Most powerful military in history?

[privatehudson]

They never did defeat any nation in their entire history

Britain has won pleanty of wars in our history. Is this statement because you have a rather narrow view of what constitutes a nation, or is it because you discount most of those victories because we had allies or superior equipment to our foes?

 

[Trafalgar]

They never did defeat any nation in their entire history.

I think that statement says it all.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Germany pre1945

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

Not true the classes of hitler youth and universaties were extremely "dumbed" down as nazi ideology began to overseed acedemic archievement.

Many well researched cases and widespreed results of this nazification process

 

[FriendlyFire]

USA definently. I mean, the USSR lost in Afghanistan. Afghanistan!

USA lost in Vietnam, Vietnam
Oh the Irony

 

[JohnRM]

USA lost in Vietnam, Vietnam
Oh the Irony

The reasons that the US "lost" in Vietnam are far different than those for the Soviet Union losing in Afghanistan.

 

[Nyvin]

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.

Alright..."take a look" with the confrontation with France over the Sudan, no warefare was made, the brittish offered compensation for Sudan in exchange for France's right to Tunisnia and some west coastal ports. It's exactly what I was talking about.

And what I mean by defeating a nation is a nation on at least semi equal terms (having the use of gunpowder or something...) And actually 'conquering' or at least occupying the nation, not just interrupting their overseas trade like in the opium war or Napoleanic wars.

What you say about not being able to be touch by any competitors is simular, but not really true, about most world powers. No one could've touched Rome in it's golden ages, and no one could touch the USA today. Mainly because no one would want to go through all the trouble of doing so, except in extreme cases like the world wars or 9/11.

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.

Rome was still very much a world power for what they considered their world. Britain had just as much say in what happened in the USA as China did to Rome. By the time of the 19th century technology in general allowed westerners to perform at a much higher scale in terms of imperialism and growth. The western Europeans made sure that the true victors in all the imperialism conquest would always be a European, not a native race. Just as Any other European could not be touched, Britain couldn't of been either. Up until the world wars, airplanes, and nukes anyway.

I think that statement says it all.

Put downs once again?

 

[privatehudson]

And what I mean by defeating a nation is a nation on at least semi equal terms (having the use of gunpowder or something...) And actually 'conquering' or at least occupying the nation, not just interrupting their overseas trade like in the opium war or Napoleanic wars.

I thought so, a pretty narrow view of victory to suit your point of view then.

Under the terms you suggest then I would offer as one example the Boer war, which though embarassing for long periods was won by the British eventually and the Boer land occupied by us. Considering they had weapons and methods of warfare at least on a par to our own if not in advance of it they would certainly count, even if the method to achieve it was rather suspect.

One of the problems with the above though is the common lumping of the Napoleonic Wars together as if they were one great big conflict. This kind of view also lends support to the oft repeated remark that the French lost the wars, which whilst in itself true is an oversimplification of the period.

But if you persist in viewing them as one conflict, since the British occupied France (to be precise NE France) for a period after 1815 in accordance with the treaty signed upon Napoleon's second abdication, it would be possible to argue that this also counts according to your defenition of a victory.

The Indian states often had access to gunpowder also. When Wellington fought in India for example the armies he came up against armies over 3 times his size who often had considerable numbers of artillery pieces amongst them.

 

[deo]

USA lost in Vietnam, Vietnam
Oh the Irony

I don't rate bombing a entire country to force them for capitulation talks as a defeat you?

 

[antonio]

Alright..."take a look" with the confrontation with France over the Sudan, no warefare was made, the brittish offered compensation for Sudan in exchange for France's right to Tunisnia and some west coastal ports. It's exactly what I was talking about.

And what I mean by defeating a nation is a nation on at least semi equal terms (having the use of gunpowder or something...) And actually 'conquering' or at least occupying the nation, not just interrupting their overseas trade like in the opium war or Napoleanic wars.

What you say about not being able to be touch by any competitors is simular, but not really true, about most world powers. No one could've touched Rome in it's golden ages, and no one could touch the USA today. Mainly because no one would want to go through all the trouble of doing so, except in extreme cases like the world wars or 9/11.



Rome was still very much a world power for what they considered their world. Britain had just as much say in what happened in the USA as China did to Rome. By the time of the 19th century technology in general allowed westerners to perform at a much higher scale in terms of imperialism and growth. The western Europeans made sure that the true victors in all the imperialism conquest would always be a European, not a native race. Just as Any other European could not be touched, Britain couldn't of been either. Up until the world wars, airplanes, and nukes anyway.



Put downs once again?

Rome would have been defeated by China during Rome's golden age.

America couldn't win a war against any other nuclear power only draw it.

We completed our objectives during the opium wars. Which were to make China let us export opium to them. We did this by sinking there ships and stopping overseas trade. This won us the was. If we had wanted to conquer China desperately, I'm sure we could have managed it. But the fact is we didn't and we won the war.

During Sudan conflict the French just withdrew there troops.

The other European countries could have been touched by Britain. Britain could not be touched by other European nations. During imperial wars we did make sure we won. IT would be very stupid to do otherwise. We were more advanced is not and excuse for us winning. We were still more powerful. What made Rome great. There technological advantage over the Celts.

 

[Trafalgar]

Using Nyvin logic, lets review U.S.A history.

Iraq: Needed British help to fight the Iraqis: No US. victory there. Even looks like a possible humiliating defeat.

Kuwait: No US.victory . Too many allies.

Vietnam: Complete defeat, even though Australia fought for them.

Korea: Stalemate. Needed UN help there as well..

WW II: No US. victory. Needed help from Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India etc

WW I: definitely no US. victory. Too many allies.

Spanish American war: Doesn’t count. Spanish obviously inferior.

War of 1812: Invaded Canada. Got their asses kicked, Canada still free. No US. victory there.

American Revolution: No victory there. Needed the French fleet to help them.

According to Nyvin logic, there is no USA. They never won one of the wars mentioned here. And Michigan is British!

 

[Dreadnought]

Trafalger, if the USA didn't win WW1/2 or any of those wars since they had "Too many allies" then who won? France no, too many allies, Britian no too many allies.

Your look at the USA is completely wrong. Sorry, but seriously, it is kinds stupid to look at it that way.

 

[Trafalgar]

Trafalger, if the USA didn't win WW1/2 or any of those wars since they had "Too many allies" then who won? France no, too many allies, Britian no too many allies.

Your look at the USA is completely wrong. Sorry, but seriously, it is kinds stupid to look at it that way.

I am using Nyvin logic. Look at his posts regarding British history.

 

[Own]

Anti-american Canadians are my favorite people, Trafalgar .

 

[Trafalgar]

Anti-american Canadians are my favorite people, Trafalgar .

I am English, married to an American!

 

[Bugfatty300]

Anti-american Canadians are my favorite people, Trafalgar .

Jeez. He was just trying to make a point with Nyvin's arguement. He didn't actually mean those things in the context you think.

Although lots of poeple on CFC do use that kind of logic negatively to argue with Americans over if their history is great or not.

 

[Trafalgar]

Jeez. He was just trying to make a point with Nyvin's arguement. He didn't actually mean those things in the context you think.

You got it.

 

[Own]

Probably should've inserted the smiley.

 

[Trafalgar]

Probably should've inserted the smiley.

No offense meant, none taken.

 

[Nyvin]

Using Nyvin logic, lets review U.S.A history.

Iraq: Needed British help to fight the Iraqis: No US. victory there. Even looks like a possible humiliating defeat.
Kuwait: No US.victory . Too many allies.
Vietnam: Complete defeat, even though Australia fought for them.
Korea: Stalemate. Needed UN help there as well..
WW II: No US. victory. Needed help from Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India etc
According to Nyvin logic, there is no USA. They never won one of the wars mentioned here. And Michigan is British!

As much as I appreciate the childish phrase "Nyvin Logic"...I'll still respond to your post.

First, For the most part, most of Brittish help ever since WW2 has just been for show. If your saying that without them it would be impossible to conduct such wars you really don't know the numbers involved. Ever since the Korean war the American soldiers always outnumbered the British 'at least' 10 to 1. And 10 to 1 would be the extreme, in the war in Iraq you had numbers more like 20 to 1, with more then 180,000 US soldiers and 8,500 UK soldiers.

Since losing less then 5% of an army is never deadly, I would hardly say that the US 'needed' UK support for anything but ww1, and the only reason it needed support for ww1 is because it came in during the last two years. Brittish help still today is mainly just for show and to save a little money.

Second, I never used the term "Victory" I was refering to conquering a nation, but you have kind of quagmired what I was talking about.

Third, as for the revolutionary war, 1812, Spainish, and Vietnam, fine, whatever you say.

 

[blindside]

Rome was still very much a world power for what they considered their world. Britain had just as much say in what happened in the USA as China did to Rome. By the time of the 19th century technology in general allowed westerners to perform at a much higher scale in terms of imperialism and growth. The western Europeans made sure that the true victors in all the imperialism conquest would always be a European, not a native race. Just as Any other European could not be touched, Britain couldn't of been either. Up until the world wars, airplanes, and nukes anyway.

By your logic the Aztecs could be the most powerful in the world because as far as they were concerned, the world was central america.

Anyway the Brits, at their height, could not defeat Germany in a landwar. No doubt they had the best navy in the world but didn't exactly dominate in the way the Mongols did. The Mongol loss to the Mamelukes was rather meaningless. It was a small Mongol force (mainly turks anyway) and by that point the Mongols were really not expanding much more.