Most Efficient Army

[privatehudson]

Originally posted by Ossric
off course, but that wasn't the initial question. Given the means that presented them, they made fully use of it. I would call that being efficient wouldn't you? The question was not: "who had the best/most superior army of it's time", simply who was the most efficient...

Agreed, but a major reason Cortez and Pizzaro suceeded was the exceptional situation within the Aztec and Inca empires when they arrived. For all their weaponry and courage, had the Aztecs not been so brutal to their neighbours (thereby inciting them to side with cortez), or had the Incas not ignored Pizarro's force when it first arrived due to a civil war then it is impossible to see how either conquistador would have suceeded. Then apply for the sake of argument the theory that both empires were used to european diseases and the chances of sucess are gone.

Conquistadors suceeded because they suited perfectly their enemy and time period. Facing nearly any other situation they would have been slaughtered. Efficient they may have been, elite and/or adaptable they were not.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

The main reason Spanish Conquistadores where able to defeat the Aztec and Incan empires was because of their susceptibility to Eurasian diseases.

 

[privatehudson]

Not completely, they still had their chances to defeat the spanish, and more than once fought ferociously against Pizarro or Cortez and almost beat them both, despite disease

 

[Xen]

and that COMPLEATLLY rules out the spainards- victories and defests are only PART of the equation

here are the factors one must consider when think of "efficent" armies-

1)general useage- how many differnt sites of battle did the army engae in, and win on a standard basis, in differnt types of confrontations

2)sercive time- how long was the army in use befor it was replaced (note, that replacement is not necissarilly a good thing, bus sotimes is a thing that is thrust upon a nation be hard times)

3)command and control- how stuctured was this armies heirarchy? was there a definate, unquestionable chain of command, and so on...

4)Logistics- how able was this army able to provision its self while on campaign, was it an effeicent, pre planning wonder, or a mass forager, roaming the lands in search of sustinance after packed provisions ran out...

5)troop proficency- how skilled were the armies troops, were they grand fighters, or pitiful levies...

it just happens that in MOST cases the great armies of history, like that of the Roman empire, the Napoleanic era British, and the modern american armies ALL score rather well in ALL of the catagories

 

[Sarevok]

if the diseases werent there, its a fair bet that cortez and pizzaro would have been crushed.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Why are 'French Knights' on the list?

Personally, I think Mongols under the control of Temujin had the most efficient army. It's amazing what they where able to accomplish with significantly little technology and almost no political unity previous to the unification of the tribes. They carved out a world empire in just a few years. How's that for efficient . It took the Romans and British several centuries to build up their own respective empires. I would concede that they have had a bigger and longer lasting influence than the Mongolian Empire.

The British army of the 19th century was very successful and efficient, but most of their battles where fought against people with fair less military technology.

I think the Roman Empire had a fairly efficient army, but their glory lies in their institutions which influence modern Europe and the Americas. (Like Lawyers)

 

[Sarevok]

I had to put the french on there somewhere

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Almost any knight (French or not) is extremely inefficient, requiring obscene amounts of money and training. To much time and effort into a rather small and often times ineffetive force.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
Why are 'French Knights' on the list?

Personally, I think Mongols under the control of Temujin had the most efficient army. It's amazing what they where able to accomplish with significantly little technology and almost no political unity previous to the unification of the tribes. They carved out a world empire in just a few years. How's that for efficient . It took the Romans and British several centuries to build up their own respective empires. I would concede that they have had a bigger and longer lasting influence than the Mongolian Empire.

The British army of the 19th century was very successful and efficient, but most of their battles where fought against people with fair less military technology.

I think the Roman Empire had a fairly efficient army, but their glory lies in their institutions which influence modern Europe and the Americas. (Like Lawyers)

I think my list fo criteria for a n effecient army rules out the mongols... and as for effeicientcy- carving an empire out of a few years is hardley effeicient- taking it step by step, one war after another is - and you see the diffece- the ROman empire- over a thousand years, Byzantine time not counted, and mogol time- what barelly two centuries as major states?

