Greatest Nations of Warriors

PLEASE VOTE IN THE NEW THREAD!


What nations/countries/culture groups do you think had the greatest warriors. Their technology doesnt matter, but more of how they used their technology. I've included a poll with some of the best ones in my mind, but if anybody can think of better ones please list.

I would have to say the vikings. They were eventually eclipsed by technology, but those were some tuff dudes.

Edit- The poll is just nations i thought had good warriors, no offense to any nation that was left out just put other and say which you think had the best.

I think the germanic tribes were more powerful then the celtic ones. Oh well, it's done now.

Of course I gotta go with greeks. Is everyone shocked?
Seriously though, we have always produced the most powerful and talented warriors in history. From the trojan war and persian and peloponesian wars to the revolution and world war two, we have never been less heroic.

I am completely biased of course. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

I think the germanic tribes were more powerful then the celtic ones. Oh well, it's done now.

Of course I gotta go with greeks. Is everyone shocked?
Seriously though, we have always produced the most powerful and talented warriors in history. From the trojan war and persian and peloponesian wars to the revolution and world war two, we have never been less heroic.

I am completely biased of course. ~;)

---

yeah, but im a bit biased towards the celtic tribes ~;) , though i still think that the viking are the best "warriors".

Huns? Nah. All steppe tribes were great, but the Mongols most would outweigh the Huns, IMO, since the Huns convereted to infantry tactics.

So I'd vote any group of peoples that was born and raised a nomad on the steppe, because the environment created warriors, or it killed everyone else. ~;)

medieval europeans duh, ALL EUROPEANS aactually
YEA EUROPEANS ROCK!!

Quote:

---

So I'd vote any group of peoples that was born and raised a nomad on the steppe, because the environment created warriors, or it killed everyone else.

---

The same could be said of scandanavia and Scotland.

Romans above all ruled all the others , they won and dominated , then are the romans , but among the romans I would say the best of the best could be the Gladiators .....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PROMETHEUS

Romans above all ruled all the others , they won and dominated , then are the romans , but among the romans I would say the best of the best could be the Gladiators .....

---

The romans won partly because they were more advanced than their neighbors and of course their great disicpline.

I voted "other". Germany since Roman times has been the home of some of the greatest warriors and generals of history. Where did the Vikings and Normans come from? Yes, Germany and Denmark. :bow:

My vote would be Prussia. At their height during times of peace, they would have at least 4% of their population in uniform. That’s staggering considering we are talking about a modern nation.

To put it into prospective, America has 295,734,134 people (according to CIA.com) and 4% of that would be 11,829,365 soldiers. I bet the American military top brass would be licking their chops at the prospect of that kind of soldier pool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evil_maniac from mars

I voted "other". Germany since Roman times has been the home of some of the greatest warriors and generals of history. Where did the Vikings and Normans come from? Yes, Germany and Denmark. :bow:

---

actually didnt the germans come from scandanavia at one point.

And the vikings came soly from scandanavia, and the normans were descendents of vikings.

Danes and Northern Germans were also considered "Vikings" by the English. Germans have been in that area since before Roman times. Who do you think stopped the conquest of the Romans halfway into Germany? The beer? ~;) (Just as a side note, "beer" as we know it (NOT the stewy stuff invented by Egyptians) was invented in Bohemia, which was under German rule at the time)

What the hell, no Germans but russians?

No reason to make a case, needless to say I agree with Evil Maniac From Mars.

Quote:

---

What the hell, no Germans but russians?

---

Russians have proven throughout history that they are tuff. They played a large part in defeating the monguls, stopped Napolean(yes their weather helped them), and they are a large reason why nazi germany was defeated.

When did Germany have especially good warriors. I cant see putting them in and not england, wales, scotland, france, etc..

From Roman times to the end of WW2, Germans have been amazing warriors. The existence of Prussia in itself should earn them a place on your "list". :dizzy2:

Well the problem with making a poll on this means everybody wants their own country to be on it. I originally had germans on there, but i never thought they had better troops than france for example. That is why include other and encourage people to post what country they think should be on there and why.


btw, the german troops didnt really beat rome. Rome was already on a self-destructive path and the german forest werent the best terrain for roman legions.

It just surprised me that you would put Zulus and Russians on there but not Germans. I cannot comprehend how either could be possibly construed as better than that of Germany.

But hey, its your poll, have fun with it. ~:cheers:

Japan, mainly because of the samurai and the whole honour thing they had, you know killing themselves if they lost a battle forgot the name of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

It just surprised me that you would put Zulus and Russians on there but not Germans. I cannot comprehend how either could be possibly construed as better than that of Germany.

But hey, its your poll, have fun with it. ~:cheers:

---

zulu defeated a modern army with spears, plus i had to add some kind of african place.

russians were put in for the above reasons, i originally had germany in their spot, but of the two i thought the russians won, plus germany was already part of a category(medieval europe). ~:)

~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

It just surprised me that you would put Zulus and Russians on there but not Germans. I cannot comprehend how either could be possibly construed as better than that of Germany.

But hey, its your poll, have fun with it. ~:cheers:

---

zulu defeated a modern army with spears, plus i had to add some kind of african place.

russians were put in for the above reasons, i originally had germany in their spot, but of the two i thought the russians won, plus germany was already part of a category(medieval europe). ~:)

~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

It just surprised me that you would put Zulus and Russians on there but not Germans. I cannot comprehend how either could be possibly construed as better than that of Germany.

But hey, its your poll, have fun with it. ~:cheers:

---

zulu defeated a modern army with spears, plus i had to add some kind of african place.

russians were put in for the above reasons, i originally had germany in their spot, but of the two i thought the russians won, plus germany was already part of a category(medieval europe). ~:)

~:cheers:

Celtic warriors - they were afraid of nothing and no-one, they sacked rome and large areas of greece including the oracle at Delphi. Alexander the Great frequently employed Celtic warriors against his enemies, for example against the Etruscans in 335BC. Their entire culture was based around indivual bravery, honour and fighting skills for which they were known and feared for throughout the classical world. Their territory is known to have spanned across all of Europe and is suspected to have stretched all the way out to Tibet in the East and North America in the West.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

Well the problem with making a poll on this means everybody wants their own country to be on it. I originally had germans on there, but i never thought they had better troops than france for example. That is why include other and encourage people to post what country they think should be on there and why.


btw, the german troops didnt really beat rome. Rome was already on a self-destructive path and the german forest werent the best terrain for roman legions.

---

I agree and anyway by that time much of the roman army was made of germans as well so was a german vs german .....

also this poll to me is "stupid" and too much on the risk of rising nationalistic prides , I just posted for provocation becouse everyone would vote for his own country so there is no point in it since will just come out the majoryty of the people of one country would make win the relative warriors ....

As warriors id say Japan.Samurais in my mind define the word warrior. :bow:

I voted for romans and i did not vote for my own country.
For me organisation, tactics and especially a polital system that could exploit military successes are more important than individual skill.

If you only asked for the quality of the individual warrior, I think the Samurai would be my choice.

Quote:

---

Their technology doesnt matter, but more of how they used their technology.

---

If this is the primary citeria then certainly the answer is the USA. Id say the Marines who assualted the pacific islands were as tuff as any warrior from any age.

Quote:

---

The same could be said of scandanavia and Scotland.

---

Yeah. And the Scandanavian warriors were great. But they didn't use horses as much, so there. ~;) (though they did adopt quickly as the Normans and the Rus...)
Seriously, it is hard to judge. But I know more about the steppe warriors and their toughness as other warriors. But in order to qualify, their horses and their bows would need to be included, as a steppe warrior on foot would loose against a Norseman or German (which I also think need to be on there).

Three posts!!!! Man, hold your speed King!!!!

I prefer Japan. They had the greatest and most noble warriors.

Also, the Muslim Fanatics.....Needless to say why....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King of Atlantis

Russians have proven throughout history that they are tuff. They played a large part in defeating the monguls, stopped Napolean(yes their weather helped them), and they are a large reason why nazi germany was defeated.

---

Without wanting to offend any Russians present, I think the fact that their country is so immensely large and barren and that they have so many people they can use as soldiers plays a bigger role in their winning of battles. Napoleon defeated the Russians time after time in the open field, and I think you will find that the Russians lost quite a lot of soldiers during WWII. Also, in WWI the Russian army was notoriously ineffective, commanders sending into battles many men without rifles (they had to pick them up from their dead comrades who in fact did have them). Also, when did the Russians actually defeat the Mongols? Only when the Mongols had become a sedentary, decadent ruling class the Russians defeated them, centuries after the Mongol conquest.

The best warrior people would have to be the Prussians, who more or less embody the soldier-nation. The Spartans could be said to be the same, of course. For medieval times, I guess the Normans would be the best warrior people. However, I think most real "warrior-cultures" in itself do not create empires. Organisation skills and an effective wy of government are just as (or maybe even more) important.

Individually, I say the Germanic peoples. Specifically the Franks, and yes, I rank them above the Norse, Danes and Swedes. Then again, oops -- I AM Frank! ~D

For soldiers, not warriors? Hard to say. Certainly the Mongols are very high up my list. Romans too.

At sea, certainly the Dutch. Batavia rules the waves!



~Wiz

I'd say the USA.
Not so much because of their soldiery being any better than others (actually in spite of much of it being poor) as the immense dedication to full spectrum warfare even in the face of a broadly peaceful world.
Never before has one nation spent more on its military than the entire rest of the world combined.

I also gotta take a local vote.
Over about 60 years or so the maori went from stone-age tribal warfare to european colonisation & declaration of independance through pre WWI trench warfare to jungle guerilla warfare and realising that they couldn't win by military power, on to pre-date Ghandi with non-violent resistance and protest.

The the US forces are soldiers, not warriors, IMO.

Difference being?

Warriors are with swords and bows

Soldiers are with the AKM or AK47 gun....

Heh. Not quite what I was thinking. I mean Romans were soldiers. Norsemen were warriors. I can't really explain what the difference is.

And the US Army Soldiers are what?!

Gunners?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Heh. Not quite what I was thinking. I mean Romans were soldiers. Norsemen were warriors. I can't really explain what the difference is.

---

Steppe Merc, is the difference fighting as a professional vs fighting as a way of life?

I would have to go with the Japanese on this one. Even though their warriors were in some ways crazy you have to be crazy to be an excellent warrior....

Quote:

---

Steppe Merc, is the difference fighting as a professional vs fighting as a way of life?

---

Bingo, thank you Gregoshi. I kept on thinking of the conversation in KOTOR between Canderous and Carth about the difference between a warrior and a soldier, but I figure out how to explain it. But you got it exactly, thank you. :bow:

But warfare is such an integral part of US culture that it is a way of life.
Particularly for those actually in the military.

Are american children thought from infancy to be warriors.No. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

...Even though their warriors were in some ways crazy you have to be crazy to be an excellent warrior...

---

That is correct hence the Berserkers were the greatest warriors. They fought their enemy without any armour and lived to tell the tale. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Are american children thought from infancy to be warriors.No.

---

The answer to that is a definite yes. I doubt any nation today other than Israel still has such militaristic kids. The wars of the future are alreadyb being fought by US kids sitting at their computers simulating combat. Todays computer geeks are tommorows warriors. When I was a kid we played war more than any other game. In fact I still do thats why I bought MTW.

Are you guys forgeting the Spartans? The Macedonians? The Thebans?
All Greeks that were the greatest soldiers of all time. I'de like to see any number berserkers take on the Spartans. That would be funny actually because the berserkers would be humiliated. ~:cheers:

And not to mention these people lived more then 1000 years before Mongols or berserker norsemen. :book:

Recogniiiiiiize :bow: ~;)

You know Gawain we also play little war too here in Europe.In matter of fact we even have conscript armies here in Europe. ~;)

Quote:

---

You know Gawain we also play little war too here in Europe.In matter of fact we even have conscript armies here in Europe.

---

Your all just americans who didnt have the sense to move. ~D

My bad.I always thought that you guys were the Europeans who wanted to go play war with the native Americans. ~:cheers:

Greeks? Again, they were soldiers, just like the Romans the American forces are. Except perhaps Spartans, though it's questionable. But I think that any steppe tribe would beat the Spartans (to be fair, I'd make it Scythians, so they exist at the same time, happy BP? ~;) ).
Spartans were so slow and heavy, they'd get tired while the Scythians rained arrows on them. And the Scythians weren't as dumb as the Persians, so they wouldn't try and charge them. ~D
edit: Gawain, I may play war games and love military history, but I'd never join the army. Though I admit, too many people are violence obbsessed.

But Samurai did beat mongol warriors. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Steppe Merc, is the difference fighting as a professional vs fighting as a way of life?

---

I'd say you're close Greg, personally I'd say 'warriors' refer to individual, part-time fighters in war, while 'soldiers' refer to men who fight in their unit, for their unit.



~Wiz

Quote:

---

but I'd never join the army

---

You may not have a choice unless Beruit or Goofball have a place for you ~D

Well, Canada seems a lot nicer than jail, so yeah. ~;)

=Gawain of Orkeny
The answer to that is a definite yes. I doubt any nation today other than Israel still has such militaristic kids.
That's pretty arrogant of you. The US doesn't have draft, which just abotu every European country has. And don't tell me that only Israel is as militarized. Paaalease. North Korea has more then a million soldiers on the border. That's one in every 20 people if you take their population size into consideration. South Korea has another million on the border. China has more the 2 and a half million soldiers, and draft.

The wars of the future are alreadyb being fought by US kids sitting at their computers simulating combat.
I doubt the kids sitting at home playing video games would have the balls or the inclination to join the army or become technickly proficient enough to ever do any of the things they play with.

When I was a kid we played war more than any other game. In fact I still do thats why I bought MTW.
When I was a kid in Albania we played war too. We did it with rocks. Ever day we would come home bleeding from our arms and knees. And this the 90's I'm talking about. Go to Albania(or any eastern european country, hell even England) and be a tough guy, you'll see what'll hapen.

I think anyone would be scared of Gawain, but mabye I have an irrational fear of aging, former Marines. ~;)

Quote:

---

That's pretty arrogant of you. The US doesn't have draft, which just abotu every European country has.

---

So now the fact that our warriors volunteer where as your have to be forced to serve amkes yours better? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

And don't tell me that only Israel is as militarized. Paaalease.

---

Every Israeli is drafted into the army and most have seen active service and actually been involved in military operations with real bullets flying around just like US troops and Britains I might add.

Quote:

---

North Korea has more then a million soldiers on the border. That's one in every 20 people if you take their population size into consideration.

---

How much actual battle experience do they have. Id put Israels army up against that bunch anytime.

Quote:

---

China has more the 2 and a half million soldiers, and draft.

---

And few are well trained or equipped nevermind inspired to fight .

Quote:

---

I doubt the kids sitting at home playing video games would have the balls or the inclination to join the army or become technickly proficient enough to ever do any of the things they play with.

---

You obviously live in Canada ~D You dont american kids very well it seems. There is very little difference anymore between sitting in front of the monitor on your computer or one the Army provides for you. Many of these games are nothing more than battle simulators for various weapons and reflect the real thing very well.

Quote:

---

When I was a kid in Albania we played war too. We did it with rocks. Ever day we would come home bleeding from our arms and knees. And this the 90's I'm talking about. Go to Albania(or any eastern european country, hell even England) and be a tough guy, you'll see what'll hapen.

---

Oh my what a tuff guy. We used rocks , sticks, bats, bb guns , shingle shooters and much more. Come on down here and we will see how tought you are ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoom

I'd say the USA.
Not so much because of their soldiery being any better than others (actually in spite of much of it being poor) as the immense dedication to full spectrum warfare even in the face of a broadly peaceful world.
Never before has one nation spent more on its military than the entire rest of the world combined.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoom

I also gotta take a local vote.
Over about 60 years or so the maori went from stone-age tribal warfare to european colonisation & declaration of independance through pre WWI trench warfare to jungle guerilla warfare and realising that they couldn't win by military power, on to pre-date Ghandi with non-violent resistance and protest.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Friend, -Salutations to you. The end of that. Friend, do you give heed to our laws for regulating the fight.
Rule 1. If wounded or captured whole, and butt of the musket or hilt of the sword be turned to me, he will be saved.
Rule 2. If any Pakeha, being a soldier by name, shall be travelling unarmed and meets me, he will be captured, and handed over to the direction of the law.
Rule 3. The soldier who flees, being carried away by his fears, and goes to the house of the priest with his gun (even though carrying arms) will be saved. I will not go there.
Rule 4. The unarmed Pakehas, women and children, will be spared.
The end. These are binding laws for Tauranga.

---

Then on to the Boer War, WWI and WWII where the Maori soldiers were to be feared. 28 Battalion

In general ANZACs and in particular Maoris.

=Gawain of Orkeny
So now the fact that our warriors volunteer where as your have to be forced to serve amkes yours better? ~:confused:
Well they're not warriors when they volunteer. Just normal civilians. And yes the more civilians are preveiwd in the army the more pwerful that country is militarily.


Every Israeli is drafted into the army and most have seen active service and actually been involved in military operations with real bullets flying around just like US troops and Britains I might add.
I never stated they didn't, I stated that they were not the "oply" other (presumably) country to have military experience within it's population



How much actual battle experience do they have. Id put Israels army up against that bunch anytime.
None really, but it's not important. When are they ever gonna go to combat to prove they are strong anyhow, we'll just never really know their full potential.



You obviously live in Canada ~D You dont american kids very well it seems. There is very little difference anymore between sitting in front of the monitor on your computer or one the Army provides for you.
The fact that I live in Canada doesn't make my access to violent video games any less then any other place in the US. In fact we have more experience with those types of things up here because we have more money to afford the equipment. So HA-HA!

And I well hearsed in all kinds of rifles and tanks and helicopters, but that doesn't make me brave enough to go to war.

Many of these games are nothing more than battle simulators for various weapons and reflect the real thing very well.
Except for Ghost Recon, which is pretty close to how it would be(I admit it's pretty scary to play this game) there's no other first person shooter game that even comes close to reality. They are all to arcady.
And by the way it's very different firing and handling a weapon in real life, then it is in videogames.


Oh my what a tuff guy. We used rocks , sticks, bats, bb guns , shingle shooters and much more. Come on down here and we will see how tought you are ~D
You have just earned my respect. ~D
Just jk, but seriously you grew up in the 50's and 60's not the 90's. Times were very different back then. Today's american children are overweight and addicted to sugar and vdeo games. Hardly the people that would go to war.

I still cant believe Germany didnt make the list.. I mean they took the supposedly mighty Greece in a few weeks. ~;)

Germany should definitly be up there as a warlike nation, but maybe not a nation of warriors. ~;)

Germany's officer core was definitly something to fear.

I remember one person stating that the ANZAC soldiers with British NCOs and German Officiers would have been one of the nastiest combinations to fight in WWII.

The average German soldier was a great warrior.. better than a russian or a greek in my opinion. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I still cant believe Germany didnt make the list.. I mean they took the supposedly mighty Greece in a few weeks. ~;)

---

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.

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

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. ~;)
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.

Quote:

---

I know you were just baiting BTW, very clever.

---

Yea just playing.. im still bitter though. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

Japan. Hands down.

The samurai were the most skilled warriors of their time, had the best equipment, and the best discipline.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

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.

---

Wonder why?! ~D
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....

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Maybe I'm just being Nationalistic, but.. I think a thousand years from now people will look back and rank America among the great Warrior-Nations. :bow:

---

Yep, your just being nationalistic!

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

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 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:

---

Japan. Hands down.

The samurai were the most skilled warriors of their time, had the best equipment, and the best discipline.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

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?

---

Magyars were ancestors of modern Hungarians.They were Finno-Ugrig people. :bow:

[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.

Quote:

---

great Warrior Nations including the USA? With such things as Nam and Iraq under its belt, I can see why...

---

LoL - The scottish certainly didnt win every war they fought. :laugh4:

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.

---

Pretty sure.
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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Oh, god, another bloody Waitangi bugger, jesus christ, when will it end.

---

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.
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.

Quote:

---

Then on to the Boer War, WWI and WWII where the Maori soldiers were to be feared. 28 Battalion

---

I forgot to mention the maori battalion, nice link.
Not sure about maori in the Boer war though?