I would question the Germans in the 20th century, they lost to the Russians. I would also question the Russians in the 17th to 19th century. 

The Persian army was effective during Cyru's reign, back in the 6th century BC... It was definitely weak against outnumbered Greek armies, during the 5th and 4th centuries BC, however.... Against Rome, Persia did manage to win some battles, nevertheless.  The Arabs also managed to defeat the Persians. 

 

From the the 6th to 4th century BC, the Persian army was certainly the most powerful army in the history which could win thousands battles all around the world from the Central and South Asia to the Europe and Africa, of course they also lost a few battles, like against Greeks and Scythians, otherwise they would capture the whole world, something never happend in the history.

 

They also defeated the Greeks, Egyptians, Scythians, and Indians several times, in fact no army in the world could defeat different armies as many as the Persian army. 

 

Just look at the ancient Persian inscriptions and reliefs, Darius the great defeated both Indians and Scythians, you can find the lands of "Hindush" and "Saka" as parts of the Persian empire in the most of ancient Persian inscriptions, Darius has even mentioned the name of Scythian king who was defeated:

 

Darius the King says: Afterwards with an army I went off to Scythia, after the Scythians who wear the pointed cap. These Scythians went from me. When I arrived at the sea, beyond it then with all my army I crossed. Afterwards, I smote the Scythians exceedingly; another (leader) I took captive; this one was led bound to me, and I slew him. The chief of them, by name Skunkha -- him they seized and led to me. Then I made another their chief, as was my desire. After that, the province became mine.

 

source: http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm#db5 - http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm#db5

 

Of course an army which can just hold off the Persian army deserve to be among them!

 

You probably know that an inscription of Darius the Great has been discovered in the north of Modern Romania where ancient Scythians lived: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27688 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27688  the famous Greek historian Herodotus has also talked about Persian rule over both Scythians and Indians, for example about Indians, he says: "The Indians made up the twentieth satrapy of the Persian empire. These are more in number than any nation of which we know, and they paid a greater tribute than any other province, namely three hundred and sixty talents of gold dust." (Histories of Herodotus: 3.94)

 

Even a mosquito can bother a king, those poor Spartans were all killed, they were probably happy that they could cause an insignificant interruption in the advance of the great Persian army.

 

Of course not modern India but actual India which was located in the north of Indian subcontinent, as you know the Indian civilization arose in the Indus River Valley in modern Pakistan and most of modern India was uncivilized for a long time, and about Scythians, they lived in a vast region from the Central Asia to the Eastern Europe, in the seventh century BC they had even occupied a large part of the west Asia, inculding the northwestern part of modern Iran, Medians and then Cyrus the Great defeated them in several battles and they had to retreat to their original lands, afterwards Darius the Great attacked them in the Central Asia, Caucasus and the Eastern Europe and pushed them far from the Persian empire.

 

Persian army was never damaged, they easily continued their way after passing these Spartans who were considered as highwaymen and then captured Athens with no problem, burnt it and came back to Persia successfully.

The info we have about Thermopolye comes from the "Father of Lies" Herodotus, so i wouldn't call your estimation of 20,000 dead exactly unbiased either.

 

In the modern times we also see that a muslim suicide bomber kills tens US soldiers, in the Middle ages Assassins also hid in the passages, like Thermopylae, and killed numerous people, those who can not fight face to face, either use these coward tactics or abandon their land and flee. The important point is that Xerxes wanted to capture and burn Athens and did it, what happened in the next years doesn't relate to it.

For Persia it was a disaster, they failed in their objectives of taking Sparta and leaving some subject city states behind as well as losing a considerable part of their navy. For Greece it wasn't the great victory patriots would like us to believe. Thermopolye mattered little, the Persian army would most likely have won but left undefeated because of a rebellion back home, the two Greek victories, sea and land were rather superfluous.

 

I really don't know what you mean by source, there are some inscriptions of Darius the Great, Xerxes and other Persian kings from the same date when these things happened, what can be more reliable than them?! Other than them ancient Greek historians, like Herodotus, have also talked about these things, of course I don't deny that Persians also lost some battles but it was certainly insignificant in comparison with the number of battles that they won.

 

Anyway as we know Xerxes just wanted to burn Athens in revenge for what the Greeks did to Sardis, if you look at a map then you will see the distance between Persia in the south of Iran and Athens, it is clear that during this very risky military expedition, some soldiers are killed and some ships are sunk, of course Greeks didn't want their major city to be burnt but the point is that the Persian army was so powerful that they could never stop it, so some of them prefered to flee and some other ones committed a type of suicide!

After the Xerxes' conquest of Greece, however it was allowed by the Persians that some Greek city-states kept their independence but the later events, like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Antalcidas - Peace of Antalcidas , show that the Persian king was always recognized as a superior leader by Greeks, in fact the Persian empire was an undeniable superpower, especially in the sixth and fifth century BC, the Persian army was so powerful which could easily capture everywhere that the Persian king wanted.

 

Where did you read that thing from the above link?!! This is the exact quote:

 

The Persians then counterattacked, and the Athenian force was itself besieged for 18 months, before being wiped out.[181] This disaster, coupled with ongoing warfare in Greece, dissuaded the Athenians from resuming conflict with Persia.[182]

It is funny that you read what you want, about the peace of Callias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Callias - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Callias  -> The ancient historian Theopompus deemed it a fabrication arguing that the inscription of the treaty was a fake – the lettering used hadn't come into practice until half a century after the treaty was purporting to have been agreed. It is possible that the treaty never officially existed, and if did exist, its importance is disputed. Thucydides did not mention it, however Herodotus[2] does, as does Plutarch, who thought it had either been signed after the Battle of the Eurymedon in 466 BC, or that it had never been signed at all.

 

Anyway later events, like the Peace of Antalcidas, show that those lands still belonged to the Persian until the fall of the Persian empire.

 

Darius the King says: This is what I did by the favor of Ahuramazda in one and the same year after that I became king. 19 battles I fought; by the favor of Ahuramazda I smote them and took prisoner 9 kings.

 

Source: http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm#db4 - http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm#db4

 

At the same time Persian armies were fighting near the borders of China, Ethiopia and Romania, I never say they were always victorious but this vast dominion of the Persian empire shows that the Persian army was certainly one of the most powerful armies in the world history.

Denying the historical facts has no benefit for you, as I said the most reliable source is the ancient Persian inscription with no change from the same date these things happened, the name of "Ethiopia" can be found as part of the Persian empire in the inscriptions of Darius the Great, Xerxes and Artaxerxes II at Persepolis, Naqsh-i-Rustam and Susa, of course ancient Ethiopia was certainly larger than modern Ethiopia.

 

If you look at the map Achaemenid empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_559_-_330_%28BC%29.GIF - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_559_-_330_(BC).GIF  then you will see that about one half of ancient India (modern Pakistan), western part of modern China, some parts of modern Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, ... also belonged to the Persian empire.

You can read about the Achaemenid empire and look at the real map here: http://www.ancient.eu.com/Achaemenid_Empire/ - http://www.ancient.eu.com/Achaemenid_Empire/

 

But as of right now, The Modern US Army is the most powerful Army to walk the face of the earth. They don't even have any close competition in terms of conventional warfare.

 

U.S. army - Definately the most powerful armed force in all of history.  Given the advanced technology of the modern age of course.  No other country in history has had the power to land an army anywhere in the world in such a short time period.  Add in nuclear capabilities and the ability to push a button and decimate a country anywhere on earth and you have a powerful force.

 

Mongol army under Ghengis khan - Not only was he the best general in history (according to a thousand page debate/vote on another history forum) but his armies conquered 1/4 of the earths surface a feat only exceded by the British empire.  And he did it on horseback with bows and arrows wtih 150,000 men conquering advanced nations like china and khwarazam who had armies in the millions.

 

Roman army - Was an unstoppable force that ruled the mediterranian world for for 800 years.  Only their corruption and infighting led to their downfall.

 

Arab army - Came out of arabia as wondering nomads and conquered a vast portion of the middle east and africa, even taking some of spain.

 

British army - Conquered more territory than any nation in history over 1/4 of the earth.

 

German army WW2 - Had the most advanced weaponry of the time including the first jets and had one of the most disciplined armies.  Fought 3 countries at once and only lost because of a 2 front war and outproduced by the americans.

 

Chinese army 800 - 1100 - Hard to gage since they really only fought among themselves but given their size and man power and the art of war and gunpowder (they had rockets by the 11 century) they probably could have taken on any other country of the time period

 

Macedonian army - Alexanders army conquered the persian empire and much of the world. 

 

Spartan army -  Powerful army that was unstoppable for a while.

 

Japanese army ww2 - Fiercly fanatical they conquered much of asia.

 

 

 

 

Also, if the German Army was the best of the 20th Century then why did Germany lose both world wars?

Originally posted by viperzz33 3.Englands Army from 1066 to 1900s: This Nation is among the greatest that ever existed, from the battle of Hastings to world war 2 this Nations army has stayed strong. They also had the best navy ever. They are very well drilled and disciplined which are one of the key ingredients of making a good army. With this they controlled over 1/5 of the worlds population at their greatest. They had a lot of colonies all around the world and has had a lot of victories.

England's claim to military prowess rests on 2 foundations.  First they established their primacy as a naval power against Spain and later over the Dutch (a surprisingly difficult process).  They were able to parlay this advantage and create a world spanning empire by seizing territory while simultaneously preventing others from doing the same.

Second under Marlborough in the 18th and Wellington in the 19th Centuries they created a credible ground force.  This army admittedly good could ONLY achieve its goals as part of a coalition.  Without Eugene does anyone claim that Marlborough would have emerged victorious against the French.  Or Wellington against Napoleon without Grouchy and the fear of the approaching Russians, Prussians and Austrians.

In the last century the definition of military futility would be a hard fought contest between the French and the British.  In WW I despite having the game changing technology (the tank) as early as 1916, they were unable to parlay it into success until 1918.  Their grand strategy would have seemed to find another nation to go to war every time they were at their wits end.  First Italy and then the US.

In WWII despite having more and better tanks than the Germans they were routed, fleeing France like a scalded cat.  In North Africa despite having enormous numerical superiority, air parity is not superiority, more and better armour, an enemy at the end of a supply line stretched to the nth degree and the bonus of Enigma intelligence they managed to stop Rommell by a cat's whisker.  At 2nd El Alamein despite even greater superiority across the board and the knowledge of impending US landings in Morocco, they were unable to successfully pursue a shattered German army fast enough to prevent it from creating a successful defense in Tunisia, thereby prolonging the war for at least 6 month.

In Sicily and Italy their operations could at best be described as pedestrian and plodding.

At D-day Montgomery despite weaker than expected resistance was unable to achieve the goals that he himself had set, leading to the prolonged Normandy campaign.  The inability to close the Falaise gap or to allow the Americans to do so prolonged the war considerably.  And the disaster of Market Garden was a classic exercise in snatching defeat out of the jaws of certain victory, not to mention the failure to simply read the intelligence reports and act on them.