Are Savages inherently better at war?

No, they are inherently worse

Ask Native Americans that question.

>All of Russia is Europe if it suits your politics now

It's worth noting that native Americans actually won a lot of battles against US and European forces, but were starved out by the destruction of their land and food sources. The entropy of civilization is as inevitable as it is terrible.

>Are Savages inherently better at war?

:thinking: Ignore from 300 ad foward

The map only uses modern borders. I am aware that most of Russia was also colonized

Better than modern civilizations that will purposefully miss their opponents since they're afraid of killing, sure. If they're disorganized and have poor infrastructure and communication, they would be decimated by an army that didn't have those problems in a full-on war. Even if it's all over in a single battle so there's no chance for them to suffer from having poor supply chains, morale and leadership, a good general and a flexible army is more useful than pure chaotic strength.

everyone in OP's picture is bald except the wolf and the girl

No. Disciplined and technologically superior army always wins.

>Romans vs. Gauls
>Spanish vs. Native Americans
>Ethiopians vs. Italians

and so on

Also the roman on the far left foreground has elf ears.

Bald is the only male hairstyle that can survive the ravages of time.

Every other male hairstyle will look fucking stupid some time after it is introduced.

>Greece
>Bulgaria
>Romania
>Italy
>Serbia
>All those slav states

>Ever controlling anyone.

Pick only 1

What happened with Romans vs. The Black Forest

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street
10 000 Roman soldiers against 230 000 Boudicca forces
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia
60k Roman soldiers against 200k Vercingetorix

No.

Barbarians won thanks to the Roman education their commander received.

Greece and Italy also include the territories controled by the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire and Alexander's conquests

Why not include the North Africa and Middle East countries in the "Europe" category as well then? What a load of utter shit.

As this user said But also
>Romans more than 1100 km from their home town.
>Barbarian forces on their own territory
>Using good terrain, surprise and attacking romans while they were on the move
>just couple of decades after rome transformed from republic to empire, hard time, romans not in their best condition
>incompetent political commander with no real experience Publius Quinctilius Varus
>Publius Quinctilius Varus actually trusting Arminius barbarian leader that lead romans to the slaughter

Also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest#Roman_retaliation

Rome completly BTFO barbarians just few years later

Didn't seems to work out for Africa. Didn't work for Indians, Still isn't working for the middle east.

The initial shock value of your savagery fades and is crushed by society, technology, and logistics.

>India
>Middle East
>Savage

user... being backwards compared to Europe in modern times doesn't mean these places could have ever considere savage compared to Europe.

>militarily superior

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh, you're serious? Sad.

>savages
>good at war
[laughs in iberian]

It was first map that included the whole world I could find, blame Vox not me

>>Ethiopians vs. Italians
lol

>savages not good at war
>laughing Islamic conquests

No nigger. To transition from simple mass violence to warfare requires a certain degree of civilization. Your own pic proves your point: the Romans conquered the Mother of all Empires while the Picts were basically a bunch of angry men the Romans never bothered conquering because there was nothing worth taking there.

>Muh Mongols though wubba lubba dub dub
>Muh Huns mufugga bix nood we wuz Magyars 'n shiet
If you actually read up on them, you'll find that Atilla and Genghis Khan are the exceptions rather than the rule, and even after capturing/conquering Roman/Chinese/Arab engineers. They effectively had to adapt to civilized warfare to be anything other than steppe raiders.

Muhammad was a massive fluke in that he actually managed to unite the Arab tribes, and exploit the weakness of the East Romans and Persians. It was such a stroke of luck one might even call it Satanic providence.

Some savages are pretty good at war. Especially those from the steppes.

>Xiong-nu savaging the Chin
>Gokturks creating a huge empire
>Huns
>White huns
>Mongols

>Believing in Roman Propaganda about the numbers of their enemies in battle

Also the Sarmatians, Scythians, Timurids and the Kushan.

"Savages" may be better at individual combat, but not at war because they don't have tactical or logistical skills needed to be good at war

>islamic conquests
>good at shit
>laughing_iberians.tapestry

711 best year of my life stinky Iberians get out.

youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

722 best year of my life, he day of the reconquista begins now.
1492 never forget, Isabel I waifu of the year. All the years.
Go cry like a woman sissy moor.

Always is hyperbole but yeah as a rule you're right.
The only great exception to that rule would be nomadic horsemen but then again they're as a rule more disciplined and born warriors with superior strategical capacities.

