NationStates Jolt Archive

that they suck @ military tactics and encounters? I'm just wondering if it's only a running joke in America that the french suck at fighting... the jokes like "how many frenchman does it take to defend paris? We don't know, it's never been done." And then you look into some historical stuff... and the french constantly lost... or is that a misconception? Do the Ausies or Brits make fun of the french? Or is it just in America where we think we are better than everyone?

The British have made fun of the French longer than the Americans have, as they are our historic rivals. Then again, the French did win WWI with help, but how many wars has America won on its own?

^^ agrees

Well, you do think you're better than everyone else... but in Britain the jokes are more about the french cleanliness levels and the snootiness of its women rather than its military record. Not that theres very many anti-french jokes atm, anti-american is very much en vogue right now. All in all its the yanks that are obsessed with the french and their military

One name: Napoleon.

While not French, he's their adopted hero.
And no, the French aren't terrible at everything like the stereotypes elude.
They are, of course, sterotypes.
Is every American fat, disgusting, and gorging on McDonalds and KFC while taking breaks to catch air while torturing somewhat random Muslim men with heavy metal and leather-fetish sex toys?

that they suck @ military tactics and encounters? I'm just wondering if it's only a running joke in America that the french suck at fighting... the jokes like "how many frenchman does it take to defend paris? We don't know, it's never been done." And then you look into some historical stuff... and the french constantly lost... or is that a misconception? Do the Ausies or Brits make fun of the french? Or is it just in America where we think we are better than everyone?
We don't tend to make fun of the French military in Britain (then again, we've been to war many times and we're both still here, so we can't really criticise them much on those grounds). We do, on the other hand, love to make fun of their perceived arrogance.

Is every American fat, disgusting, and gorging on McDonalds and KFC while taking breaks to catch air while torturing somewhat random Muslim men with heavy metal and leather-fetish sex toys?

Probability: High.

But yeah there are many french jokes in Australia: "How did the Germans beat france so quickly in WWII? They marched in backwards and the French thought they were retreating!"

One name: Napoleon.

While not French, he's their adopted hero.
Well Napoleon did kind of... lose... twice...

And then you look into some historical stuff... and the french constantly lost... or is that a misconception?
I would imagine that if anybody who faught at Verdun was still alive he would punch you.

I remember reading also that on the same day as thousands of British troops were being slaughtered at the Somme, French troops were able to take a decent area of land. Don't know how true that is.

And, of course, the US War of Independence...

And the brave people of the French resistence during WW2.

that they suck @ military tactics and encounters? I'm just wondering if it's only a running joke in America that the french suck at fighting... the jokes like "how many frenchman does it take to defend paris? We don't know, it's never been done." And then you look into some historical stuff... and the french constantly lost... or is that a misconception? Do the Ausies or Brits make fun of the french? Or is it just in America where we think we are better than everyone?
I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but I consider it a joke. Napoleon was a military genius, and Laffette pretty much saved our collective ass during the Revolution. The French, like people in most nations, can be very good soldiers when properly led.

Is every American fat, disgusting, and gorging on McDonalds and KFC while taking breaks to catch air while torturing somewhat random Muslim men with heavy metal and leather-fetish sex toys?
Yeah, so what's your point?

Well Napoleon did kind of... lose... twice...

So obviously he was completely useless, and to this day no one knows why European history of the period is completely dominated by him?

Wasn't it France that helped America win the War of Independance? And win WWI? And as metioned before, Napoleon led France to nearly total control of Europe. I'd say in recent years France may not be the dominate nation it once was, but then every nation has its ups and downs.

Probability: High.
Maybe. I haven't been home in a while. :p

Well Napoleon did kind of... lose... twice...
Twice. That's nuthin. Us American's lost to ourselves. No one has killed a higher percentage of the American population than Americans. That sucks a whole lot more. And the fatness thing and small leather thongs. Ugh....

[/ incorrect usage of the American Civil War]

Well Napoleon did kind of... lose... twice...
And look at how many countries had to gang up on him to beat him.

