What was the most powerful army in History?

probably Mongol army, they went pretty undefeated and final boss tier if you include Tamerlane.

Rome while the undisputed superpower of its time suffered quite a few of humiliating military defeats by lesser powers in Cannae, Teutoburg, Adrianople etc.

The Nanda Army, the sight of which scared the macedonians to turn.

Then the subsequent Mauryan army that defeated the Seleucids and that forced them into a peace treaty that granted Selecus the elephants he needed at Ipssus

...

>Wehrmatch
>amount anything more than the Spanish Tercios in the end
>no outdated and surpased way faster

But ancient china had a population similar to Ancient Rome

And ancient china had total universal conscription.

Rome had some limited conscriptions too, but not to the extent Ancient China was utilizing.

The centralized planning system was quite efficient for them.

They dominated Europe for almost two centuries. Do you need more reasons?

Mongols, followed by Roman army until late imperial period, followed by Spanish tercios.

Victories = / = success
The Mongols had numerous Victories which amounted to nothing. How long was the Yuan dynasty in control of China? If you compare the entire history of tome to the 50 year span where the Mongols were worth a shit unlike the entire rest of their history it's not a fair comparison.

>total universal conscription
China had a semi-mandatory (you could pay to skip) two year tour of service (one year to train one to serve) for men aged 23. Rome had standard service contracts of 16 or 25 years.
The experience and training difference between the average legionary and the average han soldier would be noticeable, and give Rome the advantage.
At its peak (around Constantine's time), Rome fielded in excess to 645k (The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey).
At its peak (usually given as Liu Che's reign), the Han fielded around 700k (The Rise of the Chinese Empire, Volume 1: Nation, State, and Imperialism in Early China, ca. 1600 B.C. - A.D. 8).

We are comparing armies, not empires or states.

Pay2skip was later han i believe. Not everyone could afford it.

During the Qin dynasty, that service didnt exist.

>experience
Han "conscription" service means they had to train 1 year, serve 1 year. Then 1 month every year till they retire.

They increased the age of recruitment to ~20 in later Han period.

If we assume the average later Han soldier is ~30y(20-50). Then it means they would have had about 2 years worth of experience on average in field. Meanwhile Roman legion average field time is probably around 5 years. Its not like theres war everyday back in the day.

While there's a great difference between 0 service days and 2 years service, the difference is much reduced between 2 years service men and 5 year service men.

>Later Roman heights number
Half of that number is conscripted barbarians on the field. Average field experience between the Roman legioniares + Auxiliaries is probably 2-3 years max.

Plus with the advancements in personnel artillery, Han crossbows, the time required to train a soldier far outstripped that of training a regular archer or spearsmen or horsemen.

Roman legions

>Half of that number is conscripted barbarians on the field.
I dunno what you're trying to imply here. Rome always fielded about half their army in the form of auxiliaries, and it was no different in Constantine's time.
>Then 1 month every year till they retire
>If we assume the average later Han soldier is ~30y
You're absolutely delusional if you think that count the same as proper service time for professionals. That month at best counts as training refresh. Also you might wanna post some sources.

I see however that you're not disputing the sizes. Which mean that regardless of the training argument, that idiotic "China's army dwarfed Rome's" argument is over.

China's army did dwarf during Han period. Later Roman Era number is war time numbers, and it bankrupted the Roman empire. During the later Roman period, it was Tang/Sui turn. Tang/Sui's STANDING army size was ~500K. War time period size would double if needed.

ask your whore mother

>ancient china had a population similar to Ancient Rome
>a fuckhuge country had a similar population to a city
>being this retarded

Ancient Rome's population peaked at about 1 million people. Ancient China's population under the Han Dynasty (Rome's contemporaries) was about 56 million people.

>Later Roman Era number is war time numbers
The Han numbers I've posted were from the peak of the Han-Xiongnu war, up from a peacetime 400k. By comparison, the roman army had been over 400k since Trajan's time, due to constant warfare. Yeah, they bankrupted the empire over 300 years, but then the Han was well known to destroy whole provinces through famine due to the loss of agricultural manpower during wartime.
>Trajan: 454k
>Hadrian: 443k
>M. Aurelius: 454k
>S. Severus: 502k
>Aurelian: 524k
>Diocletian: 580k-600k

>During the later Roman period, it was Tang/Sui turn.
Late roman empire is usually considered up to the fall of the west user. After that is eastern roman period. Tang/Sui started a fucking century after the fall of the west. Do stop being retarded and admit that there was no dwarfing going on.

The Wehrmacht at least managed to conquer a whole lot of territory. The tercios were mostly employed to hold what the Hapsburgs acquired through marriage and inheritance. Even if exaggerated and inflated the Wehrmacht managed to secure a mythical reputation in a way the Spanish never really did with their tercios. It sounds like the same kind of hype given to Byzantine cataphracts for doing nothing more than existing.

I think if you take into account the time periods then the WW1 German army was more impressive than the Wehrmacht

...

It fell because of large army size and Roman empire's inability to pay/control them. Its what destroyed Roman empire.

...

It fell because of a multiplicity of factors, keeping the army oversized for so much time it amost equaled the length of the Han's existence.
And ought I remind you that the Han lasted less than the roman empire overall (406 vs 507 years) and ended into a massive shitfest of a civil war too?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Please tell me you're just pretending to be this retarded

Red army before the demobilization in 1945

Wasn't most of the conscription in China corvee labor not so much true soldiering?

What do the conquests of conquistadors have to do with the tercios who mostly fought in Italy and the Netherlands?

Conscripts mean they get the training and service. But they can also be deployed for national projects like grand canal or wall building or making them build fortress/etc.

From those you have there, probably, the Roman one. Usa has modern domain, but really recent stuff.

>no argument
>no evidence
You're just shitposting at this point.

Persians under Cyrus the Great circa mid-6th century should be a contender.

The Tawantinsuyu army before the Spanish conquest.

Comparing a modern army with a roman legion. What a retard.
Plus US army being the best is a subject to be thoroughly discussed.

During Trajan's reign the total Roman population was upwards of 70-100 million. Hell in 25 BC it was 57 million.

We already knew that you were a naziboo.

ZE WEHRMACHT OFF KOURSE

Perhaps the soviet army in 1944-45
It was the largest land army in The world at the time?

>Ancient Rome's population peaked at about 1 million people.
No, that was probably closer to the number of citizens in the city, itself. The actual figure would have been closer to 3 million, the largest city of its day, while the overall empire itself had a population similar in size to China's

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire

Probably one of the better ones mentioned in this thread. Cyrus took out three of the four super powers of the world and started his military command at the age of 15 or 16 after his father died early during the Persian Revolt against the Median Empire. He would then crush the Neo-Babylonian and Lydian Empires and turn and defeat the Egyptian reinforcements as well but never got to taking them out. In the span of 30 years he built the largest empire in the world and arguably still the largest at its apex under Darius the Great in terms of human population under its control.

Napoleon and Alexander and maybe Genghis are the only other historical figures who can compare to him.

Cyrus the Great is one of Veeky Forums's great underappreciated figures of history. He generally goes unmentioned because /pol/tards come out with the 'muh shitskins' meme any time someone wants to talk about Persians or middle-easterners in general