Greatest Military Nation of All Time 2

Since so many people did not vote for any of the choices in the original poll, this is an improved one, and the results are final.

having both british and scots is not the best idea, since scots are british

germans and prussians are also one and the same, I believe

Besides the facts that Prussians were ethnically German and that they united Germany, the Prussian military system heavily influenced the German military in both world wars.

Good effort, but I cannot vote on this one either. ~;)

Mongols

Inca's.

The Prussian was at the height of its glory, the best organized, best staffed, most disciplined army in Europe. Whilst British military acheivements during the 18th and 18th centuries were quite remarkable for such a small army, I don't think the quality of the armies were quite as good as Prussia.

must not post going to be warned

Macedon/Greece

Voted Rome, thought Mongols probably equal, German/French ancestry and
American pride :dizzy2: :bigcry: .

The Greeks.

The Aborigines. I mean, c'mon, no one else in history could throw a stick, kill the enemy, and make the piece of wood return to his hand!! Must give them some credit for that. :bow:

This poll is about how efficient a nations army was and stuff like that, not the coolest way some guy can throw a stick. ~:)

Really its simple - the United States or Britian.

What other nations on that list can or could project its military power anywhere in the world where it desires to do so?

U.s.a

Quote:

---

What other nations on that list can or could project its military power anywhere in the world where it desires to do so?

---

Questions that have reliable basis are considered to be worth answering..

France, Russia, probably China...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

France,

---

~D:book: ~D :book: ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Questions that have reliable basis are considered to be worth answering..

---

LOL - that is a none answer. The poll is what is the greatest military nation. THe question of

What other nations on that list can or could project its military power anywhere in the world where it desires to do so?

fits perfectly into the question. Because it goes to address on of the issues that actually makes for a great military nation. The projection of military power anywhere that nation wishes or desires to do so.

All Military nations must project their power - in order to be defined as great.

Romans did not have zeppelins to land in China, though they may have desired to do that..

"Sticking your nose wherever you want to int the world" may be partailly a criteria of greatness, but leading all to it is just trying to prove your nation is militaristically the best. (Though you should accept that it is not..)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Romans did not have zeppelins to land in China, though they may have desired to do that..

---

The great military nations all projected power to where they wanted to. However once again you based your initial response to the question on something else now didn't you?

Quote:

---

"Sticking your nose wherever you want to int the world" may be partailly a criteria of greatness, but leading all to it is just trying to prove your nation is militaristically the best. (Though you should accept that it is not..)

---

Your bringing your politics into the equation - the statment again is simple. Not a leading one at all. One can also use Britian as an examble of a great military power based upon the fact that Britian has been projecting its military power across the globe longer then the United States. It was not until the 1940's after WW2 that the United States surpassed Britian in this regards.

What other nations on that list can or could project its military power anywhere in the world where it desires to do so?

Take a look at every great military nation that has ever been - what is the one thing that they all have in common? The answer is really simple - especially since the answer is in the question above. Power Project when and where the nation desires.

Again one can look at Rome in the same light and use that power projection based upon the world as Rome knew it to call Rome a great military power. In fact if my memory serves me correctly - that is exactly how some Historians have analysised Roman Military might.

Maybe you need to accept the simple fact that the United States has a great military might and fits within the defination of a military nation. Unless one wants to use a different criteria to develop the question.

For instance what constitutes a military nation. A nation where the percentage of population in the military is 10% or greater. A nation where the percentage of population is 5%. A nation where the percentage of population in the military is less then 1%.

The United States accomplishes its military strenght with less then 1% of its population in the military.

Should we base it upon what percent of the GNP is used to build, maintain and equip the military of the nation. Again you will find the United States one of the more efficient in that regards.

Don't let your baised opinion interfer with my rational for my baised opinion. Critize my answers in a historical context - because there are a few weakness in my rational - but if your going to take little pot shots like this little statement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

"Sticking your nose wherever you want to int the world" may be partailly a criteria of greatness, but leading all to it is just trying to prove your nation is militaristically the best. (Though you should accept that it is not..)

---

your going to have to do better then that - it show a fundmental weakness in your ability to understand military history - and your desire to just be against anything or anyone that states the United States is good or great at something.

To add to the grey (gray? greay?) areas, most of those nations haven't remained consistant militarily. At what time period(s) should we judge Rome? China? The USA?

:no:

This poll has the same flaws as the first. Creators of these types of threads must lay down the ground rules for the discussion. This requires that a little bit of thought be given to the topic before you start it. Otherwise they degenerate into rules bickering like we are seeing here again.

There is too much emphasis in tearing down another's selection for "greatest" whatever-the-topic-is. This is a negative approach and can easily lead to exchanges of rather uncivil words if not done with care. I suggest one takes a more positive approach to these opinionated topics. Disagree with another's choice? Present a better choice and why it is a better choice. If you can't do the "and why" part, then you don't have a leg to stand on with your disagreement and it is pointless to continue with hopes of having any form of constructive debate.

Quote:

---

The great military nations all projected power to where they wanted to. However once again you based your initial response to the question on something else now didn't you?

---

Since you claim that it fits perfectly into the topic question. Then take it as if I replied to the topic.

Quote:

---

For instance what constitutes a military nation. A nation where the percentage of population in the military is 10% or greater. A nation where the percentage of population is 5%. A nation where the percentage of population in the military is less then 1%.

The United States accomplishes its military strenght with less then 1% of its population in the military.

Should we base it upon what percent of the GNP is used to build, maintain and equip the military of the nation. Again you will find the United States one of the more efficient in that regards

---

I'd like to see proof..

Quote:

---

"Sticking your nose wherever you want to int the world" may be partailly a criteria of greatness, but leading all to it is just trying to prove your nation is militaristically the best. (Though you should accept that it is not..)

