Warrior Cultures for individuals fighting has probably got to be the Japanese Samurai.
For Armies then it has to be the Spartans. People mentioning the Roman Phalanx etc well that was a copy of the Spartan Phalanx. The Original is virtually always the best :P
The Romans themselves were a mixed bag. Their army was beaten on numerous occasions they just rarely lost the War. Rome was sacked more than once and was also not sacked a couple of times when the enemy were at the gates. And although it did have a paid standing army i would hardly put them down as a "warrior culture".
To the people arguing about Lee v Grant/ Washington. Well Lee was by far the better natural tactician and leader of men than Grant was. He also made way better use of the resources that he had than the North ever did. The North won mainly because of Drafting no? (Not American so could be wrong :P) As well as having the resources to create the standing armies which the South didn't have.
He was also better than Washington. People forget that the British weren't officially beaten. They gave up the colonies due to financial restrictions and the alliance the US made with France. They had decided that India and the Carribean were richer pickings than the American Colonies.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Mongels, their diplomacy was surrender or we will kill everyone and pile your heads of every man, women and child into heaps for the world to see. They destroyed entire civilzations and cultures. While not the only ones to do this, the number of slaughters and complete descrutiveness of their empire is unrivaled. There are entire cultures erased from history because of the mongels. Though tactic wise all they did to destroy empires from china to poland/gemany was attack, retreat and when the enemies charged their "fleeing" armies turn around and reform their lines and pepper with arrows. Run some more and when teh enemys charge started to look like a backwards retreat you crush them. Rinse, repeat, world conquest.
Romans and Persians conquered a nice size hunk of the world (about 1/3 of what the mongels did I believe) and held power for a considerable amount of time. But they did so through diplomacy more than military might, they allowed diplomacy to reign supreme. Which gave their empires quit a bit more staying power.
Spartans held a very high "State over the individual" belief that puts them high on the list, to them war was more of a game than anything. To be played and replayed every spring with their rivial greeks, but attack their friendly enemies and the gloves came off.
Japan doesn't even score all that high with me really, their society was very well balanced between the different classes. Warriors fought each other, farmeres farmed for whoever their current "leader" was, diplomates created alot of hot air.
Mongolian empire would of crushed Romans had they not been seperated by 1000 years of time, Rome would of lined up in rank and file and the mongels would of peppered them with arrows until they were forced to break ranks and charge, to which the ongels would anwser with more arrows, and more arrows, till the romans would of become disorganized. They did it time and time again.
As for Washington vrs Lee. Lee hands down, Washington wasn't even teh best General in the Revolution, only the one in charge. The French and Germany supplied us with a couple of really great liasons to help us fight the british and train our standing militaries. Washington was choosen more for the fact that he could be trusted to follow orders and because he was North American born more so than his tactics. Benidict Arnold would have been our greatest general most likely had he not switched sides, while I dont agree with what he did the buracracy of the early federation annoyed him to no ends. Having all the credit of his work he accomplished for the nation taken from him and given to others would do that to many.
To the people arguing about Lee v Grant/ Washington. Well Lee was by far the better natural tactician and leader of men than Grant was. He also made way better use of the resources that he had than the North ever did. The North won mainly because of Drafting no? (Not American so could be wrong :P) As well as having the resources to create the standing armies which the South didn't have.
He was also better than Washington. People forget that the British weren't officially beaten. They gave up the colonies due to financial restrictions and the alliance the US made with France. They had decided that India and the Carribean were richer pickings than the American Colonies.
"He also made way better use of the resources that he had than the North ever did. The North won mainly because of Drafting no?"
No, the South's draft sucked in a corrupt system, that's a key to why they lost. Quite a few of the rebels didn't even want to fight in the first place. No wonder they were undermanned; half of the Southern men didn't even want to fight and tried hard to get out, while a rich man could send one slave in his place as well and lets face it; there were a LOT of slaveowners- so they send a slave to fight who stands to GAIN from LOSING the war? Retarded.
Soldier's Life Confederate Draft "Not For Everyone" April 16, 1862
The first general American military draft was enacted by the Confederate government on April 16, 1862, more than a year before the federal government did the same. The Confederacy took this step because it had to; its territory was being assailed on every front by overwhelming numbers, and the defending armies needed men to fill the ranks. The compulsory-service law was very unpopular in the South because it was viewed as a usurpation of the rights of individuals by the central government, one of the reasons the South went to war in the first place.
Under the Conscription Act, all healthy white men between the ages of 18 and 35 were liable for a three-year term of service. The act also extended the terms of enlistment for all one-year soldiers to three years. A September 1862 amendment raised the age limit to 45, and in February 1864, the age limits were extended to range between 17 and 50. Exempted from the draft were men employed in certain occupations considered to be most valuable for the home front, such as railroad and river workers, civil officials, telegraph operators, miners, druggists, and teachers. On October 11, the Confederate Congress amended the draft law to exempt anyone who owned 20 or more slaves. Further, until the practice was abolished in December 1863, a rich drafted man could hire a substitute to take his place in the ranks, an unfair practice that brought on charges of class discrimination.
Many Southerners, including the governors of Georgia and North Carolina, were vehemently opposed to the draft and worked to thwart its effect in their states. Thousands of men were exempted by the sham addition of their names to the civil servant rolls or by their enlistment in the state militias. One general described a militia regiment from one of these states as having "3 field officers, 4 staff officers, 10 captains, 30 lieutenants, and 1 private with a misery in his bowels." Ninety-two percent of all exemptions for state service came from Georgia and North Carolina.
Fascinating Fact: In the last year of the war, more than one fourth of the Confederate soldiers in the eastern armies had been drafted.
Lee gets a lot of credit for his underdog victories which were deeds numbers wise, but there is always another side to that equation. In Lee's case, he often fought against bungling Northern generals for years until Grant got put in charge. Once Grant was put in total control of the Northern Armies, Lee surrended one year later, as it would be anytime a competent leader is in charge of superior numbers. One can only imagine just how much faster that victory would have came if Grant had been placed in charge in the first place.
Lee graduated second from West Point and his biggest victory came against Hooker, who graduated in the bottom half of his. Lee had complete and total control of the Confederate forces, no matter the size. So ultimately the fail was his. He made quite a few mistakes of his own that crippled his army far worse than the Union army was responsible for. The eventual downfall of the rebels was primarily because of his own ego.
Some folks say "Well, the North just threw numbers at the South and wasted resources." Duh... hello? What do you think an army with more resources and manpower typically does? When troops are expendable, you expend them. When they are not, you save your forces. Look at the United States as a whole for that example.
We threw thousands of undergunned Sherman tanks vs the Germans Tigers and Panzers. We knew it would take several Shermans to beat one Panzer, but we had the numbers so we did it. D-Day. In Vietnam, we dropped tonnage like you wouldn't believe because we tried to bomb them into submission and had plenty of firepower, yet on the ground we wasted troops left and right. Every war in American history is pretty much like that. Lee did the same thing at Antietam, so he's no different. The difference was, he should have been smart enough to realize he didn't have that resource pool to commit those numbers. That's a serious fail.
Not sure how you say Washington didn't beat British Army, then say they "gave up". In most circles of warfare when you give up, that is an acknowledgement of being beaten. It's called retreat.
Vikings. Pretty sure they didn't consider diplomacy, but neither did they probably have any military training either... In a fight between all the different options I don't think vikings would stand a chance with their crude weapons and tactics. But vikings are simply the most awesome anyway.
To the people arguing about Lee v Grant/ Washington. Well Lee was by far the better natural tactician and leader of men than Grant was. He also made way better use of the resources that he had than the North ever did. The North won mainly because of Drafting no? (Not American so could be wrong :P) As well as having the resources to create the standing armies which the South didn't have.
He was also better than Washington. People forget that the British weren't officially beaten. They gave up the colonies due to financial restrictions and the alliance the US made with France. They had decided that India and the Carribean were richer pickings than the American Colonies.
"He also made way better use of the resources that he had than the North ever did. The North won mainly because of Drafting no?"
No, the South's draft sucked in a corrupt system, that's a key to why they lost. Quite a few of the rebels didn't even want to fight in the first place. No wonder they were undermanned; half of the Southern men didn't even want to fight and tried hard to get out, while a rich man could send one slave in his place as well and lets face it; there were a LOT of slaveowners- so they send a slave to fight who stands to GAIN from LOSING the war? Retarded.
Soldier's Life
Confederate Draft "Not For Everyone" April 16, 1862
The first general American military draft was enacted by the Confederate government on April 16, 1862, more than a year before the federal government did the same. The Confederacy took this step because it had to; its territory was being assailed on every front by overwhelming numbers, and the defending armies needed men to fill the ranks. The compulsory-service law was very unpopular in the South because it was viewed as a usurpation of the rights of individuals by the central government, one of the reasons the South went to war in the first place.
Under the Conscription Act, all healthy white men between the ages of 18 and 35 were liable for a three-year term of service. The act also extended the terms of enlistment for all one-year soldiers to three years. A September 1862 amendment raised the age limit to 45, and in February 1864, the age limits were extended to range between 17 and 50. Exempted from the draft were men employed in certain occupations considered to be most valuable for the home front, such as railroad and river workers, civil officials, telegraph operators, miners, druggists, and teachers. On October 11, the Confederate Congress amended the draft law to exempt anyone who owned 20 or more slaves. Further, until the practice was abolished in December 1863, a rich drafted man could hire a substitute to take his place in the ranks, an unfair practice that brought on charges of class discrimination.
