Sikh warriors were famous for fighting one vs many battles. Nihang Sikhs still keep the age old traditions alive. The Khalsa is made up of baptised Sikhs including Nihangs. The Khalsa didn't start as a business or a game. It started as a fight against Tyranny.
The Khalsa began its fight against an established Mughal Empire with Tyrants as rulers. At first there were only a few, 48 Singhs of Guru Gobind Singh Ji against hundreds of thousands of Mughals. Google Battle of Chamkaur. Then later on Khalsa took part in battles against established Afghan Durrani Empire and the battles ended with the Singhs taking over the Afghans under the command of Hari Singh Nalwa who was a general of Ranjit Singh of the Sikh Empire.
Roman vs Kshtriya warrior.....Simple facts will show who the true man of the sword was
1.Kshtriyas followed A NOBLE CODE OF WAR....no one else on earth does..Sadly, this was the main reason we had losses against filthy honourless, barbaric armies of Islam
2.Kshtriyas successfully defended Aryan civilization of India for 1000 years.....ROME WAS WIPED OUT
3Kshatriyas CONQUERED THE WHOLE EURASIA.......Mittani and Kassite, Hittite Indo Aryans in 2000 BC conquered all of middle east & Europe
Khalsa is still alive and its shinning bright. Has people from all backgrounds including Rajputs who united to fight tyranny and injustice from all sides. Leave casteism out. Its an outdated concept. Khalsa doesnt represent any particular caste cause it has no caste.
People have assumed Roman centurion is superior than Rajput. They hvn't even gone through the facts or history of Rajputs. This is cited by their comments & ratings. Well i'm not surprise as i know many ppl use greatness for whom who have conquered the world and ppl have used this Conquering Intention as sarcasm to Rajputs... But in India the def. of Greatness is quite different with Hindus & Sikhs. Beside this I honoured to say against ignorance of ppl that RAJPUT is equivalent to WAR MACHINE
It's apalling to see that media professionals of developed nation can get even their basic facts wrong. The warriors depicted as 'Rajput warriors' are actually 'Khalsa warriors',Still an Indian martial clan, but different (culturally, geographically). I guess it's an ingrained problem with Americans : Getting People's names all wrong all of the time. It started With Colombus, Calling native americans as "Indians", and they haven't looked back since :-)
Dude, Khalsa warriors(Sikhs) are descendants of Rajputs(Hindus). Today Rajputs are busy in Modern Life :( but the Khalsa still carrying this fighting Technique with them. There is only culture difference b/w Rajputs and Khalsa. They have common warrior(Kshatriya) genes. Thats why those khalsa in the video representing Rajputs.
@seekerphn Brother, you are slightly mistaken, although many Rajputs converted to Sikhism e.g. Bhai Bachittar Singh Ji, Baba Banda Singh Bahadur, the Khalsa army was composed of people from different backgrounds with emphasis equality. The Sikhs inherited the ancient weapons science - Shastar Vidya from the Rajputs.
Americans were not the ones who first called native americans indians. Just Americans were stupid enough to continue calling them that centuries after that found out they weren't indians.
@CNdailyNews hahahaha you mean like what backstabbing? Any coward can backstab but we are talking about one on one combat, with or without shield or armor. Sometimes scenerio changes from one on one to one against many. Close combat fighting to the finish. Arrows and cannons are another case and a different time. Without strategy any side can lose but enough credits must be given to the courageous ones who never flee a battle or those that never backstab out of cowardice.
Romans needed the help of Germanic tribes to beat the Huns but Rajputs fought alone. This is the difference between a Roman military unit and a Rajput military unit. Rajputs only fought under the command of a Rajput, nobody else until later years of backstabbing and cowardice that led to the Dark ages both in Europe and India.
The Arabs who destroyed the Eastern Roman Empire got destroyed by the Rajputs when they tried to take over India. 300 years before that, the Roman and their slaves in the North lost to the Central Asian Huns that attacked both Italy and India around the same time. The difference is that the Huns were owned by the Rajputs in India and crushed so badly that there wasn't any Huns left. Remants were left in Afghanistan with changed names lol hahahahahaha.
Mahmud of Ghazni was a stupid Turk whose ancestors were Mamaluke/slaves.Which idiot said he’s an Arab? Mahmud was of mixed origins, a Turk slave mixed with a Pastun slave who didn’t establish himself in India because he knew he’d get screwed from any direction and ran towards Afghanistan to shit there. Ghori the backstabber slave was captured and released by the Rajputs. He showed the Afghan cowardice of backstabbing those that spared his life. A true coward of history.
Arabs took over India? Arabs did take over a small part of India known as Sindh until the federation of Rajputs beat the living hell of Arabs and chased them towards the west. You must be a moron to think that Arabs took over the whole of India. Forgot Bappa Rawal? Bappa Rawal and the Rajputs ended Arab incursion. Stupid Arab always living with his head stuck in the sand. Google Battle of Rajasthan and you'll know how Arabs lost courage, and ran away like cowards HAHAHAHA.
ALL OF U SHUT THE FUCK UP, fck romans, its all bowt panjabi KHALSA SIKH ARMY, we ruled territories of afghan pathans, and NEVER lost any wars to mughals or muslim armies. Nor did we loot/rape women and take them captive and forcefully convert them, or destroy places of religious worship. Also sikh khalsa lost one war in their lives, and that was to the british, who used blackmailing tactics to lure ppl from within to do an inside job.
@KopSingh1986 the only two sides on this planet are Islam and non-Islam - all brave warriors from each and every country has an obligation to take on this cancer called Islam - its either that or another Dark Ages
And yes.....Romans were more animal and bloodthirsty...They tortured and killed millions of Innocents.....There is no greatness in that
The Holy Kshtriyas of Aryavarta never shed innocent blood.....They never harassed other nations after the problem makers left in 2000 BC......THEY FOUGHT ONLY IN SELF DEFENCE....as we had the most prosperous nation on earth....We didn't have to destroy other people like your Lizard eating Arab armies....which was DEFEATED AND CHASED AWAY 17 TIMES BY RAJPUTS
Roman vs Kshtriya warrior.....Simple facts will show who the true man of the sword was
1.Kshtriyas followed A NOBLE CODE OF WAR....no one else on earth does..Sadly, this was the main reason we had losses against filthy honourless, barbaric armies of Islam
2.Kshtriyas successfully defended Aryan civilization of India for 1000 years.....ROME WAS WIPED OUT
3Kshatriyas CONQUERED THE WHOLE EURASIA.......Mittani and Kassite, Hittite Indo Aryans in 2000 BC conquered all of middle east & Europe
(387 BC) – Rome is sacked by the Gauls after the Battle of the Alli(410) – Rome is sacked by Alaric, King of the Visigoths(455) – Rome is sacked by Geiseric, King of the Vandals(546) – Rome is depopulated by Totila, King of the Ostrogoths, during the war between the Ostrogoths and the Byzantines(846) – The Arabs attack Rome and loot old St. Peter's Basilica, though the Roman City walls prevent further damage to the city itself(1084) – Rome is sacked by the Normans of Robert Guiscard
Although the arrogance and general disrespect shown by team centurion really got on my nerves, I have a feeling the data was deliberately tainted for this episode's simulation. The centurion sheild was not included with the calculations for the gladius nor did they take into account the lightness, speed, or stabbing point of the gladius over the dulled tip and heavier weight of the Rajput's sword. All things considered, the centurion should have won, even if his supporters didn't deserve it.
@ronin6401 gladius is very short nd roman warrior had to reveal himslef to attack with it....rajput warriors could defend, attack and finish the fight with that weapon
@ScRIMitar96 Also the Khanda had far greater reach then the gladius, it was a sword with the power of an axe and none of the weaknesses e.g. handle could be cut through. A Rajput would train with a Khanda from youth and have the strength and stamina to wield it with deadly precision. The chakram could take out enemies from a distance with greater effect then the peelum. The Katar was as deadly if not more so then the gladius at close range since the blade could be expanded.
rajputs lived for fighting....to spill their enemy's blood...while romans did it to just defend their empire...they were not devoted at all !!!...Rajputs enjoyed fighting and spilling blood wether it is their blood or enemy's..their courage was remarkable !!
well if it was a squad battle i think the centurion might have had the upper hand, but since this was 1 v 1 i can see why he didnt prevail over the Rajput. :D Plus i kinda was fine with either one winning
Rajput Warrior Vs. Roman Centurion........OF COURSE RAJPUT WAS BETTER...THEY WERE MIGHTY WARRIORS OF RAJPUTANA AND CAN RIP THE ROMANS IN HALF..THEY HAD SKILL IN FIGHTING NOT SWISHING THE SWORD LIKE FOOLISH ROMANS AND THEIR SLAVES.....WHATAVER THEY CALL THEM GLADIATAR...
@ScRIMitar96 sure, they were fierce so wat? romans were put through years of physical training and intense tactic tests. if ur gunna diss some of the most epic warriors the universe has ever seen, diss them right.
@HustlerMitch Don't bother mate. Indians are starved of any sort of military accomplishment for the last 1300 years. Our last victory against a formidable foe was around 680 AD during the early Arab invasions. Since then, it has been one losing streak after another. For this reason, when it comes to military heroes, we are willing to grasp at straws. While a Rajput soldier might overcome a Roman soldier in man to man combat, A Roman legion would annihilate any Rajput formation.
@lalitadityamuktapida It might look to some indian people here that I am dissing my own country, but I'm more like telling things like it is. Before 1000A.D. since when our losing streak began we defeated some pretty formidable foes such as the Huns, the early Arab invaders, the parthians, the Persians under Cyrus, the Assyrians, the Seleucids, held Alexander of Macedon to a draw. India has had some brilliant military history. But the Rajputs are not part of that brilliance
@lalitadityamuktapida i think that our weakest point was that we were not UNITED....if we were united we could have been largest & strongest empire in world.....rajput empire warriors despite of being ununited repell the romans
@ScRIMitar96 It's not a question of Unity. The Pashtuns too are disunited. But they beat all invaders. When the Arabs/Huns invaded the Europeans, the Euros were disunited. They still beat back both of them. Consider this. In most of the battles, the Rajputs outnumbered the Muslims 3:1 and still lost. If you cannot beat beat an enemy while outnumbering him 3:1, you certainly will not be able to beat him outnumbering him 10:1. The problem is with the fighting tactics.
@ScRIMitar96 Ofcourse they had tactics, but those tactics were faulty. the very fact that they routinely lost to smaller forces points to a flaw in their tactics/mentality. One can come up with a number of excuses for losing. In war winning is not everything. It's the only thing. The Rajputs lost repeatedly. Amateurs always whine about why they lost and come up with a million reasons. Professionals just win.
@lalitadityamuktapida rajput warriors were trained since their birth....they had tactics and they were not faulty at all..and m not making excuse because rajput warrior lost..because here he won !
@ScRIMitar96 simulations do not contain all information. It takes into account only the weapons. It does not take into account mental make-up and killer instinct in which the Romans are superior
@lalitadityamuktapida If the Rajputs were so weak, they wouldn't have retained sovereignty until the time of akbar. Even akbar was aonly able to defeta them due to military alliances, 100 years later when aurangzeb began persecuting hindus - the Rajputs rebelled.
@lalitadityamuktapida But the pasthuns would unite when a common threat was againts them. Rajputs turned against one another when enemies attacked. Maharana Partap's own borther turned againts him and sided with akbar.
@lalitadityamuktapida Im sorry, but the crusades were successful partly due to the alliance between the various kingdoms, England, France and Spain united to fight in the holy land against the arabs.
@indrajeet What a fking dumb ass, go read a book on the Rashidun army of the Arabs, they were outnumbered all the time and still took out the Persian and Byzantine empires, they relied mainly on their cavalry which at that time was the best cavalry force in the world headed by the Khalid's Mobile Guard.
@khasseki oh here we go again, firstly the sassanid persian was greatly weakened by internal fighting and political rift, making it an fairly easy target for thr arabs, thats how you conqeuerd in within 30 years of muhammed death.
@indrajeet You stated the Arabs only won by numbers and I proved you wrong ..... that is all, also you say the Persians were weakened but they STILL outnumbered the Rashidun army and had war Elephants so there is no excuse, neither is there an excuse about them conquering India, India has always been a logistical nightmare even Alexander the Great had problems there add that to the Rashiduns expanding both East and West so the Sindh didn't face the whole force either.
@khasseki The sassanid empire was weakened through years of political strife and economic mismanagment and was a soft target for the arab hordes. Do you have. ahahaha, arabs conquered India - I laugh everytime I hear these fantasy stories, Why is it that after muhammed bin qasim, NO arab ever dared to enter India?? You could expand the casliphate to north africa and spain - but not into India.
@khasseki Yet the arabs started their way into sind in the 670s and it took decades of warfare and losses and this is mentioned in the history. Muhammed bin qasim managed to conquer part of sind only because the Raja bhoj was unpopular with a buddhist majority, even then he was chased away a year later by BAPPA RAWAL who chased him through the dessert.
@indrajeet Right I looked up that battle, 1) that was the Ummayad not the Rashidun, 2) that was a frontier army not the best of the Ummayads and 3) The Muslims still had the south and parts of India and Sindh even after the defeat 4) The Ghazni's working with the Abbasid Caliph took the whole damn country and beat the Rajputs as well, Ghazni's may I add who were actual proper warriors of Islam not the rag tag bunch they fought in the 800's AD.
@khasseki Can you show me where arabs conquered the south of India lol. AHAHAHAHAH, the ghaznis (mahmud) DIDNT CONQUER WHOLE OF INDIA - go and read real history - not mullah history. they were not arabs, and it was their iranian slaves the ghorids who managed to get a place in northwest India - but thats another story.
@indrajeet Ok fair enough it wasn't Arabs per say but it was Turks overlording Afghans who did and you have to realise the Ghaznis worked in conjunction with the Abbasid Caliphate as did Saladin's Ayyubid dynasty and the Kwariziem Shah because they were Islamic soverieigns so yes Muslims conquered parts of India and most of Sindh. :)
@ScRIMitar96 All this talk of Lack of unity is nothing but political propaganda to make us feel better about losing. Politicians and kings do not like any opposition to their rule. So if you disagree with them, they will say, "Hey! listen to me. We lose because we are not united. So let's be united. Now listen to me." Fact is the revolt of 1857 lasted so long because there was no single leader. Had there been a single leader, it would have been over much sooner.
@ScRIMitar96 India has always been disunited. We were disunited when Cyrus the Great of persia attacked. We still beat him. We were disunited when the huns attacked. We still beat them. We beat the early Arab invaders inspite of being disunited. Do not imagine that when the Huns invaded India we somehow defeated them with a unified Indian army. Also, no country is united in the manner you speak. There is always difference of opinion. We must learn to win inspite of this difference of opinion.
@lalitadityamuktapida oh no my friend india has never always been disunited..during the time of mauryan empire under chandragupta maurya nd ashoka the whole india with afghanistan & iran was united
@ScRIMitar96 But we have won several times inspite of being disunited. Unity is usually not possible and must not be depended upon. We have won several times without it. We must not use it as an excus
I come across something you said to Indrajeet --> "Can you provide me with some sources or proof that the Sikhs learnt their techniques from the Rajputs?"
well chap this is hilarious , i think you don't that Sikhs especially Khalsa are descendants of Rajputs.
@ScRIMitar96 The problem with the Rajputs was their feudal nature, always fighting amongst themselves weakening their kingdoms. That is why when Shivaji Bosle came to power, he emphasized unity of the local lords and leaders and why Guru Gobind Sinhj Ji created Khalsa to try and unify Sikhs.
@lalitadityamuktapida You are wrong again, go and read about the victories of Jaja Bhoj (Not a Rajput) againts salar masaud in the mid 11th century, the Rajputs of Mewar held sultan muhhamed bin tughuk at ransom, after that delhi sultunate NEVER attacked chittor, what about the great victories of Guru Hargibind Ji againts jahangir and shah jahan, what about the victories of Shivaji againts adil shah and mughals - what about the victories of Gur Gobind Singh Ji.
@lalitadityamuktapida I respect the Rajputs mate and the Roman Infantry would beat practically any other infantry outfit anyway, they beat the Macedonians and pretty much every one else anyway.
I would have LOVED to have seen the Romans up against some of the later armies though, they would have got rapped, their defeat to the Huns and the Parthians was only a sign of things to come anyway.
