who are the greatest warriors

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

they were behind city walls, and they get inside, when they became royal guard ;D

I see ;D Well, we don't call that taking a city ;D ;D

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.

Araucanians should be added to poll.

Tey defeated also Inca State.

Brave warriors indeed

Well, Persian Empire could make that army. They had soldiers from Nubia to Black Sea and from Greeceborders to India.

Yes, maybe as an entire imperial army that controls most of the vast Persian Empire, but as you know, a field army is something different For example, during the reign of Sultan Melikšâh, the entire armed forces of the Greater Seljuqid Sultanate reached the number of 400.000 men, but most of these were garrison troops or the personal units of governors and dynasty members. The field armies were muh smaller than this number, you know

[ALTAR]

Sept 9, 2008 13:34:14 GMT 3 Verinen Paroni said:

Araucanians should be added to poll.

Tey defeated also Inca State.

And they defeated Spaniards(Conquistadors) that you hate so much ;D

[Verinen Paroni]

Sept 9, 2008 19:44:23 GMT 3 ALTAR said:

Sept 9, 2008 13:34:14 GMT 3 Verinen Paroni said:

Araucanians should be added to poll.

Tey defeated also Inca State.

And they defeated Spaniards(Conquistadors) that you hate so much ;D

For a reasons. ;D

[mongol194]

No Mongols
Ok...... actually the Tartars, Huns or Xiungnu, Ghorids, Mongols and even the Manchurians, Gurkhas and Thai warriors. Are all bunched toghether by scientists as being mongoliod peoples. Even the American plains Indians are known to be distant cousins of the mongols ethnographically. Now i know what youre thinking what has this to do with warriors? Well it goes to show just how far they have spread through the world and just like christendom and now Islam are spreading through the world imposing thier ways on peoples the ancient fighting skills of these peole have great simmilarities. The only way they could have spread so far is through two ways they bred like rabbits ;D or they butchered every enemy they came across like a giant WMD. to be fair they were worse than "nukes" becuase even today once lush farmlands are barren deserts. in the case of the mongols they did both things. Today more peolpe can trace thier blood to Chingiz Khan than any other man! So on this basis i would say they were the greatest wariors.
Though i could argue that the early arab tribes were possibly even more fierce. ;D
Especially at the pace in which they conquered not only Arabia but Byzantium, Persia, and the Yemen all within the life of one man! What makes the early Muslim conquests so amazing is that they did it through the leadership and devotion of thier holy prophet. Bearing in mind that they were nothing more than desert tribesmen who wore little to no clothing let alone armour and originally fought with swords, slings, spears and quarter-staffs! And although later Muslim armies were much better equiped and had archers they ironically were less effective than the first wave of Muslim warriors who had less archers and fewer equipment! To be fair you could say the Romans and Parthians were weakened by the wars between themselves. However thats no excuse for a large well equipped army with proper training and discipline as well as far more numbers to be overrun by a small force of tribesmen in close combat! Even in thier weaker state the Romans and persians fielded armies with war elephants but to no avail!

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

I think you are underestimating the weakness of both Romans and Sâsânids during the 620s. If it was for the fierce warriorness of Arab tribesmen (sorry but I doubt it exists at all - history shows us that all the time ;D), how come they would not overrun the Roman and Iranian empires before the 7th century?

[Atabeg]

^because they were conserned with tribal conflicts and weren't organised. the Bedouins aren't like those lazy sedentary Arabs imo

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

And because they had stronger neighbors in the north They were united in the right time, that's the point.

