01-09-2018, 04:44 PM
Such a loaded question, lol. Many here probably won't think it's worth a resonse, but it was asked and deserves a reply.
One can not say modern Italians are not good soldiers as the US Military is full of citizens of Italian descent and they are as good as any other group. Modern Italian military history has many successes and remarkable bravery against great odds, even when they are on the losing side of some recent wars. Rommel would not have been as successful as he was if the Italians were nothing more than a mob of hungry slackers.
So one can not say that modern Italian are not good soldiers. Rome was a unique ancient political entity hence its success and others failure. The average Roman and Italian peasant of that period, the back bone of the army, was probably no tougher or smarter than peasants anywhere else in that region, they were just part of a better military and political system, with some very good leaders.
Your post also seems to imply that genetics or culture provides some sort of answer regarding military success, that's a dangerous assumption. Folks of the Jewish faith were once thought to be poor material for soldiers, or when conscripted were not trained as infantry as they were considered too soft. Israel's remarkable military success disproves that old bias. We in the US once thought the Japanese would not make good soldiers which is insane if one knows anything about Japanese history and the almost constant warfare it endured. That was obviously a racism issue. We then ignored the centuries of successful struggle for independence from China that defines Vietnam and underestimated their military prowess. I saw this type of bias first hand in Iraq where many US soldiers had a poor view of the Iraqis based upon their mass surrenders in the Gulf War. There they fought a losing battle to keep Kuwait as part of Iraq and most of those "Iraqis" who surrendered were Shia and Kurds with no desire to die to keep Saddam rich. They had just defeated the Iranians after a terrible long war and when defending their own homes and personal honor, when we invaded Iraq itself, we discovered they had plenty of fight in them, and the ones who fought with us as our allies were pretty tough too. The Iraqi Army bent, but did not break when ISIS attacked and with allies crushed ISIS in the end.
Here in the US the French military has a bad reputation among the not so intelligent types who know little of military history. This is due no doubt to their poor performance as a whole in 1940 and perhaps in Vietnam in the 50's. The French were quite successful afterwards in Algeria, Egypt and many places in Africa as well as providing an entire division in the First Gulf War that did very well. Success on the battlefield does not always translate to success in the geo-political aftermath of a conflict and an army's reputation can suffer.
So IMHO there are no people who can not be made into successful soldiers if properly trained, led and most of all motivated to fight and die for a cause. No genetic connection to an ancient people, real or invented, has much to do with that success.
Love to hear other points of view.
One can not say modern Italians are not good soldiers as the US Military is full of citizens of Italian descent and they are as good as any other group. Modern Italian military history has many successes and remarkable bravery against great odds, even when they are on the losing side of some recent wars. Rommel would not have been as successful as he was if the Italians were nothing more than a mob of hungry slackers.
So one can not say that modern Italian are not good soldiers. Rome was a unique ancient political entity hence its success and others failure. The average Roman and Italian peasant of that period, the back bone of the army, was probably no tougher or smarter than peasants anywhere else in that region, they were just part of a better military and political system, with some very good leaders.
Your post also seems to imply that genetics or culture provides some sort of answer regarding military success, that's a dangerous assumption. Folks of the Jewish faith were once thought to be poor material for soldiers, or when conscripted were not trained as infantry as they were considered too soft. Israel's remarkable military success disproves that old bias. We in the US once thought the Japanese would not make good soldiers which is insane if one knows anything about Japanese history and the almost constant warfare it endured. That was obviously a racism issue. We then ignored the centuries of successful struggle for independence from China that defines Vietnam and underestimated their military prowess. I saw this type of bias first hand in Iraq where many US soldiers had a poor view of the Iraqis based upon their mass surrenders in the Gulf War. There they fought a losing battle to keep Kuwait as part of Iraq and most of those "Iraqis" who surrendered were Shia and Kurds with no desire to die to keep Saddam rich. They had just defeated the Iranians after a terrible long war and when defending their own homes and personal honor, when we invaded Iraq itself, we discovered they had plenty of fight in them, and the ones who fought with us as our allies were pretty tough too. The Iraqi Army bent, but did not break when ISIS attacked and with allies crushed ISIS in the end.
Here in the US the French military has a bad reputation among the not so intelligent types who know little of military history. This is due no doubt to their poor performance as a whole in 1940 and perhaps in Vietnam in the 50's. The French were quite successful afterwards in Algeria, Egypt and many places in Africa as well as providing an entire division in the First Gulf War that did very well. Success on the battlefield does not always translate to success in the geo-political aftermath of a conflict and an army's reputation can suffer.
So IMHO there are no people who can not be made into successful soldiers if properly trained, led and most of all motivated to fight and die for a cause. No genetic connection to an ancient people, real or invented, has much to do with that success.
Love to hear other points of view.
Joe Balmos
