What is the most historically triumphant nation when it comes to fighting wars?

What is the most historically triumphant nation when it comes to fighting wars?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Volunteer_Army#Early_Chinese_involvement
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Great Britain or Rome. America maybe, but that's an argument.

US had fairly mediocre army up until WW1 tbqh.

Does mediocre military really matter if you've got 2 oceans between you and any potential enemies and you only join in when the winning team is clear?

I slightly disagree, they got a good army a couple decades before WW1, the first time it was used was probably the Span-Am war

Russia

Brazil never lost a war and also nearly genocided Paraguay.

Germany or England

I'd say what happened on Cuba wouldn't really qualify as a "good army".

Brazil never lost war.
Kek Brazil losed against Argentina and Uruguay in the Cisplatine war

I am from the United States so I know some American wars. I believe we have about a hundred or so wars.

So just the non-victories off the top of my head
>some 18th century quasi-war against france, although seems like america fared better
>war of 1812
>red cloud's war
>korean war
>vietnam war
>lebanese intervention
>somalian intervention
>iraq in a way, still a spectacular military success

kys, half those are absolute losses let alone pyrrhic victories

>Mongols not mentioned

Ignorant fucking faggots

Is there some meme I'm missing or why has nobody said it's obviously France yet?

What about Israel?

There is a saying

"You have Germany who fought all the big kids on the playground (USSR, America, UK) and won the first half but then list the second and the fight in the end.

Then you have Isreal who is in a sandbox kicking the shit out of the handicapped kids (Egypt, Jordan, Lebbanon, Syria(at the time), and Palestinians) while being given metal pipes by the US, and UK, and then brags about how strong he is.

Montenegro defeated Japan.
The Samurai fear the Serbs.

France

...

>korean war
>not a victory

It was a stalemate, imperialist dog

If the goal of the US was restore the status quo, why did they move north of the 38th parallel?

>initiate war of aggression that the other side was trying to avoid
>lose and get hurled back across the border
>take wildly disproportionate losses and nearly have your countries collapse while your enemies are hardly trying in the war to begin with
>end the war of conquest you initiated by going back to basically pre-war borders
>"IT WAS A STALEMATE!!!"

MacArthur just decided to invade China because he's incompetent.

He expected Truman to back him up with nukes.

Their primary goal was to save South Korea, moving north of the 38th parallel was a secondary goal that they didn't initially have and which was abandoned for political rather than military reasons.

On the other hand, conquering the Korean Peninsula was always the primary goal of the Chinese and North Koreans. Which was a dismal failure and utterly wrecked the fragile economies of both countries.

>not including Argentina and Uruguay

Sure, but the US did listen to the incompetent general.

They should have just stopped at Pyongyang-Wonsan probably.

Yeah. Mongols or Romans take the platinum medal in warfare

We don't even know if China would even have intervened if the US didn't go into North Korea senpai. But, they did try to take South Korea aftewards so both sides failed to achieve their full goals.
It's like an example made for textbooks describing a stalemate.
>But if we launched another major offensive we probably would have won!
Yeah but you didn't.

Mongols had one time to shine followed by being slaves to Russians or Chinese.

Delusional BR

Argentina took Uruguay away from your hands with less than 1/7th of your population.

Celts

>Argentina took Uruguay
You'd have liked that, wouldn't you

>We don't even know if China would even have intervened if the US didn't go into North Korea senpai

They already were intervening early on.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Volunteer_Army#Early_Chinese_involvement

>only conquered irrelevant shithole states that never had influence across lands.

Not the same thing, they were koreans

They were members of the Chinese army who joined the North Koreans while carrying the weapons they were using in China, by the order of the government.

They were as official as the People's Volunteer Army that poured in a few months later.

t. Donald Trump

>Mongols had one time to shine followed by being slaves to Russians or Chinese.

>only conquered irrelevant shithole states that never had influence across lands.

Im not going to go through on how absolutely autistic both of those answers are just beyond any insult i can yet muster heres what you faggots forget.

>Conquered China, worlds biggest population
>Conquered the Russians

BARE IN FUCKING MIND THE MONGOLS BROKE THE TWO RULES OF WAR

1. DONT START A LAND WAR IN CHINA

2. DONT INVADE RUSSIA

FUCKING GTFO FAGGOTS

Conquering the Chinese isn't much of an accomplishment though, the Manchurian did the same

They were under the command of Kim, they weren't just borrowed

They invaded from the east. Land thing only works from the West.

t. John Green

>Conquer China
>As a result your language disappears and your people become chinese
Good job Manchus.

>Conquering the Chinese isn't much of an accomplishment

You're fucking retarded, and most the Manchurian fodder were Chinese regional leaders displeased with the Ming Emperor and bureaucracy

The Mongols took over 60 years to conquer China and it was only because Kublai Khan realised that he needed Chinese siege tactics to actually breach large walled cities down south

The Mongol achievements really weren't that impressive, large swathes of their Empire were literally nothing or a few nomads, imagine if the British Empire's maps claimed all the oceans they sailed in as sovereign. They conquered a disunified China, used Chinese tactics and the Yuan dynasty was for all intents and purposes culturally Chinese. Russia was also a disunified confederation of squabbling city states at the time, Persia was in a state of terminal decline and Siberia was literally nothing

That's literally what happened to every minority that 'conquered' or 'usurped' China' though

I'd say the Franks/French have a pretty good track record over the course of their peoples' history

I can't think of anyone besides the Manchus.
Mongols didn't disappear like that.

The Yuan dynasty's rulers almost completely used Chinese battle tactics for their expeditions, and the reason they were overthrown by the ethnic Chinese later was because they grew complacent and comfortable in Beijing as mandarin bureaucrats living a Chinese lifestyle and not being hardasses on horses anymore

The Liao dynasty founded by Khitans also eventaully became sinicised, ate too much proto dumplings and lost complete connection with their horse nomad roots and now they're irrelevant trash

The Jurchen founders of the Jin similarly became sinicised, got fucked by Mongols and disappeared forever

>Korean War
Victory
>Iraq
Stupendous Victory
>Somalian Intervention
Well we certainly didn't lose, faggot. There's just no more Somalia left to fight with.

Vietnam

>ate too much proto dumplings

KEK

there is another saying winners > losers.

You dont get a participation medal for winning the first round in a war and then proceeding to get btfo'd.

>Conquered the Russians
But Russia in the high middle ages was a fucking irrelevant backwoods place on par with modern Ethiopia, not the nuclear superpower it is now.

>1. DONT START A LAND WAR IN CHINA
>2. DONT INVADE RUSSIA
Get back to riddit immidiately.

>France

is a country that peaked before we had the idea of nations

True but it doesn't make your victories impressive but expected. I can call myself the biggest badass and yet only fight children. While you can be a Pro-Boxer and lose every title bout does that make me better then you? If yes you need to rethink your stance.

The Romans actually lost a lot of battles, they just kept going in spite of this.

>Cannae don't real