And amazing leadersTheir leaders were only successful because of their numbers. Their tactics were mass assaults in columns that were very costly in lives. French leaders knew they had superior manpower and exploited it.
Stop reading Sharpe and start reading a history book. The French revolutionized the way battles were fought and had very mobile armies, partly due to their intensive use of light infantry on mass scale. Even the British agreed that a French light infantry man was better then a British one.
And great training Training? Most of their men were sent off as green conscripts. Their training was what they experienced on the battlefield.
That's only true for the very early (1792) and very late (1814) period. French troops received weeks of drill if time permitted, and trained up to three hours. British troops were obviously more trained, but that's mostly because the British could decide when to fight and when to run back to the sea, giving them the advantage of being able to pick their battles. Corunna and Walcheren are two great examples of British only not being totally defeated because the Navy turned up.
And great army structureFair enough, but useless without the numbers.
French army structure was much better then the British structure and would remain better until well into World war 1. Especially the British officer corps was, frankly, a joke.
Did I cite Sharpe as a source? They're entertaining books, but I understand they aren't valid sources. I think your intense hostility towards Cornwell is in his shitty portrayal of the Prince of Orange. And why are you comparing the French army to the British? I'm fully aware that the British army of the period didn't compare to the French army. My point is that the success of the French was based on their numbers. They revolutionized the way battles were fought because they fought in a less limited way. Battles in the 18th century would have relatively light casualties because neither side wanted to risk their armies. The French had men to replace those that were lost, so they went all in.
Edit: By the way, the column attack was a tactic used by the French that failed quite frequently.
During the early stages of the French Revolutionary Wars, battalions in French armies often attacked in column formation in an attempt to drive through enemy lines by sheer weight of numbers. Against enemy units already weakened by the fire from skirmishers or artillery, this was often successful. Later, during the Napoleonic Wars, French units would approach in column formation and deploy into line when close to the enemy. However, against the British they frequently failed to deploy into line before being engaged. During the Peninsular War, after the Battle of Sabugal (3 April 1811), the Duke of Wellington wrote, "our loss is much less than one would have supposed possible, scarcely 200 men... really these attacks against our lines with columns of men are contemptible."  These failings were still evident at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, prompting Wellington to comment, "They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way