France's Glorious Military History

Mar 2016
878
Australia
#63
Guff without relevance or foundation. Noise. Address arguments not people.
I did address your argument that people deciding which military is better is biased by either racism or nationalism, by pointing out that neither of those had played any factor in this thread. If you aren't willing to defend an accusation of a character flaw you imply others possess, perhaps don't make the accusation in the first place?
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,663
#64
I did address your argument that people deciding which military is better is biased by either racism or nationalism, by pointing out that neither of those had played any factor in this thread. If you aren't willing to defend an accusation of a character flaw you imply others possess, perhaps don't make the accusation in the first place?
I Never said anyone in the thread did. I never said it was occurring on the thread. Why defend oneself for making accusation that I clearly did not make, You just constructing a strawman position for me that is not one I made.

However people often do have racial or nationalist bias is such matters. That's all I said. Whats your claim that people anywhere NEVER do?

Otherwise you are simply agreeing with me and just seeking to construct an argument entire with foundatiojn or relevance as I said originally.

NO you did not adress argument you made up something totally irrelevant and not soimething I said.

baseless without foundation, irrelevant guff.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,663
#66
So why bring it up in this thread when it wasn't relevant to what anyone had said?
because when talking which military is superior it's just a common fallacy. On forums in real life in real military estimates on relative strength of national armies It happens. I said it just something one should be careful about to do. It occurs endlessly in histyory, You gotta attack because of French machismo (I reading aboiut the French army in the 18th century right now and French miliatry thinkers endlessly say guff like that)

Look at any post by plainolddave on this forum.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,248
Spain
#67
Three basic criteria, as I see it:

1) Countries that still exist
2) Countries that are larger than their neighbours, and whom they engaged in wars with in the past
3) Countries that won more wars and sustained fewer losses than other countries
Well my doubts

1) Countries that still exits...I don´t know why... Roman State doesn´t exist today however was very successful in the war or Sparta or Ottoman Empire, Mongol Empire etc etc
Other countires still exist as Ethiopia (Abyssinia), or Thailand (Siam)... or Haiti (the 2nd oldest American continent)... and I don´t know if they are better in war than Mongols, Ottomans, Spartans etc etc.

2) I don´t know why... the largest depends on geography more than in battles

3) Most of wars.. almost 95% are wars between alliances vs alliances... so maybe we can speak about good diplomacy better than good warriors. For example, Haiti won two world wars ... however.. I doubt Haiti was better than Germany in the wars...

My theory is that everything depends on social, cultural ... within geographical, spatial and temporal coordinates.
 
Likes: Edric Streona

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,110
Portugal
#68
Three basic criteria, as I see it:

1) Countries that still exist

2) Countries that are larger than their neighbours, and whom they engaged in wars with in the past

3) Countries that won more wars and sustained fewer losses than other countries
Curious! Under that first criteria, as already stated, the Romans didn’t have superior military qualities.

Under the same criteria any country that has superior military qualities is also immutable since if it lost it means that it doesn’t/never had it.
 
Likes: martin76
Feb 2019
255
California
#69
It's a mixed record. It's not as bad as some make out, but not as great as some French make out.

WWII was just a bad strategy, period. Though in troop numbers, France had more soldiers on the Western Front than Britain did.

If looking at countries like Britain and the USA, who more often than not win most of their wars, they only defeated weaker opponents. The Mexicans, CSA, Spanish, Iraqis, etc. were all weaker opponents in some measure. The same is true of the Boers, Zulu, Asante, Argentinians, etc. on the British side.

I think you are on to something with this. World War II was a disgrace for the French (and the Italians) but it was an isolated thing. Those who try to DENY the reality of the disgrace only undermine their own cause. France was let down by her leaders--the cowardly Frenchmen is a myth that did not exist before 1940 (I think). The Italians deserve their own thread---disgraceful performance in WW2--the only thing that might have disgraced the nation more would have been a "good" performance in WW2. Think about it.