Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Greatest Ancient Military Power
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Poll Question: What ancient military power had the greatest army?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
8 [10.81%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [1.35%]
1 [1.35%]
2 [2.70%]
3 [4.05%]
10 [13.51%]
40 [54.05%]
0 [0.00%]
2 [2.70%]
7 [9.46%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399 		  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Greatest Ancient Military Power
    Posted: 19-Oct-2007 at 04:52
Originally posted by Siege Tower

Originally posted by Justinian

The main reasons I chose the romans were:   their longevity, size of their empire, and ability to beat larger (numerically speaking) opponents or ones with superior arms. (cavalry, archers etc.)


It's still no where near the size and the powers of Qin and Han empires
Incorrect, the roman empire and han dynasty were roughly equal in size and population.  ~35-60 million.
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Siege Tower View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Location: Edmonton,Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 580 		  Quote Siege Tower Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2007 at 22:39

Han army obviously had better army and economy.


Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 494 		  Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2007 at 00:14
That's arugable. It depends on what section of the army you're talking about.
Back to Top
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253 		  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2007 at 01:43
Originally posted by Ponce de Leon

How come the Nubians arent on this list?
 
They didn't really field an army, they used guerilla/hit and run tactics and tried to fight from afar using bows.
 
I'm surprised how little respect the Egyptians get. They were the first imperialist empire and used methods of warfare that gave them a big edge against the Nubians and Semites. The organization, and not to mention the first conscription service, was amazing for its time. When the Assyrians arose against the Egyptians at Meggido 20 Assyrian kings surrendered as the Egyptians army crushed an uprising that would normally destroy an empire.
Back to Top
The Canadian Guy View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
The Native Canuck

Joined: 24-Feb-2005
Location: IDK Im lost!
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 891 		  Quote The Canadian Guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 14:42
I vote Greeks, they have awesome military tactics and  battlefield formations. If it weren't form the Roman, it would be more than likely that the Grecians would control the Mediterranean.
Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818 		  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 21:08
I went with other, or to be more specific... The Spartans. I mean it has to count for soemthing that their name came before and outlived most other ancient military powers, even before the Romans came along. For such a small defunct city state, with their name lasting for well over two thousands years... it still carries quite a punch in the modern westerners psyche!
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224 		  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 23:13
Originally posted by The Canadian Guy

I vote Greeks, they have awesome military tactics and  battlefield formations. If it weren't form the Roman, it would be more than likely that the Grecians would control the Mediterranean.

But doesn't that imply that the Romans were superior? I don't think the Greek city-state structure could rule the Mediterranean. By the time of the 2nd century B.C., when Rome overran Greece, the phalanx and hoplite system was outdated, especially compared to the legions. I don't doubt the military competence of the Greeks at all - just look at the Spartans! However, Spartan society did not allow them to expand and adapt in the way that Rome could.
Back to Top
Athanasios View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546 		  Quote Athanasios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Oct-2007 at 23:31
The most superior Greek state was Sicily.

Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599 		  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 01:04
I am surprised on how little the Assyrian Empire gets for its achievments. They were among the first users of siege equipment, they had catasrophic chariots, great cavarly skills, and fantastic infantry. In fact, the ancient empires feared Assyria for their skills (as well as brutality). The Achaemenid Persians also incorperated Assyrian tactics in their armies.
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399 		  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 19:08
I think it is just because of the time period, if the greeks and romans were not in the poll I would think the assyrians would be getting a lot more support.  Because of the time period when they were at their peak, they simply did not conquer as large an area as the greeks or romans or persians.  I completely agree with your assessment of their achievements.  Spot on.  Development of cavalry and siege techniques are the major ones in my mind.  They truely dominated the fertile crescent. 
 
The forerunner of the romans is how I view them, take the knowledge of other cultures and improve upon that, military innovators and just the way they dominated their opponents for so long, also the way they governed through vassals or clients like the early principate.  The first military superpower of the fertile crescent.  Their influence whether direct, indirect or speculative on the military advancements of other cultures; cavalry and siege techniques have been mentioned, is there a connection between the assyrian phalanx and the greek?  Intriguing. 


Edited by Justinian - 31-Oct-2007 at 19:19
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253 		  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 19:27
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

I am surprised on how little the Assyrian Empire gets for its achievments. They were among the first users of siege equipment, they had catasrophic chariots, great cavarly skills, and fantastic infantry. In fact, the ancient empires feared Assyria for their skills (as well as brutality). The Achaemenid Persians also incorperated Assyrian tactics in their armies.
 
True, the Assyrians were very militaristic and advanced in military tactics. They did have many clashes with the Egyptians such as Meggido. They were feirce, ruthless, and very feared among the Middle East.
Back to Top
SuN. View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 26-Sep-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 156 		  Quote SuN. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 05:52
The word ancient is very vague as it is very large. IT would be better to band the ancient period into different periods.
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134 		  Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 13:23
You can't just have a poll about the best army and have no time period.  Each army can't be compared on a one on one basis with each other.  It has to be compared to its comtemporaries that exists at a certain point in time.
 
A roman army in 400 BCE is not an equal of a Spartan Army of the same time period.  Consequently, a Hellinistic army of the 1st century BCE is not equal to a Roman army of the same time period. 
 
Back to Top
Praetor View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386 		  Quote Praetor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Nov-2007 at 06:23
The Assyrian's created one of the most effective fighting forces of their time, I agree and to further their case I would like to point out that they were not defeated by the Egyptians at Meggido. Thutmosis III defeated many kings at Meggido but they were Canaanite kings not Assyrian kings furtheremore Assyria normally only had one king at a time and was one state not a culture so there were never "20 Assyrian kings".

Regards, Praetor.
Back to Top
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 313 		  Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 07:14
It is too relative.

If ou compare with percentage, then Assyrians must be stronger than Romans,

It is so relative
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
longshanks31 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572 		  Quote longshanks31 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 08:39
Im going to be controvertial and say the parthians, though the only real accounts of them that we have are of roman origin
Back to Top
longshanks31 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572 		  Quote longshanks31 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 08:44
The phoenicians deserve a shout too, not wanting to be critical of the options, the phoenicians like the egyptians dont get enough respect either,
Back to Top
Mumbloid View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97 		  Quote Mumbloid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 16:01
I voted for Rome, the discipline of the legions are legendary.
 
 
The future keeps the past alive.
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526 		  Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 16:24
why there is no Parthian empire?, they defeated the Romans and surly the second greatest empire at the time(around Rome)
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919 		  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 17:03
the early steppe armies still screwed everybody over even though they were in small numbers.

let it be the Parthians/scystians in the west or the Huns/Samaritans in the east Tongue
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.055 seconds.