You also ignore that of Napoleon's 600,000 invading force about 112,000 made it out on retreat.
Just to be clear. I'm not detracting from Napoleon's ability to put fourth a formidable and we'll trained force. But this example may be one of lessons learned rather than astute and we'll placed leadership.
Seems to me the French citizenry may be best served by not listening to cocky and greedy leadership who does not appear to have their best interest in mind.
To further clarify. This is a lesson Americans should also take notice of. Our leadership has done us no favors either.
Im not ignoring it. Wars of agression always fail in the end, they are always unsustainable without the hearts and minds of the people invaded. Theres never been an army since the Mongols with the capability to overrun Russiaand that was premedieval. Theres a reason why there is a truism that you never fight a land war in asia.
The fact remains that France was able to conquer all of Europe and most of North Africa and until the Russian winter destroyed Napoleons army most of European Russia. That isnt a measure of a cowardly army. And neither is holding fast during WW1. Facts are hard, gaslighting is easy.
Look up the Battle of Bir Hacheim in the Libyan desert during WW2 and tell me the French are cowards. They single handedly held off the entirety of Rommels offensive force allowing the British to reorganize at El Alamein.
Or read into the Fenchs efforts during the Revolution. We Americans focus on events on this continent but that was truly the first world war. If it wasnt the for the French battling the British around the world this country wouldnt exist.
SMH Americans lack of knowledge of world history is one of our problems.
I did not make a claim of the French soldier. I made a claim of leadership.
Leadership makes orders that soldiers follow. It is the blunder of leadership that results in a retreat not that of a soldier. Whether that be a formal surrender or an informal falling apart of an army that causes them to retreat in the face of insurmountable odds.
You seem to be, willingly or by fault, ignoring what I have clearly stated.
Carefully read my words again.
You may be failing to understand the forum that you have found yourself in. This forum is, if anything, independent thinking citizens of all walks of life who first and foremost call out the failures of leadership in the role they have been entrusted with by The People. The People make up armies. The People are led to slaughter by failed, weak and incompetent leadership.
The People are who I defend. Leadership is who I criticize.
Napoleon failed to recognize his blunder and rather than do the honorable thing and recalculate he led his army to slaughter in the Russian tundra.
Your criticism of Americans lacking world history knowledge, to the extent it may exist, only speaks to a misunderstanding of the original point.
If you feel Americans lack world history knowledge, fine, and that discussion can be had. But to misconstrue the original point then bloviate on an unrelated topic only speaks of your lack of knowledge with regard to the point being expressed.
You also ignore that of Napoleon's 600,000 invading force about 112,000 made it out on retreat.
Just to be clear. I'm not detracting from Napoleon's ability to put fourth a formidable and we'll trained force. But this example may be one of lessons learned rather than astute and we'll placed leadership.
Seems to me the French citizenry may be best served by not listening to cocky and greedy leadership who does not appear to have their best interest in mind.
To further clarify. This is a lesson Americans should also take notice of. Our leadership has done us no favors either.
Im not ignoring it. Wars of agression always fail in the end, they are always unsustainable without the hearts and minds of the people invaded. Theres never been an army since the Mongols with the capability to overrun Russiaand that was premedieval. Theres a reason why there is a truism that you never fight a land war in asia.
The fact remains that France was able to conquer all of Europe and most of North Africa and until the Russian winter destroyed Napoleons army most of European Russia. That isnt a measure of a cowardly army. And neither is holding fast during WW1. Facts are hard, gaslighting is easy.
Look up the Battle of Bir Hacheim in the Libyan desert during WW2 and tell me the French are cowards. They single handedly held off the entirety of Rommels offensive force allowing the British to reorganize at El Alamein.
Or read into the Fenchs efforts during the Revolution. We Americans focus on events on this continent but that was truly the first world war. If it wasnt the for the French battling the British around the world this country wouldnt exist.
SMH Americans lack of knowledge of world history is one of our problems.
I did not make a claim of the French soldier. I made a claim of leadership.
Leadership makes orders that soldiers follow. It is the blunder of leadership that results in a retreat not that of a soldier. Whether that be a formal surrender or an informal falling apart of an army that causes them to retreat in the face of insurmountable odds.
You seem to be, willingly or by fault, ignoring what I have clearly stated.
Carefully read my words again.
You may be failing to understand the forum that you have found yourself in. This forum is, if anything, independent thinking citizens of all walks of life who first and foremost call out the failures of leadership in the role they have been entrusted with by The People. The People make up armies. The People are led to slaughter by failed, weak and incompetent leadership.
The People are who I defend. Leadership is who I criticize.
Napoleon failed to recognize his blunder and rather than do the honorable thing and recalculate he led his army to slaughter in the Russian tundra.
Your criticism of Americans lacking world history knowledge, to the extent it may exist, only speaks to a misunderstanding of the original point.
If you feel Americans lack world history knowledge, fine, and that discussion can be had. But to misconstrue the original point then bloviate on an unrelated topic only speaks of your lack of knowledge with regard to the point being expressed.