Most Efficient Army

[privatehudson]

Originally posted by Xen
All sumed up, he was an amazing commander, but a great army needs to able to be great under a variety of differnt leader time, and time again

As it was under Graham or Hill or any of the other battles fought under seperate commanders Taken as a horse and Musket period British army, they performed brilliantly also under Malborough, Wolfe and Clive also

 

[Xen]

agreed but, give the roman legions guns, and a few months trainig of how to use them, and then lets how the battle would unfold

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by Xen
of what time period?

I don't know. Ask the thread starter...

But I don't see why the modern US army is up there, yet the British army doesn't even come close.

This is regardless of the time period, I doubt it would be anything in the first century, probably either at the time of empire in the second century or modern in this century.

In fact, I would call the British army at least as efficient as the US army. Efficient is the key word, of course, the size of the US army makes it the stronger army, but I wouldn't say it's by default the most efficient.

 

[privatehudson]

Originally posted by Xen
agreed but, give the roman legions guns, and a few months trainig of how to use them, and then lets how the battle would unfold

Bah that's why we owned 1/4 of the world and you struggled to get the chunk of Asia Europe and Africa that you did

 

[Xen]

I personally think its because real sea going vessals wernt in use yet...

 

[privatehudson]

Nah, if you were that good you'd have conquered all of europe

Besides, your notion of guns forgets one slight problem.... you forgot ammunition

Unless you plan to point them at the Huns and go BANG!

 

[Xen]

we defeated the huns, remeber (and this was even at the time when when it was a hundred years since rome had seen anything even resemabling a REAL imperial legion)

besides, when i said guns ammunition, and all other nessisites is included by default

(and remember, the reason Germany was not conqoured wasnt because Rome couldnt- byt beacause Augusts set the long stading policy of "its just not F***ing worth it")

 

[privatehudson]

I'm guessing the tribes there might of objected and fought back somewhat too also Whether they could is an interesting debate I would say, the forests and mountains of southern Germany don't lend themselves too well to roman armies methinks, a northern, over the rhine approach would have been fun though

besides, when i said guns ammunition, and all other nessisites is included by default

No no, I've got the delivery note here, signed by Emporer Nero, 100,000 Martini Henry rifles, 1000 British soldiers to train the heathens and that be it, not my fault mate, you left it off the list We only deliver what it says on the order sheet you know?

 

[Sarevok]

that would be interesting Xen, getting the power of rome's legions and giving them training on how to use guns. for all we know gunpowder may have been discovered in europe before the year 800 if rome had survived.. hehe.

 

[omichyron]

the modern US army is extremely efficient at conventional warfare just because the American public cannot stomach the casualty rates that any other nation would take for granted. obviously they are somewhat less effective than they are efficient, but they go to great lengths to avoid too many deaths that would upset the public so they are more efficient than the other armies in terms of casualty rate.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by privatehudson
I'm guessing the tribes there might of objected and fought back somewhat too also Whether they could is an interesting debate I would say, the forests and mountains of southern Germany don't lend themselves too well to roman armies methinks, a northern, over the rhine approach would have been fun though



No no, I've got the delivery note here, signed by Emporer Nero, 100,000 Martini Henry rifles, 1000 British soldiers to train the heathens and that be it, not my fault mate, you left it off the list We only deliver what it says on the order sheet you know?

feh- then how will our british teachers go about teaching

as for a germany invasion- ROme showd it could easilly conqoure such lands-its the exact same terrain as you find in Dacia, only filled with hairy ale drinking Germans, instead of hairy ale drinking Romanians

 

[privatehudson]

It would depend on the army leader as always, but the terrain would need an adaptation to the normal fighting method, Teutoburgerwald showed what can happen should the romans drop their guard or fight as normal in such terrain. I would still suggest a more northerly route would be better, did not Caesar cross the Rhine briefly, showing it was possible?

And I told you, point at enemy and go BANG! Works when training the modern western armies does it not?

 

[Xen]

indeed it was possible, and the rout seems to have been used often to show the barbarians whos boss

as for Teutoburg- there was no fighting other then hand to hand melee- the ROmans were caught unware, unprepared, and in total crap conditions by any armies stadards

-and i while bang might work, i still expect the forumla for gun poweder to deliverd

 

[Sarevok]

teutoberg was a disaster for rome, it looks bad on rome, it was one of the few defeats of rome's legions.

 

[schmiddi]

originallly by Xen
filled with hairy ale drinking Germans, instead of hairy ale drinking Romania

Sorry, we're not hairy ale drinking guys.
We're hairy mead drinking guys.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

A toss up between the modern US force and the Waffen SS.

 

[Cimbri]

In ancient times I’d say the Romans, in ‘recent’ times (18th-19-th century) I’d say the British, and in modern times I’d say the Yanks.

 

[Ossric]

A case can be made for the Spanish Conquistadores. With so few soldiers conquer such a vast territory is damn efficient.

 

[Xen]

except thet they relied more on local levies to help even the score- if it had been them alone the sheer aztec numbers would have drowned them out in full

-as unlike rome, the spanish idnt have fancy tactics, superior fighting skills and training, and the best equipment the world had to offer

 

[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...