Bravest people ever?

I'd say

1. Spartans
2. Celts
3. Vikings
4. Poles
5. Turkic Tribes
6. American Indians
7. Huns
8. Germanic Tribes
9. Japanese
10. The French

So when someone outnumber his enemy 10:1 and flee from the battlefield leaving all the artillery and general in hands of enemy - he is not coward but he is damn brave?

As for 1939 polish campaign we Poles dont have to feel ashamed for it. We fought enemy who outnumbered us 2:1 in men and even more in the equipment and who attacked us from west, north and sought. And after 2 weeks we were attacked also from the east by even bigger army. We did everything what was possible in such harsh conditions.

I think here someone made the job and posted nice text about british bravery:

http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/BRITISH_DEFEATS.html

1. turk
2. arab
3. british
4. german
5. russian
6. japaneese
7. mongol
8. huns

They sailed in stormy seas with their small boats all the way to America

That recuires bravery.

Turks the bravest!!??? Is this a joke?Can you give me at least ONE example of your Turkish "bravery"?My opinion on the bravest people ever:

1. Hellines
2. Celts
3. Vikings
4. Romans
5. French
6. Poles
7. Scots
8. Arabs

Well you cannot really attribute bravery as a collectively stable trait inherent in a people over dozens of generations. But lets make the best attempt we can. I reckon that for the early period the Spartans come out as the bravest. Records of their deeds at Thermopylae must be accepted as accurate when we consider how unbiased so much of the work of men like Herodotus (who freely admits the bravery of the Persians) is, as well as still recent archaeological excavations which actually uncovered a mass of arrowheads atop a small hill in the area (the Spartan's last stand around the fallen Leonidas). So knowing the battle occured and knowing the relative size of the two armies, it meant that the force of Spartans which constituted only one type of soldiery (heavy infantry) managed to hold off a combined-arms army which outnumbered it (almost incredibly) literally hundreds of times over. They fought to the last man. If you can provide me with a better example than this then do so but nothing else I have learnt about compares so well.

I think the Celts deserve a good mention, when one considers a nation as small as Scotland as never being conquered by its much larger southern neighbour (except for one generation by Edward I), then you have to give them credit. The English couldn't take Ireland the first time and only managed to do so once they were united with the Scots. And remember that from 1603 onwards Celts and Englishmen fought side by side. Though you could refer to certain regiments as Celtic (e.g. the Highlander corps), the British armies from this period must simply be defined as British. The Celtic and Anglo elements in Britain managed to hybridise surprisingly well to form a single national people. I don't think anyone can offer two defeats for an army which was not even entirely British and then call a nation of people who managed to bring a massive portion of the globe under their dominion and have proved their armies to be some of the most exceptional in the world over the past several centuries to be cowards. Look at the Zulu uprising in South Africa, a British garrison post of 200 men stood their ground against 10,000 Zulu warriors who then retreated purely through the bravery of the British soldiers. And any historian will confirm when I say the British armies in India battled enemies who also had their own advanced cavalry regiments, artillery crews and infantry corps well equipped with gunpower weaponary and rifles. Outnumbered almost always and faced with armies at no real technological disadvantage, historians attribute the incredible British success to the good discipline, firm organisation and steadfast resolution of the British armies on the one hand and relatively tolerant and capable administration on the other. Look at how small the island of Britain is, actually get out an atlas and take a look. From such a small land no race of cowards could possibly come to dominate so much of the world and leave such a massive legacy that affects each and every one of us today.

I think the Russians deserve the greatest credit for bravery in the first half of the 20th century. In WWI historians estimated that had the soldiers of any other European nation been fighting the experience of the Russian soldiers then the Eastern Front would have collapsed in mid-1915. The Russians in that war endured some of the most atrocious conditions possible, launching offensives on the East Front whenever the Western Front was being assaulted by the Germans and so critically sabotaging their plans. This fact is something the Russians do not get enough credit for. In WWII I could talk on and on about how brave the Russians were. Let me just skip past it to a simple generalization: the Russians were the foremost power responsible for winning WWII, the courage of their soldiery is some of the most exceptional in all history, and had it not been for their courage and tenacious valour I doubt the Allies would have come out on top.