Greatest warriors throughout history:

Greatest warriors throughout history:
1. Mongolians
2. Greeks
3. Arabs
4. Turks

after that literally everybody else
prove me wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk#cnote_a
twitter.com/AnonBabble

nothing in the central asia

Forgot anglos

Turkish conquests go all the way from the gates of Vienna to India and large chunks of China

>

>Mongolians
Literally had one good run, even though that was the best run in history, it's still a single good run.
>Greeks
Have absolutely no right to be there. Not even the best fighters in the Balkans.
>Arabs above Turks
Arabs had 200 years of hegemony through Islamic, Turks had 1500 years of hegemony through Islam.

By the time it was 900, the Turks already had a firm control over the Caliphate's military and they had killed multiple Caliphs.

definitely not t*rks

My ancestors :)

>arabs

They really suck at fighting.

He said greatest, not worst.

greeks literally colonized north africa, turkey and even crimea, obviously fighting the locals into submission

>Literally had one good run, even though that was the best run in history, it's still a single good run.
Still counts.

>Have absolutely no right to be there. Not even the best fighters in the Balkans.
In their glory days in the BC era.

>Arabs had 200 years of hegemony through Islamic, Turks had 1500 years of hegemony through Islam.
They're like Mongolians, they only had a single run but it was still one of the best in history.

>obviously fighting the locals into submission

And therein lies the fault in your theory.

>T*rks
>Ar*bs
Shit-tier desu

>Still counts

Obviously it "counts" you dimwit, but it doesn't merit a first-place finish on that list.

>In their glory days in the BC era.

Still don't deserve to be anywhere near that list. Greece consisted of a bunch of in-warring city-states in the BC era, how does that merit such a high place? Because of Alexander? Pathetic.

>They're like Mongolians, they only had a single run but it was still one of the best in history.

A single run is not sufficient.

lots in china, middle-east and east europe
mongols fucked them all

From Antiquity to the Byzantine Empire to the Korean War, we've had great soldiers and leadership
Just because your history is boring and lackluster that doesn't mean we're shit, my friend

this

you also shouldn't forget alexander of macedon (he is not related to the modern inhabitants of it)

I'm not saying Greece is shit by any means. I'm just saying being the second best warriors in history is silly.

OP seems to be stupid, he equates "building massive empires in a short time" to being the "greatest warriors". That's the entire logic of his list, check it out

>Mongols because of the Mongolian Empire
>Greeks because of the Alexandrian Empire
>Arabs because of the Caliphates
>Turks because of the Turkic conquests

Yeah, I know what you mean, but the way you phrase it is kind of incorrect
>not even the best in the Balkans
please

So who were the greatest warriors in your opinion and what is a better way of measuring that than subjugating/destroying other peoples through war? I can't really think of anyone who dominated the battlefields like Mongols in their prime and can't see why the hell it "doesn't count" just because their dominion wasn't very lasting.

>OP seems to be stupid, he equates "building massive empires in a short time" to being the "greatest warriors". That's the entire logic of his list, check it out
Most of these empires were forged by might however. That's usually how it works.

No, they're forged by the enemy's internal struggled, shock-and-awe tactics, luck and overwhelming numbers most of the time

Bulgarians.

>performed extremely well in the Balkan Wars
>performed extremely well in WW1
>performed extremely well in WW2
>lost all of the wars

The sign of a true martial race.

