Who is the best Ancient Warrior

[Starswirl the Trixie 974]

Nothing in history has topped the late medieval knight in terms of sheer melee power.  Probably explains why they came at the end of the melee-dominated era in history...

[~Lawful Jordo~ 2,064]

Sounds good. They're probably indeed the best infantry, but saying that they're the army on army champion is too much. Roman Legionaries were shot to pieces by Parthian horse archers during the reign of Antoninus Pius. There are so many other records where Roman Legionaries got crushed by cavalry, especially cavalry archers. They're slow, and their testudo formation isn't completely impenetrable. Even in the picture you posted above, you can see the hole of their shield formation. That's enough for arrows to pass through and kill the shield bearer. Not to mention that this formation doesn't recover in a second when one dies.

 

Two of Rome's worst defeats were caused by enemy horsemen. The battle of Carrhae and the battle of Adrianople. Not only against cavalry archer, but also charging cavalry with sword and lance like Germanic horsemen. Sarmatian Cataphracts as well. Here, have a painting:

 

 

That's only Parthian. Remember the Hun? See the legitimate best horse archer in the world. Mongolian Mangudai. What will happen if both army meet each other?

 

I don't know, but katana against knight's full plate sounds ridiculous to me. Katana is good for slashing, not chopping. I would prefer Dao (broad saber) to handle such things. One example of slashing-weapons against Europe's knight full plate is the Arabs. Their scimitar had no chance against the crusader's armour. The Arabs only killed them using their weak points, where their armour didn't cover them.

 

Katana is similar, even though it's better forged than Arabian scimitar. The only sane way to defeat those tick armours in a sword fight is by blunt trauma, and Dao serves that thing well.

 

 

Very sound argument, though I still stand by what I said. The Roman Legions had numerical superiority, more disciplined and well equipped troops, a vast array of troop types (Legionaries, Triarii, equites so on), Siege weaponry (Catapults, Scorpios, Ballistae ex), and rarely cracked under pressure. Also keep in mind Rome had the tenancy to hire a vast array of Mercenaries. When facing the legion, you are also likely to encounter Goth and Visgoth troops, Hunic cavalry and so on.

 

The Mongols are more used to fighting levy armies who cracked under pressure, or raiding villages. I will admit they have an advantage over the Romans; They are by far the more maneuverable force. 

 

 

I would say the Romans have the advantage on paper, but that doesn't exactly secure victory. The Romans had the advantage against the Carthaginians and still lost. Not to mention the Parthian.

 

 

I would say it's between the Mongols and the Legion for best army, though I stand by that the Legionaries are the best infantry.

 

 

 

 

I still think the Samurai beats a Knight one on one. Samurai are specifically bred for one on one combat, and in my mind are the more skilled of the two. 

 

I would reckon a European broadsword would do just as well against the Samurai armor as the Katana would against the Knights armor. Samurai also used the Yari spear, specifically designed to puncture steel armor:

 

 

 

Not to mention the Kanabo could probably knock the knight on his butt. If this club collides with his helmet, it's pretty much a kill shot.

 

 

 

Also, the Kanabo outclasses the Knight's morningstar in terms of reach and reliability. 

 

 

 

Nothing in history has topped the late medieval knight in terms of sheer melee power.  Probably explains why they came at the end of the melee-dominated era in history...

 

 

I tend to disagree. See above.

Edited May 18, 2013 by ~Lawful Jordo~

[Sky Warden 2,243]

 

 

The Roman Legions had numerical superiority, more disciplined and well equipped troops, a vast array of troop types (Legionaries, Triarii, equites so on), Siege weaponry (Catapults, Scorpios, Ballistae ex), and rarely cracked under pressure. Also keep in mind Rome had the tenancy to hire a vast array of Mercenaries. When facing the legion, you are also likely to encounter Goth and Visgoth troops, Hunic cavalry and so on.

 

 

I think you haven't read the history of the late Mongol empire. They used one of the biggest trebuchet in the history made by a Turkish engineer to capture Xiang Yang. The Mongolian army was also built by mercenaries from the land they took, which is ridiculously wide. And the Mongolian army isn't only the Mangudai. The result, is the biggest land empire on earth.

 

Well, maybe it's true that Centurion is more disciplined, but note that they're elite units, and expensive. They need this and that. Mongolian was also superior in number, honestly.

 

From the equipment side, Mangudai was more efficient than Centurion. They could kill more people with only their horse and their bow (and arrows) naked than Centurion with their heavy armour, pillum, gladius, helmet, and heavy board shield. Their archery skill was outstanding as well. For them, it's not all about better equipment. That what makes better army. Efficiency, versatility and effectiveness. They were better in speed, accuracy, versatility, price, and else. Try to play Total War and you will get the difficulties of defeating cavalry archer with Legionaries.

 

By the way, we're talking about Centurion and Mangudai here.

 

Most people only learn about the raids, the savage, the terror and the tribalism of the Mongols. Actually they had more than that.

 

 

 

and in my mind are the more skilled of the two.

 

I agree.

 

 

 

I would reckon a European broadsword would do just as well against the Samurai armor as the Katana would against the Knights armor. Samurai also used the Yari spear, specifically designed to puncture steel armor:

 

It's not about sword against sword, but sword against armour. Europan bastard sword (sorry, I just like to call them this ) has better length, and is effective against Samurai's armour. Katana is for slashing, and couldn't stand a chance against thick plate armour. Real life, is somehow, different with anime.

 

Well, I'm not sure, but a Samurai sees his sword as his pride, and would prefer to use it in any occasion. That's why they're famous. They're honourable and respectful army. Their sword is their pride. If they did use that spear, they would probably win, since it seems pretty effective to impale.

 

Also, that's what I call with blunt trauma. That Kanabo looks so badass.

[RWB 229]

Several points here on the japanese weapons, and on armor, and on the whole one-on-one schooling.

 

 

1. Yari was an ineffective weapon for one on one combat- highly effective in huge numbers, though, like any kind of spear.

    The Kanabo, unlike the war hammer and longsword, actually was a hefty weapon that would slow the Samurai down.

 

And you know what? The knights had their own, more effective version- the halberd. Could hook, pierce, culb and cut, and had a more benificial design than the Kanabo. There's a reason the halberd was one of the dominant weapons even when the rifle had made it's proper breakthrough.

 

2. Samurai Armor was about as heavy as that of the knight, and the weight was distributed worse- though the Samurai did have a slight footwork advantage(and a more notable weakness to attack- the legs were a common target in 1-on-1 combat).

 

3. Knights were schooled since childhood as well, and learned to wrestle, break arms with holds... you name it. The Samurai did not have better training- at best, they were equal. T

 

The Knights were fast, had arguably the best defenses in the world, several weapons to take care of Samurai armor that aren't even clumsy... and this is without even bringing in the buckler nor the "grab" hilt.

 

 

If a Samurai with a Katana faces a knight with a hilt that has a swordcatcher, he's pretty busted, since he's most likely gonna get his sword locked when he strikes. The Knight can simply do a quick strike with his armored hand to the face of the Samurai(the Mask isn't gonna stop him from being groggy), or if he should be wielding a buckler, just crush his face(or arm, if goes for that).

 

 

How ancient are we allowing, by the way?

 

If to the end of the 1600s, Caroleans will curbstomp both knights and Samurai. If to the end of 1500, most of the late 1500 forces will decimate both Samurai and Knights.

[~Lawful Jordo~ 2,064]

 

 

I think you haven't read the history of the late Mongol empire. They used one of the biggest trebuchet in the history made by a Turkish engineer to capture Xiang Yang. The Mongolian army was also built by mercenaries from the land they took, which is ridiculously wide. And the Mongolian army isn't only the Mangudai. The result, is the biggest land empire on earth.

 

Well, maybe it's true that Centurion is more disciplined, but note that they're elite units, and expensive. They need this and that. Mongolian was also superior in number, honestly.

 

From the equipment side, Mangudai was more efficient than Centurion. They could kill more people with only their horse and their bow (and arrows) naked than Centurion with their heavy armour, pillum, gladius, helmet, and heavy board shield. Their archery skill was outstanding as well. For them, it's not all about better equipment. That what makes better army. Efficiency, versatility and effectiveness. They were better in speed, accuracy, versatility, price, and else. Try to play Total War and you will get the difficulties of defeating cavalry archer with Legionaries.

 

By the way, we're talking about Centurion and Mangudai here.

 

Most people only learn about the raids, the savage, the terror and the tribalism of the Mongols. Actually they had more than that.

 

 

 

 

I agree.

 

 

 

 

It's not about sword against sword, but sword against armour. Europan bastard sword (sorry, I just like to call them this ) has better length, and is effective against Samurai's armour. Katana is for slashing, and couldn't stand a chance against thick plate armour. Real life, is somehow, different with anime.

