>conquers more territory in Asia than Napoleon does in Europe

>>2930811
Not really racism, more the eurocentric view people have.

>>2930811
I'd bet there are pages about French villages on Wikipedia right now that are longer than pages about Indian cities.

It's not just deliberate Eurocentrism but it's easier for dumb people to think only one place has happenings in the world at a time. Thus Greeks disappeared after Cleopatra, who was black anyway.

brits will never stop being completely deluded

>>2930867
Point out the flaws in OP fag. Everything he said is factual

>>2930811
Because there is nothing impressive about beating poos

>>2930915
The only reason he can think of of why people prefer Napoleon, worlds greatest commander, over Wellington, is because of racism.

That, if anything, really makes you think.

>>2930827
WE

Probably because Waterloo was massively in Wellington's favor and Napoleon had already been beaten once.

Wellington's Indian victories were equal to Napoleon's European victories.

>>2930827
Why aren't you crying and shitting yourself in rage over the fact Indians are more interested in Indian things than European things?

>>2930915
the british hid on their island for two decades desperately funneling money into insurgencies and coups because they were absolutely terrified of the french army, especially after napoleon steamrolled all of europe basically by himself. It took half a dozen coalitions and decades of french victories before they were finally put down in russia. Wellington would have never stepped foot in europe if napoleon didnt invade Russia.

Brits are delusional, they talk shit about the US for waiting half decade before making a serious land invasion in WW2 when they hid on their island in very similar circumstances for 2 decades waiting for the french to tucker out fighting the austrians, russians, rebels, ottomans, and every other fucking world power on that side of the earth.

File: salamanca-province[1].png (157KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 300x250px

>>2931065
>they were absolutely terrified of the french army, especially after napoleon steamrolled all of europe basically by himself. It took half a dozen coalitions and decades of french victories before they were finally put down in russia

>TOP KEK

>>2930811
>beat Napoleon
That was the Russians and Prussians.

>>2930811
top tier bait
Most of the things you said simply arent true, and beating napoleon at his lowest point once isn't exactly impressive - and it really wasn't won due to some amazing strategy.
but you know all of this already

>>2930811
>I'm assuming it's racism, that people think Indian armies couldn't possibly be the equal of European armies
You made not one, but two wrong assumptions

>>2931727
>Most of the things you said simply arent true

You think Italy or Austria in 1800 was more of a challenge than the Mughal Empire?
In terms on man-power, resources and wealth there is no comparison.
Sorry but Napoleon beat weak European statelets while Wellington was crushing the pre-eminent powers in the world.

In terms of territory Wellington is clearly the winner.

>>2931127

This is the equivalent of "We beat the Germans in North Africa, so we beat them in Berlin as well".

The peninsular war was a sideshow that diverted Napoleon's soldiers from the real show.

>>2931744
The Mughal Empire was a failed state by the time Britain got any real gains in India.

>>2931744
as other anon said the Mughal's were really shit by this point. There's a reason that Europeans were building empires all around the world at this point - they were much more advanced than the rest of the world.
Also bear in mind you are suggesting that Napoleon only beat statelets and Europe was just a pushover - but why was France the exception (i.e not a statelet)? Surely, Napoleon led a statelet to beat other statelets?

>>2931744
>You think Italy or Austria in 1800 was more of a challenge than the Mughal Empire?
Is this bait?
Or do you genuinely know nothing about india

>>2931744
>You think Italy or Austria in 1800 was more of a challenge than the Mughal Empire?
Yes. Napoleon campaigned against non europeans before and that led to shit like the battle of the pyramids.

>>2931660
>That was the Russians and Prussians.
Both got BTFO'd by Napoleon. If it weren't for Britain and its navy Europe would be french.

>>2931790
Not him, but Napoleon led a state with the highest population in Europe, 4x that of Britain, Austria or Spain.

>>2931817
clearly not.

>>2930811
its harder to conquer Industrializing countries than backwards barbarians and decadents

>>2931946
source?
not saying your wrong just genuinely interested desu

>>2931920
Sure thing Nigel.

>Prussia didn't decrease French support thanks to Bulow at Grossbeeren and Denewitz
>Prussia didn't play a major role in Napleon's defeat at Leipzig
>Blucher and Gneisenau leading the coalition forces to Paris didn't take out Napoleon the first time
>Gneisenau didn't save the day at Waterloo
>Blucher/Gneisenau isn't an all-time great partnership

>>2930811
>people think Indian armies couldn't possibly be the equal of European armies

They couldn't and they can't.

the eternal anglo is at it again!!!!!

