Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Janissary
Joined: 06-Feb-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Topic: The worst armies in history Posted: 17-Sep-2005 at 14:03 |
Which armys do you think really sucked ass in history?
|
|
cattus
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2005 at 14:57 |
This question, put so eloquently, would be better examined if done by different time periods. It is far too broad and fights will probably ensue, but good luck.
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2005 at 20:16 |
Not the most diplomatically put topic, and I do think era matters just as much as which army, but a good example of a truly bad army would be the late 19th through 20th century Italian army.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2005 at 21:02 |
The French army during the same period.
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2005 at 21:24 |
Hardly, French army was excellent during the later half of the 19th century, had a bad time in the middle of wwi but remember Verdun and Marne. Was crap admitedly during wwii but for the last 20 years or so arguably the finest army in the world. It's Rapid Reaction force , the most elite fighting force on earth and it's mobile capabilities not just the envy of NATO but beyond the capabilities of any other country in the world to organise.
My suggestion is the Scottish Army 73,000 BC to present day.
|
|
|
Cellular
Knight
Joined: 10-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Sep-2005 at 23:24 |
Originally posted by Paul
but for the last 20 years or so arguably the finest army in the world. It's Rapid Reaction force , the most elite fighting force on earth and it's mobile capabilities not just the envy of NATO but beyond the capabilities of any other country in the world to organise. |
Why have an army if your not going to use it? They are probably trained in the field of surrender the best as well..
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 01:46 |
Thye point Paul brings up is the same reason that I didnt say French too. WWI despite the blunders showed an amry with great persistence and spirit, and their military involvements in Africa, though misguided, are incredibly successful deployments. And anyway, compared to Italy, the French were gods of war.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 06:15 |
Originally posted by Cellular
They are probably trained in the field of surrender the best as well.. |
That wasn't funny, it was cheap, if not plain stupid!
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 08:10 |
Originally posted by Paul
Hardly, French army was excellent during the later half of the 19th century, had a bad time in the middle of wwi but remember Verdun and Marne. Was crap admitedly during wwii but for the last 20 years or so arguably the finest army in the world. It's Rapid Reaction force , the most elite fighting force on earth and it's mobile capabilities not just the envy of NATO but beyond the capabilities of any other country in the world to organise.
|
Who loses almost three wars to the Germans in the space of 50 years?
My suggestion is the Scottish Army 73,000 BC to present day.
|
What? There has been no Scottish army since 1707. The Scottish regiments have a proud and victorious history, Scotland has always given more than its fair share of men to colonial and world wars.
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 11:27 |
Originally posted by Cellular
Originally posted by Paul
but for the last 20 years or so arguably the finest army in the world. It's Rapid Reaction force , the most elite fighting force on earth and it's mobile capabilities not just the envy of NATO but beyond the capabilities of any other country in the world to organise. |
Why have an army if your not going to use it? |
In fact they have used it, a lot, just in their own national interest not America's.
|
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 14:46 |
The crappiest army in the contemporary world would have to be the army
of the Philippines. Our army is poorly trained, prone to mutiny and,
aside from a few bits of modern machinery, uses antiquated WWII era
weapons. I believe we have the most pathetic navy as well. Our air
force is not the worst, but could be better.
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 15:00 |
The Gallic armies of the 100s B.C. were pretty bad. The Scots had
a very good army for the numbers they had. They won the Wars of
Independence against a better equiped and numerous army. The
Highlanders Divisions helped take down Napoleon also.
|
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 15:24 |
Can you even consider the Gallic army an army? They were essentially
just all of the able-bodied men in that particular tribe. I do not
really consider barbarian hordes of this kind to be an actual army.
|
|
Laelius
Consul
Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 17:33 |
My suggestion is the Scottish Army 73,000 BC to present day. |
If the Scottish army was the worst then the English army must be a glorified youth group when considering how many times outnummered Scotts with inferior weapons had outfought invading Englishmen.
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 19:40 |
Originally posted by Belisarius
Can you even consider the Gallic army an army? They
were essentially
just all of the able-bodied men in that particular tribe. I do not
really consider barbarian hordes of this kind to be an actual army.
|
Yes, I meant that the tribal armies were probably one of the
worst armies in history. Even united under Vercingetorix they stunk.
|
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 20:01 |
Tribal army is such a varied definition. Gauls were farmers not warriors they were a mob armed with improvised weapons, not a lot different to French farmers today except I sure Gauls burned less sheep, Mongol tribes had a strong warrior tradition and use of arms and the Zulu tribe was practically a regularly trained and equipped Roman army.
Edited by Paul
|
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 20:26 |
Originally posted by Paul
Originally posted by Cellular
Originally posted by Paul
but for the last 20 years or so arguably the finest army in the world. It's Rapid Reaction force , the most elite fighting force on earth and it's mobile capabilities not just the envy of NATO but beyond the capabilities of any other country in the world to organise. |
Why have an army if your not going to use it? |
In fact they have used it, a lot, just in their own national interest not America's.
|
The French have a regiment of paras each stationed in a handful of African capitals within shouting distance of the presidential residence so they can intervene if their loans are overdue or someone threatens their capital investments. Come on, here.....
The last military success the French had was in Morocco in the 1920s, against 18th century Moors and Berbers. The littany of French military disasters goes back 135 years to the Franco-Prussian War.
World War I turnred out reasonably well, except that the enemy was not defeated......The Peace in 1919 was "an armistice for twenty years."
World War II....well, I ask you!
Indo-China?
The Suez canal debacle in 1956?
Algeria?
Tchad? (who cares?)
A French mechanized division held the jock straps of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Div. in the gulf in 1991 on the left flank, but that was about it.
Not to say that the French do not have good soldiers or a great military tradition, but the French army is indicative of the physical and moral exhaustion of Europe in the last eight decades or so.
Edited by pikeshot1600
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 20:59 |
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
]
chad? (who cares?)
|
America for a start. They were happy little bunnies in Washington when the French eliminated Gaddaffi as a threat.
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
and moral exhaustion of Europe in the last eight decades or so.
|
Now that's an interesting comment. Are you refering to liberal values on sex and stuff or abandonment of a colonial jackbooted policing of the world policy.
Edited by Paul
|
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 21:43 |
My vote goes to the 19th century Qing army. Representative of a major power of the day, their armies were outdated and yet ultra conservative. Their leadership disdained emerging military traditions and was corrupt. Their performance in the field against European enemies was a comic tragedy for the army of so powerful and economically strong a nation. For the army of so major a power their army performed terribly.
|
|
Laelius
Consul
Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 23:58 |
Not to say that the French do not have good soldiers or a great military tradition, but the French army is indicative of the physical and moral exhaustion of Europe in the last eight decades or so. |
Moral exhaustion, Now that's an interesting comment. Are you refering to liberal values on sex and stuff or abandonment of a colonial jackbooted policing of the world policy. |
I think he preferred the sort of moral dualism of the middle ages, rennaisance, and the industrial revolution. Strict Social morality in public with a brothel on every corner...
Edited by Laelius
|
|