I'm about to play as the Rajputs on Total war (PC game) should be interesting.
@ScRIMitar96 Not Rome you want "Medieval 2 Total War Kingdoms expansion" and the Broken Crescent Mod which can be downloaded at TWcenter under Kingdoms hosted sub mods in the forum is the best fking game I've ever played.
You can be Rajputs, Turks (Seljuk & Ottoman), Crusader Knights, Kypchak, Persian, Arabs, Egypt, Sindh, Ghorid Afghans ...... the lot!
There are various sub mods for lot's of eras and armies around the world, my personal recommendation is Broken Crescent 2.3 and Last Kingdom.
@indrajeet To be honest in comes down to the individual warrior, some Romans were sh*t newbs, some were hardend veteran killers, also have the Nihang ever fought a major battle against an established well known army? I've never come across the Nihang in all my historical studies, I knew the Sikhs have a warrior heritage but that's it?
@ScRIMitar96 i didnt say they lacked physical training, im saying that any roman soldier could slaughter rajput..rajut r pretty good too, i know, but romans....romans r just the bomb
@HustlerMitch Care to elaborate on that - Rajputs were trained to fight one on one or one againts many, Romans were trained to fight as a unit - go figure.
@HustlerMitch man why don't u just shut ur fuckin excuses...rajput were SKILLED FIGHTERS..they were trained since their birth...ROMANS DIDN'T HAD A CHANCE IN FRONT OF DEM they don have good weapons its their drawback...nd m talking about rajput vs romans why r u bringing spartans in between rajputs were TRUE WARRIORS not fake like romans
@ScRIMitar96 lol excuses? if thats the case then stfu with ur excuses.
Romans were true warriors, ur too ashamed to admit it, romans could slaughter rajput, and @indrajeet im not bringing spartans into this, read wat i said then try to get ur little brain to figure it out
@HustlerMitch first of all i want to ask u smthing .....r u from italy ??? second....do u know ANYTHING ABOUT RAJPUTS because romans ain't shit in comparison of mighty rajput warriors...they can cut romans in lalf with their khanda sword like knife cuts through butter.and i think u r ashamed of dis fact.
@ScRIMitar96 no im not from italy, i know enough about rajputs to know that romans can own em, and the roman swords could eliminate a rajput, rajputs swords r just like any other sword.
I am a Khatri, not a Rajput, but Rajput's did not do their job when India was attacked, yes there are plenty of stories of Valor, and bravado, but due to infighting and excessive focus on personal glory, they failed. If it were to come to a Legion versus Rajput army, legions would have an upper hand due to more discipline and organization.
@ashatut The Romans too had excessive focus on personal glory. When Hannibal invaded Rome, the Roman general too were competing with each other to be the first to defeat Hannibal and win all the glory for themselves. But they never sabotaged each other. Rome had no traitors. Their infighting always took place inside the senate. This tendency of the Rajputs to sabotage each other and commit treason gives them a unique place in Indian History's hall of Shame.
the basques(atlanteans) are the original europeans n the origin of the white race,the catalans are blood brothers of the basques.The atalanteans(basques) colonized the world n schooled humanitgy but the cheatin romans greeks etc concealed this.The atlanteans schooled their asses n the disgustin romans n greeks thanked the atlanteans by turnin on the atlanteans n have u believe the atlanteans n atlantis didnt even exist..wtf?unmask these sons of a bitch
@Tasarte "The only appearence of a Roman in this programme and he doesn't fight with the Shield-Gladius combo that conquered the world but... with an axe. Fail. Let me try, if the Roman fight in his usual way he would win nearly everybody (on foot)? Right? Ok."
Yes lol, and they havent take in account the SPATHA, the fact that PILUM wasnt used as a spear, that Scorpion 1v1 is totally RETARDED, the armour LORICA SEGMENTATA, the R. extremely TACTIC INTELLIGENCE and the SUPERIOR PHYSICAL TRAINING
@patres818 Agreed on most cases, except that the Lorica Segmenta was not the best armour in the world at all. Roman armoursmiths were actually inferior to their contemporaries, especially in Gaul, where chain mail and Greatswords were more prevalent, due in part to the fact that the Roman smiths were incapable of making them. However, the Romans mass produced their armour and equipped all their soldiers with uniform kit. Their foes would have items passed down etc. But I agree this vid is crap.
Exactly some of you have it right, a Rajput is a warrior who's skills lie in besting an opponent 1v1, a Roman legion soldier was trained to fight as a unit however the only question I would have about this video is that a Roman veteran in high standing could easily fight a Rajput, some of those guys from the 1st Legion were brutal and had seen it all, the fact that they are still alive show's their ability.
Like all documentaries of History Channel about ancients, this is CRAP. Centurions never abandoned their shield, they used it like a weapon. History Channel: ridicolous.
War is not about single combat. A roman formation would annihilate a rajput formation. The Romans army was a superpower in it's time and almost always won all their battles inspite of being heavily outnumbered at times in enemy terrain. On the other hand, huge Rajput armies habitually lost to smaller smaller muslim armies in spite of fighting on their own terrain. There is really no contest here. This is like comparing little league baseball to major league baseball. Romans rock, rajputs suck!
@lalitadityamuktapida actually the Roman Army wasn't much more effective than their enemies. The Romans lost far more soldiers and battles to the Carthaginians than they won, they simply knew how to capitalise on their successes when they had them. Likewise in Britain, the Roman Army only fought a handful of pitch battles, losing as many as they won, but instead relied on British infighting and rivalry, mixed with bribery to subjugate the natives. But yer, 100 Romans would nuke 100 Rajputs.
@PaladinOfLondon Mate, whatever the means of achieving victory, the facts are that the Romans won in the end. War is not just about taking a sword and going to fight. It's a lot more than that. After all the French have a million non military reasons why they kept losing to the English. The indians too keep quoting non military reasons for british conquest. In the end, in war, winning is everything. War is not a sport where the manner matters. It's deadly serious business. Just win baby!
@PaladinOfLondon Mate, apart from the carthiginians, Parthians and the Germans I thought the Romans always inflcited much greater casualties than they suffered against every other foe. Could you please tell me the source of your research? Also, the other great power, the British empire always inflicted greater casualties than they themselves suffered against every other power with the exception of the Germans and the Yanks. Now here's a real matchup. A Roman Legion Vs a British Redcoat Regiment
@lalitadityamuktapida research from all over really. K/D ratio was probably higher for Romans than their foes, but the skew comes from key, decisive victories, for example Alesia and Zama. These boxes are too small for a proper argument :P
Roman discipline and training was very good, and often a decisive factor in victories. But it was more often the leadership that determined military outcomes. Moreover it was other factors such as sacking cities based on how long they had held out.
@PaladinOfLondon I did research on the net and here is what I got. During the height of their powers, The romans killed more than they lost in every battle except
1. All battles against Pyrrhus of Epirus
2. All battles against Hannibal except Zama
3. Battle of Carrhae against the Parthians
4. Battle of Teutoberg forests
I'm not counting anything before 300BC as the Romans were finding their feet. Or after 100AD, where they were being ruled by a bunch of Degenerates.
@lalitadityamuktapida yes you're right. My point was not to downplay the effectiveness of the Roman Army, but the misconception that military victories were the decisive factor that led to Roman expansion and domination. As you said the Romans lost immense numbers of soldiers against Epirus and Hannibal, and yet went on to defeat both the Carthaginians and Greeks.
@lalitadityamuktapida as for the British, the majority of our conquests were against native wielding spears and swords against rifles. That's not to discount some incredible victories that the British had, especially in India against Sikh armies many times the size and also armed with rifles and canon, but there too, conquest was only partially through military. Generally the British would side with one native prince against another and profit from their assistance. The romans used similar tacs.
@PaladinOfLondon I am not counting British victories against spear wielding African tribes or corruption ridden Indian/Chinese. I'm Indian myself, so please nobody take offense. What I am counting is
1. Continual British victories against the French everywhere in the world
2. Close fought naval Wars over the dutch for Marine supremacy
3. Annihilation of the Spanish Armada
4. Several victories againt lesser known but competent foes like Russians, Portuguese, austrians, Danes etc
@lalitadityamuktapida well in my opinion the main cause was morale. British soldiers knew the man next to them wouldn't flee. Also, the British learned from their mistakes (most of the time) For example, during the French and Indian war (in America and Canada) British soldiers fought in the normal European style and were annihilated by French soldiers using the Native's tactics and local knowledge. These tactics were quickly picked up and the French defeated soon after.
