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.

Why have an army if your not going to use it? They are probably trained in the field of surrender the best as well..

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!

Who loses almost three wars to the Germans in the space of 50 years?

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.

In fact they have used it, a lot, just in their own national interest not America's.

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.

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.   

America for a start. They were happy little bunnies in Washington when the French eliminated Gaddaffi as a threat.

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.

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.

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...

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.

With no doubt Italian Army in WWI,WWII,Ethiopian campaign,Lybian campaign the poor ability,high casualties,crappy achievments they failed to gain even small victory in WWII in the french front and Egyption front too and still wait for German reinforcement.

This army didn't know the taste of victory.

I think Italians are good in architecture not in fight and battle field.

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.

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.

Money makes the war go round!

Or as Archidamus, King of Sparta replied, when his allies requested that he puts a limit to the war spending: "War does not feed on fixed rations"

What I mean is that we don't need to enter a bloody war or to spend trillions on arms deals, in order to protect our countries. Economic power is enough, accompanied by small groups of professionals with adequate, state of the art weaponry. In 1974, military service in Greece was 32 months, in 1992 (when I joined) it was 15 months and now it is limited to 11 and will become 6 within 2006. Instead more professionals are employed to replace recruits, because it takes time and skill to learn how to use new generation weapons. Americans didn't need to outnumber the Iraqi troops, in order to bury these poor recruits in the sand.

More over you can balance the growing power of countries like China and India (btw, why should we?) based on commercial agreements and diplomacy rather than being aggressive militarily.

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 think what you are describing is the fact Europe nolonger has a central purpose, a strong fixed ideology and the resolve to carry it out.

If so I would agree. Europe has become a society of intellectuals akin to a conference of philosophy professors. Each giving their own analysis, then doubting them and agreeing they might be wrong and the conference coming to a final conclusion of inconclusive reserved judgement on everything except that another conference need be organised for further discussion.

We could contrast this with neo-conservatives who have a single concise and simplistic analysis, a strong conviction they are right and all other views wrong and a determination to push their view to the front without much concern for stepped on toes.

I think to some parts of the outside world, perception of this can be it's fatigue and a lack of morale, the result of two world wars.

But the way it tends to be perceived within Europe is that it's the result of enlightenment gained from a futile colonial past. I think your original description an exaustion of morals, not morale, better describe present Europe.

I simply don't share a neo-conservative bunker mentality and reguard the world as a place to look around for potential enemies, I don't see China as a threat, India as a potential future threat more future and current friends. 

Europe probably is exhausted of morals...... but morals are a terrifying and thing for a powerful country to have.

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.

Well...you are not far from finding the worst army.  The 19th century Qing army regulars actually could not fight.  All of the major victories against rebels were scored by private militias recruited in villages.  The only function of the Qing regular army was to squander public funds.

They were really not the defense force for a monolothic major power.

1. The Qing Empire was no longer a major power in the 19th century

2. The Qing Empire used militias raised by officials privately to defend its borders, not the regular Green Standard and Bannermen

I hate this man because he take more than his size.

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

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 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

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.

Now then Laelius, you've been watching "Braveheart" again haven't you?

Those savage brutes actually conquered Rome in 387 BC and forced the city to pay a big ransom.

They were all sold to slavery before they had the chance to fight, so neh.

so the chinese general a few weeks ago threatening to Nuke the USA isnt a reason look as china as an enemy???????????????????

MORALS such as  to save BERLIN during the blockade, such to come and save Europe during 2 World WARS, to rebuild western europe after WWII, to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union, to send our miltary to help SE Asia after the typhoon, standing TALL when u are right rather bending with the wind and looking to make a buck (see EU) -------------------------I will take Morals   

You son of a dirty b****, whatever the french army had, your Tcheque army was always crappier to it. So have a big glass of STFU you tomfool.

 Hey ignoant boy France won WWI, the ultimate victor, France was actually a victor of WW2 also, and it was the German that was ultimately defeated. the germans were out b!tch for nearly 1000 years just as it is now.

The French by no means had the worst armies. They made significant blunders as most nations had at some time in the past.  WWII at the Maginot Line is one of those miscalculations. Franks and the French had many impressive victories lets not forget.

*I do believe some of you could tone it down. Perhaps with a good glass of your favorite beverage.

 I'm sorry but this guy is spreading lies about France simply because he have been reading too much Yankee lies about France, and this guy is a czech, a country of no importance whatsoever militarily speaking. This individual is very despicable in the sensethat he insulting France by his ignorance, disinformation and willingness to listen to ignorant people and their propaganda.

You are correct in the sense that there is a wave of anti French sentiment in the USA. Hopefully, you two could come to better terms with regards to your objections.

By the way, which member are you talking about?

I always wondered where you were from Quetzalcoatl. Why do you have yourself down as Jamaican and not French? Or am I missing something?

Anyways Something else needs to be cleared up, and thats about the Gauls. Like Demon said a Gallic army did take Rome, and on many occasions gave Rome a run for their money. They were great warriors, and some of the best metal workers. Infact Chain mail was designed and made from them as was the helmets the Romans used. They were also known for building a couple stone forts.

The Gauls weren't Savages or barbarians as much as the Romans would have liked you to believe, and that pretty much goes for all those considered Barbariac. They were just not a unified force like the civilizations that were around the Mediterranean. The Romans did always fear them though, and respected there will to fight.

He may be totally wrong about the French army, but acting like the petulant French version of a crazed Turkish nationalist wont make it better.  SHow him up by telling him factually why he is wrong.  Itll make him seem dumber and you seem smarter.

This would make a lot of sense if I was arguing with a reasonable individual like most members on this forum are. But Zagros is a total cucumber there is no point arguing with him. this type of individual tends to ignore facts but like embrace totally nonsensical sterotypes and popular propaganda (a sign of chronic stupidity). The only way I see to fit to deal with such individual is to literally beating some sense into them.

  It is like an old tradition here to have the flag of a small or unknown country just for fun , you'll notice some people are from north Korea, Sri lanka and panama here . 

 You are right about the Gauls, their metal technology was in many ways much more advance than the romans. They made very complexed jewellery some term as baroque, and in many fields more advance than the romans but they weren't urban people and lack the urban planning and social and military organisation of the romans. there were 2 Brennus, one sacked rome and another went as far as forming a kingdom in Turkey. they were so fierce in battle that greeks were forced to ask if there is anything they really fear.

 Further the Gauls unlike the germanic barbarians did infact have settlements not great cities but large enough settlements that can be conquered. The germanics were really hard to be conquered simply because they didn't have settlements like the Gauls but live in thick forest and move around the land without any fix settlements.

 This is how a celtic settlement look like. better than anything Germanic definitely, some like at lyon much larger, ressembling a small city.

http://www.keltenmuseum.de/gifs/h_dorf.jpg">

 Since the Gaul had the biggest settlement of the Celtic civ.

 Celtic shield

http://www.celticvikingfurniture.com/gallery_shields.htm">

Celtic sword (make of steel)

 Yea and the foreign legion has a majority of french soldiers contrary to what you think redneck. They are just assigned a "Gaulois" identity since FFL is not supposed to take french soldiers. You'll be suprised how may Belgian, swiss and canadians there are in the foreign legion. All officers in the FFL are also french .

 And learn to spell foreign properly, you made the mistake twice .

Jeez insulting peopole left and right.. ignorant boy, son of a b*tch, redneck.. you need to calm down a little bit. Its not all about having good units or troops, but what you can do with them. We can say the 20th century was not the glory days of the French Republic though..

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.

The military history of Iraq is rich of plentiful and glorious victories, I suppose ...

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.

They really aren't an army, they're a heavily armed police force.

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

I second that!

As far as I know there occurred 4 battles(or series of battles that lasted for a few days) that can be classified as major battles between regular armies.

These were

Battle of First Ýnönü

Battle of Second Ýnönü

which were both won by the Turkish army

Battles of Kütahya-Eskiþehir

in which Turkish army had been defeated and had to make a retreat behind Eskiþehir to protect the line,just near Ankara

and finally Battle of Sakarya, which was won by the Turkish army and started the process of Greek withdrawal.

If you count the wars between the regular armies, you can't say Greeks had won the battles, but if you mean the fights between Kuvay-ý Milliye(Turkish nationalist guerilla forces) and the Greek army, you can say that, as the Kuvay-ý Milliye couldn't be enough to stop Greek invasion of Western Anatolia.

I think you better stop fooling yourself for believing that was the only reason...

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9345&PN=1&TPN=5 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9345& ;PN=1&TPN=5

Check this link, the same stuff was discussed over there.

Well, read that thread well and continue there if you want to do so, in order not to change the subject in this thread.,

Soviet support is not at all a despisable one, but definitely not the "only" reason Turkey had won the war.

Can i suggest the Irish. They have lost many, many wars (yes they're brave but they still lose). Also the Welsh, great guerillas but never made an all rounded army capable of much outside rough terrain. that said if used as part of a larger force both were deadly.

Can you give some specific examples?

of the Irish or the Welsh?

Welsh war of Independance is one example. The Irish getting mullered during the Tipperary rebellion or under Cromwell are others...

Well, if you look at modern history my vote will go to Italian army (no offense). Just look at WWII. Although they outnumbered Greek army and had superior technology they were beaten by the Greeks.

However, in WWI Italian army haven't won much battles but still their diplomats have succeeded to gain much more teritories then they deserved in battles.    

what about ethiopia? and what about the countries that defeated the imperialists before they were even able to colonise?

worst army, i would say the bahamas.... cuz they dont even ahve an army.