>1. Mongolians
One good run, and they relied on proven tactics which were by numerous steppe people before for thousands of years. Their success was because of Genghis' genius as a leader and historical circumstances.
>2. Greeks
Traders, not warriors. They mostly fought each other. Every time they had outside opposition they got their shit kicked in. "But muh Alexander" Macedonian, so Slavic, not Greek.
>3. Arabs
Don't even need to comment, a laughing stock when it comes to war.
>4. Turks
Only ever won against Arabs and dying Byzantium. Got their shit kicked by everyone else, including Europeans, Russians, Persians etc etc

ahem, mother fucking ROMANS

>extremely well in the Balkan Wars
They couldn't even siege Adrianople without Serbian support
>WW1
Considering that Austria-Hungary pulled all the weight, no
>WW2
The only thing they did there was occupy, kill civilians and then lose

>lost all of the wars
Obviously

>martial race
>lost all the wars

>Turkish conquests go all the way from the gates of Vienna to India
it is literally bosnians who conquered hungary

any "nation" after 70 years of peace become pack of cucolds, need kill 50% of em to make it strong again

Turkic =/= Turkish

>So who were the greatest warriors in your opinion and what is a better way of measuring that than subjugating/destroying other peoples through war? I can't really think of anyone who dominated the battlefields like Mongols in their prime and can't see why the hell it "doesn't count" just because their dominion wasn't very lasting.


I think the best way is to look at consistently good performance in wars throughout history as opposed to bursts of success like the Mongolians had, after which they were relegated to the status of irrelevant hinterland.

I also don't think winning wars is even necessary. The Americans will almost every war, yet they're not the "best warriors" by a long shot, they just have overwhelming technological, economical and numerical superiority over most of their enemies.

That's why you simply have to look at which peoples give their enemies the most trouble during their fights. Here is a non-exhaustive lists of people who I consider to be among the "best warriors" through their cultural values:

>Vietnamese
>Pashtuns
>Nepalese (Ghurkas)
>Japanese
>Bulgarians
>Chechens
>Berbers
>Turkmens/Uzbeks

etc.

>One good run, and they relied on proven tactics which were by numerous steppe people before for thousands of years.
So?
> Every time they had outside opposition they got their shit kicked in.
>Macedonian, so Slavic, not Greek.
Kill yourself.
>Don't even need to comment, a laughing stock when it comes to war.
Tbh yeah but that their peak they forged an empire that went from Spain to India.
>Only ever won against Arabs and dying Byzantium. Got their shit kicked by everyone else, including Europeans, Russians, Persians etc etc
>

>enemy's internal struggle
>overwhelming numbers
Tbh yeah. And technological superiority.

...

>Bulgarians
Hello diaspora

>technological superiority
Only in extreme cases, like Brits vs Blacks for example
Most of the times, the Empires were technologically inferior to their enemies

I'm not Bulgarian, I just admire their martial capabilities

>nation with a population of less than five million and a military budget of less than two million pounds per annum placed in the field within fourteen days of mobilization an army of 400,000 men, and in the course of four weeks moved that army over 160 miles in hostile territory, captured one fortress and invested another, fought and won two great battles against the available armed strength of a nation of twenty million inhabitants, and stopped only at the gates of the hostile capital. With the exception of the Japanese and Gurkhas, the Bulgarians alone of all troops go into battle with the fixed intention of killing at least one enemy

>Vietnamese
>Pashtuns
>Ghurkas
>Nips
>Chechens
Literally just jungle/mountain niggers lmao. They're just lucky their environment was hard to stand for any invader.

>
it is true, however. they were victorious only against countries that were just waiting to die, ravaged by long internal conflicts. as soon as they met the true power, long turkish war happened and they started getting btfo'd

so basically you rate people based on memes instead of something tangible like success in battlefield
what a shit opinion, the irony of you shit talking anyone else's opinion

The landscape has impacted their culture too. Almost all of the people I mentioned have cultural values that put EXTREME emphasis on values such as

>bravery
>dying for a good cause
>martial prowess
>honour

etc. That's why I admire them.

>being retarded and facing multiple enemies at once
>that means you're good at war
First of all, in the modern era, we haven't lost a battle against the Bulgarians
Secondly, in the Second Balkan war, their botched offensive massively failed and by the time everyone else joined, they were already on the defensive
So stop pretending Boril, we know you're diaspora

>Vietnamese
I'll give you that
>Pashtuns
>Nepalese (Ghurkas)
>Japanese
>Bulgarians
>Chechens
>Berbers
>Turkmens/Uzbeks
Just no

No, as a matter of fact my opinion is the most informed one in the thread by far.

