Were the Spartans at the battle of Thermopyle the greatest soldiers in the history of mankind?
I am watching (for perhaps the 10th time) the movie 300. It is fairly accurate in the two days of battle stands that King Leonidas fought against the land forces of Xerxes, while his General Themistocles fought a valiant navel battle against Xerxes's forces on the sea. Ultimately at the time Xerxes's forces (or at least a portion of them) were successful in capturing Greece and holding it for nearly a year, before the Greek army forced them back. In the end most of Xerxes forces died of starvation and disease after a mass withdrawal.
That is just the background. The question I am posing is this. Were the Spartan fighters, the Spartan army, the greatest soldiers created in the history of mankind, even compared to ours of today? Of course ours of today have many. many, many more advantages over them in weaponry, intelligence and supply. However that is not the question. Forget the modern advantages. In a fair fight, with equal weapons, could a Spartan be victorious over any solider we could put in the field today. Could a Marine, equally equipped and trained in the use of spear and sword, kill a Spartan? Could a Green Beret? Could a Navy seal, equally trained in sword and shield be a victor over a Spartan? Or were the Spartans the greatest soldiers of all time since they were trained from birth to be soldiers?. Must a great soldier be raised from birth to be one or can he be trained to be one starting as a teenager?
If not one of our modern forces and if not the Spartans, then who were the greatest trained and skilled soldiers of all time?
Tags
Who is online
587 visitors
I say the ancient Greeks, especially the Spartans, were the greatest pure soldiers of all time, bar none.
especially the Spartans, were the greatest pure soldiers of all time, bar none.
Not a bad choice at all Randy.
Just so happens that an old show called, " Deadliest Warrior ", happened to match the Spartans against two other top warrior classes, (Ninja & Samurai), and the Spartans came out on top based on the number of kills each could get if they fought one another using their slandered weapons & tactics.
Spartan vs. Samurai - Kill totals 527 vs 473
Spartan vs. Ninja - Kill totals 653 vs 347
Show was fluff but they did try to give it at least a sheen of scientific respectability in the way they ran their test. Kind of like a Myth Busters of gratuitous violence.
Thanks for the reply. I personally would like to see a serious television series on the greatest soldiers of all time, matched and trained with the same weaponry, perhaps in computer reenactments. I think it would be a very interesting show for a station such as The Military Channel and would garner top ratings.
Moa'dib and the Fremen.
(You said "of all time" so why not look into the future?)
I should have said in history...so far.
The future is unproven and unsure. A mere dream that may come true or not.
Long live the fighters!
I would rate the Mongols at the top. They changed the face of warfare, fighting from horseback, with various weapons. The were the blitzkrieg before there was a blitzkrieg.
Good article Randy, but there are so many to choose from, each displayed extreme courage.
The Marines at Chosin, the Airborne at ''The Bulge'', Air Assault at Ia Drang, The Navy at ''Samar Sea''. The Air Force over the skies of Europe.
A line that is unforgettable from the Battle of Samar Sea, from the commander of the Samuel B Roberts, a destroyer escort addressed the crew..'"This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can.''
The Samar Sea battle is overshadowed by Midway, Leyte Gulf, but it was one of the largest naval engagements in history. 4 Japanese battleships, 6 heavy crusiers, 10 destroyers vs 4 baby flattops, and a few destroyers and destroyer escorts. Epic.
I think that we tend to only look at the western world when we do these comparisons, and don't include the Pacific and the Far East, except the Japanese. The Tongan's had a mighty empire through out the Pacific, and of course the Mongols.
I would add a few more to that list Kav...
The Army and Marine Troops beneath Shuri Castle on Okinawa, Peilileu, the bloodiest battle in the pacific, Porkchop Hill, Hamburger Hill, The Mongol seiges of Baghdad, Verdun, the Seige of Odessa, Stalingrad, Mukden, The First Marne, Battle of Changping, (Chinese war of unification).
Lots and lots of battle tested and tough troops.
If there is one thing man is an expert at it is killing other men.
Good article Randy, but there are so many to choose from, each displayed extreme courage.
However I'm not talking abut courage only, but rather raw ability. A firefighter (whom I have the greatest respect for) who runs into a burning building to save a person is displaying tremendous courage, but that does not make him or her a great soldier. I'm thinking more along the lines of ability.
To me the Mongols top the list, Randy.
So, we're to leave The Expendables I, II and III out of the equation??
Well, we can't have Chuck Norris strolling around destroying battalions all by himself now can we? And showing up Sly, Arnold and Bruce all at the same time like it was all in a days work.
(even if he does like to work alone)
The Expendables III was insane. The 5 or 6 of them must have slaughtered a thousand Russians and terrorists, with barely a scratch to themselves. And most of the Expendables were old guys to boot ! Go old guys !
If we're going to throw in fictional fighters then there is only one that can claim the mantel of being the best fighter that ever was or ever will be.
ONE PUNCH MAN!
The seemingly ordinary and unimpressive Saitama has a rather unique hobby: being a hero. In order to pursue his childhood dream, he trained relentlessly for three years—and lost all of his hair in the process. Now, Saitama is incredibly powerful, so much so that no enemy is able to defeat him in battle. In fact, all it takes to defeat evildoers with j ust one punch has led to an unexpected problem—he is no longer able to enjoy the thrill of battling and has become quite bored.
Great tongue in cheek anime having fun taking the super fighter concept to it's, obviously, most absurd conclusion. Hermits recommend it. (smile)
Interesting article, Randy. After much thought, a lot of decision changing, I favor 1stwarriors choice.
The Myth:
The narrow pass of Thermopylae was held for three days against a vast Persian army by just 300 Spartans, 299 of which perished.
The Truth:
Although there were 300 Spartans present at the defense of Thermopylae, there were at least 4000 allies involved on the first two days and 1500 men involved in the fatal last stand. Still a tiny figure compared to the forces against them, but more than the legend which forgets some contributors.
I did not know that. I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have phrased the question as were the ancient Spartans in general the greatest pure soldiers of all time?
I think the Texicans at the Alamo have to be ranked fairly high. They killed the enemy at a rate of at least 4 to 1 , and maybe at a rate of 8 or 9 to 1, depending on which body counts of the final siege are believed. In an era without automatic weapons, that sounds pretty impressive to me.
Interesting question. As a fighting unit, the Spartans were hard to beat but not unbeatable. Persian soldiers tended to be conscripts and were lightly armed and thinly shielded. Spartans, by contrast, were relatively heavily armed and armored. Although the Spartans were better armed/armored and trained than the Persians, they fared less well against others who were similarly armed and trained. The Spartans were beaten by Thebes and conquered by the Macedonians under Alexander and later by the Romans. To my knowledge, the Spartans had no particular reputation for individual prowess.
The Mongols, as a unit, were never defeated but, as individual fighters, they weren't particularly fearsome. Same goes for the Romans.
So I would say there is no greatest individual warrior. Anybody who trains with a particular weapon will have an advantage over someone who does not. And some weapons are an asset in some situations and a liability in others. A Mongol on foot might be killed by a heavily armored Spartan. An unarmored Spartan might be beaten to death by a Zulu warrior armed with a fighting stick (if they both have sticks). A Samurai may not fare well in a knife fight with an Apache (if they both have knives and no armor). An Apache with a knife is no match for a Viking wielding a battle axe and protected by a shield. And all of them would be shot to death by Annie Oakley.
I think I would have to agree with your assessment. Especially Annie Oakley.