Are there any Army's or Navy's which started from scratch without any external advisors?

LTC Stephen F. — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 10:25:58 -0400

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

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Apr 8 at 2015 10:38 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 10:38:40 -0400

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.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Apr 8 at 2015 11:55 AM

COL Ted Mc — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 11:55:50 -0400

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.

Response by MSgt Robert Pellam made Apr 8 at 2015 4:33 PM

MSgt Robert Pellam — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 16:33:11 -0400

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.

Response by CPT Bruce Beattie made Apr 8 at 2015 9:52 PM

CPT Bruce Beattie — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 21:52:13 -0400

Love the question!

I'm begining to suspect that COL Ted Mc is on the right track. But, I believe that armies began long before there were barrooms. Evidence will be scarce because rudimentary groups of men fought each other before history was recorded. Much like tribes of primates do today!

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Apr 8 at 2015 10:16 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:16:05 -0400

In general I expect that people grouped together against common threats such as predatory animals, raids from competitive groups, or what would later be termed as pirates who would steal from whoever they could including people and animals for sacrifice or slavery. In this scenario, some methods of defense/offense and weaponry prevailed against opponents. Winners would subjugate losers as best they could. Eventually some losers would learn from the victors and band together and defeat them. Eventually city-states emerged which provided a certain amount of protection especially if they had fortified fire-proof walls, clean water supply that could not be easily cut off, etc. Introduction of technology likely played a role in ancient times such as the introduction of the rifle machine gun, artillery, submarine, aircraft, tank etc, have done in the last century. Slings, arrows, spears, hide covered shields replaced with sturdier shields, development of bronze weapons, then steel weaponry, introduction of chariots and horse cavalry, and basic catapults and more advanced siege weaponry helped to propel one or other side to victory.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Apr 9 at 2015 11:25 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 11:25:18 -0400

COL Ted Mc, after thinking about your post I decided to review a couple of the books I have about the early Romans from Osprey Books. Warrior 131 - Early Roman Warrior 753-321 BC provides a reasonable summary of the "establishment" of Rome and highlights the "long series of bitter Wars by which it subdued the peoples of Italy." The Romans initially focused on their surrounding neighbors "Etruscans to the north, the Latins to the south and the Sabines, Aequi and Volsci to the east and south-east." The Romans had a different belief system which was less formal and organized than the Greeks. As an inland city-state surrounded by hostile tribes it needed to form and break alliances with its neighbors as they fought common enemies and then realigned, etc. until Rome became strong enough to stand on its own. Rome seemed to have been a land-focused "nation." They certainly employed ships to move and sustain forces later; but, unlike Greece, I believe Rome was focused on land conquest and did not put as much effort into developing a "navy."

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Apr 9 at 2015 4:24 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:24:32 -0400

I think that inhabited Island Nations such as Australia, Japan, and the Philippines might have had the best chance to develop Armies primarily without outside help. Since especially Australia and the Philippines were well away from other nations they probably had the best chance of developing military skills, weaponry, tactics and organizations without outside influence.
I would expect that the indigenous Australians "Aborigines" were most likely to be the least influenced.
The Japanese were influenced by invading Mongols. Since they were not a unified nation until much later the Ashigaru, Samurai, Sohei, and Yamabushi warriors classes were diverse. A short non-technical summary is available at http://www.legendsandchronicles.com/ancient-warriors/japanese-warriors/
The Filipino warriors also seemed to be able to develop "armies" without outside influence until the Spaniards arrived in the 1500s. SrA Christopher Wright SP5 Mark Kuzinski SGT John " Mac " McConnell

Japanese Warriors | Sohei | Ashigaru | Yamabushi

The ancient Japanese warriors were diverse and skilled, their fighting skills were legendary. From the Samurai and the Ashigaru foot soldiers to the buddhist Sohei warriors and the mountain hermits the Yamabushi.

Response by SP5 Michael Rathbun made Apr 12 at 2015 11:20 PM

SP5 Michael Rathbun — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 23:20:12 -0400

Recording was not available when the first armies were raised. It can be argued the other large primate species than ours regularly organize war parties, sometimes with the end of genocidal total warfare.

Humans spontaneously form into armies. The veterans (surviving old guys) coach the infantry (the young kids) as time goes on and the art and craft of war are refined to a greater or lesser degree over time.

By the time of Alexander, there was a military culture that permeated and informed the nearby societies of the era.

I have not been able to track down the source of my note, but one author observed that "The Army of Gustavus Adolphus was the first European army that Alexander the Great could not have defeated, nor could he have commanded it."

Innovations are rare and interesting, but tend to spread by subtle means.

And then there was the first effective, if short-lived, submarine force in the history of the world, CSS HL Hunley.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 15 at 2015 6:05 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 18:05:08 -0400

Spartacus started an army from scratch and several insurgent leaders have grown their movement to full armies to include George Washington.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Apr 16 at 2015 9:17 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:17:26 -0400

Thanks to MAJ Ken Landgren and COL Ted Mc for helping to clarify this discussion.
Virtually every individual who was behind the building on an Army or a Navy had military training as an individual. This is not the focus of the question.
Building an Army or a Navy requires organizational, training, and tactical knowledge [some require strategic knowledge]. I am sure others could weigh in with additional categories of required knowledge.
Successful insurgencies are frequently good breeding grounds for military forces. Some of them are home-grown while others receive significant assistance from either the forces they are fighting for leaders who become insurgents [e.g., George Washington] or receive significant support from foreign sources.

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Mar 27 at 2016 9:51 PM

PFC Stephen Eric Serati — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 21:51:12 -0400

Assyria

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Mar 27 at 2016 9:52 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 21:52:49 -0400

According to the Bible, the Israelites did that as they moved into the Promised Land. Of course, you can say that as God's chosen people, they had a significant external advisor. But as you read the book of Joshua, you can see some of the tactics they used.

Response by SSG Leo Bell made Mar 27 at 2016 10:28 PM

SSG Leo Bell — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 22:28:21 -0400

Good question. I'm going to have to search that one.

Response by SPC David S. made Mar 28 at 2016 12:06 AM

SPC David S. — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 00:06:14 -0400

If you're talking a professional standing military I think a good place to look for this is any point in history where an empire was spawned as it takes money, expansionism, and a political/social structure as well as a little bit of creativity - Mongol Empire, Sumerian Empire and the Xia Dynasty. I would think that at some point this likelihood tapers off as good ideas got passed around via word of mouth or through conquest.

Pretty nice timeline from the Army War College -
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/timeline/time0002.htm

Timeline of Empires
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-ambitious-graphic-shows-the-size-of-standing-armies-from-antiquity-to-the-present-2014-11

Timeline -- B.C.

4500 B.C. Badarian culture in Egypt with pottery, ivory spoons, and imported items such as malachite (green stone used for jewelry)

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Mar 28 at 2016 11:47 PM

MSgt Darren VanDerwilt — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:47:03 -0400

The U.S. Navy was built from scratch. After the Revolution all our ships were either sold or scrapped. On March 27, 1794 President Washington signed the act authorizing the construction of the first U.S. Navy Frigates, very unique ships. Check out the book "Thomas Jefferson and the Barbery Pirates." Go Navy!

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Mar 29 at 2016 10:35 AM

MSgt Darren VanDerwilt — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:35:09 -0400

Another armed force that's neither an Army or Navy, and arguably developed from scratch, are the first air forces.