Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Another week, another fun debate of death and destruction

But it is a question that has often occupied my mind, because there are so many candidates. The following choices below are obviously my personal opinion, and please note, they don't have to be all conquering empires, as many nations were very successful in repelling invasions. And if you have your own preference, please give a few lines below in the comments.

Mongolia

This needs no explanation.

Canada

This is no joke. Canada has repelled numerous invasions over the years, has never lost a war to the best of my knowledge, and Canadian troops had a reputation of being mean mother feckers in WW1. Despite their peaceful, laid back approach, don't mess with Canada.


Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...

Vietnam

For centuries they fought for freedom, always refusing to yield. Trying to conquer Vietnam has been likened to hacking at fog with a cutlass. They seen off the French, they seen off a super-power a few years later.

Prussia/Germany

The Wehrmacht has often been described as the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen, all of Europe falling to them in 1940/41, and the Prussian legacy of Fredrick The Great, and the German wars of unification, will forever be in the annals of military history.

Italy

Italy had a poor reputation in WW2, but the Roman Empire speaks for itself...

Other

Please add below your own choice if you disagree with the above, or any other honourable mentions I have forgotten to mention.

I don't understand the question.

It seems to be:
"In military terms, who is the most successful country?"

I think the term "deadliest" is a bit of an odd choice - It seems to imply that the question is "which army caused the most deaths", but what I think was being asked is "which was the most successful".
And of course, there's a difference between winning wars and killing lots of the enemy (though the two do overlap somewhat).

So what, we tally up kill counts?

I got into history to avoid math sir!

Mongolia. They brought the Black Death to Europe (inadvertently, but still). This set the ground for modern European history, including the epidemics in the Americas later.

There are issues with some of these choices. For example, Italy, as a modern state, and the Roman Empire, are so widely separated by time, culture, technology, population changes, etc, not to mention distinct internal divisions, that lumping them together makes about at much sense as lumping in Hittites or Ionian Greeks with modern Turkey.

"Deadliest" is also hard to define. In terms of raw destructive power and the capabilities able to be brought to bear, in absolute terms, the United States has probably held that title for the last 75 years. Even during WW2, the US was able to sustain fighting two separate conflicts on opposite sides of the planet against other great world empires in total war situations, simultaneously, and achieving (in cooperation with allies) total unconditional surrender in all areas. Even in relative terms, that's hard to match let alone beat. That power has only grown over time.

If we're talking generally most successful at achieving war aims (be it simple defense of borders or something else), that could go a lot of different ways, and dozens of states and peoples pop up there.

Genghis Khan killed so many people that he affected the climate, destroyed entire empires and nations and the places he devastated never recovered. His generals and sons weren't exactly afraid to conquer and kill either. They conquered vast amounts of territory and fought and won against incredibly powerful and diverse opponents all over Eurasia. No conqueror or empire comes even close to the great Khan's achievements in that regard I think. Alexander the Great probably takes second place, but his conquests were small next to Genghis'.

The British created an empire even larger than that of Genghis Khan, but they did so mostly by colonising and massacring virtually defenseless native people in Africa and Asia that did not have the advanced firearms and military that Great Britain had. You cannot call a nation militarily successful if it never faces any challenges or threats. When the British military did go up against technological equals (Napoleonic Wars, World Wars etc.) they generally performed well but never noticeably better than others.

By contrast, Genghis Khan and his Mongolians went up against forces that were vastly superior to his and defeated them only because of their exceptional (and often unconventional) tactics and strategy. That is what makes the Mongolians' conquests so remarkable.

I think the only nation that could rival the Mongolian's claim to being history's most militarily successful nation is China, although for different reasons. While many nations can claim brilliant strategists, tacticians and conquerors, and while many nations can claim to have established great empires at some point in their history, only China has been able to maintain an empire for over 4000 years. All other empires have crumbled. China still stands. Even when China was conquered by foreign powers such as the Mongols, the conquerors were absorbed and China endured. Even when China faced technologically superior foes such as Great Britain, China maintained itself. And even while China has been divided by civil wars many times, sometimes for a very long time, it has always come back together rather than fallen apart. China was an empire when the Assyrians conquered Ancient Egypt. China was an empire when Alexander led his armies into India. China was an empire when Romulus was still suckling from the wolf's teat. China was still an empire when Rome fell. China is still an empire today. Of the great ancient civilisations, China is the only one to have endured as a state in an unbroken line to the present day. Babylon is nothing but ruins and old relics. Egypt was defeated and absorbed into other empires. India has seen many empires over the course of its long history, but none that have lasted. China too, has been conquered and divided, yet the Chinese state always remained.
Now that is truly an achievement unrivaled in history. For a nation to establish an empire is a great military achievement. But isn't it an even greater military achievement to be able to maintain an empire for thousands of years?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Genghis Khan killed so many people that he affected the climate, destroyed entire empires and nations and the places he devastated never recovered. His generals and sons weren't exactly afraid to conquer and kill either.
No conqueror or empire comes even close to the great Khan's achievements. Alexander the Great probably takes second place, but his conquests were small next to Genghis'.

