Good Quetion! I put a lot of thought into this and here is what I have determined. With Charles I, many people disliked him. Many men and boys joined Cromwell's Army. Cromwell lost many of the initial battles to King Charles because he was not very experienced in strategy. However, later on, he realized that Charles' army was limited due to lack of support. So he spread his troops throughout England and Cromwell's General decided to leave the flank abandoned and go after him. So was Cromwell's army better? Absolutely not. They were poorly (and quickly) trained, ill equiped and the only thing that made them join Cromwell's army was their Hatred for King Charles I.
No.
YES
The Assyrian army was much better than the Babylonian Army, because they had a tactical offensive very well planned.
He was not part of the Symbionese liberation army. Charles did not want anybody to be in charge or anybody brainwashing his followers other than him.
The British army and the Turkish army has the same strength
The England army were better trained because the colonies army were a bunch of farmers.
its difficult to compare the two, but i think that army of two got better reviews than 40th day
Generally the German Army was better organized than the French Army; and were overall better able to maintain their field works.
pakistani army is drenched in jaba-e-e-jahad
A.V.A is better than blackshot. AvA is the best army game!!
Nathanael Greene , commander, planned to wear out the British army . He thought his small army could move faster than the British army, led by General Charles Cornwallis, to chase him .
hell no the army is fine but the soldiers in the army compare nothing to the best out their the marines no matter what the mos is.