Nations of Warriors- round 2

[King of Atlantis]

Well i have carried on the top nations of the other thread and added some big ones i left out..

edit-please dont vote other for a nation that got bumbed cause im really trying to see what nation people vote first.

I voted germanic cause they can include, vikings, english, normans, germans, and french.

Explanation of poll-

I know these are all ethnic groups, but In round one it was almost all nations, but then i realized that its hard to list all the nations so i clumped them into ethnic groups, but nations of warriors sounds better.

again this is round 2, in round one I stated its not really a matter of technology, but more of how they used their technology.

Another factor would be how much they invented for war. For example you must give credit to the europeans for their countless inventions for warfare(guns etc..), but you wouldnt count it against the japanese that their samuri would get blasted away by a cannon.

hope this explanation makes sense.

[PanzerJaeger]

Germans.

From before Roman times to 1945, German peoples have been excellent warriors.

The existence of Prussia, quite possibly the best military state since Sparta, earns it a place on your list. The addition of all the other militaries and states formed by Germanic people put them at the top.

No other modern nation, i believe, has been surrounded by so many other military-industrial complexes and still managed to go on the offensive and win. The military superiority of Germany during both world wars cannot be denied. Despite the fact that the country was lead by nuts with no military foresight whatsoever in both world wars, the German military was still able to pull off great victories and it took the whole world to put them down.

Well thats my case..

[King of Atlantis]

panzer, never would have guessed you would have voted for germans.

[Kagemusha]

Again i say Japanese.My ideal of warrior is Samurai.

[edyzmedieval]

Yes my brother....

I voted the same ~

[The Wizard]

Samurai were no better than knights. Not until the ashigaru was introduced into the Japanese battlefield did discipline become a factor of importance. I say the Germanics -- they have defeated all that came before them and are still doing so today.



~Wiz

[Steppe Merc]

Mongols.

Why do so many people think the Samurai are good? European knights would have crushed them, much less proper a proper Islamic or steppe army.

[Kagemusha]

If you would put european 1500`s swordsman against a samurai european wouldnt have chance weapon like katana which is lighter wield but is the ultimate weapon for slashing could cut straight through european armor,but most likely european swordsman would be dead before he could draw his sword.
And if you guys are talking about tactical warfare what do you think would happen to a group of mounted knights against a pike wall of Yari samurais?

[Steppe Merc]

1500? Who cares about that? Once guns are in the picture, it's pointless. But I doubt that a katana could slash through plate armor. Other than axes, slashing weapons don't tend to pierce armour. Piercing weapons are better at that...

And I think that the mounted knights would win against a bunch of foot soldiers.

[Kagemusha]

1500? Who cares about that? Once guns are in the picture, it's pointless. But I doubt that a katana could slash through plate armor. Other than axes, slashing weapons don't tend to pierce armour. Piercing weapons are better at that...

And I think that the mounted knights would win against a bunch of foot soldiers.

It wouldnt cut the plate but it would cut the chainmail under the plait,another thing is that warrior on plate mail would be clumsy against a warrior with lamellar armor.
About heavy horses against light pike infantry,then you should study litle bit of Swiss against the Knights.

[Steppe Merc]

Swiss is a bit different in my mind. And that brings me to another point: I can't stand the samurai armor. Their lamelar armor isn't very good IMO. It leaves too much exposed, and isn't nearly as good as proper steppe lamelar. What is it made out of? It looks like all horn and wood, without any sort of metal.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's a very researched analysis of Samurai vs Knight:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

And the Katana most definately could not cut through plate armor. High medieval plate was the best armor in the world for melee weapons. And, surprising, the katana is not the uber sword of all the world.

Crazed Rabbit

[King of Atlantis]

If you would put european 1500`s swordsman against a samurai european wouldnt have chance weapon like katana which is lighter wield but is the ultimate weapon for slashing could cut straight through european armor,but most likely european swordsman would be dead before he could draw his sword.

Firstly a Katana cant cut through plate armor and a you really underestimate a medieval swordsmen for a slow brute, which is far from the truth.

