The worst armies in history

Originally posted by Belisarius 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.

 

And the guerrillas who fought Americans after the take over from SPain were reputed to fire their rifles by holding them over their heads and shooting blindly....

Still though, considering the resources availabel and exposure to technology, I would say the Italians are still worse.

Originally posted by Paul 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.

Paul:

Bad choice of words on my part:  Read "Exhaustion of morale."  Europe has demonstrated recently that the EU has neither the capacity nor the will to defend it's interests.  With some exceptions, I think this is true of many of the individual states as well.

I studied European history in school, and I am very pro Europe in terms of the cultures, languages and the benefits Europeans projected through their colonial experiences (don't start a flame war over the last please).

However, through the destruction and carnage of 1914-1945, the European states emerged broken and weary of it all.  One can't blame them for that.  Western Europe has been protected by the NATO (U.S.) nuclear and conventional umbrella for well over 50 years.  The EU cannot address and settle problems like the Balkans 1991-1999.  They are floundering on the question of Islamic extremism at home.  They are not able to agree on any integration politically (that really is a separate issue though).

Europe's "place in the sun" was 1500-1900.  A long time by any measure.  It is over now, and the general performance of the French army in the last 65 years demonstrates that.  The morale is not there anymore.

 

 

Originally posted by Yiannis I think of it in another way, here in Europe we have shed too much blood and very often for stupid reasons. Now we tend to be more causious about war and focus more on supporting one another and on the benefits of a social state for the citizens of the country.

Understood and agreed.  However, this is a military history thread, and in other threads we have been discussing the return of "Balance of Power Politics" since the collapse of the USSR and the growing influence of powers like China and India.  It is now beginning to be played out on a global scale rather than a European one.  Some look upon the EU as the basis for a power bloc.  I see too many weaknesses for that....just a point for discussion.

Yiannis:

Economic power is never enough.  If it were, the U.S. would not have had to fight in World War I.

Obviously you are Greek.  You know what a kaleidoscope of passions and politics the Balkans always are.  Geographically, the peninsula is in the EU's "sphere of influence."  It is in the interests of the EU and non EU states to restrain the type of things that have happened there in the past.

In the 1990s, the EU was found wanting in both will and means to do that, and it fell to NATO (i.e. the U.S. navy and air force) to deal with Serb misbehavior.  Although I doubt it will be permanent.

Economic strength is not going to solve the problems of the Balkans.  There is no more Turkish or Soviet blanket to cover up those problems, and military force may again have to be applied by any number of countries to address their interests.  The EU seems unwilling....morale problem.

I vote for the 1967 Egyption Army. No preperation, too much propoganda, Russian guns and Bazokas that soldiers were not trained to use them before the battle, defective weapons, and Um Kalthom music inside tanks

Did I mention Jamal Abdul Naser ,some sees him as hero!, used to parade his missles which are called "Al Qaher". The funny thing is, people get excited watching those missiles which were only wood and iron.

There were worse armies around at the time than the Qing dynasty's, but what makes Qing armies to laughable is that they were the defence force of a monolothic major power with vast human, economic and politial resources. Their banner armies did well enough in the early stages, but were allowed to decay to such an extent that they proved hopeless against European encroachment. Main problem: fanatical conservatism. All which fails to progress inevitably falls behind.

I would consider the Qing to be a major power, but one which was simply an underachiever for the time being. They had huge resources at their disposal, but were too conservative to properly utilize these. They could easily have defeated any European power had they put their resources to proper use, and also modernized without too much political instability.

The banner armies were not always the mainstay of the Qing armies, but the fact that the Emperors (or Empress if we make exception for one nasty character) thought a peasant militia could do the job during the 19th century shows how poor military planning was at the top.


Edited by Constantine XI

Originally posted by Zagros The French army during the same period.

Don't forget the spanish, whose colonial army was defeated in the 1920's with huge losses at the hands of the by numbers vastly inferior Rif rebels

I have to defend Italians.I know every campaigne they started   failed, but it was the bad generals faulth. Besides, althought in Egypt the english were outnumbered, but there equipement was much better and they new the terrain.

 

Anyway, The worst WWII army was the polish one. When the german invade whit their Panzer a big part of the polish army was still cavalry

Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by poirot Originally posted by Constantine XI I would consider the Qing to be a major power, but one which was simply an underachiever for the time being. They had huge resources at their disposal, but were too conservative to properly utilize these. They could easily have defeated any European power had they put their resources to proper use, and also modernized without too much political instability. The banner armies were not always the mainstay of the Qing armies, but the fact that the Emperors (or Empress if we make exception for one nasty character) thought a peasant militia could do the job during the 19th century shows how poor military planning was at the top. You are partially right about your assessment, but the peasant militia was actually better trained and had more morale than the regular Green Standard and elite Bannermen.  Peasant militias were essentially private armies of officials and provincial governors, so the governors had much to gain by training a disciplined army that served his own political purposes.  Peasant militias that evolved into the Xiang and Huai Armies were actually better equipped than the Bannermen, with modern cannons, western rifles, German trainers, and even better wages.  Reason: The "private" peasant armies were able to secure loot through various channels, while the standard armies waited for the government's pitiful wages. I have to ask, how could they secure loot? I would be guessing that a highly defensive nation like 19th century Qing China would only be able to loot cities if they were supressing rebellions or crushing internal military problems.

Well, the rebels, especially the Taiping troops, looted from the rich and the landlords.  When the Xiang Army was organized under Zeng Guofan (many Qing officals would claim that the Xiang Army was Zeng's private army), it looted from the rebels, and whoever came in its path.  The entire city of Nanking, capital of the Taiping Rebellion, was looted thoroughly by the Xiang Army.  In theory, all the loot should be either returned to their rightful owners or turned over to the government.  But the generals, officers, and soldiers kept most of the treasure themselves.  All knew that the government's wages and funds were not enough to keep them from starvation; thus the only way to get rich was to loot from the oppressed.

The answer to your question is that they helped to "redistribute" wealth by taking the wealth from others into their own pockets.  The lure of stealing riches from rich rebels who stole from landlords and wealthy officials was a major driving force of the peasant militias.

Edited by poirot