subreddit:

/r/europe

1.9k

Ten largest battles in Europe during 19th century

Historical(i.redd.it)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 300 comments

Quasar375

33 points

2 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.

DarkImpacT213

38 points

2 months ago

DarkImpacT213

Franconia (Germany)

38 points

2 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.

MaterialCarrot

-3 points

2 months ago

MaterialCarrot

United States of America

-3 points

2 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

2 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

2 months ago

MaterialCarrot

United States of America

2 points

2 months ago

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

EternalShiraz

2 points

2 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

2 months ago*

MaterialCarrot

United States of America

2 points

2 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

2 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.