Most powerful military in history?
- Thread starter Bizon77
- Start date
. Didn't they have the largest empire? Or was it Britain? I have this history book and it says
alex994
Hail Divine Emperor!
Own said:Could someone clear this up?
Britain had the largest Empire in history, around 1/4th of the world.
The Mongols had the largest continuous land empire. Hopes that helps
sydhe
King of Kongs
The British empire at its height had an area of 15-16 million miles and was the largest, but a lot of its territory, like Canada, was pretty much independent. The Mongols had the largest contiguous empire and the second largest land area, but I'm not sure how many square miles it was. 10 - 12 milion square miles, probably.
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
Rome was the most powerful military civilisation relatively speaking. Expanding and keeping such a large area by force must be a lot harder than flooding in and taking on one civ at the time and then collapse in a short time.
The US is powerful but not as Rome relatively speaking. The US got nukes, but if they nuke they get nuked...not as powerful if you at the same time get wiped out.
I'm more surpriced that not Germany has more votes since they managed to take on the most powerful nations in the world and nearly succeed counquering them in a few years. That's impressive from a military point of view.
The US is powerful but not as Rome relatively speaking. The US got nukes, but if they nuke they get nuked...not as powerful if you at the same time get wiped out.
I'm more surpriced that not Germany has more votes since they managed to take on the most powerful nations in the world and nearly succeed counquering them in a few years. That's impressive from a military point of view.
nivekclough
Working Like Crazy
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2004
- Messages
- 352
Sorry for bumping the thread, but I though Alexander the Great conquered more land than any other person in history
Hornblower
Cry Havoc!
I have been lurking on this thread for a while and feel it is time to join in.
The tactic of the Khan was not unlike a Blitzkrieg. He took important points and bypassed others. He had a core group of attackers not unlike a light mechanised army of today. The highly mobile or nomadic nature of the horde meant that although their conquered territory spread across modern day Asia and westwards into europe they didn't actually control and police that entire area. It was only unified under the mantle "empire" because the Khan said it was so. 19th and 20th century historians have overstated the control of the golden horde. Taking nothing away from a flowing all conquering campaign Genghis did not truly rule that entire area. Square miles ridden across and plundered hardly counts when you don't have troops on the ground physically controlling it after your inital spearhead has left. Besides the only thing the Khans empire accomplished was to stiffen the resolve of the various defeated warlords that encountered him. It was a trigger for them to prepare better defences for the next time he came by. When he died his empire was shown for what it really was.... an illusion of an empire created by the cult of the personality.
Rome on the other hand had more of a significant military and influential impact. They controlled every inch of their domain for centuries. Not only that but they controlled it initially with force and then introduced the benefits of their culture to win the hearts and minds of the populace and thus subdue them and absorb them into the empire. Their military consisted of troops from all provinces and ethnic groups and in the ancient sense they created an all conquering method of combined arms. Roman Legions, Parthian Calvalry, Dalmatian Javelins, Greek Fireships etc. Their technology developed from across the empire benefited all who met or were subdued by them. They didn't have to like it at first but the fact that they stayed "Roman" for centuries is fairly convincing. Highways for rapidly moving troops also quickly brought communications and improved the cities with Plumbing, Central heating, Democracy etc. Although not conquering massive swathes of land in todays terms they essentially influenced the known civilised world and still managed to trade with those civs outside of their control and influence and turn that contact to their advantage to make more money and further improve their empire.
On modern superpowers. To mangle a corny phrase: "Might is not necessarily right." Don't confuse mutally assured destruction by nukes with true power or influence. Without the man on the ground controlling and policing the population you will never truely have control.
Sheer numbers of troops in China, high tech weapons in the USA or multitudes of nukes in the USSR does not make them strong in an empirical sense. The modern powers lifespans have not even lasted a century. IMHO they can't be considered just yet.
The tactic of the Khan was not unlike a Blitzkrieg. He took important points and bypassed others. He had a core group of attackers not unlike a light mechanised army of today. The highly mobile or nomadic nature of the horde meant that although their conquered territory spread across modern day Asia and westwards into europe they didn't actually control and police that entire area. It was only unified under the mantle "empire" because the Khan said it was so. 19th and 20th century historians have overstated the control of the golden horde. Taking nothing away from a flowing all conquering campaign Genghis did not truly rule that entire area. Square miles ridden across and plundered hardly counts when you don't have troops on the ground physically controlling it after your inital spearhead has left. Besides the only thing the Khans empire accomplished was to stiffen the resolve of the various defeated warlords that encountered him. It was a trigger for them to prepare better defences for the next time he came by. When he died his empire was shown for what it really was.... an illusion of an empire created by the cult of the personality.
Rome on the other hand had more of a significant military and influential impact. They controlled every inch of their domain for centuries. Not only that but they controlled it initially with force and then introduced the benefits of their culture to win the hearts and minds of the populace and thus subdue them and absorb them into the empire. Their military consisted of troops from all provinces and ethnic groups and in the ancient sense they created an all conquering method of combined arms. Roman Legions, Parthian Calvalry, Dalmatian Javelins, Greek Fireships etc. Their technology developed from across the empire benefited all who met or were subdued by them. They didn't have to like it at first but the fact that they stayed "Roman" for centuries is fairly convincing. Highways for rapidly moving troops also quickly brought communications and improved the cities with Plumbing, Central heating, Democracy etc. Although not conquering massive swathes of land in todays terms they essentially influenced the known civilised world and still managed to trade with those civs outside of their control and influence and turn that contact to their advantage to make more money and further improve their empire.
On modern superpowers. To mangle a corny phrase: "Might is not necessarily right." Don't confuse mutally assured destruction by nukes with true power or influence. Without the man on the ground controlling and policing the population you will never truely have control.
Sheer numbers of troops in China, high tech weapons in the USA or multitudes of nukes in the USSR does not make them strong in an empirical sense. The modern powers lifespans have not even lasted a century. IMHO they can't be considered just yet.
alex994
Hail Divine Emperor!
Hornblower said:
Just an idle comment, the people in China still consider themselves Chinese
wit>trope
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,871
~Corsair#01~ said:
I think that's a common myth but "to each his own"
The heart of Europe would have been able to crush the Mongol marauders. If Mongols couldn't even successfully conquer Japan, then hardly could they successfully subdue the core of Europe. The subject of Mongols versus Europe has fallen victim to historical revisionism. See what wikipedia says:n 1241 the Mongols may have been ready to invade western Europe as well, having defeated the last Polish-German and Hungarian armies at the Battle of Legnica and the Battle of Mohi.
Note how wikipedia (which uses historical revisionism) cites the Battle of Legnica as an example of how the Mongols "may" have been able to invade western Europe ... well guess what, take a look at their article on Legnica battle:
The date of the battle is usually given as early April, although the exact date is uncertain - the 9th is popular. Also, as with many historical battles, the exact details of force composition, tactics, and the actual course of the battle are woefully lacking and usually contradictatory.
The battle has undergone some historical revisionism, in 1911 the battle was where "Henry II... broke the force of the Mongol invasion." Current thinking sees the battle as where Henry II was out-thought, out-manoeuvred, and his forces suffered a very serious defeat.
So wikipedia admits that the "actual course" of the battle is uncertain and accounts are contradictory and details wanting AND that previously historians believed that the white people WON that battle
... so were historians right then or right now? I'd say they were right then. There's always a PC desire in history to upplay non-white accomplishments and downplay white accomplishments Everyone knows this is true. There's even discussions about Samurai versus Knight which claim that Samurai would win! ... there's no way to say that with certainty and in fact it seems pretty obvious that a Knight, especially one on a horse, would win, but people want to be PC, appear PC or whatever This is just my OPINION so please don't flame me
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
By most successful offensively, I would have to say Rome or the Mongols.
sydhe
King of Kongs
cierdan said:I think that's a common myth but "to each his own"
Would the Europeans have been helped by a timely hurricane?
Nyvin
Unseen Leader
cierdan said:I think that's a common myth but "to each his own"
First of all, the mongols never reallly had much interest in Japan. They did do two sea invasions that failed mainly because of hurricanes, but they never really had much reason to worry about Japan. I'd hardly consider the statement "Couldn't even conquer Japan, no chance of conquering Europe" a very valid statement.
The mongols had the first modern army in the world, they had the first cannons in the world and had won countless victories against European armies in eastern Europe. I highly doubt that a bunch of fractionized, small nation-states that themselves weren't even united very well, could ever hope to defeat a superpower that had went through most of the civilized world with relative ease. You'll notice that the mongolian homeland was on the other side of the world almost from western Europe.
sydhe
King of Kongs
San Marino's army is impressive; how else has it stayed independent for so long?
alex994
Hail Divine Emperor!
Nyvin said:
The Mongols did not have the first cannons in the world, they stole the technology from the Jin/Northern Chinese Dynasty after they conquered it.
Similar threads
- Poll
