Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
And who on EARTH voted for France ? 
Better yet, who put it in the poll ?
Better yet, who put it in the poll ?
Most powerful military in history?
- Thread starter Bizon77
- Start date
Hitti-Litti
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 3,767
Mongols. Come on, horse riders who conquered everything between Beijing and Moscow!
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
Why Moscow - go all the way to the Baltic. 
Why Beijing - go all the way to Indochina.
Why Beijing - go all the way to Indochina.
Tortosa
The Big E
And who on EARTH voted for France ?
Better yet, who put it in the poll ?
France had the largest army in Europe from the mid-seventeenth century until the fall of Napoleon. Do some research before you jump on the French-bashing bandwagon.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
Verbose
Deity
The emperor of Russia made shoes?at the hands of a shoemaker
No, Winter does. It's not good to be out in the snow without shoeThe emperor of Russia made shoes?
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
Actually it's the 1954 that is bothering me a lot more ... I mean if it was 1939 then it would be ok. When i see pre1954 i think of the closest major event to that date - WW2, where they lost a lot.
And besides, the votes show that aparently the "largest european army in europe" is those times was not large enough for votes.
Tboy
Future world ruler
For their time, I would say the Mongols. To rule over such a vast area... it took pure genius for that to happen.
And mindless butchery.
And mindless butchery.
aelf
Ashen One
at the hands of a shoemaker
Well, America can't seem to beat a bunch of insane opium farmers.
Nerdking
DID YOU KNOW THAT?
Sticking on the Greek bandwagon here. Ruled just as vast an area, but without as much mindless butchery.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
at the hands of a shoemaker
Always remembered fo the shoes. The filing cabnet was a far better invention of his.
Stolen Rutters
Deity
American military might at the tail end of WWII was the "pinnacle" so to speak. It also had occupied the East, locked Africa away from the enemy, and Western Europe. It's a much smaller military today.
Granted it's pretty unstoppable in combat now, but that's mostly because we spend so much money on it compared to everyone else. I guess it's what you are relating it to. Rome was worse in it's day... they didn't worry about using their military might for whatever they wished.
Granted it's pretty unstoppable in combat now, but that's mostly because we spend so much money on it compared to everyone else. I guess it's what you are relating it to. Rome was worse in it's day... they didn't worry about using their military might for whatever they wished.
Gelion
Retired Captain
If you cant fight a war why start it? I dont believe Napoleon was that stupid not to know what is ahead of him.
I think Napoleon was to strong in fact.
His idea was to come into Russia with a big army. As usual, the opposite army (Russians) would come to protect their country. Their would be a big battle, Napoleon would won, force a peace treaty to Russia, and then come back before winter.
It should have worked. But it didn't.
Why? Russians knew the Grande Armée was to strong for them at the time. They knew facing it in battle would lead to the descruction of the Russian army. So they refused to fight.
They withdrew again and again, destroying all supplies.
Just before Moscow, they stopped withdrawing and fight a battle at Borodino (they couldn't let Moscow fall without even attempting a battle could they), and they lost... And then they withdrew again.
Napoleon did not think the Russians were ready to sacrifice half of their country, let Moscow be taken and burnt, waiting, refusing the battle again and again.
Then he was forced to retreat, and everyone knows the end.
Napoleon had a total of almost 700,000 troops. The Russians had 400,000 men available at first, and manage to increase it to 900,000 by the end of the campaign.
With 400,000, they new the would face Napoleon 1 vs 2 and would probably lose.
If Napoleon had come with let say 300,000 men , perhaps the Russians would not have refused the battle, and then he could have won.
It was a bid that may have turn succesfull. Instead, he went for overkill, and lose.
Now, we can make some parallel. Like a modern army that comes with a overwhelming strength, but the ennemy avoid a battle, resort to guerilla, and harrassment...
His idea was to come into Russia with a big army. As usual, the opposite army (Russians) would come to protect their country. Their would be a big battle, Napoleon would won, force a peace treaty to Russia, and then come back before winter.
It should have worked. But it didn't.
Why? Russians knew the Grande Armée was to strong for them at the time. They knew facing it in battle would lead to the descruction of the Russian army. So they refused to fight.
They withdrew again and again, destroying all supplies.
Just before Moscow, they stopped withdrawing and fight a battle at Borodino (they couldn't let Moscow fall without even attempting a battle could they), and they lost... And then they withdrew again.
Napoleon did not think the Russians were ready to sacrifice half of their country, let Moscow be taken and burnt, waiting, refusing the battle again and again.
Then he was forced to retreat, and everyone knows the end.
Napoleon had a total of almost 700,000 troops. The Russians had 400,000 men available at first, and manage to increase it to 900,000 by the end of the campaign.
With 400,000, they new the would face Napoleon 1 vs 2 and would probably lose.
If Napoleon had come with let say 300,000 men , perhaps the Russians would not have refused the battle, and then he could have won.
It was a bid that may have turn succesfull. Instead, he went for overkill, and lose.
Now, we can make some parallel. Like a modern army that comes with a overwhelming strength, but the ennemy avoid a battle, resort to guerilla, and harrassment...
Thorgalaeg
Deity
In fact since 1945 to 1949 USA´s nuclear stockpile was next to nothing. It was much later, in the 50s, when they managed to build enough bombs to make them decisive in an hypothetical confrontation with the USSR.
It may have been small, but:
50 nuclear weapons is enough to hold the entire world ransom if no one else has any to fling back at you.
http://www.stratmag.com/Aakrosh/ac93004.htm
50 nuclear weapons is enough to hold the entire world ransom if no one else has any to fling back at you.
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
What's a non-strategic warhead ?
Stolen Rutters
Deity
I will take it to mean is there a non-strategic nuclear warhead...
A tactical nuke could be considered non-strategic, a battlefield weapon for instance, but that is a false classification. There is no truly tactical nuclear warhead, since deciding to elevate a combat to nuclear status is kind of like playing chess and deciding to throw the board to the floor "I don't want to play this game any more", let's play a nuclear game. If other players have nukes, you are deciding to risk some of your largest cities in retaliation. That's not a tactical decision at all.
A tactical nuke could be considered non-strategic, a battlefield weapon for instance, but that is a false classification. There is no truly tactical nuclear warhead, since deciding to elevate a combat to nuclear status is kind of like playing chess and deciding to throw the board to the floor "I don't want to play this game any more", let's play a nuclear game. If other players have nukes, you are deciding to risk some of your largest cities in retaliation. That's not a tactical decision at all.
Similar threads
- Poll
