[003]
Weaver
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Seriously, why did the real life section get deleted? Yes, there is a \'\'lot\'\' of natter but the outdated \
to:
Seriously, why did the real life section get deleted? Yes, there is a \\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\' of natter but the outdated \\\"Martial Race\\\" ideology used by the British fits perfectly with this trope.
[[folder: RealLife]]
* A case of TruthInTelevision, as the British Empire (and others) had the designation \\\'Martial Race\\\' to describe just these sorts of peoples. The most familiar result of this concept are the Gurkhas in the service of the British Army. Of course, the truth of the classification is itself up for debate, so it might be a case of Possible Truth In Generalisation, which lacks an article.
** That said, it\\\'s hard to deny the appropriateness of this trope for, say, the Gurkhas, and the Rajputs in general.
*** The Rajputs and Gurkhas were warrior castes, the Indian caste system of old strictly defined what jobs people of certain birth could do, and these guys were designated to the soldiers, a direct analogue with the Feudal warriors of other civilizations. The Caste System was more stable than the European style feudalism, but both systems are long gone, but the pride of belonging has not.
** On the other hand, the Nation of Shopkeepers did decide to put itself at the top of this list (like all the others)... You could question this logic.
***Yes, but could the \\\'\\\'French, Spaniards, Dutch, Germans, Italians, Argentines, etc\\\'\\\' question that logic?
** It may be significant to note that a lot of present day Brits are [[InTheBlood decended from three of the warrior races mentioned below]], namely the Celts, Anglo-Saxons and, particuarly in the case of northerners, Vikings.
* The RealLife Vikings believed that only warriors went to the mead-hall of Valhalla (and got to fight again every day, just for fun). Those who died of other causes went to cold, barren, cheerless Hel, or just disappeared, depending on the how good people they were and which modern theory you subscribe to.
** There was a loophole to that. If you happened to be dying in bed for whatever reason, you had the option of taking your dagger and hacking the \\\'victory\\\' rune into your own torso. They figured that if you were badass enough for that, you deserved a place in Valhalla. (Makes sense - can you blame a Viking for not dying in battle, if he\\\'s so good that he always wins?)
*** You could blame the Viking in question on account of not having been chosen by a Valkyrie, since their whole schtick was to choose the warriors for Valhalla, and would therefor rearrange the battle so that they could collect their warrior while in top form. Doing such things as chaning the trajectories of the arrows. Of course if you are bad ass enough to even avoid a death tailored by demi-goddesses...
** Don\\\'t forget the honored dead had a 50/50 chance of going to Fólkvangr (Freya\\\'s realm) instead of Valhalla. Some interpretations make the divide whether you were what we call here a BloodKnight (Valhalla) or if you were defending your home and loved ones (Fólkvangr). Other versions make Fólkvangr open to anyone who died \\\"nobly.\\\"
* The Anglo-Saxons. After effectivly curbstomping the Britions, they settled into centuries of fighting anyone they could find, usually each other with wars between kingdoms occuring practically every year. Not only that, but they were obsessed with honour to the point where a warrior surviving a battle where his lord was killed was considered dishonorable in the extreme, and they were of the opinion that losing a battle wasn\\\'t shameful so long as the losing army fought with courage and didn\\\'t surrender, even when it was glaringly obvious at the start that they were going to lose. They fought the above mentioned Vikings for centuries and ultimatly won. Not particuarly suprisingly, the original Anglo-Saxon religion was basically the same as that of the Vikings, not that the eventual conversion to Christianity made a blind bit of difference.
* The Mamluks. Originally a warrior slave caste in the Egyptian Sultanate, they were intensively trained to be the perfect soldiers, and were taught the furusiyya, a code of courage, generosity, and battlefield (particularly cavalry) tactics. They were repeatedly sent to battle against the Crusaders, and are considered a major reason why most of the Crusades failed. They eventually took over Egypt, ruling for hundreds of years, even beating the Mongols, of all opponents, in 1260. When the Ottoman Turks took over Egypt, it was because they were using their own version of Mamluks, the Janissaries. It took Napoleon (with modern military training, a large conscript army, modern muskets, and Ottoman decadence) to finally beat them outright.
** Speaking of, the Jannissaries were Christian children converted to Islam and became the Sultan\\\'s personal guard. [[{{BFG}} And they packed heat]].
*For that matter most cultures have some aspect of this. Maybe HUMANS are a Proud Warrior Race.
** TruthInTelevision. Consider the \\\'\\\'point\\\'\\\' of storytelling: to take some aspect of human life and examine it at length. We wouldn\\\'t be writing about Proud Warrior Races if it weren\\\'t pertinent to us somehow. Having said that, to be a Proud Warrior Race, honor-from-beating-up-enemies would have to be \\\'\\\'central\\\'\\\' to human culture, and, it isn\\\'t, so we as a species don\\\'t count.
*** How dare you? [[IResembleThatRemark I\\\'m gonna kick your ass!]]
** Nah, we\\\'re [[HumansAreWarriors too well-organized to be a]] ProudWarriorRace.
*SPARTANS!
** Oh yes. If you weren\\\'t a Spartan warrior, it meant you were one of their slaves. And if you won every war you fought in and died in bed, you didn\\\'t even get a headstone.
*** Uh, no. Spartans weren\\\'t stupid (despite what \\\"300\\\" would have you believe). They knew they were a sharp minority (their style of raising Spartiates meant that there were never more than 9,000 at any given time), so while they did have slaves, called Helots, they also had a middle-class made up of immigrants and non-Spartiates called Perioikoi. They were treated with respect and all the dignity a middle class would have been. After all, they farmed the food and made the clothes the Spartans ate and wore. The Spartans knew better than to shit on those who fed and clothed them.
*** Yes, but they were given no say in any political decisions nor were allowed to interbreed with the Spartans.
*** Well, they also believed that if they allowed those things, that the Spartans would be less potent warriors. They needed to protect the genes. And if they allowed the middle class into politics, that could potentially disrupt the system they had set up to produce nigh-perfect [[ProudWarriorRaceGuy proud warrior race guys.]] So it\\\'s not like they didn\\\'t give them all their rights because they disrespected them.
** A [[CrossesTheLineTwice very]] [[DeadBabyComedy wise]] [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Troll man]] [[http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8516&IBLOCK_ID=35 once observed]] (probably NSFW), \\\"only amateur fascists admire the Spartans.\\\"
* The Romans and the Prussians, though known for far more than their fighting prowess, nevertheless held military values in high regard.
* The Celts. They were so nasty they scared the bejesus out of the Romans and actually managed to sack the city at one point. Reputedly, the Romans had to literally teach them (the hard way, natch) the concept of \\\"peace\\\" -- as in, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' just until they\\\'d recovered from the last fight.
** One tribe of Gauls did, The Celts one major cultural failing was their inability to unify which is why in the long run the Romans ate their lunch. On the other hand, even the Romans were aware that \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' the Celts been able to stop fighting each other and cooperate then they would\\\'ve had their asses kicked.
* The Mongols traditionally learn to ride a horse as early as they can \\\'\\\'walk\\\'\\\', and even today are known for their archery. Is it any wonder that these guys conquered so much of Asia?
** And kick Eastern Europe\\\'s ass.
** Hell, the Mongols were so terrifying the Christian world was convinced they were a punishment inflicted on them by Satan. Apparently Genghis Khan decided to confirm said idea.
*** Those were Muslims, and punishment from God, not Satan. The Christians thought for longest time that the Khan himself was a Christian who would deliver them from the perceived Muslim threat. These opinions changed quickly after they had some first-hand experience of him.
*** To be fair, the Sultan brought that one on himself when he executed Genghis\\\'s messengers who only wanted to trade.
