Best army in history?

Sometimes, but not always. France for example managed to steamroll most of Europe mostly by itself in a way Britain could never have done (Nor could most other European countries for that matter)

For the most part, European Armies could take on the British Army one-on-one due to their large sizes.

On the other hand it was British policy not to engage in any wars in Europe without the aid of allies as British politicians and military commanders knew they couldn't go it alone.

Are you refering to the napolenic wars ? If you are, France had these countries as allies -

France

* Duchy of Warsaw
* Italy
* Netherlands Holland
* Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic) Etruria
* Switzerland Swiss Confederation
* Kingdom of the Two Sicilies Naples
* Confederation of the Rhine:
* Denmark Denmark–Norway
* Ottoman Empire

Several of those countries were allies of France through force (i.e. France subdued them and forced them to become allies) or, by European standards, were fairly small and unimportant.

The only notable ally that France had was the Ottoman Empire, and even then the Ottoman Empire was experiencing many difficulties itself and wasn't in much position to help the French in their European conquests.

France did it single handed for the most part.

Also, I edited my last post on the previous page slightly if you want to read it (Or maybe you don't- whatever)

The argument isnt to do with politics, economics or society, it is to do with military power, and frankly I do not see how an army with a frankly appaling reputation for friendly fire could possibly be thought of as the best. I accept that other armies do this aswell, our own has done a few times in Afghanistan, but if a military cannot tell friend from foe in an age where we have so much technology then I do not think it should be considered the greatest military of all time, especially when advances in weaponry are ignored. I nominated the Roman legions for their discipline, their command structure, and the tactics used by their commanders.

Forced or not it is irrelevent, they fought against the British and sided with France, they are allies. France did not take on Britain single handedly they had those allies mentioned above.

I really hate to burst your bubble man, but the United States Military did not invent friendly fire.

In fact, it has been around since warfare has been around. Amazing, right?

Also, I am glad you continue to ignore my points regarding the benefits of American hegemony to Britain. It is always fun to see cognitive dissonance in action.

I mean, what, with all the improved living standards, longer life expectancy, unbroken peace at home, and stupid American movies that you must pay to see only to ridicule and not because you actually like them, its no wonder that Britons are so darn angry!

yea right!

If you look at the cold hard numbers we are told by military historians that the Mongolians totalled in the outset under 2000 men and killed over 50,000 of their enemy. The consqutively conquered the Yuan Dynasty in China, the whole of the Islamic empire and their caliphate and the eastern parts of the holy roman empire.

End of.

Yes, the Mongolians had quite the conquest, but their Army was hardly the greatest. For the most part they faced little opposition and took ever more men from the places they rode over. Add to that most Chinese armies of the time were peasent levies, and whilst the achievment was impressive, it wasn't really down to military prowess, merely numbers and speed. There was a reason they were called the 'Mongol Hordes' and not the 'Mongol Legions'.

Finland in the 1939-40 Winter War:

If you look at the cold hard numbers we are told by military historians that the Mongolians totalled in the outset under 2000 men and killed over 50,000 of their enemy. The consqutively conquered the Yuan Dynasty in China, the whole of the Islamic empire and their caliphate and the eastern parts of the holy roman empire.

End of.

300 120: the indian version

The Mongols founded the Yuan Dynasty. They conquered the Song Dynasty.

IN terms of resources and man-power they had far less than other great armies of history. The Islamic armies they took on were said to outnumber them 15 to 1. They had no armour, no heavy long range siege weaponery, fairly basic metal working production and far less economic resources of most of their enemies. In most cases they were facing a more heavily armed and better equipped enemy.

They simply relied on superior horsemanship and developed the use of composite bow on horseback which no-one in history had mastered as well as technologies from indo- china like use of gunpowder.

'Hordes' is not a description of their military prowess except by the ignorant, their tactics way ahead of their time and in some cases used today as the basis for military tactical training.