1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteRussians, just about any period. Dam' near impervious to killing conditions and treatment.
By toughest, I don't mean most efficient, or most sophisticated for their time, or best equipped, I just mean plain TOUGHEST. The most hardy, tough as nails, hard-bitten, stalwart group of fighting men in history, who put up with the most shit and made do with it better than anyone else.
I'm going to go with the soldiers of the Allies and Germans on the Western Front, 1914 to 1918. That is not to say that the soldiers of the Second World War weren't tough bastards either, but the sons of those men who went away in 1914 had a different experience. In '39-'45, a soldier had air support, armoured support, armoured personnel carriers, submachine guns, the first assault rifles. More than anything else, their war was a mobile one, they never had the hopelessness of stagnant trench warfare for day after day, week after week, year after year.
The young men, those last scions of the Old World, they went up against massed machine guns with nothing but bolt-action rifles and grenades. And in the cases of my own Canadian forefathers, the rifles they had to begin with were faulty! They fought like madmen, squirming in the dirt and the mud, they used their knees and teeth as weapons, they learned to kill with shovels and rifle butts and knives and clubs. They'd spend weeks on end in a muddy trench, teeming with fleas, sharing their bedrolls with rats the size of small dogs. Then, they'd be ordered out into human wave attacks against an entrenched foe, emerging into a maelstrom of rifle, machine gun and artillery fire. They'd see their friends die by the dozens, and if they managed to survive and get back to their trench, they would have to leave their wounded friends behind out in no man's land. It would take them days to die, and they'd have to listen to them begging for help the whole time. If their friends were wounded, they'd often have to amputate them with rusty bayonets, since the hospitals would be too full of other wounded and dying.
Tough men, tougher than I can imagine, to put up with that kind of crap.
Any other ideas?
Russians, just about any period. Dam' near impervious to killing conditions and treatment.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
if not the toughest, but certainly quite close to it - Finland in WW2.
OK, i know itīs bit BS poster, but still)
If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today
I'd say the Ancient Greek Spartans.
Not for anything else, but we are talking about a whole culture training you to be tough as nails for your entire life, from birth to death. I cannot recall any other culture being like that.
the french
Last edited by zara; 18 Dec 09, at 12:52.
Ahh yes , the holy grailOriginally Posted by zara
TANKIE. ECO WARRIOR , SAVE THE TREES
Russians have put themselves through enormous obstacles through the centuries and the individual soldierīs resilience has never been their weak point. From the medievaln warfare to their expansionist wars, til Stalingrad and Groznyi they have always endured immense hardships and still fought, often til the bitter end.
My grandfather fought them and he had immense respect for their bravery. His unit had surrounded one platoon-size breakthrough group of enemies during the Winter War and the Russians were cut from their supplies and everything as they had gotten through Finnish lines surrounding one "motti" to be stopped and encircled again. The Russians fought, got pinned down and when the night set, they were unable to light a fire as the moment they did it, my grandfather who was sniper would start to pick up targets... they refused to surrender and eventually they all either got killed or froze to death after gruesome day or two. The Lady Winter took more than our men...
The golden hordes....
If meanness was one of the criterion of being tough, then the Mongols are definitely at the top. They killed civilians just to strike fear into the heart of the yet to be conquered enemies miles away. Now thats mean!
They were also tough men, undaunted by the terrain (the unforgiving steppes of Central Asia and Siberia), difficult weather conditions (like the Siberian winter) or the vast numbers of the enemy.
They defeated armies after armies, leaving burning villages, towns in their wake. The kicked ass all the way from Korea in the East to Eastern Europe in the West; from Siberia in the North to Baghdad in the South.
They were fairly sophisticated for their time, using their archers and their horses to their advantage.
My vote goes to the Mongols.
The Gurkhas and the Afghan Pashtuns come second, The WWII Russians and the Roman legions third.
Digression--
BTW its said that the genes of Ghengis Khan and his descendants are found in 1/6 of all the people of the world. If this is true, these guys were pretty fecund too...
Last edited by HillTribe; 19 Dec 09, at 12:04.
Totalitarianism-Feudalism in new garbs
The Japanese of WWII always impress with their intense devotion and fanatacism. The handful of men on some Pacific Islands who refused to acknowledge defeat well into the 1970's, living off the land or by theft (and not being caught doing so) were noteworthy.
I see this within long time span. Mongolians were great, Japanese too - but the Russians have proven themselves through the centuries up til recent times. I do not connect "toughness" directly with "fanaticism"... Islamic extremist warriors/terrorists are definately "fanatic" and ready to die, but I really would not call them exceptionally tough.
Russiaīs record is ... so-so
20th Century for example -
- Russo-Japanese War 1904
- WW1
- Civil War and the offshoots - OK, more of internal conflict
- 1938 Khalhin-Gol
- Winter War
- WW2
- Afghanistan
- Chechniya I &II
9 conflicts, and count 3 clear wins (Khalhin-Gol, WW2, Chechniya II), 4 complete debacles (Russo-Japanese War, WW1,Winter War, Chechniya I).
WW1 cost to Russia the empire, WW2 almost cost them everything and Cold War cost the second empire.
If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today
You missed the point.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Not in tropical conditions (Gilan)Russians, just about any period. Dam' near impervious to killing conditions and treatment.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
That's why they used to own Cubans.Not in tropical conditions (Gilan)
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Tragically for Peter the Great they had not turned Cuban into Commie Gurkhas in the 18th centuryThat's why they used to own Cubans.
He had been discussing the men, not their leadership/training.9 conflicts, and count 3 clear wins (Khalhin-Gol, WW2, Chechniya II), 4 complete debacles (Russo-Japanese War, WW1,Winter War, Chechniya I).
Could throw the other Steppe peoples (Uighurs/Kipchaks/Jurhcens/Khitans/Karluks) who eventually made the bulk of their rank and file in their as well.My vote goes to the Mongols.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: