Best fighting force in history?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

What do you think was the best fighting force in history? I mean actual military unit, not something like "the roman army".

I think the German 6th army of WWII. Hitler boasted that he could "storm the heavens" with them. Certainly their achievements during the war are in my opinion without parallel, and it's a great pity they fought for someone like Hitler.

Say what you like about Spartans or whoever, but I'd like to see them hold off a force 7 times their size for almost 3 months while cut off on the Russian steppe with no supplies or heavy equipment, half starved and suffering from typhus and frostbite, and still manage to do more damage to the enemy than they sustain.

[Farnan]

This is such a stupid thread.

Only fanboyism will be present here as it is impossible to compare units across scale and time.

[conon394]

Athenian navy of the democracy (distinct from the overall Athenian military...) - no other galley navy in the Mediterranean (over 2000+) ever was able to reproduce it consistent willingness and ability to accept battle when out numbered and win with some regularity.

[rez]

Athenian navy of the democracy (distinct from the overall Athenian military...) - no other galley navy in the Mediterranean (over 2000+) ever was able to reproduce it consistent willingness and ability to accept battle when out numbered and win with some regularity.

I'll second that. The Athenian willingness to give battle at seemingly every juncture is quite inspiring.




I'd never say they were the best but according to Darius himself the Anusyia (perhaps the 'immortals' or perhaps a term for the various 'regiments' in the army) of Darius the Great seem to have fought succesfully in the deserts of Egypt, the steppes of central asia and Russia, the mountains of northern Iran, the monumental sieges of Babylon, the Gangetic plains of India and its possible that they were involved in suppressing the Ionian revolt of the Greek cities of Asia minior as well as the several amphibious campaigns that preceded and followed it.

It was'nt an unbroken record but they racked up victories against nomadic horse archers, citizen heavy infantry, Iranian combined arms armies, Indian missile based armies and the siege experts of Mesopotamia.

All in all an impressive range of ability. If we accept the idea of the immortals as a real regiment then we can attribute their presence to every campaign Darius was present for which, thanks to the Behistun inscription and several palatial inscriptions at Susa and Persepolis, appear to include all that I mentioned except the events in western asia minor. Its possible the immortals did undertake campaigns against the Greeks but it is equally possible that this was dealgt with by other Persian regiments.






This thread would probably be more productive if it were re-named "impressive fighting forces throughout history." Using the 'best' only leads to trouble.

[uzi716]

you need to divide this into eras

B.C.: Spartans
Pre-gunpowder: the Mongols
Colonial: Napoleons armies
20th century: German army
Modern: US Army

[Tecumseh]

What do you think was the best fighting force in history? I mean actual military unit, not something like "the roman army".

[Heathen Hammer]

Chuck Norris.

[Rowdytavern]

Gotta be a RCMP officer. Such a fabulous uniform.

No but seriously I would say Hanibals(sp?) army. The one he took over the alps. To win all those battles against the Romans without help from Carthage for all those months Is IMO much more impressive than the 6th army.

[RuleBritannia]

The most efficient would probably be the Mongols, considering they took Europe by storm using a mastery of cavalry warfare that has never been challenged.

However, in modern times, I think it's best to split up the times:

18th-early 20th century: British Royal Army (Prussia was much better in its time, but Prussia's power dropped significantly in the latter half of the 18th century)

In the rest of the 20th century, I'd say Germany had the best army. Unprecedented training and monumental successes really put them at the top.


21st century, it's hard to tell. Nations like Britain and Israel have extremely well-trained armies, but nations like the US and China have extreme numerical and some technological advantage over their foes, along with decent training.

[Farnan]

There never was a British Royal Army in the 18-19th Centuries.

[Jom]

There was never a British "Royal Army" full stop. Royal Navy, yes. Royal Air Force later on, yes, but the British Army as a professional fighting force was never "royal".

[Farnan]

Well there was the Royalist Army during the English Civil War, then again it was an English Royal Army. Just want to make sure there are not any loopholes.

[Jom]

Well there was the Royalist Army during the English Civil War, then again it was an English Royal Army. Just want to make sure there are not any loopholes.

Note my deliberate use of the word "professional". The Royalist army was simply composed of militia, something which caused no end of headaches as they often refused to fight beyond the boundaries of their county.

The New Model Army was the first professional fighting force seen in England but, clearly, it was anything but royal

It was rather a good fighting force for its time, too.

[conon394]

The most efficient would probably be the Mongols, considering they took Europe by storm using a mastery of cavalry warfare that has never been challenged.

Bull- without overwhelming force and a steppe environment to fight in they were average at best - thus they got beat like little girls by the Mamluks.


