_GOTOBOTTOM
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
best warriors of history?
DutchBird
#068
Visit this Community
Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Member Since: April 09, 2003
entire network: 1,144 Posts
KitMaker Network: 230 Posts
Posted: Thursday, May 04, 2006 - 11:24 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I think it's impossible to debate who were the best. Everyone's got their favourites, and many are certainly justified. I think we need some clear criteria.


That I completely agree with....
cheyenne
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: January 05, 2005
entire network: 2,185 Posts
KitMaker Network: 224 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 05, 2006 - 02:46 AM UTC
For thier time frame, the Northern or Southern Cheyenne, the worlds best light cav.

The 13 warriors [ Vikings & one Arab ] from Michael Chrightons " The 13th Warrior "

AndyD & me and 2 slabs.
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 05, 2006 - 01:36 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The 13 warriors [ Vikings & one Arab ] from Michael Chrightons " The 13th Warrior ".


Well, in that case, I'll take the Dirty Dozen as my infantry and the Magnificient Seven as my cavalry, all led by Mel Gibson.
cheyenne
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: January 05, 2005
entire network: 2,185 Posts
KitMaker Network: 224 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 05, 2006 - 04:26 PM UTC
Edit on previous post .... Michael Crichton wrote " EATERS OF THE DEAD " A story of a discredited Arab [ sexual indiscressions ] who was sent north as an ambassador of sorts and recounts his adventures in a diary.
The " 13th Warrior " was based on Crichtons novelette and both were based on a real historic Arabic incomplete diary.

AndyD and me with the two slabs was fictitious.
Cheyenne
cheyenne
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: January 05, 2005
entire network: 2,185 Posts
KitMaker Network: 224 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 05, 2006 - 04:33 PM UTC
Actually when I think about it AndyD and me was fictitious, I have two slabs in the boat cooler on the patio.
Cheyenne
cheyenne
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: January 05, 2005
entire network: 2,185 Posts
KitMaker Network: 224 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 05, 2006 - 04:35 PM UTC
Aaaahhhhh...... make that one slab.... the other one just became history.
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 05, 2006 - 06:01 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The " 13th Warrior " was based on Crichtons novelette and both were based on a real historic Arabic incomplete diary.


Not quite true. Part of the book was based on Ibn Fadlan's diary in which he meets and travels with Northmen, but a large portion (particularly the character of Buliwyf and his men) was based on the famous poem 'Beowulf'. The rest (the neanderthels, etc) is fiction.

Here's a quote from Daniel Leboeuf's review of the book;


Quoted Text

The book is confusing until you realize that almost all of it is entirely made up. It is a fascinating view of the Norsemen and times. So what makes this novel science fiction rather than historical fiction? Crichton's basis for "Grendel." I won't ruin the surprise, but, again, its highly plausible and entertaining. Posits some possible and believable origins for the Beowulf epic.
cheyenne
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: January 05, 2005
entire network: 2,185 Posts
KitMaker Network: 224 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 05, 2006 - 07:39 PM UTC
Spooky, Excellent !!! .... Good research, thanks, always wanted to read more about that.
Cheyenne
blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 12:26 AM UTC
My criteria would be under the restriction of all things being equal So Franks comments about a group of marines with a SAW against Spartans doesn't weigh in. How about a group of modern Marines with short swords and long spears going up against an eqal number of Spartans. The assumption would be the marines were of course well trained on the use of the weapons as they are today. Would todays modern small unit tactics stand up to the Phalanx style of the Spartans? Would the Marines be as tough physically as the Spartans? I think that is the way the question was meant. I don't thnk the average modern soldier today can stand up to the toughness of years gone by. Given all the technology and the realitive ease of conquest, I would pick the Infantry of the Viet Nam war as being far tougher than todays, and the Infantry of WW2 being tougher still and so on and so on. Personally I too would have to go with the Spartans. Just based on one battle....Thermopoly (?). 300 took on the entire Persian Army which was technically as well as numerically superior. The only reason they lost was because of a betrayal which enabled the persians to send a force in behind them.
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 12:44 AM UTC
Good points there, Steve, but physical toughness may not necessarily be the criteria with which to judge who "the best warriors of history" are. The Spartan reputation's pretty solid, but you'll find just as many other examples thrown in. And not just infantry. From Scipio Africanus' cavalry to the Gurkhas to the modern SAS, South African Recces or the Rhodesian Selous Scouts. All of whom have reputations for toughness and fighting prowess. It'll be subjective once more.

