Your hostile language, notwithstanding, the evidence behind your parry is as mediocre as the pompous tone you present it in. For one thing, you mismatch the battles, placing together events from entirely different periods, and although this is not a very important aspect it does lend an apples to oranges appearance to your entire argument.
Here's the "mismatched" list:
Alesia (52 B.C.)--Soissons (486): I offered Soissons as an example of a French army defeating the Romans. Given that neither the Gauls nor the Franks were, strictly speaking, "French," I wouldn't have used either Alesia or Soissons as an example of French military history, but since you did...
Crecy(1346)--Orléans(1429): Same war
Agincourt(1415)--Castillon(1453): Same war
Rossbach(1757)--Fontenoy(1745): Twelve year difference
Blenheim(1704)--Denain(1712): Same war
Trafalgar(1805)--Beachy Head(1690): I offered Beachy Head as an example of a French naval victory over the British.
Sedan(1870)--Solferino(1859): Eleven year difference
all of France in 1940--all of Prussia in 1806: Entirely different periods.
Admittedly, three of these examples are chronologically diverse. Of course, since your initial list was similarly diverse, I don't see what the problem is. You seem to suggest that, by picking and choosing various French military defeats from 52 B.C. to 1940, you can somehow say something relevant about the French. I would suppose, then, that my list, stretching from 486 to 1859, is just as valid.
Not only are the battles you mentioned unrelated, but they are also quite obscure in historical comparison (besides Orleans, how many people do you think know about Talbot's stand at Castillon - where, apropos, he was vastly outnumbered).
Well, I certainly know about Castillon. And now you do too.
For example, save for Crecy every battle I mentioned ended the war that it was fought in, (at least as far as the French were concerned).
Demonstrably false. Here's your list:
Alesia(52 B.C.)--Although Alesia was the last battle of the Gallic Wars, Gallic resistance continued for another year;
Crecy(1346)--The Hundred Years War would last until 1453;
Agincourt(1415)--The Hundred Years War would last until 1453;
Rossbach(1757)--The Seven Years War would last until 1763;
Blenheim(1704)--The War of the Spanish Succession would last until 1714;
Trafalgar(1805)--The War of the Third Coalition would last until the end of 1805;
Sedan(1870)--The Franco-German War would last until 1871;
all of France in 1940--France capitulated in 1940; the Second World War would last until 1945.
So, of your examples, only one
marked the end of French participation in the war. Indeed, for three of your examples, the French won
the war. I, on the other hand, did a much better job of listing final battles: Castillon, Denain, and Solferino all were the last battles of their respective wars and all were French victories.
Lastly, your mention of the "tremendous cost, and ultimate victory" of the French in WW1. This my friend qualifies as stand-up comedy. "Tremendous Cost" due to the very poor (by almost all military historians views) French strategy of hold ground at all costs i.e. Verdun 1 and 2. "Ultimate Victory", laughable, the entire French army mutinied in the final months of the war. Victory came as a result of the Americans. LOL
So much misinformation is packed in such a short paragraph, it's difficult to know where to begin.
1. French strategy was no better and not much worse than anyone else's strategy during the First World War. Certainly, the Germans were the first to develop defense-in-depth in the West in 1917, but only after suffering horrendous losses at Verdun and the Somme in 1916. And German stormtroop tactics were based, in part, on French models.
2. The French strategy of defending ground at all costs was not much different from Falkenhayn's "bite-and-hold" strategy. And the results were roughly the same: at Verdun, the French lost 542,000; the Germans lost 434,000. Furthermore, it should be noted, the French won
the battle of Verdun.
3. The "entire French army" most certainly did not
mutiny in 1917. According to Tucker
, the mutiny seriously affected 46 of 112 French divisions.
4. Although the AEF contributed to the Allied victory in 1918, America's efforts were paltry in comparison to those of France and Britain. I would hardly say that America was responsible for the Allied victory.
However, in the future, perhaps we should both use a more concise presentation of fact in the effort to discredit one another, perhaps?
I will continue to use facts. And you, Lusatian
, may continue doing whatever it is you're doing.