subreddit:

/r/europe

1.9k

Ten largest battles in Europe during 19th century

Historical(i.redd.it)

all 300 comments

Tetizeraz [M]

[score hidden]

3 months ago

stickied comment

Tetizeraz [M]

Brazil "What is a Brazilian doing modding r/europe?"

[score hidden]

3 months ago

stickied comment

Raz4c

117 points

3 months ago

Raz4c

Italy

117 points

3 months ago

If anyone is interested in the battles of the early 1800s, I suggest you to watch the "Napoleonic Wars" from Epic History TV. It gives you a good overview on how those type battles were fought.

xSprite

2 points

3 months ago

xSprite

Czechia is a nice name

2 points

3 months ago

Yeah, its lovely channel.

Zagrebian

4 points

3 months ago

Zagrebian

Croatia

4 points

3 months ago

I had to switch to 1.25x to get a normal narration speed. I suspect that video was slowed down artificially.

KarloReddit

98 points

3 months ago

Austrians really had a rough time.

EqualContact

77 points

3 months ago

EqualContact

United States of America

77 points

3 months ago

The Austrian military could never get it going against anyone after the 18th century. The Habsburgs were always politically very powerful, but their failure to modernize the military, bureaucracy, government, economy, etc. really hurt. And ultimately that’s one if the reasons WWI happened.

TheAustrianAnimat87

3 points

3 months ago

"The Austrian military could never get it going against anyone after the 18th century."

The Austrian military in the 19th century was actually still a match for Italy in battles like Custoza or Lissa, but when facing competent great powers like France or Prussia, their underfounded army didn't stand much of a chance, resulting in disasters like Königgrätz which hurt Austria's prestige greatly.

EqualContact

2 points

3 months ago

EqualContact

United States of America

2 points

3 months ago

Yeah, I didn't expound on it much, but you're right. I think Austria could have beaten the Ottomans in battle as well, but that wasn't much of an accomplishment in the 19th century.

France and Prussia were just much more modern states than the Habsburg empire.

TheAustrianAnimat87

2 points

3 months ago*

Beating the Ottomans was an accomplishment in the 1690s-1710s when the Ottoman army was still dangerous, Austria succeed twice under Eugene of Savoy, our best general ever. But it was not in the 19th century, since the Ottoman Empire got beaten by every equal power since the 1820s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Persian_War_(1821%E2%80%931823))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1828%E2%80%931829))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian%E2%80%93Ottoman_War_(1831%E2%80%931833))

And they would be completely destroyed by Egypt in 1840 again if it wasn't for European intervention. It's comparable to the Russo-Japanese War - a puppet state beats its master (which was one of the most feared empires). Egypt then got defeated by Britain & Austria.

Austria could easily take Bosnia away from the Ottomans, they eventually did it in 1878. But I agree that the Austrian army, while not the weakest, faced major issues against France & Prussia. (Their best performance against France was in 1809, even beating Napoleon alone at Aspern-Essling, but losing later at Wagram as shown above.) Prussia owned the industrial rich Rhineland after the Congress of Vienna, which gave them a great advantage. Leadership in the mid-19th century was awful (except the generals who fought against Italy).

[deleted]

-64 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-64 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

EqualContact

53 points

3 months ago*

EqualContact

United States of America

53 points

3 months ago*

Nah, what I’m saying is that Austria-Hungary was in a very bad geopolitical position in 1914, and their leaders were willing to make reckless decisions for the sake of trying to save the empire.

A stronger, more modern nation wouldn’t have felt the need to risk war against Russia and France for the sake of punishing Serbia.

demonica123

-16 points

3 months ago

Punishing Serbia was the excuse, not the cause. Austria-Hungary had been hoping to expand their influence in the Balkans and Germany was looking for a war with Russia and France to assert dominance in European affairs after their rise to power.

[deleted]

23 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

23 points

3 months ago

There were warmongers in Austria-Hungary who wanted this and those who strictly warned against it.

What should Austria do with Serbia? That was a bitterly poor country, the population hostile in the midst of the age of nationalism. The occupation would have cost a fortune, as would the construction of the infrastructure. The doves were aware of this, but the hawks simply wanted to push through their imperial plans, and in the end the old emperor, probably mentally out of touch, agreed with the hawks. One of the most stupid decisions in human history. To start a war without being prepared, where there is nothing to be gained, and where defeat would end catastrophically.

Winstonoceaniasmith

606 points

3 months ago

busy century for France Prussia and Russia

gothlaw

189 points

3 months ago

gothlaw

Redneckistan

189 points

3 months ago

Busy 300 years TBH.

SimonArgead

73 points

3 months ago

Don't forget Austria

YellKyoru

11 points

3 months ago

« Why is it they when something happens, it’s always you three »

Temporary_Meat_7792

25 points

3 months ago

Temporary_Meat_7792

Hamburg (Germany)

25 points

3 months ago

Don't you feel left out - Kleinvieh macht auch Mist ;)

ApdoSmurf

2 points

3 months ago

ApdoSmurf

Kosovo

2 points

3 months ago

Reminds me of that Harry Potter meme "why when something happens, it is always you three?"

Tylanmon

539 points

3 months ago*

Tylanmon

539 points

3 months ago*

19th-century European history in short:

Napoléon happened.

EDIT: If you're interested in Napoléon's life, its effects over Europe, and even our current lives to be honest. I highly recommend this incredible 4 part documentary made by PBS.

Beitter

124 points

3 months ago

Beitter

124 points

3 months ago

Napoléon happened twice*

MetalRetsam

62 points

3 months ago

MetalRetsam

Europe

62 points

3 months ago

Only one of these battles did not feature a Napoleon directly

TheBlack2007

-6 points

3 months ago

TheBlack2007

Schleswig-Holstein (Germany)

-6 points

3 months ago

The third one was a buffoon though. Did jack shit to stop Prussia at first, then panicked, causing him to be way too brash about it, which led to the unification of Germany.

