Which militaries throughout History have the most misinformed fanbase?

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,280
Spain
#91
Things is though. You didn’t say “poor at army level” or “bad staff corps”... you said one of the “worst Armies in history”which “failed at everything”.

What your doing now is back peddling.

Charge of the light brigade is a great movie.
It is however an anti-war film directed by a leftist.

So what other bizarre claims...
“In the Victorian age only expeditions against the Chinese were successful with out major defeats”.
Hmm...
coorg campaign in India.
Sixth Kaffir War, Africa.
Canadian Rebellion, America.
Capture of Aden
Capture of Durban, Africa.
Scinde Campaign, India.
Gwalior Campaign India.
First Sikh War.
Orange Free State War.
Seventh Kaffir War.
Second Sikh War.
Eighth Kaffir War.
Second Burma War.
New Zealand Bush Wars
2nd Sikh War
CRIMEAN WAR
Opium War
2nd Ashanti War.
Bhutan War
3rd Ashanti War.
Just to name a few.

“Only British and Italians lost to Africans”.
Except the Spanish, who lost 13 000 men at Anual, Morocco in 1922 in the Rif War.

And the French who lost a battle at Togbao to native Chadians, and also lost battles to Berbers and Algerians.

“The Boers crushed the Zulus at Blood River”
Yes. And the British crushed them at Ulundi, Kambula and Hlobane.
The Zulus massacred a similar Boer laager at Weenen... what’s your point?
During Victorian Age....Victorian Army lacked of victories as Lepanto (Philip II), Austerlitz (Napoleon), Sedan (William I)...Breitenfeld (Gustavus Adolphus)... because Victorian Army was a kind of police to support the Navy that it was the Big guy ..

When I was talking about natives in Black AFrica .. that is because I omitted the battles in North Africa or the British defeats in Majuba Hill, Colenso, Spion Kop etc etc etc... Only Italy and only Britain had major defeats in black Africa...nor France, Portugal, Spain or Germany

Amba Alagi (4.500 men), Adwa (18.000 men)...Isandlwana (2.000 men). It is truth, the Victorian Army easily defeated Chinese Army.(the major opponent they beat without any kind of trouble, It is truth)...but these were the only campaigns without troube for the Victorian Army...the only serious opponent was in Crimea... and Crimea revealed the deficiencies of that army ..

I don´t know why you are talking about Spanish Army in this argument....but if you like I can write about operations in Morocco in 1859/1860 or in 1909-1927 or in Vietnam and Cambodja... but here we are talking about Victorian Army as example the rol played in Crimea War.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,280
Spain
#92
I ddin't claim that the British army in the Crimea was very good, but in so far as it was not, that was largely a result of bad leadership and organization; the Italian army in North Africa was ineffective for wholly different reasons, because most of the ordinary soldiers had no heart for the cause, it was matter of lack of motivation. So I think the comparison is misleading.
I agree with you... Victorian Army was not the best army in the world between 1840 to 1910....the Army lacked of leadership (their leaders were old fashion as in Crimea or "political" generals looked more policemen than soldiers because in the colonies they were a police force....their logistic means in Crimea were awful, and what about the Victorian artillery?
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,280
Spain
#93
Best armies in Europe.. 1850s.
French... no argument there. They were the pinnacle of European militaries.

Russian... on what evidence?
The Russians came of worst against the British, French and even Greeks in Crimean. They were more successful against Turks, but not always. Badly equipped, poorly drilled...
Prior to this what recent military success?

Prussians?
Again. Well trained, but recent military experience had shown them to be unable to beat that mighty European military powerhouse of Denmark.. and that was their only recent military action since losing Wavre..
Well the Russians were who stopped French-British-Ottoman-Sardinian etc for one year!!! and they conquered Central Asia without any "Maiwand" or "Gandamak"... It is truth the Prussians failed in the Duchies in 1848-1852... but soon they beat them in 1864 and then Austria (Sadowa or Königgrätz)... and then the "best Army in the world" was crushed by the Prussians in Sedan! (120.000 casualties).

Around 1860 the Prussians became the best army in the world
 
Feb 2016
4,300
Japan
#94
1860s. Irrelevant.
You said the were the best military in 1850.
With no combat record, except being unable to beat Denmark!!!

British army a police force.... again showing your general lack of reading.
Fought more big battles 1840-50 than the Prussians and Russians.
The Russians, stopped the French army for one whole year who were in your opinion supported by bottom tier Greek and Turks and a police force. They stopped them by losing repeatedly? Not a glowing report on their ability.
 
May 2018
107
On earth.
#95
Controversial hot take, but Zulu.
People seem to be under the impression that due to their Isandlwana victory over the British, that they were the most organized, fierce, and effective military in all of Black Africa, which I sorely disagree with on most all fronts. I honestly believe that in a battle, the Ethiopians (who beat the Italians), would've beaten the Zulu, that the Asante, who lost to the British, could beat the Zulu, and that the Malians, KanemBornu, Songhai, and many others could've and would've beaten them. Anyone who wishes to argue this can.
 
Likes: Kevinmeath

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,216
#96
Under the ruthlessly tyrannical Shaka the Zulu's were very motivated and inspired the legends of their capabilities. Later, under Cetwayo thier ability was a past glory and one Zulu leaders relied upon for the rebellion against the British. Despite the official account and the rather wonderful 1960's film of it, at Rorke's Drift the enemy did not salute and march away in good order. They melted away defeated by their failures and got derided as cowards by their families.
 
Mar 2019
877
Kansas
#98
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.
To be fair the strength in their empire was based on their navy, something they definitely excelled at.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,570
Benin City, Nigeria
#99
Under the ruthlessly tyrannical Shaka the Zulu's were very motivated and inspired the legends of their capabilities. Later, under Cetwayo thier ability was a past glory and one Zulu leaders relied upon for the rebellion against the British. Despite the official account and the rather wonderful 1960's film of it, at Rorke's Drift the enemy did not salute and march away in good order. They melted away defeated by their failures and got derided as cowards by their families.
What is this "rebellion against the British" you're referring to? The Anglo-Zulu war was certainly not a case of one group carrying out a "rebellion" against some other occupying group.

As for the "legends of their capabilities" what are your sources on that and where did you read that they relied upon some past glory to motivate them to fight the British?
 
Sep 2014
869
Texas
The Spartans. The modern myth is they were insanely tough and fanatical.

The Spartans were just people who did what they did to survive. Dying gloriously in battle is not unusual, but why is everyone shocked they didn't want to be burned alive on Sphacteria. When you look at specific people you see they had their moments like king Agelaus playing horsey with his kids, or the girl talking up her boyfriend. And sometimes a king really doesn't know what he's doing.
 
Likes: HiddenHistory

Similar History Discussions