Did the US have the strongest Military in the World in 1865

[OSR stands with Israel]

At least on Land,



It may be very possible they did, it was just that the US back in those days didnt maintain a powerful standing army after wars but immediately after the Civil War they may have had the strongest land force in the world.

[Orser67]

If we're keeping the focus on just armies than the answer is probably "yes". But after 1800 you can't really compare mobilized forces with unmobilized forces.

[Relm]

If we're going by just sheer power, Britain

Best organization and discipline + the advances of Moltke in mobilization, Prussia (soon to be The German Empire)

America's armies during the Civil War on both sides used a mix of old and new strategies and tactics with the result being horrific bloodbaths. America's size and lack of infrastructure could not allow for the same kind of warfare that was going on in Italy under Garabaldi, in Austria/Germany under Moltke, or that would take place in France again under Moltke. Britain easily had the best army in terms of global power, that if they ever wanted to concentrate on a single target with full force they could quell almost any opponent.

Size meant nothing as it was these nations who completely outnumbered took on a much larger Chinese force, and it was using the same outdated tactics as the americas that the French went to their slaughter in the Franco-Prussian War.

[RINO Tom]

No, but I'd argue the rest of the world knew it was a matter of time.  The US was always viewed as stacked with potential, and we were certainly getting to the point where we could hold our own vs. anyone.  By 1917, when we headed off to Europe, we were very clearly there.  Where in the span of 1865 to 1917 did we get over the hump, so to speak?  That's very hard to answer for anyone, much less someone as unqualified to do so as I am.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

At least on Land,

I don't know enough about nineteenth-century geopolitics to answer this question on its own terms, but I do know that any question about relative military strength in this time period that explicitly excludes sea power is akin to a discussion of who scored the second-most points in Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. The Royal Navy of the high Victorian era was the most dominant single branch of any military in modern history, including the individual branches of the US military today.

[Kingpoleon]

I don't know enough about nineteenth-century geopolitics to answer this question on its own terms, but I do know that any question about relative military strength in this time period that explicitly excludes sea power is akin to a discussion of who scored the second-most points in Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. The Royal Navy of the high Victorian era was the most dominant single branch of any military in modern history, including the individual branches of the US military today.

Au contraire, mon ami.

The Prussians and Germans had the most talented military in history. The Imperial French Army was one of the best upon earth, and the Germans were surprised that the casualty ratio was only ~3.5:1. Any German soldier was worth four Frenchmen, five or six Austrians, and ten Russians. Bismarck believed that if the French dared to intervene in the Austro-Prussian War, the Prussians would still be victorious - against two of the five or six strongest nations on Earth, right on their border.

I’d argue the German Army was practically as strong as the British Navy. It took being outnumbered 3:1 for the casualty count to fall below a 2:1 ratio, still in favor of the Germans. The British would have been destroyed if the French, German, Russian, and Italian navies went after it, while the Germans did surprisingly well for being so outnumbered.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Well to counter if there was a repeat of the War of 1812 immediately after the civil war it probably results in an clear American victory . The reason is I believe the US had a larger military than the entire British Empire did, had their entire economy set up to support a war effort, and with a battle-hardened military the British would very likely lose. Now the US wouldnt win in Europe either


Also didnt the French withdraw from Mexico in the mid 1860s cause they didnt want to risk war with the United States

[Orser67]

Well to counter if there was a repeat of the War of 1812 immediately after the civil war it probably results in an clear American victory . The reason is I believe the US had a larger military than the entire British Empire did, had their entire economy set up to support a war effort, and with a battle-hardened military the British would very likely lose. Now the US wouldnt win in Europe either

The U.S. would probably have crushed either France (in Mexico) or Britain (in Canada) on land, but Britain at least could have retaliated with a naval blockade that would have been devastating for the U.S. economy. Given that the transcontinental railroad had not yet been built, they might have even been able to seize California and induce a secession movement there.

[The Mikado]

Remember, though, this is still America at its "tiny peacetime professional army that swells to massive size in wartime" model. A lot of those soldiers are draftees who are very unsatisfied about being in, and have very specific contracts for when they get discharged. The US economy is not set up to support a large standing professional military. I wouldn't bet on the USA not just having flat-out mutinies if a really long war with a European power led to extensions of drafted soldiers' enlistment times or such.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Remember, though, this is still America at its "tiny peacetime professional army that swells to massive size in wartime" model. A lot of those soldiers are draftees who are very unsatisfied about being in, and have very specific contracts for when they get discharged. The US economy is not set up to support a large standing professional military. I wouldn't bet on the USA not just having flat-out mutinies if a really long war with a European power led to extensions of drafted soldiers' enlistment times or such.

That depends on who declares war on whom and where the fighting occurs. A defensive war fought in North America goes in favor of the Yankees. But the U.S. was in no shape for power projection overseas, especially since a side effect of the Civil War had been the evaporation of the American merchant marine as it had largely reflagged to avoid Confederate privateers and commerce raiders.

[Orser67]

At least on Land,

I don't know enough about nineteenth-century geopolitics to answer this question on its own terms, but I do know that any question about relative military strength in this time period that explicitly excludes sea power is akin to a discussion of who scored the second-most points in Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. The Royal Navy of the high Victorian era was the most dominant single branch of any military in modern history, including the individual branches of the US military today.

Going to point out that the Royal Navy never had nuclear weapons. At least for a few years, the US was near-omnipotent. But this is apart from your particular point here, which is correct.

Also, the U.S. navy was dominant in the era immediately after WW2, when Britain was exhausted and the Soviet Union hadn't really developed a navy yet.

[Kingpoleon]

Huh?

The U. S. Navy is still dominant today. It and the Air Force can never be broken.

[Orser67]

Huh?

The U. S. Navy is still dominant today. It and the Air Force can never be broken.

Yeah, I should have written "more dominant" rather than just "dominant". The U.S. navy is still dominant, but it's not clearly more dominant than the British navy was between the Battle of Trafalgar and the rise of the German, American, and Japanese navies in the late 19th century.

[Kingpoleon]

Yeah, I should have written "more dominant" rather than just "dominant". The U.S. navy is still dominant, but it's not clearly more dominant than the British navy was between the Battle of Trafalgar and the rise of the German, American, and Japanese navies in the late 19th century.

“There is no difference between having enough nuclear bombs to destroy the world one time over or a thousand times over, other than cost.”

The British Navy was a guppy compared to our navy’s Megaladon shark. Some of our ships will be seaworthy for several thousand years and are practically indestructible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yeah, I should have written "more dominant" rather than just "dominant". The U.S. navy is still dominant, but it's not clearly more dominant than the British navy was between the Battle of Trafalgar and the rise of the German, American, and Japanese navies in the late 19th century.

“There is no difference between having enough nuclear bombs to destroy the world one time over or a thousand times over, other than cost.”

The British Navy was a guppy compared to our navy’s Megaladon shark. Some of our ships will be seaworthy for several thousand years and are practically indestructible.

Citation desperately needed!

The only reason the early nuclear powered supercarriers have had such a lengthy service life is that it's cheaper to refurbish them every decade or so than to deal with decommissioning the reactors. They certainly haven't had a service life significantly longer than a typical Royal Navy ship-of-the-line from the height of the age of sail.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Remember, though, this is still America at its "tiny peacetime professional army that swells to massive size in wartime" model. A lot of those soldiers are draftees who are very unsatisfied about being in, and have very specific contracts for when they get discharged. The US economy is not set up to support a large standing professional military. I wouldn't bet on the USA not just having flat-out mutinies if a really long war with a European power led to extensions of drafted soldiers' enlistment times or such.

In 1865 they had I believe the largest military in the world and if the British from Canada or French from Mexico posed a clear and imminent threat to the US right after the Civil War , I have no doubt the US military would crush them in either of those wars.


Now the US would still be crushed in battles in the Atlantic and Europe but here in North America the US would crush any European Power pretty easily