The ultimate warrior of all time

[mkloby]

This was just an idea to throw out there... since everyone always thinks along the usual lines of socom and such.

Originally Posted by drgondog

A tough question, probably not in two months but... five to six months of intensive simulator and actual flight time - maybe. Depends on level of proficiency you want as a pilot versus level as SOCOM operator?

5-6 months Bill? Not a chance. You'd have a poorly trained pilot nowhere near a professional military aviator. I began flight school two years ago - and finally now have 5 more flights left... BTW - simulators are ok... they're best quality is training for instrument flight. They are VERY limited for everything else.

Originally Posted by drgondog

If you scratch High G fighter pilot manuevers and stick to flying a C-130 or a AH-1 or KC-135, you could also be a diabetic with bad eyes and have heart problems and a vagina and still be 'proficient'...but you would never be on a SEAL team or survive BUDS or SAS training.

I get your drift, although I would shy from saying that about skid drivers. Flying a helicopter with skill is a lot more difficult than flying fixed wing. And likewise - former socom guys have attrited from flight school... totally different type of training with a completely different skill set.

Originally Posted by drgondog

I would say it's easier to acquire all the skills to be a proficient pilot than a proficient SpecWar animal - and the specwar animal is probably more trainable faster as an Apache scout or Viking or Legionaire than a fighter pilot could adapt.

I would say you are probably right about that - but at least Marine naval aviators go through a year of infantry training prior to becoming pilots - unlike our sister services. (although a socom operator would work me over in a heartbeat!).

[Soren]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I have no idea what criteria would set the stage for 'best'.. but if it was to place your candidate in any time frame and give them a couple of months to adapt to the weapons and tactics - then give me SAS/SEAL/Force Recon/Special Forces/Spetnatz -

I disagree, and I'll explain why below.

No question regarding ferocity and adaptability of the Viking, the Spartan, the Crusader, the Apache, the Mongol, the Marine, Roger's Ranger, Texas Ranger, Roman Legionairre..

The Marine & Rangers aren't really contenders, unless you want to count in countless others from the 20th century who were even tougher, more disciplined and carried better equipment for their time.

so maybe the question is whether you could take a tough Viking and in six months turn him into a top SEAL? and vice versa?

A Viking/Spartan/Crusader/Roman Legionaire wouldn't be able to become a top special forces soldier of today in just six months, it would take him longer than that to just learn the new language. And a SEAL would never be able to become as tough & disciplined as any of the ancient warriors above, and he'd need a lifetime to become as skilled & proficient with a sword and shield, while on the other hand learning how to use a gun effectively is rather simple.

The ancient warriors wouldn't have any problem with any of the phsysically demanding stuff, they'd most likely laugh at the stuff a modern soldier has to endure, and they'd certainly need to learn nothing about disciplin or dedication neither. The area where the ancient warriors would begin to have serious troubles would be in terms of learning all the new tactics, how to best exploit terrain when you're no longer required to get up close to hurt the enemy, and knowing when to prioritize targets of importance.

[The Basket]

Beserkers are my Fave and why we still have the word beserk in the lingo.

They were first wave Viking cannon fodder but had a violent reputation.

It is believed they were either drunk or on magic mushrooms or something. They would rush at the enemy with total disregard for their own lives and first into Valhalla.

They were so crazy...it is believed they could bite through their own shields. Just what ya need for a sucidal charge.

[lesofprimus]

All this is interesting, but what about the Samurai???

I could jump in on the whole SOCOM into a Pilot gimmick, but its almost irrelevant, as some of us Operators are sharper than others, with different skills.... I actually flew Cessnas when I was in the 15-17 year old bracket, and it was easy.... Now, flying a -130 or something seems doable, but a Osprey, Helo or F-18????

No way...

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

All this is interesting, but what about the Samurai???

