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
gf0012-aust       2/11/2007 12:23:49 AM


 

That's one myth I've never heard... quite the opposite actually. I've always heard all credit being given to the weather with non at all being given to Drake. People who listen to that myth you just said are people who must have skipped school, where teaching anything that glorifies Britain is a big no-no!


Yeah the weather was the decisive factor, but the naval contribution (such as it was) shouldn't be ignored either. By constantly harassing the Spanish, the Brits did prevent them from regrouping and keeping in good order, not to mention the fire attack in harbor that did a lot of damage.
 


But again, most knowledgeable people realize that we can thank the storms for that win. Even the people at the time acknowledged that... the medals awarded said "God breathed and they were scattered."


 


Reguards,

 

B.L.

did you read my response completely and properly?
I'm far from being anti-british - quite the opposite actually (except for cricket). - and as far as my knowledge of history goes, its not recidivist or reconstituted by perceived ant-anglo/UK popularism at all. That being said, it also does not mean that I'm going to lie down and accept some of the drivel thats posted while someone is enveloped by some mist of patriotic euphoria in defence of old blighty.
 
it also doesn't alter then fact that turning drake into a spanish dragon slayer is somewhat cavalier and economical with the truth. (british derived history lessons as taught in australian schools of the 60's also painted the British as the first europeans to make their presence felt, something that both the dutch and french could and do quite rightly take umbrage with!)  Of course he did a good job, but jackie fisher he 'aint
 
on another note, some of the claims made by Menzies (ex RN Adm as well as being a history tragic) are also disputed by the mainland chinese. (depth of journey and some of the design claims etc...)
 
whats not under as robust dispute is that they fielded the largest displacement sized fleet of the second millenia, in fact it would be like comparing USS John C Stennis with HMS Fearless. - So the claims re Drake and "fleetus biggus maximus" don't hold water (no pun intended)
 
I do have Menzies book on the shelf, and although its a good read, its certainly not a reference book by any means.
 
Don't mistake my criticism of a throw away jingoism as an example of anti-british sentiment - thats so far from the truth its comedic.


 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Zheng He, the Koreans, and the Japanese.    2/11/2007 3:07:47 AM
I'm fairly confident that Indian, moslem, and  east African accounts of contacts with the Chinese are fairly accurate.

I also happen to believe that the arab corsair oral histories of Sinbad the Sailor and Zheng He's Seven Voyages somehow became confused with one another.

What I do not doubt is that the Chinese Ming mounted a huge trade and exploration effort.

Just as I do not doubt the extensive Japanese and Korean naval wars of the sixteenth/seventeenth centuries that saw both sides deploy armored ships of some kind-some which may have used flame projectors and cannon at least equal to European warships of similar displacement.

Part of the trouble with getting a true grasp of the scale of these naval powers is that we don't have good histories in the West  of the East Asian kingdoms. In many respects we know far more about the  Hitites than we know about the East Asian nations of less than  six hundred years ago. That is ridiculous.

This is one major empire and at least six powerful bordering neighboring kingdoms whose history make the European Age of Enlightenment set tos look like playground fights. There was some serious politics, major fighting, and severals tens of millions of people killed in a region of the world that the West really didn't start to investigate, until the Spanish and Portuguese started sniffing around in the late sixteenth century. The Europeans still remained fairly ignorant, until the Dutch, and finally the English, started to encroach in force in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

