"We surrender" Said the French

[Spitfire175]

I think it was because they surrendered to the Nazis in WW2.
Though people seem to forget about La Resistance and whatnot.

Funnily enough, a nation that once conquered most of Europe itself (under Napoleon) is now stereotyped as a nation of cowards.
Weird, but what can you do... *shrugs*

Where was Napoleon from again?

Corsica. And of a gaeli-saxon bloodline.

And when they exiled him (first exile) what happened?

He was sent to Elba, where he got all emo.

 

[JWAN]

I think it was because they surrendered to the Nazis in WW2.
Though people seem to forget about La Resistance and whatnot.

Funnily enough, a nation that once conquered most of Europe itself (under Napoleon) is now stereotyped as a nation of cowards.
Weird, but what can you do... *shrugs*

Where was Napoleon from again?

Corsica. And of a gaeli-saxon bloodline.

And when they exiled him (first exile) what happened?

He was sent to Elba, where he got all emo.

Grood grood... THEN he got called back. WHY was that!

 

[KarumaK]

Look you only need to know they are French to make fun of them. The why is irrelevant they're incredibly flammable so just enjoy the burning.

 

[Exocet]

I'd show you a picture of my great-grandfather serving in Verdun along with thousands of other Frenchmen,but they were too busy fighting Germans,Italians and Ottomans while getting gased and shelled to have their pictures taken.Sorry

Well, that would be quite problematic then. The Italians were on the same side as France during WWI.

I can't quite recall the Ottomans fighting at Verdun either...

When you have a desperate fight on your hands,you call allies in for help.
Ottomans where part of the alliance,so they were on the German's side.

As for the Italians,I posted in haste and forgot they switched sides in mid 1915,NOT as I recall 1916.My bad.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Who said anything about a single generation? The first generation born in the U.S. are most likely to consider themselves Americans (and beyond that it's essentially a given). Culture (ethnicity, especially) and nationality are separate concepts. Oh, and anthropologist pet peeve: there is no such thing as a "sub-culture." Chicano culture is just that, no "sub" needed.

My point in connecting them to the Normans was that the Normans had already established themselves as French for at least several generations by the time William the Conqueror crossed the strait to kick Saxon ass (someone trying to disclaim French credit for the Battle of Hastings).

In fact it' not like that. The "french king" was a norman.

No. In fact, he wasn't. The "French King" at the time the Duchy of Normandy was formed was Frankish, a descendant of Charlemagne (from the branch of the family that took over his French territory).

The Normans hadn't given up their culture or blended in. The majority of these normans still spoke Norwegian and thay had their own culture: the nation of France and its culture as we know it didn't exist yet.

I'll grant that ultimately what we'd identify as French culture wasn't around at that time (I wouldn't think it became established or recognizable until the 100 Years War, or possibly even as late as Louis XIV's reign). I'm very certain you're wrong on the "not blending in." When the Norse moved in, they didn't kick out all the people living there, after all, and by 1066, the Norman language was recognizably related to the French dialects.

There's also the fact that they did the exact same thing when they conquered England. Just because the ruling class held themselves separate from the commoners for a few generations doesn't mean they didn't ultimately get absorbed, as evidenced by the existence of Middle English.

They still fought like their viking ancestors: housecarls and spearmen form the line of battle. They had adapted new ideas like the "norman knights", which were of ROMAN origin: knights and their fighting style is a roman developement, not french. It was indeed Charles the great(of a german bloodline) who established the the idea of knighthood to europe, but only the economical and social aspects of it: armoured horsemen wielding lances and cahrging like we think knights charge had been around since the 4th century.

In the battle of hastings two very similar armies, comprising housecarls and frydmen, along with some supporting forces, fought waht was actually quite an even battle. The heavy cavalry was the key to victory. And that wasn't a french invention.

All that I didn't know, and it's therefore fascinating...though since I've played Age of Empires, I knew the Franks didn't invent the idea of heavy cavalry.

Also, I thought another big key to that battle was Harold the Saxon getting hit by a stray arrow...

But they almost certainly aren't Americans from a quite literal sense. If a person emigrates into the Unites States, they then have to live in the country for literally 14 years just to be considered for citizenship. They aren't automatically Americans if they move here.
Now, if their kids were born here, then they are considered Americans by law.

