What was the most dominant military force of all time?

is it really?

when were you last under orders?

Are you guys shitposting? An army from the 17th century could destroy the Romans.

>Roman Army
>Beating any opponent with gunpowder

Is this bait?

kek very well done

>made 'great' because of the tremendous firepower and nuclear capabilities
Firepower makes armed forces great, retard.

>Pussies
>Faggots
>Child Molesters

>most dominant of all time
>regularly curb stomped by g*rman barbarians
pick one

>Having such a limited view of what makes an army great

kys

Can't you read? Romans have unbreakable testudo.Guns mean fuckall against testudo.

the Roman legions never did anything like the Han in the wars with the Xiongnu

its a shame the two empires weren't in contact though, maybe the chinese could have explained to the romans how to properly destroy steppe nomads

...

Fair enough.

No autistic tactics and/or strategies can stand against superior firepower and logistics.

No?

You're a joke

Keep paying 1000 trillions of dollars per year to mantain that "army"

Military didn't fuck up in Vietnam, politicans did as in any asymetrical war.
Why not?

>regularly

>its a shame the two empires weren't in contact though, maybe the chinese could have explained to the romans how to properly destroy steppe nomads

the Romans dealt with them just fine, it was the other kind of nomad that gave them trouble.

>>regularly
they were though, how else can you explain the fact that the german tribes were never conquered, and eventually sacked rome several times?

The German Heer in 1914 was probably the best army in world history. Excellence and brilliance on every level.

The Wehrmacht of 1939-1941 was similar, but because of their inferior equipment I hesitate to rate them that highly

>how else can you explain the fact that the german tribes were never conquered

because the german tribes were genocided to the point there was nothing left to conquer, not that they had any worthy land, infrastructure or resources

>and eventually sacked rome several times?

goths were of baltic and scandinavian origin, and they were fought off effectively for a long, long time

>the Roman legions never did anything like the Han in the wars with the Xiongnu

WE WUZ CHANGZ N SHIET

You chinks have had no relevance in human history. A roman senator in the imperial period had more influence on the future of the world than a chinese emperor.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Noreia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Burdigala
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arausio
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Abritus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Placentia_(271)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fano
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thessalonica_(380)
the list goes on and on. you can replace germanic tribes with baltic/scandinavian tribes, the point remains that if the """""most dominant military in history""""" gets defeated regularly by tribal barbarians, perhaps they are not the most dominant military in history.

Chinese influence made Japan able to not only control their population throughout history, but also to modernize, which led to Japan becoming a great power in the 20th century. Imperial Japan, in turn, was essential for the history of mankind, as their incredible strength and resourcefulness stemming from Chinese learning made them a difficult opponent for the Allies during WW2, and enabled the first utilization of nuclear weaponry ever.
Thus without China, the Manhattan Project would've never been a success, and the Cold War would've never happened.

If Alexander hadn't died of botulism or whatever, then Rome would have been subjugated. I wish to live in that timeline.

>mixing skirmishes and decisive battles
>bunching up tribes that had nothing to do with eachother and many of whom were actually anihilated as a single foe
>mixing up widely separated time frames

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbrian_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Idistaviso
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Argentovaria
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcomannic_Wars
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemanni#Conflicts_with_the_Roman_Empire
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains

But Trump said the US military was, and i quote, "in shambles".

literally none of what you said addresses the original point that the romans were regularly defeated by barbarian tribes. the fact remains that they were, and they lost several decisive battles as well. how then, can you justify the claim that the romans were the most dominant military force of all time?

Trump did not saw military outside of shaking hands with veterans during his campaign.

because they also regularly dominated against the Germanic tribes too, and their decisive victories often ended in the complete genocide of entire ethnic groups. The Germans they fought in their last days were not the same they fought in the early ones, because they erased them from the face of the earth.

you also ignore they fought a non-stop war against the Persians in the east at the same time, against nomad raiders in Africa and expanded north halfway into the British Isles, they encountered enemies in every direction and scored victories against them, holding vast territory under one rule and spreading their culture for centuries.

Machiavelli considered the swiss army as being the best. Nobody fucks with them.
I kinda approve knowing that hitler did not invade them because they were the only country ready for war at the begining of ww2

Maybe dominant is the wrong term, but isn't it up to you to posit a more dominant force?

Also, lots of these battles were against enemies that didn't really have a settled area you could occupy. Also, extending force across the alps and the forests of europe was way too costly.

He doesn't want to shatter his illlusions from videogames

Fact remains, guerrilla tactics worked effectively for the barbarian tribes, especially by a populace who knew the area intimately, and could funnel them into slaughters. Romans constantly complain bitterly about dealing with them

Conquering any mountainous terrain is pretty rare.

>especially by a populace who knew the area intimately, and could funnel them into slaughters.

Teutoburg only happened once, other Roman defeats were on open battles where they were either outmanouvered or ground down during the initial skirmishes, mostly due to less stellar command and logistical complications from long campaigns and economic fallout.

Not that uncommon, didn't the British tribes do the same thing?

the only noteworthy rebellion was Boudicca's and she just gathered an absolutely gigantic mob and bumrushed small garrisons and towns, butchering unarmed citizens and burning shit.

her army lost against a tiny, tiny force of ragged survivors and second line reserves

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street

here's perhaps Rome's most ridiculously loopsided victory ever.

Makes sense. Just like afghanistan against ussr. You don't need a good army to defend a fucked up terrain.

the modern day USA military is far more dominant imo. there is not a single nation in the world that would dare launch a military assault on US soil from fear of being completely outmatched and annihilated, while tribal peoples regularly raided and invaded roman territories.

actually that was the second battle. Camulodunum is where the Iceni nearly eliminated a legion.

Entirely coincidental, but this legion (IX Hispania) disappears from the historical record during a later uprising of the Picts in Scotland.

forgot to paste : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Camulodunum

That's a very fair point. Of course, the technology is different but the question was most dominant and not hardest to invade.

hence the ragged survivors part. Her only success was in the first raiding phase. Romans were very, very good at smashing numerically superior armies at that point in their history.

also the lost 9th legion is an interesting legend though they were probably just disbanded and sent to reinforce another legion, as it was somewhat common.

It wasn't ragged survivors. Suetonius had the XIV and some of the XX legion.

>segmentata(trajan era)
>spears(pre-marius/late empire)

cringe

must be overlapped over 10,000 times

I gladly will.
Would someone really do that? Just go on the internet and lie?

You really think someone would do that, just go on the internet and tell lies?

Royal Navy was the Roman Army of the seas for the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.

Probably pilla tbqh senpai

dont look like pilla imo desu fampaichankunsama

Obviously PTSD is a real thing but its like people want to have it now. There are people who claim to have gotten PTSD while stationed on US soil during peacetime.

Why on earth would you post an Russian Marshal of Poland while debating US Army?

Might makes right

Because Germany was out of bounds for would-be conquerors due to Augustus' decree after teutoberg.
But even then germanicus (i.e. conqueror of the fucking Germans) fucked their shit up right afterwards, and any time the romans wanted to they'd give the germans a stern dicking to keep them in line.

What is your criteria for most dominant military then? Because no nation has ever been undefeated

Bro, the Russians had airplanes. How are a bunch of guys with swords and spears even going to fight that?

/k/ here, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret about Veterans. There is literally 0 reason for a veteran to be homeless or unemployed, we have way to many resources available for that to even be possible. So whenever you see a young homeless veteran he's either A) was separated dishonorably for being a piece of shit, B) someone who couldn't make it in the real world AND the military or C) he really is just a poor bastard down on his luck (this is pretty rare). As for PTSD, well most of us get over it, I can't help it that social media gives the can't hack it's a platform to bitch and moan.

And as for your question I'd say Sherman was a pretty good general but either way you can't compare modern Generals from any country to a legend like Scipio, they just haven't been able to prove themselves in a real war. Closest I could say is Gen. Mattis but all he's really done was win some tactical victories for a war that cannot be won.

Wanna hear a joke?
>Roman Cavalry
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The US Navy is the Royal Navy of the modern world.

>Using the pila like spears in a shield wall
Is that accurate? It looks dumb.

This

>Some goatfucker 400 meters away with a rusty AK hipfires in your general direction
MUH PTSD

There are accounts of Roman legionaries and auxiliaries getting PTSD

>US Army Veteran
fuck off you pussy ass bitch

Macedonians under Alexander?

Horse archers are pretty much OP. Sassanids really out did themself by adding support camels lmao.

Oh wow a whole 10 year period compared to the 1000 years Rome endured
Great example

And that's completely justified

The stuff they would've went through was hardcore

US armed forces circa 1990. Literally no peers at all, unlike rome.

Indisputably the United States Army.

No nation in the history of history has had the capability of such overwhelming cross-shore power projection.

one who at least isn't losing to underdogs in their own territory

The intelligence alliance and all it encompasses between dominant current Anglo hegemony of USA UK CAN AU NZ aka FVEY, FIVE EYES. Dominant economic and military bar none.

>Mongols
>Pussies

Spam crossbows and cavalry like the Chinese. Or just a lot of gunpowder units with good formation.

>they encountered enemies in every direction and scored victories against them, holding vast territory under one rule and spreading their culture for centuries.

Fucking this.

This is the definition of dominant.

And fuck people comparing the US Army to the Romans. Of course if the two forces fought nowadays there wouldn't be a fight. Technology has advanced too much.

Has literally NEVER won a major war by itself. Not ONCE
Couldn't even beat rice farmers in Vietnam or poppy farmers in Afghanistan.
>b-but muh drones and muh carriers
Well done America, well done
HOWEVER
They are useless against a dug in enemy

>arguement

Won every modern war the world has ever seen, carrying it's allies.

>Mongols
>Pussies

>The Muslims
Got wrecked by mongols and europoors alternatively throughout the ages. Muhammad himself was pretty good but they're shit tier generally.

>Who is Saladin

>one example
Do you know what the word "generally" means?

kek'd hard

>forming a shield wall with pilla
absolutely barbarian

I dunno mate. They kicked Granada's ass pretty convincingly.

Veeky Forums as fuck

Are you sure about that?

>#5) Gyan-avspar Peshmerga
What?

>look guize I'm a contrarian and I like to suck dicks!

i mean i think this is sort of a flawed question. the US has never gotten to use the same means as the Romans in enabling its goals. Do you think that if we had just str8 up genocided every other North Viet and arrested the other ones, then populated it with America colonists, we would've lost the war? War back then was more brutal, but it was also more decisive. there are rules n sheit now

You mean besides Vietnam and Korea?

not a major war