History - Favourite Time Periods

[Gorth]

Moving the goal line isn't fair... we were talking military powers, not world powers

 

But the 5 military groups listed were definitely world powers. They created empires.

Not that they weren't impressive achievements for their time, but only the Roman empire lasted more than 20 years.

 

True dat.

 

(Mongols can make a case for a bit longer, but not by much.)

Touching one of my favourite subjects listed previously, the descendants of Timur. The Mughal Empire actually lasted until the 19th century, so I guess I was wrong about that one, making it one more lasting for lots of centuries

[obyknven]

Napoleon was outgunned and outmatched yet still managed to pull out victory after victory by creative approaches.

 

The Mongol horde functioned like a modern army, able to pull of amazing logistical feats.. all with horses..

 

The last three don't even need explanation..

 

While Russia only won because of the sheer weight and number of it's army.. It's also why the American army isn't on that list, yet you didn't complain about that.

Defeated army can't be best army of all times. Vae victis!

[Rosbjerg]

Everyone on that list was defeated eventually, so was Russia .. by that logic no one can be on the list.. Did you really think that argument through?

[Raithe]

Not that they weren't impressive achievements for their time, but only the Roman empire lasted more than 20 years.

 

Where would we put the BritishEmpire then? The largest Empire in history and lasted for over a century..

 

Although that wasn't strictly pushed via purely military means as such..

 

 

Edit:

 

Hm, actually a lot of the "Empire" in that sense didn't get stolen or suchlike, but was given right to self-govern and guided into various independent democracies post-WW2 as part of a general "decolonisation" process. There wasn't strictly speaking the usual Empire fragmentation and collapse.

And unlike a lot of Empires, a fair chunk of those countires joined together in the Commonwealth..

Edited May 8, 2012 by Raithe

[HoonDing]

Pretty sure pre-Columbian, HIttite, Persian and Sumerian empires lasted longer than 20 years as well, but carry on.

[Gorth]

Hence my previous question, how do you define "greatest army"?

[Rosbjerg]

I think an army/general that is ahead of it's time in ingenuity, strategy and causes widespread changes in warfare afterwards should be considered "great" .. I know it's a somewhat qualitative definition that might allow very subjective interpretations - but that would be my take.

[Zoraptor]

From a world history perspective "what was the greatest army?" is probably the wrong question. The on balance longest lasting and most extensive empires were the Roman/ Persian iteration/ British/ Mongol/ Chinese iteration ones, and really they all had military weaknesses to one extent or the other- the romans were resilient rather than uniformly militarily brilliant (had as many spectacular losses as wins- Cannae, Allia, Adrianople, Teutoburger, Aquae Sextiae, Carrhae), the mongols had a century of absolute ownership then more or less steady decline, the Brits had an excellent navy but an army that was usually too small to be globally relevant, and the Chinese and Persians tended towards extreme brittleness when outside their own back yard. The consistently good militaries all seem to be associated with more ephemeral entities, and they often fell apart at the first proper, sustained, defeat.

 

Napoleon's first loss was Egypt- running away with tail between legs and leaving an underling to do the actual losing is not victory or even a draw by any sensible measure. Boney really didn't learn the lessons either, he repeated them almost verbatim in Russia 1812 to even worse result.

 

Russians had a very good record in the 18th C to Napoleonic era- they had the best record against Napoleonic France of anyone whose surname wasn't Wellesley and irrespective of the winter, certainly better than the far more vaunted Prussians or any Austrian not named Karl, and if Elizabeta had lasted a few months longer they would have ended Fred the Gross's Prussia in the 7 years war post Kunersdorf.

[Gorth]

Yet Bulow had to save Wellesley's butt when he from superior positions was about to have his lines fold and run back to Brussels. The Napoleonic wars had so many pitched battles, countries constantly changing sides that it can be hard to keep track of who at any given time was at war with who. Only certainty was the eternal enmity between England and France.

 

Besides Borodino, how many "pitched battles" did the Russians and French fight?

[CoffeeMinx]

I think an army/general that is ahead of it's time in ingenuity, strategy and causes widespread changes in warfare afterwards should be considered "great" .

 

I like that definition. Because I'd add Alexander the Great's army and Hannibal - elephants crossing the Alps? Gotta be on a list.

[Gorgon]

I wouldn't say the Wehrmacht were defeated by the Russian winter as much as bad roads, long lines of supply, lack of fuel, poor winter equipment and confusion about the end objectives. Much like Japan they had an initial advantage which would soon be overwhelmed by unmatched manpower and industrial capacity. The Russians simply moved their war industry out of range of German bombers and started pumping 34s out by the hundreds.

[Calax]

Jacobite Rebellions in Scotland

Are there any Stuarts left? You never know, if the Scots vote for independence they may need a new monarch.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Stuart

 

My history teacher showed off some folks who claimed to be of stuart decent, and claimed the british crown last year in class, but wiki wants to tell us that they died out in the 1800's, with house being back as royals becuase princess Di was a Stuart.

 

Personally Three Kingdoms era China, the Sengoku era of Japan, and the Napoleonic/Russo war in 1812ish are all EXTREMELY interesting to me. It's slightly hilarious to see what Aleander I did to propagandize against Napoleon (declaring him the anti-christ among other things), only to do a bit to reverse it so that he didn't have his serfs going nuts during a time when a truce was on the table.

