Greatest Nations of Warriors

Israel is probably the modern Sparta, if you take a big pinch of salt with that -- since no modern state comes anywhere near the agogè system.

However, in Israel, when one goes from adolescent to adult (age 18 ...?), you have two choices. Two years (?) service in the army, or the equivalent (I think) of working in a synagogue somewhere in the diaspora. I was taught my Hebrew in Aruba's synagogue by a sabra who didn't want to serve.

We here need to reinstate forced military service of two years minimum at age 18. Then spend 50% of our budget on armed forces and conquer Germany and Belgium. ~D



~Wiz

The politics of the Maori situation seems like a good Backroom topic. Know what I mean? Nudge nudge wink wink. Discussing their abilities as fighters is still quite on topic though.

Quote:

---

However, in Israel, when one goes from adolescent to adult (age 18 ...?), you have two choices. Two years (?) service in the army, or the equivalent (I think) of working in a synagogue somewhere in the diaspora.

---

That doesn't speak of warriors, that speaks of cruelty in forcing people to fight. Totally different, IMO. Just because you have a draft doesn't make them warriors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Couple of moths that is, and after we were exhausted from war with Italy(which we won). Greece put up a great fight for a country of it's size, all historians of the region acknowledge that.

---

Ever heard of winter war? Finland was able to defeat Soviet Union (Finland was smaller nation than Greece and Soviet Union was bigger than Germany), it wasn't real victory but Soviets weren't abel to conquer Finland. So greeks were amateurs.

Iam not patriot, nationalist or anything like that, but it looks like you are. :devilish:

Its also important to note the Soviet Union had a poor army compared to the Germans at that time.

Im not saying that Finland didnt do great things, but the skill of the military is more important than the size of the country.

Would Finland have won fighting the German armies the Greeks lost to? Thats the real measuring stick.

aslo, doesnt finland have a bit more difficult land to conquer.

BTW, i know russians in ww2 were of bad quality, but in the poll i was more thinking of the medieval russians who were able to push back the monguls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Its also important to note the Soviet Union had a poor army compared to the Germans at that time.

Im not saying that Finland didnt do great things, but the skill of the military is more important than the size of the country.

Would Finland have won fighting the German armies the Greeks lost to? Thats the real measuring stick.

---

Finish troops kicked out German troops from Northern Finland in so called "Lapin Sota"or Lapland War.And those troops were the majority of Germanys Army in Norway. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Its also important to note the Soviet Union had a poor army compared to the Germans at that time.

Im not saying that Finland didnt do great things, but the skill of the military is more important than the size of the country.

Would Finland have won fighting the German armies the Greeks lost to? Thats the real measuring stick.

---

Winter of 39-40 was unusually cold, it caused difficulties even to finns and germans did not yet have troops used to real winters and winter warfare. So I doub german armies wouldn't have better success than red army.

Quote:

---

BTW, i know russians in ww2 were of bad quality, but in the poll i was more thinking of the medieval russians who were able to push back the monguls.

---

Eh, they were ok. I think it was more due to the weakness of the Mongols than the Russians (they were under their control for 200 years, I believe). Not that the Russians were bad fighters (they were smart enough to copy steppe styles more than European warfare), but they weren't amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

That doesn't speak of warriors, that speaks of cruelty in forcing people to fight. Totally different, IMO. Just because you have a draft doesn't make them warriors.

---

Cruelty? I find it quite good actually. If it weren't for that there would be no Israel now.

But, let's avoid giving Greg another headache and continue with the historical discussion.

Medieval Russians were good warriors in my opinion. They were the only ones able to create a strong, vibrant and, most importantly, dominating state in a region full of harsh climates, hostile tribes and powerful enemies (Khazars and Volga Bulgars come to mind).



~Wiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Oh, god, another bloody Waitangi bugger, jesus christ, when will it end.
Mate, the Maoris came over to NZ and ate an entire people to get land, is that honourable, no. Trust me, if Britain was even half interested NZ the Maori would have been destroyed outright in a few months.

As for the greatest warrior nations.

The peoples of the Turanian basin. The Scythians, Huns and of course us, the Magyar "last of the pure blooded Scythians". We ruled.

Then there is always Britain with the largest Empire ever known to man and bulging sack of victories. ~D

---

The Moa hunters where wiped out by the Maori. And the Maori also ate other Maori to. What I am referring to is the Maori wars by that point a lot of the Maori had become Christian and a lot of them did not take part in the Maori wars and quite a few were on the colonial side.

Quote:

---

There was a great outcry, both in New Zealand and England, that a force of some 1,700 soldiers and sailors could have been defeated by 200 Maori and General Cameron was roundly criticised. To contemporaries Gate Pa seemed a defeat 'perhaps unparalled in British military annals.' In blaming Cameron four factors were highlighted as contributing to the defeat:

---

There was regular British units both the 43rd and Naval involved in that defeat.

As for the Boer war the Maori were eager as where the British to have them, what they were against was having them as a single unit because of the racial politics of the situation

Quote:

---

'A white man's war'
Despite this patriotic support, direct Maori participation was ruled out by the imperial authorities. The idea of using of non-white troops in a 'white man's' war was deplored by some sectors of New Zealand society.

Seddon continued to advocate Maori military participation. In March 1900 he claimed that Maori chiefs had offered 2,000 troops for the war, 'men as good as any Boers who ever pulled a trigger'. Later that year, he proposed that the Sixth Contingent should be half manned by Maori drawn from the Volunteer Force. The Colonial Office in London rebuffed this suggestion, though the Colonial Secretary thought it a pity that New Zealand had not just sent Maori men as part of its contingents, on the grounds that 'no one would have known the difference'. In fact, this had happened on a small scale, with a number of part-Maori men gaining places in the contingents. The authorities turned a blind eye to such enlistments.

---

Quote:

---

Medieval Russians were good warriors in my opinion. They were the only ones able to create a strong, vibrant and, most importantly, dominating state in a region full of harsh climates, hostile tribes and powerful enemies (Khazars and Volga Bulgars come to mind).

---

Well yes, I wouldn't say that they were bad. And they were good. But I wouldn't put it soley towards to Russian warriors that the Mongols were driven out, that's all.
And they were smart enough to incoprate numerous steppe peoples to fight for them (the Cherki Kobluki or something... forget the spelling). But once the Rus adopted horsemanship, then their fighting prowess certaintly increased. :charge:

I voted "Vikings", but heck, we`re descendants from germanics, and germanics gotta be the best race of warriors the world has ever seen.

So I think germanics would be a better choice.

I'd say britain, in past history and today (SAS)...tho america has more overall military power, SAS are prolly the best spec ops forces...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dark_shadow89

SAS are prolly the best spec ops forces...

---

They probably are. No actually, that would be the SBS (Special Boat Service). People who want to join the SBS have to pass SAS selection before going on to additional SAS selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

I voted "Vikings", but heck, we`re descendants from germanics, and germanics gotta be the best race of warriors the world has ever seen.

So I think germanics would be a better choice.

---

Hear, hear. Franks foremost amongst them. ~;)



~Wiz

I voted Mongols because not only was each man within a unit a very capable fighter, but because they had coordination that was quite advanced for the period compared to other armies and nations. The Mongols were Warriors and Soldiers Elite. However, their greatest down fall as mentioned previously was not the fact that they couldn't handle themselves on the battlefield, but because they lacked the motivation and drive to conquer with the death of their Khans. Also, because of this, other military's adapted to the Mongols and also sent out scouts and coordinated flexible military campaigns. The Mongols downfall in Japan was not because the Japanese were better warriors, but because supplies came irregularly, the terrain was hard to scout, without being ambushed, and the Japanese population and warriors over-whelmed the Mongols, Japan at this period in history had about the same population as all of Europe did. Eventually, Gengis gave up because the seas were too unpredictable (the mongols were also known to hate boats and water), and the Japanese were too staunch in their defense. The Mongols were smart to realize that continuing such a campaign would just end in more disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoda

Wars not make one great.

---

Mongolians, probably.
Or Vikings.
Or Zulu.
Or other...
I could use a "Gah!" ~:handball:

I don't know if this is right, but I think I read somewhere that when the Mongols made their initial landing in Japan they bested the defending Japanese samurai (something about the Japanese having trouble dealing with their cavalry that managed to come ashore). The Japanese had better swords but the Mongols had better bows. Of course a Hurricane blew the Mongols away the next day......

SAS are probably the best Spec-ops in the world. I hear the Americans go to the SAS for advanced training.

How can you compare a highlander regiment soldier to a samurai? One has a gun, the other one has a sword......hmmm, that means I am a greater warrior than any Spartan because I own a gun.......unless you're talking claymore wielding highland clansman versus a samurai. I'd watch that.

What about Shaolin Monks? They can take on a hundred guys with a stick and win. One of them trained the first ninjas. Oh right, we're talking about countries.....

I think Africans are the best warriors (I guess Zulus being the most warrior-like among them?). If we gave everyone the same weapons and same training and such, I think the Africans will beat everybody. African troops do quite well in other people's armies.

I also think we need to take into consideration timelines; a country may be quite heroic one generation and a bunch of cowards the next......

The Americans are good warriors, but what holds us back is the fact that we're not prepared to go 100%, to throw everything into the fight, because we stand to lose so much since our lives are so good, and that is why the Vietnamese, Chinese, etc. could beat Americans, because life is so cheap there and they're willing to throw everything into the fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

I voted "Vikings", but heck, we`re descendants from germanics, and germanics gotta be the best race of warriors the world has ever seen.

So I think germanics would be a better choice.

---

Didnt germanics come from scandanavia, thus germanics came from scandanavia, not the other way around..

I would live Spartan if my freedoms, values, family, and life was at stake. I think many many Americans would do the same... a lot of our Wars like Vietnam, and Iraq weren't or aren't as succesful as they could of/have been but that is because most American's see these wars as unjust and unthreatening to us. Sort of Weird.

Vietnamese didnt beat the US cause they were better soldiers, its cause the terrain was in Vietnam, which is far differnt from anything americans were used to.

The Americans soundly defeated both the NVA and the Vietcong in every major engagement of the war.

The American public made a poor decision to turn their back on their commitments to South Vietnam. (Sorry Greg, thats a little political :embarassed: )

The vietnamese defeated the American spirit at home, but no American armies, to my recollection, were ever beaten... no significant victories were ever achieved by the vietnamese..

Its important to note this, because many American youths have the impression that American soldiers were soundly beaten and thrown back, when in actuality the NVA were soundly beaten and thrown back and only allowed to take the South after America chose not to restart major hostilities and the south proved unable defend itself.

Regardless, they lost. And any nation that has to rely on disinfranchised, angry young people who don't want to be there (some might have wanted to, but many did not) for their soldiers isn't a good warrior nation, IMO.

I think best way to compare if US is Nation of warriors is to compare US conscript troops like National guards to others.I believe if you compare them to almost any European conscript army,they dont stand a chance.I dont mean to offend Americans but you have tough professional Army but your reserves arent that tough.Imagine your National guards against for example Gurkhas.What would be the result? :bow:

Well, we Americans had airstrikes, artillery, helicopters, etc. The Vietnamese had rifles and grenades. Not exactly fair. And I think if you ask any Vietnam vet, they have a lot of respect for the fighting skills of the vietcong and NVA.

