Most powerful military in history?
- Thread starter Bizon77
- Start date
Definitely the US or the USSR/Russia, simply with all the nukes they have...Bizon77 said:Which civilization in your opinion has had most military power over the rest of the world.? manpower, numerical strength, influence, skills , weapons, strategy and defended land area are all factorrs I would say.
amadeus
burning out his fuse out here alone
USA definently. I mean, the USSR lost in Afghanistan. Afghanistan!
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Well I would say the U.S. Military 1944 to 1949. The American Military was the largest in history, 15,000,000 men 
Also largest in terms of just about anything else: planes, ships, nuclear bombs, ect. We most certainly were not a country to be messed with then 
Also largest in terms of just about anything else: planes, ships, nuclear bombs, ect. We most certainly were not a country to be messed with then MattII
Prince
Today, America. Up until about the 1900's I would have said Britain, since it at one time controlled just under 1/4 of the earth's surface and just over 1/4 of the population.
rilnator
Emperor
Red Army, WW2. Superiority in numbers of artillery and armour, the kind of armour they used and the endurance of the men. Single handedly ended Hitler's dreams.
Rome was the most powerful. We will have to see if the US manages to be number one for the next centuries as was Rome in its day leading to a Pax Romana which lasted more than 8 centuries. The US has only been around for 228 years. Will it stand the test of time (sorry couldn't resist the pun 
) ?
) ?
~Corsair#01~
Deity
Mongolia, during Khan's reign. They could have had the world so very easily.
rilnator
Emperor
rmsharpe said:
And what was Vietnam? A draw?
Gelion
Retired Captain
Soviet definently. I mean, the USA lost in Vietnam. Vietnam!rmsharpe said:
Terje
The Red Semi-Menace
Ever heard of asymetrical warfare?rmsharpe said:
This question depends very heavily on the definitions.
Could the Romans or the Mongols have conquered the entire world? I seriously doubt it. (Actually, the Mongols could have done it, if the Khans had taken the advise "The world can be conquered from the horseback, but it cannot be ruled from there", and if they'd somehow found a way to cross the Atlantic. Not to mention that they'd have to integrate the conquered peoples into their empire; instead of just slaughtering them...)
Could the US or the Soviet Union have done so? No, but they'd do way better than anyone else who might try.
"They could have had the world so very easily."
Since there was insufficient pasture to be had in northern Italy or the lands beyond, The Mongols had to turn back, or their horses would perish. The invasion of Italy was not a rational option. Even after centuries of disafforestation and the conversion of arable to paddock in modern times, the Po Valley still only contains 4,247 square miles of pasture, barely sufficient to graze 38,925 steppe horses. Even if Batu and Sübodei had been willing to compromise their speed and mobility on such a narrow front by restricting the number of remounts to 5, the order of battle adopted for the Mongol campaigns in the Syrian desert, this would still only permit the ingress of 7,785 Mongol and Tatar cavalry. Thats less than 8 minghans or a single tüman, and Batu was equipped with only tactical artillery, no heavy siege train to facilitate the investment of major fortifications. The estimated population of the North Italian Plain was 3,218,000, of whom 603,000 lived in walled towns and cities, most likely defended by between 60,337 and 80,450 local troops, not counting mercenaries, of which there were plenty. Thats more than enough to cut off and obliterate the entire nomad salient, even assuming no reinforcements arrived in time from central Italy or France. And siege would take many months. The only way to occupy all of Europe is for mongols to adopt sedenmentary army which would take decades to change as the magyars and huns before them have done. While their disastrous campaign against Vietnam, Champa, Java, and Japan was all clear evidence for their limit of power.
"Rome was the most powerful. We will have to see if the US manages to be number one for the next centuries as was Rome in its day leading to a Pax Romana which lasted more than 8 centuries."
reality check. Rome was never number one.
"Up until about the 1900's I would have said Britain, since it at one time controlled just under 1/4 of the earth's surface and just over 1/4 of the population."
Yet despite its territorial height, it was already losing its edge, for its navy was challenged, while its army never had the continental edge as the continental powerhouses exercised. Just been picky, the population of the world in 1900 is roughly 1.62 billion, Britain's subject number some 372 million souls, less than a forth of the world's population.
