How could unstable France take on and win against the whole world right after going through a bloody revolution?

Feels good to be on the winning team. (Polan)

The bong style is more "I'll be hiding on that island while Russia beats my enemies for me, then I'll claim credits"

They did that with Nappy and Adolf

>he feel for the meritocracy meme

Promotions in the French Republican Army were based on internal politics and how many important people you knew far more than it was based on merit. Look at Napoleon handing out commissions left and right because "you gotta keep it in the family," or the string of incompetent generals who got into their position because they happened to support the current political party (i.e. Toulouse before Napoleon took charge of the situation.) National mobilisation was what allowed the French to triumph despite poor leadership.

Examples of poor French leadership being the rule rather than the exception?

mass conscription basically. other armies were fairly small and still dependent on mercenaries.

Did Spain and Portugal with colonies really fought against France? Any famous battles they participated? And I know Spain became the ally of France in 1796. Why is it not green or grey on the map?

how does poland remember frederick augusutus I of saxony?

Napoleon "hay bro I know you're a fuck-up but here's a crown to a major European nation" Bonaparte - a real meritocrat.
He was a nepotist who if anything resurrected much of the corruption of the ancien regime, I don't fault him for this - it was a pragmatic and effective way to run his empire but why pretend he's something he's not?

He gave 300 francs to the sons of the fallen at Austerlitz which sounds heroic if we forget that he gave 3,000,000 francs per annum to his divorced wife Josephine - 10,000 times as much annually! and he made those same sons of his salt of the earth fallen pay for all of this.

It is funny though, seeing how psueds make Napoleon the personification of honourable egalitarian liberalism - as if that would ever exist, and moreover as if that would ever be able to produce a formidable martial opposition to the traditionalists of Europe.

Napoleon was obsessed with Albion for his entire career, he was the master of Europe, but a prisoner there. Honestly I don't know why naval supremacy is looked down upon, especially when it's employed by a nation with no land connection to the continent kek, it's hardly hiding is it?

If you were scared to leave your house because of all the tanks outside, would you say the tank commanders were
>hiding

Because most people would say that they have access to the rest of the world, while you are stuck in your house.

Besides, Napoleon style is more "I'll be hiding on that island (St.Helena) while the brits protect me from the Prussians who would have brutally skull fucked be with serrated bayonets."

Demographics + Levee en Masse, France's population was insane at the time compared to the rest of Europe.

What would Portuguese colonies actually fight for? All I know is that Napoleon helped in a way or another to set revolutions and independentists movements all over latam, specially so in Brazil, where the Portuguese Royal Family fled to in 1808 after Portugal feared a French invasion.

Because France had mass conscription and was fighting on home turf, meaning they could have their whole army defending France. All those other countries weren't ever going to commit that many troops to fight in France, most of them had empires to maintain, some only fought France in its colonies, some of the countries listed didn't fight at all, and merely had alliances with nations that opposed France.

As is said every time one of these threads shows up, war is not "every country lines up their entire army in a field and shoots at each other".

>Napoleon was obsessed with Albion for his entire career
Ayy

He wanted to bring it down since it was always backstabbing after peace treaty

They haven't blocked Veeky Forums in your insane asylum no?

>and win

hahahahahahahahahah

France isn't a monarchy and actually detests royalists to this day.

...

mass conscription and total war (or close to it)

>If you were scared to leave your house because of all the tanks outside, would you say the tank commanders were hiding

Nice retarded analogy faggot, but Europe was where everything relevant was taking place back then
It was basically the center of the world, and Britain was banished from it by France, leaving them with nothing but irrelevany third world shitholes to deal with

>France's population was insane at the time compared to the rest of Europe.

You're confusing with the middle age
By 1800, Russia had basically the same population as France, so if you look at the whole coalition it very largely outnumbered France

That being said, total population was not relevant to warfare until WW1 (remember when talking about France's "advantage" in the middle age), and thank the mass conscription, France was able to match the coalition numbers on the battlefield despite having a smaller total population

>All those other countries weren't ever going to commit that many troops to fight in France, most of them had empires to maintain, some only fought France in its colonies, some of the countries listed didn't fight at all, and merely had alliances with nations that opposed France.

Wrong on so many level
You don't seem to comprehend how shocking it was for European monarchs to see the strongest country of the continent suddenly turn into a republic
It was as much as a total war as there could be in that time
Austria and Spain fought as hard as they could and only gave up when a large chunk of their homand got invaded
The Netherlands fought until annexion
Russia fought until its entire expeditionary army got annihilated
And Britain fought...well, until all their allies surrendered (then they capitulated too, Britain never fights alone)
In the end, only Prussia didnt fully committ (they were obsessed with Poland) and I bet they regretted it dearly in 1806

>58:05 No.
Certainly a good chunk of the population of people don't see the point of having a Monarchy again (beside the whole meme of "but ze english queen is very good! très très bon government")

Though there is the whole Action Française which is for the reinstating of the monarchy (Orléans or Bourbons? Dunno which but the difference is very thin)

>The First French Republic, starting from a position precariously near occupation and collapse, had defeated all its enemies (bar Britain and the United States, whose inability to directly strike at France made this a moot point) and produced a revolutionary army that would take the other powers years to emulate. With the conquest of the left bank of the Rhine and domination of the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Italy, the Republic had achieved nearly all the territorial goals that had eluded the Valois and Bourbon monarchs for centuries.[27]

And that's only for the military aspect, don't get me started on the ideological one (end of feudalism and birth of nationalism)

Which is why we landed an army In portugal and fought for a decade through the Peninsula into france, beating every Marshal Napoleon could throw at us.
Notable victories include:
Vimeiro
Talavera
The Lines of Torras Vedras
Badajoz and Ciudad Rodrigo
Salamanca
Vitoria
Nive
and finally into France proper with Toulouse.

Banishment indeed.

The revolution made mass conscription possible, which turned France's large peasant population from a weakness into a strength. The allies were also constrained by the fact that Austria always found a way to fuck everything up.

France probably had more soldiers than every one of those enemy combatants, combined.

That was during the Napoleonic Ward though
During the Revolutionary Wars, the only thing Britain did on the continent was two failed invasion of the Netherlands that quickly ended Dunkirk-style (pic related)

More I doubt it
Austria and Spain had huge armies, and they were fully commited to the fight
But thank to the levee en mass, France alone probably neared the number of the whole coalition

That was during the Napoleonic Wars though
During the Revolutionary Wars, the only thing Britain did on the continent was two failed invasion of the Netherlands that quickly ended Dunkirk-style (pic related)

So we were 'banished' for a grand total of 12 years, during which time we shattered Napoleon's naval ambitions and confined him to the continent.
I'll agree the Flanders campaigns were a mess but Britain was not out for the count in the slightest.

Britain tried to invade the Netherlands many times berween 1795 and 1815, only to get kicked out by the French without any effort each time (pic related)

The only reason why they were allowed to land in Portugal is because the British army was so shit that the French knew it would take them literal years (it ended up taking 6) to get anywhere near the French border, so they focused on more dangerous enemies (Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sweden, South Tyrol...) instead

Yeah, I've already agreed the Lowlands Campaigns were godawful, but -
You have insane bias against Britain - Sweden and South Tyrol, really? Didn't see them attacking France, nor at Waterloo.
We weren't 'allowed' to land in Portugal, we were fighting constant battles even on the landing beaches. The French committed hundreds of thousands of men to stopping Britain and failed every time.

Russia participated in coalition against French Republic on land only in 1799 (1 year). Some actions of Austrian allies were seen by Suvorov and Paul as act of betrayal and Russian land troops were withdrawn. Russia still supported allies with its fleet.

So main opponent of France on land was Austria and it had smaller population than France.

>The French committed hundreds of thousands of men to stopping Britain and failed every time

They managed to stall Brits in Iberia for 6 fucking years with way less men than they were facing
Had Napoleon managed to secure a peace in Central Europe, he could have sent the Grand Armee in Iberia and Brits would have evacuated faster than you can say "Dunkirk"

>So main opponent of France on land was Austria and it had smaller population than France.

Austria had a population as big as France's when you count it's possession (current Germany, Italy and Belgium).
Add to that Spain (that had half the population of France), Britain, the Netherlands and Prussia, and you have a coalition with twice the population of France

That being said, total population didnt mean shit in warfare until WW1
Many times in the 17th and 18th century, France faced enemies that had a smaller total population, but still ended up outnumbered on the battlefield because they had a larger percentage of their pop in the military than France

In the case of the Revolutionary Wars, it was the opposite
The coalition had more than twice the total pop of France, but the French ended up having an army as big as them because they conscripted a high percentage oftheir total pop while their enemies didnt

>way less men
Cherry picked screenshots =/= reality
Numbers were about equal, and you know that Wellington won far more battles than he lost, despite your bias you can't deny that.
And how can you be sure of that? Napoleon lost the only battle he fought against Wellington last I checked.

>Germany & Italy
>possession of Austria

Just stop kid

I suggest you learn about history before posting here

Pic related, in yellow, "HRE" lands
Prussia was independent (just in union with Austria), but everything else was basically Austrian territory

>European monarchs to see the strongest country of the continent suddenly turn into a republic
>It was as much as a total war as there could be in that time
>The Netherlands fought until annexation
Do you you know that Swiss and Netherlands were republics and Britain was ruled by parliament?

You are the idiot, Italy, Belgium and the most part of Germany was Austrian territory

HRE =/= Austria.
Holy Roman Emperor position was electable.
Austria was just most powerful member.
Did you hear about Thirty Years' War?

>Do you you know that Swiss and Netherlands
Yeah, and the US too
But these were irrelevant countrylets
The issue there is that Europe's cultural center and strongest nation was getting rid of monarchy
If European powers had gave zero shit about the form of French government, do you think they'd have insted so much on restoring the Bourbons, even two fucking decades after they got overthrow?

>and Britain was ruled by parliament
Still a monarchy
Very different from executing monarchs and forming a republic
European monarchs were scared shitless by what happened in France, and whatever to supress it by any mean

>HRE =/= Austria.
Not at the end of the 18th century

>Did you hear about Thirty Years' War?
The HRE of 1618 was very different from the HRE of 1792

>bloody revolution
Compared to what? Even the Russian 'revolution' of 1905 was more bloody, October coup of 1917 9000 times bloodier, the civil war 90000 times bloodier and the Bolshevik reign over 9000000 million times more bloodier.

>2002.jpg

Free men versus armies of scared peasants, unemployable drunks and degenerate mercs.

>republicans are men, slaves are children
F