All the other retards in here rate the martial prowess of people based on one-off successes and short-lived empires which were only able to be formed through a combination of fortunate coincidences.

Whereas all the peoples I have listed have a history of martial prowess, continual warfare, and giving opponents superior to them in technology an extremely rough time.

It's absolutely hilarious how little you idiots know about history. To rate peoples like the Mongolians as the best but not even the Vietnamese, who fucked STOMPED the Mongolians and even STOMPED the Americans?

Absolutely fucking embarrassing. Really, just never post again.

My facts don't care about your feelings and ill-informed opinions.

>as a matter of fact my opinion is the most informed one in the thread by far
>Bulgarians performed extremely well in WW2

Pick one

>Mongolians
They couldn't handle Crusader orders and stone castles in Hungary
>Arabs
They had one good military commander under Muhammed, Saladin was a Kurd and they only took crusader states by superior numbers and the fact that the Crusader home countries were across the Med. In modern warfare they suck shit.

>Tbh yeah but that their peak they forged an empire that went from Spain to India.
They conquered a dead world.

My guess is that the Umayyad caliphate would have lost a war to the Roman empire from the time of the five good emperors. Sure they were by no means incompetent but to claim them the 3rd greatest warriors in history is a bit of a stretch imo.

>My facts
You mean memes? None of those people are known for martial prowess. Living on an island/in the mountains doesn't count as being good at war.

>east europe
Only unorganized slavs. This is not the outcome of a superior army.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary

>They couldn't even siege Adrianople without Serbian support

you mean Odrin and I am sure the several thousand serbs made all the difference in the world, while we were fighting the brunt of ottoman forces, while you were blockading the sea and the serbs themselves were stealing land, not belonging to them, real allies to be sure

>Considering that Austria-Hungary pulled all the weight, no

considering we held overwhelming forces for years and got a praise by the allies themselves, I'd say we did

>The only thing they did there was occupy, kill civilians and then lose

again with the victim complexes, you ethnically cleanse the eagean thrace and no one is batting an eye, while during the WW2 our forces were actually fighting enemy soliders, yours surrendered in weeks


fuck off, your endless greek snarling is annoying

So first this retard claims that the Crusaders ONLY lost because their home countries were far away.

Then this American retard says the Mongols couldn't handle stone castles in fucking Hungary, which is WAAAAY further from the Mongolian homeland than the Holy Land was from the Crusader homeland.

Not only are you retards spouting false information (Mongolians crushed sissy Hungarians), but you retards actually have NO sense of logic or honesty.

That's why I will NEVER bestow my genius and intricate understanding of military history on you retards ever again. You're too dumb and my time is too precious.

I'm out, niggers.

>
The empire was founded by Turks tho so it's a Turkish empire.

The Yuan dynasty or Mughal empire isn't Chinese or Indian just because it was carried by them later. The Emperor who conquered all of India looked no different than a regular poo.

Well iirc the Mongols utilized longbows which played a big part in their conquests.

Are you talking about the Turks or Ottomans? The Ottomans (when they invaded Europe) didn't face any of those predicaments barring the skeleton of the Byzantine empire.

Turks in Turkey are descended mostly from Turkmen

Rashidun + Ummayad + Abbasid + Fatmid was only 200 years? We m8

>you mean Odrin
I'm not going to use your botched pronounciation, sorry

>were stealing land, not belonging to them, real allies to be sure
Had you protected their Adriatic claims like you promised then everything would've been fine and dandy

>fact is victim complex
But you literally tried to do that (and you failed at it too)

>while during the WW2 our forces were actually fighting enemy soliders, yours surrendered in weeks
We were the first Allied victory
We destroyed the Shitalians
and we fell because you opened your borders to the Germans while our troops were still in Albania, even then, managing to hold out for weeks is an achievement when most of the time you're not even facing the army
Everyone from Hitler, to Stalin, to Churchill sucked our cocks dry for our actions in WW2, so you don't get to play that card

>Turks in Turkey are descended mostly from Turkmen
Good one m8

>The empire was founded by Turks tho so it's a Turkish empire.
not sure if ironic or not

>Are you talking about the Turks or Ottomans? The Ottomans (when they invaded Europe) didn't face any of those predicaments barring the skeleton of the Byzantine empire.
sure they didn't

>byzantine empire ravaged by generations of civil wars
>bulgarian empire split in at least 3 states
>serbian empire split so hard that nobody can count how many independent lords were there
>hungary split in at least 2 sides
>bosnia split in 4 sides
>montenegro split in 2 sides

>meet the habsburgs

>long turkish war
>status quo

>great turkish war
>get absolutely btfo'd

>the 1714-1718 war
>get btfo'd again

>the 1736-1739 war
>manage to reconquer a minor part of balkanic lands

>the 1787-1791 war
status quo

Mongolians moved as a horde fuckface.
And no Mongolians did not btfo Hungary they even with surprise couldn't get past stone castles. And we're slaughtered when they returned. You have no idea what the fuck your talking about.

btw we were the most effective resistance force against the Axis, even more than the frogs

>They conquered a dead world.
Persia and Byzantine were weakened but not enough for us to ignore that they had a a big advantage for the incoming Arabs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk

>My guess is that the Umayyad caliphate would have lost a war to the Roman empire from the time of the five good emperors. Sure they were by no means incompetent but to claim them the 3rd greatest warriors in history is a bit of a stretch imo.
At their peak? I don't know enough to say. Rome would certainly have a numerical advantage but the Ummayads would be a bit more advanced (in warfare) imo.

this, thinking turkey people = turkic is as funny as thinking current greeks = old white greeks

the crossbreeding in the ottoman empire mixed up all these genepools

They had both gotten out of a 30 year war and the Byzantine Empire hadn't held Levantine lands for 20 or so years, oh and
>arab sources
When the Empire recovered, Arabs got anally devastated

Turks and turkics ruled the entire muslim world at one point though, with the Ottomans, Mughals and safavids ruling most of the ancient world

>old white greeks
lmao
nordniggers strike again

ah yes, the ancient blonde blue-eyed greeks

The mongolian army was largely composed of turkic nomads who swore their loyality to genghis, mongols only made up a small part of their army.

>US
>Leb
You were the conquered, the Muslim Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula conquered you. Your ancestors were most likely all Christian.

*yawn*

>byzantine empire ravaged by generations of civil wars
>bulgarian empire split in at least 3 states
>serbian empire split so hard that nobody can count how many independent lords were there
>hungary split in at least 2 sides
>bosnia split in 4 sides
>montenegro split in 2 sides
Well yeah they were split apart but so was China when the Mongols invaded. And desu I suppose you had the best chance to stop the Turks at the beginning but a lot of your forces got eliminated in maritsa.
And didn't Bosnia openly accept Ottoman rule because the rest of the Balkans were bullying them too much?

>They had both gotten out of a 30 year war
There isn't a single empire that wasn't forged out of the decline of somebody else. Macedonian empire included.
>arab sources
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk#cnote_a

>muslims sources inflate the estimates
What a surprise

I never said I'm ethnically Arab. Culturally speaking yes.

Those were modern estimates. Nobody ever took the arab sources seriously lel.