The British have made fun of the French longer than the Americans have, as they are our historic rivals. Then again, the French did win WWI with help, but how many wars has America won on its own?
Yeah I've always been a bit uncomfortable about the Americans making fun of the french. I've always thought that it was or should be a british preserve. I mean we've been at war with them more often than not, they've tried to invade us more times than anyone so it almost seems like we've earned the right to make fun of them. When you look at Franco-American history they've actually always been fairly chummy until recently. Sure the Americans helped the French out in WW1 and 2 but then they helped you out in the Revolutionary war, and sort of indirectly in 1812. It just seems like you haven't earnt the right to insult them you know?;)

So obviously he was completely useless, and to this day no one knows why European history of the period is completely dominated by him?
The question at hand is "How many wars have the French won?" as I understand it. Regardless of how glorious the intervening time was, the French did lose the Napoleonic Wars. Although I agree that the intervening years were impressive, that is not the question at hand. And the period in question lasts at most 20 years, more like 15. Almost everything he did was undone at the Congress of Vienna, and France lost a fair amount of territory in the Med.

Yeah, so what's your point?
Before I answer that, I must ask a few questions:

Is that "yeah" a "yes-yeah"? Or that "yeah" that is used when starting a street brawl?

*pulls out pipe wrench and slaps it menacingly against the palm of his left hand*

actually i think the french are «a war late» since 1871.. :)
but until then they were THE military power in europe, even before the fall of rome..

here in portugal we make fun of everyone, not just the french... but we start with ourselves... :))

Quim

that they suck @ military tactics and encounters? I'm just wondering if it's only a running joke in America that the french suck at fighting... the jokes like "how many frenchman does it take to defend paris? We don't know, it's never been done." And then you look into some historical stuff... and the french constantly lost... or is that a misconception? Do the Ausies or Brits make fun of the french? Or is it just in America where we think we are better than everyone?

We've often being the ones who have trounced the French during battles, so there were jokes about their military record before America took it up. My dad said that when he hitchhiked around Canada when he was 18, he was in a bar chatting with newly-made friends when a French-Canadian woman randomly came up to him and said "I hate you British, why don't you just leave?". My dad responded "Listen love; Crecy, Agincourt, Trafalgar, Waterloo...your forefathers couldn't stop us doing what we want and neither can you."

But yeah, jokes are mostly about French arrogance, feminity and garlic.

but until then they were THE military power in europe, even before the fall of rome..

Surely before the fall of Rome, ROME was the military power in Europe?:)

"How many wars have the French won?"
At least two, technically, WWI and WWII. I don't feel like looking at the moment. And France has grown over the centuries, so they probably didn't exaclty lose every war they were in.

Why is that the question at hand?

The Italians lost to a bunch of half-naked, starving, spear-throwing Numidians!

At least two, technically, WWI and WWII. I don't feel like looking at the moment. And France has grown over the centuries, so they probably didn't exaclty lose every war they were in.
And what, pray tell, has this to do with the Napoleonic Wars?

Why is that the question at hand?
Because this entire thread is about France's military record, maybe?

The Italians lost to a bunch of half-naked, starving, spear-throwing Numidians!
Although that is quite funny (Abyssinia, yes?), I dont see what relevence it has to the topic at hand.

Why is that the question at hand?

The Italians lost to a bunch of half-naked, starving, spear-throwing Numidians!

True - some of the jokes about France, such as the "French tanks have 6 gears, 1 for forward and the rest for reverse" jokes I originally heard in reference to Italy. I wonder why Americans don't pick on them as well.

And what, pray tell, has this to do with the Napoleonic Wars?
Nothing, but, you said it:
Because this entire thread is about France's military record, maybe?

Although that is quite funny (Abyssinia, yes?), I dont see what relevence it has to the topic at hand.
Why the French (other than the arrogance, feminity, artists, and garlic)?

I dunno. I really got nothing. :p

Nothing
Thankyou. Let us now move on.

, but, you said it
How kind of you to tell me.

Why the French (other than the arrogance, feminity, artists, and garlic)?

I dunno. I really got nothing. :p
Because this is a thread entitled Do French people know..., not Do Italian people know... or Do people whose countries have amusing military exploits know.... If you have issues with that, take it up with the thread's creator, not me. *shrug*

(This is a really silly argument.)

Surely before the fall of Rome, ROME was the military power in Europe?:)

Well... i said that because just before Rome fell that was a kind of split: Flavius Aetius, warflord of Galia defeated Attila... but then didn't go to rescue Italy from him... :)

but sure the better deal you can do with a french is buying him for it's valour and selling him for what he thinks it's his valour... :)

(yes, i know my english isn't what it used to be.. :) )

(This is a really silly argument.)
What isn't?

Did you notice that you contradicted yourself though? First we're talking about the Napoleonic Wars, and then all of Frances military history? I hope your not too caught up in the moment/tired to notice that. :p

Before I answer that, I must ask a few questions:

Is that "yeah" a "yes-yeah"? Or that "yeah" that is used when starting a street brawl?

*pulls out pipe wrench and slaps it menacingly against the palm of his left hand*
It can't be the latter. I'm completely non-violent. I've got a reputation as a pacifist. Just ask anyone.

Well, in that case.

Yeah, so what's your point?
Sterotypes are funny, and are usually based on a mustard seed of truth. Then, that mustard seed grows to a very large mustard tree of deception. Its like one of Jesus' parabels, only twisted, and a lot less powerful.

that you suck @ making threads? I'm just wondering if this is the height of your sense of humour, keeping dull old chestnuts alive through endless regurgitation. Like some awful SNL sketch gone waaaaaay overtime.that they suck @ military tactics and encounters? I'm just wondering if it's only a running joke in America that the french suck at fighting... the jokes like "how many frenchman does it take to defend paris? We don't know, it's never been done." And then you look into some historical stuff... and the french constantly lost... or is that a misconception? Do the Ausies or Brits make fun of the french? Or is it just in America where we think we are better than everyone?

We've often being the ones who have trounced the French during battles

I think that you will find it was us Irish that trounced the French for you. After all, since Marlborough 50% of the British army was recruited in Ireland, this figure rising to 80% during the Crimea. Our tiny island, whose population never rose over 8 million did more for your country than any other "colony", and never got any recognition.

The question at hand is "How many wars have the French won?" as I understand it. Regardless of how glorious the intervening time was, the French did lose the Napoleonic Wars. Although I agree that the intervening years were impressive, that is not the question at hand. And the period in question lasts at most 20 years, more like 15. Almost everything he did was undone at the Congress of Vienna, and France lost a fair amount of territory in the Med.
Didn't they last a little longer in Indochina than the Americans did as well?

Ugh, i'm sick of this whole "cheese eating surrender monkey" thing. It just shows ignorance.

Didn't they last a little longer in Indochina than the Americans did as well?
They didn't "win" in Indochina, and the Americans didn't "lose" in Indochina. We pretty much destroyed the place, killed tons of people, got some building contracts, and left when the anti-war movement kicked in. We went in because the French forgot to bring some Catholics along, and the one Catholic president we had was in the sway of the Pope.

What's this about the USSR? Vietkong? Oh, right, off topic (on myself).

We've often being the ones who have trounced the French during battles, so there were jokes about their military record before America took it up. My dad said that when he hitchhiked around Canada when he was 18, he was in a bar chatting with newly-made friends when a French-Canadian woman randomly came up to him and said "I hate you British, why don't you just leave?". My dad responded "Listen love; Crecy, Agincourt, Trafalgar, Waterloo...your forefathers couldn't stop us doing what we want and neither can you."

But yeah, jokes are mostly about French arrogance, feminity and garlic.


Don't get me started on those FLQ nuts. If anyone other than the British has the right to make fun of the French its Canada. We have to share the same country as them.

Of course America lost in Vietnam, a war is lost when a combatant fails to achieve its objective. Americas objective was to prevent South Vietnam becomming Communist, and we can see what happained.
The fact that America killed more VC/NVA means nothing, as the tactics used by guerilla forces usually allows for a high difference in casulty rates.

Oh yeah, the simplest way to put it is that America went into Indochina to prevent the "Dimino Theory".

Of course America lost in Vietnam, a war is lost when a combatant fails to achieve its objective...Oh yeah, the simplest way to put it is that America went into Indochina to prevent the "Dimino Theory".
Congress never declared war. The ojectives concerning Vietnam are highly controversial. Ask any veteran.

Yup, I know about the "Domino Theory." Anyone else ever see the correlation between the spreading of the zombie virus in the films and the actual enforcing of this theory in reality? Maybe its just me. Anyhow, I find the "Domino Theory" to be somewhat of an easy way to make it seem like America's hands are clean while doing these things. However, my views on conflicts involving America are highly controversial. And, I hope this doesn't spiral into a hijack.

I think that you will find it was us Irish that trounced the French for you. After all, since Marlborough 50% of the British army was recruited in Ireland, this figure rising to 80% during the Crimea. Our tiny island, whose population never rose over 8 million did more for your country than any other "colony", and never got any recognition.

Uhm, I think you'll find that only maybe a few Irish mercenaries were at Crecy and Agincourt, and I don't know about the Crimea, where the French were our ALLIES, but I know for a fact that under Wellington, 100 years after Marlborough, only about a third of the army was Irish - no more. I'm therefore pretty confident you're just pulling those statistics out of your arse.

Don't spit on the memory of all those British soilders who won just because they fought along side some Irish. I was for a while very interested in the Spanish Peninsular war, and it is often pointed out by British historians how many Irish were involved, and even pointed towards in popular culture - ever read a Sharpe book? One of the main characters is Irish, and there are storylines involving Irish regiments. In one book, there are two highly anti-Irish officers who are portrayed as bastards, and who finally get their comeuppance.

The Irish did fight alongside the British often, and it was a logical choice to join the British army if you were starving. But they are recognised, and don't massively overexagerrate their presence to the extent of downplaying the British soilders part.

that they suck @ military tactics and encounters? I'm just wondering if it's only a running joke in America that the french suck at fighting... the jokes like "how many frenchman does it take to defend paris? We don't know, it's never been done." And then you look into some historical stuff... and the french constantly lost... or is that a misconception? Do the Ausies or Brits make fun of the french? Or is it just in America where we think we are better than everyone?


It is true that the French military has not been brilliant at the begining of WWII, because Marechal Petain (a traitor !!), prefered the way of collaboration... However, I'd just like to say that the Parisian resistance took over Paris before the arrival of the allied forces. Parisian people fought for freedom and democracy, as many resistants did. As General De Gaulle Said: "Paris outragee mais Paris liberee !!"

Actually mate, your right, I just re-read the chapter of the book where I took my information and It was after the Napleonic war that it rose to 50% Irishmen. Oops, forgive me please.

Of course America lost in Vietnam, a war is lost when a combatant fails to achieve its objective. Americas objective was to prevent South Vietnam becomming Communist, and we can see what happained.
The fact that America killed more VC/NVA means nothing, as the tactics used by guerilla forces usually allows for a high difference in casulty rates.

Oh yeah, the simplest way to put it is that America went into Indochina to prevent the "Dimino Theory".
I didn't say that anybody won or lost a war there, merely that I was led to believe that the French held out there a little longer than the Americans managed to. (Possibly because the Foreign Legion was, at the time, full of deserters from the SS, but the French were paying them so they were French forces. They probably found this a lot less amusing than I do.)

Well Napoleon did kind of... lose... twice...

Against all of Europe.

Surely before the fall of Rome, ROME was the military power in Europe?:)
Rome was actually fairly weak in it's earlier days. It'd had collapsed into a factionalized group more prone to infighting than defending its borders. Keep in mind, it was a group of "Barbarians" who managed to sack Rome.

True - some of the jokes about France, such as the "French tanks have 6 gears, 1 for forward and the rest for reverse" jokes I originally heard in reference to Italy. I wonder why Americans don't pick on them as well.


Because France didn't go to Iraq. The resulting negative press aired on American television has been reflected in the people. So now everyone suddenly gives a shit about France's war record.

Actually mate, your right, I just re-read the chapter of the book where I took my information and It was after the Napleonic war that it rose to 50% Irishmen. Oops, forgive me please.

No problem. I really do acknowledge that the Irish played a big part in many of Britains later military exploits. After all Wellington himself was Irish, although he wasn't exactly proud of his roots. Just saying that the Irish did all the work is, as you can imagine, a little insulting.

No problem. I really do acknowledge that the Irish played a big part in many of Britains later military exploits. After all Wellington himself was Irish, although he wasn't exactly proud of his roots.

I believe he said something along the lines of:
Just because one was born in a barn, does not mean one is a horse

And yes, Laenis you are right- there was a good portion of the Imperial Army that was Irish- but they were actually recognised at the time and a lot of good things were said about them.

And a lot of them were proud to serve, fight and die in the Army too. Same with the Welsh and Scots.

Beginning with the fall of Rome...

The Franks, in the centuries leading up to and including the reign of Charlemagne, conquered the Burgundians, the Saxons, the Lombards, the Avars, and half of the Visigothic kingdom, and ended up ruling half of Europe, before collapsing due to internal reasons, not military defeat.

One province of France conquered England in 1066. One can quibble about exactly how French the Normans were, but they spoke French and were culturally French, and probably no more distinct than any other region at that time, such as Aquitaine or Provence.

The armies that conquered Sicily and southern Italy, the Crusader states in the First Crusade, and Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade, were predominantly French, to the point where the Muslims referred to all Western Europeans as Franks.

The English can, and should, be proud of Crecy and Agincourt, but the French did win the Hundred Years' War in the end.

The French were definitely one of the winners of the Thirty Years' War, and under Louis XIV they fought most of Europe to essentially a draw.

As stated before, it was French support that allowed the US to win its independence in the Revolutionary wars.

The Napoleonic Wars were a series of wars, not one big one, (although they were obviously related), and until the invasion of Russia, France won pretty much all of them.

In WWI, the French made the largest contribution to the Allied victory in purely military terms. The Supreme Allied Commander was a Frenchman, Marshal Foch.

To conclude, it is an unfortunate reflection of historical ignorance that France's military record is judged today pretty much solely on its unimpressive performance in WWII. It should be noted that Britain and Russia didn't perform any better against the Germans in the early years of the war, but they had geographical advantages that allowed them to survive and recover that France did not. I would say that on the whole, France has an overall military record of which any nation could be proud. Finally, in my personal opinion, anti-French Americans and anti-American French are alike guilty of historical ignorance and gross ingratitude.

yeah the brits are always makin fun of the french and their military

The English can, and should, be proud of Crecy and Agincourt, but the French did win the Hundred Years' War in the end.


Yeah...BUT, only by massively outnumbering them ^^

But, yeah, I agree with the rest - France used to be the dominant power in Europe for a long time, and was very successful militarily. I also think it's pretty slack to get at the French for loosing to Germany - they WERE right next door, and other combined nations took years to regain ground against them.

I don't think France has a particuarly bad military record on the whole, though we've given them quite a few solid beatings.

but I know for a fact that under Wellington, 100 years after Marlborough, only about a third of the army was Irish - no more.
Do you include Wellington himself in that?

No problem. I really do acknowledge that the Irish played a big part in many of Britains later military exploits. After all Wellington himself was Irish, although he wasn't exactly proud of his roots

Yes. Yes I do ;)

that they suck @ military tactics and encounters? I'm just wondering if it's only a running joke in America that the french suck at fighting... the jokes like "how many frenchman does it take to defend paris? We don't know, it's never been done." And then you look into some historical stuff... and the french constantly lost... or is that a misconception? Do the Ausies or Brits make fun of the french? Or is it just in America where we think we are better than everyone?

Umm...while I know the US loves to make fun of the French's military inability...but let's look at the US. We can't control any of our current war zones, we can't manage to find a 70 year old man wandering in a mountain region and taking dialysis for his kidneys every 2 days, even though he sends us videos, but we can torture people and break about every law democracy ever stood for.

Yes. Yes I do ;)
Ah OK, I didn't see that bit :p

French military sucks.
That's why Britain had been under French rule for so long? That's why the French foreign legion is held in awe? That's why France has so many successful battles engraved on the Arch de Triomphe?

Americans can't really criticise the French military for being cautious, whilst their own goes gung-ho into war, and makes such a pitiful mess of things and THEN drags anyone else into it who they can.

Germany hasn't been to war for a long time. Do people take the piss outta them? No, because they're probably Europe's most powerful country.

That's why Britain had been under French rule for so long?
....what?

..."how many frenchman does it take to defend paris? We don't know, it's never been done."

It has been done by Joffre so we DO know, Its 2000.

France lost the Napoleonic wars to Britain, Prussia and the hired help.

Britain was funding through 'subsidies' the war effort of all of France's enemies. £65million in 1815 alone, higher than French total expenditure on the war in some years. So France didn't beat all of Europe, just all of Europe that the UK could afford to pay for ;)

France has a perfectly respectable military history. However, we're both their traditional enemies and responsible for most of their most embarrassing defeats (apart from in recent times) so we're fully entitled to take the mick.

....what?
At a guess I'd say they're referring to the Norman Invasion, or possibly one of the British Monarchs with french ancestry.

At a guess I'd say they're referring to the Norman Invasion, or possibly one of the British Monarchs with french ancestry.
But the Normans weren't really French.

One name: Napoleon.

While not French, he's their adopted hero.
And no, the French aren't terrible at everything like the stereotypes elude.
They are, of course, sterotypes.
Is every American fat, disgusting, and gorging on McDonalds and KFC while taking breaks to catch air while torturing somewhat random Muslim men with heavy metal and leather-fetish sex toys?

for the most part... minus the torturing of Muslims

One province of France conquered England in 1066. One can quibble about exactly how French the Normans were, but they spoke French and were culturally French, and probably no more distinct than any other region at that time, such as Aquitaine or Provence.

Didn't a bunch of norwegians help with that? I think I saw that on a history channel here...

And the brave people of the French resistence during WW2.

AFTER they lost the country... Listen, I'm not ragging on the french saying their not brave... i'm just stating that what I hear(and see and read) is that the french have a very poor "win/loss" record.

Besides, England ruled, at various times, between a third and more than half of France, and at one stage took the lot, only to lose it when the king inconsiderately died leaving a day-old prince in charge. (Henry V and Henry VI)

Wasn't it France that helped America win the War of Independance? And win WWI? And as metioned before, Napoleon led France to nearly total control of Europe. I'd say in recent years France may not be the dominate nation it once was, but then every nation has its ups and downs.

"helped is the key word" in the Revolutionary war... WWI? Are you kidding me? And don't have me mention WWII.

The "bunch of Norwegians" invaded that same year, and were defeated at Stamford Bridge on September 25th. Hastings was October 14th. In which time Harold made his way from the North to the South of the country to fight two separate invasions by major powers. I'll say it helped.

Watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail for a crash course in Franco-British humor.

The "bunch of Norwegians" invaded that same year, and were defeated at Stamford Bridge on September 25th. Hastings was October 14th. In which time Harold made his way from the North to the South of the country to fight two separate invasions by major powers. I'll say it helped.
The Normans were vikings who'd settled in part of northern France, rather than the local celts.

The "bunch of Norwegians" invaded that same year, and were defeated at Stamford Bridge on September 25th. Hastings was October 14th. In which time Harold made his way from the North to the South of the country to fight two separate invasions by major powers. I'll say it helped.
Okay, just checking. I have a tendency to mix things up, and most people seem to get angry at that...

AFTER they lost the country... Listen, I'm not ragging on the french saying their not brave... i'm just stating that what I hear(and see and read) is that the french have a very poor "win/loss" record.
Well they've had a lot of wars, and have the disadvantage of having other countries attacking them one after the other from different sides. Plus when they had a large empire the problems with having wars all over the world stretches resources a tad. But I think in general French military history is something they can be proud of.

God damn these threads...

The British have made fun of the French longer than the Americans have, as they are our historic rivals. Then again, the French did win WWI with help, but how many wars has America won on its own?The Mexican War, the Civil War (in spite of British and French help to the Confederacy, I might add), the Spanish-American War.

I'd also add that the U.S. was Britain's Vietnam. Twice: 1776-1783 and 1812-1815.

God damn these threads...
If only it were this easy... first we have to settle the argument on whether God really exists or not.
How about 'Myrth damn these threads'? :p

The British have made fun of the French longer than the Americans have, as they are our historic rivals. Then again, the French did win WWI with help, but how many wars has America won on its own?
As many as we want because we are awesome.

I'd also add that the U.S. was Britain's Vietnam. Twice: 1776-1783 and 1812-1815.

The revolutionary war can be sort of compared to Vietnam, although obviously transport was a lot slower back then so it was even harder to reinforce the army to a place so far away.
I'd hardly compare the war of 1812 to Vietnam though. The war of 1812 ended pretty much with a stalemate - in Vietnam the US failed to do what they had set out to do entirely, and no matter what some blind nationalists will have you say, that constitutes a loss.

The British have made fun of the French longer than the Americans have, as they are our historic rivals. Then again, the French did win WWI with help, but how many wars has America won on its own?
We kicked ass in the Civil War.

We should be thanking the French, without their money we would have been hard pressed to finance the Revolutionary War. French soldiers helped out as well thank Lafayette! And then the Statue of Liberty.

Besides France has been around longer than the US so maybe we shouldn't talk.

If the US won the Civil War, doesn't that mean that the French won the French Revolution?

And what constitutes as winning and losing? It's rarely black-and-white. That's all.

In sweden we joke about french people all the time especially their military capabilities. Which is kind of funny because Sweden is a fucking crap country at everything except cellphones.

It always amazes me that the french are considered bad at war, when they are sitting next to Europe's all time loser: Germany.

Face it, when history is looked back on, five hundred years from now, it's not going to be the french that are remembered for stupid strategic decisions and getting their arses repeatedly kicked by their neighbors.

The only thing I can think of is that german sounds a lot more aggressive than french, so people assume they must be better at wars.

In sweden we joke about french people all the time especially their military capabilities. Which is kind of funny because Sweden is a fucking crap country at everything except cellphones.
It isn't bad at blondes and vodka either. (And Volvos...)

Sarzonia: Britain did not intervene in the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. There were calls to, due to large parts of the north and Scotland being dependant on the cotton industry for their livelihood, but either Victoria or Albert (accounts differ as to which) was opposed to the idea, so the British Government stayed out of it.

It isn't bad at blondes and vodka either. (And Volvos...)

Sarzonia: Britain did not intervene in the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. There were calls to, due to large parts of the north and Scotland being dependant on the cotton industry for their livelihood, but either Victoria or Albert (accounts differ as to which) was opposed to the idea, so the British Government stayed out of it.

I agree about the blonds i love blonds. Volvo is owned by General Motors now so Sweden can't brag as much about volvo anymore. The Vodka is okay but with Swedish taxes making it almost four times as expensive as everywhere else it aint much to brag about either.

It always amazes me that the french are considered bad at war, when they are sitting next to Europe's all time loser: Germany.

Face it, when history is looked back on, five hundred years from now, it's not going to be the french that are remembered for stupid strategic decisions and getting their arses repeatedly kicked by their neighbors.

The only thing I can think of is that german sounds a lot more aggressive than french, so people assume they must be better at wars.

1871 anyone?:rolleyes:

It always amazes me that the french are considered bad at war, when they are sitting next to Europe's all time loser: Germany.

Face it, when history is looked back on, five hundred years from now, it's not going to be the french that are remembered for stupid strategic decisions and getting their arses repeatedly kicked by their neighbors.

The only thing I can think of is that german sounds a lot more aggressive than french, so people assume they must be better at wars.

I would say that Germany has been doing pretty well if you look at their size, they have almost always faced overwhelming odds. I they just fought the french all the time they would win, its when they begin fighting the whole world they loose.

These French/American/German/British bashing threads are just old. I'm tired of these stupid stereotypes which include the following:

French - A bunch of pussies who can't fight, eat cheese, drink wine and complain.

America - A bunch of bible toting, gun slinging, McDonalds eating lard asses.

German - A bunch of drunk Germans getting drunk.

British - An island of guys with bad teeth who drink tea.

These have all been said, are being said, and will be said in the future!!

The reason we have these is because yes, a good number of people from these countires fit these stereotypes but we just don't need these on our forum!!

If there's any country that sucks the most at war, it's the Dutch. All we did was getting occupied by other countries.

1871 anyone?:rolleyes:
Make that one out of three, and having been used as a playground for Europe for most of the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Do you honestly think the French ruled continental Europe time and time again because they lost wars?
The people who say that France can't fight wars either do so out of sheer spite, knowing that it is not true, or honestly have no idea, in which case they shouldn't open their mouth.

Louis XIV is an example, by the way. He took out every major power in various wars and forced them to accept French demands. Ultimately, France became the role model for all for Europe for many decades to come, and its power wasn't seriously challenged until much later.

I think that the reason the French are on the receiving end of jokes recently, particularly in America, is because the French had always been a reliable, strong ally come wartime. Then in WW2 they received a dose of blitzkrieg, it was so shocking and contrary to expectations for an ally such as the French to be ravaged so fast. Now we give them crap because a previously reliable ally was overtaken so easily.

Just my theory, despite how outrageous it may be considering the Germans were preparing and planning for the war a good 10 years before it happened, which is why they were able to blitzkrieg.

I think that the reason the French are on the receiving end of jokes recently, particularly in America, is because the French had always been a reliable, strong ally come wartime. Then in WW2 they received a dose of blitzkrieg, it was so shocking and contrary to expectations for an ally such as the French to be ravaged so fast. Now we give them crap because a previously reliable ally was overtaken so easily.

Just my theory, despite how outrageous it may be considering the Germans were preparing and planning for the war a good 10 years before it happened, which is why they were able to blitzkrieg.
Two things: "Blitzkrieg" means "Lightning Warfare". You try and make it sound foreign (although I don't think you're doing it on purpose), to differentiate yourself from the Germans by using the word.
It also is a noun, not a verb.

The second thing is that France was not a US Ally. The US didn't really have allies, because historically, it was the US that was the most fickle of friends, a friend that you could never really count on because of its "isolationism"-policy, something that Europeans probably couldn't understand at the time.

And if you have a look at what actually happened during Fall Gelb (and no, it hadn't been planned for quite that long), the French did what they could and lost fair and square. It could have happened to anyone (it did happen to the British, they were just lucky enough to have the Channel).

Who cares? Military might doesn't mean somebody is better than the other.

Make that one out of three, and having been used as a playground for Europe for most of the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Do you honestly think the French ruled continental Europe time and time again because they lost wars?
The people who say that France can't fight wars either do so out of sheer spite, knowing that it is not true, or honestly have no idea, in which case they shouldn't open their mouth.

I dont know if this is in opposition to my post about 1871. If it was then I wasnt making any point about France getting beaten, rather i was defending Germany by pointing out their decisive victory. Certainly "getting their arses repeatedly kicked by their neighbors" is not how i would describe Germany's history. Its quite true that pre-unification they weren't all that fabulous, but afterwards, it wasn't their neighbours but combined enemies from around the world that were needed to defeat them.

Rome was actually fairly weak in it's earlier days. It'd had collapsed into a factionalized group more prone to infighting than defending its borders. Keep in mind, it was a group of "Barbarians" who managed to sack Rome.
Rome sacked itself. Their constant infighting and lack of unification among the army, and the decadence and belief that 'Barbarians' could never harm Rome ended up doing them in. When you have numerous senators, each with their own legions and their own interests, having to be coerced or bribed into contributing legions to fight a common enemy, you're in for trouble.

The revolutionary war can be sort of compared to Vietnam, although obviously transport was a lot slower back then so it was even harder to reinforce the army to a place so far away.
I'd hardly compare the war of 1812 to Vietnam though. The war of 1812 ended pretty much with a stalemate - in Vietnam the US failed to do what they had set out to do entirely, and no matter what some blind nationalists will have you say, that constitutes a loss.
Britain also failed to do what they set out to do, which was sweep the US Navy off the seas. That war was not a loss for either side.

Sounds like someone else is also a "blind nationalist."