Talk:Military history of France/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Surrender

Why is there no section talking about how the French have become a laughing stock because they are pussies and surrender all the time. Even Mexico beat them!

--

Oh yeah, the French army is only good for surrendering, retreating, and riding horses backwards! Yeah, right. That isn't perfectly true. Certainly their military history is not so brilliant as that of some other nations, but it is very respectable and at one point in time it was the most powerful nation in the world. 141.157.101.11 01:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That section is irrelevant, that's why it has not been made. The French are no more likely to surrender than Americans, British, Germans, or just about any other ethnicity that has ever existed.UberCryxic 01:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that France has had one of the greatest military histories of all time. Do not politicize history. Simply because France did not want to go into Iraq does not justify the conclusions you and others have reached. Reading this article will go far towards disspelling some myths.UberCryxic 01:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-French sentiment in the US and generally (francophobia) are not new, and are not only due to the war in Iraq. However, you are correct that such topics DO NOT belong in this article, as they already have articles of their own. I'm sure you'll have to do lots of reverts today, because this topic is sure to drawn vandalism. - 63.167.255.231 12:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I understand it, the defeat at Mexico was not due to the army's weakness, but to the general absurdity of trying to wage war so far from the mother country. Napoleon III failed there because of strategic, not tactical, error. MrHumperdink 01:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Irregardless of your assumptions, politics never entered my mind. Looking back through history, the French are famous for losing and/or surrendering. 100 Years war, French-Indian War, WWII, Vietnam, battle of cinco de mayo (you can keep making excuses, they still lost), the list goes on. The French are known the world over for their surrendering ability and are now a laughing stock. Zzz345zzz 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, at the Battle of Puebla in 1862 the French were beaten tactically. But they returned with overwhelming force and took Mexico City. I would agree with your main points though; it is generally difficult to win when most of the population does not want your rule (it can and has been done though! America did against the Philippines, so don't give up on Iraq yet). It also did not help that America was displeased with French presence right in its backyard and that Prussia was stirring trouble in Europe.UberCryxic 01:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting Zzz. I would say the French are "known" for surrendering mostly here in the United States, not anywhere else (or not much anywhere else anyway). Go to former French colonies and they probably will not say the French surrender. Also, France has won far more wars than it has lost. As I said, reading this article will do skeptics some good.UberCryxic 01:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your list is a bit silly. I could (and have in this page) make a list of wars and battles the French have won. A real, comprehensive list would be beyond a mortal human. I think pretty much only Roman, British, or French military history can say that.UberCryxic 01:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, anectodal evidence is rarely good. Just imagine if someone said...."haha the British....Yorktown, Tobruk, Singapore, what pussies! I wonder how they ever won a war"....you can twist this with any nation or group of people. More important is to take a holistic look and understand influences as well as battlefield performance, both in which France is extremely strong (read the linguistics section).UberCryxic 01:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

By "Mexico beat them" I think he is talking about the Battle of Puebla, celebrated every year on May 5 (Cinco de Mayo). Although it was a well-earned victory on the Mexican side, won by peasants armed with machetes and a very well trained Mexican cavalry, against a very professional and over-numbering French army, it was one victory in a 2-year long campaign in which I cannot remember one single Mexican victory except of course the infamous Battle of Camarron (see the French Foreign Legion article for more on this battle). Now there must have been other Mexican victories. France eventually put a puppet "emperor" in place, who, if I remember correctly, stayed in power for about a year and a half and was eventually shot by an execution squad for being too liberals for the conservatives who originally supported him. Of course France lost many battles and wars, in over 2000 years, there have been many many battles and wars waged by France. --WhiteEcho 07:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think much of the idea that the French always lose is that Americans are most familiar with the history of the Anglo-French rivalry, where the French DO always lose, from the seventeenth century onwards, with the exception of the American Revolution. British defeat of the French got pretty routine during the 18th century, and Trafalgar & Waterloo just put icing on the cake.

Most of those arguments are sadly recent, and coming from the U.S, it seems. This can't be serious since the two countries can't compare on military history : on one hand, "the Military history of France encompasses an immense panorama of conflicts and struggles extending for more than 2,000 years", and on the other hand, "the Military history of the United States spans a period of less than two and a half centuries". Pinpointing lost battles/wars (and not that laughable "surrender" credit given to France) would work for any country. The proposed section is therefore not only mis-titled, but irrelevant - and insulting. Xibe 15:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this subject is bound to attract trolls. However, just for the record, several of the wars mentioned by user zzz345zzz were actually won by the French. The 100 years war is a good example: The English invaded, and were booted out of the country. This is particularly significant when you consider that much of the territories held by the English in France were gained, not by conquest, but as a wedding gift from Eleanor of Aquitaine.

All in all, France was invaded a lot. Yet it has maintained continuous existence as an independent political entity since the times of Clovis. This is an indication that the French must have done at least some things right: if they were so bad at war, they simply wouldn't exist any more.--Thomas Arelatensis 15:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the French always lost to the English. For instance how Canada was first won by the French. There were many battles both at sea and on land that were won by the French. The Anglo-Saxons have a tendency of dominating world culture and communications, and the fact that their language is among the easiest to learn for foreigners is also helping. Therefore their version of history has always been predominant and they too, like everybody, have a tendency of highlighting their victories and be discreet about their defeats, something you also find in French culture. --WhiteEcho 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of this comes from refusal to really study the matter. In the Middle Ages, Anglo-French rivalry went decisively the French way. Starting from the Norman Conquest in 1066, you had French victories in the Bouvines War, the Saintonge War, the War of Saints Sardos, and two wars during the Hundred Years Wars (I like to identify them plurally; there was no such thing as the "Hundred Years War"; there were four major wars between the English and the French from 1337 to 1453...two won by the English, the other two by the French). Even later, the two have had a fairly even military record against each other. France typically outdid the English (later British) on land, while the English (later British) did the same at sea. We'd expect nothing less; that reflects their strategic priorities: England (later Britain) invested more in its naval forces than France, and France outdid the English (later British) for ground forces. Whoever made the comment about how the British have beaten the French, with the exception of the American Revolution, since the seventeenth century is a little bit high: War of the Austrian Succession, War of the First Coalition, War of the Second Coalition? Do these ring any bells? Do you guys know why this article was placed here on May 11? To celebrate the Battle of Fontenoy, a famous French victory over the English in 1745.UberCryxic 18:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides one cannot compare islands with countries on the mailand. France and Germany have been invaded more often than Japan, England and Alpha Centauri for obvious geographical reasons. Thbz 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam

Sorry that I wasn't here to edit this article before it got FA status, but I found it to be woefully incomplete in its coverage of non-European theaters. I added a sentence about Vietnam, I plan on adding another about Africa, and I'd appreciate it if they weren't reverted. We remember the big European wars, but the times that we think of as "peacetime" for France were usually periods of major extracontinental conflict. --M@rēino 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my heavy-handedness Mareino, but do you realize how many overseas conflicts the French have fought? Take a look at the list (below the French colonial empire), which is not complete at all. If you want to include Vietnam in this page, why not the Algerian and Tunisian wars of independence? The Madagascar Revolt? Or how about the wars that actually made the French colonial empire: everything from the Sino-French to the Dahomey War....it's way too many wars; I covered what I thought was important. The lists that I made have a much more adequate coverage because I knew people would bring up complaints like this. This article is huge as it is.UberCryxic 02:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I totally agree that we have to draw a line somewhere. I'm drawing the line rather close to where UberCryxic is; it just looks like a major conflict b/c I didn't notice this article at all until it reached the front page. First off, I only want 1 or 2 more sentences each for Vietnam and all of Africa. Algeria is mentioned, and the fact that the link got in is enough for me. One big reason why I think Vietnam deserves mention is that it helps to explain why Americans think of France as a big loser that they're constantly bailing out; the other big reason is that it is arguably the most famous violent revolution ever where the revolutionaries weren't white. The reader should at least be aware of the French military's role in that revolution. --M@rēino 02:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am fine if you include something about Vietnam or Algeria, but on the following conditions:

1) They have to be extremely short descriptions 2) They have to go under the French colonial empire, not the Modern period

That satisfied, you can phrase them however you want (as long as it's not too aberrant); fine by me.UberCryxic 02:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• OK. I'm adding them now. Let me know what you think.--M@rēino 04:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I came here via the RFC process. First, I want to say that this is a great article and clearly a difficult one to write because there's so much to say that it must be difficult to choose what to say to keep it from being an even longer article than it is.

That said, I think it is a major mistake to give short shrift to Algeria and Indochina mentioning them in a single sentence. The importance of a conflict is not always directly proportional to its size. It is truly off-the-mark to say "Do you realize how many overseas conflicts France has been engaged in?" Both Indochina and Algeria left searing scars in the national psyche. They deserve a paragraph each. The siege at Dien Bien Phu deserves mention. More than any other conflicts, these were turning points in the French understanding of their ability to continue as a colonial empire.

Besides, although my knowledge of France and its military history is not that great, my understanding is that the reason Algeria is so important is that it was part of "Metropolitan France" and thus was not just another overseas colony.

--Richard 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

List of French wars and battles

I just want to remind people that the above page goes hand-in-hand with this article (I made it specifically for this article). It has many wars and battles that were not mentioned here. This article is supposed to be theme-based, not war-based, because French military history is ridiculously long.UberCryxic 02:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

US view of french military

No, I don't think adding such a paragraph is a good idea.

• Firstly, there is no precedent for it, the Military history of the United States does not contain the French (or for that matter, Albanian, to name one example) view of the United States military. There may be an article where this info is more suitable, but this isn't it.
• What makes the US view on the French military so special? What about the British view, or the Dutch view? Or the South African view? A bit parochial, I think.

Personally, I don't find the article "smug" at all, just factual.

Regards, Elf-friend 06:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. It's a wasteful category; this article is huge as it is (way above average). I am disinclined to fill it up with even more quasi-relevant material, much less such a silly section.UberCryxic 06:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In the runoff to the Iraq invasion of 2003, the French position ("We can't find WMDs... maybe there are none... let's send more inspectors to be sure") was ridiculed and eventually the French themselves. Political commentators, led by those on Fox News (Murdoch is a patented francophobe), conservative talk show hosts and comedians literaly opened a barrage of bad jokes and carried the idea of the French being pussies and historically insignificant. But this could actually be a summed-up in one sentence with a link towards a page dedicated to the French bashing campaign of 2003 (which I think should be written and I can give it a shot). --WhiteEcho 07:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that could be an interesting article ... I still remember the freedom fries episode and all that. Elf-friend 07:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken some of the deleted material (and added some see alsos) to my sandbox. France's military has been mocked well before the runup to the Iraq invasion, BTW. I feel this article doesn't give enough emphasis on France's modern history, but c'est la vie... Andjam 15:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

White, you can make that article if you want (doesn't one already exist anyway? Anti-French sentiment in the United States talks about some of the things you mentioned), but it shouldn't be linked to this page. It is not relevant at all. As Elf said, why should anyone care what Americans think of the French military? And there's no precedent for it, as Elf also mentioned.UberCryxic 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think there was a carefully organized campaign in 2003 aimed at mocking the French, therefore mocking whatever they would say (in this case that there were no WMDs in Iraq), in order to divert attention from it in the mind of the American public. France is a strong ally of the US, even if less of an ally than the UK. Mocking other nations like Russia or China would have been proven very dicey. I cannot of course prove that anything was organized then, but the whole "French Fry" and "Boycott France" sticker thing came up in a very timely manner.

Granted, fine. But who cares? Do you care? Cuz I certainly don't!UberCryxic 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Out of the 1.2 million articles currently in the anglophone Wikipedia, I may be only caring about, say, 200,000, potentially, knowing that in my lifetime (and I am about halfway through it) I will only be able to fully concentrate on, say, 10% of them. I care about this topic. You don't. Fine. --WhiteEcho 18:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

White, you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. Try to see this from my perspective: I do not really care about what Americans or anyone else thinks of the French. Heck, I'm Albanian; I could give less of a damn about the French. Where I'm concerned is about French military history, a field of study that should recognize no national boundaries. So when I say "I don't care," I mean with special reference to French military history. Go ahead and criticize France all you want, but its military? No! You'd have to be quasi-crazy. The type of information that you suggested, the one sentence reference with a link, does not, does not, belong here in any way at all.UberCryxic 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole section should be eliminated. It is extremely awkward and totally out of place on a page dealing with the military history of France. --Jayson Virissimo 09:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Emotionally involved contributer!

One of the contributers to the middle ages section is clearly emotionally involved. Their is an evident refusal to accept the English military superiority during the majority of the hundred years war (technology,unification,leadership,strategy and tactics-wise, inclusing a refusal of the longbows superiority over French weapons, and a lacking of the disunity and pretention of the knights and mercenaries of the French Army), as well as a highly ignorant comment about Agincourt being the worse, implying that the French generally did not suffer horrible defeats, which is stupid in every way.....Crecy was higher casualties, Poitiers was the woirse outcome the French could have imagined, they lost the English channel at Sluys, Calais and Muex, Najera,Auray they lost supportv from brettiny........on the otherhand France holds no victory in a major battler (royal member on royal member) whilst England has 3!! Does no-one see that the contributor is lacking recognition of the other side, in a war which was really a glorious war for the other side...not France (until the end, when Henry VI of England took his insane arse to the throne). Their really should be justice here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.164.31.129 (talk • contribs) .

I'm the "emotionally involved" contributer, the one who took this article where it is today. I don't see an implication that the French did not suffer horrible defeats. Look at the description of Agincourt: "The slaughter of knights at the Battle of Agincourt was only the worst example of this carnage. The French were able to field a much larger army of men-at-arms than their English counterparts, who had many longbowmen. Despite this, the French suffered about 5,000 casualties compared to a few hundred for the English..." That seems pretty horrible to me. As I've mentioned before, however, I cannot include every single battle or war. I tried to talk about some important battles or battles that were indicative of tactics and strategy at the time (I did this both throughout the text and in the captions of the numerous pictures). That's about as far as I can go. Those who are really interested in French military history can check the list I mentioned; you'll find wars and battles there aplenty. Also, if I'm so emotionally involved, how do you explain this comment, "Given the successes of Henry V, his death in 1422 altered the nature of the war profoundly and may have permitted the French to recover virtually all their territory by the end of the conflict." I got some flak for that one during the FA review process, but I sourced it and all was well. I have sourced almost everything which you are complaining about. But I don't doubt that you probably never looked at the footnotes, so here they are:

Footnote #18 (from the Atlas of World Military History, Richard Brooks ed.): "Much has been made of the success of the English longbow. However, it was not a war-winning weapon. Reliance on this defensive weapon on the battlefield gave the initiative to the French.."

Footnote #19 (same source): "...its victories also depended on the French bungling their attack. The English were fortunate that their opponent failed to get it right three times in a 70-year period."

Footnote #20 (same source): "The major defeats of the French by the English boosted French military thought. A recently discovered document of the French battle plan for the Agincourt campaign shows how careuflly the French thought about ways of defeating the English. In the event, the plan could not be fully executed because the battlefield at Agincourt was too narrow for the French forces to fully deploy."

Thank you. Furthermore, what should be covered is something that often isn't, at least not well: the final and decisive phase, the one where, pardon my brutal sincerity, the French kicked the living crap out of the English. Formigny and Castillon ended the Hundred Years War, yet how much do you hear about them?UberCryxic 16:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It seemed different to me what you were implying...particularly as agincourt clearly wasn't the worst ( as I outlined earlier).The longbow were lesser in numbers to the knights as well...so dont just say they dont contribute. You also misinterpreted me. Im not saying you did not include enough battles. I'm criticising the sentance as an example, as it seems to imply 'it is the worst of that kind of defeat, thus the French were not that badly mashed nad the infantry strongholds of England are overrated and not that successful.' That is what I took out of thta sentence. That is what I was saying. Also, you must remember that the physical environment DID NOT obstruct the plans of the French at Agincourt; Henry V's tactical mind chose the physical environment for his mens positions, obstructing the French tactics, thus being the better tactician. But if you are indeed not emo-involved (ps I did read your footnotes, but that means little when it is the tone of your imlications [in my opinion], not your "facts") then maybe you should rewrite certain aspects of it, to make your tone more objective, and more open. The English di not rely on the Knights predictable charges. The commanders of the english were close, their mens unity and morale closer, men like the black prince and Henry V were revolutionary in their military skill, leaving the ways of chivalry, which the French ignorantly held onto (now I am sounding subjective...but you can see where Im getting at). You can ignore me, but for the sake of history, think about what you really wrote, and if it is open-minded.Dont take this badly, I just get worked up about what I think is objectivity. By the way, I agree with you over Castillion and Formigney, as that was a time when insane old Henry VI was ignorant about change, as Phillip VI,John the good, and Charles the Mad (Crecy,Poitiers and Agincourt) earlier. Ironic isn't it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.67.19 (talk • contribs) .

