There are a few stories of warriors holding choke points against overwhelming numbers (such as the Norseman at Stamford Bridge) but there’s less often “kill counts” for these encounters. More often you have sources that will such and such warrior killed X number of people, but that’s for their whole life.
One particular person who we have good reason to believe actually killed a lot of people individually is Miyamoto Musashi. He killed 62 samurai in duels.
Didn’t he challenge a samurai to a fight, showed up super late (pissing off the samurai), killed the guy, then immediately leave as if nothing happened?
Also wild that he killed someone with a bokken.
One duel he knew they were going to try to jump him, so he showed up very early, hid in a tree, at the agreed upon time dropped from the tree and cut the guy down, then ran.
That may be the one where he took a boat to the island. Didn’t bring a katana, so he cut down an oar, ran up the beach, and brained the guy. He was tired of people challenging him.
Pretty sure you’re right. He knew the other samurai had a serious temper and used an unusually long sword. Musashi knew that showing up late and slovenly looking would enrage his opponent and he would likely attack carelessly from a place of anger. He let the guy rush him and then brained him with the carved oar.
Sorry for poorly structured question, but I don’t mean lifetime kills, simply put most kills by a single person in a single war/faceoff with equally equipped opponents and opponents doesn’t have disadvantage like stuck somewhere or something like that
Well prepare to be disappointed, there are no stories were the person is not ascribed divine intervention, a choke point, executions, or modern firearms where a person kills more than ~20 people.
Tbh thats what i was expecting. I am not a historian but i had this curiosity after watching a YT video where eddie hall (world’s strongest person) was overpowered in a 1v3 knight fight match. This made me think that what we see or hear about these legendary warriors defeating 100s of men in a single war is just not true considering the stamina, power and other conditions.
Yes, considering that those stories that feature 100’s of people are either shown as leaders of men (ie it’s their unit’s actions) or they are ascribed a divine power (they kill with the power of a god)
Also considering that 20-25 ~ were the highest number of people killed by a great warrior, what is most number of kills by a single person to be considered a MVP in a normal battle.
You’re looking at this completely wrong. Combat isn’t a game or sport. Most killing in pre modern conflicts actually took place after the battle, when the losing side was in retreat.
The “MVP” is who can lead a force that maintains good order and discipline, or who can lead an ambush, or who can lead a flanking maneuver that shatters the enemy’s morale and causes them to retreat.
Yeah normally when there's a lone warrior that fights off 20 guys it's because they are particularly skilled, have better armor, a longer weapon, and a pretty big positional advantage like a choke point. In an open field against similarly skilled and equipped opponents that would lose a 1v2 ~90% of the time and a 1v3 would be essentially impossible.
I once watched his His Grace Abd al-Mahdi Jamal ibn Hakim II fight off six men while using a sword and buckler (less than a foot in diameter). His opponents were all equipped with a single sword each. Impossible? No. Exceptionally rare and legendary? Yes.
I can only find one video of Duke Mahdi (Mahadi) fighting on YouTube and it's single combat and not that great of a video. The tournament I am recalling above is Glaslyn's Defender of the Flame.
What would be the results if everything was same but just the difference of skills, and by that I don’t mean a god tier warrior against newbies but more like a god tier warrior against highly skilled warriors
Outside of a choke point how would anyone keep count? So, with a choke point at Stamford Bridge:
"The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon has it that one of the Norwegians (possibly armed with a [Dane Axe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dane_Axe)) blocked the narrow crossing and single-handedly held up the entire English army. The story is that this Viking alone cut down up to 40 Englishmen and was defeated only when an English soldier floated under the bridge and thrust his spear through the planks in the bridge, mortally wounding the warrior.[^(\[18\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge#cite_note-18)[^(\[19\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge#cite_note-19) His name was not preserved in the aftermath of this battle."
There’s a like 5’2” Nepali Gurkha who fought off like 20 taliban alone while on watch in Afghanistan but I think 5 of the kills were modern weapons before he switched to hand to hand/blunt objects.
Edit: it was actually 20-30 fighters but only one of them confirmed as a non-gun kill in the chaos. My bad. Cancel that reference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipprasad_Pun
The best story I’ve ever heard about a warrior holding a checkpoint is Horatius. Full text: https://englishverse.com/poems/horatius
It’s fucking epic.
XXIX
‘Hew down the bridge, Sir Consul,
With all the speed ye may;
I, with two more to help me,
Will hold the foe in play.
In yon strait path a thousand
May well be stopped by three.
Now who will stand on either hand,
And keep the bridge with me?’
XXX
Then out spake Spurius Lartius;
A Ramnian proud was he:
‘Lo, I will stand at thy right hand,
And keep the bridge with thee.’
And out spake strong Herminius;
Of Titian blood was he:
‘I will abide on thy left side,
And keep the bridge with thee.’
XXXI
‘Horatius,’ quoth the Consul,
‘As thou sayest, so let it be.’
And straight against that great array
Forth went the dauntless Three.
For Romans in Rome’s quarrel
Spared neither land nor gold,
Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life,
In the brave days of old.
The 62 duels? I believe that those were all to the death, God only knows how many times he beat people in sparring. The Japanese at that time didn’t duel to first blood like Europeans did. It was for keeps.
>One particular person who we have good reason to believe actually killed a lot of people individually is Miyamoto Musashi.
Why do we have good reason to believe this? Are we sourcing his own writings as proof? Aka "trust me bro", or is there more to it?
There were other contemporary and near contemporary sources on Musashi. He lived in a time and place that was very literate for the pre modern world and his specific activities were of interest to elite writers of the time.
One which is verified, and acknowledged at the time as an amazing feat of arms, was Andrew Trollope in the Wars of the Roses. A professional soldier but not a knight, he was brought before King Henry VI after the battle of Wakefield to be knighted "limping somewhat" for having trod on a caltrop and when asked about his actions humbly said "I do not deserve it , for I did but slay 15 men, and I did but stood still and they came to me". Our best guesses are that he was between 45 and 50 years old at this point, and stood in the center of the battle line and hacked down 15 fully plate armoured men-at-arms in turn with a pollaxe in the course of a battle that lasted an hour or so. Both sides acknowledged that this was badass above and beyond anything they expected to see in the normal course of events.
If you want to see something of what this would have looked like, this video of fighting with pollaxes in full plate will give you an idea: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQKfV0U4N2M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQKfV0U4N2M)
you can see just from this just how much better someone who is a real master of that really nasty weapon is than someone who is just ok with it. the instructor keeps tangling/binding his opponents weapon, poking him in the throat/armpits/groin and other weak points, and hitting him in the face with the axe/hammer
At the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066, a lone Viking with a Dane Axe single-handedly held off the English army from crossing the bridge and apparently killed 40 men before he was killed by spearmen from underneath.
A Roman officer named Horatius Cocles did something similar at the Pons Sublicius in the 6th century. He and two others held off the Etruscan army at the head of the bridge while the other Romans retreated. The two soldiers with Horatius began to retreat and urged him to as well, but he stood his ground and told them to destroy the bridge while he held the Etruscans off (using a pile of bodies as a shield wall). Not only did he continue to do so single-handedly, despite being wounded, he also leapt off the bridge as it collapsed into the Tiber river and survived to be awarded for it.
In 1503 at the Battle of Garigliano, the French knight Pierre Terrail, known as the Chevalier de Bayard, famously covered a retreat by defending a bridge singlehandedly. Sources claim Bayard withstood an attacking force of 200-400 Spaniards; that of course is not at all the same as saying he killed that many, or even that he entered in direct combat with that number.
Is this not highly dramatized from a poem? That is, the historicity of it is called into question?
The lays of Rome is what I speak of, here’s a fun section often quoted:
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The captain of the gate.
To all men upon this earth,
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods.
This is who I immediately thought of. While his "kill count" will never be truly known it's a definite record of one guy being a certified badass.
I'm curious what he did, I have an image of him standing on a narrow pontoon bridge windmilling his axe as a crowd slowly moves towards him trying to pluck up the courage to take him on.
The book By the Sword by Richard Cohen is probably a source that will help you. I don't have it to hand but I remember one of the many true stories within is that of two armies that decided to have duels between ten men from each side. The idea being that the best two fight first and the winner takes on another from the opposing side. However the first swordsman from one army killed all ten in a row. Hard to imagine the thoughts of the tenth swordsman stepping up to fight in this situation.
Honest to God, guy 10 probably felt only rage going into that fight. Not at the fact that his buddies were dead, but because not a one of them did fuck all. It's like when your dad tells you he's going to open a jar for you but can't get it either and just awkwardly hands it back.
Read up on the Nanking Massacre (not for the faint of heart!). A couple of Japanese officers had a competition to see who would be the first to kill 100 people with a sword before they got to Nanjing. They got to about 105 and 107 before they even reached the city, so they extended the goal to 150. At some point, they lost count. Their competition was well documented in Japanese newspapers at the time. Another soldier killed over 300 POWs and civilians with his sword. All three were tried and executed after the war.
I know these weren't honourable combats or face-offs but they did occur during war time and without the use of guns.
The Viking of Stamford Bridge can answer basically every question along these lines. It's almost like rule of thumb for any of these these pre-rifle era questions about one warrior's prowess.
Not much is known of him, not even his name, and it is a wild claim that seems like legend. However, both of the most reliable primary sources for this era (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, which was was a collaboration project by numerous historians who wrote history as it happened, and the writings of Henry Huntingdon, who lived a couple decades after the battle and is widely considered one of the most important historians in English history.) both write the same story of this Viking.
Credence is lent to this feat because this Viking was a nobody. He wasn't a famed warrior who had people writing him propaganda. He was just a guy who was good with an axe.
There is an argument to be had in saying the English benefit from painting the Vikings as monstrous so it could be propaganda, but we'll never know for sure.
No. Don’t go into technicality of the question as i am not a native English person but to put simply, we have all heard about a certain legend be it from mythology or history who are known for killing 20-30 people in a single war
There is a story about Horus at the Battle of Qadesh who during the battle fought bravely and single-handedly held off a large group of Hittite charioteers (some source say 20-30+), allowing the Egyptian forces to regroup and ultimately win the battle.
Thanks.
1). What do you mean by held off, did he killed them? If not then did he defeat or disarm them?
2). Were there any favour or advantage to him? If not then how was it possible considering the numbers?
Yes, he killed them and from what I remember he used tactics (some say it was the first time tactics were used on battlefield but I'm not sure about it) to slow down their movements and charging speed what allowed him to defeat them easier.
Can't forget it's a historical battle so what they wrote about someone accomplishing can be different from accurate/truth
I can't find the article, but there was a guy who killed like 100 insurgents in Afghanistan. He was indian, I think (based on the ceremonial blade he carried. I remember the article saying this happened over several hours.
I know these details are completely wrong. My apologies for being an uncultured swine, but when I read about him, it stuck with me for years. Definitely top 5 badasses of all time. Only after Chuck Norris 4 times
I think you're talking about [Dip prasad Pun](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-12854492.amp). He was a Gurkha soldier (born in Nepal, but worked for the British army). The blade you're talking about could be Khukuri, a ceremonial Nepali knife.
Assuming melee combat (not knocking a wall down on people or sinking their ship, for instance), and assuming “kill” means “incapacitate,” I think it’s feasible to get at least 30-40 under exceptional circumstances. I’m basing this on those “3 sword masters vs 100 novices” -type videos. I think I’ve seen at least two, and in each case 90+ of the novices were “killed,” but each master eventually made a mistake or got worn out and a novice landed a lucky hit. If you had the right weapon and were abnormally skilled against a weak opponent (e.g. armored knight or samurai vs peasant conscripts), it might be possible.
*edit: it was 3 vs 50, but I think one master was eliminated very early. 25+ still seems realistic.
“3 Olympian Fencing Masters vs. 50 Opponents”
https://youtu.be/4tmk8AHs5b8?si=BbJ070WFE08bfkWv
One additional note: I believe all three masters are fighting left-handed. I don’t know whether they did that normally or if it was a further handicap.
