What's new

6 Most Powerful Armies of All Time

Mughals, thats about it

Read about Indian emperors and their armies, they are massive with thousands of horses, lakhs of infantry and hundreds of elephants.

It is only the climate that has given rise to horse cavalry in central asia and then this phenomenon gave birth to Turkic invaders.
 
. .
Arabs never beated their enemies unconditionally other than the Persians. Arabs got kicked out time after time against the Romans.
Name one out of all those time.

Muslims ( ARAB) where defeating Roman in all battles also they were numbered by roman and their allies.

In levent they drive roman out of it in Egypt the did the same in North Africa they did the same.

.although I'm against all those wars.
 
.
I agree with your n1.

Your n2 is wrong. Germans got defeated by inferior enemies with inferior weapons. The Russians RAPED the Wehrmacht.

n3 is wrong too. west-Romans got defeated by the Huns and east-Romans got defeated by the Ottomans.

n4 Alexander the great was a 1 day fly too. Although he had great tactics, the only ones they defeated was Persians. All other enemies were not organized enough to pose a challenge. The moment they came in India they got defeated and I see Alexander the Great as a looser too. The only ones who conquered India were the Mughals. They belong in that list.

n5. I still insist that Napeleon was a 1 day fly. Just because there was a coalition doesn't mean anything. There was also coaltion against Turks in Vienna and there was a coalition against Turks in battle of Lapanto. Also Napoleon conquered Vienna but the time range is different. Different weapons made siege more effective.

No the germans lost to basically the greatest coalition of industrial might and manpower in the history of mankind.Russians did not have 'inferior weaponry',they lost 3 times more men than the germans.

Nope, even the tattered remaining romans of the 5th century beat attilla at chalons in 451 ad.By the roman army it means the empire at its peak.around 180 bc to 300 ad.500 yrs.Anyone that stood up to the roman legions during this era were crushed like bugs.The romans ruled basically all of the territories ottoman empire at its peak(asia minor,balkans,middle east save persian interior,north africa),britain and most of europe save north germany for more than 600 years.If they didn't have an unstoppable military machine it would have collapsed like a pack of cards.
The eastern romans are not 'romans' in the first place so its completely moot.The byzantines were never a world conquering superpower.they were on the defensive for most of their existence.

Doesn't matter how long,wehrmacht lasted 6 years.You are talking about greatest armies and there is no doubt that alexander's was the greatest of its time by far.Macedonian armies and tactics dominated warfare for 200 yrs after alexander until the romans.For a tiny nation like macedonia to conquer greece and persia -both were somewhat existing great powers..take egypt ,march to india,scythia its a incredible feat.Greeks ruled persia and middle east for hundreds of years after alexander's death.And no just because mughals ruled india for a couple centuries doesn't make them the greatest armies,mauryan empire ruled nearly twice the territory of mughals.Mughals failed against persians even at their peak,beaten by marathas.

Coalition means everything.Great britain-richest and most naval power.Austrian empire,spain,prussia,russian empire,sweden .Its all europe vs france.Took 20 years and 7 coalitions.Napoleon conquered europe 2-3 times over.If this was the ancient age where after u conquered an enemy u butchered its people or sold them into slavery and took everything like mongols/romans he would have simply won- not just a few modifications on the map,truce,then enemy rebuilds,new coalition.But this happened as recently as 200 yrs ago.
Let me tell you about coalition against turks - a declining poland which was destined to be partitioned within a century,a struggling austria nowehere near its peak compared to the huge austrian empire facing bonaparte and contingents from small italian and german states in a few thousands.Thats ur great coalition.The most powerful state in europe -france and louis xiv with his 400,000 strong standing army -largest in the world stood in the sidelines and watched.There was no prussia,there was no mighty royal navy,there was no russian army and winter.So please put ur brain back on when u are comparing the 2.And napoleon never needed to do a siege,he used manuever instead -took vienna thrice.Suleiman the magnificent at his peak of ottoman power tried twice and failed.Turks didn't have light mobile artillery and had huge baggage train and noncombatants,which is why they were so slow .
 
