Does France actually have the best military record of western nations?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

From another forum. Valid points made here:


France accmoplished what no other European nation has ever been able to do since the Romans, which is be the dominate european power for over a century.

More so, they were the dominate European power many times and for long stretches.

Napoleonic empire was larger than any other european empire, ever.

Charlamagne empire was also gigantic.

Although England, in the 18th and 19th centuries, was finally able to start conquering land (though still failed at getting any other european land) and was able to overtake France to be th elargest colonial empire, that was really a blip in history and England was never dominate any other time.

Germany?
Sure, they made some nice little commotions in the 20th century, but they failed to maintain any kind of military power for any real period of time.

Spain?
blah. They had a colonial empire for a short period of time, most of which was just theoretically owned by them, not anything they held militarily.

dunno who else might be thought to challange them. Obvious the Romans were the sh**t for awhile, but Italy has been basically nothing since then.

[J. J.]

From another forum. Valid points made here:


France accmoplished what no other European nation has ever been able to do since the Romans, which is be the dominate european power for over a century.

More so, they were the dominate European power many times and for long stretches.

Napoleonic empire was larger than any other european empire, ever.

It left no lasting remnent.  Napoleon's empire ended in 1814, for all practical purposes; it really didn't get started until c. 1800.  Even the German Empire lasted from 1871-1918.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And it divided after his death.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

England didn't want a European empire, save for Gibraltar, which they still have.  Hanover was considered a drain and they gave Helgoland to Germany in exchange for colonial posessions.  Their European policy was not to have a powerful state holding the low countries (and the invasion staging points).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above.  After they lost their empire, they rebuilt it in 25 years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Spain, after taking Genada in 1492 wen on to hold to take Most of South and Central America, save Brazil, from c. 1530 until c. 1800.  The held the Phillipines, Cuba, Guam, and Puerto Rico from c. 1530 to 1898.  250 years is not a "short period of time" but about half of the modern period.

France even lost the first phase of the colonial wars, losing the bulk of Canada and India to the English. 

If you look up "loser" in the dictionary, you should see a picture of the Tricolor.

[Blue Rectangle]

A few thoughts on this:
--They were the "dominate European power for over a century", but why then downplay the power of England or Spain, who had golden ages of similar length (the British Empire was "a blip in history"?).
--There's a lot of ad hoc arguments here (changing standards to fit the theory).  England and Spain controlled huge empires overseas, but that doesn't matter as much as conquering Europe--why?  The Holy Roman Empire doesn't count, but the Carlolinian Empire does?
--England failed in the 18th and 19th centurys to conquer land in Europe.  Were they trying?
--In the England vs. France argument, isn't it notable that France hasn't won a major battle in England for almost 1000 years, but England controlled large portions of modern France during the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
--Is it just me, or is this argument just trying to stretch "Napolean was a great general" into "France has a long history of military successes"?

[ATFFL]

First Rule of French Warfare: "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

From The Complete Military History of France

[Storebought]

No, the nation, well, really, monarchy, that dominated Europe militarily and politically were the Habsburgs.

[Bono]

No, the nation, well, really, monarchy, that dominated Europe militarily and politically were the Habsburgs.

At least until Louis XIV managed to put a Bourbon in the throne of Spain.

[Beet]

From another forum. Valid points made here:


France accmoplished what no other European nation has ever been able to do since the Romans, which is be the dominate european power for over a century.

More so, they were the dominate European power many times and for long stretches.

Napoleonic empire was larger than any other european empire, ever.

It left no lasting remnent.

True. Except for liberalism, nationalism, Latin America, and the beginning of the End of History, (see Fukuyama, Battle of Jena), no remnant at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The German "empire" you refer to consisted of part of Germany plus a tiny sliver of what is now Poland, which had not been a country since the 1700's, well before German unification. It did not include the significant part of Germany controlled by Austria. Hence, it was not even a complete nation-state, let alone an empire.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And it divided after his death.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, really? The fact is, his empire was the first major empire since the Roman empire, and represented the first glimmerings of the revival of European civilization since antiquity. It was also a bulwark against North African expansion into central Europe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

England didn't want a European empire, save for Gibraltar, which they still have.  Hanover was considered a drain and they gave Helgoland to Germany in exchange for colonial posessions.  Their European policy was not to have a powerful state holding the low countries (and the invasion staging points).
[/quote]

LOL. England's army sucked, end of story.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above.  After they lost their empire, they rebuilt it in 25 years.[/quote]

Once again, they only managed to keep their country united from late 1939-1944, a 5 year period out of the 2,000 year history of the German people. France on the other hand has been united almost all of its history, with a few exceptions during the Hundred Years' War. On that alone Germany should be stricken from all consideration as a military success.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Bleh bleh bleh. Spain piggybacked on Portugal's pioneering navigation and then held onto a sucky backwater that failed to develop economically while giant Spanish ships shipping back inflation into Europe couldnt' defend themselves against an uneducated Englishman on a tiny little boat (see Francis Drake). Spain's grand armada was then destroyed by a tiny little heretical island-nation led by an illegitimate heretical young woman in a single day. No European nation is more of a failure than Spain. Not to mention that it was ruled by North Africans for 800 years, the only major European nation to be ruled by Africans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very true.

[Storebought]

No, the nation, well, really, monarchy, that dominated Europe militarily and politically were the Habsburgs.

At least until Louis XIV managed to put a Bourbon in the throne of Spain.

True. The Habsburgs never recovered from the loss of their Castilian and Savoyard warlords

[Bono]

No, the nation, well, really, monarchy, that dominated Europe militarily and politically were the Habsburgs.

At least until Louis XIV managed to put a Bourbon in the throne of Spain.

True. The Habsburgs never recovered from the loss of their Castilian and Savoyard warlords

How ironical that the spanish branch of the bourbouns is still in throne, and the french ave been so kicked out!

[Storebought]

From another forum. Valid points made here:


France accmoplished what no other European nation has ever been able to do since the Romans, which is be the dominate european power for over a century.

More so, they were the dominate European power many times and for long stretches.

Napoleonic empire was larger than any other european empire, ever.

It left no lasting remnent.

True. Except for liberalism, nationalism, Latin America, and the beginning of the End of History, (see Fukuyama, Battle of Jena), no remnant at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The German "empire" you refer to consisted of part of Germany plus a tiny sliver of what is now Poland, which had not been a country since the 1700's, well before German unification. It did not include the significant part of Germany controlled by Austria. Hence, it was not even a complete nation-state, let alone an empire.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And it divided after his death.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, really? The fact is, his empire was the first major empire since the Roman empire, and represented the first glimmerings of the revival of European civilization since antiquity. It was also a bulwark against North African expansion into central Europe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

England didn't want a European empire, save for Gibraltar, which they still have.  Hanover was considered a drain and they gave Helgoland to Germany in exchange for colonial posessions.  Their European policy was not to have a powerful state holding the low countries (and the invasion staging points).

LOL. England's army sucked, end of story.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above.  After they lost their empire, they rebuilt it in 25 years.[/quote]

Once again, they only managed to keep their country united from late 1939-1944, a 5 year period out of the 2,000 year history of the German people. France on the other hand has been united almost all of its history, with a few exceptions during the Hundred Years' War. On that alone Germany should be stricken from all consideration as a military success.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Bleh bleh bleh. Spain piggybacked on Portugal's pioneering navigation and then held onto a sucky backwater that failed to develop economically while giant Spanish ships shipping back inflation into Europe couldnt' defend themselves against an uneducated Englishman on a tiny little boat (see Francis Drake). Spain's grand armada was then destroyed by a tiny little heretical island-nation led by an illegitimate heretical young woman in a single day. No European nation is more of a failure than Spain. Not to mention that it was ruled by North Africans for 800 years, the only major European nation to be ruled by Africans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very true.
[/quote]

(1) No: the Spanish (Habsburg) monarchy during the reign of Charles V was the largest in history

(2) The Byzantines, shifty and nasty as they were, were the real force keeping the Muslims out of central Europe, not the French.

(3) And, no, I don't know where you produced the nonsense that France was united throughout its history (i.e. since Hugh Capet founded his dynasty in the 900s)

The French kings had to fight one unruly vassal after another just to keep their country from falling apart (good ex., the Burgundians). Not to mention, French history just goes blank during their Wars of Religion--not until Henry of Navarre became Henry of Bourbon did France become a real country again.

France dominated Europe, as Bono said, when fat Louis put his nephew on the Spanish throne, and even then, French domination was based more strongly on diplomacy, language, and culture than on true military prowess--their humiliating loss on all three fronts of the Seven Years' War bears that out.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Never claimed it wasn't, but now that you mention it, the Napoleonic Empire was larger. If you include overseas territories then the British Empire was larger too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm talking about the Western front and the Battle of Tours. The north Africans were already advancing into central Europe when they were stopped by Charles "The Hammer" Martel and his Frankish army. That is historical fact. On the other hand, muslim advance as far as central Europe from the east in lieu of Byzantium is pure speculation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said most of its history. France had periosd of disunity yes, but it has been united almost continuously since 1450, and for a good part beforehand, (considering the nature of European political unity in the high middle ages).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The period of French dominance on the continent began with the treaty of Westphalia (1648) and ended in the 1860's once Germany's unification drive began to gain momentum. This was the result of Richelieu's nationalist efforts which began to transform Europe from an essentially Catholic or religious entity into one defined by nationalism, a process later completed by Napoleon.

[Blue Rectangle]

Bleh bleh bleh. Spain piggybacked on Portugal's pioneering navigation and then held onto a sucky backwater that failed to develop economically while giant Spanish ships shipping back inflation into Europe couldnt' defend themselves against an uneducated Englishman on a tiny little boat (see Francis Drake). Spain's grand armada was then destroyed by a tiny little heretical island-nation led by an illegitimate heretical young woman in a single day. No European nation is more of a failure than Spain. Not to mention that it was ruled by North Africans for 800 years, the only major European nation to be ruled by Africans.

The Spainish blew it economically, but we're talking about military strength.  Spain's naval collapse is important, but it was basically replaced by England, not France.  France's navy did eventually become a force, but briefly.

Your point on Spain being ruled by Africans brings up an important point.  What little positives there are in France's military history can be summed up in three words: location, location, location.  Spain was vulernable to the Moors, Eastern Europe was vulernable to the Turks/Tartars/Mongols/Magyars/etc., and Britain and North-Central Europe were vulnerable to the Vikings.  Thus, the Carolingian Empire was surrounded by buffer states and France survived this period relatively untouched.  In the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, Spain continued to buffer France against Islam, eastern threats did not extend west into Germany, let alone France, and the Viking threat was gone.  Germany and Italy had other concerns (mostly internal) and posed no threat to France.  This left France with only England to worry about, and England mostly had it's way with France during this time.

[Storebought]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm talking about the Western front and the Battle of Tours. The north Africans were already advancing into central Europe when they were stopped by Charles "The Hammer" Martel and his Frankish army. That is historical fact. On the other hand, muslim advance as far as central Europe from the east in lieu of Byzantium is pure speculation.

How so? The Muslims attacked Constantinople repeatedly throughout the 8th century; the Muslims also overran N Africa and Sicily, but the Byzantine exarchs prevented them from conquering Italy as well.

So, it's not speculation to say that, if the East Roman empire had folded along with the western half, then eastern Europe would have been part of the caliphate, just like Spain, N Africa, and Sicily were.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true, yet by this line of reasoning, you can also say the Hapsburgs' advantages were a matter of geography: Spain by virtue of being on Iberia benefitted along with Portugal with both proximity to Africa and the Cape of Good Hope on one hand, and a large Atlantic coastline on the other hand. Austria clearly benefitted from having weak neighbors. England benefitted from being defended behind the English Channel and having a large coastline, accustoming it's people to shipbuilding and navigation which helped it build it's empire.

Storebrought,

When did the muslims overrun Sicily? The Byzantines did keep a check on the muslims, but we don't know how far the muslims would have advanced without them. But their ultimate failure to hold Anatolia hardly recommends them as a foremost European power.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

LOL. England's army sucked, end of story.

Now, now for a tiny army comprised of an... er... interesting... mix of drunks, loonies, convicts... that kind of thing... and generally led by a group of people with the collective intelligence of a gnat, it wasn't half bad

[Beet]

LOL. England's army sucked, end of story.

Now, now for a tiny army comprised of an... er... interesting... mix of drunks, loonies, convicts... that kind of thing... and generally led by a group of people with the collective intelligence of a gnat, it wasn't half bad

Dont forget illegitimates

[J. J.]

From another forum. Valid points made here:


France accmoplished what no other European nation has ever been able to do since the Romans, which is be the dominate european power for over a century.

More so, they were the dominate European power many times and for long stretches.

Napoleonic empire was larger than any other european empire, ever.

It left no lasting remnent.

True. Except for liberalism, nationalism, Latin America, and the beginning of the End of History, (see Fukuyama, Battle of Jena), no remnant at all.

I am referring to political and geopolitical remnents, not ideology.  Also, the role of Napoleon in liberalism and Latin American was not great.  Nationalism rose in France before Napoleon and rose in Germany as a re-action against Napolean.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The German "empire" you refer to consisted of part of Germany plus a tiny sliver of what is now Poland, which had not been a country since the 1700's, well before German unification. It did not include the significant part of Germany controlled by Austria. Hence, it was not even a complete nation-state, let alone an empire.
[/quote]

Actually the Empire I refer was that of the "Second Reich," formed largely by Bismarck with William I as the first Emperor; it was proclaimed at Versailles is January of 1871 (and ably sketched by Anton von Werner)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL. England's army sucked, end of story.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

England won the great colonial was from the late 17th to 19th Centuries.  The last war that French won against the English was the 100 Years War (1453, and the managed to retain most of their land)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[quote
See above.  After they lost their empire, they rebuilt it in 25 years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, you've forgotten about the German Empire of 1871-1918.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Bleh bleh bleh. Spain piggybacked on Portugal's pioneering navigation and then held onto a sucky backwater that failed to develop economically while giant Spanish ships shipping back inflation into Europe couldnt' defend themselves against an uneducated Englishman on a tiny little boat (see Francis Drake). Spain's grand armada was then destroyed by a tiny little heretical island-nation led by an illegitimate heretical young woman in a single day. No European nation is more of a failure than Spain. Not to mention that it was ruled by North Africans for 800 years, the only major European nation to be ruled by Africans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some failure, as Spain ruled Spain, South America (save Brazil), Central America, a fairly large piece of North America, much of Low Countries, the southern 1/3 of Italy, the Philippines (and briefly Austria and the Rhineland).  They kept most of it for more than 2 centuries.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

German nationalism had major geopolitial reprecussions. Napoleonic troops spread liberal and nationalist ideology throughout Europe, in spirit and name if not in deed, and it touched a chord in Germany. Richelieu was the one who set off Europe's march towards nationalism, but it didn't really coalesce until the Napoleonic wars. It's no coincidence that Leipzig 1813 is called the Battle of Nations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I point out the self-styled "Empire"'s domain was equivalent of little more than an incomplete nation-state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You forget the country you are living in. Nevertheless, I didn't say England's navy sucked, I said her army sucked, and it did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, I point out that the grandoise "Reich" of that period failed to even unite all of Germany, let alone subjugate other European nations within its domain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Russia rules Siberia... whats your point? Spain's dominions were crappy and Spain screwed up big time with them.

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

German nationalism had major geopolitial reprecussions. Napoleonic troops spread liberal and nationalist ideology throughout Europe, in spirit and name if not in deed, and it touched a chord in Germany. Richelieu was the one who set off Europe's march towards nationalism, but it didn't really coalesce until the Napoleonic wars. It's no coincidence that Leipzig 1813 is called the Battle of Nations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I point out the self-styled "Empire"'s domain was equivalent of little more than an incomplete nation-state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You forget the country you are living in. Nevertheless, I didn't say England's navy sucked, I said her army sucked, and it did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, I point out that the grandoise "Reich" of that period failed to even unite all of Germany, let alone subjugate other European nations within its domain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Russia rules Siberia... whats your point? Spain's dominions were crappy and Spain screwed up big time with them.

1.  Those were not "accomplishiments" but reaction against Napoleon and the French and it certainly was not what the Frenc wished toi accomplish.  Further, it was not a military result; they did not impose libleralism or nationalism.  Further Leipzig was called "the Battle of the Nations," because Russian, Prussia, Swedish, and Austrian troops fought against the French.  The smaller German states were still allied with the French.

2.  I remember that several of the causes of the war were western expansion, now possible because the French were defeated and the claim that taxes were not needed for defense, because the French were defeated.

3.  Once again, it was proclaimed at Versailles, which West of Paris, IIRC.  It defeated Denmark and Austria in the years before it defeated France.

4.  Spain retained them for 250 years and they were on the other side of the planet.  The French ruled Algeria, finally defeating Abdel Kadir after 15 years, and held it for half that time; it was a day trip from southern France.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They really helped at the Battle of Yorktown that essentially won the Revolutionary War.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

To all the French bashers. Do you think that Poland is a useful ally? They certainly didn't last long in World War II? "You forgot Poland"... Blah blah blah....

[12th Doctor]

Though I don't buy the "French Pussies" argument, as I have detailed in the past, I have to disagree with several of the author's points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which hundred year stretch was this?  It certainly was not the time from 1900-2000.  Nor the time from 1800-1900.  Nor the time from 1700-1800 (the Dutch acctually had more power on the contient than did the French).  Nor the time from 1600-1700, that was the Habsberg era.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, when?  The only time that they enjoyed major power was during the time of Louis XIV, but that was also the era that marked the rise of the Russian Empire, so they didn't enjoy total dominance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It depends on what you mean.  Much of the Napoleonic Empire was either never really settled down (like Prussia) or they were controled by puppets, not directly parts of the French Empire (as Roman Provinces were), such as Spain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His Empire was not French.  Charlamagne was a Norman and his Empire was Christian uniting French and non-French peoples.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, they dominated at that one point, about 100 years, which means the French were not.  The British were so powerful, that they did not have to worry about threatening other nations in Europe.  No other nation would dream of angering them.

The British had the power to instantly wreck the economy of anyother world power, for more than 15 years, because of their navy.  If they had tangled with the French any time after the Napoleonic Wars, the war would have ended with a wimper from the French.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow, this guy lacks serious perspective.  First off, it sounds like he never heard of the Franco-Prussian War, where a disunited Germany soundly defeated the French.  Then, he ignores the fact that the Germans had vast military supeiriority over the French in WWI.  The man power the Entente had over the Central Powers was absolutly staggering.  France would have been crushed in a head to head fight with the Germans.  They were saved by British intervention.  And the Germans still would have crushed the combined Anglo/Franco force if the US had not intervened.  Those two countries were throwing their full might intothe Eastern front, while the Germans were able to bring nearly 8 million troops from the Eastern Front after the Russian surrender.

Also, the fact that the Germans totally conquered the French in WWII seems to be a trivial matter in the eyes of this guy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Spanish control 60% of the European land mass and the largest military for almost 200 years.  This guy really has no idea what he is talking about.

[12th Doctor]

To all the French bashers. Do you think that Poland is a useful ally? They certainly didn't last long in World War II? "You forgot Poland"... Blah blah blah....

Again, you are uninfomed.  The reason the Polish crumbled so easily is because they were being attacked from two sides and the British refused to honor their protection pact and send troops.  Polnad is not the easiest country to defend as is, anyway.

Churchill loudly decried the lack of British action as one of the worst travesties commited by the British government.

[The Duke]

Worth mentioning is that after 1588, Britain indisputably owned the seas.  Philip II, Napoleon, and Hitler all tried to defeat Britain, and found that they could not overcome such a vastly superior naval force.  Sea power is the lifeblood of Empire, and Britain was the dominant force in Europe from the 16th century onwards and built the largest of the European Empires because of its supremacy on the high seas.  France never really came all that close to defeating Britain at sea, and thus failed to overtake Britain.

[Emsworth]

Worth mentioning is that after 1588, Britain indisputably owned the seas.

While England did defeat the Armada in 1588, I don't think that it necessarily became the world's foremost naval power immediately. I believe that a year later, England sent a similar naval expedition to Spain, and suffered an equally inglorious defeat.