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.

[Steppe Merc]

to say "bah" about the romans is to say "i really don't know history"

Oh, I see... I'll let that one go.
But Romans weren't warriors. Most of their conquest was done over a long time, and a lot of it was based on political rather than military conquest. The Mongols were warriors, every male that survived to adult hood was a warrior, because of the harsh environment they lived in. They conquered all their land in one block of time, not over hundreds of years. All this was done by people who were dissimessed and still are as barbarians. I'd take a Mongol army, or any steppe army over a Roman army any day.

[Drag0nUL]

I'd go with the german Wermacht as the best army ever.It was an entirely new concept of warfare that proved overwhelmingly superior to any other army it encountered: French infantry based army disintegrated almost instantly,English and Russians fared little better(I'm speaking of the initial phase of the war).In fact I think the decisive role in bringing down the Nazi war machine should go not to the allied armies but to German high command and Hitler.They overextended their area of operation far beyond their logistics possibilities and failed to use the greatest tool at their disposal: mobility to its full extent.I am firmly convinced that the German army had the potential to destroy Russia and then go on to conquering the rest of Asia and Africa if only they had a capable leader(like Manstein or Guderian).

[ah_dut]

I think the modern US army...head to head all those billions od dollars of machinary are worth something you know...

[Empirate]

Maybe, DragonUL, and maybe not. They just didn't have the manpower to conquer "all of Asia and Africa" all by themselves. The racist bias didn't allow much recruiting outside Germany, and the industrial power of the U. S. wasn't even beginning to be brought into play during the initial phase of the war in Europe. Don't forget that Russia had a huge industrial and especially "human capital" capacity, too. Mobility is nice, but you also need numbers. And it's not as if the Russian commanders didn't learn from their German counterparts, later employing the very same tactical means that had made the initial successes of the Wehrmacht possible.
All in all though, let's just be glad Hitler and company didn't make it, right? I'm German and I can't even begin to imagine what the world would be like if Hitler had done what you hold at least possible!

[nokhor]

excluding the commanding general, what's the most important quality for an army to have?

a) discipline
b) equipment
c) training
d) junior officers
e) morale
f) something else

[Productivity]

excluding the commanding general, what's the most important quality for an army to have?

a) discipline
b) equipment
c) training
d) junior officers
e) morale
f) something else

I don't think any one will matter most for every army, I think that it will vary depending upon how the army was organised.

Also by equipment, I hope you mean equipment compared to that of it's contemporaries, not equipment in a 3000 year time span, or else a single warship today wins it easily...

[Drag0nUL]

excluding the commanding general, what's the most important quality for an army to have?

a) discipline
b) equipment
c) training
d) junior officers
e) morale
f) something else

I would go for training and discipline. I think these two are the most important qualities in the army(however nowdays equipment has an increasingly important role: you can't shoot down a B-2 with a crossbow no matter how well trained you are ).two examples come to my mind : The Spartans and Napoleon's Imperial Guard. These figting forces weren't significantly(if at all) better equipped than their opponents, but usually managed to win against the odds due to the sheer 'quality'(aka. training, morale and discipline) of the soldiers

[Drag0nUL]

Maybe, DragonUL, and maybe not. They just didn't have the manpower to conquer "all of Asia and Africa" all by themselves. The racist bias didn't allow much recruiting outside Germany, and the industrial power of the U. S. wasn't even beginning to be brought into play during the initial phase of the war in Europe. Don't forget that Russia had a huge industrial and especially "human capital" capacity, too. Mobility is nice, but you also need numbers. And it's not as if the Russian commanders didn't learn from their German counterparts, later employing the very same tactical means that had made the initial successes of the Wehrmacht possible.
All in all though, let's just be glad Hitler and company didn't make it, right? I'm German and I can't even begin to imagine what the world would be like if Hitler had done what you hold at least possible!

Indeed germans were vastly inferior in manpower to the allies, but the strategy they employed in the first years of war made their numbers irrelevant. The key role was played by armoured divisions which were only a small fraction of the army. Of course, in a lengthy war they will always be at the losing end(as reality shown), but I say they could have won the war before U.S. and Russia's huge economical and demographical advantage could make any significant impact and before their armies had the time to adapt to the blitzkrieg tactic.As for the last part I agree. God knows what would today's world look like had Hitler won the war.

[DukeofSerbia]

The best Serbian army was under emperor Dushan Stephan Nemanjic 1331-1356.

[Pooma]

I'm going to throw a weird one into the mix and go with the Commonwealth forces of WW1, and not just becuase everyone else seems to forget about them all the time! In the interest of reason I'm going to argue only for the forces available at the beginning and the end of that particular horror-show though.

There were only 5 (???) divisions in the British Army at the dawn of WW1, with Canada, Australia and New Zealand able to supply troops that were in essence homogenous. They were mostly expended (how I hate that term, but it does fit here) by the time of the First Ypres, but by that time even the germans had recognised them as incomparible.

They were a tiny force, therefore mobile and cheap. They were a social revolution in their all-volunteer status. Their technology was first rate, the artillery piece of their day was a positive ion cannon compared to the guns of even 30 years before. (Although the French probably did have the lead there).

Recall that at Mons the BEF comported itself well, actually better than well, it was an army of thoroughbred riflemen against an army still adapting to the lessens of effective infantry firepower. Don't forget that it was able to retreat intact from Mons after the collapse of the French frontier war. With it's equipment mostly intact, and that there was only one mutiny, which was basically overcome by an officer with a toy trumpet if you believe the story (or possibly propaganda in this case).

That army was able to break down into its constituents for movement, and yet still act coherently - at the dawn of radio communcation, a feet the Mongols are often singled out for (admitedly with no radio at all, but their opponents weren't able to lay out telephone lines either).

How about the forces at the end of the war? Well, strange to tell the Commonwealth ran rampant, and started to see a lot of the characteristics of infantry warfare of WW2. Fire-and-movement, and the idea that you really could maneuvre, but only as part of a battlespace managed by officers with a solid awareness of what was going on was largely a Canadian innovation; and one that was made by officers at the front. In the last few weeks of the war British and Canadian troops were storming defenses long considered impenetrable and took more prisoners than everyone else combined.

So we've got:

Solid leadership at the middle level
Ridiculously capable leadership at low level
With the innovation of the field telephone integration of artillery with infantry for vertical integration
With the innovation of moving the machine guns up as part of an assault - a much lower level combined force
Very solid logistics


And dicipline enough to survive actually going to hell and staying there. I'd put the Western Front up as being just as solid as Stalingrad as an example of mans ability to invent gigantic piles of crap to haul himself into. Except that it lasted far longer, and people were throwing poison gas at one another. Also that's where the flamethrower got invented. Also the shotgun with bayonet attached. And the trench-mortar. And tunnelling under your opponent to pretty much build the biggest bomb your technology can allow under him. Then having to fight him underground as he does the same thing right back at you.

Actually stuff it, since they could take that for years, since Canadian troops could still fight after Vimy Ridge, since British troops still fought after Passchendaele and all the other battles around and no one has suggested that they killed large numbers of Belgian civilians they get my vote for their conduct from beginning to end.

I guess the difference here is that the Commonwealth often feels it was dragged into a war it alone couldn't possibly gain from (possibly a bit unfair on the doughboys, but American did gain immeasurably in stature and was able to impose it's peace on a war Britain largely paid for), and that it was 'ordinary blokes' dragged off to fight. They did. They won. But more than that: some of them were even telling jokes in a hell I can't even imagine. By and large they came home and lived blameless lives.

They were just as tough and as powerful as we needed to be, stuck it out for as long as we needed them, and then they went home and rebuilt. If we are trying for any kind of measurement for the quality of an army it surely must be it's value to the country it represents. Since the commonwealth armed forces represented so many countries (let's remember the Indian troops who died, just to name on other forgotten group) and re-inforced the bond between so many of them I can't see how anyone can match the contribution that they made. I hope I have also argued with a measure of success that like everyone else who has ever been ground into meat for his country they paid the full price for that measure of value.

[Craterus]

how can you compare a german WW2 army (with GUNS - things that kill people instantly, and from long range) with an ancient army (with SWORDS)?

you can't fairly compare them, surely? i don't think you can and that's my opinion,

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Wehrmacht

[Uesugi Kenshin]

That's a tough one. I think I would go with the German army in WWII. At the outset it was a superbly trained, well equipped, well motivated, disciplined, efficient and mobile fighting force with some of the best generals in the world and some of the best tactical and strategic innovations of the century. If Hitler was not such an imbecile and a racist they could have won the war. If they had finished off the RAF, not attacked Russia, disowned Japan after Pearl Harbor they may have won. Of course if Hitler was not such a bad guy then them winning would not have been so bad. A loss of independence and a short war, short due to blitzkrieg, would not be so bad compared to how Europe treated Germany before it uited to form the most powerful European nation of the time.

[Franconicus]

Here’s Franconicus’ final all time chart of armies:

Good Armies
Hanibal’s Carthagian army
The English yeomen (longbowmen and billmen)
The Swiss Pikmen
The Crusader Army of Richard the Lion-Heart
The Prussian Army (Friedrich II)
Wellington’s British infantry
The Zulu Impis
Vietcong
The German Wehrmacht (1939-1942 AD)
The United States Army 1991-1998

Very Good Armies
The Greco-Macedonian Army (During the Reign of Phillip and Alexander)
Napoleon’s La Grande Armee (1805–1807 AD)
The Prussian Army (Moltke)

Excellent Armies
The Roman Legions (53 BC-180 AD)
The Israeli Armed Forces (60ies-90ies)

Outstanding Army
The Golden Horde

Vietcong had an excellent moral and the strength to suffer. But they were poorly equipped. Similar are the Impis. They were very disciplined but had no modern arms. Both showed that what people can do when they defend their home.

Longbowmen and Pikmen were new formations that ended the domination of the knights. However it was not really a special army. And they didn’t conquer that much.

Prussian Army was well trained and very disciplined. However, Friedrich took too many risks and in the end he was very lucky that he did not loose everything. His land was poor due to the non-stop fighting.

Wellingtons army, very well trained and disciplined, was too defensive and too small to beat the Grande Armee. The English fleet was much more important then.

Wehrmacht: They ruled just for 3 years. Not very impressive. They had good equipment, good strategy and excellent tactics. However, their industrial fundament was poor and they were led by a mad and criminal leader. Also German general staff was not that good. There were many different opinions and they did not work together.

US Army: Very big, incredible resources and equipment, although a lot of it are just gadgets. Not very disciplined, not very good leaders. Do not have the strength to take heavy losses.

Macedonians: Excellent in logistic, but to much dependant on one person.

Napoleon: Excellent equipment, excellent tactics, willing to die for their Emperor. Did not know how to end the war. To much focused on Napoleon.
Moltke: Excellent too; brilliant organisation, strategy and tactics; brilliant staff; but only in small field and for a small period. In 1914 most of the strength was gone.

Israel - best army after WW2. High motivation, very good equipment, perfect performance of the German blitz strategy, very mobile; they lost a lot during intifada when they were forced to fight against civilises.

Roman: ruled the world for centuries!

The Golden Horde: outstanding; poor nomads conquering the biggest empire in short time. Tough guys; extreme mobile, excellent tactic and strategy;

Finally a word to special units. To me they are nothing but a joke. With there secrets, their funny sense of honor; they are expansive and the results are poor; look at the German, British and US paratroops. Heavy losses! No, you do not need them!

[caesar44]

very good list , agree with the first 3
one remark - one can say "hey the romans and the mongols established empires and the state of israel is a small state so ..." the simple answer to that is this - the romans and the mongols ruled by absolute emperors in times of conquests and israel is a democratic state (lets put politics aside) in modern times with no intentions of expanding (the return of sinai in 1977 , the exit from lebanon in 2001 and so on)

[Duke Malcolm]

The British Army. Always has been, always is, always shall be. From Time Immemorial, to 1633, to now.

And hence, from the list, it is the Duke of Wellington's Army. There ain't no finer soldier than a Royal Highlander (now called the Black Watch). Trained to be the best, and with pure fighting skill in their blood. Nemo me impune lacessit.

[caesar44]

The British Army. Always has been, always is, always shall be. From Time Immemorial, to 1633, to now.

And hence, from the list, it is the Duke of Wellington's Army. There ain't no finer soldier than a Royal Highlander (now called the Black Watch). Trained to be the best, and with pure fighting skill in their blood. Nemo me impune lacessit.

you forgat the american independence war 1776 - 1783 ...... the largest lost of territory ever ...
galypuli 1915

[Duke Malcolm]

The revolution was only successful because the territories were isolated form the rest of the Empire, and couldn't get much in the way of supplies. We did win wuite a few battles, you know.

Gallipoli was not caused by any lack of skill of the soldiers.

[Butcher]

In fact, Rommel kicked the eigth around for many battles before he simply ran out of supplies as hitler didnt want to bother with the little african sideshow. Not to mention the americans knocking on his back door. Im astonished that you can look at the numbers and supply statistics involved and then look at the accomplishments of the DAK and come to the conclusion that they were of poor quality..

Do not forget the fact that through ULTRA the British were able to read all the German codes, and so could sink transports at will (in particular petrol), as well as know the exact disposistion and plans of Rommel.

If i remember correctly the French alone outnumbered the Germans, not even counting the British.

The French had at the commemcement of the invasion of France:

94 Infantry Divisions (Germans 136; although total allied divisions amounted to 135)
10,000 Artillery pieces (Germans 2,500)
And possibly the most important:
Tanks 4,000 (Germans 2,600)

The breakdown in tanks was:
French:
300 Char B (Virtually invulnerable to existing german AT weapons)
250 Somua (Both these tanks superior to the original PzkW 3 and 4's)
800 Hotchkiss H35's and H439's
1,000 Renault R35's
2,500 Renault FT's (although these were comparable to the Pzkw 1, mere machine gun carriers in effect)
The Germans had:
525 Pzkw 1
955 Pzkw 2 (both of these were obsolete)
350 Pzkw 3
280 Pzkw 4 (Only the Pzkw 3 could really damage the Somua)
228 Pz 38(t) and Pz 35(t) (Czech tanks) with the same 37mm gun as the Pzkw 3.
Source: Panzerkrieg, P mcCarthy and M Syron)

The germans were outnumbered, outgunned and out armoured. It's only numerical superiority was in aircraft.

Yes Bastogne is a good example.

The Americans in Bastogne were encircled for less than a week, and knew that there would be relief soon.
In the Cholm pocket on the Eastern Front, 4,000 German troops held out for 3 1/2 months against 128 assaults, suffering 1,550 dead. "Nuts!" indeed.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Bastogne also has one of the best military exchanges ever. Allied Commander to German Commander, Nuts.

[Franconicus]

The topic here is best army ever. I wonder why most of the posts discuss WW2 topics . If there is the need to discuss WW2 in detail, why not open another thread (or maybe several) for that. Let us do the discussion about best army ever. Maybe we should start to poll!