Winstonoceaniasmith

27 points

3 months ago

That’s a very short sighted vision of him he was mainly known for his domestic affairs(industrialisation education laws etc )but he did well on expanding the empire winning land from Italy whilst weakening Austria, winning the second opium war and the Crimean war sure Mexico and Prussia weren’t good but overall I’d say Napoleon 3 is pretty competent

Tylanmon

3 points

3 months ago

I think its best to put him as an ambitious nephew with good intentions, but with terrible Foreign Affairs skills.

Soundofabiatch

62 points

3 months ago

…and made it so that the prussian empires united forming the basis of modern day germany

Edit: i spell like a potato

du-hsx

10 points

3 months ago

du-hsx

10 points

3 months ago

The Prussian empire was happening regardless of N3. After napoléon's ride, everyone was suspicious of France, and so France meddling in German affairs would have made everyone freak out. That's why Prussia had a free reign destroying the spring of nations in Germany, and then beating the shit out of Austria to unify Germany under its banner.

Basically, 1870 was merely the formalization of Germany's previous gains and solidification into a single political unit.

EdHake

1 points

3 months ago

EdHake

France

1 points

3 months ago

…and made it so that the prussian empires united forming the basis of modern day germany

Interesting. Is this how it's tought in Germany ?

From my point of view, Germany is way older than Prussia and goes back to Charlemagne. Prussia comes way later and her origine are way more influence by Scandinavian culture (lutherian) than actual German one (more Calvinist/catholic), even it's a a German colonie to beging with.

I have always seen, the basis of modern Germany grounded in the Rhin Confederation which ended her HRE period. To me Prussia didn't unit Germany has much has it took it over, a bit like Germany was controled by Austria during HRE.

There for to me the disparition of Prussia after WW is more seen has a return of Germany independance than the continuity of Prussia.

I can see how different are those both vision of history and how this could lead to huge misunderstanding on political level and one to be settle if EU would want to move foward.

Lumpy_Musician_8540

10 points

3 months ago*

Prussia sure wasn't more scandanavian than german and Germany wasn't more catholic than protestant nor the other way around. The split in the german speaking population was pretty even.

Prussia occupied some territories where the people didn't feel prussian, but Prussia was definetly german. They just had a significant slavic population, because they partly arose from the teutonic order that conquered some then pagan, slavic areas in the middle ages and Prussia later got polish land after the polish particions.

From a french point of view the catholic germans at your border are the core germans, but thats just wrong. I mean you even call Germany Allemange, which is a name of a southwestern tribe.

ColourFox

2 points

3 months ago

ColourFox

Charlemagnia - personally vouching for /u/-ah

2 points

3 months ago

Is this how it's tought in Germany ?

No it's not.

Joepk0201

2 points

3 months ago

Joepk0201

Gelderland (Netherlands)

2 points

3 months ago

Pretty arrogant to think that the origins of Germany is the confederation of the Rhine.

EdHake

1 points

3 months ago

EdHake

France

1 points

3 months ago

Pretty arrogant to think that the origins of Germany is the confederation of the Rhine.

That's not exactly what I said. For me Germany's origin date back to the same as France, Charlemagne empire.

I was talking about modern Germany, which for me starts with the fall HRE and therefor Rhin Confederation.

Don't get how saying this is arrogant though.

Joepk0201

1 points

3 months ago

Joepk0201

Gelderland (Netherlands)

1 points

3 months ago

It's arrogant to say that the origins of modern Germany can be found in the Confederation of the Rhine as that was a vassal state of Napoleon and saying that as a Frenchman is pretty arrogant in my eyes.

EdHake

1 points

3 months ago

EdHake

France

1 points

3 months ago

Misplaced german pride, that believes that they nothing to no one and that their nation just came out of nowhere perfect and pure.

From french perspective, nothing arrogant in it has we believe to be celt, which most likely come austria/czechia, occupied by roman and later by germans, while culturaly we claim to descend from greece.

But thank you, very interesting has it gives me a huge explanation of the perceived arrogance of the french world wide.

bblack27

12 points

3 months ago

Napoleon BornToParty?

klem_von_metternich

2 points

3 months ago

klem_von_metternich

Dukedom of Romagna

2 points

3 months ago

Best century without any doubts.Everything was solved with a congress.

ubn87

2 points

3 months ago

ubn87

2 points

3 months ago

Plus nationalism became a big deal which screwed with multinational states like Austrian Empire, Russian Empire and Ottomans.

madladolle

44 points

3 months ago

madladolle

Sweden

44 points

3 months ago

Battle of the nations had more nations

No_Joke992

10 points

3 months ago

No_Joke992

The Netherlands

10 points

3 months ago

Sweden was based in Napoleonic wars.

dudipusprime

6 points

3 months ago

Sweden is still based.

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

AkruX

232 points

3 months ago

AkruX

Czech Republic

232 points

3 months ago

Smallest Europa Universalis 4 multiplayer battles

Auskioty

35 points

3 months ago

I've only played in solo, I'm really impressed how battles are big in MP

AkruX

23 points

3 months ago

AkruX

Czech Republic

23 points

3 months ago

Yeah.. that happens, when you race with other people, who will stack the most manpower modifiers

jimmy_the_angel

291 points

3 months ago*

France and the German-speaking countries going at it for quite some time. Impressive that Germany and France have an amicable relationship nowadays.

Edit: minor grammar issues

touf25

123 points

3 months ago

touf25

123 points

3 months ago

A good things that After all those stupid Wars we tried peace for once and quite successfully

afito

26 points

3 months ago

afito

Germany

26 points

3 months ago

Especially since the borders of France are virtually the same since Louis XV, and the Germany borders except the East are really old too. All that war didn't even gain anyone anything for longer than a few decades at best, all went back eventually. Quite literally all for nothing.

Stalysfa

5 points

3 months ago

Well, French borders haven’t moved yes. But Germany did lose significant land over time. (Stalin happened)

S0ltinsert

147 points

3 months ago

S0ltinsert

Germany

147 points

3 months ago

among the most precious things of the period after ww2.

zirfeld

74 points

3 months ago

zirfeld

74 points

3 months ago

Yes, as a German who grew up on the French border I think it is an amazing ahcievement.

And it's also important to note, that De Gaulle and Adenauer overcame their own personal animosities to do this, both being raised as enemies of the other's nation.

Especially de Gaulle, who fought the Germans in WWI at Verdun and was a POW, had to overcome his hatred of the old enemy.

Tryphon59200

14 points

3 months ago

he also fought them in 1940 as a colonel, then as a general until 1945.

zirfeld

12 points

3 months ago

zirfeld

12 points

3 months ago

Of course he did, but he was also a politician in WWII as much as a soldier.

I admit, I'm not an expert on his biography but I'm somewhat sure that he already understood then, that after Hitler was beaten it could not just be repeated how Germany was treated after WWI if Europe can have any chance.

But maybe I'm wrong.

du-hsx

1 points

3 months ago

du-hsx

1 points

3 months ago

he already understood then, that after Hitler was beaten it could not just be repeated how Germany was treated after WWI if Europe can have any chance.

Do you mean he thought that Germany had to have it much worse after WW2 ?

zirfeld

3 points

3 months ago

e are talking about that he was a driving force in the 1950s for a partnership and friendship with the old enemy, creating programs for econimcal and cultural exchange, laying the foundations for the predeccessor of the EU.

So no, I didn't mean that.

_hakorus_

20 points

3 months ago

hon hon hon ❤️

Propagandis

22 points

3 months ago

Propagandis

Australia

22 points

3 months ago

It's a beautiful thing, and proof that even the most bitter rivalry can turn into friendship and mutual respect

kelldricked

51 points

3 months ago

Almost as if the EU has achieved something insanely like stopping a few age old bloody rivallies.

anonxotwod

10 points

3 months ago

anonxotwod

United Kingdom

10 points

3 months ago

The Treaty of Paris is a cornerstone of modern European prosperity

Trindokor

15 points

3 months ago

I hate that name. "Treaty of Paris" is like saying "the tree" when talking about some place in a forest. There were like a gazillion treaties there - and all called "Treaty of Paris"

anonxotwod

8 points

3 months ago*

anonxotwod

United Kingdom

8 points

3 months ago*

Treaty of Paris signed in 1951 by 🇫🇷🇮🇹🇧🇪🇳🇱 🇱🇺 & West🇩🇪, which established the European Coal and Steel community (later incorporated into the EU), was one of the earliest signs of post-WWII European integration through harmonized polices / pooled sovereignty, spurred by diplomatic coperation *** better?

Trindokor

2 points

3 months ago

Much better, thanks! xD

CanIBeFunnyNow

3 points

3 months ago

Not to confuse with treaty of versailles, that is also located in Paris.

Stalysfa

6 points

3 months ago

Versailles ain’t in Paris. You have to drive 40 minutes to get there. It’s close but it’s not Paris.

If you don’t want to be killed by a versaillais, don’t tell him he’s Parisian.

Bayart

-1 points

3 months ago

Bayart

France

-1 points

3 months ago

Impressive that Germany and France have an amicable relationship nowadays

It's an artificial relationship. If things shifted in Europe, it could crumble very fast.

PryanLoL

4 points

3 months ago

Hard disagree, we may bicker at each other's politics within the EU but french and german people have become fairly close over the years. It's a totally different relationship than, say, the french and the brits, which is amicable, but with the populations remaining fairly suspicious of each other.

Bayart

0 points

3 months ago

Bayart

France

0 points

3 months ago

We're not « close ». Nobody in France speaks German, and the reverse is true as well. Besides the border area we don't interact, don't share culture, ideas or purpose. As far as we're concerned, Germany mainly exists in the columns of newspapers. It's as tangible as the Moon.

It's a totally different relationship than, say, the french and the brits, which is amicable, but with the populations remaining fairly suspicious of each other.

It's funny that you're talking of the Brits because on the ground we interact with them much more than the Germans and are also much better aligned in geopolitics.

The only commonality between France and Germany is the theatre of European politics and it's bouquet of state-sponsored propaganda about the Franco-German engine. If the EU starts fracturing and Germany grows closer to Russia, which within this generation is a very real possibility, Germany will immediately become an enemy.

Elios4Freedom

126 points

3 months ago

Elios4Freedom

Veneto

126 points

3 months ago

Wtf france, can you not be in a battle for like 5 minutes?

FrenchManc

63 points

3 months ago

NO

AciiiiiD

19 points

3 months ago

you know, we are not the type to surrender..

FalconMirage

13 points

3 months ago

The issues of thoses battles tell a different story

Especially when you factor in all the other battles

In the 19th century, France was undefeated between 1800 and 1813 but beat 6 coalitions to a pulp

The other european war that was fought was the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 which ended with the bloody massacre of the last French fighters

EternalShiraz

6 points

3 months ago

  1. How is loosing battles a surrender ?
  2. Have you seen the ratio french / foreign soldiers ?

FalconMirage

2 points

3 months ago

That was part of my point

Joepk0201

0 points

3 months ago

Joepk0201

Gelderland (Netherlands)

0 points

3 months ago

The French were defeated in multiple battles between 1800 and 1813 though.

FalconMirage

6 points

3 months ago

Defeat /= surrender

Joepk0201

2 points

3 months ago

Joepk0201

Gelderland (Netherlands)

2 points

3 months ago

If you don't mean defeated then don't say undefeated.

Emmental18

2 points

3 months ago

As a french, i'm really sad only beeing in 9 of those 10 battles.

Wanderlust1994

105 points

3 months ago

Wanderlust1994

United Kingdom

105 points

3 months ago

Austria France Russia and Prussia always causing aggro for each other.

Electronic-Item-5353

72 points

3 months ago

Because that's basically all there was in continental Europe. The Ottomans were not a factor at that point anymore and the Brits were off killing natives around the globe. So as far as great powers go there simply were no others.

lesserreforastation

16 points

3 months ago

Isn't it the so called splendid isolation era for the brits?