@PaladinOfLondon You seem to be a military history Buff. Let me ask for your opinion on one thing. Rome Vs British Empire. I know they were separated by millenia, but it's fun to speculate. Assume everything material (resources, technology etc) to be similar. Let the rest of the stuff be different. You are permitted to bring Rome into the 17th century or take the British empire to roman times. Who would win a military confrontation between these two alpha nations?
@lalitadityamuktapida I love What Ifs ;) I would imagine that the British Empire (at it's height, so Victorian era) against a Roman Empire at its height (Augustus Caesar) would be forever at each other's throats. Just as the British fought to prevent dominance of Europe under the Spanish and French they would fight the Romans. I imagine the British would keep Rome's military at arm's length with a superior navy and then undermine them using the Roman's own infighting wherever possible.
@PaladinOfLondon You sure that's not just your British patriotism speaking? :-). Remember the Roman navy at it's time was also pretty superb and matchless in it's time. It was the strength of the Roman Navy that caused Hannibal to undertake the hazardous trek through the alps. And the Carthiginians,being seafaring merchants themselves, were no slouches when it came to Naval warfare. So the Roman Navy was definitely not something to sneeze at. It could match the Royal Navy.
@lalitadityamuktapida Aah, but then I would argue that Roman naval supremacy against Carthage came just after a hundred-odd years of Carthaginian naval warfare against Athens (The Delian League) leaving both weaker than they would have been. Contrastingly, the British rise to supremacy was against the Spanish while they were at the height of their power. Not only that but the British continually fought for that supremacy. Once Carthage and Greece were conquered they didn't raise fresh fleets.
@PaladinOfLondon I see. Looks like the Greeks and Romans did a lot of Naval fighting before the First punic war. Rome had little naval experience and were soundly thrashed by the Carthiginians at the start of the first punic war. By the end of that war they had the superior navy. So Roman rise to naval supremacy too mirrored that of the British in a sense. Are you sure that Greco-Punic wars left the Carthiginians weaker? I would say it provided them valuable Naval experience. Sources please!
Praetorian would kick his ass...
WatchTheTrailers 2 hours ago
Sikh warriors were famous for fighting one vs many battles. Nihang Sikhs still keep the age old traditions alive. The Khalsa is made up of baptised Sikhs including Nihangs. The Khalsa didn't start as a business or a game. It started as a fight against Tyranny.
unproudhistory 9 hours ago
The Khalsa began its fight against an established Mughal Empire with Tyrants as rulers. At first there were only a few, 48 Singhs of Guru Gobind Singh Ji against hundreds of thousands of Mughals. Google Battle of Chamkaur. Then later on Khalsa took part in battles against established Afghan Durrani Empire and the battles ended with the Singhs taking over the Afghans under the command of Hari Singh Nalwa who was a general of Ranjit Singh of the Sikh Empire.
unproudhistory 9 hours ago
he threw his chakram?
cjmiya 9 hours ago
Why is it backwards?
lucariokid100 11 hours ago
@lucariokid100 To avoid copyright infringement I think.
kevindabest100 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Roman vs Kshtriya warrior.....Simple facts will show who the true man of the sword was
1.Kshtriyas followed A NOBLE CODE OF WAR....no one else on earth does..Sadly, this was the main reason we had losses against filthy honourless, barbaric armies of Islam
2.Kshtriyas successfully defended Aryan civilization of India for 1000 years.....ROME WAS WIPED OUT
3Kshatriyas CONQUERED THE WHOLE EURASIA.......Mittani and Kassite, Hittite Indo Aryans in 2000 BC conquered all of middle east & Europe
sireAndracottus 11 hours ago
Khalsa is still alive and its shinning bright. Has people from all backgrounds including Rajputs who united to fight tyranny and injustice from all sides. Leave casteism out. Its an outdated concept. Khalsa doesnt represent any particular caste cause it has no caste.
unproudhistory 14 hours ago
People have assumed Roman centurion is superior than Rajput. They hvn't even gone through the facts or history of Rajputs. This is cited by their comments & ratings. Well i'm not surprise as i know many ppl use greatness for whom who have conquered the world and ppl have used this Conquering Intention as sarcasm to Rajputs... But in India the def. of Greatness is quite different with Hindus & Sikhs. Beside this I honoured to say against ignorance of ppl that RAJPUT is equivalent to WAR MACHINE
seekerphn 18 hours ago 4
It's apalling to see that media professionals of developed nation can get even their basic facts wrong. The warriors depicted as 'Rajput warriors' are actually 'Khalsa warriors',Still an Indian martial clan, but different (culturally, geographically). I guess it's an ingrained problem with Americans : Getting People's names all wrong all of the time. It started With Colombus, Calling native americans as "Indians", and they haven't looked back since :-)
86hayate 22 hours ago
@86hayate
Dude, Khalsa warriors(Sikhs) are descendants of Rajputs(Hindus). Today Rajputs are busy in Modern Life :( but the Khalsa still carrying this fighting Technique with them. There is only culture difference b/w Rajputs and Khalsa. They have common warrior(Kshatriya) genes. Thats why those khalsa in the video representing Rajputs.
seekerphn 20 hours ago
@seekerphn Brother, you are slightly mistaken, although many Rajputs converted to Sikhism e.g. Bhai Bachittar Singh Ji, Baba Banda Singh Bahadur, the Khalsa army was composed of people from different backgrounds with emphasis equality. The Sikhs inherited the ancient weapons science - Shastar Vidya from the Rajputs.
indrajeet 15 hours ago
@86hayate
Americans were not the ones who first called native americans indians. Just Americans were stupid enough to continue calling them that centuries after that found out they weren't indians.
4MadnEsSx 17 hours ago
The difference between this and reality though, is that Romans fight in units. You would never find a lone Roman soldier fighting
siegeghost100 23 hours ago
@siegeghost100 This scenario is based on that.
indrajeet 15 hours ago
Rajputs winning in one place doesn't mean they'd win in others.
CNdailyNews 1 day ago
@CNdailyNews hahahaha you mean like what backstabbing? Any coward can backstab but we are talking about one on one combat, with or without shield or armor. Sometimes scenerio changes from one on one to one against many. Close combat fighting to the finish. Arrows and cannons are another case and a different time. Without strategy any side can lose but enough credits must be given to the courageous ones who never flee a battle or those that never backstab out of cowardice.
unproudhistory 1 day ago
Romans needed the help of Germanic tribes to beat the Huns but Rajputs fought alone. This is the difference between a Roman military unit and a Rajput military unit. Rajputs only fought under the command of a Rajput, nobody else until later years of backstabbing and cowardice that led to the Dark ages both in Europe and India.
unproudhistory 1 day ago
Comment removed
siegeghost100 23 hours ago
The Arabs who destroyed the Eastern Roman Empire got destroyed by the Rajputs when they tried to take over India. 300 years before that, the Roman and their slaves in the North lost to the Central Asian Huns that attacked both Italy and India around the same time. The difference is that the Huns were owned by the Rajputs in India and crushed so badly that there wasn't any Huns left. Remants were left in Afghanistan with changed names lol hahahahahaha.
unproudhistory 1 day ago
@unproudhistory And what did those harami huns call themselves when they were hiding in afghaniland (then ghandar) - PASTHUNS ahahahahhahaa
indrajeet 15 hours ago
@indrajeet I wonder why the Pastuns dont claim Hunnic heritage. Maybe because of the shame of getting beaten badly HAHAHAHA
unproudhistory 14 hours ago
Mahmud of Ghazni was a stupid Turk whose ancestors were Mamaluke/slaves.Which idiot said he’s an Arab? Mahmud was of mixed origins, a Turk slave mixed with a Pastun slave who didn’t establish himself in India because he knew he’d get screwed from any direction and ran towards Afghanistan to shit there. Ghori the backstabber slave was captured and released by the Rajputs. He showed the Afghan cowardice of backstabbing those that spared his life. A true coward of history.
unproudhistory 1 day ago 2
Arabs took over India? Arabs did take over a small part of India known as Sindh until the federation of Rajputs beat the living hell of Arabs and chased them towards the west. You must be a moron to think that Arabs took over the whole of India. Forgot Bappa Rawal? Bappa Rawal and the Rajputs ended Arab incursion. Stupid Arab always living with his head stuck in the sand. Google Battle of Rajasthan and you'll know how Arabs lost courage, and ran away like cowards HAHAHAHA.
unproudhistory 1 day ago
ALL OF U SHUT THE FUCK UP, fck romans, its all bowt panjabi KHALSA SIKH ARMY, we ruled territories of afghan pathans, and NEVER lost any wars to mughals or muslim armies. Nor did we loot/rape women and take them captive and forcefully convert them, or destroy places of religious worship. Also sikh khalsa lost one war in their lives, and that was to the british, who used blackmailing tactics to lure ppl from within to do an inside job.
KopSingh1986 1 day ago 4
@KopSingh1986 the only two sides on this planet are Islam and non-Islam - all brave warriors from each and every country has an obligation to take on this cancer called Islam - its either that or another Dark Ages
JaiHindArbhav 1 day ago
BTW........Thats not a Rajput in your video....looks mongolian
sireAndracottus 1 day ago
And yes.....Romans were more animal and bloodthirsty...They tortured and killed millions of Innocents.....There is no greatness in that
The Holy Kshtriyas of Aryavarta never shed innocent blood.....They never harassed other nations after the problem makers left in 2000 BC......THEY FOUGHT ONLY IN SELF DEFENCE....as we had the most prosperous nation on earth....We didn't have to destroy other people like your Lizard eating Arab armies....which was DEFEATED AND CHASED AWAY 17 TIMES BY RAJPUTS
sireAndracottus 1 day ago
Roman vs Kshtriya warrior.....Simple facts will show who the true man of the sword was
1.Kshtriyas followed A NOBLE CODE OF WAR....no one else on earth does..Sadly, this was the main reason we had losses against filthy honourless, barbaric armies of Islam
2.Kshtriyas successfully defended Aryan civilization of India for 1000 years.....ROME WAS WIPED OUT
3Kshatriyas CONQUERED THE WHOLE EURASIA.......Mittani and Kassite, Hittite Indo Aryans in 2000 BC conquered all of middle east & Europe
sireAndracottus 1 day ago
(387 BC) – Rome is sacked by the Gauls after the Battle of the Alli(410) – Rome is sacked by Alaric, King of the Visigoths(455) – Rome is sacked by Geiseric, King of the Vandals(546) – Rome is depopulated by Totila, King of the Ostrogoths, during the war between the Ostrogoths and the Byzantines(846) – The Arabs attack Rome and loot old St. Peter's Basilica, though the Roman City walls prevent further damage to the city itself(1084) – Rome is sacked by the Normans of Robert Guiscard
sireAndracottus 1 day ago
rajput warrior was devastating,fierce nd effective in 1v1 with roman centaurion ...truth is truth ...no matter who says what
ScRIMitar96 2 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 ok, lets end this silly fued right here, huh?
HustlerMitch 2 days ago
@HustlerMitch yeah....i thought our heads will turn grey till the end of dis feud :D
ScRIMitar96 2 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 lol
HustlerMitch 2 days ago
Although the arrogance and general disrespect shown by team centurion really got on my nerves, I have a feeling the data was deliberately tainted for this episode's simulation. The centurion sheild was not included with the calculations for the gladius nor did they take into account the lightness, speed, or stabbing point of the gladius over the dulled tip and heavier weight of the Rajput's sword. All things considered, the centurion should have won, even if his supporters didn't deserve it.
ronin6401 3 days ago
@ronin6401 gladius is very short nd roman warrior had to reveal himslef to attack with it....rajput warriors could defend, attack and finish the fight with that weapon
ScRIMitar96 2 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 Also the Khanda had far greater reach then the gladius, it was a sword with the power of an axe and none of the weaknesses e.g. handle could be cut through. A Rajput would train with a Khanda from youth and have the strength and stamina to wield it with deadly precision. The chakram could take out enemies from a distance with greater effect then the peelum. The Katar was as deadly if not more so then the gladius at close range since the blade could be expanded.
indrajeet 2 days ago
@indrajeet that may be, but they were still the most fearsome soldiers of that time
HustlerMitch 2 days ago
@indrajeet dat's right
ScRIMitar96 2 days ago
@ronin6401 I;m sorry, but the Rajput arsenal of weapons is far superior to the of the Romans, although Romans were good fighters.
indrajeet 2 days ago
The roman should have won x(
florsuperbelg 3 days ago 2
rajputs lived for fighting....to spill their enemy's blood...while romans did it to just defend their empire...they were not devoted at all !!!...Rajputs enjoyed fighting and spilling blood wether it is their blood or enemy's..their courage was remarkable !!
ScRIMitar96 3 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 the romans just didnt have the gladius, they had a mass selection of weapons, gladius and spatha r my favorite
HustlerMitch 2 days ago
@HustlerMitch and rajput aslo had many other weapons.......however i like gladius bcoz of its stylish design
ScRIMitar96 2 days ago
Comment removed
ScRIMitar96 3 days ago
well if it was a squad battle i think the centurion might have had the upper hand, but since this was 1 v 1 i can see why he didnt prevail over the Rajput. :D Plus i kinda was fine with either one winning
crocgator44 4 days ago
wtf... romans with axes, no way that ever happened.
MrMarcoKoers 5 days ago
Rajput Warrior Vs. Roman Centurion........OF COURSE RAJPUT WAS BETTER...THEY WERE MIGHTY WARRIORS OF RAJPUTANA AND CAN RIP THE ROMANS IN HALF..THEY HAD SKILL IN FIGHTING NOT SWISHING THE SWORD LIKE FOOLISH ROMANS AND THEIR SLAVES.....WHATAVER THEY CALL THEM GLADIATAR...
ScRIMitar96 5 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 sure, they were fierce so wat? romans were put through years of physical training and intense tactic tests. if ur gunna diss some of the most epic warriors the universe has ever seen, diss them right.
HustlerMitch 5 days ago
@HustlerMitch Don't bother mate. Indians are starved of any sort of military accomplishment for the last 1300 years. Our last victory against a formidable foe was around 680 AD during the early Arab invasions. Since then, it has been one losing streak after another. For this reason, when it comes to military heroes, we are willing to grasp at straws. While a Rajput soldier might overcome a Roman soldier in man to man combat, A Roman legion would annihilate any Rajput formation.
lalitadityamuktapida 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida It might look to some indian people here that I am dissing my own country, but I'm more like telling things like it is. Before 1000A.D. since when our losing streak began we defeated some pretty formidable foes such as the Huns, the early Arab invaders, the parthians, the Persians under Cyrus, the Assyrians, the Seleucids, held Alexander of Macedon to a draw. India has had some brilliant military history. But the Rajputs are not part of that brilliance
lalitadityamuktapida 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida i think that our weakest point was that we were not UNITED....if we were united we could have been largest & strongest empire in world.....rajput empire warriors despite of being ununited repell the romans
ScRIMitar96 4 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 It's not a question of Unity. The Pashtuns too are disunited. But they beat all invaders. When the Arabs/Huns invaded the Europeans, the Euros were disunited. They still beat back both of them. Consider this. In most of the battles, the Rajputs outnumbered the Muslims 3:1 and still lost. If you cannot beat beat an enemy while outnumbering him 3:1, you certainly will not be able to beat him outnumbering him 10:1. The problem is with the fighting tactics.
lalitadityamuktapida 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida what??..they didn't had tactics ????..please give me a break do u know everything about rajput warriors ???..
ScRIMitar96 4 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 Ofcourse they had tactics, but those tactics were faulty. the very fact that they routinely lost to smaller forces points to a flaw in their tactics/mentality. One can come up with a number of excuses for losing. In war winning is not everything. It's the only thing. The Rajputs lost repeatedly. Amateurs always whine about why they lost and come up with a million reasons. Professionals just win.
lalitadityamuktapida 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida rajput warriors were trained since their birth....they had tactics and they were not faulty at all..and m not making excuse because rajput warrior lost..because here he won !
ScRIMitar96 4 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 this is just a simulation :-) simulation is not reality
lalitadityamuktapida 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida fyi
simulations based ON SKILLS
ScRIMitar96 4 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 simulations do not contain all information. It takes into account only the weapons. It does not take into account mental make-up and killer instinct in which the Romans are superior
lalitadityamuktapida 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida If the Rajputs were so weak, they wouldn't have retained sovereignty until the time of akbar. Even akbar was aonly able to defeta them due to military alliances, 100 years later when aurangzeb began persecuting hindus - the Rajputs rebelled.
indrajeet 4 days ago
@indrajeet yeah nd akbar was not able to conquer the whole kingdom of maharana pratap .. only bcoz he fought back
ScRIMitar96 4 days ago
@indrajeet romans were taught hand to hand combat too....
HustlerMitch 3 days ago
@HustlerMitch But they relied heavily on formation combat.
indrajeet 2 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida But the pasthuns would unite when a common threat was againts them. Rajputs turned against one another when enemies attacked. Maharana Partap's own borther turned againts him and sided with akbar.
indrajeet 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida Im sorry, but the crusades were successful partly due to the alliance between the various kingdoms, England, France and Spain united to fight in the holy land against the arabs.
indrajeet 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida Who says Rajputs outnumbered the muslims, muslims ALWAYS relied on safety in mumbeers.
indrajeet 4 days ago
@indrajeet this is true.
conservatiive456 4 days ago
@indrajeet What a fking dumb ass, go read a book on the Rashidun army of the Arabs, they were outnumbered all the time and still took out the Persian and Byzantine empires, they relied mainly on their cavalry which at that time was the best cavalry force in the world headed by the Khalid's Mobile Guard.
khasseki 4 days ago
@khasseki oh here we go again, firstly the sassanid persian was greatly weakened by internal fighting and political rift, making it an fairly easy target for thr arabs, thats how you conqeuerd in within 30 years of muhammed death.
indrajeet 3 days ago
@indrajeet You stated the Arabs only won by numbers and I proved you wrong ..... that is all, also you say the Persians were weakened but they STILL outnumbered the Rashidun army and had war Elephants so there is no excuse, neither is there an excuse about them conquering India, India has always been a logistical nightmare even Alexander the Great had problems there add that to the Rashiduns expanding both East and West so the Sindh didn't face the whole force either.
khasseki 2 days ago
@khasseki The sassanid empire was weakened through years of political strife and economic mismanagment and was a soft target for the arab hordes. Do you have. ahahaha, arabs conquered India - I laugh everytime I hear these fantasy stories, Why is it that after muhammed bin qasim, NO arab ever dared to enter India?? You could expand the casliphate to north africa and spain - but not into India.
indrajeet 1 day ago
@khasseki Yet the arabs started their way into sind in the 670s and it took decades of warfare and losses and this is mentioned in the history. Muhammed bin qasim managed to conquer part of sind only because the Raja bhoj was unpopular with a buddhist majority, even then he was chased away a year later by BAPPA RAWAL who chased him through the dessert.
indrajeet 3 days ago
@khasseki The battle of RAJASTHAN - go look it up - were RAJPUTS destroyed the arabs.
indrajeet 3 days ago
@indrajeet Right I looked up that battle, 1) that was the Ummayad not the Rashidun, 2) that was a frontier army not the best of the Ummayads and 3) The Muslims still had the south and parts of India and Sindh even after the defeat 4) The Ghazni's working with the Abbasid Caliph took the whole damn country and beat the Rajputs as well, Ghazni's may I add who were actual proper warriors of Islam not the rag tag bunch they fought in the 800's AD.
Game, set and match.
khasseki 2 days ago
@khasseki Can you show me where arabs conquered the south of India lol. AHAHAHAHAH, the ghaznis (mahmud) DIDNT CONQUER WHOLE OF INDIA - go and read real history - not mullah history. they were not arabs, and it was their iranian slaves the ghorids who managed to get a place in northwest India - but thats another story.
indrajeet 1 day ago
@indrajeet Ok fair enough it wasn't Arabs per say but it was Turks overlording Afghans who did and you have to realise the Ghaznis worked in conjunction with the Abbasid Caliphate as did Saladin's Ayyubid dynasty and the Kwariziem Shah because they were Islamic soverieigns so yes Muslims conquered parts of India and most of Sindh. :)
khasseki 10 hours ago
@ScRIMitar96 All this talk of Lack of unity is nothing but political propaganda to make us feel better about losing. Politicians and kings do not like any opposition to their rule. So if you disagree with them, they will say, "Hey! listen to me. We lose because we are not united. So let's be united. Now listen to me." Fact is the revolt of 1857 lasted so long because there was no single leader. Had there been a single leader, it would have been over much sooner.
lalitadityamuktapida 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida and secondly india is a vast country full of diversity so disunity is a big point
ScRIMitar96 4 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 India has always been disunited. We were disunited when Cyrus the Great of persia attacked. We still beat him. We were disunited when the huns attacked. We still beat them. We beat the early Arab invaders inspite of being disunited. Do not imagine that when the Huns invaded India we somehow defeated them with a unified Indian army. Also, no country is united in the manner you speak. There is always difference of opinion. We must learn to win inspite of this difference of opinion.
lalitadityamuktapida 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida oh no my friend india has never always been disunited..during the time of mauryan empire under chandragupta maurya nd ashoka the whole india with afghanistan & iran was united
ScRIMitar96 4 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 But we have won several times inspite of being disunited. Unity is usually not possible and must not be depended upon. We have won several times without it. We must not use it as an excus
lalitadityamuktapida 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida dude m not using it as excuse it is just fact not excuse :)
ScRIMitar96 4 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 Then you must not say that we lost because of disunity :-)
lalitadityamuktapida 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida
I come across something you said to Indrajeet --> "Can you provide me with some sources or proof that the Sikhs learnt their techniques from the Rajputs?"
well chap this is hilarious , i think you don't that Sikhs especially Khalsa are descendants of Rajputs.
seekerphn 3 days ago
@seekerphn /watch?v=5wPQKmhlFUA
/watch?v=aphzZLBNcwg&feature=related
/watch?v=oG6WdFwc5WM&feature=related
/Shastarvidiya?ob=0&feature=results_main
/watch?v=amt9Q0RyRb0
indrajeet 3 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 The problem with the Rajputs was their feudal nature, always fighting amongst themselves weakening their kingdoms. That is why when Shivaji Bosle came to power, he emphasized unity of the local lords and leaders and why Guru Gobind Sinhj Ji created Khalsa to try and unify Sikhs.
indrajeet 4 days ago
@indrajeet yeah that's right
ScRIMitar96 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida You may not think so, But the Sikhs, Marathas, Ahoms and Gurkhas certainly are.
indrajeet 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida You are wrong again, go and read about the victories of Jaja Bhoj (Not a Rajput) againts salar masaud in the mid 11th century, the Rajputs of Mewar held sultan muhhamed bin tughuk at ransom, after that delhi sultunate NEVER attacked chittor, what about the great victories of Guru Hargibind Ji againts jahangir and shah jahan, what about the victories of Shivaji againts adil shah and mughals - what about the victories of Gur Gobind Singh Ji.
indrajeet 4 days ago
@lalitadityamuktapida I respect the Rajputs mate and the Roman Infantry would beat practically any other infantry outfit anyway, they beat the Macedonians and pretty much every one else anyway.
I would have LOVED to have seen the Romans up against some of the later armies though, they would have got rapped, their defeat to the Huns and the Parthians was only a sign of things to come anyway.
I'm about to play as the Rajputs on Total war (PC game) should be interesting.
khasseki 2 days ago
@khasseki which total war game......i am downloading rome:total war is it good game ??
ScRIMitar96 1 day ago
@ScRIMitar96 Not Rome you want "Medieval 2 Total War Kingdoms expansion" and the Broken Crescent Mod which can be downloaded at TWcenter under Kingdoms hosted sub mods in the forum is the best fking game I've ever played.
You can be Rajputs, Turks (Seljuk & Ottoman), Crusader Knights, Kypchak, Persian, Arabs, Egypt, Sindh, Ghorid Afghans ...... the lot!
