Greatest Warrior Culture In History?

[Shaggai]

What now?
The Mongols were very adaptable - at least for the time. They had never seen a fortress before they began their expansion, yet quickly learned how to deal with them.

Almost every state/people/culture in existence have been at a point when they have never performed a siege then learned how to (generally quickly) conduct a siege battle.

That is less being adaptable and just catching up with the majoirty.

They also adapted tactics amd even weapons as they went further west and fought people with better armor.

[The Magnified Union of Aligned Communes]

Yes indeedy. A Roman legionary would probably best your average any medieval soldier.
That being said, the Mongols did assimilate tech from their contemporary world's most advanced nation ever (Song China). A war between Classical Rome and the Khans would go pretty horribly. Both sides were highly adaptable, and it's worth noting that the legions did defeat Parthia (and Sassania) several times, but the divide would simply be too great versus the Mongols- essentially, totally cavalry archer based, plus flashy long siege things that go boom.
After several bloody battles involving many legions being horribly obliterated on the field, this hypothetical war might likely end with the Romans nervously hunkered down in more defensible Italia, Greece and Britannia and Mongols running amok everywhere else. After failed attempts at breaking through or starving Rome into submission there'd be an uneasy truce. Things could flare up a bit later, but that's solidly in the field of Very Alternate History.
And yes, the Mongols. I'm just going to add the obligatory "why can't we all just get along‽" here as demanded by my pacifist side.

Nazis in Space had a pretty good assessment of the Mongols. Going by that, Mongols would have won.

Also, more land in 25 years than Rome managed in 400.

Indeed. Just read their posts. The Romans were never big on cavalry. I think paying for mercenaries to serve as auxiliary cavalry was one of the many reasons why they drained their coffers in the end?

Almost every state/people/culture in existence have been at a point when they have never performed a siege then learned how to (generally quickly) conduct a siege battle.

That is less being adaptable and just catching up with the majoirty.

They also adapted tactics amd even weapons as they went further west and fought people with better armor.

To be fair, your average medieval European army only had a fraction composed of heavily armoured men in cans, that're almost immobile when not mounted. (Don't underestimate the Chinese, either!)

[South Zimbabwe]

The Spartans
http://youtu.be/lIr8u0j08gU?t=18s

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I forgot about the Cossacks! Really, they deserve at least a mention here.

[Sassinia]

Mongols.

[Altito Asmoro]

Mongols.

They are....

[Landenburg]

I'd say either the Roman legions or the Mongolian hordes.

[North Yakistan]

The battle of Carrhae is a textbook example of why the Mongols would defeat the Romans. And dot forget, while the Parthians it may be argued were superior horse archers (the Parthian shot) they did not have. The lamilar armor of the Mongols, nor the more advanced metalurgy. Roman army's were simply to deficient in cavalry to compete with horse archers in the open. Another great Roman defeat at Cannae was also a result of inferior cavalry. Also in the strategic sense a Mongol army was mostly if not entirely mounted, the Romans could never hope to catch them and force battle on their terms.

It should be noted that the Roman force deployed at Canne was not only significantly different (and overall worse) compared to Imperial Legionaries, but its commander was also impatient and overly eager to press the attack. At best, he was a mediocre general, at best.

Carrahe was also the result of a Commander who decided not to use his brain and march through the desert when he could have marched northwards and stay near rivers to ensure that his army wasn't exhausted and struggling for supplies by the time they made contact. He also passed up an opportunity to have additional horsemen do to his 'Straight for the Capital' idiocy. Using these as examples should be done with the caution that neither of these are very good examples of Roman warfare.

Yes Crassus was a fool and drummed down an offer from the king of Arminia to use just territory and his army because he desired to march strait through to Mesopotamia and conquer the great city's of antiquity. However I'm curious as to where your getting your information that his troops were of inferior quality. In fact most of his troops were regular legionares and veterans of wars in Syria and the levant. And even if they were not of the finest quality the pretorian guards couldn't have won that battle. The Romans were simply to deficient in cavalry and missile troops, a flaw which was their bane on several occasions.

[The Frontier States of Halestock]

I'd probably say the Scots. I mean, sure, defeated eventually, but they were a warrior culture long before Culloden, and very proud of their British Army regiments for a long time afterwards. Many still are, despite amalgamation a few years back. Still show they are a warrior culture sometimes; Hell, just look at Glasgow on a Friday night!

[Nazis in Space]

That depends on what you mean by warrior. In terms of warrior philosophy and absolute devotion to ones art the Samurai are without equal. Similarly there are no finer swordsman than them, I have no doubt Musashi was the greatest swordsmen to ever live.

While the Samurai were indeed excellent swordsmen (Though it is worth noting that Musashi in particular is explicitly mentioned as using 'Dirty' tactics in his fights - letting his opponents wait for half a day, ensuring that the sun would shine into their eyes and such. Less knowing how to fight, more knowing when to fight), pretty much any society relying on warlords and their cadre of more or less loyal, 'Noble' warriors produced the same thing. And of the two most well-known examples thereof - the Samurai and the medieval knights -, well, the latter enjoyed rather superior equipment, and when the European schools of swordfighting did meet the Samurai (In Nagasaki), the Portuguese just flat-out embarrassed the Samurai when they duelled each other, which I think says quite a bit about their respective skills, just as Japan starting to import European plate armour says quite a bit about their respective armour.

The Spartans were remarkable in that their entire society revolved around war.

Allegedly, anyway. It's kinda funny how by the time the Spartans enter the literary record, their warrior-culture has already been heavily infiltrated by more conventional aspects, and they're mostly busy trying to keep their helots down.

The Germanic people's (Germans, Anglo-saxons, Vikings) were remarkable for their attitude towards warfare so much so that a tragic death was not one in war but one in bed.

Of course, whether that applied to everyone, or just the developing warrior castes (Proto-knights) who made war via raids by land or sea their business remains up in the air.

The Mongols are remarkable for their horse archery (though the Parthians may have been better relative to the time period)

As noted in a previous post, their horse archery is the least remarkable thing about them.

Imperial England is without a doubt the greatest naval culture in history.

Without a doubt, it is not. England was notable for being able to outproduce its competition because it flatly didn't need much of an army, what with being an island, which allowed it to fight the majority of its wars from a position of naval superiority owed to said production capacity. Britain typically won its wars through attrition, and got its collective asses kicked fairly frequently by the likes of Tourville and de Ruyter. When a total victory actually occured, it typically occured because the opponent was... Anchored and playing sitting duck (L'Ecluse, Abukir, Copenhagen). Trafalgar, while indeed brilliant in its tactical innovations and the totality of the victory (Credit where credit is due) was nonetheless an outrageously rare exception.

Personally, I'd argue that the dutch were - relative to their economic and demographic capability - doing far, far more impressive things, and so did the Greeks and Carthaginians.

Lastly Carthage and Macedonia have to be on the list simply because they produced the two finest generals to ever live in Hannibal and Alexander (in that order, sorry Napoleon).

Hannibal was indeed brilliant, and given the numerical inferiority he had to work with, he did pretty well. 'Best evar' is an exaggeration, mind you - Scipio showed pretty well how to stop him, all things considered.

But that does not, of course, make the Carthaginians a warrior culture by any stretch of the imagination. It just means they were merchants who produced a decent general.

Alexander OTOH, inherited his army from his father, overran an opponent that was divided and led by a complete retard, and then intentionally wiped out a good fraction of his own army by marching it through a desert on a whim. Nevermind his control over said army being poor enough that it mutinied on him. Not worth mentioning. Most overrated general, probably.

[Anachronous Rex]

Indeed.

Don't misunderstand, I generally dislike Prussia; though I have come to reconsider it somewhat recently. The point is, as a culture geared towards warfare, their approach was probably the best. Mongols are kick-ass, but not very adaptable. Once horse-archery ceased to be the pinnacle of military deployment they, and their like, got steamrolled. Prussia both practiced, and was reflective, in their military adventures. They reformed relentlessly.

What now?
The Mongols were very adaptable - at least for the time. They had never seen a fortress before they began their expansion, yet quickly learned how to deal with them.

They are fundamentally a horse culture, and were only ever able be a horse culture. Their style of warfare cannot stray far from that.

Russia was able to establish itself largely because, at a certain point, sedentary populations with guns became superior to horse-archers. The Mongols were able to adapt slightly and remain a nuisance, but the balance of power had forever shifted against them.

[Anachronous Rex]

The Spartans
http://youtu.be/lIr8u0j08gU?t=18s

The greatest warrior culture that got roundly beaten by a wimpy little city-state that the Spartans inadvertently taught to fight by repeatedly invading it.

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

It should be noted that the Roman force deployed at Canne was not only significantly different (and overall worse) compared to Imperial Legionaries, but its commander was also impatient and overly eager to press the attack. At best, he was a mediocre general, at best.

Carrahe was also the result of a Commander who decided not to use his brain and march through the desert when he could have marched northwards and stay near rivers to ensure that his army wasn't exhausted and struggling for supplies by the time they made contact. He also passed up an opportunity to have additional horsemen do to his 'Straight for the Capital' idiocy. Using these as examples should be done with the caution that neither of these are very good examples of Roman warfare.

Yes Crassus was a fool and drummed down an offer from the king of Arminia to use just territory and his army because he desired to march strait through to Mesopotamia and conquer the great city's of antiquity. However I'm curious as to where your getting your information that his troops were of inferior quality. In fact most of his troops were regular legionares and veterans of wars in Syria and the levant. And even if they were not of the finest quality the pretorian guards couldn't have won that battle. The Romans were simply to deficient in cavalry and missile troops, a flaw which was their bane on several occasions.

I never said that the troops under Crassus command were of inferior quality. At Cannae, during the 2nd Punic War they were on the whole inferior, but I never said anything about the quality of the troops at Carrhae.

[Uelvan]

Amazons. They may have been mythical, but that just means they were too awesome to actually exist.

You know, I always find it adorable how people idolize Amazons... but in every myth that depicts them, they are being slaughtered. No doubt, such stories were used to rationalize the misogyny of their time period.

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

That depends on what you mean by warrior. In terms of warrior philosophy and absolute devotion to ones art the Samurai are without equal. Similarly there are no finer swordsman than them, I have no doubt Musashi was the greatest swordsmen to ever live.

While the Samurai were indeed excellent swordsmen (Though it is worth noting that Musashi in particular is explicitly mentioned as using 'Dirty' tactics in his fights - letting his opponents wait for half a day, ensuring that the sun would shine into their eyes and such. Less knowing how to fight, more knowing when to fight), pretty much any society relying on warlords and their cadre of more or less loyal, 'Noble' warriors produced the same thing. And of the two most well-known examples thereof - the Samurai and the medieval knights -, well, the latter enjoyed rather superior equipment, and when the European schools of swordfighting did meet the Samurai (In Nagasaki), the Portuguese just flat-out embarrassed the Samurai when they duelled each other, which I think says quite a bit about their respective skills, just as Japan starting to import European plate armour says quite a bit about their respective armour.

The Spartans were remarkable in that their entire society revolved around war.

Allegedly, anyway. It's kinda funny how by the time the Spartans enter the literary record, their warrior-culture has already been heavily infiltrated by more conventional aspects, and they're mostly busy trying to keep their helots down.

The Germanic people's (Germans, Anglo-saxons, Vikings) were remarkable for their attitude towards warfare so much so that a tragic death was not one in war but one in bed.

Of course, whether that applied to everyone, or just the developing warrior castes (Proto-knights) who made war via raids by land or sea their business remains up in the air.

The Mongols are remarkable for their horse archery (though the Parthians may have been better relative to the time period)

As noted in a previous post, their horse archery is the least remarkable thing about them.

Imperial England is without a doubt the greatest naval culture in history.

Without a doubt, it is not. England was notable for being able to outproduce its competition because it flatly didn't need much of an army, what with being an island, which allowed it to fight the majority of its wars from a position of naval superiority owed to said production capacity. Britain typically won its wars through attrition, and got its collective asses kicked fairly frequently by the likes of Tourville and de Ruyter. When a total victory actually occured, it typically occured because the opponent was... Anchored and playing sitting duck (L'Ecluse, Abukir, Copenhagen). Trafalgar, while indeed brilliant in its tactical innovations and the totality of the victory (Credit where credit is due) was nonetheless an outrageously rare exception.

Personally, I'd argue that the dutch were - relative to their economic and demographic capability - doing far, far more impressive things, and so did the Greeks and Carthaginians.

Lastly Carthage and Macedonia have to be on the list simply because they produced the two finest generals to ever live in Hannibal and Alexander (in that order, sorry Napoleon).

