Who's the Greatest Warrior of All Time?

[Ther]

I stole this topic from AllRPG, but I think some of you might be interested in it so I figured I'd post it here.

Basically, who do you think was the greatest "warrior" or soldier or military genius to ever live? Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Saladin, Genghis Khan, Francis Drake, Robert E. Lee, George Patton are some examples you might consider, and there are dozen of names not on the list.

[Reiko]

Miyamoto Musashi: he was a ronin of great skill but not only that but he had a great philosopher side to him. The Five Rings is a great read that shows how wise the warrior truly was.

[Corvus MacCallum]

Going for Musashi as well,for all the people he challenged and his sucesses he managed to make the progression out of combat and continue on with his life as a painter. Unlike many other soldiers,fighters and those involved with killing...such as Blair Maine,local hero here, fought in the first,or second world war memories a bit foggy, co-founded the SAS but was a fearsome alcoholic and just couldn`t live in peace.

[Koran]

As I read your post Corvus, I have a strong inclination to speak it aloud with a British Accent...or scottish...irish...welsh, whatever your prefference is.

I'd have to say Sun Tzu, as my greatest warrior, soldier, military thinker of all time.

Alexander, Ceaser and Hitler follow in a close second.

With Gengis Khan in third.

Note: I say Hitler because although he wasn't the greatest military strategist, he created an empire larger than any have seen on this planet. I say largest because it only took him three years. Alexander's campaign I think lasted close to twelve years, Ceaser was born into the height of the Roman empire. I'm not sure of Gengis' reign, but I'm sure it wasn't at it's largest extent in only three years.

:) My opinions could be flawed, as well as my 'facts' and if they are, I stand corrected.

[Corvus MacCallum]

Hitlers empire was nothing compared to the British one and if your wondering what accent,Newtownards,Northern Ireland..theres one to wrap your head round heh.

[Koran]

I'm not saying it can compare to anyones, much less the largest ever to exist. The sun never sets on the British Emprie. In fact I think his was of an average size.

Northern Ireland? Sweet.

[Bleater]

I've always considered Leonidas I to be probably one of the best if not the best. If only for one battle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae), but it certainly was a hell of one.

[Raelyse]

Chuck Norris.

[Godhand]

Jack Dempsey.

[Raelyse]

Patrick Dempsey.

[Stevo]

Conan the barbarian

[Tshael]

Xena.

[Artifex Felicis]

Cúchulainn, woo

[Zook Murnig]

Patrick McGoohan. He was John Drake in Secret Agent Man/Danger Man, as well as being Number Six in The Prisoner. He's a warrior...of FREEDOM!!!

[Lucien]

The Chicken. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhOCp-dPsjA)

[Ther]

Note: I say Hitler because although he wasn't the greatest military strategist, he created an empire larger than any have seen on this planet. I say largest because it only took him three years. Alexander's campaign I think lasted close to twelve years, Ceaser was born into the height of the Roman empire. I'm not sure of Gengis' reign, but I'm sure it wasn't at it's largest extent in only three years

Yeah, he really built Germany up so quickly. At the end of World War I Germany was essentially a country filled with ashes and under massive restrictions by the Allied powers. Hitler took over in the late 20s/early 30s and built it into the world's greatest military power (other then the United States) in less then a decade. To me, it's not so much the conquering as it was the speed in attaining such a military that always impressed me (and really that's the only thing that impresses me about such an evil, evil man) about Hitler.

[Storm Veritas]

Rocky Balboa

On a serious note, I have absolutely no clue.

How the hell do you compare Eisenhower to Ramses III?

[Letho]

Solid Snake > Everybody. :cool:

EDIT: Seriously though, I think King Leonidas and his Spartans would kick a lot of ass and take names of most people mentioned here.

[Rajani Aishwara]

Tutmose The Great, often refered to as "The Nepoleon of Ancient Egypt". Although Nepoleon had a nagging cheating wife, a short stature in more ways than one, and lied about winning battles. Tutmose didn't have any of those downfalls. He never lost a battle.

[Godhand]

Tutmose The Great, often refered to as "The Nepoleon of Ancient Egypt". Although Nepoleon had a nagging cheating wife, a short stature in more ways than one, and lied about winning battles. Tutmose didn't have any of those downfalls. He never lost a battle.

