Greatest Military Nation

I'm pretty sure he was Irish.

Why did you put the French up there? If you type "French Military Victories" in Google, then click "I'm feeling lucky" then it comes up with a message saying "nothing found did you mean French military Defeats?"
:)
says somthing doesnt it?

P.S. try it, it actually works

Nuff said

[IMG]https://img58.imageshack.us/img58/5373/image25bu.jpg[/IMG]

I would say Germans.They have been around from Roman times and have been more or less powerfull since then.

Click on "Did you mean French military defeats?". Hilarious website. If the link goes away and you don't get a website about French er, non-victories, just PM me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16

I'm sorry, so what was the nationality of the General who beat Napoleon?
Vietnamese? Indian? Egyptian?
nope

---

Prussian. If Blucher hadn't turned his army around despite the loss at Ligny and crashed into Napoleon's right, all of Wellesley's efforts would have bought him nothing more than a draw [though he was good and a draw against Boney while having to use all those miserable Allied troops actually wouldn't have been all that bad. Jeez, half of Wellington's cavalry spent the whole day standing behind the allied squares so they wouldn't run].

SF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wazikashi

I'm pretty sure he was Irish.

---

Actually he is what was termed "anglo-irish."

This translates, roughly, as "Physically born in Ireland, but pretty snooty about not claiming any true irish ancestry."

Very little of his time was actually spent in Ireland. After fine english schools, he was off to the army first in Holland, then mostly in India.

Dan O'Connell or Sean Breen he was most certainly not.

SF

He sounds a lot like my Anglo-Irish ancestors. When they were rich and powerful (and living in Belfast) they probably never told themselves they were Irish. But when the money ran out, thats when they suddenly got a patriotic Irish bug. My Grandfather would never admit that though ~:)

nm already done

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16

Nuff said...

---

Notice at the bottom of the screen it says "This Parody is not sponsored or endorsed by Google".

Also, let's not go any further with the French bashing or any other bashing for that matter. You may refute, but refrain from insulting please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ah_dut

However the mongols had one of the largest empires ever in an age when there was very little in the way of true mechanised transport, achieving speeds a modern army could well be proud of on horseback. They also had supreme tactics for their era, rarely losing a battle or indeed a war. Yes I think they did lose in Vietnam but look at what they achieved...

---

I wouldnt consider the mongolian conquests an empire. They simply conquerd and very losely "governed" terretories for about 80 years. This is not an Empire. An empire has to stand the test of time for more than just 80 years and also has to impose its legacy to the world. Both of witch, the Mongolian state, did not acomplish in order to reach the status of an empire (even the they controlled the largest territory to date).

Roman Empire--> imposed its cultural legacy in europe and any other country with european ancestry.
British Empire--> Held a nation of 1/2 a billion people with 50 000 troops and made their language the most widely spoken.
USA--> currently has the most technologically advanced military in the world. The Us marines are the most advanced infantry unit in the world. US navy is the most advanced in the world.
Soviet Union--> their contribution in the fields of roketry, chemistry, aviation and Nuclear weapons is to this day, uncontested. They created the largest man made explosion aswell as built the most manuvrable jet fighter airplane in the world: the SU-35 "Flanker". Also they have the most advanced heavy lifting rocket in the world: Energia, which is capable of lifting 2 times more than any other stellar rocket.

I have to agree that currently Russia is currently the master of rocketry and avionics and have contributed the most to that certain field than probably any other country. Even the US has a hard time not admitting that. Although Russia will probably be surpassed in the close future, 10-20 years down the road, unless something in their government changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RabidGibbon

Well I've made my vote (I went for other, by which I'm thinking of the british empire, It was, I think the greatest empire the world has ever seen).

Theres been an awful lot of these "who was best" threads recently though. The once serene monastery is starting to resemble the backroom.

---

Oh dear...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Notice at the bottom of the screen it says "This Parody is not sponsored or endorsed by Google".

Also, let's not go any further with the French bashing or any other bashing for that matter. You may refute, but refrain from insulting please.

---

I was just having some fun... :embarassed: :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Prussian. If Blucher hadn't turned his army around despite the loss at Ligny and crashed into Napoleon's right, all of Wellesley's efforts would have bought him nothing more than a draw

---

It was an Allied victory. Welllington would not have fought at Mont St. Jean unless the Prussians turned up, and Blucher would have gone back to Berlin if Wellington didn't fight.

Anyways, Napoleon had almost everything going for him. He outnumbered Wellington's artillery by almost 2:1, his cavalry was superior, he had a homogeneous army unlike Wellington's polyglot force, and his troops were all veterans, unlike the British troops of whom only half had seen combat before.

Actually, these were some of the most favourable odds Wellington ever had to face considering many of his earlier battles.

Wellington did not have 72,000 troops in action at Mont St. Jean. He had stationed a force of 17,000 men at a crossroads about a dozen miles away to prevent a possible French outflanking maneuver, as he had a high opinion of Napoleon's capabilities. This left him with 55,000 troops to face Boney.

The British pretty much beat the Old Guard on their own without Prussian interference (disregarding the group that held the Prussians at Plancenoit).

Also, the term 'thin red line' was not coined until the Crimean War.

Yes, Wellington's troops stopped the Guard without assistance -- a feat thought impossible at the time.

You make a good point that both Wellington and Blucher were counting on one another. The surprise was that it worked. Austerlitz and other "allied" operations of the period were all to often a malf-up.

Wellington is easily the best commander in English history -- any era. Only Cromwell approaches him in savvy and effectiveness. Keegan has an excellent book out wherein he compares the command ability of famous Generals. Wellington receives high praise from him, and Keegan gives strong support for this claim. Interestingly enough, Keegan also had a lot of praise for U.S. Grant, who normally doesn't win a lot of acolades.

Without the combined efforts of Wellington and Blucher, neither alone could best Napoleon with the forces at their disposal. Together, they ended the Corsican's aspirations for good.

The Prussian contruîbution was quite reluctant. Gneisenau, the Chief of Staff of the Prussian army, thought that Wellington would be resoundly beaten and did not want the army intagled in such a disaster. He ordered the divisions at the rear of the army to march first to Wellington's aid. The divisions at the front of the column had to wait until the rearmost had passed.

Quote:

---

Soviet Union--> their contribution in the fields of roketry, chemistry, aviation and Nuclear weapons is to this day, uncontested. They created the largest man made explosion aswell as built the most manuvrable jet fighter airplane in the world: the SU-35 "Flanker". Also they have the most advanced heavy lifting rocket in the world: Energia, which is capable of lifting 2 times more than any other stellar rocket.

---

All stolen or based on stolen German technology. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

U.S.A

We've fought two wars with (at the time) the greatest power on earth. nFirst time we won, second time was more of a draw. We fought one of bloodiest (if not THE bloodiest) Civil Wars the world has ever seen, and only came out stronger for it. It was our inexhaustable economy that fed the allies during World War I, and our supply of fresh troops that helped tipped the balance towards the end. We fought two very large scale wars at the same time during World War II, and won. IMO, we've been somewhat on the decline since WWII, but we're still the best.

That's a pretty long history of military success. From the 1780s until the present day. The fact that America is not on that list at all smacks of anti-american sentiment more than any objective realization of the facts. It's always a shame when people let their politics pervert history.

