The worst armies in history

Lets just say this...if you live anywhere in western or eastern Europe that shares a landboreder with Germany, then if it werent for the French army in WW1 youd all be speaking German and talking about the dark days when Ludendorff depopulated half your country for slave labor.  Even here in America without France in WW1 we would have had to drastically arm ourselves and expand our navy and army for who knows how long as Germany would then seek to prey on our overseas posesions and blow up our ships with subs.

Excellent in the later half of 19th century? If my memory is right,  Prussian army crushed the French Army and captured Napolean III in the Franco-Prussian War with ease.  After France's defeat, Emperor Wilhelm I,with the advise of Von Bismark, chose to crown himself in France to further humiliate the French.

At the end of 19th Century, French Army was also heaviliy defeated in North Vietnam by a group of Chinese Militant known as Black Flag Army led by General Liu Yongfu.  However, the French still won the Indochina territory due to the incompetent Qing Court who was busy at managing its own internal affair.

i would saw the UN army sucks.

they never do anything, why does the UN even have an army if they never do any good with it?

sudan---nothing

rawanda---nothing

what the world needs is united world army that is willing to take losses to defend humans and the world in general, that is why they are there, and that is their job, they need to do it.

Well, if you make such a statement, that means you don't know anything about the conditions,number of soldiers and fights that had taken place in Ottoman Empire.

In fact, the Ottoman Army, which had fought in NINE different fronts,namely Caucasus,Gallipoli,Galicia,Yemen,Suez Canal,Iraq,Hejaz,Iran,Syria-Palestine fronts...

In Gallipoli, around 250.000 ANZAC&Allied soldiers had been defeated by Turkish army, which is considered as one of the greatest victories of the war.

In Iraq and Palestine,even though they lacked the numerical superiority against Allied armies(British and their Commonwealth armies;that is a bit thanks to Enver Pasha and other Ottoman administrators of war,who had chosen to send armies even to Galicia and Bulgaria to help her allies when it was in pathetic conditions herself), they held the Allied armies there around 3 years...If you look at some dates, you can see how Ottoman army fought,even when Arab revolt was taking place,logistically cutting the Ottoman supply lines and causing Ottomans not to have Arabs' support with 'em, it was very end of 1917 when Jerusalem fell; same for Baghdad either. Just go search from google about The Siege of Kut, for Gallipoli Landings...And see if it was crap or not.There are two fronts that the Ottoman Empire had really failed; those are Suez Canal and Caucasus fronts..Failed in Suez Canal because with the forcing of the Germans, commander Cemal Pasha made a terribly prepared plan to pass the canal and attack into Egypt, naturally failed twice because it wasn't realistic...Failed in Caucasus because Enver Pasha wasted the valuable Ottoman armies in Sarikamish by giving 90.000 deaths to winter without a single fight and then failed to repel against Russians till 1917, but these defeats had occurred not because of the army, because of its commanders. 

I don't mean no offense to anyone in personal, but I believe saying that "Turkish army was crap" sentence means that you haven't read deeply about the issue.

Ottoman Empire didn't have any European territories during the WW I except Rumelia till Edirne, and it wasn't carved up to any European colonies...About the partition of Middle East between English and French, read the discussions about Sykes-Picot Agreement and Sevres Treaty