Originally Posted by
Palem
While I generally agree with you, there's a few things that make this just generally tough to refute, but not necessarily true
1. You haven't really given a definition of what "most formidable land army" actually entitles or how to measure a land army's greatness. Battles won? Size of the empire? Longevity?
2. Sparta's most direct competition (Athens) had a completely different type of army, so any victories over them or defeats suffered doesn't equate to having a more formidable land army.
3. Victories/defeats themselves aren't necessarily a display of who has a more formidable army. The United States most had a less formidable army than Great Britain, but we still won. There are tons of historical examples of the "underdogs" beating the mighty empires. The issues are usually outside stuff like economies, terrain knowledge, ect, which even further mucks up any "Who has the baddest army in the world" talks
4. Could the Spartans have beaten the Chinese? Or the Gaul? Or Egypt? Any argument for or against is pure conjecture so nothing is really "proof"