NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay I would like to direct your attention to something. Go to Google then type French Military Victories then click I'm Feeling Lucky. The click on the first link you are given and dispute those claims if possible..

So this is your first time on the internet, or what?

They had an empire only marginally smaller than ours. There we go.

Okay I would like to direct your attention to something. Go to Google then type French Military Victories then click I'm Feeling Lucky. The click on the first link you are given and dispute those claims if possible..

How is life in 2003?

http://www.google-watch.org/newsday.html

How is life in 2003?

Oh my god! Google bought Pyra? Why didn't anyone tell me?!!

Anyone who believes for a moment it is genuine is probably a) new to the internet and b) completely ignorant of the history of France. There was that little French* guy who conquered all of Europe...
*and anyone who points out he was Corsican knows enough to know better than that!

Life in 2003 isn't so bad. How does that Iraq War pan out then?

In other news, George Bush is threatening to go to war with Iraq if Saddam Hussein doesn't hand over his weapons of mass destruction.

Anyone who believes for a moment it is genuine is probably a) new to the internet and b) completely ignorant of the history of France. There was that little French* guy who conquered all of Europe...[/SIZE]

Russia begs to differ.

Anyone who believes for a moment it is genuine is probably a) new to the internet and b) completely ignorant of the history of France. There was that little French* guy who conquered all of Europe...
*and anyone who points out he was Corsican knows enough to know better than that!

You do know that Napoleon was Corsican, don't you?


:p

You do know that Napoleon was Corsican, don't you?


:p

*QI sirens sound. "HE WAS CORSICAN" flashes on screen in the background*

Actual French Victories (http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp)

Hey guys, did you see this video (http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=qItugh-fFgg)

yea the same lil guy that got put in exile...only to return reclaim his throne..and then due to having shitty subordinates namely a one Emmanuel de Grouchy..and a Michel Nay..(I believe those are the names of the two bafoons who fucked Napoleon over) cost him the battle of Waterloo...and thus returning to exile for the rest of his sad days..even if he did blunder up big time following the pesky Russians into their territory with the onset of winter...In modern times France has done little...they did decent in ww1...didn't keep up with the times in ww2 and got raped...and had numerous other fowl ups around the globe...but eh..

Russia begs to differ.
Well, they were conquered, they just denied to admit that until the invaders became fed up with such unsportsmanlike attitude and went home. Dropping the occassional team members' dead bodies here and there.

Anyone who believes for a moment it is genuine is probably a) new to the Internet and b) completely ignorant of the history of France. There was that little French* guy who conquered all of Europe...
*and anyone who points out he was Corsican knows enough to know better than that!

He was born in Ajaccio, on Corsica, but you are right. Technically he was French (the Island having become part of the French crown about 18 months before his birth).

And again you are right, the French have had some fairly decisive victories over many countries over the centuries. That Google joke was funny the first time people saw it, a fair while ago, as part of some odd French bashing thing people had going (Personally I have nothing against the French, my wife was French).

...and the Normans were really just Danish Vikings.

:p

(well, they were...)

Well, they were conquered, they just denied to admit that until the invaders became fed up with such unsportsmanlike attitude and went home. Dropping the occassional team members' dead bodies here and there.

Just like Vietnam.

...and maybe Iraq?

*QI sirens sound. "HE WAS CORSICAN" flashes on screen in the background*

QI=win

You get points for the reference.

yea the same lil guy that got put in exile...only to return reclaim his throne..and then due to having shitty subordinates namely a one Emmanuel de Grouchy..and a Michel Nay..(I believe those are the names of the two bafoons who fucked Napoleon over) cost him the battle of Waterloo...and thus returning to exile for the rest of his sad days..even if he did blunder up big time following the pesky Russians into their territory with the onset of winter...In modern times France has done little...they did decent in ww1...didn't keep up with the times in ww2 and got raped...and had numerous other fowl ups around the globe...but eh..

When you say "numerous foul up's" they have had their fair share of problems, but then so has, oh I don't know, the USA and the UK...
He did conquer quite a slice of Europe, but as pointed out made a tactical mistake in following the retreating Russian army deep into that country during the winter months.
In more modern times, they helped develop Concorde, kept an eye and ear on the Russians in Eastern Europe (Cold War era) and have been doing rather well in terms of scientific research.

...and the Normans were really just Danish Vikings.

:p

(well, they were...)

That makes the English Vikings as well! *Is shocked*

...and the Normans were really just Danish Vikings.

:p

(well, they were...)

