| Author |
Topic:
Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 2:19pm
Subject:
Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
Are the French so useless? Are the Germans so tenacious? Are the Swiss so neutral?
In the interests of the sheer joy of watching fellow Senators verbally stab each other in the neck, I've considered mocking up a whole NEW system by which we can come to hate one another.
If the mods lock it before fun begins, well that's the way it crumbles.
The purpose of this thread is to examine the current nations of today and how they have performed on the battlefield currently and historically in order to come up with a ranking of who's the best, who's the worst, and what if any traits seem to be associated with what nation's militaries.
I propose, to start off, working out a tally of wins, losses and ties that is somehow averaged -- or handicapped as in golf -- by the amount of years a nation has been around. The longer the history, the greater the handicap, or perhaps vice-versa.
Also factored into a given conflict would be the presence of allies (or lack thereof), and how instrumental the ally was in contributing to victory or defeat.
For instance, a general comparison for history:
France vs. America
One could say France has suffered defeat after defeat. To be sure, France has lost many conflicts. But at the same time France has had a MUCH longer history than America. Therefore it does not seem fair that every French "loss" should count as much as an American one. Similarly, neither should every French "victory" count as much as an American one either since it's also had the oppertunity for more victories.
Likewise, a comparison of alliances:
Britain-Russia(WWI) vs. Germany-Italy(WWII)
Depending on the country, the effects of the alliance are very different. In WWI, the alliance between Britain and Russia tends to largely balance out (unlike in WWII where I think Britian ended up needing Russia more than than the other way around). Neither side much helped the other, although the British did provide the Russians with German military codes that they had found on the body of a dead German officer earlier in the war. So in terms of how the British or the Russians fared in WWI, it's largely a 50-50 wash at least as far as this particular ally is concerned.
Meanwhile, the German-Italian alliance of WWII is clearly much different. It's no secret that not only did the Italians play a subservient partner on the battlefield, they often became a hinderance rather than a help. Not only does Germany play the greater part in this alliance, it could be argued German armies would have performed better strategically had Italy just remained neutral.
Therefore, the basic formula would be something like, at a high level:
ranking = (victory count) - (history handicap) +- (ally contribution/encumberance)
Feel free to add any nation you like, or argue in any form you like... this is why I placed v1.0: this is a pretty free-form idea at the moment.
The only rule I would like to place other than a rough means of rating is that this is CURRENT nations. They only go from the point of a nation's cohesive existance onward. Therefore Ancient Rome is NOT modern Italy, and Ancient Rome will not appear on this list.
Likewise, the Ancient Gauls are NOT the modern French, nor the Britons the modern English.
However, transitions are allowed through previous governments and systems that ruled the same "nation" in succession. Therefore modern Russia still covers from now back through the communists to the Czars. France can go back to Charlemagne's death or so. Britain back to the fallout of 1066.
In terms of nations that were formally known as other entities, there has to be proof the dominant party is consistent. Germany MIGHT have claim to former Prussia and Turkey MAY have claim to the Ottoman Empire if it can be established that it can be thought of as the same core "nation", but modern Austria and modern Hungary are NOT the Austro-Hungarian empire. Entire collapse and dissolution of the state in question = not on the list.
In the case of 'nations' within others, we default to who is the representative body. Scotland cannot be on this list: only Britain, which is the inheritor of English (but not scottish) military history. Likewise if it's judged Germany and Prussia can be thought of as the same, Germany is the inheritor of Prussia's military history, but not that of Bavaria, and Bavaria is simply not represented.
For nations that have disappeared and reappeared, the nation is only allowed to be represented if it's departure from the world stage has been for a short period of time. Modern Lithuania does not count for Medieval Lithuania the way Britian counts for Medieval England, or Modern Japan could count for Medieval Japan. Naturally, it helps a lot if the Nation in question re-emeges with it's borders nearly identical to those it had when it faded from the scene.
Toward this end, I propose civil wars are NOT counted, whether they be the Wars of the Roses, Russia's Reds vs Whites, Japan's "Age of the country at War", or the American civil war. Therefore all sides in these sorts of conflicts can be thought of as the same country as the territory upon which they fought is now all part of the modern nation we know.
So to kick off, I'll list, not rank but list, the nations currently in existance that have factored into in the highest profile wars I can remember, both modern and old:
-Britain
-France
-Germany
-Russia
-The United States
-China
-India
-Italy
-Spain
-Switzerland
-Belgium
-Israel
-Syria
-Egypt
-Pakistan
-Japan
-Iran
-Iraq
-Vietnam
-N. Korea
-S. Korea
-The Netherlands
-Sweden
Again, posters can feel to post however they like and are encouraged to give thier own rankings, taking out and putting in who they like. Perhaps, if the mods think it's a good idea, a master ranking can be periodically be updated by one of them based on arguments put forward by others.
That or, you know, this thread can get locked, thrown in the trash and nobody ever hears about it again.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 2:24pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
|
Do you want to treat it as which country is best per person involved, or simply which country itself is stronger, in which case there is a natural advantage to larger countries?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 2:26pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
- Date Edited:
8/10/07 2:27pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Gonk
|
I think you're right Lowbacca -- that can be something else to factor into the ranking.
If a nation distinguished itself in an incredible defense that it lost due to simply being overwhelmed by a much more incompetent but numerically superior enemy, that should count to be of less magnitude than an embrassing loss of a country of whatever capacity that just "folded up shop".
Or greater magnitude, however you'r judging it... whatever, you know what I mean.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 2:42pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
The ranking has to include some scaled weighting for "if backed into a corner, might nuke you
a)back to the stone age,
b)back to the Middle Ages,
c)into a homicidal rage."
So,
United States (a)
Russia (a)
France (a)
UK (a)
China (a-b)
Israel (a-b)
India (a-b)
Pakistan (b-c)
North Korea (c)
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darthdrago
Registered:
Dec '03
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 2:50pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
Sweden?
They haven't officially fought in a war for what, 300 years?
Another question, Gonk: since we're not including civil wars/insurgencies/revolutions, does that mean that conflicts involving professional militaries versus guerillas are up for consideration? Say for example:
USA vs VietCong and/or NVA (obviously)
Soviet Union vs Afghan Mujahadeen (obviously)
France vs VietMinh (iffy)
France vs Algerian FLN (iffy)
Netherlands vs Indonesian insurgents (forgot their name  )
Israel vs PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah (stretching it)
Sri Lanka vs Tamil Tigers (pushing it, I know)
Great Britain vs Haganah/Stern Gang (pushing it)
Great Britain vs Provisional IRA (REALLY pushing it, but...)
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 3:18pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
- Date Edited:
8/10/07 3:31pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Gonk
|
The ranking has to include some scaled weighting for "if backed into a corner, might nuke you
a)back to the stone age,
b)back to the Middle Ages,
c)into a homicidal rage."
So,
United States (a)
Russia (a)
France (a)
UK (a)
China (a-b)
Israel (a-b)
India (a-b)
Pakistan (b-c)
North Korea (c)
That will have to be done on a conflict-by-conflict basis, first of all. We might have to go win by win and loss by loss. But then, long winded postings are what Senate threads are for...
Also, I'm not sure if this counts all THAT much. Every nation except the US has not used it's nuclear component in warfare, and in the one case the US did use it, I think the state of its military versus the Japanese can be well extrapolated from the previous years.
EDIT: Thinking about it, you might be saying "yeah, this nation fared like this in this war, but if they had resorted to nuclear weapons they would have won it and that should be counted".
If that's the case for argument, I don't agree -- yes, the nation in question is holding back, but I would judge the use of nuclear weapons as a "triumph" (if it can be described as such) of science rather than of military. True, using nukes can win you a war... but in terms of conventional military skill as judged here, you've also cheated by relying on a superweapon and rendered military skill irrelevant.
Sweden?
They haven't officially fought in a war for what, 300 years?
A war is a war though, and Sweden, so far as I know, is inherited from the Kingdom of Sweden which has an established military history.
Another question, Gonk: since we're not including civil wars/insurgencies/revolutions, does that mean that conflicts involving professional militaries versus guerillas are up for consideration? Say for example:
It's only up for consideration is a foreign power was directly involved with significant numbers on the battlefield. A legitimate "army". I think of your 9 examples:
USA vs VietCong and/or NVA (obviously)
Yes, this counts
Soviet Union vs Afghan Mujahadeen (obviously)
Yep. Counts.
France vs VietMinh (iffy)
France vs Algerian FLN (iffy)
Actually I think both these count. I'm not concerned if the forces are regular or irregular. However relative numbers count. Nobody's gonig to say because someone threw a 500 troop contingent in the middle of a million man conflict that it counts for something.
Now if it's not a conflict that stretches over multiple acts of violence over time (US getting bombed in Lebanon and leaving), that IS more iffy...
Netherlands vs Indonesian insurgents (forgot their name doh! )
I'm not familiar with this one so I'm uncertain.
Israel vs PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah (stretching it)
This is stretching it and I'm going to say not counted, simply because the existance of Palestine is at this point up in the air.
Sri Lanka vs Tamil Tigers (pushing it, I know)
This would not be counted. I think technically this is more of a civil war.
Great Britain vs Haganah/Stern Gang (pushing it)
Great Britain vs Provisional IRA (REALLY pushing it, but...)
I'm more unfamiliar with the stern gang, and I wouldn't count Britian versus the IRA. But perhaps the earlier conflicts between Britain and Ireland... the earlier victories from the British perspective of wins and losses, and from both perspectives when the British finally had to cede independance.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi Wan Bergkamp
Registered:
Oct '98
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 4:14pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
I dunno why you are expecting any arguement, the best military/most warmongering nation in the world is obviously the British.
Here are a few reasons why
1} Never been successfully invaded {since you have 1066 as the cut off point  }
2} Ruled an empire on which the sun never set
3} The royal navy has existed for longer tham some countries on your list
4} Have been involved in some way in most of the major conflicts of the past 150 years
5} Was part of the only war ever between two democracies {Britain v Finland. In WW2 Finland declared war on Russia, so Britain declared war on Finland}
6} Won a war fought in the opposite hemisphere on a group of island right next to the country that invaded them.
7} The SAS
I'm sure there will be lots of jostling for second place though
-----signature-----
Stand up if you hate Tottenham
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kol_Skywalker
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 4:57pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
I'm suprised that you haven't included Australia in your initial list for discussion. Here is an example of some of the conflicts that the land 'Down Under' has been involved with:
* Boer War
* World War I
* World War II
* Vietnam
* Iraq I & II
Whilst we are a small country population wise, we have a very good reputation internationally in regards to our military. I believe that the Germans in WW2 had respect for us (Rommel?), and likewise the USA for our special forces - I believe that we were actually first in Iraq in 2003?
-----signature-----
I'm not a Fanboy... I'm a FANMAN!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 5:00pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
Eh Australia doesn't deserve to be there IMO. Our contribution has always been supportive rather than from our own initative with the exception of INTERFET.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 5:16pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
Well, Britain stands to be up there. Keep in mind though:
1) Britain's very long history may serve to work against it. While the losses count for less than say, America's, so do the victories.
2) The mere fact of not getting invaded doesn't necessarily count for all THAT much. Especially when you're on an island. Frankly, the fact that Germany, a country with many borders was successfully invaded only when THREE other world powers ganged up on it counts for more.
I'm thinking I might characterize these rankings where a victory where your allies are worth thier weight in gold and you severely outnumber your enemy might be worth not much more than a defeat that was fantastically pulled off by a single nation, alone, with depleted resources.
3) Britain has lost a few conflicts too, let's not forget. They lost the American Revolution, for instance.
Basically, even though it's a cliche, my money's on the Germans.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
GrandAdmiralPelleaon
Registered:
Oct '00
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 5:19pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
|
So, uhm, does Belgium only count from 1830 onwards, or do we get credit for victory/losses as part of larger Empires, in which our troops fought on the side of current "controlling" power? Like say, Napoleonic Wars or when fighting alongside Austrian troops, or Spanish-Habsburgian troops?
-----signature-----
Etre une heure, rien qu'une heure durant
Beau, beau, beau et con à la fois!
Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 5:21pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
Ender_Sai posted:
Eh Australia doesn't deserve to be there IMO. Our contribution has always been supportive rather than from our own initative with the exception of INTERFET.
E_S
Well, the issue seems to be military strength, rather than warfare iniatiative.. The strength has been tested, even if they didn't lead in to battle, and their success/failure could, theoretically, be discussed
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 5:26pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
Well our strength would be relatively skewed because of our contributions and losses being relatively low. If you compare the percentage of casualties to overall deployment in Vietnam vs the US, it's laughably low (and that's due to professionalism and soldiering ability more than anything else). So our high participation and low death rate would make us appear stronger and I don't think that's accurate or right.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 5:28pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
So, uhm, does Belgium only count from 1830 onwards, or do we get credit for victory/losses as part of larger Empires, in which our troops fought on the side of current "controlling" power? wink Like say, Napoleonic Wars or when fighting alongside Austrian troops, or Spanish-Habsburgian troops?
During those times? No, unless the nation was in a short time of non-independance. It would at the very least have to be considered a long-seperate territory and the people constantly revolting saying they were a different nationality or something, and have borders most people acknowledged. See my reference to Scotland and Bavaria.
So, unless there's anything you haven't included, 1830 onwards. It's better than those places get.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 5:47pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
|
Ender_Sai posted:
Well our strength would be relatively skewed because of our contributions and losses being relatively low. If you compare the percentage of casualties to overall deployment in Vietnam vs the US, it's laughably low (and that's due to professionalism and soldiering ability more than anything else). So our high participation and low death rate would make us appear stronger and I don't think that's accurate or right.
E_S
Thats part of my original question on how to handle different sized countries.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
8/10/07 7:27pm
Subject:
RE: Historical Military rankings v1.0
- Date Edited:
8/10/07 7:29pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
Gonk posted:
Also, I'm not sure if this counts all THAT much. Every nation except the US has not used it's nuclear component in warfare, and in the one case the US did use it, I think the state of its military versus the Japanese can be well extrapolated from the previous years.
imho you have to factor in nukes. Shouldn't we think about the battles a nation didn't have to fight simply because it was/is so badass? The Soviet Union and the U.S. for example - a 45 year standoff based entirely on justified mutual intimidation. Achieving a successful half century cold war against a victor of WW2?
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