.
1. Qin Empire Army

The most numerous land forces on this blue planet, an awesome fighting machine with massive deployment of highly advanced weaponaries without peers such as crossbow, that was 2,000 years ahead its time with an effective kill range twice as that of a moden assault rifle. Crossbow could penetrate Alexander army's shields like knives through hot butter, making Alexander the Great's forces looked like kids play.

ever heard of the Art of War?


2. Han Empire Army :


Han Empire Army comprehensively devastated the Hun --> the Hun then escaped to the West for good and beat the Goth --> The Goth went over and beat the Germanics --> the Germanics turned around and beat the Roman Empire.


3. Tang Empire Army:

World's largest and the most advanced economy by a long shot, with military power to match with the statue.


4. The Yuan Empire (the Mongols, setup by the grandson of Genghis Khan):

created the world's largest land-based empire in history, capitaled in Beijing...


5 Ming Empire Army

it destroyed the once all-powerful Mongol hordes once and for good. Due to Ming, the Mongol army have never recoverd many centried later till this day.

World's largest and most powerful land forces and naval forces which were much more advanced and powerful than the combined forces of Europe.


6. US Army
 
Last edited:
.
Read about Indian emperors and their armies, they are massive with thousands of horses, lakhs of infantry and hundreds of elephants.

It is only the climate that has given rise to horse cavalry in central asia and then this phenomenon gave birth to Turkic invaders.

India has been ruled by wave after wave of muslim invaders for past 1000 years and brits for another 100 years...
But check out the claim bros? Shuper
...
 
.
No the germans lost to basically the greatest coalition of industrial might and manpower in the history of mankind.Russians did not have 'inferior weaponry',they lost 3 times more men than the germans.

Nope, even the tattered remaining romans of the 5th century beat attilla at chalons in 451 ad.By the roman army it means the empire at its peak.around 180 bc to 300 ad.500 yrs.Anyone that stood up to the roman legions during this era were crushed like bugs.The romans ruled basically all of the territories ottoman empire at its peak(asia minor,balkans,middle east save persian interior,north africa),britain and most of europe save north germany for more than 600 years.If they didn't have an unstoppable military machine it would have collapsed like a pack of cards.
The eastern romans are not 'romans' in the first place so its completely moot.The byzantines were never a world conquering superpower.they were on the defensive for most of their existence.

Doesn't matter how long,wehrmacht lasted 6 years.You are talking about greatest armies and there is no doubt that alexander's was the greatest of its time by far.Macedonian armies and tactics dominated warfare for 200 yrs after alexander until the romans.For a tiny nation like macedonia to conquer greece and persia -both were somewhat existing great powers..take egypt ,march to india,scythia its a incredible feat.Greeks ruled persia and middle east for hundreds of years after alexander's death.And no just because mughals ruled india for a couple centuries doesn't make them the greatest armies,mauryan empire ruled nearly twice the territory of mughals.Mughals failed against persians even at their peak,beaten by marathas.

Coalition means everything.Great britain-richest and most naval power.Austrian empire,spain,prussia,russian empire,sweden .Its all europe vs france.Took 20 years and 7 coalitions.Napoleon conquered europe 2-3 times over.If this was the ancient age where after u conquered an enemy u butchered its people or sold them into slavery and took everything like mongols/romans he would have simply won- not just a few modifications on the map,truce,then enemy rebuilds,new coalition.But this happened as recently as 200 yrs ago.
Let me tell you about coalition against turks - a declining poland which was destined to be partitioned within a century,a struggling austria nowehere near its peak compared to the huge austrian empire facing bonaparte and contingents from small italian and german states in a few thousands.Thats ur great coalition.The most powerful state in europe -france and louis xiv with his 400,000 strong standing army -largest in the world stood in the sidelines and watched.There was no prussia,there was no mighty royal navy,there was no russian army and winter.So please put ur brain back on when u are comparing the 2.And napoleon never needed to do a siege,he used manuever instead -took vienna thrice.Suleiman the magnificent at his peak of ottoman power tried twice and failed.Turks didn't have light mobile artillery and had huge baggage train and noncombatants,which is why they were so slow .

Excellent response.

It has been often said that allies specially the British led by Montgomery liked to fight without overwhelming numerical superiority or not at all. In addition to the industrial might of USA and sheer overwhelming superiority in men and hardware, we often forget allies broke the ENIGMA and that's when the Germans truly lost.
 
