#1 Edited by consolemaster001 (6078 posts) - - Show Bio

my list

Ancient Macedonian army (under alexander)

Arab army -- 7th-9th centuries

Ottoman Army -- 15th-18 centuries

The golden horde (mongol army)

French army -- Early 19th century

Roman army -- (1th century bc)

German Wehrmacht -- WW2 (conquered almost all of europe and fought against 15+ countries)

Aaaand lastly :

Bruxae -- Forever

#2 Posted by Bruxae (14008 posts) - - Show Bio

Me.

#3 Edited by warlock360 (28064 posts) - - Show Bio

Assyria's definitely missing. And Egypt under the rule of Ramses II.

#4 Posted by TheArtOfRuin (135 posts) - - Show Bio

Spartans from 700 bc - 500 bc

#5 Posted by wildvine (10365 posts) - - Show Bio

Army of the dead.

Moderator
#6 Posted by consolemaster001 (6078 posts) - - Show Bio
#7 Posted by WarBlade539 (4752 posts) - - Show Bio

Mongol

#8 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (12495 posts) - - Show Bio

History, not the world!!!!

#9 Posted by teddy_the_god_killer (314 posts) - - Show Bio

Mamluks were heavy duty...look them up, they battered the Mongols and Crusaders. Also Muslim army under Salah Ah-Deen (not the same as Arab!).

#10 Posted by consolemaster001 (6078 posts) - - Show Bio
#11 Edited by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (20443 posts) - - Show Bio

You should do a fictional army version.

#12 Edited by henrik (562 posts) - - Show Bio

The Red army.

They were indestructible and ruthless.

#13 Posted by Fallschirmjager (18930 posts) - - Show Bio

I would add Hannibal's army during his invasion of the Italian continent circa 218-215 BC. Wiped out several roman armies and was basically undefeated for 16 years.

Attila the Hun's army was largely undefeated as well.

The Frankish army under Charlemange.

Prussian Army from 1700-1786 and again from 1835-1918 (German army after 1870)

Spanish army in the 16th centry during the Reconquista

I'd also mention the Hang, Ming and Qing dynasty's of China - as he had a powerful military during the height of their respective powers'

#14 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7490 posts) - - Show Bio

Assyrians...sometimes

#15 Edited by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

Galactic Empire

#16 Posted by PowerHerc (85335 posts) - - Show Bio

The United States Army - All Times.

#17 Edited by Dabee (2399 posts) - - Show Bio

Leave Nazis out of anything with the word "greatest," it's just stupid. They really weren't even that powerful, they were led by morons.

#18 Edited by Fallschirmjager (18930 posts) - - Show Bio

@dabee said:

Leave Nazis out of anything with the word "greatest," it's just stupid. They really weren't even that powerful, they were led by morons.

lol. Hitler might have been one of the biggest assholes in the history of humankind, but you're ignorant to make that statement. The Wehrmacht had some of the best commanders and soldiers of their time and to dismiss their military accomplishments because you don't agree with their ideals is stupid.

Furthermore the armed forces of Germany, the Heer (Army), Luftwaffe (Air Firce) and Kreigsmarine's (Navh) war crimes were nothing in comparison to the SS, which committed most of them. In fact I'd go so far as to say they probably committed no more than any Allied Army and especially the Red Army did.

Bottom line, the Wehrmacht revolutionized warfare on land, sea and air. You cannot argue that, period.

#19 Posted by SpideyIvyDaredevilFan26 (6269 posts) - - Show Bio

Mongols

Huns

Spartans

Zande

#20 Edited by Dabee (2399 posts) - - Show Bio

@fallschirmjager: I like how you say "don't agree with their ideals" like it's just an opinion. Anyone who agrees with their ideals is a complete moron, so to at all give it a sense of credibility is ridiculous.

All that I'm saying is that using any word like "great" to describe Nazis is ridiculous. Hitler was actually tremendously stupid, and let relatively weak forces. They were ruthless, not talented.

#21 Edited by Fallschirmjager (18930 posts) - - Show Bio

@dabee said:

@fallschirmjager: I like how you say "don't agree with their ideals" like it's just an opinion. Anyone who agrees with their ideals is a complete moron, so to at all give it a sense of credibility is ridiculous.

All that I'm saying is that using any word like "great" to describe Nazis is ridiculous. Hitler was actually tremendously stupid, and let relatively weak forces. They were ruthless, not talented.

And you clearly know nothing about military history and are just here to cry about the fact that the someone mentioned the word Wehrmacht. Like it or not, history doesn't lie. And their military accomplishments speak for themselves. What their motives were are not being discussed here.

#22 Posted by Yokergeist (12355 posts) - - Show Bio

@dabee:

Hitler may have been a bad person but you can't ignore the fact that they were a powerful army. I'm pretty sure they mean "Greatest" as in powerful.

#23 Posted by Dabee (2399 posts) - - Show Bio
#24 Edited by Pyrogram (41269 posts) - - Show Bio

@dabee said:

Leave Nazis out of anything with the word "greatest," it's just stupid. They really weren't even that powerful, they were led by morons.

Yes....they were. They were one of the greatest military forces the world has ever known. It's not an opinion. It's a fact.

#25 Posted by The_Titan_Lord (7024 posts) - - Show Bio

Mongols

Romans

Macedonians

Samurais

#26 Posted by Blood_Red_Rage (508 posts) - - Show Bio
#27 Posted by Edamame (28363 posts) - - Show Bio

Currently, the Polish, British and German armies are regarded as having the best training, the most experience and as being the most professional.

@dabee said:

Leave Nazis out of anything with the word "greatest," it's just stupid. They really weren't even that powerful, they were led by morons.

Well, Nazi Germany managed to conquer most of Europe and the vast majority of North Africa. Furthermore, many historians state that the Allies were actually behind Nazi Germany in terms of military technology, especially if you look at those V-1 and V-2 weapons that the Germans had. Also, it was rather disturbing that many German U-boats reached parts of the Western Atlantic. Nazi Germany also had some of the best engineers and scientists in the entire world, such as Wernher von Braun and Werner Heisenberg. Apparently, Heisenberg and other German physicists came close to developing an atomic weapon, and Wernher von Braun was in charge of Nazi Germany's rocket technology. Many historians also state that Erwin Rommel was the best general that Nazi Germany had.

The fact that the majority of the entire world had to unite in order to defeat the Axis Powers shows how powerful and dangerous that alliance was. The members of the Allies included Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, China, Holland, France, Greece, Poland, the Soviet Union, Norway, Mexico, Burma, Brazil, Belgium, Indonesia, Libya, Egypt, Albania, the Philippines, Malaysia, New Zealand, India, Denmark, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, etc. The Axis Powers only included Japan, Germany and Italy. From 1941 to 1945, the United States gave at least $48 billion dollars worth of aid to the Allies. We are also very lucky because the Soviets only became a member of the Allies after Nazi Germany invaded in June of 1941, and America only became involved in March of 1941. The Canadians were really the only ones who were aiding the British from the very beginning of World War II. The British almost lost the Battle of Britain, and the Soviets were in a dire situation even though they received a lot of aid from Canada, Britain and the U.S.

Also, those German soldiers were not Nazis. The Nazis were the high-ranking officials who were running and dominating all of Germany.

Online
#28 Posted by GraniteSoldier (8835 posts) - - Show Bio

From what I've seen in my experience (outside of the US Armed Forces obviously) the British, Australian, and Polish forces are pretty well trained.

Online
#29 Edited by KnightRise (4762 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame: *sigh* if only someone liked Hitler's art... :P

#30 Posted by Edamame (28363 posts) - - Show Bio
Online
#31 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

America is the greatest spender, that's for sure.

#32 Posted by Joygirl (19951 posts) - - Show Bio

Bruxae is certainly the greatest. But the Golden Horde is a close second.

