Post historical events that make you proud for your country

The Mongol Empire split into 5 different states only 15 years after reaching its largest territorial extent. Then Mongol successor states spent the rest of their history getting their shit pushed in by powers like Russia, China, and Persians.
Their end result wasn't any more impressive than what Alexander, Charlemagne or even Napoleon accomplished.

Every JF refuses to understand why Dunkirk is a celebrated thing here. It's to do with everyone joining in to help out, and plus, celebrating victory is in bad taste. 'Victory days' and the like are cringe worthy to us

Really, you guys don't celebrate victories? I remember that, in 2005, when our president and his PM were criticised for not celebrating the anniversary of the Battle of Austerlitz, Britain was cited as an example to follow because you apparently had a large celebration for the anniversary of Trafalgar.

It's celebrated as it's pretty much our greatest loss. We were anticipating 30k troops evacuated and quite probably the surrender / capitulation of britain to germany.
It's the fact that civilians helped and somehow managed to actually pull through it. France military men standing 20 - 1 against Germans and holding them back, voluntarily isnt unnoticed or unrecognised. Was the decisive factor and the greatest help ever received from an ally and deserve a lot of praise for fighting for us when they no longer had to.
Its the logistical feat and overwhelmingly better result than expected that's celebrated.

the mongol empire still lasted a century, unlike 10 years for Napoleon. The mongol empire was massive.

the mongol empire split itself, it's like anyone else did it for them.

and even the split parts were bigger than napoleon's or alexander's or charlemagne's empire, the golden horde, the illkhanate, the yuan empire were massive.

>Then Mongol successor states spent the rest of their history getting their shit pushed in by powers like Russia, China, and Persians
That was in the late 14-15th, the golden horde, Ilkhanate, yuan were very strong for centuries before their decline.

Alexander's empire split too, and alexander's empire was basically the illkhanate (a small post-mongol empire state). I don't really see what Charlemagne really conquered?

I don't remember a single victory celebration for a battle in the UK

It's not like we are short of wins either. The only thing we do is commemorate 11/11

the mongol conquered russia where napoleon failed. So that's a point for them.

Also conquered so much place (including China, the middle east, central asia, eastern europe etc.)

Attached: DPvP5H2.png (1882x735, 283K)

I don't remember anything to do with that but a Google shows up that we put a flotilla together. I suppose that might be the exception that proves the rule - in olden days we must have cared more because some areas in London are named after won battles. Plus I suppose that's long enough ago to not be distasteful to other countries. But certainly nowadays, the big battles everyone knows aren't the wins we won, it's the ones that are most tragic. Dunkirk, the somme, Ypres, verdun, that stuff

Verdun was the French, and they won

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Achse

It's one of the lesser known operations of the second world war and I find it remarkably that the Wehrmacht was able to succesfully operate such a large scaled operation to this time while simultaneously fighting at multiple other fronts.

Yeah but everyone knows about it because of it being so destructive. And they 'won' but it was a phyrric victory, no need to be smarmy we all have the internet

Napoleon's empire lasting 10 years in the era of nation-states, in the land of the Westphalian system means much more than Genghis Khan's medieval empire. And you're right when you say that the Mongol army was one of the best in history, because it was basically superior to all other militaries at the time, but the mere fact that the Grande Armée conquered Europe without being a steppenigger army makes it superior. It fought its opponents with equal means and prevailed thanks to superior tactics and doctrine.

BOLSONARO PRESIDENTE 2019 NOVA ERA

As people remember dunkirk as a loss which was a victory people only remember the somme as the bloodbath that it was.

This is the moment where modern Germany was truly born

Attached: mauerfall-deutschland-100__v-img__16__9__l_-1dc0e8f74459dd04c91a0d45af4972b9069f1135.jpg (606x341, 104K)

Must've been mad being there when it came down, like winning the world cup

We won the world cup recently and the only thing people did is destroy everything in their sight lol.

I heard that not only their horse archer were op, but they also had cannon, gunpowder, firearms and they introduced them to europe. They also used biological warfare. (wich killed 50% of the european population (pest?) iirc)

They also had great general like subutai from what I remember reading.

but you're right, it's hard to compare 19th western world with 13th Asia.

mongols were also a very small minority/people, like 1 million, and thye ruled over 100 millions people in their empire.

France had 30 millions and ruled over 44 millions (france included) during Napoleon in 18 12.

It's a 1 to 100 ratio compared to basically 30 millions frenchs conquering 14 millions europeans

Winning the America's Cup was a pretty big feat, we broke the longest winning streak in sporting history. Our PM at the time even gave everyone a day off.

youtube.com/watch?v=s8mdHO2_Zo8

Attached: Alt_m2263_crop169014_1024x576_proportional_14757673682DE61.jpg (660x456, 57K)

with 0.2m soldiers, ghengis khan ruled over 100 millions, with a 34 millions km sq2 empire

with 3 millions soldiers, so 15 times more, Napoleon conquered 14 millions, so 7 times less than ghengis

7*15 = 105

Ghengis was 105 times better than Napoleon by this metric

Yeah but the number is higher if you also count the lands that Napoleon didn't simply annex but also subdued. Let's be realistic, if the Grande Armée hadn't been destroyed during the Russian campaign, Austria, Prussia and the other continental powers would have been kept under control. Never annexed, but France would have kept dominating the continent.

Nothing desu

I don't need the internet to know the French won at Verdun. I read quite a lot of military history, visited the Somme battlefields and Normandy beaches last summer and have researched several family members service records.

Mad, never met a person on earth who even follows sailing. I suppose if you're really good at something everyone will like it

Yeah but the Mongols didn't have to fight armies as large as Napoleon did, even proportionally, which makes your reasoning erroneous. The numbers for the Mongol conquest of Eastern Europe are laughable for example, 70000 Mongols vs 80000 Europeans. Compare that to the Third Coalition, where a Grande Armée of 62000 men defeated a coalition of 160000 men.

youtube.com/watch?v=xBMVZdE97l0

Attached: file.png (400x400, 248K)

Yeah but the Mongols didn't have to fight armies as large as Napoleon did, even proportionally, which makes your reasoning erroneous. The numbers for the Mongol conquest of Eastern Europe are laughable for example, 70000 Mongols vs 80000 Europeans. Compare that to the Third Coalition, where a Grande Armée of 198000 men defeated a coalition of 392000 men.

Sailing is a pretty popular sport/activity here. And everyone knows about the America's Cup victory in 1983. It's taught in school kek.

pic related.
napoleon's empire was 2m km2, vs 34 for ghengis. (1 for 16 ratio).

To be fair, Napoleon lived in 18th France, he had thousands of books about military tactics, a proper military education etc. Ghengis, like Drake, started from the bottom and from scratches. He unified tribes by his will alone. They both had an exceptional destiny, but I feel like Ghengis made a bigger impact overall: silk road, ended islamic golden period, changed asia for ever, killed half of europe with the black pest etc. (a genetic one too)

Napoleon also didnt really really created a state, France existed before him, he just made it bigger.

Even if Napoleon actually created a lot of cool stuff, the civil code, reorganized the state, he invented many modern institution (banks, education etc.) he was probably a better stateman than ghengis overall.

Attached: mongol.png (579x174, 49K)

I think Genghis Khan and Napoleon were about equal in historical impact. By taking up the fight against European monarchies, he, willingly or not, ensured that the ideas that make up the foundation of our modern world weren't killed in their nest.

>The black pest

That's a much cuter name than the black death

medieval figures aren't really tustworthy so it's hard to compare, but overall the mongols were often in numerical inferiority

One thing we can be sure of, Ghengis killed way more civilians than Napoleon, literally ten to twenty times more, mostly in china, russia/europe, middle east.

mongols killed half of hungary, like 20 millions chineses, 500,000 russians, killed 90% of the iranian population.

If Napoleon was as ruthless as Ghengis or Timur, basically genocide any city that doesnt surrender maybe Europe would be French today.