All those power have had a profound influence in their time. And all of those can claim to be the most efficient fighting force the world has ever seen.

what do members think is the most efficent fighting machine, u can consider everything from stratergy, weapons, motivation and every factor u can think of.

My view is the Romans and mongols

Romans for their decipline, Mongols for stratergy.
U are free to add any new contenders.

In term of military victories and land taken

Thats easy IMHO the Mongols under Genghis Khan. He never lost a battle and conqured pretty much the whole world. Plus they were pretty much outnumbered all of the time.

There have been many Great fighting forces lead by great men. Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Spartacus , Hannibal but they all lost battles sooner or later.


In terms of most efficient fighting force I think I would have to go with the Spartans though.


[edit on 7-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

hannibals march towards Rome was pretty impressive, but you can't argue with all the land taken by the mongols.

It's like comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds. You can't compare them. The style of fighting that the Romans, Greeks, and Mongols used was entirely different. When those civilizations made war, winning came with a great loss of life. To me the question is "who was most efficient?".The United States took over two countries with very minimal loss of life, in this day and age of technology. Of course it's the U.S..

Peace

I shamelessly took those from another forum but those were interesting facts
Those two were also undefeated in battle according to the post.


Khalid bin Al-Waleed

Undefeated in battle.
Was responsible for defeating the Romans (the "Byzantines")in present day Syria. Captured Damascus and annexxed Syria into the Muslim empire.
Defeated the Persian Empire. No other empire in history had lasted so long in all its greatness as a force of culture and civilisation and as a military power.

www.swordofallah.com

Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi
After the brutalities and mass slaughter which followed the crusades Salahuddin Ayubi was the one who set an example of tolerance and justice after he banished the crusaders. He would always prefer humble living quarters over the luxurious palaces.
when the Sultan captured Jerusalem in 1187, he gave free pardon to the Christians living in the city. Only the combatants were asked to leave the city on payment of a nominal ransom. In most of the cases, the Sultan provided the ransom money from his own pocket and even provided them transport. A number of weeping Christian women carrying their children in their arms approached the Sultan and said `You see us on foot, the wives, mothers and dauthers of the warriors who are your prisoners; we are quitting forever this country; they aided us in our lives, in losing them we lose our last hope; if you give them to us, they can alleviate our miseries and we shall not be without support on earth'. The Sultan was highly moved with their appeal and set free their men. Those who left the city were allowed to carry all their bag and baggage. The humane and benevolent behaviour of the Sultan with the defeated Christians of Jerusalem provides a striking contrast to the butchery of the Muslims in this city at the hands of the Crusaders ninety years before. The commanders under the Sultan vied with each other in showing mercy to the defeated Crusaders.

It's like comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds. You can't compare them. The style of fighting that the Romans, Greeks, and Mongols used was entirely different. When those civilizations made war, winning came with a great loss of life. To me the question is "who was most efficient?".The United States took over two countries with very minimal loss of life, in this day and age of technology. Of course it's the U.S..

Sorry, but the US has yet to actually show itself to have anywhere near the efficiency of the Mongols. While I do believe America could do just what they did, we haven't.

Alexander the Great was probably had the most efficient war machine ever. He conquered all of Greece, Asia Minor, and parts of India all before he was 30. Had he survived, he would have consumed the entire Middle East, and most of Europe. He would have had an Empire on par with the Mongols had he not died so soon.

He also faced pretty much every kind of enemy, and won. The man never lost a battle. Not one. Never even came close. He had some of the most loppsided victories ever.

He was an expert in mountain warfare, guerilla warfare, sieges, and of course, he could beat anyone in the open field. The Persian army he defeated was almost all cavalry. He flanked them without using any tricks. And the Persians really didn't make any mistakes. They had a line that was probably like 3 times the size of his own.

He faced almost any kind of enemy you could think of. In Persia he fought against some of the best cavalry in the world. At Guagamela they had more horses than Alexander men.

With his small group of Companion Cavalry he managed to win the day.

He faced on of the largest armies of elephants EVER assembled at the Hydapses, and won handidly. He managed to put his entire army across the river without getting destroyed by the Indians, and they had an excellent general of their own.

He was also the first to use artillery in the open field.

The Mongols are right up there with them. They had one of the most organized, disciplined armies ever assembled. It surpassed Rome at its peak easily. They over ran massive armies time and time again by simply out-smarting and out-manuevering them.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Alexander the Great never lost a battle, as per:


seekerof

There is still some debate on if he lost his battle with King Porus. After Hydaspes Alexander ordered the southbound retreat towards Babylon. Fact is that after Hydaspes Alexander only campaigned against minor enemies.

That was ofcourse one of his major battles I thought there was a minor battles he lost in Afghanistan. He couldn't conquer Afghanistan for two years so he didnt just roll through there winning every battle.

I would vote for the Romans, just because of the pure discipline of their soldiers.

The Mongols were a horde; there were no organized battle plans. They just swarmed over all they met. Mounted Archers on horseback had a devastating effect at the time, to their credit.

There is still some debate on if he lost his battle with King Porus. After Hydaspes Alexander ordered the southbound retreat towards Babylon. Fact is that after Hydaspes Alexander only campaigned against minor enemies.

He slaughtered Porus's entire army. He was brought to Alexander a bloody mess. How could their be debate as to who won?

And Alexander didn't really order a retreat. His soldiers wouldn't go any further. It's not like had failed to conquer the areas he entered.

That was ofcourse one of his major battles I thought there was a minor battles he lost in Afghanistan. He couldn't conquer Afghanistan for two years so he didnt just roll through there winning every battle.

Afghanistan is a large mountainous country. I don't believe it took him any two years, either.

as posted by ShadowXIX
There is still some debate on if he lost his battle with King Porus. After Hydaspes Alexander ordered the southbound retreat towards Babylon. Fact is that after Hydaspes Alexander only campaigned against minor enemies.

That was ofcourse one of his major battles I thought there was a minor battles he lost in Afghanistan. He couldn't conquer Afghanistan for two years so he didnt just roll through there winning every battle.

That site provide was from an .edu site. Historical, scholarly, university level. More could have been found and posted. None of which would have verified what you are implying. Furthermore, I personally have a number of books on Alexander the Great, including John Mawell O'Brien's Alexander The Great: The Invisible Enemy, W.W. Tarn's Alexander The Great, and N.G.L. Hammond's book The Genius of Alexander the Great, which presents the accounts of Alexander's historians and chroniclers: Diodorus, Justin, Curtius, Plutarch, and Arrian. All are top-notch schalorly researched and backed books concerning Alexander the Great and his life and travels.

None of the above remotely indicate or mention any type lost battles in Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter.






seekerof

[edit on 7-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by JADESTONE
Romans for their decipline, Mongols for stratergy.
U are free to add any new contenders.

I'd have to say that I think the army of alexander under alexander would defeat any roman or mongol army put against it. However thats probably far too specific, and its patently obvious what happens when a generalized post-alexandrian phalanx meets up with even primitive roman legions (keeping in mind tho that the sucessor generals were supposed to have allowed their phalanxes to 'degenerate' to something less than the setup Philip and alexander used).

THe onyl real way to look at it is to look at them each in their own times.

The roman legions were fantastic, and while i favour them, I have to admit that, caesar gave them gaul, and pompey gave them the east, and the only opposition was ineffective german foot soldiers and some moderately good parthian armies. Ultimately the roman military (and perhaps its due more to their 'grand strategy' rather than the legions per say) were ineffective against higly mobilized horsemen. Of course, the later roman legions were different than the republican and early imperial legions.

The Mongols of course were in fact highly mobile horsemen, so one can make a pretty decent case that the roman military system, taken as a whole, couldn't deal with it. The huns especially are thought to be distantly related to the mongols, or rather a people like them (ie hsing-nu are at least sometimes thought to be distant ancestors of them anyways), so I think that gives a relatively solid answer.