Yeah, but Napoleon had personality. Personality goes a long way.

[Foresaken By War]

Albert Einstein: He created the atomic bomb; which we used to destroy parts of Hiroshima and Nagisaki that will probably never again be inhabitable. You could argue and say that American's deployed the weapon. Killing that many people and destroying such a wide plain of area in a mere couple of seconds, and not even being in danger. That is the amazing part!

[Uukan Kimari]

Never? Nuclear radiation has the half life of fifty years, which is up.

[The Runt]

Mahatma Gandhi

Drove foriegn oppressors out of his nation without firing a single shot.

[Artifex Felicis]

Einstein technically didn't make it. It was a big team fo scientists who did. I think it was oppenheimer who ended up actually making it. At least that's where the "I have become death incarnate" thing quote comes from.

[LordLeopold]

The problem with great warriors is that, given time, almost all of them make some terrible strategic blunder that destroys their legacy. Unless they die prematurely, like Oda Nobunaga, Julius Caesar or George Patton, they go the way of Alexander or Napoleon. For this reason and others, I think it's hard to categorically say who is the best warrior, period.

Perhaps the greatest warrior in terms of overall battlefield success is Frederick the Great of Prussia. The greatest warrior in terms of his impact on military strategy is probably Napoleon. In terms of world history, Mohammed. On a national level, Toyotomi Hideyoshi had the most influence of any warrior in Japanese history, and I doubt there is a comparable warrior in many other countries. I could go on, blah blah blah.

[Ithermoss]

Albert Einstein: He created the atomic bomb; which we used to destroy parts of Hiroshima and Nagisaki that will probably never again be inhabitable. You could argue and say that American's deployed the weapon. Killing that many people and destroying such a wide plain of area in a mere couple of seconds, and not even being in danger. That is the amazing part!


Creation of war's weapons doesn't make someone a warrior.

[Cyrus the virus]

Indeed. Snake's a warrior, Sokolov's a scientist.

[Of Free Will]

I think Goku from DBZ could own everyone in the world.

But on a serious note, I think William Wallace deserves SOME credit for carrying a 5 foot long iron sword. That shiz is heavy.

[Solid Lizzie]

This thread was my idea! That is all.

[Cyrus the virus]

Liz is a spammer. Ban her, Matty!!!

[Darkness Impulse]

William Wallace(one of my personal heroes and idles) and President Rufus from FFVII.

[Massacre]

The best warrior I would say is Achilles.

Most myths and legends say that he was only vulnerable in the heel (Achilles' Tendon).

And although there are many, many different versions they all relate him as the best warrior in Greece and the "Hero of the Trojan War."

Read Homer's The Illiad. :)

[Corvus MacCallum]

Was quite fun how his friend took on Achilles armour and weapons, the simple apperance causing troops to run for their lives instead of fight it out. But then Achilles had the major advantage in that his body was dipped in the Styx apart from his heel, when your unable to be killed by bodily wound it kinda cheapens your achievements.

[Massacre]

Regardless, he could have chosen to be a farmer rather than a warrior. Then he wouldn't be talked about here. :p

And I believe it was his cousin who donned his armor, no?

[Artifex Felicis]

Patrocelus I belive. He may have been his cousin, but at the very least he was his best friend. Hence why he went all crazy like and angered a river god from all of the trojans he killed trying to avenge him after Hector killed Patrocelus.

Wikipedia says that they were cousins though, so I think they were. And his armor after Patrocles took was way better. I loved that shield of his that Homer spent about 200 lines describing.

[Corvus MacCallum]

Really can't recall, been far too long since I last read about Achilles, though he did pop upin a trivial pursuit question at work heh, a question on which part of his body was Achilles held by when dipped in the Styx.

[Massacre]

Yeah, Patrocelus was his cousin.
And I've read The Illiad twice for some AP Ancient Literature class. (Which didn't improve my English any >_>) I've grown to like it but I have yet to read The Odyssey

[Storm Veritas]

The Odyssey was great, as was the Iliad. Takes a while to get into reading them, though, the poetic scheme annoyed the hell out of me at the onset of reading each.

Of the two, I prefered the Odyssey.

[Massacre]

They are called epic poems, you know. :p

[Nein]

Def. King Leonidas and his Spartans.

If someone was able to compare the kill ratio of a single Spartan in the battle of Thermopylae to that of Achilles, then we'd have our answer. Although one could also watch 'Troy' and '300' in the same day and figure out which kicked more ass.

[Ithermoss]

If you're going to mention Achilles, you've got to mention Siegfried. :)

One's greek, the other's a kraut.

[Massacre]

300 is going to be horribly exaggerated.

[Letho]

300 is going to be horribly exaggerated.It really depends on what numbers you believe are true. Historians still can't agree on the size of the Persian army, but regardless of which numbers you believe are true, the fact of the matter is that King Leonidas stood with only his 300 Spartans (and some additional troops, if I recall correctly, but that doesn't matter) against a vastly larger host. And by vast I'm talking about the number that ranged from anywhere from 200,000 to 1,500,000. While I don't think the actual number is anywhere close to the higher extreme (because the force of that size would have been impossible to supply), even if there were "only" 200,000 Persians, King Leonidas made quite a feat stopping them at Thermopylae.

Now, Achilles is as much of a legend as he is a historic character. And even if we are to believe his assumed invincibility (aside from his heel), he still had the rest of the Greeks behind his back which were the largest army ever assembled at that time. And while Achilles would've probably beaten King Leonidas one-on-one, my vote goes to the latter and his Spartans. I mean, I haven't read the book, but from what I heard, the battle of Troy lasted for 40 years and ended only because the Greeks were tricksy. :P

[Noir]

Sigurd. For all who know who I speak of, you know why.

It was 300 Spartans and 700 Thespian volunteers. So, he had a lot more than just 300. Not like that matters.

AND! they DIDN'T stop the Persians at the battle, they just wounded them. It, however, was a deciding moment for the war because it gave the rest of Greece time to prepair for the naval battle and land battle that did ultimately decide the victory.

[Nein]

Some estimates accepted by modern historians put the numbers of the Persian army at four to five million. Still, regardless of the specific numbers - the Spartans were excellent warriors.

Perhaps the Greatest of All Time?

[Farmboy]

All of you are wrong, and the reason is simple. Your definitions of 'warriors' is too strict. You've forgotten the one man that outshines the rest: Muhadma Ghandi.

Ghandi was a revolutionary against the British's stranglehold on India. No matter what they did to him, he never used violence as a means of retribution. All of his protests were peaceful, and none broke any laws. Through sheer willpower and determination, Ghandi drove the British out of India.

And that is the reason why he is the Greatest Warrior of All Time. He defeated the world's greatest army (at that time) without throwing a single punch. What other man or woman can say the same? None.

[Ithermoss]

Oh, of course we're wrong. Let's just forget what everyone else said. It's total crackers to think that a warrior would be a man who's good at war. O, the barbarity!

According to Farmboy, it looks as if we have all been bested, ladies and laddies. How can we go on with our lives, knowing how utterly wrong the rest of us are?

How wrong?

We're so wrong it's wrong, simply because of the wrongness. I'm so ashamed of myself. He's so right, and I'm so not. I'm wronger than an earthquake during a leprosy epidemic. Wronger than pay toilets at a diahrrea clinic. Wronger than elvis singing What's Eating You during a zombie holocaust.

OH THE HORROR!!

[Farmboy]

lol, It was a question that asked our opinions. So I gave mine. Everyone is so closed minded that they automatically assume that a warrior should be killing thousands of people and just bringing more death to the world. Sure, some of it was in the name of God or maybe even so the rest of your civilization could survive, but it's still killing and at the end of the day, Death doesn't hold up nametags for the privilaged who don't get to die.

That's my opinion on why they're wrong Itermoss, you can get mad and insult me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that our society can't seem to see past the violence. You don't like me expressing my opinion? Tough.

[Letho]

Seriously though, would you rather like to see a drama about how Ghandi talked his way out of a fight or an action-packed ubercool movie about some badass dude with a sword/gun/something-that-kills-people that is, you know, badass and kills people? ;)

Violence good. :D

[Lucien]

I'm not big on declaring anyone a warrior unless they fought alongside their men. Now that takes some serious balls, the kind of balls just planning shit can't really produce.

Bodiecia; if my memory serves me correctly, she deserves some note. After Rome received only half of her late husband's kingdom(Bodiecia getting the other half along with her daughters), they incited a rebellion amongst her ranks. Humiliating her and raping her daughters, she led her own little revolt across England. Pissed the Romans off plenty too.

Really, can there ever be a 'greatest' in this case? Maybe, "who's really good!" but never a greatest.

[orphans]

Cao Cao (Tsao Tsao), and I'm not talking about the game character. The actual person in history.

[Karuka]

Tsao Tsao...I think that was a commentator on Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."

[Of Free Will]

@ Farmboy

While I agree that Ghandi accomplished quite a feat, I don't think he deserves the title of " warrior ". And I'm pretty sure someone whose entire life was based around non-violence would literally be offended if referred to as a warrior.



and thats MY opinion. :p

[Farmboy]

@ Farmboy

While I agree that Ghandi accomplished quite a feat, I don't think he deserves the title of " warrior ". And I'm pretty sure someone whose entire life was based around non-violence would literally be offended if referred to as a warrior.



and thats MY opinion. :p

But if you see past the routine definition of 'warrior' you'd see the compliment it truly entitles. What Ghandi went through was a struggle, and indeed he did fight, but in his own manner. It was a battle of wills, a conflict to see which would cave first; Ghandi or the British. And it was clear that Ghandi had the stronger resolve. So he was a warrior, he fought for his people and sacrificed for his people so they could live with the freedoms that they truly deserved.

You don't necessarily need physical violence to fight, and you don't need to divulge in physical violence to be a warrior. All you need is a strong belief in what it is you're fighting for. If that involves physical violence is wholely up to the person who's doing the fighting. Which I believe, in essence, is peaceful protestation.

[Ataraxis]

'This is a battle of wits; and clearly, you come unarmed!'

Darth Vader is the greatest warrior of all times.

I'll edit in something serious when I'm not asleep on my keyboard.

[Of Free Will]

But if you see past the routine definition of 'warrior' you'd see the compliment it truly entitles. What Ghandi went through was a struggle, and indeed he did fight, but in his own manner. It was a battle of wills, a conflict to see which would cave first; Ghandi or the British. And it was clear that Ghandi had the stronger resolve. So he was a warrior, he fought for his people and sacrificed for his people so they could live with the freedoms that they truly deserved.

You don't necessarily need physical violence to fight, and you don't need to divulge in physical violence to be a warrior. All you need is a strong belief in what it is you're fighting for. If that involves physical violence is wholely up to the person who's doing the fighting. Which I believe, in essence, is peaceful protestation.

while everything you said is valid, the fact of the matter is the question was " who is the greatest warrior of all time? " and by definition, Ghandi is not a warrior. While he did fight for his beliefs he did not engage in war. He was more of a political rights activist. It's cool to look outside the box, but in this case it was not called for.

[Farmboy]

while everything you said is valid, the fact of the matter is the question was " who is the greatest warrior of all time? " and by definition, Ghandi is not a warrior. While he did fight for his beliefs he did not engage in war. He was more of a political rights activist. It's cool to look outside the box, but in this case it was not called for.

I believe you should always look outside the box, or at least, try to. Which is why I still hold firm to calling Ghandi the "Greatest Warrior of All Time". Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevent. But all I have left to say and will stress upon further is, you don't need war to make a warrior, just as you don't need violence to fight. So don't limit your mind to one mindset alone. You can go by definition and take the logical escape everytime a challenging question arises, or you can confront those questions and find that the world isn't as logical as you previously thought. Once you do, you'll see my side of this debate and may actually agree with me. But, for you, I fear that may never come.

[Zook Murnig]

I believe you should always look outside the box, or at least, try to. Which is why I still hold firm to calling Ghandi the "Greatest Warrior of All Time". Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevent. But all I have left to say and will stress upon further is, you don't need war to make a warrior, just as you don't need violence to fight. So don't limit your mind to one mindset alone. You can go by definition and take the logical escape everytime a challenging question arises, or you can confront those questions and find that the world isn't as logical as you previously thought. Once you do, you'll see my side of this debate and may actually agree with me. But, for you, I fear that may never come.

All that aside, please.

Hmm...why would you say that Vader was the greatest warrior, Ataraxis? After all, Luke totally kicked his ass.

[Lucien]

Hmm...why would you say that Vader was the greatest warrior, Ataraxis? After all, Luke totally kicked his ass. Should I even go into this? Luke only beat Vader by slipping into the Dark Side for a few moments, before he got his reason back. His anger fueled his swordsmanship.

Darth Vader lead the attack on the Jedi temple, as well as subsequent attacks against any Jedi he found hiding. Vader was the ultimate warlord, and fought alongside his troops when he could.

[Zook Murnig]

Then, in that case, how about Yoda? Little midget dude who could kick the ass of any Jedi in the temple, and led the clone army until they turned on him. Not to mention those jumps.

[Lucien]

Then, in that case, how about Yoda? Little midget dude who could kick the ass of any Jedi in the temple, and led the clone army until they turned on him. Not to mention those jumps. You mean the short green guy that couldn't take out Emperor Palpatine (The injured and disfigured old politician), do you mean this Yoda?

Man, I just need to end this. I sound too fanboyish.

[Nein]

Darth Vader?

Darth Vader is limited in potential, as he doesn't utilize his full extent of control over the Dark Side of the force nor his ability with his lightsaber.

Jedi Weapons Master Lyxa is perhaps then, the Greatest Warrior of All Time.

Self supporting Force Powers to buff herself, offensive Force Powers to dominate those neccessary and subdue them, with nearly unlimited ability when weilding a double-bladed lightsaber.

It's silver, too.

She cuts through lengths of enemies as if they weren't there, and rarely comes out with anything more than a scratch. Even then, it heals over in seconds and she continues to carve a path through the midst of entire enemy strongholds.

Not to mention she saved the Republic, four planets directly, and an entire planetary system indirectly. She is therefore, the Greatest Warrior of All Time. You know, because the limitations of Earth (merely one planet) are far too small.

[Zook Murnig]

Samuel L. Jackson is the greatest warrior of all time!

[Of Free Will]

I believe you should always look outside the box, or at least, try to. Which is why I still hold firm to calling Ghandi the "Greatest Warrior of All Time". Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevent. But all I have left to say and will stress upon further is, you don't need war to make a warrior, just as you don't need violence to fight. So don't limit your mind to one mindset alone. You can go by definition and take the logical escape everytime a challenging question arises, or you can confront those questions and find that the world isn't as logical as you previously thought. Once you do, you'll see my side of this debate and may actually agree with me. But, for you, I fear that may never come.

Don't speak to me as if I were an idiot. I said before that everything you said was valid, meaning I DO agree that you don't need to throw your fists to win a fight. I personally have save my own ass more than a few times with words alone. However, my only point is that Ghandi was a political activist, not a warrior. Though you ARE entitled to your opinion, so am I.

[Of Free Will]

((double post))

@ Everyone talkin' about Star Wars.

Listen, back in the day, when Vader was young, he was pretty bad ass, HOWEVER he DID get his ass kicked by Obi Wan, who pretty much removed all his limbs and watched him burn alive. Plus, after that accident, when he dawned the oh so familiar armor he wears, he could barely move. Although he was much stronger, his capabilitis with a lightsaber were limited extremely. He pretty much had to baseball bat his way though every fight.

If your talkin about bad ass Jedis, you gotta get credit to Obi Wan. He never lost a fight. The only one he did lose, he gave up willingly if only to be able to communicate with Luke from beyond the dead, and act as his mentor. He gave up so that Luke wouldn't have to worry about saving him any more and could just teach him. Obi Wan was pretty much the most bad ass Jedi. Although, technically the only reason Mace Windu lost was cuz Anakin was a lil bitch and killed him while he was trying to take down Palpatine. But thats another story :P

[Lucien]

Listen, back in the day, when Vader was young, he was pretty bad ass, HOWEVER he DID get his ass kicked by Obi Wan, who pretty much removed all his limbs and watched him burn alive. What movie did you watch? Obi Wan was on equal footing on fighting skill during the final fight. The only reason Vader lost was because his emotions and hubris made him try and up Obi Wan. Obi Wan got the high ground because he was a better tactician, not just a better warrior, although these could easily be argued as the same.


He never lost a fight. Yeah, he did.

Both times he went up against Darth Tyrannus he lost, while Anakin was able to bitchslap that old man back to the old republic.

God I sound pathetic.

[Of Free Will]

((lol dont be ashamed of your passions))

Back to the matter at hand. Anakin may have defeated Tyrannus, but who beat Anakin?

[Lucien]

If anything, it's a rock-paper-scissors situation we're at; a crossroads where not one of the jedi/sith can truly be called the greatest becase each has been defeated by another. It's not a simple matter of Obi > Anakin > Tyrannus, but one long ass cycle.

Even the greatest warrior can have a bad day, I'll just leave with that.

[Of Free Will]

True.

And only a Sith deals in absolute....but then again, I'm no saint. :P

[Chance]

Vader was a good warrior, until he became a menstrual case. I suppose one could argue that using emotions in a fight can fuel your passion, and by turn make you stronger, but we can see how far that got him in Ep. 3, when he got turned into a quadriplegic (is that the word I am looking for, since he had them removed rather than paralyzed?).

I'd argue on the side of speed and clarity of mind in a battle, and under that banner, Obi-wan would be the best fighter.

However, no one seems to be giving any credit to Palpatine, the man who wormed his way into a galaxy spanning republic, hoodwinked all involved, and corrupted it to the sound of 'thunderous applause.'

The best warrior is the one who can win the battle without raising a hand, and Palpatine did it through words and guile alone.

As for a 'real' answer to this question... I'd go with either Hercules, or Achilles... in the way of Warrior anyways. Best strategist would probably be Sun Tzu in my opinion. Wisdom is the key to any lock.

[Ithermoss]

lol, It was a question that asked our opinions. So I gave mine. Everyone is so closed minded that they automatically assume that a warrior should be killing thousands of people and just bringing more death to the world. Sure, some of it was in the name of God or maybe even so the rest of your civilization could survive, but it's still killing and at the end of the day, Death doesn't hold up nametags for the privilaged who don't get to die.

That's my opinion on why they're wrong Itermoss, you can get mad and insult me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that our society can't seem to see past the violence. You don't like me expressing my opinion? Tough.

HAH! Son, it'll take a lot more than you to make me mad. I'm not insulting you - you did a good enough job of making an ass of yourself for the both of us by overestimating my purpose here. I'm perfectly happy with you expressing your opinion, so that's not the issue. I was playfully poking fun at you, because I think your standpoint is totally ridiculous.

And I'll explain why:

First, if you're expressing an opinion, it would behoove you to frame it like an opinion, and not like you have a monopoly on truth. It wasn't until people began to disagree with you, that you began to use the words "I believe" and "my opinion," but still suggested shit like others don't think outside of the proverbial box. If you look on dictionary.com, you'll find the second definition of "warrior."

a person who shows or has shown great vigor, courage, or aggressiveness, as in politics or athletics.

So, really, you're just as "inside the box" as everyone else, you just failed to actually realize that simple fact. You're giving yourself far too much credit for an idea that is neither new, nor resembling anything close to unique.

Second, I totally understand your point of view. Ghandi was instrumental and fought for what he believed in without making a fist, and by technical definition, is a warrior. No problem there. Others have agreed to this and politely disagreed in light of our own belief, as I am both agreeing and disagreeing now.

What makes your opinion totally insignificant, however, is that you're calling everyone close-minded, yet you're asserting that everyone is wrong. ;) Not smart. Open mindedness allows for other points of view, doesn't it? So, without explicitly stating it, you're suggesting that you're just as close-minded as you say we are. In suggesting that we're wrong, you're lording your opinion over people who are not only being more reasonable in their consideration, but aren't going so far as to say the equivalent of "when you come to your senses, you might see my point of view, but you never will."

Forgive me if my opinion suggest that you're being ridiculous, in judging everyone else while trying to make your own impenetrably dogmatic point. We're close minded, yet you can't allow for other opinions to hold as much merit as your own? Sorry, weak sauce.

[Atzar]

Pwned.

Personally, I think we have no way to know who the greatest warrior of all-time is. History doesn't remember his name. There was probably somebody - indeed, multiple somebodies - that killed hundreds on the battlefield without ever being scratched. Our history books don't like to focus on bloody details like that, though. They'd much rather settle on the bigger picture, the political scenery on which the battle takes place. So I'd say that we don't really know who the greatest warrior is. Greatest tactician, greatest leader, greatest strategist... sure. But not the greatest warrior.

But that doesn't make for a fun discussion, does it? ;)

So, for the sake of acknowledging the real purpose of this thread, I'll pick Hernan Cortes as the greatest warrior of all-time. It can be argued that he was aided by many things beyond his control when conquering the Aztecs (disease and religion, among other things), but at the end of the day the results are the same: he brought down an empire with an incomprehensibly inferior force.

[Ithermoss]

Yeah. Besides, Dhalsim was so much more badass than Ghandi. Ghandi didn't have Yoga Fire or stretchy limbs.

Cmon, now.

[Lord Anglekos]

Oh, of course we're wrong. Let's just forget what everyone else said. It's total crackers to think that a warrior would be a man who's good at war. O, the barbarity!

According to Farmboy, it looks as if we have all been bested, ladies and laddies. How can we go on with our lives, knowing how utterly wrong the rest of us are?

How wrong?

We're so wrong it's wrong, simply because of the wrongness. I'm so ashamed of myself. He's so right, and I'm so not. I'm wronger than an earthquake during a leprosy epidemic. Wronger than pay toilets at a diahrrea clinic. Wronger than elvis singing What's Eating You during a zombie holocaust.

OH THE HORROR!!

Oh this made me giggle.
I know this topic was abandoned long ago, but I must insert my opinion roughly and forcefully because thats the only way to go.

My vote? Hitler.
This is why:
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd63/boysandmusic/thingejs/l_76d5ea9b816150b5868062d572e0b8-1.jpg

[Cyrus the virus]

Yeah, that's tasteful.

[AdventWings]

I'd sic Godwyn's Law on you, but I'll let it slide since it's not a political debate. :cool:

In my definition, the greatest warrior is someone who changes the tides of war. Now, that's something I can't quite put my finger on, however I will throw a name out there as a candidate.

Liu Bei's Chancellor from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Zhuge Liang

He was a master strategist and while some of his feats were clearly exaggerated, there were some truth to the legends. One of his traps set way back then even worked as recent as the 1949.

I could be exaggerating, but that's what I've read. :p

[MetalDrago]

If you're bringing up Zhuge Liang, I have no choice but to cite the great military strategist, Sun Tzu. His stratagems are still used to this day, in both business and warfare.

Of course, now my favorite military strategist of all time was Lu Xun, working under Sun Ce during the Romance Period.

[Visla Eraclaire]

Basically, who do you think was the greatest "warrior" or soldier or military genius to ever live?

Everyone's focused a lot on individuals, not surprising given the thread title, but in my opinion one man is nothing on his own. Ideas are what really shape history and in that category it's hard to best Gaius Marius, architect of the first true Roman legions, the fighting forces that allowed for the greatest empire of all time. The Marian reforms were put into place seven years before Julius Caesar was even born and without them, nothing would have been the same.

[Magic Bullet]

I would say Musashi, Bruce Lee, and Mohammad Ali

Musashi beat another highly esteemed samurai with the oar of a row boat for chrissakes.

As for Bruce Lee?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QHslHpK4-Q

done

and Mohammad... well... I don't think much needs to be said about him. He was the greatest boxer of all time, strong as hell, big as an ox, and he invented hip hop. nuff said

[barann]

I think the greatest warrior is the "unknown soldier" as he is universal and comprises the spirit and embodiment of the best the country has to offer in any army in history for any period in time ;)

[Antipracticality]

http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-pussy.html

Even though he's only number 5 on this list, I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Simo Hayha.

[Damion Shargath]

"Ithermoss" - Because he's better than the rest, and owns your ass with always the most logical and fair of reasoning.

And I'm all for it that he catches another flight over the big blue lake sometime soon.