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.
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
muffinman14
01-28-2003, 02:10
grr.. ment to put my vote as spartans
Hakonarson
01-28-2003, 02:52
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Jan. 23 2003,05:47)]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 .
just a note or 2 here....
the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) PRECEDDED all teh Maori land wars.
It came about because Maori had been fighting each other for 25 years and were looking for someone to give them ean excuse to stop
It is true that Maori fought teh Brits to a few standstills during the land wars (roughly 1860-1880), but they were generally overwhelmed by numbers and firepower any time they tried to fight in the field - in one of the very first encounters in teh field musket-and-bayonet equipped european troops had defeated twice theri number of Maori equipped with traditional weapons in hand-to-hand combat in the open despite being attacked in the flanks and rear.
Maori were certainly not stupid tho - that only happened once, word got around, and from then their successes were in the area of guerilla warfare and fighting from fortified defences.
One glorious example (name forgotten) that sticks in my memory fron reading is that of a Pa (fort) placed at the end of a clearing. the European troops approached up the clearing only to be shot at from rifle pits on both sides - the Pa was empty - it had only been constructed to give the Europeans something to attack
In other cases Pa were constructed with palisades - artilyer was used to knock the palisades down, but all the tribal warriors were in trenches below ground level that had not been touched - Gate Pa was the most famous battle of that type. It is said that the Maori taught the Brits how to entrench again
However as with many other tribal wars the Maori could not sustain the effort. As a tribal people their men weer also required to grow and hunt food, and ttaking a couple of thousand of them out of circulation full time to fight proved an enourmous strain - they did that a couple of times but in each case they couldn't hold the coalitions together.
Papewaio
01-28-2003, 03:22
Certainly a better effort then the Incas did 400 years before with similar weapons and superior numbers against less deadly troops.
Hakonarson
01-28-2003, 04:19
aybe, maybe not - the Incas did keep up a guerilla war for a lot longer than the Maori did.
Knight_Yellow
01-28-2003, 05:33
I dont get it 1500+ ppl have looked at this and i know that sum ppl have looked up to say 10 times but theres only like 70 tally's (total votes).
so are we re reading topics alot
or
are we all lazy assed non voters?
Ithaskar Fëarindel
01-28-2003, 11:11
Or maybe ...
Some feel they have no real point of view, or feel that they know too little about the subject to post any remark. Or open the thread and then realise how long it is and run away.
I myself have probably looked at this thread countless times, but have not submitted a vote. Actually, I don't think I've voted once in the Monastery yet.
chilliwilli
02-01-2003, 03:11
Quote[/b] (Red Peasant @ Jan. 25 2003,16:28)]
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.
Did I say that the Byzantines had a poor military in that quote? I don't think I did and if it seems like that than let me rephrase. What I meant was that they didn't stand a chance that day due to their force at Manzikert consisting of mostly foreign mercenaries and ill equipped troops(by this I mean ill equipped to deal with horse archers), this mixed with Andronicus' treachery and the unfortunate string of events leading up to the actual battle(desertions, etc.) is a recipe for disaster which is what it was. I never said that The Byzantines were rubbish or a poor fighting force, just that they didn't stand much of a chance that day, thats all. I agree with all your observations about their experience with such skirmish tactics and that their military was a great combined arm froce, but the army that was hastely led to Manzikert was not one of these elite, experienced Byzantine armies.
Efrem Da King
02-02-2003, 10:20
Macadoens all the way.
Toda Nebuchadnezzar
02-02-2003, 11:33
Quote[/b] (Ckrisz @ Dec. 03 2002,10:38)]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.
Sorry but you have this all wrong mate.
1) Sparta never wanted to leave Greece. They were a polis that was happy with what it had and stuck to it. Naturally when a threat came it would deal with it, as it had done for centuries.
2) The Spartan warriors were famous all around the known world. They were feared because of the stories from sailors who traversed the Mediterranean. And Sparta had a great many allies around the known world, and one or two colonies aswell.(Is it not recognised now that the best fighting units in Greek Antiquity were the Spartan phalanxes.No one could match them.)
3) The War with Athens (Peloponnesian War) ended in an Athenian loss. But the allies of Athens were now leaderless. This was because Athens had taken over command of the Delian League and used it as its own empire. Sparta was over stretched, and its generals and governors sent to the cities to control them became materialistic with luxuries. This was one of the downfalls for Sparta.
4) Thebes beat Sparta in the end. But this is because of one reason:
To be a Spartan warrior (Spartiati) one had to have both a Spartan mother and father. As the war dragged on, the numbers of Spartan warriors dwindled. When the battle of Leuctra in 371B.C. occured between Sparta and Thebes, the Spartan army numbered 11,000 but only 1,000 of these were the feared Spartan warriors. The resr were a few perioikoi and some thousand helots, and then the allies of Sparta called up to help in the battle. The Theban army in comparison was of only 6,000 men. But of these 6,000 were phalanxes 50 rows deep (instead of the usual 12 rows deep) and the best cavalry in the Greek World.
Obviously the Spartans lost and badly. 400 of their 1,000 citizens had died. There was no way they could continue.
So please don't write them off because of how small they were as a country. The reason for small polis' in Greece was because of the rugged terrain. It was impossible to keep an organised country like Greece as a whole country it those days. The terrain hindered the possibility and so made it impossible.
Lets not forget that Sparta with only 300 hoplites and one hell of a lot of scared allies managed to hold the Thermopylae pass until the Persians cheated them by outflanking them along a path that was revealed by a traitor.
Gah Others of course Gah
Where is my mum fighting with me, my father and so on??
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Hakonarson
02-04-2003, 03:17
There were no Helots at Leuctra - instead there were hoplites form the various "allied" cities - Arcania, Arcadia, Corinth and Phokia.
Longshanks
02-08-2003, 10:37
Quote[/b] (monkian @ Dec. 04 2002,09:22)]
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.
I'm sorry but you are wrong as well. The North Vietnamese/Viet Cong guerillas never won a single battle or campaign against the Americans.
The Vietnam War was lost on the American homefront, not on the battlefield. The Vietnamese won because American popular opinion was against the war, its as simple as that.
Quote[/b] ]Originally posted by Alrowan
ol... 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
The Celts defeated the Romans early in Rome's development, but overall they faired poorly against the Romans.Rome won the vast majority of its wars against the various Celtic nations and tribes. Prior to the rise of Rome, Western Europe was dominated by the Celts. By the time Rome had fallen, most of the Celtic lands had been under Roman domination for a few hundred years. Northern Italy, Gaul, Spain, what is today the low countries, parts of Germany, and Britain were all occupied by various Celtic nationalities. All were eventually conquered by the Romans. Only Ireland remained outside of the Roman Empire, and only because the Romans never attempted an invasion.
My vote for the finest warriors would have to be the Spartans. They were the epitome of a warrior people, given a military education and trained for war from the time they were children. They were small in number, but pound for pound there was no match. Thermopylae anyone?
Rome has the best army,(which is superior to having the better warriors IMO) but the finest individual warrior title would have to go to the Spartans.
Toda Nebuchadnezzar
02-08-2003, 20:36
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Feb. 03 2003,20:17)]There were no Helots at Leuctra - instead there were hoplites form the various "allied" cities - Arcania, Arcadia, Corinth and Phokia.
.Battle of Leuctra (http://www.fortunecity.com/banners/genericpop.html?page=en/m_game_play/1334625357/x31/fortunecity/c3038-300-fc/pop-usb.htm/63333564333230383363376139616130?1334625357&image=fortunecity/c3038-300-fc/a200x200_USBPortPop.gif)
Please note the Spartan army was made of many allies. But also note that there were Spartans and Lakedaimonians. The Spartans were the Spartan Hoplites, the Lakedaimonians were the perioikoi and helots who fought.
I know my Spartan history, I have had it drilled into me at school last year.
(You might say that the Lakedaimonians are not the helots because they actually came from Messenia, which was the next province over from Lakedaimonia, but this is not always true. Some helots were considered Lakedaimonians also.)
Just to clear that up.
redrooster
02-08-2003, 22:31
which would breed a better warrior, laws of lycurgus or bushido?
Hakonarson
02-10-2003, 00:26
Quote[/b] (Toda Nebuchadnezzar @ Feb. 08 2003,13:36)]
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Feb. 03 2003,20:17)]There were no Helots at Leuctra - instead there were hoplites form the various "allied" cities - Arcania, Arcadia, Corinth and Phokia.
