UnderGround Forums
 

OtherGround Forums >> Who were the best Ancient Warriors OG?


3/21/13 3:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
lars_schifinkter
24 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/28/10
Posts: 453
Why not, because you stated it Lord Nitemare?
3/21/13 4:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
295 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8089
lars_schifinkter - Why not, because you stated it Lord Nitemare?

No, the reason being is that he is claiming superiority over units that are older than the Mongols themselves. You can't say that the Mongols would destroy the Spartans, the reason being that they were separated by 1000's of years. The gap in technology is simply too great. By his logic, I could say a ST6 Assault element backed up by a Ranger battalion would destroy any force in history.

3/21/13 8:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
295 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8090

Cool little video on Vikings

3/22/13 11:36 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sawdusk
23 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/4/03
Posts: 6341
BadMon - 
MickColins - 

I skimmed that blog but this stood out: "How credible are such estimates? It is certainly plausible if we take the contemporary chroniclers such as Ibn al-Athir and Al-Nasawi at face value."

 

You never,ever take medieval and ancient chroniclers for their bodycounts/troop counts at face level. They always exaggerate.  The person writing this blog is such a fanboy that they take shit like that "at face value?" Please. You piss away your position.

 

This isn't the only source on the events.  Mongols' range game allow them to rack up the kill ratio.  this is well documented from numerous history sources.  the events did happen and the mongols as a force did conquer most land mass in history with their numbered soldiers.   They ran over established armies of China, Persia and Europe.  what about the rest of the history books that the article cites?  You are basically just picking out the weakest link and then trashing the entire article.  any idiot can do that.

 

history supports the victories.  until you post a better source that states otherwise, then i'll go with it over your idiocy.  fair?


if the question was who was the greatest ancient army, I'd say the mongrels... however, as a warrior, I wouldn't put them anywhere in the discussion... they relied on tactics, superior technology (with their bows), numbers, and a particular terrain... until gun powder was invented, they were pretty much unbeatable as an army (unless facing other mongrels!!)...

but when I think of a ancient warrior, I think more in the sense of hand to hand, not range warriors... warriors who were fighting others who had the same weapons and technology, but were just the better fighters... the spartans ruled the phalanx way of fighting for a long time as did other warriors using the same tactics and weapons against them, but dominated this equal footing...

the mongrels figured out how to beat everyone without playing their game... again, as an army, it's hard to argue anyone was more effective, but along the lines of this discussion, I don't think they fit into the scope of things... it's like naming the sniper as the best warrior when the other choices all had swords...
3/22/13 11:38 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
295 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8093

^ you in the military? 

3/22/13 11:49 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
295 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8094
BadMon - 

well keep moving the goal posts until your favorite wins i guess.


Um...Ok? Don't get so butt hurt dude, they're great warriors - top 5 definitely. If you want to believe they are the best, then by all means think at - its your own opinion. I'm skeptical of there being a superior warrior, I'm even more skeptical of the Mongols being that superior warrior.

 

3/22/13 2:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
295 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8096

Ok? 

3/22/13 6:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sawdusk
23 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/4/03
Posts: 6346
alexander's armies were as dominant as the mongols, as were caesar's (and marius, and sulla!!)... the commonality being the superior tactics, unification, and organization of the generals... the mongols were nothing without ghengis (and his splendid generals subutai, and jebe) evident after his death, in the same way alexander's army depreciated to a bunch of splintered fractions after his demise...

the greatest warriors, to me, were the ones that endured eras, not just flourished under a particular general... like I said, greatest army of its time, yes... but as warriors that endured the test of time, nope...

3/22/13 6:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
295 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8098
sawdusk - alexander's armies were as dominant as the mongols, as were caesar's (and marius, and sulla!!)... the commonality being the superior tactics, unification, and organization of the generals... the mongols were nothing without ghengis (and his splendid generals subutai, and jebe) evident after his death, in the same way alexander's army depreciated to a bunch of splintered fractions after his demise...

the greatest warriors, to me, were the ones that endured eras, not just flourished under a particular general... like I said, greatest army of its time, yes... but as warriors that endured the test of time, nope...


Spartans come to mind, so do the Immortals, as well as the Samurai, and the Knights of the Dark Ages...don't forget the Vikings, the Roman Legions, the Celts (who were beastly fighters, I've been reading up on them) and last but not least, the Janissaries.

 

I understand that the Macedonians weren't necessarily badass fighters - what they had was the greatest warrior-general that ever lived. As I said before, I'm very interested in Alexander - can you recommend a book on his life? Or at least some of his battles? Thanks.

