated "uncivilized" or untrained opponents of their time.. (It would be interesting to see the romans go up against the mongols, or the swiss for example)
The Vikings did not raid a lot of trained soldiers. (Not a lot of trained soldiers were around in the areas the vikings raided either, during that time)
The Romans are famous for conquering a LOT of europe. Which was defended by mostly individual tribes of "warriors" Not soldiers working in formation.
And by the way I'm a great fan of Swiss Pikemen, and the Landsknechts, it might show through in my post.
First campaign of Medieval I played as the HRE, once I got the swiss armoured pikemen. I hardly used anything else. Pikemen, Bombards and crossbowmen
If you're interested in knowing more. this is a pretty good site:
http://www.landsknecht.com/html/hall.html
DthB4Dishonor
12-19-2002, 19:24
Hey Vrashk,
I believe you have one glaring omission. Romans fought and conquered Carthage in several wars. Romans also defeated and conquered Egypt. Both of these were among the most modernized civilizations of there time. I'm not saying that your choice of Swiss Pike is wrong or even that my choice of Romans is wrong I'm just saying that Rome beat civilized organized countries. However Rome was the best organized civilization in the world and there level or organization was not seen again till well after the middle ages. They conquered with organization, discipline (in battle field) and ingenuity. This is shown by there ambitious attempt at making a census. This was unheard of before especially for such a large empire.
RTKPaul
Ah.. Let me Rephrase it.
If The romans (If we assume Italy was Rome) had had this kind of "civilized" empires(like Carthage) up north as well I do not think they would have been as successful =)
Just as no modern(900+) power has managed to conquer all of europe, since there are already "civilised" powers there with good communications.
The vikings would've had trouble if everyone in England had been armed and trained as well as the vikings. Their plundering to the west would probably soon be too an end. Just look at Normandy, As soon as the French guy had got vikings to defend his coasts.. (That was the result anyhow)The vikings weren't so eager to raid France anymore.
chilliwilli
12-20-2002, 17:10
No The Mongols have falling behind They are now in second. I still don't understand why so many people voted for Sparta. They were more intimidating than they were a good army. I think everyone of the other civilizations deserves more votes. Well maybe not Assyria. By the way why is Assyria on there? If you were looking to represent a civilization from the copper age in the near east you should have picked The Hittites.
Oops, Forgot to vote.
Now they're even
*Grins*
chilliwilli
12-22-2002, 00:32
Hehe nice.
Major Robert Dump
12-22-2002, 23:47
I voted Turks because they are today's best.
chilliwilli
12-23-2002, 06:02
The Turks are the best warriors today? I don't follow. Did you mean that they are today's best as in the begining of the modern era, say the 1500s?
The Turks are a tough one since there military has gone through many changes over the years. The other peoples in this poll have kept the same military traditions all througbhout their history with little change. this is probably why noone has voted for them. They began as The Seljuks, Turkoman warriors who shot arrows from horseback and their army was all cavalry. Then the Ottoman Turks were established, they began to use infantry and instituted the jannisary program. Now The Seljuk warriors may have had alot of success, but they were winning most of their victories against an already beaten foe in Byzantium. The Ottomans on the otherhand were an efficient warmachine and seemed unstoppable, but the regular Ottoman troop was not really that great. Their success was mostly due to the elite jannisaries. I think its really tough to vote for The Turks as the best, not because they weren't good, but because its kind of hard to say just how good they were.
kataphraktoi
01-03-2003, 13:06
The Romans must be the finest warriors because of their profound influence on military strategic thought:
Consider this:
Rome's army's strength was based in infantry with the cavalry as a secondary arm of the army, they were the best infantry in the world and superbly disciplined and thoroughly drilled. They were the masters of siegecraft which they made their own, whereas the Mongols had to force Chinese engineers to their dirty work for them(not that there was anything wrong with it, the sword is always right). Even when the infantry was beaten they learnt their lesson and eventually turned the tide agaisnt their enemies. eg. Rome lost to Parthia early, later Rome exacted revenge and sacked the Parthian capital at least three times.
Ability of Roman warriors to adapt - the Cataphract was an eastern innovation that was embraced by the Western European Romans, something the stupid Latins didn;'t do, the abiltiy to change and adapt made Rome's army deadly.
The ability of Rome to survive despite numerous civil wars due to the quality of the army even though standards did decline they were still the best.
