Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 14th, 2012, 10:25 AM   #71

Hresvelgr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,025
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm View Post
Do we count Saudi Arabia in that? This country is spending vast amount of money and is buying some very effective and modern equipment, yet we haven't seen saudi army in action.
We saw them in action in the '91 Gulf War. They did okay, I suppose. But then again it was Saddam they were fighting. Personally I think the title "Why Ba'athists Lose Wars" would be more appropriate given their record, given that Syria and Iraq stand as the most outstanding examples of Middle-Eastern armies that regularly got kicked around the curb.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 15th, 2012, 01:59 AM   #72

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,783

I don't believe Saudi Arabia will be a good example here.....Its true that its theonly country in the Gulf large enough to be considered a regional power, but there has been no large scale military action involving Saudi Arabia...not even the Gulf War of 1991....

Saudi Arabia is spending large amounts of money not just for military but also to expand its economic position...they're building a huge economic city in Jeddah, expected to further strenghten its role in the region...

Still however, Arabs are not a first priority for the US, Israel will retain an advantage over Arabs given its major influence on US decision-making through the Jewish Lobby.
Essa is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 03:02 AM   #73

anmol's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: chandigarh
Posts: 762

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
There's nothing wrong with native troops when they are trained, disciplined and led by British officers. Look at the brilliant performance of Gurkhas and Sikhs over 200 years and the magnificent drum roll of military prowess of the Kings's African Rifles, the Cape Coloured Corps, the Arab Legion, the Omani Scouts, the Aden Levies, the Calcutta Light Horse.
The Corps of Colonial Marines made up mainly of runaway American slaves were soon knocked into shape in 1814 and were chasing American planters all over the Chesapeake and the seemingly uncontrollable Pathans of the North West Territory performed with discipline and skill under British officers. Even the Chinese "Ever Victorious Army" was only ever victorious under Gordon and his Sandhurst bunch.
so sikhs have never won a war while they were heading the army division tell that to sikh divisions that liberated bangladesh, Sikh divisions winning the kargil war, the sikh division driving away Portuguese from Goa the list goes on and on
anmol is online now  
Old November 15th, 2012, 04:01 AM   #74
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 179

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
You would find most if not all of these "problems" in Latin America
Not really... In Latin America you wont find any of the problems described... You will find however:

1.Lack of resources (depending on the country)

2.Corruption (it may take so many forms that I can't think which example to choose but I gonna guess this may mean that embezzlement of resources will be as common as authorities can get away with it and training and talent for the soldiers may be wasted as they are used as private workforce by their leaders, however they would still have much better training that the arab soldiers described in the article)
coldshot is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 07:10 AM   #75

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,227

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol View Post
so sikhs have never won a war while they were heading the army division tell that to sikh divisions that liberated bangladesh, Sikh divisions winning the kargil war, the sikh division driving away Portuguese from Goa the list goes on and on
I certainly didn't say that, although you seem to have done.
What I would say is that the performance of Sikh military formations during the period of the Khalsa was mixed, even under the command of European, mainly French and Italian, generals. Within the British Indian Army and the British Army, Sikh regiments were without equal, especially in situations where they were outnumbered and outgunned, something that they have not had to face post-independence. Their natural skills are such that there was a move for many years to raise a Sikh Regiment witin the British Army that has been scotched by "racial equality" laws.
If you want to praise the Sikh Regiment, you should try to find a more illustrious action than that of Goa.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 08:44 AM   #76

harbinger's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 719

21`sikhs at saragarhi is a nice one.no british officers there though.
harbinger is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 09:03 AM   #77

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,227

Quote:
Originally Posted by harbinger View Post
21`sikhs at saragarhi is a nice one.no british officers there though.
The most valiant stand, nothing like it by Indian soldiers in the service of Maharajahs, Sultans or Ranas or Republics, as their monument states

"
Quote:
The Government of India have caused this tablet to be erected to the memory of the twenty one non-commissioned officers and men of the 36 Sikh Regiment of the Bengal Infantry whose names are engraved below as a perpetual record of the heroism shown by these gallant soldiers who died at their posts in the defence of the fort of Saragarhi, on the 12 September 1897, fighting against overwhelming numbers, thus proving their loyalty and devotion to their sovereign, the Queen Empress of India, and gloriously maintaining the reputation of the Sikhs for unflinching courage on the field of battle."
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 10:24 AM   #78

anmol's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: chandigarh
Posts: 762

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
I certainly didn't say that, although you seem to have done.
What I would say is that the performance of Sikh military formations during the period of the Khalsa was mixed, even under the command of European, mainly French and Italian, generals. Within the British Indian Army and the British Army, Sikh regiments were without equal, especially in situations where they were outnumbered and outgunned, something that they have not had to face post-independence. Their natural skills are such that there was a move for many years to raise a Sikh Regiment witin the British Army that has been scotched by "racial equality" laws.
If you want to praise the Sikh Regiment, you should try to find a more illustrious action than that of Goa.
Why is action in goa not illustrious ,It was for the independance of goans from the intolerable attrocities commited by portugese, this is attested by the fact that their were 20 armed rebellions against the portugese since its colonization
anmol is online now  
Old November 15th, 2012, 10:37 AM   #79

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,227

Quote:
Originally Posted by anmol View Post
Why is action in goa not illustrious ,It was for the independance of goans from the intolerable attrocities commited by portugese, this is attested by the fact that their were 20 armed rebellions against the portugese since its colonization
Without even tocuhing on the rights and wrong of the Indian invasion of Goa, it was hardly a military campaign to be proud of:-
Portugal
3,995 Army mainly African conscripts and national servicemen
200 Naval personnel
1 frigate
3 patrol boats
India
45,000 infantry plus 3000 infiltrated terrorists
1 Light Aircraft Carrier
2 Cruisers
1 destroyer
8 frigates
4 Minesweepers
20 Canberras
6 Vampires
6 Toofanis
6 Hunters
4 Mysteres
From a British perspective we ended up with that slimy, thieving, Goanese crook, Keith Vaz MP.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...823491,00.html

Last edited by Ancientgeezer; November 15th, 2012 at 10:43 AM.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 11:56 AM   #80
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

After reading the opera magna of Col. De Atkine again & again with more care, must conclude that at least some Arabs tend to lose wars because their contenders tend to win.
sylla1 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
arabs, lose, wars


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who are the Arabs? Rosi Middle Eastern and African History 52 October 30th, 2013 01:22 PM
The Byzantines defeat the arabs and turks( arabs and later turks) Feeeen Speculative History 14 June 13th, 2013 02:12 AM
Would Japan Lose? mingming Speculative History 1 May 6th, 2011 09:19 PM
Why did Germany lose two world wars? Belisarius War and Military History 50 July 19th, 2008 04:59 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.