EU foreign legion type forces.

[Rod1]

Didn't work out too well for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(410)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(455)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(546)

Jannisaries were quite succesful though.

 

[snakedafunky]

Indeed. Unfortunately, the conscription army, in many parts of the world, is being done away with, to be replaced by a more "professional" military structure, bought and paid for. China, in particular, is something to worry about.

It is much more difficult to rally the average citizen for war, compared to a mercenary. It is also much more difficult to mobilize a massive land army, compared to "special units".

These sorts of troops are going to be used to fight proxy wars between geo-political super-powers, in 3rd world countries that are too distant for anybody to care about.

I prefer that Europe stays out of that business and leaves it to the Americans, Russians and potentially the Chinese, in the future. They can soil their hands, Europe has already soiled its own in the past.

Yeah, there is also the whole issue that if you let the military industrial complex genie out of the bottle you won't get it back in.
Look at the US and their complete ridiculous spending on "defense". Now I am not saying spending 2% or so would be unreasonable.
But the US is in a spiral that lobbyists have some much influence and so many jobs are in the military or the military industrial complex that spending always has to get up.

 

[TheGreatA]

They needed a win badly, France will fight its own forces just to eke out a draw.

The most legendary battle fought by the French Foreign Legion was, as expected, a loss. But one hell of a loss, it was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Camarón

Jannisaries were quite succesful though.

They were successful, but in the end, the Janissaries rebelled and were disbanded. Relying on foreign mercenary/servant troops for so long, left the actual Ottoman army's capabilities lacking. They played catch-up to Europe's modern armies and never quite came to match them. They would soon lose all of their power, and eventually the Empire itself, in the aftermath of World War 1.

If you want to establish a military culture, you best do so with your own citizens.

 

[Losfer Words]

Only if it means we get to finally see the GOAT HW fight

 

[Billy no mates]

Do you think have groups like the French Foreign Legion would be useful for the EU?

For happy clappy European unity parades and the like then yes , but for actual fighting no .

 

[Seaside]

Maybe the EU can turn their entire security forces over to 3rd worlders. All their weaponry, and gadgets can be turned over scrawny refugees, and then EU can pay them. This is like what the Roman Empire did in its final century.

well there was some major major differences between type of society Rome developed and became vs the leftist insanity of today. But yes i guess make the case of lazyness and getting others and mercenaries to be your protection and army which can be dangerous if your society itself becomes so fractured internally it loses a purpose or goal. that diversity!

 

[Goonerview]

Indeed. Unfortunately, the conscription army, in many parts of the world, is being done away with, to be replaced by a more "professional" military structure, bought and paid for. China, in particular, is something to worry about.

It is much more difficult to rally the average citizen for war, compared to a mercenary. It is also much more difficult to mobilize a massive land army, compared to "special units".

These sorts of troops are going to be used to fight proxy wars between geo-political super-powers, in 3rd world countries that are too distant for anybody to care about.

I prefer that Europe stays out of that business and leaves it to the Americans, Russians and potentially the Chinese, in the future. They can soil their hands, Europe has already soiled its own in the past.

Intervention in foreign wars such as Syria is a waste of time/money.

I say let them fight and negotiate trade rights with whoever wins.

 

[Goonerview]

Yeah, there is also the whole issue that if you let the military industrial complex genie out of the bottle you won't get it back in.
Look at the US and their complete ridiculous spending on "defense". Now I am not saying spending 2% or so would be unreasonable.
But the US is in a spiral that lobbyists have some much influence and so many jobs are in the military or the military industrial complex that spending always has to get up.

The welfare/warfare state should be stripped back.

Government should be as small as possible.

 

[WTF2008]

Yeah, there is also the whole issue that if you let the military industrial complex genie out of the bottle you won't get it back in.
Look at the US and their complete ridiculous spending on "defense". Now I am not saying spending 2% or so would be unreasonable.
But the US is in a spiral that lobbyists have some much influence and so many jobs are in the military or the military industrial complex that spending always has to get up.

What?????
How is it ridiculous?

It's only most of the entire Country's money.
But somehow we're ok with it. Then complain about sending $200,000,000 for some Country that hates us.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Nah the French foreign legion is mostly used for aggressive wars attacking other countries like they did in WW2.
The EU should stick to an Army for defense purpose not coping the imperalist American and UK foreign policy of continuously attacking sovereign countries around the World for the 1%.

We should follow more the century-old peaceful foreign policies of central Europe.

Central Europe like Belgium? The Belgium who carried out genocide in the Congo?

Or the French and their war in Libya?

"RB: In situations of armed conflict, lying is the rule. A rule that applies to both dictatorships and democracies. During this war, I was struck by the fact that not only the French government lied, but that the entire society virtually refused to see the truth. Intellectuals and the media were enthusiastic, while public opinion, according to polls of the time, bought into this martial movement. In this unanimity, few voices opposed the war."

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/libyan-conflict-was-frances-iraq-says-former-msf-chief-1346416981

 

[snakedafunky]

Central Europe like Belgium? The Belgium who carried out genocide in the Congo?

Or the French and their war in Libya?

No those are Western Europe.
Central Europe would be Germany, Poland, and Hungary etc.
Most of central Europes conflict have been local territorial disputes.
Those nations didn't sail halfway around the world to enslave or slaughter some farmers.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

No those are Western Europe.
Central Europe would be Germany, Poland, and Hungary etc.
Most of central Europes conflict have been local territorial disputes.
Those nations didn't sail halfway around the world to enslave or slaughter some farmers.

No the Germans were too concerned with incarcerating all of the southern hemisphere under the Nazi regime.

 

[Billy no mates]

Those nations didn't sail halfway around the world to enslave or slaughter some farmers.

They didn't have to , they had people to steal from and oppress right on their doorstep .

 

[snakedafunky]

No the Germans were too concerned with incarcerating all of the southern hemisphere under the Nazi regime.

Ah yeah, the historic uneducated. The Nazi were interested in the German Lands and Lebensraum in the East.
It would have been so easy to undermine my own argument.
Here I do it for you: Germany didn't have any colonies because it got too late to the Party.
And even after the unification of Germany the Kaiserreich still tried to get colonies in West Africa or Namibia and a few other regions that were lost after WW1.