---

Quote:

---

your going to have to do better then that - it show a fundmental weakness in your ability to understand military history - and your desire to just be against anything or anyone that states the United States is good or great at something.

---

Sorry but what's the point in reacting to it in that way ? What's the relationship, I mean? My weakness of ability in understanding just got wider, maybe, not onyl in military history. I can't get it.

I have to repeat that I understand a nation being virtually military when called a "military nation". It's about the ability of "fight & survive" in a pure way. When this is mentioned, I can easily talk about the Japanese, Germans and Turks.

If it is about "military power" then it is indisputably USA. Because the USA military is heavily supported with political and economical power, and that's why they can project their military power anywhere in the world where they desire to do so. But this does not change the sole fact of being a military nation where the nations I counted stand out.

Anyway, if my words somehow are "gone wild", I take it back and want to express my desire to keep this thread debatable and constructive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Since you claim that it fits perfectly into the topic question. Then take it as if I replied to the topic.

---

Sure I did - and it does. Take a good look at the military history of every nation on the poll. What is the one thing they all have in common especially if you take in consideration of the time period involved. One of the weakness of my position is that I lumped them all together regradless of the time period.

Quote:

---

I'd like to see proof..

---

Okay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CIA country facts

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$370.7 billion (FY04 est.) (March 2003)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
3.3% (FY03 est.) (February 2004)

---

Total population of the United States is estimated at 295,000,000 according to CIA country facts Current manpower in the military according to this site is 2,923,966. When you do the math the percentage is .99% which is 1% or less.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d-strength.htm

Quote:

---

Sorry but what's the point in reacting to it in that way ? What's the relationship, I mean? My weakness of ability in understanding just got wider, maybe, not onyl in military history. I can't get it.

---

I will let the moderators handle it - as Greg has stated above, you have not countered my position about the United States with factual information or even opinion based upon factual information.

Quote:

---

I have to repeat that I understand a nation being virtually military when called a "military nation". It's about the ability of "fight & survive" in a pure way. When this is mentioned, I can easily talk about the Japanese, Germans and Turks.

---

That is only part of being a military nation. Review history and you will see all three have attempted to project its military power anywhere in the world where it desires to do so. By the way what do you believe the ability to fight militarily is? All three nations you mentioned attacked other nations at one time or another. One even supplied forces to defend another nation against attack. That sir is military power projection.

Here is an interesting read by Rand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rand (a selective portion to draw interest to the link)

First, most traditional approaches of the sort identified above sought
to rank order the status of countries in terms of their capacity for war.
The objective in most cases, thus, consisted of charting the international
warrant of precedence, or the hierarchy of capabilities in the
international system, based on the premise that the capacity for war
was what ultimately distinguished the power of one country from
another. At least one approach—Singer’s Correlates of War—sought
to correlate national capability with certain kinds of political outcomes,
but this work is the exception to the above rule.

---

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1110/MR1110.ch3.pdf#search='Military%20Power%20projections'

Quote:

---

If it is about "military power" then it is indisputably USA. Because the USA military is heavily supported with political and economical power, and that's why they can project their military power anywhere in the world where they desire to do so. But this does not change the sole fact of being a military nation where the nations I counted stand out.

---

All the nations on the poll list have many things in common about their military status when one goes looking into the data. How does Germany, Japan, and the Turks differ in great military nations verus the United States. As nations there are differences - but for the most part its a variance of degree.

I wonder if you speaking more in the terms of warrior culture - verus military nation.

Quote:

---

Anyway, if my words somehow are "gone wild", I take it back and want to express my desire to keep this thread debatable and constructive.

---

I agree - keep it debatable and constructive.

Quote:

---

I wonder if you speaking more in the terms of warrior culture - verus military nation.

---

I think I am talking about the warrior culture. Anyway it is still a blurry border between "warrior culture" and "miltary nation" concepts to me.

"Military Power Projection" is a jargon then ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

I think I am talking about the warrior culture. Anyway it is still a blurry border between "warrior culture" and "miltary nation" concepts to me.

---

Well I would say from what you have written your definetly speaking of warrior culture - not military nation.

Quote:

---

"Military Power Projection" is a jargon then ?

---

Its the language used by the government, politicians, military, and even historians in regards to military and nation building.

This poll has the same flaws as the first. Creators of these types of threads must lay down the ground rules for the discussion. This requires that a little bit of thought be given to the topic before you start it. Otherwise they degenerate into rules bickering like we are seeing here again.
Of course it was. The obvious answer wanted was USA. You can without too much “danger” try some US ally, but not one former enemy or in disgrace (in French in the text).
I did, and you saw the result. No discussion, just funny drawing. ~D

If your saying the answer I wanted is the USA, thats not right. I voted for Mongolians. Its just in the last poll so many people said USA.

Prussia. The rest of Germany comes close (Frederick never would have won Silesia and Dresden if they had decent generals, instead of the Emperor's friends), but the drilled soldiers of Prussia are, even today, excellent officer and solider material. The former Rittmeister Manfred of WWI was Prussian. Frederick the Great was Prussian.

I have a few, but voted for Britain.

My selection would be nations able to project their power to other parts of the globein order to enforce their will.
Mongolians-highly mobile and feared instument of war.

Romans-I belive they did this on many occasions, and is what caused them to annex so many areas.

England/Great Britain-Ruling over the largest Empire the world has ever known, and the submission of many nations through its powerful navy and thus its highly proffesional army.

France under the Bourbons(until the seven years war)-The most powerfull nation in the world for around a hundred years. Although its bid for European Hegemony and consequently global hegomony were destroyed in the seven years war, it was the deciding factor in the American Rebellion.

U.S.A-No comment is really needed.

USSR-Niether is one here.

I am tempted to put Nazi Germany in.