Helfaeng

Mhmm. yeah, they wouild last maybe a few hours in the skirmish. Steel not magic, boys.

Jagger

I'm going with the Sikhs on this one, for the same reason I chose the Romans over the Assyrians and the Vikings over the Spartans: the superior technology of a later age.

The golden age of the Highlander warriors was in the pre-gunpowder era, whereas the golden age of the Sikh warriors was in the post-gunpowder era. In fact, Sikhism didn't even exist in the pre-gunpowder era, since the religion only began in the 16th century. The fact that they were using gunpowder since their religion began would give them a big advantage over the earlier pre-gunpowder era Highlander warriors.

However, that isn't the only reason I'd choose the Sikhs. Another reason would be the Battle of Saragarhi in 1897, when 21 Sikhs fought 10,000 Afghans in a last stand, while taking down 600 Afghans in the process. It was regarded as a modern-day 'Battle of Thermopylae', which would have made the Sikhs a modern-day equivalent to the Spartans in their time.

Helfaeng

Have you ever heard of the highland charge? it could withstand musket and cannon fire. I think it can withstand the Sikhs.

Jagger

As far as I know, the Highland charge was mainly effective because it allowed the Highlanders to close the gap between themselves and the opposing musketeers, thus rendering their muskets useless. However, the Sikhs were also very skilled with swords (every Sikh carried a sword) and at hand-to-hand combat, as they had demonstrated against a large horde of Afghans at the Battle of Saragarhi (which I mentioned above).

The other advantage of the Highland charge would probably have been the psychological effect it had on musketeers, but it didn't work effectively against disciplined and well-trained English troops (like at the Battle of Culloden, for example), so I doubt it would have a psychological effect on the disciplined Sikhs who were known for their insane courage (again, the Battle of Saragarhi is a good example of this).

In other words, I doubt the Highland charge would give them any advantage over the Sikhs. On the other hand, the Sikhs would have the advantage in terms of firepower.

Nick

I take it you haven't heard about the famous Sikh regiments in the Indo-Persian War, Indian Mutiny and WW1?

okamido

Organizing and winning battles against the Mughals doesn't make the culture "martial" in nature and I didn't mean to state they couldn't fight. Any group can be trained to wage warfare but in its essence, Sihkism is grounded in non-violence as created by Guru Nanak. By that philosophy, you could say that the United States had a martial culture because they were able to defeat the Britsh Empire in the War of Independance. In contrast, Highlanders were brought up to fight and were constantly engaged in inter-clan warfare thta honed their fighting spirit as one might say. Now after having said that, I don't think it is an easy fight, but an equal number of Sikhs versus and equal number of Highlanders, no cavalry, no firearms, no problem, the Highlanders take the crown. Sikhs fought to defend themselves, Highlanders fought just for the fun of it.

Helfaeng

Well, Highlanders certainly fought for the fun of it sometimes, but they mostly fought because they had to. To protect themselves from enemy clans or the english.

sturm

Holywood made highland warriors and vikings looking as subhumans.

Heres something for you Halfaeng - http://www.vikingrune.com/2009/02/to...about-vikings/

Helfaeng

Yeah it is good to see someone who agrees that they WERE NOT BEASTS! thanx for the web page adress, viking rune is a cool site, huh?

sturm

Yeah the runes are fantastic, i aways loved how they look.
Do you wear such runes as a neckles ?