Who's to say a Spartan hoplite is a "better" warrior than a WW2 sniper? If the Spartans were handed M16s and sent up against modern soldiers they'd be slaughtered just as much as the modern soldier would be handed his head if he had to fight with sword and shield.

It's sort of like asking which is the "best" predator, and then comparing a great white shark with a t-rex or something and saying ok, I guess the t-rex would drown if it had to fight at sea. Comparing Spartans to modern soldiers or even to soldiers of the Victorian era is about the same.

How do you judge a predator? Efficiency. I think it should be the same with warriors.
hellbent11
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Member Since: August 17, 2005
entire network: 725 Posts
KitMaker Network: 320 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 12:09 PM UTC

Quoted Text

My criteria would be under the restriction of all things being equal So Franks comments about a group of marines with a SAW against Spartans doesn't weigh in. How about a group of modern Marines with short swords and long spears going up against an equal number of Spartans.


THANK GOD! Blaster76 hit it perferct! That was the type of discussion I was trying to generate! I don't know If I just didn't clarify it enough or we all just lost the forest for the trees? What Blaster76 talks about in his post is what I was going for.

Example: Do you think that the Spartans or Romans could defeat the SAS or Army Rangers? Which was more progressive in thier time technology being held equal?

Does this make sense now or if I'm not explaining it adequately could someone else jump in? Blaster76 Heeelllllpppp!!!!!
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 12:31 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Example: Do you think that the Spartans or Romans could defeat the SAS or Army Rangers? Which was more progressive in thier time technology being held equal?


Well, for all things to be really equal, you'd have to have both sides fighting barehanded on a flat piece of ground. So now we're not even taking training into account. And it isn't even about soldiers anymore. The question should then be whether humans of a particular race or era were tougher than others.

And I stress that physical prowess isn't necessarily what makes a good soldier, not even in ancient days. Bowmen and siege engineers were all soldiers.
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 03:23 PM UTC
Well, maybe modern special forces could, but even that's doubtful. While modern SF are certainly fit, the training emphasis isn't on hand-to-hand fighting. It's firearms. The Spartan hoplite, Roman legionary, English heavy cavalryman and most soldiers of the pre-gunpowder era were trained especially to go toe-to-toe.

I very much doubt a modern squad or section of average infantryman from even a NATO country could stand up to their equivalent of Spartans or whatever.

It's like matching a cheetah (built for speed and long range prey detection) with a Bengal Tiger (built for stalking and powerful striking).

Their has to be better criteria.
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 10:43 PM UTC
But how could they use either of the above weapons if they haven't been trained to use them? Even SF troops are just well-trained soldiers, not supermen.

My point is if you put modern soldiers up against ancient ones, tell them all to use the weapons of one particular era, that's not an equal fight, because one side hasn't been trained, and the others have.

Attempting to pit soldiers from different eras against each other isn't going to determine anything. As I've repeatedly said, you might as well throw a tiger into the sea and expect it to fight a shark because they both have teeth.

The criteria has to be based on analysing the effectiveness of any group of soldiers. But whether this will conclusive is highly doubtful. While this is a fun thread with lots of speculation, I think it was dead from the word go as far as getting a real answer. Not possible.
Pak_40
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Member Since: August 12, 2003
entire network: 392 Posts
KitMaker Network: 96 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 26, 2006 - 06:03 PM UTC
Hi,
If I can give an opinion:
Best Warrior B.C.- Roman Legionnaire
Best Warrior until 1300- Mongol Horseman
Best Warrior 1300 to 1700- Turkish/Ottoman Janissary
Best Warrior 1700 to 1850- (tie) British Line/Prussian Grenadier
Best Warrior 1850 to 1910-(tie)Zulu impi/Confederate Line
Best Warrior 1910 to 1950-(tie)Waffen-SS/US Marine
Best Warrior 1950 to today-(tie)Viet Minh(NVA)/Israeli Sayaret

This is just an opinion base on battles fought, fear factor, legendary courage and innovations they left to military science.

Chris

Pak_40
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Member Since: August 12, 2003
entire network: 392 Posts
KitMaker Network: 96 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 29, 2006 - 12:26 AM UTC
Hi,
The reason I said the NVA, is because they outlasted the US and their allies. Sometimes it isn't who wins all the battles, but who still has the field over time.

Chris
 _GOTOTOP