This blank in the general knowledge of history is bizarre to the point of hubris. Maybe if a little of the history of China and her neighbors was taught in the West at least that part of the history post-Mongol-particularly the truly vicious naval trade wars, then the West would understand the tendency of the various eastern nations to avoid the contact with "foreigners"-especially the Koreans and the Japanese.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

scuttlebut steve    is it that hard?   2/11/2007 7:16:13 AM
the US (1945-1949) should be the easy winner.  even one nuke dropped from one plane can do to a city what years of massed bombings or siege cannot do-utterly decimate it in a very short time.  Every one of those weapons you can field constitutes a sizable percentage of military power ( ability to kill people and break stuff ). during this time the US also had the most advanced long range bombers to drop the nukes, the most advanced aircraft (fighters and bombers) in service, by far the most fleet, light, and escort carriers (the new capitol ships) the most and best battleships, the largest force of smaller surface ships, a huge land army, wartime production capability that was virtually immune from enemy attack and could far surpass all of europe (especially since most of it was shatered from the war ) and the most biggest sub force ( relevant subs, the soviet navy's 229 subs fielded less than 90 modern, long range fleet subs ) in the world. the only areas where the US doesnt come in first ( and in most areas first by a wide margin ) is number of troops and number/best tanks.
 
 
Quote    Reply

the British Lion    GF   2/11/2007 2:12:18 PM
I think our wires have gotten a little bit crossed... I wasn't accusing you of being anti-British. I was really just trying to point out that most Brits know that the weather did most of the work in beating the Spanish Armada; just a select few idiots like to claim the win as a great naval victory.
 
Sorry for the missunderstanding :)
 
Reguards,
 
B.L.
 
Quote    Reply

Zhukov-4    gf0012-aust   12/4/2009 4:03:54 PM
gf0012-aust your an idiot. First of Germany lost their empire due to military reasons on both occasions. Im goin to run down the reasons why Germany could never make the list. First off their economy and foreign influence wasnt even the at the top of their time, Germany in world war 1 was militarily speaking quite a bastard to be dealt with. but if this is based off of their strength compared with the rest of the earth, then they are slightly off, but they were closer to ur wishes in the first world war. In ww2 its even more untrue, because the Soviet Union alone was just as powerful, probably slightly more so. and if America was fully mobilized on JUST Germany, honestly Germany would lose, think about all the arms sales the U.S. was sending (like 100's of thousands of trucks to Russia, etc) that could of been put into more tanks, plus they produced all the M4 Sherman tanks for the new french first army, a good portion of the british army, the canadian army, while still havin to rebuild their navy for japan, havin the largest air force in the world by two-fold you get my point. Now militarily as far as in the field, they were the strongest at the onset of ww2 but there was serious competition and they didn't hold this #1 spot for very long, would u say the Nazi Army bein the most powerful for 2-4 years is reason enough to put em on the list. And it would have to be, because there were several countries with larger economies and more influence.
 
As far as them bein the first intercontinental powers, ur an idiot as well, many countries over history did this, the greeks, french, mongols, romans.
 
 German cultural influence never dominated the world to the extent that the list makers do. Maybe through German-Americans. Britain is a much better argument, but it would have to be in earlier times, medieval times, because at this time really there wasnt much else for military competition other then france, and lets not forget in the hundred years war, it was england invadin france. Because of their Navy, Britain expanded it's influence to the world more so then France, but the rest of Europe without France could have defeated the British Army on any occasion (that is with includin Russia) and there are other countries out there, a list makin country should not be outclassed against the rest of the world by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. Especially if you consider the U.S. (today), Romans, and Eygyptians could either come close or even defeat the whole world alone (in their times).
 
 
Quote    Reply

Zhukov-4       12/4/2009 4:20:15 PM
But just because of their total influence, wealth and land possession the British may very well be a card holder for makin the list. But at the end of the day, lets be honest, it comes down to The Romans and the United States of America.They meet every criteria that anyone else does, and yet their military dominance in relation with the rest of the world is significantly higher to any comparison. Excpet for Egypt, way back in the day, but would u really put them down, i mean their hardly was a world back then. The Greeks are a very honorable mention because they accomplished one of the greatest military feets ever, but measured against the Romans, they didnt hold there new territories for very long. The Mongols also make the list, but for all their military victories, they never went up against what could of been their main competition.......Britain and France, which honestly, either would of defeated them, the Mongols based their strength on cavalry against countries that had not learned it's importance yet (cavalry was HUGE before the invention of rifles) but The West Europeans had the heaviest Cavalry and the most. They also didnt have much wealth, despite their conquests. But gosh, its close between America and Rome. Can anyone help me out, or give me reasons why one wins over the other.
 
