NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this is a post for the best military of all time..

Give the country/nation, the time when they (in your mind) where the best, and reasons why they failed.

Please keep it as civil as possible..

Ok, this is a post for the best military of all time..

Give the country/nation, the time when they (in your mind) where the best, and reasons why they failed.

Please keep it as civil as possible..
The Roman phalanx and short sword kept the Roman empire powerful for longer than any other empire in history. As is often the case, the empire rotted from within, not through any significant fault of its military.

The British Empires Royal Army, all during the 1707-1918.

After that, the British government ruined it with underfunding and negligence.

Germany 1939-1941

The German Army of 1939-1941 was the most feared in the world at the time..

The Best technology and the best equipment..


The reason they failed so badly..

YOU DO NOT DECLARE WAR ON:

The best Military in the World at the time (United Kingdom)

The biggest country in the World at the time (Soviet Union)

The biggest producing country in the world (United States)

And to do that vs all 3.. That is alittle much to ask

British Empire 1700-1945

Sheer talent alone..

They invented ship warfare.


The reason they failed:

Economic faults after WWII. And the lack of production in the modern world.

But still a kick ass country!

The Roman phalanx and short sword ketp the Roman empire powerful for longer than any other empire in history. As is often the case, the empire rotted from within, not through any significant fault of its military.


The Roman phalanx? Are you referring to the legionary formation when they used the gladius and pila, or the earlier Roman traditional spear phalanx? They kept two different armies. I can't remember the name for the later, gladius formation, but it wasn't a phalanx. A cohort.... maybe. Not a legion, that was the army. It kept Rome strong, but it had major flaws against a large cavalry force, such as the Parthians, and Carthage. They won in the end, but cavalry superiority tended to really smush them. Cannae, anyone?

The British military has been on top of the pile for most of the time.
Best runs of luck: Hundred years war-brilliant weaponry,leadership and tactics ensured success- failure due to lack of leadership
British empire- fair, even handed approach backed up by mighty milirtary approach- failed- rise of nationalism in colonies + lack of funds due to repaying WW2 war loans to america

The Roman phalanx and short sword kept the Roman empire powerful for longer than any other empire in history. As is often the case, the empire rotted from within, not through any significant fault of its military.
The phalanx is a hgreek tactic, invented to aid their armies of spear-wielding hoplites

United States of America 1845-Current


The reason I say 1845, is because that with the Spanish and American War.

America proved itself to the world, that she was no longer a 2nd rate power.. Basically saying, "I'm big enough to fight for myself"

The only fault with the US is the constant fear of public opionion..

The USA has "never lost a war military wise"

But Public opionion says different

War Record:

British Empire: Win
British Empire: Win
Spanish: Win
WWI: Win
WWII: WIN
Korea: Tie/Loss
Vietnam: Loss
Gulf War I: Tie
Afghanistan: Win (in process of)
Gulf War II: ? (in process of)

War Record:

British Empire: Win
British Empire: Win



Two victories against the BE? Are you thinking of the war of 1812? *cracks knuckles*

America LOST that war...

Germany - ca 1937-1945 It takes a powerfull nation to fight the world for so long and they did it well.
Scotland - Allways great soldiers.
Ireland - 1916-1922, allways good fighting men.
American Indian Nations - 19th-18th C. for fighting in the old way agains the modern military of the time and for so long.
United States - War for Independance in the late 18th C., the way they fought against England is outstanding.

Yeah america lost that war, they had to give up some territory that is now Canada..

Anyway my guess would be the Red army of later part of ww2, and into the 80s, when the soviet union rottend from within, reasons are both great numbers and equpment...

Also they freed Europe from the nazis in the fiercest fighting in history...

Two victories against the BE? Are you thinking of the war of 1812? *cracks knuckles*

America LOST that war...You're wrong. If America lost the war, 1) the British would have created an Indian buffer state between Canada and the U.S. and 2) the British would have kept all the territory they captured during the war. The fact the British didn't win decisively against the Americans (not to mention that individual American ships generally pwned individidual British ships in combat) indicates that it was hardly a loss. I'd say it was a draw since a status quo antebellum treaty came out of it and the British could not get the territory they were trying to demand.

Two victories against the BE? Are you thinking of the war of 1812? *cracks knuckles*

America LOST that war...

Actually, the US won by decision, so to speak. The BE didn't mess with us too much after that.

Actually the term of the war of 1812 was "Status quo ante bellum" which means.

"As if no war"

Basically the USA didn't win, and neither did the British. But the USA got the thing they where shooting for. The wanted to stop the British from attacking shipping and placing taxes and fees upon them..

The same thing happened in the First Barbary Wars.

But as a military stand point.. Neither country one.. But for our new nation (USA) we gained some confidence against the British.

Two victories against the BE? Are you thinking of the war of 1812? *cracks knuckles*

America LOST that war...

we won bigtime. :rolleyes:

the beginning of the end it was for the oppression the British Empire inflicted on it's colonies and it's tyrannical rule and it's theft of riches.

Correction for my statement.



The term status quo ante bellum comes from Latin meaning literally, as things were before the war. No side gains or loses territory, economic, or political rights. One example of a war that ended status quo ante bellum was the War of 1812, which was concluded with the Treaty of Ghent in 1814; the treaty left no gains or losses in land for either the US or Britain, though the US had sought to annex Canada. The term was originally used in treaties to refer to the withdraw of enemy troops and restoration of prewar leadership.

the beginning of the end it was for the oppression the British Empire inflicted on it's colonies and it's tyrannical rule and it's theft of riches.

That fight is not over today, look at "Northern" Ireland, Bloody Sunday.

The best Military in the World at the time (United Kingdom)



is that supposed to be a joke? Britain ceased to be a military power after 1918. The only thing that saved Britain was the water between the British Isles and the continent, because the British army of 1939 was no match for the Germans.

Well i would have to say Germany for the most powerful overall from the late 1930's until around 1944. Even 1914-1918, Germany was just allied against to the point where germany couldn't win the war.

But i think Finland should also deserve recognition for its military, mainly during world war 2, when they managed to fight the communists extremly well and even keep their independence after the war.

Hanibal and Hadribul's bitching Elephant mounted Carthaginian army which came would trample through enemy lines. The came very close to destroying the roman empire. They ruled.

Russia 1920-1989

Freaking HUGE manpower.

And crazy Stalin for WW2..



Downfall:

Shitty Economy

Afghanistan

CIA ;)

German Military- 1939-1943 Stupid Hitler wasted his legions of men at Stalingrad and ignored/killed Rommel.

Japanese Military- 1937-1945 A last stand, no surrender military. Fought to the death and always made high casulties. Their leaders and Navy failed them.

British Military- 1707-20th Century Come on. Rulers of almost the entire known world and largest empire for a long time. Only set back was the lack of funding and they pissed off the native soldiers from different lands that served with them at different times. The passed on the torch to the United States after WWII.

American Military- 1942-Present We are the most powerful nation of the world right now. Odd we don't have enough men for Iraq and Afganistan...

is that supposed to be a joke? Britain ceased to be a military power after 1918. The only thing that saved Britain was the water between the British Isles and the continent, because the British army of 1939 was no match for the Germans.



If Britian couldn't do anything.. How come the Nazis couldn't invade??

And don't say cause the Americans (I'm an American, and I think the Brits did it all by themselves)

perhaps something can be said for Napoleonic France, 6 coalitions couldn't defeat them, only Napoleon's own arrogance eventually did them in. Which is a great shame because all those worthless monarchies kept existing because of it.

After that, France ceased to be a military factor in the world, look how they rolled over in 1940, in 6 weeks!

Otherwise, it would be the US marines who kicked Jap ass in the Pacific, or the US 3rd army that kicked the Krauts all across France in record time.

The current US military is probably the most unstoppable force the planet has ever produced.

Time will tell whether or not it will be defeated. Probably not in our lifetimes, though.

If Britian couldn't do anything.. How come the Nazis couldn't invade??

And don't say cause the Americans (I'm an American, and I think the Brits did it all by themselves)

they didn't have the naval vessels to launch an invasion, plain and simple. But Britain's land army was pathetic and obsolete by the time WW II started.

The Roman Empire

That is all that needs to be said!!

The founders of modern religion (Roman Catholic)

And a powerful military

God/Miltary.. Don't mess with the Romans!


Downfall:

Roman Senators

Too Much Slavery

Poor Defensive Miltary

If Britian couldn't do anything.. How come the Nazis couldn't invade??

The Royal Air Force

Also they freed Europe from the nazis in the fiercest fighting in history...

Thats BULL- and you know it, if you don't then you are probably the most naive person on this forum.
The Soviets did more harm then good, I'd say the Nazi era was a pick-nick compared to the Soviet era.
The Russian Soviets murderd more people then the Nazis did and were more tyrants.

OK,

New add on..

Best fighting Unit of all times.....

The United States Marine Corps

The best overall fighting force in the world..


On Land/Air



Downfall:

Small

The Spartan Phalanx.

The mongol hordes of Ghengis Khan. The only reason there empire crumbles was because of interior problems.

It would have to be the ithmus army of finland which held out several weeks against the soviet union during the 1940 war. And in the 1941-1944 war continued to do extremly well.

Actually the term of the war of 1812 was "Status quo ante bellum" which means.

"As if no war"

Basically the USA didn't win, and neither did the British. But the USA got the thing they where shooting for. The wanted to stop the British from attacking shipping and placing taxes and fees upon them..

The same thing happened in the First Barbary Wars.

But as a military stand point.. Neither country one.. But for our new nation (USA) we gained some confidence against the British.

I'm going to answer yours, because it actually hits the point, but then misses it again, I feel. The other ones I can answer anyway without having to quoterise them. The cause of war, as you say, is the British attitude towards American maritime activity, which led to a declaration of war BY the united States on Britain. Now, what happened, at the same time as the declaration of war was heading to Britain, the British government was sending a message to the United States saying that we were going to stop impeding your commerce/fleet the way we were. So your war aim was accomplished without actually fighting, so nobody can claim that was a result of the war, when it plainly wasn't.

Another fact, which indicates that America lost the war of 1812, is the fact that America didn't accomplish ANYTHING. It didn't have an effect on British expansion anywhere. Britain exploded into expansion AFTER 1812, so claiming that it shown that Britain could be stopped is incorrect. You have to remember that the British Empire wasn't even the British Empire at 1812, and was dealing with Napoleon at the time. I'm sure nobody is going to claim that America was superior to Napoleon at the time.

As for fleet statistics... the British deployment to America was 99 ships. The entire American navy was 21-30 ships. Even if there were some individual ship victories... they weren't of any consequence. The entire Royal navy consisted of some 800 ships, I believe, though I'm leaving significant room for innacuracy.

Another point. Britain wasn't trying to retake the United states. it was never in the war aims, so anyone who claims that as a victory point is wrong by default. As an example I've used frequently, it's like claiming America won the war of 1812 because it never surrendered to Peru. Nonsense. However, the British war aim was to teach the United states that you don't mess with Britain, burning down the white house was the means to accomplish that. America didn't stop the British doing that. After that, anything else was a bonus, nothing more. So when Britain withdrew, it was because it didn't want to do anything more. Not because it was pushed out.

I'm sure I'm missing something out though, so feel free to point it out.

United States of America 1845-Current


The reason I say 1845, is because that with the Spanish and American War.

America proved itself to the world, that she was no longer a 2nd rate power.. Basically saying, "I'm big enough to fight for myself"

The only fault with the US is the constant fear of public opionion..

The USA has "never lost a war military wise"

But Public opionion says different

War Record:

British Empire: Win
British Empire: Win
Spanish: Win
WWI: Win
WWII: WIN
Korea: Tie/Loss
Vietnam: Loss
Gulf War I: Tie
Afghanistan: Win (in process of)
Gulf War II: ? (in process of)

Our tiff in Vietnam wasn't a war... it was a conflict. hehe

We'd have won that one if we'd tried and if not for the damn hippies.

United States of America 1845-Current


The reason I say 1845, is because that with the Spanish and American War.

America proved itself to the world, that she was no longer a 2nd rate power.. Basically saying, "I'm big enough to fight for myself"

The only fault with the US is the constant fear of public opionion..

The USA has "never lost a war military wise"

But Public opionion says different

War Record:

British Empire: Win
British Empire: Win
Spanish: Win
WWI: Win
WWII: WIN
Korea: Tie/Loss
Vietnam: Loss
Gulf War I: Tie
Afghanistan: Win (in process of)
Gulf War II: ? (in process of)

since both Korea and Vietnam ended with a cease fire we didn't lose them.
and gulf war I was a smashing victory until that RINO Bush sr decided not to actually invade Iraq :mad:

they didn't have the naval vessels to launch an invasion, plain and simple. But Britain's land army was pathetic and obsolete by the time WW II started.

Its airforce and navy, however, was still exemplerary. Without neutralising the RAF, Germany could never invade, because all of its landing craft would be sunk. But on a tangent, the African campaign shows that the British army still had plenty of fight left. After all.... Rommel wasn't the victor, despite his myriad advantages (like good tanks, for starters.)

OK,

New add on..

Best fighting Unit of all times.....

Rommel's Panzer division.
Scottish "Blackwatch".
U.S. 7th Cav. Vietnam
...

If Britian couldn't do anything.. How come the Nazis couldn't invade??

The British Navy and the Royal Airforce, along with the fact that the plans for Operation Sealion would have probably failed anyhow even without the Navy or the airforce.

OK,

New add on..

Best fighting Unit of all times.....

The Marines in WWII. They brought vengence upon the Japanese in places such as Iwo (the 5th marines specifically), Tarawa, Saipan, etc.

Our tiff in Vietnam wasn't a war... it was a conflict. hehe


Technically the USA hasn't been at war since the end of WWII...

Its airforce and navy, however, was still exemplerary. Without neutralising the RAF, Germany could never invade, because all of its landing craft would be sunk. But on a tangent, the African campaign shows that the British army still had plenty of fight left. After all.... Rommel wasn't the victor, despite his myriad advantages (like good tanks, for starters.)

Rommel was short of men, it was a miracle he got as far as he did.

the best, I'm not sure, but here are the worst 5
the polish army, 1939
the Italian army, 1939- 1945
the Russian army, 1914-1917
La Armada Invencible (the Spanish Armada) 1558
the Spanish army, 1810-1825

I'm going to answer yours, because it actually hits the point, but then misses it again, I feel. The other ones I can answer anyway without having to quoterise them. The cause of war, as you say, is the British attitude towards American maritime activity, which led to a declaration of war BY the united States on Britain. Now, what happened, at the same time as the declaration of war was heading to Britain, the British government was sending a message to the United States saying that we were going to stop impeding your commerce/fleet the way we were. So your war aim was accomplished without actually fighting, so nobody can claim that was a result of the war, when it plainly wasn't.

Another fact, which indicates that America lost the war of 1812, is the fact that America didn't accomplish ANYTHING. It didn't have an effect on British expansion anywhere. Britain exploded into expansion AFTER 1812, so claiming that it shown that Britain could be stopped is incorrect. You have to remember that the British Empire wasn't even the British Empire at 1812, and was dealing with Napoleon at the time. I'm sure nobody is going to claim that America was superior to Napoleon at the time.

As for fleet statistics... the British deployment to America was 99 ships. The entire American navy was 21-30 ships. Even if there were some individual ship victories... they weren't of any consequence. The entire Royal navy consisted of some 800 ships, I believe, though I'm leaving significant room for innacuracy.

Another point. Britain wasn't trying to retake the United states. it was never in the war aims, so anyone who claims that as a victory point is wrong by default. As an example I've used frequently, it's like claiming America won the war of 1812 because it never surrendered to Peru. Nonsense. However, the British war aim was to teach the United states that you don't mess with Britain, burning down the white house was the means to accomplish that. America didn't stop the British doing that. After that, anything else was a bonus, nothing more. So when Britain withdrew, it was because it didn't want to do anything more. Not because it was pushed out.

I'm sure I'm missing something out though, so feel free to point it out.



You are so much on the money it isn't even funny..

The War of 1812, like you you said was over before it started.. The British said they where going to stop the shipping "violations" (I use that term very vague, cause there was no internation court of laws)

But... The United States still had to take a stand against the British.. The communication in those days took months.. So the USA gained land in Canada, then lost it again (Basically going back to the orginal lines of the USA pre 1812 war).. The biggest mistake of the war was when the USA burned down the parliment building in Canada, that gave way for the attack on the white house/D.C.

After that the "agreement was signed". But the communications where so badly it took 3 mnths to tell everyone in D.C that the war was over.. Even longer for the front line troops..

That is when the Battle of New Orleans took place. Where Colonel Jackson (future President) defeated the British (but in only one battle, and in a useless place).

So in the techinal definition.. The USA lost the war (gaining nothing from the War itself) But won, do to the fact that the shipping violations where stopped.

Whew!

USA from the end of WWI to present. In WWI most European powers saw the US as a second rate power. They thought we were unable to make a serious contribution to the war effort. We had to prove our ability just to keep US troops under US command. The French initially wanted to put US troops under their own command. Once we proved our ability, we were recognized as a world-class military and given the respect we deserved.

In WWII, we played an important role in the allied victory against Hitler, and took the leading role against Japanese imperial expansion. Basically we took on a war on two fronts against powerfull enemies and won (with the invaluable assistance of British and Russian forces in the European front.) After WWII, the US was the premier military power in the world. We had our manufacturing base intact, and were the only nation with nuclear weapons.

Russia challenged us in the cold war, and because of their development of nuclear weapons was able to give us a run for our money. Russia's conventional forces were inferior just after WWII, but the period of peace that followed gave them a chance to build it up to numbers that would make them a serious threat. The US, however, quickly used it's economic advantages to build a military that was technologically far supperior to the Soviets. Despite a setback in Vietnam, we maintained the best overall military force in the world. The bulk of our troops were better trained, better equipped, and more mobile than USSR's. Plus our new naval doctrine that stressed carrier battle groups for conventional fighting, and missile submarines for strategic nuclear use gave us a huge advantage worldwide.

Currently we maintain a technological advantage over every other nation's military. Our navy is the biggest, most capable, and most flexible in the world. Our airpower can strike anywhere on the spur of the moment. Our armies, while outnumbered by the Chinese, enjoy the ability to quickly deploy anywhere in the world, be provided with the best air cover, and be supported by a supply line that is nearly impossible to cut.

While some operations are not feasable, like occupation of the Chinese mainland, we still maintain a significant advantage over the rest of the world in force projection. Lessons in how to control enemy territory are being learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, and can help make operations on foreign soil run better in the future. Also, continued generous military spending helps us maintain our technological advantage. The US will remain the world's premier military force for the forseeable future.

In order to stay on top, the US needs to do two things. Establish an honorable and fair foreign policy, which will help bring EU and other friendly forces on board when we need to mobilize (Because the US volunteer forces are never going to be numerous enough to keep complete order in occupied nations by themselves) and provide justification for future military actions that no civilized nation can disagree with without jeopardizing their credibility as protectors of human rights and freedom. The Bush administration, in my opinion, has failed in those objectives. They support Uzbekistan's repressive government while using Saddam's brutality to justify Iraq. This calls our motivations in to question. Plus we have chosen a target in Iraq that isn't as clearly brutal as, for example, Sudan. Saddam was a secular leader, and had no clear ties with terrorists who acted against western interests. Poor target. Sudan is in the middle of it's second genocide, and has documented ties to Osama Bin Laden. Any European nation that refused to participate in action against Sudan could have been shamed into at least providing some ideological support.

EDIT: Due to the fact that this is my day off from work and I'm a little buzzed I forgot the second thing the US needs to do to stay on top. I bullshitted something, but I just remembered what I meant to say. We need to keep a strong economy. Military spending at the levels we're used to is impossible without a very strong economy. Bush has endangered our tax base, and this endangers our military.

Notice that I didn't mention retaking the United States as colonies. I mentioned specifically an Indian buffer state between Canada and the United States, which was one of the British demands at the negotiations before the Treaty of Ghent. When the U.S. defeated the British at the Battle of Plattsburgh, the British had to withdraw that demand since they failed in one of their three prongs of their attack. After the fiasco at Bladensburg, the British couldn't take Ft. McHenry, then the Battle of New Orleans was a rout.

Before the War of 1812, the 44 gun frigate (ala USS Constitution) was considered a failed experiment and the 38 gun frigate was considered the ship of the future. After the War of 1812, every navy that could was building 44s. The British resorted to razeeing their 74s because of the havoc the American "super frigates" were wreaking on them. The British even went so far as to instruct their frigate captains not to engage those 44s unless they outnumbered them 3 to 1.

There were plenty of objectives the British Empire had in dealing with the Americans that weren't met, and there was plenty of whining about their ships being too old or the American ships being "74s in disguise." Hell, even the ship sloop Wasp (18 guns) was compared to a British frigate.

The Roman Empire

That is all that needs to be said!!

The founders of modern religion (Roman Catholic)

And a powerful military

God/Miltary.. Don't mess with the Romans!


Downfall:

Roman Senators

Too Much Slavery

Poor Defensive Miltary
No doubt that Rome had a brilliant military, but the difference in technology between Rome and her enemies wasn't all that great. It was man with spear and sword vs. man with spear and sword. Rome's great strength was numbers and organization. China had just as good of a military when the Chinese empire was unified, yet simple barbarians were a problem for both. So, rome had a rival of roughly equal power, and serious problems fighting certain groups of guerillas.

The US has no real rival for military power, and is becomming better at taking on irregular forces and guerillas.

the best, I'm not sure, but here are the worst 5
...
the Italian army, 1939- 1945
...

Rommel actually had good things to say about them when they held the line after the German infantry had routed at Tobruk (IIRC) - and it is unfair to not treat their performance in two different blocks: before and after they changed sides. Under Mussolini they suffered greatly from poor morale and no real drive to actually fight, but post-43 they gave a fine, if not outstanding performance.

Thats BULL- and you know it, if you don't then you are probably the most naive person on this forum.
The Soviets did more harm then good, I'd say the Nazi era was a pick-nick compared to the Soviet era.
The Russian Soviets murderd more people then the Nazis did and were more tyrants.

Pick-Nick, i guess 6 million Jew tought they were on a pick-nick then a GAS pick nick, god damn, fucking nazi inbred

the Mongolian empire (http://www.silk-road.com/maps/images/mongol.jpg)

Beat that!

Rommel actually had good things to say about them when they held the line after the German infantry had routed at Tobruk (IIRC) - and it is unfair to not treat their performance in two different blocks: before and after they changed sides. Under Mussolini they suffered greatly from poor morale and no real drive to actually fight, but post-43 they gave a fine, if not outstanding performance.

True. Mussolini gave them no meaning to fight on.

Notice that I didn't mention retaking the United States as colonies. I mentioned specifically an Indian buffer state between Canada and the United States, which was one of the British demands at the negotiations before the Treaty of Ghent. When the U.S. defeated the British at the Battle of Plattsburgh, the British had to withdraw that demand since they failed in one of their three prongs of their attack. After the fiasco at Bladensburg, the British couldn't take Ft. McHenry, then the Battle of New Orleans was a rout.

Before the War of 1812, the 44 gun frigate (ala USS Constitution) was considered a failed experiment and the 38 gun frigate was considered the ship of the future. After the War of 1812, every navy that could was building 44s. The British resorted to razeeing their 74s because of the havoc the American "super frigates" were wreaking on them. The British even went so far as to instruct their frigate captains not to engage those 44s unless they outnumbered them 3 to 1.

There were plenty of objectives the British Empire had in dealing with the Americans that weren't met, and there was plenty of whining about their ships being too old or the American ships being "74s in disguise." Hell, even the ship sloop Wasp (18 guns) was compared to a British frigate.


I never said that you did, but I don't want to sound like I'm overstating what I know of the war of 1812. I used to know significantly more, but I have forgotten a lot. If I was going to have a sensible, informed debate, you'd need to give me one or two days to re-read all I used to know on it. But an Indian buffer state sounds like a compromise between the native allies and the British. The Indians would be wanting their own land, and the British wanting to seperate Canada and the US. When a setback occured, Britain not wanting to be in the US any more, would be prepared to drop a lot of what it demanded, to get out without more bloodshed. Britain has never enjoyed being at war with the US, and even at the time of the revolution, found it distasteful to shoot their brothers and cousins. So whilst it would be an American achievment to have any demands dropped, the effect, I feel, is likely overstated.

As to the American naval victories, once again, I bring to you the huge gulf between the Royal Navy and the American navy. Any victories in single combat would be nonconsequential (I prefer nonconsequential to inconsequential, despite its incorrectness) to the outcome of the war, however it affected future naval deployments.

Again, I feel like I've posted an incomplete argument, but I can't see what I missed.

Now..

What would you classify the Vietnam War as??

A loss/tie/victory


My father was in the Marines from 1960-1991

Did 2 tours in Vietnam. One as enlisted the other as officer.

He says "In 1965-1967, we won the Vietnam war" But after the Tet Offensive in 1968 the War was lost.

the Mongolian empire (http://www.silk-road.com/maps/images/mongol.jpg)

Beat that!

Maybe not the BEST military of all time, but easily the most feared.

Wehrmacht / Roman army

whermacht and ww11 german army because of the fact they were succesful up until 1941, and they invented many new weapons and tactics.

roman army because they conqoured half their known world and they invented loads of stuff,

very similar infact.

It would have to be the ithmus army of finland which held out several weeks against the soviet union during the 1940 war. And in the 1941-1944 war continued to do extremly well.


I agree. Finland 3 million inhabitants, Soviet Union 144 million inhabitants. And the finns were able to resist their attack until Soviets suggested for a cease-fire.

I agree. Finland 3 million inhabitants, Soviet Union 144 million inhabitants. And the finns were able to resist their attack until Soviets suggested for a cease-fire.
Well, nah. We withdraw from this competition.

In Winter War The Soviets completely underestimated the Finns. Furthermore, the winter was one of the coldest in recorded history and the Soviets were POORLY equipped. Hardly can take credit for that.

During '41-44 war the Soviets had other things on their mind too... it's not like they hurled all their manpower at Finland.

even DARED to tangle with Belize!!

Maybe not the BEST military of all time, but easily the most feared.
They weren't so babaric as many people think. They absorbed foreign technologies just like the Romans did, used terrain advantages, tactics, formations, they moved very quickly, conquered enormous countries with much larger armies...
I think they are the best.

OK,

New add on..

Best fighting Unit of all times.....

The Persian Immortals.

I'd say Alexander the Greats Macdonian forces Or the British Army under Wellington 1809-1815

As an indvidual unit-The Rifles/Roman Urban Cohorts.

The Roman Army was great, but it isn't up with the sheer power and generalship of the two armys above.

I'd say Alexander the Greats Macdonian forces Or the British Army under Wellington 1809-1815

.

no because they couldn't beat Napoleon without the Prussians and Russians and Austrians.

Surely it was Prussia's 19th century army! They were not a country that had a military, but rather a military that had a country! Can you get "better" than that?

United States of America 1845-Current


The reason I say 1845, is because that with the Spanish and American War.

America proved itself to the world, that she was no longer a 2nd rate power.. Basically saying, "I'm big enough to fight for myself"

The only fault with the US is the constant fear of public opionion..

The USA has "never lost a war military wise"

But Public opionion says different

War Record:

British Empire: Win
British Empire: Win
Spanish: Win
WWI: Win
WWII: WIN
Korea: Tie/Loss
Vietnam: Loss
Gulf War I: Tie
Afghanistan: Win (in process of)
Gulf War II: ? (in process of)

The American War of "Independence" was actually just another of those civil wars you americans are so fond of. A third of the population supported the british, a third supported the rebels and a third couldn't care less.

the german army , no doubt. but if i get real into it, i will , in no doubt, be branded a certain something.
the union army that fought americas civil war. they were poor, starving, and not well organized- but they changed the face of this country forever.

i think man, as a rule, has warrior and conflict built into his genes. so , IMHO, any group of people, whether it be with guns and tanks, swords,bricks, bow and arrows, or whatever, needs to be credited for at least trying.

The Persian Immortals.

Nope, they got bitch fucked by the Greeks.

Spartans (as someone said earlier). i mean, NO jobs, military training from aged 4 or 5 ALL THE TIME.

And if you believe Herodotus (ahem) 300 Spartans held the 1 million Persians at the pass of Thermopylae for days until some cheeky git took them on a secret path behind!

Can I put in a vote for the Monghol millitary.

Also as far as individual fighting forces go I would like to put a word in for the ancient Armenian heavy cavalry, fantastic in full charge, like an armour plated fist. On the other hand the persian immortals kicked ass as far as formation and discipline went.

Surely it was Prussia's 19th century army! They were not a country that had a military, but rather a military that had a country! Can you get "better" than that?

While I'll grant brilliance at the Battle of Sadowa, it really didn't take much to defeat Austria. And the French were playing with a handicap. ;)

Nope, they got bitch fucked by the Greeks.

Spartans (as someone said earlier). i mean, NO jobs, military training from aged 4 or 5 ALL THE TIME.

And if you believe Herodotus (ahem) 300 Spartans held the 1 million Persians at the pass of Thermopylae for days until some cheeky git took them on a secret path behind!

It's not 300 Spartans it's more like 1000 and they were supported by a crack squad of another 1000 Parthians.

It's not 300 Spartans it's more like 1000 and they were supported by a crack squad of another 1000 Parthians.

Name your source, cos Herodotus says 300 to the best of my recollection

Give me the Iranian charioteers the Persians had with them any day. Armed with a knife and a lassoe. Fantastic.

Name your source, cos Herodotus says 300 to the best of my recollection

I have the book on my shelves now. I'll just go check. I was sure it was more like 1000. There were definitely 1000 parthians.

Nope, they got bitch fucked by the Greeks.

Spartans (as someone said earlier). i mean, NO jobs, military training from aged 4 or 5 ALL THE TIME.

And if you believe Herodotus (ahem) 300 Spartans held the 1 million Persians at the pass of Thermopylae for days until some cheeky git took them on a secret path behind!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

I have the book on my shelves now. I'll just go check. I was sure it was more like 1000. There were definitely 1000 parthians.

Yeah, ok, my bad, it was around 4000 troups until the Persians went round but then it was the 300 Spartans left. Only 2 survived - the ones who ran away.

Those dudes rock and you know it.

Ok I stand corrected. But there were 1000 Parthians.

Ok I stand corrected. But there were 1000 Parthians.

parthians?

The Roman phalanx and short sword kept the Roman empire powerful for longer than any other empire in history. As is often the case, the empire rotted from within, not through any significant fault of its military.
The roman armies did not employ the phalanx.

The spartan millitary wasn't all that impressive, the Athenian millitary is stupidly underrated. They gave the Persians just as much of run for their money and they had a great navy too.

parthians?

I've always been under the impression that Parthians were Persians.

The spartan millitary wasn't all that impressive, the Athenian millitary is stupidly underrated. They gave the Persians just as much of run for their money and they had a great navy too.

The only part that was worth shit was the Navy, the Army weren't all that hot.

I stand by the Spartans. Suicidally brave to the last.

The roman armies did not employ the phalanx.

Sure they did. It just wasn't their hallmark.

parthians?

The Parthians were a tiny client state of Athens. They were honoured more than the rest of the Greek army because they sent every single person they had into the war even thougbh the Athenians said that they could defect to the persians if they wanted to.

I've always been under the impression that Parthians were Persians.

Parthians were the remains of AtG's empire come Roman era I think.

no because they couldn't beat Napoleon without the Prussians and Russians and Austrians.
They where about to march on Paris before the first Peace, and held out against the massivly superior French forces, with less artillary and men for almost a day until Purussian renforcements arrived, that was after they had forght another battle 2 days earlyer and marched back the day before.

The Persian immortals were really cool. Give them credit.

The Persian immortals were really cool. Give them credit.

Good, but the Spartans have them beaten.

Or the Sacred band... they were pretty hard.

Hannibal is seriously overrated in my view. He's called a tactical genius just because he had a force that the Romans weren't used to fighting.
Alexander on the other hand. Master . King of the "fix and flank" tactic.

Hannibal is seriously overrated in my view. He's called a tactical genius just because he had a force that the Romans weren't used to fighting.
Alexander on the other hand. Master . King of the "fix and flank" tactic.

He is the greatest General, but not the greatest military.

Hannibal is seriously overrated in my view. He's called a tactical genius just because he had a force that the Romans weren't used to fighting.
Alexander on the other hand. Master . King of the "fix and flank" tactic.

Haha, that reminds me. I have that Rome: Total War game. I go down to Africa and recruit a ton of armored elephants, and bring them up to Gaul and Germania. The Gauls and Germans completely freak out and run away because they don't know how to fight the elephants.

Parthians were the remains of AtG's empire come Roman era I think.

But I believe they are the same people as the Persians. Just with a different name, and intermixed with Greeks because of Alexander.

Hello?

Anybody ever hear of a little outfit called the KISS Army?

Best. Army. Ever.

But I believe they are the same people as the Persians. Just with a different name, and intermixed with Greeks because of Alexander.

yeah, but different era

British armed forces (as in all of them) 1982 against Argentina.

Faced with a airforce 10 times their size with a navy easily twice the size a British taskforce carrying the unknown quantity that was the Sea Harrier (all 16 of them) plus as many land based Harriers. Went halfway around the world to secure one of the last British dependancies - The Falkland Islands.

The fleet numbered one rusting POS HMS Hermies, a light fleet carrier that was due to be sold to the Indian government, and the brand spanking new HMS Invincible, a modified helecopter carrier, that was due to be sold to the Australians, Both carried 8 Sea Harriers and 10 helecopters of Sea king size. One Assault ship - HMS Intrepid, along with two brand new type 22 frigates (they were litterally fresh off the launch ramp at the time) about 20 type 21 frigates, a half dozen Leander Class frigates (an older design) and 15 type 42 destroyers. All in all just under 50 major warships (twice the number we have now, and after New Labour have finished with the Navy at the end of this year, THREE times as many). Oh and a couple of nuclear attack submarines...

We came, we saw, we conqured. The argentines killed a few of our warships, and then were sent packing, after we'd all but wiped out their land based forces and killed over 20 of their aircraft.

Rewind to today and we could not repeat this victory. For the UK it was our last major engagement in which we went it alone. It marked the end of an era for us, though I am not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

Haha, that reminds me. I have that Rome: Total War game. I go down to Africa and recruit a ton of armored elephants, and bring them up to Gaul and Germania. The Gauls and Germans completely freak out and run away because they don't know how to fight the elephants.

Ah i love that game, I used elephants to attack the SPQR army, i was Brutii faction, the once so proud legions ran away faced with this monster :)

Germany under Kaiser and Bismark:

Bismark united germany

Kaiser gave it the worlds best navy

Failed due to Serbia assinating the archduke ferdinand II?. Serbia failed austria's orders to avoid war so austria attacked. Russia tried to defend its ally so Prussia defended austria. Eventually it became All of Western europe, America and russia against austria, ottoman empire and prussia. They would have won if america's fresh army didnt join or if russia was smaller.

It was serbia's fault for ww1 but at versaillies prussia later germany in the 1920s had to accept full responsibility.

The best non german army of all time was the spartans

300 spartans held off 10,000 persians for 3 days when a greek betrayed them.

Alexander just sucked. The greeks could've beaten the persians anyday and the eygptians werent to powerful either.

Kaiser gave it the worlds best navy.

It NEVER came close to the Royal Navy...EVER. The Royal Navy always had more ships than the two largest navies behind it until the shortly after the first world war. It was always British naval policy to have the largest and best Navy on the seas. Sure the German navy might have been technically more advanced but not by much and technology doens't always beat man power.

the best, I'm not sure, but here are the worst 5
the polish army, 1939
the Italian army, 1939- 1945
the Russian army, 1914-1917
La Armada Invencible (the Spanish Armada) 1558
the Spanish army, 1810-1825

You forgot "Any army commanded by a Frenchman" (remember, Napoleon was Corsican, Joan of Arc was not a man).

1. USSR's Red Army was bigger, stronger better trained and more advanced that any other army on planet. US Army was just a fly waiting to be squashed by Red Army in Cold War. Not even all armed forces of the world could counter the Red Army. Period.

2. German Army in WW2

3. Syrian Army

Though i know they werent the best i think the canadian milatary during ww1 and ww2 shouldbe mentioned as the infantry was used as shock troops against the germans some places the canadians took Vimy ridge, belgium italy they also took big chunks of land in france till they ran out of troops and were forced to hold position till reinforcments came.

the best, I'm not sure, but here are the worst 5
the polish army, 1939
the Italian army, 1939- 1945
the Russian army, 1914-1917
La Armada Invencible (the Spanish Armada) 1558
the Spanish army, 1810-1825

Thank you for remembering. But don't let it happen again.