***The Sultan\\\'s subjects \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\'.
** Also, at the time, fighting with mounted archers was \\\'\\\'simply unfair\\\'\\\'. If you had the best mounted archers, you had total control in the field, which means the only thing that can stop you is a fortress. In other words, you can move. They can\\\'t. In modern times, the only ways to fight a roaring horde of millions of horse archers would be a horde of choppers.
*** In truth, the effectiveness of mounted archers are debatable. What made the mongol horde deadly at the operational level was their horses; they were even smaller than contemporary European horses and could survive off grazing, which European horses (bread for heavy cavalry tactics and stamina) could not do. On the field, much of their work was done by feigned retreats (their horses were slower than Europe\\\'s) and hand cavalry action. Their conquests in much of Asia were handled by coming in -during- someone elses war and simply mopping up, or attacking weak and defenseless kingdoms.
****Many examples of a ProudWarriorRace got part of their reputation in uneven matches. War is not arranged like an athletic event.
*** [[NukeEm Or bombs.]]
*** I dunno, somehow I doubt archery would work very well against [[TankGoodness tanks]].
* Honor is important in American urban gang culture. This may be an answer to the \\\"open question\\\" in the introduction to this article.
** Most exemplified in modern culture with the Italian Mafia/Cosa Nostra, street gangs like the notorious ones in LA, not so much.
** Eh, debatable. The Mafia preached honor and loyalty to the family, the black and latino gangers to the Hood, and many a Prisoner has boasted about being a \\\'Righteous Con\\\', few really give more than lipservice to any code of conduct, they are all just criminals and there really is no honor among theives.
** To call random gangs honorable is a flat-out joke, they demand respect because they have guns and superior numbers at a given time, that\\\'s it, they aren\\\'t proud warrior guys they are common thugs and hoodlums, they are more like the opposite of proud warrior guy, they\\\'re cowards and shouldn\\\'t be described in any other way.
* This troper is surprised to find this article lacks a mention of the Japanese, particularly the Samurai, whom in his view many ProudWarriorRace cultures are based upon. The main ProudWarriorRaceGuy being Tokugawa who unified the country by warfare.
** \\\'\\\'[[ExOttoyuhr This]]\\\'\\\' troper is still trying to figure out whether the Japanese are a perfect example of this trope or a [[http://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Sword-Jewel-Kurt-Singer/dp/1873410697/ref=reader_auth_dp complete aversion of it]].
***It probably depends on the era. If you\\\'re talking about from the 1930s to 1945, then they would certainly count because of how militaristic they became. If you were talking about the pre-Tokugawa era, possibly. Nowadays, they\\\'re mostly an aversion, save for a minority of nationalists. But those guys are usually ignored.
[[/folder]]
[[folder: RealLife]]
* A case of TruthInTelevision, as the British Empire (and others) had the designation \\\'Martial Race\\\' to describe just these sorts of peoples. The most familiar result of this concept are the Gurkhas in the service of the British Army. Of course, the truth of the classification is itself up for debate, so it might be a case of Possible Truth In Generalisation, which lacks an article.
** That said, it\\\'s hard to deny the appropriateness of this trope for, say, the Gurkhas, and the Rajputs in general.
*** The Rajputs and Gurkhas were warrior castes, the Indian caste system of old strictly defined what jobs people of certain birth could do, and these guys were designated to the soldiers, a direct analogue with the Feudal warriors of other civilizations. The Caste System was more stable than the European style feudalism, but both systems are long gone, but the pride of belonging has not.
** On the other hand, the Nation of Shopkeepers did decide to put itself at the top of this list (like all the others)... You could question this logic.
***Yes, but could the \\\'\\\'French, Spaniards, Dutch, Germans, Italians, Argentines, etc\\\'\\\' question that logic?
** It may be significant to note that a lot of present day Brits are [[InTheBlood decended from three of the warrior races mentioned below]], namely the Celts, Anglo-Saxons and, particuarly in the case of northerners, Vikings.
* The RealLife Vikings believed that only warriors went to the mead-hall of Valhalla (and got to fight again every day, just for fun). Those who died of other causes went to cold, barren, cheerless Hel, or just disappeared, depending on the how good people they were and which modern theory you subscribe to.
** There was a loophole to that. If you happened to be dying in bed for whatever reason, you had the option of taking your dagger and hacking the \\\'victory\\\' rune into your own torso. They figured that if you were badass enough for that, you deserved a place in Valhalla. (Makes sense - can you blame a Viking for not dying in battle, if he\\\'s so good that he always wins?)
*** You could blame the Viking in question on account of not having been chosen by a Valkyrie, since their whole schtick was to choose the warriors for Valhalla, and would therefor rearrange the battle so that they could collect their warrior while in top form. Doing such things as chaning the trajectories of the arrows. Of course if you are bad ass enough to even avoid a death tailored by demi-goddesses...
** Don\\\'t forget the honored dead had a 50/50 chance of going to Fólkvangr (Freya\\\'s realm) instead of Valhalla. Some interpretations make the divide whether you were what we call here a BloodKnight (Valhalla) or if you were defending your home and loved ones (Fólkvangr). Other versions make Fólkvangr open to anyone who died \\\"nobly.\\\"
* The Anglo-Saxons. After effectivly curbstomping the Britions, they settled into centuries of fighting anyone they could find, usually each other with wars between kingdoms occuring practically every year. Not only that, but they were obsessed with honour to the point where a warrior surviving a battle where his lord was killed was considered dishonorable in the extreme, and they were of the opinion that losing a battle wasn\\\'t shameful so long as the losing army fought with courage and didn\\\'t surrender, even when it was glaringly obvious at the start that they were going to lose. They fought the above mentioned Vikings for centuries and ultimatly won. Not particuarly suprisingly, the original Anglo-Saxon religion was basically the same as that of the Vikings, not that the eventual conversion to Christianity made a blind bit of difference.
* The Mamluks. Originally a warrior slave caste in the Egyptian Sultanate, they were intensively trained to be the perfect soldiers, and were taught the furusiyya, a code of courage, generosity, and battlefield (particularly cavalry) tactics. They were repeatedly sent to battle against the Crusaders, and are considered a major reason why most of the Crusades failed. They eventually took over Egypt, ruling for hundreds of years, even beating the Mongols, of all opponents, in 1260. When the Ottoman Turks took over Egypt, it was because they were using their own version of Mamluks, the Janissaries. It took Napoleon (with modern military training, a large conscript army, modern muskets, and Ottoman decadence) to finally beat them outright.
** Speaking of, the Jannissaries were Christian children converted to Islam and became the Sultan\\\'s personal guard. [[{{BFG}} And they packed heat]].
*For that matter most cultures have some aspect of this. Maybe HUMANS are a Proud Warrior Race.
** TruthInTelevision. Consider the \\\'\\\'point\\\'\\\' of storytelling: to take some aspect of human life and examine it at length. We wouldn\\\'t be writing about Proud Warrior Races if it weren\\\'t pertinent to us somehow. Having said that, to be a Proud Warrior Race, honor-from-beating-up-enemies would have to be \\\'\\\'central\\\'\\\' to human culture, and, it isn\\\'t, so we as a species don\\\'t count.
*** How dare you? [[IResembleThatRemark I\\\'m gonna kick your ass!]]
** Nah, we\\\'re [[HumansAreWarriors too well-organized to be a]] ProudWarriorRace.
*SPARTANS!
** Oh yes. If you weren\\\'t a Spartan warrior, it meant you were one of their slaves. And if you won every war you fought in and died in bed, you didn\\\'t even get a headstone.
