Warrior Ethnies and Big National Territories

[Guararapes]

History is made of fierce ethno-national armed vanguards. The size of a State's territory is the expression of the military strength and the power of a warrior ethnic core. The size of a territory means the victorious wars and conquests fought in history. We can divide the world in terms of the warrior chosen ones who could establish the biggest National States of the world and the failed ethnies of the mini-states and the failed masses or ethnies that immigrated to another State with a different language and different nationality. Everything great needs Heimat and tradition, Heidegger states. The struggle for World Power in this century will be a fight between the ethnic cores of the United States and the BRIC countries. Only the Middle East and Europe developed the concept of a conquering Empire. A Slave Empire is an European idea. I am interested in the build-up and comparative history of the military Ethno-National conquering elites and personnel of the big five ones: United States, Brazil, Russia, China and India.

[Groenewolf]

I think India became more one country thanks to conquering outsiders.

[Albion]

A large territory means nothing if the quality of the land is rubbish. Look at Canada, is that really a warrior country? Is that really an amazing prize for a warrior race? No offence, but America which is smaller probably has the better territory.

Often the largest countries are the ones with the shitest territory. Take Russia, Brazil or Australia as examples - most of their territory is quite frankly, shit.
Whilst they do have vast areas of good land as well, most of their lands are wilderness.

I think smaller countries with good territories are more likely the warrior ethnicities. These are lands that people really fight over, just look at the history of Europe.
Then if we look at more peripheral areas like Sweden we can see that although they are bigger than the average European states the territory isn't as good so much fewer people have fought over it.

Warrior races are associated with small territories, Militarism and big countries is largely a recent phenomenon driven by resources.

[Romanion]

A large territory means nothing if the quality of the land is rubbish. Look at Canada, is that really a warrior country? Is that really an amazing prize for a warrior race? No offence, but America which is smaller probably has the better territory.

Often the largest countries are the ones with the shitest territory. Take Russia, Brazil or Australia as examples - most of their territory is quite frankly, shit.
Whilst they do have vast areas of good land as well, most of their lands are wilderness.

I think smaller countries with good territories are more likely the warrior ethnicities. These are lands that people really fight over, just look at the history of Europe.
Then if we look at more peripheral areas like Sweden we can see that although they are bigger than the average European states the territory isn't as good so much fewer people have fought over it.

Warrior races are associated with small territories, Militarism and big countries is largely a recent phenomenon driven by resources.

This is true, the larger the land the more resources the larger the army you can maintian, but that doesn't mean the "warrior spirit" is greater. Armenia defeated the larger Azerbijani army and Israel has defeated a large coalition of arabs many times. Greece in world war 2 defeated the large Italian army invading into Epirus who outnumbered us 2:1 and had better heavy guns and an actual air force.

[arcticwolf]

Russians yeah but Brasil, USA etc who were the fierce and formidable opponents/empires they conquered? Let's not mix apples and oranges. :p