Add the fact that de Gaulle had close relations with Adenauer...I think that added to this view of "French ungratefulness"...
Switch Perceptions of French and German Military Prowess
- Thread starter Delta Force
- Start date
Add the fact that de Gaulle had close relations with Adenauer...I think that added to this view of "French ungratefulness"...
Personaly i think the entire "Surrender Monkey" meme is started by the French. For centuries the French tried to conquer Europe, but failed because the rest of Europe feared the French and banded together to defeat them. it is obviously that you can't beat Europe with just militairy might and France knows it. So they created the "surrender monkey" meme, so all the world is making fun of them and stop fearing them, while the French are quietly preparing for another attempt to conquer Europe (or even the world!). So when we have forgotten about the French militairy successes of the past and we least expect it they attack. It is trap, I tell you, a trap!
Not exactly: people know Azincourt (with a Z not a G, the English name is a spelling mistake) mainly in UK and USA. At the same time they don't know anything about Formigny and Castillon:
- Formigny: 4500 French, 7000 English. Losses 600 to 5000 (!)
- Castillon: 6000-10000 French, 7000-10000 English. Losses 200 to 4000(!!!)
Uh, isn't that what I've said? People remember most famous English victory(or ies) and conveniantly ignore the fact that in the end French won the damn war. and are unaware of battles English lost.
Taking 120 years to beat someone a quarter of your size, and getting your ass kicked by said opponent for a good chunk of that time, is not impressive even if you win in the end.
It'd be like a 400lb male weight-lifter getting a broken left arm, nose, two black eyes and a concussion from a 100lb teenage girl. Even if he then pile-drived her into the ground he would still get made fun of.
Well, the sitation was more like this: kicking someone out of your country who occupied half of it (including some of the richest parts) already and besides that owns a foreign country. The 100-year war was more a French civil war that took 100 years than it was an Anglo-French war. Certainly in the first couple of decades.
Actualy the one thing I have it say is that if you truly believe that the Franch can't fight wars and always surrenders is that ..well simply put.. you obviously don't know your history. France always had (and actualy still does) one of the strongest most competent militairy forces in Europe. I know that most people know nothing about history and thus make fun of France, simply because other people do, but I expect better from people on this site. Luckily most people here do know their history and the surrender monkey meme is mostly absent here.
Anyway, as said the meme only comes from the relatively bad performance of France during WWII, when it surrendered. So if we still want a roughly similar kinf of history, how about France does slighly better in the early days of the German invasion, does not surrender, even when Germany occupies all of France, but continues the fight from the colonies. France is an equal ally compared the Britain, although (most of) European France is occupied by Nazi-Germany. France continues the fight from Algeria and later French-Indo China against Japan and people remeber France as the country that did not surrender, but continued the fight against Nazi-Germany, bravely fighting against all odds even when their country was occupied, while Germany manages to fight two world wars and lost them, losing 1/4 of their country, even while occupying most of Europe, the incompetent fools.
Well, the way I see it is either we acknowledge that French won the war despite some embarassing losses or or we stop praising Napoleon to high heavens because he lost at the end.
Because that list of french military history that was going around (you know which one I'm tlaking about) managed to both mock French for losing Agincort and mocking Napoleon for losing at the end. So either outcome of the war is only masure or performance during the war is.
It's rather rich for you to claim that I don't know French history when you claim that the English ruled half of France at the start of the Hundred Years War. That was during the reign of Henry II in the mid 1100s. The Hundred Years War started in the 1330s. By that point the only English holdings in France was a coastal sliver of Gascony.
The Hundred Years' War only somewhat resembled a French civil war in the 1400s with the Orleans-Burgundy rivalry but that was towards the end, not the beginning as you claim.
I agree. Both performance in and outcome of should be considered when weighing military competence. I will give the French a little credit for winning the HYW, but considering the disparity of resources and the abysmal performance of the French during it I will give them only a little. Because of that I consider the HYW to be a rather bad argument for French military prowess. There are much much better examples.
The Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars are effectively the mirror opposite. The French lost, but their performance during it gives them much credit. Incidentally this is the same argument that underlines the idea of German military prowess. They lost both world wars but they fought them very well and were only overcome by a huge disparity of forces.
Last edited:
Not accurate. The Hundred Years war can be split into 3 wars: Edwardian War, Caroline War, and Lancastrian War for a total of 81 years of fighting. Of the three wars, the English only won the first one. The French kicked out the English in the second war. In the last war, the English came back for more and did have initial success (Agincourt) but that was only because: (1) the French king was mad; (2) the Armagnac-Burgundian civil war was going on; and (3) the English and Burgundians were allies. When France had a new king, when the civil war ended, and when the Burgundians deserted the English, all at near the same time, English fortunes collapsed quickly.
