Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kickoff Topics: Warrior v Warrior Culture

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:42:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We all have a favorite group in history when it comes to kicking butt on the battlelfield. From centurions to huns to apaches to ninjas to buddhist monks, who is your choice, and if someone else has stated their choice, why would your choice beat theirs?

We'll limit it to technology from the 17th century AD back. Preferably, arguments are not too heavily technology based (i.e. "my group can beat yours because your group hasn't gone through the iron age").
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:43:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I personally find the Roman Legion to be the greatest warrior group, VERY closely followed by the Assassins.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 3:37:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Spartans are kool yo.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 6:32:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:44:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This isn't even debatable :P

Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

Nah, the Persian Immortals were the greatest. Basically special forces.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 6:35:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:44:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This isn't even debatable :P

Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

I would take a Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Green Berets, or a Ranger, over ten Sikh any day.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 6:36:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 6:35:13 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:44:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This isn't even debatable :P

Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

I would take a Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Green Berets, or a Ranger, over ten Sikh any day.

*cough* not 17th century *cough*
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 6:37:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 6:36:23 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:35:13 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:44:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This isn't even debatable :P

Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

I would take a Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Green Berets, or a Ranger, over ten Sikh any day.

*cough* not 17th century *cough*

Ok, Spartans, over equal number of Sikhs. That shield........was like a weapon of mass destruction.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 6:39:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wait....scratch that, I would say the Knight. Plated armor, just before gunpower was used in warfare.

They were the tanks of the day.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 6:41:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Or better yet, Spartans with the knights armor.....
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 8:04:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 6:39:45 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Wait....scratch that, I would say the Knight. Plated armor, just before gunpower was used in warfare.

They were the tanks of the day.

The problem is the pikemen were the bazookas of the day and were much cheaper to train. Swiss pikemen dominated the battlefield for the longest time. Also, I'd say the British longbowmen (in huge numbers) were much better then anyone of these groups, massive range and piercing power. Just look at battles such as Agincourt, Crecy, or Poitiers.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 6:23:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 6:32:29 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:44:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This isn't even debatable :P

Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

Nah, the Persian Immortals were the greatest. Basically special forces.

Did the Persian Immortals ever beat thousands of soldiers with only 48 fighters?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 6:23:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 6:37:51 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:36:23 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:35:13 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:44:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This isn't even debatable :P

Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

I would take a Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Green Berets, or a Ranger, over ten Sikh any day.

*cough* not 17th century *cough*

Ok, Spartans, over equal number of Sikhs. That shield........was like a weapon of mass destruction.

LOL, Spartans never beat thousands of highly trained soldiers with only 48 fighters :p
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:00:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 6:23:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:37:51 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:36:23 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:35:13 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:44:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This isn't even debatable :P

Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

I would take a Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Green Berets, or a Ranger, over ten Sikh any day.

*cough* not 17th century *cough*

Ok, Spartans, over equal number of Sikhs. That shield........was like a weapon of mass destruction.

LOL, Spartans never beat thousands of highly trained soldiers with only 48 fighters :p

They did it with 300 soldiers if that counts.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:20:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:00:36 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 6:23:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:37:51 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:36:23 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:35:13 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:44:32 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This isn't even debatable :P

Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

I would take a Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Green Berets, or a Ranger, over ten Sikh any day.

*cough* not 17th century *cough*

Ok, Spartans, over equal number of Sikhs. That shield........was like a weapon of mass destruction.

LOL, Spartans never beat thousands of highly trained soldiers with only 48 fighters :p

They did it with 300 soldiers if that counts.

Not as impressive ;)
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:27:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Japanese obviously!!!!!!!!!

katanas.
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:34:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

I would take a Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Green Berets, or a Ranger, over ten Sikh any day.

*cough* not 17th century *cough*

Ok, Spartans, over equal number of Sikhs. That shield........was like a weapon of mass destruction.

LOL, Spartans never beat thousands of highly trained soldiers with only 48 fighters :p

They did it with 300 soldiers if that counts.

Not as impressive ;)

ehhh...5000 vs 48 or 2 million vs 300...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:39:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:34:09 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

I would take a Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Green Berets, or a Ranger, over ten Sikh any day.

*cough* not 17th century *cough*

Ok, Spartans, over equal number of Sikhs. That shield........was like a weapon of mass destruction.

LOL, Spartans never beat thousands of highly trained soldiers with only 48 fighters :p

They did it with 300 soldiers if that counts.

Not as impressive ;)

ehhh...5000 vs 48 or 2 million vs 300...

It wasn't 5000, it was 100,000 (10 lakh=100,000) according to the Zafarnama.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:54:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:39:28 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:34:09 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

I would take a Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Green Berets, or a Ranger, over ten Sikh any day.

*cough* not 17th century *cough*

Ok, Spartans, over equal number of Sikhs. That shield........was like a weapon of mass destruction.

LOL, Spartans never beat thousands of highly trained soldiers with only 48 fighters :p

They did it with 300 soldiers if that counts.

Not as impressive ;)

ehhh...5000 vs 48 or 2 million vs 300...

It wasn't 5000, it was 100,000 (10 lakh=100,000) according to the Zafarnama.

The battle you are talking about is the battle of Chakmur. The Mughals lost 1000 men, the sikhs lost 44 men (basically everyone was killed). I find it extremely unlikely that the sikhs were attacked by a force of 10 lakh. One lakh equals 100,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and if the sikh's were attacked by a force of a million soldiers it would 1) be extremely unlikely they would win and 2) 1000 losses on the part of the Mughals would not be a deterrence in any way (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:02:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:54:24 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:39:28 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:34:09 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

I would take a Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Green Berets, or a Ranger, over ten Sikh any day.

*cough* not 17th century *cough*

Ok, Spartans, over equal number of Sikhs. That shield........was like a weapon of mass destruction.

LOL, Spartans never beat thousands of highly trained soldiers with only 48 fighters :p

They did it with 300 soldiers if that counts.

Not as impressive ;)

ehhh...5000 vs 48 or 2 million vs 300...

It wasn't 5000, it was 100,000 (10 lakh=100,000) according to the Zafarnama.

The battle you are talking about is the battle of Chakmur. The Mughals lost 1000 men, the sikhs lost 44 men (basically everyone was killed). I find it extremely unlikely that the sikhs were attacked by a force of 10 lakh. One lakh equals 100,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and if the sikh's were attacked by a force of a million soldiers it would 1) be extremely unlikely they would win and 2) 1000 losses on the part of the Mughals would not be a deterrence in any way (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

The Mughals lost the battle because they failed their mission. The only historical recording on the battle notes that 10 lakh soldiers pursued the Sikh forces.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:12:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:03:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It's pretty much as unlikely that 300 men would defeat 2 million, by the way.

They did lose in the end.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:14:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:02:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:54:24 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:39:28 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:34:09 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

I would take a Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Green Berets, or a Ranger, over ten Sikh any day.

*cough* not 17th century *cough*

Ok, Spartans, over equal number of Sikhs. That shield........was like a weapon of mass destruction.

LOL, Spartans never beat thousands of highly trained soldiers with only 48 fighters :p

They did it with 300 soldiers if that counts.

Not as impressive ;)

ehhh...5000 vs 48 or 2 million vs 300...

It wasn't 5000, it was 100,000 (10 lakh=100,000) according to the Zafarnama.

The battle you are talking about is the battle of Chakmur. The Mughals lost 1000 men, the sikhs lost 44 men (basically everyone was killed). I find it extremely unlikely that the sikhs were attacked by a force of 10 lakh. One lakh equals 100,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and if the sikh's were attacked by a force of a million soldiers it would 1) be extremely unlikely they would win and 2) 1000 losses on the part of the Mughals would not be a deterrence in any way (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

The Mughals lost the battle because they failed their mission. The only historical recording on the battle notes that 10 lakh soldiers pursued the Sikh forces.

Yea. Their mission was to capture or kill the guru. Relying on one historical account is bad history.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:18:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:14:20 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:02:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:54:24 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:39:28 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:34:09 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
Sikhs are pretty much the greatest warriors in history.

I would take a Navy SEAL, Delta Force, Green Berets, or a Ranger, over ten Sikh any day.

*cough* not 17th century *cough*

Ok, Spartans, over equal number of Sikhs. That shield........was like a weapon of mass destruction.

LOL, Spartans never beat thousands of highly trained soldiers with only 48 fighters :p

They did it with 300 soldiers if that counts.

Not as impressive ;)

ehhh...5000 vs 48 or 2 million vs 300...

It wasn't 5000, it was 100,000 (10 lakh=100,000) according to the Zafarnama.

The battle you are talking about is the battle of Chakmur. The Mughals lost 1000 men, the sikhs lost 44 men (basically everyone was killed). I find it extremely unlikely that the sikhs were attacked by a force of 10 lakh. One lakh equals 100,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and if the sikh's were attacked by a force of a million soldiers it would 1) be extremely unlikely they would win and 2) 1000 losses on the part of the Mughals would not be a deterrence in any way (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

The Mughals lost the battle because they failed their mission. The only historical recording on the battle notes that 10 lakh soldiers pursued the Sikh forces.

Yea. Their mission was to capture or kill the guru. Relying on one historical account is bad history.

There is no other document of the era, it is well known that Aurangzeb was moved by the letter, meaning it is probably true, and I doubt that the Guru would exaggerate.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:26:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
ehhh...5000 vs 48 or 2 million vs 300...

It wasn't 5000, it was 100,000 (10 lakh=100,000) according to the Zafarnama.

The battle you are talking about is the battle of Chakmur. The Mughals lost 1000 men, the sikhs lost 44 men (basically everyone was killed). I find it extremely unlikely that the sikhs were attacked by a force of 10 lakh. One lakh equals 100,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and if the sikh's were attacked by a force of a million soldiers it would 1) be extremely unlikely they would win and 2) 1000 losses on the part of the Mughals would not be a deterrence in any way (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

The Mughals lost the battle because they failed their mission. The only historical recording on the battle notes that 10 lakh soldiers pursued the Sikh forces.

Yea. Their mission was to capture or kill the guru. Relying on one historical account is bad history.

There is no other document of the era,

No other document found yet. There probably are other documents I mean it did happen in 1705 (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This still does not mean we should simply say it must be correct.

it is well known that Aurangzeb was moved by the letter, meaning it is probably true,

Appeal to authority.

Millions of people are moved by the bible everyday. Does this mean the bible is necessarily correct?

and I doubt that the Guru would exaggerate.

Why do you doubt this exactly? Nobody is perfect.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:36:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:26:52 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
ehhh...5000 vs 48 or 2 million vs 300...

It wasn't 5000, it was 100,000 (10 lakh=100,000) according to the Zafarnama.

The battle you are talking about is the battle of Chakmur. The Mughals lost 1000 men, the sikhs lost 44 men (basically everyone was killed). I find it extremely unlikely that the sikhs were attacked by a force of 10 lakh. One lakh equals 100,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and if the sikh's were attacked by a force of a million soldiers it would 1) be extremely unlikely they would win and 2) 1000 losses on the part of the Mughals would not be a deterrence in any way (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

The Mughals lost the battle because they failed their mission. The only historical recording on the battle notes that 10 lakh soldiers pursued the Sikh forces.

Yea. Their mission was to capture or kill the guru. Relying on one historical account is bad history.

There is no other document of the era,

No other document found yet. There probably are other documents I mean it did happen in 1705 (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This still does not mean we should simply say it must be correct.

It does mean that we should use it when we are discussing the topic, however, since it is the only eyewitness account.
it is well known that Aurangzeb was moved by the letter, meaning it is probably true,

Appeal to authority.

Why would the enemy who was accused of sending 100,000 soldiers kill 48 men be moved by a document that lied about what he did?
Millions of people are moved by the bible everyday. Does this mean the bible is necessarily correct?

It's not an appeal to authority. The man it accused of sending 100,000 soldiers to kill 48 people could have easily denounced it as a lie, but instead he was moved enough to attempt to secure a personal audience with the Guru. That's what makes me think it is true.
and I doubt that the Guru would exaggerate.

Why do you doubt this exactly? Nobody is perfect.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:17:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:03:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It's pretty much as unlikely that 300 men would defeat 2 million, by the way.

They didn't, but the fact that only 300 men could hold off 2 freaking million.....Granted, it was from a standpoint where the Persians could only put so many guys out fighting the at once. But, still, its by far one of the best last stand-in history.

Sorry royal, but 44 to 5000.....just not as cool.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:42:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 11:17:42 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:03:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It's pretty much as unlikely that 300 men would defeat 2 million, by the way.

They didn't, but the fact that only 300 men could hold off 2 freaking million.....Granted, it was from a standpoint where the Persians could only put so many guys out fighting the at once. But, still, its by far one of the best last stand-in history.

Sorry royal, but 44 to 5000.....just not as cool.

It's 44 to 100,000