Who were the fiercest fighters of all time, and why was it the Zulu ibutho warriors?

Who were the fiercest fighters of all time, and why was it the Zulu ibutho warriors?

First off, ibutho warriors were professional soldiers, unlike the Vikings who were just farmers who were so shit at their jobs that they had to supplement their income by attacking weak, unguarded targets like churches and villages. The ibutho warriors, on the other hand, did nothing but train for war. They were drilled constantly for speed, marching daily over thorns to toughen their feet so they could run barefoot into battle. They ran marathons every single day and were expected to be able to run 50 miles in a single day, then fight a battle at the end of it.

What's that, weebs, you say the samurai were better? Samurai rarely fought each other; they massacred helpless peasants while wearing thick armour which made them walking tanks. The ibutho warrior sprinted barefoot into battle almost naked, and in fact Shaka Zulu eventually replaced the traditional spears of the with war hammers because he felt it was cowardly to kill an enemy at a distance; hammers forced the ibutho warriors to go face to face with their enemies while killing them.

Then there's the fact that any ibutho warrior who returned without his weapon was executed on the spot, since it showed cowardice. Ibutho warriors were therefore fanatical, fast, deadly, and utterly fearless.

Name any warriors in history who were as fierce and ferocious as the Zulu ibutho warriors. Pro tip: you can't.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=a7mbwo4rSFU&ab_channel=Implementor
books.google.ca/books?id=M_DAxi8sBHEC&redir_esc=y
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zulu_War
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

his cousine

Roman soldiers. Sorry black boi.

Roman soldiers were disciplined, but not fierce or especially good. The whole reason they were under such strict discipline is because without it they would get their asses kicked.

yeah but guns > spears
prussians win
youtube.com/watch?v=a7mbwo4rSFU&ab_channel=Implementor

Spartans

>so professional they haven't conquered anything other than dirt

Ok pal, no need to rattle your sticks and mud shields at us.

>Spartans had to prove their fitness even as infants.
>Spartan children were placed in a military-style education program.
>Hazing and fighting were encouraged among Spartan children.
>All Spartan men were expected to be lifelong soldiers.
>Spartan youths were ritualistically beaten and flogged.
>Food was intentionally kept scarce, and poor fitness was cause for ridicule.
>Spartan men were not allowed to live with their wives until age 30.
>Surrender in battle was the ultimate disgrace.

Just having better weapons doesn't make you more fierce. Mexican drug cartel thugs have AKs and could mow down every army in history prior to the 20th century. Does that make them great warriors? No.

The Spartans were arrogant, not good. They lost one battle because they left their shields at home out of contempt, just to show off.

Klingons

Ibutho warriors chewed fucking *poison* to build up a tolerance so that they could fill their mouths with it and spit it at their enemies in battle. That's fucking bad-ass. And every single ibutho warrior could run non-stop for 50 miles and then fight a battle at the end of the run. No Spartan could do that.

>Can mow down every army in history

What fucking weeaboo channel are you watching son? They're allowed to exist because they provide a niche market to encourage bad politics. Them mowing down 3rd world shit rats in body armor and civilian taco mongers has no bearing on their ability to take on anything above nobody's.

Can you read? The entire point of what I wrote is that they AREN'T fierce. They're an example of how just having superior weaponry doesn't make you bad-ass.

Mongols were fiercer.

Mongols were more ruthless, it's true, but as warriors they were just better-than-average horse archers. The reason Mongols were so feared is because of their tactics: they'd give a city one chance to surrender. If they didn't, the city would be utterly annihilated: every single man, woman, and child slaughtered, and the entire city razed to the ground.

Literally any white people ever.

Reason: 100% of the world has been conquered by whites, vs not even all of South Africa by the Zulus.
And the only people that can conquer a white army is-you guessed it-ANOTHER white army.

>What is the Battle of Isandlwana, Alex?

>WE WUZ KANGS N SHIET
the thread

One battle.
How'd the Zulus do in the rest of the war?
Oh that's right-they got THEIR ASS HANDED TO THEM.

Every ibutho warrior could run for 50 miles barefoot and then fight a battle at the end of it. Can you even roll your oily flab up the stairs to get your tendies?

Roman
Mongol
Ottoman
Nazi
Soviets
United states

>no armor
>close range
>caveman-tier gear
>can run for a long time barefoot
>niggers

OP what are you trying to pull here

...

Methed up Nazis for sure

>Every ibutho warrior could run for 50 miles barefoot and then fight a battle at the end of it

isent that a quote form a movie? how do you know its even true, if you have proof then have it at

Weak bait is weak.

Okay, now you're just quoting Zulu, which is admittedly an awesome movie, but it's hardly a reliable source.

i smell a nigger

>how do you know its even true
Morris, Donald R. (1994) [1965]. The Washing of the Spears: A History of the Rise of the Zulu Nation Under Shaka and Its Fall in the Zulu War of 1879

books.google.ca/books?id=M_DAxi8sBHEC&redir_esc=y

European knights. Wealthy, possessed best equipment available in their times. Hard as fuck to kill.

>Not fierce or especially good
>Conquered half the world

0/10 for making me reply.

Bureaucracy and technological advantage, m80.

I think in equal numbers, any of the following would defeat Zulu warriors: european knights or men at arms, samurai, vikings, the chinese imperial army, roman armies (republican or imperial), or basically any army > 1900AD.

I agree that Zulu warriors were notable, but you have to consider that the main reason they did so well was that they were using actual warfare tactics against opponents using tribal "dispute" tactics. The tribal african way of war before Shaka was a low casualty, low ferocity method in which the men of two tribes would meet at a prearranged spot and throw insults and spears at each other. Deaths from this were actually pretty rare, and that was accepted because in those days a human life was more valuable that land, because they had a metroc fuckton of land but not that many people. Certain especially valuable places would be fought over, but by and large, conflicts just weren't worth a war. Shaka changed that by actually pressing forward to kill his enemies and conquering their lands and people.

When the zulu were fighting undisciplined tribal warriors they did well, but after The Crushing their tactics spread, and their expansion greatly slowed as they were now fighting enemies using their own tactics against them, and every single time they fought a professional army they lost, save for one battle.

Also when lauding tbeir prowess as conquerers remember that they only conquered an area the size of New Jersey.

In other words,

C O L O N I Z E D
O
L
O
N
I
Z
E
D

Just being effective doesn't make you fierce. The Romans were very good at discipline. They were master tacticians, and they specialized in carefully-orchestrated battle plans. The individual soldiers were not great. The whole point of having such well-drilled and disciplined troops was so they didn't have to have fierce warriors. They could take Joe Slob, hand him a gladius, and slot him into a machine of conquest.

Yeah. Almost like ferocity means absolutely nothing when faced with superior technology, discipline, and organisation.

>Implying bureaucracy is relevant during combat out in the middle of the woods, knee deep in shit and guts.

Wew lad.

And it worked out beautifully for them.

A lot more could be added to that list. Ancient Egyptians and any Mesopotamian society would easily defeat them in equal numbers.

/thread

The celts fought naked in battle up until the Roman era. They were famed as savage and fierce warriors, and Ireland such a barren shithole, that the Romans didn't even attempt to conquer it. Their mercenaries found use throughout the ancient world including the army of Alexander the Great. As late as the 19th century Irish regiments were famous for their bravery in battle.

There is a reason Afghanistan is known as the "Graveyard of Empires". Their tribes are fierce and divided, only united in their conflict against the outside. Innumerable times throughout history they have waged guerilla warfare against technologically and numerically superior foes. The only way to effectively control the area is full scorch & salt tactics. The peoples of the Khyber Pass in particular are known not only as fierce combatants, but fine craftsmen. The jezail was famed for its accuracy and elegance and even today their gunsmithing allows them to make reproductions, of varying degrees of quality, of a large number of guns.

The Aztecs of mesoamerica were undisputed rulers of the area, until the Europeans came with their guns, germs and promises of payback to all of the various peoples the Aztec had conquered and enslaved. Their armor was light and incredibly effective.

>Roman
Technology and bureaucratic advantage over every enemy they faced, individual legionnares were garbage

>Mongols
Fantastic archers, demons on horses, average individual fighters

>US
Bureaucracy, organization, technology. Smart and badass, dishonorable

>Ottoman, Nazi, Soviets
>mfw

>Implying Nazis didn't almost take on the whole world and win

Afghans are a good one, I didn't think of them! That makes me think the Comanche, Apache, and Ghurkas might also be a good choice, though to be honest I don't know a lot about the Ghurka's way of war pre-foreign legion days, I just know that in their service in the 20th century they became known for insane bravery and ferocity.

As a bit of a nitpick, the Celts never fought naked, I believe you're confusing them with their pict ancestor/predecessors.

The Vikings never conquered any great empire, nor did the Japanese. We're not talking about the overall effectiveness of an army. As I mentioned, the Romans were great conquerors, but their troops were nothing special. The Zulus were not amazing strategists, but the ibutho warriors were absolutely terrifying. The only warriors who even come close to such personal ferocity are the Cossacks and the the Aztec Jaguars. Can you name any other military which trained to run 50 miles non-stop? Or which made their soldiers *eat poison* so they could build up immunity to allow them to literally spit poison at their enemies?

>Fiercest fighters
> Ctrl+f Gurkha's 0 results

Slack-jawed faggots the thread.

>take on the whole world
By which you mean 1/3rd of it

>almost win
By which you mean certainly doom themselves to loss by attacking the soviet union.

Listen famalam, in a 1v1 Germany would have decimated every single one of the allied countries. Your argument is invalid. The fact that they lost doesn't mean they weren't effective.

Spartans would kick there ass in a fight both in a group and one on one

Genghis Khan and his men own this thread.

Look up the battle of blood river, literally less that 500 farmers killed thousends of these niggers.

Underrated post is underrated.

Ask the American indians who the greatest warriors ever were. (protip:they were white)

This. Spartans.

Also.. Last I checked using your fucking brains made you a better soldier than ruthlessly punishing your body.
The Zulu were spanked by the Romans because they lacked anything beyond rudimentary tactics.
Their ranged weapons were non-existent, and they tried charging enemies predictably.
This lack of learning because "muh tradition" cost them their nation when the British showed up in the 19th century.
Pick a better warrior caste to bait with then some mud hutted half naked nignogs with various sticks.

The German special forces were chosen for political reasons. SS troops weren't especially well trained or fierce or brave, they were just easily brainwashed or had family connections. Not exactly "top warrior" material.

>the vikings nevet conquered
I'll take normans for 1066, Alex.


>ibutho warriors were absolutely terrifying
Right! Which is why redcoats with just the beyonets on their rifles could inflict greater casualties on them while resisting a charge, and why the Zulus never conquered an Area larger than New Jetsey, despite the fact that they were CONSTANTLY trying.

Also, this "disregarding actual prowess in favor of ferocity" thing is getting tired. One on one, a Zulu warrior is going to lose to a knight, samurai, roman soldier, viking, whoever, simply because they all had better armor, better weapons, better technology, and better training.

Being more ferocious just means you happen to look more angry thanscared when the knight is pulling his sword out of your gut.

so so true

I'd agree with that except for the soviets and the USA. The soviets would have given them a damn good run for their money, and there's no chance in hell they'd have been able to take the amerifats.

Correction: pre-zulu inhabitants.
(not that much changes in Africa)

"In the Battle at the Ncome or Blood River about 3000 Zulu warriors died. The Voortrekkers, however, had - except for three lightly injured men - no losses. The deeply religious Boers ascribed the military victory not to their superior armament and tactics, but saw it as a miracle and sign from God." even God hated these niggers.

There were and are plenty of unconquered First Nations. The Haida, for example, were so fierce that the British said "fuck this" and let them keep their island since there was nothing on them worth kicking the hornet's nest. The Haida were so warlike that at one point, 2 out of every 3 people in the Haida nation was a slave. To this day the Haida have never signed any pacts with the white man.

Even when Shaka Zulu's died he warned the follow up king; "the white men will be the end of us"

>
And to this day i am the second person to ever hear of them.

Key point:
>since there was nothing on them worth kicking the hornet's nest
As the british happily demonstrated with the Zulus and Chinese, it doesn't matter how fucking fierce you are, if you have something they want, they'd come to get it.

admittedly a huge mistake that cost them the war. if they had just kept friends with the soviets till the end of the war its very possible that they would control all of Europe

I don't know about the US. We saw what happened in France and Russia, with the Soviets only securing victory with the support of the Lend Lease program and ever increasing pressure from the Allies. The US' main arm was the Garand, although the Springfield remained in use in significant numbers, where as the Germans were using bolt-action rifles were the primary weapon well into the war. I'm not too familiar with the tanks or planes, so I can't really comment on that, but I am fairly certain the American navy was significantly better than the Kreigsmarine.

>The German special forces were chosen for political reasons.

The SS were the elite, that does not mean they were the best soldiers in the German army. In the case of WWII Germany that would have likely been the Fallschirmjager.

you uh
don't know what prussia is?

>Mexican Cartel enforcer
>not badass
pick one

I'll take chicken with extra cheese on my taco, Juan, now get back to work.

...

wait which do you want? extra cheese on taco or get back to work?

GOD DAMN IT JUAN DON'T TRY THIS BULLSHIT, WHEN YOU WERE HITTING ON AMBER EARLIER YOUR ENGLISH WAS FINE, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, JUST GET ME MY DAMN TACO BEFORE I HAVE TRUMP DEPORT YOU.

...

the Nazis weren't very friendly. They were constantly one upping their allies and betrayed them if it suited their needs. I'm not passing judgement, but I doubt they would have been able to keep any 'friends'.

>the Nazis weren't very friendly

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zulu_War

The British...

The vikings sailed to america, india, iceland and alaska, settled all over including GB. What's this ferocity shit you wanna build so much upon, nigras are good at running because they were too retarded to figure out other ways of catching prey. Who cares about them conquering the mud huts and deserts of other tribes?

>food was intentionally kept scarce

>poor fitness was cause for ridicule

Your heroes just sound like idiots.

It was to prevent the hedonistic habits of the Romans and Greeks.

So the Vikings went to places who were inhabited by peoples several hundreds of years behind them technologically and killed them and stole their stuff.

Why does this make them fierce warriors?

>Vikings
>Technologically advanced

Pick one and only one my friend.

u want sum? fucking zulu shitskin cunt

And what does that have to do with my comment?

They can have primitive technology and still be more advanced than others.

The Vikings got their nads kicked by the Beothuk and sailed away from Newfoundland whimpering with their tails between their legs, never to be seen there again. Not exactly the indomitable warrior-kings you spergs would have people believe.

They were basically on par with the rest of Europe at the time.

The "hedonistic" Thebans crushed Sparta. So much for proto-fascism, eh Gunther?

itt: google history

>They can have primitive technology and still be more advanced than others
lol
define 'advanced'

polish hussary
beat that

or winged hussars is another name

Literally anyone with a sail on their back. Or, like, a stiff wind.

The macedonians

Wow, you're thick. I'd say dragging their boats for miles from river to river, and spending months on the open sea in tiny boats to steal your finest women makes them pretty fierce

you get it man
they were so badass that enemies were runnin away coz they were scared of wings and exotic furrs they have been wearin
maybe not best warriors on earth ever coz they were heacly armored
like 50kg of armor

Qwit it with the negro's is da most awesomist _____ shit.

Seriously. Better to shut up and be though a fool, then open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Even the smart black guys are like "Bro, enough of that shit. You think it's funny, but I gotta go to work tomorrow and deal with what people think of that shit."

My nigga.

What about the Jaffa, though?

>Mongols were fiercer.

Definitely.

Klingons were patterned after Mongols - one of the smartest things Roddenberry ever did.

What about Sup Forums

>united states army
>has the most advanced weapons and equipment.
>gets raped by a bunch of chink farmers with makeshift weapons.
>gets raped by camel fuckers living in caves with shit weapons.
LoL

Shaka-Boohoo shitposting.

>United states gets raped by chink farmers with makeshift weapons and camel fuckers in caves with shit weapons

Neither of these ever happened. Fuck are you on about?