What are the best armies ever?

[SeleucusNicator]

The two armies I immediately think of when I think of dominant armies are Napoleon's army and the Prussian forces during the time of Bismarck and Moltke Sr.

In both instances, somebody took advantage of a new development (nationalism in the case of Napoleon; railroads and fancier guns in the case of the Prussians) and combined it with appropriate new tactics to go on a rampage. Bismarck knew when to stop; if Napoleon did, who knows how long his empire could have lasted.

I think that a lot of "superior" armies are good simply because they are the outlier; they have a new advanatage that others don't and know how to use it (or perhaps have an advantage that others have, but that only they know how to use. Look at the Germans in WW2 and tanks, for instance). The problem, of course, is that other powers will quickly immitate you, making your advantage nullified. You must act quickly.

 

[yaroslav]

The Spanish Tercios were fairly good, IMHO.

Not that I don't hate to bring them out, because I am Spaniard and thus, biased

On the other hand, I consider the Prussian army of Frederecik to be more impressive (or best leaded) than the Prussian army of Bismarck

 

[jonatas]

Simon de Montfort's hardcore Albigensian crusaders 1209-1218 never lost a set piece battle (Muret 1213 most important), and only laid two unsuccessful sieges (out of hundreds).
His friends put his achievements down to divine favour, his enemis the opposite. He was eventually killed besieging Toulouse, but he was never defeated, an unprecedented record according to his contemporaries.

Verbose how can you praise those dogs that ruined southern France? and mention the name de Monfort while forgetting Raymond VI of Toulouse?

 

[Insane_Panda]

The Mongols man! Not just the Golden Horde! The Mongols in general, of Genghis Khan's time and Ogodei's time were probably the best, ever. Practically no logistical support needed as compared to most other Medieval forces, astonishing speed by any standard, brutally effective psychological warfare, high-tech weaponry for the time, superb officers, devastating tactics that rarely failed, the ability and willingness to adapt to new conditions and implement new weapons, capable of invading Russia in the winter!!! That's impressive! The only thing they couldn't do was fight in tropical areas like Vietnam! I mean, the Europeans and Arabs had trouble adapting to each other's ways of fighting, but the Mongols successfully fought against soldiers from Japan to Silesia, from Syria to Burma, from Russia to Sind. Most modern armies can do that, but this was a Medieval army, conquering the world!

You, of course, are right. If it wasn't for Genghis Khan dying mysteriously, I am sure that the Mongols would have conquered everything up to England.

Gah! Enough of this Mongol worshipping. The Mongols were good, but I seriously doubt they could have succeeded in conquering Europe. The string of fortifications, the unfavourable terrain, the arrogance of the Europeans, the strength of their belief in Christianity, etc. would have made any longterm success in Europe practically impossible. The only way they had success in the Middle east was eventually turning muslim, and in China - turning chinese.

Also, the Mongols may have been great at what they did militarily, but European armies were very capable aswell. Some people seem to have this silly notion that European armies during this period were nothing but armored rabble, which is quite frankly wrong.

That being said I'd vote for Napoleon's Grande Armee, and Motlke Sr.'s Prussian army.

 

[BOTP]

Some people seem to have this silly notion that European armies during this period were nothing but armored rabble, which is quite frankly wrong.

Finally!!! Someone who knows that European warfare wasn't just a bunch of armored tin cans!! Take for instance, Richard the Lionheart. He commanded the very best Western Europe had to offer-- a balanced component of shock, missile, and foot troops, an army reputed to be the best disciplined force and the most professional army in Europe, and had proven itself more than a match for any comparable force in the field. He organized his men into an extremely disciplined and professional force, operating in sophisticated combined-arms tactics to counter the ever-present threat of skirmishing Saracen horse-archers. His heavy cavalry (knights) were capable of launching a murderous charge, out-shocking virtually all other nations' heavy cavalry (when deployed properly), and effective infantry in the form of German and Northern Italian crossbowmen protected by infantry spearmen with large shields (pavesari). Each body of troops had its purpose, and, in a fashion, this was an early version of the "combined arms" concept that dominates modern military thinking. Equally significant was Richard's ability to coordinate these various branches. The young king had already exhibited his grasp of the tactical realities in Palestine when he has organized a small force to defend against a horse archer attack. In the front line he placed a pikeman on one knee with his pike butt in the sand and the point at the level of a horse's chest. In the intervals he placed a crossbowman, standing, with another crossbowman behind who cocked and placed the arrow in the crossbow passed back by the man in front, passing him the cocked and loaded one in exchange. Meanwhile, the mounted knights were kept back in reserve to protect their expensive, valuable and vulnerable warhorses, and were sent to charge and deliver the final killing blow once their opponents were weakened and disordered (provided they remained with the support of their infantry and did not lose their cohesion). So whenever the Saracens committed themselves in an attack at close-quarters, they could not even attempt to get close to their opponent because the crossbowmen would discourage them from doing so. Neither could they simply charge and ride the crossbowmen down, since the crossbowmen were protected by the pavesari who were better equipped for hand-to-hand combat and could easily repel them. There was hardly a battle, the enemy horse archers falling back before the hail of crossbow arrows, unwilling to close and use their swords because of the line of pikes.Then, once the mounted knights charged their adversaries at short range (usually after a suitable opening presented itself) they were easily caught and routed. Such methods gave good results when employed by Richard in the Battle of Arsuf, and had given Salaadin a bloody nose.