---

I agree with some of your post but I don’t think of the USA as a military nation. We don’t actively conquer, and even though we are the target of terrorists everywhere the people still wont support any military action (and protest at the Presidents ranch demanding reasons why) only the troops that are sent to war by the “evil” President. Any country with a population that will do this or will put up with its population doing this is sooo not the greatest military nation. We are a great nation and we definitely have a great military but I don’t think of us as being the Greatest Military Nation. I’m still for the Mongols; they wouldn’t stand for war protesters (does make for a fun visual though). ~D

"Anyways, Napoleon had almost everything going for him." Tell me, it is a joke. Napoleon had to force the victory. The Russian, Austrians and all the allies are marching against him, and his only chance is to defeat them one after one. The allies’ army, even in Waterloo, are almost double. He has to attack when Wellington, wisely, choose to stay in defensive. So, to attack one against two, knowing that reinforcement for your enemy are on the way is undoubtedly to have almost everything for you…

French: 54 000 infantry, 16 000 cavalry, 246 guns
English & Allies: 54 000 men 13 000 cavalry 157 guns
Prussian: 49 000 infantry, 134 guns, en route to Waterloo: 27 000 men and 106 guns.

So, as you say, Napoleon had all for him.

It still true that only the defence of the British who were able to hold then repulse the French Old Guards (who just defeated 14 Prussian Battalions) give the victory to Wellington, combined with the arrival of Blucher’s army.

Even 10 days after Waterloo, near the river Suffel, near Strasbourg, the French under the command of Gal Jean Rapp defeated the allies (Austrian, Wurttemberg and Hess-Darmstadt) under the command of the Royal Prince of Wurttemberg (20 000 French, 60 000 allies).

The figures show Napoleon couldn’t win, even if he had almost everything going for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

All stolen or based on stolen German technology. ~;)

---

No way. maybe the early technology but you can't say that post soviet rockets are stolen early German technology. Its like me saying the m16 is the best rifle in the world and you saying that its based on stolen chinese gun powder technology :). Besides that, American rocketry is also based on "stolen" German technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Anyways, Napoleon had almost everything going for him." Tell me, it is a joke. Napoleon had to force the victory. The Russian, Austrians and all the allies are marching against him, and his only chance is to defeat them one after one.

---

I was speaking of the Waterloo campaign only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

The allies’ army, even in Waterloo, are almost double. He has to attack when Wellington, wisely, choose to stay in defensive. So, to attack one against two, knowing that reinforcement for your enemy are on the way is undoubtedly to have almost everything for you…

French: 54 000 infantry, 16 000 cavalry, 246 guns
English & Allies: 54 000 men 13 000 cavalry 157 guns
Prussian: 49 000 infantry, 134 guns, en route to Waterloo: 27 000 men and 106 guns.

So, as you say, Napoleon had all for him.

---

Napoleon could have beaten the British Army at Mont St. Jean before the Prussians intervened. If you read my previous post, the British did not have all their troops or guns at Mont St. Jean itself, a significant force of 17,000 troops were about a dozen miles away guarding Wellington's lines of communication and prevent an outflanking maneuver, meaning that he had just over 50,000 troops at Mont St. Jean.

Right after the fall of La Haie Saint, Napoleon had victory in his grasp. if he had attacked there and then with everything he had left, it is probable that the battle would have been won. Napoleon didn't attack, and therefore he lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

It still true that only the defence of the British who were able to hold then repulse the French Old Guards (who just defeated 14 Prussian Battalions) give the victory to Wellington, combined with the arrival of Blucher’s army

---

Only a single battalion of the Old Guard had been committed against the Prussians, the rest of the Guard was entirely fresh and uncommitted.

I would say Japanese or Chinese.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That's a pretty long history of military success. From the 1780s until the present day. The fact that America is not on that list at all smacks of anti-american sentiment more than any objective realization of the facts. It's always a shame when people let their politics pervert history.

---

Actually I think the poll is not about a pervertion of history - but the discussion of the individuals so far as only centered around the early industrial age and the Empire Building of the European Countries.

That his poll is limited and does not indicate an anti-american sentiment but it shows an indication of baised views toward what he believes to be the time periods in which great military nations were in existance.

Is it an open time period about which is the greatest Military Nation - it would not seem so from the poll nor the discussion.

But accusing a poll in the Monstery as having Anti-American sentiment - when there is absolutely no evidence of such is just an attempt to demonize because the question does not include the United States - nor does the discussion so far seem Anti-American because it seem that the gentlemen discussing their opinions are actually focusing on a single time period of the Industrial Revolution era of history.

Shame on some for bringing current political opinions into a discussion and accusing others of revisionist history.

Quote:

---

No way. maybe the early technology but you can't say that post soviet rockets are stolen early German technology. Its like me saying the m16 is the best rifle in the world and you saying that its based on stolen chinese gun powder technology :). Besides that, American rocketry is also based on "stolen" German technology.

---

Exactly, both the American and Russian rocket, space, and jet programs would have been at least 10-20 years delayed if it hadnt been for the technology and scientists they made off with after ww2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

It was not so much the poll, as some of the responses I've seen in the thread.

But you're right, this isn't a political forum. If someone here is trying to do some dirty revisionist history, they know it.

---

If they know they are spouting revisionist history then shame on them also. If that is what they honestly believe to have happened based upon what they have learned - then its only at worst incorrect knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Anyways, Napoleon had almost everything going for him." Tell me, it is a joke. Napoleon had to force the victory. The Russian, Austrians and all the allies are marching against him, and his only chance is to defeat them one after one. The allies’ army, even in Waterloo, are almost double. He has to attack when Wellington, wisely, choose to stay in defensive. So, to attack one against two, knowing that reinforcement for your enemy are on the way is undoubtedly to have almost everything for you…

French: 54 000 infantry, 16 000 cavalry, 246 guns
English & Allies: 54 000 men 13 000 cavalry 157 guns
Prussian: 49 000 infantry, 134 guns, en route to Waterloo: 27 000 men and 106 guns.

So, as you say, Napoleon had all for him.

It still true that only the defence of the British who were able to hold then repulse the French Old Guards (who just defeated 14 Prussian Battalions) give the victory to Wellington, combined with the arrival of Blucher’s army.

Even 10 days after Waterloo, near the river Suffel, near Strasbourg, the French under the command of Gal Jean Rapp defeated the allies (Austrian, Wurttemberg and Hess-Darmstadt) under the command of the Royal Prince of Wurttemberg (20 000 French, 60 000 allies).

The figures show Napoleon couldn’t win, even if he had almost everything going for him.

---

Which shows that Napoleon was merely a meglomaniac who did not care how many lives were lost so long as he remained Emperor of the French and ruler of Europe.

You tell me, I am not specialist in Napoleon, that 1 battalion of the Old Imperial Guard defeated 14 Prussian Battalions? That is more than heroic… ~:cheers:

Of course, Napoleon could have won, like he won two day before. But he would have lost anyway because like the year before, the Allies armies were marching towards France. It took 7 coalitions to bring Napoleon on the ground, and I don’t think that any King, Queen or Emperor in Europe will allowed him to come back and stay on power.
Napoleon hadn’t all his troops on the battle field. Anyway, the proportion of deployed troops was in favour of Wellington, as the tactical and strategic situation. Just the fact Wellington recognised he was near to loose is a proof of the value of the French troops. Not having a great admiration for Napoleon, I find his tactic a little bit simple in Waterloo. Deployed and charged ahead… Well, if you compare with Austerlitz…

My intervention in this debate is because I don’t think that Waterloo is a great English victory just because the General is English or Irish. There is no genius in Wellington tactic, just wait that the French have no more reserve and attack, knowing that the Brown Bess had a longer range than its French equivalent, there is less French than Allies, and reinforcement will arrive. It was appropriate but it doesn’t need to be a genius to do it. My opinion is in a debate considering the Greatest Military Nation, Waterloo has no place.
The Russian considered that THEY defeated Napoleon, and the English just shot the last bullet and took the glory. ~:)

Note: I won’t have FUN in answering about the stupidity of French Victories things… ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Which shows that Napoleon was merely a meglomaniac who did not care how many lives were lost so long as he remained Emperor of the French and ruler of Europe.

---

Agree with that, but he wasn't different of any other rulers of the time, for what I know.