Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    The American army today, second palce going to the British army in the British empire, due to the fact that the British empire ruled a 1/4 of the worlds people and commanded the largest empire on earth.

    The Ottomons are pale in comparison to the British empire. And this is not a bias slant, it is a factual statment.
    American army today owns because of technology. Referring to the OP, they must be the best in terms of training, strategy, discipline etc. They haven't done anything to show strategic brilliance - if they had that, I doubt the Iraq war would be lasting so long. They cannot win on skill due to the constant mistakes (friendly fire, civilian casualties). They cannot win on discipline due to the stories of unsanctioned abuse by soldiers. They cannot win on training as that links to skill. I'm not putting a downer on the US army - pretty much every army in the world has these same problems or worse ones - I just think that the best army in history, whoever it may be, can't have all have these problems.

    Anyway, this question is kind of impossible to answer. The Romans had revolutionary strategy but it's difficult to compare a new shield formation to strategies involving detailed air recon and unmanned drones.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Clearly the ****ing vikings, they didn't take **** from anyone, were GAP (ginger and proud) and rowed, truly the pre-cursor to modern day lads
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well you can't compare bows to machine guns, that is true. But to decipher what the 'best army' was then you could identify what army was ahead of the rest of the competition in it's time. In my opinion that would be the German army in WW2 as they were leagues better in the early years of the war.


    due to the fact that the British empire ruled a 1/4 of the worlds people and commanded the largest empire on earth.
    That is attributed to force projection by the Royal Navy, not the army. Britain's army has always been very good but was always small for European standards.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
    You are both wrong because swords, arrows etc even someone picking up a animal bone for the first time and clubbing you over the head is 'tech' of sort.

    The British defeated much of the known globe mainly due to superior tech - in advanced weapons, transport and troop supply and deployment. Fighting zulus armed with spears with long range rifles was only going to endup in one result.

    If you eliminate the use of technology in warfare completly - you are bringing it down simly to hand to hand combat.
    then you have to give it to the buddhists and the developemnt of early martial arts which all modern armies now train in.
    what i was trying to say was if the moguls of that time was to go to war with americans of that time the moguls would win.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzazulfiqar)
    what i was trying to say was if the moguls of that time was to go to war with americans of that time the moguls would win.
    The americans of the time of the Monguls were Native American tribes. not americans you were talking about.
    And no one knows what would have occurred in that imaginery conflict - the apache indian tribes for exapmle were described by some early british forces as the fiercest fighters they had ever encountered.

    Also you seem to be confusing the Monguls with the Moguls(which was simply the name for the persians occupying afganistan and parts of north west india)
    The MONGOLS were nomadic tribes from East and Central Asia and Inner Mongolia who conquered the persians and most of asia, central and eastern europe, russia and under the leadership of Gengis Khan (Temujin) Hulagu and Timur.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Suleiman the magnificent .. Great great ruler
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    Pedantic white noise.

    The OP refers to the armed forces combined.The British empire could not have been held without its army.

    Size has nothing to do with an armies greatness **** for brains
    First things first, you don't have to be a complete ****er.

    Second thing, yes size obviously does add to an armies greatness. A smaller army is more often then not going to be a less capable thing. The British Army couldn't have overrun Europe like the French army did for example.

    As for Britain's Empire, in most places it was held by locally raised militias who were reinforced by Redcoats. The British Army was too small to hold Britain's vast territories on its, hence why they recruited locals who were not nearly as disciplined and well trained as the professional Redcoats.

    It was the Royal Navy that won Britain its true power through the domination of key trading lanes and its ability to launch economic blockades of colonies and even countries, and it was also the navy that ensured the comparatively limited number of Redcoats (Comparatively compared to the massive armies of continental Europe) could get to where the action was (After a few months anyway). Being an island nation Britain didn't need a massive army.

    **** for brains.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzazulfiqar)
    No there not. Swords and Arrows require physical strength, rather then a nuke being launched from an ibm with the use of your pinky finger.:
    lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    First things first, you don't have to be a complete ****er.

    Second thing, yes size obviously does add to an armies greatness. A smaller army is more often then not going to be a less capable thing. The British Army couldn't have overrun Europe like the French army did for example.

    As for Britain's Empire, in most places it was held by locally raised militias who were reinforced by Redcoats. The British Army was too small to hold Britain's vast territories on its, hence why they recruited locals who were not nearly as disciplined and well trained as the professional Redcoats.

    It was the Royal Navy that won Britain its true power through the domination of key trading lanes and its ability to launch economic blockades of colonies and even countries, and it was also the navy that ensured the comparatively limited number of Redcoats (Comparatively compared to the massive armies of continental Europe) could get to where the action was (After a few months anyway). Being an island nation Britain didn't need a massive army.

    **** for brains.
    Irrespective of Britains royal navy, I believe that Britain still had the greatest army at that point in time. And for the second time the OP very obviously means army as in armed forces combined.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    Irrespective of Britains royal navy, I believe that Britain still had the greatest army at that point in time. And for the second time the OP very obviously means army as in armed forces combined.

    And yet the British Army couldn't hope to go one-on-one with any of Britain's significant European contemporaries. The limited size of Britain's Army is why it had to rely on allies every time it wanted to wage war in the Continent.

    Like I said, in terms of martial prowess, discipline, determination the British Army did tower over many of its contemporaries. But at the end of the day it lacked the size to truly be 'Great' and it couldn't really hope to take on any of the larger European armies on its own, except from overseas where European Empires couldn't bring their full numbers to bear.

    On the other hand the likes of the Roman Army or Mongol Army proved to be unstoppable steamrollers in the face of nearly all opposition and forged massive empires through brute strength (Whereas Britain relied more on the 'divide and conquer' strategy)

    As for the OP, no where does it mention the Armed Forces combined nor does it even imply it. All it says is which army do you think is the best. Army means Army, it doesn't mean Navy or the Armed Forces as a whole.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    And yet the British Army couldn't hope to go one-on-one with any of Britain's significant European contemporaries. The limited size of Britain's Army is why it had to rely on allies every time it wanted to wage war in the Continent.

    Like I said, in terms of martial prowess, discipline, determination the British Army did tower over many of its contemporaries. But at the end of the day it lacked the size to truly be 'Great' and it couldn't really hope to take on any of the larger European armies on its own, except from overseas where European Empires couldn't bring their full numbers to bear.

    On the other hand the likes of the Roman Army or Mongol Army proved to be unstoppable steamrollers in the face of nearly all opposition and forged massive empires through brute strength (Whereas Britain relied more on the 'divide and conquer' strategy)

    As for the OP, no where does it mention the Armed Forces combined nor does it even imply it. All it says is which army do you think is the best. Army means Army, it doesn't mean Navy or the Armed Forces as a whole.
    Ever heard of The Battle of Waterloo, Battle of Cape St Vincent, Battle of Copenhagen, Battle of Quatre Bras, Battle of the Alma, Battle of Balaclava, Battle of Inkerman, Siege of Sevastopol to name but a few ?

    The crimean war, the anglo dutch war, the naopoleonic war, the Spanish wars ?

    UUHHH DERP
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    Ever heard of The Battle of Waterloo, Battle of Cape St Vincent, Battle of Copenhagen, Battle of Quatre Bras, Battle of the Alma, Battle of Balaclava, Battle of Inkerman, Siege of Sevastopol to name but a few ?

    The crimean war, the anglo dutch war, the naopoleonic war, the Spanish wars ?

    UUHHH DERP
    Britain had powerful allies in every single one of the those wars and in some cases battles.

    Battle of Waterloo- Never heard of the Prussians?

    Battle of Cape St Vincent- Naval battle, not army.

    Battle of Copenhagen- Likewise

    Battle of Quatre Bras- Again, Britain had many allies principally the Dutch. And throughout the Napoleonic Wars Britain relied on the bulk of Napoleon's Armies being distracted elsewhere, principally Eastern Europe (i.e. Britain counted on its allies). The British Army didn't have a chance of going toe-to-toe with the bulk of Frances armies.

    Battles of Inkerman, Alma, Balaclava and Sevestapol (And indeed Crimea as a whole)- Never heard of the French or Ottomans?




    UHHHH DERP.



    There is a reason Britain relied on the 'balance of power' strategy in regards to Europe, and thats because it didn't have a hope of subduing Europe through force- Britain's Army simply wasn't powerful enough
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    Britain had powerful allies in every single one of the those wars and in some cases even battles.

    Battle of Waterloo- Never heard of the Prussians?

    Battle of Cape St Vincent- Naval battle, not army.

    Battle of Copenhagen- Likewise

    Battle of Quatre Bras- Again, Britain had many allies principally the Dutch. And through the Napoleonic Wars Britain relied on the bulk of Napoleon's Armies being distracted elsewhere, principally Eastern Europe (i.e. Britain counted on its allies)

    Battles of Inkerman, Balaclava and Sevestapol (And indeed Crimea as a whole)- Never heard of the French or Ottomans?




    UHHHH DERP.



    There is a reason Britain relied on the 'balance of power' strategy in regards to Europe, and thats because it didn't have a hope of subduing Europe through force- Britain's Army simply wasn't powerful enough
    Britain was fighting against four world powers at the same time, Holland, Spain, portugal and France.

    Regardless of Britains allies. I would say it had the most powerful army in the world at that time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    Britain was fighting against four world powers at the same time, Holland, Spain, portugal and France.


    Not on the continent it didn't. The Seven Years War principally took place overseas where the powers of Continental Europe couldn't bring their full forces to bear and where British Naval superiority is what ultimately won the day.


    Regardless of Britains allies. I would say it had the most powerful army in the world at that time
    Most powerful navy- definitely.

    Most powerful Army? No, as stated on numerous occasions it couldn't hope to compete with the bohemoth armies of continental Europe, except overseas where those behemoth armies couldn't be used to their full extent, and where naval power proved more decisive.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    Most powerful navy- definitely.

    Most powerful Army? No, as stated on numerous occasions it couldn't hope to compete with the bohemoth armies of continental Europe, except overseas where those behemoth armies couldn't be used to their full extent, and where naval power proved more decisive.
    "The British Army should be a projectile to be fired by the British Navy" - Sir Edward Grey, MP

    You are correct.

    (Empire Total War is a great game)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)

    Most powerful Army? No, as stated on numerous occasions it couldn't hope to compete with the bohemoth armies of continental Europe, except overseas where those behemoth armies couldn't be used to their full extent, and where naval power proved more decisive.
    It could cope with the armies of Northern Europe, the British army usually won. Had the British concentrated their entire armies in Europe they would have been unstoppable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    It could cope with the armies of Northern Europe, the British army usually won. Had the British concentrated their entire armies in Europe they would have been unstoppable.


    Again, only when Britain could count on allies who had bigger armies.


    Most European Armies of the 19th Century numbered at least 200-300,000, with some numbering upwards of 1 million.

    The British Army, on the other hand, at its absolute peak in the Napoleonic Wars in 1813, numbered just 250,000 men and that was the height of mobilisation. There was no way it could have conquered Europe- no way.

    In more peaceful times the British Army was even smaller. At the end of the 18th Century it numbered just 40,000 and suffered from some glaring leadership and organisation problems, and after the Napoleonic Wars it was downsized again and by 1823 it numbered just 100,000

    You also mentioned the Crimean War as an example of the British Armies prowess. Now while the average British soldier more then proved his worth during that war, it also showed just how incompetent British Army leadership was as well as the inadequacies of organisation, supply lines and equipment. It spurred two serious reforms to fix the glaring and worrying inadequacies exposed by the war. If the Russian Army hadn't been even more incompetent, and if Britain wasn't able to call on France and the Ottoman Empire (Who both provided more troops then Britain) it wouldn't have won (Well it wouldn't have got involved in the first place)

    The most powerful the British Army has ever been was at the end of the Great War when it was arguably the most powerful in the world, when it led the way in tactical, strategic and technological innovation and it had a size to match that of the armies of Continental Europe. However, that required full scale mobilisation and conscription and all the rest of it, and it also required 3-4 years of horrendous bloodshed from which to learn from its mistakes. It was also incredibly expensive and unsustainable in the long run- hence why the bulk of it was soon disbanded after the war and the British Army was returned to its small-scale professional roots
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    Again, only when Britain could count on allies.


    Most European Armies of the 19th Century numbered at least 200-300,000, with some numbering upwards of 1 million.

    The British Army, on the other hand, at its absolute peak in the Napoleonic Wars in 1813, numbered just 250,000 men and that was the height of mobilisation. There was no it could have conquered Europe- no way.

    In more peaceful times the British Army was even smaller. At the end of the 18th Century it numbered just 40,000 and suffered from some glaring leadership and organisation problems, and after the Napoleonic Wars it was downsized again and by 1823 it numbered just 100,000

    You also mentioned the Crimean War as an example of the British Armies prowess. Now while the average British soldier more then proved his worth during that war, it also showed just how incompetent British Army leadership was as well as the inadequacies of organisation, supply lines and equipment. It spurred two serious reforms to fix some glaring inadequacies exposed by the war. If the Russian Army hadn't been even more incompetent, and if Britain wasn't able to call on France and the Ottoman Empire (Who both provided more troops then Britain) it wouldn't have won.
    And European countries did not have allies when they fought Britain :confused:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wucker)
    It never ceases to amaze me how hard many British people will try to think of reasons not to like America, but god damn this has to be one of the dumbest.

    I'll try and break it down for you. In war, forces on the same side will, due to confusion or accident or the fog of war, sometimes harm each other instead of the enemy. Britain and America are on the same side in a war, so naturally there will be occurrences of friendly fire, however regrettable that may be.

    Also let me let you in on a little secret: American forces accidentally kill Americans too. Crazy, I know! It must mean that American's hate themselves and are doing everything they can to undermine their country. Despicable!

    I find it hilarious that you simply ignored the points I made, which encompass the effects of America on the entirety of British politics, economics, and society and instead focus on a few isolated incidences which, by your own admission, were mistakes rather than official policy.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    And European countries did not have allies when they fought Britain :confused:


    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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.