Most powerful military in history?

[Nyvin]

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.

And as far as the USA is concerned, the world is Earth, so in our perspective we're the most powerful in 'the world'. What your saying is true.

 

[privatehudson]

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.

You claimed we'd never defeated anyone, in my mind that's a pretty ambiguous statemant as defeating someone to me means winning a war. When asked for clarification on this matter you said this consisted of engaging and defeating an enemy on roughly equal technological terms and then occupying her. Even under the terms you offered we still "defeated" nations, so whatever defenition you care to use you're still wrong.

 

[Trafalgar]

Compare the British Navy of 1900 to the US. Navy today. Which is stronger?

In 1900 a Briton knew no country could invade or cause major damage to his cities. The enemy had to come by sea and we controlled it. No air war. No ICBM’s. and no major terrorism. We were totally secure behind a line of Battleships no country could match. Bombardment of our coastal cities, and damage to our commerce were the only threats. A Briton slept soundly.

Technology has changed, and today any major US. City can be devastated by one ICBM. And there is nothing the US. Military can do about it. There is no defense to an ICBM. Sure, they can threaten destruction to an enemy who might attack, but mutually assured destruction seems to be lose, lose. And now we have terrorists, and they are not frightened of US. Nuclear missiles or aircraft carriers. They cause devastation with box cutters and airliners.
The US navy, army, marines, National Guard and air force cannot provide the kind of security the British navy did to its citizens. It’s all technology I know, but a Briton got better protection.

So, The Royal Navy of 1900 was stronger than the entire US. Military of today.

 

[Nyvin]

Compare the British Navy of 1900 to the US. Navy today. Which is stronger?

In 1900 a Briton knew no country could invade or cause major damage to his cities. The enemy had to come by sea and we controlled it. No air war. No ICBM’s. and no major terrorism. We were totally secure behind a line of Battleships no country could match. Bombardment of our coastal cities, and damage to our commerce were the only threats. A Briton slept soundly.

Technology has changed, and today any major US. City can be devastated by one ICBM. And there is nothing the US. Military can do about it. There is no defense to an ICBM. Sure, they can threaten destruction to an enemy who might attack, but mutually assured destruction seems to be lose, lose. And now we have terrorists, and they are not frightened of US. Nuclear missiles or aircraft carriers. They cause devastation with box cutters and airliners.
The US navy, army, marines, National Guard and air force cannot provide the kind of security the British navy did to its citizens. It’s all technology I know, but a Briton got better protection.

So, The Royal Navy of 1900 was stronger than the entire US. Military of today.

In the perspective of preventing invasion yes the navy was quite effective. But the Military of britain couldn't have major effect on the stopping the growth of rivals, as proven by the Napoleonic Era, post-victorian era and Nazi Germany. So for the moment they were safe, but it would never last long. Kind of like how Rome wouldn't have to worry about invasion by the Germanic tribes during it's golden ages, but it would be a continuous, on going threat.

The US military on the other hand can directly affect different countries to sway different economic things in our favor. Whether you think of this as the occupation of Japan and Germany or the invasion of iraq or even something simple like protecting taiwan from China. It's still something you only see the British do once every so often like the crimean war, and not doing very well at it if their alone.

And I would hardly say that since one army had an easier time protecting a country it's stronger...that's just silly.

...

 

[Nobody]

They never did defeat any nation in their entire history.

They beat russia, in the crieman war, China in the opioum war, america in the 1812 war, france in the napolean wars, Germany in two world wars, japan in one world war, spain and the netherlands a couple of times. Egypt in the suez, turkey in the first world war, austria in the first world war. India when they took it over. Sure they didn't launch to many D-Days but the ruled the world, threw a powerfull navy, a strong army when needed, and the greatest diplomacy the world has ever seen

 

[Nyvin]

They beat russia, in the crieman war, China in the opioum war, america in the 1812 war, france in the napolean wars, Germany in two world wars, japan in one world war, spain and the netherlands a couple of times. Egypt in the suez, turkey in the first world war, austria in the first world war. India when they took it over. Sure they didn't launch to many D-Days but the ruled the world, threw a powerfull navy, a strong army when needed, and the greatest diplomacy the world has ever seen

Of all of those except maybe the conquest of India all they really did was perform a naval blockade and interupt their overseas trade. The rest of it was largely done by allied forces, a lot of the times the allied troops outnumbering the british by something around 10 to 1 or even more.