Please note the Spartan army was made of many allies. But also note that there were Spartans and Lakedaimonians. The Spartans were the Spartan Hoplites, the Lakedaimonians were the perioikoi and helots who fought.
I know my Spartan history, I have had it drilled into me at school last year.
(You might say that the Lakedaimonians are not the helots because they actually came from Messenia, which was the next province over from Lakedaimonia, but this is not always true. Some helots were considered Lakedaimonians also.)
Just to clear that up.
Helots who fought at this time were called neodamodoi - in fact they were no longer helots but a new class of freed men.
There had been several major forces of them sent out from Sparta in the years leading up to Leuctra, and their presence is well known, and whenever I read about them they are mentione dquiet seperately from otehr Lacademonians.
However AFAIK there's no evidence that there were any at Leuctra
the link you posted was to a pop-up advert - can you post the substantive one?
I have no doubt there were Helots at Leuctra - they accompanied the spartans everywhere as servants, but if ther were EX-helots fightign in the line then they wouldn't be helots anymore, would they
Having studies Sparta at school is highly commendable - but means little except you did those classes - who's to say everything you learned there was correct? I have also studied Greek History - (at Uni) including the rise and downfall of Sparta.
But I've also spent 20 years since then continuing to study it and learning new things all the time. Academic study is nice - but resorting to it makes a lousy argument to support a position.
Man i must say that i have learned alot from all you guys reading these boards for the past few months.
Im gonna throw a couple more modern day ones at ya.
Since we are taking about which country's "War Machine" was the greatest, The World War 2 Germans And U.S.A.
Let me explain a little.
I think we all can agree that what the germans accomplished in WW2 was AMAZING to say the least. They took on EVERYONE in europe and more or less won for 4 years. If it wasnt for the American War machine...... the "Never say die" Russians and the Tough British, Germany would have surely won.
But the Americans in WW2 were also quite amazing. It took The U.S.A. awhile to get involved but once we did we took on the Japanese "All by Themselves" and the Germans with the help of there allies in Europe. They fought 2 wars at once and won them both.
Just wanted to throw those 2 out there.
Great Thread everyone... i enjoyed reading it
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Toda Nebuchadnezzar
02-10-2003, 23:37
Ah yes, I have heard of the freed helots. Weren't much better off from what I was told.
hope that works.
Battle of Leuctra (http://www.fortunecity.com/underworld/ straif/69/engleuctra.htm)
deejayvee
02-11-2003, 06:50
Sorry Havok. It was an unnecessary comment.
I didn't need to bring that here.
Ithaskar Fëarindel
02-12-2003, 02:10
I'm removing and editing the post and replies. Deejay however much you feel about it remember this is a multi-cultural site.
deejayvee
02-12-2003, 03:51
I know and hence my apology.
Takeda Shingen
03-23-2003, 19:37
I also agree that the Samurai were the best Warriors of all time,taking nothing away with the other's mentioned but that's my two cents.
DemonArchangel
03-25-2003, 04:42
Well the finest warriors of all time are without a doubt, THE AMERICANS j/k, no, it was the Romans.
Swamp Thing
03-25-2003, 11:47
Judging the effectiveness of a soldier is a matter of time, environment, technology and circumstance.
Mongols were certainly good warriors, but their capacity to fight was a product more of their life-style. The steppe breeds warriors with an emphasis on speed, maneuver and firepower, but only in terrain conductive to that particular type of combat. Throw them into deep forest with lightly equipped Welsh skirmishers, and the outcome is quite different than on the open field where the Mongols can utilise their inherent method of warfare to the best possible extent.
One must also understand that cultures often practice a highly individualised style of warfare.
Romans are good fighters, but try place them against soldiers properly drilled with flintlock muskets.
Likewise, Maoris are all well and good, but versus a squardron of Mosquitos, the victor is obvious.
The key to a good soldier is first and foremost training and discipline.
The key to a good army is flexibility in terms of tactics and command structure, mixed-unit experience and espirit de corps, with the fullest implementation of the best available technology.
The key to waging a good war is strategy and leadership.
These are factors which transcend civilisations
whiskeyjack
04-05-2003, 19:23
Really good thread the depth of knowledge showed by some members is scary.
I based my vote on the fact that a warrior is an indivdual rather then an army. If it was the best army then i'd have went with the Romans or Spartans but as indivduals i decided on the celts (no bias or anything http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ). Their whole culture was warrior based. They also showed great longetivity in still being around up to the 15th century
lonewolf371
04-08-2003, 23:39
Mongols, if you conquer roughly all of Asia you gotta be doing something pretty damn right as a warrior. As per the battle of Leuctra, the Thebans would have still lost had Epimonindas, their brilliant general, not innovated a new tactic. Surprisingly my source (Ancient and Medieval Warfare released by West Point) has the exact same troop numbers and rank deepage. However, obviously the Thebans would not have been able to sustain a 50 rank deepage throughout the entire line. Normally, when Greek phalanxes fought, the phalanx would tend to drift through the right when battling, as the right was the unshieled part of the Hoplite, and moving in that direction would further protect him. Because of this, Greek phalanxes would tend to have its best soldiers on the right to take advantage of this and break the enemy left. Both sides would simply struggle line against line until one side could break the enemy's left and then the remaining phalanxes would be laid open for butchery. However, Epimonindas instead deployed a huge amount of soldiers on his left, mainly to meet shock with supershock. Then the Spartan right would break and cause the rest of the army to route. He deployed his cavalry on his own right to secure that flank and his elite Hoplites on the left to guard against flank attacks on the 50 rank formation. The Thebans would advance in Echelon, that is, one unit would start, then another, then another so as their line would appear diagonal. This would allow the Theban right to be secure from routing while the left advanced, yet still serve as a threat so the Spartans couldn't reinforce their right. Of course, the plan worked perfectly and the Spartans were routed from the field. Unfortunately for Thebes, soon after Phillipe II of Macedon soon became ambitious and conquered the Greek city-states. The Theban dominance was short-lived, but hard-earned.
I voted for the Turks both for history including medieval ages and beyond, and also for modern ages. Though this will be a quite subjective opinion because I'm Turkish http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. However I guess the US 8th Army General in Korea War would agree with me as he said : "The Turks are the hero of heroes. There is no impossibility for the Turkish Brigade."
One quick source I could find was Game Spy:
"Staying neutral in the Second World War, Turkey joined the forces of the United Nations in Korea, where Turkish troops were noted for their bravery and their determination. In November of 1950, the Turkish Brigade, 5,000 strong, fought against overwhelming numbers of Chinese troops to hold open an escape route for Douglas MacArthur's Eighth Army, when they were retreating southward. MacArthur was later to declare, 'The Turks are the hero of heroes. There is no impossibility for the Turkish Brigade.'"
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/january03/ron7/index2.shtml
The mongols ... well, my grandpa was mongol, so I may be considerd subjective, but you can't stop to admire the way they, without having any knowledge of reading and writing, planned huge victorious campaigns, studied terrain on veal maps; and of course, you have to remember the Djebe's raid.
The problem with a poll like this is all or most of those listed fought in much different circumstances, with different tactics, from horseback , in phalanx..and on and on. It's hard to judge. I went down the list and just picked the one I wouldn't want to run into the most and that turned out to be the spartans. Xenophon's march to the sea, Thermopylae, their insane military code..YIKES Plus their charge at Plataea. Taken individually, they were the scariest bunch in my book.
Aaaaa...I came back to this forum after half a year and I'm so glad that I made a post that lasted during my long absency and it is still on top of the table. To bad I cannot revote in order to vote SPARTANS once more again.
Rosacrux
05-09-2003, 13:42
Ktonos is back? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
WB filarako http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Xairetouria patrioti. Long time no see.
I cannot explain how most of you voted warriors who used to fight from distance with bows and fast horses.
And instead would you choose "armoured" warriors to be considered as best?
Maybe some of you are not interested, but for those who are, I want to tell you about a different oppinion. (the oppinion of a Muslim World- Turkey)
People with some history knowledge on this forum probably know very well that most of the time Mongol, Turkish etc... cavalry won against European Knights in history. However the western world "prefers" to believe that knights are way much stronger in h2h compared to these "distant" fighters that fought with bows and fast horses. If we look at the unit stats of this game for example we will see that while Byzantine Kataphraktoi has a total combat value of 8, the Turcoman horse archers have 2. And when it comes to h2h these Turcomans will rout screaming like girls in seconds. Eventhough this may be considered reasonable and logical to western people, the Turks for example would just laugh at such a thing and would not even bother to argue. It is maybe true that these warriors were fast and manueverable but in history they did NOT kill those heavliy armoured knights with only bows. They did use bows to soften up the enemy but later they did charge with swords and fought h2h and won most battles.
