View Full Version : The Ultimate French Failure!
Megas Methuselah
03-13-2009, 10:13
Remember that old joke? You know: "The French would rather eat and make love with their faces than fight." Yeah, the old stereotypical cowardly French.
Well, guess what just happened!!
I was fightin a 2v2 battle on mp and, to make a long story short, it ended up being a very balanced battle. GB (me), Prussia vs Austria and France. However, the Austrians and French ended up winning the ensuing melee by a very small margin. My entire army broke, but while I was being forgotten, a battered unit of 9 artillerymen reformed a pathetically small line.
So, the French and Austrians finish off my Prussian ally, then notice my artillerymen manning their mortars on the other side of the map. So, to end the game quickly, they charge their survivors across the map to take me out.
A 40-or-so man unit of French line infantry, backed up by an artillery unit less than half that size finally reached me well before their Austrian allies did. They were all that the French had left. However, my mortars wouldn't fire, as the horses musta ran off with the ammo or something. So here I am, groaning at my inevitable defeat. My ally and I were counting on one shot from my mortar to rout the French, who were thoroughly exhausted from their long run.
In exasperation, I charged my 9-man unit of artillery at the French. I was cursing the horses for routing with the mortar ammo when I noticed, amazingly enough, my 9 artillerymen quickly routed 50-60 French soldiers in the melee following a ridiculously pitiful charge! WTH?!?!?!?! I couldn't stop laughing! :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Then a much larger unit of Austrian line infantry charged and slaughtered my remaining 2 artillerymen. It was a good battle and, excluding the French (who's general, coincidentally, was the only one to not die fighting. He routed early), everyone fought bravely.
Don't laugh with the french :furious3:
just type in Google french military victories and then press I'm feeling Lucky
apologizes to everyone whose french or none french and finds this offensive
Sir Beane
03-13-2009, 11:49
Don't laugh with the french :furious3:
just type in Google french military victories and then press I'm feeling Lucky
apologizes to everyone whose french or none french and finds this offensive
Thats pretty silly though really. France has won as many if not more victories than most other European nations. It's onlry recently that they have been beaten in combat.
Those French soldiers clearly thought that the artillery men had something up there sleeve, and legged it before they could find out your cunning plan.
"No one could be stupid enough to attack with 9 men... it must be a trap!"
Maleficus
03-13-2009, 11:57
It's onlry recently that they have been beaten in combat.
I would remind you, good sir:
Battle of Agincourt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt)
Battle of Crecy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_crecy)
Battle of Poitiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers_(1356))
Battle of Pavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pavia)
Sir Beane
03-13-2009, 12:02
I would remind you, good sir:
Battle of Agincourt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt)
Battle of Crecy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_crecy)
Battle of Poitiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers_(1356))
Battle of Pavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pavia)
Yes they lost a couple of battles, but they probably won as many as they lost. You'll notice that despite the so called poor military of the French Britain was eventually driven right out of France, and never managed to take any of it again. Then look at the rampage Napoleon went on. He was so succesful that certain rulers dubbed him the anti-christ.
I think it was on QI (a sough of urban-myth busting program for those who haven't seen it) where they looked at the ratio of wins to losses and found that France actually have one of the best records of a European country.
Maleficus
03-13-2009, 12:07
Yes they lost a couple of battles, but they probably won as many as they lost. You'll notice that despite the so called poor military of the French Britain was eventually driven right out of France, and never managed to take any of it again. Then look at the rampage Napoleon went on. He was so succesful that certain rulers dubbed him the anti-christ.
On the other hand, if Henry V had managed to live a few months longer he would've been king of France too.
Napoleon was an exception to the rule. Praising the French military on the basis of Napoleon's successes is like saying Macedonia have a tremendous military record just because they were top for a decade or so under Alexander.
Besides, even Bonaparte couldn't beat the good ol' Duke of Wellington.....
