Which army or force was the most efficient force of all time? It doesn't have to be the biggest or baddest, but did the most with the least or the best with what they had.

my answer is the 1st century roman legion, 28 legions ( 140,000-150,000 men) patroled frontiers against millions of hostile warriors.

I would add British imperial armies during the 19th Century, out of those I'd choose the roman army.

Oops!
Sorry! Re-read the first message and realised I was typing ahead of my thinking. :blush:

I would prefer a poll where we get to vote for the military machine with the greatest relative superiority over its contemporaries. It would be an easier call than the of all time one.


by all means do so as part of your reasoning for your choose.

Probably Rome's from c.53 BC-180 AD. Then the Golden Age ends, and the military slowly yet steadily barbarianizes into the disorganized warfare of the Early Middle Ages and Dark Ages.

America's is also damn good as well. Though discontent in the ranks in recent wars has sullied the reputation just a bit.

OK. (I realised your conditions allows for the interpretation I would prefer.:) )

Sweden 1630's.

Why? Well, I like to think its not all patriotism;), but based on a knowledge of the demographic and economic situation.

At any given time during the 17th c. Sweden fielded at standing army and navy of 150.000 men. (The field army was never more than 30-40.000, the rest being navy and garrisons.)

This was done with a population of 1,5 million. Demographics clearly wasn't in its favour.

Was it rich? Nope. Rotten place for farming (explains the low pop. figure).
How about trade? Not really. There were no major trading ports and getting one on the west coast at all took centuries of war against the Danes.
There weren't even any substantial urban centres. When Sweden captured Riga in 1614, it was a calculated move to aquire a good trading town and some revenue. Riga, pop. 60.000, was four times the size of the capital Stockholm.
The one bright spot was natural resoruces. Furs to sell for good profit and deposists of high-grade iron, copper and silver, but not nearly enough to make Sweden wealthy compared to its southern neighbour Denmark, not to mention countries like France, Spain, the Netherlands and Britain.

This was a dirt poor, underpopulated country that for a century managed to hold its own as one of the Great Powers of Europe. As far as I can tell all the other alternatives have had wealth, population or both in its favour. (Possible exception of 18th c. Prussia, but the Prussians did look to Sweden as model.)

How did Sweden manage this? By very, very efficient administration. They pinched every penny, promoted talent and managed to cultivate continuity at every level of administration (which is a key to good performance over long periods of time).
Since it lacked everything else, Sweden's rapid decline from around 1700 was inevitable. As soon as the competition began putting their houses in order, they outperformed Sweden in every way.

Probably Rome's from c.53 BC-180 AD. Then the Golden Age ends, and the military slowly yet steadily barbarianizes into the disorganized warfare of the Early Middle Ages and Dark Ages.

America's is also damn good as well. Though discontent in the ranks in recent wars has sullied the reputation just a bit.

the Roman army dosetn "barbarize" until after the reign of Diocletian ;)

roman legions did the most... so i vote them :yeah:

James Bond ;)

I think the samauri were the most efficient.

Royal Navy from War of Spanish Succession up and after WW2.

In every war Britan fought in between, the RN ruled the waves, destroyed the enemy battle fleet and blockaded enemy trade and ports.

Royal navy actually beats Rome, add in combined warfare and here we got a long tradition from 1500 till the day of aircraft carriers, where Rome had very limited technology evolution.

Royal Navy from War of Spanish Succession up and after WW2.

In every war Britan fought in between, the RN ruled the waves, destroyed the enemy battle fleet and blockaded enemy trade and ports.

i wouldn't count WW I, and for most of that time [ except the napoleonic wars ] the royal navy was the largest navy afloat and outnumbered its opponents

Royal Navy from War of Spanish Succession up and after WW2.

In every war Britan fought in between, the RN ruled the waves, destroyed the enemy battle fleet and blockaded enemy trade and ports.