The Crimean war in particular was an example of this where britain did very poorly on land and the french were the ones who truly brought the actual victory. The naval blockade in the baltic was secondary.

And when I said 'defeat' I mean defeat totally, like in occupying the country or conquering them. Not just winning some war or battle.

 

[privatehudson]

And when I said 'defeat' I mean defeat totally, like in occupying the country or conquering them. Not just winning some war or battle.

I get the impression I'm being ignored.

But the Military of britain couldn't have major effect on the stopping the growth of rivals, as proven by the Napoleonic Era, post-victorian era and Nazi Germany

Actually I'd argue that the military of Britain did have a major effect on limiting and ultimately bringing down the Napoleonic Empire. British warships made sure that Napoleon's overseas endeavours came to very little. They kept him not just from invading Britain but from carrying out effective trade with many other countries. They prevented him from expanding his strategic goals by limiting his ability to move troops and men. Nearly as many Frenchmen died in the peninsula wars as did so in Russia, and whilst not all of those died fighting the British, it would have been unlikely that Spain and Portugal would have been able to conduct such large scale partisan movements without the British support there. Britain's navy maintained our control of the seas which enabled us to continue our trade throughout the period without too much difficulty, thus keeping our economy relatively intact. This provided us with the opportunity to supply our allies during time of need with vital equipment and sometimes even what ammounted to bribes to either join or stay in the wars. And who, at the end of the day was the power that with the exception of a short period after Amiens never stopped fighting Napoleon?

In my opinion had Britain not been involved, or shown less military ability, then the Napoleonic empire would have been a damn sight larger or lasted a fair bit more than it eventually did, so yes I think I would claim we had a major effect on limiting their power and stopping their growth.

 

[antonio]

I get the impression I'm being ignored.

I think he just ahs no valid arguments against what you say.

 

[Hotpoint]

The Crimean war in particular was an example of this where britain did very poorly on land and the french were the ones who truly brought the actual victory. The naval blockade in the baltic was secondary.

Could you provide some examples of the French Army in the Crimea performing exceptionally better than the British because that's not something I've heard before? Generally both armies are considered poorly led (although they inflicted far greater casualties on the Russians than they absorbed themselves).

There are actually a number of occasions when the British Army performed very well. For example although Balaclava is notorious for the failed "Charge of the Light Brigade" it was also the site of the stand of the 93rd Highlanders (the 'Thin Red Streak tipped with steel') and the successful "Charge of the Heavy Brigade" when 600 British Cavalry routed 2000 Russians.

 

[silver 2039]

(the 'Thin Red Streak tipped with steel')

That was made up of more Turks than British. When the Turks came under attack they held out for 2 hours wheras the British fought for 5 mintes.

 

[Hotpoint]

That was made up of more Turks than British. When the Turks came under attack they held out for 2 hours wheras the British fought for 5 mintes.

Some of the Turks put up a decent fight from their fortified positions but they were very much in flight from the Russians by the time the 93rd stepped up. It should be noted though that if the British leadership had been better they could have dispatched troops to support the Turks before they were driven back (a standard and long lasting critique of the British Army has been they were as 'Lions led by Donkeys').

Following the Russians’ successful attack on the Turkish troops in Number One Redoubt the garrisons of the other earthworks left their positions and made for Balaclava, some of the Turkish soldiers being belaboured by a Scottish soldier’s wife as they fled through the camp of the 93rd Highlanders.

Battle of Balaclava

 

[Trafalgar]

Of all of those except maybe the conquest of India all they really did was perform a naval blockade and interupt their overseas trade. The rest of it was largely done by allied forces, a lot of the times the allied troops outnumbering the british by something around 10 to 1 or even more. war or battle.

Having allies is good. Having other armies and navies fighting on your side in war is good. A strong country needs strong diplomacy. Fighting wars on your own does not make you strong. It is not always something to be proud of. It is, perhaps, a sign your diplomacy has failed.

 

[Trafalgar]

"As the British army of approximately 4,000 approached, the majority of Washington residents fled the city. On August 24th American defenders, with President James Madison in attendance, were quickly routed by the invaders in a battle at Bladensburg a few miles from the city. A messenger was dispatched to the White House to warn First Lady Dolly Madison of the impeding arrival of the British. She and her staff fled by carriage across the Potomac - taking with her the full-length portrait of George Washington that had been torn from a White House wall."

"That evening, the vanguard of the British army reached Capitol Hill and began its systematic destruction of all public buildings in the city."

"...Of the Senate house, the President's palace, the barracks, the dockyard, etc., nothing could be seen except heaps of smoking ruins."

And who said Naval power was just for Blockade?

 

[Verbose]

For heaven's sake people!
Military capacity is dependant on economic strength, efficient administration and manpower.
Britain aquired and held a relative edge in all three from the 18th c. through to the late 19th. That's where the empire came from, and the military success.
Population, agriculture and manufacture gave France the financial muscle to dominate Western Europe in the 17th and early 18th c. Just as the US economic and industrial potential today has given them superpower status.

Then there are specific aspects of such things as the British regimental system that seems as if it may be a very successful model for producing some damn fine fighting men, but ignoring the many colourful incidents of British imperial history, it was a secondary factor.

By the late 19th c. it was becoming apparent that Britain no longer had the economical strength to keep the edge it had enjoyed.
As for the safty provided by the RN, just after 1900 this new line of capital ships appeared, the Dreadnought and the Superdreadnaught. That was quite a blow to British security. They made all the older ship-types virtually obsolete.

So suddenly Britain had to compete in a naval arms race with Germany, that was already outproducing the UK industrially. They never quite managed to meet the challenge, which is why the deal to let the French defend British shipping in the eastern Med was made prior to WWI. Britain already couldn't quite take the strain of competition.

There's kind of an irony inbuilt in being the leader in technological and industrial innovation. Britain reaped enormous benefit by the industrial revolution. It had half-a-century to a full century head start on everyone else. Unfortunately the situation also meant that the UK also became straddled with all kinds of bottlenecks from obsolete technology and infrastructure that the late comers never had to deal with since they could adopt mature technology.

 

[Verbose]

In my opinion had Britain not been involved, or shown less military ability, then the Napoleonic empire would have been a damn sight larger or lasted a fair bit more than it eventually did, so yes I think I would claim we had a major effect on limiting their power and stopping their growth.

Napoleon himself at least always considered Britain the main adversary. And it's a pretty common historical conclusion that once Britain had made itself militarily untouchable (Trafalgar), Napoleon would have to seek a resolution somewhere else in a very roundabout fashion.

There's still truth to Napoleon's quip that the British were prepared to fight him "to the last Prussian" of course, and that Britian bankrolled a lot of the effort directed at France and Napoleon. But the British military involvement wasn't "minor", it's just that the sum total of fighting, these multiple wars, were on such a huge scale, and comparatively speaking the economic measures might have been the most important.

 

[Verbose]

British warships made sure that Napoleon's overseas endeavours came to very little. They kept him not just from invading Britain but from carrying out effective trade with many other countries.

Actually that may not have been such an important factor. At the peak of Napoleons power this "Continental system" that shut Britain out of Europe was economically beneficial to France.
French industry expanded rapidly and moved into sectors where there had previoulsy been no production, at least to some extent due to British dominance. The products were sold on the European market where British goods were suddenly a lot less accessible (smuggling was rampant though). France picked up the slack when shutting Britain out. At the same time, at least short term, unemployment in the UK skyrocketted.
I think we can assume that by and large Europeans in general were loosers in this deal, but France was reaping benefits from it.

