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
french stratege    RE:Most Powerful Military of All Time in Terms of Global Percentage    1/14/2006 10:21:12 AM
The question is what was "Most Powerful Military of All Time in Terms of Global Percentage ". We have two components to define military: Naval one et air-land battle one. Today we can estimate US naval power at maximum 40% of global naval power and 25% of global air-land battle power (counting US superiority in quality ). I remember you that rest of the world has more than 160 modern submarines (with correctly trained crew - I discount Iran Kilos and so on)) and 300 modern frigate/destroyers for navies, and more than 8000 modern planes and 10 million correctly equiped ground troops. On naval power, Brtish excess few time 50% world naval power especially post 1815 and post WW1. On (air)-land battle power Germany has reached almost 45% of world land power in 1917 and 1941 as French in Napoleonic era.In WW1 French account for 25/30% of airland power until 1917. In Roman or Alexander time, there was still Chinese and Indian armies at these time which were as powerfull at least so Roman or Greecs never exceeded 25/30 % of global power.As much for the Mongols.
 
Quote    Reply

wjr    RE:Most Powerful Military of All Time in Terms of Global Percentage    1/14/2006 12:24:18 PM
All, Nothing exists in a vacuum. Military power, economic power and cultural vibrancy all intertwine to build the correct or incorrect circumstances of success or failure. Perhaps the best examples of this are the late classical Roman Empire and modern Europe. Most scholars of the late empire have come to the same conclusion – Rome never really had a problem with resources or manpower. Even the economy, not all that good at the time in the late western empire, provided adequate resources for defense. The problem was that classical civilization had run out of gas. There simply was not the will to defend Rome against what was – at least at the time of Stilchio – a fairly incompetent group of so-called barbarians – e.g. the Huns. Western Rome died because there were no Romans left – just the proletariat waiting for a handout from the Emperor. Modern Western Europe is in much the same shape. The average Frenchman (or insert whatever western EU country name here) is safe, secure and dependent upon (and expecting) the state to maintain the status quo. This is social democracy at work. It has gotten to the point that the average western EU citizen cannot even bother to reproduce and is being replaced by immigrants. The Anglosphere has dominated the world for more than 200 years. Britain, in the late 18th through the mid 20th Century effectively ruled the world as the first modern dominate power. Given the technology of most of the period in question, this is remarkable in the extreme. Objectively, in terms of world power and leadership, there is only one place that counts today. Note the URL below. Kagan, the author of this epistle, is a left wing moonbat. Even moonbats, however, get things right once in a while. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301696_pf.html Right now there are no real contenders for a replacement to the U.S. China, like the dot com’s before the bubble burst, cannot sustain herself for too much longer. She needs a period of introspection and political change. India is in better shape but has many decades of spadework ahead of it. Sixty some odd years after the smashing of the Bushido spirit, Japan is in (a self acknowledged) societal decline. Non-U.S. posters – particularly the more chauvinistic ones – may not much like this but these are the ground facts. Best, wjr
 
Quote    Reply

treks_here    RE:Most Powerful Military of All Time in Terms of Global Percentage    1/14/2006 12:32:07 PM
Mongols
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    RE:Most Powerful Military of All Time in Terms of Global Percentage    1/14/2006 3:30:58 PM
I argue for the Mongols, followed by the Americans.
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:Historical objectivity   1/14/2006 8:26:37 PM
Im holding the Soviets up to high heaven am I?? How is that mate? The simple FACT is that Russia was the biggest factor in determining the outcome in Europe in WW2, they took on for 5 years the bulk of the Wehrmacht, they were the one's who bled Germany white. I realise that the poms gave aid to Russia, but they didnt do it from a high standing moral ground, they did it because they knew that if Russia fell there was not a chance in hell that any force could take back Europe from the Germans, at least not for a long time. AND the reason why they were able to give aid was partly due to the fact that they weren't involved in heavy fighting like the Russians were. Im not saying Britain didnt do anything, hardly, they did lots, just that what they did was batton down the hatches and hold on until the cavalry arrived in the form of America and Russia who were the one's that defeated Germany. Britain's role was to make sure they were not defeated... Oh, and how noble was it for Britain (and France) to abandon a nice chunk of Central Europe @ the Munich Conference...? Btw, im an Aussie in case you didnt know and we did fight for the poms in WW2 right from the beginning...
 