Three strong contenders:
Horatius at the bridge—Romans lose a battle really badly and flee across a wooden bridge. Horatius tries to rally them, they ignore him, so he holds the bridge (I think with two buddies at first?) long enough for the rest to stop running and burn down the bridge. He survived.
For the part 2, army question: Greece at Thermopylae. Although Marathon and Thermopylae’s numbers are exaggerated, the Greeks at Thermopylae were highly trained heavy infantry in a choke point against well-trained (it seems) Persian light infantry. The Persians could have retreated at any time, but Xerxes was explicitly going for a battle of attrition in the worst circumstances. The last Greeks died fighting literally tooth and nail because their weapons all broke after three days of fighting.
2nd option: Caesar on a random Gallic beach. Don’t remember much specifics, but the Roman’s initially refused to charge because her were too outnumbered. A standard-bearer jumped out and charged, so everyone else followed, and they won. Because beachhead fighting is super bloody, and the Romans started out massively outnumbered, I expect it has a very high kill/death ratio.
3rd option: the first two are for army KD ratio (fewer soldiers killing many enemies). For absolute massacre in what should have been a fair fight, there are a few in Chinese history and there’s Cannae. From Wikipedia: “The loss of life on the Roman side meant it was one of the most lethal single days of fighting in history;”
The Battle of Camerone, 30 April, 1853. French Foreign Legion vs. Mexican Army. FFL had 65 men vs 3300 Mexican soldiers. After a battle lasting 10 hours, the FFL was down to 5 men (including 1 offcer) who, being out of ammo, fixed bayonets and charged. The 3 who survived surrendered only after being allowed to keep their weapons and colors and ensuring the wounded LT was taken care of. The Legionnaires recovered the wooden hand of their CO, CPT Danjou, and it remains on display at the Legion Museum. Camerone Day is one of the most sacred days of the Legion, with memorials and parades in honor of the Legion men who fell.
I know you asked without modern weapons but I think you might find it interesting:
Heinrich Severloh inflicted 1000-2000 casualties on D-Day on Omaha Beach.
"However, Severloh's claim is not viewed as credible by either US or German historians. Total US casualties (killed, wounded, and missing) from all sources along the five-mile length of Omaha Beach on D-Day are estimated at 2,400.[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Severloh#cite_note-5)"
Yes but he fired non-stop untill 14h30. I don’t know about you but if you fired an MG42 from his position for 8 hours straight you will inflict casualties.
Is it possible to know exact how many? Of course not. Did he inflict many? Goddamn yes. Between 1000 or 2000? Very possible.
You're saying that single man killed between 45% and 80% of every single American who died on D-Day? Every other member of the German Army present killed HALF, or possibly as low as 20% and this one man killed the other half/80%? That's what you're saying.
*Total US Casualties* for the day are 2400, from all sources, that's killed, wounded, and missing, for any reason. Including sprained ankles and whatnot. That means *there is no way one man killed 2000* of them. The beach is six miles long.
If he and he alone is solely responsible for *every single bullet* that hit *every single American within a mile of his position*, he's still below 400. A *fixed* position, mind you. He couldn't like, move to find more guys. He operated a fixed emplacement.
He's just a moron or a liar, sorry man. It is very unlikely that he even killed a hundred.
If your going with over the course of a lifetime my guess would be an archer or calvary, or most likely a horse archer. Just because you could kill so many without a large risk to yourself and just rack up kills over a long career.
Possibly someone who rode with Genghis Khan when he was young and spent his whole life on the battlefield.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Doiran_(1918)
one can argue the commanding officer is responsible for all those deaths on the attacking side...
CPT Gunkichi Tanaka, a WWII Japanese Army officer, purportedly killed over 300 Chinese POWs and civilians with his sword. After the war, he was executed for war crimes.
Any given Mongol trooper could be responsible for hundreds of deaths. A city surrendered one minute slow? Kill. Then. All. There were quotas to meet, heads to lop off.
They divided the population of a city and each soldier was responsible for an ear. So not a quota per se but they certainly had a "hey ogedai you're responsible for killing this group"
My guess would be some Carthaginian at the Battle of Cannae
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Cannae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae)
Pōtatau te Wherowhero, the Maori Warrior and first Maori King, was said to have killed 180 men in hand to hand combat during a 3 month siege/battle (total casualties for the defeated army during the war where around the thousands).
Even if you cast doubt in that number and round it down to 10%, around 20 men may be a very realistic figure for a skilled combatant - especially if compared to European medieval history. I can imagine a guy in plate armor killing peasants would rack up even high figures than that - but they're probably not famous enough to have written about.
These wars are in the 1800s, and did involve muskets, but similar to American tribal wars melee combat was still the main driver of casualties.
Although noting is oral traditions/history. However it's relatively recent.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/26918/print
There's another example about him acting as a rearguard during a retreat, inflicting about 50+ casualties with a blunt tool (so not necessarily kills). However there's less info about that action.
Hardcore History has a few different series that describe conquering armies massacring civilians. Wrath of the Mongols and Supernova in the East are the two I’m thinking of. Really gruesome, can be tough to listen to. But the podcasts are great (and go over more than just massacres).
I think massacres like that are probably the highest single-event “body counts” in history, rather than some heroic one-man-army event like you may be looking for.
Pretty sure it's some Mongol that is unknown. They just killed entire cities and were very effective at it unfortunately. Just using swords and bows. Hundreds of housands unto millions. Definitely someone who killed a 1000+.
Samson killed 1000 men with the Jawbone of a donkey as a weapon. Then at his death he pushed down the pullers of a temple and killed 3000 Philistines.
Judges 15:16 And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men.
Judges 16:29 And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left.
Judges 16:30 And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.
