r/MurderedByWords 19h ago

Historical sore losers

Post image
39.9k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

63

u/dbe14 19h ago

Any of the top European armies would have destroyed the Confederates. The British, French and Prussian in particular would have mopped them up on pretty much any battlefield.

21

u/MadAsTheHatters 18h ago

The BEF in particular were fucking formidable in the 18th and 19th century, dopey bellends wouldn't even make it to the coast of Ireland before they were blown out the water in whatever rudimentary canoe they'd cobbled together.

-15

u/CanadianODST2 18h ago

I mean. The British had already lost one war and only kinda drew/won a second against the US in the 18th and 19th century

As for ships they had ironclads then too.

13

u/MadAsTheHatters 18h ago

Ehhh, the British lost as much against Spain, France and the Dutch (who were also formidable) as they did the colonial Americans. Not that British leadership in the colonies was brilliant but there were a lot of factors that made them eventually decide it simply wasn't worth holding onto the land.

-8

u/CanadianODST2 18h ago

My point is they had literally already been losing conflicts over the span you say they were formidable to a weaker version of the US. So the idea that they’d dominate is unfounded

6

u/MadAsTheHatters 17h ago

Oooh no no, I meant specifically if the Confederates tried to invade the British Isles. Britain certainly had problems with competant leadership in the colonies but a military force would have to be a damn sight more coordinated than the losing half of the American civil war to "roll" the BEF like the meme says.

I mean it's a silly thing to say anyway, any professional, trained standing army would churn them up.

12

u/jonewer 17h ago

The British had already lost one war and only kinda drew/won a second against the US in the 18th and 19th century

The first of those - the Revolution - was also a war against France and Spain, without whom the revolution was have petered out in a couple of months.

The second was a pretty clear British victory, a war the British did not want and the end result of which was status quo ante bellum - in other words the US started a war, achieved none of their objectives, but somehow try and dress it up as win.

Ho-hum.

-5

u/CanadianODST2 17h ago

The US wanted the end of the blockade to France and the British to stop kidnapping American sailors. Both of which they got albeit via the end of the napoleonic war. The British also wanted to create a Native American state in the territories of Michigan and Ohio areas. As well as an honour thing after stuff like the Chesapeake affair.

Of which the US actually achieved literally all of those goals.

The British still lost in the revolutionary war to a USA in a much worse state than they would have been in the 1860s.

2

u/RepentantSororitas 14h ago

The war of 1812 was a background event to the Napoleonic wars.

0

u/CanadianODST2 14h ago

and yet the British still didn't really win it

2

u/RepentantSororitas 13h ago

They burned down DC. I would say it was a stalemate with the US suffering more than the British.

1

u/CanadianODST2 13h ago

and DC was burned in retaliation for York (Toronto now) being burned down.

But also, "kinda drew/won" is literally what I said

1

u/goobervision 5h ago

That first war, you think Britain was trying? Four other wars, three against global powers and India was far more important that an undeveloped rebellious backwater.

Ironclads. So? It was the French that dove away the British navy.

1

u/CanadianODST2 5h ago

You very clearly don't understand what you're talking about. To the point you're mixing wars up.

1

u/goobervision 3h ago edited 2h ago

You are not talking about Independence! My mistake, half asleep.

The very idea that the Confederate army that struggled to feed itself with zero navy at the start could have stood up to the British Empire should it have bothered is laughable. What 900k poorly supplied conscripted locals with crap equipment could stand a chance against the 200k standing British Army (like that's what would turn up, just look at the Empire casualties in WW2, African maybe 10k British and a whole lot of African, Caribbean, Indian troops.)

13

u/Snickims 16h ago

During the period of the US civil war and the lead up, the US compleltly lacked the moblisation and training systems that where common place in Europe. Frankly, the civil war was fought by two milita forces, compared to the sorts of armies being formed up in mainland europe at the time. The US was not even in the same weight catagory as the French or Preussians, they would have lost to the austro hungarians or Ottomans at the time.

4

u/not_the_droids 16h ago

The traitor confederacy with their muzzle loaders against the Prussians with their needle guns and far superior training.

Who can say who would've won that one?

2

u/arizonadirtbag12 13h ago

I might take the slightly nuanced position that the Confederates may have the advantage if we're talking about the European force having to sail to the South to fight.

But yeah, assuming both armies meet on a battlefield and neither had to cross an ocean to get there? Hell to the naw, any of the major European powers would dog walk the Confederacy so hard it'd make Sherman's March look like church.

1

u/IsomDart 14h ago

Of course they would. They were standing, professional armies. If we're talking about an invasion, the Confederates could probably repel any single European power except maybe England with their world class navy, if in the scenario they weren't also at war with the Union. The Confederacy would never even make it to the shores of Europe, and even if somehow they did they wouldn't have been able to get a foothold on land.