Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 22nd, 2015, 04:54 PM   #71

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,433

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
The British army was certainly big enough by 1916....and in 1918 it beat the German army and won the war
Only in histories written in the UK and the US and with a heavily patriotic attitude...

The British DIDN'T win the fighting in the Spring Offensive. The German offensive was ONLY stopped when Foch committed the Supreme Allied Reserve, largely French troops to the Amiens sector which finally brought that offensive to a halt...

The basic outline of the plan for the 100 Days Offensive was also put down by Foch, not Haig, and French troops did contribute heavily to the offensive. And took about 20,000 fewer casualties than the British did in the offensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
French soldiers fought bravely as always but their army didn't win any significant offensive battles
The First Battle of the Marne was an offensive action, as the French counterattacked the Germans there...

From roughly August to December 1916, the French were on the offensive near Verdun and pushed the Germans back before the 1916 battle ended.

In the fall of 1917 Petain launched a series of attacks in the Verdun sector of the line, all against Hindenburg line and won while taking fewer losses than the Germans.

And the 279,000 casualties taken in the 100 Days Offensive would also disagree with you.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 22nd, 2015, 04:58 PM   #72

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,433

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Yes, for long periods, Napoleon won glory for himself and France but the fact remains that it all ended in total defeat - twice
But it wasn't continuous warfare in 1 war. Following the Treaty of Tilset, the fighting in Europe could have technically been OVER if Napoleon could have handled his diplomacy better.

Yes in the end the French lost the Napoleonic Wars, but you're treating as if they were one singular war. In reality they were SEVERAL wars that ran one after the other and most due to poor diplomacy on Napoleon's part that has little relevance to its military reputation.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2015, 05:10 PM   #73

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,433

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
But really their army was pummeled by the Germans until it mutinied and refused to carry out further offensive actions
The Battle of La Malmaison was an offensive action at the tail end of the Nivelle Offensive in 1917. It occurred after the mutiny and note that the French WON this battle. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_La_Malmaison

They were also involved in the 100 Days Offensive as well. The notion that they weren't involved is entirely the result of English speaking historians who either didn't/couldn't gain access to French records or had no intention of crediting the French for anything to make the British look better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
The British won the war in the West in 1918...the French were exhausted
The 433,000 casualties taken in the Spring Offensive and the 279,000 taken in the Spring Offensive would disagree with you. If the French were exhausted they would have surrendered the moment the Spring Offensive began. But they didn't... in fact in the 100 Days Offensive, there were more French troops than any other Allied nation.

France had taken a pounding... but they were far from being as broken as you make them out to be.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2015, 05:11 PM   #74
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,412

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
...the basic outline of the plan for the 100 Days Offensive was also put down by Foch, not Haig...
"...the British Army had also been reinforced by large numbers of troops returned from the Sinai and Palestine Campaign and Italy and large numbers of replacements previously held back in Britain...

...a number of proposals were considered and finally Foch agreed on a proposal by Field Marshal Douglas Haig to strike on the River Somme, east of Amiens and south-west of the 1916 battlefield of the Battle of the Somme...
"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive


Quote:
...and French troops did contribute heavily to the offensive. And took about 20,000 fewer casualties than the British did in the offensive....

Meaning they were much less active than the British forces


Quote:
...the First Battle of the Marne was an offensive action, as the French counterattacked the Germans there...

A counter attack is a defensive action
Poly is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2015, 05:12 PM   #75
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,412

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
But it wasn't continuous warfare in 1 war. Following the Treaty of Tilset, the fighting in Europe could have technically been OVER if Napoleon could have handled his diplomacy better.

Yes in the end the French lost the Napoleonic Wars, but you're treating as if they were one singular war. In reality they were SEVERAL wars that ran one after the other and most due to poor diplomacy on Napoleon's part that has little relevance to its military reputation.

Historians often state France beat England in the Hundred Years War but state that the Napoleonic Wars (of much shorter duration) were a series of different wars

Which is it ?
Poly is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2015, 05:15 PM   #76
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,412

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
...the 433,000 casualties taken in the Spring Offensive and the 279,000 taken in the Spring Offensive would disagree with you. If the French were exhausted they would have surrendered the moment the Spring Offensive began. But they didn't... in fact in the 100 Days Offensive, there were more French troops than any other Allied nation.

France had taken a pounding... but they were far from being as broken as you make them out to be.

High casualties can often signal a beaten army


The point is that in August 1918, Britain still had the power and the will to take the fight to Germany and would have invaded Germany had the Germans not surrounded
Poly is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2015, 05:34 PM   #77

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,433

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
"...the British Army had also been reinforced by large numbers of troops returned from the Sinai and Palestine Campaign and Italy and large numbers of replacements previously held back in Britain...

...a number of proposals were considered and finally Foch agreed on a proposal by Field Marshal Douglas Haig to strike on the River Somme, east of Amiens and south-west of the 1916 battlefield of the Battle of the Somme...
"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive
Which probably means that Haig's proposal fit into Foch's intended plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Meaning they were much less active than the British forces
Or did so with better skill than the British...
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2015, 05:37 PM   #78
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,412

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
Which probably means that Haig's proposal fit into Foch's intended plan....

So it was Haig's plan....not Foch's as was claimed ?

...but you're right, it was what Foch wanted to do anyway so really it was his plan


Quote:
...or did so with better skill than the British...

Or perhaps their body armor was much better
Poly is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2015, 05:37 PM   #79

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,433

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Historians often state France beat England in the Hundred Years War but state that the Napoleonic Wars (of much shorter duration) were a series of different wars

Which is it ?
I'm not familiar with the 100 Years War... but breaking up the war(s) would then depend on whether or not there was any agreement between the two sides...

Many of the wars against Napoleon included one or more members of the coalition being defeated and the War of the 4th Coalition had a treaty at its end.

If the 100 Years War had similar actions, I would view it in the same light as the Napoleonic Wars... a collection of wars over that time period.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old December 22nd, 2015, 05:39 PM   #80

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,433

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
High casualties can often signal a beaten army


The point is that in August 1918, Britain still had the power and the will to take the fight to Germany and would have invaded Germany had the Germans not surrounded
And so had the French. France had over 2 million men in the 100 Days Offensive. The British had just under 2 million men.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
bit, french, fun, funny, make, military



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How NOT to make an argument about military history thegreatamphian War and Military History 21 January 15th, 2015 08:40 AM
Funny Sayings of Short-sighted People crossroadclarence General History 27 September 8th, 2011 08:48 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.