Most powerful military in history?

[gatomarado]

Just off-topic

Don't mess with Portugal or we'll send all our politicians and they'll crumble the enemy's economy.

 

[Aegis]

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

If you're referring to their American adversaries, don't kid yourself. A political victory should never be confused with a military victory.

 

[Master of Civ]

What about Turkey 1300-1920? They were pretty strong in the 1500-1600 years. Conquered more than Rome, the Arabs and many other mediteranean conquerors.

 

[kingjoshi]

In terms of relative military power over the rest of the word, the answer is obvious: USA during the time frame of getting the atomib bomb and the Soviets getting it. During this time frame, the US had capabilities no other military leader could imagine. That is the peak of US military power, relative to the rest of the world.

If the US leaders were as ruthless or ambitious as some other leaders in the past, who knows how much destruction and conquering could've happened.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

What about Turkey 1300-1920? They were pretty strong in the 1500-1600 years. Conquered more than Rome, the Arabs and many other mediteranean conquerors.

IIRC the power of the Ottoman empire declined heavily after the 2nd half of the XVII century. Because Europe's intrest was turned toward the new discovered lands and no longer bought ExtremeOriental goods on turkish prices and no longer travelled around africa too much so the ottoman pirates no longer had ships to plunder.

And maybe the 1300 limit should be 12th century.

 

[Maniacal]

I voted for Ghenghis Khan but the US has the strongest military in the world and history. However, if you go by time periods, many (especialy European and east-asian, and in certain periods the middle east) countries have the strongest armies.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Relatively Britain, but the US army would obviously kick imperial army's ass now.

 

[cyrusIII85]

What about Turkey 1300-1920? They were pretty strong in the 1500-1600 years. Conquered more than Rome, the Arabs and many other mediteranean conquerors.

They were also beaten by the Safavids, which just emerged in Iran. Of course, proper credit has to be given to the genius of Abbas.

 

[NeverMind]

Mongols. They were pure military power.

 

[Azkonus]

They were also beaten by the Safavids, which just emerged in Iran. Of course, proper credit has to be given to the genius of Abbas.

Safavids were Turkish too (just emerged in Iran makes it sound like Persian).

 

[Justinian519]

I think it would be the Mongols. They could have had the world. They had almost all of Asia. Where is modern China. They have over 13 million troops and can mobilize 342,956,265 troops if needed. I don't think the U.S. or anyother nation could do that.

 

[rilnator]

I think it would be the Mongols. They could have had the world. They had almost all of Asia. Where is modern China. They have over 13 million troops and can mobilize 342,956,265 troops if needed. I don't think the U.S. or anyother nation could do that.

Pure size dosen't mean a thing without training, equipment and technology.

 

[Rasta_F]

Alot of "slow" people in here, saying stuff like

"Oh yeah, whooo, USA rules, we would kick the Roman's asses!!"

Well done, a tank v a soldier with a sword and shield.

For me, its the Romans, who rose from a single city tribe to controlling 3/4s of the worlds population.

Who have the American millitary been proven against, apart from in WWII, where they were not alone (but did perform superbly)?

(ps, Im English and am very proud of our empire, the greatest the world has ever known and will ever know, but it was alot of well armed soliders with rifles and canons against tribal warriors. The Roman Army, even though they had sophisticated wepons, it was still mainly swords and spears, bows and arrows etc)

 

[privatehudson]

For me, its the Romans, who rose from a single city tribe to controlling 3/4s of the worlds population.

I have the impression this sentence is missing the word "known"

 

[William GBTW]

I'd say each has ad thier time; its hard to compare; for example it is hard to compare Rome to the USA. I'd say the USA.

 

[Rasta_F]

I could have sworn I wrote known, but yeah

the KNOWN world, which was still pretty much most of it

 

[William GBTW]

Not true. The known world at that time was very, very small.

 

[Azkonus]

Not true. The known world at that time was very, very small.

How can someone conquer unknown? Can you explain this?

 

[William GBTW]

How can someone conquer unknown? Can you explain this?

But you can't say 3/4 of the worlds population when only a part of the world is knonw and yes you can conqueor the unknown; the Spainards did, as did the English and French and Portguesse.

 

[privatehudson]

I can't quite resist quoting pratchett here, this time on explorers. His theory runs roughly that you don't count as having explored somwhere unless you set out looking for something in the first place. It doesn't have to be the same place as the one you find naturally. Merely wandering across a landbridge on your weekend off or actually evolving there simply doesn't count.

Oh and you need to wear the right trousers and shout really loudly in your own language at anyone you meet.