france hadn't given a damn about the americas since the american revolution (and barely a damn at that), since they had more pressing problems to address...</strong><hr></blockquote>
First, as CoD said..it was a joke man, lighten up.
Secondly, everything you are spewing is rehashed high school history...but, since you bring it up...it makes sense that they hadn't given a damn since the american revolution, since they had lost most of their influence over here long before that.
First, as CoD said..it was a joke man, lighten up.
Secondly, everything you are spewing is rehashed high school history...but, since you bring it up...it makes sense that they hadn't given a damn since the american revolution, since they had lost most of their influence over here long before that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're thinking in terms of land and holdings. Think politics.
At any rate, France would be a little preoccupied between 1798 and 1815.
From 1450 to 1600, What is now Italy was the "place to be" in Europe. All the Science, art and wealth were from this area. Spain was the royal powerhouse, though. Spain sent out most of the great explorers, had lots of army, etc. France wasn't bad, but it was neither Italy nor Spain. In the 1600's the Dutch and Germans made great leaps, France did not. Arund 1650 England started becoming the dominant nation in Europe via industrialization, trade, and a badass navy. By the 1780's France was not a nice place. Dickens put's it well: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. . ." (The "best" refers to London, by the way.) In the years after the revolution, France was an even worse place to be. Then there was Napoleon. . . Still not great. OK. . . so France is a little slow. They always manage to be the last country in Europe to "figure it out." There was a window from 1825 or so until 1914 where France was an OK place to live, but it remained weaker than England in every respect other than art, and also weaker than Germany.
There are accounts (in Latin) from a long that ago that essentially translate to: "The gauls are quick to abandon fighting, and are resistant to revolting. They make excellent subjects to Rome." Even back then the gauls were known for their tendency to drop a sword if presented with a picnic. . . I forget the rough translation of that one.
In my opinion, the French just have a slothful culture, which explains a lot. It's a miracle that they never were annihilated or bred-out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
heh, my appologizes. in my haste to get some food, i was vague. specifically, from around the mid 1700s to 1870, was what i meant...
they had the dominant military force of the european continent, troubled only by the occasional british skirmish.
yes, you are right about them figuring it out politically--thats why they had half a dozen revolutions and about 10 different governmental systems between 1789 and WWII. but military wise, they could hang with the best...until the germans decided to unite and show the french in 1870 some competition. this is the beginning of the end for the french in military conflicts. before this point, though, they were either competitors for european supremacy, or on top.
my point was...dominance comes and goes. a world power can go from the top to the bottom in moments. and so can their reputation, as the french can attest to. i'm enjoying this conversation, whether it has been started out of seriousness or not...
Thanks Alliance. As you said history is made upon victory and defeats. If France has lost so many times, she would have disappear since a long time. Anyway the time of Conquering lands is over, the goal of army is to promote stability among rogues nations or organisations in the word now.
PS : to Argento and others
If some people here, are interested to write historical BS, let them do as long i will not be fed up with this crap and close this thread
I have several French friends and have spent, I guess in all, about an entire year of my life now, so, being honest I have to say I don't know of any French who smell worse than other people from around the world. But hey, if national stereotyping is your type of fun, go ahead. Makes me think of babies trying to push the cilinder in the square hole.
One remark: the italians, more correct, the Romans (they were hardly confined by the borders of present day Italy) never 'conquered' France as much as populated it. Romans went to live there among locals, infusing all of them with roman language and culture. I guess you all know that French is a mother language of Latin? Meaning: without the Roman empire, France wouldn't be what it is today. What does this mean: Italians didn't conquer France around 0, because neither nation existed.
<strong>A small difference is that the United States never got its power from having powerful economic colonies all over the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ok, so you were joking about the real reasoning behind france giving up louisiana. good...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude, I never mentioned why they gave up louisiana...don't care why the gave it up. They had already lost their influence here and were just finishing their retreat. Battle of the Plains of Abraham pretty much finished them.
<strong>I can't believe you guys are trying to refute what was obviously meant as a farce. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't the whole situation a farce? The French president simply suggests there may be other ways to resolve the conflict without resorting to war, and all of a sudden the American people are throwing their toys out of their prams, reciting events from half a century ago, if not longer.
If some people here, are interested to write historical BS, let them do as long i will not be fed up with this crap and close this thread </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's fine, as I said I like to listen to it I just don't want people to think that their war history was as simple as the list I posted to start this topic.
<strong>You're taking French history? I hope you're taking it better than the French.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No one has graced this with a well deserved <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I let out a belly laugh when I read that! How true it is despite whatever else may be accurate or inaccurate in this thread.
I wish the rest of you could put aside minor details like historical accuracy or revisionistic political diatribes and embrace the proper spirit of laughing at the French. It's good fun, geeze.
No one has graced this with a well deserved <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I let out a belly laugh when I read that! How true it is despite whatever else may be accurate or inaccurate in this thread.
I wish the rest of you could put aside minor details like historical accuracy or revisionistic political diatribes and embrace the proper spirit of laughing at the French. It's good fun, geeze.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funniest sh!t I've read in a long time. What sort of irked me about some of the posts was that someone actually called it propaganda...why would anyone need propaganda to fun of the French..it's funny with it just being a joke. And it's a pretty old list..updated at the end for 9/11, but still an old joke. How it is propaganda is beyond me.
"more french military history: 1066 conquered england (still there);</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, to be even more nitpicky and correct, it was not the French who conquered England, but a bunch of Vikings who had been living in Northern France. They were given the land by the French crown so that they would stop rowing down the Seine and burning Paris.
Comments
<strong>
france hadn't given a damn about the americas since the american revolution (and barely a damn at that), since they had more pressing problems to address...</strong><hr></blockquote>
First, as CoD said..it was a joke man, lighten up.
Secondly, everything you are spewing is rehashed high school history...but, since you bring it up...it makes sense that they hadn't given a damn since the american revolution, since they had lost most of their influence over here long before that.
<strong>
First, as CoD said..it was a joke man, lighten up.
Secondly, everything you are spewing is rehashed high school history...but, since you bring it up...it makes sense that they hadn't given a damn since the american revolution, since they had lost most of their influence over here long before that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're thinking in terms of land and holdings. Think politics.
At any rate, France would be a little preoccupied between 1798 and 1815.
Cheers
Scott
<strong>
?????????
From 1450 to 1600, What is now Italy was the "place to be" in Europe. All the Science, art and wealth were from this area. Spain was the royal powerhouse, though. Spain sent out most of the great explorers, had lots of army, etc. France wasn't bad, but it was neither Italy nor Spain. In the 1600's the Dutch and Germans made great leaps, France did not. Arund 1650 England started becoming the dominant nation in Europe via industrialization, trade, and a badass navy. By the 1780's France was not a nice place. Dickens put's it well: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. . ." (The "best" refers to London, by the way.) In the years after the revolution, France was an even worse place to be. Then there was Napoleon. . . Still not great. OK. . . so France is a little slow. They always manage to be the last country in Europe to "figure it out." There was a window from 1825 or so until 1914 where France was an OK place to live, but it remained weaker than England in every respect other than art, and also weaker than Germany.
There are accounts (in Latin) from a long that ago that essentially translate to: "The gauls are quick to abandon fighting, and are resistant to revolting. They make excellent subjects to Rome." Even back then the gauls were known for their tendency to drop a sword if presented with a picnic. . . I forget the rough translation of that one.
In my opinion, the French just have a slothful culture, which explains a lot. It's a miracle that they never were annihilated or bred-out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
heh, my appologizes. in my haste to get some food, i was vague. specifically, from around the mid 1700s to 1870, was what i meant...
they had the dominant military force of the european continent, troubled only by the occasional british skirmish.
yes, you are right about them figuring it out politically--thats why they had half a dozen revolutions and about 10 different governmental systems between 1789 and WWII. but military wise, they could hang with the best...until the germans decided to unite and show the french in 1870 some competition. this is the beginning of the end for the french in military conflicts. before this point, though, they were either competitors for european supremacy, or on top.
my point was...dominance comes and goes. a world power can go from the top to the bottom in moments. and so can their reputation, as the french can attest to. i'm enjoying this conversation, whether it has been started out of seriousness or not...
<strong>
At any rate, France would be a little preoccupied between 1798 and 1815.
Cheers
Scott</strong><hr></blockquote>
they were preoccupied between 1789 and the day the nazis gave up.
<strong>
First, as CoD said..it was a joke man, lighten up.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
ok, so you were joking about the real reasoning behind france giving up louisiana. good...
PS : to Argento and others
If some people here, are interested to write historical BS, let them do as long i will not be fed up with this crap and close this thread
One remark: the italians, more correct, the Romans (they were hardly confined by the borders of present day Italy) never 'conquered' France as much as populated it. Romans went to live there among locals, infusing all of them with roman language and culture. I guess you all know that French is a mother language of Latin? Meaning: without the Roman empire, France wouldn't be what it is today. What does this mean: Italians didn't conquer France around 0, because neither nation existed.
<strong>A small difference is that the United States never got its power from having powerful economic colonies all over the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
hahaha, it was a joke, right?
<strong>
ok, so you were joking about the real reasoning behind france giving up louisiana. good...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude, I never mentioned why they gave up louisiana...don't care why the gave it up. They had already lost their influence here and were just finishing their retreat. Battle of the Plains of Abraham pretty much finished them.
<strong>I can't believe you guys are trying to refute what was obviously meant as a farce. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't the whole situation a farce? The French president simply suggests there may be other ways to resolve the conflict without resorting to war, and all of a sudden the American people are throwing their toys out of their prams, reciting events from half a century ago, if not longer.
<strong>
PS : to Argento and others
If some people here, are interested to write historical BS, let them do as long i will not be fed up with this crap and close this thread
That's fine, as I said I like to listen to it I just don't want people to think that their war history was as simple as the list I posted to start this topic.
<strong>You're taking French history? I hope you're taking it better than the French.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No one has graced this with a well deserved <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I let out a belly laugh when I read that! How true it is despite whatever else may be accurate or inaccurate in this thread.
I wish the rest of you could put aside minor details like historical accuracy or revisionistic political diatribes and embrace the proper spirit of laughing at the French. It's good fun, geeze.
<strong>
No one has graced this with a well deserved <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I let out a belly laugh when I read that! How true it is despite whatever else may be accurate or inaccurate in this thread.
I wish the rest of you could put aside minor details like historical accuracy or revisionistic political diatribes and embrace the proper spirit of laughing at the French. It's good fun, geeze.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funniest sh!t I've read in a long time. What sort of irked me about some of the posts was that someone actually called it propaganda...why would anyone need propaganda to fun of the French..it's funny with it just being a joke. And it's a pretty old list..updated at the end for 9/11, but still an old joke. How it is propaganda is beyond me.
<strong>Not from my brain:
"more french military history: 1066 conquered england (still there);</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, to be even more nitpicky and correct, it was not the French who conquered England, but a bunch of Vikings who had been living in Northern France. They were given the land by the French crown so that they would stop rowing down the Seine and burning Paris.
Norman = 'Norse Man'
<strong>
yes... <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
chapeaux. "
Ne sommes-nous pas des hommes ?
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Alex London ]</p>