Ah i love that game, I used elephants to attack the SPQR army, i was Brutii faction, the once so proud legions ran away faced with this monster :)

Yeah, I was the Junii. I went and got some elephants from a territory I conquered in Africa, and brought them up to Northern Europe. They make mincemeat out of the Germans and the Gauls and the Britons.

the best, I'm not sure, but here are the worst 5
the polish army, 1939
the Italian army, 1939- 1945
the Russian army, 1914-1917
La Armada Invencible (the Spanish Armada) 1558
the Spanish army, 1810-1825

Did you know that Hitler feared a Polish attack in 1938, when he was thinking of invading Chezchlaslovakia(sp?)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asconia
the best, I'm not sure, but here are the worst 5
the polish army, 1939
the Italian army, 1939- 1945
the Russian army, 1914-1917
La Armada Invencible (the Spanish Armada) 1558
the Spanish army, 1810-1825

________________________________________
I would say the polish army fough heroicly considering the forve they faced against them..............................

Did you know that Hitler feared a Polish attack in 1938, when he was thinking of invading Chezchlaslovakia(sp?)?

Yeah, well he thought we dutchies were brave :rolleyes: (and we surrendered after 5 days :( )

I think you'd have to say the conquistidors under Pizzaro against the Incans. What, 158 Spaniards win against 7,000 incan warriors? And win big. Name a more lopsided victory.

British armed forces (as in all of them) 1982 against Argentina.

Faced with a airforce 10 times their size with a navy easily twice the size a British taskforce carrying the unknown quantity that was the Sea Harrier (all 16 of them) plus as many land based Harriers. Went halfway around the world to secure one of the last British dependancies - The Falkland Islands.

The fleet numbered one rusting POS HMS Hermies, a light fleet carrier that was due to be sold to the Indian government, and the brand spanking new HMS Invincible, a modified helecopter carrier, that was due to be sold to the Australians, Both carried 8 Sea Harriers and 10 helecopters of Sea king size. One Assault ship - HMS Intrepid, along with two brand new type 22 frigates (they were litterally fresh off the launch ramp at the time) about 20 type 21 frigates, a half dozen Leander Class frigates (an older design) and 15 type 42 destroyers. All in all just under 50 major warships (twice the number we have now, and after New Labour have finished with the Navy at the end of this year, THREE times as many). Oh and a couple of nuclear attack submarines...

We came, we saw, we conqured. The argentines killed a few of our warships, and then were sent packing, after we'd all but wiped out their land based forces and killed over 20 of their aircraft.

Rewind to today and we could not repeat this victory. For the UK it was our last major engagement in which we went it alone. It marked the end of an era for us, though I am not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

I prefer Ricky Gervais' decription of the Argentinaian war.
'Basically, it was a range war, which means our guns could fire 15 km and their guns could fire 9 km. So we just parked our boats 10km off their shore and were blowing the sh*t out of them. It's the equivilant of holding a midget at arms length and kicking him in the bollocks.'
I just thought I'd mention that, because it is great.

First off, The American Military right now relies heavily on technology and tactics, so does every military, but they have done better; everyone knows that.

But the American Military could not go to war with China for one simple reason; The Chinese would have no qualms of launching every single Nuclear Weapon they have right at us, and we don't have enought STDI's to block them all from hitting targets.

We can't stand off against the Japanese, because they would cripple our economy easily since the yen is worth more then the U.S. Dollar and they own half the United States unofficially.

We couldn't spar off against North Korea, because they relie heavily upon Guriella Warfare and American Military, as proven in the Vietnam War, is not built to do that kind of war.

In answer to the first question: China, now, or sometime within 20 years.
Reason for failure: uhhh... some form of miracle? Better just hope they stay somewhat friendly.
China currently has the largest Military in the world, in terms of sheer manpower, and still maintains a good level of training. What it lacks currently is decades of advancement in technology, compared to the the US or Britain. But as their economic and industrial progress is showing, that is far from an insurmountable barrier

We couldn't spar off against North Korea, because they relie heavily upon Guriella Warfare and American Military, as proven in the Vietnam War, is not built to do that kind of war.

Um no. In Vietnam America was handily beating the VietCong in terms of kills. The American military became quite adept at fighting Guerilla Warfare. What Vietnam proved is that when a superior Army is denied tactical mobility and denied the ability to wage war as its General's wish to it will ultimately fail. We inflicted the loss of Vietnam upon ourselves. The Vietcong sent men into the meatgrinder until the meatgrinder said it had had enough.

Dunno if anyone has mentioned it or not yet, so here goes-

The Spartiates. The Spartans in my opinion were far and away the greatest fighting force of all time.

We can't stand off against the Japanese, because they would cripple our economy easily since the yen is worth more then the U.S. Dollar and they own half the United States unofficially.

The USD is currently worth more than the YEN actually. In terms of the strength of a currency the Yen, and Japan's economy, is currently in a very questionable state of affairs. Japan has no hope of crippling the US economy, Japan meanwhile has every fear that the US would cripple theirs. A Trade War between the US and Japan wouldn't be pretty for either side, but the US would emerge in semi-decent shape and Japan would be bankrupt.

We couldn't spar off against North Korea, because they relie heavily upon Guriella Warfare and American Military, as proven in the Vietnam War, is not built to do that kind of war.

I'm going to extrapolate on this... North Korea has one of the largest standing armies in the world. They wouldn't exactly be relying on Guerrilla tactics. At the same time we essentially won the Korean War because our goal was to force the North out of the South. The US wasn't attempting to conquer the North or unify the North and the South, our goal was simply to push them back out of South Korea.

As in South Asia, if you have gone there, joining the military is mandatory. The North Koreans if seen to be being beaten in open combat, will go into Guriella Warfare, every military if seen to be losing will become desperate and do everything their power to pull out winning, Guriella Warfare is the most common of options.

The Japanese are far more powerful then you give them credit, They can use thei money against us and the export/import imbalance is that they're making more money from trading with us since they sell their exports for outrageous prices, but expect to pay cheap for imports.

Dunno if anyone has mentioned it or not yet, so here goes-

The Spartiates. The Spartans in my opinion were far and away the greatest fighting force of all time.

Not to contradict you, but no, they weren't. The Macedonians were the greatest military force, using calvary when things got rough when the phalanx seemed uneffective. They were the first to improve on the Greek Phalanx and Alexander and Phillip used it ruthessly

That's one of my all-time favorite rhetorical flourishes.

You know the one I mean, the one where someone says:

"No offense but . . ." and then proceeds to say the most offensive stuff ever.

Or, as we see in this case, the "Not that you're wrong, but here's why you're wrong . . ."

Is there a word for this device? Can we name it?

The current US military is probably the most unstoppable military the planet has ever produced.
I agree.

As in South Asia, if you have gone there, joining the military is mandatory. The North Koreans if seen to be being beaten in open combat, will go into Guriella Warfare, every military if seen to be losing will become desperate and do everything their power to pull out winning, Guerilla Warfare is the most common of options.

So? They will first get beaten in open combat, maybe, and then when they start to fight as Guerillas, do you expect them to do any better than the Vietcong did? 58,226 KIA Americans in Vietnam vs 1,500,000 KIA Vietcong. If in a war between America and North Korea, and N.Korea resorted to Guerilla tactics, I wouldn't expect them to do much better.

The Japanese are far more powerful then you give them credit, They can use thei money against us and the export/import imbalance is that they're making more money from trading with us since they sell their exports for outrageous prices, but expect to pay cheap for imports.

Firstly, the Japanese economy is in a very tricky situation and essentially remained stagnate for a decade. Secondly, it is exactly that imbalance that kills them in a trade war. A simple embargo or tariff on Japanese goods would send the Japanese economy into ruins very quickly. In an open war between Japan and the United States, there are no more exports from Japan to the USA. They end up with a bunch of Hondas sitting in warehouses, laying off workers and tanking their economy. Sorry, but Japan is a strong enough country but to imagine they could somehow out economically muscle the United States is silly.

...But the American Military could not go to war with China for one simple reason; The Chinese would have no qualms of launching every single Nuclear Weapon they have right at us, and we don't have enought STDI's to block them all from hitting targets.


Uhh...ok.
You think they would not think of the hundreds of Nuclear warheads coming from the US?

If any Nulcear country ws attacked with nuclear weapons, I would think they would retaliate. I think the Communist Chinese would think twice about using nuclear weapons against any nuclear state.

Firstly, the Japanese economy is in a very tricky situation and essentially remained stagnate for a decade. Secondly, it is exactly that imbalance that kills them in a trade war. A simple embargo or tariff on Japanese goods would send the Japanese economy into ruins very quickly. In an open war between Japan and the United States, there are no more exports from Japan to the USA. They end up with a bunch of Hondas sitting in warehouses, laying off workers and tanking their economy. Sorry, but Japan is a strong enough country but to imagine they could somehow out economically muscle the United States is silly.