The British created an empire even larger than that of Genghis Khan, but they did so mostly by colonising and massacring virtually defenseless native people in Africa and Asia that did not have the advanced firearms and military that Great Britain had. You cannot call a nation militarily successful if it never faces any challenges or threats. When the British military did go up against technological equals (Napoleonic Wars, World Wars etc.) they generally performed well but never noticeably better than others.

By contrast, Genghis Khan and his Mongolians went up against forces that were vastly superior to his and defeated them only because of their exceptional (and often unconventional) tactics and strategy. That is what makes the Mongolians' conquests so remarkable.

I think the only nation that could rival the Mongolian's claim to being history's most militarily successful nation is China. While many nations can claim brilliant strategists, tacticians and conquerors, and while many nations can claim to have established great empires at some point in their history, only China has been able to maintain an empire for over 4000 years. All other empires have crumbled. China still stands. Even when China was conquered by foreign powers such as the Mongols, the conquerors were absorbed and China endured. Even when China faced technologically superior foes such as Great Britain, China maintained itself. And even while China has been divided by civil wars many times, sometimes for a very long time, it has always come back together rather than fallen apart. China was an empire when the Assyrians conquered Ancient Egypt. China was an empire when Alexander led his armies into India. China was an empire when Romulus was still suckling from the wolf's teat. China was still an empire when Rome fell. China is still an empire today.
Now that is truly an achievement unrivaled in history. For a nation to establish an empire is a great military achievement. But isn't it an even greater military achievement to be able to maintain an empire for thousands of years?

Interestingly from my reading, the British Empire was achieved as much by accident as design and often due to individuals on the make or the aggressive rapacious corporations like the East India Company. They were also extremely effective at divide and rule - ie - lets You and Him fight and then We will pick up the pieces. The Romans and other Empires have also done this - its alot more effective and cheaper than direct invasion - you will find that alot of the massacures carried out by the British Empire are actually done by "native" troops whether that be in Scotland, Africa or Asia usually to settle old scores.

I would contend that China is really a succession of very different Empires not a single one unless you are happy to do the same with other regions....

The Mongolian army was suprerior to its peers in terms of strategy, logistics, weapons and other elements - which is why they won! I am confused how you think had a "vastly superior army"? It was only when the Muslim Mamluks and other adapted to and often copied their forces that they were matched and defeated.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Interestingly from my reading, the British Empire was achieved as much by accident as design and often due to individuals on the make or the aggressive rapacious corporations like the East India Company. They were also extremely effective at divide and rule - ie - lets You and Him fight and then We will pick up the pieces. The Romans and other Empires have also done this - its alot more effective and cheaper than direct invasion - you will find that alot of the massacures carried out by the British Empire are actually done by "native" troops whether that be in Scotland, Africa or Asia usually to settle old scores.

Yeah, that is pretty standard empire strategy. Divide et impera.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I would contend that China is really a succession of very different Empires not a single one unless you are happy to do the same with other regions....

No, China is a succession of different dynasties and regimes. The new ruler always claimed the authority of the previous dynasty or regime. There never was a period where the state ceased to exist or a new ruler decided to found a new empire. When after a period of division and civil war some warlord would emerge victorious, they'd always claim the authority of the previous dynasty rather than establishing their own, new authority. Basically, there has always been continuity. Regimes can change, but as long as the state is not dissolved there is continuity.

 Mr Morden wrote:
The Mongolian army was suprerior to its peers in terms of strategy, logistics, weapons and other elements - which is why they won! I am confused how you think had a "vastly superior army"? It was only when the Muslim Mamluks and other adapted to and often copied their forces that they were matched and defeated.