 

Well, I'm not sure, but a Samurai sees his sword as his pride, and would prefer to use it in any occasion. That's why they're famous. They're honourable and respectful army. Their sword is their pride. If they did use that spear, they would probably win, since it seems pretty effective to impale.

 

Also, that's what I call with blunt trauma. That Kanabo looks so badass.

 

 

I will admit my knowledge of the Mongolians is not as credible as I would like it to be, though I know my Roman history. 

 

I was unaware we were just comparing Legionnaire's and Mangudai. Of course a rabble of heavy infantry wouldn't last long against a unit of horse archers. The horse archers could just ride circles around them until they all get picked off by their arrows.

 

Note only a fool would build an army composed entirely of a single infantry type. You have the light cavalry (Equites) hunt down the pesky archers/light infantry, the archers (Sagittarii) behind your lines along with the larger siege weaponry (Catapults/Ballistae) to rain death on the enemy forces, your light infantry/mercenaries to charge the enemy lines (Goth/Visgoth troops) as your Legionnaires slowly advance in the testudo formation (To minimize loses to arrow fire), while keeping your Triarii (Roman Spearmen) to hold the line against cavalry charges (Supporting them with the Scorpio).

 

You see? An army requires a healthy mix of troop types. No singular unit can be effective everywhere on the battlefield. 

 

And by the way, I love the Total War series. I play Rome: Total War, Medieval 2 Total war and Shogun 2 Total war.

 

Can't wait for Rome total war 2!

 

Since were on the topic of ancient warriors, here is Lawful Jordo's perfect ancient army:

 

Basic Infantry: Roman Legionnaires 

 

Heavy infantry/shock troops: Samurai

 

Light Cavalry: Mongolian horse archers

 

Heavy Cavalry: Knights on horseback (Lance)

 

Archers: English Long bowmen

 

also throw in some Spartan Hoplites to hold the line behind the advancing troops ^.^

 

 

 

 

 

And I still stand by the Samurai with it's Kanabo/Yari can opener :3

 

Skip to about 6 minutes where they start testing them on armor. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Several points here on the japanese weapons, and on armor, and on the whole one-on-one schooling.

 

 

1. Yari was an ineffective weapon for one on one combat- highly effective in huge numbers, though, like any kind of spear.

    The Kanabo, unlike the war hammer and longsword, actually was a hefty weapon that would slow the Samurai down.

 

And you know what? The knights had their own, more effective version- the halberd. Could hook, pierce, culb and cut, and had a more benificial design than the Kanabo. There's a reason the halberd was one of the dominant weapons even when the rifle had made it's proper breakthrough.

 

2. Samurai Armor was about as heavy as that of the knight, and the weight was distributed worse- though the Samurai did have a slight footwork advantage(and a more notable weakness to attack- the legs were a common target in 1-on-1 combat).

 

3. Knights were schooled since childhood as well, and learned to wrestle, break arms with holds... you name it. The Samurai did not have better training- at best, they were equal. T

 

The Knights were fast, had arguably the best defenses in the world, several weapons to take care of Samurai armor that aren't even clumsy... and this is without even bringing in the buckler nor the "grab" hilt.

 

 

If a Samurai with a Katana faces a knight with a hilt that has a swordcatcher, he's pretty busted, since he's most likely gonna get his sword locked when he strikes. The Knight can simply do a quick strike with his armored hand to the face of the Samurai(the Mask isn't gonna stop him from being groggy), or if he should be wielding a buckler, just crush his face(or arm, if goes for that).

 

 

How ancient are we allowing, by the way?

 

If to the end of the 1600s, Caroleans will curbstomp both knights and Samurai. If to the end of 1500, most of the late 1500 forces will decimate both Samurai and Knights.

 

1. False. The Kanabo is only 4 lbs. It also has a 4'9 reach. The average European longsword weighs roughly 2.4-3.3 lbs, and has an average reach of 4'2. The Kanabo is only slightly heavier, but has a longer reach than the typical longsword. 

 

Spears are hardly ineffective in one on one combat. There is some truth in the fact that they are far more effective in groups, but they aren't useless in a one on one fight. The Yari spear has a 6'5 reach, weighing only about 3 lbs and is built for piercing steel armor. The knight has to get past that 6 and a half foot range without being skewered. 

