TOP 12 cavalry of all time.[no order]

[AUSTERLITZ]

Roman legions? They got their as$'s kicked a couple of times.

And they got up,learned and kept coming.And kicked ***** with a regularity that surpassed the occasions they got kicked.
The longevity of rome's empire stretching and unbelieveable all europe,england,africa and asia minor for around 700 yrs is unsurpassed.

 

[KingMamba]

Not sure lol,too many good ones.I am a fan of napoleonic heavy cavalry but that's mostly because its my special area of interest the napoleonic age.The polish hussar,ottoman spahi and mongol horde are also favourites.



Possibly.But if ask in any reputed militray history forum,u'll get the same answer.Almost unanimously mongol horde. Infact the general consensus is mongol horde was the greatest military machine of all time followed by the roman legion.This is mostly because in their timeframe they almost didn't have ANY weaknesses.

NVM, I misread what you wrote.

And they got up,learned and kept coming.And kicked ***** with a regularity that surpassed the occasions they got kicked.
The longevity of rome's empire stretching and unbelieveable all europe,england,africa and asia minor for around 700 yrs is unsurpassed.

The Romans never could get over the Persian problem, which is what he is referring to.

 

[Surenas]

And they got up,learned and kept coming.And kicked ***** with a regularity that surpassed the occasions they got kicked.
The longevity of rome's empire stretching and unbelieveable all europe,england,africa and asia minor for around 700 yrs is unsurpassed.

They were not a hyperpower, unlike many other empires. They could even defeat the Parthians and Sassanid-Persians on their eastern border:

''So it is well to understand what these Persians did. No one has ever questioned the prowess of the Roman legions. Only one people ever met them on equal terms in open fight. These were the Persians. They first challenged Rome in the very height of her power; and throughout four centuries the greatest forces the mistress of the world could gather were repeatedly and vainly hurled against Persia. Not one Persian army was destroyed; not one Persian king was led captive in a Roman triumph. Battles were won as often by one nation as by the other; but Rome suffered the great disasters of which we have told; and Rome paid Persia large sums of money for peace so often that the Roman populace complained bitterly, declaring they were become mere tributaries of Persia.''

Ancient Persian Civilization

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

True, but they have written the history books and the history books always give a Western Biased view of the situation. So although the Persians pretty much stopped the Roman Legions dead in their tracks, historians instead focus on the land the Romans did conquer.

True.The parthian horse archers did a number on the legions several times,marc anthony's parthian campaign was a disaster ,crassus lost his head and army.But generals like publius ventidius bassus showed with good tactics,the legions could defeat the cataphracts and horse archers.Same under trajan,he did capture the parthian capital.So the truth lies somewhere in between.Remember all this while rome usually had to fight on multiple fronts and rarely could bring its full power to bear on one adversary because of guarding an overextended empire.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

They were not a hyperpower, unlike many other empires. They could even defeat the Parthians and Sassanid-Persians on their eastern border:



Ancient Persian Civilization

Indeed the persians definitevely halted rome's eastward expansion.After the parthians the sassanids took over this role.This was a great humiliation for rome but subsequent military victories did somewhat restore the balance and establish a stalemate that would continue even with the byzantines.Also at this time the empire was slowly beginning its decline while the sassanids were a young ascendant power having just toppled the parthians.

 

[KingMamba]

True.The parthian horse archers did a number on the legions several times,marc anthony's parthian campaign was a disaster ,crassus lost his head and army.But generals like publius ventidius bassus showed with good tactics,the legions could defeat the cataphracts and horse archers.Same under trajan,he did capture the parthian capital.So the truth lies somewhere in between.Remember all this while rome usually had to fight on multiple fronts and rarely could bring its full power to bear on one adversary because of guarding an overextended empire.

Yes but you are basing it on the presumption that had Rome been able to use its forces on one front (Persia), that they would have been victorious. You just really don't know so to say so would be wrong.

They were not a hyperpower, unlike many other empires. They could even defeat the Parthians and Sassanid-Persians on their eastern border:



Ancient Persian Civilization

Actually Rome is considered the Hyper Power of its time, despite its multiple defeats to Persia.

 

[Surenas]

Actually Rome is considered the Hyper Power of its time, despite its multiple defeats to Persia.

Sorry, that's right. I thought Amy Chua didn't consider them to be a hyperpower.

 

[KingMamba]

@AUSTERLITZ in reference to your earlier stance that the Mongols are considered the greatest military force of all time followed by the Romans, that is just not true. I do not know many people who would place the Mongol's over the conquests of Alexander the Great especially considering that Alexander accomplished all that he did while at a military disadvantage! Compare that to the Mongols who were never at a major disadvantage and had an even chance at victory or defeat when confronted on equal terms.

Sorry, that's right. I thought Amy Chua didn't consider them to be a hyperpower.

No problem mate.

Cyrus the Great's Persian Empire
Roman Empire
Ancient China
Ottoman Empire
British Empire
USA

This is my list, I think it is more or less equivalent to most historians. Let me know if I missed someone or you disagree (to all viewers).

 

[Surenas]

@AUSTERLITZ in reference to your earlier stance that the Mongols are considered the greatest military force of all time followed by the Romans, that is just not true. I do not know many people who would place the Mongol's over the conquests of Alexander the Great especially considering that Alexander accomplished all that he did while at a military disadvantage! Compare that to the Mongols who were never at a major disadvantage and had an even chance at victory or defeat when confronted on equal terms.



No problem mate.

Cyrus the Great's Persian Empire
Roman Empire
Ancient China
Ottoman Empire
British Empire
USA

This is my list, I think it is more or less equivalent to most historians. Let me know if I missed someone or you disagree (to all viewers).

Thanx bro. But if I'm looking at Amy Chua's list, the Ottoman Empire isn't considered to be a hyperpower.

EDIT: No, I was wrong about the Maurya.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Alexander never faced truly serious adversaries the achaenamid empire was in decline,its emperor a coward and its infantry non armoured rabble relying mostly on archers and greek mercenaries .The immortals light armour and wicker shields were not even able to defeat the greek hoplites.Its cavalry hadn't yet become the brute force that it would later under parthians,sassanids and safavids.that is his main problem.Alexander is glorified in the west but no way was it anyway near the mongol war machine.Primarily because it needed brilliant generalship unlike the mongols who were successful even after genghis and subedei were no more.
While alexander's macedonian army system under seleucus was defeated by the war elephants of the amuryas,pyyrhu's army failed to defeat the romans,and thelegions successfully smashed the phalanxes at pydna and cyncesphalae conquerig macedonia.

 

[KingMamba]

Thanx bro. But if I'm looking at Amy Chua's list, the Ottoman Empire isn't considered to be a hyperpower. She mentions the Maurya Empire too, but I don't know anything about them?

I do not consider them a hyper power. The Mauryans united the Indian subcontinent plus Afghanistan and defeated Alexander the Great's lieutenant after his death.

Maurya Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However during the reign of Ashoka they stopped any further expansion and soon they broke up into little kingdoms again like it was the case during most of the history of the subcontinent.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

@AUSTERLITZ in reference to your earlier stance that the Mongols are considered the greatest military force of all time followed by the Romans, that is just not true. I do not know many people who would place the Mongol's over the conquests of Alexander the Great especially considering that Alexander accomplished all that he did while at a military disadvantage! Compare that to the Mongols who were never at a major disadvantage and had an even chance at victory or defeat when confronted on equal terms.



No problem mate.

Cyrus the Great's Persian Empire
Roman Empire
Ancient China
Ottoman Empire
British Empire
USA

This is my list, I think it is more or less equivalent to most historians. Let me know if I missed someone or you disagree (to all viewers).

Ur looking at overall strength of the empire taking in economic and political conditions and longevity,i'm talking about only military conditions.And wrong the mongols regularly defeated armies many times their size.Especially in china.

 

[KingMamba]

@Surenas the Indian posters here would know more about them. You can judge if you consider them one yourself.

As for the Ottomans, they were most definitely a Hyper Power. Consider that the Europeans use to try and make alliances with the Ottomans to fight one another as evidenced by the letters by the English queen to Ottoman Sultan. (You can search for it, I think a thread was made about it here).

Also consider this

Padishah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The paramount prestige of this title, in Islam and even beyond, is clearly apparent from the Ottoman Empire's dealings with the (predominantly Christian) European powers. As the Europeans and the Russians gradually drove the Turks from the Balkans, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, they insisted—even at the cost of delaying the end of hostilities—on the usage of the title "Padishah" for themselves in the Turkish versions of their treaties with the High Porte, as acknowledgement that their Christian emperors were in all diplomatic and protocollary capacities the equal of the Turkish ruler, who by his religious paramount office in Islam (Caliph) had a theoretical claim of universal sovereignty (at least among Sunnites).

This alone shows how much prestige the Ottomans held even in the eyes of their adversaries.

 

[Surenas]

Alexander never faced truly serious adversaries the achaenamid empire was in decline,its emperor a coward and its infantry non armoured rabble relying mostly on archers and greek mercenaries .The immortals light armour and wicker shields were not even able to defeat the greek hoplites.Its cavalry hadn't yet become the brute force that it would later under parthians,sassanids and safavids.that is his main problem.Alexander is glorified in the west but no way was it anyway near the mongol war machine.Primarily because it needed brilliant generalship unlike the mongols who were successful even after genghis and subedei were no more.

IMO Alexander was more brilliant than any Mongol general whatsoever. I came across this in ne my books about him:

''Here is not the place to go into detail on Alexander's method of warfare, but his brilliant leadership illustrates something that at first glance counter our intuitive: the feminine nature of military genius at the highest level. The successful conduct of command has little or nothing to do with typically male traits: brute force, bravado, machismo, arrogance - and even less with courage - except insofar as it, from time to time, may require these features to showcase in order to inspire the troops. It has rather to do with what can be regarded as more feminine characteristics: sensitivity, subtlety, intuition, timing, an indirect approach and the ability to determine strength and weakness in all peace.''

 

[KingMamba]

Ur looking at overall strength of the empire taking in economic and political conditions and longevity,i'm talking about only military conditions.And wrong the mongols regularly defeated armies many times their size.Especially in china.

No bro that list is my view of the Hyper Powers at one point or another, not the best military forces. It was in reference to Surenas.