Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2009, 08:13 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 9,128,208 times
Reputation: 3248

Advertisements

I thought it was more than 8 million more like 16 or something. But this is with woman and other auxiliaries I believe. The soviets had a massive army after ww2.

Interesting fact, the WAFFEN SS has had more nationalities fight under one banner than any other military unit in history. From the steppes of the soviet union to croatia, all the way up to norway, even french men, a few britts , japanese, and an american I believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2009, 09:40 PM
 
Location: down south
513 posts, read 1,577,411 times
Reputation: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomadtribes View Post
In the Late 100s into the late 200s, there was a period in China called the Sam-guk-chi. The land was divided into 3 parcels by 3 different warlords. Their names were Yubi, Songwan, and Chio Chio. (These names are all Chinese.) Chio Chio owned most of China at the time, and once he even had an army of 1,600,000. Probably, that was one of the biggest armies that the world at that time ever had until the 20th century.

Don't trust those numbers. For the purpose of psychological warfare against the other side as well as boosting their own soldiers' moral, Chinese generals in ancient times frequently greatly exaggerated the size of their troops, everybody did it and everybody knew everybody else did it. The period of Three Kingdoms was probably the most militaristic period in Chinese history since the First Emperor united China, due to frequent wars among multiple warlords over extended period of time (more than 100 years). By the ratio of soldier to population, warlords back then probably did possess the largest military in Chinese history. But because of many years of relentless fighting among warlords, there was no way anybody in that period could amass a 1,600,000 army. Indeed, modern historians tend to agree that Cao Cao, the most powerful warlord that controlled the most popular and economically developed part of China, at most had 1,600,000 under his rule, that included every breathing soul, from toddlers to people on the death beds. Modern historians estimates that population of the entire China during that period ranged from 2 to 2.5 million people. The smallest and most militaristic kingdom out of three, the Shu kingdom founded by Yubi, had a population about 300,000 to 400,000, smaller than the population under the jurisdiction of many county governments in modern China. But that's the world ancient people lived in. I think a lot of people severely underestimated just how sparsely populated the world was thousands of years ago and how untrustworthy most of the numbers cited by ancient emperors/commanders regarding size of their own military.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2009, 05:33 AM
 
Location: On a Long Island in NY
7,801 posts, read 10,065,238 times
Reputation: 7366
Quote:
Originally Posted by eatfastnoodle View Post
Don't trust those numbers. For the purpose of psychological warfare against the other side as well as boosting their own soldiers' moral, Chinese generals in ancient times frequently greatly exaggerated the size of their troops, everybody did it and everybody knew everybody else did it. The period of Three Kingdoms was probably the most militaristic period in Chinese history since the First Emperor united China, due to frequent wars among multiple warlords over extended period of time (more than 100 years). By the ratio of soldier to population, warlords back then probably did possess the largest military in Chinese history. But because of many years of relentless fighting among warlords, there was no way anybody in that period could amass a 1,600,000 army. Indeed, modern historians tend to agree that Cao Cao, the most powerful warlord that controlled the most popular and economically developed part of China, at most had 1,600,000 under his rule, that included every breathing soul, from toddlers to people on the death beds. Modern historians estimates that population of the entire China during that period ranged from 2 to 2.5 million people. The smallest and most militaristic kingdom out of three, the Shu kingdom founded by Yubi, had a population about 300,000 to 400,000, smaller than the population under the jurisdiction of many county governments in modern China. But that's the world ancient people lived in. I think a lot of people severely underestimated just how sparsely populated the world was thousands of years ago and how untrustworthy most of the numbers cited by ancient emperors/commanders regarding size of their own military.
It's the same thing with the Persian Army when they invaded the Greek city states. First they claimed the Persian Army was so big it "drank entire rivers" and then they claimed it had some super ridiculously high figure of 2,500,000 troops + camp followers

I mean come on, anyone knows that figure in that day and age is impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 01:16 AM
 
Location: down south
513 posts, read 1,577,411 times
Reputation: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006 View Post
It's the same thing with the Persian Army when they invaded the Greek city states. First they claimed the Persian Army was so big it "drank entire rivers" and then they claimed it had some super ridiculously high figure of 2,500,000 troops + camp followers

I mean come on, anyone knows that figure in that day and age is impossible.

Han Dynasty in China, which existed about the same time frame was Roman Empire did, had about 60 to 65 millions people under its rule at the height of its power. Roman Empire, at its height, ruled land and population about the same size (Historians believes that the particular size was probably the maximum size a unified political entity could rule under technological sophistication of that era, anything bigger would inevitably demand the central government to delegate large amount of power to local governors and commanders for defense and various other purposes, which, over the long run, would inevitably lead to political fragmentation and division).