I could jump in on the whole SOCOM into a Pilot gimmick, but its almost irrelevant, as some of us Operators are sharper than others, with different skills.... I actually flew Cessnas when I was in the 15-17 year old bracket, and it was easy.... Now, flying a -130 or something seems doable, but a Osprey, Helo or F-18????

No way...

Did samurai ever engage dissimilar troops from outside Japan?

For the record I don't actually think us pilots are the "ultimate warriors of all time."

Dan - flying a cessna definitely is retardedly easy.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

All this is interesting, but what about the Samurai???

I could jump in on the whole SOCOM into a Pilot gimmick, but its almost irrelevant, as some of us Operators are sharper than others, with different skills.... I actually flew Cessnas when I was in the 15-17 year old bracket, and it was easy.... Now, flying a -130 or something seems doable, but a Osprey, Helo or F-18????

No way...

I completely forgot Samurai - and in the context of individual skills - he would be at the top of my list.

I agree all the points made regarding proficiency re: pilot made by mkloby.
From my own perspective which predate the complex systems of today, being proficient in say a P-51 which is my only frame of reference, requires far more than being a good pilot with that aircraft in clear weather. My combined 500+ hours in the A-35 and 36, the Cessna 170, the At-6 and the 51 make me a marginal pilot relative to Judgement and confidence built around proficiency and experience.

It is Judgement combined with situational awareness of the crisis and a quick check off of action/options that keeps you alive (maybe) when the 1% event jumps in your lap. That is what military training brings to the table -

Being qualified to fly a P-51 is a far cry from being a fighter pilot and even farther from being an ace who survives many combats. So no, I'm not proficient by my own standards (or USAF or USN or RAF) even if I am by FAA standards.

I don't even know how to comment regarding how much time it would take to be a competent Knight or Legionnaire - but it seems like handling a Broadsword from horseback or foot or a shield and short sword is a couple of steps below using a bow competently from horseback, combined with the swordplay of a Samuari sword.

I don't know how to comment on relative 'toughness' or determination - but suspect that is where strength (physical and will) and adaptability and field craft come in. I'm not ready to buy into top Viking or Legionnaire or Spartan 'tougher' than top SEAL or SAS simply because I have zero idea what the training comparisons would be or the natural patterns of life are to shape the will - and is size a factor?

I suspect that the average SpecWarrior is one hell of a lot stronger today - but could be wrong. I have yet to see a suit of armor built for a Knight (in England or France) that looked like the guy was taller than 5'-6".. I'm sure there were bigger guys but doubt stronger.

So, how do ya know? and any assumption can't be tested or proven - so we are sharing a lot of speculative air and ink. I think I'll go scratch a wolfhound ear and contemplate my navel

[renrich]

Comparing warriors of today with ancient warriors is, to me, like trying to compare football players of today versus those of the 1950s. I was on the freshman team at a university that wound up ranked 12th in the nation(probably should have been ranked higher) We scrimmaged them often and the biggest men on the team were a couple of tackles that weighed around 235 lbs, probably ran the forty in about 5.5 sec and could bench(if we had any weights, which we did not about 225). Compare that with the behemoths of the day. Ancient warriors and that includes those of our Civil War were used to hardships but did not have the nutrition, size, speed or stamina to stand up to modern warriors.

[Lucky13]

Where's the native American Indian, the Aztec, the Inca and the Maya's....?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Dan - flying a cessna definitely is retardedly easy.

Flying an aircraft is no challenge but knowing what to do when the S*** hits the fan is the skill

[Hunter368]

What about:

Knight?

Klingon?


Dragon?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I don't even know how to comment regarding how much time it would take to be a competent Knight or Legionnaire - but it seems like handling a Broadsword from horseback or foot or a shield and short sword is a couple of steps below using a bow competently from horseback, combined with the swordplay of a Samuari sword.

