The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 21, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE
wombat    10/17/2004 12:26:38 AM
HEY THERE
WAS THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE A GOOD FIGHTING FORCE?
WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BEAT SAY FRANCE, ITALY OR RUSSIA

THANKS

PS IF ANY ONE HAS ANY INFO ON THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE COULD THEY PLZ POST IT
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
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

bigfella    RE:Bigfella   10/26/2004 10:07:38 AM
"I did not say that Mussolini was moraly better than Churchill but only that Churchill have a curious moral in judtifying civilian bombing." My apologies FS, you actually said: "I'm sorry Worcester but by advocating deliberate bombing of civilian you put yourself at the same level of dictorship or even worse than some (Mussolini did not practice civilian bombing in Europe).To nuke specific military targets or doing it only one time could have the same effect without killing innocent civilians.War crime are war crime even they are done by a democracy. Maybe nuking Hiroshima helped to win the war, but Hitler did the same to end the war by using terror.Never forget that Hitler kill the jews because he saw them as collectively responsible of Bolshevism and WW2 by making influence on UK and US governement and preventing them to negociate with him." So, you put Mussolini up as morally superior to someone advocating bombing of civillians because he only bombed and gassed darkies, not bombed europeans. I apologize. Then you followed up with an interpretaion of Hitler's view of Jews that only a fascist would choose to believe. Can't be bothered digging up the nasty stuff on Vichy & Indochina/Algeria, but your crocodile tears over the Asian dead of Hiroshima & Nagasaki fool no one.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy