Most powerful military in history?

[Rasta_F]

The "known" world may have been small but most of the worlds population was centralised there

 

[privatehudson]

So the Roman empire had considerably more people than China, North America, South America and most of Africa combined?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

my vote goes to Germany pre 1945. In the age of the Wehrmacht, Germany was just plain unstoppable. It was Hitler's intervention into military policy that doomed the Blitz, he just HAD to meddle in things he didnt understand. There are several key points in the war that the Axis would've had a major victory, but Hitler ordered a change in policy or strategy that played into Allied hands. For example, th Battle of Britain: had the Luftwaffe krpt on pounding the RAF airfields instead of switching to city bombing raids, the RAF woudlnt have been able to build up enough to efectively continued to combat them, and Britain was sure to crumble. After Britain was down for the count, all that manpower goes to the East, and bye bye Russia. America at that point wouldnt have been ina position to fight the Nazis, only the Japanese really.

 

[Leif]

I believe this poll to be biased, most people taking it live in America during a peak (and some say the begining of a decline) in power.

 

[Arms Longfellow]

Yeah I don't think WW2 era Germany gets enough credit. It basically took the combined might of all the most powerful countries in the world to defeat them.

There was this map of the world I saw once that showed the Allies as one colour, and the Axis as another, and it was insane. HUGE swath of green (allies) then a few tiny slivers of red (Axis).

 

[The Thracian]

I'd Say New China.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

new china? yea they have a big army, but its far from the most powerful right now ( that title goes to us )

 

[silver 2039]

my vote goes to Germany pre 1945. In the age of the Wehrmacht, Germany was just plain unstoppable. It was Hitler's intervention into military policy that doomed the Blitz, he just HAD to meddle in things he didnt understand. There are several key points in the war that the Axis would've had a major victory, but Hitler ordered a change in policy or strategy that played into Allied hands. For example, th Battle of Britain: had the Luftwaffe krpt on pounding the RAF airfields instead of switching to city bombing raids, the RAF woudlnt have been able to build up enough to efectively continued to combat them, and Britain was sure to crumble. After Britain was down for the count, all that manpower goes to the East, and bye bye Russia. America at that point wouldnt have been ina position to fight the Nazis, only the Japanese really.

Hitler was quite a brilliant commander actually. It was him that formulated the strategy for the attack on France that was so devastatingly effective.
The German generals were overcatious and compotent but not brillaint. Germany had no great Generals like Eisenhower, or Marshall. Hitler was the main dricing force behind German strategy.

The problem Hitler had was that he was completly obessive about control. He wanted total control over ever detail of the abttle from the damage ssutained by every single unit and the logstics and other such thing. Hitler should not have interfered with field command descesions such as at Dunkirk, but when it comes to overall strategy he was a good tactician. His persoanlity got in the way and that was a major weakness.

 

[Panzeh]

If I had to say the most powerful military in history, it would be the Union Army in 1865.

 

[aaglo]

Alexander the great's army

 

[silver 2039]

Alexander the great's army

Which consisted of 30,000 men. Their real strength was in their commander and the incomptence of the enemy commanders not their own strength.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Hitler was quite a brilliant commander actually. It was him that formulated the strategy for the attack on France that was so devastatingly effective.
The German generals were overcatious and compotent but not brillaint. Germany had no great Generals like Eisenhower, or Marshall. Hitler was the main dricing force behind German strategy.

The problem Hitler had was that he was completly obessive about control. He wanted total control over ever detail of the abttle from the damage ssutained by every single unit and the logstics and other such thing. Hitler should not have interfered with field command descesions such as at Dunkirk, but when it comes to overall strategy he was a good tactician. His persoanlity got in the way and that was a major weakness.

What on earth are you talking about?
Hitler never considered logistics in any of his campaigns, that was Barbarossa's greatest failing the lack of logistics.
You do realise you just said that Guderain and Von Manstein where second rate commanders not to mention Model, Rommel etc......

 

[YNCS]

Hitler was quite a brilliant commander actually. It was him that formulated the strategy for the attack on France that was so devastatingly effective.

As it happens, the invasion through the Ardennes was the idea of Erich von Manstein. Hitler approved the plan, but von Manstein and several other officers on the General Staff formulated it.

The German generals were overcatious and compotent but not brillaint. Germany had no great Generals like Eisenhower, or Marshall. Hitler was the main dricing force behind German strategy.

