Joined Jul 2018
590 Posts | 247+
Hong Kong
Is France the most successful military power in European history ?
- Thread starter KurwaGoy
- Start date
Counting battle victories as proof for overall military success is taking the quantitative approach too far. By that measure Carthage must have won the Second Punic War, since Hannibal won all battles against the Romans except one.
France won the Hundred Years War, although it lost the majority of all engagements, including most major battles. This was even more the case in WW II where the Wehrmacht handed France defeats almost at will.
France won the Hundred Years War, although it lost the majority of all engagements, including most major battles. This was even more the case in WW II where the Wehrmacht handed France defeats almost at will.
Joined Dec 2016
1,944 Posts | 830+
UK
Joined May 2014
31,535 Posts | 3,565+
SoCal
Winning battles but not wars means that one might be good at tactics but not at strategy, no? I previously posted an article in another thread about the German way of war and about how the Germans frequently won battles but failed to translate that into actually winning wars in the World Wars.
Joined May 2014
31,535 Posts | 3,565+
SoCal
Here's this article, BTW:
Oh I don't know... Taking the quantitative approach it seems to come out as 31 English victories to 27 French, and the French won almost every engagement from 1428, the Siege of Orléans, and out, including the major battles of Formigny, Patay and Castillon, after which the war ended since it was clearly hopeless for the English to continue to pursue.
Are these battles anywhere up in terms of historical recognition with the English victories at Crécy, Agincourt or Poitiers? One way is to have a look at the number of Wikipedia language versions:
Major English victories:
Battle of Agincourt - Wikipedia 54
Battle of Crécy - Wikipedia 47
Battle of Poitiers - Wikipedia 46
Your Major French victories:
Battle of Castillon - Wikipedia 28
Battle of Patay - Wikipedia 25
Battle of Formigny - Wikipedia 20
Joined May 2014
31,535 Posts | 3,565+
SoCal
But one could dismiss this as Wikipedia simply having an Anglosphere bias. So, of course more Wikipedias are going to have articles about battles that portray the English in a favorable light than about battles that portray the "cheese-eating surrender monkey" French in a favorable light:
Cheese-eating surrender monkeys - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Yes, well, that just illustrates the extent to which the English victories have been talked up, and the French ones relatively ignored. Not least in the English language historiography. And it's also to an extent an artefact of how the internet works, not so much history.
It's a thing that modern Frenchmen don't really spend a lot of time regurgitating it's historic beef with the English. The British relatively do. (Viz. Brexit...) Some conservative French politicians have occasionally expressed dismay at this state of affairs, like Sarkozy, expressing a desire the French express a similar preoccupation with military history and imperial glory as the British.
But they don't. And really, it's not a matter of not having the material to construct a similarly self-congratulating narrative for the French (which this thread has gone some way to adress already). They just tend not to, relatively.
Joined Mar 2018
7,171 Posts | 8,202+
Inside a Heighliner
Eh, I'm not so sure I agree. The English are probably more likely to bring up individual battles, but the French are probably more likely to bring up the 100 years war as a whole. I think the main difference is the English bring up these things either as a joke, or as crash nationalism. In France, it's seen as a sophisticated thing to do - proof that you are cultured enough to know your history.
For the record, I'm equally French as British, depending on how you count background vs upbringing, friends vs family, and birth vs schooling.
A joke? what´s a battle? only 488? In WW2, WW1, Coalitions Wars, Seccesion Wars etc etc they were thousands and thousands.... so... why 488? Why not 23.984?
Who said what´s a battle and what not? Who said what´s to win a battle? what´s losing a battle?
Joined Feb 2019
4,409 Posts | 3,607+
Serbia
Just because English victories have Wikipedia articles in more languages does not make French victories less important. Jena-Auerstedt Campaign has only 4 books in English written on it compared to dozens in French and German, it does not make the campaign any less worthy of study or diminishes its effect on history.
Joined Feb 2019
4,409 Posts | 3,607+
Serbia
That channel is amateurish and the person who runs it has done very limited research, by his own admission he chiefly relies on Wikipedia. That being said, his videos are not accurate at all and the way he counts ''battles'' is extremely dubious, just watch his video on 100 greatest generals.
Why nobody want to count battle to battle, context by context....numbers, figures etc etc.... If 100.000 fought again 1 and the latter lost after 100 days battles... who is the best? So.. But what the hell do some think history is? A soccer game?
only 988 battles are nothing.. only in Russian Front in 1914-1918 or in 1941-1945 they were hundreds of thousands of battles....or in Western Front in 1914-1918 etc etc the same in Vietnam War....great fun to see jingoism against nationalism...even more so when this fun soccer game .. doesn't lead anywhere ..
To begin with, there was no one hunderd year war... as much as talking about a war of the Reconquista in Spain. simply.. it doesn´t exit! what somebody hera call "100 year war!" or "Reconquista"....
They are false, manipulated concepts that did not exist and that were created by 19th Century romanticism and nationalism ... Joan of Arc or the Black Prince (another invented name that did not exist in history) were neither contemporaries, nor did they fight in The same war, and the 100 year War soldiers, they never said to themselves as "veterans from One Hundred Year War) ... and no one until the 19th century believed such nonsense ...
They were a set of wars not between France and England but between two kings who wore the crown of France, each of them with various international supports: Burgundy, Aragon, Castile, Portugal, etc etc
only 988 battles are nothing.. only in Russian Front in 1914-1918 or in 1941-1945 they were hundreds of thousands of battles....or in Western Front in 1914-1918 etc etc the same in Vietnam War....great fun to see jingoism against nationalism...even more so when this fun soccer game .. doesn't lead anywhere ..
To begin with, there was no one hunderd year war... as much as talking about a war of the Reconquista in Spain. simply.. it doesn´t exit! what somebody hera call "100 year war!" or "Reconquista"....
They are false, manipulated concepts that did not exist and that were created by 19th Century romanticism and nationalism ... Joan of Arc or the Black Prince (another invented name that did not exist in history) were neither contemporaries, nor did they fight in The same war, and the 100 year War soldiers, they never said to themselves as "veterans from One Hundred Year War) ... and no one until the 19th century believed such nonsense ...
They were a set of wars not between France and England but between two kings who wore the crown of France, each of them with various international supports: Burgundy, Aragon, Castile, Portugal, etc etc
Well, you know, humour is something very insidious. Just because the English might frame it as a joke doesn't mean it's not important. The French tendency to use it as a sign of erudition makes it a MUCH more marginal and less important phenomenon, I'd say.
Joined Mar 2018
7,171 Posts | 8,202+
Inside a Heighliner
Well, you know, humour is something very insidious. Just because the English might frame it as a joke doesn't mean it's not important. The French tendency to use it as a sign of erudition makes it a MUCH more marginal and less important phenomenon, I'd say.
Perhaps. Or it means that while there is more social importance in Britain attached to being funny than erudite, and the opposite is true in France? Or rather, that that is true out of the people I happen to known in Britain vs France.
Could be, but the fact is that France and the French and war really is common coinage for jokes, stand-up comedy routines, sit-coms etc. in the UK – which I have never found in the same way in France. It has broad popular appeal.
I mean, this can be a bestseller in the UK. In France the inverse might be... an academic treatise?
Joined Nov 2010
1,982 Posts | 607+
Bordeaux
Last edited:
Couldn't agree more.
During my eight years in the UK, I was astounded and fascinated to see how much the Brits are "obsessed" with the French on so many levels.
I used to tell my British friends that "if we frogs didn't exist, you'd be bored. Your comedians, tabloids and media in general wouldn't have much to talk about!"
The other funny thing to notice is that many Brits are convinced the French are obsessed with Britain as much as they themselves are of France. Only, the French are not. It felt like the Brits always had something to prove or justify in the comparison to the French, a really interesting behaviour as a subject of social studies
Britain is very seldom a topic in French comedy (French comedy is rubbish anyway) and overall rarely the target of jokes, deriding comments and so on.
Actually, Britain is seldom a topic in France in general.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-