French History

HON HON HON! Welcome to the French History thread! Go ahead and dump your historical knowledge to either educate newbies or debate others.

Remember those times when Germany pounded France?

In 1871, Prussia ROFLstomped the french and unified the German nation
In 1914, Germany nearly brought France to it's knees during WW1.
In 1940, The Nazis Blitzkrieged France during WW2.

Orion Gamer wrote:Remember those times when Germany pounded France?

in 1806?

Wasn't Germany back then

I love to see people not trying to defend the froggy six-weekers in this thread. Everytime France tried to spread into a region they weren't welcome in, they got pushed out. These are just to name a few.

Italy, 1559

Netherlands, 1678

America, 1763

Egypt, 1801

Spain, 1814

Russia, 1812

UK, 1805

Germany, 1559, 1648, 1697, 1748, 1763, 1814, 1871, 1914, 1939,

Well, WWI was a bit of an underhanded attack, and the French did manage to stall the Germans out (yes, with British aid). Napoleon also royally whipped Prussia and Austria like they were a set of German punching bags for his armies. Their biggest downfall was that they are sandwiched between two rival powers (similarly to, but not the same as, Germany). It hasn't made life easy on them.

They did however manage to act as the vanguard for Catholicism in Europe and were always a major economic or military power, defeats notwithstanding.

Frankia fo life

IMO, pre-revolution French history is so underrepresented and underappreciated, so here's a story about France's youngest ruler: King John the Posthumous.

King Louis X of France died on June 5, 1316, presumably of pneumonia, and left no male heir. He had a daughter, Joan, but her parentage was disputed, and so, instead of the throne passing to her, or to Louis' brother Philip, the crown of France passed to... nobody.

Louis' wife, Clementia of Hungary, was pregnant, and it was decided that this unborn child would be the next monarch of France. For the next 5 months, Philip served as regent, and on November 15, Clementia gave birth to a son, John, who, from the moment of his birth, became John I, King of France. The epithet "The Posthumous" came about because he was born after his father's death, though you could easily think it was for another reason...

You see, five days into his reign, at the age of five days old, he died. The infant mortality rate of 14th century Europe was high, so his death wasn't too unusual, but speculation that the infant king was murdered spread from day one, possibly on Philip's orders, as who should succeed the throne of France? Not John's 4 year old half-sister Joan... but his undle, Philip, who became King Philip V "The Tall".

In the late 1350s, nearly 40 years after his death, with John II now king of France (although he had been captured by the English), a man named Giannino Baglioni came forward and claimed that he was king John I, who had been hidden among the peasantry so that Philip could usurp the throne. It's theorized that Cola di Rienzo, an Italian politician from Rome who was assassinated two years before Baglioni attempted to claim the throne, set Baglioni up to take the French throne to consolidate his own power, but this has never been confirmed. Baglioni attempted to gain recognition as king from the Papacy and the Hungarians, but both rejected his claim, and was later arrested and imprisoned in Naples, where he died in 1363, 47 years after the death of the real John.

Ok.

Mr Trolldemort wrote:Wasn't Germany back then

Actually Germany was united after the capture of Paris, before the peace treaty that ended the Franco-Prussian War. In WW1, there was a coalition of nations fighting Germany, including a 3-front war (4 if you include the Balkans) with incompetent allies. Germany would have won if it fought only France. In WW2, there was an idiot in charge and Germany still roflstomped France, even with British and Benelux aid. There was a Germany in every war.

Crazy Boris wrote:It's theorized that Cola di Rienzo, an Italian politician from Rome who was assassinated two years before Baglioni attempted to claim the throne, set Baglioni up to take the French throne to consolidate his own power, but this has never been confirmed.

I completely agree with you that pre-revolution French history is one big blank spot to most people, including myself. This story is intriguing, but I wonder why there is suspicion that Cola di Rienzo tried to set up Baglioni? Where is this supposition coming from?

Orion Gamer wrote:

Mr Trolldemort wrote:Wasn't Germany back then

Actually Germany was united after the capture of Paris, before the peace treaty that ended the Franco-Prussian War. In WW1, there was a coalition of nations fighting Germany, including a 3-front war (4 if you include the Balkans) with incompetent allies. Germany would have won if it fought only France. In WW2, there was an idiot in charge and Germany still roflstomped France, even with British and Benelux aid. There was a Germany in every war.

I was referring to the comment that mentioned that Germany lost to France in 1806, which technically wasn't true because back then it wasn't an actual country but rather a series of nations inside what we now consider to be Germany.

So here is a question for you to ponder: was the French Revolution inevitable, and if your response is yes, why? If not, what would you say had to change to prevent it?

To be honest, I'm sick of the memes based around them always surrendering and all. For most of their military history French soldiers had been purely about bravery and honour, best example wold be the first weeks of WWI. Where that bravery and honour would be one of the factors that got them slaughtered, even to taking 67 000 casualties in a single day. Whether or not they're always good at waging war, you can't call them cowards when talking about the French as a whole, not from one period.

Fun fact: the stereotype that France is really good at losing wars is false. EmperorTigerstar published a video debunking this myth. Apparently, the French Republic is actually one of the most militarily successful states in modern Europe.

France's reputation as a military loser is pretty understandable, though. Our most well-known war here in the US is WWII, and France didn't exactly make itself proud there. Sure, I agree, the French didn't surrender because they were cowards, or they were stupid. They were just using the old playbook when Hitler's generals had long since written a new one. But that doesn't change the fact that they lasted less than two months before signing an armistice. That doesn't change the fact that France's greatest WWI hero allowed half his country to be militarily occupied and then spent the next year or so shipping Jews into Hitler's camps, all while enjoying unforgivably high public support. Then, of course, they had to be liberated by good ol' 'Murica.

France has a proud military history, but the most memorable aspect is an enormous humiliation.

DuceMoosolini wrote:France's reputation as a military loser is pretty understandable, though. Our most well-known war here in the US is WWII, and France didn't exactly make itself proud there. Sure, I agree, the French didn't surrender because they were cowards, or they were stupid. They were just using the old playbook when Hitler's generals had long since written a new one. But that doesn't change the fact that they lasted less than two months before signing an armistice. That doesn't change the fact that France's greatest WWI hero allowed half his country to be militarily occupied and then spent the next year or so shipping Jews into Hitler's camps, all while enjoying unforgivably high public support. Then, of course, they had to be liberated by good ol' 'Murica.

France has a proud military history, but the most memorable aspect is an enormous humiliation.

Whether the French Republic really surrendered in 1940 is actually a controversial topic. It really depends whom you ask. The surrender coincided with the schism of the French government into two camps: one, led by Philippe Pétain, which advocated accepting the inevitable and giving the Nazis what they wanted; and one, led by Charles de Gaulle, which refused to surrender and urged the French people to resist the imminent occupation.

As De Gaulle and the bulk of the French army evacuated from Dunkirk and took refuge in England, Pétain seized power in France, signed an armistice with Germany and erected a collaborationist regime which was in actuality little more than an Axis puppet state.

Because De Gaulle and the Free France movement refused to recognize the Vichy Government as the legitimate government of France, they viewed the surrender as a meaningless resolution passed by a group of phonies pretending to represent the French people. The war in France continued, first as an irregular guerrilla campaign against German and French collaborationist authorities, then finally as a full scale invasion led by exiled French veterans fighting to liberate their own homeland.

So, again, the import of the surrender depends on whom you ask. No one will get mad at you for arguing either way, but there's no question that at least some of the French fought honorably for their country.

France's history in my opinion is dominated by great victories, and laughable defeats. People just seem to focus on the former to much and define France by it. One of the reasons they are defined as cowards may be due to the period in which the U.S. had disdain for France after they opposed the war in Iraq.

FrenchBonapartist wrote:France's history in my opinion is dominated by great victories, and laughable defeats. People just seem to focus on the former to much and define France by it. One of the reasons they are defined as cowards may be due to the period in which the U.S. had disdain for France after they opposed the war in Iraq.

I think the stereotype came after World War 2 after the extremely unexpected defeat of France that pretty much single handedly made them lose their great power status, even after they were liberated.

Feel free to educate me on French art of war and great commanders in 16/17th century. I  can share my own knowledge if somebody is interested in something from my field of expertise.

Edit:
Somehow my signature isn't displaying. Should be: My field of expertise in history: 1. Mostly 16/17th century Poland, but also to a certain extent 2. The first French Revolution. 3. 16/17th century Europe. 4. Whole World until 1815. 5. The rest of Polish history.

I should clarify my earlier statement. Pétain's peace deal with Germany was an armistice, not a surrender. The French State retained absolute sovereignty over the southern half of France and all of her overseas colonies, and her neutrality was assured by the Germans. Pétain technically exercised jurisdiction over the northern half of France as well, even though it was under a military occupation by the Wehrmacht. Southern France remained unoccupied until 1942.

Although Germany beat on France in the late 19th century and the 20th century, France got Alsace And Lorraine, I'd say France won in that regard. not to mention France is a nuclear nation, And the Germans had been beat down so badly in 1806 Prussia went into a decline, barley saved by Bismark, who is actually overrated.