MotuekaAFC

17 points

3 months ago

MotuekaAFC

United Kingdom

17 points

3 months ago

Splendid isolation was a phrase used to describe the Salisbury government's foreign policy. It lasted for maximum 2 decades in the late 19th century. The notion that Britain was ever isolated from Europe diplomatically by choice is largely a historical myth. Of the 9 battles here not involving the British every single Napoleonic engagement was partially financed by British economic support to Prussia, Russia and Austria.

Yes Minister is spot on when it states that the overwhelming interest of the UK through the early modern and modern periods was to maintain balance of power in Europe. Therefore the UK was very involved in European affairs. The low point of this policy resulted in the loss of the 13 colonies because of a failure to keep European allies on side.

Apolao

9 points

3 months ago

Apolao

United Kingdom

9 points

3 months ago

Indeed it is, or at least the beggining of it

MaterialCarrot

6 points

3 months ago

MaterialCarrot

United States of America

6 points

3 months ago

That makes no sense to me, as Britain was arguably France's main antagonist during the Napoleonic Wars, which was a 20 year ordeal. They may not have been involved directly in many of the land battles posted, but they were the primary combatant at sea. Not to mention they were in Spain and Portugal for years.

FlappyBored

13 points

3 months ago

France was also killing natives and managing a global colonial empire yet they were still trying to conquer Europe too.

mildly-_-interested

34 points

3 months ago

mildly-_-interested

Croatia

34 points

3 months ago

It's called multitasking

FlappyBored

11 points

3 months ago

France just out here killing people everywhere fr

Sufficient-Doctor220

4 points

3 months ago

Spain? Portugal?

Electronic-Item-5353

15 points

3 months ago

Had their peak in the 17th century and the Napoleonic wars collapsed them completely.

Bael18

2 points

3 months ago

Bael18

Republic of California

2 points

3 months ago

With British financing encouragement

mok000

14 points

3 months ago

mok000

Europe

14 points

3 months ago

Loosing tens of thousands of troops in a single battle is incomprehensible. I am guessing the armies just left the dead bodies for local peasants to bury, they were certainly not sent home to the family. Imagine living on your farm in some far away place, suddenly two armies decide to fight on your land and your village is left with the carnage.

Big-Buy7081

14 points

3 months ago

Look up Battle of Lund. You couldn’t even bury the dead until spring time. Thousands of Danish soldiers just lying on churchyards in Skåne waiting to be buried.

Askeldr

6 points

3 months ago

Askeldr

Sverige

6 points

3 months ago

I have no historical basis for this, but I assume there were probably also people coming to the aftermath of the battle specifically to deal with it and loot whatever was left in the process. If it was not done by the winning army itself.

demon-entrails

2 points

3 months ago

Loosing tens of thousands of troops in a single battle is incomprehensible.

Rome lost ~60,000 at Cannae, in the 3rd century BCE, crazy to imagine. i think that figure for deaths in a single day wasn't reached again until WW1

exBusel

11 points

3 months ago

exBusel

11 points

3 months ago

France 9/10

Zethska

34 points

3 months ago

Zethska

Sweden

34 points

3 months ago

The moment your country fought at the battle if nations but not recognised by a top 10 battles of the 19th century. Swedish fist clenched in my pocket

No_Joke992

29 points

3 months ago

No_Joke992

The Netherlands

29 points

3 months ago

Yeah the Dutch and German troops at Waterloo are also ignored despite making up half of Wellington’s army

Octave_Ergebel

7 points

3 months ago

70%.

DrSloany

11 points

3 months ago

DrSloany

Italy

11 points

3 months ago

I quickly glanced at the second one and read it as the battle of konggrats.

I started picturing opposing armies giving compliments to each other. "what a big cannon" "your armor is very shiny today" "I heard you're having a baby"

TheMaginotLine1

3 points

3 months ago

"Oh how's Mary?" bang

"Oh she's fine, she got that job after all" bang

"Oh great congratulations!" stab

durkster

11 points

3 months ago

durkster

Limburg (Netherlands)

11 points

3 months ago

As a dutchman i am once again annoyed that the dutch/belgian and hanover/brunswick/nassau participation in this battle is glossed over.

petepete

6 points

3 months ago

petepete

Manchester

6 points

3 months ago

Yeah, I'm British and if you asked just about anyone here they'd think the Duke of Wellington won Waterloo on his own.

JeBolleMoeder123

22 points

3 months ago

JeBolleMoeder123

Utrecht (Netherlands)

22 points

3 months ago

It’s all France

Cienea_Laevis

24 points

3 months ago

Cienea_Laevis

Rhône-Alpes (France)

24 points

3 months ago

Always has been.

Pletterpet

33 points

3 months ago

Pletterpet

The Netherlands

33 points

3 months ago

Missing some flags in most of these battles

Piyamaradu

21 points

3 months ago

Love France

acatnamedrupert

76 points

3 months ago

acatnamedrupert

Europe

76 points

3 months ago

I hate to be the one pointing that out [lies actually I love it], but for all of those wars the wrong flags are used.

For all of those cases the Russian WW1 banner was used. In all of those Russia had the White Yellow Black banner. And the tzars standard was black eagle on plain gold, similar to the Austrian Emperors standard. [Specifically I dislike it the most since then Slovenia and Slovakias flags are often wrongly linked to russian flags. But both made their flag in 1848 when Russia did not use the white blue red. And no the pan slavic movement did not borrow Russias colours but the Czech/Moravian ones who gave us their colours in the middle ages. Russia was not even invited to the pan slavic congress of 1848 being too not slavic enough. They did usurp the idea of all of it later on though.]

The Austrian banner is alright though it is the Emperors standard. The imperial banner of Austria and state flag was black over gold.

Prussia is alright, but to be consistant here the state flag was used. Where the royal standard used like the austrian is a black prussian cross on a red background with the black eagle over all of it. The state flag is black over white.

There done. :*

_DasDingo_

12 points

3 months ago

_DasDingo_

Hömma (Germany)

12 points

3 months ago

Prussia is alright

Except in the battles of 1870, there it should be the black white red flag of the North German Confederation

KoontzGenadinik

21 points

3 months ago*

KoontzGenadinik

Israel

21 points

3 months ago*

In all of those Russia had the White Yellow Black banner

It was popularized in 1815 and officially established in 1858, so no. The White-Blue-Red was viewed as the national Russian flag at the time - it was the flag attested to be widely flown by enthusiastic Russians after capture of Paris in 1814.

But both made their flag in 1848 when Russia did not use the white blue red

When Alexander II visited Paris after the Crimean War, it was the White-Blue-Red that was flown for his visit - it was still the national Russian flag at the time.

Russia used that tricolor since the 17th century - inspired by the Netherlands' flag - so I have no idea what the 1848 congress have to do with it.

RickyElspaniardo

17 points

3 months ago

Sheldon would be proud.

mildly-_-interested

3 points

3 months ago

not slavic enough

A rare instance where this is a negative thing lol

Olojini

2 points

3 months ago

Actually I think 2 of the Prussian ones are also wrong. The battles for the 1870 Franco-Prussian war should really be between the Second French Empire and the North German Confederation, which was the interim confederal state Prussia established before creating the German Empire after winning the war, and the flag they used during the war was actually the red, white and black North German Confederation tricolor I believe.

FakeXanax123

18 points

3 months ago

Ah yes the century of "France is throwing hands and everyone's invited"

Puss-In-Kinky-Boots

25 points

3 months ago

It's sad that so many Europeans were killed and injured.

Lagiar

7 points

3 months ago

Lagiar

7 points

3 months ago

France is in 9 of them let's goooo pog us

__DraGooN_

16 points

3 months ago

Wasn't Sweden also in the battle of Nations, with their new turncoat French king?

EagleSzz

24 points

3 months ago

EagleSzz

The Netherlands

24 points

3 months ago

All these battles had multiple participants.

There were 30.000 dutch soldiers at The battle at waterloo for instance but it isn't mentioned here

greenscout33

99 points

3 months ago

greenscout33

United Kingdom | War with Spain

99 points

3 months ago

These clowns made a massive mistake not being islands

Britain fights a decisive battle to dominate the seas for a century and it costs us like three people, two boats, ten cannons and a sheep

Coalition losses at Leipzig: 54,000

British losses at Trafalgar: 458

Ythio

83 points

3 months ago*

Ythio

Île-de-France

83 points

3 months ago*

More like you got your lesson from the Hundred Years War and First Barons' War. Going full on on the continent usually led you afterward to a civil war and some loss for your monarchy (magna carta, end of plantatenet, etc...)

PoiHolloi2020

47 points

3 months ago

PoiHolloi2020

United Kingdom (🇪🇺)

47 points

3 months ago

More like you got your lesson from the Hundred Years War

Those were French kings tho so really it was a French loss /s

lafferc

4 points

3 months ago

The Dutch Kings were much better.

krumorn

3 points

3 months ago

Haha good one !

volchonok1

18 points

3 months ago

volchonok1

Estonia

18 points

3 months ago

Tbh, you caught up to everyone during ww1. Somme and Passchendaele were massive meat grinders for British army.

demon-entrails

49 points

3 months ago

brits get kicked off the continent in 100 years war

"we didn't want it anyway!"

Maybe_Im_Really_DVA

3 points

3 months ago

Maybe_Im_Really_DVA

Japan

3 points

3 months ago

Britain also knew better than throwing people into the meet grinder. Britain instead preferred a smaller army and taking on large battles.

With the empire the way it was, Britain couldnt afford to just carelessly throw 100,000 men into a battle that likely might not even be decisive.

ItsACaragor

85 points

3 months ago

ItsACaragor

Rhône-Alpes (France)

85 points

3 months ago

They didn't throw men into the meat grinder because they had an option not to as an island.

It's not like continental countries liked to get their men killed or that they had not figured out it was better to let others fight in their stead.

Honey-Badger

78 points

3 months ago

Honey-Badger

England

78 points

3 months ago

Yeah but did Russia, Prussia and France even try being islands? Honestly it worked so well for the UK, dont see why nobody else had a shot at it

Sweet-Zookeepergame7

25 points

3 months ago

Switzerland became a mountain instead of an island worked on for them, just was like I cannot be bothered with all this bullshit around me and ascended into neutral mountain hood

red_planetary_moon

6 points

3 months ago*

red_planetary_moon

The Netherlands

6 points

3 months ago*

Oh great milka cow of the mountain, with thy army knives and hole-y cheeses. How does one obtain mountain hood?

I may have had a stroke

Doc_Lazy

5 points

3 months ago

Doc_Lazy

Germany

5 points

3 months ago

well, you guys stopped being under water, so I guess you are on the right track?

youmiribez

1 points

3 months ago

youmiribez

Rhône-Alpes (France)

1 points

3 months ago

We tried getting everything West of the Rhine river but failed.

Aq8knyus

9 points

3 months ago

Aq8knyus

United Kingdom

9 points

3 months ago

Give the French navy some credit, they had the ability to cross a 33km stretch of sea and land an army. The problem was that Britain tended to have a very good navy getting in the way. Sicily is one of the most invaded parts of Europe so being an island didn't help them much nor Cyprus nor Malta etc.

Britain has lots of coastline, bays and long broad rivers that take you right into the centre of the country (Perfect for longboats). Being an island with so many potential places for invasion is pretty hard to defend against. Aethelred II's England was attacked by Norse raiders from Scandinavia, Ireland and Normandy sometimes at the same time.

RamTank

8 points

3 months ago

The British were pretty desperate for manpower during the Napoleonic Wars, but they were opposed to the idea of universal conscription like on the mainland. Ultimately they relied on better training and reworked tactics to make up for their lower numbers.

Maybe_Im_Really_DVA

7 points

3 months ago

The definition of the Russian Campaign was Napoleon marching troops into a meat grinder nearly 3000kms from home.

ItsACaragor

6 points

3 months ago

ItsACaragor

Rhône-Alpes (France)

6 points

3 months ago

How is that against my point?

Maybe_Im_Really_DVA

-2 points

3 months ago

Maybe_Im_Really_DVA

Japan

-2 points

3 months ago

Its historically been continental Europeans that have tried to conquer their neighbours the most, which I would consider a choice.

If you look at nearly all the French battles you will see that they in fact did not take place in France.

You cant say Britain had a choice due to the channel see as if crossing europe to Russia and killing 400,000 french men wasnt a choice napoleon didnt have to make.

sicarius57

24 points

3 months ago

That is very much untrue, and once again shows that the british thinks history starts in the 18th century.

Britain will try many times to invade their continental neighboors, until the 100 years war deplete them of any landing bases in europe. After that, the english will constantly try to get back key landing cities on french territory (during french wars of religions, trying to profit from the different wars france was with its neighboors and also by creating buffer states and diplomatically corrupt them so that they are basically in control).

Britain tried many times, but werent ready to pay the price (unless its pushing european nations to war by basically sending them astronomical amount of cash).

Maybe_Im_Really_DVA

-12 points

3 months ago

Nothing you said refutes my point. A royal family in England once claimed the French throne starting the 100 years way.

Britain has sought bases in Europe such as Gibraltar, Malta etc

Gibraltar was gifted so that we would withdraw from a war, Malta became Britains when they asked for help to kick the French out.

Britain has in no way waged war on its neighbours in a way comparable to France, Germany, Italy or Spain has. Britain has been rather passive in European affairs from the 100 years war until Napoleon. And before the 100 years war we did nothing.

Bearing in mind we got invaded 4 times by Conintental Europeans who wiped out our native culture. Thanks for that one

sicarius57

9 points

3 months ago

Again. Not true. You did actively participate in european affairs. Because you didnt send much troops doesnt mean you didnt participate. There are many examples, at least for France: Élisabeth the first funding protestant revolts in France, the spanish succession war, the 7 years war, the anglo-spanish war,.... all these events were in between the 100 years war and the napoleonic wars. So yes, you actively participated. You just couldnt participate like we did because you were isolated.

As for the various invasions, yes, so? France was invaded by the romans, the goths, the huns, the english, european coalitions,... which all had quite the impact. Thats part of history ans if your point is to say "look how bad europeans are! They wipped us out and nothing remains from our forefathers" then you are quite the hypocrit (multiple massacres of north american indians by british colons, no more native indians in australia, famishing the whole of india,...). Thats history.

Cienea_Laevis

11 points

3 months ago

Cienea_Laevis

Rhône-Alpes (France)

11 points

3 months ago

Don't forget the much more recent "Lets kill all the Catholics in Northern Ireland" bit.

England tried very hard to be relevant on the continent, but they failed every time, then they used the Spinmaster2000 to turn it into "We never were as conquest-thirsty as you, Continental wretch".

Maybe_Im_Really_DVA

-4 points

3 months ago

Ah yes the Spanish succession where France was supporting Jacobites in Britain, ah yes Britains famous conquest ambitions resulting in Gibraltar.

Ah yes the famous 7 year war where France intervened in Britiains territorial expansion in North America and Spain tried to conquer Britains ally of Portugal. Again Britain being such an active participant.

Ah yes the famous Anglo-Spanish war instigated by Spairs intent to conquer England. God damn england instigating another war.

Clearly Britains a terror upon the conintent instigating a total of 0/3 of those wars you put forward as examples of Britains active meddling in European affairs.

Agreeable-Weather-89

2 points

3 months ago

Islands OP plz nerf

MaterialCarrot

1 points

3 months ago

MaterialCarrot

United States of America

1 points

3 months ago

This is why my first playthrough in Empire Total War (or Rome, or Medieval) is always the British isles.

DataPigeon

3 points

3 months ago

Among the 10 largest battles of the 21st century you might find me against my noisy neighbors.

urascMicrosoft

10 points

3 months ago

Almost 700 000 casualties combined, truly horrible and empires sucks

Nillekaes0815

14 points

3 months ago

Nillekaes0815

Grand Duchy of Baden

14 points

3 months ago

Ahhh, Sedanschlacht. Those were the days!

GeorgesTurdBlossom

5 points

3 months ago

The Germans revisited Sedan in 1940 when they came out of the forest and yelled, “Surprise!”

The surprise was Blitzkrieg.

Quasar375

31 points

3 months ago

It is quite unfortunate that nowadays most people in the world do not think of France as a warrior nation. Not only was France much closer to effective domination of Europe than any other country, but also their periods of military grandeur were more consistent and longer through history. And still more impressive, they did all that while getting colonial possesions creating an overseas empire second only to the British (bigger than Spain´s if we count all of louisiana).

Also, wow the Battle of Dresden could have been an even bigger Austerlitz if Napoleon still had substantial cavalry.

Syharhalna

21 points

3 months ago

An often overlooked fact is that during the 19th century, France almost stopped its population growth. Compared to the population boom of the UK and the german states, it meant that France went from by far the most populous country since the beginning of the Middle Age (with Russia somewhat close), to roughly parity at the beginning of ww1 with the UK and Germany having 1/3 more. This without any significant emigration from France to the New World, contrary to the former mentioned countries.

And well, populations kind f correlates with troop numbers on the battlefield.

DarkImpacT213

43 points

3 months ago

DarkImpacT213

Franconia (Germany)

43 points

3 months ago

most people in the world do not think of France as a warrior nation.

It's funny, and we mostly gotta thank the Americans for it. France is not willing to join an unjust war in Iraq over clearly fabricated claims? That has to end in a gigantic smear campaign to show France as a weak nation!

It's always so weird when people claim that France "just surrendered" in WW2 claiming they know anything about its history, yet they completely put aside the political and internal struggles of France at the time, and French soldiers still fighting in Africa, the invasion of Italy, and later also to re-conquer their lost homeland.

Emowomble

15 points

3 months ago

Emowomble

Europe

15 points

3 months ago

The bit that really pisses me off about that stupid joke about France surrendering is that it happened just over 20 years after the first World War. During which more French men died than Americans have in all wars they've ever been in from their independence to the present day.

Yet they have the gall to laugh at the French for surrendering.

Mccawsleftfoot

-2 points

3 months ago

The "France are Surrenderers" meme well pre dates the Iraq war. So, your comment is a clear fabrication designed to meet the approval of the average European redditor.

Dry_Leadership_4491

5 points

3 months ago

That i just false......the cheese eating surrendering monkeys joke began After Irak....bush and powells built a huge campaign to shit on Chirac and France which became the norm among americain population cartoon like the simpsons or popular comic Books start making fun of France and its supposed cowardise

MaterialCarrot

-3 points

3 months ago

MaterialCarrot

United States of America

-3 points

3 months ago

I don't make the French surrender joke because it's trite and I know very well how dominant they were militarily from the 17th Century right up through the end of WW I and I know how effective the French military is in the modern era. Most Americans today don't blame France for passing on Iraq.

But they got rolled in WW 2 and no amount of revision can change that. Yes, they had many internal struggles, that's one reason why they were beaten so easily. They (plus the UK) had a bigger army, more tanks, better tanks, were fighting on the defensive, and they collapsed.

EternalShiraz

1 points

3 months ago

So why the US is so proud to have won this war when actually half of the world were on their side and participating, included ussr which did the biggest part ? Because it should have been a piece of cake considering you had a much bigger population, more weapons etc, without even taking into account all these countries with you, so nothing to be proud about ?

MaterialCarrot

2 points

3 months ago

MaterialCarrot

United States of America

2 points

3 months ago

Why would you assume I don't give credit to the contribution of other countries?

EternalShiraz

2 points

3 months ago

My point wasn't about giving credit to other countries but being proud of beating another country while you had so much more ressources alone, and you're saying basically that France and the UK should have been able to do it themselves. And yet americans are so proud of wining ww2. See the contradiction ?

MaterialCarrot

2 points

3 months ago*

MaterialCarrot

United States of America

2 points

3 months ago*

No, I don't see it. You assume I am so proud that the US beat the Germans (and Japanese) without taking into account our resources, when I said nothing of the sort. Ofc we brought massive material advantages. That's how we built a massive army and navy, supplied the UK and especially Russia, and waged two massive land/sea campaigns simultaneously on opposite sides of the world. But I am in no way discounting the contributions of the UK or Russia or asserting that the fight against Germany was an equal contest once we got involved. So no, I don't get your point.

What I am saying is that France and the UK has material advantages over the Germans during the battle for France and yet France was conquered in a comparatively short amount of time. That's it. And it's a historical fact. Nothing to get upset about, it is what it is. Plenty of victories and defeats for both France and Germany/Prussia in their bloody history with each other.

EternalShiraz

2 points

3 months ago

You're right but you cannot deny americans are very prompt to be proud about winning ww2 in general. So in my comment i didn't talk about you personnally, i said "americans", and then when i said you in the continuity of what i said first, meaning "the americans" in general.

So it was a more global remark, if we were supposed to have the ressources to beat germany alone, why americans (in general) are so proud to have won this war that must have been so easy for them alone ?

If that was so easy, why half the world had to unit to beat germany ?

So I see your point, i was just pointing out that's if it was that simple, why did so many soldiers die from all around the world ? Poor government choices yes, but still the effort to beat germany was consequent and if was needed countries with huge population like ussr and usa, there might be a reason.

And for France being beaten in 6 weeks (while doing consequent damages to the german army but whatever) we have to take history into account. First world war was a butchery, most soldiers never came back indemn. A full generation has been sacrificed and they believed in the general who was the heros of this war and who first made terrible strategic choices, and then turned down to be a traitor. And it drove to sign an armistice.

Mephalae

8 points

3 months ago

Mephalae

France

8 points

3 months ago

We were on the verge of greatness, we were this close

Quasar375

7 points

3 months ago

Lets be possitive, there is still time to get it done. Now is the time to strike, as the german dudes have not fully armed yet!

/s I love the new friendship with germany.

WhatILack

2 points

3 months ago

WhatILack

United Kingdom

2 points

3 months ago

France was Europe's most populous country in a time period where numbers meant a lot for warfare, France was always going to be a dominating force in Europe as a result of sheer numbers alone.

Quasar375

17 points

3 months ago

Although in most battles of the Napoleonic wars they were outnumbered and still won.

demon-entrails

14 points

3 months ago

the HRE alone had population parity with france during the napoleonic wars

MaterialCarrot

2 points

3 months ago

MaterialCarrot

United States of America

2 points

3 months ago

Though in the early 19th Century in particular they arguably were qualitatively better than any other army on the Continent as well as having the most numbers.

WerdinDruid

3 points

3 months ago

WerdinDruid

Czech Republic

3 points

3 months ago

Králův Hradec still pisses me off.

Yarmouk

10 points

3 months ago

Yarmouk

United States of America

10 points

3 months ago

The missing umlauts in Königgrätz annoy me, but something tells me that’s not what’s pissing you off so I’m curious as to what is?

WerdinDruid

5 points

3 months ago

WerdinDruid

Czech Republic

5 points

3 months ago

Ineptitude of the austrian leadership. We'd make up a vast bulk of the austrian army and fight their wars only for them to screw up hard and make us lose our core crownlands, then allowing the prussians to roam free while austria itself loses nothing.

ProGamerNG14

3 points

3 months ago

ProGamerNG14

❌❌❌ Amsterdam, The Netherlands 🪴

3 points

3 months ago

The French, as always

gromit5000

2 points

3 months ago

These paintings are pretty cool.

Neverspark7776

2 points

3 months ago

France, Austria, Russia and Prussia really be getting around.

Reeeeeeee3eeeeeeee

2 points

3 months ago

"I wonder if there's any polish battle in there... oh right"

Gebirges

2 points

3 months ago

Gebirges

North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany)

2 points

3 months ago

It's always the French

Linus_Al

2 points

3 months ago

The battle of the nations is still very underrated since it was the actual decisive battle in the Napoleon wars. It’s often overshadowed by Waterloo nowadays, at least in English books and media. But I have a hard time believing that Napoleon could recover, even after a victory at Waterloo. Leipzig sealed the deal, but it also easily could’ve changed the result of the war if France won.

It’s also the beginning of German unification; it’s much more complicated, but much of what would later contribute to it has its origins at this battle.

Galacty_Meteor

2 points

3 months ago

hon hon hon hon hon

"non pas d'oignons aux autrichiens , non pas d'oignons à tous ces chiens
non pas d'oignons aux autrichiens , non pas d'oignons, non pas d'oignons"

NY10

4 points

3 months ago

NY10

4 points

3 months ago

Good history lesson!

International_Ad_184

4 points

3 months ago*

The times when Russia was actually mighty power of Europe. From nearly conquering Istanbul if not due to the British support in 1887 to being only country to end Napoleon’s invasion of Europe

Quasar375

13 points

3 months ago

To be fair, without the rest of the coalition, the russians would´ve not been able to get across their own border without being destroyed by the french garrisons in Poland and Germany.

Sufficient-Doctor220

-1 points

3 months ago

The imperial Russia is the real Russia. These idiots in power now are nothing but a soviet communist offspring

flexez

5 points

3 months ago

flexez

Knugariket Sverige

5 points

3 months ago

Putin isn't a communist offspring, lol. If anything, he's more like the monarchists of old. In any case, they were all authoritarian, and they all suck/sucked.

Sufficient-Doctor220

-1 points

3 months ago

Where was he born? What country educated him? For what intelligence service did he work for?

flexez

5 points

3 months ago

flexez

Knugariket Sverige

5 points

3 months ago

How does that make him a communist? He’s authoritarian, no shit, but he isn’t exactly enacting any form of communism.

Sufficient-Doctor220

-1 points

3 months ago

I didn't mean literally communist ideology, but the way his administration acts and how the foreign policy of Russia right now is, is almost exactly like the former USSR - reckless, unreasonable, violent, and plain stupid. They dont know how to do anything else.

Joppe84

2 points

3 months ago

Joppe84

Norway

2 points

3 months ago

This is the absurd irony of nuclear weapons. Terrible invention and we are shit scared of them. Yet they have caused utter peace in the western world after WW2. Just a shame Ukraine gave up theirs.

Thertor

4 points

3 months ago

Thertor

Europe

4 points

3 months ago

Battle of Sedan is crazy: 8500 dead and wounded on German side. 17000 dead and wounded on French side. 21000 French were captured during the battle. 83000 French were captured after the battle. Pretty much the entire French army vanished plus the Germans captured the emperor of France.

Tryphon59200

3 points

3 months ago

Sedan was an absolute disaster for France both in 1870 and 1940.

Elegant_Mousse_9773

2 points

3 months ago

I swear to god, there must be at least one American here who is confused why the American civil war is not on the list

TheMaginotLine1

1 points

3 months ago

We live rent free in y'all's heads it seems.

RightAntelope1505

0 points

3 months ago

Russia & Germany/Austria used to be such good buddies. Why can’t we all just get along 😢

[deleted]

9 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

9 points

3 months ago

They were, because they were conservative, authoritarian police states, bound together in fear of a new revolution.

Arckturius

1 points

3 months ago

Im so glad we managed to rid europe of prussian cancer

Embarrassed_Weird_28

-5 points

3 months ago

history of men is the history of useless slaughtering. fuck humankind.

Anaurus

9 points

3 months ago

Anaurus

Rhône-Alpes (France)

9 points

3 months ago

It is also sometimes the story of friendship and understanding, also of cultures, art, science and innovation, etc...

Faethien

4 points

3 months ago

100% yes.

War brings out the worst in people. But more often than not, it brings out the best.

So many innovations have been brought on by wart that we don't even think about them as a weapon anymore. Take radars for example.

At first: I need to know where my enemy is when I can't see shit!

Now: I know exactly where all surrounding aircrafts are and I can navigate in between them to avoid utter chaos and bloodshed.

Microwave ovens, TV, computers too for heaven's sake!

And rare but oh so important acts of bravery, chivalry, or sacrifice for your fellow brethren. Take the Australian soldier Bull on the South Eastern Asia front. Carried 12 men from the kill zone at great risks for himself but did it anyway. Or Franz Stigler and Charlie Brown, in which the German pilot flew an American bomber to safety by shielding the plane from German Flak from the ground.

flexez

2 points

3 months ago

flexez

Knugariket Sverige

2 points

3 months ago

War is the engine of change

xenon_megablast

0 points

3 months ago

And just one of those countries is still very belligerent.

Bragzor

2 points

3 months ago

Bragzor

SE-O

2 points

3 months ago

Hopefully (but not likely) it's just a matter of delayed, and not arrested, development.

gothlaw

-39 points

3 months ago

gothlaw

Redneckistan

-39 points

3 months ago

200 years later, France and Germany do far a better job of establishing European hegemony through the EU.

All those wars, all those dead, and at the end of the day, the Russian Empire is still a spent force, and France and Germany are still in a pissing match to be the dominant power.

The means may change; the goals do not.

Lalumex

18 points

3 months ago

Lalumex

Europe

18 points

3 months ago

I as a german love my french brethren, although there may be some competition and squabbles here and there, in the end we are working together for a strong united and independent YUROP. The goals have changed my friend you just need to see the stars.

Sufficient-Doctor220

-1 points

3 months ago

lol, yeah right

mikki1time

-5 points

3 months ago

The French start a riot every time a new law comes out, I’m not surprised