Which militaries throughout History have the most misinformed fanbase?

Jun 2017
2,507
Connecticut
#71
"USA , USA , USA !!!!!!!, Alamo , Lee , D-Day , Omaha Beach , Patton , Marines , John Wayne , Iwo Jima , no no we did not lose Vietnam they won all battles there !!!!! If not those liberal collage backstabbers in States and instead let Rambo let loose we would win over dirty commies over there too. "

Frankly from most of the military buffs or armchair historians from US I get these replies which I summarised above.
I don't think any Americans are under the impression we won Vietnam regardless of political affiliation.
 
Oct 2018
77
Sweden
#72
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.
Im not quite sure what your points are about the Spartans. The Spartans had at their height 6000 Spartiate hoplites and Athens at the time had 10,000 and Argos had around 3000 i think i remember and Corinth had around 5000.
The recent bashing of the Spartans i find unjustified. It is true that they could never maintain a large empire becasue of their refusal to accept citizenship for other greeks but they really were the army juggernaut of Greece until their defeat at Lectura and at that time i think i remember that there were only about 700 Spartiates left so it wasnt at all a fair clash of Sparta vs Thebes and until then as far as i remember they were never defeated in a large field battle.
Thuccydides remarks that the Spartan army at Mantinea was the greatest army Greece had ever seen.
Though the Spartan myth is ofcourse exaggerated they really were the best warriors of Greece. The Spartiates were very wealthy and didnt have to work themselves and had many slave attendants so the Spartans could really dedicate themselves to warfare much more than other Greeks and they could all afford the best of the best armour and weaponry. Their army organization, discipline and manouvers were advanced and beyond the other states. They also ate meat regularly and were larger than other Greeks.
Sparta really fell much like Athens because they devastated eachother during the Peloponnesian war.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,950
Spain
#73
Yes.
Regarding the Crimea.
In many ways the army was no better or worse than any fielded before. On an individual unit basis it was as solid and reliable as the French.

But it’s logistical arm was terrible.
And it had some bad commanders.
The French had much better staff system and could supply an army in the field.
British Army in Crimea was one of the worst army in history.... as the same level than Italian army in 1940-1943.... they failed everything they tried..

It was almost comic

 
May 2011
13,541
Navan, Ireland
#75
British Army in Crimea was one of the worst army in history.... as the same level than Italian army in 1940-1943.... they failed everything they tried..

.......................
Thats unfair and inaccurate to both the British army of the Crimera and the Italians of WWII.
 
Feb 2016
4,065
Japan
#76
British Army in Crimea was one of the worst army in history.... as the same level than Italian army in 1940-1943.... they failed everything they tried..

It was almost comic

Both Italians and Crimean British stand above Napoleonic Spanish.

But let me illustrate how they did not fail at everything.
1. Inkermam.
2. Alma
3. Bakaclava.

At inkermam
British 2nd Division attacks Russian assault column. Inflicts heavy casualties. Beats off a second counter attack. No failures.

British Light Division arrives in the flank. Rifleman kills Russian commander. The next two replacements also die.

British artillery blunts the serving columns advance.

A second force attacks a redoubt. 15000 Russians. 300 British bayonet charge the lead columns.. and force them back. 41st regiment (450) hits 5 Russian battalions in the flank and chases them into the Cherna River.

At home hill. The British withdrew and let the superior numbers of Russians take the redoubt. The Rifle Brigade, 21st and 63rd regiments however recapture them. SUCESS!!

The Fourth division arrive and counter attack. Their commander is killed but French troops arrive and the Russians retreat.
 
Feb 2016
4,065
Japan
#77
Alma.
Though the British mistimed their attack, only the guards brigade, who refused to atrack after heavy casualties already, could be described as “failing” ... and even then they still fought, and forced Russian troops to retreat.

The 30th foot were able to ruin 3 Russian batteries.... forcing them to retreat.

The Russians leave the field in disorder.

And while we can say the French decided the day, nothing here suggests the British failed.
 
Likes: Kevinmeath
Feb 2016
4,065
Japan
#78
Balaclava.
In line, the 93rd force the Ingermanland Hussars to retreat.

The heavy cavalry brigade charges UPHILL and outnumbered 2/3-1 and forces them to retreat and inflicts heavy casualties.

The light brigade stuff their orders and launch a frontal assault down a valley with enfilafing fire.. despite heavy casualties they actually make it to the guns to sabre and melee with gunners and some Russian cavalry that intervene. Theses Russian cavalry rout but rally when they realise they light brigade are the only enemy. They form up blocking the lights brigades retreat...but the light brigade break through... think about that ... they just survived a frontal suicide attack that actually reached its target, got trapped when they were at best at 60% strength... and then fight through the force supposed to destroy them... fail? It hit the wrong target. But it succeeded in doing what it thought it was supposed to do.
 
Feb 2016
4,065
Japan
#79
So while yes. It certainly lacked the logistical support of the French and its leadership left some concerns... the troops werevas solid and reliable as they’d always been.

To consider the British Army in the crimes one of the worst in history ,... you’d need to be either completely ignorant of the Crimean War, British military history, European armies of the period ... or a massive Anglophobe.
 
Mar 2016
397
Australia
#80
The Prussian army. Many people look at the Wikipedia page for the Seven Years War and see the map of "Prussia vs Everyone" and thinks "Wow, it's amazing Prussia won a war against all of the Great Powers of Europe, their army must be incredible", but while the Prussian army was indeed impressive, and led by an equally impressive man, Frederick the Great, that's really only for a relatively short period of time, from the 1740's to the early 1760's. Before the 1740's the army was never really tried in any meaningful conflict, and after the 1760's it was so devoid of talented and experienced generals and officers because they were all lost during the Seven Years War. The Prussian army performed without much distinction in the War of the Bavarian Succession and the War of the First Coalition, and was utterly crushed beyond repair in mere days during the War of the Fourth Coalition. The greatest victories they saw over Napoleonic France - Leipzig and Waterloo - was in coalition with armies from other countries. It wasn't until the 1860's that the Prussian army regained the prestige and reputation that it had during the height of Frederick the Great's glory. So out of a history of roughly 170 years (1700 to 1870), only 30 of those years (or 17%) saw the Prussian army be legitimately impressive and above average.
 

Similar History Discussions