France vs Great Britain

[Infected Mushroom]

Let’s say that you have to come up with a subjective way to “keep points” on countries based on their military performance in wars, gains, losses, and overall prestige throughout history.

You are then tasked with counting the points France has earned and lost over its long existence and those of the UK (achievements of England and Great Britain will count towards the total).

You have to declare a winner between the two.

What’s your metric? What makes sense?

Is it purely numbers of wars won vs lost? Is it territory gained AND kept to the present day? Max size of colonial empires?

Does it matter that a country won more wars when the net result is that it has held on to less territory over time? Should it be about casualties and damage taken instead? International perception? The PR?

What is your metric? Who is the winner here? In 2021 and looking throughout history, did France or the UK achieve more impressive feats on the battlefield?

Im going to reluctantly go France due to revolutionary France/Napoleon’s 20+ year winning streak. Yes he eventually lost but come now, it’s too impressive that they went against all of of Europe like that.

In WWII France lost badly but it’s cancelled out by their pivotal and central role in WWI. Without France, Allies literally would have lost WWI no question.

In WWII, without the UK, the Soviets alone could have won. It would have been bloodier but they would have won.

Looking further back, it’s mostly a mixed score set between the UK and France. UK got a bigger colonial empire but it doesn’t mean much because they ended losing most of it. I think France currently holds on to more random Pacific islands and colonial leftovers the world over. Plus territory France has grabbed in continental Europe seem mostly content on French identity. Meanwhile in the UK, it’s hold is not secure because the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh all push the independence card from time to time. France managed to convince people that French is French.

[Page]

I think you have to hand the win to Britain on the basis that they consolidated many more of their victories. Their empire stretched further and lasted longer.

To France's credit, they once rose to dominate Europe amid the chaos of a revolution and the monarchs of the continent determined to destroy them, and they had to deal with a long border with Germany while Britain had the sea as a castle wall. I think one would have to argue that France made the greater contribution to winning the first World War.

But Britain definitely did more to win the second. Another reason I'd say Britain wins is because English is an intermediary language all over the globe while you don't find much French outside of Europe and Africa.

Both countries lose a heap of points for how badly they screwed the Middle East.

But the last nail in the coffin is the Battle of Agincourt. When your best knights get stomped by a starving army that you vastly outnumbered, and all because you underestimated the stopping power of mud... tsk tsk tsk

[Iwassoclose]

Ignoring past achievements, by current metrics, UK is far ahead of France

https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/uk/france

France has a lower gdp, lower gdp per capita, higher debt, double the unemployment and is lower in the happiness and quality of life index.

[Heloin]

France has the better national anthem.

[The New California Republic]

[...] looking throughout history, did France or the UK achieve more impressive feats on the battlefield?

There's a joke about French tanks having 5 reverse gears, and one forward for parades, that stems from a general perception that France's "feats" on the battlefield are not impressive.

[Ifreann]

Having played EU4, the French military is obviously vastly superior.

[Iwassoclose]

Having played EU4, the French military is obviously vastly superior.

they both have nukes so military is kind of useless

[Heloin]

Having played EU4, the French military is obviously vastly superior.

they both have nukes so military is kind of useless

I realise that Paradox games have a pretty so-so relation to historical accuracy but 15th century nuclear France is a step too far for me.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Well if you wana be objective in terms of empire duration, influence etc then probably Britain though both nations are responsible for really far reaching events that changed the course of human history.

But i don't want to be objective so i pick France.

France has the better national anthem.

Also this.

Having played EU4, the French military is obviously vastly superior.

And this.

[Iwassoclose]

they both have nukes so military is kind of useless

I realise that Paradox games have a pretty so-so relation to historical accuracy but 15th century nuclear France is a step too far for me.

sorry dont play games

[Antipatros]

Great Britain, for sure. France has an impressive history, don't get me wrong. For a good while, it was the leading power in Western Europe.

Britain surpassed them, though. This occurred for a few reasons.

