Best Military (For its Time)

[Areze]

Thought I'd make an antithesis of the other thread.

What do you think was the most effective military in the period it was in?

Personally, I'm going with the mongols. They conquered about half of Asia and a decent chunk of Europe, and were always outnumbered by their enemies. I know that steppe raider were always extremely effective against sedentary nations up until the proliferation of gunpowder, but the Mongols took up to the next level.

 

[Cleomenes]

These Mongols :c

 

[Captured Joe]

I'd say German Stormtroops during WWI (particulary 1916-1.

 

[Doom Bunny]

Well, several contenders, Wehrmacht in WW2, Roman Legions, Alexanders Macedonians, Mongols, all were miles ahead of the competition.

 

[Palaiologos]

Alexander's Macedonians, hands down.

They defeated a variety of enemies, from hoplite phalanxes, steppe nomads, barbarians, Persians and Indians. They also conquered half the world on foot.
I mean for heavens sake they advanced further than their own maps.

 

[RalliX]

I would definitely go with the Mongols also.
They were nearly victorious in a total land conquest in Asia.

Their army organization, logistical advantages, tactics, and overall strategy make them the best army, for their time.

"With Heaven's aid I have conquered for you a huge empire. But my life was too short to achieve the conquest of the world. That task is left for you."
Which is why the Mongols truly failed. Once Genghis was gone, they had to fracture.

They were organized in groups of tens(arban), hundreds(jagun), thousands(minghaan), and ten thousands(Tumen).
Each of these groups elected from among themselves a leader, except in the case of a general, prince, or Khan taking command.
On the most basic level, every Arban had a tent, food supplies, and their equipment carried among themselves; most warriors had multiple horses. On long or forced/desparate marches, they would eat, sleep, and sometimes even relieve themselves from the saddle. When food was low, dried milk curds(softened by being mixed with water and hung under the saddle while travelling) & dried meat were staples. When those ran low, the troops could drink the milk of the mares, and even some of the horse's plentiful blood.

They could do this for weeks at a time, while keeping a pace that is faster than most artillery columns.
With such speed they could outmaneuver virtually every other army of the time.

Their very tactics were often all the advantage they needed. The Mongols were known to be the greatest horse archers in the world. Able to draw a 100 lb composite bow and shoot accurately while at full gallop, forwards or backwards. I find it believable, since they were usually trained from as soon as they were able in riding, archery,
and wrestling.

And finally, they were known to have some of the best generals of their time.
Ones such as Tsubodai, Jebe, Genghis himself, and many of their other Khans. Mongol military leaders almost always had their rank because of ability, not birth. Even a son of the Khan would not be granted command of any sort unless he was considered fit to have it.

Edit: I might also note they advanced beyond the borders of territory they knew existed as well.

 

[Al_Mansur]

Arab tribes of the Islamic conquest. An Empire that goes from Iberia to India, this is enormous.

 

[FrisianDude]

"for its time" allows for a lot of open doors like; the Romans, Alexander's Macedon, the Normans, Napoleonic French, etc.

 

[Areze]

"for its time" allows for a lot of open doors like; the Romans, Alexander's Macedon, the Normans, Napoleonic French, etc.

That was intentional. Mostly to keep from horse**** like saying "lul wermakt (wehrmacht in non-idiot) wud beet de romanz romanz sux". Trying to provoke discussion.

Speaking of, who was better? 6th century Persia, under the Sassanids (I think that's the right dynasty)? Or 6th century Rome (AKA Byzantines)?

 

[Palaiologos]

Aparently the 6th century Romans. They won.

 

[Al_Mansur]

wonder why you think that with a name like yours

 

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

Mongols definitely. They'd probably beat most armies throughout history anyway.

Speaking of, who was better? 6th century Persia, under the Sassanids (I think that's the right dynasty)? Or 6th century Rome (AKA Byzantines)?

The Sassies ain't got nothin' on the Romans. Roman army was all professionals, Persian army was a few nobles on horseback, some mercenaries and a ****load of conscripted serfs with a spear and a useless shield, who had to be chained together so they don't run away.

 

[kenski1]

The British Armed forces between the 18th century to the begining of the 20th the generations of the army that safeguarded and created the largest Empire the world has ever seen the sun never sets upon it, that also may of lost america to a combined french and yank force but came back in 1812 with vengence, and who fought many other wars across the globe all most always coming out on top (still the best trained army in the world now aswell  )

 

[Lord Burgess1]

I like you.

 

[Areze]

Mongols definitely. They'd probably beat most armies throughout history anyway.

Speaking of, who was better? 6th century Persia, under the Sassanids (I think that's the right dynasty)? Or 6th century Rome (AKA Byzantines)?

The Sassies ain't got nothin' on the Romans. Roman army was all professionals, Persian army was a few nobles on horseback, some mercenaries and a ****load of conscripted serfs with a spear and a useless shield, who had to be chained together so they don't run away.

To be fair, the Romans copied the concept of a cataphract form the Persian Dehgans. That, the Sassanids were very, very good at. The Sassanids also had a tendency to break down into civil war almost constantly (this was during the reign of Justinian, so the Byzantines were relatively stable. For them, anyway).

 

[Doom Bunny]

The British Armed forces between the 18th century to the begining of the 20th the generations of the army that safeguarded and created the largest Empire the world has ever seen the sun never sets upon it, that also may of lost america to a combined french and yank force but came back in 1812 with vengence, and who fought many other wars across the globe all most always coming out on top (still the best trained army in the world now aswell  )

I wouldnt describe the British army as the best fighting force in the world between those dates. The British navy on the other hand is another matter, in Napoleonic times it was led by some of the most talented naval officers ever, was well crewed and equipped and the largest in the world. Sure the navy had a few rare defeats, but mostly they were due to a bad commander slipping through the selection process. The navy was eventually ruined by the Victorians however, who ruined most of the stuff that made it great.

 

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

To be fair, the Romans copied the concept of a cataphract form the Persian Dehgans. That, the Sassanids were very, very good at. The Sassanids also had a tendency to break down into civil war almost constantly (this was during the reign of Justinian, so the Byzantines were relatively stable. For them, anyway).

The Dehgans were only allowed into the Savaran after Khusrau Anushirvan's reforms. Before that the Savaran were purely made up of nobles of the seven great clans and their retainers from lesser clans.

 

[Areze]

To be fair, the Romans copied the concept of a cataphract form the Persian Dehgans. That, the Sassanids were very, very good at. The Sassanids also had a tendency to break down into civil war almost constantly (this was during the reign of Justinian, so the Byzantines were relatively stable. For them, anyway).

The Dehgans were only allowed into the Savaran after Khusrau Anushirvan's reforms. Before that the Savaran were purely made up of nobles of the seven great clans and their retainers from lesser clans.

Hence the civil wars. IIRC it was seven houses quarreling between one another that caused most of them pre-Khusrau. I was talking about the base lancer/horse archer heavy cavalry. I'm not up to snuff on Persian history, but the dehgans made up the majority of them. They had little political power, true, but that was not (quite) the case after Khusrau.

 

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

Hence the civil wars. IIRC it was seven houses quarreling between one another that caused most of them pre-Khusrau. I was talking about the base lancer/horse archer heavy cavalry. I'm not up to snuff on Persian history, but the dehgans made up the majority of them. They had little political power, true, but that was not (quite) the case after Khusrau.

The elite pre-reform cavalry came from the Partho-Persian noble houses and their retainers, the majority of cavalry (medium lancers, horse archers) came from subject peoples and allies - Kusans, Sughdians, Hyrcanians, Sakas, Caucasian peoples and Arabs. There were also allied elite contingents under their native command (Lakhmids, Armenians, eastern Iranians - Sistanis, Baluchisatanis and Gurganians). The Dehgan were not part of the Arteštaran (warrior) class before Anushirvan, thus couldn't fight as heavy cavalry. They fought only in cases of emergency, as light cavalry. The elite cavalry adopted horse armor and much in the way of body armor from the Romans.

After the reforms the heavy cavalry was organized into units, outfitted with uniforms and drilled to fight in formation. They became an organized force, mostly because the majority were the Dehgans - village lords and tax collectors, outfitted and armed by the state, and owing allegiance to no one but the king. That allowed the Sassanids to field up to 60-80 thousand heavy cavalry. The disadvantages of such a force were the massively increased cost of maintenance.


The Sassanid forces were never comparable to Romans because although they could field decent heavy cavalry and large numbers of excellent lighter allied and mercenary cavalry forces, they were wholly incompetent in the ways of infantry. Even though the Dehgan reforms illustrate they were capable of creating professional and disciplined forces of soldiers, the Persians neglected doing the same with infantry. They continued to utilize the archaic system of conscripting serfs until the last days of their dynasty. There were a few high quality mercenary forces at their disposal, the Sogdians, Armenians and Medes, yet these were never numerous and were questionable in loyalty to the king, sometimes rebelling against Persian rule. The basic infantryman in the Sassanid army was a conscripted serf or slave, armed with a wicker and leather shield, a short spear and clad in chains to prevent him running away. This is where the massive numbers of Persian armies come from. The army Khusrau I besieged Dara with in 574(?) consisted of 189 thousand men, of whom 120 thousand were the conscript infantry (Paighan-i-nizagan), 40 thousand were heavy infantry (Dailamites and Medes) and only 23 thousand were cataphracts.

 

[Palaiologos]

Are you reading too much Osprey by any chance dude? This Dr Farrokh that writes for them on Persian matters is a terribly biased and nationalistic individual. I still feel sorry for the money i've spent on his "books".