History's Greatest Army?

[Remius]

Not sure what all the criteria would be.

I would say Alexander the Great's Macedonians.  They had superb leadership, conquered the known world in 10 years and spread Western ideals and philosophy across the globe.  They were adaptable to change and able to face foes several time their numbers.

Any takers?

 

[ghyslyn]

the mongolians

everyone always refers to them as "a barbaric horde"

but once you think about it, against the romans they were almost always outnumbered, they were utterly nomadic so really it wasnt an army representing a nation, but just a group of people called an army, moving cities. not to mention their technology was way before their time, especially for their bows.

now when youre ordering a couple of thousand foot soldiers, who have a shield, a short sword and 2 javelins each, what are you going to do against an army of enemy mounted archers?

nothing

perfect example of this is crassus' infantry against parthian mounted archers at the battle of Carrhae, if you dont know the result, lets just say, major parthian victory, crassus was captured and to kill him they poured melted gold down his throat as a sign that roman greed will never reach parthian riches

 

[timma]

I would have to say the German army in WW2. Their blitzkrieg tactics were revolutionary, they had highly trained Infantry , and they had IMHO some of the best tanks in WW2. Ex Panther, Tiger tanks. Normandy, for example,  saw the Allies with an overwhelming superiority in  everything yet the Germans still fought on and inflicted heavy casualties against  the Allied armies. Their only downfall  was Hitler and later in the war, his unwillingness to yield an inch of ground and being mistrustful of his High command.

 

[infanteer-it]

Well you're gonna have to specify 'some' criteria heh otherwise it is entirely subjective. Fighting ability? Land conquered? Strategies? Definetely the Macedonians are up there. Pound for pound the Spartans were the best fighters. Then you have the superb organization and tactics that were the Roman army which allowed them to retain most of the land they conquered unlike Alexander who frequently lost many of his conquests not long after taking them.

I'm going to go with Spartans, just because I wish someone had groomed me to be a warrior from a young age. Hah!

Edit: I assumed "History's Greatest Army" meant ancient history.

 

[ghyslyn]

I would have to say the German army in WW2. Their blitzkrieg tactics were revolutionary, they had highly trained Infantry , and they had IMHO some of the best tanks in WW2. Ex Panther, Tiger tanks. Normandy, for example,  saw the Allies with an overwhelming superiority in  everything yet the Germans still fought on and inflicted heavy casualties against  the Allied armies. Their only downfall  was Hitler and later in the war, his unwillingness to yield an inch of ground and being mistrustful of his High command.

2 things, 1: the blitzkrieg tactic was revolutionary, but not their tactic, they didnt invent it, they just adopted it, and 2: at the beginning of the war France actually had the best tanks, and the most tanks, but they didnt use them properly(comparing the german blitzkrieg use of tanks to the french maginot line of tanks, keeping a tank in one, obvious position for defence isnt an effective use of its power)

 

[timma]

Do you know who actually invented the Blitzkrieg tactic?

 

[ghyslyn]

Do you know who actually invented the Blitzkrieg tactic?

I don't, but if I remember well it was used during the spanish civil war.

 

[Remius]

Well you're gonna have to specify 'some' criteria heh otherwise it is entirely subjective. Fighting ability? Land conquered? Strategies? Definetely the Macedonians are up there. Pound for pound the Spartans were the best fighters. Then you have the superb organization and tactics that were the Roman army which allowed them to retain most of the land they conquered unlike Alexander who frequently lost many of his conquests not long after taking them.

I'm going to go with Spartans, just because I wish someone had groomed me to be a warrior from a young age. Hah!

Edit: I assumed "History's Greatest Army" meant ancient history.

I would say the Spartans may have been History's finest warriors but as far as armies go they we'rent that hot.  They were very good on their home turf but beyond that they were not.  The Thebans I believe manhandled them with newer tactics, the Spartans being very inflexible beyond their traditional way of fighting.

 

[TCBF]

- Man for man, possibly the Army of The Confederate States of America.

 

[ghyslyn]

I would say the Spartans may have been History's finest warriors but as far as armies go they we'rent that hot.  They were very good on their home turf but beyond that they were not.  The Thebans I believe manhandled them with newer tactics, the Spartans being very inflexible beyond their traditional way of fighting.

Sometimes the traditional way is the best way, if you ask me I find the phalanx to be the most effective tactic until the late medieval era

 

[Danjanou]

Ok if we’re going to do this ( and I personally hate these cyber Johnson measuring contests) lets set some criteria.

First should be period in history, otherwise comparing the Panzer Mk VG  Panther to a Hoplite is just going to get silly.

At the very least lets divide historical aspects into 3 distinct areas

1-Modern say post industrial revolution to present, (and one could easily argue splitting this again into up until mid 1930’s and after)

2- Introduction of gunpowder weapons say mid 1th-14th century up until the end of the Napoleonic Wars

3- Ancient- Herodutus up until and including  the end of the Crusades.

These are as noted very general  but at least give us a place to start.

Second offer examples of why, weaponry and/or innovative use  of ( English long bow fro example). A specific effective tactic ( British development of platoon volley fire in the 1700s).

Third lets keep it civil and relatively on topic.

 

[Remius]

the mongolians

everyone always refers to them as "a barbaric horde"

but once you think about it, against the romans they were almost always outnumbered, they were utterly nomadic so really it wasnt an army representing a nation, but just a group of people called an army, moving cities. not to mention their technology was way before their time, especially for their bows.

now when youre ordering a couple of thousand foot soldiers, who have a shield, a short sword and 2 javelins each, what are you going to do against an army of enemy mounted archers?

nothing

perfect example of this is crassus' infantry against parthian mounted archers at the battle of Carrhae, if you dont know the result, lets just say, major parthian victory, crassus was captured and to kill him they poured melted gold down his throat as a sign that roman greed will never reach parthian riches

Were you talking about the Huns or the Mongols?  Although effective the Huns were defeated in the end by the Romans and didn't last very long after.  The Mongols certainly rank up there (they never really faced teh Romans as they appeared some 500-600 years after Rome fell), I had overlooked them.

You talk about Crassus and the Parthians, one battle.  The Romans had difficulty with them for sure but the Parthians had just as much trouble with the Roman provinces they tried to conquer.  Also Trajan and Severus (who probably dealt the death blow to the Parthians) had great success against the Parthians.  the Romans were eventually able to adapt whereas the parthians couldn't.  

 

[Remius]

- Man for man, possibly the Army of The Confederate States of America.

Good call on that one as well.  Imagine had they been better equipped and financed...

 

[Remius]

Sometimes the traditional way is the best way, if you ask me I find the phalanx to be the most effective tactic until the late medieval era

Not really.  The Romans steamrolled over the greeks. By that time the Greeks were using Philipps Macedonian Phalanx formation (the most effective of its kind).  The Spartans began their decline at the Battle of Leuctra (an interesting battle that highlights the Spartan's weakness) at the hands of the Thebans.  They were never able to recover.  Philipp's Macedonian Phallanx was introduced after and was very dominant until the Romans tactics and formations smashed it. 

 

[Remius]

Ok if we’re going to do this ( and I personally hate these cyber Johnson measuring contests) lets set some criteria.

First should be period in history, otherwise comparing the Panzer Mk VG  Panther to a Hoplite is just going to get silly.

At the very least lets divide historical aspects into 3 distinct areas

1-Modern say post industrial revolution to present, (and one could easily argue splitting this again into up until mid 1930’s and after)

2- Introduction of gunpowder weapons say mid 1th-14th century up until the end of the Napoleonic Wars

3- Ancient- Herodutus up until and including  the end of the Crusades.

These are as noted very general  but at least give us a place to start.

Second offer examples of why, weaponry and/or innovative use  of ( English long bow fro example). A specific effective tactic ( British development of platoon volley fire in the 1700s).

Third lets keep it civil and relatively on topic.

Ok, sets a few parameters.

1.  Modern- Pre-1930's I would go with the Confederate army.  Post- The current US military machine.

2.  Intro to gunpowder  era 11th to 1400ad- I'd say Edward III's English army.  Proffesionalised, adaptable and effective.

3.  Ancient- Alexander's macedonians followed closely by the Roman Army pattern after Marius' reforms.

 

[OldSolduer]

I've noticed that no one has mentioned the Canadian Army of WWII. Do they not deserve an honorable mention at least?
My reasons:
1. They did not fight to conquer, but to liberate;
2. Canada was one of three countries to have their own "Beach" (JUNO) on D-Day and if I am correct, if Juno beach hadn't been taken D-Day may have failed;
3. The fought against the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS, and were ultimately victorius. The Canadian Army was allegely praised by Rommel.....can anyone confirm this?

Just the thoughts of a Canadian soldier....

 

[Old Sweat]

This is a very subjective matter with no one correct answer, in my opinion at least. It seems to me that one of the key criteria would be the enemy the army fought. Other factors could include the exploitation of the available technology, the quality of the national and military command structure and the ability of the candidate army to maintain and sustain itself.

And to add a different flavour to this, both the Incas and the Aztecs deserve serious consideration, as does Shaka's  nineteenth century Zulu army.

 

[ballz]

I have very limited knowledge in this stuff, so here's the impression your everyday high school is put under, with absolutely nothing to really back it up:

1. Modern Era, the US army is almost unstoppable based on the fact that they have all the latest technology and a whole load of it. When it comes down to quantity, the US leads in everything. That'll happen when you spend 3 trillion dollars on it.
2. The Gunpowder Era, to me, I think Napolean's French army. Other then a bad break with the weather and one bad decision, this army could have won any battle.
3. The Romans.... you don't rule the world for 400-800 years for nothing...

My insight isn't anything to value much, but I just wanna throw out my 2 cents worth


As for recognizing the Canadian Army.... I'm sure we've all read the article by a Brit about how we're the perpetual wallflower. It's 100% true, and while I believe we are the best trained army, and pound for pound I like our chances with anybody, we just don't have the money flowing into our military to go and take over any country at will like the US. That being said, I don't think we'd be an easy country to take over, so thats comforting.

 

[KJL]

Other then a bad break with the weather and one bad decision.....


As for recognizing the Canadian Army.... I'm sure we've all read the article by a Brit about how we're the perpetual wallflower. It's 100% true, and while I believe we are the best trained army, and pound for pound I like our chances with anybody, we just don't have the money flowing into our military to go and take over any country at will like the US. That being said, I don't think we'd be an easy country to take over, so thats comforting.

Haha thats a nice way of putting it!

Does anyone know where this article is? Haven't heard and Id be curious to read it

 

[Danjanou]

If we're going to look at our own, I'd put my tuppence on the Cdn Corp in WW1 post Vimy. Perhaps the best large unit on the Western Front.

OS I was wondering when someone would take off the Eurocentric blinders. I Agree Shaka's reforms are well worth a mention on our list. He took what was basically a weak small tribal organization and in the psace of a generation transformed it into one of the best examples of a completely militarized society, and magnificent and deadly fighting force.