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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Ancient Armies

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Poll Question: Which Ancient Army was the best?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
50 [40.65%]
18 [14.63%]
32 [26.02%]
2 [1.63%]
1 [0.81%]
20 [16.26%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ancient Armies
    Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 17:21
I would say Rome with Persia (Parthian or Sassanid) on a close second. Carthage, Egypt and Greece all had their prime, but it was over with the rise of Rome.

As for the ancient Mesopotamien armies, they must have been among the most powerful in the world, perhaps the most powerful during their glory days. Assyrians certainly weren't weak, as some seem to claim. Back then they were a warrior people to the bone, and for a long time undefeatable, on par with the migthy Hittites.
Back to Top
vulkan02 View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Termythinator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
  Quote vulkan02 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 23:12
Roman army was good but it was so because Rome after all wasn't alone... it would be heavely supplied by its latin allies so it had a number advantage too... in the early day of the Roman Republic i would say the Samnites probably had the best army in Italian peninsula.
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
Back to Top
Virgil View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 17-Jun-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Virgil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 12:33
Originally posted by minchickie

The Romans had way too much stuff to lug around.  The Huns easily caused chaos and had little problems defeating them.


The Roman army that fought the Huns was a very different army and one that was in decline after the glory years of the previous three hundred years.
Back to Top
Rome View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
  Quote Rome Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 19:45
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

Originally posted by Rome

 There to weak

 

what you mean too weak you are kidding how could you say that meopotamian armies such as Akkadian,Assyrian,Chaldean  were trong armies Akkadian found the first empire in the world   Assyrian made an empire from Iran to Egypt  and defeated Egyption army on the Nile and you tell me they were weak

The armies of Mesopatamia were to weak because there equipment and organization was ancient by the time of Rome.

 

Back to Top
Rome View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
  Quote Rome Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2005 at 02:27

Rome was at its peak at the time of Caesar.

 

Back to Top
guo hua View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 30-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote guo hua Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 05:01
Originally posted by Reginmund

I would say Rome with Persia
(Parthian or Sassanid) on a close second. Carthage,
Egypt and Greece all had their prime, but it was over
with the rise of Rome.

As for the ancient Mesopotamien armies, they must
have been among the most powerful in the world,
perhaps the most powerful during their glory
days. Assyrians certainly weren't weak, as some
seem to claim. Back then they were a warrior people
to the bone, and for a long time undefeatable, on par
with the migthy Hittites.


If Roman army are so good and why is it still cannot
surivive until today. An army of the ethnic that is no
longer alive, are forever not an good army. FACE IT!
Back to Top
Rome View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
  Quote Rome Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 05:55
The roman army did not survive till today because it fell appart from coruption from the in side and barbarian attacks from outside.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 09:53
Originally posted by guo hua

If Roman army are so good and why is it still cannot
surivive until today. An army of the ethnic that is no
longer alive, are forever not an good army. FACE IT!


Riiight, so now we're judging ancient armies by wether or not they made it to the industrial age? By your standards, "an army of the ethnic that is no longer alive, are forever not an good army" (sic), all ancient armies fall short.

No army is invincible, unchanging or everlasting, my gibbering friend.
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2005 at 11:06
I don't think this question can be properly answered without considering the time period. People are comparing armies here 1000 years apart. Doesn't make sense. Even Roman armies 100 years apart were different.
Back to Top
guo hua View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 30-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote guo hua Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 03:03
Originally posted by Reginmund

[QUOTE=guo hua] If Roman
army are so good and why is it still cannot
surivive until today. An army of the ethnic that is no
longer alive, are forever not an good army. FACE IT![/
QUOTE]

Riiight, so now we're judging ancient armies by
wether or not they made it to the industrial age? By
your standards, "an army of the ethnic that is no
longer alive, are forever not an good army" (sic), all
ancient armies fall short.

No army is invincible, unchanging or everlasting, my
gibbering friend.


Any army may not be invincible, but army that can
protect its own ethnic race until today, no matter how
many conquer or disaster occur during the past two
thousand two hundred years, is the best army of the
world.
Back to Top
strategos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1096
  Quote strategos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 03:16

Originally posted by guo hua

Originally posted by Reginmund

[QUOTE=guo hua] If Roman
army are so good and why is it still cannot
surivive until today. An army of the ethnic that is no
longer alive, are forever not an good army. FACE IT![/
QUOTE]

Riiight, so now we're judging ancient armies by
wether or not they made it to the industrial age? By
your standards, "an army of the ethnic that is no
longer alive, are forever not an good army" (sic), all
ancient armies fall short.

No army is invincible, unchanging or everlasting, my
gibbering friend.


Any army may not be invincible, but army that can
protect its own ethnic race until today, no matter how
many conquer or disaster occur during the past two
thousand two hundred years, is the best army of the
world.

well maybe this "best army of the world" has not yet come.

http://theforgotten.org/intro.html
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
  Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 09:49
Originally posted by guo hua

Originally posted by Reginmund

[QUOTE=guo hua] If Roman
army are so good and why is it still cannot
surivive until today. An army of the ethnic that is no
longer alive, are forever not an good army. FACE IT![/
QUOTE]

Riiight, so now we're judging ancient armies by
wether or not they made it to the industrial age? By
your standards, "an army of the ethnic that is no
longer alive, are forever not an good army" (sic), all
ancient armies fall short.

No army is invincible, unchanging or everlasting, my
gibbering friend.


Any army may not be invincible, but army that can
protect its own ethnic race until today, no matter how
many conquer or disaster occur during the past two
thousand two hundred years, is the best army of the
world.
As much as I know the army of the Roman Empire was superior to its enemies and capable of defending the Empire. The western empire collapsed because of internal political and economic not military reasons. (Of coruse the internal problems had effects to the army.)
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 10:02
Armenia had the Strongest Army Because they manage to fight against all muslim nations and Kept there Religion !!! From the begenning Year 600 when Islam came 

!Armenia!  until NOW !!! 

Edited by [ARM]Paul
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 11:53
Originally posted by guo hua

Any army may not be invincible, but army that can protect its own ethnic race until today, no matter how many conquer or disaster occur during the past two thousand two hundred years, is the best army of the
world.


Ok, so this apparently unspecific army you speak of (which I have a sneaking feeling is quite specific, and not unrelated to your own ethnic identity), has suffered many conquests or disasters throughout the ages, but you claim they're the best in the world simply because their ethnic group still exists today?

With such reasoning, all the armies of all ethnic groups since antiquity are the worlds' best, as long as they've not suffered a complete genocide. Doesn't make much sense to me. Anyway it doesn't matter, this thread is about ancient armies, and therefore we'll judge according to their performance in ancient times, pure and simple.
Back to Top
guo hua View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 30-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote guo hua Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 00:43
Originally posted by strategos

Originally posted by guo hua

Originally posted by
Reginmund


[QUOTE=guo hua] If Roman army are
so good and why is it still cannot surivive until today.
An army of the ethnic that is no longer alive, are
forever not an good army. FACE IT![/ QUOTE] Riiight,
so now we're judging ancient armies by wether or
not they made it to the industrial age? By your
standards, "an army of the ethnic that is no longer
alive, are forever not an good army" (sic), all ancient
armies fall short. No army is invincible, unchanging
or everlasting, my gibbering friend.
Any
army may not be invincible, but army that can protect
its own ethnic race until today, no matter how many
conquer or disaster occur during the past two
thousand two hundred years, is the best army of the
world.


well maybe this "best army of the world" has not
yet come.



Roman army and its people is gone forever, which
they were either merged with other ethnic group or
totally be eliminated. The only army that surivived
today, are the Han army who protect its subject until
today through so many generation of war disaster &
victorious. And this is why no ethnic group in the
world would have grown to a population of 1.2 billion.
The largest ethnic group in the world and the only
ethnic group that survived continously for more that
two thousand of years. Without a determine, brave &
effective army, it will probably be eliminated long
long time ago. Just like how Roman empire was
ended by the Goths barbarians or totally weaken by
the Huns.
Back to Top
vagabond View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 524
  Quote vagabond Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 02:31

As Imperator Invictus has already pointed out, I think that we need a careful definition of terms as we are apparently talking apples and oranges; or more particularly ethnic groups as opposed to kingdoms and empires. While the Han people are named for the Han dynasty and have reproduced prolifically, they are not the Han dynasty. There are modern day Celts, and Celtic language use can still be found but there has not been a Celtic kingdom for many centuries. France, Italy, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal all use Romance languages, directly descendant from the Latin used by the Romans, and Romania still carries the name of Rome, but this does not make any of them heirs to the Roman Empire. One is an ethnological question; the other is historical.

I was skeptical about the claim that the Han army had lasted through to the present time. Not being immediately familiar with the intricacies of Chinese history - I consulted the pages at the University of Maryland http://www.chaos.umd.edu/history put together by Leon Poon.

From his pages, where he specifically distinguishes between the Han people and the Han dynasty: http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/imperial.html#han , he says, "The Han dynasty, after which the members of the ethnic majority in China, the "people of Han," are named, was notable also for its military prowess" he goes on to say " The Han rulers, however, were unable to adjust to what centralization had wrought: a growing population, increasing wealth and resultant financial difficulties and rivalries, and ever-more complex political institutions. Riddled with the corruption characteristic of the dynastic cycle, by A.D. 220 the Han Empire collapsed."

The Minnesota State University Museum site concurred: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/china/timeline.html

As did Paul Halsall on the Brooklyn College City University of New York pages: http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/chinhist.h tml

I found this to be backed up by all other academic sources that I checked. I could find no source that claimed that the Han dynasty or their army had survived through modern times.

For further reading - these resource pages are very good: http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/references.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/eastasia/eastasiasbook.html#I mperial%20China

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/chinbib.html

As an additional note - discussion here on the Ancient History boards has remained quite civil and free from the taint of nationalist and racist ardor that has damaged so many other discussions. Let us please keep it that way. Solid intellectual arguments backed by verifiable sources are always welcome.

In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan)
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Aug-2005 at 10:59
Well, vagabond, that should conclude the matter. An excellent post by the way, thoroughly researched and backed up.

And I agree, the whole ethnicity-issue should never have been brought up in this context.
Back to Top
Gavriel View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 17-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151
  Quote Gavriel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 11:19
Roman Legionaries were the best trained,best equiped and most disiplined of all the Ancient Armys IMHO.Especially if a man like Gaius Julius Caesar is leading them,he won the highest Roman military award for courage ( corona civica) so he wasnt just a pansy General like some of them were.His men worshipped him,especially the 10th.When the 10th were encouraged to mutiny and marched on Rome,Caeser rode out to meet them on his own,He stopped this Army in its tracks by addresing them as Quirites (citizens) and not his Soldiers,which he allways addresed them as before,  Shaming them all so much they  turned around.That shows the man was a charismatic leader and i believe his Soldiers fought harder for him than they would for other Generals.
Sorry i know its a bit off topic but i love Caesar  .
The Romans were the better troops so they should win,they defeated large numbers in Gaul , but a few hundred thousand Hans might be a bit of a handfull.
G


Edited by Gavriel
Back to Top
Publius Scipio Africanus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Sep-2005
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Publius Scipio Africanus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 01:22
I don't have anything against Caesar, but he wrote about his own campaigns and was a leader who was inspirational and is not neccesarily the genius everyone thinks he is.
'I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 96% how I react to it.' Scipio Africanus
Back to Top
Rome View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
  Quote Rome Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Sep-2005 at 00:08

Well prove it Scipio.

so I expect you to say that Scipio is better.

 

 



Edited by Rome
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>

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 0.078 seconds.