1) Britain is an island. This allowed them to resist invasion and to focus on the development of a powerful navy.

2) Britain developed a superior public finance system, allowing it to raise money at a lower cost than France. The Dutch also developed an excellent finance system, but they were vulnerable to land invasion and had a smaller population.

3) Britain was more successful in establishing settler colonies which later became powerful countries in their own right. The US is a great example, which later became a close ally despite having rebelled against British rule.

4) Britain was able to industrialize first due to a variety of factors. This gave Britain an economic advantage over France during a critical juncture in history.

5) Britain was able to stop France from dominating the continent in a series of conflicts, culminating in the Napoleonic Wars.

[Antipatros]

Great Britain, for sure. France has an impressive history, don't get me wrong. For a good while, it was the leading power in Western Europe.

Britain surpassed them, though. This occurred for a few reasons.

1) Britain is an island. This allowed them to resist invasion and to focus on the development of a powerful navy.

2) Britain developed a superior public finance system, allowing it to raise money at a lower cost than France. The Dutch also developed an excellent finance system, but they were vulnerable to land invasion and had a smaller population.

3) Britain was more successful in establishing settler colonies which later became powerful countries in their own right. The US is a great example, which later became a close ally despite having rebelled against British rule.

4) Britain was able to industrialize first due to a variety of factors. This gave Britain an economic advantage over France during a critical juncture in history.

5) Britain was able to stop France from dominating the continent in a series of conflicts, culminating in the Napoleonic Wars.

If I had to narrow it down to a single factor, Britain being an island while France is not is probably the most important one.

Great Britain would have received a solid ass whooping if France would have been able to walk its army in.

[Royal Frankia]

UK never had multiple land borders with Great Powers, nor had it to fight it on multiple fronts. It could just focus on the sea, on which it secured a monopoly as the French could not really divert resources from its armies. Anytime the British Army fought on the continent it was at a disadvantage, especially if you throw Napoleon's generalship into the mix. The sea, however, allowed the British to save face in the Peninsula and allowed them to conduct a rather mobile war which the French could not respond as their fleets were still bottled up in harbor.

Also, there is the Revolution, which weakened the French Navy to the point of irrelevance. While the Army benefited from rank jumpers, the Navy lost a good chunk of its Royalist officers in a field which required years of expertise. The French Navy was never as favored as the Royal Navy, not until say before WW2 when that did lead to funds being diverted from the Army.

France did strip the British of the US, though the British made good this loss with success in India. British success in bottling up rival colonial fleets and coopting the natives definitely did ensure that the Union Jack would fly over a 1/4 of the globe. This success came at a cost, as the British Army was always smaller than its continental rivals and could not adequate be strong everywhere as a result. No nation is bereft of disasters, look at say the Somme or Singapore or Sedan or Vietnam.

The key to understanding France is WW1, France lost a good chunk of its male population after being invaded by the Germans. This is at a time when the Germans severely outnumbered the French in regards to population, not to mention having access to good coal and steel reserves which led to their industrial takeoff. Russians were actually brought into the Entente by French loans, much to the dismay of the Germans.

When you have armies marching across your land you're going to see devastation and the constant call to arms bled the French population to death. French demographically could have been much greater, if certain events had gone her way. There is the Left Bank of the Rhine, which I believe by treaty could have belonged to France along with other satellites if Napoleon had accepted.

France for the cultural victory and the fact that it still has some say in Africa. There is also the Gaullist period, where the French were more assertive of their rights than say the British. I would say that the five Republics have been a mistake, and that a monarchy with limited powers with a parliamentary system would have been preferable.

After Henry V, the English were driven out of France proper. The English won battles here and there, but the French had to not only fight them but mercenary armies that roamed the land. French forces had to engage mercs who went rogue, fighting them at times in pitched battles that cost them the lives of notable commanders. If I remember correctly, the English nobility were opposed to the war as it was costly and there was not much in the way of loot anymore... Also getting spanked by a peasant girl isn't a worthy sendoff.

