The French

[MadMachine]

copied and pasted from some other forum i used to go to. I don't particularly care what other people think about France.

Oh, okay. So I'll just ignore the contradiction that you just made.

 

[Veilside]

Oh, okay. So I'll just ignore the contradiction that you just made.

Clearly i should have put /sarcasm in front of that post so people understood it better. :thumbsup:

 

[MadMachine]

Clearly i should have put /sarcasm in front of that post so people understood it better. :thumbsup:

Which one? The French inventions thing or the Leave history in the past thing?

 

[Veilside]

Which one? The French inventions thing or the Leave history in the past thing?

French inventions one.

 

[MadMachine]

French inventions one.

Ah. It seemed a little long winded to be sarcastic. Sorry.

 

[Veilside]

Ah. It seemed a little long winded to be sarcastic. Sorry.

Hence the cut and paste from another forum :grin:

 

[Dondrei]

No we don't. We have different ideas about what constitutes a glorious military history.

Well yeah, you apparently think you can take credit for a thousand years on the basis of a couple of glorious battles...

History belongs in the past, let's keep it there.

History is a giant record of all the possible mistakes you can make. Take heed of it and it'll steer you well into the future.

With out Fabius crushing down on Hannibal Scipio would not have been able to go to Carthago. And fabius did it using tactics he learnt from Hannibal. Dont forget, before Fabius Rome was practically on its knees. Remember Canai? With that other pompous *** Varro.

But that doesn't necessarily mean he was a great military thinker. He managed one great victory but for all we know that could've been a fluke - he doesn't have a consistent history of military brilliance like the others.

Sure, he did amaze the world several times. But i personally feel his reform of the army as his greatest accomplishment.

It's what he's mostly remembered for, but while the reforms were important and useful, they weren't earth-shattering. He changed the basic unit from the maniple to the cohort, basically because armies were getting bigger. I'm not certain about this but I think he might also have been the one who shaved the curved top and bottom off the scutum and inserted the strategic weak point into the pilum. Useful and clever to be sure, but the Roman army was already a powerful fighting machine by the time he inherited it - he just tweaked it a bit.

Ceasar was angry when he learned that Pompey was killed, after all, Pompey was a consul.

Yes, and Caesar's clemency eventually became legendary - he wasn't the kind of guy who wanted to see his political enemies' heads on a spike. He was pissed when Cato killed himself too. In fact Antony wanted to make a shrine to Caesar's clemency, arguably as a ploy to undermine him.

But that is all semantics right? In the end the Spartans were slayed and than the 10.000 immortals walked away.

There were considerably fewer Immortals than when they started though (apart from the aforementioned replenishment). That's quite an achievement for a such an incredibly outnumbered force.

 

[Drosselmeier]

Well yeah, you apparently think you can take credit for a thousand years on the basis of a couple of glorious battles...

"a couple"? :laugh:

Man for man and century for century the French have won more and bigger than most other European countries. It doesn't matter if it's a sustained series of wins. Brazil didn't win the WC this year but they're still one of the best teams on earth. The French lost against the nazis but their record still looks pretty good.

 

[HAMC8112]

But that doesn't necessarily mean he was a great military thinker. He managed one great victory but for all we know that could've been a fluke - he doesn't have a consistent history of military brilliance like the others.

I do not agree with the 'for all we know that could have been a fluke' part. The first time Fabius got control of the army's against Hannibal, be it as Consul or Proconsul - i cant remember of the top of my head - he knew that if he were to use the usual Roman tactics he would loose. Hannibal was a cat with many lives and his strong point was that he was able to counter any Roman tactic and throw in a couple of surprizes aswell. The first battle he ever lost against the romans was against Fabius. I am not sure about the dates but iirc Hannibal was already in Italy a couple years beating every Roman army in his way.

So Fabius, knowing very well that in an all out battle he did not stand a chance against Hannibal, refused to fight on Hannibals terms. The people of Rome started calling him Fabius Cunctator (hesitator - sp?) and he was called back to Rome and someone else got controle of the army. Disaster struck several times bringing Rome to its knees. If Hannibal only had stormed Rome at that point, history would have been way different.

Anyway, Canai (30.000 Hannibal soldiers against 80.000 romans under Varro, after that battle 6000 romans are still alive, the rest has been killed (50.000) or taken prisoner) and all that happens and Fabius is restored as commander in chief. From that point on Hannibals luck has turned and he knew it, Fabius was not after virtus. No more of the reckless Roman consuls that rushed into battle for personal glory, no more battles at Hannibals terms. Fabius waits for his time and gives Hannibal his first defeat.

Politics in Carthago are against Hannibal aswell, no replacement soldiers or money arrive from Africa. Instead they send some to Iberia and hannibal knows his time is over.

In my view, Rome has survived Hannibal only because of the brilliant tactics used by Fabius. Without Fabius we would have had a North African civilisation as the major force in Europe.

this is my view so it is ok to disagree. :smiley:

 

[Dondrei]

I do not agree with the 'for all we know that could have been a fluke' part. The first time Fabius got control of the army's against Hannibal, be it as Consul or Proconsul - i cant remember of the top of my head - he knew that if he were to use the usual Roman tactics he would loose. Hannibal was a cat with many lives and his strong point was that he was able to counter any Roman tactic and throw in a couple of surprizes aswell. The first battle he ever lost against the romans was against Fabius. I am not sure about the dates but iirc Hannibal was already in Italy a couple years beating every Roman army in his way.

So Fabius, knowing very well that in an all out battle he did not stand a chance against Hannibal, refused to fight on Hannibals terms. The people of Rome started calling him Fabius Cunctator (hesitator - sp?) and he was called back to Rome and someone else got controle of the army. Disaster struck several times bringing Rome to its knees. If Hannibal only had stormed Rome at that point, history would have been way different.

Yeah, I know all that.

"Cunctator" is usually translated as "delayer" in English (even though "cunctatorial" is in fact an acceptable English word), "hesitator" would tend to imply that he was the one doing the hesitating.

Anyway, Canai (30.000 Hannibal soldiers against 80.000 romans under Varro, after that battle 6000 romans are still alive, the rest has been killed (50.000) or taken prisoner) and all that happens and Fabius is restored as commander in chief. From that point on Hannibals luck has turned and he knew it, Fabius was not after virtus. No more of the reckless Roman consuls that rushed into battle for personal glory, no more battles at Hannibals terms. Fabius waits for his time and gives Hannibal his first defeat.

Politics in Carthago are against Hannibal aswell, no replacement soldiers or money arrive from Africa. Instead they send some to Iberia and hannibal knows his time is over.

In my view, Rome has survived Hannibal only because of the brilliant tactics used by Fabius. Without Fabius we would have had a North African civilisation as the major force in Europe.

this is my view so it is ok to disagree. :smiley:

Look, I know and agree with all this, I don't see how any of it changes my point.

 

[Dondrei]

"a couple"? :laugh:

Man for man and century for century the French have won more and bigger than most other European countries. It doesn't matter if it's a sustained series of wins. Brazil didn't win the WC this year but they're still one of the best teams on earth. The French lost against the nazis but their record still looks pretty good.

I already said that there's an argument for it relative to the other European powers of the time. Yeesh, we're going around in circles.

 

[Kaysaar]

I still disagree with you Dross. I think that on a whole, the British have enjoyed greater military glory than the French.

 

[Rabbitz]

"a couple"? :laugh:

Man for man and century for century the French have won more and bigger than most other European countries. It doesn't matter if it's a sustained series of wins. Brazil didn't win the WC this year but they're still one of the best teams on earth. The French lost against the nazis but their record still looks pretty good.

Im amazed, I hope you mean the Franks? (later on french etc? )

 

[Stoutwood]

What an awful argument. Military glory is subjective, so how can you even argue about it? Some people would say that Switzerland has the most glorious military history.

 

[Dondrei]

What an awful argument. Military glory is subjective, so how can you even argue about it? Some people would say that Switzerland has the most glorious military history.

That's certainly true to some extent.

 

[Drosselmeier]

I still disagree with you Dross. I think that on a whole, the British have enjoyed greater military glory than the French.

Fine, but do you consider them surrender monkeys? That's what this is really about.

Im amazed, I hope you mean the Franks? (later on french etc? )

That's a detail, really. I couldn't be bothered to type out "Franks and later French" in my post. In germanic languages the tribe gave name to the nation (Frankreich, Frankrike, Frankrig) which is why it is ok for me to be lazy about the distinctions. It doesn't make any difference anyway. The kingdom of the Franks occupied all of France and then some. It's not like anyone is being excluded if we call them french.

 

[Kaysaar]

Fine, but do you consider them surrender monkeys? That's what this is really about.

Nope, they've just had the misfortune of making enemies with the wrong people.

 

[Drosselmeier]

Nope, they've just had the misfortune of making enemies with the wrong people.

More like having the wrong neighbours. Imagine if it had shared borders with only Spain, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy.

Which reminds me... why don't we hear more people making fun of the Italians? If any country is ripe for mockery when it comes to military matters surely it's the Italians. Sure, France lost against Germany. There's not much shame in that though... being beaten by the best, as the saying goes. The Italians on the other hand got humiliated by the Greeks and had to beg the Germans to come rescue them. :laugh:

 

[Kaysaar]

Which reminds me... why don't we hear more people making fun of the Italians? If any country is ripe for mockery when it comes to military matters surely it's the Italians. Sure, France lost against Germany. There's not much shame in that though... being beaten by the best, as the saying goes. The Italians on the other hand got humiliated by the Greeks and had to beg the Germans to come rescue them. :laugh:

And the Ethiopians... twice...

 

[Drosselmeier]

Don't forget the Ethiopians... twice...

To be fair, the Ethiopians got some help from the Brits the second time around. Still, funny stuff.