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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
What happened to that spartan spirit? It didnt quite stand up to Germany eh? You even had English help!
What happened over all those years.. you go from beating the Persian Empire to only being able to beat the Italians. ~D
500 years of slavery tends to have that effect on people. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Oh and a nation of 60 million taking on a nation of 6 million is not something you should be proud of. :no:
Also the Italians are the descendants of the Romans, so beating them is truly a great triu,ph if we take your way of thinking.
I know you were just baiting BTW, very clever. ~D
Japan. Hands down.
The samurai were the most skilled warriors of their time, had the best equipment, and the best discipline.
Yea just playing.. im still bitter though. ~;)Quote:
I know you were just baiting BTW, very clever.
I might be tempted to argue that a soldier of the Royal Highland Regiment was significantly better equipped, equally skilled, and equally disciplined, than a samurai. The Highlanders shall always be the best to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roark
The reason i put the celtic tribes is that could include scotland too. ~:)
Yes, but I thought that I should give the Royal Highland Regiment a mention, since that was after the clans--tribes-- were abolished... and also to show that they were better equipped than the samurai
Of all the warriors i think scottish come second after the vikings, but im probably biased as i am part scottish.
Wonder why?! ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Very patriotic of you to say that....
I like the Samurai... They had that great discipline....
I like the Scottish, they were fierce warriors, and IMHO they are the equal to the Vikings.... Even the scottish went berserk....
Oh, god, another bloody Waitangi bugger, jesus christ, when will it end.Quote:
Maori as well. The first time that the British had to settle for a Treaty with 'natives' and then the British didn't honour their side of the bargain by invading Maori lands only to have the Maori kick their arse. The whole time the Maoris fought a far more honourable war. Yet the British Empire at its height was defeated several times.
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
Yep, your just being nationalistic!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
great Warrior Nations including the USA? With such things as Nam and Iraq under its belt, I can see why...
Let's watch the tone of our remarks please.
i voted celts...long live the manx and so on
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?Quote:
The peoples of the Turanian basin. The Scythians, Huns and of course us, the Magyar "last of the pure blooded Scythians". We ruled.
I would have to disagree. They were mediocore horse archers, and would certaintly have lost in a full scale cavalry battle against the Mongols. However, the Mongols invaded by sea (which makes it impossible to bring large amount of cavalry).Quote:
Japan. Hands down.
The samurai were the most skilled warriors of their time, had the best equipment, and the best discipline.
Magyars were ancestors of modern Hungarians.They were Finno-Ugrig people. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
[QUOTE=I would have to disagree. They were mediocore horse archers, and would certaintly have lost in a full scale cavalry battle against the Mongols. However, the Mongols invaded by sea (which makes it impossible to bring large amount of cavalry).[/QUOTE]
We have to remember that the horse archers werent allmighty.They were best warrior type for plains and steppes.But example in forest they would have been massacred.As an invidual warriors Samurais were the best in my opinion. :bow:
Well they wouldn't go in a forest now, would they? ~;)
Thank you about the Magyars. I knew that they (along with the Avars and many other steppe people) ended up in Hungray, wasn't sure of what ethnic group they belonged to, though it is very confusing, and rarely very clear.
LoL - The scottish certainly didnt win every war they fought. :laugh4:Quote:
great Warrior Nations including the USA? With such things as Nam and Iraq under its belt, I can see why...
Pretty sure.Quote:
Are you sure? The British Empire after Trafalgar held about a quarter of the worlds surface and spent 20% of its budget on just the Navy.
I mean, Trafalgar was during the Napoleonic wars & the whole of Europe was spending loads of dosh on military equipment.
I find it unlikely that in the face of that the UK was spending more on its military budget than the military budgets of all the rest of the world combined.
Meanwhile, that is what the US does now.
Well there were two treaties, the first being at the initiative of the maori, the second being the initiative of the British & they both came before the wars so there's no 'settle for' involved, just that was the political thinking at the time.Quote:
Maori as well. The first time that the British had to settle for a Treaty with 'natives' and then the British didn't honour their side of the bargain by invading Maori lands only to have the Maori kick their arse. The whole time the Maoris fought a far more honourable war. Yet the British Empire at its height was defeated several times.
It was the colonial government that didn't honour the treaty, the British were on the whole, reluctant partners in the confiscations & invasions.
The numbers of asses kicked are relatively low but the ratio of kickees to kickers was crazy.
500 attackers fended off by ~80 defenders with about 50% losses to the attackers and nearly zero to the defenders are the kinds of numbers that are typical.
I'd say more that most of the time the maori fought the more honourable war.
Te Kooti for example was certainly not honourable.
The British Empire was at its height but spread pretty thin.
Nonetheless, they did get beaten a bunch.
It will end when the NZ government and general public face up to the fact that maori were seriously wronged both in real law and ethically and actually provide some serious justice.Quote:
Oh, god, another bloody Waitangi bugger, jesus christ, when will it end.
I'm entirely non maori, immigrant blood but unlike most people who make statements like yours, I've read some local history and all I see is colonialists greedily performing injustice after injustice & maori making attempts to preserve their culture whilst dealing with the insurmountable fact that pakeha were here to stay.
For example, a prime motivator for and problem that had to be dealt with in the lead up to the Waikato invasion is that the Waikato tribes had by that time built up a serious economy growing food for the colonists.
Waikato had something like 30 windmills, a fleet of 30 (mostly coastal) trading ships & provided most of the food for Auckland.
Many of the maori chiefs measured their mana by how many mills & plows they had.
The colonial government was run by a bunch of utterly scandalous crooks.
I forgot to mention the maori battalion, nice link.Quote:
Then on to the Boer War, WWI and WWII where the Maori soldiers were to be feared. 28 Battalion
Not sure about maori in the Boer war though?
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.
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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
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.
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
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:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
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:
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.
Cruelty? I find it quite good actually. If it weren't for that there would be no Israel now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
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