How did he do it Veeky Forums

but dude, why would he even want to get to Sardinia, its not like anyone lived there anyway

>Anglos are a weak people the only reason they still exist is they had the luck to have a sea between them and the rest of the continent.

that man looks like an Anglo

I can smell the stench of surrender monkey just from reading that post

You know the reason we don't send massive armies to help you every time you unwisely pick a fight with the Germans is because unlike you continental serfs and your "republic" Englishmen are free and not subjected to the degradation of conscription unless the situation is very dire indeed . Our armies are all volunteers, all the time. Braver than your slave soldiers i'd say what!

That man looks like you

...

*it appears that my retardation has Led to some controversy.
FTFY
Don't make this about France because you personally are retarded

You're simply stating the truth that Anglos are not patriotic enough to fight for their country

Times the UK deployed troops to France to fight for their sovereignty: 2

Times the France deployed troops to the UK to protect their sovereignty: 0

He was good, but france got kinda "lucky" at the time.
>France already kind of top dog in europe
>Can't conquer everything because balance of power and stuff
Then the revolution happens
>makes people massively patriotic
>giant conscripted armies suddenly possible
>meritocratic military leadership too
>guy who comes out on top is a 10/10 general
The other powers (prussia and austria especially) caught up after a few years, but that's when napoleon had taken half of europe already.

>"You cannot stop me, I spend 30,000 men a month."
>literally just throwing men at continentals until they give up
>impressive
t. Jean-Pierre Francois d'Auvergne

>superiority
>loses North American colonies to Britain
>loses napoleonic wars
>loses scramble for Africa and colonisation of Asia to Britain
>loses franco Prussian war
>can’t do shit in WW1 without Anglo and American help
>loses ww2 and can only be liberated due to Anglo and American help once again
>decolonisation period a bloody mess
>Now 10% Muslim

The absolute state of France

This.

Altough the Anglo's aren't much better

>be Anglo
>have immense advantage over everyone else from being an island
>still get raped by Germans
>still get raped by Nordics
>still get raped by French
>0 cultural achievements
>now a literal American colony
>have a huge inferiority complex
I understand why you are angry friend.

Not to mention that their current existence is founded on murder.

>most avanced continent on Earth
But he didn't get anywhere near China or India

What about 1066 or the First Baron War?

Yeah, Indians were so advanced their spear-wielding army got BTFO by redcoats (the lowest of the low among Europeans)

And the chinks, we all know how they fared against Westerners in the 19th century

>redcoats (the lowest of the low among Europeans)
>This is what ouiboos actually believe

Are you the same seething faggot who's always making these anti-bong posts? I bet you are.

>>still get raped by Germans
>>still get raped by Nordics
>>still get raped by French
Literally never happened.

Stay mad, garçon.

>Literally never happened.

Really?

Germans
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain
Nordics
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danelaw
French
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angevin_Empire

>Anglos got raped by Anglos
>Normans were French
Fuck off Pierre

A lot of those countries continued to trade with Great Britain since there was no way for France to actually keep them in check

>Normans were French
Not that guy but if we were to stretch the idea of modern nationalities back then then yes, obviously they were French. BTW, look at your language, do you want me to highlight the French words in this thread?

I don't even support this notion of cultural superiority but blinding yourself to England's history of subjection to foreign folk is just stupid and revisionist.

>People literally called Normans were French because muh language
Shoo shoo froggy

Not really, France had troops on shore in Germany, Denmark and Italy

Spaniards kept trading, which is why Napoleon invaded
Same for Russians, althought they waited until 1812

>got BTFO by redcoats (the lowest of the low among Europeans)
So did Napoleon. Therefore we can surmise the Indian militaries were at least on par with the old guard

Do you prefer genetic terms? Many groups of people came together to form France, most shared with what is today Germany. Your idea of France is mostly linguistic and yet you reject the notion of French language influencing England.

>he thinks because they're Normans it means they can't be French

I guess Bush wasn't American since he was Texan

>be english
>get frenched

Napoleon lost to Russia

Then at Waterloo (an irrelevant last stand) he was about the wreck the shit out of Brits when the Prussians arrived and saved the day

Even genetically, by 1066 the Normans had gone through seven generations of interbreeding with locals, without any renewal of Nordic blood
They were something like 80% French and 20% Danish genetically speaking

>protect their sovereignty

So what you're saying is he lost to the British. Much like the maharajas. As Napoleon never managed to reach india, we can only compare their respective performances against the British. Both napoleon and the Indians lost, so we can assume their military prowess was similar.
No other European power ever came close to conquering india (though the French did try)

Let's take a close look at who fought on the Allied side at Waterloo

>76,000 Germans
>25,000 Brits
>17,000 Dutchmen

"British" victory

Not the guy you're arguing with, but you're trying too hard here, britbong

Napoleon lost to a coalition of all Europe
Not to Britain

It wasn't just napoleon, most of europe declared war on them WHILE they were having their revolution and still managed to lose territory

just how shitty were the european powers in the late 18th century to allow that to happen?

>Anglo allies 68,000
>Prussians 50,000
>he doesn't understand the significance of British financial aid
And i suppose US lend lease in WW2 was inconsequential?

>just how shitty were the european powers in the late 18th century to allow that to happen?

Very shitty
And Brits who were by far the shittiest among them (dunkirked countless times while facing smaller French forces during the Revolution Wars) still managed to single-handedly conquer India in the same era

That should tell you how incredibily shit Indians were

So the 'mighty' Napoleon was unable to defeat even a hastily thrown together army led by the British. The Indian armies were fighting a unified British force led by the same general, and performed no better than Napoleon did!
You cannot dispute the logic that history shows that Indian military was at least equal to Napoleon forces if not better

Stop trying that hard, Nigel

Napoleon managed to stall the entire British army for 6 years in Spain against a second-rate army of his, and this while he was fighting a coalition of Russia, Prussia and Austria in Eastern Europe

pretty shitty, but in their defense revolutionary France was god-tier and vastly exceeded everything that came before in terms of their ability to mobilise large numbers of men, their morale, the quality of their leaders, and their strategic and tactical innovations

Europe was an insignificant backwater at the time of Napoleon. India had a higher gdp than France and Britain and Germany combined.
The British conquest of India was of far more significance than Napoleon's short lived statpadding against inferior continental opposition.
Only Eurocentric fools can deny this

Well no shit, it would have taken three years AT LEAST to reach Sardinia.

>when bongs get so desperate defending their irrelevant shithole of a country they end going full anti-white "muh eurocentrism"
I'm sure you love it when your daughter gets culturally enriched by Pakistani rape gangs

>India had a higher gdp than France and Britain and Germany combined.

If wealth equated to being advanced, Mansa Musa would have left a greater legacy than a sandcastle

He ruined the economy of entire Africa with his pilgrimage, they don't recover to this very day.

>An entire subcontinent divided in dozens of small countries had a higher GDP than literally just 3 countries from a continent which had a higher GDP than the forementioned continent

Woah... man...

France's population in 1800: 27 mil
Germany's population in 1800: 24 mil
Britain's population in 1800: 10 mil
Total: 61 mil.

India's population in 1800: 240 mil

>bow in fear before him
>a "man" who surrendered twice, was often on the retreat and in crossing to Elba begged to be on-board a British ship.

They bowed, deal with it
The Prussian Queen even proposed sex to Napoleon in exchange for him being soft with Prussia after the 1806 defeat
He refused btw

t. Pierre la Kurwowski

>You're simply stating the truth that Anglos are not 'stupid' enough to fight for their country

ftfy

>united kingdom at the top of the seventh coalition

and the UK was at war with France since 1794 right throughout til Britain placed France's most ''''impressive''' figure on an insignificant island to rot

The absolute STATE of UK
business.financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/kfc-shutters-u-k-restaurants-after-supply-chain-fiasco-causes-severe-chicken-shortage

>proposed sex to Napoleon in exchange for him being soft with Prussia after the 1806 defeat
Big if true, got anything more about their meeting?

mfw the anglos in this thread

To argue that Napoleon wasn’t one of the most impressive figures of this time period would be difficult, but believing he was some invincible force is just buying into ouiboo propaganda. The ambition that drove him and powered his early success also bloated his arrogance and led to his downfall. Rousing successes (such as Austerlitz) and horrible mistakes (such as the Peninsular Campaign) are both different sides to the same coin that was Bonaparte. To argue only one side is to view his character two-dimensionally.

What are the best books on Napoleons campaigns?
I've read a russian book by Eugene Tarle which I thought was good, and I'm currently reading a swedish one by Lindqvist which basically skips over all the battles and goes in depth whenever the swedish foreign minister, king, or bernadotte is mentioned. This one I am not very taken by, to me the battles and strategy is the most interesting.

*eternally blocks your path*