[R_G]

No other nation has suffered such massive and devastating invasions, yet turned them into victory, and actually grown stronger afterwards, as Russia did.

Throwing human waves until the opposition runs out of ammo is the most basic and least efficient method of victory.

No props for this.

[Potemkin]

What do you mean? I have never read anything that gave me the impression that Napoleon was a homosexual. What is this modern obsession with making everyone in history a back-door bandit? Napoleon had a string of female lovers and two wives. The latter could be explained away as 'cover' for his homosexual antics, the former cannot.

I was joking, Thompson_NCL.

[Thompson_NCL]

Oh I can believe you were joking, I do not however believe Qatz was.

[Igor Antunov]

Throwing human waves until the opposition runs out of ammo is the most basic and least efficient method of victory.

No props for this.

That's complete mis-information. When ww2 turned around and the germans were back on the run to germany, russians were scoring victories with fewer casualties to themsleves and more to the germans.

Also, they displayed excellent strategic thinking with their scorched earth policy both in ww2 and the napoleonic invasion. Using the weather to their advantage. Nappy lost many more men than the russians did, and they didn't even have to fight him to kill most of his men. It is brilliant military strategy to force your enemy to defeat himself.

[Falx]

I wouldn't try to explain that to a fascist sympathizer who's grandfather was a member of the SS. There is a reason why Russia has been a great power for over 4 centuries, none of its peers remained so for any comparable period of time.

[Igor Antunov]

Russian_Guy is a disgrace to the Russian heritage.

[Bumblebee]

Egypt

for almost 2600 years

Naval and Land

[Doomhammer]

Speaking of the land of Pharaohs... wow, such necroposting.

If we look at the issue from a more structural perspective, i.e. different, succeeding, political entities that have occupied similar geographic locations, then one could make the case that the most successful regions in Eurasia are:

1) Eastern Mediterranean Empires (which would include Empires based on, or encompassing, Egypt, Hellas, and the Levant).
2) France
3) China

My criteria are martial prowess and duration/continuity of institutions.

[Azure Angel]

Speaking of the land of Pharaohs... wow, such necroposting.

Quite a necromancer.

Victorious in what sense? This needs to be defined.

That aside,

1. Mongol Empire


2. British Empire


3. Qing Dynasty

4. Achaemenid Empire

[Oberon]

'Victorious' is pretty vague as a criteria, but I would go with China for longevity. As for Europe, after the Romans it developed into a series of family own 'states', with the Hapsburgs versus 'Everybody Else' for few centuries in there, but for quality and influence it would be down to the British or the Spaniards, and having been to more than few former colonies of both, it's blatantly obvious the Brits are the superior of the two hands down, as far as legacies left behind. Certainly better than France's legacies. Europeans didn't really have 'nations' in the formal sense of the word until quite recently, actually, but then hardly anybody else did either, so ... never mind.

[Oberon]

No other nation has suffered such massive and devastating invasions, yet turned them into victory, and actually grown stronger afterwards, as Russia did.

Throwing human waves until the opposition runs out of ammo is the most basic and least efficient method of victory.

No props for this.

Indeed. Apparently Russians are still trying to peddle the notion they won WW II, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Without the U.S. and U.K. they would still be sucking Hitler's ass for bread crumbs.

[fuser]

^ lol. What utter nonsense.

At the thread, I think it will be UK or Mongols.

[Conscript]

I love it when liberals try to play their anti-fascist credentials over communists.

[Oberon]

Throwing human waves until the opposition runs out of ammo is the most basic and least efficient method of victory.

No props for this.

That's complete mis-information. When ww2 turned around and the germans were back on the run to germany, russians were scoring victories with fewer casualties to themsleves and more to the germans.

According to Soviet History? The ratio of german casualties to Soviets remained pretty much 1 to every 3 to 5 Soviet casualties right up to Berlin, compared to U.S. and other Allies from Anzio- Normandy onward of 1 Allied casualty to every 3-4 of Germany's.

Also, they displayed excellent strategic thinking with their scorched earth policy both in ww2 and the napoleonic invasion. Using the weather to their advantage. Nappy lost many more men than the russians did, and they didn't even have to fight him to kill most of his men. It is brilliant military strategy to force your enemy to defeat himself.

'Scorched earth' strategies are the strategies of the hopeless last resorts. It does work okay, against armies that still marched on foot and had horses to feed, and heavily dependent on foraging, but it's only a minor nuisance in the era of railroads and trucks and large ships. The people most hurt by the 'great scorched earth tactics were merely the local peasants. The Soviets were driven back hundreds of miles; the only reason they were even in the war after that was directly because of massive western aid, and the Allied bombing campaigns forcing the Germans to strip their eastern front of aircraft almost entirely as well as much of their anti-aircraft guns and resupply. Even at that, the Germans exacted a very high price in blood. Even the 'great' Soviet air force couldn't fly without the imports of fuel and especially fuel octane boosters. Ni ammo, no decent modern steel or the capability of producing it without western shipments, no locomotives, no rails, no food, etc., etc., etc. . The Soviets were only useful as a diversion while the Western Allies won the war.

[Oberon]

Here is a nice essay on the unknown battles on the Eastern Front, much of which is left out of Soviet histories. By the fall of Berlin the western Allies in their relatively short time span on the ground had inflicted almost two-thirds as many casualties as the Soviets did during their entire war years.

http://sti.clemson.edu/publications-mai ... rvey-essay

The Soviets' 'best' battles were a couple or three on their southern flank; most of the rest are the usual human wave slaughter houses.

[fuser]

According to Soviet History? The ratio of german casualties to Soviets remained pretty much 1 to every 3 to 5 Soviet casualties right up to Berlin, compared to U.S. and other Allies from Anzio- Normandy onward of 1 Allied casualty to every 3-4 of Germany's.

No. Only mental gymnastic can lead to this ludicrous 1:3 or 5 and why are you being so dishonest? Why count allies only after 1944? When they had massive advantage in everything and coupled with the fact that most of German fighting machine was not even facing them. Why are you deliberately not calculating western allies causality ratio prior to 1944, eh?

The Soviets were driven back hundreds of miles; the only reason they were even in the war after that was directly because of massive western aid, and the Allied bombing campaigns forcing the Germans to strip their eastern front of aircraft almost entirely as well as much of their anti-aircraft guns and resupply. Even at that, the Germans exacted a very high price in blood. Even the 'great' Soviet air force couldn't fly without the imports of fuel and especially fuel octane boosters. Ni ammo, no decent modern steel or the capability of producing it without western shipments, no locomotives, no rails, no food, etc., etc., etc. . The Soviets were only useful as a diversion while the Western Allies won the war.

lol, nice story. Anyway the fact is that western aid was obviously important but without them Soviets loosing or no food, no locomotive etc is such a ridiculous notion that can only be laughed at, nothing more.

Here is a nice essay on the unknown battles on the Eastern Front, much of which is left out of Soviet histories. By the fall of Berlin the western Allies in their relatively short time span on the ground had inflicted almost two-thirds as many casualties as the Soviets did during their entire war years.

Yes and I am the reptilian overlord ruling over this whole planet.

The Soviets' 'best' battles were a couple or three on their southern flank; most of the rest are the usual human wave slaughter houses.

lol, no.

[Conscript]

By the fall of Berlin the western Allies in their relatively short time span on the ground had inflicted almost two-thirds as many casualties as the Soviets did during their entire war years.

Doesn't seem like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ca ... ian_Losses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ca ... r_Overmans

The Soviets by far caused the most casualties, especially towards the end of the war. The Western Allies took way more prisoners, though.

[Oberon]

Doesn't seem like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ca ... ian_Losses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ca ... r_Overmans

The Soviets by far caused the most casualties, especially towards the end of the war. The Western Allies took way more prisoners, though.

Soviet numbers are junk, and if they get to claim their murdered POWs as 'casualties' the western Allies get to claim them as well. In any case the Soviets would still be hundreds of miles into their own borders if it weren't for the West keeping them in; even Zhukov acknowledges that. Stalin would have either had to sue for terms, or remain in purely defensive stance. As for the western allies, they did far better on the ground than the Soviets did by any measure, and were by far the main factor in Germany losing, not the Soviets.

[Conscript]

Those are german and american numbers. They show the vast majority of German casualties were on the eastern front, and considering the numbers of casualties inflicted only increased as the war came to a close, there's no real reason to believe that the Western Allies were a cut above the Red Army.

I mean really, it was called Operation Unthinkable for a reason, and until late in the cold war the USSR had conventional superiority.

This is really just Western chauvinism at work, one of a few things the Nazis inherited. Allied aid was important, but mostly when it came to trucks, food, and bombing. We did not give the Soviets some superior equipment (they disliked our tanks, especially the early shit we gave), training, or doctrine that significantly changed the balance of power. They mostly relied on themselves in this regard.

The red army shouldered a massive burden and underwent a complete transformation between 1941 and 1945. It was the only army to fight that kind of land war with Germany, or at least the only continental Allied member that didn't quickly capitulate.

[Oberon]

Those are german and american numbers. They show the vast majority of German casualties were on the eastern front, and considering the numbers of casualties inflicted only increased as the war came to a close, there's no real reason to believe that the Western Allies were a cut above the Red Army.

Doesn't make the Soviet numbers valid in any way re their own casualties, and since they didn't make a habit of taking prisoners it's more than safe to assume many of those eastern front German casualties were killed after they surrendered.

I mean really, it was called Operation Unthinkable for a reason, and until late in the cold war the USSR had conventional superiority.

This is really just Western chauvinism at work, one of a few things the Nazis inherited. Allied aid was important, but mostly when it came to trucks, food, and bombing. We did not give the Soviets some superior equipment (they disliked our tanks, especially the early shit we gave), training, or doctrine that significantly changed the balance of power. They mostly relied on themselves in this regard.

Anti-western chauvinism and revisionism, not fact.

The red army shouldered a massive burden and underwent a complete transformation between 1941 and 1945. It was the only army to fight that kind of land war with Germany, or at least the only continental Allied member that didn't quickly capitulate.

They were only able to stay in the war at all because of Allied aid, and Allied invasion; the war was essentially over for the Axis when they declared war on the U.S. The rest was just mopping up; even many of the German high command knew it was over in 1943. The Soviets were just hired help, and poorly performing help at that. The British Navy did far more, and deserves more credit than it gets for keeping the sea lanes open and the rest of the Empire providing materiel and troops as well.

One of the legitimate criticisms of Roosevelt's deals with Stalin was that he gave Stalin far more than he was worth as an 'ally'. Expending the same amount of stuff on outfitting Indian and other nations' troops would have been just as good, other than transportation issues.