The world's best military ever

I would also agree with the Roman army, at their prime. Unprecedented in it's day. Discplined, well trained and motivated. Well coordianted attacks using skirmishers, infantry, calvary, and the most advanced artillery of their day. They conquered Gaul, Brittannia ( to the Hadrian Wall), Germany to the Rhein, Illycrium, Macedonia and Thrace, Asia Minor, North Africa, and the Middle East to the Euphrates, which they felt was their natural border. Internal strife, a lack of effective leadership, and basically, greed, is what brought about their downfall.

The Mongols were a horde, not an army. They had no orchestrated attacks; no battle plans. So I would not consider them one of the best armies.

The Huns were also a horde, not an army. Atilla was trained by the Romans in warfare, by the way.

And the arguement abnout Germany is true. They have never been, to put it bluntly, taken over, until WWII. Their tenacity was renown through the old world. That's why the Romans dropped the issue, after the disaster at Teutonburg Forest.

Yes, the Vikings held northern Germany. But that's it. I would not call this little excursion a defeat of the Germans, as the Vikings were also Germanic.They did not venture fursther into Germany, because they would be met by people just as barbaric and bloodthirsty as they were.

Originally posted by nathraq
The Mongols were a horde, not an army. They had no orchestrated attacks; no battle plans. So I would not consider them one of the best armies.

That is absolute fallacy, the mongols "horde" was a tactic initself, psychological!
So your very statement that the mongol "horde" was not based on any tactics is absurd.
Also how could an army however bloodthristy and vicious be able to take on such a multitude and variety of well trained armies of its time, if they didnt have any strategy?
It is general misconception that the mongols were some barbaric nomads who only raped and pludered, which was very often but not always, their other administrative concepts, military doctrin and political and diplomatics principles also need to be understood to make any such generalization.
The very fact that they were able to pass the great wall of china and take out the chinese is a testement of their military genius, especially of Gengiz Khan. Their is no doubt about this I feel, that in his time the Great khan would have brought even the Romans or the Macedonians to their knees.

Originally posted by IAF101
That is absolute fallacy, the mongols "horde" was a tactic initself, psychological!
So your very statement that the mongol "horde" was not based on any tactics is absurd.

No, they were a horde, plain and simple. The only psychologiacal warfare the waged was, that if a town or city did not capitulate to them, every man, woman and child would be slain, letting a few go to tell the tales of rapine, pillage and murder. Their tactics like the 'hunt' and the 'nerge' were simplistic. They never included the use of artillery, siege engines, and a mix of skirmeshers and infantry. They would rain arrows down upon the army they faced. That's it. They were brutal; they conquered half of the known world; Chingis was a genius in uniting the tribes. But that is where it stopped. Alexander's men got tired after marching from Macedonia to India. They lost heart. The infantry of the Mongol Horde wasn't what was feared. It was the Horseman-Archers that wrought the havoc.

So, as far as battle tactics go; where to place your army; your infantry, calvary and such; where to hold your lines the strongest, when to send in reserves, when to call a rout, or retreat; the Mongols would not be the best army in history.
I still hold my opinion.

Originally posted by AtheiX
The books say that that was said about the empire of the Habsburgs, not about the British colonial empire.

Obviously Athe that isn't a book you are reading. A TV listings Guide perhaps?

I'm only pointing out facts - facts that the British military lost many wars, that it is not the world's best military ever, and that it is not better than the German military.

Ok, granted, Britain has had its share of losses. But if you have such a fixation on telling the facts (which, by the way, a large portion of them aren't when it comes to you and the British), then you should not be so selective when comparing them to the Germans. This selective amnesia and/or retelling of important facts is why I am convinced Athe that you are little more than an ultranationalist with an axe to grind.

It's not worth debating with you, Daystar. You cannot admit the plain fact that you Britishmen don't have a glorious military history.

Well, lets take a close look at that.

1: You say debating. You aren't actually debating Athe; you are using this thread to slag off the British simply because you do not like the British.

2:No Athe, you are totally right for once. I cannot, and indeed, will not admit that the British do not have a great military history. I have however been man enough to admit we messed up on quite a few occasions. Whereas you are just conveniently forgetting details in Germany's military history to make yourself feel superior.

3: If there is no point debating, why do you keep coming back for more?

You have defeated us only once - during WWI. And that was the only time you ever defeated us. And you didn't defeat us alone.

Errrrr...... ooookaaayyyy...... so we just sat around during WW2 right?

In WWII, you were saved by Uncle Sam from behind the ocean, and you also received financial help from him after the war. (The Russian military contribution should also be remembered.)

OK.... that's it.... please stop..... I am laughing too hard now.

So the United States joining the war gave the Allies the edge over the Axis. But Athe without us holding the Nazis off in the first place BY OURSELVES, the Allies would not have had a better base from which to defeat Hitler's Germany from.

As for the Soviet Union that is your own fault.

Originally posted by Daystar
I cannot, and indeed, will not admit that the British do not have a great military history.

You Britishmen don't - that is a FACT. You have been conquered by the Romans (England was), taken over by the Danishmen TWICE (I don't know if by war or without combat), conquered by the Normans in 1066, defeated by France in three wars (war in 1214, the Hundred Years War and the French Revolution war) and twice surrendered to someone else's authority without combat (once to the German Emperor and once to the Pope). Given that fact, it's not possible to say that you Britishmen have a glorious military history.

Originally posted by Daystar
Whereas you are just conveniently forgetting details in Germany's military history to make yourself feel superior.

No, I'm not. I have admitted Germany's losses. But there were not many - that is a FACT.

Originally posted by Daystar
As for the Soviet Union that is your own fault.

No. That was because the USSR received help from the US and because of the winter.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 19-7-2005 by AtheiX]

actually germany has lost pretty close to every war that it has been in since it's unification into one nation. Which btw for how much crap america takes for being a young nation germany as a unified single nation is almost a 100 years younger. And 50 years of that was spent with it once again divided into two nations.

Well IMO, the greatest military in the modern era was the German military in WW2 with particular emphasis on the Waffen SS. As far as I know, no other military has conquered the masses of people the Germans did. Even to the end of the war their tactical ability was still by far the best. Come to think of it I don't think any other military ever has had to take on what the Germans did.

Everyone can talk about the mongols, Romans etc - but the world population back then was only a few hundred million at most. There was a,ot of empty land between villages ( not even worth calling cities ).

I think Greeks were on ancient times best military ever, their whole lifestyle was based on military training and tactics, hopolites at their time served multipurpose role for example, if they didnt have numbers they had high standars and were at their time and area superior, only problem was that they were split to tribes / factions and fought against each other a lot, instead of using that force to outworld conquer more effient.

Mongolian horde was barbaric at its time, but so was the world in general also, life spawn was very short. And even if saying Mongolians didnt have much of tactics at least they had effective ones if not so complicated. Using biological weapons at that time, poisoning wells and all that were Mongolian expertise, not to mention their superior cavalry and nomad lifestyle that allowed em to move much longer distances than most armys at its time. How can heavy armors and shields save you from enemy that moves faster and is able to strike you from distance? Even if you siege yourself they have tactics to take you out, i really wouldnt go call that weak.

Originally posted by AtheiX
But Prussia in the end ruled all of Germany.

Irrelevant. England in the end ruled all of Britain, it does not make England Britain. England cannot claim the victories of Robert the Bruce, those are Scottish.

Not true. Rommel won.

No Athe, Rommel was defeated at Tobruk by the Australians. His siege of Tobruk was successful only after the Diggers defending the city were pulled out and sent to Papua New Guinea to defend Australia from the Japanese. It was Germany's first defeat in battle on land in WW2. The same as Milne Bay in PNG was Japan's first defeat on land in WW2, again by the Australians. Fact.

Not true. The world's biggest empire was the Mongolian empire, as I already said.

Already dealt with.

That was said about the empire of the Habsburgs, not about the British colonial empire.

Also already dealt with. To wit: How can the sun never set on the Hapsburg empire? It was in continental Europe only, it was the size of New South Wales! The sun sets on New South Wales every day.

It's pointless to debate with you. You cannot admit being wrong. Thus I'm not going to debate with you.

You're not debating, you're displaying your ignorance.

Regarding wars Germany lost, Germany lost only 4 wars

As stated before: GERMANY has only fought two wars and lost them both. GERMANY has existed for a little over 100 years and GERMANY spent nearly fifty of those years divided into two nations. GERMANY was partitioned after WW1 to create the Polish Corridor to Danzig, sorry I mean Gdansk, and occupied after WW2. That's some glory to be celebrating.

As recently as 130 years ago Napoleon III was losing the Franco-Prussian war to...PRUSSIA, under the leadership of the iron chancellor. As such you cannot claim that they are German victories. And anything that happened 2,000 years ago is only proto-Germanic tribesmen. Just as the French cannot claim the victories of Asterix the Gaul to be French!

There was no such thing as France and no concept of being French. They had to go through being Franks first.

And all you Britons, get it through your thick skulls.
1) You don't have a glorious military history.
2) You are in no way better the German military, so stop thinking about fighting us, because you would get beaten.

Like you beat the Britons last time? and the time before that?

Name a war Britain lost in the 20th century.

Since the Amercian revolution name a war in which Britain has lost territory.

Since 1066 no-one has conquered England or Britain. Name the last time a non-British invasion of Britain took place.

And get it through YOUR thick skull; I am NOT British.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Irrelevant. England in the end ruled all of Britain, it does not make England Britain. England cannot claim the victories of Robert the Bruce, those are Scottish.

No, it's not irrelevant. I didn't say that Prussia can claim victories of e.g. Bavaria.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Not true. The world's biggest empire was the Mongolian empire, as I already said.

Already dealt with.

No, it's not. It is a FACT that it was the Mongolian empire that was the world's biggest empire. Get it through your thick skulls.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

That was said about the empire of the Habsburgs, not about the British colonial empire.

Also already dealt with. To wit: How can the sun never set on the Hapsburg empire? It was in continental Europe only, it was the size of New South Wales! The sun sets on New South Wales every day.

No, it's not dealt with. The Habsburg empire consisted of not only Germany (which was under Habsburg control), but also Belgium and Spain (along with all its overseas possessions). Get it through your thick skulls.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You're not debating, you're displaying your ignorance.

It is YOU who is displaying your ignorance. You have no clue about what you're talking about.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
As stated before: GERMANY has only fought two wars and lost them both. GERMANY has existed for a little over 100 years and GERMANY spent nearly fifty of those years divided into two nations.

NOT TRUTH. Germany has existed since 911 (that was when Henry Prince of Saxony was elected the first king of Germany). Since 1555, Germany was a loose federation of numerous states, but was always a federation. The First Reich, the Rhein Union, the German Union, the North-German Union and the Second Reich were the names of those federations until 1918.
I repeat, Germany has existed since 911.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
GERMANY was partitioned after WW1 to create the Polish Corridor to Danzig, sorry I mean Gdansk, and occupied after WW2. That's some glory to be celebrating.

England has been conquered by the Romans, taken ove twice by the Danish, conquered by the Normans. Also, Richard the Lionheart became a vasal of the German emperor (and payed him a big ransom) and John became a vasal of the Pope. That's not glorious.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Like you beat the Britons last time? and the time before that?

Stop thinking about fighting us, no matter where do you come from. Without the help of the US you have no chance.

If you enter via sea, you have to deal with German air force and the German navy – which is a good navy. The German navy would sink your entire navy before you would even make it to the coast. If you would enter via land, you would have to deal the German land forces (including armored forces). They would beat you before you would even make it to the first major city.

You have a bigger chance to win in a lottery.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Since 1066 no-one has conquered England or Britain. Name the last time a non-British invasion of Britain took place.

Already until then England has been conquered 4 times. And later it twice considered itself dependent on rulers of other countries.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 19-7-2005 by AtheiX]

I haven't varified, but in a recent documentary I watched, they claimed that the Mongol Empire was twice the size of Romes when Genghis Khan died, it then went onto to be six times larger, when his brothers/sons(?) took over.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by Koka]

Originally posted by Koka
I haven't varified, but in a recent documentary I watched, they claimed that the Mongol Empire was twice the size of Romes when Genghis Khan died, it then went onto to be six times larger, when his brothers/sons(?) took over.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by Koka]

Yes. Genghis Khan's son Ugedey continued the conquests.
Also, Mongolia has not only conquered more territory than any nation ever, they also defeated two other countries: Poland and Hungary.

I have to go with the US military. No one else in history has been able to effectively occupy and control more places simultaneously throught the globe.

Originally posted by nathraq
No, they were a horde, plain and simple. The only psychologiacal warfare the waged was, that if a town or city did not capitulate to them, every man, woman and child would be slain, letting a few go to tell the tales of rapine, pillage and murder.

That is not true at all! The initaly Mongol army was a 'horde' but later on it was a professional army of sorts of its time.
The invasion of Japan, the invasion of IRaq and other famous invasions by the mongols is undeniably a feat of tactics, to deny that is absurd!!

Originally posted by nathraq
So, as far as battle tactics go; where to place your army; your infantry, calvary and such; where to hold your lines the strongest, when to send in reserves, when to call a rout, or retreat; the Mongols would not be the best army in history.
I still hold my opinion.

You credit the Khan for only uniting the tribes which was but a small part in his life. The true feat was the overwhelming admistrative measures he instated in his empire, which included postal services, saftey for the merchants( IT is said that in his time a merchant could carry a cart load of gold unafraid ! ), the development of the silk route, the introduction of Eastern culture to the west!
Anybody with even minimal knowledge of the Mongols and the Great Khan will know that ruthlessness was the order of the day and was expected of the stong, so it was but natural of the Khan to act ruthlessly and spare no one, that was a sign of power in those days. Also the mongols fought with the remanants of the many great empires of the day.
Your assumtion of the Khan as some barbaric horseman cannot be further from the truth, here is what wikipedia has to say about his army, check out the administration and the trade aspects of his empire.
Here:

All military campaigns were preceded by careful planning, reconnaissance and gathering of sensitive information relating to the enemy territories and forces. The success, organization and mobility of the Mongol armies let them fight on several fronts at once. All males who were aged from 15 to 60 and were capable of undergoing rigorous training were eligible for conscription into the army.
Unlike other mobile fighters such as the Huns or the Vikings, the Mongols were very comfortable in the art of the siege. They were very careful to recruit artisans from the cities they plundered, and along with a group of experienced Chinese engineers, they were expert in building the trebuchet and other siege machines. These were mostly built on the spot using nearby trees.
In addition to siege engineering, the Mongols were also adept at river-work, crossing the river Sajo in spring flood conditions with thirty thousand cavalry during one night during the battle of Mohi (April, 1241), defeating the Hungarian king Bela IV. Similarly, in the attack against the Khwarezmshah, a flotilla of barges were used to prevent escape on the river.

Wikipedia-link

Originally posted by IAF101
[The invasion of Japan, the invasion of IRaq and other famous invasions by the mongols is undeniably a feat of tactics, to deny that is absurd!!
[

They Mongols never invaded Japan. Their ships were sunk before they got there.

Originally posted by mpeake
I have to go with the US military. No one else in history has been able to effectively occupy and control more places simultaneously throught the globe.

Umm what Iraq and Afghanistan ? LMAO. The Germans held Europe for 4 years against overwhelming odds. They occupied far more countries than thenUS ever did.

in the early years of ww2. the germans actually had more troops/or equal to russian forces.

the russians were fielding BT-7s and T-26 tanks. hardly modern by then. the german airforce had superioty

Yup.. unchallenged the Germans/Japs would've spread far and wide..

Originally posted by chinawhite
in the early years of ww2. the germans actually had more troops/or equal to russian forces.

The Germans never had more troops than the Russians. That's why Barbarossa was doomed to fail from the beginning. The Soviets had more divisions in reserve in the far east than Germany could field total.

And Athiex...Name one successful non-British invasion of Britain since 1066(note the date carefully). You can't. Name a war which Germany has won since the union of the kingdom of Bavaria with Prussia. You can't. And all that stuff about the occupation and partition of Germany happened within the last 80 years. In living memory. Not 2,000 years ago.

There's a reason the victories at Crecy and Agincourt are called English and not British.

Just as Frederick's victories are called Prussian, not German. The people involved may be German, but they are not the victories of Germany. A loose confederation does not make a nation. Ask the Balkan states circa 1890. If you look into your history a little closer you will find that certain Electors and Princes were unprepared to take oaths of allegiance to a foreign Kaiser.

How many possessions did the Hapsburgs have in the Americas? How many in Oceania? How many in Asia? The reason "the sun never set on the British Empire" is because no matter where in the world daylight was at that point, the sun shone on British possessions, dominions and colonies.

Ahh, the Kreigsmarine and Luftwaffe...How many oceans can the Federal German Navy deploy ships into at any one time? How many aircraft carriers does it own? How many jets does the Luftwaffe fly that were not co-designed by the British and are also flown by the RAF? How much combat experience has the Bundeswehr had in the last 50 years?

In World War Two, had Japan not entered the war the British Empire could have defeated Germany alone. With unassailable factories in Canada and Australia, troops from Canada, Australia, India (inc. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Rhodesia, New Zealand, pilots from all those places, ships from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. Not to mention the volunteers escaping from occupied Europe to fight against the Germans. The top-scoring ace during the Battle of Britain was Josef Frantisek, a Czech flying with a Polish squadron. Most of the Norwegian mercantile marine escaped to Britain in their ships, which were promptly put to work shifting supplies across the Atlantic.

The defeat at El Alamein, the first defeat from which the Germans did not then recover, was a solely Commonwealth affair, no Americans involved.

The Battle of the Atlantic, which broke the Kriegsmarine, was a solely British affair.

The Battle of the River Plate, in which the Admiral Graf Spee was pursued to her death, the first battle lost anywhere in the war by the Germans, was a solely Commonwealth affair, two Royal Navy ships and a Royal New Zealand Navy ship.

Hitler was doomed from the moment Alan Turing broke Enigma.

You seem less informed of the truth of the last century than the Japanese, at least they have an excuse, they're simply not taught what happened. I wonder, how old are you Atheix?

War against France (1870-1871)
Prussia defeated France. But our chancellor Otto von Bismarck has published offensive content in the newspapers so the French had no choice but to declare war on us.

Well.. Bismarck did it for good reason, the Franzmann demanded of our emperors familiy, to give up all requirements on spain for all future (as in that case they woudl be surrounded by the german emperors forces), Bismarck published it, and I would also have published it, the french demanded us to something we cant accepted, for real, asking for this was already the war declaration, the official one just happend after it was published in german newspapers.