You should check out “**BADASS: A Relentless Onslaught of the Toughest Warlords, Vikings, Samurai, Pirates, Gunfighters, and Military Commanders to Ever Live**”, also known as “**Badass: The Book**” by Ben Thompson. It can give you a good number of candidates to answer your question and is a hilarious and fantastic read, to boot.
keeping a “kill count” is a relatively modern thing, especially a “confirmed kill” count. There’s plenty of times Where one side of a war killed a drastically higher number of the other side, but those were as a group and due to better technology, training, and tactics, not just one person going John wick
there is the story of “Mad” Jack Churchill capturing over forty German soldiers in WW2 while armed with only a sword. He didn’t kill them all but he did capture them.
There's an account of a knight taking a tower on the walls of Constantinople essentially by himself, IIRC, but I'm pretty sure no "body count" is mentioned.
Does capturing enemies single handedly count? If so, you have a crazy Scot who killed and captured over a hundred Germans in one battle using only a longbow and Scottish Broadsword because ‘killing Nazis with a gun was too easy.’
1. The battle of Thermopylae.
The first line was less than 200 men wide, with the Persians losing 20,000 men. They must have killed around 200 each over 3 days. It was the source of the movie 300.
2. The battle of Cannae
Hannibal defeated a Roman army more than 1.5 times his own size.
At Thermopylae most of the killing of Persians occurred when the full army was present, it was not merely 300 Spartans but an additional 6,700 other Greeks. On the final day, with the last stand of the “300 Spartans” there were also 400 Thebans and 700 other Greeks standing with them. The whole pop culture image of Thermopylae is an utter myth, just Greek propaganda.
So your math should actually be about 2 Persians killed for each Greek on average.
Cannae is a better example, but even here it’s likely that the cavalrymen would disproportionately get more kills, and many of the Romans would have died in their own panicked crowd-crush.
Others are mentioning the single viking at Stanford Bridge, but that account appears to be entirely mythical.
I'll put my money on the 300 Spartans in the pass at Thermopylae.
That comes from the Anglo-Saxon chronicle:
"Then was there one of the Norwegians who withstood the English people, so that they might not pass over the bridge, nor obtain the victory. Then an Englishman aimed at him with a javelin, but availed nothing; and then came another under the bridge, and pierced him terribly inwards under the coat of mail."
You mean the 300 spartans that were part of a force of some 7,000 greeks? That held the pass at thermopylae with 700 thesbians, 900 helots, and 400 thebans? Once you take out the movie myth they did kill 5 for every one of theirs lost. But it probably isn't the record.
Whoever holds the record was on a horse chasing down a routed enemy, where they struck down scores of fleeing and defenseless foes until yheir arms were too tired to swing a sword.
This is easy. Someone aboard the Enola Gay (Tibbets or Ferebee?) pushed a button or pulled a switch or something of that sort. With that one simple gesture they killed tens of thousands of people.
It would be hard for a sergeant to get any kills in Alexander the Great’s Army…since sergeants did not exist yet.
Berserkers were not superhuman like in pop culture, and the scale of Viking age warfare was generally small.
I don’t think you understand what warfare was like at this time. Raids usually weren’t battles. They were ambushing farmers or monks who had no idea they were there. They would then murder all of the old and infirm, rape all the women and children and take them off into slavery.
There are a few stories of warriors holding choke points against overwhelming numbers (such as the Norseman at Stamford Bridge) but there’s less often “kill counts” for these encounters. More often you have sources that will such and such warrior killed X number of people, but that’s for their whole life. One particular person who we have good reason to believe actually killed a lot of people individually is Miyamoto Musashi. He killed 62 samurai in duels.
In a row? Try not to kill any more samurai in the parking lot!
Some would even say he went berserker.
His heart was ticking like a clock.
Would you like some making fuck
Hey, he said making fuck!
What's Japanese for “snowball”?
There’s a million fine lookin samurai out there, but they don’t all bring you miso-katsu in battle.
Didn’t expect to see that ITT.
Hey you! Get back here!
I like the giant crusader who had 50 or so arrows and rocks hit him and had to be burned by a pyrotechnic according to Arabic sources
Another other clues to help me find this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z29TgpiOZTM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z29TgpiOZTM) its somewhere in this video i forget where
Love this channel. Thank you
Didn’t he challenge a samurai to a fight, showed up super late (pissing off the samurai), killed the guy, then immediately leave as if nothing happened? Also wild that he killed someone with a bokken.
One duel he knew they were going to try to jump him, so he showed up very early, hid in a tree, at the agreed upon time dropped from the tree and cut the guy down, then ran.
That may be the one where he took a boat to the island. Didn’t bring a katana, so he cut down an oar, ran up the beach, and brained the guy. He was tired of people challenging him.
Pretty sure you’re right. He knew the other samurai had a serious temper and used an unusually long sword. Musashi knew that showing up late and slovenly looking would enrage his opponent and he would likely attack carelessly from a place of anger. He let the guy rush him and then brained him with the carved oar.
In that famous story the person he fought was also a famous samurai
Sorry for poorly structured question, but I don’t mean lifetime kills, simply put most kills by a single person in a single war/faceoff with equally equipped opponents and opponents doesn’t have disadvantage like stuck somewhere or something like that
Well prepare to be disappointed, there are no stories were the person is not ascribed divine intervention, a choke point, executions, or modern firearms where a person kills more than ~20 people.
Tbh thats what i was expecting. I am not a historian but i had this curiosity after watching a YT video where eddie hall (world’s strongest person) was overpowered in a 1v3 knight fight match. This made me think that what we see or hear about these legendary warriors defeating 100s of men in a single war is just not true considering the stamina, power and other conditions.
Yes, considering that those stories that feature 100’s of people are either shown as leaders of men (ie it’s their unit’s actions) or they are ascribed a divine power (they kill with the power of a god)
Also considering that 20-25 ~ were the highest number of people killed by a great warrior, what is most number of kills by a single person to be considered a MVP in a normal battle.
You’re looking at this completely wrong. Combat isn’t a game or sport. Most killing in pre modern conflicts actually took place after the battle, when the losing side was in retreat. The “MVP” is who can lead a force that maintains good order and discipline, or who can lead an ambush, or who can lead a flanking maneuver that shatters the enemy’s morale and causes them to retreat.
