Strongest land army?

**Sharpe** · January 21, 2009, 04:52 PM

Who has the most powerful army on the land? is it Prussia? or Ottomans or British? I dont know?

**Ojf** · January 21, 2009, 04:57 PM

british by individual troops maybe austria/france for size?

**REQUIEM** · January 21, 2009, 05:03 PM

British

british also has best navy :\ haha

**aarons got funky fresh** · January 21, 2009, 05:04 PM

Prussians not sure when, French mid game, Swedes early game

**BunnyPoopCereal** · January 21, 2009, 05:08 PM

Define Best.

the British had the most disciplined troops/sailors, but the french had the most elite units, the Spanish had a huge navy and a lot of soldiers and were the first to implement gunpowder successfully in battle; considering they had a lot of colonies for the time period. Prussians relied on generals, and ottomans relied on numbers, so define Best.

**Sharpe** · January 21, 2009, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Walker

Define Best.

the British had the most disciplined troops/sailors, but the french had the most elite units, the Spanish had a huge navy and a lot of soldiers and were the first to implement gunpowder successfully in battle; considering they had a lot of colonies for the time period. Prussians relied on generals, and ottomans relied on numbers, so define Best.

Well said

My personal rendition of best would be, which army or infantry could soak up the most damage and punish the enemy? Whose Army is most discplined and well trained? etc

**Godless Pickle** · January 21, 2009, 05:20 PM

I believe Russia and the Ottomans had the biggest but the British had the best, well trained army, though the French were pretty strong too. Also add Prussia, they were a growing power.

**highlander7799** · January 21, 2009, 05:21 PM

I guess it really depends on how you use them....

**delra** · January 21, 2009, 05:22 PM

I think it will be Russia who will be the hardest to cripple. Vast territory, inexhaustible manpower, deadly climate... Plus they aren't spread across a bunch of continents so they can't be paralyzed with a bunch of lucky naval battles.

We will be spending hundreds of thousands of soldiers every time we start messing with Russians in ETW.

**Godless Pickle** · January 21, 2009, 05:25 PM

Well, the main dilemma to invaders was the climate and environment, that was a major factor to both Hitler and Napoleon overlooked, or at least didnt care, like you said. But I dont think climate will be huge factor in Empires, I think CA said it will have consequences though.

**Sun Devil** · January 21, 2009, 05:28 PM

I think the human wave tactic isnt so great, Russia...

**Rex Armeniae** · January 21, 2009, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by delra

I think it will be Russia who will be the hardest to cripple. Vast territory, inexhaustible manpower, deadly climate... Plus they aren't spread across a bunch of continents so they can't be paralyzed with a bunch of lucky naval battles.

We will be spending hundreds of thousands of soldiers every time we start messing with Russians in ETW.

Just my thought!

**highlander7799** · January 21, 2009, 05:28 PM

from what delra said, Russia seems a lot stronger now...
how was their navy around that period?

**delra** · January 21, 2009, 05:29 PM

Napoleon wanted to spend winter in Moscow. He didn't predict Rostopchin would go and set the whole city in fire though.

Poor Bonaparte guy btw, defeated in Egypt by heat, defeated in Russia by cold and defeated at Waterloo by rain... He had all elements against him.

**Sharpe** · January 21, 2009, 05:31 PM

ok heres another question, which team has the best infantry unit?

**Yoram777** · January 21, 2009, 05:40 PM

The short answer is: strongest land army = France.
Which also explains why everybody fought alongside their allies when fighting against the French (alone) on land.

France had the number one army in 1700 in size as well as (perceived) quality.
France had the best army throughout the 18th Century, although if I'm not mistaken at a certain point the Russian army was bigger but not of the same quality as that of the French.

It's laughable that some people mention the British army or the Prussian army or the Swedish army, as the strongest land army of the time
Because the French army alone could even rival all 3 of those COMBINED!
The British army was not that impressive during this timeframe at all especially when compared to the French, and both the Prussians and the Swedish where only local powers you can't really compare them to a major power like the French.

**clibinarium** · January 21, 2009, 05:43 PM

Either France or Russia are probably the largest land armies, both have good infantry and artillery, but are let down by mediocre to bad generalship. Russia's cavalry are OK, but not numerous, France's cavalry is very good, but somewhat reckless.
Prussia while not as big in numbers is arguably more effective; well drilled and brave, but the ferocious discipline imposed on them makes them prone to desertion and occasionally they prove brittle in combat. Artillery is pretty good, cavalry are awful at first, but are improved to be as good and sometimes better than any in Europe. Generalship is excellent to OK, occasionally Prussian generals allowed their armies to be surrounded by much larger forces and destroyed. Downside is they will usually find themselves surrounded by enemies.
Austria is nicely balanced; mediocre infantry in the early to mid century, improving to the match of the Prussians. Cavalry are very good too, but a bit over-awed by the Prussians for a while. Artillery by the mid century is the best in Europe (though France and Russia aren't far behind), and tips the balance in battles of the SYW, taking a heavy toll on the precious Prussian veterans. Generals are OK to good, few stand-outs.
Britain has a small amount of excellent infantry, on the continent they nearly always fight with solid German allies like the Hanoverians and Hessians etc. Cavalry is good but reckless, artillery is effective, but neither is terribly numerous. Allies are important to the British, they can't go it alone on the continent. In America they fight well, but political and logistical considerations undo them.
Generalship can be brilliant to terrible.
Sweden is still a major power early on in the century. Execellent infantry and cavalry, artillery ends up a bit neglected since it is not manoeuvrable enough to keep pace with the aggressive Ga Pa tactics. They can't afford too heavy casualties, so not an army than can soak up punishment. the Great Northern War destroys Sweden as a major power and although she participates in later wars she does not dominate the Baltic any longer. Generalship is solid enough, emphasis is on offence.

**nostradamouse** · January 21, 2009, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Yoram777

The short answer is: strongest land army = France.
Which also explains why everybody fought alongside their allies when fighting against the French (alone) on land.

France had the number one army in 1700 in size as well as (perceived) quality.
France had the best army throughout the 18th Century, although if I'm not mistaken at a certain point the Russian army was bigger but not of the same quality as that of the French.

It's laughable that some people mention the British army or the Prussian army or the Swedish army, as the strongest land army of the time
Because the French army alone could even rival all 3 of those COMBINED!
The British army was not that impressive during this timeframe at all especially when compared to the French, and both the Prussians and the Swedish where only local powers you can't really compare them a major power like the French.

You are right. And this is one of the reasons that everyone and their mother allied against France whenever something happened. After all, France was the bully in the sandbox. They really weren't liked that much in that time.

**Påsan** · January 21, 2009, 06:08 PM

Or now.. Funny how french are seen as no-good cowards today (esspesialy in the USA), when france is the one country in the world wich have spent the most time in a state of war.