View Full Version : What WARS has France won?
mountainhare
10-07-05, 07:49 AM
I don't deny that France has won some brilliant battles in its history, but what wars has France won?
The only ones I can think of are the Hundred Year War and WWI (and when Charles Martel whipped the Moors, if that counts as a war).
It's just odd that in the majority of wars you hear about, France got its ass whooped, or it was a draw.
Of course, this doesn't make sense, since France controlled quite a large amount of territory at one stage. It must have gained that territory in battle... somehow.
Redline
10-07-05, 12:21 PM
Ww1, Ww2,...
Communist Hamster
10-07-05, 12:41 PM
with the help of Britain, America, Poland and the USSR
mathman
10-07-05, 04:08 PM
Charles Martel was a leader of the Franks - France did not come into existence (separate from Germany, etc) until about 100 years later.
France did eventually beat England in the hundred years war. During the days of Louis XIV, France fought many wars - in general they ended in some sort of treaty where it is not clear who won. For example, War of the Spanish Succession, a son of Loius XIV became king of Spain, but the French and Spanish crowns were not allowed to unite. During the American revolution France was on the winning (American) side. The Crimean war was Britain and France against Russia - Russia lost.
The Culture War. Especially the battle of fine food and drink.
Hapsburg
10-07-05, 05:02 PM
The only ones I can think of are the Hundred Year War
That was more a draw.
and WWI
With a lot of help from Britain, ANZAC, America, and Russia.
(and when Charles Martel whipped the Moors, if that counts as a war).
That was the FRANKS not the FRENCH. The Franks were a germanic tribe that, over time, bred with the local gallic populace to create the French.
Napoleonic wars, maybe, except the last two of them. Remember, it was multiple wars, not just one long 'un, for that one.
spidergoat
10-07-05, 05:03 PM
They won their own revolution.
invert_nexus
10-07-05, 05:25 PM
The Culture War. Especially the battle of fine food and drink.
Yum. Snails. Or how about a hundred dollar a plate where the plate has a couple of carrots and some sauce in a pretty design? Fuck French cuisine. Fuck it up its slimy snail-covered asshole.
They won their own revolution.
They lost it too...
kenworth
10-07-05, 05:43 PM
They won their own revolution.
then they lost again.they won against the romans in the end didnt they?or are we talking about france since it was named france?
Ophiolite
10-07-05, 06:15 PM
The War of The European Union Agricultural Subsidy.
mountainhare
10-07-05, 08:37 PM
Hapsburg:
That was more a draw.
The French kicked the English off their land. That sounds like a victory, to me.
With a lot of help from Britain, ANZAC, America, and Russia.
The French took the brunt of the fighting... they were smack bang in the front line. If it wasn't for the French, there would have been no war for Britain, ANZAC, the U.S, and Russia to fight.
savior-of-hyrule
10-07-05, 08:47 PM
The Crimean war
Killjoy
10-08-05, 12:22 PM
`
If you want to stretch it a bit and call William the Conqueror French, then France beat England pretty righteously, since Bill proceeded to take over the joint.
LoL
Of course, since I believe Saxons were running Britannia at that point, he really conquered Germans...
Although...
Since he was technically descended from sorta kinda Germanic stock himself, It was really a case of Germans conquering other Germans...
Still...
If you subscribe to my pet whack-assed theory that the Vikings were really just Polacks who moved North into Scandinavia, then Poland actually conquered France and England...
nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk....
;)
Hapsburg
10-08-05, 12:25 PM
Hapsburg:
The French kicked the English off their land. That sounds like a victory, to me.
After getting Faceplanted for 100 years. I'd call it a draw since, up until the last few years, they were losing badly.
The French took the brunt of the fighting... they were smack bang in the front line. If it wasn't for the French, there would have been no war for Britain, ANZAC, the U.S, and Russia to fight.
Yet, they still needed the help of Russia, anzac, and Britain to WIN.
Killjoy
10-08-05, 12:26 PM
`
oops...
I forgot...
Since the French were Germans to begin with, then Poland really conquered Germany, and since the English were Germans by then, Poland actually conquered Germany again, but since the Vikings had conquered England already some time back, Poland actually just conquered Poland.
LoL
;)
Hapsburg
10-08-05, 12:51 PM
That's if you cut into just germans and poles...but doesn't that seem a bit nazistic?
Killjoy
10-08-05, 01:22 PM
`
Oh - heck, yeah...
I'm just being silly.
;)
mountainhare
10-09-05, 06:09 AM
Hapsburg:
After getting Faceplanted for 100 years. I'd call it a draw since, up until the last few years, they were losing badly.
Irrelevant. You can lose almost every piece on the chess board, but as long as you get your opponent in checkmate, you win.
The French kicked the English off their land. They may have lost many battles, but in the end they won the war. Calling it a draw 'because the British won more battles' is absurd, and not giving credit where credit is due. The British lost their French land and scuttled off home to the British Isles. Turning your tail and fleeing for good is a funny way of achieving a 'draw'.
Yet, they still needed the help of Russia, anzac, and Britain to WIN.
And Germany didn't have allies? So if you are to be a true victor, you must fight alone?
The fact of the matter is that the French took the brunt of the fighting in WWI, hence it is only fair to give them the largest share of acknowledgement for the victory.
Ophiolite
10-09-05, 08:00 AM
Mountain Hare let us be clear on this. The only French land the British held at that time was Brittany. The english Normans (with their anglo saxon long bowmen) lost their French land to the french Normans (with their Gaullish pikemen). The British had long been forced to the extremities of their land by invasions of Jutes, Angles, Saxons and other assorted Europeans. So only Brittany (see the name) was held by the British - and still is.
River Ape
10-09-05, 05:15 PM
In answer to your original question, mountainhare, if you had to pick THE war from which France emerged victorious, it would have to be that complex series of engagements known as the THIRTY YEARS WAR, which ended with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
It was at this time that France emerged as THE Great Power in Europe, with the power of Spain eclipsed, with Central Europe devastated by war, famine and disease, and with the Hapsburgs defeated and cut down to size. France would remain the pre-eminent power in Europe until the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.
Hapsburg
10-09-05, 08:09 PM
Goood point. Though a lot of the work was done by Sweden and Denmark, France put in the final kick to the groin that permenently put of the Kingdom of the Germans out of commission (remember, the Holy Roman Emperor also held the title "King of the Germans", thus making the bulk of the HRE the "kingdom of the germans").
Fraggle Rocker
10-22-05, 07:54 PM
Didn't France win the biggest war in its history in 1066 when William of Orange INVADED England, DEFEATED its armies, CONQUERED its people, and OCCUPIED its land?
French was the official language of England and all of the nobility were French for hundreds of years.
The occupation, technically, was never terminated. England has had a continuous chain of government since then, the government of the French nobility is still in power. As the result of a gradual process, English replaced French as the official language while the French rulers intermarried with their English subjects. But it was and is a new English language, one that is overloaded with French words, not just academic or legal terms but everyday words like "use" and "very."
Half of English culture is French. What greater victory will France ever need? :)
mountainhare
10-23-05, 05:38 AM
Didn't France win the biggest war in its history in 1066 when William of Orange INVADED England, DEFEATED its armies, CONQUERED its people, and OCCUPIED its land?
Eh? I thought that William the Orange was Dutch. I also thought that he was an enemy of France, and allied with Spain to fight against them. Although I am quite sure that he conquered Britain.
I believe he meant William of Normandy who invaded in 1066 and stayed. I think the current royal family can trace it's roots to William the Conquer. William of Orange married Mary of England and shared rule with her.
Fraggle Rocker
10-23-05, 07:30 PM
Sorry. That was so long ago, I don't remember it clearly. ^_^
PanzerTank
10-31-05, 10:01 PM
They def. did not win ww2... they surrendered in like 2 weeks while Poland held out for 40 something days with horse charges against the Nazi blitzkreig.
john smith
11-02-05, 05:59 AM
True, and i have a joke on the subject;
Why are there trees in Paris??
To give shade to the Germans marching underneath!!!!!
spuriousmonkey
11-02-05, 03:05 PM
Eh? I thought that William the Orange was Dutch. I also thought that he was an enemy of France, and allied with Spain to fight against them. Although I am quite sure that he conquered Britain.
I am sure you meant this William of Orange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem-Alexander%2C_Prince_of_Orange)
Point being:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Orange
There are a shitload of williams of orange.
-------
Americans should give back the statue of liberty if they hate france so much.
The French won the American Revolution. Without French regulars, America hadn't a chance in hell to kick the Brits out.
What war have the French won? The one of my heart,
Hapsburg
11-02-05, 05:40 PM
The French won the American Revolution. Without French regulars, America hadn't a chance in hell to kick the Brits out.
Not only that, but some 90% of our gunpowder and 75%of our cannons, not to mention half of our muskets and uniforms, came from France.
mountainhare
11-02-05, 09:53 PM
Roman:
The French won the American Revolution. Without French regulars, America hadn't a chance in hell to kick the Brits out.
And without the Americans, the French wouldn't have had a chance of kicking the Germans out of German lands. However, I feel that the French are the true victors, since they bore the brunt of the fighting. The French pushed the Germans to the edge, and then the British and Americans pushed them over.
I think that is the similiar sort of scenario with the American Revolution. Americans done the brunt of the fighting, and the French gave the final 'push', allowing the Americans to win the major victories.
spuriousmonkey
11-03-05, 09:24 AM
You conviently have forgotten to mention the help of your communist friends from the east to run over the germans.
They in fact bore the brunt of the fighting, leaving inferior troops at the west front for the americans to run over.
Pi-Sudoku
11-07-05, 04:41 AM
Ww1, Ww2,...
Are you joking.
WW1
The British did most of the fighting and saved frances but
WW2
France was successfully invaded and occupied by Germany.
At the collapse of the german rule frnace was handed back
philosopher´s stone
11-08-05, 05:25 PM
I managed to find a site called "The complete military history of France"
here it is http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
After thorough search in my own memory I have come up with a victory.
France won the worldcup in football !!! - not sure if it counts .......
philosopher´s stone
11-08-05, 06:05 PM
I have found one more victory of France :
on november 4.th 1985 french military agents managed to sink the unarmed and peaceseeking Greenpeace ship " Rainbow Warrior " by placing bombs on the ship´s
vessel in the harbour of Auckland, New Zealand - killing one innocent
greenpeace activist, who was aboard the ship.
This MUST count : armed military agents against a "warrior"
(of course it would not count if the ships name was not "Warrior")
What do you think about this ?
philosopher´s stone
11-08-05, 06:14 PM
Oh by the way - Fraggle Rocker - William of Normandy was part Scandinavian part Frank , not french - his army normannic with scandinavian ancestors (vikings) - 1066 do not count ......
there are no winners in war
DistantObservor
11-16-05, 07:03 PM
Hapsburg:
By your logic ("After getting Faceplanted for 100 years. I'd call it a draw since, up until the last few years, they were losing badly."), one could argue that the American Revolution was really a draw, since the British won the majority of the battles. Would you say that the American Colonies ended their revolution in a draw with the British? I doubt it. As mountainhare said, how many battles you win or lose is irrelevant as long as you win in the end, and certainly the French kicking the English off of their land constitutes a victory by any definition.
Baron Max
11-16-05, 07:37 PM
there are no winners in war
Try telling that to the losers!
Baron Max
crazy151drinker
11-16-05, 08:51 PM
"The French took the brunt of the fighting... they were smack bang in the front line. If it wasn't for the French, there would have been no war for Britain, ANZAC, the U.S, and Russia to fight."
Well at least they didnt get steamrolled in WWI.....
Was France even part of WWII????
Once again, France needs to clone Napolean and get their balls back
madanthonywayne
11-16-05, 11:38 PM
You're giving the French too much credit. Napoleon wasn't French. He was Corsican.
mountainhare
11-17-05, 01:30 AM
crazy:
Was France even part of WWII????
France was captured pretty quickly, but the Free French did quite a lot of fighting, especially in North Africa. There were about 400,000 Free French Resistance soldiers by the time the Allies initiated D-Day.
john smith
11-17-05, 04:16 AM
Yer, they were brave as fuck aswell, withstanding brutal torture and interogation for days on end.Some of the bravest people in WW2 were said to be the french resistance fighters!
Jaybee from his cast
11-17-05, 05:03 AM
Yer, they were brave as fuck aswell, withstanding brutal torture and interogation for days on end.Some of the bravest people in WW2 were said to be the french resistance fighters!
It gets better...ever notice how the allies were able to sweep through France like a dose of salts, despite the Germans having in excess of a million men ready there?
It's all down to the French Resistance. They gave the Allies invaluable information about the German troop strength in and around Normandy, and their sabotage of supply lines prevented the 2nd SS Panzer Division from getting to Normandy in time to destroy the beachheads as they were being formed.
Once landed, the Resistance continued sabotaging German efforts to hold off the allies; with their supply chain of food, weapons and equipment being undermined at every turn, the German army had little choice but to retreat.
Even in retreat, the Resistance continued to deuce the Germans; when Allied commanders wanted to prevent a particular German garrison being reinforced, word was sneaked through a chain of informants...and then, quietly in the night, a series of bridges would be simultaneously blown up.
The Germans were fighting two enemies on the western front; those in front, and those behind their lines. The modern German nation today owes it's existance to the French Resistance...the Soviets would have completely overrun Germany without the French Resistance having done it's work.
Jaybee.
River Ape
11-17-05, 01:08 PM
I think Jaybee is giving a false impression. WWII was a deeply unhappy time for France. Resisters of the extreme left and extreme right betrayed their political enemies to the Gestapo. It is wrong to suppose that the forces of reaction all supported the Nazis. Many resistance groups drew their following from fervently nationalist far-right French elements, including monarchists and "cagoulards". Other, and more formidable, groups were controlled by the Communists. Generally speaking, the more extreme your political opinion, the more likely you were to be in the Resistance. The apolitical were inclined to accept the reality of the occupation.
In the closing months of the war, liberated Frenchmen embarked in a frenzy of revenge attacks ("l'épuration") upon members of the Milice and other supporters of the Vichy Regime, but much of the bloodshed was simply criminal or in settlement of personal feuds. 70,000 Frenchmen may have died.
In the period immediate after the war, most Frenchmen and women simply wished to forget about what had passed. Unless you were with people you knew, it was not good form to refer to the wartime period in conversation. Most people kept quiet about the roles they had played. General de Gaulle retired from the scene and waited until he was needed again.
Only after de Gaulle returned in time of crisis to lead his country again did the mythmaking about the role of the Resistance and the Free French really begin. There was a new generation of children who could be taught a new version of history. The truth is that the role played by the Resistance in the liberation of France was a small one. The allied invasion of France initially made slower progress than had been planned, but once the Germans had decided to abandon France they withdrew from the greater part of the country without any attempt to defend territory, to take up new defensive positions in the east and north. Here and there, locally, sabotage by Resistance groups was significant, but the French have constructed a revised history of their country that magnifies their role.
Certainly the Resistance included many men and women of the highest calibre, who often paid a terrible price. And there were those who kept their secrets despite sickening torture. I join with Jaybee in paying my respects to them.
Von Chav
11-17-05, 01:33 PM
It gets better...ever notice how the allies were able to sweep through France like a dose of salts, despite the Germans having in excess of a million men ready there?
It's all down to the French Resistance. They gave the Allies invaluable information about the German troop strength in and around Normandy, and their sabotage of supply lines prevented the 2nd SS Panzer Division from getting to Normandy in time to destroy the beachheads as they were being formed.
Once landed, the Resistance continued sabotaging German efforts to hold off the allies; with their supply chain of food, weapons and equipment being undermined at every turn, the German army had little choice but to retreat.
Even in retreat, the Resistance continued to deuce the Germans; when Allied commanders wanted to prevent a particular German garrison being reinforced, word was sneaked through a chain of informants...and then, quietly in the night, a series of bridges would be simultaneously blown up.
The Germans were fighting two enemies on the western front; those in front, and those behind their lines. The modern German nation today owes it's existance to the French Resistance...the Soviets would have completely overrun Germany without the French Resistance having done it's work.
Jaybee.
Very true. Although the Americans would claim it was because of their superior military support that the allies steam rolled through France. (Lets not forgett the Canadians eh?) I think it was also due to Hitler's somewhat dubious and unpredictable, irrational nature also. (Plus the fact that the Russkies were sweeping Westward, with Hitler in full retreat) I heard that the notorious waffen-SS 2nd panzer division was halted under Hitler's command in the foolish beleif that they would 'wait' for the allies to make the next move. (Hitler logic for you!)
Makes me wonder wether or not it was all part of France's plan to 'fall' under the heel of Hitler's Blitzkreig then create havok for an occupying force; afterall siezure of a country is the easy part, occupation not so. DeGaulle did prove to be an adept strategist, albeit somewhat cowardly in my opinion. Though I've always wondered if the Frenchies could have tried just alittle bit harder, especially upon seeing ole Adolf annex neighbouring countries before hand, and prehaps they could provided the British expeditionary force (BEF) with alittle more assistance, although as the German Kaiser said of the first BEF in WW1, it really was an ill-equiped "Contemptible little army." But in this instance I salute the French. :)
Hapsburg
11-17-05, 02:07 PM
Was France even part of WWII????
they were one of the first ones to declare war on Germany in WW2. So, yeah, they were.
"Try telling that to the losers!"
thats my point, there is no war where both sides dont lose. whether it be people, money or even their innocence
john smith
11-18-05, 03:52 AM
Very true. Although the Americans would claim it was because of their superior military support that the allies steam rolled through France. (Lets not forgett the Canadians eh?) :)
Hey who said we were forgetting the canadians??
I heard that the notorious waffen-SS 2nd panzer division was halted under Hitler's command in the foolish beleif that they would 'wait' for the allies to make the next move. (Hitler logic for you!)
No no, i think your wrong here, allied forces, and french resistance made the ss 2nd panzer division virtually unable to move to the beach heads to crush the oposition there.They cut supply links, depot points and guided allies as to the where abouts of their positions. It wasnt Hitlers 'logic', that they should wait for them, it was that the situation dictaed that this was the best thing to do, given the circumstances.
Makes me wonder wether or not it was all part of France's plan to 'fall' under the heel of Hitler's Blitzkreig then create havok for an occupying force;
No offence, but thats just about the most stupid thing iv ever heard. They created 'havok' when the occupying forces had seized the country, because thats the only option they had left.
DeGaulle did prove to be an adept strategist, albeit somewhat cowardly in my opinion.
Though I've always wondered if the Frenchies could have tried just alittle bit harder, especially upon seeing ole Adolf annex neighbouring countries before hand,
and prehaps they could provided the British expeditionary force (BEF) with alittle more assistance, although as the German Kaiser said of the first BEF in WW1, it really was an ill-equiped "Contemptible little army."
But in this instance I salute the French. :)
Doesnt sound like you do!!! :D
Von Chav
11-26-05, 01:10 PM
[QUOTE=john smith]Hey who said we were forgetting the canadians??
No one. I just get pissed off when the yanks take all the credit. Remember, the only reason why they entered the European theater of war was because Hitler declared war on them. The canadians never get enough credit.
No no, i think your wrong here, allied forces, and french resistance made the ss 2nd panzer division virtually unable to move to the beach heads to crush the oposition there.They cut supply links, depot points and guided allies as to the where abouts of their positions. It wasnt Hitlers 'logic', that they should wait for them, it was that the situation dictaed that this was the best thing to do, given the circumstances.
LMAO! To quote you John, "Thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!" I was refering to the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) despatched in 1940 to France, but on taking the Western offensive General John Gort was forced to retreat back to Dunkirk. I was'nt talking about the events after D-day. (Even if I was, you're wrong - they were never "bogged down" by the French resistence.) I take it you know nothing about the BEF then? (Besides the bloody 2nd SS Panzer division was in damn Russia at that time!!)
By D-Day (And I was'nt talking about D-day!!) the 2nd SS Panzer division was in France and while it had'nt established itself at the beachheads, it already occupied the vincinity of surrounding towns and villages. They were not bogged down by the allies at this point, and certainly not by the French resistance. On the contrary, during D day, the 2nd and 9th SS Panzer divisions held the allies back significantly long enough for the Germans to make a prudent retreat. Later they took part in the break through of the Ardennes (Area of the "Battle of the Bulge") forest and then back into Germany. I simply assumed it was Hitler logic that they were'nt established in a more formidable position!!
No offence, but thats just about the most stupid thing iv ever heard. They created 'havok' when the occupying forces had seized the country, because thats the only option they had left.
It's much harder to occupy than to conquer a country my simplistic friend. Go read Sun Tzu's "Art of War." The only formidable defence the French had was the Maginot Line. And they were always alittle twitchy following the events of the first world war, and when Hitler marched into the Ruhr it confirmed the worst. Remember, I was speculating as to wether it was part of their strategy, and not saying it was gospel. (In fact Britain augmented a similar plan if it were ever invaded by the Nazis.) Surely you have'nt wondered why they did'nt try harder, despite the effectivness of the Blitzkreig?
Doesnt sound like you do!!! :D
Since when have I been anti-French?
Go read GCSE History books my friend. Maybe theres some Terry Deary ones like "Hateful Hitler", "Nasty Nazis" or "Fearsome French." They'll suit your simplistic knowledge and non-existant understanding. :D
mountainhare
11-26-05, 07:00 PM
Von Chav:
The canadians never get enough credit.
I agree with you on that point. In fact, Canadians and Australians don't get much credit for their fighting in WWI and WWII, despite kicking a lot of ass. If the British didn't have the Australians and Canadians at their disposal, I doubt that they would have won both wars.
In fact, it was 4 Canadian, 4 Australian, and 2 British divisions which were responsible for turning the tide of trench warfare during 1918, at the Battle of Amiens. The combined might of the Canadians, Australians and British smashed through the German defenses, resulting in the taking of much artillery and German prisoners. Casualities on the allied side were quite low compared to those inflicted on German forces.
In fact, the losses on the German side were so bad, that the day this occurred was labelled 'the black day' of the German army. It's funny how the Germans never seemed to resent Australians or Canadians after WWI, since it was us who inflicted one of the worst defeats on them.
More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens
It's amazing how I wasn't taught the above at school, and instead had drilled into me how the Australians made a 'courageous' retreat from the Turkish forces at Gallipoli. Yeah right, there's something to celebrate... a retreat! Nothing about the desert rats in Tobruk, or how we fought guerilla warfare in the Phillipines against the Japanese. Just 'blah blah blah, Gallipoli, blah blah blah, retreat'.
Von Chav
11-27-05, 04:32 AM
Von Chav:
[QUOTE]I agree with you on that point. In fact, Canadians and Australians don't get much credit for their fighting in WWI and WWII, despite kicking a lot of ass. If the British didn't have the Australians and Canadians at their disposal, I doubt that they would have won both wars.
Agreed. Maybe we do have something in common my surly commrade? :D
In fact, it was 4 Canadian, 4 Australian, and 2 British divisions which were responsible for turning the tide of trench warfare during 1918, at the Battle of Amiens. The combined might of the Canadians, Australians and British smashed through the German defenses, resulting in the taking of much artillery and German prisoners. Casualities on the allied side were quite low compared to those inflicted on German forces.
In fact, the losses on the German side were so bad, that the day this occurred was labelled 'the black day' of the German army. It's funny how the Germans never seemed to resent Australians or Canadians after WWI, since it was us who inflicted one of the worst defeats on them.
More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens
It's amazing how I wasn't taught the above at school, and instead had drilled into me how the Australians made a 'courageous' retreat from the Turkish forces at Gallipoli. Yeah right, there's something to celebrate... a retreat! Nothing about the desert rats in Tobruk, or how we fought guerilla warfare in the Phillipines against the Japanese. Just 'blah blah blah, Gallipoli, blah blah blah, retreat'.
Thanks for the link. I'll look into it. You seem to have done your history homework. Agreed, - the topic of British involvement in the Phillipines and the Desert Rats at Tobruk are both understated topics, and for the purposes of secondary school education at least have either been diluted or erased completely. I always jibber on and on about how the ANZACS and Canadians should be given aleast equal (if not more in my opinion) credit than the Americans, but I've always rattled on and on more about thier involvement in WW2 than WW1. My knowledge of WW1 is alittle hazy, but come to think about it, they do deserve an equal amount of credit for their involvement here and in WW2. Thanks for the input. :)
Hapsburg
11-27-05, 10:57 PM
The way I see it, the British, French, etc. had the skill and the Americans gave the extra manpower nessisary. Think of it like this:
You have a set of scales. In 1914, Side B has 10 and Side A has five weights. In 1915, Side B has 7 and Side A has 6. In 1916, Side B has 6 and Side A has 6. In 1917, Side B has 5 and Side A has 6. In early 1918, Side B has 6 and Side A has 9, by the end of 1918, Side B has 2 and Side A has 10.
Side A = Allies.
Side B = Centrals.
The Americans provided the additional numbers needed to push forward the final offensive, but the majority of the skill was in the BEF and ANZAC and French army.
mountainhare
11-28-05, 02:22 AM
Von Chav:
I always jibber on and on about how the ANZACS and Canadians should be given aleast equal (if not more in my opinion) credit than the Americans,
Look at the timeline of WWI. Look at when the ANZACS and Canadians rushed to the aid of Britain (almost as soon as war had been declared on Britain, in 1914), and then when America decided to join in the fun (Declared war in 1917, but U.S troops joined the other Allies on the front in 1918). Trust America to join in when everyone had expended their resources and manpower!
Quite simply, America didn't really care less about a European War. Hell, why would it help Britain, who it had fought a bloody war against? Why would it feel indebted to a country which had burnt Washington D.C to the ground? Canada and Australia were on much better terms with Britain. After all, Australia hadn't fought any bloody wars with Britain (I'm not sure about Canada? I don't know much about the Canadians, except that they were once a British colony).
The main reason America joined the war was because the Germans were trigger happy with their submarines, which threatened America's shipping industries. Coming out of the top of the heap after winning the war was an added bonus of joining so late.
It's interesting, because Canada and Australia seem to be quite similiar in many ways, especially in the context of WW1. Before WW1, Canada and Australia + New Zealand (which I believe Australia should annex!) were merely seen as extensions of the British Empire. After WW1, the bravery and grit of Canadian and Australian soldiers helped to define Canada and Australia as separate nations, who could stand on their own two feet. Australia was no longer some hunk of nameless rock in the southern hemisphere, it was 'Hey, didn't those guys send up the ANZACS? Man, they kick ass!'
Paraclete
11-28-05, 08:49 AM
After all the Canadians and the aussies were members of the British Empire - they HAD to join immediately in the war ............
Still they fought bravely, NO doubt about that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I saw the ANZAC cemetery in Turkey - all those young brave men gave their lives for the British Empire !!!!!!!!!!
They truly wrote millitary history with blood !!!!!!!
Paraclete
11-28-05, 08:50 AM
US of A is no longer a member of the British Empire - so they are entitled to have their OWN foreign policy !!!
Paraclete
11-28-05, 09:09 AM
The sinking of the ship Lusitania (carrying a lot of american passengers) by a german sub - started an opinion of the germans as bad guys - and at last USA joined WW1.
In WW2 Hitlers 2 biggest mistakes was declaring war on USA and invading USSR - when he did that , he had a 2 front war against enemies that could NOT be beaten !!
A SURE road to defeat !!
Actually a way of suicide .............
What was the major battle in WWI where a relatively small force of Canadians held out against a huge German force? Was it a battle of Epres?
Paraclete
11-28-05, 09:24 AM
The most famous battle for the Canadians was probably the battle of Vimy Ridge , april 9, 1917 - they beat the germans - but lost 1400 men themselves .......
Paraclete
11-28-05, 09:30 AM
But the Canadians held the lines against the germans at the second battle of Ypres april 22, 1915 ........... quite memorable too .........
I think it was the first battle where the germans used poisoned gas - and the Canadians still managed to hold the line !!!!!!!
Paraclete
11-28-05, 09:47 AM
At Ypress about 95000 soldiers died - about 60000 British and about 35000 Germans .....
But in the end the British held the line ..........
Von Chav
11-28-05, 12:55 PM
Von Chav:
[QUOTE]Look at the timeline of WWI. Look at when the ANZACS and Canadians rushed to the aid of Britain (almost as soon as war had been declared on Britain, in 1914), and then when America decided to join in the fun (Declared war in 1917, but U.S troops joined the other Allies on the front in 1918). Trust America to join in when everyone had expended their resources and manpower!
Right on! The first world war seems to be an even better example than the second. Hell, after WWI, it's the Canadians and Aussies who shoulda remained isolationist for a change - give em a break from war; they woulda deserved it. Especially seeing as it did'nt reall have that much to do with em. They did'nt have to fight on behalf of the Brits, especially for a second time! And especially seeing as no one declared war on them personally, although you could argue in the first world war it was against the 'British Empire' but it was still different for them, as it did'nt geographically effect em (To the Germans neither Canada or Australia were 'British'). Even if Britain fell, I still don't see how it coulda effected them that much, hell it may have done them some good. Quite a curious topic this...
Quite simply, America didn't really care less about a European War. Hell, why would it help Britain, who it had fought a bloody war against? Why would it feel indebted to a country which had burnt Washington D.C to the ground? Canada and Australia were on much better terms with Britain. After all, Australia hadn't fought any bloody wars with Britain (I'm not sure about Canada? I don't know much about the Canadians, except that they were once a British colony).
Very true. I'm sure the Yanks woulda been very happy to fight against the Japs and not get involved in Europe, despite Churchills pleas to Roosevelt. Besides, it would'nt have done much for public opinion - though there are two sides to that argument. In WW2 that is.
The main reason America joined the war was because the Germans were trigger happy with their submarines, which threatened America's shipping industries. Coming out of the top of the heap after winning the war was an added bonus of joining so late.
Agreed. Thats the only foreseable reason why I think they got involved too.
It's interesting, because Canada and Australia seem to be quite similiar in many ways, especially in the context of WW1. Before WW1, Canada and Australia + New Zealand (which I believe Australia should annex!) were merely seen as extensions of the British Empire. After WW1, the bravery and grit of Canadian and Australian soldiers helped to define Canada and Australia as separate nations, who could stand on their own two feet. Australia was no longer some hunk of nameless rock in the southern hemisphere, it was 'Hey, didn't those guys send up the ANZACS? Man, they kick ass!'
Ironic how fighting on behalf of Britain defined their independence eh? The ANZACs really do whoop ass! :)
Both wars in this case seem to have striking similarities, and I'm equally curious about the role of the Aussies and Canadians in both. You can never stress the importance of their role enough. Move along Yanks, the ANZACs are here!
Von Chav
11-28-05, 01:01 PM
But the Canadians held the lines against the germans at the second battle of Ypres april 22, 1915 ........... quite memorable too .........
I think it was the first battle where the germans used poisoned gas - and the Canadians still managed to hold the line !!!!!!!
Bless em. ;)
The main reason America joined the war was because the Germans were trigger happy with their submarines, which threatened America's shipping industries. Coming out of the top of the heap after winning the war was an added bonus of joining so late.
Zimmerman telegram?
Hapsburg
11-29-05, 12:57 AM
Bless em. ;)
Fuck em. If they had run, and if the Germans had won WW1, the world would've been a lot better, i.e no WW2, no holocaust, no cold war(iffy).
there are no winners in war
But there are survivors.
Hapsburg
11-29-05, 02:44 PM
there are no winners in war
Yeah there are. The winners are the ones that gain the most and usually dictate the peace terms after a war.
change 'gain the most' to 'lose the least' and maybe you have a deffinition
mountainhare
11-29-05, 06:33 PM
Hapsburg:
The winners are the ones that gain the most and usually dictate the peace terms after a war.
The winners are the rulers who gain land and riches. The loser is the common man, who died for their respective rulers vanity and greed.
john smith
12-02-05, 05:49 AM
No one. I just get pissed off when the yanks take all the credit. Remember, the only reason why they entered the European theater of war was because Hitler declared war on them. The canadians never get enough credit.
Thats true
LMAO! To quote you John, "Thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!" I was refering to the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) despatched in 1940 to France, but on taking the Western offensive General John Gort was forced to retreat back to Dunkirk. I was'nt talking about the events after D-day. (Even if I was, you're wrong - they were never "bogged down" by the French resistence.) I take it you know nothing about the BEF then? (Besides the bloody 2nd SS Panzer division was in damn Russia at that time!!)
By D-Day (And I was'nt talking about D-day!!) the 2nd SS Panzer division was in France and while it had'nt established itself at the beachheads, it already occupied the vincinity of surrounding towns and villages. They were not bogged down by the allies at this point, and certainly not by the French resistance. On the contrary, during D day, the 2nd and 9th SS Panzer divisions held the allies back significantly long enough for the Germans to make a prudent retreat. Later they took part in the break through of the Ardennes (Area of the "Battle of the Bulge") forest and then back into Germany. I simply assumed it was Hitler logic that they were'nt established in a more formidable position!!
One thing you've never learned, however much you study, however many facts you get 'right', you will never beat me...i think you know exactly what i mean!
It's much harder to occupy than to conquer a country my simplistic friend. Go read Sun Tzu's "Art of War." The only formidable defence the French had was the Maginot Line. And they were always alittle twitchy following the events of the first world war, and when Hitler marched into the Ruhr it confirmed the worst. Remember, I was speculating as to wether it was part of their strategy, and not saying it was gospel. (In fact Britain augmented a similar plan if it were ever invaded by the Nazis.) Surely you have'nt wondered why they did'nt try harder, despite the effectivness of the Blitzkreig?
Im not intrested in what your borrowed library books have to say on the subject...i want your opinion, you have accused others of just 'googling up' information to sound superior, yet you are a hypocrite as yo obviously have done exactly that! If however you have actual knowledge of this, who you trying to impress??!! :D
Go read GCSE History books my friend. Maybe theres some Terry Deary ones like "Hateful Hitler", "Nasty Nazis" or "Fearsome French." They'll suit your simplistic knowledge and non-existant understanding. :D
So you wanna get personnal huh? What could i possibly use against you??! Think about it moron, i know what you've said above is what you think but you got a bad ass problem, you wanna know why i took GCSE history??Think about it a little!!! :)
See you around, probably trying to insult Max and MountainHare as usual!
john smith
12-02-05, 05:57 AM
Fuck em. If they had run, and if the Germans had won WW1, the world would've been a lot better, i.e no WW2, no holocaust, no cold war(iffy).
A very different and intresting approach.I like it :)
I tend to concur that European arrogance created Hitler's power base but without a Hitleresque German state there would still have been the problems of Stalin in the East, Mussolini, Franco, and Japan in the Far East. It was a time of aggressive attitudes and we have not yet found a way to stop aggression before it creates havoc in lives of the individual maybe someday we will achieve this but not today.
Fuck em. If they had run, and if the Germans had won WW1, the world would've been a lot better, i.e no WW2, no holocaust
Without the Holocaust, eugenicist would still be a respectable profession.
I could argue that if France had not been so determined to screw reparations money out of the German state after WW1, the situation wouldn't have got so bad in Germany (where they were using banknotes as wallpaper) and Hitler wouldn't have got a chance to start up.
River Ape
12-03-05, 06:42 AM
You sound critical of the French, Xylene.
You should know that many of the French statesmen of the day would have remembered, as children, the Peace of Frankfurt, signed at the end of the Franco-German war of 1870-71. France had to pay collossal reparations of 5 billion gold francs to Germany. And she did. Ahead of schedule.
Small wonder, then, that France and Belgium sought reparations after the Great War, which had, after all, been fought on their soil and at a hideous cost in physical destruction. (In England, we are inclined to consider only the cost in lives of the war, ignoring the devastation of town, village and countryside which we did not experience.)
The factors which led to the German hyper-inflation are worthy of closer scrutiny. They were not the inevitable outcome of the demand for reparations. (Except, of course, in the sense that all is pre-ordained by Destiny!)
Hapsburg
12-03-05, 02:11 PM
They may not have been the inevitable outcome, but the reparations was the catalyst for the economic upfuckery, and Hitler used defiance Versailles Treaty as a rallying cry, which led to his rise to power.
River Ape
12-03-05, 07:45 PM
The Germans invaded and trashed Belgium and incinerated Louvain. The idea that Germany should have made reparations seems pretty reasonable. Or should Belgium have been the country that lost the war?
The FUNDAMENTAL problem was that while France wanted to make sure no threat arose from Germany ever again, England wanted a Germany that could stand up to the threat of Russian Bolshevism. France needed England's support to suppress a resurgent Germany but did not get it, and was bitterly divided between left and right over seeking an alliance with the Soviets.