Since there was insufficient pasture to be had in northern Italy or the lands beyond, The Mongols had to turn back, or their horses would perish. The invasion of Italy was not a rational option. Even after centuries of disafforestation and the conversion of arable to paddock in modern times, the Po Valley still only contains 4,247 square miles of pasture, barely sufficient to graze 38,925 steppe horses. Even if Batu and Sübodei had been willing to compromise their speed and mobility on such a narrow front by restricting the number of remounts to 5, the order of battle adopted for the Mongol campaigns in the Syrian desert, this would still only permit the ingress of 7,785 Mongol and Tatar cavalry. Thats less than 8 minghans or a single tüman, and Batu was equipped with only tactical artillery, no heavy siege train to facilitate the investment of major fortifications. The estimated population of the North Italian Plain was 3,218,000, of whom 603,000 lived in walled towns and cities, most likely defended by between 60,337 and 80,450 local troops, not counting mercenaries, of which there were plenty. Thats more than enough to cut off and obliterate the entire nomad salient, even assuming no reinforcements arrived in time from central Italy or France. And siege would take many months. The only way to occupy all of Europe is for mongols to adopt sedenmentary army which would take decades to change as the magyars and huns before them have done. While their disastrous campaign against Vietnam, Champa, Java, and Japan was all clear evidence for their limit of power.
"Rome was the most powerful. We will have to see if the US manages to be number one for the next centuries as was Rome in its day leading to a Pax Romana which lasted more than 8 centuries."
reality check. Rome was never number one.
"Up until about the 1900's I would have said Britain, since it at one time controlled just under 1/4 of the earth's surface and just over 1/4 of the population."
Yet despite its territorial height, it was already losing its edge, for its navy was challenged, while its army never had the continental edge as the continental powerhouses exercised. Just been picky, the population of the world in 1900 is roughly 1.62 billion, Britain's subject number some 372 million souls, less than a forth of the world's population.
CruddyLeper
Unworshipped Deity
Damn. No Luxembourg option.
Lozzy_Ozzy
Rapture
Despite votes America is least powerful
~Corsair#01~
Deity
The US isn't really very powerful today, for the reason that most nuclear-armed countries are practically even in terms of strength, because when nukes come into play, all other military strengths are meaningless.
Russia was never and probably will never be the most powerful country.
Russia was never and probably will never be the most powerful country.
The only countries that could gurantee mutual destruction with the United States is Russia. Britain and France has a chance with their highly advanced ballistic design. China's ballistic missile Ju Lang has a range of 7000 miles and could perhaps reach the eastern coast of the United States, but not destroying it. The American star war defense isn't fully developed yet and is far less accurate than claimed with merely 10 percent accuracy at destroying incoming ballistic warheads.
Other countries like India and Pakistan has no long ranged Ballistic missile and even though they have nuclear arsenal, they are harmless to the United States and its satellite system. India however do have ballistic submarines that could hit the United States but thats if U.S. intellegence would not pick up the enemy ship first and destroy it. In fact according to one military calculation, India's ballistic design is so far behind that even a nuclear war with the PRC would result in total destruction for the former and not a life lost for the later. Having nuclear weapon is not enough, one must also have the range, accuracy , and speed as well as coordination of the ICBMs to ensure a balance of power.
Reno
The Studio Ghibli Fanatic
Mongolia, if the great khan would have not died, then what? some people have speculated that the Hoard would have easily taken Paris, i think they could have had whole Europe if they would have wanted to.
Manny Kant
Metaphysician
~Corsair#01~ said:
What? So much for the U.S.A. (please include the 'A', because Mexico is a US, too) being the only surviving superpower. The American military may be light (hey, we have a culture of "war is bad!") in comparison with its population base, but it still beats whatever it fights in large-scale combat.
As for the all-nuclear-weapon-equipped-countries-being-equal argument, this is simply not the case. The vast majority of old Soviet nuclear weapons are unreliable (for many reasons) just as are the old American ones. That is why treaties like the SALT I & SALT II exist. They aren't to reduce the number of total weapons (as they claim), but to get rid of the old and bring in the new. The Bush administration caused quite a stir when, just after having taken office, announced that they were destroying some old nuclear missiles. No tit-for-tat with Russia or other nuclear powers. Why? Because the U.S.A. still had more nuclear missiles & warheads than any other nation (by quite a large margin). Now, that was the thinking of the Cold War where the U.S.A. did not try to match the conventional military strength of China or the U.S.S.R.
However, for all time, the answer has to be the United Kingdom. They had the might and the will and it didn't fall apart as soon as it was created. As for
Russia: big, mostly empty, always technologically behind, but does need recognition for being one of the more powerful 'modern' empires.Similar threads
