What, in your opinion, was or is the strongest military in the known history of the Human species

Wasn't sure whether to put this here, or on /k/.

Guess we'll find out.

US military on the 27th of July 1991, maybe the Soviets had more nuke power though

Probably the Soviet Union. With 50 000 nukes or whatever I'm pretty sure they could take Rome or Alexander the Great.

Shit thread.

Are we talking relative to its time, or on an absolute scale?

Either so long as you give a reason for their pick

The USA before other nations developed the Atom bomb

Prussia

Even with nukes the US military was probably weaker overall than the soviet one

In absolute terms, the present day United States military. Technology > all

This. End of thread.

Romans: Did what nearly no other states (of that time) could do, take the loss of an army.

Mongolians: just read what they did

USA: As of right now, you cannot make the statement "The United States could take on the entire world" without the importation of 10^27 tons of european asshurt to your computer, but the fact that it is even up for debate should tell you that the USA is incredibly powerful compared to the "relative index" of powerful nations in the past. Now, this is talking about a broad scale, as in population, economic power and military size, sans nuclear warheads, which kind of shit the bed as far as any noteworthy scale goes. The only thing that could fuck up the US doomsday machine would be US citizens refusing to fight or other things.

>In absolute terms
of course modern militaries will be better
why even mention it?

We have to assume op means for their time. The Roman army night as well be a rabble of children against ww2 tech, obviously, but only an idiot was suggest that makes the retroactively weak.

I'm pretty sure cold war USSR would be able to just nuke the shit out of the current US military and there isnt a whole lot they could do about it. In absolute terms

>Relative to the time period
Rome after the Marian Reforms with Sulla, Caesar or Pompey could probably beat any army for the next 1000 years only upgrading their equipment with what they salvage off of armies they defeated.

>All time strength
Probably the USSR at its peak when they started ramping up nuclear arms production and pumping out millions of tanks and AK's, obviously modern military technology would put modern countries ahead but most countries these days still use soviet technology, the difference is here they'd have the backing of the largest industry the world has ever seen and some of the largest manpower pools ever but without any of the restrictions of a modern day democracy,

And the US could do the same.

In relative terms probably the mongols. Proportionally they caused more deaths than any other force in history

I love russia guys, but isn't the population barely 150 million? Not many soldiers for the grinder compared to many states desu

I hate to sound like such a Wehraboo but I would honestly nominate either the Wehrmacht or Red Army. In the biggest war of all time, they were the strongest contenders.

Although I'm partial the Mongols as well.

The United States wields more power than any state ever has, ever.
The USA could annex North, Central and South America with relative ease and has global supremacy economically.
There has never been a country which has so thoroughly owned the rest of the world.
Outside of absolutes, I would say the Romans, perhaps the Abbasid or Umayyed Caliphate, pre-split Mongol Empire, and Tang China, probably.
There might be more but I can't think of others right now.

True, but since the USSR physically just had more nukes they win in absolute terms, even though it means basically nothing

The difference is that they can access the full manpower of a country that size being an autocratic form of government, they say conscript and bam they have an army of 50-60 million where as a democratic like america would have much more issues trying to force their entire country to rise up and fight without imposing big restrictions

>USSR
>Population: 293 million (Jul 1991)

Combine that with a government that has a history of total mobilization and war, and you've got a goddamn juggernaut.

Not him, but:

Forces in Europe 1945? Almost certainly in the Soviet favor.

Total forces worldwide in 1945? Almost certainly in America's favor. The U.S. still had enormous forces, entire army corps, that were sitting in America for lack of transport.

And that's not even getting into the larger U.S. war economy, which means that a war dragging on is likely to increasingly tilt in America's favor.

Fuck, I meant to reply to

>but since the USSR physically just had more nukes
Source? I always thought they maintained parity with each other.

>The United States wields more power than any state ever has, ever
This is true but we're talking purely military, and the existence of nukes fucks it up a bit since both the Us and USSR have had or currently have the ability to wipe out the whole of human civilization

The Red Army in 1945 was the largest military force that has ever existed

pic related

A chart isn't a source my dude.

shit thread? you gave a real shit answer

Fair enough, this is the course data for the chart

"Global nuclear stockpiles, 1945-2006," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 62, no. 4 (July/August 2006), 64-66

Better question

What was the best military from

>Before 500 BC
>500 BC - 0 AD
>0 AD - 500 AD
>500 - 1000
>1000 - 1200
>1200 - 1400
>1400 - 1600
>1600 - 1700
>1700 - 1800
>1800 - 1900
>1900 - 1930
>1930 - 1960
>1960 present

Have fun spending 30 minutes answering this question

I can help a bit. Persia, Rome, Mongols, British Empire, French Empire, German Empire circa 1900's, USSR 1945, USA now, fill in the blanks.

Thanks broseph.

Source* how did that happen

>The Red Army in 1945 was the largest military force that has ever existed

No, it was not. It was the largest ARMY that ever existed, but total men in the military was larger in the U.S. than in the USSR in 1945, although a lot of that are naval personnel, unlikely to be helpful in a large scale war in Central Europe.

And then, of course, there's the quality advantage. Unthinkable was scrapped, but the planning, based on performance appraisals against a common German enemy, estimated roughly twice the effectiveness of a British or an American division vis a vis an average soviet one. Even just looking at an organizational chart, you'll be forced to note how much better equipped the Americans are, sporting almost twice the artillery, and considerably more armored support at an infantry division level.

Yes but you had nearly endless manpower to draw from and you didn't have the restrictions of a democracy, if there really was a war in 1945 Stalin would have salted the entire german country side and left nothing for the americans and brits to advance into and then they'd hold all of eastern europes families hostages while they forced the non soviet men they conquered to charge in the millions at the western armies, yes the west might win but it wouldn't even be worth it. The soviets had a regime that had absolutely no remorse for human life and they had the largest resource reserves in the entire world.

It seems you are correct. Retracted then

These dates seem arbitrary. Before 500 would certainly be Egypt or perhaps Assyria.
500-1BC/1AD (there is no 0 you fucking idiot) could be quite a few states. Rome didn't even reach its peak until the 110's AD.
This list is retarded, basically, and there aren't concrete answers until you got oddly specific with he more modern dates.

This. Surprised nobody said the Mongol army tho

pic related is pretty relevant in this field as well

I said mongols you bastard

>based on performance appraisals against a common German enemy, estimated roughly twice the effectiveness of a British or an American division vis a vis an average soviet one.
Certainly not in 1945. By then, the Soviet army was performing just as well, if not better, than the allies in the west. They also did better against the Japanese. And keep in mind the USSR was fighting the elite of the German army.

The armies before 500AD were all pretty similar so just pick the best ones, you obviously have Macedon, Persians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Romans, Chinese Dynasties, Alexander Successor Kingdoms, Great Caliphates etcs that were all pretty similar for several hundred years with the only major changes being tactics and generals commanding the armies.

>USSR 1945
>German Empire circa 1900's
>USA now
>defeating purpose of exercise
anyways, mongols is obv 1200-1400, German Empire USA and USSR in their years, Persia before 500 BC, Rome 500BC-0AD, British Empire 1800-1900, and French Empire 1700-1800. Beyond that, I'd say Charles V's Spanish Holy Roman empire for 1400-1600.

>The armies before 500AD were all pretty similar
Antiquity is probably the period in History when armies were the LEAST similar.

This.

This if nukes aren't a factor.

After that probably Mongols.

>Completely forgot China, Korea and Southeast Asia

Good job Mavrody

I don't mean similar to one another but in terms of the time separating different empires and armies time isn't much of a separator as it is now. Take an army from 500AD and pit them against an army from 200-300 years earlier and it wouldn't be a stomp in the slightest. Take an army led by Pompey and he could probably fight with that army for the next 500+ years and still win

I'd be deeply interested to see what would happen if Romans faced medieval lancers.

you seem to believe that the russians of this time period are completely immune to seeing all of their male relatives die

what the government can do and what it can get away with are two different things

What about them?

They would do what romans always did, adapt

They were great at adapting military tactics, they certainly knew how to handle cavalry when they faced some of the tribes that were more inclined to mounted combat, the advancements of metallurgy would put the romans behind a bit but it wouldn't be a lost cause.

They would probably start using pike formations, just like europe did in the middle ages

>Korea

u wot?

I still get really hard at picturing them maintain the maniple formation and using the large scutum while using the tactics that Caesar used during the civil war Battle of Pharsalus where the legionaries used their pila to spear the cavalry in the face.

The crusaders were never defeated whenever they had their heavy cavalry.

Probably wouldnt have been that great against medieval heavy lances. I was more imagining a a centre made of pike squares or a macedonian phalanx with maniples and cav on the wings

They managed to fight elephants, I think they could adapt fighting heavy cavalry. Get a good roman general at the head like Pompey or Sulla and they wouldn't be outmatched in the slightest

Elephants are (literally) a very different animal to heavy lancers. Fair point though

They are a different beast entirely but they managed to adapt their tactics and make the elephants essentially useless and they even adopted them in their armies later. The romans were one of the most adaptable empires ever just because of the nature of their political system

>The romans were one of the most adaptable empires ever
I agree, thats what i've been saying. I was thinking spitballing about exactly how a roman legion would have adapted to deal with lancers

USSR has always been extremely weak on the naval front though - not much force projection (save for the nukes) even at their peak, especially in winter, when all their warm water ports were locked up by NATO. They kinda lived on the ability to threaten to bulldoze Europe, but during that time, the US (which, with a vast navy and bases all over the planet, had and has the best force projection the world has ever seen) would have bombed them into the stone age.

I suspect, for any meaningful answer to OP, you'd have to create a rather complex chart of who was the most powerful in any given century. As, yeah, comparing modern armies to ancient ones is pretty meaningless.

>Certainly not in 1945

When do you think Unthinkable was planned, user?

> By then, the Soviet army was performing just as well, if not better, than the allies in the west.

You're kidding, right? It was advancing at comparable speeds and taking a hell of a lot more losses at a time when force split in the Heer was nearly even.

>They also did better against the Japanese.

By what possible metric can you say this? They overran the half-equipped Kwangtung army where they could surround them? As opposed to where narrow terrain limited U.S. firepower as they fought island by island?

> And keep in mind the USSR was fighting the elite of the German army.

Keep in mind you pulled that 'fact' out of your ass, and there is no recognizeable pattern to deploy elite vs non-elite units on any particular front that guys like Glantz or Porch could pick up.

>You're kidding, right? It was advancing at comparable speeds and taking a hell of a lot more losses at a time when force split in the Heer was nearly even.

The soviet leadership picked it up at the end, every single top soviet general was leagues better than any western general

I'm curious as to what metric you're using to make your incredibly broad blanket statement.

I would also point out that in a lot of observable metrics, perhaps not to generalship, but to a lot of the ancillary qualities associated with generalship, like accuracy and speed of communication up and down the ranks, the west had the Soviets beat rather badly.

In terms of just what the soviets had to work with, they completely outmaneuvered the germans in the last year of the war and crushed them in several battles.

The big thing would be that Romans didn't have stirrups, and the underarm lance allows a cavalryman to impart a ridiculous amount of force.

And how does that prove good generalship?

I mean hell, the Americans also completely outmaneuvered the Germans in France and crushed them in several battles. From your statement of "in terms of what the Soviets had to work with" implies that the motorized supply and logistical trail that the Americans were using somehow takes away from the generalship involved, and that the Soviets are superior for doing more or less the same thing. That's pretty ridiculous, and a testament to Soviet poverty, and even more extreme German poverty, not much to do with leadership at all.

Disagree.
Nuclear bomb was devastating but had two flaws at the time:
Extreme cost and time to produce
Extremely low radiation

Warheads weren't really stockpiled until much later.

Not that guy, but the primary cause of deaths in nuclear weapons has always been assumed to be in the blast. They emit surprisingly little radioactivity unless you attack a payload of more unstable isotopes.

Delivery was also a flaw, as was its low yield relative to the effort and time needed to produce it

For Fat Man and Little Boy about half died in the blast or shortly after and half died from everything else

except the Taliban
and NVA

Both had their militaries absolutely BTFO by the US

>Rome
>Persia
>British Empire
>French Empire
>Abbasid Caliphate
>etc, etc
These aren't nation states at all.

I fucking hate Americans and their history lessons.

US military

>British Empire
>Strong

>British Empire
>Strong

In a relative sense or an absolute sense?

Relative: The Mongol Army during the reign of Kublai Khan

Absolute: The Current US military

>Absolute: The Current US military
Only if you dont count nukes

The modern missile defense system of the USA could probably take out a good chunk of those

USSR missile systems were shit-tier. Modern defense systems would take out any that could even get off the ground.

>Control f "Grande Armée"
>zero results

Probably, but not enough. They had ~50000 thousand nukes remember, and really they could detonate them anywhere and still wipe out the human race

currently US

>but [insert pre-gunpowder army here] was the bravest and manliest and most intelligent

the US army can still kick its ass (any modern army can).

US.

You can count nukes and US would still be lot stronger. Soviets may have had more nukes, but US still has a very large, capable, actively maintained, tons of stockpile in there.

If you want just a direct answer to your question, the US.

but probably a better question would be who was the strongest military compared to any of their contemporary peers in history, which I'd throw my hat in for the Romans, who's only challengers were Persia and Han China, and multiple wars with Persia consistently showed Rome coming out on top.

Question remains which is stronger, Romans or China.

Because the debate is contentious, the answer cannot be either.

The rightful answer would be the Mongols. If you're looking for relative power difference.

China had better weapons

Romans had better armor

China's bureaucracy had better domestic management

but Romans had better diplomacy and transportation

so it's hard to judge

China has always been a gigantic faggot in war. They constantly got beaten by their tiny neighbors. Romans would pulverize them.

>China had better weapons
>Romans had better armor
[citation needed]

Nuke power barely matters when both countries can obliterate the world at any given moment.

>soviet industry
>bigger than the industry of america and western europe

are you retarded?

Why is this even a question? It's obviously the United States of America, if you're not counting nukes (USA and Russia could both wipe out the earth with nukes, so they're on par with each other).

This, Chinese are the kings of jobbers

>ctrl f "Grande Armée"
>no results

They defeated the entirety of Europe, and their forerunners did the same while France was still in revolution.

The American/NATO/Soviet complex.

Nuclear monopoly was at one point unique only to the United States of America.

>Grande Armée
>post a pic of the French Revolutionary wars
wew lad

NATO

>doesn't read the entire post
wew lad