And if you guys are talking about tactical warfare what do you think would happen to a group of mounted knights against a pike wall of Yari samurais?

Number one is it fair to make this match, lets take some french paldins and let them charge some foot samuri, what do you think would happen .

Secondly a fully armored european knight probably could break the samuri pikemen as they can hardly be compared to swiss pikemen.


btw, this thread is getting much less votes than the other thread.

[Incongruous]

HA! What do you think would happen if a unit of say fivehundred mounted knights armed and armoured in the Gothic style, chareged a group of 1000 mounted Samurai armed and armoured in the 15th century style.
I beleiev that teh Samurai would be completely crushed.
Anyways, there was a programme on channel four UK about barbarians of the dark ages, and a a swords expert claimed that Anglo-Saxon blades were just as good if not better that any Katana for slicing a man in two.

[Kagemusha]

HA! What do you think would happen if a unit of say fivehundred mounted knights armed and armoured in the Gothic style, chareged a group of 1000 mounted Samurai armed and armoured in the 15th century style.
I beleiev that teh Samurai would be completely crushed.

I agree to that. Samurai cavalry wasnt really a cavalry how we see it here in Europe.It was a mixture of cavalrymen and infantry.When charged by Gothic cavalry they would brake.But for the others:I dont have really any evidence to back my opinion on this one,but nor have you.So its really a matter of opinion.We can speculate until the end of world with this one,but i rather suggest that we wait and see how the poll turns out.

[IliaDN]

Vikings.

[Taurus]

Japanese Samurai

[The Wizard]

I agree to that. Samurai cavalry wasnt really a cavalry how we see it here in Europe.It was a mixture of cavalrymen and infantry.When charged by Gothic cavalry they would brake.But for the others:I dont have really any evidence to back my opinion on this one,but nor have you.So its really a matter of opinion.We can speculate until the end of world with this one,but i rather suggest that we wait and see how the poll turns out.

No evidence? Read this and then shush:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

Besides, a toledo steel rapier is a superior weapon to the sengoku jidai katana -- but then that's my personal opinion. At the bottom of the article I posted the link to above is a link to the katana vs rapier debate.

IliaDN: Vikings are Germanic.



~Wiz

[Meneldil]

Mongols.

And Samurai aren't that great. They didn't cut everything around them a la Japanese Anime Style. I've seen some training fight with Bokuto, and it didn't look any better than a fight from Braveheart or Joan of Arc.

[Kagemusha]

No evidence? Read this and then shush:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

Besides, a toledo steel rapier is a superior weapon to the sengoku jidai katana -- but then that's my personal opinion. At the bottom of the article I posted the link to above is a link to the katana vs rapier debate.

IliaDN: Vikings are Germanic.



~Wiz

Or you read this.[COLOR=Red]link
I read that article already and the author stated that it would be up to invidual skils who would win.Second i tryed to politely say to you that,because either of us cant prove that knight or Samurai would be superior in battle on one against one i found the debate meaningles.But if you can find some hard evidence concerning the superioty of knights against samurais,please be so kind to post it in this thread.Last.I dont really like being sayd to shush.

[Steppe Merc]

I have little use for non horsemen, and the Samurai were not only mediocre horsemen at best, their horse archery left much to be desired, IMO.

[King of Atlantis]

Europe has a much better diverse army. The only thing japan might be better than would be their swordsmen, but even that can be debated.

[Steppe Merc]

Europe didn't have that much of a diverse army. If you want a truly diverse army, the Islamics had it, in particular the Turks. They had far more types of cavalry and used infantry when needed as well.

[King of Atlantis]

Europe had a very diverse army.

Archers- many good archers and welsh longbowmen were possibly the best ever.


Swordsmen-Foot knights, vikings, etc.. Europe certianly had this one covered.

Spearmen-Excellent pikemen, swiss possibly best ever

cavalry-Excelllent heavy cavalry

other- many, many exotic weapons were used in europe cause there armor was so good that weapons had to be designed to take it out.

Horse archers-This is probably the only thing eurpoe really laked, with the exception of eastern europe. Not a big deal in my book, I can see where this may upset you steppe .