*** Uh, no. Spartans weren\\\'t stupid (despite what \\\"300\\\" would have you believe). They knew they were a sharp minority (their style of raising Spartiates meant that there were never more than 9,000 at any given time), so while they did have slaves, called Helots, they also had a middle-class made up of immigrants and non-Spartiates called Perioikoi. They were treated with respect and all the dignity a middle class would have been. After all, they farmed the food and made the clothes the Spartans ate and wore. The Spartans knew better than to shit on those who fed and clothed them.
*** Yes, but they were given no say in any political decisions nor were allowed to interbreed with the Spartans.
*** Well, they also believed that if they allowed those things, that the Spartans would be less potent warriors. They needed to protect the genes. And if they allowed the middle class into politics, that could potentially disrupt the system they had set up to produce nigh-perfect [[ProudWarriorRaceGuy proud warrior race guys.]] So it\\\'s not like they didn\\\'t give them all their rights because they disrespected them.
** A [[CrossesTheLineTwice very]] [[DeadBabyComedy wise]] [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Troll man]] [[http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8516&IBLOCK_ID=35 once observed]] (probably NSFW), \\\"only amateur fascists admire the Spartans.\\\"
* The Romans and the Prussians, though known for far more than their fighting prowess, nevertheless held military values in high regard.
* The Celts. They were so nasty they scared the bejesus out of the Romans and actually managed to sack the city at one point. Reputedly, the Romans had to literally teach them (the hard way, natch) the concept of \\\"peace\\\" -- as in, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' just until they\\\'d recovered from the last fight.
** One tribe of Gauls did, The Celts one major cultural failing was their inability to unify which is why in the long run the Romans ate their lunch. On the other hand, even the Romans were aware that \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' the Celts been able to stop fighting each other and cooperate then they would\\\'ve had their asses kicked.
* The Mongols traditionally learn to ride a horse as early as they can \\\'\\\'walk\\\'\\\', and even today are known for their archery. Is it any wonder that these guys conquered so much of Asia?
** And kick Eastern Europe\\\'s ass.
** Hell, the Mongols were so terrifying the Christian world was convinced they were a punishment inflicted on them by Satan. Apparently Genghis Khan decided to confirm said idea.
*** Those were Muslims, and punishment from God, not Satan. The Christians thought for longest time that the Khan himself was a Christian who would deliver them from the perceived Muslim threat. These opinions changed quickly after they had some first-hand experience of him.
*** To be fair, the Sultan brought that one on himself when he executed Genghis\\\'s messengers who only wanted to trade.
***The Sultan\\\'s subjects \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\'.
** Also, at the time, fighting with mounted archers was \\\'\\\'simply unfair\\\'\\\'. If you had the best mounted archers, you had total control in the field, which means the only thing that can stop you is a fortress. In other words, you can move. They can\\\'t. In modern times, the only ways to fight a roaring horde of millions of horse archers would be a horde of choppers.
*** In truth, the effectiveness of mounted archers are debatable. What made the mongol horde deadly at the operational level was their horses; they were even smaller than contemporary European horses and could survive off grazing, which European horses (bread for heavy cavalry tactics and stamina) could not do. On the field, much of their work was done by feigned retreats (their horses were slower than Europe\\\'s) and hand cavalry action. Their conquests in much of Asia were handled by coming in -during- someone elses war and simply mopping up, or attacking weak and defenseless kingdoms.
****Many examples of a ProudWarriorRace got part of their reputation in uneven matches. War is not arranged like an athletic event.
*** [[NukeEm Or bombs.]]
*** I dunno, somehow I doubt archery would work very well against [[TankGoodness tanks]].
* Honor is important in American urban gang culture. This may be an answer to the \\\"open question\\\" in the introduction to this article.
** Most exemplified in modern culture with the Italian Mafia/Cosa Nostra, street gangs like the notorious ones in LA, not so much.
** Eh, debatable. The Mafia preached honor and loyalty to the family, the black and latino gangers to the Hood, and many a Prisoner has boasted about being a \\\'Righteous Con\\\', few really give more than lipservice to any code of conduct, they are all just criminals and there really is no honor among theives.
** To call random gangs honorable is a flat-out joke, they demand respect because they have guns and superior numbers at a given time, that\\\'s it, they aren\\\'t proud warrior guys they are common thugs and hoodlums, they are more like the opposite of proud warrior guy, they\\\'re cowards and shouldn\\\'t be described in any other way.
* This troper is surprised to find this article lacks a mention of the Japanese, particularly the Samurai, whom in his view many ProudWarriorRace cultures are based upon. The main ProudWarriorRaceGuy being Tokugawa who unified the country by warfare.
** \\\'\\\'[[ExOttoyuhr This]]\\\'\\\' troper is still trying to figure out whether the Japanese are a perfect example of this trope or a [[http://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Sword-Jewel-Kurt-Singer/dp/1873410697/ref=reader_auth_dp complete aversion of it]].
***It probably depends on the era. If you\\\'re talking about from the 1930s to 1945, then they would certainly count because of how militaristic they became. If you were talking about the pre-Tokugawa era, possibly. Nowadays, they\\\'re mostly an aversion, save for a minority of nationalists. But those guys are usually ignored.
[[/folder]]
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Seriously, why did the real life section get deleted? Yes, there is a \'\'lot\'\' of natter but the outdated \
to:
Seriously, why did the real life section get deleted? Yes, there is a \\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\' of natter but the outdated \\\"Martial Race\\\" ideology used by the British fits perfectly with this trope.
[[folder: RealLife]]
* A case of TruthInTelevision, as the British Empire (and others) had the designation \\\'Martial Race\\\' to describe just these sorts of peoples. The most familiar result of this concept are the Gurkhas in the service of the British Army. Of course, the truth of the classification is itself up for debate, so it might be a case of Possible Truth In Generalisation, which lacks an article.
** That said, it\\\'s hard to deny the appropriateness of this trope for, say, the Gurkhas, and the Rajputs in general.
*** The Rajputs and Gurkhas were warrior castes, the Indian caste system of old strictly defined what jobs people of certain birth could do, and these guys were designated to the soldiers, a direct analogue with the Feudal warriors of other civilizations. The Caste System was more stable than the European style feudalism, but both systems are long gone, but the pride of belonging has not.
** On the other hand, the Nation of Shopkeepers did decide to put itself at the top of this list (like all the others)... You could question this logic.
***Yes, but could the \\\'\\\'French, Spaniards, Dutch, Germans, Italians, Argentines, etc\\\'\\\' question that logic?
* It may be significant to note that a lot of present day Brits are [[InTheBlood decended from three of the warrior races mentioned below]], namely the Celts, Anglo-Saxons and, particuarly in the case of northerners, Vikings.
* The RealLife Vikings believed that only warriors went to the mead-hall of Valhalla (and got to fight again every day, just for fun). Those who died of other causes went to cold, barren, cheerless Hel, or just disappeared, depending on the how good people they were and which modern theory you subscribe to.
** There was a loophole to that. If you happened to be dying in bed for whatever reason, you had the option of taking your dagger and hacking the \\\'victory\\\' rune into your own torso. They figured that if you were badass enough for that, you deserved a place in Valhalla. (Makes sense - can you blame a Viking for not dying in battle, if he\\\'s so good that he always wins?)
*** You could blame the Viking in question on account of not having been chosen by a Valkyrie, since their whole schtick was to choose the warriors for Valhalla, and would therefor rearrange the battle so that they could collect their warrior while in top form. Doing such things as chaning the trajectories of the arrows. Of course if you are bad ass enough to even avoid a death tailored by demi-goddesses...
** Don\\\'t forget the honored dead had a 50/50 chance of going to Fólkvangr (Freya\\\'s realm) instead of Valhalla. Some interpretations make the divide whether you were what we call here a BloodKnight (Valhalla) or if you were defending your home and loved ones (Fólkvangr). Other versions make Fólkvangr open to anyone who died \\\"nobly.\\\"
* The Anglo-Saxons. After effectivly curbstomping the Britions, they settled into centuries of fighting anyone they could find, usually each other with wars between kingdoms occuring practically every year. Not only that, but they were obsessed with honour to the point where a warrior surviving a battle where his lord was killed was considered dishonorable in the extreme, and they were of the opinion that losing a battle wasn\\\'t shameful so long as the losing army fought with courage and didn\\\'t surrender, even when it was glaringly obvious at the start that they were going to lose. They fought the above mentioned Vikings for centuries and ultimatly won. Not particuarly suprisingly, the original Anglo-Saxon religion was basically the same as that of the Vikings, not that the eventual conversion to Christianity made a blind bit of difference.
* The Mamluks. Originally a warrior slave caste in the Egyptian Sultanate, they were intensively trained to be the perfect soldiers, and were taught the furusiyya, a code of courage, generosity, and battlefield (particularly cavalry) tactics. They were repeatedly sent to battle against the Crusaders, and are considered a major reason why most of the Crusades failed. They eventually took over Egypt, ruling for hundreds of years, even beating the Mongols, of all opponents, in 1260. When the Ottoman Turks took over Egypt, it was because they were using their own version of Mamluks, the Janissaries. It took Napoleon (with modern military training, a large conscript army, modern muskets, and Ottoman decadence) to finally beat them outright.
** Speaking of, the Jannissaries were Christian children converted to Islam and became the Sultan\\\'s personal guard. [[{{BFG}} And they packed heat]].
*For that matter most cultures have some aspect of this. Maybe HUMANS are a Proud Warrior Race.
** TruthInTelevision. Consider the \\\'\\\'point\\\'\\\' of storytelling: to take some aspect of human life and examine it at length. We wouldn\\\'t be writing about Proud Warrior Races if it weren\\\'t pertinent to us somehow. Having said that, to be a Proud Warrior Race, honor-from-beating-up-enemies would have to be \\\'\\\'central\\\'\\\' to human culture, and, it isn\\\'t, so we as a species don\\\'t count.
*** How dare you? [[IResembleThatRemark I\\\'m gonna kick your ass!]]
** Nah, we\\\'re [[HumansAreWarriors too well-organized to be a]] ProudWarriorRace.
*SPARTANS!
** Oh yes. If you weren\\\'t a Spartan warrior, it meant you were one of their slaves. And if you won every war you fought in and died in bed, you didn\\\'t even get a headstone.
*** Uh, no. Spartans weren\\\'t stupid (despite what \\\"300\\\" would have you believe). They knew they were a sharp minority (their style of raising Spartiates meant that there were never more than 9,000 at any given time), so while they did have slaves, called Helots, they also had a middle-class made up of immigrants and non-Spartiates called Perioikoi. They were treated with respect and all the dignity a middle class would have been. After all, they farmed the food and made the clothes the Spartans ate and wore. The Spartans knew better than to shit on those who fed and clothed them.
*** Yes, but they were given no say in any political decisions nor were allowed to interbreed with the Spartans.
*** Well, they also believed that if they allowed those things, that the Spartans would be less potent warriors. They needed to protect the genes. And if they allowed the middle class into politics, that could potentially disrupt the system they had set up to produce nigh-perfect [[ProudWarriorRaceGuy proud warrior race guys.]] So it\\\'s not like they didn\\\'t give them all their rights because they disrespected them.
** A [[CrossesTheLineTwice very]] [[DeadBabyComedy wise]] [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Troll man]] [[http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8516&IBLOCK_ID=35 once observed]] (probably NSFW), \\\"only amateur fascists admire the Spartans.\\\"
* The Romans and the Prussians, though known for far more than their fighting prowess, nevertheless held military values in high regard.
* The Celts. They were so nasty they scared the bejesus out of the Romans and actually managed to sack the city at one point. Reputedly, the Romans had to literally teach them (the hard way, natch) the concept of \\\"peace\\\" -- as in, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' just until they\\\'d recovered from the last fight.
** One tribe of Gauls did, The Celts one major cultural failing was their inability to unify which is why in the long run the Romans ate their lunch. On the other hand, even the Romans were aware that \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' the Celts been able to stop fighting each other and cooperate then they would\\\'ve had their asses kicked.
* The Mongols traditionally learn to ride a horse as early as they can \\\'\\\'walk\\\'\\\', and even today are known for their archery. Is it any wonder that these guys conquered so much of Asia?
** And kick Eastern Europe\\\'s ass.
** Hell, the Mongols were so terrifying the Christian world was convinced they were a punishment inflicted on them by Satan. Apparently Genghis Khan decided to confirm said idea.
*** Those were Muslims, and punishment from God, not Satan. The Christians thought for longest time that the Khan himself was a Christian who would deliver them from the perceived Muslim threat. These opinions changed quickly after they had some first-hand experience of him.
*** To be fair, the Sultan brought that one on himself when he executed Genghis\\\'s messengers who only wanted to trade.
***The Sultan\\\'s subjects \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\'.
** Also, at the time, fighting with mounted archers was \\\'\\\'simply unfair\\\'\\\'. If you had the best mounted archers, you had total control in the field, which means the only thing that can stop you is a fortress. In other words, you can move. They can\\\'t. In modern times, the only ways to fight a roaring horde of millions of horse archers would be a horde of choppers.
*** In truth, the effectiveness of mounted archers are debatable. What made the mongol horde deadly at the operational level was their horses; they were even smaller than contemporary European horses and could survive off grazing, which European horses (bread for heavy cavalry tactics and stamina) could not do. On the field, much of their work was done by feigned retreats (their horses were slower than Europe\\\'s) and hand cavalry action. Their conquests in much of Asia were handled by coming in -during- someone elses war and simply mopping up, or attacking weak and defenseless kingdoms.
****Many examples of a ProudWarriorRace got part of their reputation in uneven matches. War is not arranged like an athletic event.
*** [[NukeEm Or bombs.]]
*** I dunno, somehow I doubt archery would work very well against [[TankGoodness tanks]].
* Honor is important in American urban gang culture. This may be an answer to the \\\"open question\\\" in the introduction to this article.
** Most exemplified in modern culture with the Italian Mafia/Cosa Nostra, street gangs like the notorious ones in LA, not so much.
** Eh, debatable. The Mafia preached honor and loyalty to the family, the black and latino gangers to the Hood, and many a Prisoner has boasted about being a \\\'Righteous Con\\\', few really give more than lipservice to any code of conduct, they are all just criminals and there really is no honor among theives.
** To call random gangs honorable is a flat-out joke, they demand respect because they have guns and superior numbers at a given time, that\\\'s it, they aren\\\'t proud warrior guys they are common thugs and hoodlums, they are more like the opposite of proud warrior guy, they\\\'re cowards and shouldn\\\'t be described in any other way.
* This troper is surprised to find this article lacks a mention of the Japanese, particularly the Samurai, whom in his view many ProudWarriorRace cultures are based upon. The main ProudWarriorRaceGuy being Tokugawa who unified the country by warfare.
** \\\'\\\'[[ExOttoyuhr This]]\\\'\\\' troper is still trying to figure out whether the Japanese are a perfect example of this trope or a [[http://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Sword-Jewel-Kurt-Singer/dp/1873410697/ref=reader_auth_dp complete aversion of it]].
***It probably depends on the era. If you\\\'re talking about from the 1930s to 1945, then they would certainly count because of how militaristic they became. If you were talking about the pre-Tokugawa era, possibly. Nowadays, they\\\'re mostly an aversion, save for a minority of nationalists. But those guys are usually ignored.
