[JasminBerkova]

What country produces the best soldiers in the world. Which people are naturally born as soldiers or possess traits that would allow to be great warriors. Immediate examples that come to mind are Israelis, Americans and Gurkhas.

But I'm going to say Chinese and North Koreans for their insane pain tolerance and superhuman mental toughness and martial art skills. They would be least likely to disobey an order because of their blinding nationalism and patriotism. I would add the Russians too but right now morale is low and they have a serious hazing problem.

This incredible video shows some super human feats by the Military Police



North Korean army training


So what ethnicities do you think makes the best soldiers?

[apatteopipt]

Question: Which people make the best soldiers?

Answer: Sociopaths.

[inchaaruutaa]

I would say its a toss up between the Gurkhas and the Sikhs

[asharbiq]

I'm not sure. The people who rush blindly into a conflict tend to just die, and I don't think that makes them the best soldiers. Maybe it makes them dependable from the perspective of the leaders, but in the actual combat situation, I'm not so sure.

I guess the ability to keep focused and a certain ability to ignore the atrocities that happens around you may be an advantage. War as it happens now is very impersonal and unnatural. Tactics and hardware makes a big difference, and so does training.

I don't really think any particular people makes the "best" soldiers. The Ghurkhas kind of stand out - but they were beaten by the Brits originally...

[AdipexAdipex]

It depends a lot on training,but I'd have to say east europeans(for Europe),in the end we're physically stronger people compared to westerners.

[Diwokfkq]

It depends a lot on training,but I'd have to say east europeans(for Europe),in the end we're physically stronger people compared to westerners.

Eastern Europeans are only good at fighting wars because they're numerous and expendable. Russia, for example, was successful with human wave attacks. They simply had more soldiers than Germany. They were certainly inferior in most regards.

[Deribasov]

The Germans were doing pretty well against multiple enemies until Hitler decided Aryans came with natural antifreeze in their systems.

[SappyAppy]

I'm not sure. The people who rush blindly into a conflict tend to just die, and I don't think that makes them the best soldiers. Maybe it makes them dependable from the perspective of the leaders, but in the actual combat situation, I'm not so sure.

I guess the ability to keep focused and a certain ability to ignore the atrocities that happens around you may be an advantage. War as it happens now is very impersonal and unnatural. Tactics and hardware makes a big difference, and so does training.

I don't really think any particular people makes the "best" soldiers. The Ghurkhas kind of stand out - but they were beaten by the Brits originally...

Lets level the playing field by taken military hardware out of the equation. Lets focus on who has the best soldier qualities such as discipline, bravery, and military strategy. If we introduce the hardware its not really a fair comparison.

---------- Post added 2010-09-13 at 05:40 ----------

How about the Vietnamese? never been conquered by anyone including the FKhmer, Chinese, Mongols, French, and Americans. Physically small and weaker people but they sure as hell know the art of war.

[leyliana]

Eastern Europeans are only good at fighting wars because they're numerous and expendable. Russia, for example, was successful with human wave attacks. They simply had more soldiers than Germany. They were certainly inferior in most regards.

Actually western europeans always were more numerous compared to East Europeans(except for Russia) & ofc germans owned when they had superior training and equipment,both are very important,but have you read about roManiac victories against turks(back when technology was not that all important)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_vaslui (there was a bit of romanian vs romanian stuff here but ones that matter kicked ass ) supposedly this is the greatest defeat of ottomans during medieval times and "Stephen was later awarded the title "Athleta Christi" (Champion of Christ) by Pope Sixtus IV, who referred to him as "Verus christiane fidei aletha" (The true defender of the Christian faith)."

[Kamendoriks]

Wallachia had some badass princes, I'll admit that... but I don't think of cool Vlach Turkslayers when I think of Eastern Euros. I think of backwards Slavs.

[purchasviagra]

Wallachia had some badass princes, I'll admit that... but I don't think of cool Vlach Turkslayers when I think of Eastern Euros. I think of backwards Slavs.

What ever give you that idea?

