The ultimate warrior of all time

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think in order to seriously debate something like this it has to be broken down into time frames.

You cant compare modern soldiers to the Roman Legions or Viking and so forth. Different times, different wars, different reasons to fight...
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I think in order to seriously debate something like this it has to be broken down into time frames.

You cant compare modern soldiers to the Roman Legions or Viking and so forth. Different times, different wars, different reasons to fight...
Click to expand...

This is the essential problem with any global/time 'comparisons' as well as the necessary distinction between horseman, sailor, infantry etc in what they were great at - then take into account fieldcraft.. an Apache for instance would be one hell of an adversary if firearms were banned.
 
"Lee's Miserables" more specifically the infantry of the Army of Northern Virginia and even more specifically, the 1st, 4th and 5th Texas, the 18th Georgia and the 3rd Arkansas, The Texas Brigade, Lee's Grenadier Guard. They were ill equipped, ill fed and outnumbered but they never quit and they almost always prevailed.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Agreed thats why I really can not choose anyone.
Click to expand...

Ditto - even with a Schmedley Butler with Two MOH in two separate wars or someone like Chesty Puller, there are too many KNOWN examples of ridiculous courage and skill to choose - how would we rank a Crusader, or a People's Republic of North Korea, or Soviet, or 'top' Mongol as the ultimate warrior?
 
As a classical one for all times, I'd go with the Roman Legions. Hell they set down the basics of basically all modern military, in an age where half of mankind was still closer to barbarism, these guys made a model army with standardized equipment, standard procedures and standard training and standard infantry tactics. The first and most classic 'modern' army, and the only one in history for a good 1500 years after the Imperium Romanum fell...

Not to mention, pig headed as hell. What they got into their heads they achieved in the end, no matter how many setbacks and defeats it took.



That's the fortress of Masada in Judea. The enormous, almost 400 feet high rampart on the Western side was raised by the Romans to enable them to get to the walls. You can also see the remants of the standard layout Roman military camp on the right.. and it still stands today...
 

Just something to think about - can you take a SEAL, Ranger, etc and turn them into a proficient military pilot in a few months???
 
If you include the romans then you have to include Hannibal and Carthage. The battle of Cannae.

The number of dead in a day wasn't bettered until WW2.

From a English point of view...Ill go Agincourt 1415.
 
mkloby said:
Just something to think about - can you take a SEAL, Ranger, etc and turn them into a proficient military pilot in a few months???
Click to expand...

Short answer No.

A tough question, probably not in two months but... five to six months of intensive simulator and actual flight time - maybe. Depends on level of proficiency you want as a pilot versus level as SOCOM operator?

My hesitation pre supposes that a competent pilot being trained as back up team medico, combined with Demo/explosives theory and application for blowing modern bridges, combined with night HALO's, subsurface penetration and beach head mapping, night precision marches in dark w/cloud cover and nothing but compass and 30 inch pace, etc, etc.. how long will that take - not to pass a test but truly a Pro... I mean can she handle it? (remembering there are damned competent female pilots..)

If you scratch High G fighter pilot manuevers and stick to flying a C-130 or a AH-1 or KC-135, you could also be a diabetic with bad eyes and have heart problems and a vagina and still be 'proficient'...but you would never be on a SEAL team or survive BUDS or SAS training.

And, by the way not every SEAL will become a Master horseman or Long Bowman or Lance and Broadsword weilding Knight in a couple of months.

I would say it's easier to acquire all the skills to be a proficient pilot than a proficient SpecWar animal - and the specwar animal is probably more trainable faster as an Apache scout or Viking or Legionaire than a fighter pilot could adapt.

Lord knows I do NOT denigrate fighter pilots as warriors, but I'm mentally putting this classification in the context of 100 different warriors from different times in individual combat, one on one, in a series of maybe 20 tests, one of which might be flying an airplane..

If the airplane qual was last he probably wouldn't be around very long? (If it was first he might win against everybody)

Peace Bro - this is an 'intellectual'?? exercise

Regards,

Bill
 
This was just an idea to throw out there... since everyone always thinks along the usual lines of socom and such.

drgondog said:
A tough question, probably not in two months but... five to six months of intensive simulator and actual flight time - maybe. Depends on level of proficiency you want as a pilot versus level as SOCOM operator?
Click to expand...
5-6 months Bill? Not a chance. You'd have a poorly trained pilot nowhere near a professional military aviator. I began flight school two years ago - and finally now have 5 more flights left... BTW - simulators are ok... they're best quality is training for instrument flight. They are VERY limited for everything else.

I get your drift, although I would shy from saying that about skid drivers. Flying a helicopter with skill is a lot more difficult than flying fixed wing. And likewise - former socom guys have attrited from flight school... totally different type of training with a completely different skill set.

drgondog said:
I would say it's easier to acquire all the skills to be a proficient pilot than a proficient SpecWar animal - and the specwar animal is probably more trainable faster as an Apache scout or Viking or Legionaire than a fighter pilot could adapt.
Click to expand...
I would say you are probably right about that - but at least Marine naval aviators go through a year of infantry training prior to becoming pilots - unlike our sister services. (although a socom operator would work me over in a heartbeat!).
 
drgondog said:
I have no idea what criteria would set the stage for 'best'.. but if it was to place your candidate in any time frame and give them a couple of months to adapt to the weapons and tactics - then give me SAS/SEAL/Force Recon/Special Forces/Spetnatz -
Click to expand...

I disagree, and I'll explain why below.

No question regarding ferocity and adaptability of the Viking, the Spartan, the Crusader, the Apache, the Mongol, the Marine, Roger's Ranger, Texas Ranger, Roman Legionairre..
Click to expand...

The Marine Rangers aren't really contenders, unless you want to count in countless others from the 20th century who were even tougher, more disciplined and carried better equipment for their time.

so maybe the question is whether you could take a tough Viking and in six months turn him into a top SEAL? and vice versa?
Click to expand...

A Viking/Spartan/Crusader/Roman Legionaire wouldn't be able to become a top special forces soldier of today in just six months, it would take him longer than that to just learn the new language. And a SEAL would never be able to become as tough disciplined as any of the ancient warriors above, and he'd need a lifetime to become as skilled proficient with a sword and shield, while on the other hand learning how to use a gun effectively is rather simple.

The ancient warriors wouldn't have any problem with any of the phsysically demanding stuff, they'd most likely laugh at the stuff a modern soldier has to endure, and they'd certainly need to learn nothing about disciplin or dedication neither. The area where the ancient warriors would begin to have serious troubles would be in terms of learning all the new tactics, how to best exploit terrain when you're no longer required to get up close to hurt the enemy, and knowing when to prioritize targets of importance.
 
Beserkers are my Fave and why we still have the word beserk in the lingo.

They were first wave Viking cannon fodder but had a violent reputation.

It is believed they were either drunk or on magic mushrooms or something. They would rush at the enemy with total disregard for their own lives and first into Valhalla.

They were so crazy...it is believed they could bite through their own shields. Just what ya need for a sucidal charge.
 
All this is interesting, but what about the Samurai???

I could jump in on the whole SOCOM into a Pilot gimmick, but its almost irrelevant, as some of us Operators are sharper than others, with different skills.... I actually flew Cessnas when I was in the 15-17 year old bracket, and it was easy.... Now, flying a -130 or something seems doable, but a Osprey, Helo or F-18????

No way...
 

Did samurai ever engage dissimilar troops from outside Japan?

For the record I don't actually think us pilots are the "ultimate warriors of all time."

Dan - flying a cessna definitely is retardedly easy.
 
I completely forgot Samurai - and in the context of individual skills - he would be at the top of my list.

I agree all the points made regarding proficiency re: pilot made by mkloby.
From my own perspective which predate the complex systems of today, being proficient in say a P-51 which is my only frame of reference, requires far more than being a good pilot with that aircraft in clear weather. My combined 500+ hours in the A-35 and 36, the Cessna 170, the At-6 and the 51 make me a marginal pilot relative to Judgement and confidence built around proficiency and experience.

It is Judgement combined with situational awareness of the crisis and a quick check off of action/options that keeps you alive (maybe) when the 1% event jumps in your lap. That is what military training brings to the table -

Being qualified to fly a P-51 is a far cry from being a fighter pilot and even farther from being an ace who survives many combats. So no, I'm not proficient by my own standards (or USAF or USN or RAF) even if I am by FAA standards.

I don't even know how to comment regarding how much time it would take to be a competent Knight or Legionnaire - but it seems like handling a Broadsword from horseback or foot or a shield and short sword is a couple of steps below using a bow competently from horseback, combined with the swordplay of a Samuari sword.

I don't know how to comment on relative 'toughness' or determination - but suspect that is where strength (physical and will) and adaptability and field craft come in. I'm not ready to buy into top Viking or Legionnaire or Spartan 'tougher' than top SEAL or SAS simply because I have zero idea what the training comparisons would be or the natural patterns of life are to shape the will - and is size a factor?

I suspect that the average SpecWarrior is one hell of a lot stronger today - but could be wrong. I have yet to see a suit of armor built for a Knight (in England or France) that looked like the guy was taller than 5'-6".. I'm sure there were bigger guys but doubt stronger.

So, how do ya know? and any assumption can't be tested or proven - so we are sharing a lot of speculative air and ink. I think I'll go scratch a wolfhound ear and contemplate my navel
 
Comparing warriors of today with ancient warriors is, to me, like trying to compare football players of today versus those of the 1950s. I was on the freshman team at a university that wound up ranked 12th in the nation(probably should have been ranked higher) We scrimmaged them often and the biggest men on the team were a couple of tackles that weighed around 235 lbs, probably ran the forty in about 5.5 sec and could bench(if we had any weights, which we did not about 225). Compare that with the behemoths of the day. Ancient warriors and that includes those of our Civil War were used to hardships but did not have the nutrition, size, speed or stamina to stand up to modern warriors.
 
What about:

Knight?

Klingon?


Dragon?
 

Attachments

  • guild.jpg
    54.9 KB · Views: 125
  • kurn.jpg
    46.1 KB · Views: 119
  • wp02_preview_pop.jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 116
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
4K
SaparotRob
  • Poll
Which period/theater of WWII do you enjoy studying the most?
Replies
6
Views
2K
gomwolf
G
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
1K
Vahe Demirjian
S
  • Poll
Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito
8 9 10
Replies
186
Views
39K
Dimlee
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
5K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register