To be fair they was some pretty bad times during this period too were we were spanked by a few enemies :D

I'ld say the Swedish army in the 1630s but I believe it was even better in the early 1700s, just cause it took on russia and failed doesn't mean it sucked, the same action and result was taken by both napoleon and hitler: two rulers who had very efficient armies.

i wouldn't count WW I, and for most of that time [ except the napoleonic wars ] the royal navy was the largest navy afloat and outnumbered its opponents


Yes but it had committents around the globe and most of the time the enemy's fleet was concerated in one area.

In WW1, maintaining the blockade was the only way the Entene could attack Germany itself and it worked.

The Thin Red Lines.
And the Royal Navy.

Um... Is someone forgetting the Mongols?

I would have said the Mongols id you made that an option. Since it is not, I'll vote for Sparta instead; an entire society based solely around military.

The Albanian army of World War II :p.

My choice is not on the poll, i.e., the Mongols..

For sheer speed, ferocity and success, the Mongols are unparalleled in history for the size and scale of the victories they managed to pull off.

What about ww2 armies ?

Third Reich: Waffen SS
British: Royal air force
Japanese: Carrier air wing

I voted Roma.
Indeed, Napoleonic French Army was good, and Mongols (out poll) too... :)
Most armies in this poll worth high consideration (and others out of it, too...) ;)

I din't vote because i believe they are all efficient in different ways-but USA in 1990? what are you on about!

The Thin Red Lines.
And the Royal Navy.

A misconception the Thin Red Line was acutually mostly made up of Turks. The stories about the English during the Crimean War have been far exaggerated.

The thin red lines were good, but not as good as the A-Team!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Albanian army of World War II :p.

C'mon! How can you rate an army as efficient when their opposition is the Italians?

I din't vote because i believe they are all efficient in different ways-but USA in 1990? what are you on about!

In terms of supply, airpower, technolgy, training, equipment they are incediabley efficent.
The sheer speed of it's advance and the devestating firepower.

Yeah but how well are the soldiers trained? And how many wars have the Americans won without help? That won't take long to count!!!! (excluding minor wars e.g. 10,000 americans againgst 1 man in a hole with a knife!)

Yeah but how well are the soldiers trained? And how many wars have the Americans won without help? That won't take long to count!!!! (excluding minor wars e.g. 10,000 americans againgst 1 man in a hole with a knife!)

The soldiers are among the best trained in the world. America is/was a superpower after all.

If efficiency, ie value for money is the issue, I really don't see how any US Army of any period can be one the poll...

...for me, a tossup between the Mongols or the French - the idea being the people you invade pay for more troops and conscripts, as well the food the army eats. A false economy as the French found out in the Peninsular...

Tercio, not terico ;)

A misconception the Thin Red Line was acutually mostly made up of Turks. The stories about the English during the Crimean War have been far exaggerated.

Depends on how you look at the matter. The phrase was written by Russel about the 93rd Highlanders at Balaclava and is therefore entirely accurate. Whatever the specific pros and cons for each nations contribution to the war, it certainly suited the British army of the 19th century and was adopted for it overall :)

Plus,
I wasn't merely talking about the Crimean War.

More about the Napoleanic-era battles and the such.

Indeed, the "thin red line" could apply to events prior to the Crimea as much as during and after :)

The Macedonian army under Alexander.

What about the army of Ramses II, in terms of production it was quite efficient I believe the first mass production of anything (His chariot factories). Henry Ford, be gone!

In terms of efficiancy I would say none of those.

I think the US military in WWII would be a good candidate, for manpower, logistics and equipment.

I have to agree there. The Americans had all their bases covered.

What about the army of Ramses II, in terms of production it was quite efficient I believe the first mass production of anything (His chariot factories). Henry Ford, be gone!

He was quite efficent himself. A 100 sons if I recall my Ancient history correctly.

He was quite efficent himself. A 100 sons if I recall my Ancient history correctly.
He had a big harem, and lived to be 96 years old! Plenty of time for making babbies. :goodjob:

Germany had a very efficient military machine but at WWI and WWII they had some stupid generals and commanders.

The german army until they "got retarted" and engaged in city warfare; most notably stalingrad and the warsaw ghetto.

If we're going into sapecific battles, I'ld say the Swedish army under Karl XII at Narva.

America because they defeated over 4 million Iraqis in 1990 in about 2 months that is like handing your country over on a silver platter now what other country can do that?

personally, I cant see how the mongols got ontot he poll- they couldnt even do half the capabilties of a good army themselves, and had to bring in forced labor from defeated nations to build both shgips and siege woprks- a good military need niether mercenaries, nor "private contractors" as the case may be do jobs- ma good, effiecinet military can do what ever it needs itself.

personally, I cant see how the mongols got ontot he poll-

oh please. :rolleyes:

they couldnt even do half the capabilties of a good army themselves, and had to bring in forced labor from defeated nations to build both shgips and siege woprks-

So, yet they are a steppe nation, who doesn't have much experience in this, they are expected to do all this themselves? The very fact they could mobilize such populations is rather efficient in and of it self.

a good military need niether mercenaries, nor "private contractors" as the case may be do jobs-

Then you've just discounted the Roman Legion, the Chinese Tang, the Spanish Terico, the Swedish, the Prussians, the French, the other Prussians, the Germans, and the Americans, because all of them used mercenaries to do jobs they couldn't do as effectively, or private contractors.

So I guess you'll just have to vote for the Spartan hoplite, eh?

ma good, effiecinet military can do what ever it needs itself.

To put it bluntly, bull. No military is self sufficient. None. Not even the Romans. :rolleyes:

personally, I cant see how the mongols got ontot he poll- they couldnt even do half the capabilties of a good army themselves, and had to bring in forced labor from defeated nations to build both shgips and siege woprks- a good military need niether mercenaries, nor "private contractors" as the case may be do jobs- ma good, effiecinet military can do what ever it needs itself.

I think their results speak for themselves. I wanted to vote for Mongol too but too bad they are not there...

I wanted to vote for Mongol too but too bad they are not there...

my bad, i finished and forgot them and couldn't change it--at least an " other " option. :(

my bad, i finished and forgot them and couldn't change it--at least an " other " option. :(

No problem, we can just post our opinion here. :D

I think their results speak for themselves. I wanted to vote for Mongol too but too bad they are not there...

results arnt what were talking about- its effieciency- you can be absuredlly succesfull, but not effiecient- I knwo from personal experience on that matter with school work ;)

results arnt what were talking about- its effieciency- you can be absuredlly succesfull, but not effiecient- I knwo from personal experience on that matter with school work ;)

Yeah, the mongol were effective and successful. No other country or army can conquered so much land so many people in such a short span of time with so little army.

The Mongol horde are itself , self substain. The warriors prepared their own meal, do their own laundry (provded they bath :p), repair their own vehicle, and do all the killing themselves. While riding on horseback, they can cover more distance than other medievel army. so that why they can conquer almost all of Asia and even into medievel europe.

The speed of the invasion tells it all. No other nations come close.
:goodjob:

Kinda makes you wonder what the US will look like in 50 or 100 years ;)

I have no clue what the correct answer but your forgetting that this is about themost efficient army in history that means it requires less men and meaterial to defeat it opponets then most others. They may not be the best overall but put a platoon of these guys up aginst a company and watch them win the battle handidly. Today? well i'd guess somewhere in Europe. definly not the US. Yes they are te best miltary for fighting a war but they have millions of men. I'd garner the Canadian army is the most effienent. are troops get paid verry little. in addition they get next to no support from the goverment yet they consitly fufill the requirements of the service. the total candian armey is something like 70K men and women - that includes staff and non combat paper pushers and reservists. Heck our troops even use 30-40 year old equipment and still get the job done.

The speed of the invasion tells it all. No other nations come close.
:goodjob:

well, thiere is alexander, he id in one sort liek time what it took too k the mogols several to overcome

well, thiere is alexander, he id in one sort liek time what it took too k the mogols several to overcome

Alexader was a few years, the Mongols conquered roughly 4 times that area I believe, in about 5 times as long. Not to mention the fact that Alex only marched over one empire, who was basically defeated for a great portion of the time.

If we're speaking of efficiency in terms of time it has to be the American military. Even in the recent Iraq War (which I don't support) I am amazed at how quickly the war objective was accomplished.

If we're speaking of efficiency in terms of money, the American military is probably the worst. We spend $7-$20 million on just one helicopter. Though powerful, we could do more with 3 or 5 cheaper helicopters.

I think the US' policy is to create small numbers of highly trained elite troops with the best technology can offer.
A lean welterweight as opposed to heavyweights like the Red Armys, etc.

So, each machine will cost a bomb and so will training.
But considering value for money, I think the US Army can be deemed extremely efficient even in monetary terms

I cant belive you consider the American army to be most efficient due to the fact that it and its allies mauled the iraqis. You can compare american military in terms of technology with european armies and you will see that they are near identical. However if you look at the actions of the men for example Iraq you will see the american armies are inferior, countless friendly fire on marked vehicles of all types. Inability to secure areas. If you compare the 2 main forces on the coalition British and American records you will see that the British did a much better and continue to do a much better job. A regiment of men from the Scots managed to hold what was being held by a force at least 2 times their size and even decrease the amount of activity coming from the region. You should stop wrapping yourselves up in propaganda and come out and look at the real world for once in a while.

Spartan hoplite @ 400bc: good system, very efficent against horemen but not very flexible.
Roman legion @100ad: (my vote) good drilled, good equipment, quiet fast(for foottroops), the perfect army for that time
Chinese Tang cavalry @700ad: good, fast
Spanish terico @1500ad: know to little about it
Swedish army @ 1630ad: not a bad army, but I don't like the methodes of the 30year-war
Prussians of Fredrick the great: know to little about it
French grande armee @ 1805ad: good commander, strong and fanatic army, bad equipment for cold terrain(Russia)
Prussian army @1870ad: The first army that uses backloader-guns, modern battlefield-tactik(no battle-rows anylonger), good drilled.
German army @1941ad: strong, fast, bad leader(Hitler was a bad strategic commander), good equipment, too great waste of resources(their tanks drunk petrol like water)
American army @1990ad: big army, modern technology, partly unexperienced soldiers, only strong because they have plenty of everything(no efficent use of resources: fire 1000 bullets to a target and hope that one will hit it)

Is there any doubt about the most efficient modern military being the Israeli Army? Or maybe, Israel as a whole (at least as long as they fight an outside enemy, not parts of their population)?
Consider the odds they beat during the Yom-Kippur and Six-Days-War, and then look at Iraq/Afghanistan (2 times both)/Vietnam...
I'd even think they were among the most efficient of all times (along with Sweden during 17/18th century).

Cetainly up to the Yom Kippur war they were remarkably efficient, one only has to look at the ingenious improvisations of 1948 and 1956, or the brilliant strategy and tactics employed in 1967. Early Yom-Kippur wasn't so good, but an excellent recovery.

No doubt it is america but EquinoxOmega is right fire a whole lotta bullets and hope it hits one target. But all those bullets have a psycological effect on the enemie. So much tracer fire that has to scare people and you pop out thinkin your gonna get some one your done.

But america wasteful in resources and a little in money but those choppers that we spend like 12 million on is because those are top of the line aircraft and those choppers have well exceeded our expectations. Plus we already have like hundreds of those choppers and we aren't buying any more. Cuz to dam expensive and they can just be upgraded to fix our criteirea today. I am all for the war in Iraq. And if some don't like it fine that is your opinion this is mine.

I think an important part of the success of the Isreali army is based on their leading concept: up to a Batallion the Isreali army is lead by a commander in the front of the troops.

What about the Knight Templars/Hospitalliers around 1150? The were quite efficient when it came to kill/get killed ratio.

What about the mongols?

I mean you can't really denay that they weren't effienct. :)

Vote 'Yay' for Roman Legion the true might of the civilized world! :D

I would go for the British Empire during the reign of Victoria.These were immensely effective, making the English language the global language and covering 25 % of the World. Wehrmacht cannot beat that. But this comes from a combined arms admirer.

I voted for Sweden in 1630. Simply because the true power of that army came from the Finnish Hakkapeliitta's (sort of Cavalry). They still pray for protection against Hakkapeliitta's in the German churches...