Switch Perceptions of French and German Military Prowess

[Locke01]

I don't think it's that, since the most recent war we had with the French lasted about two decades and involved most of the planet...

And was two centuries ago.

(Okay, there was a bit of unpleasantness between Vichy France and England during the Second World War that involved a smattering of gunfire, but no official state of war between the two countries. France-at least the officials recognized by the United Kingdom as the government in exile-remained a staunch ally. More or less).

 

[cracou]

BTW Brits should have shot the admiral responsible for Mers-el-kebir. It was such a massive political error that this single POD would have changed a lot.

 

[Mike]

In the 17th, 18th and 19th century France have the best military record overall. Or do you completely ignore the war of the Grand Alliance, the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, where France managed to get a draw while fighting all of Europe, and the seond one where the Allied powers took 25 years to beat France inot submission by also uniting all of Europe against France. In WWI and II Germany had more allies and more useful allies than France had during it's own run (No allies for France during the Grand Alliance, something Germany never did).

France had much better allies during the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars. They had German states and Poland helping them. Polish soldiers excelled even better than French soldiers. Which allies did Germany have in WW1 and WW2 that were useful? Italy dragged Germany in useless wars in Greece and Africa in WW2.

France had the best record in the 19th century? Pipsqueak Prussia crushed both Austria and France in two separate wars in only a few weeks each. That's impressive.

France had the best record in the 18th century? They won the War of Spanish Succession in that their claimant acceded to the Spanish throne but their performance were not impressive. They frequently lost to Marlborough's and Eugène's armies. They won only by outlasting their opponents and had to pay a high price by conceding territories to Britain that would prove eventually costly to France in the Seven Years War. Not impressive.

They won the War of Quadruple Alliance against a weak Spain. It was France, Britain, Netherlands and Austria against Spain. Despite the favourable circumstances, the French armies didn't perform exceptionally well. The French and Austrians (who had the excuse that they were also fighting the Turks at the same time) suffered reverses early in the war. The war ended on sea with Britain defeating Spain which convinced Spain to sue for peace because Spain felt it could not handle two fronts. Not impressive performance by France.

In the War of Polish Succession, they lost. Austria got their claimant on the Polish throne against French and Spanish objections. France lost 50,000 troops for nothing while Austria lost 30,000. Spain did better than France, defeating Austria in Naples and Sicily and taking these territories.

In the War of Austrian Succession, they won with mixed results. Their victory in Netherlands is contrasted by their defeat in Italy. The real stars in the war was Prussia defeating big Austria on land and Spain defeating Britain on sea.

Seven Years War. They completely and totally lost in every theater. They lost to Prussia in Europe and to the British in North American and India. Austria managed to fight Prussia to a standstill on even terms while France couldn't beat Prussia despite numerical superiority. Not impressive.

In the first Polish Partition, they lost. France promised Poland protection but were helpless to do anything but protest as Russia, Austria and Prussia carved up Poland.

In the American Revolution they won but it was an alliance of France, Spain, and the Netherlands against Britain. France did have significant victories. But they also had a few defeats and Spanish armies and navy performed better.

Then we have the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars. I already said in another post that this appears to be an exception for France in a millennium of mediocre record.

So, to recap: Prussia, Austria and Britain performed better than France in the 18th Century. France and Spain were about the same level in this century.

Spain had the best performance during the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.
Prussia/Germany had the best performance in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
England had the best performance in the 14th century.
Before that, it was the Mongols and Muslims.
France did not have the best performance in any century.


Furthermore, apart from Russia, no other European power suffered disastrous defeats like France did CONSISTENTLY throughout the centuries.
20th century was WW2
19th century was Franco-Prussian War
18th century was the Seven Years War
16th century was the Italian Wars
14th century was the Edwardian phase of Hundred Years War

 

[cracou]

France had much better allies during the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars. They had German states and Poland helping them.

During the revolutionary wars... How funny. You don't answer to remarks and you fail to notice that people make fun of you as some of your statements are horrendously wrong (such as stating that country is a dominant military power while it does not even exist).

Polish soldiers excelled even better than French soldiers.

Source? We fully agree that you can not imagine that French soldiers could have been good ones but try at least to select relevant examples.

For example:

In the American Revolution they won but it was an alliance of France, Spain, and the Netherlands against Britain. France did have significant victories. But they also had a few defeats and Spanish armies and navy performed better.

Can you explain is where the Spnish navy performed better?

Furthermore, apart from Russia, no other European power suffered disastrous defeats like France did CONSISTENTLY throughout the centuries.

Yeah, and France is much larger now than during the 14th century (for example). Can't you understand that there must be a problem in your logic?

Now sit down and explain us what's your problem with French? A nightmare about French fries?

 

[RGB]

Prussia/Germany had the best performance in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

So got crushed by Russia, got crushed by France, got crushed by France but saved by Russia, won WW1 in the East, then got crushed by Russia after initial successes in ww2?

I am basically not seeing the acknowledgement that all of that happened, which it doubtlessly did.

Prussia/Germany consistently ended up with its armies destroyed nearly to a man, and its capital occupied, right through that period, only to be saved by miracles of diplomacy, hatched in either St.Petersburg or London.

1860s-1870s, of course, were pretty impressive.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

BTW Brits should have shot the admiral responsible for Mers-el-kebir. It was such a massive political error that this single POD would have changed a lot.

Wasn't he under orders to attack?

 

[cracou]

Good question. The answer is "not really" (it was a decision from London after all). He should have used his brain to understand the political effect of his moves (in such as case we can say that it was stupid not to give a high level diplomatic team). In Alexandria everything worked fine!

 

[Tallil2long]

So got crushed by Russia, got crushed by France, got crushed by France but saved by Russia,

Snip

Which wars or battles are you referring to?

 

[RGB]

Which wars or battles are you referring to?

7YW and the separate Coalition Wars. What else could it be?

 

[Kevin Renner]

Let's accept that France has many notable achievements as a nation made possible by force of arms. But if one is familiar with the concept of "attaboys and oh shits" the France had an "Oh Shit" that wiped out one hell of a lot of attaboys
http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/one_aw_shit_wipes_out_a_thousand_attaboys

 

[Basileus444]

7YW and the separate Coalition Wars. What else could it be?

Regarding the first you left out the minor detail that Prussia was also fighting France and Austria at the same time. When the deck is stacked that badly against you, not dying immediately is an accomplishment and the long and impressive, if losing until rescued by the miracle of the House of Brandenburg, is a strong testimony to Frederick the Great's military skill (although an equally damning indictment of his diplomatic skills).

Jena-Auerstadt was a humiliating defeat of Prussia, of that there is no doubt.

Germany has an extremely good military reputation despite losing both world wars. That is because during those world wars it performed magnificently and was only buried under sheer weight of numbers. In determining military skill, the end outcome of the war is only one factor, albeit an important one.

 

[Tallil2long]

7YW and the separate Coalition Wars. What else could it be?

I asked because I couldn't imagine someone using the SYW to argue for poor Prussian performance. I mean, I don't subscribe to Prussian Fanboy magazine, but Prussia was outnumbered in most battles, yet still pulled off a large number of victories. Beating an opponent of double your strength (as at Leuthen or Leignitz) doesn't argue for poor performance, for example. Surviving for several years against three opponents, each of which bigger than you, doesn't seem like an indicator of poor performance, either.

Really, the SYW only indicates to me that Frederick should've been more cautious about picking fights, since France, Russia and the Habsburgs weren't about to let any Germany state get uppity and would almost certainly cooperate against him; this shows very questionable judgement, in my book. But having been incautious enough to get into the war, he (and his army, and the State) made quite a solid showing.

In fact, it was recognition of how well the Prussian army did in this war that contributed to the army growing ossified by the time of Jena. It's notable that they did a pretty good job reforming the army after that, though.

I agree that the Prussian army was no superman; I think that any assessment of its actual qualities requires consideration of the relative strengths of it and its enemies, though. To me this seems obvious.

Incidentally, the above is why I'm not quite so scathing as others about the French military performance in 1870-71. In a number of the most famous battles, the French were outnumbered. In others (such as in the Loire campaign) the French were numerically stronger, but their forces were often not well trained and suffered poor morale. My main criticism of France in 1870-71 is her ridiculously belligerent scream-and-leap behavior.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

France had much better allies during the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars. They had German states and Poland helping them. Polish soldiers excelled even better than French soldiers. Which allies did Germany have in WW1 and WW2 that were useful? Italy dragged Germany in useless wars in Greece and Africa in WW2.

France had the best record in the 19th century? Pipsqueak Prussia crushed both Austria and France in two separate wars in only a few weeks each. That's impressive.

France had the best record in the 18th century? They won the War of Spanish Succession in that their claimant acceded to the Spanish throne but their performance were not impressive. They frequently lost to Marlborough's and Eugène's armies. They won only by outlasting their opponents and had to pay a high price by conceding territories to Britain that would prove eventually costly to France in the Seven Years War. Not impressive.

They won the War of Quadruple Alliance against a weak Spain. It was France, Britain, Netherlands and Austria against Spain. Despite the favourable circumstances, the French armies didn't perform exceptionally well. The French and Austrians (who had the excuse that they were also fighting the Turks at the same time) suffered reverses early in the war. The war ended on sea with Britain defeating Spain which convinced Spain to sue for peace because Spain felt it could not handle two fronts. Not impressive performance by France.

In the War of Polish Succession, they lost. Austria got their claimant on the Polish throne against French and Spanish objections. France lost 50,000 troops for nothing while Austria lost 30,000. Spain did better than France, defeating Austria in Naples and Sicily and taking these territories.

In the War of Austrian Succession, they won with mixed results. Their victory in Netherlands is contrasted by their defeat in Italy. The real stars in the war was Prussia defeating big Austria on land and Spain defeating Britain on sea.

Seven Years War. They completely and totally lost in every theater. They lost to Prussia in Europe and to the British in North American and India. Austria managed to fight Prussia to a standstill on even terms while France couldn't beat Prussia despite numerical superiority. Not impressive.

In the first Polish Partition, they lost. France promised Poland protection but were helpless to do anything but protest as Russia, Austria and Prussia carved up Poland.

In the American Revolution they won but it was an alliance of France, Spain, and the Netherlands against Britain. France did have significant victories. But they also had a few defeats and Spanish armies and navy performed better.

Then we have the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars. I already said in another post that this appears to be an exception for France in a millennium of mediocre record.

So, to recap: Prussia, Austria and Britain performed better than France in the 18th Century. France and Spain were about the same level in this century.

Spain had the best performance during the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.
Prussia/Germany had the best performance in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
England had the best performance in the 14th century.
Before that, it was the Mongols and Muslims.
France did not have the best performance in any century.

Furthermore, apart from Russia, no other European power suffered disastrous defeats like France did CONSISTENTLY throughout the centuries.
20th century was WW2
19th century was Franco-Prussian War
18th century was the Seven Years War
16th century was the Italian Wars
14th century was the Edwardian phase of Hundred Years War

There's a lot of nonsense in this post, but how is it that Germany had the greatest military in the 19th century? France was recognized as the dominant military power in continental Europe until 1870. France has a long

 

[Matteo]

I asked because I couldn't imagine someone using the SYW to argue for poor Prussian performance. I mean, I don't subscribe to Prussian Fanboy magazine, but Prussia was outnumbered in most battles, yet still pulled off a large number of victories. Beating an opponent of double your strength (as at Leuthen or Leignitz) doesn't argue for poor performance, for example. Surviving for several years against three opponents, each of which bigger than you, doesn't seem like an indicator of poor performance, either.

Really, the SYW only indicates to me that Frederick should've been more cautious about picking fights, since France, Russia and the Habsburgs weren't about to let any Germany state get uppity and would almost certainly cooperate against him; this shows very questionable judgement, in my book. But having been incautious enough to get into the war, he (and his army, and the State) made quite a solid showing.

In fact, it was recognition of how well the Prussian army did in this war that contributed to the army growing ossified by the time of Jena. It's notable that they did a pretty good job reforming the army after that, though.

I agree that the Prussian army was no superman; I think that any assessment of its actual qualities requires consideration of the relative strengths of it and its enemies, though. To me this seems obvious.

Incidentally, the above is why I'm not quite so scathing as others about the French military performance in 1870-71. In a number of the most famous battles, the French were outnumbered. In others (such as in the Loire campaign) the French were numerically stronger, but their forces were often not well trained and suffered poor morale. My main criticism of France in 1870-71 is her ridiculously belligerent scream-and-leap behavior.

I agree to a large extent.

Your last criticism for 1870-71 is rather not very fair since Bismarck and Prussia wanted and organized the trap to have France declare a war it was not prepared to fight. But I don't question the Vae victis principle. I would even say the Vae brutis victis because the french government was really stupid to go to war in such a state of unpreparation.

There is a strange coincidence. This french catastrophic decision is the echo of the even more catastrophic decision Prussia made in 1806 when it so arrogantly decide to go to war against Napoleon's France.

With hindsight, one could think that Napoleon's best favor he could have done to the whole world would have been to dismantle Prussia somewhere between 1807 and 1812.