 

[Verbose]

Of all of those except maybe the conquest of India all they really did was perform a naval blockade and interupt their overseas trade. The rest of it was largely done by allied forces, a lot of the times the allied troops outnumbering the british by something around 10 to 1 or even more.

But that's how any nation would like to fight its wars! It's great if you can just pull it off, paying others to do the dirty work. It may not be particularily "noble" or heroic, but what's the use in that? Or to quote Talleyrand: "It's a brilliant strategy, and very British."

 

[privatehudson]

Actually that may not have been such an important factor. At the peak of Napoleons power this "Continental system" that shut Britain out of Europe was economically beneficial to France.

Perhaps but it also played a significant part to the two fateful decisions he made that could be argued to bring down his empire.

Portugal's refusal to co-operate with the system lead to her being invaded and ultimately this snowballed into the pennninsula war. Russia's barely concealed reversal on the system in order to go back to trading with the British was an important part of why Napoleon invaded her in 1812.

It's easy to point out that he may have attacked either sooner or later for other reasons (there certainly were other reasons for the 2 invasions after all), but that wouldn't be the point in my opinion. Britain being an important trade partner and by extension being able to maintain her stranglehold on the world's oceans played it's part. Had she not had that capacity, the will and need of Russia and Portugal to trade with Britain would have been less, the gain perhaps not enough to risk France's considerable wrath.

Anyway, it was but a minor point in my argument that Britain via it's economy and miltary played a major part in limiting Napoleon and his eventual downfall.

 

[Hornblower]

Compare the British Navy of 1900 to the US. Navy today. Which is stronger?
The Royal Navy of 1900 was stronger than the entire US. Military of today.

The Royal Navy of 1900 was definitely stronger numerically than the US navy of today. The policy of Britains government at the time was for their navy to be numerically superior to the next two largest navies.
The USN of today although an awesome beast is not numerically superior to the next two largest navies. Not even close. You could argue that it holds an edge in tech and logistic support which would give it a better than even chance in any engagement. Ultimately though sheer weight of numbers would reduce its combat effectiveness and force projection levels to a unsustainable levels. Modern high tech navies are not really designed to absorb battle casualties of high value fleet units and as such would not be placed at risk in the way that fleets were in the past. So on that note the RN of the late 19th century has the edge there.

Nyvin,

For an army to sustain 5% casualties in a campaign today would see the government of that country lose its mandate from the people. The casualties in Iraq are mounting and so is the unrest at home. Fighting for an "Ideal" is all well and good but when your brother or father or friend down the street is killed overseas in a fight that doesn't directly concern their country of origin people at home start to raise their concerns with that government. It may take time for the groundswell to rise but eventually those troops are withdrawn. Taking nothing away from their accomplishments, modern society will just not accept violent deaths on that scale for an intangible cause.

 

[Nyvin]

Nyvin,

For an army to sustain 5% casualties in a campaign today would see the government of that country lose its mandate from the people. The casualties in Iraq are mounting and so is the unrest at home. Fighting for an "Ideal" is all well and good but when your brother or father or friend down the street is killed overseas in a fight that doesn't directly concern their country of origin people at home start to raise their concerns with that government. It may take time for the groundswell to rise but eventually those troops are withdrawn. Taking nothing away from their accomplishments, modern society will just not accept violent deaths on that scale for an intangible cause.

I wasn't refering to casualties, I was refering to just 'losing' the 5%. Having britain pull out of the war and take away 5% of the army wouldn't force the US to pull out also. So this isnt' really related to what I said.

Yes, I'd agree with what your saying to some degree, but what that would depend on is what exactly the war is for. If the country itself is in danger, then you'd see a much higher resolve to fight for it.