I'm not sure the exact size of Persian Empire, my impression is it's roughly the same as that of Roman Empire and Chinese empire. Anyway, at the height of Han Dynasty, the emperor Wu Di launched an serious of long distance assault against the nomads that spanned thousands of miles , mainly Hun tribes, and scored an series of big victories. Even taken into consideration the tendency of claim much bigger force that he actually commanded, historical material of China indicated that each time, the troop sent by China to battle the Huns never exceeded a few hundreds thousands soldiers. Even with what appeared to very modest troop number, the series of long distance power projection drained the coffer of one of the the richest and biggest empire of that era. So exhausted financially the empire was at the end Wu Di's reign that the emperor himself had to issue apology to the people to engaging in what appeared to be highly successful but also somewhat unnecessary (if all you want is defense of the border) wars. Judging by the actual size of the troop employed by another empire similar in power and size of Persian empire and the financial strain it caused to the empire, it's unlikely that 2.5 million people could be used in ancient times, no matter what kind of war we're talking about.


Another factor that needs to be considered is the much bigger capability of modern industrial economy to support the fielding of troops. Modern machinery, automation and more importantly, superior political, social and economic organization, mean that theoretically under a total war scenario, a country with tens of millions of people could field a military close to ten million people (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan both did it). But for ancient empires, you literally need so much hands to tender crops so that not only average joes, but the elite and the troop themselves could be adequately fed. In another word, a potentially much large percentage of the people must not be allowed to leave their land for extended period of time, otherwise the whole country could collapse into famine. True, political and social factors during ancient time meant that the emperor and king could order every man in fighting age to join the military, but it'd be impossible for them to actual fight anything other than a very short war. (Even today, the US, the world's biggest economy, felt serious budgetary strain maintaining less than 200 thousands troops on battle field for extended period of time. )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Europe
160 posts, read 340,395 times
Reputation: 102
I think the world's most pwerfull army was Soviet army in 1945.
If not taking into account that Americans had nuclear weapons already. :P
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2009, 01:51 PM
 
1 posts, read 3,270 times
Reputation: 11
the largest army was the red army they reached a peak of 30mil personnel
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2009, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Islip Township
958 posts, read 1,098,686 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by paparaciii View Post
I think the world's most pwerfull army was Soviet army in 1945.
If not taking into account that Americans had nuclear weapons already. :P
With respect
If that is true Then why did it take the USA to defete Germany and Japan?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2009, 08:11 PM
 
3,650 posts, read 9,186,553 times
Reputation: 2787
Just read this entire thread from start to finish. Allow me to sum up: nobody knows for sure.

But I agree that one of WW II Russia, WW II America, or modern China is the answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2009, 04:13 PM
 
2,654 posts, read 5,444,402 times
Reputation: 1946
Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2000 View Post
Just read this entire thread from start to finish. Allow me to sum up: nobody knows for sure.

But I agree that one of WW II Russia, WW II America, or modern China is the answer.
As for the modern PRC, they have a large military, but very limited ability to actually project that military power beyond their own borders. I would also question there ability to maintian supply over great diastances, even on the eurasian land mass. So I would take them off the list.

So it gets back to the "Patton scenario" - Could the US have taken out the USSR in 1945 when both countries were at their WW2 peak? I think the answer to that is a resounding yes.

1. The Bomb - US had it, USSR did not.
2. Strategic reserves. The Soviets has depleted their national reserves & resources to feild their army against the Nazis, once they began taking large losses again in an engagement with US forces, they would not have been able to replenish the men & materiel they would need. The country was essentailly exhausted, whereas the US was just reaching its fighting peak and could have continued to expand it warmaking capacity.
3, Air superiority. The USAAF would rapidly acheive it vs the Red AF and it would have been 1941 for the Red army all over again. Supply and armored formations would have been devestated from the sky. Not sure if the B29's flying from Persia could hit the Soviets industrial plants in the Urals, but if so an aggresive strategic bombing campaign would make short work of the soviet war machine.

Army vs. Army in 1945 - it would be a toss up, maybe even advantage to the soviets. But military vs. militray, US industrial might, airpower and technological superiority would win the day.

Therefore I would say the US military in 1945 was the most powerful military in history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2009, 07:18 PM
 
48,505 posts, read 96,514,062 times
Reputation: 18301
By 1944 the US army fighting acitive on two fronts was by far the best. They actaully were supplying much of russias supplies and russia was powerless except for ground forces; many of which were poorly trained peasants . Lookig at US war prodcution that keep the allies going is remarkable in it total really. The arsenal of democray as Chruchill stated.No other country could have done this and produce the atomic bomb. When Hitler was told the produciton he didn't believe it ;it was so high compared to any other country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top