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."

[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.

[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?