The Power of France

[unmerged(25696)]

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...

France just started promoting revolutions and 'liberations' in Germany and Italy. In 1792-93, you were probably the 'defenders', but later it was France who attacked its neighbours. Napoleonic Wars were all triggered due to outright invasions by France, or in response to aggressive diplomacy (is denying England to trade with Europe a friendly attitude ? ).

 

[unmerged(23696)]

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...

I think you misunderstand the entire concept of the French Revolution. It was a shocking event to all of Europe, and dispicable to the contemporary absolutist monarchies (ie Austria). Furthermore, the murdering of the King was a truly radical and terrible act (regicide has that kind of reputation). Finally, in the name of revolution France gobbled up Flanders and the Netherlands... not something to make the other nations in Europe happy.

 

[unmerged(9531)]

I think you misunderstand the entire concept of the French Revolution. It was a shocking event to all of Europe, and dispicable to the contemporary absolutist monarchies (ie Austria). Furthermore, the murdering of the King was a truly radical and terrible act (regicide has that kind of reputation). Finally, in the name of revolution France gobbled up Flanders and the Netherlands... not something to make the other nations in Europe happy.

after being attacked...

 

[unmerged(25696)]

after being attacked...

1791, September 14th : Avignon annexed.
1792, April 20th : France declares war to Austria and Prussia.
1792, November and 1793, January : Nice and Savoy annexed.
Early 1793 : France declares war to England, Netherlands, Spain and Italian princes.
1793, March : annexation of Principalty of Salm and County of Porrentruy (Swiss) and of parts of Palatinate and of Duchy of Deux-Ponts.
1795, October : left bank of the Rhine incorporated to France.
1798, January : annexation of Mulhouse.
1799, March : France declares war to Austria (despite the peace concluded in 1797 which gave Belgium and parts of Venetian territories to France and Lombardia to Cisalpine Republic, a vassal state of France).
1802, August and September : Elbe island and Piemont united to France.
1802, October : french troops occupy Parme and Plaisance.
1804, March : kidnapping of Duke of Enghien in german territory
1805, May : Napoleon claims the title of King of Italy.
1807, July : annexation of Ionian Isles.
1808, February : occupation of Rome.1810, November : annexation of the Hansa cities.

And the list is far from being exhaustive. Who's the BadBoy ?

 

[unmerged(7225)]

In terms of aggression during the French Revolutionary wars of pre-Napoleonic times (1789-1799 or so) its largely a case of "he said, she said" with regards to who started them.

1) Large masses of emigrees (displaced nobles) left France to neighboring nations. The revolutionary government demanded their return as enemies of the French State. Foreign governments refused. These nobles (as rightful rulers of France) asked for and got support in reinstating the monarchy from foreign powers. They began amassing armies from their european cousins to crush the revolution. These mobilizations were public, obvious, and definite acts of war. The French revolutionary armies were reacting to these acts of war preemptively.

2) As with any pre-emptive declaration of war, the disadvantage is making the defenders, well, defenders. Even justified aggressors are AGGRESSORS and the nations housing the emigrees could be seen as wronged. It WAS france who declared war, so they must be in the wrong...

 

[Adam B.]

In terms of aggression during the French Revolutionary wars of pre-Napoleonic times (1789-1799 or so) its largely a case of "he said, she said" with regards to who started them.

1) Large masses of emigrees (displaced nobles) left France to neighboring nations. The revolutionary government demanded their return as enemies of the French State. Foreign governments refused. These nobles (as rightful rulers of France) asked for and got support in reinstating the monarchy from foreign powers. They began amassing armies from their european cousins to crush the revolution. These mobilizations were public, obvious, and definite acts of war. The French revolutionary armies were reacting to these acts of war preemptively.

2) As with any pre-emptive declaration of war, the disadvantage is making the defenders, well, defenders. Even justified aggressors are AGGRESSORS and the nations housing the emigrees could be seen as wronged. It WAS france who declared war, so they must be in the wrong...

Well said; war is almost every time about fear and being in the advantage, IF the austrians and the prussians ect. didn't raise armies, the french would probably not have attacked; offcourse this is just a mere assumption. history has it own twists and turns; but "defender" and "aggresor" are very debatable, germans (in WWII) tought that poland was the aggresor (propaganda).

Majbe the poor french were also a subject to propaganda; poor defenders ...

 

[Victor1234]

There is a difference between the 2 examples.The Germans,took a bunch of prisoners,dressed them in Polish uniforms,and then shot them.

It is quite another thing,to have a bunch of countries mass troops on your border,and then claim you are the agressor

 

[unmerged(23696)]

after being attacked...

Care to address any of the other points?

 

[Adam B.]

There is a difference between the 2 examples.The Germans,took a bunch of prisoners,dressed them in Polish uniforms,and then shot them.

It is quite another thing,to have a bunch of countries mass troops on your border,and then claim you are the agressor

... err just a example of how agression can be percieved; The polish were thought as the agressor BY germans; the French were tought to be the agressor BY the Habsburgs, prussians, ect.
But in both cases the attacked coutry's themselves knew they were defenders.
Ok the polish thing was not a good example; but agression is subjective; as we all know, and the napoleonic wars were much more complicated then we think.

 

[SecondReich]

Well, the French really were a powerhouse until 1914-1918. I mean, while it was technically a victory, most countries rarely suffer as much in a horrible defeat. If I remember correctly, 1/3 of France's available manpower was either killed or wounded in World War I. Thats mindboggling to me.

 

[unmerged(6779)]

Your smiley is a bit... disturbing. :wacko:

France was called the "China of Europe" because of its enormous human ressouces compared to other countries. Under Louis XIV, the French population was 20 millions ! Nowadays it's *only* 60 millions...

The demographic transition was earlier in France than in other European countries so that the country lost this advantage in the XIXth century.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

Well, the French really were a powerhouse until 1914-1918. I mean, while it was technically a victory, most countries rarely suffer as much in a horrible defeat. If I remember correctly, 1/3 of France's available manpower was either killed or wounded in World War I. Thats mindboggling to me.

No, not as much. Only 10%. Germany and Austria-Hungary lost also almost 10%. UK, Russia and Italy had between 5 and 6%.

And Belgium 1.9%.

And German economy was really in the worse state since a long, long time ago.

And before you ask, the USA troops represented less than 10% of the total troops mobilised, so not really that great help.

 

[unmerged(23696)]

France a powerhouse in 1914? No, no, no... they were very much a second-rate power by that time. It was a position cemented by the Franco-Prussian War; retribution for it was one of the prime motivators for the French at the time.

 

[Yakman]

France a powerhouse in 1914? No, no, no... they were very much a second-rate power by that time. It was a position cemented by the Franco-Prussian War; retribution for it was one of the prime motivators for the French at the time.

I wouldn't call them second rate. It's not fair. The "second rate" status is more like Austria-Hungary or Italy. They were still a "great power" and a Great Power, by definition, is not second rate.

Was France as strong as Britain or Germany. Nope. But they were stronger than Russia, and the third strongest country in Europe, the fourth strongest in the world. France was a powerhouse, but not a super power, like Britain.

 

[unmerged(23696)]

Britain and Germany were the two great powers of Europe at the time... obviously any nation trailing just behind their lead would be a second-rate power. This includes the Austro-Hungarian Empire, France, and Russia.

It's all relative.

 

[Yakman]

Britain and Germany were the two great powers of Europe at the time... obviously any nation trailing just behind their lead would be a second-rate power. This includes the Austro-Hungarian Empire, France, and Russia.

Of course, Britain was behind Germany, so was Britain not a first-rate power? They were a second-rate then?

I disagree. The French were powerful. They fought against a superior German enemy for four years, without breaking. They were not at their prime, and they were on the decline, but France was still a great power, until 1917 at least...

 

[unmerged(25696)]

France made Germany break. Its armies represented 20-25% of the total allied mobilised troops, and far more than any other ally. Britain had slightly more troops (8.4M to 8.9M), but much less on the West Front. US troops had barely arrived when peace was concluded : in March 1918, startdate of the decisive 1918 offensive, only 3 US divisions were present in front of the Germans (barely 29 in July-August), to 99 French and 58 British (and 12 Belgian ).

In 1914, France had 93 divisions, to 94 for Germany (of which only 77 faced west). Germany had not many more airplanes or artillery than France (174 to 150, 548 to 308). So I wouldn't name France a 'second-rate' power, seeing how well they had recovered (maybe not psychologically ) since 1871. You can't judge a country by what they did nearly half-a-century earlier.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

The problem with looking at things that way is that France had a large military, but a small military potential. They really could not have kept up a war with Germany on their own, while Germany could have. Her population was too small, her industries too weak, and while she remained a Great Power, she was not a superpower, like Britain, Germany, and the US were.

And those three US divisions had over 100,000 men. There were also only were about 1/5th of the total mobilized US forces.

Steele

 

[Yakman]

The problem with looking at things that way is that France had a large military, but a small military potential. They really could not have kept up a war with Germany on their own, while Germany could have. Her population was too small, her industries too weak, and while she remained a Great Power, she was not a superpower, like Britain, Germany, and the US were.

And those three US divisions had over 100,000 men. There were also only were about 1/5th of the total mobilized US forces.

I am in agreement. But France was a Great Power. It was clear that her best days were long behind her [most of France's history post 1815 has been trying to recreate the glory of pre 1815], but France was still able to muster a large number of soldiers and fight without interruption for four years in the most horrendous conditions, with Germany occupying the country's prime coal district.

I think the primary disagreement is on the meaning of "first-rate power." I consider France a first-rate power, just not on the level of Germany or the UK. Russia was also a first-rate power in 1914, despite its enormous problems. Austria-Hungary and Italy are examples of "second-rate powers."

And thank you Steele for pointing out the enormous size of American divisions in WW1. Those numbers are important to point out to those who say the Yankees didn't do anything to help win the war. Three divisions! More like three corps!

 

[unmerged(11486)]

Fair enough. I would rank France 4th in the Powers, (Britain, Germany, and the US are obviously ahead), But that still leaves her being a Great Power.

EDIT: Yakman: Why did you change your avatar? I was looking for the Tibetan shield.

Steele