[mongol194]

Dude the early arabs were nothing like thier later counterparts. Even todays bedoiun are mere shadows of what once was. The arab tribes that lashed out of the arabian peninsula in the seventh century were not only united at the right time but you have to admit thier rapid attacks which overran Roman syria and palestine and thier advance on sassanian cestephion cannot be denied. Its hard to imagine but you should try and picture the battle of Yarmuk where the first engagment on day one was even at conservative estimates fought between 100-150,000 Byzantine romans and no more than 20-40,000 soldiers led by Khalid bin al waleed. All acounts agree the Romans were easily the better side they had all the archers and more infantry and cavalry. whilst some yemen archers were on the Arab side there were too few to seriously poe a major threat. Then just look at the previous arab conquest of messopotamia when three large Persian armies were outmanouvered by a small Arab army and each one defeated in turn. Anyone with a keen interest in millitary history can't help scratch thier heads at the first waves of the Muslim Arab armies just how they did so well or thier enemies did so poorly is a pretty amazing feat. Much like the mongols the pre-Umayyad Arabs faded into the pages of history. Many of the pre Umayyads were brutally massacred by the very northern Arab nieghbours who supposedly helped them! Today the direct descendants of those early arab maruaders are not even to be found in mainland arabia but on its fringes in the land of Afghanistan! No one can deny the fact that the afghans who went on to establish dynasties with turkic support in India were of to form the two great dynasties of Ghazni and Ghor.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

The Ghaznawids were of Turkic origin, nothing to do with the Afghans

[sarmat]

Sept 17, 2008 11:30:57 GMT 3 mongol194 said:

Dude the early arabs were nothing like thier later counterparts. Even todays bedoiun are mere shadows of what once was. The arab tribes that lashed out of the arabian peninsula in the seventh century were not only united at the right time but you have to admit thier rapid attacks which overran Roman syria and palestine and thier advance on sassanian cestephion cannot be denied. Its hard to imagine but you should try and picture the battle of Yarmuk where the first engagment on day one was even at conservative estimates fought between 100-150,000 Byzantine romans and no more than 20-40,000 soldiers led by Khalid bin al waleed. All acounts agree the Romans were easily the better side they had all the archers and more infantry and cavalry. whilst some yemen archers were on the Arab side there were too few to seriously poe a major threat. Then just look at the previous arab conquest of messopotamia when three large Persian armies were outmanouvered by a small Arab army and each one defeated in turn. Anyone with a keen interest in millitary history can't help scratch thier heads at the first waves of the Muslim Arab armies just how they did so well or thier enemies did so poorly is a pretty amazing feat. Much like the mongols the pre-Umayyad Arabs faded into the pages of history. Many of the pre Umayyads were brutally massacred by the very northern Arab nieghbours who supposedly helped them! Today the direct descendants of those early arab maruaders are not even to be found in mainland arabia but on its fringes in the land of Afghanistan! No one can deny the fact that the afghans who went on to establish dynasties with turkic support in India were of to form the two great dynasties of Ghazni and Ghor.

These numbers are just fantasies.

Arabs were victorious because they had very weak and divided enemies. Persia was just devasted by the very unsuccesful and disastrous war with the Byzantines and divided into different hostile parties, while the Byzantine empire was also very exhausted by that war and even more divided. All the lands of the empire in Syria, Palestive and Egypt were the stronghold of Monophysite heretics who hated Constantinopol much more than any Arab. Monophysites in Syria and Egypt refused to fight the Arabs and were openning the gates of the their cities to the invaders. Actually, this was natural since early Muslims were much more tolerant than Orthodox Byzantine emperors.

BTW is it a coincidence that Ethiopian emperor who provided the asylum to the first Muslim refugees was also a Monophysite?

So the conquest of the Middle East for the Arabs was just a piece of cake. All the Byzantine and Sasanid forces there were just "paper tigers."

Just think about it Arabs after conquering such vast and rich lands of Syria, Egypt and Iran were beaten off small Anatolia.

Why did it happen? Just because they met a determined and united enemy there (Orthodox Anatolia was the backbone of the Byzantine empire) while in other places they actually were welcomed as liberators like in Syria and the fighting was almost absent.

[Atabeg]

the main fighting force of teh Arabs where the bedouins. Before converting o ISlam they had no reason to fight the romans and certainly not the Persians. Dessert dwellers where minimaly effected by the political changes of the region.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

And no wonder how they could not conquer the Khazars and Türgish

[sarmat]

And were badly beaten by Bulgar Turks...

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Yes, I forgot that ;D

[Azadan Januspar]

Though i could argue that the early arab tribes were possibly even more fierce.
Especially at the pace in which they conquered not only Arabia but Byzantium, Persia, and the Yemen all within the life of one man! What makes the early Muslim conquests so amazing is that they did it through the leadership and devotion of thier holy prophet. Bearing in mind that they were nothing more than desert tribesmen who wore little to no clothing let alone armour and originally fought with swords, slings, spears and quarter-staffs! And although later Muslim armies were much better equiped and had archers they ironically were less effective than the first wave of Muslim warriors who had less archers and fewer equipment! To be fair you could say the Romans and Parthians were weakened by the wars between themselves. However thats no excuse for a large well equipped army with proper training and discipline as well as far more numbers to be overrun by a small force of

The understanding of the details of the Arab conquests is mostly possible when you read the Arab sources. it is the first defect. Plus todays it has made it more disputed for muslims fighting under leadership and on command of their prophet.
Another thing is that new studies has shedded light upon the Arabic military history, which in time of their prophet had advanced. ( Not to forget that Arab traditions of the warmongering was playing the key role). Now it seems they weren't as unequipped as what is believed rather ess equipped than their neighbors.

I think you are underestimating the weakness of both Romans and Sâsânids during the 620s. If it was for the fierce warriorness of Arab tribesmen (sorry but I doubt it exists at all - history shows us that all the time ), how come they would not overrun the Roman and Iranian empires before the 7th century?

I agree, in history of the Arabs the fact of their continuous raids and if possible invasions before Islamic era is neglected to great extent. Delibrately or not I don't know.
For the Sassanids todays studies show us more than ever that after wars between Byzantines and the Sassanids up to 628, Sassanids practically not only lost their veterans of war, but couldn't field large armies anymore.(take note that the Arabic invasions happened only few years after that, the only sources to mention these wars are Arabic ones, always giving numbers of Sassanid army not less than 100.000 each battle while fighting Arab armies of at least two times outnumbered) in addition that in most parts of the lands believed to be under tehir control, the control proved to be nominal today. i.e. see Invasion of Armenia by the Turks and its aftermaths in 630.

Dude the early arabs were nothing like thier later counterparts. Even todays bedoiun are mere shadows of what once was. The arab tribes that lashed out of the arabian peninsula in the seventh century were not only united at the right time but you have to admit thier rapid attacks which overran Roman syria and palestine and thier advance on sassanian cestephion cannot be denied. Its hard to imagine but you should try and picture the battle of Yarmuk where the first engagment on day one was even at conservative estimates fought between 100-150,000 Byzantine romans and no more than 20-40,000 soldiers led by Khalid bin al waleed. All acounts agree the Romans were easily the better side they had all the archers and more infantry and cavalry. whilst some yemen archers were on the Arab side there were too few to seriously poe a major threat. Then just look at the previous arab conquest of messopotamia when three large Persian armies were outmanouvered by a small Arab army and each one defeated in turn. Anyone with a keen interest in millitary history can't help scratch thier heads at the first waves of the Muslim Arab armies just how they did so well or thier enemies did so poorly is a pretty amazing feat. Much like the mongols the pre-Umayyad Arabs faded into the pages of history

Again for the matter of numbers, which itself is the main proof of the Arab braveries during their invasions, which to great extent disputed nowadays in professional history, one can at least compare the narrations of the battles with its statistics given.
Examples are the number Al-Masoudi gives for the battle of Al-Ghadesiyah, which he counted Iranians to be 60000 and the Muslims 88000; the other is instance is understood via muslim soucres is that Iranians in battle of Nahawand outnumbered the Arabs three times, but yet according again to muslims accounts they were in a very conservative defenisve postion, which is on those times always taken by considerably fewer armies.

Khazars even managed to take the war in the most Arabian garrisoned region, north of Iraq and if it was again to my opinion their lack of numbers they would have been more successful.

the case of the early Arabian difficulties facing Khazars, in my opinion somehow shows that Arabian cavalry (though being numerous) on those times was not a key factor of their victories facing armies that were mainly based on cavalry like Sassanids, Khazars and Turks.