Most powerful army? ( Spun off of "The United States&qu

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:54 am

So, a splinter discussion in the "The United States" thread in PACE got me thinking ... What do you think is the most powerful army in history? From old bands of stone age warriors to Spartans and Mongolians to the Spanish Armada to the Modern United States Army, if they fought each other on even terms (either brought up or lowered to their opponent's level of technology), who do you think would come out on top, and why?

We might as well argue it here, instead of taking up more room, while derailing that thread.

So, have fun, and have an argument why.

Seraphim · Post by **Seraphim** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:56 am

It's still impossible to argue. Whichever side was brought up, or taken down, would loose. Homefield advantage I suppose. If you somehow did away with that... then I suppose I would have to go with modern armies.

Ragnarok7331 · Post by **Ragnarok7331** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:11 am

If you change the technological standards of armies, what's left to differentiate them? Amount of people? That would almost certainly go to the modern ones, unless you simulated evolution over the amount of years it would take to modernize an old one, which in that case it would be nearly impossible the accurately exstimate the number of people in it. Training? That would also vary by era, and by the training necessary for their army to be effective with modern technology. What's harder to do: train someone to shoot a gun or to effectively use a blade or bow and arrow? Again, if one inputted evolution over time, the effect would be random and unpredictable at best.

The only thing that I believe is argueable is this: Which military force, out of all of history and time, was the most powerful for it's epoch, and why?

peter-griffin · Post by **peter-griffin** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:23 am

[quote="Ragnarok7331";p="356895"]If you change the technological standards of armies, what's left to differentiate them? Amount of people? That would almost certainly go to the modern ones, unless you simulated evolution over the amount of years it would take to modernize an old one, which in that case it would be nearly impossible the accurately exstimate the number of people in it. Training? That would also vary by era, and by the training necessary for their army to be effective with modern technology. What's harder to do: train someone to shoot a gun or to effectively use a blade or bow and arrow? Again, if one inputted evolution over time, the effect would be random and unpredictable at best.

The only thing that I believe is argueable is this: Which military force, out of all of history and time, was the most powerful for it's epoch, and why?[/quote]

THANK YOU SIR. THAT IS ALL.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:25 am

Well, Regnarok, there's always their leaders.

Though I guess your end question is actually far better.

*BBB* ZERO · Post by *BBB* ZERO » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:14 am

Ragnorak makes a very good point.

I would also like to bring up a question about this...

My father and I always have the same arguement. He thinks the baseball players of yesterday, Ruth, Maris, Cobb, Mantle, etc. would defeat any team I put together of this modern era. I disagree for the simple fact that todays athletes are much faster, stronger, bigger, quicker, and in overall better health than any of the athletes from yesterday. The competition is better, the training is better, they have steroids.

If the Unites States army could go 'back in time,' would it even be a fair fight because of how physically fit they are, or how well they take care of themselves?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:19 am

I'm sure they'd remain in such good shape and so well taken care of when they somehow make the things that keep them as such from the materials back then ... oh wait.

As for the battles, a thought about how "tech makes the army" and what makes them different - the leaders. For example, how would Patton fare against Sun Tzu, or Alexander against Atilla?

Imperator Severn · Post by **Imperator Severn** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:45 am

Again the specious assumption that people are better than their ancestors simply because they came later. No, I'm not even convinced that the average american soldier is any stronger than the average Roman soldier. Healthier, perhaps, though I doubt that as well. Certaily healthier than the average person from the Roman empire, simply due to nutrition. But keep in mind that the average american, like a roman citizen, is not representative of the vast majority of people on earth. A peasant in Gallia Lugdunensis was probably in nowhere enar the shape his roman counterpart in Lutetia was.

Arminius · Post by **Arminius** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:52 pm

Gallics were savage and mighty warriors BUT Gallics were not disciplined. When you have a tidy army vs a group of stinky barbarians, you know just like me who will win the battle.

Rfairney · Post by **Rfairney** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:24 am

Romans
Highly Trained, Highly disciplined, make the current national armies look like typical militias
Good tactics, better chain of command, better unit structures

*BBB* ZERO · Post by *BBB* ZERO » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:59 am

There has been no Army that has walked the face of this earth which could contest with the United States army. If you continue to debate this, then bring the UN soldiers on the side of today's United States army. It would be a rape no matter how you look at it.

confusedcious · Post by **confusedcious** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:28 am

Yes... now look at what happened in Vietnam.

America went in, considering itself the greatest army. They got their asses kicked.

What's to say that couldn't happen again?

Calus · Post by **Calus** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:36 am

[quote="confusedcious";p="358266"]Yes... now look at what happened in Vietnam.

America went in, considering itself the greatest army. They got their asses kicked.

What's to say that couldn't happen again?[/quote]

Got our asses kicked? No. Got tried of the fight? Yes.

confusedcious · Post by **confusedcious** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:25 am

Why do you think they got tired of it? Because they weren't progressing and were being slaughtered.

Phong · Post by **Phong** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:35 am

Its very clear that you fail to understand even the most basic political realities of the Vietnam war. We weren't fighting it, we were sitting in South Vietnam, and off the coast swatting at the VC and the NVA with one arm while the other, and our legs were tied up.

Real Life Forums

Most powerful army? ( Spun off of "The United States&qu

Most powerful army? ( Spun off of "The United States&qu

Re: Most powerful army? ( Spun off of "The United State

Who is online