Most powerful military in history?

[Dreadnought]

San Marino's army is impressive; how else has it stayed independent for so long?

It it had a huge army it wouldn't fit inside the country's borders.

 

[The Dark Master]

The most powerful Military in History will be mine! You know Rome also had an extremly powerful military. Even today generals and historians are amazed by what Rome did.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

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.

WW2 the Soviets just threw there men at Hitler and relied on sheer numbers. Thats why 15 million soviet soliders fell, while the rest of the allies combined lost roughly 2 million together. Without the US supply the Soviets, the Soviets would have like 15 men to a single gun, with the others just on standby to pick up the weapon when the first guy was cut down.

 

[wit>trope]

I voted America but on second thought it might be a tie between America and Germany, if you take into account Germany's small starting base in WWII. It's like who is the best Olympics team -- America would be best but taking into account the size of the nation probably Australia or Switzerland or something would be best.

 

[nonconformist]

WW2 the Soviets just threw there men at Hitler and relied on sheer numbers. Thats why 15 million soviet soliders fell, while the rest of the allies combined lost roughly 2 million together. Without the US supply the Soviets, the Soviets would have like 15 men to a single gun, with the others just on standby to pick up the weapon when the first guy was cut down.

I think you've got a somewhat stereotypical view there.
Prior to Stalingrad, it's true that trhe Soviet army was very poor in terms of training.
However, it's a huge mistake to jusde them soley on the numbers of dead.
The Soviets lost 20 million. How come?
The Russians were in thew war from early on, either way. They were in there, not like the UK or US who were separated from the conflict.
SOviet ideology meant ideological deviants, "criminals" (i.e people who showed fear etc.) recaptured prisoners, and civilians would be reasily executed by political officers.
There's also the fact that the Germans (or more specifically, the Nazis) were waging a war of extermination; in other words, Russian prisoners would expect nothing but to be killed or used as slave labour, and entire villages would be wiped out.
The Soviet army mobilised hugely during 1941, in Stalingrad, one of the countries that did the msot, second only to the US.
The Russian army moved form mass overwhelming tactics to more calculated ones eventually.
The Lend Lease factor is fair, but most of the supplies were food and clothing. The Russians moved whole towns east to produce arms and such. They ended up having very efficient mass production lines, pressing all available people into service. They produced some fine equipment, that even surpassed some of the stuff the Germans had, such as the PPSH or the T-34.

The Russians were usually trained in an inferior fashion to their rivals and coutnerparts, msotly due to the Soviet military system, and the mass conscription. However, they produced some good untis (the Guards) and excelled in terms of snipers and pilots.
The units which were problematic weren't the fighting ones, but the support units that followed up, as we saw in Berlin.
Also, by then, the mass infantry wave style had been soemwhat abandoned, the Soviets preferring to destroy the target with artillery, and then send tanks in, blasting the standing buildings, again seen in Berlin.
The Soviets actually ended up with approximately the same death percentage as the Germans.

 

[Esox]

We're comparing apples to oranges when we compare militaries from different eras. Rome had massive numbers and the best organization, but I'd have to give the nod to the Mongols (under Genghis Khan) though, since everyone they encountered had no chance against them. They had no military rival for two generations. There hasn't been a conquering force like it since.

Of course, they met their end eventually the way they all do.

 

[Esox]

Sorry for bumping the thread, but I though Alexander the Great conquered more land than any other person in history

Alexander had conquered the entire known world by the time he was 25. Impressive! But at that time the known world (to him) extended from the western Mediterranean to Persia. Genghis Khan's empire was about twice the size.

 

[hookmonkey]

The Netherlands offcourse! Why? Because The Netherlands were technology superiour during their prime compared to other nations, nobody in the world had discovered the secret of the windmill and the cheese. If the dutch would have wanted, the whole world would've be enslaved and sent to work in cheesefactories. Also the dykes were the chinese walls of the time, so they couldn't been conquered. I almost forget they we were also the first to discover 'the clog', a weapon dutch scientist at the time worked on for several centuries. It was the weapon of mass destruction of it's time. Too bad the dutch are so friendly, otherwise everyone would have spoken dutch by now.

 

[Trafalgar]

It has to be the British.

They created a world empire that lasted for more than two hundred years. They fought on almost every continent against just about every kind of foe. They also won the vast majority of those conflicts.

Their navy was superior to any two other navies for over one hundred years.

They fought against tyrants from Napoleon to Hitler.
They did it with courage and style and kept their humanity.
And when the time for empires was over they quietly withdrew to their island.

That is military strength.

 

[rbis4rbb]

I agree with San Marion as well, no one wanted to mess with him. Plus, the Swiss army of the middle ages was indeed formidable

 

[Dreadnought]

They created a world empire that lasted for more than two hundred years. They fought on almost every continent against just about every kind of foe. They also won the vast majority of those conflicts.

Most of the people they conquered to gain their empire didn't even have guns...so no wonder they won

 

[Nyvin]

They created a world empire that lasted for more than two hundred years.

As I recall, half of the empire was gained through the seven years war, the other half was gained during the between 1880-1921...either way you look at it, that's not two hundred years. Other countries have had world empires that lasted longer.

They fought on almost every continent against just about every kind of foe. They also won the vast majority of those conflicts

They had the english channel so they could easily gain naval superiority over any continental foe, they had Napolean and Prussia conquer their rivals so they could steal away all their colonies while the rivals were busy fighting for their country on the continent, and they were forming an empire during the time that Western Europe in general had huge advantages over any other culture group in many ways.

With conditions like that any group of bozos could do what they did, if not better. I would say your statement there is highly overrated.

Their navy was superior to any two other navies for over one hundred years.

They were an island, they focused mainly on navy. It's not that the other rivals were 'incapable' of building such a navy, it's that they had other concerns most of the time, exceptions to this would be during the American Revolution, Dutch Colonial wars, and the Crimean war, times that you see the brittish navy defeated.

They fought against tyrants from Napoleon to Hitler.

I would hardly call Napolean a tyrant, and yes they did fight against them mainly for commerical interest, but they did actually support tyranny most of the time in their own country and abroad, so I don't see how they're better.

They did it with courage and style and kept their humanity.

So does everyone...

And when the time for empires was over they quietly withdrew to their island.

Not really, they ran out of money. If you think they just peacefully decided to quit, look into the event in Egypt in 1956...or any colonial war would do.

That is military strength.

Your statements are very far-fetched and are more fantasy then fact. It's not good to just be so blind about things like that.

You'll notice that 'not once' any time in history does England/Britain successfully conquer a nation that is in equal terms with them.

 

[Trafalgar]

Nyvin, Your grasp of British history is poor at best and not worth commenting on.

You also seem to be a little Anglophobic, but hey, your entitled to your views.

There is one thing i am curious about though. What major defeats did the British navy suffer in the Crimean War?

 

[Nyvin]

Nyvin, Your grasp of British history is poor at best and not worth commenting on.

You also seem to be a little Anglophobic, but hey, your entitled to your views.

There is one thing i am curious about though. What major defeats did the British navy suffer in the Crimean War?

Wow, I provide actual facts on brittish history and clearly point out events and you say my view on brittish history is poor at best when all you give is vaunted, vague statements???? I don't really see your logic in that one, unless your just relying on put downs to support your claims.

I'm not anglophobic, i just get irritated how much brittish history is almost always overrated.

And okay, maybe the Crimean war would be a bad example to give, but the war itself did end up being quite a foul-up.

