Which is the most powerefull Faction and why?

I think that you cant say that there is only 1 powerfull faction because it depends in the territory.The Egyptians for example cant fight very easily in europian soil because their units are for very big and open terrains (as they are not very heavy)so taht they can do manoeuvres and avoid the heavy infantry of the enmy.in the western Europe i think England is because they have the best archers very good foot soldiers and their cavalry is the same of the other major europian factions.in the east i think the Byzantines because they combine the mobility of the eastern forces like horse archers and light cavalry and the power of some heavy units like the Varangian guard or the Katarfracktoi.

What is for you the most powerfull?

Lichtenstein!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Lichtenstein!

---

Don´t tell...it is a secrect :listen:

But powerful where in game or in medieval history?
In game:
- England, because the creators like them,
- HRE because they are united and they have a lot of provinces at the beginning.

The HRE only have 4 provinces at the start. Austria, Bavaria, Tyrol, and the papal states. In fact I don't think any one faction in M2TW starts out with more than 5 provinces.

I think the english will be pretty powerful, due to their archers and starting position. But beyond this i dunno :dizzy2: .

Isn't it a bit early for such a general question? And basilios, how do you know what units the Egyptians will have (and their stats)? Was there a faction preview I missed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Lichtenstein!

---

Because of "Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein"? :)

As for the topic: Isn't it a tad early to start asking who the most powerful faction is? Right now, we can only speculate.

The English. CA favourises them.

And the Byzantines also...

Bartix with Uranos Death Ray!
:charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge:
:charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge:

Dont forget the Danish have very powerful units in the begining of the game. Each faction has its own strengths personally ive always like the Byzantines the most they have a well rounded unit line up.

Yes I think he just hit key point which period are you talking about.

English are good as are HRE in there own time frames. However if I had to choose times I'd pick this for following reasons

Early-Danes, and Scotts, they have some pretty hard hitting early themed infantry.

Mid-Mongols-Lots of units, just outnumber everyone.

Mid-Late-English since they have billmen and longbows. Calvary wise i'd say french or hre

Late- Turks, they have a snit load of artillery units that scare me.


Just my thoughts. Actually HRE starts off with six provinces.

Quote:

---

The Empire consists of six provinces including a town in Nuremburg, large towns in Bologna, Frankfurt and Vienna and castles at Staufen and Innsbruck.

---

-IGN

France also starts with six provinces I can see by looking at starting map. You are right in that the only four province nations are Almohads, Egypt, Turkey, and Byzantine.

Everyone else gets 2-3, cept poor denmark, scotland and milan. You all only get one :P

i think venice only gets one too. i might be mistaken...

it seems like CA likes spain

The Danes!

Annie :)

Cant really say who will be the most powerful in M2 without playing it but the Byz were probably the most powerfull M1 faction. Theyre very wealthy and have a good range of units. Usually by the time theyre units are out-dated they own most of Europe and heavily outweigh every other faction in numbers!

Quote:

---

Which is the most powerefull Faction and why?

---

...the one you are currently playing of course, as you can outthink the AI and will institute a rational building policy!!!

:beam:

Oh, and no doubt that CA favors the English - it's the typical Brit (Commonwealth) navel gazing when it comes to history.

Barkhorn.

To be fair the English Kings managed to wipe the floor with the French for several centuries, when the French were on home ground with bigger armies. Crecy, Poiters and Agincourt weren't flukes the English army was better than the French mostly because we had longbowmen and they were the medieval equivelent of machine guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aracnid

To be fair the English Kings managed to wipe the floor with the French for several centuries, when the French were on home ground with bigger armies. Crecy, Poiters and Agincourt weren't flukes the English army was better than the French mostly because we had longbowmen and they were the medieval equivelent of machine guns.

---

For several centuries? *points and laughs*

Anniep
After getting up from the floor and still laughing, LadyAnn clarifies:

The "Kings of England" are direct descendants of the Vikings, the Norman. Then they invaded England and defeated the Anglo Saxons, and William the Conqueror controlled England plus his home: Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine, Maine, Touraine. These provinces are in current France. England started off with more territories than the French Kings. And that was around 1066. In 1453, England Kings lost all territories on the continent.

The victories you mentioned were between 1337 and 1453, the Hundred Year war proper.

Now LadyAnn is a bit more calm, she concedes that yes, it was a fascinating period.

Crecy was is 1346 and there had already been several English victories before then, Poiters was in 1356 and Agincourt was in 1415. The Hundred years war was one long string of small English archers focus armies beating French cavalry armies several times their size. This trend had allready been noticable before Crecy though the difference was greatest during the hundred years war. Also France was a country of 14 million people was only 2 million people, that meant that France was a lot richer than us. The underdog won for over four centuries, from the Norman conquest to the loss of the final English footholds. The first time the English lost a land battle in the Hundred Years war was 1421 90 years after it started!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aracnid

The Hundred years war was one long string of small English archers focus armies beating French cavalry armies several times their size.

---

No, it wasn't. I agree that from 1340 (seabattle of Sluys) to 1360 (treaty of Brétigny) the English gained some great victories, even the civil war in Britanny was favourable for english armies. But in the period 1370-1380, the French under constable bertrand de Guesclin developped the right tactics to counter the English, who lost most of their conquered territories (they only held calais and a small coastal strip in aquitaine). In fact the english kings had never less territories in France during the middle ages (until 1453) than in that period. This situation continued (also due to dynastical troubles in england) until 1415, when Henry V was able to invade a torn up France (mainly due to the dynastic struggles between armagnacs and burgundians over the regency for a mad king).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aracnid

The underdog won for over four centuries, from the Norman conquest to the loss of the final English footholds. The first time the English lost a land battle in the Hundred Years war was 1421 90 years after it started!

---

Do you even know how the English gained their territories in France? Until the second quarter of the 14th century, the English didn't conquer 1 square mile of French land (OK, I may be exaggerrating a bit for dramatic purposes).
William the conqueror acquired the county of Maine by his marriage with Mathilda of Flanders. When Henry Plantagenet, count of Anjou became king of England, they gained the county of Anjou. His marriage with Eleonore of Aquitaine assured the english the control of aquitaine and Auvergne. Henry II also took control of Britanny by marrying his son to the heiress of the duchy.Not much fighting for taking control of about 50% of the French kingdom, don't you think?

OK, the English did win the Battle of Brémule in 1119 (ever heard of this one, Aracnid?), but that was a french invasion in Normandy. Richard I was also quite succesful in some small battles and skirmishes against Philip August, but when richard died in 1199, it took Philip august only 5 years to conquer Normandy, Britanny, Maine and most of Anjou. When Philip August defeated a powerful English-Flemish-German coalition in 1214 at the battle of Bouvines, and his son (the future Louis VIII) defeated another english army at the same moment, the English lost almost all of their holdings in france, except from a big part (not the whole) of Aquitaine. In 1216 the French prince Louis was even proclaimed king of England (admitted, it only lasted for 9 months). The 13th century saw a further decline of English holdings in France, and when constable Raoul de Nesle invaded Aquitaine in 1295, the English lost almost all they still had. King Edward I reacted by sending an army to Aquitaine and another one the Flanders (which was a French county, but sided with the english, due to the importance of english wool for flemish cloth industry). The army in Flanders counted approx. 7800 soldiers (of which more than 5000 welsh, mainly LBM). Both of the English armies barely saw any action, because the French armies were so powerfull that they could hold the English armies in check. In 1297 the English signed a peace aggreement with the French that was very favourable for the French. It would take until 1325 before the english could reclaim a bit of the lost territories in Aquitaine, under the leadership of Oliver Ingham. They were, however, quickly abandonned after another peace treaty with the french.
12 years later the so called 100 years war started.



Oh yeah, the most powerfull faction should be a faction with the economical means to support large, well equipped and trained armies. I think the germans, turkish and egyptians are close contenders for that. (in MTW1 I think it was spain or the byzantines). Can't say anything usefull before playing the game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aracnid

To be fair the English Kings managed to wipe the floor with the French for several centuries, when the French were on home ground with bigger armies. Crecy, Poiters and Agincourt weren't flukes the English army was better than the French mostly because we had longbowmen and they were the medieval equivelent of machine guns.

