It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

who were the baddest dudes around?

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

Then again... Do we even know how good the very best Greek wrestlers were?!?!


Take other skills for example like blacksmithing...

Back in ancient times your family would be blacksmiths for generations on top of generations... You were born to be a blacksmith and you were only ever going to be a blacksmith.. And from that the craftmanship of the day can ABSOLUTELY not be replicated by modern masters of the skill..


Why would combat be any different???

Wouldnt you have literally Olympic wrestlers who's daddies , daddies daddy was a wrestler???

Plus their societal carrots and sticks were all situated to create better melee combatants... The modern age is exactly the opposite.

Such as with gladiators..




posted on May, 7 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7
Not a chance in hell. If a 130-150lbs opponent tries to take on somebody 100 pounds heavier than he, especially a nenderthal they are going to be destroyed, regardless of training. Ok sure, if it was some slow slob who barely moves throughout the day, sure they may stand a chance. But mass will easily dominate between two opponents regardless of training if the intent is to kill.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

I personally watched old man Helio Gracie (Royce's father) dismantle a man well over 100lbs heavier than him. Helio was lucky if he was 135lbs soaking wet at that point.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
yea, well they could be subject to the same payoffs as boxing and wrestling, so who really knows.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Could a rougher ancient compete 1v1 with a larger, better trained modern day combatant???

Sure, with a crossbow or spear. Even an archer has a pretty good shot. Thing is my M1 Garand 30 '06 and AP ammo would make mince meat of any number of them, given equal terrain and a full bandolier.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
yea, well they could be subject to the same payoffs as boxing and wrestling, so who really knows.


It was a training session, not a paid match. The guy got pummeled.



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Could a rougher ancient compete 1v1 with a larger, better trained modern day combatant???

Sure, with a crossbow or spear. Even an archer has a pretty good shot. Thing is my M1 Garand 30 '06 and AP ammo would make mince meat of any number of them, given equal terrain and a full bandolier.


Guns trump everything , so really they have to be excluded in such conversations..


I think modern special forces might beat your average Spartan warrior in hand to hand.. Maybe not.. But we are bigger and stronger on average and our guys are scientifically trained.



But on the other hand their guys are way more psychologically prepared to rip another human being apart with your bare hands...

It's to cool to imagine who would win if you gave a bunch of marines Shields and spears and adequate time to train and put them in battle against a bunch of 300bc Greek hoplites..

Or did the same with our best special forces and the Spartans...

I think it would come down to psychology..

Ancient combat was all based on closing into melee combat..getting in close and stabbing the other guy in the face with a spear , was the goal..

With modern combat melee only happens if stuff has gone WRONG!!

That is your very last option , long after the tanks and missles and planes..

In the past getting in close was your entire plan..



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
yea, well they could be subject to the same payoffs as boxing and wrestling, so who really knows.


It was a training session, not a paid match. The guy got pummeled.


Oh yea.. Those Gracie's were nuts.. 5 foot nuthin.... 100 nothing pounds and beating the best trained killers on earth on a weekly basis..


Imagine how good some one in Sparta could be with 9 generations of combat training..



posted on May, 7 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

If we are allowing guns..

It is whoever has the most advanced tech after , say Napoleon... Lol



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Has anyone provided this link in this thread before? If so, sorry for the repetition


Badass of the Week



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 02:54 AM
link   
who were the baddest dudes around?
they who sais you they are youre best friends.....



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


In the past getting in close was your entire plan..

In fact in many modern methods shooting a missile from a drone at 20,000 feet and blowing up an enemy sleeping, in bed, at night is the highest form of cowardice.

So I get what you are saying about 'now bad' vs. 'back then' bad. Of course in retrospect, 'back then', the baddest were the ones with the 'trump' technology; horseback vs. the foot soldier, metal swords vs wooden sticks, bows vs spears, guns vs. everything.

And then the training, in any event.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: intrptr

If we are allowing guns..

