Most pathetic military unit ever?

[Capt Dizle]

Action by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case lead directly to the formation of the Republican party, which consisted of those opposed slavery and popular sovereignty. In other words, the Court ruled in sympathy to the Southern position and the result was heightened tension that led directly to secession. There is no reason to think that either side would have complied with a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I didn't think it lived up to the books though.

Its not one of the best of the series but is probably the most filmable. Flashman with the First Afgan War would be very expensive to make.

Lola Montez was infamous here in California till she settled down. I am not sure if her home at Bodie is still standing or not. Its a famous ghost town in California that once produced huge amounts of Silver and near daily murders. I do wonder why she went to San Fransico after scarpering from Bavaria.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Of course that war ended in independence for the aggrieved party, whereas in the War of North Aggression the aggrieved party was enslaved and subjugated by force of arms.

The aggrieved party was the North. The South started the war. They were the ones that thought it was OK to enslave people so they reaped what they sowed.

You sound like a bully that is complaining about losing a fight that he picked. It not his fault it was the other guy that was the bad guy.

The South started it. The South lost it a hundred and thirty years ago. Isn't about time the South got over it?

[Sandman]

-The Scots army defeated under "Bonney Prince Charlie" (I forget the name of the battle)*

* - I'm not sure if this one really counts, as the Scots were really poorly armed and pitted against a well armed (and well trained) opponent.

I can't agree with you there, the Jacobite Highlanders weren't that bad, they won a couple of battles against government forces, but had to retreat because no-one supported them. Then of course, they got flattened at Culloden by well-supplied government forces.

[Japher]

The South was conquered and occupied in a brutally oppressive, illegal, and cruel war.

Aren't all wars cruel, oppressive, and in a sense, illegal?

I concur with Ethelred.

Yet, Who really cares who started a war? There is nothing any one can do about that now. Nor can we change the fact the South lost, acceptance is the only option...resistance is futile. hehe

To the matter at hand:

Lame unit? The dogs sound rather lame, but I find any komakazi unit stupid... As for silly or pathetic, how 'bout the the French who launched animals at their enemies when they ran out of ammo. That would be funny to see now, and is rather pathetic. Also, the entire Canadian "army" (just a joke)... The most pathetic would have to combine futility and komakazi stupidity, so I will say suicide bombers...that is just plan pathetic.

Here's a nugget for thought; If the invasion on Normandy was not successful in thurning the tide of WWII would we call the US and Brithish marines pathetic? How bout with any successful battle had it been botched? Even the dogs could have been effective.

[Lefty Scaevola]

There were no US Marines in Operation Overlord at Normanday, the USA troops were all army (there may have have been some shipboard marines in the Neptune (naval) part part of the operation).

[johncmcleod]

On August 23, 1942, the Russians fleed from the last cavalry charge in history. At Izbushensky, 600 men from the Italian Savoy Cavalry charged 2,000 Russians armed with machine guns and mortars.

[Giovanni Wine]

Originally posted by Arrian
-Just about any Italian unit during WWII

I wouldn't say that.
What really lacked Italy during WW2 were generals and true military strategist.

The Italian Army of that time had the problem that only a little part of their generals had a career in the military, most of them were just appointed to that position, and had no clue on how to direct an army.

Same thing for most of the officers.

The units were not too bad, the "Maiale" or "human-torpedo" was a very good unit, the Italian Folgore, which pioneerd para attacks were between the best, the Bersaglieri and the Alpini troops were actually WANTED by Hitler to join the Russian campaign, and they performed so well that the Soviet declared that the Italian army was the only one that never lost in Russia.

And some people even say that the Italian army in Russia performed the last succesfull cavalry charge in history (although I think the Russian actually did it a few years later)

Italian units which were really bad were the armored forces (they say that the Italian tanks during the Africa campaign were so weak they couldn't even make an hole in the British tank armor, while the british could easily blow up an Italian tank) and the Italian Air Force units were really crappy ones.

But I would definetly save the infantry units and most of the naval units, they were very good, they just had a bad leadership.

Saluti

[Imran Siddiqui]

whereas in the War of North Aggression the aggrieved party was enslaved and subjugated by force of arms.

Like the South did to the slaves?

[DinoDoc]

Whatever unit Custer was in charge of at Little Bighorn.

[Arrian]

Giovanni,

I wasn't being totally serious. I'm sure a lot of it was equipment and leadership, but the Italian army didn't fare too well in WWII - starting with Ethiopia, continuing to Albania, and then in N. Africa. I'm glad you don't appear to have taken offense.

Funny that JohnMcLeod beat you to the Cavalry charge thing by 5 minutes. What about the Russian charge you referred to?

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Whatever unit Custer was in charge of at Little Bighorn.

The 7th Cavalry? They have had a good history. The stupid leadership from Custer notwithstanding.

[Ned]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
On August 23, 1942, the Russians fleed from the last cavalry charge in history. At Izbushensky, 600 men from the Italian Savoy Cavalry charged 2,000 Russians armed with machine guns and mortars.

Hey John, the cavalry charge is not yet relegated to be ashcans of history. There were cavalry charges in the recent Afghan war against the Taliban. U.S. special forces participated by riding their own horses.

Obviously, the Taliban troops that fled these cavalry charges have the right up there with the pathetic units of all time.

[Ned]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Action by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case lead directly to the formation of the Republican party, which consisted of those opposed slavery and popular sovereignty. In other words, the Court ruled in sympathy to the Southern position and the result was heightened tension that led directly to secession. There is no reason to think that either side would have complied with a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

From the South's point of view, the Civil War was a complete catastrophe. Their civilization and way of life were extinguished.

More than 500,000 Americans lost their lives, and tens of thousands more were maimed and crippled. As well, the property damage in the South was tremendous.

This is one of those wars that should have been avoided. There had to be a solution to the problems of states rights and slavery that would have acceptable to all. The referee, of course, was the Supreme Court. I am only surprised that the South chose to the fight on the battlefield rather than in the Supreme Court, where, as you say, they were doing quite well.

We have discussed here in other threads that a just war requires more than a just cause. It requires the party initiating the hostilities have a very good chance of winning. I would think that it was obvious that the South had no realistic chance to win an armed conflict with the North. Thus it seems to me they should have been trying to avoid conflict at all costs. This is why I find it hard to believe that they never even tried resolving this disputes in the Supreme Court.

[Giovanni Wine]

Originally posted by Arrian
Giovanni,

I wasn't being totally serious. I'm sure a lot of it was equipment and leadership, but the Italian army didn't fare too well in WWII - starting with Ethiopia, continuing to Albania, and then in N. Africa. I'm glad you don't appear to have taken offense.

Funny that JohnMcLeod beat you to the Cavalry charge thing by 5 minutes. What about the Russian charge you referred to?

-Arrian

No Offense of course

I just wanted to correct you, but yes, I must agree that the Italian Army in WW2 didn't performed well at all, they lost in every front the fought, so...

About the Russian, I know for sure that they still used cavalry till the mid 50s, and that they even had some cavalry charges in the '44 during WW2 (The cavalry was very used thanks to the vast opeb spaces and to the better manovrability of the tanks)

Although I don't know exactly, when, where and if they were succesfull.

Saluti