Greatest Nations of Warriors

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.