Ok, I will admit that half was a bit of an exaggeration, but there were many French nobles in for example Normandy, Brittany and Gascony who supported the English during its claims to the French throne.
Well, since the English kings were French nobles who also ruled England and who had a pretty good claim to the French throne and were supported by a reasanoble amount of French nobles and English nobles who bsicly spoke French, I think it is a reasoble (although not undisputable) claim that the 100-year war was a French civil war in which one of the French claimants also happened to be king of England.
You're indeed right: English kings were basically French. Richard I for example was raided in Frence, spoke French, stayed most of the time in France and died there!
The main problem was the feodal system: as English kings were French and came from Normandy they were technically vassals to the French king and vowed fidelity and homage for their holdings in France.
Thanks to some highly complicated weddings they got some claims on the throne (as other noble houses) and tried to put their hands on the throne but they lost the race. It was no more than a highly complicated civil war at the beginning!
The "French" side some pitched battles and understood that guerilla and sieges were most effective (see Du Guesclin).
Suddenly the new French king became mad. Three sides tried to take the throne: England, "French" and Burgundy (they wanted to become an independent kingdom but the ruler was king's uncle then king's cousin').
What's funny is that most people think about the "embarrassing" French defeats and just don't know anything about the "more than embarrassing" english ones.
Azinvourt... nothing to be proud of: Henry was not respecting "the rules". At this time you accept easily to be taken as a prisoner as there are ransom rules. Then he decides to slaughter prisoners!
The main problem was the feodal system: as English kings were French and came from Normandy they were technically vassals to the French king and vowed fidelity and homage for their holdings in France.
Thanks to some highly complicated weddings they got some claims on the throne (as other noble houses) and tried to put their hands on the throne but they lost the race. It was no more than a highly complicated civil war at the beginning!
The "French" side some pitched battles and understood that guerilla and sieges were most effective (see Du Guesclin).
Suddenly the new French king became mad. Three sides tried to take the throne: England, "French" and Burgundy (they wanted to become an independent kingdom but the ruler was king's uncle then king's cousin').
What's funny is that most people think about the "embarrassing" French defeats and just don't know anything about the "more than embarrassing" english ones.
Azinvourt... nothing to be proud of: Henry was not respecting "the rules". At this time you accept easily to be taken as a prisoner as there are ransom rules. Then he decides to slaughter prisoners!
Using an example that is 130+ years before the period in question is not a very good argument.
The 1300s was when the English court transitioned from French to English speaking, in large part due to the war. One can make the claim (which I consider questionable) that the English are "French" in 1340 but that is not appropriate in 1390. The Duke of Lancaster said that his bad French was excusable since he was an Englishman (Barbara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror, pg. 512).
The reason why the French defeats are much more embarrassing than the English ones is that the force disparity massively favored the French (21 million French to 4 million English-Tuchman 48). Also going into the HYW France had built up this big aura of military glory and then proceeded to get its ass brutally kicked.
The French military tradition between 1300 and 1425 is not without French victories but it has some massive defeats which do not redound to French credit in the slightest. Besides Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt, there are Courtrai and Nicopolis. All of these were lost with French stupidity playing a huge factor in the defeats.
There are many major French victories that do redound to French credit, Rocroi, Neerwinden, Jena-Auerstadt. Choosing to use the 14th century as an argument for French military prowess however is to choose to use one of the worst examples available.
usertron2020
Donor
Yeah, the style of French military tactics in this period (save Charles the Wise), not to mention their leadership was pathetic. They would have needed nothing less than divine intervention
after Agincourt (1) to turn things around for them. Oh wait...1) You win the battle, you get to determine the name of it, including the right spelling
It's
Banned
For WWI you failed to mention the USA, Italy, Japan, and Russia. In terms of the level of fight in them, which is what I believe we are talking about, the 3rd Republic French of WWI had plenty of it.
The distinction is not absolute. The Normans had been in France as settlers (by agreement with Charles the Simple, or Straightforward) for some time by 1066.
Uh, incredibly disagree. French military supplies and $$$ kept the Colonies afloat long after exhaustion without their help would have brought the Americans to heel (probably after the 1776 campaign). The fact that the French didn't do more was because they couldn't, not because they didn't try.
While the British faced a real possible of invasion, risked an Irish revolt, found themselves locked into a heavily fortified New York City that could not be exploited, had Cornwallis running all over the American Southern interior with little support, the French and Spanish fleets sortied and free to operate, Gibraltar under siege, Florida falling to the Spaniards, African colonies being lost, India at risk to an unusually aggressive French admiral, the British had obsessed from Day One to Day Last (meaning Yorktown) on maintaining the blockade of the 13 Colonies and destroying supplies in the West Indies destined for Washington's Army.