[obyknven]

Besides Borodino, how many "pitched battles" did the Russians and French fight?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Smolensk_(1812)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Valutino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tarutino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maloyaroslavets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vyazma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Krasnoi

Russians don't fight for defense or capture some location. They have only one goal "kill as many enemies as they can". In all these battles Napoleons army army suffered heavy casualties.

[Walsingham]

Oh good god.

[Guard Dog]

I must admit reading Bernard Cornwell books have given me a real appreciation of post Roman Britannia and Dennmark

[Zoraptor]

Yet Bulow had to save Wellesley's butt when he from superior positions was about to have his lines fold and run back to Brussels. The Napoleonic wars had so many pitched battles, countries constantly changing sides that it can be hard to keep track of who at any given time was at war with who. Only certainty was the eternal enmity between England and France.

 

Besides Borodino, how many "pitched battles" did the Russians and French fight?

Waterloo was after the Prussians had been sent running again, (props to Blucher for countermanding Gneisenau's full on retreat order once he got back in the saddle though) and with an almost entirely scratch anglo dutch army. Boney might have won if he'd still had Davout as a field commander instead of Grouchy but then again the allies might have won easier had the Peninsular veterans been available- it's all historical conjecture.

 

Eylau, Friedland and Borodino would be the largest one-on-oneish set piece Russian French battles. Generally the Russians fought as parts of coalition armies and under their command- as at Austerlitz where the battle plan was Austrian and carried out against Kutuzov's objections. It wasn't so much that they won, but they made the French pay heavily even when they lost, and when they got a chance to kick the asterisks out of the French they took it in emphatic style. I don't think it is fair to criticise them for using the winter (especially since the autumn was actually unusually warm and the French were in total disarry even prior to the snows really setting in) as one of the basic tenets is to use local knowledge and terrain to your advantage. Napoleon was certainly a bit of an idiot, but then people don't tend to downgrade Hannibal/ Nelson/ OKW by saying that Varro or Villeneuve or Gamelin was a bit of an idiot. The story would probably be different if Karl had followed up Aspern-Essling and starved the French out on Lobau, but he didn't and then lost Wagram and the war a few weeks later.

 

I'm not a big Napoleon fan though. If he'd stopped in 1807, OK, but he didn't. He made mistakes and more importantly didn't learn from them (see Egypt and Russia in particular), fought unnecessary wars and ultimately got huge numbers of people killed for no net gain.

[Gorth]

I'm not a big Napoleon fan though. If he'd stopped in 1807, OK, but he didn't. He made mistakes and more importantly didn't learn from them (see Egypt and Russia in particular), fought unnecessary wars and ultimately got huge numbers of people killed for no net gain.

He was probably at least partially a product of his time, France falling apart at the seams during the revolution and the initial struggle of the revolutionary army trying to hold it together. All the surrounding monarchies agreed on one thing, that idea had to be stomped out before it spread. As a general, entirely subjective opinion of mine, I think he wasn't so much a brilliant strategist/tactician as he was a brilliant motivator that could exact superhuman performances from the men serving under him. Seriously, he was a disaster when it came to cavalry operations and nobody had the knack of wasting naval resources faster or more efficient than Napoleon. Artillery and infantry was what he knew how to use.

[Calax]

Yet Bulow had to save Wellesley's butt when he from superior positions was about to have his lines fold and run back to Brussels. The Napoleonic wars had so many pitched battles, countries constantly changing sides that it can be hard to keep track of who at any given time was at war with who. Only certainty was the eternal enmity between England and France.

 

Besides Borodino, how many "pitched battles" did the Russians and French fight?

Waterloo was after the Prussians had been sent running again, (props to Blucher for countermanding Gneisenau's full on retreat order once he got back in the saddle though) and with an almost entirely scratch anglo dutch army. Boney might have won if he'd still had Davout as a field commander instead of Grouchy but then again the allies might have won easier had the Peninsular veterans been available- it's all historical conjecture.

 

Eylau, Friedland and Borodino would be the largest one-on-oneish set piece Russian French battles. Generally the Russians fought as parts of coalition armies and under their command- as at Austerlitz where the battle plan was Austrian and carried out against Kutuzov's objections. It wasn't so much that they won, but they made the French pay heavily even when they lost, and when they got a chance to kick the asterisks out of the French they took it in emphatic style. I don't think it is fair to criticise them for using the winter (especially since the autumn was actually unusually warm and the French were in total disarry even prior to the snows really setting in) as one of the basic tenets is to use local knowledge and terrain to your advantage. Napoleon was certainly a bit of an idiot, but then people don't tend to downgrade Hannibal/ Nelson/ OKW by saying that Varro or Villeneuve or Gamelin was a bit of an idiot. The story would probably be different if Karl had followed up Aspern-Essling and starved the French out on Lobau, but he didn't and then lost Wagram and the war a few weeks later.

 

I'm not a big Napoleon fan though. If he'd stopped in 1807, OK, but he didn't. He made mistakes and more importantly didn't learn from them (see Egypt and Russia in particular), fought unnecessary wars and ultimately got huge numbers of people killed for no net gain.

The big thing for the Russians in the Napoleonic wars was the rediculous level of logistics the Russian forces demonstrated. Seriously, they had a supply train that rain deep into France, and were able to keep their armies supplied that far in.

 

I'm gonna have to re-read my book "Russia against Napoleon", but basically the only reason that Napoelon lost was because A) his logistics failed him, and B) he lost a LOT of his vets in the Russian winter battles, which were irreplaceable, while Alexander's forces kept earning more soldiers and vet's that were shuffled during the breaks between fighting to make sure the fresh forces would have somebody to look up to in their squad.