The Importance Of Culture In Western Europe

The external thread of foreign armies on French soil and the internal threat to the french revolutionary government , which

One has the ability to establish the different issues that the nation has faced, as well as the huge sacrifice that different people in the country put up towards ensuring that its sovereignty and dignity would be sustained. It also as a good tool for students of history as it provides them with the opportunity to gather more insights and facts of the two wars mentioned that France took part in (Dente & Tavasszy, 2016.) They are, therefore, able to determine some of the people who were critical towards ensuring that the country would have the chance to win the wars and be able to gain the level of respect it deserved from its peers during the time. The process would also mean that such learners would be in a position to develop the need to visit other parts of Paris, with the view of gathering more information

Culture can be defined as the behaviours and belief characteristics of a particular social, ethnic,

The global struggle between the French and the British empires influenced certain key events of American history. It all started on the 100 years’ War, this actually last one hundred and sixteen years since 1337 to 1453. The majority of this was due the determined goal to possess control of colonial territory. This war was between France and England, during this time the monarchy of France was not yet centralized, nor possessed a strong economy or organized army. England was less populated, but had a better organized economy their army was equipped with superior weaponry. The main reason of the war was the possession of the French territories. It was the last feudal war and most perfect example of this type of wars. At the beginning England took possession of French soil, but at the end of the war France was able to recover the territories occupied by the French, thanks to the intervention of Joan of Arc territories. In this paper I will explain important information regarding Britain and France influence on America such as, French and Indian War, Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, Quasi War, Louisiana Purchase, including important issues, ideas and events.

In the years of Napoleon’s reign, he engaged in numerous wars throughout Europe to dominate nations and force them under his control, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. Although, some may say most of the wars were not initiated by Napoleon himself, and he was only responding to a foreign threat. However, that statement is unfair because those countries only engaged in battle when they felt Napoleon’s spreading control threaten their nations. France was a powerful force and the weaker European countries allied together to stop Napoleon from overthrowing their governments and forcing his control on them.

Everyone knows that Napoleon was a great leader and commander but it is not as cut and dry as popular history makes it out to be. His great victory at Austerlitz cemented him as one of the greatest commanders in history. This battle is was a tactical masterpiece up there with Gaugamela and Cannae. However, there is more to analyze here than just the battle itself. Many aspects of war include mobilization, supply, training, moral, army structure etc. and all play a part in Napoleon’s victories and the creation of the French Empire. Another variable to consider is the quality of the armies led by Tsar Alexander I of Russia and the Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II of Austria. The focus here is to look at how these aspects played a role in

The First World War was a logic termination of the so-called “Сoncert of Europe”, which destruction had begun with the Franco-Prussian war. As far as the French needed revenge and the Germany sought for colonies, the active military actions were inevitable, and, due to the French and German diplomacy, the scope of warfare was unprecedented. Both parties had a stake on a short-termed war, thus, they made military reforms and preparations to fit the character of the actions. Before the First World War, Europe stood at the height of its international dominance and prosperity, making tremendous advances in technological innovation, industrialization, and globalization. In addition, security concerns led to alliances and arms races in which ever-larger militaries, sustained by nationalism created volatile and ambiguous conditions for war. High levels of planning, preparation, and training caused many European statesmen and soldiers to anticipate that a quick, decisive victory at the onset of war in 1914 was possible. However, the quick, decisive victories anticipated in 1914 did not materialize due to the unique imbalance in the interaction of firepower, mobility, and protection. These three elements caused a protracted war of attrition.

This paper focuses on one of the darkest times of the French revolution, which was the Reign of Terror. It aims to study how the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution reformed and reinvented France’s government and society, and how the Reign of Terror became the critical point of France’s transition from the

France military was strengthened during King Louis XIV reigns. It grew from 30,000 in 1667 to nearly 400,000 by 1697. And reform army as well discipline and well trained force which has controlled by the country. In his reigns French navy was modernized and full equipped.

Roland Doregeles reflected on the mood of Parisians immediately after the announcement of forthcoming warfare in “Paris: That Fabulous Day.” A French scholar, he wrote of how he viewed the celebrations from the outer limits, observing the subtle innuendos that suggested fear behind the general disposition of excitement. “Written hastily by a hand that trembled,” (Doregeles, 49) the writer described the moment he saw the announcement of mobilization, noting details majority of citizens blatantly ignored. Instead, the general population viewed joining the army optimistically and as a source of national unity: “No more poor or rich, proletarians or bourgeois, right-wingers or militant leftist; they were only Frenchmen.” (Doregeles, 50) Ironically, men who wished to join the French forces were required to enlist according to their social rankings - Jewish volunteers were to enrol at a different booth than say Polish

By May 1940, Europe had been at war for nine months, but there had been little real fighting. This tense period of anticipation, know as the ‘Phoney War’, came to an abrupt end on May 10, 1940 when Germany launched an attack on France and the Low Countries. Germany’s plan of attack, condemned “Case Yellow”, was to launch an armoured offensive through the Ardennes Forest, bypassing the strong French defences of the Maginot Line while German forces attacked in the north of Belgium. The main German thrust through the Ardennes was a great success and further conflict between France and Germany ensued before coming to an end with the surrender of France on June 22, 1940. So, why was France unable to resist German forces? It was because France had

Throughout the human history, way of conducting wars, weapons and the model of command and control has been heavily influenced by the way people produced goods and services and by their overall culture. Militaries have used various types of command and control models that, in essence, have been different from each other by their degree of centralization. Until the French Revolution, militaries had been relatively small, conducting battles in relatively small areas that used to last at most few days. Command and control over armies were highly centralized and in essence they were “one man show.” French Revolution and Napoleon’s military genius brought the concept of massive armies and revolution in the way of waging wars. He transformed small static army into ranks filled by men fighting for common cause, respecting each other as fellow citizens and led by new breed of officers. Despite the fact that Napoleon introduced corps, independent armies, staff and new tactics and strategies that included numerical strength, deep strategic penetrations and rapid concentration of forces, his command and control remained highly centralized.

The period between 20th April 1792, when after prolonged debates the deputies of the French National Assembly finally declared war on the Habsburgs of Austria and 18th June 1815, marking Napoleon Bonaparte's defeat at Waterloo, was characterised by almost constant warfare, save for the brief peace of Amiens (March 1802 – May 1803). In fact, such was the extent of these wars which spanned a little over two decades that until 1914, the British referred to them as the 'Great War'.1 Of late, these wars have been an object of much contention and have come under the microscope to assist scholars in fully appreciating their significance in the transformation of European warfare. Even today, scholars and historians alike, remain divided over just how substantial a role the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars played in altering the nature of wars after 1792. Without disregarding either side, Roger Chickering has identified two 'master narratives' which do a remarkable job of explaining this period's importance, albeit in two extremely dissimilar ways.2

In 1870, when the Prussian troops invaded France, the Second Empire was destroyed and the two Republicans, Jules Favre and Leon Gambetta, proclaimed the Third Republic. It lasted seventy years, until the German invasion in 1940. The Third Republic has always been characterised by very instable governments. Nonetheless it’s in this period that France becomes a nation.

Barlow, J., Nadeau, J. B., Lawless, L. K. (2010). The Story of France. About.com. October 5, 2010, http://french.about.com/od/francophonie/fr/storyoffrench.htm