Originally posted by Maleficus
I would remind you, good sir:
Battle of Agincourt
Battle of Crecy
Battle of Poitiers
Battle of Pavia
Judging the performance of a nation in war is somewhat innapropriate, especially between completely different eras - things depend on circumstances, numbers, resources, technologies available, wealth and assistance from allies/other powers in the struggle.
In the medieval times the English Military was quite small but professional and effective, while the French one was large in numbers but was lacking good leadership and organisation.
However, smart commanders and strategists like Bertrand Du Guesclin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_du_Guesclin), bypassed completely the enemy strengths (the longbows) because the English tactics were static and reactive by nature - they demanded the enemy to attack. Guesclin didnt gave battle often, and when he did he made sure that the conditions fully favored the French armies. He played on the French strengths; that is the vastness of the land and French numbers that meant the English could not maintain sieges (that were essential in winning as otherwise proper control of the land could not be established) for too long. This is what gave rise to their raiding strategy - the dreaded English Chevauche.
Guesclin often defeated them without even giving battle or in ambushes (in a memorable encounter he even caught them off guard by a noisy ambush (he had trumpeteers blowing as the cavalry charged) that came while the English sieging army was... admiring a bunch of French peasant girls asked to stroll by the other side of the ambush on purpose). Now all this doesnt sound the heroic, manly way to fight wars - but it was smart and effective and it paid dividens for France at the time.
Agincourt, Crecy and Poitiers are indeed great and crushing victories - and there were many minor ones too for the English armies of the time. French Voctories however did also take place and although some were not less great, they are far less trumpeted, especially by English-speaking people, Say for example the battle of Patay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay), were the inspirational guidance of Jean D Arc actually caught the lonbows off guard and the French Knights charge devatsted them giving a swift and crushing defeat for the English for almost nil French casualties (3? IIRC), the lonbowman corps of whom never recovered its strength since (as it took a long time to train men to use the longbow).
By the end of the 100 years war the English army was becoming obsolete, while the French army by comparison was *modernised* in structure, organisation, doctrine and equipment.
Napoleon was an exception to the rule. Praising the French military on the basis of Napoleon's successes is like saying Macedonia have a tremendous military record just because they were top for a decade or so under Alexander.
Besides, even Bonaparte couldn't beat the good ol' Duke of Wellington.....
There is no comparison between Napoleon and Wellington in military achievements and insights. Napoleon is up there with the greats, if not the greatest of them - while Wellington was an averagely good commander that gets his fame primarily for... having beat Napoleon once under the conditions that he did beat him. World history has also judged Napoleon thus - except perhaps English history.
:bow:
Strategy
03-13-2009, 12:57
Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Bertrand du Guesclin, The Great Conde, Vicomte du Turenne, Vauban, Claude Louis Hector de Villars, Maurice de Saxe, The Marquis de la Fayette (whom, at least, Americans should know)...
Is Napoleon an exception to the rule? I suppose Massena, Davout, Desaix, Soult, etc., etc., etc. must be exceptions to the same rule. Continuing on, what about Jean-Baptiste Estienne (father of the Tank) and Ferdinand Foch?
The Google search thing has long since gone beyond funny to being just plain stupid and ignorant.
That google search joke is indeed retarded, my orginal answer used to be :
Try and type ' american idiot ' and watch getting thousands of hits. But I won't because it's retarded.
AussieGiant
03-13-2009, 14:24
Yes indeedy,
the myopic view of a few individuals, based on the last 80 years, should do nothing to deter those French who know and love the previous 1400 years of history in which gore, guts and not less that a few major ass kicking’s make up a pretty good set of success stories.
:balloon2:
Do the French get their 'cowardly' reputation from World War 2? They seem to be really good up to that point.
AussieGiant
03-13-2009, 14:32
Do the French get their 'cowardly' reputation from World War 2? They seem to be really good up to that point.
spot on dopp, up until then, the French were a bunch of fairly aggressive blood thirsty chaps.
I'd describe them as a mixed bag of results though...
...a couple of periods of outstandingly successful savagery in the middle ages and the time of Napoleon, spread amongst some down periods of average success :balloon2:
Maleficus
03-13-2009, 14:34
There is no comparison between Napoleon and Wellington in military achievements and insights.
