oh my, this thread is going to get nasty.

Will have to go with the Romans who with so few, retained a large empire for so long.

Considering Armenians have been severely outnumbered in every war and have had numerous adversaries at one time, including all major empires of the region, they fought just as bravely as anybody. We still have our own language, alphabet, and our religion was never forced on us, we chose it for ourselves and it remains unchanged despite thousands of years of pressure. How many countries on earth today can claim all 3 of those things? BESIDES being under Assyrian,Persian, Roman, Macedonian and Byzantine rule, Armenia only had 2 years of TOTAL independece from 1045 until 1991, but our people and culture remain because of our great warriors and their spirit. Our most recent example is when our undersized and technologically backwards troops in Nagorno-Karabagh successfully conquered 1/5 of Azerbaijan in 1994, and woudve taken more if Russia didnt force us to end the war. At least give us an honorable mention or something, lol.

But i understand as to why you wouldnt put us in, its not like history revolves around us or like we have some huge role in history. Just trying to tell you more of my people's history, because sadly its not written in history books...

Romans are the best forget the rest

Spartans

Aztecs

Koreans

EDIT: Forgot the Brazillians!

Yeah baby, AMAZONS

Lithuanians

i voted for germans...

"And romans didn't make anyone build the onliest thing built by human hand that can be seen from space. "

If you're talking about the great wall, your wrong, first the great wall was not for the mongols, second it cannot be seen from the moon as myth indicate.

warhead, would you please tell us why the great wall was built? I had always heard it was to keep the mongols out, but that's just what i've heard, i've never really researched it, so i'm curious to know the real reason why it was built.

I voted for the Greeks.

the Wall which began construction by Shihuang, is believed to have been built to keep various nomadic threats at bay including the dangerous Hsiung Nu or "Xiong Nu'' which we have always called them here.These Steppe warriors are the predecessors to the Mongols by a couple millenia.

   There are actually many walls not just one.If you take a close look at some of the walls built during the first emperor and during the Han which are much smaller in scale to the Wall built during the Ming Dynasty(the one tourist visit),they hardly serve as deterant and probably more for intimidation purposes.  I believe that the ancient chinese belief that evil travels south from the north served major reason for its construction.

Hmmm

Mongols conquored everyone.

But Mongols did not conquor the amazons.

So... If mongols>all

and Amazons>Mongols

then Amazons= the best.

But... Ghengis Khan's conquored more women than any other man ever. He's suppost to have more ancestors than any other historic figure alive today. Isn't that true conquest?

Turks definitially, all the way. Keep in mind that the "Turks" aren't made up of only the Seljuks and Ottomans.

The Great Wall of China's earlier and smaller forms was made by the Warring States to keep both each other and the Hu nomads off from themselves. Later, Qin Shihuangdi united all the existing fortifications against the Xiongnu raids.

I don't get what you mean by "warriors."  If you mean who had the best individual warriors, I'd give the honors to the Spartans.

Than vote for the greeks

Originally posted by k�roglu Than vote for the greeks

I did.

That is an easy question!  The Vikings! 

Not every warrior can decapitate you with an axe from 20 feet ya know

Than vote for Germans

Originally posted by Catt  Mongols cant be the "greatest warrior" because half of their basis of fighting consist of running away.

Wrong! You call it "running away", but that was their tactic to fight. The Turks did the same.

1/eye, you can't list every single group of warriors. There's over 300 countries NOW, and there were ALOT more back then. Hell, Greece itself was a bunch of city-states. Athenians, Thebian, Spartans..

But my vote is stuck somewhere between Spartans and Germans. Spartans out of their last heroic stand, Germans cause we have a tendency to dominate. But I'd still say that America has some of the best snipers in the world, and therefore a damn good set of warriors.

But... I guess I'll vote for the Slavs, since Ivan was cool.

No, no, the Samurai take second place. At least samurai occasionally used bows.

Hey, where's the french?

*and my Ghengis Khan statement, I meant to say descendants, not ancestors

Originally posted by Anujkhamar none of the above. you're  forgetting the indians. come on, spending over a mellenia fighting the muslims and the bristish has got to count for something

I was under the impression that there wasn't much fighting involved when it comes to the British...

SORRY, BUT I HAD ONLY 10 OPTIONS

I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION MYSELF!!

Originally posted by Anujkhamar none of the above. you're  forgetting the indians. come on, spending over a mellenia fighting the muslims and the bristish has got to count for something

I DONT WANT TO PROVOKE YOU....BUT DO YOU REALY THINK 1,50m INDIANS ARE SO DANGEROUS?

Well I am very surprised Japanese got only 1 vote.

They never lost there homelands...

They won against Mongols!

