• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Who are the Greatest warriors in history

Greatest warriors in history?

  • Japanese Samurai

    Votes: 11 13.9%

  • European Knights

    Votes: 8 10.1%

  • Mongols

    Votes: 10 12.7%

  • Huns

    Votes: 2 2.5%

  • Janissaries

    Votes: 3 3.8%

  • Roman Gladiators

    Votes: 7 8.9%

  • Scottish Highlanders

    Votes: 3 3.8%

  • Vikings

    Votes: 5 6.3%

  • Musketeers

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • other group of warriors

    Votes: 30 38.0%
  • Total voters
    79
White Americans had black slavery until the 1860s, near genocide of native Americans, segregation of races until the 1960s, a joke of a medical service for the poor to this day, wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now intervention in a Libyan civil war, on-going racism against blacks and Hispanics.

Who is scum?
 
Canek said:
you aren't making spaniards look any better. and i am not a white american.
Click to expand...

OK, you're not a white American.:thinking:

However we are talking about military skill as we perceive it in this thread not killing bulls (sad though that is) or the Inquisition.
 
Well, to go back to the subject.

I already told Genghis Khan was in my view by far the most efficient warrior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

He unified Mongolia.
He used everything he came across with to improve his army.
He did have a kind of CIA.
His fighting strategy and tactics came very close to todays warfare.

Bowmen on horseback, with a superior bow were the equivalent of the modern Apache helicopter.

Of course he was a war criminal in today's opinion, but in fact all warriors are.

In that view it's understandable that Ghengis also used terror to win a war.
If he entered a new territory, he attacked the first city, murdered nearly all of the inhabitants if they resisted. And let some escape to spread the rumor.
Then he could ride in other cities without a problem.
 
too much euro-centrism in this pool. what about the incas? they built the greatest empire in america, or what about the aztecs? they were one of the bravest and most feared warriors on the face of the planet. as usual self-centered europeans can't see beyond their noses.
 
Certainly Musketeers should not be in the voting list above and European knights were laughably unsuccessful in the Crusades apart from the First Crusade.
 
Canek said:
too much euro-centrism in this pool. what about the incas? they built the greatest empire in america, or what about the aztecs? they were one of the bravest and most feared warriors on the face of the planet. as usual self-centered europeans can't see beyond their noses.
Click to expand...

Well... This is a European Forum.. :beat_shot:
 
Reinaert said:
Well... This is a European Forum..
Click to expand...
homosexuals-are-gay.jpg
well, i wouldn't expect asiatics, americans or africans to be euro-centrists
 
Canek said:
too much euro-centrism in this pool. what about the incas? they built the greatest empire in america, or what about the aztecs? they were one of the bravest and most feared warriors on the face of the planet. as usual self-centered europeans can't see beyond their noses.
Click to expand...

This is a european forum is it not?
 
Canek is a troll. Ignore him.
 
Canek said:
most of european warriors in this pool are not on pair with aztecs or incas in terms of bravery.
Click to expand...

I've always thought supposed differences in things like "bravery" to be relatively insignificant when comparing warrior classes... although it always seems to be brought up when people argue that certain warrior classes were superior to European knights. Like, I've read arguments that the samurai were more powerful than knights because they were more devoted, more well-trained, etc... and although I disagree that samurai were better warriors than knights, at least that's a fair comparison, unlike knights vs. Incas. There's nothing to indicate that European knights were not brave, or well-trained... quite the contrary, they were trained from young ages and valued bravery. That's not to say they were the best warriors of the time period, because, as others have mentioned, they had their hands full with Middle Eastern armies during the Crusades, Mongol armies during the Mongol invasion, and pikes in wars at home.

But take an Inca warrior from Pachacuti's reign. Those warriors would have had wooden armor and shields and used things like simple spears and copper battle-axes as weapons. One-on-one versus a knight with chain mail and a longsword, even a cowardly one, they wouldn't have stood a chance. Add to that the fact that European projectiles were more developed, and that mounted warfare was a specialty of Europeans, and I don't know why the Incas would be brought up as a serious challenge...
 
eupean knights were more well-trained and their weapons were more developed, but all that doesn't make them more brave than the incas or the aztecs... the incas built the biggest empire in america, and aztecs were feared all over the continent... to me the greatest warriors are those who show an extraordinary bravery. the aztecs and incas were the greatest.
 
Canek said:
eupean knights were more well-trained and their weapons were more developed, but all that doesn't make them more brave than the incas or the aztecs... the incas built the biggest empire in america, and aztecs were feared all over the continent... to me the greatest warriors are those who show an extraordinary bravery. the aztecs and incas were the greatest.
Click to expand...

Alrighty, I guess I can't disprove that, "bravery" isn't something that can be documented archaeologically. So, if it's your only measurement, you can kind of pick the warriors you think fit it best. I will say that relative to other indigenous Americans, the Incas and Aztecs were undoubtedly mighty.
 
not only relative to the indigenious americans... they were the greatest warriors of any of the cultures world wide, imo.

they didn't have armors, shields or developed weapons and still achieved a lot of things. the pre-colombine civilizations of america were the greatest warriors in history.
 
SPARTANS ... I can't belive you didn't put them for voting... they were and they are till this day, a ELITE when it comes about been SOLDIER and Warrior
 
Dale Cooper said:
SPARTANS ... I can't belive you didn't put them for voting... they were and they are till this day, a ELITE when it comes about been SOLDIER and Warrior
Click to expand...


I had noted the same earlier on, but I would use Hoplites in general.

Spartans were probably the best as far as states go, but other Greek states also had some excellent heavy infantry.
 
i wouldn't trust the history of the spartans at all... after all the historic sources we have about their victories were written by the own greeks.
 
Canek said:
i wouldn't trust the history of the spartans at all... after all the historic sources we have about their victories were written by the own greeks.
Click to expand...


Interesting.

There is a wealth of information from those days about the Spartans.
Some of it was pro-, some anti, and some neutral.

Your response to this is that we can't trust the accuracy of them or of their victories. Am I to understand that we can in fact trust accounts of the ancient Peruvian and Aztec empires? Mind you, the empire ruled by the Inca had no written system at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top