Talk:Military history of France/Archive 1

Map
The map of the french colonial empire is completely wrong, France never had such a large empire in India. Somebody should correct this map.

I'm not too sure, but I believe the map covers trading connections more than territory annexed.UberCryxic 02:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The map indeed has a major problem; it looks like it was made by taking all territory outside Europe that French had claimed at all times during their history. This is very misleading because France had long since lost India & North America to the British before aquiring large interor portions of Africa. (It's also the case that France had little effective control of North America outside what is now Quebec and in India only had effective control of the coastal cities, but the same arguments could be raised against most countries overseas empires during that era.) Jon 13:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
There are numerous public domain pictures related to French military history at the NYPL, although I'm not sure which should actually be included in this article. Folder titles to browse include any that begin with "Army -- France". -- brian0918 &#153;  20:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Overview
The overview section seems pretty long, a bit unstructured, and there doesnt seem to be much of a divide between it and the start of the chronology (straight from Technology to Gaul & Franks). I will try to add more to Gaul section, but not sure about restructing the intro?. (forgot, Wombat)

I just added a bunch of stuff to France's position with other continental powers, but there's a hell of a lot that needs adding to nearly every other sections. Some sections have nothing, many are barely up to substub standard. I put an extra space between Technology and the next section; I'm not sure how well it works, but the change is more distinct. Perhaps the history section should be grouped into one big section?


 * Makes more sense. How about a briefer overview section to start with, a grouped history & battles section, then summary/ themes/general military terms and the other lists that dont fit in anywhere else. Had a look at the other military histories, doesnt really seem to be an established layout yet. - 203.15.226.132 01:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) (wombat!)

I really was not aware that France ever conquered India and even less aware that it was lost in the French and Indian War!!! --WhiteEcho 07:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Tactics and Technology
Why the elimination of this section by 205.196.188.100? I liked it and thought it useful, although we needed to blend it with the chronology somehow.... Pmeisel 03:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistent comment
"Moreover, his defeat freed up British troops to fight in the Americas that found American militia units an easier foe than Napoleon's crack troops." -- I removed this because I found it inconsistent with the discussion of Napoleon's mass conscription and poorly trained troops. Also, my studies don't bear out that British troops had less trouble with American militia than Napoleon -- when in reasonable numbers and well generaled they did pretty well against Napoleon. Pmeisel 13:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peacekeeping
What about French peacekeeping actions in Rwanda and other countries? Zntrip

Peacekeeping during the genocide? I thought that they came, got their nationals, then left.

Yeah, they nor any other country did anything until the very last stages of the genocide.--64.75.187.197 04:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rwanda wasn't the best moment for the French. They armed many dangerous people. The entire reaction of the international community was a bit lethargic and nonchalant if you ask me.UberCryxic 04:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you watch the movie Hotel Rwanda, you are under the impression that the French soldiers came to only rescue Westerners. The movie is quite accurate on many points and indeed these soldiers spoke French but seem to have been Belgian peacekeepers, which you can identify by their standard way of wearing their berets (insignia on the left, while the French wear their insignia on the right). Now, even if France blundered by supporting and arming the Hutus (although these groups mostly used machetes to conduct their massacres and not modern weapons), France did indeed protect Tutsi refugees. There are obviously instances where the French failed to protect the Tutsis under their responsability (voluntarily or not) but overall their actions helped save lives. --WhiteEcho 07:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The book We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families offers a compelling indictment of French activities in Rwanda. Of course, the failure of the rest of the international community to respond to the crisis is utterly objectionable, but the French were involved in the situation, and on the side of the genocidaires.

Revolutionary France
Can someone add a bit about the structure and organisation of the Army during the Revolution and before Napoleon? This was is time of great historical interest which shaped the modern concept of a citizen's army. this seems is completely uncovered in Wikipedia. (My knowledge is too sketchy to begin such an article) Thanks... Seabhcán 13:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is Stanley D'Panseax for real?
Sorry about the potentially stupid question, but is this person Stanley D'Panseax for real? I can't find any reference to him online (of course, other than wiki mirror pages) nor on fr.wikipedia.com. Thanks. Julius.kusuma 17:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

History of the Armée de l'Air articles
The titles used for the History of the Armée de l'Air (Armée de l'Air (Part I: From birth to "Torch", 1909-1942), Armée de l'Air (Part II: Fighting for Free France, 1940-1945) and Armée de l'Air (Part III: End of empire in Indochina and Algeria, 1939-1962)) read like chapters from a novel. These articles should be moved to more comprehensive and encyclopedic titles (History of the Armée de l'Air (1909-1942), History of the Armée de l'Air (1940-1945), History of the Armée de l'Air (1939-1962)). These type of titles are widely used in History articles (see History of Portugal series). And also there seems to be a confusion about the period that each article describes (for example, the three articles describes the 1940-1942 period). CG 19:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

CG I agree with you. The thing is, I don't know how to change it in the main style. If you want to do it, just go aheadUberCryxic 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. CG 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixing links
I think R Canton Woodville and Rousellot should be properly fixed due to lack of the names. Brandmeister 13:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the redlinks to those two. Thanks for pointing that out.UberCryxic 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Question...
... the lead image has the following caption: "Ivry was the most important battle in the French Wars of Religion; victory there allowed a Protestant Henry to ascend to the French throne and establish the Bourbon dynasty, although he converted to Catholicism to soften the political transition."

Are we sure that is the reason he did this? How do we know he didn't genuinely convert to Roman Catholicism? I am not an RC myself (I am a Protestant), but for the sake of NPOV shouldn't we rephrase this? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, stemming from his famous comment, "Paris is well worth a mass," we're pretty sure that's why he did it. France was a heavily Catholic nation and Henry had been a Protestant all his life. It made political sense to convert to Catholicism. I don't think it needs to be rephrased.UberCryxic 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Query
"It is believed by some scholars that one of the driving forces behind the Crusades was an attempt by such landless knights to find land overseas, without causing the type of internecine warfare that would largely damage France's increasing military strength. However, such historiographical work on the Crusades is being challenged and rejected by a large part of the historical community."

(I had to modify it slightly, and in the process introduced a weasel word). Can we find out who believes that the driving forces behind the Crusades was an attempt by such landless knights to find land overseas. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The footnote that I placed at the bottom of the paragraph is about the book that mentions this scholarly dispute. People who want to find out more can check that book out.UberCryxic 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Text concerning Picture
That's why it says "probably". Nobody can deny that the Pyrenees in the south, the Alps in East, and the Atlantic in the West are very good natural defenses. Apart from that, how can you claim that the present area was achieved only by war?! Sander 20:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

First, I do not want an edit war. I believe such a terrible undertaking would only hurt me, you, the article, and the spirit of Wikipedia.

Second, the statement does not claim that all the current French territory was acquired through war. It does, however, strongly imply it, which is what probably led you to make the assertion you did. Now, there is a good reason why it implies it.

The vast majority of all French territory was obtained through war or had to be kept through war. For some of the most prominent "landgrabs," see the Albigensian Crusades (a lot of territory in Southern France), the invasions of Flanders (part of Flanders conquered), the Hundred Years War (many many regions permanently fell into French hands after this one, most notably Normandy), the wars of Louis XIV (various territorial aggrandizement here and there), the Franco-Austrian War of 1859 (Nice and Savoy go to France), and the world wars which finally settled the issue of Alsace-Lorraine to France's favor. Undoubtedly, I'm forgetting many other instances, but I think you get the point. It is not at all far-fetched to claim that modern France is the way it is, that is the largest territorially in Western Europe, because of the many wars it has fought and won. In that same vein, the geographical aspects are important, but not decisive. Nations with better defensive locations than France are nowhere near as big; demographics and foreign policy decisions help explain France's territorial status much better. I'm going to revert to the original statement, and I humbly ask that you no longer tamper with it.UberCryxic 01:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, you see, the text now implies that France became so large because of the wars it's people won... this is of course not true.The first lines were created by the Romans and Franks, long before the creation of a French state let alone identity. Sander 14:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The kernel of the modern French state was laid in the Treaty of Verdun in 843 (as was Germany's). However, we don't have an entity that we can reasonably call France until the Capetians come around. Hugh Capet, the first king in that dynasty, had a royal domain of about 400 squared miles. His successors, be they kings or other types of rulers, have, mostly through war, taken that to the modern 213,000 squared miles of metropolitan France. I agree with your statement that the text implies France became large because of wars. That is the effect the text was supposed to have. I do not know why you say "not true." My first post mentioned some of the major conflicts which account for a good deal (more than half) of France's present territories.

Once again, I generously request that this matter be laid to rest. Many other editors and featured article reviewers did not have a problem with that statement. Thank you.UberCryxic 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And I refuse this, the text implies the impossible... that the french are/were the most succesfull nation when concerning war, apart from the obvious incorectness of this statement, it doesn't mention the biggest source of gaining land in those times namely royal marriages. Sander 15:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you think the text implies that, but as I see it the text does not suggest that at all. If it did, there would be serious NPOV issues, and I'd be the first to fix it, suffice it to say that France has been a successful military nation. Marriages were an important aspect of acquiring land. However, with regards to France, they were far less important than war. Please review the conflicts which I mentioned to you; you'll clearly see that the better part of modern-day France was gained through those wars.UberCryxic 15:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a particularly good wording, more because the French territoral gains tended to fluctuate wildly over time (e.g. the massive expansions of France under Francis I or Napoleon, which were lost soon afterwards). Perhaps a wording like "With borders established through centuries of warfare, France is ..." would be more acceptable, and wouldn't take any stance on the degree to which said warfare had involved gains versus losses of territory? Kirill Lok s  h in 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, I like your idea, but I don't feel that it's all that different from what's already there. "With borders established through centuries of warfare" is more diplomatic, but it's analogous to "After centuries of war." I also should mention that the comment as it stands now does not explicitly say that because of war, France is the largest territorially. It just say after a long time of fighting, France is the largest. So the statement is factual, but our quibble has involved the implication behind it. Do you think that implication is fair? That is, the implication that France is probably so large because of, mainly, wars.UberCryxic 15:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You just don't get it do you?

>>>> After centuries of war, modern France is territorially the largest nation in Western Europe.<<<<

This suggests that france was the most succesful nation in western europe in respect to wars.Which is nonsense.That's why it has to be changed. Sander 16:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "France's current borders were established through centuries of warfare", and avoid the issue of "largest nation" entirely? (It's not that much larger than some of the other countries, so it's not a particularly important point, in my opinion.) Kirill Lok s  h in 16:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair insofar as France has avoided being dismembered by other countries ;-)
 * As far as actual territorial gains, though: significant portions of France (Burgundy, Brittany, etc.) were acquired by diplomatic means, so I think that the implication may not be the best one to make in a place (such as an image caption) that doesn't really allow for more extensive discussion. Kirill Lok s h in 16:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sander, it would only suggest that if you equated military history with territorial aggrandizement. The two are most definitely related, but there is no absolute causal relationship. Your country, the Netherlands, is a good case; it's had a fabulous military history, but it is not very large.

Secondly, even if what you said was being suggested (which it isn't), why is that "nonsense"? Care to explain that? I don't want to get into a fight between nationalities or something, but if one wanted to, a good case could be made that France was the most militarily successful nation of Western Europe.UberCryxic 16:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm disappointed, but I'll leave it at a "map of modern day France."UberCryxic 16:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much,

About the "if one wanted to, a good case could be made that France was the most militarily successful nation of Western Europe." case.

I would say the following:


 * The borders of modern France are roughly the same as those of ancient Gaul, which was inhabited by Celtic Gauls. Gaul was conquered by Julius Caesar in the 1st century BC


 * In the 4th century AD, Gaul's eastern frontier along the Rhine was overrun by Germanic tribes, principally the Franks.Existence as a separate entity began with the Treaty of Verdun (843), with the division of Charlemagne's Carolingian empire into East Francia, Middle Francia and Western Francia. Western Francia approximated the area occupied by modern France.This size was pretty much kept after this, because of great natural borders: Pyrenees,Alps, Atlanic and the meuse/rhine


 * Lost Napoleontic wars


 * Were conquered by the Germans in a few months eventhough the armies were very well matched.