----

RB

monumental successes

What monumental success aside from France - you have mostly failure and successful rear guard actions until defeat (setting aside victory over minor enemies/victims who where utterly over matched)

[Gestalt]

Bull- without overwhelming force and a steppe environment to fight in they were average at best - thus they got beat like little girls by the Mamluks.

No offense but what you wrote was just silly. Mongols were outnumbered many times and came out the winners.The Mamluks were by far their greatest foe early on,but they fought with similar tactics,army.I'll post something earlier I wrote in the alternative history section for you.

I am just waiting for someone to say That European Geography will defeat them. I have heard that argument numerous times.These people apparently know little to nothing about the Geography of Asia,the Middle East and Eastern Europe.It wasn't all just arid steppe lands.There were deserts,forests,jungles,the Himalayas,and the Russian winter they had to endure.The hardest thing for them was the jungle with all the diseases,but that would be true for anybody.

[Lysimachus]

What do you think was the best fighting force in history? I mean actual military unit, not something like "the roman army".

I think the German 6th army of WWII. Hitler boasted that he could "storm the heavens" with them. Certainly their achievements during the war are in my opinion without parallel, and it's a great pity they fought for someone like Hitler.

Say what you like about Spartans or whoever, but I'd like to see them hold off a force 7 times their size for almost 3 months while cut off on the Russian steppe with no supplies or heavy equipment, half starved and suffering from typhus and frostbite, and still manage to do more damage to the enemy than they sustain.

Sixth Army was nothing extraordinary, it was just an amalgamation of powerful formations under one command. Read my article in my signature if you want to learn more, I just feel you exaggerate their role in history.

[conon394]

No offense but what you wrote was just silly. Mongols were outnumbered many times and came out the winners.The Mamluks were by far their greatest foe early on,but they fought with similar tactics,army.I'll post something earlier I wrote in the alternative history section for you.

The Mamluks may have used cavalry and archery but I would not call the tactics similar. The fact remains that in general the Mongols where not able to succeed away from areas where their steppe tactics could work (they never overcame their own fundamental logistical limitations). They failed in naval operations, and failed to defeat the Mamlukes aside from the odd raid they likely would have failed in Europe as well.

[Gestalt]

I think you got the part right about their naval capability no argument there.They may have fought more exceptionally in steppe territory,but that is not where they fought all the time.Their logistics capabilities were top notch for the most part.

I feel like a fanboy defending them,but I don't feel too bad since the historians who researched seem quite eccentric about their capabilities.Doesn't make me feel so bad


"Once they launched their conquests, they demonstrated remarkable ability to coordinate armies separated by great distances, using dispatch riders to communicate across hundreds of miles of unfamiliar terrain. Their mobility - up to 100 miles a day - was unheard of by armies of the time. The Mongol combination of mobility and communication was probably not equaled again until World War II. Time and again we read of the Mongols performing feats that would not be matched until the Twentieth Century; it's as if Erwin Rommel and George Patton fell through a crack in space-time and came out in the Thirteenth Century. "
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/westtech/xmongol.htm

"Until the modern era, no military force could compete with that of the Mongols in terms of effectiveness and certainly mobility. Through the use of a well disciplined and trained army, that focused on mobility and careful planning, the Mongols carved out the largest contiguous empire in history. Often their armies fought on several fronts at once, a difficult enough task in modern history and practically unheard of during the medieval period."
http://www.alamo.edu/sac/history/kel...s/empsub2.html


Logistics:Encyclopedia: Britannica

"One of the most efficient logistic systems ever known was that of the Mongol cavalry armies of the 13th century. Its basis was austerity, discipline, careful planning, and organization. In normal movements the Mongol armies divided into several corps and spread widely over the country, accompanied by trains of baggage carts, pack animals,..."
http://www.britannica.com/facts/5/51...stics-military

Wiki has another good description of thier Logistics capabilities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_...d_organization

[Darkhorse]

As an ad hoc or improvised unit, you could possibly consider the Falklands Task Force. Although by no means the best all round fighting force, and many units are/were better thoughout history, when you take into account how quickly it was set up and organised, how they lost a lot of their equipment, were outnumbered and were fighting in some of the worse conditions seen by the Britsh Army, and they still won. So, as an Ad hoc unit, I'd say that taskforce is definitly up there. Combined Gurkha's, Guards, SAS/SBS, Para's, Royal Marines and Royal Navy.

Don't misquote me, its obviously not the best force ever assembeled in history ever, and it had many short comings. I'm just suggesting that considering what they faced with distance, time and logistics, and the fact it was so hurredly organised. As an improvised force its probably was the best in that field.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

Otto Skorzeny. By himself.