I didn't say there was.
I said Wellington beat Napoleon and that is fact, not opinion.
Oleander Ardens
03-13-2009, 14:41
Battle_of_Formigny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Formigny)
Battle_of_Castillon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castillon)
Battle_of_Patay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay)
Battle_of_Bauge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bauge)
Looks like the English did a good deal of running too.
In WWII the British got just as hammered as the French by the brilliant German offensives with inferior forces (expect the airforce) The only big difference was that they got bugger off to an Island to fight another day and most French forces could not. Every major British victory against German forces after the airbattle over Britain (arguably with odds on the British side) is down to massive amounts of material, men and most of all huge allies. Among them the small Free French forces you did well.
AussieGiant
03-13-2009, 14:43
There you go guys. Things seem to be getting a little more balanced now. :laugh4:
Maleficus
03-13-2009, 14:53
Don't laugh with the french
just type in Google french military victories and then press I'm feeling Lucky
apologizes to everyone whose french or none french and finds this offensive
Today 09:13
I tried the google search, just to see what happened. TBH, even I expected more than this:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue3/barilan.fig2.jpg
Well, Britain also did a lot of 'running away' in WW2. In Asia, I found that Britain (surprise, surprise) has the reputation for poor fighting spirit, after some really bad defeats in Burma and Malaya during WW2. Is the pot calling the kettle black?
I think the main point is that the British did considerably better than the french throughout pretty much every period in history, 100 years war anyone?..... :juggle2:
Maleficus
03-13-2009, 15:05
I think the main point is that the British did considerably better than the french throughout pretty much every period in history, 100 years war anyone?..... :juggle2:
I'd keep quiet about that one if I were you. Yeah, Henry was named heir to the French throne, but he died first and it was all downhill from there......
*Quickly references peninsular war. Hopes no one notices*
until they got back to the top of the hill again am i right?...
Originally posted by Maleficus
I didn't say there was.
I said Wellington beat Napoleon and that is fact, not opinion.
Originally posted by gollum
There is no comparison between Napoleon and Wellington in military achievements and insights. Napoleon is up there with the greats, if not the greatest of them - while Wellington was an averagely good commander that gets his fame primarily for... having beat Napoleon once under the conditions that he did beat him. World history has also judged Napoleon thus - except perhaps English history.
Please make sure you read my posts next time you reply to them. Thanks.
Anyway the demographics of this thread shows who is who and why who is what.
Dearest Brits, its Friday and its getting pub time so lets all drink to your lovely country and your brave people - but without nationalistic prides involved please.
:medievalcheers:
:bow:
Maleficus
03-13-2009, 15:14
until they got back to the top of the hill again am i right?...
Not really. We kicked their arses all over the place for a while, culminating in King Henry being promised the French throne so long as he could outlive King Charles. Unfortunately, some pesky French chef (probably) fed Henry some dodgy eggs.
Anyway, the French got damn lucky because Henry died (of dyssentry) only a few months before Charles did (of I'm not sure what, possibly old age, I can't be bothered to check right now).
So the English throne passed to Henry VI who was a baby and so unable (and later unwilling) to fight himself.
The French had some good luck, the English had some bad luck. Before you know it England's holdings in France were reduced to Calais.
We didn't really give them a good kicking again until the 1750's when we booted them out of Canada.
Not really. We kicked their arses all over the place for a while, culminating in King Henry being promised the French throne so long as he could outlive King Charles. Unfortunately, some pesky French chef (probably) fed Henry some dodgy eggs.
Anyway, the French got damn lucky because Henry died (of dyssentry) only a few months before Charles did (of I'm not sure what, possibly old age, I can't be bothered to check right now).
So the English throne passed to Henry VI who was a baby and so unable (and later unwilling) to fight himself.
The French had some good luck, the English had some bad luck. Before you know it England's holdings in France were reduced to Calais.
We didn't really give them a good kicking again until the 1750's when we booted them out of Canada.