---

No, they didn't. The Hundred Year War consisted largely of skirmishes punctuated by the occasional large battle (of which you mention the most well-known) and many periods during which each side tried to catch their breath; the many skirmishes generally proved indecisive, and even the larger set-piece battles won by the English had little lasting effect due to the inability to keep an army going on the mainland. Besides, as cutepuppy pointed out the majority of english territory in modern France was acquired through hereditary claims. If anything, the main reason it took so long for the French to get their act going was because it was as much a civil war as an international war, with the king having very little central authority when compared with the english crown.

And all this is moot too, since in the end the english got kicked out anyway.

Anyway, back to the original topic.... ~;p

If we're referring to the game, then I agree with satchef1 that the Byzantines should be the most powerful faction, especially in the early part of the medieval period. They were ridiculously wealthy, owing largely to the trade and tolls that passed through Constantinople--and indeed, the "Big C" raked in copious amounts of cash in MTW once you had trade routes set up.

In addition, if their unit roster in Medieval 2 is as varied as it was in the original game, then the Byz should be well-equipped to deal with their foes on the battlefield. I didn't find their lack of gunpowder units to be much of a handicap, and you could always hire cannon crews as mercenaries in any case. Their only real tactical definciency was that they didn't have any heavy spear/pike units to counter heavy cavalry--one had to rely on either Varangian Guard units (which are very expensive), and/or Byzantine Infantry (which are pretty cheap, but require significant valour/morale upgrades to withstand heavy cav). I'm hoping that Medieval 2 will give the Byz a better anti-cavarly unit, although I'm not sure how historically accurate that would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polemists

that scare me.Everyone else gets 2-3, cept poor denmark, scotland and milan. You all only get one :P

---

No, Milan definently gets two (milan and Genoa), and I think Scotland id divided into two provinces as well.

On topic, I have to agree that England will be the strongest Western, and the Byzantines the strongest Eastern. However, I prefer to think of factions as "more challenging" and "less challenging".

First of all I am willing to admit that my pre-Hundred Years knowledge is mostly limited to what I have read in books about the Hundred Years War (i.e.scene setting). I also admit that England gained very little land via conquest, it mostly came from marriages or straight diplomatic deals though the difference between the two was zero.

I agree that big battles were rare but if you look at the big battles England won most of them. They kept losing large amounts of land because England was a poor country and quite often they couldn't afford to put an army into the field. With a few exceptions when the French managed to regain some of France it was against very light resistance, when England could afford to, or was willing to bankrupt the country in order to put a large army in the field it normally won. The lesson isn't that England was more powerful, it wasn't, it is that the English military structure/tactics were superior to the French ones.

Back to the topic - I still have a problem understanding the question which started this topic. Is it asking for:
A) The most powerful faction in M2TW we anticipate based on limited and incomplete information
B) The most powerful faction from MTW
C) What should be the most powerfulf action from a historical point of view

On A) I really cannot comment - before the release of the game anything is more or less a wild guess.

On B) - That would depend very much on the starting period and the game version. Overall, the Almohads, Byzantines (in early only though), the Turks, and the Egyptians were in a better starting position than the rest of the factions, and from the rest the English and the Spanish had a really strong starting position.

On C) - I completely disagree that the Eastern Roman Empire should be very powerful. At the end of the 11th century, it had just suffered a huge defeat from the Seljuks (not the battle itself as its consequences, which ultimately lead to the death of the Empire), the rift with the west after the Great Schism was in place (ultimately leading to the IVth Crusade), and the decline of the military system was just starting, leading to the Empire's increased reliance on mercenaries, such as the Variangian Guard. It also needs to be noted that The Eastern Roman Empire was prone to civil wars and rebellions in a manner similar to that of the HRE. Therefore I do not think that the "Byzantines" should be the most powerful faction for the start of the game - they ahd too many problems.
Actually, at about A.D. 1080 there probably was not a faction that was noticeably more powerful than the rest of the factions in the old world. The Seljuks come close, with their Great Seljuk Empire, and then the Ottomans most deffinitely became a super power, but that happened only as early as the late 14th century. The Fatimids were powerful, and the Mameluks even more powerful, but the Mameluks of course came later. The Almohads and the Almoravids - I guess if you lump them together, like the game tends to do, they should be really powerful (and indeed they were in MTW before VI). The rise of Venice was spectacular, but it too happened later. The Sicilian Normans are interesting, and I think that as far as the starting period is concerned, they most deffinitely should be one of the more powerful factions - after all the 11th and 12th centuries were their greatest period. The Spanish - Castilians and Aragonese should also be powerful, but not early in the game. The Kievans should be powerful, but so should be their closest adversaries, the Cumans, which unfortunately are not even in the game. The Poles should be a super power, but again, very late in the game.
Again, I am coming to the conclusion that the absence of periods and different starting dates takes a lot away from the game. Hopefully I am going to be proven wrong soon.

Depends on the user.

Which is the most powerful Faction and why?


SEGA.

The "why" left as an exercise for the reader. :beam:

how many provinces does England start with?

Back to topic, the russians should be mighty with their safe flanks, lots of rebel easy pickings and some nice cavalry units.

of course, when the tartars show up they will be anything but mighty for a while..

3 : Caen,nottingham,london :laugh4: :2thumbsup:

crazy, how many provinces are in the British Isles including Ireland?

7 I believe : London,Nottingham,York,Dublin,Caernarvon,Edinburgh,Inverness(top north).Scotland gets edinburgh and Inverness,England gets Nottingham and London,York and Dublin are rebel :laugh4:

they havent realised a offical list. And alot of the factions from the original medieval total war, you watch wont be included! they wont have a large collection of factions, they will be focusing on europian factions due to the big focus on the papal states and the pope. personally im gonna turn pagan and slaughter the christians! anyone know when its going to be released in Australia? i hope they remake the viknig invasion! would LOVE to see viking with proper graphics!

16 November supposedly. Treasonable in my opinion!

is going heretic/pagan a real choice, or just the preulude to a civil war that destroys your state?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faenaris

Because of "Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein"? :)

---

well im not sure if someone mentioned this before, but their is a tiny european country/kingdom, im not sure which, called lichtenstein. IIRC, it was destroyed in world war 2 or something, but it has dissappeared otherwise.

The Byzantines should, by all accounts, be one of the weaker factions. Their military was outdated, their position weak, they were suffering repercussions from the lunatic Diogenes and also the invasions of Guiscard, which had circumstantially resulted in Alexios draining his treasury to tie up the Normans.

The Seljuqs should be powerful, as should the French, I think.

Egypt was too problematic, after Shahanshah died, the place disintegrated for a while.

It truly is hard to say who will be the most powerful faction, at least until the game is finally released.

But ultimatly, the most powerful comes from being the faction that can best manage their economy and also must gain control of strategic territories that will aid in their defense.

The value of the money is self explanatory, can't afford an army worth anything without being able to pay for it, whether self built, or hired out as mercenaries.

The strategic territory will come from 1: location, an easy to defend point, or able to send troops to aid provinces/armies in trouble with ease. and 2: Providing unique resource/economic advantages to the owner that allow for more $$ or better armor/weapons.

Whoever can gain control of the $$ and the proper provinces will have the advantage when seeking to control the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoetje

Scotland gets edinburgh and Inverness

---

Scotland only gets Edinburgh. Inverness is rebel ( https://img281.imageshack.us/my.php?image=m2tw2ir0.jpg and http://www.g4mers.com/images/previews/shot_71_499.jpg )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kavhan Isbul

Isn't it a bit early for such a general question? And basilios, how do you know what units the Egyptians will have (and their stats)? Was there a faction preview I missed?

---

all you need to know is that they have longbows kinghts and deadly billmen. Man they owned in mtw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roman_man#3

well im not sure if someone mentioned this before, but their is a tiny european country/kingdom, im not sure which, called lichtenstein. IIRC, it was destroyed in world war 2 or something, but it has dissappeared otherwise.

---

Indeed, there was a small kingdom of Lichtenstein. It still exists though (it is called Liechtenstein), a small country squeezed between Austria and Switzerland. It's a bit like Monaco: small, but lots of rich people. :)

I was referring to "Sir Ulrich von Liechtenstein" because I had seen "A Knight's Tale" the night before and I was still smiling about it. A very funny movie and I had hoped some of you had recognised my reference.

I would defiantly say the Danes, they have some easy conquerable lands up north(sweden, norway) and then they have some superb infantry in the beginning and they really only have to worry about HRE in the beginning, whitch already got enough problems with other factions...DANES!!

The English are made the strongest without a doubt but we all know why. Hystorically this would be correct. also I think the Islam factions should be made strong since they were ahead of Europe at that time.

I found an interesting site showing the progress of each faction during middle age era. http://www.medievalmap.net/

I don't see why england should be the most powerfull faction. Considering the course of history, this statement is irrelevant.

I think it is mostly the case in MTW2 cause it is developped by native english speakers and their objectivity can be highly criticized on the matter. Religion focusing on catholism is as well a striking example of their lack of neutrality.

So for my part, i would say that the most powerfull faction is the one u manage to conquer the entire map with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheImp

I found an interesting site showing the progress of each faction during middle age era. http://www.medievalmap.net/

I don't see why england should be the most powerfull faction. Considering the course of history, this statement is irrelevant.

I think it is mostly the case in MTW2 cause it is developped by native english speakers and their objectivity can be highly criticized on the matter. Religion focusing on catholism is as well a striking example of their lack of neutrality.

So for my part, i would say that the most powerfull faction is the one u manage to conquer the entire map with.

---

Of course the strongest faction is the one u control. But if they were all cpu England would be the strongest since the makers of the game are biased. If we would look historically whole Europe would be pwned by Mongols etc.

Also the religion thing bugs me too.. too many catholic factions. They should've put Asia in their too. Add some nice Pagan countries from Asia wich convert to Islam in mid-age. That would give some nice strat. Especially that ur goal could be to convert them before they become Islamic and join your side. Also of course there should be Orthodox factions :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burakius

Also the religion thing bugs me too.. too many catholic factions. They should've put Asia in their too. Add some nice Pagan countries from Asia wich convert to Islam in mid-age. That would give some nice strat. Especially that ur goal could be to convert them before they become Islamic and join your side. Also of course there should be Orthodox factions :)

---

agreed

I told myself that I wouldn't reply to a thread like this until the game had been out for at least a week or so, but I couldn't resist. So without having played the game it would appear to me that the English look to be the most powerful closely being followed by the Egyptians. Both factions have solid units and have excellent starting spots. Of course I'm sure there will be several more "which faction is the most powerful" threads after the game comes out.

Looking at the starting strategic map, the Egyptians (should be called Fatimids, really), and the Seljuks have superb starting positions - plenty of rebels and easily defensible territories. Add to that the Moors. For the rest of the factions it all depends on who will be in the best position to grab more rebel lands in the hectic scramble for these, which will characterize the beginning of each game. It may turn out that there is a hidden favorite in this race, such as the Poles, the Danes or the Milanese.

England

We happened to be the only faction to have had nobles working with and encouraging the merchant instead of despising them, we had semi-proffessional armies of longbowmen and billmen commanded by dismounted knights instead of just a mass of cavalry and infantry, in Wales we built some of the finest castles in the world, our great kings like Richard the Lionheart and Henry V are names that still resonate to todays audience while who ever heard of Philip Augustus? We even burned the symbol of France Joan of Arc because not even she could stand English spear and bow for very long.

Paris itself fell to the might and right of England.

What exactly is so great about Richard the Lionheart - he led an unsuccessful crusade and was ransomed on his way back, overall spending very little time in his own kingdom?
England was great, just not in the Middle Ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius

England

We happened to be the only faction to have had nobles working with and encouraging the merchant instead of despising them, we had semi-proffessional armies of longbowmen and billmen commanded by dismounted knights instead of just a mass of cavalry and infantry, in Wales we built some of the finest castles in the world, our great kings like Richard the Lionheart and Henry V are names that still resonate to todays audience while who ever heard of Philip Augustus? We even burned the symbol of France Joan of Arc because not even she could stand English spear and bow for very long.

Paris itself fell to the might and right of England.

---

Very restrictive point of view really, as i said before: irrelevant. U seem to only compare england to france in your statement, but their were countries far much more powerfull than england in the world at this time.

If u look at this map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...pe_in_1470.PNG
English kingdom is a tiny thing really and is like a fly that could be easily smashed by muslims and eastern empires.

Oh, by the way, london itself fell to the might of France in 1066. So even your analysis of France vs England wars is biased by patriotism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheImp

Very restrictive point of view really, as i said before: irrelevant. U seem to only compare england to france in your statement, but their were countries far much more powerfull than england in the world at this time.

If u look at this map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...pe_in_1470.PNG
English kingdom is a tiny thing really and is like a fly that could be easily smashed by muslims and eastern empires.

Oh, by the way, london itself fell to the might of France in 1066. So even your analysis of France vs England wars is biased by patriotism.

---

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo

(Article by Gary Brecher)

---

Uh napoleon's Russian invasion was a failure.Even the old guard was crushed. And joan? She was a mentally disturbed szihoferic. And in the last paragraph you mentioned yourself they kicked ass against conscripted peasants and mercs. Not professional armies. And I'm not amercain. im Australian. Those websites aren't meant to be taken seriously.

That said france stills owns the us. :P Iraq taught everyone that. They couldn't conquer a backyard.

Lol I can't believe I just read that whole post, but I agree with a couple things but also disagree with most of it. Its easy to make one side look good when you point out all the victories and none of the losses. But saying the British were cowards for leaving the French in WW2 is obsurd. The Germans made a stupid mistake which gave the British their chance to go back to their own country, but they also made another stupid mistake by allowing the battle of britain to happen. I dislike how some people give the French so much credit for the surrender of Cornwalis also, yes they came to help us win the battle of yorktown , but it was the americans themselves that turned the war around without any french help. And if you really want to go as far back as the Franks why not mention Gaul also who were totally obliterated by Julius Caesar?

Yet I agree the French did their share of military victories in their time, but I dont care about the past now only the present and the French are a buncha pussies as far as I have to say right now. Their country is being overrun by muslims they mightve beaten them back in the Dark Ages but they may be outbreeded before for too long lol.

That said i shouldn't be talking Australia hardly has a military history :p anyway::hide: :focus:

Quote:

---

Tours, 732 AD: The Muslims had already taken Spain and were well on their way to taking the rest of Europe. The only power with a chance of stopping them was the French army under Charles "the Hammer" Martel, King of the Franks (French), who answered to the really cool nickname "the Hammer of God." It was the French who saved the continent's ass. All the smart money was on the Muslims: there were 60,000 of them, crazy Jihadis whose cavalry was faster and deadlier than any in Europe. The French army was heavily outnumbered and had no cavalry. Fighting in phalanxes, they held against dozens of cavalry charges and after at least two days of hand-to-hand combat, finally managed to hack their way to the Muslim center and kill their commander. The Muslims retreated to Spain, and Europe developed as an independent civilization.

---

Before the moderators purge the topic, which has gone way off hand, may I respectfully disagree with the myth about the so called saviour of Europe by the Franks (not the French, there is a difference). It was not a jihad, but for all practical purposes a raid, and I wonder about the credibility of your sources, as 60,000 seems greatly exaggerated - take one 0 off and you may be right. The real battles that determined the faith of Europe were the unsuccessful Arab siege of Constantinople in 717 and then the siege of Vienna in 1528. The skirmish of Martel's men with the Arabs hardly deserves the glory it is so often bestolen in the West.

I am by no means stating that the Franks did not have a powerful army - the Empire they built is a proof to the contrary. But the reasons for the Arabs to stop after conquering the Iberian peninsula are not in one small skirmish, but much deeper - unfacorable geography and climate, remoteness from their center of authority, etc. If someone should take the credit for stopping the Arabs, it is not the Franks, but the Eastern Roman Empire. Anything else is a Eurocentric myth.