Your comments are absolutely ridiculous. When the English were caught unprepared at Patay, they were flattened. Agincourt had everything to do with terrain and deployment, and nothing with 'revolutionary tactics.' You can question the tactical choices of the French, but that would be just proving my point. They made bad decisions; that's why they lost. Henry made a good decision in deploying where he did, and that's why he won. At a more open battlefield, the English would've been slaughtered. The footnotes basically confirm what I'm saying.UberCryxic 21:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Us 2 had made a decision, I agree with him, and he agrees with me. Im sure however that both of us do not agree with you. Dream on UberCryx....and here is a little hint...read about Medieval tactics, Chivalry, the War, the battles, the weaoponry and the leaders. Only then may you lift your sad head in this section. You wnat to breach the peace (which you appear to have a sick, sad reputation for doing so), dont go to wikipedia, find an internet forum and flame it. The terrain and deployment were the tactics, Henry's tactics. To say that the prince and Henry were conevntional, non-revolutionary and symmetric commanders is stupidity; why? Cause of their weapons, choices of deployment, fortifications, flank attacks, and their sidelining from chivalry. Patay is irrelevent, and in agreement with the above typer who was the contributer, the tides turned with the French being assymetric, and the English being symmetric. We are in agreement about the matter, whilst your failure at life knocks you out of the running for having a say in this argument, So why bother UberCryx; why bother? Like I said before, not deployment, the revolutionary thought which chose the deployment. The French were not disadvantaging themselves, almost all the europeons of the time worked in chivalric thought. I know you are now the emotionally involved contributer, and you are just trying to cause trouble. Well, I do not think this will look very good in front of Geni, now will it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

Don't try and guess how I'm going to view things. We get that you don't think much of the french militry. How about giving it a break.Geni 23:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a break on this section 3 weeks ago, but UberCryxix just is trying to make flaming wars...I dont want to keep goin cause it is silly...but he is trying to start something new.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

For someone so much into the peace, your personal attacks are not helping at all. I thought we agreed to "end it," did we not? I will keep up my part of the bargain at least. Once again, your statements here reveal your typical modus operandi: make unsubstantiated claims and hope they will eventually sink through. Sorry, that's not how the world works. You can't just say whatever you want without giving any evidence, otherwise we'd be flooded with all sorts of charges and theories. Not that we aren't, but that's another matter. Stating that Patay is irrelevant reveals ignorance about the era; as it was the most significant French victory in a set-piece battle throughout the entire war, Patay was an extremely important battle. Whether you agree with me or not....that is what is irrelevant. I care much more that historians agree with me. Agincourt was lost because the narrow terrain prevented the planned French outflanking maneuvers. The French were going to hit the English on their left with several hundred men-at-arms but obviously had no room to deploy. The repeated series of frontal charges eventually, and predictably, failed. The tide in the war turned because of Joan of Arc, but the victory came because the French simply improved. They improved organizationally, technologically, tactically, and in several other ways. In the end, they smashed the English out of Europe. That's what is significant: the French beat the English, and they beat the English brutally.UberCryxic 23:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

May I say they smashed thme out of europe in the last of over 10 WARS! I stopped my insults after Geni's comment. Also, you did not read my comment obviously, and you are clearly not familiar with the subject as I stated earlier, so Im going to enforce it all again.\

Us 2 had made a decision, I agree with him, and he agrees with me. Im sure however that both of us do not agree with you. Dream on UberCryx....and here is a little hint...read about Medieval tactics, Chivalry, the War, the battles, the weaoponry and the leaders. Only then may you lift your sad head in this section. You wnat to breach the peace (which you appear to have a sick, sad reputation for doing so), dont go to wikipedia, find an internet forum and flame it. The terrain and deployment were the tactics, Henry's tactics. To say that the prince and Henry were conevntional, non-revolutionary and symmetric commanders is incorrect; why? Cause of their weapons, choices of deployment, fortifications, flank attacks, and their sidelining from chivalry. Patay is irrelevent, and in agreement with the above typer who was the contributer, the tides turned with the French being assymetric, and the English being symmetric. We are in agreement about the matter, whilst your failure at life knocks you out of the running for having a say in this argument, So why bother UberCryx; why bother? Like I said before, not deployment, the revolutionary thought which chose the deployment. The French were not disadvantaging themselves, almost all the europeons of the time worked in chivalric thought. I know you are now the emotionally involved contributer, and you are just trying to cause trouble. Well, I do not think this will look very good in front of Geni, now will it.

You want sources and citations for proof of my view?? Here:

Richard Barber "The Black Prince" David Nicolle "Crecy 1346" David Nicolle "Poitiers 1356" Robert Hardy "Longbow"

I did not see your citations, and like I said you are just trying to cause issues... so back down.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

If you had seen my citations, you would've seen the following:

Footnote #18 (from the Atlas of World Military History, Richard Brooks ed.): "Much has been made of the success of the English longbow. However, it was not a war-winning weapon. Reliance on this defensive weapon on the battlefield gave the initiative to the French.."

Footnote #19 (same source): "...its victories also depended on the French bungling their attack. The English were fortunate that their opponent failed to get it right three times in a 70-year period."

Footnote #20 (same source): "The major defeats of the French by the English boosted French military thought. A recently discovered document of the French battle plan for the Agincourt campaign shows how careuflly the French thought about ways of defeating the English. In the event, the plan could not be fully executed because the battlefield at Agincourt was too narrow for the French forces to fully deploy."

These basically corroborate everything I have been saying. The longbow was an effective weapon, but only because the French bungled their attacks. When they didn't....well look at Patay.

10 wars? How interesting. Historians usually identify four major wars from 1337 to 1453. I don't know where you got the figure of ten, though I presume you were kidding. Maybe you weren't.UberCryxic 23:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Im referring to this section, not Google Military Victories, but in that case yes I did see THOSE citations.

"Longbow" is not a statement Im putting out about the longbow, but it is a valuable source for my argument. Their is no reason for you to argue that topic. Argue it at Longbow.

Your view on 4 wars is a popularist view. You are thinking 1337 to 1453. Rightly, you shoyuld think 1066 to the fall of Calais under the reign of Mary I.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

Oh ok. Hey how about the Norman Conquest? French victory. How about the Bouvines War? French victory. Saintonge War? French victory. War of Saint-Sardos? French victory. Two of the four wars of the Hundred Years Wars? French victories. Ultimate victor between the two in the Middle Ages: France. Gee, it seems to me like Anglo-French military history during the Middle Ages went decisively the French way (I realize I'm ignoring a lot, like Battle of Damme, Lincoln, and all that). Your logic is also incorrect, as one could say the same thing about how the French wont the first five of the seven coalitions during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras. What matters the most is who wins in the end, and legacy counts as well, of course. I will argue it here because our disagreements are here, not there. The point stands: the French bungled their attacks, and hence the longbowmen found success.UberCryxic 23:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter which ones they won, most were pyrrhic anyway, or lacked a solis outcome (not to metion Normans were not true French. The point is that it took them over 10 wars, some disastrous for them. You are still not reading my comment as you still seem confident you are right, and that the French were bunglers of the time rather then tyical fighters of the time. So Im going to enforce it again.

Us 2 had made a decision, I agree with him, and he agrees with me. Im sure however that both of us do not agree with you. Dream on UberCryx....and here is a little hint...read about Medieval tactics, Chivalry, the War, the battles, the weaoponry and the leaders. Only then may you lift your sad head in this section. You wnat to breach the peace (which you appear to have a sick, sad reputation for doing so), dont go to wikipedia, find an internet forum and flame it. The terrain and deployment were the tactics, Henry's tactics. To say that the prince and Henry were conevntional, non-revolutionary and symmetric commanders is silly; why? Cause of their weapons, choices of deployment, fortifications, flank attacks, and their sidelining from chivalry. Patay is irrelevent, and in agreement with the above typer who was the contributer, the tides turned with the French being assymetric, and the English being symmetric. We are in agreement about the matter, whilst your failure at life knocks you out of the running for having a say in this argument, So why bother UberCryx; why bother? Like I said before, not deployment, the revolutionary thought which chose the deployment. The French were not disadvantaging themselves, almost all the europeons of the time worked in chivalric thought. I know you are now the emotionally involved contributer, and you are just trying to cause trouble. Well, I do not think this will look very good in front of Geni, now will it. 58.170.24.39 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The later victories in the Hundred Years Wars were not pyrrhic at all. The English were thrashed at Patay, Formigny, and Castillon. No one doubts that. You did not address my comment about how the French beat the English in several wars throughout the Middle Ages. The Normans were vassals to the King of France, spoke French, and had converted to Christianity. I think it's more than fine to count the Norman Conquest as a French military victory (English nobility spoke French for a few centuries afterward anyway; also, modern people living in Normandy are somewhat ethnically equivalent to the Normans which invaded England in 1066).UberCryxic 00:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I just want to say, to compound on my earlier points, the Battle of Bouvines was not Pyrrhic at all. It was a smashing success, and it forced John to sign the Magna Carta (also led to overthrow of Otto IV).UberCryxic 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly not a French victory, and I was referring to the early wars which you mentioned, not the 4th war of the hundred years war (obviously). In any case (like google military victories) yopu are steering off course to avoid the inevitable outcome which was already achieved before you started up your trouble-maker typing. Im not argueing what has already being concluded with someone wh is looking for trouble by typing with denile.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

It is spelled "denial." It is not that difficult. Also, what is not a French victory? The Norman Conquest? How is it "clearly not?" Care to explain this? It has to be counted as a French military victory if the later Anglo-French rivalry in the Middle Ages is to be explained or understood. Without the Norman Conquest, all of it means nothing. Cultural and political reasons have already been given on my part, but I can't say the same for you. Oh also, in case you forgot, there were French knights (from the king) at the Battle of Hastings. They were deployed on the right flank and fought very well.UberCryxic 00:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly not a French victory, and I was referring to the early wars which you mentioned, not the 4th war of the hundred years war (obviously). In any case (like google military victories) yopu are steering off course to avoid the inevitable outcome which was already achieved before you started up your trouble-maker typing. Im not argueing what has already being concluded with someone wh is looking for trouble by typing with denile.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

What? Stop repeating yourself. Give evidence, or drop your claims.UberCryxic 00:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to repeat myself until you understand that you have no argument. I have already given citations anyway, so why are you still arguing?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

What you gave were not citations. You gave a listing of books without any quotes whatsoever. I have already given you the writings of military historians who clearly support my positions. You need to drop your claims.UberCryxic 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, yours actually wont. Perhaps you should read the books you mentioned, or my books. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

I think this is a clear victory; why continue with an ammature....oh wait...I know what you will say next..you will repeat yourself, and I will enforce the same paragraph on you. You will keep adding one-liners with no point over an argument already solved whilst my solid argument (which is already agreed upon) will carry a true bibliography. You have stooped to a new low and lost. But to avoid causing a ruckus around the moderators Im stopping here. Look at yourself in shame.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

You have already repeated yourself far more times than I. Your last comment was a repetition, a pathetic rehash of jumbled logic that has failed time and time again. Your sold argument? A true bibliography? What about all those books I gave you, books which no doubt you will probably never pick up? Don't think you're sounding just a tad hypocritical? Well you need to review your arguments. They are quite erroneous and poor. You have problems identifying victories, as our conversations have shown, so I am in no way worried that you are claiming a victory now.UberCryxic 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You must be referring to your own argument, seeing my argument IS ACCEPTED. Dont you see you have no place or argument in this section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, more people here have agreed with me than you. Your argument may be accepted by one or two people here. That's it. But to backtrack: you don't even have an argument. An argument actually requires premises and a conclusion; you have incoherent statements that you're trying to pass off as an argument. Sorry, not the same thing. Come back when you have something better.UberCryxic 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That is most bullshit you have ever written. It is a stain on wiki. It was me on th eother guy, and we worked it out. I also have support. Your claim that you have ,more support...well....I dont see any supporting arguments or your side, or is it your imaginary French friend Napoleon I should be looking out for.

I have no reason to go on as your argument and reputation (if you had one of either) is dead. You want to argue your dead stance more, find me on the other topics of my contribution you have discovered. But I have no point in reading your deda argument or anything else from here on in, as your comback will just be a decayed idea of yours (I already know it is stupid without having to read it, so dont expect me to read your responce, as it is the typical stain of words I expect from you). Ardios. 58.170.24.39 01:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a data argument going on from either one of us, so you are sadly mistaken in that respect. You have not given a data argument, and neither have I. Outside of that, I accept all of your concessions now that you are leaving the debate. Thank you for playing.UberCryxic 01:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Equendil, Bwith, thbz, MilesVorgosian (I'm misspelling their names and for that I apologize) have been some who have supported me here, on top of many others. I think you have one person, but this is not that significant. It could be that whoever is supporting us is due to a voluntary sample (those who saw the article and wanted to comment on it) rather than an actual reflection of how much of the population agrees with our positions. More importantly are historical views, which regard French military history quite highly. The books I suggested should be a good start for you. I encourage you to check them out.UberCryxic 00:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not arguing with him anymore (this is Darren by the way). But I may I say, you argument is truly dead LOL. I haven't seen any open support for you, nor any claims of a data argument from my bro anyway. I bet you are making up crap niw just to elongate it. Well Im not helping you elongate any silly argument (orin my brothers words "decayed rambling"), Im out too.

I suggest you read the books his mentioned, you might be smart as a result if you do that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

You (I am going to refer to "you" like this; I think this is some elaborate joke on your part, whoever the you know what you are) just made a claim of a data argument (misspelled the word, however, which is quite typical of you). Yet you have not explained the mechanics of that argument, despite my repeated requests. I have already read plenty on the Hundred Years Wars (and what you suggested were Osprey series no? I wouldn't get much from them). You need to take my advice far more strongly.UberCryxic 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic answer. I agree with my brother, to read such stupidity is mind-numbing. See-yah, love you too.Im going to have a shower, and I will think of you erotically.

P.S If you dont like osprey books, it realy does not matter by the way. Read the other 2, they account for more then your bibliography which only applies to google military victories I should add, enhancing your failure.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

I never said I don't like Osprey books. I said I wouldn't gain much by reading them since they are mostly covering the era with little original research. That is their purpose. I am more interested in classics and books that try to advance a new thesis. I just noticed that I don't have any Osprey books btw. My "bibliography" was comprehensive and even included an Osprey book (to make Rossbach simpler for you).

The only pathetic thing here is your argument and the manner in which you advance points without offering a shred of evidence.UberCryxic 01:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect

OK people, I know the relevant page says that a FA should almost never be protected, but this one looks to be drawing more tha average vandalism, so I'm putting a semi-protect on it. Those who differ with me are entitled to their opinion, of course. Elf-friend 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed at how efficient wikipedia is, I was just browsing this page and noticed that vanalism, and by the time I clicked the edit button it had been rectified as above :P

Many featured articles on the Main Page have drawn more vandalism than this one has so far today. There was not an unusual spate of vandalism; it should not be semi-protected. See User:Raul654/protection. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

One person's vandalism is another person's content dispute. Andjam 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Vandalism is quite clearly defined, and it's extremely rare that there could be any confusion between the two. Stevage 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but what Elf-friend was referring to vandalism is merely a content dispute. Andjam 00:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I have been here for a number of years, so I quite clearly known the difference between a content dispute and vandalism ... it is always dangerous to assume what another person was thinking ... please check the edit history before the protection ... there were quite a number of cases of blatant vandalism, such as blanking. From a grumpy Elf-friend 06:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I'm a bit concerned by this edit here [1] which makes a large number of reverts, with no comment besides the "minor" flag! Let's improve our game here - if you disagree with a change, discuss it, don't simply silently revert it.

In particular, I take objection to the phrase "humiliated" instead of "suffered a devastating defeat". I don't really see how an invaded country can be "humiliated". Had France invaded a country and lost, that might be humiliating. But it was invaded, and was simply underprepared and caught by surprise. If you have a convincing source for "humiliated", please provide it. Otherwise, please don't make these sort of reversions without discussing them - it's a form of incivility. Thanks! Stevage 15:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Humiliated is a perfectly fine word to describe the situation, and even that doesn't do justice at how horrible the French felt in June 1940. They went into the war with dread, but were confident nonetheless that they would beat the Germans. Once they got thrashed so badly, there was pretty much stunned silence; little Monday morning quarterbacking, nothing. De Gaulle is pretty much the only one who said anything, and as we know his words gave France hope for the future, but they couldn't do much in that horrible time.UberCryxic 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you describe the US' inability to control the insurgents post-Iraq as "humiliation"? I don't think losing a battle is cause for humiliation unless one had made bold predictions ahead of time or something. And wouldn't "suffered a devastating defeat" capture it better, in any case? Stevage 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Stevage, "suffered a devasting defeat" is much more encylopedic than "humilated". "Devasting defeats" are statements of fact that can easily be verified or refuted. "Humilated" is an emotion. Jon 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It should not matter whether it sounds encyclopedic if it is correct. The French felt humiliated Stevage; maybe that's a difference with Americans and Iraq now. There are jokes about World War II and the Battle of France, but the French military staff almost could not believe it; they were so sure they would whip the Germans. France was humiliated; they acknowledged so themselves; Reynaud was inconsolable even before defeat was clear (it was pretty clear, but maybe not that much by mid-to-late May), that was the extent of the tragedy.UberCryxic 17:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It were my edits that were reverted. I changed some factual mistakes. But i changed only half of the data, which should be changed. The Romans called the Celts Gallic. Celts or Gallics settled and ruled from Ireland to Turkey. Gaul is presented in this article as the territory between the Rhine, The Pyrenees and the Alps and that is correct. But before the emergence of Gaul during the campaign of Julius Caesar, there were two Gauls: Transalpine Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul. Cisalpine Gaul is in present Italy and these Gallics are the heroes of Padania. The Gallics of Cisalpine Gaul had nothing to do with Gaul.--Daanschr 18:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of BCE

The first era usage is here [2]. It is BC rather than BCE, so I've reverted to this preference. Arcturus 16:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

use of the word "massive"

When I worked at a newspaper, editors would always correct the word 'massive,' when it was used as in the first sentence of this article(History as a massive panorama), ie to mean anything but something with a lot of mass (ie physically heavy). In newspaper english our usage here is considered incorrect. but maybe I'm being needlessly picky. jackbrown 17:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Okay, so it's been corrected on the article page, actually, but it's still "massive" on the front of wikipedia, and the front is not editable, I guess?

I was the one who corrected the usage in the article (but didn't see your note until now) - I agree with your editors. Not only was the English usage here inaccurate, but there was a repetition. Also, using the word smacks of lazy journalese. Bwithh 01:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What is a "visceral struggle"?

From the article : "Following the Second World War, visceral struggles ensued to preserve French territories, with France losing both the Algerian War of Independence and the First Indochina War, the precursor to the Vietnam War, to guerilla resistance movements."

Visceral has to do with the internal organs (like a visceral reaction is a "gut reaction).

What is a "visceral struggle"?

Visceral can also be used to mean a very involved struggle, as it's used here.UberCryxic 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

--Richard 18:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the expression is a gallicism. I never encountered it in English and if I was not accustomed to the French use of the word visceral, I might not have understood it. Out of context, it could refer to the irritable bowels syndrome. Totally OOC.

Although the Metropolitan French, especially after World War II (when the French had a taste of their own medicine, living under the rule of a foreign power) started to show sympathy towards the indigenous populations from the colonies, the colonials themselves had a totally different attitude. Many were born in the colonies and had always lived there. They found a lot of sympathy among the enlisted military, the church and the conservatives, among which De Gaulle who was pro-French Algeria at the beginning of the conflict, and later changed his mind (hence the OAS trying to assassinate him). The OAS was representative of that "viscerality". --WhiteEcho 20:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Shortening the mainpage blurb

Please see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 11, 2006. Thanks.--Pharos 18:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Google French Military Victories

How can this most famous gag not be mentioned? I'm hesitent to add it to a featured article, but shouldn't it be included? Aardhart 19:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

NO! We've been through this so many times before. This article is just about the military history of France. It's not about what others think about the military history of France. If you want that article, then go ahead and create it. But that type of material does not belong here at all. The information included in this article should help people better understand the history, not what some crackpots with no life think about it.UberCryxic 19:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

is it really worth starting a new article over the stereotype? it's really worth mentioning. when someone thinks of the french military, that's what often comes up. i'm not saying that it's deserved, but it's a very persistant reputation. Joeyramoney 22:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"We've been through this so many times before." I didn't see any indication of discussion on this talk page, but I only did a word search for google. Aardhart 04:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? A very persistent reputation? Let's look at the reputation of the French.

Duke of Constantine, brother Czar Alexander I of Russia in 1807: "Sir, if you are thinking of fighting the French, you might as well give every man a bullet and let them shoot themselves."

Spanish General de Campo Santo in 1744: "We may again find occasion to match French valour in this war, but no army will ever surpass the gallantry I saw at Casteldelfino."

Mexican commander in 1862, on the Legion's heroism at Cameron: "These are not men, but devils!"

British military historian Liddell Hart, one of the greatest theorists of the 20th century: "The greatest nation militarily, the French."

Depends on who you ask about reputation. French military history comes second (probably) only to that of Rome. Rome or Britain, somewhere around there...UberCryxic 22:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

French military victories (practical joke); but it does not belong here. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha :-) --Daanschr 19:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the supposedly "very persistent reputation" arose from popular American annoyance at France's resistance to being fully within the US sphere of influence after WWII. Anyway, its definitely a US meme, and not really anything to do with actual history, not that funny, and not relevant for this article Bwithh 01:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It should belong here, has France ever won a war anyway??? maybe all of you against it need to stop being so bias and come to a compromise with us -M141012 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.59.254 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, France has won many wars. Did you read the article? See the List of French wars and battles? That could help! This is not about bias: it's about what is relevant for people to understand the subject. A google prank isn't. Sorry if that hurts your sensibilities.UberCryxic 19:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is ... a new page was created re: the joke page ... those of us (myself included) who would love to advertise the failures of the French need to be reasonable. This page is about French military history (facts, dates, places, etc.) and is not for editorializing. I would support an internal link to the "practical joke" page, but even that is unnecessary. The French are losers, people know it, and they can find the page.--Dahveed323 13:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The failures of the French have been amply advertisted. The "slaughter" at Agincourt, the "humiliating defeat" to the Nazis in 1940. They've been mentioned where appropriate. You are entitled to preconceptions, however incorrect, but they do not belong on this article. Thank you.UberCryxic 19:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

How is he incorrect? He is completely right! Think Trafalgar,the napoleonic invasion of russia, agincourt, crecy, poitiers, calais, sluys,muex, msny more from the hundred years war, waterloo, salamanca, countless gallic defeats, imdochina, 1940, many battles in WW1, the russian civil war, the Algerian revolution, crusades led by the French, Alsace-Lorraine 1871, Mexico several battle in the Crimea, the viking attacks on France, the seven years war , the Italian revolution, the wars in Brazil, and the French invasion of Italy; among many more.

Lets face it, the French lose more then win. You can credit the Franks( evn then they had a fair share of failure),and the French in the 30 years war, but the hundred years war ended due to Englands Henry VI, and the early napoleonic victories...well, lets not forget that Napoleon was from Corsica, not a true mainland frenchy, and his strategy failed anyway.144.137.116.155 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.137.116.155 (talk • contribs) .

The French suck ta war. I dont know why people contest this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.137.116.155 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, the French have won far more than they have lost. You do realize that the list which you gave can go the other way right? Did you see French victories at Agnadello, Ravenna, or Marignano mentioned anywhere as part of the War of the League of Cambrai in the Italian Wars? No. How about French victories over the English during the Middle Ages in the Bouvines War, Saintonge War, War of Saint-Sardos? And that's leaving out the Norman Conquest, which was a significant victory in its own right. Patay, Formigny, Castillon in the last stage of the Hundred Years War? Du Guesclin's campaigns in the 1370s? War of the Austrian Succession; Fontenoy, Roucoux, Lauffeld, fall of Maastricht? Victories over the first five coalitions from 1792 to 1809? War of Devolution? Franco-Dutch War? War of the Reunions? A ton of colonial wars that made the colonial empire? Hello French victories! You can compile volumes of all the French military victories throughout history. Go to List of French wars and battles for more information (though even that's not complete; I try to build it up as much as I can).

Napoleon was born a French national. He grew up in the French military education system. The thoughts and ideas he developed about war would not have been possible without contact with French military theorists. He was not a "true frenchy" in the early years of his life, but he grew up to love France later on. His last words were, "France, the army, head of the army, Josephine."

"The French suck ta war. I dont know why people contest this."

Ridiculous. I do not know why I shouldn't regard you as a simple poser, one of those people who mouth off about military history with complete ignorance. The French have had a spectacular-even legendary-military history, second probably only to that of Rome.UberCryxic 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are the most pathetic assumptions of French victories. JUST PATHETIC. You should know such campaigns are of much less value then the campaigns I referred to, and won through odd circumstances...and may I say furthermore..Napoleon IS a Corsican, you cant contest that, and the Normans are NOT French..they are vassal vikings. *Im rolling my eyes*

UberCryxic. Get out of your dillusional cave and see the real world. The French were generally failures at warfare, it is uncontestable. Their history is not spectacular or legendary. Second to Rome?? Please read a bit more.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.141.90 (talk • contribs) .

Anonymous, the campaigns I listed had amazing values. The wars of Louis XIV (1667-1714) were responsible for modern France looking like it does today (that is, the borders expanded significantly). I would say that's important, no? Du Guesclin's campaigns (1370-1380) won back nearly all of the lands lost by the Treaty of Bretigny (1360), reversing Slyus, Crecy, Poitiers, and all other great English victories during the first war of the Hundred Years Wars. Not significant? That seems odd. Victories that led to the French colonial empire pathetic? Hmm....they're responsible for the Francophonie today, so decades after much of the French colonial empire fell, their impact can still be felt. Honestly, all of the wars I listed had a great value in their own way. It's also unfair and incorrect to mention "circumstances" without giving any explanation for some of the French defeats you mentioned. Why not mention circumstances in the Napoleonic Wars, when practically all major European powers aligned themselves against France? Or it could go the other way: why not mention circumstances in the wars of Louis XIV, when France won in spite of all other major European powers fighting against her? The point is you can't be hypocritical about it; you have to mention circumstances in all situations if that's how you want to approach the matter.

I have a problem with your general method, however. A silly listing of battles like this will do no good; from what I can tell, you're not even analyzing certin wars, only picking a combination of battles and wars that the French have "lost" (in quotes because I'm uncertain about some things you listed) over some 1,000 years. You've attempted no analysis, and even your judgment about the results is faulty. I detect nothing but anti-French sentiment, no real understanding of French military history. Anyway, let's look at the campaigns and battles that you referred to.

Trafalgar was huge; allowed British naval domination until World War II. The invasion of Russia was also huge; permitted the eventual fall of the First Empire.

"agincourt, crecy, poitiers, calais, sluys,muex, msny more from the hundred years war"

Impressive but, as history turned out, irrelevant victories. The only relevance they have today are in popular imagination. By 1453, France had beaten England decisively; the English only had Calais on the mainland. Also, you did not address the list that I gave you: Patay, Formigny, Castillon. Hmmm? These were great French victories; you might try looking them up.

"many battles in WW1"

What? How is this relevant? France won in World War I, and it was the French who mainly beat the Germans at crucial battles like First Marne, Verdun, and Second Marne. One could also say, "the Germans lost many battles in World War I" and use that to besmirch them. You can also do that for the British. Or the Russians. Or....you get my point.

"several battle in the Crimea"

Again, you emphasize somewhat irrelevant things. What about Alma, Inkerman, Chernaya, and Malakoff, the latter decisive French attacks leading to the fall of Sevastopol? France, Britain, Sardinia, and the Ottoman Empire won the Crimean War, just in case you forgot. They won.

"the French in the 30 years war"

I see I forgot to address this in my last message. After a slow start, French armies dominated the Thirty Years War. They won at Rocroi (featured in this article; read about it), Nordlingen, Lens, and in several other battles either single-handedly or alongside the Swedish. The French overran Bavaria and practically torched it to the ground. They behaved shamelessly, but those were the rules of war back then. France emerged out of the Thirty Years War as the foremost power in Europe, a title she would hold until the Congress of Vienna (1815).

"the hundred years war ended due to Englands Henry VI"

This is somewhat true, and this article acknowledges that in the comment about Henry V's death. However, just as important was the fact that the French improved and learned how to beat the English. Overall, the French being proactive was a more important factor in their victory rather than the English being led by an incompetent king, though this last English misfortune certainly helped.

"Napoleon IS a Corsican, you cant contest that"

Umm, yes I can. In fact, there's even nothing to contest: because he was born in French territory, he was born a French citizen. You say he was a Corsican like Corsica was independent or something. Corsica was part of France in 1769 (it had been for one grand year, but part of France nonetheless). Napoleon was ethnically Italian, but if you knew anything about French conceptions of citizenship (which you obviously don't), Napoleon was clearly French. Either way, more important is the fact that he thought of himself as French later on in life. He loved France, the French; he was a damn Francophile!

"Normans are NOT French..they are vassal vikings"

William was a vassal to the King of France (they had even fought together at Val-des-Dunes in 1047). Here's what we should remember about the Norman Conquest: it wasn't just Normans who went, but also Bretons and "French," by which I mean people from the French king's royal domains. The French knights on William's right flank owned the English in every way. Also, the Normans by this point had attained many cultural characteristics of the French. They spoke French, they were Christians, and had a number of other similar attributes. It therefore makes complete sense to include the Norman Conquest as part of French military history. If you don't, you run into a major problem: it is impossible to understand the later conflicts between England and France without the Norman Conquest. There would have no Bouvines or Hundred Years Wars without 1066. Speaking of Bouvines, why don't you mention that? You realize this was the most important battle in French history right? And you realize the French raped the English, Germans, and the Flemish right? Well, if you didn't, now you do.

"UberCryxic. Get out of your dillusional cave and see the real world. The French were generally failures at warfare, it is uncontestable. Their history is not spectacular or legendary. Second to Rome?? Please read a bit more."

Well I read as much as I can. I just finished John A. Lynn's excellent Giants of the Grand Siecle: The French Army, 1610-1715. I highly recommend it if you have not read it yet. The French ended up winners in far more wars and battles than not. Furthermore, they ended up as winners in far more wars and battles that were actually important. I do not know what incites you to make these comments-though I have guessed-but they are wildly off the mark. French military history is legendary; I can't speak for French history, nor do I really care. Well I take that back....military history and "normal" history are closely intertwined. So I guess I care a little. Ok then, if you want to press it: France has had a legendary history. Geez....UberCryxic 17:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing short of amazing this article went anywhere at all with so many of the above user lurking around. Congratulations to UberCryxic and other contributors. Equendil 13:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Equendil, but I have to show off a lot here. Thanks to me mostly. Not only did I write about 90% of what you see here, but when I started to revamp this article in early March, a lot of the information was incorrect, even though the people meant well. I had to change everything; I added all the pics, all the references, rewrote this and that, and even created several pages to accompany this article. Praising myself too much? Probably, but "other contributors".....nah...not significant at least. I should also mention that this article did not see much vandalism prior to being on the main page. And even when it got there, I was surprised that the level of vandalism was somewhat normal for a main page article.UberCryxic 17:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous coward, please read yourself : Corsica became French shortly before Napoleon's birth, and history mentions that his family, although of Italian descent, sought French citizenship. Saying Napoleon was Corsican is tantamount to aknowledging he was French. And the normans might be from Viking descent, but pretty much became part of France when they swore allegiance to its King~, who even granted them land. Ditto to whant Equendil said, then. Xibe 14:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this the point to dig out war nerd?Geni 14:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Brecher was funny, and I'm very glad he wrote what he did (it was most certainly needed, and he conveyed the message in a hilarious fashion), but unfortunately a lot of his history was faulty. That's the only part that ruined it for me.UberCryxic 17:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic...you really need tpo see the real world. Your list is a list of insignificant battle, and you cannot accept it. Why? The French Military history is generally a failure...it cannot be escaped. For a start, Du Guesclins conquests were neither due to any French superiority (cause they lacked it), but from the lack of interest from the English. A great moment for the French military??...of course not! It is a positive moment for the French, but nothing else. All your other battles are irrelevent, every now and then accounting for an absorbed 3rd world village which could defend itself with twigs. Yes...Great victory...of course a europeon nation was going to win such a battle against a few tribal bandits. Big whoop. I would argue this (I hate to say) stupidity, ignorance, arrogance and naivity...but my computer suffers fropm freak pop-ups...and it is annoying the hell out of me.

Read these words carefully: The French have lost by far more conflicts then they have won; and it will be no less then half a millenium till they can change the tide.

Perhaps you should use proper sources to support your lists importance (which in your lists case obviously cannot be done).

PS: So Im an anonymous coward because I do not want to join wikipedia as a full-time member, and commit myself and my life to a website. That is the most pathetic comment one could say. It is people like you who grow up fat, being top-posting members of 80 ndifferent forums, and never have a relationship cause they are too busy playing online solitaire. Yeah, not doing that makes me an anonymous coward. My name is Byron Lloyd Waldron, and I have a life centred around the study of history. The pop ups are ruining my effort now, but you have my message, think about if you know how. It is logic. If you know French military history, then work it out statistically if you want to be accurate, cause Im right (you can use rough calculations, like I have; it is not rocket science).

It is not hard.And you will find I am generally correct. For a briefer job, weigh up the pros and cons of the history.

Oh yeah....Napoleon:Native Corsican (not native Frenchy).....Norman (vassal Dane/viking, not true Frenchmen, like Gascony). This cannot be argued. Get over it hermit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.141.90 (talk • contribs) .

I hope we can disagree without scathing personal attacks. But at least you addressed the argument somewhat. Speaking of which.....

I would appreciate it very much if you can show me how my "list of battles" was insignificant. It is very odd that you consider the engagements that ended the Hundred Years Wars insignificant. Or those that ended the Thirty Years War. Or those that expanded French territory under Louis XIV. And many many others....

"The French Military history is generally a failure...it cannot be escaped."

No, it isn't. It is a very long tale, filled-like all military histories-with victory and defeat, but not a failure at all. As I've said, the French have won far more than they have lost. Since that seems to be your definition for what success is in military history, then the French have been very successful. Just as important, however, are influences the French have had on warfare: castles, chivalry, knights, first standing armies in the West since Roman times, world's first professional armies during the French Revolution, mass conscription, the corps system, first professional air force, and a heavy dose of linguistic influence-which our argument is more than showing-make France the greatest contributor to military culture since Rome. Add to that a bunch of other minor goodies-invention of flintlock, bayonet, and the adoption of national uniforms in the 1680s and 1690s, copied by all European armies-and French military influence becomes pretty enormous. Nations that have had a military history of failure could not possibly have had so much of an impact on European and global military traditions.

The characterization of du Guesclin's campaigns is nothing more than a sham. The English did not lack interest, but rather had to deal with something new, and they weren't prepared for it. Very wisely, du Guesclin avoided direct set-piece battles and harassed the English wherever and whenever he could. Using that basic strategy (and some nice tactics to boot), he chased the English into Brittany and won back nearly of France that had been lost during the first war. A true student of history would appreciate the textbook-like nature of his campaigns. He was unquestionably the greatest French commander of the Hundred Years Wars.

"It is a positive moment for the French, but nothing else."

It set the stage for the eventual French victory in the second war. It was more than just a "positive moment," though semantics may be rearing its ugly head.

You speak of victories over "third world villages," but it should be noted that the list I gave involved mostly victories over continental powers. This is a strawman on your part, trying to emphasize an argument that I did not make. France beat, and times beat badly, many continental powers throughout history. For your reading pleasure, here are some (just some; this is not meant to be exhaustive) of those instances:

-Norman Conquest (1066): Normans defeat the Anglo-Saxons and establish a new culture in England.

-Bouvines War (1202-1214): The French decisively defeat an English-German-Flemish army at the Battle of Bouvines (July 27, 1214). The victory makes Philippe II the most powerful monarch in Europe and leads to the signing of the Magna Carta by King John in England. Otto IV of Germany is also deposed because of the defeat.

-Saintonge War (1242): Louis IX defeats rebelling French nobles and the English King Henry III.

-War of Saint-Sardos (1324): Lightning campaign by Charles of Valois sees Aquitaine and many English garrisons quickly capitulate.

-Hundred Years Wars (1337-1453): After four brutal wars that occupied the better part of these 116 years, France emerges decisively triumphant. The English have only Calais left in mainland Europe.

-War of the League of Cambrai (1508-1516): Famous French victories at Agnadello (1509, over the Venetians), Ravenna (1512, over the Spanish), and Marignano (1515, over the Swiss).

-Thirty Years War (1618-1648): France, Sweden, and the United Provinces come out of this war as the great powers of Europe, though France more so than the others. See great French victories at Rocroi (1643, over the Spanish), Nordlingen (1645, over the Bavarians), and Lens (1648, over the Spanish).

-Franco-Spanish War (1635-1659): A conflict that was actually intertwined with the larger Thirty Years War, it sees France, with English help, ultimately victorious. Spain ends up ceding Roussillon and Artois, among other territories.

-Some wars of Louis XIV (1667-1714) were French victories, among them the War of Devolution (1667), the Franco-Dutch War (1672-1678), and the War of the Reunions (1683-1684). French territory expands as a result. European powers tried to reverse recent French gains in the Nine Years War (1688-1697) and the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714), but failed both times.

-War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748): The French under Maurice de Saxe repeatedly defeat many Anglo-Dutch-Austrian armies and capture Maastricht in 1748.

-The War of the First Coalition (1792-1797), the War of the Second Coalition (1798-1801), the War of the Third Coalition (1805), the War of the Fourth Coalition (1806-1807), and the War of the Fifth Coalition (1809) were all French victories, and victories that changed the face of military history at that.

-Second Franco-Spanish War (1823): The French end the reign of Spanish liberals at the Battle of Trocadero, reinstalling the Spanish monarchy.

-Franco-Austrian War (1859): 130,000 French troops join 70,000 Sardinians in expelling Austria from Italy and giving the latter independence. This made me think: Italy and America owe their independence to France. Haha....

-World War I (1914-1918): Anywhere from 1.3 to 1.5 million Frenchmen died in their heroic stand against Germany. With British and American help, France wins this war. However, she was generally the most important participant (certainly from 1914 to 1917). By 1918, France had a behemoth for an army, the largest air force in the world, and troops poised to break through Germany in the west and strolling through Hungary in the Balkans.

Once again, for purposes of time, this was a very selective list. But it should give you somewhat of a good idea on the continental wars the French have won, and who they beat in the process. The colonial victories are also important and impressive. The Sino-French War is one such conflict that was not won against "third world villages," though I don't think I should be too surprised if you have not heard of it. France often won in Africa against established kingdoms, not tribes. For someone edging me on to read some history, you might try following your own advice.

"I would argue this (I hate to say) stupidity, ignorance, arrogance and naivity"

That's funny. I would argue deep hatred of France-on your part, of course-and this having nothing to do with French military history, which you have clearly shown to know so little about.

"The French have lost by far more conflicts then they have won; and it will be no less then half a millenium till they can change the tide."

That's quite a prophecy there Nostradamus. Either way, you are completely incorrect. A strict and comprehensive listing of Frankish-French military participation since the time of Clovis (c. 500) is almost beyond any single individual, but there is a general indication that the French won far more than they lost. To give you a scale on the success of French military history, here are two numbers: 400 squared miles and 213,000 squared miles. The first number represents the size of the domains of Hugh Capet, the first Capetian king. The second number represents modern metropolitan France, whose relatively big size-the largest nation territorially in Western Europe-is a direct consequence of the military and diplomatic machinations of kings, republics, and emperors following Hugh Capet. Much of that territory was gained through conquest and annexation-Bouvines led to the bagging of Normandy, Albigensian Crusades led to the capturing of Languedoc, among other regions, Formigny led to the second capturing of Normandy, Castillon led to annexation of Gascony, Thirty Years War, Franco-Spanish War and reign of Louis XIV saw Alsace, Roussillon, Artois, Franche-Comte, and many other regions and towns fall into French hands, and Franco-Austrian War saw last permanent French expansion when Napoleon III received Nice and Savoy for his efforts-and gives a good sense about the real success story that is French military history.

"Perhaps you should use proper sources to support your lists importance (which in your lists case obviously cannot be done)."

I do, or at least try. I would still love to know the sources you are using. I could venture an educated hypothesis, but I'll let you clarify.

"Oh yeah....Napoleon:Native Corsican (not native Frenchy).....Norman (vassal Dane/viking, not true Frenchmen, like Gascony). This cannot be argued. Get over it hermit."

This is odd. Why did you ignore what I said? Do you not believe it? Well here is what the Britannica says:

It was by chance that the future ruler of France was born a French citizen. His family had migrated to Corsica from the Italian mainland in the 16th century. The island had been transferred from the Republic of Genoa to France one year before Napoleon's birth.

Corsica was not a nation-state, and I've already acknowledged that Napoleon was ethnically Italian. The French think that willing citizens make up a nation and a society, and seeing how Napoleon was such a citizen later in life, he must be counted as French. But more importantly, just so we don't forget, he was born a French citizen. It doesn't matter that he was not a "native Frenchy," he was French nonetheless. Someone born in Alaska is an American by law. Someone born in Corsica in 1769 was French by law (and is today as well). The Normans had a Viking heritage, but they were French vassals nevertheless. William had even done homage to the King of France. By the time of the Norman Conquest, they shared many cultural characteristics with the French (like language, for one). The only important thing for our purposes here is that this event was part of the French military tradition.

Your statistical method is ridiculous and has been shown not to lead to the conclusion you advocate. I am actually a little astounded that you study history; a serious student of history would normally not hold such grudges. You are belittling a nation that has had one of the most spectacular military histories of all time, and you show little compunction for it (none, to be exact). Finally, I've run across many people in Wikipedia who are married and have relationships, if by that term you mean sexual ones. I would say take a look at yourself, but you seem to be beyond hope. Hmmm wait...didn't I say no personal attacks? Eh well, maybe just a few (!)UberCryxic 18:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway Byron, I recommend some of the following works in order to gain, perhaps, a more positive view of French military history.....

The Campaigns of Napoleon (1966), by David G. Chandler.

The Wars of Louis XIV, 1667-1714 (1999), by John A Lynn.

Giant of the Grand Siècle : The French Army, 1610-1715 (1997), by John A. Lynn.

Paths of Glory: The French Army 1914-18 (2005), by Anthony Clayton.

The Legend of Bouvines: War, Religion, and Culture in the Middle Ages (1990), by Georges Duby.

Tricolor Over the Sahara: The Desert Battles of the Free French, 1940-1942 (2002), by Edward L. Bimberg.

The Hundred Years War : England and France at War c.1300-c.1450 (1988), by Christopher Allmand.

The French Army in the American War of Independence (1992), by Rene Chartrand.UberCryxic 21:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Read my previous argument; I already made an answer, and you are ignoring. If you want to argue, maybe you should make a better list. You make insults based on nothing (remember Im not a member...what are doin is merely saying "your married to the computer" when it is you who appears to be the moderator. Yo work on a website, and you are saying this to me. What a childish thing to ay. You know when people say I know you are but what am I...that is what you are doing , but more pointlessly. I bare no grudge on France, it is an awesome. But people like you found it unbearable to accept the writing on the wall. Like I said...your list is either of insignificant conflicts OR (like you hopelessly ignored) the French did not win on their own accord (ie Great moment for the fRench, but not the military, as it was more so due to the enemies issues). All you conflicts account for this.

Im not saying anythging new, because you still must not have read my earlier statement. READ MY WORDS before you continue to criticise and childishley insult.

I wont insult if you dont.

What are you, 12?

If you arent, get a life, dont insult without any idea what you are talking about, and dont enforce ideas which have already being explained and backed myself.

Though you write in a detailed manner (which I do respect) writing much more then I write, you are hardly doing more then repeating what you said earlier (which I feel I have already argued against, getting straight to the point) in ever more detailed but repetitive ways. Im not saying you are merely contradicting, and I am grateful for the extra reading you gave me. But nothing you say is actually going anywhere.

I have already argued such points.

Now this can go on for ages, but I feel what I am saying is logical. Read any book on my conflicts, and you will see that the majority are decisively important. I dont care who agrees with me, but what I am saying is far more plausiable then what you are repeating in your pointlessly data-filled ways.

If you dont like my historiography (ie statistical anylysis), well then you do not know a thing about historical interpretation. Cliometricians, Scientific historians, objectivists, neo-rankeans, social historians, etc (all the prominent schools of historical thought) not only recognise but focus on statistics as a primary way of interpretation (in many cases the most important). If you abhor my method, you abhor accurate history, and you are more of a storyteller trying to suit your own relative purposes (maybe you are in fact basing everything on your own motives, I dont know, but it seems like it).

That is why you should work it out that way; my way. If you have a problem with that, then call your self a revisionist, cause with that attitude history-wise that is all you can be.

Sorry if you think I should be typing in a more round about way, but do not need to do that. My message is across, and I admit that my computer is still suffering from pop-ups....nor can I fast-type. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.141.90 (talk • contribs) .

If I understand this correctly, you spent this last post of yours mostly addressing what was a jocular and minor part of my response, namely personal attacks. You did not actually address any of my arguments. Quite interesting that you are accusing me of being repetitive and 12 in light of "you really need to see the real world" and "Get out of your dillusional cave and see the real world." Anyway.....let's get back to business.

You said that if I knew anything about French military history, then I should work out some sort of statistical method that proved you right. You referenced this statistical method in your last message. However, you have not explained what this method is or does at all. I assumed that you meant how many wars the French have lost or how many they have won, but now I'm not so sure. Just exactly how does this method work?

I want you to give an answer to that, but first I'll lay out my supposition. As I understand it now, I believe you are stating that the conflicts in which France "lost" (in quotes because you pulled these defeats out of you know where) were more significant than the ones in which she won, some of those victories listed by me. If I understand correctly, then we can proceed.

This is the list you originally gave:

"Think Trafalgar,the napoleonic invasion of russia, agincourt, crecy, poitiers, calais, sluys,muex, msny more from the hundred years war, waterloo, salamanca, countless gallic defeats, imdochina, 1940, many battles in WW1, the russian civil war, the Algerian revolution, crusades led by the French, Alsace-Lorraine 1871, Mexico several battle in the Crimea, the viking attacks on France, the seven years war , the Italian revolution, the wars in Brazil, and the French invasion of Italy; among many more."

If we accept the validity of your method-and I don't, but I'm in the mood for a reductio ad absurdum proof, albeit not a very vigorous one-there is still a major problem: interpretation. You are interpreting some of these conflicts to have far more relevance than they actually had, and I talked about many of these problems above. On top of that, there are vicious historical lies going on here and a poor understanding of French military history on your part. For example, the spectacularly successful First Crusade, which has captured so much of the popular imagination in the West, was mostly led by French nobles (Raymond de Toulouse, Godfrey de Bouillon, and Hugh de Vermandois, among others), but you only allude to (presumably) the Seventh and Eigth crusades by Louis IX and the Second Crusade. There is also a problem of selectivity. You have picked what you wanted and ignored other important conflicts or battles. I will ask you again, and please don't weasel out of this time, why do you not recognize that battles like Patay, Formigny, and Castillon were more important than the ones you listed because they ended the Hundred Years Wars? It seems your analysis has just been dictated by what popular English authors chose to remember about this time; nostalgia necessitated remembrance of battles like Poitiers and Agincourt because they were victories. Who wants to remember defeats, right? English language scholarship on the Hundred Years Wars has suffered significantly as a result; there is an overt concentration to the early phases of the struggle, but little to the last and decisive phase. Even if one were to accept your method, you would still have the problem that one individual may assign a different level of importance to a certain struggle than you do. I've already said it: Castillon, as history would have it, turned out to be more important than Agincourt.

Your selectivity revealed itself in many of those other conflicts. You mention the Franco-Mexican War of the 1860s, but you don't mention the Pastry War of 1838, which was a French victory. Here, however, the first conflict was far more important. But mentioning these other struggles would not lead to such a diminution of the French, who you have accused of being failures at war, quite erroneously, as I've insinuated before.

Now that your method has been shown to be ridiculous-on account of eternal disagreements over interpretation-let me suggest better alternatives. War is not analyzed very well if all we do is come up with lists about who lost and won. Rather, we must analyze general trends, circumstances, theories, evolving conceptions, and a ton of other facets to acquire a better-never complete-understanding of what war means and could mean. Before we do this, however, we have to get rid of prejudices. Saying the French are bad at war is like saying Muhammed Ali was a bad boxer. It makes no sense. Analyze the matter contextually, and you'll see France has been a major power for centuries. It has had bumps along the road, but generally it has grown stronger. Much of this was due to military success, not to other dreams you may be concocting. As I've said, the territory of metropolitan France was gained and secured mostly through war. I've also identified the wars in which these acquisitions took place, but very predictably you paid scant attention. French influence on military matters-everything from linguistics to organization and tactics-has been enormous. When you take all of this into account, it becomes inescapably clear that the French have had a wildly successful military track record. They have lost heavily, but so have other nations. You mentioned 1940. At the end of World War II, however, France was on the winning side. That is why she was given an occupation zone in Germany and Berlin and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. I'll ask you this: what was a heavier defeat, that of France in 1940, or that of Germany in 1945? You could probably say the former, but few would agree. History indicates that Germany's ultimate defeat was far heavier; Germany was occupied for a very long time and the impact of its defeat in World War II can still be felt today: Germany is not a permanent member of the UN Security Council (even though she clearly deserves this status), Germany does not have nuclear weapons, Germany does not have aircraft carriers, and Germany spends far less on defense than Britain and France do. World War I was also a very heavy defeat for Germany, though not as much militarily as politically, though the only reason that is so is because Germany buckled politically before the Allies could invade her proper. Regardless, World War I was such a heavy defeat for Germany that she started another world war to reverse the decision of the first. In light of these facts, why do you not speak of the Germans as military failures? Hmmmm? Dare I say it....cir....circum.....circumstan....ah I can't bring myself to it!

Your statement about the problem being with the enemies of France is futile and hopeless. You can make the same charge for any nation, any army, and any leader that has ever won a war or a battle. It is, of course, a charge with little merit, if any at all.UberCryxic 22:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For Christ's sake read what I write before you write. I already said this, but you obviously did not take notice. You still criticise statistical methods (Like I said PROS/CONS for simpler statistics.....it is not hard...but you must not have read that...not to mention that I said general statistical methods). You think Im insulting you when I stopped awhile back...well I guess I should start again...ARE YOU TO THICK TO THINK UP A CHART?! Seriously?? Your last paragraph still criticises thing s already answered. EG EVERYONE WITH A BRAIN KNOWS CIRCUMSTANCES ACCOUNT, BUT THE MAJORITY OF FRENCH VICTORIES THAT IS THE CASE. ONCE AGAIN READ WHAT I WRITE BEFORE YOU WRITE. You still choose to ramble on off topic about irrelevent wars, and how great the achievements of Napoleon (A CORSICAN...NOT TO MENTION IN MY FIRST ARGUMENT I DID ACCEPT HE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN HIS EARLY CAMPAIGNS...BUT OF COURSE YOU DID NOT READ THAT) was , even though his eventual startegy collapsed on itself (also Castillion is not more importantthen Agincourt, it was the internal p[roblems of the English). You ccall Statistics ridiculous THUS CONFIRMING YOU WILL NEVER BE SUCCESSFUL AT HISTORY. Read the great books of the western world, maybe that will fix you up. You ramble and ramble off topic, evn when I recognise this weakness of yours YOU CONTINUE....whilst I go straight to the point and ADDRESS THE QUESTION.

THis paragraph is just one big ramble about nothing (take note in your skull I did not say [of course you did not read my writing] that most of the conflicts were major), not to mention made up off the top of your head out of useless crap and storybook lies and assumptions:

If we accept the validity of your method-and I don't, but I'm in the mood for a reductio ad absurdum proof, albeit not a very vigorous one-there is still a major problem: interpretation. You are interpreting some of these conflicts to have far more relevance than they actually had, and I talked about many of these problems above. On top of that, there are vicious historical lies going on here and a poor understanding of French military history on your part. For example, the spectacularly successful First Crusade, which has captured so much of the popular imagination in the West, was mostly led by French nobles (Raymond de Toulouse, Godfrey de Bouillon, and Hugh de Vermandois, among others), but you only allude to (presumably) the Seventh and Eigth crusades by Louis IX and the Second Crusade. There is also a problem of selectivity. You have picked what you wanted and ignored other important conflicts or battles. I will ask you again, and please don't weasel out of this time, why do you not recognize that battles like Patay, Formigny, and Castillon were more important than the ones you listed because they ended the Hundred Years Wars? It seems your analysis has just been dictated by what popular English authors chose to remember about this time; nostalgia necessitated remembrance of battles like Poitiers and Agincourt because they were victories. Who wants to remember defeats, right? English language scholarship on the Hundred Years Wars has suffered significantly as a result; there is an overt concentration to the early phases of the struggle, but little to the last and decisive phase. Even if one were to accept your method, you would still have the problem that one individual may assign a different level of importance to a certain struggle than you do. I've already said it: Castillon, as history would have it, turned out to be more important than Agincourt.

This one is just ridiculous and retarded and wrong in every possible way to be frank (particularly your 1940 sentance...that just makes me laugh and yet feel like I want to throw up at the same time (you clearly do not know WW2:

Now that your method has been shown to be ridiculous-on account of eternal disagreements over interpretation-let me suggest better alternatives. War is not analyzed very well if all we do is come up with lists about who lost and won. Rather, we must analyze general trends, circumstances, theories, evolving conceptions, and a ton of other facets to acquire a better-never complete-understanding of what war means and could mean. Before we do this, however, we have to get rid of prejudices. Saying the French are bad at war is like saying Muhammed Ali was a bad boxer. It makes no sense. Analyze the matter contextually, and you'll see France has been a major power for centuries. It has had bumps along the road, but generally it has grown stronger. Much of this was due to military success, not to other dreams you may be concocting. As I've said, the territory of metropolitan France was gained and secured mostly through war. I've also identified the wars in which these acquisitions took place, but very predictably you paid scant attention. French influence on military matters-everything from linguistics to organization and tactics-has been enormous. When you take all of this into account, it becomes inescapably clear that the French have had a wildly successful military track record. They have lost heavily, but so have other nations. You mentioned 1940. At the end of World War II, however, France was on the winning side. That is why she was given an occupation zone in Germany and Berlin and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. I'll ask you this: what was a heavier defeat, that of France in 1940, or that of Germany in 1945? You could probably say the former, but few would agree. History indicates that Germany's ultimate defeat was far heavier; Germany was occupied for a very long time and the impact of its defeat in World War II can still be felt today: Germany is not a permanent member of the UN Security Council (even though she clearly deserves this status), Germany does not have nuclear weapons, Germany does not have aircraft carriers, and Germany spends far less on defense than Britain and France do. World War I was also a very heavy defeat for Germany, though not as much militarily as politically, though the only reason that is so is because Germany buckled politically before the Allies could invade her proper. Regardless, World War I was such a heavy defeat for Germany that she started another world war to reverse the decision of the first. In light of these facts, why do you not speak of the Germans as military failures? Hmmmm? Dare I say it....cir....circum.....circumstan....ah I can't bring myself to it!

If I understand this correctly, you spent this last post of yours mostly addressing what was a jocular and minor part of my response, namely personal attacks. You did not actually address any of my arguments. Quite interesting that you are accusing me of being repetitive and 12 in light of "you really need to see the real world" and "Get out of your dillusional cave and see the real world." Anyway.....let's get back to business.

This one paragraph I can simply answer by saying what I have been saying for awhile...WHY ANSWER WHAT HAS ALREADY BEING ANSWERED, THE ONLY OTHER STUFF YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER IS MINOR NOTES WHICH ARE OFF-TOPIC. Dont you see that my criticisms are more rel;avent the what you call "business". This "businees" are basiocally little footnotes which hold no meaning, which you wantt me to answer, which if you must no has already been answered 3 times in the general form "they are minor, or they are to do the with the internal problems of the enemy. All you want me to do when getting down to business is specify. I'll give you 3 specifications to do with the hundred years war as examples of your lists many problems if it makes you speep at night. Bertrands victories: lack of interest from English following the incapacitation and death of the black prince, and incapacitation and death of Edward III. Joan: She halted an advance in 1 campaign, big whoop. Charles the Victorious: Henry VI of England was both pathetic in the wya of tactics, diplomacy and technology, not to emotion insane (reminds me of you). Their you go princess...tuck,tuck.

What can I say...you would be good at literature... and minor details (if you understood what a statistic was...which you clearly dont). You deny my methods, you deny the history of historiography.

I could spend all day going into detail why your rambling points are either inrellavent, stupid,spasticised or simply wrong (thus you are not familiar with the subject)...but rather I will leave you with this:

Their is no point argueing and typing my fingers to the bone when you cannot accept the truth, or drive off course to make new arguments about nationality, WW2, the crusades (infact that also made me laugh), methods, etc which are pointless arguments which have or can be answered by myself as clean-cut crap. Once I finish, you will come back with some pamphlet sized report on who speaks French in Mexico, or why it is smart to be subjective and anti-solid research, getting you no-where and making me nored with answering the same bloody inquiry, which you make everytime. I could be adding vital, CORRECT information rather then arguing a pointless fact with someone who is probably trying to defend the ancestry of his mum or something, and who is clearly emotionally involved. The fact thyat you believe France has been successful more then unsuccessful, and that you can prove iot by changing the subject, and criticing simple ways of spolving the problem, has led to my conclusion that I am right (which most would have known from the start), I am objective, and yet you will be ridiculously are unable to accept. If you stoof in front of me and we argued, I think I would brake down in laughter in your rambling statements, and I think all I would have to do is cut you off with "Im sure *sarcastically*" and would probably have to smash a history book into your face. That is why Im not going to proceed as their is no point. It goes nowhere, it clearly does not change anythging in "FRench Military Histories" and because of your evident bias and inability to make a solid point without sidetracking and denouncing accepted historical methods I bid you good day (Im not going to arhgue against such stupidity much longer). I suggest you read my points and you might actually learn the truth, and you might even make a chart afterall (I may regain my respect for you if you do that).

Im going to write sections for the punic wars now.

Damn Im good.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.141.90 (talk • contribs) .

You got pawned UberCryx LOL 13:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.141.90 (talk • contribs) .

I believe the word is "pwned," derived from a Warcraft map-maker who misspelled "owned" perhaps? That's what I heard, though I am not too sure. Warcraft was an awesome game btw. Once again, you really must stop repeating my tactics; copying and pasting huge paragraphs to make the world think you actually have something to say is dangerous man. You yourself warned me!

I suppose my main problem is that I do not quite understand your method. I took an educated guess about what you meant, but I admitted that I did not know and requested that you explain since I'm a little bored and willing to waste my time with you. But again, after diligently reading what you had to say-amidst all the capitalized hysteria-I could not actually discern what your method is and how it works. I read your previous statements; how else do you think I formulated an opinion on what you were talking about? I am asking you to explain so that I know for sure I am addressing your argument and not some strawman. I do not want some crappy, incoherent rambling; I want you to use grammar for the first time in your life and cogently explain to me what's on your mind. Notice that I did not call your method, or statistics, ridiculous because, for the umpteenth time, I do not know what your method is. Furthermore, I'm a huge fan of mathematics and know quite a bit about statistics. Got it now? Good.

Moving on, since I have nothing else to work with, I'll just keep taking a stab at the latest material you're concocting. Ok let's see; angry yelling, angry yelling, ah ok: Napoleon. You again have made the charge that Napoleon was Corsican. This is very interesting, and I'm trying to understand your psychology here. I have shown to you that Napoleon was actually a French citizen since he was born in French territory, but you think of Napoleon as "Corsican" for some reason. I have also admitted that Napoleon was ethnically Italian, while you have not clarified your position on what you mean exactly when you say Napoleon was "Corsican," yet you continue to make these predictable but horribly misguided comments. Quite odd.

A little more anger then....Castillon! You now state that Agincourt was more important than Castillon, but you do not explain how. You do not explain it at all. You merely stated your opinion and presumably hoped that all would be fine and dandy. Oh that's right! I forgot that as good historians all we have to do is scream out our thoughts, never explain them, and hope they will drown out dissenting voices. I finally understand this "historical method" of yours. Gotta tell ya...not much of a fan. I will tow my earlier line: although militarily Agincourt and Castillon were a bit mismatched (larger French casualties at the former despite larger French army), Castillon has to be counted as more important because its consequences, practically the fall of Southwestern France to Charles, were decisive and permanent. One more time you lay out your official line about internal problems with the English, which is partially true, but it does not explain the whole story. French tactical and organizational improvement, on top of more competent leadership, produced great victories at Patay, Gerbevoy, Formigny, and Castillon. This must be emphasized, or else you'll just end up getting a skewed and incomplete picture of this period and why the French triumphed. Moreover, the very fact that the French triumphed in the Hundred Years Wars, coupled with the results, must count as decisive because it led to the permanent end of English possessions on the European continent. You do realize how vastly important this is, right? If you don't, do a little more of....ummm, what did you call it...reading! That's it! After that, you might realize that the Hundred Years Wars concluded Anglo-French rivalry on the continent since the Norman Conquest decisively in French favor.

After some more personal attacks, we have 1940. You state something interesting again, but once more you do not explain what you are talking about. You make some very hefty accusations against my theories, but in no way do you even bother to offer anything resembling a serious rejoinder. Germany's defeat in World War II was catastrophic, far heavier than that of France in 1940, but for some reason it makes you laugh and want to throw up. Nice images....

More anger...then back to the Hundred Years Wars. I do not know how to address your thoughts on du Guesclin other than to say the following: you have no idea what you are talking about. You honestly don't. You are not familiar at all with the history if you really believe what you just said. It was more Edward's incapacitation, not death (1376, by which time du Guesclin had already captured vast swathes of territory), that did the English in, but du Guesclin won because he had a new and better strategy than what the French had been using during the first war. The French simply discovered how to beat the English, and they did it well. It was not lack of interest at all; the English simply could not cope. They were not used to du Guesclin's style, which is why they lost. Lost.

The characterization of Joan of Arc's role reveals more historical misunderstanding on your part. Joan of Arc did not just stop one campaign; do you understand what was at stake here? Do you realize that in 1428 the French were feeling hopeless and thinking that they would never win? Yeah, they were pretty despondent all-right. Here was what the English had to do to knock them out: if they could gain a secure foothold in the Loire Valley by capturing Orleans, they would have a straight shot right to the heart of the remaining French territories. After that, it would've been all over. There would be no France as we know her today. Stopping the English at Orleans was very necessary for the ultimate French victory. And what did Joan of Arc do? She stopped the English at Orleans, and showed some nice tactical understanding to boot (she was a good artillerist in her own right)! But she did so much more than that: she gave France hope that victory was possible. Under her leadership, the French won at Patay, though admittedly she was not present at the actual battle (missed it by just a little).

Once again, we're agreed on Henry VI. The divergence comes in how much importance you assign to him. He was important, but the French had to do something right in order to win. And again, your entire theory here is ludicrous as almost any victory anyone has ever had could be said to come from the incompetence of the enemy. You could charge incompetent leadership on the part of the French in 1940 and say the Germans only won because of that, completely flouting the fact that the Germans revolutionized tactics, as you'd have to be flouting the fact that the French formed the first standing army since Roman times and significantly improved their artillery, both factors instrumental to ultimate victory in the Hundred Years Wars.

Your methods have nothing compatible with historiography. I reiterate that you do not actually know what you are talking about. It is a sad state of affairs, but it is where we find ourselves nevertheless. My ancestry is Albanian through and through; I have no connection to the French. I have never even been to France. I am simply interested in French military history. Sorry if it's a crime.

You like the Punic Wars eh? Cool. I'll be sure to warn the other editors of your presence. Also, I am disappointed that you are bowing out of the conversation. You gave up so easily. It almost wasn't even worth it; I thought you'd actually try. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted. By the way, I accept your concessions.UberCryxic 04:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, Im the one who said you got pwnd, not the guy you were argueing with. I dont think you are arguing with anyone at the moment. Nor do I think he read what you just wrote. I doubt he feels he needs to read what you wrote. 11:28, 24 May 2006 {UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.141.90 (talk • contribs) .

Lol, I think UberCryx is being a sore loser. Despite the unnessary insults from the anonymous typer, the anonymous typer had more solid plausible points I think, and I reckon he had a pretty good reason to stop arguing (as expressed in his final lines). A victory on the anonymous typers part perhaps.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.141.90 (talk • contribs) .

Your defeat has already been accepted. Please do not waste more Wikipedia space unless you have something useful to say, whoever you are. I will give you the advice Napoleon gave his II Corps at Augsburg in 1805...

March on out of here....UberCryxic 03:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Holy shit, are you that indenile LOL. You are one of a kind. I wish that anonymous typer was reading what you just wrote; I think he would feel even prouder of victory to know you cant accept that you lack support on the argument whilst he does. 18:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.141.90 (talk • contribs) .

I thought I would come back and check out how ubercryx took my last statements, and my god how sad is he? It is actually quite funny lol not only that he argued with no-one (not to mention badly) and he thought I was still typing. And to finish off, he tried to make a statement using a Corsican. WTF!? This is too good. Im going to sleep like a baby tonight.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.141.90 (talk • contribs) .

"Indenile" is not a word, and your general incompetency is probably causing the confusion. As I implied, I don't know who I'm talking to, probably because you're not signing off with four tildas, though the history record shows only one IP, which means there is no difference between this "anonymous" typer you created and you. I think you like experiencing fantasies, which is good for sleeping I suppose.UberCryxic 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks User:60.229.141.90 for the entertaining display of schyzophrenia (well Dissociative identity disorder really), I took the liberty to dig up and clarify who wrote what where signatures were missing. Equendil 19:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

While I'm at it and for the record, User:60.229.141.90 made it clear he also was User:144.137.116.155 above. (You should know such campaigns are of much less value then the campaigns I referred to, said he). Equendil 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And he is also User:60.229.67.19 in the section Emotionally involved contributer as can be seen through the contribs in Talk:Paul Thomson and Talk:Second Punic War (and intermediate IP User: 60.229.56.205). Isn't that fun ? Equendil 20:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What a loser.....UberCryxic 21:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are we arguing about this?! Happy now? 58.170.24.39 23:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the comments of other users??? You have absolutely no right or authority. They will be placed back at an appropriate time.UberCryxic 23:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I was about to accuse of the same thing. 58.170.24.39 00:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

What?? Check the history. You did it. Are you trying to be funny?UberCryxic 00:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here it is:

Original version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_history_of_France&oldid=54979484

Your changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_history_of_France&oldid=54979830UberCryxic 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not!!! Just because you have a problem with me dont frame me!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

Yes you did. Check the log. The changes were made from your IP.UberCryxic 00:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not arguing this bullshit anymore!!! Dont frame me and get a life!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

Here:

(cur) (last) 23:55, 24 May 2006 58.170.24.39

(cur) (last) 23:53, 24 May 2006 58.170.24.39 (→Emotionally involved contributer!)

Now check the links I gave you. You'll find the times there correspond with those times here.... Don't try to weasel yourself out of this.UberCryxic 00:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It may have been accidental, but you did it. Or that IP did it.UberCryxic 00:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not weasling out of anything. This is either framing or an accidental removal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

It was probably an accidental removal. But the point is it came from your IP, so it's not "bs" at all.UberCryxic 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You can check your own changes [3], the 'diff' buttons show exactly what was changed.

• you deleted a large section including my comments. [4]
• and another large section including comments of you, User:UberCryxic, and User:Geni. [5]

Be careful if it was an accident. Equendil 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

lol Equendil, isn't it like 3 in the morning in France? What are you still doing up?UberCryxic 00:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really bothered with sleeping :) Equendil 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Gaul

It were my edits that were reverted. I changed some factual mistakes. But i changed only half of the data, which should be changed. The Romans called the Celts Gallic. Celts or Gallics settled and ruled from Ireland to Turkey. Gaul is presented in this article as the territory between the Rhine, The Pyrenees and the Alps and that is correct. But before the emergence of Gaul during the campaign of Julius Caesar, there were two Gauls: Transalpine Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul. Cisalpine Gaul is in present Italy and these Gallics are the heroes of Padania. The Gallics of Cisalpine Gaul had nothing to do with Gaul.--Daanschr 19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Shall i change them now? It will mean a serious deletion of data, namely everything about the Gallic-Roman war in Italy, which have nothing to do with France in my opinion. Nice to know that this discussion is so vivid, normally i am the only one editing.--Daanschr 19:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Views of the French military

Some people may think that the criticism of France's military prowess is incorrect, or even immature. However, right or wrong it is one reason why the country is mocked, and not just in the US. Like the criticism or not, it is notable. The article is a bit large, I understand size concerns, so I hived off the content into a separate article. But are we going to link to the article, or pretend that France's military prowess has never got criticised? Andjam 03:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There are several reasons why I and many others dislike your suggestion. Some have already been laid out, but I'll review:

1) An article already exists for what you want to do. Anti-French sentiment in the United States carries the following account: "Many of these allude to events of the Second World War, alleged French military weakness and cooperation with the Third Reich. One such joke insinuates French military incompetence and implies that the country would have ceased to exist without American support: "Why do the French line their highways with trees? Because the Germans like to march in the shade."" If you want to want include American views about French military history, do so there, where you clearly have a far better 'venue.'

2) The vast majority of derisive comments about the French military come from Americans. The British joke once in a while, but they do it mostly as a sign of friendship and light-heartedness; that is, they realize that over the centuries the two have produced one of the greatest military rivalries of all time. From what I've been able to see, British humor on this topic has usually been more mature. The British generally realize that what they are saying is a joke, whereas I'm not too sure about Americans (or most Americans).

Yes, the Brits don't joke seriously in this way - and more likely the joke will be about Italians retreating (not surrendering - usually its retreating; based, fairly or unfairly, on WWII record of the Italian military), not the French (at least when I was growing up in the UK in the 1980s-1990s), though in either case the joke is very rare and nowhere near as common or as bizarrely serious as the US "joking" about the French Bwithh 06:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise, there is nothing in any other country in the world even remotely comparing to how Americans feel about the matter. I grew up in Albania for about the first eleven years of my life (moved to America nine years ago) and I never once heard a joke about French military history. Not once. I was at first perplexed with what I saw after Iraq-we are, after all, criticizing a nation that's had a legendary and extensive military history-but eventually I got used to it.

3) You have a fairly skewed sense of perceptions about French military prowess. I have studied French military history for years, and if you take a holistic look, you'll find far more comments praising the French martial spirit and the French military than negativity. The jokes we are so familiar with today were largely a consequence of World War II anyway. No one would have dared say such silly things right after World War I, and certainly very rarely before then.

4) There is no precedent for such a move. As far as I'm aware, though not as extensive, there are also American jokes about the Canadian military or Canadian military prowess, yet the Military history of Canada includes no such analysis (and it shouldn't anyway; Canadians fight like lions).

Though aren't US jokes about the Canadian military based on how underfunded and small-scale the Canadan military is relative to the US, rather than the idea of culturally inherent cowardice as in the French case? Canada does underspend on its military (I remember reading a few years ago about how much of Canada's military equipment does not meet NATO standards because of this) Bwithh 06:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

5) As I have repeatedly stated, this article was not and is not meant for the purpose which you are now partially assigning. It is not supposed to include popular conceptions about the French military from any nation.UberCryxic 04:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Does Canada still have an army?

Is that supposed to be a joke? Why am I even asking.....UberCryxic 06:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is official policy of Wikipedia to get a worldwide neutral point of view. The first thing that is not allowed according to Wikipedia: Neutral point of view#Bias is an ethnic or racial bias, including nationalism. I am personally irritated about the enormous arrogance of America. If articles keep on having America centred discriminative information like this, then it could be a reason for me to leave the english Wikipedia.--Daanschr 12:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

However, such an "information" could be included if it came from reputed specialists (of the French military history). But as far as I know, clichés about the French army only belong to popular culture, so they do not belong here. Thbz 17:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Type Military history of France into Google and, of the top 7 results, 3 are wikipedia-based (this article and Answers.com pages) and 4 are joke pages. violet/riga (t) 19:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Violet, that has no significance whatsoever. All it proves is that during the height of the Iraq diplomatic crisis those pages were heavily linked and distributed, hence their high ranking in Google. Many of those pages, in fact, an overwhelming majority, did not exist prior to 2003. The masses are easily swayed, and history, especially if it's going to be NPOV, should not follow suit (though admittedly often it does). Either way, the consensus seems to be that those links do not belong in this page. I would therefore kindly ask you to stop placing them there.UberCryxic 20:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a very common source of amusement (rightly or wrongly) that the French have a poor military history, and not just in the US. It's such a common thing that it should be noted. You seem to think that it detracts from the article, but it's merely a small link. It is relevant and something about it should be included. violet/riga (t) 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

where else apart from the US is this kind of joke native? (and I rule out Britain) (btw, have you heard of Napoleon?) Bwithh 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Violet, I mentioned something about this above in my numbered list to why I opposed the inclusion of such information: jokes about French military history are mostly prevalent only in the United States. In other nations, they are either not well known or they are nowhere this systematic. I wrote the folowing,

"The vast majority of derisive comments about the French military come from Americans. The British joke once in a while, but they do it mostly as a sign of friendship and light-heartedness; that is, they realize that over the centuries the two have produced one of the greatest military rivalries of all time. From what I've been able to see, British humor on this topic has usually been more mature. The British generally realize that what they are saying is a joke, whereas I'm not too sure about Americans (or most Americans). Otherwise, there is nothing in any other country in the world even remotely comparing to how Americans feel about the matter. I grew up in Albania for about the first eleven years of my life (moved to America nine years ago) and I never once heard a joke about French military history. Not once. I was at first perplexed with what I saw after Iraq-we are, after all, criticizing a nation that's had a legendary and extensive military history-but eventually I got used to it."

In light of that, it is clearly not relevant. As I've repeatedly stated, no one should care what Americans think about French military history because it in no way helps in their understanding of the subject. In fact, it probably detracts.UberCryxic 21:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I did read it - I just disagree. You agree that the US and British know about the joke, yet you don't seem to think it warrants inclusion in the English language Wikipedia. If so many English-speaking people know about it then it is relevant. One small link doesn't detract from the article, but omitting something which is so commonly referred to does. violet/riga (t) 21:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not common in British culture - where it does come up, its due to US cultural influence. Britain continues to glorify and celebrate the English / British victories against the French at the Battle of Agincourt, the Battle of Waterloo and the Battle of Trafalgar. These victories wouldn't be so celebrated or seen as so great if the common perception was that the French were known to be really easy to defeat or always quick to surrender. Bwithh 21:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Those victories are celebrated because the British love to beat the French (and many others!) at anything, and mock them for their defeats. Their "surrendering culture" is also poked fun at by a massive number of people in Britain. It is common in British culture. violet/riga (t) 22:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of celebrating victory over the obviously easily beaten? If your perpective is correct, it makes the British celebration of these victories look ridiculous. I grew up and was schooled in England throughout the 1980s and 1990s and can't remember encountering any jokes about the supposed "French surrendering culture" in conversation, writing, television, radio or anything else. (and as a young kid, I read quite of lot of UK-produced WWII themed comic books). As I mentioned before, I remember a few instances about jokes regarding Italians retreating or generally being incompetent in WWII. I moved from the UK to the United States in 2001 and the widespread level of antagonism in US popular media towards the French was a real shock. I first heard of the French "surrendering joke" in the US around the time of the buildup the invasion of Iraq in 2002/03. The only time I've seen it in a UK context was to do with the joke about "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" from The Simpsons cartoon - hardly a native part of British culture. Bwithh 22:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Violet, you are certainly stating true things, but things which don't have relevance. It's not just about knowing it; it's about the importance you assign to it as well. The British generally don't actually think that the French are pussies or surrender monkeys, despite jokes they may make or be familiar with. On the other hand, there are plenty of people here in America, I dare say a majority (though it's uncertain), who actually assign significance to these jokes. That is, they believe that there is not just some truth value, but important truth value. This is supposed to be a historical article and including the information that you want is not only narrow-minded, as it applies overwhelmingly to American conceptions only, but, for the umpteenth time, completely irrelevant to the real history.UberCryxic 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You say the majority of Americans think it is true, which instantly adds notability to it. There should be a mention of it, but you refuse to even accept one link in "See also"? How will that detract? violet/riga (t) 22:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The links are meant to provide further useful outlets for those wishing to know more about the subject, or am I wrong in that assessment? How does the link you are advocating for do that? Here is one way in which it detracts:

This is what the albinoblacksheep article says on the French Revolutionary Wars:

"- French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French."

What does this article say?

"By 1797 the French had defeated the First Coalition, occupied the Low Countries, the west bank of the Rhine, and Northern Italy, objectives which had defied the Valois and Bourbon dynasties for centuries. Unsatisfied with the results, many European powers formed a Second Coalition, but by 1801 this too had been decisively beaten."

Do you see the wild divergence? I am not advocating for which side is right here. Let's leave that aside for a second: the point is only that the link which are providing gives information that would leave someone who has not heard about these jokes (and there are plenty of people around the world who fall into that category) a bit confused. Do I trust what this Wikipedia article says or do I trust albinoblacksheep? You might think that is a silly question, but many people-I mentioned a majority but it is really uncertain-have opted for albinoblacksheep. Some realize it's a joke, others do too, but may take it more seriously. A neutral observer who has no opinion of French military history, however, could be really misled. It is not significant how many of these there are in the world, or how many have internet connections, as long as there are some capable of viewing this Wikipedia page and its daughter articles.

Adds notability? In what way? I sincerely doubt experts on French military history give a damn, and the same is true for enthusiasts like me. That's the point: those that are actually familiar with French military history don't really care what you have to say, and that's not meant to be offensive-it reflects a fact. As long as it does not deal with French military history in a scholarly, quasi-objective, analytical, or serious way, I will never care about it.

Furthermore, what you wish has clearly been expressed as going against what this article is about: this article, like all other military history articles on Wikipedia, does not analyze popular conceptions. Do you think Americans are the only ones who like to make fun about this stuff? No! And to all you Frogs out there going "You tell him Uber," realize that France has a snotty behavior when it comes to topics like this: during Napoleon's reign, the French would often joke about the Austrians being pussies and effeminate (France had beaten Austria in four separate wars from 1796 to 1809). Yet is this mentioned in Military History of Austria? Nope! You might counter that it is not particularly detailed and that's why it is not mentioned, but deep down we both realize that's bull. I would never want someone in that article to mention that the French thought the Austrians were pussies, and in fact if I saw it I would revert it right away, which is what I have done and will continue to do here. Thank you.UberCryxic 22:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not advocating a link to the albinoblacksheep site, but have added a link to a relevant page about a very common (Google-topping) meme. If we do not explain that there is a very common belief/joke about the French military then we are doing the readers a disservice - we are stating the facts, but not highlighting that there is a very common misconception. There should be either a small paragraph in this article dealing with the topic or another article discussing the international views of the French military which is linked to from "See also". Anti-French sentiment in the United States is not good enough and shouldn't be linked because it doesn't focus on the military aspect enough and is too perochial. Said paragraph/article would then be able to highlight the problem. Remember - this article is not just for "experts" and "enthusiasts" but by these very people that hold the belief. We should be saying "this is what lots of people say, particularly in the mass media, but it's not really true". violet/riga (t) 08:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe we could add a short statement in the See also section: "This article does not deal with popular clichés about the value of the French military. For information on that issue, see for example Francophobia." (which contains links to Anti-French sentiment in the United States and French military victories (practical joke)). Feel free to find a better (but not too long) phrasing. Thbz 09:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thbz, that is nothing but handing an easy victory to the people who want such information included. The very fact that this article does not mention popular opinions about French military history should lead people to conclude that it does not concern itself with that subject-matter. We don't actually have to state it. Until someone proves it has a historical or quasi-scholarly value, inclusion of such information in this article is out of the question. Plus, you yourself said, "But as far as I know, clichés about the French army only belong to popular culture, so they do not belong here."UberCryxic 20:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A common cultural thing like this doesn't have value? Sorry, but you appear caught-up in your scholarly view. Well done for writing this good article, but please don't stop valuable content being included. violet/riga (t) 20:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A common cultural thing like this in the United States does not have value. Correct. Finally we're seeing eye-to-eye.UberCryxic 20:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"that there is a very common belief/joke about the French military then we are doing the readers a disservice"

Our disagreements basically revolve around this comment. We are not doing them a disservice at all because that belief is common and relevant only in the United States, nowhere else in the world. And as I've already said, it's irrelevant that it's a common belief in the United States. Maybe you care about what you think about French military history, but many people seriously interested in the subject don't. It is not a common belief among historians, which is what matters the most, and it is not a common belief among the vast majority of people in the world, which should "add notability" to the fact that it would be an unnecessary addition to the article. There is not much in terms of international views regarding the French military or its history; as I wrote in Views of the French military, "Today, most Americans have a negative view about French military history, while large portions of the world are fairly neutral, a reflection of the decreased French position in global affairs." The last part is very important: people will really only hate you or get angry if you're somehow relevant-otherwise they wouldn't bother-and France hasn't been a significant military force in world affairs for some time (since World War II and the following struggles to preserve its colonial empire). It's only natural that the world doesn't currently have much of an opinion on this. The jokes stem from World War II, but because Europe experienced the war in a more up-close and personal level, they've been easier on the French for their failure in 1940. Americans haven't followed that course, and diplomatic tensions over Iraq only worsened things.

This article is for those who want to find out about French military history, not about what Americans think of French military history. You don't have to be an enthusiast or an expert to enjoy this article; more people than not have written that they liked it. If you are a person who thinks the French are losers and you read this article, then consider it an opportunity to come to terms with history. And if you do not like what is being said, there are probably deeper reasons at play besides the message of the text, reasons that I cannot address.UberCryxic 20:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please try talking to me as if I have a valid opinion and am not an ignorant Francophobe. Throughout my life I have heard lots of people bashing the French for their lack of military prowess. I've read it, heard it from people I know and heard it on TV. And you know what? I live in the UK. You think that the Americans have a monopoly on poking fun at the French military? I'm sorry, but you are very wrong there. It is a common thing with English speakers around the world, and this being the English Wikipedia it needs to be included.

May I ask why Views of the French military isn't included as a link? Surely that would be appropriate, and with a less perochial content, that article could be exactly what I'm saying should be included. violet/riga (t) 20:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to chip in and note my impression from growing up in the UK is that the British impression of French military prowess is not simplistic, and based chiefly on our countries' engagements over the last millennium. There are examples of French military as seen as strong and weak, mainly based on their perceived success or otherwise in battle, and how it affected the British. So some positive aspects which I'd bet your London cabbie might agree with: Napoleon is well respected, the French Foreign Legion is spoken of in terms of awe, Charles De Gaulle is seen as a good leader, the French Resistance and Free French military forces of WWII are regarded as brave. Negative opinions seem to form around situations where where there is an important national myth at stake (e.g. Agincourt), or French perceived failings left the UK vunerable (e.g. French forces at beginning of WWII). An interesting parallel with the current American anti-French feelings as a result of recent events might be the negative press that the French received in the UK during the Falklands War when the Argentine Air Force were reported to be using French purchased jets, and the successful strike on a British ship was the result of a French orginated missile system: there was a suggestion that the British had been somehow betrayed.--mgaved 20:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Views of the French military was a spinoff article, created only once a disgruntled Wikipedian saw this article and apparently didn't like the content (or thought something was lacking). While ultimately only the material should count, the motivation behind the article's creation can (note: can) be somewhat indicative of its value (the way the creator started suggests a vanity article). Either way, I was the one who called for it not to be merged with Anti-French sentiment in the United States, just because I am going to work on it myself. It will not be linked to this article because, once again, this article does not concern itself with that type of information.

I am very surprised that you've heard many people bashing the French on this. Until I arrived in America, I had not. Personal differences are probably fuelling some of this argument, but either way, I've already explained that people in Britain do not hold those jokes as relevant. I don't doubt that the British do joke about it-they do-but as long as they generally hold it as a joke, what's the big deal? But either way: even if the whole world hated France or the French military, it would not be included in this article. Wanting such information reveals a misunderstanding about the nature of this article, which I've repeatedly stated has nothing to do with popular conceptions.

If you wanted to link something like Views of the French military, you'd also have to write about the views on every other nation that has a notable military history and talk about their positives and negatives. You'd have to do it for Austria, which was severely criticized in this respect during Napoleon's time and throughout much of the 19th century, and a bazillion other nations. You'd have to go into Confederate views on US military prowess, about how "one Southern gent could whip ten Yankees," and vice versa. You'd have to do it so often-in order not to make this endeavor seem like some personal vendetta-that it would be atrociously ridiculous. You'd literally have to make an article about all significant and widespread views that any given society has had on the military prowess of another at any given point in time. Once you do this for everyone, embarrass Wikipedia, and then link it, then we'll comply with your requests. Until then, you're preaching to the choir, which is noticeably small.UberCryxic 20:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that to make this article more full and complete, there should be some mention of the non-French-centered view that has inspired this lively debate. What makes Wikipedia so useful and great is its ability to cover all possible aspects of an article, especially with regards to history. The only truly NPOV articles on history are the ones that examine all perspectives of the events, which Wikipedia, unlike many encyclopedias, is prepared to handle. You mentioned the American Civil War-- that article mentions the controversy surrounding many aspects of the war and acknowledges the debate. That kind of non-biased, multi-faceted approach is what this article needs. The intentional exclusion of any perspective of the French military's history violates WP:NPOV. Please read WP:POV for the basis of my claim. --Perimosocordiae 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually Perim, the American Civil War article does not talk about the things which Violet wants me to mention here. Additionally, that is a bad article to compare with this one. More appropriate would be articles on the military histories of other nations, which you'll see include no such information whatsoever. This article is being unfairly targeted largely because over what happened with Iraq, and that is nothing but sickening. If Wikipedia had existed in 1998 and this was made a featured article then, no one would be asking for this, pardon my French, crap. It would be nothing less than politicizing what I and many others feel is already a tremendous history article.

I looked at the Military history of Italy during World War II and found no section on popular conceptions, despite the inordinate amount of jokes that have been made about Italy during that time by a significant portion of the world. Now we're really getting international: in Albania, we made fun of Italy a lot for this (they do so in Greece as well). I realize it's in bad faith (I never made any such jokes), but others unfortunately, as is the case with France in America, did not. Anyway, how do you explain the absence of a popular conceptions category for that article? If you are going to demand something for this, then that article also needs a similar section. Otherwise, I would have to assume, again, that this article is being unfairly chosen with people like you hiding behind a "NPOV" screen to make your views more stable for potential readers. This article is FA, and the dozen-plus people who reviewed it found no serious NPOV issues, neither did they ask me (at least I don't think they did; I'd need to check) to include the information that you want to include.

The terms were laid out to Violet. If there's a consistent effort to include notable social views from any given nation-state towards the military history of another nation-state (like the French on Austria in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century), and those views are linked to every appropriate military history article, then it can be done for this. Otherwise, this article will just be an endangered species, and that should not be allowed. It would appear you are the one who needs to review NPOV guidelines. Thank you.UberCryxic 21:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you don't disagree with the idea of presenting "notable social views" about military history on a theoretical basis. Your stipulation is that every military history article would need a section about these views, to ensure that one in this article is not a bad faith mockery. In that respect, I agree with you. However, instead of trying to censor content that you don't like from "your" article, wouldn't it be better to ensure a balanced review of opinions in FMH and add other such sections in other articles? The object of adding these views (and I speak for myself alone) is to present a complete picture of military history, not to dishonor it. I understand that this is a Featured Article, but that doesn't make it perfect. --Perimosocordiae 22:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear here Perim: I love being avant-garde and all that, but this article will not lead the way in your endeavor. If you really want to do what you are advocating, you're going to have to start some broad movement in Wikipedia that aims to improve these military history articles in that way. Good luck. And tell me if you succeed.

From the feedback I've generally received, this article does a very good job at painting a "complete picture" of French military history. Here was the FA review process: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military history of France. It was overall very positive and I immediately took care of most of the issues that people brought up. The main difference boils down to what the nature of this article should be about. I am for completeness, but what you want me to do is not about that at all. This is simply politicizing history, which I and no one else should want to do, and no one can get around that fact. I guarantee fifty thousand percent that no one would have wanted to do this in the 1990s or something. I am just revolted that this quasi-effort is even existing. It's not like these perceptions about French military history are formalized views or anything: one, they mostly exist in an important way only in America (it's been explained that the British joke, but they don't actually think there's too much of a connection to reality there), and two it does not matter that they exist in a serious way in America because this article does not cover stuff like that, which has been explained fifty gazillion times. That's ok though; I love repeating myself, just because eventually I think people will realize, "oh, that's what he means." This article is not about popular conceptions. Military history articles on wikipedia are not about popular conceptions. This article is not about popular conceptions. Military history articles on wikipedia are not about popular conceptions. Phew! That can get tiresome!UberCryxic 04:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at this:

• Military history of France is an article about the complete history of the French military
• Views of the French military is an article about the international view of the French military over history.

How are these two not linked? violet/riga (t) 11:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

For the following reason: the first article includes campaigns and the theories and themes that characterized them. It is not about views of the French military over time.UberCryxic 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But you've wiki'd Alps, lances, demographics and sieges. They aren't about the "campaigns and the theories and themes that characterized them". I'm not saying to include loads of info about public views about the French military, but it is a related topic and one small link at the end of the article should be acceptable. violet/riga (t) 18:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the proper place for this sort of information (popular views of the French millitary and the French military in *shudder* popular culture) is at Military of France. I don't see how they are applicable here, as "popular views of the French military" implies popular views now. It is true that these popular views may have been colored by historical campaigns, but that's a subject for Views of the French military and Military of France. — BrianSmithson 17:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It comes across that you haven't read views of the French military - an article about the view of the French military throughout history. Yes there should be a link at French military, but here too. violet/riga (t) 18:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I addressed this in my comment: "It is true that these popular views may have been colored by historical campaigns . . . ." I still don't think it's a relevant link for this article. — BrianSmithson 18:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how you can say that really, considering it is directly related. Then add in that even UberCryxic called it a "spinoff article" of this one. violet/riga (t) 19:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Violet, that does not support your point at all. I could easily charge that it is a vanity article, which in many ways it is, and have it deleted. Don't forget (not to overblow myself here) that I was the one who saved that article to begin with (thank you Bwwith for listening), simply because later I was going to do more work on it. You are making the connection that because it was a spinoff it is somehow relevant here, but that is not what I meant at all. I was using that term pejoratively (as in, a useless article that shouldn't have been made). There shouldn't even be a link at French military, and if I find one there I will delete it. The idea is to make you see that it's an isolated article; no other article like it exists, it was made out of sheer opportunism (absolutely little relevance), and the information it contains does not pertain to this article.UberCryxic 19:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you "saved the article" then you are adding to the strength of it. How can you save something then claim not to want it to exist? Don't orphan it - AfD it. How about we leave the links in for now while you AfD the article (then people can't choose to delete it because it's orphaned)? If it is deleted then fair enough, otherwise I think that would be a fair enough reason to keep it linked from here. This is the best way forwards - I see no reason to remove links to it, just as you are not willing to have them included. violet/riga (t) 21:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It should not be deleted and it should not be linked anywhere. It should be like a beautiful woman who was never meant to be seen by the outside world, like a Rapunzel or something. Just so we can set an example for others who try to do silly things like this again. There are no good reasons to keep it here; for the bazillionth time, the two articles (sometimes) talk about similar things, but they are not related.UberCryxic 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please learnt to indent conversations - it makes following your replies very difficult.

I have suggested a way forward below. Until then it looks like you will be stuck in an edit war - you are acting in bad faith and not trying to resolve this. violet/riga (t) 17:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war. I hope eventually this gets resolved.UberCryxic 17:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how "views of the french military" belong to wikipedia in the first place, are we going to have a "views of" entry for every topic in wikipedia ? Furthermore, the emphasis is made on a very specific 'view', that of a political faction in the United States after France's opposition to the 2nd gulf war, possibly vaguely echo'd in other anglophone countries. If you're seeking information about the military history of France, right-wing butt jokes in the U.S. are neither factual nor relevant, in a wikilink or otherwise. This belongs to the francophobia sections of wikipedia and nowhere else, though in its current form, I don't think it belongs to wikipedia at all. Equendil 19:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough to have that opinion, I'm sure you'll choose 'delete' in the above-mentioned AfD. violet/riga (t) 21:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting my edit stand. That's all I was talking about, a sense of perspective in the matter for an unfamiliar reader. --Perimosocordiae 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An end to this?

I have offered a compromise solution, but it has not been taken. I find it clear bad faith to see a totally relevant category (Category:Military of France) removed from the Views of the French military article. I have already explained that I believe the articles should all be linked, and you have stated that you refuse that. Neither of us seem ready to back down, and now you reject the compromise. I suggest you come up with a proposal to stop this pointless edit war. violet/riga (t) 06:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not like or accept your compromise. What else do you want me to say? Can we please return to the debate now?UberCryxic 17:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest the only way forward is mediation. violet/riga (t) 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

French military in popular culture

Out of curiosity, is there anything in wikipedia about the French military (especially the Foreign Legion) in popular culture? Andjam 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

French Foreign Legion, of course. See also Category:French Army. Thbz 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Miscitations of Sources

Looking at Citation 18, the quote provided doesn't seem to support the claim in the article. That is, the author of the citation seemed to assert that the longbow did not have the potential to win the war for England, -not- that it wasn't an important part of the victories the English did achieve. Wilhelm Ritter 8:42, 12 May 2006

Cowardice (the word)

With regards to the section of linguistic influence, does "cowardice" count as a suitable term? The wikipedia article for cowardice mentions a definition in a military code of conduct. Thanks, Andjam 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Cowardice" is defined in a military code of conduct, because military codes of conduct are documents setting out legal rules and terms which will be argued over in a military court, and that's why they need explicit definitions. A military code of conduct is not a dictionary! It's a set of laws, and that's all about defining terms. Obviously "cowardice" existed as a common language term before the military code of conduct was written - It's not a specialized military term like "conduct unbecoming of an officer" or "collateral damage" or whatever. Bwithh

The word "surrender", which has been added and removed, is also from old French. Is this not a military term either? Andjam 11:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would add surrender and cowardice,they are military terms and they are derived from French, it would also create somekind of a "point/stand" that it's not all "good/positive"-terms that derive from french in this way. Of course these terms aren't neccesarely bad publicity for the French as one could wonder how they entered the English language ... a French soldier demanding surrender or offering it ? Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 14:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• I dispute that surrender or cowardice are explicitly military terms or have ever been so. Surrender has a range of meanings, including in religion and civil law, which have nothing to do with military situations; and obviously cowardice has a much broader usage then simply in the military. Also bear in mind that if these are "Old French" terms which have entered the English language, the roots of Old French words in English date back to the Anglo-Norman period after the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, after which the royal court language of the army which successfully invaded and took over England became the official court language of England for centuries. Some of the |Anglo-Norman court language (which is related to Old French) survives in the formal language of the British Parliament and Royalty today (Dieu et mon droit), as well as in common English language.see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_words_from_Old_French.
• Also, "surrender" and "coward" may have roots in Old French, but so do "conquer", "victory" and "courage". Note that these are Old French words which entered the English language because a kind of Old French (followed by the influence of Middle French) was the English royal court language for centuries i.e. they weren't just using select phrases or words in Old French; actually the courtiers were talking and writing in this way for all kinds of official purposes all the time! This means that many words in the English language have been passed from Old French, such as "cattle" and "eagle" and "royal" and "labour" amongst many others - it would be ridculous to assume that all these words are in the English language are there simply because the French have a "reputation" for them ("everyone knows the French are a bunch of blue-blooded cows and hard-working birds of prey..." or whatever)
• The list of French military words in English for the article should limit itself to those coming from modern French i.e. from a time when a French-like language isn't the official language of the English royal court (plus the years afterwards where Old French still had a influence from this association)! Bwithh 17:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Also see Law French - so a kind of Old French was not just the court language of England for centuries, but also the language of common legal documents and processes Bwithh 15:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, on a theoretical basis, I would have no qualms about including some of these words. But something is fishy here. Why not bring up the tons of other French-derived military words that have been excluded (mostly for purposes of length)? Why do you want to see surrender and cowardice above them? I hope you can understand how this is a little suspect on your part.

"Cowardice" does not have to be a military term at all. It can and often does to apply to non-military affairs. There's no good reason for including these words in place of others. What we already have is just fine.UberCryxic 15:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to assume bad faith, that's fine, but I was just googling for "cowardly French" when I came across the wikipedia article on cowardice, which included a military definition, and I noticed "retreat" when checking this article's history. Cowardice is less of a military term than retreat, I guess. Andjam 13:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit war always means failure

Couple of requests:

1. Can people please stop edit warring, instead discussing controversial edits?
2. Should part of this talk page be archived? 193kb is a bit large.
3. Can the discussion calm down a little? There have been:
   1. appeals to authority: "I have studied French military history for years"
   2. weasel words or unverified claims "The vast majority of derisive comments about the French military come from Americans." and "We are not doing them a disservice at all because that belief is common and relevant only in the United States, nowhere else in the world."
   3. Statements such as "I am personally irritated about the enormous arrogance of America." are not helpful either - we're supposed to write about enormous arrogance (if notable sources allege that it exist), not be irritated about it. If wikipedians are being called arrogant, it's not constructive criticism.
   4. Making criticisms too personal, eg "created only once a disgruntled Wikipedian saw this article and apparently didn't like the content (or thought something was lacking)" (what's the point of calling someone disgruntled?)

Thanks, Andjam 12:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of profanity is also unhelpful. Andjam 12:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pre-modern history

Does stuff about Gaul strictly belong in this article? I'm as big an Asterix fan as anyone, but isn't the main connection between the Gauls and France that the two overlapped in land? By contrast, France's history in WWI seems to be only one paragraph long. Andjam 13:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

French navy paragraph

In the paragraph starting with "A perennial problem ... ", does the word "impressive" seem a bit much (in the latter case, if not the former)?

Could "good news" be replaced with "success", and "disaster" with "defeat"? Thanks, Andjam 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious?

How is noting that the link points to an article written from a conservative point of view 'anti-American'? Do you think that 'conservative' is an insult? Would it be 'anti-American' if I called GWB a conservative? Please explain why you feel this edit is anti-American before reverting. MilesVorkosigan 19:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is not from the viewpoint of an American conservative who dislikes France. There are both positive and negative views of the French military presented. Have you read it?UberCryxic 20:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The link doesn't need any further explanation - people can assess its content when they get there. violet/riga (t) 20:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did read it. There is a small section that rehashes the historical information provided in other articles, followed by a larger section with a much larger picture that is a clear hatchet job by somebody who hasn't gotten over France's refusal to help with Iraq II. It's quoting comedians, a cartoon, mentions a google-bombing prank, and makes an unreferenced claim that Patton didn't think much of the French army.

The thing about Patton might be true, but without a reference, who cares? For the rest of it... Guys, this is an encyclopedia. Is the opinion of a comedian on military prowess really notable? MilesVorkosigan 21:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that these views of the French military that you mentioned are best placed in an article dealing with "views of the French military". Feel free to edit that article to make it more NPOV, if that is your dispute. As for the comedian, the article makes the assumption that comedians and other artists are generally proponents of popular belief, at least in their acts, and thus does not refer to their personal beliefs. --Perimosocordiae 21:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm objecting to linking this encyclopedia article to a cruft article. I'm not going to try to NPOV the other article. I don't enjoy edit wars and the 'views' article is clearly WP:OWNed.

Besides... it's funny. As long as this article isn't linking to it as if it was a balanced historical/current events article it's fine. Hell, it would be okay with me as long as the link showed that the destination is really "American comedians'" views. It's important to not mix up the serious and joking articles without making the line clear. MilesVorkosigan 21:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The article needs work. Linking to it from here will get more people working on it. Simple. violet/riga (t) 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think we can all live with that- But it's still linking from a serious article into a joke article without warning the reader. Wouldn't it make more sense to title the link appropriately? MilesVorkosigan 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a joke article, that's the point. violet/riga (t) 07:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Have you read it? It's a shallow discussion of historical views followed by a mess of contemporary jokes. It doesn't even try to be an encyclopedia article. That's fine, we have plenty of lighter articles around here, but this article shouldn't be linking to something like that without making the difference clear. MilesVorkosigan 17:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Surrender

Why isn't surrender included in the "French influence of military terms"? I smell a bias ...

According to the dictionary:

surrender noun [C or U] when you stop fighting and admit defeat: The rebels are on the point of surrender.

And its etymology:

surrender 1441, "to give (something) up," from O.Fr. surrendre "give up, deliver over" (13c.), from sur- "over" + rendre "give back" (see render). Reflexive sense of "to give oneself up" (especially as a prisoner) is from 1585. The noun is recorded from 1487.

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 15:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see my discussion about Old French under the Cowardice (word) section above Bwithh 15:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't belief I have to, this word is a military term that entered the English language via (Old)French.It meets all the criteria ... it should be included. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 15:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a specifically military term, and is not of modern French origins. Bwithh 15:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is a military term.Many of those words are not of Modern French origins. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 15:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm specifically talking about words coming from Old French/Anglo Norman - please read the historical explanation above of the relation of these languages to the English language. Bwithh 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• • If we follow Rex Germanus' criteria, warrior,victory,battle,soldier,military would have to be included. But I don't think they should be as so many words in the English language come from Old French/Anglo-Norman for the reasons explained previously - this has nothing to do with the specific words and phrases being borrowed from modern or older forms French for specialized military terms. Bwithh 15:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I accept/aprove the newly formed section explaining the loans and their origin (Although Latin isn't mentioned). Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what anyone thinks, I am opposing the inclusion of anymore words or information in that section on account of section and article length. There, problem solved.UberCryxic 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think UberCryxic, you do not own this areticle.Don't behave like a little dictator. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 17:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, Rex. He is right. Why does an article on French military history have a section that lists English words that were originally French? That belongs in a language article, or perhaps in an article on 'Effects of the Norman Conquest on the English language'. The most it deserves from here would be a link. MilesVorkosigan 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

He had all the time to remove the section it because "a problem" when less positive words were included....Maybe we should ask CunningLinguist why he added the section. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_France&diff=9282218&oldid=9282200 A quick note though, the history of the Netherlands template has a topic about Dutch military linguistic influence too.Look at "The Miscellaneous Netherlands"

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 18:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually cited length, but yes the words you chose do bother me. I am still wondering why you want to include surrender and words of that sort when there are other words you can include. The word "foray" is not mentioned; why not include that? Why did you go for surrender? Even if you say it is appropriate, it does not matter. There are other words that are appropriate that you can choose, but you specifically want the word "surrender." That's odd.UberCryxic 19:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's odd that you don't want them in, tbh. You've not given any good reasons for not including them as further examples. violet/riga (t) 20:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You did not understand my implication? What I really think is that they are being included because of all this "surrender monkeys" bull. I could easily also say you have not given good reasons for not including some other words, like foray. Let's suppose surrender, foray, and a ton of other French-derived "military" terms have the same value. Why would you go for surrender above the others? That's what bothers me.UberCryxic 20:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Because we all think the French surrender a lot. That is obviously the only reason we have and it's not because we think it's appropriate. </sarcasm> violet/riga (t) 21:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. See you joke but I get angry. And I'm not even French. That's not funny. Not at all. I do not care what you think the French do. Those words will be removed and I kindly ask that you do not revert.UberCryxic 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand how to discuss, avoid edit wars, or compromise, do you? violet/riga (t) 21:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another 3RR by UberCryxic. violet/riga (t) 21:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm isn't exactly helping either, and given the topic, UberCryxic's question was rather fair. How many times has this entry been vandalized, the whole text replaced with 'surrender' etc ? What a coincidence the exact same words used by vandals should find their way in a side note that doesn't even need to grow bigger ? Equendil 22:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are those words included anyway? The main section should only include words derived from middle/modern French (like it already does) and the note should not include words at all. The note should read (in part): "...Earlier Old French words related to war became part of the English language in a..." We don't need to illustrate the Old French words, especially considering the note already directs a curious reader to a better source. --Perimosocordiae 21:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I love your idea Perim. I just deleted them. Violet, I am not much into compromise. Either way, you yourself should acknowledge you've mischaracterized me in light of what I did yesterday. I don't think I was being unreasonable then. I cannot say the same for you.UberCryxic 21:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"I am not much into compromise" - good luck with all your other interactions here. violet/riga (t) 21:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've actually had plenty of wonderful interactions on Wikipedia, despite my uncomprimising mood. Unlike the French, I don't like to surrender (hehehehehe); just lose or win. That's it.UberCryxic 16:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I may be late in this discussion, but, unless I can't read, the etymology actually proves that surrendre was not a military term when it crossed the Channel. It only received a military meaning centuries later, when it became reflexive: Reflexive sense of "to give oneself up" (especially as a prisoner) is from 1585.. Reflexive verbs in French (almost) always use the reflexive particle se (rendre is transitive). This is different from the English, where reflexivity depends on the context (e.g. I stopped and washed vs. I stopped my car and washed my it). But I may be wrong: I'm French and I ain't speak English good. Thbz 18:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever this talk of war is boring. Thbz, since you're French I have a question: one, do you live in Paris? Two, have you heard of Melissa Theuriau?UberCryxic 18:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on, she's got an entry, now that's an encyclopedia :) Equendil 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah she does, but I wanted to see if thbz had heard of her. I'm thinking of putting a moratorium on writing about French military history and switching my focus to French women....habba habba! I can only speak, read, and write a little French, otherwise I would so take that article to featured status in a heartbeat. But so.....how FREAKING HOT IS THAT WOMAN???? God damn. I mean seriously, she's insanely good looking.UberCryxic 22:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

She may actually have better name recognition on Internet than here in France, since she 'only' appears on a news cable channel in the morning (apparently), which doesn't have all that many viewers. Saying that, I don't watch TV and I'm talking out of my ass. Still, I wouldn't known about her if not for Internet. Rather appropriate here too, she's the one woman in France that can single handedly interrupt the french bashing simply by having her picture posted :) Equendil 23:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

With a face like that, she can interrupt wars...and start them too! Hell, if I had to go to war for Helen or Melissa, I'd go to war for Melissa every time. I've also heard that she is not widely recognized in France (for the reason you stated). Do you have any idea what the viewership of LC1 Matin is? Some guy said that the job she turned down (evening anchor for TF1) was seen by about 1/6 of the French population every day. If so, then she must've been smoking something really heavy to say no. Weird.....anyway, I am slowly remembering French from five of years of taking it after watching all those newscasts. "C'est la fin de journal, passe un excellent journee"....gawd I love it when she ends like that.UberCryxic 03:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea what's the viewership of LCI, let alone in the morning, but quite low would be a good estimate. Evening news on TF1 on the other hand ... TF1 is one of the historical channels, received on any and every TV set, and evening news are watched by millions, I'm finding it hard to believe she turned down such an offer. Equendil 21:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh btw Equendil go to my userpage and copy my Melissa userbox into your userpage if you think she is the hottest woman alive. And you better think so, or else I'm French bashing. Someone needs to indict you guys for all the crap you did to Germany from 1645 to 1815. No wonder they ended up hating you....see! That's what you're gona get (*mean eyes*). Haha....(I'm kidding, of course...about the French bashing, not about the German part. God damn, you gotta feel sorry for Germany during that period).UberCryxic 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What if I think she's the second or third hottest woman alive ? :S By the way, I feel we shouldn't be discussing Melissa Theuriau here, though seeing as the talk page for this entry seems to be filled with endless attempts at introducing negative spin on the french military, it's probably improving the overall quality of the debate. I'll give it a rest still :) Equendil 21:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh there's nothing going on here anymore. All other conversations have pretty much ended.UberCryxic 21:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Causes of Anti-French sentiment

You recently removed a phrase linking (not a hyperlink) French non-cooperation in the US invasion of Iraq to anti-French sentiment (regarding the military), Ubercryxic. You cited that this wasn't the cause. I agree that many French military-bashing jokes and comments are based on France's performance in WWII, but I think that hatchet had been buried, until the Iraq invasion. What's your take on this? --Perimosocordiae 22:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well let's be clear about what I removed...this is what the article read before I did anything:

"the role of France is seen in terms of coalition interventions, peacekeeping, and minor disputes, which has prompted some anti-French sentiment, especially in the US."

Then I just took out the last part about anti-French sentiment. The statement is about the French role in global affairs, which in no way would incite French bashing. Think about it: if the French do not have as much geostrategic influence nowadays as they used to (which is what the statement implies), why would that prompt anti-French sentiment in America, which thinks precisely that (that the French don't have that much influence)? Whoever put in that statement was obviously confused.

I can't really speak about the hatchet being buried or anything. I'm not too sure, and as I've said before, I could care less. I consider myself a serious student of military history, and I have never bothered much with those types of views.UberCryxic 01:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think what that segment was trying to convey was that France's military non-involvement in US endeavors (i.e.: Iraq) was what caused the anti-French feelings in America. However, if that's not what you took from it then I think it's safe to take it out as it might be confusing to other readers as well. --Perimosocordiae 01:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I certainly did not take it to mean that. It was confusing to say the least.UberCryxic 04:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Their military history is the answer if you ask me, but Im not going to get in another silly flaming war with UberCryxic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

Anti-French sentiment and jokes about the military history are related, but the latter does not cause the former (you specifically mentioned military history, but the military history of France is generally recognized to have been great and glorious; it is mostly ridiculed only in the United States). I would say bad experiences from people who only visit Paris have much more to do with it. French foreign policy since de Gaulle hasn't helped much either. Check out Kuisel's Seducing the French. That was a pretty good book.UberCryxic 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Myself and my colleagues are not American, nor have we been to paris, but our position stands. Nevertheless, it is your view.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

Again, the completely unsubstantiated claims. I am quite familiar with your positions. How about you give some evidence to back them up?UberCryxic 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Back what up?. If you want me to back up the fact that I dont want to get into a flaming war.. then read either google military victories or emotionally involved contributor. Citation 1. If you want me to back up I have never been to Paris, look at my passport if you ever see bit. If you want me to prove Im not American, I was born ay Goerge V hospital, Sydney, Australia, and currently leave at Newport on the northern beaches of Sydney. Citation 3.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

I think you perfectly realize what I was referring to. I want you to back up the claim that anti-French sentiment is caused by their military history. You gave no evidence for this assertion, and in fact little (if any) exists.UberCryxic 00:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, Im not getting into another immature flaming argument with you. Want proof of that. Read my citations.58.170.24.39 00:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What you gave was not proof at all. Now give me reasonable evidence for why you think the military history of France has caused anti-French sentiment. Otherwise, drop your claims.UberCryxic 00:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How is that not proof that I dont wnat to get into a flaming argument? Prove that, otherwise, drop your claims.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

All you said is you had not been to France. Big whoop. That is in no way related to your argument. Not even remotely. You need to show how French military history has adversely affected global perceptions of France. The truth is it has not, or it has not significantly. Once again, your assertion stands as ridiculous.UberCryxic 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it is my view, but once again I do not want to get in another flaming argument. Prove that, otherwise, drop your claims. We have already argued this point, and even though I won it just turned into a flaming war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

Prove your points. It has not turned into a flaming war at all. I am asking you to show me why you think what you think, instead of just telling me that you think it. You're not going to get off that easily. Say why or drop your claims.UberCryxic 00:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

But it will turn into a flaming war like google military victories, which I won anyway. So why bother. You have no support anyway.

I have no reason to go on as your argument and reputation (if you had one of either) is dead. You want to argue your dead stance more, find me on the other topics of my contribution you have discovered. But I have no point in reading your deda argument or anything else from here on in, as your comback will just be a decayed idea of yours (I already know it is stupid without having to read it, so dont expect me to read your responce, as it is the typical stain of words I expect from you). Ardios. 58.170.24.39 01:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I accept all of your concessions. Thank you for participating and losing the debate.UberCryxic 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, you actually think you won (this is darren again BTW). You are not arguing with him anymore. All you are doing is being cowardly by trying to flame him in insults. You have officially lost to the godly soul of Byron. Take your towl and laeve the ring is my suggestion. Yu thnk you won; thenread google military victories again.

You are not arguing with him anymore. But I may I say, you argument is truly dead LOL. I haven't seen any open support for you, nor any claims of a data argument from my bro anyway. I bet you are making up crap just to elongate it. Well Im not helping you elongate any silly argument (orin my brothers words "decayed rambling"), Im out too.

I suggest you read the books he's mentioned, you might be smart as a result if you do that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

Now look who is immaturely deleting peoples writing...just because you lost. tisk,tisk—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

I'll be in the shower. Think of me and this ; France will always be shit. To back my claims read google military victories.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.170.24.39 (talk • contribs) .

That's very deceptive. "Deleting peoples writing" eh? You should not be allowed to get away with this treachery, but unfortunately I can't do anything about it, nor do I really feel like doing anything about it. You're not worth my time, but your claims (even though unsubstaniated) are. French military history is legendary. Period. France has been a great nation and continues to be one today. Maybe not what she used to be, but she's still great: sixth largest economy in the world, a permanent UN Security Council member, a nuclear power, third largest arms exporter in the world, third largest defense spender in the world, and so on and on. See; that's what making claims and using evidence looks like. Try it. JUST ONCE!UberCryxic 01:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic

Personal discussion moved to User talk:UberCryxic. Continue like that and you'll both face a short block. violet/riga (t) 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

French over Afghanistan

According to the French embassy to the United States [6] “France was the only country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan in direct support of American ground troops, in particular during Operation Anaconda”

This seems misleading. Harriers from the Italian carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi, and F-16s from Norway, Netherlands and Denmark have also supported Operation Enduring Freedom (as well as ISAF). France may have been the only nation that dropped bombs other than the US (although I don’t think that is true) or during Anaconda but other nations conducted missions. Chwyatt 08:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)