Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
The Deadliest Warrior?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Sunday, 30th January 2011
US History Channel series 'The Deadliest warrior'.
The premise is that experts in that field, military, martial art and/or medical, would assess the strength, use and level of damage any given single warrior and his weaponry range, from history would have inflicted upon an opponent, whether they actually ever fought them or not.
For example, a zulu fought a Scottish Wallace type warrior. Spetnaz fought the IRA and a Spartan fought a Samurai.
Each warrior's close-up and distant personal weapons would be tested upon pig flesh etc and the power and speed recorded. The results would be fed into a computer a thousand times and finally, the result of the winner on average would be re-enacted.
But was it accurate? Tests could only ever show what MIGHT have happened by a single warrior on one day of a long life of fighting.
There were no SAS? No Huscarl warriors? No British Black and Tans? No Swiss Pikemen? No Napoleonic Imperial Guard?
And, should some warriors , like the IRA or Mujahadeen man, be depicted, thus legitimising them? -
Message 2
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 31st January 2011
And, should some warriors , like the IRA or Mujahadeen man, be depicted, thus legitimising them?Β
Not sure about the rest of the post, but these two examples were real enough to those who had to fact them, so whether they are considered legitimate or not by one side is immaterial - why shouldn't they be assessed along with other types of warriors. -
Message 3
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 31st January 2011
were real enough to those who had to fact themΒ
That should read "were real enough to those who had FIGHT them".
Just to add to that, neither of the two named examples are not current combatants, so legitimacy is not a political hot potato. And the Mujahadeen were certainly considered legit by the American authorities considering they supplied training, weapons and funds to them (and sections of US society also thought the IRA were legit too come to think of it). -
Message 4
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 31st January 2011
I watched the first one and decided it was really just an excuse for the people involved to play with big boys toys, I think it was the one with the Waffen SS taking on the V C, strangely there was no mention that indeed members of the Waffen SS did indeed while serving with the FFL did just that, although while playing under French rules. I just lost interest in the series after that. May I refer the readers to a series on Discovery History where experts examin things like the gunfight at OK Corral, The death of King Tut and last night following a letter written by a Mexican Officer that casts doubt on bravery of the Defenders of the Alamo. The new series which started last night will cover US History including Gettisburg.
-
Message 5
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Monday, 31st January 2011
Totally meaningless TV bullsh1t, I'd say.
First of all, and computer program is the sum of the info fed into it, the assumptions made when designing it, and the errors made when programming it - no matter how good it is, it will never be the 'real thing'
Secondly, WHAT Roman legionary, and WHAT Zulu, etc. - some would have been really good, some bad, some useless. Programming should even this out, but, again, who judges the amount of allowances made for certain characteristics, disadvantages, and so on?
Some soldiers (Romans especially) had a big shield to protect them, and their comrades, etc. in a tight-knit group. Maybe not ideal for 1 v 1 combat, which they were not designed for.
Guerillas who fought from ambush, and disappeared when the main force came up against them, against 'Special Forces' guys who where trained in 1 v 1 combat?
And very few Irishmen (and not that many Brits) would put the Black And Tans in a list with any of those other guys! -
Message 6
Posted by Big Nose Kate (U2898677) on Monday, 31st January 2011
The IRA were NOT warriors but criminals who murdered innocents in the name of religion and politics. They used terror to try and get what they wanted. They failed.
For me a warrior is someone of honour (the IRA had none). For me some the finest warriors ever were the Chiricahua band of the Apache and their finest warrior was GoyaałΓ© meaning 'One Who Yawns.' People on this board will probably know him by his nickname of Geronimo. The Chiricahua still revire GoyaałΓ© today. He outfought and Generaled his foes in battle -
Message 7
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 31st January 2011
Thanks guys, but calm down, I only posed a few questions, not issued a Political Manifesto! Lol
As i suggested, I think the whole premise was compromised, as the various warriors were not ideally placed in their ideal habitat or fighting conditions, grouped or single.
It's fascinating though nevertheless. -
Message 8
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 31st January 2011
The IRA were NOT warriors but criminals who murdered innocents in the name of religion and politics. They used terror to try and get what they wanted. They failed.Β
---------------------------
It depends which IRA the program referred to - the IRA of the 1910s and the 1920s or the PIRA of the 1970s-1990s. -
Message 9
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Tuesday, 1st February 2011
Vizzer, I asked the question merely to elicit opinions, because I thought that the IRA expert was, with his Political language and reactions etc, immersing himself into the role of 'freedom fighter' a little too convincingly and zealously? Almost like a 'romantic' and warped NORAID fundraiser?
My own personal view, as an English civilian who hates violence or extremism, was that this public invitation and display 'legitimised' the IRA and as the man in question represented the fighting style of a secretive terrorist group that killed Irish and British men, women and children, was in bad taste. As was the Mujahadeen, in MY view, but others may well think that it was acceptable.
