Clash of the Best Historical Armies

Who will happen in those clashes?

  • Alexander's Macedonian Army will defeat Caesar's Roman Army

    Votes: 21 13.0%
  • Caesar's Roman Army will defeat Alexander's Macedonian Army

    Votes: 110 68.3%
  • 1st century BC Parthian Army will defeat Khalid's Rashidun Army

    Votes: 26 16.1%
  • Khalid's Rashidun Army will defeat 1st century BC Parthian Army

    Votes: 69 42.9%
  • Trajan's Roman Army will defeat European Crusaders

    Votes: 63 39.1%
  • European Crusaders will defeat Trajan's Roman Army

    Votes: 65 40.4%
  • Genghis' Mongol Army will defeat 16th century AD Spanish Army

    Votes: 74 46.0%
  • 16th century AD Spanish Army will defeat Genghis' Mongol Army

    Votes: 56 34.8%
  • Frederick's Prussian Army will defeat Napoleon's French Army

    Votes: 32 19.9%
  • Napoleon's French Army will defeat Frederick's Prussian Army

    Votes: 95 59.0%
  • 1860s Union Army will defeat 1860s Prussian Army

    Votes: 37 23.0%
  • 1860s Prussian Army will defeat 1860s Union Army

    Votes: 102 63.4%
  • WWI-era BEF will defeat 1920s Red Army

    Votes: 87 54.0%
  • 1920s Red Army will defeat WWI-era BEF

    Votes: 48 29.8%

  • Total voters
    161
What about the armies led by King David or the US 1941-1945)

That would be the US Army that had major defects that Korea illustrated had not changed and finally up and gnawed on the USA's ass in Vietnam? Those defects mattered less in WWII only because the UK and the USSR were also fighting there, by itself the US Army was plenty sufficient to deal with amazingly outweighed Japan but not with either Germany or Italy. As Vietnam again showed the US Army on its WWII framework was very poorly adapted for serious warfighting. The thing about WWII is that it was a coalition war where the Allies balanced each others' weaknesses with their own strengths, a directly atypical pattern of WWII.

As far as David is concerned there's zero historical evidence he ever existed. So........
 
What about the armies led by King David or the US 1941-1945)

King Davids army is near impossible because we don't know that much about that time period and what we do know is spotty at best. The US is hard because they lack suitable comparison groups (they actually fought the army that could have acted as their best competitor so there is little else).
 
Eh, to be fair, the main reason why United States was able to defeat Imperial Germans and Nazis so easily is because they have been "softened" by Britain/Commonwealth/France/Russia/USSR, for years.

Saying that USA was victorious in both World Wars because "Americans have superior fighting ability than Germans", is somewhat...ludicrous.

Also, don't forget about America's economic and industrial power.

More accurately all of the WWII Allies had major weaknesses but in an atypical example of coalition war the UK, USSR, and USA all compensated for each others' weaknesses with their own strengths. The USSR was the brawn, the UK the brains, the USA the moneybags.
 
King Davids army is near impossible because we don't know that much about that time period and what we do know is spotty at best. The US is hard because they lack suitable comparison groups (they actually fought the army that could have acted as their best competitor so there is little else).

When did they fight the Soviets in the WWII timeframe? The Nazis weren't their best competitor, their army was primarily a WWI army with a thin modern film covering the pre-modern mass. Most German soldiers spent WWII propelled by legpower, the US Army rode on trucks. Most German artillery was horse-drawn, US artillery was powered by the internal combustion engine. The Luftwaffe was tactical, the US Air Force both tactical and strategic.

By comparison to everyone else in WWII, the Soviets were by far the only real competitor to the USA. Indeed, the Soviets in some ways originated the concept of modern combined-arms wars. By comparison in the late 1980s to now, there is no competition for the USA at a purely military level.
 
Top