Many Southerners, including the governors of Georgia and North Carolina, were vehemently opposed to the draft and worked to thwart its effect in their states. Thousands of men were exempted by the sham addition of their names to the civil servant rolls or by their enlistment in the state militias. One general described a militia regiment from one of these states as having "3 field officers, 4 staff officers, 10 captains, 30 lieutenants, and 1 private with a misery in his bowels." Ninety-two percent of all exemptions for state service came from Georgia and North Carolina.
Fascinating Fact: In the last year of the war, more than one fourth of the Confederate soldiers in the eastern armies had been drafted.
Lee gets a lot of credit for his underdog victories which were deeds numbers wise, but there is always another side to that equation. In Lee's case, he often fought against bungling Northern generals for years until Grant got put in charge. Once Grant was put in total control of the Northern Armies, Lee surrended one year later, as it would be anytime a competent leader is in charge of superior numbers. One can only imagine just how much faster that victory would have came if Grant had been placed in charge in the first place.
Lee graduated second from West Point and his biggest victory came against Hooker, who graduated in the bottom half of his. Lee had complete and total control of the Confederate forces, no matter the size. So ultimately the fail was his. He made quite a few mistakes of his own that crippled his army far worse than the Union army was responsible for. The eventual downfall of the rebels was primarily because of his own ego.
Some folks say "Well, the North just threw numbers at the South and wasted resources." Duh... hello? What do you think an army with more resources and manpower typically does? When troops are expendable, you expend them. When they are not, you save your forces. Look at the United States as a whole for that example.
We threw thousands of undergunned Sherman tanks vs the Germans Tigers and Panzers. We knew it would take several Shermans to beat one Panzer, but we had the numbers so we did it. D-Day. In Vietnam, we dropped tonnage like you wouldn't believe because we tried to bomb them into submission and had plenty of firepower, yet on the ground we wasted troops left and right. Every war in American history is pretty much like that. Lee did the same thing at Antietam, so he's no different. The difference was, he should have been smart enough to realize he didn't have that resource pool to commit those numbers. That's a serious fail.
Not sure how you say Washington didn't beat British Army, then say they "gave up". In most circles of warfare when you give up, that is an acknowledgement of being beaten. It's called retreat.
And yet even at the end Grant tokk loss after loss after loss. It was just that Lee could not replace his losses and so when they did the tunnel and exploded the confedrates lines that was it. They were totaly demoralized and the North won. Remember Grant had been disgraced at one from the military. But he was ruthless and would not stop and thats why Lincoln liked him. O and Lee's house and lands are now known as Arlingthon National cemetrey.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
O and Lee's house and lands are now known as Arlingthon National cemetrey.
Pretty cool fact, I did not know this.
hehe, yea. As a punishment they seized his land and turned it into a massive graveyard. It became the most famous American graveyard and place of honor in our history. About as ironic as putting Jackson's mug on the 20 if you ask me.
**For those that dont know who Jackson was, he was a president of ours that dimantled the federal banking system and government banking, he also tried to completely remove all forms of paper money from circulation with the old fasion coins of yester year
Ok so after talking to my old teacher today and looking back at the question I don't think the Romans could be a warrior cultural. Imo just the Zulu, Mongols, Spartans,, vikings maybe Aztecs, and a few of the Chinese dynatsys could be a true warrior cultural. The Romans were conquerors and very strong economicaly. They were hardly a warrior cultural just a strong nation. I would say that Japan fighting was more like honor then being a pure warrior. I know it sounds strange but I just can't connect the two imo.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Ok so after talking to my old teacher today and looking back at the question I don't think the Romans could be a warrior cultural. Imo just the Zulu, Mongols, Spartans,, vikings maybe Aztecs, and a few of the Chinese dynatsys could be a true warrior cultural. The Romans were conquerors and very strong economicaly. They were hardly a warrior cultural just a strong nation. I would say that Japan fighting was more like honor then being a pure warrior. I know it sounds strange but I just can't connect the two imo.
I disagree, the Romans were especially a warrior culture during the begining and high points of their Republic and Empire. Before the Marian Reforms which reformed the army and included landless lower classes, the standard Roman warrior was a land-owner capable of supplying their arms, not unlike the Greeks and their Hoplites. This was intentional, as a land-owning Roman was considered more loyal and dedicated because he had something additional to fight for. This aspect of military service was so central to Roman thought that Mars, the Roman god of war, was transformed from the Greek Ares into being also a god of farming. This dual nature, farmer and warrior, was central to the warrior culture of the citizen-soldier. But this was only the infancy of Rome's warrior culture.
After the Marian Reforms it only got more extreme. Military service was not something to be avoided, but embraced. If an elligable citizen could serve but didn't, it brought extreme shame and disgrace on him and his family. Roman soldiers were rewarded for their dedication with land and accolades, and especially pride. Indeed, even after military service, it was considered a point of great honor for a veteran to be able to display his awards of service at public functions. Military service was very much a path towards social advancement; for landless citizens, they would ultimately be rewarded with property and the station that came with it; for non-Romans auxiliaries, they would be rewarded with full Roman citizenship and its attendant benefits.
The focus on the military extended up through Roman nobility. Militar service was a prerequisite for almost any career a noble might desire, especially politics. The more spectacular the career, the better the opportunities for political advancement afterwards.
In many ways, Rome required continual conquest to feed its military. The only way to acheive that constant expansion was a warrior culture that viewed war and training for war as necessities and even desirable to other forms of life. We must remember that after the Marian Reforms, service lasted around 16 years, and after Augustus, 20 or more. That is two decades of living as soldiers, fighting and training as soldiers. All this under the incredibly brutal regime of Roman training. Any culture in which the average citizen spends two decades in the military before retiring back to civilian life living on the proceeds of that military life (land, status, political appointments), is in my opinion, a true warrior culture.
Hey, has anyone seen this new series on SpikeTV called Deadliest Warrior? It creates hypothetical battles between warriors of some of the greatest warrior cultures. Here are a couple of videos. I thought it was pretty interesting. Of course, as I said, it's simply hypothetical, so there's no way to know for sure.
Hey, has anyone seen this new series on SpikeTV called Deadliest Warrior? It creates hypothetical battles between warriors of some of the greatest warrior cultures. Here are a couple of videos. I thought it was pretty interesting. Of course, as I said, it's simply hypothetical, so there's no way to know for sure. Viking vs Samurai Spartan vs Ninja
Watching the videos now, but I imagine it'll go in Japans favor for the deadliest warriors. However great warriors doesn't mean a strong warrior culture which is what the original topic was asking.
One on one id go with the japanese as their warriors only fought and relied on the other class of people to build, cook, manage, and everything else a society needs. Overall culture the greeks and the vikings beat Japan as warriors, everyone was expected to be a warrior. They had to, they weren't just fighting themselves but quite often they had to defend from foreigners who might very well kill off every man, women and child they came across.
Which civilization had the greatest warrior culture in history?
The Spartans since all Spartan males were full-time soldiers - war was their culture. A runner up would be the Hun because under Attila, the Hun leadership was based on merit and not nobility, which is the system used in todays modern military.
As far as which was the most likely to go to war rather than engage in diplomacy to acheive their goals?
Viking, Hun, and Mongol were all raiders so their only goal was to plunder and pillage no diplomacy unless it was a tribute not to pillage and plunder.
If they fought one another, which civilization's soldier do you think would be most like to come out on top?
If they were allowed to wear and use their full equipment - an archer on horseback (the Hun and Mongols) would beat most of the fighters whose strength came from formation fighting. The Samurai would fare best of all because, in addition to wearing effective armor, they were trained with longbows, composite bows (on horseback), spears, and swords. They had an all around knowledge and the weapon training that would be lethal at close range and far.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
The armoured knight was the pinnacle of battlefield technology prior to gunpowder.
No light cavalry could stand against it. Sorry Genghis.
Laminate armour is a joke by comparison. Sorry Tojo.
Backed by superior wealth and land management the armoured knight was able to project his power anywhere.
Wherever the armoured knight went, he conquored. From Jerusalem to London. It took gunpowder to stop him, and since I'm not allowed to choose gunpowder users, I'll stop one technology before.
Pop over to France sometime and check out some of the walled cities. Strasbourg and it's flooding defences. Giant earthworks that would flood an entire valley should the Germans attempt seige.
Of all the knights of the round table Lancelot du Lac was the greatest.
The greatest warrior from the greatest war machine prior to gunpowder. Chivalry the warrior code born from that era is still used today. It exists still, both in terms of good manners and daily routine and on the battlefield as an honour code amongst fighting men.
I would have to say Feudal Japanese. Not because I am a Ninja, but many studied deeply with the art of combat and weapons. Samurai would pratice and study being a swords men where drawing a sword would be faster than a western pulling out a pistol. Also you can't forget about the tools they used. Then there is the ninja who had tools of their own. Tools that even are not really known, because they are not visible in the "modern ninja" people know today, "such as Naturo, Ninja Gaiden, etc.". Tenchu made it close, but still missed a lot.
Now I could be wrong here, but I think Japan was 2nd in getting that gunpowder too from China. I could be wrong on this though.
I would have to say Feudal Japanese. Not because I am a Ninja, but many studied deeply with the art of combat and weapons. Samurai would pratice and study being a swords men where drawing a sword would be faster than a western pulling out a pistol. Also you can't forget about the tools they used. Then there is the ninja who had tools of their own. Tools that even are not really known, because they are not visible in the "modern ninja" people know today, "such as Naturo, Ninja Gaiden, etc.". Tenchu made it close, but still missed a lot. Now I could be wrong here, but I think Japan was 2nd in getting that gunpowder too from China. I could be wrong on this though.
I really feal sorry for whoever goes to war with Japan any time soon. The first war Japan ever lost was to the Allies in WWII. I have trained with some of the JDF and they still believe in the old system and warrior codes. If you have actually shed blood in combat they kiss your ass like nothing else. They showed all of us how to eat as if we were Samurai class, talk down to those who were not Soldiers or Marines and pretty much showed us how dominate the culture still is. The JDF is going to put a hurting on North Korea if we ever let them.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". No one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but life and liberty are said to only exist if they are deliberately sought and paid for".
I would have to say Feudal Japanese. Not because I am a Ninja, but many studied deeply with the art of combat and weapons. Samurai would pratice and study being a swords men where drawing a sword would be faster than a western pulling out a pistol. Also you can't forget about the tools they used. Then there is the ninja who had tools of their own. Tools that even are not really known, because they are not visible in the "modern ninja" people know today, "such as Naturo, Ninja Gaiden, etc.". Tenchu made it close, but still missed a lot. Now I could be wrong here, but I think Japan was 2nd in getting that gunpowder too from China. I could be wrong on this though.
You know, I saw a show on the Discovery Channel about the Samurai sword and how it is forged and I must say, it seems to me to be close to the most perfect hand weapon ever made. The ideal combination of strength, speed and balance. Of course, that doesn't necessarily translate into the best warrior, but it sure is a big advantage.
I would have to say Feudal Japanese. Not because I am a Ninja, but many studied deeply with the art of combat and weapons. Samurai would pratice and study being a swords men where drawing a sword would be faster than a western pulling out a pistol. Also you can't forget about the tools they used. Then there is the ninja who had tools of their own. Tools that even are not really known, because they are not visible in the "modern ninja" people know today, "such as Naturo, Ninja Gaiden, etc.". Tenchu made it close, but still missed a lot. Now I could be wrong here, but I think Japan was 2nd in getting that gunpowder too from China. I could be wrong on this though.
You know, I saw a show on the Discovery Channel about the Samurai sword and how it is forged and I must say, it seems to me to be close to the most perfect hand weapon ever made. The ideal combination of strength, speed and balance. Of course, that doesn't necessarily translate into the best warrior, but it sure is a big advantage.
It's not quite as spectacular as popular culture would believe. It's true, such weapons were outstanding for their time and style of warfare, but the beloved katana is actually quite fragile. You can, in fact, bend the average katana sideways with little effort. Their strength is incredible when dealing with cutting, but sideways they are not so sturdy. I've even heard you could do it with your bare hands if you protected your hand from the cutting area, though I have never seen anyone try and this may also be a bit of exageration. And the things can't cut through absolutely anything. They can cut through, you know, people, but things like plate armor and such are just myths. They'd probably break just thinking about it.
Also of note, the process of forging a Japanese blade was so exacting and good at strengthening the blade because Japanese iron ore in medieval Japan was....kind of bad. The outstanding manufacturing process was in part to make up for the crappy ore quality.
But damn, do they cut through people and light armor well.
Comments
Warrior Cultures for individuals fighting has probably got to be the Japanese Samurai.
For Armies then it has to be the Spartans. People mentioning the Roman Phalanx etc well that was a copy of the Spartan Phalanx. The Original is virtually always the best :P
The Romans themselves were a mixed bag. Their army was beaten on numerous occasions they just rarely lost the War. Rome was sacked more than once and was also not sacked a couple of times when the enemy were at the gates. And although it did have a paid standing army i would hardly put them down as a "warrior culture".
To the people arguing about Lee v Grant/ Washington. Well Lee was by far the better natural tactician and leader of men than Grant was. He also made way better use of the resources that he had than the North ever did. The North won mainly because of Drafting no? (Not American so could be wrong :P) As well as having the resources to create the standing armies which the South didn't have.
He was also better than Washington. People forget that the British weren't officially beaten. They gave up the colonies due to financial restrictions and the alliance the US made with France. They had decided that India and the Carribean were richer pickings than the American Colonies.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Mongels, their diplomacy was surrender or we will kill everyone and pile your heads of every man, women and child into heaps for the world to see. They destroyed entire civilzations and cultures. While not the only ones to do this, the number of slaughters and complete descrutiveness of their empire is unrivaled. There are entire cultures erased from history because of the mongels. Though tactic wise all they did to destroy empires from china to poland/gemany was attack, retreat and when the enemies charged their "fleeing" armies turn around and reform their lines and pepper with arrows. Run some more and when teh enemys charge started to look like a backwards retreat you crush them. Rinse, repeat, world conquest.
Romans and Persians conquered a nice size hunk of the world (about 1/3 of what the mongels did I believe) and held power for a considerable amount of time. But they did so through diplomacy more than military might, they allowed diplomacy to reign supreme. Which gave their empires quit a bit more staying power.
Spartans held a very high "State over the individual" belief that puts them high on the list, to them war was more of a game than anything. To be played and replayed every spring with their rivial greeks, but attack their friendly enemies and the gloves came off.
Japan doesn't even score all that high with me really, their society was very well balanced between the different classes. Warriors fought each other, farmeres farmed for whoever their current "leader" was, diplomates created alot of hot air.
Mongolian empire would of crushed Romans had they not been seperated by 1000 years of time, Rome would of lined up in rank and file and the mongels would of peppered them with arrows until they were forced to break ranks and charge, to which the ongels would anwser with more arrows, and more arrows, till the romans would of become disorganized. They did it time and time again.
As for Washington vrs Lee. Lee hands down, Washington wasn't even teh best General in the Revolution, only the one in charge. The French and Germany supplied us with a couple of really great liasons to help us fight the british and train our standing militaries. Washington was choosen more for the fact that he could be trusted to follow orders and because he was North American born more so than his tactics. Benidict Arnold would have been our greatest general most likely had he not switched sides, while I dont agree with what he did the buracracy of the early federation annoyed him to no ends. Having all the credit of his work he accomplished for the nation taken from him and given to others would do that to many.
"He also made way better use of the resources that he had than the North ever did. The North won mainly because of Drafting no?"
No, the South's draft sucked in a corrupt system, that's a key to why they lost. Quite a few of the rebels didn't even want to fight in the first place. No wonder they were undermanned; half of the Southern men didn't even want to fight and tried hard to get out, while a rich man could send one slave in his place as well and lets face it; there were a LOT of slaveowners- so they send a slave to fight who stands to GAIN from LOSING the war? Retarded.
Lee gets a lot of credit for his underdog victories which were deeds numbers wise, but there is always another side to that equation. In Lee's case, he often fought against bungling Northern generals for years until Grant got put in charge. Once Grant was put in total control of the Northern Armies, Lee surrended one year later, as it would be anytime a competent leader is in charge of superior numbers. One can only imagine just how much faster that victory would have came if Grant had been placed in charge in the first place.
Lee graduated second from West Point and his biggest victory came against Hooker, who graduated in the bottom half of his. Lee had complete and total control of the Confederate forces, no matter the size. So ultimately the fail was his. He made quite a few mistakes of his own that crippled his army far worse than the Union army was responsible for. The eventual downfall of the rebels was primarily because of his own ego.
Some folks say "Well, the North just threw numbers at the South and wasted resources." Duh... hello? What do you think an army with more resources and manpower typically does? When troops are expendable, you expend them. When they are not, you save your forces. Look at the United States as a whole for that example.
We threw thousands of undergunned Sherman tanks vs the Germans Tigers and Panzers. We knew it would take several Shermans to beat one Panzer, but we had the numbers so we did it. D-Day. In Vietnam, we dropped tonnage like you wouldn't believe because we tried to bomb them into submission and had plenty of firepower, yet on the ground we wasted troops left and right. Every war in American history is pretty much like that. Lee did the same thing at Antietam, so he's no different. The difference was, he should have been smart enough to realize he didn't have that resource pool to commit those numbers. That's a serious fail.
Not sure how you say Washington didn't beat British Army, then say they "gave up". In most circles of warfare when you give up, that is an acknowledgement of being beaten. It's called retreat.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Vikings. Pretty sure they didn't consider diplomacy, but neither did they probably have any military training either... In a fight between all the different options I don't think vikings would stand a chance with their crude weapons and tactics. But vikings are simply the most awesome anyway.
"He also made way better use of the resources that he had than the North ever did. The North won mainly because of Drafting no?"
No, the South's draft sucked in a corrupt system, that's a key to why they lost. Quite a few of the rebels didn't even want to fight in the first place. No wonder they were undermanned; half of the Southern men didn't even want to fight and tried hard to get out, while a rich man could send one slave in his place as well and lets face it; there were a LOT of slaveowners- so they send a slave to fight who stands to GAIN from LOSING the war? Retarded.
Lee gets a lot of credit for his underdog victories which were deeds numbers wise, but there is always another side to that equation. In Lee's case, he often fought against bungling Northern generals for years until Grant got put in charge. Once Grant was put in total control of the Northern Armies, Lee surrended one year later, as it would be anytime a competent leader is in charge of superior numbers. One can only imagine just how much faster that victory would have came if Grant had been placed in charge in the first place.
Lee graduated second from West Point and his biggest victory came against Hooker, who graduated in the bottom half of his. Lee had complete and total control of the Confederate forces, no matter the size. So ultimately the fail was his. He made quite a few mistakes of his own that crippled his army far worse than the Union army was responsible for. The eventual downfall of the rebels was primarily because of his own ego.
Some folks say "Well, the North just threw numbers at the South and wasted resources." Duh... hello? What do you think an army with more resources and manpower typically does? When troops are expendable, you expend them. When they are not, you save your forces. Look at the United States as a whole for that example.
We threw thousands of undergunned Sherman tanks vs the Germans Tigers and Panzers. We knew it would take several Shermans to beat one Panzer, but we had the numbers so we did it. D-Day. In Vietnam, we dropped tonnage like you wouldn't believe because we tried to bomb them into submission and had plenty of firepower, yet on the ground we wasted troops left and right. Every war in American history is pretty much like that. Lee did the same thing at Antietam, so he's no different. The difference was, he should have been smart enough to realize he didn't have that resource pool to commit those numbers. That's a serious fail.
Not sure how you say Washington didn't beat British Army, then say they "gave up". In most circles of warfare when you give up, that is an acknowledgement of being beaten. It's called retreat.
And yet even at the end Grant tokk loss after loss after loss. It was just that Lee could not replace his losses and so when they did the tunnel and exploded the confedrates lines that was it. They were totaly demoralized and the North won. Remember Grant had been disgraced at one from the military. But he was ruthless and would not stop and thats why Lincoln liked him. O and Lee's house and lands are now known as Arlingthon National cemetrey.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
"TO MICHAEL!"
hehe, yea. As a punishment they seized his land and turned it into a massive graveyard. It became the most famous American graveyard and place of honor in our history. About as ironic as putting Jackson's mug on the 20 if you ask me.
**For those that dont know who Jackson was, he was a president of ours that dimantled the federal banking system and government banking, he also tried to completely remove all forms of paper money from circulation with the old fasion coins of yester year
Ok so after talking to my old teacher today and looking back at the question I don't think the Romans could be a warrior cultural. Imo just the Zulu, Mongols, Spartans,, vikings maybe Aztecs, and a few of the Chinese dynatsys could be a true warrior cultural. The Romans were conquerors and very strong economicaly. They were hardly a warrior cultural just a strong nation. I would say that Japan fighting was more like honor then being a pure warrior. I know it sounds strange but I just can't connect the two imo.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
I disagree, the Romans were especially a warrior culture during the begining and high points of their Republic and Empire. Before the Marian Reforms which reformed the army and included landless lower classes, the standard Roman warrior was a land-owner capable of supplying their arms, not unlike the Greeks and their Hoplites. This was intentional, as a land-owning Roman was considered more loyal and dedicated because he had something additional to fight for. This aspect of military service was so central to Roman thought that Mars, the Roman god of war, was transformed from the Greek Ares into being also a god of farming. This dual nature, farmer and warrior, was central to the warrior culture of the citizen-soldier. But this was only the infancy of Rome's warrior culture.
After the Marian Reforms it only got more extreme. Military service was not something to be avoided, but embraced. If an elligable citizen could serve but didn't, it brought extreme shame and disgrace on him and his family. Roman soldiers were rewarded for their dedication with land and accolades, and especially pride. Indeed, even after military service, it was considered a point of great honor for a veteran to be able to display his awards of service at public functions. Military service was very much a path towards social advancement; for landless citizens, they would ultimately be rewarded with property and the station that came with it; for non-Romans auxiliaries, they would be rewarded with full Roman citizenship and its attendant benefits.
The focus on the military extended up through Roman nobility. Militar service was a prerequisite for almost any career a noble might desire, especially politics. The more spectacular the career, the better the opportunities for political advancement afterwards.
In many ways, Rome required continual conquest to feed its military. The only way to acheive that constant expansion was a warrior culture that viewed war and training for war as necessities and even desirable to other forms of life. We must remember that after the Marian Reforms, service lasted around 16 years, and after Augustus, 20 or more. That is two decades of living as soldiers, fighting and training as soldiers. All this under the incredibly brutal regime of Roman training. Any culture in which the average citizen spends two decades in the military before retiring back to civilian life living on the proceeds of that military life (land, status, political appointments), is in my opinion, a true warrior culture.
Hey, has anyone seen this new series on SpikeTV called Deadliest Warrior? It creates hypothetical battles between warriors of some of the greatest warrior cultures. Here are a couple of videos. I thought it was pretty interesting. Of course, as I said, it's simply hypothetical, so there's no way to know for sure.
Viking vs Samurai
Spartan vs Ninja
Watching the videos now, but I imagine it'll go in Japans favor for the deadliest warriors. However great warriors doesn't mean a strong warrior culture which is what the original topic was asking.
One on one id go with the japanese as their warriors only fought and relied on the other class of people to build, cook, manage, and everything else a society needs. Overall culture the greeks and the vikings beat Japan as warriors, everyone was expected to be a warrior. They had to, they weren't just fighting themselves but quite often they had to defend from foreigners who might very well kill off every man, women and child they came across.
Posted this before and still interesting to this topic. (podcast)
Hardcore historywww.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive
And an ongoing history of Rome http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/History/European-History/The-History-of-Rome-Podcast/25263
Which civilization had the greatest warrior culture in history?
The Spartans since all Spartan males were full-time soldiers - war was their culture. A runner up would be the Hun because under Attila, the Hun leadership was based on merit and not nobility, which is the system used in todays modern military.
As far as which was the most likely to go to war rather than engage in diplomacy to acheive their goals?
Viking, Hun, and Mongol were all raiders so their only goal was to plunder and pillage no diplomacy unless it was a tribute not to pillage and plunder.
If they fought one another, which civilization's soldier do you think would be most like to come out on top?
If they were allowed to wear and use their full equipment - an archer on horseback (the Hun and Mongols) would beat most of the fighters whose strength came from formation fighting. The Samurai would fare best of all because, in addition to wearing effective armor, they were trained with longbows, composite bows (on horseback), spears, and swords. They had an all around knowledge and the weapon training that would be lethal at close range and far.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
The French.
That's right, you heard me.
The armoured knight was the pinnacle of battlefield technology prior to gunpowder.
No light cavalry could stand against it. Sorry Genghis.
Laminate armour is a joke by comparison. Sorry Tojo.
Backed by superior wealth and land management the armoured knight was able to project his power anywhere.
Wherever the armoured knight went, he conquored. From Jerusalem to London. It took gunpowder to stop him, and since I'm not allowed to choose gunpowder users, I'll stop one technology before.
Pop over to France sometime and check out some of the walled cities. Strasbourg and it's flooding defences. Giant earthworks that would flood an entire valley should the Germans attempt seige.
Of all the knights of the round table Lancelot du Lac was the greatest.
The greatest warrior from the greatest war machine prior to gunpowder. Chivalry the warrior code born from that era is still used today. It exists still, both in terms of good manners and daily routine and on the battlefield as an honour code amongst fighting men.
I would have to say Feudal Japanese. Not because I am a Ninja, but many studied deeply with the art of combat and weapons. Samurai would pratice and study being a swords men where drawing a sword would be faster than a western pulling out a pistol. Also you can't forget about the tools they used. Then there is the ninja who had tools of their own. Tools that even are not really known, because they are not visible in the "modern ninja" people know today, "such as Naturo, Ninja Gaiden, etc.". Tenchu made it close, but still missed a lot.
Now I could be wrong here, but I think Japan was 2nd in getting that gunpowder too from China. I could be wrong on this though.
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
I really feal sorry for whoever goes to war with Japan any time soon. The first war Japan ever lost was to the Allies in WWII. I have trained with some of the JDF and they still believe in the old system and warrior codes. If you have actually shed blood in combat they kiss your ass like nothing else. They showed all of us how to eat as if we were Samurai class, talk down to those who were not Soldiers or Marines and pretty much showed us how dominate the culture still is. The JDF is going to put a hurting on North Korea if we ever let them.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". No one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but life and liberty are said to only exist if they are deliberately sought and paid for".
You know, I saw a show on the Discovery Channel about the Samurai sword and how it is forged and I must say, it seems to me to be close to the most perfect hand weapon ever made. The ideal combination of strength, speed and balance. Of course, that doesn't necessarily translate into the best warrior, but it sure is a big advantage.
You know, I saw a show on the Discovery Channel about the Samurai sword and how it is forged and I must say, it seems to me to be close to the most perfect hand weapon ever made. The ideal combination of strength, speed and balance. Of course, that doesn't necessarily translate into the best warrior, but it sure is a big advantage.
It's not quite as spectacular as popular culture would believe. It's true, such weapons were outstanding for their time and style of warfare, but the beloved katana is actually quite fragile. You can, in fact, bend the average katana sideways with little effort. Their strength is incredible when dealing with cutting, but sideways they are not so sturdy. I've even heard you could do it with your bare hands if you protected your hand from the cutting area, though I have never seen anyone try and this may also be a bit of exageration. And the things can't cut through absolutely anything. They can cut through, you know, people, but things like plate armor and such are just myths. They'd probably break just thinking about it.
Also of note, the process of forging a Japanese blade was so exacting and good at strengthening the blade because Japanese iron ore in medieval Japan was....kind of bad. The outstanding manufacturing process was in part to make up for the crappy ore quality.
But damn, do they cut through people and light armor well.