What military force was the most efficient ever?

[Napkiraly]

Spanish Conquistadors were pretty efficient. They conquered the Aztecs and the Incas with relatively small amounts of men. Although, disease was a factor amongst the enemy.

Never thought of that one. There were only a couple thousand of them, and they conquered practically an entire continent's-worth of indigenous peoples (but yes, with the aid of illnesses).

And indigenous allies. Though the conquistadors were able to achieve great victories, even when it was only Spanish troops involved. Such as the Battle of Cajamarca and Puna.

[Napkiraly]

They were talking about the Mongols in the second bit, not Alexander's empire.

That said, I would say the Macedonians under Alexander and his father Philip were certainly quite efficient.

It would help if we knew what "efficiency" means in this context.

More with less is certainly a factor, I'd reckon.

[Napkiraly]

The Romans were the best at military organisation, but the Mongols have the record for largest empire, most territory conquered, and largest cavalry armies.

Largest contiguous empire... Despite the impressive size and speed of Mongol expansion, Britain unfortunately still possessed the larger empire by 700,000km².

I don't see how it's unfortunate that Britain had the largest empire.

[The Tungsten Horde (Ancient)]

It would help if we knew what "efficiency" means in this context.

More with less is certainly a factor, I'd reckon.

In that case, I'm not sure if any historical military force could possibly rival even the most modest modern nuclear power.

[Napkiraly]

More with less is certainly a factor, I'd reckon.

In that case, I'm not sure if any historical military force could possibly rival even the most modest modern nuclear power.

I think considering the technological level they possessed in their given time period also applies. Unless we wish to end the thread here and say "USA, UK, France, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, China".

[Unnamed island state]

Tonga's.

[Napkiraly]

Tonga's.

Tonga is like a future Mongolia. No one expects much, but one day we'll all be sorry we underestimated them. *nod*

[The Tungsten Horde (Ancient)]

In that case, I'm not sure if any historical military force could possibly rival even the most modest modern nuclear power.

I think considering the technological level they possessed in their given time period also applies. Unless we wish to end the thread here and say "USA, UK, France, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, China".

It's just very hard to do any sort of adequate analysis of how a military performed with what they had. How do you say whether Napoleon's Grande Armée could have done better with what they had? Does the incompetence of their adversaries count? Because their performance seems to very considerably based on how, and who, and where they're fighting. Similarly with technological sophistication. The British may have gunned down endless Zulus, but I'd actually give more credit to the Africans based on the "with what they had" logic.

I will say that the Macedonians had a very well thought out army. Same with the Mongols.

[Unnamed island state]

Tonga's.

Tonga is like a future Mongolia. No one expects much, but one day we'll all be sorry we underestimated them. *nod*

They removed a libertarian threat in 1972 and 1982. Not something many nations can brag about.

[Mashalgd]

More with less is certainly a factor, I'd reckon.

In that case, I'm not sure if any historical military force could possibly rival even the most modest modern nuclear power.

We're basing efficiency off of what the military force did, in their historical time period, versus who they fought. Not ludicrous comparisons like asking if the Prussian Army could go up against a nuclear power today. Just trying to clear what I'm meaning when talking about "efficiency"

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Largest contiguous empire... Despite the impressive size and speed of Mongol expansion, Britain unfortunately still possessed the larger empire by 700,000km².

I don't see how it's unfortunate that Britain had the largest empire.

It might be considered unfortunate if you're Kenyan, or maybe have some Tasmanian aboriginal ancestry. Amoung other examples.

[Grand Britannia]

Tonga's.

Tonga is like a future Mongolia. No one expects much, but one day we'll all be sorry we underestimated them. *nod*

Sounds like the future Luxembourgian Empire.

[Salus Maior]

And indigenous allies. Though the conquistadors were able to achieve great victories, even when it was only Spanish troops involved. Such as the Battle of Cajamarca and Puna.

Having horses, steel, and gunpowder helped them out there.

[The Peoples East Africa]

The Mongols were definitely one of the best. Forging the second largest empire of all time in such a short time, even if Genghis died before it reached its maximum. Couldn't have conquered all of Europe, even if their Khan hadn't died and force them back to the capital.
Alexander the Great and Macedon were another contender for it. Never losing a battle, and conquering the biggest empire in the world's history till that point in a few years shows they had an insanely good military.
Then there's Hannibal bringing Rome to its knees, then Scipio and the Romans beating Hannibal, and then Napoleon conquering most of Europe, too many to decide.

[Napkiraly]

I don't see how it's unfortunate that Britain had the largest empire.

It might be considered unfortunate if you're Kenyan, or maybe have some Tasmanian aboriginal ancestry. Amoung other examples.

I could say the same thing about Russians, Hungarians, Arabs, Persians, etc. when it comes to the Mongols on that basis.

[Rio Cana]

Never thought of that one. There were only a couple thousand of them, and they conquered practically an entire continent's-worth of indigenous peoples (but yes, with the aid of illnesses).

And indigenous allies. Though the conquistadors were able to achieve great victories, even when it was only Spanish troops involved. Such as the Battle of Cajamarca and Puna.

Seems some are forgetting that the Inca and Aztec social structure (hierarchy) did not help. The conquistadors managed to topple both empires with a small military forces by trying to avoid battles while on there way to capture the top leadership. Capture the leadership and the Empire falls. These two native civilizations were kind of authoritarian thus nobody does anything without ok from the top. In other words, there bureaucracy helped sink them.

This following compares both Inca and Aztec social structure. When it comes to the Aztecs the first three segments were made up each of 1% of the total population. Chances are these Aztec numbers were also the same for the Incas first three segments.

Comparison information -
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/aztecinc ... -9-728.jpg

On the other side, the Conquistadors did not have it easy when it came to the Jivaro head hunters of the Amazon or the Mapuche natives of Southern South America. Both had an entirely different Social Structure which made it difficult for the Spaniards to defeat them.

Many explanations, absent of course, from the history books, have been given for the Mapuche resistance. Today the accepted theory is that it was based on the Mapuche social structure. Unlike the Incas and Aztecs, who had a central government and internal political divisions, The Mapuche did not have a hierarchical social structure with centralized power, each family being an independent unit with no obligation to obey an external authority

The Jivaro head hunters were also had a family based social structure.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

It might be considered unfortunate if you're Kenyan, or maybe have some Tasmanian aboriginal ancestry. Amoung other examples.

I could say the same thing about Russians, Hungarians, Arabs, Persians, etc. when it comes to the Mongols on that basis.

Which would be unrelated to the misfortune of the British in particular having a large empire.

[Napkiraly]

I could say the same thing about Russians, Hungarians, Arabs, Persians, etc. when it comes to the Mongols on that basis.

Which would be unrelated to the misfortune of the British in particular having a large empire.

It actually is related, given the original poster made the claim that it was unfortunate that the British had a larger empire than the Mongols (and given both context and language, implied that the Mongols would be preferable). And then you gave the reason of various oppressed peoples, which I countered could be used against the Mongols. Thus nullifying that argument as to why it is unfortunate that the British had a larger empire than the Mongols.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Which would be unrelated to the misfortune of the British in particular having a large empire.

It actually is related, given the original poster made the claim that it was unfortunate that the British had a larger empire than the Mongols (and given both context and language, implied that the Mongols would be preferable). And then you gave the reason of various oppressed peoples, which I countered could be used against the Mongols. Thus nullifying that argument as to why it is unfortunate that the British had a larger empire than the Mongols.

The wording doesn't seem to me to imply that the Mongol Empire was fortunate.