[telewinz]

I am a real fan of military history and a question that I've devoted alot of (hopefully) unbias thought to was "Who had/has the best military machine in the last 2000 years?" The only rules are 1. Be a major power. 2. Be compared to the military of their own era. Won at least one major war. Hurry before this poll gets buried/moved.

[Hardtarget]

U.S. Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force are tops, but , do you think we could add Alexander the Great into the mix...or was he outside the limits of the poll? I'm not doing too good with my history tonight! :p
Mark.

[Mike Irwin]

This is a TOUGH one!

Lots of things to consider, including "sphere" adversaries. In Roman times the "sphere" was a lot smaller, as it was unlikely that a Roman army would encounter a Chinese army.

These days, the sphere is really world wide.

I'm going to have to vote for the Romans on this one, as in their own sphere they truly were the dominant force in tactics, training, organization, and leadership. They had significant adversaries at times, but those rose and faded relatively quickly.

The US military comes in a very very close second, but I think the Chinese and even the British pose viable alternatives.

The Germany Army in 1870 is also a strong contender, but certainly not through 1942. The situation that existed in 1914-1918 throws the monkey wrench in that.

[Feanaro]

If you have put up Germany 1938-42 I might have picked that. But the Romans are pretty much the most popular when compared to the other armies of the time.

[cratz2]

The Spartans had a lot to respect. And a lot of very intelligent folks agree.

And the Finnish during the Winter War. Greatly outnumbered out-gunned, out infantried and out armored. And still kicked some commie patutie. (How the heck do you spell that, anyway? :p )

But I guess I'll go with the obvious and say us (or US, or U.S.A.) 1991 to present.

[yankytrash]

I almost went for Alexander "the Great" myself, but upon contemplation I decided he just had a large number of soldiers to overrun adversaries, and they were a little on the crazy side to boot. Not sure if that's "military power" or just hooliganism.

Definitely Romans, hands down. Not only in military fighting strength, but in prewar tactics, postwar relations, and general fighting tactics. Truly before their time in all respects, and they made it work for the longest time compared to any other.

[Feanaro]

Actually, Alexander had fewer troops in many of his famous battles, if I remember right.

[Blackhawk]

The two words that make the choices hard are "effective" and "peers."

The IDF hasn't had much more than a bloody nose in its whole history, so it's certainly right up there in effectiveness, and it hasn't had any peers since it neutered them in 1973.

The U.S. Army from 1991 forward was only tested against the Iraqi Army in 1991, which was hyped as a peer, but it wasn't even close.

During part of it's 800 year history, the ancient Roman army did pretty well, but I have a hard time giving losers the "most effective" laurels.

[Lochaber]

I go for the Brits. Most people forget that the brits pretty much owned the world. There has been no other empire like it, none that could claim that "The sun never sets in the empire". I suspect that even as area of landmass they have the record. Sure Mother Russia is big but if combine half of Africa, Australia, Canada and India (just to name a few) you have a whole different scale.

And all of this was done at the barrel of the british infantry musket. I doubt that there has been an army that faught as many enemies and as diverse enemies, from african spearman, russian infantry, arab cavalry, indian assasins, american farmers, turkish infantry, spanish fleets, and oh yeah .. the little guy named Napoleon. I'm not sure if most people know this, but once Wellington took command in Portugal the Brits did not loose a single major battle against Napoleons troops and they were always outnumbered by veteran troops.

I am always amazed by the scale of combat in those times and the british were the best of the bunch. It is easy to forget about them with their empire now gone (even Rome fell), particularly for us Americans because we managed to kick them off the continent. Most of the rest of the world still remembers when the a different red white and blue ruled the world.

And no, I am not a brit. I just respect what they were able to do.

Loch

[telewinz]

I didn't include Alexander the Great simply because there has to be a cutoff point which is AD rather than including BC. Very surprised that the British Army isn't at the top, seems a 300 year winning streak should be worth more. Rome will alway be near #1 as will ancient Greece. I think the US has a shot at the top 3 for sure, it might even be possible to say they are heads and shoulders above Rome ( seems to be against the laws of nature)at this period in time because we are the only "Super Power" in all the World, not just the known World. Also, I think our speers have CHOSEN to be a great deal weaker, that helps.

[Hkmp5sd]

If looking at their proficiency for the entire time frame listed, I would have to give the nod toward the IDF. The US from 1991 a close second, but we did have 8 years of Clinton and he did everything possible to destroyed the military. While they were strong and did survive, the Clinton years did detract from their overall proficiency.

The German Army from mid-30s to 1944 were a major fighting force (although poorly led by their political leaders), but including the 20s and early 30s in the poll removed them from consideration.

