Which militaries throughout History have the most misinformed fanbase?


Ad Honorem
Jul 2013

Which militaries in human history have the most misinformed fanbase and promotional researchers? Such as claiming the German Army was the best army ever and all their equipment was good, or the English Longbowmen can easily shoot apart charging Knights.
Jan 2016
Victoria, Canada
One example might be the Huns, not so much because the Huns' achievements weren't impressive, but because their success didn't come from just being steppe horse archers. The Huns had a stable and rather sophisticated state structure, were well informed and evidently had a good grasp of Roman politics, and were very well organized and coordinated militarily. Contrary to popular belief, they weren't just hordes of roaming barbarians who found success solely because of their overpowered tactics; in fact, they crushed many other groups using identical tactics on their way to the Roman border, likely through superior organization, not mere savagery, as Roman historians would have you believe.


Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
Information was not easily disseminated throughout most of history. Many could not read, most regimes/governments did not freely share information and if they did, it would be biased, media and technology was almost nil. I am reminded of the great battle of Kadesh where both sides won


In today's era, we are fortunate to have great advances in all these eras, yet few know what really happens - even if you are there.
Sep 2017
United States
I'd say a lot of Roman fans are.

Many claim to love the Roman military machine and champion it, but don't know what triarii, hastati, and principes are, assume that lorica segmenta+scutum+pilum+gladius (the quintessential legionary) were the standard for the entire history of Rome, don't know anything about the late Roman army other than they were 'barbarized' or 'way more sloppy', and don't have a clue about early Eastern Roman (Byzantine) weapons/armor/tactics.

Oh, and also think the testudo was a battlefield formation used also in melee.
  • Like
Reactions: Spartakus X
Jun 2017
Off the top of my head I'd say the Spartans, Mongols and English/British.

Spartans are seen as the sterotype of a good warrior despite having an inefficient society built off a division of labor that made large scale warfare impossible even by city state standards.

Mongols are seen as unbeatable and the more you look into it the more you see that their success is really a product of the situation they were in. I feel a lot of their fans are fans of the reputation more than the reality.

English/British, A because their empire was largely built on claiming large empty landmasses they settled and ruled small portions of. B because English history and it's perceived importance is dictated by the UK's later importance rather than England's actual power, England was pretty weak throughout most of history and even in the UK era, the British Empire didn't really surpass France until Napoleon was put down.

Japan, I've met quite a few people(non Japanese) whose belief in the superiority of the Samurai over modern conventional weapons is the most stunning thing I've ever seen. There's a real group of people who think the Samurai with their katana's were superior to guns.
  • Like
Reactions: Gvelion


Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
1) Modern Russian military-Highly trolled in today's politics and military comments. Constantly on how they have the best tanks or the best SAM systems. Yesterday they bragged how they helped the Syrian intercept 70 percent of US Tomahawk Cruise missiles, when video shows many Tomahawks striking with little SAMs in the air or SAMs impacting their targets. Similar to last year where they claimed only 23 of Tomahawk cruise missiles hit, when sattelite images show most hit. Other ridiculous claims like how US destroyers can be disabled by a single fighter with a jammer along with the Russians can sustain a war with NATO.

1(tied) Germany in WWII- Overexagerrated claims of superiority. People say they could have won if world didn't gang up on them, had the best soldiers, equipment etc. This goes from claims such as it takes 5 Shermans to kill 1 Tiger, to Germany if they have devloped nukes they would have won the war. Other "superweapons" includes things like the V2 rocket, ME262 Fighter jet etc. The truth is the Germans had logistics stretched thin and they simply couldn't match the allies in resources, their military was centered around that.(horse drawn logistics, no good navy, no strategic bombers) It is said Germany was outnumbered by the enemy, however there are instances such as in 1941 where they outnumbered the Soviets. Other things like they could of won if Hitler listened to his generals.

2) Spartans-Hyped up training system. Thermopylae highly overexagerated with some people believing the Persians had hundreds of thousands of men. The claim that they were somehow the ultimate soldier, however their army lacked good cavalry and skirmishers. They were beaten many times in history and ultimately ended.

3) Japanese-Saying they were the perfect warriors of the East. Advanced cavalry when they had pretty small horses. Katanas cutting through everything when they mainly used polearms and bows and they lacked good quality metal. Their armor being the best but it was just lammelar not plate. They have a mystic bushido thing they makes them honorable and not use guns however in reality they were warlords that prized their firearms.

4) English Medieval armies-Saying how they cut down Knights with longbows when clearly most were defeated in melee. English longbows were defeated before and the English lost the 100 Years War

5) The Mongols-People don't realize they were succesful not just because of their weapons. The composite bow and lance were standard weapons of the time. They just were able to have an efficient political system, good diplomacy and the ability to organize armies well.

6) Huns-Same reason as the Mongols

7) Roman Army-It seems to get some idea that they were the best army ever at the time, however they were more tribal and less organized than you would think. Legions varied in quality and logistics seem rather not mentioned at all. There were many times Roman armies were simply defeated. Also the standard Trajan era legionaire seems to be waved around a lot and claims they can beat Medieval armies even in similar numbers. There is also the idea that later Roman armies were not as good in quality and Byzantine Empire sucked compared. Also it seems a lot of their victories against hordes of barbarians are largely incorrect about realistic numbers.

8) United States Continental Army-The idea that they won the war alone and was somehow so advanced with their rifles, being able to pick of British soldiers while they were marching shoulder to shoulder as some sort of pioneer of guerilla warfare. In reality they were beaten often by bayonet charges and thanks to the French, they won
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zanis and Gvelion

Duke Valentino

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
Persian strength during the invasions of Greece. At Marathon? Probably 10,000 Persian troopers. Second invasion (by land)? Perhaps 40,000-60,000 at most.
Jan 2013
Toronto, Canada
Spartan armies were good at frontal attacks and static defences. They were mediocre at other maneuvers and usually lacked any form of initiative.
  • Like
Reactions: macon