But I am mainly talking about Japanese warior class Samurai here.

If we include Japanese people generally those farmers pulls them down.

I am gonna go nationalistic a bit here and say Circassians. 

the english

the best warriors i would say are not on the choices but i would say the spartians

Dont forget that the Japanese won that battel at home

Not exactly...

I wish there were just three times less mongols here in forum than chinese or turks...

but Iwo Jima was considdered part of the motherland by the japanese, that's why they fought so hard to keep it.

edit
ha, Tsushima was also conquered by the Mongols and it was part of the japanese motherland.

I voted for the Chinese. Reasons: KUNG FU!
hahah, kidding. Reasons... well, at the beginning of the Ming Empire (right after they threw out the Yuan Mongols) They possessed the world's strongest navy, gigantic 400ft cannon equiped vessels that could sail the globe, built in sectional compartments so if one part of the ship was blown off, the other would remain intact and seafaring.

Of course, right after the first Ming Emperor begins the 600 year rotting of China.

... FRENCH? Lmfao. Try and thing up a war they won on their own.

The Albeginian Crusade? Knights against their own countrymen, farmers with pitchforks? What a win!

Because they weren't eradicated in World War I, I won't mark that as either -1 or +1.

Hitler ran them over.

Yes, they did win against a Muslim, as Ihsan so delicately put it, "scouting party" at Tours. The fact they even beat the Muslims is astounding, seeing as they are French.

They would have been eradicted in the Franco-Prussian war, except the Prussians backed off before overrunning Paris and slaughtering everyone. They lost that.

They lost Vietnam, or Indochina. Ever see the French in the scene from We Were Soldiers? They were annihilated. I'll admit, they went European on the damn Viets, and took them out at a 2:1 ratio, but they still were massacred. Gotta love how the trumpet guy got shot in the throat, though. xD Since that scene was so cool, this isn't a -1, which it would have been if France attacked again.

The French lost India and America in compensation to the Brits...

The French mostly loss the Hundred Year's War, they FINALLY tied it up in the end, with cannons. Then again, Henry V was using them long before the French. They weren't too brilliant, were they?

Now, I'm not saying the French are cowards or anything. I just don't think, under any circumstance, that they may be voted the best warriors. Sure, they conquered Europe once, thanks to Napolean. His Empire didn't even last as long as Hitler's.

But the french have the fighting spirit of a warrior! Even the crow pecked corpses of the dead were warriors. You don't have to win to fight!
Anyone else would have looong given up with that kind of record behind them.

But no! The French soldier on, with the true indomnitable heart of the warrior!

I agree with everything here accept the last one.

Q: how many men does it take to save paris?

A: nobody knows, becasue it has not been done before!

Hmm... Ok I did not know Mongols got Tsushima from the Japanese. But I still think they are the best...

Kamikaze. Judo (Aikido,Karate...), Fighting till the last man. Killing themselves when they are dishonored, and the rest of Samurai philosopy.

I think that's actually pretty retarded, true warriors would never fight till the last man, who else would keep up fighting as Guerillias and ultimately turn the tide? martial arts are also never used in war, keep that in mind, that's just for keeping body and soul in shape and stuff. also most Samurais didn't lived up to their principles, that's Hollywood romance. then, Seppuku is most stupid, being executed by the ruler or suicide is just a minor difference, it's just a prestige-thing...

the only things a warrior needs is pure loyalty to the ruler/commander, a strong will to live, and steel-like discipline.

besides, Samurai never met a real Mongol army, all they did was raiding the anchored fleet with small ship's, and in the first expedition they only met an epeditionary force exhausted by the travel...but I grant them their victory here.

yeah, Slav is also a pretty stupid option, it includes both Poles and Russians (as well as others).

I would say in general Japanese and Chinese are equal overall, but regarding the 20th century, Japanese have the lead.

Meh... Russia did pretty nicely in the Crimean war, in my opinion. Then again, it was pretty much slaughter on both sides. Not exactly a worthy war.

Right, from what I know the fleets that landed consisted largely of Chinese soldiers. Those Chinese soldiers managed to defeat quite a few Samurai armies before being forced to retreat due to lack of supplies. In their clashes though, it's been recorded that Japanese swords broke on the Chinese armor, and that the Japanese weaponsmiths were impressed by the greater durability of the Chinese sabers (I think they were sabers), copying them and incorporating those designs into the katana. I've also heard that the fierce hand-to-hand combat that ensued was largely responsible from the Samurai's change of focus from mounted archer to sword/spear charger. It was from a website though. A pretty credible website (as the guy who wrote it seemed to know what he was talking about) but neverless not in books. He did cite what books those were though, but I haven't checked them out yet)

and c'mon, anyone who's ever named 6ft swords "Horse killer/chopper sword" has to be cool! Chinese greatswordsmen used as the guys to stop cavalry charges. I think even with the advent of the Ching, there a 'banner' of native Han greatswordsmen.

Hey, aren't Turks descended from the Mongols?

No. He was a cold-blooded murderer. Remember that soldier that put the blanket back on him when it feel off at night? He killed him on the spot. He was being pragmatic with Zhang Liao, who was damn good, when he let him live. He knew he couldn't control Lu Bu, so he killed him. Besides, Lu Bu already betrayed Dong Zhuo, the old dude who's name I can't remember, and Yuan Shu.

... And? Zhuge Liang ambushed a cavalry group led by some commander who's name I forgot, and slaughtered them all. The commander himself barely got away by using his own men as shields. He lost 50,000 men, and the Shu warriors only lost arrows.

Or how about the Spartans smashing the Persians one by one at Thermopalae? Or the huge defeat at Marathon? You're talking about million man armies being stopped by Greek coalitions. The only difference is the 300 Spartans missed Marathon, and lost Thermopalae, but they did stop the army. Isn't that a win?

Atilla himself lost very few Huns, doubtfully no more than 30,000 in all his campaigns, and that's rather high. He used trash troops, Goths, slaves, whatever he could find.

Genghis Khan used the same style tactic, with the slaves leading, to keep his Mongols alive. So his wins, where he lost only slaves, could be considered flawless, yes?

Your logic is terrible, my friend. Just because Japan won doesn't mean anything. I recall Japan getting it's ass handed to it on a silver platter, Samurai and all, when they went to Korea. Twice, wasn't it? Alot of the great commanders that survived the civil wars were killed in Korea. I notice you didn't mention that.

And the Russians never were great at attacking anything East of them, for some reason. They did great attacking west, Ie, Europe, but didn't do too well with Crimea and the East. Sure, they got both lands, but they lost a hell of alot of men in doing so.

the mongols,the romans, and last but not least the vikings......Subatai,Marcus Agrippa,and harald

Harald Hadrada? ... But he got killed by Saxons.

Arabs actually conquered a whole chunk of Roman world in a matter of years, and even sieged Byzantium, although they failed because of the chain accross the bay and the Greek Fire.

It took 300,000 Russian soldiers to suppress Chechen rebellion at the end of 20th century... and Chechenya has a population of only around 1,000,000.

I vote Arab just to defy Koroglu (?).

 THe list isn't good.

 how come the normans and Franks( which should be grouped with the germans) are missing, plus the celts/Gaul. Brennus the Gaul actually sacked romans with his naked army. Since the normans and the Franks are missing, the mongol get my vote

 Turks are the best warriors? Nationalism.

And both of them suffered setbacks there.

For the Mongols, it was a minor thing, as they didn't go further anyway.

For the Turks, they failed at two sieges of Vienna, and lost all of their akincis cavalry in the Wiener Wald.

The whole "single combat"/"group fighters" thing isn't so black and white.

The Japanese certainly learned how to fight as a group, especially after the two Mongol Invasions.

The Roman legionary worked as part of a unit, but he had to have individual fighting skill too, which was developed through the armatura.

And the Romans pretty much wiped out Celtic culture.

Not to downplay Brennus, but the fact is that the Celts were arguably better fighters when they were recruited into the Roman army--they received standardized equipment and training, and fought in a far more organized fashion.

You think turks are not the best warriors? Hmm? So why do you say "forte comme Turc" in France

 Well the roman were all equipments despite that they were defeated early by the Gaul who fought naked with just a sword and a shield sometime. Later, with engines of war like the catapult, scorpion etc, the romans managed to defeat the Gaul. But this is because the Celts were not united but fighting a lot btw themselves. They did only wipe the culture but the people in there majority remained celt. Racially speaking celt provided the largest gene of the french perhaps on higher than even the Franks.

 They were far from the best warior. Fort comme un turc probably come from some of weight lifting sports I think they practice. but certainly not in war,  a barbaric Gaul or germanic would have ripped the head of a Turc with their his hands.

  Remember that the Turkic HUNS hunted the Germanic. They caused the european emigration of nations in the ancient times

Attila=AlpArslan=GaziOsman=TimurLenk=Atat�rk

Attila=AlpArslan=GaziOsman=TimurLenk=Atat�rk

Attila=AlpArslan=GaziOsman=TimurLenk=Atat�rk

Attila=AlpArslan=GaziOsman=TimurLenk=Atat�rk

 The huns were mongoloid not turks, and they were eventually defeated.

 Just wondering what are the people that make up the modern Turks and there origin.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE CRUSADES?!?!