.
American industrial capacity in ww2 was greater than britain,germany,russia,japan and italy combined.Enough said.
Arsenal of democracy was not a propaganda slogan.
 
.
My top 6:

1. Mongols: greatest conquerors, they conquered everything on their path. After that they ruled several countries under the Mughal, Safavid, GoldenHorde, Khazar, etc successor empires

2. Ottomans: in their era no army could match the Ottomans. Ottomans were never unconditionally defeated and occupied.

3. The US: they have the greatest army of all time until now. I don't rate them higher because US is younger country and it is not a fair comparison.

4. Russian Empire. At their peak they controlled large amounts of lands but they were eventually beaten and could only conquer primitive countries.

5. British army. One of the biggest empires but they only conquered primitive peoples hence this rank.

6. Roman Empire. They had their time but at the end they got defeated.









No the germans lost to basically the greatest coalition of industrial might and manpower in the history of mankind.Russians did not have 'inferior weaponry',they lost 3 times more men than the germans.
Greatest army is not the weapons you have but the strategy, experience and tactical and operational execution. The fact is that Wehrmacht got defeated. They are loosers of history. You saying the opposite is just a fart in the air. In history only results count.

Nope, even the tattered remaining romans of the 5th century beat attilla at chalons in 451 ad.By the roman army it means the empire at its peak.around 180 bc to 300 ad.500 yrs.Anyone that stood up to the roman legions during this era were crushed like bugs.The romans ruled basically all of the territories ottoman empire at its peak(asia minor,balkans,middle east save persian interior,north africa),britain and most of europe save north germany for more than 600 years.If they didn't have an unstoppable military machine it would have collapsed like a pack of cards.
The eastern romans are not 'romans' in the first place so its completely moot.The byzantines were never a world conquering superpower.they were on the defensive for most of their existence.
Doesn't matter how long,wehrmacht lasted 6 years.You are talking about greatest armies and there is no doubt that alexander's was the greatest of its time by far.Macedonian armies and tactics dominated warfare for 200 yrs after alexander until the romans.For a tiny nation like macedonia to conquer greece and persia -both were somewhat existing great powers..take egypt ,march to india,scythia its a incredible feat.Greeks ruled persia and middle east for hundreds of years after alexander's death.And no just because mughals ruled india for a couple centuries doesn't make them the greatest armies,mauryan empire ruled nearly twice the territory of mughals.Mughals failed against persians even at their peak,beaten by marathas.
You have to go back to the history books. Huns defeated the Romans and turned from the gates because Romans paid them off. Also I see you don't know there is no thing such as "Byzantines". East Romans never called themselves Byzantines. Their capital was called "Byzantium". Byzantines is a fabrication by the Germans to call East-Romans another name. Also at the end RESULTS count, not the capacity. Smaller armies can defeat bigger armies and that is what happened. Also during Mughal-Safavid wars. There were no Indians or Persians. Indians were ruled by Mongols and Safavids were being ruled by ancestors of the Seljuk.
 
Last edited:
. .
India has been ruled by wave after wave of muslim invaders for past 1000 years and brits for another 100 years...
But check out the claim bros? Shuper
...

The turks with their horse riding archers also ruled over your caliphate, destroyed Bagdad - center of Calipahte, subjugated Arabs, conquered Russia, Conquered Europe .... why single out India in this phenomena?
 
Last edited:
.
The Mongol Army

The Mongols, who numbered at most one million men when they started their conquests in 1206, managed to conquer and subjugate most of Eurasia in a hundred years, defeating armies and nations that had tens or even hundreds of times the manpower of the Mongols. The Mongols were basically an unstoppable force that emerged seemingly out of nowhere to dominate the Middle East, China, and Russia.

(Recommended: Preparing for War with China)

Mongol success boiled down to the many strategies and tactics employed by Genghis Khan, who founded the Mongol Empire. Most important was the mobility of the Mongols and their endurance. To begin with, the nomadic Mongol way of life enabled them to move large armies across amazing distances in short times, as the Mongols could live off of their herds or the blood of their horses.