I agree with this. We've already seen the greatest economic war history has offered so far: The Cold War. The US and USSR were competing in arms build-up and this basically reduced the conflict to a question of who had the deeper pockets. This is how economic wars are fought, not through embargoes and sanctions. In this regard, Japan is a nonentity. On paper, they spend a lot on their military, but they've got like 1/6th the manpower of the U.S. and the self-defense provisions following WWII are a big handicap. No special forces, no aerial refuelling, no stockpiling, no long-range weapons. And no nukes. In the event of an arms race, Japan is sitting at the stop-light while the U.S. is already going sixty.

Commie China is to ill-prepared to win a war against the United States today

Commie China is to ill-prepared to win a war against the United States today
all this reminds me about the France vs USA war thread.

Most deffinatly Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Throughout the entire war they were outnumbered from 2:1 to 3:1, yet they only lost one true battle, two if you count Seven Day's battle a loss. The only problem's he had was low manpower and not enough supplies.

Most northerners(including myself, I'm from Ohio) were taught that the North destroyed the South, this is not true. In EVERY battle the Army of Northern Virgina fought, they had lower casualties than the Army of the Potomac, they were in no way destroyed, they were a force to be feared. If you still feel so strongly about Union military superiority, let's take a look at the Battle of Chancelorsville.

1).Union general Joseph Hooker had about 130,000 men, Lee had 65,00, but about 10-13,000 of them under General Longstreet hadn't moved fast enogugh to get to the main force.

2) As the federal troops camped for the evening(after crossing the Rappashanock(sp) River to flank the Confedrates, The Rebel 1st Corps under General Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson led his force to the rear of them. As fighting commensed, Jackson sucessfully forced them to retreat.

3) The next morning, Jackson pressed the attack, when it seemed that he was running out of steam, Lee led the remainder of the army into battle, completeing the movement.

4) Hooker ordered a general retreat, ending one of the greatest military meneuvers of all time.


The Army of Northern Virginia Pwned.

Originally posted by Neuvosto Suomi
1. USSR's Red Army was bigger, stronger better trained and more advanced that any other army on planet. US Army was just a fly waiting to be squashed by Red Army in Cold War. Not even all armed forces of the world could counter the Red Army. Period.

2. German Army in WW2

3. Syrian Army

Saying the US was a fly waiting to be squashed is a very stupid thing to say. The US was a virtual industrial machine during the Cold War and was a force to be reckoned with.
The Syrian Army, where'd u get that? :confused:
The US army after the Spanish American War is and was by far the best military of the modern era.

I'd have to say the US military of WWII. The tacticians weren't bad, but it wasn't the advantage. The advantage was the mass production of everything. I'm especially interested in the US navy of the time, as it defeated the second best navy of all time. Unfortunatly, being second best is not good enough. Oh, it was also the golden era of military science in the US, as was shown with the Manhatten Project.

The Roman phalanx and short sword kept the Roman empire powerful for longer than any other empire in history. As is often the case, the empire rotted from within, not through any significant fault of its military.


From within, would you be meaning poor emperors/generals(ex. Adrianople & Manzikert) or something else?

Saying the US was a fly waiting to be squashed is a very stupid thing to say. The US was a virtual industrial machine during the Cold War and was a force to be reckoned with.
The Syrian Army, where'd u get that? :confused:
The US army after the Spanish American War is and was by far the best military of the modern era.


Didn't the Syrians get their collective asses handed to them by the Israelis about half a dozen times during the past 50 years?

Russian SPETSNAZ. Kind of ruthless though.

Originally posted by The South Islands
Didn't the Syrians get their collective asses handed to them by the Israelis about half a dozen times during the past 50 years?

The Syrians couldn't even win with the help of Egypt and Lebanon.
Power to the Jews! :p

First Place: (700 BCE-200BCE)Carthage. They had well trained armies and the best military leaders in history. They were defeated by numbers. Lots of numbers

Second Place: Rome(200 BCE-200CE). They beat the Carthaginians, after all ;)

Third Place(tie): United States (1946-present). We have the right combination of training, funding, equipment, leadership, and experience. It's sad that the government is using wrongfully, though.

Third Place(tie): Soviet Union(1944-1989). Until they got their arses whooped in Afghanistan, the Soviet Army was just as good as the American. Their training and equipment sucked, but they had numbers and tactics.

Fourth Place: Great Britain(1700s-1914). Their army beat almost every army in the world during this period. They rarely lost(although they did in the U.S., Afghanistan, and areas of Africa).

Fifth Place(tie): Germany(1880's-1918, 1937-1944). Matched with it's industrial might and it's awesome military leaders, Germany was a great power. It only lost because it was outnumbered by alot.

Fifth Place(tie): Polish-Lithuanian Commowealth(1500's-1600's). The Polish Army conquered army after army(including the Turks at the battle of Vienna) and had the greatest military units in history(the Polish Lancers). It was defeated, however, after it was nearly bled to death in a war against the Swedish Empire, and then it's allies turned on it and cut it into pieces.

While I'll grant brilliance at the Battle of Sadowa, it really didn't take much to defeat Austria. And the French were playing with a handicap. ;)
OK. I'll admit now that I know nothing at all about this topic.

Why doesn't anyone in this thread give any love to the Mongols.
They could've conquered western eurpoe easily in the middle ages, only the death of the khan (i don't know which one) stopped them.
Their military and tactics were superpior to any nation of it's time, and their leadership was superb. Thier horses slaughtered the heavily armored warriors of their time. Plus, I think Genghis had a fu man chu. :p

British Empire 1700-1945

Sheer talent alone..

They invented ship warfare.


No they didnt...

Most powerful military

Not much of a doubt about it,

USA and Israel today, because they have the best and second best air force respectively, nuclear weapons, state of the art ground forces and Israel has the worlds best intelligence.


In history.

Germany 1939- late 1942
Reasons
STATE of the art technology
PROFESSIONAL military outlook matched only by Britains
SUPERIOR training
A super military command
HUMILIATING the French


Failures : Adolf Hitler took over command, and after his brilliance in Poland and France, had some disastrous intervention which totally negated the efforts of Manstein and the Kleist.

After that everything was academic. 1/4 of the Wehrmachts strength was wasted in Stalingrad, Reichenau died, Rommel was beaten in Africa, the Luftwaffe took some disastrous losses trying to deliver to Stalingrad, the SS alienated the Russians with their brutality...

And apart from Von Kleist's attempts to win over the Cossacks and Uzbeks, it was a disaster.

Two victories against the BE? Are you thinking of the war of 1812? *cracks knuckles*

America LOST that war...

well thats a matter of opinion... a lot of historians consider it a draw, and none I am aware of consider it a US defeat. All three British invasions (New York, Maryland and Louisiana) were defeated (even though Washington was burned). British Indian allies were crushed completely, and the treaty ending the war basically went to status quo pro ante. The US invasion of Canada failed miserably (and deservedly) and the US was briefly swept from the seas except for commerce raiders. But the US fought the Superpower of the time and survived and in 1814 pretty much had to take on the best of the British Army and Navy.

But I wouldn't rate the US military as the best of all time.

Each period of history has what would be called the best...

Ancient times (pre Rome) goes to Alexander the Greats Macedonians, with the Athenian Navy and Spartan Army ranked after them.

In the Roman Era it definitely belonged to the Roman Army, particularly when led by Julius Caeser and later on Aggripa. The Gauls and Cartheginians would attest to that.

The Chinese Imperial Armies of the various dynasties routinely reunited that country countless times. Sun Tzu is still one of the best books on war. I don't know enough Chinese history to rate one of their armies though.

in the Western Early Middle Ages (400 - 1100) probably rate the Normans the highest in Europe, and the Seljuk Turks in the Mideast, with the Byzantines doing very well until 1097.

Late Middle Ages (1100 - 1500) the award definitely goes to the Mongols, with the English Army under Henry V and Edward II right behind them.

Early gunpowder era (1500 - 1700) the Spanish Army was exceptionally effective throughout (it did conquer all of what became Latin America after all), with the early English Navy, the Swedes (briefly) and French Army being highly effective. At this point no non European Army could compete effectively against Europeans any more.

1700 - 1790 The British Navy was the leader, the British Army was small but the most effective on a regimental level, and the Prussians and French were right behind them.

Napoleonic era definitely goes to the British Army and Royal Navy, with the French Army right behind them. The US Army by 1814 was able to fight toe to toe with British troops and win on the defensive at this point in open field battle (which places them pretty high doesn't it).

1815 - 1865 The US Army defeated Mexico without once losing a battle and fought outnumbered in enemy territory on the offensive and won decisively, later on the Confederate and Union Armies by 1863 could almost certainly defeated any European Army on the battlefield (American artillery was exceptionally well used, and US tactics were superior to European tactics by this point... bloody battlefields will do that you know).

1866 - 1915 British Army was the best on a small unit level (regiment/brigade) but the Prussian (later German Imperial) Army was a better army at the strategic/operational level. The Japanese Navy was in the running for best navy behind the British and Germans at this point.

1915 -1920 The German Army was the best, with the British behind them, while the US and British Navies were the most effective, with everyone else behind them.

1920 - 1941 The British had the best military overall, although the US and Germans had the core they needed for expansion, and so did the Japanese. In the early part of the World War 2 its no question that the Germans had the best Army, but the British had a better Navy and Air Force.

