Notices
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Deadliest Warrior!!!!

  1. #1 Deadliest Warrior!!!! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    79
    Hey guys!
    I am kinda learning about the warriors in history.
    So whom do you think is the Deadliest Warrior???

    Spartans are real good but there are others too........


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The guy stting at a desk in a dark room at the bottom of a deep cave with his finger on the button for a nuke strike!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman Rickdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Santiago de Chile
    Posts
    72
    .

    (sorry, for the spam, kakarot, but this answer should be moved to the humour section).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    79
    hey man cmon get serious Rickdog.
    (this is absolutely not humourous!!!!!!!!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    My reply was facetious. But, frankly, the question has no sensible answer. Everything depends on the time and place, and technology available.

    My immediate reaction to the question was to suggest a modern SAS soldier with submachine gun and grenade launcher. Then I realised that the dealiest warrior will always be the soldier with the most potent weapon, and there is nothing more potent than a bank of nuclear armed missiles.

    I think the question needs to be re-phrased to have any meaning. You need to ask, for example, which foot soldiers were deadliest when armed with hand (not projectile) weapons, of a vintage before, say 1200 AD. Or something similar.

    I would be inclined to suggest the Roman legionnaires, if that were the question. Not as individuals, but as highly disciplined units. After all, they conquered the known world.

    If you introduce cavalry, that changes the whole picture. A bunch of armoured knights on heavily armoured horses could run through a Roman platoon and make mince meat of them. If you introduce archery, then it changes further. English archers in small numbers absolutely destroyed the French cavalry in the 100 years war.

    Introduce gunpowder, and it all changes again. So you need to limit the question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    And of course you may wish to consider Sun Tze's remark that the objective is not to defeat your enemy, but to defeat the plans of your enemy. On that basis the deadliest warrior is the one with the smartest tactical brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    this is not history
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2
    Thanks for the historical post........

    And I realised that the dealiest warrior will always be the soldier with the most potent weapon.........,
    And there is nothing more potent than a bank of nuclear armed missiles.
    [ SPAM LINK REMOVED ]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    101
    Weapons and technology aside, I would have to say the Spartan. From what I understand, coming face-to-face with one would not be on the to-do list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman Rickdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Santiago de Chile
    Posts
    72
    Spartans power relied principally, in a unified force of warriors, something as a team of warriors. Imho, I think that as individual warriors, the Japanese Samurais, were much deadly than Spartans. They survived for centuries within Japan due to their lethality, only to get beaten by modern weaponry, such as guns and cannons, where "body to body" fighting was useless.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman Spaceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    67
    I have forgot the name of this deadly warrior, But he was a samurai warrior. And more Japanese warlords.
    But the Samurai Warriors is very deadly, Theirs swords is very sharp, And they was trained in all kind of weapons. Sword, Bow, Guns and more.

    This samurai warrior who i think about began his practice when he was 13 (i think), When he was 18 - 21 years old he changed the samurai techniques, He got very famous.

    So the Samurai warriors should be 1 of the deadliest warriors, And that samurai i can't remember his name.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    These vs. threads that plague history forums should be automatically trashed. It's absurd to think that the abilities of a fighting force can be summarized in a few shallow sentences. This is exactly why the internet is not seen as a legitimate source of fact.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaceman
    I have forgot the name of this deadly warrior, But he was a samurai warrior. And more Japanese warlords.
    But the Samurai Warriors is very deadly, Theirs swords is very sharp, And they was trained in all kind of weapons. Sword, Bow, Guns and more.

    This samurai warrior who i think about began his practice when he was 13 (i think), When he was 18 - 21 years old he changed the samurai techniques, He got very famous.

    So the Samurai warriors should be 1 of the deadliest warriors, And that samurai i can't remember his name.
    You might be thinking of Oda Nobunaga(sp), or Miyamoto Musashi.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    These vs. threads that plague history forums should be automatically trashed. It's absurd to think that the abilities of a fighting force can be summarized in a few shallow sentences. This is exactly why the internet is not seen as a legitimate source of fact.
    It's absurd to really think you can compare a samurai to Renaissance duelist. They were different, as were all warriors. I personally think it's best to judge the relative efficiency of fighting forces.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    How can you even compare a force of Spartans, or Romans, or Samurai or anyone else, with modern soldiers armed with modern weapons. Even to attempt a comparison is silly.

    In the 100 years War, a small force of English archers destroyed much larger numbers of French soldiers, even including fully armoured knights. Yet a single man today with a modern gatling gun would destroy them all.

    And the little man in the deep cave sitting at his desk with the red button in front of him is the deadliest warrior of all time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    378
    I must agree that to make any comparisons between warriors from different eras, is pointless. Because there is so many variables that can't really be calculated accurately, likefighting conditions, home territory, night/day, ambushes, etc; all those things can shift the battle one way or the other and there really is no neutral ground that doesn't help or hinder either side. I do admit that I watch Dealiest Warrior on Spike... Simply because these hypothetical matches are entertaining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    I agree with Falconer. Also, it depends on the individuals the army is comprised of. For example, who does the country choose as a martial force? Would there be a samurai army or a civilian army? Would there be an army of brutes or brains? In today's world, the brains would win. In a world of barbarian combat, who knows? It's impossible enough to predict who will win a one-on-one fistfight, let alone a full-scale battle. You might be surprised who wins.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    378
    Exactly. That's why when people declare that the Spartans were the ultimate warriors, its completely pointless debating them. No matter how many variables you try and account for you still can't represent the individuals. Each warrior has his own strengths and weaknesses that are completely separate from what he is (Spartan, Samurai, ninja, etc). However like I said before, ultimate showdowns are still highly entertaining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9
    This is a no brainer. Rambo. A man who is an expert in guerilla warfare, trained to kill with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who could eat things that would make a billy goat puke. A man tried to kill, to win by attrition.... well Rambo was the best

    See the video if you don't believe me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    If you are going to pick fictional characters, I am going with superman.



    Obviously absurd, as is the Rambo suggestion. In fact, as stated before, there is no answer that really stacks up. You cannot compare apples with oranges.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    378
    Out of all the fictional characters I choose Goku from Dragonball Z.

    According to Deadliest Warrior on Spike, the Samurai would beat the Vikings... Now just for the fun of it, do you agree? This is just matter of opinion of course.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    17
    Deadliest Warrior ?

    Soviet Spetsnaz :

    -Their training regimen was so tough (24/7 torture ftw) most of them were reported to stop acting as humans, and were biologically incapable of feeling pain, remorse or fear.
    - Huge technology gap (VSS vintorez, Dragunov rifle, and AK variant rifles are still way ahead of any current US-made weapons. There's a reason talibans keep holding NATO at bay : even with shitty AK copies, they trump M4s).
    - Training methodology radically different from what everybody is doing nowadays.

    Just read V.Suvorov's (a deserter) book about GRU Spetsnaz, it's quite enlightening.
    When even the KGB is scared shitless of someone, it's got to be terrifying.

    And from what I remember, they won both of their appearances in Deadliest Warrior.

    Medievally speaking : The Guild of Assassins during the Crusades seems to dominate the rest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    171
    About modern time deadliest warrior, I think I have to agree with Dr Krov. Spetsnaz are definitly tough if not the toughest.

    The French Foreign Legion before the 1980's was comparing with them. I remember when I was kid in Djibouti, to see them training in the desert of Gabode, these guys were mad. They got some US marines for cross training. They had to cool down the training because it was 'out' of the norms of security of US marines ! Look on Google Earth what a trek from Ali Sabieh to Assal Lake might be and you will understand. The strength of Foreign Legion, Spartans, roman legion etc... was coming from the 'esprit de corps', the group spirit which is very important for an army to be efficient.

    Individual warriors might be stronger but they are alone. One cannot win a war alone, even Rambo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    17
    Makandal, the mere existence of security norms in the training of La légion étrangère proves that there is still a substantial gap with Spetsnaz.

    For instance, one training with Spetsnaz GRU involved crossing a nearly-frozen lake. Those who failed, quite simply died, for there were no medics to help.
    Then they also get to be put in prison for an imaginary crime and try to escape the prison, and try and survive the KGB hunting them down.
    Human Rights ? lol.

    However, I'll gladly admit that among west-Europeans, the Legion Étrangère was the meanest. Getting a French passport (free healthcare, hehe) is quite the motivator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •