Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: Greatest warriors in history?

Voters
81. You may not vote on this poll
  • Japanese Samurai

    11 13.58%
  • European Knights

    8 9.88%
  • Mongols

    11 13.58%
  • Huns

    2 2.47%
  • Janissaries

    2 2.47%
  • Roman Gladiators

    7 8.64%
  • Scottish Highlanders

    3 3.70%
  • Vikings

    6 7.41%
  • Musketeers

    0 0%
  • other group of warriors

    31 38.27%
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 182

Thread: Who are the Greatest warriors in history

  1. #1
    The Angel of Justice Zauriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-05
    Location
    Northeast Greenhills, San Juan, Manila, Philippines
    Age
    40
    Posts
    121


    Ethnic group
    Chinese
    Country: Philippines



    Who are the Greatest warriors in history

    Who do you think are the greatest warriors in history? I can't decide which group of warriors are the best, since each group has their own strengths, weaknesses, codes of honor, tactics, fighting skills and weapons.

    I think I'll go for Samurai because they are skilled and ruthless fighters.

    I'm not going to include soldiers from modern history because their new warfare is far more sophisticated.

  2. #2
    Banned nurizeko's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-01-05
    Location
    aberdeen, scotland
    Age
    36
    Posts
    149


    Ethnic group
    Half scottish half Germanic, i got blood from austria, germany, scotland england, im a mongrol.
    Country: United Kingdom



    My vote was completely an utterly bias in favour of where my loyalties lie, as such i have no realy good reason to put them above the rest.


  3. #3
    FIGHTING FOR JPOP Dutch Baka's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-02-05
    Location
    amsterdam
    Age
    36
    Posts
    334


    Ethnic group
    dutch
    Country: Japan-Hyogo



    This is a difficult choice, all of above have the same kind of weapons, but my interest is in Japanese history, so I choose for the Samurai, but if they were the best*that will nobody know*... to bad they were not tested by the Mongols, that would have been a nice fight, (sorry I watch it from a strong , not strong position not about deaths)the Japanese sword was probably one of the strongest (maybe the knight had stronger but heavier swords) and most easy(musketeers had an easier sword, but not as strong as the katana) to use weapons too (am i right)

    were there any foreign samurai's in Japan?

    I kind of miss the sword fights , now its only pressing some button, it's not fair anymore!!!!! at least the old fights were more fair!

    Also I find the Ninja very strong, I mean they still use tactics from the Ninja nowadays. Nice thread you put up

  4. #4
    Regular Member Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    36
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Its a very difficult choice because its not that specific, if i do i a little bit of research even on the ones i do not know very well i can find many honerable things about them, but it depends very much on the time periods we are looking at.
    Before the age of ghengis khan, the mongels had a very unorganised society consisting of scattered tribes, bandits, merchants, common folk and thieves- they were only really interested in their own affairs back then. When ghengis khan came along with his bloody conquests and united the mongels and the vast bulk of the empires and nations in the world at that time, the mongels really came into their own as far as warriors and a new modern society is concerned.
    I certainly wouldn't call the roman gladiaters the best warriors of all time though, any up-to-date historian will tell you now days that most gladiators were just common criminals or poor people dragged off the streets and pitted in the stadiums together to fight it out for their lives, or get slaughtered in a huge variety of barbaric and cruel ways for entertainment often with no hope of survival.
    European knights, well, thats really vague...If you are talking about the english knights of chivalry and morals, well, some knights were very honerable, especially those close to the queen, but most were just thugs who did what they pleased while not called into service and went around murdering each other for their weapons or posessions and similar things.
    Most people view the vikings as migrants who moved to the shores of britain for trade, wealth and more importantly- farming. Yes, most of the vikings were simply tribal lords who heard of the fertile varied lands we have over here, in comparsion to their sparse unfertile soils, and came over here for a better life in general. Its true that some vikings did the whole traditional "lets rampage through the monastarys and kill all the monks, burn the books and steal the relics, tapestries and other priceless items", but this was mostly in the name of funding their oversea's campaigns, but most vikings were simply interested in the farming prospects over here.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    08-10-05
    Posts
    154


    Country: Russian Federation



    Without personal opinion:
    There are two definitions of soldiers:
    - His relation to death...
    - And for what he it makes...
    Also there is " an art of fight "...
    From this also is defined - what it is the soldier...
    Also there is a culture of education of soldiers... And culture of their behaviour...

