Talk:Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Please note that the naming conventions and organizational structure of armies varies significantly between countries. The entire section on the structure of a Field army applies (presumably) to the United States and bears no resemblance to the British or Canadian structure.

This point here mentioned about naming conventions and organizational structure is very important. Reading this article shocked me. Reading quite many history related articles, here and in general, always a bit frustrated about the dominance of the military, and war aspect in the historiography, I expect a far more scientific and nuanced perspective of how people and peoples have dealt with force; whether monopolized, mandated, the distribution of which should be regarded as diversified as politics has been throughout history of mankind. How violence has been legalized within various cultures and civilizations cannot simply be understood through a totalizing mode of understanding, even though sovereignty is the only legal tradition which is accepted for the sanctioning of a state's violence in international law today. The history of suzerainty, not merely as signifies, may uncover other models of justice for less settled, more nomadic realities, and far more complex and varied forms of conflict-solving, ranging from violent symbolic games to brutal clashes of civilizations. Social-Darwinist approaches, i.e. evolutionary psychological conceptual frames are heavily invested with ideology, even if it is the dominant one in the anglo-american world.--Xact (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Some countries do not differentiate branches of their armed forces, as Israeli Defense Force, Canadian Armed Forces.

an American would maintain that these forces are unified -certainly in a way the US forces are not. (I believe Canadian forces all have the same insignia) In the US army, navy air force marines are all completely separate (with only the Joints Chiefs as a unifying body). For instance each force maintains it own fleet of aircraft, most have their own boats.

So the juncture is higher; so what? There are all kinds of patterns possible, but the basic division is the same. Only if the branches are truly mixed (like within the US Marines), this would matter.

I say let "This is often one of the three main divisions ..." in, take "Some countries do not differentiate ..." out. The general pattern is described best this way. --Yooden

Removed the following, because it's about the US army rather than armies in general. It should go in United States Army, if it's not already covered there;

The U.S. army is structured roughly:
  1. army group - when required
  2. field army
  3. corps
  4. division
  5. brigade or regiment or group
  6. battalion or squadron
  7. company or battery or troop
  8. platoon, squad or section
  9. crew or fire team

- Khendon 13:42 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

Please note that the naming conventions and organizational structure of armies varies significantly between countries. The entire section on the structure of a Field army applies (presumably) to the United States and bears no resemblance to the British or Canadian structure.

This point here mentioned about naming conventions and organizational structure is very important. Reading this article shocked me. Reading quite many history related articles, here and in general, always a bit frustrated about the dominance of the military, and war aspect in the histography, I expect a far more scientific and nuanced perspective of how people and peoples have dealt with force; whether monopolized, mandated, the distribution of which should be regarded as diversified as politics has been throughout history of mankind. How violence has been legalized within various cultures and civilizations cannot simply be understood through a totalizing mode of understanding, even though sovereignty is the only legal tradition which is accepted for the sanctioning of a state's violence in international law today. The history of suzerainty, not merely as signifies, may uncover other models of justice for less settled, more nomadic realities, and far more complex and varied forms of conflict-solving, ranging from violent symbolic games to brutal clashes of civilizations. Social-Darwinist approaches, i.e. evolutionary psychological conceptual frames are heavily invested with ideology, even if it is the dominant one in the anglo-american world.--Xact (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Some countries do not differentiate branches of their armed forces, as Israeli Defense Force, Canadian Armed Forces.

an American would maintain that these forces are unified -certainly in a way the US forces are not. (I believe Canadian forces all have the same insignia) In the US army, navy air force marines are all completely separate (with only the Joints Chiefs as a unifying body). For instance each force maintains it own fleet of aircraft, most have their own boats.

So the juncture is higher; so what? There are all kinds of patterns possible, but the basic division is the same. Only if the branches are truly mixed (like within the US Marines), this would matter.

I say let "This is often one of the three main divisions ..." in, take "Some countries do not differentiate ..." out. The general pattern is described best this way. --Yooden

Removed the following, because it's about the US army rather than armies in general. It should go in United States Army, if it's not already covered there;

The U.S. army is structured roughly:
  1. army group - when required
  2. field army
  3. corps
  4. division
  5. brigade or regiment or group
  6. battalion or squadron
  7. company or battery or troop
  8. platoon, squad or section
  9. crew or fire team

- Khendon 13:42 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

Changed description of 'army' in reference to a paramilitary[edit]

Removed IRA reference from the term Army in the description or title of a military or paramilitary organisation because:

A few definitions to back this up first:

Paramilitary Of, relating to, or being a group of civilians organized in a military fashion, especially to operate in place of or assist regular army troops.

Terrorism The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Now the opening statement to the article – "Army is also used in the title of military or paramilitary organizations which are not part of a country's official armed forces, such as the Irish Republican Army" suggested that the Irish republican army (hereby referred to as the IRA) were in some way a military organization tasked with the defense or military operations of the regions in which they operated (the British isles, mainly England and Northern Ireland)

That is not the case however; the term paramilitary is better applied to a mercenary group, which is less personally or politically biased in conflict than the IRA were. Whilst the media frequently refers to the IRA as a paramilitary by definition they are not, this is a media and political rewording to make the group more publicly friendly in an attempt to speed up the peace process (the good Friday agreement) in that region.

The IRA are considered a terrorist organization who have on several occasions been proven to use violent force to instigate political and ideological change in the region against the will of the majority and democratic governing body of that region.

Also, note the dictionary definition of a paramilitary – it suggest that a paramilitary, also (a militia if you will) generally operate with regular forces in the region. The IRA did not work with either the Irish Army or the British Army, I am also unaware of the inner organization of the IRA but I am certain they were not organized in a standard military fashion but instead had a simple set up of a commander and a group of followers. I am unaware of the majority of the IRA ever having a structured rank system geared towards military organization, and any such organization was instead geared towards political control.

A better example of paramilitary is 'Executive Outcomes' who operated in Africa in the 1990's. Whilst it can be argued there is such a thing as a revolutionary paramilitary this article is not discussing that and so I have changed this article to express what the dictionary/ textbook definition of a paramilitary is more clearly to avoid ambiguity and the reader taking away the thought that the IRA were in some way a public military organisation which they were not.

All very well, but the IRA still uses "Army" as part of its title and Executive Outcomes doesn't, so your edit doesn't actually make sense. -- Necrothesp 11:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Malaysia DO NOT draft people into the military as with some other SEA countries. Singapore does have a program similar to South Korea.]

Image[edit]

Why is Greenland under "no army"? It is covered by the Danish army, surely. 90.195.182.91 (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Why is Germany blue on the map? Conscription is still in force but it will be suspended in the near future. 84.63.5.162 (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Taiwan is going to abolish the conscription in about 2014. With this in mind, Taiwan should be orange on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee2tc (talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"No armed forces"[edit]

This image is misleading. Greenland is not an independent state; it's an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, so its defense is handled by the Kingdom of Denmark. See Greenland and more specifically Military_of_Greenland. Scotland also is effectively autonomous, and it doesn't have its own military; should that be covered in green as well?

Unless there is a way to fix the image, it would be better for it to be removed.

Unless anyone can offer a solution, I will remove it in 24 hrs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.151.13 (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed vandalism in Sparta section[edit]

Someone had made some ridiculous vandalism edits to the Sparta section (about ninjas, killing people by looking at them something repeated about "Maiurun". Corrected the vandalism manually, and removed some extraneous details (detailed descriptions of the tactics/gear of the Spartans that has no relevance to the general topic, and is covered in the Spartan Army article)Jbower47 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus to not move. --rgpk (comment) 23:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Army → Ground forces — To avoid confusion with Field army ("usually referred to simply as an Army"), I propose moving "army" to "ground forces" and "army (disambiguation)" to "army". Both usages seem to be so common that confusion will arise. 79.204.100.148 (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Oppose per WP:Commonname. The Army is the whole institution. Reading the article Field army you can also find the following (emphasize mine): "A Field Army, or Area Army, usually referred to simply as an Army, is a term used by many national military forces for a formation superior to a corps and beneath an army group. Flamarande (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind to explain the point of your quotation? The army is a military formation, ranked between a corps and an army group / front (however, as a rule of thumb, the main organisations are either brigade - corps - army group (NATO) or regiment - division - army - front (Warsaw Pact) - the main difference is that the regiment is a unit, while the equally-sized brigade is a formation). That's all the section you're quoting says to me - I'm a little confused what you're aiming at. --Dingo (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind at all. This article is about the Army as the institution, the arms, the military branch. A field army is a smaller organisation. E.g: The German army had several field armies during WWII. Perhaps we can compare this with the Navy. A national Navy can have several regional Naval fleets. Flamarande (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The Army may be the ground forces, but may also be the tactical unit. This may be best achieved by the proposed move from army (disambiguation) to Army; thus, neither "Field Army", nor "Ground Forces" gets preferred to the other, and users may chose which meaning they look for. --Dingo (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An army as a generic term refers to ground forces as a whole and to certain size units. See, for example, Patton's famous Third Army, now known as United States Army Central. Then there is "the Army" -- the United States Army, and others around the world. But ground forces as a generic term also includes Marine (military) and the United States Marine Corps.--S. Rich (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support/oppose support replacement by disambiguation page, but I think this should be moved to Army (ground forces branch) or land army to distinguish from some other article on the Army (army unit) (field army) 184.144.160.77 (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Army per Commonname, and the article naming of the organizational unit is covered adequately by Field army. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:Commonname and the above Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The comment in the opening paragraph that It may also include other branches of the military such as the air force via means of aviation corps gives a pretty good indication that ground forces is not appropriate. In any case, ground forces surely refers to either earthquakes or a series of British television programmes about gardening. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Permit creation of two articles Marcus Qwertyus 10:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • I see that even opposing participants in the Survey see it that "Army" may be a military formation as well as a service branch. I think before opposing it because of the minutes we should try to get common agreement here. I think that the examples as well as the arguments are in favour of the move Army (disambiguation) → Army; however, I see need for discussion where Army should be moved to.
Ground forces branch seems to be a viable compromise IMHO; a "land army" is misleading because the military formation can also be called "land army" (contrary to the formation of the navy, the fleet, or the air armies eg. of Wehrmacht Luftwaffe). That's my €2,50 for that; what do you think? --Dingo (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


That (Peculiar and/or French) Word, "Army"[edit]

Yes, we get the word Army from the French word, Armée. But somehow, we weren't entirely subjugated by the French. It usually happens that Continental countries gobble up French words to their full extent of meaning -- but Britain, and then America, don't. The Germans have the word Armee (no diacritical mark, notice) and use it the same as the French - for armed forces collectively. They reserve the native German word Heer (again, not Herr) for the land force. "Heer" was also found in Old English, of the Germanic language family -- but when Britain was subjugated by the Norman French, we ended up taking "army" as its complete replacement. Centuries later, we had to come up with the phrase "armed services" or "armed forces" for what the modern French word is used for. -- P.S. The Spanish word Armada does not mean Navy, but is another word for "armed forces" collectively again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.249.66 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinese 'conscription[edit]

Just want to point out that China DOES NOT have conscription. Although its constitution says that conscription is what it may do, it has actually not conscripted a single soldier yet, since its huge population provides them with enough soldiers. So yes, conscription is legal in their constitution, but it has not actually been put in practise yet due to the fact that it already has enough soldiers. Conversely, I thought America's "Compulsory Military Service" would make it a country that employs conscription? It just seems as if some anti-Chinese pro-West person wrote this article. 203.213.40.129 (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Art theft[edit]

Historically the largest art thefts have been conducted by armies. Looted art should be included within the article. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The word "army" in other languages[edit]

"In several countries, the army is officially called the Land Army to differentiate it from an air force called the Air Army, notably France. In such countries, the word "army" on its own retains its connotation of a land force in common usage."

The word "army" doesn't mean anything in French. The word "armée" is what we're aiming it. Now, do we include all languages that have a word based on the Latin "armata"? In that case, German Armee now means "military" including the army (Heer), air force (Luftwaffe), and navy (Marine). And the word doesn't really have any connotations of "land force" anymore. Kolmiel (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Legal entity:[edit]

Law definition of Legal Entity:

A lawfull or legally standing association, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, trust, or individual. Has legal capacity to:

1) enter into agreements or contracts 2) assume obligations 3) incur and pay debts 4) sue and be sued in its own right 5) to be accountable for illegal activities.

An army, is NOT a legal entity. Merely because some of the above 5 are true, or at times true, does not imply that an army is.

Ergo, an army is not a Legal entity. That an army could be a Licit entity is quite distinct, licit being defined as an organization of individuals having united for a common purpose and goal, and placed their own interests, agreements, obligations, etal, in this same. That would make such an organization a legal entity, but for an army whom is drafted, forced, the mutual agreements are never there, therefore the legality is never there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.45.50 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me for being obtuse, but what exactly are your comments in reference to? Neither "legal" nor "entity" are used in the article. - BilCat (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Army&oldid=868958029"