Be france, 1790s

Military service is too complicated nowadays to really efficiently use a volunteer army. It requires years of training, and such an investment isn't worth using on temporary conscripts. The only time a large conscription army is useful nowadays is when you just want boots on the ground during an occupation, something that developed countries like France don't do a lot of any more.

>Military service too complicated
Not really, I mean of course conscripts are not as good as a professional veteran army but every major war of the 20th century was fought with mostly conscripts.

The Austrians had around 200,000 men at the beginning of the period, the French had around 470,000 after the Levee en Masse, no fucking level of training is stopping such numbers, making Napoleon look like a genius when he had so many men, he could simply go around his opponents, don't believe the Frog lies, he was a pretty normal commander, his opponents were just shit and his army huge.

>Switzerland and Israel don't'exist

>what is the IDF

Military conscription ceased because it didn't conform the ideals of a liberal democracy, not because it doesn't work.

>making Napoleon look like a genius when he had so many men, he could simply go around his opponents,
This is your brain on British propaganda.

You do realize that Napoleon was even more famed for his logistics and grand strategy than he was for his tactics? Most of his claim to fame derives from his ability to separate Allied armies and face them while slightly outnumbered, since otherwise, Europe would've tried to rush him and his generals with all their numbers.

Is there anything in history that's more glorious than Jena-Auerstedt?

Are you saying that feudal lords implemented total war?

France lost the Seven Years War and Napoleon died like the pig he was at the hands of the British.
Everything else is irrelevant, for it was then that the Eternals claimed dominion over the Earth.

draftfags pls go

France btfo, how will they ever recover?

Revolutionary spirit, levee en masse and Napoleon

unironically this

The French Revolution was such a mistake. It ruined the world.

>wurtemberg swapped sides after 2 days
PERFIDIOUS

i hope that you can show your beautiful empire today :)

Europe fears Emperor Manlet

underrated.

Napoleon made France what it was and without him it all fell apart. It wasn't 'France vs the world' it was 'Napoleon vs the world'.

>British
*Russians

>Veeky Forums

>Supporting the French Revolution

>he wasn't really that short!!!
169 cm is still turbomanlet

No he is wrong.

It starts with: The French people recognise their attachment to Human rights-laws and the sovereignty of their national state.

I am not French so this translation is a bit borked

legifrance.gouv.fr/jo_pdf.do?numJO=0&dateJO=19581005&numTexte=&pageDebut=09151&pageFin=09173

French revolutionary armies were often outnumbered so this is some prime bullshit.

At Valmy for Example they fielded 32.000 against 34.000 Prussians.

>eudalism worked like conscription, the only difference is that citizens fought for their country while peasants fought for their lords
Feudal peasants didn't fight.

That’s the 1958 constitution you’re looking at, retard

163 was average for males in France in 1810.

>The current Constitution of France was adopted on 4 October 1958. It is typically called the Constitution of the Fifth Republic

Yes and? He used present tense, that implies that he is talking about the current constitution retard.

We are talking about revolutionary france you pathetic retard how about you off yourself?

legifrance.gouv.fr/Droit-francais/Constitution/Declaration-des-Droits-de-l-Homme-et-du-Citoyen-de-1789

He was taller than the average Frenchman of his period. Probably the rest of the world, too.

Today's standards don't matter, you should know that. Otherwise future generations have an equal claim to badmouth you long after you're gone.

élan,esprit de corps and mass mobilization

>user can't specify his arguments properly
>Get's mad when called out

Revolutionary France had a couple of constitutions.

Nice damage control you simpleton

Citing your sources correctly is one of the most important things to do when studying history

>Revolutionary France had a couple of constitutions.

They all mention God, can you sperg somewhere else now ?

I checked and only the Constiution of 1799 and 1802 does not mention God
Constitution of 1789
>In concequence, the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in presence and under the protection of the Supreme Being...

Constiution of 1791
>N.(the name of the king) by the Grace of God...

Constitution of 1793
>In consequence, it proclaim, in presence of the Supreme Being...

Constitution of 1795
>The French people proclaim, in presence of the Supreme Being...

Constitution of 1804
>N.(the name of the Emperor), by the Grace of God...

Because they feared no God unlike the holy roman empire. The people of revolutionary France surpassed God, well and truly

missed out quite a lot of significant facts and event, and also like ten years between the ???

Reminder that the British humiliated the most famous/impactful/most iconic Frenchman in history, by making him 'duke' of an island furthest from any other land.

Reminder that the British literally ridiculed France's best efforts.

Napoleon

Great man theories biggest upholder

>Napoleon
>died like the pig he was at the hands of the British
Napoleon died of natural causes you *nglo

Hmm sweetie, no.....

When it comes to war Britain has the best bants, otherwise I'd prefer France.
Example:
>British take Washington
>general Cockburn enters White House
>imprisons the congressmen left just as they are having dinner
>eats the rest of their dinner
>his men are given the entire booze supply
>hold a mock congressional meeting where the drunk engineers unanimously vote to burn down the White House
Sounds fun des

>feudalism worked like conscription

Conscription is the call to arms of every men on a soil.
Feudalism is the military service in exchange of fief of one person (Called a "knight").
In medieval time the only things that could be seen as "conscription" was a) the posees called by the local sheriff to arrest criminals and b) the call to militia of certain towns

>Son of a King who gets his army handed to him ready to go at a time when his country is at its strongest.

vs

>Son of minor noble in a backwater province of the Kingdom having to climb the ladder at a time of huge political, social, and military turmoil.

>being a monarchist bootlicker

>20th century
user, it's the current year

>defeating napoleon was such a mistake, it ruined the world
ftfy

>Feudalism is the military service in exchange of fief of one person (Called a "knight").

I don't know for other countries but in France, Feudalism worked like that :

In times of war the king sumoned the ban(his direct vassals, generally nobles) and the arrière-ban (the vassals of his vassals, generally peasants)

>(Called a "knight").
A knight is a mounted nobleman

>was also not mentioned in any source I used to learn about it
You did. It's called Levee en Masse. It's even a mechanic in one of the Civ games.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levée_en_masse

France basically reinvented the concept of a "national army" and a "peoples' army" in the west. They took that army and beat the shit out of the nobles with their small, expensive and private armies. France made life cheap. It was one of the reasons why armies suddenly became millions strong in WWI. Instead of Lords summoning their private mercenary armies, it was now the duty of a citizen to fight for his nation.

>Implying Napoleon didn't ride the trends and forces of the Revolution and the newly formed national army to beat the piss out of everyone else
Just look at his quotes
>I spend 30,000 lives a month
>Quantity has a quality all its own
I'm not saying he wasn't tactically brilliant as well, but he had a major advantage over his adversaries who couldn't take the losses he could take without their society collapsing.

forgot to say that all freeman were obligated to fight so conscription didn't change anything

You guys are missing a step in the development of military history. It's without a doubt true that Feudalism worked in a similar manner, but the short era of warfare that preceded the French Revolution was called an era of "cabinet war", where war was waged by small professional armies that didn't really affect the commoners that much. France ushered in the end of cabinet wars and brought back peoples' war.

>Kabinettskriege (German: [kabiˈnɛtsˌkʁiːɡə], "Cabinet Wars"; singular Kabinettskrieg) is the German expression referring to the type of wars which affected Europe during the period of absolute monarchies, from the 1648 Peace of Westphalia to the 1789 French Revolution. It is also known as "war between princes." Such wars involved small armies, noble officer corps, limited war goals, and frequently changing coalitions among the belligerents.

You realise this picture also has Philip on it, the man who reformed and shaped the army at his image, and that even if he was "handed the army" he still had to lead it, maintain it, improve it, and go on a rampage with it.
America's army is more of an hegemon that Alexander's army was compared to its competitors, but I've yet to see an invasion of Canada.

Sure, but Napoleon basically did both what Philip and his son accomplished, plus getting to the Imperial throne in the process starting from humble beginnings. So he still is the biggest upholder of the great man theory, not that Alexander, or Caesar, or many others aren't too. But a part from some Roman and Byzantine Emperors it's hard to find people who rose from the bottom of the barrel to very top of the flock during their lifetime.

>at the hands of the British
*shows up just in time to save Wellington's ass from defeat*

Impossible n'est pas français.

your memeing hard

Childhood is celebrating the French Revolution

Adulthood is realizing that it ruined France for the next 150 years

Wrong

Actually, the real long term effects of the Levee en Mass and the wars of the Revolution and Napoleon on the French economy, demography, and especially the navy guaranteed that it would be forever playing catch-up to Brit

>what is the idf

A conscription force that has only been tested at defending a country the size of a city block from some of the most inept armies in military history

It probably helps that a majority of them will have some sort of deep seated persecution complex, so they will happily fight for Israel.

Germany conquered most of Europe but only held it for 5 years. Taking shit doesn't mean anything unless you can hold it for at least 70 years.

The enlightenment was all about secularism. The concept of enforced atheism didn't start till the 1870's and state enforced atheism wasn't a thing till 1917.

>france chimps out over Europe like 10 times
>finally decisively beaten
>the terms imposed on france gave them territory

How the fuck did he do it?

Traded his neck to the devil

>butthurt britshits ITT

youtube.com/watch?v=4K1q9Ntcr5g

Literally this, he was 10/10 in every way
>brilliant general Napoleon's presence on battlefield was worth 14000 soldiers
>great warrior he knew how to inspire soldiers
>great reformator, Napoleonic Cod, he brought french ideas to whole europe
>liberator many nations like Poles or Italians

I fucking hate the prussians so much

>people are property of the State.

>abandoned orphan
>raised by a gardener
>become cupbearer to the king of Kish
>supplant king
>become first emperor in all recorded history

Cesar is in the same category as Napoleon

>IDF is a superior fighting force because of reservists

At best, reservists are competent and not always willing. You also neglect the fact that most of Israel's rivals practice conscription as well.

Why the broken english with "be this, be that"? Polandball can have broken english as long as it makes sense in the frame of the original language, there wouldn't have been a "be think" or "One year ago on same day", the equivalent in French would have been the same as in english.

Yeah, in a sense he was the Napoleon before Napoleon. If you had an Era between each of the greatest of great men, I think it would go from Caesar to Napoleon without taking the time to stop for any other, not even for other Great Men like Charlemagne or Nikephoros Phocas. Just like Sulla, Hannibal or Scipio never overshadowed Alexandre in the Romans' minds before Caesar came along.

Truely if someone tried to revive the Positivist religion, I would throw in a cult of great men to keep the plebs focused, with Caesar and Napoleon as prime "divinities".