This topic is a de-railing fast and I suggest a new thread is opened to continue this discussion. I also want to add that "the French are suckers" or "the French woop your behind" are both extremely polarised oppinions. France won battles and it lost battles. Every nation has. So, before describing a whole nation as cowards, be sure to check your sources and before you go off on a rant, also take a look at your nation's own history.

This was a post directed at nobody in particular.

Now, to get back on track: While England seems to be a definite winner, I would not rule out Novgorod. If the lands aren't dirt-poor, they can become a force to be reckoned with. It's gonna be fun to build up a "Rus" Empire. ~:)

I don't know what's wrong with u and france, ProudNerd, but it seems to be very fierce and not rationnal. If u look at the post u quoted, and the articles u gave as links, don't u see there is no real semantic link between them?

In my post, i just say that it's very restrictive to compare english warfare only with france, and that in Europe there are other countries more powerfull than england at the time. And i remind the original poster that in 1066, london lost against french armies centuries before paris.

Apart from that, i didn't bash english warfare at all. So if it pleases u to bash french history, fine, but for my part, i respect english history as much i respect my own country's history. So before overreacting like that, take a breath and try to give constructive answers to the posts, thanks.

Vlad

England taught even Saladin himself that Anglo-Welsh armies could beat anybody, the Third Crusade did not suffer a single defeat thanks to the discipline and proffessionalism of the English and Welsh soldiers and the military genious of Richard the Lionheart (Which answers the question about him, his crusade was not unsuccessful had John Lackland not tried to sieze the throne in his absence he would have continued the Crusade and retaken Jerusalem, however he understandably wished to keep his throne so chose to end the crusade in time to stop his brother).

Khavan

Much as I hate to admit it the invasion of France in 732 was a Jihad, and Charles Martel did save Europe, although in consolation for the fact that on that I must recognize something undeniable the French did I can say that the Siege of Constantinople when Leo the Isuarian stopped the Caliph's expansion also saved Europe, and saved Europe.

Horatius, I think a crusade's success should be judged on whether it accomplished its goals - which the Third one failed, completely. Unless you consider stealing Cyprus from the Greeks a success.
As for the Jihad character of the 732 Muslim incursion into France, I still have to disagree. The Muslims took the Iberian with a force composed of berbers from the Maghreb, and were successful because they were able to take full advantage of the fragmantation of the Christians on the Peninsula. Despite what many people tend to think, there was no army specially raised in Syria, Egypt and Arabia which marched all the way to the end of the known world with the sole purpose of Holy War - no such thing (granted, after the stunning initial success reinforcements from Syria arrived). The Caliph gave his approval to Musa ibn Nasir, the governor of the Maghreb, but he did not order him to go and take the Iberian peninsula. To get an idea of the small scale if this conquest, Tarif ibn Ziyad initially landed in Europe with 400 men and 100 horses. A few decades later, Muslim attacks in Frankish territory were mainly aimed at plundering convents and churches. The Mulims probably also tried to take advantage of internal disputed between the Merovingian rulers and the dukes of Aquitaine. When confronted with a serious force, in a terrain unsuited to their cavalry, the Muslims withdrew after being unable to break through the Franks' shield wall. Not exactly a Jihad. And this is confirmed by Arab historians, who consider the battle a mere skirmish (which it really was) and only give it a mention, dedicating a much more attention to the siege of Constantinople in 718.
Now the second siege of Constantinople was not a simple plundering raid and differs from the battle at Tours in many aspects. First, it was a well prepared campaign aimed at conquering the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, leading to the destruction of the Arabs' main enemy. Second, Constantinople was much closer to the Umayyad capital and home base, than the Frankish lands, and therefore much more important. Third, the Muslims at Tours knew little about the Franks and their military and tactics - they most probably did not even expect to be confronted by any serious opposition. This cannot be said about the 717-718 campaign, as it was the second siege and the Arabs knew their enemy extremely well. What they did not anticipate was the Bulgarian attack, and it was the timely arrival of the Bulgarian Khan Tervel that saved the day, and Europe consequently, perhaps even more so than the greek fire and Constantinople's impregnable walls.

One of my favourite episodes in history has to be the beginning of the reconquista (Covadonga, I think) where 300 of Pelayo's men defeat the Moorish grand army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faenaris

This topic is a de-railing fast and I suggest a new thread is opened to continue this discussion. I also want to add that "the French are suckers" or "the French woop your behind" are both extremely polarised oppinions. France won battles and it lost battles. Every nation has. So, before describing a whole nation as cowards, be sure to check your sources and before you go off on a rant, also take a look at your nation's own history.

---

Agreed; we're definitely getting off-topic here. Please dial back the nationalistic rhetoric, guys. If you can't discuss the various factions in the context of the game, then you're probably better off not saying anything at all. I realize and appreciate that many of us are passionate about certain nations/kingdoms, but this is not the place to debate them. We're here to discuss Medieval 2, a game which most of us are looking forward to with anticipation. Let *that* be our focus. :focus: ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faenaris

Now, to get back on track: While England seems to be a definite winner, I would not rule out Novgorod. If the lands aren't dirt-poor, they can become a force to be reckoned with. It's gonna be fun to build up a "Rus" Empire. ~:)

---

Yeah....until you get overrun by the Golden Horde. ~D

I'm hoping the GH provides more of a challenge this time around. They were fun to fight off in MTW, but they were still a little too easy to beat. All you had to do was inflict one major defeat, and/or kill their Khan, and they'd suddenly fall to pieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Agreed; we're definitely getting off-topic here. Please dial back the nationalistic rhetoric, guys. If you can't discuss the various factions in the context of the game, then you're probably better off not saying anything at all. I realize and appreciate that many of us are passionate about certain nations/kingdoms, but this is not the place to debate them. We're here to discuss Medieval 2, a game which most of us are looking forward to with anticipation. Let *that* be our focus. :focus: ~:grouphug:

---

:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Yeah....until you get overrun by the Golden Horde. ~D

I'm hoping the GH provides more of a challenge this time around. They were fun to fight off in MTW, but they were still a little too easy to beat. All you had to do was inflict one major defeat, and/or kill their Khan, and they'd suddenly fall to pieces.

---

But didn't the original Mongol Emprie fall apart after Genghis Khan.So wouldn't the smaller mongols fall apart when their Khan too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scourgeofrome

But didn't the original Mongol Emprie fall apart after Genghis Khan.So wouldn't the smaller mongols fall apart when their Khan too.

---

Genghis' empire didn't really fall apart per se, so much as it broke up into several smaller (but still very large) pieces. I'm no historian, however, nor am I going to debate that point at this time. ~:)

My point is that from a gameplay perspective, the Mongols were (usually) too easy to destroy. In MTW, they were too prone to falling into civil war and/or suffering mass rebellions--they were about as bad as the HRE, come to think of it! ~:rolleyes: Even if that was realistic, I would gladly have sacrificed a bit of realism in exchange for making the Golden Horde more of a challenge.

Khavan

The Third Crusade did take some pretty important ports like Acre back from the Saracens and secured the right of christians to visit the holy places in Jerusalem, and it sparked much civic pride because of incidents in the holy land such as this incident between the Welshman and the Parthian, and note this is niether the most compelling or important, and only one of many that started getting told first in Richard's Camp then in Britain, along with the stories about Richard's journey home. Also while the Third Crusade may not have entirely won, niether was it defeated, it's leader just called it off in order to defend his throne from an usurper.

The Welsh Longbowmen got aproached in battle by a Parthian who bragged to the Welshman about being the best archer in his tribe and challenged him to a duel in archery, proposing that first he gets to shoot at the Welshmen and then the Welshman gets to shoot at him. The Parthian fired first and missed and then tried to claim it was only a practice and reached for another arrow, however the Welshman asked if God willed them to cancel the duel and drew arrow and fired it into the Parthian before he could take the second shot.

On the Siege of Constantinople I agree with you up to the point about the Bulgarians. I think that the Arabs may have expected the Byzantines to get allies, however what stopped them was the leadership of Emperor Leo. The Arabs had suffered extreme casualties in their attempts at storming the walls, the besiegers were starving, dysentary was setting in at their camp while the city was well supplied, and the walls could not be breached before the invention of the cannon.

The Third Crusade was sent with one main goal - to recapture Jerusalem. Which it did not, and because of its failure the Fourth Crusade was called for only six years later.

Speaking of the Fourth Crusade, it managed to capture Constantinople without cannons. And since I was not an eyewitness of the second Umayyad siege, I will only quote the Byzantine historian Michael of Syria (not a fan of the Bulgarians, by any means) about the Bulgarian role in this siege:

Quote:

---

"The Arabs were attacked by land both by the people from the city [Constantinople] and by the Bulgars, and in the sea - by the Roman ships, and on the other side of the sea [on the coast of Asia Minor] by the Roman vanguard. They couldn't get out of the camp to a distance greater than two miles, while they were forced to search for wheat. The Bulgars attacked the Arabs and slew them; those latter [the Arabs] feared the Bulgars more than they feared the besieged Romans. The winter came, but the Arabs were afraid of retreating: first - because of their king, second - because of the sea and third - because of the Bulgars."

---

The truth is, in the Middle Ages apart from the Mongols and later the Ottomans, there was no super power with superior and unstoppable armies. And even in the case of the Mongols and the Ottomans, it was not due to some superior weapon or armor technology, but just good strategic planing and tactical execution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Genghis' empire didn't really fall apart per se, so much as it broke up into several smaller (but still very large) pieces. I'm no historian, however, nor am I going to debate that point at this time. ~:)

My point is that from a gameplay perspective, the Mongols were (usually) too easy to destroy. In MTW, they were too prone to falling into civil war and/or suffering mass rebellions--they were about as bad as the HRE, come to think of it! ~:rolleyes: Even if that was realistic, I would gladly have sacrificed a bit of realism in exchange for making the Golden Horde more of a challenge.

---

Alas, the Mongol success was not due to numbers or unbeatable troops. It was mainly due to their superior planning, tactics and logistics, and cunning - all these are qualities, in which the AI is extremely poor. I think the worst part in MTW was that even when they came with 15,000+ troops, their Khan always made a suicidal charge over a bridge and then even if the battle was lost, the rest was a matter of bribing huge stacks of rebels. In Late, when the Horde was established, it had the same problem as the HRE - too many enemies on all sides, and territories which were simply undefensible, such as Edessa and Wallachia. The way the game works, a small one province faction is much easier to play than a superpower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius

Khavan

The Third Crusade did take some pretty important ports like Acre back from the Saracens and secured the right of christians to visit the holy places in Jerusalem, and it sparked much civic pride because of incidents in the holy land such as this incident between the Welshman and the Parthian, and note this is niether the most compelling or important, and only one of many that started getting told first in Richard's Camp then in Britain, along with the stories about Richard's journey home. Also while the Third Crusade may not have entirely won, niether was it defeated, it's leader just called it off in order to defend his throne from an usurper.

The Welsh Longbowmen got aproached in battle by a Parthian who bragged to the Welshman about being the best archer in his tribe and challenged him to a duel in archery, proposing that first he gets to shoot at the Welshmen and then the Welshman gets to shoot at him. The Parthian fired first and missed and then tried to claim it was only a practice and reached for another arrow, however the Welshman asked if God willed them to cancel the duel and drew arrow and fired it into the Parthian before he could take the second shot.

On the Siege of Constantinople I agree with you up to the point about the Bulgarians. I think that the Arabs may have expected the Byzantines to get allies, however what stopped them was the leadership of Emperor Leo. The Arabs had suffered extreme casualties in their attempts at storming the walls, the besiegers were starving, dysentary was setting in at their camp while the city was well supplied, and the walls could not be breached before the invention of the cannon.

---

Thats funny. The Christians even had rights to visit Jeruzalem BEFORE the crusades dude. So giving that as a reason to attack the muslims in the middle-east is really wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProudNerd

Uh napoleon's Russian invasion was a failure.Even the old guard was crushed. And joan? She was a mentally disturbed szihoferic. And in the last paragraph you mentioned yourself they kicked ass against conscripted peasants and mercs. Not professional armies. And I'm not amercain. im Australian. Those websites aren't meant to be taken seriously.

---

frist the Napoleon failed to take Russian not because of Russian army because it won the Moskova battle but only because winter.
Second Jeanne d'Arc haven't kicked the English out of France but it was a slow reconquest of the French territory by Charles VII and the last battle of the 100 years war, the Battle of Castillon in 1453, the French army triumph of the English Army without Jeanne D'Arc.
And even if you aren't American it doesn't excuse the fact you must make some studies and make some research in historic books same for all who take seriously these rubbish French bashing sites.

And to complete the excellent list of Horatius (at least some people make studies in this forum):



If starting from the Gauls....

-Battle of the Allia (387 BCE): A Gallic force under Brennus destroys a Roman army and sacks Rome itself, leading to the destruction of all prior Roman historical records.

-Siege of Gergovia (52 BCE): Vercingetorix hands Caesar the worst defeat of his career.

(note: the Franks fall under both French and German military history since they laid the political foundations for both countries)

-Battle of Soissons (486): The Franks under Clovis I defeat the last Roman army in Gaul.

-Battle of Tolbiac (496): The Franks under Clovis I defeat the Alamanni tribe.

-Battle of Vouillé (507): The Franks under Clovis I defeat the Visigoths under Alaric II, the conqueror of Spain.

As a result of these victories, the domains of Clovis quadruple.

-Battle of Toulouse (721): The Aquitanians defeat an Islamic force, giving the Frankish Charles Martel enough time to build a veteran force and crush the Muslims at the...

-Battle of Tours (732): One of the most celebrated victories in Western history, the Franks under Charles 'the Hammer' Martel crush a large Islamic invading force. It probably did not have the enormous significance that is often claimed, but it was nonetheless a huge symbolic victory.

-Battle of Pavia (773): The Franks under Charlemagne crush the Lombards, led by their king Desiderius, in Italy.

-Saxon Campaigns (773-804): The Franks under Charlemagne repeatedly subdue over three decades of Saxon insurrections.

-Siege of Paris (885-886): With 200 men defending Paris, the Western Franks manage to halt and, when outside help arrived, defeat a Viking invasion force of 30,000.

-Battle of Hastings (1066): A Franco-Norman army under William, the Duke of Normandy, trounces an exhausted Anglo-Saxon army under King Harold. It was the last successful military invasion of England that was seriously contested. (Note: At this point, William was a vassal to the King of France and the Normans were culturally an amalgam between their Viking traditions and new-found Christian roots. Hastings, therefore, can be counted as a French military victory).

-Battle of Dorylaeum (1097): A Crusader army under various Christian leaders defeat the Seljuk Turks in modern-day Turkey.

-Battle of Ascalon (1099): A Crusader army under Godfrey de Bouillon thrashes the Fatimids just north of modern-day Gaza.

-Battle of Montgisard (1177): A Crusader army under Baldwin IV, King of Jerusalem, and Raynald de Chatillon gives Saladin the worst defeat in his military career, slaying 20,000 of his 30,000 troops.

-Battle of Bouvines (1214): About 15,000 French troops under Philippe Augustus rout a larger Flemish-German army of 25,000 led by Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV. The French suffer about 1,000 casualties while the Flemish and the Germans incur about 10,000. The struggle is often called "The battle that made modern France" because the victory undid the Anglo-German alliance and allowed France to develop independently.

-Saintonge War (1242): King Louis IX of France defeats the English at the battles of Taillebourg and Saintes, but unfortunately does not follow up these victories by annexing Guyenne.

-Hundred Years War (1337-1453): This incorrectly titled conflict witnessed four major wars between England and France in 116 years. England won two of those wars, and France won the other two. The last decisive war (roughly from 1428 to 1453) was thoroughly won by the French and ended Anglo-French military rivalry on the European continent. Some of the more prominent victories in that phase include:

-Battle of Patay (1429): A French army under Joan of Arc hands the English one of the worst defeats in their military history.

-Battle of Formigny (1451): This decisive French victory led to the recapturing of Normandy.

-Battle of Castillon (1453): The last major engagement of the Hundred Years Wars, it saw a French army triumph against an English army led by their most able commander, Sir John Talbot, who lost his life in the battle. By 1453, the only English possession in mainland France was Calais (this was given up in the 1550s).

French victories in other phases of the Hundred Years War....

-Campaigns of Bertrand du Guesclin (1370-1380): A strategy of avoiding battle with the English pays huge dividends for de Guesclin, who ends up taking back nearly all of the territory lost by the French in the first phase of the war (ended by the Treaty of Bretigny).

-Battle of La Rochelle (1372): A Franco-Castilian naval victory leads to the end of English dominance in the English Channel.

In the Italian Wars...

-Battle of Agnadello (1509): The French destroy a Venetian army. This battle marks the fall of Venice as a great power.

-Battle of Marignano (1515): In one of the most significant engagements in French military history, the French under Francis I crush the hitherto invincible Swiss pikemen. Swiss power in Italy declines.

-Battle of Ceresole (1544): The French defeat an Imperial-Spanish army in Northern Italy.

In the Thirty Years War and the Franco-Spanish War...

-Battle of Rocroi (1643): Perhaps the second most important battle in the Thirty Years War after Breitenfeld, it sees the French under the Great Condé defeat the infamous Spanish tercios. There are about 4,000 French casualties and 7,500 Spanish. The battle marks the symbolic end of Spanish power in Europe and the resurgence of the French after decades of strife in the Religious Wars during the late sixteenth century.

-Battle of Nordlingen (1645): The French defeat an Imperial army.

-Battle of Lens (1648): The French defeat an Imperial army again; instrumental in ending the Thirty Years war.

-Battle of the Dunes (1658): An Anglo-French army defeats the Spanish and concludes the Franco-Spanish War in French favor.

The Wars of Louis XIV....

-War of Devolution (1667-1668): The French capture the Spanish Netherlands and overrun the Franche-Comté in a brilliant campaign by Condé.

-Franco-Dutch War (1672-1678): Although Anglo-French naval forces were held off at sea by the brilliant Dutch Admiral Michiel de Ruyter, the French army walked all over the United Provinces, taking Maastricht after a short siege and going on to capture Utrecht as well. By the end of the conflict, the French were given the large territory of Franche-Comté from Spain.

-War of the Reunions (1683-1684): French forces easily defeat Spanish troops in the Spanish Netherlands, capturing a number of cities.

The Nine Years War was a draw and the War of the Spanish Succession was somewhat of a French defeat, but France had victories in both of them....

-Battle of Fleurus (1690): The French under Marshal Luxembourg defeat an Anglo-Dutch army.

-Battle of Beachy Head (1690): The French inflict a significant naval defeat on a combined Anglo-Dutch navy.

-Battle of Landen (1693): A French army under Marshal Luxembourg heavily defeats an Anglo-Dutch army, inflicting 19,000 casualties out of 50,000.

-Battle of Denain (1712): Marshal Villars leads French forces to victory against the impeccable Eugene. (Note: In the final phases of the War of the Spanish Succession, the French were winning in Northern Italy, having driven the Austrians out, in Spain, having captured Barcelona, and in almost all other significant theaters).

War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748)...

-Battle of Fontenoy (1745): The French under Maurice de Saxe defeat an Anglo-Austrian-Dutch-Hano verian army very severely.

-Battle of Roucoux (1746): The French under Maurice de Saxe defeat another one of those armies again.

-Battle of Lauffeld (1747): And again....

-Siege of Maastricht (1748): It all culminates in the fall of Maastricht, leaving an impressive seal on this fine campaign by Maurice de Saxe.

The Seven Years War (1756-1763) was a French defeat, but there was mild success in the European theater (victories in the North American theater will be covered in another section)...

-Battle of Hastenbeck (1757): The French defeat an English army in Germany.

American Revolutionary War (1776-1783)...

-Battle of Yorktown (1781): Franco-American forces besiege Cornwallis' army at Yorktown and force one of the most significant defeats in British military history.

-Battle of the Capes (1781): Although tactically indecisive, this naval battle was a huge strategic victory for the French as it prevented the British navy from resupplying Cornwallis.

French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802)....

-Battle of Valmy (1792): There were only 500 casualties in this battle that is noted more for its artillery duel than any actual fighting. Nevertheless, it was a huge symbolic triumph and paved the way for the formation of the First Republic two days later (September 22, 1792).

-Siege of Toulon (1793): 10 British warships go up in flames as French forces led by (later) Dugommier, who was implementing the ideas of Napoleon Bonaparte, thoroughly squash counter-revolutionary activity.

-Battle of Fleurus (1794): A French army under Jourdan inflicts a crushing defeat on the Austrians. The victory allows French forces to overrun Belgium and the Netherlands.

-First Italian Campaign (1796-1797): A whirlwind tour de force, the Army of Italy under Napoleon Bonaparte repeatedly defeats larger Austrian forces, captures Mantua, and imposes the Treaty of Campo Formio on the Habsburgs, leaving France in control of Italy. Some important victories:

-Battle of Lodi (1796): The main Austrian army manages to escape, but the French crush the Austrian rearguard, inflicting 2,000 casualties.

-Battle of Castiglione (1796): The French defeat another Austrian army.

-Battle of Arcole (1796): And another....

-Battle of Rivoli (1797): And yet another...this is Napoleon's most spectacular victory up until 1797. 17,000 French troops defeat an Austrian army of 28,000, leaving the Austrians with 14,000 casualties at the cost of just 5,000 French losses.

Campo Formio ends the First Coalition with a resounding French victory....begin War of the Second Coalition (1798-1801)....

Egyptian Campaign (1798-1799)...

-Battle of the Pyramids (1798): Western-style tactics destroy an Egyptian army led by brave but foolish mamelukes. 6,000 Egyptian casualties vs. 300 French.

-Battle of Mount Tabor (1799): French forces hovering around 2,000 crush a Turkish army of 35,000 in the Levant.

-Battle of Abukir (1799): Napoleon marches his troops back to Egypt to defeat another Turkish force at Abukir, causing the loss of the entire Turkish army which had been ferried to Egypt by the Royal Navy. At this point, both the Army of Damascus and the Army of Rhodes have been defeated by the French, leaving Egypt momentarily secure from foreign invasions.

In Europe....

-Second Battle of Zurich (1799): French forces under Massena crush a Russian army in Switzerland, turning the tide of the war.

-Battle of Marengo (1800): French troops under Napoleon inflict a narrow but sufficient defeat on the Austrians under Melas.

-Battle of Hohenlinden (1800): The French under General Moreau sharply defeat an Austrian army led by Archduke John. The threat of an advance on Vienna prompts the Habsburgs to seek another peace treaty at Luneville. 1801 is the final year of the Second Coalition, which, like the first, was heavily defeated by the French. Britain makes peace in 1802 at the Treaty of Amiens.

Napoleonic Wars (1805-1815)....

War of the Third Coalition...

Ulm Maneuver (1805): A rapid march by the French army bags an entire Austrian army under the unfortunate Mack. At 2,000 French casualties, the French capture 60,000 Austrian troops.

Battle of Austerlitz (1805): French forces under Napoleon severely rout a Russo-Austrian army of equivalent strength. 27,000 Allied casualties vs. 9,000 French. The Third Coalition ends in another spectacular French victory when Austria signs the Treaty of Pressburg on December 26, 1805.

War of the Fourth Coalition....

-Prussian Campaign (1806): The French under Napoleon inflict the worst military defeat in Prussian history. By the end of the campaign, the Prussians have lost 25,000 killed and wounded, 140,000 captured, and over 2,000 cannon. Practically all of the Prussian army has been eliminated, although a few units do survive. Some important engagements:

-Battle of Jena (1806): The French crush a Prussian army, inflicting 25,000 casualties out of 38,000.

-Battle of Auerstadt (1806): 27,000 French troops under the legendary Marshal Davout defeat a Prussian army of 63,000. The Prussians break with 13,000 casualties and 115 captured guns. It is one of the most impressive tactical victories in all of the Napoleonic Wars.

-Polish Campaign (1807): The French defeat the Russian armies that were too late to help Prussia in 1806, bringing to an end two years of bloodshed on the European continent at Tilsit.

-Battle of Friedland (1807): French forces under Napoleon trounce a Russian army led by Bennigsen. 20,000 Russian casulaties vs. 8,000 French. The enormous victory leads to the Treaty of Tilsit and leaves France as the overwhelming military power on the European continent. End of the Fourth Coalition, once again in French victory.

War of the Fifth Coalition....

-Danube Campaign (1809): After a hard fight against a much better Austrian army, the French manage to impose yet another peace treaty on Vienna by the Autumn of 1809. Significant French victories:

-Battle of Eckmuhl (1809): The French defeat an Austrian army under Archduke Charles. 12,000 Austrian casualties vs. 6,000 French. The fall of Ratisbon after this battle leads the Austrian army to flee and abandon Vienna once more to French occupation.

-Battle of Wagram (1809): French forces under Napoleon defeat the Austrians at this massive two-day battle. It is not a spectacular victory, but the Austrians sue for peace nonetheless. 32,500 French casualties vs. 40,000 Austrian losses. End of the Fifth Coalition with yet another French victory; Peace of Schonbrunn redraws map and causes loss of 3 million people to the Austrian Empire.

Peninsular War, Russian invasion, War of the Sixth Coalition, and War of the Seventh Coalition were all French defeats, but there were a few prominent French victories in them.....

-Battle of Medellin (1809): French troops under Marshal Victor crush a Spanish army under Cuesta.

-Battle of Ocana (1809): French troops under Marshal Soult rout a larger Spanish army and take control of Southern Spain.

-Battle of Borodino (1812): A very mild victory by a multi-national army under Napoleon. 30,000 French casualties vs. 45,000 Russian. Kutuzov decides to retreat after the defeat and the road to Moscow is open.

-Battle of Dresden (1813): Even though in an ultimately losing effort, this battle was one of Napoleon's greatest victories. An outnumbered French army heavily defeats an Allied army converging on Dresden; 38,000 Allied casualties vs. 10,000 French.

-Six Days Campaign (1814): Napoleon takes a miniscule French army of 30,000 and inflicts 20,000 casualties on Blucher's 100,000-strong Prussian army.

-Battle of Ligny (1815): Napoleon's last victory. It could have been more impressive were it not for incompetent staffwork. 16,000 Prussian casualties vs. 11,500 French.

Waterloo ends Napoleonic Wars....begin modern period...

-Battle of Trocadero (1823): A French army defeats Spanish liberals who refuse to make Spain a monarchy.

-Crimean War (1864-1856): French, British, Sardinian, and Ottoman armies invade the Crimea to stop possible Russian expansionism in the Mediterranean. The war ends successfully for the Allies when Sevastopol is taken.

-Battle of Malakoff (1855): The decisive attacks on the Malakoff redoubts were made by French forces. The Russian position was now hopeless. Sevastopol fell and the war ended.

-Franco-Austrian War of 1859 (also known as the Second Risorgimento War, referring to the wars for Italian independence): 130,000 French troops join 70,000 Sardinian allies in permanently ending Austrian domination of Italy. After this victory, Italy becomes an independent nation in 1861.

-Battle of Solferino (1859): A gruesome battle which inspired the founding of the International Red Cross, Solferino saw the greatest Austrian defeat of the entire war. 22,000 Austrian casualties vs. 18,000 French. Napoleon III signed the Treaty of Villafranca to end the war and gained Nice and Savoy from Sardinia as recompense for the French efforts.

-World War I (1914-1918): The greatest conflict in human history up until that time, World War I saw French armies ultimately arrayed throughout the European continent in a manner not seen since Napoleonic times, from the Rhine in Germany to Hungary in the Balkans. Important conflicts:

-First Battle of the Marne (1914): 1.2 million French and British soldiers (1.1 million were French troops) defeat 1.5 millin German soldiers. 250,000 French casualties and 250,000 German. The Marne was the largest battle in human history when it was fought. Defeat there denied the Schlieffen Plan and may have been one of the most resounding strategic triumphs of the 20th century.

-Battle of Verdun (1916): Thinking he could "bleed the French white," Falkenhayn underestimated French resistance. In this epic struggle between France and Germany, French forces regain all initially lost positions. 380,000 French casualties vs. 340,000 German.

-Second Battle of the Marne (1918): What began as a German attack was transformed into a counter-attack by one of the finest commanders in the war: Ferdinand Foch. 24 French army divisions, backed by American, British, and Italian troops, inflicted a sharp reversal on the Germans, one which began a chain reaction of Allied victories that finally ended the war. 95,000 French casualties, 13,000 British, 12,000 American, and 170,000 German.

-Balkan Offensive (1918): Mainly French and British troops, led by French general d'Esperey, one of the greatest commanders of the war, broke through and overran nearly all of the Balkans by the time the armistice was signed.

World War I ends with the Treaty of Versailles. France becomes the most powerful nation in Europe once again and retrieves Alsace-Lorraine after losing it to the German states in the Franco-Prussian War.

-Ruhr Invasion (1923): French and Belgian troops invade and occupy the western part of Germany to enforce provisions of the Versailles treaty.

World War II was ultimately a French victory, but France was not decisive in bringing about that victory. However, French arms did have glorious moments throughout the war...

-Battle of Koufra (1941): Leclerc marches French colonial troops 1,500 miles and captures the heavily-defended Italian fort of El-Tag in the Koufra oasis with just one artillery gun.

-Northern France Campaign (1944): The French 2nd Armored Division under Leclerc conducts a whirlwind tour in this campaign, saving Paris and destroying the German 9th Panzer Division. The 2nd Division inflicts casualties of 4,500 dead and wounded, 8,800 captured, and causes the loss of 118 medium and heavy German tanks. The 2nd Division eventually ends its run in Berchtesgaden, Hitler's resort town in Bavaria.

-Operation Dragoon (1944): The French First Army under Tassigny liberates Marseilles and Toulon, causing thousands of German casualties.

French military action since World War II has generally been alliance-driven. For some of the more prominent instances, look up the Suez Crisis of 1956, the Gulf War of 1991 (participation of the French 6th Light Armored Division and the French Foreign Legion), the Kosovo War (participation of the French air force), the War in Afghanistan (naval Task Force 437).

French colonial victories

In the Seven Years War (also known as the French and Indian War)....

-Battle of Carillon (1758): A French force under General Montcalm defeats a British force five times its size, inflicting 2,000 casualties.

Algerian War....

-Over 17 years, the French subdue Algeria by successively defeating a number of local warlords.

Sino-French War...

-Battle of Foochow (1884): The decisive engagement of the Sino-French War, the French destroy the Chinese navy that, ironically, they themselves had helped create. France established dominance over Indochina.

Syrian Mandate...

-Battle of Maysalun (1922): French forces easily rout a poorly-equipped Syrian army designed to prevent the mandated French takeover.

In the Ivory Coast in 2004....

-The French destroy the air force of the Ivory Coast.

The End. Once again, this list is very incomplete and certainly scores of battles and wars that have ended in victories for French peoples have either been forgotten or deliberately ignored. For example, from 1792 to 1815, French armies won 172 battles (whose names you can see in the Arc de Triomphe in Paris). Mentioning all of them would be ridiculous.

The guy that read the entire post of darsh gets a free cookie!:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoetje

The guy that read the entire post of darsh gets a free cookie!:beam:

---

Made it to the thiry years war before I got bored.Oh, and also, WHO CARES (okay,at least I don't). In my view every nation has its shining moment(s).They rise and they fall.France had shining moments,Engalnd had shining moments, and apparently even the Swiss had shining moments.

Edit:Finished Reading it.Now wheres my cookie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoetje

The guy that read the entire post of darsh gets a free cookie!:beam:

---

here with that cookie.
Just deliver it at my home, since i'm living only about 5-10km from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Agreed; we're definitely getting off-topic here. Please dial back the nationalistic rhetoric, guys. If you can't discuss the various factions in the context of the game, then you're probably better off not saying anything at all. I realize and appreciate that many of us are passionate about certain nations/kingdoms, but this is not the place to debate them. We're here to discuss Medieval 2, a game which most of us are looking forward to with anticipation. Let *that* be our focus. :focus: ~:grouphug:

---

Come on lads, it can't be that hard to stay on topic. If you want to discuss the crusades and all, please do it in another topic. You'll just get it closed and that way nobody can discuss. ~:) Like Martok said: ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Yeah....until you get overrun by the Golden Horde. ~D

I'm hoping the GH provides more of a challenge this time around. They were fun to fight off in MTW, but they were still a little too easy to beat. All you had to do was inflict one major defeat, and/or kill their Khan, and they'd suddenly fall to pieces.

---

Oops, forgot that tiny detail. ~;) Well, it depends on the number of heirs, I think. If they have a lot of family members, they won't fall apart that easily. On the other hand, the Golden Horde did "pull back" because their Khan died, so, either option is a possibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burakius

Thats funny. The Christians even had rights to visit Jeruzalem BEFORE the crusades dude. So giving that as a reason to attack the muslims in the middle-east is really wrong.

---

No they didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khavan Isbul

The Third Crusade was sent with one main goal - to recapture Jerusalem. Which it did not, and because of its failure the Fourth Crusade was called for only six years later.

---

True, but as I noted it accomplished other things, and did not fail to take Jerusalem because of Saladin's might since his army was consistently defeated by Richard's, it was because Prince John tried to usurp the throne of England.

On what you brought up on the Arabs fearing the Bulgars, yes they did fear the Bulgars who had just defeated much of their forces, however don't forget that their casualties at the city both from fighting and dysentery and starvation had taken their toll on the army. Even with their great bombards the Turkish Army at 1453 suffered from similar obstacles and very nearly lost the siege as a result, winning thanks to a lucky shot from a cannon wounding Giustiniani. The Fourth Crusade did not breach the Walls of Constantinople btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius

No they didn't.



True, but as I noted it accomplished other things, and did not fail to take Jerusalem because of Saladin's might since his army was consistently defeated by Richard's, it was because Prince John tried to usurp the throne of England.

On what you brought up on the Arabs fearing the Bulgars, yes they did fear the Bulgars who had just defeated much of their forces, however don't forget that their casualties at the city both from fighting and dysentery and starvation had taken their toll on the army. Even with their great bombards the Turkish Army at 1453 suffered from similar obstacles and very nearly lost the siege as a result, winning thanks to a lucky shot from a cannon wounding Giustiniani. The Fourth Crusade did not breach the Walls of Constantinople btw.

---

sorry dude I dont want to break your heart. And I dont know wich book you have read ( prolly a nice book published by catholics lol). But the Christians,Jews and Muslim were granted acces to Jerusalem always by the muslims. The Christians however did not when they had Jerusalem not to mention they prolly massacred the most Arabs(muslims and jews) in the neighbourhood.
In Islam you must respect other religions. So sorry but its totally not true what you are saying.

The 1st crusade was launched by the pope to capture Constantinople ( because he was afraid the Byzantines would declair independence). Hence Constantinople was sacked.

In the Second Siege of Constantinople by the Arabs, youa re right that many of them fell to hunger and illnesses. This happened, however, due to the fact that the arrival of the Bulgarians turned them from besiegers to besieged, as the were forced to dig in inside their camp and were unable to forage for food. Of course, the Arabs lost men also fighting the Romans, but it needs to be noted that the latter sallied out at the appearance of the Bulgarians, taking advantage of the opportunity to put the Arabs under attack on both sides. While this did not result in the destruction of the Arab army (which gives os an idea of its size and relative strength, as only a large and well prepared force could withstand a simultaneous attack on all sides), but inflicted heavy casualties. Still, according to the Greek chronicles, the Bulgars caused most of them.
Anyway, you claim that the Arabs would not have been able to breach the walls Bulagrians or no Bulgarians. I agree, but I pointed out the Fourth Crusade as a successfull attemopt to capture Constantinople, even though the walls were not breached. And I personally think that the role of the Ottoman artillery in 1453 is overrated - at the end, the walls feel because they were stormed (and if we believe the legend because fo the unfortunate discovery of Kerka Porta), not because a huge gap was created in them. Could the Arabs in 717 storm the walls of the Eastern Roman Capital - we can never know, but it might have been possible. The Arabs themselves and Emperor Leo most certainly thought so - otherwise the former would have never attempted the siege in the first place (it was not their first attempt), and the latter would not have given large land accessions to the Bulgarian Khan, if he did not consider his help absolutely necessary.

Now back to the topic - while some factions should indeed get a better starting position than others, overall there should not be a super power in the game, i.e. a faction that is simply much stronger than the rest, due to strategic position, troop roster, etc. When reading some posts here, one can remain with the impression that in the Middle Ages the English had simply unstoppable armies, which marched all over Europe and simply slaughtered millions of enemies with a combination of cyborg longbowmen, billmen, mounted and dismounted knights. In reality, the English took forever to subdue little Scotland to their north, experienced difficulties in Wales, and all their continental endevours failed, the end of the Middle Ages seeing the English hold on only to the British Islands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burakius

And I dont know wich book you have read ( prolly a nice book published by catholics lol).

---

If nobody else notices the irony of that comment I will be amazed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burakius

But the Christians,Jews and Muslim were granted acces to Jerusalem always by the muslims.

---

That simply is not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burakius

The Christians however did not when they had Jerusalem

---

Please inform these two very famous Jews who actually lived at the time Benjamin of Tudela and Maimonides that they got stopped from entering Jerusalem, contrary to what they recorded, along with the famed Arab Historian Umar who also lived at the time that his incident involving the Templars protecting him as he prayed in Jerusalem also never happened and that he must have been lying to posterity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burakius

not to mention they prolly massacred the most Arabs(muslims and jews) in the neighbourhood.

---

They did massacre much of the population when they took the city, that is what happened when a Medieval City or Castle ressisted to the very end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burakius

In Islam you must respect other religions. So sorry but its totally not true what you are saying.

---

In other words you have your head in the sand about Medieval History and refuse to acknowedge any wrong not done by Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burakius

The 1st crusade was launched by the pope to capture Constantinople ( because he was afraid the Byzantines would declair independence). Hence Constantinople was sacked.

---

ROFL, please leave the history debate to people who know history in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khavan

This happened, however, due to the fact that the arrival of the Bulgarians turned them from besiegers to besieged, as the were forced to dig in inside their camp and were unable to forage for food. Of course, the Arabs lost men also fighting the Romans, but it needs to be noted that the latter sallied out at the appearance of the Bulgarians, taking advantage of the opportunity to put the Arabs under attack on both sides. While this did not result in the destruction of the Arab army (which gives os an idea of its size and relative strength, as only a large and well prepared force could withstand a simultaneous attack on all sides), but inflicted heavy casualties. Still, according to the Greek chronicles, the Bulgars caused most of them.

---

I agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khavan

And I personally think that the role of the Ottoman artillery in 1453 is overrated - at the end, the walls feel because they were stormed (and if we believe the legend because fo the unfortunate discovery of Kerka Porta), not because a huge gap was created in them.

---

On that I disagree since had Giovani Giustiniani not been wounded by cannon fire and needed urgent care for his wound the defence would not have began panicking which is why the Jannisaries managed to break through while the other types of forces sent got repulsed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khavan

Could the Arabs in 717 storm the walls of the Eastern Roman Capital - we can never know, but it might have been possible. The Arabs themselves and Emperor Leo most certainly thought so - otherwise the former would have never attempted the siege in the first place (it was not their first attempt), and the latter would not have given large land accessions to the Bulgarian Khan, if he did not consider his help absolutely necessary.

---

It may have been possible, but not a given since the Emperor Leo commanded a much greater force then Constantine did at the siege.