Hannibal was indeed brilliant, and given the numerical inferiority he had to work with, he did pretty well. 'Best evar' is an exaggeration, mind you - Scipio showed pretty well how to stop him, all things considered.

But that does not, of course, make the Carthaginians a warrior culture by any stretch of the imagination. It just means they were merchants who produced a decent general.

Alexander OTOH, inherited his army from his father, overran an opponent that was divided and led by a complete retard, and then intentionally wiped out a good fraction of his own army by marching it through a desert on a whim. Nevermind his control over said army being poor enough that it mutinied on him. Not worth mentioning. Most overrated general, probably.

Well, if Alexanders sole opponent was Darius (who I wouldn't call a complete retard. Coward, yeah, but he was roughly medicore as a commander) then that statement might hold more weight. The Battle at Gaugamela he did everything to have the odds in his favour. Battlefield was practically flat, and picked of stones, had his usual numerical advantage, and his troop formation was overall pretty solid.

Alexander also engaged in defeating Thracian tribesmen, Scythian nomads (the first Western general to actually defeat horse archers, whilst also crossing a river), Indians whilst crossing a river, engaged the 'tribesmen' of Sogdiana and Baktria, as well as facing off against and defeating Memnon, Thessalians an Thebans. Oh, and the Tyrians. That is a long, long list of people defeated without having any real 'skill'

But I suppose to be a good general you have to have had time 'living on the street' and have absolutely no relation to a ruling family or political entity which is in power and then create an army from nothing. God forbid you don't actually start from scratch.

[Spoder]

The roman army was the greatest of it's time. It conquered two thirds of Asia, and destroyed opposition. The legion's top ranks were the Legatus Legionnaires, commanded legions of tens of thousands of men. From them, camp prefects patrolled the camps of centuries, and commanded them. Centurion Primus Piluses commanded each century, and they had their second in commands as well. The roman legions had skilled physicians, trained in combat, and quartermasters who knew their arms better than anybody. The standard legionnaires wore thick, segmented iron cuirasses, while imperial scouts wore chain or scale mail. The roman legions had beneficiaries, who were the MPs of the roman empire. The gladius was a two foot long shortsword, ideal for stabbing. It was based on earlier Hispanic shortswords, which the roman legions adapted. The legionnaires carried pilums: javelins two meters in length. They had an iron shank tip, which would bend upon striking a target, and the shaft of the pilum would break off on impact, making the spear unuseable by the enemy. Their sagittari fired barrages of arrows on the enemy, while legionnaries threw their pilums, and then drew their swords and massive tower shields. Upon reaching "melee range", they made power thrusts with their gladiuses, which easily went through their adversaries' armor. When they faced aquatic invasion by the Corinthians, they created their triremes, which where improved versions of the Corinthians' ships. The roman legions evolved as they needed to, and were the ultimate fighting force. Needless to say, the roman legions were the greatest army of all time. Not to mention that their armor is amazingly badass. Even more so when it becomes apocalypse style in FNV. Centurion armor was the most badass looking armor in that game.

[Shaggai]

The roman army was the greatest of it's time. It conquered two thirds of Asia, and destroyed opposition. The legion's top ranks were the Legatus Legionnaires, commanded legions of tens of thousands of men. From them, camp prefects patrolled the camps of centuries, and commanded them. Centurion Primus Piluses commanded each century, and they had their second in commands as well. The roman legions had skilled physicians, trained in combat, and quartermasters who knew their arms better than anybody. The standard legionnaires wore thick, segmented iron cuirasses, while imperial scouts wore chain or scale mail. The roman legions had beneficiaries, who were the MPs of the roman empire. The gladius was a two foot long shortsword, ideal for stabbing. It was based on earlier Hispanic shortswords, which the roman legions adapted. The legionnaires carried pilums: javelins two meters in length. They had an iron shank tip, which would bend upon striking a target, and the shaft of the pilum would break off on impact, making the spear unuseable by the enemy. Their sagittari fired barrages of arrows on the enemy, while legionnaries threw their pilums, and then drew their swords and massive tower shields. Upon reaching "melee range", they made power thrusts with their gladiuses, which easily went through their adversaries' armor. When they faced aquatic invasion by the Corinthians, they created their triremes, which where improved versions of the Corinthians' ships. The roman legions evolved as they needed to, and were the ultimate fighting force. Needless to say, the roman legions were the greatest army of all time. Not to mention that their armor is amazingly badass. Even more so when it becomes apocalypse style in FNV. Centurion armor was the most badass looking armor in that game.

More in 25 than Rome did in 400. 'Nuff said.

[Libertarian California]

New Englanders.

I'm currently reading a book about the American Revolution in Massachusetts. A lot of book is compiled using primary-source accounts of what happened (as in things that were written by the people there).

The minutemen were stone cold badasses. Some of the things they did to loyalists and British regulars were intense.

[South Zimbabwe]

The Spartans
http://youtu.be/lIr8u0j08gU?t=18s

The greatest warrior culture that got roundly beaten by a wimpy little city-state that the Spartans inadvertently taught to fight by repeatedly invading it.

You're a dinossaur.. you were beaten by a meteor, Cocroaches survived it, you didn't. Does that meen the T-Rex is less dangerous than a Cocroach?

[Uelvan]

The greatest warrior culture that got roundly beaten by a wimpy little city-state that the Spartans inadvertently taught to fight by repeatedly invading it.

You're a dinossaur.. you were beaten by a meteor, Cocroaches survived it, you didn't. Does that meen the T-Rex is less dangerous than a Cocroach?

Protip: Cockroaches are a different species than any dinosaur. The Greek city states were comprised of humans. Bad comparison is bad.

[South Zimbabwe]

You're a dinossaur.. you were beaten by a meteor, Cocroaches survived it, you didn't. Does that meen the T-Rex is less dangerous than a Cocroach?

Protip: Cockroaches are a different species than any dinosaur. The Greek city states were comprised of humans. Bad comparison is bad.

ok you are right, it was a bad comparison but you get the point, only because they were defeaten by other Greek City doesn't mean they are bad.
Mongols were good and lost...
Romans were good and lost...

[The New Lowlands]

The greatest warrior culture that got roundly beaten by a wimpy little city-state that the Spartans inadvertently taught to fight by repeatedly invading it.

You're a dinossaur.. you were beaten by a meteor, Cocroaches survived it, you didn't. Does that meen the T-Rex is less dangerous than a Cocroach?

The Spartans, IIRC, were also shit at sustained warfare.

[Trollgaard]

The roman army was the greatest of it's time. It conquered two thirds of Asia, and destroyed opposition. The legion's top ranks were the Legatus Legionnaires, commanded legions of tens of thousands of men. From them, camp prefects patrolled the camps of centuries, and commanded them. Centurion Primus Piluses commanded each century, and they had their second in commands as well. The roman legions had skilled physicians, trained in combat, and quartermasters who knew their arms better than anybody. The standard legionnaires wore thick, segmented iron cuirasses, while imperial scouts wore chain or scale mail. The roman legions had beneficiaries, who were the MPs of the roman empire. The gladius was a two foot long shortsword, ideal for stabbing. It was based on earlier Hispanic shortswords, which the roman legions adapted. The legionnaires carried pilums: javelins two meters in length. They had an iron shank tip, which would bend upon striking a target, and the shaft of the pilum would break off on impact, making the spear unuseable by the enemy. Their sagittari fired barrages of arrows on the enemy, while legionnaries threw their pilums, and then drew their swords and massive tower shields. Upon reaching "melee range", they made power thrusts with their gladiuses, which easily went through their adversaries' armor. When they faced aquatic invasion by the Corinthians, they created their triremes, which where improved versions of the Corinthians' ships. The roman legions evolved as they needed to, and were the ultimate fighting force. Needless to say, the roman legions were the greatest army of all time. Not to mention that their armor is amazingly badass. Even more so when it becomes apocalypse style in FNV. Centurion armor was the most badass looking armor in that game.

More in 25 than Rome did in 400. 'Nuff said.

Rome lasted. The mongol conquests didn't last that long.

[Estruia]

The roman army was the greatest of it's time. It conquered two thirds of Asia

Um. Excuse me, but what on Earth are you smoking? The Roman Army did NOT conquer 2/3rds of the Asian Continent.

[Paketo]

The roman army was the greatest of it's time. It conquered two thirds of Asia

Um. Excuse me, but what on Earth are you smoking? The Roman Army did NOT conquer 2/3rds of the Asian Continent.

They did conquer 2/3 of Europe and the only part of Asia they conquered was turkey down to Israel