Take away our advanced weapons and only use the Rank and File [not special forces] Could the US ARMY take out the Roman Legions using the weapons of back in the day? In hand hand to had combat could our army take out the Iraqi army . . .no guns. . . just swords and sheilds? Who would you rank among the best Armies of all time Roman Legions? Spartans? US Army from WWI or WWII? Nazis? Carthage? Native Americans [Apache? Navaho?etc] Zulus? Strictly hand to hand combat . .. . Rocket River
Our soldiers might be bigger, but I don't think they were as strong or mentally tough as a legioner. Legioners were happy to die in battle. It's an interesting question, but I don't know how you could answer it. I mean, would the modern armies just pick up a sword and a shield or would they get the same training? I think i'll go with the Native Americans because they would use stealth better than anyone of these groups with out any modern technology.
I haven't given it a lot of thought, but aren't there at least three parts to the equation 1) Strategy and thought 2) Physical ability 3) Quantity Let's eliminate the third, assuming all things being equal. 1) In General, and in the most dire circumstances, the Americans have always found a way to out think their opponent. I have no empirical evidence, but it sure does seem to be true. We've always been on an equal playing field until we invented something or some strategy that put us over the top. You have to factor that in. We also have access to more knowlege than anyone before us. We would seem to be more educated. I consider that an advantage although some of you may not. 2) We are bigger and stronger than ever before. So Physically our men are tougher.
As a whole, Americans are diverse, which I believe helps to eliminate whatever weakness we could possibly have. The other armies you speak of were relatively confined to their race. Thus, confined to a particular strength or weakness. If you have a weakness, someone can expolit it.
Nazis suck!!! (please...no real reply posts back about how smart Rommel was..or about how other nations have copied their style of warfare..i know all that) The Nazis just flat out suck!!!!
Max, The Nazis sucked, but their military was outstanding. If the little idiot had not attacked Russia, I am pretty sure that all of Europe would be speaking in German today. DaDakota
U miss the time Element Do you think the WWI military vs WWII military also Americans never had to fight the Roman Legions or the Spartans Rocket River
Damn it Dakota!!! didn't you read my post!!?? No comments on how effective they were...just that they flat out sucked!!! Nazis suck!!!!
Before you say we're bigger and stronger, think about the incredible feats that gymnasts or other athletes who have trained from the time they were 5 can do. This is what you would be facing if you fought say, the Spartans. They basically entered military camp when they were 8-9 years old and lived and breathed the stuff until they died. In contrast, you have the American army - take unformed 18 year-olds and train them for 6 months-1 year. Still want to put your money on our army?
Since you are taking away the technical advances in weaponry and basing it on hand to hand with swords and other weapons of the past, the warriors who have always used those would have the edge. If there was substantial training time, then Modern Era soldiers could approach and probably surpass those of ancient times because of the physical differences. There is more to judging an army than the hand to hand combat ability of its soldiers. Mango
The nazis had the best tanks of WWII and were very advanced. The Germans were most effective with speed that caught their enemies by suprise (blitzkrieg). When the Allies invaded France and the Russians turned them back the Germans were limited to a slow paced two front war of attrition and their advantages were neutralized. They were on the defensive. For RocketRiver's question you have to throw out the German technology and consider just their soldiers. Besides the SS, the average German soldier was just average with great weapons. And later in the war their Army became mostly young boys and old men. So they would rank low on my list. That is another factor you need to think about, situations. If the armies are equal but one is defending and the other is attacking, I would have to lean towards the defenders. Just depends on the situation. And also the terrain. GutterSnipe makes a good point. But if we are comparing everything as equal, then you have to assume that the soldiers would be the same age, with the same training. Or you could even equip each with a weapon that neither has used. Like PhiSJ says, the Americans always seem to adapt and overcome every obstacle. I would have to pick them. USA!
Don't these have to be real civilizations in history? The Neo-Assyrians could seriously kick some ass The Achaemenids were solid The Mughuls did a bit Neo-Babylonians were pretty powerful for a while Zulus hurt the British for a while...then the British cheated Others have been mentioned.
Poor guy -- you must have had some run-ins with them way back when you were a kid, huh? No wonder you have such an aversion to strong women.
So if you open up the door to all imaginary armies, who wins. Now you have an interesting conversation. Jedi Terminators Skorpion Kings Justice League....
