This may be vague and a total what if question. What if Napoleon called the United States of America to help him fight in Europe; and America did. Would this have helped Napoleon possibly capture victory or nothing at all. Would have Russia invaded mainland America? Because at this time Russia owned Alaska.Nothing.
1812 was the US failed invasion of Canada resulting in what is described as a stalemate, despite Britain not only maintaining full naval dominance but also burning the white house and aiding Canada in its liberation.Didn't Britain want the Mississippi River?
No, they just opened a second front to devide american forces.1812 was the US failed invasion of Canada resulting in what is described as a stalemate, despite Britain not only maintaining full naval dominance but also burning the white house and aiding Canada in its liberation.Didn't Britain want the Mississippi River?
How can you possibly claim a river?In the mid-19th century the Mississippi river was the most important trade route in the middle west of North America. So it makes sense. Why fought Germany and France over centuries for the Rhine river? Why founded the Dutch New Amsterdam at the Hudson mouth? Why are most big cultures founded at big rivers? It's all about trade. Ka-Ching!
I wasn't aware the Americans were better at losing than the French. I'll have to note that one down for future reference.
Better at surrendering too, wow you learn something new every day.
I wasn't aware the Americans were better at losing than the French. I'll have to note that one down for future reference.Better at surrendering too, wow you learn something new every day.
The French actually have a better overall military win/loss ratio than the British :-*
I wasn't aware the Americans were better at losing than the French. I'll have to note that one down for future reference.Better at surrendering too, wow you learn something new every day.
The French actually have a better overall military win/loss ratio than the British :-*
against minor powers.* Fixed that one for you.
Considering the French were fighting consistently in mainland Europe whilst Britain spent most of the time keeping the sea it is natural for the French to have a higher ratio simply because of the number of battles fought. There is also the fact they had Napoleon who was one of the world's greatest generals.
If we look at purely Anglo/French battles throughout history then I am sure the ratio would be different, but seeing as we are talking about Napoleonic France in the Napoleonic wars I'm not surprised at that ratio at all, nor see what it has to do with the French stereotypes of losing and surrendering based on a large percentage of their wars with Britain
Still stands:QuoteConsidering the French were fighting consistently in mainland Europe whilst Britain spent most of the time keeping the sea it is natural for the French to have a higher ratio simply because of the number of battles fought. There is also the fact they had Napoleon who was one of the world's greatest generals.
If we look at purely Anglo/French battles throughout history then I am sure the ratio would be different, but seeing as we are talking about Napoleonic France in the Napoleonic wars I'm not surprised at that ratio at all, nor see what it has to do with the French stereotypes of losing and surrendering based on a large percentage of their wars with Britain
Both of those points are within oddly specific criteria and don't really make any sense in a comparative manner. Also note that the criteria used for judging France's military record in Fergueson's estimate go back around 2,000 years to the Gallic period, so your point about Britain being more focused on colonial expansion doesn't hold up whatsoever.
Your point about the win/loss ratio between France and Britain being different is completely irrelevant and is bordering on Nation-scale ad hominem.
Still stands:QuoteConsidering the French were fighting consistently in mainland Europe whilst Britain spent most of the time keeping the sea it is natural for the French to have a higher ratio simply because of the number of battles fought. There is also the fact they had Napoleon who was one of the world's greatest generals.
If we look at purely Anglo/French battles throughout history then I am sure the ratio would be different, but seeing as we are talking about Napoleonic France in the Napoleonic wars I'm not surprised at that ratio at all, nor see what it has to do with the French stereotypes of losing and surrendering based on a large percentage of their wars with Britain
Just get over it, the French are better at war than Britain, 1066 never4get
British are also just really good at not mentioning their defeats. I mean, nobody talks about the three times the British miserably failed to capture Antwerp. Same goes for Corunna.
hey u know what else we shouldn't mention in British history books?
that the Luftwaffe had complete control of the airspace for a year and was able to bomb our cities at will
hehehe, seriously dont mention it
Yet after the battle of Britain the sides swapped. To the point that the luftwaffe were unable to be used to counter British forces at D Day due to the superior RAF forces. That was a bad example.
The good thing would be to stop the bashing, whatever country may be the target wouldn't it?
The good thing would be to stop the bashing, whatever country may be the target wouldn't it?
+1
Straight off the block you claim I forgot the Americans and Canadians. I didn't forget them I simply didn't state them as they are irrelevant unless you start bashing them. Next you claim bias. I provided evidence, that isn't bias. Next you state that luftewaffe resources were in other areas. Yes, so? Britain ruled British skies after the battle of Britain. That's a fact.
Then you make the lie that Britain only picks wars they could finally win. Not only is it racism and shows a complete lack of respect unprovoked but it is evidently a lie. Britain was defending in WW2. In the crusades and the hundred years war England had no certainty to win and fought anyway. Rorkes drift, Quebec, Aboukir Bay, and Trafalgar all show great examples of the British military that changed the world. Yes, Britain lost battles, who denied that? But it did more than pick wars it is bound to win. If you are being so frontal on Britain why not enlighten us on how Sweden's military campaigns in the past few hundred years changed the world?
Straight off the block you claim I forgot the Americans and Canadians. I didn't forget them I simply didn't state them as they are irrelevant unless you start bashing them. Next you claim bias. I provided evidence, that isn't bias. Next you state that luftewaffe resources were in other areas. Yes, so? Britain ruled British skies after the battle of Britain. That's a fact.
What evidence? I dont see any cited or referenced material to back up your claim. Neither have any evidence.QuoteThen you make the lie that Britain only picks wars they could finally win. Not only is it racism and shows a complete lack of respect unprovoked but it is evidently a lie. Britain was defending in WW2. In the crusades and the hundred years war England had no certainty to win and fought anyway. Rorkes drift, Quebec, Aboukir Bay, and Trafalgar all show great examples of the British military that changed the world. Yes, Britain lost battles, who denied that? But it did more than pick wars it is bound to win. If you are being so frontal on Britain why not enlighten us on how Sweden's military campaigns in the past few hundred years changed the world?
Ok so me saying that GB picked its fight with the Luftwaffen when the RAF had the upper hand makes you go on a patriotic rant claiming your country's greatness. And then you bring Sweden into this for no apparent reason but to make GB seem more important? Ok, you seem a bit flustered
hahaha so saying Britain picks fights it knows it can win is racist?
Are you joking or is that autism...
The above makes sense, if you deny it then I can't help you.Nobody asked you for help. You replied to a post that wasn't directed at you and co-instigated an argument spanning three pages. Virtually all of your claims have been strawman-ish in nature, and you haven't provided any concrete evidence that actually addressed people's points, or that even supported your own. You're also stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge any of the shortcomings in your arguments, and your blind defense of Britain on an internet forum is fairly bemusing. Stop posting here if you do not wish to continue this discussion, as you stated on the last page. Responding with equal vehemency and aggression to people you consider yourself logically and knowledgeably to doesn't help your case, and in fact makes you look like a blundering idiot.
I'm dumbfounded.
Now can we not stray off topic and bash the British. Every country can be bashed in its own right, that is the point in history.
Sorry to double post, hard on my phone.
Hope this clears things up that we may go back to the original topic. :)
Thanks for the laugh, shame your desperation to insult me actually made you look like worse seeing as you write a large paragraph of pretty much nothing and are unable to distinguish liberalism and nationalism
Either the education in your countries lack, or you need help. I cannot explain how ridiculous you sound but the nearest analogy I can compare it to is someone stating they are going to buy lunch and someone else turning around and calling them poor.
nationalistic retard that denies facts and does everything in their power to make their country look great
You just contradicted yourself. It may be that you are Swedish so English is not your main language and you have difficulty interpreting yourself but the point I have been making consistently is I have not made a nationalistic comment once.
QuoteThen you make the lie that Britain only picks wars they could finally win. Not only is it racism and shows a complete lack of respect unprovoked but it is evidently a lie. Britain was defending in WW2. In the crusades and the hundred years war England had no certainty to win and fought anyway. Rorkes drift, Quebec, Aboukir Bay, and Trafalgar all show great examples of the British military that changed the world. Yes, Britain lost battles, who denied that? But it did more than pick wars it is bound to win. If you are being so frontal on Britain why not enlighten us on how Sweden's military campaigns in the past few hundred years changed the world?
The contradiction in claiming you are very educated and then immediately referring to nationalism.
Sven, you should give up. Whilst nipplestockings is making arguments that have relevance in explaining the way he sees things all further allowing me to help him see the truth behind the text; everything you have said, to be blunt, is retarded.
From the facts I proved wrong about 1066 to the consistent claim of nationalism and patriotism, also consistently proved wrong. By the way, this sentence structure is wrong, Mr English Pro
Just get over it, the French are better at war than Britain, 1066 #never4get
You evidently push Sweden down on that list.
Oh and another ridiculous statement making me question your intelligence and interpretational ability, you thought I believed intelligence is a measure of a countries education xD. A juxtaposition of education leading to intelligence. You melodramatise every point I make and manipulate it, that is how we got onto this discussion.
And nipplestocking, I wouldn't say the same for Sven but seeing as you are doing this for a laugh I suggest we end it and go back on topic.
The English and the French both suck equally.
The English and the French both suck equally.
Yeah the most technologically, economically, and militarily advanced nations of that era both sucked equally, dat logic
The English and the French both suck equally.
Yeah the most technologically, economically, and militarily advanced nations of that era both sucked equally, dat logic
Alright, you want to play the smart aleck? Tell me, where do you see the 'ed' after I said "suck"? Unless you want to recoil and say they're still good, in which case I'd reply back with something along the lines of "#1 and #2 Eurofag nations".
Read every word before replying this time.
The English and the French both suck equally.
Yeah the most technologically, economically, and militarily advanced nations of that era both sucked equally, dat logic
Alright, you want to play the smart aleck? Tell me, where do you see the 'ed' after I said "suck"? Unless you want to recoil and say they're still good, in which case I'd reply back with something along the lines of "#1 and #2 Eurofag nations".
Read every word before replying this time.
I would put US in the category of "2Big2lose". In just a good category, nothing in between, I'd place a brainwashed-zombie Asian team, or hell even a Russian team against a French and British one anyday.
Eurofags (Britain-France) vs Russia, Russia would win
Perhaps China vs Team Euro, China would win.
If Japan was allowed to regain military capabilities as much as the old days:
Japan vs Britain-France, Japan wins.
All vs US, USA rapes
Wtf is this thread
Wtf is this thread
Stop posting useless shit in every thread.
Just asking what if US could send a Army to help Napoleon in the Napoleonic Wars. Could it change the course of the war. Nothing much.
+1Just asking what if US could send a Army to help Napoleon in the Napoleonic Wars. Could it change the course of the war. Nothing much.
No.
+1Just asking what if US could send a Army to help Napoleon in the Napoleonic Wars. Could it change the course of the war. Nothing much.
No.
All vs US, USA rapesNo.
All vs US, USA rapesNo.
The US army is weak against the might of Tsahal. Israel vs all Israel wins of course