Greeks under Alexander

Romans under Julius Caesar

Mongols under Genghis Khan

Imperial Japanese during WWII

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35006035)

Greeks under Alexander and Romans under Julius Caesar primarily benefited from excellent generalship and improved tactics, not necessarily soldier quality. The Mongols under Genghis were so dominant because they were the best with the finest technology of the era: the horse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35011627)

Napoleon was certainly a capable tactician and could lay traps for his opponent, but for the most part his tactical skill was based on executing simple strategies consistently and well, rather than doing super-complex stuff. Additionally, though, being a great soldier involves many other factors that aren't always obvious today:

-Napoleon had an extremely good memory. He could remember the strength, status, and leadership of almost every regiment in his army, and often formations elsewhere in his empire as well. Because of this, he was very good at promoting subordinates who performed well, and was good at allocating just enough force to particular tasks. More generally, he just understood his army inside and out, in a period where armies were incredibly complex and nobody had computers and the like to keep track of things.

-Napoleon had tremendous energy. He could perform at a high level for more than a day without sleeping, and could greatly refresh himself after sleeping for just an hour or two. He was always planning, reading dispatches, sending new orders, riding quickly to critical fronts, and reacting to the latest developments. More than anything, his limitless energy maybe what set him apart from peers. The gradual loss of this energy as he aged goes a long way to explaining Napoleon's decline as a commander later in life.

-Napoleon was excellent at logistics, constantly grinding out every small advantage for his men by ensuring a constant resupply of food, uniforms, and most importantly, shoes (the amount of correspondence Napoleon sent regarding shoes is truly terrifying). By keeping his army well-supplied, Napoleon kept them in better shape, which gave the army staying power and enabled the exceptional feats of maneuver that won him great victories at Ulm, Jena, and elsewhere. Typically, winning a battle was all about having the superior concentration of force at the critical point, and Napoleon almost always ensured his men were there, with more firepower before the enemy was.

-Napoleon was a skilled leader of men who rewarded both success and loyalty, which inspired strong devotion in many of his followers. His excellent memory helped here; there are many famous stories of Napoleon recognizing and rewarding individual soldiers he had seen years before.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35013133)

Are you suggesting I plagiarized that? I assure you I did not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35013971)

by tech+money(?) and force numbers it seems like they were winning INSANE victories

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35006047)

When you say soldier, do you mean the killing power of each individual warrior? Some armies train individual men to be really capable, while others are all about the greater unit with each man perhaps being unimpressive. Similarly, some armies stand out because their officer corps was really good; is that a factor here?

Also, are we factoring in any "opponent adjustments?" An army that easily defeats conscripts led by military amateurs is probably less impressive than an army that consistently defeats professional troops led by veteran officers.

With that said, a few answers:

-The Carolean armies of Gustavus Adolphus, Charles XI, and Charles XII (yes, my moniker) were very impressive pound-for-pound fighters, which was necessary because Sweden had imperial pretensions without the population normally needed to back such pretensions up. The Swedish troops were trained to be zealous Christian fanatics to improve their morale and discipline to world-class levels. Since they couldn't outlast more-numerous foes exchanging fire at a distance, they were trained to advance rapidly under fire and defeat the enemy in close-quarters shock combat. This doctrine resulted in some preposterously one-sided victories while badly outnumbered and outgunned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_(1700)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fraustadt

-The Mongols at their apex naturally deserve a mention. They defeated almost everybody they encountered for almost a century, despite being grossly outnumbered and fighting in wildly different landscapes and circumstances. They didn't just win in open plains combat, but could also win in sieges and in the tougher terrain of central Europe.

-The Spartans are of course famous as all-time hardass soldiers but at their peak it was not an unearned reputation. In an era of amateur citizen soldiers Spartans were all professionals who had trained for life and were almost unbeatable in the field for centuries. Greek heavy infantry were the best soldiers of that time period (as their heavy use as mercenaries attests), and the Spartans were the best heavy infantry of all. Their only problem was a lack of numbers and the extremely basic nature of their tactics.

-The Macedonian phalanx deserves a mention of course, considering the way it just steamrolled the entire known world for a century until powers either adopted it themselves or created counters. The Persians were NOT some incompetent horde and the fact Alexander utterly crushed them repeatedly is extremely impressive.

-The Spanish tercio infantry were the dominant infantry force of Europe during a period of massive conflict between organized states with professional armies. The tercios never lost a land battle for a century and a half, and when they finally did (at Rocroi) it was only because the other formations of their army were beaten.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35006650)

this is the autism I come here for

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35006791)

It was said that the Iraqi govt was incompetent or the people/soldiers in territory they took over no compelling reason to support their own government.

They pulled some pretty insane wins against much larger forces. Were ISIS soldier religious commitment important/essential to the success? What else can be determined about these soldiers?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35006993)

Arab armies in general are famously bad at fighting wars. This 20-year-old article is still perfectly relevant:

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35007000)

edit: see that these problems could apply culturally

what did you attribute ISIS rise to- just that enemies were ShiTTTstates?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35007045)

Spartans under Leonidas

Greeks under Alexander

The Imperial Legions

Early Muslim Army under Khalid ibn Walid (Undefeated Commander)

Mongols under Genghis

The Korean Navy under Admiral Yee (Undefeated Commander)

Frederick the Great of Prussia's Grenadiers

Napoleons Army

The Gurkha Regiments of Her Majesty's Forces

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35006680)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35006909)

lol fucking lol @ japanese being anywhere close to being the best. they beat nobody in WWII. HTFH

Its Mongols >> Wehrmacht >> everybody else in modern history. like somebody else mentioned above rhodesians also come close. the other contenders are napoleon's army, Prussian army under Wihelm I that PWNED Austria, France and unified germany

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35007981)

once US entered the war they got pwned pretty bad in a straight one on one matchup

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35008009)

if Japan was magically transported to Europe and asked to fight it would have been pwned by all the major european powers (UK, France, Germany, Russia) before they even got going

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35008022)

now compare that with wehrmacht smashing through france despite france a serious economic/military power being singularly focused on the german threat

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35008130)

if we could do what romans did routinely this thing would be over in a week, i.e. all the fighting age men dead and the rest sold into slavery.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35011792)

I get that one is an extension of the other but the op is about fighting men not the society/infrastructure around them

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35011808)

nnnnnnnnnnnn-nineteen

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35012709)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35013408)

US soldiers are the best trained, most well equipped in history by a significant amount.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35014202)

Marines are impressive in that they are basicslly the swiss army knife on the divisional size. One Marine Expeditionary Unit can do more than the entire armed forces of most countries.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3840363&forum_id=2#35026982)