Except they are. I'm guessing I was a little too vague when I said "came here from Mexico," since people seem to be interpreting that as "just got here." I'm talking in the sense of "they're a family of Mexican descent living here."

 

[TheMatt]

This is something you could have googled, you know. France surrendered in World War 2, so that is why there is a sterotype. It's quite simple, really.

Actually that's not the entire reason. They have NEVER won a war, EVER. They have won battles sure, but never a war.

It has more to do with their track record ten the one single incident.

 

[Spitfire175]

I think it was because they surrendered to the Nazis in WW2.
Though people seem to forget about La Resistance and whatnot.

Funnily enough, a nation that once conquered most of Europe itself (under Napoleon) is now stereotyped as a nation of cowards.
Weird, but what can you do... *shrugs*

Where was Napoleon from again?

Corsica. And of a gaeli-saxon bloodline.

And when they exiled him (first exile) what happened?

He was sent to Elba, where he got all emo.

Grood grood... THEN he got called back. WHY was that!

He was separated from his family for a hundred days, and then escaped back to France.

 

[Spitfire175]

No. In fact, he wasn't. The "French King" at the time the Duchy of Normandy was formed was Frankish, a descendant of Charlemagne (from the branch of the family that took over his French territory).

Ah, sorry, I got mixed up there. I was thinking about the Duchy of Normandy as the to-be-kingdom of norman ruled England. Nevermind my comments about the Frankish king, they are nonsesne.
Normandy, as the province, became a part of England. And as the Ruler of England, the norman king, was still the duke of normandy, he was a vasall of the French king. The reason why I mixed things up is because I thought of Normandy as the automomous province it was, wanted to write "the norman king"(yes, still a norman king. Not of France, but norman colonies), thought of the french king, and everything went down the sink.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

Actually that's not the entire reason. They have NEVER won a war, EVER. They have won battles sure, but never a war.

It has more to do with their track record ten the one single incident.

They won the Hundred Years' War! *lawl*

Anyway, to sort out the more prominent conflicts from the more meaningless ones; the Thirty Years' War, French Revolutionary Wars, War of the 4x Alliance, American Civil War... not chronological, and of course they didn't do that all alone, and of course I'm probably missing a few. But you get my point.

 

[Queen Michael]

The French? Those cheese-eating surrender monkeys!

 

[Da pyro man 999]

But guess who still won the 100 year war? Thats right the British

come on my son

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I'm pretty sure it was either started by the British or the Americans in WW2 (OF course that is just my speculation no harm to anyone).

Both America and Britian were angry at the French for surrendering after all the help they had given them. That could lead the more patrotic citizens to make fun of the French and both countries have a bad relationship with the French (The British have always had a rivialry with France and America has always thought the French to be stuck up after the XYZ affair despite there aid in the Revolution.)

 

[Pimppeter2]

But guess who still won the 100 year war? Thats right the British

What did they do in the 100 Year's War?
(Narrowly beat out the British... then surrender)

Are we forgetting that they came back and forced the British out of France. Ending The Hundred Years' War. I'm pretty sure that would make them the winners.

that seems very selective to me. why not say the hundred years war ended after the british won. then the french forcing them out could be a seperate war.
just saying

Because its not? History says its not.

Anyway, even though British forced french to accept Henry VI (or was it charles?) as their king the people still supported the french king. The war effort remained.

The Hundred Years' War took had almost 60 years of fighting and 40 years of peace during the war. So why not call them all seperate Wars? Because the same war for the same reason remained

 

[Pimppeter2]

This is something you could have googled, you know. France surrendered in World War 2, so that is why there is a sterotype. It's quite simple, really.

Actually that's not the entire reason. They have NEVER won a war, EVER. They have won battles sure, but never a war.

It has more to do with their track record ten the one single incident.

The Crimean War?
World War 1?
World War 2? (I mean they did take part in recapturing France, and we're part of the allied movement, so that counts as a win)
Hundred Years' War?
Napoleonic Wars?
The 2nd Empire wars?

 

[axia777]

And France didn't surrender during WWI, but they still lost.

How is that cowardly?
Nobody calls the 300 Spartans cowards, they lost, too.

But 300 vs. 10,000 and still kicking ass makes it better.

10,000? WTF? Yah right. The Persians according to most sources numbered any where from 500,000 to 1,000,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

 

[ccdistancerunner]

My personal feeling on the French are:
Invaded and nearly taken completely over until America and other allies bailed them out in WWI.
Surrendered in WWII until America and other allies bailed them out.
Had a failtacular in Vietnam, even with America trying to bail them out, not that America did any better.
So recent history has not been good for the French. Not so much for the American either, but at least we kicked ass and saved France in WWI and II.

Without the French the United States would have never become independent from Britain.
The US's input into WWI is largely exaggerated.
The US didn't enter WWII until it was attacked itself, and I take objection to the use of the phrase "The US and other allies", as the US was essentially fighting its own separate war over trade embargoes against Japan for the majority of the War. And since losing the battles of Britain and Stalingrad the 3rd Reich was, to all intents and purposes, routed. Momentum had swung in the favour of the allies. The US entered the European theatre late, and when their necessity was questionable, as has been their policy for years.

Ok, so the British and Aussies, and Canadians had nothing to do with invading Normandy or D-Day or anything of that nature? That was all Americans I guess? WWI was not exaggerated with American involvement. WWII's isolationist policy was bullshit, but we still came in and finished off the Nazis in the end.
And I don't doubt that the Americans were almost entirely dependent upon the French to have a European trading partner, protection from privateers, and military equipment supplier. Without France being on our side our rebellion would have surely been crushed.

 

[NeutralDrow]

No. In fact, he wasn't. The "French King" at the time the Duchy of Normandy was formed was Frankish, a descendant of Charlemagne (from the branch of the family that took over his French territory).

Ah, sorry, I got mixed up there. I was thinking about the Duchy of Normandy as the to-be-kingdom of norman ruled England. Nevermind my comments about the Frankish king, they are nonsesne.
Normandy, as the province, became a part of England. And as the Ruler of England, the norman king, was still the duke of normandy, he was a vassal of the French king. The reason why I mixed things up is because I thought of Normandy as the autonomous province it was, wanted to write "the Norman king"(yes, still a Norman king. Not of France, but norman colonies), thought of the french king, and everything went down the sink.

Ah, I get it now. That makes sense, William the Conqueror and descendants did double-duty as Kings of England and Dukes of Earl Normandy (which helped lead to that little unpleasantness between England and France a few centuries later, if I recall correctly). Considering the feudal system of the time, the Anglo-Normans and the Normans of Normandy probably didn't see much difference, ruler-wise, but they were still culturally distinct

 

[gentleben]

My personal feeling on the French are:
Invaded and nearly taken completely over until America and other allies bailed them out in WWI.
Surrendered in WWII until America and other allies bailed them out.
Had a failtacular in Vietnam, even with America trying to bail them out, not that America did any better.
So recent history has not been good for the French. Not so much for the American either, but at least we kicked ass and saved France in WWI and II.

Without the French the United States would have never become independent from Britain.
The US's input into WWI is largely exaggerated.
The US didn't enter WWII until it was attacked itself, and I take objection to the use of the phrase "The US and other allies", as the US was essentially fighting its own separate war over trade embargoes against Japan for the majority of the War. And since losing the battles of Britain and Stalingrad the 3rd Reich was, to all intents and purposes, routed. Momentum had swung in the favour of the allies. The US entered the European theatre late, and when their necessity was questionable, as has been their policy for years.

Ok, so the British and Aussies, and Canadians had nothing to do with invading Normandy or D-Day or anything of that nature? That was all Americans I guess? WWI was not exaggerated with American involvement. WWII's isolationist policy was bullshit, but we still came in and finished off the Nazis in the end.
And I don't doubt that the Americans were almost entirely dependent upon the French to have a European trading partner, protection from privateers, and military equipment supplier. Without France being on our side our rebellion would have surely been crushed.

It seems you've misunderstood me, I didn't take objection to the phrase "US and other allies" because I was of the opinion that the US achieved the D-Day landings on its own. I took exception to it as saying "US and other allies" belittles the contribution of the other countries that fought in WWII from the beginning and swung the momentum of the war through impenetrable defence. The D-Day landings were the coup de grace of the war, but the majority of the damage had already been done before the American insertion in Europe.

 

[Master_Fubar23]

i guess its becuz they surrender b4 n then they didnt want to fight in iraq or afgan. i like the joke. the french made a new tank with 6 gears... 2 for drive n 4 for reverse