Happy Belgian Independence Day!

[Elok]

Well, the French have so much more experience with sad stuff that they can draw on to write tragedies, seeing as no French army under a French commander has won a legitimate victory in war for over a thousand years...

(when in doubt, mock the frogs, that's my motto)

[Saras]

Originally posted by Colon™


Tsk tsk you were a backwater compared to the low lands or northern Italy.

Northern Italy

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Elok
seeing as no French army under a French commander has won a legitimate victory in war for over a thousand years...

Well, even if you forget about the obvious WW1 and colonial conquests (very clear victories despite the French being always outnumbered, and occasionally outgunned, as the Germans sold their guns to the local armies), it's hard to forget about this:

Pic 1: The royal demesne at the beginning of France in 987 AD (blue area):

(this is the only place that could really be called "French", as it was under actual rule of the French capital)

The territory ruled from Paris 1000 years later:

A

Apparently, losing all battles for a millenium is a good strategy to ensure continual survival and expansion

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Northern Italy, yes.

Belgium, no way. France pre-HYW had a vibrant medieval culture, and a pretty solid economy for the standards of the time, which could allow such art to develop.

Much was lost because of the Burgundian betrayal and the Rosbif century-long crime against mankind.

France had a pretty solid economy, the Low Lands had a very solid economy. Please go check in which areas Europe's major centers of trade were concentrated. (hint: not France) And go check which areas where the major producers of textiles. (hint: not France)
And Belgium kicked your ass during the Industrial revolution too.

[Colon™]

Frogs hijacking this thread.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Colon™
Frogs hijacking this thread.

Your previous Dutch threadjack only did justice to half of Belgium. It was time to even things out.

[dannubis]

still mad about 1302 ?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by dannubis
1302 ?

What is this?

[Elok]

Ooh, colonial conquests, you beat the snot out of some gunpowderless aboriginals. Congratulations. And as for winning WWI...huh?

If you want, I'll amend it to 800 years. I always thought Charlemagne was the last victorious French commander-in-chief, but then my pre-1000 AD history knowledge of the region is beyond sketchy. Note that I'm talking about wars, not battles. A brief look at the highlights:

Crusades-got beat down terribly like all the other Euros, after a few initial seizures of land.
Hundred Years' War-string of embarassing defeats due to charging longbowmen head on, followed by "victory" due to hiding in castles and waiting for the English to get bored and g'way.
Religious Wars-fighting other Frenchmen, and you can't BOTH lose. Though you tried to, very hard.
French and Indian War-got whooped despite having allies who knew the terrain.
Napoleonic Wars-depends on whether you count a Corsican as French, but he got beat down anyway. Twice. In less than a year.
WWI-long stalemate, eventually broken by US arrival.
WWII-beat down in the first couple of months, followed by years of valiant resistance which Hitler more or less ignored.
Vietnam-we got kicked out too, but you lost it first. You certainly can't call it a victory.

I don't know about the Franco-Prussian War, though I'm told you didn't win that either.

[Colon™]

Take that Franco-related crap elsewhere.

[Elok]

Oh, I'm sorry. Let's all join together and sing the Belgian National Anthem, "We're a lot like Holland, but with fewer hot chicks."

[BlackCat]

71 postings and noone has yet managed to mention the one and only thing that is worth anything from that country :

beer

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



So- you hate the Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes, do you ?

Kennedy - one president, in office for 3 years, makes a dynasty?

Bushes - when Dubya finishes his term, the combined period in office of the Bush family will be 12 years. Compare that to the time in office of Tony Blair, or Margaret Thatcher.

Since 1979 - We have had US presidents named Carter, Bush, Reagan, Clinton. UK has had PMs named Thatcher, Major and Blair. Id say we're more "republican" than the UK, even if you ignore the House of Windsor (and I cant see why you wouldnt want to - ignore the House of Windsor, that is)


I suppose you could claim we're a monarchy based on the Roosevelts - combined terms in office, about 20 years (I forget when McKinley was shot). But that "dynasty" has been dead a long time - no White stints for FDR, Jr, or Kermit, or Theodore, Jr. Heck, not one of FDRs sons even made it to the Senate or a governorship.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Elok
Ooh, colonial conquests, you beat the snot out of some gunpowderless aboriginals.

Except that they often had had superior, German-made weapons. The Italians had more trouble conquering gunpowedered equipped Africans, but that's obvious. But such defeats can also happen to non-loserish countries, such as Britain. And Isandhlwana was a defeat against spear-equipped Zulus!
There is no equivalent of Isandhlwana in the French conquest of Africa and Asia. That's because we had competent generals at the time.

And as for winning WWI...huh?

You might have noticed that the war became Trench warfare after the French repelled the original German assault, and that France could resist the German onslaught. It definitely ain't the Italians who won the war, nor the Russians. The Brits were very useful with their blockade against Germany, but the land warfare was clearly made (and won) by the French.

If you want, I'll amend it to 800 years. I always thought Charlemagne was the last victorious French commander-in-chief, but then my pre-1000 AD history knowledge of the region is beyond sketchy. Note that I'm talking about wars, not battles.

Well, that would be all good and dandy if the first map I showed you hadn't been in 987, ie a full 187 years after Charlemagne's coronation, and only 13 years pre-1000.

Hint: all that territory hasn't been won by Hugues Capet.

Hundred Years' War-string of embarassing defeats due to charging longbowmen head on, followed by "victory" due to hiding in castles and waiting for the English to get bored and g'way.

Your ignorance of the HYW is on par with that of the European Union. The HYW was in two parts: for one part, medieval warfare, where the Rosbifs had largely superior tactics. For the second part (once we sorted out the simultaneous civil war, and had competent leadership), with renaissance warfare, in which the Rosbifs got pwned. France got to acquire much territory during that war: most of Burgundy, and everything the Rosbifs had held for centuries (such as Aquitaine). I don't know yet of any country that could be bored of those rich territories. The Rosbifs certainly weren't considering that we fought quite a few armies.

Vietnam-we got kicked out too, but you lost it first. You certainly can't call it a victory.

Duh. Colonial conquest wars were clear victories. Decolonization wars were clear defeats, for all power involved (though both our victories and our defeats were more clear than those of our fellow imperialists).

I don't know about the Franco-Prussian War

Why don't you talk about it? You've proven that you don't know anything about the other wars as well.

[Jon Miller]

Belgium beer in the only beer I like

JM