#33 Posted by GraniteSoldier (8835 posts) - - Show Bio

America is the greatest spender, that's for sure.

It could be argued that it is over expenditure, I won't debate against that. But I've worked with many men and women from all branches. I will not call them all "great" or "the best". I've, quite honestly, met many douchey, unintelligent people in the military (officer and enlisted) and in the military industrial complex. But most service people are very, very good at what they do and very committed. At least the people I have had a close working relationship with. The spending alone doesn't buy dedication, which is what a volunteer force helps build.

Online
#34 Edited by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

America is the greatest spender, that's for sure.

It could be argued that it is over expenditure, I won't debate against that. But I've worked with many men and women from all branches. I will not call them all "great" or "the best". I've, quite honestly, met many douchey, unintelligent people in the military (officer and enlisted) and in the military industrial complex. But most service people are very, very good at what they do and very committed. At least the people I have had a close working relationship with. The spending alone doesn't buy dedication, which is what a volunteer force helps build.

I was really just commenting on the fact that the US is if not the current biggest spender of their military is certainly up on the list. Wasn't necessarily saying that that made it the "best" or the "greatest". But how big of a budget a country spends on their military is a factor into how "good" they might be, as far as what money can buy.

#35 Posted by GraniteSoldier (8835 posts) - - Show Bio

@granitesoldier said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

America is the greatest spender, that's for sure.

It could be argued that it is over expenditure, I won't debate against that. But I've worked with many men and women from all branches. I will not call them all "great" or "the best". I've, quite honestly, met many douchey, unintelligent people in the military (officer and enlisted) and in the military industrial complex. But most service people are very, very good at what they do and very committed. At least the people I have had a close working relationship with. The spending alone doesn't buy dedication, which is what a volunteer force helps build.

I was really just commenting on the fact that the US is if not the current biggest spender of their military is certainly up on the list. Wasn't necessarily saying that that made it the "best" or the "greatest". But how big of a budget a country spends on their military is a factor into how "good" they might be, as far as what money can buy.

I know, I should have continued with what I was saying, but I was lazy. A lot of that spending goes into the training of personnel. It was in six figures just to train me for my basic job, which was TACP. When I elevated to it's SpOps variant, JTAC, it was that much more. Then you consider training our Tier One level operators (CAG, DevGro, the 24th STS) can be upwards of a million per troop. It doesn't all go into tomahawk missiles and jets. Not saying you didn't know this, but the quality of people you turn out is equivalent to what you put in. "Garbage in, garbage out" as the saying goes (not calling our people garbage, but you get what I'm saying). There is absolutely military wasteful expenditures, though. The military and the government could save itself a lot of money if it re-vamped it's spending practices. I will be the first to vouch for that.

Spending does not always equal quality though. I've seen that first hand. A jamming weapon is a perfect example...

Online
#36 Posted by nickzambuto (14884 posts) - - Show Bio

I really doubt armies from thousands of years ago can compete with the advanced technique and training of most modern militia, let alone the difference in weaponry. Maybe a Spartan was a bit tougher than a Marine, but the modern man still wins since he knows what he's doing.

Online
#37 Edited by GraniteSoldier (8835 posts) - - Show Bio

I really doubt armies from thousands of years ago can compete with the advanced technique and training of most modern militia, let alone the difference in weaponry. Maybe a Spartan was a bit tougher than a Marine, but the modern man still wins since he knows what he's doing.

Haha, a 300 reboot where one A-10 gun run is the whole movie. The "Three Second War".

Online
#38 Posted by Fallschirmjager (18930 posts) - - Show Bio

@nickzambuto: I think you pretty much missed the point of the thread. It says "in history" which means you're suppose to look at each military during the time it existed.

This isn't a battle thread.

#39 Posted by nickzambuto (14884 posts) - - Show Bio

@nickzambuto: I think you pretty much missed the point of the thread. It says "in history" which means you're suppose to look at each military during the time it existed.

This isn't a battle thread.

No, the OP is simply asking which army in all of history is the greatest. Most people are listing armies from thousands of years ago, which I find ridiculous.

Online
#40 Posted by Fallschirmjager (18930 posts) - - Show Bio

@nickzambuto: Yes, because several of the ones listed conquered entire countries and continents which clearly makes them worthless, right?

Again. This isn't a battle thread. No one is asking who would win Alexander's army vs the US army of today.

#41 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@granitesoldier said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

America is the greatest spender, that's for sure.

It could be argued that it is over expenditure, I won't debate against that. But I've worked with many men and women from all branches. I will not call them all "great" or "the best". I've, quite honestly, met many douchey, unintelligent people in the military (officer and enlisted) and in the military industrial complex. But most service people are very, very good at what they do and very committed. At least the people I have had a close working relationship with. The spending alone doesn't buy dedication, which is what a volunteer force helps build.

I was really just commenting on the fact that the US is if not the current biggest spender of their military is certainly up on the list. Wasn't necessarily saying that that made it the "best" or the "greatest". But how big of a budget a country spends on their military is a factor into how "good" they might be, as far as what money can buy.

I know, I should have continued with what I was saying, but I was lazy. A lot of that spending goes into the training of personnel. It was in six figures just to train me for my basic job, which was TACP. When I elevated to it's SpOps variant, JTAC, it was that much more. Then you consider training our Tier One level operators (CAG, DevGro, the 24th STS) can be upwards of a million per troop. It doesn't all go into tomahawk missiles and jets. Not saying you didn't know this, but the quality of people you turn out is equivalent to what you put in. "Garbage in, garbage out" as the saying goes (not calling our people garbage, but you get what I'm saying). There is absolutely military wasteful expenditures, though. The military and the government could save itself a lot of money if it re-vamped it's spending practices. I will be the first to vouch for that.

Spending does not always equal quality though. I've seen that first hand. A jamming weapon is a perfect example...

I see.

That is true.

#42 Posted by nickzambuto (14884 posts) - - Show Bio

@nickzambuto: Yes, because several of the ones listed conquered entire countries and continents which clearly makes them worthless, right?

Again. This isn't a battle thread. No one is asking who would win Alexander's army vs the US army of today.

I think it is a battle. OP is clearly asking which is the greatest army in history, in which case the modern US army is clearly superior to, say the Spartans.

Online
#43 Edited by Fallschirmjager (18930 posts) - - Show Bio

@nickzambuto: lol.

Did you read the post he made? He listed off several great armies. Made no mention of them combating one another. He didn't set up rules, a battleground and this thread isn't in the battle section.

Nothing suggests its a battle thread.

#44 Posted by nickzambuto (14884 posts) - - Show Bio

@nickzambuto: lol.

Did you read the post he made? He listed off several great armies. Made no mention of them combating one another. He didn't set up rules, a battleground and this thread isn't in the battle section.

Nothing suggests its a battle thread.

Well if that's what you think Mr. lol than good luck.

Online
#45 Posted by Pyrogram (41269 posts) - - Show Bio

@fallschirmjager said:

@nickzambuto: I think you pretty much missed the point of the thread. It says "in history" which means you're suppose to look at each military during the time it existed.

This isn't a battle thread.

No, the OP is simply asking which army in all of history is the greatest. Most people are listing armies from thousands of years ago, which I find ridiculous.

It's funny how much you've misunderstood this topic haha

#46 Posted by consolemaster001 (6078 posts) - - Show Bio

@fallschirmjager said:

@nickzambuto: lol.

Did you read the post he made? He listed off several great armies. Made no mention of them combating one another. He didn't set up rules, a battleground and this thread isn't in the battle section.

Nothing suggests its a battle thread.

Well if that's what you think Mr. lol than good luck.

Greatest armieS in history.

#47 Posted by Blood_Red_Rage (508 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes, a modern army would crush an ancient one technology wise. If you take the armies listed relative to their time period they are great. You take them and compare to a modern army it is quite silly, unless we are talking strategy and tactics in which some things have carried through history others given technology are unneeded.