What is the best army ever?

[BOTP]

Now which is the best?

The Roman Legions (53 BC-180 AD)

The German Wehrmacht (1939-1942 AD)

The Greco-Macedonian Army (During the Reign of Phillip and Alexander)

The Samurai Army of Hideyoshi

The Golden Horde

The Crusader Army of Richard the Lion-Heart

Wellington’s British infantry

The Zulu Impis

The English yeomen (longbowmen and billmen)

The Prussian Army (Fredrick II)

The Prussian Army (Moltke)

The United States Army 1991-1998

The Byzantine Army

Ottoman Turkish Army (during the reign of Sulleyman the Magnificent)

The Israeli Armed Forces

The Swiss Pikmen (Reislaufer)

Napoleon’s La Grande Armee (1805–1807 AD)

Any army I miss?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Der Heer und Der Wehrmacht, outnumbered and surrounded, it still managed to inflict tons of casualties *cough russia cough*

[Baiae]

I'd go for Von Moltke's Prussians. Responsible for the most efficient, most clinical, exectution of a war plan ever. Integrated rail network, cohesive thinking from the staff, fearsome discipline... job done!

[Watchman]

A slightly better definition of "best" would be useful. Most results ? Best cost-efficiency ? Best results-losses ratio ? Best in comparision to its immediate neighbors (ie. the armies it fought against), or overall (in which case present-day militaries win hands down) ? Best straight-off combat prowess (often entirely different from the above) ? Best toys for its period ? Is it "better" to win by old-fashioned methods (in the "more challenging" sense), or to come up with newer and better methods contemporaries at least initially cannot counter ? Etc.

Ill-worded questions will probably only produce "mine's bigger than yours" -level brag-fests.

[MoROmeTe]

Best by what standard?
I'd go with The Army of the United States of America, right now. Best technology, Good generals. Training might be an issue as well as quality of recruits but they have great toys for war...

[Kongamato]

I think that the Mongol Horde is number one. I don't think there was an army at that time which even came close to having the control, organization, and finesse that the Horde had. I feel that they had the biggest relative technology and information advantage in history. That gap could be challenged by the US military just after World War II, when they possessed the sole nuclear arsenal in the world. However, I feel they don't qualify because the bombs took time to make and they did not do much fighting before the Soviets developed the technology. Its a case of what-ifs, anyway. Plus, they're not on the list.

[Ed TW]

Great question!
I think that Nazi Germany was probably the most efficient all around (being well balanced as a fighting machine). I would have to say that man for man and even the women of Israel are pretty strong. If they were bigger they would be an adversary to be reckoned with. You can dissect this question till the cows come home though, because each army all had their own strengths.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The English(Welsh and Irish auxillaries included) army during the first two phases of the Hundred years war, fresh with the indenture system, great tactics and professionalism not seen in Western Europe since the Roman Legions

[Tribesman]

It has to be the Swiss army , they are such a potent fighting force that even when the whole continent has been fighting no one has dared to take on the Swiss . It must be something to do with the Swiss Army Knife .

[Templar Knight]

The Prussian Army (Moltke) - end of discussion

[el_slapper]

Current US army, because it can attack anything anywhere. Yet it is far from perfect, from its inability to lead several conflicts at once(in other words, the need to get out of Irak before doing anything else major) to some behaviour that do not fit homeland's standards(Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc). Best overall of all-times, but far from ultimate.

Von Moltke's Prussians were kickass, but wouldn't have been able to launch an attack at the other end of the world, with a major local ally(i.e. Turkey) denying even military access at the last minute(not that they were wrong IMHO, but my point is that it's been a pain to manage).

La Grande Armée had too much logistical weaknesses to compete, despite its ability to fight outnumbered & still win(like Nazis later).

Last I'd cite as runner-ups would be Spartians, for the Thermopylae. They're not listed, but they really kicked ass too. Limited in numbers, & logistics, though.

[Rosacrux redux]

Best Armies in their respective timeframe:

- Classical antiquity: Greeks of Alexander's era
The first introduction of what we call today "combined arms" approach. Great logistic support, superior mobility great morale, tons of wins outnumbered and with minimal losses, great integration of different elements, the first use of cavalry as shock troops, excellent leadership in all ranks... the ideal ancient army.

- Late antiquity: Roman Legions
Their record was not spotless but they had a formidable strength, excellent organization, the best logistic support in the "western" armies before the 18th century, professionalism, great tactics, solid low-rank leadership (although the supreme commander were not always on par), discipline and were extremely effective in building a huge empire and taking on many completely different enemies.

- Medieval times: The Mongol Horde
Unmatched mobility (the decisive factor in their success) tactical supremacy against anything and everything they faced, unparalleled ferocity, hardyness and cunning, superior organization and leadership, winning even when heavily outnumbered - definitely an army way ahead from what Europe (or anyone else) had at that time.

- "Age of Reason": Fredrick's Prussians
For a long period of time, a small army was the ultimate ruler of the battlefield. Despite Friedrich not being the Great general, the robotic discipline, superior training and the "natural" predesposition of the Germans in the war business, brought the Prussian kingdom from a backwards ex-principality, to a major player in European business.

-19th century: Moltke's Prussians (runner up: Napoleon's French)
This is a hard one. Moltke's army was the first "modern" army. His French campaign was the most perfectuly executed campaign on a huge scale and took advantage of all modern (at the time) inventions and teachings. A ferocious war machine, that has won the war even before it started. Napoleon's army was exemplar in many ways and before the Russian campaign was an extraordinary fighting force, with the best cavalry and infantry of it's times and of course the best possible commanding officers (from top to bottom). They both deserve mentioning here.

- 20th century: German Wehrmacht
All the qualities of the German (Prussian) tradition are here: Discipline, very good leadership in all ranks, great use of the advantages and disadvantages, great use of terrain, adoption to very rough conditions, extreme percistency (or even stubbornes) brought this army in a position to threaten the whole world. Too bad it was used by the vilest regime ever...

Since we can't really compare armies from different timeframes, there can't be a "best overall army". But sentimentally I am with Alexander's army, as "Best of all times"

[cegorach]

The best army ever ?

Napoleon’s La Grande Armee (1805–1807 AD) - no doubt.


+ for patriotic reasons

Polish army during its best time - 1577-1621

only 1 defeat - Cecora 1620,

- two strategical failures - Moscow 1612 and 1618,

and over 20+ devastating victories vs Russia, Sweden, Tatars, Turks, Wallachians, Hapsburgs and western mercenaries & rebels
-> the most devastating
Kirkcholm 1605 loses - Sweden 9000, Poland around 200 (starting troops Sweden 11500, Poland 3500).


Regards Cegorach/Hetman

[caesar44]

the roman army was dominant from c 300 bce to 378 ce (with several major defeats) . there is no army in history to have such dominance .

[Steppe Merc]

Bah, Romans?
Mongols were excellent, as were some eras of the Byzantine Army... but it was so large, it had difficulty mainting it, and they went through some really bad times.
And I wouldn't consider Philip's army that great... it didn't include as much cavalry as Alexander, such as the Persians and other Eastern horsemen.

[Byzantine Prince]

The best army was the Turkish Janissary Regiment. All were equiped with bows. No two of them had the same weapon. All were completely dedicated in every meaning of the word. There is only one ideal win or die. How could anyone beat such an army?

[BDC]

The best army was the Turkish Janissary Regiment. All were equiped with bows. No two of them had the same weapon. All were completely dedicated in every meaning of the word. There is only one ideal win or die. How could anyone beat such an army?

Well, for example from the list above, Germans in tanks.

Unless they were really powerful bows anyway.

*thinks of anti-tank bows*

[Orda Khan]

The Mongol army........No contest

.......Orda

[Byzantine Prince]

Well, for example from the list above, Germans in tanks.

Unless they were really powerful bows anyway.

*thinks of anti-tank bows*

We were talking anachronistacally. I could say the same thing about some other army 50 years from now. For their time though the JAnissaries were unbeatable.

[Ash]

The best army was the Turkish Janissary Regiment. All were equiped with bows. No two of them had the same weapon. All were completely dedicated in every meaning of the word. There is only one ideal win or die. How could anyone beat such an army?

Actually they were quite beatable but only with the best of troops.

Malta 1565 - Knights Hospitallers, Spanish arquebusiers and Matese men-at-arms withstood overwhelming Ottoman odds. Many Janissaries died there.

Lapento 1571 - Turkish fleet was defeated by the short-lived "Holy League", Spanish arquebusiers again defeated the Janissaries.

Mind you the Ottoman's hight of power was the 16th century.

In the following age the Janissaries became outdated and could not force a victory like they could in the 15th and 16th centuries.

[Pindar]

This question should be divided into eras something along the lines Rosacrux redux attempted.

[nokhor]

i think if you split them up into eras, then it kinda defeats the point because each of those armies listed were the best in their respective locales at their respective time periods. thats why they made the 'best of' list in the first place.

my question is what qualities did they share that made them the best? generals, discipline, training, officers, weapons systems, tactics? if we could ressurect and tech up the ancient macedonian army and set them against an equal number of modern day americans? or if we tech down the grande armee and train them as horse archers and set them against the mongols who would win?

[Empirate]

I think the question for the best army must be answered with the strategic goals in mind that were laid down for each specific army. But strategic goals are formulated by the political, as opposed to the military, elite of a country. In ancient and medieval times, there wasn't much difference between these, but nowadays they differ greatly.
Note that political elites don't always grasp the concepts of strategy, nor even the limits of their militaries' capabilities. That statement even holds true for political leaders that are also military leaders, like Alexander the so-called Great.
So we should be comparing strategic goals and how well a given army was capable of fulfilling it.
Some examples: Alexander had one of the most powerful instruments of tactical warfare the world had ever seen in his hands. Nothing could withstand the "combined arms" approach of macedonian pezhetaires (hoplites) and kataphraktoi (heavy cavalry). But on a strategic level, Alexander's army just wasn't enough to really conquer all the lands they tried to. Oh, on historical maps it looks like a neat takeover of all Persian territory, but in actuality, nobody could hope to KEEP that much land and rule it as a centralized country: The reason for the satrap system the Persians had employed, and the reason why Alexander adopted the same system. His armies were capable of destroying every force fielded against them, but they were not able to be everywhere at once. Against a more strategic threat, they would have been helpless because it takes half a year for an army to march on foot from Asia Minor to the Indus. Alexander died before he found out, but his successors were never able to really claim all he had conquered for their own. The largest diadoch realm was that of the Seleucids, and it had to fight continually to keep the farther regions (today's Afghanistan and Kazakhstan) under control, failing most of the time!
The Roman army was much better able to keep the large empire more or less intact for hundreds of years. Why? Because the Roman political leadership saw the capabilities of the legions correctly: They were a superior fighting force, but not enough to be everywhere at once. So they first used client states on their borders to buffer enemy invasions, while in the hinterland the legions were marched up from their barracks. The strategic threat was reduced to a tactical one this way, and the legions were easily able to deal with that. When the client state system fell to pieces later on, a system of preclusive defense was adopted that opted for reconnassaince above all else: Low-level threats were held by the limes and similar fortifications, while more powerful threats were met by combined armies of the legions and auxiliaries (which nicely complemented the raw "shock" capabilities of the legions with combined arms) before they reached roman territory. Still later, a system of defense-in-depth was implemented using heavily fortified places combined with a smaller, mobile force. But now, the enemy incursions had become so frequent and dangerous they had to be allowed to march deeply into roman territory in order for them to lose some of their impact, before they could be intercepted. Over the course of these developments, the defense of the empire became ever more relying on infrastructure, and thus, cost-inefficient. In the third century A.D., the whole system had become so highly inefficient that barbarian raids were able to penetrate as far as Milan or Adrianople.
So, always match an army's capabilities with it's strategic goals, any other comparison seems empty to me! For example, it's one of the "strategic" (or, in this case, political) goals of today's US forces to lose as few men as possible. They're very good at that. Were they to adopt a more "liberal" approach as to lives lost, they could easily be much more militarily active in more places than they are, because operations wouldn't require such massive manpower to pull off.


Oh, my personal favorite: Saladin's army with which he conquered Syria and Mesopotamia, defeated the crusaders at Hattin, as well as held out against the various elements of the third crusade. No other army could be kept in the field for five consecutive years in that time! It was just enough to accomplish the tasks it was set to. It was also superbly suited to the kind of strategy Saladin used to win: a prolonged war of repeated raids and skirmishes, excellent use of terrain and climate, feints and bluffs.

[nokhor]

hey Empirate,

have you read Luttwak's "The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire"? it touches on a lot of the points you made about the romans, and if you haven't, i highly recommend it.

[Empirate]

That's right nokhor, that's exactly where I have my intel from. That is one truly intelligent book! I wanted to edit my post to include a reference to it but forgot.
I also enjoyed his more well-known "Strategy. The Logic of War and Peace" very much, although it's less about historical times. The examples are mostly from the twentieth century. Very inspiring argumentation, though!

[caesar44]

Bah, Romans?
Mongols were excellent, as were some eras of the Byzantine Army... but it was so large, it had difficulty mainting it, and they went through some really bad times.
And I wouldn't consider Philip's army that great... it didn't include as much cavalry as Alexander, such as the Persians and other Eastern horsemen.

is there any culture that stood against the romans for 600 years ?
who ? the macedonian kingdoms collapsed 1 by 1 in less then 40 years
the punics in 70 years
the celts , the germans , the numidians , the parthians (the only empire that managed to survive) , the gaetulians , the maurians , the nabatheans , the armanians , the pontics , the thracians , the ilirians , the britons , the dacians , the sarmatians , the italic tribes and on and on for centuries ?
the mongolian empire collapsed immediately after gengis was gone !
after a big shock the very small east europeans "kingdoms" managed to hold europe from the barbaric invasion , and again how a small armies of feudals managed to block the invasion
don't forget the failure in taking japan
the mongolians (who were very powerful) smashed a collapsing chines empire , muslim empires and russian tribes !!!
please , don't hold cheap my opinion it is a very based opinion
to say "bah" about the romans is to say "i really don't know history"

[caesar44]

empirate
i agree !
including about alexander the so calld ...
strategy is not a football match

[Redleg]

General Robert E Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, is one of the best armies ever fielded in American History.

[Big_John]

- Medieval times: The Mongol Horde
Unmatched mobility (the decisive factor in their success) tactical supremacy against anything and everything they faced, unparalleled ferocity, hardyness and cunning, superior organization and leadership, winning even when heavily outnumbered - definitely an army way ahead from what Europe (or anyone else) had at that time.

well put. the horde gets my vote for 'best army ever'.

[Drisos]

I'd go for the teutonic army. (an enemy of Rome in the Roman time)