Quote    Reply

hist_ed    Kagan   1/14/2006 9:54:55 PM
"Note the URL below. Kagan, the author of this epistle, is a left wing moonbat. Even moonbats, however, get things right once in a while." Is Kagen really a left wing moonbat? How moonbatty is he? Do you have an example or two of his moonbattedness? Thanks hist_ed
 
Quote    Reply

mond    RE:Historical objectivity   1/14/2006 9:56:18 PM
Hello FO. You wrote: <<>> I never said otherwise. Secondly: <<>> Agreed, morality wasn’t the main motive. But I was trying to understand why many people vilify Britain’s war effort and extol every virtue of the Russian war effort. Stalin’s purges? The extensive rape and murder committed by the red army? Thirdly you wrote: <<>> Yes, you described Britain’s war effort in a previous post: <<>> This was my point about historical objectivity - without it, it simply a venting of ones prejudice. <<>> You won’t get any argument from Winston Churchill or Anthony Eden on that one. <<>> The Aussies were wonderful and performed with distinction. ATB.
 
Quote    Reply

hist_ed    whoops I did it again   1/14/2006 9:57:49 PM
Sorry, ignore my questions. I didn't read the first name. For some reason I saw "Kagan" on a military site and thought you were referring to Donald Kagan.
 
Quote    Reply

mond    RE:Historical objectivity again   1/14/2006 10:03:41 PM
Hello FO. You wrote: >The simple FACT is that Russia was the biggest factor in determining the outcome in Europe in WW2, they took on for 5 years the bulk of the Wehrmacht, they were the one's who bled Germany white.< I never said otherwise. Secondly: >I realise that the poms gave aid to Russia, but they didnt do it from a high standing moral ground, they did it because they knew that if Russia fell there was not a chance in hell that any force could take back Europe from the Germans, at least not for a long time. AND the reason why they were able to give aid was partly due to the fact that they weren't involved in heavy fighting like the Russians were.< Agreed, morality wasn’t the main motive. But I was trying to understand why many people vilify Britain’s war effort and extol every virtue of the Russian war effort. Stalin’s purges? The extensive rape and murder committed by the red army? Thirdly you wrote: >Im not saying Britain didnt do anything, hardly, they did lots . . .< Yes, you described Britain’s war effort in a previous post: >Honestly, they buggered off in Norway cos the French were leaving (and due to the dire situation in France), they failed (at first) miserably in Nth Africa from a smaller force led by the Desert Fox and then and only then when America got into the foray thru Lend Lease and direct involvement and Germany being occupied by a bigger fish did the tide turn. Example, Operation Battleaxe ring a bell as to how the poms went early on in Nth Africa... They retreated in France, Norway and 'just' managed to hold off the Luftwaffe to prevent an invasion that was almost certainly not going to happen and that if it did it would've been halfhearted and defeated in 1940 (they did practically nothing in 1939 during the phony war), they failed in Nth Africa in 1941 and after that Russia and America took control...< This was my point about historical objectivity - without it, it simply a venting of ones prejudice. >Oh, and how noble was it for Britain (and France) to abandon a nice chunk of Central Europe @ the Munich Conference...?< You won’t get any argument from Winston Churchill or Anthony Eden on that one. >Btw, im an Aussie in case you didnt know and we did fight for the poms in WW2 right from the beginning...< The Aussies were wonderful and performed with distinction. ATB.
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:Historical objectivity again   1/14/2006 11:20:08 PM
"Agreed, morality wasn’t the main motive. But I was trying to understand why many people vilify Britain’s war effort and extol every virtue of the Russian war effort. Stalin’s purges? The extensive rape and murder committed by the red army?" That's not the point mate, Stalin's purges didnt affect the fact that Russia soaked up the vast majority of Germany's forces, nor did the rape and pillaging of Eastern Europe...Nobody is holding them up one of a pedastool but the Russians did destroy arguably humanities most evil regime, the Yanks and Poms helped, but it was the Ruskies who did the most work, esp in blood... "This was my point about historical objectivity - without it, it simply a venting of ones prejudice." how is it prejudice when it's fact? Are you disputing that the British left the French, left Norway, JUST managed to stop the Luftwaffe from gaining air superiority in South-East England, that the u-boat menace started to turn in the Allies favour when the Americans were getting more directly involved, they the British led forces in Nth Africa only started to win decisive battles with direct US support, etc, etc... Mate, im the same as you but just reverse it, too many people hold Britain's effort in WW2 up way too high and hold Russia's effort WAY too low!
 
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