Jebus said:
You don't actually believe in that classical-history-professor circle jerk, do you? Without the French creation of the Proto-nationstate, the French mercantilism and the French enlightenment, we'd still be wearing Toga's and thinking we're so awefully cultered because we're simulating a supposedly grand culture.
Not to nit-pick, but the modern Western nation-state is generally accepted to be a combination of Roman law, Greek culture and Christian ethics, with some heavy spice-of-life from other cultures too. 'course, the Romans and the Greeks were built upon other cultures as well, etc. etc.
To draw a line at France and say "This is where the modern world's most important building-block was laid" seems a bit arbitrary and subjective, an argument which you could only really back up with "I like France".
It is also interesting to note that it seems to take shorter and shorter amounts of time to become a major influence on the world. The time Britain and France took is nowhere comparable to that of Hellenic Greek and Rome, especially if you count the centuries-long interval. The United States, given time, could well become more influential on a grand scale than France ever was, depending on how history forms itself, ey?
Also, your "scholar's arrogance" is amusing, but best left at the door. And you're not very attractive, from my heterosexual anti-80's point of view.
John Uskglass said:
And the British are up there, maybe equal.
This is a remark that got scrolled by too fast, while it is in fact very interesting. It is a point of perception. Anglo-Americocentrism vs Continental Eurocentrism.
France and Britain had distinctly seperate influences on the world. Liberalism on one's side would mean conservatism on the other, prosperity on one side destitution on the other (well, not really, but close enough). When France stood as the largest acricultural state of Europe, Britain was nowhere near it. When Britain stood as the force of the Industrial Revolution.Britain inserted the Magna Carta and was the first to bring back semblances of democracy into the world, soon to be followed (copied?) by the USA. France, at and even in the conservative aftershock of the revolution, was enormously liberal, where Britain was hanging on as a conservative guard-dog led by Lord Castlereagh and George Canning (and allied, of course, to the highest conservative force that was Austria under Metternich).
But both had different moments of strengths and weaknesses and thus had distinctly different influences on the world today. France was noteably strongest and remembered as a cultural force whereas Britain was strongest in economy and politics. Britain won, one could say, and it is interesting to note that by coincidence we now consider economy and politics, the marks of Great Britain (and the US, yes) to be the most important signs of "higher cultures", whereas the stem-word of that term, culture, is seen as a note of minor importance. Most Americans, if asked, would mark American culture as low culture and European culture as high culture, however ignorant that may be, but the fact that they don't really care about it either shows a distinct cut between the relative importance of these factors.
Why? What is the most important thing that the US has given to the world so far? Is it logic or feeling? Science of culture? Science improves the lives of individuals, whereas culture improves the quality of society. So who gave more to the world? France and its high culture and high-flying ideals or England and its machinations? Surely, one of the largest problems the Western World actually has to deal with is a distinctive lack of culture versus an overdose of economics and politics (and science)? Perhaps these people subconciously feel this and that is amongst the reasons they back France.
After all, it is interesting to note how strong the concept of liberté, egalité, fraternité is all through the Western world. But the really interesting thing is that in the US the order of values if liberté, egalité, fraternité, whereas in modern-day Europe it is actually fraternité, egalité, liberté. And even more, egalité in Europe means an equality of standard of life, whereas in the US it means equality in the chance to gain a good life.
Your obsession with Britain's greatness, John...in fact this obsession that most citizens of the US share is the opposite of that which you so criticise; Eurocentrism. It is little more than derived Americocentrism. Since America is too young to honour all the way back there simply honour its mothercountry, which is currently fulfilling the role of little nephew... or whipping-boy.
Bradylama said:
For Centuries, French soldiers have been lead into foolish conflicts by utter idiots, and when France was close to the verge of triumph (Napoleon) they were made a whipping boy by the British Lion and his indominable naval power (as well as needing to be taken down by all of Europe).
welsh said:
As for the fleet during the Napoleanic Campaign, the British victory in Tralfagar was a turning point for good reason- the French made some wonderful ships and, even if the Brits were the dominant navy, the French could effectively challenge that naval dominance.
You know, this is a point I can never let slide by quietly. Rampant Westerncentrism...or rather it's a kind of nationalism run amok, since again this seems to derive from Americocentrism...yeah, of course the British were the most important force in defeating the French, just like the US with Hitler. It is an interesting question...what's the definitive battle of the Napoleonic wars?
Anglo-American answer:
Alternative 1: The battle of Trafalgar (not a bad answer, note)
Alternative 2: The battle of Waterloo (shut up, you dumb shit)
Germanic answer: The Battle of Leipzig aka the Battle of the Nations (getting warmer)
Eastern European answer: The Battle of Borodino (now we're getting somewhere)
The Battle of Trafalgar was *the* decisive naval battle of the Napoleonic wars, yes. Note: naval battle. Napoleonic France was never a major contender for naval power in the sense that naval dominance was Napoleon's pivot of power and one-and-only option, despite what some British historians would have us believe, and had no serious invasion plans for Britain by the point where he was defeated (which contrasts him to Hitler). This battle was a turning point in the sense that it turned the Napoleonic campaign from what could have possibly been a naval war into a land-war. It only served to focus France on land-power, which in turn turned it into the largest land-power in Europe. Waterloo I won't even discuss, it's a nice closing note (though not the final battle as some would have you believe) but little more.
The Battle of the Nations is similar to Waterloo, in a lot of ways. Everyone converged on a dying cadaver, knowing full-well they would be backed up by everyone else. Note also that this battle, like Waterloo, was a case of big against small, with the French having an army of 190,000 and the allies 300,000+. This Battle was, of course, the biggest one of the Napoleonic campaigns and thus often labelled the most decisive, but decisive is not the case when it's a matter of crushing someone who is already on the brink.
Borodino or rather the Russian Campaign is another case. This is, without a doubt, the greatest blow struck against Napoleon. Of 600,000 men, 275,000 died and 200,000 were captured over a long painful campaign. France was struck, retreating and finally the allies could decide to rally against it, now that it was weak. How could you possible compare this to Trafalgar, where only 500 Frenchmen died, even if many ships were lost? Or even Leipzig, were less Frenchmen actually fought than were killed during this haul?
Agh, but no, of course, it was *Britain* all along. Excuse me if I take a moment to spit some venom, but that is utter and total bullshit. I once saw it aptly described as "Napoleon's empire was wedged uncomfortably between two major powers, both in Europe but no a part of Europe; Russia and Great Britain. One the major land power, one the major naval power." I doubt one could've won without the other, really, but it's pretty easy to actually name two major turning points: The
naval battle of Trafalgar and the
land campaign in Russia. Is it really that hard?
Same goes for WW II on a lot of counts too. In fact, this revisionist history from a Western perspective gets on my nerves a lot, though no doubt that is because I am used to it and would be more annoyed by Eastern revisionism if I received more of that.
Let's note another example that always pisses me off, since I'm on a roll: Yurii Alekseyevich Gagarin and Neil Armstrong (who I bet had a second name too, but they're not that important in our name-system). Let's draw a comparison for these two; there's this big island, split in two halves by a river or something. The left half hates the right half and vice versa. At some point, someone from the left half decides to try and swim in the ocean as the first Islandian ever! Celebrations on the left half, resentment on the right. Then suddenly someone from Right Islandistan decides to try to swim to the nearest island. He makes it! Sure, the island is rather small and useless, but he made it and it might come in handy later, so he claims it for his island-half with a nice flag. Celebrations on the right half, no real response from the left. But who was more daring? Who made the biggest leap forward? Was it the Left Islandian for being the first person in the water or the Right Islandian for being the first person to go through the water to a small island. Now the only logical response is the Left Islandian, for a large number of reasons, chief of which is being the first person to travel through such a medium. But wait, you probably already remember I was talking about the SU and US, so your mind probably did a mind-twist on itself and somehow managed to think of the small island as more relevant.
Let's be honest here, let's not kid ourselves, the Soviets had you beat. The mind-boggling amount of propaganda necessary to make the West blind to the significance of someone going up in space and the East blind to the significance of landing on the moon is probably enough to feed a dozen third-world countries for 10 years. But isn't it time to grow up? The Russians should acknowledge that landing on the moon first is pretty awesome and the Americans should acknowledge that actually being in space first is actually quite a bit more awesome than that.
Back to the point at hand...
John said:
I personally suggest we make a gamble to exact punishment on the rest of the world for it's immense stupidty.
Really?
Now, as you yourself said, the bad world opinion of the US doesn't actually mean US foreign policy is really, really bad.However, the US is the frontrunner of democracy. Like it or not, democracy is not based on educated opinions, democracy is based on the concept that the biggest amount of people always knows what's best for itself and will apply this to their vote.
Apply this on a grand scale and you can only reach the conclusion that if the biggest part of the world thinks American policy is fucked up then whether or not you agree with it, from a democratic perspective American foreign policy is fucked up. Quite frankly, considering that all countries except the US vote against the US shows that the foreign policy is only benificial to American citizens or at least believed to be so.
Seriously, John, what're you doing this for? You yourself (as well as welsh) have used the somewhat empty rhetoric of the US as the saviour of the planet several times, but to be frank it's kind of hard to save the planet when everybody hates you. From a national point of view your foreign policy makes some sense, but only a level where one deludes themselves and grabs any excuse to make due. The war expenses may be enormous, but at least America's safe. The economy may be down the shitter, but at least it's falsely inflated and better than Europe. Our national debt may be enormous, but at least it's all relative (though, uhm...national debt's not really foreign policy)
welsh said:
That said, saying the French are the most popular country now, is rather unfortunate. Personally I have a lot of respect for what the Scandinavian countries have been doing.
Yeah, Scandinavians have been doing good ages. That said, Scandinavians are also weak. There is no leadership potential there. Heck, there isn't even a major influence potential there. People know this, so they'll never say "I want Finland to have the most influence in the world!" since they know it can't happen. This isn't just a popularity race, from most points of view, this is a race of which power is more popular, picking between lesser evils for most people.
France won because it opposes the US and has power and influence to do so. It won because the US is impopular, not because it is popular. The fact that France "won" is another count against the US, but not a count for the French.
