Throughout all of history who had the strongest army?
The United States and former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenals make this question easy.
If you want a more interesting discussion then perhaps you need a more specific or interesting question.
>>528090
The people who didn't stop winning.
Nepal, mostly because I dont really know anywhere else that has had such little outside interest. Apart from brief semi-control from the Indians during the 8th century BC it remained independent till Britain came along and even then they didnt conquer it more turn it into a mass recruitment centre.
>>528090
Whichever end date you set for this question will contain the answer.
Before WW1? The British Empire.
Before Franco-Prussian war? Napoleon.
Pre-Napoleon? One of the European powers, possibly Austria-Hungary.
>>528195
>Before WW1? The British Empire.
lolwhat? France or Prussia easily. Our army was non-existent pre-WWI
t. Brit
>>528090
The US army as of literally right now.
>>528229
British could mobilize more troops than any of those tho, thanks to their resources. So if we go by standing army, yes, you are correct. Otherwise, I'd bet on the British.
>>528090
Does NATO count?
>>528249
Not true, russians have litterally twice the the army size of the whole nato union, when the russians attacked the ukranians the usa tried to come up with defend strategies and even with the help of all of its european allies they still couldn´t find a scenario in their favour, fag.
>>528274
We're not discussing army SIZE.
>>528261
The question was who "had" the strongest army, not who "could've had" the strongest army
>>528283
Oh I´m sorry did you not see the
>no favourable outcome for the US or NATO vs russia?
let me tell you again just so the autistic retard you are might actually be able to comprehend it.
The US found no scenario in which they with or without the whole of NATO could defeat russia in a war now, fuckign illiterary degenerate
>>528283
but anon, only size matters, ask your gf
>>528274
>russians have litterally twice the the army size of the whole nato union,
Don't watch RT anymore
>>528353
Russia stronk
>>528090
Im not good at Ancient or Medieval history so I can tell you only since the beginning of European supremacy in the mid 1400s :
Spain from 15th century to 1643 (Rocroi)
France from 1643 to 1815 (Waterloo)
Russia from 1815 to 1855 (Sevastopol)
Prussia/Germany from 1855 to 1945 (WW2)
Then USA or USSR, but I'd say USA
>>528319
Source? otherwise I call bullshit, the russian army would drain itself of resources within a month if they committed all of it.
>>528358
That doesn't jive with this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel
Both are Wikipedia. Which is right?
>>528418
>beginning of European supremacy in the mid 1400s
>mid 1400s
European Supremacy began around late 18th Century/Early 19th Century
>>528451
Differing sources.
No matter where oyu look, less than 3 million me total, and that counts all reserves.
The Russian anon is just retarded, as is the norm for Russians on the internet.
russia doesn't even have half the population of the US, let alone all of NATO.
Mongols for a long time were pretty much unstoppable.
>>528701
They got stopped pretty often, actually.
>>528184
They never controlled Nepal though. Just made a deal that they would never invade again if they were allowed to recruit. Nepalese were impressed by bravery of brit officers and that they didn't sack towns so took it as a compliment. Pretty sure in ww2 the Nepalese king offered to loan the brits his entire army too. Gurkhas kick ass
>>528712
What? The Mongols didn't get stopped for decades until that battle against some Mamluks
>>528261
No it couldn't. Britain's massive navy meant it went for a professional army of about 200k at the height of its imperial might. Strongest army Britain ever had at any point was from 1917 to the early 1920's. Where it briefly had the strongest land army in europe before it went back to its normal set up. Brit soldiers are often extreamly good individually but basicly never had enough to be considered a land army. Prussians/french/Russians are Europe's natural land powers (and therefore the worlds) for most of modern history up till after ww2
>>529121
>Where it briefly had the strongest land army in europe
Except it didnt
France did (thats part of the reason why everyone was surprised by their performance in 1940)
>>529111
They got stopped at India and Japan.
>>528148
Not relatively speaking both the USSR and the USA were capable of wiping each other out whereas the Mongolian Empire and its military had no existential military threats to it.
>>528683
Ottomans?
>>528195
>Pre-Napoleon? One of the European powers, possibly Austria-Hungary.
>>529153
>existential military threats
"Is there an army waiting at the gates of the empire?"
"Perhaps there never was an army, perhaps we are the enemy of ourselves."
>>528688
Nato is a panic button alliance. Te United States alone has more of a military history than nato.
>>528195
>austria-hungary
>pre-napoloen
>>528667
Not tht anon, but they can pull together 40m riflemen.
>>528418
The Ottoman empire was stronger then the Spain till the financial fallout from the fourth Venetian-Ottoman war, namely from the cost of rebuilding their fleet after the battle of lepanto in 1571. The Spanish and Ottoman empires were both bankrupt by late 1573 & early 1575 respectably, but the Spanish crown recovered much faster.
>so I can tell you only since the beginning of European supremacy in the mid 1400s
A bit of loaded thing to say, because that was during the rise of the Ottomans. I would say that China fell well behind European/Ottoman artillery & firearms starting in ~1423 with invention of the arquebus.
>>529111
India, japan, had SERIOUS issues with the song, stopped repeatedly, stopped by stone castles in Poland and hungary, beaten outright by the mamluks.
They got stopped quite often. Unbeatable mongols is a meme.
>>528090
THe US.
God bless Murrica
>>529249
and the US can pull 140m ...
>>530792
>utterly inexperienced
what was the last external threat China has won against?
>>530781
>>529249
China has 750 million. literally more than both of the US and Russia put together X4 times.
>>530802
and their massive military has been really good at losing wars against anyone and everyone but itself
>>530794
Non but it means nothing since most other countries military personnel don't have experience in combat against other countries personnel.
If you think driving around and IEDs going off every week or two or the odd 10 minute firefight against combatants of maybe 5 fighters you can't even see is valuable experience you're deluded.
>>530821
its more valuable then people who haven't fought a war since, what, the 50s or 60s?
and even when China was fighting a period of nonstop wars with literally everyone, all they ever did was get its ass kicked
>>529153
Typically empires expand until there are no significant external threats. Empires typically fight asymmetric wars.
>>529147
Briefly after ww1 it did. Though it didn't last long. France and Germany suffers much more during the war and the brits finished with a fairly modern looking army with tanks modern tactics and a lot of men. It got rid of it by the early 1920's however.
>>530802
China's problem is that they have zero force projection. Having a big army is all fine and dandy, but you need the ability to move large numbers of troops and pieces of equipment in short periods of time as well.
The US Air Force and Navy are respectfully the two largest air powers on the planet. The US naval fleet is capable of moving enormous amounts of troops and gear around the globe.
>>530792
>current day is China
You're basing this on what, exactly?
>>531024
Sorry meant "respectively" although naval officers are typically polite.
>>528090
Conventional? Warsaw pact.
Nukes included? USSR (but USA has more than enough nukes to wipe them out)
>>529214
>United States alone has more of a military history than nato
Lmao what?
Are you high?
>>530792
>current day is China
How much do they pay shills these days?
