answersLogoWhite

0

The question is so broad as to be almost meaningless. Obviously the best army in the world is the one that so intimidates its enemies that it need not fight. However the question does mention victories and in a sense my first sentence gives the clue that a single victory that wins a war must be superior to an army that needs twenty to accomplish the same result. Therefore we have split the question into battlefield wins versus the winning of the war. The expression to lose a battle but win the war is fairly common. : ) A historical example worth looking up is defined by "Phyrric victory". Which leads me to another refining of the question. Are you talking purely of battlefields where the decision is decided in a day or are you talking post-Boer War where a particular battle may rumble on for weeks? Lastly most answers will probably concentrate on Western history but there have been effective Armies in China , and the Americas which no doubt will be overlooked ..... and not to be forgotten are the Mongols who basically won virtually everywhere. A great win loss record provided you choose the time span when they were very effective. On that basis you could also look at the Roman Empire, British Empire, the Napoleonic French - who had the happy knack of beating most of the European nations regularly for their wins column but losing even more regularly when they fought the British. So there you have it, simple question, and subject to refining the question , you can start to reduce the possible answers. : )

User Avatar

Wiki User

19y ago

What else can I help you with?