Greatest Individual Soldiers
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10949
Printed Date: 24-Apr-2024 at 06:42
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Greatest Individual Soldiers
Posted By: RhodeIslandsOwn
Subject: Greatest Individual Soldiers
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2006 at 00:50
|
I know theres no one real answer to this but Im curious as to what people think which military's posse(ed) the greatest individual soldiers. By this I mean, not who had the best economy/technology/logistics/organization/generals or whatever but who had the soldiers who could generally compare mentally and physically with any other warrior of any time. I want you to forget about technology and concentrate on things like the training or envirnment the warriors grew up in to make them the best of all time. IE: Rome may have had a great army that was well-supported and organized (At times...) but if you put that army in the hands of a random barbarian general and faced them off against other barbarians how would they have compared? Would they have been physically and mentally prepared to take on the war-like celts without the support of the Roman Empire? If yes, then how would these roman soldiers compare to our modern day United States Marines? I know one marine with a rifle could kill alot of any soldiers armed with just swords but could that same marine outlift and outrun those roman soldiers? Are our modern day marines more disciplined and mentally prepared then roman soldiers? Well thats just an example of what im looking for. I'd prefer it if we didn't discuss rome beacuse they've been done to death but I'm willing to discuss whatever. -Rhode Island National Guard |
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2006 at 16:58
|
Hey, great topic! heres my opinion on the matter. I think that if the Romans did not have such a large empire and such an organized army they would have been killed a long time ago. The Celts are ferocious and intimidate the average soldier. They are also stronger from a cold invironment. I think the celts could have won. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2006 at 17:43
|
The Romans (Imperial that is) were regular soldier, recruited for 20 years of services, equiped in standardised equipment, trained and drilled by professional trainers using tried and tested methods. Barbarians, the Gauls for example, were not warriors but farmers, armed largely with improvised weapons. In an individual fight it would be a no contest, the regular soldier would win. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 16:50
| Prussians were the best single soldiers.The most disciplined and best trained soldiers in 19 and 20 century |
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 19:08
| Barbarians like celts and germans also "trained" hand to hand fighting they were superior to roman in hand to hand but not formations, the celts were exellent swordsmen Teutoburg forest shows that without formation rome wil lose |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 20:13
|
Depends on the criteria...Just some examples below:
For discipline,Roman legionaries and Prussia
For zeal to fight, Arab warriors in Umayyad era
For bravery,Turks in WW I and Korean War
For training, Britain(stable army,though) and 20th century Germany&Prussia
For Horseback Riding, Mongols,Turks,steppe people in general
For Archery, Mongols, Chinese
For Guerrilla Warfare, Vietnamese
For one-on-one fights&might, Germannic tribes of medieval age
For fighting till the end, Japanese
For ending up as a prisoner at the end, 20th century Italians
 this list would go on forever... ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 20:35
I am of the opinion that if America were ever invaded by whoever, they would be better.  |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 22:17
|
The prussians. |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 00:52
|
Chinese are famous for their archers?i heard that an Blue Turk officer in the year of 600's who trained Chinese soldiers said that even his 14 years old daughter is a better archer.
------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 01:07
|
Why are we gorgetting the gurkhas & Indian soldiers of the british army in WW - 1 & 2
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 01:08
|
Why are we forgetting the gurkhas.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Hrothgar
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 02:28
| Varangian Guard anyone? |
Posted By: Eondt
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 02:34
|
The Gurkhas were indeed great soldiers, but this really is a pointless topic don't you guys think?
First of all its totally subjective. Everyone will have their own preferences and choose soldiers based on their interest in history and/or patriotic feelings.
Also everything depends on context. For example, you can hardly compare a modern marine to a greek hoplite. People fought in different times and against different opponents, and adapted accordingly.
Lastly it depends on the individual. Just as you had brilliantly good knights for example, I'm sure you had incredibly incompetent ones too. The same could be said for any class of warrior/soldier throughout all ages and cultures.
Whatever next? Samurai vs. Knight?
 |
Posted By: Hrothgar
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 02:57
| i don't think we should include soldiers who used guns. |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 12:41
|
Why people keep forgetting the Spartans? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 13:02
|
At Theramopyale, they were up in that narrow pass, refusing to come down like a Koala Bear defendings its virginity. Thats why.
Second they lost to Thebeans.
 ------------- |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 14:13
Dude,i hope you are joking,because if you are not,then you know sh*t about the Spartans. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 15:00
I would not suggest you to continue on with such an attitude towards fellow members, and it is true that in the Post-Peloponnesian War the Thebans won Spartans in battles. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 15:01
Please, give some (atleast some) adequate proof to your claims. ------------- |
Posted By: Hrothgar
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 15:04
|
The Russians!! http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6u8t_best-of-fedor-emelianenko |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 15:07
|
doesnt matter, sparta was a militaristic society in which all the citisen were since childhood trained only to one thing... to fight.
I cant imagine better soldiers than Spartans. For many people and nations in history being a soldier was a profession but for spartans, it was somthing more beacuse it was a way of life.
Even Romans... first they were just farmers who in war time were trying to become soldiers, later they raised profesional army where young recruits were being taught how to fight and be soldiers. But spartans were just soldiers and nothing more or less. They almost didnt have real life, only training and war. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 15:16
This is not a soldier but modern gladiator. Its a difference. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 15:36
My attitude is fine.It's not a battle that makes an army,but it's training ,discipline and courage.Just because the Spartans lost a battle does not mean that they did not win numerous of others or that they were worthless. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 23:15
Thats also true but they didn't win because they were superior to them individually rather it was a more flexible phalanx style that the Thebans used and the incapability of the Spartans to adapt to it twice that won them the war. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 00:38
| Maoris so tough and cunning in battle they defeated british with guns in battle all the time,only disease defeated them.One battle 1000 were surrounded by 10,000 british with cannons, they charged out and cut there way through the lines to a safety. |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 09:06
|
Azap berzerkers of Ottoman Empire.they dont even use a sword.bare hands were enough
------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 10:46
Not actually true, recent evidence shows that the Teutoberger Forest battle was fought over several open miles by the armies in formation. Which makes the defeat even more crushing...
Go the Ghurkas, the toughest, nastiest nutters ever.
BigL, Re; the Maouri battle, got a link? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Barbarroja
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 11:49
|
The Spanish Tercios, which kept Spanish power in Europe without many sources during more than 200 years. ------------- I'm sorry but my English is not very good. I'm from Vila-real (Valencia, Spain) |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 14:08
Do you know any soldier outside the Ottoman Empire too? IT is not like just the Ottomans ruled the world. ------------- |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 01:56
|
actually they ruled the world.anyway so peshtun warriors are cool.(is it ok?)
------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 06:27
|
Ottomans didnt rule the world.Russians and British did.
Ottomans controled a small part of the world and that was their only positive heritage. |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 07:21
|
when did russians ruled the world?if they did Ottomans also ruled."small part of world" means all mediterrian and middle east from tebriz to Atlantic Ocean :)
------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 07:51
| I dont think they rule the whole mediterrains,only the eastern parts.And have turkish ever seen the Atlantic Ocean,i dont think so.Hey my friend USSR conrolled half of the whole world. |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 10:58
|
yes they saw Atlantic through north africa.russia only conquered endless and useless( they were useless when they conquered there ) steppes.
------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 11:26
|
Turkey ruled an important empire centred on the Balkans, Anatolia and
Levant with some additional territories. They did not rule the world so
stop making such blatantly silly claims. Britain became the most powerful nation on earth for a time and the USSR established itself as one of the two poles of power on the globe after WWII. Consider the issue settled and stop arguing. ------------- |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 12:06
|
Useless stepps,you mean siberia where are situated most of the world resources.