 

That is, unless he uses the Halberd. Now, the Halberd is typically around 6 feet, so the Yari would have a 5 inch reach advantage. It can also weigh up to 5 lbs. That's right, it's heavier than the Kanabo. 

 

So the Yari has slightly better reach, and it's lighter. The Halberd is a more versatile weapon however. 

 

 

2. The typical Samurai armor set could weigh anywhere from 40-60 pounds, while a knights steel plate armor could weigh anywhere from 40-50 pounds. You are correct, the Medieval plate armor was better designed overall.

 

3. Not clumsy? I beg to differ. The Halberd is actually heavier than the Kanabo (And more top heavy) and shorter than the Yari. The war hammer could come in various sizes (Being either an almost pole arm type weapon or a hand hammer). The hand held (around 25 inches) is pretty much useless unless the Knight can get up in the Samurai's face. The longer warhammer has the same problem as the Halberd, where it's shorter than the Yari and more top heavy. The morningstar is pretty much the most clumsy ancient weapon out there. You're just as likely to hit yourself with the darn thing as you are to hit the enemy. Also the lance is pretty well useless unless he's on horseback.

 

The only really reliable weapon for the Knight I can think of is the Longsword.

 

(Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

 

 

 

 

Also I don't think anything post gunpowder really counts as an 'ancient warrior'. That just wouldn't be fair

 

 

Humans ditched swords for guns for a reason lol.

[Sky Warden 2,243]

 

 

I was unaware we were just comparing Legionnaire's and Mangudai. Of course a rabble of heavy infantry wouldn't last long against a unit of horse archers. The horse archers could just ride circles around them until they all get picked off by their arrows.

 

That's it.

 

 

 

Note only a fool would build an army composed entirely of a single infantry type. You see? An army requires a healthy mix of troop types. No singular unit can be effective everywhere on the battlefield. 

No way!

 

Well, yes of course, but I would use spear men (hoplites, triarii, etc) in the front line and cover their flank with versatile infantry. I will put cavalry on both sides of the infantry and foot archers in the middle, but a little far backwards. Here's my composition:

 

Front Line (shield wall): Spartan Hoplites

 

Heavy infantry/shock troops: Roman Centurion

 

Flanking Cavalry: Mongolian Mangudai

 

Heavy Cavalry: Polish Hussar

 

Foot Archers: Goryeo Hwarang

 

I will conquer the world.

 

 

 

Can't wait for Rome total war 2!

Wait hold on a second. I thought they released it already? Did I misread it?

 

 

 

And I still stand by the Samurai with it's Kanabo/Yari can opener :3

 

I know. I agree with you about Yari and Kanabo for plate armour. I was just saying that Samurai might not use them because of their katana addict.

 

 

 

1. False. The Kanabo is only 4 lbs. It also has a 4'9 reach. The average European longsword weighs roughly 2.4-3.3 lbs, and has an average reach of 4'2. The Kanabo is only slightly heavier, but has a longer reach than the typical longsword.

 

Yes, false (that means you're right). It's not to heavy and is pretty long. It's light enough to be held one-handed, even though some held it two handed because of its length.

 

 

 

1. Yari was an ineffective weapon for one on one combat- highly effective in huge numbers, though, like any kind of spear.

 

I don't think it is ineffective, so is any kind of spear (unless the hoplite's spear which is ridiculously long). Medium ranged spear is pretty effective in close combat if you know how to use it. I've been in many debates about historical weapons, and they ended up on the skill set of the holder.

 

Killing is extremely easy with a Guan Dao.

 

 

 

And you know what? The knights had their own, more effective version- the halberd. Could hook, pierce, culb and cut, and had a more benificial design than the Kanabo. There's a reason the halberd was one of the dominant weapons even when the rifle had made it's proper breakthrough.

 

Not really. It's very heavy and is made for siege. It's also too long, making it hard to pull after attacking.

 

 

 

3. Knights were schooled since childhood as well, and learned to wrestle, break arms with holds... you name it. The Samurai did not have better training- at best, they were equal.

 

I'm not a fan of Japanese martial art or their culture. I'm not a Japaholic, but I want to mention that Samurai has a set of martial arts behind their belt. There's a particular martial art for both armed and unarmed combat. Not to mention that they also know, even just a little, about Qi.

 

 

 

2. The typical Samurai armor set could weigh anywhere from 40-60 pounds, while a knights steel plate armor could weigh anywhere from 40-50 pounds. You are correct, the Medieval plate armor was better designed overall.