The Chinese militaries were not only larger than Genghis' forces, it was also much better equipped and trained. The Jin Dynasty had divisions of heavily armoured infantry, heavy and light cavalry (including their own horse archers, the idea that the nations who faced the initial Mongol invasions were unfamiliar with horse archers and typical Mongolian tactics is bogus.), artillery etc. They were a much more diverse force led by a highly trained and professionally educated officer corps. Chinese logistics were superb as well, not to mention that China had a thousand years of experience in fighting the Mongols and other nomadic peoples. They also had the world's most powerful fortifications, most skilled engineers etc. I could go on for a long time here. The Mongol army in comparison was just a bunch of nomadic herdsmen riding ponies.The Mongolian military consisted mostly of lightly armed and armoured cavalry, usually without dedicated military training.
Basically, the military of the Jin dynasty was light years ahead of Genghis and his men. Genghis Khan won despite all the odds stacked against him (just like he did in the unification of Mongolia), through sheer strategic and tactical brilliance. He knew when and where to fight to get the advantage, made use of Chinese arrogance and set up rival dynasties and warlords against each other. His talent for doing that, and overcoming superior enemies in this way is what makes him remarkable.
Of course, the Mongol armies that somewhat later invade the Middle East and Europe are very different from the earlier Mongol forces. The later Mongol armies were sophisticated militaries with highly trained officers, logisticians and engineers in the Chinese fashion, backed up by the resources of northern China and much of central Asia. That the Mongols get defeated after a certain point is not so much because their opponents adapted to Mongol tactics (they were already familiar with Mongol tactics since they had been fighting nomads long before the Mongols showed up and often they had nomadic origins themselves and already used the same tactics the Mongols did), but rather because the Mongols got divided and Genghis Khan's successors started fighting one another. The infighting eventually weakened them enough for their opponents to get the upper hand. Of course, that is a process that ebbed and flowed over a hundred years. It wasn't just like "and then they learned to counter Mongol tactics and started winning".

I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.

 Skinnereal wrote:
It seems to be:
"In military terms, who is the most successful country?"

What I should have said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.

Russia was 50/50, and I would accept any good argument for it. Macedonia, USA kinda, and Napoleonic France, were also borderline.


Russia is obviously a very hard place to invade, but in the Great War, the Russian army was shambolic at times, especially when it was invading other people. So yeah, it's borderline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
There are issues with some of these choices. For example, Italy, as a modern state, and the Roman Empire, are so widely separated by time, culture, technology, population changes, etc, not to mention distinct internal divisions, that lumping them together makes about at much sense as lumping in Hittites or Ionian Greeks with modern Turkey.

"Deadliest" is also hard to define. In terms of raw destructive power and the capabilities able to be brought to bear, in absolute terms, the United States has probably held that title for the last 75 years. Even during WW2, the US was able to sustain fighting two separate conflicts on opposite sides of the planet against other great world empires in total war situations, simultaneously, and achieving (in cooperation with allies) total unconditional surrender in all areas. Even in relative terms, that's hard to match let alone beat. That power has only grown over time.

If we're talking generally most successful at achieving war aims (be it simple defense of borders or something else), that could go a lot of different ways, and dozens of states and peoples pop up there.

My apologies to people. I have listened to people's feedback and changed the title accordingly.

In my defence, I was on the phone to the damn taxman earlier, and was obviously distracted.

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs: now there's a organisation that could do with a Mongol invasion.

Back OT. Yes, I agree, the USA obviously has the firepower to destroy the world a dozen times over if it missed, but from a historical perspective, I judge the USA by the following: much of your nation's history was taken up with Westward expansion, and then you were isolationist for a while, and since WW2, your military success has been hit or miss.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
I don't understand the question.

The title is changed



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And responding to Vaktathi's point about Rome.


Yeah, there is a great deal of time separating to the two, but Rome still endures, unlike other ancient capitals, so I shall make an exception.


Greece is still Greece, for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
I think the term "deadliest" is a bit of an odd choice - It seems to imply that the question is "which army caused the most deaths", but what I think was being asked is "which was the most successful".
And of course, there's a difference between winning wars and killing lots of the enemy (though the two do overlap somewhat).

Good point, and it's one of the reasons why IMO, Canada is on the list. They have repelled invasions, but they have also attacked other nations, and been successful. Some nations have obviously only attacked in self-defence. But Canada has demonstrated skill in both attack and defence.

