You're right about the difficulty of comparing ancient warriors like the Romans to modern soldiers. In ancient times, nearly all the combat was hand to hand. Yeah, they had archers and catapults, even flaming tar pots (the ancient equivalents of machine guns, artillery, and napalm), but most of the fighting was up close and personal. So in my opinion, the ancient warriors were all Billy Bad-*** compared to our guys today. Hell, when I was in Vietnam, we had snipers shooting people in villages where they couldn't even see the freakin' villiage without a scope, much less the people they were targeting! And don't even get me started on the guys carpet-bombing from 50,000 feet. That being said, the Spartans were probably the baddest of the bad in ancient times. In most societies the warriors were a special cast, but in Sparta, they were all warriors (or at least trained to be). The whole state was one single military industrial complex. But I'd have to give honorable mention to the ancient Germans, as well. A Germanic chieftan named Herminius (or Arminius) as the Romans called him, slaughtered 3 Roman Legions in the Teutoburg Forrest in the year 9 AD. The Roman Empire was permanently crippled. The boundary between the Roman Empire and the Germans was set at the Rhine River forever afterwards. It should be noted that "Herman the German" as he's usually called, fought Rome when it was at the hight of its military power, under the Emperor Augustus (Julius Caesar's nephew Octavian), and not when its power was pretty well spent, like the Goths, Vandals, et al.
Picking someone from Medieval times is difficult. Most of them sucked big time. But if I had to choose one, it would the the Muslim Chieftan Saladin, who was far more of a gentleman knight than Richard the Lionhearted ever was. Richard once slaughtered some of Saladin's men AFTER they'd surrendered. Later, when Richard found himself a prisoner of Saladin, he expected the worst, but it never happened. Honor was more than just a word to Saladin.
Modern times, I'd have to pick United States Marines. I may be a bit biased, having served in that organization myself, but I'm trying to be objective. What other modern fighting force has had a success rate anywhere near U.S. Marines? From the time Lt. Presley O'Bannon marched his men through 800 miles of desert to attack the city of Tripoli from behind (the guns were pointed toward the sea, since the desert was considered impenetrable before O'Bannan's exploit) to the Battle of Belleau Wood in World War 1 (where Marines fought so fiercely the German commander called them "teufel hunden", or devil dogs -- a name Marines have worn with pride ever since!) to the South Pacific Campaign of World War 2 (places like Gaudalcanal, Pelielu, Tarawa, New Britain, and others too numerous to mention) to Korea, Vietnam, and now Afghanistan and Iraq. Marines have done it all, on land, sea, and in the air. Nobody else can claim to have more than two of those missions covered. Marines do it all!
2007-11-11 10:01:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by texasjewboy12 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Hmm, tricky question. The Assyrian army was the first standing army in history so was supreme for some time. The Macedonian Phalanx coupled with the companion cavalry of Alexander the great never lost a battle. The Roman legion of the first century AD was almost (but not quite) unassailable. The Horsemen of the steppe (mongols) were superlative cavalry and nearly unstoppable. English Archers (Agincourt). Samurai are over-rated, though individually they might be awesome warriors. The English Riflemen of the Napoleonic wars. Plains indians, good light cavalry. WWII Commandos & Rangers, SAS and Airborne Forces (English, American and German). waffen SS maybe, but a reputation for brutality. Today, still the special forces.
I have left a lot out, these are just what comes to mind now.
2007-11-11 10:04:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tanks 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would have to say Alexander the Great's army. Led by the young Macedonian king, they perfected the phalanx. They looked at what the ancient greeks, trojans and even the Spartans did and perfected this formation. Within 10 years, this army conquered from Greece to India.
Although the Spartans were very good and were one of the first professional soldiers, they still made mistakes.
Also the Roman legions were also very good, but they borrowed a lot from Alexander's army.
Today's soldiers cannot compare with the soldiers of Macedonia or any other country prior to the maybe the 17th century. It takes a whole lot more bravery to kill a man standing less than three feet from you than to pull a trigger 50 yards away.
As much as I love our soldiers, they couldn't do what even the Spartans did at the Battle of Thermopylae.
2007-11-11 09:50:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jamie G 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
it relatively is an extremely subjective question...and the solutions you acquire will selection usually based on the evaluations of those answering. further, you may desire to define "superb." is this defined entirely as killing greater enemy squaddies than casualties taken? Or dealing with the longest odds and triumphing? Then that would desire to take the famed Spartans out of the working as a results of fact they lost at Thermopylae. The Greeks won the conflict, yet that conflict replaced into lost. in case you're conversing approximately braveness, then it relatively is almost impossible to categorize and separate any form of nominees, from the yankee Civil conflict's Iron and Stonewall Brigades to the British troops who rushed excessive on the Somme.
2016-10-16 04:06:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by leckie 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Caesar's 10th Legion
Charlemagne's Palladins
Napoleon's Old Guard
Stonewall Brigade
100/442 Regimental Combat Unit
1st SS Panzer Corps at Kharkov
2007-11-11 09:39:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Macedonian Phalanx
Mongol Golden Horde
Roman Army
Hannibal's Army
Wellington's Army
U.S. Marine Corps of WW2
Patton's Third Army
Russian Tank Army
German Panzer Army
I think the most formidable fighting unit up to WW2 was
The 1st SS Panzer Division " Leibstandarte "
2007-11-11 09:31:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by Louie O 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Soldiers are only effective agianst other types of soilders for ex.
Pikemen good agianst cavialry
Archers agianst pikeman
cavialry agianst archers
But as far as I know the Spartians where the most powerful of their time, but the romans were the most powerful group of soilders. Spartians were the better individual soilder but didn't have the technology of the romans in their time.
2007-11-11 09:26:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Chad G 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
ancient-either roman legions or the mongols.
medieval- mercinary's in general
and any time from queen elizabeth to king george was ruled by england
then the us took over~
2007-11-11 09:33:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by onelittleangelsittingonmyknee 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Roman empire took over most of Europe.
2007-11-11 09:25:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by trakstar64 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
i would say the Samurai as the best fighting unit.........or the Spartan Warriors.......
2007-11-11 09:26:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mason W 3
·
0⤊
1⤋