Quote    Reply

Zhukov-4       12/4/2009 4:31:21 PM
Oh lord, i completely forgot about the Persian Empire, they were quite somethin, they never went outside their borders though, militarily or in influence, but still, compared with the rest of the world militarily their up there.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       12/4/2009 11:25:54 PM

gf0012-aust your an idiot. First of Germany lost their empire due to military reasons on both occasions. Im goin to run down the reasons why Germany could never make the list. First off their economy and foreign influence wasnt even the at the top of their time, Germany in world war 1 was militarily speaking quite a bastard to be dealt with. but if this is based off of their strength compared with the rest of the earth, then they are slightly off, but they were closer to ur wishes in the first world war. In ww2 its even more untrue, because the Soviet Union alone was just as powerful, probably slightly more so. and if America was fully mobilized on JUST Germany, honestly Germany would lose, think about all the arms sales the U.S. was sending (like 100's of thousands of trucks to Russia, etc) that could of been put into more tanks, plus they produced all the M4 Sherman tanks for the new french first army, a good portion of the british army, the canadian army, while still havin to rebuild their navy for japan, havin the largest air force in the world by two-fold you get my point. Now militarily as far as in the field, they were the strongest at the onset of ww2 but there was serious competition and they didn't hold this #1 spot for very long, would u say the Nazi Army bein the most powerful for 2-4 years is reason enough to put em on the list. And it would have to be, because there were several countries with larger economies and more influence.

 

As far as them bein the first intercontinental powers, ur an idiot as well, many countries over history did this, the greeks, french, mongols, romans.


 

 German cultural influence never dominated the world to the extent that the list makers do. Maybe through German-Americans. Britain is a much better argument, but it would have to be in earlier times, medieval times, because at this time really there wasnt much else for military competition other then france, and lets not forget in the hundred years war, it was england invadin france. Because of their Navy, Britain expanded it's influence to the world more so then France, but the rest of Europe without France could have defeated the British Army on any occasion (that is with includin Russia) and there are other countries out there, a list makin country should not be outclassed against the rest of the world by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. Especially if you consider the U.S. (today), Romans, and Eygyptians could either come close or even defeat the whole world alone (in their times).


 


Hey, show some decorum. That's now how we discuss things here. Pls keep things civil and others will do the same for you, Zhukov.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       12/4/2009 11:28:33 PM

 The Mongols also make the list, but for all their military victories, they never went up against what could of been their main competition.......Britain and France, which honestly, either would of defeated them, the Mongols based their strength on cavalry against countries that had not learned it's importance yet (cavalry was HUGE before the invention of rifles) but The West Europeans had the heaviest Cavalry and the most.    

I'm intrigued by this comment, Zhukov. Could you pls elaborate? Don't you think the Mongols had the advantage of mobility and firepower over the West Europeans? After all, if the West Europeans were more powerful than the Mongols, why didn't they conquer most of the known world? thx
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/5/2009 12:46:50 AM

gf0012-aust your an idiot etc etc.....

from one alleged idiot to another,  it is customary in even internet debate to actually qualify and quote whatever it is that one takes issue with so that people can actually respond with some degree of confidence and/or authority.

I hope you manage to sort that out because you've just triggered a little bit of st george in me as I know from all my previous posts what I've actually said and where I stand on points of history.

if you could be so kind as to directly quote me so that I can precede to initiate some corrective action then  that would be appreciated. 

I have to warn you though that your prev little outburst has already labelled you as intemperate and unable to read the written word without clouding over due to your own prejudices and perceptions holding on to your reins.
 
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