Norse-men. But if you are going to use that argument, then almost all of France is in fact non-French. Mind you there isn't a country in the world that hasn't had quite significant population change in the last 1000 years.

Actual French Victories (http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp)

Many of those "Victories" were French + allies, often UK & US. The most recent purely French victory was Algeria in 1830. :p

thats lolz...

and you do know that the French had like the second-biggest empire in the world right?

That makes the English Vikings as well! *Is shocked*

Well there were also the Saxons, Angles and Jutes who came over from about AD450 onwards, as Gildas points out, there were at least 5 distinct cultures in Britain during the middle ages (between the Roman's leaving in 410 and the unification of Alfred the Great and his son and grandson)

When you say "numerous foul up's" they have had their fair share of problems, but then so has, oh I don't know, the USA and the UK...
He did conquer quite a slice of Europe, but as pointed out made a tactical mistake in following the retreating Russian army deep into that country during the winter months.
In more modern times, they helped develop Concorde, kept an eye and ear on the Russians in Eastern Europe (Cold War era) and have been doing rather well in terms of scientific research.

Pretty much every nation has a foul up in modern times...except those damn swiss..they don't do anything...well they just keep everything secret but yea...the UK US...Iraq... Russia Afghanistan...Israel the past summers Lebanon conflict..Germany...fighting a multiple front war in ww2...you'd think they would have learned....the list goes on and on....I wasn't singling out the French...they were just the current topic of discussion...:p

Many of those "Victories" were French + allies, often UK & US. The most recent purely French victory was Algeria in 1830. :p

Whereas the most recent British only campaign was the Falklands. As for the USA, some would argue that it was probably the Civil War... I'm sure there were other wars they fought alone, but they escape me at the moment.
Something I've never really understood is why people seem to like rubbishing the French? They are no worse than any other country.

I have no problem with the French...although I was overly pleased when they lost the world cup..

Whereas the most recent British only campaign was the Falklands. As for the USA, some would argue that it was probably the Civil War... I'm sure there were other wars they fought alone, but they escape me at the moment.
Something I've never really understood is why people seem to like rubbishing the French? They are no worse than any other country.

The Border Raiders from Mexico. The name of the incident escapes me.

Russia begs to differ.

Technically he conquered, or at least rampaged over, European Russia.

I'm a confessed franco-phile anyway. Most France bashing tends to stem from jealousy.

Im far from being jealous of the frogs...=P

Tell me about England, eh? The Mongols did better than Napolean.

Tell me about England, eh? The Mongols did better than Napolean.

They did better than everybody, to be fair to them.

There was that little French* guy who conquered all of Europe...
*and anyone who points out he was Corsican knows enough to know better than that!

Ask a Corsican if they are really part of France.

well England..lets see...they owned the isle of course...most of "America" ...lots of Africa...India...parts of China...Australia.....Canada.....I believe they topped the Mongols...

well England..lets see...they owned the isle of course...most of "America" ...lots of Africa...India...parts of China...Australia.....Canada.....I believe they topped the Mongols...

Firstly, the empire never included the African possessions and the USA simultenously.

Secondly, the British empire, throughout it's existence, was unable to overcome its European colonial contemporaries; the Mongols crushed three genuinely "great" states in the form of China, Kievan Rus and Persia.

Thirdly, the Mongol empire was created in the space of only two generations or so, by Genghis and his sons, whereas the British empire arose from extant economic interests first created in the mid-Tudor years.

Fourthly, one cannot claim superiority for the Britih empire upon the grounds that it controlled the likes of Australia, the Americas, Canada and Southern Africa; the Mongols did not know of such places. Indeed, within the context of the geograhpical limitations of the Mongol epoch, their achievements acquire further importance, since they created an empire that dominated the known world alone, without rivals.

well England..lets see...they owned the isle of course...most of "America" ...lots of Africa...India...parts of China...Australia.....Canada.....I believe they topped the Mongols...
Well, depends. The British Empire was about 3 million Sq Miles larger than the Mongols, but then again the Mongols did have the largest continuous empire in the world and did it all from horse back and without guns so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_empires

I was simply listing all the places that had been under British control...and I'd love to see how the mongols would have advanced into western europe...

They did better than everybody, to be fair to them.

And by them I hope you mean the Mongols.

I was simply listing all the places that had been under British control...and I'd love to see how the mongols would have advanced into western europe...

With ease. The Mongol military machine was superior to that of western christendom in all respects. It was genuinely meritocratic, tactically adept and versatile, mobile and universally well armed. If such a machine had overcome the likes of China and Persia; unified states with a greater militray tradition, and sophistication, than christendom, why would it not overcome the west?