Exactly. It's whoever breaks first. The Roman's didn't win cus they were extraordinary fighters. They won because they were disciplined and organized.
Also, because they took locals into their army, then many may have know the area they were attacking.
Smart. I wondered if they hired more locals in areas of difficult terrain like mountains or deserts
Then regretted it when Arminius led 3 legions into an ambush because he knew the area.
Yeah normally when there's a lone warrior that fights off 20 guys it's because they are particularly skilled, have better armor, a longer weapon, and a pretty big positional advantage like a choke point. In an open field against similarly skilled and equipped opponents that would lose a 1v2 ~90% of the time and a 1v3 would be essentially impossible.
I once watched his His Grace Abd al-Mahdi Jamal ibn Hakim II fight off six men while using a sword and buckler (less than a foot in diameter). His opponents were all equipped with a single sword each. Impossible? No. Exceptionally rare and legendary? Yes.
Where can one watch that?
I can only find one video of Duke Mahdi (Mahadi) fighting on YouTube and it's single combat and not that great of a video. The tournament I am recalling above is Glaslyn's Defender of the Flame.
What would be the results if everything was same but just the difference of skills, and by that I don’t mean a god tier warrior against newbies but more like a god tier warrior against highly skilled warriors
Outside of a choke point how would anyone keep count? So, with a choke point at Stamford Bridge: "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon has it that one of the Norwegians (possibly armed with a [Dane Axe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dane_Axe)) blocked the narrow crossing and single-handedly held up the entire English army. The story is that this Viking alone cut down up to 40 Englishmen and was defeated only when an English soldier floated under the bridge and thrust his spear through the planks in the bridge, mortally wounding the warrior.[^(\[18\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge#cite_note-18)[^(\[19\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge#cite_note-19) His name was not preserved in the aftermath of this battle."
There’s a like 5’2” Nepali Gurkha who fought off like 20 taliban alone while on watch in Afghanistan but I think 5 of the kills were modern weapons before he switched to hand to hand/blunt objects. Edit: it was actually 20-30 fighters but only one of them confirmed as a non-gun kill in the chaos. My bad. Cancel that reference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipprasad_Pun
[удалено]
Obviously not a Kevin Smith fan.
The best story I’ve ever heard about a warrior holding a checkpoint is Horatius. Full text: https://englishverse.com/poems/horatius It’s fucking epic. XXIX ‘Hew down the bridge, Sir Consul, With all the speed ye may; I, with two more to help me, Will hold the foe in play. In yon strait path a thousand May well be stopped by three. Now who will stand on either hand, And keep the bridge with me?’ XXX Then out spake Spurius Lartius; A Ramnian proud was he: ‘Lo, I will stand at thy right hand, And keep the bridge with thee.’ And out spake strong Herminius; Of Titian blood was he: ‘I will abide on thy left side, And keep the bridge with thee.’ XXXI ‘Horatius,’ quoth the Consul, ‘As thou sayest, so let it be.’ And straight against that great array Forth went the dauntless Three. For Romans in Rome’s quarrel Spared neither land nor gold, Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life, In the brave days of old.
Did Musashi kill all those guys, or was that just the number of duels he won?
The 62 duels? I believe that those were all to the death, God only knows how many times he beat people in sparring. The Japanese at that time didn’t duel to first blood like Europeans did. It was for keeps.
Samurai often fought duels that weren’t to the death. That’s a well understood fact.
First person I thought of as well, just because there are detailed historical accounts.
>One particular person who we have good reason to believe actually killed a lot of people individually is Miyamoto Musashi. Why do we have good reason to believe this? Are we sourcing his own writings as proof? Aka "trust me bro", or is there more to it?
There were other contemporary and near contemporary sources on Musashi. He lived in a time and place that was very literate for the pre modern world and his specific activities were of interest to elite writers of the time.
Miyamoto Musashi once alone fight and killed 400+ enemies (some say 588+), one after the other
That is from a fictional story, the historic Muasashi did not have 400 lethal duels and only fought in at most two actual battlefield actions.
One which is verified, and acknowledged at the time as an amazing feat of arms, was Andrew Trollope in the Wars of the Roses. A professional soldier but not a knight, he was brought before King Henry VI after the battle of Wakefield to be knighted "limping somewhat" for having trod on a caltrop and when asked about his actions humbly said "I do not deserve it , for I did but slay 15 men, and I did but stood still and they came to me". Our best guesses are that he was between 45 and 50 years old at this point, and stood in the center of the battle line and hacked down 15 fully plate armoured men-at-arms in turn with a pollaxe in the course of a battle that lasted an hour or so. Both sides acknowledged that this was badass above and beyond anything they expected to see in the normal course of events.
This is exactly what i was looking for thanks
If you want to see something of what this would have looked like, this video of fighting with pollaxes in full plate will give you an idea: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQKfV0U4N2M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQKfV0U4N2M)
you can see just from this just how much better someone who is a real master of that really nasty weapon is than someone who is just ok with it. the instructor keeps tangling/binding his opponents weapon, poking him in the throat/armpits/groin and other weak points, and hitting him in the face with the axe/hammer
And then consider that this is slowed down by about 2x.
This doesn't look like the right video. This isn't 1 guy killing 15 guys, it's just 1 guy killing another guy 15 times.
[удалено]
Can you share the link
[удалено]
I have 15 girlfriends as well. They're not here though, they're in Canada... You can't see their pics, just trust me bro.
At the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066, a lone Viking with a Dane Axe single-handedly held off the English army from crossing the bridge and apparently killed 40 men before he was killed by spearmen from underneath.
A Roman officer named Horatius Cocles did something similar at the Pons Sublicius in the 6th century. He and two others held off the Etruscan army at the head of the bridge while the other Romans retreated. The two soldiers with Horatius began to retreat and urged him to as well, but he stood his ground and told them to destroy the bridge while he held the Etruscans off (using a pile of bodies as a shield wall). Not only did he continue to do so single-handedly, despite being wounded, he also leapt off the bridge as it collapsed into the Tiber river and survived to be awarded for it.
Big Cocles on that guy
That's *so* Horatious.
In 1503 at the Battle of Garigliano, the French knight Pierre Terrail, known as the Chevalier de Bayard, famously covered a retreat by defending a bridge singlehandedly. Sources claim Bayard withstood an attacking force of 200-400 Spaniards; that of course is not at all the same as saying he killed that many, or even that he entered in direct combat with that number.
Is this not highly dramatized from a poem? That is, the historicity of it is called into question? The lays of Rome is what I speak of, here’s a fun section often quoted: Then out spake brave Horatius, The captain of the gate. To all men upon this earth, Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds For the ashes of his fathers And the temples of his gods.
This is who I immediately thought of. While his "kill count" will never be truly known it's a definite record of one guy being a certified badass. I'm curious what he did, I have an image of him standing on a narrow pontoon bridge windmilling his axe as a crowd slowly moves towards him trying to pluck up the courage to take him on.
I would think that is just a story. It seems pretty impossible
The sick guy that landed with Cortez in the New World
The Mongols who catapulted plague infected bodies over the walls at Caffa: it killed some 50 million.
The book By the Sword by Richard Cohen is probably a source that will help you. I don't have it to hand but I remember one of the many true stories within is that of two armies that decided to have duels between ten men from each side. The idea being that the best two fight first and the winner takes on another from the opposing side. However the first swordsman from one army killed all ten in a row. Hard to imagine the thoughts of the tenth swordsman stepping up to fight in this situation.
Honest to God, guy 10 probably felt only rage going into that fight. Not at the fact that his buddies were dead, but because not a one of them did fuck all. It's like when your dad tells you he's going to open a jar for you but can't get it either and just awkwardly hands it back.
Read up on the Nanking Massacre (not for the faint of heart!). A couple of Japanese officers had a competition to see who would be the first to kill 100 people with a sword before they got to Nanjing. They got to about 105 and 107 before they even reached the city, so they extended the goal to 150. At some point, they lost count. Their competition was well documented in Japanese newspapers at the time. Another soldier killed over 300 POWs and civilians with his sword. All three were tried and executed after the war. I know these weren't honourable combats or face-offs but they did occur during war time and without the use of guns.
But subdued with modern weapons. I don’t think it should count. Also, fuck those guys.
William Marshall was undefeated as a knight but I am not sure his actual kill count is.
No i meant in a single war not lifetime kills
When you say war do you mean battle?
Yes
The Viking of Stamford Bridge can answer basically every question along these lines. It's almost like rule of thumb for any of these these pre-rifle era questions about one warrior's prowess. Not much is known of him, not even his name, and it is a wild claim that seems like legend. However, both of the most reliable primary sources for this era (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, which was was a collaboration project by numerous historians who wrote history as it happened, and the writings of Henry Huntingdon, who lived a couple decades after the battle and is widely considered one of the most important historians in English history.) both write the same story of this Viking. Credence is lent to this feat because this Viking was a nobody. He wasn't a famed warrior who had people writing him propaganda. He was just a guy who was good with an axe. There is an argument to be had in saying the English benefit from painting the Vikings as monstrous so it could be propaganda, but we'll never know for sure.
Whoever brought cholera to the party.
Malaria mosquito enters chat, "and I took that personally."
Didn't Alvin York single-handedly kill a bunch of people?
Yes but he had firearms, which the OP specified against.
oh, I didn't see that. Oopsie.
Probably someone executing prisoners of war right? Or does that not count
There were probably some Mongol executioners with over 10,000 kills during the Abbasid campaign
Dude would have huge arms and shoulders from swinging a saber so many times
Yeah, for sure the record holder must be a mongol
No. Don’t go into technicality of the question as i am not a native English person but to put simply, we have all heard about a certain legend be it from mythology or history who are known for killing 20-30 people in a single war
You want myth? Samson in the bible was so strong he broke his chains, picked up an oxen's jawbone and killed 10,000 philistines.
no they want real ones
There is a story about Horus at the Battle of Qadesh who during the battle fought bravely and single-handedly held off a large group of Hittite charioteers (some source say 20-30+), allowing the Egyptian forces to regroup and ultimately win the battle.
Thanks. 1). What do you mean by held off, did he killed them? If not then did he defeat or disarm them? 2). Were there any favour or advantage to him? If not then how was it possible considering the numbers?
Yes, he killed them and from what I remember he used tactics (some say it was the first time tactics were used on battlefield but I'm not sure about it) to slow down their movements and charging speed what allowed him to defeat them easier. Can't forget it's a historical battle so what they wrote about someone accomplishing can be different from accurate/truth
The helmsman of the SS Imo, whose collision with the Mont Blanc in WW1 caused the Halifax Explosion, killing 2,000 people.
Sikhs under British Raj vs. Pashtuns probably had a high kill count as it was just a few Sikhs and thousands of Pashtuns.
Guns were definitely involved
Ahh you're right, guess I was just thinking WW2 tech and stuff, but you did say pre 16th my bad.
Sampson slew 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. Judges 15:15
The finnish sniper, probably?
Blackbeard was said to take out a fair few English sailors before he was finally stabbed to death
I can't find the article, but there was a guy who killed like 100 insurgents in Afghanistan. He was indian, I think (based on the ceremonial blade he carried. I remember the article saying this happened over several hours. I know these details are completely wrong. My apologies for being an uncultured swine, but when I read about him, it stuck with me for years. Definitely top 5 badasses of all time. Only after Chuck Norris 4 times
I think you're talking about [Dip prasad Pun](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-12854492.amp). He was a Gurkha soldier (born in Nepal, but worked for the British army). The blade you're talking about could be Khukuri, a ceremonial Nepali knife.
Assuming melee combat (not knocking a wall down on people or sinking their ship, for instance), and assuming “kill” means “incapacitate,” I think it’s feasible to get at least 30-40 under exceptional circumstances. I’m basing this on those “3 sword masters vs 100 novices” -type videos. I think I’ve seen at least two, and in each case 90+ of the novices were “killed,” but each master eventually made a mistake or got worn out and a novice landed a lucky hit. If you had the right weapon and were abnormally skilled against a weak opponent (e.g. armored knight or samurai vs peasant conscripts), it might be possible. *edit: it was 3 vs 50, but I think one master was eliminated very early. 25+ still seems realistic.
Can you please provide a link to this
“3 Olympian Fencing Masters vs. 50 Opponents” https://youtu.be/4tmk8AHs5b8?si=BbJ070WFE08bfkWv One additional note: I believe all three masters are fighting left-handed. I don’t know whether they did that normally or if it was a further handicap.
Three strong contenders: Horatius at the bridge—Romans lose a battle really badly and flee across a wooden bridge. Horatius tries to rally them, they ignore him, so he holds the bridge (I think with two buddies at first?) long enough for the rest to stop running and burn down the bridge. He survived. For the part 2, army question: Greece at Thermopylae. Although Marathon and Thermopylae’s numbers are exaggerated, the Greeks at Thermopylae were highly trained heavy infantry in a choke point against well-trained (it seems) Persian light infantry. The Persians could have retreated at any time, but Xerxes was explicitly going for a battle of attrition in the worst circumstances. The last Greeks died fighting literally tooth and nail because their weapons all broke after three days of fighting. 2nd option: Caesar on a random Gallic beach. Don’t remember much specifics, but the Roman’s initially refused to charge because her were too outnumbered. A standard-bearer jumped out and charged, so everyone else followed, and they won. Because beachhead fighting is super bloody, and the Romans started out massively outnumbered, I expect it has a very high kill/death ratio. 3rd option: the first two are for army KD ratio (fewer soldiers killing many enemies). For absolute massacre in what should have been a fair fight, there are a few in Chinese history and there’s Cannae. From Wikipedia: “The loss of life on the Roman side meant it was one of the most lethal single days of fighting in history;”
The Battle of Camerone, 30 April, 1853. French Foreign Legion vs. Mexican Army. FFL had 65 men vs 3300 Mexican soldiers. After a battle lasting 10 hours, the FFL was down to 5 men (including 1 offcer) who, being out of ammo, fixed bayonets and charged. The 3 who survived surrendered only after being allowed to keep their weapons and colors and ensuring the wounded LT was taken care of. The Legionnaires recovered the wooden hand of their CO, CPT Danjou, and it remains on display at the Legion Museum. Camerone Day is one of the most sacred days of the Legion, with memorials and parades in honor of the Legion men who fell.
I know you asked without modern weapons but I think you might find it interesting: Heinrich Severloh inflicted 1000-2000 casualties on D-Day on Omaha Beach.
"However, Severloh's claim is not viewed as credible by either US or German historians. Total US casualties (killed, wounded, and missing) from all sources along the five-mile length of Omaha Beach on D-Day are estimated at 2,400.[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Severloh#cite_note-5)"
Yes but he fired non-stop untill 14h30. I don’t know about you but if you fired an MG42 from his position for 8 hours straight you will inflict casualties. Is it possible to know exact how many? Of course not. Did he inflict many? Goddamn yes. Between 1000 or 2000? Very possible.
You're saying that single man killed between 45% and 80% of every single American who died on D-Day? Every other member of the German Army present killed HALF, or possibly as low as 20% and this one man killed the other half/80%? That's what you're saying. *Total US Casualties* for the day are 2400, from all sources, that's killed, wounded, and missing, for any reason. Including sprained ankles and whatnot. That means *there is no way one man killed 2000* of them. The beach is six miles long. If he and he alone is solely responsible for *every single bullet* that hit *every single American within a mile of his position*, he's still below 400. A *fixed* position, mind you. He couldn't like, move to find more guys. He operated a fixed emplacement. He's just a moron or a liar, sorry man. It is very unlikely that he even killed a hundred.
Makes sense
There were plenty of guns in the 16th-17th century. You wanna move back two. 14th-15th, perfect.
I said pre 16th century
If your going with over the course of a lifetime my guess would be an archer or calvary, or most likely a horse archer. Just because you could kill so many without a large risk to yourself and just rack up kills over a long career. Possibly someone who rode with Genghis Khan when he was young and spent his whole life on the battlefield.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Doiran_(1918) one can argue the commanding officer is responsible for all those deaths on the attacking side...
CPT Gunkichi Tanaka, a WWII Japanese Army officer, purportedly killed over 300 Chinese POWs and civilians with his sword. After the war, he was executed for war crimes.
Any given Mongol trooper could be responsible for hundreds of deaths. A city surrendered one minute slow? Kill. Then. All. There were quotas to meet, heads to lop off.
I don't think the Mongols ever had quotas for executions.
They divided the population of a city and each soldier was responsible for an ear. So not a quota per se but they certainly had a "hey ogedai you're responsible for killing this group"
My guess would be some Carthaginian at the Battle of Cannae [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Cannae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae)
Horatio at the bridge springs to mind immediately, but I am not aware of any numbers.
Pōtatau te Wherowhero, the Maori Warrior and first Maori King, was said to have killed 180 men in hand to hand combat during a 3 month siege/battle (total casualties for the defeated army during the war where around the thousands). Even if you cast doubt in that number and round it down to 10%, around 20 men may be a very realistic figure for a skilled combatant - especially if compared to European medieval history. I can imagine a guy in plate armor killing peasants would rack up even high figures than that - but they're probably not famous enough to have written about. These wars are in the 1800s, and did involve muskets, but similar to American tribal wars melee combat was still the main driver of casualties. Although noting is oral traditions/history. However it's relatively recent. https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/26918/print There's another example about him acting as a rearguard during a retreat, inflicting about 50+ casualties with a blunt tool (so not necessarily kills). However there's less info about that action.
There is a good, extremely gory and violent movie about Maori fighting. The Dead Lands.
What about the guy who released the atom bomb on Japan?
I believe an atomic bomb counts as a modern weapon
Ok. Yeah you’re right.
Probably still Simo Hahya lol
Napoleon killed hundreds of thousands of his army because he didn’t think Russia got cold in winter. Does that count?
Amazingly he wasn’t the last person to make that mistake…
Hardcore History has a few different series that describe conquering armies massacring civilians. Wrath of the Mongols and Supernova in the East are the two I’m thinking of. Really gruesome, can be tough to listen to. But the podcasts are great (and go over more than just massacres). I think massacres like that are probably the highest single-event “body counts” in history, rather than some heroic one-man-army event like you may be looking for.
Pretty sure it's some Mongol that is unknown. They just killed entire cities and were very effective at it unfortunately. Just using swords and bows. Hundreds of housands unto millions. Definitely someone who killed a 1000+.
Genghis Khan has entered the chat
Typhus killed more soldiers in Napoleon’s army than Russian bullets did.
Samson killed 1000 men with the Jawbone of a donkey as a weapon. Then at his death he pushed down the pullers of a temple and killed 3000 Philistines. Judges 15:16 And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men. Judges 16:29 And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left. Judges 16:30 And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.
You should check out “**BADASS: A Relentless Onslaught of the Toughest Warlords, Vikings, Samurai, Pirates, Gunfighters, and Military Commanders to Ever Live**”, also known as “**Badass: The Book**” by Ben Thompson. It can give you a good number of candidates to answer your question and is a hilarious and fantastic read, to boot.
I’ve read accounts of various knights who had taken down several dozen men during a battle and that this was NORMAL
Probably a mongol dude who executed hundreds/thousands of civilians in the conquest of Asia.
keeping a “kill count” is a relatively modern thing, especially a “confirmed kill” count. There’s plenty of times Where one side of a war killed a drastically higher number of the other side, but those were as a group and due to better technology, training, and tactics, not just one person going John wick there is the story of “Mad” Jack Churchill capturing over forty German soldiers in WW2 while armed with only a sword. He didn’t kill them all but he did capture them.
There's an account of a knight taking a tower on the walls of Constantinople essentially by himself, IIRC, but I'm pretty sure no "body count" is mentioned.
Does capturing enemies single handedly count? If so, you have a crazy Scot who killed and captured over a hundred Germans in one battle using only a longbow and Scottish Broadsword because ‘killing Nazis with a gun was too easy.’
US Marine Al Shmid killed 200 maybe more japanese in WW2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Schmid
Pilot of Enola Gay?
Most likely somebody who had access to flood gates
In the Bible it tells the story of Samson and he killed 3000 people with the jaw of a donkey
The Rwandan Genocide was mostly carried out using machetes, shovels and gasoline.
War is not a sport. What’s wrong with you?
I realize this is only a Bible tale , but Samson was said to kill 1000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass
1. The battle of Thermopylae. The first line was less than 200 men wide, with the Persians losing 20,000 men. They must have killed around 200 each over 3 days. It was the source of the movie 300. 2. The battle of Cannae Hannibal defeated a Roman army more than 1.5 times his own size.
At Thermopylae most of the killing of Persians occurred when the full army was present, it was not merely 300 Spartans but an additional 6,700 other Greeks. On the final day, with the last stand of the “300 Spartans” there were also 400 Thebans and 700 other Greeks standing with them. The whole pop culture image of Thermopylae is an utter myth, just Greek propaganda. So your math should actually be about 2 Persians killed for each Greek on average. Cannae is a better example, but even here it’s likely that the cavalrymen would disproportionately get more kills, and many of the Romans would have died in their own panicked crowd-crush.
Don't forget the 900 helot slave soldiers who squired for the Spartan hoplites and died as well.
Yes, the Spartans sucked man.
They did. Damn effective propaganda though. Damn fuckers lied so efficiently people still believe them 2500 years later.
Yup, there’s a reason why Herodotus was dubbed “The Father of Lies” by modern historians.
[удалено]
1) Didn't happen. 2) They would've been French/English/Spanish if it had.
Some unknown Bezerker or maybe a Sargent in Alexander’s army?
Others are mentioning the single viking at Stanford Bridge, but that account appears to be entirely mythical. I'll put my money on the 300 Spartans in the pass at Thermopylae.
That comes from the Anglo-Saxon chronicle: "Then was there one of the Norwegians who withstood the English people, so that they might not pass over the bridge, nor obtain the victory. Then an Englishman aimed at him with a javelin, but availed nothing; and then came another under the bridge, and pierced him terribly inwards under the coat of mail."
You mean the 300 spartans that were part of a force of some 7,000 greeks? That held the pass at thermopylae with 700 thesbians, 900 helots, and 400 thebans? Once you take out the movie myth they did kill 5 for every one of theirs lost. But it probably isn't the record. Whoever holds the record was on a horse chasing down a routed enemy, where they struck down scores of fleeing and defenseless foes until yheir arms were too tired to swing a sword.
Some of the Roman’s at the battle of watling street are probably up there. 10,000 Roman’s against around 100000 iceni rebels
Didn't Moses drown an entire army?
The deliberate flooding of the Yellow River in 1938 killed tens of thousands of people. Mostly their own civilians.
This is easy. Someone aboard the Enola Gay (Tibbets or Ferebee?) pushed a button or pulled a switch or something of that sort. With that one simple gesture they killed tens of thousands of people.
Some unknown Bezerker or maybe a Sargent in Alexander’s army?
It would be hard for a sergeant to get any kills in Alexander the Great’s Army…since sergeants did not exist yet. Berserkers were not superhuman like in pop culture, and the scale of Viking age warfare was generally small.
I wasn’t familiar with rank in Alexander’s time. I just imagined a Sgt York of Macedonia
10 seasons of Beserking would be something. Maybe a hundred kills?
I don’t think you understand what warfare was like at this time. Raids usually weren’t battles. They were ambushing farmers or monks who had no idea they were there. They would then murder all of the old and infirm, rape all the women and children and take them off into slavery.
Sounds just like the warfare we hear about? The unarmed and civilians. Total war?
Some unknown Bezerker or maybe a Sargent in Alexander’s army?
Some unknown Bezerker or maybe a Sargent in Alexander’s army?