But then, our own Western Politicians do public and secret deals with, and back when it suits, such groups regularly? -
Message 10
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 1st February 2011
hello Man Alive
I'm guessing from that (I didn't see the program) that it referred to the PIRA of the 1970s-1990s rather than the Old IRA of 90 years ago. Would that be right? -
Message 11
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011
"PIRA of the 1970s-1990s"- who functioned with varying effectiveness during that period but all in all, in terms of their survival as a force and the British casualty list, were remarkably successful as a guerilla organisation, not least in the rural areas. They brought the British government to a standstill.
That doesn't mean you have to admire them, admiration being, I suspect, a fundamental premise of the programme under discussion. Fighting honourably, however, is something of an Enlightenment fallacy. -
Message 12
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011
For me a warrior is someone of honour Β
And under which or whose definition of "honour" is that? -
Message 13
Posted by Big Nose Kate (U2898677) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011
PIRA were common criminals nothing more. They did not bring the British Government to a standstill. The British Government still carried out its day to day business. They demanded that British Army left Northern Ireland. the British Army has every right to be there as it is part of the United Kingdom. They murdered innocents and did not care who they affected. They tried to bomb British military bases all over the world, sometimes they succeeded like Deal. Most of the time they chose soft targets like remembrance parades, Australian tourists on holiday in Germany, people shopping in London and yet when the British Army struck back they moaned like hell saying they had no right to that.
True warriors don't deliberately attack civilians like PIRA did. So see these murderers being freed and elected to Parliment is disgusting and insult to their victims -
Message 14
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011
"These murderers being freed and elected to Parliament"
They fought the British government to a standstill in as much as that it was accepted that the only way forward was through negotiation.
"They demanded that British Army left Northern Ireland."
Operation Banner, the British Army action in support of the civil powers in Northern Ireland was declared at an end in 2007, I think.
"PIRA were common criminals nothing more."
Well, murder is a crime and many people were killed, none of them lawfully, but many young men did not join the IRA for easy gain but because of what they perceived
as an unjust occupation, rightly or wrongly and because they believed they were fighting for an independent, unified Ireland. That they became brutalised by their involvement, and later regretted their actions seems clear and that among paramilitaries on both sides there were vicious killers is undeniable.
The soft targets were a characteristic of what is now referred to asymetrical warfare. but which for the victims is will always be simple terrorism. Guerrilla groups know this. That it contradicts their claims to moral objectives is not as important as the pressure it puts on governments to find a solution i.e. negotiate.
This makes any crying foul at government successes doubly infuriating. In the case of the IRA it was a mixture of shrewd propaganda and tiresome sentimentality. ETA are the same.
Use of the word 'warrior' has come to be over-used of late. It really belongs in pre-urban, pre-industrialised contexts when all adult men were expected to contribute to defense and war and when fighting qualities of the individual had some significance. Long-distance weapons and mass-death have changed that.
Nowadays we should really only talk of soldiers: men taken out of civil society, trained for war and paid to fight. Soldiers as individuals can display remarkable qualities of idealism, courage and leadership as well as impressive fighting skills but to refer to soldiers as warriors is, in my view, romantic hyperbole.
No doubt, the programme under discussion is rather silly. -
Message 15
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011
'True warriors don't attack civilians', Kate?
Tell that to the people of Dresden, Hamburg, London, Hanoi, Hiroshima, even Belfast, in the 1940s. The concept of an 'honorable warrior' is a bit out dated these days.
War is all about murdering your enemy, with as little risk to yourself as possible. It has ever been thus, with a few rare and infrequent outbreaks of 'honour', when such luxuries as honour could be afforded. It is getting even less honorable' as time goes on, with explosive weapons, long range guns, etc - kill them as impersonally as possible, as it rides easier on the consience? You can't see the blood'n'guts if you are feeding a howitzer 5 miles behind the front line, or planting a bomb and walking away.
The 'rules of war' have always been 'Win by whatever means you need to employ, and interpret any current rules as 'liberally' as possible to suit yourself' If you do that, then you can justify bombing civilians, unrestricted submarine warfare, terrorist campaigns, IRA, Black and Tans, UVF, ETA, anything you like.
Of course, the 'enemy' will interpret the rules to suit himself, and declare you a terrorist / war criminal, etc, but none of that matters as long as you WIN! -
Message 16
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Thursday, 3rd February 2011
By the way, I believe old Geronimo or at least his fellow Chiricahua warriors weren't averse to the odd bit of torture and mutilation of those that fell into their hands. Whether it was ritual, revenge or a calculated terror tactic, it was all the same to the person stretched in the sun with their soft parts exposed to fire, ants or cactus spines. The one thing It wouldn't have felt was honourable.
-
Message 17
Posted by Big Nose Kate (U2898677) on Thursday, 3rd February 2011
The Chiricahua code honour did not and does not allow torture of captives. 9In fact over 90% of mutilation and torture claims laid against the Apache were in fact committed by Mexicans or other Native American tribes. They never even scalped dead bodies. That was mainly a Comanche (sworn enemies of Apache) act. The Apache way of fighting was hit and run guerrilla style.
I know Goyathlay's grand-daughter as a personal friend and have seen the official Tribal records at Fort Apache in Arizona Territory so I know the Apache quite well -
Message 18
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 3rd February 2011
And it was the white man who introduced scalping to the native americans as a way of them proving they had killed the enemy. All the torture stories we learned from the 100s of westerns we watched while growing up. They did teach the white eyes a thing ot two about ambush though tricks picked up and used by many special forces around the world.
-
Message 19
Posted by Big Nose Kate (U2898677) on Thursday, 3rd February 2011
For Native American warriors it is far more prestigious to 'count coup' on a live enemy ie touch him with a weapon but not hurt him than to kill him. If you look at the historical records you will find that most Native Americans died of disease, then it was massacres committed by whites and Mexicans like the massacre at Wounded Knee.
I have always held Native American warriors and their tactics in high regard. There is a distinct code of honour within the Native Americans -
Message 20
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Thursday, 3rd February 2011
how about the taliban in afghanistan as the deadliest warriors
in areas such as helmand they have kept isaf battlegroups such as 3 para confined in their home bases - against an enemy armed with rpgs aks and nothing else apart from courage
i watched a news report today about the us marines who had taken over the uk forces and it took them 3 days to move 900 yds to reclaim the old uk bases
these warriors are battered by apaches, artillery, elite troops, fast air heavy bombers, satellite reconaisance, night sights, radar bombs armouretc etc
they have no medical back up or logistics - they fight with a handful of bullets but never surrender
they fight for years with no end to their tours of duty - no 6 months in the field and then home -no mobile phone contact with their familes or rest periods
how good are they
i obviously detest them as they are killing our young men - but my word they are tough (read ed macys opinion)
do they count as they are our sworn enemies
st -
Message 21
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Thursday, 3rd February 2011
I meant no disrespect for the Chiricahua. They had their codes and, as with most humans, I'm sure the majority adhered to them most of the time
The Apache do not appear to have engaged consistently in the ritual torment that were practised by north eastern Woodland peoples and which they then exported to the Great Plains. The Comanche peoples may have brought the same custom from the mountains to the west. It is not certain.
It is recorded that one function of the practice- apart perhaps from simple entertainment- was that the torturer would derive power from the captive and the better the victim withstood the pain the more power would be acquired. We also hear of vindictive mutilation to cripple an enemy in his after life.
The Apaches did practice scalping but it was not common. However, there is reliable testimony of Apache prisoners being burned to death and of mutilation certainly after death- removal of head and heart for instance- if not before. Others were subjected to a slow death by multiple arrow and lance wounds. Often this seems to have been an expression of hatred for specific wrongs or a means of taunting the enemy, rather than ritual but while the diversity of culture and language in North America was such that it is rarely valid to speak of Native American culture as a homogenous whole, some elements of warrior 'medicine' appear to have been fairly universal.
'Counting coup' was not one of those. As we know it, this developed on the Plains as part of the horse culture, as an element of the heavily ritualised fighting between mounted tribes. Counting coup and escaping was seen as braver than killing an enemy with a bow, lance or rifle. Moreover, birth rates on the Plains were such that lives of hunters could not be easily spared for the luxury of war. Only a genuine war of survival could justify war to the death as policy. It would seem that wars to annihilate an enemy were introduced by Europeans who encouraged dominant tribes to fight for control of trade goods and the beaver pelts that paid for them.
However mourning practices among some tribes meant however that the death of a family member could only be assuaged by the death of another person, even an innocent stranger. This created a historic web of vendettas amongst neighbouring tribes that was impossible to disentangle. The addition of white intruders who had no understanding of, still less sympathy for the custom, made that situation even more complex.
In general, live captives were valued, particularly those young enough to be absorbed into the band. In the North Eastern Iroquois for instance, adult captives might either be tortured or adopted depending on the disposition of the captor. Amongst the Apache, an adult captive would usually be killed but children would be adopted. Life was valued but the difficulty sustaining it in the desert mountains produced a very distinct ethic which meant that an enemy was fought skillfully and ruthlessly by the most efficient means. There was little room for mercy.
Sound famiiiar? -
Message 22
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Thursday, 3rd February 2011
Why are they killing our young men?
-
Message 23
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 4th February 2011
Our young men are over there, with guns, telling them how to run their country.
If their young men were over here, with guns, telling us how to run ours. . . . -
Message 24
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Friday, 4th February 2011
Dey'd get sum seerious gangsta sh**t laid on dem hasses, f'real. Y'nah? Like medi- EEvil ! An I aint even lyin.
-
Message 25
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 4th February 2011
Sir,
While I am not frightfully 'au fait' with some of your charming and delightfully ethnic expressions, I must concur with the general gist of your overall thought process. -
Message 26
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Friday, 4th February 2011
Shizzle ma nizzle
-
Message 27
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 4th February 2011
arty
"why are they killing our young men"
not sure
girraffe
thank u - o yes i am sure lol
i know its not popular but these people are being killed in their hundreds and we think we are winning - but after getting smashed they are there the next day
if it was in reverse and isaf troops were subjected to that amount of ornance i wonder what would be the outcome
st
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.