Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Jubelu
Immortal Guard
Joined: 08-Jun-2007
Location: Syrian Arab Republic
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
|
Quote Reply
Topic: The French Army in XVIII Century Posted: 10-Nov-2007 at 23:18 |
It is such a gross dissapointment to see French performance during the Seven Years War. Maurice de Saxe was perhaps the only best French general in XVIII century. In my opinion, the backwardness of French Army as compared to Britain was because of the political problems originated from Louis XIV's reign. Through some researches, the French expenditures under the reign of Louis XV for military was actually more expensive than any fields. Yet, there were some sort of barriage which this almagam could not work. In terms of training, French infantry received less hours than British ones. This, methinks, is understandable. France needed a large land constant force to accomodate Eurpoean political problems, while Great Britain, isolated from mainland, had more time in training her own infantry armies. I really need more ideas upon the topic, please enlight with some thoughts. Methinks, the culmination of French military performance was Battle of Fontenoys. Here are some pictures of French infantrymen during the French-Indian War and Seven Years War: The uniform was very simple, as compared to British troops: The only good troops which participated during the Queen Ann's War and Seven Years War was the "Gardes Francaises": As we can see, their uniforms were actually more ornate than ordinary infantymen
|
|
Justinian
Chieftain
King of Númenor
Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 01:22 |
Originally posted by Jubelu
In my opinion, the backwardness of French Army as compared to Britain was because of the political problems originated from Louis XIV's reign.
|
Just my opinion, but I think this is indeed if not the main reason, one of the main reasons. The army seemed to stagnate even though there were some talented officers, such as the aforementioned marshal de Saxe.
One problem could have been the influence of the nobility on the army, could be the result of the policies of Louis XIV, (after the Fronde he would want to keep the nobles under control; give them titles, keep them in the capital under watch etc.) incompetent officers recieving promotion and competent enlisted men/sergeants never getting promoted because of low birth.
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
|
Jubelu
Immortal Guard
Joined: 08-Jun-2007
Location: Syrian Arab Republic
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 02:51 |
A very good reason there, Justinian Do you think the political structure of France also hindered her from military success
|
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 12:23 |
Originally posted by Jubelu
It is such a gross dissapointment to see French performance during the Seven Years War. Maurice de Saxe was perhaps the only best French general in XVIII century. In my opinion, the backwardness of French Army as compared to Britain was because of the political problems originated from Louis XIV's reign.
|
I blame the Duke of Marlborough. Up to him the French army was considered the best, most powerful in Europe. BTW Napoleon Bonaparte was an XVIII century General
Originally posted by Jubelu
Through some researches, the French expenditures under the reign of Louis XV for military was actually more expensive than any fields. Yet, there were some sort of barriage which this almagam could not work.
In terms of training, French infantry received less hours than British ones. This, methinks, is understandable. France needed a large land constant force to accomodate Eurpoean political problems, while Great Britain, isolated from mainland, had more time in training her own infantry armies.
|
The French army suffered from parsimonious War Ministers until
Belle-Isle who brought in some much needed reforms. Marshal De Broglie
was one of the better French commanders and is responsible for carrying
through many of Belle-Isle's reforms such as a permanent Brigade
structure and the creation of formal Divisions [which later evolved
into the Corps structure of the post Revolutionary Army]. The French did win several battles during the Seven Years War and their overall performance was not that bad. French weakness was more from lacklustre Generalship and political interference in operations.
Originally posted by Jubelu
...The uniform was very simple, as compared to British troops: The only good troops which participated during the Queen Ann's War and Seven Years War was the "Gardes Francaises": As we can see, their uniforms were actually more ornate than ordinary infantymen
|
I don't think the complexity of the uniform had anything to do with the performance of the soldier. France had many good quality regiments that fought bravely and were well led. The Gardes never fought in the Seven years War.
|
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 12:53 |
Originally posted by Challenger2
BTW Napoleon Bonaparte was an XVIII century General |
Only barely ... 1796.
|
|
Tancrde
Janissary
Joined: 05-Nov-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 13:51 |
Originally posted by Jubelu
It is such a gross dissapointment to see French performance during the Seven Years War. Maurice de Saxe was perhaps the only best French general in XVIII century. |
Montcalm ? Villars ?
except the seven years war,
French army won all its wars between 1715 and 1789.
War of Polish succession
War of Austrian succession ( against Austrian Dutch and British)
War of independance (USA)
Originally posted by Jubelu
In my opinion, the backwardness of French Army as compared to Britain was because of the political problems originated from Louis XIV's reign.Through some researches, the French expenditures under the reign of Louis XV for military was actually more expensive than any fields. Yet, there were some sort of barriage which this almagam could not work.In terms of training, French infantry received less hours than British ones. This, methinks, is understandable. France needed a large land constant force to accomodate Eurpoean political problems, while Great Britain, isolated from mainland, had more time in training her own infantry armies.I really need more ideas upon the topic, please enlight with some thoughts.Methinks, the culmination of French military performance was Battle of Fontenoys.Here are some pictures of French infantrymen during the French-Indian War and Seven Years War:The uniform was very simple, as compared to British troops:The only good troops which participated during the Queen Ann's War and Seven Years War was the "Gardes Francaises":As we can see, their uniforms were actually more ornate than ordinary infantymen
|
In fact during the 18th century French army (contrary to navy ) was much more powerful than British army.
British army always needed coalitions to win because it was too small compared to French army
In Europe British were defeated (Fontenoy Rocoux Lauffeld Hastenbeck)
In colonies there were very few french troops an they were outnumbered by British, however they won several times and the fight was hard.
ex
Braddock expedition
Carillon
some of greatest military disasters of British army.
But it's true Louis XV was a bad king, he didn't care about colonis contrary to British politics.
Britain had the best navy of the world, french navy was crappy,
During Distant colony wars it was very important
Another thing
during the seven years war French weren't very enthusiats to help their ancien ennemy (Austrians) and France wasn't in danger to be invaded contrary to all previously wars since one century .
Nevertheless French army was (with Russian and Prussian) the most powerful of the world in 18th century
Edited by Tancrde - 11-Nov-2007 at 14:26
|
|
Jubelu
Immortal Guard
Joined: 08-Jun-2007
Location: Syrian Arab Republic
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 16:09 |
I don't think the statement which considered French army as the most powerful in the world is actually true. First, uniform indeed played an important role in warfare of 18th century. French common colour was not blue until the Revolution, but White. This, as their Austria ally, caused trouble since dense white smoke from muskeets could hinder the view of soldiers toward their comrades. British troops were actually better than France in terms of uniform since Red was the best colour to identify within a nebulous area.
I agree that French army still had some best performance in the Seven Years War. But this was not enough.
The major problem in French Army, as far as I can excogitate, was financial problems. It seems that she could hardly resolve this difficulty successful as her British counterpart did. We could see there was a tumultous period where Louis XV played his Minister musical chairs (Change from one to another continuously at a frightening pace).
Battle of Dettingen for example, was one of the most dissapointed defeat. Again, the Britain brilliantly got their victory, which became a sort of incarnation to the One Hundred Years Wars 400 years ago.
The Independence War was won not mainly by French troops, but by the enormous efforts of Continental Army (BTW, I love the Revolutionary Uniforms, guys, look even better than the Gardes Francaises)
|
|
Jubelu
Immortal Guard
Joined: 08-Jun-2007
Location: Syrian Arab Republic
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 16:12 |
The British Army was not a large one. But they were much more well-trained and disciplined, just as the fearful Prussian Grenadiers. I could see only a weakness: lack of experience.
|
|
Tancrde
Janissary
Joined: 05-Nov-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 17:03 |
Originally posted by Jubelu
Battle of Dettingen for example, was one of the most dissapointed defeat. Again, the Britain brilliantly got their victory, which became a sort of incarnation to the One Hundred Years Wars 400 years ago. |
British weren't alone at Dettingen, there were also Austrian Hanoverian.
At that time (1743) french weren't offically in the war,
Louis XV declared war in 1744, so one year after.
The campaign 1744 1748 was very successful
french defeated austrian british dutch hanovrian armies at Fontenoy Rocoux Lauffeld
After many successful sieges (24 according to wiki) Austrian netherlands were eventually invaded and Also Maaestrich capital of united province.
After these defeats British left flanders.
Originally posted by Jubelu
The Independence War was won not mainly by French troops |
Maybe but Yorktown was a great Franco american victory.
Originally posted by Jubelu
but by the enormous efforts of Continental Army (BTW, I love the Revolutionary Uniforms, guys, look even better than the Gardes Francaises)
|
I don't think unforms were so important.
Edited by Tancrde - 11-Nov-2007 at 17:45
|
|
Tancrde
Janissary
Joined: 05-Nov-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 17:12 |
Originally posted by Jubelu
The British Army was not a large one. But they were much more well-trained and disciplined, just as the fearful Prussian Grenadiers. I could see only a weakness: lack of experience.
|
according to this link
British suffered much more casulaties than French and indian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
French side
3,900 regulars
7,900 militia
2,200 natives (1759)
total 14 000
French casualties 3,000 killed, wounded or captured
British side
50,000 regulars and militia (1759)
British casualties 10,040 killed, wounded or captured
Edited by Tancrde - 11-Nov-2007 at 17:24
|
|
Tancrde
Janissary
Joined: 05-Nov-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 17:34 |
Originally posted by Jubelu
I don't think the statement which considered French army as the most powerful in the world is actually true. |
Despite of the disappointment of Seven years' war
French army is generally considered as the most powerful of Europe between Rocroy (1643) and Waterloo (1815)
Edited by Tancrde - 11-Nov-2007 at 17:35
|
|
Jubelu
Immortal Guard
Joined: 08-Jun-2007
Location: Syrian Arab Republic
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:07 |
As I said to many of my companions, Wikipedia should not be cited arbitraily. I shall never believe in their figures until they give me a good source. The fact here is that after the French and Indian War, France lost her Canada, which was very daunting to the national economic. French army was unable to lock Hannover and Prussia as well as Britain.
The fact that people call French Army strong was actually number of men rather than equipments and trains. As compared to a British infantry, a French infantry only received 5-7 days, while this number in British army was nearly 1 month. The same issue could be applied to Prussian Army. But I really do not dare to compare France to Prussia, since it is a bit unfair for Louis XV to Frederick the Great.
The figure above about French casualties is also dull. Since the total number of French troops in America was smaller than Great Britain.
|
|
Jubelu
Immortal Guard
Joined: 08-Jun-2007
Location: Syrian Arab Republic
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:16 |
The saddest thing is that France lost her initial ally: Prussia. As we can see in Battle of Villinghausen, things turned up side down
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:31 |
Originally posted by Challenger2
The French did win several battles during the Seven Years War and their overall performance was not that bad. |
yes ok, but who of the major powers was worse? Russia had Suvorov, and was undefeated in the 7YW. Prussia, well they had Frederick and are genereally not considdered the worst...Austria? Austria did very well on many occasions against Prussians, they also won against Ottomans but they are still better than French. that leaves us with Britian and France, and Britain won more engagements than France, so that leaves France on the bottom.
Originally posted by Tancrde
War of Austrian succession ( against Austrian Dutch and British)
|
this is one-dimensional. France was only sucessfull as long as there was Prussia. after prussia left the war by separate peace and Saxony joined Austria, the French were beaten back, so they asked Prussia to re-enter the war. without Prussian intervention France would have lost the Austrian sucession war.
|
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:31 |
Originally posted by Jubelu
The saddest thing is that France lost her initial ally: Prussia. As we can see in Battle of Villinghausen, things turned up side down |
What are you talking about? Prussia's contribution to Villinghausen was 5 squadrons of Prussian Hussars!
|
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:37 |
Originally posted by Temujin
Originally posted by Challenger2
The French did win several battles during the Seven Years War and their overall performance was not that bad. |
yes ok, but who of the major powers was worse? Russia had Suvorov, and was undefeated in the 7YW. Prussia, well they had Frederick and are genereally not considdered the worst...Austria? Austria did very well on many occasions against Prussians, they also won against Ottomans but they are still better than French. that leaves us with Britian and France, and Britain won more engagements than France, so that leaves France on the bottom.
|
Suvorov was only a Colonel during the Seven Years War and had no influence on Russian operations. Do you seriously base an army's performance purely on the number of engagements won?!
|
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:40 |
Originally posted by Jubelu
... I could see only a weakness: lack of experience.
|
Tell that to the 6 British Regiments that fought at Minden.
|
|
Jubelu
Immortal Guard
Joined: 08-Jun-2007
Location: Syrian Arab Republic
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:41 |
quote: this is one-dimensional. France was only sucessfull as long as there
was Prussia. after prussia left the war by separate peace and Saxony
joined Austria, the French were beaten back, so they asked Prussia to
re-enter the war. without Prussian intervention France would have lost
the Austrian sucession war.
That is it, that is what I am talking about. The war won not by the mighty France, but Prussia. As I said, when Prussian ceded side to Great Britain in the Seven Years War, France was bitten up as a tiger paper. The illusion that France was the most powerful mainpower was shattered right after the financial crisis of Louis XIV's reign. Not until Napoleon I enthroned did France enjoy her military peak.
|
|
Jubelu
Immortal Guard
Joined: 08-Jun-2007
Location: Syrian Arab Republic
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:43 |
Do you seriously base an army's performance purely on the number of engagements won?!
No, as in Warburg, outnumbered France still lost. It was generalship and equipment. Do not deride uniform, since French uniform looked really outmoded in the Seven Years War, so did their muskeets and training.
|
|
Jubelu
Immortal Guard
Joined: 08-Jun-2007
Location: Syrian Arab Republic
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:46 |
If you need more concrete evidence to the disintegration of French military, then review their case at Liegnitz or Rossbach.
Austria, in some senses, still better than France
|
|