1942 - 1945 The Germans still fielded the best army on a tactical level, but the Russians and Americans were better strategically and operationally, and the US Navy was the better of the Allied Navies and the Allies were better than the Axis navies. No question that the US had a more effective air force, in spite of those German jets.

Post War - present. In spite of problems, the US and British Armies are still the worlds most effective, the US Air Force is without question the worlds most effective and the US Navy is the best navy. The British, Germans, Israelis, Japanese and French all have fine militaries, as do the Indians, Pakistanis, and South Koreans. However the US trains more, spends more money on training, and has more institutional combat experience.

but thats just my opinion

First off, The American Military right now relies heavily on technology and tactics, so does every military, but they have done better; everyone knows that.

But the American Military could not go to war with China for one simple reason; The Chinese would have no qualms of launching every single Nuclear Weapon they have right at us, and we don't have enought STDI's to block them all from hitting targets.

We can't stand off against the Japanese, because they would cripple our economy easily since the yen is worth more then the U.S. Dollar and they own half the United States unofficially.

We couldn't spar off against North Korea, because they relie heavily upon Guriella Warfare and American Military, as proven in the Vietnam War, is not built to do that kind of war.

lets talk a little bit about military power.

China could use nuclear weapons against US targets.. They could destroy Japan, Okinawa,Guam with medium range missiles, and assuming all 10 of their ICBMs worked, possibly destroy 10 US cities. The US at that point with one Ohio class submarine destroy between 16 - 50 Chinese cities, thus bringing down Chinese civilization. Chinese leaders are well aware of that. At sea China would be destroyed quickly, and other than offensives against Southeast Asia or South Korea they simply can't get to anything vital to the US. The US however, with assistance from Allies, land anywhere it wants to in China after some time to build up, and using internal rivalries in China could dismember that nation.

In 20 years, maybe not so simple, but that is what a total war situation with the US and China means at this point.

Japan (if for some insane reason went to war with the US) is completely dependent on overseas trade. Its navy lacks carriers and can't operate much further than the range of Japanese fighters (about 1000 kilometers). The US Navy could easily eliminate Japanese trade everywhere but Japanese home waters within weeks. Japan collapses shortly after that unless Allied with China or Russia. In that event, US submarines and bombers destroy Japanese shipping in local waters and blockade Japan until it starves and surrenders. Nationalization easily deals with the Japanese property holdings in the US.

North Korea will not be invaded by the US. However, if the North Koreans invade South Korea, then US, ROK, Japanese, Australian (likely) and other UN forces destroy the NKPLA in the field, and then ROK troops liberate the North Koreans. If a guerilla war begins, then the world gets to see just how ruthless ROK troops are (read about how they operated in Vietnam... they will win the guerilla war, after all, they have before during the last Korean conflict while the maintaining strong forces on the frontline as well).

I think the greatest military there ever was nazi germany i say that because even now no country has been able to top the amount of soilders that they had but the reason they failed is because they had a psycho running it all

I think you'd have to say the conquistidors under Pizzaro against the Incans. What, 158 Spaniards win against 7,000 incan warriors? And win big. Name a more lopsided victory.

You managed to avoid mentioning the 'several thousand tribesmen hostile to the Incan empire', which evened the score somewhat, no?


A more lopsided victory: William Walker and his 57 immortals against all Nicaragua in 1855.

What about Alexander?

His armies conquered much of the world before the Roman Empire was even around.

Also the Greeks, I think they should be respected as one of the finest fighting nations, they did after all perfect and design the phalanx, unfourtunate it was weak from the rear.

The Carthaginians, again, good fighters powerful if a little corrupt leaders.

The Romans, exceptionally powerful people with excellent armies and politicians.

The British military was strong but only due to the British grit and determination.

Its very hard to single out one military to be the best, since all militaries during their time have generally been defeated at some point.

mongolia under odegai khan-around 1150s.

This is a multiple part response to several people.

Enlightened Humanity, have you read Pressfield? You kind of sound like it and you quote two of the regiments he wrote about. Just wondering.

Neuvosto Suomi, sorry, but you are dead wrong about the Red Army being able to sweep America. We had the tech, we had the willing fighters, and we had the reach. All they had was the numbers, and its hard to move an army if all your ships and planes have been blown to hell by a technologically superior enemy.

Best Force of All Time: Hard, but I'm giving it to the IRA. Nearly four hundred years of fighting what was, for most of that time, the most powerful empire in the world and they still were never defeated.

Best Current Force: The U.S. army. Still technologically superior to everyone else, still all-volunteer force (assuming Rummy doesn't change that), still largest number of hardass units: Marines, Special Forces, Delta, SEALS, Green Berets.

Someone should at least mention the Ghurka rifles.

They have been an elite unit of the british army for at least 150yrs and have fought with exceptional skill and bravery in every major conflict the UK was involved with.

After that I would mention the 36th mountain division of the wehrmacht in 1944.

Probably, in recent history, the fighting force that demonstrated the most elan - and had the biggest effect on world history - is RAF fighter command in 1940-41.

For the most awesome force ever assembled it is easily the USN pacific fleet during WWII. By 1945, it probably could have conquered the world on its own. (Almost, it's really not far from the truth).

Historically, I give it to the Macedonian Phalanx. (good old sarrisa).

And for Bill Maher, about those bombings in 44-45. They were strategic buttmunch. (mostly to help your commie friends in the USSR).

Distant Past: Romans.

Recent past : Rommals 15th panzer division, all airborne troops (Uk and USA).

Current best : On performance and training id say British Army, sheer size and firepower USA.

Luxemburg

After the razing of their fortress no country ever invaded it again.

What else can you ask for?

Mekdemia, It's you who is wrong here. Nowadays, even NATO strategists admit that whole NATO (including USA) would be done for in 2-3 week against USSR in conventional war. And do not forget the rest of the Warsaw Pact. DDR alone would have made quick work out of West Germany. Soviets didn't just have numbers, they had tech too. For example, Soviets invented stealthplanes, but didn't massproduce them them because so called stealth is useless against modern radars. Soviets surpasses americans in many fields.
Check out for yourself:
MiG-21 > F-4 Phantom
T-55 > M48
ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" > Vulcan
MiG-29 > F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15 Eagle
S-300 SA-missile* > Patriot missile system
KA-50 "Hokum", Mil-24 "Hind" > AH-64 "Apache"
Akula-class submarine (And their "Shuka" torpedoes.) > Los Angeles-class sub
Moskit SS-N-20 "Sunburn" Antiship-missile* > Tomahawk

It's irrelevant to continue. Red Army was superior to US Army numerically, technologically and ideologically.

*These two weapon systems virtually render USN's so called "sea superiority" useless. Single salvo of Sunburns wreck any ship in US arsenal. And S-300 (and their more advanced models, S-400 and S-500) ensure that any carrier aircraft that tries to engage Soviet cruiser battle group will be vaporized before they reach their weapons maximum range.

Krasnyi Armi diktat!

1. German Afrika Korps
2. Wermacht during WWII
3. Waffen SS during WWII ( yes i know they were hardcore Nazis)
4. Alexander the Great
5. Julius Ceaser
6. Patton

I know the last 3 are not armies but they commanded them

Mekdemia, It's you who is wrong here. Nowadays, even NATO strategists admit that whole NATO (including USA) would be done for in 2-3 week against USSR in conventional war. And do not forget the rest of the Warsaw Pact.


Read Tom Clancy's book Red Storm Rising and you will see about a NATO v. Warsaw Pact war

Read Tom Clancy's book Red Storm Rising and you will see about a NATO v. Warsaw Pact war

I hardly think that can be taken as a particularly hyper-realistic book, particularly as I remember a scene with a single American tank sitting on a hill only partially entrenched and picking off entire squads of Russian armour with great ease. Which I felt smelt a little of pro-American bias.

Man for man, in terms of training, discipline, motivation, arms, and equipment, the British Expeditionary Force of 1914 was the finest military force of the period.

British Empire, 19-20 century
And it didn't really failed, the Commonwealth of Nation is still here since 1931.

THe South Australian Riot Police because they manage to beat up the hippies at the Woomera Detention center every time, even though outnumbered 10 to 1. And a pot smoking hippie is alot worse than the American Soldiers and Russians put together.

Hats off to them

Read Tom Clancy's book Red Storm Rising and you will see about a NATO v. Warsaw Pact war

Tom Clancy is really a fool who doesn't know anything about REAL warfare. How come A-10 Thunderbolt II gets close to RKKA Armored column without getting wrecked by ZSU-23-4's, Kub's and S-300's when these were standard equipment? His novel's aren't that bad literally speaking, but he should shape up his warfare knowledge.

Rhodesia, specifically the Selous Scouts.

Too hard to say objective, gazillions of considerations.

But anyway, I like the ... Bismark's Prussian military, and that of Imperial Germany.

France

France

ROFLMAO!!! :D

ROFLMAO!!! :D

Quiet you! They were good under Napolean and Charlemagne.

Quiet you! They were good under Napolean and Charlemagne.

True, true. I thought he was thinking of the French military in more recent times...

True, true. I thought he was thinking of the French military in more recent times...

They have nukes :D

Im going w/ almost everyone else on this one-

Ancient times- Romans

1100s- Mongols- why has no one mentioned these guys yet? They conquered, literally, the largest area in history. Hands down. Superior warriors, superior tactics, superior numbers, superior leadership.

1500s to 1918- Brits

1930s- Nazi Germany

1945+ United States

Honorable mentions to USSR, Prussia, and Napoleanic France- but these guys just werent up to the level of the previous five.

we won bigtime. :rolleyes:

Sure, if you think winning big time means thousands of military and civilian deaths, and destruction of property.

I very much doubt even one UK civilian died in the war of 1812.


the beginning of the end it was for the oppression the British Empire inflicted on it's colonies and it's tyrannical rule and it's theft of riches.

Which didn't even reach its height for another 80 or 90 years. :rolleyes:


That fight is not over today, look at "Northern" Ireland, Bloody Sunday.

Bloody Sunday was in the 70s, fool. That's like suggesting that the Vietnam War is current.

hmmmm I detest the way France has been mocked just cos it wouldnt allow itself to be bullied into joining the Americans in their moronic 'lets show the world how tough we are by invading a smaller, less well equipped nation' war. In my opinion it takes more guts to stand up to an bully than it does to give your proverbial lunch money.

Back to the topic I think the British Army circa around the 1800s was the best military power the world has ever produced. I would love to go back to that time when we had the best army and owned nearly three quarters of the world. At least people respected us, even if they didnt like us. Now noone respects us, we're just Americas Bitch. How did it ever come to this? Being effectively ruled by a nation whose collective IQ is in single digits... :rolleyes:

hmmmm I detest the way France has been mocked just cos it wouldnt allow itself to be bullied into joining the Americans in their moronic 'lets show the world how tough we are by invading a smaller, less well equipped nation' war. In my opinion it takes more guts to stand up to an bully than it does to give your proverbial lunch money.

Back to the topic I think the British Army circa around the 1800s was the best military power the world has ever produced. I would love to go back to that time when we had the best army and owned nearly three quarters of the world. At least people respected us, even if they didnt like us. Now noone respects us, we're just Americas Bitch. How did it ever come to this? Being effectively ruled by a nation whose collective IQ is in single digits... :rolleyes:

I don't mock France because of that. I mock France because their 20th century military sucked.

1500s to 1918- Brits

Correction:

1500s to 1707 - English

1707-1918 - Brits

I'll agree with the first replyer. (Roman phalanx...)

Ok, this is a post for the best military of all time...
militaries are difficult to compare...


USA
time: XX
reasons why they failed: nothing last for ever.

Roma
time:IV
reasons why they failed: nothing last for ever.

Mongolia
time: XIII
Game Over: When Ghengis Died....internal power strugle

Napoleon
time: XVIII
Game Over:: Napoleon went up against 6 Coalitions...It was Basically the man against all the other powers of Europe...and he almost pulled off.

British
time: XIX
Game Over: Rise of Germany/WW2

...others to come

Two victories against the BE? Are you thinking of the war of 1812? *cracks knuckles*

America LOST that war...
Actually, both sides declared victory in that war. History notes it as a tie.

If Britian couldn't do anything.. How come the Nazis couldn't invade??

And don't say cause the Americans (I'm an American, and I think the Brits did it all by themselves)
The British didn't do it by themselves, but they fought extremely well and if it weren't for them, Hitler would of taken over all of western europe.

Actually, both sides declared victory in that war. History notes it as a tie.

I have my own peculiar and unrealistic reasons for calling it a British victory, one of them being the common American cry that they "brought an imperial power to its knees/equally ludicrous statements" when talking about the war of independence. And lots that I have spoken to call 1812 a win even though they declared war in the first place, and the peace treaty involved Britain leaving their land.... any other country that tried that'd not be listened to. I understand that common concensus is a tie. it just amuses me to call it a win. I'd certainly call it a British favourable tie. if the war was forced to carry on, there'd only be one winner.... and it wouldn't be America.

Actually, both sides declared victory in that war.

Er, no they didn't. The Treaty of Ghent established status quo ante bellum.

Er, no they didn't. The Treaty of Ghent established status quo ante bellum.
That's "officially"... as we all know, the press can twist any variety of things for propaganda purposes, and I've debated with a lot of Americans who declare that was a victory for the U.S.A, as I stated above. If that wasn't what most americans thought after the war, why would it be a common (for those that know about the war of 1812) belief now?

The nazi empire of 1943.
I would like to see you take over half the world.
And the roman phalanx, they took over more than half the world, but in those times, taking over a country was a different matter.
Yeah, the romans and the nazis.... and the british.
The british empire at it's most powerful was also a pretty big army.
But WWII put an end to it.

Note: i hate nazi's, with a vengance, but you can't say they didn't do a good job of killing millions.

That's "officially"... as we all know, the press can twist any variety of things for propaganda purposes, and I've debated with a lot of Americans who declare that was a victory for the U.S.A, as I stated above. If that wasn't what most americans thought after the war, why would it be a common (for those that know about the war of 1812) belief now?

Because people are either ignorant, or like to delude themselves into believing they won every war in history out of nationalistic fervour?

The actual treaty that ended the war restored the pre-war borders, and essentially concluded the whole affair as a draw. Neither side had any more or less than it started with, except possibly a few less people and a few more graves.

You forgot "Any army commanded by a Frenchman" (remember, Napoleon was Corsican, Joan of Arc was not a man).
What about Laffayette?

I'd say America

American Revolution- Win
War of 1812- win/tie (it was status quo as many people said, but it boosted America's confidence)
Spanish-American War-Win
Mexican-American War-Win
WWI-win
WWII-Huge win
Korea-Tie
Vietnam-loss
Gulf War-Win
Afghanistan-in process of win
Iraq- ???

In answer to the first question: China, now, or sometime within 20 years.
Reason for failure: uhhh... some form of miracle? Better just hope they stay somewhat friendly.
China currently has the largest Military in the world, in terms of sheer manpower, and still maintains a good level of training. What it lacks currently is decades of advancement in technology, compared to the the US or Britain. But as their economic and industrial progress is showing, that is far from an insurmountable barrier
The Korean War shows that even with all that manpower it can be stopped. China does have a good military, but it needs a good leader to lead them right. They just can't use mass numbers in every battle.

Because people are either ignorant, or like to delude themselves into believing they won every war in history out of nationalistic fervour?

The actual treaty that ended the war restored the pre-war borders, and essentially concluded the whole affair as a draw. Neither side had any more or less than it started with, except possibly a few less people and a few more graves.

perhaps I should have been clearer. Whilst I recognise that the war did in fact end with everything being put back to precisely how it was before, of course because of the nationalistic fervour (particularly at that time in history) every side that could potentially get away with it was going to call it a victory. Which is presumably why the statement "both sides declared it a victory" was used. Key word being "declared", like I could declare that I am boo-boo, the friendly bear, but it don't make it so. :D
Sorry to sound so horribly patronising, but I like to eliminate any chance of further misinterpretation on either of our parts... and that's the easiest way to do it.

I'd say America

American Revolution- Win
War of 1812- win/tie (it was status quo as many people said, but it boosted America's confidence)
Spanish-American War-Win
Mexican-American War-Win
WWI-win
WWII-Huge win
Korea-Tie
Vietnam-loss
Gulf War-Win
Afghanistan-in process of win
Iraq- ???

Uhhh, you didn't 'win' WWI or WWII
We all lost.

Key word being "declared", like I could declare that I am boo-boo, the friendly bear, but it don't make it so. :D

Then perhaps the ambiguity is in the difference between Old John down the Dog and Duck declaring victory, and His Majesty's Government declaring victory.

Most northerners(including myself, I'm from Ohio) were taught that the North destroyed the South, this is not true. In EVERY battle the Army of Northern Virgina fought, they had lower casualties than the Army of the Potomac, [quote]

You frorgot Gettysburg.

Then perhaps the ambiguity is in the difference between Old John down the Dog and Duck declaring victory, and His Majesty's Government declaring victory.
Exactly. Whilst the government stance is the official stance, if you have enough people saying one thing, it suddenly becomes contagious, whether or not there's truth in it or not, which leads to both sides saying they won. Since there was no "loser" in the war, it makes it very easy for both sides populace/press/whoever isn't actually the official spokesperson for the nation to say that they won. After all, they didn't lose.

Rommel was short of men, it was a miracle he got as far as he did.

That and the rats of Tobruk

Exactly. Whilst the government stance is the official stance, if you have enough people saying one thing, it suddenly becomes contagious, whether or not there's truth in it or not, which leads to both sides saying they won. Since there was no "loser" in the war, it makes it very easy for both sides populace/press/whoever isn't actually the official spokesperson for the nation to say that they won. After all, they didn't lose.


Regardless, when someone says "Both sides declared victory", the natural conclusion is that both governments declared victory.

People at the time were, by comparison to today, very isolated and misinformed with regards to world affairs, so whatever they happened to think is irrelevant.

THe South Australian Riot Police because they manage to beat up the hippies at the Woomera Detention center every time, even though outnumbered 10 to 1. And a pot smoking hippie is alot worse than the American Soldiers and Russians put together.

Hats off to them

Yeah, them and the Victorian police.
they are shooting eveyone that looks at them funny and the only death from a weapon was that poor bastard that pulled over the guy and got shot

i'd have to give it to the mongols under genghis khan, just for coming out of the blue as a new power and being so damn dominant, without technological superiority, just discipline, leadership and really strong(but not especially revolutionary) battle feild tactics.