Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Most Powerful Military of All Time in Terms of Global Percentage
Aeb4ever    1/13/2006 1:20:45 AM
What was the most powerful military of all time in terms of global share of military power? For example, the USA is currently ranked at having about 53% of total naval power. I am referring in terms of all branches vs the world. My votes would be either the Mongols at height, Romans at height, English at height, USA after WWII, or USA after Cold War. Can’t make a guess at each countries percentage though. Fell free to add your own list or make a guess at the percentages of mine.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT
paul1970    RE:why don't you accept Turks!!!!!!!   1/17/2006 4:58:15 AM
if the Ottomans were that invincible then please explain why they suddenly stopped expanding into Europe and other areas???? they hit up against forces they could not beat... Ottomans were good and got very big but a lot of that is down to the quality of the opposition that they faced rather than their being all powerfull.
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:Spirit of 76 -- ehran   1/17/2006 12:32:27 PM
not so much military conflict in the sense of being defeated and the empire parcelled out amongst the victors as paying for the victory.
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:Hugo   1/17/2006 12:36:33 PM
If their navy was so strong in 1917, why the need to fill passenger liners like the Lusitania full of munitions - why not just carry it on the back of the all-powerful navy? well warships are just excruciatingly bad as improvised cargo ships. literally no room in the things for aught but the crew, food and ammo pretty much.
Quote    Reply

Hugo    RE:Ehran   1/17/2006 2:14:29 PM
But there was more than enough merchant shipping. Using liners like the Lusitania had the sole purpose of using civilians as camoflage.
Quote    Reply

Mex101    RE:Hugo   1/17/2006 4:41:34 PM
Doesn't that remind you of the Iraq war when the Iraqies dressed as and used civilians as cover before attacking? I'm not sure, but I think that had a greater affect on US Troopes than regular Iraqi soldiers. That's what the US was doing but they didn't count on the Germans to have the guts to fire at them.
Quote    Reply

Hugo    RE:Mex   1/17/2006 4:45:15 PM
Or similar to Palestinian militants using ambulances to cart around gunmen.
Quote    Reply

Mex101    RE:Hugo   1/17/2006 5:08:52 PM
That would be more accurate. If Military transports were sent they would have been destroyed so they sent them undercover. but do the Palestinian militants mind if any Civilians get killed in the process? I don't know, I'm just curious.
Quote    Reply

kane    RE:why don't you accept Turks!!!!!!!for paul   1/17/2006 5:11:56 PM
because the rulers wanted to go to east to the arabian world because of religion and the motherland of turks was in middle asia steppes. +Turks defeated many crusades by themselves. +Whole europe was united to sack Ottomans-but they couldn't
Quote    Reply

HoundOfHello    RE:why don't you accept Turks!!!!!!! Kane's Crusade   1/17/2006 6:17:24 PM
"+Turks defeated many crusades by themselves."-kane ---Weren't the crusades a couple centuries too early for the Turks? Maybe Seljuks fought on the Levantine Coast alongside the Arabs and Kurds but remember, throughout the crusades, the Byzantine Empire was still in existence. To assume that Turks (Ottomans, Seljuks, or otherwise) played a major role in combatting the Crusades is false AFAIK. "+Whole europe was united to sack Ottomans-but they couldn't Previous Comment"-kane ---If you're referring to the Crusades again, then as I said earlier, the Crusades happened a few centuries before Osman was born. Even if you're not referring to the Crusades, European opinion , may have been united against the Ottomans, but militarily, Europe never mounted a united offensive. Case in point, the Crimean War, where Russia attacked Turkey, but Britain and France stepped in to bolster the weak Turkish defenses. -HoH
Quote    Reply

Norvicension    RE:why don't you accept Turks!!!!!!!for paul   1/17/2006 6:19:31 PM
The Turkish navy was comprehensibly beaten at Lepanto by the Spanish and Venetians, thus halting the Ottoman advance in the Mediterranean. Some years before that a Turkish army of 100,000 under Suleiman the Magnificent was defeated at Vienna by 25,000 Austrians, thus halting the Ottoman advance in the Balkans. Yes, from the 14th-16th centuries the Ottomans conquered the Byzantine Empire (which at that time consisted of little more than Constantinople), a few fragmented Balkan states, the Mameluke Empire of Egypt (although the Mamelukes retained self-rule) and defeated (but not conquered) the Safavids. However these were the actions of a major regional power mopping up the opposition in its own sphere of influence. When the Ottomans tried to conquer western Europe they were stopped in their tracks (after obliterating Hungary of course). They only ever even fought Spain, Venice and Austria. If those three nations could halt the Turks what would have happened when France, England, Denmark, Sweden became involved? (Although France were at the time allied to Turkey, but the point still stands) At no point in history were the Ottomans a truly deadly threat to the whole of Europe, which you would have thought they would have been if they were the 'Most Powerful Military of All Time in Terms of Global Percentage'
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT