How do the french even live knowing that this event took place?
>100,000 French soldiers captured
>558 guns
>Emperor captured, forced to abdicate
>Empire destroyed
Is there another event in history that represents a more embarrassing defeat than this?
France was literally the most powerful nation in history
>knowing
Heh, jokes on you most people never heard of it
Why are Pas-de-Calais and Aisne coloured differently?
shut up american
we're coming for you
you better fear us cuz we will win
Napoleon III was the aladeen of France
Marine Le Pen
>Is there another event in history that represents a more embarrassing defeat than this?
Yeah, you dumb cunts getting blown the fuck out by Vietnamese guerilla fighters while having infinitely more resources and technology
Probably because the 1806 French invasion of Prussia was equally humiliating. They ran over the whole country in two weeks, and when they reached Berlin, the king's pregnant wife begged Napoleon to go easy on her.
>they didn't capture our president and dissolve our government
abbo education
based map
The only one who voted Le Pen are the whitest French, no surprise here the South doesn't mind being replaced by people who look like them
The French were beaten by a superior military, while you dumb yanks lost to a smaller and poorly equipped force. Its infinitely more embarrassing for the Americans than the French you seppo fucktard
I wonder what they talked about
coincidentally, also the ugliest, stupidest, most alcoholic and least employed
>brainlet petrol huffer
why inbreds would dislike inbreds
Bismarck had zero respect for Napoleon III, he calls him mediocre in his autobiography
>t. semi bougnoule
>defining your personal identity and worth based of events that happened more than a century ago that have absolutely nothing to do with you
I seriously hope your retards don't do this
Did you forget how the HRE ended ? The same thing happened not even a century earlier.
Isn't Napoleon III generally disliked in the french public ?
Not really, but that's only because people don't know enough about him.
He was certainly right. Napoleon III is one of France's biggest historical waste.
The number of military victories by France far outnumbers not only their own defeats, but also the victories of any other nation on Earth other than Great Britain/England.
not anymore but he was hated following 1870
>Is there another event in history that represents a more embarrassing defeat than this?
You thinking you can defeat Canada and having your White House burned down? You trying to defeat communism in Vietnam and being all proud, decades later because "muh McDonalds"?
Can you translate ?
t. franck "al-bilouti" ribéry
>Massacre and blood thirsty monster
>For twenty years nourished with our blood
>On the pillory, you rage in vain
>We will know well to reduce you to nothingness
>ces vers
Très faible.
It's not even worth translating IMO.
thanks
This.
It sounds just as clumsy in French.
Britain was usually more powerful. Besides, before 1700 no European nation was even a contender for the top spot, not compared to Ottomans, Mughals or the Chinese.
>vietnamese guerrila fighters
*North Vietnamese army operating from bases in Cambodia, Laos and North Vietnam
The US wiped out the viet cong several times over.
What about Spain and its huge-ass colonial empire?
>Latvian education
France was generally more powerful than Britain until the latter started the industrial revolution
a very bad meme desu
>Is there another event in history that represents a more embarrassing defeat than this?
Americans in
-Korea
-Laos
-Lebanon
-Vietnam
-Cambodia
-Iran
-Iraq
-Somalia
-Sudan
-Afghanistan
-Lybia
-Syria
-Yemen
They say all good Germans died in WW2, but all americans aswell. Quite hillarious how your newer military history is all about getting blown the fuck out by medival farmers and dune coons with ww1 armory.
>
surely this poster does not believe what he has written
Is that why France consistently got BTFO almost every time they fought? France always had a much larger ground presence in Europe but Britain absolutely dominated overseas, chasing the French out of North America and India. Britain was always stronger after the mid 17th century. France might've held an edge in the mid 1600s under Louis XIII and XIV, but no later.
Having a fuckload of land doesn't directly translate to power, especially if that land is across an ocean. It gave them some weight to throw around in European wars but they were spent by the 17th century. I don't think Spain's GDP ever exceeded that of China, Mughals or the Ottoman Empire.
i am more ashamed of our worst creation in history, the US
It's normal, generally modern Baltic and Nordic countries learn Western history anglo centered. Don't blame him.
I remember a Finn who thought that UK was the main and decisive protagonist in Crimea war in 19th century (the french ended the conflict by winning against Russia for our Baltic and Nordic friends)
guys what is the mutt talking about?
aside from the 7 years war France won all wars in the 1600-1800 era
France is probably more important for the political and cultural development of modern european civilization, but in the age of the grand colonial empires Britain was more powerful. You have to remember that it was only when Britain took over India that a European power became the global top dog.
>France consistently got BTFO almost every time they fought?
We must live in a different universe, France won nearly all wars, that's why the country actually EXPANDED during that period, and not into empty, unpopulated land, but right into the HRE, and also why the Bourbon dynasty came to rule over Spain (and not the Habsburgs), and also how French became the lingua franca of European aristocracy.
None of these are marks of a country that loses wars.
"Winning" is a pretty relative term in those days. France lost most of its original colonies to Britain even as it gained some territories in Europe.
The name of the game was colonies. Painting the map is nice but Britain had the cash.
>aside from the 7 years war
Look, it's a historical fact that France was the dominant European power from 1648 until the mid 18th century, and even until the death of Napoleon it was a strong contender to that title, and was very powerful before the 17th century as well. You made an extremely uneducated statement about France "losing all wars", don't double down on it, it makes you look dumb.
Anything before 1750ish is irrelevant anyway because no European power was the global #1. After 7 years war you have what, the American revolution which France won, and the Revolutionary-Napoleonic wars, which France lost. All this time Britain was ahead, right up until WW1.
I said nothing about France losing all wars. I said that they got consistently btfo by the british whenever the two faced off directly, which is true.
All of these are tangents, the original statement was that France was the most powerful nation in the world, which has never been true. Before 1750 nobody in Europe was and after 1750 Britain was.
...
only won stuff (in Europe) since 1600
>they got consistently btfo by the british whenever the two faced off directly
That's not true either: en.wikipedia.org
what the hell do you know about baltic countries? arrogant prat
Britain has never been the dominant power in Europe. Having a bunch of Indian and African shitholes is basically worthless. In both 1914 and 1940 the British armies were totally worthless and didn't have any impact on the war, as simple as
>they got consistently btfo by the british whenever the two faced off directly
Hundred Years War lol
Daily reminder
>anglo
Britain only exists since 1707. The Anglo-Scottish union that was Britain in practice only exists since 1603. I am not discussing what happened before that because neither France nor Britain was even remotely globally relevant at that point. I have made it explicitely clear I am discussing the colonial age.
Besides, you are dishonestly passing "not losing" as winning. For example, the war of Spanish succession ended with a lot of back and forth, the Bourbon got the throne but the dynasties got separated, and France lost a bunch of territory in North America, and the newly Bourbon Spain lost a whole bunch of territory. There was rarely such a thing as unambiguous victory at that time because every war had 50 different fronts and 50 participants each looking out for their own interests.
Power is not about army size. Power is about being able to protect your interests by any means necessary. Britain was immensely rich, and dominated the seas upon which Europe's metropolises relied to keep their economies going.
>hundred years war
>british
Yeah, I said they might have had an edge under Louis XIII and XIV, but they were never the most powerful in the world. "Britain" at this time was weak after the civil war and dictatorship.
You think the addition of Scotland made any difference to the power of Britain? Protip Britain is and has always been England + provinces. And they still lost wars afterwards.
And during the colonial age Europeans were already on top of the world, there's a reason why there were French, British, Portuguese, etc. trade posts in Africa and the India, but not a single Indian or African trade post in Europe.
Bataille de Sedan qu'on a perdue contre les prussiens et tout leurs alliés allemands en 1870
>consistently destroyed by the British
You're the kind of guy that will cringe when we say "the Russians" for the USSR, right?
>You think the addition of Scotland made any difference to the power of Britain?
Yes. It meant that half the country wouldn't be burned by marauding Scots whenever the English and French went to war.
France was the underdog in this conflict, and they had Spanish support. It was atypical because Britain was fighting a large scale land war against a regular European style military directlybased in the colonies, rather than the typical fighting between equally isolated detachments and outpost garrisons of fellow European powers. France's support was absolutely critical, but this war hardly serves as a good comparison.
Why would I be? England was not Britain. Scotland was usually allied with the French until 1603. They fought plenty of major wars.
like how 1947 acquisitions are worded
In fact, they fought even after that.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Before they got fully integrated, they were not Britain.
>it doesn't count because reasons
Just stop, it's embarassing as fuck that you try so hard to downplay the objective military might of France, not lost until the 19th century. They were not inferior to the British by any means, and even the victory against Napoleon was almost entirely due to the Russians and not the Anglos. The anglo rewriting of history really permeates everyone it seems.
England is 85% of the UK (in population), so "the British" is practically another funny name for "the English".
Sorry for Welsh sheep fuckers, but it's true.
In fact, given that East Slavs were 70 % of the USSR, it's even more correct to say "the English" when speaking about Britain than to say "the Russians" when speaking about the USSR.
>reasons
jesus christ you're a fucking child.
Just because your wikipedia-educated ass makes the mental leap England=Britain, or because everybody outside the anglosphere calls Britain "England" doesn't make it true. Britain is the union of two kingdoms that used to fight each other a lot. England was bigger and more powerful, but Scotland could and did face off against them.
If the US and Russia declared a union tomorrow, would you claim it's still just the same old US only because the US is significantly more powerful?
Scotland was not just people, it was a seperate entity, a state capable of raising an army and invading England. Removing the competition had a much larger effect than the additional population.
If 85 % of the population of that union was American, then yes, the resulting country would be 85 % America, so pretty much just a greater America, just like the UK is pretty much just a greater England.
>b-but it was nominally a union
It was a full blown annexation.
It's amazing the lengths to which you will go just because you can't recognise that the French actually did very well at war.
France is like the dog that barks a lot but never bites
>flag
lol
I'd probably take offense to this post if it came from literally any other flag
it's the truth
we are humble and peaceful unlike you chihuahas
you have the worst military record of any nation in the world
>"We are in the chamber pot and about to be shat upon."
and? It's mostly memes anyway, you're way worse considering you think yourselves to be germany-tier
true we're not germany-tier, we at least won one world war
we won 2 :^)
The English population exploded in the mid 19th century, the difference between England/Scotland was far less pronounced 300 years ago.
>can't lose wars if we always switch sides
Not sure if based or not based
Good remark, I'd like to read more on that desu
>i am more ashamed of our worst creation in history, the US
Haiti
French colonialism was generally a disaster.
>the difference between England/Scotland was far less pronounced 300 years ago
Extremely wrong, The English population in 1700 was estimated at a bit under 6 million, whereas the Scottish population was about 1 million. That makes it even more pronounced than nowadays.
>Spanish maths
6 / 7 = 85 %
Your words were:
>That makes it even more pronounced than nowadays
Scotland is around 1/10th the size of England today.
Scotland three hundred years ago was around 1/6th the size of England. Though it's actually 1/5th because your numbers were wrong.
archive.fo
I don't care
udumb? Region PACA is conservative and even ellected MM Le Pen last time
Thanks for Nizza btw, I wouldn't be born French otherwise.
I agree, it was embarrassing. We didn't even settle properly in Algeria and got kicked out
A bit of a shame considering it was literally part of the country
>Is there another event in history that represents a more embarrassing defeat than this
Yes, 9/11. It cost the America not only 3,000 of its citizens, but also its 320,000,000 citizens' human rights and freedom. A truly davastating defeat unparalleled in history.
Wonder why Prussia didn't annex france and force german in all school.and education
We are not evil, we are good people. We never did anything wrong. Only became evil when Hitler came around.