Most powerful military in history?

[Hornblower]

I wasn't refering to casualties, I was refering to just 'losing' the 5%. Having britain pull out of the war and take away 5% of the army wouldn't force the US to pull out also. So this isnt' really related to what I said.

Yes, I'd agree with what your saying to some degree, but what that would depend on is what exactly the war is for. If the country itself is in danger, then you'd see a much higher resolve to fight for it.

Agreed, National resolve when homesoil is attacked will lead to those citizens putting up with a lot more.

 

[privatehudson]

I think he just ahs no valid arguments against what you say.

Possibly

 

[Nyvin]

No, it's just that I explained it too many times now

 

[privatehudson]

So far you've been very clearly not adressing most of my points, or if you have been you're not been very clear since I can't see the reply.

For example the part where I showed your original statement was wrong according to your own standard. Am I to assume you accept this now since you show no interest in taking up the point?

 

[golfnchew]

Don't know if it was mentioned before, but I thought it was funny the French were listed on this poll.

I'm still laughing.

 

[Verbose]

Don't know if it was mentioned before, but I thought it was funny the French were listed on this poll.

I'm still laughing.

Fighting the French?

Don't knock it until you've actually tried it.

 

[Hamminator]

The Romans should be number one they conquered the known world. They used the Medditerranian as their swimming pool. They had the best soldiers and machines for war(like catapults and ballista) and no one could stop them until they overextended themselves like Germany.

 

[silver 2039]

The Romans should be number one they conquered the known world. They used the Medditerranian as their swimming pool. They had the best soldiers and machines for war(like catapults and ballista) and no one could stop them until they overextended themselves like Germany.

The known world according the them. What about the great empires of China and India to the east? The Medditerranen did not encompass the entire world there were others who were as great if not greater than the Romans.

 

[justokre]

I say Mongolia.
They came to power faster than Rome, and won just about every single battle. No one could stop them, and they controlled more land than Rome. They had the best military if you compare it to any other country's military at the time. The only problem was unfortunate government tradition. :-(

 

[Koelle]

It's funny that half of those most powerful militaries got their ass kicked by by the Vietnamese. The rest didnt just because they never had a chance to try them

 

[Royal]

It's funny that half of those most powerful militaries got their ass kicked by by the Vietnamese. The rest didnt just because they never had a chance to try them

The Vietcong did not fight 'fair', if they even fought. They were gurillas, and darn good ones at that. The other countries weren't used to that kind of action.

How can you guys not say Germany? Their military in 1870-1915 was the envy of the world in case of land forces.

 

[Bugfatty300]

It's funny that half of those most powerful militaries got their ass kicked by by the Vietnamese. The rest didnt just because they never had a chance to try them

Since Vietnam never existed as one country until 1976 only one country on that list got "there ass kicked" by Vietnam. Two if Cambodia was on the list

How can you guys not say Germany? Their military in 1870-1915 was the envy of the world in case of land forces.

Well, you could say that for any country up there on that list at one time or another,

 

[Koelle]

No, my friend. Sometimes they were separated, but Vietnam has been one country for thousands years. In the past, they didnt call their country Vietnam but Annam, Dai Viet, etc ... or just Viet. Btw, i meant the Vietnamese, not the country Vietnam

 

[Koelle]

The Vietnamese did not fight 'fair', if they even fought. They were gurillas, and darn good ones at that. The other countries weren't used to that kind of action.

How can you guys not say Germany? Their military in 1870-1915 was the envy of the world in case of land forces.

Why did they not fight fair. Did they use any dirty tricks? And they were not always guerillas. Vietnam never fought a guerillas war against China since their independence. no guerillas could surround the French and artillery bombarded them for nearly 2 months like in the Siege of Dien Bien Phu. No guerillas could fight a single battle that lasted hundreds days with the American like in the Siege of Khe Sanh. The Vietcong were guerillas, but they were not the only side fighting with the US. Only the war against Mongol was guerillas war, but the vietnamese had no choice since their population at this time was just slightly bigger than the whole Mongol troops. Anyway, they only won wars against invasions from countries listed above and were by no mean as powerful as them

 

[Royal]

Why did they not fight fair. Did they use any dirty tricks? And they were not always guerillas. Vietnam never fought a guerillas war against China since their independence. no guerillas could surround the French and artillery bombarded them for nearly 2 months like in the Siege of Dien Bien Phu. No guerillas could fight a single battle that lasted hundreds days with the American like in the Siege of Khe Sanh. The Vietcong were guerillas, but they were not the only side fighting with the US. Only the war against Mongol was guerillas war, but the vietnamese had no choice since their population at this time was just slightly bigger than the whole Mongol troops. Anyway, they only won wars against invasions from countries listed above and were by no mean as powerful as them

Sorry! Instead of Vietnamese I meant Vietcong! Post edited!

 

[Bugfatty300]

No, my friend. Sometimes they were separated, but Vietnam has been one country for thousands years. In the past, they didnt call their country Vietnam but Annam, Dai Viet, etc ... or just Viet.

Tonkin (Area of North Vietnam) was continually conquered by China and ruled by the Qin Dynasty for a 1,000 years. A few hundred years of indepenced follwed by more Chinese conquests in the 1400s until 1700s. When France colonized Indochina, Vietnam was seperated into three regions.

My point is, they were never a complete unified country until 1976.

Btw, i meant the Vietnamese, not the country Vietnam

Fair enough, that makes sense.

 

[RichardMNixon]

America did not lose to Vietnam, America lost to hippies; its pretty hard to lose a war fought on foreign soil when you have such a staggering resource advantage. Putting aside moral considerations, it would not have been terribly difficult to burn North Vietnam to the ground. Having to send soldiers into the jungles at night and fight VC guerillas only once they've already been ambushed was the difficult part.
Look at the Tet (sp?) Offensive. Militarily, it was a complete and utter failure for the Vietnamese on a Pickett's charge scale. But it angered enough hippies to be a problem for the US as well.

On another note:

Fighting the French?

Don't knock it until you've actually tried it.

Rome, Britain, American Colonies, Prussia, Germany. I'm pretty sure that if France had a win/loss ratio over 1.0, it would only be because of Napoleon, Charles the Hammer (or was he Burgundian?) and maybe a few others. Aside from a few booms, France got stomped on quite a bit...

 

[empire]

.Even itty, bitty Scandinavian countries have oversized egos, maintaining they they alone have dicovered the key to The Good Life For All.

The truth of that statement made me laugh louder than any of the other ridiculous statements in this entire thread, which is quite a feat, to be sure!

Long live the frigid North!

(Quite a few pages too late, but hey, better that than never, right?)

The poll, as many others have stated and which I'll be forced to reiterate for the sake of utter redundancy, is worth bugger all.

 

[magritte]

I went with the U.S. Of the ones on the list, only Britain and the U.S. had truly global reach. The U.S. poses a significant military threat anywhere in the world, whereas the Mayans and even the Indians (who were within the known world) had little to fear from Rome. The reasons are largely technological, but even so, very few other countries in the modern era have been able to effectively fight wars on the other side of the world. The main reason I chose the U.S. over Britain is that Britain had tremendous naval superiority, but I'm not convinced they were ever the greatest land power in Europe. It seems to me all their successful wars against France were either in the colonies or fought with significant help from allies. You can argue that the USSR might have had on-land military superiority over the U.S. (though I've always felt the power of the Soviet army was exaggerated by American intelligence for political purposes), but that's over now.

All these empires were overextended and lost wars to vastly inferior foes under the right circumstances, e.g., Rome vs the Picts, England vs the Thirteen Colonies, U.S. vs Vietnam. In these kinds of cases, it's not so much an inability to subdue the other country, but an unwillingness to divert the necessary resources to do so.

 

[ANDL33]

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.

Not even. If they couldn't even take over Northern part of China back then for more than a century (If my history knowledge is correct, correct me if I'm wrong.), what makes you think they could get as far as Armenia or Iraq?