One could very well claim that the present day borders of France can be attributed to the Romans and the ancient franks, not the modern French. Sander 16:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Gaul was notably larger than modern France. It included the west bank of the Rhine, parts of Switzerland, and the Low Countries.

West Francia did not approximate the size of modern France by any stretch of the imagination. This is because, as Kirill alluded to earlier, there were wild fluctuations in its borders, but despite this, generally it was smaller than modern France. Here are a few maps (years at the top left).



Now, your statement that modern French borders can be connected back to Roman times is patently false. As I explained already, the direct connection between France currently and the earliest vestiges of nationhood lies with Hugh Capet. He possessed only 400 squared miles. It was this territory which grew into 213,000 squared miles. The maps above have no significance because France did not grow from those territories (or any territories of the Roman Empire), but rather from the territories of Hugh Capet.

I'm sort of puzzled by the last two points you made. Exactly what are you looking for? A record of French military participation would be a little daunting for anyone, so those conflicts in no way cover or do justice to French military history. In spite of that, France did win against three of the five coalitions that formed during the Napoleonic Wars. As I recall, they were conquered by the Germans in six weeks (if referring to World War II), not a "few months" (seven months if referring to the Franco-Prussian War). But I would really hope to avoid such silly games, mostly because they're not constructive, but also because it goes both ways. No one should have to remind you about the number of times France has invaded the Netherlands and, about equally, Germany.UberCryxic 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, do remind me of the times France invaded the Netherlands.I can think of 1 succesful one it lasted 3 years. Sander 17:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow only one time? I'm skeptical about your historical knowledge. I detect a hint of "anti-Frenchness." It must have been because of all those invasions!

-Franco-Dutch War (1672-1678). French troops advanced to the heartland of the Netherlands and took Utrecht. They were later forced to fall back, but they did gain a significant amount of land (the Franche-Comte) from this war.

-War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748). See the brilliant campaigns of Maurice de Saxe, in which he repeatedly defeated several Anglo-Dutch armies, that culminated in the fall of Maastricht in 1748.

-Occupation of the Low Countries in 1794. France dominated or ruled over the Netherlands until 1814. Essentially, your country was a puppet republic and kingdom for two decades (annexed to France in 1810).

In this list, I am not covering the French invasions of the Spanish Netherlands (which were significantly numerous as well). There are probably other instances that I'm forgetting. I'm sure you'd love to enlighten me.UberCryxic 17:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me correct you...

The War of Austrian Succession 1740–1748, was fought in the Austrian Netherlands, not the Netherlands.I'd advise you to use the right meaning of the term Netherlands.Maastricht has only recently become a Dutch city, due to Dutch conquest.

The Franco-Dutch war, was a French defeat.Michiel de Ruyter defeated the French ambitions in four grand victories against the combined Anglo-French fleet.The Dutch,tiny as they were, had thwarted the ambitions of two of the major royal dynasties of the time: the Stuarts and the Bourbons.

The kingdom of Holland was dissolved in 1810 after which the Netherlands were annexed by France until 1813.Not in 1795.

Sander 17:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I assure you you've done no correcting. French forces occupied the Netherlands in 1794-1795; you glossed over the part of my statement that said "dominated or ruled over." The Dutch Republic was nothing more than a puppet (or satellite, pick whichever term you prefer) state during this period. Its foreign policy was completely bound to that of France's, and if France didn't like what the Dutch did internally....well just look at what happened to Louis. On the War of the Austrian Succession: the French did invade the United Provinces; I have no idea where you're getting your history. Siege of Bergen Op Zoom ring a bell? Furthermore, nice job again on ignoring the part about how the French were beating the English, Dutch, and the Austrians.

The Franco-Dutch War was anything but a French defeat. In terms of naval operations, the United Provinces did more than a spectacular job against the combined British and French fleets, but the war on the ground was practically hopeless. The Dutch stood no chance, and we see this in the war. France practically walked all over the Netherlands; Maastricht (a Dutch city) fell in something like two weeks I think. The French occupied it from 1673 to 1679. They were only turned back when the Dutch flooded the ditches in Holland. In spite of this, however, the French gained considerable territory at Spain's expense, and they also got a few Dutch towns along the edges of their border. So "grand victories" at sea, yes. But on land, the Dutch were all but raped (I mean this in as much a diplomatic sense as such a heavy-handed term can be given).

Maastricht is now Dutch largely because of a treaty, not because of any "conquest."UberCryxic 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I must remind you of Dutch defensive tactic from the middle ages till the second world war ... the core cities with over 70% of the population lies behind the dutch water line.Nearly every enemy who invaded Netherlands had no problem with the suroundings as those were practically unguarded. Sander 12:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let's let's backtrack a little to provide some context and remind ourselves of what the real debate was about. The argument wasn't about Dutch defensive strategy, so spare me your face-saving measures. You first asked, rather sarcastically, about the number of times France had invaded the Netherlands. I gave you those instances and you raised untrue objections. As we've seen, the French invaded the Dutch in 1794 and dominated the nation for about two decades afterwards. You completely flouted this in your analysis, leading me to almost believe that you had somehow not even heard about that invasion. The French also invaded the Netherlands in 1747, when they conducted the famous and successful siege of Bergen op Zoom. Once again, for some reason you thought that the French had not invaded Dutch territory. In the Franco-Dutch War, French troops took Utrecht and stayed in the United Provinces from 1672 to 1674. Yet how do you deal with this piece of fact? You change the subject by bringing up the naval theater, which, while important, is not relevant to the debate of how many times France has invaded the Netherlands. Your historical knowledge is questionable, looking both at our conversation now and the fact that you did not know French territory sprang from the domains of Hugh Capet, and I suspect interwoven with that is a bit of anti-French sentiment. Hopefully now you understand why I'm very skeptical about almost anything you say; your analysis, on top of being historically wrong, is just not objective (and I can sense you like to change the topic around a lot when it suits your purposes).UberCryxic 15:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

sigh, this is totally off topic but whatever... UberCryxic, I made my point the point appeared to be valid, as it's changed in the article now, for me the main case is closed.If you would prefer to continue the french vs. dutch talk, fine, but on my talk page please. Sander 16:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's weird that the "main case" for you is closed and yet you spent so much time and effort spouting your lies. The debate is not closed, and we continue here, where we started. All I want is a realization that French military history is 1) Easily greater than that of the Netherlands and 2) One of the most successful, if not the most successful, among nations and peoples of Western Europe. Otherwise, state your reasons to the contrary, but don't run from the debate. Thank you.UberCryxic 16:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of Nations
Alright UberCryxic, I was going to leave this, but I will not be called a liar or a coward.If you want to compare nation history ... bring it on.

I'll make some little notes though...


 * The Netherlands are smaller than France, in population and in area.So most things here will have to be relative.


 * How will you determin the amount of 'succesfulness'? A won battle doesn't make a war. (Eg, the Napoleontic wars)

Alright, en garde as the French used to say.

1 - The Netherlands and its people, fought for their independence in a war lasting 80 years.

- France and Gauls people, became a 'nation' formed by a small (compared to the indegenous population of Gaul) foreign people, the Franks under Clovis.

There we go! Now that's the Dutch spirit we've all come to know and love. I should point out one thing immediately to avoid unnecessary complications: we're not "comparing nations." That would be ludicrous, and you've already dealt with some of the problems; France is much larger than the Netherlands, in population, territorially, economically, and in many other ways. So there's little to "compare," know what I mean? Notice how I specifically mentioned military history. Standards and criteria I suppose are important, but I haven't really thought of an objective one. I have tremendous respect for Dutch military history (and even the current armed forces of the Netherlands are spectacular); everything from s'Hertogenbosch to the Downs to the Raid on the Medway. Things like this make comparative analysis difficult; I would probably suggest, very tentatively, that comparatively the Dutch have been more successful. That's not my problem. My problem is your opinions of French military history. I don't understand your opposition to even contemplating that France might have had the greatest military history in Western Europe. Are you aware that Liddell Hart, a famous British military historian, once said, "...the greatest nation militarily, the French.."? He's including all of history in that assessment. I personally disagree. I've always placed the military history of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire as the greatest ever. France, in my opinion, comes second, and Britain third (or Britain and France could be switched).

Before I say why I think this, let me explain that France becoming a nation, in the full connotations of the word, took a very long time. It didn't even happen under the Franks, and either way the better part of modern French culture traces its roots to Gallo-Roman elements more than Frankish elements. Facts like this seem to have escaped you, leading to my frustration. It's difficult to treat France like the Netherlands in this respect, because with the latter you definitely have a case of a peoples trying to overthrow their masters, but there's nothing comparable in France. France is one of the oldest "nations" in the world, but its nationhood was an evolutionary process. It's much more challenging with France to say, "France begins here." Some think France began under Clovis in the fifth century, others under Hugh Capet in the tenth, and others still think it happened in the early 13th century following the victory at the Battle of Bouvines ("the battle that made modern France" as it is known by some historians). Personally, I think the cultural roots of France were laid during the Gallo-Roman period and the political roots were laid during the early Middle Ages under the Franks. These two divergent elements fused together to produce, over a long time, the France we know today. Coming to grips with this fundamental problem of just what counts as France is something I had to do as I wrote the vast majority of this article. In the end, I ended up including the Gauls and the Franks.

I'm not going to cover every little or big reason why I believe French military history is among the greatest of all nations, but I'll highlight some important trends, inventions, and battles and wars that definitely set the French apart.

I. Territorial Expansion - The earliest scion of modern French territory was the royal domains of Hugh Capet in the tenth century. These amounted to about 400 squared miles. Currently, metropolitan France is about 213,000 squared miles, an amazing jump achieved largely through 1,000 years of warfare. Below are some of the more prominent wars/battles and the territories they yielded for the French.

- Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229): A series of military campaigns, finally ended by intervention from the French king in 1226, nearly doubled the size of France through various conquests towards the south (like Toulouse and Languedoc).

- Battle of Bouvines (July 27, 1214): Philip Augustus defeated a larger Flemish-German army so decisively that Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV was deposed. Additionally, this victory and the victories of his son against King John in western France forced the latter to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. Territorially, this battle put Normandy back in French control.

- French invasions of Flanders (early fourteenth century): After suffering a famous defeat at the Battle of Courtrai in 1302, the French gradually recovered their position and defeated the Flemish so thoroughly at the Battle of Cassel in 1328 that much of Flanders fell under French control.

- Hundred Years War (1337-1453): This "war" was actually a series of wars marked by varying English and French fortunes. By 1453, France had permanently recovered Normandy, Gascony, and a host of other regions.

- Wars of Louis XIV (seventeenth century and early eighteenth century): These wars led to the conquest of regions like Alsace, Franche-Comté, Roussillon, and a bunch of other towns along France's borders with other duchies and nations.

- Franco-Austrian War of 1859: This was the last time French metropolitan territory would expand. After defeating the Austrians at Solferino and securing the Treaty of Villafranca, France was given Savoy and Nice in recognition of an agreement it had reached with the Sardinians.

Note: the wars and battles I have mentioned here are only those which led to some sort of permanent territorial establishments. In 1812, the French Empire dominated Europe and ruled 60 million subjects, but it did not last long.

II. Military Trends and Innovations - For a long time, the French have been instrumental in the development of both military theory and military practice. Some of the more prominent aspects are highlighted below:

- The chivalrous class of knights that would dominate European military history for three to four centuries initially began in France in the eleventh century. In fact, the word "chivalry" is derived from "cheval," which means "horse" in French.

- In the fifteenth century, Charles VII created the Compagnies d`ordonnance, 20 formations of around 600 cavalrymen each, the first standing army since Roman times and an important component of the French armies that would eventually win the Hundred Years War and so many of the early conflicts in the Italian Wars.

- The flintlock musket and the bayonet were both invented in France. These are arguably among the most famous weapons in military history, both used for centuries and adopted by armies across the globe.