Guderian, Kesselring and Rommel are all considered great generals. Von Manstein, von Rundstedt and von Leeb were also quite good. Von Leeb and Guderian in particular regarded Hitler as an armchair general who didn't have any understanding of either strategy or logistics. Most modern military historians would agree with this judgement.

BTW, Eisenhower and Marshall made their reputations as administrators and strategists, not as tactical leaders.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yea i think Erwin Rommel doesnt get the credit he deserves. I always said he was like Robert E Lee, he was a great general who belinged on our side, but out of the twists and turns of history wound up against us. ANd yes i realize he was a Nazi, but he did try to assasinate Hitler to did he not?

@Panzeh - why is the Union army more powerful? Perhaps you should study history more closely: the Confederate Army was more advanced and numbered much more than the Union, it was the strength of a few good commanders, Grant, Sherman, and Meade, that won the War for the North. The Confederate army always dominated the field because they were freakin huge. They actaully turned away volunteers in the South because they had nowhere to put them, and really didnt need them, until 1864 that is.

 

[Archduke Otto]

Eisenhower a great general?!? Until today I thought that Sir Alan Brooke and Winston Churchill were, by early 1944, wondering how enormously incompetent Eisenhower was...

 

[Bugfatty300]

@Panzeh - why is the Union army more powerful? Perhaps you should study history more closely: the Confederate Army was more advanced and numbered much more than the Union, it was the strength of a few good commanders, Grant, Sherman, and Meade, that won the War for the North. The Confederate army always dominated the field because they were freakin huge. They actaully turned away volunteers in the South because they had nowhere to put them, and really didnt need them, until 1864 that is.

I think you are seriously mixed up here.

On average, the whole Union Army outnumbered the whole Confederate Army by about 3 to 1. 2,500,000 total Union soldiers compared to 800,000 confederate soldiers.

The confederates won so many battles due do having better soldiers and officers.

And I don't know of either side turning away volunteers. Especially the Confederates who had an incredible shortage of troops.

 

[Dreadnought]

@Panzeh - why is the Union army more powerful? Perhaps you should study history more closely: the Confederate Army was more advanced and numbered much more than the Union, it was the strength of a few good commanders, Grant, Sherman, and Meade, that won the War for the North. The Confederate army always dominated the field because they were freakin huge. They actaully turned away volunteers in the South because they had nowhere to put them, and really didnt need them, until 1864 that is.

YOU should study history more closely....everything you said goes visa versa!

 

[Panzeh]

The Union Army of 1865 of all the contemporary armies, was ready to fight the war of its time. Though the Confederates had the classic advantages, better leaders and generally better troops, the industrial era army won over the army superior in the old terms. Putting troops on the Mexican border was enough to scare the supposedly great French army under Napoleon III.

In general, the Union Army's biggest advantage was the fact that it had superior support services, more men, better equipment, and a less hands-on government. By 1864 the nature of war had changed in the Union's favor. The Confederates tried to adapt but they lacked the resources to do so.

 

[Hotpoint]

If I had to say the most powerful military in history, it would be the Union Army in 1865.

Although a very large and effective force by 1865 the Union Army was not an unbeatable military colossos of the day. Despite being much more powerful than its Confederate opponent (or say the small British Army of the time), it would certainly not have easily smashed aside all its contemporaries with impunity.

The extremely competent Prussian Army of the 1860's, for one example, would have been a tough opponent for the Union. In 1866 they put half a million well trained and equipped men in the field against Austria and unlike the Austrians (or indeed the majority of the Union Infantry), who were still using Muzzle-Loading Rifles, the Prussian Infantry was solely equipped with Breechloaders (Dreyse Needle Guns) which could fire 10-12 rounds a minute and be used from a prone position.

In combat the breechloading rifles shot the Austrians (who were using Minie Ball muzzle-loading Rifles much like that of most Union troops in 1865) to pieces, in the initial battles of the War of 1866 the Prussians were getting better than a 4 to 1 casualty ratio in their favour.

Add in the fact that Prussian field Artillery was technologically far superior to that of the Union (the Prussians were using steel breechloaders with a higher rate of fire and a longer range) and the Union Army of 1865 stops looking quite so invincible.

 

[Archduke Otto]

Hotpoint, I echo what you say.