[Steppe Merc]

Archers were a joke compared to the east, including the Longbowmen. Their longbows couldn't compare to a Turkish composite bow.
And Turks and other steppe peoples had excellent heavy, light and medium cavalry. In fact, their horsemen I think were generally better, as they could fight not only as a shock lancer, but also as a horsearcher and could even dismount if neccasary.

[King of Atlantis]

The thing is in europe cavalry had a lessend role cause the foot knights were so excellent. The french cavalry was one of the finest in western europe, but they were torn apart by the english foot knights.

The longbows could shoot further and more accurately than a composite bow, but i could be wrong.

Knights are better than eastern heavy cavary i believe, but europe certainly lacked a variety in their horsemen.

[The Wizard]

Longbow range is in fact quite inferior to a composite bow as used by the Ottoman Turks. It took until the 18th century for that bow to be outranged -- by the musket, not even the European bow. As you may know, in the 18th century the Ottoman empire started its effective decline.



~Wiz

[Pindar]

I'm a little confused. The thread title includes nations and warriors. The choices are generally ethnic groups. Ethnic groups are not nations. If ethnic groups is supposed to be the focus and this appears to cover literally millennia of history should this thread take into account technological impact? My guess is some of the choices are based on a perceived martial skill. This would mean success on the battle field. Technology plays into this equation. A simple example would be Mamluks charging French cannon and infantry Squares. If success is considered critical then some account for technology should be given.

It seems to me one has to distinguish between fields like: ethnicity and nation, Period considered, and or whether success is a factor: opting for "most warlike" may be a way of retaining a focus on a warrior ethic without bowing to actual success and/or the technological element.

Second, warrior typically refers to individual fighting prowess. This would distinguish it from say the Roman method of war which was not individual centered. If warrior peoples is supposed to be the focus then a whole swath of nations are excluded. Deciding between warrior and soldier oriented peoples would seem important.

[King of Atlantis]

Pindar did you see my other thread. In the other one it was almost all nations, but then i realized that its hard to list all the nations so i clumped them into ethnic groups, but nations of warriors sounds better.

again this is round 2, in round one I stated its not really a matter of technology, but more of how they used their technology.

Another factor would be how much they invented for war. For example you must give credit to the europeans for their countless inovitions for warfare(guns etc..), but you wouldnt count it against the japanese that their samuri would get blasted away by a cannon.

hope this explanation makes sense.

[Pindar]

Pindar did you see my other thread. In the other one it was almost all nations, but then i realized that its hard to list all the nations so i clumped them into ethnic groups, but nations of warriors sounds better.

again this is round 2, in round one I stated its not really a matter of technology, but more of how they used their technology.

Another factor would be how much they invented for war. For example you must give credit to the europeans for their countless inovitions for warfare(guns etc..), but you wouldnt count it against the japanese that their samuri would get blasted away by a cannon.

hope this explanation makes sense.

I see. I didn't note your first thread.

Now given the above reply: it sounds like you do want to focus on the warrior. This is a model that is definitely pre-Modern and perhaps pre-Empire as both require a more centralized state with an attendant central military apparatus (the early Arab expansion and Turkic/Mongol peoples may be counter examples as they assumed the bureaucracies of the lands they conquered, though this very approach led to a less warrior focused societies).

This approach should also remove much of the discussion of disparate technology as these are pre-Industrial groups (of course a bodkin arrow or composite bow etc. would still apply).

I would suggest you remove the U.S. not only because it is not an ethnicity, but also because the primary founders of the U.S. are Germanic stock (Brits and actual Germans immigrants). I would also reorient your choices a little. Fist I would break up the Germans into Northmen and the Germans that formed the Feudal societies of Medieval Europe. I would probably refer to them as Franks as Charlemagne would serve as a basic model. Next I would make the Turks a separate group. This would cover the Seljuks and other Mamluks brought into the Muslim world. I would keep the Mongols as the other category of steppe peoples. I would add the Arabs reflecting the early Caliphate expansion Period. The general Celt and Japanese groups sound fine. You could add Aztec and Zulu groups if you're feeling generous.