Most powerful ancient army

Which had the best military?

  • The Mongols

    Votes: 48 31.2%
  • Rome

    Votes: 76 49.4%
  • Alexander the Great's Macedonia

    Votes: 14 9.1%
  • Persia

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Sparta

    Votes: 3 1.9%
  • Athens

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 11 7.1%

  • Total voters
    154
  • Poll closed .
Bump/ why macadon is the best
A, yes it fell apart when Alexander the Great died but he died young evan for his time, give him a few more years and you'll have a stable empire
B, it steam rolled Persia
C, instead of having the conquered people greekify the Greeks adapted to the new lands
D, it was the most diverse army
Macadon : Speerman, archers, Calvary, Swords men, Chariots, Elephants
Rome: Leigionares, Aluxuries, Archers, Calvary AND only the Legionaries were really respected.
Being diverse=/=best army. Seriously, the Roman auxillaries made up somewhere around half the army. They came from various different backgrounds, had various different fighting styles, etc. While Roman cavalry was not good, Roman auxillary cavalry was pretty good. Their archers were usually auxillary archers, and in the east, specifically the Syrian archers, they did very well against the Persians.

Plus, you know, the Roman army continually bested the Hellenistic armies (though I admit, give the Hellenistic armies some commanders who know how to use them right, and the Romans should lose some of their major battles like Magnesia).
 
Well, its not as if the Romans intentionally left it all in the hands of swordsmen and never bothered to have any tactics for the others.

True - but the romans developed a combined arms system that was applied (with variations) for five centuries. Alexander inherited a disciplined force and used it brilliantly together but the key factor was Alexander not the army.

The phalanx could in theory best a legion but rarely fought on equal terms

By the time of Magnesia and Pydna it was the Romans who excelled at bring combined arms to the battle (elephants and auxillaries) to highlight their opponents weaknesses.

Place an Alexander or even a Pyrrhus in charge of an Alexandrian or early Successor army against Roman armies of the punic wars and it's an even match (or even slightly favouring Macedonians) Place Pompey or Caesar in charge of a triumvirate era army against a late Seleucid or Pontic army and its no contest
 
I'm certainly not an expert on ancient armies, but I went with Rome, largely because of organization, logistics, and professionalism. Armies have other purposes than fighting wars. The Roman army was not only a state tool for conquest, but also for administration and, through the use of local troops serving under Roman command, it helped provide some upward social mobility for its soldiers and unify the Roman Empire as a multi-ethnic state
 
On the Han Army, despite China's historic economic strength, often, that rarely enough translated into military power. Chinese philosophy often stigmatized military service relative to scholarly study, whereas in Rome, it was an essential part of the cursus honorum, military forces in Han China, in fact, were often little more than glorified police forces. You don't really get the serious technological revolutions until the Song Dynasty; during times of war, Chinese levies tend to be of extremely poor quality. In warfare, I think Rome would probably beat China.
 
True - but the romans developed a combined arms system that was applied (with variations) for five centuries. Alexander inherited a disciplined force and used it brilliantly together but the key factor was Alexander not the army.

Doesn't that make it so the Macedonians didn't, by and large, use "everything to the maximum"?
 
Doesn't that make it so the Macedonians didn't, by and large, use "everything to the maximum"?

It's the confusing poll which specifies Alexander's army not Hellenistic armies in general. Alexander did use everything combined - the later Successors devolved to brute force phalanx and elephant attacks.
 
On the Han Army, despite China's historic economic strength, often, that rarely enough translated into military power. Chinese philosophy often stigmatized military service relative to scholarly study, whereas in Rome, it was an essential part of the cursus honorum, military forces in Han China, in fact, were often little more than glorified police forces. You don't really get the serious technological revolutions until the Song Dynasty; during times of war, Chinese levies tend to be of extremely poor quality. In warfare, I think Rome would probably beat China.

I don't underestimate the Chinese. Hunnu or Xiongnu were one of the strongest ancient Empire. However Han chinese could beat them militarily and destroy their empire. So Han Chinese had strong military. They held hegemon over East Asia.
I believe remnants of Hunnu or Xiongnu were Huns and they made havoc on Romans.
 
It's the confusing poll which specifies Alexander's army not Hellenistic armies in general. Alexander did use everything combined - the later Successors devolved to brute force phalanx and elephant attacks.

Or what type of Rome we're dealing with. Pre-Polybian, Polybian, Marian, Imperial, or Late Imperial? Each time I mention has a significant level of difference, both in terms of equipment and formations.

And you're right. Both Phillip II and Alexander the Great's army formation is far different from the forces at Pydna that the Romans fought. For one thing, phalanxes were never the main arm of Alexander's army. Oh sure, they were used in that capacity from time to time (like at Hydaspes), but they were usually used as an anvil to pin the enemy forces. It was the cavalry's job to perform the offensive duties of the army during that time period. Alexander also was known to recruit large numbers of light infantry as well, so while the phalanx would be a major constituent of the army, they rarely dominated the field.

And on top of that, which Persia are we talking about? Achaemenid, Seleucid, Parthian, or Sassanid? I'm asking because once again that has some important differences in logistics, equipment and structure.

Because of that, I'm going with Alexander's army. While you could argue that nomads like the Mongols (or Scythians, Sarmatians, Saka, Dahae, whatever) could trounce an army like that, I'm loathe to give the title to peoples who are more willing to loot the countryside, and rarely develop any capacity for siege or logistics (unless they use client states to supply it). As for the other guys, the army beat two of them decisively, and the other two are poorly explained.
 
Last edited:
On the Han Army, despite China's historic economic strength, often, that rarely enough translated into military power. Chinese philosophy often stigmatized military service relative to scholarly study, whereas in Rome, it was an essential part of the cursus honorum, military forces in Han China, in fact, were often little more than glorified police forces. You don't really get the serious technological revolutions until the Song Dynasty; during times of war, Chinese levies tend to be of extremely poor quality. In warfare, I think Rome would probably beat China.

You raise some good points about the different ideas about war in both cultures. Rome was a professional army, China was more of a militia, therefor romans had better training, however by that time the Chinese were centuries ahead of the romans when it came to technology, the crossbow, the repeating crossbow, chemical warfare,etc etc. most importantly the chinese can rely on the fact they can easily wield an army of over a million in a single battle so Rome can win battles but if there was a war the romans will run out of men
 

scholar

Banned
You raise some good points about the different ideas about war in both cultures. Rome was a professional army, China was more of a militia, therefor romans had better training, however by that time the Chinese were centuries ahead of the romans when it came to technology, the crossbow, the repeating crossbow, chemical warfare,etc etc. most importantly the chinese can rely on the fact they can easily wield an army of over a million in a single battle so Rome can win battles but if there was a war the romans will run out of men
The Chinese did use militias, but there was always a professional and highly skilled army on the frontier and also a professional army at the capital. Xiongnu and other "barbarian" auxiliaries were one of five divisions under the control of the capital.
 
Top