How come revolutionary armies tended to BTFO more professional and experienced armies so many times...

How come revolutionary armies tended to BTFO more professional and experienced armies so many times ? Examples : The American Revolution, the Wars of the French Revolution, the Russian Civil War...
How can a rag-tag bunch of civilians beat career soldiers and war veterans ?

numbers

Fighting for a cause you believe in>Fighting for money

The French revolutionaires zerg rushed their enemies without a care for living or dying.

God let them win, and because it was their reward for killing people in that country

>god let them win
fuck off

The revolutions improved the power of the state, infused people with blind patriotism and invoked levee en masse.

Entire new armies could be cobbled together and thrown at the enemy. Those that survive would be smarter or tougher, sometimes both.

The system was also better at letting skilled officers rise to the top (mostly cause there were so many head positions open hehehe)

Generally te revolutionary army also had professionals in them.

I also want to add that it may seem a vague factor, but blind patriotism in defense of the homeland was a very powerful motivator to overcome other short comings.

It meant waves of frenchmen would charge straight in with bayonets despite overwhelming firepower. The allied nations just didnt give that much of a shit about being in France.

It must have took immense guts for an average civilian to charge head down with a bayonet. What motivated them ?

So you're saying the vast social and economical changes created by revolutions actually gives a boost to military capabilities ?

Because failed revolts and revolutions are forgotten in history. Revolts also usually tend to happen against a government that is struggling with something else, war, the economy, plagues etc.

In the case of the White Russians and French Revolution the White Russians were an extremely fragmented group which made cooperation difficult and the French just continued with their already outstanding military reputation.

Failed revolutions just aren't as talked about.

>So you're saying the vast social and economical changes created by revolutions actually gives a boost to military capabilities ?

Yes, indirectly I think but it improved the state. Simply removing a well meaning but incompetent king and royal ministers meant more efficiency.

For America, its pretty simple
>be kid in the colonies
>nothing cool like video games or movies now, so spend literally every moment outside that you can
>spend all your time running around the forest and the rivers and learning short cuts and hide and go seek ect.
>also be avid hunter, learning how to track game
>have to be a really good shot to pick off birds with a rifle
>every other kid is just like this as well
>know the forest like the back of your hand, be expert hunter, and expert tracker
>war with Britain happens
>some faggots from England who are just stepping foot in America for the first time in their lives and have only had a few months at most training to shoot (stationary targets) and who dont know the terrain at all vs all those kids who know the forest and can pick off a flying bird from 100 yards away

also, if you look up all the greatest snipers in history(Zietsev, Hayha, York) they all fit into this mold of being some good ole country boy who grew up hunting

>Paris commune
>1848 revolutions (Hungary, Germany, Austria)
>German communist revolution
>US civil war
>Mau Mau uprising
>Indonesian revolution
>Sepoy mutiny
>Sioux uprisings
Yeah OP you're full of shit

turns out you don't need a whole lot of training to shoot dudes

America won because the French bankrupted themselves to support it.

Spain and the Netherlands were also in on the fun in kicking the British.

>being this retarded

this is bullshit. its greshams law. fighting for good money>fighting for (hyper)inflated bullshit and dead regimes.. look at every case

>Examples : The American Revolution

you mean the one that France, Spain and the Netherlands won?

>da french won the entire american revolution themselves!

before Napoleon, the way battles were fought hardly changed pre and post revolutionary France.

However in the way wars were fought, the French had much better strategic tools to pay, supply and put together new french armies.

Its closer to the truth than America won the revolution entirely by themselves.

Beeecause the Revolutionary armies were professionals themselves?
>American Revolution
Minutemen did jackshit. The war was won by the Continental Army, made up of regiments that 1) already existed as colonial defense forces and had veterans of the Seven Years War leading them and 2) received formal training from European advisors.
>the Wars of the French Revolution
Lfuckingmao, did you think the army died with the monarchy? No, they simply became the Republic's army. They just went along with the meme "Citizen-Army" and started wearing blue uniforms in solidarity with the civilian militias that fought alongside them. Kinda like Communist soldiers meming themselves as "Worker Soldiers" despite the fact that they were professional soldiers through and through. A LOT of officers of the Revolutionary army were Royalist officers. Napoleon is a chief example of this.
>Russian Civil War.
Guess what happened to those mutinying army units in WWI? Some of them didn't simply stopped fighting.

>netherlands
you know, they got their asses kicked and actually had to give up terrirtory to the british, right?

>entirely by themselves.
I never claimed anything remotely close to this. Why are europeans so insecure about an event they clearly know NOTHING about?

>when you hate your parents

>How can a rag-tag bunch of civilians beat career soldiers and war veterans ?
Because, if you actually knew anything about those revolutions, you'll know it wasn't as you wrote here.

These are the only real answers in this thread. Revolutionaries had professional soldiers/professional leadership.

Anything else is glassy eyed romanticism.

seriously, what the FUCK was up with those stupid hats?

Trotsky was the one who designed it, wasn't he ? I think they wanted to look like Tatars or something. Maybe to accentuate their opposition to the West.

The Budenovka? Yeah its a cap that's out to mimick the pointy Steppeniggy helmets that Medieval Russian warriors wore.

>t. Buttblasted Amerimutt

t. insecure irrelepean brainlet

>t. assblasted bong

That's nice and all, except most battles in the Revolutionary War took place in open fields with two sides lining up just like Europe.

I guess the native americans just didn't believe in freedom hard enough then.

> Spain helped America to kick out the british and gain their independence.

> And so, America helped Spain taking their last imperial posessions.


Thanks America, you are a great friend.

...