What if the War of 1812 came to Europe?

[Nipplestockings]

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.

The British empire was entirely formed by conquering and subduing primitive native populations who could barely fight back. Such glory.

[Skipper]

As were most Great Empires. The thing that makes them stand out are what happens as an empire. The British empire industrialised many of its colonies and was able to make global trade a huge success.

From what I recall we were talking about battle win:lose ratio. 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.


French have better ratio.

Point concluded.

Now my next point, American rifles that magically made it past the royal navy to the peninsula cannot have made much of a difference. Aiming for the generals would be hard, Wellington and his compatriots were not like 1812 generals that led from the front. If they did manage to kill some generals then so what? Morale was not the biggest benefactor in the campaign and Wellington was not like Napoleon, he could be replaced. And if we talk about rifles killing generals, why not mention what would have happened if somebody shot Napoleon (fatally)? Had to throw that in seeing as you brought up the topic.

Please note, in the ratio statement I was supporting the evidence of France having a higher win:lose ratio.

[Nipplestockings]

Skipper, I was referring to France's European military history, not their colonial victory record.

From Wikipedia:

"According to the British historian Niall Ferguson, France has participated in 168 major European battles, out of which it won 109, drew 10 and lost 49, making the country the most successful military power in European history."

[Skipper]

Still stands:

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

[Duuring]

If we look at Anglo-French battles, we see that the British always had one major advantage - They could pick the fight. They could decide when to fight, where to fight, and most importantly, when not to fight.

[Nipplestockings]

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.

[Archduke Sven]

Still stands:

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

Just get over it, the French are better at war than Britain, 1066 never4get

[Duuring]

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.

[Gizmo]

British bashing makes me moist to be honest.

[Archduke Sven]

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

[Skipper]

Spoiler

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.

[close]

The main purpose of the point was to bring you down to the fact you took a stereotype seriously.

Spoiler

Still stands:

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

Just get over it, the French are better at war than Britain, 1066 never4get

[close]

The Normans were actually of Scandanavian descent and were highly opposed to the French crown, hence their consistent rebellions. When William took the throne of England he founded what most Englishmen consider the first real England. William declared independence from France and considered himself an English monarch within a French speaking court. My history curriculum starts with us being told about 1066 as a kind of civil war of sorts, always referring to the opposing sides as the Normans and Anglo Saxons instead of the English and French. My own ancestors were Norman and I consider myself English. It wad the first enacting of the feudal system and consisted of Norman rulers and Saxon commoners, generalised.

http://normans.etrusia.co.uk/whowere.php

"A common misconception today is that the Normans were "French." Strictly speaking this is not true although it is a widely held belief and, like most beliefs, has some basis in fact."

Not nationalistic ^

I never stated Britain was better, I was arguing stereotypes. The French are renown for losing wars, true or not.

Spoiler

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.

[close]

Ever heard of the three sieges of nola? Ever read De Bello Galaci?

Spoiler

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

[close]

Yet after the battle of Britain the sides swapped. To the point that the luftwaffe were unable to be used to counter British, American and Canadian forces at D Day due to the superior RAF forces. That was a bad example.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/thebattleofbritain.cfm

"Victory in the Battle of Britain not only saved the United Kingdom from invasion, but also in the long-term saved Europe too. Nazi Germany plans to impose its will on Europe was twarted for the first time, through threat or military might, and its vaunted Luftwaffe had tasted defeat in battle. Britain would remain as a bastion of freedom and hope off the coast of occupied Europe.

When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, Britain was able to send the armaments and supplies that would prove vital as Russia teetered on the edge of defeat for the first eighteen months. When the United States of America entered the war in December, 1941, the British Isles acted as a stronghold and launching pad from which the United Nations could take the war back to Germany; initially through the Combined Bomber Offensive, and later as the springboard for Allied armies to re-enter the continent and begin the liberation of western Europe."

Please note none of  above was nationalism, just facts. I couldn't give a damn about Britain.
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.

[Archduke Sven]

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.

Just to prove your bias, you forget that only a third of the D-Day force was British, while the rest were Canadian and American. Also you're forgetting that there were no Luftwaffe resources in the west to stop the invasion, so don't act like the RAF made a huge deal. Basically the only force available was the meagre JG2 squadron (Who notably shot down 18 Typhoons and P-47s without a single loss).

Yeah, you know, the Brits were good at picking fights where they could finally win, considering the fact that 80% of Luftwaffe resources were in other areas.

If you don't want to get into these arguments, stop being so pompous and patriotic in a historical discussion. You're literally asking for it by acting as such.

[Skipper]

You make the controversial statement: "If you don't want to get into these arguments, stop being so pompous and patriotic in a historical discussion. You're literally asking for it by acting as such." which greatly confuses me seeing as this discussion kicked off with me making a stereotypical joke in response to another. I backed up with facts in my response that had been previously quoted by people who are not British. For example Duuring stating Wellington was not a front line commander.

I never said anything pompous nor patriotic, every statement made is either fact or supported by fact; and I am the one defending against other people who evidently are nationalistic, disrespectful of liberalism, and sure their own country has not made the same mistakes as mine.

I once again repeat: "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."

Thank you

[Gizmo]

The good thing would be to stop the bashing, whatever country may be the target wouldn't it?

[Skipper]

The good thing would be to stop the bashing, whatever country may be the target wouldn't it?

+1