Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Pre firearm age toughest warriors
Toughest warriors after introduction of guns
Zulu warriors existed in the age of firearms, its why they lost.
You missed German paratrooper in ww2, toughest of the war.
The SAS are up there with the green berets. British commandos and us rangers in ww2 were pretty tough. Russian spetznaz.
Yeah, the Zulus went up against a technologically superior enemy and lost but still put up a real good fight. Even the British who fought them respected them.
I forgot about the Fallschirmjäger and Gebirgsjäger of WWII. The former experiencing lots of fighting in Greece.
In regards to the Eastern Europeans, their Cossacks were pretty tough.
The Mongols are the obvious candidates but missing from the list.
not sure why the Franks are their, majority of their ability came from the Alan’s (who also influenced the Huns), also the Franks relied heavily on Saxons and Germanic tribes (which of course the Franks were).
Greeks, no, Macedonians yes.
Definitely not the crusaders (all types which include Teutonic)
The Vikings had a huge impact on global history, Russia, Byzantium, trade, Normans, England, Ireland, etc.
The Roman ability to make war, combined arms was stunning,
out of all of them the winner was technology, all relied on lots of training, lots of personal skill, however the invention of the. Longbow, the crossbow and firearms, levelled the playing field.
another missing from the list are the German army, who with equal numbers could pretty much defeat anyone and usually did.
The crusaders not only killed a lot of muslims but through their own incompetence and religious preachings probably killed far more of their own than the enemy every did. So for that they've got to be a contender.
To be fair the crusades were launched after a plea from the byzantines to the pope. Christianity was under seige from muslim jihad in Spain, in byzantine in the east, in scilly and Islamic pirates were raiding all over southern Europe enslaving Christians. The Frank's for instance were the first to stop rampant Islamic invasions in France at the Battle of tours. Christianity up to that point had been wiped out of North africa, Ethiopian Christians were under seige.
Aztecs were in the top ten, along with the Samurais (and Polynesians, I think)
It is regarded this way
I forgot the Mongolians. I'd say they were the best
Once I read that they killed 1/10 of the population of the world (over a century of conquests)... if that was true, for sure is deadliest.
@NathanDavis it's more a case of they wiped out a city completely so the next city would surrender without a fight. Fear was their weapon more than anything. There were only at most 50,000 Mongolians warriors in their whole empire
Well, is not quite like that either, when you say the Mongolians overwhelmed a city and the next one surrendered, that's pretty much what every invading army did. So your first point will not take any "merit" away from the Mongolians. Fear was, still is every army's best weapon.
You said deadly, and Mongolians were quite deadly, and famous for actually decimating populations, not only by killing but also by damaging vast extensions, if I remember correctly, the famines they would cause was something that woudl reduce a population of over 2 million down to just 200k survivors.
Deadly is deadly, at the end of the day, if your question was aiming to who were the most skilled warriors, then I'll say the samurai without a doubt.
Well a few spainish farmhouse wiped aztecs out
The diseases brought by the Spanish greatly contributed to the downfall of the aztecs
The aztecs had to fight many other tribes they had under slavery, not only the Spaniards and their virulent diseases.
At least 30,000 other native warriors joined the Spaniards.
Agreed diseases but also how they fought. They fought for human sacrifices, their weapons were geared up for that. They had no system for dealing with massed formations of iron claded spainyards with pikes, muskets, Swords, mounted soldiers, cannons etc
Well you are quite wrong about that, but that's just because you don't know enough about this side of the history
Many native tribes in North America were more than ready to fight the enemy in the jungle, the forest, the mountains... they were readily to fight at night, to ambush and to overwhelm merely by the numbers, there was no fear of death it was the glory for them, pretty much like the samurai for some.
While the Europeans had their estructure and formations that could have worked well in Europe, they had zero knowledge of how to apply them over here, that was a huge disadvantage.
The history shows that the natives never really fought back, they welcomed the Spaniards pretty much, all the way to the feet of the emperor, and they just killed him one night when they had the chance, the rest was disease all over the place.
And this is a very simplistic way to represent the whole story but still, "The Conquest" wasn't a victory of warriors, it was just taking advantage of very particular circumstances.
If any or many native tribes really wanted Europeans away, they would have faced maybe hundreds of thousands natives ready to fight at the deep jungles of the coasts, but like I said, there was no true resistance, because the Mexica were not that popular. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of speak.
And even within what you call aztecs, the Mexica people had their own divisions and differences, also struggles for power.
The Spanish almost lost everything en la noche triste
Cortes said he lost most of his soldiers
@NathanDavis thats why north American natives fought that way. There's no doubt natives of the Americas struggled with better armed European soldiers especially those that wore armour. The maybe later found it easier against European soldiers in the 18th& 19th centuries as plater armour, pikes etc were abandoned on European battlefield.
There was no later... lol
@NathanDavis there was a later. 15th century to just before the 20th century
Not when it comes to the Conquest.
Opinion
27Opinion
The best warriors were the Greeks: Macedonians specifically under Alexander the Great, and Spartans.
Spartans trained from 7 years old in military service, and in Pankration.
Despite being outnumbered 3 to 1 by the Persian army at the battle of Platea, Sparta squashed the world power at the time - Persia never came back to Greece after.
The Greek Army, under Alexander the Great, was undefeated, and crushed the Persian army at it's height - A rare feat, as most world powers throughout history, such as the Greeks when they fell to Rome, the Romans when they feel to the Germanic Kingdoms, and most other examples of a world powers collapsing, was to due to that empire being in decline, and getting weak, to the point where often an inferior, less advances civilisation took over it. Alexander's army also took over most of the known world in only about 12 years - Lightening speed.
by the way, Romans at their height, are a close second. For several centuries, from BC, as the republic, to around 555 AD under Justinian, regularly fought often invaders from all sides, and subdued most. And as an empire, lasted from 27 BC to 1453 AD. Very few can boast lasting this long...
Roman legionnaires ass raped Macedonian Greeks in wars against carthage, Greeks of scilly, Greeks of Italy, the Greeks of Epirus, the Macedonians, Ptolemaic Egypt, the Selecuids, Pontus, Greeks of Spain, Greeks in crimea. The only Greeks they didn't beat were the Greeks of Central asia and India.
@gespenster_division I did say, the Greek army specifically ''under Alexander the Great'', who was undefeated in battles.
After Alexander died, his empire was split into four smaller empires, suddenly weakening his empire significantly.
Well after he died, particularly by the time of the rising of Rome, the way the army operated changed slightly, as well as the fact that the two most powerful successor empires of the four, the Seleucid (Syria) and Ptolemaic (Egypt) empires by than had been filled with many locals, rather than Greeks into the army by that time.
Well actually the Alexandraian successor states were filled with Macedonians and other Greeks, it badly weakened Macedonian manpower during that period, yes there were locals but these were usually the descendants of Macedonian Greeks and mixed hellenics. Greeks were everywhere at the time often fighting as mercenaries for anyone. Carthage for instance fought the Greeks of scilly before their roman wars. Greeks in Asia largely disappeared merging with local populations but before Alexander they had for centuries setup colonies as far away as Spain's Atlantic coast to the black sea. Greek soldiers, artisans, craftsmen, sailors etc were spread out over the Persian Empire and more so during Alexander's empire and after, then to every corner of the Roman empire.
Point was, that the Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great was broken up into four smaller kingdoms, therefore four smaller armies, and the army became mixed largely with non Greeks. Not to mention, over time, the Greek population got to comfortable, wealthy, therefore weaker and more domesticated, similar to how the Western Roman did leader up to their fall to the Germanic kingdoms.
Therefore by the time Rome was on the rise, the Greeks has long declined and were no where near their peak, hence the Romans were able to gobble up the kingdoms one by one.
It's kind of like saying, the Germanic warriors where greater than the Romans, because they defeated the Western Roman Empire, when the Western Romans and their army and population, were no where near the fighting force they once were. Where as prime Rome, would of squashed the Germanic armies, like they did on many occasions
So the update to the question you put, is a little dumb.
As a long-lasting empire with warlike traditions, the Romans easily take this. In terms of utterly skunking massive armies and revolutionizing warfare for the time, thereby allowing a relatively small faction to conquer huge chunks of the world including many of its strongest armies over the course of decades, the Mongols easily win it.
The others make significant marks in history, but they're basically famous for doing the same thing that others did at the time a bit better.
The best most skilled efficient killers are the Americans. The most kills in history likely goes to the Chinese. They tend to purge themselves in colossal civil wars between dynasties and just run into the meet grinder to die quickly and brutally by the millions.
I think you’d have to control for technology and tactics. The Normans were actually Vikings who settled in France.
Well you could include a lot of vikings who settled such as the gallowglass in Scotland or Rus in Russia.
Norman's established kingdoms in England, Wales, Ireland, scilly, Italy, Syria etc and once ruled half of todays france
A lot of these were efficient and well supplied armies with the latest technology
I lean toward warriors that made these mass armies worried, like the Harii, Apache, Comanche..
Smaller units with improvised weapons, outnumbered... kicking ass.
When you have to mobilize a whole army to take them out... they were pretty deadly.
You need to read more history. The Mongols were far more deadly than most of the ones you listed. They cut across from Mongolia and reached Europe. The great Macedonian king Alexander conquered more than any European including the Romans. The others you listed were minor localized warriors who barely made it outside their back yards.
Well, depends on how you look at things.
Mongolians had huge killing sprees. But numbers are a bit unknown.
Russians killed 27 million of there own people.
China has done about the same with there civilians over longer time in history. Vast Numbers still unknown.
And the USA. We've kill 100's thousands in Afghanistan Iraq with very little lose. And we're the only country to use nukes. 400,000 dead no lose.
It's all prespective.
Sparta was by far the best in terms of combat and in 2nd place the romans, 3rd the templars but they all lack the savageness of the vikings so yea
Sacred band of thebes defeated the Spartans
You forgot a group. Not only did they kick the Catholic Crusaders asses, they destroyed the Teutonic Order on multiple occasions. The Polish Knights fought both off many a times when they tried to crush the Orthodox Christians.
Polish knights are Catholic. The famed hussars also beat the turks
You might want to look at my avatar more closely. That is the Catholic army standing across from my Knight. The original Knights were hired nobles of Ukraine decent, which makes them Orthodox Christians. Also look at the battle in 1192 for Russia and the Ukraine. The Prince that won the battle was one of those hired Guns. He was exiled by his brother the King until he was getting his ass handed to him.
Damn right!
John Sibieski and 20,000 winged hussars kicked the ottoman Turks out of Austria...12 September, 1683.
One of the reasons that Al Qaida chose 11 September for the attack on the US. It was the first large Islamic attack against the West since they were crushed in Vienna by the Polish Knights 318 years earlier.
Archers and spearmen aren't getting enaugh credit.
Very hard tools to beat, especially one on one.
This guy/crew :D
https://www.youtube.com/embed/cFdgjYoBMIgThe Swedish Vikings and the Minnesota Vikings football team
Makes me want to watch 300 now.
@K-I-S-S smooth. I like the way you flirt. By why in your backyard? 🤣
Nobody as strong as the Roman's, the Teutonic knight's were bad ass though.
The mongols... but just if these I’ll go with the Vikings
😂😂😂 strictly based off the images I know it wasn’t the normans and it wasn’t the franks
Genghis Khan was the ruthless but the best
Best general maybe.
You're probably right but he did leave his Warriors to beat the Spartans in the end he's the one that it's so many things in politics do we still use today over here to make their Nation better I don't remember how many laws that he created that we study isn't over here in America today
No mogul option?
And the chin dynasty did rather well.
Hey, those are all Western warriors!
Good choice.
i would of guessed the Vikings, but i never studied it. Biblical it was King David
King David never lost. Dead Sea Scrolls prove he existed and was undefeated
If you know there are only three known Horsemen. Michael. Gabriel, and Raphael. There is an Angel called Chamuel, which means God's Wrath. Michael and he are the only two that talk to God according to the Bible. I know Michael is Adam and Gabriel is Eve. I do not know who Raphael is, but I have been rereading the Bible and I think I figured out that Chamuel is the leader of the four Horsemen and not Michael. I believe Chamuel is King David. Would be logical, God's greatest warrior on Earth plus he could not build a temple for God because of all of the killing he did. Jesus is God's son and Chamuel aka King David is also his son. Mentioned a lot in the Bible Plus it is mentioned a few times in the missing books. just got done reading them. This is something I came up with after a long time trying to figure it all out.
The Spartans or the Mongolian army.
are you talking one on one or army vs army
Both.
I think Spartans and romans were better in army vs army while you "knight" types like the templars were better at one on one
Templars, they are the ultimate tanks in games.
Out of these the Romans.
USMC
We could use some of them about now
Mongolians?
US Navy Seals.
None of above
The plague.
Romans
The Spartans by far
Vikings and Greeks
You can also add your opinion below!
