Strongest army of the mid 1700's?

[GH@Z!]

What was the army, given its numbers, logistics, commanders, discipline and technoloagy could probably beat any other army in open battle around the 1750's?

[Owen Glyndwr]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that essentially what the 7 years' war proved?

[Sheogorath]

In a one-on-one situation, probably a tie between the great powers of the era.

Since none of them ever managed to overcome any of the others (until WWI, at least), it can honestly be said that there was no 'strongest' nation. Simply ones in advantageous political positions. That is, essentially, the only way any of the stronger European nations could overcome each other, by teaming up.

Or, in Napoleons case, taking over everybody smaller than himself first.

[Megas Methuselah]

Napoleon was smart. But yeah, this is what I like to call the "balance of powers." Notice the word "balance." :smile:

[Sir Beane]

The balance of power was self regulating. If one faction became significantly stronger than the rest, then the other great powers banded together and went to war. This happened to France several times.

All the talk about balance aside France probably had the overall strongest land army. But only just. And we have to remember, stregth isn't everything. Situation counts for a lot.

[Incongruous]

It fluctuated, alot, at the opening of the century France held the title, this was soon taken away after the failure of The Sun Kings bid to impose his hegemony on Europe, in The War of Spanish Succesion. This was not however so much a case of a degrading process (which occured rapidly in Napoleon's forces) but simply because their oponents, the Austrian, Dutch and British armies had come up to par tactically and surpassed them strategically, more importantly they had proven as much.

Even after the Seven Years War, one can still not make the distinction, what that war did prove was that Britain had the strongest navy and the strongest political system.
Contrary to what is popular, I also disregard the notion that Napoleon commanded the greatest armies, the Russians and the Austrians were easily comparable if not better fighters, including the remarkable Arch-Duke Charles.

The British also showed themsleves to be in command of a very strong army during the Peninsular war, Wellington enabled this through his careful planning and caution, something which kept his army experienced. Whereas by the end of the wars Napoleon, was in command of sub par recruits due to his hubris and poor understanding of what it was to wage war in Europe.

So I would say that with the exception of the early years, the 18th century will be hard won to judge in this competition. It would be easier if you asked us to judge the effectiveness of the armies.

[CBR]

For the mid 1700's when looking at overall quality and leadership it would have to be the Prussian army. But the Austrian army could later on deal out a few nasty surprises so one cannot say that the Prussian army was invincible.


CBR

[Nelson]

I agree, CBR. In the mid 18th century there is really no contest. It's the Prussians hands down. By the 1750s their command, infantry and cavalry were second to none.

[Sol Invictus]

I don't think there is much doubt that in the 1750s Prussia had the strongest Army. They certainly weren't invincible but all things being equal my money would be on them.

[disamen]

sweden had the strongest army in the start of the 1700.

[pyradyn]

I agree 1750 prussia's army was the strongest. They could probly beat any european army in a 1 v 1 match but jusy beacause they had the strongest armies did not make them the strongest nation as sad as it is to say my self being prussian. Prussia lacked the resources that other nations like england and france had to fuel a long campain and would lose in open war with england after they had many victories on the feild could only march so far before supply lines would be stretched to thin. Fredrick the great states this in his letters to his genrals many times.

[Pinxit]

sweden had the strongest army in the start of the 1700.

Nah. I seriously doubt that. Im quite sure the Swedes could match many armies in Europe, as proven during the Great Northern War. But I was under the impression we (I am a Swede) couldnt match the really big ones, like France or Great Brittain. On the other hand, we beat the Russian army a couple of times, and that one was rather large.

But I guess it helps having one of the greatest military minds of all time in command :P

[GH@Z!]

No one thinks the Ottomans?

[ConnMon]

No one thinks the Ottomans?

Ottomans were good to a certain point, but were outdated. Not to discredit them, for they kicked many armies back home. They might be able to sweep the world if they were to *cough* rediscover cannon-mountain elephants. *cough* Or something like that :laugh4:

[Sheogorath]

No one thinks the Ottomans?

The Ottoman Empire was past its prime by this point. The Janissary's essentially ran the government and changed out sultans at will. And every sultan had to give them a pay raise by tradition.
You can well imagine, at the rate they Ottomans went through sultans, how high their wages became.

The Ottomans experienced a brief, very brief, revival after the Napoleonic Wars, followed by an utter and irreversible collapse.

Which is really too bad, because the Ottomans were really the only ones to effectively control the Middle East, and a good deal of the areas current problems can be traced to the Anglo-French divvying up of the spot post WWI.

[Polemists]

so as Sir Beane is taking a break, I must find more threads :)

Well I think England is probably the winner so to speak, though each had better in differrent circumstances.

Make no mistake the Ottomans, probably next to Russia are the largest army numerically but ever since the Seige of Malta and Seige of Constantinople there has been no unified muslim front, which was the Ottomans strong point (and christian mercanries).

As time goes on they become more divided along class lines and out teched by nearly everyone. Even in WW1 there contributions hardly compare to that of other major nations.

This is the beginning of the end for the Ottoman Empire really.

Which would be clearly shown......if we had......a demo (see......i'm good :) )

[Sheogorath]

I don't think you could really say the English army was their main strength...operating out of conjunction with their navy, the English army was comparatively small and would hardly have been adequate of the English navy wasn't so godawful huge.
I seem to recall that the League of Armed Neutrality, with something like a total of seven nations (Including Prussia, Russia and the Ottoman Empire) all together couldn't match the English navy for numbers.

I, personally, doubt the long-term capability of the English army. Much like the Swedes, in a protracted conflict they would have had difficulty supporting the army. Considering the fairly small population of the UK (10,000,000 in 1800, compared to Russia's 35,000,000 and France's 29,000,000). While certainly better than Sweden (~2.3 million), the UK simply doesn't have the population to hold out in a long term, one on one, fight. Other relatively low-population countries experience the same problem. There's only so many men between the ages of 16 and 45.

Which is why the British government generally, quite wisely, almost always attempted to organize an alliance to support themselves. And then committed their army only to select areas.

It is true, of course, that other, larger nations (IE: Russia) frequently experienced monetary and supply issues, but, compared to a loss of manpower, those are less important when fighting a really desperate war.

Much of the Russian resistance against Napoleon was accomplished by the Russian peasantry. As I recall, the Russian Orthodox Church declared him to be the anti-christ and, essentially, called a jihad on him. The Russian serfs responded nicely.

There are some rather unpleasant tales of what would happen to French soldiers who were captured or caught alone by peasants.

[Sir Beane]

Since the OP of this thread has been instagibbed and the thread itself isn't really discussing the game I think we can safely move it over to the Monastery.

It will be happy in it's new home, free to roam amongst its fellow historical discussions in its natural habitat. :2thumbsup:

[Kralizec]

Considering the fairly small population of the UK (10,000,000 in 1800, compared to Russia's 35,000,000 and France's 29,000,000).

Wow...either the UK was seriously underpopulated at that time, or France very densely.
:dizzy2:

[CBR]

Wow...either the UK was seriously underpopulated at that time, or France very densely.
:dizzy2:

The census of 1801 showed a combined population of 10.5 million for England, Wales and Scotland and then one can add an estimated 5.5 million from Ireland. So total it would be 16 million.


CBR

[Sheogorath]

The census of 1801 showed a combined population of 10.5 million for England, Wales and Scotland and then one can add an estimated 5.5 million from Ireland. So total it would be 16 million.


CBR

But, at the time period, I dont believe England could count Ireland as part of its population for military purposes, given that it was pretty much in constant rebellion :P

I should also note that the numbers from Russia are for European Russia only. It's difficult to get a census of Siberia :tongueg:

[CBR]

I have seen numbers of Irish in Wellington's army to be anywhere between 30 to 40% of his total army.


CBR

[Incongruous]

I have seen numbers of Irish in Wellington's army to be anywhere between 30 to 40% of his total army.


CBR

Indeed and then we are only talking about the units raised on the mainland, i.e Great Britain, they were excellent soldiers and without them Wellington would have had a harder time of it. It is to the shame of HM Govt. that they were treated so poorly, though Wellington tried his best to make it easier for them later on in his political career.

I would again stress that "strongest" is too broad and general a term to be properly explained in terms of mid 18th cen. armies. Though I could venture that out of the major European powers, France possesed the poorest of armies during the Seven Years War, it was an embarressment. The Austrians had the most advanced army structure imo, the Croates and Pandours, commonly termed Grenzers, were the most effective infantry on display in Europe at the time. They caused havok amongst the Prussian lines in hilly and woody Bohemia and Selesia. Why Frederick did not adopt a similar system of light infantry deployment, I do not quite understand. Though to be sure the Austrians had a helping hand in the fact that these Grenzers were easily recriutable from the rugged and war torn mountains of the Balkans.

However Austrian leadership was not up to scratch, often resulting in an inability to manouvre properly to form an attack, this is something of constant fault in the Imperial Austrian army throughout the 18th & 19th centuries. Though this was not altogether disastrous, it meant that the Austrians preffered the defensive and they, like the Russians, were very good at it. This allowed Austrian deployment to make full use of the Grenzers and the well drilled rugular infantry. It was the bravery and training of the normal private that gave Austria her glory.

The Prussians I believe had the most effective army, during the Seven Years War Prussia was fighting for political survival, Frederick was going to have to fight a three front war, his army would have to march quick and fight hard. A combination of supreme Prussian drill, bravery and Frederick's millitary genius ensured that all attempts to destroy the King ended in failure. Although Prussia gained no land at the close of the war, she had kept hold of Selesia, survived and her army had ensured her place as a great power.

[Strike For The South]

The United States of America

[Incongruous]

The United States of America

Yes, that is where you live...

[Strike For The South]

Yes, that is where you live...

Not only did we take on the French and Indians by ourselves. After those uppity Englishmen decided to tax us for winning the war for them, we decided to beat them to. My Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great Granpappy was a private in the French and Injun war and a Lieutenant in the Revolution. He's told me stories.

[Incongruous]

Not only did we take on the French and Indians by ourselves. After those uppity Englishmen decided to tax us for winning the war for them, we decided to beat them to. My Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great Granpappy was a private in the French and Injun war and a Lieutenant in the Revolution. He's told me stories.

:2thumbsup:

I shall now go and reform my knowledge by reading the Burger King History of the world.

[KrooK]

Prussian on Russian army.
GB had strong regiments too - but Russia and Prussia had simply bigger armies with equal unit strenght.

[KrooK]

The United States of America
Stop joking. In the mid of XVIIIth century you:
1. Were not a country.
2. Had no army.
3. Had some local militias with low military value.
4. You won with France because GB already fought with France (one of conflict of 7 years war) and most of French units were into Europe or could not be delivered to America due to Royal Navy.
5. Commanders of that militias were generally very low qualified (what was happening with "American army" before you hire European officers?).


You g......... daddy told you stories? What were you smoking m8?

[King Jan III Sobieski]

What was the army, given its numbers, logistics, commanders, discipline and technoloagy could probably beat any other army in open battle around the 1750's?

Oooh, somebody got instagibbed? Who, who, who?