The Greatest Warrior in the past 1,000 years

It's Lu Bu
from dynasty warrior

since he can stand against 3 best warrior in that era



Saladin may be greatest general but not the greatest warrior

reply to post by AegisFang


We don't even know if Sun Tzu really existed or if he really was the author of that book. If what is said about him is true, then he wasn't anything special as a general. By the way, 'On War' by Carl Von Clausewitz is more influential in the modern world as a military treaties than Sun Tzu's book.

You underestimate the Chinese.... Lu Bu for one, Guan Yu, Zhou Yun, Xiahou Dun, Nan Ging... too many heroes to name.

Whilst the Greeks were once great, they lsot their greatness however after Judeo Chistian times. They had wisdom up till that period, after that they diminished.

The Romans, well they were strong till they became to large with too weak Emperors.

Don't forget the Mongols only beat China because China itself was fighting among itself, also don't forget the Sima Yi and the Jin.

Every nation who at one point was a superpower is no more, Babylon, Egypt, Greek, Macedon, Roman, Mongols etc....

Even mighty Russian Empire under the Tzars then as the USSR under Soviet leaders are now jsut a puny Russian Federation. Whilst China is still strong, from Ancient to Modern times.

Honda Tadakatsu, a warrior worth 10,000. This man was the finest general of Tokugawa Ieyasu, the final Shogun of Japan. He fought countless battles leading his few loyal samurai against forces from a dozen different clans. He won each and every battle, never once suffering an injury. Due to his intricate armor and the mastery of his weapon, the Tonbo-Giri (Dragonfly-Cutter, roughly translated). Go google him, he is badass! :-D

all these are truly great warriors but we cant forget .....
HECTOR!! hes an ancient greek warrior, he fought for his country troy... well for those who want more info bout him watch the movie troy.... or just search his name

I read some posts stating that GW Bush Jr. is the greatest warrior/leader of all time. However, it is not so much as a joke as it is a possibility. He was the commander in chief of the US forces, arguably the most dominant force in history (boasting more nuclear and specialty weapons than all other nations combined). His war in Iraq has had a mere 4200 casualties thus far, which is by far fewer casualties than most wars (america lost 5000 men on one day in WWII). Nobody can be sure, but estimates project about 200,000 terrorist deaths with minimal collateral damage. Though the war is not popular, no one can say it isnt a successful military action against an un-specific enemy.

In my opinion, there are two people who get my vote. Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz. Both wrote manuals that have been read for centuries, and will continue to be read for centuries to come. Many great generals have purt their writings into action from Sun Tzu himself to the up and coming Generals on todays 21st Century battlefields.

Your a moron. Though some of your facts are correct on Saladin, your information on Geronimo is mostly fiction, and insulting to intelligent people. You are obviously anti-american and a racist.

Old Boney, of course

But first, a few historical rectifications.

Originally posted by Gazrok
That's like assuming Britain's "Indian armies" were Indians.

For the most part, and most of the time, they were.

The army of the British East India Company recruited primarily from Muslims in the Bengal Presidency (which consisted of Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh), and high caste Hindus recruited primarily from the rural plains of Oudh. These troops had been predominant in the Indian Mutiny [of 1857] allegedly due to crass and insensitive treatment by British officers evident in the rush to reinstate the Mughal king Bahadur Shah II at Delhi.

Post-Mutiny recruitment switched to what the British called the "martial races," particularly Rajputs, Sikhs, Gurkhas, Pashtuns, Garhwalis, Mohyals, and Dogras. Jats and Balochis also provided many soldiers.

Source

* * *

Originally posted by cassini
Do generals count as great warriors? If they do Xenophon the greek gets my vote. His exploits can be read in The Persian Expedition...

...which he wrote himself. Not that this is an automatic disqualification; Caesar's Gallic Wars is generally reckoned pretty hot stuff. Xenophon isn't. Historians have established that his works were self-servingly distorted and suffered badly from having been written many years after the events they describe, when Xenophon was an old man. Great reading, though. Real Boys' Own stuff.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
you still havent told me where I'm wrong about Napolean.

Well, you could get his name right, for a start: it's Napoleon, as in Bonaparte.

Further information, in condensed form, can be found in this excellent biographical summary.

If you want the full story, you'll find all you could wish for here.

If the term 'warrior' means 'one who makes war', Napoleon Bonaparte was without question the greatest and most successful warrior of the last millennium. He took on all the Great Powers of Europe at once and trounced the lot of them. Only the Russian winter was too much for him; and his eclipse on Elba weakened France and allowed her enemies to regroup, leading to his final defeat by Wellington and Blucher.

Throughout his career, his strategy and tactics were unrivalled, leaving his enemies confused and off-balance. His exploits helped inspire the greatest military textbook of all time, Clausewitz's On War and Beethoven's first great symphony. Military historians generally acknowledge his pre-eminence among warriors since Alexander.

* * *

If anyone was to ask me who to name the greatest warrior after Napoleon, I might say Ho Chi Minh. He did not invent guerrilla warfare but perfected it. He kicked the world's largest military power out of his country and laid the foundations of a stable and increasingly prosperous modern state. Ho, in a sense, completed the reinvention of warfare for the third millennium.

Another great was Marshal Zhukov; no other Allied (or Axis) general of the Second World War could hold a candle to him.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Astyanax]

We are talking about warriors and since that definition has not been solidified I would say that Miyamoto Musashi is a great candidate. He wrote The Book Of 5 Rings and fought more then 60 battles both individual duels and traditional warfare and never lost. He ended up dying at the age of 62 from cancer and was an accomplished artist.

I think superman was the best...until Doomsday smashed his guts with boney appendages. I guess that means doomsday is the best. He also smashed a bird and kicked a deer. Thats #en legit.

Myamoto Musashi.

End of thread.

Napoleon, definitly.

He won more battles than Alexander, Hannibal and Julius Caesar together, and these men knew a lot about war. The Campaign of Italy (1796-97), Austerlitz, Iena-Auerstaedt, Friedland can be compared with Gaugameles, Cannae or Alesia. And the mythic campaign of France of 1814 prooved that the Eagle'head was not down : despite an enormous numeric inferiority, he defeated deeply the allied armies (Montereau, Champaubert, Brienne, Vauchamps, Montmirail), destroying a whole army strong of 100,000 men. Only the number of its ennemies allowed the Coalition to defeat it.

Clausewitz, one of the greatest military theorician, saw in him the God of war.
There is no european country of this time able to claim that Napoleon didn't defeat it. Austria, Prussia, Russia, UK, Spain, Portugal, all were defeated (Prussia was almost destroyed in 1806, despite its status of most powerful military nation after France).

Napoleon was also a great administrator : France has still his administration and his legal system (so do the most part of the conquered countries).


For the 2nd rank, lot of people can claim the cup :
- Duke of Malborourgh (England), winner at Blenheim.
- Duke Eugene of Savoye, french-born general of the Empire (same time than Malborourgh)
- Maréchal de Luxembourg (XVIIth c.) (France)
- Maréchal de Turenne (XVIIth c.) (France)
Both Louis XIV's generals.

- Louis II de Condé (France), circa 1640's, the main artisan of the spanish defeat during the 30 Years War : the famous spanish Tercio were annihilated by his cavalry charge at Rocroi, 1643, he was less than 25 !

- Erwin Rommel (Germany, WWII).

- Philippe II Augustus, King of France from 1180 to 1223, probably the greatest european monarch of the Middle Age.

- William Wallace (Scotland, XIIIth c.)

- Genghis Khan (Mongolia, XIIIth c.), one of the greatest conqueror of History.

- Charles the VIIth, King of France : under his rule, the French push the English out of France. 2 great battles deserves to be mentionned, Formigny (1450) and Castillon (1453), first massive utilisation of guns on an european battlefield.


So many other warriors deserves to be mentionned too, like Washington (UK-USA), Patton (USA), Foch (France), Davout (France, undefeated mrechal of Napoleon), Frederic II of Prussia, Charles Quint (Spain), Cortez (Spain)...

