(https://frdiaries.wikispaces.com/file/view/French_Revolution_Storming_the_Prise_de_la_Bastille.jpg)
Mort aux rois!
The parade should be good. The French give good parade. :P
Quote from: AnchorClanker on July 14, 2009, 11:29:09 AM
The parade should be good. The French give good parade. :P
They should parade replica severed noble heads. That would be awesome.
But this will have to do:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinadaily.com.cn%2Fenglish%2Fdoc%2F2005-07%2F15%2Fxin_000702150913975116423.jpg&hash=82dd5f77bce42dc3df08866f169aa9dde86604c6)
Quote from: AnchorClanker on July 14, 2009, 11:29:09 AM
The parade should be good. The French give good parade. :P
Because we don't do it any more. :(
Boo. France has always functioned much better with a monarch.
Republicanism. :x
Traditionally a day filled with Joy. Bon Fete of something.
Quote from: Caliga on July 14, 2009, 11:50:23 AM
Boo. France has always functioned much better with a monarch.
With a Bourbon Monarch? Not since 1715.
More importantly this day is the birthday of Princess Victoria of Sweden. Grats!
It was a nice Parade.
Those Indian troops look good.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2009, 12:03:04 PMWith a Bourbon Monarch? Not since 1715.
PLZ do not forget the: Bonaparte Dynasty. :)
Actually, do forget Napoleon III. :blush:
My comment still stands however.
Quote from: Caliga on July 14, 2009, 12:07:57 PM
Actually, do forget Napoleon III. :blush:
Nap III still towers over the later Bourbon Kings. At least he brought free trade and parliamentary monarchy.
And hey at least he won in the Crimea and in Italy.
French is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2009, 12:14:07 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 14, 2009, 12:07:57 PM
Actually, do forget Napoleon III. :blush:
Nap III still towers over the later Bourbon Kings. At least he brought free trade and parliamentary monarchy.
And hey at least he won in the Crimea and in Italy.
But the Bourbons won where it counted: in the American Revolution.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2009, 12:20:06 PM
But the Bourbons won where it counted: in the American Revolution.
That move was great for America but very very bad for France. :P
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2009, 12:21:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2009, 12:20:06 PM
But the Bourbons won where it counted: in the American Revolution.
That move was great for America but very very bad for France. :P
And especially bad for Louis XVI.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2009, 12:21:58 PM
That move was great for America but very very bad for France. :P
What is great for America is great for everyone. :)
I wish Camper was still around. He would always back me up in the greatness of killing all kings.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2009, 02:11:58 PM
Why do you hate America? :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpumapac.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2Fobama_messiah.jpg&hash=4bf71fe3893fad9f3a088d6ef9e49637d1af7021)
"they worshiped the beast, saying, 'Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?' A mouth speaking great things and blasphemy was given to him. Authority to make war for forty-two months was given to him."
Tragic day.
What with the result, the great unwashed killing aristocracy.
Quote from: Armyknife on July 14, 2009, 02:38:40 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 02:25:37 PM
Tragic day.
What with the result, the great unwashed killing aristocracy.
Result. :bowler:
I'm not certain what you mean, if it's the British never turned back as teh #1...
That happened when the French rejected the teachings of Calvin and keep ties with the idol worshipping Roman Church.
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 02:53:24 PM
That happened when the French rejected the teachings of Calvin and keep ties with the idol worshipping Roman Church.
Maria Theresa is turning over in her grave hearing her descendants trash the one true faith like that.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2009, 03:09:08 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 02:53:24 PM
That happened when the French rejected the teachings of Calvin and keep ties with the idol worshipping Roman Church.
Maria Theresa is turning over in her grave hearing her descendants trash the one true faith like that.
She would have been wise to embrace the teachings of Calvin as well.
:contract:
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 03:20:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2009, 03:09:08 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 02:53:24 PM
That happened when the French rejected the teachings of Calvin and keep ties with the idol worshipping Roman Church.
Maria Theresa is turning over in her grave hearing her descendants trash the one true faith like that.
She would have been wise to embrace the teachings of Calvin as well.
:contract:
:yes:
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 03:20:36 PM
She would have been wise to embrace the teachings of Calvin as well.
:contract:
:o
Your love of the Protestants against the Habsburgs has been noted traitor.
I just...cannot believe what I am seeing. Habsburg is dead to me. :(
To you, he's dead. To me, he's an inbred drooling retard with a bad case of prognathism.
Quote from: Bastille Day
There's no bread, let them eat cake
There's no end to what they'll take
Flaunt the fruits of noble birth
Wash the salt into the earth
But they're marching to Bastille Day
La guillotine will claim her bloody prize
Free the dungeons of the innocent
The king will kneel and let his kingdom rise
Bloodstained velvet, dirty lace
Naked fear on every face
See them bow their heads to die
As we would bow as they rode by
And we're marching to Bastille Day
La guillotine will claim her bloody prize
Sing, oh choirs of cacophony
The king has kneeled, to let his kingdom rise
Lessons taught but never learned
All around us anger burns
Guide the future by the past
Long ago the mould was cast
For they marched up to Bastille Day
La guillotine claimed her bloody prize
Hear the echoes of the centuries
Power isn't all that money buys
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2009, 03:24:17 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 03:20:36 PM
She would have been wise to embrace the teachings of Calvin as well.
:contract:
:o
Your love of the Protestants against the Habsburgs has been noted traitor.
I just...cannot believe what I am seeing. Habsburg is dead to me. :(
I can not help myself, the idol worshiping Roman Church is evil. So are the Calvanists, at least they are not so corrupt.
I kinda only like the Lutherans. :shrug:
Tho getting religious doctrine from a Beaver Top Hat is kind of cool *SLC*, sort of like God talking to you in the desert *Medina* :rolleyes:
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 04:44:58 PM
I can not help myself, the idol worshiping Roman Church is evil.
:o :angry:
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 04:49:45 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 04:44:58 PM
I can not help myself, the idol worshiping Roman Church is evil.
:o :angry:
You are probably one of the people who "viewed" my plea for help in gaming, laughed and moved on. :(
Monkeybuttpirate gets
three Prada points for at least trying to help. :contract:
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 04:54:19 PM
You are probably one of the people who "viewed" my plea for help in gaming, laughed and moved on. :(
Monkeybuttpirate gets three Prada points for at least trying to help. :contract:
I viewed it after making my post in this thread. I don't have any advice about shopping at Chanel as I've never played HOI2.
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 04:44:58 PM
I can not help myself, the idol worshiping Roman Church is evil.
:ultra:
Finally got G. Lefebvre's "The Great Fear of 1789: Rural Panic in Revolutionary France" from the library today in honor. :frog:
Quote from: Armyknife on July 14, 2009, 03:01:46 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: Armyknife on July 14, 2009, 02:38:40 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 02:25:37 PM
Tragic day.
What with the result, the great unwashed killing aristocracy.
Result. :bowler:
I'm not certain what you mean, if it's the British never turned back as teh #1...
That happened when the French rejected the teachings of Calvin and keep ties with the idol worshipping Roman Church.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk%2Fstampsite%2Fcricket%2Fladstolords%2Fcromwell.jpg&hash=b37699a477be54fa7dcece046b2a7ab8883117f0)
I find it infinitely saddening that I wasn't born and able to see the body of that wart-faced, pockmarked despot and supertraitor dug out of his grave and publicly hung, drawn, and quartered on Charing Cross. :cry:
Charles I was so stupidly stubborn and lacked so much common sense I more consider his death a suicide than a execution.
Quote from: Armyknife on July 14, 2009, 08:39:19 PM
Oh and isn't stringing up despots invariably a good idea, especially if they're still living; having Charles I executed has contributed marvelously towards Elizabeth II being such a good constitutional monarch.
Indeed. If they had hanged or beheaded, say, five or six ruling monarchs Elizabeth II would already have the Britons using flying cars.
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 02:53:24 PM
I'm not certain what you mean, if it's the British never turned back as teh #1...
That happened when the French rejected the teachings of Calvin and keep ties with the idol worshipping Roman Church.
:)
Quote from: Armyknife on July 14, 2009, 08:39:19 PM
Quote from: Drakken on July 14, 2009, 07:57:49 PM
.........
I find it infinitely saddening that I wasn't born and able to see the body of that wart-faced, pockmarked despot and supertraitor dug out of his grave and publicly hung, drawn, and quartered on Charing Cross. :cry:
:huh:
One of the great, yet flawed, Englishmen. :bowler:
Oh and isn't stringing up despots invariably a good idea, especially if they're still living; having Charles I executed has contributed marvelously towards Elizabeth II being such a good constitutional monarch.
What are you smoking? The real Cromwell is nothing like 1970 Richard Harris' Cromwell.
What Cromwell established, in fact, was a personal military dictatorship. In fact his rule was more absolute than what Charles I could ever achieve, with a purged lameduck Parliament and military governors answering directly to him. Parliament had no more real or independent say about taxation or controlling the Lord Protector's purse, which was the core of the power it had over the King, because it could be purged ad infinitum.
Please tell me how Cromwell's rule was either more democratic or constitutional than Charles I. Charles I was clumsy and stubborn, yes, but he was acting within a known constitutional framework. Cromwell was not. No precedent, no charter, nor any legal custom bound the powers of a military dictator in England, especially when the guy had a personal permanent army at his command. Cromwell was even offered the crown in 1657, because at least the King was conventionally bound by traditional customs, precedents and charters even at the time. Take away the "Republic" veil, and what you have in England is what Louis XIV would establish during his personal rule, and what later whigs would totally abhor: absolute monarchy.
And you know what? He seriously considered accepting the crown. How's that for a Champion of Republicanism? That he didn't because it would limit his powers speaks for itself.
Cromwell just succeeded where Charles I had failed: dissolving Parliament into a joke with a nasty politicalized private army at his personal command. That is why there was no more demand for a new Commonwealth even after the abysmal failure of James II's reign : because the only thing it achieved was as chaffing ultra-Puritan dictatorship ruled by fiat.
Beheading Charles I contributed nothing to a constitutional monarch, because English monarchs were already bound by rules befoe that. What did was the Hanoverians George I and II taking hikes in Hanover while leaving the day-to-day politics to a Prime Minister needing the confidence of the House, and thus putting even more emphasis to the role of Parliament as decision-maker in modern politics than the King's.
I think you are being just a little harsh on Cromwell. He didn't set out to do those things, all of that developed organically out of the Civil War.
He was a military dictator but after the chaos and terror of the Civil War what the English really wanted was order and Cromwell brought them that...and then conveniently died after only 9 years. Hobbes and Leviathan and all that.
My 3 yr old nephew was born a day late, but we still call him a Bastille Baby anyway. :frog:
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2009, 11:44:05 AM
I think you are being just a little harsh on Cromwell. He didn't set out to do those things, all of that developed organically out of the Civil War.
He was a military dictator but after the chaos and terror of the Civil War what the English really wanted was order and Cromwell brought them that...and then conveniently died after only 9 years. Hobbes and Leviathan and all that.
I am being harsh, yes, but fair.
Nowhere did I say that Cromwell willfully established that out of machiavellian purpose. Cromwell is, all and all, a good monarch and did contribute to restore order. But politically, his position was far too powerful compared to the worst times of Charles I. Cromwell was offered the crown because Parlement finally saw what they couldn't see before: that Parliament was made even more useless under Cromwell than under the worst of Charles I's dreams of absolutism, and that no constitutional framework was limiting his regime. And it made them very, very uneasy.
However, we must see what he has done without tainted lenses. Saying that Cromwell establish a more constitutional or democratic system in the end is patently wrong. In fact Charles I would have wet his pants for the rest of his life he had even fathomed to establish what Cromwell did.
The French Revolution was good. The kingkilling was not. Still, they are two seperate phenomena. France might have become a civilized constitutional monarchy rather than some crazy America-lite.
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: Armyknife on July 14, 2009, 02:38:40 PM
Quote from: Habsburg on July 14, 2009, 02:25:37 PM
Tragic day.
What with the result, the great unwashed killing aristocracy.
Result. :bowler:
I'm not certain what you mean, if it's the British never turned back as teh #1..
Unwashed English longbows vs. French nobility FTW!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.sfweekly.com%2Fthesnitch%2FAgincourt.jpg&hash=ed9f41fd7b20577a19940a00348c7aba3a095c1a)
Quote from: Neil on July 15, 2009, 12:04:40 PM
The French Revolution was good. The kingkilling was not. Still, they are two seperate phenomena. France might have become a civilized constitutional monarchy rather than some crazy America-lite.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F3%2F3c%2FBurkeReflections.jpg&hash=d59e09779a2968d18876a02bf409e5bad96257e9)
Burke would disagree with you here. :bowler:
I have certain advantages that Burke does not.
Quote from: Syt on July 15, 2009, 12:09:02 PM
Unwashed English longbows vs. French nobility FTW!
FTL at Patay and Formigny though. Not that anybody English speaking wants to remember those battles. :P
Agincourt would have been a very shitty battle. The archers all had dysentery.
anyhow, the modern Republic of France should be championed as they seem to do a good job keeping Church away from State.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2009, 12:34:03 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 15, 2009, 12:09:02 PM
Unwashed English longbows vs. French nobility FTW!
FTL at Patay and Formigny though. Not that anybody English speaking wants to remember those battles. :P
Not really. Patay wasn't a failure of English longbows so much as it was a failure of Englishmen. And by Formigny, artillery and tactical mobility had advanced enough to take the longbow largely out of the picture. Formigny wasn't a battle of unwashed English longbows vs. French nobility, it was a battle of the medieval period against the beginnings of Renaissance warfare.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 15, 2009, 01:39:20 PM
Agincourt would have been a very shitty battle. The archers all had dysentery.
anyhow, the modern Republic of France should be championed as they seem to do a good job keeping Church away from State.
The French lost by themselves at Agincourt, the English weren't necessary: The English lost only 450 casualties over 7000+ soldiers there, and the French almost 10,000! And it wasn't because of "We Happy Few", buy because of "We Unhappy Too Many".
In truth the French should have squashed the English there. If Maréchal Boussicot had been listened to and his plan got carried out the chances of the French would have been very good. But the high noblemen commanders didn't, they wanted to fight people of equal rank for ransom and chivalric prestige, and their plan to charge full speed ahead into a restrained 350-meter wide terrain resulted in one of the worst cases of crowd disaster in military history.
Most of the dismounted men-at-arms got stuck over one another, the density reaching four men per square metre, and then got to get stuck in the mud, not because of the weight itself, but because the soil at Agincourt was porous and quite sticky when wet. And the more people got stucked, the less organized the lines became, and the less people could actually reach the lines because the way the terrain was shaped like a funnel. And those who were caught in the mud could not retreat, because the other line of men-at-arms were advancing behind them and towards them! So, the only way to survive was to advance, and the result is that they piled up over one another.
I am sure the English nobles at the rear were flabbergasted with a big "wtf" face when looking at the scene of these French noble crashing into one another trying to reach their lines into a hap-hazard disorganized formation, among the scattered knights and their horses around in front of them, most of them falling into the mud and barely able to get up from the ground because the stickiness kept them down.
Funnel-like terrain with muddy soil with good power of succion + overkill in numbers + heavy equipment + asinine noble leadership obssessed by ransoming = lots and lots and lots of dead weights at Agincourt.
Most of the casualties there were because Henry had almost all prisoners executed, not because of the battle itself. Even Henry's knights were disgusted at this order because it meant losing the fortune in ransom all these noble prisoners meant. So they sent the archers do it instead.
When you beat yourself in your own battle because of bad terrain and class hubris, and that the casualties would have happened even if the enemy wasn't present, it is the epicest of epic fails.
Quote from: Drakken on July 15, 2009, 02:14:16 PM
When you beat yourself in your own battle because of bad terrain and class hubris, and that the casualties would have happened even if the enemy wasn't present, it is the epicest of epic fails.
How would the prisoners have been executed if the enemy wasn't there?
You've described that the terrain would be a major and dangerous logistical problem, but not a massacre.
Quote from: Neil on July 15, 2009, 02:42:57 PM
Quote from: Drakken on July 15, 2009, 02:14:16 PM
When you beat yourself in your own battle because of bad terrain and class hubris, and that the casualties would have happened even if the enemy wasn't present, it is the epicest of epic fails.
How would the prisoners have been executed if the enemy wasn't there?
Lots of casualties would still have been suffered because the sheer amount of people walking over one another, getting stuck in the mud, dying of wounds, of exhaustion, of being drown in the mud, or by trampling. Henry executing them just ensured that those who got stuck end up dead 100%.
But yet, no English means no battle, so I should formulate it differently: If the English had stayed there and did absolutely nothing but defend their line, they would still have won.
Quote from: Neil on July 15, 2009, 02:42:57 PM
You've described that the terrain would be a major and dangerous logistical problem, but not a massacre.
The massacre was possible because so many Frenchmen got stucked in the first place, unable to even move out to flee.
Henry had them executed because they was simply too many French prisoners laying around, which could revolt when gathered together and overwhelm their small army anytime. Better to get rid of them now when they are down.
Quote from: Neil on July 15, 2009, 01:57:44 PM
Not really. Patay wasn't a failure of English longbows so much as it was a failure of Englishmen. And by Formigny, artillery and tactical mobility had advanced enough to take the longbow largely out of the picture. Formigny wasn't a battle of unwashed English longbows vs. French nobility, it was a battle of the medieval period against the beginnings of Renaissance warfare.
The artillery at Formigny did not play a big role in the battle though they were used. Repeated cavalry charges were what won that battle. The artillery was far more of a factor at Castillon.
Pfft you could just easily say Agincourt and Poitier were not lost by the French Cavalry but by the French.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2009, 02:56:59 PM
The artillery at Formigny did not play a big role in the battle though they were used. Repeated cavalry charges were what won that battle. The artillery was far more of a factor at Castillon.
I would say that outflanking the English was the key part of the battle. Getting ground up by two superior forces is ugly.
QuotePfft you could just easily say Agincourt and Poitier were not lost by the French Cavalry but by the French.
Some idiot didn't give away the French position at Agincourt.