"There really isn't a 'centuries' continuous history for any military on Earth."

[Sid Meier]

Thoughts? I definitely that this isn't the case, or would require an extremely narrow dictionary definition of "continuous" and "history" where even minor reforms is enough to make a military no longer "continuous" with its past self.

For instance its clear that in the American Civil War the Union for the first time should a "American way of fighting a war" that we saw clearly and repeated in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

The Russian military I feel has also showed a remarkable consistency in outlook and composition in its acknowledgement and retention of its natural strengths since the Battle of Narva until today; with he Soviets merely updating it to include tanks and a large emphasis on deception and mobility.

Then if we go back to Roman times or China it should satisfy even the narrow definition.

[KanaX]

I think the Swiss militia-based military coupled with neutrality has been historically consistent for many centuries. Despite the advances in armament and tactics, the core idea of a citizen militia forming the main force of the army has not changed.

[chepaeff]

Interesting topic.

The Russian military I feel has also showed a remarkable consistency in outlook and composition in its acknowledgement and retention of its natural strengths since the Battle of Narva until today; with he Soviets merely updating it to include tanks and a large emphasis on deception and mobility.

I'm not really versed in 18-19 century, but I can tell that Red Army definitely inherited one of Imperial Army drawbacks - too much theorization in officer training at expense of practice. Which probably lead to army being better at strategy level than tactic level.

[StephenT]

I'm curious to know when the British Army's continuous history was last interrupted so badly as to cause a complete discontinuity from the past. The 1st Battalion of the Royal Scots Regiment was founded in 1661, and although it's been reorganised and combined with other units over the years, it's maintained that continuity. The Grenadier Guards regiment was formed in 1656.

[Kaarle XII]

The Russian military I feel has also showed a remarkable consistency in outlook and composition in its acknowledgement and retention of its natural strengths since the Battle of Narva until today; with he Soviets merely updating it to include tanks and a large emphasis on deception and mobility.

What strengths did the Russian army display at Narva? They were utterly defeated by an outnumbered Swedish army.

[King of Men]

What strengths did the Russian army display at Narva?

Numbers.

[Amallric]

Numbers being Russian "speciality" is more of a common misconception/prejudice than a truth. Usually Russian army size was close to the European average, and the country had often experienced shortages of manpower. The largest military power of the continent has continuously been France, but somehow the stereotype of having the largest army hasn't really stuck with them. Actually the only period of decisive numerical superiority of Russia I can think of is the time immediately before the Great War.

[Sid Meier]

What strengths did the Russian army display at Narva? They were utterly defeated by an outnumbered Swedish army.

Dogged persistence, an ability to withstand punishment and yet keep going, that defeat would have crippled any other European state at the time and forced them to sue for peace.

[Lord Tim]

Dogged persistence, an ability to withstand punishment and yet keep going, that defeat would have crippled any other European state at the time and forced them to sue for peace.

The French suffered crushing defeats at Blenheim, Oudenarde and Ramillies within a few years (in that same decade) and were still able to put up a fight before and after Malplaquet. Now, there are reasons for that, partly in that they still had their belt of fortifications that needed to be conquered before the allied powers could invade, but the same thing applies in a different way to Russia (distance, terrain). And in a later war, Kunersdorf didn't mean the end of Prussia.

On the other hand, there were armies/states that suffered defeats that crippled their military potential (for generations, or permanently). Sweden at Poltava, Spain at Rocroi, the Western Roman Empire at the Frigidus, the Byzantines at Myriokephalon; no doubt others can think of many more examples. They just aren't always a result of crushing military defeats.

[Kaarle XII]

Dogged persistence, an ability to withstand punishment and yet keep going, that defeat would have crippled any other European state at the time and forced them to sue for peace.

Wouldn't those be more the strenths of the Russian nation/people instead of their army? The army doesn't sue for peace. Although one could say that the people and the army in every nation's case are inseparable. Also I believe that Peter sued for peace multiple times, but Charles XII rejected every offer (that didn't work out well for him..).

[Kaarle XII]

On the other hand, there were armies/states that suffered defeats that crippled their military potential (for generations, or permanently). Sweden at Poltava, Spain at Rocroi, the Western Roman Empire at the Frigidus, the Byzantines at Myriokephalon; no doubt others can think of many more examples. They just aren't always a result of crushing military defeats.

Sweden losing at Poltava didn't directly cripple their military potential for a long period, it was more the effect of losing important and productive territories in the peace treaties of the Great Northern War.

[Sid Meier]

Wouldn't those be more the strenths of the Russian nation/people instead of their army? The army doesn't sue for peace. Although one could say that the people and the army in every nation's case are inseparable. Also I believe that Peter sued for peace multiple times, but Charles XII rejected every offer (that didn't work out well for him..).

An army is a reflection of the nation.

The French suffered crushing defeats at Blenheim, Oudenarde and Ramillies within a few years (in that same decade) and were still able to put up a fight before and after Malplaquet. Now, there are reasons for that, partly in that they still had their belt of fortifications that needed to be conquered before the allied powers could invade, but the same thing applies in a different way to Russia (distance, terrain). And in a later war, Kunersdorf didn't mean the end of Prussia.

France was a modern, established state and highly developed relatively speaking, so of course we expect them to be able to withstand such shocks, but Russia was just essentially born as a nation.

[Jazumir]

Well, there but one teacher to the general: History. Kind of follows, that each military apparatus is built on tradition. Even the germans retained theirs after WW2. The Spartans eventually lost their dominance due to their persistence in theirs. And that´s when military traditions come to end: When the empires fielding them disappear - and not before. And even then, parts of their military tradition may have allready infleunced those of others.

Since war is in itself a risky undertaking with a lot at stake, people are reluctant to try compeletely new stuff, when it comes about - and where should this completetly new stuff come from, anyways? The Art of War is not Minerva.

EDIT: It is an evolution. And as that, even when the military doctine of a nation rapidly changes, it is due to the experiences it has made before. Take the german stormtroopers towards the end of WW1: Doubtful that they had come up with this (and later the ´Blitzkrieg´), without years of trench-warfare forcing it upon them. Each step, even if it causes a broken nose, is a step forward in the building of a military tradition, a part of the military history of a nation and will be part of its future, as long as this nation (in a broader sense, as in, say ´Russia´ not ´Czardom of Russia´ / ´USSR´ / ´CIS´ / ´Russian Federation´... or ´Germany´ not ´2nd Reich´, ´Weimar Republic´, ´"3rd Reich"´, ´FDR/GDR´...) survives. Even when a nation is born, it already has a military tradition. Be it the one of their former motherland granting indepedence, or be it the one they developed in their fight for their independence.

[Gordy]

Numbers being Russian "speciality" is more of a common misconception/prejudice than a truth. Usually Russian army size was close to the European average, and the country had often experienced shortages of manpower. The largest military power of the continent has continuously been France, but somehow the stereotype of having the largest army hasn't really stuck with them. Actually the only period of decisive numerical superiority of Russia I can think of is the time immediately before the Great War.

Surely WW2 and the Cold War era count as long as the USSR is considered a successor state of Tsarist Russia.

[Jazumir]

What else could soviet military tradition have been in its beginning, other than czarist military tradition + experience from the revolutionary war?

[Sid Meier]

What else could soviet military tradition have been in its beginning, other than czarist military tradition + experience from the revolutionary war?

There's some differences and experimentation, largely trying to apply marxist principles to fighting a war that was quickly abandoned for the full development of "Deep Operations" Soviet doctrine. As well as some greater integration of other Czarist nationalities into the military structure, largely speaking the Soviet Army learned that throwing bodies at the problem isn't the solution and decided instead to focus on massive mobile long range artillery; combining the native stubbornness and grit of Soviet soldiers with the protection and mobility of widespread mechanization.

[ComradeOm]

Dogged persistence, an ability to withstand punishment and yet keep going, that defeat would have crippled any other European state at the time and forced them to sue for peace.

All peasant armies tend to be comprised of hardy, brave and often passive soldiers. You could equally use the Japanese at Port Arthur or the French at Verdun for examples of pitiful/admirable perseverance. That "ability to withstand punishment" is often the faint praise lauded on armies incapable of more sophisticated actions

[Stuckenschmidt]

I guess it depends on the definition of "continuous". Does it mean "the same employer" or "the same structure"?