This is just different beliefs and opinions of different cultures. Similiar to western world (believing that Mongol or Turkish cav. are distant fighters who are weak in h2h), the Turks or Mongols believe that European knights were weak fighters who were only good for the first charge created by those heavy lances, and when it came to h2h after the first charge, armored knights are simply seen as a no match to their warriors. For example if a Turk developed this game a Turcoman horse would have a combat value of 8 instead and Kataphraktoi 2.
In history the Turkish and Mongol approach to military and wars were quite different from western world, actually it is closer to modern approach. While the Europeans prefered to train archers, swordsmen ...etc seperately, the Turks and Mongols prefered to train "multi-functional" units which were capable of using different weapons against different threats (bows and swords for example). Not only cavalry but also their infantry were multi functional and MTW somewhat reflects this (although weaker than actual IMO). Just as the approach that today's infantry should be multi-functional (for example carrying anti-tank weapons), the Turks and Mongols wanted to train multi-functional soldiers both foot and cavalry.
While I clearly disagree with most about the general thought of Turk-Mongol units vs knights, I'm not expecting all to agree with me and change their thought immediately. I just wanted to tell you how Turks look at the situation. And if you believe that my thoughts are subjective because I'm Turkish do not forget that then yours are too because you are European (or American whose ancestors are European).
The Blind King of Bohemia
05-16-2003, 14:02
I think armies that i would not like to have fought against were the Englsh during there good times during the 100 years war,any Roman army,East or West at best,The Mongol army who Campaigned in China,Russia and Eastern Europe,The Ottomans, post battle of Kossovo to 1600,Alexander the Great's armies with him leading them and The Swiss between Morgaten to before the disaster at Biccoca. Yet,this are but a few of the hardest armies.
C'mon ... the mongols and tartars were the best, we all know that ...
Kanuni,
Ofcourse. The fact that Spartans had armour indicates that they were in need of it. Why? Because the Spartan Hoplite where fighting hand to hand a l w a y s. But what about some times when Spartans fought with their armours ONLY (eg the final stage of the Thermopylae battle), when most of their weapons were broken and they litteraly were fighting HAND to hand repelling the Persian attacks? The Mongols and Turkish horsemen had no armour because they had no need of it. They would start and finish a battle without having a sword unsheathed if they could. And if they could not win the enemy with their bows, they would retreat, unless ofcourse the enemy was so much...."soften up" that they would "bravely" charge and finnish him. What would make anyone believe that a mounted man with a scimitar would kill another mounted one armed with a longswor, plate mail and a shield, in melee combat?
But well, Turkish people are told many things.
Leet Eriksson
05-19-2003, 07:22
nope turks won't win when european knights charge them,but if they go melee the man with the scimitar is probably the winner,eastern armies were known in their skill of using swords.
Papewaio
05-19-2003, 11:00
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Still say the Maori using wood and jade weapons and practically no armour apart from skirts and feather cloasks against muskets and cannon of the against the worlds largest colonial power did pretty well in the hand-to-hand combat stakes.
Compare that to the Incas.
Really it is hard to compare any warriors as it is based on very subjective truths. It is easy enough to find cases when various armies conquoured others and when they where defeated at other times. I think the mark of the warriors is in the attitude and the fear they instilled in their enemies... measure the warriors by those they where feared by and why... was it the battlefield or the aftermath that the victor was known as someone to fear defeat?... if it was the battlefield then it was either the quality of the warriors or the numbers, if afterwards it was the sheer brutality of the army...I think Thermopyle is a good example of quality and hence what a great warrior elite can form from a society. However as a typical warrior caste for Greece how atypical or typical was that?
Oh and judging by a handiful of elite is hardly fruitful. It is like using the olympics as the sample for how obese a nation is.
Hakonarson
05-19-2003, 22:35
Maori only went up against bayonet-and-musket infantry hand-to-hand in the open once - they attacked a British force that was advancign in the open on one of their fortificatinos from the rear, and then sortied from the front as well IIRC.
They lost badly - and they never tried it again.
There's no reason why wood and stone wouldn't be effective in the 19th century fo course - armour was out of fashion But perhaps the favourite Maori hand weapon was actually an iron hatchet - they may have started in the stone age but they weren't dumb
MalibuMan
05-26-2003, 16:37
Quote[/b] (Kanuni @ May 13 2003,05:55)]While I clearly disagree with most about the general thought of Turk-Mongol units vs knights, I'm not expecting all to agree with me and change their thought immediately.
The Eastern armies were in many ways superior because, as you say, they were developing the idea of organised, integrated warfare, where the basic, more numerous troops were well-trained and equipped to fight supporting each other as a unit. The eastern powers were realising more quickly than the western ones that 100 peasants trained and kitted out to fight TOGETHER were more effective than a few elite, supremely skilled warriors. This was partly because the east had more of a culture of scholarliness and thought as opposed to the brutal violence of the west (although you certainly couldn't say the east wasn't violent, just that they didn't see it as the solution to everything).
The west was still stuck with the cultural model of feudalism, where a relatively small number of knights were professional fighters, i.e. they literally didn't do anything else at all, and so developed fantastic levels of skill. They were also equipped with incredibly expensive and high quality arms, armour and horses, and required an entire personal retinue to function properly. Whenever fighting occurred, the peasants were next to useless, with no training or proper weapons, and it all came down to a clash of the professional knights. This did begin to change in europe, during the later periods MTW shows, when powers like the English realised the power of properly trained troops (e.g. longbowmen) in massed numbers (Crecy, Agincourt), something the eastern states had long known. This caused not just a change in eastern battle tactics, but also in society, as the humble peasant became more useful and important, and the support costs of the amazing knight looked less justifiable.
However at the time of the crusades, none of these changes had occurred and the societies and armies were still knight-centred. Although the western armies would often be defeated by a superior use of integrated warfare, MAN FOR MAN the western knights were some of the most skilled and well-equipped fighters ever.
As a last point, remember also that battles between knights and eastern troops were almost exclusively fought in the east (the knights were the invaders). This gave the easterners the advantages of climate and knowledge of terrain. Climate can have a huge impact. Metal armour can be your own death warrant in the desert, for example, and the longbow simply doesn't work at any latitude below about northern spain
Hakonarson
05-29-2003, 04:43
Most battles between Western and Easten armies in medieval times were fought in Europe - either against the Mongols or the Ottoman Turks or their descendants and/or allies.
MalibuMan
05-29-2003, 07:18
You may well be right, I confess to not knowing.
But...
1) crusades
2) what do you call 'Europe'? I don't know how far west the mongols and ottomans got. e.g. I wouldn't count russia as europe.
Hakonarson is perfectly right. Just as I could not understand with what knowledge you said that, I also could not understand the rest of your topic.
Your points only apply to Arabs in history. Not all eastern people. I don't know how I can translate this to English but I guess you'll understand when I say "not settled, migrating all the time" The Turks and Mongol tribes were not settled, and they didn't have a "peasant factor like you can imagine for Catholic countries. We can say that their life was spent on riding horses. They were very skilled horsemen and swordsmen, and their training was very hard because that was the way they lived.
I don't know about Mongols, but Turks started to live "settled" after they conquered Anatolia in 1071. And the Ottomans only unit that used peasants in a way like you said were "sipahi", and as you know from the game they ride horses. Sipahi were NOT in mass numbers. Most of the other units in Turkish army were like "knigts" in the way you explain. They used superior equipments like wonderful eastern swords and shields and these guys were very capable for MAN FOR MAN fights. Most of the units weren't extremely armoured as knigths. But unlike how this game represents especially the jannissaries could be heavily armoured in lush climates.
So I guess instead of writing the belief of ours, or "the general belief of the community in which we are living", we need to be knowledgable about the subject that is being discussed, or just need to bother for some research... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
MalibuMan
05-29-2003, 19:51
You're quite right, I was referring only to Arabian states, and hadn't bothered to properly read your earlier posts. My apologies.
I know next to nothing about the actual eastern people being discussed here, as I have never read or studied about them. My knowledge on Mongols and Turks is limited to TV documentaries I just regurgitated what I had learnt about european and 'eastern' cultures and war machines during the crusades, where my 'eastern' wasn't the same as your 'eastern'.
I think a lot of what I said still stands, it's just entirely irrelevant to the argument in this thread http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
The word you're looking for for people who move from place to place rather than settle is 'nomads'.
Hakonarson
05-29-2003, 23:28
I take Europe as being the land mass west of the Bosporous, and basically up to the borders of Ukraine - so including Poland, Hungary, Rumania.
Turks did have "peasant" foot - a class of troops known as Azabs IIRC - mostly archers.
Sipahis were used in vast numbers - "Feudal" Sipahis could number 40-50,000 in their armies. These guys were apparently quite poorly equiped and with great variety of weapons according to European witnesses of the time - many would have only a sword or a bow.
Sipahis of the Porte weer a different class entirly, and were very well equipped.
Oh yes sorry I forgot about Azabs. I forgot about it because they can be considered as rare, and not used in many battles. They were very weak soldiers and used in purpose to draw the enemy/enemy fire and sadly (for them) high casualties for Azabs were not cared much. I guess you'll agree here that they were a very small percetage of Turkish armies in medieval battles.
And about sipahis having mass numbers... Hakonarson, as I said in another thread I do not agree with the numbers you point out about battles. Afterall IIRC, the internet page source you have shown was a page informing about Hungary and Hungary's battles in past. I want to repeat that it is difficult to point out dependable sources about "sipahi's numbers" in battles. Would you consider it an objective source if I showed you a Turkish internet page for Ottoman's wars??? Well, you might reply that that webpage isn't Hungarian etc... , but IMO, in order to accept such a resource, a webpage should make a reference to "dependable" sources about history which is "accepted by the world" not only by a participant in a war.
My history knowledge tells that sipahi were not in mass numbers, or at least they did NOT usually outnumber the knights or cavalry of the opponent.
Rosacrux
05-30-2003, 09:35
Hakonarson is right. The Spahis (or Sipahis) consisted the bulk of the Ottoman armies in their early expansion period. They were not only the feudal lords (the Turkish Knights, so to say) but also their followers etc. and that brought their number pretty high, even though their abilities were not that high. In western (catholic) MTW terms you could say that Spahi were together the knights, the horsemen and the hobilars of the Ottoman armies.
Actually, in the early Osmanli expansion era, Spahis sometimes made up 60-70% of the army That changed later, when peasant infantry became the bulk of the Ottoman armies and the Janissaries outgrew the Spahis as a political power factor in the Porte http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Spahi, even though technically is the word for the head of the fief, also applied to all cavalry troops under him.
The Spahi officers were a different story... and the Spahi of the porte a completely different story, of course.
But regular spahi cavalry was
- Great in numbers
- Of rather poor quality.
Kanumi
the Ottomans, unlike the Mongols and early Seljuks, were not steppe people so they certainly did not "spent their life on horses". After their initial success, they adopted the Islamic style feudal system and they surely were not "living as warriors"
I did not say the Ottomans were nomads. I laready said in my previous post that the Turks settled after 1071 Manzikert. You are wrong, the Sipahis were not 60-70% of the army in the early expansion period. The armies were cavalry based, but most were not sipahi.
Hehe this is clearly a "my father beats your father" topic. OK your word vs mine:
1. You say sipahi were not quality troops, knights were. I say sipahi are good quality troops and can beat knights in h2h combat.
2. You say they were great in numbers. I say they are not.
Btw, the sipahis were not like European peasants as you think either. The Ottoman system was like this: The land owners in conquered provinces had to pay for a sipahi army as tax. The army trained good sipahi units with that money. And you say sipahis are peasants? Who are knights then? Great people of the aristocracy or what? LOL
There is one simple fact, eventhough you may not like it because you want to overpower your ancestors. The fact is Ottomans did expand, beat many combined Catholic armies and until 1699 (this is accepted as the start of their decline) they were a dominant military power and kicked @ss. Whether anyone finds any excuses as "poor quality" or "mass numbers" you cannot change this fact. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif Look at history objectively and see the facts. Period.
Rosacrux
05-30-2003, 20:50
Kanumi
My ancestors? I am not a westener, hon, I am a proud great, great, great (etc.) child of a Cretan landlord... Cretan as Greek, you know. We had no knights in Greece (just a few westeners who came over to loot and conquer) and we had eventually to bow to the far superior numbers of the Ottomans.
Maybe there is a language barrier here and you didn't understood what I've written. Ok, once more:
If you want to check a couple of online encyclopedias and history sites, they state what I and Hak said: Sipahis were the local feudal lords and their followers. 1 lord, his kids, and the rest... poorly equiped subjects of said lord. So, the Sipahis (the regular sipahis) had great numbers (as you will find out too if you check the data available online) but they were of poor quality in general.
That doesn't change the fact that the "royal" sipahis (spahi of the porte) were close to the european knights in quality.
But if the Ottoman armies had such a vast number of Knigh-alikes in their ranks, surely they wouldn't stop in Danube http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Got it now?
Don't be silly, this is not a "my ancestors are better than yours" contest. My ancestors weren't knights, but I am not afraid to admit that the knight was the absolute killing machine of the middle ages. Cunning and good tactics was required to beat those buggers (at least if you hadn't a vast amount of longbowmen in your army ;D)
MalibuMan
05-30-2003, 21:19
Kanuni, I don't think anyone except you wants to make a big argument out of this.
Although I've already admitted my post was largely irrelevant, a large part of it is given over to explaining that the westerners LOST most of their battles, and that the eastern armies were indeed superior, as you say.
MalibuMan, sorry my last post wasn't directed at you. I admired your matureness when you admitted that.
Rosacrux,
I am Turkish and you say you know the structure of the sipahis better than me? ROFLMAO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
The landowners were obliged to "pay" for a sipahi army only. But sometimes they "prefered" to fight with their whole family as you said. It was a matter of choice. In that time the Turks thought that joining in the army and fighting was something needed to be a MAN and they often joined those sipahis, but they weren't a commander or anything, they just joined wars. Whereas non-Turk land owners often only payed for sipahis as tax. This is actually a proof that the Ottoman Turks did live like warriors. The sipahi units were trained by the army and always kept ready for war, and they were provided with good swords and bows and even sometimes ARMOR I repeat, the sipahis were not in low quality nor in mass numbers. In respectable encyclopedias it doesn't write the sipahi were poor in quality nor mass in numbers. Instead of generalising it how about pointing out a "respected", "accepted" source.
All the Greeks I have met so far are somewhat subjective vs Turks execpt for 1. And that person is in this forum: Heraclius. Now I'm not saying that the Turks are objective to Greeks either, but I just laugh to funny excuses of losers when they say "the Turks came in numbers". (just as I laugh to French excuses when they lost vs English) If you read Turkish sources, you can see that they say WE were outnumbered like 1:3, but I laugh to that, too.
You believe sipahis are poor, I believe they are even better than knights, you will never change my opinion and I will never change yours, so maybe it's better to stop this discussion here.
Rosacrux
05-30-2003, 22:13
Try this
Quote[/b] ]TOPRAKLI CAVALRIES (SIPAHIS)
The Toprakli Cavalries (also called as Sipahi; don't confuse them with the Kapikulu Sipahis) formed the majority of both the Ottoman army and the Eshkinjis. These toprakli cavalries were composed of two types of soldiers: timar (fief) holding Timarli Sipahi heavy cavalries and Jebelό light cavalries. In battles, they used to charge at the weakened enemy ranks and break the enemy defences; this charge was usually succesful, and most of the Ottoman's foes couldn't expel such a charge. The toprakli cavalries were first introduced durind Murad I's reign, who was famous from his reforms in the army. For many centuries (14th-17th), they formed the backbone of the ermy and were by far the strongest among the other units (partly due to their numerical superiority). In the late-17th century, however, they lost their importance, became obsolete and were switched to background service troops (just like the mόsellems and yayas). After the Tanzimat Reforms in 1839, they were abolished and replaced by Redif Divisions, who served on the countryside.
Just a post by a knowledgable guy in this (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tatar-l/message/4787) forum
then try this
link (http://i-cias.com/e.o/sipahi.htm)
and this
link (http://www.theottomans.org/english/campaigns_army/index.asp)
or this
link (http://www2.egenet.com.tr/mastersj/encyclopedia-a.html)
And there are a thousand more if you care to google yourself a bit... jesus kid, why do you have to be so stubborn? Just because you are Turk, it doesn't mean you know your country's history better than a foreigner - especially when (as it looks) you wouldn't accept the truth even if it came knocking at your door... I don't want to "change your opinion", opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got one. But I tend to look suspiciusly upon people who have an agenda to forward... which seems the case with you.