In a one on one fight on land without the British having to rely on allies, the French Army would win every time. Naval victories would go to the British, for the reasons I have stated which would decide the colonial wars. If you rule the seas you can rule the world, but the British had a reason to fear a French invasion well into the early 20th.

[Royal Frankia]

[...] looking throughout history, did France or the UK achieve more impressive feats on the battlefield?

There's a joke about French tanks having 5 reverse gears, and one forward for parades, that stems from a general perception that France's "feats" on the battlefield are not impressive.

Losing to a bicycle blitzkrieg isn't something to brag about. If you live in the Anglo world, the successes of Britain's rivals are downplayed while the humiliations of the Brits are downplayed. Britain's regulars were nearly wiped out once they set foot on the continent in WW1, forcing the British to swell the ranks of the Army like never before.

[The New California Republic]

UK never had multiple land borders with Great Powers, nor had it to fight it on multiple fronts.

Patently untrue. The British Empire very much did fight on multiple fronts.

[Infected Mushroom]

But if you did a countdown of battles and wars won, ignoring scale, who won more often?

[Royal Frankia]

UK never had multiple land borders with Great Powers, nor had it to fight it on multiple fronts.

Patently untrue. The British Empire very much did fight on multiple fronts.

On land in Europe. They never had to face the Habsburgs at their height on land or the Austrians or the Russians or the Prussians or everyone that the British had bribed. WW1/WW2 were an exceptions to the rule, though the colonial conflicts abroad were not on the same scale as fighting in Europe.

[Heloin]

But if you did a countdown of battles and wars won, ignoring scale, who won more often?

Google says France for a question that is about as useful for discussion as who would win a race between superman and the flash.

[Comfed]

France gets extra points for being a republic.

[Nixer]

France have more active military and a foreign policy that is not influenced by USA, While UK is sitting duck waiting for command from USA just like a loyal dog.

[Ifreann]

But if you did a countdown of battles and wars won, ignoring scale, who won more often?

Google says France for a question that is about as useful for discussion as who would win a race between superman and the flash.

The Flash.

[Infected Mushroom]

But if you did a countdown of battles and wars won, ignoring scale, who won more often?

Google says France for a question that is about as useful for discussion as who would win a race between superman and the flash.

This was my impression as well. I would think that puts France at a few points ahead in my book.

UK has had a bigger global impact for sure (with the common law, English being the dominant language, many of their former colonies now being successful, the impact of all their inventions (the list of UK inventions is HUGE) and Harry Potter)

However, in the military domain I think France has had, historically more wins and more successes? UK never had a string of battlefield glories like the Napoleonic Wars and the wars of the French Revolution. Yes Napoleon ultimately lost but he was unstoppable for such a long time and it was such a continuous string of wins.

Many people point out Agincourt but I'm sure the French can balance that out with their other medieval era big wins right? The English won at Agincourt, but ultimately if I remember correctly, France won the whole war in the end?

[Ifreann]

Google says France for a question that is about as useful for discussion as who would win a race between superman and the flash.

This was my impression as well. I would think that puts France at a few points ahead in my book.

UK has had a bigger global impact for sure (with the common law, English being the dominant language, many of their former colonies now being successful, the impact of all their inventions (the list of UK inventions is HUGE) and Harry Potter)

However, in the military domain I think France has had, historically more wins and more successes? UK never had a string of battlefield glories like the Napoleonic Wars and the wars of the French Revolution. Yes Napoleon ultimately lost but he was unstoppable for such a long time and it was such a continuous string of wins.

Many people point out Agincourt but I'm sure the French can balance that out with their other medieval era big wins right? The English won at Agincourt, but ultimately if I remember correctly, France won the whole war in the end?

The Flash won the Hundred Years War.

[Antipatros]

UK never had multiple land borders with Great Powers, nor had it to fight it on multiple fronts. It could just focus on the sea, on which it secured a monopoly as the French could not really divert resources from its armies. Anytime the British Army fought on the continent it was at a disadvantage, especially if you throw Napoleon's generalship into the mix. The sea, however, allowed the British to save face in the Peninsula and allowed them to conduct a rather mobile war which the French could not respond as their fleets were still bottled up in harbor.

Also, there is the Revolution, which weakened the French Navy to the point of irrelevance. While the Army benefited from rank jumpers, the Navy lost a good chunk of its Royalist officers in a field which required years of expertise. The French Navy was never as favored as the Royal Navy, not until say before WW2 when that did lead to funds being diverted from the Army.

France did strip the British of the US, though the British made good this loss with success in India. British success in bottling up rival colonial fleets and coopting the natives definitely did ensure that the Union Jack would fly over a 1/4 of the globe. This success came at a cost, as the British Army was always smaller than its continental rivals and could not adequate be strong everywhere as a result. No nation is bereft of disasters, look at say the Somme or Singapore or Sedan or Vietnam.

The key to understanding France is WW1, France lost a good chunk of its male population after being invaded by the Germans. This is at a time when the Germans severely outnumbered the French in regards to population, not to mention having access to good coal and steel reserves which led to their industrial takeoff. Russians were actually brought into the Entente by French loans, much to the dismay of the Germans.

When you have armies marching across your land you're going to see devastation and the constant call to arms bled the French population to death. French demographically could have been much greater, if certain events had gone her way. There is the Left Bank of the Rhine, which I believe by treaty could have belonged to France along with other satellites if Napoleon had accepted.

France for the cultural victory and the fact that it still has some say in Africa. There is also the Gaullist period, where the French were more assertive of their rights than say the British. I would say that the five Republics have been a mistake, and that a monarchy with limited powers with a parliamentary system would have been preferable.

After Henry V, the English were driven out of France proper. The English won battles here and there, but the French had to not only fight them but mercenary armies that roamed the land. French forces had to engage mercs who went rogue, fighting them at times in pitched battles that cost them the lives of notable commanders. If I remember correctly, the English nobility were opposed to the war as it was costly and there was not much in the way of loot anymore... Also getting spanked by a peasant girl isn't a worthy sendoff.

In a one on one fight on land without the British having to rely on allies, the French Army would win every time. Naval victories would go to the British, for the reasons I have stated which would decide the colonial wars. If you rule the seas you can rule the world, but the British had a reason to fear a French invasion well into the early 20th.

The demographics thing is an interesting subtopic.

If we go off this source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Europe#Historical_population_of_Europe_and_former_USSR,_AD_1%E2%80%932020

Assuming I didn't screw something up, we can derive this chart:



We can see that France starts to fall off after 1700, and great increases for Britain and Germany coincide with their industrializations. We can also see that the 30 Years War was extremely devastating for the German population.

Various explanations have been offered up for the relative decline of the French population. Losing a lot of young men in various wars is definitely one factor. Some people also point to the inheritance laws in France (partible inheritance rather than primogeniture). Some argue that the continuous subdivision of land and assets led to smaller family sizes and inefficient farms (too small and lacking capital equipment). I don't know a ton about that topic, so I'm not sure.

[Heloin]

This was my impression as well. I would think that puts France at a few points ahead in my book.

UK has had a bigger global impact for sure (with the common law, English being the dominant language, many of their former colonies now being successful, the impact of all their inventions (the list of UK inventions is HUGE) and Harry Potter)

However, in the military domain I think France has had, historically more wins and more successes? UK never had a string of battlefield glories like the Napoleonic Wars and the wars of the French Revolution. Yes Napoleon ultimately lost but he was unstoppable for such a long time and it was such a continuous string of wins.

Many people point out Agincourt but I'm sure the French can balance that out with their other medieval era big wins right? The English won at Agincourt, but ultimately if I remember correctly, France won the whole war in the end?

The Flash won the Hundred Years War.

It all went downhill when Superman used his heat vision to kill Joan of Arc.