Talk:Military history of France

1419:, and there were certainly some organizational innovations with the development of the division and the corps, but the idea that the fighting of the French Revolutionary Wars was distinctly different from the fighting of the Austrian Succession or the Seven Years War, or even, really, the War of the Spanish Succession, seems flawed to me. Naval warfare was practically identical, there had been no innovations in transportation or supply, and, to be honest, Louis XIV's armies were pretty huge in the War of the Spanish Succession. Changes in the 16th and 17th centuries, and during the 19th century (after 1815) seem much more significant to me. Marlborough or Turenne could have read an account of Napoleon's campaigns and understood what he was doing. Marlborough and Turenne would have been incomprehensible to Charles the Victorious, or even Francis I; and World War I would have been incomprehensible to Napoleon (hell, it was nearly incomprehensible to Joffre...). I don't buy the unique importance of the Napoleonic era, and I certainly don't buy it being so important as to require two whole sections, and twice as much space as the whole early modern period. I'm not denying that the Revolutionary/Napoleonic period saw a lot of innovations, and the current article does a very good job of discussing the changes that did occur in warfare over this period, but this comes at the expense of the discussion of the 913:. Anyone with a passing familiarity of military events in the Nine Years War should have heard about the Battle of Lagos (1693), which was one of the most famous naval victories in the history of French warfare. Tourville intercepted an Anglo-Dutch convoy, routed Rooke's guarding squadron, and destroyed about 100 out of 400 Allied ships. La Hogue was a strategic disaster from the French perspective, but in the immediate fighting they acquitted themselves fairly nicely. Anyway, right away we can establish that the following statement is biased, "It scored one more early victory....." That's just simply not true, so stop putting it in. On top of these battles, there were also several minor actions in which the French came out ahead. Unless you define what you mean by victory here in the talk page, do not waste my time just 48 hours before the World Cup starts. All I need is to deal with crap like this from people who probably haven't a read a single thing about the Nine Years War. I realize I'm being harsh, but by this point you more than deserve it. And if you also must know, the French navy had great success at the 1233:

diplomats were extremely relieved that Sainte-Domingue would remain French because, in reality, it was the most profitable colony of France. More profitable even than all French territory in North America! There is no question that gaining Sainte-Domingue outweighed all of those losses in the long run. Let me give you a cultural idea about how important Sainte-Domingue was....in 1700, sugar in Europe was considered a luxury. By 1800, mostly through the efforts of slaves in Sainte-Domingue, it had become a common commodity. Ultimately, you have no argument here at all. France gave up her conquests in the War of the Reunions (1683-1684), but she was compensated, so it's disengenuous to say the war ended in favor of England and the United Provinces. The War of the Spanish Succession was the only struggle led by Louis XIV in which France could be said to have come behind another power, namely Britain. Otherwise, all those wars were either French victories or draws. The Nine Years War is best classified as the latter.

1705:

that, jokes....they're not really quasi-serious perceptions like here in America). I, for example, grew up in Albania and never heard any jokes about the French military. Knowledge articles are supposed to be written from a global perspective. I hope you can see where the troubles lie in that regard. Another important point was just made by John. The French military has also been stereotyped for incredible bravery and foolishness in war (the French 'elan' and 'cran' preceding World War I stand out). How do you reconcile these two opposing stereotypes? And this is not just a problem with the French. Other peoples and nations have also been ridiculed in this regard. Hell, the French have ridiculed others in the same way that Americans have made fun of them recently. It's just a really tricky matter, and overall it is completely irrelevant to the actual history, so why bother with it at all?

2996:

without explanation. I have no idea what Ferguson has written, cause I dont have the source (cant read it at amazon), but as a matter of fact its obvious that there are serious problem when you put up statistics like that over centuries. For example when he started to count most nation states didnt even exist back at at 1495. Are they really the most "successful" when they just existed for a longer time to get more "victories"? Therefore putting things like "most successful military" directly in the lead as matter of fact, when this needs a lot of explanation of methodology and obvious problems when counting wars for nation states, seems wrong to me. If we add something like that, it should be in its own section with a lot of explanation coming from the sources.

2594:

as a battle or a war can produce multiple results. Lots of battles can be split up in smaller battles and so on. Very often the results of wars and especially battles are also disputed. In the end this statement seems to have been inserted as part of some kind of "My military is better than yours" sentiment. For this reasoning I have removed it again. Just because this has been dropped in some popular science show or some click-baity newspaper article does not mean we should include it in an encyclopaedic article. For claims of this magnitude ("best military in modern europe") we would need several high quality sources from peer reviewed journals or related scholary literature.

1715:

Castelnau, Leclerc, Juin, monsabert, Bethouart, De Lattre de Tassigny... we often talk about 1940 (and there we can really see very bad generals) but why always talk about france ? All continental europe was defeated by germany. The soviet union indeed won at last but look at the cost: 20 millions dead ! The Western allies were composed of american, british, french, canadian and polish forces (and also australians or other) and all those army togethernever fought against more than 30 % of the german army, and despite this the victory was all but easy... And in 1940, it was not 30 % of the german army that invaded france, but 80 %.

1679:

up here, I think. When I hear "military history of France," I automatically think of humiliation, defeat, and surrender. It's a common stereotype nowadays. I think the article should have something about this and say, "This conception is not supported by the facts and may be considered an offspring of recent events.." or something less POV. Maybe one sentence could be written into the opening paragraph and a link to another article could be provided. But I think it's worth getting out of the way before diving into the history.

21: 1741:

yanks. or maybe was it because the french speaking normands defeated the roastbeefs and introduced the french language in their country of savages. or maybe this is just because the french are catholics and the roastbeefs are protestants. the most funny is the yanks are regarded in france as "over-confident" and "over-aggressive" in vietnam, cuba and now irak... but surprisingly "under-confident" and "under-aggressive" with USSR, china and north korea... really funny indeed.

1753:

kind of contradictory, but as far as I know Americans think of France mostly in light of World War II while the British have a longer experience with it. So the difference might be a national one; seeing as how the British basically conceded defeat in the Battle of France I can see them not wanting to play up that whole affair. Americans also have a perception of French as being snooty, fussy intellectuals and I can see how the cowardice thing would fit well with that.

1561:"poor commanders" are neutral and encyclopedic? weren't the US humiliated in Vietnam and Cuba (and soon in Irak with the UK too, what said this British General the other day?) so why using it? You seems to forget that the old good British - who were responsible for the Belgians according to traity - were defeated with the French (and the fighting Belgians who moved to the west after King Leopold's betrayal) at the Battle of France. Featured article? what a joke! The 921:

territories gained since 1679 (particular reference to the War of the Reunions), but mostly no one came out ahead in this war. Some lost a little, but they also gained a little, both territorially and politically. France, for example, was compensated with some colonial territories. Militarily, however, the French dominated on the continent. Here's a passing look at the major land engagements in the Nine Years War on the European continent involving the French:

2128:

raped gallic women. Their offsprings were the Normans. I'm French and have been interested in the history of my country for a long time and all the historians I've read clearly agree on the fact that the Vikings who conquered Northern France quickly lost their vikingness and merged with the local population faster than anywhere else in Northern Europe. Their tombstones and the toponimy are the proof. I'm not being an Englo-phobic. I'm just stating facts.

1392:

up to that time, and the reasons for why that occurred most definitely deserve a lot of coverage. Military literature reflects this; there is an exorbitant focus, perhaps too much, on the French Revolutionary Wars and especially the Napoleonic Wars. Whether you or I agree with that coverage is irrelevant, but nonetheless it is there. In French military history, 1792-1815 is matched only by 1914-1918, and to a lesser extent 1667-1714, in awe and respect.

567: 515: 2106:

invade Normandy but was defeated and kicked out. It wasn't called the NORMAN conquest for nothing, why do you think the Bretons, Flemish were separate on the battle of hastings belligerent list because they were not part of "France" until the 1300s, and don't give me the the Normans spoke French so they were French because they didn't, they spoke Norman, Like the Bretons spoke a form of Celtic along with the flemmish

3201:

has come from him and his opinion/research. If the Second half is removed for this reason, so must the participation part on this logic which is also from the same historian. On mainstream sources, I would be intrested to see if any other histography has been produced in discussion of 'most successful' and therefore can oppose this claim. Therefore, I am changing it back with a slight edit. TDF444 9 December 2020.

3417: 44: 531: 400: 225: 204: 1767:

had its ups and downs, and the WW2 capitulation has become an on-going black mark on French histoy, but on the other hand much of the research i've done about the hundred years war reveals that although French troops were often motivated, well-trained and disciplined soldiers/sailors they were often let down by poor or weak military leaders (except perhaps a bright few and Napoleon).

1501:, and this is actually mentioned in the article. I'll agree that generally the centuries preceding Napoleon were collectively far more important than the Revolutionary and the Napoleonic wars, but once again the literature in French military history often focuses on those 23 tumultuous years....mostly the Anglophone literature. Francophone literature is obviously more balanced. 965:

saved the United Provinces, because otherwise Europe was simply treated to the ferocious military machine that Louis XIV and his astute ministers had constructed. Europeans were so impressed by the French system at this time that they just started to copy France. France introduced national uniforms, other nations followed. France did this or that, and other nations followed.

235: 1576:

arguing the same thing you are now, but there have also been others who have said this article is too pro-French. My personal impression is that it does a good job at capturing the vast and exciting drama that is French military history. The use of the word "humiliated" was explained in the second archive - the French felt humiliated, so I thought the word was appropriate.

173: 472: 461: 450: 439: 1386:

mention the Franco-Polish alliance preceding World War II. There have been a myriad of other exhortations, some implemented, others not. At this point, the article is extremely long, so I would be very hesitant to add material. Turenne was a legend yes, and if you would like to add info about him, then maybe you could put a picture up with a verbose caption?

1478:

created the standing army and the first defence ministry, which started the governments absolute control over the armed forces, something that would shape the world for over 300 years and is only beginning to falter today with al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The argument is similar to one which invention is more important for a car: the wheel or the engine.

340: 309: 786:

it is appropriate? In the descriptions for the French colonial empire, for example, there is no mention about the blatant inferiority of many French opponents, particularly in technology. This article is meant as an overview; it is not supposed to detail every little fact, but that is especially true when the motivations are a bit tainted.

428: 2221:

Frankish Empire, and many other former states besides. Finally, please note that William I, as Duke of Normandy, was in fact technically subject (de jure) to the king of France, even if this had been de facto ignored for some time, and so by our modern ideas of statehood Normandy was still technically part of France.

979:

never even been to France. The nation that I love first and foremost is Albania, my birthland, and any other insinuation is merely an insult, and one which does hurt. Do not let our disagreements, which are about history, cloud your judgments. You don't have to politicize anything here; it won't get you anywhere.

2437:

reasons of his own, Niall Ferguson chose that date as an historian, and that's part of the source. That's the only reason it gets back to 387BCE, until you find a better source. And honestly, militarily speaking, not a lot happened between the Roman conquest and the Franks invasion. It's a petty non-issue.

2230:

the map is implying. I'm all for keeping this as relevant information, perhaps by using a different color. Syria and Lebanon, technically League of Nations mandates, were indeed part of the (second) French Empire, but these could perhaps also be filled in a different color, and there are other examples.

2608:

Hi everyone. This statement about French military history stretching back to 380BC caught my eye. That seems way too far back. I looked over the arguments above about keeping this statement in the article, but they point to the telegraph piece when they should be trying to trace the quotation back to

2408:

This is an article about the "Military history of France". As such, I don't see any reason to remove what is a basic statement about France' military history, especially in the lead where it belongs as summarized knowledge, moreover when it's backed up with a proper source. I don't see anything wrong

2362:

This info does not appear to have proper vetting. Personally I think Ferguson would be fully qualified to make such a statement, but it should be drawn from a deeper work. A contentious and eye-catching statement like this should, for the sake of serious readers, have a better reference than a column

2316:

4) The article needs to maintain proper encyclopedic balance. A few years ago, with the political fallout over the Iraq war, some Americans made it another hobby to make fun of French military prowess. Now some are pushing to turn the French into invincible dragons. The truth, as usual, is a tad more

2158:

the Listing of the Norman Conquest of England from 1066 is odd, as Normandy was not part of France, however I believe it was part of the sphere of influence of the French Monarchy at the time. I am in favour of not listing the 1066 invasion of England and defeat of the Saxons as a French victory, but

1560:

do you really think this article is neutral? this is a collection, of negative points of view. actually it could be merged with the francophobia article. this article is a pathetic anglo-american view of the arch ennemy not an encyclopedic article. do you really think that terms like "humiliated" and

1366:

get as much space as the entire period between 1500 and 1789? What justifiable basis does that have? Beyond that, why are non-French military leaders like Marlborough and Prince Eugene mentioned (even if only in a caption), but not the great French military leaders of the previous generation, Condé

1145:

than two victories in the early phases of the Nine Years War. The battles I mentioned were in 1690, 1692, and 1693. The Nine Years War ended in 1697. I think the term "early" applies fairly well. Once again, you have to define what you mean by "victories." Are you talking about large-scale actions or

1137:

are generally very severe, often involving highly deluded individuals with a penchant for cussing and wild accusations. At best, our personal attacks are humorous jibes revealing our frustration with one another. Furthemore, the following is not a personal attack: "Your second blatantly incorrect and

978:

One last thing. I noticed the use of the word "nationalist" in describing our edits. Diplomatic language may not be one of your abilities, but this is still quite inane terminology. I cannot speak for Equendil, who is actually French, but I have no real connection to France. As I've said before, I've

3200:

This claim is not from the Telegraph, the Telegraph is reporting Niall Fergusons analysis rather than making the assertion themselves. On the point of being the opinion of a single historian, it comes from his analysis. Despite this, the second half of the paragraph should be made more clear that it

2112:

Norman was different borrowing heavily from Scandinavian, even if they did speak French "which they didn't" they were still Normans, if a American spoke English does that make them an English citizen, if a Canadian spoke French are they French? No their Canadian I'm not being a Franco-phobic I'm

1740:

stereotypes are the way of thinking for ignorant and perfidious roastbeefs that never accepted to get their arse kicked by the french in the most important war ever the 100 hundred years war, the rest is peanuts. or maybe was it because the french humiliated them at yorktown and saved the ungrateful

1714:

France did had some bad commanders but had also some genious: Du Guesclin, Richemont, Turenne, Condé, Vendome, Luxembourg, Villars, Maurice de Saxe, Kleber, Hoche, Moreau, Napoleon bonaparte, Massena, Lannes, Davout, Canrobert, Saint-arnaud, Pelissier, Petain (of WW I), Franchet d'esperey, Gallieni,

1678:

I've always loathed the notion that France is a huge loser when it comes to war. As someone pointed out, it was once the most powerful nation in the world. It's really a creation of modern American Francophobia and an inflation of France's actions in one very important war. BUT.. it's worth bringing

1459:

about doing, much less actually do it) and surrounding the Austrians in the Ulm Maneuver. The article itself describes it well; the sociopolitical changes of the Revolution led to completely new strategic opportunities. In the eighteenth century, no major European capital was ever occupied. In 1805,

1405:

I agree that 1792-1815 deserves more treatment than any other period of the same length, but the current system, where there are essentially segments of the same length for 1) 1515-1792; 2) 1792-1799; and 3) 1799-1815, seems somewhat excessive. I don't particularly see why the French Revolution and

1232:

in your list. Sainte-Domingue became a very prosperous French colony, eventually providing something like 2/5 of the world's sugar and being home to several modern-day equivalents of multi-millionaires. Even at the end of the Seven Years War, when the British had won in all colonial theaters, French

2593:

This statement of France being Europe's most successful military is ridiculously unscientific and very problematic for various obvious reasons, as multiple people have already pointed out. France as a nation state definitely didn't existed for all this time. Additionally depending of what you count

2229:

The map of the First French Empire grossly exaggerates French Empire in India, coloring half of the extent of the modern country in blue. Though the French had unilateral trade deals there, and the whole area was under a great amount of French influence, this was nowhere near enough to warrant what

1766:

With note to this section and the one above i have one thing to say. Slightly disgusted. I think its quite rich for there to accusations of stereotyping and francophobia when many of these posts respond with little more than Anglophobia. Lets face it, the French military, much like any military has

1752:

Um... getting back to UberCryxic's point, I still think it's important to note stereotypes and common perceptions in places like this. Even if we say "this is an Anglo-American perception mainly and is rooted in a long history of antagonism" it would still be helpful. And I know the stereotypes are

1694:

has something to do with it - the way the French leaders are portrayed there is pretty much an archetype for the generic "mocking French military leaders" that has followed. I think there's a longer pedigree for mockery of the French military, although, as I suggested before, the traditional way to

1477:

Two things. First: The formation Broglie experimented with during the Seven Years War was not divisions, but divisions would be developed from them. Second: The importance of the military history of the ancien regime can be said to be even more important than the Revolutionary or the Napoleonic. It

1463:

Overall, however, I can't help but agree that some more information could be included about the Ancien Regime and the Middle Ages...and also the Modern Period. As long as the article doesn't lose its current structure and categorization, I'll give you free reign to make any additions you see fit. I

1454:

First, some corrections. Divisions were first used by the French during the Seven Years War, not the Revolutionary Wars. Also, the statements about Marlborough and Turenne are, at best, ridiculous. Marlborough fought 30 sieges and 4 set-piece battles in his military career, a sharp contrast to what

1391:

The Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras received so much attention because, quite simply, they changed warfare forever and laid the foundations for modern conflict, mostly organizationally and professionally at command levels. No one nation had ever dominated Europe as thoroughly as Napoleon's France

785:

The problem I have with your additions is that they are not being done to "complete" the article, but rather to satisfy an agenda. For example, you mention the inferiority of the Chinese navy, which is certainly correct, but why not mention the inferiority of all other losing armies and navies when

671:

It makes it seem that the French defeated the Hispano-Dutch fleet in open combat, winning because they were better equied and perhaps trained.Nevertheless fact is that the French attacked the enemy fleet while she was making repairs and did this with fireships.It also makes it seem as if the French

3027:

Also, adding the wikilink to "Popular history" has been really helpful. Before this, I did not make the distinction between television history, such as on the the Discovery Channel (for example), and history that is analyzed and elucidated by history scholars in academia. I'm always glad Knowledge

2995:

I think I have to expand on my comments (wasnt meant to be snidey @ Rjensen :) ). I understand that some historians may have seriously dealt with a topic like that, but I still think its wrong to add something like that into the lead of article. That is because it simply gives the wrong impression

2576:

What I saw then: someone removing it, over meaningless reasons, and I reacted to it. If you all want to remove an encyclopedic and in-topic data because it makes you feel good, well, go ahead and I hope it relieves you. It doesn't really matter to me, besides the fact that it's conflicting with WP

2127:

Yeah well, the Normans didn't speak French but they still introduced MASSIVELY the French language into the English one. Apart from that, the Vikings, or whoever were the "ancestors" of the Normans, and who invaded Northern France, were almost exclusively men, males if you prefer. They married and

1923:

The Prussians at the Battle of Jena were not led by Queen Louisa, although she was a vocal political opponent of Napoleon. This article is supposed to be a general summary of the subject; specific battles should be avoided unless they indicate forward movements in military practice or unless they

1704:

Hey Brut, it's nice that you think that, but most of the world does not. One of the many problems with this issue is highlighted in your own comments: this is primarily an "American thing" that doesn't really hold sway in other places (jokes are made in other Anglophone nations, but they are just

1575:

Yikes! I apologize if the article struck a nerve. I am the author and you should probably know that I am neither English or American. I tried to be as neutral as I possibly could in writing this article, but please understand that it was difficult under current circumstances. There have been some

1492:

divisions, but they were divisions nonetheless (composed of two brigades). Anything above the regimental level for typical eighteenth century armies did not last long, although later on the French actually did institute semi-permanent divisions. The Ancien Regime under Charles VII "pioneered" the

1385:

Oh boy! Yeah there have been some questions, and I suppose one could say "problems," regarding what was included in this article and what was not. To put it bluntly: every single person reading this article will have some issue here or there. During FAC, someone suggested that this article should

1333:

It probably should be clarified, but it refers to how the French have eliminated their ground force nuclear capabilities and moved their warheads to submarines. In the Cold War, French nuclear ground systems were supposed to stop a Soviet thrust through West Germany. After the end of that threat,

964:

I want you to know that I am not being selective here. For years under the great Marshal Luxembourg, the French simply kicked the crap out of the English and the Dutch. They went undefeated on land for six years after the initial setback at Walcourt. Only lack of pursuit on the part of the French

920:

Your second blatantly incorrect and biased statement is this: "..led to a number of tactical and strategic victories which allowed the English and the Dutch to regain the initiative and end the war in their favour." Newsflash: Ryswick simply restored the status quo. The French had to give up some

2976:

I'm not a huge fan of quotes in leads generally, although that doesn't seem to be directly supported by policy. What policy does say is that the purpose of the lead is to summarize the article. A lead is not a headline or above the fold excerpt to entice readers to buy a paper. A stunning quote,

2436:

2) It's indeed true, but as the line is arbitrary, the same logic applies to any country, and whatever the epoch. What date would you choose? Conquest by/fall of Roman Empire? First Frank state? Carolingian Renaissance? Capetian/Valois/Bourbon dynasties? French Revolution? Disregarding that, for

2220:

The article, as it states at the top, tries to include all military history over the past two millennia (and a bit) involving in major part the region now known as France, which as well as Normandy encompasses those regions known at some stage as the Roman province of Gaul, Burgundy, the Western

1970:

a popular myth is french indochina was gave back to france thanks to the british (the british myth as ever - another is in suez 1956 the british were alone...) here is an archive form 1945 showing the french colonial forces training in french algeria in view to free the french indochina from the

1785:

Hello. I'm a long way from an experienced user, apologies for etiquette mistakes. I came here for this information and it looks like divided opinion is preventing the sharing of information. It is a matter of fact that the topic of France surrendering a lot is very widely discussed. I don't know

1522:

come to mind as having written on the subject. There's a fair number of recent books on specific conflicts, as well - a book by John Lynn on the Wars of Louis XIV and a couple of recent books on the War of the Austrian Succession, notably. There've also been recent fairly recent studies of the

1410:

need their own section, and it seems ridiculous to have one section for the entirety of the early modern period, which encompasses a whole lot more variety than the revolutionary/napoleonic period does. Moreover, I think that your assumption that the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period was that

1149:

Why bother with the land operations? Because of this comment: "regain the initiative and end the war in their favour." That is a false and misleading statement. The naval phase had generally gone for the Dutch and English by the end of the struggle (though not completely, as I mentioned with the

2308:

3) Anyone with elementary knowledge of military history would know that French speakers have participated in thousands upon thousands of battles over the last millennium alone. I have no idea how Niall Ferguson came up with his numbers nor do I care; Ferguson is not a military historian and his

2105:

Why is that even mentioned on the military history of France? Normandy wasn't even part of France then, France technically didn't even exist due to such a weak feudal system Dukes just did their own things when Philip, the "King" of "France" noticed William was becoming too powerful he tried to

1283:

My reply was aimed at the fact that the war did not end in a French victory, and that in fact of all participants the Dutch republic, and United Kingdom came out best.And you give me a how happy the French were to be allowed to keep an island which produced sugar (Which says something about the

761:

First, the Franco-Dutch War was mostly a French victory. The French overran the United Provinces early in the war, and even though they were forced back, they managed to keep their conquests in the Franche-Comte. The Dutch scored some crucial strategic victories at sea, but apart from these the

2550:

What I saw: a sentence summarizing military victories and defeats of France, in the lead of an article covering, wait for it... the military history of France. Backed up with a source citing a professional historian. So, yeah, I don't see anything wrong here as per WP guidelines, and any other

795:

Finally, I want to say that I am not looking for a fight. I am in a particularly good mood because the World Cup is just over 60 hours away. Like many others across the globe, I desperately wait for this moment for four long years, and I do not want it spoiled by a useless edit war. Unless, of

781:

run out of money. The French maintained a huge army at this point (I believe something like 400,000 at the height of the Nine Years War; such numbers were unseen in Western Europe since Roman times, so you can imagine how it would drain the budget). These financial constraints forced an end to

1535:

Yes there is a ton of literature, but generally in the English-speaking world it has not received as much attention as Napoleon's campaigns. This is something to be decried, of course, but that's the way it is. Anyway, I am agreeing with you that earlier periods deserve more mention and are

2506:

Well, as I explained, that's the date chosen by Ferguson, we can't do anything about it but look for better sources. And if I do agree aswell that the meaning of the term "France" is debatable indeed, the article is covering the Gallic and Roman epoch aswell, so I don't really see an issue

1635:

For once I hadn't to read that France surrendered in WWII although France signed an armistice with Germany (the difference may have been little in the facts but in an encyclopedia we're supposed to be given correct facts). BTW the French defeat in the battle of France of WWII was above all

1263:

Whatever....did you see the game earlier today? That was freaking awesome! Props to Robben for the goal, and Holland played spectacularly. Serbia is one of those teams that can only be beaten 1-0 anyway, so the low scoreline didn't bother me. The Dutch will go far if they keep playing like

1641:

However some details have drawn my attention. It is said that France was defeated in Mexico and in Algeria, but these were political failures, not military ones. the way it is said gives the wrong impression. In these 2 wars France was victorious on the battlefield but waived its will to

2013:"Defeat for a European power now meant much more than losing isolated enclaves; near-Carthaginian peaces intertwined whole national efforts, sociopolitical, economic, and militaristic, into gargantuan collisions that severely upset international conventions as understood at the time." 2256:

Why is there a huge jump between 1940-1947? I do not think the map should be there unless corrected simply because it erase one of the most single important war in french history. It is dishonoring the french soldiers which died to protect France from Nazi-Germany. To me the map say

1891:

There are many battles during that campaign that were not covered. Perhaps Gergovia should be covered since it was Caesar's first major military defeat. That fact alone makes it important, even though it didn't impact the larger outcome. If you want to incorporate yourself, go right

990::*"Laying in repair" is anything but vital information, similar additions could be made for pretty much any battle, there are always reasons battles are lost: "outnumbered", "caught by surprise", "exhausted troops" etc, this belongs to detailed articles not short overviews.<< 2695:

At the moment, I am unable to verify this quote. A google search and a BBC news search does not turn up this quote. I am probably going to remove this from the lead until accurate sourcing is provided. It is really not fair of some editors to waste other editors' time like this.

2304:

2) The sentence mentions 'France' as some constant, unchanging nation-state that has existed since ancient times. Such a view is preposterous. Historians might debate about when exactly the modern nation of France emerged, but all of them would agree that it was not in 387 BCE!!

1305:, which did not come out ahead in this struggle, and neither did the Dutch. Your dismissive comments about Sainte-Domingue completely miss the fundamental importance of the island, which was a huge French strategic asset throughout the eighteenth century. Again, by itself it was 878:"Laying in repair" is anything but vital information, similar additions could be made for pretty much any battle, there are always reasons battles are lost: "outnumbered", "caught by surprise", "exhausted troops" etc, this belongs to detailed articles not short overviews. 968:

The main point in this brouhaha is that you almost have no credibility left. It does not appear that you actually know what happened in the Nine Years War. I could be wrong, but I'm basing my assertion simply on your statements, which have been nothing but appalling and

1427:

written on early modern military history in the last few decades, and this article manages to convey practically none of it, and doesn't even mention two of France's greatest military heroes from this period or France's last major civil war. This seems indefensible to

3354:" thus, whether the content is linked to a reliable source or not, a Wiki article should always give informations in a neutral manner, especially when said content's meaning isn't clear, as i underlined above ("most successful" according to what threshold ?). Best. 1786:

whether it's true or not. My opinion is irrelevant anyway. I do think it's entirely reasonable for wikipedia to (a) acknowledge the conversation, (b) provide sourced information to qualify the truth, without (c) editorialising. Is there a way to bring this in?

2805:

France. According to the historian Niall Ferguson, of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50 – more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10."

2531:

be, because it's grandiose almost to the point of being smug. As near as I can tell, Ferguson has not written out a case for this (conversational?) statement, and it shouldn't be attributed to him when the real source is a paid writer's uncited puff piece in

2551:

encyclopedy for that matter. Just because he's being cited in The Telegraph doesn't mean it's not a reliabe statement (even though I despise this newspaper as much as you, it's not up to you to decide if a media is "acceptable" or not, only facts matters).

1120:

nation and that I'm just interested in French military history? Furthermore, in our earlier conversations we both committed very blatant personal attacks. Just to refresh everyone's memory on what you said about me (btw, I also said bad things about Rex):

639:

History of the French Navy section is currently very incomplete. Unless your motives strive for completeness, do not insert isolated, biased changed which will probably not be followed up on.I may expand the section later, but at this point I do not know

1942:

is freely inspired by this article. So I'll would like to thanks everyone you worked on it. It don't seem it'll become a featured article on the french wikipedia but if there are any french/english translators, they can found some interresting stuff.

2458:

4) I don't see any encyclopedic disbalance. This is an article about military history, it's stating military history facts. The over-interpretation is left to the reader, but as it is, it's not misguiding nor it appears to be wrong, and thus do the

1146:

other naval operations as well? My commentary leaves it wide open, but it does not appear that you have made an effort to actually provide a definition of victory that we can use to specify a certain number of battles that the French won or lost.

2085:

i've added the fourth coalition episode in the intro, because it was there that the french-german enmity became serious. the french kicked the prussian asses then they occupied their land, then came 1870, and 1918 and 1940 and 1945. and voilà.

1781:

Common senses and stereotypes are not to be taken as serious stuff, that's all. And if France was always surrending as suggests the most known stereotypes in english spoken countries, how would be possible this country still exists today ?

2692:" in parenthesis is not considered reliable sourcing - it is really vague. Placing something in lede (or lead) of an article especially needs to be accurate because this is the first area and sometimes the only area our audience reads. 105: 1437:

I read the FAC page on this article, and I know there was a lot of "my favorite thing isn't here"-ing going on, and I suppose my first post did seem like that. But on looking at the article further, I really do think that there's a

2189:

Funny how history can differ from one country to the other...because I can tell you that in France we all see Guillaume le Conquérant (William the Conqueror) as French...about as French as Jeanne d'Arc, if you see what I mean...

1280:, not Serbia. Furthermore, I don't know if this is common in Albanian culture, or if it's just a personal trait of your own, but I quite honestly do not understand what you try to accomplish with these kind of off topic messages. 522: 319: 3365:

the question of what RS say is the most belligerent major power is a straight forward factual statement. It is noit puffery to say that France has engaged in the most wars. Puffery is when the editor exaggerates beyond the RS,

1350:

The French Renaissance and the beginning of the Ancien Régime, normally marked by the reign of Francis I, saw the nation become far more unified under the monarch. The power of the nobles was diminished as a national army was

538: 323: 2838:. He points to numerous scholars who have counted wars (Sorokin, Wright, Richardson, Luard, Levy). He uses Levy's data to get the numbers of WARS regarding France The book does NOT give any count of battles won & lost. 1545:

I'll try to work on it, but unfortunately I'm not in a good place to do it at the moment - away from all my books and my library, and such, until November at least. Possibly won't be able to take a swing at it until then.

2487:

argues pretty convincingly that it's hardly a" basic" statement, if only for the reason that it begs the question of what is meant with "France". Now kindly seek to convince your audience here, not in the article history.

143: 3466: 3017:

I totally agree with what you just added to this discussion. A quote like this, or even a statement like this, is just too nebulous - without a block of explanation in its own section. Thanks for pointing this

1846:

Well, we could go on for a long time recounting military words that the English adopted from the French. I think the current list is appropriate enough, but you're more than welcome to add other words if you

2163:

has this in its first paragraph "It was the decisive Norman victory in the Norman Conquest of England, fought between the Norman army of Duke William II of Normandy and the English army of King Harold II."

805:

The french ran out of money because of enemy naval blockades, the chinese navy was inferior (thanks for admitting that) and the 2 battles you list do not exist or seem to be French defeats in earlier wars.

1455:

commanders in the Napoleonic Era would face. The 1805 campaign was revolutionary; the French hurled 200,000 men through Germany, bypassing the major forts (something Marlborough or Turenne could not have

124: 34: 2852:

Wars are not a game nor a contest. I dont think we should add something like that into the article, even if we can track it to a quote from an historian who said something like that in an atmosphere of

2526:

I cannot see how you would defend such a protrusive statement in the lede by simply saying that sources could be forthcoming. That statement will be challenged by readers from now till doomsday, and it

2449:

3) "Major European battles", emphasis on "major". It speaks for itself. Also, no disrespect meant (really), but when it comes to history, between a historian and a wikipedian, I will take the historian.

1211:

What a great result for France. The Dutch and English however had lost little to nothing, in fact they only gained.And that's what I meant with "regain the initiative and end the war in their favour."

3461: 909:

First of all, do not tamper with my posts. I fully understand that you meant well, and I do appreciate that, but I'm quickly gleaning from this argument that you are not familiar with the history

1298:

Well I'd hesitate to judge too much since I don't know you, but experience has shown that you don't seem to be a very friendly fellow. I'm just going to stop trying to get on your good side.

2809:

Which is potentially citable and gives us a professional historian to pin it on. Further research may yield where Professor Ferguson may have said this, leading to a more solid reference

86: 2747:. All quotations must be accompanied by citations to reliable sources. This should include enough information in the citation (such as a url and title) that others can verify the source. 2381:

I do agree, I, too, would gladly accept better sources. But as it is, I simply see no reason to remove it, as it's providing backed up encyclopedic knowledge (which is what WP is about).

1514:

It may not be on the French specifically, but there's a ton of literature out there on early modern military history, especially on the idea of a "military revolution" in this period.

1171:

Furthemore, the following is not a personal attack: "Your second blatantly incorrect and biased statement." I am attacking your statement, not you. Anyway, let's get on with business.

1061::*Replacing "several victories" with "one more early victory" is not accurate, UberCryxic cited the battles, you claimed they didn't happen, it's flat out wrong, what now ? << 3501: 3306:

last but not least, what does it mean exactly ? that the French armies have won more battles than any other power ? that they have the best win-loss ratio ever ? or someting else ?

718:

Which is blatantly false.Bad decisions by the French king and his admirals led to the Dutch and English gaining initiative, which in turn led to financial troubles.Quite different.

1075:, our discussions go way back don't they? The nine years war of course wasn't a solely naval war, not by far.Yet this section is about the French navy, why bother with the land? 861:

The battles might exist, but this is no excuse whatsoever to leave out vital and accurate information to make the History of the French navy seem more glorious than it truly is.

3511: 1972: 3496: 1695:

mock them is for over-confidence and over-aggressiveness. This image has been incorporated, I think, into the more recent stereotype of the French as chronic surrenderers.

881:

Replacing "several victories" with "one more early victory" is not accurate, UberCryxic cited the battles, you claimed they didn't happen, it's flat out wrong, what now ?

3506: 840:, and this particular "Battle of Lagos" took place in 1693, wikipedia doesn't seem to have an entry about that one though it's mentionned in various place, for instance 413: 390: 352: 2510:

We have a historical data that fits with the article topic and follows an encyclopedic purpose, from there, it's up to anyone to look for better sources to improve it.

50: 1442:

lack of discussion of the early modern period (which should really be called as such, and not as "ancien régime," btw), and a neglect of major issues in this period.

1133:...and a continuing refusal for reconciliation on your part despite my best (and sincere, despite your thoughts) attempts. I should also add that cases reported to 3260:

Does someone have access to the entire quote of Niall Ferguson? Did he really write that the French fought 169 battles since 387BC? It must be "major battles" no?

1661:

Algeria was a political failure, yes, but Mexico in the 1860s devolved fairly quickly after initial French triumphs. That was lost both militarily and politically.

1565:

is a simple list so why this foreign country's history is an argumented article? It's just like reading the North Korean version of the Miitary history of the US.

3131: 3127: 3113: 1323:

What does it mean to say that their nuclear capabilities "are being restructured to rapidly deal with emerging threats". Sounds like foreign-policy babble to me.

3427:

has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the

399: 2873:

Ferguson and the scholars he cites are very serious about warfare. they use advanced social science/ quantitative approaches and definitely are not "popular".

3456: 2468:

As such I'm opposed to the removal, as it appears to be reliable, as it is erasing a historical data, and as it follows the encyclopedic rules and purpose.

2317:

boring. Let's stick to a contextual exposition of French military history and avoid rehashing old fights about where France falls on some mythical list.

3491: 2206: 2144: 741:

Where I added "inferior" to the chinese navy which I think is accurate when steamships attack of force consisting mainly of wooden ships to call it even.

380: 3057:

for your participation in this excellent discussion. It is always good to be editing on days that I learn something new and worthwhile on Knowledge. ---

1207:

He abandoned his interference in the electorate of Cologne and also the claim which he had put forward to some of the lands of the Electoral Palatinate.

1198:

The Duchy of Lorraine, which for many years had been in the possession of France, was restored to Leopold Joseph, a son of Charles IV, Duke of Lorraine

650:

Even if a section is incomplete, that should not be a motive of inaccuracy.And when accurate information is added it should not be dismissed as "bias".

1757:

I'm unsure how prevalent this stereotype is; it's probably mostly just among the uneducated. I won't add anything, though; I'll wait for a consensus.

588: 583: 627: 621: 3481: 1078:

And another, perhaps more vital thing, and I'll but it very bluntly: You'd better cut the crap on inserting small offensive sentences like these;

291: 281: 2159:

instead listed as a Norman victory. That is what I was taught in school and what many books I read on the subject suggest; even the page on the

3239:

supporting this claim instead of a random paper quoting a single historian. Besides, i suggest you to desist from editing the article untill a

347: 314: 3486: 3471: 3342:

actually says : "In a Knowledge article, there should not be praise-filled (nor criticism-filled) adjectives appended to the subject's name.

1768: 1460:

the French took Vienna after a few months of light fighting and furious marching. Seems very notable to me, and military literature agress.

356: 2418:

Even though, I could agree to some extent with some arguments given by UberCryxic, and will gladly give my opinion about each of his points.

2610: 2580: 2513: 2471: 2382: 1586: 1362:

Beyond that, the article seems a abit down on the whole early modern period. Why on earth do the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars

3235:. Last but not least, if France was really "the most successful European country on the battlefields", we should be able to find numerous 2294:

I've deleted the sentence in the lead talking about Niall Ferguson's claims regarding French military history. Why? For several reasons:

1033:

However a French fleet under de Grasse managed to engage an English fleet at the Battle of the Chesapeake which ended in a tactical draw

2272: 2237: 2165: 2114: 1787: 2660: 1722: 1562: 30: 2035:

French military uniforms seem to have had some signifigance in European military history (and possibly Japanese military history). ~

3109:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

837: 257: 3299:

The lead of an article is not the place for the view of a single scholar, no matter how prominent he/she might be (besides, as per

3099: 1371:

far removed from our own, considered iconic figures, behind only Napoleon in the French military pantheon? Why no mention of the

712:

Financial troubles, however, forced the navy back to port and allowed the English and the Dutch to regain the initiative. <<

3476: 20: 1423:, which gives no detail at all on technical and tactical innovations, just a very hurried chronological survey. There's been 1911: 1201:

The Dutch were to be allowed to garrison some of the chief fortresses in the Spanish Netherlands, including Namur and Ypres.

3303:, any claim that is in the lead should be detailed in the body of the article, which is not the case as far as i have seen) 3227:

Have you even read what i said in my edit summary ? Why should we cite Ferguson in an entire paragraph ? this goes against

2728:-- emphasizing that this should not be reverted again without first coming to this discussion, which has already begun. --- 2409:

here, and won't imply darker reasons motivating a removal, because we're all supposed to be of good faith, as per WP rules.

1828:

Of course, you could even add more but they are originally Italian words taken by the French so I guess it doesn't count.

3380:

Yes, "the most belligerant" is fine, but "the most successful" wasn't, as it is an exaggeration of what the source says

3216: 3174: 1204:

Louis had to recognize William III as king of England, and promised to give no further assistance to James II of England

1116:

You called me a nationalist, implicitly a French one. That's pretty big on the insult hierarchy. Ever think that I love

1068:

victories.Several means more than 1.But it doesn't quite cover just 2 early victories, that's flat out wrong, what now?

833: 248: 209: 184: 1939: 1566: 1301:

Since we're being annoying and corrective, there was no such thing as the United Kingdom in 1697. What you meant was

3243:

is found on the talk page, please note that adding back poorly sourced content repeatedly like you do is disruptive.

2202: 2140: 3083: 2342:

These are cogent arguments, and I'll add one: I don't see any reason why this kind of claim should be in the lead.

2091: 1582: 841: 2427:

1) This argument is wrong, as the source actually do cite both the number of wars and the number of major battles.

1127:"I'm not warning you to make a public fool of yourself, I'm sure you're perfectly capable of doing that yourself" 796:

course, either the Brazilians or the Dutch win. Then I'd be happy as happy can be (they're my two favorite teams).

663:

French Navy was well financed and equipped, managing to resoundingly defeat a combined Spanish-Dutch fleet at the

33:. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check 3189:

This claim is from the Telegraph, in other words, a "source" without expertise for this topic. Should be removed.

2310: 2048: 1772: 3130:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1154:

the war, which is what this comment says. You talk about the French navy but your description here involves the

900:

I agree with Uber. The French won some naval battles in the Nine Years War, and they also did very well on land.

600: 2921:

Na, its obviously the mighty Luftwaffe because of impenetrable Kruppstahl and superior German engineering! :P

2794:

I found this version of the quote in the Daily Telegraph for 22nd October 2010, attributed to the BBC's QI team

2584: 2517: 2475: 2386: 2198: 2136: 1907: 2614: 1334:

however, the French developed naval nuclear forces to be able to strike at distant targets, like rogue states.

3338:

Thanks for having rephrased the lead. As to what you said about puffery, i would draw your attention on what

2276: 2169: 2118: 1791: 1675:

So I went back to the surrender discussion in the archives and read it. Here are my thoughts on this issue:

3165: 3091: 2664: 2541: 2372: 2241: 1726: 351:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 1818:

werreieor (O.Fr. guerreor) "a warrior, one who wages war," from werreier "wage war," from werre (see war).

762:

French dominated militarily. At the very least, France came out better in this war than the other powers.

3038: 2978: 2938: 2903: 2835: 2748: 2599: 690: 1276:

is an archaic Dutch province.The team opposing the Dutch national team was that of the former country of

43: 3149:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3137: 3062: 2777: 2733: 2707: 2070: 782:

large-scale naval operations. The falsehoods are on your part. Do not involve me in your shortcomings.

190: 3090:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2087: 1883: 901: 770: 2680: 2659:

The French were involved, they invaded Egypt jointly with Britain and Israel. Why isn't this on here?

3352:

tell them neutrally what the individual or band did or achieved, and let them make their own decision

3204: 2814: 2700: 2330: 2268: 2233: 2194: 2132: 1882:

as much important as the battle of alesia except this one was won by vercingetorix. should be added.

1718: 1359:

history, surely the history of modern France begins with Charles VIII's invasion of Italy in 1494?

172: 3438: 3001: 2926: 2892: 2862: 2177: 256:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3265: 3208: 3185:

Quality of the source supporting France as the most successful military power in European history

2537: 2368: 2160: 1876: 1603: 886: 849: 606: 3429: 3423: 3405: 3134:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2109:

Flemmish has got nothing to do with any celtic language. Flemmish is Frankish, that is germanic

1138:

biased statement." I am attacking your statement, not you. Anyway, let's get on with business.

3150: 3100:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090602233007/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/faq/roundel.cfm

3371: 3339: 3329: 3294: 2878: 2843: 2699:

Well, this is ridiculous. I found this six year old quote on Yahoo Answers - please see here-

2595: 1993: 1975: 1971:

japanese invaders!! more infos are needed in order to draw the true story of the 1945 events.

1944: 1915: 1742: 1285: 1277: 1247: 1215: 1103: 862: 818: 745: 732: 664: 3212: 3058: 3042: 2773: 2729: 2703: 2493: 2347: 2261:. please give me a motivation as to why my previous edits has been undone. Why cant i write 2066: 2021: 1696: 1547: 1524: 1443: 1376: 1195:

Had to give Catalonia, and the barrier fortresses of Mons, Luxembourg and Kortrijk to Spain.

810: 602: 566: 3157: 2059:

An interresting link about the French military uniforms influence over the American ones :

1581:

There are many nations that have military history articles with significant prose. Look at

3228: 3046: 2854: 2810: 2484: 2322: 1953: 1925: 1893: 1848: 1758: 1706: 1680: 1662: 1618: 1590: 1537: 1515: 1502: 1479: 1469: 1393: 1335: 1310: 1265: 1243: 1234: 1159: 1072: 980: 970: 817:, I'm sure you don't want to create another archive to hide your apologies so soon again. 814: 797: 787: 774: 641: 758:

I have done a bit of rephrasing, but I want to talk about a few points that you raised.

3344:

A more neutral tone and the provision of factual information, cited to a reliable source

2887:

So we can make now a rank list about the best militaries in the world? Who is 2nd then?

1598:

Well, well, that's a change from being accused of pro-french nationalism, isn't it ? :)

3442: 3434: 3390: 3375: 3360: 3333: 3316: 3300: 3269: 3249: 3220: 3195: 3179: 3116:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3103: 3066: 3012: 3005: 2997: 2989: 2949: 2930: 2922: 2914: 2896: 2888: 2882: 2866: 2858: 2847: 2818: 2781: 2759: 2737: 2711: 2668: 2632: 2628: 2618: 2603: 2588: 2545: 2521: 2497: 2479: 2390: 2376: 2351: 2336: 2280: 2245: 2210: 2181: 2173: 2148: 2122: 2095: 2074: 2053: 2025: 1996: 1978: 1956: 1947: 1928: 1918: 1896: 1886: 1866: 1851: 1840: 1795: 1776: 1761: 1745: 1730: 1709: 1699: 1690: 1683: 1665: 1655: 1621: 1609: 1593: 1569: 1550: 1540: 1527: 1505: 1482: 1472: 1446: 1396: 1379: 1338: 1327: 1313: 1293: 1268: 1255: 1237: 1223: 1162: 1134: 1124:"Ironic that you should make such a remark, you being a non-French French nationalist" 1111: 983: 973: 904: 892: 870: 855: 826: 809:

One more thing, you claim you are not looking for a fight yet you try to make as much "

800: 790: 753: 644: 514: 3290:

it's unsourced, since the two sources that are cited seem to support the next sentence

3156:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2063: 604: 3450: 3409: 3261: 3240: 3232: 2977:

while it may be intuitively satisfying, does not fulfill the purpose of the section.

2297:

1) The sentence as currently constituted misrepresents the source, which talks about

2042: 1599: 882: 845: 240: 2440:

Note that the article itself is covering BCE, so I don't see any contradiction here.

699:

It says several, yet it was only 1 victory, could you explain how 1 equals several?!

3367: 3325: 3281: 3236: 3050: 2874: 2839: 2744: 1519: 1324: 1177: 1099: 1091:

I'm quickly gleaning from this argument that you are not familiar with the history

1636:

strategical, despite all the shortcomings of the French army/mindset of that time.

3231:. Also the telegraph article is not available for our readers, this goes against 2719:

which I reverted do to lack of sourcing and inaccurate - imprecise attribution --

3123: 2623:

I removed this from the lead since I agree. This also reeks of chest thumping.--

2489: 2343: 2017: 1189:

France surrendered Freiburg, Breisach and Philippsburg to the Holy Roman Empire,

1952:

I'm glad I could be of assistance. The French version is really long! Good job.

1030:

an English fleet at the Battle of the Chesapeake which ended in a tactical draw

3122:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2060: 1863: 1837: 1652: 686: 230: 1821:

Maybe even "war" since it came from : late O.E. (c.1050), wyrre, werre, from

1009:, however, allowed the English and the Dutch to regain the initiative at sea. 2624: 1082:

The main point in this brouhaha is that you almost have no credibility left.

530: 224: 203: 1150:

French victories in the Mediterranean during the end of the conflict), but

2802:"Which country is the most successful military power in European history? 1860:

Welcome to add them to the article ? OK, I'll put the first 6 words, then.

2036: 917:

of the war too, especially when they captured Barcelona in August 1697.

685:

It also scored several early victories in the Nine Years War against the

3324:

I rephrased it. Note that "puffery" does not apply to reliable sources.

1273: 1055:

of 1838 and defeated the Chinese navy at the Battle of Foochow in 1884

2259:

nothing happen during 1940-1947. everything was rainbows and sunshine!

1924:

heralded new geostrategic environments, among other important reasons.

993:

In that case you're hypocritical as these sentences weren't reverted;

813:" as possible. I just want to remind you where that got you last time 1910:(bataille de Iéna) that was led against france by the german empress 1372: 1192:

Regained Pondicherry, after paying the Dutch a sum of 16,000 pagodas.

253: 2834:(2001) by Niall Ferguson. p 27. Read the entire passage pp 25-27 at 1411:

unique is flawed. The French armies of this period were certainly

1355:

This is a bit odd for a number of reasons. In the first place, in

1130:"just a little a slap in the face to remind your ego who you are." 339: 308: 1966:

this story is mostly unknown in france. i was lucky to find this:

1044:

Beyond that, and Suffren's campaigns against the British in India

2902:

Best air force in the world? US Air Force. Second best? US Navy.

2577:

purpose and erasing useful knowledge from an encyclopedy. Cheers.

1630:"humiliated" and "poor commanders" seems fine to me (I'm French). 1536:

collectively far more important than the 'golden 23' if you will.

1962:

extra chapter (1945): french vs japanese in french indochina :)

1228:

The gain of Sainte-Domingue, which you did not mention, outdid

2263:

the loss of France to Nazi-Germany during WW2 is not included.

1989: 607: 560: 166: 2832:

The Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World 1700-2000

2772:; no need to include this unsourced material into the lead. 2716:

I am also noting that first an Anonymous IP added this edit

1832: 529: 513: 398: 2722:. This was then reverted by red-linked User:Histoire476 -- 2301:

fought since 387 BCE (and not wars, as did this article!).

1985:

a load of good quality french military PD pictures for wiki

1309:

than the fortresses and towns which France gave up in 1697.

3467:

Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once

3286:

I removed that above sentence for the following reasons :

3094:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2937:

You're right, the Luftwaffe probably was the second best.

777:, and several other minor actions. Furthermore, they also 2688:

requires a source with accurate attribution. This means "

2016:

I hesitate to rewrite it, but think it needs attention.

2309:

opinions on the subject are equivalent to the points on

3087: 2769: 2726: 2723: 2720: 2717: 2686: 1085:

It does not appear that you actually know what happened

927:

and now get ready cuz this next part is monotonous....

136: 117: 98: 79: 1808:

soldier, general, army, garrison, regiment, epaulet.

3462:

Featured articles that have appeared on the main page

3104:

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/faq/roundel.cfm

2252:

Incorrect map of French territorial losses and gains

1088:

Your second blatantly incorrect and biased statement

769:

naval victories in the Nine Years War. Beachy Head,

411:

This article has been checked against the following

252:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3126:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 496: 410: 1013:However the English and Dutch regained initiative. 49:This article appeared on Knowledge's Main Page as 1052:the Chinese navy at the Battle of Foochow in 1884 3350:. Don't tell readers that the subject is great; 924:-Battle of Walcourt (1689): Anglo-Dutch victory 3275:"The most successful military power in history" 1805:Hi UberCryxic, you could even add some more : 1141:I will explicitly say it again: the French had 3112:This message was posted before February 2018. 3028:chooses the latter in any discipline or field. 3502:European military history task force articles 949:-Battle of Steenkerke (1692): French victory 8: 2172:) 01:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC) (signed in) 955:-Battle of Marsaglia (1693): French victory 937:-Battle of Staffarda (1690): French victory 3512:French military history task force articles 1617:Haha yes....and a welcomed change, I guess. 672:won the Franco-Dutch war.Which they didn't. 3497:C-Class European military history articles 3082:I have just modified one external link on 2290:Niall Ferguson and French military history 1831:You can verify all the given words here : 493: 407: 303: 198: 58: 15: 2685:The "quote" in the intro of this article 961:-Dutch Offensives (1696): French victory 952:-Battle of Landen (1693): French victory 3507:C-Class French military history articles 943:-Battle of Leuze (1691): French victory 731:and obliterated the Chinese navy at the 624:(Before being featured on the Main Page) 345:This article is within the scope of the 946:-Siege of Namur (1692): French victory 630:(After being featured on the Main Page) 305: 200: 170: 1041:campaigns against the British in India 958:-Siege of Namur (1695): Dutch victory 365:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history 355:. To use this banner, please see the 1415:than early armies as a result of the 1367:and Turenne, who were, at a time not 1001:defeat a combined Spanish-Dutch fleet 940:-Fall of Mons (1691): French victory 368:Template:WikiProject Military history 7: 3384:a statement with an unclear meaning. 1801:French military linguistic influence 1587:Military history of the Soviet Union 523:European military history task force 246:This article is within the scope of 1811:Division seems to be another one. 189:It is of interest to the following 3457:Knowledge former featured articles 1642:dominate/interfere in these lands. 1563:Military History of United Kingdom 1290:Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 1252:Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 1220:Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 1108:Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 867:Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 823:Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 750:Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 539:French military history task force 14: 3492:C-Class military history articles 3086:. Please take a moment to review 1284:atmosphere during negotiations). 838:Battles of Barfleur and La Hougue 3415: 1184:End of Nine years war for France 832:The battles do exist of course, 565: 470: 459: 448: 437: 426: 338: 307: 233: 223: 202: 171: 42: 19: 2743:Agreed. Please see guidance at 1940:Histoire militaire de la France 1934:Histoire militaire de la France 1556:anglo-american myth not history 1004:defeated a Spanish-Dutch fleet 385:This article has been rated as 286:This article has been rated as 3482:Top-importance France articles 2026:07:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 1912:Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz 1: 3270:17:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC) 2182:01:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC) 2096:08:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC) 2054:17:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 1992:and type "FRENCH" as search. 1710:18:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 1700:12:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 1684:06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC) 1024:a more numerical French fleet 765:Second, the French did score 260:and see a list of open tasks. 3487:All WikiProject France pages 3472:Old requests for peer review 3250:20:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 3221:08:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 3196:19:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 2246:16:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 1897:20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 1887:17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC) 1867:13:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC) 1777:11:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 1666:16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 1656:14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) 1622:16:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1610:16:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 1594:17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1570:15:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 1071:Then there's my good friend 834:Battle of Beachy Head (1690) 348:Military history WikiProject 266:Knowledge:WikiProject France 3443:03:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC) 2589:07:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC) 2546:03:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC) 2522:22:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 2498:21:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 2480:21:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 2391:22:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 2377:20:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 2352:20:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 2337:21:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 2123:03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 1852:04:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 1841:13:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 1796:12:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC) 1567:Honnit Soit Qui Mal Y Pense 1551:22:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 1541:03:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1528:02:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1506:01:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 1493:first standing army in the 1483:20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 1473:19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 1464:just ask that you don't go 1447:20:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 1397:22:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 1380:12:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 1037:Beyond that, and Suffren's 930:-Battle of Fleurus (1690): 269:Template:WikiProject France 3528: 3143:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3084:Military history of France 3079:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3067:17:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 3006:19:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC) 2990:19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC) 2950:19:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC) 2931:19:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC) 2915:19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC) 2897:19:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC) 2883:18:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC) 2867:18:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC) 2848:10:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC) 2819:09:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC) 2782:20:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 2760:19:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 2738:18:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 2712:17:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 2669:20:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 2604:15:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC) 2281:21:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC) 2211:21:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 2149:21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 2031:Request: Military uniforms 1957:02:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 1948:01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 1814:Even warrior : 1297, from 1731:13:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 1589:. Those are both featured. 1583:Military history of Canada 1176:Calling me biased isn't a 842:Anne Hilarion de Tourville 431:Referencing and citation: 292:project's importance scale 125:Featured article candidate 27:Military history of France 3180:00:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC) 2633:10:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC) 2619:19:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC) 2075:16:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 1929:17:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 1919:06:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 1906:nothing about the famous 1833:http://www.etymonline.com 1746:06:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 1339:01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 1314:21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1294:19:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1269:18:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1256:16:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 537: 521: 492: 384: 371:military history articles 333: 285: 218: 197: 153: 61: 57: 37:) and why it was removed. 3391:13:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC) 3376:10:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC) 3361:12:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC) 3348:is the appropriate style 3334:11:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC) 3317:07:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC) 3037:Lastly, I wish to thank 2725:. I have reverted again 2311:Whose Line Is It Anyway? 1997:04:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 1979:18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC) 1762:21:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC) 1328:19:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 1238:12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 1224:12:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 1163:02:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 1112:18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 1026:under de Grasse managed 1020:a very impressive effort 984:03:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 974:02:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 905:21:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 893:20:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 871:20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 856:16:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 827:12:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 801:01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 791:01:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 754:15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 645:04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 51:Today's featured article 3477:B-Class France articles 3075:External links modified 497:Associated task forces: 442:Coverage and accuracy: 156:Former featured article 144:Featured article review 106:WikiProject peer review 31:former featured article 2313:: they don't matter. 1007:Financial difficulties 811:minor personal attacks 635:History of French Navy 534: 518: 475:Supporting materials: 403: 179:This article is rated 35:the nomination archive 3346:, on the other hand, 3293:it's a clear case of 2830:The quote comes from 1468:overboard. Thank you! 533: 517: 402: 3124:regular verification 2199:Albert fausse-couche 2137:Albert fausse-couche 2002:Problematic sentence 1319:Nuclear capabilities 3114:After February 2018 2674:Purported BBC quote 2113:just stating facts! 2101:Battle of hastings? 1230:all of those things 464:Grammar and style: 417:for B-class status: 3168:InternetArchiveBot 3119:InternetArchiveBot 2161:Battle of Hastings 1877:Battle of Gergovia 1523:Thirty Years War. 1307:far more important 535: 519: 404: 353:list of open tasks 249:WikiProject France 185:content assessment 62:Article milestones 3207:comment added by 3144: 3039:Timothyjosephwood 2952: 2933: 2917: 2334: 2271:comment added by 2236:comment added by 2225:Map: French India 2214: 2197:comment added by 2152: 2135:comment added by 2008:Napoleonic France 1733: 1721:comment added by 1608: 1292: 1278:Serbia Montenegro 1254: 1222: 1110: 891: 869: 854: 825: 771:Barfleur-La Hogue 752: 733:Battle of Foochow 665:Battle of Palermo 613: 612: 594: 593: 556: 555: 552: 551: 548: 547: 544: 543: 488: 487: 433:criterion not met 389:on the project's 357:full instructions 302: 301: 298: 297: 165: 164: 161: 160: 3519: 3419: 3418: 3388: 3358: 3314: 3285: 3247: 3237:reliable sources 3223: 3193: 3178: 3169: 3142: 3141: 3120: 3016: 2987: 2984: 2981: 2947: 2944: 2941: 2936: 2920: 2912: 2909: 2906: 2901: 2757: 2754: 2751: 2684: 2335: 2329: 2327: 2283: 2248: 2213: 2191: 2151: 2129: 2081:fourth coalition 2051: 2045: 2039: 1902:german agression 1823:Old North French 1816:Old North French 1716: 1671:Surrender, again 1647:Have a nice day. 1602: 1288: 1250: 1218: 1106: 1098:or I'll issue a 885: 865: 848: 821: 748: 735:in 1884.<< 655:A sentence like; 608: 580: 579: 569: 561: 504: 494: 478: 474: 473: 467: 463: 462: 456: 452: 451: 445: 441: 440: 434: 430: 429: 408: 373: 372: 369: 366: 363: 362:Military history 342: 335: 334: 329: 326: 315:Military history 311: 304: 274: 273: 270: 267: 264: 243: 238: 237: 236: 227: 220: 219: 214: 206: 199: 182: 176: 175: 167: 154:Current status: 139: 120: 101: 82: 59: 53:on May 11, 2006. 46: 23: 16: 3527: 3526: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3447: 3446: 3430:discussion page 3424:Philippe Pétain 3420: 3416: 3413: 3406:Philippe Pétain 3386: 3356: 3312: 3279: 3277: 3258: 3245: 3202: 3191: 3187: 3172: 3167: 3135: 3128:have permission 3118: 3092:this simple FaQ 3077: 3010: 2985: 2982: 2979: 2945: 2942: 2939: 2910: 2907: 2904: 2855:popular history 2755: 2752: 2749: 2678: 2676: 2657: 2609:Niall Ferguson. 2323: 2321: 2292: 2266: 2254: 2231: 2227: 2192: 2130: 2103: 2083: 2049: 2043: 2037: 2033: 2004: 1987: 1964: 1936: 1904: 1880: 1803: 1769:122.148.142.131 1673: 1558: 1516:Geoffrey Parker 1347: 1321: 1064:Is it? Several 934:French victory 775:Battle of Lagos 723:And of finally; 637: 618: 609: 603: 574: 502: 476: 471: 465: 460: 454: 449: 443: 438: 432: 427: 370: 367: 364: 361: 360: 327: 317: 272:France articles 271: 268: 265: 262: 261: 239: 234: 232: 212: 183:on Knowledge's 180: 135: 116: 97: 78: 12: 11: 5: 3525: 3523: 3515: 3514: 3509: 3504: 3499: 3494: 3489: 3484: 3479: 3474: 3469: 3464: 3459: 3449: 3448: 3414: 3412: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3308: 3307: 3304: 3297: 3291: 3276: 3273: 3257: 3256:Niall Ferguson 3254: 3253: 3252: 3186: 3183: 3162: 3161: 3154: 3107: 3106: 3098:Added archive 3076: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2763: 2762: 2675: 2672: 2656: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2611:147.194.244.79 2581:89.156.113.161 2578: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2514:89.156.113.161 2511: 2508: 2501: 2500: 2472:89.156.113.161 2469: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2438: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2402: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2383:89.156.113.161 2355: 2354: 2291: 2288: 2286: 2253: 2250: 2226: 2223: 2217: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2102: 2099: 2082: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2032: 2029: 2003: 2000: 1986: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1963: 1960: 1935: 1932: 1908:battle of Jena 1903: 1900: 1879: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1861: 1855: 1854: 1802: 1799: 1755: 1754: 1749: 1748: 1736: 1672: 1669: 1659: 1658: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1638: 1637: 1632: 1631: 1626: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1578: 1577: 1557: 1554: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1509: 1508: 1488:They were not 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1417:levée en masse 1400: 1399: 1388: 1387: 1346: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1320: 1317: 1209: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1199: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1167: 1096: 1095: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1058: 898: 897: 896: 895: 879: 859: 858: 743: 742: 738: 737: 725: 724: 720: 719: 715: 714: 706: 705: 701: 700: 696: 695: 679: 678: 674: 673: 669: 657: 656: 652: 651: 636: 633: 632: 631: 625: 617: 614: 611: 610: 605: 601: 599: 596: 595: 592: 591: 586: 576: 575: 570: 564: 558: 554: 553: 550: 549: 546: 545: 542: 541: 536: 526: 525: 520: 510: 509: 507: 505: 499: 498: 490: 489: 486: 485: 483: 481: 480: 479: 468: 457: 446: 435: 421: 420: 418: 405: 395: 394: 383: 377: 376: 374: 343: 331: 330: 312: 300: 299: 296: 295: 288:Top-importance 284: 278: 277: 275: 258:the discussion 245: 244: 228: 216: 215: 213:Top‑importance 207: 195: 194: 188: 177: 163: 162: 159: 158: 151: 150: 147: 140: 132: 131: 128: 121: 118:March 25, 2006 113: 112: 109: 102: 99:March 14, 2006 94: 93: 90: 83: 80:March 13, 2006 75: 74: 71: 68: 64: 63: 55: 54: 47: 39: 38: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3524: 3513: 3510: 3508: 3505: 3503: 3500: 3498: 3495: 3493: 3490: 3488: 3485: 3483: 3480: 3478: 3475: 3473: 3470: 3468: 3465: 3463: 3460: 3458: 3455: 3454: 3452: 3445: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3433:. Thank you. 3432: 3431: 3426: 3425: 3411: 3407: 3404: 3392: 3389: 3387:---Wikaviani 3383: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3359: 3357:---Wikaviani 3353: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3315: 3313:---Wikaviani 3305: 3302: 3298: 3296: 3292: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3283: 3274: 3272: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3255: 3251: 3248: 3246:---Wikaviani 3242: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3198: 3197: 3194: 3192:---Wikaviani 3184: 3182: 3181: 3176: 3171: 3170: 3159: 3155: 3152: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3139: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3115: 3110: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3080: 3074: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3014: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2988: 2951: 2948: 2935: 2934: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2919: 2918: 2916: 2913: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2807: 2803: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2761: 2758: 2746: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2724: 2721: 2718: 2714: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2691: 2687: 2682: 2673: 2671: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2654: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2579: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2538:SteveStrummer 2535: 2534:The Telegraph 2530: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2512: 2509: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2486: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2470: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2439: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2369:SteveStrummer 2366: 2365:The Telegraph 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2333: 2332: 2328: 2326: 2318: 2314: 2312: 2306: 2302: 2300: 2295: 2289: 2287: 2284: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2273:81.225.36.206 2270: 2264: 2260: 2251: 2249: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2238:41.185.115.52 2235: 2224: 2222: 2218: 2215: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2166:95.150.56.127 2162: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2125: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2115:86.181.82.140 2110: 2107: 2100: 2098: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2088:Cliché Online 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2061: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2052: 2046: 2040: 2030: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2014: 2011: 2009: 2001: 1999: 1998: 1995: 1991: 1984: 1980: 1977: 1974: 1973:archive video 1969: 1968: 1967: 1961: 1959: 1958: 1955: 1950: 1949: 1946: 1941: 1933: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1901: 1899: 1898: 1895: 1889: 1888: 1885: 1884:Cliché Online 1878: 1874: 1868: 1865: 1862: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1853: 1850: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1839: 1835: 1834: 1829: 1826: 1825:werre "war". 1824: 1819: 1817: 1812: 1809: 1806: 1800: 1798: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1788:95.150.40.173 1783: 1779: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1764: 1763: 1760: 1751: 1750: 1747: 1744: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1734: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1712: 1711: 1708: 1702: 1701: 1698: 1693: 1692: 1686: 1685: 1682: 1676: 1670: 1668: 1667: 1664: 1657: 1654: 1651: 1650: 1646: 1645: 1640: 1639: 1634: 1633: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1624: 1623: 1620: 1611: 1607: 1606: 1601: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1568: 1564: 1555: 1553: 1552: 1549: 1543: 1542: 1539: 1529: 1526: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1507: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1481: 1475: 1474: 1471: 1467: 1461: 1458: 1448: 1445: 1441: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1426: 1422: 1421:ancien régime 1418: 1414: 1409: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1398: 1395: 1390: 1389: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1365: 1360: 1358: 1353: 1352: 1344: 1340: 1337: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1326: 1318: 1316: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1299: 1296: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1281: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1267: 1261: 1258: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1246:, don't lie. 1245: 1240: 1239: 1236: 1231: 1226: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1206: 1203: 1200: 1197: 1194: 1191: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1181: 1179: 1174: 1172: 1165: 1164: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1147: 1144: 1139: 1136: 1131: 1128: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1114: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1084: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1076: 1074: 1069: 1067: 1062: 1056: 1053: 1051: 1045: 1042: 1040: 1034: 1031: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1015: 1014: 1010: 1008: 1002: 1000: 994: 991: 986: 985: 982: 976: 975: 972: 966: 962: 959: 956: 953: 950: 947: 944: 941: 938: 935: 933: 928: 925: 922: 918: 916: 912: 907: 906: 903: 894: 890: 889: 884: 880: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 868: 864: 857: 853: 852: 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 830: 829: 828: 824: 820: 816: 812: 807: 803: 802: 799: 793: 792: 789: 783: 780: 776: 772: 768: 763: 759: 756: 755: 751: 747: 740: 739: 736: 734: 727: 726: 722: 721: 717: 716: 713: 708: 707: 703: 702: 698: 697: 694: 692: 688: 681: 680: 677:Then there's; 676: 675: 670: 668: 666: 659: 658: 654: 653: 649: 648: 647: 646: 643: 634: 629: 626: 623: 620: 619: 615: 598: 597: 590: 587: 585: 582: 581: 578: 577: 573: 568: 563: 562: 559: 540: 532: 528: 527: 524: 516: 512: 511: 508: 506: 501: 500: 495: 491: 484: 482: 477:criterion met 469: 466:criterion met 458: 455:criterion met 447: 444:criterion met 436: 425: 424: 423: 422: 419: 416: 415: 409: 406: 401: 397: 396: 392: 391:quality scale 388: 382: 379: 378: 375: 358: 354: 350: 349: 344: 341: 337: 336: 332: 325: 321: 316: 313: 310: 306: 293: 289: 283: 280: 279: 276: 259: 255: 251: 250: 242: 241:France portal 231: 229: 226: 222: 221: 217: 211: 208: 205: 201: 196: 192: 186: 178: 174: 169: 168: 157: 152: 148: 146: 145: 141: 138: 134: 133: 129: 127: 126: 122: 119: 115: 114: 110: 108: 107: 103: 100: 96: 95: 91: 89: 88: 84: 81: 77: 76: 72: 69: 66: 65: 60: 56: 52: 48: 45: 41: 40: 36: 32: 28: 25: 22: 18: 17: 3428: 3422: 3421: 3385: 3381: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3311: 3309: 3278: 3259: 3244: 3203:— Preceding 3199: 3190: 3188: 3166: 3163: 3138:source check 3117: 3111: 3108: 3081: 3078: 3054: 2975: 2831: 2808: 2804: 2801: 2715: 2698: 2694: 2689: 2677: 2661:86.134.98.73 2658: 2596:StoneProphet 2533: 2528: 2401: 2364: 2331: 2324: 2319: 2315: 2307: 2303: 2298: 2296: 2293: 2285: 2262: 2258: 2255: 2228: 2219: 2216: 2193:— Preceding 2188: 2131:— Preceding 2126: 2111: 2108: 2104: 2084: 2034: 2015: 2012: 2007: 2005: 1994:Shame On You 1988: 1976:Shame On You 1965: 1951: 1945:ThrillSeeker 1938:The article 1937: 1922: 1916:Shame On You 1905: 1890: 1881: 1836: 1830: 1827: 1822: 1820: 1815: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1804: 1784: 1780: 1765: 1756: 1743:Shame On You 1735: 1723:90.50.10.249 1713: 1703: 1689: 1687: 1677: 1674: 1660: 1625: 1616: 1604: 1559: 1544: 1534: 1520:Jeremy Black 1498: 1494: 1489: 1476: 1465: 1462: 1456: 1453: 1440:considerable 1439: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1407: 1368: 1363: 1361: 1356: 1354: 1349: 1348: 1322: 1306: 1302: 1300: 1297: 1289: 1286:Rex Germanus 1282: 1272: 1262: 1260:Pardon me? 1259: 1251: 1248:Rex Germanus 1241: 1229: 1227: 1219: 1216:Rex Germanus 1214: 1210: 1183: 1182: 1175: 1170: 1166: 1155: 1151: 1148: 1142: 1140: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1117: 1115: 1107: 1104:Rex Germanus 1097: 1092: 1077: 1070: 1065: 1063: 1057: 1049: 1047: 1046: 1038: 1036: 1035: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1018:However, in 1017: 1016: 1011: 1006: 1005: 999:resoundingly 998: 997:managing to 996: 995: 992: 987: 977: 967: 963: 960: 957: 954: 951: 948: 945: 942: 939: 936: 931: 929: 926: 923: 919: 914: 910: 908: 902:68.163.73.50 899: 887: 866: 863:Rex Germanus 860: 850: 822: 819:Rex Germanus 808: 804: 794: 784: 778: 773:(tactical), 766: 764: 760: 757: 749: 746:Rex Germanus 744: 728: 709: 704:Another one, 682: 660: 638: 571: 557: 412: 386: 346: 287: 247: 191:WikiProjects 155: 142: 123: 104: 85: 26: 3059:Steve Quinn 3043:K.e.coffman 2774:K.e.coffman 2768:Agree with 2730:Steve Quinn 2704:Steve Quinn 2690:BBC History 2681:Histoire476 2267:—Preceding 2232:—Preceding 2067:DITWIN GRIM 1990:check this! 1717:—Preceding 1499:Roman times 1345:Renaissance 1050:obliterated 969:inaccurate. 453:Structure: 137:May 1, 2010 87:Peer review 3451:Categories 3340:WP:PUFFERY 3295:WP:PUFFERY 3175:Report bug 3047:Monstrelet 2811:Monstrelet 2485:UberCryxic 2320:Take care. 1954:UberCryxic 1926:UberCryxic 1894:UberCryxic 1875:lacks the 1849:UberCryxic 1759:Brutannica 1707:UberCryxic 1681:Brutannica 1663:UberCryxic 1619:UberCryxic 1591:UberCryxic 1538:UberCryxic 1503:UberCryxic 1480:Carl Logan 1470:UberCryxic 1394:UberCryxic 1336:UberCryxic 1311:UberCryxic 1266:UberCryxic 1244:UberCryxic 1235:UberCryxic 1160:UberCryxic 1073:UberCryxic 1039:impressive 981:UberCryxic 971:UberCryxic 815:UberCryxic 798:UberCryxic 788:UberCryxic 693:. << 691:Dutch Navy 687:Royal Navy 642:UberCryxic 3435:Emiya1980 3241:consensus 3158:this tool 3151:this tool 3055:Dead Mary 3013:Dead Mary 2998:Dead Mary 2923:Dead Mary 2889:Dead Mary 2859:Dead Mary 2770:this edit 2174:Legalways 1490:permanent 1406:Napoleon 1173:<< 1028:to defeat 628:Archive 2 622:Archive 1 589:Archive 2 584:Archive 1 3262:LaHire07 3229:WP:UNDUE 3217:contribs 3205:unsigned 3164:Cheers.— 2655:No Suez? 2269:unsigned 2234:unsigned 2207:contribs 2195:unsigned 2145:contribs 2133:unsigned 1719:unsigned 1600:Equendil 1357:military 1351:created. 932:Decisive 883:Equendil 846:Equendil 689:and the 667:<< 616:Untitled 572:Archives 414:criteria 320:European 130:Promoted 111:Reviewed 92:Reviewed 3408:has an 3368:Rjensen 3326:Rjensen 3301:WP:LEAD 3282:Rjensen 3088:my edit 3051:Rjensen 2980:Timothy 2940:Timothy 2905:Timothy 2875:Rjensen 2840:Rjensen 2750:Timothy 2299:battles 1691:Henry V 1688:Surely 1457:thought 1325:savidan 1303:England 1274:Holland 1135:WP:PAIN 1102:claim. 1054:--: --> 1043:--: --> 1032:--: --> 1012:--: --> 1003:--: --> 767:several 387:C-class 328:C‑class 290:on the 181:B-class 149:Demoted 70:Process 3233:WP:VER 3209:TDF444 3053:, and 2983:Joseph 2943:Joseph 2908:Joseph 2836:Amazon 2753:Joseph 2529:should 2490:Drmies 2344:Drmies 2018:Mcewan 1892:ahead. 1697:john k 1548:john k 1525:john k 1497:since 1444:john k 1413:larger 1377:john k 1373:Fronde 1156:entire 1093:at all 911:at all 324:French 263:France 254:France 210:France 187:scale. 73:Result 3310:Best. 2745:WP:OR 2507:here. 1914:? :( 1864:waggg 1847:want. 1838:waggg 1653:waggg 1425:a lot 1264:that. 1178:WP:PA 1169:: --> 1168:: --> 1100:WP:PA 1066:early 1060:: --> 1059:: --> 989:: --> 988:: --> 730:: --> 729:: --> 711:: --> 710:: --> 684:: --> 683:: --> 662:: --> 661:: --> 640:when. 29:is a 3439:talk 3372:talk 3330:talk 3266:talk 3213:talk 3063:talk 3018:out. 3002:talk 2986:Wood 2946:Wood 2927:talk 2911:Wood 2893:talk 2879:talk 2863:talk 2844:talk 2815:talk 2778:talk 2756:Wood 2734:talk 2708:talk 2665:talk 2629:talk 2625:Mvqr 2615:talk 2600:talk 2585:talk 2542:talk 2518:talk 2494:talk 2476:talk 2459:job. 2387:talk 2373:talk 2348:talk 2325:UBER 2277:talk 2242:talk 2203:talk 2178:talk 2170:talk 2141:talk 2119:talk 2092:talk 2071:talk 2022:talk 1792:talk 1773:talk 1727:talk 1605:Talk 1518:and 1495:West 1408:each 1364:each 1158:war. 1143:more 1048:and 888:Talk 851:Talk 67:Date 3410:RfC 3382:and 3132:RfC 3102:to 2702:--- 2363:in 2265:? 2006:In 1585:or 1466:way 1428:me. 1369:too 1242:Oh 1152:not 915:end 779:did 282:Top 3453:: 3441:) 3374:) 3332:) 3268:) 3219:) 3215:• 3145:. 3140:}} 3136:{{ 3065:) 3049:, 3045:, 3041:, 3004:) 2929:) 2895:) 2881:) 2865:) 2857:. 2846:) 2817:) 2780:) 2736:) 2710:) 2667:) 2631:) 2617:) 2602:) 2587:) 2544:) 2536:. 2520:) 2496:) 2478:) 2389:) 2375:) 2367:. 2350:) 2279:) 2244:) 2209:) 2205:• 2180:) 2147:) 2143:• 2121:) 2094:) 2073:) 2062:, 2024:) 2010:: 1794:) 1775:) 1729:) 1375:? 1180:? 1118:my 1022:, 844:. 836:, 503:/ 322:/ 318:: 3437:( 3370:( 3328:( 3284:: 3280:@ 3264:( 3211:( 3177:) 3173:( 3160:. 3153:. 3061:( 3015:: 3011:@ 3000:( 2925:( 2891:( 2877:( 2861:( 2842:( 2813:( 2776:( 2732:( 2706:( 2683:: 2679:@ 2663:( 2627:( 2613:( 2598:( 2583:( 2540:( 2516:( 2492:( 2474:( 2385:( 2371:( 2346:( 2275:( 2240:( 2201:( 2176:( 2168:( 2139:( 2117:( 2090:( 2069:( 2065:. 2050:G 2047:. 2044:T 2041:. 2038:R 2020:( 1790:( 1771:( 1725:( 393:. 381:C 359:. 294:. 193::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index