In any war involving the USA, as either enemy or ally, Canada never loses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Mongolia. They brought the Black Death to Europe (inadvertently, but still). This set the ground for modern European history, including the epidemics in the Americas later.

Was the Black death not also spread by Venetian Or Genonese ships bringing back infected rats?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Interestingly from my reading, the British Empire was achieved as much by accident as design and often due to individuals on the make or the aggressive rapacious corporations like the East India Company. They were also extremely effective at divide and rule - ie - lets You and Him fight and then We will pick up the pieces. The Romans and other Empires have also done this - its alot more effective and cheaper than direct invasion - you will find that alot of the massacures carried out by the British Empire are actually done by "native" troops whether that be in Scotland, Africa or Asia usually to settle old scores.

Yeah, that is pretty standard empire strategy. Divide et impera.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I would contend that China is really a succession of very different Empires not a single one unless you are happy to do the same with other regions....

No, China is a succession of different dynasties and regimes. The new ruler always claimed the authority of the previous dynasty or regime. There never was a period where the state ceased to exist or a new ruler decided to found a new empire. When after a period of division and civil war some warlord would emerge victorious, they'd always claim the authority of the previous dynasty rather than establishing their own, new authority. Basically, there has always been continuity. Regimes can change, but as long as the state is not dissolved there is continuity.

 Mr Morden wrote:
The Mongolian army was suprerior to its peers in terms of strategy, logistics, weapons and other elements - which is why they won! I am confused how you think had a "vastly superior army"? It was only when the Muslim Mamluks and other adapted to and often copied their forces that they were matched and defeated.

The Chinese militaries were not only larger than Genghis' forces, it was also much better equipped and trained. The Jin Dynasty had divisions of heavily armoured infantry, heavy and light cavalry (including their own horse archers, the idea that the nations who faced the initial Mongol invasions were unfamiliar with horse archers and typical Mongolian tactics is bogus.), artillery etc. They were a much more diverse force led by a highly trained and professionally educated officer corps. Chinese logistics were superb as well, not to mention that China had a thousand years of experience in fighting the Mongols and other nomadic peoples. They also had the world's most powerful fortifications, most skilled engineers etc. I could go on for a long time here. The Mongol army in comparison was just a bunch of nomadic herdsmen riding ponies.The Mongolian military consisted mostly of lightly armed and armoured cavalry, usually without dedicated military training.
Basically, the military of the Jin dynasty was light years ahead of Genghis and his men. Genghis Khan won despite all the odds stacked against him (just like he did in the unification of Mongolia), through sheer strategic and tactical brilliance. He knew when and where to fight to get the advantage, made use of Chinese arrogance and set up rival dynasties and warlords against each other. His talent for doing that, and overcoming superior enemies in this way is what makes him remarkable.
Of course, the Mongol armies that somewhat later invade the Middle East and Europe are very different from the earlier Mongol forces. The later Mongol armies were sophisticated militaries with highly trained officers, logisticians and engineers in the Chinese fashion, backed up by the resources of northern China and much of central Asia. That the Mongols get defeated after a certain point is not so much because their opponents adapted to Mongol tactics (they were already familiar with Mongol tactics since they had been fighting nomads long before the Mongols showed up and often they had nomadic origins themselves and already used the same tactics the Mongols did), but rather because the Mongols got divided and Genghis Khan's successors started fighting one another. The infighting eventually weakened them enough for their opponents to get the upper hand. Of course, that is a process that ebbed and flowed over a hundred years. It wasn't just like "and then they learned to counter Mongol tactics and started winning".

Thanks - I obviously have more reading to do

I mean, if we're going off pure WLD here, Alexander the Great tops the list, given that he was never defeated in battle.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.

Russia isn't actually very militarily successful. They have excellent defensive track records, but its not really anything specific to the nation. Its geography that makes invading Russia a bad idea.

In terms of actual warfare, Russia has mixed results in the W/L department. They are the best in the world at making practical military equipment though.


Similarly, the US invasion of Canada during the War of 1812 was more of an indictment of the bad shape of the US army at the time and not any special skill on the part of Canada. Incompetent baboons would have been capable of conquering Canada with what the US had at the time, the US generals showed absurd levels of failure.

The truly ironic part is that the war of 1812 went completely opposite of how it was "supposed to happen". Great Britain expected to completely lose Canada, while maintaining sea dominance. Instead, they held Canada while the US navy ate the Royal Navy's lunch.

 Grey Templar wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.

Russia isn't actually very militarily successful. They have excellent defensive track records, but its not really anything specific to the nation. Its geography that makes invading Russia a bad idea.

In terms of actual warfare, Russia has mixed results in the W/L department. They are the best in the world at making practical military equipment though.

ehhhhhh, kinda disagree.
Their trackrecord only really went downhill after 1850.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.

Russia isn't actually very militarily successful. They have excellent defensive track records, but its not really anything specific to the nation. Its geography that makes invading Russia a bad idea.

In terms of actual warfare, Russia has mixed results in the W/L department. They are the best in the world at making practical military equipment though.

ehhhhhh, kinda disagree.
Their trackrecord only really went downhill after 1850.

Perhaps. We could give the old Tsars credit for doing as well as they did with an army that was pretty much always fighting with out of date weaponry. Though there was that time a particular Swede kicked them around, again only losing because "Winter is coming!"

 Grey Templar wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.

Russia isn't actually very militarily successful. They have excellent defensive track records, but its not really anything specific to the nation. Its geography that makes invading Russia a bad idea.

In terms of actual warfare, Russia has mixed results in the W/L department. They are the best in the world at making practical military equipment though.

ehhhhhh, kinda disagree.
Their trackrecord only really went downhill after 1850.

Perhaps. We could give the old Tsars credit for doing as well as they did with an army that was pretty much always fighting with out of date weaponry. Though there was that time a particular Swede kicked them around, again only losing because "Winter is coming!"

Then there are generals like Suvorow which kicked Napoleon out of the alps, for the lulz.

The tsardom only really began to do badly after 1850, before it was a mixed bag with huge defensive victories.

France has also one of the best winrates of wars. Albeit WW2 was kinda like the low low point for them. Well except that one time swiss militia just captured some forts because Napoleon came back 1815.

Yes, even though Napoléon is kinda like the parent of the modern swiss state, he wasn't liked. To the point that his puppet government had 8 coups and multiple insurections against until he literally fliipped the table.



Then again the HRE Emperors surely also could tell a tale or two about violent swiss peasants breaking stuff and burning stuff down and questioning their legitimacy....



Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the most successfull, China VS China.

This is utter nonsense.

When has Russia ever been conquered by a foreign power? Did the Brits / Germans / Italians ever beat them? Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...

LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
This is utter nonsense.

When has Russia ever been conquered by a foreign power? Did the Brits / Germans / Italians ever beat them? Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...

LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.

says the country that never won a war by itself

 Formosa wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
T
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...

LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.

says the country that never won a war by itself

I'm sorry, but did we actually need anyone else to defeat the Nazis? No, we did not, but it didn't hurt to have them along for the ride.

Just to make a point about the British Empire, it's true that the later colonial period -- the so-called "Scramble for Africa" -- had the British with breech-loading rifles, Maxim guns and cannons against tribal warriors with muskets and spears.

The earlier period when the British conquered India was a lot more evenly balanced. The native armies not only had access to the same "modern" (of the time) weapons, they also had drill from European mercenaries, as well as vast numbers (though mostly formed and armed in antique style.)

Thus, battles like Clive's and Wellesley's were won against significant opposition, and this realistically was the situation until the later 19th century.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Greece is still Greece, for example.

Actually, for much of its history "Greece" was Rome. Greece is a very young nation.
Ancient Greece was neither a single nation nor a state. Then the region became part of the Roman Empire and eventually it became the Roman Empire's heartland. Then eventually it became part of the Ottoman Empire. Then in the 19th century, ethnic nationalism becomes very popular and takes hold among Greek-speaking people as well. A part of Greece subsequently manages to break free and becomes the Greek nation-state. All this while there are lots of population movements and cultural changes in the area that is now Greece. There is no continuity between Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire and modern Greece.

The same thing is true for Ancient Rome and modern Italy. There is no continuity. There is lots of different peoples, cultures and states in between. The only thing Italy has in common with Ancient Rome is that it is located in the same geographical area as the Ancient Roman heartland. Beyond that they have no more links to Ancient Rome than say Greece, France, Romania or Spain.

And this goes for any modern European culture really. There is little to no continuity between ancient and modern cultures in all of Europe. The Migration Period really messed things up. In that regard Europe is different from Asia, where there is a lot more continuity in the development of cultural traditions from the ancient past to the present day.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.

Russia isn't actually very militarily successful. They have excellent defensive track records, but its not really anything specific to the nation. Its geography that makes invading Russia a bad idea.

In terms of actual warfare, Russia has mixed results in the W/L department. They are the best in the world at making practical military equipment though.

ehhhhhh, kinda disagree.
Their trackrecord only really went downhill after 1850.

Russia did pretty well after the 1850's as well. They pretty much kicked the Ottoman Empire out of the Balkans in the 1870's for example. It is only after about 1900 that Russia starts to go downhill because politically Russia was still pretty much stuck in the Middle Ages. And so it struggles to keep up economically and industrially with rapidly developing modern capitalist nations. This development already started much earlier of course, but around 1900 is the time at which it really starts to become problematic. The lack of reform (or the wrong implementation of reforms) and a few humiliating defeats at the hands of more industrialised nations then leads to discontent with the rule of the tsar and you know the rest of the story.
Overall, Russia has a very successful military record, building up one of the world's largest empires, maintaining it for a long time, and defeating numerous invasions. Not to mention that the Russian military has a very notorious track record of successfully invading (and then often refusing to leave again) other countries as well. Russian armies have marched victorious across the width and breadth of Europe (and much of Asia) several times. I just don't think Russia has the most successful record. Russia had its share of military setbacks and defeats as well, the Russo-Japanese war and WW1 probably being the most humiliating. Not to mention that Russia is a relatively young state (a bit over a 1000 years old) so it doesn't have the impressive track record of an ancient empire like China.

Your list seems kind of random. I think you need to make your parameters smaller/clearer.

At first I though it was a list of empires. For example, empire wise great Britain, Spain, even the Netherlands and France all had decent territories. Then how far back do you go, you've got the mongol empire, the ottomans, the Romans, Persians.

Then you seem to include some underdog nations, yet don't mention Afghanistan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
This is utter nonsense.

When has Russia ever been conquered by a foreign power? Did the Brits / Germans / Italians ever beat them? Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...

LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.

Let's not start on the world wars. where the US definitely don't wait until the opponent is dazed on the ropes then steps in with the knockout... We saw the Germans off with a few toffs in aeroplanes.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Greece is still Greece, for example.

Actually, for much of its history "Greece" was Rome. Greece is a very young nation.
Ancient Greece was neither a single nation nor a state. Then the region became part of the Roman Empire and eventually it became the Roman Empire's heartland. Then eventually it became part of the Ottoman Empire. Then in the 19th century, ethnic nationalism becomes very popular and takes hold among Greek-speaking people as well. A part of Greece subsequently manages to break free and becomes the Greek nation-state. All this while there are lots of population movements and cultural changes in the area that is now Greece. There is no continuity between Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire and modern Greece.

The same thing is true for Ancient Rome and modern Italy. There is no continuity. There is lots of different peoples, cultures and states in between. The only thing Italy has in common with Ancient Rome is that it is located in the same geographical area as the Ancient Roman heartland. Beyond that they have no more links to Ancient Rome than say Greece, France, Romania or Spain.

And this goes for any modern European culture really. There is little to no continuity between ancient and modern cultures in all of Europe. The Migration Period really messed things up. In that regard Europe is different from Asia, where there is a lot more continuity in the development of cultural traditions from the ancient past to the present day.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I am very suprised Russia is not on this list.

Russia isn't actually very militarily successful. They have excellent defensive track records, but its not really anything specific to the nation. Its geography that makes invading Russia a bad idea.

In terms of actual warfare, Russia has mixed results in the W/L department. They are the best in the world at making practical military equipment though.

ehhhhhh, kinda disagree.
Their trackrecord only really went downhill after 1850.

Russia did pretty well after the 1850's as well. They pretty much kicked the Ottoman Empire out of the Balkans in the 1870's for example. It is only after about 1900 that Russia starts to go downhill because politically Russia was still pretty much stuck in the Middle Ages. And so it struggles to keep up economically and industrially with rapidly developing modern capitalist nations. This development already started much earlier of course, but around 1900 is the time at which it really starts to become problematic. The lack of reform (or the wrong implementation of reforms) and a few humiliating defeats at the hands of more industrialised nations then leads to discontent with the rule of the tsar and you know the rest of the story.
Overall, Russia has a very successful military record, building up one of the world's largest empires, maintaining it for a long time, and defeating numerous invasions. Not to mention that the Russian military has a very notorious track record of successfully invading (and then often refusing to leave again) other countries as well. Russian armies have marched victorious across the width and breadth of Europe (and much of Asia) several times. I just don't think Russia has the most successful record. Russia had its share of military setbacks and defeats as well, the Russo-Japanese war and WW1 probably being the most humiliating. Not to mention that Russia is a relatively young state (a bit over a 1000 years old) so it doesn't have the impressive track record of an ancient empire like China.

The ottomans don't count for much though, especially after 1800.

Don't to mention the Russo-Japanese war. That one does not count as a war, more as a commedy show. Well the russian Navy.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
T
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...

LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.

says the country that never won a war by itself

I'm sorry, but did we actually need anyone else to defeat the Nazis? No, we did not, but it didn't hurt to have them along for the ride.

Given that 80% of all German casualties in the second world war were sustained on the Eastern Front, and 90% of ground forces, and that the UK was the logistical and command center of all US operations in Europe, the question of a decisive victory over the Nazi's by a lone US resulting in the same unconditional surrender is a very open thing.

As for the UK, there's a lot to throw at the UK, and the UK deserves a lot of it, but the UK was never much in direct danger of ever being forced to speak German, much less twice in a row, in WW1 the worst that would have happened would have been a German-favorable negotiated continental settlement, and in WW2 much the same thing, particularly as Sea Lion was never going to really get going and was unlikely to work. Not sure why they would have fought China in the 1990's unless we're talking about Hong Kong, but that handover had been long planned and the UK was not going to win a fight trying to keep it if they tried that option. As for losing India, military force was not going to keep India, that tool was not going to work, especially not by a UK that had just been through two of the largest wars in human history (and the UK only discharged its final WW1 debt a couple years ago).

Also the track record for China is mostly due to China vs China.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
WW1 would have had an actual feasible possibility for a german landing. Hochseeflotte was waaaaaaay bigger then the Kriegsmarine in Ww2.

That said WW1 landing techniques are the slowed stepchild of omaha beach.
I mean look at gallipoli. So i guess your right.

Currently, the current State with the largest numbers of victory in major wars and battles it fought is France. They won over 70% of their major wars and battles, making them slightly better then its closest competitor in Europe for example. Swedes and Swiss also have very good records but. American nations are a bit young to truly compare with European, North African and Asian ones and only the USA has participated in a sizeable amount of major wars. Canada has an excellent record, but it has lived very few major conflict and battles. Many of Canadians military victory were also won during its colonial era when its tally of victory can be lumped into those of France even though most of the actual fighting was done by Canadians and their native american allies.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
T
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Great Britain

Despite the poor weather, awful teeth, and penchant for tea , this small island in the North Atlantic succeeded in creating the biggest empire the world has ever seen. 90% of the world's nations have at one time been invaded by the British.
Many have stood against Britain, few have succeeded...

LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.

says the country that never won a war by itself

I'm sorry, but did we actually need anyone else to defeat the Nazis? No, we did not, but it didn't hurt to have them along for the ride.

Needed the French Navy and Army to win the revolution (or as some have called it the first American Civil war) though.......but that tends to be forgotten

LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels.

One of the many big lies in history.

WW1 - Britain was never going to loose but having the Americans made victory quicker.

WW2 - yep UK was dead without the US - thats agreed. The Gernams did not need to invade - without US help UK would have been starved, even if it did cost the nation an awful lot during and after the war.

I get the whole "Surrender Monkey" memes are real popular for some reason but Frankia/France should really be on the list.

Apart from WW2 - in which one could argue their allies left them behind while hastily fleeing the continent - they actually have a pretty extensive and successful military history from Tours to Verdun.

"Most deadliest" would probably be the Wehrmacht. I'm not sure if the USA has quite managed (through no lack of trying) to equal them in total bodycount quite yet.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Good point, and it's one of the reasons why IMO, Canada is on the list. They have repelled invasions, but they have also attacked other nations, and been successful. Some nations have obviously only attacked in self-defence. But Canada has demonstrated skill in both attack and defence.

By this logic New Zealand is an equally illustrious military power. NZ attacked whoever our masters dictated needed attacking, and defended the Empire when called upon. First country to seize territory from the Central Powers in 1914. Ok it was Samoa and had a garrison for ~5 soldiers but whatever. No armed enemy has ever set foot on NZ soil or even flown overhead (this is where we beat the Aussies ha!). Isolation makes a bunch of stuff possible.