Thread 17856532

>main tactic is building fortresses everywhere to discourage invasion
>doesnt want to go war and just uses it as a threat to get concessions from his opponents
>has two main methods of gaining land.
>One was dubious legal shenanigans as he would claim some medieval french lord actually owned the land back then so it actually belongs to france
>the second method was threatening a two front war against the hapsburgs whenever there was turkish war on the horizon to get land off the HRE
>only went for war if he thought he would be able to overrun the enemy
>Was only bogged down by pan european alliance wars because he was too successful
>france still has most the land he took
This dude has been done dirty by historiography. He was showy but in no way a gloryhound as he had a pretty damn good grand strategy and was successful in implementing it. Napoleon should have taken notes in military school. Maybe then he wouldnt have acted as retarded.

>>17856532 (OP)
His main strategy was to invade the opponent quickly, take his fortresses and then play attrition warfare against him. This was the most obvious during war of Spanish succession, the financial backing the anti-french coalition had was just too much for French to counter so what they did was just make sure they'll have to spend a lot of money before even getting to France proper and then spend even more to take forts there. This had its limits, at the end of the war he had manpower issues because nobody wanted to sign up to a war in which he's effectively a sacrificial lamb defending some fortress with very little chances of looting etc. but it did work.

>*blocks Louis's path*
>"nothing personnel, catchcuck"
The sexual tension between these two must have been so strong

>>17857131
He looks as Mr. Bean.

>>17857143
If the current Duke and Winston Churchill are anything to go off of, that bulldog look carried on pretty strong through his genes

>>17857157
Imagine this but in a wig and that fancy late-17th century big-sleeved jacket

>>17856532 (OP)
>>the second method was threatening a two front war against the Habsburgs whenever there was turkish war on the horizon to get land off the HRE
He was a great king and an efficient leader who had the rare ability to stay grounded despite being an all powerful monarch: he knew that he was just a king, not a God.
Still I will always despise him and the Bourbons in general for fraternizing with Turds. There is bigger things than petty landgrabs and not having moslems in Europe is one such thing.

>>17856532 (OP)
>doesnt want to go war and just uses it as a threat to get concessions from his opponents
>One was dubious legal shenanigans as he would claim some medieval french lord actually owned the land back then so it actually belongs to france
>the second method was threatening a two front war against the hapsburgs whenever there was turkish war on the horizon to get land off the HRE
None of those two schemes ever worked without inciting a war. Louis XIV. absolutely wanted war and saw it as a legitimate tool of gaining territory (as it is).
Another aspect of the wars of Louis XIV (especially those located around the Rhine) was the deliberate and systematic destruction of civil infrastructures and expulsion and forced resettlement of civillians into more secured french territories. Contemporaries noted that the devastation caused by the french was comparable to that of the 30 Years War - but occuring within a much smaller time frame.

>>17857289
>None of those two schemes ever worked without inciting a war
He had the HRE by the balls.
>Louis XIV. absolutely wanted war and saw it as a legitimate tool of gaining territory (as it is).
He didn't though. He prepared himself for it but it was never his first choice.
>>17857247
>petty landgrabs
He secured France's borders.

>>17856725
Churchill was the zerg rusher who had no regard for the lives of his soldiers and eventually was recalled because of it

>>17857346
Does this look like zerg-rushing to you, faggot?
>was recalled because of it
Blatantly WRONG
He wasn't ever recalled; his wife had her falling out with Anne and then he went into self-imposed exile while the Tory's and Whigs tore each other apart. He came back under George I and would have continued btfo'ing cathtards if not for the stroke that did him in.

>>17857468
Forgot pic because I was so dumbfounded by your blatant lies.

>>17857471
>posts a single wikipedia battle box
He had 75% the casualities as the french. This is his greatest battle. Lmao in all his victories he had insane casualities for the winning side. He was a zerg rusher. He would have 2/3 the casualities as the french and in one battle he had double the casualites even though he won. As a general he had zero regard for the lives of his soldiers

>>17857499
>if you lose men in a battle *as the aggressor* you're... le bad general
This is what retarded armchair speculators actually believe.
Of course he lost men you fucktard, do you think the French were just going to surrender because he made a good showing?
>nnnoooooo you can't lose *that* arbitrary number of men, you can only lose *this* arbitrary number of men because... because you just do okay!?!?
Explain to me how a general, as the aggressor, and in the middle of a fucking war, isn't supposed to lose men... when that's literally the entire crux of war. Don't worry, I'll wait.

>>17857518
Dumbass. Casualities are usually lopsided in war because they happen after an enemy is routed. Churchill forced his men into dangerous sorties to gain an advantage. He won but he would win with an insane amount of casualities for the winning side. The allies had similar casualities to the french. They were following the zerg rushing way of war

>>17857541
>Casualities are usually lopsided in war because they happen after an enemy is routed.
>usually
Absolutely pathetic degrees of cope.
>Churchill forced his men into dangerous sorties to gain an advantage
>to gain an advantage
>an advantage
And then won because of it. What are you even trying to argue at this point? Screeching "le zerg rush" is not an argument you faggot.
>an insane amount of casualities for the winning side
And you've determined that it's an "insane amount" based on what, exactly? Your own arbitrary decision? Or could it be because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, as you proved immediately when you said he was "recalled" for "le zerg rushing", a lie that anyone with just the most basic knowledge of the man would know is blatantly false.
>be picrel
>call Churchill back into service because he was le heckin epic zerg rusher
Oh wait, that never fucking happened

>>17857567
Imagine simping this much over a man who would win with at least half the casualites of his enemy. He's the definition of zerg rush: the general
>And you've determined that it's an "insane amount" based on what, exactly?
The fact that the war ended up as a nothingburger because the winning and losing parties were in a similar state. I'm curious why you havent posted other battleboxes. Why don't you post the battlebox where we won with 22k casualities vs 11k on the french side.

>>17857608
>The fact that the war ended up as a nothingburger
>a nothingburger
You can't be fucking serious
>b-b-b-but muh numbers vs. other sides numbers!!!
Go back to your computer games you retard.
>I'm curious why you havent posted other battleboxes.
Because casualty lists aren't what history is about, dipshit
>Why don't you post the battlebox where we won with 22k casualities vs 11k on the french side.
Why does it matter if the whole affair was "a nothingburger"?
You have such an infantile understanding of things it's not even funny. Why don't you tell me more about Churchill was "recalled" you stupid fuck

>>17856532 (OP)
>main tactic is building fortresses everywhere to discourage invasion
This alone should be all the reason one needs to thoroughly clean his dick. The sheer kino-ality of the French art in building forts is so understated in modern historiagraphy, and the fact that his legacy carried through to make the Seven Years War as much of a spectacle as it was says everything about the man and his agenda.
VGH... a world without Louis is not one I would want to live in

>>17857338
>He had the HRE by the balls.
Not really and he waged multiple wars involving the HRE. He didn't use a possible war as a threat to get what he wanted but as a concrete action.
>He didn't though. He prepared himself for it but it was never his first choice.
French troops crossed the border first in the War of Devolution, the Dutch War and the War of the Palatinate Succession. Probably many more but I can't be assed to look at every war that involved France during this time period.

>>17857732
Based. He was the most interesting man of his era
>>17857911
>Not really
His reign resolved the treaty of verdun for the most part. The HRE got cucked out of the lotharingia remnants

>>17858038
>most interesting *sovereign*
ftfy
There can't be a single most interesting man when guys like de Ruyter overlapped Louis.

What will I do today?
>Burning villages in the palatinate?
>Bombing genoa?
>bully protestants?
>Bombing brussel?
Holy based

>>17857911
>Not really
The Germans spent the next 2 centuries seething about Alsace-Lorraine so much so that it became a significant factor in major wars like the franco-prussian war, WW1, and to a lesser extent WW2. I mean just look at these gains along the french border. Louis XIV plugged all the gaps. The HRE couldn't do shit.

>bankrolls the protestants in the thirty years war
>Invades the Rhineland while the Hapsburgs are fighting for their lives in Vienna
Man French Catholics did not give a fuck. I understand their loathing for Huguenots they probably they were idealistic fools while the catholics engaged in realpolitik

>>17858181
>I understand their loathing for Huguenots they probably thought that the Huguenots were idealistic fools while the catholics engaged in realpolitik

>The Chambers of Reunion (Chambres des Réunions) were French courts established by King Louis XIV in the early 1680s. The purpose of these courts was to increase French territory. Louis had been expanding the borders of France in a series of wars. Territory was gained in the Treaty of Nijmegen in 1679 and the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1668. The courts' job was to determine what dependencies, if any, had belonged to the areas incorporated into France by these treaties. In doing so, places such as Saarbrücken, Luxembourg, Zweibrücken and Strasbourg were annexed to France.

>Louis based his claims on ancient, often long-forgotten, rights to the dependent territories stemming from the Middle Ages. He thus took advantage of the formal content of his alliance treaties with the German princes by claiming their land. Although there was no legal claim to it at all, Louis took Strasbourg as well as Casale. Louis also took most of what is now Luxembourg during the War of the Reunions, which was then part of the Holy Roman Empire, while it was distracted by an ongoing war with the Ottoman Empire.

The French had to give up some of these gains but under Louis XV they would nibble away at Lorraine and eventually outright annex it

>>17858198
>>Louis based his claims on ancient, often long-forgotten, rights to the dependent territories stemming from the Middle Ages
I'M THE TRUE HEIR OF CHARLEMAGNE EVERYTHING BELONGS TO MEEEEEE

Louis XIV was literally surrounded on all sides but still made it out with most of his gains. I kneel.