So what
>muslim "historians"
are a fucking meme

biased to shit

MONGOLS
WEAK SHITSKIN DWARVES WITH HIT AND RUN TACTICS

ARABS AND TURKS ARE MORE LIKE ANIMALS
OUTNUMBER ENEMY AND HOPE FOR WIN

A LOT OF SNEAKY DIASPORA SHITSKINS HERE ARE JEALOUS OF GREEKS

SNEAKY AFGHAN SHITSKIN

GREEKS WERE FRIENDLY COLONISTS
YOU SNEAKY SHITSKIN DIASPORA WITH INFERIORITY COMPLEX

LYING IN THE INTERNET
SNEAKY ASIATIC BEHAVIOR

SHITALY ATTACKED POOR WAR DAMAGED NEUTRAL GREECE
SHITALY LOST
SHITALY LOST LAND TO A NEUTRAL COUNTRY THAT IT ATTACKED

GERMANY LOST WW2 BECAUSE OF GREECE

YOU SNEAKY SHITSKIN AFGHAN

BULGARIANS ATTACKED ALL NEIGHBOUR COUNTRIES
LOST
BULGARIANS JOINED EVIL SIDE IN WW1
LOST
BULGARIANS JOINED EVIL SIDE IN WW2
LOST

BULGARIAN HISTORY IS FULL OF EVIL AND FAILURE
THEY ARE EVIL LIKE TURKS
BUT WERE NEVER POWERFUL LIKE THEM

YOU SNEAKY AFGHAN SHITSKIN

THIS IS THE SNEAKY CHECHEN SUBHUMAN IN RUSSIA

HUGE INFERIORITY COMPLEX
VERY SNEAKY AND VERY(!) JEALOUS OF OTHER PEOPLE
HIDES HIS FLAG IN POL

SINCE I FUCKED THIS SUBHUMAN
HE TRIES TO INSULT GREEKS
AND FAILS BECAUSE GREEKS ARE BETTER THAN OTHER HUMANS AND CHECHENS ARE SUBHUMANS TO SUBHUMANS (RUSSIANS)

mad ruski detected.

SNEAKY AFGHAN DIASPORA HITSKIN

YOU DONT
YOU ARE JUST JEALOUS OF GREEKS YOU SNEAKY SHITSKIN AFGHAN

>current greeks = old white greeks
GREEKS ARE DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF GREEKS

PROVEN BY MANY STUDIES
THERE IS EVEN A VERY NEW STUDY

THIS IS SOMEONES SNEAKY SHITSKIN DIASPORA WITH INFERIORITY COMPLEX
JEALOUS OF GREEKS

SLAVS; NORTH CAUCASIANS; ALBANIANS; ARABS ASIANS NIGGERS AND MANY OTHER KIND OF SUBHUMANS BEHIND GERMAN FLAGS

Retarded ikibey imposter, Iki NEVER writes in all caps dumb subhuman

YOU ARE A SUBHUMAN

Ikibey imposter subhuman

SUBHUMAN

Ikibey imposter subhuman kill yourself

SUBHUMAN

In denial

>Greeks on the lsit
>but Romans aren't

nice try Faggomedes

1. Romans
2. Spartans
3. Hussars
4. Crusaders

after that literally everybody else

>crusaders
lmao

>spartans
please, those NEETs were defeated by an army whose elite component was a bunch of literal twinks and their daddies.

SLAVIC INFERIORITY COMPLEX

SLAVS ARE SUBHUMANS

JEALOUS OF GREEKS

GREEKS
ROMANS

NONAME SLAV SUBHUMANS

SUBHUMANS WHO GOT FUCKED BY MUSLIMS AND UNITED TO DESTROY BYZANTIUM

CATHOLICS ARE FALSE CHRISTIANS
SLAVS ARE SUBHUMANS

There wasn't really any fight in most of the colonization afaik. Greeks were just building harbours at uninhabitted coasts, had some land nearby for agriculture and had some trade with the locals.

JEALOUS PROTO GYPSY

Romans were god tier at tactics though, that makes them great warriors tbqh.

THEY MIXED WITH THE LOCALS
WROTE DOWN THEIR HISTORY
AND IMPROVED THEM

>Crusaders
>Spartans
>Hussars
(You)

i thought modern greeks have just italian influence in their admixture and not arap

WHY DID YOU INCLUDE SPARTANS?

SITALIANS HAVE GREEK INFLUENCE
NOT OTHERWISE