3/22/13 6:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MMAdotCOM
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/5/13
Posts: 164
alexander's father, philip, united greece with his new military formation not brilliant strategy like Alexander, so I don't think it's accurate to say that Macedonian's weren't badass fighters.
3/22/13 6:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MMAdotCOM
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/5/13
Posts: 165
sawdusk - alexander's armies were as dominant as the mongols, as were caesar's (and marius, and sulla!!)... the commonality being the superior tactics, unification, and organization of the generals... the mongols were nothing without ghengis (and his splendid generals subutai, and jebe) evident after his death, in the same way alexander's army depreciated to a bunch of splintered fractions after his demise...

the greatest warriors, to me, were the ones that endured eras, not just flourished under a particular general... like I said, greatest army of its time, yes... but as warriors that endured the test of time, nope...


yeah but for the long amount of time you're talking about, are there any warriors or armies that remained the same long enough? they all change so much over time that they can't even be considered the same unit
3/22/13 7:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
295 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8099

Obviously, they were in fact very good fighters - especially their Companion Cavalry (of whom I'm very interested in). But post Alexander, they essentially fell by the wayside. In other words, yes, they were badass fighters - but their legacy can be largely attributed to Alexander and Philip...it is not the case with the Spartans for example, while Leonidas and Agis were great leaders - the might of the Spartan Army was not directly attributed to them, but rather their culture and training (just to clarify Leonidas/Agis were two bad motherfuckers). Hopefully that made sense.

But yes, Philip was a bad mofo. The Macedonian phalanx was revolutionary in that it was as much defensive as it was offensive - to state the obvious it truly changed warfare forever.

3/22/13 7:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MMAdotCOM
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/5/13
Posts: 166
Lord Nitemare - 
lars_schifinkter - Why not, because you stated it Lord Nitemare?

No, the reason being is that he is claiming superiority over units that are older than the Mongols themselves. You can't say that the Mongols would destroy the Spartans, the reason being that they were separated by 1000's of years. The gap in technology is simply too great. By his logic, I could say a ST6 Assault element backed up by a Ranger battalion would destroy any force in history.


what technology was different other than composite bow? I thought spartans didn't like to use bows so would it have made much of a difference? I would guess Spartans had more armor right? That should even it out
3/22/13 7:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MMAdotCOM
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/5/13
Posts: 167
sawdusk - 
BadMon - 
MickColins - 

I skimmed that blog but this stood out: "How credible are such estimates? It is certainly plausible if we take the contemporary chroniclers such as Ibn al-Athir and Al-Nasawi at face value."

 

You never,ever take medieval and ancient chroniclers for their bodycounts/troop counts at face level. They always exaggerate.  The person writing this blog is such a fanboy that they take shit like that "at face value?" Please. You piss away your position.

 

This isn't the only source on the events.  Mongols' range game allow them to rack up the kill ratio.  this is well documented from numerous history sources.  the events did happen and the mongols as a force did conquer most land mass in history with their numbered soldiers.   They ran over established armies of China, Persia and Europe.  what about the rest of the history books that the article cites?  You are basically just picking out the weakest link and then trashing the entire article.  any idiot can do that.

 

history supports the victories.  until you post a better source that states otherwise, then i'll go with it over your idiocy.  fair?


if the question was who was the greatest ancient army, I'd say the mongrels... however, as a warrior, I wouldn't put them anywhere in the discussion... they relied on tactics, superior technology (with their bows), numbers, and a particular terrain... until gun powder was invented, they were pretty much unbeatable as an army (unless facing other mongrels!!)...

but when I think of a ancient warrior, I think more in the sense of hand to hand, not range warriors... warriors who were fighting others who had the same weapons and technology, but were just the better fighters... the spartans ruled the phalanx way of fighting for a long time as did other warriors using the same tactics and weapons against them, but dominated this equal footing...

the mongrels figured out how to beat everyone without playing their game... again, as an army, it's hard to argue anyone was more effective, but along the lines of this discussion, I don't think they fit into the scope of things... it's like naming the sniper as the best warrior when the other choices all had swords...

it sounds like your criteria for best warrior is who would do best in the NFL combine. imo, superiority in tactics, technology, terrain, etc. is what make warriors the best, not their physical fitness alone
3/22/13 7:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MickColins
138 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/14/08
Posts: 11349

"history supports the victories.  until you post a better source that states otherwise, then i'll go with it over your idiocy.  fair?"