Hapsburg
12-03-05, 08:05 PM
If anyone, Serbia should've been forced to pay reparations, they're the one's that began the war, by organizing the assassination of Francis Ferdinand.
River Ape
12-04-05, 06:08 AM
Ah, but now you are not talking serious history!
Point is: suppose reparations had never become a big issue. Imagine that German nationalism had followed a different course, and that the Monarchists rather than the National Socialists had emerged as the main political force. Would a resurgent Germany have been prepared to leave Elsass and Lothringen in French hands?
Take a look at Strasseburg! Did you ever see such a fine German-looking city? Wundebar!
Harold Godwinson
12-11-05, 12:13 PM
Hapsburg:
Irrelevant. You can lose almost every piece on the chess board, but as long as you get your opponent in checkmate, you win.
The French kicked the English off their land. They may have lost many battles, but in the end they won the war. Calling it a draw 'because the British won more battles' is absurd, and not giving credit where credit is due. The British lost their French land and scuttled off home to the British Isles. Turning your tail and fleeing for good is a funny way of achieving a 'draw'.
The French didn't win a major battle until about 84 years into the war. And didn't start winning multiple battles until Joan of Arc came. After England, which had taken over most of France, left they still controlled territory. When the war ended England still controlled Calais for more than a century(which she held until 1558 when France took the decaying city while England was preoccupied with in the Italian wars ). England had Calais. The war was fought for 2 reasons:
1) Who the rightful heir to the throne of France was
2) England wanted land in France.
England gained land and claimed the French throne until 1801. At the beginning of the war France had a population of well over 14 million, and England had a population of about 2 million. The French could use "levee en masse," and for every death the French had, an English death dealt England seven timed the blow because there where less English men to fight. As you can see the English were horribly out-numbered, despite this however, they were successful in conquering most of France. Also the French king tried to restore David II to the Scottish throne, as you should know that was a failure. After Agincourt by 1420, with most of Northern, and other parts of France being under English hegemony, King Charles VI designated Henry V regent and heir to the kingdom of France, and gave him his daughter Catherine de Valois' hand in marriage in the Treaty of Troyes. The treaty said that the French throne was not to pass to Charles VII but to his infant nephew, King Henry VI of England when his father Charles VI died (which happened in 1422). Henry V of England ruled the territories the English had captured in France as regent of his son, and southern France was ruled by the Dauphin Charles VII. But many French refused to subject themselves to the English domination, and joined under the orders of the dauphin of France, Charles VII. Many French people didn't acknowledge this, but it happened all the same. So England captured the throne of France, AND had land in France (Calais), just what she set out to do. Sounds like an English victory to me!
Iraq 1991... If it doesn't count then we would have to ask the question for USA too...
Anyway, I don't understand why this thread was begun.
ArtofWar
12-19-05, 11:39 AM
An old Irish man once told me. "Son never mind the French, They fight with their feet, and they fuck with their faces"
castilla
01-11-06, 07:00 PM
So, as Napoleon lost the battles of Leipzig and Waterloo but won 35- 40 battles (including Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland, Wagram and Borodino, humilliating the Hapsburgs, the Hohenzollerns and the Romanoffs) we may say that the result of the anpoleonic wars was a "draw" between Napoleon and the rest.
[QUOTE=mountainhare]Hapsburg:
Irrelevant. You can lose almost every piece on the chess board, but as long as you get your opponent in checkmate, you win.
The French kicked the English off their land. They may have lost many battles, but in the end they won the war. Calling it a draw 'because the British won more battles' is absurd, and not giving credit where credit is due. The British lost their French land and scuttled off home to the British Isles. Turning your tail and fleeing for good is a funny way of achieving a 'draw'.QUOTE]
The French didn't win a major battle until about 84 years into the war. And didn't start winning multiple battles until Joan of Arc came. After England, which had taken over most of France, left they still controlled territory. When the war ended England still controlled Calais for more than a century(which she held until 1558 when France took the decaying city while England was preoccupied with in the Italian wars ). England had Calais. The war was fought for 2 reasons:
1) Who the rightful heir to the throne of France was
2) England wanted land in France.
England gained land and claimed the French throne until 1801. At the beginning of the war France had a population of well over 14 million, and England had a population of about 2 million. The French could use "levee en masse," and for every death the French had, an English death dealt England seven timed the blow because there where less English men to fight. As you can see the English were horribly out-numbered, despite this however, they were successful in conquering most of France. Also the French king tried to restore David II to the Scottish throne, as you should know that was a failure. After Agincourt by 1420, with most of Northern, and other parts of France being under English hegemony, King Charles VI designated Henry V regent and heir to the kingdom of France, and gave him his daughter Catherine de Valois' hand in marriage in the Treaty of Troyes. The treaty said that the French throne was not to pass to Charles VII but to his infant nephew, King Henry VI of England when his father Charles VI died (which happened in 1422). Henry V of England ruled the territories the English had captured in France as regent of his son, and southern France was ruled by the Dauphin Charles VII. But many French refused to subject themselves to the English domination, and joined under the orders of the dauphin of France, Charles VII. Many French people didn't acknowledge this, but it happened all the same. So England captured the throne of France, AND had land in France (Calais), just what she set out to do. Sounds like an English victory to me!
i wonder if your forgetting who napoleon was
Hapsburg
01-11-06, 09:57 PM
As hare said, it doesn't matter how many battles you win, but if you are beaten in the end...you lose.
You can keep as many pawns you want safe, but in the end, if your king is down, you've been checked, mate.
Chech has rules... not war. When can you say when a war is over? The next battle can be made a few months/years later.
When you lose one battle and lands with it, you only want to go one and recover it : endless isn't it? If you just say "when the leader is dead/captured, the war is over", then what about Iraq? A war is over when one side surrender (in general it follows the leader death/capture).
As hare said, it doesn't matter how many battles you win, but if you are beaten in the end...you lose.
You can keep as many pawns you want safe, but in the end, if your king is down, you've been checked, mate.
but he won several different war's only losing one war to russia
now if you saying him beating one country then going on to another country is all together 1 war then you are misguided he won several war's
Giambattista
01-12-06, 05:32 AM
Whenever I play Hearts of Iron, France wins glorious battles!
hug-a-tree
01-12-06, 10:04 AM
An old Irish man once told me. "Son never mind the French, They fight with their feet, and they fuck with their faces"
Aw,no... now, that's not nice. The Irish aren't that harsh towards the French.
My dads Irish and he married my mom who is French. The french may be different from us, but all in all there fine.
Hapsburg
01-12-06, 01:49 PM
Chess has rules... not war. When can you say when a war is over?
There's a little called a peace treaty...you know, that thing that, uh, ceases all hostilities. :rolleyes:
but he won several different war's only losing one war to russia
The Napoleonic Wars are often counted as a single long war, interspersed with short peaces, like the Hundred Years' and Thirty Years' wars. Combined with the French Revolutionary Wars, is commonly called "The Great French War of 1792-1815".
There's a little called a peace treaty...you know, that thing that, uh, ceases all hostilities. :rolleyes:
Like Chamberlain's "peace with honour"? :D
Harold Godwinson
01-13-06, 02:30 PM
NOTE: I EDITED THIS POST.
So, as Napoleon lost the battles of Leipzig and Waterloo but won 35- 40 battles (including Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland, Wagram and Borodino, humilliating the Hapsburgs, the Hohenzollerns and the Romanoffs) we may say that the result of the anpoleonic wars was a "draw" between Napoleon and the rest.
Napoleon was a Corsican, born 3 months after Corsica was given to France. He was born Napoleon Bounaparte, an Italian name. He was made fun of in France for not being able to speak French without an Italian accent. His father was in the Corsian independence movement. He was in the Corsican independence movement. He became emperor of France. This Single short little man defeated France. he took it by force, no blood ties to the royalty, no election, nothing. Also, if you didn't notice, Napoleon was a propagandist, most of the stuff he wrote was inflated lies. Ever hear of the Nile, Trafalgar, Waterloo (oh wait you did hear of waterloo). Those are just a few. It didn't take the British 84 years to win a large victory. At the height of it the british were against all of Europe (except Portugal and some very small states). Finally, though Napoleon's big mistake, he back-stabbed Russia, who went against him. You must also remember the British were fighting a few other wars during the Napoleonic Wars, including the War of 1812. Napoleon has been made to look a lot more French than he ever really was, but what can you expect, you almost have to have some sympathy for the French, until they back-stab you again of course.
And Remember, the Hundred years' War was fought for 2 reasons,
1) Who the rightful heir to the throne of France was
2) England wanted land in France.
If we look Britain accomplised her objective, although not to the degree she would have wished. The French Revolution (only war the french ever won without having a foreign nation do most of the work) which was started on July 14, 1789 (I think) ended the French throne. When Ireland joined the UK in 1801 King George III dropped his claims to the French Throne as it was now non-existent.
The English also gained land. They kept the largest port in France at the time, Calais.
Claimed French Victories:
~American Revolution
At the beginning of 1775, the British army was consisted of about 36,000 men worldwide, but slowly this number rose due to wartime recruitment. Additionally, over the course of the war the British hired about 30,000 Prussian mercenaries, also known as "Hessians." Hessians made up about 1/3 of the British troops in North America. By 1779, the number of British and German troops stationed in North America was over 60,000, though they were spread from Canada to Florida
The Hessian soldiers didn't really care who won and often deserted to America's side. In fact 5,000 Hessian troops
Although as many as 250,000 Patriots may have served as regulars or militiamen in the eight years of the war, there were never more than 100,000 total men under arms for the Patriots in any given year. French help was a mere 31,000, sailors and 18,000 soldiers....75% of French deaths, which were minimal as they saw far less action, were sailor deaths.
British:
Who sided?
Great Britain
Hired Hessian Mercenaries(soldiers fighting for a foreign nation simply just for money), but neither Hesse or Prussia were British allies.
50,000 Loyalists
60,000 Britons and Hessians at their highest point (1/3 of them were Hessian)
110,000 British Strength Grand-total
-------------------------------------------
30,000 Hessians fought in the war in total.
-------------------------------------------
American:
Who Sided?
France, Holland, and the kingdom of Sardinia (which included most of northern Italy)
Spain sent troops through France, not directly to the US, but did not "Officially" recognise the new Republic.
Polish officers and soldiers fought for the Patriots, but I do not think the Polish government officially supported the patriots...Sort of like the Hessians, but not on nearly so grand a scale.
100,000 patriots
49,000 Frogs
Dutch?
Spanish?
Sardinian?
Polish?
Far beyond 149,000 was the Grand total (because does not include other nations), I'll tell you that much.
250,000 Patriots fought in the war in total
As you can see, more Americans fought for the British, than French fought for the Americans. Calling this a "French victory" would be like calling it an American loss (50,000 colonists fought for British, 49,000 Frenchmen fought for America)
~Crimean War~ It was mainly the British who fought the Russians, the French were only helpful a few times. The British saw to far more action. This war is considered on of the worst in British military history, it can be considered on of, if not the best in French.
Harold Godwinson
01-13-06, 03:15 PM
Hundred Years' War
The Hundred Years' War was a conflict spurred by the Battle of Hastings. For the next couple centuries after Hastings, the English built up their holdings, taking Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, but what was going on in France? The English nobles remembered the good old days when their grandparents owned Normandy. They set out to regain control of Normandy and much of France. The English built up their French possessions until it got to a point where England controlled more than half of present day France. In 1333, Edward III went to war with King David II of Scotland, a French ally (Auld alliance). The French king Philip thought this would be a great time to retake Gascony, in South west France. At the beginning of the war France had a population of well over 14 million, and England had a population of about 2 million. The French were well poised to use their larger population in a time here the amount counted more, and for every death the French had, an English death dealt England seven timed the blow because there where less English men to fight. As you can see the English were horribly out-numbered, despite this however, they were successful in conquering most of France. In 1336, Philip made plans for an expedition to restore David to the Scottish throne, and to also seize Gascony. Open hostilities broke out as French ships began ravaging coastal settlements on the English Channel in England's colonies in France. In 1337 Philip tried to reclaim Gascony, citing feudal law and saying that Edward had broken his oath (a felony) by not attending to the needs and demands of his lord. Edward III replied by saying he was in fact the rightful heir to the throne of France, and the war started. The Hundred Years' War, lasting from 1337 until 1453, was actually 116 years. The French lost for most of the war until they were saved at the last minute by a schizophrenic Joan of Arc. After a while the English lost most of their territory to the much larger French army led by Joan of Arc. Scotland went to war at the worst possible time and France united. Despite England once and for all defeating Scotland this didn't come soon enough and she lost almost, but not all of her French colonies. England still controlled Calais for about another century. British royalty still claimed the throne of France until 1801 during the act of Union when Ireland stopped being a colony and became part of the United Kingdom. In fact, the French didn't win a major battle until about 84 years into the war. And didn't start winning multiple battles until Joan of Arc came. After England, which had taken over most of France, left they still controlled territory. When the war ended England still controlled Calais for more than a century (which she held until 1558 when France took the decaying city while England was preoccupied with in the Italian wars).
First before we get into the battles here is my reasoning for why the war was not a British military loss:
The war was fought for 2 reasons:
1) Who the rightful heir to the throne of France was
2) England wanted land in France.
England gained land and claimed the French throne until 1801. Also the French king tried to restore David II to the Scottish throne, as you should know that was a failure. After Agincourt by 1420, with most of Northern, and other parts of France being under English hegemony, King Charles VI designated Henry V regent and heir to the kingdom of France and said Henry's son was going to be the next king in the Treaty of Troyes. When both of them died in 1422 Henry's son was crowned King Heny VI of England and France. Many French people didn't acknowledge this and pladged their alligence to the Dauphin (eldest son of the King) Charles VII, but it happened all the same. So England captured the throne of France, AND had more land (Calais), just what she set out to do. Sounds like an English victory to me!
First French Campaign
Battle of Sluys
The naval Battle of Sluys, fought on 24 June 1340, was the first major battle of the Hundred Years' War. King Edward III of England led at most 250 ships, many of which were undoubtedly mere transports, for the king brought with him the household of Philippa of Hainault, his Queen consort, who was then at Bruges. Edward was against a French fleet of at least 190 ships led by Hugues Quiéret and Nicolas Béhuchet. The battle was fought with long hand-to-hand conflicts to board ships or to repulse the boarders. King Edward makes no mention of any actual help given him by his Flemish allies (which compromised 50 of his ships that had joined after dark according to the French), though he says they were willing. The Genoese Barbavera advised his colleagues to go to sea, but Béhuchet, who as constable exercised the general command, refused to depart the anchorage. He most likely desired to occupy it in order to stymy the king's ability to go to Bruges. The battle ended with the virtual annihilation of the French fleet. Quiéret was slain, and Béhuchet is said to have been hung by King Edward's orders. On the morning of twenty-fifth Barbavera escaped to sea with his squadron, carrying off two English prizes. English chroniclers postulate that the victory was won with small cost of life, and that the loss of the French was 30,000 men. Modern estimates bent on lessening England's glory have put it at at least 20,000 Frenchmen despite the fact that 30,000 was the number said by both French and Englishmen for nearly 660 years.
Battle of Crécy
The Battle of Crécy (1346), the second great battle of the war, was a battle in which an English army of approximately 12,000 men, commanded by Edward III of England reigned victorious against a mammoth French force under the command of Philip VI of France, whose force was approximately 40,000 Frenchmen. Edward III was victorious as a result of superior weaponry and tactics. As much as a third of French soldiers fell. English casualties were between 150 to 900 men killed or wounded. On the other hand French casualties are between 10,000 and 20,000 killed or wounded. Edward III planted his forces in an area of flat agricultural land, surrounded by natural obstacles. The king took over a windmill on a small hill, and placed himself and his staff there, where he could control the course of the battle. Edward III distributed the army between three groups (one of which his sixteen-year-old son the Black Prince command), and ordered that everybody should fight on foot in a strong defensive position. The army's secret weapon, the longbow-men, were formed in a "V-formation" along the crest of the hill. The overconfident French army, commanded by Philip VI, was in a horrible state of disarray. Philip stationed his Genoese mercenary crossbow-men in the front line, with the cavalry in the back. The French cavalry organized in rows and charged after the crossbow-men's miserable performance. At that time, the longbow-men rained a shower of arrows upon the knights. Even after 16 attempts, the French onslaught could not break the English formation, and they beheld dismaying losses. At nightfall, Philip VI, himself wounded, ordered the retreat. It was a disastrous and mortifying defeat for France, but out of the ordinary.
Battle of Neville's Cross
At the Battle of Neville's Cross on October 17, 1346, in Northern valiantly 3,000-4,000 men from Cumberland, Northumberland, and Lancashire defeated over 12,000 Scots who where trying to invade England to lessen France's invasion woes from the English in Northern France, thinking that the North of England would be virtually unprotected due to Edward III's campaign in France. David II of Scotland commanded the Scottish troops, the Archbishop of York commanded the English. There were another 3,000 Yorkshire-men on the way, but the Archbishop didn't bother waiting for them. Scottish losses where very high, and English losses were minimal.
Siege of Calais
The Siege of Calais began in 1346 and lasted 11 months (September 4, 1346 - August 3, 1347). Edward III led 33,900 men (2,000 of which were Flemish) against Jean de Fosseux and his 8,000 men. It happened because Edward needed to seize a defensible outpost where his army could regroup, and be re-supplied, and he chose Calais. French losses where high in this decisive English victory.
Battle of Poitiers
Edward, the Black Prince led Anglo-Gascon forces on a great "chevauchée" (raid) north from the English base in Aquitaine starting on August 8, 1356, in efforts to relieve allied garrisons in central France. His forces burnt down town after town, and did something Napoleon would later do, lived off the land. However, due to a heavy down-pour, when he reached the River Loire at Tours, his army was unable to burn the castle. This allowed King John II of France to try and defeat his army. On September 19, 1356, The Battle of Poitiers was fought by an Anglo-Gascon force of 9,000, under The Black Prince that vanquished a French force of 12,000, under John II of France, who lost over 2,000 men. The decisive French defeat led to England demanding France pay an impossible sum, equivalent to twice the country's G.D.P., as ransom to have back her king. He would eventually die a prisoner in England because his countrymen valued their money more than him.
Battle of Auray
The Battle of Auray was engaged on September 29, 1364. This battle decisive part of the Breton War of Succession. The battle started as a siege in which the duke John de Montfort with his Brenton troops, helped by English forces under Sir John Chandos, defeated his rival Charles of Blois, whose Brenton troops were helped by the French. The Anglo-Brenton victory ended the war of succession and by the treaty of Guérande, in 1365, in which the king of France recognized John of Montfort as duke of Brittany.
Minor French Victories
Just before New Year's Day 1370, the English Seneschal of Poitou, John Chandos, was killed. The loss of this commander was a significant blow to the English. The Breton commander Bertrand du Guesclin, who went over to the side of Charles V, carried on a series of careful campaigns, being careful to avoid any major English field forces, capturing a quite a few towns, including Poitiers in 1372 and Bergerac in 1377, until his death in 1380. He was definitely one of the most successful French generals in the whole war, especially due to the fact that he made sure not to confront any English forces of any power.
The Reviving of the Claim
Upon the death of Edward III, because of the untimely death of his son, his 10-year-old grandson Richard II was left King of England in1377. The Hundred Years' War fell into inactivity and France gained many of her possessions back. It was not until Richard had been deposed by his cousin, Henry IV of England, in 1399, that the English under the House of Lancaster would vigorously revive their assertion to the throne of France. Henry IV made plans for campaigns in France, but was unable to complete them due to his short reign.
On April 10th , 1413 a young dynamic Prince was crowned King Henry V of England. Henry had served his father, Henry IV, in battle from the age of sixteen. He fit the role superbly with his gallant bravery and cunning shown on the battlefield, and intelligence and manners on the throne. Immediately after he directed his attention towards France, and his rightful claim to the French throne. Unbeknownst to the French, their biggest nightmare was about to arrive. On August 11th , 1415 Henry and his army set sail for France. They landed at Harfleur, the greatest port in Normandy. Thus began the siege of Harfleur. The weather became very damp, and disease soon absorbed the English camp. The citizens put up surprising resistance, but on September 22nd Harfleur surrendered. The English suffered the loss of nearly two-thousand men at Harfleur, mostly from sickness. Henry decided that the victory was not great enough and planned a 150-mile raiding march across France to English controlled Calais, the greatest port in France.
Battle of Agincourt
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he that sheds his blood with me
Shall be called my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentile his condition.
And gentlemen in England, now abed,
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here;
And hold there manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon St. Crispins's Day.
(King Henry Act IV sc. iii, Henry the Fifth)
The hostile and strange French countryside, slowed down the walk of the English on their 150 mile march to Calais. On the morning of October 25, 1415 the weather was fierce and rainy, a sick, tired, and famished English army of approximately 5,000 archers and 900 men-at-arms under King Henry V, crossed the Sum and defeated a colossal French army made up of between 30,000 and 50,000 Frenchmen (many of which were mounted) that was under the orders of the constable Charles d' Albret. The English had placed themselves on the highest level they could find. The zealous and overly ambitious French troops decided to assault the English lines along the same level of the terrain, where a natural constriction/ bottleneck exists. The accurate English archers began raining arrows on the slow french calvary and troops, which made them turn back. Then the English changed over to swords and lashed out at the French troops, which stunned the French army. In the confusion, the French calvary turned back and trampled on their own troops which slowed because of the mud. At the Battle of Agincourt. English losses were 100-500 soldiers. French losses were 8,000-10,000 with well over 1,600 prisoners. The French court, humiliated and demoralized, was unable to oppose least resistance to the English campaigns during the five years which followed. Henry marched his triumphant to Calais, where they boarded ships to Dover to awaiting crowds of proud English citizens waiting cheer them.
However, Henry was just beginning.
2nd French Campaign
On July 23, 1417, Henry and his army of twenty -thousand returned to France. His force included smiths, carpenters, miners, and pioneers. Henry landed at Toques, not Harfleur like the French expected. He quickly disposed of all who dared stand in his way, easily conquering any resistance. The army moved to the town of Toques, near Castle Bonneville, one of the strongest posts in Normandy. The town was conquered with ease and Henry sent the Earl of Salisbury to the town of Anvillars demanding their surrender, which came quickly. On August 14, Henry left Toques for Caen.
With a population of over forty-thousand people, Caen was one of Europe's largest cities. The Thirty-two towers that fortified Caen, deep-water ditches, as well as the river Odon that protected the cities twelve gates of seven-foot thick walls, all made the citizens feel safe. Within the walls of Caen stood the original structure started by William the Conqueror. The English army of 1,000 men set up camp at the walls of Caen on August 18. English artillery began blasting the town from all sides, only sparing the wall that the magnificent St. Stephens Abby was behind, at the personal request of Henry. On September 4th, the English attacked the city. No Frenchmen were spared, except priests, as the English slaughtered eighteen-hundred men. The towns Lingevres, Tilly-sur-Senlles, Thury-Harcort, Lamotte-de-Cesny, and Bayeux all surrendered at the mere sight of Henry in September alone.
Siege of Rouen
In May of 1418 Henry took Pont de l' Arche, which was 8 miles from Rouen, after he left Bayeux. The possession of Rouen would lead to the possession of all of Normandy. Henry then turned his attention to Rouen, the capture of which would lead to possession of all of Normandy. A militia of 15,000, and 7,000 regular troops guarded Rouen. Before the harvest was ready, Henry led the siege, which led to quick famine. After cannibalism began, 12,000 non-combatants where released by the governor of Rouen, but Henry did not allow them to pass. Many of them starved. Citizens inside the city walls began revolting against their own magistrates as useless talks began with the Dauphin. Finally on January 20, 1419 Henry entered the gates of Rouen. His administration and fairness greatly impressed his Norman subjects. After the conquest of Rouen, Normandy once again under English control, after 200 years of French rule. The Duke of Burgundy and the Dauphin, reached an agreement that split control of France between them on July 29, which infuriated Henry who took to the battlefield at once, attacking the town of Pontoise. Soon after the Duke of Burgundy was strangely murdered, which was by both French and English, believed that the Dauphin had, had a hand in. Charles VI and his queen renounced their son, and stated they would attempt peace with the English.
Treaty of Troyes
In 1420,with most of Northern, and other parts of France being under English hegemony, King Charles VI designated Henry V his regent and gave him his daughter Catherine de Valois' hand in marriage (Philippa of Hainault had died in 1369) in the Treaty of Troyes. The treaty said that the French throne was not to pass to the Dauphin, Charles VII but to his infant nephew, King Henry VI of England when his (Charles VII's) father Charles VI died (which happened in 1422). The almost simultaneous deaths of Henry V and Charles VI led to Henry's infant son to be crowned King Henry VI of England, and France. Most of southern France remained loyal to the Dauphin, Charles VII. Many French refused to acknowledge the English domination, though. After signing the treaty he was in firm control of both England and northern France. Henry again looked to the continent where the Dauphin still lurked somewhere in the south of France.
3rd French Campaign
Battle of Baugé
On March 21,1421, The Battle of Baugé was fought between the English and the Franco-Scots. It was one of the very first defeats for the English, and the first large battle for the English to lose. Thomas, Duke of Clarence led the English army against John Stewart, the Earl of Buchan and Sieur de Lafayette, the Constable of France who led the Franco-Scots. Despite the English having 3,000 men, only 1,500 fought in the battle against the French-Scots' 5,000. This English defeat came 84 years after the war had begun.
Sieges
Henry wasted no time in returning to battle, laying siege to the towns of Sens, Montereau, and Melun. After months of fighting, Melun fell in December of 1421. Henry entered Paris with King Charles and the (new) Duke of Burgundy, where Charles banished the Dauphin for his crimes, formally eliminating Henry's greatest problem. Henry went back to England to see his new bride's coronation at Westminster Abbey on February 24. During Henry's absence in France, the Dauphin began reclaiming the territories Henry possessed.
When Henry returned in June 1421 he was able to take back all of the captured territory in a mere ten weeks. On October 6 Henry laid siege to the town of Meaux, while his son was being born in England. On May 11, 1422 Meaux surrendered. This was Henry's last battle. Henry continued his third campaign his health began to decline. On his way to Cosne-sur-Loire, his illness increased. Henry went to the Bois de Vincennes to rest and recover and put the Duke of Bedford in charge. However, on August 31, 1422, the life of one of Britain's greatest came to an end from acute dysentery and fever. The plunder from the French towns, and the ransoms of the captured nobles is what Henry had used to finance his campaigns.
Battle of Cravant
On July 31, 1423 The Battle of Cravant was fought. The English king was permitted to occupy all the country north of the Loire because of the Treaty of Troyes. Because of his death hostilities resumed. The French army also contained a large number of Scots under Sir John Stewart, who was commanding the entire mixed force. The two sides met at the village of Cravant in Burgundy. The combined English and Burundian force was only 4,000 men led by the 4th Earl of Salisbury where out-numbered more than two-to-one by the French force of 8,000 commanded by the Comte de Vendome. While Salisbury was crossing the waist-high river 50-yard-wide river another English force under Lord Willoughby of Eresby forced a passage through the Scots across the narrow bridge and divided the Dauphin's army. Scots refused to flee and were cut down by the hundreds whilst the French abandoned them and began to withdraw. Over 3,000 of them fell at the bridgehead or along the riverbanks, and, including John Stewart and the Comte de Vendome, over 2,000 prisoners were taken. The Dauphin's forces retreated to the Loire, leaving over 6,000 dead, and many prisoners. English losses where just 600, a tenth of that of the French.
Battle of Verneuil
On the 17th of August 1423, The Battle of Verneuil was fought between an English force compromising between 8,000 and 10,000 men, commanded by John, Duke of Bedford, regent of France and the younger brother of the late Henry V with the Earls of Suffolk and Salisbury as subordinate, and a Franco-Scottish-Italian force under the field command of the Earl of Douglas who also commanded the 6,000-man Scottish contingent, Italian crossbow-men and 2,000 Italian knights. This force was considerably larger than the English, with about 10,000 more people. It was a decisive English victory with French losses amounting to approximately 8,000 men including most of the Scots. The Earl of Douglas was slain.
Siege of Orleans
On October 12, 1428, a force of 5,000 Englishmen led by the Earl of Salisbury, and also the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the Duke of Suffolk confronted a French force led by Joan of Arc that was made up of about 9,399 men and one woman, a 17-year-old peasant girl who was able to persuade Charles VII to let her fight, claiming God had told her to. The Earl of Salisbury's forces began to try and surround the city, and to claim the fortified bridge across the Loire. They seized the bridge on the 24th, but the Earl was killed in the process. The Duke of Suffolk temporarily replaced him as commander, but was replaced later by the Earl of Shrewsbury. The English cannons could not break the thick stone walls, and there weren't enough Englishmen to surround the city. The city's situation was growing desperate despite several supply runs by the French, by spring of 1429. The Dauphin allowed Joan of Arc to lead a relief expedition. After she entered the city and demanded an English withdrawal she was taunted and refused. She claimed the voices she heard in her head told her to attack from the North. So Joan left the city on May first, and aided a French assault on fort St. Loup, which myth has it that she killed all the English defenders and suffered only two French casualties. Joan led the French to victory in a few skirmishes over the next week, seizing the bridge over the Loire and several forts the English had taken. By May 9 the bridge was burned and the English had given up on Orleans. The importance of this battle was that in the weeks that followed volunteers and supplies flooded into the French army, making it even larger than the already outnumbered English army. This was the turning point in the war when the English actually began to lose a few battles. After 91 years the war finally turned in Charles' favour.
Battle of Patay
In 1429 the Battle of Patay was fought between 1,500 elite French Calvary-men under the command of La Hire and Poton de Xaintrailles, against 5,000 Englishmen on foot under Sir John Fastolf. Because of the fact that it was one of France's few victories, and one of the few where the French where actually out-numbered. The only remaining English field army was annihilated, and the course of the war would now turn in the favour of the French being able to drive the English, who had conquered half of France, out. A story goes that "the French frightened a stag, who bolted through the forest and into the English rear guard. Seeing such a prize, the English broke ranks and tried to chase it. The noise of the English rear guard alerted the French, who promptly attacked." After seeing the loss of their rear guard, the English rushed to find a defensive position where they could use their superior archers to advantage. The French keeping in mind their earlier debacles did not let this happen and defeated the English with great force, for a French army, before the disorganised English could attack. This cleared the road to Rheims so that Charles the Dauphin could be crowned King Charles VII of France.
Battle of Compiègne
On May 23, 1430 the Battle of Compiègne was fought between French and Burgundian troops. Joan of Arc led the French in attempting to relieve a Burgundian siege of Compiègne, but failed and was captured while retreating. This would lead to the English having the last laugh with her, executing her for being a witch.
Battle of Gerbevoy
When the English imprisoned Joan at Rouen in 1430, La Hire assaulted the town bent on rescuing her, only to be defeated and captured. After being let go, La Hire defeated the English in the Battle of Gerbevoy in 1435.
Battle of Formigny
The Battle of Formigny (April 15, 1450) was a hard blow the French and Brentons dealt the English. The French under the Comte de Clermont and the Comte de Richemont where compromised of 5,000 men, compared to 4,000 Englishmen under Thomas Kyriell. The French reorganize and reinvigorate their army after the Truce of Tours. Without clear leadership from the weak Henry VI, the English were scattered and dangerously weak. When the French broke the truce in June 1449 they(the Frogs) were in a much better position.
Battle of Castillon
The Battle of Castillon was the last major battle of the Hundred Years' War. It was fought between the French and Bretons against the English. After the French capture of Bordeaux in 1451 the citizens of Bordeaux sent messengers to Henry VI of England demanding he recapture the province because after three centuries of English rule, they considered themselves English. On October 17, 1452, John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury landed near Bordeaux with a force of 3,000 archers and men-at-arms. The French garrison was ejected by the gleeful Bordeaux citizens, who joyfully opened the gates to the English. Most of Gascony followed suit and welcomed the English home. Talbot received another 3,000 men, but this still fell far short of an adequate number to hold back the hordes of Frenchmen scrambling to get in past Gascony's borders. When the French army lay siege to Castillon, Talbot abandoned his original plans (bowing to the pleas of the townsmen) and set out to salvage it. The French commander, Jean Bureau, in fear of Talbot, ordered his 10 to 13,000 men to surround their camp with a palisade and trench, and on the parapet, strategically place his 300 cannons. Talbot advanced to the French camp on 17 July, arriving before his main body of troops with an advanced-guard of 1,300 mounted men. He had given his men a large boost of morale by routing a similar sized force of French archers in the woods before the French encampment. A couple hours after this preluding skirmish, a messenger sent from the town informed to Talbot's resting troops (they had marched through the night) that the French army was in full retreat and that hundreds of horsemen were taking flight from the fortifications. A colossal dust cloud could be seen speeding off into the distance from the town walls. With great haste Talbot reorganized his men and charged down towards the French camp, only to encounter the parapets defended by thousands of fully armed archers and hundreds of cannons. Surprised but undaunted, Talbot gave the signal to attack the French army that outnumbered his own force six to one. Once the battle commenced, Talbot received a thin trickle of men from his leading foot units. After an hour French reinforcements arrived and charged his right flank. The English army gave way, pursued instantly by the French main body of troops. During the rout Talbot's horse was killed by a cannon ball and he fell trapped beneath it, until a Frenchman wielding a battle-axe recognized him and killed him. Following Henry VI's episode of insanity in 1453 and the subsequent outbreak of the Wars of the Roses, the English were no longer in any position to pursue their armed campaign for the French throne and pulled their troops out of France (except for Calais). (Italicized information is based on the Wikipedia article)
Hapsburg
01-15-06, 02:08 AM
Actually, Harry, though Hesse, Waldeck, Anhalt-Zerbst, and Ansbach-Bayreuth were not officially allied with Britain, thier troops were not actually "mercenaries". They were still soldiers of the Hessian army (or what have you), and on the payroll of the Hessian (or what have you) government. It is simply that the British government actually paid the expenses. Mainly because the Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt was the cousin of King George III, and the Landgrave had expensive tastes in architecture...
For those in the US interested in a war the French lost PBS has a docudrama about the French and Indian war airing this week.
It is titled The War That Made America. The first 2 hours aired Wednesday and the last 2 hours will air next Wednesday. At this point the French are winning.
But, what time zone is that?
France won some battles and a revolution, that's all. Why? Because they didn't listen to Ivana Orleanska.
Fabio4all
04-21-08, 06:04 PM
I don't think they've actually won a war. The United States and the like always have to step in and help poor little France. The only war they've won is their own independence, inspired by (then new) America's feat against Britan.
Hate to be an idiot, but have you heard about the new French tank they just constructed? It has a total of 13 gears! 12 go in reverse, and 1 goes forward, in case the enemy attacks from behind. Haha, I love that one.
spidergoat
04-21-08, 06:11 PM
Just like France helped us win our war of independence against Britain?
Orleander
04-21-08, 06:23 PM
They won the French Revolution!!! oh wait, already said that. Well, I suppose if you are a peaceful country not wanting to rule the world, you don't engage in wars.
pjdude1219
04-21-08, 06:49 PM
`
If you want to stretch it a bit and call William the Conqueror French, then France beat England pretty righteously, since Bill proceeded to take over the joint.
LoL
Of course, since I believe Saxons were running Britannia at that point, he really conquered Germans...
Although...
Since he was technically descended from sorta kinda Germanic stock himself, It was really a case of Germans conquering other Germans...
Still...
If you subscribe to my pet whack-assed theory that the Vikings were really just Polacks who moved North into Scandinavia, then Poland actually conquered France and England...
nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk....
;)
go poland. polska all the way
pjdude1219
04-21-08, 06:51 PM
They def. did not win ww2... they surrendered in like 2 weeks while Poland held out for 40 something days with horse charges against the Nazi blitzkreig.
hey the poles had tanks too
Yum. Snails. Or how about a hundred dollar a plate where the plate has a couple of carrots and some sauce in a pretty design? Fuck French cuisine. Fuck it up its slimy snail-covered asshole.
They lost it too...
Long live McDonalds and obese people !
They won the French Revolution!!! oh wait, already said that. Well, I suppose if you are a peaceful country not wanting to rule the world, you don't engage in wars.
America has won the war in Iraq 5 years in a row. I've heard Bush say so once a year.
pjdude1219
04-21-08, 06:58 PM
NOTE: I EDITED THIS POST.
Napoleon was a Corsican, born 3 months after Corsica was given to France. He was born Napoleon Bounaparte, an Italian name. He was made fun of in France for not being able to speak French without an Italian accent. His father was in the Corsian independence movement. He was in the Corsican independence movement. He became emperor of France. This Single short little man defeated France. he took it by force, no blood ties to the royalty, no election, nothing. Also, if you didn't notice, Napoleon was a propagandist, most of the stuff he wrote was inflated lies. Ever hear of the Nile, Trafalgar, Waterloo (oh wait you did hear of waterloo). Those are just a few. It didn't take the British 84 years to win a large victory. At the height of it the british were against all of Europe (except Portugal and some very small states). Finally, though Napoleon's big mistake, he back-stabbed Russia, who went against him. You must also remember the British were fighting a few other wars during the Napoleonic Wars, including the War of 1812. Napoleon has been made to look a lot more French than he ever really was, but what can you expect, you almost have to have some sympathy for the French, until they back-stab you again of course.
And Remember, the Hundred years' War was fought for 2 reasons,
1) Who the rightful heir to the throne of France was
2) England wanted land in France.
If we look Britain accomplised her objective, although not to the degree she would have wished. The French Revolution (only war the french ever won without having a foreign nation do most of the work) which was started on July 14, 1789 (I think) ended the French throne. When Ireland joined the UK in 1801 King George III dropped his claims to the French Throne as it was now non-existent.
The English also gained land. They kept the largest port in France at the time, Calais.
Claimed French Victories:
~American Revolution
At the beginning of 1775, the British army was consisted of about 36,000 men worldwide, but slowly this number rose due to wartime recruitment. Additionally, over the course of the war the British hired about 30,000 Prussian mercenaries, also known as "Hessians." Hessians made up about 1/3 of the British troops in North America. By 1779, the number of British and German troops stationed in North America was over 60,000, though they were spread from Canada to Florida
The Hessian soldiers didn't really care who won and often deserted to America's side. In fact 5,000 Hessian troops
Although as many as 250,000 Patriots may have served as regulars or militiamen in the eight years of the war, there were never more than 100,000 total men under arms for the Patriots in any given year. French help was a mere 31,000, sailors and 18,000 soldiers....75% of French deaths, which were minimal as they saw far less action, were sailor deaths.
British:
Who sided?
Great Britain
Hired Hessian Mercenaries(soldiers fighting for a foreign nation simply just for money), but neither Hesse or Prussia were British allies.
50,000 Loyalists
60,000 Britons and Hessians at their highest point (1/3 of them were Hessian)
110,000 British Strength Grand-total
-------------------------------------------
30,000 Hessians fought in the war in total.
-------------------------------------------
American:
Who Sided?
France, Holland, and the kingdom of Sardinia (which included most of northern Italy)
Spain sent troops through France, not directly to the US, but did not "Officially" recognise the new Republic.
Polish officers and soldiers fought for the Patriots, but I do not think the Polish government officially supported the patriots...Sort of like the Hessians, but not on nearly so grand a scale.
100,000 patriots
49,000 Frogs
Dutch?
Spanish?
Sardinian?
Polish?
Far beyond 149,000 was the Grand total (because does not include other nations), I'll tell you that much.
250,000 Patriots fought in the war in total
As you can see, more Americans fought for the British, than French fought for the Americans. Calling this a "French victory" would be like calling it an American loss (50,000 colonists fought for British, 49,000 Frenchmen fought for America)
~Crimean War~ It was mainly the British who fought the Russians, the French were only helpful a few times. The British saw to far more action. This war is considered on of the worst in British military history, it can be considered on of, if not the best in French.
there was no polish government at that time
Orleander
04-21-08, 08:17 PM
America has won the war in Iraq 5 years in a row. I've heard Bush say so once a year.
wow, we rock! :thumbsup: I bet we win in 2008 as well!!! Hooo Haaaa
spidergoat
04-21-08, 09:20 PM
They won the French Revolution!!! oh wait, already said that. Well, I suppose if you are a peaceful country not wanting to rule the world, you don't engage in wars.
They had a huge empire, they established Canada, they conquered Algeria. They once controlled a part of Mexico. They had Vietnam. I guess those are all past tense, since they finally achieved independence, and the French got tired of empire. Were they stupid to give that up? They were third powerful behind the British and the Spanish.
wow, we rock! :thumbsup: I bet we win in 2008 as well!!! Hooo Haaaa
You also won the first Battle of the Bulge but you have already lost the second one without a shot having been fired.
sowhatifit'sdark
04-22-08, 07:59 AM
I don't deny that France has won some brilliant battles in its history, but what wars has France won?
The only ones I can think of are the Hundred Year War and WWI (and when Charles Martel whipped the Moors, if that counts as a war).
It's just odd that in the majority of wars you hear about, France got its ass whooped, or it was a draw.
Of course, this doesn't make sense, since France controlled quite a large amount of territory at one stage. It must have gained that territory in battle... somehow.
The American Revolution. (and if you mean 'won alone', this would also eliminate victories for many European Countries and the US, such as the American Revolution for the latter)
WWII Fanatic
03-09-10, 05:24 PM
crazy:
France was captured pretty quickly, but the Free French did quite a lot of fighting, especially in North Africa.
Umm.. yeah, but most of it was For the Germans and Against the Allies
Dywyddyr
03-09-10, 05:34 PM
Umm.. yeah, but most of it was For the Germans and Against the Allies
Call yourself a WWII fanatic and you get that wrong...
The Free French did NOT fight for the Germans, that would be the Vichy French. :rolleyes:
flakeyairportchunks
04-22-10, 12:07 AM
The French are terrible at winning wars but incredible at winning battles.
Oh and Napoleon (irrelevant that he was born in Corsica) is a general of a calibre that has or never will be seen in the ranks of nations that are proficient at winning wars (UK,US for example).
joepistole
04-22-10, 12:54 AM
I suppose no one has heard of the Napoleonic Wars?
http://www.napoleonguide.com/timeind.htm
How about the Norman invasion of Great Brittian, anyone familar with that little takeover of England?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England
flakeyairportchunks
04-22-10, 01:47 AM
I suppose no one has heard of the Napoleonic Wars?
How about the Norman invasion of Great Brittian, anyone familar with that little takeover of England?
The Normans are totally distinct from the French as we know them to be.
Pandaemoni
04-22-10, 02:33 AM
What a strange thread.
As someone once said, you can tell the true war nerds from the mere dabblers by noting who shows respect for the French military tradition. I mean, we're not counting WWI because others helped? By that logic America (which entered that war in its final throes) didn't win that war either...no one did.
America didn't win the American revolution by the logic, since we'd have lost but for the French aid (and the French clearly won Yorktown, not the Americans). America had no funds at the end, and Washington was executing soldiers for talking about desertion, which they were doing because they hadn't been paid in a long while. It was the French sending money and materiel that allowed the Americans to play a part in Yorktown at all...and even then we had no experience at siege warfare, and no significant navy, so had deGrasse not defeated the British ships that came to evacuate Cornwallis...
Of course the Americans won the war, that French aid was absolutely necessary for that doesn't change that fact.
In WWI, the French lost nearly 1.5 million men on the front lines, out a population of something like 40 million, total. That was hardly an insignificant showing the French put in.
soullust
04-23-10, 03:26 AM
The french won the war, of the my shit don't stink.
not to sound racist or anything, but the french are very arogent people, take a trip to quebec canada and you will see what i mean.
but i will give the french one thing they have an amazing culture and a really interesting history..
Dywyddyr
04-23-10, 06:31 AM
not to sound racist or anything, but the french are very arogent people, take a trip to quebec canada and you will see what i mean.
I'm gonna take a wild guess here and go out on a limb.
But if they're from Quebec wouldn't that make them Canadian, rather than French as such?
CptBork
04-23-10, 07:34 AM
It's truly sad how much crap France takes for having surrendered in WW2. Where were the mighty British when all that was taking place? Oh yes, fleeing for their lives at Dunkirk, calling it a miracle that Hitler didn't find them and completely finish them off (indeed, it turned out Hitler knew about them, but the British did such a poor job holding him off that he didn't even think it would matter if he let them escape). France didn't surrender in 3 weeks anyhow, they stood off against Germany exchanging fire on the border for several months together with the British, then when Germany finally invaded through Belgium and Holland they stood no chance. Unfortunately for the French, they didn't have a nice cozy backup island to flee to.
When's the last time Britain won a war without America's help? I certainly know one case where America barked and Britain fled the Suez with its tail between its legs. I guess they've always got the Falklands then, fighting against a world class army of course. And why is France getting sh*t for surrendering, when f*cking Spain right next door practically jumped into Hitler's arms? Fascists from Spain have been free to roam the world completely unapologetically for decades since Franco's death, meanwhile for some reason France is the one that always gets picked on, even though by most measures France is a much better place to live.
Dywyddyr
04-23-10, 07:54 AM
Oh yes, fleeing for their lives at Dunkirk, calling it a miracle that Hitler didn't find them and completely finish them off (indeed, it turned out Hitler knew about them, but the British did such a poor job holding him off that he didn't even think it would matter if he let them escape).
Not even close to being true.
Guderian and Rommel wanted to go in and finish the Brits with the Panzer Divisions, Hitler (because Goering wanted some glory for the Luftwaffe) held the panzers back after being assured that the Luftwaffe could do the job. They failed.
And one reason the Brits were "fleeing for their lives at Dunkirk" was because the French command had moved them into Belgium, and then (when that turned out to be a mistake) back along the coast while French High Command lost more and more of France giving us Brits nowhere to reform...
I certainly know one case where America barked and Britain fled the Suez with its tail between its legs.
Well that's one way of putting it. ;)
Pandaemoni
04-23-10, 11:25 AM
It's truly sad how much crap France takes for having surrendered in WW2. Where were the mighty British when all that was taking place? Oh yes, fleeing for their lives at Dunkirk.
But don't you know? Dunkirk wasn't a defeat, it was a tactically brilliant military withdrawal.
In point of fact, though the British propaganda machine had to go into full swing to ensure that spin stuck in the minds of everyone in the UK, the British were right to run away. That was the Wehrmacht at its height. In just a few years they had control of most of continental Europe and only lost 30,000 men in taking it.
Pandaemoni
04-23-10, 11:32 AM
not to sound racist or anything, but the french are very arogent people, take a trip to quebec canada and you will see what i mean.
French Canadians are about as French as New Yorkers are Dutch.
Parisians seem rude to Americans, but in part that is because the locals disdain tourists, and that is how most Americans encounter them--as tourists. If you travel elsewhere in the country and the people are very nice.
Many large cities get the same bad rap. New York is famous *in the U.S.* for being rude...but again New Yorkers are mainly disdainful of tourists (and add to that that New Yorkers, like most large city dwellers, learn to ignore the throngs of people milling about them, which tourists take as further evidence of rudeness, but is actually a psychological adaptation to the extreme bustle of the environment).
CptBork
04-23-10, 02:38 PM
And one reason the Brits were "fleeing for their lives at Dunkirk" was because the French command had moved them into Belgium, and then (when that turned out to be a mistake) back along the coast while French High Command lost more and more of France giving us Brits nowhere to reform...
So the French are to blame for the defeat of Britain's army in France? According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation), about 100 000 French troops were also evacuated at Dunkirk, and thousands of French troops sacrificed themselves to ensure the British could escape. You can't say Britain was just abandoned or thrown to the wolves by an ungrateful France. Germany nailed you with the Blitzkrieg just like they nailed everyone else they faced over the first couple of years, and if they had stuck to bombing RAF airfields, naval bases and radar stations, most historians think they would have been fully capable of finishing you off. The biggest difference between France and Britain was France didn't have a giant moat around it, so I guess now they're all called cheese-eating surrender monkeys, because they were too cowardly to face the panzers and eat their flak sandwiches like real men.
CptBork
04-23-10, 02:52 PM
French Canadians are about as French as New Yorkers are Dutch.
On the subject of French Canadians and politeness, I have to say I get a great vibe from most of the French Canadians I meet. Some of them are pricks, but most of them are very cool people, and I don't know why so many Americans treat them like a band of snobbish 17th century colonial peasants. Really, their lifestyle and mentality is far closer to the American way of life than anything in Europe or Latin America, and if you go out into the suburbs of Montreal you could easily confuse the place with suburban Denver, give or take a few little details.
On the other hand, as far as Americans and politeness go, I felt a strongly negative vibe when I was recently down in California (conference at Stanford). Maybe it had something to do with the recession, I was essentially staying in Silicon Valley after all, but it seemed hardly anyone gave a crap about their jobs or the people around them, certainly not any bit more than whatever their wages warranted. Lots of hyper-obese grouchy people, and what I can only describe as "service with reluctance". If someone wants to tell me the example I saw on display was more friendly and inviting than Quebec, I can't help but roll my eyes.
Dywyddyr
04-23-10, 03:13 PM
So the French are to blame for the defeat of Britain's army in France?
Essentially yes.
The French were in overall command of French forces and the B.E.F.
Unfortunately French high command was set up for a war at the pace of the previous one - no radios to the main HQ (only couriers) and "long weekends".
It was a French decision to move forward into Belgium and rely on the Maginot Line, but the Germans didn't want to play that game so they came through at Sedan and forced a hasty, unprepared retreat. It didn't help that the French units not in Belgium (mostly second-line and largely untrained troops) tended to run away about as often they stood and fought.
According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation), about 100 000 French troops were also evacuated at Dunkirk, and thousands of French troops sacrificed themselves to ensure the British could escape. You can't say Britain was just abandoned or thrown to the wolves by an ungrateful France.
Yes a large number of French troops were evacuated (so the French didn't "sacrifice themselves just so we Brits could escape" - they were also ensuring as many French men as possible could get away. And a large number of Brits also stayed behind (at Calais, for one). I wasn't implying that we were "thrown to the wolves", it was a major f*ck-up on the part of Gamelin. He was out of date and totally unprepared (and actually unwilling to prepare for) mobile warfare.
Germany nailed you with the Blitzkrieg just like they nailed everyone else they faced over the first couple of years
Blitzkrieg was a myth: there was no such thing.
and if they had stuck to bombing RAF airfields, naval bases and radar stations, most historians think they would have been fully capable of finishing you off.
That's one school of thought.
The biggest difference between France and Britain was France didn't have a giant moat around it, so I guess now they're all called cheese-eating surrender monkeys, because they were too cowardly to face the panzers and eat their flak sandwiches like real men.
I think you should actually read my posts: at no point have I suggested they were "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", and it's never been part of my vocabulary.
The Fall of France happens to be something I've been interested in for decades and I probably own more books on the subject than most libraries.
soullust
04-23-10, 07:20 PM
I'm gonna take a wild guess here and go out on a limb.
But if they're from Quebec wouldn't that make them Canadian, rather than French as such?
Yes they are canadian but there not really, Damn this is actually hard to explain, hold on..
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=08881f44-e10c-4af6-b241-280dd68d4299&p=1
we just don't get along, but now that there semi gone were having more progress.mainly because, there dumb and now they loose a lot of federal money, which is being directed towards us.
quadraphonics
04-23-10, 08:15 PM
if you go out into the suburbs of Montreal
Not to dispute your larger point, but Montreal isn't exactly typical of Quebec. In the first place, it's a mixed city, with a considerable population of Anglophones; you won't find that in most other places in Quebec, and this works out to Montreal being the most "integrated" city in Canada in terms of Anglo/French relations. So I'd expect that they generally have a more cosmopolitan outlook - certainly their famed jazz and comedy festivals, strip clubs, and accepting attitudes indicate as much.
But I can't really say how different the rest of Quebec is; Montreal is the only part I've visited. And as far as that goes, I highly recommend it - just avoid the winter months, and also the English-speaking bar area (Rue Crescent I think it's call; it's all corny dance clubs for American college students taking advantage of the lower drinking age in Canada).
ellebal
01-17-12, 10:24 PM
error
ellebal
01-17-12, 10:34 PM
error
ellebal
01-17-12, 11:02 PM
error
ellebal
01-17-12, 11:24 PM
error
ellebal
01-17-12, 11:33 PM
I don't think they've actually won a war. The United States and the like always have to step in and help poor little France. The only war they've won is their own independence, inspired by (then new) America's feat against Britan.
Hate to be an idiot, but have you heard about the new French tank they just constructed? It has a total of 13 gears! 12 go in reverse, and 1 goes forward, in case the enemy attacks from behind. Haha, I love that one.
I know you hate to be an idiot...It's really sad the lies spread about the French and their past wars...I think of the French soldiers that died for their country...all these honorable man that fought and perished, and won wars, all this glorious past seem to vanish because of being overrun during the second war...the irony is that the British would not have fared any better! I find this distortion are mainly from British and Americans who trivialize French accomplishments!! The military history of France encompasses an immense panorama of conflicts and struggles extending for more than 2,000 years across areas including modern France, greater Europe, and European territorial possessions overseas. According to BBC History: "There have been 53 major wars in Europe, France had been a belligerent in 49 of them; UK 43. In 185 battles that France had fought over the past 800 years, their armies had won 132 times, lost 43 times and drawn only 10, giving the French military the best record of any country in Europe". Shame on you!!
ellebal
01-17-12, 11:40 PM
I don't deny that France has won some brilliant battles in its history, but what wars has France won?
The only ones I can think of are the Hundred Year War and WWI (and when Charles Martel whipped the Moors, if that counts as a war).
It's just odd that in the majority of wars you hear about, France got its ass whooped, or it was a draw.
Of course, this doesn't make sense, since France controlled quite a large amount of territory at one stage. It must have gained that territory in battle... somehow.
In 185 battles that France had fought over the past 800 years, their armies had won 132 times, lost 43 times and drawn only 10, giving the French military the best record of any country in Europe".
Hundred Years War
War of Austrian succession
Thirty Years War
American War of Independence
French Revolutionary War
War of the first Coalition
War of the second Coalition
War of the third Coalition
War of the fourth Coalition
War of the fifth Coalition
Crimean War
Second Opium War
War of Italian Revolution
WW1
ronnysee
02-03-12, 05:01 PM
Yum. Snails. Or how about a hundred dollar a plate where the plate has a couple of carrots and some sauce in a pretty design? Fuck French cuisine. Fuck it up its slimy snail-covered asshole.
They lost it too...
They never ever won a war. They rather fuck with their face and fight with their grape treading feet.
ronnysee
02-03-12, 05:04 PM
Ww1, Ww2,...
France did not win any of the world wars. They were in fact liberated by the allies. The true flag of france is not the bleu blanc rouge. It is entirely white.
Pandaemoni
02-04-12, 01:18 AM
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7061&IBLOCK_ID=35
Ivan Seeking
02-04-12, 09:43 PM
This was good. For a time it came up when you Googled [feeling lucky] for "French Military Victories"
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html
wlminex
02-05-12, 12:16 AM
I once saw a newspaper ad in Paris that read: "FOR SALE. One WWII rifle. NEVER fired. Dropped only ONCE." (<-- humor here)
Pandaemoni
02-05-12, 04:55 AM
This was good. For a time it came up when you Googled [feeling lucky] for "French Military Victories"
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html
The piece I posted was written specifically as a response to that (and also includes the link to albinoblacksheep): War Nerd (http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7061&IBLOCK_ID=35)
The notion that the entry of the U.S. into WWI, in the last 19 or so months of the war, somehow turned the tide just shows that Americans do not know very much about WWI (and likely confuse it with WWII). We certainly had an impact, but Germany's defeat was all but inevitable by the time we had boots on the ground.
I'm not sure why Americans hate the French and love the British. We fought two wars against Britain, and one of them we only won because the French helped us (which is why Cornwallis sent General O'Hara to surrender his sword to Rochambeau, not to Washington, though Rochambeau refused it and directed it be given to the Americans). And then, by the way, we double-crossed the French at during the treaty negotiations with Britain, signing a separate peace with the British, to get favorable terms, and leaving our ally sitting at the table alone after that, still clutching their plans for a joint treaty. The other war with the Brits was a draw (and we were only a nuisance target to the Brits in the War of 1812...they had bigger fish to fry than us). I fear that there's better evidence for Americans are ingrates than the French being cowards.
There's a lot that's wrong with France and the French, but their military history isn't awful.
GIRAUDET
02-11-12, 02:09 PM
When I search for "french military victories" on Google, I find 1 800 000 results !
Maybe you have a computer problem. Call the hot line...
The French have won the war against obesity, which is a pretty big one.
Ok, 1066 in Hastings-It were Normans, not French who conquered England. If they weren't descendants of Vikings, they would get their asses kicked. Also, they were influenced by France- if England wasn't attacked by Vikings same year, they probably wouldn't conquer it.
100 years war-reclaiming your territory from weaker country with worse equipped army isn't quite win. It's kind of draw. Also, letting enemies to capture your leader isn't very glorious either.
Napoleonic wars- Napoleon was from Corsica. Which means that France can do nothing without support of foreigner(s).
World wars-won with support of allies.
quadraphonics
05-29-12, 05:06 PM
The notion that the entry of the U.S. into WWI, in the last 19 or so months of the war, somehow turned the tide just shows that Americans do not know very much about WWI (and likely confuse it with WWII). We certainly had an impact, but Germany's defeat was all but inevitable by the time we had boots on the ground.
While I can agree that the standard American narrative of WWI is overstated, you are going too far in the other direction there. While your assertion there is technically correct, it talks around the fact that many of the reasons that Germany's defeat was all but inevitable by the time we had boots on the ground, is exactly that Germany knew we had boots on the way and so attempted to bring the war to a decisive conclusion before we showed up - exactly because they knew that all was lost once we arrived. The fact that they failed to force a decisive victory before we showed up to slam the door on them is just that. Germany lost that war the second they allowed it to escalate to the point of US intervention, and everyone knew it at the time. A major reason we weren't involved earlier is exactly that Germany was being careful to avoid drawing us in.
There's a lot that's wrong with France and the French, but their military history isn't awful.
Yeah, these stereotypes are almost bizarre to anyone with the slightest sense of history. Napoleon, anyone?
Sometimes I think maybe the French are actually complicit in spreading these modern stereotypes, as perhaps they are glad to be rid of their former image as the terrifying military power that held Europe in its grips. Better to let the Russians and Germans and Americans have that reputation, and instead play the "diplomacy" card, perhaps?
quadraphonics
05-29-12, 05:11 PM
Napoleonic wars- Napoleon was from Corsica. Which means that France can do nothing without support of foreigner(s).
Corsica is part of France, and was at the time as well.
Likewise, I do not think that you will like the implications of that kind of reasoning if you apply them to, say, the USA or Australia or any number of other countries.
Lamprey
06-29-12, 09:13 AM
Saying Napoleon wasn't French, he was Corsican is like saying Robert E. Lee wasn't American, he was Virginian.
And despite all the stereotypes, the French were basically the military superpower of the middle ages. They were surrounded by enemies: the English in the north, the HRE in the east, Spain in the south. All of them powerful entities at the time. And yet, France not only didn't get swallowed up, she thrived, controlling chunks of the low countries, Italy, etc. at various times.
Do you really think that would've been possible if France lost all her wars?
For some details:
1. Charlemagne conquered basically all of western Europe, sans Spain. Some would count that a victory.
2. Martel beating back the muslim invasion of Europe
3. Hundred years' war, obviously. French started out weaker (given that England controlled Normandy AND Aquitaine), lost a LOT of battles, but stayed in there and won. A lot like Rome in the 2nd Punic war, actually...
4. War of the reunions
5. War of the Polish succession - beat Austria, took Lorraine
6. Napoleon, as has been mentioned to death. Takes on & beats ALL of Europe combined something like 5 times?
7. Took Algeria in the 19th century
8. Crimean War - not that Russia was hard to beat by then, but still...
9. Italian war of independence - France beat Austria so they'd leave Garibaldi alone
Heck, in the 17th century, France had a stretch where they haven't lose a single battle for like 60 years? And look at the wars that ended in a draw:
1. War of devolution - France vs. Netherlands, England, Sweden & Spain
2. War of the grand alliance - France vs. Netherlands, England, Sweden, Spain, Scotland, Savoy & Holy Roman Empire
3. War of the spanish succession: France & Bavaria vs. Netherlands, England, Spain, Austria, Savoy, Prussia, Portugal
Anyone should be able to see a pattern by now. France was the guy to beat. Nearly every was she was in, it was France vs. 4-7 other countries combined. She was so much stronger than anyone else that no country would even think of fighting a war against France on anything approaching 1 on 1 terms.
As for the stereotype that France can't win wars? My guess is, the English made it up, being France's perpetual enemy. And the USA is basically descended from England...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.