What is the best army ever?

[Empirate]

Are you serious, drisos? The Teutons were only a bunch of disorganized barbarians! They hadn't the first idea about where they were going and what they were facing, they only were many and savage. But they were easily outmaneuvered by Marius, intercepted and destroyed as a people, courtesy of the best army in the world back then!

[English assassin]

Putting the question as which army was best able to serve the strategic goals of its political leadership is an interesting slant, even if it may be an bit anachronistic.

For instance, it suggests that its unlikely that the British Army at any period of its history would carry the crown, since Britain's main strategic arm has always been sea power.

It puts the Wehrmacht into an interesting perspective too. (Presumably the exclusion of the Waffen SS was deliberate, certainly it's relevant in this context.) In terms of tactical ability, arguably there was as much of a gap between the Wehrmacht and its opponents fior most of the war as there has ever been between two comtemporary armies, (if only the British had read Liddell Hart rather than leaving it to Guderian). Yet the Wehrmacht was ultimately unable to acheive Germany's strategic goals, probably because of a disconnect between those setting the goals and those who understood what was actually possible. Also the divisions between the professional army and the Waffen SS (surely the true instrument of nazi strategic thinking) are telling.

Whilst it was short lived, Napoleon's army deserves serious consideration not only for tactical success, but for political innovation as the first modern example of a nation under arms and the huge advantage that gave them. But without Napoleon wouild it have been so formidable? The question isn't who was the greatest general after all. Its also very tempting to give the prize to the Romans, but there is the fact that rather than being an instrument of policy the imperial army, at least, became all too involved in internal politics at the expense of serving the true interests of the state.

On the whole I would vote for the republican Roman army: an extremely successful example of citizens under arms acheiving the goals of their society as a whole.

[Spartakus]

The Normans were IMO the most capable fighting force of their time. Following the founding of Normandy in 911, they defeated virtually every foe encountered, often severly outnumbered. This includes enemies as diverse as Franks, Bretons, Anglo-Saxons, Lombards, Greeks, Arabs and Turks. Numerous sources attest to their superiority, not to say natural predisposition, as warriors.

Also, one can speculate regarding the triumph of the First Crusade, which included a significant number of Normans, compared with the later and less successfull ones, which did not.

Normandy was absorbed by the French kingdom in 1204.

[Randal]

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.

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!

Lutwak wrote a very important book, but nowadays much of his theories regarding the "grand strategy" of the Roman Empire have been refuted. (Amongst others, refer to Isaac, B., The limits of Empire, the Roman Army in the East (New York, 1990) and Ferril, A., 'The grand strategy of the Roman empire', in: P. Kennedy (ed.), Grand Strategies in war and peace (New Haven 1991) 71-85.

Basically, systems like "defense in depth" probably never were conceived as ideas by Rome, but arose haphazardly and coincidentally as individual commanders tried to cope with the military realities.

Although I must say Luttwak still wrote a lot of sensible things, and some of Ferril's criticism pertains to things Luttwak never said, and Isaac's extreme revisionist approach seems unlikely in the extreme. For one thing, he denies the Roman army ever thought about defense, and was purely focused on offensive campaigns, the acquisition of booty, and any garrisons were purely for the suppression of rebellion and disorder among the oppressed provincials.

Still, Luttwak's notion of a "mobile" field army is simply anachronistic. Armies moved so slowly in antiquity that interception by any save local forces would have been impossible unless the enemy force stayed in Roman territory for very long times, or penetrated towards the heartlands. Luttwak probably came up with the notion because "defence in depth" was the prevailing NATO grand strategy in Western Europe when he wrote the book.

[Empirate]

That's very interesting, thanks also for the pointers, Randal!
But I think Luttwak was very conscious of the problem of slow movement. He dedicates many pages to arguing with it. The idea of his "defense-in-depth" of roman times is more that a legion-based force, but smaller and with more cavalry, was able to make use of the good roman roads to intercept an enemy army many miles inside roman territory, while the enemy was impeded and sometimes prevented from using the same roads by roadstops, watchtowers, barricades, all the way up to true fortresses. These were not able to fight off the enemy, but they were able to buy the mobile forces time, watching the enemy's moves, constantly harassing them and so on. All the while preserving the fighting power of the garrisons, since most barbarian armies had no idea how to lay siege to a castle, albeit a small one. And Luttwak himself attests to provincial or even local leaders as the origin of these concepts. I think what he calls the "grand strategy" is in these times more to be understood as "what those in charge (on a local level) saw as the successful paradigm of defense".

O man, way off topic now. Sorry folks!

[Randal]

Yes, Luttwak was more concious of the slow movement problems than many of his critics seem to believe.

But he still holds to the erronous belief that the late roman cavalry-based armies can move faster than the early-roman infantry based ones. They can't, really. Over long distances a man on foot is just as fast as a man on horseback. (Unless you're a mongol with 3 spare horses trotting behind you, and superb discipline to boot)

The "defense in depth" system more likely arose the other way around:

It became apparent that the Roman border defences no longer could cope with all attacks. Therefore, raids deep into Roman territory became far more common. The provincials, not being crazy, defended themselves against this by fortifying their towns, granaries and farmsteads, to limit the damage a barbarian incursion could do. This was not done out of any "grand strategy" to lure the barbarian's deep into Roman territory before destroying them, it arose out of necessity.

The system of field armies accompanying the emperor, likewise, was not part of a border defense strategy, in all likelyhood. It makes much more sense as a political decision. If the emperor has the best divisions of the army with him, the chances of succesful generals on the border being proclaimed Emperor are much lower, and if a rival does arise, the current emperor can deal with it far more easily. The problem is, though, that it does weaken the border defences, as a field army with the emperor can't really reach a threatened area in less than a couple of months.

...yes, totally off topic. So, to compensate, I'll answer the original question:

I agree with Empirate. The Romans were the best army ever, because they were the only ones to consistently achieve all strategical and tactical goals over an extremely long period of time. They also get point for the capability to adapt themselves to changing circumstances, and copying effective enemy weapons and tactics.

[caesar44]

Yes, Luttwak was more concious of the slow movement problems than many of his critics seem to believe.

But he still holds to the erronous belief that the late roman cavalry-based armies can move faster than the early-roman infantry based ones. They can't, really. Over long distances a man on foot is just as fast as a man on horseback. (Unless you're a mongol with 3 spare horses trotting behind you, and superb discipline to boot)

The "defense in depth" system more likely arose the other way around:

It became apparent that the Roman border defences no longer could cope with all attacks. Therefore, raids deep into Roman territory became far more common. The provincials, not being crazy, defended themselves against this by fortifying their towns, granaries and farmsteads, to limit the damage a barbarian incursion could do. This was not done out of any "grand strategy" to lure the barbarian's deep into Roman territory before destroying them, it arose out of necessity.

The system of field armies accompanying the emperor, likewise, was not part of a border defense strategy, in all likelyhood. It makes much more sense as a political decision. If the emperor has the best divisions of the army with him, the chances of succesful generals on the border being proclaimed Emperor are much lower, and if a rival does arise, the current emperor can deal with it far more easily. The problem is, though, that it does weaken the border defences, as a field army with the emperor can't really reach a threatened area in less than a couple of months.

...yes, totally off topic. So, to compensate, I'll answer the original question:

I agree with Empirate. The Romans were the best army ever, because they were the only ones to consistently achieve all strategical and tactical goals over an extremely long period of time. They also get point for the capability to adapt themselves to changing circumstances, and copying effective enemy weapons and tactics.

yes
it is so good that there are still some people who know history
the romans with out doubt , as i said before
650 years of total dominance in the western world (275 bce to 378 ce)
from the fall of rome to napoleon there were not any western world empire and napoleon managed to it only for max 10 years

[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.

[Gildas]

Its almost an impossible question to answer.Even leaving aside modern armies, as they have the rather obvious advantage of guns, armies from different periods are uncomparable. How for example would the Mongols have coped with the English Longbowmen?
Add to this the importance of leadership and the point becomes even more muddled. The removal of Henry v as war leader saw the collapse of English interests in France, without strong leadership the Mongol empire disintegrated. Alexander's death saw his empire crumble. with that in mind I'd have to say the Roman army was the finest. It endured for so long and it endured with at times leaders who where at best unbalanced and at worst insane.

[Empirate]

Well, SteppeMerc, I would take a platoon of U.S. marines over 10.000 mounted archers every day, but then that's only me...
We're not trying to compare armies of different times directly, we're trying to sort out which army was the best able to cope with what it's time threw at it. Also, the question wether a people was more or less militaristic doesn't have that much influence on wether the armies it could field were capable at their job. Or would you call today's U.S. a warrior nation? Or the French back around 1800?

On a different note:
Leadership is certainly very important and can't be dismissed from a comparison of armies. But the structure of some armies make them more liable to function even without a good supreme leader, while others need a very good commander-in-chief to accomplish anything. E. g. the roman legions could function well at all times, as long as they were left to their own officers. A field commander originating from the political sphere without the first idea about strategy and tactics could spell disaster for them, though (Terentius Varro and Quinctilius Varus come to mind). But normally, the legions would always do reasonably well due to the reliance on lower ranks to provide a lot of leadership (centuriones) and very well trained standard tactics.

[The Wizard]

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

.......Orda

I wholly concur, but the Romans come close...

How about the armies of the Caliphate 7th-10th centuries? Excellent generals like Khalid ibn Whalid made the formidable Muslim armies (who in that time would have expected them to be so?) invincible.

BTW, regarding the so-called total dominance of Rome for 650 years? Not true. The Romans suffered a complete breakdown in the 3rd century AD already. Barbarians roamed freely across the frontiers, the Dacian salient and the Rhine-Danube salient forming the crux of the axis had to be abandoned, Gaul seceded, Britain seceded, the Sassanids overran Mesopotamia, while the Palmyrans had taken control of all of Asia, Syria, Iudaea and Aegyptus. Menahwile, the Roman army was completely unable to cope with the situation.

Why? Not a lack of competence or ability, certainly. The Romans were simply too busy fighting each other. Emperors only lasted a couple of years. Foes like the Goths were able to cross into Asia while Romano-Gauls and Romano-Britons claimed their own Empires. Finally, at the end of the century, a series of soldier-emperors stood up, who ended what is today termed the Crisis of the Third Century. It is no wonder that emperor Aurelian got the title 'Restitutor Orbis', Restorer of the World. Still, it is probably in this century that the cause for the fall of the Roman empire can be found -- emperors relied fully on the army to support their claim to the throne. Soldiers understood that they held real power, and abused that fact. As a result, discipline declined while armies kept on elevating their leaders to the status of emperor, even if they did not want to become Augustus. Soldiers simply wanted a piece of the pie: they wanted the riches that came from their leader if he became emperor.



~Wiz

[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]

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.

[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

[Empirate]

I'd go for training, too, but leadership is at least as important. No army can win even the smallest battle without somebody who has a grasp of the concepts of tactics and strategy, who develops goals and a plan to reach them and who communicates these to the forces under her/his command.

[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.

[Al Khalifah]

Post WW2:
The Israeli Armed Forces
Israel is perhaps the only nation in the world with modern armed forces that is in a state where the nation itself is in constant danger of an armed assault and has been since its birth.
The IAF uses slightly outdated American technologies in addition to home built ones, but the true strength of the force is the training and experience of its soldiers. At current, man for man, I do not think there is another armed-forces in the world that combines such discipline throughout its ranks and officers, combined with modern weapons and combat technologies, steeped in military experience.

The opening of the 6 day war is simply stunning and all students of stratergy should be familiar with not just the combat itself, but also with the build up to appreciate how serious a predicament Israel was in. The air offensive against Egypt is superior to Pearl Harbor in that it rendered the enemy completely impotent in the skies by destroying nearly all their aircraft on the ground and making the runways unusable with tarmac-shredding penetration bombs so that a second wave could destroy the remainder. In the ground operations in the Sinai, within 4 days the Israeli army had destroyed the largest and most well equiped Arab army while simultaneously defending itself against several others.

I'm waiting for criticism and objection (America cud kick ur a$$!!!)...

[PanzerJaeger]

The German Armed Forces. 1936-1945

You must also include the Waffen SS despite their politics. They, especially the armored units, played critical roles in the east and in normandy. The Germans were on the cutting edge of everything military throughout the war, and if it wasnt for Hitlers decisions, they would have surely come out the victors.

Ironically, if it wasnt for Hitler, they probably wouldnt have been the best in the world..


The US military of today's time is a close second. It is before unheard of to take over countries with so few casualties.. and if the american public was willing to accept more casualties and an aggressive foreign policy, who knows how much the US could conquer..

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I believe they are the IDF, they share the acronym with the Ireland Defense Force and the Iceland Defense Force. At least those two anyway. They are also a contender, definately for post World War II, but I think the US may beat them out. The Israelis do have some of the best if not the best Spec Ops though.

[Al Khalifah]

Best Special Operations Unit is the SAS (and SBS). I don't think there's any point in even arguing that one. There's a reason why the US (among many MANY others) specifically requested them to train their counter-terrorist and special operations units.
The Israeli special operations units are top-rate and are possibly the second best in the world, but they don't have the equipment, experience, training or support staff that the SAS do. That Ultimate Force program they show in Britain makes me sick with what it makes the SAS out to be. If they worked like that on the missions they are given, they'd all be dead, quickly.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I was thinking they might be up there and may be better than the Israeli special forces, I read a book about theri exploits in WWII, but I was not aware if they had kept up their insanely high standards. Nice to hear they are still doing well.

[Brenus]

The best army ever?
Difficult to answer, because it depends of the context. The German Army at the start of the WW2 could be a good choice, even if I doubt that to defeat the Polish army, equipped with light tanks, few airplanes, cavalry and immense courage isn't a real great achievment. Same comment on the attacks against Holland and Belgium. The attack on French and English armies, the superb trap wich ended in Dunkirk, the movement throughout the Ardennes, brilliant... But after? The Barbarossa operation ended with a complete defeat in front of Moscow. Leningrad, failure, Stalingrad, no comment, Kursk and after the retreat until Berlin...
The common idea is that Germany had the best weapons, the best general and the best tactic. The only problem Germany didn't have the best strategy, and certainly not the one needed to defeat the russians. No Strategic Bomber Command, short range fighters (remember the Me109 had only 15mm fuel on London). The Panzer III got a very nasty surprise when they first met the TA34 and KV. In 1944, most the German's artillery was still on horses power...
The best army in 1940 is the German's one, in 1945, the Red Army in the western Front, the US army in the Pacific.
The most courageous, the polish fighting against all hope, the English, standing alone, the Italians climbing in their tanks that a bullet from a Bren could pierce, the Finish defending the land against Stalin's aggression...
And don't forget the Vietnamese, fighting successfully against the French, the Americans and against each others. And the French and the British in the trenches when the Germans wanted the defeated then with iron against flesh...
But, if I have to choose one, I will go the the French Revolutionary Army, with their oldest general aged 29, wich defeated the powerful European armies sent against the new republic. Because they were followed by the Napoleonic adventure, they are often forgotten. But they combined innovation (first use of a captive balloon for observation), new tactics in the use of artillery and of course courage... Unfortunately, they opened the way to Napoleon, but that is history...