My point being that it wasn't all "downhill" from there as you said. as we went to shape the world as we know it.
All this is besides the point anyway, the french get their bad name as "cheese eating surrender monkeys" because they promptly surrendered and collaborated with the Germans early in WW2 :thumbsdown:
We may have beat a retreat from a few fights in our time but never in our own back yard.
I think the main point is that the British did considerably better than the french throughout pretty much every period in history, 100 years war anyone?..... :juggle2:
Not really. Britain and its various peoples have spent the majority of known history as a backwater on the peripheral of the major European power of the time. For all of the English military successes during the hundred years war, it still ended with the French ascendant on the stage of European affairs and England reduced to a minor power for the next several centuries.
Meneldil
03-13-2009, 15:38
I would remind you, good sir:
Battle of Agincourt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt)
Battle of Crecy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_crecy)
Battle of Poitiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers_(1356))
Battle of Pavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pavia)
OMG WAIT, no other country/kingdom/dukedom lost battles during the middle age, right?
I could list as many battles won by French people, and that still wouldn't change the fact that from 1204 to 1940, France had been the most feared, and arguably the most powerful European country, and kicked pretty much everybody's ass at some point.
Probably, there must have been a reason to this.
The reason France lost some battles/wars badly is because the country has been chronically led by conservatives people, who were reluctant to use any modern doctrine/strategy (ie. heavy knights charges during most of the HYW, defensive trench warfare during WW2), and often divided on a domestic level (it was true during the HYW, but also during WW2).
And Napoleon isn't the only successful french general. I suggest you read a few history books before posting such things.
So yeah, linking a few different battles before saying 'lol dude the french r suxxorz' make you look bad.
Not really. Britain and its various peoples have spent the majority of known history as a backwater on the peripheral of the major European power of the time. For all of the English military successes during the hundred years war, it still ended with the French ascendant on the stage of European affairs and England reduced to a minor power for the next several centuries.
delicious sour grapes
Maleficus
03-13-2009, 15:40
Is Napoleon an exception to the rule? I suppose Massena, Davout, Desaix, Soult, etc., etc., etc. must be exceptions to the same rule.
That'd be the same Massena Wellesley beat at Fuentes de Onoro, would it?
And Soult, who lost at Grijo, Porto, Sorauren, Nivelle, Nive and Orthez? Wow, he must have been good!
Being a patriot is a good thing - being stubborn and one-sided is not. Have it your way.
:balloon2:
Meneldil
03-13-2009, 15:52
All this is besides the point anyway, the french get their bad name as "cheese eating surrender monkeys" because they promptly surrendered and collaborated with the Germans early in WW2
We may have beat a retreat from a few fights in our time but never in our own back yard.
Surely, being on an Island, with huge colonies to fight for you (hint: India), might help, right? If you still think nowadays that the British Isles have never been invaded (on a serious scale) since the early middle-age because of some inherent british awesomeness, well, that's good for you.
delicious sour grapes
England indeed became a minor European power after the HYW (mostly because of the internal divisions that followed the war), and it took quite some time for it to regain her former rank.
That'd be the same Massena Wellesley beat at Fuentes de Onoro, would it?
The fact he lost some battles doesn't make him any less successful. And, dear god, even some anglo-saxon historians regard him as one of the best military leader of the era.
Anyway, glad to see that British nationalists look as funny now as they did 100-200 years ago :2thumbsup: Do you still think of Napoleon as a baby-eating ogre?
Being a patriot is a good thing - being stubborn and one-sided is not. Have it your way.
:balloon2:
~:cheers:~:cheers:~:cheers:~:cheers:~:grouphug:~:grouphug:~:grouphug:
you were right earlier, 'tis friday!!!
AussieGiant
03-13-2009, 15:57
As soon as a mod gets around to this thread it's going to get chopped.
Everyone should begin to focus on the wine and beer about to flow in everyone's respective countries.:clown:
Prodigal
03-13-2009, 16:02
Couple of things to throw into the mix. WW1 first of all, some argue the British push was forced due to the fact someone had to distract the Germans while the French army was having a mutiny.
Burma, that was a fighting retreat, the longest in British military history, true they were hammered but after reaching India they promptly went straight out on the attack again...With it all ending at Kohima, which was where 3500 troops stopped 15000 & the Japanese were forced to retreat. So to sum up the Burma retreat saved India & ended with the defeat the Japanese army, not to shoddy :inquisitive:
Originally posted by 0rly?
you were right earlier, 'tis friday!!!
Bottoms-up ladies!
~:cheers:
I remember our peasants gave the French knights a whooping in 1302. :whip:
Those where good times :2thumbsup:
A Very Super Market
03-13-2009, 16:06
The French fought competently after 1942. Juin, and Leclerc come to mind...
I tried the google search, just to see what happened. TBH, even I expected more than this:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue3/barilan.fig2.jpg
did you click on the link that comes up?
That said not shure why they got the name of being cowards, maybe because they didn't help the Americans much during the independence war
Meneldil
03-13-2009, 16:09
I don't have wine. Living in Ontario, I have to go to state-licensed stores to buy (not that good) wine.
I guess that's a pain I must go through, since my cowardly ancestors abandonned the beautiful landscapes of Nouvelle-France to the pesky jelly-eating brits. Darn you Louis XIV :clown:
Oh well, I'll get some local beer and will start cursing in English, pretending to be a good ol' Canadian of British origins, despite my 'horrendous accent*'. Pfff, working behind the enemy's lines isn't as easy as I expected.
Originally posted by Meneldil
I guess that's a pain I must go through, since my cowardly ancestors abandonned the beautiful landscapes of Nouvelle-France to the pesky jelly-eating brits. Darn you Louis XIV
Dear me - distributing (some serious) historical responsibilities, are we? :laugh4:
As soon as a mod gets around to this thread it's going to get chopped.
Everyone should begin to focus on the wine and beer about to flow in everyone's respective countries.:clown:
You can't moderate this thread, there's nothing wrong with a bit of banter, if anything it perfectly illustrates the love/hate relationship we built up with the french over the centuries. We were great allies after all our wars
Prodigal
03-13-2009, 16:15
I don't have wine. Living in Ontario, I have to go to state-licensed stores to buy (not that good) wine.
I guess that's a pain I must go through, since my cowardly ancestors abandonned the beautiful landscapes of Nouvelle-France to the pesky jelly-eating brits. Darn you Louis XIV :clown:
DON'T FALL FOR IT! Wine is an Roman mind trick used to keep everyone drunk & happy. :hippie:
Originally posted by 0rly?
You can't moderate this thread, there's nothing wrong with a bit of banter, if anything it perfectly illustrates the love/hate relationship we built up with the french over the centuries. We were great allies after all our wars
The world is full of such relationships - the French and the English, the Japanese and the Koreans, the Greeks and the Turks, the Americans and everyone else... :laugh4:
They turn only a bit problematic when the love bit is put aside and the hate bit becomes dominant...
There is no epic of war that can compete with the epic of peace... keep it secret - keep it safe.
Maleficus
03-13-2009, 16:37
As soon as a mod gets around to this thread it's going to get chopped.
That'd probably be a good thing, TBH. What was a legitimate historical debate is quickly descending into a gauntlet of mildly xenophobic one-upsmanship. :no:
I know I've participated in this farce as much as anyone, but it should probably be stopped before someone says something we all regret.
Besides which, this forum's supposed to be about Total War, not who can say 'surrender' in the most languages :beam:
Originally posted by Maleficus
Besides which, this forum's supposed to be about Total War, not who can say 'surrender' in the most languages
:laugh4: - indeed, however its about this
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/etwmp
kind of Total War.
Please come and join the fun online btw!
~:cheers:
Maleficus
03-13-2009, 16:49
Please come and join the fun online btw!
I will when I can work out how.
As it stands, I can't figure out how to change my Steam name (It didn't let me choose it myself, is that normal?) and Steam also won't let me change my pic.