I can tell you that it isn't though. The double edged broad-sword was preferred in Europe for a reason, it was simply a all-round better sword. Long before the katana was ever made the Europeans had been using almost identical types of swords for warfare (In terms of shape), these swords, like the katana, specialized at cutting and slashing, but against armor they were at a disadvantage as they couldn't be used for thrusting attacks. And then there's the fact that the katana is heavier than the broad-sword, it is infact nearly as heavy as a zwei-hander (Two-hand sword), and it only has one sharp & very hard cutting edge which is very vulnerable to chipping if it strikes metal. Against soft targets the katana is a great sword no doubt, but against armor its edge is too brittle.

The double edged European sword also allows for more combination attacks, having two sharp edges to exploit. The sharpness of the katana compared to the European sword is also extremely small and completely irrelevant, while the European sword has a more durable blade capabe of striking armor without fear of chipping.

I don't know how to comment on relative 'toughness' or determination - but suspect that is where strength (physical and will) and adaptability and field craft come in. I'm not ready to buy into top Viking or Legionnaire or Spartan 'tougher' than top SEAL or SAS simply because I have zero idea what the training comparisons would be or the natural patterns of life are to shape the will - and is size a factor?

You should really read into how warriors such as the Spartans grew up and were trained. Fact is their entire society focused only on military excellence, every Spartan having to be in excellent fitness condition, have excellent fighting skills, endurance & strength.

Ever heard of the Agoge ?

I suspect that the average SpecWarrior is one hell of a lot stronger today - but could be wrong.

I'm 100% confident that you're wrong. Think about it, the ancient warrior trained and fought with heavier equipment, often had to march for hundreds of kilometers, and the ancient warrior also absolutely prioritized physical strenght as fighting back then was very much about brute strenght - you had to physically hurt and bring down your opponent either by pushing, thrusting, bashing or wrestling him.

For example recovered skeletons of english longbowmen feature abnormally thick arm & shoulder bones and clear indications of how huge their muscles were. From examining the bones it is calculated that a trained longbowman from of the medieval age could pull up to 180-200 lbs with his one arm !

I have yet to see a suit of armor built for a Knight (in England or France) that looked like the guy was taller than 5'-6".. I'm sure there were bigger guys but doubt stronger.

Medieval suits of armor for European Knights are generally made for men of 6" or taller, while Samurai armored suits are generally for persons of 5.5" in height.

So, how do ya know? and any assumption can't be tested or proven - so we are sharing a lot of speculative air and ink. I think I'll go scratch a wolfhound ear and contemplate my navel

To get an idea of the physical strenght of an ancient warrior you need only look at the many statues made of them.

[Lucky13]

I want a pet dragon....

[Soren]

Here's something to watch:

Chapter 1: YouTube - Ancient Warriors - The Spartans 1/3
Chapter 2: YouTube - Ancient Warriors - The Spartans 2/3
Chapter 2: YouTube - Ancient Warriors - The Spartans 1/3

[Soren]

Battle of Thermopylae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

300 vs 300,000

[Udet]

Very interesting discussion you have here Gentleman.

I will agree the world has seen so many great warriors in the long course of history, but i´ll add my thoughts to the table.

Credit should also be given to the Macedonian Army under the rule of King Filippos II Makedonon -or Phillip II-, who brought the macedonian army up to world class standards leaving any army fielded by any Greek City State behind in a cloud of dust; after a long period of time of being nothing but a weak spot on the map, ruled mostly by a long list of timid, irresolute and incompetent Argead kings, it was Filippos who turned Macedonia into a world power.

I have heard people affirming the first professional army in the history of arms was that of the Romans; this is incorrect. It was Macedonia who first did it. Ever heard of the "Hetairoi" and "Pezhetairoi"? Filippos also improved the "phalanx".

When Alexandros III Makedonon -or Alexander III, or "The Great"- became King of Macedonia after the assassination of his father, he simply inherited a 100% professional, skilled and well equipped army. So the Macedonians under Filippos and Alexandros should also be mentioned.