Did the french really had "the most powerful army in th

French army was a meme after 1815

Prussia and Russia were stronger.

>>2999867
well the 19th century is a long time, for a small part of it the french probably had one of the most powerful armies in the world, but it was never deployed in large numbers colonially so unless the mexicans were a secret combatant in the napoleonic wars then i think they may be larping a little bit.

the french had a very nice army, on the continent

>>2999867
It's like the only victory they accomplished against a foreign power

let them be have it

>>2999867
The French Army was well known as the strongest army in the world, the veracity of this can be debated, but people did believe it, prior to WW1 and WW2 as well

>>2999867
Compared to the wars France was fighting in Europe, Puebla is just a skirmish. It's symbolic for Mexico because they did repulse the french...in the first time. The town eventually fell, and so did Mexico city.

They did well in pretty much every conflict that century minus the franco-prussian war and the last two coalitions

>>2999867
>watch trailer
>they are unbeatable
he's talking about the French.
>powerful
Depends how you define powerful.
If the greatest leader they've ever produced at the zenith of their power had to surrender twice (to the same enemy) one might conclude they were never the most powerful.

That being said, Ceteris paribus, if we had some wargame where armies were dropped on a large symmetrical field which afforded identical advantages and restraints, I would imagine that for not only a good part of the 19th century, but those preceding too, that the French would prove the most formidable of all the worlds nations.

As other anons are pointing out though, Mexico wasn't invaded like Russia was or anything even close to that.

>>2999867
Didn't what they call their army also could be used to say "Earth's Army" too?

>>2999876
>russia
lmao

>>2999867
>If the greatest leader they've ever produced at the zenith of their power had to surrender twice (to the same enemy) one might conclude they were never the most powerful.

Lol no

The Zenith of our power is the monarchy during which we much turned Europe into our personal bitch

And Germans surrendered to us countless times, being able to win two times against us and while we were weakned by our war against the whole Europe is nothing glorious

>>3001218
>not knowing about the Russian steamroller
YGSIU

Puebla is Little Bighorn tier.

>>3001388
This desu. Frog supremacy in the continent took a huge blow at Waterloo and was summarily executed during the Franco-Prussian War.

>>3001076
american had to surrender to vietnam

>>2999867
Wait a second, didn't the French win the war in the end?

>>3001404
>Waterloo
>relevant

>>3001487
This. French power waned from inactivity on the European continent after the Empire fell. They didn't adapt to new tactics and technologies until it was too late (not that their tech was outdated, just not used properly). The Italian war and the Crimean war served as wake up calls, and the French still performed, but once confronted to an army which actually took advantage of new tech and tactics, they were crushed. 1914 was a rince and repeat of that, the French adapted to the 1870 tactics but didn't write the book. Same happened in 1939. The problem is not that the French lost their projecting power or their military power, but that they went from active tacticians to reactive tacticians, which meant the germans could innovate every time and take the French by (relative) surprise.

>>3001501
France did better than Germany in WW1 though.

Obviously it fucked up at Sedan, but that was due to Napoleon III, and it fucked up in 1940, but that was due to being in a state of quasi anarchy for many years before.

>>3001505
France did do better as the war dragged on, but once again it was reactive, just look at the opening months of the war. They barely managed to stall the flawed Schlieffen plan. Only the superior leadership of their high command during the Marne managed to save the country.

>>3001505
>>3001535
In addition Napoleon III had nothing to do with Sedan, the goons surrounding him and that bloody idiot Bazaine were to blame. Napoleon III was so sick by that point some "what if" historians blame the whole war on him not getting a medical operation before the war which would have allowed him to directly intervene on the diplomatic scene rather than have his pro war minister deal with the matter.

>>3001084
I don't understand what you mean. Are you talking about the "Armée de terre"? (Army of ground)

>>3001505
>France did better than Germany in WW1 though.
yeah lol that's why they were fighting on their own soil...

>>2999867
>is it just a meme
Yes.
Regardless of France's military prowess at that point, it was just a piddly colonial conflict. It's not like they were pitted against the entire french war machine.
It's pretty much the same kind of bullshit as americans braying about Washington defeating the world hegemon british empire.

>>2999867
Just a meme. Never trust the eternal beaner.