|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Feb 6, 2008 1:39:27 GMT 3
I think Mongol cavalry is the best plus the Huns in the prime of their era were very fierce. As for Sarmatian and Alans I think their weakness as nomad horsemen were the lack of good leadership; But amongst iranian people Sarmatians couldnt match the late Sassanids. As a matter of fact in the late Sassanid era, they managed to developed a unique form of organized cavalry but still lacking appropriate light cavalry but if their reign could had lasted for more decades considering their continuous violent and non-violent interactions with Iranian and Turkic nomads they would dhad develpoed it as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nomad (Daz) on Jun 19, 2008 16:53:10 GMT 3
I dont think China is an alkternative for this question(maybe for diplomacy) I must disagree! During Tan dynasty every soldier were able to take out 4 nomads on horse backs. They were highly trained. Spartians dedicated thier lives to arts of war. They never builded wall around their settlements because they belived in thier skills and enemies feared them. Its historical fact that 300 spartians with other greek armies stopped 1 000 000 persian armada. Well Germans as warriors showed themself on a high level. Fighting with Rome. Stopping muslin expansion in europe. Creating Holy Roman Empire. Fighting with whole europe under the Fredirick II The Great. Again fighting with whole europe in WW1 and WW2. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 19, 2008 20:53:08 GMT 3
The number 1 million is overly exaggarated by Greek historians. No empire could make up an army as huge as that.
Plus, the Greeks did not stop the Persians at Thermopylae - they just slowed them down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 19, 2008 21:01:28 GMT 3
there were not only 300 Spartans but also 1000 Thespians. durign tang times most Tang cavalrymen actually were Nomads. Tang were only sucesfull because they had support by some Steppe people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nomad (Daz) on Jun 20, 2008 8:18:02 GMT 3
The number 1 million is overly exaggarated by Greek historians. No empire could make up an army as huge as that.. Well in Chineese history "Three kingdom" period you time to time see same numbers. Persian kings used to collect vast numbers of people under their command. Julius Ceaser used to oppose half a million armies in Galia (France). Rome fought a millions people army under the king of Ponta. In second world war Russian army fought with millions and surrended in millions They stopped them for 6 days. I did not say they won the battle but that was something very intresting to read about. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 20, 2008 12:59:23 GMT 3
C'mon, wake up, think logicially and logistics - a million-man-field-army before the French Revolution was impossible! All those numbers are fabricated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 26, 2008 3:07:40 GMT 3
Actually, maybe million-man-field-armies were impossible logistically, but half a million is quite possible. Majority of fighters from these feudal sedentary armies used to form/disband upon the lord's will - mostly militia, peasants and townsfolk. The "professional" soldiers had their own land to support their military campaigns as well. Logistically they couldn't march such a large force, but they could amass it most definitely, and use it for short campaigns.
Sometimes I wonder though, how 200,000 Mongol horsemen could really invade a technologically advanced China. Their population was 90,000,000 at that time, they could amass large peasant armies easily and throw them at us - though we'd just ride them down (lots of squishing to do). Well, I guess we almost halved the rabbit population however heh. d**n, that's a lot of heads on stakes, mongol swords must have been bloody during that invasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by trout11 on Jul 30, 2008 20:22:12 GMT 3
Which is the greatest warriors according to you Actually a slightly unfair question because each nation had its best, in its own,....and in its very own period in History. But My Vote is THE United States MARINES!!!! Now there is a History of fighting men!!! |
|
|
|
Post by ivan55599 on Sept 7, 2008 6:48:45 GMT 3
where are vikings?  |
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Sept 7, 2008 20:25:31 GMT 3
where are vikings? At bottom of Päijänne and Vanajalake. ;D Seriously, vikings were not so great and they even lost of us Finns. |
|
|
|
Post by ivan55599 on Sept 8, 2008 17:44:28 GMT 3
where are vikings? Seriously, vikings were not so great and they even lost of us Finns. l dont remember that. perhaps footnote? they took Constantinople, Londinium, Parisium and almost get to rome. and moved to NY and egypt |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 9, 2008 1:33:10 GMT 3
When did they take Constantinople?  They just attempted it several times, always getting their fleets burnt by Roman (Byzantine) fire-ships  |
|
|
|
Post by ivan55599 on Sept 9, 2008 7:08:09 GMT 3
they were behind city walls, and they get inside, when they became royal guard ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ALTAR on Sept 9, 2008 10:25:05 GMT 3
Aztecs werenot warriors. A bunch of cowards like Incas... Mayas were more fiercely resisting Spanish Invasion than Aztecs(nearly 250 years). And we dont forget Araucanians(Mapuche) of Chile. They defeated Spanish conqistadors in the many battles then resisted both Spanish Colonists and Independent Chile State. Lastly I search the Highlanders in the poll  |
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Sept 9, 2008 13:34:14 GMT 3
Vikings tried to several times conquer Häme and they failed. Finns burned their capital cities, Sigtuna and Birka. And vikingsagas says that Kings of Finns were like giants and Gods. Well, Persian Empire could make that army. They had soldiers from Nubia to Black Sea and from Greeceborders to India. Araucanians should be added to poll. Tey defeated also Inca State. |
|
They just attempted it several times, always getting their fleets burnt by Roman (Byzantine) fire-ships 