Maleficus,
I suggest you either post a thread in the redoubt or private message (pm) Tomisama the Assistant Moderator there. He is an excellent, most agreeable and knowledgeable veteran mp fellow that will help you with that and any other querries you might have about Steam, ETW mp and TW mp in general.
:bow:
Maleficus
03-13-2009, 16:57
Will do.
:2thumbsup:
Thanks.
Greyblades
03-13-2009, 16:58
To put it bluntly: England split France down the middle in the medieval period. The French only managed to land in West Ireland during the Irish rebellion and were kicked out within a year.
I was going make a long post with historical references and link to outside website but i'm not gonna bother and just say this: what kind of history books they sell in UK?
OT : I've notice that French line infantry have high melee value(10) low defense value (13) and low moral value (9). They got good offensive value for a charge but are bit dependant on having a good general to boost their moral. Witch is kinda historical i believe.
UK line infantry (8/15/10) is more stand and fire type of infantry and less dependent on good general.
I've also noted that in melee the fight are always done 1vs1 witch is silly and explain how 9 guys could defeat 40, no bayonette in the back.
Greyblades
03-13-2009, 17:02
Britain at the time was a quality over quantity nation, so those stats are kind of justified.
dobredev
03-13-2009, 17:07
i think soo
Greyblades
03-13-2009, 17:08
Edit: Never mind he's an advertiser.
quality over quantity.
EUIII player hey?
Yes, i agree that the stats are justified as it reflect UK doctrine of using fire rather than charge to archive victory in battle.
And their training and drills were of superior quality.
Edit: Never mind he's an advertiser. ... ditto
Greyblades
03-13-2009, 17:14
I havent played that game. Its just a trend that Britain has been doing for centuries; Being a Island, sucessfully fighting off Superpowers and all.
sucessfully fighting off Superpowers and all.
Using Scottish , Irish, Canadian and Australian troops.
Greyblades
03-13-2009, 17:40
...no They certainly didnt use exclusively foreign troops to fight the spanish and french.
JeromeBaker
03-13-2009, 17:40
Do the French get their 'cowardly' reputation from World War 2? They seem to be really good up to that point.
I tend to think they got the bad reputation from WW2. Also, De Gaul (spelling?) carried an air of arrogance with him when France was being rebuilt. Of course, I understand this arrogance becuase he was trying to make a nation feel strong and proud again. On the flip side, it annoyed a lot of people. This lead to the French are arrogant and quick to surrender story being spread. Obviously for France to be a country for as long as they have and where they are located they have a pretty good millitary tradition over the course of history.
We shall fwee...Wodewick
03-13-2009, 17:55
My 2 pence(now you know which side I'm on:clown:)
I don't care about the nationalistic crap, the French were among the strongest land force for the majority of this Millennia and Napoleon was one of the greatest commanders of all-time.
However, I fail to see how this detracts from Wellington. The Iron Duke didn't just win one battle and become a brilliant general, he did it in the peninsular wars, time after time defeating the French in Spain. In fact he never lost an engagement to the French army and in 1813-4 invaded southern France.
And then at Waterloo he still held off Napoleon and cracked the famed Imperial Guard to round up the defeat, but this was not a British victory, as many of the men were Dutch, Belgian, and German(1/3 were Germans) and only 25,000 were well trained men. To say he lacked skill was to belittle his achievements, because he was never in the position of Napoleon to march on Russia(Napoleon disobeyed the first rule of war here). In fact, the only time he was in command of the huge armies to which Napoleon fought with was Waterloo.
We shall fwee...Wodewick
03-13-2009, 17:58
Using Scottish , Irish, Canadian and Australian troops.
Britain used Scottish and Irish troops and still do as they are part of the same nation! The UK, and how is using these troops different then say Roman auxiliaries or allied troops? The majority of men in Roman armies weren't Roman yet that doesn't mean their achievements are any less.
and on a lighter note, Wellington got his own piece by Beethoven!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kYHsHFRFxQ
Yikes. I go to sleep for a few hours, and this happens. Seeing that the thread long since ran off the rails, I'd say it's done. :bow:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.