 

Aye. Correct.

 

Still, the Samurai might lose. It's the matter of their weapons. Katana against plate armour is ridiculous. Katana is for slashing, not chopping. I've heard about many maniac who experimented with their katanas they bought online to chop a tree, and the results were nasty.

 

Fighting against thick metal armour? Blunt trauma. Pick a hammer, morning star, Kanabo, or whatever heavy.

[RWB 229]

I will admit that I was wrong on the Kanabo- everytime I see one of those, they tend to be a lot longer and wider than they really are, which I guess skewed my view of them.

 

This gives a much more reasonable view: 

 

 

 

The halberd, however, wasn't actually heavier than the Kanabo(both would weigh about 4 pounds, though you are right about the weight distribution making it a bit less simple to wield). They were not clumsy at all, and could be wielded much like the Bo staff.

 

Historically correct video:

 

 

 

So yeah, turns out we are both incorrect. Halberds could be heavier if they used bigger heads, but still, more than 5 pounds was VERY rare.

 

 

The weight distribution would in this case be an advantage, though- hitting a Knight with a halberd strike is gonna cause more damage than a Kanabo. Likewise, a weaponized Longsword pommel would also be more damaging.

 

 

Still, yes, the Kanabo is probably the best anti-knight weapon here- and cetainly would be useful. Still, a knight with a buckler(or larger shield) is gonna be a major hazard for the kanabo.

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm not a fan of Japanese martial art or their culture. I'm not a Japaholic, but I want to mention that Samurai has a set of martial arts behind their belt. There's a particular martial art for both armed and unarmed combat. Not to mention that they also know, even just a little, about Qi."

 

This was what I was playing at- the Knights had this as well. Less of it has survived due to the lesser emphasis on swords(and close combat, period) in later years(while Japan banned every other weapon during the Tokugawa period), but again- both side have more or less equal training, both armed and unarmed.

 

 

I think the Deadliest warrior episode on Viking vs Samurai was off. I do believe the Samurai would have a good chance to win- heck, even have the advantage altogether due to more effective armor...

 

But that episode depicted a viking who:

 

1. Was a slow heavy-hitter. Quite contrary to what little we know of viking combat skill- agile, aggressive and acrobatic, wielding light weapons(the Dane Axe weighed only about 4 pounds).

2. Threw aside his shield for no reason whatsoever. That was moronic.

 

 

 

As a rule, I feel people underrate the ingenuity of the bygone ages. I mean, we had diving equipment in the 1400s.

 

 

This video alone...

 

 

Edited May 18, 2013 by RWB

[Silver fox 117 49]

Do any of you know how to clear the poll, because it is being so stupid right now, and wont let people who previously voted, vote again. And it is making me so not happy.

[swordsman 191]

this sounds alot like deadliest warrior on spike TV.  I am a swords person myself and a tactical shooter and what it really comes down to is skill, planning, weapons, your warrior mind set and many other things. just look at the Gurkhas. they took on the British who had guns and won and then in WWII they took out Japanese battalion withonly there  knives.

 

what make you the best is were you ever defeated or conquered, did your kingdom fall, did these warrior live to see retirement,  is your name still fear and are you still a liveing people with your lands  intact.

 

the  Spartans,Roman Centurions,Aztecs,Mayans,Gladiators and a few other are not the best because well they lost and there lands got looted.

 

in war there is one ultimate rule-survive to come home and have a home to come to!!!

[Sky Warden 2,243]

Can we please have a fair vote? Gun against melee weapon? Seriously. Apache warriors were very though, but that doesn't mean that we can test them with bullets.

 

 

 

I think the Deadliest warrior episode on Viking vs Samurai was off. I do believe the Samurai would have a good chance to win- heck, even have the advantage altogether due to more effective armor...

 

Aye. Viking's armour isn't effective against slashing weapons like Katana. Not only because Vikings are more brutal. Their weapon is heavier as well, and their armour doesn't give an advantage. Samurai will win.

 

About Europe knight against Japanese Samurai, my vote is still on the knight. Katana has no chance against their armour, and I doubt they will use their Kanabo because of their sword addict.

 

Wait a minute! How could in the name of Celestia Mongol has so little vote against Roman Centurion?! 1 against 16? Seriously guys? Do you know what Mongolian Mangudai is? Roman Centurion is infantry unit, and Mongolian Mangudai is cavalry archer. Just by that any sane logic can see who will win. Historical records have shown Roman Centurion's effectiveness against cavalry.

 

Don't say "Because Roman is cool and has full equipment and Mongol is just a nomad tribe with their ponies." Look at their empire. Look at my previous post! For Celestia's sake!

 

HOW CAN I VOTE? I want to support the Mongols!

Argue me I dare you!

Edited May 20, 2013 by Sky Warden

[Starshine 16,330]

 

 

Do any of you know how to clear the poll, because it is being so stupid right now, and wont let people who previously voted, vote again. And it is making me so not happy.

 

 

HOW CAN I VOTE? I want to support the Mongols!

Currently the forum doesn't allow us normal members to "clear" our votes, so if you voted in any of the previous polls, you can't vote again in the next polls unless you're a mod or an admin.

 

On the topic itself... I assume we aren't allowed to bring in gunpowder into the table? Then I have no idea *shrugs*

[Zygen 6,065]

I don't know a ton about history but I think some of my favorites are the Samurai and Ninja's, along with the Spartans.

 

The problem is comparing them to some later technology they may not be all that fierce. 

 

I do find them all pretty cool overall.

 

I'll be honest I don't know a whole lot about them really, I'm not highly knowledgeable about the Ancient warriors.

[Sky Warden 2,243]

 

 

Currently the forum doesn't allow us normal members to "clear" our votes, so if you voted in any of the previous polls, you can't vote again in the next polls unless you're a mod or an admin.

Pony feather! I have no idea what's in people's mind voting that Roman Centurion can defeat Mongolian Mangudai that easily, shown by the vote (1 against 16).

[Starshine 16,330]

I have no idea what's in people's mind voting that Roman Centurion can defeat Mongolian Mangudai that easily

You can blame the military romanticism and Hollywood movies for that. A lot of people tends to stick with the cool-sounding and awesome-looking parts rather than the strategical points.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Starshine

[Sky Warden 2,243]

You can blame the military romanticism and Hollywood movies for that. A lot of people tends to stick with the cool-sounding and awesome-looking parts rather than the strategical points.

Probably that's the reason. Centurion indeed sounds cooler than Mongol for most people, but I find the "Mongolian Mangudai" sounds cool. If you learn about the Mongol a little more, you will find them very cool and badass. Look at these:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those are the Khergits from Mount&Blade series, which adapts the Mongolian culture. And here are some painting about actual Mongols.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, the last one isn't really a Mongol, but still looks pretty badass.

 

Who doesn't find those cool? They're awesome. They didn't make the biggest land empire on earth because of no reason.

[Titan Rising 2,156]

In equal numbers I would actually say ninjas followed closely by samurai.  If what I have seen in movies is accurate Ninjas excel at guerrilla warfare which in my opinion is the most effective type.  I feel like these two groups have shown to know more about the art of war than any other set of warriors on the list.  As far as I know knights and the like were fairly predictable in their attacks, so even though they might have effective armor I really don't think it would help them much against the tactics of the samurai.

[Sky Warden 2,243]

In equal numbers I would actually say ninjas followed closely by samurai.

 

Almost agree, but Ninja is the one slightly behind Samurai. Why? They're ambush-er, not front-fighter. What makes Ninja seems stronger than Samurai is their stealthy moves and they throat the Samurai's neck while the Samurai isn't looking. Think about it.

 

Samurai definitely has better armour which is pretty effective against their own weapon, the Katana. If you place the same number of Ninja and Samurai in a face-to-face battle, I bet the Samurai will win.

 

Still, those two will fall like leaves in Autumn in Mongolian Mangudai's formation. The only reason why Japanese survived from the Mongolian invasion is the Kamikaze (God's wind) storm which prevented Mongolian fleet to land, and their geography slightly helped them.

 

They may know the art of war better, but they're not practical enough to use it. Look at the Chinese. They're the home of "The Art of War" but lost against the Mongols. Why? Because the Mongols were more practical.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Sky Warden

[RWB 229]

Going into the topic of early 1700s gunmen, the Swedish caroleans were absolute badasses.

 

You could hit the man right beside a carolean with a cannon and he wouldn't flinch, just march on.

 

"Do not fire till you can see the white in their eyes".

 

 

There's also the fact that they won almost every battle they fought- and they were beaten in numbers(often by a huge margin) pretty much every time.

 

The clips in this video is from a movie made by the Russians and portray the final battle of the death march, which the caroleans lost due to fatigue, hunger, and the fact that their main commander was delirious from sickness, causing the commanders below him to quarrel- despite this, the 20000 strong carolean force almost pressed through the Russians at one point, and had they succeeded, they may very well have won, and Tsar Peter the Great might have fallen

 

The real reason I show it is that it proves the carolean outfit itself can look badass:

 

Edited May 20, 2013 by RWB

[Nobody Special 210]

Pirates should not be on here because pirates is a broad term. Pirates can swahbukling scaveys to drug dealers with AK's. Even if you are talking about the older pirates they still have gunpowder so anytime one of these opponents got close enough they would be blown apart by the pirates blunderbuss. Therefore the pirates would win every match up. having said this, pirates would win but if pirates were taken off the list I would have to say the Spartans. Their advanced training, battle tactics, and weaponry(for the time) was quite well suited for taking ddown any enemy that came their way.

[RWB 229]

Pirates really should come of the list- it's a very broad term.

 

They vary from trained marines led by former naval commanders, to naval forces serving a country(privateers, see Francis Drake), to todays machine-gun toters, to barbarians with little skill nor intellect.

[Umbral Noir 1,556]

Spartans for definite. If 300 Spartans (both in real life and the film) can take on a massive army of thousands of Persians by themselves, Spartans would definitely be able to hold their own with their amazing tactics and skill. Definitely the Spartans are the best ancient warriors.

[firekillerpwns 32]

I would say spartans are the best just because they stood against 10,000 persians and there was only 300 of them. so they stood against great odds

[Sky Warden 2,243]

Spartans for definite. If 300 Spartans (both in real life and the film) can take on a massive army of thousands of Persians by themselves, Spartans would definitely be able to hold their own with their amazing tactics and skill. Definitely the Spartans are the best ancient warriors.

 

I would say spartans are the best just because they stood against 10,000 persians and there was only 300 of them. so they stood against great odds

 

Not really. They won because their position gave them extra advantage with their phalanx formation. The phalanx formation is only effective against frontal attack, and is extremely weak on the flank. Their phalanx might be impenetrable, but in real war, enemies won't ignorantly attack from the front, especially cavalry.

 

 

The Romans could defeat their phalanx because of their flexibility in military unit.

 

Now, talking about my favourite Mongolian Mangudai, Spartans will fall, just like the other heavy armoured (or even the light armoured) infantries. How? The Mongol will outrun them, circle them, and fire furiously to their exposed flank in the middle of that cavalry circle.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Sky Warden

[RWB 229]

There's a LOT wrong with 300 spartans statement. 

 

1. The first day of battle had a lot of the Greek Army(numbering in the 10000s). 

2. The only reason they even had that heroic stand was because the greek army was sent to retreat after the Spartan leader Leonidas had been outmaneuvered.

3. Leonidas had more Thespians and Thebans than spartans in his remaining force, which numbered more than a thousand.

4. They still lost, resulting in the Persian takeover of Athens(which was evacuated as soon as they heard of the Persian victory- before the last stand).

 

Frankly, it's impressive that they held out so long, but they had massive advantages in pretty much everything BUT numbers.

 

Compare it to, say, Toyotomi Hideyoshi of the Sengoku era, who in his first campaign under Nobunaga not only conquered a fort with less numbers on his side, but then:

 

1. Provided cover for the retreating Oda army at the cost of being able to retreat himself(getting surrounded in his conquered fort).

2. Was stuck with less than 600 men against an army of more than 15000, most having equal or superior ability as his own men.

3. Lost less than a hundred of his forces in the covering of the retreat and the siege his enemy lead against the fort he had taken.

4. Successfully returned with 500 men after allowing the Oda to reform their ranks, by fooling the enemy attackers with a cavalry charge of only a few dozen men rushing out of the gates, allowing his main "force" to retreat.

 

Far more impressive than Leonidas, in my mind(not that Leonidas holding out as long as he could wasn't impressive but still).

[Titan Rising 2,156]

@@Sky Warden, 
true in head on battles i would give it to the samurai, but under the condition where armies can prepare and fight how they wish and not necessarily engage in head on fights i give it to ninja because of their experience in stealth guerilla warfare. it could go either way i think depending on many factors of course...

i dont know enough about mongolia to comment on how they would fare

Edited May 20, 2013 by Titan Rising