And the Vietnamese strategy worked, because their constant guerilla tactics kept causing casualties, lowering troop morale, which then affect civilian morale. Its not like we started off the war with poor homefront morale, the Vietnamese made it that way. I forgot which person said this, but he said something like, "The aim of the army is not the destruction of the enemy forces but to break their will to resist". The Vietnamese did this very well to us in Vietnam.

Being a great warrior is not just about brute strength, but also about knowing the strengths and weaknesses of both you and your enemy, then using your brain to figure out the best way to fight. The vietnamese figured out our weakness pretty accurately, while we failed to figure out their weakness, so we lost.

By Merc

Quote:

---

Regardless, they lost. And any nation that has to rely on disinfranchised, angry young people who don't want to be there (some might have wanted to, but many did not) for their soldiers isn't a good warrior nation, IMO.

---

As I said earlier, my pick is Germany. ~;)

By kagemusha

Quote:

---

I think best way to compare if US is Nation of warriors is to compare US conscript troops like National guards to others.I believe if you compare them to almost any European conscript army,they dont stand a chance.I dont mean to offend Americans but you have tough professional Army but your reserves arent that tough.Imagine your National guards against for example Gurkhas.What would be the result?

---

No, thats not the best way at all. First of all, not even the national guard is conscript.

Many European nations rely on conscript armies, whereas america'sentire fighting force is volunteer. I think that says alot.

The best way to compare two nations militaries is to compare the troops that would be fighting the "war" between the two nations. I dont understand how you could discount america's standing army from this equation. ~:confused:

And by the way, the American National Guard would do just fine against any european nation's conscript troops. The air force of the national guard is superb, and the ground troops are well trained for guard units. They also have good equipment, leadership, and espri de corps... or however you spell it.

by Marquis of Roland

Quote:

---

Well, we Americans had airstrikes, artillery, helicopters, etc. The Vietnamese had rifles and grenades. Not exactly fair. And I think if you ask any Vietnam vet, they have a lot of respect for the fighting skills of the vietcong and NVA.

---

And the vietnamese had terrain, a free country to run back to when they were beaten, and the support of the USSR. Both sides had advantages and disadvantages. The biggest for the NVA was the fact that they didnt face a direct attack from America - which was the biggest blunder of all.

I have never met a vietnam vet who has had any respect for the tactics or strategy of the NVA or the vietcong. Many do speak well of the individual bravery of the average vietnamese fighter, though.

Quote:

---

And the Vietnamese strategy worked, because their constant guerilla tactics kept causing casualties, lowering troop morale, which then affect civilian morale. Its not like we started off the war with poor homefront morale, the Vietnamese made it that way. I forgot which person said this, but he said something like, "The aim of the army is not the destruction of the enemy forces but to break their will to resist". The Vietnamese did this very well to us in Vietnam.

---

With the risk of becoming political, i feel the vietnamese didnt win the war as much as America lost it. The pinkos simply didnt have the stomach to confront communism and LBJ's leadership boosted their anti-war stance. Thats another discussion for the backroom however..

Quote:

---

Being a great warrior is not just about brute strength, but also about knowing the strengths and weaknesses of both you and your enemy, then using your brain to figure out the best way to fight. The vietnamese figured out our weakness pretty accurately, while we failed to figure out their weakness, so we lost.

---

The nature of America's government challenges that assessment. The US politicians have an inordinate amount of control over actual combat operations - and LBJ used this control to his own detriment.

Therefore, America can and does have an excellent military, but even strong armies cannot make up for political blunders. The american military in vietnam was largely organized and committed, not the drug crazed chaos depicted in some movies. It had its problems, but whenever there was a fight to be had, it showed up and won.

The strategic decisions made by politicians in Washington directly led to the "loss" in vietnam. The question is: Does a great warrior nation mean that the leaders of that nation are also great military leaders?

If that is the case, then no, america is not a great warrior nation. The disconnect between the politicians and the military is too large.

No offense ment but how big is US reserve?

No offense taken, however your assessment was incorrect in my opinion as the US doesnt have conscript troops and the National Guard is stronger than most nation's standing armies.

This is the best I could find.

Army-

Quote:

---

Force Structure

In Fiscal Year 2000 (FY00), the ARNG has transitioned to an end strength of about 350,000 soldiers and a Force Structure allowance of 388,000 spaces. Continuing this year, the ARNG Division Redesign Study (ADRS) converts combat units into combat support and combat service support structure.

The National Military Strategy and the Department of Defense identified the need for highly trained and equipped combat-ready reserve forces to ensure our nation's ability to win two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. Ten Active Army Divisions and 15 Army National Guard enhanced separate brigades comprise that combat force. The ARNG enhanced brigades will be organized and resourced to mobilize, train and deploy within 90 days after a presidential call-up.

The 15 enhanced separate brigades are currently training and undergoing modernization to be compatible with Active Army divisions and are scheduled to be fully operational in FY 01. The seven heavy armored and mechanized brigades, seven light infantry brigades and an armored cavalry unit will be capable of being used in fast-evolving regional conflicts or to reinforce Active Army units in a crisis.

The ARNG is currently composed of approximately 52 percent combat, 17 percent combat support and 22 percent combat service support units with a nine percent mobilization base.

---

Air-

Quote:

---

Force Structure
The Air National Guard has more than 106,600 officers and enlisted personnel who serve in 88 flying units and 280 independent support units. The primary sources of full-time support for Air National Guard units are the dual-status military technicians/guardsmen on active duty. These personnel perform day-to-day management, administration and maintenance. By law, dual-status military technicians are civil service employees of the federal government who must be military members of the unit that employs them. Technicians train with the unit and are mobilized with it when it's activated. Active duty members serve under the command authority of their respective state/territorial governors until mobilized for Federal duty.

Flying Units/Functions and Capabilities
Besides providing 100 percent of the United States air defense interceptor force, the Air National Guard performs many other Air Force-related roles and missions.

