Are some races warriors by birth ?

Are some races warriors by birth ? Slavs, Spartans, Vikings, Huns have been some of the best warriors in history who conquered several countries.

If you look at the history of Slavs, we seem to be the greatest warriors in history who created an Empire that even today outlived any other European or Asian empire. Contrast this to races/communities like English or French who are not known to be warriors and have generally relied on African, Muslim and Hindu slaves from their colonies who were used as soldiers.

So is it natural for races/communities like Slavs, Huns, Spartans etc to produce warriors by birth ?

Nope

Attitude, guns and hostiles is all it takes

Nope, it is the culture they are raised in.

Vladimir79 wrote:Nope, it is the culture they are raised in.  

Meaning Vlad, a race like the French or Brits who never could fight their wars themselves ( even to this day they use Blacks & Gurkha soldiers) if raised in Russia will become as competent, as fierce a fighter as ethnic Russians/Slavs ? That can't be true, can it ?

PapaDragon wrote:
Nope

Attitude, guns and hostiles is all it takes

Slavs, Spartans  from birth have solid physiological constitution due to their forefathers living in inhospitable areas characterized by harsh living conditions. The rest of it is taken up by environmental conditioning, like living in areas that serve as pathways to invasions. This then contributes to the growth of & impropvisations through survival instincts that kick in during moments of crisis.

This explains why these warrior tribes have been so successful throughout history unlike Brits, French, Germans, Ottamans, Hindus, Arabs etc whose success have been short lived.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:What??? Overwhelming majority of British army has been a British in origin, same for French

If that is true why did Britain and France hire millions of soldiers from their colonies in Africa & Asia everytime they went to war ?

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:What is the Slavic Empire you are talking about?

Russia, of course. Check the records. Every single European Empire has collapsed. The Russian Empire has outrun & outlived every other empire in history & will continue to do so for generations.

This topic should be marked as satire.

France, UK, Germany and Spain as well as Portugal conquered the world.

What have the slavs cpnquered? The empty taiga. Spartans? Never more than their city state.

All slav countries combined have a smaller GDP than Italy.

You say we French and British ect employed foreign soldiers? Y we did so in our colonies. Russia never could follow that policiy. Russia never left the continent of its origin.

You say tribes like huns, slavs and spartans were sucessful in history and Brits, French, Germans ect are not?

Time for reality check?

Spartans never went beyond their home region. They later on got crushed, romanized and assimilated in the general greek population. Greece later on was 500 years udner ottoman rule and today is a puppet state in the EU
and gets dictated what to do from Germany, France and banks.

The huns? Got crushed and pushed back where they came from. Today Mongolia is a poor 3rd world country and an absolute vasall of China



Majority of mongolians has no acess to electricity, running water and clean toilets.

The slavs? Are an economic dwarf that have conquered the taiga. Had zero influence on global history and still suffer from poverty and systematic corruption.

Meanwhile nations like the UK, France, Spain, Germany shaped the world as we know it. Brought our culture even to remotes jungle. Forged nations like USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina.

So with all due respect, if you see sucess to exist in poverty stricken 3rd world countries without any global influence...

I would not even want hang dead over a fence in Mongolia.

My guess is we have very different definitions about sucess.

If i go by your standards the australian aboriginies are the most powerful empire on this planet. They have been sucesfsul for 40.000 years! So they are even more powerful than your "slavic empire"

George1 wrote:

what i can say for sparta, because i am from Greece and we study its history in school, is that it was a high militarized society

So George, did Spartas have a physiological constitution or psychological makeup that was superior to their adversaries ?

Also, please shed some light on what you mean by a "highly militarised society" ?

jhelb wrote:

George1 wrote:

what i can say for sparta, because i am from Greece and we study its history in school, is that it was a high militarized society

So George, did Spartas have a physiological constitution or psychological makeup that was superior to their adversaries ?

Also, please shed some light on what you mean by a "highly militarised society" ?

Can you explain where Sparta was superior and how it benefited them? They played a role in the persian wars and tehn were erased from history.

Which lasting sucess did Sparta create?

jhelb wrote:

Meaning Vlad, a race like the French or Brits who never could fight their wars themselves ( even to this day they use Blacks & Gurkha soldiers) if raised in Russia will become as competent, as fierce a fighter as ethnic Russians/Slavs ? That can't be true, can it ?

Do you forget the win-loss record between France and Russia? Between Napoleon and Crimea it does not look very good in our favour and there was little to no Foreign Legion fighting those battles. The Russians fighting the French were ethnic Slavs and they were not able to to stop the French armies. Only the winter stopped Napoleon after he already took Moscow, something not even Nazis could do. Going back to early French history it was they who stopped the Muslim invasion, it was they who stopped the Huns, it was they who conquered England and later defeated their claims to their throne. It was the French who dismantled the Hapsburgs. It was France that set the monarchies of Europe burning to the ground. It was France that created the current world order by freeing the Americans. The French stopped the Germans the first time, it was only until we stopped them the second time that our civilization really started to make a global impact. France has been one of the major powers of the world over the last millennia, far longer than we have. If you are trying to make a Pan-Slav argument you will lose comparing French, they have been far more influential on European and World History and it came at either the tip of a spear, a sword, a bayonet or a machine gun.

Vladimir79 wrote:

jhelb wrote:

Meaning Vlad, a race like the French or Brits who never could fight their wars themselves ( even to this day they use Blacks & Gurkha soldiers) if raised in Russia will become as competent, as fierce a fighter as ethnic Russians/Slavs ? That can't be true, can it ?

Do you forget the win-loss record between France and Russia?  Between Napoleon and Crimea it does not look very good in our favour and there was little to no Foreign Legion fighting those battles.   The Russians fighting the French were ethnic Slavs and they were not able to to stop the French armies.  Only the winter stopped Napoleon after he already took Moscow, something not even Nazis could do.  Going back to early French history it was they who stopped the Muslim invasion, it was they who stopped the Huns, it was they who conquered England and later defeated their claims to their throne.  It was the French who dismantled the Hapsburgs.  It was France that set the monarchies of Europe burning to the ground.  It was France that created the current world order by freeing the Americans.  The French stopped the Germans the first time, it was only until we stopped them the second time that our civilization really started to make a global impact.  France has been one of the major powers of the world over the last millennia, far longer than we have.   If you are trying to make a Pan-Slav argument you will lose comparing French, they have been far more influential on European and World History and it came at either the tip of a spear, a sword, a bayonet or a machine gun.  

Defeated armies were included into Napoleon's army. That's why he could fight Russians. He had all the Europe with him. He had 1 million men in its army. For the time its just an amazing number.

Nazi were the best at the opening of WWII but today they suck. It has nothing to do with race but the situation of the country.

Concerning Napoleon, he was a brilliant military guy. That's why he won so much.

South african guys give hard time to UK whike being inferior militarly during colonization.

Way of fighting has changed. Today its the one with best equipment who wins.

Isos wrote:

Defeated armies were included into Napoleon's army. That's why he could fight Russians. He had all the Europe with him.
Concerning him, he was a brilliant military guy. That's why he won so much.

South african guys give hard time to UK whike being inferior militarly during colonization.

Way of fighting has changed. Today its the one with best equipment who wins.

Of the 685,000 soldiers at the outset of his march into Russia, 550,000 were French, the other 95,000 majority were Poles who are ethnic Slavs. The rest are inconsequential to the campaign as they guarded the supply lines and failed miserably at it and really the reason why they failed.

The British were defeated by spears when they had machine guns, that does leave some questions.

Saudis have the best equipment money can buy, it isn't helping them defeat Houthis.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Do you forget the win-loss record between France and Russia? Between Napoleon and Crimea it does not look very good in our favour and there was little to no Foreign Legion fighting those battles. The Russians fighting the French were ethnic Slavs and they were not able to to stop the French armies. Only the winter stopped Napoleon after he already took Moscow,

France received help from Britain in all their wars against Russia. Moreover, Russia was not an affluent country those days primarily because Russia didn't have colonies in Africa, Asia to plunder unlike France & Britain. But Napolean lost after the battle of Moscow. He had encountered similar weather in other parts of Europe too, but won those battles. So it's not just the weather that helped Russia win.

Vladimir79 wrote:it was they who conquered England and later defeated their claims to their throne.

Yes, but , also recall that France lost badly in the battle of Trafalgar to Britain. Russia never lost to Britain.

Vladimir79 wrote:it was only until we stopped them the second time that our civilization really started to make a global impact.

The Russain Empire was stretching from Europe to North America long before WW 2. Had France been as effective, today they too would have had all their colonies. In fact by the time WW2 started, there were just 2 empires left in the world - the Russian Empire & the British Empire.