 

[Sayounara]

Germany pre1945

1) Fastest ever known full-scale military victories ever acheived in history, even when against the odds

2) Most educated in the world; generals and soldiers with romantic visions

3) Hitler didn't know how to command, but he could govern and teach well, winning many diplomatic victories

They only lost because of Hitler's lack of interest in the actual domination of the world. Like what Rome had controlled, so could have Hitler, except even more, from Norway to South Africa, Great Britain to India. But Hitler directed Germany into Racism and Anti-Communism, also downplayed science in favor of his belief in his own omnipotence--he had an obessession with wanting to be worshipped as a God, and making Nazism the true Christian religion that's set out to destroy Bolshevism and the Jews. For that, Hitler wasted 1000s of his best pilots in Britain, lost the spoils of Africa, and eventually his entire army in Soviet Russia. Nevertheless, this was modern warfare and the Germans performed spectacular. Shooting down more then 100 thousands, peaking at over a 20:1 kill ratio in 1939 and 1940.

 

[antonio]

As I recall, half of the empire was gained through the seven years war, the other half was gained during the between 1880-1921...either way you look at it, that's not two hundred years. Other countries have had world empires that lasted longer.



They had the english channel so they could easily gain naval superiority over any continental foe, they had Napolean and Prussia conquer their rivals so they could steal away all their colonies while the rivals were busy fighting for their country on the continent, and they were forming an empire during the time that Western Europe in general had huge advantages over any other culture group in many ways.

With conditions like that any group of bozos could do what they did, if not better. I would say your statement there is highly overrated.



They were an island, they focused mainly on navy. It's not that the other rivals were 'incapable' of building such a navy, it's that they had other concerns most of the time, exceptions to this would be during the American Revolution, Dutch Colonial wars, and the Crimean war, times that you see the brittish navy defeated.



I would hardly call Napolean a tyrant, and yes they did fight against them mainly for commerical interest, but they did actually support tyranny most of the time in their own country and abroad, so I don't see how they're better.



So does everyone...




Not really, they ran out of money. If you think they just peacefully decided to quit, look into the event in Egypt in 1956...or any colonial war would do.



Your statements are very far-fetched and are more fantasy then fact. It's not good to just be so blind about things like that.

You'll notice that 'not once' any time in history does England/Britain successfully conquer a nation that is in equal terms with them.

At one point in during the 19th century Britain had a navy larger than the rest of the worlds combined. This would mean they could defeat any nation because no one could invade us and we could destroy world trade for any of our competitors. This means Britain has the most powerful nation ever because they could defeat the anybody in there day.

 

[Trafalgar]

Wow, I provide actual facts on brittish history and clearly point out events and you say my view on brittish history is poor at best when all you give is vaunted, vague statements???? I don't really see your logic in that one, unless your just relying on put downs to support your claims.

I'm not anglophobic, i just get irritated how much brittish history is almost always overrated.

And okay, maybe the Crimean war would be a bad example to give, but the war itself did end up being quite a foul-up.

Let me try to explain

The Anglo-Dutch wars and the American Revolution, both losses I admit, did not stop the rise of the Royal Navy to complete domination of the oceans. Sure, the Americans could win a few frigate victories in the war of 1812, but they could not challenge for control of the seas.

As for British history being overrated: The Royal Navy defeated the Dutch, French, Spanish and Danish navies in the space of eight years! Do you honestly think they are overrated?

Crimean war: You're right, it was a foul-up. It didn’t help that the British commander kept referring to the French as the 'enemy'! British history is full of foul-ups, but they won far more wars than they lost.

The Royal Navy controlled the seas and oceans of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They could exert British power and influence anywhere they chose. Also most of the world’s seaborne trade was carried under the British flag. That is military and economic dominance on a world scale.

That’s why I picked Britain as the dominant military power. Rome or the Mongols were not world powers.

 

[Nyvin]

The Anglo-Dutch wars and the American Revolution, both losses I admit, did not stop the rise of the Royal Navy to complete domination of the oceans. Sure, the Americans could win a few frigate victories in the war of 1812, but they could not challenge for control of the seas.

The time of Britain's golden age is during a time that the continent was experiencing a great number of 'revolutions' and such, and the USA was hardly fifty or so years old. The rest of the world still had to be developed in terms of modernization and such, so really it wasn't that they forcefully controlled it, it's that they had no rivals. Simular to how the USA had a nuclear 'golden age' during the early fifties, but that didn't last long.

