We looked at all the battles that have a Wikipedia page. Which countries and empires have appeared on the winning side of the most battles throughout history?
Groups together different dynasties that arose from a similar cultural group
Not counting the French Royalists who won 90 battles fighting against the Republicans in the French Revolution. Simply too difficult to decide how to count them.
It is. Extremely. If Russia and the USSR are the same, and Germany and Prussia and the Holy Roman Empire are the same, etc... then Italy should include the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and Byzantine should probably also be accepted for Greece and vice versa, and the Confederacy should be counted as part of the United States.
Also maybe accept Arab Caliphate for Islamic Caliphate. Or, heck, why not Saudi Arabia.
I don't know which caliphates are included in the "Islamic Caliphates", some of them were based in Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Andalusia, and they didn't necessarily included Saudi Arabia. Heck, the Ottoman Empire was also a caliphate. It doesn't make sense to count all of them as the same entity, unless they only count the Rashidun, Damascus Umayyads and Abbassids.
I included the ottomans with Turkey because most people associate The Ottoman Empire with Turkey. I get that is a caliphate, but then it wouldn't fit well in my opinion. But i have decided to make Arab and Saudi Arabia work for Islamic Caliphate.
The Franks are with France because I don't think many people would guess the Franks. I would do the same for Rome but i think most people would be angry with the fact that i included Rome with Italy as their are major differences. This does go the same for the Franks, but yet again, most people don't know the difference between the two.
Over the top arbitrary is using the English language version of Wikipedia. In other words, internet armchair warriors who speak English will decide the entire history of how many battles they've heard of across all cultures. China and India alone would have drastically more battles listed by scholars in those countries.
Really, the South in the U.S. Civil War won at least 2 times more battles in 4 years than the powerful empires of Thailand (Siam) or Burma in a couple thousand years of existence? They don't even make the list by English speaking war nuts?
Once again, Wikipedia is a junk source and this is a subject that really is totally uncountable.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. The good news is that the number of CSA victories won't increase, while you can always add more Asian or Eastern European battles.
Dear nitpickers, please try to keep in mind the immense amount of time this quiz required to make. Keep your comments polite and constructive. If you don't like the choices that the quiz creator made, make your own quiz!
I know how much effort it takes to research all this because I also have a quiz about wars (https://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/145474/countries-that-have-never-lost-a-war), so I would not criticize most of your choices.
However, the one choice that I find unacceptable is counting the Confederate States as a country. They should definitely not be included here, since they were never recognized by any other country.
It’s kind of odd how the confederacy, a country that existed for about 5 years, has more known wins in battle than Mongolia, a nation which conquered most of Asia
Most of Mongolias battles would have been against villages and towns whose names are not even known. We have to accept that the world has plenty of 'lost' history.
well a war that took place 200 years ago in this country is gonna have much better documentation on smaller battles than a war (or conquest for that matter) fought across the globe over 700 years ago. There are people alive today who were alive at the same time as civil war vets.
Not necessarily. Four of the top five did not start WWI or WWII but I bet a lot of the battles they won were in those wars. Your premise is faulty because you you can start wars all the time but if you are a terrible fighter you will lose the battles.
Yea these numbers don't say anything, besides which countries have/had a bigger lust for war. Percentages of battles won would give you a much better picture. Of what I can't tell you, are you good if you killed the most amount of other people?
If you have basic history knowledge you can get most of these. Just start in 4000 BC and go over every major empire. And don't forget Europeans fought a lot since the fall of certain (also warmongering) empire
Many things could be said about how to define a "battle" or a "country" so any classification would and will be debateable but i think your effort was excellent.
It would be nice, since you have already got the DataBase, a quiz about a fought/won or a fought/loss ratio by country
in addition to my previous comment, and just out of curiosity, i would like to know how did you put in the battles by Italian and German states before their unification in the 1800s. I mean, for Germany it is clear that Prussia and HRE are counted, but what about Bavaria (for instance). For Italy, did you count Piedmont Kingdom? or Venice, Naples, Church state and so on?
I got 100%, but not sure why the Confederacy is not counted with the United States. I mean, surely they shared more culturally with the Union than, say, modern and ancient Egypt, modern and ancient China, or France and the Frankish Empire. For that matter... why wouldn't the Romans and Byzantines be grouped in with Italy and/or Greece? Just a quirk of history that we think of these empires as being separate, because we actually learn about them. If we learned more about the Mughal Empire in Western grade school then we would not conceptualize them as the same as modern India, either.
I didn't mean that Confederacy should be an accepted type-in I meant that the Confederates should be grouped in with the USA. It would make more sense than some of the other entities that are grouped together.
You would just use the same standard as every other entry on the quiz. Count up the number of Wikipedia pages. Not the number of belligerents. If either side won, that would be one for the USA. The quiz counts battles that Russia won against Georgia, previously part of the USSR. I guess the quiz is trying to take the position that Northerners were the "true" Americans, and that the English are the "true" Britons, as Scotland is not included in their total, either. And generally I don't think anyone is getting credit for fighting on both sides of a conflict. Still, it's weird.
Not even sure why "Confederacy" doesn't work, you have to enter "Confederate States". And does Greece count for both Athens and Sparta? (so a win either way).
I was having a perfectly normal day until I saw this quiz. I figured it would be fun, so I took it. Got 23/28, so I looked at what I missed. Then I almost fainted. Poland has won battles??? Complete shocker.
The Incas didn't have writing nor did any of the civilizations they encountered until the Spanish rolled in. It would be very difficult to figure out how many battles they fought in.
Italy fought in two World Wars... and had battles in Africa. Israel only fought four wars since it's inception. All of them were quite short, and i don't think you can even divide them to that many separate battles. Whatever that total number is it would definitely be less than 76, I would guess.
The HRE has more consistency with Austria than it does with Germany. The Habsburgs ruled the HRE along with Austria from 1452-1804, before just ruling Austria. In conflicts like the Thirty Years War or the various wars with the Ottomans, I'd count them as Austrian victories and defeats. But I understand that it's an inexact science.
Yeah, I wondered if I should include them with Austria but I decided it would be a more acceptable and more known answer with Germany. Mostly because of its location.
Although I imagine most scottish battles (won and lost) would either be internal or against the english, I feel that any fought against other 'peoples' or countries should be included as the answer is the UK
This also has a lot to do with which people/cultures a) obsess about their own (perceived) military history the most and b) use Wikipedia the most. Probably many thousands of battles out there that don't have their own Wikipedia page. The Syrian Civil War has been going on for over 8 years now... but there is no cottage industry of Syrian Civil War enthusiasts and re-enactors who spend their time on Wikipedia writing articles on every little skirmish that occurred during those 8 years.
One reason "Islamic Caliphates" is so low might be restrictive type-ins? Arab Caliphate, for one, might be accepted. Though if the rationale for not using that is that you are including non-Arab Islamic Caliphates then... that's just another example of different disparate empires grouped together under the same heading that have less to do with one another than the American North and South.
It was the Eastern Roman Empire officially. And eventually after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, it even conquered Rome. Most of the people in the lands controlled by the empire spoke Greek. But, so what? Many of the people in the British Empire spoke Hindi.
I think i would disagree. however it would depend upon exactly WHEN we might decide to look at it. after the Great Schism there were large differences between the Western Empire, ruled at least nominally by the HRE, and spiritually dependant upon the Pope (vatican) - roman catholic, and the Eastern Empire. Mostly Greek Speaking, not bound to the Emperor, and largely (Greek) Orthodox. The two entities were clearly separate, and wholly different - and antagonistic.
"The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople." .... cut and paste from Wikipedia. This isn't a controversial or even novel view. Historians didn't even start referring to it as the Byzantine Empire until much later, to differentiate from the "other" Roman Empire.
I tried for some time to work out what the right entry for Islamic expansion might be, and then gave up. Ummayad might be a posible alternative, but excludes all other dynasties
26/28. Surprised that Australia and Canada made it on the list. Guessing Australian battles were won predominately in WWII, Korea and Vietnam with Canada having a few WWII and even maybe ones against the USA?
This is a very interesting quiz, although I agree with som comments that question the validity of the relevant 'countries' or 'nations'. However it was a very good stab at an extremely difficult subject. I wonder whether there would be any difference if you chose the subject of 'wars' won, rather than 'battles'. the difficulty I suppose would be the issue of who 'won'!
I am not at all surprised that Poland made the list, but am surprised that Lithuania didn't - did you choose Poland to represent the Commonwealth as opposed to Lietuva?
I wonder also about Assyria - that lot that came doen like a wolf on the fold etc. However I suppose the issue is documentation.
Afghanistan? Given that for some 300 years no other country has conducted a successful invasion - however guerillas dont fight battles.
Macedonia? Please don't subsume them in Greeks. It would cause all sorts of geopolitical angst!
So yes - a good quiz. it must be it creates so many questions
Yes i tried my best mixing in nations and empires together and separating certain countries/nations because of common knowledge with certain people. It was very tough mixing in Greece with Macedon, deciding to seperate the CSA and USA, Putting Germany, Prussia and HRE together. I am making a quiz series that go into a certain part of history and seeing who won the most battles in that time period. I seperate certain countries away like Macedon, Athens, Sparta, etc.. But when i was making this quiz, i had to decided to combine all of these nations to try and make it easier for people to answer. Because i don't think that many people would guess the HRE or the Franks, so thats why i decided to combine.
That single battle difference between Austria and the Ottomans though... I could feel the distant screams of the hapsburgs rolling in their graves... and the faint cries of joy coming from the Sultans' tombs.
Confederate States won more battles then Byzantine Empire, Arabic Caliphate, Portugal and Persia! All these countries were world powers during many years.
Even you count every shootout with the Indians on Wild West...
I really love this quiz. However, in my opinion, the CSA shouldn't be on here by a long shot. It is just Americans being Americans and saying that the Confederates weren't true Americans. That was a civil war, it shouldn't count. You didn't count the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic as two different entities, did you? That was also a civil war, which was far more destructive and legitimate than the American one. Also, I think Rome and the Byzantine Empire should be merged, you merged HRE, Prussia, and Germany. Amazing Quiz though!
But what do you constitute for China. After they become a republic? after they become Communist? Are you including all the previous dynasties? Also why is the Byzantine empire and Rome a different thing. The Byzantines at the time referred to themselves as Romans and it was the Eastern Roman empire the name Byzantine came after it fell.
Well, you get the picture.
Also maybe accept Arab Caliphate for Islamic Caliphate. Or, heck, why not Saudi Arabia.
The Franks are with France because I don't think many people would guess the Franks. I would do the same for Rome but i think most people would be angry with the fact that i included Rome with Italy as their are major differences. This does go the same for the Franks, but yet again, most people don't know the difference between the two.
Really, the South in the U.S. Civil War won at least 2 times more battles in 4 years than the powerful empires of Thailand (Siam) or Burma in a couple thousand years of existence? They don't even make the list by English speaking war nuts?
Once again, Wikipedia is a junk source and this is a subject that really is totally uncountable.
However, the one choice that I find unacceptable is counting the Confederate States as a country. They should definitely not be included here, since they were never recognized by any other country.
Many things could be said about how to define a "battle" or a "country" so any classification would and will be debateable but i think your effort was excellent.
It would be nice, since you have already got the DataBase, a quiz about a fought/won or a fought/loss ratio by country
That does seem a strange differentiation to make.
Great quiz though btw
Seems very Eurocentric. Incas ruled from Colombia to argentina - they won plenty of battles?
I am not at all surprised that Poland made the list, but am surprised that Lithuania didn't - did you choose Poland to represent the Commonwealth as opposed to Lietuva?
I wonder also about Assyria - that lot that came doen like a wolf on the fold etc. However I suppose the issue is documentation.
Afghanistan? Given that for some 300 years no other country has conducted a successful invasion - however guerillas dont fight battles.
Macedonia? Please don't subsume them in Greeks. It would cause all sorts of geopolitical angst!
So yes - a good quiz. it must be it creates so many questions
Coxbury
Wars fought: 1
Wars won: 1
Winning quota: 100%
It so funny.
Confederate States won more battles then Byzantine Empire, Arabic Caliphate, Portugal and Persia! All these countries were world powers during many years.
Even you count every shootout with the Indians on Wild West...
"Countries that Have Lost the Most Battles"
There are Turkic because Mughals are continue of Timurids and Timurids are Turkic