Cossacks are too one of the best individual soldiers. With a bottle of vodka they go to fight and win. |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 12:07
Just for a century. |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 12:15
|
But it was atleast one. And it is not a title held easily. ------------- |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 12:19
Spain had a excellent army during the 15th and 16th (i think also 17th) century. And they did control a good portion of the world all the way up to the 19th century 
------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 11:59
We all know that a knight would beat a samurai. Greatest individual soldiers...acutal idividuals with names, or generalized? Hmm..hard to choose. Soldiers of great empires usually relied on formations and cooperation to win, that is not to say, however, that they are not good fighters. The so called 'barbarians' would have to be the best idividual fighters. Of these, I would choose the Vikings as probably the best idividual fighters. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 13:07
|
Useless stepps,you mean siberia where are situated most of the world resources.
Common now, Russia sold Alaska for pittence, shows how much they value their terretory.
Its no secret that they were jelous of the Ottomans and always wanted to enter the Hot Southern Seas but were never able to.
Anyway, today they can, loads come on holiday to Turkey and would love to live there.
http://turkey.ru/ - http://turkey.ru/
These woman set up this pro-Turkey site, now it has over 10,000 members, Russians can now go to the warm seas without fighting much better isn't it  ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: NightHawk
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 13:54
|
I would have to go with the Scottish Highlanders. Their bravery in battle has been known in time and time again. From the time of Branckobackburn to the 52nd Highlanders of WW2 fame. ------------- Remember The Alamo |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 18:50
Not Highlanders. Most of Scotlands wars until pretty much the Jacobites were won by Lowlanders. The Highlander think is mostly a mix of Victorian and current American romanticism.
And I dont get how that makes them any more brave? In both conflicts you name (namely the various English-Scottish wars and WW2) there have been non Highlander/Scottish units better than them.(bravery cant be measured really). -------------
|
Posted By: tsar
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 21:15
| Bulgarians in the 20th century, showed great courage and heroism, and profesionalism too. |
Posted By: rock strongo
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 16:10
|
Hi,
The Vikings have to be the best soldiers. They were expert sailors and warriors. Sort of like marines. They made surprise attacks and overwhelmed their opponents before they could organize suffcient forces to stop them, much like modern special forces.
Viking ships went down the length of the Volga, over the ocean to North America and throughout the Mediteranean.
They were an unstoppable hit and run opertation. ------------- Alcohol and night swimming, its a winning combination. |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 18:36
I would not say the Scots are the "Greatest Individual Soldiers"(I would not say any ethnicity was), but they have been historically good warriors. Though I do admire their bravery of the Highland Regiments(I wrote an article about them, http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Scottish_Highland_Regiments - here ), I agree with Dampier here. The Lowlanders did fight in every Border Conflict against England. The Highlanders were pratcially non-existent in the Scottish Wars of Independence, and in many other wars. The Lowlanders are historically just about as tough as the Highlanders. Both were famous for their military abilities. Both Highlanders and Lowlanders fought overseas much in the 17th Century, forming a Scots Brigade in Gustav Adolphus's army, and even fighting for the Dutch on certain occassions. They have also served as generals and lieutenants in foriegn armies. I think the Highlanders made up some of the greatest regiments in the British Army from 1750-1898, but their main greatness was being fearless and being great when it hand-to-hand combat. Dampier is correct in saying that the Highlanders have been romanticised here in America. The Highland Regiments ceased to have the same performanceafter the advance from single-shot rifles to bolt-action rifles, they were not able to do many bayonet charges(except for some in World War I, and even one in Iraq). In the modern era, all British regiments are just about equally as "brave". I believe sometimes bravery and great performance in battle are used interchangeably. However, the Highlanders today are as brave as any other regiment in the British Army. I have not studied up on the other Scottish regiments in the British army that much, but, they seem to have been very tough and brave throughout history(Royal Scots Greys at Waterloo, Royal Scots Fusiliers, Royal Scots Guards, etc.) http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Scottish_Highland_Regiments - ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 06:02
|
In general Barbarossa all the Scottish regiments have been just as brave, the Royal Scots Grays too much so really. And of course the Scots Guards are excellent- Guards division being suppossedly the best soldiers of the line regiments (line as in non-SF). -------------
|
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 11:07
May be bulgarian Guard Cavalry.They didnt have a single defeat.Our cavalry also kicked Cossacks,French,Ottomans,Greeks,Serbians and many others.  ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 15:03
Yes, definitely true. The Highlanders get so much credit because they were unique. They had a kilts, they had a bagpiper, and they had tam o' shanters. The attractiveness of seeing these warriors in battle has led to the common stereotype that Highlanders are the only brave Scots. -------------
|
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2006 at 12:12
Bulgarian Cavalry? I never recall it having any impact in any war we (Greece) got involved. ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2006 at 16:00
|
beating disorderly despots is not a success.what is bulgarian guard cavalary?its like a unit name in MTW2 :)
------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2006 at 17:57
|
I dont know the exact translation but they were elite cavalry unit.Direct translation is Guard Cavalry.And they fought in every major war of bulgaria.Their glorious moments were during WW1 when they fought against cossacs and others russian elite units in Romania.
------------- |
Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2006 at 22:56
| mexican army in 1910 to 1917 |
Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2006 at 22:59
| mexican army in 1910 to 1917 for those who fought against oppression |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 10:05
Well the Irish also have those items but they are onyl used by the Irish military and frankly the idea of Irishmen fighting for Britain isnt as exciting for either Brits or Americans.
I'd put forward the French Imperial Guard, they arent basic troops but those men were tough. -------------
|
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 15:09
But the Irish stole the kilt and tam o' shanter from the Scots  .-------------
|
Posted By: Celestial
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 19:39
|
The strongest and the most disciplined elite force was the Janissaries. They were Christian slaves taken from the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Sultanate. They were raised to serve the sultan and fight against the enemy. They were also the first gunpowder infantry of the world and first people to use the gunpowder in battles.
|
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 20:38
sounds like a farm. raising soliders to fight. soudns like a farm of christian kids taken away from mommies and daddies to fight for a tyrant who eventually would rule over the sick-man of Europe. ------------- |
Posted By: Mark I.
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 11:16
| Finns, no contest. |
Posted By: macon
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 14:16
|
Infantry:
Spartan hoplites
Macedonian heavy infantry with long spikes
Roman legionary
Vikings (Varangian guard as derivation)
Janissary
Swedish infantry in 17th century
Prussian infantry in 18th century
Napoleon's guarde troops
Cavalry:
Mongol cavalry
Polish heavy cavalry in 17th century
|
Posted By: Barbarroja
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 07:12
|
I think in this infantry list must be the "tercios". The "tercios" not only were composed by Spanish, also Germans, Italians, Scotish, English, Irish, Valons, etc. ------------- I'm sorry but my English is not very good. I'm from Vila-real (Valencia, Spain) |
Posted By: Tyrannos
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 13:52
Arminius was a Roman trained professional soldier and commander that lead the Roman's into an unsuspecting trap . The Roman commander Varus was also unfit for the military position he held. The Battle also which most likely did not occur in the popular Teutoberg Forest. The ambush also saw the slaughter of the families of the Romans. The likelihood was that most of barbarians that conducted the ambush were former Roman Auxiliaries as well.
Germanicus avenged the Roman Legion by reclaiming the lost Eagle standards in his wave of onslaught. |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 15:26
Very good list I would also add to infantry except Tercios which Barbarroja mentioned also Hussites and Zaphorozian Cossacks.
|
Posted By: the_oz
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 10:55
yes it was a farm.same as europeans. europeans were taking away kids from mommies and daddies(usually they were killing them) for make them clean their houses etc.but we used them for battle for us. |
Posted By: the_oz
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 10:58
| I think Tarkans were best in middle asia also they fought well against Romans at west Hun empire. |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 16:12
|
Bulgars cavalry also called BAGATURS(there are different translations.Its iranian translation means Swords of the god.)
They were the only ones who defeated mongols three times(I am talking about Volga Bulgaria) and the first one who defeated Chingis Khan.On the fourth time mongols managed to beat them with 300 000 army and they even created their own bagatur elite units. From bagatur comes Bogatir. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 16:58
|
No, that's incorrect, Bagatur is a Turkic word meaning Strong man/soldier-Hero(man who conquers). It entered Persian later.
Bulgar's originally were Turkic, the word Bulgar and Balkan are Turkic, today's Bulgarians carry on this name but feel more Slavic.
The Bulgar's that remained in Volga Bulgaria are still Turkic in identity.
Celestial
The strongest and the most disciplined elite force was the Janissaries. They were Christian slaves taken from the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Sultanate. Please study the Janissary system you'll discover that these stories are wild fabrications.
The Devshirme system didn't STEAL CHRISTIAN SLAVES, they didn't take them by force, they would go to villages and first make a list of families with more than one son. Then the strongest sons, then a vilage meeting would be held and if the families agreed they would enroll their sons to the Devshirme system. It was like a bording school, only a medieval one were you changed religion and became a warrior but also recieved the best education.
It gave the peasantry a chance, did you know they would hold celebrations for Devshirme year and even Muslim families would try to enroll their kids into the system.
The children were allowed to return to their families and bring back their wealth to them.
You have to realise that back then, there was no "benefits", no hope's or chances, being born into the peasantry class was a hard life, it didn't matter if you were Christian or Muslim poverty is poverty and if your given a way out for most people it didn't matter how they would go for it.
The "Ghazi's" were great warriors.
Siphai's.
Independance War Turkish fighters.
Brittish armies Ghurka's
SAS Commando's
Samurri's
Mamluke's were fearsome warriors.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 05:17
Discipline and formation are infinitely more impressive and valuable than individual prowess, Teutoburg is one of very few examples of the barbarians utterly destroying an Imperial army in that fashion. The teutoburg, few neglect to mention, was swiftly avenged by Germanicus and it took centuries for the barbarians to overwhelm the Romans and when they finally did, they used their experience in the Roman army as a model on how to defeat them.
The Romans were relentlessly trained in hand to hand combat, a professionally trained Roman soldier in my opinion was better than an individual Gallic swordsman for example, who had recieved no professional training and who would likely lack armour and possibly even a shield. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 06:02
|
Oh my god!!!!!!!!!!!!
Understand it once and for all,bulgars were not turks,they had iranian origin.Today most of historians have unquestionable proofs of iranian theory. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 13:47
|
Oh my god!!!!!!!!!!!! Understand it once and for all,bulgars were not turks,they had iranian origin.Today most of historians have unquestionable proofs of iranian theory. Someones in SEVERE denial mode, today hardly any historians subscribe to this theory, the only ones who cling on so hard to it are Bulgarians who want to be proud of their past but hate Turks too much to accept their origins as "Bulgars" were Turkic.Just accept it man, its the reality, Bulgars were Turkic, if you feel Bulgar embrace your past, if you feel Slavic its not a problem anyway cos you wouldn't feel "Bulgar"
Bagatur is a Turkic word, didn;t they tell you that either.
Here are your Bulgar cousins, the Chuvash Turks and Volga Tatar Turks.
http://www.unpo.org/member_profile.php?id=17 - http://www.unpo.org/member_profile.php?id=17
http://www.unpo.org/member_profile.php?id=51 - http://www.unpo.org/member_profile.php?id=51 ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 14:14
|
There is and a counter theory about chuvash language of volga bulgars.But here is not the place to argue about it.
Bagaturs were may be one of the greatest warriors.Did anyone else defeat mongols three times. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 14:49
Excuse me but who are you to tell "Chuvash" what there language is and who they can and can't be. They are Turks, historically Turks and their branch is Bulgar;s Volga Tatar's aswell are your cousins, their language is also Turkic.
Bagaturs were Turkic Bulgar warriors, embrace your Bulgar past my friend. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 14:55
|
But our past is not tukik.And now appear more and more proofs of indoeuropean origin of bulgars.You cant imagine how different we were from turkic tribes. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 15:11
|
There is no evidence, some flimsy new-age theories by people who don't want to accept their past.
Anyway, today Bulgarians say they're Slavs so what does it matter, the only thing Bulgar about you is the name Bulgar.
If you want to accept your past, go visit your ancestors in Tataristan-Chuvashistan federal states of Russia, there you'll find out what I've been saying all along their Turkic
This Indo-European theory is wishfull thinking for some Bulgarians who hate Turks yet want to feel proud of their history but get frustrated because their connected to people they hate. Since when did Indo-Europeans have "KHANS"
If you didn't dislike Turks, you would accept your past like everyone else does. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 15:17
|
Everyone else!!
We will duscuss this somewhere else.  ------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 15:17
What is it with those Iranians? Every nation wants to be their descendants. In Poland during I Republic there was a theory that Polish are of Sarmatian origin. It is of course bullsh*t cause we are Slavs.
|
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 17:00
What the hell does it matter? Whats your problem with your peoples origins? Why would anybody care if they had Turkic or Indo-European origin  it seems to me to be totally irrelevant, a mere fact of life that ought to have no impact.------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 17:43
|
Heraclius some people havn't matured enough to simply accept who their forefathers were.
In England nobody denies that Angle's, Saxons, Normans and Native Brittish Islanders are among the forefathers of today's English. Instead of getting worked up about it, its embraced and turned into a source of pride. There are so many documentaries on for example the BBC about Stone Hendge, Normans, Boudaccia, Romans, Druids, Merlin, Normans.
Its a great policy  ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 00:10
|
Spartans. We're talking about individual soldiers, right? Not about how a state conquered another, because that encompasses other factors. The Spartans were conquered because their society was so heavily based on militarism, that they ignored (and even discouraged) anything else, like economics, politics, academics, etc. They fell behind their competitors in these fields, so their society in general (no matter how good the soldiers where) became weakened. Spartans were forbidden non-military pursuits and occupations. "Spartan" remains synonymous for anyone rigorously self-disciplined or courageous in the face of pain, danger, or adversity. One thing about the Spartan military I find controversial is how they used bi-sexuality as way of making the soldiers "love" each other so they would be more willing to die for each other in battle. Too radical for me...lol.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Spartan+Soldiers&spell=1 - http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Spartan+Soldiers&spell=1
Regards.
------------- |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 04:01
|
Ok then,If we were turks that mean we were the most advanced and had the most fascinating culture among turks.
Oh,i should be proud with it. ------------- |
Posted By: the_oz
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 15:31
bulgarian culture?!? hahaha!very fascinating |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 16:03
|
Explain yourself.
If you know bulgarian history you wont talk bulsh*ts. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 16:30
|
Desimir
Ok then,If we were turks that mean we were the most advanced and had the most fascinating culture among turks.
Oh,i should be proud with it. Cheeky ChappyCommon guys cool down no need to get all uptight.
Bulgarians have a great history and culture so do Turks, hundreds of years ago infact some of you were the same people ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 17:00
| Why do bulgarians hate turks??? |
Posted By: Vikingrage
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 17:28
|
As Individuals because of training = Spartans. You were cream of the crop or you died because you were not strong enough. |
Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 18:12
|
I am not saying that other turks dont have great history.But protobulgars were more advanced before they created a state.Their calendar were more sofisticated and they build fortresses from stone everywhere they went.They buried their deads and had good craftsmanship(golden treasury of Nang Sent Miklosh) ------------- |
Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2006 at 18:46
Part of the bulgarians don`t like the turks because of the terrible turkish rule of the bulgarian lands between 1360 - 1913. That`s so foolish thing, but is a fact. Personally, i have few friends - turks, and one of them is my best friend. And the "proto"-bulgarians were a turkic people, but not an iranian one. They are still turkic people in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuvashia - - Chuvash Republik ), in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan - - Balkaria ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabardino-Balkaria - - Bulgaria they were assimilated by the slavic majority, and because of that my people only keeps their ethnic name and just a little percent of their blood. The theories, that the "proto"-bulgarians were not turkic, but iranic, or that they are from Pamir - mountain and that they were arian people, are absolutely disgusting nonsence. That`s a kind of fascistic theory - "we are pure, strong and proud white-skined arians", blah-blah-bulsh*ts... ------------- |