And if the romans could defeat the greeks, and mongol-like armies defeated the romans, then it follows that the greeks would indeed be defeated by the mongols.

The US cna be rejected from the list, becuase it does not do anything like any of these empires did in their time. Obviously a tank squad would defeat any ancient medival army, so again they need to be considered in their time. And in its time the US military has not conquered or held anything like what they did.

I propose that the British military, infact, belongs at the very top of the list, because they controlled the largest empire, ever, anywhere on the globe. At one point they held and controlled a Quarter of the Globe, with a volunteer army and native conscripts. Truly, fantastically, impressive.

The US public simply can't sustain militaristic interest long enough to do anything like the others.

On the other hand, replace all the americans with ancient romans, train them and put Caesar at their lead and you have a different, but utterly irrelevant, story.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by Nygdan]

I know one battle Alexander lost for sure, The battle at the Box Office

Man the movie was boring

I propose that the British military, infact, belongs at the very top of the list, because they controlled the largest empire, ever, anywhere on the globe. At one point they held and controlled a Quarter of the Globe, with a volunteer army and native conscripts. Truly, fantastically, impressive

How much did the British Empire really have to do with having an amazing military? It wasn't the most dominant in the world. European militaries could have competed with it.

It was an amazing empire, but nowhere near the great military.

And if the romans could defeat the greeks, and mongol-like armies defeated the romans, then it follows that the greeks would indeed be defeated by the mongols.

The Parthians used tactics very similiar to the Mongols, really. They relied extensively on cavalry, and horse archers.

Alexander also faced a lot of cavalry when he fought the Persians. They had mercenaries from places like Scythia, who also fought like the Mongols.

Now, it wasn't quite the same as fighting the Mongols, but Alexander showed he could beat armies similiar.

The Romans struggled so much with Parthia because they relied heavily on infantry, with cavalry merely as support. The greatest generals have always used cavalry as the backbone of their military.

ack dont know why I messed that link up but its very interesting

[url=http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/miscarticles/ato.html]http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/miscarticles/ato.html[/ url]

"Alexander did not win any war on the Indian soil, he in fact lost to Porus, the king of Punjab, and had to sign a treaty with Porus in order to save his diminishing band of soldiers who were grief-stricken at the loss of their compatriots at the hands of Porus's army, and expressed their strong desire to surrender."

"the truth which is documented in many narratives of the Europeans themselves presents a totally different picture. The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to save his and his soldiers' lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures in India."

In the Ethiopic texts, Mr E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:

"In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander's cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to Indian traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom".

You have to consider there is two sides to every story and I doubt Greek historians were unbaised their accounts.

Japan for Discipline and strategic moments of brilliance compared to its size.

British Empire and its control over the sea for a couple centuries is impressive.

Originally posted by swintersVT
Japan for Discipline and strategic moments of brilliance compared to its size.

British Empire and its control over the sea for a couple centuries is impressive.

I suppose this whole discussion is a bit abstract anyway (apples and oranges, how do you compare GPS guided munition to mongolian cavalry?).

Given the above quote, I suppose some tribute should be given to the Russians as well, as they still control (maybe temporary, but they had fo ra long time) the largest land mass in the wolrd. In the process of taking it, they fought the Mongols as well by the way. Admittedly much of Siberia was and still is scarcely populated

In terms of influence: British empire. The empire days shaped the world we live in today, it'd basically take a global nuclear war to undo things.

Originally posted by picard_is_actually_a_grey
In terms of influence: British empire. The empire days shaped the world we live in today, it'd basically take a global nuclear war to undo things.

That's a bit of an arbitrary statement. The Roman empire was before that, and sure enough they shaped the world in even deeper ways, invented road system, plumbing, etc etc. They really shaped all of Europe and much of North Africa and Middle East, and set a pattern on which future empires were built.