There are various sub mods for lot's of eras and armies around the world, my personal recommendation is Broken Crescent 2.3 and Last Kingdom.
khasseki 10 hours ago
@khasseki What about a Roman againts a Nihang warrior
indrajeet 1 day ago
@indrajeet To be honest in comes down to the individual warrior, some Romans were sh*t newbs, some were hardend veteran killers, also have the Nihang ever fought a major battle against an established well known army? I've never come across the Nihang in all my historical studies, I knew the Sikhs have a warrior heritage but that's it?
khasseki 10 hours ago
@HustlerMitch don't think that rajput warriors lacked physical training...first dig up smthin about rajput warriors nd then put ur point.....
ScRIMitar96 4 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 i didnt say they lacked physical training, im saying that any roman soldier could slaughter rajput..rajut r pretty good too, i know, but romans....romans r just the bomb
HustlerMitch 4 days ago
@HustlerMitch man u dont know about rajputs closely... that's what i want to say
ScRIMitar96 4 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 how do i not know about rajputs? how did u get that from wat i just typed?
HustlerMitch 4 days ago
@HustlerMitch you said rajputs are PRETTY good ???....man THEY are the bombs not romans...we are talking about 1 v 1 ok ??
ScRIMitar96 4 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 rajputs arent the bomb! if that roman had the PROPER weapons he would have beat ass.
Romans didnt have axes...
sure 1 v 1, the roman soldier still would have won, given he had the proper weapon.
rajputs were good but not as good as a roman...too bad this wasnt a spartan fighting a rajput...there would be nothing left of the rajput lol
HustlerMitch 4 days ago
@HustlerMitch One on one the Rajput would win HANDS DOWN
indrajeet 3 days ago
@indrajeet no it wouldnt
HustlerMitch 3 days ago
@HustlerMitch Care to elaborate on that - Rajputs were trained to fight one on one or one againts many, Romans were trained to fight as a unit - go figure.
indrajeet 3 days ago
@indrajeet yeah but they enjoyed causing as much as pain they could spilling blood ...killing brutally...even if they were outnumbered
ScRIMitar96 3 days ago
@HustlerMitch man why don't u just shut ur fuckin excuses...rajput were SKILLED FIGHTERS..they were trained since their birth...ROMANS DIDN'T HAD A CHANCE IN FRONT OF DEM they don have good weapons its their drawback...nd m talking about rajput vs romans why r u bringing spartans in between rajputs were TRUE WARRIORS not fake like romans
ScRIMitar96 3 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 lol excuses? if thats the case then stfu with ur excuses.
Romans were true warriors, ur too ashamed to admit it, romans could slaughter rajput, and @indrajeet im not bringing spartans into this, read wat i said then try to get ur little brain to figure it out
HustlerMitch 3 days ago
@HustlerMitch I didnt mention Spartans - you must have me mixed up with someone else.
indrajeet 3 days ago
@indrajeet oh yeah, sorry, read ur comment and then someone elses, apologies
HustlerMitch 3 days ago
Comment removed
ScRIMitar96 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HustlerMitch first of all i want to ask u smthing .....r u from italy ??? second....do u know ANYTHING ABOUT RAJPUTS because romans ain't shit in comparison of mighty rajput warriors...they can cut romans in lalf with their khanda sword like knife cuts through butter.and i think u r ashamed of dis fact.
ScRIMitar96 3 days ago
@ScRIMitar96 no im not from italy, i know enough about rajputs to know that romans can own em, and the roman swords could eliminate a rajput, rajputs swords r just like any other sword.
do U know anything about rajputs OR romans?
just naming the weapon isnt knowledge about them.
HustlerMitch 3 days ago
@HustlerMitch Your argument is still weak, Rajputs had a mighty arsenal of weapons and were taught to fight one on one or one against many.
indrajeet 3 days ago
@indrajeet ok, so they had weapons, who didnt back then?
romans were taught hand to hand combat aswell and againt many...wats ur point?
HustlerMitch 3 days ago
@HustlerMitch The Romans faught as a unit, Rajputs were taught to fight had to hand - theres a difference.
indrajeet 3 days ago
@indrajeet or one against many...
ScRIMitar96 2 days ago
@HustlerMitch m not just naming the weapon...i hav full info about that weapon and i think it's way better than roman's gladius
ScRIMitar96 2 days ago
oh come on¡¡¡¡¡¡ the centurion was better¡
TheMortenius 5 days ago
I love acting of the actor who play as Rajput :)
ZIXHP 5 days ago
Fail
laboomerpaly 6 days ago
this whole show is unrealistic and historically inacurate.
DasMatz2 6 days ago
I am a Khatri, not a Rajput, but Rajput's did not do their job when India was attacked, yes there are plenty of stories of Valor, and bravado, but due to infighting and excessive focus on personal glory, they failed. If it were to come to a Legion versus Rajput army, legions would have an upper hand due to more discipline and organization.
ashatut 6 days ago
@ashatut The Romans too had excessive focus on personal glory. When Hannibal invaded Rome, the Roman general too were competing with each other to be the first to defeat Hannibal and win all the glory for themselves. But they never sabotaged each other. Rome had no traitors. Their infighting always took place inside the senate. This tendency of the Rajputs to sabotage each other and commit treason gives them a unique place in Indian History's hall of Shame.
lalitadityamuktapida 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the basques(atlanteans) are the original europeans n the origin of the white race,the catalans are blood brothers of the basques.The atalanteans(basques) colonized the world n schooled humanitgy but the cheatin romans greeks etc concealed this.The atlanteans schooled their asses n the disgustin romans n greeks thanked the atlanteans by turnin on the atlanteans n have u believe the atlanteans n atlantis didnt even exist..wtf?unmask these sons of a bitch
MiamiDolphinsClyde10 1 week ago
that axe ws their entrenching tool not a fucking weapon and the scorpion against one man like wtf
2ndsquad2 1 week ago
No one ever said a roman soldier conquerered the world , but a roman army.
ebay4dave 1 week ago
Just pure bullshit!!
UrbanMoviemaker5 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tasarte "The only appearence of a Roman in this programme and he doesn't fight with the Shield-Gladius combo that conquered the world but... with an axe. Fail. Let me try, if the Roman fight in his usual way he would win nearly everybody (on foot)? Right? Ok."
Yes lol, and they havent take in account the SPATHA, the fact that PILUM wasnt used as a spear, that Scorpion 1v1 is totally RETARDED, the armour LORICA SEGMENTATA, the R. extremely TACTIC INTELLIGENCE and the SUPERIOR PHYSICAL TRAINING
patres818 1 week ago
@Proverbs1533 NO. The fact is that this simulation is entirily WRONG and HISTORICALLY INACCURATE.
The axe WASNT a Roman weapon, the PILUM wasnt used as a spear
the Imperial Centurions had LORICA SEGMENTATA - the best armour of the ancient world,
the Scorpion (!) in 1v1 battle is simply PATHETIC,
in the statistics they havent take in account THE SHIELD: HE SCUTUM,THE FUCKIN SCUTUM,
they havent take in account the SPATHA,the fact that R.were TACTIC MASTERS and their SUPERIOR PHYSICAL TRAINING!
patres818 1 week ago 13
@patres818 Agreed on most cases, except that the Lorica Segmenta was not the best armour in the world at all. Roman armoursmiths were actually inferior to their contemporaries, especially in Gaul, where chain mail and Greatswords were more prevalent, due in part to the fact that the Roman smiths were incapable of making them. However, the Romans mass produced their armour and equipped all their soldiers with uniform kit. Their foes would have items passed down etc. But I agree this vid is crap.
PaladinOfLondon 1 week ago
@patres818 Well said :)
Colton8646 1 week ago
@patres818 100% agree
HdN1989 6 days ago
Comment removed
patres818 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Yvesyew NO. The fact is that this simulation is entirily WRONG and HISTORICALLY INACCURATE.
The axe WASNT a Roman weapon, the PILUM wasnt used as a spear,
the Imperial Centurions had LORICA SEGMENTATA - the best armour of the ancient world,
the Scorpion (!!) in 1v1 battle is simply PATHETIC,
in the statistics they havent take in account THE SHIELD: THE SCUTUM, THE FUCKIN SCUTUM,
they havent take in account the SPATHA, the fact that R.were TACTIC MASTERS and their SUPERIOR PHYSICAL TRAINING!
patres818 1 week ago
Comment removed
patres818 1 week ago
Comment removed
patres818 1 week ago
Exactly some of you have it right, a Rajput is a warrior who's skills lie in besting an opponent 1v1, a Roman legion soldier was trained to fight as a unit however the only question I would have about this video is that a Roman veteran in high standing could easily fight a Rajput, some of those guys from the 1st Legion were brutal and had seen it all, the fact that they are still alive show's their ability.
khasseki 1 week ago
The centurion had the scutum on the WRONG FUCKING ARM.
stardust005 1 week ago
Romans... Wielding axes?
Schmidtah 1 week ago 2
ear rape much?
TheGhostOperative 1 week ago
Deadliest Warrior sucks so much cock.
IhasMetal 2 weeks ago
wow 1:05 you need glasses man,how could you miss his arm????
ThePhaserz 2 weeks ago
Like all documentaries of History Channel about ancients, this is CRAP. Centurions never abandoned their shield, they used it like a weapon. History Channel: ridicolous.
IronMat86 2 weeks ago
@IronMat86 dude, this is not the history channel, thats why its crap. history channel stuff is much less crappy.
umidontno040394 2 weeks ago
@umidontno040394 It's an hard fight of crappy between HC and this.
IronMat86 1 week ago
That was PURE CRAP!
JMKtheMLGlords 2 weeks ago
This is a misnomer. The Roman army didn't have any warriors.
They had soldiers.
Ishkur23 2 weeks ago
what a load of shit,slanty eyed dirty gooks useless
mmadddog 2 weeks ago
what a load of shit,slanty eyed dirty gooks useless
mmadddog 2 weeks ago
War is not about single combat. A roman formation would annihilate a rajput formation. The Romans army was a superpower in it's time and almost always won all their battles inspite of being heavily outnumbered at times in enemy terrain. On the other hand, huge Rajput armies habitually lost to smaller smaller muslim armies in spite of fighting on their own terrain. There is really no contest here. This is like comparing little league baseball to major league baseball. Romans rock, rajputs suck!
lalitadityamuktapida 2 weeks ago
@lalitadityamuktapida actually the Roman Army wasn't much more effective than their enemies. The Romans lost far more soldiers and battles to the Carthaginians than they won, they simply knew how to capitalise on their successes when they had them. Likewise in Britain, the Roman Army only fought a handful of pitch battles, losing as many as they won, but instead relied on British infighting and rivalry, mixed with bribery to subjugate the natives. But yer, 100 Romans would nuke 100 Rajputs.
PaladinOfLondon 1 week ago
@PaladinOfLondon No, Rajputs were warriots trained to fight againts multiple enemies, Romans were trained to fight as a unit.
indrajeet 1 week ago
@PaladinOfLondon Mate, whatever the means of achieving victory, the facts are that the Romans won in the end. War is not just about taking a sword and going to fight. It's a lot more than that. After all the French have a million non military reasons why they kept losing to the English. The indians too keep quoting non military reasons for british conquest. In the end, in war, winning is everything. War is not a sport where the manner matters. It's deadly serious business. Just win baby!
lalitadityamuktapida 1 week ago
@lalitadityamuktapida yes, I totally agree. That was my point :D
The Roman Military successes were more based on non-lethal methods of conquest, just like the British Empire.
PaladinOfLondon 1 week ago
@PaladinOfLondon Mate, apart from the carthiginians, Parthians and the Germans I thought the Romans always inflcited much greater casualties than they suffered against every other foe. Could you please tell me the source of your research? Also, the other great power, the British empire always inflicted greater casualties than they themselves suffered against every other power with the exception of the Germans and the Yanks. Now here's a real matchup. A Roman Legion Vs a British Redcoat Regiment
lalitadityamuktapida 1 week ago
@lalitadityamuktapida research from all over really. K/D ratio was probably higher for Romans than their foes, but the skew comes from key, decisive victories, for example Alesia and Zama. These boxes are too small for a proper argument :P
Roman discipline and training was very good, and often a decisive factor in victories. But it was more often the leadership that determined military outcomes. Moreover it was other factors such as sacking cities based on how long they had held out.
PaladinOfLondon 1 week ago
@PaladinOfLondon I did research on the net and here is what I got. During the height of their powers, The romans killed more than they lost in every battle except
1. All battles against Pyrrhus of Epirus
2. All battles against Hannibal except Zama
3. Battle of Carrhae against the Parthians
4. Battle of Teutoberg forests
I'm not counting anything before 300BC as the Romans were finding their feet. Or after 100AD, where they were being ruled by a bunch of Degenerates.
lalitadityamuktapida 1 week ago
@lalitadityamuktapida yes you're right. My point was not to downplay the effectiveness of the Roman Army, but the misconception that military victories were the decisive factor that led to Roman expansion and domination. As you said the Romans lost immense numbers of soldiers against Epirus and Hannibal, and yet went on to defeat both the Carthaginians and Greeks.
PaladinOfLondon 1 week ago
@lalitadityamuktapida as for the British, the majority of our conquests were against native wielding spears and swords against rifles. That's not to discount some incredible victories that the British had, especially in India against Sikh armies many times the size and also armed with rifles and canon, but there too, conquest was only partially through military. Generally the British would side with one native prince against another and profit from their assistance. The romans used similar tacs.
PaladinOfLondon 1 week ago
@PaladinOfLondon I am not counting British victories against spear wielding African tribes or corruption ridden Indian/Chinese. I'm Indian myself, so please nobody take offense. What I am counting is
1. Continual British victories against the French everywhere in the world
2. Close fought naval Wars over the dutch for Marine supremacy
3. Annihilation of the Spanish Armada
4. Several victories againt lesser known but competent foes like Russians, Portuguese, austrians, Danes etc
lalitadityamuktapida 1 week ago
@lalitadityamuktapida well in my opinion the main cause was morale. British soldiers knew the man next to them wouldn't flee. Also, the British learned from their mistakes (most of the time) For example, during the French and Indian war (in America and Canada) British soldiers fought in the normal European style and were annihilated by French soldiers using the Native's tactics and local knowledge. These tactics were quickly picked up and the French defeated soon after.
PaladinOfLondon 1 week ago
@PaladinOfLondon You seem to be a military history Buff. Let me ask for your opinion on one thing. Rome Vs British Empire. I know they were separated by millenia, but it's fun to speculate. Assume everything material (resources, technology etc) to be similar. Let the rest of the stuff be different. You are permitted to bring Rome into the 17th century or take the British empire to roman times. Who would win a military confrontation between these two alpha nations?
lalitadityamuktapida 1 week ago
@lalitadityamuktapida I love What Ifs ;) I would imagine that the British Empire (at it's height, so Victorian era) against a Roman Empire at its height (Augustus Caesar) would be forever at each other's throats. Just as the British fought to prevent dominance of Europe under the Spanish and French they would fight the Romans. I imagine the British would keep Rome's military at arm's length with a superior navy and then undermine them using the Roman's own infighting wherever possible.
PaladinOfLondon 1 week ago
@PaladinOfLondon You sure that's not just your British patriotism speaking? :-). Remember the Roman navy at it's time was also pretty superb and matchless in it's time. It was the strength of the Roman Navy that caused Hannibal to undertake the hazardous trek through the alps. And the Carthiginians,being seafaring merchants themselves, were no slouches when it came to Naval warfare. So the Roman Navy was definitely not something to sneeze at. It could match the Royal Navy.
lalitadityamuktapida 1 week ago
@lalitadityamuktapida Aah, but then I would argue that Roman naval supremacy against Carthage came just after a hundred-odd years of Carthaginian naval warfare against Athens (The Delian League) leaving both weaker than they would have been. Contrastingly, the British rise to supremacy was against the Spanish while they were at the height of their power. Not only that but the British continually fought for that supremacy. Once Carthage and Greece were conquered they didn't raise fresh fleets.
PaladinOfLondon 6 days ago
@PaladinOfLondon I see. Looks like the Greeks and Romans did a lot of Naval fighting before the First punic war. Rome had little naval experience and were soundly thrashed by the Carthiginians at the start of the first punic war. By the end of that war they had the superior navy. So Roman rise to naval supremacy too mirrored that of the British in a sense. Are you sure that Greco-Punic wars left the Carthiginians weaker? I would say it provided them valuable Naval experience. Sources please!
lalitadityamuktapida 6 days ago