Most Efficient Army

[Sarevok]

Another poll here:

In your opinion, what was the most efficient Army in history?

 

[Kafka2]

Efficient in which way?

Victories/unit cost?

Speed of conquests?

 

[LouLong]

Mamluks were not Arab, they were Turkish military slaves in Egypt (where eventually they became the ruler of the state)

 

[privatehudson]

I find that rather too specific, ie most of those units operated and were sucessful only with their allied forces around them, eg the indian allies with Cortez and Alexander's companions. I've always had something of a liking for Wellington's army in the peninsula though, unbeaten, well trained, not terribly better armed than their enemy, but certainly better lead

 

[Zoke0]

The polish army rules! Never won a war. All the way!!!
Moderator Action: Niether spam posts nor nationality bashing are wanted here. please. Lefty
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Xen]

the Roman legions the only forces to come close would be the modern American army

 

[Ossric]

how are the Roman legions efficient? They got spanked by Pontus, Hannibal & some others i can't remember. The reason why the won was that the Romans had more legions then the enemy. Can't say that's efficient imo..

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by Zoke0
The polish army rules! Never won a war. All the way!!!

Didn't they beat the Russians immediatley following WW1?
Waffen SS has my vote.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Ossric
how are the Roman legions efficient? They got spanked by Pontus, Hannibal & some others i can't remember. The reason why the won was that the Romans had more legions then the enemy. Can't say that's efficient imo..

at Romes HEIGHT it never had more the 300,000 defending the ENTIRE empire- and empire that is almost as big as the contenatal united states

in this sense, your are completelly, utterlly, and profoundlly wrong- i rarelly say, or even think such a thing, but in this case, it is the simpe, truth.

the roman army wa the very becon of effeciency the ALL western armies have been founded upon

it would be to lenghty to repost the merits of the roman armies, but I have poster articles on the subject before, here are the links-

the legion in the age of Caesar

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55763

the imperial legions, of the post Augstian, pre-constantien reforms

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55840

 

[Richard III]

Xen, here and in another thread, you seem to be being a little exhuberent; if I may humbly offer a hint, far better to make a solid argument and let it sit than to insist that you are the beacon of truth and make us skeptics by it.

That said, I suppose I agree in some ways with your argument; Rome's Legions were actually extremely efficient, achieving great things with very small numbers; the shocking thing about Roman military history is just how small all the battles and Roman armies in them are compared, say, to the campaigns of Alexander. It's not uncommon in Roman history to see a force of 6,000 or 12,000 pushing its way through fifteen tribes of whoever or three phalanxes of whatever and come out largely intact - although, not always .

And while it's tempting to say "The BEF" or "The US army of today," they operate(d) with the support of GNPs that are hundreds of times larger than the Roman Empire's, and in some ways, er, depending on how you measure, achieved less consistent results.

R.III

 

[pawpaw]

i agree with RIII, when augustus took the throne he cut the legions down to 120,00--to protect against millions of barbarians and parthia--thats efficient.

you also could make a case for the mongol hordes ( who were outumbered in almost all their conquests) or the british regulars, during the 18th and 19th centuries the held an empire with very small #'s compared to other european states ( with the royal navies help )

 

[Xen]

sorry if I seem a bit on edge , but I take offenses made to the old ROman empire rather more personally then I should, but I cant help it

 

[Xen]

sorry if I seem a bit on edge , but I take offenses made to the old ROman empire rather more personally then I should, but I cant help it

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Alexander's Army

Conquering an area close to that of continental US in 6 moths is impressing. It wasn't exactly no-man's-land

 

[Richard III]

Bah. Most of it was a political conquest, once Arbela was over. The Roman army actually built infrastructure as they went.

 

[Al Zan]

the Germany's Panzers they kick some a**!

 

[SeleucusNicator]

The Arab Bedouins that originally spread Islam out of the peninsula. Half of the Byzantine Empire and the whole of the Sassanid Empire wiped out.

That in itself is not uniquely impressive, but if one considers their small numbers (often outnumbered by a factor of 10 or more), they cannot deny that they were efficent.

 

[Sarevok]

I voted for rome's legions. my terms of efficiency was an army that they could be heavily outnumbered yet beat an enemy with next to no losses. in other words, a very quick and highly skilled army. Romes legions on the frontiers had many, many battles where it was 5,000 legions against 100,000 germans. and only until the 300's the romans won almost all of the battles on its frontiers.

 

[Djingis Khan]

I can't understand why the romans even are nominated. They were among the worst warriors in history as I see it. The history of the Roman empire is abundant with catastrophic defeats like the battle of Cannae, Noreia, Arusia, Teutoburgerwald, Carrhae/Harran, Edessa and so on.

/DK M

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Djingis Khan
I can't understand why the romans even are nominated. They were among the worst warriors in history as I see it. The history of the Roman empire is abundant with catastrophic defeats like the battle of Cannae, Noreia, Arusia, Teutoburgerwald, Carrhae/Harran, Edessa and so on.

/DK M

so out of a thousand years and a thousand victories you pull out 6 losses? i noticed you didn't show who you voted for, why? did they maybe lose a battle sometime in their history?