  6. #6
    The Great Mitsuo's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-01-06
    Location
    In the computer
    Posts
    235


    Country: United States



    I don't know, I have never fought against them. Except that one time when that mongol tripped me on the way to school. A lot of pushing.

    But I chose the Samurai of course. Look at my last name. Anyway, I also think that the gladiators were good.

    Dose damn Mongorians. Jk.lol. South Park joke.

  7. #7
    Azzuro
    Join Date
    12-01-06
    Location
    near Frankfurt
    Posts
    59


    Ethnic group
    Half german half english
    Country: Germany



    Well the most efficient killers on the battlefield was a group formed about 60 years ago ,which members were later hunted down by the allied forces of WWII.
    But then again you would probably see them as criminals rather than warriors ,which is probably right.
    Kommunism is like Carneval in Cologne everyone is drunk an no one works...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    31-10-05
    Location
    Tilburg
    Posts
    65


    Ethnic group
    Dutch from Indonesia
    Country: Netherlands



    Ever since I started learning history at school I have never stopped admiring the Roman Gladiators. Their history still fascinates me up till today.

    And then of course there was Napoleon.

  9. #9
    FIGHTING FOR JPOP Dutch Baka's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-02-05
    Location
    amsterdam
    Age
    36
    Posts
    334


    Ethnic group
    dutch
    Country: Japan-Hyogo



    But napoleon had guns.... mainly

  10. #10
    Azzuro
    Join Date
    12-01-06
    Location
    near Frankfurt
    Posts
    59


    Ethnic group
    Half german half english
    Country: Germany



    So did the Janissaries and the Musketeers or why else would the be could Musketeers ,if they had nothing to do with muskets (guns)?

  11. #11
    FIGHTING FOR JPOP Dutch Baka's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-02-05
    Location
    amsterdam
    Age
    36
    Posts
    334


    Ethnic group
    dutch
    Country: Japan-Hyogo



    THE Musketeers had swords.. the other musketeers had muskets..

  12. #12
    Azzuro
    Join Date
    12-01-06
    Location
    near Frankfurt
    Posts
    59


    Ethnic group
    Half german half english
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Baka
    THE Musketeers had swords.. the other musketeers had muskets..
    Yes but THE Musketeers never existed =)

  13. #13
    FIGHTING FOR JPOP Dutch Baka's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-02-05
    Location
    amsterdam
    Age
    36
    Posts
    334


    Ethnic group
    dutch
    Country: Japan-Hyogo



    For me they did haha.. sorry let this topic remain serious hahaha

  14. #14
    Regular Member Reiku's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-08-04
    Location
    Pismo Beach, CA
    Posts
    138


    Country: United_States



    Well, guns were used by Samurai in the later periods...

    ...and the weapon doesn't really make the warrior, in any event...

    ...as for my opinion:

    Well, we'll never know untill they fight each other--so how about we lift that ban on human cloning and get to work on this?
    Baka ningen.

  15. #15
    Azzuro
    Join Date
    12-01-06
    Location
    near Frankfurt
    Posts
    59


    Ethnic group
    Half german half english
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Baka
    For me they did haha.. sorry let this topic remain serious hahaha
    http://www.online-literature.com/dumas/threemusketeers/

  16. #16
    The Hairy Wookie Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    51
    Posts
    904


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    This is a difficult question to answer. One reason is that under a brilliant leader any of the warriors mentioned could excel on th battlefield. Under an incompetant leader even the best would be defeated and turn and run.
    I wouldn't class gladiators as warriors. They were people that were forced into the arena to fight for entertainment. Most were poor and criminals and many, despite being trained, wouldn't be expected to last too long. Only the smart and wily fighters managed to gain freedom and respect. The only time they ever proved themselves in organised battle was during the slaves revolt, led by Sparticus. After a great many victories, partially due to inept Roman leaders and the large numbers of slaves, the revolt was crushed under Pompey and their corpses lined the Appian way. Which rather shows the point of a professional army, the legionary, under the command of a good general can crush a larger, unorganised rabble. If you want to name the better warriors of this time then I would go for the Roman Legionaires.
    The same can be said for the mongols. Under Genghis Khan they became an orgaised army ,but after his death tribal rivalries took over and they eventually collaspsed and weren't much threat to anyone.
    The there is comparison. How do you compare a Samurai to a European Knight? A samurai has his sword and armour, but it is not as effective as european armour. Samurai armour was made to deflect a katana sword, a light slicing sword. European armour was heavier and made to defect a heavier broadsword. European broadswords were disigned more to break bones and crush rather than cut. After all they had to go through plate armour. European knights on their horses were equivalent to a tank on a battle field, but even they could be bought down by archers; see Agincourt and Crecy. Should also remember that samurai never really fought anyone outside of Japan while other warriors mentioned fought a variety of armies.
    Overall I would say one of the best were the Spartans. Raised from birth to fight, they were one of the most effective fighters of their age. But, as with all warriors and fighters, they had their day and ended up conquered by a more modern army and gradually fell into corruption and inept leaders and fighters.

  17. #17
    The sheriff Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-06-04
    Location
    Grantham
    Age
    33
    Posts
    44


    Ethnic group
    japanese and korean and american
    Country: United Kingdom



    Out of all of them, the mongols and the romans achieved a lot, so i say the mongols.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    36
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    I cannot decide at the moment between the vikings and the mongels...The mongels took over half of the known world at the time of ghengis khan, and were some of the first people recorded to use many of the commonly used tactics of warfare today, they united many nations and empires in peace ironically by using great means of bloodshed, but then again, although some of the things that ghengis khan did in his day would appall and disgust most of us today, he was living in a different time back then when those sorts of things were common practice and resonably acceptable. Most of what drove ghengis khans conquests though as time went by was not the fight for freedom and peace but rather the promise of treasure after he conquered each nation to fund his ever expanding army and to keep it together, and to quell any disagreements from other countries who did not agree with his actions.

    Aside from the occasional monastry slaughter to fund their armys, the vikings came primarily to england for trade and farming to help their people prosper. Unlike ghengis khans people, the vikings people were already quite united when they went on their conquests, but were in danger of falling apart as lords and tribal leaders started to fight each other more and more over the shrinking amount of land available and inheritance to set up their own villages. So in effect they were doing it for the general overall good of their people and the peace of their nation...I guess one of the things you have to ask yourself with these sorts of things, is how noble you consider each warriors cause and how you can justify their actions ...The mongels knew and had confidence they would win their battles almost everytime, but the vikings were always in doubt wether they could make each conquest as they sent their warriors into the unknown harsh sea's everytime for the good of their people...

  19. #19
    The Great Mitsuo's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-01-06
    Location
    In the computer
    Posts
    235


    Country: United States



    the roman empire was quite powerful. the gladiators I admire too, because they fought for their own freedom, I think.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    36
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Mitsuo Oda
    the roman empire was quite powerful. the gladiators I admire too, because they fought for their own freedom, I think.
    The whole fighting for freedom thing is mainly a hollywood notion, the vast majority of gladiators had no hope of suvival let alone freedom, it was mostly just an equivilant to a death sentence in the name of entertainment. Most were just poor people, beggers or petty criminals/thieves dragged off the streets because they often had shortages of real criminals. You also have to remember that hundreds of thousands of christians were massacred in the arena for their beliefs along with many other people of other religeons. Many of the so-called barbarians the romans were fighting were disgusted at a lot of what went on in the roman arena's ironically. You have to remember though this is not a thread about great nations/empires but rather warriors.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    36
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    One of the things i like about ghengis khan empire though, unlike so many nations or empires throughout ancient/old history, is that he was very open-minded about other religeons, and unlike such people like the romans or western knights, every time he conquered a country he let them carry on their own beliefs about religeon rather than massacre anyone who didn't conform to his way of thinking. He increased trade throughout all the countrys he conquered and open up trade between countries where there was no trade before, his people led very prosperous lives during his age, he brought the people together and stopped the fighting that was tearing his homeland mongolia apart, he enforced the morality of and emphasis on loyality and honesty and judged people for who they were rather than what familys or powerful people they were connected too.
    Many of his generals were not people appointed to him because they had good conections or came from a noble family or whatever, but rather because they had showed loyality and respect towards him. His people were loyal to him because of this, and he treated people very fairly as long as they showed loyality to him- and they never broke his trust.

  22. #22
    The Angel of Justice Zauriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-05
    Location
    Northeast Greenhills, San Juan, Manila, Philippines
    Age
    40
    Posts
    121


    Ethnic group
    Chinese
    Country: Philippines



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    One of the things i like about ghengis khan empire though, unlike so many nations or empires throughout ancient/old history, is that he was very open-minded about other religeons, and unlike such people like the romans or western knights, every time he conquered a country he let them carry on their own beliefs about religeon rather than massacre anyone who didn't conform to his way of thinking. He increased trade throughout all the countrys he conquered and open up trade between countries where there was no trade before, his people led very prosperous lives during his age, he brought the people together and stopped the fighting that was tearing his homeland mongolia apart, he enforced the morality of and emphasis on loyality and honesty and judged people for who they were rather than what familys or powerful people they were connected too.
    Many of his generals were not people appointed to him because they had good conections or came from a noble family or whatever, but rather because they had showed loyality and respect towards him. His people were loyal to him because of this, and he treated people very fairly as long as they showed loyality to him- and they never broke his trust.
    QUOTED FOR EMPHASIS!

    I admire Genghis Khan's perspective on the definitions of loyalty and treason.
    Genghis Khan values geniune loyalty in any soldier even on his enemies' sides. And he wouldn't trust especially those who sell his enemies to him. I think he's right. If a soldier can sell his leader to you, then he can sell you to your enemy, too. Traitors have no loyalty to anyone except themselves. How can you trust somebody who always switches sides even though he has changed from your enemies' side to your side?

    The paragraph below is from http://www.leader-values.com/Content...ntDetailID=799

    He recognized the values of his individual enemies. He would put to death a soldier who had tried to be disloyal to their own commander, by, for example, betraying the commander to Genghis. However, he would pardon and even bestow honours and responsibility on those who had fought loyally for their commander - even if against Genghis. In fact one of his most trusted generals, Jebe, was once a young opposing soldier who shot Genghis' horse from under him in battle.

  23. #23
    Custom Graphix Artist
    Join Date
    23-10-04
    Location
    My Own World
    Age
    33
    Posts
    23


    Ethnic group
    The Entire UK and Germany
    Country: United States



    My Choices are:
    #1 Samurai & Ninja
    #2 Mongols/Huns
    #3 Chinese
    #4 Scottish Highlanders/Celts
    #5 Viking/Teutonic/Medival Knights
    #6Roman Gladiators
    gTo every man there comes a time in his lifetime that special moment when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a very special thing unique to him and fitted to his talent; what a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the work which would be his finest hour.h

    Sir Winston Churchill

  24. #24
    Booyah! Da Monstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    24-09-05
    Location
    Denmark
    Age
    33
    Posts
    13


    Ethnic group
    Danish and Swedish
    Country: Denmark



    Vikings of course. Who invaded England? vikings did
    They wasn't about nobelty or shivalry and they were nordic

  25. #25
    The Great Mitsuo's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-01-06
    Location
    In the computer
    Posts
    235


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    The whole fighting for freedom thing is mainly a hollywood notion, the vast majority of gladiators had no hope of suvival let alone freedom, it was mostly just an equivilant to a death sentence in the name of entertainment. Most were just poor people, beggers or petty criminals/thieves dragged off the streets because they often had shortages of real criminals. You also have to remember that hundreds of thousands of christians were massacred in the arena for their beliefs along with many other people of other religeons. Many of the so-called barbarians the romans were fighting were disgusted at a lot of what went on in the roman arena's ironically. You have to remember though this is not a thread about great nations/empires but rather warriors.

    Yeah, I thought so, I wasn't sure about the freedom thing. But I still think they were good warriors. Yes, it is barbaric, but that doesn't take away their so called warrior skill. Although I don't think they can be compared to the samurai.
    Well, what I meant by the Roman Empire was that I think that they had good warriors. They had a great leader, Julius Caesar, which made them great warriors (boosted their moral), they had good training. So Im not talking about a nation, or empire, but more like the entire group of fighters within the empire were good warriors. So, I didn't go off topic there.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Who are the greatest Germans in history?
    By Zauriel in forum History & Civilisations
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 24-06-19, 02:55
  2. Who do you think are the greatest Asians in history?
    By Zauriel in forum History & Civilisations
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 31-08-18, 16:19
  3. Greatest Military Conqueror In History
    By Silverbackman in forum History & Civilisations
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 22-11-13, 03:46
  4. Who is the greatest Dane in history?
    By TheCaptain in forum History & Civilisations
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 18-06-13, 12:35
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15-05-11, 21:33

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •