Naval History Forums

If you are talking about the best soldiers of all time my votes would include:
The Roman Legionaries.
British Infantry of the Peninsular War and Waterloo campaigns.
The modern British and Australian SAS.

Karl Heidenreich wrote:... But we can say, in that context, that the Middle Eastern armies (Persian ones, from between Eufrates and Tigris) were beaten by the Greeks (first by the Spartans and after that Macedonians).

Minor quibble here. I believe that Athenians beat them both on land and sea before the Spartans did. Marathon precedes Plataea by over 10 years and Salamis precedes it by a year or so. Then there's the minor fact that while the Spartans led the Greek army at Plataea it was hardly a "Spartan army".

Lee:

Minor quibble here. I believe that Athenians beat them both on land and sea before the Spartans did. Marathon precedes Plataea by over 10 years and Salamis precedes it by a year or so. Then there's the minor fact that while the Spartans led the Greek army at Plataea it was hardly a "Spartan army".

You are correct with the Athenians and Marathon, of course. And also the army at Plataea was not "Spartan" but "Greek" (or allied... ) but the Spartans were the nucleus to which the rest of city-states aglomarate to fight. However you are correct in your assertion.

The Gurkha's

BEST SOLDIERS EVER, now thats a hard one there have been and there are now great soldiers (units) in every country. How do you pick the BEST, Is it small elite units is it over all field skills, is it large scale units, (Divisions, Brigades) or is it on smaller size units, (Battalions, company, Platoon, section) on what can you base the best ever ? And just a little personal point , I was a infantry/sniper in the Australian army, and from MY experience working along side US, British, Canadian,and others i would say the modern US soldiers are very good in LARGE scale units, But in small scale units, from Battalion size down to section (squad) size, Then there are a few countries who's soldiers that are much better than the US army today,MINUS ( US marines and rangers, GOOD LIGHT FIGHTERS), the US army's training for the average infantry soldier is BELOW par from my point of view, When you look at smaller armies today, Like Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Germany, Israel, you find that man to man these soldiers are better trained than the average US soldier. I am NOT saying US soldier are bad but the US relies VERY HEAVILY on Air power, Armor,and mechanized units and technology, that is how the US works to it's strengths, But by doing that the US Army has not trained its infantry as heavily in the skills of a light infantry soldier, I said earlier minus the Marines and rangers, because they were good light fighters and they are they have kept those skills of a light infantry soldier at a high level, and can match it with any other light infantry. For anyone one to say that one soldier from a given time period is the best soldiers EVER in just not possible.

Gary wrote:The Gurkha's

Any specific criteria for your choice Gary?

Our present government certainly doesn't value them.

madmike wrote:..., But in small scale units, from Battalion size down to section (squad) size, Then there are a few countries who's soldiers that are much better than the US army today,MINUS ( US marines and rangers, GOOD LIGHT FIGHTERS), the US army's training for the average infantry soldier is BELOW par from my point of view, When you look at smaller armies today, Like Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Germany, Israel, you find that man to man these soldiers are better trained than the average US soldier. I am NOT saying US soldier are bad but the US relies VERY HEAVILY on Air power, Armor,and mechanized units and technology, that is how the US works to it's strengths, But by doing that the US Army has not trained its infantry as heavily in the skills of a light infantry soldier,

It looks like you are saying that to be best you have to be the best light infantry. However historically light infantry has seldom been the dominant arm. How do you rate the skills of the US light infantry divisions like the 10th mountain or 101st airborne?

For anyone one to say that one soldier from a given time period is the best soldiers EVER in just not possible.

Definitive answers to any whose the "best" question are very hard to come by unless the question is very narrow and best clearly defined. I agree "best ever" is an impossible task to reach any sort of consensus on. Probably would be better off spending a few pages on trying to come up with one or more acceptable defintions of "best" that might possibly be able to be applied over this time frame. After we've done that we'd probably be forced to acknowledge there wasn't any good way of evaluating any of them.... :)

The Panzergrenadier Waffen SS units fought in the greatest numerical disadvantage of WWII and against the stronger units the stronger enemy Germany had, so they must be candidates to be the best. We also have feats of arms such as Cholm, Demiansk or Kursk that were not repeated in any front by any combatant. I think that the US Marines in the Pacific should be the equivalents. And that's it.

Simo Hayha, the "White Death"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Häyhä

He was only one man. Killing some 500 Soviet soldiers didn't actually impact very much on the Winter War.

Actually as a sniper the Finns could have put him to far better use - like packing him off to Moscow and shooting the one target that mattered - Stalin.

As a single man, he achieved an incredible success... After all, the Finish tactic was in large pat demoralizing the enemy, and Hayha did just that.

Karl Heidenreich wrote:The Panzergrenadier Waffen SS units fought in the greatest numerical disadvantage of WWII ....

Are you sure about that? What about the Finns I'm pretty sure they were badly outnumbered much of the time. And at one point the Poles were fighting both the Soviets and the Germans. The forces defending Tobruk were outnumbered pretty badley in that rather famous siege as well and Rommel was in command of the opposition.

lwd:

Are you sure about that?

Of course, I'm not you.

lwd wrote:

Karl Heidenreich wrote:The Panzergrenadier Waffen SS units fought in the greatest numerical disadvantage of WWII ....

Are you sure about that? What about the Finns I'm pretty sure they were badly outnumbered much of the time. And at one point the Poles were fighting both the Soviets and the Germans. The forces defending Tobruk were outnumbered pretty badley in that rather famous siege as well and Rommel was in command of the opposition.

And don't forget that in British Somaliland in August 1940 British Empire forces, outnumbered by the Italians by a ratio of 55 to 1, held up Neto's invasion for five days before being successfully evacuated to Aden almost without loss.....

Orville H. Larson wrote:Maybe the Roman legions were the world's best infantry.
Their iron discipline and harsh training made them virtually unbeatable (and they were rarely defeated, if I'm not mistaken).

Unfortunately you are mistaken. Think of Hannibal and Boudicca - the latter ambushed and wiped out most of the IX Legion almost without loss.

And don't forget Tutorburg either, where three legions were annihilated.