>>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.