[AntonioMQ]

Talking about "greatest warrior" and Vlad Ţepeş stuff,I just remember about the "Deadliest Warrior",I shared this on youtube with my friends some days ago. (rather funny fight at times)

[Cxcvvfbgtr]

Lets level the playing field by taken military hardware out of the equation. Lets focus on who has the best soldier qualities such as discipline, bravery, and military strategy. If we introduce the hardware its not really a fair comparison.

---------- Post added 2010-09-13 at 05:40 ----------

How about the Vietnamese? never been conquered by anyone including the FKhmer, Chinese, Mongols, French, and Americans. Physically small and weaker people but they sure as hell know the art of war.

What they did was certainly impressive. It was at a huge cost in lives though. Americans aren't all that good at fighting certain types of wars, I guess their training is lacking. They depend very much on their hardware, and it even seems to me that the US military has a hardware "fetish", they think the appropriate hardware is the solution to everything. Just remember how Rumsfeldt praised their new bombs when the second Gulf war started.

You are correct that "levelling" the field may seem appropriate - but regular wars are often won by hardware, when the difference in level is too big - but guerrilla wars are rarely won at all!

I guess determination can be a crucial factor, and that may be an advantage for the locals in most conflicts.

That kind of wars can really only be won by Genghis Khan tactics - kill all the people, including civilians - THAT will stop a guerrilla war. The fact that we try to be "humane" in a war these days prevents the war from being won. In fact, because of this, wars are sometimes won by the press!

That doesn't determine who's the best soldiers, it also depends on what is meant by "best" - best at killing?

[tq4F7YKs]

I was lucky to be acquainted with Deadliest Warrior very early. My cousin was an advisor for the Mafia vs. Yakuza episode in Season 1.

[Rupeviv]

What they did was certainly impressive. It was at a huge cost in lives though. Americans aren't all that good at fighting certain types of wars, I guess their training is lacking. They depend very much on their hardware, and it even seems to me that the US military has a hardware "fetish", they think the appropriate hardware is the solution to everything. Just remember how Rumsfeldt praised their new bombs when the second Gulf war started.

You are correct that "levelling" the field may seem appropriate - but regular wars are often won by hardware, when the difference in level is too big - but guerrilla wars are rarely won at all!

I guess determination can be a crucial factor, and that may be an advantage for the locals in most conflicts.

That kind of wars can really only be won by Genghis Khan tactics - kill all the people, including civilians - THAT will stop a guerrilla war. The fact that we try to be "humane" in a war these days prevents the war from being won. In fact, because of this, wars are sometimes won by the press!

That doesn't determine who's the best soldiers, it also depends on what is meant by "best" - best at killing?

The Vietnamese shows how important military strategy is even against a superpower with the most modern military of the time. Ho Chi Min learned alot from Mao's guerrilla warfare tactics and he had the advantage of knowing the terrain and gaining full support of his people. He was a great student of the Art of War. And yes you are right, he won the media both at home and the US albeit at the expense of many many lives.

[chuecaloversvv]

The Vietnamese shows how important military strategy is even against a superpower with the most modern military of the time. Ho Chi Min learned alot from Mao's guerrilla warfare tactics and he had the advantage of knowing the terrain and gaining full support of his people. He was a great student of the Art of War. And yes you are right, he won the media both at home and the US albeit at the expense of many many lives.

I guess that shows that whoever fights got to have commitment - a desire to win at all cost. So, the mental attitude is really important.

[cheapphenonline]

I guess that shows that whoever fights got to have commitment - a desire to win at all cost. So, the mental attitude is really important.

Hasn't it been proven that paid soldiers/mercenaries are less effective at war than normal soldiers? I also remember reading somewhere that invading forces are historically proven to be less motivated too.

[Solo3uc4]

I guess that shows that whoever fights got to have commitment - a desire to win at all cost. So, the mental attitude is really important.

So we have determination, mental toughness, bravery based on utility, training, physical strength/endurance/agility, cohesiveness, superior intel and effective use of propaganda and a general knowledge of the Art of War. So who are the modern day Spartans who excel at every category.

[SallyIsNice5]

What ever give you that idea?

Outside of Bratislava city centre, which is tiny anyway, it is a lot like that. Though I did think it was a cool city.

[t78VPkdO]

Afghan/Pashtun is heck of a fighter too...