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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    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)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    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)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not the Italian army fo sho haha
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zigzog7)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Strathclyder)
    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.
    Most were French in all but name, and those that weren't were minor unimportant states with small armies.

    France took on Britain, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands- all the premier world powers of the time.

    And by extension, without such a long list of powerful allies, Britain couldn't hope to take on Napoleon's Armies in Continental Europe. Britain's most important roles in the war were the establishment of naval supremacy, financial and political aid to Frances enemies and, towards the end of the war, helping tie up some of Napoleon's troops in Spain. By Waterloo the war was more or less won and it put the icing on the cake.

    The British Empires true power lay in its navy and its industrial/economic might

    If we are talking about the 'Greatest Army' of the time, Napoleons Army probably fits the bill
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wucker)
    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'm not saying you invented it, I'm saying you have a bad reputation for it, don't misquote me.

    If you want me to look into your irrelevant points in more detail, then I will.

    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!
    Improved living standards is quite a vague topic, so I assume you mean things which make living more comfortable.
    Lets start with television. I concede that both mechanical and electrical television systems were invented by americans, however the systems were tested and developed by the BBC, the world's first national broadcasting corporation.
    Second invention, the telephone. This may have been invented by many people from different countries at the same time, but the first to be awarded a patent was Alexander Graham Bell, a brit.
    Third, the computer. The first electronic digital computer was created by Alan Turing, and a later version of this was used to crack the enigma code. Also, the world wide web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee. (I know you are going to talk about ARPANET or some similar system, but the WWW was the first commercial one.)

    I know there are more, but lets move onto the next topic, longer life expectancy. Vaccination and penicillin were both discovered/invented by brits. Brits also did a large amount of work on other sections of medicine. Humpry Davy was the first to note the anaesthetic effects of nitrous oxide, Major John Hall-Edwards was the first to use radiography to help with surgery, and for a very long time Edinburgh was the medical capital of the world. Let us not also forget, that the NHS was the first nationally run health service which provided free healthcare to all, greatly improving our quality of life and life expectancy.

    Unbroken peace at home. I assume that by this you mean us not being involved in wars, thanks to your protection. If we start at world war two, yes you helped but actually we made it through the Battle of Britain without you. When you did join in, we worked together to beat back the Germans, and it was the Russians that made it to Berlin first, not the Brits or the Americans. The next threat at home was the cold war, which both the UK and the USA played a role in. We had a very strong nuclear program at that time, one which was certainly a threat which Moscow would have had to consider, and it is incorrect of you to assume that the USSR did not attack us simply because they feared you.

    And finally movies. Yes, a large number of american films are very good, mainly because Hollywood is in the USA and that is where a lot of films are made. Lets not forget however, all the great films that the UK has made. The James Bond films immediately spring to mind, but there are too many other classics to list. The UK is still used by a lot of film companies during filming, Pinewood studios is still very popular, and Glasgow is currently being used to represent Philadelphia for the filming of world war Z. Here is a list of well known british actors:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Catherine Zeta-Jones
    Sir Ian McKellen
    Clive Owen
    Jude Law
    Terence Stamp
    Dame Judi Dench
    Julie Walters
    Vanessa Redgrave
    Bob Hoskins
    James McAvoy
    Kate Beckinsale
    Rachel Weisz
    Kate Winslet
    Andy Serkis
    Anthony Hopkins
    Christopher Lee
    Hugh Grant
    Colin Firth
    Daniel Radcliffe
    Michael Caine
    Rupert Everett
    Daniel Craig
    Simon Pegg
    Keira Knightley
    Ralph Fiennes
    Orlando Bloom
    Tilda Swinton
    Thandie Newton
    Daniel Day-Lewis
    Christian Bale
    Jason Statham
    Emma Thompson
    Helena Bonham Carter
    Hugh Laurie
    Kenneth Branagh
    Tom Wilkinson
    Ben Kingsley
    Alan Rickman
    Emily Blunt
    Mark Strong
    Gemma Arterton
    Bill Nighy
    Carey Mulligan
    Andrew Garfield
    Ray Winstone
    Jeremy Irons
    Gary Oldman
    Kristin Scott Thomas
    Helen Mirren
    Paul Bettany
    Ewan McGregor
    Tim Roth
    Julie Andrews
    Patrick Stewart
    Robert Pattinson
    Sacha Baron Cohen
    Rowan Atkinson
    Michael Gambon
    Maggie Smith

    Let us also not forget that British directors include Alfred Hitchcock, Danny Boyle, Ridley Scott and Guy Ritchie. Yes, there are many excellent american directors and actors, but this is to be expected considering how much bigger your country is than ours.

    To finish, yes this is a biased piece of work, and yes I have chosen my information fairly selectively. If we can please move back to the original discussion as to the greatest army of all time, I would greatly appreciate it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [IMG] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4TSR)
    :rofl: yea right!
    This is nothing to be scoffed at! Clearly You don't know anything about the Dark Ages. In 150 years the Islamic Caliphate took over a huge area of land. They destroyed the Persian Empire and severely weakened the Eastern Roman Empire. Just look at this page and you will see what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Conquests
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    toon.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    LOL the Canadian Army.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
    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'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    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'.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nuodai)
    Finland in the 1939-40 Winter War:
    I really, really wish I had rep left for you!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Finland, Those *****es are ruthless. My Finlol friend had to do military service, He can now skin a cow with his BARE HANDS. Doesn't help me much, I'm a veggie.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
    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.
    The Mongols founded the Yuan Dynasty. They conquered the Song Dynasty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tudball)
    The Mongols founded the Yuan Dynasty. They conquered the Song Dynasty.
    yes, actually i meant the Jin dynasty
    they conqured the Song much later with kublai khan
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dnumberwang)


    300 120: the indian version
    that was a civil war against bangladesh, which the indians helped...and not just a war between pakistan and india..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
    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.
    Aye, but most of their victories came from literally riding through the enemy. Yes, they did well, but they were not a 'great army', in terms of tactics, training or any particular victories. Indeed, they are far surpassed in every catagory by some other army.

    Too much is made of a lot of Mongol tactics, I mean you read the Wiki entry and it makes them sound like pioneers in everything they did. So once again, a very good army yes, using unseen tactics along with swiftness to overrun their enemy. But once people got wise they suffered crushing defeats.
 
 
 
  • 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.