AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

slowball RE:AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE 10/19/2004 10:12:53 PM

Good posts especially Roman. However, I think it is overly harsh or even incorrect to say that Italy betrayed A-H. They were allies in name only and A-H and Italy had always been at odds. It would be more accurate to say they were never really allied.

Quote Reply

fall out RE:AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE 10/20/2004 8:59:48 AM

FS - they were about the only country you could beat all the time, 'cept for perhaps the Vatican City! ;))

Quote Reply

french stratege RE:AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE 10/20/2004 9:23:11 AM

We could add Spain, Italy, Arabs..

Quote Reply

Tercio RE:AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE 10/20/2004 9:38:30 AM

"We could add Spain, Italy, Arabs." FS, honestly, have the words "Peninsular War" any meaning to you?. Tercio

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE 10/20/2004 9:46:47 AM

Tercio, Tercio, Clearly you fail to understand our little goosestepper here. This is someone who essentially argues that Vichy was right for surrendering and Britain was wrong for fighting on. he also thinks that Mussolini was morally superior to Churchill because he only gassed blacks (not europeans). Don't waste you time. Lets be honest here, ever since Germany unified its been one way traffic, and all of it heading toward Paris. As for the rest of this thread, the question that comes to my mind is: how crap are the Italians? When was the last time Italy (or at least a major part of it) fielded a competitive military force?

Quote Reply

french stratege Bigfella 10/20/2004 9:56:30 AM

Really could you stop diffamation? I did not say Vichy was right for surrendering. Moreover it is not Vichy which surrendered the the previous and legal governement. I did not say that Mussolini was moraly better than Churchill but only that Churchill have a curious moral in judtifying civilian bombing. And for your question about Italian force, I think Venice is the last subpart of Italy which have fielded a competitive army at least in Lepante.

Quote Reply

scholar RE:Bigfella 10/20/2004 11:33:56 AM

France beat the Austrians fare and square in Italy and elsewhere throughout the 19th century. 18th, too, I think. It was only large coalitions that could stop the French, or a united Germany. But France v. Hapsburg always went to France.

Quote Reply

densoflex RE:Bigfella 10/20/2004 12:09:44 PM

Scholar, 18th and 17th Centuries wars would at a whole, better be described as draws. For instance did the Emperor lose the Spanish Succession War? And what about the Austrian Succession War? The French were at this time facing the Hapsburg German Empire and were extremely good at invading Germany. It became clear to the rest of Europe at the end of 17th Century, that France was a danger to everyone, and from the beginning of 18th Century to Waterloo, France had to fight ever larger coalitions. Regarding Spain, I guess that our friend Tercio will post in a while. My impression is that until Rocroi in 1643, the French armies carefully avoided to face the Tercios in open ground. Then came the Spanish decline combined to the rise of super-generals such as Turenne and Condé, which may explain the subsequent French victories. Densoflex

Quote Reply

french stratege our problem was we were often second 10/20/2004 12:29:23 PM

In fact the only country which beaten us alone in history was Germany.None other country including UK have beaten us ALONE and it is why France still exist on almost its original shape (since German lost wars at the end).UK have a fair good war history against France but their ground victories were coalition victories or opportunities taken overseas when France was struggling at home. At sea of course they have beaten us alone most of the time especially with French navy collapsed after revolution.However their navy used to be more numerous usually. The only problem is that we have to get a huge ground army so UK beaten us on sea since they devoted most of their ressources on navy, and Germany was more numerous and they conccentrated most of the time on ground army. So our problem was we were often second: -on ground vs German -on sea vs UK.

Quote Reply

Tercio Densoflex 10/26/2004 9:37:08 AM

"The French were at this time facing the Hapsburg German Empire and were extremely good at invading Germany. It became clear to the rest of Europe at the end of 17th Century, that France was a danger to everyone, and from the beginning of 18th Century to Waterloo, France had to fight ever larger coalitions." The whole idea of both the Peace of Westphalia and the Treaty of Utretch was to avoid France succeding Spain in having hegemony in Europe. "Regarding Spain, I guess that our friend Tercio will post in a while. My impression is that until Rocroi in 1643, the French armies carefully avoided to face the Tercios in open ground. Then came the Spanish decline combined to the rise of super-generals such as Turenne and Condé, which may explain the subsequent French victories." You know me too much... >;-D. The French armies had very bad times with the tercios in the Italian wars. With Fernández de Córdoba first (Gran Capitán) and Charles I tercios after the Franch armies suffered decissive defeats. One of the most stunning was Pavia, where the French king (Francois I) was seized and taken as hostage. Up to Rocroi, the French were more cautious, they achieved some success (Cerisoles) but more defeats (St Quentin, Gravelines...). At Rocroi's time, Spain was sliding down the slope and France climbing steadily. Rocroi meant the end of the tercio's mith of invencibility, but the Second battle of the Dunes was the real, decisive blow to the tercios as fighting force. Tercio

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 NEXT