Kensai Achilles
01-03-2003, 16:19
errr uhmm ... maybe I'm watching 2 much movies.... how about shaolin monks? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Zacharat Hennataga
01-05-2003, 04:21
i think each period had its own best worriors, that if it were not for diffrences of technogly, could probley sit and counter each other for a long time, in the order of there apperence, this is my vote, or atleast in the european theather
1.Assyrains
2.Spartians
3.Macadonians
4.Romans
5.Byzantines
6.Mamelukes
7.Mongols
8.Turks
Tmscience
01-11-2003, 09:00
i voted for the mongols because what they accomplished on the battle field was amazing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Stephen Hummell
01-12-2003, 04:32
i picked the spartans cause they're whole society was warfare, and at thermopolye where they killed 20,000 persians with like a thousand men and and fought to the last man. best warriors ever
Leet Eriksson
01-12-2003, 13:19
The Arabsthey defeated the byzantines at yarmouk and persians at Lathqiya and they were outnumbered 10 to 1 and they defeated them both in 20 daysi can't beleive you put the turks instead http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
King James I
01-16-2003, 10:39
Quote[/b] (Mr Frost @ Dec. 17 2002,07:00)]Were many of us {those who did not forget} are in Australia , Canada and America now {Europe got far too crowded ; too many nosey neibours http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif} .
Don't think that several million people {The Celts living in Gaul} ALL submitted not just body , but mind and soul too to the Romans' "cultural" pogroms {and the Christian ones which followed} . Some learned to be secretive , some simply moved to Britain and then Ireland or such {then ended up haveing to learn to live in the shadows anyway when that insidious cult of Nazarine gained sway ; but time to prepare , and the assistance of those who had already learned it would have prooved fruitfull} and then when the American and Australian continents were opened up to European colonisation , we went there {though there will be some still in Europe , most left for these new lands} .
It all depends upon your perspective ShadeFlanders . I am a Celt {mostly Irish} , but I have a fair bit of Germanic blood {equally Norse and Saxon} and I feel that Viking passion stir in me from time to time and I also have perhaps an eighth of Slav in me {my Fathers' Mother -Nancy- was Russian and would have been about half Slavic , half Nordic} and I have a feel that at times too {for example , I have in me the Russian prepensity to love or hate with totality ... not the dominant side of me , but it is most definitly there} .
Our beliefs include a proficy of the coming together of our scattered tribes . The Indo Europeans were once one tribe ; we travelled , grew then began to drift apart . For a time we almost forgot we were once one . I see all this period as part of a forging process and time of testing our metal {individually and as one} . Those of us still standing will be the finnished product . Some of us will carry Continental Celtic blood {like me} , some will even have been there to fight that Megolomaniac Cesar many lifetimes ago And thus they still live , both in blood decent and in that we continue to live life after life so long as we have the will for it {No one has an inherrantly imortal soul , you must keep the will to live to keep coming back untill you learn enough to become imortal or loose that will and embrace oblivion . Passion and desire are thus the essence of life } .
I am many things {A pagan to some , a Bastard to others http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif} and one of those things is a Continental Celt .
What was once , shall be again
Hope that answers your question . Cheers . http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Wasn't there a Celtic church based in Britian, unitl the Catholic Saxons killed all the priests, and the Danes and Vikings took over the sacred island of Iona? And what about Saint Patrick, was he a Catholic or from the Celtic church? Oh yeah ShadeFlanders aren't the people from the province of Brittany mainly Celtic stock?
King James I
01-16-2003, 11:37
I'm going to list my opinion of the best warriors in history, but this doesn't necessarily mean they had the best armies and that they were world conquerors.
1. Maoris (I might not be exactly impartial, being part-Maori myself) but consider this, when the Europeans first started to settle in New Zealand the Maoris were technologically a Stone Age Race and they had to adapt to fight the largest and most technologically advanced Empire of the 19th century, their principal weapons were the Taiaha (a fightining stick/spear combo), the mere (a heavy jade club with a sharpened edge), and a smattering of muskets and early shotguns which were either captured from the enemy or bought from settlers in exchange for land or from arms dealers. Can you find any parallel in any other era of warfare? They almost suceeded too. The British signed the Treaty of Waitangi to avoid further hostilties. (which I believe no other idiginous race did)
The only other people who managed to match their accomplishments would be the Gurkhas from the Himalayas. They were so good that after India seceded from the British Empire wished to keep a full regiment of Gurkhas in their army, which goes to show how valued they were.
I would also like to add the Zulus from South Africa. I believe their is a movie about them.
chilliwilli
01-18-2003, 00:00
Quote[/b] (King James I @ Jan. 16 2003,04:37)]I would also like to add the Zulus from South Africa. I believe their is a movie about them.
Yep its a Shaka Zulu biography and its very, very long. I watched it on the history channel and it was a total of 8-10 hours I think, I couldn't take anymore after 7. Its very good though. They did it in 2 hour installments.
Leet Eriksson
01-20-2003, 20:42
Change of mind occured,The finest warriors of all time where and still are the romansI still can't beleive that in their time the population was roughly 56 million,and their armies where in a million or 2.i'm unsure if it was true i read it in some history forums some time ago.
Wow, that was a tough choice. Some on the list were warrior cultures, born and bred for it like the Spartans..others were great conquerors like the Macedonians and the Mongols..in the end I went with the Romans, becuase of their military discipline. this and their advanced tactics, structure and arms is why they got my vote. But a case could be made for almost any of the choices...
rasoforos
01-21-2003, 02:38
this forum really needs Ktonos back , he was sure posting nice polls ....
Rosacrux
01-22-2003, 12:05
Yeah, where is our favorite poll-monger? Ktonos, ela piso re
ShadesWolf
01-22-2003, 14:36
It must be the Spartans
They held that pass all six of them (or what ever the number was) against those 1000's of enemy (Was it not Persia)
just a quick question, who amassed the largest empire the world has ever seen? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
what about the Japanese?
but from this list - it has to be the Mongols...
Rome was over-rated, look beyond the glamour or roman history and it was a question of equipment, group training, discipline and size of armies that made the Romans the best. The mongols made it with individual brilliance, group training, graeat tactics and strategy (Rome too, but to a lesser extent), incredible stamina and feats of endurance. Rome built. it built roads, cities, 'civilisation', it built armies. these things did their job. The Mongols fought, and that was to some extent an end in itself.
Papewaio
01-23-2003, 12:47
Greatest warriors is not the same as greatest army or greatest empire. Who man for man were the most deadly people in combat. Not who had the largest army, or the most brilliant general but which culture created the best warriors.
Of their time the Greek Phalanxs could hold off many times their number. The Spartans were the best of these.
Look at the beserkers of the vikings.
The janisarrie of the turks.
The samurai of the japanese.
----
I voted for the Maori as they beat the British Empire at its pinicale to the point that they got the Treaty of Waitangi. They had a warrior culture. And at the time europeans invaded the northern maoris had almost entirely conqured the southern. So they had the culture, the size, the tactics and the willpower to fight and beat the British Empire into a draw. Compare that with the Incas and co vs the Spaniards ... the British were more powerful when they landed in NZ.
Also bonus marks for style... clubs (mere) made out of greenstone (jade) were used by the Maori .
Red Peasant
01-25-2003, 23:28
Quote[/b] (chilliwilli @ Dec. 23 2002,04:02)]Now The Seljuk warriors may have had alot of success, but they were winning most of their victories against an already beaten foe in Byzantium.
A careful look at the Byzantine army that was defeated at Manzikert in 1071 will reveal that it was one of, if not THE, most formidable combined-armed forces in the world at the time. The Byzantines lost because they threw all their tactical experience and acumen (for which they were also renowned) out of the window. The cause was a brave yet foolhardy recently elevated emperor whose claim to the imperial purple was decidedly shaky; there were deep, factionally driven divisions in the Byzantine high command: the emperor had to win a quick, resounding victory. In such circumstances he led his forces into a waterless wilderness, chasing the chimera that was the Seljuk Horse Archer. However, the Byzantines had had hundreds of years of fighting against these tactics, even adopting a heavy horse archer/lancer of their own, so it was not ignorance or the novelty of the Turkish tactics that beat them, it was a divided command. To say that the Byzantines were rubbish is nonsense and only detracts from the glory of the Turkish victory, which was great indeed, but influenced and aided by factors over which they had no control. It has been a tendency of Western history to rubbish the Byzantines as ineffectual and weak throughout their history but this is merely to justify why a 'civilised' (Christian) nation lost to the barbarian, islamic Turks...it's a form of historical self-denial.
The Dutch
if you attack us we'll flood you with dykes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
pardon my english
Red Peasant
01-26-2003, 14:17
Quote[/b] (kaaskop @ Jan. 26 2003,12:01)]The Dutch
if you attack us we'll flood you with dykes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
pardon my english
Intriguing The crack Dutch 'Lesbian Division'....I surrender http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Papewaio
01-26-2003, 14:45
Well that explains both Tasmania and Sydney... show us your map of tassie
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.