To put an end to this heated discussion you've had. Bottom-line is you are about equal.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/bayonet_battles.htm

1750-1815 Battles: French vs British.


. . . . . According to Julius Caesar, the nations and armies are like individuals, go through times of being more courageous or less so, according to circumstances. Every country, no matter how big and strong, had better and worse periods, periods of success and periods of failures and defeats etc. Already the very beginnings of England and France were full of "ups and downs" on military field. Read below about it.

England.
. . . . . "England' about 10,000 B.C., was occupied by groups of nomadic people. About 200 BC England had been invaded by Belgic peoples. They were warriors but even these and other Celtic tribes were small in number and they were fleeing from the Romans who were occupying Gaul (France and part of Germany). "England" was subjugated by Romans for very long time (400 years). The Roman Governor of Britain, Suetonius Paulinus, met the tribesmen in a bloody battle of Boudica. Some 80,000 of the tribesmen were slaughtered, against only 400 Roman dead. After Romans the primitive tribes of England were repeatedly invaded and conquered by aggressive warriors from Scandinavia, the Vikings. There were days when the Danes made the Brits tremble, and the English litany included the prayer, "From the fury of the Danes, Good Lord deliver Us." After Romans and Vikings came Normans from France. The Norman French warriors defeated the English infantry at the Battle of Hastings (1066) and the Norman leader, William Conqueror and his descendants replaced the Anglo-Saxons as the ruling class of England. (Scotland was never conquered by "foreigners", it became part of United Kingdom and the Act of Union was signed by "bribed Scottish aristocrats" (according to nationalist Scottish history).

France.
. . . . . The Gauls had settled in France and on the plains of northern Italy. The Gauls were warlike people and under Brennus they sacked Rome circa 390 BC, destroying all Roman historical records to that point. Julius Caesar and the Romans legions fought against the Gauls in 58-51 BC. The 4th century started with Barbarian invaders from the East such as the Franks, the Vandals and the Visigoths. On December 31, 406 the Vandals, Alans and Suebians crossed the Rhine river, beginning an invasion of Gallia. Charles Martel was the first leader of the Carolingian dynasty. He expanded the Frankish kingdom and stopped the Muslim advance in 732. In 1066, William of Normandy invaded England and was crowned as the English king on Christmas Day, 1066.

Battles: French vs British
in the era of 'modern' bayonet (socket-bayonet) and musket

. . . . . The term "bayonet" is thought to have derived from the French town of Bayonne, and referred to a long knife or dagger which was carried by soldiers. In late 1690s more emphasis began to be placed on the use of the musket as a primary weapon of the common soldier and as a result, the long pike was gradually phased out and so called plug-bayonet was introduced. It was a spear-like blade to which was attached a long conical steel plug inserted directly into the muzzle of the soldier`s musket, a collar lodging against the barrel to prevent it sliding too far in. The disadvantage of this bayonet was that once fixed, the gun cannot be fired until the bayonet was removed.
. . . . . The new , socket-bayonet first appeared in the French army in the 1670s but it was not until 1715 (in British army circa 1725) when the familiar triangular section bayonets were introduced as the new standard pattern. The bayonet had the blade attached to a hollow sleeve which slipped over the muzzle of the musket. The blade was below the axis of the barrel and left clearance to permit the musket to be loaded and fired while the bayonet was fixed.

The triangular socket bayonets were used in the following wars between France and Great Britain:
- 1741-1748 : War of the Austrian Succession
- 1756-1763 : Seven Years War (incl. the French and Indian War)
- 1792-1802 : Revolutionary Wars (incl. French invasion of Ireland)
- 1802-1815 : Napoleonic Wars
The bayonets were also used in many other wars but not between the French and British. Below is a list of battles.

Battles between
the French and the British
1715 (1745) - 1815 Battle French (+ allies)
victory British (+ allies)
victory
June 1743 Dettingen - German-British
victory
May 1745 Fontenoy French victory -
Oct 1746 Roucoux French victory -
July 1747 Lauffeldt French victory -
Nov 1747 Berge-op-Zoom French victory -
1748 Maastricht French victory -
July 1754 Fort Necessity French-Indian
victory -
July 1755 Monongahela River French-Indian
victory -
Aug 1756 Oswego French victory -
July 1757 Hastenbeck French victory -
Hannoverian-German-British army
was led by the Duke of Cumberland,
son of King George II of Great Britain.
Aug 1757 Fort William Henry French victory -
Jun 1758 Louisbourg - British victory
Jul 1758 Ticonderoga French victory -
April 1759 Bergen French-Saxon
victory -
June 1759 Fort Niagara - British-Indian
Aug 1759 Minden - German-British
Sep 1759 Quebec - British victory
Sep 1760 Montreal - British victory
Oct 1781 Yorktown American-French
victory -
May-Aug 1793 Siege of Valenciennes - Austrian-Hannov.
-British victory
Aug-Dec 1793 Toulon French victory -
6-8 Sep 1793 Hondeschoote French victory -
17-18 May 1794 Tourcoing French victory -
22 Aug 1798 Killala Bay French victory -
27 Aug 1798 Castlebar French victory -
5 Sep 1798 Callooney French victory -
8 Sep 1798 Ballinamuck French victory -
12 Oct 1798 Donnegal - British
19 Sep 1799 Bergen Op Zoom French victory -
2 Oct 1799 Bergen op Zoom - Russian-British
6 Oct 1799 Casstricum French victory -
20 March 1801 Canopus - British
6 July 1806 Maida - British
15 Aug 1808 Rolica - British-Portug.
21 Aug 1808 Vimeiro - British-Portug.
21 Dec 1808 Sahagun - British
29 Dec 1808 Benevente - British
16 Jan 1809 Coruna French victory -
12 May 1809 Oporto - British
27 June 1809 Casa de Salinas French victory -
16 July 1809 Flushing - British
28-29 July 1809 Talavera - British-Spanish
July-Dec 1809 Walcheren French victory -
16-24 May 1810 Siege of Mequinenza French victory -
10 July 1810 Barquilla French victory -
24 July 1810 Coa River French victory -
11 Aug 1810 Villagarcia French victory -
27 Sep 1810 Bussaco The Brit-Portug. repelled
the assaults of French troops
but were nevertheless forced
to withdraw. The Brit.-Portug. repelled
the assaults of French troops
but were nevertheles forced
to withdraw
13 Oct 1810 Fuengirola Polish-French
victory -
5 March 1811 Barossa - British
11-15 March 1811 Series of skirmishes at:
Pombal, Redinha, Casal Novo, Foz do Arouce - British-Allies
25 March 1811 Campo Mayor - British
29 March 1811 Guarda - British
3 April 1811 Sabugal - British-Portug.
April 1811 2nd Siege of Olivenza - British
April-May 1811 Blockade of Almeida French victory -
April-May 1811 2nd Siege of Badajoz French victory -
5 May 1811 Fuentes de Onoro - British-Portug.
16 May 1811 Albuera British commander Beresford
thought he was defeated by
the French. Wellington's reaction to Beresford's
account was: "This won't do.
Write me down a victory".
25 May 1811 Usagre - British
May-June 1811 3rd Siege of Badajoz French victory -
June 1811 Operations around
Almeida French victory -
22 June 1811 Elvas French victory -
25 Sep 1811 Carpio de Azaba - British
25 Sep 1811 El Bodon French victory -
27 Sep 1811 Aldea da Ponte - -
28 Oct 1811 Arroyo dos Molinos - British-Portug.
29 Dec 1811 Membrillo French victory -
Dec 1811 - Jan 1812 Siege of Tarifa - British-Portug.
Jan 1812 Siege of Ciudad Rodrigo - British-Portug.
March-April 1812 4th Siege of Badajoz - British-Portug.
11 April 1812 Villagarcia French victory -
18 May 1812 Almaraz - British
11 June 1812 Maguilla French victory -
June 1812 Siege of Salamanca
Forts - British
21 June 1812 Lequeito - British
July 1812 Siege of Castro - British
18 July 1812 Castrejon French victory -
18 July 1812 Castrillo - British
22 July 1812 Salamanca - British-Portug.
-Spanish
July-Aug 1812 Siege of Santander - British
23 July 1812 Garcia Hernandez - British
11 Aug 1812 Malajahonda French victory -
Sep-Oct 1812 Siege of Burgos French victory -
23 Oct 1812 Venta del Pozo French victory -
25 Oct 1812 Villa Muriel French victory -
28 (23 ?) Oct 1812 Villadrigo - British
28 Oct 1812 Tordesillas French victory -
30 Oct 1812 Puente Larga - British
10-11 Nov 1812 Alba de Tormes - British
17 Nov 1812 San Munoz French victory -
20 Feb 1813 Bejar - British
12-13 April 1813 skirmishes at:
Biar and Castalla - British-Allies
2 June 1813 Morales - British
June 1813 Siege of Tarragona French victory -
18 June 1813 skirmishes at:
Osma and San Milan - British-Allies
21 June 1813 Vittoria - British-Portug.
-Spanish
24 June 1813 Villafranca French victory -
26 June 1813 Tolosa - British
25 July 1813 Roncesvalles French victory -
25 July 1813 Maya French victory -
July-Aug 1813 Siege of San Sebastian French-Allies
victory -
26-28 July 1813 Sorauren French-Allies
victory -
30 July-1 Aug 1813 Sorauren - British
July-Aug 1813 Blockade of Tarragona French victory -
31 July - 1 Aug 1813 series of skirmishes at :
Venta de Urroz, Sumbilla and Yanzi - British-Spanish
2 Aug 1813 Lizaso French victory -
31 Aug 1813 San Marcial - Spanish-British
Aug-Sep 1813 Siege of San Sebastian - British
13-14 Sep 1813 skirmishes at:
Ordal and Villafranca French victory -
7 Oct 1813 Bidassoa - British, Germans
Portug.
7 Oct 1813 Vera French victory -
10 Nov 1813 Nivelle - British
9-13 Dec 1813 series of skirmishes at:
Villefranque, Nive, Anglet, Arcangues
Barrouillet and St. Pierre - British-Allies
16 Jan 1814 Molins de Rey French victory -
Feb-April 1814 Siege of Bayonne French victory -
15-25 Feb 1814 series of skirmishes at:
Garris, Arriverayte and S. Etienne - British-Allies
27 Feb 1814 Orthez - British
8 March 1814 Bergen op Zoom French victory -
17 March 1814 Daunia's Raid French victory -
19 March 1814 Vic-Bigorre French victory -
20-24 March 1814 skirmishes at:
Tarbes and Etauliers - British-Allies
8 April 1814 Croix de Orade - British
10 April 1814 Toulouse - British
14 April 1814 Bayonne French victory -
16 June 1815 Quatre Bras draw
French lost 4.000, Allies 4.800 draw
French lost 4.000, Allies 4.800
17 June 1815 Genappe French victory -
18 June 1815 Waterloo - German-British
-Netherland victory
French British and Allies
mostly Germans, but also
Spaniards, Portuguese and others
Total victories 63 61

. . . . . The majority of 'French battles' was won by the French alone, while majority of 'British battles' was won by a mix of German, British and other troops. Often the British troops consisted only few percentages or half of the victorious army and it's difficult to call their victories as only 'British'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>After Romans the primitive tribes of England were repeatedly invaded and conquered by aggressive warriors from Scandinavia, the Vikings.<<

Cough Anglo-Saxons Cough

I think you're confusing England with Britain aswell.

Whats this in response to btw?



"Garlic......and bread?? Garlic bread??"

1814 - Battle of Toulouse is a French victory, NOT a a British one.
So: France 64 - Britain 60

Quote: Cough Anglo-Saxons Cough I think you're confusing England with Britain aswell.

Actually it has been proven over and over that the English are far from being anglo-saxons, but mixture of celts (majority) especially in southern England, viking (eastern england) and in a minority of anglo-saxons (predominant in northern and central England) that managed to impose their culture and language. Anglo-saxons were a minority although they managed to impose their culture over the celts. Anglo-saxon is a term introduced by the normans to differentiate the invaders (normans, breton and Franks) from the common english people.

Extract from D. Burbridge (Celts and Anglo-saxons)

However, the feasibility of a scenario does not mean it is true. Further genetic evidence may finally resolve the controversy. If it is in fact proved that the ‘Celtic’ element was predominant in southern England, this would have interesting implications for cultural history and evolution, for it would show that a complete change of language and culture can be imposed by a dominant minority, in an illiterate pre-industrial society, and in a short period of time.



--------------------------------------------
Power of a god in the hand of a man.

I was just reminding Reaver of the peoples that are the most important in the makeup of the English.

>>Actually it has been proven over and over that the English are far from being anglo-saxons, but mixture of celts (majority) especially in southern England, viking (eastern england) and in a minority of anglo-saxons (predominant in northern and central England) that managed to impose their culture and language.<<

Well no one has ever said that the English are 100% Anglo-Saxon in origin, just that they are the most important factor. You shoot youself in the foot aswell Eryx, how can the Celts be in the majority in the country if by your own words the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings are predominant in Central, Northern and Eastern England? Actually it has been proven that the modern English have far more in common with the modern day desecendants of the Frisians in the Netherlands than their Welsh neighbours. Coincidently Friesland is the area where the majority of the Anglo-Saxons came from or sailed from and Wales is the land where the majority of the Britons fled into after the arrival of the English. Indeed the Welsh name for England is "Lloegr", meaning "The Lost Lands"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm





Cntd

>>Anglo-saxons were a minority although they managed to impose their culture over the celts. Anglo-saxon is a term introduced by the normans to differentiate the invaders (normans, breton and Franks) from the common english people.<<

If the Anglo-Saxons had been merely a ruling class just as the Normans were to the English then how is it that around 35% of the words in the English language are of Germanic origin and the Celtic contribution less than 0.5%. Where the Celtic words that would survive an Angl-Saxon ruling class, as the English did a Norman French ruling class?

Then theres place names, with over 90% of place names in England being of Anglo-Saxon and Danish origin. Is it again another conincidence that the Celtic place names are mainly in the West, especially the South West(Cornwall)?

Not forgetting Brittany itself!



The term 'Anglo-Saxon' was used to lump together the Germanic tribes that came to Britain in the Dark Ages. Of these the Angles and Saxons arrived in the largest number but they were joined by Jutes, Frisians and Franks. By the time of the Norman Conquest these tribes had become the English and the seperate Germanic tribes had long ceased to exist, though 'Saxon' is sometimes used instead of English but they both mean the same thing.





"Garlic......and bread?? Garlic bread??"

"I was just reminding Reaver of the peoples that are the most important in the makeup of the English."

That was not my statement, but the author's.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1814 - Battle of Toulouse is a French victory, NOT a a British one.
So: France 64 - Britain 60

I disagree, the first British attack was reppelled the second during the same battle was victorious and pushed Soults troops out of Toulouse, the city was captured by the British.

The best European submarine, coming soon.

27 Sep 1810 Bussaco The Brit-Portug. repelled
the assaults of French troops
but were nevertheless forced
to withdraw. The Brit.-Portug. repelled
the assaults of French troops
but were nevertheles forced
to withdraw

I'd also claim Busaco as a British victory as the French lost many more soldiers and the British withdrawal was because of the fact that the British were building defensive lines in southern Portugal. The British/Portuguese lost 1250 killed/wounded whereas the French lost 4400 plus 5 Generals killed/wounded and did not manage a breakthrough and encirclement of Wellingtons army.

http://www.britishbattles.com/peninsula/peninsula-busaco.htm

The best European submarine, coming soon.

26-28 July 1813 Sorauren French-Allies
victory -

This seems also incorrect, several sources say that the French force had to withdraw and the French lost 4000 men whilst the British lost 2600.

The best European submarine, coming soon.

14 April 1814 Bayonne French victory -

Again IMHO incorrect the French made a breaking out attempt which failed the French lost 900 the British 840.

Feb-April 1814 Siege of Bayonne French victory -

Bayonne was taken on April 27th by the British.


July-Aug 1813 Siege of San Sebastian French-Allies
victory -

Again this is not totally correct, in the end the siege was successful for wellington San Sebastian was taken completly, with heavy loss of life though the British strategic aims were fulfilled. IMHO it's 59-66 in favour of Britain.

The best European submarine, coming soon.

Rob, you seem to have quite a knowledge on these matters.

"I'd also claim Busaco as a British victory as the French lost many more soldiers and the British withdrawal was because of the fact that the British were building defensive lines in southern Portugal. The British/Portuguese lost 1250 killed/wounded whereas the French lost 4400 plus 5 Generals killed/wounded and did not manage a breakthrough and encirclement of Wellingtons army."

Isn't that similar to Jutland, Skagerrak the naval battle. There the British historians claim it was a British strategic victory, while they have to admit that Germany scored an amazing tactical victory?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't that similar to Jutland, Skagerrak the naval battle. There the British historians claim it was a British strategic victory, while they have to admit that Germany scored an amazing tactical victory?

Whilst you might be right about the 1916 Skagerrak (tactical German victory because they sunk twice the amount the british did, but strategic British victory because the German High Seas Fleet didn't come out of port after that any more in WW1) , Bussaco was a real British victory:

(1) The French suffered much higher losses and were reppelled.
(2) The British were withdrawing already before Bussaco, Wellington was just looking to keep the French at bay and to further retreat to the impenetrable lines of Torres Vedras.

So really the British achieved all they wanted in Bussaco IMHO.

The best European submarine, coming soon.

The Brits and the French were pretty equal i reckon, but we win simply becase we have a nicer Flag and a Better uniform muhaha...[joke]

respects | arabasperna




"He that speaks truth must have one foot in the stirrup" - Turkish Proverb

the brits have always had a great professional army ever since the 17th century.


Don't try this at home lads

quoted from panda:
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."

ThebetterRob

1814 - Battle of Toulouse is a French victory, NOT a a British one.
So: France 64 - Britain 60

I disagree, the first British attack was reppelled the second during the same battle was victorious and pushed Soults troops out of Toulouse, the city was captured by the British.

Wrong, Soult troops weren't pushed out of Toulouse. Learning Napoleon's abdication he retreated out of Toulouse during the night to avoid the fight and stay mobile. He could retreat in order, without a fight and with his material, wounded and supply despite one of the Wellington goal was to trap or destroy Soult's army in Toulouse.
Non of those goal were achieved.
Had the fight resumed the day after, it is likely that Wellington's army would have been defeated: Wellington's army was exhausted, suffered hight loss and had lost a big share of its artillery. The French were well entrenched and suffered much less casualties.

Numbers:

40.000 British + 10.000 Spanish vs 42.000 French

"Official" Anglo numbers: British/Spanish casualties: 4.500, French casualties: 3.200

Serious French sources say that British/Spanish casualties were rather around 8000 while French casualties were less than 4000.

Historian Nicoles Gotteri: “Thus the battle of Toulouse was completed. The forces of Soult were almost intact; The coalised, exhausted by the attack of April 10, in spite of their number, were badly hit. Also they gave up, in the day of the 11, to try to remove the second position of French forming the body of the place. Toulouse corresponds to an undeniable strategic success. “

Historian Jean Tulard: “Described as French defeat, this battle deserves to be called French victory rather, insofar as the plan of Soult succeeded and that of Wellington failed, without speaking about the enemy losses twice heavier. “

The battle of Toulouse was french victory, soult managed to inflict higher lvl of casualties on the allies.

http://pageperso.aol.fr/marsouin18/Toulouse1814.html


Two french historians have called a french victory. The british tends to deformed history, the victory was strategic similar to Malplaquet.

Nicoles Gotteri : “ Ainsi s’achevait la bataille de Toulouse . Les forces de Soult étaient à peine entamées; les coalisés, épuisés par l’attaque du 10 avril, étaient, malgré leur nombre, sévèrement touchés . Aussi renoncèrent-ils, dans la journée du 11, à tenter d’enlever la seconde position des français formant le corps de la place . Toulouse correspond à un incontestable succès stratégique . “



The briish lose 8000 whereas French forces loss was around 2000. But of course bias anglo-saxon sources put british loss to 3200.

Jean Tulard : “ Qualifiée de défaite française, cette bataille mérite plutôt le nom de victoire française, dans la mesure où le plan de Soult a réussi et celui de Wellington a échoué, sans parler des pertes ennemies deux fois plus lourdes . “



French Napoleonic uniform

--------------------------------------------
Power of a god in the hand of a man.

well the french did receive a SERIOUS defeat of the brits in waterloo, a VERY small british army retained the whole napoleon army and inflicted the loss of the french cavalry (stupid thing to do from né) but the brits were imperial.

btw, did naopoleon ever faced a serious foe before waterloo, I heard that the austrians had a good army on paper but they sucked like hell in battle (that doesn't take any credit away from the genious of napoleon) but don't forget that the small general did get his ass whooped in Egypt (in a way) and in Russia

Imo he never faced a real professional army before waterloo where he lost.

Napoleon also lost at sea. At the end napoleon was a good general even a extreme good one at that but he wasn't great imo.


Don't try this at home lads

quoted from panda:
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."

Quote: well the french did receive a SERIOUS defeat of the brits in waterloo, a VERY small british army retained the whole napoleon army and inflicted the loss of the french cavalry (stupid thing to do from né) but the brits were imperial.

Go read the battle again, if the Prussian didn't come, Napoleon would have sent Wellington to St Peter. If the English had faced Napoleon one on one no chance they would have ever won.

By the way we didn't fight the Austrian only, but also the Prussian, the Russian, the Spanish, the Portuguese, THe british let entire europe. Except Bavarian and western German were our allies during most of the war.

--------------------------------------------
Power of a god in the hand of a man.

LOL what a patience you have now Erix

Eric: you don't know what you are talking about and that show. You should study a little before speaking. Internet is great for that. Then you can come with arguments, right or wrong but something more consistent than a "IMO" on historical facts. Don't worry you'll find enough biased arguments on the internet that would fit your anti-French tendency

"well the french did receive a SERIOUS defeat of the brits in waterloo, a VERY small british army retained the whole napoleon army and inflicted the loss of the french cavalry (stupid thing to do from né) but the brits were imperial."


Wrong. Wellington's army was 1/3 British, 1/3 German and 1/3 Dutch-Belgian. And the battle was in the balance until the Prussian army smashed through Napoleon's left wing.

75% of the allied armies' soldiers were German/Prussian.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eryx

"IF THE BRITISH HAD FACED NAPOLEON ONE ON ONE NO CHANCE THEY WOULD HAVE WON"

Maybe, but we had managed to beat French armies one on one before, so who know's.

Don't use the pitiful excuse that these were allied armies that defeated the mighty French war machine, the Portuguese army had been re built from the ground up by us and the Spanish were almost worse than useless, and besides just because the British decided to form loyal alliances (as opposed to loose alliances that were fighting for you one year and fighting against you the next) rather than militarise the entire country in order to fight the Napoleonic wars is a positive for us, not a negative.

Busaco, Sept. 27 1810. BRITISH VICTORY.
MASSENA
50,700 French infantry.
8,400 French cavalry.
114 guns
WELLINGTON
24,800 British infantry.
24,650 Portuguese infantry.
210 British cavalry.
60 guns

Casualties.
4,600 French.
544 British.
626 Portuguese.

Fuentes de Onoro, May 3-5 1811. BRITISH VICTORY.
MASSENA
42,200 French infantry.
4,660 French cavalry.
38 guns.
WELLINGTON
23,000 British infantry.
11,500 Portuguese infantry.
1,870 British cavalry.
48 guns.

Casualties.
2,844 French.
1,804 Brit & Port.

Salamanca, July 22 1812. BRITISH VICTORY.
MARMONT
41,600 French infantry.
3,390 French cavalry.
78 guns.
WELLINGTON
25,600 British infantry.
17,400 Portuguese infantry.
3,500 British cavalry.
500 Portuguese cavalry.
60 guns.

Casualties.
14,000 French.
5,200 Brit & Port.

Viroria, June 21 1813. BRITISH VICTORY.
GAZAN, D'ERLON, REILLE AND JOSEPH
56,400 French infantry.
10,750 French cavalry.
140 guns.
WELLINGTON
27,350 British infantry.
27,550 Portuguese infantry.
6,900 Spanish infantry.
7,400 British cavalry.
890 Portuguese cavalry.
90 guns.

casualties.
8,000 French.
5,100 Brit, Port and Span.

All British victories in generally one on one battles with the French, and a sign that Wellington was quite capable of defeating French armies.

The French army in 1815 wasn't the same army that fought these battles, it was less capable, mainly because of the casualties it had suffered in Russia, it was less able to manouver in the attack and less able to form an effective defence than it was in 1812.

Wrong, Soult troops weren't pushed out of Toulouse. Learning Napoleon's abdication he retreated out of Toulouse during the night to avoid the fight and stay mobile. He could retreat in order, without a fight and with his material, wounded and supply despite one of the Wellington goal was to trap or destroy Soult's army in Toulouse.
Non of those goal were achieved.
Had the fight resumed the day after, it is likely that Wellington's army would have been defeated: Wellington's army was exhausted, suffered hight loss and had lost a big share of its artillery. The French were well entrenched and suffered much less casualties.

Numbers:

40.000 British + 10.000 Spanish vs 42.000 French

"Official" Anglo numbers: British/Spanish casualties: 4.500, French casualties: 3.200

Serious French sources say that British/Spanish casualties were rather around 8000 while French casualties were less than 4000.

Historian Nicoles Gotteri: “Thus the battle of Toulouse was completed. The forces of Soult were almost intact; The coalised, exhausted by the attack of April 10, in spite of their number, were badly hit. Also they gave up, in the day of the 11, to try to remove the second position of French forming the body of the place. Toulouse corresponds to an undeniable strategic success. “

Historian Jean Tulard: “Described as French defeat, this battle deserves to be called French victory rather, insofar as the plan of Soult succeeded and that of Wellington failed, without speaking about the enemy losses twice heavier. “

If you might come up with any indication of casualties, I have read my figures very often. IMHO it is a British victory, the French were forced out of their defending positions (surrounding ridges)
and then they left Toulouse (afterall an important French city then) finally to its fate.




The best European submarine, coming soon.

Go read the battle again, if the Prussian didn't come, Napoleon would have sent Wellington to St Peter. If the English had faced Napoleon one on one no chance they would have ever won.

Not necessarily:

(1) If the British hadn't had the Prussians support they would have deployed a larger army
(2) Even with the small British army at Waterloo they kept the french at bay for the whole day, in the event the Guards literally destroyed the French Imperial Guard.



BTW one shouldn't forget that a lot of the Belgian troops DIDN'T want to fight the French, they were more or less useless.



The best European submarine, coming soon.

"TW one shouldn't forget that a lot of the Belgian troops DIDN'T want to fight the French, they were more or less useless"

http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Waterloo_Cowards.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarily:

"(1) If the British hadn't had the Prussians support they would have deployed a larger army"

From where? What army? Could it be possibly even more German or Dutch soldiers?


"(2) Even with the small British army at Waterloo they kept the french at bay for the whole day, in the event the Guards literally destroyed the French Imperial Guard."

It was NOT a British army, that's the point of it. Besides Napoleon had to keep substantial forces engaged with the Prussians the whole time. The battle was in the balance until the arrival of the Prussian army.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rob L
If you might come up with any indication of casualties, I have read my figures very often. IMHO it is a British victory, the French were forced out of their defending positions (surrounding ridges)
and then they left Toulouse (afterall an important French city then) finally to its fate.

I've got my numbers from an book "La grande Armée" from a quite serious autor: Georges Blond.

Soult was in Toulouse only because he chosen to fight there, slow down and hopefully destroy the British-Spanish army invading France from Spain.

Translation (automatic corrected by me)
"Pursued by Wellington, Soult operates skilfully and always succeeds in escaping enemy forces however much stronger; after the battle of Orthez, Soult could retreat either in direction of Bordeaux, either in direction of Toulouse; but the retreat through the marshy "Landes" appeared too difficult, he prefers to be withdrawn slowly in direction of Toulouse and to pursue the goal which it had never lost sight of the fact since its passage of the Pyrenees, namely the junction of its forces with those of Suchet immobilized in the area of Narbonne. The 24 march, Soults install his army in Toulouse; 48 hours after Wellington troops appear before St Cyprien."

From memory: The fact that Soult could reach Toulouse is itself an achevement as Wellington first tried to cut him the road of Toulouse. To be fair, Wellington failed thanks to heavy rain and muddy roads.
Soult's troops could have a well welcomed rest and resupply. It's said that more than 4000 French soldiers didn't even have shoes when they arrived in Toulouse.

This, the battle itself, and the fact that Soult could retreat in order, considering the situation in 1814, it can be considered as a victory.

now I'm not going to give more point, we can agree to disagree .. except if I convinced you of course

Reaver180
It was NOT a British army, that's the point of it. Besides Napoleon had to keep substantial forces engaged with the Prussians the whole time. The battle was in the balance until the arrival of the Prussian army.

The battle in balance ? what a diplomatic way to say that the position of the British-Dutch was critic before the Prussian's army arrived.
Had this idiot of Grouchy, sent by Napoleon to met the Prussians, be a little faster, the outcome of the battle would have been very different.
Everybody knows that I thought ??

"The battle in balance ? what a diplomatic way to say that the position of the British-Dutch was critic before the Prussian's army arrived."

Well, the Allied army (note: not the BRITISH army!) was holding their ground pretty well and made the French pay for every step, but eventually they would have been ground down I agree.

"Had this idiot of Grouchy, sent by Napoleon to met the Prussians, be a little faster, the outcome of the battle would have been very different."

I'm not even talking about that army, but Napoleon himself at Waterloo had to keep feeding numerous troops towards Placenoit where the Prussians assault began in the afternoon. The use of these troops against the Allied army would certainly brought Napoleon the victory.

But even if Napoleon won, 3 massive allied armies (Russian, Prussian and Austrian) were on their way to France. It would only have delayed the inevitable. Nobaody can conquer and hold all of Europe, the Romans, the French, the Germans, the Russians all went down in the end when they tried it.


"Everybody knows that I thought ??"

Crap, everyone knows Wellington would have kicked Napoleons' ass with one single regiment and the force of his aura LOL.

No, seriously. It is amazing that many people still believe that Wellington somehow outplayed Napoleon and even more insulting is that repeatedly the battle is described as A British victory, while 75% of all soldiers on the allied side were Germans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: But even if Napoleon won, 3 massive allied armies (Russian, Prussian and Austrian) were on their way to France. It would only have delayed the inevitable. Nobaody can conquer and hold all of Europe, the Romans, the French, the Germans, the Russians all went down in the end when they tried it.

Well there was still Davout in Paris and that army there in reserve. Basically at this stage a defeat of the allies at waterloo would have meant a peace treaty. France wasn't in a position anymore to threaten europe, waterloo was just an attempt to save the face and to retain belgium and part of northern italy but clearly France was exhausted.

--------------------------------------------
Power of a god in the hand of a man.

Eryx
Well there was still Davout in Paris and that army there in reserve. Basically at this stage a defeat of the allies at waterloo would have meant a peace treaty. France wasn't in a position anymore to threaten europe, waterloo was just an attempt to save the face and to retain belgium and part of northern italy but clearly France was exhausted.

Yes and after the Russian disaster there was almost no hope anyway.

But two attacking armies, if they don't attack together and are fought one after the other is not much different than 1 army.
But even if we had won in Watterloo and had a peace treaty, as before England would have managed to buid a new coalition. Again and again until France leave all the annexed territory, notably Belgium and the left side of the Rhine, something France couldn't accept as we always considered the Rhine as our "natural frontier".
Even, lets not forget that it is the coalition of tyrans that attacked France in the first place, before France annexed any territories, so who know if the English and the European kingdom wouldn't have continued to harass France and build new coalitions against us, even if we had gave up the annexed territories, until we have put back a King in power.

Something that wasn't very clean is the Coalition's army behavior during the night after the battle of Watterloo. There was very little French prisonners, there was some massacre of French and allies soldiers there. Not nice, the French didn't do that when they won battles.
That looked not good for the future occupation but in fact, all in all, the coalition's behavior wasn't so bad, lets admit it. They probably still feared the French The people of the German states allied to France suffered more. There collective memory had been completly erased but most of the western German states were French allies. Except at the very end because, like in France, the people was fed up with all those embargo, restriction on trade with England and endless wars.

No, it is quite well known that we didn't like the French. I don't know if there were massacres, but if the Prussians had had the power to decide alone Paris would have been burnt down in 1814.

That was one thing that made the Prussian army that good after 1812. They really HATED the French. It was not about politics, but honor for them Napoleon crippled Prussia and they wanted revenge. Fortunately for Paris the Russians restrained them. And as to the "Confederation of the Rhine" they were considered nothing more than traitors. Ethnic Germans fight for the French against fellow Germans. They were shaky allies particularly during 1812-1813 when a wave of nationalism swept through the country in the wake of the War of Liberation. The tensions even in the units themselves were great, many soldiers deserted and changed sides even during battle as in Leipzig.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"(1) If the British hadn't had the Prussians support they would have deployed a larger army"

From where? What army? Could it be possibly even more German or Dutch soldiers?

Soldiers from Britain? I'm pretty sure Britain hadn't committed all its troops in Waterloo afterall that was just a quickly scrambled army.


"(2) Even with the small British army at Waterloo they kept the French at bay for the whole day, in the event the Guards literally destroyed the French Imperial Guard."

It was NOT a British army, that's the point of it. Besides Napoleon had to keep substantial forces engaged with the Prussians the whole time. The battle was in the balance until the arrival of the Prussian army.

Well I meant the British part of the Allied armies. BTW you do like to rant about the Germans being so important, but don't forget the British had an overproportionate casualty figure with about 6500 0f 23000 (28%). And also Gneisenau that idiot risked the whole battle because he slowed the Prussians down, because he thought the British wouln't stand that long. The British ad 23000 troops of the 67000 Allied (Wellington army) total so more than a third, the Germans probably a little bit more and the rest Belgians/Dutch.
Of course you can't count all 102000 Prussians as not all were committed and especially not all day long.



The battle in balance ? what a diplomatic way to say that the position of the British-Dutch was critic before the Prussian's army arrived.
Had this idiot of Grouchy, sent by Napoleon to met the Prussians, be a little faster, the outcome of the battle would have been very different.
Everybody knows that I thought ??

Well you seem much too sure of that. At about 3 PM that day when the Prussians were starting to file east, the British/Dutch had reppelled the French Cavalry often and then some time later the French Guards were destructed by the British Guards, this more or less triggered a general Allied offensive.

All in all Germans and the British were IMHO about equally important for victory.

The best European submarine, coming soon.

"Soldiers from Britain? I'm pretty sure Britain hadn't committed all its troops in Waterloo afterall that was just a quickly scrambled army"

So where was the rest? I would say it was quite important to have troops in the main thatre after all.

"Well I meant the British part of the Allied armies."

What did the others do? Stand by and watch the show? For example the KGL (The Royal Hannoverian Army in all but name) were rather important I would say.
As were the Beligian cavalry.

" BTW you do like to rant about the Germans being so important, but don't forget the British had an overproportionate casualty figure with about 6500 0f 23000 (28%)."

http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Waterloo_MYTHS.html

"What was your reasoning in naming Waterloo as the German victory?

Wellington's force consisted of contingents from three countries: Britain, Germany and the Netherlands.

Each formed roughly one-third of his army, with the Germans making the largest third, the British the smallest. Almost all of Blücher's Prussians were ethnic Germans. In the theatre in the Low Countries, 75% of the troops were German.

Of these, Blücher's Prussians did most of the marching, fighting and bleeding. Reference to the relevant charts in volume 2 of my work on 1815 demonstrates this clearly."

"And also Gneisenau that idiot risked the whole battle because he slowed the Prussians down, because he thought the British wouln't stand that long. The British ad 23000 troops of the 67000 Allied (Wellington army) total so more than a third, the Germans probably a little bit more and the rest Belgians/Dutch.
Of course you can't count all 102000 Prussians as not all were committed and especially not all day long."

Calling Gneisenau the father of the Prussian military reforms and the by far best COS of his time an idiot is laughable. Gneisenau didn't trust Wellington and therefore tried to slow down the march. But anyway, instead of complaining about Gneisenau why don't you compliment Blücher who in spite of being ridden over by French cavalry insisted that his troops march as fast as they could and thus arrive on time? Blücher was in command after all.

I don't need to claim that all Prussians were there. Those that were present together with those in the Allied army are comfortably enough to prove my point.

"Well you seem much too sure of that. At about 3 PM that day when the Prussians were starting to file east, the British/Dutch had reppelled the French Cavalry often and then some time later the French Guards were destructed by the British Guards, this more or less triggered a general Allied offensive."

http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/WATERLOO_GUARD_NAPOLEON.htm

It seems that your opinion is disputed, could it be that the French Guard had more important things to do like halting the Prussians? And besides, the French Guard was stopped by soldiers from Germany... interesting.

"All in all Germans and the British were IMHO about equally important for victory"

I should be content with that considering that the predominant view of the battle is that it was a British victory, which is IMO an incredible insult to the thousands of Germans/Belgians and Dutch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So where was the rest? I would say it was quite important to have troops in the main thatre after all.

Huh? India, Australia, North America and Waterloo.


Of these, Blücher's Prussians did most of the marching, fighting and bleeding. Reference to the relevant charts in volume 2 of my work on 1815 demonstrates this clearly."

Untrue: At Waterloo the British suffered about AS MANY CASUALTIES AS THE PRUSSIANS.



Calling Gneisenau the father of the Prussian military reforms and the by far best COS of his time an idiot is laughable. Gneisenau didn't trust Wellington and therefore tried to slow down the march. But anyway, instead of complaining about Gneisenau why don't you compliment Blücher who in spite of being ridden over by French cavalry insisted that his troops march as fast as they could and thus arrive on time? Blücher was in command after all.

Come on, if Gneisenau hadn't been hundreds if not even thousands of British/Dutch/German troops hadn't died.




It seems that your opinion is disputed, could it be that the French Guard had more important things to do like halting the Prussians? And besides, the French Guard was stopped by soldiers from Germany... interesting.

This is untrue, the French Imperial Guard was used succesfully against the Prussians, then they were used against the British but here the British Guards slaugthered them. BTW your link is pretty Anti-British, I'm not sure how credible it is.

Sir John Colborne brought the 52nd Foot round to outflank the French column as it passed his brigade, fired a destructive volley into the left flank of the Chasseurs and attacked with the bayonet. The whole of the Guard was driven back down the hill and began a general retreat to the cry of “La Garde recule”.

The best European submarine, coming soon.

Reaver180
No, it is quite well known that we didn't like the French. I don't know if there were massacres, but if the Prussians had had the power to decide alone Paris would have been burnt down in 1814.

That was one thing that made the Prussian army that good after 1812. They really HATED the French. It was not about politics, but honor for them Napoleon crippled Prussia and they wanted revenge. Fortunately for Paris the Russians restrained them. And as to the "Confederation of the Rhine" they were considered nothing more than traitors. Ethnic Germans fight for the French against fellow Germans. They were shaky allies particularly during 1812-1813 when a wave of nationalism swept through the country in the wake of the War of Liberation. The tensions even in the units themselves were great, many soldiers deserted and changed sides even during battle as in Leipzig.

Your post express Prussian point of vew, NOT the German one. That is not surprising as
history has been written in Germany according to Prussian point of vew.
That Prussia hated France, for sure. They are partly responsible of the massacre of
french soldiers that occured after the Watterloo battle was over.

But at the beginning most of the German people felt much more concerned by Liberty and
Equality than with nationalism. They didn't fought for France, they fought for the
ideas of the Revolution. And afaik France didn't annexed them.
They started to be really angry at the end because the war never ended, they had to
contribute more and more to the war, there were restriction on trade, and a lot of
Germans were killed in the Russian campaign. This was at the end of the war. It is
only AFTER a long repression and brainwashing that the whole Germany, unfortunately,
got the same feeling and mentality as the Prussians and were convinced that the French
were tyran and were there enemy.

"Your post express Prussian point of vew, NOT the German one. That is not surprising as
history has been written in Germany according to Prussian point of vew.
That Prussia hated France, for sure. They are partly responsible of the massacre of
french soldiers that occured after the Watterloo battle was over. "

I don't know. I've never heard of such a massacre, but it may be the case. As I said they hated them. The term only a dead French is a good French comes from these times.

"But at the beginning most of the German people felt much more concerned by Liberty and
Equality than with nationalism. They didn't fought for France, they fought for the
ideas of the Revolution. And afaik France didn't annexed them.
They started to be really angry at the end because the war never ended, they had to
contribute more and more to the war, there were restriction on trade, and a lot of
Germans were killed in the Russian campaign. This was at the end of the war. It is
only AFTER a long repression and brainwashing that the whole Germany, unfortunately,
got the same feeling and mentality as the Prussians and were convinced that the French
were tyran and were there enemy."

Generally right. Most of the other states didn't like Prussia because it was percieved as aggressive and militarist. Some others particularly Bavaria and Würrtemberg were concerned for their power and the ruling houses quickly made deals with Napoleon.

The French were never liked, but were tolerated some time when the people thought Napoleon would change things. Of course that proved to be wrong. And to say that they fought for the revolution is not right IMO, they were forced to. Hell Prussia sent thousands of men against Russia as Napoleons "Allies" (read: puppets). Thank God general Yorck showed courage and took his army over to the Russians.

There were two prime enemies of Napoleon in Germany, Prussia and the Royal House of Hannover in exile. They provided some of the finest troops during the wars, the KGL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post express Prussian point of vew, NOT the German one. That is not surprising as
history has been written in Germany according to Prussian point of vew.
That Prussia hated France, for sure. They are partly responsible of the massacre of
french soldiers that occured after the Watterloo battle was over.

But at the beginning most of the German people felt much more concerned by Liberty and
Equality than with nationalism. They didn't fought for France, they fought for the
ideas of the Revolution. And afaik France didn't annexed them.
They started to be really angry at the end because the war never ended, they had to
contribute more and more to the war, there were restriction on trade, and a lot of
Germans were killed in the Russian campaign. This was at the end of the war. It is
only AFTER a long repression and brainwashing that the whole Germany, unfortunately,
got the same feeling and mentality as the Prussians and were convinced that the French
were tyran and were there enemy.

That is right.

The best European submarine, coming soon.

I do not believe all the crap people seem to write these days about the French military. The French have nothing to prove to anyone.

However, I've just looked at the list and have to say that it's a lot of rot, and that gives the appearance of having been written by someone who feels they do need to prove something, and are prepared to twist any statistics to do so. "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

In short:-

1) What about the naval battles? They will alter the balance more than a little.

2) What's so special about 1750 to 1815? There were dozens of battles before then.

3) The British won more of the 'important' battles or it wouldn't have won 'the war' (Almost 90 of the battles listed are from the Napoleonic War & we all know how that ended).

Which uniform - French or British - do you all prefer?

FRENCH:


BRITISH:


____________________________________________________________________________________

Orhun Runes

British uniform, French bearhat (didn't the British have similar ones or only those pathetic ones like in the picture?)

The best European submarine, coming soon.

Not only did we, but we still do:-



The Bearskin has been worn by the Guards regiments since Waterloo.

But I don't know how much longer they will last:-

http://www.liberation-mag.org.uk/worldspress3.htm

How can they think of phasing out a centuries-old tradition? What is the point? They are a popular tourist attraction anyway..

____________

lol can these guys even see?



Long Live India


Will Durant, (1885-1981) American historian: "India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all".

Cool!

About equal on land, then we frigging waste them at sea 9 times out of 10.

You can't argue with those prices.

No wonder we went on to build a mighty Empire, whilst the French festered on our sloppy seconds.

Sweet.

----

If we just count wars not the individual battles whats the score there ??

----------------------------------------------------------

Death From Below !!!!

Smugs
If we just count wars not the individual battles whats the score there ??

If we look at the big picture: tie: you didn't took us some land, we didn't took you some land.
.. well except Aquitaine and Calais
Well there is still Acadia and Quebec but Canada doesn't belong to the UK anyway I guess
.... and there is Jersey and Guernesey island