 

[superisis]

Perhaps, but Richard lacked the skill of diplomacy.

 

[Xen]

Perhaps, but Richard lacked the skill of diplomacy.

lacked the skill of dimplomacy!?!

hes the one who ended the third crusade on ahigh note of christian pilgrims being alowed into Palestine without any hassel! if anything, he was perhaps one of the best kings- the world has ever seen- and I'd say the best that europe alone has ever had.

 

[superisis]

He single handlely managed to send both the King Philip II of France and the Duke Leopold V of Austria away from the Holy Land due to minor issuses. He chose to massacre the (was it 2000 or 3000) prisoners he had captured instead of recieving the full ransom (including both gold and the true cross).

 

[Xen]

perhaps he had reasons for chooseign to do those things.

that said, sending back the frecnhand austrian kings worked to his advatage- the less royalty involved, the more control he had over the troops, thus th emore centrlized th ecommand,. and structure of the army, and, as history shows, the better the battlefield results.

 

[Sgt.Hellfish]

he didnt send back the french they left of their own accord and then breched treaty. As for being a great king no he wasnt, he cared little for England and he had even less of a hand in administrating his kingdom. He was a good general and a skilled diplomat. As for the mongol worship i just think people are cultural snobs

 

[Verbose]

Verbose how can you praise those dogs that ruined southern France? and mention the name de Monfort while forgetting Raymond VI of Toulouse?

I don't particularily like Montfort, but he just stands out as a Great Captain of his era. This is the noble commander who personally goes into a trench under fire from the besigers at Carcasonne and carries a wounded common footsoldier to safety. When his infantry is cut off on the wrong side of a river under threat of attack from the Occitans, he refuses to cross over to the safe side until they are all safe again. Stuff that makes a superb leader of men in any time.

Raymond VI had good political sense, but his military performance was pretty average. Count Raymond-Roger of Foix was the fighter on the side of the Occitans.

 

[Verbose]

he didnt send back the french they left of their own accord and then breched treaty. As for being a great king no he wasnt, he cared little for England and he had even less of a hand in administrating his kingdom. He was a good general and a skilled diplomat. As for the mongol worship i just think people are cultural snobs

Well, he was a good French Norman on his fathers' side, and an equally good south French Occitan on his mothers. The poetry he wrote was in Occitan btw, and the whole damn genre was invented by his grandad.

Why on earth would he give some smelly anglosaxon yokels the time of day?

 

[samildanach]

Well, he was a good French Norman on his fathers' side, and an equally good south French Occitan on his mothers. The poetry he wrote was in Occitan btw, and the whole damn genre was invented by his grandad.

Why on earth would he give some smelly anglosaxon yokels the time of day?

It is funny how many of the great British heroes turn out to be frog-eaters The Bruce was also Norman on his fathers side......poor chap
I think it may be an example of the "boy named sue" phenomena. Anybody who is suspected of being even remotely French is going to have a very hard time growing up in Britain. Reaching the age of ten would be a major achievement IMO and will have probably involved killing lots (if not all) of your school chums .

 

[Verbose]

Richard was born 1157, became the ruler of Aquitane in 1172, and spent his time governing it until he became king of England in 1189. He was crowned Sept 3 and shipped out on his crusade in December. He returned March 13 1194 but left for good in May the same year. Whatever he did, he didn't do it in England.

Only the fact that his brother John got his ass handed to him on a plate by the French, Philippe Auguste and the dauphin Louis, turned the Plantagenets a dynasty of English rulers, and it wasn't by choice.

 

[superisis]

he was perhaps one of the best kings- the world has ever seen- and I'd say the best that europe alone has ever had.

I'ld have to say, that out of contemporary (well, almost) kings, etc, that the number one ruler of Europe was Robert Guiscard.

And he was a recycled Swede (well, a recycled Norman which equals a recycled Dane which equals a recycled Swede).

 

[Xen]

using that logic, ou could say he is recycled east african

no, even if the elit eof a country have ancestors that originate in a another country, they still identfiy themselves with theier country of birth; hell, Rhichard himself was a norman descendt, but you dont se ehim toteing himself about as a swede, do you

 

[superisis]

Well HE WAS! DAGNAMMIT

 

[Birdjaguar]

Napoleon's Grand Army of 1805-07, then the Mongol Armies.

 

[Atlas14]

that said, sending back the frecnhand austrian kings worked to his advatage- the less royalty involved, the more control he had over the troops, thus th emore centrlized th ecommand,. and structure of the army, and, as history shows, the better the battlefield results.

Plus, Phillip was a notorious quitter and was always getting sick. Richard was better off fighting without Phillip constantly whining around the men like a baby. England however, was not better off with Phillip back from the Holy Land. Phillip was the cheapest, most worthless kings ever to attack England while Richard was fighting in the Holy Land.
Richard was a great general though, and had Barbarossa not died, he would have accomplished much more.

 

[rilnator]

I cannot believe this thread is here again. The title might be different but the same old question we've all answered and argued over at least a dozen times in the last year.

Great to see some things never change.