[[/folder]]
[[folder: RealLife]]
* A case of TruthInTelevision, as the British Empire (and others) had the designation \\\'Martial Race\\\' to describe just these sorts of peoples. The most familiar result of this concept are the Gurkhas in the service of the British Army. Of course, the truth of the classification is itself up for debate, so it might be a case of Possible Truth In Generalisation, which lacks an article.
** That said, it\\\'s hard to deny the appropriateness of this trope for, say, the Gurkhas, and the Rajputs in general.
*** The Rajputs and Gurkhas were warrior castes, the Indian caste system of old strictly defined what jobs people of certain birth could do, and these guys were designated to the soldiers, a direct analogue with the Feudal warriors of other civilizations. The Caste System was more stable than the European style feudalism, but both systems are long gone, but the pride of belonging has not.
** On the other hand, the Nation of Shopkeepers did decide to put itself at the top of this list (like all the others)... You could question this logic.
***Yes, but could the \\\'\\\'French, Spaniards, Dutch, Germans, Italians, Argentines, etc\\\'\\\' question that logic?
* It may be significant to note that a lot of present day Brits are [[InTheBlood decended from three of the warrior races mentioned below]], namely the Celts, Anglo-Saxons and, particuarly in the case of northerners, Vikings.
* The RealLife Vikings believed that only warriors went to the mead-hall of Valhalla (and got to fight again every day, just for fun). Those who died of other causes went to cold, barren, cheerless Hel, or just disappeared, depending on the how good people they were and which modern theory you subscribe to.
** There was a loophole to that. If you happened to be dying in bed for whatever reason, you had the option of taking your dagger and hacking the \\\'victory\\\' rune into your own torso. They figured that if you were badass enough for that, you deserved a place in Valhalla. (Makes sense - can you blame a Viking for not dying in battle, if he\\\'s so good that he always wins?)
*** You could blame the Viking in question on account of not having been chosen by a Valkyrie, since their whole schtick was to choose the warriors for Valhalla, and would therefor rearrange the battle so that they could collect their warrior while in top form. Doing such things as chaning the trajectories of the arrows. Of course if you are bad ass enough to even avoid a death tailored by demi-goddesses...
** Don\\\'t forget the honored dead had a 50/50 chance of going to Fólkvangr (Freya\\\'s realm) instead of Valhalla. Some interpretations make the divide whether you were what we call here a BloodKnight (Valhalla) or if you were defending your home and loved ones (Fólkvangr). Other versions make Fólkvangr open to anyone who died \\\"nobly.\\\"
* The Anglo-Saxons. After effectivly curbstomping the Britions, they settled into centuries of fighting anyone they could find, usually each other with wars between kingdoms occuring practically every year. Not only that, but they were obsessed with honour to the point where a warrior surviving a battle where his lord was killed was considered dishonorable in the extreme, and they were of the opinion that losing a battle wasn\\\'t shameful so long as the losing army fought with courage and didn\\\'t surrender, even when it was glaringly obvious at the start that they were going to lose. They fought the above mentioned Vikings for centuries and ultimatly won. Not particuarly suprisingly, the original Anglo-Saxon religion was basically the same as that of the Vikings, not that the eventual conversion to Christianity made a blind bit of difference.
* The Mamluks. Originally a warrior slave caste in the Egyptian Sultanate, they were intensively trained to be the perfect soldiers, and were taught the furusiyya, a code of courage, generosity, and battlefield (particularly cavalry) tactics. They were repeatedly sent to battle against the Crusaders, and are considered a major reason why most of the Crusades failed. They eventually took over Egypt, ruling for hundreds of years, even beating the Mongols, of all opponents, in 1260. When the Ottoman Turks took over Egypt, it was because they were using their own version of Mamluks, the Janissaries. It took Napoleon (with modern military training, a large conscript army, modern muskets, and Ottoman decadence) to finally beat them outright.
** Speaking of, the Jannissaries were Christian children converted to Islam and became the Sultan\\\'s personal guard. [[{{BFG}} And they packed heat]].
*For that matter most cultures have some aspect of this. Maybe HUMANS are a Proud Warrior Race.
** TruthInTelevision. Consider the \\\'\\\'point\\\'\\\' of storytelling: to take some aspect of human life and examine it at length. We wouldn\\\'t be writing about Proud Warrior Races if it weren\\\'t pertinent to us somehow. Having said that, to be a Proud Warrior Race, honor-from-beating-up-enemies would have to be \\\'\\\'central\\\'\\\' to human culture, and, it isn\\\'t, so we as a species don\\\'t count.
*** How dare you? [[IResembleThatRemark I\\\'m gonna kick your ass!]]
** Nah, we\\\'re [[HumansAreWarriors too well-organized to be a]] ProudWarriorRace.
*SPARTANS!
** Oh yes. If you weren\\\'t a Spartan warrior, it meant you were one of their slaves. And if you won every war you fought in and died in bed, you didn\\\'t even get a headstone.
*** Uh, no. Spartans weren\\\'t stupid (despite what \\\"300\\\" would have you believe). They knew they were a sharp minority (their style of raising Spartiates meant that there were never more than 9,000 at any given time), so while they did have slaves, called Helots, they also had a middle-class made up of immigrants and non-Spartiates called Perioikoi. They were treated with respect and all the dignity a middle class would have been. After all, they farmed the food and made the clothes the Spartans ate and wore. The Spartans knew better than to shit on those who fed and clothed them.
*** Yes, but they were given no say in any political decisions nor were allowed to interbreed with the Spartans.
*** Well, they also believed that if they allowed those things, that the Spartans would be less potent warriors. They needed to protect the genes. And if they allowed the middle class into politics, that could potentially disrupt the system they had set up to produce nigh-perfect [[ProudWarriorRaceGuy proud warrior race guys.]] So it\\\'s not like they didn\\\'t give them all their rights because they disrespected them.
** A [[CrossesTheLineTwice very]] [[DeadBabyComedy wise]] [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Troll man]] [[http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8516&IBLOCK_ID=35 once observed]] (probably NSFW), \\\"only amateur fascists admire the Spartans.\\\"
* The Romans and the Prussians, though known for far more than their fighting prowess, nevertheless held military values in high regard.
* The Celts. They were so nasty they scared the bejesus out of the Romans and actually managed to sack the city at one point. Reputedly, the Romans had to literally teach them (the hard way, natch) the concept of \\\"peace\\\" -- as in, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' just until they\\\'d recovered from the last fight.
** One tribe of Gauls did, The Celts one major cultural failing was their inability to unify which is why in the long run the Romans ate their lunch. On the other hand, even the Romans were aware that \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' the Celts been able to stop fighting each other and cooperate then they would\\\'ve had their asses kicked.
* The Mongols traditionally learn to ride a horse as early as they can \\\'\\\'walk\\\'\\\', and even today are known for their archery. Is it any wonder that these guys conquered so much of Asia?
** And kick Eastern Europe\\\'s ass.
** Hell, the Mongols were so terrifying the Christian world was convinced they were a punishment inflicted on them by Satan. Apparently Genghis Khan decided to confirm said idea.
*** Those were Muslims, and punishment from God, not Satan. The Christians thought for longest time that the Khan himself was a Christian who would deliver them from the perceived Muslim threat. These opinions changed quickly after they had some first-hand experience of him.
*** To be fair, the Sultan brought that one on himself when he executed Genghis\\\'s messengers who only wanted to trade.
