Greatest Militaries of All Time

**Officer of Engineers** · 31 Jul 07,, 01:21

Originally Posted by deadkenny

OK, well then I guess you simply have a different definition of what constitutes a 'professional army'. Not sure why them being a 'volunteer force' supports that supposition. In the usage of the term I am familiar with, 'professional armies' have been based on conscription.

A volunteer force is automatically a professional army but a professional army is not necessary a volunteer force. The people chosed their profession.

**lazybastard** · 31 Jul 07,, 01:27

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

There's a big difference between a legate and a sergeant. And those 1000-1500 years is exactly why Roman legionaries will not fit into today's army and it's just not technology shock but culture shock as well.

All will require at least a high school education which is alot higher than most even educated Romans got. Roman soldiers will not understand why they need to read Shakespeare in order to fight.

Professional armies existed since the days of the caveman. When you have people who does nothing but fight - that's a professional army.

Sir, there are plenty of instances of Roman centurions acting as diplomats to German chiefs, helping collect taxes, and settling local disputes.

**lazybastard** · 31 Jul 07,, 01:29

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

A volunteer force is automatically a professional army but a professional army is not necessary a volunteer force. The people chosed their profession.

Would that make the American volunteers who fought in the Mexican-American War fall under the category of being a "professional army"?

**Officer of Engineers** · 31 Jul 07,, 01:40

Originally Posted by lazybastard

Sir, there are plenty of instances of Roman centurions acting as diplomats to German chiefs, helping collect taxes, and settling local disputes.

Major equivalent rank at the company level garrison. You will find that all over the map and timeline. I'm speaking specifically of platoon houses and checkpoints out in the middle of nowhere.

**Officer of Engineers** · 31 Jul 07,, 01:41

Originally Posted by lazybastard

Would that make the American volunteers who fought in the Mexican-American War fall under the category of being a "professional army"?

Mercenaries by definition are professionals.

**lazybastard** · 31 Jul 07,, 01:53

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Major equivalent rank at the company level garrison. You will find that all over the map and timeline. I'm speaking specifically of platoon houses and checkpoints out in the middle of nowhere.

Is it that big of a difference? The next step down from a 60-80 man century would have been an 8 man tent. The centurion was also the lowest level commissioned officer in a Roman army. Major equivalent rank would hardly fit the description of the average centurion, unless you are talking about the First Spear (Senior centurion in the 1st Cohort).

**lazybastard** · 31 Jul 07,, 02:10

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Mercenaries by definition are professionals.

Sir, I'm gonna have to join deadkenny over there in disliking your definition of what constitutes a professional force. If the undisciplined mob that is the average American volunteer regiment of the Mexican-American War, the 90-day volunteer of the American Civil War, and a 20 year veteran Roman Legion, all fall under the definition of being a professional force. Then being a professional force, by definition, conveys ZERO advantages in terms of combat effectiveness.

**Rocketsci4** · 31 Jul 07,, 02:25

I never said that the German army prior to WW1 was not a professional army -- and yes, the Janissaries were certainly a professional army and were the inheritors of the legions by the Eastern Empire. Anyway, it was a fun discussion, and I still rate the Roman legions up there.

**lazybastard** · 31 Jul 07,, 02:46

Originally Posted by Rocketsci4

I never said that the German army prior to WW1 was not a professional army -- and yes, the Janissaries were certainly a professional army and were the inheritors of the legions by the Eastern Empire. Anyway, it was a fun discussion, and I still rate the Roman legions up there.

See, in my mind, a professional army is one that has war as their full-time employment. It doesn't matter if the method of recruitment method was volunteer, conscription, bought on the slave market, or came out of a pez dispenser with the label "just add water". In that case, the regular German army in WWI would be considered professional, but their reservist components and the landswehr would not.

**Rocketsci4** · 31 Jul 07,, 03:18

Well,a conscript army can be a professional army in a sense. I had said that the American army was not a professional army in WWII and in that I was partially wrong. By the end of the war they were -- four years of war does that. But after the war, the American army drew down and you went back to the core professionals until the next flare-up, namely Korea.

Augustus established the Roman army as 28 legions. Another change that was made: the standard of a legion, the so-called aquila (eagle) was the very symbol of the unit's honour. The aquilifer who was the man who carried the standard was in rank almost as high as a centurion. It was this elevated and honourable position which also made him the soldiers' treasurer in charge of the pay chest.

For three centuries these 28 legions protected the Empire, patrolled the frontiers, and, in many places, provided the only law that existed. Starting with Adrianople, infantry began to be replaced by the cavlary. To me it's not clear that this occurred because the cavalry was now superior to the infantry (though the stirrup had yet to be introduced) or was it just the simple deteoriation of the Roman armies by being stretched too thin and having to plug too many holes in the border. It's a great debate that has been going on forever...

**Officer of Engineers** · 31 Jul 07,, 06:33

Originally Posted by lazybastard

Is it that big of a difference? The next step down from a 60-80 man century would have been an 8 man tent.

There is a big difference ... even in those old days. You are no longer in control of the situation but rather trusting others to do your will.

Originally Posted by lazybastard

Sir, I'm gonna have to join deadkenny over there in disliking your definition of what constitutes a professional force.

Don't get too caught up in definitions here. Despite what DK claims, real military only have one definition - the Geneva Conventions. You fall under that, you're professional military. If you don't, you're an illegal combatant.

My arguments for the Cribs and the Bloods is simple. If you ignore the political considerations (which is completely arbituary), then they are professional military.

As for mercs, well, you get what you pay for.

**Esskay** · 31 Jul 07,, 07:04

I am not very sure what's the debate about professionalism. "An army is an instrument of the state for defence from within and without" - Kautilya (Arthashastra). When the state is legal, the army is legal.
Professional (as against Amateur - as in tennis players) meaning selling services for money - would class mercenaries as professional. Not a welcome thought in military circles.
However usual parlance has "professional military" as a force maintained by the state (conscript or volunteer) with professional (as against 'emotional') attitude towards the job. When there is planning, training and simulation to top the real battle-scarring of the organization.
Thats my two-penny.
Regards and its nice to be back to WAB

**entropy** · 31 Jul 07,, 12:46

Originally Posted by deadkenny

Well, perhaps 'conscript' was not the best term to use. Many of the European armies depended upon compulsary military service for their 'professional' 'standing' armies. If the German army prior to WWI was not a 'professional army', then I'm not sure what is. If a definition is constructed that leads to extremely counterintuitive conclusions, then I deem the definition to be flawed. Any definition of 'professional army' that excludes the Germany army but includes LA gangs is obviously flawed IMHO.

There is also a difference between a 'professional soldier' and a 'professional army'.

A professional army consists of professional soldiers. People who do nothing but fight. Otherwise we have something like the Citizen's Defence Force.

**~~deadkenny~~** · 31 Jul 07,, 13:38

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

...Don't get too caught up in definitions here. Despite what DK claims, real military only have one definition - the Geneva Conventions. You fall under that, you're professional military. If you don't, you're an illegal combatant.

My arguments for the Cribs and the Bloods is simple. If you ignore the political considerations (which is completely arbituary), then they are professional military.....

Well, this particular thread of discussion started when you defined any group that did nothing but fight as a ‘professional army’. In a subsequent post, in response to me, you appeared to ‘elaborate’ a bit, adding some additional criteria, specifically:

“They are a volunteer force, have a chain of command, a rudimentary C3, clear perimeters, and uniforms to boot.”

Further elaborating that:

“A volunteer force is automatically a professional army but a professional army is not necessary a volunteer force. The people chosed their profession.”

So, according to your definition, you would consider groups to constitute a ‘professional army’ that no one else would, certainly no governments, nor the UN, and not according to the ‘Geneva Conventions’. Does the US have to treat arrested members of gangs as PoW’s? I simply don’t agree with your definition, and the fact that it would include groups such as ‘street gangs’ as members of ‘professional armies’ just highlights the flaw in your definition IMHO.

I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be ‘claming’, since I’ve not tried to construct a definition thus far. I’ve simply given counterexamples which point out the fallacies in your definition. For my part I ‘know one when I see one’ and the German army was a ‘professional army’ IMHO, in spite of it’s use of compulsory military service and ‘street gangs’ are not in spite of whatever superficial characteristics they may share with ‘real’ professional armies.

Originally Posted by entropy

A professional army consists of professional soldiers. People who do nothing but fight. Otherwise we have something like the Citizen's Defence Force.

If you’re saying that ‘professional armies’ consist of nothing but long service ‘professional soldiers’, then there have been practically no ‘professional armies’ anywhere in history. Going back in history, there have been armies based on ‘feudal levies’, ‘citizen soldiers’ who would tend their lands in the Greek Classical and Roman eras. As I noted previously, European standing armies would rely on a period of compulsory military service for their ‘standing’ armies and would increase their armies during times of war via call up of reservists and / or conscription. Such a narrow definition as you propose would be virtually meaningless as there would hardly be any instances that exist or have ever existed. Admittedly, if you did find an example I would agree that it does constitute a ‘professional army’ (unlike LA gangs).

**VarSity** · 31 Jul 07,, 15:16

I have voted for Neapolitan period British.

This is mainly because I have finished reading a few books on Wellington, regarding both the Indian campaigns and the Portuguese campaign (against the French). Some great victories there, also the the birth of the rifles (as in the regiments) more on less kick started modern infantry.

The British Army of that time typifies a well trained and well drilled army being capable of defeating a far numerically superior force. In many cases, against the odds.

I find it odd there is such a large amount of people voting for the modern US army. Yeh its the best in the world atm, but other than the Second world War (and even this you could argue wasn't a was they would ever lose) it has not fault any wars that it HAD to win. The USA has never fought for its very existence and has never won a war it was unlikely to win. An Army needs to have been tested to and beyond its limits to be on this list imo.