>Girls today
>"Refugees welcome :)"

>Girls back then
>Pic related

another almost cool pic completely ruined by le stronk womyn
ehhh

It comes down to beaurucracy and training vs. Experience I suppose.

Like in the book the heroes by Joe Abercrombie (he is admittedly an edgelord) has the civilized army struggle against the "uncivilized" north who are stereotypical feuding viking/anglo-saxons because they're so much more used to regular fighting. I.E have more sensible commanders and individual fighters. A similar comparison could be made with the Mongols or Arabs for a historical perspective

What I'm trying to say, you faggot OP, is while not inherently better more savage conditions tend to create more individually effective troops. However the numbers, equipment and organisation of a "not savage" (whatever that means) group can beat them.

This thread could have been so much more

Literally the opposite, because you have farmers facing down professional soldiers. Also...

>Woman in that picture

Three guesses what happens to her once the men are dead.

Legit savages or """savages"""?
With decent tactics and training a "savage" army with lesser equipment can put up a pretty good fight, no one could match the sheer logistic capabilities of the Roman's but some naked men with shields can form a shield wall just as well.
Legit savages on the other hand, they're gonna run like fucking retards right into a pilum and die.
Tactics and logistics win wars, not how loud you can scream while charging.

>Liberia was never colonized

The average person may have better fighting experience in a more savage society.
Sedentary populations may be more vulnerable to attacks.
Sedentary populations can grow to the point where they can start fielding larger professional armies though.

Savages are good fighters in player parties.

Flaying?
Burning?
Crucifiction?
good old stab with a sword?

Organization is everything in any period of warfare. Rigid hierarchy, professional soldiers, and logistics are going to beat out some dudes with warpaint 99% of the time.

>Stabbing directly though any kind of armour made out of the same metal as your sword
Yeah, good fucking luck with that

>Are Savages inherently better at war?
>post a pic of savages getting utterly butt-fucked at war

You're a shitposting faggot even without answering your own inane question. Just stop fucking posting.

He asked, posting a picture of three gauls surrounded by a Roman army who likely butchered everyone else already

No.

>Whatever happens, we have got
>the Maxim gun, and they have not

Human savages? No.

But, that is not to say that the other lowborn are not more naturally fit for a life of war.

>t. bluepilled social sciences major.

Not just wrong but a complete denial of morality and enlightenment.

If you count raiding villages and chopping down women and children as battles. When it came to colonial soldiers versus natives redskins got BTFO whenever they didn't outnumber their enemies Custer-style.

>Applying personal morality to times and cultures not your own

>Infantry

Rashidun army relied heavily on their infantry. Mubarizun were a special part of the Muslim army, composed of the champions. Their role was to undermine the enemy morale by slaying their champions. The infantry would make repeated charges and withdrawals known as karr wa farr, using spears and swords combined with arrow volleys to weaken the enemies and wear them out. However, the main energy had to still be conserved for a counterattack, supported by a cavalry charge, that would make flanking or encircling movements. Defensively, the Muslim spearman with their two and a half meter long spears would close ranks, forming a protective wall (Tabi'a) for archers to continue their fire. This close formation stood its ground remarkably well in the first four days of defence in the Battle of Yarmouk.[2]

Yes, from Wikipedia

>Better than modern civilizations that will purposefully miss their opponents since they're afraid of killing, sure.

Cont.
>Cavalry
The Rashidun cavalry was one of the most successful light cavalry forces, provided it was competently led. It was armed with lances and swords. Initially, the cavalry was used as a reserve force, with its main role being to attack the enemy once they were weakened by the repeated charges of the infantry. The cavalry would then make flanking or encircling movements against the enemy army, either from the flanks or straight from the center, most likely using a wedge-shaped formation in its attack. Some of the best examples of the use of the cavalry force occurred under the command of Khalid ibn Walid in the Battle of Walaja against the Sassanid Persians and in the Battle of Yarmouk against the Byzantines. In both cases the cavalry regiments were initially stationed behind the flanks and center. The proportion of cavalry within the Rashidun forces were initially limited to less than 20% due to the inability of the poor economic condition and arid climate of the Arabian Peninsula to support large numbers of warhorses. As the wealthy lands of the Near East were conquered, many Arab warriors acquired horses as booty or tribute, so that by the end of the Rashidun period half of the "Jund" forces were composed of cavalry. Mounted archery was initially not used by the Rashidun cavalry unlike their Byzantine and Persian opponents, this not being a traditional Arab fighting method. As the conquest of Persia progressed, some Sassanid gentry converted into Islam and joined the Rashidun cause; these "Asawira" were very highly regarded due to their skill as heavy cavalrymen as well as mounted archers.

This.

That being said, a professional army will generally beat a more ad-hoc arrangement in a straight fight, something that such cultures often bait other people into with lines like "honorable fight".

Generally, better trained forces get beat when the opposing forces disregards acting honorably and plays to their own strengths.

WE WUZ CONQUERERS N SHEEEEEIT

>militarily

Which is why the Egyptians and the Persians both made heavy use of Greek mercenaries? Hoplites were in massive demand in the Near East, at one point the Pharaoh had ten thousand on the payroll.

Categorically wrong. Islam was a savage canker that rotted the heart out of decent countries from the first word uttered by it's pedophile prophet.

They shoud work together to learn what´s happening with that baldness epidemy.

What's your definition of savage?

Though, if we follow the irl concept of savageness, they would suck really hard. They would never kill anyone besides random peasants and would die quickly agains't a professional soldier.

Discipline is everything in war

The different between warrior and soldier largely depends on the POV.
>A warrior kills because he wants to, a soldier kills because he is told
You're making this shit up.

>I just meant that there is no such thing as cultural or political superiority other than in the sense that "This culture still exists and this culture doesn't"
If your people is slaughtered, your culture destroyed and forgotten, then your culture/society is clearly inferior.

In the end, survival is all that matters

>Every other male hairstyle will look fucking stupid some time after it is introduced.

Objectively false.

>Frogposter can't read

Are they more disciplined or less affected by shock tactics?

THE BRITON FEARS THE SAMURAI

Read up on Geronimo faggot. He got his name from mexican soldiers screaming at a Christian saint for mercy

>Men today
>"To moors I give head"

>Men back then
>Pic related

I'll rectify your ass with a punch to the back of your face!

t. hairlet

When will you learn?

>Japan was never under European influence or control
I mean I guess there were always people on the landmass who did not recognize their influence but still.

We were talking about savages against a civilized nation faggot.

Whoa there faggot

He seems like he would be a great pal of Santiago Matamoros

Savages can't win without number advantage

Non savages cant win without a technological advantage.

>niggas be like ''white people can't fight''

Fucking Varis where are my eagles!?

They were forced into free trade deals, but it's not like there was ever an opium war equivalent with Japan.

do you know what savage means? middle east during crusades were much more a lavish and decadently luxurious place compared to the wilderness of europe. I pretty much dislike islamism probably more than you but try to grow up kid.

>savages no longer exist, wiped out or absorbed by the civilized
>civilized built largest empires, fought the greatest wars, developed the most impressive war machines
>are the ones who are gone better at war
Is OP inherently better at being a fag?
The answer will not surprise you

not burger
you are meming, but are blacks really thinking like this?

Civilized people can be savage in war as well. Look at the Americans, they dominate world culture, technologically and militarily. Meanwhile you have "civilized" nations like Great Britian that are a joke at all 3. That one Talibam commander said it best when the British forces he was facing got relieved by an American force, he said the Brits were cowards but the ericans werent even human, that they fought like demons.

Did /pol/ change the color of their backdrop?

Pretty sure OP was asking in the context of lore/worldbuilding before this became /hist/.

Also think about the American Civil War. The southern troops reportedly needed less training to achieve the same combat prowess as their northern counterpart because they grew up shooting guns and riding horses. You could make the case that, individually and equipment aside, a people with less comfort and safety would be better at fighting because of the need to learn it.

Southern Soldiers were usually better trained though. The majority of pre war officers sided with the south and a larger percentage of southern men served in state militias at one point. Meanwhile the Union was grabbing Irishmen off the docks to conscript.

Because they were easier to put through boot camp. The southern army was made up of volunteers who already knew how to fight, while the north was pumping conscripts through the war industry to shit out soldiers as soon as possible. The southerner's rural lifestyle (some may say "savage") gave them an upper hand when it came to individual fighting prowess.

...

That led to the New York Draft Riots, and NYC nearly succeeded from the Union to join the Confederacy.

Another interesting tidbit is that the New York Times shot a lot of Irish Draft protestors with Gatling guns.

What is that pic supposed to mean? Redpill?