Whatever. Be well.
edited to add
Ooopss... I've just noticed the pic in your signature... a grey wolf? Cute... very cute. That explains it all, doesn't it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Heraclius
05-30-2003, 22:52
Quote[/b] (Ktonos @ May 08 2003,23:06)]Aaaaa...I came back to this forum after half a year and I'm so glad that I made a post that lasted during my long absency and it is still on top of the table. To bad I cannot revote in order to vote SPARTANS once more again.
another Greek We're really filling up the .org now. When I was just a junior patron I read your posts in the Monastery but I believe you left before I was promoted . nice to have you back.
PS-on an unrelated topic: you don't favor Olympiakos do you? I believe Rosacrux is a devoted fan and he must be laughing hard right now. 3-0 3-0 the one game I root for Panathinaikos and they lose 3-0 I'm sorry, you must think I'm very strange but I needed to rant a little. ;)AEKARA
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I really can't stop laughing. I have never heard the topraklı cavalries called as sipahis. LOLOLOLOL. The Turkish world knows the sipahis as "tımarlı sipahiler" and "kapıkulu sipahiler" (which are sipahis of the porte)
LOL I'm asking for a dependable source, and you show me websites and someone's writing from this forum. Except for the guy in this forum none of those links say that the sipahis were in mass numbers. And even this guy says the tımarlı sipahiler were proffessional soldiers. That was what I was referring to when I say sipahi. Simple isn't it: Sipahi is sipahi, topraklı is topraklı LOL
I'm not stubborn by the way, if you want all "west" oppinions about Ottomans, fine then I won't write a message. But I'm just writing so you can see a different oppinion, if you want to believe sipahis are weak, it's fine with me, keep doing so. But maybe for some people it is good to hear another cultures oppinion. They might think "oh maybe sipahis don't suck. This belief in west might be beased on a bias".
There can of course be foreginers with better knowledge about Turkish history than me, but it clearly is not you.
PS: The grey wolf is not there for te reason you think. It is there because I have entered "Wolf" clan as a cub, and I thought this would be a good icon, also representing that I'm a Turk only player.
LOL, if generalising cavalry as "sipahis" is the way for the west, I must say it's quite funny. How can a topraklı be translated to sipahi? Topraklı is not known as sipahi here.
Oh and please don't argue this with me. Nations put their unit names themselves And that should be what is acceptable.
Mongols were fierce individuals, but their strength came from their organization, strategy, leadership, and numbers.
Turks, Persians, Greeks all were badasses in their time.
Some of the North Americans, Aztecs, were very fierce and fought well.
My vote was for Samurai. Disciplined, willing to risk death, well-trained, many weapons options. The katana, IMHO, is still the 'finnest' personal weapon, short of a modern firearm. They held off Godzilla for over 400 years.
ichi
I think the finest warrior ever was Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi.
I think it is not up to us armchair generals to judge them, but if you ask me, EL CID must have been a cool guy... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
ick_of_pick
06-01-2003, 02:45
They all deserve thier place in history, but i would have to go with the Assyrians...geniuses. they were the first to use iron weapons, have an organized professional army, and invented the concept of armoured lancers. at thier hieght, the Assyrian army consisted of 500,000 men. thats also the amount of soldiers Rome had at its height almost a thousand years later.
also most historians will tell you that the Assyrian army was more organized and disciplined then the Roman one...(i just read that and i think its really cool...lol)
Heraclius
06-01-2003, 05:28
I thought the hittites were the first to use iron weapons. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Divine Wind
06-01-2003, 15:54
I had to go for the mongols for the vast amount of land they covered and conquered. Spartans came a close second for there professionalism, dedication and fighting to the last man.
ick_of_pick
06-02-2003, 06:40
nope, hitittes invented the chariot, and did use iron weapons, but the Assyrian Empire was the first to have an ENTIRE army using iron weapons...
Heraclius
06-06-2003, 03:16
oh I didn't know that. thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Hakonarson
06-06-2003, 03:43
Hittites didn't invent the Chariot, and nor did the Assyrians have their entire army equipped with Iron weapons - no-one did in that era because Bronze still had many uses - indeed it remained a viable material for armour right up to the middle ages.
Chariots were first known to have been used by Akkadian and Sumerian cities - using onagers to draw them and equipped with solid wheels, and dating to pre 2500BC.
The_Emperor
06-29-2003, 00:41
Lets face it the Mongols are the badasses in history, they had the largest empire in terms of landmass
GoldenKnightX2
06-29-2003, 03:10
The mongols of course, they conquered russia in 3 years. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The Blind King of Bohemia
07-02-2003, 20:18
For bravery against the odds and it breaks my heart with having such close relations with the country but the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland brought great warriors to attention. James connelly shot in the legs but carried on the fight on a litter,one armed Thomas Clarke and TB infected Joseph Plunkett Fighting through the British bombardment,Cahill Brugh shot numerous times but fought on upon a bloody stairwell and the Brave 'O Rahilly dying in the street with a revolver in one hand and picture of his wife in another and not forgetting Eamon De Valera with a small force holding Bolans mill in a vicious fire fight.
Sorry i've changed the subject but it was worth mentioning.
I admire bravery whenever i see it,as i'm sure all of you do.
The British were with there empire and their supreme disipline.
Leet Eriksson
07-04-2003, 00:10
after playing the mongol historical campaign i say the mongols are pretty feirceoh yeah and the tuetonic grandmaster was a pretty fast runner,as fast as a routed unit if hobilars.
Knight Keimo
07-10-2003, 19:28
It´s weird that you people haven´t even hear about the most bravest and finest cavalry of the world... The Finnish Hakkapeliitat ( Don´t know what it´s at english)
Hakkapeliitat were the elite cavalry in the armies of Sweden-Finnish Kingdom during 1500-1650. They were armed with swords, wearing heavy armour and black uniforms.
They fight all around europe, being known for theyr brave fihting, but also for theyr cruelty and brutality.
They did look a little bit like Kataphraktoi, but not so heavily armoured.
Teutonic Knight
07-10-2003, 19:33
Quote[/b] (faisal @ July 03 2003,18:10)]oh yeah and the tuetonic grandmaster was a pretty fast runner,as fast as a routed unit if hobilars.
uh huh.....you just keep talkin' like that Faisal.....you just keep talkin'..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Vikings.
Too bad they were disunited (three countries).
Too bad they got christianized.
Too bad they were too few.
Hakonarson
07-14-2003, 04:17
Too bad for who exactly??
I have to go for vikings or scandinavians i general, the only bad thing about us Scandinavians is that we have allways been to few.
Just look at the vikings http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif badasses of the history
And the Hakkapeliitat, really was effectiv. And cool-looking.
The "karolins", real quality infantry that really kicked europes ass.
So i have to say Scandinavians
(but i like the mongols to... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Leet Eriksson
07-21-2003, 02:21
Quote[/b] (Knight Keimo @ July 10 2003,13:28)]It´s weird that you people haven´t even hear about the most bravest and finest cavalry of the world... The Finnish Hakkapeliitat ( Don´t know what it´s at english)
Hakkapeliitat were the elite cavalry in the armies of Sweden-Finnish Kingdom during 1500-1650. They were armed with swords, wearing heavy armour and black uniforms.
They fight all around europe, being known for theyr brave fihting, but also for theyr cruelty and brutality.
They did look a little bit like Kataphraktoi, but not so heavily armoured.
I dunno,but i read the swedes used fins primarily as shock troops against the russian armies.but i would'nt be surprised if they employed finnish heavy cavalry,they were known for their feircness in fighting.
Leet Eriksson
07-21-2003, 02:25
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ July 10 2003,13:33)]
Quote[/b] (faisal @ July 03 2003,18:10)]oh yeah and the tuetonic grandmaster was a pretty fast runner,as fast as a routed unit if hobilars.
uh huh.....you just keep talkin' like that Faisal.....you just keep talkin'..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
played the mongolian historical campaign yet?play it and you'll get what i mean.i played leignitz 10 times already,and i kinda can't catch that grandmaster yet http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
karmastray
07-22-2003, 05:10
Americans are by far the best warriors of history. I know, it sucks, but it's true (I hate to think where my tax money goes)
Now, if you're going for the bloodiest fighters of all time I'd have to go with either the Thais or the Phillipinos, they've got some wicked-badass fighters.
Hakonarson
07-22-2003, 05:43
Hakkapellae weren't armoured or Elite - they were poorly equipped and often ridden over by the heavy European cavalry they faced.
they were, however quite fearless and savage - much like backward natives in many eras.
Indeed Swedish horse was quite abysmal by the standards of the time (30yw and earlier) - and Gustavus's use of musketeers scattered in among it was an attempt to keep it from getting crushed.
Even so it was often very roughly handled. It's victory at Brietenfeld was an outstanding achievement that was mostly due to better leadership and hard fighting rather than any innate superiority.
Knight Keimo
07-22-2003, 18:23
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ July 21 2003,23:43)]Hakkapellae weren't armoured or Elite - they were poorly equipped and often ridden over by the heavy European cavalry they faced.
Indeed Swedish horse was quite abysmal by the standards of the time (30yw and earlier)
Still, after all, I´m ready to forgive your evil words http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I hope that you didn´t mean what you said.
I dont need to say anything else than that I´ve read about my countrys history and know what I´m talking about.
Hakkapeliitat were armoured and elite http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I guess you might confuse them and some other unit?
Nice that Hakkapellae are knowed even in New Zealand.
eheheh Hak. loves to reduce the armor and weaponry of all cav. but European http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
i am surprised that not many people here know of reputation of assyrian armies which were first organised regular core based armies and their whirlwind of victories of almost 400 yrs... also i am syrprised that not many peeps voted turks after all they created an empire which was larger than roman empire and maintained it almost as long if you cut out early republic
mongols were great but if they had run into crusader armies lead by richard the lionheart, thy would have tasted defeat...as he had found right combination of using foot crossbowmen and heavy infantry with large shields to act in conjunction with heavy chivalry units...
mongol armies were basically same as any other nomad armies from central steppes...so much that a hun or the first turkish empire soldier would fit in comfortabily
also history says that timur defeated the osmanlis at the battle of manzkiet but it was a campaign of mis opportunutues for turks as they missed crushing timur's army twice in winter before the battle...this would be verified by any military cadet who studied at west point or by a military historian...
Parmenio
08-03-2003, 22:15
What, no mention of the Zulus?
I remember reading about one eurasian people whose women weren't allowed to have children until they'd returned from battle with the head of an enemy. By all accounts they were very ferocious.
On the whole I guess I'd say Samurai or Spartans since they dedicated their whole society around a warrior code.
Hakonarson
08-04-2003, 01:02
Quote[/b] (Knight Keimo @ July 22 2003,12:23)]
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ July 21 2003,23:43)]Hakkapellae weren't armoured or Elite - they were poorly equipped and often ridden over by the heavy European cavalry they faced.
Still, after all, I´m ready to forgive your evil words http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I hope that you didn´t mean what you said.
I dont need to say anything else than that I´ve read about my countrys history and know what I´m talking about.
Hakkapeliitat were armoured and elite http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I guess you might confuse them and some other unit?
Nice that Hakkapellae are knowed even in New Zealand.
Nope - then you're wrong and have caught a line about the Finish cavalry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
There's a wonderful pair of Osprey works on the army of Gustavus Adolphus that deals quite forcefully to many of eth myths surrounding the Swedish army under that great king - the status of the haka's is one of them - fierce, brave, vicious even - but certainly not well equipped.
I thoroughly recommend that you get the Osprey works - it looks like they may be a bit of an eye opener for you
Kanuni - I love to kncok down any mythos of troops at all - I don't care whether they are European or not, or infantry, cavalry or artillery - there's far too many fairy stories 'bout super troops in circulation that people believe in http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
I have read the osprey works and several other works on the armies of gustavus... So I have to agree with hakonarson on this one... there have been fare more super/elite troops in fiction than there has ever been for real...
Can you provide some sources for what you say Knight Keimo?
RollingWave
08-14-2003, 18:31
The Chinese seem to be much more successful against the nomads than the west in general... (though obviously not completely succesful... but even the Southern Song dynasty... widely consider as the weakest dynasty in China manage to hold off the mongol hoard for 40ish years!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I think it is hard to define great warrior.... were great warrior great because they had great personal skill or because they won? The Samurias might have great personal skill for example but until mongol invasion they fought war in such a ridiculas way that if they met a Chinese army (or just about any decent army with a decent general) they would be crushed before they knew what hit them.... of course this had changed somewhat by the late warring states periods but then it goes back to all valor and honour ....
As for the knights argument... one of the key problem is that the knights until very late medieval era did not really have as heavy of armor as some people are making them sound like... most of the full plate you see in musem didn't come until late medieval IIRC... and before that most chains and half plate weren't as protective as most people would imagine... even in angicourt which was already drawing towards late medieval it as obvious that the knights were far from safe from longbow arrows and crossbow bolts....
If we were strictly only to match technology used... I think the super armor of western europe is acturally not a very efficient way to built army... as only very few could use them... and though they probably protect you against most hand to hand weapons it would still get penetrated by powerful projectiles and some weapons... the Song dynasty in china was about the same time as when MTW took place ... by then the Chinese crossbow technology had reached it's peak and developed some very powerful crossbows... the god's arm was said to be capable of shooting half a mile easily http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif and was produced in mass (every province had to make a few thousand a year during one time)
So in the end I think it's really hard to compare all this.... people bred for war don't always win... people who always win usually don't fight fair....
Hakonarson's interpretion (sp?) of the Hakkapaelle's is correct. They indeed were poorly equipped and often brushed aside by the better european cavalry. What made Hakkapaelles worth the trouble was their bravery and fierceness in battle. They were quite brutal when gathering loot and many a castle was burnt down in their wake.
When I was in Poland I visited a castle which was ransacked and destroyed by Hakkapaelle's. The guide kept telling my tourist group how Swedish horsemen had brutally terrorized the surrounding area during the 30 year war. I didn't even try to correct her in fear of retribution http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Quote[/b] ]"...much like backward natives in many eras"
Hakonarson, are you implying that Finland was backwarded "nation" during the time, and if so, could you tell me why you came into this conclusion? I am not trying to be snide only curious as to what other people (apart from Finnish) regard as the line between backwards and civilized "nation". You see, I will have to write a referat(sp?) based on the subject and I'd like to have at least one non-Finnish opinion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
And now on to the subject at hand. My choice as the best warrior would have to be the japanise Samurai. Perhaps it is the romantic image depicted by so many books or their individual skill as warriors and artists has always made me respect them more than any other warrior class in the world. Their seemingly eternal struggle to achieve the enlightement of Kensei (or Kensai). Their fatalistic behaviour and total obediance to the laws of Bushido. As you can see I rate individual skill above the ability to work as a group http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Dropplet of Wisdom:
Did you know that the name Hakkapaelle comes from a Finnish phrase "Hakkaa päälle", which Hakkapaelle's used to shout before clashing with the enemy? When translated it means more or less "charge them". More accurate [word to word] translation would make little to no sense grammar wise.
Hakonarson
08-20-2003, 04:19
Bushido for the Finn's I took teh viw of the Swedes at teh time, who apparently considered you all a bunch of backward savages :o I assume they knew yuor nation better than I do
And yes, I did know that about the origins of Hakkapaelle - only it's been translated in other places as "Hack them down"
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Aug. 19 2003,22:19)]Bushido for the Finn's I took teh viw of the Swedes at teh time, who apparently considered you all a bunch of backward savages :o I assume they knew yuor nation better than I do
Yea, that would explain it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
General Malaise
08-22-2003, 22:22
I have a lot of problems with this poll...
First of all, what criteria are we using to determine "finest warriors"? Individual bravery or organizational discipline? If it's the former, I'd say the Celts, the latter, most certainly the Spartans.
I've seen people blast the Celts here but if anyone wants to argue that the Celts weren't terrifying when going into battle read any account written by their enemies. They were definitely the most feared enemy of the Romans and, I don't care what you say now, back then having hundreds of howling, (half-)naked people with tall, wide frames and rippling muscles covered from head-to-toe in bizarre, chaotic patterns with bright blue paint while half of them blare loudly on on horns and drums charging at you wildly because they believe their warpaint will shield them from harm is pretty goddamned scary. The Celts fought for personal glory, not the "glory of the state", which is the more likely reason why they (sometimes) lost, that is refusing to stay in ordered ranks and follow a set battle plan. They were the only enemy of Rome to sack it prior to its fall and they were really the only enemy (besides Spartacus) to almost successfully rebel against it being when Vercingetorix fought Caesar.
Which brings me to my next problem, which Celtic people are you referring to? On top of that, which Greeks are you all referring to? (keep seeing people just say the "Greeks") Everything else but Sparta? I'm confused...
