It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Which was the Greatest Fighting force ever, Romans, Greeks,Mongols, Or the present USA.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:36 AM
Mongol was the greatest in histrory,there is nothing doubt
Romans and Greeks are nothing compared to the Mongols, Mongols had to kick a whoooollllee e lot of ass and did it with cunning tactics, and superior skills
compare to the Mongol Empire,Roma is just like a nut

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:38 AM
Brits was not larger than Mongols,33.2 million km2 was just the satble period under Kublai Khan,but at its peak,the Mongol Empire covered 44.1 million km2 larger than the British Empire 36.6 million km2

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:48 PM
All things being equal? Common equipment? Hands down, the Romans.

I don't remember who said it, but it went something like this:

Their training is bloodless war, their war is bloody training, or something like that...the discipline, the to bottom, the best there ever was.

Not that the Mongols wouldn't have given them everything they wanted, though...

A commander of genius can make all the differance though. Does anyone seriously think Carthage would have been able to challenge Rome with out Hannibal and his brother?

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:08 PM
I'm going to have to toss in a vote for the Romans as well. How many nations did they conquer? How many enemy advances did they thwart? How many years did they reign supreme by virtue of their military prowess?

Other armies have fought brilliantly throughout history, but no other military can claim the sheer number of victories as the Roman military.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:44 PM
for its time its hands down the mongols easy

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:01 PM
In the 20th century the German Wehrmacht of WWII. They may have lost but only against overwhelming odds. Pound for pound they are the most effective. They always inflicted far more casualties than they received. In fact if they had committd any more than af fraction of their strength in France after D-Day the allies would have been thrown back into the ocean peice meal. It is intersting that they only ever committed no more than 20% of their strength fighting the western allies with the rest facing the Soviets.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 05:28 PM
the mongols were an extremely disciplined fighting force. people say that they swarmed over their enemies but how could they have done this with small horses that were unable to trample and up against other heavy cavalry?
Each Mongol warrior had incredible individual skill as well as complete loyalty to their leader.

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by ShadowXIX

get your history right, alexander the great never lost a battle,
whereas, genghis kahn lost a few.

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 03:28 PM
the Romans, solely on technology.roman battlefield medicine alone was lightyears beyond anything seen before and after. the use of herbs and silver were lost after the fall of the empire, that's why it was called the dark ages. it's only in the last 20 years we are now understanding and getting back to the use of natural remedies that were common to the legion.

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 09:59 PM
The roman empire for it's long reign. Same with the british.
The german army of WW2 conquered so much territory and people with so few resources in the shortest of time. The US overrunning Iraq in a month does not impress me as much. We spend 20 times more than the next country on military and we're still bogged down there? I would rate the US towards the bottom in a cost-benefit analysis. I'd rate the soviets higher, the fellows that beat germany for us. But there are constraints on us, such as the need for the illusion of democracy or having the moral high ground, that is definitely a major obstacle in terms of achieving goals efficiently.

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by JADESTONE
the spartans due to there will to fight and never surrender also there weapon slike the romans shield, sword and spear also had a few thin layers of armour made of leather an some sort of wood with a thin sheet of brass on top also a cast iron helmet but the scots were the most feared ecen your romans feared them and built wall to keep us oot of england.

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:01 PM
reply to post by CapsFan8

lol. Having morals or the appearance of them is an impediment to a successful war machine.

I might dare to disagree actually. There is the issue of winning over your conquered territories. Propaganda is much cheaper than suppression. The soviets were not constrained by moral niceties in Afghanistan, but they were still driven out in short order.

I'd say the pretense of being kind to your enemies has worked marvelously for the US. Look at our allies Japan and Germany. Friendly buffer states are much better than unruly conquered provinces. Of course it's a shame that the US ponzi economy has to finally come to end....

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:11 PM
Most efficient at what?

Every army or group mentioned has been an offensive-oriented military. and no one's mentioned the Nazi war machine: a truly impressively efficient construction.

For true efficiency, though, you have to look at those military organizations who fight defensive wars. The IDF springs to mind as a modern example.

But when you consider force ratios, tech disparity, logistical difficulties, length of success, and civilian protection responsibilities, I'd have to claim the prize for my people: the Ind'eh, known to you as Apache.

For more than three centuries we successfully defended our territories against Aztecs, Spaniards, Mexicans, and Americans. In the end, a full quarter of the entire American army was deployed against some 138 Apaches, mostly women, children and elders, along with some 5,000 Arizona volunteers, and nearly half the Mexican army. And in the last campaign, we never lost a battle, and it didn't end in defeat but rather negotiated peace that was betrayed.

Tactics used by the Apache are still taught at West Point, and our name still echoes the terror Americans once felt.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 07:01 AM
reply to post by apacheman

Pound for pound, the Apache punched well above their weight-class. I'd have to agree that they are certainly in the conversation.

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:41 AM
the greatest fighting force ever
in terms of discipline, tech, organization, and leadership
the Wehrmacht of WWII
though they were the bad guys
they had the better kill ratio throughout the entire war
and the Luftwaffe aces were known as the best, no allied ace
got over 70 kills, the top 30 of the entire war were Germans
the panzer divisions were renowned for their efficiency as were
the infantry
just b/c they were the bad guys should not take away from the fact
that they set the standard for the modern fighting force

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:20 AM
Well I beat the greeks on my Rome campaign in like 20 turns easy! But once the mongles come around things got really tough. I had to stay in Antioch for almost ten years before I could finally push them out of Jerusalem.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by ShadowXIX

the problem with the spartans is that they weren't any good at attack. They were best at defending.

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:17 AM
my vote would probably have to go to the jatt sikh empire of maharaja ranjit singh. jatt sikhs btw are descendants of indo-scythians. only non-muslim empire in the history of the world to rule over the muslim waziri and mehsud pashtuns around the peshawar area. british soldiers referred to the Wazirs as wolves, and the Mehsuds as panthers of the mountains. these are the same dudes who have been causing the americans so much trouble and have recently gained de facto independence from the pakistani regime. these pashtuns residing in the pakistani tribal areas are especially a thorny quarelsome lot.

also IMO, the greatest general to ever live would probably be Hari Singh Nalwa. quote from british newspaper about great generals of history..

"Some people might think that Napoleon was a great General. Some might name Marshall Hendenburgh, Lord Kitchener, General Karobzey or Duke of Wellington etc. And some going further might say Halaku Khan, Genghis Khan, Changez Khan, Richard or Allaudin etc. But let me tell you that in the North of India a General of the name of Hari Singh Nalwa of the Sikhs prevailed. Had he lived longer and had the sources and artillery of the British, he would have conquered most of Asia and Europe…."

that's my ethno centric point of view on the matter.

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:31 AM
In the last couple of centuries i'm gonna say it's the British.

The world would be very different without us.

I can't believe we didn't make the list, but the yanks did. LOL

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

and the Luftwaffe aces were known as the best, no allied ace
got over 70 kills, the top 30 of the entire war were Germans

Not to disagree, ok yes I am...

Those Luftwaffe aces flew until they couldn't fly anymore, anyone with any skill at all would have garnered incredible kill numbers if they all flew that way.

The allies, particularly the Americans, had a limited number of missions before they were pulled out of combat for rest, and to return home to train others. There's the key. Returning home to train new one's. The Japanese didn't do this, nor did the Germans. It's great to have a skilled and competant pilot, and no mistake, those German aces were all that and more. You've got one, but I've got a squadron full of pilots just as skilled led by pilots just as skilled and experianced. Tell me who's going to win in the long run?

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in