For a WWII example, its kind of like a strategy of building an Atlantic Wall on steroids and leaving the Luftwaffe plus security and static divisions to cover the whole of the Eastern Front.
The RW Americans were not about to be landing in Southampton. But the Franco-Spaniards were stopped only by disease, and that not even Lord North was stupid and arrogant enough to abandon Southern England coastal fortifications and send the English Militia to deal with troublesome Irish.
1) And...?
2) And...?
3) The woman who reduced the English to beef-eating surrender monkeys
4) The war that produced the Black Prince and Henry V also produced Charles the Wise, Joan, and Charles VII
5) The Royal Navy didn't fight WWI on the high seas by itself
Shame on me
Love the straw-clutching whenever anybody tries to dismiss British hegemony. For eg - Wow, France eventually stopped the king of England ruling France- and france was barely 4 times as populace as england (and fighting at home)! Now that's proof of an impressive military pedigree!
...and if the British do win, they're still losers because they didn't win quickly enough?
Even the usa today, looking at its total history, American "revolution" notwithstanding, has far more to do with British success than failure.
Actually a great number of people from the so called Great Generation are responsible for it. Because being the underdog (in those crappy catching fire when you look sideway at them shermans for example) is such a better story than having a few tough fights in a otherwise easy road to Berlin.
Also beacuse some part of the public just really like superweapons, even if they are useless (what use is the F22 in Afghanistan, and where are the COIN aircrafts of the US Air Force ?)
Let's forget the fact that half the french nobles were allied with the king of England of the time...
I think France got its popular reputation as a nation of surrender monkeys for two reasons:
1) the British are justifiably proud of their achievements during WW1 and WW2; but this has led to an impression among many that France did little, while Britain saved their bacon.
2) the Americans are justifiably proud of their achievements during WW1 and WW2 (many of us are more than justifiably proud, I might add); this has led to an impression that France did nothing, Britain did a fair bit, but that the U.S. saved both their bacon.
What this means is that, in both the major spheres of the English speaking world, France's military reputation is badly (and even unfairly) discounted. And make no mistake -- for most people, the Hundred Years War, Louis XIV's wars, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Franco-Prussian War, have very little to do with anything, being only vaguely understood or remembered by the great majority.
Now, I don't know whether France has the reputation of surrender monkey in the non-English speaking world, but truly, we're only talking about the English speaking world anyway. We might do well to recall that other spheres may have very different attitudes. Do the Chinese, for instance, view France in the same way? Or Russia? How about most Africans? Indeed how do the French and Germans view the subject?
1) the British are justifiably proud of their achievements during WW1 and WW2; but this has led to an impression among many that France did little, while Britain saved their bacon.
2) the Americans are justifiably proud of their achievements during WW1 and WW2 (many of us are more than justifiably proud, I might add); this has led to an impression that France did nothing, Britain did a fair bit, but that the U.S. saved both their bacon.
What this means is that, in both the major spheres of the English speaking world, France's military reputation is badly (and even unfairly) discounted. And make no mistake -- for most people, the Hundred Years War, Louis XIV's wars, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Franco-Prussian War, have very little to do with anything, being only vaguely understood or remembered by the great majority.
Now, I don't know whether France has the reputation of surrender monkey in the non-English speaking world, but truly, we're only talking about the English speaking world anyway. We might do well to recall that other spheres may have very different attitudes. Do the Chinese, for instance, view France in the same way? Or Russia? How about most Africans? Indeed how do the French and Germans view the subject?
Last edited:
Let's forget the fact that half the french nobles were allied with the king of England of the time...
The complexities of war and politics in the medieval feudal culture are often pretty impenetrable, to those so thoroughly trained to think in terms of modern nationalism. It can only get simplified down to "France vs England", with the great skewing attendant upon that mischaracterization.
"France" had a bigger population, but took a long time to win against "England". Thus "England" is superior to "France". The limitations of effective medieval war-making, and the complications of feudal loyalties and obligations, just get lost. Especially, of course, if one wants to depict England as superior.
Let's forget the fact that half the french nobles were allied with the king of England of the time...
Please provide a source for this.
And even if it were true, the English did not have sizeable French military support (except for Gascons) at their three big victories.
Referring to the OP, I think the surrender monkey meme has its basis, at least in the US, in the abysmal French performance in 1940. If France was able to actually hold the Germans back, even if it is just a rerun of the 1914 Marne front line, their military rep would be lots better. But claiming to be a great power and then getting overrun in a similar time frame as Poland is no way to get yourself taken seriously.