WHO GOT RIPPED?!?! THE NORDIC PEOPLE DIED WRATCHED DEATH IN ANATOLIA

AND ANOTHER POINT..... YOU VOTE FOR THE MONGOLS. BUT DID YOU KNOW THAT DSCHINGIZ KHANS ARMY COMPRISED MOSTLY TURKS

 Mongoloid?? They were Turanid!! THE HUNS WERE THE FIRST TURKS

http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/FeaturesEurope/Barbaria nHuns.htm - http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/FeaturesEurope/Barbaria nHuns.htm

Although in the past the Huns are thought to have been Mongolian emigrants, it is far more likely that they were of Turkic origin. This point has been repeated by thousands of historians, sinologists, turcologists, altaistics, and other researchers. Let me try to state how this idea began with Sinology researchers.

Sinology research in Europe

While the http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsFarEast/AsiaMongols.htm - Mongol Empire was in the ascendancy, the power of the Catholic Church seemed to be fading, and the power of the http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsEurope/ItalyPopes.htm - Pope was somewhat shaky. At the same time, the Mongols opened the eastern roads for travel, and the Pope decided that there were now so many evident non-Christians that his power in the West was under severe threat. If he could convert these non-Christians he could regain power. As a result, Jesuit missionaries started to head east. Before spreading Christianity, they researched Chinese beliefs. They examined Chinese history and philosophy. There were some missioners who stayed twenty or thirty years in China, and built up healthy relations with Chinese scholars. They also started to translate Chinese books about both history and philosophy into Western languages. The first translations were made in Portuguese. Then this was translated to the other languages; Spanish, Italian and French. So the West started to learn about China from these Jesuit missionaries.

Sin means China in Latin and Sinology means �sciences of China." Sinology mainly started with these translations in the sixteenth century, and Turk history became part of this study. Later, the number of Sinology studies increased with many travellers from the West heading to China. The book written by de Guinness in the eighteenth century is accepted as one of the important collected studies about Turkish history. De Guinness did not know Chinese but he wrote the history of the  http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsMiddEast/AnatoliaRum.htm - Turks , Mongols and Tartars by using Jesuit missionaries' translations. It was printed under the name of �General History of Turks, Tatars and Mongols.�

All the information obtained to this point by the researchers showed that the http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsEurope/BarbarianHuns.htm - Huns were of Turkic origin. We learn nearly all our current knowledge on the Huns from the information left to us by their contemporary neighbours.

For example. It is pretty definite that their language was Turkic. Chinese annals reveals that the Hunnic language was very close to that of the T�les, a Turkic tribe. The http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsEurope/GreeceByzantium.htm - Byzantine Empire said that the language of the Huns was the same as the languages of the http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsEurope/EasternBulgaria.htm - Bulgars , Avars, Szeklers (the last of whom were descended from the European Huns themselves - Ed.) and other tribes which were flooding into Eastern Europe from Central Asia. The historians of that period accepted that these Turkic-speaking tribes were no different from the Huns because their languages were the same.

There are many words written in Chinese chronicles which were used by Huns in daily life. These are Turkic words. K Shiratoriy, reading a Hunnic sentence which has survived to the present day, has proven that it is Turkic. Hunnic-runic writings belonging to European Huns in Cafcasia [sic] has been read and has been proven to be of Turkic origin.

One area for backing up this claim is that of Hunnic names. It is difficult to explain the names belonging to Asian Huns because of fact that they were translated into Chinese in the form of Chinese names. The meanings of the names of European Huns can be comfortably explained in Turkish. One of the most striking features related to European Hunnic names is that they can't be explained by any language but Turkish. Some of the names belonged to the German language due to cultural interaction, but the majority of them were Turkish.

I will try to explain some of these:

(a famous hunnic leader) Balamir = Bala (child, kid) + Mir (king)

(the son of Attila) Dengizik = sea storm

(a general) Oniki, known to Europeans as Onegesios, = the number 12

(the son of Attila) Csaba = shepherd

(a Hunnic leader) Atakam = Ata (grandfather, father), Kam = the person who is responsible for the religious rituals (in shamanism)

Eskam = Es = couple + Kam = (as above)

Aybars = Ay = moon (and also the colour white in Turkish) + Bars (or Pars) = leopard, or a wild animal

The author W Bang has proven the name of Attila's wife was Arikan in Turkish in the result on his researches.

ppl, turks, mongols, and possibly huns belong to Altaic family, no need to distinguish them so much

----

http://flagspot.net/flags/tr_imp.html - http://flagspot.net/flags/tr_imp.html

http://ron.heavengames.com/gameinfo/nations/turks/turks.shtml - http://ron.heavengames.com/gameinfo/nations/turks/turks.shtm l