The USSR from 1943 onward would rank as one of the worst. Although not percieved as such, they were very poorly trained and their equipment was substandard. Their primary strength was having lots of cannon fodder and only acting in the background during the wars fought since that time. Their single attempt at invasion turned into a disaster.

[telewinz]

Why not the German Army. From 1870 to 1942 they defeated major, state-of-the-art World powers while for the most part being vastly outnumbered. The US Army even adopted their spiked helmet for dress for a time. I'd rank them right up there with Rome.

[Watchman]

Im going with the U.S. of A on this one simply because of the word "EFFECTIVE" used in the question.

ALL of the armys were pretty much effecive at winning wars but you have too look at the cost of lives doing it.

We are using technology on a level never before seen, we have come a long way even since the last Gulf War. As a result, we have fewer casualties while having some impressive scores of enemy KIA.

So, if you look at the ratio of our own KIA as compared to the enemy KIA, I'd say that right now we are the "best" by far.

[JohnBT]

Mongol Army. They conquered China, Russia, Persia, India, etc. and controlled a land mass 5 times the size of Alexander's empire.

John

[jimbo]

I voted Ancient Rome -- they proved it.

Some should not even be on the list. The British and Japanese Armies were clearly inferior to contemporaries. It was only their Navies that gave them military might.

Since the modern era, with nuclear arms, who can say who has the most military might. If you mean conventional arms only, well I don't know if the US has enough men and equipment to kill half of the Chinese troops in uniform. Probably not.

I understand your question but it just seems impossible to answer.

Food for thought, though...

We know that Alexander the Great, the Ancient Romans and Ghengis Khan and the Moors carved out huge empires. Based on the % of world's population under the yoke of their rule, they would have to top your list.

Even Napoleon and Hitler got bogged down in Russia so they can't be contenders for 1st on this list.

I'm not sure any nation since 1870 is clearly dominant over all others. Modern day America comes close, but if it were us against the world, many of our allies such as England, France, Germany, Canada, Australia and Israel have state of the art weapons the same or similar to ours. What the Chinese lack in quality they might make up for in quantity. The ex-Soviet nations are not exactly defenseless.

Russia is a fraction of their old selves militarily but I think they still have enough nuclear ICBMs to blow up America several times over. I can't isolate our conventional forces from nuclear forces for the sake of answering your question.

[jimbo]

You know, the Moors deserve a lot more respect than they are getting in this poll. You don't have to like them to respect their ferocity and conquests.

[PsyWarrior]

I have to give more credit to the Japanese than this poll allows. The problem is that their time line extends through 1944. Had it been cut off in 42 (pre midway) I would give it to them. Even going to 44, they were still a force to be reckoned with. Remember, these guys (with swords, not rifles) took over most of china, thailand, korea, and even viet nam for a while. They had, IMHO, the most motivated military force of all times. They fought under command of a god, not a president or general. This gives a dedication that we will never again see on this planet.

[Snowdog]

I voted Imperial Rome as well. If I recall correctly, during the rule of Augustus Caesar (Octavian, who presided over much of the Pox Romana), Rome's standing army consisted of around half a million well armed and extremely well trained troops with loyalties to Rome's Caesar, not just the Generals and Prefects.
In those days, having absolute and immediate control over more than half a million, battle-ready legionnaires was inconceivable to most, as would 50 million or so US GIs be inconceivable to most of us today. What is our military personnel count today, around two million?
Imagining the current U.S. military over 25 times greater in size than it is today gives me a headache.

Rome's legions were an incredibly mobile military machine that outclassed anything of its day, bar none. Capable of amassing incredible numbers of legionnaire across its vast empire in impressive time (due to the construction and utilization of waystations and roads) and practicing awe-inspiring military discipline, the Roman war juggernaut seemed all but invincible.

But that too, did pass.

I've heard ancient Greece being considered the fountainhead of modern civilization, and that may be true... but when it comes to military power, that collection of Greek city states had nothing on Imperial Rome! The Greeks only "pulled it together" during the Persian war... after that, it was each Greek city-state for itself (as the Athens/Sparta Peloponnisian war illustrated quite nicely)
;)

So, if the question is the "most effective during their existence in history"... I'd put my money squarely on ancient Rome without hesitation. But then, I thought that would be obvious to most.

[DMK]

Hmm, that is a tough one. You say "Who had/has the best military machine", but then list only armies. "Combined arms" is very important. The British empire could not have expanded and kept it's territories without it's notoriously powerful navy. Germany's army could not have taken over all of Europe without it's air power and could not have held it as long as it did without it's U-boat fleet. The U.S could not have defeated Germany and Japan (at the same time, I should add) without it's naval and air power.

If we include combined arms, I'd have to say that the U.S. military from '43 to '45 was the most powerful force on the planet(not even including two atomic bombs). I'd further add that we as a nation not only had enough men and arms to defeat Axis powers on two distant fronts, but also were able to provide arms to numerious allies to help them do so as well.

The thing that makes it even more amazing is that we went from a neutered military in '40,'41 that was barely able to defend the country to superpower in post WWII that could use combined air, ground and sea forces to take the battle to the enemy almost anywhere in the world. Do this day, nobody has ever matched the power of our carrier groups or long range strategic bombing capabilities. We may not have invented these, but we sure refined them and used them to great effect in WWII.

[Selfdfenz]

The United States may not have had the best peace-time AFs but what has and always will count is what we have during wars we have fought.

And that has always been the best.

And I certainly do include Viet Nam.
We were better!

If you think that's not true, in what war and with what country would you be willing to trade?


S-

[10-Ring]

Considering the overwhelmin capabilities (considering equipment & training) & globa reach of the current US military, it would be tough to consider anyone else (past or present) as in the same level.

[MeekandMild]

Rome.


US Army is good but it would not be where it is today if it weren't for the Navy, Marines and Air Force. And for Rome.

[Mike Irwin]

"I have to give more credit to the Japanese than this poll allows. The problem is that their time line extends through 1944."

Psywarrior,

Hum...

I'd have to disagree.

The Japanese never fought a truly capable adversary in their run across the Pacific.

When the tipped swords with the Soviets in 1940 (?) they received a SERIOUS *** kicking at the hands of Georgi Zhukov.

The Japanese military had a fatal perspective -- they felt that the weaponry was only a minor subset of the spirit and soul of the warrior. Unfortunately, that attitude proved about as effective as the French theory of "Elan" in WW I.

It's not hard for a military with structure, order, disciplin, and weaponry and tactics more effective than your neighbors to make hash of those neighbors.

What killed the British in Asia the fact that they were focusing more on Germany (remember, the British weren't at war with Japan until December 8, 1941) and the fact that the British also held a view similar to the American view, that the Japanese were inferior because they were backwards Orientals, and backwards Orientals, while doing fine fighting other backwards Orientals, would collapse quickly against whites.

[Mike Irwin]

DMK,

"If we include combined arms, I'd have to say that the U.S. military from '43 to '45 was the most powerful force on the planet(not even including two atomic bombs)."

Wholeheartedly agree.

When you look at the force that the US could muster, and did muster, in 5 years of war, the numbers are just freaking amazing.

Paul Kennedy did an economic survey of the war making potential of all of the world's powers that were in WW II.

Russia and Germany both had about 14% of the war making capacity.

Japan and Britain less.

The United States? 41 freaking percent!

It's industrial capacity like that that allowed the United States Navy to go, in 1939, from the world's second largest and really third most powerful to, in 1945, being larger and more powerful than the navies of all other nations -- combined.

[The Silver Bullet 1719]

I voted for the German Army for 1 reason. Granted a loss in WW1 does take down their credibility a notch, the pre WW2 day, the German Army was pretty awe-inspiring (ever seen the Nurumberg Rally?). In fact if it wasn't for a stratigic idiot like Hitler running things, I wouldn't have been surprised if Germany would have conquered Europe. They had superior weapons (except for the Masuer being bolt compared to the Garand being semi). The mobilzation of the Germans and the blitzkreig ravaged Europe, Britian would have fell if the attack were focused just on them, the Soivets were about to fall, but winter came. A lack of strategy was the downfall (fighting on 2 fronts, Russia in winter, and not listening to others) of the German Army.

[LiquidTension]

I had to go with Napoleon. Just finished studying him in class :)

[Mike Irwin]

"Britian would have fell if the attack were focused just on them"

Silver Bullet,

Two dates for you, and their significance.

June 22, 1940. France falls, Britain stands alone in Europe.

June 22, 1941. Germany invades the Soviet Union.

Britain bore the brunt of the German offensive for almost exactly a year, and didn't fall.

The Luftwaffe never was able to gain air superiority over Britain, and while the U Boat offensive came very close to suceeding in its mission of grinding British war-making capacity to a halt, it too, failed.

[telewinz]

No rule saying you can't include "combined arms" in your calculations. I use the term "army" in the broad sense although how would you take into consideration the air forces? With or without the 20's and 30's I still feel Germany should be near the top of the list. When they went on the march, armies either got out of the way or were destroyed. The Japs still posessed large amounts of china even until the end of the war, but its true they never were "World Class" just highly motivated to the extreme.
I detest being bias, but I have to give the nod to the modern US Army. They seem to have developed the right doctrine and combination to consistently DOMINATE the battlefield with one hand tied so as to limit ENEMY losses:what: This kind of power (conventional) is unheard of in warfare, what power(s) could defeat us if we went all out (conventional weapons) unhindered?

[stevelyn]

I had to think about this for a while before responding and after giving it some thought, I have to give the prize to the Romans. Considering the distances they had to cover with the technology, methods of travel used, supply lines, and communications with the central government and the logistics nightmare that had to be, they were most effective.
The Roman Empire stretched from Britain, across Europe, the Mediterrrainean and middle east. Not only were these lands conquered, they were administered and governed under Roman rule.
I would have to give Ghengis Khan's roaming hordes a close second in military effectivness. I also have a fascination with the Scythians and their methods although little is really known about them.
The Brits, other than having to fight against France, a comparable military power, and defeating the Spanish Armada, never really picked on and defeated anyone their own size. The British Empire established itself in nations that were fairly primitive in culture, economics and military sophistication. British colonies in places like Africa, India, and Malaysia were countries which internally were divided by tribal rivalries. That would leave them suseptable to conquest by anyone with a crude level of sophistication. Furthermore Britain was never able to win a major conflict in the 20th century without outside help. And if the Germans had launched a ground invasion on Britain in combination with the blitz, Britain would have folded and more than likely would be speaking Deutch today.
I do have to give credit to the British naval forces. It was probably due to Britain's naval capabilities they were able to maintain their empire as long as they did.
France was an effective military force and led the world in military technology until the last Napoleonic War. Then it seemed to slide downhill from there. But they did invent smokless powder and changed the face of small arms warfare.

[H Romberg]

Deadly, or effective? For effective, I'd have to say that the Romans were the best at imposing their will on the world. The Brits run a close second, and we will hopefully stand the test of time and surpass both. Frogs, and Hermans were both just a flash in the pan,(albeit deadly) and we risk being so too if we're not carefull.

[hops]

German Army, 1866-1945. Few armies get the respect in defeat that the German Army still gets today. The French Army for example does not even get respect in victory.

Now, who ranks first among the great captains of military history?

[DMK]

I still feel Germany should be near the top of the list. When they went on the march, armies either got out of the way or were destroyed. The Japs still posessed large amounts of china even until the end of the war, but its true they never were "World Class" just highly motivated to the extreme. Oh yea, WWII Germany should be very near the top. They had a couple fatal flaws though. One, they had an insane maniac for a leader who often contradicted his generals/admirals some of the most brilliant tacticians of the century - without Hitler, they might have won. Two, they had a weak navy due to the treaty of versailes(sp?). Three, they had no long range heavy bombers. Those last two weren't too important until they reached the coast and went after Britain and the U.S.

Japan had the opposite problem. They were ruled by the military leaders, had a very powerful air force and navy, but didn't have the proper technology or doctrine to keep their foot soldiers effective in an all out land battle with somebody who was their equal.

The U.S. had all these problems in the begining of the war, but we were quick learners. We picked up the best successful tactics of the Germans (U-boat lessons were used against the Japanese, blitzkrieg is a big part of modern doctrine), Japanese(we learned the merits of aircraft carriers and beat them at their own island hopping game) and the British (deception, espionage, commando tactics-ie. Rangers) Of course, most decisivly we were also able to leverage our industrial might to great effect.

[mack]

None of the Above - the answer would be America 1944-45 until the Soviets got the bomb. America had the military and economic power to destroy/rule the entire world - no single nation or combination of nations could have stopped America from doing just that if it was her desire to do so. No nation before or since has had such unilateral power.

[firestar]

Had to go with the British Empire, they held more land than any other power ever. British foreign policy was "Make the world British" and they nearly did.

[faustulus]

I have to agree with JohnBT the Mogols are tops. They perfected the Blitzkrieg, began psychological warfare, used biologial weapons, and held more land than the Romans and Alexander combined. They were held back from Europe by the squabbling over a power vaccum.
Rome would be second. But the Romans demanded great leaders, without which its forces were worse than useless.

[MeekandMild]

Mike, re. the Brits. I hate to tell you but many of their shore defence artillery pieces made of plywood and wooden poles and the troops stood guard with wooden rifles or guns with just a couple of cartridges. They lost a whole lot of men and equipment at Dunkirk. If Hitler hadn't been cowed by the RAF he could have taken Britain any time.