French Military Victories
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 09:51:10 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  French Military Victories
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: French Military Victories  (Read 15383 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2004, 07:09:53 AM »
« edited: March 05, 2005, 05:08:14 PM by Peter Bell »

I do not see it that way.  For sure French support for Bavaria's claims to Bohemia and Upper Austria in addition to the title of the Holy Roman Emperor was unrealistic.  But in Italy, France-Spain-Genoa fought Austria-Savoy to a draw.  An Austrian attempt to take over Kingdom of the Two Sicilies failed.  I agree that battle in the New World went against France and an attempt for Stuart restoration in Great Britian failed in the "Fourty-Five."  But for sure the greatest military success of the war was the decisive French victory in the Austrian Netherlands.   When peace came, France was able to trade away the Austrian Netherlands for return of all New World positions lost to Great Britian AND expansion of Spanish position in Northern Italy.  All in all, a net gain by France-Spaln over Great Britian-Austria.  And this is not to mention the Austrian loss of Silesia to French-backed Prussia.  For sure France did not "win" the war but at the peace in 1748 the Franco-Spain alliance was the net winner in terms of territory.

France started the conflict, Austria was under attack and fighting for survival, so that's why I see France as loser. I am not educated on the details on the colonial war, but I seem to remember that the last time I checked, Great Britain was viewed as the winner of that war.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2004, 07:11:25 AM »

I can kind of understand the American forum members for not bringing it up, but the most important (to America) French military victory against Britain is the one in the War of American Independence.

Yes, if you see that as a French victory, I suppose that would be a victory. I always though of it as an American-English conflict, with France as a supporting part, rather than as an active participant. But since French troops etc. did fight I guess you could view it as a French victory.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2004, 08:32:51 AM »

Yeah, I dont know if anyone has posted this before, but type in "weapons of mass destruction" and click im feeling lucky.
I've seen that before...the 'no weapons of mass destruction can be found' thing.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2004, 11:06:27 PM »

It seems like you do have to go quite a ways back to find a war where France won largely on its own.  There was at least one period of peace with all the major rival powers between 1789 and 1815 where revolutionary/Napolianic France had gained territory from its 1789 boundaries (and I'm not talking about Napoleon's period of exile in Elba).  So one could argue France won at least one war during that period, but if you consider all the wars France fought during that period as one war, than France certainly lost.

While France recieved a lot of help during World War I, I believe they made up by far the largest percentage of Allied manpower on the Western Front.  I know the other fronts were important as well, but it was on the Western Front where the Allies finally defeated the last of the central powers.  Of course, the fresh American troops played a major part in the fall 1918 breakthrough, but if the Germans had captured Paris in 1914, or Verdun in 1916, it would have been a lot tougher for the Allies to defeat them.  The head of the Allied Forces during the 1918 breakthrough, Ferdinand Foch, was French.

France was also on the winning side in the Crimean War, but that was a minor war and Britain and the Ottoman Empire were also on the winning side.  The French can take credit for convincing the Swiss to cash in their chips after defeating them at Marignano in 1515 (see http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0831840.html ), although the Venitians were pivitol in that victory and the French eventually lost supremacy in Italy to Spain in the "Italian Wars" during which the battle of Marignano was fought).

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2004, 12:04:06 PM »
« Edited: March 05, 2005, 05:07:39 PM by Peter Bell »

I'd say that the French-Hapsburg conflict in Italy ended in a humilitating defeat for the French, even though they might have cashed in some victories at an earlier stage. In the Crimean war I don't think they played a very major part, and it also wasn't much of a victory for them, just a loss for the Russians. Tukey was the main benefactor of that war.

Interesting point on WWI, but the disasters of Charleroi, the Ardennes and Lorraine in 1914, and the complete illusion that was the French battleplan, "plan XVII", have always inclined me against thinking of the French as victors. The Germans really won at every turn on the Western front, they lost due to attrition. Need I say the "Nivelle-offensive", that ended in mass mutiny as late as 1917? Not to mention the complete collapse as the Germans attacked in 1918, the "Kaiserschlacht" (though this was largely British forces as well). The allied forces never succeeded in driving the Germans back to Germany before the surrender.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,772


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2004, 05:52:44 PM »

Gustaf, this is getting kind of silly-- you have to pick a definition of "winning a war" and stick with it. If you say "The French won in the end in WW1 but they suffered so many battle defeats/fought it so poorly that it shouldn't count" you can't also say "The French won so many battle victories and fought so well in the Napoleonic wars but lost in the end." The thesis that the French have not won since Poitiers now has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Not the first being that "Poitiers" is the name of a city where a battle was fought, there was no "War of Poitiers".

Here is a at least partial list of French Military Victories since 732 (not including wars against non-Europeans)

1914-1918: WW1
1859-61: War of Italian Independence
1854-56: Crimean War
1820-23: Wars Against Spanish Republicans
1809: War of Austrian Independence
1804-07: War Against the Third Coalition
1800-1802: War Against the Second Coalition
1792-1797: War Against the First Coalition
1778-1783: War of American Independence
1672-1678: The Dutch War
1667-1668: The War of Devolution
1635-1659: War of the Pyrenees
1618-1648: The 30 Years' War
1584-1590: War of the Three Henries (ends when Catholic majority forces Henry of Navarre to accept Catholicism).
1328-1453: The Hundred Years' War (Edward III began the war to seek his claim on the French crown).
to 1320: War Against Flanders
1223-1225: War against the Angevins
1204-1215: Wars of Philip Augustus
1142-1144: War Against Champagne
to 1100: War Against Bourges
to 1082: War Against Vexin
to 1077: War of Brittany
to 1047: War Against Norman Rebels
1003-1016: War for the Duchy of Burgundy
888-894: Wars Agaisnt the Normans
795-806: Wars Against Barcelona, Navarre, and Asturias
772-804: Wars Against the Saxons, Bavarians, and Avars
742-774: Wars Against Pavia, Lombardy, Saracens, and Aquataine
(53 campaigns from 772-814).

(source: Wilkipedia)
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 10, 2004, 06:15:36 PM »

To start off, I never said that there was a "war of Poiter" it says battle of Poiter in my post, so I am not all that lost...

On the issue of defining who wins a war, I agree that I might have been a little...ehh...flexible, shall we say? Wink

It isn't that illogical though, if you lose in the end, or win b/c of HELP from other countries, despite constantly messing up, you don't win. And I maintain that the Napoleonic wars, as a whole, and WWI cannot really be seen as French victories.

However, you bring up a ton of examples, and though we have gone through a lot of them, and I disagree with most of the things on your list, I immediately concede the Italian war of independence, which was really a conflict between France and Austria and ended in a clear French victory. Don't know how I oculd forget that, but it was a whhile since i read up on my history. This was of course just a pre-match, before Germany/Prussia swept in and conquered all, but it counts nonetheless. Some of the others might be viable as well, but that's irrelevant.

I admit defeat... Sad

For the record, I didn't originally believe in this, I just mentioned it and Supersoulty backed me up. My main interest was getting to the bottom of this, so there's no need to get hostile about it.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,772


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 10, 2004, 06:41:06 PM »

No hostility involved. If I sounded a little testy it was probably because of the far-fetchedness of the claim. It was particularly striking in view of having been to the Gallery of Battles in Versailles. Also, considering France's prominent place in Europe and long history, plus the fact that it is a rather smug, self-satisfied country with many monuments to past military victories. Smiley
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 10, 2004, 07:04:28 PM »

No hostility involved. If I sounded a little testy it was probably because of the far-fetchedness of the claim. It was particularly striking in view of having been to the Gallery of Battles in Versailles. Also, considering France's prominent place in Europe and long history, plus the fact that it is a rather smug, self-satisfied country with many monuments to past military victories. Smiley

OK, no hard feeling then. Smiley

I think that when you look at the list it's striking how few victories they have scored in major wars (not counting defeating rebels and small city states, etc). The French have always been much better at diplomacy than wars, as is shown by their wonderful breaking out of the Bismarck encirclement in the years leading up to WWI.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 10, 2004, 08:03:01 PM »
« Edited: March 05, 2005, 05:09:41 PM by Peter Bell »


Okay:

WWI: Frace was not the primary participant, even though the war was fought on French soil, they didn't even come close to making up the majority of the Entente(sp) forces in the war and didn't even have as many troops as the British did fighting the western front.  Notice the thesis is "a war in which they were the primarty particpant on one side"

All the other Wars you mentioned:  All of these ended in eventual defeat for the French.  You cannot count something a victory if it ends in eventual deafeat.  Well, you can, but it definatly losses it's luster.

Exception- Hundred Years War:  True that it did end in an eventual victory for the French, but it was a bartered peace, not a smashing victory.  The English got to keep the "Cinq Ports" that were major economic prizes for the side controling them.  Though the English did lose them eventually, it was because they were either traded away by the English or lost to another power that the French then got them from somehow.
Another point to consider was brought up by Gustaf, not only did the French start out the war with better technology, thier population out numbered that of the English nearly 5-1.  Yet it took them 118 years to finally gain the upper hand.  Really, they didn't gain the upper hand at all, they just returned to the situation that had existed 118 years before, with some light territorial gains.

The truth, however you cut it, is that the French are militarily incompetent.  The only exception is Napoleon and he was Corsican.  (Not to mention that the general's sad devotion to his out-dated tactics cost hundreds of thousands of lives in the Crimean and American Civil Wars).

And about the Crimean War, how was that a victory?  I thought that the sides basically agreed to stop fighting.  The British and French, in-spite-of having far better technology and naval capacity never even made it close to getting off the damn pennisula.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,772


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2004, 12:16:02 AM »
« Edited: February 11, 2004, 12:35:50 AM by Beet »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I have to agree that France is more known for foreign relations than military might. Before WW-1, Wilhelm really shot himself in the foot by not renewing the treaty of friendship with Russia and building all those worthless battleships.

Supersoulty:
The Crimean war wasn't about conquering Russia, it was more about keeping the Russians from imperializing Turkey.

Regarding World War I, no country had a majority of troops on either side, and the "primary participant" on the Allied side based on the number of troops calculus was Russia, but it's kind of hard to argue that Russia was the winner in World War I. But more importantly, under that calculus you wouldn't be able to say that the United States won World War II , because, once again, Russia provided most of the manpower on the Allied side so it was the "primary participant". Yet under any practical list of U.S. military victories, you are sure to find World War II. Perhaps a better question to ask would be... which side would have won if country X was not in the war? (in other words, was country X's participation decisive).

Also, how were all the other wars "eventual defeats"? France largely held onto all the territory in wars it gained up until 1678, and last I heard, the United States and Italy were still independent. Russian is not spoken in Turkey. The Hapsburg Empire does not rule over Europe. Protestantism is alive and well in Germany.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2004, 03:39:54 AM »

The French formula has generally been to lose most of the battles but due to their resources drag the war out until they could negotiate a not too bad peace due to strong diplomacy, and then manouevring into strong positions in between. But the war of Italian Independence is a clear victory. The Crimean War is more disputable, imo.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2004, 10:48:14 PM »
« Edited: March 05, 2005, 05:16:05 PM by Peter Bell »


I know the aim was not to conqure Russia, but the aim was to disable Russia's capacity to build a Black Sea navy.  That aim failed miseribly and the war ended in a draw.

Perhapes what I said about France in WWI wasn't the right way to put it.  I'll amend what I said to a question "did FRANCE acctually win the war or was it more the British and American involvement that finished the Germans"?  Your statments about country X don't hold up in this case because without French participation, there wouldn't have been a war.  Russia only declared war on Austria-Hungary (and in affect Germany) because they had counted on French involvement.

As for the American Revolution, they halp with their navy and I am apprieciatvie, but they didn't WIN the war.  General Washington and the continentals did way more to win it than the French did.  Most of the wars the French fought in between the hundred years war and the 1600's were fought to draws.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2004, 01:45:37 PM »
« Edited: March 05, 2005, 05:16:33 PM by Peter Bell »

The Crimean War was a huge humiliation for Russia, no question about it being a Russian defeat, just like there's no question about the World Wars being German defeats. But that still doesn't mean that France was the winner of any of these conflicts.
Logged
Esteban Manuel
Rookie
**
Posts: 94


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 19, 2004, 02:23:13 PM »

Lol...that was kind of funny. I remember hearing from one of my many French-bashing neo-liberal friends that France had not won a war since the battle of Poitier in 732. I think that might not be entirely true, but when I started to think about it I realized that it could probably be argued.

It is true.  An American author wrote a book about it.  Appropriatly enough entitiled '732'.  Currently, France has gone the longest, by far, of any nation in the world, that has not acctually won a war in which they were a major participant (exception WWI, but that can be argued).  That didn't come-out right, but you know what I mean.

It's true that's hard to find a "french" victory in "recent" history and that's especially funny cause their's national proud, but what about i.e. Poland?

Even when the Polish case isn't truly funny it's interesting think about their sad fate of be occupied over and over and over again!

--> So i'm thinking in starting an new issue in general discution named "Countries with worst luck than Poland (excluded Ireland)"
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 19, 2004, 02:28:12 PM »
« Edited: March 05, 2005, 05:17:11 PM by Peter Bell »

I guess you could do that...the Poles have been kind of unlucky:

'We're the doormat of Europe: everyone trods on us.'

-Highlights of Hamlet
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 19, 2004, 03:58:47 PM »

Go to google, type in 'rainman politics' and see what happens.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 19, 2004, 05:08:20 PM »

Go to google, type in 'rainman politics' and see what happens.

Lol...
Logged
Esteban Manuel
Rookie
**
Posts: 94


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 20, 2004, 05:11:01 PM »

I think it's neccesary take into account, in this sadly recount of french war fate some parts of WW II:

The french armored corpses and planes foght really good, their problems was more about organization and leadership (they use opposite to blitzkrieg scheem ) than of bravure or militar capabilities.

The had some victories in north-africa, some of them could scape from british attack in Coulon (tha's a sad incident) and finally they free- Provenza (south-east of France) under the command of Leclérc.

Yes, there's a little of irony in this recount but what's life without irony !
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 11 queries.