The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
autodidact
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

France would beat the United States (1812)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,200 times Debate No: 30201
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

I am arguing that France would win a war against the United States in 1812. Only these two countries will be at war with each other, meaning Britain is not at war with any of them and Napoleon does not invade Russia. This way it is a fair fight.

No trolling or semantics.

Round 1 is for acceptance.
autodidact

Con

I look forward to your argument.

Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

My Arguments

Navy

We should first compare the two navies of both countries that are going to war. The Americans had five frigates, three sloops, seven brigs, and sixty-two coastal gunboats. These were crewed by some 4,000 men , many of whom were inexperienced teenagers. Around this time, the Madison administration requested a dozen new seventy-four-gun ships, but instead Congress could only authorize the repair of five laid-up frigates because they did not have the resources to build a navy against the great European empire that we know as France. [1]

Opposing the United States' "navy" was hundreds of privateers that were working for Napoleon as well as his own French fleet. He had 18 ships of the line in his fleet as of the Battle of Trafalgar (remember that France and the US are not fighting any other wars to make it fair, so Napoleon's fleet is not touched). In addition, he had eight frigates at the battle. This navy is far superior to the US navy. [3]

The US navy would be no doubt defeated at sea. In fact, despite the famous victories by "Old Iron Sides" and similar ship, the US navy was bottled up in American ports for most of the War of 1812 with the British. While in this scenario, the War of 1812 does not occur, the French navy is another navy of a European superpower taking on a small fleet of ships. The US navy would no doubt be forced to stay in ports. [2]

This gives economic and military hardships to the Americans while the French can land wherever they want.

Armies

Now we must look at the two armies. Before 1812, the Americans had a force of only about 4,000 men in its army. Congress tried to increase the number of troops several times, but June 1812, the US army had 6,744 officers and men and another 5,000 volunteers. This is a strong army, that is if you are still fighting in the Seven Years War or the American Revolution. In fact, the only branch of the US military that can clame to be "professional" would be the 1,800 Marine Corps. [1]

Then we should look at the generals of the US army. There is only one that really comes to mind and that is Andrew Jackson. However, looking at Jackson's personality, this furious and war-hungry man is in over his head against the most professional army in the world. His lack of competence (except at the Battle of New Orleans) does not help either. What about the other American generals? None them are famous for one reason: they sucked. Most of them tried to invade Canada (where British garrisons were outnumbered), but failed. [1]

Opposing the American "army" is 600,000 troops in Napoleon's Grand Army. Well, I guess I could stop here because a war between 600,000 men vs. 11,000 men should have an obvious end, but for those who know nothing about history, I will continue. These 600,000 men come from France, Switzerland, Poland, Italy, Austria, the German states, and other places of Napoleon's empire. Not to mention, there were 400,000 French-Canadians living in Canada at the time who may join the emperor. Napoleon's troops are all well-trained many and are ready for battle. [1,3,4]

What about Napoleon's generalship. He didn't conquer Europe by being stupid. He was a master strategist and there was no way to stop him. While the Americans would be stuck with tactics from the American Revolution, the French created a corps system that allowed their armies to move much faster. In addition to Napoleon, he had 24 marshals under his command who were also famous. These included Lannes and Ney, but he also had a fierce cavalry commander by the name of Joachim Murat. [3,4]

The French have a far better army than the Americans do. This should be an easy victory.

Economics

This always becomes a factor in war and its sad to say that the Americans will probably be in a depression when at war with Napoleon. Just years before, President Thomas Jefferson had created the Embargo Act which runied the US economy. However, it was worse when the British blockaded all American ports in the War of 1812. How can the American people live without ports to trade from? All the valuable cotton in the south as an example would have to be stockpiled. The Americans cannot launch a schorched earth policy because they need their resources to survive. Russia in 1812 could do this against Napoleon because they have so many resources. [1]

The Americans could lose the war because of economics, not just in battles.

Sources

1. Walter Borneman, 1812: The War that Forged a Nation
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.debate.org...
4. Jeremy Black, The Battle of Waterloo
autodidact

Con

autodidact forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

Viva France!
autodidact

Con

autodidact forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Pro

The eagles are ready for victory!
autodidact

Con

sorry i have been sick, along with other personal issues unforeseen at the acceptance of this debate. i forfeit and ask people to vote pro.
1Historyebius, i am sorry for wasting your time, and i am sorry i did not get back to you sooner.

the argument post feature was down and this is why you will find thisposty in the comments as well

again sorry for wasting your time.
vote pro.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
In 1812 France was hiding nukes under paris and Marseille, the formation of the French foreign legion actually predated 1812 and all were equipped with secretly advanced technological weapons that could rival our own today, however, the secrets were lost when the foreign legion split and lost billions of its soldiers in hidden civil war to create the current numbers it has.

America on the other hand had paper mache rifles which emitted smoke at the same time the trigger was pressed and the carrier of the gun would shout 'BANG!' enemy soldier would then fall over melodramatically and the nearest friend would cry hysterically before getting 'shot' himself. This become too much for the Americans and they stopped their geurilla tactics that they used against the British and invented trench warfare. In this smarter version of warefare, people would stand in holes they had dug in the ground and shout like maniacs in the hope that the enemy wouldn't do a bayonet charge. Large cylindrical tubes that launched dark metallic looking paper spheres were also employed, with a large team of soldiers operating it and sounding the 'BOOM!' that accompanied it. Calvary also went out of practise as military analysists deemed it too dangerous: soldiers were at constant risk of falling of the horse and sustaining irreversible back injuries.

Nowadays such play acting is far behind us. With the invention of plastic, huge missiles that can be fired into lower orbit have become the norm with governments hiding them out of sight in silos.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
@subutai, thank you!
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
@ angel wtf?
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
That I ok auto, I hope you get well.
Posted by autodidact 4 years ago
autodidact
sorry i have been sick, along with other personal issues unforeseen at the acceptance of this debate. i forfeit and sk people to vote pro.
1Historyebius, i am sorry for wasting your time, and i am sorry i did not get back to you sooner.

the argument post feature seems to be down and is why i am posting here.

again sorry for wasting your time.
Posted by ConservativeAmerican 4 years ago
ConservativeAmerican
If France was not at war w/ the Sixth Coalition, they would crush America, LOL
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Anyone is invading anyone, it's a war.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Who is invading whom? If fighting transpiring in America or France?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
1HistorygeniusautodidactTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided good arguments, and Con forfeited and asked us to vote for Pro.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
1HistorygeniusautodidactTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
1HistorygeniusautodidactTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: counter stephen_hawkins, who I think voted for the wrong side.
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 4 years ago
Cody_Franklin
1HistorygeniusautodidactTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Mm.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
1HistorygeniusautodidactTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
1HistorygeniusautodidactTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and counter.
Vote Placed by angelcoba 4 years ago
angelcoba
1HistorygeniusautodidactTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Can you guys vote on this debate? "The argument is about the Rights of the unborn." Pleasee