juanjux

Napoleon was defeated by:

- Russia & Russian winter
- Spanish rebels & army (the worst lost of officers, according to Napoleon) on the Iberian Peninsula. Bailén was the first big defeat of Napoleonic army.
- Portuguese & British army on the Iberian Peninsula
- Prusia & British army on central Europe.
- Etc...

If it were not for the bleeding Napoleon got from the Spanish & Russian campaigns, I'm pretty sure his empire would have lasted a lot more.

BTW, the phrase "the empire which the sun never sets" was first said about the Spanish empire, and later copied for the british one: The empire on which the sun never sets - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demosthenes

Thanks for the info. You do have a point there. The Russian Campaign was the REAL turning point of the whole war (why can't people learn NOT to invade Russia in winter?)

Why isn't the Kingdom of Prussia or the Austrian Empire in the choices? They had their fair share of glory too.

deadkenny

Well, the problem with the invasion of Russia is not that the invaders have invaded 'in' the winter... both Napoleon and Hitler invaded in June. However, both underestimated the Russians and how long the campaign would take. Hence they ended up still deep inside Russia when winter came and without the Russians having been completely defeated.

Perhaps Prussia deserves some consideration for the 'Greatest Military'. However, I'm not so sure about Austria. Remember the question is regarding the Military not the extent of their 'empires'. Now, if there was a thread on the 'Greatest Diplomacy' then I would say Austria deserves some serious consideration.

Rocketsci4

I think you all missed the point. There were some posts about Roman vs Mongols and others at this and other sites. The fact is the Roman Legion didn't die when Rome collapsed. It lives on in the US professional army today. It lived on in the British Army of its Empire with the storied regiments that still exist today. The Romans set the stage for a modern, combined arms modern army with discipline and professionalism. If the Romans still ruled today their Legions would look like the British or American Armies. It's that simple.

Officer of Engineers

Ehhh, no, it would look more like the Mongol armies, calvary to be exact.

__________________
Chimo

Rocketsci4

Sorry, I have to disagree with that. You are focused on mobility. Roman legions were a true combined arms military. When they needed archers and cavalry they used them. Their legions were organized much the same as our military is today (with leass of a distiction between nommissioned and non-commissioned officers). Discipline was their mantra; discipline and training. If Rome was in existance today they would be using guided weaponry andunmanned vehicles. But that is trivial compared to what I am talking about. The core values of their military can be traced to the British infantry ssquares of teh 18th and 19th centuries, and our professional military here in the US.

Officer of Engineers

I have absolutely no idea where you get to compare Roman leigons to today's forces. They don't compare, not even close. The C4ISR is litterally a universe away. We hold today with a single company what would've taken 2-3 legions would do. Combined arms existed throughout the world and not just Romans. The Hans, Japanese, and Persians all had it. The Synthians were running circles around Roman legions.

And if you believe that the officer class were not anymore different than the enlisted ...

entropy

The Militia did have a great distinction between commissioned and noncommissioned officers. The latter were often only required to read, while the former were well-educated officers.

As for core values of the military, they are required for a good army to funtion, otherwise an army would simply fall apart.

__________________
If memory serves...

Rocketsci4

You are quite correct -- today's armies comman far more power than the legions did. It's the technologies that make the difference. yes, if we through a Roman legion agianst a company of the US Army or Marines it would be a slaughter (we saw thatin Korea with the Chinese hordes attacking Marine companies). But you are confusing technology with something more basic. The legions were the first true professional army -- that's waht made them so different and so dominant. A legionaire would be quite at home in today's Army once he got over technology shock. He could identify with the unit history and traditions and the concept of professionalism.

entropy

A battle-proven miles would become Ranger or SOF once he got over technology shock. Bad food, corporal punishments, no anaesthetics, humping of gear with a lack of APCs and the courage required to hold the line and fight with the sword tend to make you hard.

Officer of Engineers

He could? Rape. Plunder. Pillage. Genocide. All are illegal. The concept of legal orders versus illegal orders. Would he have a understanding of the Geneva Conventions? Or the Law of War? Was there a concept of proportional force? How about Total War? (that is burn your own crops to starve an invading army?)

And would the samauri be any less professional?

entropy

Pikes, sir. Lots of them.

entropy

Isn't burning your own crops called Scorched Earth? Or is it a part of total war?

As said, discipline would be possible to enforce if we talking about well-disciplined armies. There were armies in the past that were forbidden to plunder and rape. No idea how well it worked, but I've read accounts that it made the locals like them more.

Officer of Engineers

Total war involves the entire population and not just the soldiers.

How many know the difference between a legal order and an illegal order?

Rocketsci4

Actually the Romans had a pretty good idea of laws - that's what differentiated them from most ancient armies. If you read Caeser's Commentaries he was was quite able to control his forces. Pillage and rape occurred only when it served a purpose. Have to run, will continue later.