France meets USMC

But we lost this war mainly because of the casualties of 14-18 and their consequences. Can you imagine the consequences of having 25 million casualties in your country ?

Whats your point? That because when you lose you really really get your butts handed to you that somehow makes you tough?

That's a great line. We are tougher than you because while you tend to win wars, we get totally demolished.

"Romans submitted Gallics and their Britton brothers (island Gallics). They did not invade german or pict aeras because there was no city to take with siege engines and legions. The tribes were too barabarian to be civilized so they just builded the limes."

This is a patently false statement, whether motivated by the desire to lie or by ignorance. The legions of Rome did indeed invade Germania and subdue Germanic tribes; perhaps you should read Caesar's Commentarii.

In the Commentarius Quartius, Caesar narrated his crossing of the Rhine in the consulship of Cnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Marcus Licinius Crassus, in response to invasions by the Usipetes and the Tencteri (both of whom Caesar defeated in battle on Gallic soil). The Sugambri, into whose territory Caesar penetrated, immediately withdrew, and avoided Caesar's forces; Caesar also immediately received deputations from several Germanic nations upon his arrival.

It is important to note, however, that you are creating a false dilemma. Caesar never annexed territory in Germania for two separate reasons: First, that it was his policy to prefer submission rather than outright annexation, as evidenced by his friendly relations with the Aedui and the Remi; and second, that to have undertaken any significant operations in Germania would have been to exceed his constitutional and statutory authority as proconsul.

"I live in a 2500 years or more old city that was called Avaricum in 50BC. It is known to have resisted heroically up to the last man by the own words of Ceasar. 20000 casualties, a huge city for the times. Ceasar let none alive ! In their memory, though I owe them nothing, I can only tell you go to West Point : there is a map that shows the siege. The legend does not say the gallics surrender, it would be hard, but explains why the roman legions and siege engines submitted the whole world."

You neatly ignore the fact that Caesar was, in fact, short on supplies, owing to the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Aedui, and to the poverty on the part of Boii -- and, with such a supply shortfall, was laying siege to the largest and best fortified city in the Bituriges' territory.

You also neglect to mention that Caesar describes an attempt by the Bituriges to abandon Avaricum (and their women and children), on Vercingetorix's intructions -- and that the same women themselves signalled Caesar's soldiers that the men were to attempt a cowardly withdrawal, leaving their families to the Romans' tender mercies.

You also neglect to mention Caesar's remark that the men who had been standing fast in the market place, upon realising that they were being encircled by the Romans, literally threw down their weapons ("abiectis armis") and fled to the farthest part of the city -- which only facilitated their slaughter by Caesar's soldiers or by his predominantly Gallic cavalry.

Caesar finally remarks that of the total population of approximately 40 thousands, only eight hundreds escaped -- and those being they who had fled from the battle at the first sign of the Roman attack. The staggering loss was so demoralising that Vercingetorix did not wish to admit the survivors into his camp, for fear that they would tell the other Gauls what had happened.

Far from being an example of Gallic gallantry, the siege of Avaricum stands as an example of spectacular incompetence on the part of the Bituriges. They were completely unprepared to repel Caesar's soldiers, and only succeeded in so infuriating them that they butchered every one they could find once they penetrated the city itself.

I recommend that you read Caesar's Commentarius Septimus. Caesar does not describe a heroic stand to the last man; he describes a humiliating and haphazard retreat, a terribly conducted resistance effort, which was crippled from the beginning by the Bituriges' desire to flee rather than to fight.

"Later the Huns were stopped before Paris. We still don't really now why Attila decided so. It's part of the christian mythology. But they were defeated in my country first and nowhere else. And don't you know that the roman legions were mostly composed of the gallics ! These harsh and strong fighters have been decisive in many roman conquests."

Methinks, dear sir, that you should read up on your history of Attila the Hun. The so-called Scourge of God was not halted outside the gates of Paris, but outside the gates of Rome, whereat, in the year of grace 452, he was convinced to withdraw from Italy by Pope Leo I.

As for your description of the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, fought in the year of grace 451 on the plain between the city of Durocatalaunum (modern-day Châlons-sur-Marne) and Troyes, whereat Attila the Hun was decisively beaten in what is generally considered one of the most terrible battles of antiquity, is quite misleading.

The facts are these: That Attila the Hun invaded Gallia in the year of grace 450; that he was opposed by a coalition of Imperial forces, Visigoths, and other peoples (especially Alans), all under the supreme command of the noted Roman general Flavius Aetius, thrice consul; that the Imperial coalition soundly defeated the Huns in the year of grace 451 (historians of the period estimated the Huns lost as many as two hundreds to three hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the battle).

As the facts show, the battle was not won by the Gauls, who had not been a significant power since their subjugation by Caesar over four hundreds of years earlier. It was won primarily by the Romans and the Visigoths, under the command of a Roman general, who pursued the retreating Huns as far as the Rhine. The Battle of the Cataulanian Plains is not an example of Gallic or French military prowess.

"Now the franks, vikings. Don't you now you probably have saxon and norman blood if your ancesters come from UK ?"

Personally, I have Spanish blood (who expelled the Saracens from their homeland, and proceeded to rule as the most powerful nation on Earth for two hundreds of years -- and who opposed Communist aggression since the Spanish Civil War), and Polish blood (who decisively defeated the Teutonic Order at the Battle of Tannenberg in the year of grace 1410). My bloodline was serenely untouched by Nordic coastal raiders during the Medieval period.

"100 years war. English are led by normans who have submitted their country and they use welsh longbows against the chevalier codes of the era. But did they submit France ?"

The Hundred Years' War was militarily a disaster for France. It underlined the incompetence and weakness of the French kings, who only narrowly avoided losing their throne altogether, and that through the leadership of Ste Jeanne d'Arc, who lead the French to victory at Orléans in the year of grace 1429, and who had the Dauphin crowned as Charles VII at Rheims -- and whom Charles VII shamefully abandoned to the English, allowing her to be falsely accused of heresy, and burned at the stake.

In the course of the war, the French suffered several ignominious losses, including the Battle of the Spurs in the year of grace 1302, the defeat of the French fleet at Sluys in the year of grace 1340, the Battle of Crécy in the year of grace 1346, the capture of Calais in the year of grace 1347, the defeat and capture of Jean II by Edward the Black near Poitiers in the year of grace 1356, and the crushing loss at the Battle of Agincourt in the year of grace 1415.

To be sure, the Hundred Years' War ended as a victory for the French, it was a long and costly one.

"Catherine de Medicis (italian) is one of the most dreadful characters in these 2000 years of history. But pls wait 2000 years and don't fail before then you will enumerate your bad americans leaders."

You have made a charming example of how not to argue. This constitutes an argumentum ad hominem tu quoque (and a weak and unconvincing one, at that). It is logically fallacious, and therefore invalid.

"Get beaten in America. ROFL Our king did not believe it was worth sending an army there. And I agree he had no long term views at all. If he had decided you would write in french. May I point the small detail that we sent a few regiments to help your independance. And it was not only symbolic I suppose though I already hear the vomits of revisionism here."

I think you have an overblown sense of the greatness of the French army at the time. This is, of course, the same French army that had recently been badly beaten by the British in the Seven Years' War, which resulted in the acquisition of Canada and French possessions in India by the British, and of Louisiana by the Spanish.

This should not be construed as to devalue the contribution of the French to the American Revolution -- however, you exaggerate its importance as much as some others minimise it. The Marquis de Lafayette proved to be more efficacious and noteworthy than any other French contribution (except, perhaps, for Admiral the Comte de Grasse).

American leaders were steady and reliable; George Washington and Nathanael Greene were relatively outstanding commanders, and Henry Knox, Benjamin Lincoln, Anthony Wayne, Daniel Morgan, Horatio Gates and Benedict Arnold were competent generals.

Note especially that it was not until Major-General Gates accepted the surrender of Major-General John Burgoyne on 17th October in the year of grace 1777 that the French committed to an alliance with the Americans -- to wit, not until the Americans had already demonstrated that they could win the war.

Also note that the French were not the only ones to provide aid to the revolutionary Americans; the Baron v. Steuben, the first inspector-general of the Continental Army, was formerly a Prussian army officer. Thaddeus Kosciusko, form Poland, was another foreign "adviser." (It is interesting that Lafayette, Steuben, and Kosciusko were all in the Colonies and actively helping the Americans before France recognised the independence of the United States on 17th December in the year of grace 1777.) Note further that Spain also allied with the Americans against the British.

No, indeed, had Louis XVI decided to attempt to annex the Colonies, it most probably would not have resulted in a francophone United States. It would have resulted in another humiliating defeat for the French army; remember, the expenses incurred by aiding the American revolutionaries helped further cripple the French economy, exacerbating existing conditions, and helping to lead to the storming of the Bastille, and all that transpired thereafter.

"Do you prefer axe behading ? Guillotine is not to blame but paranoiac blood suckers in life or death times. Whatever, despite the kingdoms coaltions and aggressions against the unstable young republic, we finally builded it and stabilized it. And without the common interest support of this republic the free USA experience may have been quite different."

You are correct, Dr Guillotin is not responsible for the manner in which the bloodthirsty French Republic made use of his invention, the guillotine. However, you grossly misrepresent the fate of the French Republic: It was never stable, nor anything but a brutally oppressive régime.

Need I remind you of the depredations of men like Jean Baptiste Carrier, proconsul in Nantes? Or Georges Jacques Danton? Louis Antoine St-Just? Maximilien Robespierre?

Or even Philippe Egalité, the ci-devant Duc d'Orléans, who, in the name of liberty, equality, and fraternity, voted to execute his own cousin, despite the fact that he was guilty of no crime?

Shall I remind you of what was done by the decemvirate called the Committee for Public Safety? The bloody purges and reprisals? The brutality, the savagery, the baseness and barbarism? Shall I remind you of what was done by the Incorruptible, the Angel of Death, and the Friend of the People?

The French Republic died an ignominious death, and from its tattered remnants emerged the French Empire, under a Corsican general named Napoléon Bonaparte. It is an example of nothing but failed democracy, human depravity, and moral degeneracy. I weep for the eldest daughter of the Church, that she was forced to endure the days of the French Republic.

And indeed, you are correct: But for the French Republic, the United States would indeed have a different history. They should not have been forced to fight the War of 1812, provoked by the animosities of the British and the French under Napoléon. In the end, things would have been far better for the United States had the House of Bourbon never fallen from power; the House of Bourbon, at least, demonstrated its general inability to harm the United States -- shall I remind you of the Quasi-War? Or the dishonesty of the XYZ affair?

Perhaps another time I shall address the remainder of your remarks. Perhaps not; in any event, I strongly suggest that you study your history more studiously, and with greater attention. The eldest daughter of the Church deserves more than the ignorant and misleading defence with which you have hitherto presented her.

Actually, that was just a gratuitous zinger. I don't know anything about the current state of their automotive industry, except that they don't sell cars here and you have to wonder why.

"As for Romans and Germany I dont withdraw one word. Just arguing only on narrow facts or comments does not show more truth. In any soft science like history one has to be consistant on the level of detail and height of viewpoint to be meaningful."

You stated clearly and unequivocally that the Romans never invaded and subdued the Germanic tribes. I posted merely one example; in Caesar's Commentarius Quartus, he described crossing the Rhine and intimidating the Germanic tribe of the Suebi, after defeating a pair of Germanic tribes on Gallic soil.

Caesar was not the only Roman general to wage war in Germania. By the death of Caesar Augustus, in the year of grace 14, Roman possessions in Germania stretched from the Rhine as far wast as the Elbe. This basic fact demonstrates conclusively that your statement is factually incorrect.

In fact, following the expansion westward under the command of Tiberius Claudius Nero (later Tiberius Iulius Caesar), plans were made to expand southward, linking the Roman provinces all the way from the Adriatic Sea to the North Sea, with the Danube and the Elbe forming natural barriers to the west.

When the three legions of Publius Quintilius Varus were destroyed by Hermann in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, in the year of grace 9, it caused the emperor Caesar Augustus to abandon any further plans for expansion into Germania; this, no doubt, is the cause for your mistaken belief that the Roman empire never expanded into Germania.

However, the Roman armies nevertheless continued to campaign in Germania, subduing Germanic tribes. Germanicus Iulius Caesar led several successive campaigns deep into Germania in the years of grace 14 to 16, and recovered two of the three legionary standards lost by Quintilius Varus. Other notable expeditions into Germanic territory include the emperor Marcus Ulpius Traianus's conquest of Dacia (ending in the year of grace 106) and the emperor Marcus Aurelius's campaigns against the Quadi and the Marcomanni across the Danube and in modern Hungary.

"Second, I suspect you expose a contradiction in your own comments :

"Caesar's soldiers or by his predominantly Gallic cavalry."

"It was won primarily by the Romans and the Visigoths"

Do you suggest meanwhile all gallics have disappeared from the roman legions ? (1) Without even checking, from what I remember and with my intuition I believe not. But maybe you know a bit longer on this precise issue. I never said romans soldiers where all gallics. If you admit (1) then contradiction is only yours. If it's false put it on my approximative notions and I apologize."

Firstly, one must note that warfare in Caesar's day was primarily a contest of infantry; cavalry was basically an auxiliary force. Caesar's eight legions in Gallia were composed of Roman citizens, either from Italia or from Gallia Narbonensis (a Roman province); his cavalry was provided to him by allied Gallic tribes, most frequently by the Aedui, but in general by whatever tribes from whom Caesar demanded military support.

Secondly, one should note that Caesar's campaigns were approximately 400 years before Aetius organised a coalition against Attila the Hun. The social structure of the Roman empire had vastly changed.

Most importantly, the Gallic tribes had ceased to exist. After eight years of Caesar's operations in Gallia Transalpina, it was effectively a Roman province. One of Caesar's many reforms during his later dictatorship was to extend citizenship to large numbers of Gauls, and to establish Roman colonies in Gallia.

The end result was that the Gauls were assimilated. They lost their cultural and national identity as being separate from Rome, and became Romans in fact as well as in name and in allegiance. By the time that Attila was defeated at the Cataulanian Plains, there simply were no Gauls in existence; only Romans who lived in Gallia.

It is important to explain a particular detail: Gauls were never part of Rome's legions. They were auxiliaries and provided support to the legions, but were never legionaries themselves. Legionaries were always Roman citizens.

When Aetius allied with the Visigoths against Attila, he led a coalition against the Hunnish invaders. But the face of Roman military operations had drastically changed since the days of Caesar: The legion was no longer the backbone of the Roman army, and had not been for quite some time.

Roman armies by the time of the Battle of the Cantaulanian Fields were primarily cavalry forces, and were equipped much differently from those of Caesar's day. They wore entirely different types of armour, and used different weapons. Indeed, by that time, much of the Roman armies were no longer composed of Roman citizens, but rather of barbarians who served under Roman commanders.

In summation, the Gauls could not have "disappeared" from Roman legions, because they were never in them. But, by the time of the victory over Attila, there were no Gauls in Gallia: There were Romans and there were Visigoths.

"Wether they intended to let their women and children in the city (to feed the romans?) is pure fiction. Stop trying to introduce your fantasies in history. If you only need such fables to maintain your audience captive and justify your all times ever surrender monkeys infamous doctrine."

If you believe it to be a matter of fiction, I suggest you take up the matter with Caesar, as he is the one who wrote it. Shall I quote at length from the Commentarius Septimus?

"Iamque hoc facere noctu apparabant, cum matres familiae repente in publicum procurrerunt flentesque proiectae ad pedes suorum omnibus precibus petierunt, ne se et communes liberos hostibus ad supplicium dederent, quos ad capiendam fugam naturae et virium infirmitas impediret. Ubi eos in sententia perstare viderunt, quod plerumque in summo periculo timor misericordiam non recipit, conclamare et significare de fuga Romanis coeperunt."

Those are Caesar's own words on the matter. Translated from Latin, this is rendered as:

"And now this they were preparing to do by night, when the mothers of the families suddenly into the open ran, and weeping threw themselves at the feet of their men, and asked of them that they would not give them and their common children, whose nature and manly weakness prevented them from joining the flight, to the enemy for punishment. When they saw that they persisted in their feeling, because those in great danger fear does not receive pity, they began to shout and show the Romans of the flight."

Rex Warner's translation of the passage is even more explicit; he renders it in his book "War Commentaries of Caesar" (1960) as:

"Night came and they were already getting ready to make the attempt when suddenly the wives came running out into the stretts and threw themselves down in tears at the feet of their husbands, begging and praying them not to abandon them and their children to the vengeance of the enemy, simply because they were by nature not strong eanough to join in the escape. When they saw that the men were not going to change their minds (for it is generally the case that in extreme danger fear drives out pity), they began to cry out all together and make signs to our troops to show that an escape was intended."

As you can clearly see, it is not a case of me "trying to introduce fantasies in history," nor is it pure fiction. It is as explicitly described by Caesar himself. Given that Caesar was present at the siege, I am inclined to believe his description of the event more than your unsubstantiated and unattested version.

"So you can not both blame the gallics for lack of courage and military stupidity both. They maybe lost because the bitturige felt too heartly attached to their city, known as the most beautiful city of Gaul. And from a strategical viewpoint it was a mistake."

I most certainly can ascribe the disasterous rout and sack of Avaricum to the incompetence and cowardice of the Bituriges. It was their bull-headed pride that drove Vercingetorix to attempt to hold the city against a Roman siege, knowing fully well that Caesar was a spectacularly successful general, and particularly proficient at overrunning ostensibly well-fortified cities.

It was the arrogance of the Bituriges that drove them to attempt to hold the city against the greatest field commander in the world, and their cowardice that drove them to attempt to flee when they realised that they could not possibly do so, even when the Roman legions were suffering from a severe supply shortfall.

It was Gallic cowardice that drove the Bituriges to throw away their weapons and flee when they realised that the Romans were attacking the city. They did not valiantly fight to the last man; they fled the moment they realised that Caesar's armies were in the city itself, moving to encircle them.

Indeed, they were cut down as they attempted to flee the city; Caesar describes the disorderly collapse and attempted flight of the Bituriges, noting that they rushed for the gates, clogging the narrow passages leading thereto, and being cut down in the streets thereat. Those who managed to pass through the gates were killed by Caesar's Gallic cavalry.

It was the disorderly collapse of the Bituriges' defence that lead to the massacre of the city's inhabitants. The Gauls foolishly abandoned their arms and armour in their haste to escape from Caesar's infantry -- and their poorly planned withdrawal attempt only made it easier for the infantry to kill the bulk of them, whilst the cavalry killed the remainder. The entire defence of Avaricum was a blunder.

I find it quite interesting that you accuse me of distorting facts, when you yourself admit that you lack familiarity with details. Have you, in fact, read Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico?

I'm glad you brought that up. Some French did help us out a bit more than someone else on the thread implied. And it wasn't miniscule, either. From what I've read; Lafayette was like an adopted son to G. Washington. He was invited over to Mt. Vernon several times. There is even a room in the mansion referred to as Lafayette's room; with a portrait of him that was put in there. You can see it on Mt. Vernon's website.

Also, apart from fighting alongside Washington and other officers, he bought much needed supplies out of his own pocket, and interceded for the colonies with the King of France to be an ally to us. When the French Revolution came along, he and his wife nearly became victims of a revolution he was initially in favor of. But before that, he encouraged and supported revolutionary efforts in other countries.

So it makes me mad when he and some other French individuals are not given the credit they deserve. If Washington and others in the revolutionary movement could credit them generously, we can do no less!

IMHO, Those who get too defensive over the supposed "Marine's" comments (which was conduct unbecoming an officer), lack the wherewithal to remain much above the rank of "cannon-fodder".

Even if one had sincere beliefs that a French culture yields cowardly impotence, the corrective action was not exemplified by the comments in the article. The comments were rantings of a power lusting punk with the maturity level of a third grader.

If such an incident occurred, the French officer displayed more wherewithal by simply walking away, because who is more foolish?...the fool or one who argues with one?

That's "Joan of Arc Hearing Voices" by J. Bastien-Lepage. Painted in 1880. (If you look carefully, you can see several of the Fourteen Holy Helpers in the background).

I do see the images behind her, and only after a Google Search I found out that they were Saints Michael, Margaret, and Catherine.
Who, (and where), are the Fourteen Holy Helpers?

He died very young, most critics park him with the Impressionists, but he's hard to categorize. Some of his work is very impressionistic, other works are more like Millet in their gritty take on French rural life.
This one is more like a pre-Raphaelite painting than anything else (look at the almost hallucinatory detail in the grass)

Well, you're infinitely more knowledgeable of these things than I am. Before you mentioned them, I've never heard of LePage, Millet or Raphael. I'm the sort that looks at a painting and either likes what he sees or doesn't. But I can appreciate your deeper thoughfulness of the subject. (I see your point about the grass).

I also searched, to no avail, as to who might sell a print of the Jeanne Hearing Voices. The other two you posted along with that one are also nice.

Thank you, AmericanMother.
Out of curiosity, do you like Remington's paintings?

I can't help it . . . I'm an art fan, just a curious amateur though. Can't draw for nuts except quick sketches and silly cartoons.

I do like Remington, very much. I particularly like his quick water color sketches that he actually made "on the job" so to speak, on his trips out west, before he took them back east and did his paintings.

An Indian-hunting colonel.

One of the things I particularly like about Remington is that he really LOOKED at horses and drew them accurately. I have clipped so many legs and curried so many backs that I know every bump and hollow of a horse's anatomy, and if somebody can't draw a horse it jumps out at me like a neon sign. And he drew real, scruffy, ewe-necked and over at the knee western horses, not romantic Thoroughbreds that would look like a debutante at a round-up. :-D

Charlie Russell is another artist who can draw a horse . . . unlike Remington, he was a real cowboy too.

The Mad Cow

The list of the Fourteen Holy Helpers was a medieval tradition that arose because these saints were early martyrs (except St. Giles) and protectors from sudden death in various forms, and they were invoked jointly when one was in serious deep trouble (the Black Death for example). St. George of England is always listed first. The others are St. Catherine of Alexandria (my daughter's name-saint - she has a copy of Raphael's lovely portrait over her bed), St. Barbara of the Tower (patroness of artillerymen and fireworkers, viz. my husband), St. Blaise (patron against throat afflictions because he saved a child from choking on a fish bone), St. Christopher (the disenfranchised), St. Margaret of Antioch, St. Vitus, St. Erasmus, St. Pantaleon (patron of doctors), St. Denis, St. Cyriacus, St. Achatius, St. Eustace, & St. Giles. Their joint feast has been removed from the calendar, but there is at least one church in the U.S. dedicated to them (in Gardenville NY) and many still keep up the devotion. St. Michael being an Archangel is not one of the 14.

If you like that Lepage painting ("Pauvrette") with the little girl and the cow, you might want to check out the pre-Raphaelites like Holman Hunt, Dante Gabriel Rosetti, and John Everett Millais. Very careful and detailed depictions of nature, very lovingly painted, often quite romantic. But you either like them or you don't - not much middle ground there.

As far as getting a print of the Bastien-Lepage painting, it's at the Met, and there MUST be prints available, although I've never happened to purchase a print from them. Contact the museum and see. I have dealt with the Tate Gallery in London very successfully on the matter of art-quality prints. They have set up an excellent system for ordering over the net, and I'm sure other museums have too.

Gosh - I just went and checked the Met's website, and boy are they picky! You can rent a color transparency or buy a black and white print, that's all. (I wonder if they would frown on the use of that prints-from-slides process?)

I appreciate you telling me about Charlie Russell.
I have found a site where his prints can be bought.

You're a genuine Georgia Peach

I thought you might like this story, AmericanMother. Maybe you knew of ol' Orville? Peach Tale

"As I went down to Darby, sir
'Twas on a market day,
I saw the biggest ram, sir,
that ever was fed upon hay."

Another in the great series of tall agricultural tales! I had not heard about the Peach, but I HAVE been to Rock Eagle. Neat place, give it a look if you have a chance.

Glad you were able to find a source for Charlie Russell's prints. He's always been one of my favorites, with a real Western flavor.

Another in the great series of tall agricultural tales!

Tall is right! Just look at this beauty!

...wonder if she's one of Orville's kin?