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
Hugo    RE:Could it be any more clear?-Hugo,Ehran   1/20/2006 5:19:22 PM
Which was illegal at the time and in every likelyhood caused the deaths of all passengers on board.
 
Quote    Reply

hoosier01    Military Might is Subjective   2/7/2007 1:18:02 AM
  Most of the Empires we are talking about had some technilogical or tactical advantage they used to create their empire.  It was those advances over their neighbours whether it was in 1500 BCE or 1500 CE that made them a power and nothing inherent in the nation themselves or their peoples. 
  The Greeks used Hoplites with pikes which allowed them to attack enemies at a safe distance, while Alexander came up with new strategies to encircle his enemies and win easy victories.    
  The Romans with their roads and legions were able to advance and conquer many nations (greeks, carthage, persia, etc) around them whom had similar technology, but not the military know-how. 
  The Mongols had the largest contiguous land empire in the world because they used Spurs on their horses and they would fake retreates to draw opposing armies out of position, while firing a barrage of arrows, before turning on their enemy (who was now chasing them) and cutting them down from their mounts.  It was these innovations that allowed them to defeat empires around them who had similar technology.
  Those are just a few of the Ancient Empires that developed due to minor technilogical advancements.  Those who continue to argue about the greatness of the British Empire are not looking at it from the same point of view.  Yes, the British did create one of the strongest navies in the world capable of defending this "Empire" but the strength used to gain the empire was not as spectacular.
  The British Empire was born out of the industrial revolution - ships, cannons, guns, and diseases allowed England to carve out an empire.  Those weapons allowed England to lay claim to the sparsely populated (refering to Australia) and basically stone/bronze aged technology of Australia, Africa and Canada (By stone/bronze aged - I merely am refering to the level of military technology - bronze arrowheads, etc) .  While using politicas and economics to control several cities within India and China but at the same time laying claim to the entire country.  England did not build an empire but just declare it had one.  The same could be said for France of the same period.
  The Modern United States has the largest and most powerful army in the world with the best technology - and as one can see from the arms race during the Cold War and now the lovely race between the USA and China to create some kind of killer satellite - it is technological superiority that makes the power house - not just shear numbers.  So for having both against people of similar levels of technilogical advancement I'll have to give it to the USA.  Though I still love the Mongol Empire and I consider it the USA of its time.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       2/7/2007 1:51:38 AM

I wouldn't confuse the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock with the Allies landing on Normandy...

Quite correct, the ultimate achievement was seventy nine orders of magnitude greater. From an invasion  force of two hundred souls outnumbered about 200,000 to one by a the native peoples in total and about 2000 to 1 at the the point of contact to beachhead the conquest of a continent by migration, development, and force of arms to the extent that they were able to defeat then British, and the other Europeans in a series of wars, to mount an expedition to the moon, as well as participate as the major partner in the invasion of Normandy  is the far greater achievement of which Normandy is part of the subset..

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

hoosier01    WW2   2/7/2007 1:52:55 AM
I have noticed a lot of discussion about WW2, the potential outcomes and each countries role in the war. From what I have read - Czechoslovakia, with some help from either France or Britain had the military might to defeat Germany (around 1/3 of the tanks used by Gremany to invade France were taken from Czechoslovakia). So if Neville Chamberlain hadn't been a wuss - Hitler would have had his but handed to him before WW2. During the Battle of Britain, England was mainly holding on - and if germany hadn't been so impatient and changed tactics to the Blitz (trying to scare the people into surrender - which back fired) there was a very good chance that Germany would have been able to go through with Operation Sealion. What I am trying to say is that, yes, England did just hold on for a couple years - but it was the fact that they did which allowed the rest of the events of WW2 to unfold. However, though Stalin was an insane dictator himself who murdered millions of his own people - that does not take away from what the Russian people accomplished during WW2. Russia did the brunt of the fighting from 1941-1944, 20million of the 50million people killed in WW2 were Russian, without Russia holding off Germany England would have eventually fallen. Also on the topic of the Russian attrocities committed I refer back to the number of Russians killed by the Germans and the disgusting manner in which the germans had treated the Russian people. Vengence is not always pretty, and it is not only held to the Russians. Many American soldiers in the frenzied battles of the Pacific, and through the anger over Pearl Harbour and the treatment of Americans at the hands of the Japanese, would take trophies such as hands and skulls from their fallen enemies. I'm pretty sure every country on Earth has committed some attrocity, so pointing fingers doesn't work as a method for detracting from anyones achievements (England with its Empire has a nice list of people its oppressed and murdered).
 
Quote    Reply

hoosier01    Conquest of America vs Normandy   2/7/2007 2:04:06 AM



I wouldn't confuse the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock with the Allies landing on Normandy...


Quite correct, the ultimate achievement was seventy nine orders of magnitude greater. From an invasion  force of two hundred souls outnumbered about 200,000 to one by a the native peoples ... and force of arms to the extent that they were able to defeat then British, and the other Europeans in a series of wars, to mount an expedition to the moon, as well as participate as the major partner in the invasion of Normandy  is the far greater achievement of which Normandy is part of the subset..

Herald


I go back to technological differences and disease, in asking how can you compare the two? The Pilgrims were able to use their technology (guns, steel tools for trade,etc) and existing conflicts to their advantage - while diseases luckily decimated a population that might have stood a chance of survival through sheer numbers if it had not been for disease. That was not a fair fight - superstition, disease and politics payed their part in the conquest of the Americas. Normandy was a straight head to head battle between two equals. We're comparing apples and oranges now.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Two recent examples when Britain was in mortal naval danger.   2/7/2007 2:09:44 AM

I thought this topic was about "Powerful Military" not empires... "

yes, and you seem completely oblivious to the power of the royal navy over 300 years.

you seem to be completely oblivious as to how a military is required to maintain an empire - and that an empire by assopciation denotes a strong military

please give me an example of which other navy from the time of the spanish armada to the end of WW2 was to domninate and best them in persistent battle to the point where the very well being of the nation was jeopardised?

Japan in the Far East totally defeated everyone until June 1942. Afterwards they still cleaned the USN's clock routinely until the Battle of the Philippine Sea, and it could be argued that but for the fumbling Kurita they would have cleaned the USN's clock again at Leyte Gulf.

Germany 1939 to March 1943 was at least disputing to the point of endangering British mercantile survival, if not successfully denying the North Atlantic.

The USN with considerable local ANZAC help defeated the Japanese. The RN was able to resume successful hostilities in the Pacific long after the ANZAC  and US surface and submarine forces tore the guts out of HIJMN. Before that happened in 1944, the history of the RN was defeat in the ABDA area of operations. defeat in the Gulf of Thailand, defeat in the Bay of Bengal, defeat off Sri Lanka, defeat, defeat, defeat.

As for the BotA, it took everything Britain had plus most everything Canada, had along with 1/3 of the USN to coral Doenitz's U boats.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Two recent examples when Britain was in mortal naval danger.   2/7/2007 2:29:40 AM





I wouldn't confuse the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock with the Allies landing on Normandy...



Quite correct, the ultimate achievement was seventy nine orders of magnitude greater. From an invasion  force of two hundred souls outnumbered about 200,000 to one by a the native peoples ... and force of arms to the extent that they were able to defeat then British, and the other Europeans in a series of wars, to mount an expedition to the moon, as well as participate as the major partner in the invasion of Normandy  is the far greater achievement of which Normandy is part of the subset..

Herald



I go back to technological differences and disease, in asking how can you compare the two? The Pilgrims were able to use their technology (guns, steel tools for trade,etc) and existing conflicts to their advantage - while diseases luckily decimated a population that might have stood a chance of survival through sheer numbers if it had not been for disease. That was not a fair fight - superstition, disease and politics payed their part in the conquest of the Americas. Normandy was a straight head to head battle between two equals. We're comparing apples and oranges now.
I don't care about the MORALITY of the achievement, only the FACT of it. The only comparable OTHER start point is Columbus with the Cortez and Pizarro followups. In that case the result outcome fell five magnitudes short.

Apples is apples. Without Plymouth Rock there would have been no Normandy invasion. One is the subset result of the other cause in the cause-effect chain.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       2/7/2007 4:30:51 PM



I wouldn't confuse the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock with the Allies landing on Normandy...


Quite correct, the ultimate achievement was seventy nine orders of magnitude greater. From an invasion  force of two hundred souls outnumbered about 200,000 to one by a the native peoples in total and about 2000 to 1 at the the point of contact to beachhead the conquest of a continent by migration, development, and force of arms to the extent that they were able to defeat then British, and the other Europeans in a series of wars, to mount an expedition to the moon, as well as participate as the major partner in the invasion of Normandy  is the far greater achievement of which Normandy is part of the subset..

Herald


bad case of apples and oranges herald.  the pilgrims bore no resemblance to an invasion force.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       2/7/2007 4:33:09 PM
if you want to look into the odds of sealion actually working there was a nice long thread about it last year.  the concensus was pretty much that sealion was doomed.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Looking at things without the cultural bias filter.   2/7/2007 4:54:07 PM






I wouldn't confuse the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock with the Allies landing on Normandy...



Quite correct, the ultimate achievement was seventy nine orders of magnitude greater. From an invasion  force of two hundred souls outnumbered about 200,000 to one by a the native peoples in total and about 2000 to 1 at the the point of contact to beachhead the conquest of a continent by migration, development, and force of arms to the extent that they were able to defeat then British, and the other Europeans in a series of wars, to mount an expedition to the moon, as well as participate as the major partner in the invasion of Normandy  is the far greater achievement of which Normandy is part of the subset..

Herald



bad case of apples and oranges herald.  the pilgrims bore no resemblance to an invasion force.
If you look upon human migration patterns as I do, which is functionally equivalent to encroachment by one baboon troop upon another baboon troop's range, then it is indeed an invasion by a foreign troop on the native troop's range.

Apples is apples, Ehran. You just have to take the cultural blinders off to see it. 

Herald
 
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



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics