Was the French military during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars arguably the greatest the world has ever seen?

Monarchies tend to be on the fence about this arming and training their population business.

The Spanish and Bong Empire did.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War

Kind of

OFFICIAL RANKING OF ALL TIMES

1. German Wehrmacht
2. French Grande Army
3. Roman Legions
4. Spanish Tercio
5. Alexander's Phalanxes
6. US Marines

1000. Soviet Zergrushers
10000000. British redcoats
10000000000000000. WW2 Italian Army

>Wehrmacht
>MUH-REENS
Kek, nice bait

Where area Japanese Samurai?

>did other European powers introduce conscription at all in response to Napoleon

They couldn't, they feared their own people would revolt and depose them
Remember that the French Revolution had happened a few years before

> German Wehrmacht
> not the Imperial German Army

Napoleon also had absolutely enormous personal popularity despite his many setbacks (e.g. Russia, the 1813 campaignh). Even when France was invaded from all sides in 1814 and he had surrendered and was riding to exile the towns he passed through begged him to stay, and promised they would rise up to support him still.

No other absolute monarch in history had such a degree of immense loyalty as Napoleon did, and especially not from 1804 to 1815.

>fail to even conquer just France despite being helped by big ass Austria-Hungary

VS

>conquered all of Europe alone and almost defeated the USSR

kinda weird how the French overthrew their monarchy, only to get Napoleon

never understood how they went along with the wars, even if they were winning. war isn't glorious, it's horrifying.

>literally won a single war
VS
>literally never won a single war
Germans are bad at fighting, deal with it.

Incorrect, Germans are good at fighting they're just not good at winning wars

The majority of the wars were not started by France. During Napoleon’s time in power (1799 - 1815) only the Peninsula War and the invasion of Russia were started by Napoleon. All of the Wars of the Coalition from 3 to 7 were started by the Allies, with the intention of invading France and bringing the war to them. The French people rightly thought they were fighting to defend their rights and freedoms granted and protected by the Revolution and Napoleon. Austria particularly hated the Revolution and wanted all traces of it crushed.

That’s even worse. Literally a race of followers

The truth about the quality of the French troops of the era was that they were extremely sub-par compared to the English or Austrian in terms of training and equipment. The difference is Napoleon didn't believe in a strong army he believed in a strong leadership, hence why he once said something along the lines of: I do not fear the wolves led by lambs, i fear the lambs led by wolves (something along those lines i forgot).
Since the revolution the French relied on numbers and morale to win which the officers understood to use and even when outnumbered like at Austerlitz and Marengo they were able to lead a rabble to victory.
Some did, the Habsburgs attempted varying form of conscription depending on age/location/etc but they found it hard to rule populations that didn't want them with soldiers who supported the population more than the monarchy so after the 1848 revolutions they kept soldiers of varying ethnicities and cultures always switching HQ in different parts of the empire so the soldiers can never fully meet the locals and befriend them.
This is the reason why above stated happened.
Autism: The Post

>kinda weird how the French overthrew their monarchy, only to get Napoleon
Under Napoleon you had meritocracy, even the lowest scum could rise and become someone (and even gain nobility titles)

>never understood how they went along with the wars, even if they were winning. war isn't glorious, it's horrifying.
Because the French didn't want the Old Monarchy to be restored with the old feudal system
So when the monarchs of Europe declared war on France to overthrow Napoleon and restore some fat old Bourbon king, France defended itself and accidentally conquered Europe in the process

The French Revolution was such a shit show that people were probably happy to see someone like Napoleon put an end to it and restore some order.

>I do not fear the wolves led by lambs, i fear the lambs led by wolves
I've seen this quote attributed to so many historical figures

But France literally declared war on Prussia and Austria preemptively in 1792 which is what started the whole coalition wars
Napoleon came later

>the quality of the French troops of the era was that they were extremely sub-par compared to the English or Austrian in terms of training and equipment
They did get plenty of practice though

This is from Torah for sure, I do not fear the jews led by goys, i fear the goys led by jews.

You have to be 18 to post here

The key word here is 'preemptively'

That's the French Revolutionary Wars tho
And they ended in 1802

That guy was asking about the Napoleonic Wars, which were started by Britain with the aim of removing Napoleon

So I guess we just justified Germany starting WW1 by preemptively declaring war on france?

>Since the revolution the French relied on numbers and morale

angloidbrainlet.jpg

French were always outnumbered yet won nearly every battles til the Leipzig betrayal. French are racially superior to Eur*peans.

He's bullshitting
The French army was indeed subpar in the early Revolutionary Wrs, but by the time the Napoleonic Wars kicked in, French troops were among the best in Europe

The Britsh land army was by far the worst of all major european powers
After France, Prussia had te best army, followed by Austria and Russia, and only then by Britain

More Dakka.

> Grand Battery was a French artillery tactic of the Napoleonic wars. It involved massing all available batteries into a single large, temporary one, and concentrating the firepower of their guns at a single point in the enemy's lines.

> Substituting volume of fire for accuracy, rate of fire and rapid movement, it was rarely used in the wars' early years. But as the quality of artillery crews and their horses declined, it was employed more frequently during later (post 1808) campaigns.

But the monarchs of Europe didn’t declare war on France because they gave a shit about the Bourbons, they declared war because during the revolutionary wars they had gotten their shit pushed in by an aggressive France.
You’re ignoring the actual reasons for the coalition wars being defensive and going on justifications they used to get the population in on it.
It’s pretty dishonest

>Germany starting WW1
Moving onf rom taht

Given that Germany had declared war on Russia after (key note here) Russia refused to demobilise and France was

A) mobilising
B) an ALLY of Russia

Yes I think it was justified.

I think at their height they were easily the third or second nation with the training but the conscription and attrition was hard especially when fighting both in Spain and Eastern Europe which is why countless conscripts were sent to the battles where they learned how to fight properly.
When the *nglo expedition showed up in Spain in 1808 these highly trained soldiers were routed by the French who were trained on the field of battle.
From what i've read it was the Austrians, *nglos, and Prussians who declared war on France to preserve the monarchy and fight alongside the émigré French officers.
You absolute retard during the revolution get that in your thick skull """DURING""" they fought the Austrians and Prussians countless times with superior numbers but the revolution was a mess. Oh wait, you know nothing of it?
Alright then.

>Germany starting WW1 is justified because this might have happened
Well, that clears up what country you’re from.
Good luck with Trump.

The British Army was utter shit during the Revolutionary Wars, as their performance in Flanders demonstrated. Yet by the time the Napoleonic Wars were well underway, there'd been a significant change in the quality of the army; the line regiments in particular (cavalry and artillery remained mediocre throughout). Although they were susceptible to bad leadership and the purchasing of commissions, the average British infantryman could stand his own quite well against the French by the time of the Peninsula campaign. While not as brave as the Russians or as well led as the French, they were better trained than both; having a longer period of training as well as practice firing more blank and live rounds per year than the Austrians, Russians and French. Despite not being spectacular, they weren't exactly the worst

>DURING the revolution

Same goes for the revolutionary wars

You angloid seem to hate the French for some reason. Is this because they enslaved you and wasted your language ?

...

why did napoleon have to die

I don't know much about the quality of British soldiers, but the British army overall was terrible during the Napoopan Wars

They dunkirked from the Netherlands (after Dieppe-tier landings) countless times, and got stalled for 6 fucking years on a secondary theater in Spain against a second-rate French army not even lead by Napoleon

perfidiousfrenchrelyingonsuperiornumber.jpg

he was outnumbered in terms of total numbers. Part of his great tactics was use of concentration of force at specific points on the battlefield to outnumber opponents where it actially counted and acheive defeat in detail. That required great coordination and mobility on the part of the troops and commanders, though, so it does come back to the quality of the army

Did you not read , ?
You are one dumbfuck spy among the French allies if you think i am an *nglo. Why are you this retarded, do you read?

>6. US Marines

The failures in the Netherlands and the stalling in Spain are better understood as failings of the British government and their reluctance to devote the men and resources needed for an actual continental campaign. It was much easier to sit back, blockade the ports and fund other countries to do the dying. Britain's power was its navy and wealth, so naturally the army didn't get the attention it needed, especially since the public was historically suspicious of large, standing armies.

Pitt was notorious for advocating pointless raids against the continent or 'breaking windows with guineas' as it was described. In the Peninsula, Wellington's army wasn't huge and he was forced to retreat when the French were willing to put their numbers to use.

The wehrmacht only had advantages because they broke all of their treaties and sneak attacked all of their enemies

Kinda weird how the Russians overthrew theirs to get Stalin. Unless you consider that both countries were surrounded by enemies and needed truly ruthless leaders in order to survive.

>The Britsh land army was by far the worst of all major european powers
This is correct and second only to the Prussian army of 1806.
Otherwise i am not wrong to point out that a rabble of shoeless concripts does not exactly meet the requirements for "best" hence why i made sure to point out that they were better despite their shotcomings.
This really happened woth experience, the British started actually using their soldiers in situations where they could learn from experience and they sure did. Only thing is they somehow still kept getting assblasted by the French and Poles until Wellington started figuring things out.
They Dunkirked multiple times with embarassing results.

(You)

It's up there user, and I mean you look at Napoleon's staff and holy shit he had some real gems like Lannes, Ney, massena, and Davout. Hell I'd place Davout ahead of Napoleon in terms of generalship, his intuition and tenacity in battle and ability to instill absolute discipline is legendary. Alexander the Great is obviously up there with him though, and I hate saying this Hitler, not necessarily him as a leader but just look at the innovation and generalship the Germans had Manstein, Kesselring, Guderian, Von Bock, Model (in defensive warfare at least), and hell I might be missing some geniuses, but seriously you want to know how warfare is conducted still, read those guys. All their principles are applicable

>the Wehrmacht
>world's greatest military

>U.S
>Beligerient
The U.S owed money to the Kingdom of France not the Republic. If anything France was the one acting violent escpially after that x-y-z shit.

>1. German Wehrmacht

At least it was clean

Not him.
If France didn't want war with Germany it would have done a NAP. Everybody wanted war in Europe (Except maybe the Swiss), but France, Germany, and Russia were escalators in the conflict.

They should've let Serbia (Who started the damn thing) have its fight against Austria.

t.Manstein

>kinda weird how the French overthrew their monarchy, only to get Napoleon
Napoleon was an autocrat but not a reactionary. The revolution didn't end when he came to power, on the contrary he was able to finally push through many reforms that had been major goals of the revolution from the start, such as a complete rewriting of the legal code.

XYZ affair and the quasi war. Based Talleyrand

So much this. They fought better because they had a stake in the future something you dont get under inbred royals.

Sure he wasn't necessarily a reactionary, but he wasn't of the ilk of the revolutionaries either, hence the reintroduction of a nobility, press censorship and use of patronage.

>hence the reintroduction of a nobility

Not the same nobility as before tho
It was more like honorific titles
There were no feudal privileges and a commoner could obtain a title meritocratically (for exemple, Ney and Bernadotte were granted nobility titles for bravery in battle)

Why do people always talk about the Wehrmacht when the German Imperial Army and the Prussian army in the wars of German unity were just as, if not more effective.

>literally just human wave warfare
>greatest in the world

Can we ban frogs already

>American education: the post

>implying an American wouldn't have overrated bongistani redcoats to make their Revolutionary War seem impressive

>napoleonic france used human waves

The absolute state of Veeky Forums right now

I’m American and I know because he listed off the few eras we actually cover in public school. We jumped straight from Mesopotamia and Egypt for like 5 minutes into Greece and Rome and then we jump a thousand fucking years to the colonial era and spend the entire “medieval” era learning about useless dead cultures in Africa, Americas, etc. we basically skip all of real history because our whole shtick is “WE WUZ REPUBLICAN ROME N SHIEET” So we basically skip straight from Rome to Cortez.

I don't know but they were one of the most aesthetic

What do you lads know of doctrinal differences between the powers? From what I know the French and Russians made liberal use of the bayonet wheras the British's well drilled infantry did not, preferring to take advantage of how quicky they could reload to maximize the power of their lines.

The Napoleonic regime was a sort of Republican Monarchy, it was a fusion of the best things of the revolution and some practical aspects of the old order. The nobility was not hereditary and it granted no privileges besides a salary. These titles were earned based on merit, especially on the battlefield.

That what the nobility were in basis he simply return it to his base

> What is the Corps d'Armée
> What is the Gribeauval System
Fuck off pleb.

>10000000. British redcoats
>10000000000000000. WW2 Italian Army
This is a lot closer than that. The Italian officer corps was far better than the bongs' for sure.

Agreed, they should be higher than that.

>The wehrmacht only had advantages because they broke all of their treaties and sneak attacked all of their enemies
>frogs and bongs sit around for 9 months preparing, and the krauts proceed to assrape them in a couple weeks