Best army in history?

Scroll to see replies

Well Hannibal really kicked ass too in the punic wars? Wasn't he like pretty much undefeated against the Romans but finally got overwhelmed by Romes sheer military and resources - Also didn't they get him assassinated or something to deliberately remove him from being the leader of some of Carthages' armies

Reply 121

Aeolus

Original post by SuperSon1c

It's undoubtedly the British one, as they conquered pretty much all of the world, and even now they have the best soliders. American army is **** the only thing they have is equipment and they spend Billions of $ while some talibans and some viets spend 20p on ak-47 and they kill a bunch of americans.

Actually the vast majority of coalition casualties are due to ied's and the fact that, unlike the 'eastern warriors' the central tenet of US military policy in-theatre isn't a complete disregard for civilian life.

As for Vietnam you obviously do not know your history as the NVA played a far larger part than the Vietcong and they were funded substantially by other communist countries.

Do you really think the 'eastern warriors' would stand a chance if the US went total conventional blitzkrieg in Afghanistan with the same attitudes towards civilians as their current barbaric opponents? Even without nuclear weapons they could eradicate the entire population in a relatively short time.

As for British conquest, the driving force behind that was the Navy and not the army, who were mainly of the generic European model in which utterly inept members of the landed gentry would purchase commisions to lead men who were pretty much conscripted into joining up.

Reply 122

PeeWeeDan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19

Strength
~90 fighter aircraft
1 Remotely Piloted Vehicles squadron[1] ~100 fighter aircraft
30 SAM batteries[2]
Casualties and losses
None[3] 80 fighter aircraft,
30 SAM batteries destroyed

Reply 123

Aphotic Cosmos

Original post by PeeWeeDan

And I could point to, say, British involvement in Sierra Leone and say that it represented the greatest fighting force of all time because a highly trained, extremely well equipped modern military kicked the **** out of a bunch of rebels :rolleyes:

A convincing victory over a poorly equipped enemy is not particularly impressive in this day and age, otherwise the US military would be the indisputably greatest fighting force of all time.

Reply 124

PeeWeeDan

Original post by Aphotic Cosmos

A convincing victory over a poorly equipped enemy is not particularly impressive in this day and age, otherwise the US military would be the indisputably greatest fighting force of all time.

Well... the US is the indisputably greatest fighting force of all time to be honest. I'd like to see the Romans try and take on the US marines.

Reply 125

Aphotic Cosmos

Original post by PeeWeeDan

Well... the US is the indisputably greatest fighting force of all time to be honest. I'd like to see the Romans try and take on the US marines.

Technically speaking, there is no question that the US is the most powerful fighting force in history.

However, the Mongols, the Romans, Macedonians, the Incans, and lots of other good candidates forged huge empires with minimal resources against opponents who were often of similar martial prowess, if not necessarily organisation. The Roman Legions underpinned not just the military success, but the social order of the Roman Empire and guaranteed it's primacy in the ancient world for several centuries. Their logistical organisation and command is still a reference for armies today. They defined warfare for the next two millennia in Europe, and thus eventually the world as Europe created it's empires.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 126

SatanIsAwesome

Original post by KingofSpades

you're either an idiot, know nothing about the The Third Reich, or are talking about a different Third Reich

What are you on about?
What was wrong with Germany's army in WW2?

Look at the death tolls, you'll see that Germany's army was far superior.

Original post by KayK

I'll give you 200 pounds if you stop having an opinion, so i don't look bad. I have rep yo. (Not really) It's not that bad, what do you mean their tests are inaccurate and bias?

It'd cost more than £200 my friend.
One example of how bad their tests are:
Weapon 1 - Tested against manikins.
Weapon 2 - Tested on slabs of meat.
They then compare the results....... Pro....

Biased - SWAT won GSG with inferior gear :mad:

Original post by KayK

I really love your sig btw.

Thank you

Reply 129

qasman

Original post by dnumberwang

~~300~~ 120: the indian version

I'm pretty sure I've heard the story for this. (The date seems right)

Basically the Indians had retreated quite far back, and one of the generals (who was an Ahmadi Muslim, a minority muslim sect) said that they should advance while they had the chance. But the superiors wanted a non-Ahmadi to be the general when they claimed victory (persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan, etc. whole new topic) and so they told him to wait until one came. By the time one came, the Indians had regrouped and basically beat the Pakistan's arses.

Reply 130

BruinsFan91

The Black Army of the Ukraine. You have to be badass to take on the red army, white army and Allied forces at the same time!

Romans.

the roman legions from gaius marius to claudius. the roman army of that period was by far the most well trained and disciplined army in the known world. the roman army was the world's first fully professional army with a modern wage structure and post service incentives. that army served as a template to all modern armies today, even riot police use roman formation tactics today for crowd control, because the Romans had developed ingenuous yet simple ways for a small, outnumbered force to defeat another many times its size. the roman army was the best ever because it was efficient, disciplined and adaptable. modern armies are strikingly similar to the roman army in terms of logistics, training regimes and hierarchy. this shows that the roman army is the fighting army par excellance.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 133

-Invidious-

Original post by ChaoticSkills

Ottoman empire/army in my humble opinion :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohacs

They won most of the time through vastly superior numbers, can't say that they're the best army ever.

Reply 134

Vijay2010

Original post by ussumane

Mongol army.

Seconded.

Reply 135

SatanIsAwesome

Original post by lukejoshjedi

Well Hannibal really kicked ass too in the punic wars? Wasn't he like pretty much undefeated against the Romans but finally got overwhelmed by Romes sheer military and resources

Funny how Scipio had less men at the Battle of Zama then isn't it?
Hannibal lost due to Roman tactics that day, not due to being overwhelmed.

Original post by lukejoshjedi

Also didn't they get him assassinated or something to deliberately remove him from being the leader of some of Carthages' armies

Hannibal took poison to stop the Romans getting him in the end.
He was still leading armies to victory up until a couple of years before his death, so they obviously wanted him gone.

Reply 136

koolbhoy

Original post by 4TSR

yea right!

What's soooo Funny? :frown:

Reply 137

ChaoticSkills

Original post by -Invidious-

They won most of the time through vastly superior numbers, can't say that they're the best army ever.

No one cares, they did the impossible and established an empire that went on for decades. In some wars they had more soldiers, in some they had less. I.E the one below for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Keresztes

Reply 138

KayK

Original post by SatanIsAwesome

Thank you

I know nothing about weapons, i've only ever watched the program once lol. The testing does sound unfair, but maybe they do this for a reason. Perhaps testing on meat gives them the ability to see how it would affect the human body and perhaps testing against manikins provides them with an idea at how the human body's movement is affected.

But that would only be considered good, if they did both of them on the same weapon. So yeah, i see what you mean.

Reply 139

lukejoshjedi

Original post by SatanIsAwesome

Funny how Scipio had less men at the Battle of Zama then isn't it?
Hannibal lost due to Roman tactics that day, not due to being overwhelmed.

Hannibal took poison to stop the Romans getting him in the end.
He was still leading armies to victory up until a couple of years before his death, so they obviously wanted him gone.

Yeah interesting, it was predictable though cos unlike the Roman republic at the time, Carthage couldn't supply Hannibals war effort with supplies, additional troops etc etc so he was screwed - and he potentially could have taken rome if he kept besting Roman legions left right and centre in repeat victories

Yup that's right, I'm confusing him with another charistmatic leader, I think it's so cowardly but fairly witty, "Oh we obviously can't beat Hannibal in open combat in a single battle, we'll just go back to his home capital and fck **** up, he'll rush back and then we'll just have him". Bit cheap buut again shows Roman creativity and resources, even to be able to have so many wars on so many fronts and eventually take Carthage anyway

If Julius Caesar was alive the same time as Hannibal, those would have been some interesting wars