I found who wrote this: Don’t open this at workEHOWA What did I tell you?
It’s a match! Every word is the same. Jingoistic pseudo porn site versus France, the nation.
For those who think that it’s insulting to dismiss a hundred thousand US casualties in WWI, I’d suggest that it’s insulting to suggest that the American military contribution to WWI was significant, in light of statistics such as this:
% of pre war population killed during the Great War
France - 11%
Great Britain - 8%
United States - 0.37%
Cite
It’s incredibly insulting to the Europeans who fought in the Great War to insist that the American effort was the decisive factor. That is not to diminish the memory of those Americans who did fall in battle, but it has to be kept in perspective.
Eh, okay.
But first a general comment. Y’know if someone I know that I knew for a fact knows better were to make a list like this off the cuff as a joke, I’d probably be amused. However seeing it just sitting out there from a stranger it annoys me. Because bad history annoys me, especially when it reinforces silly stereotypes. All national stereotypes get my goat, I suppose. Well except for the Dutch - Those tulip-hawking, clog-wearing, below-sea-level-living degenerates deserve all the abuse they get ( kidding, kidding 
).
Really it is the historical inaccuracies in stuff like this that annoy me, though. And that I’m afraid is just pure geeky pedantry asserting itself.
Anyway…
There was neither “France”, “French” nor “Italians” in any sense at this point, so we can dismiss this one as being irrelevant.
France can probably only be considered French in any modern sense post-Charlemagne ( which, yes, means that the French don’t get credit for his conquests ). Both Charlemagne and his Merovingian Frank predecessors were essentially Germanic rulers. It is only in the generations after the partition of the Carolingian empire after Charlemagne’s death, that a concept of France as a geographic and ( still rather loose ) national identity began to solidify.
Italy was used as a geographic descriptor rather earlier. Still, the Romans of Caesar’s time didn’t consider themselves “Italians”, but Latins - Just one of the Italic tribes of the penninsula.
Ignores the fact that the French did win in the end. Despite such well-known and crushing defeats as Crecy, Maupertuis ( Poitiers ), and Agincourt, it was the French who won the final major battles of the war at Formigny in 1450 and Castillon in 1453 that ended with every English continental possesion except Calais being lost. Or in other words the English ended up with less than they had started with.
Beyond that it is worth noting that before the Hundred Years War was launched in 1337, English ( or rather the Angevin ) domains on the continent had been shrinking steadily since the ascension of Philip II Augustus to the throne of France in 1180. Between 1202-1204 Philip conquered northen France from John ‘Lackland’ ( so-called because the French king deprived him of his fiefs ) of England, a feat that was confirmed by John and his allies’ defeat at the Battle of the Bouvines in 1214. Louis VIII ( 1223-1226 ) took Poitou and Saintonge from the English. Louis IX ( St. Louis, 1226-1270 - who to be fair was less successful in the Holy Land ) and Philip III the Bold ( 1270-1285 ) gained further concessions. Philip IV was less successful ( conquered Guyenne from England 1294-1296, but forced to disgorge it eventually by Edward I ), all in all a draw. Finally in the decade immediately preceding the start of the HYW, Charles IV ( 1322-1328 ) invaded Guyenne again, this time eventually forcing the English to cede a further couple of districts and pay a large indemnity. By 1337, English fortunes on the continent were at a low ebb.
First, we’ll dismiss the unkind crack about Italians. For one thing France wasn’t fighting only the Italians. Often the Italians were mere spectators. Sometimes allies. And usually France was fighting half of Europe.
WAR #1 ( sort of - actually two )
1rst phase: Charles VIII of France, invited in by Milan, quickly conquered most of Italy in 1494 ( Florence, Rome, Genoa, Naples ) in a brilliant campaign. However Milan changed its tune and formed a grand alliance consisting of it, Venice, Aragon, England, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Pope and forced him to retreat. Weakened by disease, the French still managed to outmaneouvre a League army three times its size at the Battle of Fornovo, as Charles made a fighting retreat. Though badly cut up, he was planning a new campaign when he suddenly died.
2nd phase: Louis XII renewed the war, taking Milan and Genoa, dividing Italy with Spain ( Naples to Spain ) by agreement. They then fell out and 1502-1504 the Spanish gained the upper hand. However the status quo prevailed in 1505 ( France kept Milan and Genoa, Spain kept Naples ).
3rd phase: France was drawn in again in 1508 by Pope Julius, as they joined an alliance ( with Spain and the HRE ) against Venice. France promptly beat Venice at the Battle of Agnadello (1509 ), but then the Pope made peace with the now weakened Venice ( loss of Romagna ) and seeking to consolidate his authority in Italy and counteract a overpowerful France formed the Holy League with England, Spain, Venice, the HRE, and the Swiss in 1510. The Swiss were the heavy lifters, eventually defeating the French at Guinegate, storming Milan ( in 1512 ), and beating the French again at Novara in 1513. However Francis I ( 1515-1547 ) turned it around again by smashing the Swiss at Marignano in 1515, which led to the end of the war and the confirmation of France’s claim on Milan in 1516.
break
WAR #2 ( actually four )
1521-1526 - Charles V ( Holy Roman Emperor, king of Spain, the Low Countries, the gold and silver-rich New World and through his brother Austria and Bohemia, and eventually much of Italy ) against Francis I. Ends with massive French defeat at Pavia in 1525 and France gives up Italian possesions. Further wars between Francis and Charles - 1526-1529 w/Pope, Milan, Genoa, and Florence on French side, 1536-1538 w/the Ottomans supporting France ( sort of ), and 1542-1544, were all indecisive and pretty much confirmed the aftermath of Pavia.
So final tally - France utimately won the “first” war - They gained considerable valuable real estate. They lost the “second”, losing considerable valuable real estate. But all of this while usually fighting half of Europe. Not too shabby, really.
I will note in passing that Charles V’s final war with France ( 1552-1556 ) was pretty much a failure, but his son Philip II won in his ( 1556-1559 ), gaining the Franche Comte ( Peace of Cateau-Cambresis ). Obviously Charles V’s reign was the beginning of Spain’s ‘Golden Age’ as Europe’s dominant power.
Too lengthy to go into in detail, but the Hugenot Wars of 1562-1598 were a see-sawing affair. However French beating French ( on either side ) is no particular indictment of the French and the Peace of Vervin in 1598 that terminated Spanish interference in France, followed a thrashing of the Spanish at the hands of Henry IV of Navarre ( a brilliant general who fought on both sides ) in a war between 1595-1598.
At any rate as Duke pointed out things ultimately didn’t turn out that great for the Huguenots. The Edict of Nantes in 1598 gave them freedom of worship, but Cardinal Richelieu broke them at the Peace of Alais in 1629 ( loss of political power ) and the Edict of Nantes was revoked in 1685. Most Huguenots eventually fled France.
France was not involved in the early phase of the fighting, but it was a major bankroller of Sweden by the middle and a major combatant by the end. Indeed, France was THE biggest winner in the Thirty Years War, which fatally weakened Germany and the Hapsburgs and left France united, with expanded borders, and the greatest continental power in Europe. As far as battles went, it was France that put the finishing touch on Spain’s collapse as a great power and won one of the two battles that doomed the Imperial cause, when the Duc d’ Enghien shattered the main Spanish army ( a little larger than his ) at Rocroi in 1643 ( Sweden under Torstensson finished the job in the East with victory over the Imperial army at Jankau in 1645 )
Actually, no. France won militarily, capturing the Spanish Netherlands. Louis XIV just quickly decided to negotiate a peace, keeping Flanders and returning the rest, rather than bother engaging the newly formed Triple Alliance of England, Netherlands, and Sweden. All in all, a very short war ( 1667-1668 ), which netted some quick and easy gains for France.
This is pretty close to true and actually I’d give this one to the Dutch ( over BOTH England and France, who were allied for once ). France absolutely shattered the Dutch lines in 1672, but the deliberate creation of a flooded water defense and De Ruyter’s brilliant admiralship saved the day in 1673. France rebounded briefly with a victory at Mont Cassel in 1677 and the final battle at Mons in 1678 was indecisive. But ultimately France gained nothing from the fighting.
Tie, pretty much. The English ( despite an early loss at Beachy Head ) mostly won at sea, the New World struggle stalemated, and France was mostly victorious on continental Europe ( at Fleurus, at Steenkerke and Neerwinden over William I/III of England/Orange, at Marsaglia over Savoy ).
Not so fast on this one, either. Who ended up on the Spanish throne :)? A Bourbon. France was mostly on the losing side of the big battles in this one, 'tis true ( a few minor victories like at Cassano and Denain aside ), though Malplaquet in particular was a particularly ambiguous battle ( Marlborough and Eugene lost twice as many casualties as the French and were checked strategically ). But France was up against two of the great military geniuses of history and actually faired surprisingly well. Mostly the war ended in a balance of power, with a loosening of Louis XIV’s hegemony, but still preserving his dominant status. The other ( perhaps bigger ) loser in concrete terms were the Austrian Hapsburgs who were forced to cede Spain to the Burbon line and end the war reluctantly after their allies deserted them by signing the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.
Silly. Obviously this was a sideshow for France. Still, the Revolution was a positive in that it hurt Britain.
Err…Yes. Rather like the Huguenot Wars on the whole ( Spanish and English interference notwithstanding ).
Correct. After conquering Europe and wracking up more victories than one can easily recall.
Actually…Not going to argue this one. France was steam-rollered, pure and simple. A VERY one-sided war.
Already being debated. I’ll leave this one for the wolves to sort out.
Yep. Pretty much, Horst Wessel aside. This of course is the grand font from which all this “the French are cowards” stuff emerges.
Yes and no. Dien Bien Phu was an unmitigated disaster - That is true. But France was not at the end of its strength by any means and earlier ( 1951 ) de Lattre de Tassigny had shown the French could crush the Viet Minh in combat, under the right circumstances. This was more a “cutting of losses” move in the face of an unwinnable war, just as the U.S. and U.S.S.R. would later do and was in part inspired by the growing tension in Algeria, which the French were more concerned with holding.
But I think a case can certainly be made that it was a real military defeat.
How quickly they forget al Kasr El Kebir.
But anyway - Rather more ambiguous. The French campaign was costly - some 12,000 dead, 25,000 wounded ( just noting the French military casualties here - Algerian losses were in the hundreds of thousands, maybe a million ), but mostly seems to have been “winning”, though at an appalling cost in not only men and money, but also any moral authority. Again, it was a cutting of losses issue.
Okay, now my fingers are tired. Criticisms welcome, but be wary that this doesn’t become one of those civil Great Debates ;).
- Tamerlane
Great post, Tamerlane. Five stars.
Holy. Florking. Schnit.
Tamerlane, I am in awe. That was amazing. Don’t tell me you did this off the top of your head. 'Cause if you did, I’m going to shoot myself now. 
I mean, geez, he even remembered De Ruyter, wow.
Well…since you obviously know more than me about french history, I’m not going to discuss most of what you wrote, but something is intriguing me.
Concrening the Revolution wars, you wrote :
And concerning the Napoleonic wars :
**
What I’m wondering about is your definition of “revolution wars”. For me, though they included the crushing of many civil unrests and local revolts, (but actual civil war was essentially limited to western France), the revolution wars are mostly the wars fought under the constitutionnal monarchy, the 1st republic and the directory, against other european powers, essentially Austria-Hungary and Prussia, and to a more limited extend the UK, the Netherlands and Spain, and waged by such generals as Dumouriez, Moreau, Kleber, Hoche, Marceau… (who were killed or betrayed or were sent to retirement when Bonaparte seized the power) and eventually of course Bonaparte himself.
The napoleonic wars would be logically the wars fought after Napoleon’s coup.
So, the disctinction you’re making, by reducing the “revolution wars” to a kind of civil war seems very weird to me. Do you include for instance the declaration of war France made in 1792 against the Austrian empire, when Louis XVI was still the head of state and Bonaparte a totally unknown artillery lieutnant, in the “Napoleonic wars”?
Sadly Tamerlane, the people who really could do with reading your post are going to ignore it so they can continue their vendetta against the French.
No crime in that. Thanks.
Well, it’s not like we’ve been all that much better off military-wise. We joined in at the tail end of WWI, did pretty damn well for ourselves in WWII (but sure wouldn’t have without massive European contributions), fought to a stalemate in Korea, got our collective ass handed to us in Vietnam, and then beat the shit out of a bunch of tiny defenseless nations. And none of this was on our home turf, so we didn’t have to worry half as much about things like defending our civillians/cities and whatnot. Big fucking deal.