Vladimir79 wrote:The British were defeated by spears when they had machine guns, that does leave some questions.  

Vladimir79 wrote:Saudis have the best equipment money can buy, it isn't helping them defeat Houthis.    

Exactly. And why just the Saudis the Yankees lost all their wars in Asia - Korea, Vietnam & now losing in Afghanistan despite having the best equipment.

That's the reason why I asked the question in the first place - that does some communities/ tribes like Slavs have the physical & psychological makeup to be better warriors.

jhelb wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:

Do you forget the win-loss record between France and Russia? Between Napoleon and Crimea it does not look very good in our favour and there was little to no Foreign Legion fighting those battles. The Russians fighting the French were ethnic Slavs and they were not able to to stop the French armies. Only the winter stopped Napoleon after he already took Moscow,

France received help from Britain in all their wars against Russia. Moreover, Russia was not an affluent country those days primarily because Russia didn't have colonies in Africa, Asia to plunder unlike France & Britain. But Napolean lost after the battle of Moscow. He had encountered similar weather in other parts of Europe too, but won those battles. So it's not just the weather that helped Russia win.

Vladimir79 wrote:it was they who conquered England and later defeated their claims to their throne.

Yes, but , also recall that France lost badly in the battle of Trafalgar to Britain. Russia never lost to Britain.

Vladimir79 wrote:it was only until we stopped them the second time that our civilization really started to make a global impact.

The Russain Empire was stretching from Europe to North America long before WW 2. Had France been as effective, today they too would have had all their colonies.  In fact by the time WW2 started, there were just 2 empires left in the world - the Russian Empire & the British Empire.

Vladimir79 wrote:The British were defeated by spears when they had machine guns, that does leave some questions.  

Vladimir79 wrote:Saudis have the best equipment money can buy, it isn't helping them defeat Houthis.    

Exactly. And why just the Saudis the Yankees lost all their wars in Asia - Korea, Vietnam & now losing in Afghanistan despite having the best equipment.

That's the reason why I asked the question in the first place - that does some communities/ tribes like Slavs have the physical & psychological makeup to be better warriors.

ha ha ha ha ha ha

Tell me what is your "russian empire"? The empty forest of the taiga that the chinese currently take?

There live more people in french polynesia than in siberia.


What are you proud for? I dont get it.

jhelb wrote:

France received help from Britain in all their wars against Russia. Moreover, Russia was not an affluent country those days primarily because Russia didn't have colonies in Africa, Asia to plunder unlike France & Britain. But Napolean lost after the battle of Moscow. He had encountered similar weather in other parts of Europe too, but won those battles. So it's not just the weather that helped Russia win.

So UK aided Napoleon in all his wars against the Tsar? I doubt that... the British performance in Crimea is well known to have been unprepared for war. It was the French that made all of the breakthroughs and the only one with a professional organisation.

Yes, but , also recall that France lost badly in the battle of Trafalgar to Britain. Russia never lost to Britain.

Russia lost every naval action against Britain, it is the British Army that has always been weak.

The Russain Empire was stretching from Europe to North America long before WW 2. Had France been as effective, today they too would have had all their colonies.  In fact by the time WW2 started, there were just 2 empires left in the world - the Russian Empire & the British Empire.

You think occupying a frozen wasteland is making a global impact? Before the Great War it was defeat after defeat: the French beat us, the Japanese beat us, the Germans beat us, then we slaughtered ourselves by the millions. While we were busy losing the French were defeating Russia, China, Africa. We got lucky taking an unpopulated wasteland that was full of oil, the French took it with their guns.

Exactly. And why just the Saudis the Yankees lost all their wars in Asia - Korea, Vietnam & now losing in Afghanistan despite having the best equipment.

That's the reason why I asked the question in the first place - that does some communities/ tribes like Slavs have the physical & psychological makeup to be better warriors.

We put an entire army of Slavs in Afghanistan so no, it has nothing to do with genetics and not always best equipment. It comes down to staying power like the French have in West Africa. They have officially given up colonialism but refuse to actually give it up. When anything threatens their hegemony in the region they devise some way to get rid of it. China was edging out France in Libya so they kill Ghaddafi, now China lost $21 billion investment and Total got all the oil. Jihadis threaten Mali they invade it and impose their will. West Africa is being preserved as a future Francophone market of 160 million people for whenever they do reach economic relevance to buy French crap and watch French movies. What are we doing to preserve Russian language and culture? Most of the FSU have turned away from what we brought them and the Far East is being overun with Chinese. Everything outside European Russia is losing our culture.

Russia, USA and EU won't let China get Siberia. They would be so powerfull with siberia that no one could confront them. It's not in anyones interest to let china get Siberia.

Isos wrote:Russia, USA and EU won't let China get Siberia. They would be so powerfull with siberia that no one could confront them. It's not in anyones interest to let china get Siberia.

The Han strategy is to colonize it until they are the ethnic majority and vote us out.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:Russia, USA and EU won't let China get Siberia. They would be so powerfull with siberia that no one could confront them. It's not in anyones interest to let china get Siberia.

The Han strategy is to colonize it until they are the ethnic majority and vote us out.  

Like Tchechens voted or like Syrian voted or the million iraqi voted ... those chinese specially in the north are poor villagers. Their opinion has no value. If russia keep its 6000+ nuclear warheads no one will try to touch their mainland. Once they don't want them anymore there, they will send them back in china.

Even the smallest countries don't let other took parts of their land like Serbia for exemple and prefere a war over negociations and you think russia with strong leaders would let some chinese took their lands ? No way.

Isos wrote:
Like Tchechens voted or like Syrian voted or the million iraqi voted ... those chinese specially in the north are poor villagers. Their opinion has no value. If russia keep its 6000+ nuclear warheads no one will try to touch their mainland. Once they don't want them anymore there, they will send them back in china.

Even the smallest countries don't let other took parts of their land like Serbia for exemple and prefere a war over negociations and you think russia with strong leaders would let some chinese took their lands ? No way.

The Chechens don't have the Chinese Army behind it, much less the Chinese economy and nukes. If we can't maintain the ethnic majority we will have no legs to stand on. We started annexing lands that are majority Russian so we set the precedent and the Chinese will use our own methods against us.

The Chechens don't have the Chinese Army behind it, much less the Chinese economy and nukes. If we can't maintain the ethnic majority we will have no legs to stand on. We started annexing lands that are majority Russian so we set the precedent and the Chinese will use our own methods against us.

Chinese army is more used to watch chinese citizens than watch other countries.

Like I said if they try to take Siberia, EU and US and all the puppets will be against China so its economy will be attacked strongly.

In terms of nuclear power Russia wins. And if russia is in position of defender, being attacked, it's easier to use nuks than for China which will attack. Russia will have a reason to use them.

Crimea was part of russia and Kroutshchev gave it to ukraine because he was an ukrainian. Chinese learn history pretty well. They know its not precedent for taking a land by colonization.

Finaly, China has issues with India concerning much smaller and useless part of the border and they still don't have them and are afraid to use army to take it. Same in the pacific with the islands they say its theirs but still don't have them. Last exemple is Japan's senkakyu islands that china didn't retake since all this time, only send some fighters try to get close.

for Scots fighting is our first nature, we don't need guns or knives to kill .... we use anything that comes to hand be it a broken bottle or a wooden or metal stick or be it with our bare hands .... the Scots were one of the biggest contributors to the Russian Empire 5 admirals and 15 Scots and ethnic Scots served as generals including Barclay De Tolly

Vladimir79 wrote:What are we doing to preserve Russian language and culture?

Vlad, I don't know how to break it to you but for the first time in your entire history you are actually taking right steps towards preserving your language and culture. I just need to flip through channels on my TV to see effects

Vladimir79 wrote:Most of the FSU have turned away from what we brought them

Well that's your problem. You were doing it wrong. You were not supposed to be giving them anything, you were supposed to be taking from them. Again, for the first time in your history you started doing things right way.

Vladimir79 wrote:and the Far East is being overun with Chinese.

Entire planet is being overrun with Chinese. Which brings us to my original point: you assimilate them. It's a free population.

And don't worry about Russia being overrun with Chinese because Europe will be fully overrun and transmorphed into Islamic Caliphate long before then. They decided to kill themselves off for free.

Vladimir79 wrote:The Chechens don't have the Chinese Army behind it, much less the Chinese economy and nukes

And guess who else has nukes?

-------------

My opinion: between being ruled by Europeans and being ruled by Chinese I pick Chinese any day of the week.

Better under Chinese than under most vile scum of the fucking Earth.

So even your "worse" case scenario is pretty damn rosy.