>>2932152
countries that were largley on his doorstep compared to across the world. i have more than 30 books on the Napoleionic wars imho both commanders had their good and bad points and were fighting mostly in different situations and not directly against each other. the other nations and generals involved seem under-discussed probably because the body of works on those 2 are so large due to their long varied careers.

>>2930811
t. lindy

>>2931065
>Is an island country
>WHY DOES IT FOCUS ON ITS NAVY REEEEEE

>>2932716
Ironically Wellington wasn't an Anglo, the Irish parliament even snapped at him because he was all like DAS RITE MAN MY FOURFATHERS WAS ARD RIS AND SHIEEEEET

>>2930811
>conquers more inferior people
>defeats his superior in a coallition with far superior numbers after his superior has recently suffered a huge defeat losing the core of his veterans to Russian winter
really makes me think...

File: Lovecraft India.png (949KB, 1060x1110px) Image search: [Google]

949KB, 1060x1110px

>>2930811
>Defeating Poo-people
wow. impressive.

File: Teenage Mutant Indian Turtle.jpg (21KB, 306x423px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 306x423px

>>2931744
>Indian armies
They do have heavily armoured infantry.

>>2931744
What was Indian military tech like in the 19th century? Because I know China's was about 300 years out of date. As late as the Opium Wars, mean were equipped with muskets and artillery with 1/3 the range of their British equivalents, and 2/3 of the army were equipped with polearms, swords, and bows instead of guns.

>>2932799
Napoleon had no concept of how too keep an army in the field, Wellington was clearly his superior.

>>2932498
http://www.populstat.info/Europe/francec.htm

http://www.populstat.info/Europe/unkingdc.htm

http://www.populstat.info/Europe/spainc.htm

http://www.populstat.info/Europe/austriac.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography

During and before the Napoleonic Wars, as far back as the first establishment of the French kingdom in the Middle Ages, France was the most populated state in Europe (besides later Russia). Germanics just bred like rabbits for the next hundred years until Britain had a population on par with France's and Germany had a population far in excess of France's by 1914.

>>2930811
>it's ANOTHER French obsessing over Britain thread

It just never stops. These threads take all shapes and sizes. In this one we have a frog role playing as a Brit.

>>2932808
wew, more desu

>>2933314
At the battle of assayes,the Indians had more cannon manned by French mercenaries

>>2932782
Huh?

>>2930827
>who was black anyway
Greek. She was Greek. The fucking Ptolemeids were so inbred she couldn't have been any more Greek if she was fucking souvlaki.

>>2931065
stay mad pierre

>>2933318
They had shit tier guns,shit tier tactics and shit tier soldiers

>>2932542
I agree with the fact that Russia was instrumental to Napoleon's downfall, but all Prussia did in the napoleonic wars was slightly dellay the french advance due to the uneven terrain of the many bodies of dead prussian troops

>>2931065
Boring post that completely dodged an interesting OP

>>2932639
funny how poopan made fun of welly for being a sepoy general and then lost to him.
>a euro shooting a musket is somehow better than a pajeet shooting the same musket.
ebic

>>2933537
Funny how those shit tier tactics were giving the european ubermensch so much trouble that they had to luck their way into gaining land.

>>2933345
He was Irish and boasted about his descent from Gaelic Royalty

Is Putin the next in line of 3 after napolean and Hitler to steamroll Europe while Americas dragged into China?? WW3??

>>2934045
Putin might also fake a death and do it proxxy from the shadow world?

Anglos destroyed ITT

>>2932799
>conquers more inferior people
Wellington himself said it was pretty tough beating the Indian forces than:
>"I should not like to see again such loss as I sustained on 23 September, even if attended by such gain".Years later, however, he remarked that Assaye was the best battle he ever fought.
Source: Wellington: The Iron Duke. London:

>>2933537
>They had shit tier guns,shit tier tactics
The soldiers were actually pretty well trained:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=xatMrooibacC&pg=PA85&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

I know /his/ doesn't know shit about the world apart from Rome and Western Europe but the Maratha forces themselves were weakened, declining and all their good generals were dead. They had their 'golden age' long ago and they were getting their ass regularly kicked by the Sikh Empire.
But even then they somehow managed to win the first Maratha-Anglo war.

>>2931744
>You think Italy or Austria in 1800 was more of a challenge than the Mughal Empire?
Austria. The Mughal Empire was long dead by then after decades of civil war.

>>2932639
>They couldn't and they can't.
Reasoning?

>>2930811
If the indian armies had been the equals of Europe they wouldnt have been conquered so easily

>>2934130
India was stagnating for a long time by then, so I agree they weren't as ahead of the West that was slowly edging ahead but
>so easily
What?

>>2934137
So then it was harder to conquer European armies. Okay.

>slowly
I don't know about that though, Europe had some cool weapons and ships

>>2930811
It's because of anti-Irish racism

>>2934142
>So then it was harder to conquer European armies. Okay.
Depends on the army I guess. I'll say most of them were behind (like you can obviously see in the Battle of Cochin two centuries ago) but there were some that managed to keep up.
The Travancore Kingdom for example got bullied by a lot of the other rival powers surrounding it but they managed to beat the Dutch for one.

>Europe had some cool weapons and ships
They had better ships and muskets for sure (although there was a lot of muskets on our side due to the salt peter trade) I acknowledge that. But for weapons, there was the Mysore Kingdom that invented the proto-rocket
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysorean_rockets
People forget that what allowed the British to gain control in India were the Maratha's decimating the Mysorean army after the first Mysorean-Anglo war, allowing them to allowing them to easily defeat a weakened Mysorean army in the second Mysore-Anglo war. From then on they had control of Bengal and then it was basically
>Use the resources of Bengal to recruit and drill a massive army of sepoys
>Conquer other Indian states one by one with said sepoys
>Repeat and repeat until the sub-continent falls

What was more important for the advances was for the smaller part the organization, training, tactics and technology. But what was much important was the financial and political doings which made exploiting India's divisions easy.

Tbf the only chance we had was if the Maratha Confederacy hadn't lost at Panipat, established a military alliance with the Sikh Confederacy against the British ensuring that they didn't pick off each Maratha prince one by one.

File: 04037650494.png (51KB, 474x643px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 474x643px

>>2934263
better image

>>2934263
* What was less important for the advances

>>2934137
>What?
It was easy considering Indias massive size

>>2933615
>A comercial company didn't just role over huge states bigger than European states. Do you seriously think that EIC could have invaded a tiny country in europe like the United Provinces on its own? India was invaded by a company not even a nation-state lmao

>>2934454
>>2934466
The EIC lost most of the wars they had with any decent sub-continental power before they acquired Bengal and hired the sepoy's.
Not to mention a lot of states were ravaged after decades of civil war.

File: image (1).jpg (20KB, 620x330px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 620x330px

What do the Napoleonic Wars look like if Wellington reads Richard Talbot's memoirs and decides to rule a breakaway independent Kingdom of Ireland?

>>2934466
>Why did you greentext this?

>>2934511
Secondary french armies would fuck around with english supported rebel armies in Spain

After the Battle of the Nations and the collapse of the french army in Spain, some other british general would lead an advance over the Pyrenees

During the 100 Days Napoleon would still attack in the low countries, outplay the anglo general and defeat the prussian army and then get raped when the Defeated appear in his back.


So, nothing would change at all.

File: 1495329922669.png (235KB, 1032x1478px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1032x1478px

A lot of French criticism of Britain here. Perhaps it helps soothe the pain they feel over the fact that Britain, a wet and windy archipelago inhabited by [apparently] semi-retarded subhumans, became far wealthier, more powerful and more important than they ever were, with Anglo-Saxon culture becoming the global norm. We also hear a lot on this board about Britain's colonial legacy, yet strangely very little about the even more barbaric approach of the French in their African and Asian territories. Why is that? I guess massacring tribespeople for disobedience doesn't fit with the image of liberté, égalité et fraternité that they like to peddle, as they try and convince the world that Britain was unique in trying to grow wealthy off its colonies (as if there's any other reason to have one) whilst le français altruistically spread haute couture and liberty at gunpoint.

Silly me, I forgot they held a few European cities for a decade. How impressive. I await the mockery about how Britain should be ashamed of the fact they were allied with the Prussians when they captured France's greatest historical figure and shipped him off to die on the grey slopes of a South Atlantic volcano.

Guffaw!

>>2936280
Good post

File: oy! whibbly crimblers!.png (2MB, 1041x737px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1041x737px

>>2936280
>>2936792
>t. Norman (i.e. French) rapebaby.

>inb4 "b-but, but they weren't French."
Yeah, sure thing Nigel. Non-British people totally believe this.>>2936280

>>2936913
American here.

Britain is the worst country, except for literally every other country in the world that isn't America.