yeah...i heard about that and its an actual medical condition, its when theres an excess of adrenaline in your blood and cause rigormortis instantly instead of over time
histories greatest fighter.
- Thread starter steampunk42
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Greco-Persian wars? Peloponnesian war? Corinthian war?Wrists said:
They clearly went to war several times, god knows what you've been reading.
And they were deadly like hell.
Wrists said:
they fought in the Peloponnesian wars with athens??? they decimated thousands of perisans with just 300 men after the rest of the greek forces pulled back at Thermopylae. Sparta was a city built around war man.
OT: i think spartans are the greatest warriors, or apache indians.
The Knight is probably the greatest One on One close range fighter in history. They were trained from youth to be stoic gentlemen in court but Brutal powerful ruthless and disciplined fighters in combat. (Granted some Knights didnt exactly live up to the Knight in Shining armor ideal but they were still no slouches on the battlefield.) not to mention the equipment they used was so effective that on a show designed to test who is the deadliest warrior they had to stick his invincable ass up against a guy with two guns and a proto grenade. (He almost won.)
The Greatest Warrior after the invention of Gunpowder is probably George Washington because he would routinly return from battle with bulletholes in his uniform but without bulletholes in him and liked the sound of bullets whistling through the air.
The Greatest Warrior after the invention of Gunpowder is probably George Washington because he would routinly return from battle with bulletholes in his uniform but without bulletholes in him and liked the sound of bullets whistling through the air.
I can't recall the details, but I remember hearing about a duel between a fencing champion and a kendo champion, one on one with their respective weapons. If I recall correctly, it was a tie that, if the weapons were real, would result in a double-kill, although the fencer would have died quicker.Omegatronacles said:
There were more than 300 men. With the Thespians and other Greek cities contributing men it was supposedly close to 2000 soldiers at Thermopylae.TheTim said:
I'm aware of the feud with Athens, however it is important to note that 300 Spartans were backed up by around 20,000, possibly more, allied Greeks. It can be agreed that Spartan culture was focused on fighting wars, and even then only if you were a member of the Homoioi.TheTim said:
Despite this, the Spartans went through long periods of time where no wars were fought, other than the ongoing war against the slave classes in Spartan society. This is why I said they weren't really that deadly overall. Their greatest claim to fame, in my opinion (as regards to deadliness), is the creation of the Pyrrhic victory.
I'll just assume it's a 1 on 1 scenario we're talking about, and discounting anyone whose main skill lies in ranged weapons. And that each fighter is fully armed and prepared for a typical battle.
I'd say it's a Plate armored European knight with a flail. Riding on a barded warhorse, impervious to most weapons, trained in their specific combat arts since the time they can lift their first weapon. Plus against a flail, you can only hope the knight misses - the thing shatters arms through shields and coils around smaller obstacles.
I'd say it's a Plate armored European knight with a flail. Riding on a barded warhorse, impervious to most weapons, trained in their specific combat arts since the time they can lift their first weapon. Plus against a flail, you can only hope the knight misses - the thing shatters arms through shields and coils around smaller obstacles.
Depends entirely on the scenario. En masse, it would probably end up being a toss-up between the Roman legionaries and the Spartan hoplites. Mano a mano, it gets more interesting...the Spartan rears his head again, but I'd give him only decent odds against the Japanese samurai, Arabian Nizari hashshashin, or Norman longbowman. (The last one's a bit of a cheat, of course, since the longbowmen were notorious for being the most gifted ranged combatants of their era...and there's only so much a melee combatant can do against arguably the world's first sniper.)
I heard a story from the Battle of Stamford Bridge (the other battle in England in 1066)
"The English advance was then delayed by the need to pass through the choke-point presented by the bridge. A later folk story has it that a giant Norse axeman blocked the narrow crossing, and single handedly held up the entire Saxon army. He was only killed when an Englishman floated under the bridge in a barrel, and thrust his spear through the laths in the bridge, killing him"
Short verson from Wiki.
"The English advance was then delayed by the need to pass through the choke-point presented by the bridge. A later folk story has it that a giant Norse axeman blocked the narrow crossing, and single handedly held up the entire Saxon army. He was only killed when an Englishman floated under the bridge in a barrel, and thrust his spear through the laths in the bridge, killing him"
Short verson from Wiki.