***The Sultan\\\'s subjects \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\'.
** Also, at the time, fighting with mounted archers was \\\'\\\'simply unfair\\\'\\\'. If you had the best mounted archers, you had total control in the field, which means the only thing that can stop you is a fortress. In other words, you can move. They can\\\'t. In modern times, the only ways to fight a roaring horde of millions of horse archers would be a horde of choppers.
*** In truth, the effectiveness of mounted archers are debatable. What made the mongol horde deadly at the operational level was their horses; they were even smaller than contemporary European horses and could survive off grazing, which European horses (bread for heavy cavalry tactics and stamina) could not do. On the field, much of their work was done by feigned retreats (their horses were slower than Europe\\\'s) and hand cavalry action. Their conquests in much of Asia were handled by coming in -during- someone elses war and simply mopping up, or attacking weak and defenseless kingdoms.
****Many examples of a ProudWarriorRace got part of their reputation in uneven matches. War is not arranged like an athletic event.
*** [[NukeEm Or bombs.]]
*** I dunno, somehow I doubt archery would work very well against [[TankGoodness tanks]].
* Honor is important in American urban gang culture. This may be an answer to the \\\"open question\\\" in the introduction to this article.
** Most exemplified in modern culture with the Italian Mafia/Cosa Nostra, street gangs like the notorious ones in LA, not so much.
** Eh, debatable. The Mafia preached honor and loyalty to the family, the black and latino gangers to the Hood, and many a Prisoner has boasted about being a \\\'Righteous Con\\\', few really give more than lipservice to any code of conduct, they are all just criminals and there really is no honor among theives.
** To call random gangs honorable is a flat-out joke, they demand respect because they have guns and superior numbers at a given time, that\\\'s it, they aren\\\'t proud warrior guys they are common thugs and hoodlums, they are more like the opposite of proud warrior guy, they\\\'re cowards and shouldn\\\'t be described in any other way.
* This troper is surprised to find this article lacks a mention of the Japanese, particularly the Samurai, whom in his view many ProudWarriorRace cultures are based upon. The main ProudWarriorRaceGuy being Tokugawa who unified the country by warfare.
** \\\'\\\'[[ExOttoyuhr This]]\\\'\\\' troper is still trying to figure out whether the Japanese are a perfect example of this trope or a [[http://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Sword-Jewel-Kurt-Singer/dp/1873410697/ref=reader_auth_dp complete aversion of it]].
***It probably depends on the era. If you\\\'re talking about from the 1930s to 1945, then they would certainly count because of how militaristic they became. If you were talking about the pre-Tokugawa era, possibly. Nowadays, they\\\'re mostly an aversion, save for a minority of nationalists. But those guys are usually ignored.
[[/folder]]
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Seriously, why did the real life section get deleted? Yes, there is a \'\'lot\'\' of natter but the outdated \
to:
Seriously, why did the real life section get deleted? Yes, there is a \\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\' of natter but the outdated \\\"Martial Race\\\" ideology used by the British fits perfectly with this trope.
[[folder: RealLife]]
* A case of TruthInTelevision, as the British Empire (and others) had the designation \\\'Martial Race\\\' to describe just these sorts of peoples. The most familiar result of this concept are the Gurkhas in the service of the British Army. Of course, the truth of the classification is itself up for debate, so it might be a case of Possible Truth In Generalisation, which lacks an article.
** That said, it\\\'s hard to deny the appropriateness of this trope for, say, the Gurkhas, and the Rajputs in general.
*** The Rajputs and Gurkhas were warrior castes, the Indian caste system of old strictly defined what jobs people of certain birth could do, and these guys were designated to the soldiers, a direct analogue with the Feudal warriors of other civilizations. The Caste System was more stable than the European style feudalism, but both systems are long gone, but the pride of belonging has not.
** On the other hand, the Nation of Shopkeepers did decide to put itself at the top of this list (like all the others)... You could question this logic.
***Yes, but could the \\\'\\\'French, Spaniards, Dutch, Germans, Italians, Argentines, etc\\\'\\\' question that logic?
**** It may be significant to note that a lot of present day Brits are [[InTheBlood decended from three of the warrior races mentioned below]], namely the Celts, Anglo-Saxons and, particuarly in the case of northerners, Vikings.
* The RealLife Vikings believed that only warriors went to the mead-hall of Valhalla (and got to fight again every day, just for fun). Those who died of other causes went to cold, barren, cheerless Hel, or just disappeared, depending on the how good people they were and which modern theory you subscribe to.
** There was a loophole to that. If you happened to be dying in bed for whatever reason, you had the option of taking your dagger and hacking the \\\'victory\\\' rune into your own torso. They figured that if you were badass enough for that, you deserved a place in Valhalla. (Makes sense - can you blame a Viking for not dying in battle, if he\\\'s so good that he always wins?)
*** You could blame the Viking in question on account of not having been chosen by a Valkyrie, since their whole schtick was to choose the warriors for Valhalla, and would therefor rearrange the battle so that they could collect their warrior while in top form. Doing such things as chaning the trajectories of the arrows. Of course if you are bad ass enough to even avoid a death tailored by demi-goddesses...
** Don\\\'t forget the honored dead had a 50/50 chance of going to Fólkvangr (Freya\\\'s realm) instead of Valhalla. Some interpretations make the divide whether you were what we call here a BloodKnight (Valhalla) or if you were defending your home and loved ones (Fólkvangr). Other versions make Fólkvangr open to anyone who died \\\"nobly.\\\"
* The Anglo-Saxons. After effectivly curbstomping the Britions, they settled into centuries of fighting anyone they could find, usually each other with wars between kingdoms occuring practically every year. Not only that, but they were obsessed with honour to the point where a warrior surviving a battle where his lord was killed was considered dishonorable in the extreme, and they were of the opinion that losing a battle wasn\\\'t shameful so long as the losing army fought with courage and didn\\\'t surrender, even when it was glaringly obvious at the start that they were going to lose. They fought the above mentioned Vikings for centuries and ultimatly won. Not particuarly suprisingly, the original Anglo-Saxon religion was basically the same as that of the Vikings, not that the eventual conversion to Christianity made a blind bit of difference.
* The Mamluks. Originally a warrior slave caste in the Egyptian Sultanate, they were intensively trained to be the perfect soldiers, and were taught the furusiyya, a code of courage, generosity, and battlefield (particularly cavalry) tactics. They were repeatedly sent to battle against the Crusaders, and are considered a major reason why most of the Crusades failed. They eventually took over Egypt, ruling for hundreds of years, even beating the Mongols, of all opponents, in 1260. When the Ottoman Turks took over Egypt, it was because they were using their own version of Mamluks, the Janissaries. It took Napoleon (with modern military training, a large conscript army, modern muskets, and Ottoman decadence) to finally beat them outright.
** Speaking of, the Jannissaries were Christian children converted to Islam and became the Sultan\\\'s personal guard. [[{{BFG}} And they packed heat]].
*For that matter most cultures have some aspect of this. Maybe HUMANS are a Proud Warrior Race.
** TruthInTelevision. Consider the \\\'\\\'point\\\'\\\' of storytelling: to take some aspect of human life and examine it at length. We wouldn\\\'t be writing about Proud Warrior Races if it weren\\\'t pertinent to us somehow. Having said that, to be a Proud Warrior Race, honor-from-beating-up-enemies would have to be \\\'\\\'central\\\'\\\' to human culture, and, it isn\\\'t, so we as a species don\\\'t count.
*** How dare you? [[IResembleThatRemark I\\\'m gonna kick your ass!]]
** Nah, we\\\'re [[HumansAreWarriors too well-organized to be a]] ProudWarriorRace.
*SPARTANS!
** Oh yes. If you weren\\\'t a Spartan warrior, it meant you were one of their slaves. And if you won every war you fought in and died in bed, you didn\\\'t even get a headstone.
*** Uh, no. Spartans weren\\\'t stupid (despite what \\\"300\\\" would have you believe). They knew they were a sharp minority (their style of raising Spartiates meant that there were never more than 9,000 at any given time), so while they did have slaves, called Helots, they also had a middle-class made up of immigrants and non-Spartiates called Perioikoi. They were treated with respect and all the dignity a middle class would have been. After all, they farmed the food and made the clothes the Spartans ate and wore. The Spartans knew better than to shit on those who fed and clothed them.
*** Yes, but they were given no say in any political decisions nor were allowed to interbreed with the Spartans.
*** Well, they also believed that if they allowed those things, that the Spartans would be less potent warriors. They needed to protect the genes. And if they allowed the middle class into politics, that could potentially disrupt the system they had set up to produce nigh-perfect [[ProudWarriorRaceGuy proud warrior race guys.]] So it\\\'s not like they didn\\\'t give them all their rights because they disrespected them.
** A [[CrossesTheLineTwice very]] [[DeadBabyComedy wise]] [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Troll man]] [[http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8516&IBLOCK_ID=35 once observed]] (probably NSFW), \\\"only amateur fascists admire the Spartans.\\\"
* The Romans and the Prussians, though known for far more than their fighting prowess, nevertheless held military values in high regard.
* The Celts. They were so nasty they scared the bejesus out of the Romans and actually managed to sack the city at one point. Reputedly, the Romans had to literally teach them (the hard way, natch) the concept of \\\"peace\\\" -- as in, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' just until they\\\'d recovered from the last fight.
** One tribe of Gauls did, The Celts one major cultural failing was their inability to unify which is why in the long run the Romans ate their lunch. On the other hand, even the Romans were aware that \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' the Celts been able to stop fighting each other and cooperate then they would\\\'ve had their asses kicked.
* The Mongols traditionally learn to ride a horse as early as they can \\\'\\\'walk\\\'\\\', and even today are known for their archery. Is it any wonder that these guys conquered so much of Asia?
** And kick Eastern Europe\\\'s ass.
** Hell, the Mongols were so terrifying the Christian world was convinced they were a punishment inflicted on them by Satan. Apparently Genghis Khan decided to confirm said idea.
*** Those were Muslims, and punishment from God, not Satan. The Christians thought for longest time that the Khan himself was a Christian who would deliver them from the perceived Muslim threat. These opinions changed quickly after they had some first-hand experience of him.
*** To be fair, the Sultan brought that one on himself when he executed Genghis\\\'s messengers who only wanted to trade.
***The Sultan\\\'s subjects \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\'.
** Also, at the time, fighting with mounted archers was \\\'\\\'simply unfair\\\'\\\'. If you had the best mounted archers, you had total control in the field, which means the only thing that can stop you is a fortress. In other words, you can move. They can\\\'t. In modern times, the only ways to fight a roaring horde of millions of horse archers would be a horde of choppers.
*** In truth, the effectiveness of mounted archers are debatable. What made the mongol horde deadly at the operational level was their horses; they were even smaller than contemporary European horses and could survive off grazing, which European horses (bread for heavy cavalry tactics and stamina) could not do. On the field, much of their work was done by feigned retreats (their horses were slower than Europe\\\'s) and hand cavalry action. Their conquests in much of Asia were handled by coming in -during- someone elses war and simply mopping up, or attacking weak and defenseless kingdoms.
****Many examples of a ProudWarriorRace got part of their reputation in uneven matches. War is not arranged like an athletic event.
*** [[NukeEm Or bombs.]]
*** I dunno, somehow I doubt archery would work very well against [[TankGoodness tanks]].
* Honor is important in American urban gang culture. This may be an answer to the \\\"open question\\\" in the introduction to this article.
** Most exemplified in modern culture with the Italian Mafia/Cosa Nostra, street gangs like the notorious ones in LA, not so much.
** Eh, debatable. The Mafia preached honor and loyalty to the family, the black and latino gangers to the Hood, and many a Prisoner has boasted about being a \\\'Righteous Con\\\', few really give more than lipservice to any code of conduct, they are all just criminals and there really is no honor among theives.
** To call random gangs honorable is a flat-out joke, they demand respect because they have guns and superior numbers at a given time, that\\\'s it, they aren\\\'t proud warrior guys they are common thugs and hoodlums, they are more like the opposite of proud warrior guy, they\\\'re cowards and shouldn\\\'t be described in any other way.
* This troper is surprised to find this article lacks a mention of the Japanese, particularly the Samurai, whom in his view many ProudWarriorRace cultures are based upon. The main ProudWarriorRaceGuy being Tokugawa who unified the country by warfare.
** \\\'\\\'[[ExOttoyuhr This]]\\\'\\\' troper is still trying to figure out whether the Japanese are a perfect example of this trope or a [[http://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Sword-Jewel-Kurt-Singer/dp/1873410697/ref=reader_auth_dp complete aversion of it]].
***It probably depends on the era. If you\\\'re talking about from the 1930s to 1945, then they would certainly count because of how militaristic they became. If you were talking about the pre-Tokugawa era, possibly. Nowadays, they\\\'re mostly an aversion, save for a minority of nationalists. But those guys are usually ignored.
[[/folder]]
[[folder: RealLife]]
* A case of TruthInTelevision, as the British Empire (and others) had the designation \\\'Martial Race\\\' to describe just these sorts of peoples. The most familiar result of this concept are the Gurkhas in the service of the British Army. Of course, the truth of the classification is itself up for debate, so it might be a case of Possible Truth In Generalisation, which lacks an article.
** That said, it\\\'s hard to deny the appropriateness of this trope for, say, the Gurkhas, and the Rajputs in general.
*** The Rajputs and Gurkhas were warrior castes, the Indian caste system of old strictly defined what jobs people of certain birth could do, and these guys were designated to the soldiers, a direct analogue with the Feudal warriors of other civilizations. The Caste System was more stable than the European style feudalism, but both systems are long gone, but the pride of belonging has not.
** On the other hand, the Nation of Shopkeepers did decide to put itself at the top of this list (like all the others)... You could question this logic.
***Yes, but could the \\\'\\\'French, Spaniards, Dutch, Germans, Italians, Argentines, etc\\\'\\\' question that logic?
**** It may be significant to note that a lot of present day Brits are [[InTheBlood decended from three of the warrior races mentioned below]], namely the Celts, Anglo-Saxons and, particuarly in the case of northerners, Vikings.
* The RealLife Vikings believed that only warriors went to the mead-hall of Valhalla (and got to fight again every day, just for fun). Those who died of other causes went to cold, barren, cheerless Hel, or just disappeared, depending on the how good people they were and which modern theory you subscribe to.
** There was a loophole to that. If you happened to be dying in bed for whatever reason, you had the option of taking your dagger and hacking the \\\'victory\\\' rune into your own torso. They figured that if you were badass enough for that, you deserved a place in Valhalla. (Makes sense - can you blame a Viking for not dying in battle, if he\\\'s so good that he always wins?)
*** You could blame the Viking in question on account of not having been chosen by a Valkyrie, since their whole schtick was to choose the warriors for Valhalla, and would therefor rearrange the battle so that they could collect their warrior while in top form. Doing such things as chaning the trajectories of the arrows. Of course if you are bad ass enough to even avoid a death tailored by demi-goddesses...
** Don\\\'t forget the honored dead had a 50/50 chance of going to Fólkvangr (Freya\\\'s realm) instead of Valhalla. Some interpretations make the divide whether you were what we call here a BloodKnight (Valhalla) or if you were defending your home and loved ones (Fólkvangr). Other versions make Fólkvangr open to anyone who died \\\"nobly.\\\"
* The Anglo-Saxons. After effectivly curbstomping the Britions, they settled into centuries of fighting anyone they could find, usually each other with wars between kingdoms occuring practically every year. Not only that, but they were obsessed with honour to the point where a warrior surviving a battle where his lord was killed was considered dishonorable in the extreme, and they were of the opinion that losing a battle wasn\\\'t shameful so long as the losing army fought with courage and didn\\\'t surrender, even when it was glaringly obvious at the start that they were going to lose. They fought the above mentioned Vikings for centuries and ultimatly won. Not particuarly suprisingly, the original Anglo-Saxon religion was basically the same as that of the Vikings, not that the eventual conversion to Christianity made a blind bit of difference.
* The Mamluks. Originally a warrior slave caste in the Egyptian Sultanate, they were intensively trained to be the perfect soldiers, and were taught the furusiyya, a code of courage, generosity, and battlefield (particularly cavalry) tactics. They were repeatedly sent to battle against the Crusaders, and are considered a major reason why most of the Crusades failed. They eventually took over Egypt, ruling for hundreds of years, even beating the Mongols, of all opponents, in 1260. When the Ottoman Turks took over Egypt, it was because they were using their own version of Mamluks, the Janissaries. It took Napoleon (with modern military training, a large conscript army, modern muskets, and Ottoman decadence) to finally beat them outright.
** Speaking of, the Jannissaries were Christian children converted to Islam and became the Sultan\\\'s personal guard. [[{{BFG}} And they packed heat]].
*For that matter most cultures have some aspect of this. Maybe HUMANS are a Proud Warrior Race.
** TruthInTelevision. Consider the \\\'\\\'point\\\'\\\' of storytelling: to take some aspect of human life and examine it at length. We wouldn\\\'t be writing about Proud Warrior Races if it weren\\\'t pertinent to us somehow. Having said that, to be a Proud Warrior Race, honor-from-beating-up-enemies would have to be \\\'\\\'central\\\'\\\' to human culture, and, it isn\\\'t, so we as a species don\\\'t count.
*** How dare you? [[IResembleThatRemark I\\\'m gonna kick your ass!]]
** Nah, we\\\'re [[HumansAreWarriors too well-organized to be a]] ProudWarriorRace.
*SPARTANS!
** Oh yes. If you weren\\\'t a Spartan warrior, it meant you were one of their slaves. And if you won every war you fought in and died in bed, you didn\\\'t even get a headstone.
*** Uh, no. Spartans weren\\\'t stupid (despite what \\\"300\\\" would have you believe). They knew they were a sharp minority (their style of raising Spartiates meant that there were never more than 9,000 at any given time), so while they did have slaves, called Helots, they also had a middle-class made up of immigrants and non-Spartiates called Perioikoi. They were treated with respect and all the dignity a middle class would have been. After all, they farmed the food and made the clothes the Spartans ate and wore. The Spartans knew better than to shit on those who fed and clothed them.
*** Yes, but they were given no say in any political decisions nor were allowed to interbreed with the Spartans.
*** Well, they also believed that if they allowed those things, that the Spartans would be less potent warriors. They needed to protect the genes. And if they allowed the middle class into politics, that could potentially disrupt the system they had set up to produce nigh-perfect [[ProudWarriorRaceGuy proud warrior race guys.]] So it\\\'s not like they didn\\\'t give them all their rights because they disrespected them.
** A [[CrossesTheLineTwice very]] [[DeadBabyComedy wise]] [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Troll man]] [[http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8516&IBLOCK_ID=35 once observed]] (probably NSFW), \\\"only amateur fascists admire the Spartans.\\\"
* The Romans and the Prussians, though known for far more than their fighting prowess, nevertheless held military values in high regard.
* The Celts. They were so nasty they scared the bejesus out of the Romans and actually managed to sack the city at one point. Reputedly, the Romans had to literally teach them (the hard way, natch) the concept of \\\"peace\\\" -- as in, \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' just until they\\\'d recovered from the last fight.
** One tribe of Gauls did, The Celts one major cultural failing was their inability to unify which is why in the long run the Romans ate their lunch. On the other hand, even the Romans were aware that \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' the Celts been able to stop fighting each other and cooperate then they would\\\'ve had their asses kicked.
* The Mongols traditionally learn to ride a horse as early as they can \\\'\\\'walk\\\'\\\', and even today are known for their archery. Is it any wonder that these guys conquered so much of Asia?
** And kick Eastern Europe\\\'s ass.
** Hell, the Mongols were so terrifying the Christian world was convinced they were a punishment inflicted on them by Satan. Apparently Genghis Khan decided to confirm said idea.
*** Those were Muslims, and punishment from God, not Satan. The Christians thought for longest time that the Khan himself was a Christian who would deliver them from the perceived Muslim threat. These opinions changed quickly after they had some first-hand experience of him.
*** To be fair, the Sultan brought that one on himself when he executed Genghis\\\'s messengers who only wanted to trade.
***The Sultan\\\'s subjects \\\'\\\'didn\\\'t\\\'\\\'.
** Also, at the time, fighting with mounted archers was \\\'\\\'simply unfair\\\'\\\'. If you had the best mounted archers, you had total control in the field, which means the only thing that can stop you is a fortress. In other words, you can move. They can\\\'t. In modern times, the only ways to fight a roaring horde of millions of horse archers would be a horde of choppers.
*** In truth, the effectiveness of mounted archers are debatable. What made the mongol horde deadly at the operational level was their horses; they were even smaller than contemporary European horses and could survive off grazing, which European horses (bread for heavy cavalry tactics and stamina) could not do. On the field, much of their work was done by feigned retreats (their horses were slower than Europe\\\'s) and hand cavalry action. Their conquests in much of Asia were handled by coming in -during- someone elses war and simply mopping up, or attacking weak and defenseless kingdoms.
****Many examples of a ProudWarriorRace got part of their reputation in uneven matches. War is not arranged like an athletic event.
*** [[NukeEm Or bombs.]]
*** I dunno, somehow I doubt archery would work very well against [[TankGoodness tanks]].
* Honor is important in American urban gang culture. This may be an answer to the \\\"open question\\\" in the introduction to this article.
** Most exemplified in modern culture with the Italian Mafia/Cosa Nostra, street gangs like the notorious ones in LA, not so much.
** Eh, debatable. The Mafia preached honor and loyalty to the family, the black and latino gangers to the Hood, and many a Prisoner has boasted about being a \\\'Righteous Con\\\', few really give more than lipservice to any code of conduct, they are all just criminals and there really is no honor among theives.
** To call random gangs honorable is a flat-out joke, they demand respect because they have guns and superior numbers at a given time, that\\\'s it, they aren\\\'t proud warrior guys they are common thugs and hoodlums, they are more like the opposite of proud warrior guy, they\\\'re cowards and shouldn\\\'t be described in any other way.
* This troper is surprised to find this article lacks a mention of the Japanese, particularly the Samurai, whom in his view many ProudWarriorRace cultures are based upon. The main ProudWarriorRaceGuy being Tokugawa who unified the country by warfare.
** \\\'\\\'[[ExOttoyuhr This]]\\\'\\\' troper is still trying to figure out whether the Japanese are a perfect example of this trope or a [[http://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Sword-Jewel-Kurt-Singer/dp/1873410697/ref=reader_auth_dp complete aversion of it]].
***It probably depends on the era. If you\\\'re talking about from the 1930s to 1945, then they would certainly count because of how militaristic they became. If you were talking about the pre-Tokugawa era, possibly. Nowadays, they\\\'re mostly an aversion, save for a minority of nationalists. But those guys are usually ignored.
[[/folder]]
