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.
Your Best "educated" opinion
- Thread starter telewinz
- Start date
- Status
Hardtarget
Member
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! 
Mark.
Mark.
Mike Irwin
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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? )
But I guess I'll go with the obvious and say us (or US, or U.S.A.) 1991 to present.
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?
)But I guess I'll go with the obvious and say us (or US, or U.S.A.) 1991 to present.
yankytrash
Member
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.
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
Member
Actually, Alexander had fewer troops in many of his famous battles, if I remember right.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
Mongol Army. They conquered China, Russia, Persia, India, etc. and controlled a land mass 5 times the size of Alexander's empire.
John
John
jimbo
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,606
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.
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.
Last edited:
DMK
Member
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.
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
Member
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-
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
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.
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
Member
"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.
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
Member
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.
"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.
556A2
Member
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.
- Status