But NAPOLEON is the greatest, for the last 1000 years but also for the whole world history.
As Wellington answered to the question "who is the greatest warrior" :

"In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon".

ALI-THE COUSIN OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMED.

HE COULD TAKE ON ARMIES BY HIMSELF. No1 dared 2 face him in battle. HE IS THE GREATEST WARRIOR OF ALL TIME BY FAR. Saladin is nothing compared to him. Him and his sword "ZULFIQAR" saved Islam in many battles. He lifted KHAYBER'S GATE, which 40 ppl is needed to lift.

reply to post by Illmatic67

Just want to add one more name here who was labeled as Sayfu l-Lāhi (Drawn Sword of God).He has the unique feast attact to himself that he never lost a battle while fighting for Islam or against it.
Under his command Islamic army had were able to record feast like Conquest in northern Syria, southern Turkey and Jazira, Conquest of Persian Empire, Conquests of Eastern Roman Empire, Victories in Battles for Emesa and 2nd Battle of Damascus, Battle of Yarmouk, Capturing Jerusalem add to that He was the commander who was able to save the day for Meccan on the day of Battle of Uhud while fighting against the Prophet’s army.
This great commander of army was known as Khalid ibn al-Walid. His achievements on battle fields were no great that Calipha Umar feared his soldiers might rely on Khalid ibn al-Walid for victory, and not Allah, so he relieved Khalid of his post.
Greatest thing about him was that he never fought for his own sake but for his faith & believes making him greatest warrior if the Prophets are not to listed period.

after reading this post i just had to bring it back up cuz most of the people mentioned on this post aren't warriors. they are politicians/ leaders. i think it's absurd to give these guys the title warrior when all they did was sent men to their death. i'm sure most of these guys mentioned weren't in the closest shape of being a warrior let alone have the attributes. so yea something to think about.

Don't forget about Achilles and Napolean.Achilles was considered the greatest greek fighter of all time and hero of the trojan war and there was a time when Napolean controlled most of Europe after deafting Europes most powerful armies through military genius.

I am confused between the two greats: Saladin and Sir William Wallace. I regard them better then the rest because of their personalities reflecting both the fury of a Lion and the tenderness of a motherly heart, and yes the level of their struggle. Both of them were the warriors and lead the wars from the front generating sense of security, belief and pride for their followers (fighters). The factor that would give Saladin the advantage is that he defeated his opponents and then showed the mercy by giving general pardon, I don’t know what to say about Sir William Wallace but reading about his character, I feel had he been successful, he would have been generous by heart as well - he also fought for the glory of his nation not to conquer and demean his opponents. Chengiz Khan was a great warrior as well, but he never showed any mercy...and please don’t call Ghandi a warrior, a warrior fights from the front, commands awe and respect from his opponents and creates fear in their heart. Ghandi fought on the back of his followers who took brunt of the batons in order to protect him feeling mercy, pity and love for him, let him remain for what he was – a politician. And yes, Geronimo, generates lot of respect for himself amongst the league of warriors, but then at the scale he fought there are others in almost every great nations history, Omar Mukhtar (Libya) at the age of 72 was also among them. Many other greats mentioned here such as Alexander the great, fall out of the debate circle as they are before 1000 years era.

am i the only 1 here who thinks shaka zulu is the greatest warrior ever. even though he lost to william wallace on deadliest warrior i stil believe he is the greatest. when his dad was the leader of the zulu, the tribe was small and unheard of but when shaka took over he made them the most known and most feared african tribe ever. also shaka has one of the most alien yet one of the greatest fighting syles the world has ever seen. he was also trained to take extreme amounts of pain so on the battlefield, no matter what happend even if he lost a limb, he would continue to fight with no mercy.

There was this one guy in boxing on the olympic games like 1200 years ago (I know it's 1000 years but you have to hear this) who was in boxing and the other guy cheated and killed him and got disqualified and honestly I think he was the only dead guy to win the olympics