Which militaries throughout History have the most misinformed fanbase?

Oct 2018
110
Sweden
#81
Spartan armies were good at frontal attacks and static defences. They were mediocre at other maneuvers and usually lacked any form of initiative.
Not true they were involved in quite a lot of asymetrical warfare, ambushes, night attacks in particular etc especially during the peloponnesian war and defeated the athenians at sea severall times.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,024
Spain
#82
Oh my God... how much passion!

An inept comparison seeing that the British forces, for all their failings, played their part in winning the war.
They played thier part in the war as the Sardinian or the Ottomans too... but it was the French Army the most decisive in the campaign.

Edric wrote


Both Italians and Crimean British stand above Napoleonic Spanish.
Simply ... not Baylen in the British Army in Crimea... or in the Italian Army in WW2... this latter one was innocous.... as easy as to read Napoleon about Spain and Russians about Krymea war. But we shouldn´t change the subject please....I don´t want to talk again about the same, the British defeats in Puerto Rico or Buenos Ayres or Tenerife or Cadis... nothing as that victories were won by the Italian army in 1940 - 1943 or British Army in 1854 -1856.

1. Inkermam.

2. Alma

3. Bakaclava.
Three battles decided by the French Army. in Inkerman, British fought well (who said otherwise).. but the battle was decided by French (as Alma) . In Balaklava, the Ottomans were the best allied soldiers...and British attack was...how to say...."different"... "not very much orthodox"...maybe as it was definied by Bosquet: C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre (It is splendid but it is not the war) ...with that gang of geniuses of the art of war as Ranglan, Lucan, Cardigan, Nolan etc etc...

British Army in 1854 was not a good army at all... they had the best navy in the world at that time... but not an army...Mr Edric points out some outstanding facts as he writes about soldiers and units... I am talking about the Army as a set...not about one unit... as the 2nd Dv in Inkermann... Also you should talk about the British fails.. the British defeats in Sevastopol... in Big Redan, or in june 18th assault...The French army successfully stormed the Malakoff redoubt, whereas a simultaneous British attack on the Big Redanto the south of the Malakoff was repulsed...
British army in 1854 didn´t play in the same league than France, Russia, Prussian... British played other different "game".. the Naval War... where Britain was the most powerful.
In fact, British Army was , how to say (I do not want to hurt the feelings of my sensitive British friends). a "not especially bright" army during Victorian Age (more than Army it was a kind of police to support the naval operations).... only with the Lord Haldane´s reforms... UK had an excellent little army...during sommer 1914 till first Ypres. (November/december 14)...

So yes I insist, during the Victorian age, they had the army they needed to beat few "natives"...but not way to fight an European Army. They were based in the Navy... not in a good army. I guess what would have happened if British army landed in Krym without French, Ottoman and Sardinian support. But I don´t like what if.... it is clear to me... Lord Ranglan was not going to conquer Moskva or Kazan.
 
Feb 2016
4,171
Japan
#83
You said otherwise.
You said.
“They failed at everything”. Lol. “Comic”
“Worst Army in history”
Do you not read your own posts.

Note I did not claim they were invincible. Not that the French did not contribute.
The French won Alma, but the British were the reason they won Inkerman.
Only that you were wrong...

They, at battalion level at least, were as good as any in Europe. You’ve watched “charge of the light brigade” too many times I think.

No Crimean Bailen. That’s true...
But no Zornoza, Gamonal, Tudela, Somodiera, Valls, Rio Geboras, Tarragona... infact. Other than a failed seige at Sevastopol what major battles did the British lose in Crimea?
 
Aug 2010
15,223
Welsh Marches
#84
When it comes to the British forces during the Crimean War, I don't feel able to summon up any passion whatever, I was merely suggesting that you were exaggerating their ineffectiveness, and that the comparison with the Italians during WW2 was inept. Just as a matter of historical accuracy rather than from any nationalist feeling.
 
Sep 2016
800
Georgia
#85
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",
Seven Years War was victorious conflict for British, but not really the Prussians. Austria, Russia and France didn't lose anything or ceded to Prussia by peace treaties. Prewar status quo was restored. Prussia just barely managed to survive, despite them starting military operations of the war with invasion of Saxony. Prussian army suffered several defeats during the war as well. Most disastrous was at Kunersdorf. If not for Elizabeth death and Peter III being fan of Frederick, it most likely would end very badly for Prussia.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,584
Sydney
#86
During the Crimean war the British tried to shell Sevastopol and ran out of shells within a day
transporting them from Britain to the Crimea wasn't the problem ,
it was carrying them from Balaclava bay to the front , a distance of some twenty miles
this was the case also for a lot of supplies
finally the army staff requested a railroad to be build , the materials and workers were send and finished in March 1855
which considerably helped the situation
that was the first military use of Railways for supporting an army in the field
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,024
Spain
#87
You said otherwise.
You said.
“They failed at everything”. Lol. “Comic”
“Worst Army in history”
Do you not read your own posts.

Note I did not claim they were invincible. Not that the French did not contribute.
The French won Alma, but the British were the reason they won Inkerman.
Only that you were wrong...

They, at battalion level at least, were as good as any in Europe. You’ve watched “charge of the light brigade” too many times I think.

No Crimean Bailen. That’s true...
But no Zornoza, Gamonal, Tudela, Somodiera, Valls, Rio Geboras, Tarragona... infact. Other than a failed seige at Sevastopol what major battles did the British lose in Crimea?
Yes I saw a lot ot time because the Charge of the Ligth Brigade is the best War-Movie in history (and a Pop-Culture icon). And the movie portrayed very good how was the Victorian Army.

The problem... Edric it is "Battalion level" doesn´t mean "Army level".... the best armies in Europe around 1850: French-Prussian-Russian
British Army got quality thanks to Haldane reforms..In Victorian Age only against the Chinese (and the expeditions in Abyssinia and Persia) were successful without suffering any serious military defeat....
Only Italy and Great Britain suffered major military defeats against african natives.... Italian in Amba Alagi and in Adwa... British in Isandhlwana. Boeren crushed easily Zulu Army in Blood River (1838).

Linschoten,

1940 - 1943 italian army.... was not matched to Victorian Army... but both armies were not very good. Of course, the Victorian Army was brave and little effective... the Mussolini´s Army was only little effective.
 
Feb 2016
4,171
Japan
#88
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?
 
Aug 2010
15,223
Welsh Marches
#89
Yes I saw a lot ot time because the Charge of the Ligth Brigade is the best War-Movie in history (and a Pop-Culture icon). And the movie portrayed very good how was the Victorian Army.

The problem... Edric it is "Battalion level" doesn´t mean "Army level".... the best armies in Europe around 1850: French-Prussian-Russian
British Army got quality thanks to Haldane reforms..In Victorian Age only against the Chinese (and the expeditions in Abyssinia and Persia) were successful without suffering any serious military defeat....
Only Italy and Great Britain suffered major military defeats against african natives.... Italian in Amba Alagi and in Adwa... British in Isandhlwana. Boeren crushed easily Zulu Army in Blood River (1838).

Linschoten,

1940 - 1943 italian army.... was not matched to Victorian Army... but both armies were not very good. Of course, the Victorian Army was brave and little effective... the Mussolini´s Army was only little effective.
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.
 
Feb 2016
4,171
Japan
#90
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..
 

Similar History Discussions