Okay I would like to direct your attention to something. Go to Google then type French Military Victories then click I'm Feeling Lucky. The click on the first link you are given and dispute those claims if possible..

Aw Geez, not this again....

I don't know I have a feeling an actual mongol threat would have been enough to unite all of Christendom against them..much the way they were united against the muslims...it would have been interesting..

I don't know I have a feeling an actual mongol threat would have been enough to unite all of Christendom against them..much the way they were united against the muslims...it would have been interesting..
Uh... they were united against the threat and they were shaking in their boots. It was only the death of the Great Khan that stopped the Mongols from going into Europe. The armies went back home to choose the new Great Khan and forgot about Western Europe for a bit. But the few clashes there were showed that all the knights of Europe were pretty well outclassed by the Mongols.

Aw Geez, not this again....
Kat, you need the picture for that to work right. ;)

oh well..stupid mongols...thats what they get for not finishing the job...also a lot of the European castles and fortified settlements survived the mongol attacks...i wonder how that would have played out for them...

I don't know I have a feeling an actual mongol threat would have been enough to unite all of Christendom against them..much the way they were united against the muslims...it would have been interesting..

No, they weren't. Have you actually studied the crusades? The first crusade was the perverted result of Urban II's desire for a papal army, an unintended expedition as much at threat from its own fractious internal disputes as from Islamic forces.

The crusades were not a unified expression of christian opposition to the infidel; any such expression would have found a better outlet in Spain, countering the Moorish surge. As it is, they were a hotch-potch of religious zeal, financial and territorial avarice and a desire to escape limited prospects in Europe; not a unified Christian response to Johnny infidel.

Ask a Corsican if they are really part of France.

When did self-determinism matter for anything in the colonial era. He was born in French territory, ergo he was French.

No, they weren't. Have you actually studied the crusades? The first crusade was the perverted result of Urban II's desire for a papal army, an unintended expedition as much at threat from its own fractious internal disputes as from Islamic forces.

The crusades were not a unified expression of christian opposition to the infidel; any such expression would have found a better outlet in Spain, countering the Moorish surge. As it is, they were a hotch-potch of religious zeal, financial and territorial avarice and a desire to escape limited prospects in Europe; not a unified Christian response to Johnny infidel.

I wasn't getting into the nitty gritty of everything..never the less a large portion of christendom did go to fight the muslims for w/e reason...you people and you're technicalities..also don't try and belittle me...

Uh... they were united against the threat and they were shaking in their boots. It was only the death of the Great Khan that stopped the Mongols from going into Europe. The armies went back home to choose the new Great Khan and forgot about Western Europe for a bit. But the few clashes there were showed that all the knights of Europe were pretty well outclassed by the Mongols.

So they were prevented from attacking Europe by having a command system that was flawed. That's their fault and counts against them in Empire terms.

Uh... they were united against the threat and they were shaking in their boots. It was only the death of the Great Khan that stopped the Mongols from going into Europe. The armies went back home to choose the new Great Khan and forgot about Western Europe for a bit. But the few clashes there were showed that all the knights of Europe were pretty well outclassed by the Mongols.

He would have had direct competition from his fellow Khan then. Hulago Khan would arguably have marched to defend the holy cities of the Christendom. Such as Rome or Constantinople from his fellow Khans.
An interesting thing I often think is overlooked in history. Hulago Khan is also often called the forgotten Crusader. He inflicted more death and misery on all of Islam then the Crusaders in all their Crusades put together, yet he is lost in history.

Hulagu, the child of Tolui and Sorghaghtani Beki, a Christian woman, was sent by his brother Mongke (who was Great Khan from 1251-1258) to conquer or destroy the remaining Muslim states in southwestern Asia. His mother was a passionate Nestorian Christian, as was his wife, Dotuz Khatun, and his closest friend and general, Kitbuqa.
Their influence was said to have instilled in him a deep animosity against Muslims unusual for the generally tolerant Mongol Empire —along with a contrasting desire to assist Christians. He was also passionate about Persia and its culture, the reason why he became the Khan of Persia under Ilkhanate dynasty. The Persian influence was another factor that encouraged Hulagu to attack the Arabs. Hulagu always had many Persian chancellors, who wished to take revenge on the Arabs for their conquest of Persia centuries ago and also because Persia was a long time enemy of the Abassid caliphate.

He destroyed what was at the time the heart of Islamic culture. And by destroy I mean nothing left. The sack of Baghdad, which held most of the Muslim scholars, muslim art, theology and learning. Muslim historian Abdullah Wassaf claims the loss of life was several hundred thousand or more. Ian Frazier of The New Yorker estimates of the death toll have ranged from 200,000 to a million. For Islam it would be comparable to what it would be should Florence and Venice been completely eradicated with all their thinkers, citizens, artists, etc.. killed. Baghdad was a depopulated, ruined city for several centuries and only gradually recovered something of its former glory. Of all the Mongol Khans, he is, for obvious reasons, the most feared and despised.
Even today, Baghdad residence invoke Hulagu Khan's name as the war and occupation wage on. Several terrorist, militant and insurgent groups refer to U.S. President George W. Bush as a modern day Hulagu Khan.
He also destroyed the Hashishin sect (cult of assassins) which were always assassinating and plagueing the christians in the West.
And he kept marching until he reached Egypt. There he was defeated. But only because he was betrayed by the Crusaders who mistrusted his intentions despite his promising to not attack christians and sending his fellow christian general and best friend Kitbuqa to reassure the Crusaders of their intentions to defend Christians. The Crusaders allowed the Mamluk to pass through their lands, the Mongols got attacked from behind, they were routed in the battle of Ain Jalut. Hulagu was forced to retreat. Ironically the treacherous Crusaders lost their lands shortly later to the Mamluks.

Okay I would like to direct your attention to something. Go to Google then type French Military Victories then click I'm Feeling Lucky. The click on the first link you are given and dispute those claims if possible..

On that note I'd like to direct your attention to your feet on the floor. Note how they're actually on the floor and not floating above it. That's because of gravity. Gravity keeps things from floating away. So when you get out of bed in the morning and don't crash into the ceiling, don't be alarmed. That's just your friend gravity keeping you and the various particles of the Earth, from floating away into space.

You might have already known about gravity, but since you just now seem to be discovering Google, I thought I'd give you a heads up about similarly under appreciated phenomena.

P.S. When you get up in the morning and land on the floor instead of the ceiling, the reason you can see the floor is because of the light emitted by something we call the "sun."

So they were prevented from attacking Europe by having a command system that was flawed. That's their fault and counts against them in Empire terms.

Well, they ruled from eastern asia to the middle east and the only technology they had for managing that empire was horses. I'd like to see America do as well.

tisk tisk tisk... (note, sorry for any misspellings)

first, Napoloan was italian, but ethnicity. yes, he was a french citizen, but by blood, italian. Corsica had been historicaly italian for thousands of years, bascilt since rome, some italian nation had controlled it. only recently has any french dominice appeared.

next, most of the french empire was inhospitabul desert. they controlled most of the sahra, big deal. thats about it.

next, again, the normans were indead vikings. the english are saxens. big difference. normandy was given to the vikings after the french gave it to them so they would stop killing paris. afterwords, they took over england.

next, the persia of the mongul times wasn't the classic persia of xersis, not even the persia that rome//byzantium faced. but a newly incarnated islamic persian, bearly 200 some years old. plus, the main threat the monguls fought where the seljuks, turkish people.

next, most of the christian states were new, or in turmol during that time of the mongul invasion. at most, the only power strong enough would have been the holy roman empire, but she wasn't unified enough to do anything. the byzantines, who's military tradtion dates back to rome, were sadly crippled by islamic forces, thus they very well couldn't do anything. russia wasn't even a country, being fragmented, she very well couldn't do anything too. had there been a strong, unifed eastern european nation, the monguls, who would have been vastly outnumbed, would have faced an army of equal skill and probely would have lost, seeing as their supply lines were thousands of miles to the east, and without a constant supply of plunder, couldn't live off the land.


lastly, the french have lost to almost every nation in europe. the history of those lands is one of conquest anyway. really, the nation that ocupys that land is screwd. rome lost there, the franks lost there, the guals. just don't live in france unless you want to get killed.

So they were prevented from attacking Europe by having a command system that was flawed. That's their fault and counts against them in Empire terms.
Their command system wasn't so much flawed as it was dealing with much slower communications time due to the vast distances needed to be covered by horseback. Europe would have lost and lost hard.

Wwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

next, most of the christian states were new, or in turmol during that time of the mongul invasion. at most, the only power strong enough would have been the holy roman empire, but she wasn't unified enough to do anything. the byzantines, who's military tradtion dates back to rome, were sadly crippled by islamic forces, thus they very well couldn't do anything. russia wasn't even a country, being fragmented, she very well couldn't do anything too. had there been a strong, unifed eastern european nation, the monguls, who would have been vastly outnumbed, would have faced an army of equal skill and probely would have lost, seeing as their supply lines were thousands of miles to the east, and without a constant supply of plunder, couldn't live off the land.
Equal skill? Have you studied the Mongol army? One does not just march from Mongolia, taking out China, Russia, and other kingdoms without having the best army in the world. The few clashes there were, in Poland, showed just how badly outclassed the West was. The Mongols had this down to an art and were very good at it.

Sorry, but you have some wishful thinking going on there that has no historical basis. Everyone in Europe at the time was praying for some miricle to occure to keep the Mongols from reaching the Great Sea (Which was the plan, BTW) and through a stroke of luck, it happened.

He would have had direct competition from his fellow Khan then. Hulago Khan would arguably have marched to defend the holy cities of the Christendom. Such as Rome or Constantinople from his fellow Khans.
An interesting thing I often think is overlooked in history. Hulago Khan is also often called the forgotten Crusader. He inflicted more death and misery on all of Islam then the Crusaders in all their Crusades put together, yet he is lost in history.
This was a bit before his time.

tisk tisk tisk... (note, sorry for any misspellings)

first, Napoloan was italian, but ethnicity. yes, he was a french citizen, but by blood, italian. Corsica had been historicaly italian for thousands of years, bascilt since rome, some italian nation had controlled it. only recently has any french dominice appeared.

next, most of the french empire was inhospitabul desert. they controlled most of the sahra, big deal. thats about it.
Canada's hardly hugely hospitable. Yet it counted as a lot of the British empire.


next, again, the normans were indead vikings. the english are saxens. big difference. normandy was given to the vikings after the french gave it to them so they would stop killing paris. afterwords, they took over england.

The Normans hung round in France long enough to be French. By the time they invaded England they gave oaths to the French king and spoke a french dialect.


lastly, the french have lost to almost every nation in europe. the history of those lands is one of conquest anyway. really, the nation that ocupys that land is screwd. rome lost there, the franks lost there, the guals. just don't live in france unless you want to get killed.
It's Europe, almost every nation has lost a war against almost every other nation. When you're counting wars for two thousand years it's hardly surprising. Britain's been invaded a huge number of times, as have many other countries.

Funny...everyone goes on about how bad French military history supposedly is, but if you compare the two over the whole of history I'd bet money on the French doing better than the Germans. Hell, Germany was basically a French playground for centuries.

Yet somehow no one questions Germany's military credibility. Strange, ain't it.

This is so old, my grandma was still alive when people discovered it...

oh well..stupid mongols...thats what they get for not finishing the job...also a lot of the European castles and fortified settlements survived the mongol attacks...i wonder how that would have played out for them...
Pretty well for the Mongols probably. They were comfortable with seiges and brought engineers with them in battle to contruct trebuchet and other seige engines.

Regarding the French...

http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html

...that is all.

I could swear Busheviks were supposed to be praising and worshipping The New France under leadership of Dear Leader's newest buddy Sarkozy.

I could swear Busheviks were supposed to be praising and worshipping The New France under leadership of Dear Leader's newest buddy Sarkozy.

Odd your saying that. Your country's chosen name sounds vaguely French. Sure it shouldn't have been Kerriland instead? :p

Something I've never really understood is why people seem to like rubbishing the French? They are no worse than any other country.

Well the recent hate is because right-wingers are still pissed that France didn't support our "Noble Iraq War".
So they call them Surrender Monkeys.

They really blame France for surrendering in WWII when they really didn't have much of a choice.

I guess they'd perfer the French to be completely slaughtered by the Nazis instead.

had there been a strong, unifed eastern european nation, the monguls, who would have been vastly outnumbed, would have faced an army of equal skill and probely would have lost.
"To: Genghis.Khan@yurtmail.com. Subject: Re: The Big Huge Glorious Battle!!1!
Dear Genghis! Sorry to disappoint you but at the moment we are too busy hacking each other to pieces. Please come back when we are ready to fight you. We'll let you know, say, in 800 years or so.
The Europeans"

Didn't the French win the Hundred Years' War? Longest war ever, right? ;) That's an accomplishment, isn't it? :p

Funny...everyone goes on about how bad French military history supposedly is, but if you compare the two over the whole of history I'd bet money on the French doing better than the Germans. Hell, Germany was basically a French playground for centuries.

Yet somehow no one questions Germany's military credibility. Strange, ain't it.
Modern France is essentially built from the back of the Franks. Who were German.

So basically, the two are intermingled, rather a lot.

Everyone has already pointed it out, but still.



Old. Incredibly. You know about badgerbadgerbadger right?

Regarding the French...

http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html

...that is all.
I like the realism about the French, I hate the malicious bashing of Britain, which is essentially similar to the usual Bushevik 'Britons good, French bad' but in reverse.

Blech, overall.

Everyone has already pointed it out, but still.

Old. Incredibly. You know about badgerbadgerbadger right?
Actually another thread has the badgerbadger picture.
What is it the last couple of days?
First this, then the dumb, "It's cold here, so that means there's no GW" thread and lastly the badgerbadger picture.

Is there a supersecret competition where if you post the oldest, most tired internet nine-days'-wonder you win a prize?

I'm gonna make a post about 'series of tubes' next if that's the case.

You probably missed this jewel:
http://www.exile.ru/2006-December-15/war_nerd.html

While he knows a lot of facts and pieces them together in new and interesting ways, the same could be said of Irving. War nerd, indeed - or a war jerk?

Actual French Victories (http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp)

VICTORY Battle of Allia - 387 B.C.
The Gauls led by Brennus defeat the army of the Roman Republic led by Quintus Sulpicius and go on to sack Rome itself.

VICTORY Battle of Gergovia - 52 B.C.
The Gallic Tribes led by Vercingetorix defeat the Roman Republic army of Julius Caesar.

Inaccurate.

1.You cannot speak of France BEFORE the Franks (a germanic tribe) were given Gallia Transalpina.

2.Brennus and his army didn't come from Gallia Transalpina, but from Gallia CISALPINA (the Po valley).

Anyway, the rest of the page serves them French-haters well. Vive la Republique!

Okay I would like to direct your attention to something. Go to Google then type French Military Victories then click I'm Feeling Lucky. The click on the first link you are given and dispute those claims if possible..

Extremely old but still good for a rise.

I guess they'd perfer the French to be completely slaughtered by the Nazis instead.I've had Brits tell me that, actually. And not in jest.

I wonder if they ever figured out that they were not only calling the French - left with at most 20% of their army, having caused the heaviest casualties to the Germans had so far suffered, and fighting on for another month with fuck-all air support (Spitfires were needed to protect Britain, after all. The French are nice meatshields) - cowards, but the British PoWs, too... Not to mention the inhabitants of the channel islands.

Somehow I doubt it.

....fighting on for another month with fuck-all air support (Spitfires were needed to protect Britain, after all. The French are nice meatshields) ...

tbf, there were Hurricanes and Battles stationed in France - something like 30% of all RAF fighter assets IIRC - along with the native planes of the Armée de l'Air.

tbf, there were Hurricanes and Battles stationed in France - something like 30% of all RAF fighter assets IIRC - along with the native planes of the Armée de l'Air.

The Fairy Battle wasn't a fighter, it was a moving target.

tbf, there were Hurricanes and Battles stationed in France - something like 30% of all RAF fighter assets IIRC - along with the native planes of the Armée de l'Air.Yes - before Dunkirk. After Dunkirk - ending on June 3rd -, all it did was occasionally stabbing at Dunkirk, while virtually leaving the continuing French resistance (They finally signed a conditional surrender three weeks later) alone in its struggle.

This is understandable, of course - France was lost, and it'd have been insane to sacrifice the precious fighter squadrons for a lost cause, losing them in the chaos of retreat -, but bitching about the French surrender fifty years later when all the Brits did at the time was sitting in their cozy homes, watching the remains of the French army getting slaughtered, is not.

Edit: Actually, I apologize. There were British fighters over France - whenever Churchill flew over to chat with Reynaud.

Yes - before Dunkirk. After Dunkirk - ending on June 3rd -, all it did was occasionally stabbing at Dunkirk, while virtually leaving the continuing French resistance (They finally signed a conditional surrender three weeks later) alone in its struggle.

This is understandable, of course - France was lost, and it'd have been insane to sacrifice the precious fighter squadrons for a lost cause, losing them in the chaos of retreat -, but bitching about the French surrender fifty years later when all the Brits did at the time was sitting in their cozy homes, watching the remains of the French army getting slaughtered, is not.

Edit: Actually, I apologize. There were British fighters over France - whenever Churchill flew over to chat with Reynaud.

It's a historical fact that there was NO French Resistance before Dunkirk - in fact, there was not any resistance by the French, organized or otherwise until some time later, when the British SOE dropped people into France and organized and supplied it.

... You realise that I'm talking about the regular French military, and not about a guerilla movement?

If yes, you're just ignorant in the extreme. If no, your reading comprehension sucks.

Uh... they were united against the threat and they were shaking in their boots. It was only the death of the Great Khan that stopped the Mongols from going into Europe. The armies went back home to choose the new Great Khan and forgot about Western Europe for a bit. But the few clashes there were showed that all the knights of Europe were pretty well outclassed by the Mongols.

not sure how their Tatics would of fleshed out in the Western Europe with its small hedgedrowed fields and woodlands, they more than likely would have to used more foot soliders then they would of the large plains and fields of Eastern Europe and Western/Central Asia

Life in 2003 isn't so bad. How does that Iraq War pan out then?

It lasts six days, six weeks... I doubt six months.

Yes - before Dunkirk. After Dunkirk - ending on June 3rd -, all it did was occasionally stabbing at Dunkirk, while virtually leaving the continuing French resistance (They finally signed a conditional surrender three weeks later) alone in its struggle.


You missed by point somewhat, although it was somewhat obscure, I'll give you that: claiming that Spitfires were needed after Dunkirk for protection of the skies above the UK is misleading, as they had never been stationed in France.

Well, I was using 'Spitfire' synonymously with the entirety of the UK's fighter command at the time. Incorrectly, of course, but meh.

You're right, though. Your sarcasm was somewhat difficult to detect. Now, if you'd left out the hurricanes...

... The only war that the French resulted being victorious, was the French Revolution.... and this was because their enemy was also French

... The only war that the French resulted being victorious, was the French Revolution.... and this was because their enemy was also French

if you call an extremist government that loves to decapitate it's citizens a victory. Of course, the King and Queen were no better so they had Animal Farm Syndrome for a while there


Didn't the French win in 1066 though?

Actual French Victories (http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp)

This is kind of light with regard to the Roman period. Yes Gergovia was a defeat but Alesia, also in 52BC was one of the best victories any commander (Julius Caesar in this case) has ever enjoyed and as for Vercingetorix, he was taken to Rome, paraded, and ritualistically strangled.

if you call an extremist government that loves to decapitate it's citizens a victory. Of course, the King and Queen were no better so they had Animal Farm Syndrome for a while there


Didn't the French win in 1066 though?

The Normans weren't French, or at least weren't Frankish in origin, they were resident Vikings. Norman means "Northman".

not sure how their Tatics would of fleshed out in the Western Europe with its small hedgedrowed fields and woodlands, they more than likely would have to used more foot soliders then they would of the large plains and fields of Eastern Europe and Western/Central Asia
They went after and got China, which has a lack of large fields as well in many parts of that country.

The Mongols also did very good lance and footwork. We think of them only as horse mounted archers and calvalry, but they were the best equiped, and trained, army in the world at that time and they knew how to use it.

The Normans weren't French, or at least weren't Frankish in origin, they were resident Vikings. Norman means "Northman".
By that time they had taken so many French customs and language it's really hard to say they were actually Vikings in anything but name.

Don't believe me? Look how long French was spoken as the noble language in England and look how many French words have entered into the English language (Many of which still are considered much nicer, or higher class than the orginal Germanic words).

... The only war that the French resulted being victorious, was the French Revolution.... and this was because their enemy was also French

Impressive that large empire they managed to build up without ever winning a war.

list of French battles (http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp)

Respectable record IMHO.

By that time they had taken so many French customs and language it's really hard to say they were actually Vikings in anything but name.

Don't believe me? Look how long French was spoken as the noble language in England and look how many French words have entered into the English language (Many of which still are considered much nicer, or higher class than the orginal Germanic words).

yes French became the language of the upper classes and I think that you are still allowed to address parliament in Norman French (if you would care to do so). English is very much two languages in one. You could say "I ate a good meal" (Germanic verb, adjective and subject) or "I consumed a choice dinner" (Romance v, a, s). The former is regarded as simple and the latter as complex but they are the same. But the thing is, English is a strong and robust language and it re-asserted dominance.

The Normans weren't French, or at least weren't Frankish in origin, they were resident Vikings. Norman means "Northman".

Granted the nobles were. But it wasn't as if the whole area was cleared in order to make room for them.

Anyway, they're all germanic anyway (AFAIK).

But the thing is, English is a strong and robust language and it re-asserted dominance.
After about 300 years (1066 for the Norman Conquest and many linguists use the date of the Canterbury Tales [1380's] as a point when Middle English started to overcome French) and even THEN French was still used in daily life.

Hell, English didn't become the Lingua franca for diplomacy (Replacing French) until after WWI and didn't become the current world Lingua franca until after WWII.

English dominance as a language is actually pretty recent.

Hell, English didn't become the Lingua franca for diplomacy (Replacing French) until after WWI and didn't become the current world Lingua franca until after WWII.

English dominance as a language is actually pretty recent.

Which is much more in line with the impact of the United States and globalisation, than England herself. "English" had left England by then.

Hell, English didn't become the Lingua franca for diplomacy (Replacing French) until after WWI and didn't become the current world Lingua franca until after WWII.

I like the fact that English had to steal the term lingua franca.

I like the fact that English had to steal the term lingua franca.
What can be said except that the English were the world's best pirates? They stole half the world and their language stole the rest of it. ;)

Hell, English didn't become the Lingua franca for diplomacy (Replacing French) until after WWI and didn't become the current world Lingua franca until after WWII.

Well French clung on to that long after it had become anachronistic (any time after Napoleon) because people regarded French as sophisticated and The British Empire was too much of a threat to accept English as the most important language in the World. It was an artificial delay.

I like the fact that English had to steal the term lingua franca.

English borrows heavily, which is why it is more flexible than other languages. There is no English word for spaghetti. It's also why the French shouldn't be so prissy about 'le weekend' or 'le T-shirt'. English is like the Borg in Star Trek.

Which is much more in line with the impact of the United States and globalisation, than England herself. "English" had left England by then.

By then? What did the population of the Colonies/US speak up to 1941? English left England in the 11th Century and left Britain in the 16th Century. Globalisation, business and technology (Internet anyone?) undoubtedly spread English, but you also have to take into account the Anglo-Saxon reluctance to learn anybody else's language. If we were prepared to speak to people in their own language rather than force them at gun-point to speak English, we might get on with our neighbours better. Most Europeans know 3 languages and most Britons barely know English.

Impressive that large empire they managed to build up without ever winning a war.

list of French battles (http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp)

Respectable record IMHO.

That's certainly true, but lists like that don't really help. I mean, from the War of the Spanish succession you have Oudenarde, but no Ramillies or Blenheim, and you've got Trafalgar but no Nile. They're not just defeats but fairly decisive defeats. There are victories missing too, but even if they included everything there would be no weighting on the size or importance of the battles.

That's certainly true, but lists like that don't really help. I mean, from the War of the Spanish succession you have Oudenarde, but no Ramillies or Blenheim, and you've got Trafalgar but no Nile. They're not just defeats but fairly decisive defeats. There are victories missing too, but even if they included everything there would be no weighting on the size or importance of the battles.

Oh the list is flawed certainly, but when a 10 second search can throw you up lists to dispel the myth it's depressing to still see it bandied about.

Which is much more in line with the impact of the United States and globalisation, than England herself. "English" had left England by then.

I can't help it:

America was thus clearly top nation, and History came to a .

By that time they had taken so many French customs and language it's really hard to say they were actually Vikings in anything but name.

Don't believe me? Look how long French was spoken as the noble language in England and look how many French words have entered into the English language (Many of which still are considered much nicer, or higher class than the orginal Germanic words).

Read Ivanhoe. The class/language distinction is outlined quite nicely.

English borrows heavily, which is why it is more flexible than other languages. There is no English word for spaghetti.

No. 'Spaghetti' is the English word for spaghetti. That's the whole point.

No. 'Spaghetti' is the English word for spaghetti. That's the whole point.

No that is not the point. The point is that English absorbs words from other languages. 'Spaghetti' is not an English word, it is a loan word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan_words) from Italian. There was no word in English for spaghetti so we just used whatever was already being used e.g 'status quo', 'spaghetti', 'schadenfreud', 'gauche', 'souffle', et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...
Around 75% of words in the English vocabulary aren't English words at all, they've been thieved from other languages.

If you are going to pull someone up on a post, try to understand it first.

Funny...everyone goes on about how bad French military history supposedly is, but if you compare the two over the whole of history I'd bet money on the French doing better than the Germans. Hell, Germany was basically a French playground for centuries.

Yet somehow no one questions Germany's military credibility. Strange, ain't it.

Only because of recent history starting with the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 (which France started) then lost rather badly.:p
Not forgetting it took the combined efforts of France/UK/Russia (and some US help in 1918) to defeat 1 poxy little nation in WW1... then to add insult to injury, It took 6 yrs and the combined efforts of the US/USSR/UK to defeat Germany the second time around 20 yrs later.:mad:

Its a pity(and perhaps a blessing) that the UK, and Germany have never really allied themselves in war..... we'd go through the rest of europe like a dose of ex-lax:eek: