Most Efficient Army

[Riesstiu IV]

EDIT: Never mind, i figured out what Xen was trying to say. See the post made by Sarevok below. Mongolians didn't need centuries to prove the efficiency of their army. They needed only a few years.

 

[Sarevok]

mabye xen, but how long has the modern US army been around? say... 13 years? most of the wolrd has already gotten the hint of how good it is.

 

[Lynx]

me thinks that them roman legions are really dangerous.

 

[Sarevok]

They were, thats why theyre on this list.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Another excellent contender for 'most efficient army' were the Incans. They by no means had the most efficient army in the world, but under the circumstances they did pretty well. Lacking horses and the Wheel, they were able to traverse their empire in a matter of weeks, and subdued rival states with little violence and good diplomacy. A highly underrated empire, in my opinion, that is often ignored in the annals of history. The main reason the Spanish defeated them was because of disease and a bloody civil war left the Incan military in tatters.

 

[Sarevok]

very true, i didnt know that. thanks

 

[Djarum Kretek]

Well, the Modern US Armed Forces right now is truly awesome... but... they are extremely expensive. The US defense budget is more than the next top 10 countries' defense budget combined. Too much $$$$!!!

In my opinion the Mongol hordes are the most ECONOMICALLY EFFICIENT military force. They don't mind drinking just horse blood and eating beef-jerky all their life ....never got housing facilites (only tents all the time)... probably got no medical benefits... ...and rule the largest land Empire the World have ever seen in the process...

You know, the Mongols avoided the headache of being a 'civilized' occupying force in an unruly conquered country (like USA in Iraq today).... costly in body counts and dollars, right??? Well, the Mongols often just killed every single humans of the conquered tribe and stack their heads all the way up. To make towers of heads... as a warning to the neighboring tribe not to be difficult with the Mongols or else...

Brutal, but definitely economically efficient...

 

[Xen]

not effiecent to kill off tyhe population that you will one day need to call upojn in the mevies your army needs to have to defend itself

as for the modern U.S army- money, when spent right, is efficiency- its the price you pay

@Sarevok- the fact that the U.S army is a WEAKNESS when using compairtive history liek we are now, as there has not been time yet to truelly asses the capabilites of such an army in all situation- give the current US forces a few more wars, and THEN you cabn begin to assess

@Riesstiu IV- and neither duid the ROman legions need centuries to prove it either- the differnce is, the roman legions as defined by marius were able to preserve the Roman for several centuries continuously

 

[MCdread]

Definitely the roman legions for me. They may not be the best at everything, but efficient they certainly were, and they made it vastly outnumbered on many ocasions throughout many centuries, facing many different foes in all types of terrain.

 

[Sarevok]

like i said, your average roman frontier battle was 5,000 Romans to 100,000 Germans, and rome won most of them. considering this is hand to hand combat, this is quite crazy.

 

[privatehudson]

Hmmm, not all figures for enemy soldiers should be taken too literally remember in this period. Ancient historians studying Alexander tell us he fought against darius and 1/2 a million persians at one battle alone, they think it was more like 100,000. Impressive nonetheless, but ancient figures for troop numbers and casualties often need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Sarevok
like i said, your average roman frontier battle was 5,000 Romans to 100,000 Germans, and rome won most of them. considering this is hand to hand combat, this is quite crazy.

no its not, in the iceni revolt, the LOWEST figure for the barbaian hoard woul dbe 80,000- because thats how many dead bodies there were- most estimates are 100,000, the same figure tacitus gives us, but some ancient historins put it at around 250,000- in any case, its estimates that 1 in 4 non Roman males in the british isles died that day... and remember- they attacked first

 

[Sarevok]

whatever, the romans were still ridiculously outnumbered.

 

[Xen]

I htough you were being sarcast towards rome fighting such numbers, not arguing for it sorry

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Sarevok
whatever, the romans were still ridiculously outnumbered.

the key to the legions like every other good army in history is discipline,not #'s

 

[Sarevok]

in fact the battle in Gladiator is meant to be 5,000 to 100,000

 

[privatehudson]

Originally posted by Sarevok
in fact the battle in Gladiator is meant to be 5,000 to 100,000

Wasn't commodus also supposed to reign 13 years and his sister in the film die during his reign also? Hollywood history, gotta love it

 

[Sarevok]

lol, it was still one badass movie

Its clear to me that rome had the most efficient army.

 

[privatehudson]

*shakes head in disagreement*

 

[Sarevok]

and what does that mean?