The Army.... Or is it?? (Technically)

leaskovski · 31 Oct 2007 at 09:58

Interesting conversation I am having with an ex signals guy who works with me. He went out on the lash with one of his old army mates last night (who is still in) and he says that technically, or Army is no longer an army but actually a militia. Apparently 'according to him' to be classed as an army you have to have over 100,000 personnel, and we are currently under that level. :eek:

Personally, I am trying to find something on the web to try and back that claim up, but I am not having much joy.

lol at a few of the other things he has told me as well. It seems as though the Army isn't the place to be at the moment and the troops are not very happy.

TheOtherOption · 31 Oct 2007 at 10:02

My mate in the TA told me the same thing - with regard to our army actually being a militia due to having fewer than 100k of soldiers - so it does seem it bears some truth - although as you say i've not seen any firm evidence to back up this point ...

PsiFox · 31 Oct 2007 at 10:11

My understanding is that a Militia is a civilian group trained as soldiers but not a regular paid service

penski · 31 Oct 2007 at 10:13

PsiFox said:
My understanding is that a Militia is a civilian group trained as soldiers but not a regular paid service

Sounds like our armed forces...

*n

Datamonkey · 31 Oct 2007 at 10:14

PsiFox said:
My understanding is that a Militia is a civilian group trained as soldiers but not a regular paid service

Whis is the TA, whom were using to bolster our armed forces numbers lol.

SO yep were a militia.

I also say bring back national service, but thats another thread totally

teulk · 31 Oct 2007 at 10:19

Im not sure about the militia part but the troops being unhappy, well it thinks its always been so. I left the army 12yrs ago after serving 10yrs in the royal signals and during my time there were a lot of disgruntled soldiers from all types of regiments. During my first 2years in germany i was away on exercises id say for around 16months of that. Being in the royal signals not only did you have to take part in your own training excerises but everyone elses aswell to provide communications. The army is totally different now to what it was 12yrs ago what with commitments ect, its no wonder troops are stressed, dissolutioned and unhappy.

also see

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...:militia&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0086.html

Butters · 31 Oct 2007 at 10:54

So we're saying that throughout all disciplines, Navy, RAF, Marines, Signals, etc we have less than 100,000 people?

I doubt that.

PsiFox · 31 Oct 2007 at 10:56

Datamonkey said:
Whis is the TA, whom were using to bolster our armed forces numbers lol.

SO yep were a militia.

I also say bring back national service, but thats another thread totally

no a militia is civilian, we still maintain a Professional Military Service.

Totally agree with bringing back National Service though.

Columbo · 31 Oct 2007 at 10:58

Butters said:
So we're saying that throughout all disciplines, Navy, RAF, Marines, Signals, etc we have less than 100,000 people?

I doubt that.

Correct.

Mr_White · 31 Oct 2007 at 11:00

ManCuBuS said:
Correct.

No, the OP's friend is talking about the Royal Army.

_PD_ · 31 Oct 2007 at 12:24

The "Royal Army"? Please.

FrostedNipple · 31 Oct 2007 at 12:34

Cobra said:
The "Royal Army"? Please.

:/? eh?

leaskovski · 31 Oct 2007 at 12:53

The armed forces is made up of the following...

The British Army <<<<<< I am pretty sure this is what he was talking about!
The Royal Navy
The Royal Air Force

Ghosteh · 31 Oct 2007 at 12:54

I'm sure the British army at the moment has over 100k troops. Not much over, but they TA are included as they are still classed as serving soldiers, they are just under a different contract.

Our entire armed services though will be well over 100k. I doubt very much we would be classed as a militia.

As for National Service.... I would NEVER want that. I'm actually going in the army, it's what my dream career is, and I wouldn't want to be surrounded by people who don't want to be there, and who are getting trained with weapons.

Monkey Puzzle · 31 Oct 2007 at 12:57

Mr_White said:
No, the OP's friend is talking about the Royal Army.

IIRC the army is the only one of the services not to use the 'Royal' title but simply the British army. Unless there's another one?!

Mr_White · 31 Oct 2007 at 12:58

Monkey Puzzle said:
IIRC the army is the only one of the services not to use the 'Royal' title but simply the British army. Unless there's another one?!

No, my mistake.

You wouldn't think I would make that mistake, considering I nearly joined

volospian · 31 Oct 2007 at 12:58

source

Militia is a term which has varied meanings. It has been commonly used to characterize a military force recruited directly from civilians who would not otherwise be liable to serve in a state's regular armed forces, and upon whom a military obligation is imposed by the state in certain circumstances. Usually this obligation is imposed for the purposes of local or home defence although, on occasions, such militias have been employed abroad. In the past, both Britain and the USA had citizen militias of this kind, that in Britain existing on an organized basis from 1558 until 1908. A second use of the term is to describe any unorganized military force drawn from within a civilian population and which has taken up arms. Thus, in modern Somalia the armed followers of different warlords have been characterized as militias.

No mention of specific numbers under militia, however, it seems to be accepted that armies generally number over 100,000:

The term army is still applied to all the armed land forces of a nation, but it is also used to designate a self-contained unit with its own service and supply personnel. In many armies today the division (usually about 15,000 men and women) is the smallest self-contained unit (having its own service and supply personnel). Two or more divisions generally form a corps; and an army (c.100,000 men or more) is two or more corps. In World War II, army groups were created, including several armies (sometimes from different allied forces). Above the groups is the command of a theater of operations, which in the United States is under the control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Actually, from this description, it would suggest an army at less than full strength would more likely be called a Corps, but, as long as the men under the banner of "army" were organised into 2 coprs or more, then they would still technically be an army.

leaskovski · 31 Oct 2007 at 13:14

Good answer. Cheers

However, i am still pretty shocked that members of the forces would even sugest such a thing, and this to me points out how under valued they feel and that the current state of the forces is not at a particualarly good level at the moment.

volospian · 31 Oct 2007 at 13:23

leaskovski said:
Good answer. Cheers

However, i am still pretty shocked that members of the forces would even sugest such a thing, and this to me points out how under valued they feel and that the current state of the forces is not at a particualarly good level at the moment.

It wouldn't surprise me. We have been cutting military spending for years. We don't need an Army, Uncle Sam will protect us

J.T · 31 Oct 2007 at 13:43

Monkey Puzzle said:
IIRC the army is the only one of the services not to use the 'Royal' title but simply the British army. Unless there's another one?!

This is correct, the British Army has not been called the Royal Army since the Civil War, or at least thats what I was told/read.