It is whoever has the most advanced tech after , say Napoleon... Lol

Constantinople was reduced with huge bombards that fired giant stone cannonballs, way before Napoleon. In Germany, the castle at Coburg was hit with cannon fire during one siege 500 years ago in an effort to bring down one wall. The stone cannon balls are still there, I saw them.

bombards at Constantinople

Scroll down in here for arms museum images at Castle Coburg, Germany



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Oh yea.. Those Gracie's were nuts.. 5 foot nuthin.... 100 nothing pounds and beating the best trained killers on earth on a weekly basis..


If I remember correctly Helio was only about 5'8-9" and was in his 70's when this happened (early 90's).



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: intrptr

If we are allowing guns..

It is whoever has the most advanced tech after , say Napoleon... Lol

Constantinople was reduced with huge bombards that fired giant stone cannonballs, way before Napoleon. In Germany, the castle at Coburg was hit with cannon fire during one siege 500 years ago in an effort to bring down one wall. The stone cannon balls are still there, I saw them.

bombards at Constantinople

Scroll down in here for arms museum images at Castle Coburg, Germany



I think before Napoleon you can make a good argument that the Romans and Mongols could have bested any army in history, in romes case beating armies a thousand years more advance..

Hell Alexander's army might win against crusaders..

But by the time you get to Napoleon tech and tactics were such that ancient armies were Lima irrevant
edit on 8-5-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: JoshuaCox


In the past getting in close was your entire plan..

In fact in many modern methods shooting a missile from a drone at 20,000 feet and blowing up an enemy sleeping, in bed, at night is the highest form of cowardice.

So I get what you are saying about 'now bad' vs. 'back then' bad. Of course in retrospect, 'back then', the baddest were the ones with the 'trump' technology; horseback vs. the foot soldier, metal swords vs wooden sticks, bows vs spears, guns vs. everything.

And then the training, in any event.


Yea but until guns, the tech advantage wasn't insurmountable.. An army that was pig her and better trained could win against better tech..

By napoleons time that ship has sailed.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

You gotta remember, context is everything when you ask a question like this, and "the baddest" is kind of a subjective term.

Personally, I would say the West-Kimbrel clan (otherwise known as the Nightriders) who terrorized central Louisiana from for several years immediately during and after the civil war were pretty bad. They murdered entire families that were traveling west on the old Harrisonburg road until about 1870 or so. They had wells dug every mile for about a 40 mile stretch of road that they would dispose of the bodies in after they slit their throats and their possessions stolen. Women and kids were no exception. Pretty bad dudes.

Nobody even knows how many people were killed but it's safe to assume well into the hundreds. Making them by far one of the deadliest gangs in US history. If a reporter tried to run a newspaper story about it they were killed. Anybody who tried to leave the gang or would not join were killed. The governor of Louisiana even ignored their activities for fear of himself being killed, and it took a posse of locals to finally confront and kill them.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
The Celts.



The Romans f'd them up so hard that they became Welsh.



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Chuck Norris



posted on May, 8 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: schuyler
Neanderthals win hands down. EXTREMELY Harsh ice-age climate. Primitive technology. Mega beasts hunting them back, including likely Homo sapiens. You can't compare that to any relatively modern culture.


Except the humans at the time beat them senseless with roughly the same tech level...



So then who had a rougher life?



They shared the same environment...

From what I remember they were stronger, but had way shorter stumpier legs.. So they just couldn't compete over distances.


The idea that Homo sapiens "beat" Neanderthals is a supposition. There isn't any data to prove any sort of genocide against Neanderthal. In fact, quite the opposite as the average European has from 2-4% Neanderthal genes which proves, you guessed it, interbreeding. Competition does not assume fighting each other. It could have been simply a resource issue. I'm still going with Neanderthal as being the tougher of the two species--if, indeed, were talking two species here as there is considerable argument about that as well.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join