Frankly, I don’t see why Europe should listen to us. After all, we’ve never successfully burned their capitols to the ground (see: 1812). Hell, we get so caught up fighting amonst ourselves that we’ve killed more of our own soldiers in one day (Sharpsburg) than were killed in whole other wars.
Fuck it, I’m sick of this French-bashing bullshit. The French don’t hate Americans; they hate asshole Americans, who seem to multiply every day. When my father was living in France, he was personally thanked for the US effort in WWII…even though he hadn’t even been born by 1945.
Europe should listen to the US for the same reasons the US should listen to Europe: because we’re allies. Neither should try to force the other, though.
Oh, and please don’t try to prove you CAN burn our capital cities down. We’ll take your word for it. 
I thought he got the name “Lackland” because, when Henry was forced by their revolt to title his sons, Richard got Normandy and Gascony, Geoffery got Brittany, and John got bupkis.
And also the Anglo-Afghan wars, which pretty definately counts as a defeat of a European power by a non Turkish Muslim power.
My god…all this argument when the real enemy is ON OUR BORDERS
CANADIANS!!!
Fear the maple leaf and their skewing of the letter o!
-This proceeding message brought to you by the DAAAL (Drunk Americans against Avril Lavinge)
You are absolutely correct clairobscur. Sloppy of me, really. I made the distinction because the post I was quoting did and just followed along with that “French vs. French” line to reinforce my earlier point about the Huguenots ( which really was an internal war, despite the interference of England and Spain at various points ).
But yes, the better reply would have been to note that France succcessfully fought off numerous attacks by Austria, Prussia, England, the Netherlands, Hanover, etc.
Starting the Napoleonic period with Napoleon’s coup is perfectly reasonable. I will say though, that in terms of purely military history I tend to reach back a little earlier to include to those wars where France had shifted to the offensive and he was the primary commander, as in the Italian and Egyptian campaigns.
- Tamerlane
Captain Amazing: You too, are correct ( Re: ‘Lackland’ ). I had always just assumed it was Philip II’s declaration stripping him of his rights to his French possesions, but a moment’s check shows that I am wrong.
I stand humiliated :D.
Coldfire: Wellllll…I might have popped open a book or two - Jonathn Israel’s The Dutch Republic:Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806 ( 1995, Oxford University Press ), being among them ;).
- Tamerlane
No, wait, stop the presses!
We’re both wrong. Appartenly he was ‘Lackland’ because as the fourth ( to survive past childhood ) son, he didn’t inherit any lands at birth, though he was eventually given some later by his father. Sort of a “Blackadder” figure, really :).
- Tamerlane
The Dutch Republic only fell in favour of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Everybody knows that.
Somebody has got to fight the Good Fight.
Just to back up the French a little bit, the First Crusade (1095-1099) was, while an international effort, composed of a large number of French knights and led by several important French commanders, principally Godfrey of Bouillon, and Robert of Normandy (eldest son of William the Conqueror). The Crusaders took large amounts of territory, culminating in the conquest of Jerusalem and the establishment of western government, which while eventually reconquered by Muslims, were in place for decades. Jerusalem itself didn’t fall until 1187, almost 100 years later. Of course, the Crusades were horribly bloody and vindictive on the parts of all the participants, but War is Hell, after all.
Although there were many valid rebuttals posted in response to my ill-conceived cut and paste of an OP, I would like to thank you, Tamerlane, in particular for your post in particular. (NO sarcasm intended, VERY informative post)
Point taken. And by my post count, there’s no way you, or anyone, could have known that I posted it because it amused me, not because I thought it historically accurate. (and yes, I will stand and take the flames because it amused me)
[side note]
I would like to know the individual responsible for the idea of opening the dikes during the Dutch wars of 1672-1678- brilliantly simple idea.
[side note]
At any rate, my lesson learned is:
Never, ever, post without stating, emphatically, that the post is meant tongue in cheek, and NOT meant to be a factual historical treatise.
And now, may this post die it’s ignoble death?
Stranger OUT