independence is not always good.

Post Reply New Topic

Because it has been a few years from when I took my World War II history course and it was a guest lecturer.

Do you remember the name of everyone you have ever talked to?

Here are some good French Military subjects to Google and learn from.

Austerlitz (pretty much the entire Napoleonic era... study his first campaign in Italy if you want to see actual strategic perfection)
Siege of Orleans
Patay
Charles the Hammer
Battle of Bouvines
Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban (the master of post-medieval fortification)
Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne, Vicomte de Turenne (arguably the first modern general) & Louis, Grand Condé
Maurice de Saxe (study Fontenoy if you want to understand how generals for the next 150 years employed infantry)



I can't necessarily name the freedom you gain for it, that is a decision for US citizens. I can however, name one war and the freedom I kept thanks to it. The Second World War, US involvement, your victory at the Battle of Coral Sea and ours at Kakoda most likely saved my country from invasion or surrender through blockade (the latter was far more plausible). Had you not been involved in the war, we would have been one of the few countries opposing the Japanese.

If you don't remember the lecturer's name, then maybe you got some other details wrong, too. Maybe he was talking about the Polish army, or maybe he was actually going on about how great the French military was.

On the other hand, the French military lost in Algeria, and, like someone else, was also defeated in Vietnam.

No, I remember what the guy was saying, I just have a hard time remember the names of people if I only meet them one or two times.

Furthermore, Vietnam was lost due to politicians doing armchair quarterbacking.

Vietnam defeated France, the USA, China, and Cambodia.

In each case, was Vietnam's victory attributable to politician's armchair quarterbacking?

The Vietnamese are more patient than we are. Also the U.S. decided not to bomb the dykes in North Vietnam. If we had, they would have starved to death in under a year. In addition to being impatient we are sloppy sentimentalists.

ruveyn

Freudian slip?

Anyway, if the dykes (or dikes) had been bombed, the Vietnamese still seemed to be willing to tough it out, as they did in their tunnels.

No. Bad spelling. But I meant the water impounds, not wayward females. If the U.S. had leaders of harder heart we could have slaughtered the No. Vietnamese to almost the last person. But our leaders did not such thing. And we lost.

No good deed will go unpunished.

ruveyn

Except, of course, that you are very much wrong about the opinion of military historians about the military capability of the French.

Historically, the French are among the most successful military nations in Western history. Every English schoolboy learns of Agincourt, of course. But how many of them learn of Patay?

Consider a text like, 50 Battles that Changed the World by William Weir. 12 of these involve the French. Listings of great military leaders will include significant numbers of French Marshalls and Generals. Brennus successfully sacked Rome, and set up a long standing rivalry between Rome and Gaul that was not successfully resolved in Rome's favour for three centuries. Although ultimately defeated, Vincegetorix was a remarkable holdout against the Roman invasion of Gaul. The four centuries following the fall of the Western Empire were a period of uninterrupted growth for the Franks, beginning with Clovis, and ending with Charlemagne--the first Imperial power in Europe for over 300 years. The French went on to conquer England, from which they were never displaced. The English monarchy only became Anglicized when it lost its possessions in France at the end of the 100 years war. (Yet another French victory). It was during this war that France created the first standing army in the Western World.

Internal conflict and Hapsburg consolidation in the 16th century served to eclipse France as the dominant European power, but this was to reverse with the Thirty Years War, from which France emerged, again, as the dominant power in Europe. She was to hold this pre-eminence until internal strife again overtook her in the late 18th century. While the loss of New France was significant, it did free the French to participate in the American revolutionary war, providing a decisive advantage against Britain.

Within 15 years, though, France would descend into revolution. But even during the Revolution, France maintained an impressive series of victories against Austria, Britain, the Ottoman Empire and the Russians, ultimately resulting in the military preeminence of Napoleon. Even though Napoleon's reign did not establish lasting dynasty, his defeat did not destroy French military power--she turned her attention to her global empire, and in the 19th century she acquired colonial possessions comparable to those of Britain.

The Franco-Prussian War was, unequivocally a French defeat, but it had little impact on France once the seige of Paris was lifted. But within 50 years, the tables had turned, and France and her Allies were able to steadfastly hold back German aggression. France suffered the highest allied losses after those of Russia.

The loss of France during World War II was another unequivocal military loss, failing to anticipate German invasion through the Ardennes. But German conquest was by no means total, and the Free French Forces and Liberation Forces continued French participation with the Allies, forming as much as a third of the invasion force that landed in Normandy.

And finally, let us not forget that one of the most celebrated élite military units in the world today is French légion d'étrangère.

France has a far more impressive military record than Britain--particularly if we look to land forces. Even if we restrict our view to the last century, France made a greater contribution than either the United States or Great Britain (excluding her Empire) to World War I. During World War II, she continued to participate in the Allied war effort despite not having a limited territorial base from which to do so. Within 3 years she was a significant particpant in the Italian campaign, and within 4 she was a coequal participant in the invasion of Normandy. Since World War II she has been a significant presence in multilateral actions beginning with Korea, and continuing through to NATO operations in Libya.

Any military historian who looks at France as a "joke," is clearly indulging in patriotic prejudice rather than engaging in anything that remotely resembles scholarship.

Costa Rica does quite well and it is a small country.

ruveyn

Study your history, first I'm not talking about the people that would end up becoming the French.

Second, the person that conquered England was a decendent of the Vikings that the French bribed to protect Paris rather than keep having it sacked again and again.

Third it is actually theorized that Charlemagne was born in what is now known as Belgium, not France.
At present, it is impossible to be certain of the date of the birth of Charlemagne however best guesses include 1 April 747, 15 April 747, or 1 April 748, in Herstal (where his father was born, a town close to Liège in modern day Belgium). Liège is close to the region from where both the Merovingian and Carolingian families originated. He went to live in his father's villa in Jupille when he was around seven, which caused Jupille to be listed as a possible place of birth in almost every history book. Other cities have been suggested, including, Prüm, Düren, Gauting and Aachen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne

Fourth, the Battle of Patay's French victory was due to Joan of Arc. Further if you studied the end of the 100 years war (through much of which the English were beating the heck out of the French).
The Lancastrian War was the third phase of the Anglo-French Hundred Years' War. It lasted from 1415, when Henry V of England invaded Normandy, to 1429 when English successes were reversed by the arrival of Joan of Arc. It followed a long period of peace from 1389 at end of the Caroline War. It was called the Lancastrian War because it had its beginnings in the plans of Henry IV, the first of the House of Lancaster to sit on the English throne. Though his plans never came to fruition in his reign, his warlike son reinvigorated them and brought the English to the height of their power in France with an English king crowned in Paris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Ye ... %80%931429)




Most of the actual fighting was done by the colonists whom would end up forming the United States of America, all you're showing here is that the French are good at getting foreigners to do their fighting for them.



Nice, except for the fact that Napoleon was born in Corisca and his lineage was Genoese.
Napoleon was born in Corsica to parents of noble Genoese ancestry and trained as an artillery officer in mainland France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon



Again study your history, the French were getting their behinds kicked until the British stepped in. Oh and the French made the exact same mistake in World War II that they did in World War I.

After marching through Belgium, Luxembourg and the Ardennes, the German Army advanced, in the latter half of August, into northern France where they met both the French army, under Joseph Joffre, and the initial six divisions of the British Expeditionary Force, under Sir John French. A series of engagements known as the Battle of the Frontiers ensued. Key battles included the Battle of Charleroi and the Battle of Mons. In the former battle the French 5th Army was almost destroyed by the German 2nd and 3rd Armies and the latter delayed the German advance by a day. A general Allied retreat followed, resulting in more clashes such as the Battle of Le Cateau, the Siege of Maubeuge and the Battle of St. Quentin (Guise).[22]

The German army came within 70 km (43 mi) of Paris, but at the First Battle of the Marne (6–12 September), French and British troops were able to force a German retreat by exploiting a gap which appeared between the 1st and 2nd Armies, ending the German advance into France.[23] The German army retreated north of the Aisne River and dug in there, establishing the beginnings of a static western front that was to last for the next three years. Following this German setback, the opposing forces tried to outflank each other in the Race for the Sea, and quickly extended their trench systems from the North Sea to the Swiss frontier.[24] The resulting German-occupied territory held 64% of France's pig-iron production, 24% of its steel manufacturing and 40% of the total coal mining capacity, dealing a serious, but not crippling setback to French industry.[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_I)

They were nearly destroyed and would have been if not for the British.



They also made the same blunder that they had in World War I.



If it is the foreign legion, it is called that for a reason...





You mean a record like being the only country in the world to lose two wars to Italy. Making the same military blunders again and again, etc.



Their military record is not as impressive as you are advertising.

I am not going to quote that much mindless face-saving backpedaling so instead I will
say if Lebanon was a partition of France would they be safer and more stable?
Prolly, the war with Israel would not have happened.
Hezbollah would not even exist.
So yeah I am going to go with Lebanon better as a part of France.
And leave the ridiculous national dick-measuring contest to folks that are more interested
in male genitalia than myself.
And visigrunt at least you have an excuse.

Actually Hezbollah would probably still exist, and as for more stable I think the Syrians would have caused problems to get the French to pull out and then taken over Lebanon anyways.

The Froggies wouldn't want them in a million years. They have more than enough problems of their own to be dealing with.

Well, in that case we have some pretty serious limitations then, don't we? By that measure there were no Germans until 1871.



Practically everyone in Western Europe is a descendent of the Vikings. Certainly Harold II was, so by your measure the Norman Conquest was a fight between Vikings. By extension, all of Western and Central European History is pretty much a Scandanavian Civil War. You can carry reductio only so far before you present absurdem.

The fact remains that the Duke of Normandy--a French speaker leading a French speaking Army successfully invaded and conquered England, and his dynasty was never displaced.



Can you present a better one?