Here goes again! I was wondering who you thought the best warriors of history were not taking into account differences in timeframe? ( What I mean is that you could compare Roman legions to Army Rangers or Wermacht by taking into account level of training, battle history, technology employed etc.)

Difficult question to address there. As technology developed, armies have depended on it more and more, and less and less on physical prowess and toughness. An individual Spartan would definitely have been tougher thean a modern infantryman.

By 'best' do you mean 'effective'?

This could be a real interesting topic.

I'm going to go back to the late War of the Rebellion, the American Civil War, and cast my vote for The Iron Brigade, the 2nd Wisconsin, 6th Wisconsin, 7th Wisconsin, 19th Indiana and 24th Michigan. Tough, effective fighters who gave better than they got. The best illustration of this is the first day's Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863, where they captured a confederate general and held their ground until the collapse of the XI Corps. For more information, visit The Belle City Rifles .

This is difficult: is it the Celt who did not care for life and therefore was hard to deter and managed to have even the well organized romans hide behind a wall, or is it the modern day sniper, who manages to spend days , if not weeks alone behind enemy lines to get that golden kill. I think it is impossible to say....

Based on your descriptions Rodders the Mongols certainly seem to be high on the list. Personally I can't see how a distinction can be made between all the great warriors of history simply because each was so effective in their own way. The Spartans would have to be on the list, trained as they were from childhood. The American Indian, fighting against such huge odds, has to also be mentioned. Roman gladiators, and individual fighters, were amazing, but so was the disipline of the Romand legions. Basically I wouldn't want to go up against any of them if I had to use the weapons they were using.

The question as posed is impossible to answer. First of all because of the massive divide caused by the arrival of fire-arms. It completely changed the ballgame.

Second an unevenness in sources for information for both era's and theatres.

So I can only partially answer your question:

For ancient times, my vote whote go to the Germanic tribes, and more particular those living along the lower Rhine. And these are my arguments in their support:

From the time of Caesar on these were seen as the finest warriors around. Since long they formed the guard units of many rulers. In battle they were as tough as they come, especially when armed with Roman technology (mail and helmets) and for a while Roman training.

Also, the Germanic (and Danubian) legions and auxiliaries were throughout the Imperial era and the Late Roman Empire considered the crack troops of the Roman army, because they had to face the Germanic tribes. In fact many of them were of Germanic origin themselves, and in the fourth century the corsp of the Roman army in the west (both in numbers and quality units) was German, from th Lower Rhine (in this case Franks). Just a few examples of their prowess and praise throughout the centuries:

In 52 BC it was a charge of Caesar's Germanic Horse Guard that saved his army against the Gauls. Their 400 men made the difference. It is telling that this horse guard went with him wherever he went afterwards.

Well known is the massacre of three Roman legions under Varus by the Cheruscans in 9 AD. Telling is as well that the Romans still used Germans in the auxiliaries and the guard.

In 39 AD Caligula used Germanic auxilaries (Batavi) to squash a revolt of the Roman garrison at Mainz.

In 68 AD some Germanic tribes revolted (the Batavian Revolt). The defeated several Roman units, and it took a full scale war for the Romans to achieve victory. Remarcable though is that this is the only known case in Roman history where the tribes were not severley punished (all but exterminated). In fact, the situation was restored to the situation before the war. The Romans in fact acknowledged many of the grievances of the tribes that lead to the revolt. Even more siginificant is that the Romans even after the revolt allowed these Germanic auxiliaries to be commanded by officers of their own tribe!!!. Auxiliaries being commanded by native officers was a rarity in itself

In 83 or 84 AD at Mons Graupius the Batavian (Germanic) auxiliaries utterly destroyed the Caledonian forces (allegedly the Roman legions proper never even needed to get into the action). In fact, it seems that most of Agricola's army (12.000 out of 20.000) consisted of Germanic auxiliaries (cavalry and infantry).
So within 15 years the same tribes that revolted and burned everything Roman to the ground between the Rhine and northern France were part again of the crack troops of Roman army!

Under Trajan the Germanic Horse Guard was reinstituted (perhaps even under Domitian). Trajan refounded the Batavian capital (Ulpio Noviamuagus (Nijmegen, Netherlands).

The emperor Hadrian composed poems in honor of their prowess (swimming the Danube in full battle gear) and probably for a number of their epitaphs.
Under his reign the demonstration of his Batavian Horse Guards swimming the Danube in full battle gear was enough to cower the tribes on the other side.

In 312, the core of Constantine's army consisted of Germanic troops. In fact, on his arch a number of the panels depict Germanic soldiers.

In 351 at Mursa Major the army of the usurper Magnentius, with at its core troops of Germanic origin, faced the army (battle hardened in the east) of the emperor Constantius which was almost twice as big. In the end they did lose, but it cost Constantius half his army in dead (30.000).

In 357 at Strasbourg Julian defeated with a much smaller army the Germanic traibes who had invaded (and completely overrun) much of Gaul. His army largely consisted of newly recruited men... all of Germanic origin.

According to Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman army officer (veteran of most campaigns of the Emperor Julian among others) and historian of the third century and possible eye-witness to the event, a demonstration of less 500 Germanic horse guards swimming the Tigris fully armored was enough to compell the Persian Shah to offer peace. The same Shah who shortly before had inflicted a crushing defeat on the Romans.

In his narrative about the events that would climax in the Battle of Adrianople (378) he makes the following statement (paraphrasing): "He (Valens) sent some units from Armenia west to face the Goths. These troops had distinguished themselves in the wars agains the Persians and were some of the best in the east. However, compared to western troops they were completely inferior, as they had never faced the onslaught of the Germanic tribes." (Italization my own addition).

In 394, at the two day battle of Ad Frigidus, the Theodosius squared off against the troops of the usurper Eugenius. The army of Theodosian was decidely larger. The army of Eugenius again had Western troops and thus Germans at its core. The Gothic auxiliaries of Theodosius were massacred on the first day. In fact, Theodosius was (probably) saved
by the fact that some of the Western troops defected to him.

All throughout the 4th century Roman authors comment on the prowess in battle of the Germanic tribes (veriously termed Germanic/Gauls), and almost put them in a class of their own. Indeed, many of the most prestigious, elite and oldest units are of Germanic origin, have Germanic names and sometimes also wore German emblems.

So I feel that for the Romans the Germans (and the troops that faced them) quickly became the measuring stick just as Alexander, Hannibal and Napoleon have become the measuring stick for battlefield commanders

I hope I have made a good plea...

Harm

You have to judge a warrior by the world at the time. Yes the Spartans were great warriors, so the Mongels - but how would either stand up to a company of US Marines today?

Throwing spears vs a SAW is not much of a contest.

The Roman Legion had great discipline - but how would the legion have done against a US Civil War 12 pounder Napoleon? Especially, at 100 yards firing double canister?

Each in their own time, gentlemen, each in their own time.

Okay,
I will reply this way: If I am taking 35 guys with me anywhere at any time, (Dr Who style), to throw down with 35 other guys and we are going to be armed equally, I am taking 35 Spartans.

Shaun

EDIT: Okay, it is the next morning. Thinking about it, I would take Navy Seals. They would probably out wiegh your average Spartan by at least 40 pounds and probably be an average of 6 inches taller. That, and they have the benefit of 2000 years worth of better diet going for them. I am really over thinking this now, aren't I?

Interesting question.... in fact, we have a figure campaign later this year which will be broaching this very subject. Check out the "Masters of Battle" campaign HERE

I highly recommend "Masters of Battle" by John Wilcox (ISBN 1-85409-454-8).

Basicly he has seperated all into differrent warrior classes and come to the following conclusions:

1. The Marines (the Vikings of the north)
2. The Artillerymen (the Longbowmen of England)
3. The Skirmishers (the Riflemen of Saratoga)
4. The Spearmen (the Zulus of Isandlwana)
5. The Privateers (the Kaiser's U-Boat Captains)
6. The Armoured Ones (Hitler's Panzer Commanders)

I'm afraid I'm somewhat biased by this book now, and have to agree with most of his conclusions.

My 0.02zar

Rudi

I apologize, I thought I had clarified it enough. Keenan hit it on the head. I meant that if you were to take into account the role of the warriors and thier weapons as they related to thier own timeframes ( not spears vs SAWs ) but how would they rate?

Example: Roman legions made great and revolutionary advances in tactics in thier time. Totally changing the face of warfare. German panzer units of WWII did the same with tactics such as blitzkrieg. My question is which then looking from that perspective would in your opinion be superior?

Not just in that instance but throughout history. Did the Spartans employ technology as much as the Romans? Who had the hardest training? (duration, level of practice with weapons, etc.) Were the Greeks able to better use amphibious warfare than say U.S. Marines?


I hope this helps. I wasn't rying to confuse everyone!