Indeed, the Mongols’ mobility was enhanced by their heavy reliance on horses. Mongol Cavalrymen each maintained three or four horses to keep them all fresh. Cavalrymen, who had bows they could shoot while riding, gave Mongols distinct advantages over the infantry during the fight. The mobility generated by the horses, as while as their strict discipline, also allowed the Mongols to utilize innovative tactics including hit and run attacks and a primitive form of blitzkrieg.

The Mongols also relied heavily on terror, deliberately inflicting major damages and casualties on their defeated enemies to break the morale of future ones.
Good old ancestors. :D
My list goes like this:
1. The Muslims under Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W)
For example, the ones at the Battle of Badr.
2. The Mongol Army.
3. The German wehrmacht.
4. The Romans
5. The Egyptian Mamulks, who fought off both the Mongols and the Crusaders at the same time.
 
.
Tang empire LOL

Tang's got the backsides handed by the Arabs in Talas leading to Chinese loss of suzerainty over Central Asia.

Battle of Talas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so? USA also lost in Vietnam. does that mean something?

The one which went Talas was the not main part of Tang forces, with an aim not to conquest the entire ME. Tang never wanted such. And it was a minor battle anyway.
 
.
Why add US army replace that too with PLA ! :lol:

1. Qin Empire Army

The most numerous land forces on this blue planet, an awesome fighting machine with massive deployment of highly advanced weaponaries without peers such as crossbow, that was 2,000 years ahead its time with an effective kill range twice as that of a moden assault rifle. Crossbow could penetrate Alexander army's shields like knives through hot butter, making Alexander the Great's forces looked like kids play.

ever heard of the Art of War?


2. Han Empire Army :


Han Empire Army comprehensively devastated the Hun --> the Hun then escaped to the West for good and beat the Goth --> The Goth went over and beat the Germanics --> the Germanics turned around and beat the Roman Empire.


3. Tang Empire Army:

World's largest and the most advanced economy by a long shot, with military power to match with the statue.


4. The Yuan Empire (the Mongols, setup by the grandson of Genghis Khan):

created the world's largest land-based empire in history, capitaled in Beijing...


5 Ming Empire Army

it destroyed the once all-powerful Mongol hordes once and for good. Due to Ming, the Mongol army have never recoverd many centried later till this day.

World's largest and most powerful land forces and naval forces which were much more advanced and powerful than the combined forces of Europe.


6. US Army
 
.
Arabs never beated their enemies unconditionally other than the Persians. Arabs got kicked out time after time against the Romans.

Sweden never defeated Russia unconditionally. The moment they would invade Russia they would be crushed.

Napoleon was a looser of history. No need to put him in.


Should they put Napoleon because he got defeated and spend his last days until the middle of nowhere on a island? He was a 1 day fly.

Well by that logic the Ottomans never beat the Austrians unconditionally or the Mongols never beat the Arabs unconditionally (Ain Jalut). Doesnt take away the fact that Nicopolis or the Battle of the Badget Mouth were brilliant displays of military prowess. The OP as far as I understand him is talking about the quality of individual army's, not how they were used by this and that general.

If we are talking about Sweden during the 30 year war then Russia is irrelevant. During this war Gustav Adolf revolutionized the way artillery was used on the battlefield (rather using the old big guns which were only relevant at the start of a battle he introduced smaller more mobile cannons which could be used in the later stages of a battle to devastating effect case in point being the Battle of Breitenfeld Battle of Breitenfeld (1631) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Subsequently other nations started adopting these smaller cannons as well). His intervention in the war ensured that Protestanism survived in Germany and Sweden despite it many times smaller size and manpower gained territory from the Holy Roman Empire at the Treaty of Westphalia.

Napoleons Grande Armee too ranks amongst the best in history. The French were heavily outnumbered for example at Austerlitz and Jena-Auerstedt yet came out the victor in both of these battles with minimal casulties. Just because Napoleon made the logistically stupid move of invading Russia doesnt mean that the Grande Armee was a loser army in the same way that just because Mustafa Kara Pasha made some stupid moves during the Siege of Vienna doesnt mean that the Ottoman army was a loser army.

About the Arabs, read about the pincer movement during Walaja. Yarmouk too was a brilliant victory. In both battles the Arabs were heavily outnumbered.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom