Deadliest Warrior

[Talivar]

Ok since the special forces topic been done to death ill try another In a similiar vien to the tv show of same name who would you say is historys most deadly warrior. Has to be before the invention of gunpowder and try to pick a group and an individual if you can, example say Celts and William wallace. Also try explain why if you can.

 

[Ch3tan]

Ghengis Khan, greatest warlord to live. Conquered a ridiculous amount of the known world.

 

[Talivar]

Id go Leonadis and the spartans, although bound to be exagerations what they achieved was still epic.

 

[Cerb]

so wait are we taling about if you were to put one warrior against one warrior or are we talking about a fighting unit? One on one im not sure but as for a unit it has to go the romans right?

 

[Talivar]

Can be either army vs army or individual vs individual.

 

[Cerb]

well army vs army the romans completly revolutionised and dominated war so thats where my vote goes

 

[Talivar]

Romans were natural progressors to greeks and had great respect for the spartans after studing how they made battlle so guess Romans is a wise choice. Cant discount Khan tho either down to what he achieved.

 

[Dukat]

Miyamoto Musashi.

Fought his first duel to the death at age thirteen. Killed a samurai weilding a katana with a wooden sword. Fought in massive crazy-ass samurai battles which were basicly devoid of tactics and just boiled down to throwing masses of samurai at eachother. Wrote a book comparable to the Art of War while he was at it, too.

 

[Talivar]

Not heard of him before, he sounds badass lol

 

[soze]

Equal numbers then the Spartans. Amazing fighting force its a shame what made them so hardcore limited their numbers or they could have been awesome.

 

[Dukat]

Not heard of him before, he sounds badass lol

Miyamoto Musashi

Yep - he makes chuck norris look like cletus the slack jawed yokel

He was like something out of samurai champloo - addicted to one on one duels to the death if any of the stories are even half true. Never lost one supposedly and even ended up making it to old age, which tbh in edo-period japan was in itself a feat worthy of monuments

 

[Talivar]

Rar always after 1 on 1 duels, a man after my own heart! (in daoc not irl!)

 

[Thorwyn]

Miyamoto Musashi

The book of five rings is a good read for anyone who´s interested in warfare, strategy and tactics. But I doubt that all those stories about his life are true.

@original question:
I think it´s important to define what we´re talking about. Skill at arms and prowess on one hand, tactical and strategical genius on the other hand. You can´t compare those two.

 

[Raven]

Ok since the special forces topic been done to death ill try another In a similiar vien to the tv show of same name who would you say is historys most deadly warrior. Has to be before the invention of gunpowder and try to pick a group and an individual if you can, example say Celts and William wallace. Also try explain why if you can.

/pedant

William Wallace was not a Celt, its doubtful if he was even Scottish, Celt is a much overused term and actually describes anyone from northern Europe in and around 400BC - 100AD.

/pedant off

For an individual its probably got to be Alexander of Macedonia. While Genghis Kahn captured a lot, most of it was empty plains, little in the way of actual populated area and even that only lasted as long as he lived. Or maybe Attila the Hun for taking a large crap on the Romans, though eventually ofc he was defeated he pretty much brought an end to the Roman empire.

 

[gohan]

either julius ceasar and romans (romans where the best fighting unit and ceasar was thier most sucessfull genral)


or for individual Ghengis Ghan

united tribes that had spent generations killing each other and ended up conquering all from mongalia to india and china to turkey

which is insane that like iraq iran afghan pakistan turkmenistan uzbekistan ect ect ect + parts of easten europe


all on horseback with bows and arrows while eating horsebllod mixed with horse milk OMNOMNOM

 

[gohan]

/pedant

William Wallace was not a Celt, its doubtful if he was even Scottish, Celt is a much overused term and actually describes anyone from northern Europe in and around 400BC - 100AD.

