-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
A.E. said:type "french military victories" into google and hit "I'm feeling lucky"
LOL A E
That is bloody fantastic
old
In mp They are usually conspiring against her. Around 1520 though she is easily beaten by the Von Frunds - Duke of Alba combination. Pretty sad actually
In mp They are usually conspiring against her. Around 1520 though she is easily beaten by the Von Frunds - Duke of Alba combination. Pretty sad actually
Well, french suffered terrible defeats in teh 1520´s against Spain... Bicocca and Pavía area the main examples. In Bicocca were Colonna (as Field Marshall), Pescara and the much overrated V. Frundsberg.
French were so easily beaten there that Bicocca came through the spanish language, "This is a Bicocca" means this is so incredibly easy...
But after 1643 french army was really good, with great leaders and great organization...Before that they were far from it, and in fact they suffered one defeat after another...And when they achived a victory (Cerisola, for example), the spanish come back was too much for their leaders..
French were so easily beaten there that Bicocca came through the spanish language, "This is a Bicocca" means this is so incredibly easy...
But after 1643 french army was really good, with great leaders and great organization...Before that they were far from it, and in fact they suffered one defeat after another...And when they achived a victory (Cerisola, for example), the spanish come back was too much for their leaders..
About the Spain, France after 1630 constantly defeated them on sea and land. The few times a powerful coalition managed to defeat France, they RECOVERED a few town or get colonies : no one was wanting to get a Casus Belli'' from France...One other point is that even if it's looks incredibly lousy from today standards, France's administration and economical wealth was incredibly better than Austria and Spain. (It's well known that most of the gold of the Peru ended in France, a part ''liberated'' by corsairs, but the most of it in standard commercial circuits :`the Spain was not producing anything, prefering to import it...)
Historically, the France was totally defeated only two times : in 1870 and 1940, when the war become industrial (France was lacking of coal and steel...) and we can honestly say that a good part of the defeat was due to treason : it's really a shame that the 1940 traitors dared (and still dare) to use the name of Joan of Arc for their propaganda : the poor girl would turn in her grave (if she had one...)
Historically, the France was totally defeated only two times : in 1870 and 1940, when the war become industrial (France was lacking of coal and steel...) and we can honestly say that a good part of the defeat was due to treason : it's really a shame that the 1940 traitors dared (and still dare) to use the name of Joan of Arc for their propaganda : the poor girl would turn in her grave (if she had one...)
Actually, both defeats were caused by the inappropriate state of mind of the french HQ, which were as conservative as Napo's Generals were innovative and reckless. In 1870, Prussians had better armament (longer-ranged cannons and rifles), but also (and foremost) better generals (MacMahon got himself encircled, after all, giving all inner France to Bismarck's troops). In 1940, French had better armaments (more tanks, and better tanks), higher numbers, but poor commanders whobelieved they were still in WWI (in a war of entrenchment), while the Germans had fewer troops (only 10 motorized infantry and 6 armored divisions, the rest on foot), fewer and mostly inferior tanks, less aircrafts, but highly better (more dynamic) generals, which were using the Blitz-tactic (devised originally by... english and french officersBaronNoir said:
).So, no, the 1870 and 1940 defeats weren't the results of poor industry. German's defeat in 1945 was due to industrially weakness.
EDIT : in 1870, you shouldn't forget the disunified state of the country, as Napo III had huge opposition...
I disagree about the technial superiority in 1870...The ''Chassepot'' rifle of the France was vastly superior to the Dreyse : DOUBLE range, and much more damaging...(This go against my point, but..)
Example of treason : Bazaine, marshal of the first line troops, did not fight the Prussians : he negotiated with them for restore the Empire after Sedan (and, of course, the Prussians were just buying time...When he ran out of food, there was no longer negotiation...
But, globally, you are right with the point of the generals. I must say, however, that the defeat of the Germany of 1945 was not industrial : it was a complete, total, absolute, defeat (far more definitive than all the battles in Europa Universalis)
(Anyone agree about the point on the shameful utilisation of Joan of Arc ?)
Example of treason : Bazaine, marshal of the first line troops, did not fight the Prussians : he negotiated with them for restore the Empire after Sedan (and, of course, the Prussians were just buying time...When he ran out of food, there was no longer negotiation...
But, globally, you are right with the point of the generals. I must say, however, that the defeat of the Germany of 1945 was not industrial : it was a complete, total, absolute, defeat (far more definitive than all the battles in Europa Universalis)
(Anyone agree about the point on the shameful utilisation of Joan of Arc ?)
Weird, because I've found France just as often much too weak. Early on, they are too easily bribed and take money from England rather than territory. Early in the game, Spain is a useful ally against France, but later they fall behind in tech; in the late 17th and 18th century the Netherlands often has the money and manpower to stand up to France on land while having colonial forces to defeat them abroad.Falconhurst said:
Yep, you're right, I was confounding them. But my point is valid for cannons.BaronNoir said:
That's no more treason than the Thiers government (was that him, I've a doubt) disavowing Napo... And I'd rather treat Bazaine of a fool rather than a traitor. But he was already defeated...BaronNoir said:
Besides, who are your 'traitors' of 1940 ? Just curiosity...
No, no, German's defeat was largely due to their battered industry, while USA were sending tons of supply. The german troops lost more tanks, soldiers, battles, to lack of fuel, ammunitions, food, than to enemy shots. American logistics has always been (since WWI at least) their best weapon. Germans had really a hard time maintaining the pace, and Allied commanders were always surprised by the ingeniosity of their foes to compensate their lacks of everything. Their industrial defeat caused their military defeat, but also Hitler's crazy decisions (wether in Russia, Africa, Italy or France). The most important battle was the Battle of Atlantic, against Donitz's subs : had they been able to break the continual shipment of supplies to England in 1940-1941, England would have had to sign peace.BaronNoir said:
Sure, who wouldn't ?BaronNoir said:
In most GCs that I go through, the French usually don't do so well. The latest I'm going through as Russia (so I haven't influenced French development at all), they became the extreme powerhouse in the early 1500's holding most of northern Italy along with all their core provinces. By that point their apogee is reached especially when they get involved in some war with some one-province nation they can't reach. Rather than sign a peace and be done with it, the French would rather have their country fracture and fall apart. With the wars of religion on top of it, it is not uncommon in my games to see a France that is smaller than either of their religious breakaways. In this game I saw France even reduced to their capital province on the continent and the only way they have more land now is because of more long, drawn out wars by Orleans or Lorraine.
Well, France did have the largest population in Europe (larger than Russia) for quite a long time (almost the entire period of this game), and it was a vcery homogenous population when compared to those of Austria, Spain, or Russia.
Steele
Steele
IN all my games France is the bad boy of Europe.
Thing is, though, they never fight the english, but invade Germany.
In my 1492 game as Austria, France had unified itself, taken Helvetia and Savoy, and extensively bult up an American empire. They declared war in 1610s on me, and I soon found an 81k army bearing down on me...
Even when that whittled away from attrition, I reckon the French raised up an additional 50k!
I was damn lucky that my many victories in Helvetia under von mercy and Wallenstein got me to only pay 50 ducats
Thing is, though, they never fight the english, but invade Germany.
In my 1492 game as Austria, France had unified itself, taken Helvetia and Savoy, and extensively bult up an American empire. They declared war in 1610s on me, and I soon found an 81k army bearing down on me...
Even when that whittled away from attrition, I reckon the French raised up an additional 50k!
I was damn lucky that my many victories in Helvetia under von mercy and Wallenstein got me to only pay 50 ducats
As well as during the Italian wars, and during Napo III's reign.Devil-D said:
EDIT : we've been moved to the History forum, did you see when it happened ?
KriegHund said:
No, I speak in terms of actual history of Europe...
The four wars of Louis XIV... the French Revolution... Napoleon's conquest of Europe... ring any bells?
Hummmm, i think Louis XIV was the zenith of French power. It´s also more or less the time when French demographic advantage was higher. Afterwards she was increasingly rivalled by Britain. As an example, in the Seven Years War and unbeatable alliance on paper of France, Austria, Spain and Russia was defeated by just Britain-Hannover and Prussia. Moreover, it could be said that in the end Louis´s expansionist policies left France isolated (and debt ridden?) and weakened her.
Nappy and the revolutionary times were, IMHO , a diferent story. A true military genius and a reworked state against the Ancien Regime monarchies. When other countries learnt the lesson tough, France became again sort of primus inter pares
Nappy and the revolutionary times were, IMHO , a diferent story. A true military genius and a reworked state against the Ancien Regime monarchies. When other countries learnt the lesson tough, France became again sort of primus inter pares
Last edited:
Devil-D said:
Louis XIV ok, but...
how french revolution can be considered like a agression on other countries?
We were the attacked country! all the other countries want the revolution put to an end, they attacked us! We want only peace to deal with inner problems and we got war...
and they got a 20 years war with almost only defeat for them! but France never attacked at first. Hardly a badboy there...
but it's true that issuing the first universal human rights declaration is really bad...