Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Most powerful country

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Most powerful country
    Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 12:24
 
Originally posted by pinguin

Yes, look at the Persians that tried to invade Greece, stopped by a bunch of Spartans. 
Not exactly. In the first war the Persians were routed by the Athenians and Plataeans at Marathon. In the second war, it's true a Spartan general led the Greeks at the battle of Plataea, but it was essentially the Athenian fleet that stopped the Persians at Salamis and eventually chased them out of the Aegean.
 
In fact, even after Marathon, it was the Greek fleet that led Darius to withdraw (or, at least, not to invade again).
 
All this concentration on armies frequently misses the point.
 
Originally posted by Scheich

...
No single country could defeat the Mongolic Empire , but  the Mongolic Empire had no chance to defeat Japan.
They did, but they blew it. Wink
No single country could defeat Napoleon, but  Napoleon had no chance to defeat Russia or UK.
He had the chance to fight Britain one on one, but threw it away by invading Russia. In fact there was a period when only Britain was fighting France and its allies.
No single country could defeat the British Empire under Victoria, but  the British Empire had no chance to defeat Russia.
What about the Crimea? Kind of a draw there, even though Britain had help.
 
Back to Top
Scheich View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 07-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 183
  Quote Scheich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 21:40
But Napoleon could never conquer UK and UK alone cold never conquer France!
France had the best army and more men for military sevice!
UK had 15 million people and France had 24 million people
Uk had a stronger fleet and could build more ships(more raw materials and money)!
Back to Top
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253
  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2007 at 23:49
Originally posted by Scheich

But Napoleon could never conquer UK and UK alone cold never conquer France!
France had the best army and more men for military sevice!
UK had 15 million people and France had 24 million people
Uk had a stronger fleet and could build more ships(more raw materials and money)!
 
England, throught the course of history, has usually defeated France in numerous occasions. In fact there is very few battles in which the French defeated the English.
Back to Top
Scheich View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 07-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 183
  Quote Scheich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 09:03

Do you mean, that the British landforces alone could defeat the army of Napoleon?

No the British landforces alone couldn't win.
The British won in Canada against the Frensh, but not in Europe without other countries.
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 09:11
The British land forces could defeat Napoleon. There's no saying either way. It all depends on circumstance. Also, though I am pro-British, I wouldn't say that there were "very few battles" in which the French actually beat the English. I haven't added them all up (that would takes me a long, long time), but it should be about half-half. I think the French cop it a bit when it comes to facing the English. Nevertheless, in the case of the Grand Army of France being unstoppable to the British - this was proven wrong in a number of theatres, but mainly due to command rather than troop superiority. During the Napoleonic Era, Britain had a far superior fleet - there is no doubt about it. And Napoleon, though he could have defeated the British on land, getting over the channel poses a whole new problem. Just my thoughts on the matter...

- Knights -
Back to Top
Scheich View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 07-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 183
  Quote Scheich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 13:00

Uk alone couldn't defeat Napleon!

Most of Napoleons landforces were defeated in Russia and UK troops could land in Portugal. Waterloo was won by British and Prussian troops!
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 19:07
I did not say that the British land forces could defeat Napoleon alone. I just said it was possible for the British land forces to defeat Napoleon - nor was I meaning they'd defeat them to end the whole Napoleonic War. It is not unknown that the defeat of Napoleon was a collaborative effort. 
Back to Top
andrew View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 31-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 253
  Quote andrew Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 00:00
Can anyone give me any battles or campaigns in which the French defeated the British? I bid you to look and you won't find many maybe one or two.
Back to Top
longshanks31 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
  Quote longshanks31 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 09:25
well i am british and i feel its fair to say that the french have posed a threat over the centurys, but on the whole the average french sailor and french soldier throughout this time has not been up to the calibre of the british.
 
there are exceptions to this but as with many struggles around the world, the side with the best soldiers wins.
 
france having had many many advantages over britain over the years by rights should have creamed us but it never happened, sure we lost battles but mostly the french wound up second place, the most embarrasing defeat we suffered would not have happened without the help of the french ie the american war of independance.
 
but without them the british empire would never have have reached even
the channel islands.
 
they made us equip ourselves with the tools we would need for such an undertaking.
 
i am pretty certain that even today if the french decided to get a little rowdy (nuclear weapons excluded) we would still bat them for six ( which is more than could be said for our cricket team of late)
Back to Top
SuN. View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 26-Sep-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 156
  Quote SuN. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 10:59
Originally posted by longshanks31

 
i am pretty certain that even today if the french decided to get a little rowdy (nuclear weapons excluded) we would still bat them for six


The French I believe don't play Cricket. Would'nt some other term be better to convey the message to your so called weak french brothers.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 20:56
Originally posted by longshanks31

 
france having had many many advantages over britain over the years by rights should have creamed us but it never happened, sure we lost battles but mostly the french wound up second place, the most embarrasing defeat we suffered would not have happened without the help of the french ie the american war of independance.
 
 
I don't know? Politically, you beat them rather easily almost everytime. Militarily (The RN excluded of course i.e. Trafalgar) their military had been a thorn in the flesh of the British military for roughly around six hundred years, with a hiccup here and there in the mid-19th century (Crimean war), that is up til' the twentieth century.
 
Of course, the French navy should get all the credit it deserves in helping us to box in Gen. Cornwallis at Yorktown, them by sea and a more mixed force of roughly equal strength of American and French troops on land, under the command of Gen. Washington. Out numbering Gen. Cornwallis by atleast a 2:1 ratio. Though it wasn't clear to the participants of the time, of what the effects of Gen. Cornwallis surrender would be. Most probably thought like Gen. Washington, the war could have lasted a couple of more years.
 
i am pretty certain that even today if the french decided to get a little rowdy (nuclear weapons excluded) we would still bat them for six ( which is more than could be said for our cricket team of late)
 
I have no idea? They both have a highly professional army, who is too really say? Cricket.... i am largely ignorant on, so i will concede the point to you. Still i will always prefer that neither were too really mix themseleves up in fighting each other. Unless the twentieth century is too prove more of a burp in time regarding British-French relations!?
 
Back to Top
longshanks31 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
  Quote longshanks31 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Nov-2007 at 09:28
on the cricket thing the way we are playing at the moment i wouldnt put it past a group of mongolian herdsmen whod never heard of the sport thrashing us,
 
the french have always been a thorn this is true but with the exception of napolian not really a mortal enemy.
 
it is to be remembered i think that for a very large chunk of the times we are talking about that france was the true powerhouse of europe ie we were the lesser of the two nations.
 
I can not think of many other reasons why they should have come second so many times, they have access to the med and borders with italy, almost any new advance or technologie that came europes way the french would have had access to before britain.
 
ofcourse a large portion of this time was french v english not french v british, and i dont know if this is a fair comment but i think the scottish have given us stiffer competition over the years, quite incredible.
 
as for war in the present i do not think that would happen, i think we are headed slowly down the dreadfull route of a european superstate.
 
The french have the bigger forces but still (as far as i know) have conscrption where as the british is a soley voluntary proffesional army.
The only main thing we have over them is our carrier fleet and the greater volume of recent military experience.
 
Sun, the french play french cricket ( bit of a girls version imho)
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526
  Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Nov-2007 at 15:39
franch would never defeat the british because the british had a greater and more powerful fleet...as on the land depends on c
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
longshanks31 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
  Quote longshanks31 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Nov-2007 at 17:56
illirac the british fleet has very rarely been greater and more powerful than the french.
By and large the french in terms of there military have outnumbered the british in every regard.
take trafalgar as an example, the british ships were smaller, far less in number and less powerfull, yet we won, that victory was purely down to the quality of the sailor.
Agincour, vastly outnumbered, but the prowess of the british longbowman won the day.
Im not certain that we have ever had a navy that was equal in size and strength during the periods when britain and france were waring and empire building rivals.
your arguements seem to lack any basis in fact.
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526
  Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Nov-2007 at 19:20
thats what i'm saying...the french were weaker in fleet and could not compere with the brits
you have won nothing
even if they were defeated at Agincour the french lost a battle, but they won the hundred year war
and the germans in ww1 and ww2 with less experience and less ships treated britan...if they had more u-boats and if Hitler agreed to advanced them probably britan would remein without supplies
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
longshanks31 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
  Quote longshanks31 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 22:46
if that reply made sense to anyone else please explain it to me
long live the king of bhutan
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 08:59
I get Illirac's drift. Longshanks, as much as I am highly biased towards my British heritage and history, I'm going to have to say a few things.
First of all, throughout the Medieval age through to the Modern day, the British fleet has generally been more numerous and powerful than the French. Don't take this as a bad thing though, it is a great achievement in itself asserting naval dominance for such a long period of time. Britain has had its fair share of exceptional commanders as well, such as Robert Blake, Francis Drake and Horatio Nelson. The French have rarely if ever been comparable to the British in naval terms. Still, the numbers game has been harsh on the British, and the French have posed dangers to the British over time as well.

As for land based military, during the Medieval Age, the French generally had superior land forces. Their Knights and Crossbowmen were renowned throughout Europe. This is of course a generalisation, but you get the gist of what I'm getting at. Crecy, the ensuing Poitiers, and Agincourt are a classic case of pivotal points in Western European Warfare. Gone were the days of chivalry and brute force and numbers, which the French cherished so avidly.

So, you are right in saying that the British have been oh so successful in their naval exploits against the French throughout history, and marked a turning point in land based warfare against the French too. However, you earlier said that the British were always superior to the French, then go on in a later post to say that the French were almost always greater and more powerful than the British. Yes I believe the British have been the more generally powerful and successful colonial power - there is no doubt about it. However, cop the French a bit of slack. They were very successful in their own right. Concluding, if anything I've said has confused you or you don't understand - please let me know and I'll go over it.

Sincerely,
- Knights -
Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
  Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 13:48
1 country that was powerful  more influential than militarily wuld be the Papal states at least in the early middle ages, for a time, they had all the Catholic kings of Europe wrapped around their finger with their power to make and unmake kings.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.