In modern times, the special forces of modern day armies, so this would include the SAS, GSG-9, US Army rangers etc. I imagine all these are roughly equal in terms of ability, only some like the SAS have more of a reputation. However, i think part of what makes these special forces units so effective is that not only are they trained to kill, but that they are trained to survive in remote and harsh climates, something i doubt samurai or knights were trained to do.
Historically, the Spartans, European knights, Samurai etc, all highly capable fighters, and i'm sure there are many other warrors from other less well known civilisations which also produced comparable warriors.
For the purposes of this thread though, i'd pitch in the Roman Legions. Brutally disciplined and well trained, well equiped and backed by tactical brilliance*, the legions of Rome have everything an ideal warrior has. But what gives them the edge over, say, European knights is the fact that these guys where full time proffesional soldiers. Knights and i think Samuari, along with the Vikings etc, were part-time fighters, only being called up by their lord or king to fight when they where needed. The legionaries on the other hand were full time proffesional soliders whom served for 20 years. They must have clocked up hunderds of more hours of training and actual combat experience as compared to medieval knights and other part time warriors.
*minus a couple of debacles admitably.
Historically, the Spartans, European knights, Samurai etc, all highly capable fighters, and i'm sure there are many other warrors from other less well known civilisations which also produced comparable warriors.
For the purposes of this thread though, i'd pitch in the Roman Legions. Brutally disciplined and well trained, well equiped and backed by tactical brilliance*, the legions of Rome have everything an ideal warrior has. But what gives them the edge over, say, European knights is the fact that these guys where full time proffesional soldiers. Knights and i think Samuari, along with the Vikings etc, were part-time fighters, only being called up by their lord or king to fight when they where needed. The legionaries on the other hand were full time proffesional soliders whom served for 20 years. They must have clocked up hunderds of more hours of training and actual combat experience as compared to medieval knights and other part time warriors.
*minus a couple of debacles admitably.
Wait, what???Wrists said:
The whole process as to how Sparta became a major city state was due to their war loving nature. The whole city state relied on slaves that they got as spoils of war.
Others already mentioned the two most famous wars that they fought in so I won't even bother.
On topic, Spartans seems like the most obvious choice here. Born, bred and died for battle, it was their only way of life pretty much. Whether as an individual or as an army, they were pretty godamn deadly.
Though if it comes to the greatest group of fighters, I gotta look towards the romans, preferably early empire or late republic. Probably the world's first organised professional army and just maybe still one of the finest.
OK, I admit, I phrased that wrong now I'm looking back on it. But my point remains that for a warrior state, they spent most of their time trying to suppress their slave class, as opposed to fighting the big wars they're famous for. The war against the Persians was an allied Greek thing, so it can't be used as an example of Spartan deadliness as an absolute reference, though I get your point.ThePirateMan said:
I'm not denying they didn't grow up expecting to fight (though only about a fifth of the men did), I'm just saying they didn't spend all their time at war, as some people seem to think.
It all depends on context. We talking about overall, or a "who would win" situation?
Put it this way - a Spartan, no matter how awesome, will always lose out to a 21st century soldier with an automatic rifle. Super fighting skills don't save you from death with several bullets in the brain.
However, unarm the participants and the Spartan (muscle-bound, vicious, killing machine) would beat the soldier (trained only minimally in close quarters combat in comparison).
This opens up a whole different argument.
If we go the overall route, yeah Spartans are cool and could probably take the title of "Greatest Warriors" overall.
But if we take the "Who Would Win" situation, it's the president of the USA. With his finger on the nuke button. Show me a warrior whose deadly fighting skills can block several nukes to the face...
Put it this way - a Spartan, no matter how awesome, will always lose out to a 21st century soldier with an automatic rifle. Super fighting skills don't save you from death with several bullets in the brain.
However, unarm the participants and the Spartan (muscle-bound, vicious, killing machine) would beat the soldier (trained only minimally in close quarters combat in comparison).
This opens up a whole different argument.
If we go the overall route, yeah Spartans are cool and could probably take the title of "Greatest Warriors" overall.
But if we take the "Who Would Win" situation, it's the president of the USA. With his finger on the nuke button. Show me a warrior whose deadly fighting skills can block several nukes to the face...