Well, this ceratinly confuses things now! :-) I doubt you'll get a conclusive answer as it's unlikely without a lot of analysis and explanations.

I doubt that we could conclude in such a forum if the Spartans were betters users of technology than the Romans, and if they were not, how this made them inferior?

I think effectivity is probably the only benchmark when it comes to soldiers, and even then isn't really conclusive as terrain and tactics have a strong influence, both of which are not the fault of the soldier.

Size isn't everything - what about 35 Gurkhas?

Any Aussie with a slab (that's a carton of beer) uner one arm and a cricket bat in the other.
Oi! What you looking you at mate....

:-)

Personally I think the romans provided the best war machine /troops , in context over the ages.
They combined tactial movements with small unit loyalty. Fearsome combination.

The topic gives us "Armchair Generals" much fodder to speculate - SEALS vs Spartans, Roman Legion vs black powder. Each period has its warriors of note - the Plains Indians taking on and defeating the US Cavalry.

The fact of the matter is - "Each in their own time, gentlemen, each in their own time"

reading down through the thread Gurkha's was in my head from the word go, some mean little tykes there :-)


redleg

What a great topic!!!

Hellbent, when you say "best warriors" do you mean both physically and spiritually?

The meaning of the best warrior to me mean self-discpline, self-sacrifice, loyalty, honor, and courage.

Yes in history there are plenty of fierce fighters that has conquered the world, but I'm not sure if they are the best.

IMHO, the "best" warriors are the Japanese samurais. There are no other warriors still influence modern societies like the samurais do.

Samurais might not be the best "conquerer", but they left a legacy long after their time. Teamwork, respect, passions, crafts, art, literature (samurais are not just sword wielding, but famous poets and artists), self-discpline...

So... to me samurais are the "best warriors" as they have never ending strife toward life.

WC

I think if you want to look at how a type of soldier influenced thinking as a whole outside of strict military circles, it'll be the Spartans again. Meritocracy and its development into democracy was heavily influenced by the Spartans.

Many of the same things can be said of the Germans, with their "Gefolgschaft" (Chiefdom) principle... where status was largely based on performance... it was a meritoctracy.

The Spartans themselves were absolutely not democratic at all. One of the first things they did when defeating Athens was toss out democracy. Sparta very much was an aristocracy, where honor was everything... IMHO rather then a meritocracy. One could argue that democratic Athens was much more of a meritocracy then Sparta...

Modern democracy, it seems, is largely a mixture of the Greek ideal with a lot of influence form Germanic principles as well. Note BTW that Iceland is the oldest democracy still in existence to this day, and its beginnings had nothing at all tro do with the Greeks (it was a purely Viking thing).

Sounds like an interesting book. I might argure a couple of choices. Like maybe the British Rifle soldiers in the Pennisular were as good as the Riflemen at Saratoga. For that matter American Indians were pretty excellent skirmishers. If they were going to include Privateers then some mention should have been made for regular navy skippers, which of course the U-boat skippers were, you'd be hard pressed to beat the ship's captains under Nelson, and the Royal Navy in general, durring the Napleonic wars.

As an aside has anybody else noticed that one group from history that is conspicuous by it's absense, at least to me, is the French Imperial Guard. Not to start a whole new thread, at least not yet,but I kind of think they were pretty overrated. I know a lot of people are big fans of them and I'm a little surprised nobody mentioned then.

What you mean with that? Most viking where farmers, who went out on war/plunder/trade (observe trade) now and then, not as a full time work. I know that vikings were very high seen as bodyguard in some places, but I believe that was more individual vikings, not the average one.

Also I think one should remember that the picture most people have of vikings today is the picture written down by Christian writers on the European continent, whom had been victims for the vikings plunder.

I´m not trying to say that vikings where bad fighters, just trying to make the picture of them a bit more colour full and notas black and white as it sadly is.

Excuse me if i went to much OT

Give me 35 good Maori soldiers and I'll meet you both anywhere

The Maori gave the British the runaround for years in the C19th and delivered a few good lessons in guerilla warfare, not to mention set piece tactics.

Their reputation on the battlefields of both World Wars - not to mention subsequent deployments of the NZ Army (Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, etc) - was that of formidable opponents, steadfast allies (you really want these guys on your side...) and magnanimous victors.

Just make sure we get a few dozen beer after the battle, plus a couple of pigs for the hangi and a guitar for the singalong...

kia kaha

acav out

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.