? Has France really started every major war in the last 1000 years?

Germany's von Schlieffen plan was predicated on the use of reserves, not just as a means of defense, but as an active part of the offense.

The French, however, viewed their reserves as largely worthless, fit only for occupational services.

German, from the initial mobilization, integrated their reserves into the main bodies of their armies -- something the French refused to do. That had been suggested, as early as 1909, I believe, but Joffre and Foch both rejected it as an insanity.

That bit of French prejudice is one of the main reasons why Joffre rejected his Army commanders reports of the German strength facing them -- their regular army simply wasn't that large.
 
I know the planned retreat/counteroffensive was part of the offensive. The German reserve elements were in such advanced training that they were immediately available for first line use. This gave the Germans a rather unexpected (by the French) 3-2 numerical edge.

And I agree with you that Joffe was a closed minded fool. Rejecting information provided to you by underlings is never a good thing. Just look what happend to Hitler!

Edit: Normandy was settled by Viking invaders anyway, so the Normans who invaded England aren't French persay, especially since there really was no such thing as France back then, it was mostly just a disjointed collection of kingdoms and duchys...
 
Tacitly the Normans were subjects of the French king.

That had been part of the Vikings' agreement with him when he ceded their leader a chunk of Normandy in the 900s.

In effect, though, they were largely independent and had no problem going to war with their neighbors to get land.

Normandy had been settled for a long time before the Vikings made their appearance, however. Those who lived there simply became Viking subjects, or they got the hell out while they could.
 
Well, their leaders were accepted by the rest of French nobility as somewhat equal.

And the Vikings, wherever they went also showed a great ability to adapt the local culture instead of forcing their Nordic culture on the other inhabitants. By the time of William the Bastard they were more "French" than Norse.

As you noted earlier, though, it's really tough to make the call when a unified concept of France came about, just as it was in Britain or any of the other feudal "nations" at the time. In reality, there were no "nations" in Europe in the conventional sense. To find those sorts of concepts, you'd have to go to Asia -- Japan and China.

At the same time, a number of the French lords could trace their lineage back to not Gaulish tribes, but Rome. So were they French, or were they holdout Romans?

I think, though, that for historical sequencing, since the leader of the original band of Vikings had sworn alliegance to the French King, yes, you'd have to say that they were French. God knows they acted like it, all snooty and arrogant and the like.
 
Figures that the Romans would hold power even hundreds of years after the empire that conquered Gaul was wiped off the face of the earth.

Hey just because the Goths swore allegiance to Rome and were let to live inside the Italian peninsula area, it didn't prevent them from turning and sacking the city of Rome. And I wouldn't call them Romans either! :D
 
LOL Indy SIG maybe I'm just a cynical bastard because I will have to work 4 jobs to pay for your diaper rash medication.....
Click to expand...

Let me set you straight son. The day you were born, I was somewhere working harder & smarter than you'll ever work in your life. It's why I have things you'll never have. You need to whine less and work more to make something of yourself. You can start by taking a look in the mirror instead of blaming illegal immigrants and others for your shortcomings.

This concludes your trip to the woodshed.
 
Cobray....I'm not sure you're going to be a good fit for this forum. Those of us who have been here for a while occasionally have disagreements but you don't seem able to have a disagreement w/o having a confrontation at the same time.

You'll probably want to consider if posting here is going to work for you. If your posts in this thread are an indication, it doesn't look like it.
 
Accumulating cretinisms

"P.S. the German military had been ready for an all out continental war since the reunification of 1850."

Here's a "P.S." for you - one cannot have a REunification of that which was never unified. Figure it out.

There was no Germany until Bismarck completed forging a collection of principalities into Germany at the conclusion of the Franco - PRUSSIAN (got that? NOT Franco-German) war of 1870. This was done by crowning the Prussian king the Kaiser in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles in 1871.

All the Austro-Prussian war, like the spat with Denmark immediately prior, did was to ally lesser Teutonic states with Prussia. It was NOT a "reunification." As there was no "German military" in 1850, it necessarily follows that there was no such entity "ready for an all out continental war" at that time.

"Now I get to base my entire ****ing argument on spelling errors, which is good, because I have absolutely no evidence to contradict what other people said!"

Yes, that is painfully obvious.

"This is not a cop out but it was only intended as a frog-bash quip anyway. I foolishly tried to back it up with facts and failed."

Actually, you tried to "back it up" with fabrications and fantasy. Your failure was therefore inevitable. :rolleyes:
 
Reunification was a slip of the tongue. I honestly knew it was unification, but I am also studying the American Civil War at the moment and I guess I was just thinking about it. The unification may have concluded on January 18th,1871, but it started in 1850. Bismarck and Moltke forged a unified German Empire by fighting three wars against Denmark, Austria and France. Wilhelm was crowned with the war and the Siege of Paris still in progress.

See I can nitpick too.

As for fabrication and fantasy, all of the facts I presented are true, but that doesn't mean what I was trying to prove is true. It is true that poachers sometimes hunt elephants with .22 shorts, but if I said it was the perfect elephant cartridge somehow I think you would disagree.
 
Talk about the Fog of War as noted on the top of page 3. First, Hal is AWOL without ever denoting just exactly what wars he and his friend think France actually started for the last 1000 years. Then discussion has turned to just being Germany/Prussia and France and particular sequences of events, without staying with the main theme of the thread, the actual wars started by France.
 
First, Hal is AWOL
Click to expand...
Given that it's Thanksgiving - and all. The KB and I have had to share time w/family.

Anyhow - How's about a war to placate you?

Pastry War - 1838 - Most noteworthy event of the war was that it turned none other than Santa Ana (back?) into a Mexican national hero.
 
Ah, so you would consider the actual race of the people who invaded England to be French?
Click to expand...

Cobray, "France" is a geopolitical delineation. French people are those who line in or have ancestry within the geopolitical boundaries. The concept of 'race' is based in genetics. Geopolitical boundaries do not denote genetics. There is no French race just as there is no American race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top