Printable View
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...
War of IndependenceQuote:
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 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:
Never heard of that..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.
Now thats just stupid. :dizzy2: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.
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:
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.Quote:
I hade heard a theory that the Magyars were Turkic with a Finno Ugrian ruling class, which would explain the language.
Hello board. ~:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
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.
Well what you would consider American today didn't exist back then, the war of indipebdance was essentialy Brit vs Brit.Quote:
War of Independence
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.
Yeah, forgot about them..Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
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.
You said that the US hadnt won any wars without the help of a technical advantage. In fact that was a lie.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..
During both WW1 and WW2, US troops fought just as bravely as anyone else without any technical edges.
I dont get my information from propaganda. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
For the second quote that belongs to me, watch "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore.
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:
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..
Yorktown would have never happened without the Americans being there either. To discount American troops in the revolutionary war is ignorant.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.
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:
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.
You seem to have missed the argument. Americans fought in WW1 just fine without any technical advantages and helped win the war.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.
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.
Another misplaced criticism. See above.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.
The racial superiority of Germany and Japan did not help them in the least when fighting America.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
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.
Well thats just silly.Quote:
still believe that warfare excellence needs somehow racial or strong religious interdependence.
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