The Air National Guard provides:

Air Traffic Control 64%
Tactical Airlift 49%
Air Refueling KC-135 Tankers 45%
General Purpose Fighter Force 32%
Rescue and Recovery Capability 23%
Tactical Air Support 16%
Weather Flights 15%
Strategic Airlift Forces 9%
Special Operations Capability 6%

Airlift squadrons, flying C-130 Hercules aircraft, transport personnel, equipment and supplies. Eleven aeromedical evacuation units augment the Air Force. The Air National Guard's airlift capability includes one C-5 Galaxy and two C-141 Starlifter units. Air refueling units, flying KC-135 Stratotankers, provide air-to-air refueling for strategic and tactical aircraft.
The Air National Guard has three rescue and recovery squadrons that fly HH-60 helicopters and HC-130 aircraft. These units provide important lifesaving capabilities and services to civilian and military agencies.
Air support units that fly OA-10s provide forward air control support of close-air support missions
The general-purpose fighter force is equipped with F-15, F-16, A-10 and OA-10 aircraft.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

No offense taken, however your assessment was incorrect in my opinion as the US doesnt have conscript troops and the National Guard is stronger than most nation's standing armies.

---

Canada spends $12.281Billion Canadian(around 10 Billion US dollars) on our military, which is more than you spend on the National Guard, and we don't have diddly squat. We are not a nation of warriors. ~:confused: Or very bright for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Or very bright for that matter.

---

Speak for yourself ~;)

Why should a nation's strength be measured by their armies. That's ridiculous, especially in this day and age. War is not a pleasant thing. Being in the army is pretty bad as well. Ever seen Full Metal Jacket? War and army conscription both suck in a major way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Speak for yourself ~;)

Why should a nation's strength be measured by their armies. That's ridiculous, especially in this day and age. War is not a pleasant thing. Being in the army is pretty bad as well. Ever seen Full Metal Jacket? War and army conscription both suck in a major way.

---

Well given what we have spent on our nations defence and what pitiful results we have from it, I will take the liberty of speaking for all Canadians. It would be one thing if we decided not to spend the money, or to use it elsewhere. We did neither of those things. We wasted it with nothing to show for it. That in my book isn't very bright.

You know here in Finland we have over 4 hundred thousand troops in reserves.Yet you have over 250 million people there and we have litlle over five.And you ar nation of warriors.I dont mean that Finish people is somekind of warrior people.No.We are people who loves peace.But you really dont have that option after 9/11.You know there are Finish troops in Afghanistan keeping peace with our German brothers right now. :bow:

Quote:

---

I don't think Huns were Iranian, which the Scythians and Sarmatians were. Not sure about the Magyars, tough I thought they were Turkic. Just out of curosity, where are you from?

---

I said Turanian, not Iranian. Also, it is the popular beleif that the Magayars are Finno-Urgric yet this is founded upon the basis of a few similar linguistical aspects, there is no real evidence of this, while other historians, and nearly all Magyar's who take an interest in their ancestry, beleive that we originated in the Turanian basin, the Huns are also beleived to have a connection with the area. the Turanian basin was also home to the early Scythians and Summerians. Thus many Magyar's may call themselves "The last of the pure blooded Scythians".
The best known Magyar folk tale is the Legend of the White Stag. It describes how two sons of Nimrod, Hunor and Magor, were lured into a new land by a fleeing white stag. There they married the king's daughters. The descendants of Hunor and his men became known as the Huns, and the descendants of Magor and his men became known as Magyars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The Americans soundly defeated both the NVA and the Vietcong in every major engagement of the war.

The American public made a poor decision to turn their back on their commitments to South Vietnam. (Sorry Greg, thats a little political :embarassed: )

The vietnamese defeated the American spirit at home, but no American armies, to my recollection, were ever beaten... no significant victories were ever achieved by the vietnamese..

---

If it was a nation of warriors the national spirit would have been one to carry on the fight... an elite professional force is not the same as a nation of warriors.

Tie in to the forum in MTW the Vargarian Guard (spelling?) are an elite force but the Byzantians are known more for their wealth then fighting spirit. On the other hand Denmark has little wealth but the Vikings are an aggressive warrior unit. So Denmark would be the warrior nation of the two.

Quote:

---

If it was a nation of warriors the national spirit would have been one to carry on the fight... an elite professional force is not the same as a nation of warriors.

---

which is why i left america out. I dont really see anybody in modern times as a "warrior".

I picked Germany Pap, I just have a problem when people assume American soldiers arent very good because they "couldnt even beat a bunch of farmer militia".

That is clearly not the case, as I stated earlier, and you cannot blame the military when the political stance of the government is predisposed against a successful military victory.

What is the Turanian base? Because the Huns were not related to the Scyths and Sarmatians, that's what I was trying to say. There was probably some mixing, but they were seperate peoples.

I hade heard a theory that the Magyars were Turkic with a Finno Ugrian ruling class, which would explain the language.

I voted for the cockroachs , they are truly the best nation of warriors !!! :book: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

1. Our friend had good intentions opening the topic, though it was open to nationalistic satisfactory ideas.

2. And it did. Most of the pages are full of "Yeah, I am German, we are the best!" "The Greeks have surpassed all over the others. And guess what. I am a Greek!"..

Even though the nation that you think fights the best and you belong to are the same, it destroys the value of your historical claim here when you talk about your origin.

3. US army never and ever was a super militaristic power. Just prove me some major warfare incidents that US soldiers did without their super-high-ultra-mega technical gadgets. Vietnam ? Iraq ? These so-called "warriors" were listening to Bloodhound Gang - Fire Water Burn in the tank during Iraq occupation, thinking it would be child's play to take hold of the land. But warfare is not something that fits to a nation that has no racial relationship among each other. Whatever you may say about races or something but that is true. The virtues like pride and holy strength can only derive from racial or fanatical religious interdependence. And US has none of that.

