Posted on Apr 8, 2015
Are there any Army's or Navy's which started from scratch without any external advisors?
7.82K
75
67
8
8
0
On another discussion question the subject of the beginning of an Army came up. I know that wars and conflicts can generally have a discoverable starting and ending point - declaration of war and truce/surrender are reasonable but not foolproof - e.g., Tonkin Gulf resolution and Vietnam. Beginning of a functioning Army and Navy in history got me wondering about examples - in our nation we had the French and Indian wars and von Steuban among others who helped develop the US Army. Since WWI, this nation has assisted other nations and smaller groups build armies/guerilla forces. The Soviet Union and its surrogates such as Cuba did likewise. Colonial masters [those that empowered the colonials to govern and provide administrative services] helped to establish and train colonial forces - Britain seemed to do a good job while the Belgian and Portuguese didn't seem to do this. I expect in antiquity somebody had to start the first military from scratch; but, I am looking for recorded examples.
COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT ] SSgt Robert Marx SSG Leo Bell SSG Ed Mikus SGT John " Mac " McConnell SFC William Farrell SP5 Mark Kuzinski PO3 Steven Sherrill SGT Forrest Stewart SGT Robert Hawks SrA Christopher Wright SPC Corbin Sayi
COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT ] SSgt Robert Marx SSG Leo Bell SSG Ed Mikus SGT John " Mac " McConnell SFC William Farrell SP5 Mark Kuzinski PO3 Steven Sherrill SGT Forrest Stewart SGT Robert Hawks SrA Christopher Wright SPC Corbin Sayi
Military History
Ancient History
Archaeology
World History
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
3
3
0
Outstanding Question.
I think I agree with everyone's thoughts so far. Big question is what makes an Army? Tactics? working together? or just a group of people fighting.
I know the Arabs were never really organized until 630 AD when Muhammad comes along and unites the tribes. Up until that time they all fought in tribes against each other all over the Arabian Peninsula. It is after that the Muslims (They are now united by religion sorta) start expanding across the Middle East and North Africa.
I wonder about the Greeks and Romans. That is a little bit back more but they were both powerful nations at their time and had excellent army's. LTC Ford you have me digging again and I should be working on a research paper. :) Great Question.
I think I agree with everyone's thoughts so far. Big question is what makes an Army? Tactics? working together? or just a group of people fighting.
I know the Arabs were never really organized until 630 AD when Muhammad comes along and unites the tribes. Up until that time they all fought in tribes against each other all over the Arabian Peninsula. It is after that the Muslims (They are now united by religion sorta) start expanding across the Middle East and North Africa.
I wonder about the Greeks and Romans. That is a little bit back more but they were both powerful nations at their time and had excellent army's. LTC Ford you have me digging again and I should be working on a research paper. :) Great Question.
(3)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
Germania and Agricola by Tacitus is an interesting book. It talks about the Germanic tribes. It doesn't so much go into strategy except in mentioning that even the Great Ceasar understood that these people could not be ruled by rome, and another excerpt in which he mentions that one of the tribes of Germania were so well developed in horsemanship that their tactics were adopted by the Romans.
Take it with a grain of salt. Tacitus wrote based on reports he received from folks with sandals on the ground in Germania rather than any personal experience with being there.
Take it with a grain of salt. Tacitus wrote based on reports he received from folks with sandals on the ground in Germania rather than any personal experience with being there.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC Stephen F. Colonel; Hoping not to wade into waters that are too deep here, but the Ancient Greek Navies were composed of (primarily) the poor Greek citizens (preferable) and/or hired rowers [read as "non-citizens" and/or "rented out slaves"] (a poor second / third choice). In a radical departure from modern day practices, the trireme's captains were (generally) political appointees who knew bupkis about the navy.
On the TOE you'd also have about thirty "fighting men and officers" (split roughly evenly between the two categories).
On the TOE you'd also have about thirty "fighting men and officers" (split roughly evenly between the two categories).
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Ted, thanks for the information about the composition of the trireme TOE and nice pun about deep waters. I have generally avoided deep waters. 4 decades ago, I was informally offered a slot at the USNA. My heart was inclined to the Army so I enlisted. As luck would have it after I was at West Point we had survival swimming. That and later water courses reinforced my desire to be primarily land-based.
I understand that ramming was a frequently used tactic for disabling an enemy ship and boarding it with the warriors. Ramming would have been particularly threatening to below deck rowers who I expect suffered higher losses than the warriors above.
I am curious if there wee significant efforts to make triremes fire resistant. Both because of launching flaming "arrows" and receiving incoming flaming "arrows." Storing burning pitch on a wooden vessel seems hazardous.
I understand that ramming was a frequently used tactic for disabling an enemy ship and boarding it with the warriors. Ramming would have been particularly threatening to below deck rowers who I expect suffered higher losses than the warriors above.
I am curious if there wee significant efforts to make triremes fire resistant. Both because of launching flaming "arrows" and receiving incoming flaming "arrows." Storing burning pitch on a wooden vessel seems hazardous.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
That's a really excellent question. I do wish that I had an answer for it.
The Sumerians and Akkadians had armies as early as around 3,500 BC (or BCE for the politically correct [even though it isn't "common" for the majority of the world's people {so maybe the correct term should be BWERT - Before White Europeans Ran Things}])
I suspect that "armies" just grew naturally as conflicts involved larger and larger numbers of people and the number of participants reached a tipping point where it simply wasn't reasonable to treat the whole thing like a barroom brawl.
PS - When looking at those who helped develop the American Army, don't forget the British who trained many of the earliest American officers.
The Sumerians and Akkadians had armies as early as around 3,500 BC (or BCE for the politically correct [even though it isn't "common" for the majority of the world's people {so maybe the correct term should be BWERT - Before White Europeans Ran Things}])
I suspect that "armies" just grew naturally as conflicts involved larger and larger numbers of people and the number of participants reached a tipping point where it simply wasn't reasonable to treat the whole thing like a barroom brawl.
PS - When looking at those who helped develop the American Army, don't forget the British who trained many of the earliest American officers.
(3)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
COL Ted Mc, thanks for your thoughts on the Sumerians and Akkadians and the suggestion for a potential new acronym. It is sad that ISIL and like-minded groups are destroying everything they can from before the time of the beginning of Islam or supports competing faiths except what they cannot sell on the black market. There is a wealth of archeological information in that region.
Yes the British helped train the colonial forces in the French and Indian Wars and von Steuben was one of many other foreigners who helped train us in our infancy as a military service and nation.
Your comment about barroom brawls reminded me about the periodic introduction of new technology which revolutionized warfare at the expense of the initial opponents- chariots, iron vs bronze, phalanx, long-bow, artillery, rifles, forming squares against cavalry, machine guns, submarines, lethal gas, tanks, airplanes, aircraft carriers, etc.
Yes the British helped train the colonial forces in the French and Indian Wars and von Steuben was one of many other foreigners who helped train us in our infancy as a military service and nation.
Your comment about barroom brawls reminded me about the periodic introduction of new technology which revolutionized warfare at the expense of the initial opponents- chariots, iron vs bronze, phalanx, long-bow, artillery, rifles, forming squares against cavalry, machine guns, submarines, lethal gas, tanks, airplanes, aircraft carriers, etc.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
At some point, someone had to create an armed forces without outside influence. It is one of those which comes first the chicken or the egg kind of questions. It also brings the question at what point does the perception change from a bunch of people beating each other with stone axes to an organized defensive/offensive force.
My favorite example of Naval excellence is the Vikings. They built ships that could sail in extremely shallow water, yet sail across the open ocean equally well. They mastered hit and run tactics sailing in, attacking, and leaving. They explored from Scandinavia to Vinland (North America). They established colonies, traded, raided, and did it all before the year 1100CE.
Attilla the Hun had to have something right. His armies killed so many people that the Earth cooled from forrests taking over lands that had once been cultivated.
Genghis Khan had something going for him in that he didn't force people to change so much as forcing them to accept his rule.
My favorite example of Naval excellence is the Vikings. They built ships that could sail in extremely shallow water, yet sail across the open ocean equally well. They mastered hit and run tactics sailing in, attacking, and leaving. They explored from Scandinavia to Vinland (North America). They established colonies, traded, raided, and did it all before the year 1100CE.
Attilla the Hun had to have something right. His armies killed so many people that the Earth cooled from forrests taking over lands that had once been cultivated.
Genghis Khan had something going for him in that he didn't force people to change so much as forcing them to accept his rule.
(3)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Steven. those are solid examples of very capable military forces. I expect the Vikings developed unique shipbuilding skills. I would be curious to learn more about their development. The Vikings, Huns, and Mongols rose to the "top" in times of extended and savage conquest and re-conquest. I expect that the Mongols benefited from training from some of the other earlier armies in east Asia while the Huns benefited from learning from the armies who fought on the steppes of eastern Europe and western Asia. Yes Genghis Khan seems to been both a great military leader and an able administrator - since he had incredible long lines of communication building support among vanquished people would have reduced banditry against his lines of communication and helped generate warning as Armies were being built on his flanks.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google