The decline of Italian performance in war

[scottmillerukctrg 12]

Back in the days of Rome, the Roman soldiers fought well. They were brave, organized, had great strategy, etc. They won all the battles and in fact, the good performance of the Roman soldiers actually contributed to the collapse of the Roman Empire, given how the Romans won so many battles that there was simply no more enemies to beat and no more peoples to enslave.

But then you notice a very significant decline in the Italian perfomance of war. The States and city-States that inhabit the Italic penninsula haven't won any war since the days of the Lombard League. The defeats include battles against Kingdom of Greece, Ethiopia, Albania, Serbia, etc.

What happened to the Italian military performance?

[[evo] dan 79]

Back in the days of Rome, the Roman soldiers fought well. They were brave, organized, had great strategy, etc. They won all the battles and in fact, the good performance of the Roman soldiers actually contributed to the collapse of the Roman Empire, given how the Romans won so many battles that there was simply no more enemies to beat and no more peoples to enslave.

But then you notice a very significant decline in the Italian perfomance of war. The States and city-States that inhabit the Italic penninsula haven't won any war since the days of the Lombard League. The defeats include battles against Kingdom of Greece, Ethiopia, Albania, Serbia, etc.

What happened to the Italian military performance?

They technically won the First World War, even though they team switched.

[scottmillerukctrg 12]

Dan;2663825']They technically won the First World War' date=' even though they team switched.[/quote']

Your argument is good but can be beaten when you face the fact that Italy didn't play any major role in WW1 other than just being there, as far as I'm concerned. Italy "team-switched" because it was afraid. If I'm wrong, please correct me. You could also put this in an analogy: there's a noob, he's 0/10 and his team is taking a beating. If he team switches to the winning team, is he better than before?

[st_dux 26]

The Roman Empire has very little in common with the modern state of Italy.

[mistyronin 1181]

The Roman Empire has very little in common with the modern state of Italy.

Yeah, we are talking about a 2000 year window. You can't even compare the Russian Empire that lost the 1WW with the mighty Red Army that invaded half Europe 25 years after ( and was only one quarter of century ).

Besides that in the 2WW italian soldiers were not much motivated to fight for the Ducce Mussolini. I'm sure that for a proper cause they would fight like lions as almost any nation in the world.

[scottmillerukctrg 12]

Yeah, we are talking about a 2000 year window. You can't even compare the Russian Empire that lost the 1WW with the mighty Red Army that invaded half Europe 25 years after ( and was only one quarter of century ).

Besides that in the 2WW italian soldiers were not much motivated to fight for the Ducce Mussolini. I'm sure that for a proper cause they would fight like lions as almost any nation in the world.

Mussolini was very popular among the Italian people due to his propaganda. He ascended to power for that one reason, he was approved by the Italians, like Hitler. I don't think that's the cause.

[ProfTournesol 956]

The Roman Empire has very little in common with the modern state of Italy.

^This. This comparison makes no sense IMO.

[mistyronin 1181]

Mussolini was very popular among the Italian people due to his propaganda. He ascended to power for that one reason, he was approved by the Italians, like Hitler. I don't think that's the cause.

He ascended to power for one reason, but was not to invade other countries and fight wars unlike Hitler. In fact not even Mussolini himself was convinced to fight ( reason why Hitler delayed the invasion of Poland for a week ).

[maturin 12]

He ascended to power for one reason, but was not to invade other countries and fight wars unlike Hitler. In fact not even Mussolini himself was convinced to fight ( reason why Hitler delayed the invasion of Poland for a week ).

You're forgetting about the invasion of Ethiopia. He wanted to create an empire by conquering subhumans, just like Hitler. And it was a fiasco. They couldn't conquer a helpless, friendless poverty-stricken country without resorting to poison gas.

[Beagle 684]

You're forgetting about the invasion of Ethiopia. He wanted to create an empire by conquering subhumans, just like Hitler. And it was a fiasco. They couldn't conquer a helpless, friendless poverty-stricken country without resorting to poison gas.

Back in the 30's Ethiopia was far from beeing poverty stricken like it is today...that goes for a lot of african countries especially if you consider that most european people were poor too.

[Antorugby 2]

I won't talk about officers etc, because I dont have the knowledge, but I read somewhere that Italian high command was too much tied to old school war, and basically it never was skilled like the German etc, for example the Italians made one of the last cavalry charge in the history of war during the Russian Campaign.

Also, the army was poorly manteined and equipped , again for example many Italians fought in the Russian campaign without winter clothes.

In a few words, we (I'm Italian) never invested in our army, in any way, not for the equipment, not for the training etc

The Italians soldiers didn't have big interest in the war, but many times they fought with pride and courage and they did quite well under German lead, for example under Rommel.

Inviato dal mio Nexus 10 utilizzando Tapatalk

Edited April 10, 2014 by Antorugby

[maturin 12]

Also, the army was poorly manteined and equipped , again for example many Italians fought in the Russian campaign without winter clothes.

Of course, the German ubermensch military geniuses did the same thing.

[Beagle 684]

Of course, the German ubermensch military geniuses did the same thing.

The russia campaign was not supposd to take that long ;) For one of my grandads it lasted till 1954. Edited April 10, 2014 by Beagle

[Mr. Charles 22]

This thread is like one of these "Who would win in a fight? A medieval european knight or a japanese samurai?" threads. There's just no way to compare roman military performance, who steamrolled much of europe and the mediterranean and the Italian army of today.

[Tonci87 163]

The roman Empire was much more advanced than many of the other kingdoms and empires they conquered. Also it was a culture with a very strong focus on war. Italy on the other hand.... well the military sucks, it did so for a long time and could only conquer and win something if aided by other countrys. You can´t say it any other way. Poor in equipment, training and doctrine.

[Variable 322]

There are not enough mutual grounds between the Italians living in the Roman era and the Italians living today to make a comparison even somewhat valid.

[MissionCreep 12]

The Roman Empire has very little in common with the modern state of Italy.

In fact, the membership of the "Roman Army" wasn't (if ever) exclusively "Roman", especially after the first Punic war (240 BC) and recruited Greek and Spaniard mercenaries, Numidian horseman, Cretan archers, Balearic slingers. By the 5th century, it was mostly Germanic when Alric sacked Rome in 410 AD. Alric, the Visigoth, who had fought in the army of the Roman emperor Theodosius I, defeated Roman Empire's "Magister Militum" (Supreme Commander) Stilicho, a Vandal, to take the city of Rome.

Even "Arminius" (known as Hermann to this day by Germans), the architect of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 4 AD which resulted 3 Roman legions (20,000-30,000 people) being annihilated in 3 days, had once been a Roman military commander, and his brother, Flavus fought on the side of the Romans.

Edited April 26, 2014 by MissionCreep

[scottmillerukctrg 12]

This thread is like one of these "Who would win in a fight? A medieval european knight or a japanese samurai?"

It depends! Had the knight no horse, the samurai would win. Had the knight be mounted on a horse, he'd win.

[NeMeSiS 11]

It depends! Had the knight no horse, the samurai would win. Had the knight be mounted on a horse, he'd win.

What if the samurai has a horse?

[pathetic_berserker 4]

What if the samurai has a horse?

Depends if the Knight had a lance.....Actualy no.... the knight probably wins with his steel fist because we all know that western knights are related to C.N.

12345

Considering the nature of the conversation I'd say a great first post. Welcome!

[andrewza 10]

Italy never had the wepaons, traning or right leader to become a power full milltary force.

Of course a lot of there solders where very brave. Some of there AT guners maned them till death even though there guns where useless. Then there where itlian frogmen being more feared than itlian battel ships.

A lot of things are lost in history. Like the fall of france and polland in WW2. People think they just fell like that. Both put up a strong fight. Germanies victory in france was not a sure thing.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Italy never had the wepaons, traning or right leader to become a power full milltary force.

And that what makes Italy a very civilized country IMHO :)

[lesscubes 1]

Poor industry, poor logistics, and a poor officer corps pretty much dooms you to failure in WWII. Emphasis on the officers specifically. When the general staff is either too optimistic or has to bow to the dictator, it dooms it's own armies to failure. When field grade officers are ordered against impossible odds and face poor morale in their own troops, they're doomed to failure.

The Germans had excellent Officers and NCO's. As did the English. American officers and NCO's improved rapidly. The state of Facist Italy was so poor before they ever kicked off their war that they were doomed to start. One of the great "what-ifs" of WWII is- if Nazi Germany doesn't have to bail Mussolini out in the Balkans, do they kick off the invasion of the Soviet Union quicker and have a few more months of good weather to capture Moscow? (Probably not. 'cuz Russia. But I digress.)

It's worth noting that Italy, like France, had a serious manpower shortage to go with its poor industry and logistics. They did have some small bits of really good equipment though.

Also, hadn't they failed so comically in WWII, the world would've never seen the Vespa scooter. Transport in Europe would've been very different.:p

[Antorugby 2]

And that what makes Italy a very civilized country IMHO :)

What do you mean?

Italy lack civilization in many fields.

Source: I'm Italian.

Inviato dal mio GT-I9300 utilizzando Tapatalk

[ProfTournesol 956]

What do you mean?

Italy lack civilization in many fields.

Source: I'm Italian.

Well, IMO countries which aren't fond of making wars are more civilized countries than the others. That's a very personal opinion though :)