Third, best as relative to what? Conquering the most land doesn't necassarily mean you have the finest individual warriors though you may have the best overall military or strategy.
Lastly, when are we supposed to be judging this? The peak of each of group? Eh, no idea who to vote for...
[EDIT:] Now that I think of it, if you include Viking beserkers, they may have it for individual bravery. Though I'm not sure if they were brave or just mad...
Just remembered something else. What about the Teutons? They were HIGHLY prized mercenaries in their day and more warlike than any of their neighbors, no?
Just read some info about the viking berserks... i would call them religios fanatics... and mad http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
In some battles some crazy viking would go close to the enemy lines and throw a spear over or at them and scream something lke: "Odin (Oden) owns you" Then the rest of the viking attacked.
now thats cool http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The berserks were also very high or very drunk when they whent crashing in to the enemy.
So the berserks were religios fanatics that wantet personal glory and a wanted a place in Valhalla
man we scandinavians were really crazy back then http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
TheSilverKnight
09-07-2003, 00:42
The Brits. Their empire was the largest ever
Don't forget the Zulus...No other African tribe could match their disipline, skill, organisation, communications, logistics and deployment.
Kas http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif (retired)
Quote[/b] (TheSilverKnight @ Sep. 07 2003,02:42)]The Brits. Their empire was the largest ever
not quite http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif And if I'm not mistaken, those Zulus managed to organize only kamikatze warbands.
Eastside Character
09-09-2003, 10:48
And what about the Zulus? They had beaten the British just with their spears and javelins. Aint that sth? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
The Zulus managed to field huge armies divided in well organised regiments. They were masters in outflanking (bull's horn formation if I'm not wrong). They used a weak centre and heavily reinforced flanks...both sides.
They didn't had any cavalry, but their formations were trained to move extremly fast.
Their weapons can be compared with those used by the Romans. A few javelins (pilum) to throw at their enemies, a short spear used as a stabbing sword (gladius), their shields were used to fence off enemy blows, but also to punch him on the nose. They also used auxiliary troops from loyal (read: surpressed) tribes. Their society was based on war and terror. Feared by other tribes like the Huns were feared by the late roman era Europeans.
Gunpowder was their downfall.
Kas http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (Kas @ Sep. 09 2003,22:52)]Their society was based on war and terror.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ROFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Eastside Character
09-11-2003, 22:02
And all that makes them very good candidates for the title of >the finest WARRIORS of ALL times< http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
bighairyman
09-21-2003, 04:29
i think the mongols are the best, they were taught to ride a horse at age 3 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif , shoot a bow at 5, and had to go w/ the adults to hunting parties at age 10. and by age 15, they can moblized for war http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif . even the spartans can't match that. think of ho many times mongols lost. once in egypt, once in vietnam, and twice in japan(due to "divine wind"). i read somewhere, that when Genhis Khan was invading the persians, he sent his best general subatie w/ 20, 000 mongol warriors to chase the persian king. well after that, subatie invaded russia at winter http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif , and totally conquered huge areas of land. he is said to win more than 90 battles(small and big) and never have lost once http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
hellenes
09-22-2003, 02:41
I heard that if the mongols didnt outnumber the enemy at least 1-10 they wouldnt involve into the battle and withdraw im not shure of that but the fact is that in their central european battles they outnumbered thei opoonets...
What won the victories for Gustavus Adolphus and sweden was not mainly the cavalry though Gustavus reformed the role of cavalry on the battlefield aswell.
Instead the deciding factors in his warfare were the use of light fieldartillery that moved with the infantrybattalions during battle and spit death at close range at the enemy, that was maybe the most important thing. The second thing was that he spread his inf in longer thinner lines then the spannish school of fighting. Thus Gustavus and the swedes had a vastly superior firepower.
Gustavus cav was used mainly to charge home with drawn swords when the main role of other nations cav (european) was the largely ineffective caracoll (not sure of spelling of that word). I cant add anything to the discussion of how armoured the hakkapelites were but prolly Hakonorson is right when saying they were poorly equipped as Sweden was a poor country and Finland was a poor part of Sweden.
Is wrong though to say the finns were backward savages and is wrong to say that the swedes thought of them as such. Finland had been part of sweden and swedish influence all the way back to the forming of sweden itself and was considered a natural part of sweden not a foreign province.
Swedish cav thus prolly was not the best in europe but the artillery, infantry, leadership and tactics was indeed the best, prolly in the world at the time of Gustavus. That is why he is mentioned in most books of warhistory and is commonly considered one of the worlds greatest commanders.
The swedish cav under Charles XII on the other hand was a real killer. Id say the best in europe and prolly in the world in the early 18th century.
Maybe what i have written here have been said before, if so im sorry, but i just didnt feel like reading all 8 pages of this topic.
Kalle
well accualy Kalle you skipped two other great kings Karl X and XI... both fought and usually won... ex: they won Skåne, Halland and Blekinge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Ah, yes im very well aware i skipped them. I can talk of them to if there is interest. Hell ill do it anyway http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Charles X took over the Swedish throne when Queen Christina abdicated, she did the unthinkable and converted to catholicism (remember she was the daughter of the hero protestant king Gustavus II Adolphus) and left for Rome taking with her an abundance of cultural treasures that her father Gustavus II Adolphus and his soldiers so "rightfully had stolen" during the wars in Europe, thats another story though. (there is a special department in the Vatican library i think with her books)
Charles X was a cousin of Christina and had served as general in the 30-year war. Thus learning the ways to wage war from Gustavus superb generals Torstensson and Baner. Gustavus died in 1632 in the begining of the Swedish phase of the war so after that it was Torstensson and Baner who mainly were in charge of the swedish forces. (Torstensson and Baner deserves special chapters aswell but there is not time and i have not their stories in my head.)
Anyway in 1654 Charles X became king. He soon attacked Poland and though winning all major fieldbattles he soon discovered his resources were to small to control the vast country of Poland and civil resistance and so on took its toll on his forces.
Then Denmmark, as usual, tries to stab Swedens back to regain some formerly lost territory, they lost it in 1645 when they also tried stab Swedens back during the 30-year war.
Charles sees this as a golden opportunity to get out of the Polish campaign - marches his forces through northern germany - after the peace of Westphalia 1648 much of it was Swedish territory - down into the defenceless Denmark who were not prepared for this action.
But... the main goal Copenhagen is on an island as u all know and Charles cant reach it. And the Danish navy is not a bad one. But then winter strikes and its a very very cold one. The ocean freeces, a thing that do not happen often in this part. Charles gambles and succeeds with prolly the most adventurous thing a swedisch commander has done. He leads his army over the ices and onto Copenhagen. The ice is not thick at all and there are several detachments that dissapear into the ocean.
But nonetheless the manouver forces Denmark to a very expensive peacetreaty in Roskilde 1658. Later Charles tries to totally annex Denmark but fails, much becuase other nations in Europe fear that the balance of power in europe will be to badly disrupted.
After this he soon dies and Sweden gains a few years of piece after fighting wars on all fronts vs Russians, Poles, Danes, Germans, Spaniards, Lithuanians and so on basically from the start of the 1700th century till this point 1660.
The cause of the constant wars among other things were that an army could not be fed by the poor swedish country. If sweden were to have a fieldarmy it had to be fed on someone elses ground. And if Sweden had disarmed she would have been attacked so sweden was in a way forced to fight on and find new wars to fight all the time. Other states had the same problem. Is common to say, and not wrong, that the war nurtured it self. Once started it was nearly impossible to stop it. (this was one of the reasons for the attack on Poland, sweden had to disarm or use the army)
Anyway Charles X dies and Sweden gets rest. And the armed forces and the fighting skills decline rapidly. As can be seen at Fehrbellin, in 1675 i think, in a small war vs Brandenburg in which sweden only succeeds thanks to french subsidies.
Then the danes strikes again. Landing big armies in Skåne. Charles XI, young king of Sweden and the son of Charles X is viewed upon as a not so forward boy. There are big doupts if he can handle this attack and Swedens military is in a very poor shape.
Anyway he musters an army and face the danes at Lund in 1676. Its the bloodiest battle in swedish history if u look at the percentage of the 2 forces that died. The swedes pull off the victory and Charles acted like a true king in it completely changing his personality. Taking command and leading cavalry attacks. After this Denmark is soon forced to make peace.
Charles ability and greatness is not tried on the field of battle again but what happens after the danish war is that he devotes himself entirely to developing the army. He reforms the army to once again become the most modern, effective, welltrained, best led, and best organised army in the world. And it will not again be an army with expensive mercynaries, instead it consists of swedish and finish farmboys (with exeptions of course).
In the year 1700 when Russia, Poland/lithuania-sachsen and Denmark jointly declare war on Sweden and its new king Charles XII its the army of Charles XI they will face and suffer terribly from before eventually Sweden runs out of resources.
What is often forgotten when writing on topics like this and especially at forums like this one is that success in war and other things, especially for a poor and allmost unpopulated country like Sweden, is that other factors then great commanders are involved.
Probably the most important person in Swedens expansionistic phase is Axel Oxenstierna, and other highly skilled administrators. They made it possible to use every little bit of power that was in the country and they kept the population satisfied allthough taxes were high and drafts for the army was an allmost certain "deathpenalty" that happened to every family in the society, and not only once.
Kalle
chilliwilli
09-26-2003, 22:59
Quote[/b] (hellenes @ Sep. 21 2003,20:41)]I heard that if the mongols didnt outnumber the enemy at least 1-10 they wouldnt involve into the battle and withdraw im not shure of that but the fact is that in their central european battles they outnumbered thei opoonets...
You heard wrong Mongols were almost always outnumbered. Read my earlier post in this thread.
http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....ry14437 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=2147&st=50&&#entry14437)
i would have to say the spartans they were the greatest most diciplined troops in history. but they were few in number thats why they lost.
thanks dessa
Aymar de Bois Mauri
12-18-2003, 21:23
Greater Warrior: Japanese Samurai & Spartan Hoplite
Most Versatille Army: Roman
Most Tactically & Strategically Capable Army: Mongol
Voigtkampf
12-25-2003, 07:50
Actually Spartans lost because their long turn strategy was false; excessive birth controls, killing all the newborns that were deemed unfit for war and their constant dislike of all non-warrior occupations such as trading, farming et cetera… That was the actual reason of their diminishing population.
Quote[/b] ]Actually Spartans lost because their long turn strategy was false; excessive birth controls, killing all the newborns that were deemed unfit for war and their constant dislike of all non-warrior occupations such as trading, farming et cetera… That was the actual reason of their diminishing population.
Agreed ... but what a fighting force it was
rasoforos
12-25-2003, 11:37
this is a zombi thread....it never dies , it keeps coming back again and again and again ...quite funny if you think that the starter hasnt shown up for the best part of a year http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]this is a zombi thread....it never dies , it keeps coming back again and again and again ...quite funny if you think that the starter hasnt shown up for the best part of a year
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I just decided to see what this thread's about and the first post I read was yours ras http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif OK Im leaving
Voigtkampf
12-25-2003, 22:58
Quote[/b] (noramis @ Dec. 25 2003,02:12)]Agreed ... but what a fighting force it was
Indeed they were… Trained for war and nothing but the war, for all of their life spans…
Longshanks
01-01-2004, 06:31
I'm suprised the Mongols are in the lead. They may have had the largest land Empire, and they were fine warriors...but I wouldn't consider them to be the finest. The Mongols won because they were much more mobile then any of their opponents, not because they were necessarily better warriors or more war-like. That's not a knock on the Mongols by the way. In a way they invented a form of medieval blitzkrieg.
The Wizard
01-01-2004, 14:00
Romans were not warriors; they were soldiers.
Vikings are cool, but not the best warriors.
Methinks that is reserved for the mighty eastern warriors. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Leet Eriksson
01-02-2004, 01:15
In war there is no fair fight,even a physically stronger army could be overcome by weak but mobile one,ie Leignitz is a fine example...the mongols were outnumbered,yet they overcame both the teutonic knights and their polish allies,its all in tactics,support and logistics,not whose heavier armoured and physically stronger.
kataphraktoi
01-02-2004, 06:43
I'd probably say the Turks are the finest warriors, although most Turkish states simply because they've always been a warrior race compared to other people's. Fine warriors but not the greatest warriors.
I can't remember a more widely hired source of warriors than the Turks especially in the Middle East.
Even after the Turks surrendered their warrior - like features in the face of modernity, they've been around for yonks and yonks as warriors and there must be something for longevity in a particular occupation.
I am partial to the celts, and being of half viking desent....i am to the vikings as well. but all of that set aside. the celts stunk, but the vikings fought with a dedication to their pagan god, and with such ferocity.....i think if they hadnt been converted, they would have kept being the most feared army of europe, and possibly the world
LordMonarch
01-12-2004, 22:34
Quote[/b] (noramis @ Dec. 25 2003,02:12)]
Quote[/b] ]Actually Spartans lost because their long turn strategy was false; excessive birth controls, killing all the newborns that were deemed unfit for war and their constant dislike of all non-warrior occupations such as trading, farming et cetera? That was the actual reason of their diminishing population.
Agreed ... but what a fighting force it was
Thermopylae
FoundationII
01-18-2004, 18:46
The Romans lost because of problems from the inside, the Mongols too, the Spartans however lost because they kept using their outdated tactics.
The Romans had a great infantry backbone, that could use the testudo formation thus making it formidable against horse archers too. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif But it was vulnerable to massive cavalry charges http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif
The Mongols had far superior mobility http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
The Spartans had a diciplined and well equipped infantry, so they could win against any other infantry of their time. They weren't half as good as the Romans or the Mongols: any Roman or Mongol army could defeat the Spartans. The Spartans were very vulnerable to missiles too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif
The question is hard to answer because there are many aspect to deal with : training, tattics, strategic use of the armies, flexibility in combat and during the campaign, logistic, intelligence, psicological warfare. In my opinion the best "soldiers" were the most modern ... the one who had the most modern vision of all the military aspects. So I think that the best of all were the Romans and the Mongols (who had many aspect in common according the style and the organizzation). They had the best armies of their times and the best for many centuy forward. They didn't forget any aspect and they try to excell in all. They armies were a perfect fighting machine with everything they need and they paln very carefully each campaign knowing in advance who was the enemy .... the way he fights and his weakness. They troops were perfectly trained without the excess of the spartans and they follow the orders. This soldier would be suitable for any modern army and may be their performance wold be better than the people of our time.
k1injuries
01-20-2004, 07:54
I voted for the Mongols mainly because they were the most disciplined troop of their time and the times prior to them. According to some historians, the world will not have seen such discipline and organization from the Mongols until today's US Marines and other country equivilents.
Their political system was shat/retarded/f-ed up though.
|OCS|Virus
01-23-2004, 06:48
I would say one of three in my opinion of course the Japanese Samaria, the greek {I think greek} Phalanx, and the roman leganairs. {not the ones w\ pilums those things are lame...}
discovery1
01-29-2004, 06:05
Quote[/b] ]not the ones w pilums those things are lame...}
Uh, I'm pretty sure that the pilum was standard equipment for most legionares. And damn useful too, even if if didn't kill anyone it could still be a nuisance by implanting itself in a shield making it unusable.
Mongols. They conquered a large part of the world. They were only defeated at 3 times:
-Japan: due to the weather
-Vietnam: due to the jungle
-Egypt: their only military defeat
I choose the Mongols because they are actually the only ones who fought war as they ought: hit your enemy while he can't fight back. That is the essence of the art of warfare. That is what the USA is trying to do with its air force. Also, they made extensive use of psychological warfare and spies.
IMO this sums up what makes the perfect army.
Put the Mongols against any of the others mentioned, and they will win. They are the best warriors.
Perhaps they wouldn't win against a Maori guerrilla, but I don't think you can win against an opponent who uses guerrilla tactics. And if the Maori tried to create an empire and invaded Asia (a political impossibility), they would get trashed. That's why I think they are not the best warriors.
Just my two pennies.
Sjakihata
01-30-2004, 15:10
Ludens, it was not the weather which saved the japanese. It was the mage-priest who summoned the kamikaze. So the japanese had a huge army (a population at around 15 mio. at that time) plus magical powers.
No doubt the japs are the greatest
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
The Sword of Cao Cao
02-19-2004, 03:51
Quote[/b] (Taohn @ Dec. 03 2002,23:40)]Jesus...I can't believe nobody has mentioned Samurai. And on this board too. :O
Anyways, IMO, they were among the greatest in the world (if not the best).
Agreed my friend
the Samurai. Their life was not only revolved around warfare, but finding and proving ones honour through warfare. Not to mention they could kick anyomes ass with that sword.
The Wizard
02-20-2004, 11:36
Read this and then judge:
Clickie (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=14143)
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
~Wiz
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.