Greatest Army....

...That the world has ever seen?

This is not a versus situation, obviously a modern army would napalm the shit out of the roman legion, I'm talking in the context of the time. The most manpower, the most innovative, the most tactically savvy. basically the most impressive by the standards of the day.

My vote is mongols.

 

one vote for mongoloids

I think ants are ever strategically and tactically adept.

regardless someone is always bigger or stronger or smarter

and there is always disease to contend with.

 

america modern day

 

Armies are the worst waste of time and life in all of history.

"War doesn't decide who's right, only who's left."

The U.S. illustrated the futility of war in Vietnam and Iraq.

 

taking up arms hand in hand is the way to occupy the land

 

[SIZE=12pt]Its hard top the Army led by Alexander The Great, but in terms of military strategy my guess is Hannibal, in terms of innovation, It’s the Roman Legions, and the Chinese(during the Qin Dynasty) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]When it came to toughness it's the Spartans along with the Japanese Samurai and the immortals (Persian Empire) I could include the Vikings but they were more like raiders than conquerors [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]and you could make a good case for the Mongols during the time under Kublai Khan who succeeded in capturing much of the middle east, china, and Europe. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Hotwater[/SIZE]

 

you know, i don't even think of greatness in terms of that. besides, how would you define what you mean by that.

if you mean balls, i would have to think of the naked celts, facing roman swords wearing only blue paint.

once you enter the modern age, its all about technology and tactics, advantages and luck.

 

The only army that ever did anything for me was the Salvation Army. Years ago when I was a penniless squatter in London,we used to go to the SA and get fed for free - or for the price of hearing a little bit of preaching.

 

I am always intrigued by the army of Alexander the great as well and how far he got with it and how much of an influence it has had in the centuries after it.

But yeah all in all ants are the great winner. Now if only they would join forces with other ant armies... the world as we know it would end

 

My guess would be Alexander the Great's army, but I'm no expert on ancient military stuff.
in terms of manpower it would have to be a modern army simply because of the population numbers.

whatever, just answer the fucking question and leave your soapbox diatribe in the closet where it belongs.

 

I kinda liked leaving the question open to interpretation as to "greatest"

here's my case for mongols:

Each mongol warrior was entirely self-sufficient, they were used to incredibly harsh steppe life. they never washed (letting their clothes rot off them), they had no problem eating lizards and rats, they would drink their horse's blood to survive if need be and even (reportedly) resorted to cannibalism during protracted sieges.

They were so skilled with a bow that they could fire from horseback at a gallop when all four horses hooves were off the ground (we had to invent the camera to even know for sure that horses did that)

All this meant that a mongol army could move with a speed never before seen, without the need for lengthy supply chains. Most of their opponents were convinced that they were being attacked by multiple armies because they couldn't work out how an army could possibly move at that speed.

It also meant that they could invade countries by routes that they were unexpected to take simply because they were believed to be impossible. They crossed deserts and frozen tundra in journeys that it was thought no man could survive simply so that they could attack with the element of surprise.

they conquered the largest contiguous land empire in history. If they hadn't fallen into civil war, it seems almost inevitable that they would have conquered all of europe. No army existed there that could have withstood them. Only a freak storm saved Japan from mongol invasion as well.

Temujin (genghis) Khan had an entirely meritocratic approach to hiring and firing. One of his most successful generals began as his enemy, getting the job by impressing the khan by shooting out his horse from under him. In all of the conquered populations, the mongols weeded out those with valuable skills and used them to their advantage, such as chinese engineers and bombardiers, this meant that in addition to their horse archers and lancers, they had a wide range of skillsets in their army. they also used an advanced spy network to gather information ahead of invasions.

 

The Nazi's had a very impressive army for the time. The blitzkrieg tactic was one of the main reason they took over western Europe so quickly.

England does not have a very large army but they basically invented special forces with the SAS during World War 2. Special forces are now so ingrained in military strategy today I think they deserve a mention. Even America with the largest military in the modern world learned a lot from their British allies in this regard.

 

Look at what Napoleon's army did, and what happen to Napoleon.

 

Sooo, the imperial russian army is your fav?

 

the army of Philip of Macedon's (Alexander's father). i have the highest regard for him, some things he did were pretty ingenious.

obviously, Napoleon's was the best there was on the planet for some years as well.

 

Alexander wouldn't have had an army had his father not built it. there was nothing there that Alexander didn't inherit from his father. Philip built it up when it was in ruins, essentially, and made it what it was. he has been criminally overlooked in that regard.

 

It is true that raising an army is one thing but what a commander does with it is an other. How likely is it that Philip or any other guy for that matter took this army, expanded it and go and conquer all the lands Alexander did? It seems a remarkable accomplishment, regardless how much luck this army had in it's conquests or how much Alexander depended on other people (he obviously didn't do it alone )

 

well, we differ on preference. you find the number of lands conquered (i don't think that's quite the right word, 'explored' and 'sedated' would be more accurate, but that's my opinion) impressive, i don't. i find nothing impressive about what Alexander did there, other than the exploration potential. Alexander was essentially an explorer, not a conqueror. Philip built his power base and unified Greece, as a result he concentrated his forces and empire not dilute them -- like Alexander did -- and that is far more impressive to me. it is a more efficient strategy. (Napoleon failed by the same token, because eventually he aimed for quantity over quality of his empire).

that's the way i look at it.

 

PS. Philip probably would not have ventured as far as Alexander did, but he was on the verge of invading Persia (and already had forces fighting in there) when he was killed.

 

Well, it's not about what I find better strategy overall, in that case most people (including me) might say it is more useful (or even impressive) to concentrate your powerbase and focus mainly on unifying with your neighbouring factions. Most people wouldn't venture and explore as far with an army as Alexander did (as it is usually unwise and very risky and expensive), which is why it is only more intruiging and impressive that he succesfully did it. And the legacy of it is certainly also impressive wether we like what he did or not.