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
Heorot       12/14/2009 1:46:27 PM
Or Venice?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/14/2009 2:16:09 PM

It isdifficult to speak for old time since at Roman height, Chinese armies were of the same size (and Persia or India had big armies) but never encounterered themselves.

Chinese warlords were fielding and deploying 200,000 men armies into a battle, modern euro armies would not hit that force mass in the field for close to another 1000 years.  In addition, western forces of similar mass weren't deployed in the same context - ie they weren't committed to battle in volume but spread over the theatre
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/14/2009 2:19:58 PM

Do you consider the city of Florence at the height of the Renaissance a superpower?

Hmm, both Florence and Venice (Heorot) could be considered as such in a Western context, but in an Eastern context they were but minnows.  Chinese and Indian warlords and regional kings were fielding larger armies, were arguably  technically superior in the military arts and for the chinese, were probably technically superior in the use and range of arms developed and fielded.  They certainly controlled greater land masses.
 
I think they need to be considered in context.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       12/14/2009 9:45:28 PM

It's difficult to classify Florence ---and Venice as Heorot rightly points out---- because it was never a military superpower. However, capitalism and in some ways democracy emerged from Florence. It was leagues ahead politically, culturally and financially of the rest of absolutist feudal Europe. Art was its propaganda which extended its influence all through Europe.

 

Some put geographic or political conditions on what an empire needs to be spawned; yet we have seen empires formed in the forest (South America), islands (Polynesians) and in a city: Firenze.
 
I ask about Firenze because it raises an intersting question: does an empire need military might to be an empire.... it appears not in this case.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       12/14/2009 10:13:42 PM
The Greek city-states were summarily dismissed long ago, don't the same arguments apply to Italian city-states?
 
Let me throw one out there just to waste electrons:  Poland.  If power projection beyond one's borders and above one's weight class counts, consider Poland's role both in turning aside the Turk, and in providing, IIRC, the backbone of Napoleon's conquests.  Greater Poland before all the Partitions was quite a construct.
 
And hot chicks, too!  I suspect a correlation between hot chicks and superpowerdom.  Discuss.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       12/14/2009 10:37:20 PM

The Greek city-states were summarily dismissed long ago, don't the same arguments apply to Italian city-states?

 

Let me throw one out there just to waste electrons:  Poland.  If power projection beyond one's borders and above one's weight class counts, consider Poland's role both in turning aside the Turk, and in providing, IIRC, the backbone of Napoleon's conquests.  Greater Poland before all the Partitions was quite a construct.


 

And hot chicks, too!  I suspect a correlation between hot chicks and superpowerdom.  Discuss.




Hold on, that makes Indonesia a superpower!
 
Poland had its empire during its union with Lithuania. It also subsumed a lot of the Ukraine, and so covered a great area of land. But being marshalled for France I wouldn't count being a superpower.
 
I don't see why the Greek city states couldn't have counted....
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       12/17/2009 9:21:29 AM
It isdifficult to speak for old time since at Roman height, Chinese armies were of the same size (and Persia or India had big armies) but never encounterered themselves.

Chinese warlords were fielding and deploying 200,000 men armies into a battle, modern euro armies would not hit that force mass in the field for close to another 1000 years.  In addition, western forces of similar mass weren't deployed in the same context - ie they weren't committed to battle in volume but spread over the theatre
 
I should have writen Chinese armies were of the same size at least
At the start of Diocletian's reign, the Roman army numbered about 390,000 men, but by the end of his reign he successfully increased the number to 581,000 men
Relative power of Roman army against Chinese one could be subjected to endless discussion.
 
The point was only to prove, that at least Roman army never exceeded 40% of world land military power if we assume Chineses had al least 40% and rest of the world 20% for example.
 
At least, we could assume France exceeded that in the 1805-1812 and 1919-1930 periods.
 
Quote    Reply

COPE2       2/7/2010 6:11:45 PM
im surprised no one is talking about japan. they were one of the most brutal forces in history. took control of major chinese cities, and brought the british to their knees in se asia.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       2/8/2010 3:59:26 PM
Um, Japan was great, but they did have y'know... a local powerbase... short supply lines... as opposed to a scattering of large colonies serving as overseas bases.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       2/8/2010 4:01:42 PM












It isdifficult to speak for old time since at Roman height, Chinese armies were of the same size (and Persia or India had big armies) but never encounterered themselves.




Chinese warlords were fielding and deploying 200,000 men armies into a battle, modern euro armies would not hit that force mass in the field for close to another 1000 years.  In addition, western forces of similar mass weren't deployed in the same context - ie they weren't committed to battle in volume but spread over the theatre
 

I should have writen Chinese armies were of the same size at least

At the start of Diocletian's reign, the Roman army numbered about 390,000 men, but by the end of his reign he successfully increased the number to 581,000 men

Relative power of Roman army against Chinese one could be subjected to endless discussion.
 


The point was only to prove, that at least Roman army never exceeded 40% of world land military power if we assume Chineses had al least 40% and rest of the world 20% for example.

 

At least, we could assume France exceeded that in the 1805-1812 and 1919-1930 periods.



China and Rome at 40%? That's crazy. You're way underestimating everything from other countries, to tribal armies and migratory peoples.
 
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