Sorry that you were playing computer games in your childhood all the time, but the "nations" consist of people who have the "common blood" in their veins. What's more those warfare games in your childhood seems to make out a side effect since we hear many kids grabbing the guns and rushing to their schools to kill anyone in front of them in US.

4. Mongols were really good warriors. Their progress in Africa was stopped by the Mameluks who were slaves (the word Mameluke means slave) as a community but was militaristically directed by Turkish warriors. As long as history tells me of tens of Turkish states coming into power - not staying as small feodal lands, Turks were good warriors as well. Actually, tactics were more of their part compared the Mongols. The Central Asian Turks had an ideal : "Conquering the seven worlds" which means the hold of the whole world under Turkish control.

I could also agree that Romans had really excelled at art of war. Their discipline and tactics come out above of anyone elses.

Out of these options though, I think I'd still put my money on the Mongols during their prime, verses any of these warriors during their Prime. I do think however, if Monguls and Vikings met, in say Scandanavia (Where horses would be rather useless) I'd be tempted to go for the Vikings. However, if they Vikings met the Mongols on Mongol Turf, I fear the Vikings wouldn't have a sole survivor.

historically you have to go with Genghis and his Mongol horde...

nowadays I'd plump for the Ghurkas....."you REALLY don't want to pick a fight with these guys"....advice my father gave me years ago.*

*My father was a 'bootneck'....a Royal Marine Commando, and they're not known a being nancy boys themselves...

Quote:

---

US army never and ever was a super militaristic power. Just prove me some major warfare incidents that US soldiers did without their super-high-ultra-mega technical gadgets.

---

War of Independence
War of 1812
Mexican American War
Spanish American War
WW1
WW2

America didnt have any particular technical advantage in any of these wars, and won them all the same. After that, she spent a lot to ensure her soldiers would have the finest equipment in the world. You seem to think its somehow a bad thing that US soldiers have great equipment? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Vietnam ? Iraq ? These so-called "warriors" were listening to Bloodhound Gang - Fire Water Burn in the tank during Iraq occupation, thinking it would be child's play to take hold of the land.

---

Never heard of that..

Quote:

---

But warfare is not something that fits to a nation that has no racial relationship among each other. Whatever you may say about races or something but that is true. The virtues like pride and holy strength can only derive from racial or fanatical religious interdependence. And US has none of that.

---

Now thats just stupid. :dizzy2:

Many of Americas enemies thought the same thing, and they were destroyed.

I actually agree that America has grown weaker, but that has nothing to do with its racial makeup, but its indulgences.

@PanzerJager

Please inform me further about US's militaristic superiority in WWI. When it comes to WWII, yes those nuclear bombs really did make impact.. But those bombs did..Not the soldiers themselves..

For the second quote that belongs to me, watch "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore.

Who was ever destroyed? If you refer to Indians who were doomed to genocide, I must accept that. Above them, I can not see anyone..

Hey, how about them Zulus? No one gonna vote for them?

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

I hade heard a theory that the Magyars were Turkic with a Finno Ugrian ruling class, which would explain the language.

---

That is a popular theory, but where, other than a few linguistical simalarities is the hard evidence? There is another theory, that one group of Magyars, the Uz left the Turanian basin (Dzungaria) and headed north, hence the name "Uz", and on there way north_Westwards, they came into contact with Finno-Ugrians, hence the similarities. These Uz were the Magyars who eventually conquered the Carpathian basin. The Turanian basin is where the early Summerians, Scythians resided and it is thought that the Huns had once been there too, hence the story of the white stag. Again, there is not enough hard evidence for either theory to be proven beyond most doubt yet.

Hello board. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

War of Independence
War of 1812
Mexican American War
Spanish American War
WW1
WW2

America didnt have any particular technical advantage in any of these wars, and won them all the same. After that, she spent a lot to ensure her soldiers would have the finest equipment in the world. You seem to think its somehow a bad thing that US soldiers have great equipment? ~:confused:

---

Forgive for being a bit pedantic but the US only really won two of those conflicts: The Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War.

The War of Independence was really more a French victory than an American. Yorktown would never have happened without the French being there. The American revolutionaries, through default, just benefited the fruits of victory due to their alliance.

Also it is quite generous to state that the War of 1812 was an American victory. Where did you get that idea? My take on it was that the Americans spent much of their times getting humiliated i.e. Five invasions of Canada repulsed, Washington D.C. burnt to a cinder (With the added bonus of President Madison fleeing the White House on a horse as if his arse was on fire!!!) and also British troops alot of the time marching up and down American territory at will. The US's saving grace during the war, outwith a few naval victories, was the battle of New Orleans, with actually took place a couple of weeks after peace was declared between Britain and the US. Sorry, but the best that can be said was that no one won this war.

On WW1: The have got to be joking. I have always been puzzled why many Americans think that it really they that won WW1. Granted that it was American numbers that tipped the scale in giving the Allies far more men than the Germans and thus dropping the Germans morale. But to be honest, their contribution, due to their inexperience on the battlefield, was far more limited than the British Commonwealth and the French forces. During the Great Allied Offensive of 1918, which more or less ended the war, the Americans were on third fiddle behind both the British Commonwealth and French. The amount of territory and prisoners that the Americans took doesn't even come close to the British Commonwealth and the French. Many Americans should stop going overboard and just accept they were only on the winning side during WW1.

Lastly everyone really knows victory in WW2 was achieved due to a team effort. In truth it was the Soviet Union who really had the lion share in defeating the Germans with the rest of the allies in support. The Americans mainly took care of the Japanese with the British, Anzacs and the Chinese supporting them.

Quote:

---

War of Independence

---

Well what you would consider American today didn't exist back then, the war of indipebdance was essentialy Brit vs Brit.

And how can one even begin to suggest America as the greatest warrior nation, how long has the U.S been in existance, how many wars has it fought. compared to Eurasian nations, its a bit silly to suggests the U.S don't you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Hey, how about them Zulus? No one gonna vote for them?

:inquisitive:

---

Yeah, forgot about them..

I read about some opposing soldier's notes fighting agains the Zulu..It was simply reflecting the ambience of a man in a spaceship covered with aliens where it is dark and silent..Brrr..They were so fierceful...

Yes the Zulus were the greatest sub-saharan warriors ever.

Quote:

---

Please inform me further about US's militaristic superiority in WWI. When it comes to WWII, yes those nuclear bombs really did make impact.. But those bombs did..Not the soldiers themselves..

---

You said that the US hadnt won any wars without the help of a technical advantage. In fact that was a lie.

During both WW1 and WW2, US troops fought just as bravely as anyone else without any technical edges.

Quote:

---

For the second quote that belongs to me, watch "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore.

---

I dont get my information from propaganda. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Who was ever destroyed? If you refer to Indians who were doomed to genocide, I must accept that. Above them, I can not see anyone..

---

The leaders of both Germany and Japan felt, just as you do, America was not a strong nation because she was racially and ethnically divided. They were both destroyed.

Quote:

---

The War of Independence was really more a French victory than an American. Yorktown would never have happened without the French being there. The American revolutionaries, through default, just benefited the fruits of victory due to their alliance.

---

Yorktown would have never happened without the Americans being there either. To discount American troops in the revolutionary war is ignorant.

Quote:

---

Also it is quite generous to state that the War of 1812 was an American victory. Where did you get that idea? My take on it was that the Americans spent much of their times getting humiliated i.e. Five invasions of Canada repulsed, Washington D.C. burnt to a cinder (With the added bonus of President Madison fleeing the White House on a horse as if his arse was on fire!!!) and also British troops alot of the time marching up and down American territory at will. The US's saving grace during the war, outwith a few naval victories, was the battle of New Orleans, with actually took place a couple of weeks after peace was declared between Britain and the US. Sorry, but the best that can be said was that no one won this war.

---

The British, the supposed best military in the world, failed to retake the colonies. They also ceded fishing rights to the Americans. However, America ceded nothing to Britain.

Quote:

---

On WW1: The have got to be joking. I have always been puzzled why many Americans think that it really they that won WW1. Granted that it was American numbers that tipped the scale in giving the Allies far more men than the Germans and thus dropping the Germans morale. But to be honest, their contribution, due to their inexperience on the battlefield, was far more limited than the British Commonwealth and the French forces. During the Great Allied Offensive of 1918, which more or less ended the war, the Americans were on third fiddle behind both the British Commonwealth and French. The amount of territory and prisoners that the Americans took doesn't even come close to the British Commonwealth and the French. Many Americans should stop going overboard and just accept they were only on the winning side during WW1.

---

You seem to have missed the argument. Americans fought in WW1 just fine without any technical advantages and helped win the war.

The claim was that Americas racial diversity was a weakness and the only reason America has won any wars is because of technical superiorty, which was wrong.

Quote:

---

Lastly everyone really knows victory in WW2 was achieved due to a team effort. In truth it was the Soviet Union who really had the lion share in defeating the Germans with the rest of the allies in support. The Americans mainly took care of the Japanese with the British, Anzacs and the Chinese supporting them.

---

Another misplaced criticism. See above.

The racial superiority of Germany and Japan did not help them in the least when fighting America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The British, the supposed best military in the world, failed to retake the colonies. They also ceded fishing rights to the Americans. However, America ceded nothing to Britain.

---

They were not trying to retake the colonies. The US started the war due to British policies/provocations of drafting fugitive British seamen and native born Americans as naval personel for the British Navy. You invaded Canada attempting to occupy it. The British at the time were fighting Napolean in europe so their efforts were limited by facts on the ground. This was not an American victory.

You are correct IMO regarding the American revolution where you received French help but it was an American victory. World War One and Two were Allied victories and no single country can claim to have them on their own.

Zulu: Why are those guys beating on that dead horse?
Greek: Well, you see it is a fight to decide if the Americans are the greatest nation of warriors.
Roman: Yes, and whoever beats up the dead horse more wins fight.
Zulu: Huh?
Mongol: It isn't one of our horses I can asure you.
Vikings: Americans? Bah! We went there long ago. It was boring so we came back home. To bad we didn't land in Florida first...
Samurai: There is no honour is beating a dead horse!
Phyrrus: True, but it does keep down the casualties.
Shout from the back of the room: What is he doing here?!
Zulu: So, who is winning?
Celt: Does it matter?
Hun: Not at all, everyone knows we are the world's greatest warriors.
Everyone else: What!?
Swords are draw, arrows nocked, (living) horses mounted, lances are couched, phalanx and cohorts fall into formation, battle cries shouted, beer mugs drained and armour tightened...
Zulu: Wait! Isn't this all about a fun, I repeat, "fun" intellectual exercise?
Everone else: Oh. Y'er right.
German: Beer for everyone! :medievalcheers:
Shout from the back of the room: What is he doing here?!
European Knight: Shhhhhh, he brought the beer.
Shout from the back of the room: Good point.
Mongol: Do the dead horse warriors get beer too?
Arab: Only if they put down their sticks and pick up a mug.
Zulu: That's right, drink up my friends.
Zulu smiles broadly while casting brief glances as his thousands of Zulu warrior brothers slowly encircle the camp...

The above translated into Moderator-speak (since hints don't seem to work): this thread is very close to being closed if some of the participants can't get a grip on their emotions and refrain from using ill-chosen words. There is no prize for the right answer - heck, there isn't even a right answer. Where is the fun? The enlightenment? All I'm seeing in the latest posts is pointless, been-there-done-that bickering that is becoming more mean-spirited by the post. Hrumpf!

Now, how about them Zulus!? ~:)

(I hope this is respectful of your wishes Greg. If its not, Ill not persue the matter any further and please delete this.)

Quote:

---

They were not trying to retake the colonies. The US started the war due to British policies/provocations of drafting fugitive British seamen and native born Americans as naval personel for the British Navy. You invaded Canada attempting to occupy it. The British at the time were fighting Napolean in europe so their efforts were limited by facts on the ground. This was not an American victory.

You are correct IMO regarding the American revolution where you received French help but it was an American victory. World War One and Two were Allied victories and no single country can claim to have them on their own.

---

Im sorry, I must not have been making myself clear - english isnt my first language.

LeftEyeNine made the assertion that America could not produce strong warriors and a strong military because it is not a mono-racial, mono-religious country, and only those have strong warriors. He also went on to challenge me to produce any major military situation in which the USA won without major technical advantages.

I replied with the list of wars in which Americans fought bravely and strongly in without any particular technical advantage.

Im not trying to claim that America won the world wars all by herself, only that she fought just as well as any of her allies who were racially and religiously "pure". America didnt have any particular advantages in WW1, yet they fought just as well as their allies.

So his assertions were false. Im not attempting to prove or disprove anything but that.

To the moderators...

Can I start a new thread with the winners of this poll and some big ones that i left out and then this one be deleted?

Much better. Thank you. Let's keep those positive vibes going.

One other item for consideration with regards to PJ's point on WW1: the British and the French had the benefit of three years experience in fighting before the US got involved.

On the flip side, I'm not sure if WW2 should be included in the list of wars where the Americans fought on even terms. While this may be close to the truth if you only consider the Army, the US advantage in aircraft and naval vessels more than compensated for the even-up level of the US Army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

To the moderators...

Can I start a new thread with the winners of this poll and some big ones that i left out and then this one be deleted?

---

Ah, a playoff or sorts. You may start "round 2" if you so wish KoA. As for closing this one, I'm sure the party will move to the new thread on its own.

PanzerJager

I still believe that warfare excellence needs somehow racial or strong religious interdependence.

War Of Independence may not be counted, I think. It is the cause of US's existence, so if US hadn't won it she would be unable to fight any other wars. Same goes for ours, or anyone else's.

I am still suspicious about judging US army to be good warriors with WWI and WWII. I am still uninformed about USA's superiority in any fronts or incidents in these wars.

Anyway, I am happy to end this discussion peacefully, thanks for your offenseless claims.

Quote:

---

still believe that warfare excellence needs somehow racial or strong religious interdependence.

---

Well thats just silly.
The Huns, the greatest of the steppe peoples who came to Europe, brought with them many, many different ethnicities. Yet, they still, managed to all but destroy the Roman empire.
Woohoo, go the Turanian peoples.

The Huns you talk about are called "European Hun Turks" in our history. They are told to be the first descandants of Turks that history talks about. After that heavy famine in Middle Asia, Huns all migrated and scattered out of Middle Asia. There are even claims that the Eskimos and Indians who have cultural similarities to Middle Asian Turks, have Turkic origin based on the assumption that some emmigrants had passed over the frozen Bering Strait to the continent of America... And the Huns you talk about were the branch that rushed into the Europe.

WTF.
What was that post all about?
Anyways, Go the Turanian people :charge: :charge: :charge:

Also, where is the evidence that the Huns were Turkic? :duel:

Attila The Hun is a strong evidence for it. Attila (we call it "Atilla") is a Turkish name. Deriving out of your nick, you must be a Hungarian or well interested in them. Attila is a really common name with "Hun"garians, isn't it? Because Hungarians are Turkic tribes mixed up with Slavian tribes.

For my previous post, it was about that the Huns had a common racial connectivity, that contributes to, but not makes up, their warfare excellence.

I'll come up with more evidence about Huns' origin as soon as possible - I hope, this does not clash with the intention of the topic.

I'm sorry to say that I am a Magyar, not a Hun, and most Hungarians are Magyars. There are no true Huns left in Hungary.

Also, basing ethnicity ona few Linguistical similarities as my other posts stated is realy silly.
Also, we do not even know if Attila the Hun was even called Attila.

In case we want to discuss here, you should stop labeling every single idea of mine "silly", "stupid" etc., my friend..That's not the way..

By the way I am Türk but internationally I am Turkish. A Hungarian is exactly who is a Magyar. It's about the description in English language. My homelan is Türkiye in my own language. Albania is Shqiperia in their own language while Österreich is Austria. However, English is the universal language we use to communicate here, so you are a Hungarian.

No dude, really I am not a Hungarian.

Where do your ancestors come from then? Hungary? Well then, you're Hungarian.

My ancestors come from Toulouse. Does that make me an Occitan Frenchman? No. I'm a Dutchman.



~Wiz

Half my ancestors were Magyar, therefore part of my ethnicity is Magyar, the other half are English thus making my ethnicity if Anglo-Magyar.
But my nationality is English, because thats where I was born, lived in for most of my life. So therefore, although I may call myself a Magyar, that does not make me Hungarian. ~D

Are there any places that are just Magyar? I thought they just integrated inot hungary like alot of other fallen stepped tribes..

As always, in Europe -- more so than any other place -- it is impossible to track down a so-called "pure" (excuse the term) community with a single ethnical identity. The melting pot in Europe is simply too big and too hot.

So, ethnically there is no place where there are "pure" Magyars. With the Magyars this is even more so than with even the Germanics (who mixed with the Celts and any other people they came across), since -- and even in modern history this is believed to be true -- the Magyars were mostly devoid of womenfolk when they came to the Hungarian plains and therefore raided for women more than riches in the beginning.

Later, the object was to acquire riches, and to create a ring of weakened neighbors so that the Magyars, who had become the typical warrior aristocracy that precedes the absorbtion into a new culture/ethnicity (as with the Bulgars and Turks), could easily keep their subjects under control, and create a lasting state.

This worked; Hungarian is a Finno-Ugric language (Magyars were a Finno-Ugric tribe or tribal confederation), and the culture of Hungary combines Slavic and Magyar elements, but I would be surprised (not to mention opposed to) someone saying that Hungarians are as Magyar as those warriors that rode in from the Russian steppe in the ninth century.



~Wiz

Besides, there would certaintly be some Avar, Qipchaq (Cuman), and other steppe tribes mixed in there, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Besides, there would certaintly be some Avar, Qipchaq (Cuman), and other steppe tribes mixed in there, correct?

---

You know Steppe my friend.Eastern Finno-Ugrig peoples were nomadic steppe people.Magyars originate from area called Sargatka in Southern part of river Ural in Southern Siberia. :bow:

Sorry, I should have said other. I know that the Magyars were steppe people, I meant there would be other tribes in addition to the Magyars.

Ofcourse there was these people werent homogenetic back then.Magyars spent about 150 years in the area called Levedia which is located At Ukraina north from the Sea of Azov.There they had connections with both Kasaars and Alaans.Also people called Kabaars that revolted against Kasaars joined them.Before they continued their journey to Hungary. :bow:

Nationalism is a 19th-century thing anyway. Before that people identified themselves by locality, language (which tended to differ markedly from the technically-same language spoken for example just fifty kilometers away - local patois was the norm among the common folk, while the more "international" layers like merchants, adminstrators, clergy and aristocracy more often than not spoke some lingua franca such as French, Latin or Mandarin Chinese with each other), overall culture, and usually most importantly overlordship. By and large the majority of folk could hardly have cared less about what their superiors spoke amongs themselves or what their usually rather mixed and dubious ancestry was - what was important for them was which lord demanded what dues and when, and what horrible things he'd do to you if you didn't deliver. And when marriage arrangements, inheritance, conquest, imperial land grants and whatever could change those overlords (or just plain neighbours) right quick, what did it matter anyway ? And when most people never traveled beyond fifty kilometers from their home village in their entire life (except perhaps as a part of their military obligations), what did it matter to them where exactly the newly-arrived settlers in the next valley over came from or what language they spoke ?

Incidentally, AFAIK the Huns (or Hsiung-Nu as they were known back in China) were a Mongolic people and not a Turkic one (so much as such lines can now be drawn with the generally extremely polyglot, multi-ethnic nomad empires). They may also have picked up their name from a people living north of the Black Sea they presumably assimilated during their migration, or not.

And in regards to the original topic, I'd say Europeans in general terms - after all, the current worldwide military paradigm is one that originates and is still best mastered in the "European" culural sphere (which includes the odd still-thriving brances like South Africa, North America and Israel - Japan also came to succesfully adopt the same methods if not quite other cultural traits), and then there remains the fact that inside some fifty years an insignificant little subcontinent went and put almost the entire rest of the whole globe under its collective thumb, and didn't have too hard a time at it either. 'Course, as we all know, keeping it proved to be a bit of a bigger problem, not in the least due to the prevalent habit said culture-sphere has of testing its new military means into destruction against itself... Although that seems to have stopped now. I'd guess it became too expensive a means of field-testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Nationalism is a 19th-century thing anyway. Before that people identified themselves by locality, language (which tended to differ markedly from the technically-same language spoken for example just fifty kilometers away - local patois was the norm among the common folk, while the more "international" layers like merchants, adminstrators, clergy and aristocracy more often than not spoke some lingua franca such as French, Latin or Mandarin Chinese with each other), overall culture, and usually most importantly overlordship. By and large the majority of folk could hardly have cared less about what their superiors spoke amongs themselves or what their usually rather mixed and dubious ancestry was - what was important for them was which lord demanded what dues and when, and what horrible things he'd do to you if you didn't deliver. And when marriage arrangements, inheritance, conquest, imperial land grants and whatever could change those overlords (or just plain neighbours) right quick, what did it matter anyway ? And when most people never traveled beyond fifty kilometers from their home village in their entire life (except perhaps as a part of their military obligations), what did it matter to them where exactly the newly-arrived settlers in the next valley over came from or what language they spoke ?

Incidentally, AFAIK the Huns (or Hsiung-Nu as they were known back in China) were a Mongolic people and not a Turkic one (so much as such lines can now be drawn with the generally extremely polyglot, multi-ethnic nomad empires). They may also have picked up their name from a people living north of the Black Sea they presumably assimilated during their migration, or not.

And in regards to the original topic, I'd say Europeans in general terms - after all, the current worldwide military paradigm is one that originates and is still best mastered in the "European" culural sphere (which includes the odd still-thriving brances like South Africa, North America and Israel - Japan also came to succesfully adopt the same methods if not quite other cultural traits), and then there remains the fact that inside some fifty years an insignificant little subcontinent went and put almost the entire rest of the whole globe under its collective thumb, and didn't have too hard a time at it either. 'Course, as we all know, keeping it proved to be a bit of a bigger problem, not in the least due to the prevalent habit said culture-sphere has of testing its new military means into destruction against itself... Although that seems to have stopped now. I'd guess it became too expensive a means of field-testing.

---

Have you also read the book Eurooppalaisten Juuret by Kalevi Wiik? :book:

Doesn't ring a bell, although I vaguely recognize the name of the author. Nah, the latest I read on the topic was Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson and Hobsbawm's Nationalism. 'Course, as a PolSci student I tend to read rather a lot of material that touches upon the subject anyway...

Well I'm sure that you could find people who descended directly from the Proto-Magyars, the old Carpathian Aristocracy.