 

I'll take the pepsi challenge of my knowledge of the Mongols over yours,fanboy. I took multiple classes on them in college, had a family member who worked for the Mongolian consulate in DC that helped me research stuff,etc.. You read blogs.  And not even that well because your own blog backs me up. And the Mongols were hardily the types to write down their kill counts as "the victors". The records for their attacks are mainly from the victims who exaggerate kill counts and troop numbers to make the atrocities seem worse. The source for the bodycount at Nishapur is a Persian chronicler. Hardly a pro-Mongolian source.

3/22/13 7:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MickColins
138 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/14/08
Posts: 11350

"alexander's father, philip, united greece with his new military formation not brilliant strategy like Alexander, so I don't think it's accurate to say that Macedonian's weren't badass fighters."

 

Philip combined the use of cavalry with the Macedonian phalanx before Alexander. Alexander just took it to the next level. 

3/22/13 7:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sawdusk
23 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/22/13 7:39 PM
Member Since: 7/4/03
Posts: 6347
to: MMAdotCOM

what a horrible analogy!!!! if you wanted to make an analogy to the NFL, the more accurate would be players that excelled under specific coaches and whether it's fair to consider them the greatest players ever or to attribute their greatness to the coaches and the unique system they were playing under...

would Jim Brown have excelled in any system? probably... would the mongols??? they hadn't until ghengis and they didn't after ghengis...

ghengis was a general perhaps unparalleled... but his warriors owed their success to him, in my opinion... they benefited from superior range, tactics, and reputation... otherwise they were one of many warring tribal cultures though ancient times that were not effective until a leader united them...
3/22/13 8:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
295 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8100

Mick, please, you're by far the most knowledgable person on here - I just have a few questions for you...

- As I said before, I'm pretty goddamn interested in Alexander - can you recommend any books/documentaries? And would you say he's the greatest Warrior-General of all time? If not who? How often did Alexander lead his Companion Cavalry into combat, was it every single battle, or every other battle? And lastly, I had watched a pretty shitty documentary on Alexander (for example, they made it out to be that he was a fag when he wasn't) was he respected by the people or was he viewed in a negative light?

- In regards to the Celts, I've read that they were significantly bigger than the Romans of their time - not to mention, in a 1 on 1 fight they were straight beasts...is there any truth to that statement? And how were they compared to the Germanic hordesmen? And could you talk a little more about Brennus (Celtic Raider)?

- we never really talkd about the Persian Immortals, were they as badass as they are made out to be?

3/22/13 8:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MMAdotCOM
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/22/13 8:30 PM
Member Since: 2/5/13
Posts: 179
you can find Alexander documentaries on youtube. You're saying he didn't like penis? Didn't almost all Greeks get down like that?

I have a book on Alexander by Phillip Freeman but haven't read it yet.
3/22/13 8:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Kinkle
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/23/05
Posts: 11947

I've taken enough college courses to see that this thread has devolved into childish bantering.

3/22/13 8:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
295 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8101
MMAdotCOM - you can find Alexander documentaries on youtube. You're saying he didn't like penis? Didn't almost all Greeks get down like that?

I have a book on Alexander by Phillip Freeman but haven't read it yet.

No, there is no written account of Alexander being gay.

3/22/13 10:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MMAdotCOM
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/5/13
Posts: 193
Lord Nitemare - 
MMAdotCOM - you can find Alexander documentaries on youtube. You're saying he didn't like penis? Didn't almost all Greeks get down like that?

I have a book on Alexander by Phillip Freeman but haven't read it yet.

No, there is no written account of Alexander being gay.


You're probably right as I doubt the ancient historian bothered writing "Alexander was bisexual," if that categorization even existed. I think it can be inferred that he was, though.
3/22/13 10:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MMAdotCOM
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/5/13
Posts: 194
Lord Nitemare - 
MMAdotCOM - you can find Alexander documentaries on youtube. You're saying he didn't like penis? Didn't almost all Greeks get down like that?

I have a book on Alexander by Phillip Freeman but haven't read it yet.

No, there is no written account of Alexander being gay.


You're probably right as I doubt the ancient historian bothered writing "Alexander was bisexual," if that categorization even existed. I think it can be inferred that he was, though.
3/23/13 6:50 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
295 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8102
Galt - I'll infer that you're a faggot.

lolz

 

3/23/13 6:51 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lord Nitemare
295 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/27/11
Posts: 8103

...In all seriousness, the guy didn't like gays at all. 


Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.