From a purely biological point of view, did France win the Revolutionary

>>1651807
>From a purely biological point of view, did France win the Revolutionary wars?
What kind of a dumb question is this?

>>1651821
It's the kind of question that makes you feel dumb.

I know your type. Stop misusing the word "literally," and try to refrain from using the phrase "so you're basically saying..." ever again.

>>1651807
>From a purely biological point of view, did France win the Revolutionary wars?

You're completely, comprehensively wrong my man. France losing the amount of men that it did caused a demographic crisis in the country(less men than women) which would play a partial role in the country's transition from a great power to a second/third rate one.

>People also talk about how its casualties prevented the birth of millions of future Frenchmen a century down the line, but it's not as if many French women died

That doesn't matter, you need enough men to fuck those women and then support them and you also need a surplus of men to fight wars and work. The other countries you mentioned(bar Spain) didn't take as much of a demographic hit and both the German states and Britain then rode the industrial revolution hard which gave them a huge population boost.

>>1651899
I'm not convinced. Men, especially French men, tend to be OK with no-strings sex on the side, and the husbandless women wouldn't have too many options.

In zero-sum terms, we can't say whether it was good or bad until we compare it with the other populations, and I never see data on that.

The IR still required a base population. Would the boost have been bigger if not for the wars? Much bigger, slightly bigger? Valid question when it comes to assessing this. Did the sacrifice of soldiers effectively clear room for France?

>>1651916
>I'm not convinced. Men, especially French men, tend to be OK with no-strings sex on the side, and the husbandless women wouldn't have too many options.

What are you trying to say here? That women are going to be okay with raising kids on their own with little state support? In a big enough number to make up for the loss of men?

>Men, especially French men, tend to be OK with no-strings sex on the side

nice argument about a period 200 years ago based on modern conjecture

2/10

>>1651923
>That women are going to be okay with raising kids on their own with little state support?
Is this controversial? Sex happens, even without the titillations of bureaucracy.

>In a big enough number to make up for the loss of men?
Conceivably, in a big enough number to break even and correct the balance for the next generation. Or not. How it compares to the proportional loss of life or fertility in neighbouring states is the main thing.

>nice argument about a period 200 years ago based on modern conjecture
>men like sex
>conjecture
Look, maybe you should stick to reading the book of Genesis and leave biology to people without an agenda to push.

>>1651807
At this point, I have to force myself to believe that you are merely pretending to be retarded.

>>1651807
>From a purely biological point of view, did France win the Revolutionary wars?
Which revolution are you refering to?

The Napoleonic wars caused up to 6 million casualties, about half of those civilian, and at the big battles like Borodino and Waterloo Napoleon lost about 1/4 of his army.

In fact he was constantly loosing enough troops to be replacing his army with green conscripts every few years

>>1651945
>Look, maybe you should stick to reading the book of Genesis and leave biology to people without an agenda to push.

That's the second time in this thread you've tried to defend your stupidity with some epic witticism, though the first time was at a different poster.

You're just inept, man, I gave you accurate information on the state of France before and after the wars and you responded with some broad shit about how people have sex.

So fucking what? If the population declined as a result of a demographic crisis, clearly people did not enjoy sex enough to raise enough kids to deal with over a decade of casualties.

>>1651968
Cant quite bring yourself to say "literally retarded." Glad to see that I'm influencing you.

>>1651980
I asked a question about German demographics, and you offered information about something else, like a salesman who says "I don't have what you want, but can I interest you in something completely different? Please give me money."

File: demographyvallinphg50.png (10KB, 412x363px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 412x363px

>>1651807
no

>>1651899
"No"
Why don't people ever read Malthus?

>>1651807
Height bullshit aside, it has certainly been claimed that the revolutionary wars were one of the leading causes of the 19th century french (relative) demographic crisis.

>>1651945
>Sex happens
Abortion happens too. And newborn abandonment.
What argument are you trying to make?

ITT: someone who already has decided what they think is right and don't want other people to actually contribute.