Talk:Military history of France

message: What does it mean to say that their nuclear capabilities "are being restructured to rapidly deal with emerging threats". Sounds like foreign-policy babble to me. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably should be clarified, but it refers to how the French have eliminated their ground force nuclear capabilities and moved their warheads to submarines. In the Cold War, French nuclear ground systems were supposed to stop a Soviet thrust through West Germany. After the end of that threat, however, the French developed naval nuclear forces to be able to strike at distant targets, like rogue states.UberCryxic 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear capabilities 

message: So I went back to the surrender discussion in the archives and read it. Here are my thoughts on this  issue:
I've always loathed the notion that France is a huge loser when it comes to war. As someone pointed out, it was once the most powerful nation in the world. It's really a creation of modern American Francophobia and an inflation of France's actions in one very important war. BUT.. it's worth bringing up here, I think. When I hear "military history of France," I automatically think of humiliation, defeat, and surrender. It's a common stereotype nowadays. I think the article should have something about this and say, "This conception is not supported by the facts and may be considered an offspring of recent events.." or something less POV. Maybe one sentence could be written into the opening paragraph and a link to another article could be provided. But I think it's worth getting out of the way before diving into the history. Brutannica 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: stereotypes are the way of thinking for ignorant and perfidious roastbeefs that never accepted to get their arse kicked by the french in the most important war ever the 100 hundred years war, the rest is peanuts. or maybe was it because the french humiliated them at yorktown and saved the ungrateful yanks. or maybe was it because the french speaking normands defeated the roastbeefs and introduced the french language in their country of savages. or maybe this is just because the french are catholics and the roastbeefs are protestants. the most funny is the yanks are regarded in france as "over-confident" and "over-aggressive" in vietnam, cuba and now irak... but surprisingly "under-confident" and "under-aggressive" with USSR, china and north korea... really funny indeed. Shame On You 06:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Um... getting back to UberCryxic's point, I still think it's important to note stereotypes and common perceptions in places like this. Even if we say "this is an Anglo-American perception mainly and is rooted in a long history of antagonism" it would still be helpful. And I know the stereotypes are kind of contradictory, but as far as I know Americans think of France mostly in light of World War II while the British have a longer experience with it. So the difference might be a national one; seeing as how the British basically conceded defeat in the Battle of France I can see them not wanting to play up that whole affair. Americans also have a perception of French as being snooty, fussy intellectuals and I can see how the cowardice thing would fit well with that.
I'm unsure how prevalent this stereotype is; it's probably mostly just among the uneducated. I won't add anything, though; I'll wait for a consensus. Brutannica 21:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrender, again

message: as much important as the battle of alesia except this one was won by vercingetorix. should be added. Cliché Online 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: lacks the [[Battle of Gergovia]]

message: nothing about the famous battle of Jena (bataille de Iéna) that was led against france by the german empress Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz ? :( Shame On You 06:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: german agression

message: The article Histoire militaire de la France is freely inspired by this article. So I'll would like to thanks everyone you worked on it. It don't seem it'll become a featured article on the french wikipedia but if there are any french/english translators, they can found some interresting stuff. ThrillSeeker 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Histoire militaire de la France 

message: this story is mostly unknown in france. i was lucky to find this:
*a popular myth is french indochina was gave back to france thanks to the british (the british myth as ever - another is in suez 1956 the british were alone...) here is an archive form 1945 showing the french colonial forces training in french algeria in view to free the french indochina from the japanese invaders!! more infos are needed in order to draw the true story of the 1945 events. archive video Shame On You 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: extra chapter (1945): french vs japanese in french indochina :)

message: check this! and type "FRENCH" as search. Shame On You 04:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a load of good quality french military PD pictures for wiki

message: In Napoleonic France:
"Defeat for a European power now meant much more than losing isolated enclaves; near-Carthaginian peaces intertwined whole national efforts, sociopolitical, economic, and militaristic, into gargantuan collisions that severely upset international conventions as understood at the time."
I hesitate to rewrite it, but think it needs attention.  Mcewan (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic sentence 

message: French military uniforms seem to have had some signifigance in European military history (and possibly Japanese military history). ~ R.T.G 17:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An interresting link about the French military uniforms influence over the American ones : , .DITWIN GRIM (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: Military uniforms 

message: i've added the fourth coalition episode in the intro, because it was there that the french-german enmity became serious. the french kicked the prussian asses then they occupied their land, then came 1870, and 1918 and 1940 and 1945. and voilà. Cliché Online (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the Listing of the Norman Conquest of England from 1066 is odd, as Normandy was not part of France, however I believe it was part of the sphere of influence of the French Monarchy at the time. I am in favour of not listing the 1066 invasion of England and defeat of the Saxons as a French victory, but instead listed as a Norman victory. That is what I was taught in school and what many books I read on the subject suggest; even the page on the Battle of Hastings has this in its first paragraph "It was the decisive Norman victory in the Norman Conquest of England, fought between the Norman army of Duke William II of Normandy and the English army of King Harold II." 95.150.56.127 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: fourth coalition

message: Why is that even mentioned on the military history of France?
Normandy wasn't even part of France then, France technically didn't even exist due to such a weak feudal system Dukes just did their own things when Philip, the "King" of "France" noticed William was becoming too powerful he tried to invade Normandy but was defeated and kicked out.
It wasn't called the NORMAN conquest for nothing, why do you think the Bretons, Flemish were separate on the battle of hastings belligerent list because they were not part of "France" until the 1300s, and don't give me the the Normans spoke French so they were French because they didn't, they spoke Norman, Like the Bretons spoke a form of Celtic along with the flemmish
Flemmish has got nothing to do with any celtic language. Flemmish is Frankish, that is germanic
Norman was different borrowing heavily from Scandinavian, even if they did speak French "which they didn't" they were still Normans, if a American spoke English does that make them an English citizen, if a Canadian spoke French are they French? 
No their Canadian   
I'm not being a Franco-phobic I'm just stating facts!86.181.82.140 (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the Listing of the Norman Conquest of England from 1066 is odd, as Normandy was not part of France, however I believe it was part of the sphere of influence of the French Monarchy at the time. I am in favour of not listing the 1066 invasion of England and defeat of the Saxons as a French victory, but instead listed as a Norman victory. That is what I was taught in school and what many books I read on the subject suggest; even the page on the Battle of Hastings has this in its first paragraph "It was the decisive Norman victory in the Norman Conquest of England, fought between the Norman army of Duke William II of Normandy and the English army of King Harold II." 95.150.56.127 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of hastings?

message: The map of the First French Empire grossly exaggerates French Empire in India, coloring half of the extent of the modern country in blue. Though the French had unilateral trade deals there, and the whole area was under a great amount of French influence, this was nowhere near enough to warrant what the map is implying. I'm all for keeping this as relevant information, perhaps by using a different color. Syria and Lebanon, technically League of Nations mandates, were indeed part of the (second) French Empire, but these could perhaps also be filled in a different color, and there are other examples.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.52 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map: French India 

message: Why is there a huge jump between 1940-1947? I do not think the map should be there unless corrected simply because it erase one of the most single important war in french history. It is dishonoring the french soldiers which died to protect France from Nazi-Germany. To me the map say nothing happen during 1940-1947. everything was rainbows and sunshine!. please give me a motivation as to why my previous edits has been undone. Why cant i write the loss of France to Nazi-Germany during WW2 is not included.?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.36.206 (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect map of French territorial losses and gains 

message: The French were involved, they invaded Egypt jointly with Britain and Israel. Why isn't this on here? 86.134.98.73 (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Suez? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Military history of France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602233007/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/faq/roundel.cfm to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/faq/roundel.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This claim is from the Telegraph, in other words, a "source" without expertise for this topic. Should be removed.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even read what i said in my edit summary ? Why should we cite Ferguson in an entire paragraph ? this goes against WP:UNDUE. Also the telegraph article is not available for our readers, this goes against WP:VER. Last but not least, if France was really "the most successful European country on the battlefields", we should be able to find numerous reliable sources supporting this claim instead of a random paper quoting a single historian. Besides, i suggest you to desist from editing the article untill a consensus is found on the talk page, please note that adding back poorly sourced content repeatedly like you do is disruptive.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of the source supporting France as the most successful military power in European history 

message: Does someone have access to the entire quote of Niall Ferguson?
Did he really write that the French fought 169 battles since 387BC? It must be "major battles" no? LaHire07 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niall Ferguson 

message: I removed that above sentence for the following reasons :
* it's unsourced, since the two sources that are cited seem to support the next sentence
* it's a clear case of WP:PUFFERY
* The lead of an article is not the place for the view of a single scholar, no matter how prominent he/she might be (besides, as per WP:LEAD, any claim that is in the lead should be detailed in the body of the article, which is not the case as far as i have seen)
* last but not least, what does it mean exactly ? that the French armies have won more battles than any other power ? that they have the best win-loss ratio ever ? or someting else ?
Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I rephrased it. Note that "puffery" does not apply to reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for having rephrased the lead. As to what you said about puffery, i would draw your attention on what WP:PUFFERY actually says : "In a Wikipedia article, there should not be praise-filled (nor criticism-filled) adjectives appended to the subject's name. A more neutral tone and the provision of factual information, cited to a reliable source, on the other hand, is the appropriate style. Don't tell readers that the subject is great; tell them neutrally what the individual or band did or achieved, and let them make their own decision" thus, whether the content is linked to a reliable source or not, a Wiki article should always give informations in a neutral manner, especially when said content's meaning isn't clear, as i underlined above ("most successful" according to what threshold ?). Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: the question of what RS say is the most belligerent major power is a straight forward factual statement. It is noit puffery to say that France has engaged in the most wars.  Puffery is when the editor exaggerates beyond the RS, Rjensen (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "the most belligerant" is fine, but "the most successful" wasn't, as it is an exaggeration of what the source says and a statement with an unclear meaning.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The most successful military power in history"