 

[zippy]

Actually, I think the modern British Army is more efficient than the modern American army. Not more effective, due to size and equipment differences, but compare the two budgets and see who gets more for their buck.

 

[Djingis Khan]

Originally posted by Xen


I think my list fo criteria for a n effecient army rules out the mongols... and as for effeicientcy- carving an empire out of a few years is hardley effeicient- taking it step by step, one war after another is - and you see the diffece- the ROman empire- over a thousand years, Byzantine time not counted, and mogol time- what barelly two centuries as major states?

I think you're pretty alone in those views. Let's take a look and see if the mongols are ruled out:

1)general useage- how many differnt sites of battle did the army engae in, and win on a standard basis, in differnt types of confrontations

The Mongols fought on the shores of Japan, Russia in the time of winter, In the djungles of Burma, the vast cities of China and Persia, the Syrian desert, the european forests, the eurasian steppes and so on


2)sercive time- how long was the army in use befor it was replaced (note, that replacement is not necissarilly a good thing, bus sotimes is a thing that is thrust upon a nation be hard times)

I don't know what you mean by that. The guard regiments of Khublai Khan was replaced every second year.

3)command and control- how stuctured was this armies heirarchy? was there a definate, unquestionable chain of command, and so on...

The mongols were extremely wellstructured in groups of ten, a hundred, a thousand and ten thousand men. The commander of ten thousand - the noyan - gave his orders to the noyan of a thousand. He in turn passed it on to the bag'hatur commanding a hundred men and he finally gave the orders to the lesser bag'haturs commanding ten men. Questioning orders from a superior meant excecution on the spot

4)Logistics- how able was this army able to provision its self while on campaign, was it an effeicent, pre planning wonder, or a mass forager, roaming the lands in search of sustinance after packed provisions ran out...

The mongol army was often selfsupporting, living on their horses' milk and dried meat (carried by the troops). If they had brought supplies, it was loaded on their many mobile spare-horses och camels. Therefor they often weren't hindred by supply convoys and could move incredible distanses in a short time.

5)troop proficency- how skilled were the armies troops, were they grand fighters, or pitiful levies...

Grand Fighters, virtually all historians agree on that

 

[Xen]

service time refers to how long an army went through history unchanged, and still won more victoires then defeated- in Romes cas, as it is virtually the only anceint-middle age army to have this record, never had more losses then victories untill the empire became to poor to support them in the "proper" equipment, while by comparisoon, the same troops used by the mogols tro conqoure couldtn save them (because in reality the armies were NOT consistent as they relied to much on local levies to agument there forces- which of course means that tyou could only includ a mongol army of a single leader anyway) this also goes into logistics- there was a good reason why the mongols are knowb as pillagers, and that because of HORRIBLE logisitcs ofr the non mongol troops- not very effienct if you ask me

 

[Riesstiu IV]

How is it that the Roman Army was unchanged? They went through several serious reforms. Early on in the empire, they relied on mostly foot soldiers with short swords and pilums. Later on they relied on cavalry with heavy armor and German mercenaries. Not the same as the light cavalry of the early empire. They had changed from segmented armor to chain mail. There was a lot of stuff that was changed.

The local levies used my mongols served as mere cannon fodder in enemy engagements.

Lets see merriam websters definition of logistics.

"the aspect of military science dealing with the procurement, maintenance, and transportation of military matériel, facilities, and personnel"

So your saying Mongols had "horrible logistics"?

Don't get me wrong Xen, I think the Roman Army was very good, but after seeing you post in about 20 history threads, you seem to think that the Romans/Byzantines are the greatest at almost everything. Different civilizations and political entities each had there weak points and advantages. Mongols had weak institutions and political cohesion but a good army. Romans are best known for their long lasting institutions, architecture, advanced plumbing, etc.

 

[Xen]

fact is, in my opinion, the Romans were some of the best out there- other civs made contibutions, but in the end, its the Roman way that has become the basis for the modern trans-national world.

and YES, I am indeed saying that the Mongols had horrible loguistics- even if those troops were mere cannon fodder, they had to be treated well- and its pretty evident through the fall of the mongols what happend when they werent treated good, and got sent "home"... sure, the mongols themselves had great transportation, but everything else was crap in a hand basket by compariosn with a great deal of armies.

as for the ROman army- read through my posts! I have said that I am talking about, more or less the post Marian (or really, post agustan) reforms of the roman legions, before the inept reforms of constantine were put in use- the only good thiong coming from coinstantine was a more mobile army system, but that was it.

the Roman legions I'm talking about are detaild in this thread-

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

 

[Djingis Khan]

and YES, I am indeed saying that the Mongols had horrible loguistics- even if those troops were mere cannon fodder, they had to be treated well- and its pretty evident through the fall of the mongols what happend when they werent treated good, and got sent "home"... sure, the mongols themselves had great transportation, but everything else was crap in a hand basket by compariosn with a great deal of armies.

Could you please give some tangible examples of that? I happen to knowe that the mongol-lead chinese troops in Yüan-China had a very welldeveloped system of transportation to the frontline. The five year siege of Hsian-Yang is a good example of that - the constant flow of supplies that reached the Chines-Mongol army besieging the city enable them to keep a almost five year blockade that made the city fall in 1273

/DK M

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Originally posted by Xen
fact is, in my opinion, the Romans were some of the best out there- other civs made contibutions, but in the end, its the Roman way that has become the basis for the modern trans-national world.

I'm not sure how this can be a fact and opinion at the same time but that's beside the point. If you mean Roman institutions, laws, architecture, etc. I would say yes they heavily influence modern, but to say that they are the basis for the modern trans-national world is a bit strong. Each civilization and culture has had there share of influence in the world. What about the Greeks and Geometry, or the advancment of Algebra made by Islamic Arabs?

Originally posted by Xen
and YES, I am indeed saying that the Mongols had horrible loguistics- even if those troops were mere cannon fodder, they had to be treated well- and its pretty evident through the fall of the mongols what happend when they werent treated good, and got sent "home"... sure, the mongols themselves had great transportation, but everything else was crap in a hand basket by compariosn with a great deal of armies.

I'm having a little trouble comprehending this... (English is not the first language I have learned)

Even if Mongol subjects were treated badly, they would fear the retaliation from the army so Mongols managed to keep order that way.

When you say 'crap in a hand basket', I believe you are referring to the other aspects of their civilization.

I would agree that Mongols did adopt many of the things they lacked (a strong religion, a well established culture, etc) from the people they had conquered.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Djingis Khan


Could you please give some tangible examples of that? I happen to knowe that the mongol-lead chinese troops in Yüan-China had a very welldeveloped system of transportation to the frontline. The five year siege of Hsian-Yang is a good example of that - the constant flow of supplies that reached the Chines-Mongol army besieging the city enable them to keep a almost five year blockade that made the city fall in 1273

/DK M

like I said earllyer- no two mongol armies were the same - the proof is in general history- logistics is what kept Rome afloat, and it what kepf the mogols from staying afloat

 

[Riesstiu IV]

How is having 'no two armies the same' a bad idea? It provides a better variety of troops and tactics. What's wrong with mongolian logisitics?

 

[Sarevok]

Xen, this is not who are the most efficient civs, its who are the most efficient armies. The mongols were a DAMN good army and very strong. If you want to compare time, Napoleon barely lasted 20 years, yet his army was very efficient and conquered a great deal of land and they only failed when they were totally overextended.

 

[Xen]

@Riesstiu IV- nothing, but it dosent give a real platform for looking at well a SINGLE type of army dose in variosu conditions over time- it hampers how we can looka t how effective an army was- the longer an army it was in use, the better idea we can get of its true merits