What do you think about the idea the franco-british rivalry during the 17th century could be considered as a new hundread years war? French people seem to strongly disagree, but they seem to have troubles accepting Britain won against Napoleon.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It wasn't a "France vs Britain" rivalry
It was a "France vs Europe" rivalry
Pretty much this
You're forgetting this one when France and her allies were defeated by the UK.
You accidentally forgot to mention the main player of that war in your post
Probably an unintentional oversight...
Too bad. France barely fought Prussia and completely stopped after Rossbach. They were defeated by the Brits at Minden. The same Brits who defeated them at seas, in India and Canada and later destroyed in a year their Spanish allies.
Too bad, France main plan was to focus in Europe, not against UK or in the colonies.
Yes, that's Prussia tenacity that won the 7 years war, and the switching of side of Russia. The French were indeed winning against UK during the first years.
>oo bad, France main plan was to focus in Europe, not against UK or in the colonies.
And they failed in Europe too. They were defeated at Minden and couldn't invade Hanover.
They were defeated once and for all when they were defeated at Rossbach. Minden had no impact since it happened 2 years later, when the plan had already failed.
>They were defeated once and for all when they were defeated at Rossbach
No. The French simply stopped fighting Prussia in a war they had no business in. They kept fighting in Hanover since it belonged to king of Britain. And they failed to conquer it.
Are you stupid? They ceased to fight Prussia ONCE they were defeated at Rossbach, and once their plan of war FAILED due to Prussia.
And no, they didn't cease to fight Prussia, Prussia was also fighting against the French in lower saxony.
>They ceased to fight Prussia ONCE they were defeated at Rossbach
This has nothing to do with the war in Hanover, in which the French were defeated by the British-german forces. Face it, France spent millions to conquer Hanover, expecting to trade it for Canada. But in 1763 they simply had nothing to offer to the British. They had been defeated everywhere.
Factually incorrect. The French Plan was to launch quickly an offensive in Europe to take Hannover and to knock out Prussia early in the war, in coordination with the Austrian. They had prepared a massive army of 105,000 soldiers, and the Austrian Army was bankrolled by the French.
The French took Hannover, but were defeated at Rossbach. They weren't defeated by the British, but by the Prussians. Their plan failed at Rossbach, not at Minden. Once their plan of war failed, they lost their best shot.
Ok, you're a British poster. It explains everything. I should have never answer to your parochialism.
>The French took Hannover, but were defeated at Rossbach. They weren't defeated by the British, but by the Prussians. Their plan failed at Rossbach, not at Minden. Once their plan of war failed, they lost their best shot.
Right. That's why they kept trying to invade Hanover for years, spending huge amounts of money in the process. In 1761, the French sent 160 000 men in Germany to conquer Hanover. They failed. That had nothing to do with Prussia but with the poor quality of the French army.
>That's why they kept trying to invade Hanover for years.
Stop pretending to not understand my point, simply because it would hurt your massively inflated ego of angloid. The Prussians were also here, to defend lower saxony. They were here at Minden. In fact they were here everytime after Rossbach.
love how all these battles took place in Belgium
The OG: original grave of empires.
I've noticed that Bongs do this thing where they warp definitions and classifications to make their defeats seem like stalemates or victories like Dunkirk.
If Britain was defeated at Dunkirk they would’ve been unable to continue the war.
>to continue the war.
Wait, they did? They've been so irrelevant after Dunkirk I wasnt even aware of it...
>Wait, they did?
They defeated the Germans and Italians in Egypt. Fought the Japanese in Burma. What were the French doing?
This pretty much knocked Italy out of ww2, they were effectively a supporting power after this, despite having a GDP similar to France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass
Yeah, two years after Dunkirk they accomplished this military prowess
They at least kept fighting the Japanese.
or Japanese can send aid and troop during Spaniard War instead conflict in China.
I don't blame you. Their top general masterminded a brilliant campaign of invading a mountainous country to get to Germany instead of sailing across the Channel like the Americans wanted to.
Not him, but seriously, your fighting alone was pathetic. Not being able to win against Rommel in Africa before 1942 or waiting 1943 to win Africa was frankly pathetic.
my random IQfy-tier suspicion is that a super brutal defeat at dunkirk would increase the liklihood of surrender but im still not convinced it would be definitive. the grand plan of the UK in all wars of europe if sufficiently btfo on land is to just cuck them at sea. and even if there was a surrender itd be much more likely itd turn into a napoleon situation where every chance they got they would create a coalition and continue the blockade
the sea war for Britain + the airbattle is all that mattered. the african campaign was a nice touch too but realistically a side piece
An easy to hurt inferiority complex
British weren't that relevant, Austrians were the main rivals of Frenchs.
Britain was constantly at war with France while Austria wasn't. After 1815 the French stopped trying to fight the British.
>Britain was constantly at war with France while Austria wasn't.
Because Britain was safe from harm so it could continue the war.
>implying in every colored part a conflict/battle happened
wikipedia historians like you deserve the rope.
>fighting in Spain
With great help from Spanish and Portuguese.
>and destroying the french fleet.
Trafalgar happened because of the moronation of French admiral who precisely predicted Nelson's plan but didn't do anything to prepare for it. Navy was the only thing UK had going on.
Dumb post
And if it was another hundred years war, it would be the third
It's pretty much cope by British historians to try and undo the humiliation of the Hundred Years' War. France went to war with every major European power during that period as Europe tried to contain her expansion.
I could see the merit that Britain was the financial backbone of most of these wars against France but couldn't really do anything on their own against them. Like the supporting nerd character that gives the other team members gadgets and gear to fight the bbeg.
>but couldn't really do anything on their own against them
Safe from, you know, fighting in Spain and destroying the french fleet. The entire foreign policy of Napoleon was aimed against Britain.
>The entire foreign policy of Napoleon was aimed against Britain.
No. If you meant its entire foreign policy was aimed against Britain once every other Great Powers were defeated or submitted, then yes but no otherwise.
Yeah, right. That's why he created a continental blockade that led him to Spain and Russia. Face it, Napoleon understood very well he needed to defeat the UK if he wanted his empire to last. He failed.
>W-what about the spanish troops that fought under Wellington?
>Y...yeah, they had the best navy in the world. Doesn't count.
Pure french cope.
So you perfectly agree with my statement, but you say the opposite after?
Schizo poster.
No your statement is moronic and proves you don't understand warfare. The British won, became the world superpower while France stopped being a threat for them. That's the historical truth French refuse to acknowledge.
>>W-what about the spanish troops that fought under Wellington?
>seeing "Spanish and Portuguese help" as only manpower
>>Y...yeah, they had the best navy in the world. Doesn't count
>making shit up and disregarding the fact that royal navy had higher quality ship due to access to Swedish woods
Are all angloid wienersuckers moronic like you?
>Waaaw it's not fair Britain had the strongest navy.
Frenchoid cope.
>They were here at Minden
A few squadrons, yes. The bulk of the force was from Hanover and the UK.
You do realise the hundred years war is also an invention of historians from the 19th century, right?
No, it's not. It's basically the European Genpei War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Roy_Engloys
>knighthood rivalry between Hashirama and Madara
Cool.
anglo cope invention
In the Hundred Years War England was actually a serious continental land power; this was never the case in the early-modern period. They were more on a level with the Netherlands or Denmark, and were only ever one part of a greater coalition army. So no, it's a very stupid notion.
England never needed to become a super continental power. They had a very good land army, capable of defeating the French on some occasions, the strongest economy in the world that managed to withstand the continental blockade while funding coalitions against Napoleon, and the best navy in the world. Hence, they defeated Napoleon and France eventually.
It wasn't there war in the same sense that the Hundred Years' War was for obvious reasons that I already stated. They played a key role in moroning French dominance, but they were very far from taking a leading role in any war of the period.
>but they were very far from taking a leading role in any war of the period.
They were the leader of opposition against Napoleon by virtue of being the only country that kept fighting him during the entirety of the Napoleonic wars. The 7 years war was two separate wars, one was clearly a franco-british one. Marlborough inflicted the greatest french defeats during the spanish succession war.
>They were the leader of opposition against Napoleon by virtue of being the only country that kept fighting him during the entirety of the Napoleonic wars.
The British sued for peace in 1802
>The 7 years war was two separate wars, one was clearly a franco-british one.
Yeah and Britain was humiliated quite a few times in North America (Braddock Expedition, Battle of Carillon, Fort William Henry..etc) despite heavily outnumbering the French
Only in Europe did they far well, thank to their German allies
>Marlborough inflicted the greatest french defeats during the spanish succession war.
Most of his troops were Germans and Dutch (just like for Wellington at Waterloo)
Blenheim wasn't even Malborough's victory. It was Eugene and Malborough's victory (I would even give to Eugene most of the credit). Audenarde too. Malplaquet was a strategic defeat. Malborough only won Ramilies, which is not even impressive since he was fighting against Villeroy.
On the other hand, Eugene of Savoy won an impressive victory at the Siege of Turin, and won alone the first campaign in Italy.
>Malborough only won Ramilies, which is not even impressive since he was fighting against Villeroy.
Napoleon's victory at Ulm wasn't impressive because Mack was a moron. Got it.
Ulm was a campaign. But it is true Napoleon's Campaign was impressiv.
The British lost everytime the Prussians weren't here (fun fact lol)
Napoleon won the War of the Third Coalition
Britain lost the War of Spanish Succession
>Britain lost the War of Spanish Succession
Debatable, but whatever.
I don't think you have any idea what The Hundred Years War is about. It's not a battle of nations. It's really a dynastic struggle in many ways. This is about Kings and land. It's about cousins - Capatians and Plantagenets.
Capetians*
It doesn't matter. The British won the second one.
It does matter because again, this isn't a contest of nations. 14th and 15th century kingdoms of England and France are not in anyway connected to the British and French in this struggle.
Hundred years war is just an expression made up by historians to talk about a very long series of conflicts between the english kings and the French ones. The fact the English nation started to dissociate from her king's policy is irrelevant here.
It's completely reasonable to group a 5 phase conflict that all connect to eachother into one broad term. The Hundred Years War has NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONS. Get that through your brain.
Holy shit, shut up. We got it.
Historians talk about the second hundred years war because it lasted 100 years, big deal, nobody cares. Go be autistic somewhere else.
But OPs question, "Franco-british rivalry during the 17th century could be considered as a new hundred years war"
The hundred Years war is NOT a franco-british rivalry. It's one thing to say, okay it lasted a hundred years. However, it's not accurate to say that they had the same root in "rivalry"
*3 phase
>france goes to war against the entirety of continental europe
>britain hides like a b***h on it's island as usual
>france inevitably loses a 10v1 during the Napoleonic Wars
>wow france BTFO!!
>Wow, 1v1 me
>Why won't you 1v1 me?
>What do you mean allies?
>Why do you need allies to fight me if you are stronger than me?
>So ... you need allies to fight me, I thought I was inferior to you.
It never was about proving who was stronger. It was about world domination. Something the UK achieved and France did not.
UK never achieved world domination.
YOU AGAIN
>UK never achieved world domination because...it just didn't ok?
World domination implies the UK had the means to go to war with any other power and win, like America since the fall of the Soviet Union. That is not the case though.
Ok, what power in 1860 could beat the UK in a war?
None because of the British navy, but Britain also lacked the means to defeat any of the great powers because of her relative lack of allies resulting from the Splendid Isolation policy, as her army was relatively small compared to Prussia or France and spread across the seven continents.
>but Britain also lacked the means to defeat any of the great powers
Their navy meant they could blockade any nation, take all their colonial belongings easily and win in the long run
They never needed to have anything on the continent. For the English, it was a waste of money to defend Hanover.
If they achieved World Domination, it means they achieved Europe Domination since Europe is part of the World too ...
Damn, you must be a really inbred angloid
>If they achieved World Domination, it means they achieved Europe Domination since Europe is part of the World too ...
No European country dared to go against the British at that time. Especially not the French who had understood they couldn't win against the UK. And look at the world now, forced to learn english.
They didn't dominate the World, since Europe was the relevant place to dominate first. Dominated everything except what is relevant.
>No European country dared to go against the British at that time.
The Russians? Remember when the French had to carry you because you were useless?
Also, you are aware of it, but I remind you the place of English today is due to the USA.
>Never carried any war in Europe
>The Russians?
The Russians never dared to fight against the UK. Even when they had completely beaten the Ottomans the British fleet sent near Constantinople was enough to force them to accept a truce.
And let's not pretend there are no historical ties between the British and Americans. You're mad because the British built Canada, Australia and the United States while the ex-french colonies are Algeria, Haiti and Mali.
>The Russians never dared to fight against the UK. Even when they had completely beaten the Ottomans the British fleet sent near Constantinople was enough to force them to accept a truce.
kek, you are writing history.
I'am not even surprised that this kind of thread could bait such an inbred anglo like you.
>kek, you are writing history.
It's simply what happened.
>Under pressure from the British, Russia accepted the truce offered by the Ottoman Empire on 31 January 1878, but continued to move towards Constantinople. The British sent a fleet of battleships to intimidate Russia from entering the city, and Russian forces stopped at San Stefano. Eventually Russia entered into a settlement under the Treaty of San Stefano on 3 March, by which the Ottoman Empire would recognize the independence of Romania, Serbia, and MonteBlack, and the autonomy of Bulgaria.
>Under pressure from the British, Russia accepted the truce offered by the Ottoman Empire on 31 January 1878
Irrelevant.
+ Canada and USA paternity belong to the French too. USA was built by French, English and Spanish, and immigration from Ireland and Germany.
>USA paternity belong to the French too
there's pretty much no significant french presence in the us outside of louisiana and the far north of maine on the border with quebec.
same shit for spanish. there are very few spaniards here, just a lot of hispanics who weren't here fifty years ago.
By 1865, the Union army could totally defeat any nation's army besides Prussia. Britain had the superior blue water navy, but the Union's strong brown water navy could hold its own so long as the battles stuck to the coast.
Afghanistan, Boers, Zulus...
Failed colonial campaigns that changed nothing for Britain. They didn't lose their capital 4 times like the French did.
>become american vassalstate
>y-yeah but atleast we had a empire
cope bong
Your map isn't even real, and where UK is dominating Europe, the most important continent until 1950?
>the only type of strength is sending men into meat grinders
a government should always play to its real strengths
work smarter, not harder. and if that means allies, good.
it's not about being """superior.""" it's about winning.
So what it is the pride to win if you doesn't prove your superior? What is the point to point out you won?
Absolutely wrong. Even if the French population was low, they kept a huge amount of territories in Canda in USA for a long time ; in fact, longer than the British. The Spanish the South-West for a long time too. The Hispanics are the second population of USA by importance ... You cannot say the UK has for sole paternity the UK ... Especially when France fought a war to free it.
>Crimean War
>Russia not afraid of taking UK + France
>Buttttt no one dared to fight us
Inbred angloïd
>So what it is the pride to win
winning these old wars wasn't about pride, it was about profit
beside that you are being a fricking moron to pretend france claiming territory and having a few hundred fur traders running about in areas currently owned by the US means shit
there were nearly no people there. there is very little french descent in the US. and there was sure as hell no descent in government from france, as the US's government is very clearly British in origin
beside that saying """spanish people""" are the second """population by importance""" is plain fricking moronic. those are spics. mestizos. they are not from spain. and the vast majority of them come from families that haven't been in the US for more than three generations at most.
I'm not the guy who started this thread. I don't care about it. but don't be a fricking bullshitter.
So why do you brag about winning moron, if it is not for showing superiority? What is even the point, if it is not for pride?
Of course it is, this is why you are sperging out on this thread about UK won each wars, and how UK was strong, and how everyone was everyone of UK. It is about pride and wanting to show superiority end of story. If you pretend the opposite, it is because you were unable to win wars without being carried, so you changed your narrative, perfidious inbred angloïd.
France had a significant impact on North America, enough for being relevant. No, UK isn't the only father of the USA or Canada. It is not about being population, it is about its general impact. The war of indepedance is already proving me right, and it is hard to say that France was irrelevant, when one of the three relevant regions of Canada speaks French.
That's not about masses, but about impact. Despite being small, the French population pushed above its weight, due to superior institution, over Germanics hordes.
Spain had an Empire covering the South of USA, have you ever opened a book? Mexico is a former colony of Spain, speaking Spanish. How can you think Spain has nothing to do with the USA? The Hipanics are the second race of the USA.
And if you want to talk about origins of population, the Germans deserve well the first place. So USA was made by Germany utter moron.
Nevertheless, you are pathetic for bragging about USA, just because you are utterly irrelevant today, and you want so stick with USA, just like the weird guy without any friends, wanting to stick with populars kids.
Needless to say William the Conqueror was speaking Norman, a French Dialect, and England was under French influence until the end of the HYW. Deal with it, you're a bastard child of France and that's why you are so insecure and francophobic.
Not him, and I'd rather side with France than England (even though I dislike both), but why are you sperging out so hard?
Bongs have already been defeated at the very beginning of this thread (
and
)
You don't need to argue with them like an autist and get angry for nothing
>white people ape out
>all of europe goes to war
many such cases