Why are multinational armies always so terrible?

What about the armies of Charles V

>>1990412
Communication issues.

>>1990412
Different training. Less esprit de corps, commands are hard to apply because of the different training etc.
Also the Habsburgs sucked for more than one reason.

>>1990412
Why do you even have to ask, the reasons are more than fucking obvious if you think about it for a second

Lack of a driving motive, probably.

It depends on what kind of Multinational army you have, really. It could be unintelligibility, or racial tension, or anything.

Then how did Louis XIV or anybody in 17 century win any wars?

Austrian army was only successful when led by Czech.

>>1990412
>Medieval armies are essentially multinational/
>Implying All of them were terrible.

>>1990452
Daily reminder that the multinational KUK was retreating in good order way after the Austro-HUngarian Empire broke up.

The Army was literally more solid than the fucking state.

>>1990642
Not just medieval almost every army till the french Revolution

>>1990646
The Grande Armee was a multinational force kek.

>>1990428
Good Spanish troops carrying Spaghettis and krauts. When the Spanish crown splitted from the >H>R>E they just lost almost every battle that they fought

>>1990647
Yeah should have written till Vienna 1815.
For me the napoleonic wars are directly connected to the revolunary wars.
Nappi should have said to Metternich after losing in Russia: what does it matter, most of the dead were just Germans

File: united-states-army--1.jpg (68KB, 660x440px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 660x440px

But the US army is multinational?

>>1992407
didn't know you could join the us army as a non citizen

>>1992439
Your idea of a multinational army is pretty skewed my dude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_state
You have a multinational army in a multinational state, unless you're strictly enforcing a one race only military.