- The Corps d'Armée, perhaps the greatest thing ever to come out of France. In the eighteenth century, armies would move as generally a singular unit subdivided into formations slightly larger than brigades or divisions. When Napoleon came to power, he permanently organized French armies in 'corps' (Moreau had actually been the first to do this, but he wasn't as systematic about it as Napoleon would be). Corps were larger and could fully support themselves (they were composed of infantry, cavalry, and artillery arms) in arduous times. This had immense military significance: French armies now moved in massive fronts and could mask forts because of their large numbers. The Corps system along with the much-celebrated battallion-carré, the diamond deployment system used in the Prussian campaign of 1806, led to victories on a scale that Europe had never known before. From 1805 to 1807, Napoleon took young men who largely hadn't ventured far from their bucolic homes on a 1,000-mile trek across the European continent. Their journey became legendary. Napoleon called them La Grande Armée. Perhaps no army before or since has emulated the bristiling way they thumped their opponents (perhaps). The armies of Austria, Prussia, Russia, and later Spain were all trounced under the French élan.

- France was the first country to use steam power in the deployment and movement of its armies. In the Franco-Austrian War of 1859, the French transferred their troops 60 miles across western Italy to turn the Austrian right flank and defeat them at the Battle of Magenta. Also, France pioneered fighter aviation by using the first combat pilots in World War I.

- A variety of other military "amenities," from the roundel now used in many air forces around the world to some of the most famous military words (everything from "general" to "brigade"), have originated in France.

III. Geostrategic Stability - If starting from the Franks, then France has remained a powerful force in European and world affairs for 1,500 years, a feat no other living nation can claim. England did not become a prominent strategic player until after the Norman invasion, and no other nation around the world has had this much influence for such a long time. To this day, you see vestiges of the French position in the fact that France is a member of the United Nations Security Council, has nuclear weapons, and has the fifth largest economy in the world. An important source of this stability and power was given by the historically steady performance of the military.

- From Clovis to Charlemagne, various Frankish rulers dominated much of Central and Western Europe from the late fifth to the ninth centuries.

- The Crusades displayed that France was the European power capable of the greatest force projection. In several crusades, many of the troops and nobles, if not most, came from France.

- The Capetian Dynasty saw the rise of what would become modern France through territorial expansion and growing internal centralization.

- Under the Valois and Bourbon dynasties, France became one of the most important and respected nations in Europe. From about 1658 to 1815, France was considered to be Europe's most powerful nation (those dates should obviously not be considered strict or set in stone). There was much success in the Revolutionary and the Napoleonic wars, but these were not long-term.

- In the modern period, French military power has relatively declined as non-European powers (particularly the United States and the Soviet Union in World War II) have risen to dominance. Nonetheless, as I wrote above, France is still an important nation in both Europe and the world.

Once again, I want to say I have all the respect in the world for Dutch military history. I think you'll agree with me that Dutch achievements in now way approach what I've outlined above, but if we are talking relatively, then I would probably go with you and say the Dutch did a better job. But I'm not all that sure about that anyway; I'd need more time for study and analysis. I encourage you to do the same with French military history.UberCryxic 23:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me make the following note:

''What if we have a continent, let's call it Europe.What if we have a lot of little nations living on this continent... Now, one of these countries a comparatively big one, let's call it France, conquered all nations but one in the course of 1500 years.The one nation they didn't conquered is a very small one, let's call it the Netherlands, and they have resisted the French for over 1500 years.''

Now, which country has the greatest millitary history? The large country that conquered all the little ones or the little country that resisted France for 1500 years? :-)

What I'm trying to say is that every thing is comparative...I'll show you:


 * 24,118,940 km² The French colonial 1st + 2nd Empire without France.

547,030 km² France ---

+ ________________________
 * 1,919,440 km² Indonesia
 * 30,528 km² Belgium
 * 304,978 South km² Africa/Cape colony
 * 163,270 km² Suriname
 * 214,970 km² Guyana
 * 41,290 km² New Netherlands colony in North America
 * 65,610 km² Sri Lanka
 * 92,020 km² Area in India
 * 378,240 km² Dutch Brazil


 * 3,210,346 km² All major parts of the Dutch Empire without the Netherlands.

41,526 km² Netherlands ---

The ratio Homeland vs Empire:

The Netherlands: 77,31

France: 44,09

In other words, France fitts into its empire roughly 44 times The Netherlands roughly 77 times.

The Dutch controlled an area of 77 times its homeland, the French 'only' 44 times its home area. Still the French Empire was much bigger, but wasn't the achievement of the Dutch bigger? Sander 09:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your first paragraph. Are you saying that France never conquered the Netherlands permanently or that they never at one point in history conquered the Netherlands? If the former, then you're correct, but on the other hand Netherlands doesn't seem so special, because lots of countries in Europe have managed to escape permanent subjugation at the hands of France (like your neighbor Belgium, for once, and even a puny nation like Luxembourg). If you meant the latter, well you'd obviously be wrong. You yourself admitted the Dutch were part of the French Empire from 1810 to 1813, and that's not even including all the years between 1794 and 1814 that the French had armed presence in the Netherlands. During that period, the map over the Netherlands might as well have read "France." What I'm saying is this: while the Dutch may have in the long run "resisted" the French, there were periods in those 1,500 years where France successfully intervened (read: militarily) in the affairs of peoples of the Netherlands. But as I've said above, this is nothing special.

The second part makes a mistake which I thought we had corrected: you cannot always equate military success with territorial expansion. Then you'd have a losing argument, since we've already established that France is the largest nation in Western Europe. Your argument is deceptive for the following reason: metropolitan France is much bigger than the Netherlands! Obviously then, when you make a ratio like that, the Dutch are looking quite good. Now you might counter with this: you could say that because the Netherlands is smaller, they had less means to go empire-building, and as a result their achievement is more impressive than that of France. Quasi-plausible argument, but let me show you where the real problem lies. Germany since 1871 (when it became a nation) had a much smaller colonial empire than the Dutch ever did, yet Germany from 1871 to 1945 had possibly the finest military in the world, only losing that status in the interwar period. So while we all agree that Germany had a fine military history during this period, certainly much greater than the Netherlands, their colonial empire shows none of that. Why? Primarily because they got in the game late and they had different priorities. Unlike the Netherlands, Germany had to first and foremost be a land power, not a naval power. This is the same thing that France had to deal with. Traditionally, the French army has always been treated better than the navy because French strategic objectives mainly call for the protection of its European territory. Consequently, a nation like the Netherlands that could afford to invest in its navy would obviously do comparatively better in the size of colonial empires. Your numbers, if they are correct, show that. It doesn't reflect anything greater on the part of Dutch military history at all. It reflects something impressive, but you can't use that method to say the Dutch have had a comparatively greater military history or that their achievement was "much bigger."

Now, I agree with the comparative approach, but your word usage is troubling, because you're still talking about "greater military history." Remember, we can easily agree that France has the greater military history, but comparative military history, that's what we're arguing about now. And we shouldn't really even be arguing; I've already admitted that I either think it goes to the Netherlands or I probably need a little more time to study the matter. As you can tell, I'm more familiar with French rather than Dutch military history. I'm well aware of Dutch naval exploits and Dutch successes on land during the Eighty Years War, but that's not enough. There are many dimensions to this argument, and I'm not sure whether to pursue them all or just a few. You've obviously restricted yourself quite considerably, which is completely the wrong way to go about this. I mainly just wanted you to recognize the greatness of French military history and lose your apparent shock when someone like me praises the French for their historical role militarily. I don't want to compare nations, and we definitely need to study more before we can compare military histories.

Furthermore, I think there's a divergence of military cultures here. We're comparing a nation that's had mostly a spectacular naval history (the Netherlands) with one that's had a great history on land (France). It's difficult to reconcile the two. French naval history never had a Medway, and the Dutch never had an Austerlitz. What we emphasize more I suppose will lead to differing conclusions.UberCryxic 17:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, please stop with the "Now you might counter with ..." you're taking away my fun and it seems as if you're debating yourself ;-)


 * I disagree with the following remark:

Because we can't easily agree.Take a look at these 2 fictional battles.
 * "we can easily agree that France has the greater military history"


 * Which battle has the greatest millitairy achievement according to you?

18:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sander, I would sincerely hope that you did not think the scenario you gave would earn any sort of thoughtful answer from me or anyone. Neither battle seems more impressive to me, or has the "greater" military achievement, because I do not know the circumstances behind them, and it is quite foolish of you to have undertaken this ill-perceived adventure. I would prefer if you addressed the arguments directly rather than hide behind your verbal and visual screens. These battles don't in any way help prove your point; they only address your point. Presumably, you were trying to show that these two fictional battles were microcosms behind Dutch and French military histories, but you don't know that at all. You can't know the exact proportions of Dutch and French forces that participated in so many battles and wars; it is just ludicrous to even make the attempt. Necessarily therefore, your scenario could be historically wrong in the sense of how you're using it to approximate the military histories of the two. For example, I did a quick search of some of the most prominent Dutch naval victories: the battles of Gibraltar and the Downs. I found out that in both of them the Dutch outnumbered the Spanish; 26 warships to 21 in the former and 117 to 77 in the latter. Your very basic assumption probably is not wrong, but it could be wrong, as I've just demonstrated, in some very prominent instances that carried huge strategic implications. Likewise, at the Battle of Bouvines, arguably the most important battle in French history, the French were outnumbered by 10,000 (25,000 Flemish and Germans against 15,000 French, although the numbers are bit fishy) but went on to win decisively anyway. Let me just tell you that your little "fictional battles" are properly titled; they have absolutely no significance on real history. Please address the arguments and stop wasting our time. French military history is greater because it has accomplished more; I'm speaking about the issue in that sense. What have the Dutch done, for example, that's in any way comparable to what the French did under Napoleon? Nothing. I realize that I cannot use that single instance to make the overall point, but it sure does serve as a good supporting part. It seems to me that you are completely flouting the distinction between greater military history and comparatively greater military history. Please note that the former involves achievements (strictly history), while the latter involves an analysis about whose achievements are more impressive given the resources, strategic situations, demographics, and sociopolitical dynamics involved. You are currently saying that the Dutch are greater in the first and the second, but surely this is ridiculous. As I said, the Dutch have never done, militarily speaking, some of the things the French have throughout history. Thank you.UberCryxic 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Then what do you expect from me UberCryxic? Do you want to hear about great battles like Waterloo? The Dutch were there. Do you want to hear about the last succesfull invasion of Great Britain? By the Dutch. Do you want to hear about a superpower?We were one.About nuclear weapons? We have them.

You know what I think, that you 're just bluffing.You're boasting that the Dutch militairy history hasn't got enough world prestige. Well besides Napoleon, who was defeated in the end, what has France got? Nothing. France has experienced nearly nothing but tactical defeats since 1871.

What did the Dutch give the world? Trade as we know it today, stock, bonds, everything.The Dutch republic was the birthplace of capitalism. Sander 20:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but was your first paragraph meant to be a joke? It is difficult to tell since some parts are accurate (Dutch involvement at Waterloo and even before at Quatre-Bras, which was courageous and effective) but other parts seem like you were trying to be humorous or something. The last successful invasion of England was under the Normans in 1066. If you are referring to the Glorious Revolution, then it does not count as it was not through force of arms, hence the term "Glorious." You were a world power in the seventeenth century and only then; I don't know that I would call you a "superpower" though. And the nuclear weapons comment is absolutely bizarre; you honestly think you have nuclear weapons??? I shudder to think about where you are getting this information. I can only suppose it is all a masterful concoction by your deluded mind. The Netherlands do not have nuclear weapons.

Stop with the strawman arguments; it is disingenuous of you to claim in any way that I think Dutch military history is not spectacular or is not viewed as spectacular. Of course it is; I'll be the first to say it. That's not the matter at hand though. It appears that you are claiming Dutch military history is greater than that of France, which is quite incomprehensible, and if you can't see how or why, then we have bigger problems. Furthermore, you are quite ignorant of French military history if you believe that Napoleon is "all they have." Read this article. That will definitely help you come to grips with magnificent commanders like Philip Augustus, du Guesclin, Joan of Arc, Turenne, the Great Conde, Maurice de Saxe, Latouche-Treville, a host of generals and marshals that served under Napoleon (Davout, Massena, Suchet just to name a few), d'Esperey, Joffre, and Leclerc (the last three in the twentieth century). And that's starting from Hugh Capet; if we start from the Franks you'll have to include Clovis, Charles Martel, and Charlemagne, all legendary commanders.

"France has experienced nearly nothing but tactical defeats since 1871."

That's patently false (NAW REALLY IThink4u 02:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)). Why would you make such a silly comment when deep down inside you yourself know it is not true? In case you forgot, France, as part of an alliance, won World War I; it also won World War II, but it was defeated very heavily in the beginning stages. In 1918, at the end of the Great War, French armies were on the Rhine in Germany and strolling through Hungary in the Balkans. The allied armies in all theaters were commanded by Frenchmen. That doesn't sound like a "tactical defeat" to me. And when Leclerc's 2nd Division destroyed the 9th Panzer Division in 1944, I doubt it was a "tactical defeat." The heroism of the French 5th, 6th, and 9th armies facilitated the victory at the Marne in 1914; were it not for that triumph, Germany would surely have won the war. Also, was Foochow in 1884, when the French destroyed the Chinese fleet, a "tactical defeat"? The Dahomey War? Or how about the Ruhr invasion in 1923, when France walked all over the western part of Germany? I wonder where you are getting such preposterous comments.

"What did the Dutch give the world? Trade as we know it today, stock, bonds, everything.The Dutch republic was the birthplace of capitalism."

The Dutch were not the birthplace of capitalism; most historians generally agree that it was England. You are easily overemphasizing the role of the Netherlands in human history. I wonder why being quasi-objective is this difficult for you. Furthermore, we were talking about military history; why are you suddenly injecting the debate with an ancillary topic like culture? Not to say that it is not important, but it's not what we were talking about. And either way, French culture has historically been far more influential than its Dutch counterpart. I will repeat that I am not here to compare France and the Netherlands as nations in any manner whatsoever. Who we like more or think is better is up to personal opinion; I myself am from Albania anyway, so I don't really have any allegiance to either nation. But I can see why you like the Dutch so much; you are one! I also admire the Netherlands, but I sincerely doubt your nation was more important to world history than France. It is puzzling to me that you seem unable to make this fait accompli recognition. I can only guess, and already have, at what's preventing that realization, but reasonable analysis specficically regards to this seems beyond me.UberCryxic 00:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't overemphasize your own knowledge UberCyxic ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence_of_early_capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company


 * Earliest true capitalist nation.
 * Home to the first multinational
 * Home of stock

Also, dismissing Dutch culture as inferior compared to French culture, is disgusting.If you were unable to explain to me how to count "military glory" then how are you going to compare culture?! The most famouse painter in the world was Dutch REMBRANDT, not even mentioning people like van Gogh, Vermeer, Steen, etc.The Netherlands were home to the Northern Renaissance.Philosophers like Spinoza, Erasmus and world renowned writers AND STILL I don't consider Dutch culture to be superior to any other culture on earth! Sander 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You definitely have a knack for changing the subject. First of all, in the spirit of reiteration, a common theme with you: I do not want to talk about culture ok? I can give a rat's ass as to whether France or the Netherlands have a superior culture when compared to each other. I'm just not interested in that stuff; I'm here to talk about military history, and I advise you to do the same. When the moment is appropriate, then you can go off and discuss with some other French dude the superiority of your culture. Furthermore, you tend to ignore so much of what I write; you wrote that the Dutch had the last successful invasion of England, that the Dutch had nuclear weapons (?!?!!?), and you wrote in them in such a silly manner, almost knowing they were comments you could just throw out there without ever having to care about them in the future. Your credibility is pretty much at an all-time low; why should I trust anything you say? Forget France, you seem to be very ignorant about your own country's history. I think you are one of the few people in the world who would seriously consider that Dutch military history is in any way equivalent to that of France; one would probably have to be hardcore Dutch nationalist to make such a claim (not saying that you are; just keep that in mind before you waste more of our time).

From: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576596/Capitalism.html

"From Europe, and especially from England, capitalism spread throughout the world, largely unchallenged as the dominant economic and social system until World War I (1914-1918) ushered in modern communism (or Marxism) as a vigorous and hostile competing system."

"From the 15th to the 18th century, when the modern nation-state was being born, capitalism not only took on a commercial flavor but also developed in another special direction known as mercantilism. This peculiar form of capitalism attained its highest level in England."

England largely laid the groundwork, theoretical and practical, for what would become the almost fully-blossomed capitalism of the nineteenth century.

I think it is a huge stretch to claim that "The most famouse painter in the world was Dutch REMBRANDT." I and many others can think of far more famous painters, and that's not to diminish Rembrandt at all. It's just that Leonardo, Michelangelo, et al. are more famous, even though how we precisely decide just who is more famous than who has not been established (by your or me). I did not dismiss Dutch culture as inferior. Read, read what I said again: "French culture has historically been far more influential than its Dutch counterpart." That states nothing about superiority; it just meant that certain aspects of French culture have been so pervasive that they can generally be thought of as more influential than Dutch culture. I almost don't want to list all the legendary writers and philosophers that France has produced because it would make you cry. I hope you understand that a certain culture can be more influential without necessarily being superior. This is the case with the Dutch and the French; the latter have been more influential in human history. It is not that big of a deal, but you have issues acknowleding that.UberCryxic 16:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh ...

Glorious Revolution Netherlands and weapons of mass destruction
 * Dutch invasion of England.
 * Dutch nuclear weapons.

Calling me a Dutch nationalist, which I'm not, isn't going to help you.Because if I'm a Dutch nationalist, then you're a French nationalist ... and you're not even from France! Sander 16:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Read more carefully: I said you could be a Dutch nationalist. Note the parantheses comment which says, "not saying that you are; just keep that in mind before you waste more of our time."

Wikipedia admits the problem you have: "Although the Netherlands do not have weapons of mass destruction made by itself..." Yes! That's the point! You don't have your own nuclear forces. I already knew about the Cold War-styled "arrangements," but those don't count. Otherwise, plenty of nations "have" nuclear weapons. If you go to the List of countries with nuclear weapons, you'll read this: "There is no evidence for nuclear weapon programs in the Netherlands." They do, however, have the capability.

Whether or not you call the Glorious Revolution the last successful invasion of England is up to preference. The Norman Conquest of England states the following, "It remains the last successful contested military invasion of England." It should probably say seriously contested, as the Glorious Revolution was also contested somewhat, but it was generally very weak resistance. Most of England wanted to get rid of James II.

Beyond this, there's a host of other issues to which you have not replied, and I will consider these defeats on your part until you do so. Right now I'm thinking of the "tactical defeats since 1871" statement, the capitalism statement, the view that Dutch military history somehow remotely compares to that of France, and your inflated characterizations of Dutch culture. That's all I can think of for now. Maybe there are other things.UberCryxic 17:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please list those open issues and I'll answer them.Not soon though, probably April 14th/15th I'm going on a holiday.Please do keep thinking about: "tactical defeats since 1871" statement" Sander 17:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I just listed some for you. Take care of those first. I'm very sure that in the course of responding to those issues you'll probably raise new concerns. There's nothing to think about with that comment; it's plainly false and I told you why. The only thing left is for you to retract it, which I hope you would do so now.UberCryxic 17:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I can seem to find your list, yet I did read these remarks...

'''That's patently false. Why would you make such a silly comment when deep down inside you yourself know it is not true? In case you forgot, France, as part of an alliance, won World War I; it also won World War II, but it was defeated very heavily in the beginning stages. In 1918, at the end of the Great War, French armies were on the Rhine in Germany and strolling through Hungary in the Balkans. The allied armies in all theaters were commanded by Frenchmen. That doesn't sound like a "tactical defeat" to me. And when Leclerc's 2nd Division destroyed the 9th Panzer Division in 1944, I doubt it was a "tactical defeat." The heroism of the French 5th, 6th, and 9th armies facilitated the victory at the Marne in 1914; were it not for that triumph, Germany would surely have won the war. Also, was Foochow in 1884, when the French destroyed the Chinese fleet, a "tactical defeat"? The Dahomey War? Or how about the Ruhr invasion in 1923, when France walked all over the western part of Germany? I wonder where you are getting such preposterous comments.'''

Quoting you:

Yes, against an enemy fighting practically alone on 2 fronts.I see this in the same light as your remark claiming that in the 2 largest Dutch naval victories they outnumbured the enemy.Wouldn't you agree? Beating up a 4 year girl old together with 4 professional boxers is a "victory", the question is, what kind of a victory... As far as I know, the Allied Hundred Days Offensive, never went into Germany.Neither did France. So with that in mind the Netherlands too, won the World War II, but it was defeated very heavily in the beginning stages? Do I need to explain to you, the state of the German armies in Western Europe in 1944? Also, if the French destroyed it in 1944 ... how could it have been fighting till 1945? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_Panzer_Division I hold a different hypothese on the first world war: If France would have stood alone, or Germany at least had to fight a single front war, it would have lost. Also, in world war 1, there were few tactical victories, as there was very little 'tactic' in trench warfare. THAT WAS A DISGRACE The Chinese fleet was utterly destroyed while at anchor by a French fleet commanded by Admiral Courbet, which opened fire without a declaration of war.Also, most chinese ships, were made from wood. Most of the troops that fought against Dahomey were native African, and I again I ask you, what is the military strenght of a tiny African nation compared to an industrialized European nation like France? Hell, I bet that with a few machineguns,rifles and a sack of cash to pay mercenaries even Luxenbourg could have captured Dahomey, it's a wonder it took France 2 years! This one especially is a LAUGH. INVASION ?! It was an OCCUPATION and according to the wikipedia article: The Occupation of the Ruhr in 1923 and 1924, by troops from France and Belgium was a response to the failure of German Weimar Republic under Cuno to pay reparations in the aftermath of World War I. And: The occupation was initially greeted by a campaign of passive resistance, and a few incidents of sabotage
 * France, as part of an alliance, won World War I.
 * at the end of the Great War, French armies were on the Rhine in Germany.
 * it also won World War II, but it was defeated very heavily in the beginning stages
 * And when Leclerc's 2nd Division destroyed the 9th Panzer Division in 1944.
 * were it not for that triumph, Germany would surely have won the war.
 * Also, was Foochow in 1884, when the French destroyed the Chinese fleet, a "tactical defeat"?
 * The Dahomey War.
 * Or how about the Ruhr invasion in 1923, when France walked all over the western part of Germany? I wonder where you are getting such preposterous comments.

'''Internationally the occupation did much to boost sympathy for Germany, although no action was taken in the League of Nations in response to what was a clear breach of League rules. The French, with their own economic problems, eventually accepted the Dawes Plan and withdrew from the occupied areas in July/August 1925.''' Please, indicate the ,military victory here ...

Sander 10:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sander, glad to have you back.

You can't find my list? It was a just a post or two above. Here it is: "tactical defeats since 1871" statement, the capitalism statement, the view that Dutch military history somehow remotely compares to that of France, and your inflated characterizations of Dutch culture. That's what I want you to expand on.

I will address all of your specific concerns, but first I want to make some general points. For one, could you stop being so derisive? I don't know if the subject matter irritates you in some way, but try to be calmer, use less capitalization, and be a little more rational. Thank you. Two, this very last reply of yours proves my point: France did have tactical victories since 1871. You yourself acknowledged the Chinese fleet as having been "destroyed." You had some problems with my other points (which I will address), but these miss the gist of the argument: we are not here to discuss the circumstances behind those victories, which is what you did, but rather to show that they were, in fact, victories. Your initial comment was something to the effect of France not having won any tactical victories since 1871. Well clearly that's wrong, since you admitted that the French at least won Foochow and the Dahomey War (and they also won a ton of other wars and battles in this period which I did not mention). Again, the circumstances are not important because that's not what the topic was originally about. You said the French had no tactical victories since 1871, and you've shown yourself that you were wrong. That's all I needed to know. It doesn't matter that the French beat natives with poor weaponry; the point is that the French beat them. For all our intents and purposes, that's all we care about. But because you did bring up the circumstances....let's take a look shall we?

Germany was not "practically" fighting alone. She had allies, both significantly weaker than her, but allies nevertheless. When the strategic situation is sized up, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were worth more to Germany as friends rather than enemies. Could you imagine if the Turks had allowed the British and the French a free hand in the Balkans? The Austrians would have completely collapsed on the Balkan Front fairly early in the war. Or imagine that all the major powers of Europe, including Austria-Hungary, were enemies of Germany. Then there's no four year war. The Ottomans, for all their perceived decadence, fought spectacularly in this war, scoring great victories at Gallipoli in 1915 and at Kut in 1916. The statement that the Germans were fighting "practically alone" is unsupported by the evidence. A simple reductio ad absurdum proof shows that if they were, the war would probably have been much shorter.

I did not claim that Gibraltar and the Downs were the "two largest" Dutch naval victories; stop feeding words in my mouth. I said they were "some of the most prominent," which surely you'll agree they were. Again, that's not even to say they were the "most" prominent, just "some" of the most prominent. I strongly disagree with your comparison because, again, it ignores important aspects of the conflict. I have noticed that you are fond of making terrible analogies. Do you know why it's bad? Because at the beginning of World War I, the Germans outnumbered the British, the French, and the Belgians in the early phases. At the First Battle of the Marne, 1.5 million German soldiers squared off against 1.2 million French and British soldiers (about 1.1 million of them were French), yet the Germans lost and had to fall back 20-30 miles in some sectors. Now in those two Dutch naval victories, the Dutch always outnumbered their opponent as long as fighting was happening. Do you realize the difference now? Germany had a very good opportunity to win this war quickly, but the Schlieffen Plan was denied and it eventually lost. As the war progressed, however, the strategic situation gradually turned against Germany. But even very late in the struggle, however, after the Russians were defeated and just prior to significant American aid coming to the battlefield, Germany had more divisions than the Allies for significant periods throughout 1918. In your analysis, you've severely underestimated the German industrial potential. To give you one idea of how superior Germany was in that respect, look at the steel tonnage produced by France and Germany in 1914: 4 million tons by France, but 17 million tons by Germany. I think the Allies and the Central Powers were about equal, with the former having a slight advantage until the United States arrived, after which they had a gargantuan advantage. But in the final analysis, we must not forget what our conversation was about: tactical victories. At the First Battle of the Marne (1914), the left wing of the French Fifth Army destroyed eleven batteries of the Sixteenth German Army Corps. At the Battle of Verdun (1916), the French recaptured all previously lost positions, using the new creeping barrage technique to great effect. At the Second Battle of the Marne (1918), 24 French divisions, accompanied by other Allied troops, counter-attacked the Germans and inflicted sharp defeats. At one point, French armies advanced five miles in a single day, confirming that a sense of tactical mobility had been restored in the Western Front after the earlier German Spring Offensive made such huge gains. Conclusion: the French had tactical victories in World War I. Also look at the Balkan Offensive in 1918, in which French troops participated decisively.

"As far as I know, the Allied Hundred Days Offensive, never went into Germany.Neither did France."

They did go into Germany, but it wasn't as part of the Hundred Days Offensive; it came after the armistice was signed. Here's a map showing the British, French, and American zones:



So yes, French armies were on the Rhine.

World War II brings up some problems when talking about France. Initially, France was heavily defeated. However, it is uncertain whether it was legally defeated. What I mean by that is the surrender of the French government; Charles de Gaulle refused to recognize the armistice and the surrender and formed his own military-political organization which became known as the "Free French." Militarily, France was crushed, but a battle developed between the Free French and the Vichy government about who actually was the legitimate government of France and who could undertake things like peace treaties and international agreements. Today, the French hold the Vichy government as illegitimate and the Free French as legitimate. This can and has been used by some of them to say something to the effect that France was never really permanently beaten in World War II. That is, there was always some organized, collective, and political resistance to Nazi Germany besides the French Resistance movement on the mainland. To some extent, this is true. Britain, and a little later America, recognized the Free French as the official government of France. This meant that France was still a combatant. The mainland may have been lost, but keep in mind that France had a huge colonial empire that now became a battleground between Free French and Vichy forces. As the number of Free French troops and materiel grew, they became a bigger force on the battlefield. 400,000 French troops fought in the campaign against Italy and by the end of the war in May 1945 there were 1.25 million French troops (many of these recruited form the recently liberated mainland). This changed the situation completely; the Free French were no longer an outside player, but a key ingredient to Allied success. Their contribution is partly the reason why France was given an occupation zone in Germany and in Berlin. In international councils, France was treated as a victor. That's why France was made one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council; she was recognized as one of the official victorious powers of the Second World War. Also, the French had representatives at both the German and the Japanese surrenders. In international law, this meant Germany and Japan were surrendering to France along with the other allies. France was thus one of the victorious powers. Now, after reading all of this, you can see how it is not much like the Dutch situation. The Dutch never really played as important a part as the Free French forces or the French Resistance movement in contributing to the Allied victory. But, once again in the final analysis, the Dutch were an official victor of World War II. Like France, they had representatives when the Axis surrendered. That legally makes them a winner of the Second World War. So to answer your question: yes, the Netherlands won in World War II.

The use of the word "destroyed" should not get us into semantics. I meant heavily defeated, crushed. I did not mean that the French killed every single German of the 9th Panzer. But they did give it a sharp blow. The Wikipedia article makes reference to what I'm talking about, "In October 1944 it absorbed the 105th Panzer Brigade to recover its losses." The article uses the phrase "recover its losses," whereas I happened to use "destroyed." I apologize for my linguistic impurity. Suffice it to say they were heavily defeated; that's all I meant.

Your hypothesis on the First World War is not different at all. It is obvious that if France had been fighting Germany alone, France would have lost the war. That doesn't even need to be a hypothesis; it's just something palpable. You are right that there were few tactical victories in World War I, and fewer still that were impressive, but nevertheless there were some on the French side, and I already pointed ou what they were. To invalidate your argument I merely need one case, and for that case, just see the pummeling of the Sixteenth German Corps at the First Battle of Marne. There, that was a tactical victory for the French (mostly for the French artillery). For the umpteenth time, your argument is dead. I just wish you would realize it.

Once again, what matters about the colonial victories is that they were victories. I don't care how or why they were achieved. In war, you do what you can to win. You said Foochow was a disgrace. Well, was the Battle of the Nile in 1798, when Nelson found the French fleet anchoring off Abukir Bay and attacked it, a disgrace? No, it was a hell of a victory. That's what Foochow was too; a hell of a victory that guaranteed French naval domination in the Sino-French War. Stop making excuses. The Dahomey Wars were brilliant victories too, regardless of the fact that the French were facing relatively weak opponents. The point is they were tactical victories.

The Ruhr Invasion/Occupation was a military operation, was it not? As such, it could count as a tactical victory, even though France and Belgium faced no German troops. Note: could. I am a little uncertain myself and this scenario brings up questions of what qualifies as a tactical victory, or any victory for that matter. I think the term "militarily successful operation" would be more appropriate.

In the end, your tactical defeats statement has been repeatedly shown to be blatantly false. I wish you would acknowledge that and then we can move on with the other parts of the debate.UberCryxic 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh by the way, great job with Military history of the Netherlands. It's quite detailed and very impressive. You should think about taking it to FA after some modifications, copy edits, and sources/footnotes. But overall, it was great; I enjoyed it a lot.UberCryxic 01:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

C of N part II
Yes, the article is coming along nicely ... still some 'white areas' and several hunderds of colonial wars to report ... then there's the problem of 'ancient times', I want it to be accurate instead of that 'ancient' section in the military history of Germany in which they claim practically every achievement of every germanic tribe from the goths to the franks and from the saxons to the vandals ...

Anyway, back to the little discussion (which became very big, so I made a new section)

I will, again, answer by quotes because I feel long elaborate comments, like most of yours, aren't very useful in the sense of a discussion with short powerful arguments.

You wrote:

'''>>The Ruhr Invasion/Occupation was a military operation, was it not? As such, it could count as a tactical victory, even though France and Belgium faced no German troops. Note: could. I am a little uncertain myself and this scenario brings up questions of what qualifies as a tactical victory, or any victory for that matter. I think the term "militarily successful operation" would be more appropriate.<<'''

The Ruhr Occupation, was not a military operation.It had no opposition.No fighting took place (and without that, how can you claim victory?), it kind of like some European lands in the armericas with his crew and says,  I claim this land in the name of ... and assumes ownership over the native people. France (and Belgium) took the ruhr because Germany couldn't pay reparations anymore, So the French and Belgians were very selfish (own interests first) and took the industrial heart of Germany against the will of the league of nations.

'''>>Once again, what matters about the colonial victories is that they were victories. I don't care how or why they were achieved. In war, you do what you can to win. You said Foochow was a disgrace. Well, was the Battle of the Nile in 1798, when Nelson found the French fleet anchoring off Abukir Bay and attacked it, a disgrace? No, it was a hell of a victory. That's what Foochow was too; a hell of a victory that guaranteed French naval domination in the Sino-French War. Stop making excuses.<<'''

I don't deny that it was a victory, but it was a disgraceful victory without a drop of honour. Attacking an enemy without a declaration of war (even Nelson had that) and with far more advanced ships and material (woodenships with canons on them for godsake) If the French attacked such a nation without a declaration of war today they would be kicked out of the United Nations if not worse.

>>You are right that there were few tactical victories in World War I, and fewer still that were impressive, but nevertheless there were some on the French side, and I already pointed ou what they were.<<

On the French side?! Right, the Allies on the western front worked together, shared (or in frances case  loaned) eatchothers resources and I don't think you can give me the name of one battle which was executed with only French troops, material or resources.

'''>>The use of the word "destroyed" should not get us into semantics. I meant heavily defeated, crushed. I did not mean that the French killed every single German of the 9th Panzer.<<'''

Then simply use heavily defeated. Btw bravo on evading my remark on the state of the German army in 1944.

'''>>It/France was recognized as one of the official victorious powers of the Second World War. Also, the French had representatives at both the German and the Japanese surrenders. In international law, this meant Germany and Japan were surrendering to France along with the other allies. France was thus one of the victorious powers. Now, after reading all of this, you can see how it is not much like the Dutch situation.<<'''

Dear UberCryxic, do not underestimate the power or history of the Netherlands.Because they too was present at both surrenders. In fact I dare to say that the Dutch contribution in the eastern theater was far greater than that of the French. Then, there is your remark on Dutch resistance (not shown in the quote) ... do you know who brought back nearly every allied soldier that was not killed in action after operation market garden? Just one example.

>>"As far as I know, the Allied Hundred Days Offensive, never went into Germany.Neither did France."

'''They did go into Germany, but it wasn't as part of the Hundred Days Offensive; it came after the armistice was signed. Here's a map showing the British, French, and American zones: <<'''

Hahahahaha, after the armistice yeah right ... I guess most people would call that site seeing not invading.LOL

'''>> To give you one idea of how superior Germany was in that respect, look at the steel tonnage produced by France and Germany in 1914: 4 million tons by France, but 17 million tons by Germany. I think the Allies and the Central Powers were about equal, with the former having a slight advantage until the United States arrived,<<'''

What does steel say?! The German army wasn't defeated due to a lack of steel but of men,food, and other material ALL of which the western allies got from something Germany lacked COLONIES. >>In the end, your tactical defeats statement has been repeatedly shown to be blatantly false.<<

Read the statement,read my comments and you'll see that it's quite the opposite. Sander 10:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read your statement. Here is what it says: "France has experienced nearly nothing but tactical defeats since 1871." Let me just repeat that: you've stated that France has experienced nearly nothing but tactical defeats since 1871. But on Foochow you say: "I don't deny that it was a victory." I suppose you could fiddle around (and you probably will) with the word "nearly." That is, did you imply that France mostly suffered tactical defeats but had a few victories? Or did you write what you did but you actually meant France has basically lost everything since the Franco-Prussian War? It's difficult to answer these questions for me because I cannot know how you felt when you made this statement. Right now you might feel different than at the time you wrote that, so who knows. I'm sure you can elaborate.

The Ruhr Invasion was carried out by the armed forces of France and Belgium, necessarily making it a military operation. Military operations do not have to involve armed conflict between two nation-states. Think about how many military operations America has pulled off on the War on Terror; plenty! A military operation can be something like the Ruhr Invasion, it can be a Special Ops mission, or really anything else that involves the active use of soldiers for some non-training role. Now, the Ruhr Invasion [i]was not[/i] a war. That's obvious. But it was a military operation. It matters little how the international community viewed it; that's not our concern. We're not on a moral mission here. But yes it should not have been carried out.

You've finally admitted that Foochow was a victory. That's all I really cared about.

It is a ridiculous standard to say "give me the name of one battle in World War I fought only by French troops." As you've said, the Allies worked together, so it's difficult to find one. What you do find, however, are battles where French troops were decisive or instrumental above other Allied combatants. The First Battle of the Marne is the best example; 1.1 million French and about 100,000 British soldiers. Furthermore, it's more than just about the troops: you've forgotten the commanders, the major ones mostyl being French. Read this fascinating piece by Colonel (ret.) Robert A. Doughty ( How France won the Battle of the Marne ). In it, Colonel Doughty writes:

"Beyond a doubt most of credit for what came to be known as the "miracle of the Marne" belongs to Joffre. After the collapse of his attempted maneuver around the German flank at Amiens, he kept his forces under control and did not panic when the Germans moved around the flank and into the rear of Fifth Army. As French and British forces withdrew, he remained in constant contact with them and prepared a counteroffensive. Though he did not foresee the subsequent course of events and did not attempt to trap the Germans, he recognized the opportunity to strike the enemy forces in their flank when Kluck's First Army turned to the east of Paris. In reality, this opportunity resembled what he had tried to do with Sixth Army on the Amiens-Reims line. Additionally, as Sixth, British, and Fifth armies attacked the Germans' right flank, Joffre displayed strong judgment and a remarkable degree of composure in his calm response to near disasters on both flanks of Fourth army, the right of Ninth Army, the left of Third Army, and the front of Second Army. Perhaps his greatest achievement was that he did not permit these near disasters to divert resources from the crucial actions on his left. Though he initially sought an envelopment with Sixth Army's attack from Paris against the enemy flank, he reacted capably and appropriately when a gap opened between the German First and Second armies and provided him the opportunity to send forces deep into the enemy's position. Gallieni's role was important, but the key concepts and decisions belonged to Joffre. In comparison to Sir John French, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, Helmuth von Moltke, and Baron Conrad von Hôtzendorff, Joffre clearly was the best of the major commanders in this phase of the war, and he amply deserved the outpouring of praise he received after the victory of the Marne."

Other spectacular French commanders during the war were Foch and d'Esperey, the latter being probably the best commander in the entire war. Foch led the brilliant counter-attack by a majority of French forces at the Second Battle of the Marne and d'Esperey orchestrated the breakout through the Balkans in autumn of 1918.

But, nevertheless, one such battle does exist, and it just so happens to be perhaps the most famous battle of the First World War: Verdun. Tactically speaking, there was little that was impressive about this battle, apart from the innovation of the creeping barrage by the French towards the end. Nevertheless, it was probably a French victory. I say "probably" because at the end the French had just recovered the positions they had lost, restoring the status quo, although wikipedia does say "French victory" in the Battle of Verdun. Most people would agree that it was a French victory, but it was not tactically impressive and French casualties were higher. Still, it was fought by French trops (about 70% of the French army saw action at Verdun). And, as I'm sure you'll agree, it was an epic struggle.

State of the German army in 1944? Certainly not as good as in the beginning, but this is mostly due to lack of airpower. The Allies had all but complete control of the air, and this did wonders towards ultimate victory. However, the actual German Army was diabolically efficient, and would remain so until the end. Thanks to the genius of Albert Speer and German industrial might, the Germans could afford to take some losses (note: some, obviously they could not take anywhere near what the Allies could) and have them replaced. German war production was in some areas doing better than in previous years, and this is with Allied strategic bombing. The Germans were not bad enough for us to sit here and in some way diminish the spectacular achievements of the 2nd Division. By this point, the French had learned their lesson in armored warfare, and in Leclerc they had a combative commander who pushed his men like Rommel and Guderian. (note: Because I feel I need to clarify everything with you, I'm not saying that Leclerc was as good as Rommel or Guderian. I'm just saying he pushed his men hard and liked to attack. He was a marvelous commander.) My initial remark was sparked by the following site ( 2nd Armored Division ), which says:

"They made spectacular progress and virtually destroyed the 9th Panzer Division before facing off the understrength 1st SS Panzer, 2nd Panzer, and 116th Panzer divisions in their progress. The 2nd French armored division suffered 141 killed and lost 58 medium and light tanks. It inflicted in turn considerable losses, killing 4500 Germans, taking 8800 prisoners, and destroying 118 heavy and medium tanks in the chase."

I said "destroyed;" they said "virtually destroyed."

Sanders, would you please do both of us a huge favor and read carefully? I acknowledged that the Dutch were present at the surrenders. Did you somehow miss this?

"the Dutch were an official victor of World War II. Like France, they had representatives when the Axis surrendered. That legally makes them a winner of the Second World War. So to answer your question: yes, the Netherlands won in World War II."

Or am I reading your fairy tales again? This blunder made me very upset. Please be careful next time. I sense that you somehow have this notion that I'm trying to denigrate the Dutch, which is not the case at all. As I've said many times before, I have huge respect for the Dutch and the Netherlands. Enough with these instances where I apparently forget how important the Dutch were. The Dutch were important in World War II, but in the final analysis they were not nearly as important as the French, who had a massive army by the end of the conflict. That's not to say anything bad about the Netherlands; it's just to recognize a fact. Additionally, the French Resistance movement was more important because it was larger and provided more information. Again, not to say anything bad about the Dutch Resistance movement, which I'm sure was great, but just to mention a fact.

On the Rhine comment, review my initial statement: "In 1918, at the end of the Great War, French armies were on the Rhine in Germany and strolling through Hungary in the Balkans." You've challenged this assertion, but in your last post it seems you finally relented. Thank you. That's all I needed; a recognition that French armies were, in fact, on the Rhine.

I am surprised that you would ask that question about steel. Steel was one of the most important commodities (and some would say the most important period) in 20th century warfare. If heavily produced and diligently administered, it meant you could have tanks (later in the First World War), heavy artillery, ships, and all sorts of other weapons and equipment. But your next comment suggests little knowledge about the war. Germany actually outnumbered the French and the British in 1914 on the Western Front. In case you don't believe me, I've gone and dug up the order of battle just before conflict resumed:

German: I Army (Kluck): 320,000 II Army (Bulow): 260,000 III Army (Hausen): 180,000 IV Army (Wurttemberg): 180,000 V Army (Crown Prince of Prussia): 200,000 VI Army (Prince Rupert of Bavaria): 220,000 VII Army (Heeringen): 125,000

Allied: French: I Army (Dubail): 256,000 II Army (Castelnau): 200,000 III Army (Ruffey): 168,000 IV Army (Langle de Cary): 193,000 V Army (Lanrezac): 254,000 British: BEF (Sir John French): 111,000

Utilizing a little math, we see that the Germans had about 1.5 million soldiers and the Allies about 1.2 million soldiers. Even after incurring catastrophic casualties during the Battle of the Frontiers, however, the French and the British remained cohesive enough to turn around and give the Germans a bloody nose at the Marne. Despite numerical superiority in this first phase, the Germans lost. When Russia was defeated in 1918, the transfer of 44 German divisions to the Western Front gave Germany the numerical advantage again. And again she still could not win the war. The Spring Offensive was a great success from a military perspective since it restored some form of tactical mobility to the Western Front, but the casualties were so horrendous (~1 million) that Germany could no longer win. That and the arrival of American troops sealed the deal. You are most likely underestimating German industrial might. In the end, Germany was in a weaker alliance than that of France, Britain, and Russia (later America, which meant Germany was definitely going to lose), but she was not in the dire straits that you portray. She had great chances to win this war in many instances, but it simply did not happen. The manpower and materiel excuse is bogus; find something better. The colonial empires helped Britain more than they did France. The vast majority of all French troops were from the mainland.

Please revert your tactical defeats comment, and then we can talk about your outlandish praise for Dutch culture and the other things in my list. Thank you.UberCryxic 16:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to sound childish or arrogant, but if you evade my remarks one more time this discussion will be over. Sander 17:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, what remarks have I evaded? Furthermore, I did not throw up a fuss when you evaded plenty of my comments in the last post. Why did you not mention anything about the Dutch naval victories, for example? If I miss something, then tell me and I will respond. Ok? Do not assume I am missing anything intentionally. Either way, just reply to what I've already given and tell me anything I've left out. Thank you.UberCryxic 17:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is ancillary compared to our main conversation, but it is related nonetheless. I've managed to compile a list of some French military victories, just to give you a better idea of what we're dealing with here. Hope you like it.

Note: The following list of French military victories is necessarily incomplete. It also includes actions in which only French peoples participated or in which they participated decisively (the Crimean War, for example, will be listed here as a French military victory because France supplied 400,000 of the 660,000 Western troops and French troops carried out the important attacks at Malakoff; the other Western participants were Britain and Sardinia. A conflict like World War II, on the other hand, will not be listed as a French military victory because France was not decisive in bringing about the victory, even though France was a winner in the end).

If starting from the Gauls....

-Battle of the Allia (387 BCE): A Gallic force under Brennus destroys a Roman army and sacks Rome itself, leading to the destruction of all prior Roman historical records.

-Siege of Gergovia (52 BCE): Vercingetorix hands Caesar the worst defeat of his career.

(note: the Franks fall under both French and German military history since they laid the political foundations for both countries)

-Battle of Soissons (486): The Franks under Clovis I defeat the last Roman army in Gaul.

-Battle of Tolbiac (496): The Franks under Clovis I defeat the Alamanni tribe.

-Battle of Vouillé (507): The Franks under Clovis I defeat the Visigoths under Alaric II, the conqueror of Spain.

As a result of these victories, the domains of Clovis quadruple.

-Battle of Toulouse (721): The Aquitanians defeat an Islamic force, giving the Frankish Charles Martel enough time to build a veteran force and crush the Muslims at the...

-Battle of Tours (732): One of the most celebrated victories in Western history, the Franks under Charles 'the Hammer' Martel crush a large Islamic invading force. It probably did not have the enormous significance that is often claimed, but it was nonetheless a huge symbolic victory.

-Battle of Pavia (773): The Franks under Charlemagne crush the Lombards, led by their king Desiderius, in Italy.

-Saxon Campaigns (773-804): The Franks under Charlemagne repeatedly subdue over three decades of Saxon insurrections.

-Siege of Paris (885-886): With 200 men defending Paris, the Western Franks manage to halt and, when outside help arrived, defeat a Viking invasion force of 30,000.

-Battle of Hastings (1066): A Franco-Norman army under William, the Duke of Normandy, trounces an exhausted Anglo-Saxon army under King Harold. It was the last successful military invasion of England that was seriously contested. (Note: At this point, William was a vassal to the King of France and the Normans were culturally an amalgam between their Viking traditions and new-found Christian roots. Hastings, therefore, can be counted as a French military victory).

-Battle of Dorylaeum (1097): A Crusader army under various Christian leaders defeat the Seljuk Turks in modern-day Turkey.

-Battle of Ascalon (1099): A Crusader army under Godfrey de Bouillon thrashes the Fatimids just north of modern-day Gaza.

-Battle of Montgisard (1177): A Crusader army under Baldwin IV, King of Jerusalem, and Raynald de Chatillon gives Saladin the worst defeat in his military career, slaying 20,000 of his 30,000 troops.

-Battle of Bouvines (1214): About 15,000 French troops under Philippe Augustus rout a larger Flemish-German army of 25,000 led by Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV. The French suffer about 1,000 casualties while the Flemish and the Germans incur about 10,000. The struggle is often called "The battle that made modern France" because the victory undid the Anglo-German alliance and allowed France to develop independently.

-Saintonge War (1242): King Louis IX of France defeats the English at the battles of Taillebourg and Saintes, but unfortunately does not follow up these victories by annexing Guyenne.

-Hundred Years War (1337-1453): This incorrectly titled conflict witnessed four major wars between England and France in 116 years. England won two of those wars, and France won the other two. The last decisive war (roughly from 1428 to 1453) was thoroughly won by the French and ended Anglo-French military rivalry on the European continent. Some of the more prominent victories in that phase include:

-Battle of Patay (1429): A French army under La Hire hands the English one of the worst defeats in their military history.

-Battle of Formigny (1451): This decisive French victory led to the recapturing of Normandy.

-Battle of Castillon (1453): The last major engagement of the Hundred Years Wars, it saw a French army triumph against an English army led by their most able commander, Sir John Talbot, who lost his life in the battle. By 1453, the only English possession in mainland France was Calais (this was given up in the 1550s).

French victories in other phases of the Hundred Years War....

-Campaigns of Bertrand du Guesclin (1370-1380): A strategy of avoiding battle with the English pays huge dividends for de Guesclin, who ends up taking back nearly all of the territory lost by the French in the first phase of the war (ended by the Treaty of Bretigny).

-Battle of La Rochelle (1372): A Franco-Castilian naval victory leads to the end of English dominance in the English Channel.

In the Italian Wars...

-Battle of Agnadello (1509): The French destroy a Venetian army. This battle marks the fall of Venice as a great power.

-Battle of Ravenna (1512): Under the talented Gaston de Foix, the French inflict a brutal defeat on the Spanish. 9,000 Spanish casualties vs. 3,000 French.

-Battle of Marignano (1515): In one of the most significant engagements in French military history, the French under Francis I crush the hitherto invincible Swiss pikemen. Swiss power in Italy declines.

-Battle of Ceresole (1544): The French defeat an Imperial-Spanish army in Northern Italy.

In the Thirty Years War and the Franco-Spanish War...

-Battle of Rocroi (1643): Perhaps the second most important battle in the Thirty Years War after Breitenfeld, it sees the French under the Great Condé defeat the infamous Spanish tercios. There are about 4,000 French casualties and 7,500 Spanish. The battle marks the symbolic end of Spanish power in Europe and the resurgence of the French after decades of strife in the Religious Wars during the late sixteenth century.

-Battle of Nordlingen (1645): The French defeat an Imperial army.

-Battle of Lens (1648): The French defeat an Imperial army again; instrumental in ending the Thirty Years war.

-Battle of the Dunes (1658): An Anglo-French army defeats the Spanish and concludes the Franco-Spanish War in French favor.

The Wars of Louis XIV....

-War of Devolution (1667-1668): The French capture the Spanish Netherlands and overrun the Franche-Comté in a brilliant campaign by Condé.

-Franco-Dutch War (1672-1678): Although Anglo-French naval forces were held off at sea by the brilliant Dutch Admiral Michiel de Ruyter, the French army walked all over the United Provinces, taking Maastricht after a short siege and going on to capture Utrecht as well. By the end of the conflict, the French were given the large territory of Franche-Comté from Spain.

-War of the Reunions (1683-1684): French forces easily defeat Spanish troops in the Spanish Netherlands, capturing a number of cities.

The Nine Years War was a draw and the War of the Spanish Succession was somewhat of a French defeat, but France had victories in both of them....

-Battle of Fleurus (1690): The French under Marshal Luxembourg defeat an Anglo-Dutch army.

-Battle of Beachy Head (1690): The French inflict a significant naval defeat on a combined Anglo-Dutch navy.

-Battle of Landen (1693): A French army under Marshal Luxembourg heavily defeats an Anglo-Dutch army, inflicting 19,000 casualties out of 50,000.

-Battle of Denain (1712): Marshal Villars leads French forces to victory against the impeccable Eugene. (Note: In the final phases of the War of the Spanish Succession, the French were winning in Northern Italy, having driven the Austrians out, in Spain, having captured Barcelona, and in almost all other significant theaters).

War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748)...

-Battle of Fontenoy (1745): The French under Maurice de Saxe defeat an Anglo-Austrian-Dutch-Hanoverian army very severely.

-Battle of Roucoux (1746): The French under Maurice de Saxe defeat another one of those armies again.

-Battle of Lauffeld (1747): And again....

-Siege of Maastricht (1748): It all culminates in the fall of Maastricht, leaving an impressive seal on this fine campaign by Maurice de Saxe.

The Seven Years War (1756-1763) was a French defeat, but there was mild success in the European theater (victories in the North American theater will be covered in another section)...

-Battle of Hastenbeck (1757): The French defeat an English army in Germany.

American Revolutionary War (1776-1783)...

-Battle of Yorktown (1781): Franco-American forces besiege Cornwallis' army at Yorktown and force one of the most significant defeats in British military history.

-Battle of the Capes (1781): Although tactically indecisive, this naval battle was a huge strategic victory for the French as it prevented the British navy from resupplying Cornwallis.

French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802)....

-Battle of Valmy (1792): There were only 500 casualties in this battle that is noted more for its artillery duel than any actual fighting. Nevertheless, it was a huge symbolic triumph and paved the way for the formation of the First Republic two days later (September 22, 1792).

-Siege of Toulon (1793): 10 British warships go up in flames as French forces led by (later) Dugommier, who was implementing the ideas of Napoleon Bonaparte, thoroughly squash counter-revolutionary activity.

-Battle of Fleurus (1794): A French army under Jourdan inflicts a crushing defeat on the Austrians. The victory allows French forces to overrun Belgium and the Netherlands.

-First Italian Campaign (1796-1797): A whirlwind tour de force, the Army of Italy under Napoleon Bonaparte repeatedly defeats larger Austrian forces, captures Mantua, and imposes the Treaty of Campo Formio on the Habsburgs, leaving France in control of Italy. Some important victories:

-Battle of Lodi (1796): The main Austrian army manages to escape, but the French crush the Austrian rearguard, inflicting 2,000 casualties.

-Battle of Castiglione (1796): The French defeat another Austrian army.

-Battle of Arcole (1796): And another....

-Battle of Rivoli (1797): And yet another...this is Napoleon's most spectacular victory up until 1797. 17,000 French troops defeat an Austrian army of 28,000, leaving the Austrians with 14,000 casualties at the cost of just 5,000 French losses.

Campo Formio ends the First Coalition with a resounding French victory....begin War of the Second Coalition (1798-1801)....

Egyptian Campaign (1798-1799)...

-Battle of the Pyramids (1798): Western-style tactics destroy an Egyptian army led by brave but foolish mamelukes. 6,000 Egyptian casualties vs. 300 French.

-Battle of Mount Tabor (1799): French forces hovering around 2,000 crush a Turkish army of 35,000 in the Levant.

-Battle of Abukir (1799): Napoleon marches his troops back to Egypt to defeat another Turkish force at Abukir, causing the loss of the entire Turkish army which had been ferried to Egypt by the Royal Navy. At this point, both the Army of Damascus and the Army of Rhodes have been defeated by the French, leaving Egypt momentarily secure from foreign invasions.

In Europe....

-Second Battle of Zurich (1799): French forces under Massena crush a Russian army in Switzerland, turning the tide of the war.

-Battle of Marengo (1800): French troops under Napoleon inflict a narrow but sufficient defeat on the Austrians under Melas.

-Battle of Hohenlinden (1800): The French under General Moreau sharply defeat an Austrian army led by Archduke John. The threat of an advance on Vienna prompts the Habsburgs to seek another peace treaty at Luneville. 1801 is the final year of the Second Coalition, which, like the first, was heavily defeated by the French. Britain makes peace in 1802 at the Treaty of Amiens.

Napoleonic Wars (1805-1815)....

War of the Third Coalition...

Ulm Maneuver (1805): A rapid march by the French army bags an entire Austrian army under the unfortunate Mack. At 2,000 French casualties, the French capture 60,000 Austrian troops.

Battle of Austerlitz (1805): French forces under Napoleon severely rout a Russo-Austrian army of equivalent strength. 27,000 Allied casualties vs. 9,000 French. The Third Coalition ends in another spectacular French victory when Austria signs the Treaty of Pressburg on December 26, 1805.

War of the Fourth Coalition....

-Prussian Campaign (1806): The French under Napoleon inflict the worst military defeat in Prussian history. By the end of the campaign, the Prussians have lost 25,000 killed and wounded, 140,000 captured, and over 2,000 cannon. Practically all of the Prussian army has been eliminated, although a few units do survive. Some important engagements:

-Battle of Jena (1806): The French crush a Prussian army, inflicting 25,000 casualties out of 38,000.

-Battle of Auerstadt (1806): 27,000 French troops under the legendary Marshal Davout defeat a Prussian army of 63,000. The Prussians break with 13,000 casualties and 115 captured guns. It is one of the most impressive tactical victories in all of the Napoleonic Wars.

-Polish Campaign (1807): The French defeat the Russian armies that were too late to help Prussia in 1806, bringing to an end two years of bloodshed on the European continent at Tilsit.

-Battle of Friedland (1807): French forces under Napoleon trounce a Russian army led by Bennigsen. 20,000 Russian casulaties vs. 8,000 French. The enormous victory leads to the Treaty of Tilsit and leaves France as the overwhelming military power on the European continent. End of the Fourth Coalition, once again in French victory.

War of the Fifth Coalition....

-Danube Campaign (1809): After a hard fight against a much better Austrian army, the French manage to impose yet another peace treaty on Vienna by the Autumn of 1809. Significant French victories:

-Battle of Eckmuhl (1809): The French defeat an Austrian army under Archduke Charles. 12,000 Austrian casualties vs. 6,000 French. The fall of Ratisbon after this battle leads the Austrian army to flee and abandon Vienna once more to French occupation.

-Battle of Wagram (1809): French forces under Napoleon defeat the Austrians at this massive two-day battle. It is not a spectacular victory, but the Austrians sue for peace nonetheless. 32,500 French casualties vs. 40,000 Austrian losses. End of the Fifth Coalition with yet another French victory; Peace of Schonbrunn redraws map and causes loss of 3 million people to the Austrian Empire.

Peninsular War, Russian invasion, War of the Sixth Coalition, and War of the Seventh Coalition were all French defeats, but there were a few prominent French victories in them.....

-Battle of Medellin (1809): French troops under Marshal Victor crush a Spanish army under Cuesta.

-Battle of Ocana (1809): French troops under Marshal Soult rout a larger Spanish army and take control of Southern Spain.

-Battle of Borodino (1812): A very mild victory by a multi-national army under Napoleon. 30,000 French casualties vs. 45,000 Russian. Kutuzov decides to retreat after the defeat and the road to Moscow is open.

-Battle of Dresden (1813): Even though in an ultimately losing effort, this battle was one of Napoleon's greatest victories. An outnumbered French army heavily defeats an Allied army converging on Dresden; 38,000 Allied casualties vs. 10,000 French.

-Six Days Campaign (1814): Napoleon takes a miniscule French army of 30,000 and inflicts 20,000 casualties on Blucher's 100,000-strong Prussian army.

-Battle of Ligny (1815): Napoleon's last victory. It could have been more impressive were it not for incompetent staffwork. 16,000 Prussian casualties vs. 11,500 French.

Waterloo ends Napoleonic Wars....begin modern period...

-Battle of Trocadero (1823): A French army defeats Spanish liberals who refuse to make Spain a monarchy.

-Crimean War (1864-1856): French, British, Sardinian, and Ottoman armies invade the Crimea to stop possible Russian expansionism in the Mediterranean. The war ends successfully for the Allies when Sevastopol is taken.

-Battle of Malakoff (1855): The decisive attacks on the Malakoff redoubts were made by French forces. The Russian position was now hopeless. Sevastopol fell and the war ended.

-Franco-Austrian War of 1859 (also known as the Second Risorgimento War, referring to the wars for Italian independence): 130,000 French troops join 70,000 Sardinian allies in permanently ending Austrian domination of Italy. After this victory, Italy becomes an independent nation in 1861.

-Battle of Solferino (1859): A gruesome battle which inspired the founding of the International Red Cross, Solferino saw the greatest Austrian defeat of the entire war. 22,000 Austrian casualties vs. 18,000 French. Napoleon III signed the Treaty of Villafranca to end the war and gained Nice and Savoy from Sardinia as recompense for the French efforts.

-World War I (1914-1918): The greatest conflict in human history up until that time, World War I saw French armies ultimately arrayed throughout the European continent in a manner not seen since Napoleonic times, from the Rhine in Germany to Hungary in the Balkans. Important conflicts:

-First Battle of the Marne (1914): 1.2 million French and British soldiers (1.1 million were French troops) defeat 1.5 millin German soldiers. 250,000 French casualties and 250,000 German. The Marne was the largest battle in human history when it was fought. Defeat there denied the Schlieffen Plan and may have been one of the most resounding strategic triumphs of the 20th century.

-Battle of Verdun (1916): Thinking he could "bleed the French white," Falkenhayn underestimated French resistance. In this epic struggle between France and Germany, French forces regain all initially lost positions. 380,000 French casualties vs. 340,000 German.

-Second Battle of the Marne (1918): What began as a German attack was transformed into a counter-attack by one of the finest commanders in the war: Ferdinand Foch. 24 French army divisions, backed by American, British, and Italian troops, inflicted a sharp reversal on the Germans, one which began a chain reaction of Allied victories that finally ended the war. 95,000 French casualties, 13,000 British, 12,000 American, and 170,000 German.

-Balkan Offensive (1918): Mainly French and British troops, led by French general d'Esperey, one of the greatest commanders of the war, broke through and overran nearly all of the Balkans by the time the armistice was signed.

World War I ends with the Treaty of Versailles. France becomes the most powerful nation in Europe once again and retrieves Alsace-Lorraine after losing it to the German states in the Franco-Prussian War.

-Ruhr Invasion (1923): French and Belgian troops invade and occupy the western part of Germany to enforce provisions of the Versailles treaty.

World War II was ultimately a French victory, but France was not decisive in bringing about that victory. However, French arms did have glorious moments throughout the war...

-Battle of Koufra (1941): Leclerc marches French colonial troops 1,500 miles and captures the heavily-defended Italian fort of El-Tag in the Koufra oasis with just one artillery gun.

-Northern France Campaign (1944): The French 2nd Armored Division under Leclerc conducts a whirlwind tour in this campaign, saving Paris and destroying the German 9th Panzer Division. The 2nd Division inflicts casualties of 4,500 dead and wounded, 8,800 captured, and causes the loss of 118 medium and heavy German tanks. The 2nd Division eventually ends its run in Berchtesgaden, Hitler's resort town in Bavaria.

-Operation Dragoon (1944): The French First Army under Tassigny liberates Marseilles and Toulon, causing thousands of German casualties.

French military action since World War II has generally been alliance-driven. For some of the more prominent instances, look up the Suez Crisis of 1956, the Gulf War of 1991 (participation of the French 6th Light Armored Division and the French Foreign Legion), the Kosovo War (participation of the French air force), the War in Afghanistan (naval Task Force 437).

French colonial victories

In the Seven Years War (also known as the French and Indian War)....

-Battle of Carillon (1758): A French force under General Montcalm defeats a British force five times its size, inflicting 2,000 casualties.

Algerian War....

-Over 17 years, the French subdue Algeria by successively defeating a number of local warlords. Most prominent battle....

-Battle of Isly (1844): A French army trounces an Algerian army and inches ever closer to total domination of Algeria.

Sino-French War...

-Battle of Foochow (1884): The decisive engagement of the Sino-French War, the French destroy the Chinese navy that, ironically, they themselves had helped create. France established dominance over Indochina.

Syrian Mandate...

-Battle of Maysalun (1922): French forces easily rout a poorly-equipped Syrian army designed to prevent the mandated French takeover.

France lost the First Indochina War, but there were victorious moments…

-Battle of Vinh Yen (1951): French troops under Jean de Lattre de Tassigny crush a Viet Minh army led by General Giap. The Viet Minh break with over 12,000 casualties out of 20,000.

In the Ivory Coast in 2004....

-The French destroy the air force of the Ivory Coast and occupy Abidjan.

The End. Once again, this list is very incomplete and certainly scores of battles and wars that have ended in victories for French peoples have either been forgotten or deliberately ignored. For example, from 1792 to 1815, French armies won 172 battles (whose names you can see in the Arc de Triomphe in Paris). Mentioning all of them would be ridiculous.UberCryxic 17:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanders, I have reviewed your first post in this new section and mine, and I can't find anything significant that I've left out. Presumably, you were talking about things like Dutch involvement in the Eastern Front, or the Dutch taking away the wounded after Market Garden. But these were just additional facts that you gave; there's nothing to address here. When there was a significant claim made or one where you were being deceptive, like ignoring the fact that I mentioned the Dutch were present at the Axis surrenders, then I brought it up. Please tell me something important that I missed in that post.UberCryxic 17:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And again, please realize, not to make this a personal attack or anything, that when it comes to evading in our argument, you have done it far more often. Just look at the comments which you put on bold two posts ago. How much of my post do those comments represent? Actually very little! So watch it when you make these charges.UberCryxic 17:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion according to Sander
Look UberCryxic, I think I finally understand this discussion, and with an opposer like you it will probably never end.Nevertheless I will try to explain to my ultimate point of view, I hope you will understand this;

Nobody is better than anyone

Same thing with nations,peoples, or countries whatever. You think in a materialistic and nationalistic way, you provide a whole list of battles won by the French, their ancestors or people you claim to be their ancestors and believe without a doubt that anyone not able to provide a longer or equally large list is inferior to, in this case, France. I disagree, I believe the amount of "glory" can't be measured in numbers, it's like art ... who in their right mind can say that a painting by van Gogh is better, superior if you will, to, I don't know, David by Michelangelo?

I got what I wanted, I removed a line that made it seem as if France/the French have the most glorious military history.You agreed, be it after a bit of a struggle, to that line.So somewhere, a part of you already agrees with the statement above.

This discussion is futile as it could go on for ever, especially if you'd continued to evade my 'good' comments.

I hope you're able to understand this concept. Sander 18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I accept your concession.

If I may offer my "ultimate" point of view.....It is very important that you realize that I am not saying that French culture is superior to the culture of any other nation, city, organization, or what have you. I clearly wrote that I thought it was more influential than that of the Dutch; that says nothing about superiority. France could have a more influential culture because it is a larger country, with more people to write, act, or go to war. Once again, distinguish between more influential and superior.

I do not think in a "nationalistic" way. I am not even French. The list was meant to show the glory of French arms and the scope of French military history, eschewing defeats since they've already been mentioned plenty of times.

I agree with what you are saying about glory. However, who was it that claimed that Rembrandt was the most famous painter in the world? How do you reconcile that statement with what you've just said now? You accuse me of all these things, evading and all this stuff, yet you are the biggest perpetrator of the crime.UberCryxic 18:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Concession?! Sander 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as in you're leaving the debate and you've conceded on all points. Thank you very much for doing that.UberCryxic 22:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha, well if that's how you see it ... I'm simply leaving because I think further discussing is pointless as we're debating the impossible.IE What was first, the chicken or the egg.Pointless. Seriously though, would you like it if I said you were right all the time, I was wrong and shout out viva la france? Because I'm not going to. Sander 08:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me now how our debate is like that of the chicken and the egg. You don't have to shout anything; you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong. Now you're withdrawing from the debate, and that seals the deal. It is, in practice, a concession on all points.UberCryxic 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If I have conceded to all your points, ie. agree that French military history is the greatest of, at least, western Europe.The that means the original writings below that map of France was correct, why don't you switch it back?Afterall you claim that I agree with you now.Try it. Sander 17:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What a silly and empty threat. You're well aware that I cannot change it back; outside intervention agreed with you. That isn't the point. By leaving the debate, done so in non-extenuating terms, you automatically concede on all points (according to me). Whether you say so or not is another matter. Either way, we both realize you want to continue, or else what's with this back-and-forth here at the end? If you were really going to leave, you would have done it by now, and this whole episode would've been history for you. That Dutch pride is getting to you.UberCryxic 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When I left this discussion I did this because it was pointless to continue, not in the sense that your arguments were better than mine, but because we were comparing apples and pears, the impossible if you will.This does not mean (by far) that I have conceded to all of your points.
 * I don't know how they discuss things in Albania but seen the way you're acting it sure looks strange from a Dutch perspective.

Sander 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on now, let's not bring nationalities into this! That's a bit dirty, don't you think? After all, I never criticized your rationale simply because you were Dutch. What I am saying has nothing to do with superiority of arguments or anything like that (although, for the record, I do think my arguments were better, obviously). I certainly do not think the discussion was pointless. We were actually making progress. I think you finally learned about the exhausing list of French victories since 1871! Shocking isn't it? They had some. I'm disappointed you chose to discontinue it, hence I thought you were bailing out, like you didn't care enough about your arguments to sit here and make a stand. I know it's not true, but it's the perception I had, and I'm honest to say I did have it. But, like your perception of French military history, it's still not true.UberCryxic 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You were the one that brought up Dutch pride, as for your pathetic list. I don't know if you know when 1871 begins, but certainly not with the Battle of the Allia, and the only victory I see is world war 1.

You sir, are filled with some weird emotion making you believe in some über-france which never was.

You're trying to lure me in another one of this stupid discussion ... it ain't going to fly. Sander 15:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that you are frustrated. So am I, especially since you continue to perpetrate lies. The only victory World War I? What happened to the Dahomey War, the Sino-French War, or Maysalun in Syria? Or how about the Riff War (France worked with Spain in this one, but she was a decisive participant)? Why don't you mention these? Because they don't suit your purpose perhaps? Or because, even mare damning, you haven't heard of them? The list I gave was obviously not meant to show French victories since just 1871, though a separate list can be made for that too.

Once again, we have to pause here and offer some understanding. Please differentiate between French victories and French victories in which France participated decisively (ie. either won single-handedly or had a big role in the victory). French victories since 1871 include everything from the First World War, the Second World War, and all the way up to the Gulf War in 1991 and the Kosovo War in 1999. French victories in which France was a key player, however, do include World War I, but not World War II. But still, they also include the Sino-French War, the Dahomey War, Maysalun, and the Riff War, all victories which France by herself or in which she was a huge player. But please differentiate between the two next time. Don't say the "only victory I see is World War I." What you really meant, if you had read my disclaimer at the top of the list, was that you "only" saw that victory as France having been decisive.UberCryxic 18:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Dutch pride comment: it only applied to you. I never said anything like, "I don't know how they discuss things in Albania." You're implicating all Albanians in that one, whereas I was just talking about you. I didn't say, "All the Dutch have pride and therefore are wont to making incorrect conclusions"....UberCryxic 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well since it's all over, thank you again for conceding defeat. This was fun.UberCryxic 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How old are you 14? '' [...] since it's all over, thank you again for conceding defeat. This was fun.'' Ridiculous; you sound like a hybrid between a frusterated adolecent and an autist fixed on the history of France.

If you want to live in the illusion you've won this discussion, fine.Not that you've got anything to show for it, apart from thousand of letters supporting my hypothesis a few lines up.I guess you're the kind of person who actually spends all of his sparetime on matters like this or lies awake at night.But like I said before if you want to think you've won fine.You've won (jammer maar niet heus) Sander 15:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your concession has already been accepted several times. No need to continue, unless you want to restart the debate. As always, thank you for your very kind personal remarks.UberCryxic 16:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

hahahaha, does the baby want a lollypop or the last line in the discussion?Please take it. Sander 17:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I again thank you for your kind words. You must love being complemented! I am more than willing to oblige.UberCryxic 19:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[Discussion] Soms, soms zijn er mensen die niet weten wanneer zij zich stil moeten houden.Soms ben jij het, bijwijlen ook ik.Leg jezelf dan de volgende opgave voor: Zou ik beter moeten weten? Ja, in de kern wel.Toch doet bijkant niemand dit, jammer.Laat ik mijzelf nu eens de eerste stap zetten naar het juiste einde.Hoera, leve het verstand! [Discussion/]' Sander 20:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No Mr. Sanders, I will not have oral sex with you. Scouting sex victims online can get you in trouble, so I advise you not to do it.UberCryxic 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)