/pedant off

For an individual its probably got to be Alexander of Macedonia. While Genghis Kahn captured a lot, most of it was empty plains, little in the way of actual populated area and even that only lasted as long as he lived. Or maybe Attila the Hun for taking a large crap on the Romans, though eventually ofc he was defeated he pretty much brought an end to the Roman empire.

somthing like 10% of the worlds population is decended from Ghengis, technialy thats better than planting a flag xD


aslo yes any one from gaul was a celt (france belgium swizerland parts of germany and spain up) then obviously all of britton were celts aswell tho not gauls...

 

[Lightfighter]

Miyamoto Musashi.

Agree with this.

And Okita Soji.

 

[Dukat]

The book of five rings is a good read for anyone who´s interested in warfare, strategy and tactics. But I doubt that all those stories about his life are true.

@original question:
I think it´s important to define what we´re talking about. Skill at arms and prowess on one hand, tactical and strategical genius on the other hand. You can´t compare those two.

Yea, undoubtably alot of the stories surrounding him as as exaggerated as the stories of the 300 spartans.

I'd say that as there are many different sources that agree on several key points, there is likely to be a fair bit of truth to the main parts of what i said - the rough age of his first kill, etc.

As for the thing we're talking about, I think musashi has it pretty well covered - as you said about the book, he obviously had a pretty good grasp of military strategy, but as the tales of his duels go, his fighting prowess seems to have been very nearly second to none, atleast as far as the people he came into contact with are concerned.

 

[soze]

This Musashi may be fully awesome in a toe to toe fight but if Robin Hood was real he would kill him long before he got in sword range. Thats why Deadliest Warrior is a crap show you need to ignore too much to have these people fight.

 

[Talivar]

The program itself seemed to focus to much on pure weps imo and very little went into examining the warriors training and lifestyle.

 

[Helme]

I'd say roman legionnaires, they racked up massive amounts of casualties with very minor losses.

British longbowmen are decent contender though.

 

[cHodAX]

Omega Red!

 

[cHodAX]

Spartacus for taking a bunch of slaves and turning them into a poorly armed fighting force that bested a number of Roman legions. There is a reason they still write about the guy 2000 years on, he managed to do what kingdoms all over Europe could not and with alot less armaments.

 

[Vasconcelos]

The one and only Alexander the Great:

Alexander the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shaka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Azurus]

Steven Segal.

 

[Ezteq]

me.




I'm small, I'm furious and I have the element of surprise!!...and ninja throwing scones.

 

[Vasconcelos]

me.




I'm small, I'm furious and I have the element of surprise!!...and ninja throwing scones.

YouTube - Scarface Soundtrack - She's On Fire

 

[Zede]

Recently read a book called " Time's Arrow".

Full army of Gengis Kahn Vs Full army of Alex da Great.

Alex Won, but only cause some time displaced brits from the 19th C invented Stirrups for Alexanders horses

 

[Access Denied]

We need to separate the various types of warrior. I'm going for unit types as their history has been verified, rather than single warriors whose achievements are subject to exaggerations and folklore.

Infantry: Roman Legionnaires borrowed heavily from the Spartans and then refined the Phalanx formation. They fought mostly the Celts and the Gauls, both of who used broadswords and mass charge tactics. When they met the Roman shield wall it was like surf breaking against the rocks. Not only could they not use their broadswords properly in such close confines but each attacker effectively faced 3 enemies.

Mounted: The Byzantine Kataphraktoi had a huge advantage due to their heavy armour and sheer bulk. Though later innovations in metallurgy allowed western mounted knights to wear lighter armour while still having the previously mentioned advantages. They also refined tactics and formations in later years.

Projectile: Longbowmen, simple as that. The bows were bigger and stronger, therefore they had more range. They were also able to use heavy, armour piercing tips as a result of the extra power. A good example is the battle of Agincourt where Henry V used an army comprised largely of English and Welsh Longbowmen to defeat a much larger French army with relatively few losses.

 

[Aoami]

Vo Nguyen Giap