As for British history being overrated: The Royal Navy defeated the Dutch, French, Spanish and Danish navies in the space of eight years! Do you honestly think they are overrated?

Defending your country from a land invasion and occupation is of a higher urgency then a naval blockade...If it's the Napoleonic Wars that your talking about there, then I'd say that would give a good explaination why that happened. If all those countries were as focused on navy as britain was, you'd probably see a slightly different outcome.

The Royal Navy controlled the seas and oceans of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They could exert British power and influence anywhere they chose. Also most of the world’s seaborne trade was carried under the British flag. That is military and economic dominance on a world scale.

As I said before, this 'golden age' that lasted about eighty years can be easily explained by the English channel, Napolean, and the general advantages Europeans had over other cultures at the time.

That’s why I picked Britain as the dominant military power. Rome or the Mongols were not world powers.

Rome and Mongolia were world powers in their perspective. Britain was never a 'solar power' but does that remove their significance???

At one point in during the 19th century Britain had a navy larger than the rest of the worlds combined. This would mean they could defeat any nation because no one could invade us and we could destroy world trade for any of our competitors. This means Britain has the most powerful nation ever because they could defeat the anybody in there day.

They never did defeat any nation in their entire history. The problem with Russia's intrusion into India continued on for decades and the USA continued in the slave trade long after Britain said it was Globally illegal. Britain knew the USA was doing it, and they never did anything.

When rivals started getting competitive about colonial gains usually Britain's response was compensation or appeasement, not any forceful naval blockade.

The reason for these events is because Britain knew that any 'united Europe' would be deadly to them and they always wanted to keep all of the countries competing with each other. Further proving the significance of the english channel.

 

[Nyvin]

double post sry

 

[antonio]

The time of Britain's golden age is during a time that the continent was experiencing a great number of 'revolutions' and such, and the USA was hardly fifty or so years old. The rest of the world still had to be developed in terms of modernization and such, so really it wasn't that they forcefully controlled it, it's that they had no rivals. Simular to how the USA had a nuclear 'golden age' during the early fifties, but that didn't last long.



Defending your country from a land invasion and occupation is of a higher urgency then a naval blockade...If it's the Napoleonic Wars that your talking about there, then I'd say that would give a good explaination why that happened. If all those countries were as focused on navy as britain was, you'd probably see a slightly different outcome.



As I said before, this 'golden age' that lasted about eighty years can be easily explained by the English channel, Napolean, and the general advantages Europeans had over other cultures at the time.



Rome and Mongolia were world powers in their perspective. Britain was never a 'solar power' but does that remove their significance???



They never did defeat any nation in their entire history. The problem with Russia's intrusion into India continued on for decades and the USA continued in the slave trade long after Britain said it was Globally illegal. Britain knew the USA was doing it, and they never did anything.

When rivals started getting competitive about colonial gains usually Britain's response was compensation or appeasement, not any forceful naval blockade.

The reason for these events is because Britain knew that any 'united Europe' would be deadly to them and they always wanted to keep all of the countries competing with each other. Further proving the significance of the english channel.

You claim if the rest of the world was modernized then Britain would not have been a super power well that's true but they weren't and Britain was the only super power. The other European nations could not focus on a navy because they needed there army to defend them because of the constant wars in Europe. Britain has defeated lots of nations on her own. All of the colonial wars they won. The Americans only won independence because every other European nation helped them. You Britain appeased everyone take a look at the confrontation with France over Sudan. Britain economically and militaristically could not be touched by any of it's competitors.

Rome was weaker than China at there point in history so they never had global dominance. Mongolia was defeated by so the Mamaluks and in Poland by a Teutonic and Slavic force. They could never have conquered Europe because of the logistics of it. They would have had to either split there army or give up the use of multiple horses. Either of which would have made it very difficult for them to win.