Most militarily successful nation?

[Eskali]

20th century onwards, Australia.

WW1: "The five Australian divisions which had been formed into the Australian Corps on 1 November 1917, were moved south to help halt the German advance. In May, Australian General John Monash was given command of the Australian Corps and the first operation he planned as a corps commander, the Battle of Hamel, is widely regarded as the finest set-piece strategy of the war on the Western Front. " "The AIF remained a volunteer force for the duration of the war—the only British or Dominion force to do so. "

Gallipoli: landing against an entranched enemy in a superior position, only because of the quality of the anzac soldiers were they not slaughtered.

"With time running out, the commander of the Desert Mounted Corps, General Chauvel, ordered the Australian, 4th Light Horse Brigade to make a mounted attack. The 4th (Victorian) and 12th (New South Wales) Regiments of the brigade formed up in three waves and charged across four miles of open terrain through shrapnel and machine gun fire...charge was incredibly successful and few casualties were incurred."

WW2: "The 7th Division formed the body of the successful Allied invasion of Vichy French-controlled Lebanon and Syria in 1941. The 9th Division and part of the 7th played a celebrated defensive role at the Siege of Tobruk."

"Militia units distinguished themselves and suffered extremely high casualties during 1942, in New Guinea, which was then an Australian territory. The prime example was the 39th (Militia) Battalion, many of them very young, untrained and poorly equipped, who distinguished themselves and suffered heavy casualties, in the stubborn rearguard action on the Kokoda Trail."
"By late 1942, the 7th Division was beginning to relieve the Militia in New Guinea. In August, as the Kokoda battles raged, Militia and 7th Division units formed the bulk of Australian forces at the Battle of Milne Bay, the first outright defeat inflicted on Japanese land forces. The 6th and 7th Divisions, with Militia units and elements of the 1st Armoured, formed a large part of Allied forces which destroyed the major Japanese beachhead in New Guinea, at the Battle of Buna-Gona."
"The 9th Division remained in North Africa and distinguished itself at the Second Battle of El Alamein, after which victory over Rommel was assured, and returned to Australia in 1943. Later that year it was pitched into battle against Japanese forces in New Guinea."

Vietnam: "The Australian Army performed well in Vietnam and inflicted losses on the enemy. While the Army fought few major battles, Australian soldiers fought and destroyed large Vietnamese Communist forces during the Battle of Long Tan 1966 and the fighting around Firebase Coral and the heavy operations in the Long Hai hills (1970)"

"The Australians style of warfare differed to that used by the United States Army. The Australians were masters of stealth, patrolling, tracking, searching & ambushing and hitting the enemy's flanks."

Vietnam was the last deployment of regular infantry to a combat zone.

2nd Gulf War and Afganistan: SASR and 2nd Commandos(a.k.a 4RAR) were commited to both wars in support of US personnel.

SAS: "Since their beginnings in 1954, the SASR has lost more men in training than on combat operations, due to the nature of their training regime"

General James Mattis describing the Australian SAS in Afghanistan: "We Marines would happily storm Hell itself with your troops on our right flank"

lol, yea, i know, patriotism, but they are top 5 least for the best trained troops in the world, and we have been very successful in all our military ventures/responsiblities (the regions/zones that were designated for australian forces to control in Vietnam, Afganistan, etc. we were successful in our goals).


Edit- This part is for all the bastards who called the SASR pirates when they boarded the Tampa vessel.

"The SASR doctor later reported that the rescuees were generally dehydrated, malnourished and unhappy. Many were suffering from dehydration, exhaustion and minor ailments including sixty one cases of scabies, forty six of head lice, twenty four of gastroenteritis. They also attended to four pregnant women.

There were some disputes between the SASR and the ship's medical officer Christian Maltau, a deck officer with limited medical experience, regarding the deployment of medical supplies from the Tampa, and the use of the limited supplies of water. In one incident, the ship's officer turned off the ship's water supply while rescuees were being washed after an outbreak of diarrhoea. Several Australian soldiers also contracted diarrhoea during the boarding episode.

The crew of the Tampa had refused to allow the boat people to use their toilets or go anywhere near their accommodation"

The SASR set up bbq's, showers, toilets, sleept in the open with the refugees and disembarked them all so quickly that it astonished the government officials on the ground, this was because of the high levels of co-operation between the SASR and refugees.

[G-Megas-Doux]

I'm impressed with the Australia thing. Probably qualifies as your goals were a success. Gallipoli was a tragic event. On balance you probably do win on a ratio of successful battles to number of battles. This comes from an Englishman.

[Cyclops]

I'm impressed with the Australia thing. Probably qualifies as your goals were a success. Gallipoli was a tragic event. On balance you probably do win on a ratio of successful battles to number of battles. This comes from an Englishman.

Thats very flattering, but I'd say Australian forces in WW1 and Boer war were definitely British, as we supplied the raw manpower but the equipment and training was pretty much all from the UK.

Australian and other colonial forces fought well but thats in part because we were given high levels of training and supply, as part of the political agreement to be there (this is definitely true of Australia, I stronglky think its true of Canada also, although NZ seem to have gone wholeheartedly, soldiers and leaders).

In WW2 we had the recieved British military tradition which we adapted succesfully to jungle warfare, maybe its our own tradition now but up to WW2 (and perhaps including) any Australian military success has to go to the UK.

I'd like to think Australians are brave soldiers but I'd have to say we have a small military that has fought away from homes and is strongly influenced by others: it cannot compare with the great traditions of say France, Russia or others.

The Mongols are an interesting case but they are a horde, with the ethnic Mongol component small and quickly submerged outside the home region. Genghis Khan did not create the Mongols any more than Caesar founded or refounded Rome. He raised them to a brief pinnacle, by merging them in a horde that rapidly fell apart and lost any tiny amount of ethnic coherence it had in his lifetime.

The region now known as France really impresses me as a place with a great military tradition. They have been innovators and highly succesful in many periods: Charles Martel's armoured footmen we great at Poitiers (and near Tours), Charlemagne's horsemen were decisive, Feudalism did a lot of important developing in what is now modern France, Louis XIV took on the whole of Europe, as did the Revolutionaries and Napoleon, and even the Second Empire made some amazing developments.

On balance the French tended to win a lot more than they losty (until recently) and had a reputation for bravery and brilliance in attack, as well as arrogance born of long success. The fought aganist many foes, from Britain to Iberia to Germany to Italy, into Russia and even into Palestine (most Crusaders were Franks, and I think the majority were nominally subjects of the French King).

Its trendy among certain newcomer nations (I'm looking at you, USA) to run the French down for their poor showing in the late 20th century, but in fact they have a truly great and courageous tradition where they usually the toughest military in Europe, and significant periods where they were comfortably the best in the world.

[O'Hea]

The U.S. has had a good century and we won independence against long odds, but we haven't been around long enough to be measured against countries like China, France or England with over a millennium of military history. Looking at 'nations' from more of an ethnographic standpoint, I guess I would make these the top five: Han Chinese, Turks, Anglo-Saxons, Franks and Arabs. The Romans don't make the cut because I don't consider them much of a 'nation,' more like a city-state that administered lots of colonies and occupied territories. The Greeks are also contenders since I'd consider the ERE/Byzantium to be a Greek power, but their only great military feats I know of since 1453 would be the war of independence in the 19th century and the Battle of Crete in World War 2. Lots of nations had a good century or two (Spain, Portugal, or the Norse would be in this category) but weren't all that consistent.

[Forredman]

The U.S. has had a good century and we won independence against long odds, but we haven't been around long enough to be measured against countries like China, France or England with over a millennium of military history. Looking at 'nations' from more of an ethnographic standpoint, I guess I would make these the top five: Han Chinese, Turks, Anglo-Saxons, Franks and Arabs. The Romans don't make the cut because I don't consider them much of a 'nation,' more like a city-state that administered lots of colonies and occupied territories. The Greeks are also contenders since I'd consider the ERE/Byzantium to be a Greek power, but their only great military feats I know of since 1453 would be the war of independence in the 19th century and the Battle of Crete in World War 2. Lots of nations had a good century or two (Spain, Portugal, or the Norse would be in this category) but weren't all that consistent.

Why do you consider the Byzantine Empire as a nation and not Rome?

I'd say France and Rome, from a Western perspective.

Sorry. I didn't realize this was an old thread.

[O'Hea]

Why do you consider the Byzantine Empire as a nation and not Rome?

I'd say France and Rome, from a Western perspective.

Sorry. I didn't realize this was an old thread.

This is based on the definition of 'nation' versus 'state' where a nation is about a continuous ethnic/historic/cultural identity and not just a shared government. The classical Roman empire was extremely heterodox, being made up of innumerable different peoples incorporated into the empire at different times and under different circumstances, and with very high degrees of local autonomy for most of its history. There were many distinct nations within the classical Roman state. But the ERE, especially following the loss of Egypt and Syria to the Arabs, is a much closer fit for a nation, being made up overwhelmingly of people defined by Greek ethnicity, Roman political culture, and Chalcedonian/Orthodox Christian religion.

[knight of meh]

(most Crusaders were Franks, and I think the majority were nominally subjects of the French King).

just a quick piece of advice post Carolinian empire most Christians where refereed to as Franks so it became a name for any Christian from western Europe sort of like the word Saracen. Just take it with a piece of salt ^^

[arkk]

I'd say, modern age from the 17th century onwards Britain and Russia. Britain because it built such a large empire and then managed to hold on for like 250 years. Russia for being invaded and being on the brink so many times and still managing to come out on top regardless.
I wouldn't say the US is militarily successful. It is economically successful that's fore sure, and it has a very big and very expensive military, but that's about it. I don't think Americans have ever really had the stomach for the kind of large, protracted wars that you have to win to be regarded as militarily successful. It's a different kind of game we play.
I wouldn't say France or Germany either given the enormity of the defeats they suffered in the last 2-3 centuries.
I think Israel deserves special mention for being so successful during the past 60 years, with so few resources and against way larger armies, but I think it is a separate case so it doesn't 'feature'.
I also think Pakistan, for managing to build a nuclear deterrent against India in what was probably the greatest fiasco of the cold war.
To be honest you can't really go back more than 500-600 years. Most 'nations' we think of today hadn't been created back then. Suffices to Say there was no Russia or France during the middle ages, but a bunch of principalities. Most national identities were still vague ideas in people's minds.

I think the mongols really set the tone though. You can divide military history before and after the mongols because their tactics were so revolutionary. No one else even comes close.

[Spear Dog]

We need a zombie lazurus smiley for this one. I'll just have to go with: more like a super bump, but what the hey, if the thread is worth it!


I haven't gone through all the old posts in this thread - so this suggestion may have already been explored (probably not in living memory), but for the sake of breathing life into the old debate I'd have to go with the Germany under the Nazis. They put the idea of modern day world domination on the table - true world domination. They redefined the arms race from keeping up with your rivals to getting ahead of the game and defined how technology would shape the face of war. Sure, they got beat - but only when they over-reached themselves and the rest of us took them on at their own game - Total War. For six years, as a single nation, they played a stunning innings. The spectre of blitzkrieg makes us all uneasy to this day and every fictional account of appocalyptic war begins with a sudden devestating single act of mass conquest - Shock and awe anyone? They also gave us a stylistic representation for the baddy in nearly every future war, government gone mad or sci-fi story since - a peaked cap, a tailored cut suit jacket, johdpurs and knee high black patent leather equestrian boots. Where would the dominatrix scene be without the German Nazis?

Forevermore any Dictator worthy of his monumental portrait will have a goose stepping army.

[HuangCaesar]

Nation invaded by Britan (red)

[SLN445]

Wouldnt exactly call some of those invasions atleast by the definition of it anyways.

[intel]

Romans, French, Russians. Romans - because of the sustained through several centuries military success and innovation. French - because of the sheer weight of military innovation and brilliance they've put on the history of war. Russians - because they always fought exceptionally well given their limitations. Ottomans... For similiar reasons Russians are there.

Just as O'Hea points out, military success should be consistent through more than century. Thats why I can't include Mongols, Japan or Germany.

[The Great Montrose]

Scotland - held the English at bay for Hundreds of years, never fully conquered. Have provided the world with heroes such as Wallace and The Bruce and regiments like the Black Watch. Once we were joined In the union Scottish soldiers were at the forefront of creating the empire, our pipes and "ladies from hell" in kilts were possibly the most fearsome in the world wars and for so small a nation we played such a large part in the fighting. Might not be the most successful nation in military conquering sense but it's been well documented that the reputation of Scottish soldiers is up there with the best of them.

[necronox]

i suppose it depends on your definition of military succesfull, if you count it as the amount of land conquered, then probably france. because it conquered europe under Charlemagne, then again under Napoleon, conquered nearly all of africa and most of northern america. plus all those smaller gains. plus, they had a very powerful army for hundreds of years (if not amongst the most powerfull), all the way until the end of the second world war. they have rarily been seriously beaten - they've come close but not quit if you discount the fall of france (and subsequent Vichy Regime). however, england would be the most sucessfull empire, being the largest and generating vast wealth from it's conquest. spain can also be a mention until it went all retarded (i suppose the inbreeding of the royal family and the strongly catholic culture didn't help either).

but it's hard to judge unless a set criteria is set. i suppose the ratio between battle won and battle lost could be a criteria, but then you would have to look at their impact, winning a million battles but not gaining anything doesn't really count as a military success (like hannibal's invasion of the italian peninsular, he won most battles and defeated the romans, however, in the end it was practically for nothing in terms of pure military). but then, one could just win a single battle and but nations out of a war and bring to a peace or other negotiations (like Austerlitz or the battle of Tours). so it's hard to judge on that as well

but in overall, i'd say france.

[Manco]

i suppose it depends on your definition of military succesfull, if you count it as the amount of land conquered, then probably france. because it conquered europe under Charlemagne,

Not to take away from France, which is at the very least a top contender, but Charlemagne isn't French. He's Frankish which is a pretty huge difference. He's as much German, Belgian, Dutch and Luxembourgian as he's French.

[Stavroforos]

Not to take away from France, which is at the very least a top contender, but Charlemagne isn't French. He's Frankish which is a pretty huge difference. He's as much German, Belgian, Dutch and Luxembourgian as he's French.

I think if any one nation had a greater claim to him though, it would be France, as he was King of the Franks, which was the title which was held by those who eventually became the Kings of France. But it would still be pretty iffy.

[napoleon boneaparte]

Most of the posts here already have stated the nations which I believe have great successes throughout their military history. I do like the French though (explaining my username. ). But it's still quite blood-boiling when people insist that the French are cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

[necronox]

But it's still quite blood-boiling when people insist that the French are cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

completely agree, i especially don't understand the reason behind it. Perhaps it comes from some films then spread to the general populace. but i still don't understand why - when have the french ever just surrendered or fled (in general)? anyone know?

[Ciciro]

completely agree, i especially don't understand the reason behind it. Perhaps it comes from some films then spread to the general populace. but i still don't understand why - when have the french ever just surrendered or fled (in general)? anyone know?

WW2

[The Great Montrose]

Sorry to be annoying Necronox but you said the English had the best Empire, it was the UK. Remember the Scots, Irishmen and Welshmen who fought to make it as well.