The United States...

[confusedcious]

So. If the American army can beat anyone why is most of Afghanistan still not under control?

Much more than ten kilometres out of the capital and Anarchy rules.

[peter-griffin]

I'll let Martin pick this one up...

[Martin Blank]

[quote="McDoofus";p="353830"]You try and put conditionals on reality: "Well, if the US didn't have blah blah blah and the Frenchmen from the 1600's could have yada yada yada...." Nonsense. The fact remains, that the US army, in it's current state, is far superior than any other military force in history, in their most advanced state. That's what BBB said, and that is correct.[/quote]
You have to put things in context, otherwise you could say that modern-day Yemen is a greater economic powerhouse than was the US in 1792 because its GDP is higher. The only time people don't put things into context is when their argument is fragile or nonexistent in such cases.

With a modern rifle and some stacks of ammunition, I could pick off Roman soldiers by the dozens, but that doesn't make me a better soldier than they were.

[EvilPsychoJoe]

Somewhere in there, my point was answered or rendered moot.

So I'll bow out now.

[*BBB* ZERO]

You have to put things in context, otherwise you could say that modern-day Yemen is a greater economic powerhouse than was the US in 1792 because its GDP is higher.

Using whatever context you want, in this day and age, the U.S. Military is the strongest of all time.

With a modern rifle and some stacks of ammunition, I could pick off Roman soldiers by the dozens, but that doesn't make me a better soldier than they were.

You kill 500 Roman soldiers by your lonesome, you will go down in histroy as the greatest soldier of all time!

[peter-griffin]

With a modern rifle and some stacks of ammunition, I could pick off Roman soldiers by the dozens, but that doesn't make me a better soldier than they were.

Yes, it does, Martin. Your effectiveness is that much greater then theirs, therefore making you a more worthwhile soldier.

[McNUTT]

He's only more effective because of his weapons. So now you're saying weapons make the soldier?

Romansky would get rocked by romans. Left and Right.

[StruckingFuggle]

That's kind of the crux of the "no, Army X was greater" argument, McNUTT. Some people seem to be saying that we're hte best because we have the most powerful equiptment in the largest numbers, while others are saying that we really should look at the force behind the equiptment, and define "mightiest ever" on a playing field where they all had the same access to hardware...

Sure, we've got guns and big, multi-million-dollar vehicles and large stocks of missiles - but if there was some sort of cosmic tournament where historical armies - the modern US, Khan's Mongols, Alexander's Greeks, etc ... were all squared off in an elimination bracked with equal access to a certain level of technology and armed the proper knolwedge of its use to detemrine the "mightiest army", the US would come out pretty far from the top.

But in the modern world, we can give anything a pretty good thumping in a straight up brawl - but the effect of Terrorism As Combat has yet to be fully gauaged, so we can't really quite say if some insane idealists without strong national ties can bring us down yet or not.

[McDoofus]

[quote="Martin Blank";p="354192"]With a modern rifle and some stacks of ammunition, I could pick off Roman soldiers by the dozens, but that doesn't make me a better soldier than they were.[/quote]
I think it does. The better soldier is the soldier who wins.

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="355034"]Sure, we've got guns and big, multi-million-dollar vehicles and large stocks of missiles - but if there was some sort of cosmic tournament where historical armies - the modern US, Khan's Mongols, Alexander's Greeks, etc ... were all squared off in an elimination bracked with equal access to a certain level of technology and armed the proper knolwedge of its use to detemrine the "mightiest army", the US would come out pretty far from the top.[/quote]
I disagree. It seems that you guys think that the current US army is full of stupid, lazy, incompetent soldiers who can only push buttons and hide. WRONG. Today's soldier training is the culmination of the entire history of war: if it has worked in the past, we'll use it. If it didn't, we'll improve on it or throw it away. We are the result of past triumphs and failures. We learned from their mistakes and successes.

Today, individual soldiers have access to much better training (and knowledge of training), nutrition, medical care, etc. As individuals, the US army is probably the strongest and smartest EVER. (I use the word "probably" here because I, just like you, never actually saw any Roman soldiers- the best information source we have to work with are exagerated stories).

The reason most people think Roman soldiers were so badass is because thier competition was weak. Small, frail bodies, little or no knowledge of warfare. Most soldiers in that time were just farmboys picked up by the prince and told to stand in a group with swords in their hands. So when the slighly skilled and experienced Roman killed 10, it wasn't because he was "Teh bestest ever OMG," but rather because it was like shooting a fish in a barrel.

You take your best Roman-times soldier, and I'll get my best Army Ranger or Navy Seal, and we'll put them in hand to hand combat. Who do you honestly think would win?

[Dr. Tower]

If we're taking one on one, I'd go with the Isreali Mossad.

[Salvation122]

[quote="Towerboy";p="355075"]If we're taking one on one, I'd go with the Isreali Mossad.[/quote]
Mossad is an intelliegence organization, though, not really an army. There's a difference between an assassin and a soldier.

[StruckingFuggle]

A: Way to put words in the mouths of people, McDoofus.

And related to that, B: I think you keep missing the stipulation with this little point that the, say, Spartans, in this hypothetical argument, have the same arms and training with them (which certainly falls under "proper knowledge to use") as the American soldiers do, too. We're not talking about a horde of Mongols on horseback with spears and bows versus a squad of marines. We're talking about Khan and his mongols with panzers and automatic rifles to replace horses and bows.

[Phong]

I think that the comaprison of the US Military with ancient Armies, such as the mongol hordes of Ghengis Khan, or the Greek armies of Alexander the great are rather ridiculous.

First let us remember that victory in war is no longer decided solely by boots on the ground, in fact the primary deciding factors for more then 50 years has been Air Superiority. And for more than 200 years major wars have not been decided without the victor having sumpremacy at Sea. So I have to ask, would Alexander the Great, or Ghengis Khan be capable of properly marshalling Air and Sea forces? I doubt it.

Then let us consider that the US military today has forgoten few of the lessons of military history. Look at how we employ our Tanks. We learned much from Alexander the Great, and Ghengis Khan. Do not forget that Alexander the great did not truly remain un-defeated by taking all comers, and having the greatest army, though his tactics were superior, he could not have won if he did that, he simply didn't have the numbers. Alexander was succesful because he never engaged in a battle that he could not win.

Remember that our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and previously Vietnam, and even Korea have been fought with a leash, squared off against an enemy and unleashed the US military would be a greater force to reckon with than most of us imagine.

[McDoofus]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="355095"]A: Way to put words in the mouths of people, McDoofus.[/quote]
Where, when?

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="355095"] We're talking about Khan and his mongols with panzers and automatic rifles to replace horses and bows. [/quote]
So, we'll give Khan and his mongols all our Tanks and Airplanes and guns. It follows then that we'll have to train them to use those things. Heck, we might as well just put them through basic training. So now, these guys are the same as just another division in the US army. I might be missing something... what's your point here, exactly? That if we gave people we would normally crush our advantages, then they could compete with us? OF COURSE.

[StruckingFuggle]

what's your point here, exactly? That if we gave people we would normally crush our advantages, then they could compete with us? OF COURSE.

Not compete, beat.

But whatever. Phong made a couple good points - one of which is that in this modern day and age, it is largely a matter of superior gear and impersonal battles (unfortunately, some might add ... though Iraq seems to be moving away from this and back to soldiers fighting battles. Is this good or bad? I'd love to argue, but make a new thread if you want to. )