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
AdamB       2/8/2007 1:09:02 PM
"they lost the biggest possible jewel in their crown in America to their numerically and qualitative inferior Army/Militia and the French"
Britain didn't care much of its colonies in North America.  Her other possessions, such as India, were considered far more valuable and important.  Queen Victoria called India "The Jewel in the Crown."
And remember that the British Empire was at its biggest - its zenith - in 1921, 150 years after America got its independence.  America was no great loss.
Quote    Reply

AdamB       2/8/2007 1:14:29 PM
"The Brits could not have defeated Neopoleonic France by themselves. "
Well, they did in 1805, when Nelson defeated not only Napoleonic France but also her ally Spain, in the same battle at Trafalgar.
Look at the statistics in that battle -
Britain (on her own -
449 dead,
1,214 wounded
4,480 dead,
2,250 wounded,
7,000 captured,
21 ships captured,
1 ship blown up
And the combined forces of Napoleonic France and Spain had more ships in that battle than the British did.
Quote    Reply

kane       2/8/2007 1:47:37 PM

TitleI don't remember French moving all the way to Istanbul beating everyone on the way and trying to hold on 2 more continents for more than 600 years

French sacked Bysance on the way of crusades.

And we have ended Ottoman empire with the British.Ever heard of Sykes Picot agrement?

Yes my friend I have heard of it
But what I'm saying is DIFFERENT
I'm talking about a DIFFERENT timescale like 300 years before this
During WW1 Ottomans were nothing just nothing yet they still fought aganist Russians,British and French
BTW after that agreement do you know what happened
Turkish indepence war lol.Turks had two fighting forces in independence war
Organised army which fought aganist Armenians in the east and aganist British and French in west(beating them all)
French were occupying southeast region and only Kuvay-i Miiliye was fighting aganist them.They were guerillas yet they sacked French all by themselves

Anyway thats not my point
I'm talking about the era between 1450s-1650s
Ottomans were the most powerfull in that time

Quote    Reply

kane       2/8/2007 1:52:05 PM

[quote]France Napoleonic Era [/quote]


Rubbish.  During the French Napoleonic Era, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Britain was the world's dominant power.  Naploleonic France ruled much of Europe but Britain, and its navy, ruled the world.

+The socalled French Empire didn't last long either(I mean when they were controlling Europe)
Quote    Reply

kane       2/8/2007 2:05:38 PM

I can find more stuff to prove Ottomans were a global power(actually the most powerfull) in 15th-17th century and very strong world power in 1300s.

In 1300s Ottomans and Timurid were the greatest power in the world(well Europe wasn't a union back then)
Timur and Beyazdil thought they were the mightiest. . .

Did the Ottomans even know that the earth was indeed globular to be a global power? All pun aside, Ottoman Empire was interesting in its dichotomy - in the Western end it was relatively unified under Islamic and Turkic banner, in the Eastern end it was much more flexible in its loyalties and boundaries. Its tribal components in 1300s would no doubt have heard about the Mongol and later Ming rulers of China lording it over a population and land-area larger than Ottoman Empire and all of Europe combined? At that point of time China was definitely richer and far more advanced than Europe or West Asia, logically its rulers would be far more powerful.

Timur definitely was stronger than the Ottomans - he did capture Beyazdil... but even he was quite wary of the Ming - sending them tributes (which is funny because when he attacked the Delhi Sultanate it was in a "jihad", but didn't dare declare one against decidedly kafir China). By the way most of the Timurid clan was exterminated by the Uzbegs within years of his death with only a small branch of surviving in Afghanistan as Mughals. This would have been inconceivable to Western Ottomans, but the Eastern Ottomans would probably take it as a fact of life.

Ottomans survived for the very long period of time that they did (a) because they had adopted many Greek/Byzantine ideas on leadership and administration which was completely different from the Central Asian/Turkic concept of leadership, and (b) because between 1800-1900 Ottomans were seen as useful anti-Russian/anti-Slavic counterforce in that area.
Most of the things you say are true
I actually didn't mean Ottomans were the strongest in the world in 1300s.But it was among the most strongs and stronger than any European country(because they weren't united yet)
The time I'm talking about is between 1450-1650
After them the Spanish took the lead followed by the British
Beyazdil-Beyazid**(my mistake)

Quote    Reply

kane    +WE CANNOT CHOOSE JUST ONE   2/8/2007 2:28:44 PM
I mean when we look at history there have been many powers
All were the strongest at their time
making lists would be smarter
here is my list
(I'm not including ancient ones)
Chinese(Chi Dynasty?)
3rd reich

Quote    Reply

Herald1234    I agree to differ with you on the terms of the definition.   2/8/2007 3:32:28 PM

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. 


invasion carries a rather strong military connotation while encroachment doesn't.  i have no problems considering the pilgrims an encroaching group but i would have a real problem considering a bunch of farmers and their families as an invasion force.
There is enough difference in the seen characteristics in the two range encroachments to make the minor quibble over the details and classifications of the subsets justifiable.

Quote    Reply

french stratege       2/8/2007 4:13:09 PM
First there is two component in a military force:
a naval one and a ground one (including air force support since XXth century).
On naval one Britain achieved absolute superiority during a century after 1815 with probably more than 50% of world power like US do today for 10 years.
On ground French army was the world stronguest force from battle of Rocroy in 1648 to almost 1866 where Prussian army merged with other german armies like Bavarian, to become the world stronguest force.
Of course France has been contained in several occasion by a combination of power which never allowed its forces to be targeted to a single opponent.
But at least during almost 20 years, french army has obtained an astonishing great percentage of world power (probably 40%) and it was during revolution-empire wars where total of french force excedeed well a million men active with the best average training and artillery (Gribeauval system) and was not defeated on battlefield during dozen of consecutive battles while overextended from Spain to Russia.
Morerecently German army has obtained also record in world power % at least from 1914 to 1918 then 1940 to 1942.
I don't think any other armies achieved such % as Roman army was not stronguer than Chinese armies at these time, Ottoman never exceeded power of French or Charles Quint empire (*), and USA or Russia never reached level of France of germany in % of ground world power since USA and Russia were similar in the size magnitude with german armies at end of WW2.
(*) after XV century European military  technology gap was such that no armies in rest of the world could match them until USA entered the game.
Quote    Reply

kane       2/8/2007 4:34:39 PM
Look my French friend
Are you sure you know history?I'm saying before 1650.Between 1450-1650 Ottomans were almost invincible
If Ottomans were weak!!!How did they manage to take all those lands(some major powers in them-Mamelukes,Byzantines,Slav kingdoms,half of Hungary,some parts from Safavids......and it goes on.Countless kingdoms and empires.+Poles had to pay to us)
Come on now,be logical how many empires took over that much large lands and controlled them centuries
This is the time when ottomans were at the top
Ottoman army was definetly the strongest army.Most discplined,organised,had good logistics,very well equipped and had a lot of man

About the navy,well ottomans didn't have a strong navy but their ground forces were powerfull.They even tried to go to India to stop Brits

Quote    Reply

kane       2/8/2007 4:41:04 PM
Here is what Suleyman say to 1.Fransua during our alliance
"I'm am the leader of three continents and you're just the leader of a small state,how will you help me"
While Europeans were begging for trade rights Suleyman only gave those rights to French and he also helped France aganist HRE
The European politics were always influenced by Ottomans
Not even European...even Asians and Russians were influenced by Ottomans

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